i

ii
iii
TABLE OF CONTENTS III. CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING
CRIMINAL LIABILITY ........................... 34
CRIMINAL LAW 1 A. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES .................... 34
A.1. DEFENSE OF PERSON, RIGHTS, PROPERTY,
I. FUNDAMENTAL AND GENERAL AND HONOR .......................................................... 37
PRINCIPLES IN CRIMINAL LAW .............1 A.2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVES................................41
A. DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW ..................... 2 A.3. DEFENSE OF STRANGERS ............................ 42
B. MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA .............. 2 A.4. STATE OF NECESSITY (AVOIDANCE OF A
C. CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, GREATER EVIL) ...................................................... 42
A.5. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL EXERCISE
DISTINGUISHED ................................................... 2
OF RIGHT OR OFFICE ............................................ 42
D. SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW ........................ 2
A.6. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED FOR SOME
E. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL LAWS: LAWFUL PURPOSE ............................................... 44
SUPPLETORY APPLICATION OF RPC ................. 2 A.7. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
F. CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS ................. 3 CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 (RA NO. 9262) ............. 44
G. THREE CHARACTERISTICS OF CRIMINAL LAW B. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES ................... 46
.............................................................................. 3 B.1. INSANITY OR IMBECILITY .............................. 46
G.1. GENERALITY ..................................................... 3 B.2. MINORITY ....................................................... 49
G.2. TERRITORIALITY ............................................. 5 B.3. ACCIDENT ....................................................... 54
G.3. PROSPECTIVITY ................................................7 B.4. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE .................................... 54
H. REPEAL AND AMENDMENT ........................... 7 B.5. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR............................. 54
I. LEGALITY ...........................................................8 B.6. INSUPERABLE OR LAWFUL CAUSES ........... 55
I. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON THE C. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES ................... 55
POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT PENAL LAWS C.1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFICATION OR EXEMPTION59
C.2. UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD ............. 59
..............................................................................8
C.3. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE A
I.1. NO EX POST FACTO LAW OR BILL OF
WRONG (PRAETER INTENTIONEM) .....................60
ATTAINDER ..........................................................8 C.4. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR THREAT .....61
I.2. EQUAL PROTECTION.....................................8 C.5. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE
I.3. DUE PROCESS ...............................................8 OFFENSE................................................................ 62
I.4. CRUEL OR INHUMAN PUNISHMENT ...........8 C.6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION (ARREBATO Y
OBCECACION) ....................................................... 62
II. FELONIES ....................................... 10 C.7. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND PLEA OF GUILT
A. FELONIES AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY ........... 10 ................................................................................ 64
B. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES .................... 11 C.8. PHYSICAL DEFECTS....................................... 66
B.1. ACCORDING TO GRAVITY OF PENALTIES ...... 11 C.9. ILLNESS .......................................................... 66
B.2. ACCORDING TO STAGES OF EXECUTION..... 12 C.10. ANALOGOUS MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
B.3. ACCORDING TO MANNER OF COMMISSION 12 ................................................................................ 67
B.4. AS TO PLURALITY OF CRIMES ...................... 12 D. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES ...............67
B.5. AS TO NATURE ............................................... 12 D.1. “THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE
C. ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY ............ 13 OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION.” .............. 79
C.1. FELONIES BY DOLO ........................................ 13 D.2. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
C.2. FELONIES BY CULPA ..................................... 20 CONTEMPT OR WITH INSULT TO THE PUBLIC
D. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES ....................................22 AUTHORITIES.” ..................................................... 79
E. STAGES OF EXECUTION ................................23 D.3. “THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH INSULT
OR IN DISREGARD OF THE RESPECT DUE THE
E.1. ATTEMPTED................................................ 26
OFFENDED PARTY ON ACCOUNT OF HIS RANK,
E.2. FRUSTRATED.............................................. 27
AGE, OR SEX, OR THAT IS BE COMMITTED IN THE
E.3. CONSUMMATED ........................................ 29 DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, IF THE
F. CONTINUING CRIMES .................................. 29 LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN PROVOCATION.”.........80
G. COMPLEX AND COMPOSITE CRIMES .......... 31 D.4. “THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH ABUSE
G.1. COMPOUND CRIME ........................................ 31 OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS
G.2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER (DELITO COMPLEJO) UNGRATEFULNESS.” ............................................ 82
............................................................................... 32 D.5. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN THE
G.3. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES ......................... 33 PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR IN HIS
PRESENCE, OR WHERE PUBLIC AUTHORITIES ARE
ENGAGED IN THE DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES,
iv
 OR IN A PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS E.1. RELATIONSHIP ............................................... 97
WORSHIP.” ............................................................ 83 E.2. INTOXICATION ............................................... 98
D.6. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN THE E.3. DEGREE OF EDUCATION OR INSTRUCTION 99
NIGHT TIME, OR IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE, OR F. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES ................................ 99
BY A BAND, WHENEVER SUCH CIRCUMSTANCES F.1. INSTIGATION ................................................... 99
MAY FACILITATE THE COMMISSION OF THE F.2. PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY ......... 100
OFFENSE.”............................................................. 83 F.3. OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES ................... 100
D.7. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON THE F.4. ACTS NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN CASE OF
OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION, SHIPWRECK, EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT ................................... 101
EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR OTHER CALAMITY OR
MISFORTUNE.” ..................................................... 85 IV. PERSONS LIABLE AND DEGREE OF
D.8. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE PARTICIPATION................................. 102
AID OF ARMED MEN OR PERSONS WHO INSURE A. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL .................. 102
OR AFFORD IMPUNITY.” ...................................... 85
A.1. CONSPIRACY ................................................ 102
D.9. “THAT THE ACCUSED IS A RECIDIVIST.” ..... 85
A.2. PROPOSAL ................................................... 105
D.10. “THAT THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN
B. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE .................. 105
PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED BY AN OFFENSE TO
B.1. PRINCIPALS ................................................. 109
WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES AN EQUAL OR
B.2. COLLECTIVE VERSUS INDIVIDUAL CRIMINAL
GREATER PENALTY OR FOR TWO OR MORE
RESPONSIBILITY. ................................................. 112
CRIMES TO WHICH IT ATTACHES A LIGHTER
B.3. ACCOMPLICES .............................................. 112
PENALTY.” ............................................................. 85
B. 4. ACCESSORIES .............................................. 114
D.11. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
B.5. IN OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS................ 115
CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD, OR
B.6. DECREE PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF
PROMISE.”............................................................. 85
APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF CRIMINAL
D.12. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED BY MEANS
OFFENDERS [P.D. 1829] ...................................... 116
OF INUNDATION, FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION,
STRANDING OF A VESSEL OR INTERNATIONAL
C. MULTIPLE OFFENDERS ............................... 117
DAMAGE THERETO, DERAILMENT OF A C.1. RECIDIVISM .....................................................117
LOCOMOTIVE, OR BY THE USE OF ANY OTHER C.2. HABITUALITY (REITERACION) .................... 120
ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT WASTE AND RUIN.”86 C.3.MULTI-RECIDIVISM/HABITUAL DELIQUENCY120
D.13. “THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH C.4. QUASI-RECIDIVISM ......................................122
EVIDENCE PREMEDITATION.” ............................. 86 V. PENALTIES .................................... 123
D.14. “THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR DISGUISE BE
A. PRINCIPLES ................................................. 123
EMPLOYED.” ......................................................... 87
A.1. THREEFOLD PURPOSE ................................. 123
D.15. “THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF SUPERIOR
A.2. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND DEATH PENALTY
STRENGTH, OR MEANS BE EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN
............................................................................... 123
THE DEFENSE.” ..................................................... 88
D.16. “THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH B. CLASSIFICATION ......................................... 124
TREACHERY (ALEVOSIA).” ................................... 89 B.1. MAJOR CLASSIFICATION ............................. 124
D.17. “THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR B.2. OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF PENALTIES..125
CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT WHICH ADD C. DURATION AND EFFECTS .......................... 125
IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL EFFECTS OF THE D. PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED ...... 129
ACT.” ....................................................................... 91 D.1. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT.................................129
D.18. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED AFTER AN D.2. AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES................................129
UNLAWFUL ENTRY.” ............................................ 92 D.3. CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES ...................... 130
D.19. “THAT AS A MEANS TO THE COMMISSION OF D.4. LIGHT PENALTIES........................................ 130
THE CRIME, A WALL, ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR D.5. PENALTIES COMMON TO AFFLICTIVE,
WINDOW BE BROKEN.” ........................................ 92 CORRECTIONAL, AND LIGHT PENALTIES ......... 130
D.20. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED WITH THE D.6. MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED PENALTIES 131
AID OF PERSONS UNDER FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE E. WHEN THE DURATION OF PENALTY BEGINS
OR BY MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORIZED ............................................................................ 131
WATERCRAFT, AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER SIMILAR F. APPLICATION ............................................... 132
MEANS.” ................................................................ 92 F.1. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (RA 4103, AS
D.21. SPECIAL AGGRAVATING AND QUALIFYING AMENDED)............................................................ 132
CIRCUMSTANCES ................................................. 94 F.2. THREE-FOLD RULE .......................................134
D.22. OTHER SPECIAL AGGRAVATING AND F.3. SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT ......................135
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES. .......................... 95 G. GRADUATION OF PENALTIES .................... 136
E. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES ................. 97
v
 H. ACCESSORY PENALTIES ............................ 139 A. ARTICLE 118 – INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING
H.1. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS .............................. 176
DISQUALIFICATION ............................................. 139 B. ARTICLE 119 – VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY176
H.2. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL C. ARTICLE 120 – CORRESPONDENCE WITH
DISQUALIFICATION ............................................. 139
HOSTILE COUNTRY ......................................... 176
H.3. SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE
D. ARTICLE 121 – FLIGHT TO ENEMY'S COUNTRY
RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR, THE RIGHT TO
PRACTICE A PROFESSION OR CALLING ............ 139 ............................................................................177
H.4. CIVIL INTERDICTION ....................................140 E. ARTICLE 122 – PIRACY IN GENERAL AND
H.5. INDEMNIFICATION OR CONFISCATION OF MUTINY ON THE HIGH SEAS OR IN PHILIPPINE
INSTRUMENTS OR PROCEEDS OF THE OFFENSE WATERS .............................................................177
..............................................................................140 E.1. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 532 ................. 178
H.6. PAYMENT OF COSTS.................................... 142 E.2. REPUBLIC ACT 9372 ..................................... 178
I. COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES ................... 143 F. ARTICLE 123 – QUALIFIED PIRACY ............ 178
I.1. MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING F.1. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 532.................. 178
CIRCUMSTANCES ................................................ 143 F.2. REPUBLIC ACT 6235 .................................... 180
I.2. SPECIAL RULES ............................................. 145 F.3. REPUBLIC ACT 9372..................................... 180
J. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF PENALTIES 145
J.1. EXECUTION OF PENALTIES ........................... 145 III. TITLE II. CRIMES AGAINST
J.2. EFFECTS OF PROBATION LAW [PD 986, AS FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE182
AMENDED BY RA 10707] ..................................... 147 A. ARTICLE 124 – ARBITRARY DETENTION ... 182
J.3. SUSPENSION IN CASE OF INSANITY OR B. ARTICLE 125 – DELAY IN THE DELIVERY OF
MINORITY .............................................................150 DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL
VI. CRIMINAL AND CIVIL LIABILITIES . 153 AUTHORITIES .................................................... 191
A. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITIES .... 153 C. ARTICLE 126 – DELAYING RELEASE ....... 191
A.1. TOTAL EXTINCTION ...................................... 153 D. ARTICLE 127 – EXPULSION ..................... 192
A.2. PARTIAL EXTINCTION .................................. 156 E. ARTICLE 128 – VIOLATION OF DOMICILE .. 192
A.3. COMPROMISE AND AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE F. ARTICLE 129 – SEARCH WARRANTS
.............................................................................. 157 MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED, AND ABUSE IN THE
A.4. REELECTION OF PUBLIC OFFICER .............. 158 SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED ...... 193
B. CIVIL LIABILITIES IN CRIMINAL CASES . 158 G. ARTICLE 130 – SEARCHING DOMICILE
B.1. GENERAL RULE ............................................. 158 WITHOUT WITNESSES ..................................... 193
B.2. SPECIAL CASES [REYES] .............................. 159
H. ARTICLE 131 – PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION
B.3. WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES ............... 162
AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS194
B.4. PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE ........................... 164
B.5. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY .................. 165 I. ARTICLE 132 – INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP .......................................................... 194
J. ARTICLE 133 – OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS
FEELINGS ......................................................... 194
CRIMINAL LAW 2 K. REPUBLIC ACT 9372 .................................... 195
L. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9745............................. 196
I. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
AND THE LAW OF NATIONS...............168 IV. TITLE III. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC
A. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY: .. 168 ORDER .............................................. 199
B. CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS . 168 A. CHAPTER I. REBELLION, COUP D’ETAT,
C. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY ... 168 SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY ........................... 199
C.1. ARTICLE 114 – TREASON............................... 168 A.1. ARTICLE 134 – REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
C.2. ARTICLE 115 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL .............................................................................. 199
TO COMMIT TREASON ........................................ 172 A.2. ARTICLE 134-A – COUP D’ÉTAT ................. 200
C.3. ARTICLE 116 – MISPRISION OF TREASON .. 172 A.3. ARTICLE 135 – PENALTY FOR REBELLION,
C.4. ARTICLE 117 – ESPIONAGE........................... 173 INSURRECTION OR COUP D’ÉTAT ..................... 201
D. COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 616 .................173 A.4. ARTICLE 136 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
TO COMMIT COUP D’ ÉTAT, REBELLION OR
II. CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF INSURRECTION ................................................... 201
NATIONS ........................................... 176 A.5. ARTICLE 137 – DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES ................................202
vi
 A.6. ARTICLE 138 – INCITING TO REBELLION OR G. CHAPTER VII – COMMISSION OF ANOTHER
INSURRECTION ................................................... 202 CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED
A.7. ARTICLE 139 – SEDITION............................. 202 FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE ............. 216
A.8. ARTICLE 140 – PERSONS LIABLE FOR G.1. ARTICLE 160 – QUASI-RECIDIVISM ..............216
SEDITION ............................................................. 203 G.2. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866 (AS
A.9. ARTICLE 141 – CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8294) ........... 217
SEDITION ............................................................. 204 G.3. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591 ...........................220
A.10. ARTICLE 142 – INCITING TO SEDITION..... 204
B. CHAPTER II – CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR V. TITLE IV. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC
REPRESENTATION ......................................... 206 INTEREST ......................................... 224
B.1. ARTICLE 143 – ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT A. ACTS OF COUNTERFEITING ...................... 224
THE MEETING OF THE CONGRESS OF THE
A.1. ARTICLE 161 – COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT
PHILIPPINES AND SIMILAR BODIES .................. 206
SEAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
B.2. ARTICLE 144 – DISTURBANCE OF
ISLANDS, FORGING THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF
PROCEEDINGS .................................................... 206
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE........................................ 224
B.3. ARTICLE 145 – VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY
A.2. ARTICLE 162 – USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
IMMUNITY............................................................ 206
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP ........................ 225
C. CHAPTER III – ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND A.3. ARTICLE 163 – MAKING AND IMPORTING AND
ASSOCIATIONS ............................................... 207 UTTERING FALSE COINS .................................... 225
C.1. ARTICLE 146 – ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES ........ 207 A.4. ARTICLE 164 – MUTILATION OF COINS ..... 225
C.2. ARTICLE 147 – ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS .... 207 A.5. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 247 ............... 226
C.3. BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880/ PUBLIC A.6. ARTICLE 165 – SELLING OF FALSE OR
ASSEMBLY ACT OF 1985 .................................... 208 MUTILATED COIN, WITHOUT CONNIVANCE ..... 226
D. CHAPTER IV – ASSAULT UPON AND A.7. ARTICLE 166 – FORGING TREASURY OR BANK
RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO, PERSONS NOTES OR OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO
IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR AGENTS ............. 209 BEARER; IMPORTING AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE
D.1. ARTICLE 148 – DIRECT ASSAULT ............... 209 OR FORGED NOTES AND DOCUMENTS ............ 226
D.2. ARTICLE 152 – PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND A.8. ARTICLE 167 – COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING,
AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY ............... 210 AND UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO
D.3. ARTICLE 149 – INDIRECT ASSAULT ............. 211 BEARER ............................................................... 227
D.4. ARTICLE 150 – DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS B. ACTS OF FORGERY ......................................227
ISSUED BY CONGRESS, ITS COMMITTEES OR B.1. ARTICLE 168 – ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE
SUBCOMMITTEES, BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER
COMMISSIONS, ITS COMMITTEES, INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT ................................. 227
SUBCOMMITTEES OR DIVISIONS ........................ 211 B.2. ARTICLE 169 – HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED
D.5. ARTICLE 151 – RESISTANCE AND .............................................................................. 228
DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR C. ACTS OF FALSIFICATION ........................... 228
THE AGENTS OF SUCH PERSONS ...................... 212 C.1. ARTICLE 170 – FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE
E. CHAPTER V – PUBLIC DISORDERS ....... 212 DOCUMENTS ....................................................... 228
E.1. ARTICLE 153 – TUMULTS AND OTHER C.2. ARTICLE 171 – FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC
DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER .................. 212 OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR
E.2. ARTICLE 154 – UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER ............................... 229
PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES . 213 C.3. ARTICLE 172 – FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE
E.3. ARTICLE 155 – ALARMS AND SCANDALS ... 213 INDIVIDUAL AND USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
E.4. ARTICLE 156 – DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM .............................................................................. 232
JAIL........................................................................ 214 C.4. ARTICLE 173 – FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS,
F. CHAPTER VI – EVASION OF SERVICE OF CABLE, TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES,
SENTENCE ........................................................ 214 AND USE OF SAID FALSIFIED MESSAGES ........ 233
F.1. ARTICLE 157 – EVASION OF SERVICE OF C.5. ARTICLE 174 – FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES,
SENTENCE ............................................................ 214 FALSE CERTIFCATES OF MERITS OF SERVICE, ETC.
F.2. ARTICLE 158 – EVASION OF SERVICE OF .............................................................................. 234
SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF C.6. ARTICLE 175 – USING FALSE CERTIFICATES234
DISORDERS,CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES, C.7. ARTICLE 176 – MANUFACTURING AND
OR OTHER CALAMITIES ...................................... 215 POSSESSION OF INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS
F.3. ARTICLE 159 – OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF FOR FALSIFICATION ........................................... 234
SERVICE OF SENTENCE ...................................... 215 D. OTHER FALSITIES ...................................... 234

vii
 D.1. ARTICLE 177 – USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR B.3. ARTICLE 202 – PROSTITUTION (AMENDED BY
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS ........................................ 234 R.A. 10158) ........................................................... 256
D.2. ARTICLE 178 – USING FICTITIOUS AND B.4. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9208 ............................ 257
CONCEALING TRUE NAME................................. 235 B.5. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10364 ...........................258
D.3. ARTICLE 179 – ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS
AND INSIGNIA ..................................................... 235 VIII. TITLE VII. CRIMES COMMITTED BY
D.4. ARTICLE 180 – FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A PUBLIC OFFICERS............................. 263
DEFENDANT ........................................................ 236 A. CHAPTER I: PRELIMINARY PROVISIONS .. 264
D.5. ARTICLE 181 – FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE A.1. ART. 203 – WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS ... 264
TO THE DEFENDANT .......................................... 236 B. CHAPTER II: MALFEASANCE AND
D.6. ARTICLE 182 – FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL
MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE .............................. 264
CASES .................................................................. 236
B.1. ARTICLE 204 – KNOWINGLY RENDERING
D.7. ARTICLE 183 – FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER
UNJUST JUDGMENT............................................ 265
CASES AND PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
B.2. ARTICLE 205 – JUDGMENT RENDERED
..............................................................................237
THROUGH NEGLIGENCE .................................... 265
D.8. ARTICLE 184 – OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY
B.3. ARTICLE 206 – UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY
IN EVIDENCE ....................................................... 238
ORDER ................................................................. 265
D.9. ARTICLE 185 – MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC
B.4. ARTICLE 207 – MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE
AUCTIONS ........................................................... 238
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE .......................... 266
D.10. ARTICLE 186 – MONOPOLIES AND
B.5. ARTICLE 208 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES;
COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE ...... 238
NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE ........................ 266
D.11. ARTICLE 187 – IMPORTATION AND
B.6. ARTICLE 209 – BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN
DISPOSITION OF FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES OR
ATTORNEY OR A SOLICITOR – REVELATION OF
MERCHANDISE MADE OF GOLD, SILVER, OR
SECRETS .............................................................. 266
OTHER PRECIOUS METALS OR THEIR ALLOYS 239
B.7. ARTICLE 210 – DIRECT BRIBERY ................ 267
D.12. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175 .......................... 239
B.8. ARTICLE 211 – INDIRECT BRIBERY ............. 269
VI. TITLE V. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM B.9. ARTICLE 211-A – QUALIFIED BRIBERY ....... 269
B.10. ARTICLE 212 – CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS .... 243 OFFICIALS ............................................................ 269
A. DEFINITION OF IMPORTANT TERMS ........ 243 ELEMENTS ........................................................... 270
B. ACTS PUNISHED ......................................... 243 B.11. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019 ............................ 270
B.1. ELEMENTS OF SALE..................................... 244 B.12. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080 ........................... 273
B.2. ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION ...................... 244 B.13. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 46 ................ 275
C. PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS........... 244 C. CHAPTER III: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL
D. IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION AND EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS ................ 275
PUNISHMENT.................................................. 246 C1. ARTICLE 213 – FRAUD AGAINST THE PUBLIC
D.1. TERMINATION OF GRANT OF IMMUNITY [SEC. TREASURY AND SIMILAR OFFENSES................ 275
34, ART. II, RA 9165]:........................................... 246 C.2. ARTICLE 214 – OTHER FRAUDS .................. 276
D.2. CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF SEIZED C.3. ART. 215 – PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS .. 276
SUBSTANCES ...................................................... 247 C.4. ARTICLE 216 – POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED
D.3. CHAIN OF CUSTODY ................................... 247 INTEREST BY A PUBLIC OFFICER....................... 277
E. OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS ..................... 248 D. CHAPTER IV: MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY .................................... 277
VII. TITLE VI. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC D.1. ARTICLE 217 – MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
MORALS ............................................ 251 FUNDS OR PROPERTY - PRESUMPTION OF
A. CHAPTER 1: GAMBLING AND BETTING ..... 251 MALVERSATION .................................................. 277
A.1. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1602 ............... 251 D.2. ARTICLE 218 – FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE
A.2. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9287 ............................ 252 OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS ..................... 279
A.3. LETTER OF INSTRUCTION NO. 816 ............ 252 D.3. ARTICLE 219 – FAILURE OF A RESPONSIBLE
A.4. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 449 ............... 252 PUBLIC OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE
B. CHAPTER 2: OFFENSES AGAINST DECENCY LEAVING THE COUNTRY..................................... 279
AND GOOD CUSTOMS.................................... 254 D.4. ARTICLE 220 – ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY....................................... 280
B.1. ARTICLE 200 – GRAVE SCANDAL ............... 254
D.5. ARTICLE 221 - FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF
B.2. ARTICLE 201 – IMMORAL DOCTRINES,
PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY ......................... 280
OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS AND
D.6. ARTICLE 222 – OFFICERS INCLUDED IN THE
INDECENT SHOWS ............................................. 255
PRECEDING PROVISIONS.................................. 280
viii
 E. CHAPTER V: INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS A.2. ARTICLE 247 – DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES
.......................................................................... 281 UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES..........291
E.1. ARTICLE 223 – CONNIVING WITH OR A.3. ARTICLE 248 – MURDER............................. 292
CONSENTING TO EVASION ................................. 281 A.4. ARTICLE 249 – HOMICIDE...........................294
E.2. ARTICLE 224 – EVASION THROUGH A.5. ARTICLE 250 - PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED
NEGLIGENCE ........................................................ 281 PARRICIDE, MURDER OR HOMICIDE ................294
E.3. ARTICLE 225 – ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER A.6. ARTICLE 251 - DEATH CAUSED IN
THE CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY ...................................... 295
OFFICER ............................................................... 281 A.7. ARTICLE 252 - PHYSICAL INJURIES CAUSED IN
E.4. ARTICLE 226 – REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT, OR TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY ...................................... 295
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENTS ....................... 282 A.8. ARTICLE 253 - GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
E.5. ARTICLE 227 – OFFICER BREAKING SEAL . 282 .............................................................................. 296
E.6. ARTICLE 228 – OPENING OF CLOSED A.9. ARTICLE 254 - DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS 296
DOCUMENTS ....................................................... 283 A.10. ARTICLE 255 – INFANTICIDE .................... 297
E.7. ARTICLE 229 – REVELATION OF SECRETS BY A.11. ARTICLE 256 - INTENTIONAL ABORTION . 297
AN OFFICER ........................................................ 283 A.12. ARTICLE 257 - UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
E.8. ARTICLE 230 – PUBLIC OFFICERS REVEALING ..............................................................................298
SECRETS OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS ................. 283 A.13. ARTICLE 258 - ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE
F. CHAPTER VI: OTHER OFFENSES OR WOMAN HERSELF OR BY PARENTS..................298
A.14. ARTICLE 259 - ABORTION BY A PHYSICIAN OR
IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS ....... 284
MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF ABORTIVES .....299
F.1. ARTICLE 231 – OPEN DISOBEDIENCE ......... 284
A.15. ARTICLE 260 - RESPONSIBILITY OF
F.2. ARTICLE 232 – DISOBEDIENCE TO THE ORDER
PARTICIPANTS IN A DUEL ..................................299
OF SUPERIOR OFFICER WHEN SAID ORDER WAS
A.16. ARTICLE 261 - CHALLENGING TO A DUEL 299
SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR OFFICER ................. 284
F.3. ARTICLE 233 – REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE 284 B. CHAPTER II PHYSICAL INJURIES ............... 300
F.4. ARTICLE 234 – REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE B.1. ARTICLE 262 – MUTILATION ...................... 300
ELECTIVE OFFICE ................................................ 284 B.2. ARTICLE 263 - SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
F.5. ARTICLE 235 – MALTREATMENT OF ............................................................................. 300
PRISONERS ......................................................... 285 ELEMENTS OF DEFORMITY ............................ 301
F.6. REPUBLIC ACT 9372 .................................... 285 B.3. ARTICLE 264 - ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS
F.7. ARTICLE 236 – ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A SUBSTANCES OR BEVERAGES .......................... 302
PUBLIC OFFICER ................................................. 286 B.4. ARTICLE 265 - LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL
F.8. ARTICLE 237 – PROLONGING PERFORMANCE INJURIES .............................................................. 302
OF DUTIES AND POWERS .................................. 286 B.5. ARTICLE 266 - SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
F.9. ARTICLE 238 – ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR AND MALTREATMENT ........................................ 303
POSITION............................................................. 287 B.6. ARTICLE 266-A - RAPE ................................ 303
F.10. ARTICLE 239 – USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE B.7. RA 9262: ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
POWERS .............................................................. 287 AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 ................ 307
F.11. ARTICLE 240 – USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE B.8. RA 9775: ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY ACT OF
FUNCTIONS ......................................................... 287 2009 .....................................................................308
F.12. ARTICLE 241 – USURPATION OF JUDICIAL B.9. RA 8049: ANTI-HAZING LAW ..................... 310
FUNCTIONS ......................................................... 287 B.10. RA 7610: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
F.13. ARTICLE 242 – DISOBEYING REQUEST FOR AGAINST CHILD ABUSE, EXPLOITATION AND
DISQUALIFICATION ............................................ 288 DISCRIMINATION ACT ......................................... 312
F.14. ARTICLE 243 – ORDERS OR REQUEST BY B.11. RA 9344: JUVENILE JUSTICE AND WELFARE
EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY ACT (AS FURTHER AMENDED BY THE RA 10630/
............................................................................. 288 THE ACT STRENGTHENING THE JUVENILE JUSTICE
F.15. ARTICLE 244 – UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS SYSTEM IN THE PHILIPPINES).............................314
............................................................................. 288 B.12. PD 603: CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE CODE
F.16. ARTICLE 245 – ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY ...............................................................................314
............................................................................. 288 B.13. RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007315

IX. TITLE VIII. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS X. TITLE IX. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL
......................................................... 290 LIBERTY AND SECURITY .................... 317
A. CHAPTER I – DESTRUCTION OF LIFE ....... 290 A. CHAPTER I CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY ..... 317
A.1. ARTICLE 246 – PARRICIDE .......................... 290 A.1. ARTICLE 267 - KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS
ILLEGAL DETENTION ........................................... 317

ix
 A.2. ARTICLE 268 - SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION320
A.3. ARTICLE 269 - UNLAWFUL ARREST .......... 320
A.4. ARTICLE 270 - KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO
RETURN A MINOR ............................................... 321
A.5. ARTICLE 271 - INDUCING A MINOR TO
ABANDON HIS HOME ......................................... 322
A.6. ARTICLE 272 - SLAVERY ............................. 322
A.7. ARTICLE 273 - EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR
............................................................................. 322
A.8. ARTICLE 274 - SERVICES RENDERED UNDER
COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBT ............... 323
B. CHAPTER II: CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY.323
B.1. ARTICLE 275 - ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN
DANGER AND ABANDONMENT OF OWN VICTIM323
B.2. ARTICLE 276 - ABANDONING A MINOR .... 323
B.3. ARTICLE 277 - ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY
PERSON ENTRUSTED WITH CUSTODY;
INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS............................. 324
B.4. ARTICLE 278 - EXPLOITATION OF MINORS324
B.5. ARTICLE 280 - QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO
DWELLING ........................................................... 325
B.6. ARTICLE 281 - OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS
..............................................................................327
B.7. ARTICLE 282 - GRAVE THREATS .................327
B.8. ARTICLE 283 - LIGHT THREATS ................. 328
B.9. ARTICLE 284 - BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR
............................................................................. 328
B.10. ARTICLE 285 – OTHER LIGHT THREATS .. 329
B.11. ARTICLE 286 - GRAVE COERCIONS........... 329
B.12. ARTICLE 287 - LIGHT COERCIONS ............ 330
B.13. ARTICLE 288 - OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS
.............................................................................. 331
B.14. ARTICLE 289 - FORMATION, MAINTENANCE,
AND PROHIBITION OF COMBINATION OF CAPITAL
OR LABOR THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS332
C. CHAPTER III: DISCOVERY AND REVELATION
OF SECRETS .....................................................332
C.1. ARTICLE 290 - DISCOVERING SECRETS
THROUGH SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE... 332
C.2. ARTICLE 291 - REVEALING SECRETS WITH
ABUSE OF OFFICE............................................... 332
C.3. ARTICLE 292 - REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL
SECRETS .............................................................. 333
D. SPECIAL LAWS ............................................ 333
D.1. RA 4200 (ANTI WIRE TAPPING ACT) .......... 333
D.2. RA 9327 (HUMAN SECURITY ACT) ............. 334
D.3. RA 9208: ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ACT
OF 2003 ............................................................... 340
XI. TITLE X. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
......................................................... 343
A. CHAPTER I: ROBBERY IN GENERAL ..........343
A.1. ARTICLE 293 - WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY
............................................................................. 343
A.2. ARTICLE 294 – ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE
AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS ....... 344
x
A.3. ARTICLE 295 - ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL
INJURIES, IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A
BAND.................................................................... 346
A.4. ARTICLE 296 – ROBBERY BY A BAND........ 346
A.5. ARTICLE 297 - ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE ................................ 347
A.6. ARTICLE 298 - EXECUTION OF DEEDS
THROUGH VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION .......... 348
A.7. ARTICLE 299 - ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED
HOUSE OR PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED
TO WORSHIP ....................................................... 348
A.8. ARTICLE 301 - WHAT IS AN INHABITED HOUSE,
PUBLIC BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES:............ 349
A.9. ARTICLE 300 – ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE AND BY A BAND ......................................350
A.10. ARTICLE 302 – ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING...........................350
A.11. ARTICLE 303 - ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS
OR FIREWOOD IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR
PRIVATE BUILDING .............................................350
A.12. ARTICLE 304 - POSSESSION OF PICKLOCK OR
SIMILAR TOOLS ....................................................351
A.13. ARTICLE 305 - FALSE KEYS ........................351
B. CHAPTER 2: BRIGANDAGE ......................... 351
B.1. ARTICLE 306 - WHO ARE BRIGANDS ...........351
B.2. ARTICLE 307 - AIDING AND ABETTING A BAND
OF BRIGANDS...................................................... 352
C. CHAPTER 3 THEFT ...................................... 352
C.1. ARTICLE 308 - WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT352
C.2. ARTICLE 309 – PENALTIES ......................... 354
C.3. ARTICLE 310 - QUALIFIED THEFT ............... 354
C.4. PD 1612: ANTI-FENCING LAW...................... 354
C.5. RA 6539: ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT ............. 355
C.6. ARTICLE 311 - THEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF
THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM
.............................................................................. 357
D. CHAPTER 4: USURPATION .........................357
D.1. ARTICLE 312 - OCCUPATION OF REAL
PROPERTY OR USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN
PROPERTY ........................................................... 357
D.2. ARTICLE 313 - ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR
LANDMARKS ....................................................... 358
E. CHAPTER 5: CULPABLE INSOLVENCY ...... 358
E.1. ART. 314 - FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY ...... 358
F. CHAPTER 6: SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
.......................................................................... 359
F.1. ARTICLE 315 - ESTAFA .................................. 359
F.2. P.D. 115 TRUST RECEIPTS LAW ................... 362
F.3. B.P. BLG. 22 BOUNCING CHECKS LAW....... 365
F.4. ARTICLE 316 - OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING
AND DECEITS ...................................................... 367
F.5. ESTAFA UNDER PD 1689: INCREASING THE
PENALTY FOR CERTAIN FORMS OF SWINDLING OR
ESTAFA ................................................................ 369
F.6. ARTICLE 317 - SWINDLING OF A MINOR .... 369
F.7. ARTICLE 318 - OTHER DECEITS ................... 370
 G. CHAPTER 7: CHATTEL MORTGAGE ...........370
G.1. ARTICLE 319 - REMOVAL, SALE, OR PLEDGE OF
MORTGAGED PROPERTY ................................... 370
H. CHAPTER 8: ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES
INVOLVING DESTRUCTION ..............................371
H.1. SIMPLE ARSON .............................................372
H.2. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON .................................372
I. CHAPTER 9 MALICIOUS MISCHIEF.............. 374
I.1. ARTICLE 327 - WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE ..... 374
I.2. ARTICLE 328 - SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF ............................................................. 374
I.3. ARTICLE 329 - OTHER MISCHIEFS ............... 374
I.4. ARTICLE 330 - DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION ........................... 374
I.5. ARTICLE 331 – DESTROYING OR DAMAGING
STATUES, PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR PAINTINGS375
J. CHAPTER 10: EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY .......................................................... 375
J.1. ARTICLE 332 - EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY ...... 375
XII. TITLE XI. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
......................................................... 376
A. ARTICLE 333 – ADULTERY.......................... 376
B. ARTICLE 334 – CONCUBINAGE .................. 377
C. ARTICLE 336 - ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS378
D. ARTICLE 337 - QUALIFIED SEDUCTION .... 380
E. ARTICLE 338 - SIMPLE SEDUCTION .......... 382
F. ARTICLE 339 - ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
WITH THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
......................................................................... 382
G. ARTICLE 340 - CORRUPTION OF MINORS383
H. ARTICLE 341 - WHITE SLAVE TRADE ........ 383
I. ARTICLE 342 - FORCIBLE ABDUCTION ...... 384
J. ARTICLE 343 - CONSENTED ABDUCTION . 385
K. ARTICLE 344 - PROSECUTION OF PRIVATE
OFFENSES ....................................................... 386
L. ARTICLE 345: CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS
GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY .......387
M. ARTICLE 346 – LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS,
GUARDIANS, TEACHERS AND OTHER PERSONS
ENTRUSTED WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY ......................................... 388
N. RA 7877 ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT388
XIII. TITLE XII. CRIMES AGAINST THE
CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS .............. 389
A. CHAPTER I: SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS .................... 389
A.1. ARTICLE 347 - SIMULATION OF BIRTHS,
SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER, AND
CONCEALMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF A
LEGITIMATE CHILD ............................................. 389
REQUISITES......................................................... 390
xi
A.2. ARTICLE 348 - USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
..............................................................................390
B. CHAPTER II: ILLEGAL MARRIAGES ........... 390
B.1. ARTICLE 349 – BIGAMY................................390
B.2. ARTICLE 350 - MARRIAGE CONTRACTED
AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAWS ....................... 392
ELEMENTS ........................................................... 392
B.3. ARTICLE 351 - PREMATURE MARRIAGE .... 393
B.4. ARTICLE 352 - PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL
MARRIAGE CEREMONY ................................. 393
PERSONS LIABLE ................................................ 393
XIV. TITLE XIII. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
......................................................... 394
A. CHAPTER I LIBEL ........................................ 394
A.1. ARTICLE 353 - DEFINITION OF LIBEL .......... 394
A.2. ARTICLE 354 - REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY
.............................................................................. 396
PUBLIC FIGURE ................................................... 397
A.3. ARTICLE 355 - LIBEL BY WRITING OR SIMILAR
MEANS ................................................................. 398
A.4. ARTICLE 356 - THREATENING TO PUBLISH
AND OFFER TO PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR
A COMPENSATION .............................................. 398
A.5. ARTICLE 357 - PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF
ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF OFFICIAL
PROCEEDINGS (GAG LAW) ................................. 398
ELEMENTS ........................................................... 398
A.6. ARTICLE 358 - SLANDER ............................ 398
A.7. ARTICLE 359 - SLANDER BY DEED ............. 399
A.8. ARTICLE 360 - PERSONS RESPONSIBLE FOR
LIBEL ................................................................... 400
A.9. ARTICLE 361 - PROOF OF TRUTH ............... 401
A.10. ARTICLE 362 - LIBELOUS REMARKS ....... 402
B. CHAPTER II: INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS
.......................................................................... 402
B.1. ARTICLE 363 - INCRIMINATING INNOCENT
PERSON .............................................................. 402
B.2. ARTICLE 364 - INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
..............................................................................403
B.3. R.A.10175 THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT
OF 2012 ................................................................403
XV. TITLE XIV. QUASI-OFFENSES ...... 404
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW 1

Page 1 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

I. FUNDAMENTAL AND violations of the Revised Penal Code are more

serious than a violation of a special law.
GENERAL PRINCIPLES [People v. Rodriguez (1960)]

IN CRIMINAL LAW The crime of cattle-rustling is not malum

prohibitum but a modification of the crime of
theft of large cattle under the RPC (i.e. there
are special laws which only modify crimes
A. DEFINITION OF CRIMINAL LAW
under the RPC therefore still mala in se).
That branch of public substantive law which [People v. Martinada (1991)].
defines crimes, treats of their nature, and
provides for their punishment. [Reyes, citing Mala in Se Mala
cyc 129] Prohibita
As to nature Wrong from Wrong
its very because it is
B. MALA IN SE AND MALA PROHIBITA
nature; So prohibited
serious in by law;
Mala in se (“evil in itself”) – A crime or an act their effects
that is inherently immoral, such as murder, on society as
arson or rape. [Black’s Law Dictionary, 9th to call for
Ed.] condemnatio
n of
Mala prohibita (“prohibited evil”) – An act members.
that is a crime merely because it is prohibited As to use of GF a valid GF is not a
by statute, although the act iself is not good faith as defense, defense.
necessarily immoral. [Black’s Law Dictionary, defense unless the
9th Ed.] crime is the
result of
Dolo is not required in crimes mala prohibita. culpa
As to WON Criminal Criminal
In those crimes which are mala prohibita, the criminal intent is an intent is
act alone irrespective of the intent, intent is an element. immaterial,
constitutes the offense. element BUT still
Good faith and absence of criminal intent are requires
not valid defenses in crimes mala prohibita. intelligence
voluntarines
When the acts are inherently immoral, they s
are mala in se, even if punished under special As to degree Degree of The act
law, like plunder which requires proof of of accomplishm gives rise to
criminal intent. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan accomplishm ent is taken a crime only
(2001); Garcia vs. Court of Appeals (2006); ent of crime into account when
Ysidoro vs. People (2012)] for the consummat
punishment. ed.
Where malice is a factor, good faith is a As to They are They are not
defense. mitigating taken into taken into
and account in account.
A crime in the RPC can absorb a crime aggravating imposing
punishable by a special law if it is a necessary circumstance penalty
element of the felony defined in the Code but s
a special law can never absorb a crime As to degree When there is Degree of
punishable under the RPC, because of more than participatio
Page 2 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

participation one offender, n is delinquent. (Art. 22)

the degree of generally Where the new law
participation not taken expressly made
of each in the into inapplicable to
commission is account. All pending actions or
taken into who existing causes of
account. participated actions. [Tavera v.
in the act Valdez]
are Statutory; it is May be promulgated
punished to passed by the by the Legislature
the same Legislature. (e.g. jurisdiction of
extent. courts) or the
As to stages There are No such Judiciary (e.g. Rules
of execution three stages: stages of of Court)
attempted, execution
frustrated & State Authority to Punish Crime
consummate
d Article II, Section. 5, 1987 Constitution.
As to persons The principal, Generally, Declaration of Principles and State Policies.
criminally accomplice & only the The maintenance of peace and order, the
liable accessory. principal is protection of life, liberty and property, and
Penalty is liable. promotion of the general welfare are
computed on Penalty of essential for the enjoyment by all the people
the basis of offenders is of the blessings of democracy.
whether he is same
a principal whether
offender or they acted D. SOURCES OF CRIMINAL LAW
merely an as mere 1. The Revised Penal Code (Act No. 3815) –
accomplice or accomplices Enacted January 1, 1932; based on the
accessory or Spanish Penal Code, US Penal Code, and
accessories Philippine Supreme Court decisions.
As to what Generally, the Generally, 2. Special penal laws
laws are RPC. special laws. 3. Penal Presidential Decrees issued during
violated Martial Law.
As to division Penalties may There is no
of penalties be divided such
into degrees division of E. RELATION OF RPC TO SPECIAL
and periods. penalties. LAWS: SUPPLETORY APPLICATION
OF RPC
C. CRIMINAL LAW AND CRIMINAL General rule: RPC provisions supplement the
PROCEDURE, DISTINGUISHED provisions of special laws. [Art. 10, RPC]
Criminal Law Criminal Procedure
It is substantive. It is remedial.
Prospective in Retroactive in Exceptions:
application. application. Where the special law provides otherwise.
Exception: If it is [Art.10, RPC]
favorable to the
accused. When the provisions of the Code are
Exception To The impossible of application, either by express
Exception: provision or by necessary implication, as in
When the accused is those instances where the provisions in
a habitual
Page 2 of 407
UP LAW BOC
question are peculiar to the Code. [Regalado,
Criminal Law Prospectus]
In the absence of contrary provision in B.P.
Blg. 22, the general provisions of the RPC
which, by their nature, are necessarily
applicable, may be applied suppletorily.
[Ladonga v. People (2005)]
F. CONSTRUCTION OF PENAL LAWS
Strict construction against the State and
liberally in favor of the accused
Pro Reo Doctrine – Whenever a penal law is
to be construed or applied and the law
admits of two interpretations, one lenient to
the offender and one strict to the offender,
that interpretation which is lenient or
favorable to the offender will be adopted.
Basis: The fundamental rule that all doubts
shall be construed in favor of the accused and
presumption of innocence of the accused.
The rule that penal statutes should be strictly
construed against the State may be invoked
only where the law is ambiguous and there is
doubt as to its interpretation. Where the law
is clear and unambiguous, there is no room
for the application of the rule. [People v.
Gatchalian (1998)]
Article III, Section 14 (2), 1987 Const. In all
criminal prosecutions, the accused shall be
presumed innocent until the contrary is
proved…
Equipoise Rule – When the evidence of the
prosecution and the defense are equally
balanced, the scale should be tilted in favour
of the accused in obedience to the
constitutional presumption of innocence.
[Ursua v. CA (1996); Corpuz v. People (1991)]
Spanish text of the RPC prevails over its
English translation
In the construction or interpretation of the
provision of the RPC, the Spanish text is
controlling, because it was approved by the
Philippine Legislature in its Spanish text.
[People v. Manaba (1933)]
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Retroactive application if favorable to the
accused
See Characteristics of Criminal Law,
Prospectivity and Art. 22, RPC.
G. THREE CHARACTERISTICS OF
CRIMINAL LAW
1. General
2. Territorial
3. Prospective
G.1. GENERALITY
General Rule: The penal law of the country is
binding on all persons who live or sojourn in
Philippine territory, subject to the principles
of public international law and to treaty
stipulations. [Art. 14, NCC]
Exception:
Article 2, RPC. “Except as provided in the
treaties or laws of preferential application
xxx”
Article 14, NCC. “xxx subject to the principles
of public international law and to treaty
stipulations.”
TREATY STIPULATIONS
Examples:
Bases Agreement entered into by the
Philippines and the US on Mar. 14, 1947 and
expired on Sept. 16, 1991.
Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) is an
agreement between the Philippine and US
Government regarding the treatment of US
Armed Forces visiting the Philippines. It was
signed on Feb. 10, 1998.
Art. V, VFA, which defines criminal jurisdiction
over United States military and civilian
personnel temporarily in the Philippines in
connection with activities approved by the
Philippine Government.
The US and Philippines agreed that:
1. US shall have the right to exercise within
the Philippines all criminal and
Page 3 of 407
UP LAW BOC
disciplinary jurisdiction conferred on
them by the military law of the US over
US personnel in RP;
2. US authorities exercise exclusive
jurisdiction over US personnel with
respect to offenses, including offenses
relating to the security of the US
punishable under the law of the US, but
not under the laws of RP;
3. US military authorities shall have the
primary right to exercise jurisdiction over
US personnel subject to the military law
of the US in relation to:
4. Offenses solely against the property or
security of the US or offenses solely
against the property or person of US
personnel; and
5. Offenses arising out of any act or
omission done in performance of official
duty. [Reyes (2012)]
RULE ON JURISDICTION UNDER THE VFA
• If the crime is punishable under
Philippine laws but not under US laws
then Philippines has exclusive
jurisdiction.
• If the crime is punishable under US laws
but not under Philippine laws then US
has exclusive jurisdiction.
• If the crime is punishable under the US
and Philippine laws then there is
concurrent jurisdiction but the Philippines
has the right to primary jurisdiction.
• If the crime is committed by a US
personnel against the security and
property of the US alone then US has
exclusive jurisdiction.
Generally, the Philippines cannot refuse the
request of the US for waiver of jurisdiction
and has to approve the request for waiver
except if the crime is of national importance:
• Those crimes defined under RA 7659
(Heinous crimes)
• Those crimes defined under RA 7610
(Child Abuse cases)
• Those crimes defined under RA 9165
(Dangerous Drugs cases)
LAWS OF PREFERENTIAL APPLICATION
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Examples:
Members of Congress are not liable for libel
or slander for any speech in Congress or in
any committee thereof. (Sec. 11, Art. VI, 1987
Constitution)
Any ambassador or public minister of any
foreign State, authorized and received as
such by the President, or any domestic or
domestic servant of any such ambassador or
minister are exempt from arrest and
imprisonment and whose properties are
exempt from distraint, seizure and
attachment. (R.A. No. 75)
R.A. No. 75 penalizes acts which would
impair the proper observance by the Republic
and inhabitants of the Philippines of the
immunities, rights, and privileges of duly
accredited foreign diplomatic representatives
in the Philippines.
Exceptions:
• The person is a citizen or inhabitant of the
Philippines
• The writ or process issued against him is
founded upon a debt contracted before
he entered upon such service or the
domestic servant is not registered with
the Department of Foreign Affairs.
Note: RA 75 is not applicable when the
foreign country adversely affected does not
provide similar protection to our diplomatic
representatives.
Warship Rule – A warship of another country,
even though docked in the Philippines, is
considered an extension of the territory of its
respective country. This also applies to
embassies.
Principles of Public International Law
The following persons are exempt from the
provisions of the RPC:
• Sovereigns and other heads of state
• Ambassadors, ministers, plenipotentiary,
minister resident and charges d’ affaires.
(Article 31, Vienna Convention on
Diplomatic Relations)
Page 4 of 407
UP LAW BOC
Note: Consuls and consular officers are NOT
exempt from local prosecution. [See Article
41, Vienna Convention on Consular Relations]
Consuls, vice-consuls, and other commercial
representatives of foreign nations do not
possess the status of, and cannot claim the
privileges and immunities accorded to
ambassadors and ministers. [Wheaton,
International Law, Sec. 249]
G.2. TERRITORIALITY
General Rule: Penal laws of the country have
force and effect only within its territory.
It cannot penalize crimes committed outside
its territory.
The national territory comprises the
Philippine Archipelago… [Art. I, 1987
Constitution].
The territory of the country is not limited to
the land where its sovereignty resides but
includes also its maritime and interior waters
as well as its atmosphere.[Art. 2, RPC]
Exceptions:
Extraterritorial crimes, which are punishable
even if committed outside the Philippine
territory.[Art. 2, RPC]
See discussion on piracy and the Human
Security Act.
Par. 1: Crimes committed aboard Philippine
ship or airship:
The RPC is applied to Philippine vessels if the
crime is committed while the ship is treading:
• Philippine waters (intraterritorial), or
• The high seas i.e. waters NOT under the
jurisdiction of any State (extraterritorial)
Requisites
1. The ship or airship must not be within the
territorial jurisdiction of another country
2. The ship or airship must be registered in
the Philippines under Philippine laws
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Two rules as to jurisdiction over crimes
committed aboard merchant vessels while in
the territorial waters of another country (i.e. a
foreign vessel treading Philippine waters OR
Philippine vessels treading foreign waters):
FRENCH RULE: It is the flag or nationality of
the vessel which determines jurisdiction
UNLESS the crime violates the peace and
order of the host country.
ENGLISH RULE: the location or situs of the
crime determines jurisdiction UNLESS the
crime merely relates to internal management
of the vessel.
The Philippines adheres to the ENGLISH
RULE.
The significance of the difference in the rules
is in identifying upon whom the burden of
proving jurisdiction belongs. Note that the
presumption of jurisdiction of one rule is the
exception of the other rule. Thus, when a
felony is committed on a merchant ship
within Philippine territory, Philippine
jurisdiction is presumed, and the accused
must prove lack of jurisdiction because the
felony relates to the internal management of
the ship. If we followed the French Rule, it is
the prosecution who must prove that the
felony violates the peace and order of the
country before Philippine courts can acquire
jurisdiction and the accused must prove lack
of jurisdiction because the felony relates to
the internal management of the ship.
When the crime is committed in a war vessel
of a foreign country, the nationality of the
vessel will always determine jurisdiction
because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whose naval
force they belong.
Note: The country of registry determines the
nationality of the vessel, not its ownership.
Thus, Filipino-owned vessel registered in
China must fly the Chinese flag.
International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction
Free Zone Theory
Page 5 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

The atmosphere over the country is free and

not subject to the jurisdiction of the subjacent Par. 4: When public officers or employees
state, except for the protection of its national commit an offense in the exercise of their
security and public order. functions.
Crime committed pertains to the exercise of
Relative Theory the public official’s functions.
The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over
the atmosphere only to the extent that it can The crimes which may be committed are:
effectively exercise control thereof.
1. Direct bribery (A.210)
2. Qualified Bribery (A. 211-A)
Absolute Theory
3. Indirect bribery (A.211)
The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction
4. Corruption (A.212)
over the atmosphere above it subject only to
5. Frauds against the public treasury (A.213)
the innocent passage by air craft of a foreign
6. Possession of prohibited interest (A.216)
country.
7. Malversation of public funds or property
Under this theory, if the crime is committed in
(A. 217)
an aircraft, no matter how high, as long as it
8. Failure to render accounts (A.218)
can be established that it is within the
9. Illegal use of public funds or property
Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal
(A.220)
law (See Anti-Hijacking Law) will govern.
10. Failure to make delivery of public funds or
property (A.221)
Note: The Philippines adopts the Absolute
11. Falsification by a public officer or
Theory.
employee committed with abuse of his
official position (A.171)
Par. 2: Forging/Counterfeiting of Coins or
12. Those having to do with the discharge of
Currency Notes in the Philippines
their duties in a foreign country.
Forgery is committed by giving to a treasury
or bank note or any instrument payable to The functions contemplated are those, which
bearer or to order the appearance of a true are, under the law:
genuine document or by erasing,
• To be performed by the public officer;
substituting, counterfeiting or altering, by any
means, the figures, letters, words, or signs • In the foreign service of the Philippine
contained therein. government;
Forgery is committed abroad, and it refers • In a foreign country.
only to Philippine coin, currency note, A crime committed within the grounds of a
obligations and securities. Philippine embassy on foreign soil shall be
subject to Philippine penal laws, although it
Par. 3: Should introduce into the country the may or may not have been committed by a
above-mentioned obligations and securities. public officer in relation to his official duties.
The reason for this provision is that the Embassy grounds are considered as
introduction of forged or counterfeited extensions of the sovereignty of the country
obligations and securities into the Philippines occupying them. [ See Minucher v. Court of
is as dangerous as the forging or Appeals (1992)]
counterfeiting of the same, to the economic
interest of the country. Par. 5: Commit any of the crimes against
national security and the law of nations (Title
Those who introduced the counterfeit items One, Book 2, RPC)
are criminally liable even if they were not the Crimes against national security
ones who counterfeited the obligations and
securities. On the other hand, those who 1. Treason (A.114)
counterfeited the items are criminally liable 2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit
even if they did not introduce the counterfeit treason (A.115)
items. 3. Misprision of treason (A.116)
4. Espionage (A.117)
Page 6 of 407
UP LAW BOC
Crimes against the law of nations
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals (A.118)
2. Violation of neutrality (A.119)
3. Correspondence with hostile country
(A.120)
4. Flight to enemy’s country (A.121)
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high
seas or in Philippine waters (A.122)
Note: Crimes against public order (e.g.,
rebellion, coup d’etat, sedition) committed
abroad is under the jurisdiction of the host
country.
Terrorism is now classified as a crime against
national security and the law of nations. (See
R.A. 9372, Human Security Act of 2007)
R.A. 9372, Human Security Act of 2007 has
extraterritorial application.
Section 58 provides that the Act shall apply
to individual persons who, although
physically outside the territorial limits of the
Philippines shall:
1. Conspire or plot to commit any of the
crimes in the Act;
2. Commit any of said crimes on board a
Philippine ship or airship;
3. Commit any of said crimes within the
embassy, consulate, or diplomatic
premises belonging to or occupied by the
Philippine government in an official
capacity;
4. Commit said crimes against Philippine
citizens or persons of Philippine descent
where their citizenship or ethnicity was a
factor in the commission of the crimes;
5. Commit said crimes directly against the
Philippine government.
G.3. PROSPECTIVITY
General Rule: Acts or omissions will only be
subject to a penal law if they are committed
AFTER a penal law has taken effect. [Art. 21,
RPC]
Conversely, acts or omissions which have
been committed before the effectivity of a
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
penal law could not be penalized by such
penal law.
Exception: Penal laws shall have a retroactive
effect in so far as they favour the person
guilty of a felony. [Art. 22, RPC]
Exception to the Exception: The new law is
expressly made in applicable to pending
actions or existing cause of actions; or
The offender is a habitual criminal. [Art. 22,
RPC]
H. REPEAL AND AMENDMENT
KINDS OF REPEAL
A. Absolute or Total Repeal – A repeal is
absolute when the crime punished under the
repealed law has been decriminalized by the
subsequent law.
B. Partial or Relative Repeal – A repeal is
partial when the crime punished under the
repealed law continues to be a crime in spite
of the repeal. [ORTEGA]
EFFECTS OF REPEAL/AMENDMENT
If the repeal makes the penalty lighter in the
new law, the new law shall be applied,
EXCEPT when the offender is a habitual
delinquent or when the new law is made not
applicable to pending action or existing
causes of action.
If the fine is increased but the penalty of
imprisonment is decreased, it is not ex post
facto law and the penalty is retroactively
applied. [Cruz, Constitutional Law]
If the new law imposes a heavier penalty, the
law in force at the time of the commission of
the offense shall be applied.
If the new law totally repeals the existing law
so that the act which was penalized under the
old law is no longer punishable, the crime is
obliterated. [Reyes (2012)]
Pending cases are dismissed, regardless of
whether the accused is a habitual criminal.
Unserved penalties imposed are remitted.
Page 7 of 407
UP LAW BOC
The offender already serving sentence is
entitled to be released unless the repealing
law is expressly made inapplicable to those
who are serving sentence at the time of
repeal.
Note: Habitual criminals will continue serving
their sentence.
Rule of prospectivity also applies to judicial
decisions, administrative rulings and
circulars. [Art. 8, Civil Code]
Rationale for the prospectivity rule: the
punishability of an act must be reasonably
known for the guidance of society. [People v.
Jabinal (1974)]
I. LEGALITY
Article 21. No felony shall be punishable by
any penalty not prescribed by law prior to its
commission.
Nullum Crimen Nulla Poena Sine Lege
There is no crime when there is no law
punishing the same.
Limitation: Not every law punishing an act or
omission may be valid as a criminal law. If the
law punishing an act is ambiguous, it is null
and void.
I. CONSTITUTIONAL LIMITATIONS ON
THE POWER OF CONGRESS TO ENACT
PENAL LAWS
I.1. NO EX POST FACTO LAW OR BILL
OF ATTAINDER
Article III, Section 22, 1987 Const. No ex post
facto law or bill of attainder shall be
enacted.
Ex Post Facto Law
An ex post facto law is one which:
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
1. makes criminal an act done before the
passage of the law and which was
innocent when done, and punishes such
an act;
2. aggravates a crime, or makes it greater
than it was, when committed;
3. changes the punishment and inflicts a
greater punishment than the law
annexed to the crime when committed;
4. alters the legal rules of evidence, and
authorizes conviction upon less or
different testimony than the law required
at the time of the commission of the
offense;
5. assumes to regulate civil rights and
remedies only, in effect imposes penalty
or deprivation of a right for something
which when done was lawful; and
6. deprives a person accused of a crime
some lawful protection to which he has
become entitled, such as the protection
of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty [In re: Kay
Villegas Kami, Inc. (1970)]
Bill of Attainder
A bill of attainder is a legislative act which
inflicts punishment without trial. Its essence
is the substitution of a legislative act for a
judicial determination of guilt. [People v.
Ferrer (1972)]
I.2. EQUAL PROTECTION
Article III, Section 1, 1987 Const. No person
shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property
without due process of law, nor shall any
person be denied the equal protection of the
laws.
I.3. DUE PROCESS
Aricle. III, Section 14 (1), 1987 Const. No person
shall be held to answer for a criminal offense
without due process of law.
I.4. CRUEL OR INHUMAN
PUNISHMENT
Page 8 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Article III, Section 19, 1987 Const. Excessive

fines shall not be imposed, nor cruel,
degrading or inhuman punishment inflicted.
Neither shall death penalty be imposed,
unless, for compelling reasons involving
heinous crimes, the Congress hereafter
provides for it. Any death penalty already
imposed shall be reduced to reclusion
perpetua.

Under RA 9364, An Act Prohibiting the

Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines,
RA 8177 (Act Designating Death by Lethal
Injection), RA 7659 (Death Penalty Law), and
other acts imposing the death penalty were
repealed or amended accordingly. In lieu
thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
shall be imposed when the law violated
makes use of the nomenclature of the
penalties of the RPC. However, the penalty of
life imprisonment shall be imposed when the
law violated does not make use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the RPC.
The death penalty is still in the statutes but
the law prohibits its imposition.

Persons convicted of crimes punished by

reclusion perpetua shall not be eligible for
parole under the Indeterminate Sentence
Law.

Page 9 of 407
UP LAW BOC
II. FELONIES
A. FELONIES AND CRIMINAL LIABILITY
Felony. Refers only to violations of the
Revised Penal Code.
A crime punishable under a special law is not
referred to as a felony. “Crime” or “offense” is
the proper term.
Importance. There are certain provisions in
the RPC where the term “felony” is used,
which means that the provision is not
extended to crimes under special laws.
How committed.
Article 3. Definitions. – Acts and omissions
punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of
deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed
with deliberate intent and there is fault when
the wrongful act results from imprudence,
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
General elements: (1) An act or omission
(actus reus or physical act) (2) committed by
means of (a) dolus (i.e., willfully) or (b) fault
(i.e., negligently) and (3) punished by the
Code.
By act. Any kind of body movement which
tends to produce some effect in the external
world; includes possession.
By omission. The failure to perform a positive
duty which one is bound to do under the law.
It is important that there is a law requiring
the performance of an act; if there is no
positive duty, there is no liability.
Examples.
Article 116. Misprision of treason. - Every
person owing allegiance to (the United
States) 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
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
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.
Article 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).
Article 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.
Article 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.
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.
Article 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.
Page 10 of 407
UP LAW BOC
Article 275. Abandonment of person in
danger and abandonment of one's own
victim. - The penalty of arresto mayor shall be
imposed upon:
1. Anyone who shall fail to render
assistance to any person whom he shall
find in an uninhabited place wounded or
in danger of dying, when he can render
such assistance without detriment to
himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render
assistance to another whom he has
accidentally wounded or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an
abandoned child under seven years of
age, shall fail to deliver said child to the
authorities or to his family, or shall fail to
take him to a safe place.
Also see: PD 953. Requiring the planting of
trees in certain places and penalizing
unauthorized cutting, destruction, damaging,
and injuring of certain trees, plants, and
vegation.
Also see: PD 1153. Requiring the planting of
one tree every month for five consecutive
years by every citizen of the Philippines.
Offense. A crime punished under a special
law is called a statutory offense.
Crime. Whether the wrongdoing is punished
under the Revised Penal Code or under a
special law, the generic word “crime” can be
used.
Misdemeanor. A minor infraction of the law,
such as a violation of an ordinance.
B. CLASSIFICATION OF FELONIES
Purpose. To bring about proportionate
penalty and equitable punishment.
B.1. ACCORDING TO GRAVITY OF
PENALTIES
Under Art. 9, felonies are classified as:
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Grave felonies. Those to which the law
attaches the capital punishment or penalties
which in any of their periods are afflictive.
• Reclusion perpetua
• Reclusion temporal
• Perpetual or Absolute DQ
• Perpetual or Temporary Special DQ
• Prision mayor
• Fine more than P6,000
Less grave felonies. Those which the law
punishes with penalties which in their
maximum period is correctional.
• Prision correccional
• Arresto mayor
• Suspension
• Destierro
• Fines equal to or more than P200
Light felonies. Those infractions of law for the
commission of which the penalty is arresto
menor, or a fine not exceeding P200, or both.
Article 7. When light felonies are
punishable. - Light felonies are punishable
only when they have been consummated,
with the exception of those committed
against person or property.
Why punishable only when consummated.
They produce light, insignificant moral, and
material injuries that public conscience is
satisfied with providing a light penalty for
their consummation.
Who are punished. Principals and
accomplices only.
Examples. (MATHS)
a. Malicious mischief when the value of the
damage does not exceed two hundred
pesos or cannot be estimated
b. Alteration of boundary marks
c. Theft when the value of the thing stolen is
less than 5 pesos and theft is committed
under the circumstances enumerated
under Art. 308 par. 3
d. Intriguing against Honor
e. Slight physical injuries
Page 11 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Why classify according to gravity. To foresight or lack of skill; performed

determine (a) whether these felonies can be without malice.
complexed or not; (b) the prescription of the
crime and (b) the prescription of the penalty.
Intentional vs. Culpable felonies,
distinguished. Note that both felonies are
Take note that when the Revised Penal Code
done with freedom and intelligence. Freedom
speaks of grave and less grave felonies, the
is voluntariness, while intelligence is the
definition makes a reference specifically to
capacity to know and understand the
Art. 25 of the Revised Penal Code.
consequences of an act or omission.
Do not omit the phrase “In accordance with
Intentional Culpable
Art. 25” because there is also a classification
of penalties under Art. 26 that was not Act is Not malicious.
applied. malicious.
With Injury caused is
PHP-200 fine. A fine of exactly PHP-200 is deliberate unintentional, being just
for light felony under art. 9; but is correctional intent. an incident of another act
penalty under art. 26. performed without malice.
Has intention Wrongful act results from
If the penalty is exactly P200.00, apply Art. to cause an imprudence, negligence,
26 (with respect to prescription of penalties). injury. lack of foresight, or lack of
It is considered as a correctional penalty and skill.
it prescribes in 10 years.
B.4. AS TO PLURALITY OF CRIMES
B.2. ACCORDING TO STAGES OF a. Compound crime
EXECUTION b. Complex crime
c. Composite crime
Under Art. 6, they are classified as:
1. Attempted B.5. AS TO NATURE
2. Frustrated
3. Consummated a. Mala in se
b. Mala prohibita

Only for Felonies under RPC. The

classification of stages of a felony in Article 6
is true only to crimes under the Revised Penal
Code. It does NOT apply to crimes punished
under special laws.
However, even certain crimes which are
punished under the Revised Penal Code do
not admit of these stages.
B.3. ACCORDING TO MANNER OF
COMMISSION
Under Art. 3, they are classified as:
a. Intentional felonies. Those committed
with deliberate intent; and
b. Culpable felonies. Those resulting from
negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
Intent to Commit the Crime vs. intent to
Perpetrate the Act. When the statute plainly
forbids an act to be done (mala prohibita),
and it is done by some person, the law
implies conclusively the guilty intent,
although the offender was honestly mistaken
as to the meaning of the law he violates. x x x
Care must be exercised in distinguishing the
difference between the intent to commit the
crime and the intent to perpetrate the act.
The accused did not consciously intend to
commit a crime; but he did intend to commit
an act, and that act is, by the very nature of
things, the crime itself—intent and all. The
wording of the law is such that the intent and
the act are inseparable. The act is the crime.

Page 12 of 407
UP LAW BOC
The accused intended to put the device in his
window. Nothing more is required to commit
the crime. [U.S. vs. Go Chico (1909)]
C. ELEMENTS OF CRIMINAL LIABILITY
C.1. FELONIES BY DOLO
1. Requisites
1. Freedom. Voluntariness on the part of
the person who commits the act or
omission.
2. Intelligence. Capacity to know and
understand the consequences of one’s
act.
3. Dolo. Deliberate intent otherwise
referred to as criminal intent. It is the
purpose to use a particular means to
effect a result.
Freedom and intelligence must be present. If
any of the elements is absent, there is no
dolo. If there is no dolo, there could be no
intentional felony. [Visbal vs. Buban (2003)]
Intent which is a mental process presupposes
the exercise of freedom and the use of
intelligence.
Discernment vs. intent, distinguished.
Discernment does not indicate the presence
of intent, merely intelligence [People v.
Cordova (1993)]. Thus, discernment is
necessary whether the crime is dolo or culpa.
For distinction between intent and
discernment, see discussion on minority.
Exemptions. Criminal intent is not a requisite
in (a) felonies by culpa and (b) crimes mala
prohibita.
2. Criminal intent
Actus reus non facit reum nisi mens sit rea.
An act does not make a defendant guilty
without a guilty mind.
People v. Valenzuela (2007): The long-
standing Latin maxim actus non facit reum,
nisi mens sit rea supplies an important
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
characteristic of a crime, that ordinarily, evil
intent must unite with an unlawful act for
there to be a crime, and accordingly, there
can be no crime when the criminal mind is
wanting. Accepted in this jurisdiction as
material in crimes mala in se, mens rea has
been defined before as a guilty mind, a guilty
or wrongful purpose or criminal intent, and
essential for criminal liability. It follows that
the statutory definition of our mala in
se crimes must be able to supply what
the mens rea of the crime is, and indeed the
U.S. Supreme Court has comfortably held
that a criminal law that contains no mens
rea requirement infringes on constitutionally
protected rights. The criminal statute must
also provide for the overt acts that constitute
the crime. For a crime to exist in our legal
law, it is not enough that mens rea be shown;
there must also be an actus reus.
a. Criminal intent, presumed
When presumed. If an act is proven to be
unlawful, then intent will be presumed prima
facie. [U.S. v. Apostol] Such presumption
arises from the proof of commission of an
unlawful act.
When not presumed. In some crimes, intent
cannot be presumed as an integral element
thereof; so it has to be proven. In frustrated
homicide, specific intent to kill is not
presumed but must be proven; otherwise it is
merely physical injuries.
Degree of proof. In these cases when intent
has to be proven, the law requires proof
beyond reasonable doubt of the existence of
malicious intent or dolus malus before an
accused can be adjudged liable for
committing an intentional felony. [Villareal v.
People]
Villareal v. People (2007): The element of
intent is described as the state of mind
accompanying an act, especially a forbidden
act. It refers to the purpose of the mind and
the resolve with which a person proceeds. It
does not refer to mere will, for the latter
pertains to the act, while intent concerns the
result of the act. While motive is the "moving
power" that impels one to action for a definite
Page 13 of 407
UP LAW BOC
result, intent is the "purpose" of using a
particular means to produce the result. On
the other hand, the term "felonious" means,
inter alia, malicious, villainous, and/or
proceeding from an evil heart or purpose.
With these elements taken together, the
requirement of intent in intentional felony
must refer to malicious intent, which is a
vicious and malevolent state of mind
accompanying a forbidden act. Stated
otherwise, intentional felony requires the
existence of dolus malus– that the act or
omission be done "willfully," "maliciously,"
"with deliberate evil intent," and "with malice
aforethought."
b. General and specific intent, distinguished
General Criminal Specific Criminal
Intent Intent
The intention to do The intention to
something wrong. commit a definite act.
Presumed from the Existence is not
mere doing of a presumed.
wrong act.
The burden is upon Since the specific
the wrongdoer to intent is an element
prove that he acted of the crime, the
without such burden is upon the
criminal intent. prosecution to
establish its
existence.
General intent. The general criminal intent is
presumed from the criminal act; the absence
of any general intent is relied upon as a
defense; such absence must be proved by the
accused. [Recuerdo v. People (2006)]
Specific intent. Generally, a specific intent is
not presumed. Its existence, as a matter of
fact, must be proved by the State just as any
other essential element. This may be shown,
however, by the nature of the act, the
circumstances under which it was committed,
the means employed and the motive of the
accused.
Must be alleged in Information. Where the
specific intent of the malefactor is
determinative of the crime charged such
specific intent must be alleged in the
information and proved by the prosecution.
The specific intent of the malefactors as
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
disclosed in the information or criminal
complaint is determinative of what crime the
accused is charged with. [People v. Delim
(2003)]
How proven. Specific intent may be proved by
direct evidence or by circumstantial
evidence. It may be inferred from the
circumstances of the actions of the accused
as established by the evidence on record.
[People v. Delim]
Examples.
a. In certain crimes against property, there
must be intent to gain (Art. 293 –
robbery, Art 308 – theft).
b. Intent to kill is essential in attempted and
frustrated homicide (Art 6 in relation to
Art 249), as well as in murder.
c. In forcible abduction (Art. 342), specific
intent of lewd designs must be proved.
c. Intent and motive, distinguished
Motive vs. specific intent.
People v. Delim (2003): Specific intent is used
to describe a state of mind which exists where
circumstances indicate that an offender
actively desired certain criminal
consequences or objectively desired a specific
result to follow his act or failure to act.
Specific intent involves a state of the mind. It
is the particular purpose or specific intention
in doing the prohibited act. Specific intent
must be alleged in the Information and
proved by the state in a prosecution for a
crime requiring specific intent. Kidnapping
and murder are specific intent crimes.
Specific intent is not synonymous with
motive. Motive generally is referred to as the
reason which prompts the accused to engage
in a particular criminal activity. Motive is not
an essential element of a crime and hence
the prosecution need not prove the same. As
a general rule, proof of motive for the
commission of the offense charged does not
show guilt and absence of proof of such
motive does not establish the innocence of
accused for the crime charged such as
murder.
In murder, the specific intent is to kill the
Page 14 of 407
UP LAW BOC
victim. In kidnapping, the specific intent is to
deprive the victim of his/her liberty. In
kidnapping for ransom, the motive is
ransom. Where accused kills the victim to
avenge the death of a loved one, the motive is
revenge.
When assailant positively identified. Proof of
motive is not indispensable for a conviction,
particularly where the accused is positively
identified by an eyewitness and his
participation is adequately established.
[People v. Danny De Los Santos (2003)]
Same with intent in some instances.
US v. Ah Chong (1910): A cook who stabs his
roommate in the dark, honestly mistaking the
latter to be a robber responsible for a series
of break-ins in the area, and after crying out
sufficient warnings and believing himself to
be under attack, cannot be held criminally
liable for homicide.
Salvador v. People (2008): The appellant was
caught peeping the victim twice while she
was in the bathroom and in her room. The
lower courts appreciated this as proof of ill
motive, and the appellant was convicted of
homicide. Appellant claims that there is no
reasonable relation between the peeping
incident and intent to kill.
Held: Intent to kill was duly established by
the witnesses when they testified relative to
the peeping incident. Although there was no
evidence or allegation of sexual advances,
such incident manifested petitioner’s evil
motive. It is a rule in criminal law that motive,
being a state of mind, is established by the
testimony of witnesses on the acts or
statements of the accused before or
immediately after the commission of the
offense, deeds or words that may express it or
from which his motive or reason for
committing it may be inferred. Motive and
intent may be considered one and the same,
in some instances, as in the present case.
When motive should be proven.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
a. When the act brings about variant crimes
(e.g. kidnapping v. robbery [People v.
Puno (1993)])
b. When there is doubt as to the identity of
the assailant. [People v. Hassan (1988)]
c. When there is the need to ascertain the
truth between two antagonistic versions
of the crime. [People v. Glenn De Los
Santos (2001)]
d. When the identification of the accused
proceeds from an unreliable source and
the testimony is inconclusive and not free
from doubt.
e. When there are no eyewitnesses to the
crime, and when suspicion is likely to fall
upon a number of persons.
f. When the evidence on the commission of
the crime is purely circumstantial.
g. When the act is alleged to be committed
in defense of a stranger because it must
not be induced by revenge, resentment,
or other evil motive.
How proven. Generally, the motive is
established by the testimony of witnesses on
the acts or statements of the accused before
or immediately after the commission of the
offense, deeds, or words that may express it
or from which his motive or reason for
committing it may be inferred. [Barrioquinto
v. Fernandez (1949)]
3. Mistake of fact vs. mistake of law
Ignorantia legis neminem excusat. In civil
actions, a difficult question of law may
sometimes be considered a defense. This is
because knowledge of a legal provision does
not necessarily mean knowledge of its true
meaning and scope, or of the interpretation
which the courts may place upon it. [Kasilag
v. Rodriguez (1939)]
In criminal actions, ignorance of the law
excuses no one. Nevertheless, the lack of or a
low degree of education may be appreciated
as mitigating circumstance in some
instances. See Art. 15, RPC.
See education as an alternative
circumstance.
Ignorantia facti excusat. A mistake of fact is a
misapprehension of a fact which, if true,
Page 15 of 407
UP LAW BOC
would have justified the act or omission
which is the subject of the prosecution. It may
be a defense even if the offense charged
requires proof of only general intent.
[Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan (2012); U.S. v. Ah
Chong (1910)]
Application. An honest mistake of fact
destroys the presumption of criminal intent
which arises from the commission of a
felonious act. [People v. Oanis]. This defense
does not avail, however, when there is no
intent to consider, such as in culpable
felonies and crimes mala prohibita.
See accident as an exempting circumstance.
Requisites.
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan (2012): The inquiry
is into the mistaken belief of the defendant,
and it does not look at all to the belief or
state of mind of any other person. A proper
invocation of this defense requires (a) that the
mistake be honest and reasonable; (b) that it
be a matter of fact; and (c) that it negate the
culpability required to commit the crime or
the existence of the mental state which the
statute prescribes with respect to an element
of the offense.
No fault, negligence, or bad faith. That the
mistake must be without fault or carelessness
on the part of the accused. When the accused
is negligent, such as when the police shot the
victim without ascertaining first whether or
not he was the fugitive, mistake of fact is not
a defense. [People v. Oanis (1993)] The same
is true when the accused acted in bad faith.
[Baxinela v. People (2006)]
4. Wrongful act different from that intended
Article 4. RPC. Criminal liability shall be
incurred:
By any person committing a felony (delito)
although the wrongful act done be different
from that which he intended. xxx xxx xxx
El que es causa de la causa es cause del mal
causado. “He who is the cause of the cause is
the cause of the evil caused.” The
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
presumption is that a person intends the
ordinary consequences of his voluntary act.
[People v. Toling (1975)]
One who commits an intentional felony is
responsible for all the consequences which
may naturally and logically result therefrom,
whether foreseen or intended or not.
Penalty to be imposed.
Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the
principals when the crime committed is
different from that intended. - In cases in
which the felony committed is different from
that which the offender intended to commit,
the following rules shall be observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed be higher than that
corresponding to the offense which the
accused intended to commit, the penalty
corresponding to the latter shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed be lower than that
corresponding to the one which the
accused intended to commit, the penalty
for the former shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next
preceding paragraph shall not be
applicable if the acts committed by the
guilty person shall also constitute an
attempt or frustration of another crime, if
the law prescribes a higher penalty for
either of the latter offenses, in which case
the penalty provided for the attempted or
the frustrated crime shall be imposed in
its maximum period.
Requisites of art. 4(1).
1. An intentional felony has been
committed.
a. The felony committed should be one
committed by means of dolo (with
malice) because Art. 4, Par. 1 speaks
of wrongful act done different from
that which he intended.
b. The act should not be punished by a
special law because the offender
violating a special law may not have
the intent to do an injury to another.
c. No felony is committed when:
Page 16 of 407
UP LAW BOC
i. the act or omission is not
punishable by the RPC,
ii. the act is covered by any of the
justifying circumstances
enumerated in Art. 11.
People v. Abarca (1987): Accused Abarca
caught his wife, Jenny, having sexual
intercourse with paramour Koh. After being
warded off by the paramour’s revolver,
Abarca then went on to look for a firearm.
After getting hold of one, he proceeded to
Koh’s hangout place where he shot the latter.
Two others—the Amparado couple—were
injured because of the gunshots from Abarca.
The OSG recommends double frustrated
murder for the injuries sustained by the
Amparados.
Held: The accused-appellant did not have the
intent to kill the Amparado couple. Although
as a rule, one committing an offense is liable
for all the consequences of his act, that rule
presupposes that the act done amounts to a
felony. Here, the accused-appellant was not
committing murder when he discharged his
rifle upon the deceased. Inflicting death
under exceptional circumstances is not
murder. We cannot therefore hold the
appellant liable for frustrated murder for the
injuries suffered by the Amparados. We
nonetheless find negligence on his part.
Accordingly, we hold him liable under the
first part, second paragraph, of Article 365,
that is, less serious physical injuries through
simple imprudence or negligence.
2. The wrong done to the aggrieved party be
the direct, natural and logical
consequence of the felony committed by
the offender.
The relation of cause and effect must be
shown:
a. Unlawful act is the efficient cause
b. Accelerating cause
A different formulation. The essential
requisites for the application of this provision
are that (a) the intended act is felonious; (b)
the resulting act is likewise a felony; and (c)
the unintended albeit graver wrong was
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
primarily caused by the actor’s wrongful acts.
[People v. Ortega (1997)]
Examples of when not criminally liable.
1. If A, in attempting a suicide, jumped out
the window to kill himself, but when he
dropped to the ground he fell on an old
woman who died as a consequence, A is
not criminally liable for intentional
homicide. A was not committing a felony
when he attempted a suicide.
2. If B, who was being fired at with a gun by
C to kill him, fired a pistol at the latter in
self-defense, but missed him and instead
hit and killed D, a bystander, B is not
criminally liable for the death of D. One
acting in self-defense is not committing a
felony. [Reyes (2012)]
Proximate cause. That cause, which, in a
natural and continuous sequence, unbroken
by any efficient intervening cause, produces
the injury without which the result would not
have occurred.
“Proximate legal cause.” The proximate legal
cause is that acting first and producing the
injury, either immediately or by setting other
events in motion, all constituting a natural
and continuous chain of events, each having
a close causal connection with its immediate
predecessor, the final event in the chain
immediately effecting the injury as a natural
and probable result of the cause which first
acted, under such circumstances that the
person responsible for the first event should,
as an ordinary prudent and intelligent
person, have reasonable ground to expect at
the moment of his act or default that an
injury to some person might probably result
therefrom. [Vda. De Bataclan v. Medina
(1957)]
Distinguished from immediate cause and
remote cause. Immediate cause is the last
event in a chain of events, though not
necessarily the proximate cause of what
follows. Remote cause is a cause that does
not necessarily or immediately produce an
event or injury.
Page 17 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
When felony committed is not proximate
cause of resulting injury.
Efficient intervening cause. There is an
efficient intervening cause or an active force
that intervened between the felony
committed and the resulting injury, and the
active force is a distinct act or fact absolutely
foreign from the felonious act of the accused.
Not efficient intervening causes.
a. The weak or diseased physical condition
of the victim, as when one is suffering
from tuberculosis or heart disease.
[People v. Illustre (1930)]
b. The nervousness or temperament of the
victim, as when a person dies in
consequence of an internal hemorrhage
brought on by moving about against the
doctor’s orders, because of his nervous
condition due to the wound inflicted by
the accused. [People v. Almonte (1931)]
c. Causes which are inherent in the victim,
such as (i) the victim not knowing how to
swim and (ii) the victim being addicted to
tuba drinking. [People v. Buhay (1947);
People v. Valdez]
d. Neglect of the victim or third person, such
as the refusal by the injured party of
medical attendance or surgical operation,
or the failure of the doctor to give anti-
tetanus injection to the injured person.
[U.S. v. Marasigan (1914)]
e. Erroneous or unskillful medical or
surgical treatment, as when the assault
took place in an outlying barrio where
proper Modern surgical service was not
available. [People v. Moldes (1934)]
Victim’s intentional act. The felony committed
is not the proximate cause of the resulting
injury when the resulting injury is due to the
intentional act of the victim.
In crimes of personal violence. When death
resulted, even if there was no intent to kill, the
crime is homicide, not just physical injuries, since
with respect to crimes of personal violence, the
penal law looks particularly to the material results
following the unlawful act and holds the
aggressor responsible for all the consequences
thereof. [Seguritan v. People (2010)]
Page 18 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
When injury results to death.
People v. Mananquil (1964): Accused went the
NAWASA building in Pasay City where her
husband, Elias Day y Pablo, was working as a
security guard. She poured gasoline on him,
and set him on fire. The husband suffered
burns and injuries causing him to contract
pneumonia which led to his death. Accused
claims that the pneumonia, and not the
burns, was the reason behind her husband’s
death.
Held: One who inflicts injury on another is
deemed guilty of homicide if the injury
contributes immediately or immediately to
the death of such other. The fact that other
causes contribute to the death does not
relieve the actor of responsibility. He would
still be liable "even if the deceased might
recovered if he had taken proper care of
himself, or submitted to surgical operation, or
that unskilled or improper treatment
aggravated the wound and contributed to the
death, or that death was caused by a surgical
operation rendered necessary by the
condition of the wound.”
Concurrent causation.
People v. Abiog (1917): The victim was shot by
appellant Vicente, and after that, the former
was wounded by appellant Luis with a bolo.
Victim died after. Since conspiracy was
neither alleged nor proven, should both
appellants—by their individual actions--be
convicted for homicide?
Held: Although a man cannot be killed twice,
two persons, acting independently, may
contribute to his death and each be guilty of a
homicide. A person dying is still in life, and
may be killed, but if he is dying from a wound
given by another both may properly be said to
have contributed to his death.
It has been ruled that, 'if a person receives a
wound willfully inflicted by another, which
might cause death, and death actually
follows, the burden is on him who inflicted it
to show that it did not cause the death.'
Applied to the present facts, for Vicente
UP LAW BOC
escape culpability, it was incumbent upon
him to prove that the death resulted from a
cause other than the wound inflicted by him.
For Luis to escape culpability, a similar
burden of proof was on him. The two
defendants cannot jointly escape by merely
standing still and doing nothing.
a. Error in personae
Mistaken identity. A felony is intended, but
there is a mistake in the identity of the victim;
injuring one person mistaken for another.
People v. Gona (1930): There was a reunion
that involved some drinks. With ill-will, Gona,
the accused, leaves with the intention to kill
Dunca. But he kills Mapudal instead due to
darkness and intoxication. The issue is
whether or not Gona should be charged with
intentional homicide or homicide through
negligence.
Held: Intentional homicide. Mistake in killing
of man instead of another, with proof of
acting maliciously and willfully, does not
relieve him of criminal responsibility.
Penalty. Article 49 only applies to crimes that
befall on the wrong person. [People v.
Alburquerque (1933)]
Article 49. Penalty to be imposed upon the
principals when the crime committed is
different from that intended. - In cases in
which the felony committed is different from
that which the offender intended to commit,
the following rules shall be observed:
1. If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed be higher than that
corresponding to the offense which the
accused intended to commit, the penalty
corresponding to the latter shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
2. If the penalty prescribed for the felony
committed be lower than that
corresponding to the one which the
accused intended to commit, the penalty
for the former shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
3. The rule established by the next
preceding paragraph shall not be
applicable if the acts committed by the
guilty person shall also constitute an
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
attempt or frustration of another crime, if
the law prescribes a higher penalty for
either of the latter offenses, in which case
the penalty provided for the attempted or
the frustrated crime shall be imposed in
its maximum period.
b. Aberratio ictus
Mistake in blow. When offender intending to
do an injury to one person actually inflicts it
on another.
See art. 49(3) of RPC. Compare with complex
crime.
People v. Esteban (1981): Esteban shot
Maravilla. In shooting Maravilla, he also
accidentally killed Maravilla’s wife, who was
sleeping in the house. The issue is whether or
not Esteban is guilty of frustrated murder; or
consummated murder and frustrated murder.
Held: Esteban is guilty of murder and
frustrated murder.
Can aggravating circumstance of treachery
apply in a case of aberratio ictus?
People v. Samson (2015): Adriano and his
group ambushed to kill a police officer. In the
process, stray bullets hit an innocent
bystander and was killed. Adriano and others
were convicted of murder, qualified by
treachery, in the death of the police officer.
The question is whether or not treachery can
qualify the death of someone (e.g., the
innocent bystander) that was a victim of
aberratio ictus.
Held: The Supreme Court ruled in the
affirmative. In Flora, the accused was
convicted of two separate counts of murder:
for the killing of two victims, Emerita, the
intended victim, and Ireneo, the victim killed
by a stray bullet. The Court, due to the
presence of the aggravating circumstance of
treachery, qualified both killings to murder.
The material facts in Flora are similar in the
case at bar. Thus, the Supreme Court follows
the Flora doctrine.
Page 19 of 407
UP LAW BOC
c. Praeter intentionem
See mitigating circumstance of not intending
so grave a wrong.
Treachery appreciated.
People v. Cagoco (1932): Cagoco (accused)
boxed the back of Yu Lon’s head, causing him
to fall to the ground and to suffer from
lacerations in the scalp and a fracture on his
skull. This resulted in his death. The issue is
whether or not Cagoco’s lack of intent to kill
Yu would change his conviction from murder
to maltreatment
Held: It is still murder, as treachery exists.
There is no doubt as to the cause of death of
Yu Lon - which occurred as a direct
consequence of the blow dealt by the
accused. The fact that he did not intend to
cause so great an injury does not relieve him
from the consequences of his unlawful act—it
is merely a mitigating circumstance.
People v. Ortega (1997): A person who
commits a felony is liable for the direct,
natural and logical consequences of his
wrongful act even where the resulting crime
is more serious than that intended. Hence, an
accused who originally intended to conceal
and to bury what he thought was the lifeless
body of the victim can be held liable as a
principal, not simply as an accessory, where it
is proven that the said victim was actually
alive but subsequently died as a direct result
of such concealment and burial.
Nonetheless, in the present case,
Appellant Garcia cannot be held liable as a
principal because the prosecution failed to
allege such death through drowning in the
Information. Neither may said appellant be
held liable as an accessory due to his
relationship with the principal killer,
Appellant Ortega, who is his brother-in-law.
Wrongful act done different from that
intended, but not praeter intentionem.
People v. Sales (2011): In order that a person
may be criminally liable for a felony different
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
from that which he intended to commit, it is
indispensable (a) that a felony was
committed and (b) that the wrong done to the
aggrieved person be the direct consequence
of the crime committed by the perpetrator.
Here, there is no doubt appellant in beating
his son Noemar and inflicting upon him
physical injuries, committed a felony. As a
direct consequence of the beating suffered by
the child, he expired. Appellant’s criminal
liability for the death of his son, Noemar, is
thus clear. Appellant is guilty of parricide.
However, there was error when the trial court
appreciated the mitigating circumstance of
lack of intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Appellant adopted means to ensure the
success of the savage battering of his sons.
He tied their wrists to a coconut tree to
prevent their escape while they were battered
with a stick to inflict as much pain as
possible. Noemar suffered injuries in his face,
head and legs that immediately caused his
death. The mitigating circumstance of lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong as that
actually perpetrated cannot be appreciated
where the acts employed by the accused were
reasonably sufficient to produce and did
actually produce the death of the victim.
C.2. FELONIES BY CULPA
Culpa. The act or omission is not malicious;
the injury caused being simply the incident of
another act performed without malice. The
element of criminal intent is replaced by
negligence, imprudence, lack of foresight or
lack of skill.
Reason. A man must use his common sense
and exercise due reflection in all his acts; it is
his duty to be cautious, careful and prudent
and not to expose other people’s lives and
property at risk of injury or damage.
See discussion on art. 365..
Requisites.
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Negligence, reckless imprudence, lack of
foresight or lack of skill
Page 20 of 407
UP LAW BOC
4. Resulting harm or injury
Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro (2010):
Reckless Imprudence is a single crime, its
consequences on persons and property are
material only to determine the penalty.
Quasi-offenses, whether reckless or simple,
are distinct species of crime, separately
defined and penalized under the framework
of our penal laws. As early as the middle of
the last century, the Court already sought to
bring clarity to this field by rejecting in
Quizon v. Justice of the Peace of Pampanga
the proposition that "reckless imprudence is
not a crime in itself but simply a way of
committing it.
It is not a mere question of classification or
terminology. In intentional crimes, the act
itself is punished; in negligence or
imprudence, what is principally penalized is
the mental attitude or condition behind the
act, the dangerous recklessness, lack of care
or foresight, the imprudencia punible.
The law penalizes thus the negligent or
careless act, not the result thereof. The
gravity of the consequence is only taken into
account to determine the penalty, it does not
qualify the substance of the offense. And, as
the careless act is single, whether the
injurious result should affect one person or
several persons, the offense (criminal
negligence) remains one and the same, and
cannot be split into different crimes and
prosecutions.
Negligence. Indicates deficiency of
perception, failure to pay proper attention,
and to use diligence in foreseeing the injury
or damage impending to be caused. Usually
involves lack of foresight.
Imprudence. Indicates deficiency of action,
failure to take the necessary precaution to
avoid injury to person or damage to property.
Usually involves lack of skill.
Resulting harm or injury. Unless the
negligent or imprudent act results in harm or
injury to another, there is no criminal liability.
In other words, no matter how reckless one
drives his car, he does not incur criminal
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
liability for culpa if no one is killed or injured,
or property is damaged.
Doctrines on culpable crimes.
1. Emergency Rule. A person who is
confronted with a sudden emergency may be
left no time for thought so he must make a
speedy decision based largely upon impulse
or instinct [Gan v. CA (1988)].
Importance. Cannot be held to the same
conduct as one who has had an opportunity
to reflect, even though it later appears that
he made the wrong decision.
2. Doctrine of “Last Clear Chance.” Clear
Chance is a defense by the defendant in a
damage suit against liability by transferring it
to the plaintiff.
Exceptions.
a. The contributory negligence of the party
injured will NOT defeat the action if it be
shown that the accused might, by the
exercise of reasonable care and
prudence, have avoided the
consequences of the negligence of the
injured party.
b. The doctrine is not applicable in criminal
cases because the liability is penal in
nature and thus liability cannot be
transferred to the other party. [Anuran v.
Buno (1966)]
c. It is not a case between two parties
involved in an incident but rather
between an individual and the State.
3. Rule of Negative Ingredient. This rule states
that:
a. The prosecution must first identify what
the accused failed to do.
b. Once this is done, the burden of evidence
shifts to the accused.
c. The accused must show that the failure
did not set in motion the chain of events
leading to the injury [Carillo v. People
(1994)].
When results are not identifiable. This is
related to the doctrine of proximate cause
Page 21 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
and applicable when certain causes leading
to the result are not identifiable.
D. IMPOSSIBLE CRIMES
Purpose. To suppress criminal propensity or
criminal tendencies. Objectively, the offender
has not committed a felony, but subjectively,
he is a criminal.
Requisites.
1. That the act performed would be an
offense against persons or property.
2. That the act was done with evil intent.
3. That its accomplishment is inherently
impossible, or that the means employed
is either inadequate or ineffectual.
4. That the act performed should not
constitute a violation of another provision
of the RPC.
Inadequate. Insufficient (e.g. small quantity
Intod v. CA (1992): In this case, four culprits, all
armed with firearms and with intent to kill, went
to the intended victim’s house and after having
pinpointed the latter’s bedroom, all four fired at
and riddled the said room with bullets, thinking
that the intended victim was already there as it
was about 10:00 in the evening.
It so happened that the intended victim did not
come home that evening and so was not in her
bedroom at that time.
Eventually the culprits were prosecuted and
convicted by the trial court for attempted
murder.
CA affirmed the judgment but the SC modified
the same and held the petitioner liable only for
the so-called impossible crime. SC held that
there was factual impossibility in this case,
when the petitioner shoots the place where he
thought his victim would be, although in reality,
the victim was not present in said place and
thus, the petitioner failed to accomplish his end.
As a result, petitioner-accused was sentenced to
imprisonment of only six months of arresto
mayor for the felonious act he committed with
intent to kill: this despite the destruction done
to the intended victim’s house.
Page 22 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
of poison).
Ineffectual. Means employed did not produce
the result expected (e.g. pressed the trigger
of the gun not knowing that it is empty).
Inherent impossibility. The act intended by
the offender is by its nature one of impossible
accomplishment.
Physical or factual impossibility. Extraneous
circumstances unknown to the actor or
beyond his control prevent the
consummation of the intended crime.
Impossibility of accomplishing the criminal
intent is not a defense but an act penalized in
itself.
No attempted or frustrated impossible crime.
Since the offender in an impossible crime has
already performed the acts for the execution
of the same, there could be no attempted
impossible crime. There is no frustrated
impossible crime either, because the acts
performed by the offender are considered as
constituting a consummated offense.
Legal impossibility. Legal impossibility would
apply to those circumstances where
(1) the motive, desire and expectation is to
perform an act in violation of the law; (2)
there is intention to perform the physical act;
(3) there is a performance of the intended
physical act; and (4) the consequence
resulting from the intended act does not
amount to a crime. [Intod v. CA (1992)]
Example: Killing a person who is already
dead.
Can one steal what belongs to him? No. One
cannot be charged with the impossible crime
of theft by “stealing” what entirely belongs to
him. The elements of (a) unlawful taking, and
(b) that the property belongs to another are
absent. [Carreon v. Flores (1975)]
Jacinto v. People (2009): Appellant was a
former collector for her employer-
corporation. After her resignation, she
managed to collect postdated checks from
her employer’s clients and appropriated
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
these for herself. However, the checks were
dishonored by the banks. The issue is
whether or not appellant should be charged
with qualified theft for the theft of worthless
checks.
Held: As may be gleaned from the art. 308 of
the RPC, in rel. to art. 310, the personal
property subject of the theft must have some
value, as the intention of the accused is
to gain from the thing stolen. This is further
bolstered by Article 309, where the law
provides that the penalty to be imposed on
the accused is dependent on the value of the
thing stolen. In this case, petitioner
unlawfully took the postdated check
belonging to Mega Foam, but the same was
apparently without value, as it was
subsequently dishonored.
In Intod, the Court went on to give an
example of an offense that involved factual
impossibility, i.e., a man puts his hand in the
coat pocket of another with the intention to
steal the latter's wallet, but gets nothing
since the pocket is empty.
Herein petitioner's case is closely akin to the
above example of factual impossibility given
in Intod. In this case, petitioner performed all
the acts to consummate the crime of qualified
theft, which is a crime against
property. Petitioner's evil intent cannot be
denied, as the mere act of unlawfully taking
the check meant for Mega Foam showed her
intent to gain or be unjustly enriched. Were it
not for the fact that the check bounced, she
would have received the face value thereof,
which was not rightfully hers. Therefore, it
Page 23 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
was only due to the extraneous circumstance
of the check being unfunded, a fact unknown
to petitioner at the time, that prevented the
crime from being produced. As such, she
should be charged for impossible crime, and
not with consummated qualified theft.
E. STAGES OF EXECUTION
Classification under Art. 6:
Consummated Felony – When all the
elements necessary for its execution and
accomplishment are present; the felony is
produced.
Frustrated Felony – When the offender
performs all the acts of execution which
would produce the felony as a consequence
but which, nevertheless, do not produce it by
reason of causes independent of the will of
the perpetrator.
Attempted Felony – When the offender
commences the commission of a felony
directly by overt acts, and does not perform
all the acts of execution which should
produce the felony by reason of some cause
or accident other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

ELEMENTS OF
CRIMINAL IMPOSSIBLE CRIME ATTEMPTED FRUSTRATED CONSUMMATED
LIABILITY
Intervention
other than own
Actus Reus ✓ desistance; ✓ ✓
some but not
all acts of
execution
Mens Rea ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Concurrence ✓ ✓ ✓ ✓
Result Lacking due to:   Not produced by ✓
inherent impossibility reason of causes
or independent of the
employment of will of the
inadequate means perpetrator
Causation    ✓

Page 24 of 407
UP LAW BOC
DEVELOPMENT OF A CRIME
a. INTERNAL ACTS
• Intent, ideas and plans; generally not
punishable, even if, had they been carried
out, they would constitute a crime
• The intention and act must concur.
• Illustration: Ernie plans to kill Bert
b. EXTERNAL ACTS
1. Preparatory Acts
• Acts tending toward the crime.
• Ordinarily not punished except when
considered by law as independent
crimes (i.e. Art. 304 – possession of
picklocks)
• Proposal and conspiracy to commit a
felony are not punishable except
when the law provides for their
punishment in certain felonies
• These acts do not yet constitute even
the first stage of the acts of
execution.
• Intent not yet disclosed.
• Illustration: Ernie goes to the kitchen
to get a knife.
2. Acts of Execution
• Usually overt acts with a logical
relation to a particular concrete
offense.
• Punishable under the RPC.
• Illustration: Ernie stabs Bert
A commission of the felony is deemed
commenced when the following are present:
1. There are external acts.
2. Such external acts have a direct
connection with the crime intended to be
committed.
Indeterminate Offense – It is one where the
intent of the offender in performing an act is
not certain. Its nature in relation to its
objective is ambiguous. The intention of the
accused must be viewed from the nature of
the acts executed by him and the attendant
circumstances, and not from his admission.
The accused may be convicted of a felony
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
defined by the acts performed by him up to
the time of desistance.
People v. Lamahang (1935): Aurelio
Lamahang was caught opening with an iron
bar a wall of a store of cheap goods in
Fuentes St. Iloilo. He broke one board and
was unfastening another when a patrolling
police caught him. The owners of the store
were sleeping inside store as it was early
dawn. Lamahang was then convicted of
attempted robbery.
Held: The crime committed was only
attempted trespass to dwelling. Attempt
should have logical relation to a
particular and concrete offense which would
lead directly to consummation. It is necessary
to establish an unavoidable connection &
logical & natural relation of cause and effect.
It’s also important to show clear intent to
commit crime. In the case at bar, we can only
infer that his intent was to enter by force,
other inferences are not justified by facts.
Groizard: infer only from nature of acts
executed. Acts susceptible of double
interpretation can’t furnish ground for
themselves. The mind should not directly
infer intent.
THREE FACTORS TO DETERMINE STAGE OF
COMMISSION
These three factors are helpful in trying to
pinpoint whether the crime is still in its
attempted, frustrated or consummated
stage.
1. MANNER OF COMMITTING THE CRIME
a. Formal Crimes - consummated in one
instant, no attempt.
• Ex. Slander and false testimony
• There can be no attempt, because
between the thought and the deed, there
is no chain of acts that can be severed.
b. Crimes consummated by mere attempt or
proposal by overt act.
• Ex. Flight to enemy’s country (Art. 121)
and corruption of minors (Art. 340)
Page 25 of 407
UP LAW BOC
c. Felony by omission
• There can be no attempted stage when
the felony is by omission, because the
offender does not execute acts, rather he
omits to perform an act which the law
requires him to do.
d. Crimes requiring the intervention of two
persons to commit them are consummated by
mere agreement.
• In bribery, the manner of committing the
crime requires the meeting of the minds
between the giver and the receiver.
• In betting in sports contests and
corruption of public officer (Art. 197 and
Art. 212), the manner of committing the
crime requires the meeting of the minds
between the giver and the receiver.
• When the giver delivers the money to the
supposed receiver, but there is no
meeting of the minds, the only act done
by the giver is an attempt.
e. Material Crimes – have three stages of
execution
• Thus, in determining the stage of some
crimes, the manner of execution becomes
pivotal in determining the end of the
subjective phase, i.e. once the offender
performs the act in the manner provided
for in the law, he is already deemed to
have performed every act for its execution.
2. ELEMENTS OF THE CRIME
• Along with the manner of execution,
there are crimes wherein the existence of
certain elements becomes the factor in
determining its consummation.
• In the crime of estafa, the element of
damage is essential before the crime
could be consummated. If there is no
damage, even if the offender succeeded
in carting away the personal property
involved, estafa cannot be considered as
consummated.
• On the other hand, if it were a crime of
theft, damage or intent to cause damage
is not an element of theft. What is
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
necessary only is intent to gain, not even
gain is important.
• In the crime of abduction, the crucial
element is the taking away of the woman
with lewd designs.
3. NATURE OF CRIME ITSELF
• In defining the frustrated stage of crimes
involving the taking of human life
(parricide, homicide, and murder), it is
indispensable that the victim be mortally
wounded.
• Hence, the general rule is that there must
be a fatal injury inflicted, because it is
only then that death will follow.
E.1. ATTEMPTED
Elements:
1. The offender commences the commission
of the felony directly by overt acts;
2. He does not perform all the acts of
execution which should produce the
felony;
3. The non-performance of all acts of
execution was due to cause or accident
other than his own spontaneous
desistance.
Overt Act – Some physical activity or deed,
indicating the intention to commit a
particular crime, more than a mere planning
or preparation, which if carried to its
complete termination following its natural
course, without being frustrated by external
obstacles nor by the voluntary desistance of
the perpetrator, will logically and necessarily
ripen into a concrete offense.
Marks the commencement of the subjective
phase:
• Subjective phase - That portion of the acts
constituting a crime, starting from the
point where the offender begins the
commission of the crime to that point
where he still has control over his acts
including their (act’s) natural course
• If between those two points, the offender
is stopped by reason of any cause outside
of his own voluntary desistance, the
Page 26 of 407
UP LAW BOC
subjective phase has not been passed
and it is merely an attempt.
• Desistance – is an absolutory cause which
negates criminal liability because the law
encourages a person to desist from
committing a crime.
• But, it does not negate all criminal
liability, if the desistance was made when
acts done by him already resulted in a
felony, the offender will still be criminally
liable for the felony brought about by his
act.
• What is negated is only the attempted
stage, but there may be other felonies
arising from his act.
• Example: An attempt to kill that results in
physical injuries leads to liability for the
injuries inflicted
Note: Desistance is recognized only in the
attempted stage of the felony.
• If the felony is already in its frustrated
stage, desistance will NOT negate
criminal liability.
• In the attempted stage, the definition
uses the word “directly.”
• The word “directly” emphasizes the
requirement that the attempted
felony is that which is directly linked
to the overt act performed by the
offender, not the felony he has in his
mind.
• There are some acts which are
ingredients only of a crime, such as in
the case of People v. Lamahang
(1935) where the act of removing the
wall panels indicates only at most the
intention to enter. Thus, he can only
be prosecuted for Attempted
Trespass and not Attempted
Robbery.
People v. Campuhan (2000):
The mother of the 4-year-old victim caught
the houseboy Campuhan in the act of almost
raping her daughter.
The hymen of the victim was still intact.
However, since it was decided in People v.
Orita that entry into labia is considered rape
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
even without rupture and full penetration of
the hymen, a question arises whether what
transpired was attempted or consummated
rape.
Held:
• There was only attempted rape.
• Mere touching of external genitalia by the
penis is already rape.
• Touching should be understood as
inherently part of entry of penis
penetration and not mere touching, in the
ordinary sense, of the pudendum.
• Requires entry into the labia, even if there
be no rupture of the hymen or laceration
of the vagina, to warrant a conviction for
consummated rape.
• Where entry into the labia has not been
established, the crime amounts to an
attempted rape.
• The prosecution did not prove that
Campuhan’s penis was able to penetrate
victim’s vagina because the kneeling
position of the accused obstructed the
mother’s view of the alleged sexual
contact. The testimony of the victim
herself claimed that penis grazed but did
not penetrate her organ.
• There was only a shelling of the castle
but no bombardment of the drawbridge
yet.
E.2. FRUSTRATED
Elements:
1. The offender performs all the acts of
execution;
2. All the acts performed would produce the
felony as a consequence;
3. But the felony is not produced;
4. By reason of causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator.
• The end of the subjective phase and
the beginning of the objective phase.
• Objective phase – the result of the
acts of execution, that is, the
accomplishment of the crime.
Page 27 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
• If the subjective and objective phases
have been passed there is a
consummated felony.
People v. Listerio (2000): Brothers Jeonito
and Marlon were walking when they met a
group composed of men who blocked their
path and attacked them with lead pipes and
bladed weapons. One stabbed Jeonito from
behind. Jeonito’s brother, Marlon, was hit on
the head.
Held:
• The SC held that the crime is a frustrated
felony not an attempted offense
considering that after being stabbed and
clubbed twice in the head as a result of
which he lost consciousness and fell.
Marlon's attackers apparently thought he
was already dead and fled.
• A crime cannot be held to be attempted
unless the offender, after beginning the
commission of the crime by overt acts, is
prevented, against his will, by some
outside cause from performing all of the
acts which should produce the crime.
• In other words, to be an attempted crime,
the purpose of the offender must be
thwarted by a foreign force or agency
which intervenes and compels him to
stop prior to the moment when he has
performed all of the acts which should
produce the crime as a consequence,
which acts it is his intention to perform.
• If he has performed all the acts which
should result in the consummation of the
crime and voluntarily desists from
proceeding further, it cannot be an
attempt, but is a frustrated felony.
Crimes which do not admit of frustrated stage
1. Rape
• The essence of the crime is carnal
knowledge.
• No matter what the offender may do
to accomplish a penetration, if there
was no penetration yet, it cannot be
said that the offender has performed
all the acts of execution.
Page 28 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
• We can only say that the offender in
rape has performed all the acts of
execution when he has effected a
penetration.
• Once there is penetration, no matter
how slight it is, the offense is
consummated. For this reason, rape
admits only of the attempted and
consummated stages, no frustrated
stage. [People v. Orita]
2. Arson
• One cannot say that the offender, in
the crime of arson, has already
performed all the acts of execution
which could produce the destruction
of the premises through the use of
fire, unless a part of the premises has
begun to burn.
• The crime of arson is therefore
consummated even if only a portion
of the wall or any part of the house is
burned. The consummation of the
crime of arson does not depend upon
the extent of the damage caused.
(People v. Hernandez)
3. Bribery and Corruption of Public Officers
• The manner of committing the crime
requires the meeting of the minds
between the giver and the receiver.
• If there is a meeting of the minds,
there is consummated bribery or
consummated corruption.
• If there is none, it is only attempted.
4. Adultery
• This requires the sexual contact
between two participants.
• If that link is present, the crime is
consummated.
5. Physical Injuries
• Under the Revised Penal Code, the
crime of physical injuries is penalized
on the basis of the gravity of the
injuries. There is no simple crime of
physical injuries. There is the need to
categorize because there are specific
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

articles that apply whether the Due to

physical injuries are serious, less reasons Due to
serious or slight. Thus, one could not other than intervening
punish the attempted or frustrated the causes
Why
stage because one does not know spontaneou independent of
what degree of physical injury was s desistance the will of the
committed unless it is consummated. of the perpetrator
perpetrator
Offender is
6. Theft Offender
already in the
still in
• Once there is unlawful taking, theft is objective phase
subjective
consummated. because all acts
phase
• Either the thing was taken or not. Position in because he
of execution are
• It does not matter how long the already present
the still has
property was in the possession of the and the cause of
Timeline control of
accused; it does not matter whether its non-
his acts,
the property was disposed or not accomplishmen
including
t is other than
their natural
the offender’s
Rule of thumb: Felonies that do not require cause.
will
any result do not have a frustrated stage.

Attempted and Frustrated Felonies – The

difference between the attempted stage and E.3. CONSUMMATED
the frustrated stage lies in whether the
offender has performed all the acts of If the subjective and objective phases have
execution for the accomplishment of a felony. been completed.
Attempted Frustrated
Felony Felony F. CONTINUING CRIMES

Definition. This is a single crime consisting of

a series of acts arising from a single criminal
resolution or intent not susceptible of
division. In order that it may exist, there
Real or material should be "plurality of acts performed
Continuing crime separately during a period of time; unity of
plurality
There is a series of acts performed by the penal provision infringed upon or violated
offender. and unity of criminal intent and
Each act performed The different acts purpose, which means that two or more
constitutes a constitute only one violations of the same penal provision are
separate crime crime because all of united in one and the same intent leading to
because each act is the acts performed the perpetration of the same criminal
generated by a arise from one purpose or aim.” [Gamboa v. CA (1975)]
criminal impulse criminal resolution.
Overt acts of All acts of Requisites.
execution execution are 1. Plurality of acts;
Acts are started finished 2. Unity of penal provision infringed upon;
Performe BUT BUT and
d Not all acts Crime sought to 3. Unity of criminal intent and purpose.
of execution be committed is
are present not achieved

Page 29 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Distinguished from transitory crime. The
criminal action may be instituted and tried in
the court of the municipality, city or province
wherein any of the essential ingredients
thereof took place. The sole import of this
characterization as transitory is that the
necessary elements of the crime
may separately take place in different
territorial jurisdictions until the crime itself
is consummated.
Old jurisprudence. To make Article 48
applicable to continuing crimes, there must
be singularity of criminal act; singularity of
criminal impulse is not written into the law.
[Gamboa v. CA, supra] For example,
the act of taking the two roosters, in response
to the unity of thought in the criminal
purpose on one occasion, constitutes a single
crime of theft.
Gamboa v. CA (1975): There is plurality of
crimes or "concurso de delitos" when the
actor commits various delictual acts of the
same or different kind. "Ideal plurality" or
"concurso ideal" occurs when a single act
gives rise to various infractions of law. This is
illustrated by the very article under
consideration: (a) when a single act
constitutes two or more grave or less grave
felonies (described as "delito compuesto" or
compound crime); and (b) when an offense is
a necessary means for committing another
offense (described as "delito complejo" or
complex proper). "Real plurality" or
"concurso real", on the other hand, arises
when the accused performs an act or
different acts with distinct purposes and
resulting in different crimes which are
juridically independent. Unlike "ideal
plurality", this "real plurality" is not governed
by Article 48.
Apart and isolated from this plurality of
crimes (ideal or real) is what is known as
"delito continuado" or "continuous crime".
This is a single crime consisting of a series of
acts arising from a single criminal resolution
or intent not susceptible of division.
One larceny doctrine. The current prosecution
of theft cases is more in line with the Gamboa
Page 30 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
understanding of delito continuado. The
trend is to follow the single larceny doctrine:
1. taking of several things,
2. whether belonging to the same or
different owners,
3. at the same time and place, constitutes
one larceny only.
Recent jurisprudence. Crimes committed by
means of separate acts were held to be
complex on the theory that they were the
product of a single criminal impulse or intent
[People v. Pincalin (1981)]
As long as single criminal impulse. The
Supreme Court has extended this class of
complex crime to those cases when the
offender performed not a single act but a
series of acts as long as it is the product of a
single criminal impulse.
People v. Garcia (1980): The accused were
convicts who were members of a certain gang
and they conspired to kill the other gang.
Some of the accused killed their victims in
one place within the same penitentiary, some
killed the others in another place within the
same penitentiary
Held: This case is covered by the rule that
when for the attainment of a single purpose,
which constitutes an offense, various acts are
executed, such acts must be considered as
only one offense, a complex one.
In other words, when a conspiracy animates
several persons with a single purpose, their
individual acts in pursuance of that purpose
are treated as a single act, the act of
execution, which gives rise to a complex
offense. The felonious agreement produces a
sole and solidary liability
How applied. Whenever the Supreme Court
concludes that the criminals should be
punished only once, because they acted in
conspiracy or under the same criminal
impulse:
1. It is necessary to embody these crimes
under one single information.
2. It is necessary to consider them as
complex crimes even if the essence of the
crime does not fit the definition of Art 48,
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

because there is no other provision in the Hence, there is only one penalty imposed for
RPC. the commission of a complex crime.

Another example of continuing crime G.1. COMPOUND CRIME

consistent with recent jurisprudence.
Art. 48. Penalty for complex crimes.
People v. Sabbun (1964): There was illegal
When a single act constitutes two or more
charging of fees for service rendered by a
grave or less grave felonies, or when an
lawyer every time he collected veteran’s
offense is a necessary means for committing
benefits on behalf of a client who agreed that
the other, the penalty for the most serious
attorney’s fees shall be paid out of such
crime shall be imposed, the same to be
benefits. The collections of legal fees were
applied in its maximum period
impelled by the same motive, that of
collecting fees for services rendered, and all
acts of collection were made under the same
Requisites.
criminal impulse.
1. That only a single act is performed by the
Application to special laws. The concept of offender
delito continuado has been applied to crimes 2. That the single acts produces:
under special laws since in Art. 10, the RPC a. 2 or more grave felonies, or
shall be supplementary to special laws, b. 1 or more grave and 1 or more less
unless the latter provides the contrary. grave felonies, or
c. 2 or more less grave felonies
G. COMPLEX AND COMPOSITE CRIMES
Single Act Several Acts
Submachine gun –
Plurality. Actor commits various delictual Throwing a
because of the number of
acts. hand grenade
bullets released
A single bullet
Real or material plurality. Firing of the revolver twice
killing two
in succession
a. There are different crimes in law as well person
as in the conscience of the offender.
b. In such cases, the offender shall be
punished for each and every offense that Light felonies. Light felonies produced by the
he committed. same act should be treated and punished as
separate offenses or may be absorbed by the
Ideal plurality (complex crime). A single act grave felony.
gives rise to various infractions of law.
Examples of compound crime.
a. Compound crime (delito compuesto) – a
single act constitutes two or more grave a. The victim was killed while discharging
or less grave felonies. his duty as barangay captain to protect
b. Complex crime proper (delito complejo) – life and property and enforce law and
an offense is a necessary means to order in his barrio. The crime is a complex
commit another offense. crime of homicide with assault upon a
c. Special complex crime (delito especial person in authority.
complejo) – the law fixes one penalty for b. When in obedience to an order several
two or more crimes committed. accused simultaneously shot many
persons, without evidence how many
each killed, there is only a single offense,
Why only one penalty is imposed. They there being a single criminal impulse.
constitute only one crime in the eyes of the
law, and in the conscience of the offender.
Page 31 of 407
UP LAW BOC
No complex crime of criminal negligence.
Article 48 does not define a crime.
Article 48 does not apply to acts penalized
under Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code.
Article 48 is a procedural device allowing
single prosecution of multiple felonies falling
under either of two categories: (1) when a
single act constitutes two or more grave or
less grave felonies (thus excluding from its
operation light felonies); and (2) when an
offense is a necessary means for committing
the other. The legislature crafted this
procedural tool to benefit the accused who, in
lieu of serving multiple penalties, will only
serve the maximum of the penalty for the
most serious crime.
In contrast, Article 365 is a substantive rule
penalizing not an act defined as a felony but
"the mental attitude behind the act, the
dangerous recklessness, lack of care or
foresight, a single mental attitude regardless
of the resulting consequences. Thus, Article
365 was crafted as one quasi-crime resulting
in one or more consequences. [Ivler v.
Modesto-San Pedro (2010)]
Article 48 also does not apply to acts
penalized under Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code. Article 48 is a procedural device
allowing single prosecution of multiple
felonies falling under either of two categories:
(1) when a single act constitutes two or more
grave or less grave felonies (thus excluding
from its operation light felonies); and (2)
when an offense is a necessary means for
committing the other. The legislature crafted
this procedural tool to benefit the accused
who, in lieu of serving multiple penalties, will
only serve the maximum of the penalty for
the most serious crime.
When actual crime different from that
intended. Article 48 applies in cases of
aberratio ictus or mistake in blow; when
offender intending to do an injury to one
person actually inflicts it on another.
Example. A, having discharged his firearm at
B but because of lack of precision, hit and
seriously wounded C, would be guilty of
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
frustrated homicide with attempted
homicide.
G.2. COMPLEX CRIME PROPER (DELITO
COMPLEJO)
Requisites.
1. That at least two offenses are committed
2. That one or some of the offenses must be
necessary to commit the other
3. That both or all the offenses must be
punished under the same statute.
“Necessary means.” The phrase “necessary
means” does not mean “indispensable
means”
When no complex crime proper.
a. Subsequent acts of intercourse, after
forcible abduction with rape, are separate
acts of rape.
b. Not complex crime when trespass to
dwelling is a direct means to commit a
grave offense.
c. No complex crime, when one offense is
committed to conceal the other.
d. When the offender already had in his
possession the funds which he
misappropriated, the subsequent
falsification of a public or official
document involving said offense is a
separate offense.
e. No complex crime where one of the
offenses is penalized by a special law.
f. There is no complex crime of rebellion
with murder, arson, robbery, or other
common crimes [People v. Hernandez
(1956); Enrile v. Salazar (1990)]
g. In case of continuous crimes.
h. When the other crime is an indispensable
element of the other offense.
General rules in complexing crimes.
1. When two crimes produced by a single
act are respectively within the exclusive
jurisdiction of two courts of different
jurisdiction, the court of higher
jurisdiction shall try the complex crime.
Page 32 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

2. The penalty for complex crime is the
penalty for the most serious crime, the
same to be applied in its maximum
period.
3. When two felonies constituting a complex
crime are punishable by imprisonment
and fine, respectively, only the penalty of
imprisonment should be imposed.
4. Art. 48 applies only to cases where the
Code does not provide a definite specific
penalty for a complex crime.
5. One information should be filed when a
complex crime is committed.
6. When a complex crime is charged and
one offense is not proven, the accused
can be convicted of the other.
When rules in Article 48 are NOT applicable.
1. When the crimes subject of the case have
common elements;
2. When the crimes involved are subject to
the rule of absorption of one crime by the
other;
3. Where the two offenses resulting from a
single act are specifically punished as a
single crime, such as less serious physical
injuries with serious slander of deed,
since this is punished under Article 265
par. 2, as the single crime of less serious
physical injuries with ignominy;
4. In special complex crimes or composite
crimes.
1. Robbery with Homicide (Art. 294 (1))
2. Robbery with Rape (Art. 294 (2))
3. Robbery with Arson
4. Kidnapping with serious physical injuries
(Art. 267 (3))
5. Kidnapping with rape
6. Rape with Homicide (Art. 335)
7. Arson with homicide
When crimes involved cannot be legally
complexed.
1. Malicious obtention or abusive service
of search warrant (Art. 129) with
perjury;
2. Bribery (Art. 210) with infidelity in the
custody of prisoners;
3. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235)
with serious physical injuries;
4. Usurpation of real rights (Art. 312)
with serious physical injuries; and
5. Abandonment of persons in danger
(Art. 275) and crimes against minors
(Art. 276 to 278) with any other
felony.

G.3. SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES

In substance, there is more than one crime;
but from in the eys of the law, there is only
one. The law treats it as a single crime for
which it prescribes a single penalty. For a
special complex crime, in substance is made
up of more than one crime but which in the
eyes of the law is only:
1. a single indivisible offense.
2. all those acts done in pursuance of the
crime agreed upon are acts which
constitute a single crime.

Common special complex crimes.

Page 33 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

both criminal and civil liability. Lack of dolo is

III. CIRCUMSTANCES basis.
AFFECTING CRIMINAL Criminal and civil liability. There is NO crime
LIABILITY committed, the act being justified. Thus, such
persons cannot be considered criminals.
There is no civil liability EXCEPT in par. 4, Art.
Imputability. Is the quality by which an act 11 (avoidance of greater evil), where the civil
may be ascribed to a person as its author or liability is borne by the persons benefited by
owner. It implies that the act committed has the act in proportion to the benefit they may
been freely and consciously done and may, have received (Art. 101).
therefore, be put down to the doer as his very
own. Burden of proof. The burden of proof rests on
the accused, who must prove the
Responsibility. Is the obligation of suffering circumstance by clear and convincing
the consequences of crime. It is the obligation evidence.
of taking the penal and civil consequences of
the crime. Justifying and exempting circumstances,
distinguished.
Imputability distinguished from responsibility.
While imputability implies that a deed may
be imputed to a person, responsibility implies
that the person must take the consequences
of such a deed.
Guilt. Is an element of responsibility, for a
man cannot be made to answer for the
consequences of a crime unless he is guilty.
[Reyes, 2012]

A. JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES

Justifying circumstances. Where the act of the

person is said to be in accordance with the
law, so that such person is deemed not to
have transgressed the law and is free from

JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING
It affects the act, not the actor. It affects the actor, not the act.

The act is considered to have been done within the

The act complained of is actually wrongful, but the
bounds of law; hence, legitimate and lawful in the
actor is not liable.
eyes of the law.

Page 34 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Since the act complained of is actually wrong,

Since the act is considered lawful, there is no there is a crime but since the actor acted without
liability. voluntariness or negligence, there is no dolo or
culpa.

There is a crime, but there is no criminal liability.

There is no criminal or civil liability. Civil liability exists (EXCEPT: accident; insuperable
cause).

JUSTIFYING EXEMPTING MITIGATING AGGRAVATING ALTERNATIVE

THERE IS A THERE IS A THERE IS A
NO WRONG THERE IS A FELONY
WRONG FELONY FELONY
No criminal No criminal Decreased Increased criminal Increased or
liability liability criminal liability liability decreased liability
No civil liability With civil liability
Except: Except:
With civil liability With civil liability With civil liability
Avoidance of a accident;
greater evil insuperable cause

Page 35 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Requisites of Each Circumstance.

Justifying circumstance Requisites

1. Unlawful aggression;
Defense of person, right, 2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it;
property, or honor 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending
himself.
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of means employed to prevent or repel it;
Defense of relatives
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on part of relative, or, in case of
provocation, the one making the defense had no part therein.
1. Unlawful aggression;
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it;
Defense of strangers
3. The person defending was not induced by revenge, resentment or
other evil motive.
1. Evil sought to be avoided actually exists.
2. The evil or injury sought to be avoided must not have been produced by
State of necessity
the one invoking the justifying circumstances.
(Avoidance of greater evil)
3. Injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it.
4. There is no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it.
1. Offender acted in performance of duty or in the lawful exercise of a
right or office;
Fulfillment of duty or
2. That the injury caused or the offense committed be the necessary
lawful exercise of right
consequence of the due performance of duty or the lawful exercise of
such right or office.
1. Order must have been issued by a superior;
Obedience to superior
2. The order is for some lawful purpose;
order
3. The means used to carry it out must be lawful.

Page 36 of 407
UP LAW BOC
A.1. DEFENSE OF PERSON, RIGHTS,
PROPERTY, AND HONOR
Why self-defense is lawful.
a. Impulse of self-preservation;
b. State cannot provide protection for
each of its constituents.
Description of elements. See table.
For the first element, to consider the
existence of unlawful aggression, one can
look at the (1) physical and objective
circumstances, such as the wound received by
the deceased; (2) lack of motive of the person
defending himself in killing the deceased;
and (3) the conduct of the accused
immediately after the incident.
For the second element, reasonable necessity
of the means employed does not depend on
the harm done but UPON THE IMMINENT
danger of such injury.
For the third element, provocation is
sufficient when it is PROPORTIONATE to the
aggression, that is, adequate enough to
impel one to attack the person claiming self-
defense. [People v. Boholst-Caballero (1974)]
People v. Toledo (2004): The appellant claims
that he should not be convicted because of
accidental self-defense. He said that he
accidentally hit the victim with a bolo,
eventually killing the latter.
Held: There is no such defense as accidental
self-defense in the realm of criminal law.
Self-defense under Article 11, paragraph 1 of
the Revised Penal Code necessarily implies a
deliberate and positive overt act of the
accused to prevent or repel an unlawful
aggression of another with the use of
reasonable means. The accused has freedom
of action. He is aware of the consequences of
his deliberate acts. The defense is based on
necessity which is the supreme and
irresistible master of men of all human
affairs, and of the law. From necessity, and
limited by it, proceeds the right of self-
defense. The right begins when necessity
does, and ends where it ends. Although the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
accused, in fact, injures or kills the victim,
however, his act is in accordance with law so
much so that the accused is deemed not to
have transgressed the law and is free from
both criminal and civil liabilities.
Unlawful aggression. When peril to one’s life,
limb, or right is actual or imminent.
Presupposes actual, sudden, and unexpected
attack, or imminent danger thereof, and not
merely threatening or intimidating attitude.
The victim must attack the accused with
actual physical force or with a weapon.
[People v. Colinares (2011)]
Peril to one’s limb. Blow with a deadly
weapon may be aimed at the vital parts of his
body.
When retaliation. When the killing of the
deceased by the accused was after the attack
made by the deceased, the accused must
have no time nor occasion for deliberation
and cool thinking. When unlawful aggression
ceases, the defender has no longer any right
to kill or wound the former aggressor,
otherwise, retaliation and not self-defense is
committed. [People v. Bates (2003)].
Continuing unlawful aggression. Unlawful
aggression must also be a continuing
circumstance or must have been existing at
the time the defense is made. Once the
unlawful aggression is found to have ceased,
the one making the defense of a stranger
would likewise cease to have any justification
for killing, or even just wounding, the former
aggressor. [People vs. Dijan (2002)] When
the aggressor retreats to obtain a more
advantageous position to ensure the success
of the initial attack, unlawful aggression is
deemed to continue.
Picking up a weapon. Picking up a weapon is
sufficient unlawful aggression if preceded by
circumstances indicating the intention of the
deceased to use it in attacking the defendant.
Nacnac v. People (2012): The Supreme Court
acquitted the accused-police officer for
shooting on the head another police officer.
Accused was supposed to use the patrol
tricycle to go the police station but the victim
Page 37 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
prevented him, saying he needed the tricycle
to settle an issue with the local bar. (The
victim has a history of drunkenness and
violence.) When the accused insisted on using
the tricycle, the victim insulted the accused
and touched his gun. The accused fired a
warning shot, but the victim drew out his gun.
Here the accused the victim, who died on the
spot.
Held: Jurisprudence distinguishes between
the act of drawing one’s gun and the act of
pointing one’s gun at a target. GENERALLY,
the latter is the one considered as unlawful
aggression. The former does not put in real
peril the life or personal safety of another.
HOWEVER, in the case at bar, the aggressor
is a police officer. A policeman IS PRESUMED
to be quick in firing. Hence, the drawing of
the gun is considered unlawful aggression as
an exemption to the general rule.
Mistake of fact. Mere belief of an impending
attack is not sufficient. BUT in relation to
“mistake of fact,” the belief of the accused
may be considered in determining the
existence of unlawful aggression.
Compared to lawful aggression. The (a)
fulfillment of a duty or the (b) exercise of a
right in a more or less violent manner is an
aggression, but it is lawful. The law does not
require a person to retreat where he has a
right to be and his assailant is rapidly
advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
[United States v. Domen (1917)]
Agreement to fight. No unlawful aggression
when there was an agreement to fight and
the challenge to fight was accepted. BUT
aggression which is ahead of an agreed time
or place is unlawful aggression.
Art. 249. “The owner or lawful possessor of a
thing has the right to exclude any person
from the enjoyment and disposal thereof. For
this purpose, he may use such force as may
be reasonably necessary to repel or prevent
an actual or threatened unlawful physical
invasion or usurpation of his property.”
Page 38 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Mere disturbance and real possession,
distinguished. The actual invasion of property
may consist of a mere disturbance of
possession or of a real dispossession. If it is a
mere disturbance of possession, force may be
used against it at any time as long as it
continues, even beyond the prescriptive
period of forcible entry. If the invasion
consists of a real dispossession, force to
regain possession can be used only
immediately after the dispossession.
Paramour kills the offended husband.
Paramour surprised in the act of adultery
cannot invoke self-defense if he killed the
offended husband who was assaulting him.
Reasonable necessity of means employed.
Involves two elements: necessity for the
course of action, and necessity of the means
employed, which should be reasonable.
Doctrine of rational equivalence. Rational
equivalence presupposes the consideration
not only of the nature and quality of the
weapons used by the defender and the
assailant, but of the totality of circumstances
surrounding the defense vis-à-vis the
unlawful aggression. It considers: (1) the
emergency; (2) the imminent danger to which
the person attacked is exposed; (3) the
instinct, more than the reason, that moves or
impels the defense; and (4) the
proportionate-ness of the defense does not
depend upon the harm done, but rests upon
the imminent danger of such injury. [Espinosa
v. People (2010)]
Perfect equality? Perfect equality between
the weapons used by the one defending
himself and that of the aggressor is not
required, neither is the material
commensurability between the means of
attack and defense. Rational equivalence is
enough.
Test of reasonableness. The means employed
depends upon:
1. nature and quality of the weapon used by
the aggressor
2. aggressor’s physical condition, character,
size, and other circumstances
UP LAW BOC
3. and those of the person defending
himself
4. the place and occasion of the assault.
When contestants are in the open. It is
undoubtedly well established
jurisprudence that a man is not, as a rule,
justified in taking the life of one who assaults
him with his fist only, without the use of a
dangerous weapon. The person assaulted
must, in such case, either resist with the arms
that nature gave him or with other means of
defense at his disposal, short of taking life.
But that rule contemplates the situation
where the contestants are in the open and
the person assaulted can exercise the option
of running away. It can have no binding force
in the case where the person assaulted has
retreated to the wall, as the saying is, and
uses in a defensive way the only weapon at
his disposal. One is not required, when hard
pressed, to draw fine distinctions as to the
extent of the injury which a reckless and
infuriated assailant might probably inflict
upon him. [People v. Sumicad (1932)]
When the attacker has been disarmed. If the
attacker is already disarmed, no need to
further use violence. If the attacker was
disarmed but struggled to re-obtain the
weapon, violence may be justified.
Further, in repelling/preventing unlawful
aggression, the one defending must aim at
the defendant, and not indiscriminately fire
his deadly weapon.
In favor of the law-abiding citizen. This
element should be interpreted liberally in
favor of the law-abiding citizen.
Lack of sufficient provocation on the
defender’s part. When the law speaks of
provocation either as a mitigating
circumstance or as an essential element of
self-defense, it requires that the same be
sufficient or proportionate to the act
committed and that it be adequate to arouse
one to its commission. It is not enough that
the provocative act be unreasonable or
annoying.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
This third requisite of self-defense is present:
(1) when no provocation at all was given to
the aggressor; (2) when, even if provocation
was given, it was not sufficient; (3) when even
if the provocation was sufficient, it was not
given by the person defending himself; or (4)
in
when even if a provocation was given by the
person defending himself, it was not
proximate and immediate to the act of
aggression. [Cano v. People (2003)]
Insults. Verbal argument is not considered
sufficient provocation, BUT INSULTS in
vulgar language are. Also includes the
scenario where the accused tried to forcibly
kiss the sister of the deceased.
The single indispensable element in self-
defense, defense of relatives, and defense of
strangers is unlawful aggression.
How can the prosecution attack this justifying
circumstance?
a. The number of wounds of the victim.
b. If the accused surrendered to the
policemen, he declined to give any
statement, i.e., protestation of innocence or
justification.
c. When unlawful aggressor runs away, but
the accused runs after him him nonetheless
(EXCEPT when retreat is taken to get a more
advantageous position).
d. Flight of the accused is also incompatible
with self-defense.
People v. Alconga (1947): Barion went to the
guardhouse where accused Alconga was
doing his duties as “home guard.” While the
accused was seated, the deceased swung at
him with his pingahan (piece of bamboo). The
accused was able to avoid the blow however,
by falling to the ground under the bench, with
the intention of crawling out of the
guardhouse. The accused was able to go out
of the guardhouse by crawling, and when the
deceased was delivering the third blow, the
accused (still in his crawling position), fired at
the deceased with his revolver. The deceased
got up and drew his dagger this time, while
the accused used his bolo and hand-to-hand
fight commenced.
The deceased obtained several wounds and
ran away, only to be followed by the accused,
Page 39 of 407
UP LAW BOC
and another fight happened. The deceased
sustained more injuries including the mortal
bolo blow, and he fell to the ground.
Held: In the initial stage of the fight, the
accused was acting in self-defense. However,
when he chose to run after the deceased, he
was no longer acting in self-defense for there
was no more aggression to defend against
and he could have chosen to stay where he
was. The unlawful aggression had already
ceased and therefore, his right to self-defense
had ceased as well.
Subjects of self-defense.
(1) Defense of person
(2) Defense of rights
(3) Defense of property. The defense of
property rights can be invoked if there
is an attack upon the property
although it is not coupled with an
attack upon the person of the owner
of the premises. All the elements for
justification must however be
present. [People v. Narvaez]
People v. Narvaez (1983): Narvaez was taking
his rest inside his house when he heard that
the wall of his house was being chiseled. He
saw that Fleischer and Rubia, were fencing
the land of the father of the deceased
Fleischer. He asked the group to stop but
they refused. The accused got mad so he got
his shotgun and shot Fleischer. Rubia ran
towards the jeep and knowing there is a gun
on the jeep, the accused fired at Rubia as
well. Narvaez claimed he acted in defense of
his person and rights.
Held: There was aggression by the deceased
not on the person of the accused but on his
property rights when Fleischer angrily
ordered the continuance of the fencing. The
third element of self-defense is also present
because there was no sufficient provocation
on the part of Narvaez since he was sleeping
when the deceased where fencing.
However, the second element was lacking.
Shooting the victims from the window of his
house is disproportionate to the physical
aggression by the victims. Thus, there is
incomplete self-defense. Accused is entitled
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
to mitigating circumstance of incomplete
self-defense, because one can defend
oneself, but cannot immediately kill.
(4) Defense of home. Violent entry to
another’s house at nighttime; by a
person who is armed with a bolo; and
forcing his way into the house, shows
he was ready and looking for trouble.
(5) Defense of honor and reputation
Slap on the face. Hence, a slap on the face is
considered as unlawful aggression since the
face represents a person and his dignity.
[Rugas vs. People].
Hand on woman’s lap. Placing of hand by
man on the woman’s upper thigh is unlawful
aggression.
People v. Luage (1935): The woman-accused
stabbed someone who attempted to rape her.
The victim fled but died afterwards. The
Supreme Court acquits the woman because
of defense of honor. The Supreme Court
quotes Viada in saying that art. 11(1) of RPC
contemplates right of life, right to property,
and especially defense of honor. A woman
who wounds, nay kills the offender, should be
afforded exemption from criminal liability
provided by this article and subsection since
such killing cannot be considered a crime
from the moment it became the ONLY means
left for her to protect her honor from so great
an outrage.
People v. Dela Cruz (1935): Accused Dela Cruz
was found guilty of homicide for stabbing and
killing Rivera. Dela Cruz claimed that on her
way home one evening, Rivera followed her,
embraced and kissed her and touched her
private parts. She didn’t know that it was
Rivera and that she was unable to resist the
strength of Rivera so she got a knife from her
pocket and stabbed him in defense of her
honor.
Held: She is justified in using the pocketknife
in repelling what she believed to be an attack
upon her honor. It was a dark night and she
could not have identified Rivera. There being
no other means of self-defense.
Page 40 of 407
UP LAW BOC
People v. Jaurigue (1946): Amado (deceased)
has been courting the accused Avelina in
vain. On the day of the crime, Avelina and
Amado were in Church. Amado sat beside
Avelina and placed his hand on her thigh.
Thereafter, Avelina took out her knife and
stabbed Amado in the neck, causing the
death of Amado.
Held: Although the defense of one’s honor
exempts one from criminal liability, it must be
proved that there is actual danger of being
raped. In this case, 1) the church was well-lit,
2) there were several people in the church,
including the father of the accused and other
town officials. In light of these circumstances,
accused could not have possibly been raped.
The means employed in defense of her honor
was evidently excessive.
People v. Chua Hiong (1954):
Cesario Gocheco, a nephew of the accused
wrote an article entitled “Doubtful
Citizenship” assailing and questioning
defendant’s citizenship. In response to this
defendant wrote a column saying that
Gocheco only wants “personal revenge” and
that this is “the moving passion in this
drama of intrigues and persecution to which
I and my family have been subjected.” He
further claims that Solipco, who wrote him a
threatening letter and gave him a rope
which implies that he should just hang
himself, is also the same Gocheco. Prior to
this series of events it is known upon the
Court that Gocheco and defendant had
faced each other in a civil case in which
Gocheco lost 2/3 of important inheritance
to Chua Hiong. The defendant was then
charged with libel.
Held: Defendant is acquitted from charges
of libel by the justification of his action
through defense of reputation. If one’s
reputation had been attacked by another he
is justified to hit back with another libel but
only if such libel is adequate to the first
attack.
Stand your ground principle. In certain
jurisdictions in the United States, most
notably in Florida, a person is justified in the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
use of deadly force and does not have a duty
to retreat if he reasonably believes that such
force is necessary to prevent imminent death
or great bodily harm to himself or herself.
A.2. DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
Relatives for self-defense. (SAD-SiR)
a. Spouse
b. Ascendants
c. Descendants
d. Legitimate, natural, or adopted Siblings, or
relatives by affinity in the same degrees
(parents-in-laws, children-in-law, siblings-in-
law)
e. Relatives by consanguinity within 4th civil
degree
Unlawful aggression, reason. The law
acknowledges the possibility that a relative,
by virtue of blood, will instinctively come to
the aid of their relatives.
In case of provocation by relative, the one
making the defense had no part therein.
Although the provocation prejudices the
person who gave it, its effects do not reach
the defender who took no part therein,
because the latter was prompted by some
noble or generous sentiment in protecting
and saving a relative.
Basis. It is found not only upon a
humanitarian sentiment, but also upon the
impulse of blood which impels men to rush,
on the occasion of great perils, to the rescue
of those close to them by ties of blood.
US v. Esmedia (1910): The two accused are
exempt from criminal responsibility for
having caused the death of Santiago Abando,
inasmuch as it has been shown that they
inflicted wounds upon him in defense of their
father who was fatally wounded at the time.
They honestly believed, and had good
grounds upon which to found their belief,
that Santiago would continue his attack upon
their father. They are, however, guilty of
having caused the death of the old man,
Ciriaco Abando [the father of Santiago].
When they attacked and killed him the other
trouble had terminated and they were not in
Page 41 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
danger of bodily harm from him. Ciriaco was
merely near the scene.
A.3. DEFENSE OF STRANGERS
Basis. What one may do in his defense,
another may do for him. The ordinary man
would not stand idly by and see his
companion killed without attempting to save
his life.
Note: Motive is relevant only in this kind of
defense.
Stranger. Any person not included in the
enumeration of relatives under [par. 2 of Art.
11]
A.4. STATE OF NECESSITY (AVOIDANCE OF
A GREATER EVIL)
People v. Retubado: Art. 11(4) provides “in
order to avoid evil or injury” but the official
Spanish text actually provides el estado de
necessidad (state of necessity). There is state
of necessity when the situation is of grave
peril, actual or imminent. It is indispensable
that the state of necessity is NOT brought
about by intentional provocation on the part
of the party invoking the same.
Damage to another. Includes injury to persons
and damage to property. Here, there is civil
liability.
Ty v. People (2004): Ty's mother and sister
were confined at the Manila Doctors'
Hospital. Ty signed the "Acknowledgment of
Responsibility for Payment" in the Contract of
Admission. The total hospital bills of the two
patients amounted to P1,075,592.95. Ty
executed a promissory note wherein she
assumed payment of the obligation in
installments. To assure payment of the
obligation, she drew 7 postdated checks
against Metrobank payable to the hospital
which were all dishonored by the drawee
bank due to insufficiency of funds. As
defense, Ty claimed that she issued the
checks because of “an uncontrollable fear of
a greater injury.” She averred that she was
Page 42 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
forced to issue the checks to obtain release
for her mother who was being inhumanely
treated by the hospital. She alleged that her
mother has contemplated suicide if she
would not be discharged from the hospital.
Ty was found guilty by the lower courts of 7
counts of violation of BP22.
Held: The court sustained the findings of the
lower courts. The evil sought to be avoided is
merely expected or anticipated. So the
defense of “an uncontrollable fear of a
greater injury” is not applicable. Ty could
have taken advantage of an available option
to avoid committing a crime. By her own
admission, she had the choice to give jewelry
or other forms of security instead of
postdated checks to secure her obligation.
Moreover, for the defense of state of necessity
to be availing, the greater injury feared
should not have been brought about by the
negligence or imprudence, more so, the
willful inaction of the actor. In this case, the
issuance of the bounced checks was brought
about by Ty's own failure to pay her mother's
hospital bills.
A.5. FULFILLMENT OF DUTY OR LAWFUL
EXERCISE OF RIGHT OR OFFICE
People v. Ulep (2000): Accused-appellant
and the other police officers involved
originally set out to restore peace and order
at Mundog Subdivision where the victim was
then running amuck. The victim threatened
the safety of the police officers despite
accused-appellant's previous warning shot
and verbal admonition to the victim to lay
down his weapon.
Held: As a police officer, it is to be expected
that accused-appellant would stand his
ground. Up to that point, his decision to
respond with a barrage of gunfire to halt the
victim's further advance was justified under
the circumstances. A police officer is not
required to afford the victim the opportunity
to fight back. Neither is he expected – when
hard pressed and in the heat of such an
encounter at close quarters – to pause for a
long moment and reflect coolly at his peril, or
UP LAW BOC
to wait after each blow to determine the
effects thereof. But he cannot be exonerated
from overdoing his duty when he fatally shot
the victim in the head, even after the latter
slumped to the ground due to multiple
gunshot wounds sustained while charging at
the police officers. Sound discretion and
restraint dictated that a veteran policeman
should have ceased firing at the victim the
moment he saw the latter fall to the ground.
The victim at that point no longer posed a
threat. Shooting him in the head was
obviously unnecessary.
The law does not clothe police officers with
authority to arbitrarily judge the necessity to
kill- it must be stressed that their judgment
and discretion as police officers in the
performance of their duties must be exercised
neither capriciously nor oppressively, but
within reasonable limits.
Mamagun v. People (2007): A policeman in
pursuit of a snatcher accidentally shot one of
the bystanders who were actually helping
him chase the snatcher.
Held: To be sure, acts in the fulfillment of a
duty, without more, do not completely justify
the petitioner’s firing the fatal gunshot at the
victim. True, petitioner, as one of the
policemen responding to a reported robbery
then in progress, was performing his duty as
a police officer as well as when he was trying
to effect the arrest of the suspected robber
and in the process, fatally shoot said suspect,
albeit the wrong man. However, in the
absence of the equally necessary justifying
circumstance that the injury or offense
committed be the necessary consequence if
the due performance of such duty, there can
only be incomplete justification, a privilege
mitigating circumstance under Art. 13 and 69
of the RPC. There can be no quibbling that
there was no rational necessity for the killing
of Contreras. Petitioner could have first fired
a warning shot before pulling the trigger
against Contreras who was one of the
residents chasing the suspected robber.
People v. Cabanlig (2005): The victim was
with certain police officers inside a patrol jeep
which was crossing a bridge around 7 PM.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
The victim suddenly grabbed an M16 from
one of the police officers and ran away. The
accused fired one shot, and when the victim
turned around and face the jeep, the accused
fired four shots which killed the victim.
The Supreme Court declared the accused as
conducting himself in the lawful exercise of a
right. In People v. Delima, the police officer
was running after a fugitive with a bamboo
lance. The police man shot and killed the
fugitive, but the SC acquitted the police from
any charge. At the case at bar, M16 is deadlier
than a bamboo lance.
Further, in Pomoy v. People, the Court held
that the petitioner exercised his duty as law
enforcer when he tried to defend his
possession of the weapon when the victim
suddenly tried to remove it from his holster.
Although the accused here did not issue a
warning shot, the said directive to issue a
warning contemplates a situation where
several options are available to the officers.
Here the threat to the life of the law enforcer
is imminent, and there is no other option but
to use force.
Yapyuco v. Sandiganbayan (2012): The victims
were slowly driving a jeep, after coming from
a barrio fiesta, when gunshots were heard. It
was nighttime and the road was dark. Two of
the passengers of the jeep were badly
wounded, brought to the hospital, and died
thereafter. Others are severely wounded. The
accused included police officers, barangay
captions, and several civilian volunteer
officers. The Supreme Court upheld their
conviction of multiple murder, frustrated
murder, and attempted murder.
Here the Supreme Court said that
justification of lawful exercise of duty is based
on the complete absence of intent and
negligence on the part of the accused. When
invoked, this is an acknowledgement that the
accused cause the injury/has committed the
offense but he may not be penalized because
the resulting injury/offense is a necessary
consequence of the due performance of his
duty/lawful performance of his rights/office.
Page 43 of 407
UP LAW BOC
Citing US v. Campo, a law enforcer is not
authorized to use force EXCEPT in extreme
cases when he is attacked or is subject of
resistance; and finds no other means to
comply with his duty/cause himself to be
respected or obeyed by the offender.
Citing People v. Ulep, the right to kill is not
absolute, and may be used only as a last
resort, and under circumstances indicating
the offender cannot otherwise be taken
without bloodshed.
In the case at bar, the law enforcers have a
patrol jeepney which they could have used to
pursue the victims if the latter tried to escape.
There was no evidence that an order was
issued to open fire. No evidence also that the
victims made an aggression against the
police and others. Further, there is no
evidence that the victims were alleged NPA
members.
A.6. OBEDIENCE TO AN ORDER ISSUED
FOR SOME LAWFUL PURPOSE
When unaware of illegality. A subordinate is
not liable for carrying out an illegal order of
his superior if he is not aware of the illegality
of the order and he is not negligent.
People v. Oanis (1943): Although an officer in
making a lawful arrest is justified in using
such force as is reasonably necessary to
secure and detain the offender, overcome his
resistance, prevent his escape, recapture him
if he escapes, and protect himself from bodily
harm, yet he is never justified in using
unnecessary force or in treating him with
wanton violence or in resorting to dangerous
means when the arrest could be effected
otherwise.
People v. Beronilla (1955)
Held: Where the accused acted upon orders
of superior officers that they, as military
subordinates, could not question, and
obeyed in good faith, without being aware
of their illegality, without any fault or
negligence on their part, the act is not
accompanied by criminal intent. A crime is
not committed if the mind of the person
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
performing the act be innocent.
A.7. ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN
AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 (RA
NO. 9262)
People v. Genosa, doctrine. The battered
woman syndrome (BWS) is characterized by a
“cycle of violence”, which is made up of three
phases. For the BWS to be available as a
defense, it must be proven that there has
been more than one cycle.
First Phase: Tension Building Phase
• Where minor battering occurs, it could be
a verbal or slight physical abuse or
another form of hostile behavior.
• The woman tries to pacify the batterer
through a show of kind, nurturing
behavior, or by simply staying out of the
way.
• But this proves to be unsuccessful as it
only gives the batterer the notion that he
has the right to abuse her.
Second Phase: Acute Battering Incident
• Characterized by brutality,
destructiveness, and sometimes death.
• The battered woman has no control; only
the batterer can stop the violence.
• The battered woman realizes that she
cannot reason with him and resistance
would only worsen her condition.
Third Phase: Tranquil Period
• Characterized by guilt on the part of the
batterer and forgiveness on the part of
the woman.
• The batterer may show a tender and
nurturing behavior towards his partner
and the woman also tries to convince
herself that the battery will never happen
again and that her partner will change for
the better.
Characteristics of BWS. The BWS has four
characteristics:
1. The woman believes that the violence
was her fault;
Page 44 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

2. She has an inability to place the

responsibility for the violence elsewhere;
3. She fears for her life and/or her children’s
life
4. She has an irrational belief that the
abuser is omnipresent and omniscient.

RA 9262. The Genosa ruling states that BWS

is valid as a defense when all the requisites of
self-defense are present. Sec. 26 abandons
the precedent set by Genosa case.

SECTION 26. Battered Woman Syndrome as a

Defense. – Victim-survivors who are found by
the courts to be suffering from battered
woman syndrome do not incur any criminal
and civil liability notwithstanding the absence
of any of the elements for justifying
circumstances of self-defense under the
Revised Penal Code.
In the determination of the state of mind of
the woman who was suffering from battered
woman syndrome at the time of the
commission of the crime, the courts shall be
assisted by expert psychiatrists/
psychologists.

Battery. Any act of inflicting physical harm

upon the woman or her child resulting in
physical and psychological or emotional
distress.

Battered woman. Woman “who is repeatedly

subjected to any forceful physical or
psychological behavior by a man in order to
coerce her to do something he wants her to
do without concern for her rights.”

Battered woman syndrome –refers to a

scientifically defined pattern of psychological
and behavioral symptoms found in women
living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse.

Page 45 of 407
UP LAW BOC
B. EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Exempting Circumstances. Those grounds for
exemption from punishment because there is
wanting in the agent of the crime any of the
conditions which make the act voluntary or
negligent.
The reason for the exemption lies on the
complete absence of intelligence, freedom of
action, or intent, or on the absence of
negligence on the part of the accused.
B.1. INSANITY OR IMBECILITY
Imbecile. One who, while advanced in age,
has a mental development comparable to
that of a child between 2 and 7 years of age.
Exempt in all cases from criminal liability
Feeblemindedness distinguished from
imbecility. Feeblemindedness is not
imbecility. It is necessary that there is a
complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act, that is, the accused be
deprived of reason, that there is no
responsibility for his own acts; that he acts
without the least discernment; that there be
complete absence of the power to discern, or
that there be a complete deprivation of
the freedom of the will. [People
Formigones (1950)]
Insanity. Here is a complete deprivation of
intelligence in committing the act but
capable of having lucid intervals. Mere
abnormality of mental faculties is not enough
especially if the offender has not lost
consciousness of his acts.
During a lucid interval, the insane acts with
intelligence and thus, is not exempt from
criminal liability.
Insanity is a defense in the nature of
confession and avoidance and must be
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
In remission of symptoms, not lucid interval.
People v. Antonio, Jr. (2002): Dr. Cosca
explained that a person suffering from
psychosis may have varying degrees of
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
symptoms within a specified period. Hence it
was possible that his active symptoms of
psychosis, e.g., auditory hallucinations or
persecutory delusions, may be present for
that period that he did not take his
medication and drank alcohol. She asserted
that in psychiatry they did not use the phrase
"lucid interval" but what they called "in
remission of symptoms," meaning, there was
no active phase of the symptoms of
psychosis.
Presumption. The presumption is always in
favor of sanity and the burden of proof of
insanity is on the defense. [People v. Aquino
(1990)]
When should be insane. Now, it has long been
settled that the period to which an inquiry
into the mental state of the accused should
be directed is that transpiring immediately
before and/or at the very moment of the act
or acts under prosecution. [People v. Aquino,
supra]
Insanity subsequent to commission of crime
is not exempting.
People v. Madarang (2000): In the
Philippines, the courts have established
a more stringent criterion for insanity to be
exempting as it is required that there must be
v. a complete deprivation of intelligence in
committing the act, i.e., the accused
is deprived of reason; he acted without the
least discernment because there is
a complete absence of the power to discern,
or that there is a total deprivation of the will.
Mere abnormality of the mental faculties will
not exclude imputability.
The issue of insanity is a question of fact for
insanity is a condition of the mind, not
susceptible of the usual means of proof. As
no man can know what is going on in the
mind of another, the state or condition of a
person's mind can only be measured and
judged by his behavior. Establishing the
insanity of an accused requires opinion
testimony which may be given by a witness
who is intimately acquainted with the
accused, by a witness who has rational basis
to conclude that the accused was insane
based on the witness' own perception of the
Page 46 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

accused, or by a witness who is qualified as e. Somnambulism: Sleep-walking [People vs.

an expert, such as a psychiatrist. The Taneo, 1933]
testimony or proof of the accused's insanity f. Dementia praecox [People v. Bonoan, 1937]
must relate to the time preceding or Note: Cited in OLD cases, but is a term no
coetaneous with the commission of the longer used by mental health
offense with which he is charged. practitioners

Two tests. Juridical effects of insanity.

1. The test of COGNITION, or whether the
accused acted with complete deprivation
of intelligence in committing the said
crime;
2. The test of VOLITION, or whether the
accused acted in total deprivation of
freedom of will. [People vs. Rafanan,
1991]
Both cognition and volition tests are applied.
There must be complete deprivation of the
intellect or will or freedom.
1. If present at the time of the commission
of the crime – EXEMPT from liability.
2. If present during trial – proceedings will
be SUSPENDED and accused is
committed to a hospital.
3. After judgment or while serving sentence
– Execution of judgment is SUSPENDED,
the accused is committed to a hospital.
The period of confinement in the hospital
is counted for the purpose of the
prescription of the penalty.

How proven. See People v. Madarang.

People v. Tabugoca (1998): Accused-

appellant has utterly failed to overthrow the
presumption of sanity. The defense did not
present any expert witness, any psychiatric
evaluation report, or any psychological
findings or evidence regarding his mental
condition at the time of the commission of
the offenses. Accused-appellants charade of
amnesia is evidently a desperate gambit for
exculpation. Yet, amnesia, in and of itself, is
no defense to a criminal charge unless it is
shown by competent proof that the accused
did not know the nature and quality of his
action and that it was wrong. Failure to
remember is in itself no proof of the mental
condition of the accused when the crime was
performed.

Mental illnesses covered. Cases covered

under this article: (MaKE P SleD)
a. Malignant malaria: which affects the
nervous system [People v. Lacena]
b. Kleptomania with irresistible impulse;
exempting when it only diminishes will-power
c. Epilepsy
d. Psychosis or schizophrenia, except when in
remission of symptoms [People v. Antonio,
Jr.]

Page 47 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Exempting
Requisites Basis
Circumstance
An imbecile or insane who did not act during lucid Absence of
Insanity or imbecility
interval intelligence
a. Accused is 15 years old and below
Absence of
Minority b. Accused is between 15 and 18 years old, and he
intelligence
acted without discernment

1. A person is performing a lawful act;

2. With due care; Lack of negligence
Accident
3. He causes an injury to another by mere accident; and intent
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.

1. That the compulsion is by means of physical force;

2. That the physical force must be irresistible;
Irresistible force Absence of freedom
3. That the physical force must come from a third
person.

1. Threat is greater than or equal to the act required to

Uncontrollable fear commit. Absence of freedom
2. Gravity and imminence of evil.

1. That an act is required by law to be done;

Insuperable or lawful 2. That a person fails to perform such act;
Lack of intent
cause 3. That his failure to perform such act was due to some
lawful or insuperable cause

Page 48 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

B.2. MINORITY the LGUs in coordination with the LCPC.

Results of the assessment shall be submitted
by the provincial and city governments to the
Amendment and repeal. This article, as well
JJWC not later than March 30 of every year.
as art. 80 of the RPC, has been
[Sec. 18, RA9344]
amended/repealed by PD 603, as amended,
and the RA 9344.
Community-based programs on juvenile
justice and welfare. Community-based
Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.
programs on juvenile justice and welfare shall
be instituted by the LGUs through the LCPC,
Child. A person under 18 years.
school, youth organizations and other
concerned agencies.
Child in conflict with the law. A child who is
alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as,
The LGUs shall provide community -based
having committed an offense under
services which respond to the special needs,
Philippine laws. [Sec. 4(e), RA 9344]
problems, interests and concerns of children
and which offer appropriate counselling and
Juvenile Justice and Welfare System. Refers to
guidance to them and their families. These
a system dealing with children at risk and
programs shall consist of three levels:
children in conflict with the law, which
provides child-appropriate proceedings,
1. Primary intervention includes general
including programs and services for
measures to promote social justice and equal
prevention, diversion, rehabilitation, re-
opportunity, which tackle perceived root
integration and aftercare to ensure their
causes of offending;
normal growth and development. [Title V:
2. Secondary intervention includes measures
Juvenile Justice and Welfare System of RA
to assist children at risk; and
9344]
3. Tertiary intervention includes measures to
avoid unnecessary contact with the formal
Development of a comprehensive juvenile
justice system and other measures to prevent
intervention program.
re-offending. [Sec. 19, RA 9344]
a. A Comprehensive juvenile intervention
program covering at least a 3-year period
Diversion. Refers to an alternative, child-
shall be instituted in LGUs from the barangay
appropriate process of determining the
to the provincial level.
responsibility and treatment of a child in
conflict with the law on the basis of his/her
b. The LGUs shall set aside an amount
social, cultural, economic, psychological, or
necessary to implement their respective
educational background without resulting to
juvenile intervention programs in their annual
formal court proceedings.
budget.
Diversion program. Refers to the program
c. The LGUs, in coordination with the LCPC,
that the child in conflict with the law is
shall call on all sectors concerned,
required to undergo after he/she is found
particularly the child-focused institutions,
responsible for an offense without resorting
NGOs, people's organizations, educational
to formal court proceedings. [Sec. 4(j), RA
institutions and government agencies
9344]
involved in delinquency prevention to
participate in the planning process and
System of diversion. Children in conflict with
implementation of juvenile intervention
the law shall undergo diversion programs
programs. Such programs shall be
without undergoing court proceedings
implemented consistent with the national
subject to the conditions herein provided:
program formulated and designed by the
JJWC. The implementation of the
comprehensive juvenile intervention program a. Where the imposable penalty for the
shall be reviewed and assessed annually by crime committed is not more than six (6)
Page 49 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

years imprisonment, the law enforcement If the Diversion Committee determines that
officer or Punong Barangay with the diversion is not proper, or when the child or
assistance of the local social welfare and the private complainant object to the
development officer or other members of diversion, or when there is failure if the
the LCPC shall conduct mediation, family diversion program if undertaken by the child,
conferencing and conciliation and, where it shall submit a report to the court
appropriate, adopt indigenous Modes of recommending that the case be subjected to
conflict resolution in accordance with the formal criminal proceedings. The court in
best interest of the child with a view to turn shall direct the transmittal of the records
accomplishing the objectives of of the case to the Office of the Clerk of Court
restorative justice and the formulation of for the assignment of a regular criminal
a diversion program. The child and docket number to the case as follows: CICL
his/her family shall be present in these Crim. Case No.___-___( year). The Office of the
activities. Clerk of Court shall thereafter return the case
b. In victimless crimes where the imposable to the court for arraignment and formal
penalty is not more than six (6) years proceedings.
imprisonment, the local social welfare
and development officer shall meet with
the child and his/her parents or PD 603, as amended, and RA 9344,
guardians for the development of the distinguished.
appropriate diversion and rehabilitation
program, in coordination with the BCPC; a. Minimum age of Criminal responsibility
c. Where the imposable penalty for the
crime committed exceeds six (6) years PD 603 RA 9344
imprisonment, diversion measures may Sec. 189. EXEMPT
be resorted to only by the court. [Sec. 23, from criminal
Child 15 years of age
RA 9344] liability:
or under shall be
1. Child 9 years of
exempt from criminal
age or under at
Rule on Juveniles in Conflict with the Law liability, regardless of
time of
[A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC]. whether or not s/he
commission of
acted with
Section 31. Diversion Committee - In each offense
discernment
court, there shall be organized a Diversion 2. 9 ≤ Age of child
Committee composed of its Branch Clerk of at time of
(HOWEVER: child is
Court as chairperson; the prosecutor, a commission of
subject to
lawyer of the Public Attorney's Office offense ≤ 15
intervention
assigned to the court, and the social worker (UNLESS s/he
program)
assigned by the court to the child, as acted with
members. discernment)
Section 32. Proceedings Before Arraignment - Does not include civil liability. The exemption
The Diversion Committee shall determine if from criminal liability herein established does
the child can be diverted and referred to not include exemption from civil liability,
alternative measures or services. Subject to which shall be enforced in accordance with
pertinent provisions of this Rule and pending existing laws. [Sec. 6, RA 9344]
determination of diversion by the Committee,
the court shall release the child on Treatment of child below age of responsibility
recognizance to the parents, guardian or [Sec. 20, RA 9344]. If it has been determined
custodian, or nearest relative; or if this is not that the child taken into custody is fifteen (15)
advisable, commit the child to an appropriate years old or below, the authority which will
youth detention home or youth rehabilitation have an initial contact with the child has the
center which shall be responsible for the duty to:
presence of the child during the diversion 1. Immediately release the child to the
proceedings. custody of his/her parents or guardian, or
Page 50 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

in the absence thereof, the child's nearest PD 603 RA 9344

relative. Child over 9 years
2. Shall give notice to the local social and under 15 years of
welfare and development officer who will age who acted w/
determine the appropriate programs in discernment – court
consultation with the child and to the shall determine
person having custody over the child. imposable penalty,
3. If the parents, guardians or nearest including any civil
relatives cannot be located, or if they liability chargeable
refuse to take custody, the child may be against him.
released to any of the following:
a. a duly registered nongovernmental or However, instead of
religious organization; pronouncing
b. a barangay official or a member of judgment of
the Barangay Council for the conviction, the court,
Protection of Children (BCPC); upon application of
c. a local social welfare and the youthful offender Child above 15 years
development officer; or when and and if it finds that the but below 18 years
where appropriate, the DSWD. best interest of the of age who acted
public as well as that with discernment
If the child referred to herein has been found of the offender will shall be subjected to
by the Local Social Welfare and Development be served thereby, the appropriate
Office to be abandoned, neglected or abused may suspend all proceedings in
by his parents, or in the event that the further proceedings accordance with the
parents will not comply with the prevention and shall commit Act.
program, the proper petition for involuntary such minor to the
commitment shall be filed by the DSWD or custody or care of the
the Local Social Welfare and Development DSWD or to any
Office pursuant to Presidential Decree No. training institution
603, otherwise, known as "The Child and operated by the
Youth Welfare Code". government, or duly
licensed agencies or
any other responsible
person, until he shall
b. Discernment have reached 21
years of age or, for a
shorter period as the
court may deem
proper. [Secs. 189
and 192]

Discernment. Mental capacity to understand

the difference between right and wrong as
determined by the child’s appearance,
attitude, comportment and behavior not only
before and during the commission of the
offense but also after and during the trial. It is
manifested through:
1. Manner of committing a crime – Thus,
when the minor committed the crime during
nighttime to avoid detection or took the loot
to another town to avoid discovery, he
manifested discernment.
Page 51 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

2. Conduct of the offender – The accused shot until the child in

the victim with his sling shot and shouted conflict with law
“Putang ina mo”. (People v. Alcabao, 44 OG reaches the
5006) maximum age of 21.

Discernment and intent, distinguished. Intent Upon suspension of

is design, or determination to do certain sentence and after
things. Discernment is mental capacity to considering the
understand the difference between right and various
wrong. Hence a person may not intend to circumstances of the
shoot another but may be aware of the child, the court shall
consequences of his negligent act which may impose the
cause injury to the same person in negligently appropriate
handling an air rifle. [Guevarra v. Almodovar disposition
(1989)] measures as
provided in the
c. Suspension of sentence Supreme Court Rule
on Juveniles in
PD 603 RA 9344 Conflict with the
No automatic Suspension of Law. (Sec. 38)
suspension of sentence is
sentence. The automatic.
youthful offender If the accused is already beyond 21 at the time
should apply for a Once the child under of his conviction. Suspension of sentence no
suspended sentence 18 is found guilty of longer avails when the age of the accused is
and it is the offense charged, more than 21 years old by the time of the
discretionary on the the court shall pronouncement of his guilt. The court must
court to approve the determine and render judgment. He nonetheless may avail
application. The ascertain any civil of sec. 51 of RA 9344. [People v Gamboa
order of the court liability. (2013)]
denying an
application for However, instead of Discharge of the Child in Conflict with the Law
suspension of pronouncing the [sec. 39, RA 9344]. Upon the
sentence shall not judgment of recommendation of the social worker who
be appealable. (Sec. conviction, the court has custody of the child, the court shall
193) shall place the child dismiss the case against the child whose
in conflict with law sentence has been suspended and against
under suspended whom disposition measures have been
sentence, without issued, and shall order the final discharge of
need of application. the child if it finds that the objective of the
disposition measures have been fulfilled.
Suspension of
sentence shall be The discharge of the child in conflict with the
applied even if the law shall not affect the civil liability resulting
juvenile is already 18 from the commission of the offense, which
years of age or more shall be enforced in accordance with law.
at the time of the
pronouncement of Return of the Child in Conflict with the Law to
his/her guilt. (Sec. Court [sec. 40, RA 9344]. If the court finds
38, RA 9344) that the objective of the disposition measures
imposed upon the child in conflict with the
The suspension of law have not been fulfilled, or if the child in
sentence lasts only conflict with the law has willfully failed to

Page 52 of 407
UP LAW BOC
comply with the conditions of his/her
disposition or rehabilitation program, the
child in conflict with the law shall be brought
before the court for execution of judgment.
If said child in conflict with the law has
reached eighteen (18) years of age while
under suspended sentence, the court shall
determine whether to discharge the child in
accordance with this Act, to order execution
of sentence, or to extend the suspended
sentence for a certain specified period or until
the child reaches the maximum age of
twenty-one (21) years.
Confinement of Convicted Children in
Agricultural Camps and other Training
Facilities [Sec. 51, RA 9344]. A child in conflict
with the law may, after conviction and upon
order of the court, be made to serve his/her
sentence, in lieu of confinement in a regular
penal institution, in an agricultural camp and
other training facilities that may be
established, maintained, supervised and
controlled by the BUCOR, in coordination
with the DSWD.
People v. Gamboa (2013): As regards the
appellant’s possible confinement in an
agricultural camp or other training facility in
accordance with Section 51 of R.A. 9344, this
Court held in People v. Jacinto that the age of
the child in conflict with the law at the time of
the promulgation of the judgment is not
material. What matters is that the offender
committed the offense when he/she was still
of tender age.
Determination of Age [Sec. 7, RA 9344].
Presumption. Minority of child in conflict with
the law. S/he shall enjoy all the rights of a
child in conflict with the law until s/he is
proven to be 18 years old or older.
People v. Sarcia (2009): When accused
appellant testified on March 14, 2002, he
admitted that he was 24 years old, which
means that in 1996, he was 18 years of age.
As found by the trial court, the rape incident
could have taken place "in any month and
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
date in the year 1996." Since the prosecution
was not able to prove the exact date and time
when the rape was committed, it is not
certain that the crime of rape was committed
on or after he reached 18 years of age in 1996.
In assessing the attendance of the mitigating
circumstance of minority, all doubts should
be resolved in favor of the accused, it being
more beneficial to the latter. In fact, in
several cases, this Court has appreciated this
circumstance on the basis of a lone
declaration of the accused regarding his age.
Proof. See sec. 5 of A.M. No 02-1-16-SC.
Section 5. Determination of Age. – The child
in conflict with the law shall enjoy the
presumption of minority and shall enjoy all
the rights of a child in conflict with the law
until proven to be eighteen years old or older
at the time of the commission of the offense.
The age of the child shall be determined
according to the following rules:
(1) The best evidence to prove the age of a
child is an original or certified true copy of the
certificate of live birth;
(2) In the absence of a certificate of live birth,
similar authentic documents such as
baptismal certificates and school records or
any pertinent document that shows the date
of birth of the child;
(3) In the absence of the documents under
paragraphs 1 and 2 of this section due to loss,
destruction or unavailability, the testimony of
the child, the testimony of a member of the
family related to the child by affinity or
consanguinity who is qualified to testify on
matters respecting pedigree such as the
exact age or date of birth of the child
pursuant to Sec. 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on
Evidence, the testimonies of other persons,
the physical appearance of the child and
other relevant evidence, shall suffice.
Burden of proof. See sec. 6 of A.M. No 02-1-
16-SC.
Section 6. Burden of Proof of Age. – Any
person alleging the age of the child in conflict
with the law has the burden of proving the
age of such child. If the age of the child is
contested prior to the filing of the information
in court, a case for determination of age
Page 53 of 407
UP LAW BOC
under summary proceeding may be filed
before a court which shall render its decision
within 24 hours from receipt of the
appropriate pleadings of all the parties. (n) In
all cases involving a child, the court shall
make a categorical finding as to the age of
the child.
Exemption from criminal liability of below-18
offenders.
Status offenses under sec. 15 of RA 9344.
Sec. 57. Status Offenses. - Any conduct not
considered an offense or not penalized if
committed by an adult shall not be
considered an offense and shall not be
punished if committed by a child.
Offenses not applicable to children under Sec.
58 of RA 9344
Persons below eighteen (18) years of age
shall be exempt from prosecution for the
crime of:
1. vagrancy and prostitution under
Section 202 of the Revised Penal
Code,
2. mendicancy under Presidential
Decree No. 1563, and
3. sniffing of rugby under Presidential
Decree No. 1619,
Such prosecution being inconsistent with the
United Nations Convention on the Rights of
the Child.
Provided, that said persons shall undergo
appropriate counseling and treatment
program.
B.3. ACCIDENT
Accident. Something that happens outside
the sway of our will and, although coming
about through some act of our will, lies
beyond the bounds of humanly foreseeable
consequences.
Must be lawful act. For an accident to
become an exempting circumstance, the act
has to be lawful. The act of firing a shotgun at
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
another is not a lawful act. [People v. Agliday
(2001)]
With due care. It is uniformly held that if life is
taken by misfortune or accident while in the
performance of a lawful act executed with
due care and without intention of doing
harm, there is no criminal liability. [US v.
Tanedo (1910)]
Burden of proof. Well settled is the rule in
criminal cases, that the prosecution has
the burden of proof to establish the guilt of
the accused. However, once the defendant
admits the commission of the offense
charged, but raises an exempting
circumstance as a defense, the burden of
proof is shifted to him. [People v. Concepcion
(2002)]
B.4. IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
Irresistible force. The duress, force, fear or
intimidation must be present, imminent and
impending, and of such nature as to induce a
well-grounded apprehension of death or
serious bodily harm if the act is not done
Become mere instrument. To be exempt from
criminal liability, a person invoking irresistible
force must show that the force exerted was
such that it reduced him to a mere
instrument who acted not only without will
but against his will. [People v. Lising (1998)]
No opportunity for escape or self-defense. A
threat of future injury is not enough. The
compulsion must be of such a character as to
leave no opportunity for the accused for
escape or self-defense in equal combat.
[People v. Del Rosario (1999)]
B.5. UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR
Actus me invite factus non est meus actus. An
act done by me against my will is not my act.
Uncontrollable fear. To be exempt from
criminal liability, a person invoking irresistible
force or uncontrollable fear must show that
the force exerted was such that it reduced
him to a mere instrument who acted not only
Page 54 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

without will but against his will. That

compulsion must be of some character as to In treason. The only possible defense here is
leave the accused no opportunity for self- fear of death. [Reyes (2012)]
defense in equal combat of for escape.
[People v. Losing (1998)] Uncontrollable fear and irresistible force,
distinguished.
Not uncontrollable fear when. Speculative,
fanciful, or remote fear. Irresistible Force Uncontrollable Fear
Irresistible force Uncontrollable fear
People v. Ty (2004): Petitioner Ty was must operate directly
may be generated by
convicted of 7 counts of violation of BP 22. In upon the person of a threatened act
her defense, Ty claimed that she issued the the accused and thedirectly to a third
checks because of an uncontrollable fear of a injury feared may be
person such as the
greater injury. She averred that she was a lesser degree than
wife of the accused,
forced to issue the checks to obtain release the damage caused but the evil feared
for her mother whom the hospital by the accused. must be greater or at
inhumanely and harshly treated and would least equal to the
not discharge unless the hospital bills are damage caused to
paid. She alleged that her mother was avoid it.
deprived of room facilities, such as the air- Offender uses Offender employs
condition unit, refrigerator and television set, physical force or intimidation or threat
and subject to inconveniences such as the violence to compel in compelling
cutting off of the telephone line, late delivery another person to another to commit a
of her mother’s food and refusal to change commit a crime. crime.
the latter’s gown and bedsheets. She also B.6. INSUPERABLE OR LAWFUL CAUSES
bewailed the hospitals suspending medical
treatment of her mother. The debasing
treatment, she pointed out, so affected her Insuperable, definition. Insuperable means
mother’s mental, psychological and physical insurmountable. A cause which has lawfully,
health that the latter contemplated suicide if morally or physically prevented a person to
she would not be discharged from the do what the law commands.
hospital. Fearing the worst for her mother,
and to comply with the demands of the People v. Bandian (1936):A woman cannot be
hospital, Ty was compelled to sign a held liable for infanticide when she left her
promissory note, open an account with newborn child in the bushes without being
Metrobank and issue the checks to effect her aware that she had given birth at all. Severe
mother’s immediate discharge. dizziness and extreme debility made it
physically impossible for Bandian to take
Held: To begin with, there was no showing home the child plus the assertion that she
that the mother’s illness was so life- didn’t know that she had given birth.
threatening such that her continued stay in
the hospital suffering all its alleged unethical C. MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
treatment would induce a well-grounded
apprehension of her death. Secondly, it is not
the laws intent to say that any fear exempts Mitigating circumstances or causas
one from criminal liability much less attenuates. If present in the commission of
petitioner’s flimsy fear that her mother might the crime, do not entirely free the actor from
commit suicide. In other words, the fear she criminal liability, but serve only to reduce the
invokes was not impending or insuperable as penalty.
to deprive her of all volition and to make her
a mere instrument without will, moved Ordinary vs. privileged mitigating
exclusively by the hospitals threats or circumstance, distinguished.
demands.
Ordinary MC Privileged
Page 55 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

MC
As to offset May be offset
by any Cannot be
aggravating offset
circumstance
As to effect If not offset by
aggravating Reduces
circumstance, the penalty
reduces the by one to
penalty two
provided by degrees
law to its min than that
period provided
provided the by law for
penalty is the crime.
divisible.

Page 56 of 407
UP LAW BOC
Mitigating circumstances, elements, and
basis.
Mitigating
Statutory text
circumstance
1. Those mentioned in the
preceding chapter, when all
Incomplete the requisites necessary to
justification/ justify or to exempt from
exemption criminal liability in the
respective cases are not
attendant.
2. That the offender is under
eighteen year of age or over
seventy years. In the case of
Under 18 or over
the minor, he shall be
70
proceeded against in
accordance with the
provisions of Art. 80.
No intention to 3. That the offender had no
commit so grave intention to commit so grave
a wrong a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient
Sufficient provocation or threat on the
provocation or part of the offended party
threat immediately preceded the
act.
5. That the act was
committed in the immediate
vindication of a grave
Immediate offense to the one
vindication of a committing the felony
grave offense (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, or relatives by
affinity within the same
degrees.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Elements (when possible) Basis
A majority, but not all,
elements of justifying and
exempting circumstances
are present
Diminution of
intelligence
Diminution of
intent
1. Provocation must be
sufficient
2. Must originate from the
offended party
3. That the provocation
Diminution of
must be personal and
intelligence and
directed to the accused
intent
4. That the provocation
must be immediate to the
act, i.e., to the commission
of the crime by the person
who is provoked
1. That there be a grave
offense done to the one
committing the felony, his
spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate,
natural or adopted
brothers or sisters, or
relatives by affinity within
the same degree.
Diminution of
2. That the felony is
voluntariness
committed in vindication
of such grave offense. A
lapse of time is allowed
between the vindication
and the doing of the grave
offense.
3. The vindication need not
be done by the person
Page 57 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
6. That of having acted upon
Passion or an impulse so powerful as
obfuscation naturally to have produced
passion or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had
Voluntary voluntarily surrendered
surrender himself to a person in
authority or his agents, xxx
7. xxx or that he had
voluntarily confessed his
Plea of guilt guilt before the court prior to
the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution.
Page 58 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
upon whom the grave
offense was committed.
1. The accused acted upon
an impulse.
2. The impulse must be so
powerful that it naturally
produces passion or
obfuscation in him.
3. That there be an act,
both unlawful and
sufficient to produce such Diminution of
condition of mind; and intelligence and
4. That said act which intent
produced the obfuscation
was not far removed from
the commission of the
crime by a considerable
length of time, during
which the perpetrator
might recover his normal
equanimity.
1. Offender had not been
actually arrested.
2. Offender surrendered
himself to a person in Lesser perversity
authority or to the latter’s of the offender
agent.
3. Surrender was
voluntary.
1. Offender spontaneously
confessed his guilt.
2. Confession of guilt was
made in open court, that
is, before the competent
Lesser perversity
court that is to try the
of the offender
case; and
3. Confession of guilt was
made prior to the
presentation of evidence
for the prosecution.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

8. That the offender is deaf

and dumb, blind or
otherwise suffering some
Diminution of
Physical defects physical defect which thus
voluntariness
restricts his means of action,
defense, or communications
with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the
1. Illness of the offender
offender as would diminish
must diminish the exercise
the exercise of the will- Diminution of
of his will-power.
Illness power of the offender intelligence and
2. Illness should not
without however depriving intent
deprive the offender of
him of the consciousness of
consciousness of his acts.
his acts.
10. And, finally, any other
Analogous
circumstances of a similar
mitigating
nature and analogous to
circumstances
those above mentioned.
by one or two degrees than that prescribed by
C.1. INCOMPLETE JUSTIFICATION OR law.
EXEMPTION
Incomplete self-defense, defense of relatives
and strangers. Unlawful aggression should
Article 69. Penalty to be imposed when the always be present to be appreciated as
crime committed is not wholly excusable. - A mitigating.
penalty lower by one or two degrees than
that prescribed by law shall be imposed if the People v. Nandyhan (2016): Case law has
deed is not wholly excusable by reason of the established that in invoking self-defense,
lack of some of the conditions required to whether complete or incomplete, the onus
justify the same or to exempt from criminal probandi is shifted to the accused to prove by
liability in the several cases mentioned in clear and convincing evidence all the
Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority of elements of the justifying circumstance,
such conditions be present. The courts shall namely: (a) unlawful aggression on the part
impose the penalty in the period which may of the victim; (b) the reasonable necessity of
be deemed proper, in view of the number and the means employed to prevent or repel it;
nature of the conditions of exemption present and (c) lack of sufficient provocation on the
or lacking. part of the person defending himself.

Coverage. Not all the requisites necessary to No incomplete accident. See elements of
justify the act or to exempt from criminal accident.
liability under articles 11 and 12 are attendant.
Reckless imprudence. If the “accident” is
attended with fault (cf. fourth element of
In cases when the justifying or exempting accident) and without due care (second
circumstance has only two requisites, the element), then the act becomes punishable
presence of one element makes art. 69 under art. 365.
applicable.
Intentional felony. If the “accident” is
People v. Ulep (2000): Incomplete intended (cf. fourth element) and unlawful
justification is a special or privileged (first element), then the act is covered by art.
mitigating circumstance, which, not only 4, par. 1 of the RPC.
cannot be offset by aggravating
circumstances but also reduces the penalty
C.2. UNDER 18 OR OVER 70 YEARS OLD
Page 59 of 407
UP LAW BOC
Minority as privileged mitigating
circumstance.
Article 68. Penalty to be imposed upon a
person under eighteen years of age. - When
the offender is a minor under eighteen years
and his case is one coming under the
provisions of the paragraphs next to the last
of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules
shall be observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but
over nine years of age, who is not
exempted from liability by reason of
the court having declared that he
acted with discernment,
discretionary penalty shall be
imposed, but always lower by two
degrees at least than that prescribed
by law for the crime which he
committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and
under eighteen years of age the
penalty next lower than that
prescribed by law shall be imposed,
but always in the proper period.
People v. Jacinto (2011): Under Article 68 of
the Revised Penal Code, when the offender is
a minor under 18 years, the penalty next
lower than that prescribed by law shall be
imposed, but always in the proper
period. However, for purposes of determining
the proper penalty because of the privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority, the
penalty of death is still the penalty to be
reckoned with.
See computation of penalty after abolition of
death penalty.
In lowering penalty. Based on age of the
offender at the time of the commission of the
crime not the age when sentence is imposed.
In suspension of the sentence. Based on age
of the offender (under 18) at the time the
sentence is to be promulgated. See sec. 38 of
RA 9344. See discussion of minority under
exempting circumstance.
When over 70. Appreciated as mitigating
circumstance.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
C.3. NO INTENTION TO COMMIT SO GRAVE
A WRONG (PRAETER INTENTIONEM)
Coverage. Only applicable to offense
resulting in death, physical injuries, or
material harm (including property damage).
It is not applicable to defamation or slander.
When does not apply. Does not apply when:
a. Crime results from criminal negligence or
culpa
b. The offender employed brute force
a c. The victim does not die as a result of the
assault in cases of crimes against persons
d. Murder qualified by treachery
People v. Sales (2011): The mitigating
circumstance of lack of intent to commit so
grave a wrong as that actually perpetrated
cannot be appreciated where the acts
employed by the accused were reasonably
sufficient to produce and did actually produce
the death of the victim.
How proven. There must be a notable
disproportion between the means employed
to execute the criminal act and its
consequences. [People v. Amit]
The intention, as an internal act, is judged not
only by the proportion of the means
employed by him to the evil produced by his
act, but also by:
1. The weapon used
2. The part of the body injured
3. The injury inflicted
4. The manner it is inflicted
Can also be inferred from the subsequent
acts of the accused immediately after
committing the offense, such as when the
accused helped his victim to secure medical
treatment.
People v. Calleto (2002) The lack of "intent"
to commit a wrong so grave is an internal
state. It is weighed based on the weapon
used, the part of the body injured, the injury
Page 60 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

inflicted and the manner it is inflicted. The b. the Act constituting provocation
fact that the accused used a 9-inch hunting c. the Time and place where the
knife in attacking the victim from behind, provocation is made.
without giving him an opportunity to defend
himself, clearly shows that he intended to do Threat. Threat must not be offensive and
what he actually did, and he must be held positively strong, otherwise may result to
responsible therefor, without the benefit of
unlawful aggression justifying self-defense.
this mitigating circumstance. See discussion on self-defense.
People v. Ural (1974):The intention, as an Sufficient Provocation as a
internal act, is judged not only by the pro- provocation as a mitigating
portion of the means employed by him to requisite of circumstance
the evil produced by his act, but also by the incomplete self-
fact that the blow was or was not aimed at defense
a vital part of the body. Thus, it may be It pertains to its It pertains to its
deduced from the proven facts that the absence on the part presence on the part
accused had no intent to kill the victim, his of the person of the offended party.
design being only to maltreat him, such defending himself.
that when he realized the fearful [People v. CA, G.R.
consequences of his felonious act, he No. 103613 (2001)]
allowed the victim to secure medical
treatment at the municipal dispensary.
Bar tip. The common set-up given in a bar
problem is that of provocation given by
Intended and actual victim is the same. Where somebody against whom the person
a more serious consequence not intended by provoked cannot retaliate; thus the person
the offender befalls the same person, this provoked retaliated on a younger brother or
circumstance applies. However, when there is
on the father. Although in fact, there is
also error in personae, art. 49 applies. sufficient provocation, it is not mitigating
because the one who gave the provocation is
C.4. SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION OR not the one against whom the crime was
THREAT committed.

Look at two criteria.

Provocation. Any unjust or improper conduct
or act of the offended party capable of 1. If from the element of time,
exciting, inciting, or irritating anyone. a. material lapse of time stated in
the problem and
Immediateness. Provocation in order to be b. there is nothing stated in the
mitigating must be SUFFICIENT and problem that the effect of the
IMMEDIATELY preceding the act. [People v. threat of provocation had
Pagal (1977)] When there is an interval of prolonged and affected the
time between the provocation and the offender at the time he
commission of the crime, the perpetrator has committed the crime
time to regain his reason. then you use the criterion based on the
time element.
Sufficiency. “Sufficient” means adequate to 2. If there is that time element and at the
excite a person to commit a wrong and must same time, facts are given indicating that
accordingly be proportionate to its gravity. at the time the offender committed the
[People v. Nabora (1941)] crime, he is still suffering from outrage of
the threat or provocation done to him,
Sufficiency depends upon: (SAT) then he will still get the benefit of this
mitigating circumstance.
a. the Social standing of the person
provoked
Page 61 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Provocation and passion/obfuscation, circumstance of sufficient provocation cannot

considered together. be considered apart from the circumstance of
vindication of a grave offense. These two
Romera v. People (2004): Provocation and circumstances arose from one and the same
passion or obfuscation are not two separate incident, i.e., the attack on the appellant by
mitigating circumstances. It is well-settled the accused, so that they should be
that if these two circumstances are based on considered as only one mitigating
the same facts, they should be treated circumstance.
together as one mitigating circumstance. It is
clear that both circumstances arose from the Vindication and provocation, distinguished.
same set of facts. Hence, they should not be Provocation Vindication
treated as two separate mitigating It is made directly The grave offense
circumstances. only to the person may be committed
committing the against the
C.5. IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A felony. offender’s relatives
GRAVE OFFENSE mentioned by law.
The offense need not The offended party
be a grave offense. must have done a
Proximate, not immediate. Lapse of time is grave offense to the
allowed. The Spanish text uses “proxima.” offender or his
Although the grave offense (slapping of the relatives.
accused in front of many persons hours The provocation or The grave offense
before the killing), which engendered the threat must may be proximate,
perturbation of mind, was not so immediate, immediately precede which admits of an
it was held that the influence thereof, by the act. interval of time
reason of its gravity, lasted until the moment It is a mere spite It concerns the honor
the crime was committed. [People v. Parana against the one of the person.
(1937)]. giving the
provocation or threat.
However, while immediate vindication should
be construed as proximate vindication in C.6. PASSION OR OBFUSCATION
accordance with the controlling Spanish text (ARREBATO Y OBCECACION)
of the Revised Penal Code, still this
mitigating circumstance cannot be
considered where sufficient time elapsed for Passion or obfuscation; not applicable. When:
the accused to regain his composure. [People a. The act committed in a spirit of
v. Ventura (2004)] LAWLESSNESS.
b. The act is committed in a spirit of
Gravity of personal offense. The question REVENGE.
whether or not a certain personal offense is
grave must be decided by the court, having in
mind: [TimPlaS]
a. the Time when the insult was made;
b. the Place; and
c. the Social standing of the person.

Vindication and passion/obfuscation,

considered together. Vindication of a grave
offense and passion or obfuscation cannot be
counted separately and independently.

People v. Torpio (2004): The mitigating

Page 62 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

US v. De la Cruz (1912): De la Cruz, in the heat after that, he could have validly invoked the
of passion, killed the deceased who was his mitigating circumstance of passion and
querida (lover) upon discovering her in the act obfuscation. But when, upon seeing his
of carnal communication with a mutual brother Carlito dead, Marcelo went back to
acquaintance. He claims that he is entitled to Jose, who by then was already prostrate on
the mitigating circumstance of passion or the ground and hardly moving, hacking Jose
obfuscation and that the doctrine in Hicks is again was a clear case of someone acting out
inapplicable. of anger in the spirit of revenge.
Held: US v. Hicks is not applicable to the
case. In Hicks, the cause of the alleged Cannot coexist with treachery. Passion cannot
passion and obfuscation of the aggressor was co-exist with treachery because in passion,
the convict's vexation, disappointment and the offender loses his control and reason
deliberate anger engendered by the refusal of while in treachery the means employed are
the woman to continue to live in illicit consciously adopted. One who loses his
relations with him, which she had a perfect reason and self-control could not deliberately
reason to do. In this case, the impulse upon employ a particular means, method or form
which the defendant acted was the sudden of attack in the execution of the crime.
revelation that his paramour was untrue to [People v. Germina (1998)]
him and his discovery of her in flagrante in
the arms of another. This was a sufficient Passion/obfuscation v. irresistible force,
impulse in the ordinary and natural course of distinguished.
things to produce the passion and
obfuscation which the law declares to be one Passion/Obfuscation Irresistible force
of the mitigating circumstances to be taken Mitigating Exempting
into the consideration of the court. Circumstance circumstance
Not trivial. Also, the act must be sufficient to Cannot give rise to Physical force is a
produce such a condition of mind. If the cause physical force condition sine qua
of loss of self-control is trivial and slight, because it does not non.
obfuscation is not mitigating. involves physical
force.
No significant lapse of time. Moreover, the Passion/obfuscation Irresistible force
defense must prove that the act which comes from the comes from a third
produced the passion or obfuscation took offender himself. person.
place at a time not far removed from the Must arise from Irresistible force is
commission of the crime. [People v. Gervacio, lawful sentiments to unlawful.
1968] be mitigating.
People v. Bates (2004): Passion and Passion/obfuscation v. provocation,
obfuscation may not be properly appreciated distinguished.
in favor of appellant. To be considered as a
mitigating circumstance, passion or
Passion/Obfuscation Provocation
obfuscation must arise from lawful
Passion/obfuscation Provocation comes
sentiments and not from a spirit of
is produced by an from the injured
lawlessness or revenge or from anger and
impulse which may be party.
resentment. In the present case, clearly,
caused by
Marcelo was infuriated upon seeing his
provocation.
brother, Carlito, shot by Jose.However, a
The offense which Must immediately
distinction must be made between the first
engenders the precede the
time that Marcelo hacked Jose and the
perturbation of mind commission of the
second time that the former hacked the
need not be crime.
latter. When Marcelo hacked Jose right after
immediate. It is only
seeing the latter shoot at Carlito, and if
required that the
appellant refrained from doing anything else
influence thereof lasts
Page 63 of 407
UP LAW BOC
until the moment the
crime is committed.
In both, the effect is the loss of reason and
self-control on the part of the offender.
C.7. VOLUNTARY SURRENDER AND PLEA
OF GUILT
a. Voluntary surrender
When surrender. Surrender is voluntary if
spontaneous showing the interest of the
accused to surrender unconditionally to the
authorities, either because (1) he
acknowledges his guilt or (2) wishes to save
them the trouble and expenses that would be
necessarily incurred in his search and
capture. [Andrada v. People (2005)]. If none
of these two reasons impelled the accused to
surrender, the surrender is not spontaneous
and therefore not voluntary. [People v. Laurel
(1998)].
The accused must actually surrender his own
person to the authorities, admitting
complicity of the crime.
When arrest is inevitable. If the only reason
for the supposed surrender is to ensure the
safety of the accused whose arrest is
inevitable, the surrender is not spontaneous
and hence not voluntary. [People v. Pinca
(1999)]
Must be unconditional.
People v. Pinca (1999): Appellant's actions
after the incident are not marks of voluntary
surrender. Denying to the police any personal
knowledge of the crime, he even tried to
distance himself from the place of the
incident by going to Tagbilaran City. It was
only when he learned that he had become a
suspect and that the police were looking for
him even in Tagbilaran that he finally went to
the police station, but only "to clear his
name." Such acts do not show any intent to
surrender unconditionally to the authorities.
Mere request to accompany. Merely
requesting a policeman to accompany the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
accused to the police headquarters is not
voluntary surrender. [People v. Flores (1994)]
Warrant of arrest. Whether or not a warrant of
arrest had been issued is immaterial and
irrelevant. The RPC does not distinguish
among the various moments when the
surrender may occur. [Reyes (2012)]. The fact
that a warrant of arrest had already been
issued is no bar to the consideration of that
circumstance because the law does not
require that the surrender be prior the arrest.
[People v. Yecla (1939)]. What is important is
that the surrender be spontaneous.
When arrested. Not mitigating when
defendant was in fact arrested. [People v.
Conwi (1985)]
Exceptions.
a. But where a person, after committing the
offense and having opportunity to
escape, voluntarily waited for the agents
of the authorities and voluntarily gave up,
he is entitled to the benefit of the
circumstance, even if he was placed
under arrest by a policeman then and
there. [People v. Parana (1937)]
b. Where the arrest of the offender was after
his voluntary surrender or after his doing
an act amounting to a voluntary
surrender to the agent of a person in
authority. [People v. Babiera (1928);
People v. Parana (1937)]
People v. Dulos (1994): The generic mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender cannot
be appreciated in accused-appellant's favor.
In order that voluntary surrender may be
appreciated, it is necessary that "it must be
spontaneous and made in such manner that
it shows the intent of the accused to
surrender unconditionally to the authorities,
either because he acknowledges his guilt or
because he wishes to save them the trouble
and expenses necessarily incurred in his
search and capture." Here, there was no
conscious effort on the part of accused-
appellant to voluntarily surrender to the
military authorities when he went to Camp
Siongco, Dinaig, Maguindanao after the fate
incident. As he himself admitted in his
Page 64 of 407
UP LAW BOC
testimony, he was not placed under custody
by the military authorities as he was free to
roam around as he pleased.
Person in authority and his agent.
Person in authority. Is one directly vested with
jurisdiction, that is, a public officer who has
the power to govern and execute the laws
whether as an individual or as a member of
some court or governmental corporation,
board or commission. A barrio captain and a
barangay chairman are also persons in
authority. [Art. 152, RPC, as amended by PD
No. 299].
Agent of a person in authority. Is a person,
who, by direct provision of law, or by election
or by competent authority, is charged with
the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property
and any person who comes to the aid of
persons in authority. [Art. 152, as amended by
RA 1978].
b. Plea of guilt
Confession of guilt.
Legal effects.
People v. Jose (1971): While a plea of guilty is
mitigating, at the same time it constitutes an
admission of all the material facts alleged in
the information, including the aggravating
circumstances, and it matters not that the
offense is capital, for the admission (plea of
guilty) covers both the crime and its
attendant circumstances qualifying and/or
aggravating the crime.
Treachery and evident premeditation.
People v. Gravino (1983): It is a well-
established rule that a plea of guilty, besides
being a mitigating circumstance, is a judicial
confession of guilty – an admission of all the
material facts alleged in the information,
including the aggravating circumstances and
that such pleas are, as a rule, enough to
sustain a conviction without the need for the
introduction of further evidence.
It is, however, also an established rule that a
plea of guilty cannot be held to include
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
treachery and evident premeditation where
the evidence adduced does not adequately
disclose the existence of these qualifying
circumstances.
Extrajudicial confession. The extrajudicial
confession made by the accused is not
voluntary confession because it was made
outside the court. [People v. Pardo (1947)]
When still mitigating. The change of plea
should be made at the first opportunity when
his arraignment was first set.
a. Withdrawal of plea of not guilty before
presentation of evidence by prosecution is
still mitigating. All that the law requires
is voluntary plea of guilty prior to the
presentation of the evidence by the
prosecution.
b. A plea of guilty on an amended
information will be considered as an
attenuating circumstance if no evidence
was presented in connection with the
charges made therein. [People v. Ortiz]
When no longer mitigating.
a. A conditional plea of guilty is not
mitigating.
b. Plea of guilt on appeal is not mitigating.
Plea to a lesser offense.
Rule 116, sec. 2, ROC – At arraignment, the
accused, with the consent of the offended
party and prosecutor, may be allowed by the
trial court to plead guilty to a lesser offense
which is necessarily included in the offense
charged. After arraignment but before trial,
the accused may still be allowed to plead
guilty to said lesser offense after withdrawing
his plea of not guilty. No amendment of the
complaint or information is necessary.
People v. Dawaton (2002): Information for
murder was filed against Dawaton. When first
arraigned he pleaded not guilty, but during
the pre-trial he offered to plead guilty to the
lesser offense of homicide but was rejected by
the prosecution. The trial court sentenced
him to death. He avers that he is entitled to
Page 65 of 407
UP LAW BOC
the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty.
Held: While the accused offered to plead
guilty to the lesser offense of homicide, he
was charged with murder for which he had
already entered a plea of not guilty. We have
ruled that an offer to enter a plea of guilty to
a lesser offense cannot be considered as an
attenuating circumstance under the
provisions of Art. 13 of RPC because to be
voluntary the plea of guilty must be to the
offense charged.
Also, Sec. 2, Rule 116, of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure requires the consent of
the offended party and the prosecutor before
an accused may be allowed to plead guilty to
a lesser offense necessarily included in the
offense charged. The prosecution rejected the
offer of the accused.
C.8. PHYSICAL DEFECTS
Physical defect. The physical defect that a
person must have a relation to the
commission of the crime. Being armless,
cripple, or a stutterer, whereby his means to
act, defend himself or communicate with his
fellow beings are limited. Here, there is no
distinction between educated and
uneducated deaf-mute or blind persons.
Estafa. Where the offender is deaf and dumb,
personal property was entrusted to him and
he misappropriated the same, the crime
committed was estafa. The fact that he was
deaf and dumb is not mitigating since that
does not bear any relation to the crime
committed.
Physical injuries. If a person is deaf and dumb
and he has been slandered, he cannot talk so
what he did was he got a piece of wood and
struck the fellow on the head. The crime
committed was physical injuries. The
Supreme Court held that being a deaf and
dumb is mitigating because the only way is to
use his force because he cannot strike back in
any other way.
People v. Doepante (1996): The appellant was
convicted of murder. He claims that the
mitigating circumstance of physical defect
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
should be appreciated in his case because he
has no left arm.
Held: The fact that appellant suffers from a
physical defect, a severed left hand, does not
mean that he should automatically be
credited with the mitigating circumstance
contained in paragraph 8, Article 13 of the
Revised Penal Code. In order for this
condition to be appreciated, it must be shown
that such physical defect limited his means to
act, defend himself or communicate with his
fellow beings to such an extent that he did
not have complete freedom of action,
consequently resulting in diminution of the
element of voluntariness.[15] Such cannot be
appreciated in the case at bar where the
appellant’s physical condition clearly did not
limit his means of action, defense or
communication, nor affect his free will. In
fact, despite his handicap, appellant
nevertheless managed to attack, overcome
and fatally stab his victim.
C.9. ILLNESS
It is said that this paragraph refers only to
diseases of pathological state that trouble
the conscience or will. If a psychological
disease does not lead someone to experience
insanity (i.e., complete deprivation of
intelligence) during the commission of a
crime, it may be appreciated as mitigating
provided there is diminution of will power.
People v. Javier (1999): Javier was married to
the deceased for 41 years. He killed the
deceased and then stabbed himself in the
abdomen. Javier was found guilty of
parricide. In his appeal, he claims that he
killed his wife because he was suffering from
insomnia for a month and at the time of the
killing, his mind went totally blank and he did
not know what he was doing. He also claims
that he was insane then.
Held: No sufficient evidence or medical
finding was offered to support his claim. The
court also took note of the fact that the
defense, during the trial, never alleged the
mitigating circumstance of illness. The
alleged mitigating circumstance was a mere
afterthought to lessen the criminal liability of
the accused.
Page 66 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

C.10. ANALOGOUS MITIGATING

CIRCUMSTANCES Basic principles

Aggravating circumstances. Raise the penalty

Any other circumstance of similar nature and
for a crime to its maximum period provided
analogous to the nine mitigating
by law for that crime but never beyond such
circumstances enumerated in art. 13 may be
maximum period or those circumstances
mitigating.
which change the nature of the crime. The list
a. Offender leading the law enforcers to the in this Article is EXCLUSIVE – there are no
place where he buried the instrument of analogous aggravating circumstances.
the crime has been considered as
equivalent to voluntary surrender. Degree of proof. The aggravating
b. Stealing driven to do so out of extreme circumstances must be established with
poverty is considered as analogous to moral certainty, with the same degree of
incomplete state of necessity. proof required to establish the crime itself.
c. Over 60 years old with failing sight,
similar to over 70 years of age mentioned Must be alleged in Information. BOTH generic
in par. 2. [People v. Reantillo (1938)]. and qualifying aggravating circumstances
d. Voluntary restitution of stolen goods must be alleged in the Information in order to
similar to voluntary surrender [People v. be considered by the Court in imposing the
Luntao, (CA) 50 O.G. 1182]. sentence. [Rule 110, Sec. 9, Revised Rules of
e. Impulse of jealous feelings, similar to Criminal Procedure]. This new rule took effect
passion and obfuscation. [People v. Libria on December 1, 2000, but applies
(1954)]. retroactively to pending cases since it is
f. Extreme poverty and necessity, similar to favorable to the accused.
incomplete justification based on state of
necessity. [People v. Macbul (1943)]. Even if not alleged in the information,
g. Testifying for the prosecution, without aggravating circumstances may still be
previous discharge, analogous to a plea considered as bases for the award of
of guilty. [People v. Navasca (1977)]. exemplary damages. [People v. Esugon,
(2015)]
Canta v. People: Canta stole a cow but
alleges that he mistook the cow for his
missing cow. He made a calf suckle the cow
he found and when it did, Canta thought that
the cow he found was really his. However, he
falsified a document describing the said
cow’s cowlicks and markings. After getting
caught, he surrendered the cow to the
custody of the authorities in the municipal
hall.

Held: Canta’s act of voluntarily taking the cow

to the municipal hall to place it in the custody
of authorities (to save them the time and
effort of having to recover the cow) was an
analogous circumstance to voluntary
surrender.

There is no similar provision (analogous

circumstances) in Art. 14.
D. AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Page 67 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Basis and requisites.

Paragraph
Aggravating
in art. 14, Basis Requisites
circumstance
RPC

The public officer must:

Personal circumstance of the 1. Use the influence, prestige or
Taking advantage offender and the means to ascendancy which his office gives
1
of public office secure the commission of the him
crime 2. As means by which he realizes his
purpose.
1. That the public authority is
engaged in the exercise of his
functions.
2. That the public authority is not the
In contempt of or person against whom the crime is
Lack of respect for the public
with insult to 2 committed.
authorities
public authorities 3. The offender knows him to be a
public authority.
4. His presence has not prevented
the offender from committing the
criminal act.

a. Rank: Difference between social

condition or position between
With insult or lack
offender and offended party
of regard due to
Personal circumstances of
offended party by 3
the offended party b. Age: Either old age or tender age
reason of rank,
of the victim
age, or sex
c. Sex: Female
1. Building or structure, exclusively
Place of the commission of used for rest and comfort.
Dwelling 3
the crime 2. The offended party must not give
provocation.

1. That the offended party had

trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such
Abuse of Means and ways employed in trust by committing a crime against
4
confidence commission of the crime the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence
facilitated the commission of the
crime.

Page 68 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

1. That the offended party had

trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abused such
trust by committing a crime against
Obvious Means and ways employed in the offended party;
4
ungratefulness commission of the crime 3. That the act be committed with
obvious ungratefulness.

The ungratefulness must be obvious:

(1) manifest and (2) clear.
In the palace of
the Chief
Executive or in his
presence, or
where public
authorities are Place of the commission of
5
engaged in the the crime
discharge of their
duties, or in a
place dedicated
to religious
worship
a. It is specially sought by the
offender
Time and place of the b. the offender purposely took
Nighttime 6
commission of the crime advantage of nighttime; or
c. it facilitated the commission of the
offense.
The offenders must choose the place
as an aid either:
a. to an easy and uninterrupted
accomplishment of their criminal
Uninhabited Time and place of the
6 designs, or
place commission of the crime
b. to insure concealment of the
offense, that he might thereby be
better secured against detection and
punishment. [U.S. v. Vitug]
There should:
1. Be at least be four persons.
Cuadrilla or with Means and ways employed in 2. At least 4 of them should be
6
a band commission of the crime armed;
3. And are principals by direct
participation.

On occasion of a Time and place of the The offender must take advantage of
7
calamity commission of the crime the calamity or misfortune

Page 69 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

1. That the armed men or persons

took part in the commission of the
Aid of armed men
Means and ways employed in crime, directly or indirectly.
or means to 8
commission of the crime 2. That the accused availed himself
ensure impunity
of their aid or relied upon them when
the crime was committed.
1. That the offender is on trial for an
offense;
2. That he was previously convicted
by final judgment of another crime;
Recidivism 9 Inclination to commit crime 3. That both the first and the second
offenses are embraced in the same
title of the Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of
the new offense.

1. That the accused is on trial for an

offense;
2. That he previously served
sentence for another offense to
which the law attaches:
Reiteracion or a. an equal or
10 Inclination to commit crime
habituality b. greater penalty, or
c. for 2 or more crimes to which it
attaches lighter penalty than that for
the new offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new
offense.

Page 70 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

There must be two or more

principals:
1. the one who gives or offers the
price or promise; and
2. the one who accepts it.

Both of whom are principals to the

former, because he directly induces
the latter to commit the crime, and
the latter because he commits it.
Price, reward, or
11 Motivating power
promise The price, reward or promise need
not:
a. Consist of or refer to material
things; or
b. That the same were actually
delivered, it being sufficient that the
offer made by the principal by
inducement was accepted by the
principal by direct participation
before the commission of the
offense.

Inundation, fire, The wasteful means were used by

Means and ways employed in
poison, explosion, 12 the offender to accomplish a
commission of the crime
etc. criminal purpose

1. The time when the offender

determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that
the culprit has clung to his
determination; and
Evident Means and ways employed in
13 3. A sufficient lapse of time between
premeditation commission of the crime
the determination and execution, to
allow him to reflect upon the
consequences of his act and to allow
his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will.

Page 71 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

a. Craft: intellectual trickery and

cunning on the part of the accused

b. Fraud: insidious words or

Craft, fraud, or Means and ways employed in
14
disguise commission of the crime
machinations used to induce the
victim to act in a manner which
would enable the offender to carry
out his design

c. Disguise: any device to conceal

identity

To TAKE ADVANTAGE of superior

strength means to use purposely
excessive force out of proportion to
the means of defense available to
the person attacked.

Superiority may arise from:

1. aggressor’s sex, build, weapon or
Superior strength number
Means and ways employed in
or means to 15 2. as compared to that of the victim
commission of the crime
weaken defense (e.g. accused attacked an unarmed
girl with a knife; 3 men stabbed to
death the female victim).

For the means employed to weaken

defense: The means used must NOT
totally eliminate possible defense of
the victim, otherwise it will fall under
treachery.

1. The employment of means of

execution that gave the person
attacked no opportunity to defend
Alevosia Means and ways employed in himself or retaliate; and
16
(treachery) commission of the crime 2. That the offender consciously
adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed
by him

Page 72 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

The means employed or the

circumstances brought about must
Means and ways employed in
Ignominy 17 tend to make the effects of the crime
commission of the crime
MORE HUMILIATING or TO PUT THE
OFFENDED PARTY TO SHAME

1. There is unlawful entry when an

entrance is effected by a way NOT
Means and ways employed in intended for the purpose.
Unlawful entry 18
commission of the crime 2. Unlawful entry must be a means
to effect entrance and NOT for
escape.

1. Breaking the wall, floor, roof, etc.,

is a means to the commission of the
Breaking wall, Means and ways employed in crime.
19
floor, roof commission of the crime 2. Breaking the wall, floor, roof, etc.,
must be a means to effect entrance
and NOT for escape.

a. Means and ways employed

in commission of the crime
The commission of the crime is
With aid of
20 b. Repress practice of committed with the aid of children
persons under 15
criminals to avail of minors under 15 years of age
and take advantage of their
irresponsibility

a. Means and ways employed 1. The use of motor vehicle is a

in commission of the crime means to the commission of the
By motor crime, and not merely to facilitate
vehicles, airships, b. To counteract the great escape
20
or other similar facilities found by Modern 2. Must be (a) motorized vehicles or
means criminals as means to (b) other efficient means of
commit crime, and flee and transportation similar to automobile
abscond or airplane [Reyes, p. 481]

1. That the injury caused be

deliberately increased by causing
Ensañamiento Means and ways employed in other wrong;
21
(cruelty) commission of the crime 2. That the other wrong be
unnecessary for the execution of the
purpose of the offender.

Page 73 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Kinds. 9, 10, 14, 18, 19, and 20 except “by means of

motor vehicles”. A generic aggravating
GENERIC. Those that can generally apply to circumstance may be offset by a generic
all crimes. Nos. 1, 2, 3 (dwelling), 4, 5, 6, mitigating circumstance.

Paragraph Absorbed by the

Aggravating
in art. 14, Specific to Inherent element of aggravating
circumstance
RPC circumstance of

a. Accessories under art. 19,

par. 3 (harboring, concealing
or assisting in the escape of
the principal of the crime);
Taking advantage b. Title VII of Book Two of the
1
of public office RPC [Crimes committed by
public officers
c. Malversation under art. 217
d. Falsification of document by
public officers under art. 171

With insult or lack Sex is inherent in [PARaS]:

of regard due to a. Parricide
Crime against
offended party by 3 b. Abduction
persons or honor
reason of rank, c. Rape
age, or sex d. Seduction

Robbery with force upon

Dwelling 3
things

STEM
a. Qualified seduction under
art. 337
b. Qualified theft under art.
Abuse of
4 310
confidence
c. Estafa by conversion or
misappropriation under art.
315
d. Malversation under art. 217

Treachery [People
Nighttime 6
v. Kintuan]
Uninhabited
6 Treachery
place

Page 74 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Pro-TIP:
a. Crimes
against
PROperty
b. Treason
Cuadrilla or with [People v. Treachery [People
6 Brigandage
a band Manayao] v. Ampo-an]
c. Illegal
detention [US v.
Santiago]
d. Crimes
against Persons

Aid of armed men With a band;

or means to 8 treachery [People
ensure impunity v. Ferrera]

a. Fire: arson
b. Explosion: destruction
Inundation, fire, under art. 324
poison, explosion, 12 c. By means of derailment of
etc. locomotive: damages and
obstruction to means of
communication under art. 330

Robbery with violence against

persons; treason [People v.
Racaza]; adultery, estafa, and
Evident falsification. However, it may
13
premeditation be aggravating in robbery with
homicide if the premeditation
included the killing of the
victim. [People v. Valeriano]

Page 75 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

a. Craft: Qualified theft

[People v. Tiongson, C.A., 59
O.G. 4521]

b. Fraud:
i. Preventing the meeting of
Congress and similar bodies
[art. 143]
ii. Violation of parliamentary
immunity [art. 145]
iii. Crimes against public Craft and fraud:
Craft, fraud, or interest under chapt. 3 Absorbed by
14
disguise iv. Crimes committed by public treachery [People
officers under chapt. 3 v. Malig]
v. Execution of deeds by
means of violence or
intimidation [art. 298]
vi. Crimes against property
under chapts. 5 and 6
vii. Marriage contracted
against provisions of the law
[art. 350]
viii. Rape through fraudulent
machination
a. For superior
For means
strength:
employed to
Absorbed by
weaken defense:
cuadrilla or by a
a. specific to
band [People v.
crimes against
Escabarte];
persons;
Superior strength For use of superior strength: treachery [U.S. v.
b. and
or means to 15 inherent in treason [People v. Estopia]
sometimes
weaken defense Racaza]
against person
b. For means
and property
employed to
[e.g., robbery
weaken defense:
with physical
absorbed by
injuries, or
treachery [People
homicide]
v. Siatong]

Murder by poisoning [People

Alevosia Crimes against
16 v. Caliso]; treason [People v.
(treachery) persons
Racaza]

Page 76 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

C MaRia CLaRa:
a. Coercion (light
or grave)
b. Murder
c. "Wanton
Robbery for
personal gain"
Ignominy 17
[People v.
Racaza]
d. Crimes
against chastity
e. Less serious
physical injuries
f. Rape

Rape; Murder;
Trespass to dwelling under
Robbery with
art. 280; Robbery with force
Unlawful entry 18 violence against
upon things under art. 299(a)
or intimidation
and art. 302
of persons

Robbery with force upon

Breaking wall,
19 things under art. 299(a) and
floor, roof
art. 302

(Excludes crimes
which cannot be
committed by
By motor
means of motor
vehicles, airships,
20 vehicle, such as
or other similar
estafa [People v.
means
Bagtas, CA-G.R.
No. 10823
(1955)])

Rape; wanton
robbery for
personal gain;
crimes where
par. 17 also
Ensañamiento apply [People v.
21
(cruelty) Racaza]; robbery
with homicide
[People v.
Basca]; other
crimes against
persons

Page 77 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

proven, only one would qualify the offense

Qualifying and the others would be generic aggravating.
Generic aggravating
aggravating
circumstances
circumstances INHERENT. Those that must accompany the
The effect of a commission of the crime and is therefore not
The effect of a
qualifying AC is not considered in increasing the penalty to be
generic AC, not
only to give the crime imposed such as evident premeditation in
offset by any
its proper and theft, robbery, estafa, adultery and
mitigating
exclusive name but concubinage.
circumstance, is to
also to place the
increase the penalty
author thereof in such SPECIAL. Those which arise under special
which should be
a situation as to conditions to increase the penalty of the
imposed upon the
deserve no other offense and cannot be offset by mitigating
accused to the
penalty than that circumstances such as:
MAXIMUM PERIOD.
specially prescribed by a. quasi-recidivism [Art. 160]
law for said crime. b. complex crimes [Art. 48]
The circumstance c. error in personae [Art. 49]
It is not an affects the nature of d. taking advantage of public position and
ingredient of the the crime itself such membership in an organized/syndicated
crime. It only affects that the offender shall crime group [Art. 62]
the penalty to be be liable for a more e. sec. 4, PD 1613
imposed but the serious crime. The
crime remains the circumstance is Aggravating circumstances which do not have
same actually an ingredient the effect of increasing the penalty:
of the crime 1. Aggravating circumstances which in
Being an ingredient of themselves constitute a crime especially
The circumstance
the crime, it cannot be punishable by law.
can be offset by an
offset by any 2. Aggravating circumstances which are
ordinary mitigating
mitigating included by the law in defining a crime
circumstance
circumstance and prescribing the penalty therefore
SPECIFIC. Those that apply only to particular shall not be taken into account for the
crimes. Nos. 3 (except dwelling), 15, 16, 17 and purpose of increasing the penalty. [Art.
21. 62, par. 1].
3. The same rule shall apply with respect to
QUALIFYING. Those that change the nature any aggravating circumstance inherent in
of the crime. Art. 248 enumerate the the crime to such a degree that it must of
qualifying AC which qualifies the killing of necessity accompany the commission
person to murder. If two or more possible thereof. [Art. 62, par. 2].
qualifying circumstances were alleged and
People v. Lab-eo (2002): The fact that the Aggravating circumstances which are
circumstances were described as personal to the offenders.
aggravating instead of qualifying does not Aggravating circumstances which arise from
take the Information out of the purview of moral attributes of offender (evident
Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. premeditation); from his private relations
Article 248 does not use the word qualifying with offended party (consanguinity and
or aggravating in enumerating the affinity); and from any other personal cause
circumstances that raise a killing to the (recidivism), shall only serve to aggravate the
category of murder. Article 248 merely liability of the principals, accomplices, and
refers to the enumerated circumstances as accessories as to whom such circumstances.
the attendant circumstances. In the instant [Art. 62, par. 3].
case, the Information specifically alleges
that evident premeditation, treachery, and Aggravating circumstances which depend for
abuse of superior strength attended the their application upon the knowledge of
commission of the offense. This is more than offenders.
sufficient to comply with the requirements
of Article 248. Page 78 of 407
UP LAW BOC
Circumstances which consists (1) in the
material execution of the act; (2) in the means
employed to accomplish it (nighttime), shall
serve to aggravate the liability of the persons
only who had knowledge of them at the time
of the execution of the act or their
cooperation therein. [Art. 62, par. 4].
But see effect of conspiracy on appreciating
treachery.
Aggravating Circumstances
D.1. “THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN BY THE
OFFENDER OF HIS PUBLIC POSITION.”
The essence of the matter is presented in the
inquiry, “did the accused abuse his office in
order to commit the crime?” [U.S. v.
Rodriguez (1907)] If the accused could have
perpetrated the crime even without
occupying his position, there is no abuse of
public position. [People v. Villamor (2002)]
When a public officer commits a common
crime independent of his official functions
and does acts that are not connected with the
duties of his office, he should be punished as
a private individual without this aggravating
circumstance.
Even if defendant did not abuse his office, if it
is proven that he has failed in his duties as
such public officer, this circumstance would
warrant the aggravation of his penalty. Thus,
the fact that the vice-mayor of a town joined a
band of brigands made his liability greater.
[U.S. v. Cagayan (1905)].
When in the commission of the crime,
advantage was taken by the offender of his
public position, the penalty to be imposed
shall be in its maximum regardless of
mitigating circumstances. [RA 7659]
People v. Gapasin (1994): The defendant was
issued a mission order to investigate the
alleged presence of unidentified armed men
in a certain barrio in Isabela. The defendant
claimed that he acted in self-defense when
he killed the victim, who the former said was
one of the men who illegally possessed
firearms in the area.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Held: The Court affirmed the conviction of
murder qualified by treachery. The
aggravating circumstance of taking
advantage of public position was
appreciated. The defendant, a member of the
Philippine Constabulary, committed the
crime with an armalite which was issued to
him when he received the mission order.
D.2. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
CONTEMPT OR WITH INSULT TO THE
PUBLIC AUTHORITIES.”
Public authority, defined. Public authority is
no longer limited to “persons in authority.”
People v. Rodil (1981): While it is true that in
[previous cases], this Court ruled that the
term public authority refers to a person in
authority and that a PC lieutenant or town
chief of police is not a public authority but
merely an agent of a person in authority;
there is need of re-examining such a ruling
since it is not justified by the employment of
the term public authority in aforesaid
paragraph 2 of Article 14 instead of the
term person in authority which is specifically
used in Articles 148 and 152 of the Revised
Penal Code. There is no extended reasoning of
the doctrine enunciated in the aforesaid three
(3) cases why the phrase public
authority should comprehend only persons in
authority. The lawmaker could have easily
utilized the term "persons in authority" in the
aforesaid paragraph 2 of Article 14 in much
the same way that it employed the said
phrase in Articles 148 and 1452. The
lawmaker must have intended a different
meaning for the term public authority, which
may however include, but not limited
to persons in authority.
Under the decided cases, a municipal mayor,
barrio captain, barrio lieutenant or barangay
captain is a person in authority or a public
authority. Even a public school teacher is now
considered a person in authority under CA
578 amending Article 152 of the Revised
Penal Code. So is the town municipal health
officer, as well as a nurse, a municipal
councilor or an agent of the Bureau of
Internal Revenue.
Page 79 of 407
UP LAW BOC
The chief of police should therefore be
considered a public authority or a person in
authority; for he is vested with jurisdiction or
authority to maintain peace and order and is
specifically duty bound to prosecute and to
apprehend violators of the laws and
municipal ordinances, more than the
aforementioned officials who cannot
prosecute and who are not even enjoined to
arrest malefactors although specifically
mentioned as persons in authority by the
decided cases and by Article 152 of the
Revised Penal Code as amended by R.A. 1978
of June 22, 1957.
Knowledge that a public authority is present is
essential. Lack of such knowledge indicates
lack of intention to insult public authority.
When direct assault. If crime is committed
against the public authority while in the
performance of his duty, the offender
commits direct assault without this
aggravating circumstance.
Failure to allege in Information. Failure to
expressly allege in the information that the
accused had the knowledge that the person
attacked was a person in authority does not
render the information defective so long as
there are facts therein from which it can be
implied that the accused knew that the
person attacked was a person in authority
[People v. Balbar (1967)]
D.3. “THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH
INSULT OR IN DISREGARD OF THE
RESPECT DUE THE OFFENDED PARTY ON
ACCOUNT OF HIS RANK, AGE, OR SEX, OR
THAT IS BE COMMITTED IN THE
DWELLING OF THE OFFENDED PARTY, IF
THE LATTER HAS NOT GIVEN
PROVOCATION.”
When considered singularly and when
independently. Four circumstances are
enumerated in this paragraph, which can be
considered singly or together. If all the four
circumstances are present, they have the
weight of one aggravating circumstance only.
Deliberately intended. There must be
evidence that in the commission of the crime,
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
the accused deliberately intended to offend
or insult the sex or age of the offended party.
[People v. Mangsat]
Rank. Designation or title used to fix the
relative position of the offended party in
reference to others. There must be a
difference in the social condition of the
offender and the offended party.
People v. Nismal (1982): The accused is guilty
beyond reasonable doubt of robbery with
homicide as alleged in the information. The
accused being the security guard of the bank,
the victim was the former’s superior. Indeed,
it was his duty precisely to defend the victim
from any aggressor. But in disregard of the
respect he owed to the victim, on account of
superior rank to him, he assaulted the latter.
Such disregard of respect is an aggravating
circumstance.
Age. May refer to old age or tender age of the
victim.
Guidelines to prove age. The Court
established the guidelines in appreciating
age, either as an element of the crime or as a
qualifying circumstance, as follows:
1. The best evidence to prove the age of the
offended party is an original or certified
true copy of the certificate of live birth of
such party.
2. In the absence of a certificate of live birth,
similar authentic documents such as
baptismal certificate and school records
which show the date of birth of the victim
would suffice to prove age.
3. If the certificate of live birth or authentic
document is shown to have been lost or
destroyed or otherwise unavailable, the
testimony, if clear and credible, of the
victim's mother or a member of the family
either by affinity or consanguinity who is
qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of
birth of the offended party pursuant to
Section 40, Rule 130 of the Rules on
Evidence shall be sufficient under the
following circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3
years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 7 years
old;
Page 80 of 407
UP LAW BOC
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7
years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 12 years
old;
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12
years of age and what is sought to be
proved is that she is less than 18 years
old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth,
authentic document, or the testimony of
the victim's mother or relatives
concerning the victim's age, the
complainant's testimony will suffice
provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused.
5. It is the prosecution that has the burden
of proving the age of the offended party.
The failure of the accused to object to the
testimonial evidence regarding age shall
not be taken against him. [People v.
Arpon (2011)]
Sex of the offended party. This refers to the
female sex, not to the male sex.
The aggravating circumstance is NOT to be
considered in the following cases:
1. When the offender acted with passion
and obfuscation. [People v. Ibañez]
2. When there exists a relationship between
the offended party and the offender.
[People v. Valencia]
3. When the condition of being a woman is
indispensable in the commission of the
crime. Thus, in rape, abduction, or
seduction, sex is not aggravating. [People
v. Lopez]
Not absorbed in treachery. Disregard of sex
and age are not absorbed in treachery
because treachery refers to the manner of the
commission of the crime, while disregard of
sex and age pertains to the relationship of the
victim. [People v. Lapaz (1989)]
In crimes against persons or honor. The
aggravating circumstance that the crime was
committed with insult or in disregard of the
respect due the offended party on account of
his rank, age or sex may be taken into
account only in crimes against persons or
honor, when in the commission of the crime
there is some insult or disrespect shown to
rank, age, or sex. lt is not proper to consider
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
this aggravating circumstance in crimes
against property. Robbery with homicide is
primarily a crime against property and not
against persons. Homicide is a mere incident
of the robbery, the latter being the main
People v. Daniel (1978): The rented bed-
space of Margarita Paleng (12 years old)
in her boarding house room where she
was raped by Amando Daniel (22 years
old) was considered as “dwelling” as
contemplated in RPC 14(3) because it is
not necessary that the victim owns where
she lives or dwells. Be she a lessee, a
boarder, or a bed-spacer, the place is his
home, the sanctity of which the law seeks
to uphold.
purpose and object of the criminal. [People v.
People v. Tao (2000): Dwelling cannot be
appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance in this case because the rape
was committed in the ground floor of a
two-story structure, the lower floor being
used as a video rental store and not as a
private place of abode or residence.
Pagal (1977)] But see evident premeditation
in robbery with homicide.
Dwelling (Morada). Building or structure,
exclusively used for rest and comfort.Thus, in
the case of People v. Magnaye, a
“combination of a house and a store”, or a
market stall where the victim slept is not a
dwelling. Dwelling need not be owned by the
offended party. It is enough that he used the
place for his peace of mind, rest, comfort and
privacy.
This is considered an AC because in certain
cases, there is an abuse of confidence which
the offended party reposed in the offender by
opening the door to him.
Not domicile. Dwelling should not be
understood in the concept of a domicile: A
person has more than one dwelling. So, if a
man has so many wives and he gave them
places of their own, each one is his own
dwelling. If he is killed there, dwelling will be
aggravating, provided that he also stays there
once in a while.
If a crime of adultery was committed,
dwelling is considered aggravating on the
Page 81 of 407
UP LAW BOC
part of the paramour. However, if the
paramour was also residing in the same
dwelling, it will not be aggravating.
No provocation from offended party. The
offended party must not give provocation.
[People v. Ambis (1939)]. Provocation in the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling is
understood as:
1. given by the offended party
2. sufficient, and
3. immediate to the commission of the
crime. [People v. Rios (2000)]
Even without entry to dwelling. It is not
necessary that the accused should have
actually entered the dwelling of the victim to
commit the offense: it is enough that the
victim was attacked inside his own house,
although the assailant may have devised
means to perpetrate the assault. [People v.
Ompaid (1969)]
When killing outside the dwelling. Dwelling is
till aggravating if the commission of the
crime began inside the dwelling.
Includes dependencies. The word dwelling
includes every dependency of the house that
forms an integral part thereof and therefore it
includes the staircase of the house and much
more, its terrace. [People v. Rios (2000)]
People v. Arizobal (2000): Generally, dwelling
is considered inherent in the crimes which
can only be committed in the abode of the
victim, such as trespass to dwelling and
robbery in an inhabited place. However, in
robbery with homicide the authors thereof
can commit the heinous crime without
transgressing the sanctity of the victim's
domicile. In the case at bar, the robbers
demonstrated an impudent disregard of the
inviolability of the victims' abode when they
forced their way in, looted their houses,
intimidated and coerced their inhabitants
into submission, disabled Laurencio and
Jimmy by tying their hands before dragging
them out of the house to be killed.
Dwelling not AC. Dwelling is not aggravating
in the following cases:
a. When both offender and offended party
are occupants of the same house [U.S. v.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Rodriguez], and this is true even if
offender is a servant of the house. [People
v. Caliso]
b. When the robbery is committed by the
use of force upon things, dwelling is not
aggravating because it is inherent. [U.S.
v. Cas]. But dwelling is aggravating in
robbery with violence or intimidation of
persons because this class or robbery can
be committed without the necessity of
trespassing the sanctity of the offended
party’s house. [People v. Cabato]
d. In the crime of trespass to dwelling, it is
inherent or included by law in defining
the crime.
e. When the owner of the dwelling gave
sufficient and immediate provocation.
[Art. 14 par. 3]
The presence of the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling warrants the
imposition of exemplary damages against the
appellant. [People v. Rios (2000)]
D.4. “THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED WITH
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS
UNGRATEFULNESS.”
When both attended the crime. Par. 4
provides two aggravating circumstances. If
present in the same case, they must be
independently appreciated.
Abuse of confidence (Abuso de confianza).
The confidence between the offender and the
offended party must be immediate and
personal. If two persons just met for the first
time, there can be no personal or immediate
relationship upon which confidence might
rest between them. [People v. Mandolado
(1983)]
Obvious ungratefulness.
People v. Arrojado (2001): For the aggravating
circumstance of abuse of confidence to exist,
it is essential to show that the confidence
between the parties must be immediate and
personal such as would give the accused
some advantage or make it easier for him to
commit the criminal act. The confidence must
be a means of facilitating the commission of
the crime, the culprit taking advantage of the
Page 82 of 407
UP LAW BOC
offended party's belief that the former would
not abuse said confidence.
D.5. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
THE PALACE OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OR
IN HIS PRESENCE, OR WHERE PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN THE
DISCHARGE OF THEIR DUTIES, OR IN A
PLACE DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP.”
Even without official functions. If it is the
Malacañang Palace or a church it is
aggravating regardless of whether State or
official or religious functions are being held.
People v. Librando (2000): In this case
the trial court considered nighttime and
uninhabited place as just one
aggravating circumstance.
Held: The court did not err in considering
nighttime and uninhabited place as just
one aggravating circumstance. The court
cited the case of People vs. Santos where
it has been held that if the aggravating
circumstances of nighttime, uninhabited
place or band concur in the commission
of the crime, all will constitute one
aggravating circumstance only as a
general rule although they can be
considered separately if their elements
are distinctly perceived and can subsist
independently, revealing a greater
degree of perversity.
The President need not be in the palace.
Cemeteries are not places dedicated for
religious worship.
An electoral precinct during election day is a
place “where public authorities are engaged
in their official duties.”
Presence alone. His presence alone in any
place where the crime is committed is enough
to constitute the AC. It also applies even if he
is not engaged in the discharge of his duties
in the place where the crime was committed.
Offender must have intended. Offender must
have the intention to commit a crime when he
entered the place. [People v. Jaurigue]
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Par. 5
Where public
Par. 2
authorities are
Contempt or insult to
engaged in the
public authorities
discharge of their
duties.
Public authorities are engaged in the
performance of their duties.
Public duty is Public duty is
performed in their performed outside of
office their office
The offended party The public authority
may or may not be should not be the
the public authority offended party
As regards the place where the public
authorities are engaged in the discharge of
their duties, there must be some performance
of public functions.
D.6. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
THE NIGHT TIME, OR IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE, OR BY A BAND, WHENEVER SUCH
CIRCUMSTANCES MAY FACILITATE THE
COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE.”
When considered separately. If they concur in
the commission of the crime, they are
considered as one aggravating circumstance.
These three may be considered separately:
1. when their elements are distinctly
perceived and
2. can subsist independently.
3. revealing a greater degree of perversity.
General requisites. (a) When it facilitated the
commission of the crime; or (b) When
especially sought for by the offender to insure
the commission of the crime or for the
purpose of impunity; or (c) When the offender
took advantage thereof for the purpose of
impunity.
Nighttime (Nocturnidad). The commission of
the crime must begin and be accomplished in
the nighttime (after sunset and before
sunrise, cf. art. 13, New Civil Code). Night
time by and of itself is not an aggravating
circumstance.
Page 83 of 407
UP LAW BOC
Well-lighted place. When the place is
illuminated by light, nighttime is not
aggravating. But see People v. Ventura.
People v. Ventura (2004): While the bedroom
where the crimes occurred was well-lit, the
evidence shows that, in furtherance of their
murderous intent, appellants deliberately
took advantage of nighttime, as well as the
fact that the household members were
asleep, in order to gain entry into the victims’
residence. Indeed, their own testimony
indicates that while they were already outside
the victims’ house at around 11:00 p.m., they
purposely waited until 2:00 a.m. before
breaking into the residence so as not to call
the attention of the victims and/or their
neighbors. It is thus clear that appellants
deliberately took advantage of the darkness
of the night, not to mention the fact that the
victims were fast asleep, to conceal their
actions and to facilitate and insure that their
entry into the victims home would be
undetected.
Two tests. In determining nocturnity, two
tests are employed in the alternative: (1) the
objective test, under which nighttime is
aggravating because the darkness facilitated
the commission of the offense; and (2) the
subjective test, under which nighttime is
aggravating because the darkness was
purposely sought by the offender. [People v.
Ventura (2004)]
When not absorbed by treachery.
People v. Berdida (1966): From the facts
and evidence of record in this case, it is
clear that appellants took advantage of
nighttime in committing the felonies
charged. For it appears that to carry out a
sentence they had pronounced upon the
victims for the death of the appellants’
acquaintance, they had evidently chosen
to execute their victims under the cover of
darkness, at the dead of night, when the
neighborhood was asleep. Inasmuch as
the treachery consisted in the fact that
the victims' hands were tied at the time
they were beaten, the circumstance of
nighttime is not absorbed in treachery,
but can be perceived distinctly therefrom,
since the treachery rests upon an
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
independent factual basis. A special case
therefore is present to which the rule that
nighttime is absorbed in treachery does
not apply.
Uninhabited place. It is determined not by the
distance of the nearest house to the scene of
the crime but whether or not in the place of
the commission of the offense, there was a
reasonable possibility of the victim receiving
some help. [People v. Desalisa (1994)]
Solitude must be sought to better attain the
criminal purpose. [People v. Aguinaldo (1931)]
Voice of the victim. When place of crime could
be seen and the voice of the victim could be
heard from a nearby house, the place of the
crime is not “uninhabited.”
Other notes. a. That persons occasionally
passed in the uninhabited place is
immaterial. c. This AC is appreciated when
victim is the resident of the only house in the
place.
Band. Whenever more than three armed
malefactors shall have acted together in the
commission of an offense, it shall be deemed
to have been committed by a band.
Abuse of superior strength and use of
firearms are absorbed by the aggravating
circumstance of by a band. [People v.
Escabarte (1988)]
Stones. There is an intention to cause death if
the accused throws a stone at the victims,
thus including stone under the term “arms”
in the phrase "more than 3 armed
malefactors acted together". [People v.
Bautista (1989)]
People v. Manlolo (1989): The defendants
were convicted of homicide. The evidence
also shows that after the victim was stabbed,
he fell. Two persons then "rushed" Manuel
away from the scene but the appellant and
his companions followed the victim and his
group. In following the victim, some of the
companions of the appellant continued
throwing stones at the victim and his
companions. Being superior in number and
armed with knives and stones, appellant and
Page 84 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

his companions took advantage of their

collective strength to overpower their Par. 6 Par. 8
relatively weaker victims who were not By a band With aid of armed
armed. It is therefore evident that the men
aggravating circumstances of band and Requires more than At least two armed
abuse of superior strength were present in 3 armed malefactors men
the commission of the crime. Requires that more This circumstance is
than three armed present even if one of
Not aggravating. The AC is not considered in malefactors shall the offenders merely
crimes against chastity, such as rape by four have acted together relied on their aid, for
men. [People v. Corpus, C.A., 43 O.G. 2249] in the commission of actual aid is not
an offense necessary
Band members are Armed men are mere
D.7. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED ON all principals accomplices
THE OCCASION OF A CONFLAGRATION,
SHIPWRECK, EARTHQUAKE, EPIDEMIC OR D.9. “THAT THE ACCUSED IS A
OTHER CALAMITY OR MISFORTUNE.” RECIDIVIST.” See recidivism under Multiple
Offenders.
The rationale for this AC is the debased form
of criminality of one who, in the midst of a D.10. “THAT THE OFFENDER HAS BEEN
great calamity, instead of lending aid to the PREVIOUSLY PUNISHED BY AN OFFENSE
afflicted, adds to their suffering by taking TO WHICH THE LAW ATTACHES AN EQUAL
advantage of their misfortune and despoiling OR GREATER PENALTY OR FOR TWO OR
them. MORE CRIMES TO WHICH IT ATTACHES A
LIGHTER PENALTY.” See reiteracion under
The offender must take advantage of the Multiple Offenders.
calamity or misfortune.
D.11. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED IN
“Or other calamity or misfortune.” Refers to CONSIDERATION OF A PRICE, REWARD,
other conditions of distress similar to OR PROMISE.”
“conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake or
epidemic.”
When this AC is present, it affects not only
the person who received the price or reward,
D.8. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED but also the person who gave it.
WITH THE AID OF ARMED MEN OR
PERSONS WHO INSURE OR AFFORD The evidence must show that one of the
IMPUNITY.” accused used money or valuable
consideration for the purpose of inducing
Armed men. Also covers armed women. another to perform the deed. [U.S. v.
[People v. Licop (1954)] Gamao (1912)]

Not applicable. If without previous promise it was given

a. When both the attacking party and the
party attacked were equally armed.
b. When the accused as well as those who
cooperated with him in the commission of
the crime acted under the same plan and
for the same purpose.
c. Casual presence, or when the offender
did not avail himself of their aid nor
knowingly count upon their assistance in
the commission of the crime.
voluntarily after a crime was committed as an
expression of his appreciation for the
sympathy and aid shown by the other
accused, it should not be taken into
consideration for the purpose of increasing
the penalty.
Compare with principal by inducement.

Page 85 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Article 17. Principals. - The following are Evident premeditation implies: (1) a
considered principals: deliberate planning of the act (2) before
xxx executing it.
2. Those who directly force or induce others to
commit it; Essence of premeditation. (1) An opportunity
to coolly and serenely think and deliberate (a)
on the meaning and (b) consequences of
D.12. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED what he planned to do. (2) An interval long
BY MEANS OF INUNDATION, FIRE, enough for his conscience and better
POISON, EXPLOSION, STRANDING OF A judgment to overcome his evil desire and
VESSEL OR INTERNATIONAL DAMAGE scheme. [People v. Durante]
THERETO, DERAILMENT OF A
LOCOMOTIVE, OR BY THE USE OF ANY Degree of proof. Evident premeditation must
OTHER ARTIFICE INVOLVING GREAT be proven as convincingly as the crime itself.
WASTE AND RUIN.” [People v. Bibat (1998)] For the circumstance
of evident premeditation to be appreciated,
the prosecution must present clear and
When qualifying and when generic positive evidence of the planning and
aggravating. Unless used by the offender as a preparation undertaken by the offender prior
means to accomplish a criminal purpose, any to the commission of the crime. [People v.
of the circumstances in paragraph 12 cannot Mondijar (2002)]
be considered to increase the penalty or to
change the nature of the offense. Anger or grudge. There is no evident
When another AC already qualifies the crime, premeditation when the fracas was the result,
any of these AC’s shall be considered as not of a deliberate plan but of rising tempers,
generic aggravating circumstance only. or when the attack was made in the heat of
anger. [People v. Torpio (2004)] The mere
When arson and when homicide/murder. If existence of ill-feeling or grudge between the
the intent is to kill, there is murder even if the parties is not sufficient to establish
house is burned in the process. If the intent is premeditated killing.There must be an
to destroy property, the crime is arson even if outward act showing or manifesting criminal
someone dies as a consequence. intent. [People v. Bernal (2002)]
Death as a consequence of or on occasion of
People v. Biso (2003): Dario, a black belt in
arson. [Cf. People v. Malngan (2006)].
karate, entered an eatery, seated himself
beside Teresita and made sexual advances to
Revised Penal Code: her in the presence of her brother, Eduardo.
Eduardo contacted his cousin, Biso, an ex-
ART. 320. Destructive Arson. x x x x convict and a known toughie in the area, and
If as a consequence of the commission of any related to him what Dario had done to
of the acts penalized under this Article, death Teresita. Eduardo and Pio, and 2 others
results, the mandatory penalty of death shall decided to confront Dario. They positioned
be imposed. themselves in the alley near the house of
Dario. When Dario arrived on board a taxicab,
Presidential Decree No. 1613: the four assaulted Dario. Eduardo held, with
his right hand, the wrist of Dario and covered
SEC. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by the mouth of Dario with his left hand. The 2
reason of or on the occasion of the arson others held Dario's right hand and hair. Pio
death results, the penalty of reclusion then stabbed Dario near the breast with a fan
perpetua to death shall be imposed. knife. Eduardo stabbed Dario and fled with
his three companions from the scene.
D.13. “THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED
WITH EVIDENCE PREMEDITATION.” Held: There was no evident premeditation.
The prosecution failed to prove that the four
intended to kill Dario and if they did intend to
Page 86 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
kill him, the prosecution failed to prove how
the malefactors intended to consummate the
crime. Except for the fact that the appellant
and his three companions waited in an alley
for Dario to return to his house, the
prosecution failed to prove any overt acts on
the part of the appellant and his cohorts
showing that that they had clung to any plan
to kill the victim.
People v. Pagal (1977): Evident premeditation
is inherent in the crime of robbery. However,
in the crime of robbery with homicide, if there
is evident premeditation to kill besides
stealing, it is considered as an aggravating
circumstance. In other words, evident
premeditation will only be aggravating in a
complex crime of robbery with homicide if it is
proved that the plan is not only to rob, but
also to kill.
Other notes on evident premeditation.
a. The premeditation must be based upon
external facts, and must be evident, not
merely suspected indicating deliberate
planning.
b. The date and time when the offender
determined to commit the crime is
essential, because the lapse of time for
the purpose of the third requisite is
computed from that date and time. It
may not be appreciated absent any proof
as to how and when the plan to kill was
hatched, OR what time elapsed before it
was carried out.
c. After the offenders had determined to
commit the crime, there must be a
manifest indication that they clung to
their determination. Premeditation occurs
when crime is deliberately planned and
PERSISTENTLY and CONTINUOUSLY
followed the plan.
d. Where conspiracy is directly established,
with proof of the attendant deliberation
and selection of the method, time and
means of executing the crime, the
existence of evident premeditation can be
taken for granted. [U.S. v. Cornejo]
Conspiracy presupposes premeditation,
EXCEPT, when conspiracy is merely
IMPLIED.
e. In order that premeditation may exist, it is
not necessary that the accused
premeditated the killing of a particular
Page 87 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
individual. If the offender premeditated
on the killing of any person (general
attack), it is proper to consider against
the offender the aggravating
circumstance of evident premeditation,
because whoever is killed by him is
contemplated in the premeditation. [US
v. Manalinde, 1909]
f. Mere threats without the second element
does not show evident premeditation.
D.14. “THAT THE CRAFT, FRAUD OR
DISGUISE BE EMPLOYED.”
Craft. It is employed as a scheme in the
execution of the crime.
People v. Labuguen (2000): Craft involves
intellectual trickery and cunning on the part
of the offender. When there is a direct
inducement by insidious words or
machinations, fraud is present. By saying that
he would accompany the victim to see the
cows which the latter intended to buy,
appellant was able to lure the victim to go
with him.
Distinguished from fraud.
Craft Fraud
Done in order to Done for DIRECT
NOT AROUSE INDUCEMENT by
SUSPICION insidious words and
machinations
People v. San Pedro (1980): Where the
accused pretended to hire the driver in
order to get his vehicle, it was held that
there was craft directed to the theft of the
vehicle, separate from the means
subsequently used to treacherously kill the
defenseless driver.
Craft and fraud; when not absorbed by
treachery. Craft and fraud may be absorbed in
treachery if they have been deliberately
adopted as the means, methods or forms for
the treacherous strategy. Otherwise, they
may co-exist independently where they are
adopted for a different purpose in the
commission of the crime. [People v. Lab-eo
(2002)]
UP LAW BOC
Disguise. Resorting to any device to conceal
identity.
Test. The test of disguise is o whether the
device or contrivance resorted to by the
offender was intended to or did make
identification more difficult, such as the use
of a mask, false hair or beard.
When still recognized. But if in spite of the
use of handkerchief to cover their faces, the
culprits were recognized by the victim,
disguise is not considered aggravating.
People v. Empacis (1993): The appellants
were convicted of robbery with homicide,
which the Supreme Court affirmed. The
appellants pretended to be bona fide
customers of the victim's store and on his
pretext gained entry into the latter's store
and later, into another part of his dwelling.
This Court has held stratagems and ruses of
this sort to constitute the aggravating
circumstance of fraud or craft, e.g: where the
accused —
a. pretended to be constabulary soldiers and
by that ploy gained entry into the residence of
their prey whom they thereafter robbed and
killed;
b. pretended to be needful of medical
treatment, and through this artifice, entered
the house of the victim whom they thereupon
robbed and killed;
c. pretended to be wayfarers who had lost
their way and by this means gained entry into
a house, in which they then perpetrated the
crime of robbery with homicide;
d. pretended to be customer wanting to buy a
bottle of wine;
e. pretended to be co-passengers of the
victim in a public utility vehicle;
f. posed as customers wishing to buy
cigarettes; and as being thirsty, asking for
drink of water.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
D.15. “THAT ADVANTAGE BE TAKEN OF
SUPERIOR STRENGTH, OR MEANS BE
EMPLOYED TO WEAKEN THE DEFENSE.”
Factors to be considered. The aggravating
circumstance of abuse of superior strength
depends on the age, size and strength of the
parties. It is considered whenever there is a
notorious inequality of forces between the
victim and the aggressor, assessing a
superiority of strength notoriously
advantageous for the aggressor which is
selected or taken advantage of by him in the
commission of the crime. [People v. Barcelon
(2002)]. Abuse of superior strength is present
when the offender uses a powerful weapon
which is out of proportion to the defense
available to the offended party. [People v.
Padilla (1994)]
Force out of proportion. Mere superiority in
number, even assuming it to be a fact, would
not necessarily indicate the attendance of
abuse of superior strength. The prosecution
should still prove that the assailants
purposely used excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense available
to the persons attacked. [People v. Sansaet
(2002)]. There must be a deliberate intent on
the part of the malefactors to take advantage
of their greater number. The prosecution
must clearly show the offenders' deliberate
intent to do so. [People v. Lobrigas (2002)]
No advantage of superior strength. When: (a)
one who attacks is overcome with passion
and obfuscation or (b) when quarrel arose
unexpectedly and the fatal blow was struck
while victim and accused were struggling.
Also, there is advantage of superior strength
when (c) attack was made on victim
alternately, even if several of the accused
gave blows to the victim, or when (d) one
acted as principal and others as accomplices.
By a band Abuse of superior
strength
When the offense is The gravamen of
committed by more abuse of superiority
than 3 armed is the taking
Page 88 of 407
UP LAW BOC
malefactors advantage by the
regardless of the culprits of their
comparative collective strength
strength of the to overpower their
victim. weaker victims.
Weaken defense. An example is when the
accused intentionally intoxicated the victim.
D.16. “THAT THE ACT BE COMMITTED
WITH TREACHERY (ALEVOSIA).”
Treachery. When the offender commits any of
the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to
insure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended
party might make.
The essence of treachery is that by virtue of
the means, method or form employed by the
offender, the offended party was not able to
put up any defense.
When offended party was able to self-defend.
If the offended party was able to put up a
defense, even only a token one, there is no
treachery. Instead, some other aggravating
circumstance may be present but it is no
longer treachery.
People v. Escote Jr. (2003): Art. 14, par. 16 of
the RPC is a reproduction of the 1850 Penal
Code of Spain and the Codigo Penal
Reformado de 1870 with a slight difference.
In the latter law, the words los delitos contra
las personas (the persons) are used, whereas
in Article 14, paragraph 6, of the Revised
Penal Code, the words “crimes against the
person” are used.
Going by the letter of the law, treachery is
applicable only to crimes against persons as
enumerated in Title Eight, Chapters One and
Two, Book II of the Revised Penal Code.
However, the Supreme Court of Spain has
consistently applied treachery to robbery with
homicide, classified as a crime against
property.
In its Sentencia dated March 14, 1877, the
Supreme Court of Spain declared that
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
treachery is a generic aggravating
circumstance not only in crimes against
persons but also in robbery with
homicide. This is so, the high tribunal ruled,
because when robbery is coupled with crimes
committed against persons, the crime is not
only an assault (ataca) on the property of the
victims but also of the victims themselves
(ofende).
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.
Means and not result. The treacherous
character of the means employed in the
aggression does not depend upon the result
thereof but upon the means itself. Thus,
frustrated murder could be aggravated by
treachery.
Preparation versus sudden attack. The Mode
of attack must be consciously adopted. The
accused must make some preparation to kill
the deceased in such manner as to insure the
execution of the crime or to make it
impossible or hard for the person attacked to
defend himself or retaliate. [People v.
Tumaob (1998)]
However, a sudden attack by the assailant,
whether frontally or from behind, is treachery
if he deliberately adopted such Mode of
attack with the purpose of depriving the
victim of a chance to either fight or retreat.
[People v. Lab-eo (2002)]
Page 89 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Anger. It must be a result of meditation,
calculation or reflection. [U.S. v. Balagtas]
Treachery is not preconceived if the attack is
done out of anger. [People v. Dumadag
(2004)]
Attacks show intention to eliminate risk.
a. Victim asleep
b. Victim half-awake or just awakened
c. Victim grappling or being held.
d. Attacked from behind
Use of guns. There is treachery when the
victim is shot, albeit frontally, with his hands
raised to show that he would not fight, or
because of fright, or to try to ward off the
shots that were to come. This circumstance
constitutes treachery because the victim was
clearly in a defenseless position. [People v.
Dulos (1994)]
Once a gun is drawn against a person, the
means methods and forms employed for its
execution is already conceived. And once it is
tended directly and specifically to insure its
execution, it consequently produces the
conscious and deliberate intention. Finally if
all the acts of execution had been effectively
done without risk on the part of the offender
arising from any defense coming from the
offended party, treachery results. [People v.
Gonzales, Jr. (2001)]
Continuous and non-continuous aggression.
a. When the aggression is CONTINUOUS,
treachery must be present in the
BEGINNING of the assault.
b. When the assault WAS NOT
CONTINUOUS, in that there was an
interruption, it is sufficient that treachery
was present AT THE MOMENT THE
FATAL BLOW WAS GIVEN.
People v. Malejana (2006): Treachery may
still be appreciated even when the victim was
forewarned of danger to his person. What is
decisive is that the execution of the attack
made it impossible for the victim to defend
himself or to retaliate. Thus, even a frontal
attack could be treacherous when
unexpected and on an unarmed victim who
would be in no position to repel the attack or
Page 90 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
avoid it. Treachery cannot co-exist with
passion and obfuscation.
Degree of proof. Treachery cannot be
presumed. The suddenness of the attack does
not, of itself, suffice to support a finding of
alevosia, even if the purpose was to kill, so
long as the decision was made all of a sudden
and the victim’s helpless position was
accidental. [People v. Lubreo (1991)]. It must
be proved by clear and convincing evidence.
[People v. Santos (2000)].
People v. Oandasan, Jr. (2016): Treachery as
an aggravating or attendant circumstance
must be established beyond reasonable
doubt. This quantum is hardly achieved if
there is no testimony showing how the
accused actually commenced the assault
against the victim. But to absolutely require
such testimony in all cases would cause some
murders committed without eyewitnesses to
go unpunished by the law. To avoid that most
undesirable situation, the Rules of Court
permits a resort not only to direct evidence
but also to circumstantial evidence. Indeed,
the proof competent to achieve the quantum
is not confined to direct evidence from an
eyewitness, who may be unavailable.
Circumstantial evidence can just as efficiently
and competently achieve the quantum. The
Rules of Court nowhere expresses a
preference for direct evidence of a fact to
evidence of circumstances from which the
existence of a fact may be properly inferred.
The Rules of Court has not also required a
greater degree of certainty when the evidence
is circumstantial than when it is direct, for, in
either case, the trier of fact must still be
convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of the
guilt of the accused.16 The quantity of
circumstances sufficient to convict an
accused has not been fixed as to be reduced
into some definite standard to be followed in
every instance.
People v. Rendaje (2000): Appellant avers
that the prosecution failed to provide details
on how the aggression or assault that
resulted in the death of the victim was carried
out, or how it began and developed. He
likewise contends that the five fatal wounds
inflicted on the victims back were not enough
to infer that treachery had in fact taken place.
UP LAW BOC
The victim is now dead. And no one has
positively testified on how she was killed. But
her lifeless body shows the manner in which
she was attacked by her assailant. It
eloquently speaks for itself.
Based on the medicolegal officers testimony
and as reflected in the Autopsy Report (Exh.
A), there were eight (8) stab wounds inflicted
on the victim, apart from the abrasions, the
contusions, and the hematoma. These
injuries establish the manner in which the
killing was cruelly carried out with little or no
risk to the assailant.
People v. Mores (2013): Appellant maintains
that "there is no evidence showing that he
consciously adopted the method of attack
(grenade throwing) directly and especially to
facilitate the perpetration of the killing
without danger to himself." He insists that
the act of throwing the grenade, as alleged by
the prosecution, was made at the spur of the
moment and the short distance between the
explosion and his alleged location negates
any sense of concern for his own well-being
which serves to belie any treacherous intent
on his part.
The Court disagrees. Appellant’s unexpected
action which was immediately followed by
the grenade’s lethal explosion left the victims
with utterly no chance to escape the blast
area nor to find protective cover. Though
appellant stood a short distance away, he
knowingly positioned himself safely from the
reach of the grenade’s destructive force. From
the foregoing, the Court can confidently
conclude that treachery was present in the
commission of the crime charged.
Conspiracy. When there is conspiracy in the
commission of a crime, treachery can be
appreciated against all conspirators. [People
v. Ong (1975)]
There is murder even if there is no intent to
kill if the homicide is accompanied by
treachery.
People v. Cagoco (1933): The appellant boxed
the victim’s head from behind and ran away.
The blow caused the victim to fall and his
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
head to hit the asphalt road. The victim died
after. The Supreme Court ruled that even if
there was no intent to kill, the appellant
remains liable for the death of the victim as a
direct consequence of the appellant’s fist-
blow against the victim’s head. Since the
accused struck the deceased from behind and
without warning, he acted with treachery.
This then qualifies the crime to murder.
When not aggravating.
a. When meeting is incidental.
b. When no other witness in the offense.
c. Witness could not provide full details of
the attack.
d. When attack is frontal. EXCEPT: When
victims was tied.
e. When a child is attacked.
f. When victim was already defending
himself.
g. When victim had a chance to prepare.
h. When attack preceded by a warning.
b. o. When attack was preceded by heated
discussion.
D.17. “THAT MEANS BE EMPLOYED OR
CIRCUMSTANCES BROUGHT ABOUT
WHICH ADD IGNOMINY TO THE NATURAL
EFFECTS OF THE ACT.”
It is a circumstance pertaining to the moral
order, which adds disgrace to the material
injury caused by the crime.
“Dog style.” Raping a woman from behind is
ignominous because that is not the normal
form of intercourse, it is something which
offends the morals of the offended woman.
This is how animals do it. [People v. Siao
(2000)]
People v. Torrefiel (1947): The novelty of the
manner in which the accused raped the victim
by winding cogon grass around his genitals
augmented the wrong done by increasing its
pain and adding ignominy thereto.
People v. Cachola (2004): For ignominy to be
appreciated, it is required that the offense be
committed in a manner that tends to make its
effect more humiliating, thus adding to the
victim's moral suffering. Where the victim
Page 91 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

was already dead when his body or a part necessary that the offender should have
thereof was dismembered, ignominy cannot entered the building. What aggravates the
be taken against the accused. In this case, the liability of the offender is the breaking of a
information states that Victorino's sexual part of the building as a means to the
organ was severed after he was shot and commission of the crime.
there is no allegation that it was done to add
ignominy to the natural effects of the act. We Unlawful entry and breaking of wall, roof, etc.,
cannot, therefore, consider ignominy as an distinguished.
aggravating circumstance.
Unlawful Breaking of
entry wall, roof,
etc.
People v. Bumidang (2000): The aggravating There must be No Yes
circumstance of ignominy shall be taken into a breaking of
account if means are employed or the entrance
circumstances brought about which add Entrance Yes No
ignominy to the natural effects of the offense; actually
or if the crime was committed in a manner happened
that tends to make its effects more Must be a No Yes
humiliating to the victim, that is, add to her means to the
moral suffering. It was established that commission of
Baliwang used the flashlight and examined the crime
the genital of Gloria before he ravished her.
He committed his bestial deed in the When breaking of door or window is lawful.
presence of Gloria's old father. These facts
clearly show that Baliwang deliberately Section 11. Right of officer to break into
wanted to further humiliate Gloria, thereby building or enclosure. — An officer, in order to
aggravating and compounding her moral make an arrest either by virtue of a warrant,
sufferings. Ignominy was appreciated in a or without a warrant as provided in section 5,
case where a woman was raped in the may break into any building or enclosure
presence of her betrothed, or of her husband, where the person to be arrested is or is
or was made to exhibit to the rapists her reasonably believed to be, if he is refused
complete nakedness before they raped her. admittance thereto, after announcing his
authority and purpose. (11a) [Rule 113, sec. 11,
D.18. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure]
AFTER AN UNLAWFUL ENTRY.”
Section 7. Right to break door or window to
effect search. — The officer, if refused
There is no unlawful entry when the door is admittance to the place of directed search
broken and thereafter the accused made an after giving notice of his purpose and
entry thru the broken door. The breaking of authority, may break open any outer or inner
the door is covered by paragraph 19. door or window of a house or any part of a
house or anything therein to execute the
D.19. “THAT AS A MEANS TO THE warrant or liberate himself or any person
COMMISSION OF THE CRIME, A WALL, lawfully aiding him when unlawfully detained
ROOF, FLOOR, DOOR, OR WINDOW BE therein. (6) [Rule 126, sec. 7]
BROKEN.”
D.20. “THAT THE CRIME BE COMMITTED
For entrance, not escape/exit. If the wall, etc. WITH THE AID OF PERSONS UNDER
is broken in order to get out of the place, it is FIFTEEN YEARS OF AGE OR BY MEANS OF
not aggravating. MOTOR VEHICLES, MOTORIZED
WATERCRAFT, AIRSHIPS, OR OTHER
Even if no entry. Because of the phrase “as a SIMILAR MEANS.”
means to the commission of a crime”, it is not
Page 92 of 407
UP LAW BOC
With the aid of persons under 15 years of age;
basis. To repress, so far as possible, the
frequent practice resorted to by professional
criminals of availing themselves of minors
taking advantage of their lack of criminal
responsibility (remember that minors are
given leniency when they commit a crime)
By means of a motor vehicle; basis. To
counteract the great facilities found by
Modern criminals in said means to commit
crime and flee and abscond once the same is
committed. This circumstance is aggravating
only when used in the commission of the
offense.
Escape. If motor vehicles are used only in the
escape of the offender, it is not aggravating.
It must have been used to facilitate the
commission of the crime to be aggravating.
“Or other similar means.” The expression
should be understood as referring to (a)
MOTORIZED vehicles or (b) other efficient
means of transportation similar to
automobile or airplane.
Other statutory definitions. Compare how
“motor vehicle” and similar means are
defined relative to how “motor vehicle” is
defined in RA 10883, otherwise known as the
New Anti-Carnapping Act of 2016.
Motor vehicle refers to any vehicle propelled
by any power other than muscular power
using public highways, except road rollers,
trolley cars, street sweepers, sprinklers, lawn
mowers, bulldozers, graders, forklifts,
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 ot a
motor vehicle, shall be classified as a
separate motor vehicle with no power rating.
[sec. 2(e), RA 10883]
When using victim’s own vehicle.
People v. Ong (1975): The use of a motor
vehicle is aggravating in murder where the
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
vehicle in question is used in transporting the
victim and the accused. Benjamin Ong’s car
was used to trail the victim’s Mustang. It also
carried the victim to the scene of the killing
and had the implements that were used in
digging the grave. Finally, it was a fast means
of fleeing and absconding from the scene.
u. “That the wrong done in the commission of
the crime be deliberately augmented by
causing other wrong not necessary for its
commissions.”
For it to exist, it must be shown that the
accused enjoyed and delighted in making his
victim suffer.
Not cruelty, but outraging the corpse. If the
victim was already dead when the acts of
mutilation were being performed, this would
also qualify the killing to murder due to
outraging of his corpse.
Ignominy Cruelty
Shocks the moral Physical
conscience of man
Refers to the moral Refers to the
effect of a crime and it physical suffering of
pertains to the moral the victim so he has
order, whether or not to be alive
the victim is dead or
alive
People v. Catian (2002): Catian repeatedly
struck Willy with a "chako" on the head,
causing Willy to fall on his knees. Calunod
seconded by striking the victim with a piece of
wood on the face. When Willy finally
collapsed, Sumalpong picked him up, carried
him over his shoulder, and carried Willy to a
place where they burned Willy. The latter’s
skeletal remains were discovered by a child
who was pasturing his cow near a peanut
plantation.
Held: The circumstance of cruelty may not be
considered as there is no showing that the
victim was burned while he was still alive. For
cruelty to exist there must be proof showing
that the accused delighted in making their
victim suffer slowly and gradually, causing
him unnecessary physical and moral pain in
the consummation of the criminal act. No
proof was presented that would show that
Page 93 of 407
UP LAW BOC
accused appellants deliberately and
wantonly augmented the suffering of their
victim.
People v. Guerrero (2002): Appellant first
severed the victim's head before his penis was
cut-off. This being the sequence of events,
cruelty has to be ruled out for it connotes an
act of deliberately and sadistically
augmenting the wrong by causing another
wrong not necessary for its commission, or
inhumanely increasing the victim's suffering.
As testified to by Dr. Sanglay, and reflected in
her medical certificate, Ernesto in fact died as
a result of his head being severed. No cruelty
is to be appreciated where the act
constituting the alleged cruelty in the killing
was perpetrated when the victim was already
dead.
However, the aggravating circumstance of
outraging the corpse may be appreciated.
D.21. SPECIAL AGGRAVATING AND
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
In the Revised Penal Code. Art. 62 of RPC has
been revised by RA 7659 to include the
following:
The maximum penalty shall be imposed if the
offense was committed by any group who
belongs to an organized/syndicated crime
group.
An organized/syndicated crime group means
a group of two or more persons collaborating,
confederating or mutually helping one
another for purposes of gain in the
commission of any crime.
Murder.
Article 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,
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
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.
Rape.
Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under
paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall
be punished by reclusion perpetua.
xxx
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; [See alternative
circumstance]
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
Page 94 of 407
UP LAW BOC
other relatives within the third civil degree of
consanguinity; [See ignominy]
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; [See
taking advantage of public position]
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 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.
xxx
Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the
rape is committed with any of the ten
aggravating/ qualifying circumstances
mentioned in this article.
Other felonies in the RPC. The following are
other felonies in the Revised Penal Code with
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
qualifying and/or special aggravating
circumstances. [GRo VIDS]
a. Grave threats [art. 282]
b. 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 [art. 295]
c. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a
band [art. 300 in rel. to art. 299]
d. Violation of domicile [art. 128, par. 2]
e. Interruption of religious worship [art. 132,
par. 2]
f. Direct assault [art. 148]
g. Slavery [art. 272, par. 2]
D.22. OTHER SPECIAL AGGRAVATING AND
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES.
Use of explosives. Decree Codifying the Laws
on Illegal/ Unlawful Possession,
Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition, of Firearms, Ammunition or
Explosives [P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A.
No. 8294] as an aggravating circumstance.
Paragraphs 1 and 2 of Section 3 state:
Sec. 3. Unlawful manufacture, sale,
acquisition, disposition or possession of
explosives. – The penalty of prision mayor in
its maximum period to reclusion temporal
and a fine of not less than Fifty thousand
pesos (P50,000) shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully manufacture,
assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose or possess
hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other
explosives, including but not limited to
'pillbox,' 'molotov cocktail bombs,' 'fire
bombs,' or other incendiary devices capable of
producing destructive effect on contiguous
objects or causing injury or death to any
person.
When a person commits any of the crimes
defined in the Revised Penal Code or special
laws with the use of the aforementioned
explosives, detonation agents or incendiary
devices, which results in the death of any
person or persons, the use of such explosives,
detonation agents or incendiary devices shall
be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
Page 95 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Use of “loose firearms.” RA 10591 or the Use of firearms under PD 1866 (as amended
Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition by RA8294) and RA 10591, distinguished.
Regulation Act (2013) expressly repealed Sec.
1 of PD 1866 as amended. PD 1866, as RA 10591
amended
(v) Loose firearm refers to an unregistered When the No separate No separate
firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm, accused charge of charge of
firearm which has been lost or stolen, illegally commits unlawful [D- use of loose
manufactured firearms, registered firearms in another crime SPAM]: firearm if the
the possession of an individual other than the a. Disposition use of the
licensee and those with revoked licenses in b. Sale same is
accordance with the rules and regulations. c. Possession inherent in
[Sec. 3(v), RA 10591] d. Acquisition the
or commission
(Note: Loose firearms are UP SOLAR: e. of the crime.
Unregistered; Possessed by non-licensee; Manufacture
Stolen; Obliterated; Lost; Altered; with Otherwise,
Revoked license) of firearms or there is a
ammunition distinct and
SEC. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the or separate
Commission of a Crime. – The use of a loose instruments offense
firearm, when inherent in the commission of a used or concerning
crime punishable under the Revised Penal intended to the D-SPAM
Code or other special laws, shall be be used in of loose
considered as an aggravating circumstance: the firearm.
Provided, That if the crime committed with manufacture
the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the of firearms of
law with a maximum penalty which is lower ammunition
than that prescribed in the preceding section When use of If homicide or If use of the
for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty firearm is murder is loose firearm
for illegal possession of firearm shall be aggravating committed is inherent in
imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime circumstance with the use the
charged: Provided, further, That if the crime of an commission
committed with the use of a loose firearm is unlicensed of any crime
penalized by the law with a maximum firearm
penalty which is equal to that imposed under
the preceding section for illegal possession of
firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its People vs. De Gracia (1994): Ownership is not
minimum period shall be imposed in addition an essential element of illegal possession of
to the penalty for the crime punishable under firearms and ammunition.
the Revised Penal Code or other special laws
of which he/she is found guilty. What the law requires is merely possession
which includes not only actual physical
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, possession but also constructive possession.
or incident to, or in connection with the crime
of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted Generic aggravating or special aggravating?
coup d’ etat, such violation shall be absorbed In RA 8294, the statute does not specify
as an element of the crime of rebellion or whether or not the use of an unlicensed
insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat. firearm in murder or homicide is generic or
special aggravating. It merely states that the
If the crime is committed by the person use of the unlicensed firearm is appreciated
without using the loose firearm, the violation as “aggravating.” In Palaganas v. People
of this Act shall be considered as a distinct (2006), the Court interpreted this as making
and separate offense. [Sec. 29, RA 10591] the use of unlicensed firearm in murder or

Page 96 of 407
UP LAW BOC
homicide as SPECIAL aggravating. Applying
the logic of Palaganas by analogy, Section 29
in RA 10591 should be interpreted as
assigning the use of loose firearm as SPECIAL
aggravating as well.
Use of dangerous drugs. Cf. The
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of
2002 [R.A. No. 9165].
Section 25. Qualifying Aggravating
Circumstances in the Commission of a Crime
by an Offender Under the Influence of
Dangerous Drugs. – Notwithstanding the
provisions of any law to the contrary, a
positive finding for the use of dangerous
drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating
circumstance in the commission of a crime by
an offender, and the application of the
penalty provided for in the Revised Penal
Code shall be applicable.
Arson under PD 1613.
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.
[BAHaGS: Benefit of Another; Hatred towards
owner/occupant; intent to Gain; Syndicate]
The offense is committed by a syndicate if it is
planned or carried out by a group of three (3)
or more persons.
Syndicate under art. 62 and PD 1613,
distinguished. Under art. 62 of RPC, a
syndicate needs at least TWO persons. Under
PD 1613, a syndicate needs at least THREE
persons.
E. ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Alternative Circumstances. Are circumstances
which must be taken inconsideration as
aggravating or mitigating according to the
nature and effects of the crime.
Types under art. 15. (IRE)
a. Intoxication
b. Relationship
c. Degree of Education/instruction
E.1. RELATIONSHIP
Covers: (SAD SiR)
a. Spouse
b. Ascendant
c. Descendant
d. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or
sister (Siblings)
e. Relative by affinity in the same degree of
the offender
People v. Marcos (2001): In order that the
alternative circumstance of relationship may
be taken into consideration in the imposition
of the proper penalty, the offended party
must either be the (a) spouse, (b) ascendant,
(c) descendant, (d) legitimate, natural or
adopted brother or sister, or (e) relative by
affinity in the same degree, of the offender.
The rule is that relationship is aggravating in
crimes against persons as when the offender
and the offended party are
People v. Orilla (2004): The Revised Penal
Code is silent as to when relationship is
mitigating and when it is aggravating.
Jurisprudence considers relationship as an
aggravating circumstance in crimes against
chastity.
However, rape is no longer a crime against
chastity for it is now classified as a crime
against persons.
People vs. Delen (2014) Relationship is
always aggravating in RAPE.
When exempting.
When accessory. An accessory who is related
to the principal within the relationship
Page 97 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
prescribed in Art. 20 except if accessory falls
within Par. 1 of Art. 19;
Death under exceptional circumstance. A
legally married person who having surprised
his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person who shall
inflict upon them physical injuries of any
other kind (i.e. less serious and slight physical
injuries). [Art. 247, RPC]
Select crime against relatives. Spouses,
ascendants and descendants, or relatives by
affinity in the same line who committed the
crime of theft, malicious mischief or swindling
(estafa) but there is civil liability. [Art. 332,
RPC]
When mitigating.
In crimes against property. By analogy to the
provisions of Art. 332, relationship is
mitigating in the crimes of robbery (arts. 294-
3-2), usurpation (Art. 312), fraudulent
insolvency (Art. 314) and arson (Arts. 321-322,
325-326).
When the crime is less serious or slight
physical injuries. If the offended party is a
relative of a lower degree than the offender.
When aggravating.
In crimes against persons. In cases where:
• the offended party is a relative of a higher
degree than the offender (grandson kills
grandfather), or
• when the offender and the offended party
are relatives of the same level, as killing a
brother, a brother-in law, a half-brother
or adopted brother.
When the crime is Serious Physical Injuries
[Art. 263]. Even if the offended party is a
descendant of the offender, relationship is
AGGRAVATING.
When the crime is Less Serious Physical
Injuries OR Slight Serious Physical Injuries. If
the offended party is a relative of a higher
degree than the offender
Page 98 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
When the crime is Homicide OR Murder. If the
victim of the crime is a relative of lower
degree.
In Crimes Against Chastity. Relationship is
always aggravating
When not appreciated.
People v. Atop (1998): 11-year-old Regina lives
with her grandmother. Atop is the common-
law husband of her grandmother. Atop was
found guilty of 4 counts of rape which was
committed in 1993 (2x), 1994 and 1995. The
lower court took into account the
Aggravating Circumstance of relationship.
Held: The law cannot be stretched to include
persons attached by common-law relations.
In this case, there is no blood relationship or
legal bond that links Atop to his victim.
E.2. INTOXICATION
People v. Bernal (2002): It is only the
circumstance of intoxication which: (a) if not
mitigating, (b) is automatically aggravating.
Appellant’s intoxication cannot be considered
mitigating because accused-appellant failed
to show that his intoxication impaired his will
power or his capacity to understand the
wrongful nature of his acts. The person
pleading intoxication must prove that he took
such quantity of alcoholic beverage, prior to
the commission of the crime, as would blur his
reason. This the accused-appellant failed to
do. No proof was presented by accused-
appellant that the amount of liquor he had
taken was of such quantity as to affect his
mental faculties. The mere claim of
intoxication does not entitle him to the
mitigating circumstance of intoxication.
When mitigating.
1. There must be an indication that
• because of the alcoholic intake of the
offender,
• he is suffering from diminished self-
control.
• It is not the quantity of alcoholic
drink.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

• Rather it is the effect of the alcohol 3. Other absolutory causes

upon the offender which shall be the 4. Acts Not covered by law and in case of
basis of the mitigating circumstance. excessive punishment. [Art. 5]
2. That offender is
• not a habitual drinker and F.1. INSTIGATION
• did not take alcoholic drink with the
intention to reinforce his resolve to
commit crime. Entrapment Instigation
Ways and means are The instigator
resorted to for the practically induces
When aggravating. purpose of trapping the would-be
1. If intoxication is habitual and capturing the accused into the
2. If it is intentional to embolden offender to lawbreaker in the commission of the
commit crime execution of his offense and himself
criminal plan becomes a co-
principal.
E.3. DEGREE OF EDUCATION OR The means originate The law enforcer
INSTRUCTION from the mind of the conceives the
criminal. commission of the
crime and suggests
Low degree of education is mitigating, to the accused who
generally. Refers to the lack of sufficient carries it into
intelligence of and knowledge of the full execution.
significance of one’s act. To be considered A person has A public officer or a
mitigating, degree of instruction must have planned or is about private detective
some reasonable connection to the offense. to commit a crime induces an innocent
and ways and means person to commit a
Exception. Being illiterate does not mitigate are resorted to by a crime and would
liability if crime committed is one which one public officer to trap arrest him upon or
inherently understands as wrong (e.g. and catch the after the commission
parricide). Lack of education is not mitigating criminal. of the crime by the
in murder or homicide; crimes against latter.
property; and crimes against chastity. Not a bar to the The accused must be
prosecution and acquitted because
High degree of education. May be appreciated conviction of the the offender simply
as aggravating when offender availed himself lawbreaker. acts as a tool of the
or took advantage of it in committing the law enforcers
crime. For instance, a doctor who took
advantage of his knowledge to make a poison Entrapment. Trapping persons into crime for
to kill his victim in such a way as to avoid the purpose of instituting criminal
suspicion. [Reyes] prosecutions. It is a scheme or technique
ensuring the apprehension of the criminals by
F. ABSOLUTORY CAUSES being in the actual crime scene.

The law officers shall not be guilty to the

Absolutory causes. Those where the act
committed is a crime but for reasons of public
policy and sentiment there is no penalty
imposed. [People v. Talisic (1997)]
Types. There are FOUR TYPES of absolutory
circumstances: IPON
1. Instigation
2. Pardon by the offended party
Page 99 of 407
crime if they have done the following:
a. He does not induce a person to commit a
crime for personal gain or is not involved
in the planning of the crime.
b. Does take the necessary steps to seize the
instrument of the crime and to arrest the
offenders before he obtained the profits
in mind.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Example. A, a government anti-narcotics
agent, acted as a poseur buyer of shabu and
negotiated with B, a suspected drug pusher
who is unaware that A is a police officer. A
then paid B in marked money and the latter
handed over a sachet of shabu. Upon signal,
the cops closed in on B.
Instigation. The involvement of a law officer in
the crime itself in the following manner:
1. He induces a person to commit a crime
for personal gain.
2. He doesn’t take the necessary steps to
seize the instrument of the crime & to
arrest the offenders before he obtained
the profits in mind.
3. He obtained the profits in mind even
though afterwards does take the
necessary steps to seize the instrument of
the crime and to arrest the offenders.
Example. A, leader of an anti-narcotics team,
approached and persuaded B to act as a
buyer of shabu and transact with C, a
suspected pusher. B was given marked
money to pay C for a sachet of shabu. After
the sale was consummated, the cops closed
in and arrested both B and C.
People v. Pacis (2002): Yap, an NBI agent,
received information that a Pacis was offering
to sell ½ kg of "shabu." A buy-bust operation
was approved. The informant introduced Yap
to Pacis as an interested buyer. They
negotiated the sale of ½ kg of shabu. Pacis
handed to Yap a paper bag with the markings
"Yellow Cab". While examining it, Pacis asked
for the payment. Yap gave the "boodle
money" to Pacis. Upon Pacis's receipt of the
payment, the officers identified themselves as
NBI agents and arrested him.
Held: The operation that led to the arrest of
appellant was an entrapment, not
instigation. In entrapment, ways and means
are resorted to for the purpose of trapping
and capturing lawbreakers in the execution of
their criminal plan. In instigation, instigators
practically induce the would-be defendant
into the commission of the offense and
become co-principals themselves.
Entrapment is sanctioned by law as a
legitimate method of apprehending criminal
Page 100 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
elements engaged in the sale and
distribution of illegal drugs.
US v. Phelps (1910): Phelps was charged and
found guilty for violating the Opium Law (Act
No. 1761). Phelps was induced by Smith, an
employee of the Bureau of Internal Revenue,
into procuring opium, providing for a venue
and making arrangements for the two of
them to smoke opium.
Held: Smith not only suggested the
commission of the crime but also expressed
his desire to commit the offense in paying the
amount required for the arrangements. Such
acts done by employees of government in
encouraging or inducing persons to commit a
crime in order to prosecute them are most
reprehensible.
F.2. PARDON BY THE OFFENDED PARTY
See discussion on art. 344.
F.3. OTHER ABSOLUTORY CAUSES
(DALE’S 89 ARTS)
a. Death under exceptional circumstances
(Art. 247)
b. Accessories in light felonies
c. Light felonies not consummated
d. Exemption from criminal liability in
crimes against property
e. Spontaneous desistance [Art. 6]
f. Ways on how criminal liability is
extinguished under Art 89
g. Accessories exempt under Art. 20
h. Under Article 332, exemptions from
criminal liability for cases of theft,
swindling and malicious mischief. It limits
the responsibility of the offender to civil
liability and frees him from criminal
liability by virtue of his Relationship to the
offended party. [Gonzales Vda. De
Carungcong (2010)]
i. Trespass to dwelling to prevent serious
harm to self [Art. 280]
j. Discovering secrets through Seizure of
correspondence of the ward by their
guardian [art. 219]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

occasion of rape, a homicide is committed,

F.4. ACTS NOT COVERED BY LAW AND IN the penalty shall be death. Courts are not
CASE OF EXCESSIVE PUNISHMENT concerned with wisdom, efficacy or morality
of law. The discomfort faced by those forced
by law to impose death penalty is an ancient
Art. 5 RPC. Duty of the court in connection one, but it is a matter upon which judges
with acts which should be repressed but have no choice. The Rules of Court mandates
which are not covered by the law, and in that after an adjudication of guilt, the judges
cases of excessive penalties. should impose the proper penalty and civil
liability provided for by the law on the
1) Whenever a court has knowledge of any act accused.
which it may deem proper to repress and
which is not punishable by law, it shall render
the proper decision, and shall report to the
Chief Executive, through the Department of
Justice, the reasons which induce the court to
believe that said act should be made the
subject of legislation.
2) In the same way, the court shall submit to
the Chief Executive, through the Department
of Justice, such statement as may be deemed
proper, without suspending the execution of
the sentence, when a strict enforcement of
the provisions of this Code would result in the
imposition of a clearly excessive penalty,
taking into consideration the degree of malice
and the injury caused by the offense.

Coverage.
1. Where the court cannot convict the
accused because the act he committed is
not punishable under the law, but the
court deems it proper to repress such act.
• The proper judgment is acquittal. The
judge must report to the Chief
Executive that said act be made
subject of penal legislation and the
reasons therefore.
2. Where the court after trial finds the
accused guilty, and the penalty
prescribed for the crime appears too
harsh considering the conditions
surrounding the commission of the crime,
• The judge should impose the law (not
suspend the execution of the
sentence).
• The most that he could do is
recommend to the Chief Executive to
grant executive clemency.

People v. Veneracion (1995)

Held: The law plainly and unequivocally
provides that “when by reason or on the
Page 101 of 407
UP LAW BOC
IV. PERSONS LIABLE
AND DEGREE OF
PARTICIPATION
A. CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL
Article 8. Conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony. - Conspiracy and proposal to commit
felony are punishable only in the cases in
which the law specially provides a penalty
therefor.
A conspiracy exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit
it.
There is proposal when the person who has
decided to commit a felony proposes its
execution to some other person or persons.
[RPC]
A.1. CONSPIRACY
Definition. Exists when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of a felony and decide to commit
it. (Article 8, RPC). Agreement may be oral or
written, express or implied.
Requisites of conspiracy.
1. Two or more persons come to an
agreement.
2. Agreement presupposes meeting of the
minds of two or more persons
3. The agreement pertains to a commission
of a felony.
4. Agreement to effect what has been
conceived and determined.
5. The execution of the felony was decided
upon.
There must be participation in the criminal
resolution because simple knowledge thereof
by a person may only make him liable as an
accomplice.
Rules. Conspiracy and proposal to commit a
felony are not punishable.
Page 102 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Exception. They are punishable only in the
cases in which the law specially provides a
penalty therefore.
Rationale: Conspiracy and proposal to
commit a crime are only preparatory acts and
the law regards them as innocent or at least
permissible except in exceptional cases.
On criminal liability. When the conspiracy is
established, all who participated therein,
irrespective of the quantity or quality of his
participation is liable equally, whether
conspiracy is pre-planned or instantaneous.
Exception: Unless one or some of the
conspirators committed some other crime
which is not part of the intended crime.
Exception to the Exception: When the act
constitutes a “single indivisible offense.”
On malversation.
People v. Peralta (1968): The crime of
malversation is generally committed by an
accountable public officer who
misappropriates public funds or public
property under his trust However, in the
classic case of People vs. Ponte this Court
unequivocally held that a janitor and five
municipal policemen, all of whom were not
accountable public officers, who conspired
and aided a municipal treasurer in the
malversation of public funds under the
latter's custody, were principally liable with
the said municipal treasurer for the crime of
malversation. By reason of conspiracy, the
felonious act of the accountable public officer
was imputable to his co-conspirators,
although the latter were not similarly
situated with the former in relation to the
object of the crime committed.
On robbery with a band. Conspiracy need not
be proved if the existence of the band is
clearly established. The law presumes the
attendance of conspiracy so much so that
"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."
[People v. Peralta (1968)]
UP LAW BOC
Article 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.
On homicide or rape “on occasion” of
robbery.
People v. Pecato (1987): Four people engaged
in a robbery, killing victim Felix Larong in the
process. Only one of the robbers actually fired
the gun, but all of the arrested accused (one
robber evaded arrest) were sentenced as
principals.
Held: Whenever a homicide has been
committed as a consequence of or on the
occasion of a robbery, ALL those who took
part as principals in the commission of the
crime are also guilty as principals in the
special complex crime of robbery with
homicide although they did NOT actually
take part in the homicide unless it clearly
appeared that they endeavored to prevent
the homicide.
People v. Evangelio (2011): Once conspiracy is
established between several accused in the
commission of the crime of robbery, they
would ALL be equally culpable for the rape
committed by ANYONE of them on the
occasion of the robbery, unless anyone of
them proves that he endeavored to prevent
the others from committing rape.
The above jurisprudence abandons the old
rule, where a conspirator in robbery is liable
only for such other crimes which could be
foreseen and which are the natural and
logical consequences of the conspiracy.
Page 103 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Conspiracy as a felony, distinguished from
conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal
liability. Conspiracy punishable by law refers
to the mere agreement to commit the said
acts and NOT the actual execution thereof.
While the rule is that a mere conspiracy to
commit a crime without doing any overt act is
not punishable, the exception is when such is
specifically penalized by law Conspiracy as
crime should be distinguished from
conspiracy as a manner of incurring criminal
liability the latter being applicable to the case
at bar. [People v. Fabro (2000)]
Examples of felonious conspiracy. [METRICS
DATA]:
a. Monopolies and combinations in restraint
of trade (Art. 186)
b. Espionage (Sec. 3, C.A. 616)
c. Treason (Art. 115)
d. Rebellion (Art. 136)
e. Insurrection (Art. 136)
f. Coup d’état, (Art. 136)
g. Sedition (Art. 141)
h. Selected acts under the Dangerous Drugs
Act (Sec. 26, R.A. 9165)
i. Arson (P.D. 1613, Sec. 7)
j. Terrorism (R.A. 9372, Sec. 4)
k. Access device fraud (R.A. 8484, sec. 11)
Degree of proof. Conspiracy must be
established by positive and conclusive
evidence, not by conjectures or speculations.
[People v. Laurio (1991)] To establish
conspiracy, evidence of actual cooperation
rather than mere cognizance or approval of
an illegal act is required. It must be shown to
exist as clearly and convincingly as the
commission of the crime itself. [People v.
Escober (1988)]
Mere presence. Mere presence of a person at
the scene of the crime does not make him a
conspirator for conspiracy transcends
companionship. [People v. Comadre (2004)]
Direct proof not required. While it is
mandatory to prove conspiracy by competent
evidence, direct proof is not essential to show
it – it may be deduced from the Mode,
method, and manner by which the offense
was perpetrated, or inferred from the acts of
the accused themselves when such acts point
UP LAW BOC
to a joint purpose and design, concerted
action and community of interest. [People v.
Cenahonon (2007)]
Direct proof is not required, as conspiracy
may be proved by circumstantial evidence. It
may be established through the collective
acts of the accused before, during and after
the commission of a felony that all the
accused aimed at the same object, one
performing one part and the other
performing another for the attainment of the
same objective; and that their acts, though
apparently independent, were in fact
concerted and cooperative, indicating
closeness of personal association, concerted
action and concurrence of sentiments.
[People v. Talaogan (2008)]
Spontaneity does not preclude conspiracy.
Spontaneity alone does not preclude the
establishment of conspiracy, which after all,
can be consummated in a moment’s notice —
through a single word of assent to a proposal
or an unambiguous handshake. Yet it is more
difficult to presume conspiracy in
extemporaneous outbursts of violence;
hence, the demand that it be established by
positive evidence. [Li v. People (2004)]
Conspiracy to exist does NOT require an
agreement for an appreciable period prior to
the occurrence. From the legal standpoint,
conspiracy exists if, at the time of the
commission of the offense, the accused had
the same purpose and were united in its
execution. [People v. Listerio (2000)]
Doctrine of implied conspiracy. Conspiracy
need not be direct but may be inferred from
the conduct of the parties, their joint purpose,
community of interest and in the Mode and
manner of commission of the offense. [People
v. Pangilinan (2003)].
How to determine. In determining whether
there is an implied conspiracy, it must be
based on:
a. Overt acts done before, during, or after
the commission of the crime;
b. Words, remarks or language used before,
during or after the commission of the
crime
Page 104 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
i. They must be distinct from each
other, independent or separate.
ii. They must be closely associated,
closely related, closed linked, and
coordinated.
iii. They must be for the common
criminal design, joint criminal
interest, unity of criminal purpose, or
concerted action, geared towards the
attainment of the felony.
People v. Ramos (2004): In determining the
existence of conspiracy, it is not necessary to
show that all the conspirators actually hit and
killed the victim. The presence of conspiracy
among the accused can be proven by
their conduct before, during or after the
commission of the crime showing that they
acted in unison with each other, evincing a
common purpose or design. There must be a
showing that appellant cooperated in the
commission of the offense, either morally,
through advice, encouragement or
agreement or materially through external
acts indicating a manifest intent of supplying
aid in the perpetration of the crime in an
efficacious way. In such case, the act of one
becomes the act of all, and each of the
accused will thereby be deemed equally
guilty of the crime committed.
Legal effects of implied conspiracy. Legal
effects of implied conspiracy are as follows:
1. Not all those present at the crime scene
will be considered conspirators;
2. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the
commission of the crime, without any act
of criminal participation, shall not render
one criminally liable as co-conspirator.
3. In the absence of any previous plan or
agreement to commit a crime, the
criminal responsibility arising from
different acts directed against one and
the same person is individual and not
collective, and that each of the
participants is liable only for his own acts.
(People v. Bagano)
A conspiracy is possible even when
participants are not known to each other.
When several persons who do not know each
other simultaneously attack the victim, the
act of one is the act of all, regardless of the
UP LAW BOC
degree of injury inflicted by any one of them.
Everyone will be liable for the consequences.
One who desisted is not criminally liable.
Desistance is true only in the attempted
stage. Before this stage, there is only a
preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the
preparatory stage.
Exceptions. Having community of design with
the principal does not prevent a malefactor
from being regarded as an accomplice if his
role in the perpetration of the homicide or
murder was, relatively speaking, of a minor
character. [People v. Nierra (1980)]
Wheel or circle conspiracy vs. chain
conspiracy. In a wheel or circle conspiracy,
there is a single person or group (the hub)
dealing individually with two or more other
persons or groups (the spokes). In a chain
conspiracy, there is successive
communication and cooperation in much the
same way as with legitimate business
operaitons between manufacturer and
wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and
then retailer and consumer. [Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan (2002)]
A.2. PROPOSAL
Definition. When the person who has decided
to commit a felony proposes its execution to
some other person or persons.
Requisites.
(1) That a person has decided to commit a
felony; and
(2) That he proposes its execution to some
other person or persons.
No criminal proposal. When:
(a) The person who proposes is not
determined to commit the felony;
(b) There is no decided, concrete and formal
proposal;
(c) It is not the execution of a felony that is
proposed.
Proposals punishable by law [ReCIT]:
a. Rebellion (Art. 136)
b. Coup d’ etat (Art. 136)
Page 105 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
c. Inducement not to answer summons,
appear or be sworn in Congress, etc. (Art.
150)
d. Treason (Art. 115)
It is not necessary that the person to whom
the proposal is made agrees to commit
treason or rebellion.
B. PERSONS CRIMINALLY LIABLE
Degree of participation. Under the Revised
Penal Code, when more than one person
participated in the commission of the crime,
the law looks into their participation because
in punishing offenders, the Revised Penal
Code classifies them as:
1. Principal
2. Accomplice
3. Accessory
This classification is true only under the RPC
and is not applied under special laws,
because the penalties under the latter are
never graduated.
Do not use the term “principal” when the
crime committed is a violation of special law
(use the term “offender/s, culprit/s, accused)
Grave and less felonies vs. light felonies. a.
When the felony is grave, or less grave, all
participants are criminally liable. b. When the
felony is only light, only the principal and the
accomplice are liable.
Basis. In the commission of light felonies, the
social wrong as well as the individual
prejudice is so small that penal sanction is
deemed not necessary.
Who are liable. Only natural persons can be
held criminally liable because only natural
persons are capable of acting by means of
deceit (dolo) or fault (culpa) and only natural
persons can commit crime with personal
malice and negligence. Also, only natural
persons can suffer imprisonment or
deprivation of liberty as a form of
punishment. [Amurao (2013)]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Officers of corporation are liable. Only officers

of corporations acting in their official duties
can be punishable. He answers for his acts,
for a juridical person cannot be prosecuted
criminally. EXCEPT: in special laws where
corporations are expressly penalized for their
violations.
Only officers of corporation who participated
as principals by (1) direct participation, or (2)
by induction or by cooperation; or as
accomplices, are liable. [Reyes (2012)]

Page 106 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Persons
criminally Requisites
liable
Principal by 1. That they participated in the criminal resolution; and
direct 2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which
participation directly tended to the same end.
1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission
Principal by of the crime;
inducement 2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by the
material executor. [People v. Yanson-Dumancas, 1999]
1. Participating in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or
Principal by unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime
indispensable charged; and
cooperation 2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act without which
it would not have been accomplished.
1. That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the principal
by direct participation, he concurs with the latter in his purpose;
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts,
Accomplice with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an
efficacious way; and
3. That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to
the person charged as accomplice.
Those who (1) having knowledge of the commission of the crime and
(2) Without having participated therein, either as principals or accomplices,
Accessories
(3) take part subsequent to its commission in any of the manners provided by the Art. 19,
RPC.
Public officer 1. The accessory is a public officer.
as accessory 2. He conceals, harbors, or assists (CHA) in the principal's escape.
under art. 3. The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions.
19(3) 4. The crime committed by the principal is not a light felony.
1. The accessory is a private person.
2. He conceals, harbors, or assists (CHA) in the escape of the author of the crime.
Private
3. The crime committed by the principal is either (PM's HAT):
person as
a. Parricide
accessory
b. Murder
under art.
c. Principal is Habitually guilty of some other crime
19(3)
d. Attempt against the President's life
e. Treason

Page 107 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Two Concepts of
Stage How incurred Legal requirements Illustration
Conspiracy
(1) AS A FELONY Preparatory Mere The RPC must specifically A, B, C and D came to
IN ITSELF acts agreement punish the act of an agreement to
conspiring (and commit rebellion.
proposing) Their agreement was
The act must not be to bring about the
accomplished, else the rebellion on a certain
conspiracy is absorbed date.
and the act itself is
punished. Even if none of them
has performed the act
Quantum of proof: of rebellion, there is
Conspiracy as a crime already criminal
must be established liability arising from
beyond reasonable doubt the conspiracy to
commit the rebellion.
But if anyone of them
has committed the
overt act of rebellion,
the crime of all is no
longer conspiracy but
rebellion itself.

This is true even

(2) AS A BASIS Executory acts
FOR LIABILITY
though the other co-
conspirators do not
know that one of them
had already performed
an act of rebellion.
Commission Participants acted in Three persons plan to
of overt act concert or simultaneously rob a bank. For as long
or in any way which is as the conspirators
indicative of a meeting of merely entered the
the minds towards a bank there is no crime
common criminal goal or yet. But when one of
criminal objective. them draws a gun and
The act of meeting disarms the security
together is not necessary guard, all of them
as long as a common shall be held liable,
objective can be unless a co-
discerned from the overt conspirator was
acts. absent from the scene
The act must be of the crime or he
accomplished, if there is showed up, but he
only conspiracy or tried to prevent the
proposal, there is no commission of the
crime to be punished. crime.

Quantum of proof:
Reasonably inferred from
the acts of the offenders
when such acts disclose
or show a common
Page 108 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Two Concepts of
Stage How incurred
Conspiracy
pursuit of the criminal
objective. (People v.
Pinto)
B.1. PRINCIPALS
Article 17. Principals. - The following are
considered principals:
1. Those who take a direct part in the
execution of the act;
2. Those who directly force or induce
others to commit it;
3. Those who cooperate in the
commission of the offense by another
act without which it would not have been
accomplished.
Crime through negligence. There is no
conspiracy when offense is through negligence.
EXCEPT: under special laws that expressly
provide how failure to prevent an act makes one
co-principal.
a. By direct participation
Who are liable. Those who are liable
(participated in the criminal resolution): MAP
1. Materially execute the crime;
2. Appear at the scene of the crime;
3. Perform acts necessary in the commission of
the offense.
Who does not appear at the crime scene. Why
one who does not appear at the scene of the
crime is not liable:
1. His non-appearance is deemed desistance
which is favored and encouraged.
2. Conspiracy is generally not a crime unless
the law specifically provides a penalty
therefore.
3. There is no basis for criminal liability
because there is no criminal participation.
b. By inducement
Page 109 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Legal requirements Illustration
The principal by inducement must have. Inducer
must have the (1) most positive resolution and
(2) most persistent effort to secure the
commission of the crime, (3) presentation to the
induced the very strongest kind of temptation.
(PET)
When not by inducement.
1. Thoughtless expression, without any
expectation or intention it would produce a
result.
2. When the principal by direct participation
had personal reason to commit the crime
without inducement of another.
3. When a price is given to principal by direct
participation AFTER the crime but was not
promise BEFORE the commission of the
crime.
Two ways of inducement; by force. Criminal
liability pertains only to the one who used
irresistible force or caused uncontrollable fear.
Using irresistible force. Such physical force as
would produce an effect upon the individual that
despite all his resistance, it reduces him to a
mere instrument.
Causing uncontrollable fear. Such fear that must
be grave, actual, serious and of such kind that
majority of men would succumb to such moral
compulsion. The fear must be both grave and
imminent and not speculative, fanciful or
remote.
By inducing another to commit a crime. Criminal
liability pertains to both the inducer and the
induced.
By giving of price, or offering of reward or
promise. The one giving the price or offering the
reward or promise is a principal by inducement
while the one committing the crime in
consideration thereof is a principal by direct
participation.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Using words of command. The person who used
the words of command is a principal by
inducement while the person who committed
the crime because of the words command is a
principal by direct participation.
Other characteristics.
1. That the one uttering the words of command
must have the intention of procuring the
People v. Agapinay (1990): The one who
uttered “kill him, we will bury him” while the
felonious aggression was taking place cannot
be held liable as principal by inducement.
Utterance was said in the excitement of the
hour, not a command to be obeyed.
People v. Dela Cerna (1980): Appellant is
convicted of the complex crime of kidnapping
for ransom with murder. When the appellant
met the perpetrators of the crime, prior to its
commission, he lost no time in laying down the
strategy for the kidnapping of the victim for
ransom. It was he who knew when the truck of
the intended victims would go to Lantawan to
load the copra to be delivered to Isabela. He
knew the route that the truck would take and
the approximate time that it was to pass by. He
even selected the ambush place. Clearly, he
had the positive resolution to procure the
commission of the crime. He, too, presented
the strongest kind of temptation, a pecuniary
gain in the form of ransom, which was the
determining factor of the commission of the
crime by his co-accused. Clearly, he was a
principal by induction, with collective criminal
responsibility with the material executors, his
co-accused.
commission of the crime;
2. That the one who made the command must
have an ascendancy or influence over the
person who acted;
3. That the words used must be so direct, so
efficacious, so powerful as to amount to
physical or moral coercion;
4. That the words of command must be uttered
prior to the commission of the crime; and
5. The material executor of the crime has no
personal reason to commit the crime.
People v. Valderrama (1993): Ernesto shouted
to his younger brother Oscar, “Birahin mo na,
Page 110 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
birahin mo na!” Oscar stabbed the victim.
Considering that Ernesto had great moral
ascendancy and influence over Oscar, being
much older (35 years old) than the latter, who
was 18 years old, and it was Ernesto who
provided his allowance, clothing as well as
food and shelter, Ernesto is principal by
inducement.
When not command.
a. Words uttered are not command to be
obeyed, but expressions of excitement or
heat of anger.
b. When crime committed is not contemplated
in the order given (superior ordered to shoot
at suspected rebels, but soldiers shot
women and children).
By advice?
People v. Baharan (2011): Several accused were
convicted of the complex crime of murder and
frustrated murder for bombing a bus. Accused
Rohmat is criminally responsible under the
provision on principal by inducement. The
instructions and training he had given Asali on
how to make bombs coupled with their careful
planning and persistent attempts to bomb
different areas in Metro Manila and Rohmats
confirmation that Trinidad would be getting TNT
(i.e., explosive material) from Asali as part of
their mission prove the finding that Rohmats co-
inducement was the determining cause of the
commission of the crime. Such command or
advice [was] of such nature that, without it, the
crime would not have materialized.
Principal by inducement, in relation to principal
by direct participation.
When principal by inducement is liable.
a. When the principal by direct participation
committed the act induced.
b. The inducement must precede the act
induced and must be so influential in
producing the criminal act that without it,
the act would not have been performed.
When principal by direct participation is
acquitted. Conspiracy is negated by acquittal of
co-defendant. EXCEPT: when principal actor is
UP LAW BOC
acquitted because he acted WITHOUT malice or
criminal intent, his acquittal is not ground for
acquittal of principal by inducement.
Example. While in the course of a quarrel, a
person shouted to A, “Kill him! Kill him!” A killed
the other person. Is the person who shouted
criminally liable? Is that inducement? No. The
shouting must be an irresistible force for the one
shouting to be liable. Words uttered in the heat
of the moment is not enough to make one a
principal to the crime.
People v. Madall (1990):
The son was mauled. The family was not in good
terms with their neighbors. The father
challenged everybody and when the neighbors
approached, he went home to get a rifle.
The shouts of his wife “here comes another,
shoot him” cannot make the wife a principal by
inducement.
It is not the determining cause of the crime in
the absence of proof that the words had great
influence over the husband. Neither is the wife’s
act of beaming the victim with a flashlight
indispensable to the killing. She assisted her
husband in taking good aim, but such assistance
merely facilitated the felonious act of shooting.
Considering that it was not so dark and the
husband could have accomplished the deed
without his wife’s help, and considering further
that doubts must be resolved in favor of the
accused, the liability of the wife is only that of an
accomplice.
c. By indispensable cooperation
Elements; anterior conspiracy or unity of criminal
purpose and intention immediately before the
commission of the crime charged.
1. Requires participation in the criminal
resolution.
2. There must be conspiracy.
3. Concurrence is sufficient.
Elements; Cooperation in the commission of the
offense by performing another act, without which
it would not have been accomplished.
1. Cooperation must be indispensable
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
2. If dispensable, accused is only an
accomplice
3. If cooperation is necessary in the execution
of the offense, accused is considered as a
principal by direct participation.
People v. Tolentino (2002): A certain Tolentino
attacked Hernan Sagario. The assault was
carried out without the participation of
appellant, who did not personally hit or stab the
victim, but only subsequently helped carry the
latter from the house to the nearby creek.
Nothing in the testimony conveyed a
coordinated action, concerted purpose or
community of design to commit the criminal act.
It must be emphasized that Tolentino’s plan to
kill the victim was concocted in the absence of
appellant. In fact, appellant, showing clearly his
lack of support for the criminal intent of
Tolentino, even tried to prevent the latter from
hacking the victim, according to the eyewitness.
In his testimony, appellant stated that because
he was afraid his co-accused would hurt him if
he refused, he agreed to assist the latter in
carrying the victim towards the river. The fact
that appellant left thereafter likewise indicated
his innocence of the charge. Verily, he
adequately explained his conduct prior to the
stabbing incident as one born of fear for his own
life. It is not incredible for an eyewitness to a
crime, especially if unarmed, to desist from
assisting the victim if to do so would put the
formers life in peril.
Held: Because of the lack of a united purpose,
appellant cannot be considered a principal by
indispensable cooperation. Absent a conspiracy,
his responsibility, as well as that of his co-
accused, is individual -- not collective -- and
each is to be punished only for his own separate
acts.
People v. Fronda (1993): Appellant was convicted
as principal by indispensable cooperation for the
murders of two farmers. Records show that
appellant's participation in the commission of
the crime consisted of: (1) leading the members
of the NPA to the house where the victims were
found; (2) tying the victims' hands and (3)
digging the grave where the victims were buried.
Held: We note that the prosecution failed to
Page 111 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
present any evidence tending to establish
appellant's conspiracy with the evil designs of
the members of the armed group. Neither was it
established that appellant's acts were of such
importance that the crime would not have been
committed without him or that he participated in
the actual killing.
However, appellant's act of joining the armed
men in going to the mountains, and his failure to
object to their unlawful orders, or show any
reluctance in obeying the same, may be
considered as circumstances evincing his
concurrence with the objectives of the
malefactors and had effectively supplied them
with material and moral aid, thereby making
him as an accomplice.
Principal by indispensable cooperation v. co-
principal by direct participation. For the former,
act done is different from the felony intended by
the principal by direct participation. In the latter,
the act done by the person is necessary in the
execution of the crime committed. For instance,
the person who held the hands of the victim
while another stabbed the victim is principal by
direct participation. (There are instances where
SC nevertheless held that the person who held
the hand is principal by indispensable
cooperation.)
B.2. COLLECTIVE VERSUS INDIVIDUAL
CRIMINAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Collective criminal responsibility. This is present
when the offenders are criminally liable in the
same manner and to the same extent. The
penalty to be imposed must be the same for all.
Same penalty imposed. The same penalty is
imposed for the following combination of
principals:
1. All principals by direct participation
2. Principal by direct participation + Principal
by induction (except those who directly
forced another to commit a crime)
3. Principal by direct participation + principal
by indispensable cooperation
Individual criminal responsibility. In the absence
of any previous conspiracy, unity of criminal
purpose and intention immediately before the
Page 112 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
commission of the crime, or community of
criminal design, the criminal responsibility
arising from different acts directed against one
and the same person is individual and not
collective, and each of the participants is liable
only for the act committed by him.
When principal vs. when accomplice. The basis is
the importance of the cooperation to the
consummation of the crime.
a. If the crime could hardly be committed
without such cooperation, then such
cooperator would be a principal.
b. If the cooperation merely facilitated or
hastened the consummation of the crime,
the cooperator is merely an accomplice.
In case of doubt, favor the lesser penalty or
liability. Apply the doctrine of pro reo.
People v. Dela Cerna (1967): Several individuals
were convicted for the murder of father Rafael
and son Casiano. One of the appellants shot the
Rafael and abandoned him. Rafael was saved
and brought to his hut for treatment of the
wounds. The shooter, together with several
others, went to Rafael’s house armed with
firearms, bolos, and canes. They stoned the
house and trust their bolos thru the bamboo
walls and flooring. The shooter then climbed the
house and shot Rafael, finally killing him.
Someone from the group saw Rafael’s son,
Casiano, running away from the hut; the former
gunned down the latter.
Held: The rule has always been that co-
conspirators are liable only for acts
done pursuant to the conspiracy. For other acts
done outside the contemplation of the co-
conspirators or which are not the necessary and
logical consequence of the intended crime, only
the actual perpetrators are liable.
Rafael’s shooter cannot be held liable for the
death of Casiano, even though the latter’s killer
acted in conspiracy with the former. The
conspiracy was to kill Rafael only and no one
else. Nothing was said or agreed upon about the
members of Rafael's family. Their target was
solely Rafael.
B.3. ACCOMPLICES
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

wrong and reported it to the police.

Definition. Are persons who, not acting as However, she chose to remain quiet; and to
principals, cooperate in the execution of the add to that, she even spent the night at the
offense by previous and simultaneous acts, cottage. It has been held that a person who
which are not indispensable to the commission is present and giving moral support when a
of the crime. crime is being committed will make a person
responsible as an accomplice in the crime
They are mere instruments that perform acts not committed. It must be noted that her
essential to the perpetration of the offense. presence and company were not
indispensable for the commission of the
Cooperates by previous and simultaneous acts. crime. Also, the Court stressed that where
An accomplice cooperates in the execution of there is doubt as to the participation of the
the offense by previous or simultaneous acts, offender to the crime, he/she shall be
provided he has no direct participation in its considered as an accomplice rather than a
execution or does not force or induce others to principal to the crime.
commit it, or his cooperation is not
indispensable to its accomplishment. It is an Crime committed as natural consequence of
essential condition to the existence of intended crime. It is sufficient that there was a
complicity, not only that there should be a common purpose to commit a particular crime
relation between the acts done by the principal and that the crime actually committed was a
and those attributed to the person charged as natural or probably consequence of the intended
accomplice, but it is further necessary that the crime.
latter, with knowledge of the criminal intent,
should cooperate with the intention of supplying Accomplice do not decide the crime. Accomplices
material or moral aid in the execution of the come to know about the criminal resolution of
crime in an efficacious way. [People v. the principal by direct participation after the
Mandolado (1983)] principal has reached the decision to commit the
felony and only then does the accomplice agree
Accomplice even without knowledge of actual to cooperate in its execution. Accomplices do not
crime. One can be an accomplice even if he did decide whether the crime should be committed;
not know of the actual crime intended by the they merely assent to the plan of the principal by
principal provided he was aware that it was an direct participation and cooperate in its
illicit act. [People v. Doctolero (1991)] Where the accomplishment. [People v. PIlola (2003)]
accomplices therein consented to help in the
commission of forcible abduction, they were Accomplice and conspirator, distinguished.
responsible for the resulting homicide even if the
purpose of the principal to commit homicide was Conspirator Accomplice
unknown to the accomplices. [US v. De Jesus They know of and join They know and agree
(1909)] in the criminal with the criminal design
design
People v. Gambao (2013): In this case of Conspirators know Accomplices come to
kidnapping for ransom, appellant avers that the criminal intention
know about it after the
she cannot be held as a principal to the because principals have reached
crime given that she had no knowledge that they themselves have the decision and only
a crime was being committed. She claims decided upon such then do they agree to
that she thought that she merely attended a course of action cooperate in its
swimming party. Given that she had no execution
knowledge of the crime, should have no Conspirators decide Accomplices merely
criminal liability imputed to her. that a crime should assent to the plan and
be committed cooperate in its
Held: The Court is not persuaded that she accomplishment
did not acquire knowledge of the criminal Conspirators are the Accomplices are merely
design of the principals. A rational person authors of a crime instruments who
would have sensed that something was
Page 113 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

perform acts that are guilty of some other crime.

useful for, but not
essential to, the
perpetration of the
Examples.
offense.

a. In kidnapping with ransom, couriers or

Accomplice and principal by direct participation,
distinguished.
Principal by direct Accomplice
participation
Cooperation is Cooperation is not
indispensable in the indispensable to the
commission of the commission of the act
crime [Garces v. People
(2007)]
Accomplice in bigamy. A person, whether man or
woman, who knowingly consents or agrees to be
married to another already bound in lawful
wedlock is guilty as an accomplice in the crime
of bigamy. [Santiago v. People (2015)]
B. 4. ACCESSORIES
When one becomes an accessory. Participation of
all accessories is AFTER the commission of the
crime.
Article 19. Accessories. - Accessories are those
who, having knowledge of the commission of the
crime, and without having participated therein,
either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manners:
1. By profiting themselves or assisting
the offender to profit by the effects of the
crime.
2. By concealing or destroying the body
of the crime, or the effects or
instruments thereof, in order to prevent
its discovery.
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
Page 114 of 407
runners in obtaining ransom money.
b. In homicide or murder, those who assist in
burial of the victim. Mere act of carrying the
cadaver of one unlawfully killed, when it was
buried to prevent discovery of the crime, is
SUFFICIENT to make him accessory.
c. Those who make it appear that deceased
was armed, and that it was necessary to kill
him on account of his resistance; making it
appear that the deceased who had been
arrested ran away.
Part. 2, art. 19.
a. Do not overlook the purpose which must be
to prevent discovery of the crime.
b. The corpus delicti is not the body of the
person who is killed.
c. Even if the corpse is not recovered, as long
as that killing is established beyond
reasonable doubt, criminal liability will arise.
d. If there is someone who destroys the corpus
delicti to prevent discovery, he becomes an
accessory.
Par. 3, art. 19.
Examples.
a. Refusal of mayor to prosecute the crime of
homicide and made it possible for principal
to escape. He refused to make an
investigation of the serious occurrence, of
which complaint was made to him. Mayor is
guilty as accessory.
b. If a person reported to the police false
information, after witnessing a crime by
another whom he knew.
Public officer and private person as accessories,
distinguished.
Public Officer Civilian
The nature of the The nature of the
crime is immaterial crime is material
What is material is For him to become an
that he used his public accessory, the
function in assisting principal must have
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
the escape committed the crime
of treason, parricide,
murder or attempt on
the life of the Chief
Executive
When accessories are not criminally liable.
a. When crime is light felony.
b. Exemption under art. 20.
Art. 20. The exemption provide in this article is
based on the ties of blood and the preservation
of the cleanliness of one’s name, which compels
one to conceal crimes committed by relatives so
near as those mentioned in this article.
Who are exempted. An accessory is exempt from
criminal liability when the principal is his (SAD,
SiR):
a. Spouse
b. Ascendant
c. Descendant
d. Legitimate, natural or adopted brother or
sister (i.e., Siblings); or
e. Relative by affinity within the same degree
Even if only two of the principals guilty of
murder are the brothers of the accessory and the
others are not related to him, such accessory is
exempt from criminal liability.
When accessory not exempted from criminal
liability. When the accessory:
a. Profited by the effects of the crime, or
b. Assisted the offender to profit by the effect
of the crime.
c. The punishable acts in PD 1829, compared
to RPC Art. 20 are prompted by a detestable
greed, not by affection. The benefits of the
exception in Art. 20 do not apply to PD 1829.
B.5. IN OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS
Presidential Decree No. 1612 [Anti- Fencing Law].
One who knowingly profits or assists the
principal to profit by the effects of robbery or
theft (i.e. a fence) is not just an accessory to the
crime, but principally liable for fencing. PD 1612
has, therefore, modified Art. 19 of the RPC.
Page 115 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Mere possession. Mere possession of any article
of value which has been the subject of robbery or
theft brings about the presumption of “fencing”.
Penalty. The penalty is higher than that of a
mere accessory to the crime of robbery or theft.
Presidential Decree 532 [Antipiracy and Highway
Robbery law of 1974]. If the crime was piracy or
brigandage under PD 532, said act constitutes
the crime of abetting piracy or abetting
brigandage as the case may be, although the
penalty is that of an accomplice, not just an
accessory, to the piracy or the brigandage.
Accomplice. Section 4 of PD 532 provides that
any person who knowingly and in any manner
acquires or receives property taken by such
pirates or brigands or in any manner derives
benefit therefrom, shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal offenders in
accordance with the Rules prescribed by the
Revised Penal Code.
Presumption of knowledge. It shall be presumed
that any person who does any acts provided in
this section has performed them knowingly,
unless the contrary is proven.
Art. 122, as amended, under RPC not
inconsistent with PD 532. Although Republic Act
7659, in amending Article 122 of the RPC,
incorporated therein the crime of piracy in
Philippine territorial waters and thus
correspondingly superseded PD 532, section 4
of said Decree, which punishes said acts as a
crime of abetting piracy or brigandage, still
stands as it has not been replaced or modified,
and is not inconsistent with any provision of RA
7659.
Human Security Act [R.A. No. 9372].
SEC. 4. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. -
Persons who conspire to commit the crime of
terrorism shall suffer the penalty of forty (40)
years of imprisonment.
There is conspiracy when two or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of the crime of terrorism as defined
in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the
same.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
SEC. 5. Accomplice. - Any person who, not being
a principal under Article 17 of the Revised Penal
Code or a conspirator as defined in Section 4
hereof, cooperates in the execution of either the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism by previous or simultaneous acts shall
suffer the penalty of from seventeen (17) years,
four months one day to twenty (20) years of
imprisonment.
SEC. 6. Accessory. - Any person who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and
without having participated therein, either as
principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18
of the Revised Penal Code, takes part
subsequent to its commission in any of the
following manner: (a) by profiting himself or
assisting the offender to profit by the effects of
the crime; (b) by concealing or destroying the
body of the crime, or the effects, or instruments
thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; (c) by
harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape
of the principal or conspirator of the crime, shall
suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day
to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.
Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be
imposed upon those who are such with respect
to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degrees, with the single exception of accessories
falling within the provisions of subparagraph (a).
B.6. DECREE PENALIZING OBSTRUCTION OF
APPREHENSION AND PROSECUTION OF
CRIMINAL OFFENDERS [P.D. 1829]
What is imposed. Upon any person who
knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
frustrates or delays the apprehension of
suspects and the investigation and prosecution
of criminal cases through the acts enumerated
in Sec. 1:
a. Prision correccional in its maximum period, or
b. Fine ranging from PhP 1,000 – 6,000, or
c. Both
Punishable acts under sec. 1.
Page 116 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
a. Preventing witnesses from testifying in any
criminal proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity of
any offender/s by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation,
force or threats;
b. Altering, destroying, suppressing or
concealing any paper, record, document, or
object with intent to impair its veracity,
authenticity, legibility, availability, or
admissibility as evidence in any investigation
of or official proceedings in criminal cases,
or to be used in the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases;
c. Harboring or concealing, or facilitating the
escape of, any persons he knows, or has
reasonable ground to believe or suspect, has
committed any offense under existing penal
laws in order to prevent his arrest,
prosecution and conviction; (See
concealment of principals)
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;
e. Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases
by obstructing the service of process or court
orders or disturbing proceedings in the
fiscals’ offices, in Tanodbayan, or in the
courts;
f. Making, presenting or using any record,
document, paper or object with knowledge
of its falsity and with intent to affect the
course or outcome of the investigation of, or
official proceedings in criminal cases;
g. Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept
any benefit in consideration of abstaining
from, discontinuing, or impeding the
prosecution of a criminal offender;
h. Threatening directly or indirectly another
with the infliction of any wrong upon his
person, honor or property or that of any
immediate member or members of his
family in order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a
condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in
order to prevent a person from appearing in
the investigation of, or in official proceedings
in criminal cases;
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
i. Giving a false or fabricated information to
mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or
from protecting the life or property of the
victim; or fabricating information from the
data gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background
information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to
mislead the investigator or the court.
Accessory under RPC and principal by
obstruction of justice, distinguished.
Revised Penal Code Law Penalizing
“Obstruction of Justice”
(PD 1829)
Specifies the crimes No specification of the
that should be crime to be committed
committed in case a by the offender in order
civilian aids in the that criminal liability be
escape incurred
The offender is the The offender need not
principal or must be even be the principal or
convicted of the crime need not be convicted
charged of the crime charged
The one who harbored An offender of any
or concealed an crime is no longer an
offender is still an accessory but is simply
accessory an offender without
regard to the crime of
the person assisted to
escape
C. MULTIPLE OFFENDERS
Forms. The four forms of repetition:
(a) recidivism (par. 9, art. 14)
(b) reiteracion (par. 10, art. 14)
(c) multi-recidivism/habitual delinquency (art.
62, par. 5)
(d) quasi-recidivism (art. 160)
Kinds of aggravating circumstance. The first two
are generic aggravating circumstances. The
third one is extraordinary aggravating; the
fourth one; special aggravating. The special
aggravating circumstance of quasi-recidivism
cannot be offset by any ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
C.1. RECIDIVISM
Page 117 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The
following are aggravating circumstances:
xxx
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial for
one crime, shall have been previously convicted
by final judgment of another crime embraced in
the same title of this Code.
Requisites.
1. Offender is on trial for a felony
2. He was previously convicted by final
judgment of another crime
a. Both the first and second felonies are
embraced in the same title of the RPC
b. Offender is convicted of the new offense
Offender is on trial for an offense. What is
controlling is the time of trial, not the time of
commission of the crime. [Reyes, 2012]
Coverage. It is meant to include everything that
is done in the course of the trial, from
arraignment until after sentence is announced
by the judge in open court.
He was previously convicted. It is sufficient that
the succeeding offense be committed after the
commission of the preceding offense provided
that at the time of his trial for the second
offense, the accused had already been convicted
of the first offense.
Judgments handed on the same day. If both
offenses were committed on the same date, they
shall be considered as only one, hence, they
cannot be separately counted in order to
constitute recidivism. Also, judgments of
conviction handed down on the same day shall
be considered as only one conviction.
Proof. To prove recidivism, it is necessary to
allege the same in the information and to attach
thereto certified copy of the sentences rendered
against the accused.
People v. Molina (2000): To prove recidivism, it is
necessary to allege the same in the information
and to attach thereto certified copies of the
sentences rendered against the accused.
Nonetheless, the trial court may still give such
AC credence if the accused does not object to
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

the presentation.

People v. Dacillo (2004): The Court finds that the

trial court erred in imposing the death penalty
on the ground that appellant admitted during
re-cross examination that he had a prior
conviction for the death of his former live-in
partner. The aggravating circumstance of
recidivism was not alleged in the information
and therefore cannot be appreciated against
appellant.

When final judgment.

a. After lapse of period for perfecting appeal;
b. When sentence has been partially or totally
served;
c. Accused waived in writing his right to
appeal;
d. Accused has applied for probation.

Page 118 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Recidivism/ Habituality/Reiteracion/ Quasi- Habitual

Reincindencia; Repetition; Art. 14 (10) Recidivism; Delinquency;
Art. 14 (9) Art. 160 Art. 62 (5)
Crimes Sufficient at the tme of Necessary that the Before serving Specified felonies:
committed the trial that the offender shall have or while less serious or
offender has been served out his sentence serving serious physical
previously convicted by for the first offense sentence, the injuries
final judgment for offender robbery
another crime commits a theft
embraced in the same felony (NOT a estafa
title of the Code on the crime) falsification
date of his trial
Period of time No period of time Before serving Within 10 years
the crimes are or while from his last release
committed serving or conviction
sentence
Number of The second conviction The previous and Offender Guilty the third time
crimes for an offense subsequent offenses commits a or oftener
committed embraced in the same must NOT be embraced felony
title of RPC in the same title of the
RPC
Their effects If not offset by any Not always an Imposes the An additional
mitigating aggravating maximum of penalty shall be
circumstance, increase circumstance the penalty for imposed
the penalty only to the the new
maximum offense, and
cannot be
offset by any
mitigating
circumstance

Page 119 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

For another offense with equal or greater penalty

Effect of pardon on first felony. Even if the attached. Penalty attached to offense, not the
accused was granted a pardon for the first one actually imposed.
offense, but he commits another felony
embraced in the same title of the Code, the first Convicted of new offense. If the second offense
conviction is still counted to make him a or crime is punishable under a special law, it
recidivist, since pardon does not obliterate the cannot be considered under reiteracion because
fact of his prior conviction. Articles 13, 14, and 15 of the RPC are not
applicable to special law crimes.
Effect of amnesty on first felony. However, if a
person was granted an amnesty, and thereafter Par. 9 Recidivism Par. 10 Reiteracion
he is convicted of another crime of the same It is enough that a final It is necessary that the
class as the former crimes, his former conviction judgment has been offender shall have
would not be aggravating. According to Art. 89, rendered in the first served out his
amnesty extinguishes not only the penalty but offense. sentence for the first
also its effects. offense.
Requires that the The previous and
No prescription. No matter how long ago the offenses be included in subsequent offenses
offender was convicted, if he is subsequently the same title of the must not be embraced
convicted of a crime embraced in the same title Code in the same title of the
of the Revised Penal Code, it is taken into Code
account as aggravating in imposing the penalty. Always to be taken Not always an
into consideration in aggravating
Should be felonies. In recidivism, the crimes fixing the penalty to be circumstance
committed should be felonies. There is no imposed upon the
recidivism if the crime committed is a violation of accused
a special law. Rationale is the proven Rationale is the proven
tendency to commit a resistance to
C.2. HABITUALITY (REITERACION) similar offense rehabilitation

If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism

Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The
following are aggravating circumstances:
xxx
10. That the offender has been previously
punished by an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two
or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty.
Requisites.
1. Accused is on trial for an offense
2. He previously served sentence
a. for another offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty, OR
for two or more crimes to which it
attaches lighter penalty than that for the
new offense
b. He is convicted of the new offense
Page 120 of 407
and reiteracion, the liability of the accused
should be aggravated by recidivism which can
be easily proven.
C.3.MULTI-RECIDIVISM/HABITUAL
DELIQUENCY
Requisites.
1. Offender had been convicted of any of the
crimes of [T-FIRE]: theft; falsification;
serious or less serious physical injuries;
robbery; estafa.
2. After that conviction or after serving his
sentence, he again committed, and, within
10 years from his release or first conviction,
he was again convicted of any of the said
crimes for the second time
3. After his conviction of, or after serving
sentence for, the second offense, he again
committed, and, within 10 years from his last
release or last conviction, he was again
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

convicted of any of said offenses, the third from punishment

time or oftener. [Art. 62, RPC] thereof to conviction
computed from the
Coverage. It applies to all participants second conviction or
(principals, accomplices, accessories) because it release therefrom to
reveals persistence in them of the inclination to the third conviction
and so on
wrongdoing and of the perversity of character
that led them to commit the previous crime.
Recidivism inherent in habitual delinquency. A
Habitual delinquency applies at any stage of the habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist,
execution (attempt, frustration, or and in imposing the principal penalty upon him
consummation) because subjectively, the the aggravating circumstance of recidivism has
offender reveals the same degree of depravity or to be taken into account. However, for the
perversity as the one who commits a purpose of fixing the additional penalty,
consummated crime. recidivism cannot be taken as an aggravating
circumstance for the reason that it is inherent in
Purpose. To render more effective social defense habitual delinquency. [People v. Tolentino
and the reformation of habitual delinquents (1942)]
(Reyes, quoting People v. Abuyen). The
imposition of such additional penalties is Computation to check whether within “10 years.”
mandatory and is not discretionary. The starting date is either the conviction OR
release of the accused in his previous crime; the
Not ex post facto law. The imposition of the end date is his conviction in the subsequent
additional penalty on habitual delinquents are crime.
CONSTITUTIONAL because such law is neither
an EX POST FACTO LAW nor an additional Must be after previous conviction. Subsequent
punishment for future crimes. It is simply a crime must be committed AFTER CONVICTION
punishment on future crimes on account of the of former crime.
criminal propensities of the accused.
How to count the convictions. [Reyes]
Art. 14, Par. 9 Recidivism Art. 62 par. 5 1. Convictions on the same day are counted as
Habitual Delinquency one.
Two convictions are At least three 2. Crimes committed on the same date,
enough convictions are although convictions are on different dates,
required are counted as one.
The crimes are not The crimes are 3. Crime committed during the minority of the
specified; it is enough limited and specified offender is not considered.
that they may be to: 4. Commission of any of the crime need not be
embraced under the a. serious physical consummated.
same title of the injuries,
Revised Penal Code b. less serious Information. Must contain dates for: (1)
physical injuries, commission of previous crimes; (2) last
c. robbery, conviction or release; (3) other previous
d. theft, convictions or releases.
e. estafa or swindling
and Plea of guilty. Plea of guilty which fails to allege
f. falsification the DATES of the commission of previous
There is no time limit There is a time limit offences, convictions, and of releases is not an
between the first of not more than 10 admission of habitual delinquency, but
conviction and the years between every recidivism.
subsequent conviction. conviction computed
Recidivism is from the first Failure to object. Failure to object admission of
imprescriptible. conviction or release decision showing dates of previous convictions
Page 121 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

cures the failure to allege said dates in the felony (punished by the RPC and not by special
information. law/s) but the first crime for which the offender
is serving sentence need not be a felony. [Reyes
(2012)]
Penalties.
Reiteracion and quasi-recidivism, not possible to
Nth be simultaneous. Since reiteracion provides that
Penalty Plus
Conviction the accused has duly served the sentence for
prision previous conviction/s, or is legally considered to
correccional in have done so, quasi-recidivism cannot at the
3rd its medium same time constitute reiteracion, hence the
and maximum latter cannot apply to a quasi-recidivist.
periods
prision mayor Proof. Quasi-recidivism, like recidivism and
in its minimum reiteracion, necessitates the presentation of a
4th Prescribed
and medium certified copy of the sentence convicting an
penalty on
periods accused. The fact that appellant was an inmate
the last
prision mayor of a penal colony does not prove that final
crime
in its judgment had been rendered against him.
maximum [People v. Gaorana (1998)]
5th and period to
succeeding reclusion
temporal in its
minimum
period

Not exceed 30 years. In no case shall the total of

the 2 penalties imposed upon the offender
exceed 30 years.

C.4. QUASI-RECIDIVISM

Art. 160, RPC. 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.

Requisites.
1. That the offender was already convicted by
final judgment of one offense.
2. That he committed a new felony before
beginning to serve such sentence or while
serving the same.

Offender was already convicted by final judgment

of one offense. The second crime must be a
Page 122 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
V. PENALTIES
Penalty. The suffering that is inflicted by the
State for the transgression of a law.
Juridical Conditions.
1. Must be PRODUCTIVE OF SUFFERING,
without affecting the integrity of the human
personality.
2. Must be COMMENSURATE to the offense –
different crimes must be punished with
different penalties.
3. Must be PERSONAL – no one should be
punished for the crime of another.
4. Must be LEGAL – it is the consequence of a
judgment according to law.
5. Must be CERTAIN – no one may escape its
effects.
6. Must be EQUAL for all.
7. Must be CORRECTIONAL.
Must be personal and definite. Penalties must be
individual, i.e., not shared, and definite, e.g.,
imprisonment, fine, imprisonment and fine,
imprisonment or fine; but not imprisonment
and/or fine.
A. PRINCIPLES
A.1. THREEFOLD PURPOSE
1. RETRIBUTION OR EXPIATION. The penalty is
commensurate with the gravity of the offense. It
permits society to exact proportionate revenge,
and the offender to atone for his wrongs.
2. CORRECTION OR REFORMATION. As shown
by the rules which regulate the execution of the
penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty.
3. SOCIAL DEFENSE. As shown by its inflexible
severity to recidivist and habitual delinquents.
The State has an existence of its own to
maintain, a conscience to assert, and moral
principles to be vindicated. Penal justice must
therefore be exercised by the State in the service
and satisfaction of a duty, and rests primarily on
the moral rightfulness of the punishment
inflicted.
Page 123 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
A.2. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT AND DEATH
PENALTY
Some pertinent RPC provisions on death penalty.
See also arts. 81-85, RPC.
Article 40. Death; Its accessory penalties. - The
death penalty, when it is not executed by reason
of commutation or pardon shall carry with it that
of perpetual absolute disqualification and that
of civil interdiction during thirty years following
the date sentence, unless such accessory
penalties have been expressly remitted in the
pardon.
Article 47. In what cases the death penalty shall
not be imposed. - The death penalty shall be
imposed in all cases in which it must be imposed
under existing laws, except in the following
cases:
1. When the guilty person be more than
seventy years of age.
2. When upon appeal or revision of the
case by the Supreme court, all the
members thereof are not unanimous in
their voting as to the propriety of the
imposition of the death penalty. For the
imposition of said penalty or for the
confirmation of a judgment of the
inferior court imposing the death
sentence, the Supreme Court shall
render its decision per curiam, which
shall be signed by all justices of said
court, unless some member or members
thereof shall have been disqualified from
taking part in the consideration of the
case, in which even the unanimous vote
and signature of only the remaining
justices shall be required.
Is death penalty a cruel, degrading, and
inhumane punishment?
Echegaray v. People (2017): Punishments are
cruel when they involve torture or a lingering
death, but the punishment of death is not cruel,
within the meaning of that word as used in the
constitution. It implies there something
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
inhuman and barbarous, something more than
the mere extinguishment of life.
Abolition of death penalty. The first two
sections of RA 9346 provide:
SECTION 1. The imposition of the penalty of
death is hereby prohibited. Accordingly,
Republic Act No. Eight Thousand One Hundred
Seventy-Seven (R.A. No. 8177), otherwise known
as the Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection
is hereby repealed. Republic Act No. Seven
Thousand Six Hundred Fifty-Nine (R.A. No.
7659), otherwise known as the Death Penalty
Law, and all other laws, executive orders and
decrees, insofar as they impose the death
penalty are hereby repealed or amended
accordingly.
SEC. 2. In lieu of the death penalty, the following
shall be imposed.
(a) the penalty of reclusion perpetua,
when the law violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the penalties of the
Revised Penal Code; or
(b) the penalty of life imprisonment,
when the law violated does not make
use of the nomenclature of the penalties
of the Revised Penal Code.
Distinguished from the constitutional prohibition.
In the constitutional prohibition on death
penalty, the latter is placed in a “suspensive
condition” or in a “state of hibernation.” It is
included in the computation of penalty but not
imposed. Unlike the Constitution, Rep. Act No.
9346 does expressly stipulate the amendment of
all extant laws insofar as they called for the
imposition of the penalty of death.
Henceforth, "death," as utilized in Article 71 of
the Revised Penal Code, shall no longer form
part of the equation in the graduation of
penalties. For example, in the case of appellant,
the determination of his penalty for attempted
rape shall be reckoned not from two degrees
lower than death, but two degrees lower than
reclusion perpetua. [People v. Bon (2006)]
Note that the death penalty remains in the
Revised Penal Code. R.A. No. 9346 merely
prohibits the imposition of the death penalty.
Page 124 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Heinous crimes remain “heinous.” It should be
understood that the debarring of the death
penalty through Rep. Act No. 9346 did not
correspondingly declassify those crimes
previously catalogued as "heinous" (in RA 7659).
The amendatory effects of Rep. Act No. 9346
extend only to the application of the death
penalty but not to the definition or classification
of crimes. Accordingly, Rep. Act No. 9346 does
not serve as basis for the reduction of civil
indemnity and other damages that adhere to
heinous crimes. [People v. Bon, supra]
But see computation of penalty for privileged
mitigating circumstance of minority, under
minority as exempting circumstance.
B. CLASSIFICATION
B.1. MAJOR CLASSIFICATION
a. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES. Those expressly
imposed by the court in the judgment of
conviction.
b. ACCESSORY PENALTIES. Those that are
deemed included in the imposition of the
principal penalties.
c. SUBSIDIARY PENALTIES. Those imposed in
lieu of principal penalties, i.e., imprisonment
in case of inability to pay the fine.
Principal and accessory penalty, distinguished. A
principal penalty is expressly imposed by the
court, while an accessory penalty is deemed
included in the imposition of the principal
penalty.
Either principal or accessory.
a. Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification
b. Perpetual or temporary special
disqualification (e.g., arts. 226-228, RPC)
c. Suspension (e.g., art. 236, RPC)
These may be principal or accessory penalties,
because they are formed in the two general
classes.
Article 58. Additional penalty to be imposed
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

upon certain accessories. - Those accessories 4. Perpetual or temporary special

falling within the terms of paragraphs 3 of disqualification,
Article 19 of this Code who should act with abuse 5. Prision mayor.
of their public functions, shall suffer the
additional penalty of absolute perpetual Correctional penalties. (PC, AM, S, Des)
disqualification if the principal offender shall be
guilty of a grave felony, and that of absolute 1. Prision correccional
temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of 2. Arresto mayor
a less grave felony. 3. Suspension
4. Destierro

B.2. OTHER CLASSIFICATIONS OF PENALTIES Light penalties. (Am,Pc)

1. According to divisibility 1. Arresto menor
2. Public censure
Divisible. (a) Those that have fixed duration. (b)
Those that can be divided into three periods.
Penalties common to the three preceding
Indivisible. Those that have no fixed duration. classes. (F, Bond)
1. Fine
Examples. Reclusion perpetua; perpetual 2. Bond to keep the peace.
absolute or special disqualification; public
censure.
Scale of accessory penalties. (PAD, TAD, PSD,
2. According to subject-matter TSD, S, CI, I, F, Pay)
1. Perpetual or temporary absolute
Corporal. Death. disqualification
Deprivation of freedom. Reclusion, prision, 2. Perpetual or temporary special
arresto. disqualification
Restriction of freedom. Destierro. 3. Suspension from public office, the right to
Deprivation of rights. Disqualification, vote and be voted for, the profession or
suspension. calling
Pecuniary. Fine. 4. Civil interdiction,
5. Indemnification,
3. According to gravity 6. Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and
proceeds of the offense,
Capital; afflictive; correctional; light. See arts. 25 7. Payment of costs
and 26, RPC.

C. DURATION AND EFFECTS

Scale of principal penalties.

Capital punishment. Death.

Afflictive penalties. (RP, RT, PAD, TAD, PSD,

TSD, PM)
1. Reclusion perpetua,
2. Reclusion temporal,
3. Perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification,

Page 125 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Penalty Duration Effects Accessories

Death (REPEALED) Indivisible
1. Civil interdiction for life or
during the period of the
sentence as the case may
be
Death, when not 2. Perpetual Absolute
executed due to Disqualification which
pardon or the offender shall suffer
commutation even though pardoned as
(REPEALED) to the principal penalty,
unless the same shall
have been expressly
remitted in the pardon
1. Civil interdiction for life or
during the period of the
sentence as the case may
be
2. Perpetual Absolute
20 years & 1 day Disqualification which
Reclusion perpetua to 40 years Deprivation of freedom the offender shall suffer
(Indivisible) even though pardoned as
to the principal penalty,
unless the same shall
have been expressly
remitted in the pardon
1. Deprivation of public
office, even if by
election
Perpetual absolute 2. Deprivation of right
disqualification For life to vote & be voted for
(PAD) 3. Disqualification from
public office held
4. Loss of retirement
rights
1. Deprivation of office,
employment,
Perpetual special profession, or calling
disqualification For life affected
(PSD) 2. Disqualification from
similar offices or
employments

Page 126 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

1. Civil interdiction for life or

during the period of the
sentence as the case may
be.
2. Perpetual Absolute
12 years & 1 day Deprivation of freedom Disqualification which
Reclusion temporal the offender shall suffer
to 20 years
even though pardoned as
to the principal penalty,
unless the same shall
have been expressly
remitted in the pardon.
1. Temporary Absolute
Disqualification
2. Perpetual Special
Disqualification from the
right to suffrage which
6 years & 1 day to Deprivation of freedom the offender shall suffer
Prision mayor
12 years although pardoned as to
the principal penalty
unless the same shall
have been expressly
remitted in the pardon.
1.
Deprivation of public
office, even if by
election
2. Deprivation of right
Temporary absolute 6 years & 1 day to to vote & be voted for
disqualification during sentence
12 years
(TAD) 3. Disqualification from
public office held
during sentence
4. Loss of retirement
rights
1. Deprivation of office,
employment,
profession, or calling
Temporary special 6 years & 1 day to affected
disqualification (TSD) 12 years 2. Disqualification from
similar offices or
employment
1. Suspension from public
office
2. Suspension from the
right to follow a
6 months & 1 day Deprivation of freedom profession or calling
Prision correccional
to 6 years 3. Perpetual Special
Disqualification for the
right of suffrage, if the
duration of the
imprisonment shall
Page 127 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

exceed 18 months

1. Public office
6 months & 1 day
Suspension 2. Profession or calling
to 6 years
3. Suffrage
Prohibition to enter w/in
6 months & 1 day
Destierro 25-250 km radius from
to 6 years
the designated place
1. Suspension of right to
hold office
1 month & 1 day Deprivation of freedom 2. Suspension of the right of
Arresto mayor suffrage
to 6 months
during the term of the
sentence
1. Suspension of right to
hold office
Arresto menor 1 day to 30 days Deprivation of freedom 2. Suspension of the right of
suffrage during the term
of the sentence
Public censure
Fine Pecuniary
Bond to keep peace Not imposable. Violates art. 21, RPC.

Page 128 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
D. PENALTIES WHICH MAY BE IMPOSED
D.1. CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
See discussion on death penalty.
D.2. AFFLICTIVE PENALTIES
1. Reclusion perpetua
Indivisibility. Reclusion perpetua remains an
indivisible penalty despite the duration provided
for it.
People v. Gatward (1997): In RA 7659, the
penalty of reclusion perpetua is now accorded a
defined duration ranging from twenty (20) years
and one (1) day to forty (40) years, through the
amendment introduced by it to Article 27 of the
Revised Penal Code. This led the trial court to
believe that reclusion perpetua has become a
divisible penalty.
Held: Article 70 of RPC provides that the
maximum period in regard to service of the
sentence shall not exceed 40 years. Under
these accepted propositions, the Court ruled in
the motion for clarification in the Lucas case
that Republic Act No. 7659 had simply restated
existing jurisprudence when it specified the
duration of reclusion perpetua at 20 years and 1
day to 40 years.
No need to specify length of imprisonment. In
imposing the penalty of reclusion perpetua, it is
unnecessary for the court to specify the length
of imprisonment.
People v. Ramirez (2001): Reclusion perpetua is
imprisonment for life but the person sentenced
to suffer it shall be pardoned after undergoing
the penalty for thirty (30) years, unless by
reason of his conduct or some other serious
cause, he shall be considered by the Chief
Executive as unworthy of pardon (Art. 27,
Revised Penal Code).
Reclusion perpetua and life imprisonment,
distinguished. [People v. Ballabare (1996)]
Cadena perpetua (Life
Reclusion perpetua
imprisonment)
Imposed for serious Prescribed under the
Page 129 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
offenses penalized by RPC
special laws
No accessory With accessory
penalties penalties
Entails imprisonment
for at least 30 years
after which the
Does not appear to convict becomes
have any definite eligible for pardon
extent or duration although the
maximum period
shall in no case
exceed 40 years
AM No. 15-08-02-SC, in rel. to sec. 3 of RA No.
9346.
SECTION 3. Persons convicted of offenses
punished with reclusion perpetua, or whose
sentences will be reduced to reclusion perpetua,
by reason of this Act, shall not be eligible for
parole under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as
the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.
[RA No. 9346]
(1) In cases where the death penalty is not
warranted, there is no need to use the phrase
"without eligibility for parole" to qualify the
penalty of reclusion perpetua; it is understood
that convicted persons penalized with an
indivisible penalty are not eligible for parole; and
(2) When circumstances are present warranting
the imposition of the death penalty, but this
penalty is not imposed because of R.A. 9346,
the qualification of "without eligibility for
parole" shall be used to qualify reclusion
perpetua in order to emphasize that the accused
should have been sentenced to suffer the death
penalty had it not been for R.A. No. 9346.
People v. Buca (2015): The CA, in the dispositive
portion of its Decision, sentenced accused-
appellant to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua, without the benefit of parole. A.M. No.
15-08-02-SC31 is instructive on the matter of
using the phrase without eligibility for parole to
qualify indivisible penalties. In the instant case,
since the accused-appellant committed simple
rape, a crime penalized by reclusion
perpetua only, the dispositive portion of this
decision should plainly state that he is
sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion
perpetua without any qualification.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
2. Reclusion temporal
3. Prision mayor
D.3. CORRECTIONAL PENALTIES
1. Prision correctional
Art. 39. Subsidiary Penalty. – If the convict has
no property with which to meet the fine
mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding
article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary
personal liability at the rate of one day for each
amount equivalent to the highest minimum
wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the
time of the rendition of judgment of conviction
by the trial court, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision
correctional or arresto and fine, he shall remain
under confinement until his fine referred in the
preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-
third of the term of the sentence, and in no case
shall it continue for more than one year, and no
fraction or part of a day shall be counted against
the prisoner.
2. Arresto mayor
See art. 39(1).
3. Destierro
Destierro applies. [Reyes (2012)] (F, ICE)
a. In case of Failure to give bond for good
behavior (art. 284)
b. Serious physical Injuries
c. Penalty of Concubine in concubinage (art.
334)
d. Death under Exceptional circumstances (art.
247)
e. In cases where after reducing the penalty by
one or more degrees, destierro is the proper
penalty
D.4. LIGHT PENALTIES
1. Arresto menor
Page 130 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
See art. 39(1).
2. Public censure
D.5. PENALTIES COMMON TO AFFLICTIVE,
CORRECTIONAL, AND LIGHT PENALTIES
1. Fine
Article 26—Classification of PENALTIES
Afflictive More than 6,000
Correctional 200 to 6,000
Light Below 200
Classification of penalty, not felony. This article
merely classifies fine and has nothing to do with
the definition of light felony.
What to consider. The court can fix any amount
of the fine within the limits established by law. It
must consider (1) the mitigating and aggravating
circumstances, and more particularly, (2) the
wealth or means of the culprit. [Art. 66, RPC]
When the law does not fix the minimum of the
fine, the determination of the amount of the fine
to be imposed upon the culprit is left to the
sound discretion of the court, provided it shall
not exceed the maximum authorized by law.
Not divisible. Fines are not divided into three
equal portions.
Art. 39. Subsidiary Penalty. – If the convict has
no property with which to meet the fine
mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding
article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary
personal liability at the rate of one day for each
amount equivalent to the highest minimum
wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the
time of the rendition of judgment of conviction
by the trial court, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision
correctional or arresto and fine, he shall remain
under confinement until his fine referred in the
preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-
third of the term of the sentence, and in no case
shall it continue for more than one year, and no
fraction or part of a day shall be counted against
UP LAW BOC
the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a
fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been
prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and
shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a fight felony.
2. Bond to keep the peace
Article 21. Penalties that may be imposed. - No
felony shall be punishable by any penalty not
prescribed by law prior to its commission.
Cannot be imposed. This bond is not provided as
a penalty for any felony and therefore cannot be
imposed by the court.
Not bail bond. Bond to keep the peace is
different from bail bond which is posted for the
provisional release of a person arrested for or
accused of a crime.
D.6. MEASURES NOT CONSIDERED
PENALTIES
1. Art. 24, Revised Penal Code
Article 24. Measures of prevention or safety
which are nor considered penalties. - The
following shall not be considered as penalties:
1. The arrest and temporary detention of
accused persons, as well as their
detention by reason of insanity or
imbecility, or illness requiring their
confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of
the institutions mentioned in Article 80
and for the purposes specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment of
public office during the trial or in order
to institute proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures
which, in the exercise of their
administrative disciplinary powers,
superior officials may impose upon their
subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the
reparations which the civil laws may
establish in penal form.
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
Number 2 is not a penalty because the court
does not impose it in a judgment of conviction.
Numbers 3 and 4 are preventive measures. The
rest are not penalties because they are not
imposed as a result of judicial proceedings.
2. Art. 229, Family Code
Art. 229, Family Code. Unless subsequently
revived by a final judgment, parental authority
also terminates: xxx
(3) Upon judicial declaration of
abandonment of the child in a case filed for the
purpose;
(4) Upon final judgment of a competent court
divesting the party concerned of parental
authority; xxx
E. WHEN THE DURATION OF PENALTY
BEGINS
Penalty begins (Article 28).
(a) (Rule 1) When the offender is in prison—the
duration of temporary penalties is from the
day on which the judgment of conviction
becomes final.
(b) (Rule 2) When the offender is not in prison—
the duration of penalty consisting in
deprivation of liberty, is from the day that
the offender is placed at the disposal of
judicial authorities for the enforcement of
the penalty.
(c) (Rule 3) The duration of other penalties—the
duration is from the day on which the
offender commences to serve his sentence.
Rules in cases of temporary penalties. If offender
is under detention, as when he is undergoing
preventive imprisonment, Rule No. 1 applies.
If not under detention, because the offender has
been released on bail, Rule No. 3 applies.
Examples of temporary penalties.
a. Temporary absolute disqualification
b. Temporary special disqualification
c. Suspension
Page 131 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Rules in cases of deprivation of liberty. When the
offender is not in prison, Rule No. 2 applies.
If the offender is undergoing preventive
imprisonment, Rule No. 3 applies but the
offender is entitled to a deduction of full time or
4/5 of the time of his detention.
Examples of penalties consisting in deprivation
of liberty:
a. Imprisonment
b. Destierro
Rules in preventive imprisonment.
Article 29. Period of preventive imprisonment
deducted from term of imprisonment. -
Offenders who have undergone preventive
imprisonment shall be credited in the service of
their sentence consisting of deprivation of
liberty, with the full time during which they have
undergone preventive imprisonment, if the
detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing
to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners, except in the following
cases:
1. When they are recidivists or have been
convicted previously twice or more times
of any crime; and
2. When upon being summoned for the
execution of their sentence they have
failed to surrender voluntarily.
If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide
by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon
convicted prisoners, he shall be credited in the
service of his sentence with four-fifths of the
time during which he has undergone preventive
imprisonment. (As amended by Republic Act
6127, June 17, 1970).
Whenever an accused has undergone preventive
imprisonment for a period equal to or more than
the possible maximum imprisonment of the
offense charged to which he may be sentenced
and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be
released immediately without prejudice to the
continuation of the trial thereof or the
proceeding on appeal, if the same is under
review. In case the maximum penalty to which
the accused may be sentenced is destierro, he
shall be released after thirty (30) days of
preventive imprisonment. (As amended by E.O.
No. 214, July 10, 1988).
Page 132 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
When preventive imprisonment applies. The
accused undergoes preventive imprisonment
when the offense charged is nonbailable, or
even if bailable, he cannot furnish the required
bail.
Immediate release. The convict is to be released
immediately if the penalty imposed after trial is
less than the full time or four-fifths of the time
of the preventive imprisonment.
Look at maximum possible penalty. The accused
shall be released immediately whenever he has
undergone preventive imprisonment for a
period equal to or more than the possible
maximum imprisonment for the offense
charged.
F. APPLICATION
F.1. INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (RA
4103, AS AMENDED)
Purpose. To uplift and redeem valuable human
material and prevent unnecessary and excessive
deprivation of liberty and economic usefulness.
The law is intended to favor the defendant,
particularly to shorten his term of imprisonment,
depending upon his behavior and his physical,
mental and moral record as a prisoner, to be
determined by the Board of Indeterminate
Sentence.
It is necessary to consider the criminal first as an
individual, and second as a member of the
society.
Excluded from coverage. The following are
excluded from coverage: (PH LENDS TRES TV)
1. Those convicted of piracy [P]
2. Those who are habitual delinquents (but
applies to recidivists) [H]
3. Those convicted of offenses punished with
death penalty or life imprisonment [L]
4. Those who shall have escaped from
confinement or evaded service of sentence
[E]
5. Those whose maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one year [N]
6. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro
or suspension [DS]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

7. Those convicted of misprision of treason, 1. The maximum penalty is the penalty

rebellion, sedition or espionage [TRES] actually imposed
8. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or 2. The minimum penalty is the penalty next
proposal to commit treason [T] lower than the prescribed penalty
9. Those who violated the terms of conditional
pardon granted to them by the Chief
People v. Saley (1998): The fact that the
Executive [V]
amounts involved in the instant case of estafa
10. Those who, upon the approval of the law,
exceed P22,000.00 should not be considered
had been sentenced by final judgment
in the initial determination of the indeterminate
penalty; instead, the matter should be so taken
On those who escaped confinement. A minor
as analogous to modifying circumstances in the
who escaped from confinement in the
imposition of the maximum term of the full
reformatory is entitled to the benefits of the ISL
indeterminate sentence. This interpretation of
because his confinement is not considered
the law accords with the rule that penal laws
imprisonment.
should be construed in favor of the
accused. Since the penalty prescribed by law for
See reclusion perpetua and A.M. No. 15-08-02-
the estafa charge against accused-appellant
SC on page XXX.
is prision correccional maximum to prision
mayor minimum, the penalty next lower would
1. Application of ISL
then be prision correccional minimum to
medium. Thus, the minimum term of the
Some definitions. [People v. Temporada (2008)]
indeterminate sentence should be anywhere
within six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4)
Prescribed An initial For homicide:
years and two (2) months.
penalty penalty as a reclusión
general temporal
Why “indeterminate sentence”. After serving the
prescription for
minimum, the convict may be released on
the felonies
parole, OR if he is not fitted for release, he shall
defined therein
continue serving his sentence until the end of
which consists
the maximum.
of a range of
period of time.
For special laws. If the crime is a violation of a
Imposable Penalty after For homicide
special law, ISL merely requires that the
penalty the attending or with one
maximum term thereof shall not exceed the
modifying ordinary
maximum fixed by the special law while the
circumstances aggravating
minimum shall not be less than the minimum
have been circumstance
prescribed therein.
appreciated and no
mitigating
However, where the penalty in the special law
circumstances:
adopts the technical nomenclature and
reclusion
signification of the penalties under the Revised
temporal
Penal Code (RPC), such as “prision mayor”,
penalty in its
“prision correccional maximum”, etc., the
maximum
ascertainment of the indeterminate sentence
period
will be based on the rule intended for those
Penalty A single fixed 17 years, 4 crimes punishable under the RPC.
actually penalty (also months and 1
imposed called a straight day of reclusión
Imbo v. People (2015): For an offense punished
penalty) chosen temporal
by the Code, the minimum shall be within the
by the court
range of the penalty next lower to that
prescribed by the Code for the offense. If the
Maximum and minimum terms. [People v. offense is punished by any other law, the
Temporada, supra] minimum shall not be less than the minimum
Page 133 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

specified by said law. The correct application of grant a new parole to the said prisoner.
the Indeterminate Sentence Law has long been
clarified in People v. Simon which ruled that the
F.2. THREE-FOLD RULE
underscored portion of Section 1 of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, i.e. the "offense is
punished by any other law," indubitably refers
Article 70. Successive service of sentence. -
to an offense under a special law where the
When the culprit has to serve two or more
penalty imposed was not taken from and is
penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if
without reference to the RPC.
the nature of the penalties will so permit
otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
2. Conditions for parole
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of
their respective severity shall be followed so that
Section 6. Duty of the prisoner released under
they may be executed successively or as nearly
this Code—Every prisoner released from as may be possible, should a pardon have been
confinement on parole by virtue of this Act shall,
granted as to the penalty or penalties first
at such times and in such manner as may be
imposed, or should they have been served out.
required by the conditions of his parole, as may For the purpose of applying the provisions of the
be designated by the said Board for such
next preceding paragraph the respective severity
purpose, report personally to such government
of the penalties shall be determined in
officials or other parole officers hereafter
accordance with the following scale:
appointed by the Board of Indeterminate
1. Death,
Sentence for a period of surveillance equivalent
2. Reclusion perpetua,
to the remaining portion of the maximum
3. Reclusion temporal,
sentence imposed upon him or until final release
4. Prision mayor,
and discharge by the Board of Indeterminate
5. Prision correccional,
Sentence as herein provided. The officials so
6. Arresto mayor,
designated shall keep such records and make
7. Arresto menor,
such reports and perform such other duties
8. Destierro,
hereunder as may be required by said Board.
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
The limits of residence of such paroled prisoner
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
during his parole may be fixed and from time to
11. Suspension from public office, the right to
time changed by the said Board in its discretion.
vote and be voted for, the right to follow a
If during the period of surveillance such paroled profession or calling, and
prisoner shall show himself to be a law-abiding
12. Public censure.
citizen and shall not violate any of the laws of
the Philippine Islands, the Board of
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next
Indeterminate Sentence may issue a final
preceding, the maximum duration of the
certificate of release in his favor, which shall
convict's sentence shall not be more than three-
entitle him to final release and discharge.
fold the length of time corresponding to the most
severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No
Section 8. Violations of the conditions of the other penalty to which he may be liable shall be
parole—Whenever any prisoner released on inflicted after the sum total of those imposed
parole by virtue of this Act shall, during the equals the same maximum period.
period of surveillance, violate any of the
conditions of his parole, the Board of Such maximum period shall in no case exceed
Indeterminate Sentence may issue an order for forty years.
his re-arrest which may be served in any part of In applying the provisions of this rule the
the Philippine Islands by any police officer. In duration of perpetual penalties (pena perpetua)
such case the prisoner so re-arrested shall serve shall be computed at thirty years. (As amended).
the remaining unexpired portion of the
maximum sentence for which he was originally
committed to prison, unless the Board of Simultaneous service.
Indeterminate Sentence shall, in its discretion,
Page 134 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
a. When the culprit has to serve 2 or more
penalties, he shall serve them
simultaneously if the nature of the
penalties will so permit.
b. Otherwise, the order of their respective
severity shall be followed.
What can be simultaneously served with one
another. [Ka-DDS Bond Fine in CCP]
a. Perpetual absolute Disqualification
b. Perpetual special Disqualification
c. Temporary absolute Disqualification
d. Temporary special Disqualification
e. Destierro
f. Suspension
g. Bond to keep the peace and Fine
h. Civil interdiction
i. Confiscation and payment of costs
j. Public censure
Simultaneous with imprisonment. All of the
above can be served simultaneously with
imprisonment, except destierro.
Deprivation of liberty. Penalties consisting in
deprivation of liberty cannot be served
simultaneously by reason of the nature of such
penalties. [In re: Pete Lagran]
“The most severe of penalties.” The phrase “the
most severe of the penalties” includes equal
penalties.
Not “imposition of penalty,” but “service.” Court
must impose all the penalties for all the crimes
of which the accused is found guilty, but in the
service of the same, they shall not exceed three
times the most severe and shall not exceed 40
years. [Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan]
F.3. SUBSIDIARY IMPRISONMENT
Art. 38. Pecuniary liabilities; Order of payment. —
In case the property of the offender should not
be sufficient for the payment of all his pecuniary
liabilities, the
same shall be met in the following order:
1. The reparation of the damage caused.
2. Indemnification of consequential damages.
3. The fine.
4. The cost of the proceedings.
Page 135 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Art. 39. Subsidiary Penalty. – If the convict has
no property with which to meet the fine
mentioned in paragraph 3 of the next preceding
article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary
personal liability at the rate of one day for each
amount equivalent to the highest minimum
wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the
time of the rendition of judgment of conviction
by the trial court, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision
correctional or arresto and fine, he shall remain
under confinement until his fine referred in the
preceding paragraph is satisfied, but his
subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-
third of the term of the sentence, and in no case
shall it continue for more than one year, and no
fraction or part of a day shall be counted against
the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a
fine, the subsidiary imprisonment shall not
exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been
prosecuted for a grave or less grave felony, and
shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a fight felony.
3. When the principal penalty imposed is higher
than prision correctional, no subsidiary
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be
executed by confinement in a penal institution,
but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict,
during the period of time established in the
preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the
same deprivations as those of which the
principal penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the
convict may have suffered by reason of his
insolvency shall not relieve him from the fine in
case his financial circumstances should
improve."
Subsidiary penalty. It is personal liability to be
suffered by the convict who has no property with
which to meet the fine at the rate of one day for
each amount equivalent to the highest minimum
wage rate prevailing in the Philippines at the
time of the rendition of judgment of conviction
by the trial court, subject to the rules provided
for in Article 39.
When not in judgment of conviction. An accused
cannot be made to undergo subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency to pay the
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

fine imposed upon him when the subsidiary Indivisible and divisible penalties.
imprisonment is not imposed in the judgment of
conviction. [Ramos v. Gonong] The INDIVISIBLE PENALTIES are:
1. Death
Not alternative. A convict—who has property (a)
2. Reclusion perpetua
not exempt from execution and (b) sufficient
3. Public censure
enough to meet the fine—cannot choose to serve
the subsidiary penalty.
The DIVISIBLE PENALTIES are:
NOT included in COMPUTATION of the threefold
1. Reclusion temporal
rule. In cases where pecuniary liabilities are
2. Prision mayor
applied, follow these steps:
3. Prision correccional
1. Multiply the highest principal penalty by 4. Arresto mayor
three. 5. Destierro
2. If the result of Step 1 EXCEEDS 6 years, there 6. Arresto menor
can be no subsidiary imprisonment despite
the nonsatisfaction of pecuniary liabilities.
How affected. Graduation of penalties by periods
3. If the result of Step 1 is 6 years and below,
considers the ordinary aggravating
the culprit has to:
circumstances alleged in the Information and
a. Serve the aggregate principal penalties
the attendant ordinary mitigating
until he reaches the ceiling imposed by
circumstances.
the threefold rule.
b. Serve the subsidiary imprisonment if he
Arts. 50-57, summarized.
becomes insolvent. [Bagtas v. Director of
Prisons (1949)]

G. GRADUATION OF PENALTIES Consummated

Attempted
Frustrated
Degrees and penalties, distinguished.

Degree. The whole of the penalty prescribed by Principal 0 1 2

the law, the “next lower” as computed through Accomplice 1 2 3
art. 61, or one unit of the penalties enumerated
in the graduated scales provided for in Art. 71. Accessory 2 3 4

How affected. Graduation of penalties by “0” represents the penalty prescribed by law in
degrees considers the following: defining a crime, which is to be imposed on the
PRINCIPAL in a CONSUMMATED OFFENSE, in
1. Stages of execution (consummated, accordance with the provisions of Art. 46.
frustrated, attempted)
2. Extent of participation (principal,
accomplice, accessory) Article 46. Penalty to be imposed upon
3. Privileged mitigating circumstances alleged principals in general. - The penalty prescribed by
in the Information law for the commission of a felony shall be
4. Qualifying circumstances alleged in the imposed upon the principals in the commission
Information of such felony.

Whenever the law prescribes a penalty for a

Period. The one-third portion of a divisible felony is general terms, it shall be understood as
penalty, called either minimum, medium, or applicable to the consummated felony.
maximum.

Page 136 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
The other figures represent the degrees to
which the penalty must be lowered, according
to the stage of execution and extent of
participation of the accused.
Exceptions. Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply to
cases where the law expressly prescribes the
penalty for frustrated or attempted felony, or to
be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
(Art. 60)
Penalty imposed upon an accomplice.
a. The ascendants, guardians, curators,
teachers and any person who, by abuse of
authority or confidential relationship, shall
cooperate as accomplices in the crimes of
rape, acts of lasciviousness, seduction,
corruption of minors, white slave trade or
abduction (Art. 346)
b. One who furnished the place for the
perpetration of the crime of slight illegal
detention (Art. 268)
Penalty imposed upon an accessory.
a. When accessory is punished as principal:
• Knowingly concealing certain evil
practices enumerated in Art. 142
• Obstruction of justice — See discussion
under accomplices.
b. When accessories are punished with a
penalty one degree lower:
• Knowingly using counterfeited seal or
forged signature or stamp of the
President (Art. 162).
• Illegal possession and use of a false
treasury or bank note (Art. 168).
• Using falsified document (Art. 173 par.3)
• Using falsified dispatch (Art. 173 par. 2)
Defining “next lower” by art. 61.
Article 61. Rules for graduating penalties. - For
the purpose of graduating the penalties which,
according to the provisions of Articles 50 to 57,
inclusive, of this Code, are to be imposed upon
Paragraphs 1 to 3.
persons guilty as principals of any frustrated or
attempted felony, or as accomplices or
accessories, the following rules shall be
observed:
1. When the penalty prescribed for the
felony is single and indivisible, the
Page 137 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
penalty next lower in degrees shall be
that immediately following that
indivisible penalty in the respective
graduated scale prescribed in Article 71
of this Code.
2. When the penalty prescribed for the
crime is composed of two indivisible
penalties, or of one or more divisible
penalties to be impose to their full
extent, the penalty next lower in degree
shall be that immediately following the
lesser of the penalties prescribed in the
respective graduated scale.
3. When the penalty prescribed for the
crime is composed of one or two
indivisible penalties and the maximum
period of another divisible penalty, the
penalty next lower in degree shall be
composed of the medium and minimum
periods of the proper divisible penalty
and the maximum periods of the proper
divisible penalty and the maximum
period of that immediately following in
said respective graduated scale.
4. when the penalty prescribed for the
crime is composed of several periods,
corresponding to different divisible
penalties, the penalty next lower in
degree shall be composed of the period
immediately following the minimum
prescribed and of the two next following,
which shall be taken from the penalty
prescribed, if possible; otherwise from
the penalty immediately following in the
above mentioned respective graduated
scale.
5. When the law prescribes a penalty for
a crime in some manner not especially
provided for in the four preceding rules,
the courts, proceeding by analogy, shall
impose corresponding penalties upon
those guilty as principals of the
frustrated felony, or of attempt to
commit the same, and upon accomplices
and accessories.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Scenario The next lower degree is

When the penalty is single and The penalty that follows the single and
art. 61(1)
indivisible indivisible penalty in art. 71
E.g. reclusion perpetua reclusion temporal
When the penalty is composed of two The penalty that follows the lesser of the
art. 61(2)
indivisible penalties two in art. 71
E.g. reclusion perpetua to death reclusion temporal
When the penalty is composed of one
The penalty immediately following the
art. 61(2) or more divisible penalties to be
lesser of the divisible penalties in art. 71
imposed to their full extent
E.g. prision correccional to prision mayor arresto mayor

When the penalty is composed of two The MEDIUM and MINIMUM period of the
art. 61(3) indivisible penalties and the divisible penalty and the MAXIMUM of that
maximum period of a divisible penalty immediately following penalty

reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM prision mayor in its maximum to reclusion

E.g.
period to death temporal in its medium

When the penalty is composed of one The MEDIUM and MINIMUM period of the
art. 61(3) indivisible penalty and the maximum divisible penalty and the MAXIMUM of that
period of a divisible penalty immediately following penalty

reclusion temporal in its MAXIMUM prision mayor in its maximum to reclusion

E.g.
period to reclusion perpetua temporal in its medium

Page 138 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Paragraphs 4 and 5. deprivation of the public office or

The rules prescribed in pars. 4 and 5 of Art. 61 employment; and (2) loss of all rights to
may be simplified as follows: retirement pay or other pension for any
1. If the penalty prescribed by the Code office formerly held. (See Art. 30, par. 3).
consists in 3 periods, corresponding to
different divisible penalties, the penalty next
Exclusion. A plebiscite is not mentioned or
lower in degree is the penalty consisting in
contemplated in the deprivation of the right to
the 3 periods down in the scale.
vote; hence, the offender may vote in that
2. If the penalty prescribed by the Code
exercise, subject to the provisions of pertinent
consists in 2 periods, the penalty next lower
election laws at the time.
in degree is the penalty consisting in 2
periods down in the scale.
3. If the penalty prescribed by the Code H.2. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY SPECIAL
consists in only 1 period, the penalty next DISQUALIFICATION
lower in degree is the next period down in
the scale.
Effects.
Minimum of ISL. The rules provided for in Art. 61
For public office, profession or calling.
should also apply in determining the MINIMUM
1. Deprivation of the office, employment,
of the indeterminate penalty under the
profession or calling affected;
Indeterminate Sentence Law. The MINIMUM of
2. Disqualification for holding similar offices or
the indeterminate penalty is within the range of
employments during the period of
the penalty next lower than that prescribed by
disqualification.
the RPC for the offense.

Privileged mitigating circumstance. Those rules

For the exercise of right to suffrage.
also apply in lowering the penalty by one or two
1. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be
degrees by reason of the presence of privileged
elected in an office;
mitigating circumstance (Arts. 68 and 69), or
2. Cannot hold any public office during the
when the penalty is divisible and there are two
period of disqualification. (Art. 31).
or more mitigating circumstances (generic) and
no aggravating circumstance (Art. 64).
Notes.
a. The penalty for disqualification if imposed as
H. ACCESSORY PENALTIES an accessory penalty is imposed for
PROTECTION and NOT for the withholding
of a privilege.
H.1. PERPETUAL OR TEMPORARY ABSOLUTE b. If temporary disqualification or suspension is
DISQUALIFICATION imposed as an accessory penalty, the
duration is the same as that of the principal
Effects. penalty.
1. Deprivation of any public office or
employment of offender;
2. Deprivation of the right to vote in any
election or to be voted upon;
3. Loss of rights to retirement pay or pension.
H.3. SUSPENSION FROM PUBLIC OFFICE, THE
Duration. RIGHT TO VOTE AND BE VOTED FOR, THE
RIGHT TO PRACTICE A PROFESSION OR
a. Perpetual absolute disqualification is
CALLING
effective during the lifetime of the convict
and even after the service of the sentence.
b. Temporary absolute disqualification lasts
during the term of the sentence except (1)
Page 139 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Effects.
1. Disqualification from holding such office or
the exercise of such profession or right of
suffrage during the term of the sentence;
2. Cannot hold another office having similar
functions during the period of suspension.
(Art. 32).
H.4. CIVIL INTERDICTION
Effects.
Deprivation of the following rights:
1. Parental authority
2. Guardianship over the ward
3. Marital authority
4. Right to manage property and to dispose of
the same by acts inter vivos. (Note: The
convict can still dispose his property mortis
causa).
From the New Civil Code.
Article 1323. An offer becomes ineffective upon
the death, civil interdiction, insanity, or
insolvency of either party before acceptance is
conveyed. (n)
Article 1830. Dissolution [of partnership] is
caused:
Xxx (7) By the civil interdiction of any partner; xxx
Article 1860. The retirement, death, insolvency,
insanity or civil interdiction of a general partner
dissolves the partnership, unless the business is
continued by the remaining general partners:
(1) Under a right so to do stated in the
certificate, or
(2) With the consent of all members.
Article 1919. Agency is extinguished:
Xxx (3) By the death, civil interdiction, insanity or
insolvency of the principal or of the agent; xxx
Note. Civil interdiction is an accessory penalty to
the following principal penalties:
a. Death if commuted to life imprisonment;
b. Reclusion perpetua
c. Reclusion temporal
Page 140 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
H.5. INDEMNIFICATION OR CONFISCATION
OF INSTRUMENTS OR PROCEEDS OF THE
OFFENSE
Effects. Forfeiture in favor of the Government of
the proceeds of the crime and the instruments or
tools with which it was committed.
Notes.
a. This is included in every penalty for the
commission of the crime. The confiscation is
in favor of the government.
b. Property of a third person not liable for the
offense is not subject to confiscation.
c. If the trial court did not order any
confiscation of the proceeds of the crime, the
government cannot appeal from the
confiscation as that would increase the
penalty already imposed.
RA 1379—An Act Declaring Forfeiture in Favor of
the State Any Property Found To Have Been
Unlawfully Acquired By Any Public Officer or
Employee and Providing for the Proceedings
Therefor.
Section 1. Definitions. xxx
(b) "Other legitimately acquired
property" means any real or personal
property, money or securities which the
respondent has at any time acquired by
inheritance and the income thereof, or
by gift inter vivos before his becoming a
public officer or employee, or any
property (or income thereof) already
pertaining to him when he qualified for
public office or employment, or the fruits
and income of the exclusive property of
the respondent's spouse. It shall not
include:
1. Property unlawfully acquired
by the respondent, but its
ownership is concealed by its
being recorded in the name of,
or held by, the respondent's
spouse, ascendants,
descendants, relatives, or any
other person.
2. Property unlawfully acquired
by the respondent, but
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
transferred by him to another
person or persons on or after the
effectivity of this Act.
3. Property donated to the
respondent during his
incumbency, unless he can prove
to the satisfaction of the court
that the donation is lawful.
Section 6. Judgment. If the respondent is unable
to show to the satisfaction of the court that he
has lawfully acquired the property in question,
then the court shall declare such property,
forfeited in favor of the State, and by virtue of
such judgment the property aforesaid shall
become property of the State: Provided, That no
judgment shall be rendered within six months
before any general election or within three
months before any special election. The Court
may, in addition, refer this case to the
corresponding Executive Department for
administrative or criminal action, or both.
RA 7080 or the Plunder Law.
Section 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder;
Penalties. — Any public officer who, by himself
or in connivance with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business
associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten
wealth through a combination or series of overt
or criminal acts as described in Section 1(d)
hereof, in the aggregate amount or total value of
at least Seventy-five million pesos
(P75,000,000.00), shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder and shall be punished by life
imprisonment with perpetual absolute
disqualification from holding any public office.
Any person who participated with said public
officer in the commission of plunder shall
likewise be punished. In the imposition of
penalties, the degree of participation and the
attendance of mitigating and extenuating
circumstances shall be considered by the court.
The court shall declare any and all ill-gotten
wealth and their interests and other incomes
and assets including the properties and shares
of stock derived from the deposit or investment
thereof forfeited in favor of the State. (As
amended by RA 7659, approved Dec. 13, 1993.)
Page 141 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Private person cannot be charged with plunder
without public officer. Plunder is defined as a
crime committed by a public officer by himself or
in connivance with others.
RA 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
Section 9. Penalties for violations. — (a) Any
public officer or private person committing any
of the unlawful acts or omissions enumerated in
Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act shall be
punished with imprisonment for not less than six
years and one month nor more than fifteen
years, perpetual disqualification from public
office, and confiscation or forfeiture in favor of
the Government of any prohibited interest and
unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion
to his salary and other lawful income.
Any complaining party at whose complaint the
criminal prosecution was initiated shall, in case
of conviction of the accused, be entitled to
recover in the criminal action with priority over
the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the
amount of money or the thing he may have given
to the accused, or the fair value of such thing.
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, as
amended.
Section 20. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the
Proceeds or Instruments of the Unlawful Act,
Including the Properties or Proceeds Derived
from the Illegal Trafficking of Dangerous Drugs
and/or Precursors and Essential Chemicals. –
Every penalty imposed for the unlawful
importation, sale, trading, administration,
dispensation, delivery, distribution,
transportation or manufacture of any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical, the cultivation or culture of plants
which are sources of dangerous drugs, and the
possession of any equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia for
dangerous drugs including other laboratory
equipment, shall carry with it the confiscation
and forfeiture, in favor of the government, of all
the proceeds and properties derived from the
unlawful act, including, but not limited to,
money and other assets obtained thereby, and
the instruments or tools with which the
particular unlawful act was committed, unless
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
they are the property of a third person not liable
for the unlawful act, but those which are not of
lawful commerce shall be ordered destroyed
without delay pursuant to the provisions of
Section 21 of this Act.
After conviction in the Regional Trial Court in the
appropriate criminal case filed, the Court shall
immediately schedule a hearing for the
confiscation and forfeiture of all the proceeds of
the offense and all the assets and properties of
the accused either owned or held by him or in
the name of some other persons if the same
shall be found to be manifestly out of proportion
to his/her lawful income: Provided, however,
That if the forfeited property is a vehicle, the
same shall be auctioned off not later than five
(5) days upon order of confiscation or forfeiture.
During the pendency of the case in the Regional
Trial Court, no property, or income derived
therefrom, which may be confiscated and
forfeited, shall be disposed, alienated or
transferred and the same shall be in custodia
legis and no bond shall be admitted for the
release of the same.
The proceeds of any sale or disposition of any
property confiscated or forfeited under this
Section shall be used to pay all proper expenses
incurred in the proceedings for the confiscation,
forfeiture, custody and maintenance of the
property pending disposition, as well as
expenses for publication and court costs. The
proceeds in excess of the above expenses shall
accrue to the Board to be used in its campaign
against illegal drugs.
Section 84. Powers and Duties of the PDEA. –
The PDEA shall:
xxx (g) Recommend to the DOJ the forfeiture of
properties and other assets of persons and/or
corporations found to be violating the provisions
of this Act and in accordance with the pertinent
provisions of the Anti-Money-Laundering Act of
2001; xxx
2016 Revised Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA No. 9160, or the Anti-Money
Laundering Act, as amended.
B. Asset Forfeiture in Money Laundering Cases.
- Where there is conviction for money
laundering, the court shall issue a judgment of
Page 142 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
forfeiture in favor of the Government of the
Philippines with respect to the monetary
instrument or property found to be proceeds of
an unlawful activity.
C. Claim on Forfeited Assets. - Where the court
has issued an order of forfeiture of the monetary
instrument or property in a criminal prosecution
for any money laundering offense, the offender
or any other person claiming an interest therein
may apply, by verified petition, for a declaration
that the same legitimately belongs to him and
for segregation or exclusion of the monetary
instrument or property corresponding thereto.
The verified petition shall be filed with the court
which rendered the judgment of forfeiture,
within fifteen (15) days from the date of the
finality of the order of forfeiture, in default of
which the said order shall become final and
executory. This provision shall also apply in civil
forfeiture.
D. Payment in Lieu of Forfeiture. - Where the
court has issued an order of forfeiture of the
monetary instrument or property subject of a
money laundering offense, and said order
cannot be enforced because any particular
monetary instrument or property cannot, with
due diligence, be located, or it has been
substantially altered, destroyed, diminished in
value or otherwise rendered worthless by any act
or omission, directly or indirectly, attributable to
the offender, or it has been concealed, removed,
converted, or otherwise transferred to prevent
the same from being found or to avoid forfeiture
thereof, or it is located outside the Philippines or
has been placed or brought outside the
jurisdiction of the court, or it has been
commingled with other monetary instruments or
property belonging to either the offender himself
or a third person or entity, thereby rendering the
same difficult to identify or be segregated for
purposes of forfeiture, the court may, instead of
enforcing the order of forfeiture of the monetary
instrument or property or part thereof or interest
therein, accordingly order the convicted offender
to pay an amount equal to the value of said
monetary instrument or property. This provision
shall apply in both civil and criminal forfeiture.
H.6. PAYMENT OF COSTS
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Effects.
1. If the accused be convicted, the costs may be
charged against him.
2. If he be acquitted, costs are de officio, i.e.,
each party will bear his/her own expense.
Coverage.
1. Fees, and
2. Indemnities, in the course of judicial
proceedings.
Expenses of litigation. Costs or costs of suit are
the expenses of litigation allowed and regulated
by the Rules of Court to be assessed against or
to be recovered by a party in litigation.
Fixed or otherwise. Costs may be fixed amounts
already determined by law or regulations or
amounts subject to a schedule.
Exclusion. Not allowed against the Republic of
the Philippines. (Rule 142, Sec. 1).
I. COMPUTATION OF PENALTIES
I.1. MITIGATING AND AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 62. Effect of the attendance of mitigating
or aggravating circumstances and of habitual
delinquency. - Mitigating or aggravating
circumstances and habitual delinquency shall be
taken into account for the purpose of
diminishing or increasing the penalty in
conformity with the following rules:
1. Aggravating circumstances which in
themselves constitute a crime specially
punishable by law or which are included
by the law in defining a crime and
prescribing the penalty therefor shall not
be taken into account for the purpose of
increasing the penalty.
2. The same rule shall apply with respect
to any aggravating circumstance
inherent in the crime to such a degree
that it must of necessity accompany the
commission thereof.
3. Aggravating or mitigating
circumstances which arise from the
Page 143 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
moral attributes of the offender, or from
his private relations with the offended
party, or from any other personal cause,
shall only serve to aggravate or mitigate
the liability of the principals,
accomplices and accessories as to whom
such circumstances are attendant.
4. The circumstances which consist in
the material execution of the act, or in
the means employed to accomplish it,
shall serve to aggravate or mitigate the
liability of those persons only who had
knowledge of them at the time of the
execution of the act or their cooperation
therein.
When attendant circumstances are not
appreciated in computing the penalty. (Fine SIN)
a. fines
b. penalties prescribed by special laws that do
not follow the RPC nomenclature
c. indivisible penalties
d. crimes committed by negligence
When prescribed penalty is single and indivisible.
Apply the prescribed penalty regardless of
attendant circumstances.
When prescribed penalty is made of two
indivisible penalties.
a. At least one aggravating circumstance is
present—apply HIGHER penalty
b. No aggravating is present—apply LOWER
penalty
c. BOTH aggravating and mitigating are
present—
• Aggravating exceeds mitigating—apply
HIGHER penalty
• Mitigating exceeds aggravating—apply
LOWER penalty
When prescribed penalty is made of divisible
penalties.
a. NO aggravating and mitigating—apply
MEDIUM period
b. Aggravating circumstances, regardless of
number—apply MAXIMUM period
c. One mitigating—apply MINIMUM period
d. Two or more mitigating—one DEGREE
LOWER
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

e. BOTH aggravating and mitigating are

present—OFFSET each other Which can be simplified as:
Minimum Maximum
When prescribed penalty is not made of three Minimum 6 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 8 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠
periods. period
1. Let X be Medium 8 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 10 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠
period
𝑋 = Maximum 10 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 12 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠
𝑚𝑎𝑥𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑦−(𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑦−1 𝑑𝑎𝑦) period
3

Suppose the prescribed penalty for a felony is 3. To check if the computation is correct, the
prision mayor, which ranges from 6 years maximum of the maximum period (as computed
(minimum of prescribed penalty) and 1 day to 12 in Step 2) should be equal to the maximum of
years (maximum of the prescribed penalty). the prescribed penalty.
Then:
Maximum of the maximum period in Step 2 = 12
years
=
12 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 − (6 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 − 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦) Maximum of prision mayor = 12 years
3
12𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 − (6 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠)
=
3
See prescribed penalty and imposable penalty,
𝑋 = 2 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 distinguished.

See special aggravating and qualifying

2. For the minima and maxima of the minimum, circumstances.
medium, and maximum periods, use the
following formulae: Ladines v. People (2016): Homicide is punished
with reclusion temporal. Taking the absence of
Minimum Maximum any modifying circumstances into consideration,
Minimum 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 the RTC fixed the indeterminate penalty of 10
( )
period 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑦 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑦 years and one day of prision mayor, as minimum,
+𝑋 to 17 years and four months of the medium
Medium 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 period of reclusion temporal, as maximum. The
period 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑦 (𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑦)
+𝑋 −1 𝑑𝑎𝑦
CA affirmed the penalty fixed by the RTC.
+2𝑋
Maximu 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 𝑚𝑖𝑛𝑖𝑚𝑢𝑚 𝑜𝑓 We declare that the lower courts could not
m period 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑦 ( 𝑝𝑟𝑒𝑠𝑐𝑟𝑖𝑏𝑒𝑑 𝑝𝑒𝑛𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑦) impose 17 years and four months of the medium
+2𝑋 −1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 period of reclusion temporal, which was the
+3𝑋 ceiling of the medium period of reclusion
temporal, as the maximum of the indeterminate
Using the example of prision mayor, with X = 2 penalty without specifying the justification for so
years as computed in Step 1, and applying these imposing. They thereby ignored that although
numbers to the formulae in the above table, we Article 64 of the Revised Penal Code, which has
have: set the rules "for the application of penalties
which contain three periods," requires under its
Minimum Maximum first rule that the courts should impose the
Minimum 6 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑
(
6 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦
) penalty prescribed by law in the medium
1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 −1 𝑑𝑎𝑦
period + 2 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 period should there be neither aggravating nor
Medium 6 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 6 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 mitigating circumstances, its seventh rule
( )
period 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 −1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 expressly demands that "[w]ithin the limits of
+(2 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠) + 2(2 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠) each period, the courts shall determine the
Maximum 6 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑
(
6 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠 𝑎𝑛𝑑 1 𝑑𝑎𝑦
) extent of the penalty according to the number
1 𝑑𝑎𝑦 −1 𝑑𝑎𝑦
period + 3(2 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠) and nature of the aggravating and mitigating
+2(2 𝑦𝑒𝑎𝑟𝑠)
Page 144 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
circumstances and. the greater or lesser extent of
the evil produced by the crime." By not specifying
the justification for imposing the ceiling of the
period of the imposable penalty, the fixing of the
indeterminate sentence became arbitrary, or
whimsical, or capricious. In the absence of the
specification, the maximum of the indeterminate
sentence for the petitioner should be the lowest
of the medium period of reclusion
temporal, which is 14 years, eight months and
one day of reclusion temporal.
No “incomplete” accident. Art. 67 is impossible
to impose. See discussion on incomplete
justification and exemption.
Article 67. Penalty to be imposed when not all
the requisites of exemption of the fourth
circumstance of Article 12 are present. - When
all the conditions required in circumstances
Number 4 of Article 12 of this Code to exempt
from criminal liability are not present, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon the culprit if he shall
have been guilty of a grave felony, and arresto
mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of
a less grave felony
I.2. SPECIAL RULES
1. Complex crime and continuing crimes
See earlier discussion.
2. Absorption doctrine
Enrile v. Salazar (1990): JPE was arrested on an
information charging him with the crime of
rebellion and murder and multiple frustrated
murder.
Held: Hernandez remains binding doctrine
operating to prohibit the complexing of rebellion
with any other offense committed on the
occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to
its commission or as an unintended effect of an
activity that constitutes rebellion.
RA 10591, or the Comprehensive Firearms and
Ammunition Act of 2013.
Section 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the
Page 145 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Commission of a Crime. – xxx
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of
rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’
etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection,
or attempted coup d’ etat.
See crimes against public order.
2. Impossible crimes
Article 59. Penalty to be imposed in case of
failure to commit the crime because the means
employed or the aims sought are impossible. -
When the person intending to commit an
offense has already performed the acts for the
execution of the same but nevertheless the
crime was not produced by reason of the fact
that the act intended was by its nature one of
impossible accomplishment or because the
means employed by such person are essentially
inadequate to produce the result desired by him,
the court, having in mind the social danger and
the degree of criminality shown by the offender,
shall impose upon him the penalty of arresto
mayor or a fine from 200 to 500 pesos.
3. Crime different from that intended
See discussion on art. 4(1) and on the mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave
a wrong.
4. When offender is below 18
See minority as exempting circumstance and as
privileged mitigating circumstance.
J. EXECUTION AND SERVICE OF
PENALTIES
J.1. EXECUTION OF PENALTIES
Article 78. When and how a penalty is to be
executed. - No penalty shall be executed except
by virtue of a final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other
form than that prescribed by law, nor with any
other circumstances or incidents than those
expressly authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
special regulations prescribed for the
government of the institutions in which the
penalties are to be suffered shall be observed
with regard to the character of the work to be
performed, the time of its performance, and
other incidents connected therewith, the
relations of the convicts among themselves and
other persons, the relief which they may receive,
and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the
separation of the sexes in different institutions,
or at least into different departments and also
for the correction and reform of the convicts.
Art. 78; must be final. The judgment must be
final before it can be executed, because the
accused may still appeal within 15 days from its
promulgation.
May be waived. But if the defendant has
expressly waived in writing his right to appeal,
the judgment becomes final and executory.
Article 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion
temporal, prision mayor, prision correccional
and arresto mayor. - The penalties of reclusion
perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor,
prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall be
executed and served in the places and penal
establishments provided by the Administrative
Code in force or which may be provided by law in
the future.
Article 87. Destierro. - Any person sentenced to
destierro shall not be permitted to enter the
place or places designated in the sentence, nor
within the radius therein specified, which shall
be not more than 250 and not less than 25
kilometers from the place designated.
Destierro, distinguished from permanent
protection order.
SECTION 8. Protection Orders. - A protection
order is an order issued under this act for the
purpose of preventing further acts of violence
against a woman or her child specified in Sec. 5
of this Act and granting other necessary relief.
The relief granted under a protection order serve
the purpose of safeguarding the victim from
further harm, minimizing any disruption in the
victim's daily life, and facilitating the opportunity
Page 146 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
and ability of the victim to independently regain
control over her life. The provisions of the
protection order shall be enforced by law
enforcement agencies. The protection orders
that may be issued under this Act are the
barangay protection order (BPO), temporary
protection order (TPO) and permanent
protection order (PPO). The protection orders
that may be issued under this Act shall include
any, some or all of the following reliefs:
xxx
(d) Directing the respondent to stay away from
petitioner and designated family or household
member at a distance specified by the court, and
to stay away from the residence, school, place of
employment, or any specified place frequented
by the petitioner and any designated family or
household member;
SECTION 16. Permanent Protection Orders. –
Permanent Protection Order (PPO) refers to
protection order issued by the court after notice
and hearing.
Respondents non-appearance despite proper
notice, or his lack of a lawyer, or the non-
availability of his lawyer shall not be a ground
for rescheduling or postponing the hearing on
the merits of the issuance of a PPO. If the
respondents appears without counsel on the
date of the hearing on the PPO, the court shall
appoint a lawyer for the respondent and
immediately proceed with the hearing. In case
the respondent fails to appear despite proper
notice, the court shall allow ex parte
presentation of the evidence by the applicant
and render judgment on the basis of the
evidence presented. The court shall allow the
introduction of any history of abusive conduct of
a respondent even if the same was not directed
against the applicant or the person for whom
the applicant is made.
The court shall, to the extent possible, conduct
the hearing on the merits of the issuance of a
PPO in one (1) day. Where the court is unable to
conduct the hearing within one (1) day and the
TPO issued is due to expire, the court shall
continuously extend or renew the TPO for a
period of thirty (30) days at each particular time
until final judgment is issued. The extended or
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
renewed TPO may be modified by the court as
may be necessary or applicable to address the
needs of the applicant.
The court may grant any, some or all of the
reliefs specified in Sec. 8 hereof in a PPO. A PPO
shall be effective until revoked by a court upon
application of the person in whose favor the
order was issued. The court shall ensure
immediate personal service of the PPO on
respondent.
The court shall not deny the issuance of
protection order on the basis of the lapse of time
between the act of violence and the filing of the
application.
Regardless of the conviction or acquittal of the
respondent, the Court must determine whether
or not the PPO shall become final. Even in a
dismissal, a PPO shall be granted as long as
there is no clear showing that the act from which
the order might arise did not exist. [RA 9262]
Article 88. Arresto menor. - The penalty
of arresto menor shall be served in the municipal
jail, or in the house of the defendant himself
under the surveillance of an officer of the law,
when the court so provides in its decision, taking
into consideration the health of the offender and
other reasons which may seem satisfactory to it.
J.2. EFFECTS OF PROBATION LAW [PD 986,
AS AMENDED BY RA 10707]
Llamado v. CA (1989): Turning to petitioner's
invocation of "liberal interpretation" of penal
statutes, we note at the outset that the Probation
Law is not a penal statute. We, however,
understand petitioner's argument to be really
that any statutory language that appears to
favor the accused in a criminal case should be
given a "liberal interpretation." Courts, however,
have no authority to invoke "liberal
interpretation' or "the spirit of the law" where
the words of the statute themselves, and as
illuminated by the history of that statute, leave
no room for doubt or interpretation.
1. Definition of terms [Sec. 3]
Page 147 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Probation. A disposition under which a
defendant, after conviction and sentence, is
released subject to conditions imposed by the
court and to the supervision of a probation
officer.
Probationer. A person placed on probation
Probation officer. One who investigates for the
court a referral for probation or supervises a
probationer or both.
2. Purpose [Sec 2.]
1. Promote the correction and rehabilitation of
an offender by providing him with
individualized treatment
2. Provide an opportunity for the reformation of
a penitent offender which might be less
probable if he were to serve a prison
sentence
3. Prevent the commission of offenses
Office of the Court Administrator v. Librado
(1996): Unlike pardon, probation does not
obliterate the crime of which the person under
probation has been convicted.
Note. Probation does not extinguish civil liability.
3. Grant, manner, and conditions [Sec. 4]
SEC. 4. Grant of Probation. — Subject to the
provisions of this Decree, the trial court may,
after it shall have convicted and sentenced a
defendant for a probationable penalty and upon
application by said defendant within the period
for perfecting an appeal, suspend the execution
of the sentence and place the defendant on
probation for such period and upon such terms
and conditions as it may deem best. No
application for probation shall be entertained or
granted if the defendant has perfected the
appeal from the judgment of conviction:
Provided, That when a judgment of conviction
imposing a non-probationable penalty is
appealed or reviewed, and such judgment is
modified through the imposition of a
probationable penalty, the defendant shall be
allowed to apply for probation based on the
modified decision before such decision becomes
final. The application for probation based on the
modified decision shall be filed in the trial court
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
where the judgment of conviction imposing a
non-probationable penalty was rendered, or in
the trial court where such case has since been re-
raffled. In a case involving several defendants
where some have taken further appeal, the other
defendants may apply for probation by
submitting a written application and attaching
thereto a certified true copy of the judgment of
conviction.
The trial court shall, upon receipt of the
application filed, suspend the execution of the
sentence imposed in the judgment.
This notwithstanding, the accused shall lose the
benefit of probation should he seek a review of
the modified decision which already imposes a
probationable penalty.
Probation may be granted whether the sentence
imposes a term of imprisonment or a fine only.
The filing of the application shall be deemed a
waiver of the right to appeal.
An order granting or denying probation shall not
be appealable.
The Dimakuta doctrine. Note that the Dimakuta
decision was issued on October 2015, but
RA10707—which amended the Probation Law—
was signed into law on November 2015.
Dimakuta v. People (2015): It must be
categorically stated that such appeal must be
limited to the following grounds:
1. When the appeal is merely intended for
the correction of the penalty imposed by the
lower court, which when corrected would entitle
the accused to apply for probation; and
2. When the appeal is merely intended to review
the crime for which the accused was convicted
and that the accused should only be liable to the
lesser offense which is necessarily included in the
crime for which he was originally convicted and
the proper penalty imposable is within the
probationable period.
In addition, before an appeal is filed based on
the grounds enumerated above, the accused
should first file a motion for reconsideration of
the decision of the trial court anchored on the
Page 148 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
above-stated grounds and manifest his intent to
apply for probation if the motion is granted. The
motion for reconsideration will give the trial
court an opportunity to review and rectify any
errors in its judgment, while the manifestation of
the accused will immediately show that he is
agreeable to the judgment of conviction and
does not intend to appeal from it, but he only
seeks a review of the crime and/or penalty
imposed, so that in the event that the penalty
will be modified within the probationable limit,
he will immediately apply for probation. Without
such motion for reconsideration, the notice of
appeal should be denied outright.
The notice of appeal should contain the
following averments:
(1) that an earlier motion for reconsideration was
filed but was denied by the trial court;
(2) that the appeal is only for reviewing the
penalty imposed by the lower court or the
conviction should only be for a lesser crime
necessarily included in the crime charged in the
information; and
(3) that the accused-appellant is not seeking
acquittal of the conviction.
On the other hand, probation should not be
granted to the accused in the following
instances:
1. When the accused is convicted by the trial
court of a crime where the penalty imposed is
within the probationable period or a fine, and
the accused files a notice of appeal; and
2. When the accused files a notice of appeal
which puts the merits of his conviction in
issue, even if there is an alternative prayer for
the correction of the penalty imposed by the trial
court or for a conviction to a lesser crime, which
is necessarily included in the crime in which he
was convicted where the penalty is within the
probationable period.
Conditions. Sec. 10 lists conditions of the
probation. The two conditions quoted below are
mandatory conditions; the rest in sec. 10 are
discretionary conditions. The conditions
enumerated under Sec. 10 of the Probation Law
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
are not exhaustive. Courts are allowed to impose
practically any term it chooses, the only
limitation being that it does not jeopardize the
constitutional rights of the accused. After all,
Sec. 4 states that “the trial court may… place
the defendant on probation for such period and
upon such terms and conditions as it may deem
best.” [Salgado v. CA (1990)]
Section 10. Conditions of Probation. Every
probation order issued by the court shall contain
conditions requiring that the probationer shall:
(a) present himself to the probation
officer designated to undertake his
supervision at such place as may be
specified in the order within seventy-two
hours from receipt of said order;
(b) report to the probation officer at least
once a month at such time and place as
specified by said officer.
4. Criteria for placing offender under probation
[Sec. 8]
Criteria. The following should be considered in
deciding to place an offender under probation:
[AM CHEAP]
1. available institutional and community
resources
2. mental condition of the offender
3. character,
4. antecedents,
5. environment,
6. physical condition of the offender
May be extended to children in conflict with the
law.
SEC. 42. Probation as an Alternative to
Imprisonment. - The court may, after it shall
have convicted and sentenced a child in conflict
with the law, and upon application at any time,
place the child on probation in lieu of service of
his/her sentence taking into account the best
interest of the child. For this purpose, Section 4
of Presidential Decree No. 968, otherwise known
as the "Probation Law of 1976", is hereby
amended accordingly.
Reasons for denying probation.
(a) the offender is in need of correctional
Page 149 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
treatment that can be provided most effectively
by his commitment to an institution; or
(b) there is undue risk that during the period of
probation the offender will commit another
crime; or
(c) probation will depreciate the seriousness of
the offense committed. [Sec. 8]
5. Those disqualified from probation
SEC. 9. Disqualified Offenders. — The benefits of
this Decree shall not be extended to those:
a. sentenced to serve a maximum term
of imprisonment of more than six (6)
years;
b. convicted of any crime against the
national security;
c. who have previously been convicted by
final judgment of an offense punished by
imprisonment of more than six (6)
months and one (1) day and/or a fine of
more than one thousand pesos
(P1,000.00);
d. who have been once on probation
under the provisions of this Decree; and
e. who are already serving sentence at
the time the substantive provisions of
this Decree became applicable pursuant
to Section 33 hereof. [Probation Law, as
amended by RA 10707]
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.
[Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002]
6. Period of probation [Sec. 14]
When sentenced to Probation shall not
imprisonment of not exceed 2 years
more than 1 year
When sentenced to Shall not exceed 6
more than 1 year years
When sentenced to a Shall be twice the total
fine and made to suffer days of subsidiary
subsidiary imprisonment
imprisonment
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

9. Arrest of probation [Sec. 15]
Section 15. Arrest of Probationer; Subsequent
Disposition. At any time during probation, the
court may issue a warrant for the arrest of a
probationer for any serious violation of the
conditions of the pardon. The probationer, once
arrested and detained, shall immediately be
brought before the court for a hearing of the
violation charged. The defendant may be
admitted to bail pending such hearing. In such
case, the provisions regarding release on bail of
persons charged with a crime shall be applicable
to probationers arrested under this provision.
Termination of period not the same as expiration
of probation period. Probation is not
coterminous with its period. There must first be
issued by the court, an order of final discharge
based on the report and recommendation of the
probation officer. Only from such issuance can
the case of the probationer be deemed
terminated. [Bala v. Martinez (1990)]
J.3. SUSPENSION IN CASE OF INSANITY OR
MINORITY
1. Insane

In the hearing, which shall be summary in

Article 79. Suspension of the execution and
nature, the probationer shall have the right to be
service of the penalties in case of insanity. -
informed of the violation charged and to adduce
When a convict shall become insane or an
evidence in his favor. The court shall not be
imbecile after final sentence has been
bound by the technical rules of evidence but may pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall
inform itself of all facts which are material and
be suspended only with regard to the personal
relevant to ascertain the veracity of the charge.
penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph
The State shall be represented by a prosecuting
of circumstance number 1 of Article 12 being
officer in any contested hearing. If the violation
observed in the corresponding cases.
is established, the court may revoke or continue
his probation and modify the conditions thereof.
If at any time the convict shall recover his
If revoked, the court shall order the probationer
reason, his sentence shall be executed, unless
to serve the sentence originally imposed. An the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance
order revoking the grant of probation or
with the provisions of this Code.
modifying the terms and conditions thereof shall
The respective provisions of this section shall
not be appealable.
also be observed if the insanity or imbecility
occurs while the convict is serving his sentence.
8. Termination of probation [Sec. 16]

When an accused becomes insane.

SEC. 16. Termination of Probation. — After the
period of probation and upon consideration of
At the time of the He is exempt from
the report and recommendation of the probation
commission of the criminal liability.
officer, the court may order the final discharge of
crime
the probationer upon finding that he has
At the time of the trial The Court shall
fulfilled the terms and conditions of his
suspend the
probation and thereupon the case is deemed
proceedings and order
terminated.
his confinement in a
hospital until he
The final discharge of the probationer shall
recovers his reason.
operate to restore to him all civil rights lost or
At the time of final Execution is suspended
suspended as a result of his conviction and to
judgment or while with regard to the
totally extinguish his criminal liability as to the
serving sentence personal penalty only.
offense for which probation was granted.
If he recovers his
reason, his sentence
The probationer and the probation officer shall
shall be executed,
each be furnished with a copy of such order.
unless the penalty has
prescribed.
Page 150 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Payment of his civil or
pecuniary liabilities
shall not be suspended.
2. Minors
See minority as exempting circumstance and as
privileged mitigating circumstance. Take note of
the definition of “diversion.”
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
Section 66. Suspension of Sentence of a First-
Time Minor Offender. – An accused who is over
fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense mentioned in Section
11 of this Act, but not more than eighteen (18)
years of age at the time when judgment should
have been promulgated after having been found
guilty of said offense, may be given the benefits
of a suspended sentence, subject to the
following conditions:
(a) He/she has not been previously
convicted of violating any provision of
this Act, or of the Dangerous Drugs Act
of 1972, as amended; or of the Revised
Penal Code; or of any special penal laws;
(b) He/she has not been previously
committed to a Center or to the care of a
DOH-accredited physician; and
(c) The Board favorably recommends
that his/her sentence be suspended.
While under suspended sentence, he/she shall
be under the supervision and rehabilitative
surveillance of the Board, under such conditions
that the court may impose for a period ranging
from six (6) months to eighteen (18) months.
Upon recommendation of the Board, the court
may commit the accused under suspended
sentence to a Center, or to the care of a DOH-
accredited physician for at least six (6) months,
with after-care and follow-up program for not
more than eighteen (18) months.
In the case of minors under fifteen (15) years of
age at the time of the commission of any offense
penalized under this Act, Article 192 of
Presidential Decree No. 603, otherwise known
as the Child and Youth Welfare Code, as
Page 151 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1179 shall
apply, without prejudice to the application of the
provisions of this Section.
Section 67. Discharge After Compliance with
Conditions of Suspended Sentence of a First-
Time Minor Offender. – If the accused first time
minor offender under suspended sentence
complies with the applicable rules and
regulations of the Board, including confinement
in a Center, the court, upon a favorable
recommendation of the Board for the final
discharge of the accused, shall discharge the
accused and dismiss all proceedings.
Upon the dismissal of the proceedings against
the accused, the court shall enter an order to
expunge all official records, other than the
confidential record to be retained by the DOJ
relating to the case. Such an order, which shall
be kept confidential, shall restore the accused to
his/her status prior to the case. He/she shall not
be held thereafter to be guilty of perjury or of
concealment or misrepresentation by reason of
his/her failure to acknowledge the case or recite
any fact related thereto in response to any
inquiry made of him for any purpose.
Section 68. Privilege of Suspended Sentence to
be Availed of Only Once by a First-Time Minor
Offender. – The privilege of suspended sentence
shall be availed of only once by an accused drug
dependent who is a first-time offender over
fifteen (15) years of age at the time of the
commission of the violation of Section 15 of this
Act but not more than eighteen (18) years of age
at the time when judgment should have been
promulgated.
Section 69. Promulgation of Sentence for First-
Time Minor Offender. – If the accused first-time
minor offender violates any of the conditions of
his/her suspended sentence, the applicable
rules and regulations of the Board exercising
supervision and rehabilitative surveillance over
him, including the rules and regulations of the
Center should confinement be required, the
court shall pronounce judgment of conviction
and he/she shall serve sentence as any other
convicted person.
Section 70. Probation or Community Service for
a First-Time Minor Offender in Lieu of
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Imprisonment. – Upon promulgation of the shall not apply to the provisions of this Act,
sentence, the court may, in its discretion, place except in the case of minor offenders. Where the
the accused under probation, even if the offender is a minor, the penalty for acts
sentence provided under this Act is higher than punishable by life imprisonment to death
that provided under existing law on probation, provided herein shall be reclusion perpetua to
or impose community service in lieu of death.
imprisonment. In case of probation, the
supervision and rehabilitative surveillance shall
be undertaken by the Board through the DOH in
coordination with the Board of Pardons and
Parole and the Probation Administration. Upon
compliance with the conditions of the probation,
the Board shall submit a written report to the
court recommending termination of probation
and a final discharge of the probationer,
whereupon the court shall issue such an order.

The community service shall be complied with

under conditions, time and place as may be
determined by the court in its discretion and
upon the recommendation of the Board and
shall apply only to violators of Section 15 of this
Act. The completion of the community service
shall be under the supervision and rehabilitative
surveillance of the Board during the period
required by the court. Thereafter, the Board shall
render a report on the manner of compliance of
said community service. The court in its
discretion may require extension of the
community service or order a final discharge.

In both cases, the judicial records shall be

covered by the provisions of Sections 60 and 64
of this Act.
If the sentence promulgated by the court
requires imprisonment, the period spent in the
Center by the accused during the suspended
sentence period shall be deducted from the
sentence to be served.

Section 71. Records to be kept by the

Department of Justice. – The DOJ shall keep a
confidential record of the proceedings on
suspension of sentence and shall not be used for
any purpose other than to determine whether or
not a person accused under this Act is a first-
time minor offender.
xxx

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,
Page 152 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
VI. CRIMINAL AND CIVIL
LIABILITIES
A. EXTINCTION OF CRIMINAL LIABILITIES
A.1. TOTAL EXTINCTION
1. By prescription of crime
Definition. The forfeiture or loss of the right of
the State to prosecute the offender, after the
lapse of a certain period of time.
General rule. Prescription of the crime begins on
the day the crime was committed.
Exception. The "blameless ignorance" doctrine,
incorporated in Section 2 of Act No. 3326, under
which "the statute of limitations runs only upon
discovery of the fact of the invasion of a right
which will support a cause of action. The courts
would decline to apply the statute of limitations
where the plaintiff does not know or has no
reasonable means of knowing the existence of a
cause of action." xxx Thus, we held in a catena of
cases, that if the violation of the special law was
not known at the time of its commission, the
prescription begins to run only from the
discovery thereof, i.e., discovery of the unlawful
nature of the constitutive act or acts.
[Presidential Ad- Hoc Fact Finding Committee
on Behest Loans vs. Ombudsman Desierto,
(2011)]
Recebido v. People (2000): While the defense of
prescription of the crime was raised only during
the motion for reconsideration of the decision of
the Court of Appeals, there was no waiver of the
defense. Under the Rules of Court, the failure of
the accused to assert the ground of extinction of
the offense, inter alia, in a motion to quash shall
not be deemed a waiver of such ground. The
reason is that by prescription, the State or the
People loses the right to prosecute the crime or
to demand the service of the penalty imposed.
Accordingly, prescription, although not invoked
in the trial, may, as in this case, be invoked on
appeal. Hence, the failure to raise this defense
in the motion to quash the information does not
give rise to the waiver of the petitioner-accused
Page 153 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
to raise the same anytime thereafter including
during appeal.
Prescription of crimes.
Article 90. Prescription of crime. - Crimes
punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or
reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty
years.
Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties
shall prescribe in fifteen years.
Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall
prescribe in ten years; with the exception of
those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall
prescribe in five years.
The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall
prescribe in one year.
The crime of oral defamation and slander by
deed shall prescribe in six months.
Light offenses prescribe in two months.
When the penalty fixed by law is a compound
one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis
of the application of the rules contained in the
first, second and third paragraphs of this article.
(As amended by RA 4661, approved June 19,
1966).
Crime punishable by fines.
Fine is afflictive 15 years
Fine is correctional 10 years
Fine is light 2 months
Notes.
a. Subsidiary penalty for nonpayment not
considered in determining the period
b. When fine is an alternative penalty higher
than the other penalty which is by
imprisonment, prescription of the crime is
based on the fine.
Prescription for special laws and municipal
ordinances.
a. 12 years = offenses punished by
imprisonment for six years and more
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
b. 8 years = offenses punished by
imprisonment of two years and more, but
less than 6 years
c. 5 years = offenses under International
Revenue Law
d. 4 years = offenses punished by
imprisonment for more than one month, but
less than two years
e. 1 year = offenses punished by a fine OR
imprisonment of not more than 1 month
f. 2 months = violations of municipal
ordinances
g. 2 months = violations f regulations or
conditions of certificate of convenience by
the Public Service Commission
Note. Not applicable where the special law
provides for its own prescriptive period.
Computation of prescription of offenses (Art. 91)
1. Commences to run from the day on which
the crime is discovered by the offended
party, the authorities or their agents.
2. Interrupted by the filing of complaint or
information
3. It shall commence to run again when such
proceedings terminate without the accused
being convicted or acquitted, or unjustifiably
stopped for any reason not imputable to the
accused.
4. (Note: Termination must be FINAL as to
amount to a jeopardy that would bar a
subsequent prosecution.)
5. The term of prescription shall not run when
the offender is absent from the Philippine
archipelago.
6. For continuing crimes, prescriptive period
cannot begin to run because the crime does
not end.
2. By prescription of penalty
Definition. The loss or forfeiture of the right of
the government to execute the final sentence
after the lapse of a certain period of time.
Distinguished from prescription of crime.
Prescription of crime is the forfeiture to
prosecute a crime; prescription of penalty is the
forfeiture to execute a sentence.
Prescriptive periods.
Page 154 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Death and reclusion 20 years
perpetua
Other afflictive penalties 15 years
Correctional penalties 10 years
Note: If arresto mayor 5 years
Light penalties 1 year
Computation of prescription. [Art. 93]
1. Penalty is imposed by final judgment
2. Convict evaded service of sentence by
escaping during the term of his sentence
3. The convict who has escaped from prison
has not given himself up, or been captured,
or gone to a foreign country with which we
have no extradition treaty, or committed
another crime
4. The penalty has prescribed because of the
lapse of time from the date of the evasion of
service of the sentence by the convict.
Del Castillo v. Torrecampo (2002): "Escape" in
legal parlance and for purposes of Articles 93
and 157 of the RPC means unlawful departure of
prisoner from the limits of his custody. Clearly,
one who has not been committed to prison
cannot be said to have escaped therefrom.
When commenced. Period commences to run
from the date when the culprit evaded the
service of sentence.
When interrupted.
a. The convict gives himself up.
b. The convict is captured.
c. The convict goes to a foreign country with
which the Philippines has no extradition
treaty.
d. The convict commits any crime before the
expiration of the period of prescription.
Question: What happens in cases where our
government has extradition treaty with another
country but the crime is not included in the
treaty?
Answer: It would interrupt the running of the
prescriptive period.
Question: What is the effect of the acceptance of
the convict of a conditional pardon?
Answer: It would interrupt the running of the
prescriptive period.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Public act which the Private act of the

Question: What happens if the culprit is
captured but he evades again the service of his
sentence?
Answer: The period of prescription that ran
during the evasion is not forfeited. The period of
prescription that has run in his favor should be
taken into account.
3. By the death of the convict
Death of the accused pending appeal of his
conviction extinguishes his criminal liability as
well as the civil liability based solely thereon.
However, the claim of civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of the accused, if the
same may also be predicated on a source of
obligation other than delict, such as law,
contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts.
[People v. Bayotas (1994)]
4. By service of sentence
court shall take President and must be
judicial notice of pleaded and proved by
the person pardoned
Valid only when there Valid if given either
is final judgment before or after final
judgment
Recidivism.
An offender who was convicted of rebellion,
given an amnesty, and who subsequently
rebelled and was convicted again is not a
recidivist. He is not a recidivist because the
amnesty granted to him erased not only the
conviction but also the effects of the conviction
itself.
Suppose, instead of amnesty, what was given
was absolute pardon, then years later, the
offender was again captured and charged for
rebellion, he was convicted, is he a recidivist?

5. By amnesty Generally, yes. Pardon, although absolute, does

not erase the effects of conviction. Pardon only
An act of the sovereign power granting oblivion excuses the convict from serving the sentence.
or general pardon for a past offense. Erases not
only the conviction but the crime itself. The exception is when the pardon was granted
after the convict had already served the
It is granted to classes of persons or sentence such that there is no more service of
communities who may be guilty of political sentence to be executed. The pardon then shall
offenses, generally before or after the institution be understood as intended to erase the effects of
of the criminal prosecution and sometimes after the conviction.
conviction. [People v. Caisido (1997)]
6. By absolute pardon
Amnesty and absolute pardon, distinguished.
It is an act of grace, proceeding from the power
Amnesty Absolute pardon entrusted with the execution of the laws. It
Blanket pardon to Includes any crime and exempts the individual from the penalty of the
classes of persons is exercised individually crime he has committed.
guilty of political
offenses Monsanto v. Factoran (1989): 1. Absolute pardon
May still be exercised The person is already does not ipso facto entitle the convict to
before trial or convicted reinstatement to the public office forfeited by
investigation reason of his conviction.
Looks backward. It is Looks forward. He is 2. Although pardon restores his eligibility for
as if he has committed relieved from the appointment to that office, the pardoned convict
no offense. consequences of the must reapply for a new appointment.
offense, but rights are
not restored unless Effects of pardon.
explicitly provided by
the terms of the
pardon. Article 36. Pardon; its effect. - A pardon shall not
work the restoration of the right to hold public
Page 155 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
office, or the right of suffrage, unless such rights
be expressly restored by the terms of the pardon.
A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit
from the payment of the civil indemnity imposed
upon him by the sentence.
Limitations on pardoning power.
1. That the power can be exercised only after
conviction.
• Thus in applying for pardon, the convict
must not appeal the judgment of
conviction or the appeal must be
abandoned.
2. That such power does not extend to cases of
impeachment. (Cristobal v. Labrador).
Legislature cannot limit pardoning power. The
pardoning power of the President cannot be
limited by legislative action. Article 36-41 only
operates as a procedural proscription. [Risos-
Vidal v. COMELEC (2015)]
7. By the marriage of the offended woman and
the offender in the crimes of rape, abduction,
seduction and acts of lasciviousness (Art. 344)
People v. De Guzman (2010): In relation to
Article 266-C of the RPC, Article 89 of the same
Code reads:
ART. 89. How criminal liability is
totally extinguished. Criminal
liability is totally extinguished:
xxxx
7. By the marriage of the
offended woman, as provided in
Article 344 of this Code.
Article 344 of the same Code also provides
ART. 344. Prosecution of the
crimes of adultery, concubinage,
seduction, abduction, rape, and
acts of lasciviousness. x x x.
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. x x x.
On several occasions, we applied these
Page 156 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
provisions to marriages contracted between the
offender and the offended party in the crime of
rape, as well as in the crime of abuse of chastity,
to totally extinguish the criminal liability of and
the corresponding penalty that may have been
imposed upon those found guilty of the felony.
Parenthetically, we would like to mention here
that prior to the case at bar, the last case
bearing similar circumstances was decided by
this Court in 1974, or around 36 years ago.
Based on the documents, including copies of
pictures taken after the ceremony and attached
to the motion, we find the marriage between
appellant and private complainant to have been
contracted validly, legally, and in good faith, as
an expression of their mutual love for each other
and their desire to establish a family of their
own. Given public policy considerations of
respect for the sanctity of marriage and the
highest regard for the solidarity of the family, we
must accord appellant the full benefits of Article
89, in relation to Article 344 and Article 266-C of
the RPC.
Pardon of offended party in offenses other than
those in art. 344. Only civil liability is
extinguished. A crime committed is an offense
against the State. Only the Chief Executive can
pardon the offenders.
Article 23. Effect of pardon by the offended
party. - A pardon of the offended party does not
extinguish criminal action except as provided in
Article 344 of this Code; but civil liability with
regard to the interest of the injured party is
extinguished by his express waiver.
A.2. PARTIAL EXTINCTION
1. By conditional pardon (Art. 95)
Conditions. If delivered and accepted, it is a
contract between the executive and the convict
that the former will release the latter upon
compliance with the condition. One usual
condition is “not again violate any of the penal
laws of the country”.
Where are conditions stipulated. Pardon itself
must explicitly impose. A “whereas” in the
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
preamble of the pardon stating that “Joseph
Ejercito Estrada has publicly committed to no
longer seek any elective position or office” does
not make the pardon conditional. [Risos-Vidal v.
COMELEC (2015)]
Article 95. Obligation incurred by person
granted conditional pardon. - Any person who
has been granted conditional pardon shall incur
the obligation of complying strictly with the
conditions imposed therein otherwise, his non-
compliance with any of the conditions specified
shall result in the revocation of the pardon and
the provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to
him.
2. By commutation of sentence (Art. 96)
Article 96. Effect of commutation of sentence. -
The commutation of the original sentence for
another of a different length and nature shall
have the legal effect of substituting the latter in
the place of the former.
3. For good conduct, allowances which the culprit
may earn while he is serving sentence (Art. 97)
Article 97. Allowance for good conduct. - The
good conduct of any prisoner in any penal
institution shall entitle him to the following
deductions from the period of his sentence:
1. During the first two years of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of five days for each month of
good behavior;
2. During the third to the fifth year,
inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall
be allowed a deduction of eight days for
each month of good behavior;
3. During the following years until the
tenth year, inclusive, of his
imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of ten days for each month of
good behavior; and
4. During the eleventh and successive
years of his imprisonment, he shall be
allowed a deduction of fifteen days for
each month of good behaviour.
4. Special time allowance (Arts. 98-99)
Article 98. Special time allowance for loyalty. - A
Page 157 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
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.
Article 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.
5. By parole
6. By probation
A.3. COMPROMISE AND AFFIDAVIT OF
DESISTANCE
Trinidad v. Ombudsman (2007): Petitioner is
charged for violating the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act for knowingly granting a license,
permit, privilege, or benefit to an unqualified
person. Petitioner contends that AEDC is barred
from filing a criminal case against him due to
the dismissal previously by the RTC of a civil
case filed by AEDC. The case was dismissed
upon the parties’ joint motion with a mutual
quitclaim and waiver.
Held: It is a firmly recognized rule that criminal
liability cannot be the subject of a compromise.
For a criminal case is committed against the
People, and the offended party may not waive or
extinguish the criminal liability the law imposes
for its commission. Compromise therefore is not
one of the grounds prescribed by the RPC for the
extinction of criminal liability.
People v. Orje (2011): AAA was the daughter of
the accused. During trial, AAA presented that
she earlier executed an affidavit of desistance in
which she expressed desire to desist from
pursuing the sham case against her father. She
claims that her aunt compelled her to falsely
accuse her father of rape.
Held: Courts look with disfavor at affidavits of
desistance and/or retraction. Those can be
UP LAW BOC
easily secured from poor or ignorant witnesses,
usually for monetary considerations or threats of
violence. There must be other circumstances
which, when coupled with the retraction or
desistance, creates doubts as to the truth of the
testimony of the plaintiff. In this case, there was
overwhelming proof that the father did in fact
rape AAA on multiple occasions.
A.4. REELECTION OF PUBLIC OFFICER
Ombudsman v. CA and Binay, Jr. (2015): The SC
abandoned the condonation doctrine. The
doctrine is bereft of legal basis based on the
1987 Constitution and the Local Government
Code. Public office is a public trust, and the
corollary requirement of accountability to the
people at all times is inconsistent with the idea
that his past sins can be wiped away by
reelection.
B. CIVIL LIABILITIES IN CRIMINAL CASES
B.1. GENERAL RULE
Relevant RPC provision.
Article 100. Civil liability of a person guilty of
felony. - Every person criminally liable for a
felony is also civilly liable.
Basis.
Chua v. CA (2004): Generally, the basis of civil
liability arising from crime is the fundamental
postulate that every man criminally liable is also
civilly liable. When a person commits a crime he
offends two entities namely (1) the society in
which he lives in or the political entity called the
State whose law he has violated; and (2) the
individual member of the society whose person,
right, honor, chastity or property has been
actually or directly injured or damaged by the
same punishable act or omission. An act or
omission is felonious because it is punishable by
law, it gives rise to civil liability not so much
because it is a crime but because it caused
damage to another. Additionally, what gives rise
to the civil liability is really the obligation and the
moral duty of everyone to repair or make whole
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
the damage caused to another by reason of his
own act or omission, whether done intentionally
or negligently. The indemnity which a person is
sentenced to pay forms an integral part of the
penalty imposed by law for the commission of
the crime. The civil action involves the civil
liability arising from the offense charged which
includes restitution, reparation of the damage
caused, and indemnification for consequential
damages.
Effect of acquittal in criminal action. The court
may acquit an accused on reasonable doubt and
still order payment of civil damages already
proved in the same case without need for a
separate civil action. The reason for this is that
the accused has already been accorded due
process.
Exception. (1) When the defendant did not act
with negligence; (2) facts from which the civil
action might arise do not exist (e.g., the
defendant was acquitted because he was not the
perpetrator of the felony). [Tolentino]
Test of negligence.
People v. Glenn De Los Santos (2001): The test
for determining whether a person is negligent in
doing an act whereby injury or damage results to
the person or property of another is this: Could a
prudent man, in the position of the person to
whom negligence is attributed, foresee harm to
the person injured as a reasonable consequence
of the course actually pursued? If so, the law
imposes a duty on the actor to refrain from that
course or to take precautions to guard against
its mischievous results, and the failure to do so
constitutes negligence. Reasonable foresight of
harm, followed by the ignoring of the
admonition born of this prevision, is always
necessary before negligence can be held to exist.
Relevant NCC provisions.
Article 20. Every person who, contrary to law,
wilfully or negligently causes damage to
another, shall indemnify the latter for the same.
Article 1161. Civil obligations arising from
criminal offenses shall be governed by the penal
laws, subject to the provisions of article 2177,
and of the pertinent provisions of Chapter 2,
Page 158 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Preliminary Title, on Human Relations, and of
Title XVIII of this Book, regulating damages.
Article 2176. Whoever by act or omission causes
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage
done. Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-
existing contractual relation between the
parties, is called a quasi-delict and is governed
by the provisions of this Chapter.
Article 2177. Responsibility for fault or
negligence under the preceding article is entirely
separate and distinct from the civil liability
arising from negligence under the Penal Code.
But the plaintiff cannot recover damages twice
for the same act or omission of the defendant.
Also see: Rule 111, 2000 Rules of Criminal
Procedure.
Determination of civil liability, general rule and
exception. Civil liability arises from the
commission of the felony. It is determined in the
criminal action except:
a. the offended party waives his right to file a
civil action
b. the offended party reserves his right to
institute it separately, or
c. the offended party institutes the civil action
prior to the criminal action.
Quinto v. Andres (2005): When a criminal action
is instituted, the civil action for the recovery of
civil liability arising from the offense charged
shall be deemed instituted with the criminal
action unless the offended party waives the civil
action, reserves the right to institute it
separately or institutes the civil action prior to
the criminal action. With the implied institution
of the civil action in the criminal action, the two
actions are merged into one composite
proceeding, with the criminal action
predominating the civil.
Reservation of the right to file. A reservation of
the right to file a separate civil action only gives
the party aggrieved the right to choose under
which body of laws he must bring the civil
action, either under the:
Page 159 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
a. RPC – where the recovery may be defeated
by proof that the acts on which the action is
based do not exist, or
b. New Civil Code – where the same proof is
required to preclude recovery, or proof of
diligence in the selection and employment of
the employee.
No independent civil action. Commencement of
criminal action is not a condition precedent to
the filing of civil action arising from a crime.
However, the civil action arising from crime
cannot be instituted when: (a) the criminal
action has already commenced, in which case
the separate civil action arising therefrom
cannot be instituted until final judgment of the
criminal case; or (b) if the criminal action is filed
after the civil action, in which case the latter
shall be suspended at whatever stage before
judgment on the merits.
The rule is that when the criminal action is
instituted, a separate civil action cannot be
instituted or if already instituted, it is to be
suspended. Said rule applies only when the
plaintiff in the civil action is the offended party in
the criminal action and both cases arise from the
same offense.
Exceptions. Independent civil actions may be
filed for
a. Violations of fundamental rights (Art. 32)
b. Defamation, fraud and physical injuries (Art.
33)
c. Failure or refusal of a member of the police
force to render aid or protection to any
person in case of danger to life or property
(Art. 34)
B.2. SPECIAL CASES [REYES]
1. Insanity, Imbecility, and those over 9 and below
15
General rule. Exemption from criminal liability
does not include exemption from civil liability.
Exception. The only exceptions to this rule are:
(a) when the injury caused was by mere accident
as provided for in Art 12, paragraph 2; and (b)
when the civil liability was caused by the failure
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
to perform an act required by law when
prevented by some lawful or insuperable cause.
Civil liability of parents. A minor over 15 years of
age who acts with discernment is not exempt
from criminal liability that is why the RPC is
silent as to the subsidiary liability of his parents.
The particular law that governs is Art. 2180 of
the Civil Code which provides, “the father and, in
case of his death or incapacity, the mother is
responsible for damages caused by the minor
children who live in their company.”
Civil liability of guardians. The persons having
the insane or minor under their legal authority or
control are primarily liable to pay the civil
liability. If it is proven that there was no fault or
negligence on their part, those exempted from
the crime shall respond with their own property
not exempt from execution.
2. State of necessity
There is no civil liability in justifying
circumstances except in par. 4 of Art. 11 wherein
the person who was benefited by the act which
causes damage to another is the one civilly
liable.
3. Irresistible force and uncontrollable fear
The persons using violence or causing the fear
are primarily liable. If there be no such persons,
those doing the act shall be liable secondarily.
4. Innkeepers and similar persons
Article 102. Subsidiary civil liability of
innkeepers, tavernkeepers and proprietors of
establishments. - In default of the persons
criminally liable, innkeepers, tavernkeepers, and
any other persons or corporations shall be civilly
liable for crimes committed in their
establishments, in all cases where a violation of
municipal ordinances or some general or special
police regulation shall have been committed by
them or their employees.
Innkeepers are also subsidiarily liable for the
restitution of goods taken by robbery or theft
within their houses from guests lodging therein,
or for the payment of the value thereof, provided
that such guests shall have notified in advance
the innkeeper himself, or the person
Page 160 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
representing him, of the deposit of such goods
within the inn; and shall furthermore have
followed the directions which such innkeeper or
his representative may have given them with
respect to the care and vigilance over such
goods. No liability shall attach in case of robbery
with violence against or intimidation of persons
unless committed by the innkeeper's employees.
Elements under Paragraph 1.
1. That the innkeeper, tavernkeeper, or
proprietor of establishment or his employee
committed a violation of municipal
ordinance or some general or special police
regulation.
2. That a crime is committed in such inn, tavern
or establishment.
3. That the person criminally liable is insolvent.
4. When all the above elements are present,
the innkeeper, tavernkeeper or any other
person or corporation is civilly liable for the
crime committed in his establishment.
Elements under Paragraph 2.
1. The guests notified in advance the innkeeper
or the person representing him of the
deposit of their goods within the inn or
house.
2. The guest followed the directions of the
innkeeper or his representative with respect
to the care of the vigilance over such goods.
3. Such goods of the guests lodging therein
were taken by robbery with force upon
things or theft committed within the inn or
house.
When robbers are not the employees. The
statement “No liability shall attach in case of
robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons unless committed by the innkeeper's
employees” should be read together with art.
2001, NCC. If there is robbery, the management
should prove that first that the robbery was done
(a) with the use of arms or (b) through irresistible
force before the establishment be exempted
from civil liability.
Article 2001. The act of a thief or robber, who
has entered the hotel is not deemed force
majeure, unless it is done with the use of arms or
through an irresistible force. (n)
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
5. Subsidiary liability of other persons
Article 103. Subsidiary civil liability of other
persons. - The subsidiary liability established in
the next preceding article shall also apply to
employers, teachers, persons, and corporations
engaged in any kind of industry for felonies
committed by their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices, or employees in the discharge of
their duties.
Elements.
1. The employer, teacher, person or
corporation is engaged in any kind of
industry.
2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen,
apprentices or employees commits a felony
while in the discharge of his duties.
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not
satisfied his civil liability.
Subsidiary liability. Only arises after conviction of
employee in the criminal action. This can be
enforced only upon a motion for subsidiary writ
of execution against the employer and upon
proof that the employee is insolvent.
Proceeding for enforcement of subsidiary liability
and criminal action, considered together.
Vda. De Paman v. Señeris (1982): Section 1, Rule
111 of the Rules of Court provides, however, that
"when a criminal action is instituted, the civil
action for recovery of civil liability arising from
the offense charged is impliedly instituted with
the criminal action, unless the offended party
expressly waives the civil action or reserves his
right to institute it separately." That means as if
two actions are joined in one as twins, each one
complete with the same completeness as any of
the two normal persons composing the twins. It
means that the civil action may be tried and
prosecuted, with all the ancillary processes
provided by law. Said provision will be rendered
meaningless if the subsidiary civil liability is not
allowed to be enforced in the same proceeding.
In the case at bar, the apparent drawback in the
enforcement of the subsidiary liability in the
same criminal proceeding is the lack of due
process to the alleged employer. Not being a
Page 161 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
party to the case, he is not heard as to whether
he is indeed the employer. To remedy the
situation and thereby afford due process to the
alleged employer, this Court directed the court a
quo in Pajarito vs. Señeris (supra) to hear and
decide in the same proceeding the subsidiary
liability of the alleged owner and operator of the
passenger bus. It was explained therein that the
proceeding for the enforcement of the subsidiary
liability may be considered as part of the
proceeding for the execution of the judgment. A
case in which an execution has been issued is
regarded as still pending so that all proceedings
on the execution are proceedings in the suit.
Philippine Rabbit v. People (2004): Only the civil
liability of the accused arising from the crime
charged is deemed impliedly instituted in a
criminal action, that is, unless the offended
party waives the civil action, reserves the right to
institute it separately, or institutes it prior to the
criminal action. Hence, the subsidiary civil
liability of the employer under Article 103 of the
Revised Penal Code may be enforced by
execution on the basis of the judgment of
conviction meted out to the employee.
What is deemed instituted in every criminal
prosecution is the civil liability arising from the
crime or delict per se (civil liability ex delicto),
but not those liabilities arising from quasi-
delicts, contracts or quasi-contracts. In fact,
even if a civil action is filed separately, the ex
delicto civil liability in the criminal prosecution
remains, and the offended party may -- subject
to the control of the prosecutor -- still intervene
in the criminal action, in order to protect the
remaining civil interest therein.
The cases dealing with the subsidiary liability of
employers uniformly declare that, strictly
speaking, they are not parties to the criminal
cases instituted against their employees.
Although in substance and in effect, they have
an interest therein, this fact should be viewed in
the light of their subsidiary liability. While they
may assist their employees to the extent of
supplying the latter’s lawyers, as in the present
case, the former cannot act independently on
their own behalf, but can only defend the
accused.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW

Industry. Any department or branch of art,

occupation or business; especially, one which Article 108. Obligation to make restoration,
employs so much labor and capital and is a reparation for damages, or indemnification for
distinct branch of trade. [Telleria v. Garcia] consequential damages and actions to demand
the same; Upon whom it devolves. - The
Other notes. obligation to make restoration or reparation for
damages and indemnification for consequential
a. Private persons without business or industry
are not subsidiarily liable, but may be damages devolves upon the heirs of the person
primarily liable under culpa aquiliana. liable.
b. Employer has the right to take part in the
defense of his employee. The action to demand restoration, reparation,
and indemnification likewise descends to the
heirs of the person injured.
B.3. WHAT CIVIL LIABILITY INCLUDES
Art. 104 and art. 38, distinguished.
Article 104. What is included in civil liability. -
The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, Civil liabilities (art. 104) Pecuniary liabilities
102, and 103 of this Code includes: (art. 38)
1. Restitution;
Reparation, Reparation,
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
indemnification indemnification
3. Indemnification for consequential
damages. Restition NONE
NONE Fine, costs of
Article 105. Restitution; How made. - The
proceedings
restitution of the thing itself must be made
whenever possible, with allowance for any
deterioration, or diminution of value as
Restitution. Return of the VERY THING TAKEN.
determined by the court.
Further, if taken thing is damaged, the court
may order the offender to pay amount
The thing itself shall be restored, even though it
representing deterioration.
be found in the possession of a third person who
has acquired it by lawful means, saving to the
Restitution should apply when OFFENSE is
latter his action against the proper person, who
proven even if accused is ACQUITTED.
may be liable to him.
If the possessor of lost property acquired it in
This provision is not applicable in cases in which
good faith in a PUBLIC SALE. The said property
the thing has been acquired by the third person
cannot be given to the offended party/original
in the manner and under the requirements
which, by law, bar an action for its recovery. owner without reimbursement to the good-faith
possessor.
Article 106. Reparation; How made. - The court
Exceptions
shall determine the amount of damage, taking
a. Innocent purchaser for value of property
into consideration the price of the thing,
covered by a Torrens title
whenever possible, and its special sentimental
b. When a sale is authorized by the original
value to the injured party, and reparation shall
owner of the property.
be made accordingly.
c. When liability to return a thing arises from a
Article 107. Indemnification; What is included. - contract, not from a criminal act, the court
cannot order its return in the criminal case.
Indemnification for consequential damages
shall include not only those caused the injured
party, but also those suffered by his family or by Reparations. Applies when restitution is not
a third person by reason of the crime. possible.
Page 162 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Computation.
REPARATION = actual value of lost item which
cannot be recovered + sentimental value to
original owner
Indemnity distinguished from restitution.
Restitution is crime against property; indemnity,
crime against persons.
When injuries are sustained.
Actual damage from injuries = whatever he spent
to treat wounds + doctor’s fees + medicine +
salary/wages unearned because of inability to
work + damages due to loss of limb/etc.
Lost earnings.
People v. Wahiman (2015): Wahiman was
convicted for murder. RTC imposed upon him
the penalty of reclusion perpetua and directed
him to pay the heirs the sum of Php75,000 as
moral damages, P75,000 as civil indemnity, and
actual damages as follows: Php59-million as
lost earning capacity, Php25,000 actual
damages, Php1,500 appearance fee, and
Php50,000 attorney’s fee.
Held: Regarding the award for lost earnings, the
general rule is that there must be documentary
proof to support the indemnity for loss of
earning capacity. Admittedly, there are
exceptions to this rule: (1) when the deceased is
self-employed and earning less than minimum
wage or (2) deceased was employed as a daily
wage worker earning less than minimum wage.
Notably, this case does not fall under these
exceptions. Nevertheless, the Court is inclined to
award lost earnings to the widow because she
testified that deceased was the manager of
Stanfilco-Dole and was receiving a monthly
salary of Php95,000. This was not objected to
by the appellant during cross-examination or
appeal.
J. Leonen’s concurring: The formula for lost
earnings is:
Net Earning Capacity = Life Expectancy ×
[Gross Annual Income – Reasonable and
Page 163 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Necessary Living Expenses]
The necessary living expense is often estimated
at 50% of gross annual income.
The Regional Trial Court used a simplified
formula to compute for loss of earning capacity
citing People v. Reanzares.
Loss of Earning Capacity = [2/3 x (80 –
age of the deceased)] x 1/2 annual gross
income
The simplification of the formula is correct.
However, the trial court’s computation was
erroneous.
This is a step-by-step guide to compute an
award for loss of earning capacity.
(1) Subtract the age of the deceased from
80.
(2) Multiply the answer in (1) by 2, and
divide it by 3 (these operations are
interchangeable).
(3) Multiply 50% to the annual gross
income of the deceased.
(4) Multiply the answer in (2) by the
answer in (3). This is the loss of earning
capacity to be awarded.
Temperate damages. Given when pecuniary
losses were suffered but amount cannot be
proven with certainty. Also, when income of
victim is not sufficiently proven.
Moral damages. May be recovered in the
following:
a. crime resulting to physical injuries
b. seduction, abduction, rape, or other
lascivious acts
c. adultery/concubinage
d. illegal/arbitrary detention/arrest
e. illegal search
f. libel, slander, or any other form of
defamation
g. malicious prosecution
For rape, moral damages may additionally be
awarded without need for pleading or proof of
the basis thereof.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 1
Exemplary damages. Corrective damages are
deterrent to serious wrongdoings, and
vindication of undue sufferings. This is attendant
with at LEAST ONE aggravating circumstance.
Or when crime is extremely reprehensible or
outrageous.
How to obtain. Plaintiff must first show he is
entitled to moral, temperate, or compensatory
damages before exemplary damages are
awarded.
Attorney’s fees. When defendant’s act or
omission has compelled the plaintiff to litigate
with third persosn or incur expenses to protect
his interest.
Interest. 6% per annum.
Heirs of Raymundo Castro v. Bustos (1969): When
death occurs as a result of a crime, the heirs of
the deceased are entitled to the following items
of damages:
1. As indemnity for the death of the victim
of the offense — P12,000.00, without the
need of any evidence or proof of
damages, and even though there may
have been mitigating circumstances
attending the commission of the offense.
2. As indemnity for loss of earning
capacity of the deceased — an amount to
be fixed by the Court according to the
circumstances of the deceased related to
his actual income at the time of death
and his probable life expectancy, the
said indemnity to be assessed and
awarded by the court as a matter of
duty, unless the deceased had no
earning capacity at said time on account
of permanent disability not caused by
the accused. If the deceased was obliged
to give support, under Art. 291, Civil
Code, the recipient who is not an heir,
may demand support from the accused
for not more than five years, the exact
duration to be fixed by the court.
3. As moral damages for mental
anguish, — an amount to be fixed by the
court. This may be recovered even by the
illegitimate descendants and
ascendants of the deceased.
4. As exemplary damages, when the
crime is attended by one or more
aggravating circumstances, — an
Page 164 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
amount to be fixed in the discretion of
the court, the same to be considered
separate from fines.
5. As attorney's fees and expresses of
litigation, — the actual amount thereof,
(but only when a separate civil action to
recover civil liability has been filed or
when exemplary damages are awarded).
6. Interests in the proper cases.
It must be emphasized that the indemnities for
loss of earning capacity of the deceased and for
moral damages are recoverable separately from
and in addition to the fixed sum of P12,000.00
corresponding to the indemnity for the sole fact
of death, and that these damages may, however,
be respectively increased or lessened according
to the mitigating or aggravating circumstances,
except items 1 and 4 above, for obvious reasons.
People v. Oandasan (2016): Following People v.
Jugueta, in the case of murder where the
appropriate penalty is reclusion perpetna, the
Court has thereby fixed P75,000.00 for moral
damages, P75,000.00 for exemplary damages,
and P75,000.00 for civil indemnity as the
essential civil liabilities,- in addition to others as
the records of each case will substantiate.
Incidentally, the civil indemnity for homicide
remained pegged at P50,000.00 for almost two
decades.
Also in accordance with People v. Jugueta,
supra, temperate damages of P50,000.00
should further be granted to the heirs of the
victims considering that they were presumed to
have spent for the interment of each of the
deceased.
B.4. PERSONS CIVILLY LIABLE
Article 108. Obligation to make restoration,
reparation for damages, or indemnification for
consequential damages and actions to demand
the same; Upon whom it devolves. - The
obligation to make restoration or reparation for
damages and indemnification for consequential
damages devolves upon the heirs of the person
liable.
The action to demand restoration, reparation,
UP LAW BOC
and indemnification likewise descends to the
heirs of the person injured.
Article 109. Share of each person civilly liable. - If
there are two or more persons civilly liable for a
felony, the courts shall determine the amount
for which each must respond.
Article 110. Several and subsidiary liability of
principals, accomplices and accessories of a
felony; Preference in payment. -
Notwithstanding the provisions of the next
preceding article, the principals, accomplices,
and accessories, each within their respective
class, shall be liable severally (in solidum)
among themselves for their quotas, and
subsidiaries for those of the other persons liable.
The subsidiary liability shall be enforced, first
against the property of the principals; next,
against that of the accomplices, and, lastly,
against that of the accessories.
Whenever the liability in solidum or the
subsidiary liability has been enforced, the person
by whom payment has been made shall have a
right of action against the others for the amount
of their respective shares.
Article 111. Obligation to make restitution in
certain cases. - Any person who has participated
gratuitously in the proceeds of a felony shall be
bound to make restitution in an amount
equivalent to the extent of such participation.
Notes on RPC art. 108.
1. The heirs of the person liable has no
obligation if restoration is not possible and
the deceased left no property.
2. Civil liability is possible only when the
offender dies after final judgment.
3. The action to demand restoration,
reparation and indemnification descends to
the heirs of the person injured.
B.5. EXTINCTION OF CIVIL LIABILITY
Pertinent RPC provisions.
Article 112. Extinction of civil liability. - Civil
CRIMINAL LAW 1 CRIMINAL LAW
liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102, and
103 of this Code shall be extinguished in the
same manner as obligations, in accordance with
the provisions of the Civil Law.
Article 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. -
Except in case of extinction of his civil liability as
provided in the next preceding article the
offender shall continue to be obliged to satisfy
the civil liability resulting from the crime
committed by him, notwithstanding the fact that
he has served his sentence consisting of
deprivation of liberty or other rights, or has not
been required to serve the same by reason of
amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence or
any other reason.
Pertinent NCC provision.
Article 1231. Obligations are extinguished:
(1) By payment or performance;
(2) By the loss of the thing due;
(3) By the condonation or remission of the
debt;
(4) By the confusion or merger of the rights
of creditor and debtor;
(5) By compensation;
(6) By novation.
Loss of the thing due. Loss of the thing due does
not extinguish civil liability because if the
offender cannot make restitution, he is obliged
to make reparation.
When not extinguished. Indemnity for damages
as a judgment in a criminal case is purely civil in
nature and is independent of the penalty
imposed. Unless extinguished, civil liability
subsists even if the offender has served sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights
or has served the same, due to amnesty, pardon,
commutation of sentence or any other reason.
Even if subsidiarily imprisoned. Under the law as
amended, even if the subsidiary imprisonment is
served for non-payment of fine, this pecuniary
liability of the defendant is not extinguished.
Page 165 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Page 166 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

CRIMINAL LAW
CRIMINAL LAW 2

Page 167 of 407

UP LAW BOC
I. CRIMES AGAINST
NATIONAL SECURITY
AND THE LAW OF
NATIONS
A. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL
SECURITY:
(1) Art. 114: Treason
(2) Art. 115: Conspiracy and Proposal to
Commit Treason
(3) Art. 116: Misprision of Treason
(4) Art. 117: Espionage
B. CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF
NATIONS
(1) Art. 118: Inciting to War or Giving Motives
for Reprisals
(2) Art. 119: Violation of Neutrality
(3) Art. 120: Correspondence with Hostile
Country
(4) Art. 121: Flight to Enemy’s Country
(5) Art. 122: Piracy in General and Mutiny on
the High Seas or in Philippine Waters
(6) Art. 123: Qualified Piracy
The crimes under this title can be prosecuted
even if the criminal act or acts were
committed outside of Philippine territorial
jurisdiction.
This is one of the instances where the RPC
may be given extraterritorial application
under Article 2 (5) thereof. However,
prosecution can proceed only if the offender
is:
(a) within Philippine territory, or
(b) brought to the Philippines pursuant to an
extradition treaty.
Page 168 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
Crimes against national security can be tried
only in the Philippines, as there is a need to
bring the offender here before he can be
made to suffer the consequences of the law.
In the case of crimes against the law of
nations, the offender can be prosecuted
wherever he may be found because the
crimes are regarded as committed against
humanity in general.
The acts against national security may be
committed abroad and still be punishable
under our law.
General rule: Almost all of these are crimes
committed only in times of war.
Exceptions: The following can be committed
in times of peace:
(a) Espionage [Art 117] – This is also
covered by Commonwealth Act No.
616 which punishes conspiracy to
commit espionage.
(b) Inciting to War or Giving Motives for
Reprisals [Art 118] – This can be
committed even if the Philippines is
not a participant.
(c) Violation of Neutrality [Art. 119] – The
Philippines is not a party to an on-
going war.
C. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL
SECURITY
C.1. ARTICLE 114 – TREASON
Mode 1: Levying War
Elements:
(1) Offender is a Filipino or resident alien
(2) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
UP LAW BOC
(3) The offender levies war against the
government
Mode 2: Adherence to the Enemy and Giving
of Aid or Comfort
Elements:
(1) Offender is a Filipino or resident alien
(2) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(3) That the offender adheres to the enemies,
giving them aid or comfort
Treason is a breach of allegiance to a
government, committed by a person who
owes allegiance to it. It cannot be committed
in times of peace. There are two ways of
committing treason:
(1) By levying war against the Government;
and
(2) By adhering to the enemies of the
Philippines, giving them aid or comfort.
[Reyes, 2012]
Allegiance
This is the obligation of fidelity and obedience
which the individuals owe to the government
under which they live or to their sovereign, in
return for the protection they receive. [Reyes,
2012; citing 52 Am. Jur. 797]
It can be either permanent or temporary.
Permanent allegiance consists in the
obligation of fidelity and obedience which a
citizen or subject owes to his government or
sovereign. Temporary allegiance is the
obligation of fidelity and obedience which a
residen alien owes to his government. [Laurel
v. Misa, G.R. No. L-409 (1947)]
Extent of Aid or Comfort
To be treasonous, the extent of aid and
comfort given to the enemies must be to
render assistance to them as enemies and
not as individuals, in the furtherance of the
enemies’ hostile designs. [People vs. Perez,
G.R. No. L-856 (1949)]
Page 169 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
Intent of disloyalty is a vital ingredient in the
crime of treason, which in the absence of
admission may be gathered from the nature
and circumstances of each particular case.
[People vs. Perez, supra]
Mode 1: Levying War
Requirements:
(1) actual assembling of men;
(2) for the purpose of executing a
treasonable design by force.
There must be an actual assembling of men.
The mere acceptance of the commission from
the secretary of war of the Katipunan by the
accused, nothing else having been done, was
not an overt act of treason within the
meaning of the law. [U.S. v. De los Reyes,
G.R. No. 1434 (1904)]
The levying of war must be directed against
the government. It must be with intent to
overthrow the government as such, not
merely to resist a particular statute or to repel
a particular officer. [Reyes, 2012, citing 3
Wharton’s Criminal Law, 12th Ed.]
The levying of war must be in collaboration
with a foreign enemy. If the levying of war is
merely a civil uprising, without any intention
of helping an external enemy, the crime is not
treason. The offenders maybe held liable for
rebellion under Article 135 in relation to
Article 134 of the RPC. [Reyes, 2012]
Mode 2: Adherence to the Enemy
Adherence and giving aid or comfort to the
enemy must concur. Adherence to the enemy
means an intent to betray. There is adherence
to the enemy when a citizen intellectually or
emotionally favors the enemy and harbors
sympathies or convictions disloyal to his own
country’s policy or interest. Aid or comfort
means an act which strengthens or tends to
strengthen the enemy in the conduct of war
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

against the traitor’s country and an act which

weakens or tends to weaken the power of the
Acts not constituting treason
traitor’s country to resist or to attack the
enemy. [Cramer vs. US, 65 Sup. Ct. 918 (a) “Commandeering" of women to satisfy
(1945)] the lust of Japanese officers or men or to
enliven the entertainments held in their
When there is no adherence to the enemy, the
honor, even though the women and the
act which may do aid or comfort to the enemy
entertainments helped to make life more
does not amount to treason. [Reyes, 2012]
pleasant for the enemies and boost their
spirit. Sexual and social relations with the
Japanese did not directly and materially
The aid and comfort must be given to the
tend to improve their war efforts or to
enemy by some kind of action. It must be a
weaken the power of the US. [People vs.
deed or physical activity, not merely a mental
Perez, supra]
operation. What aid and comfort constitute
treason must depend upon their nature, (b) Acceptance of public office and discharge
degree, and purpose. It is not essential that of official duties under the enemy [People
the effort to aid be successful, provided that vs. Sison, P.C. 42 O.G. 748]
over acts are done, which, if successful, would
advance the interest of the enemy. [Reyes,
2012] The overt act of aid and comfort to the enemy
must be intentional, as distinguished from
merely negligent or undesigned ones.
Examples of Specific Acts of Aid or Comfort [Cramer vs. US]
Constituting Treason
(a) Serving as informer and active member of
General Rule: When the killings and other
the Japanese Military Police, arresting
common crimes are charged as overt acts of
guerilla suspects to suppress the
treason, they cannot be regarded: (a) as
underground movement [People vs.
separate crimes, or (b) as complexed with
Fernando, 79 Phil. 719]
treason.
(b) Serving in the Japanese Army as agent or
spy and participating in the raid of
guerrilla hideout [People vs. Muñoz, et Exception: But this rule would not preclude
al., 79 Phil. 702] the punishment of murder or other common
crimes as such, if the prosecution should
(c) Acting as “finger woman” when a barrio
elect to prosecute the culprit specifically for
was “zonified” by the Japanese, pointing
these crimes, instead of relying on them as an
out to the Japanese several men whom
element of treason. [People vs. Prieto, 80
she accused as guerrillas [People vs.
Phil. 138]
Nuñez, 85 Phil. 448]
(d) Taking active part in the mass killing of
civilians by the Japanese soldiers by Treason by a Filipino citizen can be
personally tying the hands of the victims committed outside of the Philippines.
[People vs. Canibas, 85 Phil. 469]
(e) Mere fact of having joined a Makapili
Treason by an alien must be committed in the
organization is evidence of both
Philippines.
adherence to the enemy and giving him
aid and comfort. Unless forced upon one
against his will, membership in the The crime of treason is of such a nature that it
Makapili organization imports may be committed by one single act, by a
treasonable intent, considering the series of acts, or by several series thereof, not
purpose for which the organization was only in a single time, but in different times, it
created [People vs. Adriano, 78 Phil. 563]
Page 170 of 407
UP LAW BOC
being a continuous crime. [People vs.
Victoria, 78 Phil. 129]
There is no treason through negligence. The
overt act of aid and comfort to the enemy
must be intentional. [Cramer v. US, supra]
Two Ways of Proving Treason
(a) Testimony of at least two witnesses to the
same overt act; or
(b) Confession of accused in open court. [Art.
114, par.2, RPC]
The Two-Witness Rule
The testimony of two witnesses is required to
prove the overt act of giving aid or comfort,
but it is not necessary to prove adherence.
Each of the witnesses must testify to the
whole overt act; or if it is separable, there
must be two witnesses to each part of the
overt act. [People vs. Escleto, 84 Phil. 121]
Membership as a Makapili, as an overt act,
must be established by the deposition of two
witnesses. Where two or more witnesses give
oaths to an overt act and only one of them is
believed by the court or jury, the defendant is
entitled to discharge. [People vs. Adriano, 78
Phil. 563-67]]
Adherence may be proved:
(a) By one witness;
(b) From the nature of the act itself; or
(c) From the circumstances surrounding the
act.
Adherence need not be proven by two witness
testimonies. It may be inferred from one
witness, or from the nature of the act itself or
other circumstances. [People vs. Adriano,
supra]
Aggravating Circumstance in treason
✓ Cruelty and ignominy
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
 Evident premeditation – since
adherence and the giving of aid and
comfort to the enemy is usually a
long continued process requiring
reflective and persistent
determination and planning [People
vs. Racaza, 82 Phil. 195]
 Superior strength & treachery – since
they are inherent in treason [People
vs. Adlawan, 83 Phil. 195]
 Treachery, aid of armed persons to
insure or afford impunity, and
deliberately augmenting the crimes
by causing other wrongs not
necessary in the commission thereof
– since they are inherent in the crime
of treason [People vs. Victoria, supra]
Suspended Allegiance and Change of
Sovereignty
These defenses are not accepted because:
(1) A citizen owes an absolute and
permanent allegiance to his Government;
(2) The sovereignty of the Government is not
transferred to the enemy by mere
occupation;
(3) The subsistence of the sovereignty of the
legitimate Government in a territory
occupied by the military forces of the
enemy during the war is one of the rules
of International Law; and
(4) What is suspended is the exercise of the
rights of sovereignty. [Laurel v. Misa,
supra]
In addition to the defense of duress or
uncontrollable fear, lawful obedience to a de
facto Government is a good defense in
treason. The Philippine Executive
Commission, as well as the Republic
established by the Japanese occupation army
in the Philippines, had all the characteristics
of a de facto Government. [Go Kim Cham vs.
Valdez, 75 Phil. 113]
Defense of loss of citizenship by joining the
army of the enemy is not valid. The accused
Page 171 of 407
UP LAW BOC
cannot divest himself of his Philippine
citizenship by the simple expedient of
accepting a commission in the military, naval
or air service of such country. If his contention
is sustained, his very crime would be the
shield that would protect him from
punishment. [People vs. Manayao, 78 Phil.
721]
C.2. ARTICLE 115 – CONSPIRACY AND
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT TREASON
Elements of Conspiracy to Commit Treason:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(2) At least two persons come to an
agreement to
(a) Levy war against the government;
or
(b) Adhere to the enemies, giving
them aid or comfort
(3) They decide to commit it
Elements of Proposal to Commit Treason
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(2) At least one person decides to –
(a) Levy war against the government;
or
(b) Adhere to the enemies, giving
them aid or comfort
(3) That person proposes its execution to
other persons
General rule: Conspiracy and proposal to
commit a felony is not punishable under
Article 8.
Exception: Under Article 115, mere conspiracy
or proposal to commit treason is punishable.
This is because, in treason, the very existence
of the state is endangered. [Reyes, 2012]
The two-witness rule does not apply to
conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
because this is a separate and distinct
Page 172 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
offense from that of treason. [US vs. Bautista,
6 Phil. 581]
C.3. ARTICLE 116 – MISPRISION OF
TREASON
Elements:
(1) Offender owes allegiance to the
government, and is not a foreigner
(2) He has knowledge of conspiracy to
commit treason against the government
(3) He conceals or does not disclose and
make known the same as soon as
possible to the governor or fiscal of the
province in which he resides, or the mayor
or fiscal of the city in which he resides
This is a crime that may be committed only by
citizens of the Philippines. It cannot be
committed by a resident alien.
Essence: There are persons who conspire to
commit treason and the offender knew this
and failed to make the necessary report to
the government within the earliest possible
time.
Article 116 does not apply when the crime of
treason is already committed by someone
and the accused does not report its
commission to the proper authority. The
provision only speaks of “knowledge of any
conspiracy against” the Government of the
Philippines, not knowledge of treason
actually committed by another. In the latter
case, the implication is that the government
is already aware of it.
The offender in misprision of treason is
punished as an accessory to treason. Note
that Article 116 does not provide for a penalty.
However, the offender is a principal in the
crime of misprision of treason.
Blood relationship is always subservient to
national security. Article 20 of the RPC
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

regarding accessories who are exempt from
criminal liability does not apply in this case
because persons found liable for this crime
are not considered accessories, but as
principals.
Article 116 is an exception to the rule that
mere silence does not make a person
criminally liable. [US vs. Caballeros]
must be a public officer who has in his
possession the information by reason of the
public office he holds.
To be liable under paragraph 1, the offender
must have the intention to obtain information
relative to the defense of the Philippines. It is
not necessary that the information is
obtained. It is sufficient that the offender has
the purpose to obtain such.

C.4. ARTICLE 117 – ESPIONAGE

Espionage Treason
Mode 1: By entering, without authority Not conditioned on the Not conditioned on the
therefor, a warship, fort, or naval or military citizenship of the citizenship of the
establishment or reservation to obtain any offender offender
information, plans, photographs, or other data
of a confidential nature relative to the defense May be committed Committed only in
of the Philippines both in times of war times of war
and in times of peace
Elements: May be committed in Limited only to two
(1) Offender enters a warship, fort, or naval many ways ways of committing the
or military establishment or reservation; crime: levying of war
and adhering to the
(2) He has no authority therefor; enemy giving him aid
(3) His purpose is to obtain information, or comfort
plans, photographs or other data of a
confidential nature relative to the defense
of the Philippines. D. COMMONWEALTH ACT NO. 616
An Act to Punish Espionage and Other
Offenses against the National Security
Mode 2: Disclosing by public officer of [Note: Not in 2017 Bar Syllabus]
confidential information to a foreign
representative
Punishable Acts
Sec. 1. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to
Elements: be obtained information affecting national
(1) That the offender is a public officer; defense. —
(2) That he has in his possession the articles, (a) going upon, entering, flying over, or
data or information of a confidential otherwise obtaining information
nature relative to the defense of the concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of
Philippines, by reason of the public office defense, navy yard, naval station,
he holds; submarine base, coaling station, fort,
battery, torpedo station, dockyard, canal,
(3) That he discloses their contents to a railroad, arsenal, camp, factory, mine,
representative of a foreign nation. telegraph, telephone, wireless, or signal
station, building, office, or other place
connected with the national defense, xxx
Under paragraph 1, the offender may be any or any place in which any vessel, aircraft,
person, but under paragraph 2, the offender arms, munitions, or other materials or
Page 173 of 407
UP LAW BOC
instruments for the use in time of war are
being made, prepared, repaired, or
stored, for the purposes of obtaining
information respecting the national
defense with intent or reason to believe
that the information to be obtained is to
be used to the injury of the Philippines or
of the United States, or to the advantage
of any foreign nation
(b) copying, taking, making, or obtaining, or
attempting, or inducing or aiding another
to copy, take, make, or obtain, any sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blue
print, plan, map, Model, instrument,
appliance, document, writing, or note of
anything connected with the national
defense for the same purpose and with
like intent as in paragraph (a)
(c) receiving or obtaining or agreeing or
attempting or inducing or aiding another
to receive or obtain from any person, or
from any source whatever, any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blue
print, plan, map, Model, instrument,
appliance, or note of anything connected
with the national defense, knowing or
having reason to believe, at the time he
receives or obtains, or agrees or attempts
or induces or aids another to receive or
obtain it, that it has been or will be
obtained, taken, made, or disposed of by
any person contrary to the provisions of
this Act; or
(d) wilfully communicating or transmitting or
attempting to communicate or transmit
any document, writing, code book, signal
book, sketch, photograph, photographic
negative, blue print, plan, map, Model,
instrument, appliance, or note relating to
the national defense to any person not
entitled to receive it, or wilfully retaining
the same and fails to deliver it on
demand to the officer or employee of the
Philippines or of the United States
entitled to receive it; the offender having
lawful or unlawful possession of, access
to, control over, or being intrusted with
the same; or
(e) permitting, through gross negligence, to
be removed from its proper place of
custody or delivered to anyone in
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
violation of this trust or to be lost, stolen,
abstracted, or destroyed any document,
writing, code book, signal book, sketch,
photograph, photographic negative, blue
print, plan, map, Model, note or
information, relating to the national
defense, the offender being intrusted with
or having lawful possession or control of
the same
Sec. 2. Unlawful disclosing information
affecting national defense. —
(a) communicating, delivering, or
transmitting, or attempting to, or aiding
or inducing another to, communicate,
deliver, or transmit to any foreign
government, or any faction or party or
military or naval force within a foreign
country, whether recognized or
unrecognized by the Philippines, or to any
representative, officer, agent, employee,
subject, or citizen thereof, either directly
or indirectly, any document, writing, code
book, signal book, sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blue print, plan,
map, Model, instrument, appliance, or
information relating to the national
defense, with the intent or reason to
believe that it is to be used to the injury of
the Philippines or to the advantage of a
foreign nation
*Punishable by death or
imprisonment for not more than 30 years,
if committed in time of war.
(b) in time of war, by collecting, recording,
publishing, or communicating, or
attempting to elicit any information with
respect to the movement, number,
description, condition, or disposition of
any of the armed forces, ships, aircraft, or
war materials of the Philippines, or with
respect to the plans or conduct, or
supposed plans or conduct of any
military, naval, or air operations, or with
respect to any works or measures
undertaken for or connected with, or
intended for the fortification or defense of
any place, or any other information
relating to the public defense which
might be useful to the enemy
Page 174 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(c)
(d) Sec. 3. Disloyal acts or works in time of
peace. — It shall be unlawful for any
person, with intent to interfere with,
impair, or influence the loyalty, morale, or
discipline of the military, naval, or air
forces of the Philippines
(a) advising, counseling, urging, or in any
manner causinginsubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal of duty by
any member of the military, naval, or air
forces of the Philippines or of the United
States; or
(b) distributing any written or printed matter
which advises, counsels, or urges
insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or
refusal of duty by any member of the
military, naval, or air forces of the
Philippines.
Sec. 4. Disloyal acts or words in time of war.
— wilfully making or conveying false reports
or false statements with the intent to
interfere with the operation or success of the
military, naval, or air forces of the Philippines,
or
To promote the success of its enemies, by
wilfully causing or attempting to cause
insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
of duty, in the military, naval, or air forces of
the Philippines, or
Willfully obstructing the recruiting or
enlistment service of the Philippines to the
injury of the service of the Philippines
Sec. 5. Conspiracy to violate preceding
sections. — (1) two or more persons conspire
to violate the provisions of sections 1, 2, 3, or
4 of this Act, (2) one or more of such persons
does any act to effect the object of the
conspiracy
Each of the parties to such conspiracy shall
be punished for the doing of the act the
accomplishment of which is the object of
such conspiracy.
Page 175 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Section 6. Harboring or concealing violators
of the law. — harboring or concealing any
person who he knows, or has reasonable
ground to believe or suspect, has committed,
or is about to commit, an offense under this
Act.
Other Acts
(a) Making any photograph, sketch, picture,
drawing, map, or graphical
representation of vital military, naval, and
air installations or equipment of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines without
first obtaining permission of the
commanding officer[Sec. 8]
(b) Using or permitting or procuring the use
of an aircraft for the purpose of making a
photograph, sketch, picture, drawing,
map, or graphical representation of vital
military, naval or air installations or
equipment, in violation of Sec. 8 [Sec. 9]
(c) Reproducing, publishing, selling, etc.,
uncensored copies any photograph,
sketch, picture, drawing, map or
graphical representation of the vital
military, naval, or air installations or
equipment so defined, without first
obtaining permission of the commanding
officer [Sec. 10]
(d) Destroying or injuring or attempting to
injure or destroy war material in time of
war [Sec. 11]
(e) Making or causing war material to be
made in defective manner when the
Philippines is at war [Sec. 12]
(f) Injuring or destroying national defense
material, premises, or utilities [Sec. 13]
(g) Making or causing to be made in a
defective manner, or attempting to make
or cause to be made in a defective
manner, national defense material [Sec.
14]
UP LAW BOC
II. CRIMES AGAINST
THE LAW OF NATIONS
A. ARTICLE 118 – INCITING TO WAR OR
GIVING MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS
Elements:
(1) Offender performs unlawful
unauthorized acts
(2) The acts provoke or give occasion for
(a) A war involving or liable to
involve the Philippines; or
(b) Exposure of Filipino citizens to
reprisals on their persons or
property
This crime is committed in times of peace.
The intention of the offender is immaterial.
The law considers the effects produced by the
acts of the accused. [Reyes, 2012; citing
Albert]
Examples: The public destruction of the flag
or seal of a foreign state or the public
manifestations of hostility to the head or
ambassador of another state.
B. ARTICLE 119 – VIOLATION OF
NEUTRALITY
Elements
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is
not involved
(2) There is a regulation issued by a
competent authority to enforce neutrality
(3) Offender violates the regulation
Neutrality
This is defined as a nation or power which
takes no part in a contest of arms going on
between other countries.
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
C. ARTICLE 120 – CORRESPONDENCE
WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY
Elements:
(1) It is a time of war in which the Philippines
is involved
(2) Offender makes correspondence with an
enemy country or territory occupied by
enemy troops
or
(3) The correspondence is either –
(a) Prohibited by the government, or
(b) Carried on in ciphers or
conventional signs, or
(c) Containing notice or information
which might be useful to the
enemy.
Correspondence
This is communication by means of letters
which pass between those who have friendly
or business relations.
Even if the correspondence contains innocent
matters, if the correspondence has been
prohibited by the Government, it is
punishable.
Prohibition by the Government is not
essential in instances (b) and (c).
Qualifying Circumstances under Instance (c)
The following must concur:
(1) That the notice or information might be
useful to the enemy, and
(2) That the offender intended to aid the
enemy.
If the offender intended to aid the enemy by
giving such notice or information, the crime
amounts to treason; hence, the penalty is the
same as that for treason. [Reyes, 2012]
Page 176 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

D. ARTICLE 121 – FLIGHT TO ENEMY'S waters of a state, or in the archipelagic

COUNTRY
Elements:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is
involved
(2) Offender must be owing allegiance to the
government
(3) Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy
country
(4) Going to the enemy country is prohibited
by competent authority
An alien resident may be guilty of flight to
enemy country. The law does not say “not
being a foreigner.” Hence, the allegiance
contemplated in this article is either natural
or temporary allegiance. [Reyes, 2012]
Mere attempt to flee or to go to enemy
country when prohibited by competent
authority consummates the felony. [Reyes,
2012]
E. ARTICLE 122 – PIRACY IN GENERAL
AND MUTINY ON THE HIGH SEAS OR
IN PHILIPPINE WATERS
waters of an archipelagic state. [Convention
on the Law of the Sea]
Piracy
This is robbery or forcible depredation on the
high seas, without lawful authority and done
with animo furandi and in the spirit and
intention of universal hostility. [People vs.
Lol-lo and Saraw, 43 Phil. 19]
Jurisdiction
The jurisdiction of piracy unlike all other
crimes has no territorial limits. Pirates are in
law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime
not against any particular State but against
all mankind. It may be punished in the
competent tribunal of any country where the
offender may be found or into which he may
be carried. [People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw,
supra]
Mutiny
This is the unlawful resistance to a superior
officer, or the raising of commotions and
disturbances on board a ship against the
authority of its commander.

Elements:
(1) The vessel is on the high seas or Mutiny is usually committed by the other
Philippine waters members of the complement and may be
committed by the passengers of the vessel.
(2) Offenders are neither members of its
complement nor passengers of the vessel
(3) Offenders either – Piracy Mutiny
(a) Attack or seize that vessel; or Persons who attack the Persons who attack the
(b) Seize the whole or part of its vessel or seize its cargo vessel or seize its cargo
cargo, its equipment or personal are strangers to said are members of the
belongings of its complement or vessels crew or passengers
passengers
Intent to gain is Intent to gain is not
(4) There is intent to gain essential essential. The
offenders may only
intend to ignore the
High Seas ship’s officers or they
may be prompted by a
This term refers to the parts of the seas that
desire to commit
are not included in the exclusive economic
plunder.
zone, in the territorial seas, or in the internal
Page 177 of 407
UP LAW BOC
E.1. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 532
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of
1974
Abetting Piracy
In Section 4 of Presidential Decree No. 532,
the act of aiding pirates or abetting piracy is
penalized as a crime distinct from piracy.
Said section penalizes any person who
knowingly and in any manner aids or protects
pirates, such as giving them information
about the movement of the police or other
peace officers of the government, or acquires
or receives property taken by such pirates, or
in any manner derives any benefit therefrom;
or who directly or indirectly abets the
commission of piracy.
Also, the offender shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal offenders and
punished in accordance with the Revised
Penal Code.
This provision of PD No. 532 with respect to
piracy in Philippine waters has not been
incorporated into the RPC. Neither may it be
considered repealed by RA 7659 (An Act to
Impose the Death Penalty on Certain Heinous
Crimes) since there is nothing in the
amendatory lawwhich is inconsistent with
said section.
E.2. REPUBLIC ACT 9372
An Act to Secure the State and Protect Our
People from Terrorism (Human Security Act of
2007)
A person who commits an act punishable as
piracy and mutiny under Article 122 thereby
sowing and creating 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 be guilty of the crime of terrorism.
Page 178 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
F. ARTICLE 123 – QUALIFIED PIRACY
Elements:
(1) The vessel is on the high seas or
Philippine waters
(2) Offenders are neither members of its
complement, or passengers of the vessel
(3) Offenders either –
(a) Attack or seize the vessel; or
(b) Seize the whole or part of its
cargo, its equipment, or personal
belongings of its crew or
passengers
(4) The preceding were committed under any
of the following circumstances:
(a) Whenever they have seized a
vessel by boarding or firing upon
the same;
(b) Whenever the pirates have
abandoned their victims without
means of saving themselves; or
(c) Whenever the crime is
accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries or rape
Paragraph 2 (Item 2 in letter D) specifically
mentions “pirates” thereby excluding
mutineers from said paragraph. It would
seem, however, that it should be in
paragraph 1 (Item 1 in letter D) where the
word “pirates” should be specifically
mentioned and not in paragraph 2, because
in paragraph 1, the mutineers, being already
in the vessel, cannot seize the vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same. [Reyes,
2012]
Murder, rape, homicide, physical injuries are
mere circumstances qualifying piracy and
cannot be punished as separate crimes, nor
can they be complexed with piracy.
F.1. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 532
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of
1974
UP LAW BOC
Punishable Acts
a. 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. [Sec 2(d), PD 532]
Philippine Waters
All bodies of water, such as but not limited to,
seas, gulfs, bays around, between and
connecting each of the Islands of the
Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its
depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all
other waters belonging to the Philippines by
historic or legal title, including territorial sea,
the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and other
submarine areas over which the Philippines
has sovereignty or jurisdiction[Sec 2(a), PD
532]
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 [Sec 2(b), PD 532]
Penalty
a. Reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods
b. Reclusion perpetua – if physical injuries or
other crimes are committed as a result or
on the occasion thereof
c. Death – if rape, murder or homicide is
committed as a result or on the occasion
of piracy, or when the offenders
abandoned the victims without means of
saving themselves, or when the seizure is
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
accomplished by firing upon or boarding a
vessel [Sec 3(a), PD 532]
B. Highway Robbery/Brigandage
The seizure of any person for ransom,
extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the
taking away of the property of another by
means of violence against or intimidation of
person or force upon things of other unlawful
means, committed by any person on any
Philippine Highway. [Sec 2 (e),PD 532]
Philippine Highway
Any road, street, passage, highway and
bridges or other parts thereof, or railway or
railroad within the Philippines used by
persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains
for the movement or circulation of persons or
transportation of goods, articles, or property
or both [Sec 2 (c),PD 532]
Penalty
a. Reclusion temporal in its minimum period
b. Reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods — If physical injuries or
other crimes are committed during or on
the occasion of the commission of robbery
or brigandage, the penalty of
c. Death shall be imposed — If kidnapping
for ransom or extortion, or murder or
homicide, or rape is committed as a result
or on the occasion thereof [Sec 3(b), PD
532]
C. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands
or abetting piracy or highway
robbery/brigandage
(a) 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
Page 179 of 407
UP LAW BOC
(b) Acquires or receives property taken by
such pirates or brigands or in any manner
derives any benefit therefrom; or
(c) Any person who directly or indirectly
abets the commission of piracy or
highway robbery or brigandage
They shall be considered as an accomplice of
the principal offenders.
It shall be presumed that any person who
does any of the acts provided in this Section
has performed them knowingly, unless the
contrary is proven.[Sec 4,PD 532]
F.2. REPUBLIC ACT 6235
An Act Prohibiting Certain Acts Inimical to
Civil Aviation, and Other Purposes (Anti-
Hijacking Law)
Punishable Acts
A. To compel a change in the course or
destination of an aircraft of Philippine
registry or to seize or usurp the control
thereof, while it is in flight.
An aircraft is in flight from the moment all
its external doors are closed following
embarkation until any of such doors is
opened for disembarkation. [Sec 1,
RA 6235]
B. To compel an aircraft of foreign registry to
land in Philippine territory or to seize or
usurp the control thereof while it is within
the said territory. [Sec 1, RA 6235]
C. To ship, load or carry in any passenger
aircraft operating as a public utility within
the Philippines, an explosive, flammable,
corrosive or poisonous substance or
material. [Sec 3, RA 6235]
The offender may be a natural or juridical
person.
Page 180 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
The shipping, loading or carrying of any
substance or material mentioned in the
preceding section in any cargo aircraft
operating as a public utility within the
Philippines shall be in accordance with
regulations issued by the Civil Aeronautics
Administration. [Sec 4, RA 6235]
Penalty
Imprisonment of not less than 12 years but
not more than 20 years, or by a fine of not
less than 20,000 pesos but not more than
40,000 pesos[Sec 2, RA 6235]
The penalty of imprisonment of 15 years to
death, or a fine of not less than 25,000 pesos
but not more than 50,000 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person committing such
violation under any of the following
circumstances:
(a) Whenever he has fired upon the pilot,
member of the crew or passenger of the
aircraft;
(b) Whenever he has exploded or attempted
to explode any bomb or explosive to
destroy the aircraft; or
(c) Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, serious physical
injuries or rape.[Sec 2,RA 6235]
F.3. REPUBLIC ACT 9372
An Act to Secure the State and Protect Our
People from Terrorism (Human Security Act of
2007)
Terrorism
[Note: Acts of terrorism under RA 9372 were
specifically mentioned in the 2017 Bar
Syllabus.]
Elements:
1. Offender commits an act punishable
under any of the following provisions of
the Revised Penal Code:
UP LAW BOC
(a) Art. 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny
in the High Seas or in the Philippine
Waters);
(b) Art.134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
(c) Art. 134-a (Coup d’état), including
acts committed by private persons;
(d) Art. 248 (Murder);
(e) Art. 267 (Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention);
(f) Art. 324 (Crimes Involving
Destruction),
or under
(a) P.D. No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
(b) R.A. No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and
Hazardous and Nuclear Waste
Control Act of 1990);
(c) R.A. No. 5207, (Atomic Energy
Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
(d) R.A. No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
(e) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-
piracy and Anti-highway Robbery
Law of 1974); and,
(f) P.D. No. 1866, as amended (Decree
Codifying the Laws on Illegal and
Unlawful Possession, Manufacture,
Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition
of Firearms, Ammunitions or
Explosives)
2. Thereby sowing and creating a condition
of widespread and extraordinary fear and
panic among the populace
3. In order to coerce the government to give
in to an unlawful demand[Sec 3, RA
9372]
Penalty
Forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the
benefit of parole as provided for under Act
No. 4103, otherwise known as the
Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended
[Sec 3, RA 9372]
Page 181 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
Who Are Liable
1. Conspirator – Persons who conspire to
commit the crime of terrorism shall suffer
the penalty of forty (40) years of
imprisonment.
There is conspiracy when two or more
persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of the crime of terrorism as
defined in Section 3 hereof and decide to
commit the same.[Sec 4, RA 9372]
2. Accomplice – Any person who, not being
a principal under Art. 17 of the Revised
Penal Code or a conspirator as defined in
Section 4 hereof, cooperates in the
execution of either the crime of terrorism
or conspiracy to commit terrorism by
previous or simultaneous acts shall suffer
the penalty of from seventeen (17) years,
four (4) months one day to twenty (20)
years of imprisonment. [Sec 5, RA 9372]
3. Accessory – Any person who, having
knowledge of the commission of the
crime of terrorism or conspiracy to
commit terrorism, and without having
participated therein, either as principal or
accomplice under Art.17 and 18 of the
RPC takes part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following
manner:
(a) by profiting himself or assisting the
offender to profit by the effects of the
crime;
(b) by concealing or destroying the body
of the crime, or the effects, or
instruments thereof, in order to
prevent its discovery;
(c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting
in the escape of the principal or
conspirator of the crime, shall suffer
the penalty of ten (10) years and one
day to twelve (12) years of
imprisonment. [Sec 6, RA 9372]
Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

be imposed upon those who are such with

respect to their spouses, ascendants, III. TITLE II. CRIMES
descendants, legitimate, natural, and
adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by AGAINST
affinity within the same degrees, with the
single exception of accessories falling within FUNDAMENTAL LAWS
the provisions of subparagraph (a). [Sec 6, RA
9372] OF THE STATE
Double Jeopardy (1) Art. 124: Arbitrary Detention
When a person has been prosecuted under a (2) Art. 125: Delay in the Delivery Of
provision of this Act, upon a valid complaint Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial
or information or other formal charge Authorities
sufficient in form and substance to sustain a (3) Art. 126: Delaying Release
conviction and after the accused had pleaded
to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or (4) Art. 127: Expulsion
the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to (5) Art. 128: Violation of Domicile
another prosecution for any offense or felony
which is necessarily included in the offense (6) Art.129: Search Warrants Maliciously
charged under this Act. [Sec 49, RA 9372] Obtained and Abuse in the Service of
those Legally Obtained
(7) Art. 130: Searching Domicile Without
Witnesses
(8) Art. 131: Prohibition, Interruption and
Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
(9) Art. 132: Interruption of Religious
Worship
(10) Art. 133: Offending the Religious Feelings

Crimes under this title are those that violate

certain provisions of the Bill of Rights.
All offenses under this title can only be
committed by public officers; except
offending the religious feelings under Article
133, which can also be committed by a private
person.

A private person may be liable under these

articles only when he:
(a) Conspires with a public officer; or
(b) He becomes an accomplice or accessory
to said crimes.

A. ARTICLE 124 – ARBITRARY

DETENTION

Page 182 of 407

UP LAW BOC
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He detains a person
(3) Detention is without a legal ground
The crime of Arbitrary Detention assumes
several forms:
(a) Detaining a person without legal grounds
[Article 124];
(b) Having arrested the offended party for
legal grounds but without warrant of
arrest, and the public officer does not
deliver the arrested person to the proper
judicial authority within the period of 12,
18, or 36 hours, as the case may be
[Article 125]; or
(c) Delaying release by competent authority
with the same period mentioned in
number 2 [Article 126].
Detention
This refers to the actual confinement of a
person in an enclosure, or in any manner
detaining and depriving him of his liberty.
The detention of a person is without legal
ground:
(a) when he has not committed any crime or,
at least, there is no reasonable ground for
suspicion that he has committed a crime,
or
(b) when he is not suffering from violent
insanity or any other ailment requiring
compulsory confinement in a hospital.
A public officer is deemed such when he is
acting within the bounds of his official
authority or function.
A police officer who employs force in excess
of what is necessary is acting outside the
bounds of his duties and is considered acting
in his private capacity. [Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law]
Page 183 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
Although the offender must be a public
officer in the crime of arbitrary detention, not
all public officers can commit it. Only those
public officers whose official duties carry with
it the authority to make an arrest and detain
persons can be guilty of this crime.
In a case decided by the Supreme Court, a
Barangay Chairman who unlawfully detains
another was held to be guilty of the crime of
arbitrary detention. This is because he is a
person in authority vested with jurisdiction to
maintain peace and order within his
barangay. [Milo vs. Salanga, G.R. No L-37007
(1987)]
There must be an actual restraint of liberty of
the offended party.
The crime committed is only grave or light
threats if the offended party may still go to
the place where he wants to go, even though
there have been warnings.
If the offender falsely imputes a crime against
a person to be able to arrest him and appear
not determined to file a charge against him,
the crime is arbitrary detention through
unlawful arrest. [Boado, Comprehensive
Reviewer in Criminal Law]
In a case where a DENR team was invited to a
mayor’s house from 5:30pm to 2:30am for
dinner and drinks, the mayor was absolved of
the charges of Arbitrary Detention. The
determinative factor in Arbitrary Detention, in
the absence of actual physical restraint, is
fear. No record on evidence showed that the
mayor instilled fear into the minds of the
DENR team while they were in the Mayor’s
house. [Astorga vs. People, G.R. No. 154130
(2004)]
Arrest without warrant is the usual cause of
arbitrary detention.
Rules of court. Rule 113, Section 5. Arrest
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

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 paragraph (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.

Difference between Arbitrary Detention, Illegal Detention and Unlawful Arrest

Arbitrary Detention Illegal Detention Unlawful Arrest

Offender Public officer who has
authority to make arrests and
detain persons
(1) Private person; or Any person
(2) Public officer who is
acting in a private
capacity or beyond the
scope of his official duty

Criminal Violate the offended party’s Deprive the offended party of Accuse the offended party of a
constitutional freedom against his personal liberty crime he did not commit,
Intent
warrantless arrest deliver him to the proper
authority, and file the
necessary charges to
incriminate him

Page 184 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
B. ARTICLE 125 – DELAY IN THE DELIVERY
OF DETAINED PERSONS TO THE PROPER
JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He detains a person for some legal ground
(3) He fails to deliver such person to the proper
judicial authorities within –
(a) 12 hours for light penalties
(b) 18 hours for correctional penalties
(c) 36 hours for afflictive or
capitalpenalties
This is applicable only when the arrest is without
a warrant, but the arrest must be lawful.
At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is
in the pursuance of a lawful arrest. Detention
becomes arbitrary when the:
(1) Applicable period lapses
(2) Without the arresting officer filing a formal
charge with the proper court.
The periods stated are counted only when the
prosecutor’s office is ready to receive the
complaint or information. Nighttime is not
included in the period.
Delivery
This means the filing of correct information with
the proper court. It may also mean constructive
delivery or the turning over the person arrested
to the jurisdiction of the court. The purpose is to
determine whether the offense is bailable or not.
Upon delivery, the court acquires jurisdiction to
issue an order of release or of commitment of
prisoner. [Sayo vs. Chief of Police, G.R. No. L-
2128 (1948)]
The elements of custodial investigation are:
(a) The suspect is deprived of liberty in any
significant manner;
(b) The interrogation is initiated by law
enforcement authorities;
Page 191 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(c) The interrogation is inculpatory in character.
[People vs. Tan, G.R. No. 117321 (1998)]
Where the invitation comes from a powerful
group composed predominantly of ranking
military officers and the designated
interrogation site is a military camp, the same
can be easily taken not as a strictly voluntary
invitation. It is an authoritative command that
one can only defy at one’s peril. [Sanchez vs.
Demetriou, G.R. Nos. 111771-77 (1993)]
Where a judge is not available, the arresting
officer is duty-bound to release a detained
person, if the maximum hours for detention
provided under Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code had already expired. [Albior vs. Auguis,
A.M. No. P-01-1472 (2003)]
Waiver of the Provisions of Article 125
Before the complaint or information is filed, the
person arrested may ask for a preliminary
investigation in accordance with Rule 112 of the
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure, but he
must sign a waiver of the provisions of Article
125 of the RPC in the presence of his counsel.
Notwithstanding the waiver, he may apply for
bail and the investigation must be terminated
within fifteen days from its inception. [Sec. 7,
par. 2, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
Procedure]
C. ARTICLE 126 – DELAYING RELEASE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) There is a:
(a) Judicial or executive order for the
release of a prisoner or detention
prisoner, or
(b) A proceeding upon a petition for the
liberation of such person
(3) Offender without good reason delays –
(a) The service of the notice of such
order to the prisoner
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(b) The performance of such judicial or
executive order for the release of the
prisoner; or
(c) The proceedings upon a petition for
the release of such person
Wardens and jailers are the public officers most
likely to violate Article 126.
D. ARTICLE 127 – EXPULSION
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He either –
(a) Expels any person from
Philippines; or
(b) Compels a person to change
residence
(3) Offender is not authorized to do so by law
The city mayor of Manila committed the crime of
expulsion when he ordered certain prostitutes to
be transferred to Davao WITHOUT observing
due process since they have not been charged
with any crime. [Villavicencio vs. Lukban, G.R.
No. L-14639 (1919)]
E. ARTICLE 128 – VIOLATION
DOMICILE
Acts punished:
(a) Entering any dwelling against the will of the
owner thereof
(b) Searching papers or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of such
owner, or
(c) Refusing to leave the premises, after having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling and
after having been required to leave the same
Elements common to the three acts:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He is not authorized by judicial order –
(a) To enter the dwelling;
CRIMINAL LAW
(b) To make a search therein for papers
or other effects; or
(c) He refuses to leave, after having
surreptitiously entered such dwelling
and having been required to leave
the same.
Qualifying circumstances:
(a) Nighttime
(b) Papers or effects not constituting evidence
of a crime are not returned immediately
after the search made by the offender
the
Rule 113 Of The Revised Rules Of Court: a public
officer who breaks into the premises incurs no
liability when aperson to be arrested enters said
premises and closes it thereafter, provided that
the officer first gives a notice of arrest.
According to People vs. Doria [G.R. No. 125299
(1999)] and People vs. Elamparo [G.R. No.
121572 (2000)], the following are the accepted
exceptions to the warrant requirement:
(a) Search incidental to an arrest;
(b) Search of moving vehicles;
(c) Evidence in plain view;
OF
(d) Stop and frisk;
(e) Customs searches; and
(f) Consented warrantless search.
[M]ere suspicion or a hunch will not validate a
"stop and frisk." A genuine reason must exist, in
light of the police officer's experience and
surrounding conditions, to warrant the belief
that the person detained has weapons
concealed about him.
A "stop-and-frisk" serves a two-fold interest:
(1) The general interest of effective crime
prevention and detection, which underlies
the recognition that a police officer may,
under appropriate circumstances and in an
appropriate manner, approach a person for
Page 192 of 407
UP LAW BOC
purposes of investigating possible criminal
behavior even without probable cause; and
(2) The more pressing interest of safety and
self-preservation which permit the police
officer to take steps to assure himself that
the person with whom he deals is not armed
with a deadly weapon that could
unexpectedly and fatally be used against the
police officer. [Malacat vs. CA, G.R. No.
123595 (1997)]
“Against the will” means that the offender
ignored the prohibition of the owner which may
be express or implied as when the door is closed
even though not locked. [Boado, Comprehensive
Reviewer in Criminal Law]
The offender must be a public officer or
employee. If the offender is a private individual
then the crime is trespass to dwelling under
Article 280.
F. ARTICLE 129 – SEARCH WARRANTS
MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED, AND ABUSE IN
THE SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY
OBTAINED
Procuring a search warrant without just cause:
(a) Offender is a public officer or employee
(b) He procures a search warrant
(c) There is no just cause
Exceeding authority or using unnecessary severity
in executing a search warrant legally procured:
(a) Offender is a public officer or employee
(b) He has legally procured a search warrant
(c) He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary
severity in executing the same
G. ARTICLE 130 – SEARCHING DOMICILE
WITHOUT WITNESSES
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He is armed with search warrant legally
procured
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
(3) He searches the domicile, papers or other
belongings of any person
(4) The owner, or any members of his family, or
two witnesses residing in the same locality are
not present
To “search” means to go over or look through for
the purpose of finding something; to examine.
Note that it must be done to a person’s domicile,
papers, or other belongings only. [Reyes, 2012]
Rule 126: Search and Seizure
A search warrant is an order in writing:
(1) Signed by a judge
(2) Directed to a peace officer, commanding
him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the
court
Requisites for issuing a search warrant:
(1) Probable cause, in connection with one
specific offense, to be determined personally
by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the
witness he may produce
(2) Particular description of:
(i) Place to be searched; and
(ii) Things to be seized which may be
anywhere in the Philippines
An officer may break open any outer or inner
door or window of a house or any part of a house
or anything therein when these circumstances
concur:
(1) He is refused admittance to the place of
directed search;
(2) His purpose is to execute the warrant to
liberate himself or any person lawfully
aiding him when unlawfully detained
therein; and
(3) He has given notice of his purpose and
authority.
The warrant must direct that it be served in the
daytime. However, it can be served at any time
Page 193 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

of the day or night when the affidavit asserts

that the property is on the person or in the place
The permit should state the day, time, and place
ordered to be searched.
of the gathering.

A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days

If the permit is denied arbitrarily, OR the officer
from its date. Thereafter, it shall be void.
dictates the place where the meeting is to be
held, this article is violated.
The officer seizing the property under the
warrant must give a detailed receipt for the
If in the course of the assembly, which started
same to the lawful occupantof the premises in
out peacefully, the participants committed
whose presence the search and seizure were
illegal acts like oral defamation or inciting to
made.
sedition, a public officer or law enforcer can stop
or dissolve the meeting.
In the absence of such occupant, the officer
must:
Two criteria to determine whether this article
(1) Leave a receipt in the place in which he would be violated:
found the seized property;
(1) Dangerous tendency rule – applied during
(2) In the presence of at least two witnesses of times of national unrest such as to prevent
sufficient age and discretion residing in the coup d’état.
same locality.
(2) Clear and present danger rule – applied
during times of peace. Stricter rule.
H. ARTICLE 131 – PROHIBITION,
INTERRUPTION AND DISSOLUTION OF
PEACEFUL MEETINGS I. ARTICLE 132 – INTERRUPTION OF
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
Elements:
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee
(a) Offender is a public officer or employee
(2) He performs any of the following acts:
(b) Religious ceremonies or manifestations of
(a) Prohibiting or interrupting, without legal any religion are about to take place or are
ground, the holding of a peaceful going on
meeting, or by dissolving the same
(c) Offender prevents or disturbs the same
(b) Hindering any person from joining any
lawful association, or from attending any
of its meetings Qualifying circumstance: if the crime is
(c) Prohibiting or hindering any person from committed with violence or threats.
addressing, either alone or together with
others, any petition to the authorities for
J. ARTICLE 133 – OFFENDING THE
the correction of abuses or redress of
grievances
RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
Elements:

The government has a right to require a permit (1) Acts complained of were performed
before any gathering can be made. However, (a) in a place devoted to religious worship,
the government only has regulatory, not or
prohibitory, powers with regard to such
(b) during the celebration of any religious
requirement.
ceremony
Page 194 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(2) The acts must be notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful
In the phrase “in a place devoted to religious
worship,” it is not necessary that there is a
religious ceremony going on when the offender
performs acts notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful.
The phrase “during the celebration” is separated
by the word “or” from the phrase “place devoted
to religious worship,” which indicates that the
“religious ceremony” need not be celebrated in a
place of worship. [Reyes, 2012]
An act is notoriously offensive to the religious
feelings when a person:
(1) Ridicules or makes light ofanything
constituting religious dogma
(2) Works or scoffs at anything devoted to
religious ceremonies
(3) Plays with or damages or destroys any object
of veneration of the faithful
Whether or not an act is offensive to the
religious feelings is a question of fact which
must be adjudged only according to the feelings
of the Catholics and not those of other faithful
ones. [People vs. Baes, G.R. No. L-46000 (1939)]
Laurel Dissent in People vs. Baes: Offense to
religious feelings should not be made to depend
upon the more or less broad or narrow
conception of any given particular religion, but
should be gauged having in view the nature of
the acts committed and after scrutiny of all the
facts and circumstance which should be viewed
through the mirror of an unbiased judicial
criterion. [Note: This later became the majority
decision in People vs. Tengson (1971)]
The crime is only unjust vexation when the act is
not directed at the religious belief itself and
there is no intention of causing so serious a
disturbance as to interrupt a religious ceremony.
[People vs. Nanoy, 69 O.G. 8043]
Page 195 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
K. REPUBLIC ACT 9372
An Act to Secure the State and Protect Our
People from Terrorism (Human Security Act of
2007)
Period of Detention
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.
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 latter’s 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
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
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. [Sec. 18
RA 9372]
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. [Sec. 19 RA 9372]
Page 196 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
L. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9745
An Act Penalizing Torture and Other Cruel,
Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment and Prescribing Punishment
Therefor (Anti-Torture Act)
Punishable Acts
Acts of Torture
For purposes of this Act, torture shall include,
but not be limited to, the following:
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or
punishment inflicted by a person in authority
or agent of a person in authority upon
another in his/her custody that causes
severe pain, exhaustion, disability or
dysfunction of one or more parts of the body,
such as:
(1) Systematic beating, headbanging,
punching, kicking, striking with
truncheon or rifle butt or other similar
objects, and jumping on the stomach;
(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with
spoiled food, animal or human excreta
and other stuff or substances not
normally eaten;
(3) Electric shock;
(4) Cigarette burning; burning by
electrically heated rods, hot oil, acid; by
the rubbing of pepper or other chemical
substances on mucous membranes, or
acids or spices directly on the wound(s);
(5) The submersion of the head in water or
water polluted with excrement, urine,
vomit and/or blood until the brink of
suffocation;
(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and
stressful bodily position;
(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the
insertion of foreign objects into the sex
organ or rectum, or electrical torture of
the genitals;
(8) Mutilation or amputation of the
essential parts of the body such as the
genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;
(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of
the teeth;
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(10) Pulling out of fingernails;
(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such
as sunlight and extreme cold;
(12) The use of plastic bag and other
materials placed over the head to the
point of asphyxiation;
(i) The administration or drugs to
induce confession and/or reduce
mental competency; or
(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme
pain or certain symptoms of a
disease; and
(13) Other analogous acts of physical torture;
and
(b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts
committed by a person in authority or agent
of a person in authority which are calculated
to affect or confuse the mind and/or
undermine a person's dignity and morale,
such as:
(1) Blindfolding;
(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/her
relative(s) with bodily harm, execution or
other wrongful acts;
(3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret
detention places;
(4) Prolonged interrogation;
(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial",
public display or public humiliation of a
detainee or prisoner;
(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a
person deprived of liberty from one place
to another, creating the belief that
he/she shall be summarily executed;
(7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's
family;
(8) Causing the torture sessions to be
witnessed by the person's family,
relatives or any third party;
(9) Denial of sleep/rest;
(10) Shame infliction such as stripping the
person naked, parading him/her in
public places, shaving the victim's head
Page 197 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
or putting marks on his/her body against
his/her will;
(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to
communicate with any member of
his/her family; and
(12) Other analogous acts of
mental/psychological torture. [Sec. 4,
RA 9745]
Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment
or Punishment
Other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or
punishment refers to a deliberate and
aggravated treatment or punishment not
enumerated under Section 4 of this Act, inflicted
by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority against another person in custody,
which attains a level of severity sufficient to
cause suffering, gross humiliation or
debasement to the latter. The assessment of the
level of severity shall depend on all the
circumstances of the case, including the
duration of the treatment or punishment, its
physical and mental effects and, in some cases,
the sex, religion, age and state of health of the
victim. [Sec. 5, RA 9745]
Freedom from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman
and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, An
Absolute Right
Torture and other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment as criminal
acts shall apply to all circumstances. A state of
war or a threat of war, internal political
instability, or any other public emergency, or a
document or any determination comprising an
"order of battle" shall not and can never be
invoked as a justification for torture and other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment. [Sec. 6, RA 9745]
Prohibited Detention
Secret detention places, solitary confinement,
incommunicado or other similar forms of
detention, where torture may be carried out with
impunity are hereby prohibited.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
In which case, the Philippine National Police
(PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines
(AFP) and other law enforcement agencies
concerned shall make an updated list of all
detention centers and facilities under their
respective jurisdictions with the corresponding
data on the prisoners or detainees incarcerated
or detained therein such as, among others,
names, date of arrest and incarceration, and the
crime or offense committed. This list shall be
made available to the public at all times, with a
copy of the complete list available at the
respective national headquarters of the PNP and
AFP. A copy of the complete list shall likewise be
submitted by the PNP, AFP and all other law
enforcement agencies to the Commission on
Human Rights (CHR), such list to be periodically
updated, by the same agencies, within the first
five (5) days of every month at the minimum.
Every regional office of the PNP, AFP and other
law enforcement agencies shall also maintain a
similar list far all detainees and detention
facilities within their respective areas, and shall
make the same available to the public at all
times at their respective regional headquarters,
and submit a copy, updated in the same manner
provided above, to the respective regional offices
of the CHR. [Sec. 7, RA 9745]
Who are Criminally Liable
Any person who actually participated or induced
another in the commission of torture or other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment or who cooperated in the execution
of the act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment by previous
or simultaneous acts shall be liable as principal.
Any superior military, police or law enforcement
officer or senior government official who issued
an order to any lower ranking personnel to
commit torture for whatever purpose shall be
held equally liable as principals.
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
principalto the crime of torture or other cruel or
inhuman and degrading treatment or
Page 198 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
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 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 official's public
functions. [Sec. 13, RA 9745]
UP LAW BOC
IV. TITLE III. CRIMES
AGAINST PUBLIC
ORDER
The following are Crimes Against Public Order:
(1) Article 134: Rebellion or Insurrection
(2) Article 134-A: Coup d’État
(3) Article 136: Conspiracy and Proposal to
Commit Coup d’État, Rebellion or
Insurrection
(4) Article 137: Disloyalty of Public Officers or
Employees
(5) Article 138: Inciting to Rebellion
Insurrection
(6) Article 139: Sedition
(7) Article 141: Conspiracy to Commit Sedition
(8) Article 142: Inciting to Sedition
(9) Article 143: Acts Tending to Prevent the
Meeting of the Congress of the Philippines
and Similar Bodies
(10) Article 144: Disturbance of Proceedings
(11) Article 145: Violation of Parliamentary
Immunity
(12) Article 146: Illegal Assemblies
(13) Article 147: Illegal Associations
(14) Article 148: Direct Assault
(15) Article 149: Indirect Assault
(16) Article 150: Disobedience to Summons
Issued by Congress, Its Committees or
Subcommittees, by the Constitutional
Commissions, Its Committees,
Subcommittees or Divisions
(17) Article 151: Resistance and Disobedience to a
Person in Authority or the Agents of Such
Persons
(18) Article 153: Tumults and Other Disturbances
of Public Order
(19) Article 154: Unlawful Use of Means of
Publication and Unlawful Utterances
(20) Article 155: Alarms and Scandals
Page 199 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
(21) Article 156: Delivering Persons from Jail
(22) Article 157: Evasion of Service of
Sentence
(23)Article 158: Evasion of Service of Sentence
on the Occasion of Disorders,
Conflagrations, Earthquakes, or Other
Calamities
(24) Article 159: Other Cases of Evasion of
Service of Sentence
(25) Article 160: Quasi-Recidivism
A. CHAPTER I. REBELLION, COUP
D’ETAT, SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY
or A.1. ARTICLE 134 – REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION
Elements:
(1) There is a public uprising and taking arms
against the government;
(2) The purpose of the uprising or movement is:
(a) To remove from the allegiance to the
government or its laws the
Philippine territory or any part
thereof, or any body of land, naval,
or other armed forces; or
(b) To deprive the Chief Executive or
Congress, wholly or partially, of any
of their powers or prerogatives.
Rule on Complexing of Rebellion: Rebellion
cannot be complexed with, but absorbs other
crimes committed in furtherance of rebellion.
There is no complex crime of rebellion with
murder and other common crimes.
The doctrine laid down in People v. Hernandez
[G.R. No. 6025 (1964)] remains good law. This
prohibits the complexing of rebellion with any
other offense committed in the occasion thereof,
either as a means to its commission or as an
unintended effect of an activity that constitutes
rebellion. [Enrile vs. Salazar, G.R. No. 92163
(1990)]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

All crimes, whether punishable under special or enemy, giving him aid
general law, which are mere components or and comfort
ingredients, or committed in furtherance
thereof, become absorbed in the crime of Always involves taking Mere adherence to the
rebellion and cannot be isolated and charged as up arms against the enemy giving him aid
separate crimes themselves. [Enrile vs. Amin, government. and comfort
G.R. No. 93335 (1990)]

Note: There is no crime of misprision of

Both motive and overt acts are essential rebellion.
components of the crime of rebellion. If the
political motive of a supposedly rebellious act
cannot be sufficiently proven, the accused Rebellion vs. Sedition
should be convicted of the common crime (e.g.
murder) and not of rebellion. Rebellion Sedition
There must be taking It is sufficient that the
Rebellion is not covered by Art. 2 on up of arms against the public uprising be
extraterritorial jurisdiction. [People v. Lovedioro, government. tumultuous.
G.R. No. 112235 (1995)]
The purpose is always The purpose may be
political. political or social.
An actual clash of arms with the forces of the
Government is not absolutely necessary. It is
also not necessary that the purpose of the Note: When any of the objectives of rebellion is
rebellion be accomplished. [Reyes, 2012] pursued but there is no public uprising in the
legal sense, the crime is direct assault of the first
form.
Rebellion vs. Insurrection
Rebellion Insurrection A.2. ARTICLE 134-A – COUP D’ÉTAT
Object is to completely A movement seeking Elements:
overthrow and to effect some change (1) Offender is a person or persons belonging to
supplant the existing of minor importance or the military or police or holding any public
government to prevent the exercise office or employment;
of governmental
authority with respect (2) It is committed by means of a swift attack
to particular matters or accompanied by violence, intimidation,
subjects threat, strategy or stealth;
(3) The attack is directed against the duly
constituted authorities of the Republic of the
Rebellion vs. Treason Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communication networks,
Rebellion Treason public utilities or other facilities needed for
The levying of war The levying of war the exercise and continued possession of
against the against the power;
government during government would (4) The purpose of the attack is to seize or
peace time for any constitute treason diminish state power.
purpose mentioned in when performed to aid
Art. 134 the enemy; it would
also constitute Persons who may commit coup d’état:
adherence to the
(1) It may be committed singly or collectively
Page 200 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(2) It requires as a principal offender a member It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused
of the AFP, PNP, or a public officer with or never took the oath of allegiance to, or that they
without civilian support never recognized the Government. [US vs. del
Rosario, 2 Phil. 127]

Coup d’état, when considered as Terrorism

Mere silence or omission is not punishable in
A person who commits an act punishable as
rebellion. [US vs. Ravidas, 4 Phil. 273]
coup d’état under Article 134-A of the Revised
Penal Code, including acts committed by private
persons, thereby sowing and creating a
A.4. ARTICLE 136 – CONSPIRACY AND
condition of widespread and extraordinary fear
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT COUP D’ ÉTAT,
and panic among the populace, in order to
REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
coerce the government to give in to an unlawful
demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism.
Mode 1: Conspiracy to Commit Coup d’état,
Rebellion or Insurrection
A.3. ARTICLE 135 – PENALTY FOR
REBELLION, INSURRECTION OR COUP
D’ÉTAT
Elements:
(a) Two or more persons come to an agreement
Persons liable for rebellion, insurrection or coup to swiftly attack or to rise publicly and take
d’état arms against the Government for any of the
purposes of rebellion or insurrection;
(1) The leaders:
(b) They decide to commit it.
(a) Any person who promotes, maintains or
heads a rebellion or insurrection; or
(b) Any person who leads, directs or Mode 2: Proposal to Commit Coup d’état,
commands others to undertake a coup Rebellion or Insurrection
d’état;
(2) The participants:
Elements:
(a) Any person who participates or executes
(a) A person has decided to swiftly attack or to
the commands of others in rebellion or rise publicly and take arms against the
insurrection;
Government for any of the purposes of
(b) Any person in the government service rebellion or insurrection;
who participates or executes directions
(b) Such person proposes its execution to some
or commands of others in undertaking a
other person or persons.
coup d’état;
(c) Any person not in the government
service who participates, supports,
finances, abets or aids in undertaking a
coup d’état.
(d) If under the command of unknown
leaders, any person who directed the
others, spoke for them, signed receipts
and other documents issued in their
name on behalf of the rebels shall be
deemed a leader.

Page 201 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

A.5. ARTICLE 137 – DISLOYALTY OF PUBLIC Conspiracy Proposal

OFFICERS OR EMPLOYEES
When two or more When the person who
persons come to an has decided to rise
agreement to rise publicly and take arms
Elements:
publicly and take arms against the
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee; against government for government for any of
(2) Offender commits any of the following acts: any of the purposes of the purposes of
rebellion and decide to rebellion proposes its
commit it execution to some
(a) Failing to resist a rebellion by all the means other person or
in their power; persons

(b) Continuing to discharge the duties of their rebellion.

offices under the control of the rebels
The person who There is no need that
(c) Accepting appointment to office under proposes has decided the offender has
them. to commit rebellion. decided to commit
rebellion.
The crime presupposes rebellion committed by The person who The act of inciting is
other persons. Offender must not be in proposes the execution done publicly.
conspiracy with the rebels, otherwise, he is of the crime uses secret
himself guilty of rebellion. means.
A.6. ARTICLE 138 – INCITING TO REBELLION
OR INSURRECTION
Elements:
A.7. ARTICLE 139 – SEDITION
(a) Offender does not take arms or is not in
open hostility against the government; Elements:

(b) He incites others to the execution of any of
the acts of rebellion;
(c) The inciting is done by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners
or other representations tending to the same
end.
Note: There is no crime of inciting to treason.
Inciting to Rebellion vs. Proposal to Commit
Rebellion
Proposal to Commit
Inciting to Rebellion
Rebellion
The offender induces another to commit
rebellion. Rebellion should not be actually
committed by the persons to whom it is
proposed or who are incited. Otherwise, they
become principals by inducement in the crime of
(1) Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously;
(2) Offenders employ force, intimidation, or
other means outside of legal methods;
(3) Purpose is to attain any of the following
objects:
(a) To prevent the promulgation or
execution of any law or the holding of
any popular election;
(b) To prevent the national government or
any provincial or municipal government
or any public officer from exercising its
or his functions, or prevent the execution
of an administrative order;
(c) To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon
the person or property of any public
officer or employee;
(d) To commit, for any political or social
end, any act of hate or revenge against
private persons or any social classes;

Page 202 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(e) To despoil for any political or social end, political or social. political.
any person, municipality or province, or
the national government of all its
property or any part thereof

Note: The distinction between sedition and

Tumultuous rebellion lies in the object at which the uprising
If caused by more than three persons (i.e., at aims, not the extent of the territory covered by
least four) who are armed or provided with the the uprising. [League v. People, 73 Phil. 155]
means of violence. [Art. 163]
Sedition vs. Coup d’état
The purpose of this crime is not the Sedition Coup d’état
overthrowing of the government but the
violation of public peace. There is no distinction Offender belongs to
as to who may commit; the military or police or
a private individual holding any public
Public uprising and an object of sedition must may commit the office or employment
concur. The lack of one means there is no offense
sedition.
Primary purpose is to To seize or to diminish
disturb public peace state power
Under R.A. 8294 (Act Amending PD No. 1866 or
the Firearms Law), sedition absorbs the use of
unlicensed firearm as an element thereof; hence, Sedition vs. Treason
it is not an aggravating circumstance, and the
offender can no longer be prosecuted for illegal Sedition Treason
possession of firearm. [Boado, Comprehensive
Reviewer in Criminal Law] It is the raising of It is the violation by a
commotions or subject of his
disturbances in the allegiance to his
If the violation of RA 10591 (Comprehensive State. sovereign.
Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act) is in
furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection
with the crime of rebellion of insurrection, or In one case, a friction between the Philippine
attempted coup d’état, such violation shall be constabulary and the Manila police escalated
absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion and resulted in the deaths of 6 policemen and 2
or insurrection, or attempted coup d’état. [Sec. civilians and in the serious injuries of 3 civilians.
29, RA 10591] The Court held that unlike the crime of rebellion,
common crimes committed in the occasion of
sedition are to be appreciated as separate
Sedition vs. Rebellion crimes. [People vs. Cabrera, 43 Phil. 64 (1922)]
Sedition Rebellion
A.8. ARTICLE 140 – PERSONS LIABLE FOR
There must be a public uprising. SEDITION

It is sufficient that the There must be taking

public uprising is up of arms against the (1) The leader of the sedition;
tumultuous. government.
(2) Other person participating in the sedition
The purpose of the The purpose of the
offenders may be offenders is always

Page 203 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
A.9. ARTICLE 141 – CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
SEDITION
Elements:
(1) Two or more persons come to an agreement
and a decision to rise publicly and
tumultuously to attain any of the objects of
sedition;
(2) They decide to commit it.
Note: There is no proposal to commit sedition.
A.10. ARTICLE 142 – INCITING TO SEDITION
Mode 1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of
any of the acts which constitute sedition by
means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, etc.
Elements:
(1) Offender does not take direct part in the
crime of sedition;
(2) He incites others to the accomplishment of
any of the acts which constitute sedition;
(3) The inciting is done by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons,
banners, or other representations tending
towards the same end.
Mode 2. Uttering seditious words or
speeches which tend to disturb the public peace;
Mode 3. Writing, publishing, or circulating
scurrilous libels against the government or any of
the duly constituted authorities thereof, which
tend to disturb the public peace.
Elements:
(1) Offender does not take any direct part in the
crime of sedition.
(2) He uttered words or speeches and writing,
publishing or circulating scurrilous libels
and that
Page 204 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(a) Tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful
officer in conducting the functions of his
office;
(b) Tend to instigate others to cabal and
meet together for unlawful purposes;
(c) Suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies
or riots; or
(d) Lead or tend to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities or to
disturb the peace of the community, the
safety and order of the government
Considering that the objective of sedition is to
express protest against the government and in
the process creating hate against public officers,
any act that will generate hatred against the
government or a public officer concerned or a
social class may amount to Inciting to Sedition.
The essence of seditious libel is its immediate
tendency to stir up general discontent to the
pitch of illegal courses or to induce people to
resort to illegal methods in order to redress the
evils which press upon their minds. [Espuelas vs.
People, G.R. No. L-2990 (1951)]
“Scurrilous” means low, vulgar, mean or foul.
A published writing which calls the government
one of crooks and dishonest persons ("dirty")
infested with Nazis and Fascists i.e.dictators,
and which reveals a tendency toproduce
dissatisfaction or a feeling incompatible with the
disposition to remain loyal to the government, is
a scurrilous libel against the Government.
Any citizen may criticize his government and
government officials and submit his criticism to
the "free trade of ideas." However, such criticism
should be specific and therefore constructive
specifying particular objectionable actuations of
the government; it must be reasoned or
tempered, and not a contemptuous
condemnation of the entire government setup.
[Espuelas vs. People, supra]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Constitutional Tests relative to seditious words:

(a) Clear and Present Danger Rule: The words
must be of such nature that by uttering them
there is a danger of a public uprising and
that such danger should be both clear and
imminent. The danger must not only be
probable but very likely inevitable.
(b) Dangerous Tendency Rule: If the words used
tend to create a danger of public uprising,
then those words could properly be the
subject of a penal clause.

Page 205 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
B. CHAPTER II – CRIMES AGAINST
POPULAR REPRESENTATION
B.1. ARTICLE 143 – ACTS TENDING TO
PREVENT THE MEETING OF THE CONGRESS
OF THE PHILIPPINES AND SIMILAR BODIES
Elements:
(1) There is a projected or actual meeting of
Congress or any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional committees
or divisions thereof, or of any provincial
board or city or municipal council or board;
(2) Offender, who may be any person, prevents
such meetings by force or fraud.
Nobody has the right to dissolve by means of
violence the meeting of a municipal council,
under the pretext that said meeting is legally
defective, when the defect is not manifest, and
requires an investigation before its existence can
be determined. Where a municipal council is
holding a meeting, a presumption arises that the
meeting is not legally defective [People vs. Alipit
and Alemus, G.R. No. L-18853 (1922)]
B.2. ARTICLE 144 – DISTURBANCE OF
PROCEEDINGS
Elements:
(1) There is a meeting of Congress or any of its
committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees or
divisions thereof, or of any provincial board
or city or municipal council or board;
(2) Offender does any of the following acts:
(a) He disturbs any of such meetings;
(b) He behaves while in the presence of any
such bodies in such a manner as to
interrupt its proceedings or to impair the
respect due it.
The complaint may be filed by a member of the
legislative body. One who disturbs may also be
punished for contempt by Congress. It may also
be the subject of criminal prosecution.
Page 206 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
B.3. ARTICLE 145 – VIOLATION OF
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
Mode 1: Using force, intimidation, threats, or
frauds to prevent any member of Congress from
attending the meetings of Congress or of any of
its committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof,
or from expressing his opinion or casting his vote;
Elements:
(1) Offender uses force, intimidation, threats or
fraud;
(2) The purpose of the offender is to prevent any
member of Congress from:
(a) Attending the meetings of the Congress
or of any of its committees or
constitutional commissions;
(b) Expressing his opinion; or
(c) Casting his vote.
Note: The offender in Mode 1 may be any person.
Mode 2: Arresting or searching any member
thereof while Congress is in regular or special
session, except in case such member has
committed a crime punishable under the Code by
a penalty higher than prision mayor.
Elements:
(a) Offender is a public officer of employee;
(b) He arrests or searches any member of
Congress;
(c) Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is
in regular or special session;
(d) The member arrested or searched has not
committed a crime punishable under the
Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor.
Parliamentary immunity does not protect
members of Congress from responsibility in
accordance with the disciplinary rules of
Congress itself.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Members of Congress cannot be arrested for
offenses punishable by a penalty less than
prision mayor (6 years and 1 day to 12 years),
while Congress is in session. They can be
prosecuted after Congress adjourns. [1987
Constitution]
To be consistent with the 1987 Constitution, the
phrase by “a penalty higher than prision mayor”
in Article 145 should be amended to read “by the
penalty of prision mayor or higher.” [Reyes,
2012]
C. CHAPTER III – ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES
AND ASSOCIATIONS
C.1. ARTICLE 146 – ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES
Mode 1: Any meeting attended by armed persons
for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code.
Elements:
(1) There is a meeting, a gathering or group of
persons, whether in a fixed place or moving;
(2) The meeting is attended by armed persons;
(3) The purpose of the meeting is to commit any
of the crimes punishable under the Code.
Mode 2: Any meeting in which the audience,
whether armed or not, is incited to the
commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or
insurrection, sedition, or assault upon person in
authority or his agents.
Elements:
(1) There is a meeting, a gathering or group of
persons, whether in a fixed place or moving;
(2) The audience, whether armed or not, is
incited to the commission of the crime of
treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or
direct assault.
Page 207 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Persons liable for illegal assembly:
(1) The organizer or leaders of the meeting;
(2) Persons merely present at the meeting, who
must have a common intent to commit the
felony of illegal assembly.
In the first form of illegal assembly, the persons
present at the meeting must be armed. The law
does not require that all the persons present
must be armed. The unarmed persons present at
the meeting are also liable.
Presumptions if a person carried an unlicensed
firearm:
(1) The purpose of the meeting insofar as he is
concerned is to commit acts punishable
under the RPC
(2) He is considered a leader or organizer of the
meeting.
Note: Not all persons present at the meeting of
the first form of illegal assembly must be armed.
C.2. ARTICLE 147 – ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS
The following are illegal associations:
(1) Associations totally or partially organized for
the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code;
(2) Associations totally or partially organized for
some purpose contrary to public morals.
Persons liable:
(1) Founders, directors and president of the
association;
(2) Mere members of the association.
Public Morals – matters which affect the interest
of society and public convenience, not limited to
good customs
Illegal Assemblies vs. Illegal Associations
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Illegal Assembly Illegal Association complete uniform with their nameplates and
units to which they belong displayed
There must be an Actual meeting not prominently on the front and dorsal parts of
actual meeting or necessary their uniform and must observe the policy of
assembly "maximum tolerance" as herein defined;

What is punished are What is punished is the (b) The members of the law enforcement
the meeting and the act of forming or contingent shall not carry any kind of
attendance therein organizing the firearms but may be equipped with baton or
association riot sticks, shields, crash helmets with visor,
gas masks, boots or ankle high shoes with
Persons liable: Persons liable: shin guards;
(1) organizers or (1) founders, directors, (c) Tear gas, smoke grenades, water cannons, or
leaders of the president any similar anti-riot device shallFounders,
not be used
directors, preside
meeting unless the public assembly is attended
Organizers or leaders of the meeting by
(2) members actual violence or serious threats of violence, The membe
(2) persons present at or deliberate destruction of property. . [Sec.
the meeting 10, B.P. Blg. 880] Persons present

Dispersal of public assembly with permit

C.3. BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 880/ PUBLIC
ASSEMBLY ACT OF 1985
Non-interference by law enforcement authorities
Law enforcement agencies shall not interfere
with the holding of a public assembly. However,
to adequately ensure public safety, a law
enforcement contingent under the command of
a responsible police officer may be detailed and
stationed in a place at least one hundred (100)
meters away from the area of activity ready to
maintain peace and order at all times. [Sec. 9,
B.P. Blg. 880]
Police assistance when requested
It shall be imperative for law enforcement
agencies, when their assistance is requested by
the leaders or organizers, to perform their duties
always mindful that their responsibility to
provide proper protection to those exercising
their right peaceably to assemble and the
freedom of expression is primordial. Towards
this end, law enforcement agencies shall
observe the following guidelines:
(a) Members of the law enforcement contingent
who deal with the demonstrators shall be in
No public assembly with a permit shall be
dispersed. However, when an assembly becomes
violent, the police may disperse such public
assembly as follows:
(a) At the first sign of impending violence, the
ranking officer of the law enforcement
contingent shall call the attention of the
leaders of the public assembly and ask the
latter to prevent any possible disturbance;
(b) If actual violence starts to a point where
rocks or other harmful objects from the
participants are thrown at the police or at
the non-participants, or at any property
causing damage to such property, the
ranking officer of the law enforcement
contingent shall audibly warn the
participants that if the disturbance persists,
the public assembly will be dispersed;
(c) If the violence or disturbances prevailing as
stated in the preceding subparagraph
should not stop or abate, the ranking officer
of the law enforcement contingent shall
audibly issue a warning to the participants of
the public assembly, and after allowing a
reasonable period of time to lapse, shall
immediately order it to forthwith disperse;
(d) No arrest of any leader, organizer or
participant shall also be made during the
public assembly unless he violates during
the assembly a law, statute, ordinance or
any provision of this Act. Such arrest shall be

Page 208 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
governed by Article 125 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended:
(e) Isolated acts or incidents of disorder or
branch of the peace during the public
assembly shall not constitute a group for
dispersal. [Sec. 11, B.P. Blg. 880]
Dispersal of public assembly without permit
When the public assembly is held without a
permit where a permit is required, the said
public assembly may be peacefully dispersed.
[Sec. 12, B.P. Blg. 880]
Prohibited acts
The following shall constitute violations of this
Act:
(a) The holding of any public assembly as
defined in this Act by any leader or organizer
without having first secured that written
permit where a permit is required from the
office concerned, or the use of such permit
for such purposes in any place other than
those set out in said permit: Provided,
however, That no person can be punished or
held criminally liable for participating in or
attending an otherwise peaceful assembly;
(b) Arbitrary and unjustified denial or
modification of a permit in violation of the
provisions of this Act by the mayor or any
other official acting in his behalf.
(c) The unjustified and arbitrary refusal to accept
or acknowledge receipt of the application for
a permit by the mayor or any official acting
in his behalf;
(d) Obstructing, impeding, disrupting or
otherwise denying the exercise of the right to
peaceful assembly;
(e) The unnecessary firing of firearms by a
member of any law enforcement agency or
any person to disperse the public assembly;
(f) Acts in violation of Section 10 hereof;
(g) Acts described hereunder if committed
within one hundred (100) meters from the
area of activity of the public assembly or on
the occasion thereof:
(1) the carrying of a deadly or offensive
weapon or device such as firearm,
pillbox, bomb, and the like;
Page 209 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(2) the carrying of a bladed weapon and the
like;
(3) the malicious burning of any object in
the streets or thoroughfares;
(4) the carrying of firearms by members of
the law enforcement unit;
(5) the interfering with or intentionally
disturbing the holding of a public
assembly by the use of a motor vehicle,
its horns and loud sound systems. [Sec.
13, B.P. Blg. 880]
D. CHAPTER IV – ASSAULT UPON AND
RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO,
PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR
AGENTS
D.1. ARTICLE 148 – DIRECT ASSAULT
Mode 1. Without public uprising, by employing
force or intimidation for the attainment of any of
the purposes enumerated in defining the crimes
of rebellion and sedition;
Elements:
(1) Offender employs force or intimidation;
(2) The aim of the offender is to attain any of the
purposes of the crime of rebellion or any of
the objects of the crime of sedition;
(3) There is no public uprising.
Mode 2. Without public uprising, by
attacking, by employing force or by seriously
intimidating or by seriously resisting any person
in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in
the performance of official duties, or on occasion
of such performance.
Elements:
(1) Offender makes an attack, employs force,
makes a serious intimidation, or makes a
serious resistance;
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(2) The person assaulted is a person in authority
or his agent;
(3) At the time of the assault, the person in
authority or his agent is engaged in the
actual performance of official duties, or that
he is assaulted by reason of the past
performance of official duties;
(4) Offender knows that the one he is assaulting
is a person in authority or his agent in the
exercise of his duties.
(5) There is no public uprising.
The first form of direct assault is tantamount to
rebellion or sedition, except that there is no
public uprising.
Classifications of direct assault: simple assault
and qualified assault.
Assault is qualified when:
(a) There is a weapon employed in the attack
(b) The offender is a public officer
(c) The offender lays hands on a public
authority
A “person in authority” is 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.
It is not necessary that the person in authority
who was assaulted be actually performing
official duties. If the person in authority or his
agent is attacked in the performance of his
official duty, the motive of the offender is
immaterial. If such person is attacked when not
in the actual performance of his official duty,
evidence of motive of the offender is important.
One “directly vested with jurisdiction” has the
power or authority to govern and execute the
laws.
Page 210 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Teachers, professors and persons in charge with
the supervision of public or duly recognized
private schools, colleges and universities shall
be deemed persons in authority, in applying the
provisions of Articles 148 and 151. For other
purposes, such as to increase the penalty by
reason of the aggravating circumstances where
a person in authority is involved, the teachers
and professors are not persons in authority.
[Art. 152 RPC as amended by B.P. Blg. 873]
When the assault results in the killing of that
agent or of a person in authority, the offense
committed is complex crime of direct assault
with murder or homicide. The only time when it
is not complexed is when material consequence
is a light felony, that is, slight physical injury.
Direct assault absorbs the lighter felony.
The force employed need not be serious when
the offended party is a person in authority.
Intimidation or resistance must be serious
whether the offended party is a person in
authority or an agent of a person in authority.
The resistance must be active.
If the public officer is not a person in authority,
the assault on him is an aggravating
circumstance in Art. 14, no. 3 (rank). There must
be, however, intent to disregard the victim’s
rank. [Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in
Criminal Law]
Gabutero was acting in the performance of his
duties [as he was trying to pacify Dollantes who
was causing trouble] as barangay captain when
he was stabbed to death. Thus, the crime
committed was murder with assault upon a
person in authority. [People vs. Dollantes, G.R.
No. 70639 (1987)]
D.2. ARTICLE 152 – PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
AND AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
Public Officer Persons in Agents of a
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(Art. 203) Authority (Art. Person in Article 152 clothes any person who comes to the
152) Authority (Art. aid of a person in authority with the fiction of an
152) agent of a person in authority.

Any person Any person Any person

who takes part directly vested who, by direct Any assault on him on the occasion of his aiding
in the with provision of law a person in authority or his agent is indirect
performance of jurisdiction, or by election assault.
public whether as an or by
functions in the individual or as appointment
government. a member of by competent D.4. ARTICLE 150 – DISOBEDIENCE TO
some court or authority, is SUMMONS ISSUED BY CONGRESS, ITS
governmental charged with COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTEES, BY THE
corporation, the CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, ITS
board or maintenance of COMMITTEES, SUBCOMMITTEES OR
commission. public order DIVISIONS
and the
protection and
security of life Mode 1: By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey
and property. summons of Congress, its special or standing
committees and subcommittees, the
Constitutional Commissions and its committees,
A person in authority includes a barangay subcommittees or divisions, or by any
chairman and members of the Lupong commission or committee chairman or member
Tagapagkasundo as provided under the Local authorized to summon witnesses;
Government Code. [Boado]

The status as a person in authority being a Mode 2: By refusing to be sworn or placed

matter of law, ignorance thereof is no excuse.
Where a barangay chief tanod was a mere
bystander at the crime scene, he not acting, and
had no occasion to act, in the performance of his
official duties, the attack on him did not amount
to direct assault. [People vs. Recto, supra]
under affirmation while being before such
legislative or constitutional body or official;
Mode 3:By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or
to produce any books, papers, documents, or
records in his possession, when required by them
to do so in the exercise of their functions;

D.3. ARTICLE 149 – INDIRECT ASSAULT

Elements:
(1) A person in authority or his agent is the
victim of any of the forms of direct assault
defined in Article 148;
(2) A person comes to the aid of such authority
or his agent;
(3) Offender makes use of force or intimidation
upon such person coming to the aid of the
authority or his agent.
Indirect assault can only be committed when a
direct assault is also committed.
Mode 4: By restraining another from
attending as a witness in such legislative or
constitutional body;
Mode 5: By inducing disobedience to a summons
or refusal to be sworn by any such body or
official.
The testimony of a person summoned must be
upon matters into which the legislature has
jurisdiction to inquire.

Page 211 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

D.5. ARTICLE 151 – RESISTANCE AND actual performance of engaged in the

DISOBEDIENCE TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY his duties performance of official
OR THE AGENTS OF SUCH PERSONS duties or he is
assaulted by reason of
the past performance
Mode 1: Resistance and serious disobedience of official duties

Elements: Committed only by Committed in four

(1) A person in authority or his agent is engaged
in the performance of official duty or gives a
lawful order to the offender;
(2) Offender resists or seriously disobeys such
person in authority or his agent;
(3) The act of the offender is not included in the
provision of Articles 148, 149 and 150.
Mode 2: Simple disobedience
Elements:
(1) An agent of a person in authority is engaged
in the performance of official duty or gives a
lawful order to the offender;
(2) Offender disobeys such agent of a person in
authority;
(3) Such disobedience is not of a serious nature.
Resistance and Serious Disobedience
The accused must have knowledge that the
person giving the order is a peace officer. [US vs.
Bautista, 31 Phil. 308]
resisting or seriously ways (see Art. 148,
disobeying a person in Mode 2 above)
authority or his agent
Use of force in There is force
resistance is not so employed
serious
E. CHAPTER V – PUBLIC DISORDERS
E.1. ARTICLE 153 – TUMULTS AND OTHER
DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER
Mode 1: Causing any serious disturbance in a
public place, office or establishment;
Mode 2: Interrupting or disturbing performances,
functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if
the act is not included in Arts. 131 and 132;
Mode 3: Making any outcry tending to incite
rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association
or public place;

The disobedience contemplated consists in the

failure or refusal to obey a direct order from the
authority or his agent.
Simple Disobedience
In simple disobedience, the offended party must
be only an agent of a person in authority. The
order must be lawful. The disobedience should
not be of a serious nature.
Serious Disobedience vs. Direct Assault
Serious Disobedience Direct Assault
Person in authority or Person in authority or
his agent must be in his agent must be
Page 212 of 407
Mode 4: Displaying placards or emblems which
provoke a disturbance of public order in such
place;
Mode 5: Burying with pomp the body of a person
who has been legally executed.
Serious disturbance must be planned or
intended. This article applies if the disturbance
is not caused by a public officer; or, if it is
committed by a public officer, he is a participant
therein.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Outcry – to shout subversive or provocative
words tending to stir up the people to obtain by
means of force or violence any of the objects of
rebellion or sedition.
If done unconsciously or without intent to incite
the listeners to rise to sedition or rebellion, this
article applies.
If done with intent to commit rebellion or
sedition: The crime is inciting to rebellion or
sedition.
Tumultuous – if caused by more than 3 persons
(i.e., at least four) who are armed or provided
with the means of violence
Burying with pomp the body of a person –
ostentatious display of a burial
E.2. ARTICLE 154 – UNLAWFUL USE OF
MEANS OF PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL
UTTERANCES
Mode 1: Publishing or causing to be published, by
means of printing, lithography or any other
means of publication, as news any false news
which may endanger the public order, or cause
damage to the interest or credit of the State;
Mode 2: Encouraging disobedience to the law or
to the constituted authorities or praising,
justifying or extolling any act punished by law, by
the same means or by words, utterances or
speeches;
Mode 3: Maliciously publishing or causing to be
published any official document or resolution
without proper authority, or before they have
been published officially;
Mode 4: Printing, publishing or distributing (or
causing the same) books, pamphlets, periodicals,
or leaflets which do not bear the real
printer’sname, or which are classified as
anonymous.
Page 213 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
To be liable, the offender must know that the
news is false. If he does not know that the news
is false, he is not liable, there being no criminal
intent.
Actual public disorder or actual damage to the
credit of the State is not necessary. The mere
possibility of causing such danger or damage is
sufficient.
E.3. ARTICLE 155 – ALARMS AND SCANDALS
Mode 1: Discharging any firearm, rocket,
firecracker, or other explosive within any town or
public place, calculated to cause (which
produces) alarm or danger;
Mode 2: Instigating or taking an active
part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting
offensive to another or prejudicial to public
tranquility;
Mode 3:Disturbing the public peace while
wandering about at night or while engaged in
any other nocturnal amusements;
Mode 4: Causing any disturbances or
scandal in public places while intoxicated or
otherwise, provided Art. 153 is not applicable.
The crime “alarms and scandal” is only one
crime.
Scandal here does not refer to moral scandal;
that refers to grave scandal in Article 200.
The essence of the crime is disturbance of public
tranquility and public peace. Disturbance of a
serious nature falls under Article 153, not under
paragraph 4 of this article.
Any kind of disturbance of public order where
the circumstance at the time renders the act
offensive to the tranquility prevailing, the crime
is committed.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Charivari – includes a medley of discordant
voices, a mock serenade of discordant noises
made on kettles, tin, horns, etc. designed to
annoy or insult
Note: “Calculated to cause” should be “which
produces” alarm and danger according to the
correct translation of the RPC. Hence, the result,
and not the intent, that counts. [Reyes, 2012]
E.4. ARTICLE 156 – DELIVERING PRISONERS
FROM JAIL
Elements:
(1) There is a person confined in a jail or penal
establishment;
(2) Offender removes therefrom such person, or
helps the escape of such person.
If the prisoner who escapes is only a detention
prisoner, he does not incur liability from
escaping if he does not know of the plan to
remove him from jail. But if such prisoner knows
of the plot to remove him from jail and
cooperates therein by escaping, he himself
becomes liable for delivering prisoners from jail
as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
If the prisoner removed or whose escape is made
possible by the commission of the crime of
delivering prisoner from jail is a detention
prisoner, such prisoner is not criminally liable. A
prisoner is criminally liable for leaving the penal
institution only when there is evasion of the
service of his sentence which can be committed
only by a convict by final judgment.
Offender is usually an outsider. The violation of
Article 156 is committed by a public officer when
he is not the custodian of the prisoner at the
time the prisoner was made to escape. If the
offender is a public officer who had the prisoner
in his custody or charge, he is liable for infidelity
in the custody of a prisoner under Article 223.
Page 214 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
If three persons are involved – a stranger, the
custodian and the prisoner – three crimes are
committed:
(1) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners [public
officer-custodian];
(2) Delivery of the prisoner from jail [stranger];
and
(3) Evasion of service of sentence [prisoner].
Cledera, as the governor, is the jailer of the
Province. Esmeralda is the Assistant Provincial
Warden. As public officials who have the custody
or charge of the prisoner, they cannot be
prosecuted under Art. 156. Art 223 would have
applied; however, there is no sufficient evidence
to warrant their prosecution for infidelity in the
custody of prisoner. It is necessary that the
public officer had consented to, or connived in,
the escape of the prisoner under his custody or
charge. [Alberto v. Dela Cruz, G.R. No. L-31839
(1980)]
F. CHAPTER VI – EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE
F.1. ARTICLE 157 – EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a convict by final judgment;
(2) He is serving sentence which consists in the
deprivation of liberty;
(3) He evades service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his
imprisonment.
Qualifying circumstances as to penalty imposed if
such evasion or escape takes place:
(a) By means of unlawful entry (this should be
“by scaling” - Reyes);
(b) By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls,
roofs or floors;
(c) By using picklock, false keys, disguise,
deceit, violence or intimidation; or
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(d) Through connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution.
Evasion of service of sentence has three forms:
(1) By simply leaving or escaping from the penal
establishment under Article 157;
(2) By failing to return within 48 hours after
having left the penal establishment because
of a calamity, conflagration or mutiny and
such calamity, conflagration or mutiny has
been announced as already passed under
Article 158;
(3) By violating one’s conditional pardon under
Article 159.
That the prisoner immediately returned after
leaving or escaping from jail or prison is
immaterial. It may be mitigating, but it will not
absolve his criminal liability.
Not applicable to sentence executed by
deportation because the convict was not
sentenced to imprisonment and thereafter broke
jail.
Applicable to sentence of destierro - Inasmuch
as the Revised Penal Code was originally
approved and enacted in Spanish, the Spanish
text governs. The word "imprisonment" used in
the English text is a wrong or erroneous
translation of the phrase "sufriendo privacion de
libertad" used in the Spanish text. Although
destierro does not constitute imprisonment, it is
a deprivation of liberty, though partial, in the
sense that as in the present case, the appellant
by his sentence of destierro was deprived of the
liberty to enter the City of Manila.
One who, sentenced to destierro by virtue of
final judgment, and prohibited from entering the
City of Manila, enters said city within the period
of his sentence, is guilty of evasion of sentence
under Article 157. [People vs. Abilong, supra]
F.2. ARTICLE 158 – EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF
Page 215 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
DISORDERS,CONFLAGRATIONS,
EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER CALAMITIES
Elements:
(1) Offender is a convict by final judgment, who
is confined in a penal institution;
(2) There is disorder, resulting from –
(a) conflagration;
(b) earthquake;
(c) explosion;
(d) similar catastrophe; or
(e) mutiny in which he has not participated;
(3) He evades the service of his sentence by
leaving the penal institution where he is
confined, on the occasion of such disorder or
during the mutiny;
(4) He fails to give himself up to the authorities
within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation by the Chief Executive
announcing the passing away of such
calamity.
(5) Leaving the penal establishment is not the
basis of criminal liability. What is punished
is the failure to return within 48 hours after
the passing of the calamity, conflagration or
mutiny had been announced.
Under Article 158, those who return within 48
hours are given credit or deduction from the
remaining period of their sentence equivalent to
1/5 of the original term of the sentence.
If the prisoner fails to return within said 48
hours, there will be an additional penalty of 1/5
of the time still remaining to be served under the
original sentence. In no case shall that penalty
exceed six months.
Mutiny is one of the causes which may authorize
a convict serving sentence in the penitentiary to
leave the jail provided he has not taken part in
the mutiny.
F.3. ARTICLE 159 – OTHER CASES OF
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Elements: public order.

(1) Offender was a convict;
(2) He was granted a conditional pardon by the
G. CHAPTER VII – COMMISSION OF
Chief Executive;
ANOTHER CRIME DURING SERVICE OF
(3) He violated any of the conditions of such PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER
pardon. PREVIOUS OFFENSE

A conditional pardon is a contract between the G.1. ARTICLE 160 – QUASI-RECIDIVISM

Chief Executive, who grants the pardon, and the
convict, who accepts it. Since it is a contract, the
pardoned convict is bound to fulfill its conditions
and accept all its consequences according to its
strict terms. (People v. Pontillas, 65 Phil. 659)
Violation of conditional pardon is a distinct
crime. In violation of conditional pardon, as a
rule, the violation will amount to this crime only
if the condition is violated during the remaining
period of the sentence.
Offender must be found guilty of subsequent
offense before he can be prosecuted under
Article 159. [Torres vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 76872
(1987)]
Elements:
(1) Offender was already convicted by final
judgment of one offense;
(2) He committed a new felony before
beginning to serve such sentence or while
serving the same.
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating
circumstance where a person, after having been
convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new
felony before beginning to serve such sentence,
or while serving the same. He shall be punished
by the maximum period of the penalty
prescribed by law for the new felony.

If the condition of the pardon is violated when The first crime for which the offender is serving
the remaining unserved portion of the sentence sentence need not be a felony. [People vs.
has already lapsed, there will be no more Peralta, 3 SCRA 213]
criminal liability for the violation. However, the
convict maybe required to serve the unserved
portion of the sentence, that is, continue serving The word “another” does not mean that the new
original penalty. felony be different from the one for which the
offender is serving sentence [People vs. Yabut,
58 Phil. 499 (1933)]
Violation of Conditional Pardon vs. Evasion of
Service of Sentence by Escaping
Violation of Evasion of Service of
Conditional Pardon Sentence Quasi-Recidivism Recidivism
Does not cause harm An attempt at least to The 2 offenses need The 2 offenses must be
or injury to the right of evade the penalty not be embraced in the embraced in the same
another person nor inflicted by the courts same title of the Code title of the Code
does it disturb the upon criminals and
public order; merely an thus defeat the
infringement of the purpose of the law of Quasi-Recidivism Reiteracion
stipulated terms in either reforming or
Offender committed a Offender must have
conditional pardon punishing them for
new felony before served out the
having disturbed the
beginning to serve sentence for the prior
such sentence or while
Page 216 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
serving the same offense
G.2. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1866 (AS
AMENDED BY REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8294)
Illegal Possession of Firearms
Sec. 1. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition,
disposition or possession of firearms or
ammunition or instruments used or intended to
be used in the manufacture of firearms or
ammunition.— The penalty of prision
correccional in its maximum period and a fine of
not less than Fifteen thousand pesos (P15,000)
shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire,
dispose, or possess any low powered firearm,
such as rimfire handgun, .380 or .32 and other
firearm of similar firepower, part of firearm,
ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument
used or intended to be used in the manufacture
of any firearm or ammunition: Provided, That no
other crime was committed.
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
period and a fine of Thirty thousand pesos
(P30,000) shall be imposed if the firearm is
classified as high powered firearm which
includes those with bores bigger in diameter
than .38 caliber and 9 millimeter such as
caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also lesser calibered
firearms but considered powerful such as
caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum
and other firearms with firing capability of full
automatic and by burst of two or three:
Provided, however, That no other crime was
committed by the person arrested.
If homicide or murder is committed with the use
of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
If the violation of this section is in furtherance of
or incident to, or in connection with the crime of
rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted
coup d’état, such violation shall be absorbed as
an element of the crime of rebellion, or
insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d’état.
Page 217 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
The same penalty 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 of the firearms
owned 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 or willfully or knowingly allow any of
them to use unlicensed firearms or firearms
without any legal authority to be carried outside
of their residence in the course of their
employment.
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed
upon any person who shall carry any licensed
firearm outside his residence without legal
authority therefor.
Sec. 2. Presumption of Illegal Manufacture of
Firearms or Ammunition.— The possession of
any machinery, tool or instrument used directly
in the manufacture of firearms or ammunition,
by any person whose business or employment
does not lawfully deal with the manufacture of
firearms or ammunition, shall be prima facie
evidence that such article is intended to be used
in the unlawful/illegal manufacture of firearms
or ammunition.
Sec. 3. Unlawful manufacture, sale, acquisition,
disposition or possession of explosives. — The
penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
to reclusion temporal and a fine of not less than
Fifty thousand pesos (P50,000) shall be
imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire,
dispose or possess hand grenade(s), rifle
grenade(s), and other explosives, including but
not limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov cocktail bombs,'
'fire bombs,' or other incendiary devices capable
of producing destructive effect on contiguous
objects or causing injury or death to any person.
When a person commits any of the crimes
defined in the Revised Penal Code or special
laws with the use of the aforementioned
explosives, detonation agents or incendiary
UP LAW BOC
devices, which results in the death of any person
or persons, the use of such explosives,
detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of, or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of
rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted
coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as
an element of the crimes of rebellion,
insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat.
The same penalty 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 of the explosives
owned 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
Sec. 3-A. Unlawful Manufacture, Sales,
Acquisition, Disposition, Importation or
Possession of a Part, Ingredient, Machinery, Tool
or Instrument Used or Intended to be Used for
the Manufacture, Construction, Assembly,
Delivery or Detonation.— 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 part, ingredient,
machinery, tool or instrument of any explosive or
incendiary device, whether chemical,
mechanical, electronic, electrical or otherwise,
used or intended to be used by that person for
its manufacture, construction, assembly,
delivery or detonation, where the explosive or
incendiary device is capable or is intended to be
made capable of producing destructive effect on
contiguous objects or causing injury or death to
any person.
Provided, That the mere possession of any part,
ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument
directly used in the manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation of any explosive
or incendiary device, by any person whose
business activity, or employment does not
lawfully deal with the possession of such article
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
shall be prima facie evidence that such article is
intended to be used by that person in the
unlawful/illegal manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation of an explosive
or incendiary device.
Provided, however, That a temporary incidental,
casual, harmless or transient possession or
control of any part, machinery, tool or
instrument directly used in the manufacture,
construction, assembly, delivery or detonation of
any explosive or incendiary device, without the
knowledge of its existence or character as part,
ingredient, machinery, tool or instrument
directly used in the manufacture, construction,
assembly, delivery or detonation of any explosive
or incendiary device, shall not be a violation of
this Section.
Provided, further, That the temporary,
incidental, casual, harmless, or transient
possession or control of any part, ingredient,
machinery, tool or instrument directly used in
the manufacture, construction, assembly,
delivery or detonation 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
preceding 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.
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
Page 218 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
entity to be used by any person or persons found
guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding
paragraphs.
Sec. 3-C. Relationship of Other Crimes with a
Violation of this Decree and the Penalty
Therefor.— When a violation of Section 3, 3-A or
3-B of this Decree is a necessary means for
committing any of the crimes defined in the
Revised Penal Code or special laws, or is in
furtherance of, incident to, in connection with, by
reason of, or on occasion of any of the crimes
defined in the Revised Penal Code or special
laws, the penalty of reclusion perpetua and a
fine ranging from One hundred Thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) to One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00) shall be imposed.
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.
Sec. 4. Responsibility and liability of Law
Enforcement Agencies and Other Government
Officials and Employees in Testifying as
Prosecution Witnesses.— 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 of the defense in
any proceeding, involving violations of this
Decree, without any valid reason, shall be
punished with reclusion temporal and a fine of
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.
Page 219 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
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
prision correccional 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.
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 reassigned for
compelling reasons: Provided, That his/her
immediate superior shall notify the court where
the case is pending of the order to transfer or
reassign, within twenty-four (24) hours from its
approval: Provided, further, That his/her
immediate superior shall be penalized with
prision correccional 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 reassign.
Prosecution and punishment under this Section
shall be without prejudice to any liability for
violation of any existing law.
Sec. 4-A. Criminal Liability for Planting of
Evidence.— Any person who is found guilty of
“planting” any explosive or incendiary device or
any part, ingredient, machinery, tool or
instrument of any explosive or incendiary device,
whether chemical, mechanical, electronic,
electrical or otherwise, shall suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
Planting of evidence shall mean the willful act
by any person of maliciously and surreptitiously
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
inserting, placing, adding or attaching, directly
or indirectly, through any overt or covert act,
whatever quantity of any explosive or incendiary
device or any part, ingredient, machinery, tool or
instrument of any explosive or incendiary device,
whether chemical, mechanical, electronic,
electrical or otherwise in the person, house,
effects or in the immediate vicinity of an
innocent individual for the purpose of
implicating, incriminating or imputing the
commission of any violation of this Decree.
Sec. 5. Tampering of Firearm’s Serial Number.—
The penalty of prision correccional shall be
imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully
tamper, change, deface or erase the serial
number of any firearm.
Sec. 6. Repacking or Altering the Composition of
Lawfully Manufactured Explosives.— The
penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed
upon any person who shall unlawfully repack,
alter or modify the composition of any lawfully
manufactured explosives.
Sec. 7. Unauthorized Issuance of Authority to
Carry Firearm and/or Ammunition Outside of
Residence.— The penalty of prision correccional
shall be imposed upon any person, civilian or
military, who shall issue authority to carry
firearm and/or ammunition outside of residence,
without authority therefor.
G.3. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10591
Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition
Regulation Act
This Act repeals Sections 1, 2, 5 and 7 of
Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended, and
Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8294 and all other
laws, executive orders, letters of instruction,
issuances, circulars, administrative orders, rules
or regulations that are inconsistent herewith
(Sec. 45)
Penal Provisions
Page 220 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Sec. 28. Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of
Firearms and Ammunition. – The unlawful
acquisition, possession of firearms and
ammunition shall be penalized as follows:
(a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium
period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a
small arm;
(b) The penalty of reclusion
temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed if three (3) or more small arms or
Class-A light weapons are unlawfully
acquired or possessed by any person;
(c) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum
period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a
Class-A light weapon;
(d) The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon any person who shall,
unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-B light
weapon;
(e) The penalty of one (1) degree higher than
that provided in paragraphs (a) to (c) in this
section shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully possess any firearm
under any or combination of the following
conditions:
(1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted
with a loaded magazine;
(2) Fitted or mounted with laser or any
gadget used to guide the shooter to hit
the target such as thermal weapon sight
(TWS) and the like;
(3) Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes,
firearm muffler or firearm silencer;
(4) Accompanied with an extra barrel; and
(5) Converted to be capable of firing full
automatic bursts.
(f) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a
major part of a small arm;
(g) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess
ammunition for a small arm or Class-A light
weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is
committed by the same person charged with
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
the unlawful acquisition or possession of a
small arm, the former violation shall be
absorbed by the latter;
(h) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium
period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a
major part of a Class-A light weapon;
(i) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium
period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess
ammunition for a Class-A light weapon. If
the violation of this paragraph is committed
by the same person charged with the
unlawful acquisition or possession of a
Class-A light weapon, the former violation
shall be absorbed by the latter;
(j) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum
period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a
major part of a Class-B light weapon; and
(k) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum
period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess
ammunition for a Class-B light weapon. If
the violation of this paragraph is committed
by the same person charged with the
unlawful acquisition or possession of a
Class-B light weapon, the former violation
shall be absorbed by the latter.
Sec. 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission
of a Crime. – The use of a loose firearm, when
inherent in the commission of a crime
punishable under the Revised Penal Code or
other special laws, shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance: Provided, That if the
crime committed with the use of a loose firearm
is penalized by the law with a maximum penalty
which is lower than that prescribed in the
preceding section for illegal possession of
firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of
firearm shall be imposed in lieu of the penalty
for the crime charged: Provided, further, That if
the crime committed with the use of a loose
firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum
penalty which is equal to that imposed under the
preceding section for illegal possession of
firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed in addition to
the penalty for the crime punishable under the
Page 221 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Revised Penal Code or other special laws of
which he/she is found guilty.
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of
rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup
d’etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection,
or attempted coup d’etat.
If the crime is committed by the person without
using the loose firearm, the violation of this Act
shall be considered as a distinct and separate
offense.
Sec. 30. Liability of Juridical Person. – The
penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
to prision mayor in its medium period 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
of the firearms owned by such firm, company,
corporation or entity to be used by any person or
persons found guilty of violating the provisions
of the preceding section, or willfully or
knowingly allow any of them to use unregistered
firearm or firearms without any legal authority to
be carried outside of their residence in the
course of their employment.
Sec. 31. Absence of Permit to Carry Outside of
Residence. – The penalty of prision
correccional and a fine of Ten thousand pesos
(P10,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person
who is licensed to own a firearm but who shall
carry the registered firearm outside his/her
residence without any legal authority therefor.
Sec. 32. Unlawful Manufacture, Importation,
Sale or Disposition of Firearms or Ammunition
or Parts Thereof, Machinery, Tool or Instrument
Used or Intended to be Used in the Manufacture
of Firearms, Ammunition or Parts Thereof. – The
penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who
shall unlawfully engage in the manufacture,
importation, sale or disposition of a firearm or
ammunition, or a major part of a firearm or
ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument
used or intended to be used by the same person
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

in the manufacture of a firearm, ammunition, or the barrel, slide, frame, receiver, cylinder, or bolt
a major part thereof. assembly, including its individual or peculiar
identifying characteristics essential in forensic
examination of a firearm or light weapon.
The possession of any machinery, tool or
The PNP shall place this information, including
instrument used directly in the manufacture of
its individual or peculiar identifying
firearms, ammunition, or major parts thereof by
characteristics into the database of integrated
any person whose business, employment or
firearms identification system of the PNP Crime
activity does not lawfully deal with the
Laboratory for future use and identification of a
possession of such article, shall be prima
particular firearm.
facie evidence that such article is intended to be
used in the unlawful or illegal manufacture of
firearms, ammunition or parts thereof.
Sec. 35. Use of an Imitation Firearm. – An
imitation firearm used in the commission of a
crime shall be considered a real firearm as
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum
defined in this Act and the person who
period to prision mayor in its medium period
committed the crime shall be punished in
shall be imposed upon any laborer, worker or
accordance with this Act: Provided, That injuries
employee of a licensed firearms dealer who shall
caused on the occasion of the conduct of
unlawfully take, sell or otherwise dispose of
competitions, sports, games, or any recreation
parts of firearms or ammunition which the
activities involving imitation firearms shall not
company manufactures and sells, and other
be punishable under this Act.
materials used by the company in the
manufacture or sale of firearms or ammunition.
The buyer or possessor of such stolen part or
Sec. 36. In Custodia Legis. – During the
material, who is aware that such part or material
pendency of any case filed in violation of this
was stolen, shall suffer the same penalty as the
Act, seized firearm, ammunition, or parts
laborer, worker or employee.
thereof, machinery, tools or instruments shall
remain in the custody of the court. If the court
decides that it has no adequate means to safely
If the violation or offense is committed by a
keep the same, the court shall issue an order to
corporation, partnership, association or other
turn over to the PNP Crime Laboratory such
juridical entity, the penalty provided for in this
firearm, ammunition, or parts thereof,
section shall be imposed upon the directors,
machinery, tools or instruments in its custody
officers, employees or other officials or persons
during the pendency of the case and to produce
therein who knowingly and willingly participated
the same to the court when so ordered. No bond
in the unlawful act.
shall be admitted for the release of the firearm,
ammunition or parts thereof, machinery, tool or
Sec. 33. Arms Smuggling. – The penalty instrument. Any violation of this paragraph shall
be punishable by prision mayor in its minimum
of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any
period to prision mayor in its medium period.
person who shall engage or participate in arms
smuggling as defined in this Act.
Sec. 37. Confiscation and Forfeiture. – The
imposition of penalty for any violation of this Act
Sec. 34. Tampering, Obliteration or Alteration of
shall carry with it the accessory penalty of
Firearms Identification. – The penalty of prision
confiscation and forfeiture of the firearm,
correccional to prision mayor in its minimum
ammunition, or parts thereof, machinery, tool or
period shall be imposed upon any person who
instrument in favor of the government which
shall tamper, obliterate or alter without
shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
authority the barrel, slide, frame, receiver,
cylinder, or bolt assembly, including the name of
the maker, Model, or serial number of any
firearm, or who shall replace without authority
Page 222 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Sec. 38. Liability for Planting Evidence. – The

penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period
Sec. 40. Failure to Notify Lost or Stolen Firearm
shall be imposed upon any person who shall
or Light Weapon. – A fine of Ten thousand pesos
willfully and maliciously insert; place, and/or
(P10,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
attach, directly or indirectly, through any overt or
licensed firearm holder who fails to report to the
covert act, any firearm, or ammunition, or parts
FEO of the PNP that the subject firearm has
thereof in the person, house, effects, or in the
been lost or stolen within a period of thirty (30)
immediate vicinity of an innocent individual for
days from the date of discovery.
the purpose of implicating or incriminating the
person, or imputing the commission of any
violation of the provisions of this Act to said
Likewise, a fine of Five thousand pesos
individual. If the person found guilty under this
(P5,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person
paragraph is a public officer or employee, such
holding a valid firearm license who changes
person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion
residence or office address other than that
perpetua. indicated in the license card and fails within a
period of thirty (30) days from said transfer to
notify the FEO of the PNP of such change of
Sec. 39. Grounds for Revocation, Cancellation or
address.
Suspension of License or Permit. – The Chief of
the PNP or his/her authorized representative
may revoke, cancel or suspend a license or
SEC. 41. Illegal Transfer/Registration of
permit on the following grounds:
Firearms. – It shall be unlawful to transfer
(a) Commission of a crime or offense involving possession of any firearm to any person who has
the firearm, ammunition, of major parts not yet obtained or secured the necessary
thereof; license or permit thereof.
(b) Conviction of a crime involving moral The penalty of prision correccional shall be
turpitude or any offense where the penalty imposed upon any person who shall violate the
carries an imprisonment of more than six (6) provision of the preceding paragraph. In
years; addition, he/she shall be disqualified to apply
for a license to possess other firearms and all
(c) Loss of the firearm, ammunition, or any parts
his/her existing firearms licenses whether for
thereof through negligence;
purposes of commerce or possession, shall be
(d) Carrying of the firearm, ammunition, or revoked. If government-issued firearms,
major parts thereof outside of residence or ammunition or major parts of firearms or light
workplace without, the proper permit to weapons are unlawfully disposed, sold or
carry the same; transferred by any law enforcement agent or
public officer to private individuals, the penalty
(e) Carrying of the firearm, ammunition, or major
of reclusion temporal shall be imposed.
parts thereof in prohibited places;
Any public officer or employee or any person
(f) Dismissal for cause from the service in case of
who shall facilitate the registration of a firearm
government official and employee;
through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or
(g) Commission of any of the acts penalized submission of falsified documents shall suffer
under Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise the penalty of prision correccional.
known as the “Comprehensive Dangerous
Drugs Act of 2002″;
See again: RA 9372 (Human Security Act)
(h) Submission of falsified documents or
misrepresentation in the application to [Special Law in Title I]
obtain a license or permit;
(i) Noncompliance of reportorial requirements;
and
(j) By virtue of a court order.
Page 223 of 407
UP LAW BOC
V. TITLE IV. CRIMES
AGAINST PUBLIC
INTEREST
Acts of Counterfeiting
(1) Article 161: Counterfeiting the Great Seal of
the Government of the Philippine Islands,
Forging the Signature or Stamp of the Chief
Executive
(2) Article 162: Using Forged Signature or
Counterfeit Seal or Stamp
(3) Article 163: Making and Importing and
Uttering False Coins
(4) Article 164: Mutilation of Coins
(5) Article 165: Selling of False or Mutilated
Coin, Without Connivance
(6) Article 167: Counterfeiting, Importing, and
Uttering Instruments Not Payable to Bearer
(7) Article 166: Forging Treasury or Bank Notes
or Other Documents Payable to Bearer;
Importing and Uttering Such False or Forged
Notes and Documents
Acts of Forgery
(1) Article 168: Illegal Possession and Use of
False Treasury or Bank Notes and Other
Instruments of Credit
(2) Article 169: How Forgery is Committed
Acts of Falsification
(1) Article 170: Falsification of Legislative
Documents
(2) Article 171: Falsification by Public Officer,
Employee or Notary or Ecclesiastical
Minister
(3) Article 172: Falsification by Private Individual
and Use of Falsified Documents
(4) Article 173: Falsification of Wireless, Cable,
Telegraph and Telephone Messages, and
Use of Said Falsified Messages
(5) Article 174: False Medical Certificates, False
Certificates of Merits or Service, etc.
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
(6) Article 175: Using False Certificates
(7) Article 176: Manufacturing and Possession of
Instruments or Implements for Falsification
Other Falsities
(1) Article 177: Usurpation of Authority or
Official Functions
(2) Article 178: Using Fictitious and Concealing
True Name
(3) Article 179: Illegal Use of Uniforms and
Insignia
(4) Article 180: False Testimony Against a
Defendant
(5) Article 181: False Testimony Favorable to the
Defendant
(6) Article 182: False Testimony in Civil Cases
(7) Article 183: False Testimony in Other Cases
and Perjury in Solemn Affirmation
(8) Article 184: Offering False Testimony in
Evidence
(9) Article 185: Machinations in Public Auctions
(10) Article 186: Monopolies and Combinations in
Restraint of Trade
(11) Article 187: Importation and Disposition of
Falsely Marked Articles or Merchandise
Made of Gold, Silver, or other Precious
Metals or their Alloys
The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud
or falsity to the public. Deceit perpetrated upon
the public is the act being punished.
A. ACTS OF COUNTERFEITING
A.1. ARTICLE 161 – COUNTERFEITING THE
GREAT SEAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, FORGING THE
SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE
Acts punished: Forging the
(1) Great Seal of the Government of the
Philippines;
Page 224 of 407
UP LAW BOC
(2) Signature of the President;
(3) Stamp of the President.
When the signature of the president is forged,
the crime committed is covered by this provision
and not falsification of public document.
Intent to use is necessary. Actual use, however,
is not required, as long as the forger intended to
use it.
A.2. ARTICLE 162 – USING FORGED
SIGNATURE OR COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR
STAMP
Elements:
(1) The Great Seal of the Republic was
counterfeited or the signature or stamp of
the Chief Executive was forged by another
person;
(2) Offender knew of the counterfeiting or
forgery;
(3) He used the counterfeit seal or forged
signature or stamp.
Note: Offender under this article should not be
the forger. Otherwise, he will be penalized under
Article 161. The participation of the offender is in
effect that of an accessory.
Although the general rule is that he should be
punished by a penalty of two degrees lower,
under Article 162 he is punished by a penalty
only one degree lower.
A.3. ARTICLE 163 – MAKING AND IMPORTING
AND UTTERING FALSE COINS
Elements:
(1) There be false or counterfeited coins;
(2) Offender either made, imported or uttered
such coins;
(3) In case of uttering such false or
counterfeited coins, he connived with the
counterfeiters or importers.
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
To utter is to pass counterfeited coins. It includes
delivery or the act of giving them away. A
counterfeited coin is uttered when it is paid,
when the offender is caught counting the
counterfeited coins preparatory to the act of
delivering them, even though the utterer may
not obtain the gain he intended [Decisions of the
Supreme Court of Spain]
To import fake coins means to bring them into
port. The importation is complete before entry at
the Customs House. [US vs. Lyman, 26 Fed. Cas.
1024]
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is
punished
(1) Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the
Central Bank of the Philippines;
(2) Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines
or of the Central Bank of the Philippines;
(3) Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
The counterfeiting of foreign currency is
punishable, regardless of whether or not it is still
in official circulation. The reason behind this is
not only the harm that it may cause to the public
in case it goes into circulation again, but also the
possibility that the counterfeiter may later apply
his trade to the making of coins in actual
circulation. [People vs. Kong Leon, C.A., 48 O.G.
664]
A.4. ARTICLE 164 – MUTILATION OF COINS
Acts punished
(1) Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with
the further requirement that there be intent
to damage or to defraud another;
(2) Importing or uttering such mutilated coins,
with the further requirement that there must
be connivance with the mutilator or importer
in case of uttering.
The first acts of falsification or falsity include:
(1) Counterfeiting
Page 225 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(2) Forgery
(3) Falsification
In so far as coins in circulation are concerned,
there are two crimes that may be committed:
(1) Counterfeiting coins
(2) Mutilation of coins
Requisites of Mutilation under The RPC:
(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;
(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust
abstracted from the coin;
(3) It has to be a coin.
“Mutilation” means to take off part of the metal
either by filling it or substituting it for another
metal of inferior quality.
Since the coins before were made of silver
and/or other precious metal, shaving the metal
from the coins became a practice. Hence, the
coin’s intrinsic value is diminished.
This is the only article that requires that the
mutilated coin be legal tender.
Foreign coins are not covered in this article.
[Reyes, 2012]
Deliberate intent arises only when the
offendercollects the precious metal dust from
the mutilated coin.
A.5. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 247
Prohibiting and Penalizing Defacement,
Mutilation, Tearing, Burning or Destruction of
Central Bank Notes and Coins
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.
Page 226 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
A.6. ARTICLE 165 – SELLING OF FALSE OR
MUTILATED COIN, WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
Mode 1: Possession of coin, counterfeited or
mutilated by another person, with intent to utter
the same, knowing that it is false or mutilated;
Elements:
(1) Possession;
(2) With Intent to utter; and
(3) Knowledge.
Mode 2: Actually uttering such false or mutilated
coin, knowing the same to be false or mutilated.
Elements:
(1) Actually uttering; and
(2) Knowledge.
Possession prohibited in this article is not only
actual and physical possession, but also that of
a constructive one, or the subjection of the thing
to one’s control. The possessor should not be the
counterfeiter, mutilator or importer of the coins.
As long as the offender has knowledge that the
coin is false or mutilated, there is no need for
him to connive with the counterfeiter or
mutilator.
A.7. ARTICLE 166 – FORGING TREASURY OR
BANK NOTES OR OTHER DOCUMENTS
PAYABLE TO BEARER; IMPORTING AND
UTTERING SUCH FALSE OR FORGED NOTES
AND DOCUMENTS
Acts punished
(1) Forging or falsification of treasury or bank
notes or other documents payable to bearer;
(2) Importation of such false or forged
obligations or notes;
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(3) Uttering of such false or forged obligations
or notes in connivance with the forgers or
importers.
“Forging” – By giving any treasury or bank note,
or any instrument payable to bearer, or to order
the appearance of a true and genuine document.
“Falsification” – By erasing, substituting,
counterfeiting or altering by any means, the
figures, letters, words, or signs contained
therein.
The instrument is payable to bearer:
(1) When expressed to be so payable
(2) When payable to a person named therein or
bearer
(3) When payable to the order of a fictitious or
non-existing person, and such fact was
known to the person making it so payable
(4) When the name of the payee does not
purport to be the name of any person
(5) When the only or last endorsement is an
endorsement in blank.
The reason for this is that the forging tends to
bring such documents into discredit and the
offense produces a lack of confidence on the
part of the holders of said documents to the
prejudice of society and of the State.
A.8. ARTICLE 167 – COUNTERFEITING,
IMPORTING, AND UTTERING INSTRUMENTS
NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER
Elements:
(a) There is an instrument payable to order or
other document of credit not payable to
bearer;
(b) Offender either forged, imported or uttered
such instrument;
(c) In case of uttering, he connived with the
forger or importer.
Page 227 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
An instrument is payable to order where it is
drawn payable to the order of a specified person
or to him or his order.
This covers instruments or other documents of
credit issued by a foreign government or bank.
Forgery of currency is punished so as to maintain
integrity of the currency and thus insure the
credit standing of the government.
Connivance is not required in uttering if the
utterer is the forger.
B. ACTS OF FORGERY
B.1. ARTICLE 168 – ILLEGAL POSSESSION
AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK
NOTES AND OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF
CREDIT
Elements:
(1) Any treasury or bank note or certificate or
other obligation and security:
(a) Payable to bearer, or any instrument
payable to order or other document of
credit not payable to bearer is
(b) Forged or falsified by another person;
(2) Offender knows that any of those
instruments is forged or falsified;
(3) He either –
(a) Uses any of such forged or falsified
instruments; or
(b) Possesses with intent to use any of such
forged or falsified instruments
The rule is that if a person had in his possession
a falsified document and he made use of it,
taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the
presumption is that he is the material author of
the falsification. [People vs. Sendaydiego,
(1978)]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Possession of false treasury or bank notes alone
is not a criminal offense.
Intent to use is sufficient to consummate the
crime when the offender is in possession of false
or falsified notes or obligations.
The accused must have knowledge of the forged
character of the note.
B.2. ARTICLE 169 – HOW FORGERY IS
COMMITTED
(a) By giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order
mentioned therein, the appearance of a true
and genuine document;
(b) By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or
altering by any means the figures, letters,
words, or sign contained therein.
Forgery includes falsification and counterfeiting.
For possession of false treasury or bank note to
constitute a criminal offense, it must be with
intent to use.
The essence of forgery is giving a document the
appearance of a true and genuine document.
Not any alteration of a letter, number, figure or
design would amount to forgery. At most, it
would only be frustrated forgery.
Possession of genuine treasury notes of the
Philippines any of “the figures, letters, words or
signs contained” in which had been erased
and/or altered, with knowledge of such erasure
and alteration, and with the intent to use such
notes in enticing another to advance funds for
the avowed purpose of financing the
manufacture of counterfeit treasury notes of the
Philippines, is punishable under Art. 168 in
Page 228 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
relation to Art. 166 (1). [Del Rosario vs. People,
G.R. No. L-16806 (1961)]
Forgery can be committed through the use of
genuine paper bills that have been withdrawn
from circulation, by giving them the appearance
of some other true and genuine document.
[People vs. Galano, C.A. 54 O.G. 5899]
C. ACTS OF FALSIFICATION
C.1. ARTICLE 170 – FALSIFICATION OF
LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS
Elements:
(1) There is a bill, resolution or ordinance
enacted or approved or pending approval by
either House of the Legislature or any
provincial board or municipal council;
(2) Offender alters the same;
(3) He has no proper authority therefor;
(4) The alteration has changed the meaning of
the documents.
The writing must be:
(1) complete in itself; and
(2) either:
(a) capable of extinguishing an
obligation or creating rights; or
(b) capable of becoming evidence of the
facts stated therein.
Five classes of falsification:
(1) Falsification of legislative documents;
(2) Falsification of a document by a public
officer, employee or notary public;
(3) Falsification of a public or official, or
commercial documents by a private
individual;
(4) Falsification of a private document by any
person;
(5) Falsification of wireless, telegraph and
telephone messages.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(iii) Including in such a copy a statement

contrary to, or different from, that of
Falsification vs. Forgery
the genuine original;
Forgery Falsification (h) Intercalating any instrument or note
relative to the issuance thereof in a
As used in Article 169, The commission of any
protocol, registry, or official book.
forgery refers to the of the 8 acts mentioned
falsification and in Article 171 on 1st Element: Persons Liable under this Article
counterfeiting of legislative (only the act
Under this article, only a public officer, employee
treasury or bank notes if making alteration)
or notary public, or ecclesiastical minister can be
or any instruments public or official,
the offender.
payable to bearer or to commercial or private
order documents or wireless The ecclesiastical minister is liable with respect
or telegraph messages. to any record or document that its falsification
may affect the civil status of persons.

C.2. ARTICLE 171 – FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC

OFFICER, EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR
ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
Elements:
(1) Offender is a Public officer, employee, or
notary public;
(2) He Takes advantage of his official position;
(3) He falsifies a document by committing any
of the following acts:
(a) Counterfeiting or imitating
handwriting, signature or rubric;
(b) Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding
when they did not in fact so participate;
(c) Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding
statements other than those in fact
made by them;
(d) Making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
(e) Altering true dates;
(f) Making any alteration or intercalation in
a genuine document which changes its
meaning;
(g) Issuing in an authenticated form:
(i) A document purporting to be a copy
of an original document
(ii) When no such original exists, or
2nd Element: Offender Take Advantage of his
Official Position
Offender takes advantage of his official position
in falsifying a document when:
(1) He has the duty to make or prepare, or
intervene in the preparation of the
document; or
(2) He has the official custody of the document
he falsifies.
any
3rd Element: Offender Falsifies a Document
A document is any written statement by which a
right or status is established or an obligation is
extinguished.
Par. 1: Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric.
2 ways of committing falsification under this
paragraph:
(1) Counterfeiting, which is imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric
(a) There should be an intent to imitate, or
an attempt to imitate
(b) Two signatures, the genuine and the
forged, should bear some resemblance.
(2) Feigning, which is simulating a signature,
handwriting or rubric out of one which does
not actually exist.

Page 229 of 407

UP LAW BOC
Par. 2: Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate.
Requisites:
(1) Offender caused it to appear in a document
that a person/s participated in an act or
proceeding.
(2) Such person/s did not in fact participate.
Par. 3: Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or proceeding statements
other than those in fact made by them
Requisites:
(1) Person/s participated in an act
proceeding
(2) Such person/s made statements in that act
or proceeding
(3) Offender, in making a document, attributed
to such person/s statements other than
those they in fact made.
Par. 4: Making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts
Requisites:
(1) Offender makes in a document statements
in a narration of facts
(2) He has a legal obligation to disclose truth of
facts
(3) Facts narrated are absolutely false
(4) Perversion of truth in the narration was
made with the wrongful intent of injuring a
third person.
There must be narration of facts, not conclusion
of law. There should be a legal obligation to
disclose the truth. [Beradio vs. CA, G.R. Nos. L-
49483-86 (1981)]
The person making the narration of facts must
be aware of the falsity of facts narrated by him.
The narration of facts must be absolutely false. If
there is some colorable truth in such statements,
Page 230 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
crime of falsification is not deemed to have been
committed.
The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a
third person is immaterial in falsification of a
public document. [Siquian vs. People, G.R. No.
82197 (1989)]
There can be falsification by omission. An
assistant bookkeeper is guilty of falsification by
intentionally not putting a record in his personal
account of chits and destroyed them so he could
avoid paying the same. [People vs. Dizon, G.R.
No. 144026 (2006)]
or Par. 5: Altering true dates
(1) The date must be essential
(2) The alteration of the date must affect the
veracity of the documents or the effects
thereof (such as dates of birth, marriage, or
death).
Par. 6: Making any alteration or intercalation in a
genuine document which changes its meaning
Requisites:
(1) There be an alteration (change) or
intercalation (insertion) on a document.
(2) It was made on a genuine document.
(3) Alteration or intercalation has changed the
meaning of the document.
(4) Change made the document speak
something false.
Change or insertion must affect the integrity or
effects of the document. Furthermore, the
alteration should make the document speak
something false. Otherwise, it would merely be a
correction.
Par 7: Issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such original exists, or
including in such a copy a statement contrary to,
or different from, that of the genuine original
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(b) By a public official

Falsification in this paragraph cannot be
committed by a private individual, or by a notary
public, or by a public officer, who does not take
advantage of his official position.
This is because authentication of a document
can only be made by the custodian or the one
who prepared and retained a copy of the
original.
(1) Purporting to be a copy of the original when
no such original exists.
(2) Including in a copy a statement contrary to,
or different from, that of the genuine
original.
A private person who cooperates with a public
officer in the falsification of a public document is
guilty of the crime and incurs the same liability
and penalty.
Par 1 Par 2 Par 3
(c) In response to the exigencies of the
public service,
(d) Or in execution of w/c public official
intervened.
(2) Official document in the execution of which
a public official takes part;
(a) A document issued by a public official in
the exercise of the functions of his office.
It falls within the larger class called
public documents.
(b) A document required by a bureau to be
filled by its officers for purposes of
record and information is a public
document.
(3) Commercial document or any document
recognized by the Code of Commerce or any
commercial law; and
(4) A deed or instrument executed by a private
person without the intervention of a notary
public or other persons legally authorized. -
Private document in the execution of which
Par 4 only private individuals take part.

May be a May be a May be a May be a

genuine genuine genuine genuine The element of damage is not necessary
(later (later (later (later because it is the interest of the community which
falsified) or falsified) or falsified) or falsified) or is intended to be guaranteed.
an entirely an entirely an entirely an entirely
The character of the offender and his
fabricated fabricated fabricated fabricated
faithfulness to his duty is mainly taken into
document document document document
consideration.
Par 5 Par 6 Par 7 Par 8
Public and Private Writings under The Rules Of
May be a There must There must There must
genuine be a be a be a Court:
(later genuine genuine genuine (1) Written official acts, or records, of the official
falsified) or document document document acts of the sovereign authority, official
an entirely bodies and tribunals, and public officers
fabricated (2) Documents acknowledged before a notary
document public except last will and testaments
(3) Public records kept in the Philippines, of
private documents required by law to be
Four Kinds of Documents entered therein.
(1) Public document in the execution of which, a
person in authority or notary public has
taken part; All other writings are private.
(a) A document created, executed or issued

Page 231 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
After an investigation, a group of public officers
were caught and convicted of falsifying cash
vouchers. On appeal the SC held that cash
vouchers are NOT commercial documents
because they are not documents used by
merchants or businessmen to promote or
facilitate credit transactions nor are they defined
and regulated by the Code of Commerce or other
commercial law. Rather, they are private
documents which have been defined as:
(1) Deeds or instruments executed by a private
person
(2) Without the intervention of a public notary
or of other person legally authorized,
(3) By which some disposition or agreement is
proved, evidenced or set forth. [People vs.
Batulanon, G.R. No. 13985 (2006)]
C.3. ARTICLE 172 – FALSIFICATION BY
PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL AND USE OF FALSIFIED
DOCUMENTS
Mode 1: Falsification of public, official or
commercial document by a private individual;
Elements:
(1) Offender is a Private individual OR Public
officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position;
(2) He committed any act of Falsification (Art.
171);
(3) The falsification was committed in a public,
official, or commercial document or letter of
exchange.
Mode 2: Falsification of private document by any
person;
Elements:
(1) Offender committed any of the acts of
Falsification except Article 171(7), that is:
(a) Issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original
exists, or
Page 232 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(b) Including in such a copy a statement
contrary to, or different from, that of the
genuine original;
(2) Falsification was committed in any Private
document;
(3) Falsification causes Damage to a third party
or at least the falsification was committed
with intent to cause such damage.
Mode 3: Use of falsified document.
Elements in introducing in a judicial proceeding
(1) Offender Knew that the document was
falsified by another person;
(2) The False document is in Articles 171 or 172 (1
or 2);
(3) He Introduced said document in evidence in
any judicial proceeding.
Elements in use in any other transaction –
(1) Offender Knew that a document was
falsified by another person;
(2) The False document is embraced in Articles
171 or 172 (1 or 2);
(3) He Used such document;
(4) The use caused Damage to another or at
least used with intent to cause damage.
In the falsification of public or official
documents, it is not necessary that there be
present the idea of gain or the intent to cause
damage. This is because the principal thing
punished is the violation of public faith and
destruction of the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed.
The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a
third person is not necessary when the falsified
document is a public document. [Siquian vs.
People, supra]
Note: This statement applies as well to
commercial documents, because as to this kind
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

of document, a credit is sought to be protected.

[Reyes, 2012]
C.4. ARTICLE 173 – FALSIFICATION OF
WIRELESS, CABLE, TELEGRAPH AND
TELEPHONE MESSAGES, AND USE OF SAID
Since damage is not an element of falsification
FALSIFIED MESSAGES
of a public document, it could be complexed
with estafa, theft or malversation as a necessary
means to commit the latter crimes.
Mode 1: Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or
telephone message;
There is no crime of falsification of private
document through negligence or imprudence.
Elements:
(a) Offender is an officer or employee of the
If the document is intended by law to be part of government or an officer or employee of a
the public or official record, the falsification, private corporation, engaged in the service
although it was private at the time of of sending or receiving wireless, cable or
falsification, it is regarded as falsification of a telephone message;
public or official document.
(b) He utters fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph
or telephone message.
Falsification through imprudence implies lack of
such intent, thus there is no crime of falsification
Mode 2: Falsifying wireless, telegraph or
of a private document through negligence or
telephone message;
imprudence.

The possessor of a falsified document is
presumed to be the author of the falsification.
[People vs. Manansala, G.R. No. L-38948 (1933)]
The presumption also holds if the use was so
closely connected in time with the falsification
and the user had the capacity of falsifying the
document. [People vs. Sendaydiego, supra]
Elements:
(a) Offender is an officer or employee of the
government or an officer or employee of a
private corporation, engaged in the service
of sending or receiving wireless, cable or
telephone message;
(b) He falsifies wireless, cable, telegraph or
telephone message.

Mode 3: Using such falsified message.

There is no crime of estafa through falsification
of a private document. Both crimes, separately,
require the element of damage, which each of
Elements:
the two should have its own.
(a) Offender knew that wireless, cable,
telegraph, or telephone message
The fraudulent gain obtained through deceit (1) Was falsified by an officer or employee of
should not be the very same damage caused by
the government or an officer or
the falsification of the private document.
employee of a private corporation
In the crime of falsification of a public document, engaged in the service of sending or
the prescriptive period commences from the receiving wireless, cable or telephone
time the offended party had constructive notice message;
of the alleged forgery after the document was
(b) He used such falsified dispatch;
registered with the Register of Deeds [People vs.
Villalon, G.R. No. 43659 (1990)]
Page 233 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(c) The use resulted in the prejudice of a third
party or at least there was intent to cause
such prejudice.
The public officer, to be liable, must be engaged
in the service of sending or receiving wireless,
cable, telegraph or telephone message.
A private individual cannot be a principal by
direct participation in falsification of telegraphic
dispatches under Article 173, unless he is an
employee of a corporation engaged in the
business of sending or receiving wireless,
telegraph or telephone messages. But a private
individual can be held criminally liable as
principal by inducement.
C.5. ARTICLE 174 – FALSE MEDICAL
CERTIFICATES, FALSE CERTIFCATES OF
MERITS OF SERVICE, ETC.
Persons liable
(1) Physician or surgeon who, in connection with
the practice of his profession, issues a false
certificate (it must refer to the illness or
injury of a person);
Note: The crime here is false medical
certificate by a physician.
(2) Public officer who issues a false certificate of
merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances;
Note: The crime here is false certificate of
merit or service by a public officer.
(3) Private person who falsifies a certificate
falling within the classes mentioned in the
two preceding subdivisions.
Note: The crime here is false medical
certificate by a private individual or false
certificate of merit or service by a private
individual.
C.6. ARTICLE 175 – USING FALSE
CERTIFICATES
Page 234 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Elements:
(1) The following issues a false certificate:
(a) Physician or surgeon, in connection with
the practice of his profession, issues a
false Medical certificate;
(b) Public officer issues a false certificate of
Merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances;
(c) Private Person falsifies a certificate
falling within the 2 preceding
subdivisions.
(2) Offender knows that the certificate was
false;
(3) He uses the same.
When any of the false certificates mentioned in
Article 174 is used in a judicial proceeding,
Article 172 does not apply, because the use of
false document in judicial proceeding under
Article 172 is limited to those false documents
embraced in Articles 171 and 172.
C.7. ARTICLE 176 – MANUFACTURING AND
POSSESSION OF INSTRUMENTS OR
IMPLEMENTS FOR FALSIFICATION
Acts punished:
(1) Making or introducing into the Philippines
any stamps, dies, marks, or other
instruments or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification;
(2) Possession with intent to use the
instruments or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification made in or
introduced into the Philippines by another
person.
As in Article 165, the possession contemplated
here is constructive possession. The implements
confiscated need not form a complete set.
D. OTHER FALSITIES
D.1. ARTICLE 177 – USURPATION OF
AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
UP LAW BOC
Mode 1: Usurpation of authority. (no connection
with the office represented)
The mere act of knowingly and falsely
representing oneself to be an officer is sufficient.
It is not necessary that he perform an act
pertaining to a public officer.
Elements:
(1) Offender knowingly and falsely Represents
himself;
(2) As an Officer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the Philippine
government or of any foreign government.
Mode 2: Usurpation of official functions. (excess
of authority)
In usurpation of official functions, it is essential
that the offender should have performed an act
pertaining to a person in authority or public
officer, in addition to other requirements.
Elements
(1) Offender performs any act;
(2) Pertaining to any person in authority or
public officer of the Philippine government
or any foreign government, or any agency
thereof;
(3) Under pretense of official position;
(4) Without being lawfully entitled to do so
The offender should have:
(a) represented himself to be an officer, agent
or representative of any agency of the
government; or
(b) performed an act pertaining to a person in
authority or public officer.
Article 177 may be violated by a public officer.
D.2. ARTICLE 178 – USING FICTITIOUS AND
CONCEALING TRUE NAME
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
Mode 1: Using fictitious name
Elements:
(1) Offender uses a name other than his real
name;
(2) He uses the fictitious name publicly;
(3) Purpose of use is to conceal a crime, to
evade the execution of a judgment or to
cause damage [to public interest – Reyes,
2012].
Mode 2: Concealing true name
Elements:
(1) Offender conceals his true name and other
personal circumstances;
(2) Purpose is only to conceal his identity.
Use of Fictitious Name Concealing True Name
Element of Publicity Publicity not necessary
Purpose is to conceal a Merely to conceal
crime, evade execution identity.
of judgment, cause
damage)
If the purpose is for causing damage, it must be
damage to public interest.
If it is damage to private interest, the crime will
be estafa under Art 315 2(a).
D.3. ARTICLE 179 – ILLEGAL USE OF
UNIFORMS AND INSIGNIA
Elements:
(1) Offender makes use of insignia, uniforms or
dress;
(2) The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains to
an office not held by such person or a class
of persons of which he is not a member;
Page 235 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(3) Said insignia, uniform or dress is used
publicly and improperly.
Exact imitation of a uniform or dress is
unnecessary; a colorable resemblance
calculated to deceive the common run of people
is sufficient.
D.4. ARTICLE 180 – FALSE TESTIMONY
AGAINST A DEFENDANT
Elements:
(1) There is a criminal proceeding;
(2) Offender testifies falsely under oath against
the defendant therein;
(3) Offender who gives false testimony Knows
that it is false.
(4) Defendant against whom the false
testimony is given is either acquitted or
convicted in a final judgment.
The witness who gave the false testimony is
liable even if his testimony was not considered
by the court.
False Testimony – committed by a person who,
being under oath and required to testify as to
the truth of a certain matter at a hearing before
a competent authority, shall deny the truth or
say something contrary to it.
False testimony is punished because of its
tendency to prejudice defendant.
Three forms of false testimony:
(1) False testimony in criminal cases under
Article 180 and 181;
(2) False testimony in civil case under Article
182;
(3) False testimony in other cases under Article
183.
Page 236 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Articles 180-184 punish the acts of making false
testimonies because such acts seriously expose
society to miscarriage of justice.
D.5. ARTICLE 181 – FALSE TESTIMONY
FAVORABLE TO THE DEFENDANT
Elements:
(1) A person gives false testimony;
(2) In favor of the defendant;
(3) In a criminal case.
The testimony need not in fact be beneficial to
the defendant. It is not necessary that the
testimony should directly influence the decision
of acquittal, it being sufficient that it was given
with the intent to favor the accused.
Conviction or acquittal of defendant in the
principal case is not necessary.
Rectification made spontaneously after realizing
the mistake is not false testimony.
Penalty for false testimony against the accused
is based on the sentence imposed or if accused
is acquitted; that for testimony favorable to the
accused is based on the imposable penalty. The
rationale for the difference is the measure of the
wrong occasioned by the injustice in each case,
i.e. the undeserved sentence and the imposable
penalty avoided, respectively.
D.6. ARTICLE 182 – FALSE TESTIMONY IN
CIVIL CASES
Elements:
(1) Testimony given in a civil case;
(2) Testimony relates to the issues presented in
said case;
(3) Testimony is false;
(4) Offender knows that testimony is false;
(5) Testimony is malicious
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(6) And given with an intent to affect the issues
presented in said case.
Falsity of testimony must first be established.
Art. 182 does not apply in special proceedings.
These are covered by Art. 183 under “other
cases”.
Pending the determination of the falsity of the
subject testimonies in the civil case, the criminal
action for false testimony must perforce be
suspended.
D.7. ARTICLE 183 – FALSE TESTIMONY IN
OTHER CASES AND PERJURY IN SOLEMN
AFFIRMATION
Acts Punished
(1) By falsely Testifying under oath;
(2) By Making a false affidavit.
Note: The false testimony should not be in a
judicial proceeding. [Diaz vs. People]
Elements of perjury:
(1) Offender Makes a statement under oath or
executes an affidavit upon a material
matter;
(2) The statement or affidavit is made Before a
competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oaths;
(3) Offender makes a Willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood in the statement or
affidavit;
(4) The sworn statement or affidavit containing
the falsity is Required by law, that is, it is
made for a legal purpose.
The statement should be outside the coverage of
art 180-181.
Page 237 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Oath – any form of attestation by which a
person signifies that he is bound by conscience
to perform an act faithfully and truthfully.
Affidavit – sworn statement in writing;
declaration in writing, made upon oath before
an authorized magistrate or officer.
There could be no perjury through negligence or
imprudence. This is because of the requirement
that the assertion of a falsehood be made
willfully and deliberately. Hence, good faith or
lack of malice is a defense in perjury.
It is not necessary that there be a law requiring
the statement to be made under oath, as long as
it is made for a legal purpose.
Perjury is a crime other than false testimony in
criminal cases or false testimony in civil cases,
which are perversions of truth in judicial
proceedings.
Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths
other than those taken in the course of judicial
proceedings. [US vs. Estraña, 16 Phil. 521]
Subornation of perjury is committed by a person
who knowingly and willfully procures another to
swear falsely and the witness suborned does
testify under circumstances rendering him guilty
of perjury. [US vs. Ballena, 18 Phil. 382]
Subornation of perjury is not expressly penalized
in the RPC; but the direct induction of a person
by another to commit perjury may be punished
under Article 183 in relation to Article 17.
Material Relevant Pertinent
Directed to Tends in any Concerns
prove a fact in reasonable collateral
issue degree to matters which
establish make more or
probability or less probable
improbability the
of a fact in proposition at
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
issue issue
D.8. ARTICLE 184 – OFFERING FALSE
TESTIMONY IN EVIDENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender fffers in evidence a false witness or
testimony;
(2) He knows that the witness or the testimony
was false;
(3) The offer is made in any judicial or official
proceeding.
Offer of evidence begins at the moment a
witness is called to the stand and interrogated
by counsel. The witness must testify.
D.9. ARTICLE 185 – MACHINATIONS IN
PUBLIC AUCTIONS
Mode 1: Soliciting any gift or promise as a
consideration for refraining from taking part in
any public auction;
Elements:
(1) There is a Public auction;
(2) Offender Solicits any gift or a promise from
any of the bidders;
(3) Such gift or promise is the Consideration for
his refraining from taking part in that public
auction;
(4) Offender has the Intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.
Mode 2: Attempting to cause bidders to stay
away from an auction by threats, gifts, promises
or any other artifice.
Elements:
(1) There is a public auction;
(2) Offender attempts to cause the bidders to
stay away from that public auction;
Page 238 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(3) It is done by threats, gifts, promises or any
other artifice;
(4) Offender had the Intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing auctioned
The crime is consummated by:
(a) Mere solicitation of gift or promise as
consideration for not bidding, or
(b) By mere attempt to cause prospective
bidders to stay away from an auction.
D.10. ARTICLE 186 – MONOPOLIES AND
COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
Note: This article has been repealed by the
Philippine Competition Act, which was signed
into law on July 21, 2015.
Mode 1: Combination to prevent free competition
in the market
Elements:
(1) Entering into any contract or agreement; or
taking part in any conspiracy or combination
in the form of a trust or otherwise;
(2) In restraint of trade or commerce or to
prevent by artificial means free competition
in the market
Mode 2: Monopoly to restrain free competition in
the market
Elements:
(1) Monopolizing any merchandise or object of
trade or commerce; or
(2) Combining with any other person or persons
to monopolize said merchandise or object in
order to alter the prices thereof by spreading
false rumors or making use of any other
artifice to restrain free competition in the
market
Mode 3: Manufacturer, producer, or processor or
importer combining, conspiring or agreeing with
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
any person to make transactions prejudicial to
lawful commerce or to increase the market price
of merchandise
Elements:
(1) Person liable: (1) manufacturer, (2) producer,
(3) processor, or (4) importer of any
merchandise or object of commerce
(2) Crime committed by: (1) combining, (2)
conspiring, or (3) agreeing with any person
(3) Purpose: (1) to make transactions prejudicial
to lawful commerce, or (2) to increase the
market price of any merchandise or object of
commerce manufactured, produced,
processed, assembled, or imported into the
Philippines
Theory of the law: Competition, not combination,
should be the law of trade
Mere conspiracy or combination is punished.
If the offense affects any food substance or other
article of prime necessity, it is sufficient that
initial steps are taken.
When offense is committed by a corporation or
association, the president and directors or
managers are liable.
D.11. ARTICLE 187 – IMPORTATION AND
DISPOSITION OF FALSELY MARKED
ARTICLES OR MERCHANDISE MADE OF
GOLD, SILVER, OR OTHER PRECIOUS
METALS OR THEIR ALLOYS
Elements:
(1) Offender imports, sells or disposes of any of
those articles or merchandise (i.e. gold,
silver, other precious metals or their alloys)
(2) The stamps, brands, or marks of those
articles of merchandise fail to indicate the
actual fineness or quality of said metals or
alloys
(3) Offender knows that the stamps, brands, or
marks fail to indicate the actual fineness or
quality of the metals or alloys
Selling the misbranded articles is not necessary.
Page 239 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Article 187 does not apply to manufacturer of
misbranded articles – he would be liable for
estafa under Art. 315(2)(b).
D.12. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10175
An Act Defining Cybercrime, Providing for the
Prevention, Investigation, Suppression and the
Imposition of Penalties Tehrefor and for Other
Purposes(Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012)
Punishable acts
(a) Offenses against the confidentiality,
integrity and availability of computer data
and systems:
(1) Illegal Access. – The access to the whole
or any part of a computer system
without right.
Access refers to the instruction, communication
with, storing data in, retrieving data from, or
otherwise making use of any resources of a
computer system or communication network.
[Sec. 3(a), R.A. 10145]
Without right refers to either: (i) conduct
undertaken without or in excess of authority; or
(ii) conduct not covered by established legal
defenses, excuses, court orders, justifications, or
relevant principles under the law. [Sec. 3(h), R.A.
10145]
(2) Illegal Interception. – The interception
made by technical means without right
of any non-public transmission of
computer data to, from, or within a
computer system including
electromagnetic emissions from a
computer system carrying such
computer data.
Interception refers to listening to, recording,
monitoring or surveillance of the content of
communications, including procuring of the
content of data, either directly, through access
and use of a computer system or indirectly,
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

through the use of electronic eavesdropping or reputation, and deprive others from
tapping devices, at the same time that the registering the same, if such a domain
communication is occurring. [Sec. 3(m), R.A. name is:
10145]
(i) Similar, identical, or confusingly
similar to an existing trademark
registered with the appropriate
(3) Data Interference. — The intentional or
government agency at the time
reckless alteration, damaging, deletion
of the domain name registration:
or deterioration of computer data,
electronic document, or electronic data (ii) Identical or in any way similar
message, without right, including the with the name of a person other
introduction or transmission of viruses. than the registrant, in case of a
personal name; and
(4) System Interference. — The intentional
alteration or reckless hindering or (iii) Acquired without right or with
interference with the functioning of a intellectual property interests in
computer or computer network by it.
inputting, transmitting, damaging,
(b) Computer-related Offenses:
deleting, deteriorating, altering or
suppressing computer data or program,
electronic document, or electronic data
Computer refers to an electronic, magnetic,
message, without right or authority,
optical, electrochemical, or other data
including the introduction or
processing or communications device, or
transmission of viruses.
grouping of such devices, capable of performing
(5) Misuse of Devices. logical, arithmetic, routing, or storage functions
and which includes any storage facility or
(i) The use, production, sale,
equipment or communications facility or
procurement, importation,
equipment directly related to or operating in
distribution, or otherwise
conjunction with such device. It covers any type
making available, without right,
of computer device including devices with data
of:
processing capabilities like mobile phones,
(aa) A device, including a computer smart phones, computer networks and other
program, designed or adapted devices connected to the internet. [Sec. 3(d),
primarily for the purpose of R.A. 10145]
committing any of the offenses
under this Act; or
(1) Computer-related Forgery. —
(bb) A computer password, access
code, or similar data by which the (i) The input, alteration, or deletion
whole or any part of a computer of any computer data without
system is capable of being accessed right resulting in inauthentic
with intent that it be used for the data with the intent that it be
purpose of committing any of the considered or acted upon for
offenses under this Act. legal purposes as if it were
authentic, regardless whether or
(ii) The possession of an item
not the data is directly readable
referred to in paragraphs 5(i)(aa)
and intelligible; or
or (bb) above with intent to use
said devices for the purpose of
committing any of the offenses
Alteration refers to the modification or change,
under this section.
in form or substance, of an existing computer
(6) Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of a data or program. [Sec. 3(b), R.A. 10145]
domain name over the internet in bad
faith to profit, mislead, destroy
Page 240 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(ii) The act of knowingly using (i) There is prior affirmative consent
computer data which is the from the recipient; or
product of computer-related
(ii) The primary intent of the
forgery as defined herein, for the
communication is for service
purpose of perpetuating a
and/or administrative
fraudulent or dishonest design.
announcements from the sender
(2) Computer-related Fraud. — The to its existing users, subscribers
unauthorized input, alteration, or or customers; or
deletion of computer data or program or
(iii) The following conditions are
interference in the functioning of a
present:
computer system, causing damage
thereby with fraudulent (aa) The commercial electronic
intent: Provided, That if no damage has communication contains a
yet been caused, the penalty imposable simple, valid, and reliable way
shall be one (1) degree lower. for the recipient to reject. receipt
of further commercial electronic
(3) Computer-related Identity Theft. – The
messages (opt-out) from the
intentional acquisition, use, misuse,
same source;
transfer, possession, alteration or
deletion of identifying information (bb) The commercial electronic
belonging to another, whether natural or communication does not
juridical, without right: Provided, That if purposely disguise the source of
no damage has yet been caused, the the electronic message; and
penalty imposable shall be one (1)
(cc) The commercial electronic
degree lower.
communication does not
purposely include misleading
information in any part of the
(c) Content-related Offenses:
message in order to induce the
recipients to read the message.
(1) Cybersex. — The willful engagement,
maintenance, control, or operation,
(4) Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of
directly or indirectly, of any lascivious
libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised
exhibition of sexual organs or sexual
Penal Code, as amended, committed
activity, with the aid of a computer
through a computer system or any other
system, for favor or consideration.
similar means which may be devised in the
(2) Child Pornography. — The unlawful or future. [Sec. 4, R.A. 10145]
prohibited acts defined and punishable
by Republic Act No. 9775 or the Anti-
Child Pornography Act of 2009, Other Offenses
committed through a computer
(a) Aiding or Abetting in the Commission of
system: Provided, That the penalty to be
Cybercrime. – Any person who willfully abets
imposed shall be (1) one degree higher
or aids in the commission of any of the
than that provided for in Republic Act
offenses enumerated in this Act shall be
No. 9775.
held liable.
(3) Unsolicited Commercial
(b) Attempt in the Commission of Cybercrime. —
Communications. — The transmission of
Any person who willfully attempts to commit
commercial electronic communication
any of the offenses enumerated in this Act
with the use of computer system which
shall be held liable. [Sec. 5 R.A. 10145]
seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale
products and services are prohibited
unless: Coverage of the law; aggravating circumstance
Page 241 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
All crimes defined and penalized by the RPC, as
amended, and special laws, if committed by,
through and with the use of information and
communications technologies shall be covered
by the relevant provisions of this
Act: Provided, That the penalty to be imposed
shall be one (1) degree higher than that provided
for by the Revised Penal Code, as amended, and
special laws, as the case may be. [Sec. 6 R.A.
10145]
Double jeopardy
A prosecution under this Act shall be without
prejudice to any liability for violation of any
provision of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended, or special laws. [Sec. 7 R.A. 10145]
Disclosure of Computer Data
Law enforcement authorities, upon securing a
court warrant, shall issue an order requiring any
person or service provider to disclose or submit
subscriber’s information, traffic data or relevant
data in his/its possession or control within
seventy-two (72) hours from receipt of the order
in relation to a valid complaint officially
docketed and assigned for investigation and the
disclosure is necessary and relevant for the
purpose of investigation. [Sec. 14, R.A. 10145]
Search, Seizure and Examination of Computer
Data
Where a search and seizure warrant is properly
issued, the law enforcement authorities shall
likewise have the following powers and duties.
[Sec. 15, R.A. 10145]
Within the time period specified in the warrant,
to conduct interception, as defined in this Act,
and:
(a) To secure a computer system or a
computer data storage medium;
(b) To make and retain a copy of those
computer data secured;
(c) To maintain the integrity of the relevant
stored computer data;
Page 242 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(d) To conduct forensic analysis or
examination of the computer data
storage medium; and
(e) To render inaccessible or remove those
computer data in the accessed computer
or computer and communications
network.
Pursuant thereof, the law enforcement
authorities may order any person who has
knowledge about the functioning of the
computer system and the measures to protect
and preserve the computer data therein to
provide, as is reasonable, the necessary
information, to enable the undertaking of the
search, seizure and examination.
Law enforcement authorities may request for an
extension of time to complete the examination
of the computer data storage medium and to
make a return thereon but in no case for a period
longer than thirty (30) days from date of
approval by the court. [Sec. 15, R.A. 10145]
Custody of Computer Data
All computer data, including content and traffic
data, examined under a proper warrant shall,
within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration
of the period fixed therein, be deposited with the
court in a sealed package, and shall be
accompanied by an affidavit of the law
enforcement authority executing it stating the
dates and times covered by the examination,
and the law enforcement authority who may
access the deposit, among other relevant data.
The law enforcement authority shall also certify
that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any
part thereof have been made, or if made, that all
such duplicates or copies are included in the
package deposited with the court. The package
so deposited shall not be opened, or the
recordings replayed, or used in evidence, or then
contents revealed, except upon order of the
court, which shall not be granted except upon
motion, with due notice and opportunity to be
heard to the person or persons whose
conversation or communications have been
recorded. [Sec. 16, R.A. 10145]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Destruction of Computer Data
Upon expiration of the periods as provided in
Sections 13 and 15, service providers and law
enforcement authorities, as the case may be,
shall immediately and completely destroy the
computer data subject of a preservation and
examination. [Sec. 17, R.A. 10145]
Exclusionary Rule
Any evidence procured without a valid warrant
or beyond the authority of the same shall be
inadmissible for any proceeding before any court
or tribunal. [Sec. 18, R.A. 10145]
Restricting or Blocking Access to Computer Data
When a computer data is prima facie found to be
in violation of the provisions of this Act, the DOJ
shall issue an order to restrict or block access to
such computer data. . [Sec. 19, R.A. 10145]
Liability under P.D. 1829
Failure to comply with the provisions of Chapter
IV (Sec. 10-19) hereof specifically the orders from
law enforcement authorities shall be punished
as a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1829
with imprisonment of prision correctional in its
maximum period or a fine of One hundred
thousand pesos (Php100,000.00) or both, for
each and every noncompliance with an order
issued by law enforcement authorities. [Sec. 20,
R.A. 10145]
Page 243 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
VI. TITLE V. CRIMES
RELATIVE TO OPIUM
AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS
Note: Arts. 190-194 were repealed by R.A. 6425,
known as the “Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.”
R.A. No. 9165, known as the “Comprehensive
Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002” in turn repealed
RA No. 6425.
A. DEFINITION OF IMPORTANT TERMS
Dangerous drugs – those listed in:
(1) The Schedules annexed to the 1961 Single
Convention on Narcotic Drugs, as amended
by the 1972 Protocol, and
(2) The Schedules annexed to the 1971 Single
Convention on Psychotropic Substances as
enumerated in the attached annex which is
an integral part of this Act. [Sec. 3(j), RA
9165]
Chemical Diversion – The sale, distribution,
supply or transport of legitimately imported, in-
transit, manufactured or procured controlled
precursors and essential chemicals, in diluted,
mixtures, or in concentrated form, to any person
or entity engaged in the manufactured of any
dangerous drugs, and shall include packaging,
labelling, or concealment of such transaction.
Controlled Precursors and Essential Chemicals –
Include those listed in Tables I and II of the 188
UN Convention Against Illicit Traffic in Narcotics
Drugs and Psychotropic Substances.
B. ACTS PUNISHED
(a) Importation of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemical [Sec. 4]
(b) Sale, Trading, Administration, Dispensation,
Delivery, Distribution and Transportation of
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Dangerous Drugs and/or Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals [Sec. 5]
B.1. ELEMENTS OF SALE
What determines if there was, indeed, a sale of
dangerous drugs is proof of the concurrence of
all the elements of the offense, to wit:
(1) the identity of the buyer and the seller, the
object, and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. [People v. Partoza, G.R.
No. 182418 (2009)]
There must be proof that the transaction or sale
actually took place and that the corpus delicti be
presented in court as evidence. [People vs.
Musa, G.R. No. 96177 (1993)]
(c) Maintenance of a Den, Dive or Resort. [Sec.
6]
(d) Employees and Visitors of a Den, Dive or
Resort [Sec. 7]
(e) Manufacture of Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals [Sec. 8]
(f) Illegal Chemical Diversion of Controlled
Precursors and Essential Chemicals. [Sec. 9]
(g) Manufacture or Delivery of Equipment,
Instrument, Apparatus, and Other
Paraphernalia for Dangerous Drugs and/or
Controlled Precursors and Essential
Chemicals. [Sec. 10]
(h) Possession of Dangerous Drugs [Sec. 11]
B.2. ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION
For an accused to be convicted of illegal
possession of prohibited or regulated drugs, the
following elements must concur:
(1) the accused is in possession of an item or
object which is identified to be a prohibited
drug;
(2) such possession is not authorized by law;
and
Page 244 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(3) the accused freely and consciously
possesses the said drug.[People v. Partoza,
supra]
(i) Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs [Sec. 12]
(j) Possession of Dangerous Drugs During
Parties, Social Gatherings or Meetings [Sec.
13]
(1) the accused was in possession of the
dangerous drug,
(2) such possession is not authorized by law
(3) the accused freely and consciously
possessed the dangerous drug
(4) the possession of the dangerous drug
must have occurred during a party, or at
a social gathering or meeting, or in the
proximate company of at least two (2)
persons [People vs. Martinez, G.R. No.
191366 (2010)]
(k) Possession of Equipment, Instrument,
Apparatus and Other Paraphernalia for
Dangerous Drugs During Parties, Social
Gatherings or Meetings [Sec. 14]
(l) Use of Dangerous Drugs [Sec. 15]
(m) Cultivation or Culture of Plants Classified as
Dangerous Drugs or are Sources Thereof.
[Sec. 16]
(n) Maintenance and Keeping of Original
Records of Transactions on Dangerous
Drugs and/or Controlled Precursors and
Essential Chemicals [Sec. 17]
(o) Unnecessary Prescription of Dangerous
Drugs [Sec. 18]
(p) Unlawful Prescription of Dangerous Drugs
[Sec. 19]
C. PENALTIES FOR UNLAWFUL ACTS
(1) The penalty of life imprisonment to death
and a fine ranging from P500,000 to
P10,000,000 - Those acts which include or
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

involve any dangerous drugs [Secs. 4, 5, 6, (b) Sale, trading, administration, dispensation,
8, 11, 16 and 19] delivery, distribution and transportation of
any dangerous drug and/or controlled
(2) The penalty of 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
precursor and essential chemical;
of imprisonment and a fine ranging from
P100,000.00 to P500,000 (c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort where
any dangerous drug is used in any form;
(a) Those acts which involve any controlled
precursor and essential chemical [Secs. (d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug and/or
4, 5, 6, 8, 9 and 10] controlled precursor and essential chemical;
(b) Anyone who acts as a "protector/ (e) Cultivation or culture of plants which are
coddler" of any violator of the provisions sources of dangerous drugs.
under sections 4, 5, 6, 8 and 16
(c) Sections 7, 10, 16, 17.
The maximum penalties of the unlawful acts
(3) The maximum penalty provided for under provided for in this Act shall be imposed, in
sections 4, 5, 6, 8 and 16 shall be imposed addition to absolute perpetual disqualification
upon any person, who organizes, manages from any public office, if those found guilty of
or acts as a "financier" of any of the illegal such unlawful acts are government officials and
activities prescribed in those sections. employees. [Sec. 28, Art. II, RA 9165]
(4) Any person charged under any provision of
this Act regardless of the imposable penalty
Any person who is found guilty of "planting" any
shall not be allowed to avail of the provision
dangerous drug and/or controlled precursor and
on plea-bargaining. [Sec. 23, Art. II, RA
essential chemical, regardless of quantity and
9165]
purity, shall suffer the penalty of death. [Sec. 29,
Art. II, RA 9165]
Any person convicted for drug trafficking or
pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty
In case any violation of this Act is committed by
imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the
a partnership, corporation, association or any
privilege granted by the Probation Law or
juridical entity, the partner, president, director,
Presidential Decree No. 968, as amended. [Sec.
manager, trustee, estate administrator, or officer
24, Art. II, RA 9165]
who consents to or knowingly tolerates such
violation shall be held criminally liable as a co-
principal. [Sec. 30, Art. II, RA 9165]
Notwithstanding the provisions of any law to the
contrary, a positive finding for the use of
dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
In addition to the penalties prescribed in the
aggravating circumstance in the commission of
unlawful act committed, any alien who violates
a crime by an offender, and the application of
such provisions of this Act shall, after service of
the penalty provided for in the Revised Penal
sentence, be deported immediately without
Code shall be applicable. [Sec. 25, Art. II, RA
further proceedings, unless the penalty is death.
9165]
[Sec. 31, Art. II, RA 9165]

Any attempt or conspiracy to commit the

Accessory Penalties: A person convicted under
following unlawful acts shall be penalized by the
this Act shall be disqualified to exercise his/her
same penalty prescribed for the commission of
civil rights such as but not limited to:
the same as provided under this Act [Sec. 26,
Art. II, RA 9165]: (1) the rights of parental authority or
guardianship, either as to the person or
(a) Importation of any dangerous drug and/or
property of any ward;
controlled precursor and essential chemical;

Page 245 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(2) the rights to dispose of such property by any
act or any conveyance inter vivos, and
(3) political rights such as but not limited to the
right to vote and be voted for.
Such rights shall also be suspended during the
pendency of an appeal from such conviction.
[Sec. 35, Art. II, RA 9165]
Possession of marijuana is absorbed in the sale
thereof, except where the seller is further
apprehended in possession of another quantity
of the prohibited drugs not covered by or
included in the sale and which are probably
intended for some future dealings or use by the
seller.[People vs. Lacerna, G.R. No. 109250
(1997)]
The crime of illegal sale of dangerous drugs
necessarily includes the crime of illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. The same ruling
may also be applied to the other acts penalized
under Article II, Section 5 of Republic Act No.
9165 because for the accused to be able to
trade, administer, dispense, deliver, give away to
another, distribute, dispatch in transit, or
transport any dangerous drug, he must
necessarily be in possession of said drugs.
[People vs. Maongco, G.R. No. 196966 (2013)]
D. IMMUNITY FROM PROSECUTION AND
PUNISHMENT
(1) Any person who has violated Sections 7, 11,
12, 14, 15, and 19, Article II of this Act;
(2) Who voluntarily gives information about any
violation of Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 13, and 16,
Article II of this Act as well as any violation of
the offenses mentioned if committed by a
drug syndicate, or any information leading
to the whereabouts, identities and arrest of
all or any of the members thereof;
(3) Who willingly testifies against such persons
as described above, shall be exempted from
prosecution or punishment for the offense
with reference to which his/her information
of testimony were given, and may plead or
Page 246 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
prove the giving of such information and
testimony in bar of such prosecution:
Provided the following conditions concur:
a. The information and testimony are
necessary for the conviction of the
persons described above;
b. Such information and testimony are
not yet in the possession of the
State;
c. Such information and testimony can
be corroborated on its material
points;
d. The informant or witness has not
been previously convicted of a crime
involving moral turpitude, except
when there is no other direct
evidence available for the State
other than the information and
testimony of said informant or
witness;
e. The informant or witness shall
strictly and faithfully comply without
delay, any condition or undertaking,
reduced into writing, lawfully
imposed by the State as further
consideration for the grant of
immunity from prosecution and
punishment.
Provided, further, That this immunity may be
enjoyed by such informant or witness who does
not appear to be most guilty for the offense with
reference to which the information or testimony
were given: Provided, finally, That there is no
direct evidence available for the State except for
the information and testimony of said informant
or witness. [Sec. 33, Art. II, RA 9165]
D.1. TERMINATION OF GRANT OF IMMUNITY
[SEC. 34, ART. II, RA 9165]:
(1) The immunity granted to the informant or
witness, as prescribed in Section 33 of this
Act, shall not attach should it turn out
subsequently that the information and/or
testimony is false, malicious or made only
for the purpose of harassing, molesting or in
any way prejudicing the persons described in
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
the preceding Section against whom such
information or testimony is directed. In such
case, the informant or witness shall be
subject to prosecution and the enjoyment of
all rights and benefits previously accorded
him under this Act or any other law, decree
or order shall be deemed terminated.
(2) In case an informant or witness under this
Act fails or refuses to testify without just
cause, and when lawfully obliged to do so, or
violate any condition accompanying such
immunity as provided above, his/her
immunity shall be removed and he/she shall
likewise be subject to contempt and/or
criminal prosecution, as the case may be,
and the enjoyment of all rights and benefits
previously accorded him under this Act or in
any other law, decree or order shall be
deemed terminated.
D.2. CUSTODY AND DISPOSITION OF SEIZED
SUBSTANCES
The PDEA shall take charge and have custody of
all dangerous drugs, plant sources of dangerous
drugs, controlled precursors and essential
chemicals, as well as instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment so confiscated,
seized and/or surrendered, for proper
disposition in the following manner [Sec. 21, Art.
II, RA 9165]:
(1) The apprehending team shall physically
inventory and photograph the same in the
presence of the accused, his representative
or counsel, a representative from the media
and the DOJ, and any elected public official
who shall be required to sign the copies of
the inventory and be given a copy thereof;
(2) Within 24 hours upon confiscation/seizure of
dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, controlled precursors and
essential chemicals, as well as
paraphernalia and/or laboratory equipment,
the same shall be submitted to the PDEA
Forensic Laboratory for a qualitative and
quantitative examination;
(3) A certification of the results, done under
oath by the forensic laboratory examiner,
shall be issued within 24 hours after receipt
of the subject items. When the volume of the
subject does not allow the completion of
Page 247 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
testing within 24 hours, a partial report shall
be issued stating therein the quantity of
dangerous drugs still to be examined by the
forensic laboratory; and a final certification
shall be issued on the completed forensic
laboratory examination on the same within
the next 24 hours;
(4) Filing of the criminal case in court.
(5) The Court shall, within 72 hours, conduct an
ocular inspection of the confiscated, seized
and/or surrendered items, including the
instruments and/or laboratory equipment;
(6) The PDEA shall then within 24 hours
proceed with the destruction or burning of
the same, in the presence of the accused, his
his/her representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ,
civil society groups and any elected public
official.
(7) The Board shall then issue a sworn
certification to the fact of destruction or
burning of the subject items which, together
with the representative samples in the
custody of the PDEA, shall be submitted to
the court having jurisdiction over the case. In
all instances, the representative sample/s
shall be kept to a minimum quantity as
determined by the Board;
(8) After the promulgation and judgment in the
criminal case wherein the representative
sample/s was presented as evidence in
court, the trial prosecutor shall inform the
Board of the final termination of the case
and, in turn, shall request the court for leave
to turn over the said representative
sample/s to the PDEA for proper disposition
and destruction within 24 hours from receipt
of the same.
D.3. CHAIN OF CUSTODY
The duly recorded authorized movements and
custody of subject items at each stage, from the
time of seizure to presentation to the court for
destruction. Such record of movements and
custody of seized items shall include the identity
and signature of the person who held temporary
custody of the seized items, the date and time
when such transfer of custody was made in the
course of safekeeping and use in court as
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
evidence, and the final disposition. [Sec. 1b, DDB
Resolution No. 1, Series of 2002, implementing
RA 9165]
Non-compliance with these requirements under
justifiable grounds, as long as the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items.
[Sec. 21(a), IRR of RA 9165]
Any person apprehended or arrested for
violating the provisions of the Act shall be
subjected to screening laboratory examination
or test within 24 hours, if the apprehending or
arresting officer has reasonable ground to
believe that the person apprehended or
arrested, on account of physical signs or
symptoms or other visible or outward
manifestation, is under the influence of
dangerous drugs. If found to be positive, the
results of the screening laboratory examination
or test shall be challenged within 15 days after
receipt of the result through a confirmatory test
conducted in any accredited analytical
laboratory equipped with a gas
chromatograph/mass spectrometry equipment
or some such Modern and accepted method,
and if confirmed, the same shall be prima facie
evidence that such person has used dangerous
drugs, which is without prejudice for the
prosecution for other violations of the provisions
of the Act: Provided, that a positive screening
laboratory test must be confirmed for it to be
valid in court of law. [Sec. 38, IRR of RA 9165]
Non-presentation of the forensic chemist in
illegal drug cases is an insufficient cause for
acquittal. The corpus delicti (the body of the
crime) in dangerous drugs cases constitutes the
dangerous drug itself. [People vs. Quebral, G.R.
NO. 185379 (2009)]
The presumption of regularity of official acts
does not apply when police officers have failed
to comply with the standard of procedure set by
Page 248 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
law in a way that compromises the integrity and
evidentiary value of the thing seized. In such
case, the indispensable element of corpus delicti
would not be proven. [Fajardo vs. People, G.R.
No. 185460 (2012)]
E. OTHER IMPORTANT POINTS
Authorized Drug Testing
The following shall be subjected to undergo
drug testing: [Sec. 36, Art. III, RA 9165]
(1) Applicants for driver’s license
(2) Applicants for firearm’s license and permit
to carry firearms outside of residence.
All persons who by the nature of their
profession carry firearms shall undergo drug
testing.
(3) Students of secondary or tertiary schools.
(4) Officers and employees of public and private
offices, whether domestic or overseas, as
contained in the company’s work rules and
regulations. 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.
(5) Officers and members of the military, police
and other law enforcement agencies
(6) 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.*
(7) All candidates for public office whether
appointed or elected both in the national or
local government shall undergo a
mandatory drug test.
The testing requirement as to national officials
whose qualification requirements have been set
forth in the Constitution is unconstitutional.
Where the Constitution has expressly set out the
qualifications, these are exclusive and may not
be broadened or circumscribed by legislative
fiat. [SJS vs. DDB and PDEA, G.R. No. 157870
(2008)]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
*The operative concepts in the mandatory drug
testing are “randomness” and
“suspicionlessness.” In the case of persons
charged with a crime before the prosecutor’s
office, a mandatory drug testing can never be
random or suspicionless. It violates their right to
privacy and self-incrimination, and is thus
unconstitutional. [SJS v. DDB and PDEA, supra]
May a drug dependent who is found guilty of the
use of dangerous drugs voluntarily submit
himself for treatment and rehabilitation?
Yes. The drug dependent may, by
himself/herself or through his/her parent,
spouse, guardian or relative within the fourth
degree of consanguinity or affinity, apply to the
Board or its duly recognized representative, for
treatment and rehabilitation of the drug
dependency.
Upon such application, the Board shall bring
forth the matter to the Court which shall order
that the applicant be examined for drug
dependency. [Sec. 54, Art. VIII, RA 9165]
Is there also compulsory confinement?
Yes. Notwithstanding any law, rule and
regulation to the contrary, any person
determined and found to be dependent on
dangerous drugs shall, upon petition by the
Board or any of its authorized representative, be
confined for treatment and rehabilitation in any
Center duly designated or accredited for the
purpose.
A petition for the confinement of a person
alleged to be dependent on dangerous drugs to
a Center may be filed by any person authorized
by the Board with the Regional Trial Court of the
province or city where such person is found.
[Sec. 61, Art. VIII, RA 9165]
Any parent, spouse or guardian who, without
valid reason, refuses to cooperate with the
Board or any concerned agency in the treatment
and rehabilitation of a drug dependent who is a
Page 249 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
minor, or in any manner, prevents or delays the
after-care, follow-up or other programs for the
welfare of the accused drug dependent, whether
under voluntary submission program or
compulsory submission program, may be cited
for contempt by the court. [Sec. 73, Art. VIII, RA
9165]
How long will the drug dependent be confined for
treatment and rehabilitation?
Confinement in a Center for treatment and
rehabilitation shall not exceed one (1) year, after
which time the Court, as well as the Board, shall
be apprised by the head of the treatment and
rehabilitation center of the status of said drug
dependent and determine whether further
confinement will be for the welfare of the drug
dependent and his/her family or the community.
[Sec. 54, Art. VIII, RA 9165]
How will a drug dependent who is under the
voluntary submission program and is finally
discharged from confinement in the Center be
exempt from criminal liability?
(1) He/she has complied with the rules and
regulations of the center, the applicable
rules and regulations of the Board, including
the after-care and follow-up program for at
least eighteen (18) months following
temporary discharge from confinement in
the Center
(2) He/she has never been charged or convicted
of any offense punishable under this Act, the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972 or Republic
Act No. 6425, as amended; the Revised
Penal Code, as amended; or any special
penal laws
(3) He/she has no record of escape from a
Center
(4) He/she poses no serious danger to
himself/herself, his/her family or the
community by his/her exemption from
criminal liability [Sec. 55, Art. VIII, RA 9165]
What are the functions of the Dangerous Drugs
Board?
(1) Be the policy-making and strategy-
formulating body in the planning and
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

formulation of policies and programs on

drug prevention and control.
(2) Develop and adopt a comprehensive,
integrated, unified and balanced national
drug abuse prevention and control strategy.
(3) Be under the Office of the President. [Sec.
77, Art. IX, RA 9165]

What is the PDEA?

The PDEA is the Philippine Drug Enforcement
Agency. It serves as the implementing arm of the
Dangerous Drugs Board. It shall be responsible
for the efficient and effective law enforcement of
all the provisions on any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical as
provided in this Act. [Sec. 82, Art. IX, RA 9165]

Page 250 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
VII. TITLE VI. CRIMES
AGAINST PUBLIC
MORALS
Chapter I: Gambling and Betting
(1) Art. 195: Gambling
(2) Art. 196: Importation, sale and possession
of lottery tickets or advertisements
(3) Art. 197: Betting in sports contests
(4) Art. 198: Illegal betting on horse races
(5) Art. 199: Illegal cockfighting
Chapter II: Offenses against Decency and Good
Customs
(1) Art. 200: Grave Scandal
(2) Art. 201: Immoral doctrines, obscene
publications and exhibitions
(3) Art. 202: Vagrancy and prostitution
A. CHAPTER I: GAMBLING AND BETTING
Gambling – any game or scheme, whether upon
chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting of
money, articles of value or representative of
value are at stake or made.
Note: The following special laws were not listed
in the 2017 Bar Syllabus.
A.1. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1602
Prescribing Stiffer Penalties on Illegal Gambling
(AntI-Gambling Act)
PD 1602, which repealed Articles 195-199 insofar
as they are inconsistent with said Act, punishes:
(1) Any person who, in any manner, shall
directly or indirectly take part in any illegal
or unauthorized activities or games of—
Page 251 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(a) Cockfighting, jueteng, jai alai or horse
racing to include bookie operations and
game fixing, numbers, bingo and other
forms of lotteries;
(b) Cara y cruz, pompiang and the like;
(c) 7-11 and any game using dice;
(d) Black jack, lucky nine, poker and its
derivatives, monte, baccarat, cuajo,
pangguigue and other card games;
(e) Paik que, high and low, mahjong,
domino and other games using plastic
tiles and the like;
(f) Slot machines, roulette, pinball and
other mechanical contraptions and
devices;
(g) Dog racing, boat racing, car racing and
other forms of races;
(h) Basketball, boxing, volleyball, bowling,
pingpong and other forms of individual
or team contests to include game fixing,
point shaving and other machinations;
(i) Banking or percentage game, or any
other game scheme, whether upon
chance or skill, wherein wagers
consisting of money, articles of value or
representative of value are at stake or
made;
(2) Any person who shall knowingly permit any
form of gambling referred to in the
preceding subparagraph to be carried on in
an inhabited place or in any building, vessel
or other means of transportation owned or
controlled by him.
(3) Any person who shall knowingly permit any
form of gambling to be carried on in a place
which has a reputation of a gambling place
or that prohibited gambling is frequently
carried on therein, or the place is a public or
government building or barangay hall;
(4) The maintainer or conductor of the above
gambling schemes.
(a) Maintainer: a person who sets up and
furnishes the means with which to carry
on the gambling game or scheme.
(b) Conductor: a person who manages or
carries on the gambling game or
scheme.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(5) A government official who is a maintainer,
conductor or banker of said gambling
schemes, or the player, promoter, referee,
umpire, judge or coach in case of game
fixing, point shaving and machination.
(6) Any person who shall, knowingly and
without lawful purpose in any hour of any
day, possess any lottery list, paper or other
matter containing letters, figures, signs or
symbols pertaining to or in any manner
used in the games of jueteng, jai-alai or
horse racing bookies, and similar games of
lotteries and numbers which have taken
place or about to take place.
(7) Any barangay official who, with knowledge
of the existence of a gambling house or
place in his jurisdiction fails to abate the
same or take action in connection
therewith.
(8) Any security officer, security guard,
watchman, private or house detective of
hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures and
the like which have the reputation of a
gambling place or where gambling
activities are being held.
Any person who shall disclose information that
will lead to the arrest and final conviction of the
malefactor shall be rewarded twenty percent of
the cash money or articles of value confiscated
or forfeited in favor of the government. (Section
3)
A.2. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9287
Increasing the Penalty for Illegal Numbers
Games
Illegal Numbers Game – any form of illegal
gambling activity which uses numbers or
combinations thereof as factors in giving out
jackpots.
The law punishes any person who participates in
any illegal numbers game: (Section 3)
(a) If such person acts as a bettor;
(b) If such person acts as a personnel or staff
of an illegal numbers game operation;
Page 252 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(c) If such person allows his vehicle, house,
building or land to be used in the
operation of the illegal numbers games;
(d) If such person acts as a collector or agent;
(e) If such person acts as a coordinator,
controller or supervisor;
(f) If such person acts as a maintainer,
manager or operator;
(g) If such person acts as a financier or
capitalist;
(h) If such person acts as protector or coddler.
The possession of any gambling paraphernalia
and other materials used in the illegal numbers
game operation shall be deemed prima facie
evidence of any offense covered by this Act.
(Section 4)
A.3. LETTER OF INSTRUCTION NO. 816
The games of domino, bingo, poker when not
played with five cards stud, cuajo, pangguingue
and mahjong, provided that they are played as
parlor games or for home entertainment, and
provided further, that they are not played in
places habitually used for gambling and the
betting is not disguised to defeat the intent of
Presidential Decree No. 1602, are hereby
exempted.
Lottery is a scheme for the distribution of prices
by chance among persons who have paid, or
agreed to pay, a valuable consideration for the
chance to obtain a prize. It has 3 elements: 1)
Consideration, 2) Chance, 3) Prize or some
advantage or inequality in amount or value
which is in the nature of a prize [U.S. v Filart
(1915)]
A.4. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 449
Cockfighting Law of 1974
Section 4. Definition of Terms. As used in this
law, the following terms shall be understood,
applied and construed as follows:
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(a) Cockfighting shall embrace and mean the
commonly known game or term
"cockfighting derby, pintakasi or tupada",
or its equivalent terms in different
Philippine localities.
(b) Zoning Law or Ordinance. Either both
national or local city or municipal
legislation which logically arranges,
prescribes, defines and apportions a given
political subdivision into specific land uses
as present and future projection of needs
warrant.
(c) Bet Taker of Promoter. A person who calls
and takes care of bets from owners of both
gamecocks and those of other bettors
before he orders commencement of the
cockfight and thereafter distributes won
bets to the winners after deducting a
certain commission.
(d) Gaffer (Taga Tari). A person knowledgeable
in the art of arming fighting cocks with gaff
or gaffs on either or both legs.
(e) Referee (Sentenciador). A person who
watches and oversees the proper gaffing of
fighting cocks, determines the physical
condition of fighting cocks while
cockfighting is in progress, the injuries
sustained by the cocks and their capability
to continue fighting and decides and make
known his decision by work or gestures and
result of the cockfight by announcing the
winner or declaring a tie or no contest
game.
(f) Bettor.A person who participates in
cockfights and with the use of money or
other things of value, bets with other
bettors or through the bet taker or promoter
and wins or loses his bet depending upon
the result of the cockfight as announced by
the Referee or Sentenciador. He may be the
owner of fighting cock.
Section 5. Cockpits and Cockfighting: In General:
(1) Ownership, Operation and Management of
Cockpits. Only Filipino citizens not
otherwise inhibited by existing laws shall be
allowed to own, manage and operate
cockpits. Cooperative capitalization is
encouraged.
Page 253 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(2) Establishment of Cockpits. Only one cockpit
shall be allowed in each city or municipality,
except that in cities or municipalities with a
population of over one hundred thousand,
two cockpits may be established,
maintained and operated.
(3) Cockpits Site and Construction. Cockpits
shall be constructed and operated within
the appropriate areas as prescribed in
Zoning Law or Ordinance. In the absence of
such law or ordinance, the local executives
shall see to it that no cockpits are
constructed within or near existing
residential or commercial areas, hospitals,
school buildings, churches or other public
buildings. Owners, lessees, or operators of
cockpits which are now in existence and do
not conform to this requirement are given
three years from the date of effectivity of
this Decree to comply herewith. Approval or
issuance of building permits for the
construction of cockpits shall be made by
the city or provincial engineer in accordance
with their respective building codes,
ordinances or engineering laws and
practices.
(4) Holding of Cockfights. Except as provided in
this Decree, cockfighting shall be allowed
only in licensed cockpits during Sundays
and legal holidays and during local fiestas
for not more than three days. It may also be
held during provincial, city or municipal,
agricultural, commercial or industrial fair,
carnival or exposition for a similar period of
three days upon resolution of the province,
city or municipality where such fair, carnival
or exposition is to be held, subject to the
approval of the Chief of Constabulary or his
authorized representative: Provided, that,
no cockfighting on the occasion of such fair,
carnival or exposition shall be allowed
within the month of a local fiesta or for
more than two occasions a year in the same
city or municipality: Provided, further, that
no cockfighting shall be held on December
30 (Rizal Day), June 12 (Philippine
Independence Day) November 30 (National
Heroes Day), Holy Thursday, Good Friday,
Election or Referendum Day and during
Registration Days for such election or
referendum.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(5) Cockfighting for Entertainment of Tourists
or for Charitable Purposes. Subject to the
preceding subsection hereof, the Chief
Constabulary or his authorized
representative may also allow the holding
of cockfighting for the entertainment of
foreign dignitaries or for tourists, or for
returning Filipinos, commonly known as
"Balikbayan", or for the support of national
fund-raising campaigns for charitable
purposes as may be authorized by the
Office of the President, upon resolution of a
provincial board, city or municipal council,
in licensed cockpits or in playgrounds or
parks: Provided, that this privilege shall be
extended for only one time, for a period not
exceeding three days, within a year to a
province, city, or municipality.
(6) Other games during cockfights prescribed.
No gambling of any kind shall be permitted
on the premises of the cockpit or place of
cockfighting during cockfights. The owner,
manager or lessee off such cockpit and the
violators of this injunction shall be
criminally liable under Section 8 hereof.
Section 6. Licensing of Cockpits. City and
municipal mayors are authorized to issue
licenses for the operation and maintenance of
cockpits subject to the approval of the Chief of
Constabulary or his authorized representatives.
For this purpose, ordinances may be
promulgated for the imposition and collection of
taxes and fees not exceeding the rates fixed
under Section 13, paragraphs (a) and (b); and 19;
paragraph (g) 16 of Presidential Decree No. 231,
dated June 28, 1973, otherwise known as the
Local Tax Code, as amended.
Section 7. Cockfighting Officials. Gaffers,
referees or bet takers or promoters shall not act
as such in any cockfight herein authorized,
without first securing a license renewable every
year on their birthmonth from the city or
municipality where such cockfighting is held.
Cities and municipalities may charge a tax of not
more than twenty pesos. Only licensed gaffers,
referees, bet takers or promoters shall officiate
in all kinds of cockfighting authorized in this
Decree.
Page 254 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Section 8. Penal Provisions. Any violation of the
provisions of this Decree and of the rules and
regulations promulgated by the Chief of
Constabulary pursuant thereto shall be
punished as follows:
(a) By prision correccional in its maximum
period and a fine of two thousand pesos,
with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, when the offender is the
financer, owner, manger or operator of
cockpit, or the gaffer, referee or bet taker in
cockfights; or the offender is guilty of
allowing, promoting or participating in any
other kind of gambling in the premises of
cockfights during cockfights.
(b) By prision correccional or a fine of not less
than six hundred pesos nor more than two
thousand pesos or both, such imprisonment
and fine at the discretion of the court, with
subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, in case of any other offender.
B. CHAPTER II: OFFENSES AGAINST
DECENCY AND GOOD CUSTOMS
B.1. ARTICLE 200 – GRAVE SCANDAL
Elements:
(1) Offender performs an act or acts;
(2) Such act or acts be highly scandalous as
offending against decency or good customs;
(3) The highly scandalous conduct is not
expressly falling within any other article of
this Code; and
(4) The act or acts complained of be committed
in a public place or within the public
knowledge or view.
Decency – means proprietary of conduct; proper
observance of the requirements of Modesty,
good taste, etc.
Customs – established usage, social conventions
carried on by tradition and enforced by social
disapproval of any violation thereof.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Grave Scandal – consists of acts which are
offensive to decency and good customs which,
having been committed publicly, have given rise
to public scandal to persons who have
accidentally witnessed the same.
The acts must be performed in a public place or
within the public knowledge or view. If it is
committed in a private place, the crime of grave
scandal is not committed.
In conducts involving lasciviousness, it is grave
scandal only where there is mutual consent.
(Boado,Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal
Law)
Any act which is notoriously offensive to decency
may bring about criminal liability for the crime of
grave scandal, Provided such act does not
constitute some other crime under the Revised
Penal Code.
Grave scandal is a crime of last resort.
B.2. ARTICLE 201 – IMMORAL DOCTRINES,
OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS
AND INDECENT SHOWS
Acts punished (as amended by PD 960 and PD
969)
(a) Those who shall publicly expound or
proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public
morals;
(b) The authors of obscene literature, published
with their knowledge in any form, the editors
publishing such literature; the
owners/operators of the establishment
selling the same;
(c) Those who, in theaters, fairs,
cinematographs, or any other place, exhibit
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts, or
shows, it being understood that the obscene
literature or indecent or immoral plays,
scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film,
which are proscribed by virtue hereof, shall
include those which:
Page 255 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(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,
good customs, established policies,
lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
(d) Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit
films, prints, engravings, sculpture or
literature which are offensive to morals.
Morals – imply conformity with the generally
accepted standards of goodness or rightness in
conduct or character, sometimes, specifically, to
sexual conduct.
Offense in any of the forms mentioned in the
article is committed only when there is publicity
The test of obscenity:
(1) The test is objective.
(2) It is more on the effect upon the viewer and
not alone on the conduct of the performer.
(3) If the material has the tendency to deprave
and corrupt the mind of the viewer then the
same is obscene and where such obscenity
is made publicly, criminal liability arises.
(4) As long as the pornographic matter or
exhibition is made privately, there is no
crime committed under the Revised Penal
Code because what is protected is the
morality of the public in general.
Postcards of Philippine inhabitants in native
attire were not obscene because the aggregate
judgment of the community, and the moral
sense of the people were not shocked by those
pictures. They were not offensive to chastity but
merely depicted persons as they actually lived.
[People v. Kottinger, G.R. No. L-20569 (1923)]
The reaction of the public during the
performance of a dance by one who had nothing
to cover herself with, except nylon patches over
UP LAW BOC
her breasts and too abbreviated pair of nylon
panties to interrupt her stark nakedness should
be made the gauge in the determination of
whether the dance or exhibition was indecent or
immoral. [People vs. Aparici, C.A. 52 O.G. 249
(1955)]
An actual exhibition of the sexual act can have
no redeeming feature—no room for art.
Therefore, it is a clear and unmitigated
obscenity. [People vs. Padan, G.R. No. L-7295
(1957)]
Miller Test of Obscenity:
[From Miller vs. California, 413 U.S. 15 (1973) –
adopted in Fernando vs. CA, G.R. No. 159751
(2006)]
(1) Whether the average person, applying
contemporary standards, would find the
work, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient
interest;
(2) Whether the work depicts, in a patently
offensive way, sexual conduct specifically
defined by the applicable state law;
(3) Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks
serious literary, artistic, political or scientific
value.
Mere possession of obscene materials, without
intent to sell, exhibit or distribute, is not
punishable under Article 201. The offense is
committed only where there is publicity. So long
as the materials are offered for sale, displayed,
or exhibited to the public, one may be liable.
[Fernando vs. CA, supra]
B.3. ARTICLE 202 – PROSTITUTION
(AMENDED BY R.A. 10158)
Elements:
(1) The offender is a woman;
(2) She habitually indulges in sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct;
(3) Such indulgence is for money or profit
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
The term prostitution is applicable to a woman
who for profit or money habitually engages in
sexual or lascivious conduct. A man who
engages in the same conduct – sex for money –
is not a prostitute, but a vagrant.
In law, the mere indulging in lascivious conduct
habitually because of money or gain would
amount to prostitution, even if there is no sexual
intercourse. Virginity is not a defense.
Habituality is the controlling factor; it has to be
more than one time.
There cannot be prostitution by conspiracy. One
who conspires with a woman in the prostitution
business like pimps, taxi drivers or solicitors of
clients are guilty of the crime under Article 341
for white slavery.
Before RA 10158, which decriminalized
vagrancy, the following were liable under Article
202:
(1) Any person, having no apparent means of
subsistence, who has the physical ability to
work and who neglects to apply himself to
some lawful calling;
(2) Any person found loitering about public or
semipublic buildings or places or tramping
or wandering about the country or the
streets without visible means of support;
(3) Any idle or dissolute person who lodges in
houses of ill-fame, ruffians or pimps and
those who habitually associate with
prostitutes;
(4) Any person who, not being included in the
provisions of other articles in this Code,
shall be found loitering in any inhabited or
uninhabited place belonging to another
without any lawful or justifiable purpose;
(5) Prostitutes.
All pending cases under the provisions of Article
202 of the Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy
prior to its amendment by this Act shall be
Page 256 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
dismissed upon effectivity of this Act. [Section 2,
RA 10158]
All persons serving sentence for violation of the
provisions of Article 202 on Vagrancy prior to its
amendment by this Act shall be immediately
released upon effectivity of this Act: Provided,
That they are not serving sentence or detained
for any other offense or felony. (Section 3, RA
10158)
Under the Mendicancy Law of 1978 (PD 1563), the
following persons are liable:
(a) The mendicant himself—one who has no
visible and legal means of support, or
lawful employment, and who is physically
able to work but neglects to apply himself
to some lawful calling and instead uses
begging as a means of living.
(b) Any person who abets mendicancy by giving
alms directly to mendicants, exploited
infants and minors on public roads,
sidewalks, parks and bridges shall be
punished by a fine.
B.4. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9208
An Act to Institute Policies to Eliminate
Trafficking in Persons Especially Women and
Children, Establishing the Necessary Institutional
Mechanisms for the Protection and Support of
Trafficked Persons, Providing Penalties for Its
Violations (Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act)
Trafficking in Persons – recruitment,
transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt
of persons with or without the victim's consent
or knowledge, within or across national borders
by means of threat or use of force, or other forms
of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse
of power or of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another
person for the purpose of exploitation which
includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
servitude or the removal or sale of organs. The
Page 257 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
recruitment, transportation, transfer, harboring
or receipt of a child for the purpose of
exploitation shall also be considered as
"trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve
any of the aforementioned means.
Acts of Trafficking in Persons
It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or
juridical, to commit any of the following acts
(Section 4, RA 9208):
(1) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor,
provide, or receive a person by any means,
including those done under the pretext of
domestic or overseas employment or
training or apprenticeship, for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(2) To introduce or match for money, profit, or
material, economic or other consideration,
any person or, as provided for under
Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino woman
to a foreign national, for marriage for the
purpose of acquiring, buying, offering,
selling or trading him/her to engage in
prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(3) To offer or contract marriage, real or
simulated, for the purpose of acquiring,
buying, offering, selling, or trading them to
engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor or slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(4) To undertake or organize tours and travel
plans consisting of tourism packages or
activities for the purpose of utilizing and
offering persons for prostitution,
pornography or sexual exploitation;
(5) To maintain or hire a person to engage in
prostitution or pornography;
(6) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of
persons for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
(7) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a
person, by means of threat or use of force,
fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
intimidation for the purpose of removal or
sale of organs of said person; and
(8) To recruit, transport or adopt a child to
engage in armed activities in the Philippines
or abroad.
B.5. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10364
The Expanded Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
2012
This amended Sec. 4 of RA 9208 as follows:
Acts of Trafficking in Persons
It shall be unlawful for any person, natural or
juridical, to commit any of the following acts:
(6) To adopt persons by any form of
consideration for exploitative purposes or to
facilitate the same for purposes of
prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(7) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of
persons for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
(8) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport, transfer,
obtain, harbor, maintain, provide, offer,
receive or abduct a person, by means of
threat or use of force, fraud, deceit,
violence, coercion, or intimidation for the
purpose of removal or sale of organs of said
person;
(9) To recruit, transport, obtain, transfer,
harbor, maintain, offer, hire, provide,
receive or adopt a child to engage in armed
activities in the Philippines or abroad;
(10) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor,
obtain, maintain, offer, hire, provide or
receive a person by means defined in
Section 3 of this Act for purposes of forced
labor, slavery, debt bondage and
involuntary servitude, including a scheme,
plan, or pattern intended to cause the
person either:
(a) To believe that if the person did not
perform such labor or services, he or
Page 258 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
she or another person would suffer
serious harm or physical restraint; or
(b) To abuse or threaten the use of law or
the legal processes; and
(11) To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor,
obtain, maintain, offer, hire, provide or
receive a person by means defined in
Section 3 of this Act for purposes of forced
labor, slavery, debt bondage and
involuntary servitude, including a scheme,
plan, or pattern intended to cause the
person either:
(a) To believe that if the person did not
perform such labor or services, he or
she or another person would suffer
serious harm or physical restraint; or
(b) To abuse or threaten the use of law
or the legal processes; and
(12) To recruit, transport, harbor, obtain,
transfer, maintain, hire, offer, provide,
adopt or receive a child for purposes of
exploitation or trading them, including but
not limited to, the act of baring and/or
selling a child for any consideration or for
barter for purposes of exploitation.
Trafficking for purposes of exploitation of
children shall include:
(a) All forms of slavery or practices
similar to slavery, involuntary
servitude, debt bondage and forced
labor, including recruitment of
children for use in armed conflict;
(b) The use, procuring or offering of a
child for prostitution, for the
production of pornography, or for
pornographic performances;
(c) The use, procuring or offering of a
child for the production and
trafficking of drugs; and
(d) The use, procuring or offering of a
child for illegal activities or work
which, by its nature or the
circumstances in which it is carried
out, is likely to harm their health,
safety or morals; and
(13) To organize or direct other persons to
commit the offenses defined as acts of
trafficking under this Act."
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

services of a person held to a condition of

involuntary servitude, forced labor, or
Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons
slavery.
The following acts which promote or facilitate
(8) To tamper with, destroy, or cause the
trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful (Section
destruction of evidence, or to influence or
5, RA 9208):
attempt to influence witnesses, in an
(1) To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow investigation or prosecution of a case under
to be used any house, building or this Act;
establishment for the purpose of promoting
(9) To destroy, conceal, remove, confiscate or
trafficking in persons;
possess, or attempt to destroy, conceal,
(2) To produce, print and issue or distribute remove, confiscate or possess, any actual or
unissued, tampered or fake counseling purported passport or other travel,
certificates, registration stickers and immigration or working permit or document,
certificates of any government agency which or any other actual or purported government
issues these certificates and stickers as proof identification, of any person in order to
of compliance with government regulatory prevent or restrict, or attempt to prevent or
and pre-departure requirements for the restrict, without lawful authority, the
purpose of promoting trafficking in persons; person’s liberty to move or travel in order to
maintain the labor or services of that person;
(3) To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or
or
distribute, or cause the advertisement,
publication, printing, broadcasting or (10) To utilize his or her office to impede the
distribution by any means, including the use investigation, prosecution or execution of
of information technology and the internet, lawful orders in a case under this Act."
of any brochure, flyer, or any propaganda
material that promotes trafficking in
persons; Qualified Trafficking in Persons (Section 6, RA
9208, as amended by RA 10364):
(4) To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation
or fraud for purposes of facilitating the (a) When the trafficked person is a child;
acquisition of clearances and necessary exit
(b) When the adoption is effected through RA
documents from government agencies that
8043, otherwise known as the "Inter-
are mandated to provide pre-departure
Country Adoption Act of 1995" and said
registration and services for departing
adoption is for the purpose of prostitution,
persons for the purpose of promoting
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
trafficking in persons;
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
(5) To facilitate, assist or help in the exit and bondage;
entry of persons from/to the country at
(c) When the crime is committed by a syndicate,
international and local airports, territorial
or in large scale. Trafficking is deemed
boundaries and seaports who are in
committed by a syndicate if carried out by a
possession of unissued, tampered or
group of 3 or more persons conspiring or
fraudulent travel documents for the purpose
confederating with one another. It is deemed
of promoting trafficking in persons;
committed in large scale if committed
(6) To confiscate, conceal, or destroy the against 3 or more persons, individually or as
passport, travel documents, or personal a group;
documents or belongings of trafficked
(d) When the offender is a spouse, an
persons in furtherance of trafficking or to
ascendant, parent, sibling, guardian or a
prevent them from leaving the country or
person who exercises authority over the
seeking redress from the government or
trafficked person or when the offense is
appropriate agencies;
committed by a public officer or employee;
(7) To knowingly benefit from, financial or
otherwise, or make use of, the labor or
Page 259 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(e) When the trafficked person is recruited to
engage in prostitution with any member of
the military or law enforcement agencies;
(f) When the offender is a member of the
military or law enforcement agencies;
(g) When by reason or on occasion of the act of
trafficking in persons, the offended party
dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or is
afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS);
(h) When the offender commits one or more
violations of Section 4 over a period of sixty
(60) or more days, whether those days are
continuous or not; and
(i) When the offender directs or through
another manages the trafficking victim in
carrying out the exploitative purpose of
trafficking.
Any person who buys or engages the services of
trafficked persons for prostitution shall be
penalized as follows (Section 11, RA 9208):
(a) First offense - 6 months of community
service as may be determined by the court
and a fine of P50,000;
(b) Second and subsequent offenses -
imprisonment of 1 year and a fine of
P100,000.
Use of Trafficked Persons (Sec. 11, RA 9208, as
amended by RA 10364) – Any person who buys
or engages the services of a trafficked person for
prostitution shall be penalized with the
following: Provided, That the Probation Law
(Presidential Decree No. 968) shall not apply:
(a) Prision Correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor or six (6) years to
twelve (12) years imprisonment and a fine
of not less than Fifty thousand pesos
(P50,000.00) but not more than One
hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00): Provided, however, That
the following acts shall be exempted
thereto:
(1) If an offense under paragraph (a)
involves sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child, the
Page 260 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
penalty shall be reclusion temporal in
its medium period to reclusion
perpetua or seventeen (17) years to
forty (40) years imprisonment and a
fine of not less than Five hundred
thousand pesos (P500,000.00) but
not more than One million pesos
(P1,000,000.00);
(2) If an offense under paragraph (a)
involves carnal knowledge of, or
sexual intercourse with, a male or
female trafficking victim and also
involves the use of force or
intimidation, to a victim deprived of
reason or to an unconscious victim, or
a victim under twelve (12) years of age,
instead of the penalty prescribed in
the subparagraph above the penalty
shall be a fine of not less than One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) but not
more than Five million pesos
(P5,000,000.00) and imprisonment of
reclusion perpetua or forty (40) years
imprisonment with no possibility of
parole; except that if a person
violating paragraph (a) of this section
knows the person that provided
prostitution services is in fact a victim
of trafficking, the offender shall not be
likewise penalized under this section
but under Section 10 as a person
violating Section 4; and if in
committing such an offense, the
offender also knows a qualifying
circumstance for trafficking, the
offender shall be penalized under
Section 10 for qualified trafficking. If in
violating this section the offender also
violates Section 4, the offender shall
be penalized under Section 10 and, if
applicable, for qualified trafficking
instead of under this section;
(b) Deportation. – If a foreigner commits any
offense described by paragraph (1) or (2)
of this section or violates any pertinent
provision of this Act as an accomplice or
accessory to, or by attempting any such
offense, he or she shall be immediately
deported after serving his or her sentence
and be barred permanently from entering
the country; and
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(c) Public Official. – If the offender is a public
official, he or she shall be dismissed from
service and shall suffer perpetual absolute
disqualification to hold public, office, in
addition to any imprisonment or fine
received pursuant to any other provision of
this Act."
Trafficked persons shall be recognized as victims
of the act or acts of trafficking and as such shall
not be penalized for crimes directly related to
the acts of trafficking enumerated in this Act or
in obedience to the order made by the trafficker
in relation thereto. In this regard, the consent of
a trafficked person to the intended exploitation
set forth in this Act shall be irrelevant. (Section
17, RA 9208)
Note on Section 17: Persons trafficked (including
prostitutes) are exempt from criminal liability.
Note also: Under RA 9208, persons who hire
trafficked persons are criminally liable (Section
11). Not so in Art 202 RPC.
Under RA 10364, it is provided that victims of
trafficking for purposes of prostitution as
defined under Section 4 of this Act are not
covered by Article 202 of the Revised Penal
Code and as such, shall not be prosecuted,
fined, or otherwise penalized under the said law.
Prostitution is definedas any act, transaction,
scheme or design involving the use of a person
by another, for sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct in exchange for money, profit or any
other consideration.
RA 10364 also added new sections on
attempted trafficking of persons (Sec. 4-A),
accomplice liability (Sec. 4-B) and accessories
(Sec. 4-C).
Attempted Trafficking in Persons. – Where there
are acts to initiate the commission of a
trafficking offense but the offender failed to or
did not execute all the elements of the crime, by
accident or by reason of some cause other than
voluntary desistance, such overt acts shall be
deemed as an attempt to commit an act of
Page 261 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
trafficking in persons. As such, an attempt to
commit any of the offenses enumerated in
Section 4 of this Act shall constitute attempted
trafficking in persons.
In cases where the victim is a child, any of the
following acts shall also be deemed as
attempted trafficking in persons:
(1) Facilitating the travel of a child who travels
alone to a foreign country or territory
without valid reason therefor and without
the required clearance or permit from the
Department of Social Welfare and
Development, or a written permit or
justification from the child’s parent or legal
guardian;
(2) Executing, for a consideration, an affidavit
of consent or a written consent for
adoption;
(3) Recruiting a woman to bear a child for the
purpose of selling the child;
(4) Simulating a birth for the purpose of selling
the child; and
(5) Soliciting a child and acquiring the custody
thereof through any means from among
hospitals, clinics, nurseries, daycare
centers, refugee or evacuation centers, and
low-income families, for the purpose of
selling the child.
Accomplice – knowingly aids, abets, cooperates
in the execution of the offense by previous or
simultaneous acts defined in this Act
Accessories – Whoever has the knowledge of
the commission of the crime, and without having
participated therein, either as principal or as
accomplices, take part in its commission in any
of the following manners:
(a) By profiting themselves or assisting the
offender to profit by the effects of the crime;
(b) By concealing or destroying the body of the
crime or effects or instruments thereof, in
order to prevent its discovery;
(c) By harboring, concealing or assisting in the
escape of the principal of the crime,
provided the accessory acts with abuse of his
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

or her public functions or is known to be

habitually guilty of some other crime.

Page 262 of 407

UP LAW BOC
VIII. TITLE VII. CRIMES
COMMITTED BY PUBLIC
OFFICERS
Chapter 1: Preliminary Provisions
(a) Art. 203: Who Are Public Officers
Chapter 2: Malfeasance and Misfeasance in
Office
(a) Art. 204: Knowingly Rendering Unjust
Judgment
(b) Art. 205: Judgment Rendered Through
Negligence
(c) Art. 206: Unjust Interlocutory Order
(d) Art. 207: Malicious Delay in
Administration of Justice
(e) Art. 208: Prosecution of Offenses;
Negligence and Tolerance
(f) Art. 209: Betrayal of Trust by an Attorney or
a Solicitor - Revelation of Secrets
(g) Art. 210: Direct Bribery
(h) Art. 211: Indirect Bribery
(i) Art. 211-A: Qualified Bribery
(j) Art. 212: Corruption of Public Officials
(k) Art. 214: Other Frauds
Chapter 3: Frauds and Illegal Exactions and
Transactions
1. Art. 213: Fraud against the Public Treasury
and Similar Offenses
2. Art. 215: Prohibited Transactions
3. Art. 216: Possession of Prohibited Interest
by a Public Officer
Chapter 4: Malversation of Public Funds and
Properties
A. Art. 217: Malversation of Public Funds or
Property - Presumption of Malversation
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
B. Art. 218: Failure of Accountable Officer to
Render Accounts
C. Art. 219: Failure of a Responsible Public
Officer to Render Accounts Before Leaving
the Country
D. Art. 220: Illegal Use of Public Funds or
Property
E. Art. 221: Failure to Make Delivery of Public
Funds or Property
F. Art. 222: Officers Included in the Preceding
Provisions
Chapter 5: Infidelity of Public Officers
(1) Art. 223: Conniving With or Consenting to
Evasion
(2) Art. 224: Evasion through Negligence
the
(3) Art. 225: Escape of Prisoner under the
Custody of a Person Not a Public Officer
(4) Art. 226: Removal, Concealment, or
Destruction of Documents
(5) Art. 227: Officer Breaking Seal
(6) Art. 228: Opening of Closed Documents
(7) Art. 229: Revelation of Secrets by an Officer
(8) Art. 230: Public Officers Revealing Secrets
of Private Individuals
Chapter 6: Other Offenses and Irregularities by
Public Officers
(1) Art. 231: Open Disobedience
(2) Art. 232: Disobedience to the Order of
Superior Officer When Said Order Was
Suspended by Inferior Officer
(3) Art. 233 - Refusal of Assistance
(4) Art. 234: Refusal to Discharge Elective
Office
(5) Art. 235: Maltreatment of Prisoners
(6) Art. 236: Anticipation of Duties of a Public
Officer
(7) Art. 237: Prolonging Performance of Duties
and Powers
(8) Art. 238: Abandonment of Office or Position
Page 263 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(9) Art. 239: Usurpation of Legislative Powers
(10) Art. 240: Usurpation of Executive Functions
(11) Art. 241: Usurpation of Judicial Functions
(12) Art. 242: Disobeying Request for
Disqualification
(13) Art. 243: Orders or Request by Executive
Officer to Any Judicial Authority
(14) Art. 244: Unlawful Appointments
(15) Art. 245: Abuses against Chastity
Note: This is one of the instances where the
Revised Penal Code may be given extra-
territorial application under Article 2 (5) thereof.
Crimes under this title can be committed by
public officers or a non-public officer, when the
latter becomes a conspirator with a public
officer, or an accomplice, or accessory to the
crime. The public officer has to be the principal.
A. CHAPTER I: PRELIMINARY
PROVISIONS
A.1. ART. 203 – WHO ARE PUBLIC OFFICERS
Requisites:
(1) Taking part in the performance of public
functions in the government;
(2) Performing in said government or in any of
its branches public duties as an employee,
agent or subordinate official, of any rank or
class;
(3) His authority to take part in the performance
of public functions or to perform public
duties must be –
(a) By direct provision of the law;
(b) By popular election; or
(c) By appointment by competent
authority
"Public official" includes elective and appointive
officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the career or non-career
Page 264 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
service, including military and police personnel,
whether or not they receive compensation,
regardless of amount. (Sec. 3(b), RA 6713)
"Public officer" includes elective and appointive
officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified or
unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the
government. (Sec. 2(c), RA 3019)
The term “public officers” embraces every public
servant from the highest to lowest.
Dacumas vs. Sandiganbayan [195 SCRA 833
(1991)] expanded the meaning of “official
duties”. It included those which may be in one’s
capacity to perform by reason of his office.
Officers and employees of government owned
and controlled corporations included but not
those of a sequestered corporation.
The better rule is that GOCCs created by law are
covered while GOCCs registered with the SEC
(including sequestered companies) are not.
[Macalino vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. Nos. 140199-
200 (2002)]
The more recent case of People vs.
Sandiganbayan [G.R. No. 167304 (2009)] held
that, based on RA 8249, presidents, directors,
trustees, and managers of all GOCCs, regardless
of type, are subject to the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan when they are involved in graft
and corruption.
B. CHAPTER II: MALFEASANCE AND
MISFEASANCE IN OFFICE
Malfeasance The performance of an act
which ought not to be
(Direct Bribery and
done
Indirect Bribery)
Improper performance of
Misfeasance
some act which might
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(see Arts 204-207: lawfully be done
acts by a judge)
Omission of some act
Nonfeasance
which ought to be
(Prosecution)
performed
B.1. ARTICLE 204 – KNOWINGLY RENDERING
UNJUST JUDGMENT
Elements:
(1) Offender is a judge;
(2) He renders a judgment in a case submitted
to him for decision;
(3) Judgment is unjust;
(4) The judge knows that his judgment is unjust.
Judgment – the final consideration and
determination of a court of competent
jurisdiction upon matters submitted to it, in an
action or proceeding.
An unjust judgment is one which is contrary to
law or is not supported by the evidence, or both.
Defense: Mere error in good faith.
There must be positive evidence imputing an
unjust judgment; presumption will not suffice.
The source of an unjust judgment may be either
a) error, b) ill will or revenge, or c) bribery.
The offense refers only to a judgment of an
individual judge in his court, and not to the
judgment rendered in a collegial court by the
members thereof. [In Re: Wenceslao Laureta,
G.R. No. L-68635 (1987)]
Before a criminal action against a judge for
violation of Articles 204 and 205 can be
entertained, there must be a trial or
authoritative judicial declaration that his
decision or order is really unjust which may
result from either an action of certiorari or
Page 265 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
prohibition in a higher court. [De Vera vs. Pelayo,
G.R. No. 137354 (2000)]
Malice or bad faith on the part of the judge in
rendering an unjust decision must still be proved
and failure on the part of the complainant to
prove the same warrants the dismissal of the
administrative complaint [Alforte vs. Santos,
A.M. No. MTJ-94-914 (1995)]
B.2. ARTICLE 205 – JUDGMENT RENDERED
THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a judge;
(2) He renders a judgment in a case submitted
to him for decision;
(3) The judgment is manifestly unjust;
(4) It is due to his inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
A manifestly unjust judgment is one which is so
manifestly contrary to law that even a person
having basic knowledge of the law cannot doubt
the injustice. Abuse of discretion or mere error of
judgment, not punishable.
The Supreme Court held that a judgment is said
to be unjust when it is contrary to the standards
of conduct prescribed by law.
The test to determine whether an order or
judgment is unjust may be inferred from the
circumstances that it is contrary to law or is not
supported by evidence. [Louis Vuitton S.A. vs.
Judge Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-92-643 (1992)]
B.3. ARTICLE 206 – UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY
ORDER
Elements:
(1) Offender is a judge;
(2) He performs any of the following acts:
UP LAW BOC
(a) Knowingly rendering an unjust
interlocutory order or decree; or
(b) Rendering a manifestly unjust
interlocutory order or decree
through inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
If the order leaves something to be done in the
trial court with respect to the merits of the case,
it is interlocutory. If it does not, it is final.
The unjust interlocutory order must have been
issued by the judge with deliberate intent to
cause damage to the party concerned.
B.4. ARTICLE 207 – MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a judge;
(2) There is a proceeding in his court;
(3) He delays in the administration of justice;
(4) The delay is malicious, that is, with
deliberate intent to inflict damage on either
party in the case.
Malice must be proven. Malice is present where
the delay is sought to favor one party to the
prejudice of the other.
Mere delay without malice is not a felony under
this provision.
B.5. ARTICLE 208 – PROSECUTION OF
OFFENSES; NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
Modes
(a) Maliciously refraining from instituting
prosecution against violators of the law;
(b) Maliciously tolerating the commission of
offenses.
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or officer of the
law who has a duty to cause the prosecution
of, or to prosecute, offenses;
(2) There is a dereliction of the duties of his
office, that is, knowing the commission of
the crime, he does not cause the prosecution
of the criminal, or knowing that a crime is
about to be committed, he tolerates its
commission;
(3) Offender acts with malice and deliberate
intent to favor the violator of the law.
Public officer – officers of the prosecution
department, whose duty is to institute criminal
proceedings for felonies upon being informed of
their perpetration, i.e. city attorney, fiscal
Officer of the law – those who, by reason of the
position held by them, are duty-bound to cause
prosecution and punishment of offenders, i.e.
chief of police, barrio captain
Also known as prevaricacion.
“Negligence” in the title must be construed to
mean neglect of the duties of his office by
maliciously failing to move the prosecution and
punishment of the delinquent. The crime
committed by the law violator must be proved
first. [US v. Mendoza, 23 Phil. 194]
Liability of the public officer who, having the
duty of prosecuting the offender, harbored,
concealed, or assisted in the escape of the latter,
is that of a principal in the crime of dereliction of
duty in the prosecution of the offense.
B.6. ARTICLE 209 – BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY
AN ATTORNEY OR A SOLICITOR –
REVELATION OF SECRETS
Elements:
(1) Causing damage to his client, either—
(a) By any malicious breach of
professional duty;
Page 266 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(b) By inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
(2) Revealing any of the secrets of his client
learned by him in his professional capacity
(damage is not necessary);
(3) Undertaking the defense of the opposing
party in the same case, without the consent
of his first client,
(a) after having undertaken the defense
of said first client, or
(b) after having received confidential
information from said client.
When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of
his employment or inexcusable negligence or
ignorance, there must be damage to his client.
Communications made with prospective clients
to a lawyer with a view to engaging his
professional services are already privileged even
though the client-lawyer relationship did not
eventually materialize.
The confidential matters or information must be
confided to the lawyer in the latter’s professional
capacity.
Mere malicious breach without damage is not a
violation of Article 209; at most he will be liable
administratively as a lawyer, e.g., suspension or
disbarment under the Code of Professional
Responsibility.
Modes of Commission:
(a) Maliciously causing damage to his client
through a breach of his professional duty.
Note: The breach of professional duty must
be malicious. If it is just incidental, it would
not give rise to criminal liability, although it
may be the subject of administrative
discipline;
(b) Through gross ignorance, causing damage
to the client;
Page 267 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(c) Inexcusable negligence;
(d) Revelation of secrets learned in his
professional capacity;
(e) Undertaking the defense of the opposite
party in a case without the consent of the
first client whose defense has already been
undertaken.
The Supreme Court held that not all information
received by counsel from the client is classified
as privileged.
A distinction must be made between
confidential communications relating to past
crimes already committed, and future crimes
intended to be committed by the client. The
attorney-client privilege only covers past crimes.
[People v. Sandiganbayan, supra]
B.7. ARTICLE 210 – DIRECT BRIBERY
Modes
(a) Agreeing to perform, or performing, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present; an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his
official duties;
(b) Accepting a gift in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duty;
(c) Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from
doing something which is his official duty to
do, in consideration of gift or promise.
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer within the scope
of Article 203;
(2) Offender accepts an offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present by himself or
through another;
(3) Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or
present received by the public officer –
(a) With a view to committing some crime;
or
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(b) In consideration of the execution of an
act which does not constitute a crime,
but the act must be unjust; or
(c) To refrain from doing something which it
is his official duty to do.
(4) The act which offender agrees to perform or
which he executes be connected with the
performance of his official duties.
The crime of bribery has no frustrated stage. If
one party does not concur, then there is no
agreement and not all the acts necessary to
commit the crime were present.
Temporary performance of public functions is
sufficient to constitute a person a public officer.
Bribery exists when the gift is:
(a) voluntarily offered by a private person;
(b) solicited by the public officer and voluntarily
delivered by the private person;
(c) solicited by the public officer but the private
person delivers it out of fear of the
consequences should the public officer
perform his functions (here the crime by the
giver does not fall under corruption of public
officials due to the involuntariness of the
act).
In the FIRST MODE of bribery, actual receipt of
the gift is not necessary.
An accepted offer or promise of a gift is
sufficient. However, if the offer is not accepted,
only the person offering the gift is liable for
attempted corruption of a public officer.
In the SECOND MODE of bribery, the gift must
be accepted by the public officer.
The GIFT must have a value or capable of
pecuniary estimation. It could be in the form of
money, property or services. It cannot consist of
a mere offer or promise of a gift.
Page 268 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
If the act required of the public officer amounts
to a crime and he commits it, he shall be liable
for the penalty corresponding to the crime.
The THIRD MODE of bribery and prevaricacion
(Art 208) are similar offenses, both consisting of
omission of an act required to be performed.
In direct bribery however, a gift or promise is
given in consideration of the omission. This is
not necessary in prevaricacion.
Direct bribery does not absorb Art. 208
(dereliction of duty). See Qualified Bribery (211-
A)
Police Sergeant Malfrosque asked and accepted
money in exchange for the recovery of the
reported stolen gas tanks to the owners. This
made him liable under the 2nd Mode of Art 210
since the act of returning the gas tanks to the
owners does not constitute a crime; he
demanded money and said act was in
connection with the performance of his duty as a
policeman. [Marifosque vs. People, G.R. No.
156685 (2004)]
Distinguished from Sec 3(b) of RA 3019
Whereas the mere request or demand of a gift,
present, share, percentage or benefit is enough
to constitute a violation of Section 3(b) of RA
3019, acceptance of a promise or offer or receipt
of a gift or present is required in direct bribery.
Moreover, the ambit of Section 3(b) of RA 3019 is
specific. It is limited only to contracts or
transactions involving monetary consideration
where the public officer has the authority to
intervene under the law. Direct bribery, on the
other hand, has a wider and more general scope:
(a) performance of an act constituting a crime;
(b) execution of an unjust act which does not
constitute a crime and (c) agreeing to refrain or
refraining from doing an act which is his official
duty to do. [Merencillo vs. People, G.R. No.
142369-70, (2007)]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
B.8. ARTICLE 211 – INDIRECT BRIBERY
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He accepts gifts;
(3) The gifts are offered to him by reason of his
office.
The principal distinction between direct and
indirect bribery is that in the former, the officer
agrees to perform or refrain from doing an act in
consideration of the gift or promise. In the latter
case, it is not necessary that the officer do any
act. It is sufficient that he accepts the gift offered
by reason of his office.
If after receiving the gift, the officer does any act
in favor of the giver which is unfair to the others,
the crime continues to be indirect bribery.
Precisely the evil of indirect bribery is in its
tendency to produce future, unspecified, and
unwarranted favors from the official.
This is always in the consummated stage. There
is no attempted much less frustrated stage in
indirect bribery.
There must be clear intention on the part of the
public officer:
(1) to take the gift offered; and
(2) consider the property as his own for that
moment.
Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any
other sign, circumstance or act to show such
acceptance is not sufficient to convict the officer.
“Gift" refers to a thing or a right to dispose of
gratuitously, or any act or liberality, in favor of
another who accepts it, and shall include a
simulated sale or an ostensibly onerous
disposition thereof. It shall not include an
unsolicited gift of nominal or insignificant value
not given in anticipation of, or in exchange for, a
Page 269 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
favor from a public official or employee. [Sec.
3(c), RA 6713]
“Receiving any gift" includes the act of
accepting directly or indirectly a gift from a
person other than a member of the public
officer's immediate family, in behalf of himself or
of any member of his family or relative within the
fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity or
affinity, even on the occasion of a family
celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if
the value of the gift is under the circumstances
manifestly excessive. [Section 2(c), RA 3019]
B.9. ARTICLE 211-A – QUALIFIED BRIBERY
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer entrusted with
law enforcement;
(2) He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or
death;
(3) Offender refrains from arresting or
prosecuting in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift, or present.
The crime of qualified bribery may be committed
only by public officers “entrusted with
enforcement” (those whose official duties
authorize them to arrest or prosecute offenders).
The penalty is qualified if the public officer is the
one who asks or demands such present.
If the penalty imposed is lower than reclusion
perpetua and/or death had the offender been
arrested or the crime prosecuted, the crime is
direct bribery.
The dereliction of the duty punished under
Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code is
absorbed in Qualified Bribery.
B.10. ARTICLE 212 – CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
ELEMENTS:
(1) Offender makes offers or promises or gives
gifts or presents to a public officer;
(2) The offers or promises are made or the gifts
or presents given to a public officer, under
circumstances that will make the public
officer liable for direct bribery or indirect
bribery.
The offender is the giver of the gift or the offeror
of the promise.
The act may or may not be accomplished.
Whenever any public officer or employee has
acquired during his incumbency an amount of
property which is manifestly out of proportion to
his salary as such public officer or employee and
to his other lawful income and the income from
legitimately acquired property, said property
shall be presumed prima facie to have been
unlawfully acquired. If the respondent is unable
to show to the satisfaction of the court that he
has lawfully acquired the property in question,
then the court shall declare such property,
forfeited in favor of the State. [R.A. 1379]
The following shall be exempt from prosecution
or punishment for the offense with reference to
which his information and testimony was given:
(a) Any person who voluntarily gives
information about any violation of
(1) Articles 210, 211, and 212 of the RPC;
(2) R.A. 3019, as amended;
(3) Section 345 of the Internal Revenue
Code and Section 3604 of the Tariff
and Customs Code and other
provisions of the said Codes penalizing
abuse or dishonesty on the part of the
public officials concerned;
(4) Other laws, rules and regulations
punishing acts of graft, corruption and
other forms of official abuse;
(b) Any person who willingly testifies against
any public official or employee for such
violation. (Section 1, PD 749)
Page 270 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
B.11. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3019
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Corrupt Practices of Public Officers
Sec. 3(a)
Persuading, inducing or influencing another
public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority or an
offense in connection with the official duties of
the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded,
induced, or influenced to commit such violation
or offense.
Sec. 3(b)
Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection
with any contract or transaction between the
Government and any other party, wherein the
public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law.
Elements:
(1) the offender is a public officer;
(2) who requested or received a gift, a present, a
share, a percentage, or benefit;
(3) on behalf of the offender or any other
person;
(4) in connection with a contract or transaction
with the government;
(5) in which the public officer, in an official
capacity under the law, has the right to
intervene. [Cadiao-Palacios v. People 582
SCRA 713 (2009)]
Bar question: May a public officer charged under
Section 3(b) of Republic Act No. 3019 ["directly
or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present, share, percentage or benefit, for himself
or for any other person, in connection with any
contract or transaction between the government
and any other party, wherein the public officer in
his official capacity has to intervene under the
law"] also be simultaneously or successively
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
charged with direct bribery under Article 210 of
the Revised Penal Code?
Suggested answer: Violation of Section (b) of RA
3019 (Graft) and Article 210 of RPC do not
preclude each other and may be simultaneously
or successively charged
Whether or not the public officer demanded for
gifts or benefits is immaterial, for the Act uses
the words “requesting or receiving”.
This section refers to a public officer whose
official intervention is required by law in a
contract or transaction. [Jaravata v.
Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. L-56170 (1984)]
Sec. 3(c)
Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any
gift, present or other pecuniary or material
benefit, for himself or for another, from any
person for whom the public officer, in any
manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or
will secure or obtain, any Government permit or
license, in consideration for the help given or to
be given.
Elements:
(1) the offender is a public officer;
(2) he has secured or obtained, or would secure
or obtain, for a person any government
permit or license;
(3) he directly or indirectly requested or received
from said person any gift, present or other
pecuniary or material benefit for himself or
for another; and
(4) he requested or received the gift, present or
other pecuniary or material benefit in
consideration for help given or to be given
Sec. 3(d)
Accepting or having any member of his family
accept employment in a private enterprise which
has pending official business with him during
the pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.
Page 271 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Sec. 3(e)
Causing any undue injury to any party, including
the Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference
in the discharge of his official administrative or
judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
negligence. This provision shall apply to officers
and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses
or permits or other concessions.
Elements:
(1) The accused is a public officer discharging
administrative, judicial or official functions;
(2) he must have acted with manifest partiality,
evident bad faith, or inexcusable negligence;
and
(3) his action has caused any undue injury to
any party, including the Government, or has
given any party unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference in the discharge of
his functions. [Fonacier v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. L-50691 ( 1994)]
Manifest Partiality
"Partiality" is synonymous with "bias" which
"excites a disposition to see and report matters
as they are wished for rather than as they are."
Evident Bad Faith
"Bad faith does not simply connote bad
judgment or negligence; it imputes a dishonest
purpose or some moral obliquity and conscious
doing of a wrong; a breach of sworn duty
through some motive or intent or ill will; it
partakes of the nature of fraud."
Inexcusable Negligence
“Gross negligence has been so defined as
negligence characterized by the want of even
slight care, acting or omitting to act in a
situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally with
a conscious indifference to consequences in so
far as other persons may be affected. It is the
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

omission of that care which even inattentive

and thoughtless men never fail to take on their
own property."
These definitions prove all too well that the
three Modes are distinct and different from each
other. Proof of the existence of any of these
Modes in connection with the prohibited acts
under Section 3(e) should suffice to warrant
conviction. [Fonacier vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R.
No. L-50691 (1994)]
The fact that the damage was caused when the
accused was no longer in the discharge his
official functions will not remove his
classification as a public officer. It is precisely
the taking advantage of his official position
which showed evident bad faith and caused
undue injury.
Sec. 3(h)
Directly or indirectly having financial or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he
intervenes or takes part in his official capacity, or
in which he is prohibited by the Constitution or
by any law from having any interest.
A mayor who has divested himself of shares in a
corporation which had a contract with the
government before his assumption to office,
even if the divestment was to a relative, is not
liable under 3 (h). What the law wants to prevent
is actual intervention in a transaction in which
the public official has financial or pecuniary
interest. [Trieste v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
70332-43 (1986)]

Sec. 3(i)
The last sentence of paragraph (e) is intended to
Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for
make clear the inclusion of officers and
personal gain, or having a material interest in
employees of offices or government corporations
any transaction or act requiring the approval of a
which, under the ordinary concept of “public
board, panel or group of which he is a member,
officers” may not come within the term. It is a
and which exercises discretion in such approval,
strained construction of the provision to read it
even if he votes against the same or does not
as applying exclusively to public officers charged
participate in the action of the board,
with the duty of granting licenses or permits or
committee, panel or group.
other concessions [Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan
(1987)]
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed
against those public officers responsible for the
Sec. 3(f)
approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or
Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel
request, without sufficient justification, to act or group to which they belong.
within a reasonable time on any matter pending
before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly
or indirectly, from any person interested in the Sec. 3(j)
matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
Knowingly approving or granting any license,
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his
permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person
own interest or giving undue advantage in favor
not qualified for or not legally entitled to such
of or discriminating against any other interested
license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a
party.
mere representative or dummy of one who is not
so qualified or entitled.
Sec. 3(g)
Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any Sec. 3(k)
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
Divulging valuable information of a confidential
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not
character, acquired by his office or by him on
the public officer profited or will profit thereby.
Page 272 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
account of his official position to unauthorized
persons, or releasing such information in
advance of its authorized release date.
Prohibition on private individuals (Sec. 4)
(a) Taking advantage of family or close
personal relation with any public official, by
directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any present or pecuniary advantage from
any person having some business,
transaction, application, request or contract
with the government, in which such public
official has to intervene.
Family relation: includes the spouse or relatives
by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil
degree.
Close personal relation: includes close personal
friendship, social and fraternal connections, and
professional employment all giving rise to
intimacy which assures free access to such
public officer.
(b) Knowingly inducing or causing any public
official to commit any of the offenses
defined in Sec. 3.
Prohibition on certain relatives (Sec. 5)
The spouse or any relative, by consanguinity or
affinity, within the third civil degree, of the
President, Vice-President, President of the
Senate, or Speaker of the House of
Representatives is prohibited from intervening
directly or indirectly, in any business,
transaction, contract or application with the
Government.
Exceptions:
(1) Any person who, prior to the assumption of
office of those officials to whom he is
related, has been already dealing with the
Government along the same line of
business, nor to any transaction, contract or
application already existing or pending at
the time of such assumption of public office.
Page 273 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(2) Any application filed by him the approval of
which is not discretionary on the part of the
official or officials concerned but depends
upon compliance with requisites provided
by law, or rules or regulations issued
pursuant to law;
(3) Any act lawfully performed in an official
capacity or in the exercise of a profession.
Prohibition on Members of Congress (Sec. 6)
(a) A member of Congress during the term for
which he has been elected, to acquire or
receive any personal pecuniary interest in
any specific business enterprise which will
be directly and particularly favored or
benefited by any law or resolution authored
by him previously approved or adopted by
Congress during the same term.
(b) Any other public officer who recommended
the initiation in Congress of the enactment
or adoption of any law or resolution, and
acquires or receives any such interest during
his incumbency.
(c) A member of Congress or other public
officer, who, having such interest prior to
the approval of such law or resolution
authored or recommended by him,
continues for thirty days after such approval
to retain such interest.
Exception
Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or
insignificant value offered or given as a mere
ordinary token of gratitude or friendship
according to local customs or usage, shall be
excepted from the provisions of this Act. [Sec. 14
RA 3019]
B.12. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7080
An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of
Plunder (Anti-Plunder Act)
Definition of Terms
(a) Public Officer – any person holding any
public office in the Government of the
Republic of the Philippines by virtue of an
appointment, election or contract.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(b) Government – includes the National prejudice of the Filipino people and the
Government, and any of its subdivisions, Republic of the Philippines. [Sec. 1, RA
agencies or instrumentalities, including 7080]
GOCCs and their subsidiaries.
(c) Person – includes any natural or juridical
RA 7659 (The Death Penalty Law) amended
person, unless the context indicates
Section 2 of RA 7080, and lowered the amount
otherwise.
to fifty million pesos and increased the
(d) Ill-gotten wealth – any asset, property, imposable penalty to death.
business enterprise or material possession
of any person within the purview of Section
2 (Plunder), acquired by him directly or Rule of Evidence
indirectly through dummies, nominees,
For purposes of establishing the crime of
agents, subordinates and/or business
plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each
associates by any combination or series of
and every criminal act done by the accused in
the following means or similar schemes:
furtherance of the scheme or conspiracy to
(1) Through misappropriation, conversion, amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth,
misuse, or malversation of public funds it being sufficient to establish beyond
or raids on the public treasury; reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal
acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or
(2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
conspiracy. [Sec. 4, RA 7080]
commission, gift, share, percentage,
kickbacks or any other form of
pecuniary benefit from any person
Combination – refers to at least 2 acts falling
and/or entity in connection with any
under different categories of enumeration in
government contract or project or by
Sec. 1 (d) i.e. raids on the public treasury under
reason of the office or position of the
subpar. 1 and fraudulent conveyance of assets
public officer concerned;
belonging to the National Government under
(3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance subpar. 3. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
or disposition of assets belonging to 148560 (2001)]
the National Government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities or government- Series – refers to at least 2 or more overt or
owned or -controlled corporations and criminal acts falling under the same category of
their subsidiaries; enumeration in Sec. 1 (d) i.e. misappropriation,
malversation and raids on the public treasury
(4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting
under subparagraph 1. [Estrada v.
directly or indirectly any shares of
Sandiganbayan, supra]
stock, equity or any other form of
interest or participation including
promise of future employment in any Pattern – consists of at least a combination or
business enterprise or undertaking; series of overt or criminal acts enumerated in
(5) By establishing agricultural, industrial subsections (1) to (6) of Section 1(d). It is a
or commercial monopolies or other general plan of action or method which the
combinations and/or implementation principal accused and the public officer and
of decrees and orders intended to others conniving with him follow to achieve the
benefit particular persons or special unlawful scheme or conspiracy to achieve a
interests; or common goal. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan,
supra]
(6) By taking undue advantage of official
position, authority, relationship,
connection or influence to unjustly
enrich himself or themselves at the
expense and to the damage and
Page 274 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Plunder is a crime malum in se, and the element
of mens rea must be proven in a prosecution for
plunder. [Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, supra]
Difference between wheel conspiracy and chain
conspiracy
In the American jurisdiction, the presence of
several accused in multiple conspiracies
commonly involves two structures: (1) the so-
called wheel or circle conspiracy, in which there
is a single person or group (the hub) dealing
individually with two or more other persons or
groups (the spokes); and (2) the chain
conspiracy, usually involving the distribution of
narcotics or other contraband, in which there is
successive communication and cooperation in
much the same way as with legitimate business
operations between manufacturer and
wholesaler, then wholesaler and retailer, and
then retailer and consumer. [Estrada v.
Sandiganbayan, supra]
B.13. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 46
Making It Punishable for Public Officials and
Employees to Receive, and for Private Persons to
Give, Gifts on Any Occasion, Including Christmas
It is punishable for any public official or
employee, whether of the national or local
governments, to receive, directly or indirectly,
and for private persons to give, or offer to give,
any gift, present or other valuable thing on any
occasion, including Christmas, when such gift,
present or other valuable thing is given by
reason of his official position, regardless of
whether or not the same is for past favor or
favors or the giver hopes or expects to receive a
favor or better treatment in the future from the
public official or employee concerned in the
discharge of his official functions. Included
within the prohibition is the throwing of parties
or entertainments in honor of the official or
employee or his immediate relatives.
C. CHAPTER III: FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL
EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS
Page 275 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
C1. ARTICLE 213 – FRAUD AGAINST THE
PUBLIC TREASURY AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
Modes:
(a) Entering into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or making
use of any other scheme, to defraud the
government, in dealing with any person
with regard to furnishing supplies, the
making of contracts, or the adjustment or
settlement of accounts relating to public
property or funds;
(b) Demanding, directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or larger
than those authorized by law, in collection
of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts;
(c) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as
provided by law, for any sum of money
collected by him officially, in the collection
of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts;
(d) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly,
by way of payment or otherwise, things or
objects of a nature different from that
provided by law, in the collection of taxes,
licenses, fees and other imposts.
Elements of Fraud against Public Treasury
(par.1):
(1) Offender is a public officer
(2) He should have taken advantage of his
public office, that is, he intervened in the
transaction in his official capacity
(3) He entered into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or made use of
any other scheme with regard to:
(4) Furnishing supplies
(5) The making of contracts
(6) The adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds
(7) Accused had intent to defraud the
Government.
Consummated by merely entering into
agreement with any interested party or
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

speculator or by merely making use of other sort of gift or gratification, the crime is indirect
scheme to defraud the government. bribery.

It is not necessary that the Government is When there is deceit in demanding a greater fee
actually defrauded by the reason of the than those prescribed by law, the crime
transaction committed is estafa and not illegal exaction.

Elements of Illegal Exactions (par.2.): Illegal exaction may be complexed with

malversation if illegal exaction was committed
(1) That the offender is a public officer
as a necessary means to commit malversation.
entrusted with the collection of taxes,
licenses, fees and other imposts;
(2) He is guilty of the following acts or Officers and employees of the BIR or Customs
omissions: are not covered by the article. The NIRC or the
Revised Administrative Code is the applicable
(a) Demanding directly or indirectly, the
law.
payment of sums different from or
larger than those authorized by law;
(b) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt C.2. ARTICLE 214 – OTHER FRAUDS
as provided by law, for any sum of
Elements:
money collected by him officially; or
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(c) Collecting or receiving, directly or
indirectly, by way of payment or (2) He takes advantage of his official position;
otherwise, things or object of a
(3) He commits any of the frauds or deceits
nature different from that provided
enumerated in Article 315 to 318 (estafa,
by law
other forms of swindling, swindling a minor,
other deceits).
This can only be committed principally by a
public officer whose official duty is to collect
Additional penalty of temporary special
taxes, license fees, import duties and other dues
disqualification in its maximum period to
payable to the government. perpetual special disqualification, apart from
the penalties imposed in Arts 315-318.
Mere demand of a larger or different amount is
sufficient to consummate the crime. The essence
C.3. ART. 215 – PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
is the improper collection (damage to
government is not required). Elements:
(1) Offender is an appointive public officer;
The act of receiving payment due the (2) He becomes interested, directly or indirectly,
government without issuing a receipt will give in any transaction of exchange or
rise to illegal exaction even though a provisional speculation;
receipt has been issued. What the law requires (3) The transaction takes place within the
is a receipt in the form prescribed by law, which territory subject to his jurisdiction;
means official receipt.
(4) He becomes interested in the transaction
during his incumbency.
If sums are received without demanding the
same, a felony under this article is not
committed. However, if the sum is given as a
Page 276 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Examples of transactions of exchange or
speculation are: buying and selling stocks,
commodities, land etc wherein one hopes to
take advantage of an expected rise or fall in
price.
Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is
simple investment and not a violation of the
article. However, regularly buying securities for
resale is speculation.
The offender may also be held liable under RA
3019 Sec 3(i).
C.4. ARTICLE 216 – POSSESSION OF
PROHIBITED INTEREST BY A PUBLIC OFFICER
Persons liable:
(1) Public officer who, directly or indirectly,
became interested in any contract or
business in which it was his official duty to
intervene;
(2) Experts, arbitrators, and private
accountants who, in like manner, took part
in any contract or transaction connected
with the estate or property in the appraisal,
distribution or adjudication of which they
had acted;
(3) Guardians and executors with respect to the
property belonging to their wards or the
estate.
Fraud is not necessary. Intervention must be by
virtue of the public office held.
The basis here is the possibility that fraud may
be committed or that the officer may place his
own interest above that of the government or
party he represents.
D. CHAPTER IV: MALVERSATION OF
PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
Page 277 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
D.1. ARTICLE 217 – MALVERSATION OF
PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY -
PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION
Modes:
(a) Appropriating public funds or property;
(b) Taking or misappropriating the same;
(c) Consenting, or through abandonment or
negligence, permitting any other person to
take such public funds or property; and
(d) Being otherwise guilty of the
misappropriation or malversation of such
funds or property.
Elements common to all Modes:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He had the custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office;
(3) Those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was accountable;
(4) He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or
negligence, permitted another person to
take them.
Malversation is also called embezzlement.
Appropriation – Every attempt to dispose of
public funds or property without a right to do so.
The public officer must have official custody or
the duty to collect or receive funds due the
government, or the obligation to account for
them, because this provision presupposes abuse
of office.
The nature of the duties of the public officer, not
the name of the office, is controlling. Thus, a
clerk who receives money or property belonging
to the government, in the course of his
employment, for which he is bound to account,
may be liable under Article 217.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

If the public officer is not accountable for the absence of the public funds involved. [Estepa v.
funds or property but someone else is, the crime Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 59670 (1990)]
committed is theft or qualified theft if there is an
abuse of confidence.
A private person may also commit malversation
under the following situations:
It is not necessary that the offender profited for
(a) Conspiracy with a public officer in
as long as the accountable officer was remiss in
committing malversation;
his duty of safekeeping public funds or property.
He is liable for malversation if such funds were (b) When he has become an accomplice or
lost or otherwise misappropriated by another. accessory to a public officer who commits
malversation;
(c) When the private person is made the
Negligence – the omission of reasonable care
custodian in whatever capacity of public
and caution which an ordinary prudent person
funds or property, whether belonging to
would have used in the same situation. The
national or local government, and he
measure of negligence is the standard of care
misappropriates the same (Article 222);
commensurate with the occasion.
(d) When he is constituted as the depositary or
administrator of funds or property seized or
It can be committed either with malice or attached by public authority even though
through negligence or imprudence. This is one said funds or property belong to a private
crime in the Revised Penal Code where the individual (Article 222).
penalty is the same whether committed with
dolo or through culpa.
Technical malversation (Article 220) is not
included in the crime of malversation.
The funds or property must be received in an
official capacity. Otherwise, the crime
committed is estafa. Presumption of Misappropriation
When a demand is made upon an accountable
officer and he cannot produce the fund or
Returning the malversed funds is not
property involved, there is a prima facie
exempting, it is only mitigating.
presumption that he had converted the same to
his own use. There must be indubitable proof
that thing unaccounted for exists.
A person whose negligence made possible the
commission of malversation by another can be
held liable as a principal by indispensable
Audit should be made to determine if there was
cooperation.
shortage. Audit must be complete and
trustworthy. If there is doubt, presumption does
not arise.
Demand as well as damage to the government
are not necessary elements. Demand merely
raises a prima facie presumption that missing
The accused incurred shortage (P1.74) mainly
funds have been put to personal use. Damage to
because the auditor disallowed certain cash
the government is immaterial because the
advances the accused granted to employees.
penalty is based on the amount involved.
But on the same date that the audit was made,
the partly reimbursed the amount and paid it in
full three days later. The Supreme Court
An accountable public officer may be convicted
considered the circumstances as negative of
of malversation even in the absence of direct
criminal intent. The cash advances were made in
evidence of personal misappropriation, where he
good faith and out of good will to co-employees
has not been able to explain satisfactorily the
Page 278 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

which was a practice tolerated in the office.

There was no negligence, malice, nor intent to
When estafa not malversation
defraud. [Quizo v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
77120 (1987)] If petitioner, being a public officer, embezzled
public funds for which he is accountable, his
crime would be malversation through
Estafa with falsification. But since he misappropriated
Malversation Abuse of public funds for which he is not accountable, his
(Art. 217) Confidence (Art. crime is estafa through falsification. [Ilumin v.
315) Sandiganbayan, 241 SCRA 586 (1995)]

Funds or property usually Funds/property

public are always
private
D.2. ARTICLE 218 – FAILURE OF
Offender is usually a public Offender is a ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER TO RENDER
officer who is accountable for private individual ACCOUNTS
the public funds/property or even a public Elements:
officer who is not
(1) Offender is public officer, whether in the
accountable for
service or separated therefrom by
public
resignation or any other cause;
funds/property
(2) He is an accountable officer for public funds
Crime is committed by Crime is or property;
appropriating, taking, or committed by
misappropriating/consentin misappropriating, (3) He is required by law or regulation to render
g or through abandonment converting, or account to the Commission on Audit, or to a
or negligence, permitting any denying having provincial auditor;
other person to take the received money, (4) He fails to do so for a period of two months
public funds/property goods or other after such accounts should be rendered.
personal property

No element of damage. There is damage. Demand for accounting is not necessary. It is

also not essential that there be misappropriation
Demand not necessary. There is a need because if present, the crime would be
for prior demand. malversation.

A routine government audit was conducted in D.3. ARTICLE 219 – FAILURE OF A

Wa-Acon’s office and it was discovered that the
sacks of rice entrusted to him for safekeeping
were missing. Art 217 no longer requires proof by
the State that the accused actually
appropriated, took, or misappropriated public
funds or property; instead, a presumption,
though disputable and rebuttable, was installed
upon demand by any duly authorized officer, the
failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public funds or property which
said officer is accountable for should be prima
facie evidence that he had put such missing
funds or properties to personal use. [People v.
Wa-Acon, G.R. No. 164575 (2006)]
RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC OFFICER TO RENDER
ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING THE COUNTRY
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He is an accountable officer for public funds
or property;
(3) He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave
the Philippine Islands without securing a
certificate from the Commission on Audit
showing that his accounts have been finally
settled.

Page 279 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

The act of leaving the country must be law or ordinance.

unauthorized or not permitted by law.

D.5. ARTICLE 221 - FAILURE TO MAKE

The purpose of the law is to discourage
responsible or accountable officers from leaving
without first liquidating their accountability. It is
not necessary that they really misappropriated
public funds.
D.4. ARTICLE 220 – ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) There are public funds or property under his
administration;
(3) Such fund or property were appropriated by
law or ordinance;
(4) He applies such public fund or property to
any public use other than for which it was
appropriated for.
Illegal use of public funds or property is also
known as technical malversation. The term
technical malversation is used because in this
crime, the fund or property involved is already
appropriated or earmarked for a certain public
purpose. Despite the public purpose, the act is
punished because it remains a violation of the
appropriations law.
DELIVERY OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
Modes
(a) Failing to make payment by a public officer
who is under obligation to make such
payment from government funds in his
possession;
(b) Refusing to make delivery by a public officer
who has been ordered by competent
authority to deliver any property in his
custody or under his administration.
Elements:
(1) Public officer has government funds in his
possession;
(2) He is under obligation to either:
(a) make payment from such funds;
(b) to deliver any property in his custody
or under his administration
(3) He maliciously fails to make the payment or
refuses to make delivery.
D.6. ARTICLE 222 – OFFICERS INCLUDED IN
THE PRECEDING PROVISIONS

These officers are include any:

Regardless of damage or embarrassment to the
public service. (a) Private individual who, in any capacity, have
charge of any national, provincial or
municipal funds, revenue, or property
Malversation Technical malversation (b) Administrator or depositary of funds or
(Art. 220) property that has been attached, seized or
(Art. 217)
deposited by public authority, even if owned
The offender The public officer by a private individual.
misappropriates public applies the public
funds or property for his funds or property
own personal use, or under his Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term
allows any other person administration to “administrator.” A judicial administrator in
to take such funds or another public use charge of settling the estate of the deceased is
property for the latter’s different from that for not covered by the article. Conversion of effects
own personal use. which the public fund in his trust makes him liable for estafa.
was appropriated by

Page 280 of 407

UP LAW BOC
Private property is included, provided it is (1)
attached, (2) seized or (3) deposited by public
authority.
E. CHAPTER V: INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS
Section One – Infidelity in the Custody of
Prisoners
E.1. ARTICLE 223 – CONNIVING WITH OR
CONSENTING TO EVASION
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He had in his custody or charge a prisoner,
either detention prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment;
(3) Such prisoner escaped from his custody;
(4) He was in connivance with the prisoner in
the latter’s escape. (“shall consent to the
escape”)
Classes of prisoners involved
(a) Those who have been sentenced by final
judgment to any penalty;
(b) Detention prisoners who are temporarily
held in legal custody, arrested for and
charged with violation of some law or
municipal ordinance.
Leniency, laxity, and release of a detention
prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial
authorities within the time fixed by law is not
infidelity in the custody of a prisoner.
But there is real actual evasion of service of a
sentence when the custodian permits the
prisoner to obtain a relaxation in his
imprisonment and to escape the punishment of
being deprived of his liberty, thus making the
penalty ineffectual, although the convict may
not have fled. This includes allowing prisoners to
sleep and eat in the officer’s house or utilizes the
prisoner’s services for domestic chores.
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
E.2. ARTICLE 224 – EVASION THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He is charged with the conveyance or
custody of a detention prisoner or prisoner
by final judgment;
(3) Such prisoner escapes through negligence
This covers only positive carelessness and
definite laxity which amounts to deliberate non-
performance of duties.
The fact that the public officer recaptured the
prisoner who had escaped from his custody does
not afford complete exculpation.
The liability of an escaping prisoner:
(a) If he is a prisoner by final judgment, he is
liable for evasion of service (Art. 157)
(b) If he is a detention prisoner, he does not
incur criminal liability (unless cooperating
with the offender).
Policeman Rodillas escorted detained prisoner
Sacris to the court. After the court adjourned he
let her eat lunch with her family, permitted her
to go to the ladies washroom unescorted and
after her escape, did not report it immediately to
his superiors, instead he went around looking for
her. SC held that he is guilty of the crime in Art
224 for being negligent in the performance of
his duties which made the escape of Sacris
possible. [Rodillas v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No.
L-58652 (1988)]
E.3. ARTICLE 225 – ESCAPE OF PRISONER
UNDER THE CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A
PUBLIC OFFICER
Elements:
(1) Offender is a private person;
Page 281 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(2) The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or If the officer was placed in possession of the
person under arrest is confided to him; document but it is not his duty to be the
custodian thereof, this crime is not committed.
(3) The prisoner or person under arrest escapes;
(4) Offender consents to the escape, or that the
escape takes place through his negligence. The document must be complete and one by
which a right could be established or an
obligation could be extinguished.
If the offender who aided or consented to the
prisoner’s escaping from confinement, whether
the prisoner is a convict or a detention prisoner, If the writings are mere forms, there is no crime.
is not the custodian, the crime is delivering
prisoners from jail under Article 156.
Damage to public interest is necessary.
However, material damage is not necessary.
The party who is not the custodian but who
conspired with the custodian in allowing the
prisoner to escape does not commit infidelity in Removal is consummated upon taking or
the custody of the prisoner. secreting away of the document from its usual
place. It is immaterial whether or not the illicit
purpose of the offender has been accomplished.
Art. 225 is not applicable if a private person was
the one who made the arrest and he consented
to the escape of the person he arrested. This could cover failure on the part of the post
office to forward the letters to their destination.
SECTION TWO – INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY
OF DOCUMENTS Damage in this article may consist in mere alarm
to the public or in the alienation of its confidence
in any branch of the government service.
E.4. ARTICLE 226 – REMOVAL,
CONCEALMENT, OR DESTRUCTION OF
DOCUMENTS
E.5. ARTICLE 227 – OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
Elements:
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He abstracts, destroys or conceals a
(2) He is charged with the custody of papers or
document or papers;
property;
(3) Said document or papers should have been
(3) These papers or property are sealed by
entrusted to such public officer by reason of
proper authority;
his office;
(4) He breaks the seal or permits them to be
(4) Damage, whether serious or not, to a third
broken.
party or to the public interest has been
caused.
In "breaking of seal", the word "breaking"
should not be given a literal meaning. The
Can only be committed by the public officer who
custodian is liable even if the seal was not
is made the custodian of the document in his
actually broken because the custodian managed
official capacity. If the offender is a private
to open the parcel without breaking the seal.
individual, estafa is committed; if there is no
damage, malicious mischief.
The element of damage is not required.
Page 282 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Revelation Of Secrets Removal, Mode 2: Wrongfully delivering papers or copies of

Concealment or papers of which he may have charge and which
By An Officer should not be published.
Destruction of
(Art. 229) Documents (Art.
226)
Elements:
The papers contain secrets The papers do not
(1) Offender is a public officer;
and therefore should not be contain secrets but
published, and the public their removal is for (2) He has charge of papers;
officer having charge an illicit purpose. (3) Those papers should not be published;
thereof removes and
delivers them wrongfully to (4) He delivers those papers or copies thereof to
a third person. a third person;
(5) The delivery is wrongful;

E.6. ARTICLE 228 – OPENING OF CLOSED
DOCUMENTS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) Any closed papers, documents, or objects
are entrusted to his custody;
(3) He opens or permits to be opened said
closed papers, documents or objects;
(4) He does not have proper authority.
(6) Damage is caused to public interest.
Espionage is not contemplated in this article
since revelation of secrets of the State to a
belligerent nation is already defined in Art 117
and CA 616.
Secrets must affect public interest. Secrets of
private persons are not included.

“Charge” - means custody or control. If he is

The act should not fall under Art 227. Damage is
also not necessary.
E.7. ARTICLE 229 – REVELATION OF SECRETS
BY AN OFFICER
Mode 1: Revealing any secrets known to the
offending public officer by reason of his official
capacity;
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He knows of a secret by reason of his official
capacity;
(3) He reveals such secret without authority or
justifiable reasons;
(4) Damage, great or small, is caused to the
public interest.
Page 283 of 407
merely entrusted with the papers and not with
the custody thereof, he is not liable under this
article.
If the papers contain secrets which should not be
published, and the public officer having charge
thereof removes and delivers them wrongfully to
a third person, the crime is revelation of secrets.
On the other hand, if the papers do not contain
secrets, their removal for an illicit purpose is
infidelity in the custody of documents.
Damage is essential to the act committed.
E.8. ARTICLE 230 – PUBLIC OFFICERS
REVEALING SECRETS OF PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS
Elements:
UP LAW BOC
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He knows of the secrets of a private
individual by reason of his office;
(3) He reveals such secrets without authority or
justifiable reason.
Revelation to one person is sufficient.
When the offender is a public attorney or a
solicitor, the act of revealing the secret should
not be covered by Art 209 (Betrayal of Trust).
Damage to private individual is not necessary.
The reason for this provision is to uphold faith
and trust in public service.
F. CHAPTER VI: OTHER OFFENSES OR
IRREGULARITIES BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
SECTION ONE – DISOBEDIENCE,
REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE,
MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS
F.1. ARTICLE 231 – OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
Elements:
(1) Officer is a judicial or executive officer;
(2) There is a judgment, decision or order of a
superior authority;
(3) Such judgment, decision or order was made
within the scope of the jurisdiction of the
superior authority and issued with all the
legal formalities;
(4) He, without any legal justification, openly
refuses to execute the said judgment,
decision or order, which he is duty bound to
obey.
F.2. ARTICLE 232 – DISOBEDIENCE TO THE
ORDER OF SUPERIOR OFFICER WHEN SAID
ORDER WAS SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR
OFFICER
Elements:
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) An order is issued by his superior for
execution;
(3) He has for any reason suspended the
execution of such order;
(4) His superior disapproves the suspension of
the execution of the order;
(5) Offender disobeys his superior despite the
disapproval of the suspension.
This does not apply if the order of the superior is
illegal.
F.3. ARTICLE 233 – REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) A competent authority demands from the
offender that he lend his cooperation
towards the administration of justice or
other public service;
(3) Offender maliciously fails to do so.
AND
The request must come from one public officer
to another. If he receives consideration
therefore, bribery is committed.
But mere demand will fall under the prohibition
under the provision of Republic Act No. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Applies whether or not serious damage to the
public interest was committed.
If the offender is a private individual, he may be
held liable for contempt.
F.4. ARTICLE 234 – REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE
ELECTIVE OFFICE
Elements:
(1) Offender is elected by popular election to a
public office;
Page 284 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(2) He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the
duties of said office;
(3) There is no legal motive for such refusal to
be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said
office.
Once an individual is elected to an office by the
will of the people, discharge of duties becomes a
matter of duty, not only a right. This only applies
for elective, not appointive officers.
F.5. ARTICLE 235 – MALTREATMENT OF
PRISONERS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
(2) He has under his charge a prisoner or
detention prisoner;
(3) He maltreats such prisoner in either of the
following manners:
(a) By overdoing himself in the
correction or handling of a prisoner
or detention prisoner under his
charge either
(b) By the imposition of punishment not
authorized by the regulations;
(c) By inflicting such punishments
(those authorized) in a cruel and
humiliating manner;
(d) By maltreating such prisoners to
extort a confession or to obtain some
information from the prisoner.
This is committed only by such public officer
charged with direct custody of the prisoner.
Offender may also be held liable for physical
injuries or damage caused.
If the public officer is not the custodian of the
prisoner, and he manhandles the latter, the
crime is physical injuries.
Page 285 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
The offended party can either be a convict by
final judgment or a detention prisoner. To be
considered a detention prisoner, the person
arrested must be placed in jail even for just a
short while.
The maltreatment does not really require
physical injuries. Any kind of punishment not
authorized or although authorized if executed in
excess of the prescribed degree is covered.
If the maltreatment was done in order to extort
confession, the penalty is qualified to the next
higher degree.
If the acts of maltreatment constitute torture,
there is a separate criminal liability from the
crime under the RPC. Torturous acts are not
absorbed in, nor do they absorb other crimes.
[Section 15, RA 9745]
F.6. REPUBLIC ACT 9372
Human Security Act
Failure to Deliver Suspect to the Proper Judicial
Authority within Three Days (Section 20):
(1) The offender is a police or law enforcement
personnel who has apprehended or arrested,
detained and taken custody of a person;
(2) The person detained is charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or
conspiracy to commit terrorism;
(3) The offender fails to deliver such charged or
suspected person to the proper judicial
authority within the period of 3 days.
Exception (Section 19):
In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist
attack, suspects may be detained for more than
3 days upon the written approval of:
(a) Municipal, city, provincial or regional official
of the Human Rights Commission;
(b) Judge of the MTC, RTC, or Sandiganbayan;
or
(c) Justice of the CA nearest the place of arrest.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

damages in the amount of P500,000 for every

day that he/she has been detained or deprived
The written approval must be procured within 5
of liberty or arrested without a warrant as a
days after the date of detention.
result of such an accusation.

Provided that within 3 days after detention,

The amount of damages shall be automatically
suspects whose connection with the terror attack
charged against the appropriations of the police
or threat is not established, shall be released
agency or the Anti-Terrorism Council that
immediately.
brought or sanctioned the filing of the charges
against the accused. It shall also be released
within 15 days from the date of the acquittal of
If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays,
the accused.
holidays or after office hours, the arresting
police or law enforcement personnel shall bring
the person thus arrested to the residence of any
The award of damages mentioned above shall
of the officials mentioned above that is nearest
be without prejudice to the right of the acquitted
the place where the accused was arrested
accused to file criminal or administrative
charges against those responsible for charging
him with the case of terrorism.
Infidelity in the Custody of Detained Persons
(Section 44):
(a) The offender is any public officer who has Any officer, employee, personnel, or person who
direct custody of a detained person liable delays the release or refuses to release the
under the provisions of this Act; amounts awarded to the individual acquitted of
the crime of terrorism as directed in the
(b) The offender causes or allows the escape of
paragraph immediately preceding shall suffer
such detained person by his deliberate act,
the penalty of 6 months of imprisonment.
misconduct, or inexcusable negligence;

SECTION TWO – ANTICIPATION,

The offender shall suffer the penalty of:
(a) 12 years and 1 day to 20 years of
imprisonment, if the detained person has
already been convicted and sentenced in a
final judgment of a competent court;
(b) 6 years and 1 day to 12 years of
imprisonment, if the detained person has
not been convicted and sentenced in a final
judgment of a competent court.
The public officer is punished under the Human
Security Act and not under infidelity in the
custody of prisoners in the RPC (Articles 223-
224), if the detained person is charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy
to commit terrorism.
PROLONGATION, AND ABANDONMENT OF THE
DUTIES AND POWERS OF PUBLIC OFFICE
F.7. ARTICLE 236 – ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES
OF A PUBLIC OFFICER
Elements:
(1) Offender is entitled to hold a public office or
employment, either by election or
appointment;
(2) The law requires that he should first be
sworn in and/or should first give a bond;
(3) He assumes the performance of the duties
and powers of such office;
(4) He has not taken his oath of office and/or
given the bond required by law.

False Prosecution (Section 50):

F.8. ARTICLE 237 – PROLONGING
Upon acquittal, any person who is accused of PERFORMANCE OF DUTIES AND POWERS
terrorism shall be entitled to the payment of
Page 286 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Elements: duties
(1) Offender is holding a public office;
(2) The period provided by law, regulations or SECTION THREE – USURPATION OF POWERS
special provision for holding such office, has
AND UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
already expired;
(3) He continues to exercise the duties and
powers of such office. F.10. ARTICLE 239 – USURPATION OF
LEGISLATIVE POWERS
Elements:
The offenders here can be those suspended,
separated, declared over-aged, or dismissed. (1) Offender is an executive or judicial officer;
(2) He:
F.9. ARTICLE 238 – ABANDONMENT OF (a) makes general rules or regulations
OFFICE OR POSITION beyond the scope of his authority; or
Elements: (b) attempts to repeal a law; or
(1) Offender is a public officer; (c) suspends the execution thereof.
(2) He formally resigns from his position;
(3) His resignation has not yet been accepted; Arts. 239-241 punish interference by public
officers of the executive or judiciary with the
(4) He abandons his office to the detriment of
functions of another department of government
the public service.
to keep them within legitimate confines of their
respective jurisdictions.
For the resignation to be formal, it has to be in
written form.
Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation
of powers. The remedy is to file a petition for
The offense is qualified when the purpose of the prohibition or injunction.
abandonment is to evade the discharge of duties
of preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any of
F.11. ARTICLE 240 – USURPATION OF
the crimes falling within Title One and Chapter
EXECUTIVE FUNCTIONS
One of Title Three of book two of the RPC.
Elements:
(1) Offender is a judge;
Abandonment of
Dereliction of Duty (2) That he:
Office or Position
(Art. 208) (a) assumes a power pertaining to the
(Art. 238)
executive authorities, or
Committed by any Committed only by
(b) obstructs the executive authorities in
public officer public officers who have
the lawful exercise of their powers.
the duty to institute
prosecution for the
punishment of violations
Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation
of the law
of powers
There is actual Public officer does not F.12. ARTICLE 241 – USURPATION OF
abandonment abandon his office but JUDICIAL FUNCTIONS
through resignation to merely fails to prosecute
evade the discharge of a violation of the law. Elements:

Page 287 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(1) Offender is an officer of the executive branch
of the government;
(2) That he:
(a) assumes judicial powers, or
(b) obstructs the execution of any order
or decision rendered by any judge
within his jurisdiction.
F.13. ARTICLE 242 – DISOBEYING REQUEST
FOR DISQUALIFICATION
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) A proceeding is pending before such public
officer;
(3) There is a question brought before the
proper authority regarding his jurisdiction,
which is not yet decided;
(4) He has been lawfully required to refrain from
continuing the proceeding;
(5) He continues the proceeding.
The disobedient officer is liable even if the
jurisdictional question is resolved in his favor.
F.14. ARTICLE 243 – ORDERS OR REQUEST
BY EXECUTIVE OFFICER TO ANY JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY
Elements:
(1) Offender is an executive officer;
(2) He addresses any order or suggestion to any
judicial authority;
(3) The order or suggestion relates to any case
or business coming within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of justice.
The purpose is to maintain the independence of
the judiciary from executive dictations.
F.15. ARTICLE 244 – UNLAWFUL
APPOINTMENTS
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He nominates or appoints a person to a
public office;
Page 288 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(3) Such person lacks the legal qualifications
therefore;
(4) Offender knows that his nominee or
appointee lacks the qualification at the time
he made the nomination or appointment.
This can also be covered by RA 3019.
Recommending, knowing that the person
recommended is not qualified is not a crime.
There must be a law providing for the
qualifications of a person to be nominated or
appointed to a public office.
F.16. ARTICLE 245 – ABUSES AGAINST
CHASTITY
Modes:
(a) Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
advances to a woman interested in matters
pending before the offending officer for
decision, or with respect to which he is
required to submit a report to or consult
with a superior officer;
(b) Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
advances to a woman under the offender’s
custody;
(c) Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
advances to the wife, daughter, sister or
relative within the same degree by affinity
of any person in the custody of the
offending warden or officer.
Elements:
(1) Offender is a public officer;
(2) He solicits or makes immoral or indecent
advances to a woman;
(3) Such woman is –
(a) interested in matters pending before
the offender for decision, or with
respect to which he is required to
submit a report to or consult with a
superior officer; or
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(b) under the custody of the offender

who is a warden or other public
officer directly charged with the care
and custody of prisoners or persons
under arrest; or
(c) the wife, daughter, sister or relative
within the same degree by affinity of
the person in the custody of the
offender.

The crime is consummated by mere proposal.

The mother of the person in the custody of the

public officer is not included. If the offender were
not the custodian, then crime would fall under
Republic Act No. 3019.

Solicit – to propose earnestly and persistently

something unchaste and immoral to a woman.
The advances must be immoral or indecent.
Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there
is sexual intercourse.

Abuse against chastity is not absorbed in rape

because the basis of penalizing the acts is
different from each other

Page 289 of 407

UP LAW BOC
IX. TITLE VIII. CRIMES
AGAINST PERSONS
CHAPTER I – DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
(1) Article 246: Parricide
(2) Article 247: Death or Physical Injuries Under
Exceptional Circumstances
(3) Article 248: Murder
(4) Article 249: Homicide
(5) Article 250: Penalty for Frustrated Parricide,
Murder or Homicide
(6) Article 251: Death Caused in Tumultuous
Affray
(7) Article 252: Physical Injuries Caused in
Tumultuous Affray
(8) Article 253: Giving Assistance to Suicide
(9) Article 254: Discharge of Firearms
(10) Article 255: Infanticide
(11) Article 256: Intentional Abortion
(12) Article 257: Unintentional Abortion
(13) Article 258: Abortion Practiced by the
Woman Herself or by Parents
(14) Article 259: Abortion by a Physician or
Midwife and Dispensing of Abortives
(15) Article 260: Responsibility of Participants in
a Duel
(16) Article 261: Challenging to a Duel
CHAPTER II – PHYSICAL INJURIES
(1) Article 262: Mutilation
(2) Article 263: Serious Physical Injuries
(3) Article 264: Administering Injurious
Substances or Beverages
(4) Article 265: Less Serious Physical Injuries
(5) Article 266: Slight Physical Injuries and
Maltreatment
(6) Article 266-A: Rape (amended by RA 8353)
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
About this Title: The essence of crimes involves
the taking of human life, destruction of the fetus,
or inflicting injuries.
A. CHAPTER I – DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
A.1. ARTICLE 246 – PARRICIDE
Elements:
(1) Person is killed;
(2) Deceased is killed by the accused;
(3) Deceased is the accused's
(a) legitimate/illegitimate father
(b) legitimate/illegitimate mother
(c) legitimate/illegitimate child (should
not be less than 3 days old,
otherwise crime is infanticide)
(d) other legitimate ascendant
(e) other legitimate descendant
(f) legitimate spouse
Relationship
This is the essential element of this crime –
relationship of offender with the victim; except
for spouses, only relatives by blood and in direct
line. Hence, adopted children are not included.
[Reyes, 2012]
It must be alleged in the information. Wife of
victim cannot be convicted of parricide if
charged only with murder. However, relationship
must be considered aggravating even if not
alleged. [People vs. Jumawan, G.R. No. 187495
(2014)]
Spouse must be legitimate. Muslim husbands
with several wives can be convicted of parricide
only in case the first wife is killed. [People v.
Subano, G.R. No. L-20338 (1967)]
A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the
commission of the crime of parricide is not guilty
of parricide but only homicide or murder, as the
Page 290 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

case may be. [People vs. Patricio, G.R. No. L- The wife is also entitled to the benefits of this
20651 (1923); People vs. Echaluce, G.R. No. L- article. The phrase “any legally married person”
29776 (1975)] and the word “spouse” include the wife.

The law does not require knowledge of This does not apply if the accused is a common-
relationship between offender and victim. law spouse.
[Reyes, 2012]

Parents
Parricide shall not be punished by reclusion
Parents need not be legitimate.
perpetua to death in the following cases:
(a) Reckless or simple imprudence [Art. 365]
“Living with parent(s)” – understood to be in
(b) Parricide by mistake [Art. 49]
their own dwelling. If done in a motel, article
(c) Parricide under exceptional circumstances does not apply.
[Art. 247]

Purpose
A.2. ARTICLE 247 – DEATH OR PHYSICAL
This means “to come upon suddenly and
INJURIES UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
unexpectedly.”
CIRCUMSTANCES
Elements:
If the accused did not surprise the supposed
(1) A legally married person, or a parent,
offenders in the very act of committing adultery
surprises his spouse or his daughter, the
but thereafter, he cannot invoke the privilege of
latter under 18 years of age and living with
Art. 247. [People vs. Gonzales, G.R. No. 46310
him in the act of sexual intercourse with
(1939)]
another person;
(2) He or she kills any or both of them, or inflicts
upon any or both of them any serious Justice Laurel’s Dissent: Must the offended
physical injury in the act or immediately husband look on in the meantime and wait until
thereafter; the very physical act of coition take place? This
interpretation is far from being rational and
(3) He has not promoted or facilitated the
certainly does violence to the reason and
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that
purpose of the law.
he or she has not consented to the infidelity
of the other spouse.
Immediately Thereafter
Not a Felony There is no set time as jurisprudence has held 1
hour or even 4 hours as “immediately
This article does not define a felony, rather it
thereafter”. However, the act done must be a
serves as a defense for a person charged with
direct result of the outrage of the cuckolded
parricide, homicide or serious physical injuries. If
spouse, and a continuous act from the moment
all the requisites have been met, the defendant
of the surprising.
will be sentenced to destierro instead of the
severe penalty for the aforementioned crimes. If
less serious or slight physical injuries are
Article does not apply:
inflicted, there is no criminal liability. [Reyes,
2012] (a) If the surprising took place before any actual
sexual intercourse could be done.

Spouse
Page 291 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(b) If the daughter is married. Although the
article does not use the word “unmarried,”
this article applies only when the daughter is
single because while under 18 and single,
she is still under parental authority. If she is
married, her husband alone can claim the
benefits of this article.
Evidence of the victim’s promiscuity is
inconsequential to the killing. The offender must
prove that he actually surprised his wife and [her
paramour] in flagrante delicto, and that he killed
the man during or immediately thereafter.
[People vs. Puedan, G.R. No. 139576 (2002)]
LIABILITY FOR PHYSICAL INJURIES SUFFERED
BY THIRD PERSONS
In one case, two other persons suffered physical
injuries as they were caught in the crossfire
when the accused shot the victim. A complex
crime of double frustrated murder was not
committed as the accused did not have the
intent to kill the two victims. Here, the accused
did not commit murder when he fired at the
paramour of his wife. No aberratio ictus because
he was acting lawfully. Inflicting death under
exceptional circumstances is not murder.
[People v. Abarca]
A.3. ARTICLE 248 – MURDER
Elements:
(1) Person was killed;
(2) Accused killed him;
(3) Killing attended by any of the following
qualifying circumstances
(a) with treachery, taking advantage of
superior strength, with the aid of
armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense, or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity;
(b) in consideration of a price, reward or
promise;
(c) by means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault upon a
railroad, fall of an airship, by means
of motor vehicles, or with the use of
Page 292 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
any other means involving great
waste and ruin;
(d) on occasion of any of the calamities
enumerated in the preceding
paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive
cyclone, epidemic, or any other
public calamity;
(e) with evident premeditation;
(f) with cruelty, by deliberately and
inhumanly augmenting the suffering
of the victim, or outraging or scoffing
at his person or corpse.
(4) The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Murder – The unlawful killing of any person
which is not parricide or infanticide with any of
the circumstance mentioned in Art. 248.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
One attendant qualifying circumstance is
enough. If there are more than one alleged in
the information for murder, only one will qualify
the killing to murder and the other
circumstances will be taken as generic
aggravating circumstance.
Any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated
in Art. 248 must be alleged in the information.
When the other circumstances are absorbed or
included in one qualifying circumstance, they
cannot be considered as generic aggravating.
TREACHERY
Treachery absorbs the aggravating circumstance
of abuse of superior strength and aid of armed
men. [People vs. Sespeñe, G.R. No. L-9346
(1957)]
The essence of treachery is that the offended
party was denied the chance to defend himself
because of the means, methods, or forms of
attack deliberately adopted by the offender were
not merely incidental to the killing.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Killing of a person with treachery is murder even
if there was no intent to kill. [People vs. Cagoco,
G.R. No. L-38511 (1933)]
Killing of a child of tender age is qualified by
treachery. [People vs. Valerio, G.R. No. L-4116
(1982)]
INTENT TO KILL
When the victim is already dead, intent to kill
becomes irrelevant. It is important only if the
victim did not die to determine if the felony is
physical injury or attempted or frustrated
homicide.
“Employing means or persons to insure or afford
impunity” – means are employed by the accused
to prevent his being recognized or to secure
himself against detection and punishment
PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE
The person who received the price or reward or
who accepted a promise of price or rewards and
would not have killed the victim were it not for
that price, reward, or promise is a principal by
direct participation.
The person who gave the price or reward or who
made the promise is a principal by induction.
FIRE
When a person is killed by fire, the primordial
criminal intent of the offender is considered. If
the primordial criminal intent of the offender is
to kill and fire was only used as a means to do
so, the crime is only murder. If the primordial
criminal intent of the offender is to destroy
property with the use of pyrotechnics and
incidentally, somebody within the premises is
killed, the crime is arson with homicide, a single
indivisible crime penalized under Art. 326, which
is death as a consequence of arson.
Page 293 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Intent to kill must be present for the use of fire to
be appreciated as a qualifying circumstance.
[People vs. Pugay, G.R. No. L-74324 (1988)]
POISON
Treachery and evident premeditation are
inherent in murder by poison only if the offender
has the intent to kill the victim by use of poison.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Act of the offender manifestly indicating that he
clung to his determination to kill his victim.
It is absorbed in price, reward or promise, if
without the premeditation the inductor would
not have induced the other to commit the act
but not as regards the one induced.
The prosecution must prove (1) the time when
the offender determined (conceived) to kill his
victim; (2) an act of the offender manifestly
indicating that he clung to his determination to
kill his victim; and (3) a sufficient lapse of time
between the determination and the execution of
the killing.
CRUELTY
Under Article 14, the generic aggravating
circumstance of cruelty requires that the victim
be alive, when the cruel wounds were inflicted
and, therefore, there must be evidence to that
effect.
Injuries or wounds, not necessary for the killing
of the victim, must be inflicted deliberately by
the offender.
Yet, in murder, aside from cruelty, any act that
would amount to scoffing or decrying the corpse
of the victim will qualify the killing to murder.
Outraging – to commit an extremely vicious or
deeply insulting act
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Scoffing – to jeer; implies a showing of OTHER NOTES:

irreverence
Physical injuries sufficient to cause death are
one of the essential elements of frustrated
homicide.
A.4. ARTICLE 249 – HOMICIDE
Elements:
In accidental homicide wherein death of a
(1) Person was killed;
person is brought about by a lawful act
(2) Offender killed him without any justifying performed with proper care and skill and
circumstances; without homicidal intent, there is no liability.
(3) Offender had the intention to kill, which is
presumed;
Use of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating
(4) Killing was not attended by any of the circumstance in homicide.
qualifying circumstances of murder, or by
that of parricide or infanticide
A.5. ARTICLE 250 - PENALTY FOR
FRUSTRATED PARRICIDE, MURDER OR
Corpus delicti – means the actual commission of HOMICIDE
the crime charged

Courts may impose a penalty:

In all crimes against persons in which the death
(a) 2 degrees lower for frustrated parricide,
of the victim is an element of the offense, there
murder, or homicide
must be satisfactory evidence of (1) the fact of
death and (2) the identity of the victim (b) 3 degrees lower for attempted parricide,
murder, or homicide.

INTENT TO KILL
For frustrated parricide, homicide or murder, the
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when
courts, in view of the facts of the case, may
death resulted. Evidence of intent to kill is
impose a penalty lower by one degree than that
important only in attempted or frustrated
imposed under Art. 50.
homicide.

Art. 50 provides that the penalty next lower in

In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is
degree than that prescribed by law for the
intent to kill. In physical injuries, there is none.
consummated felony shall be imposed upon a
However, if as a result of the physical injuries
principal in a frustrated felony. Thus, under Art.
inflicted, the victim died, the crime will be
50, the court can impose a penalty of TWO
homicide because the law presumes intent to kill
DEGREES LOWER for frustrated parricide,
and punishes the result, and not the intent of
murder, or homicide.
the act. The accused will, however, be entitled to
the mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to
commit so grave a wrong.
For attempted parricide, homicide, or murder,
the courts, in view of the facts of the case may
impose a penalty by one degree than that
No offense of frustrated homicide through
imposed under Art. 51.
imprudence.
The element of intent to kill in frustrated
homicide is incompatible with negligence or Art. 51 provides that the penalty lower by two
imprudence. [People vs. Castillo (1999)] degrees than that prescribed by law for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
Page 294 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
principal in an attempted felony. Thus, under
Art. 250, the court can impose a penalty of
THREE DEGREES LOWER for attempted
parricide, murder, or homicide.
NOTE: Any attempt on, or conspiracy against,
the life of the Chief Executive of the Philippines
or that of any member of his family, or against
the life of any member of his cabinet or that of
any member of the latter’s family, shall suffer
the penalty of death.
A.6. ARTICLE 251 - DEATH CAUSED IN
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
Elements:
(1) There are several persons;
(2) They do not compose groups organized for
the common purpose of assaulting and
attacking each other reciprocally;
(3) These several persons quarreled and
assaulted one another in a confused and
tumultuous manner;
(4) Someone was killed in the course of the
affray;
(5) It cannot be ascertained who actually killed
the deceased;
(6) The person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries or who used violence can
be identified.
Tumultuous affray – is a commotion in a
confused manner to an extent that it would not
be possible to identify who the killer is if death
results, or who inflicted the serious physical
injury, but the person or persons who used
violence are known. It exists when at least four
persons took part [Reyes].
• The groups must not be organized to
mutually assault or fight each other,
otherwise the hostilities would not be
considered as a tumultuous affray. [People
v. Abiog (1920)]
Who are liable?
Page 295 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(a) The person or persons who inflicted the
serious physical injuries
(b) If it is not known who inflicted the
serious physical injuries on the
deceased, all persons who used violence
upon the person of the victim are liable.
If there is conspiracy, this crime is not
committed. The crime would be murder or
homicide.
The crimes committed might be disturbance of
public order, or if participants are armed, it
could be tumultuous disturbance, or if property
was destroyed, it could be malicious mischief.
A.7. ARTICLE 252 - PHYSICAL INJURIES
CAUSED IN TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
Elements:
(1) There is a tumultuous affray;
(2) A participant or some participants thereof
suffered serious physical injuries or physical
injuries of a less serious nature only;
(3) The person responsible thereof cannot be
identified;
(4) All those who appear to have used violence
upon the person of the offended party are
known.
Unlike in Article 251, the injured party in this
article must be one or some of the participants
in the affray.
All those who appear to have used violence shall
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that
provided for the serious physical injuries
inflicted. For less serious physical injuries, the
penalty is arresto mayor from five to fifteen days.
Physical injury should be serious or less serious.
No crime of physical injuries resulting from a
tumultuous affray if the physical injury is only
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
slight because slight physical injury is
considered as inherent in a tumultuous affray.
A.8. ARTICLE 253 - GIVING ASSISTANCE TO
SUICIDE
Modes:
(1) Assisting another to commit suicide,
whether the suicide is consummated or
not;
(2) Lending his assistance to another to
commit suicide to the extent of doing the
killing himself.
Giving assistance to suicide means giving means
(arms, poison, etc.) or whatever manner of
positive and direct cooperation (intellectual aid,
suggestions regarding the Mode of committing
suicide, etc.).
If the person does the killing himself, the penalty
is similar to that of homicide, which is reclusion
temporal.
The relation of the offender to the person
committing suicide is not material. The law does
not distinguish. Hence, penalty would be the
same if the offender is the father, mother or
child.
There can be no qualifying circumstance
because the determination to die must come
from the victim.
The person attempting suicide is not liable.
Reason: He should be pitied, not punished.
A pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide
by means of poison, but instead of dying, the
fetus in her womb was expelled, is not liable for
abortion. In order to incur criminal liability for
the result not intended, one must be committing
a felony [Art. 4; Reyes]. An attempt to commit
Page 296 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Euthanasia – commonly known as mercy-killing;
the practice of painlessly putting to death a
person suffering from some incurable disease.
• This article does not contemplate
euthanasia where the crime is murder (if
without consent; with consent, covered by
Article 253). Euthanasia is not lending
assistance to suicide. In euthanasia, the
victim is not in a position to commit suicide.
• A doctor who resorts to euthanasia of his
patient may be liable for murder. But if the
patient himself asks to be killed by his
doctor, this Article applies. [Reyes]
A.9. ARTICLE 254 - DISCHARGE OF
FIREARMS
Elements:
(a) Offender discharges a firearm against or at
another person.
(b) Offender has no intention to kill that
person.
No crime if firearm is not discharged. It is
essential for prosecution to prove that the
discharge of firearm was directed precisely
against the offended party.
The crime is the discharge of firearm, even if the
gun was not pointed at the offended party when
it fired, as long as it was initially aimed by the
accused at or against the offended party
If there is intention to kill, it may be classified as
attempted parricide, murder, or homicide.
No presumed intent to kill if the distance is 200
meters.
Intent to kill or animus inteficendi cannot be
automatically drawn from the mere fact that the
use of firearms is dangerous to life.Animus
interficendi must be established with the same
degree of certainty as is required of the other
elements of the crime. The inference of intent to
kill should not be drawn in the absence of
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
circumstances sufficient to prove such intent
beyond reasonable doubt. [Dado v. People G.R.
No. 131421(2002)]
There is a special complex crime of illegal
discharge of firearm with serious or less serious
physical injuries.
A.10. ARTICLE 255 – INFANTICIDE
Elements:
(1) A child was killed by the accused;
(2) The deceased child was less than 3 days old
(72 hours).
Infanticide – the killing of any child less than
three days of age, whether the killer is the
parent or grandparent, any other relative of the
child, or a stranger.
If the offender is the parent and the victim is less
than three days old, the crime is infanticide and
not parricide.
A stranger who cooperates in the perpetration of
infanticide committed by the mother or
grandparent on the mother’s side, is liable for
infanticide, but he must suffer the penalty
prescribed for murder.
It is necessary that the child be born alive and
viable (capable of independent existence). [US v.
Vedra (1908)] There is no infanticide when the
child was born dead, or although born alive, it
could not sustain an independent life when it
was killed.
Only the mother and maternal grandparents of
the child are entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of concealing the dishonor.
Concealment of dishonor is not an element of
infanticide, it merely lowers the penalty.
If the child is abandoned without any intent to
kill and death results as a consequence, the
Page 297 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
crime committed is not infanticide but
abandonment under Article 276.
A.11. ARTICLE 256 - INTENTIONAL ABORTION
Elements:
(a) There is a pregnant woman;
(b) Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages
administered, or that the accused otherwise
acts upon such pregnant woman;
(c) 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;
(d) The abortion is intended.
Abortion – the willful killing of the foetus in the
uterus or the violent expulsion of the foetus from
the maternal womb which results in the death of
the foetus. [Reyes citing Guevarra]
Ways of committing intentional abortion
• Using any violence upon the person of
the pregnant woman;
• Acting, but without using violence,
without the consent of the woman. (By
administering drugs or beverages upon
such pregnant woman without her
consent.)
• Acting (by administering drugs or
beverages), with the consent of the
pregnant woman.
ABORTION vs. INFANTICIDE
Abortion Infanticide
Fetus could not Fetus could sustain an
sustain independent independent life after
life. No legal viability. separation from the
mother’s womb.
If the mother as a consequence of abortion
suffers death or physical injuries, there is a
complex crime of murder or physical injuries and
abortion.
UP LAW BOC
In intentional abortion, the offender must know
of the pregnancy because the particular criminal
intent is to cause an abortion.
If the woman turns out not to be pregnant and
someone performs an abortion upon her, he is
liable for an impossible crime if the woman
suffers no physical injury.
If she dies or suffers injuries, the crime will be
homicide, serious physical injuries, etc.
FRUSTRATED ABORTION
Committed if the fetus that is expelled is viable
and, therefore, not dead as abortion did not
result despite the employment of adequate and
sufficient means to make the pregnant woman
abort.
A.12. ARTICLE 257 - UNINTENTIONAL
ABORTION
Elements:
(a) There is a pregnant woman;
(b) Violence is used upon such pregnant
woman without intending an abortion;
(c) The violence is intentionally exerted;
(d) Result of violence – fetus dies, either in
the womb or expelled therefrom
Unintentional abortion requires physical
violence inflicted deliberately and voluntarily by
a third person upon the pregnant woman,
without intention to cause the abortion.
If the pregnant woman was killed by violence by
her husband, the crime committed is the
complex crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion.
Page 298 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
Unintentional abortion may be committed
through negligence as it is enough that the use
of violence be voluntary. In one case, the
accused was declared guilty of the crime of
unintentional abortion through reckless
imprudence for having bumped a calesa which
resulted in a pregnant woman bumping her
abdomen against the wall of the calesa and
eventually led to an abortion. [People v. Jose]
If the act of violence is not felonious, that is, act
of self-defense, and there is no knowledge of the
woman’s pregnancy, there is no liability.
Mere boxing of the stomach taken together with
the immediate strangling of the victim in a fight,
is not sufficient proof to show an intent to cause
abortion. [People v. Salufrania (1988)]
For the crime of abortion, even unintentional, to
be held committed, the accused must have
known of the pregnancy. [People v. Carnaso]
A.13. ARTICLE 258 - ABORTION PRACTICED
BY THE WOMAN HERSELF OR BY PARENTS
Elements:
• There is a pregnant woman who has
suffered an abortion;
• Abortion is intended;
• Abortion is caused by –
(1) The pregnant woman herself;
(2) Any other person, with her consent; or
(3) Any of her parents, with her consent for
the purpose of concealing her
dishonour.
If the purpose of abortion is to conceal dishonor,
mitigation applies only to pregnant woman and
not to parents of pregnant woman, unlike in
infanticide.
If the purpose of parents is not to conceal
dishonor, the crime is intentional abortion.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

A.14. ARTICLE 259 - ABORTION BY A A.15. ARTICLE 260 - RESPONSIBILITY OF

PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING PARTICIPANTS IN A DUEL
OF ABORTIVES
Elements:
Modes:
(a) There is a pregnant woman who has
(a) Killing one’s adversary in a duel;
suffered an abortion;
(b) Inflicting upon such adversary physical
(b) The abortion is intended;
injuries;
(c) Offender, who must be a physician or
(c) Making a combat although no physical
midwife, caused or assisted in causing the
injuries have been inflicted.
abortion;
(d) Said physician or midwife took advantage
of his or her scientific knowledge or skill. Persons liable
(a) The person who killed or inflicted physical
injuries upon his adversary, or both
The penalties provided for intentional abortion
combatants in any other case, as
shall be imposed in the maximum period for
principals.
physicians and midwives violating this article.
Reason: heavier guilt in making use of their (b) The seconds, as accomplices.
knowledge for the destruction of human life,
when it should be used only for its preservation.
[Reyes citing Albert] Duel – a formal or regular combat previously
consented to by two parties in the presence of
two or more seconds of lawful age on each side,
If the abortion is produced by a physician to save who make the selection of arms and fix all the
the life of the mother, there is no liability. other conditions of the fight to settle some
antecedent quarrel.

Elements (for pharmacists):

There is no such crime nowadays because
(1) The offender is a pharmacist;
people hit each other even without entering into
(2) There is no proper prescription from a any pre-conceived agreement. This is an
physician; obsolete provision.
(3) The offender dispenses any abortive.
If these are not the conditions of the fight, it is
not a duel in the sense contemplated in the RPC.
Article punishes a pharmacist who merely
It will be a quarrel and anyone who killed the
dispenses with an abortive without the proper
other will be liable for homicide or murder, as
prescription of a physician.
the case may be.
It is not necessary that the pharmacist knows
that the abortive would be used to cause an
abortion. What is punished is the dispensing of A.16. ARTICLE 261 - CHALLENGING TO A
the abortive without the proper prescription. It is DUEL
not necessary that the abortive be actually used
either.
Modes:
(1) Challenging another to a duel;
If pharmacist knew that the abortive would be
used for abortion, he would be liable as an (2) Inciting another to give or accept a
accomplice in the crime of abortion. challenge to a duel;
Page 299 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(3) Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for
having refused to accept a challenge to
fight a duel.
Persons Responsible:
(a) Challenger
(b) Instigators
If one challenges another to a duel by shouting
“Come down, Olympia, let us measure your
prowess. We will see whose intestines will come
out. You are a coward if you do not come down”,
the crime of challenging to a duel is not
committed. What is committed is the crime of
light threats under Article 285, paragraph
1.[People v. Tacomoy]
B. CHAPTER II: PHYSICAL INJURIES
B.1. ARTICLE 262 – MUTILATION
FIRST MODE
Intentionally mutilating another by depriving
him, either totally or partially, of some essential
organ for reproduction; (Mutilation)
Elements:
• There be a castration, that is, mutilation
of organs necessary for generation, such
as the penis or ovarium;
• The mutilation is caused purposely and
deliberately
SECOND MODE
Intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by
lopping or clipping off any part of the body of
the offended party, other than the essential
organ for reproduction, to deprive him of that
part of his body. (Mayhem)
The offender must have the intention to deprive
the offended party of a part of his body. If there
is no such intention, the crime will be serious
physical injuries.
Page 300 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Mutilation – the lopping or clipping off of some
part of the body
Castration – intentionally mutilating another by
depriving him, either totally or partially, of some
essential organ for reproduction
Mayhem – Basically, other intentional
mutilation. It is intentionally making mutilation
other than some essential organ for
reproduction and to deprive him of that part of
the body
B.2. ARTICLE 263 - SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES
Modes of Commission:
(a) By wounding;
(b) By beating;
(c) By assaulting; or
(d) By administering injurious substance.
(Art. 264)
What are serious physical injuries? They are
when the injured person, in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted—
(1) becomes insane, imbecilic, impotent or
blind
(2) (a) loses the use of speech or the power to
hear or to smell, or loses an eye, a hand, a
foot, an arm, or a leg, or
(b) loses the use of any such member; or
(c) becomes incapacitated for the work in
which he was theretofore habitually
engaged, in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted;
(3) (a) becomes deformed; or
(b) loses any other member of his body; or
(c) loses the use thereof; or
(d) becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he was
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

habitually engaged for more than 90
days;
(4) becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for
more than 30 days (but must not be more
than 90 days).
(8) Fingers of the hand are not principal
members and the loss of such fall under the
third type. However, if it is proven that the
loss of the fingers resulted in the loss of the
use of the hand itself, it would fall under the
second type. [US v. Punsalan (1912)]

In physical injuries, there must no be intent to

Deformity – physical ugliness, permanent and
kill, otherwise the crime is
definite abnormality. It must be conspicuous and
frustrated/attempted murder or homicide as
visible.
the case may be.

PHYSICAL INJURIES vs. ATTEMPTED OR ELEMENTS OF DEFORMITY:

FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE
Physical Injuries Attempted or Frustrated
Homicide
No intent to kill May be committed even if no
offended party physical injuries are inflicted
Offender has intent to kill
party
UNDER THE FIRST TYPE
(1) Impotence means an inability to copulate. It
includes sterility.
(2) Penalty is one degree higher when the
victim is under 12 years of age.
(3) Blindness under this type must be of two
eyes while blindness under the second type
requires the loss of an eye only. Mere
weakness of vision is not contemplated.
UNDER THE SECOND TYPE
(4) Loss of power to hear must be of both ears.
If hearing in only one ear is lost, it falls
under the third type.
(5) Loss of the use of hand or incapacity for
work must be permanent.
(6) All the body parts mentioned are principal
members of the body (eye, hand, foot etc.)
UNDER THE THIRD TYPE
(7) It covers any other part of the body which is
not a principal member of the body.
(1) physical ugliness,
(2) permanent and definite abnormality, and
(3) it must be conspicuous and visible.
All these elements must concur.
Illustrations:
(a) Loss of molar tooth – This is not deformity
as it is not visible.
(b) Loss of permanent front tooth – This is
deformity as it is visible and permanent.
(c) Loss of milk front tooth – This is not
deformity as it is visible but will be naturally
replaced.
Deformity by loss of teeth refers to injury which
cannot be repaired by the action of nature. Loss
of both outer ears is a deformity. Loss of the
lobule of the ear is a deformity. Loss of index
and middle fingers only is either deformity or
loss of a member, not a principal one, of his
body or use of the same. Loss of power to hear of
right ear only is loss of use of other part of body.
UNDER THE FOURTH TYPE
Illness – when the wound inflicted did not heal
with a certain period of time.
(a) Note that under serious physical injuries of
the fourth type, illness or incapacity is
required, NOT medical attendance.

Page 301 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Paragraphs 2 and 3 refers to the “work in which
he was theretofore habitually engaged”
Must the injured party have a vocation at the
time of the injury? YES, insofar as these two
paragraphs are concerned. Incapacity therefore
must relate to a certain kind of work only.
However, in paragraph 4, incapacity for any kind
of work is acceptable, because the phrase
“incapacity for labor” is used.
Injury requiring hospitalization for more than
thirty days is serious physical injuries under
paragraph 4.
When the category of the offense of serious
physical injuries depends on the period of illness
or incapacity for labor, there must be evidence of
the length of that period; otherwise, the offense
is only slight physical injuries.
Lessening of efficiency due to injury is NOT
incapacity.
Distinguished from mutilation: In mutilation, the
body parts should have been purposely and
deliberately lopped or clipped off. This intention
is not present in serious physical injuries.
No attempted or frustrated crime of physical
injuries
This felony is defined by the gravity of the injury.
It is a crime of result. As long as there is no
injury, there can be no attempted or frustrated
stage thereof.
Classification of physical injuries:
(a) Between less serious physical injuries and
serious physical injuries, do not consider the
period of medical treatment. Only consider
the period when the offended party is
rendered incapacitated for labor.
(b) When the injury created a deformity upon
the offended party, disregard the healing
duration or the period of medical treatment
Page 302 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
involved. At once, it is considered serious
physical injuries.
Serious physical injuries is punished with higher
penalties in the following cases:
(c) If it is committed against any of the persons
referred to in the crime of parricide under
Article 246;
(d) If any of the circumstances qualifying
murder attended its commission.
B.3. ARTICLE 264 - ADMINISTERING
INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES OR BEVERAGES
Elements:
(1) Offender inflicted upon another any serious
physical injury;
(2) It was done by knowingly administering to
him any injurious substance or beverages or
by taking advantage of his weakness of
mind or credulity;
(3) He had no intent to kill.
If the accused did not know of the injurious
nature of the substances administered, he is not
liable under this article.
B.4. ARTICLE 265 - LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES
Elements:
(1) Offended party is incapacitated for labor for
10 days or more (but not more than 30
days), or needs medical attendance for the
same period of time;
(2) The physical injuries must not be those
described in the preceding articles.
Qualified as to penalty
(1) A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition
to arresto mayor, when
1. There is a manifest intent to insult or
offend the injured person; or
2. There are circumstances adding
ignominy to the offense.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(2) A higher penalty is imposed when the victim The medical treatment may have lasted for nine
is either – days, but if the offended party is still
incapacitated for labor beyond nine days, the
1. The offender’s parents, ascendants,
physical injuries are already considered less
guardians, curators or teachers; or
serious physical injuries.
2. Persons of rank or person in authority,
provided the crime is not direct assault.
Where there is no evidence of actual injury, it is
only slight physical injuries.
B.5. ARTICLE 266 - SLIGHT PHYSICAL
INJURIES AND MALTREATMENT
In the absence of proof as to the period of the
offended party’s incapacity for labor or of the
Modes required medical attendance, the crime
committed is slight physical injuries.
(1) Physical injuries incapacitated the offended
party for labor from 1-9 days, OR required
medical attendance during the same
B.6. ARTICLE 266-A - RAPE
period;
(As amended by RA 8353)
(2) Physical injuries which did not prevent the
offended party from engaging in his
habitual work or which did not require First Mode:
medical attendance;
Rape through sexual intercourse without
(3) Ill-treatment of another by deed without consent of the woman: (Rape by Sexual
causing any injury. Intercourse)

This involves even ill-treatment where there is Elements:

no sign of injury requiring medical treatment.
(1) Offender is a man;
(2) Offender had carnal knowledge of a
Slapping the offended party is a form of ill- woman;
treatment which is a form of slight physical
injuries. (3) Such act is accomplished under any of the
following circumstances:
1. By using force, threat or intimidation;
But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor upon
the person slapped, or to humiliate or embarrass 2. When the woman is deprived of reason
the offended party out of a quarrel or anger, the or is otherwise unconscious;
crime is slander by deed. 3. By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority;

Between slight physical injuries and less serious 4. When the woman is under 12 years of
physical injuries, not only the healing duration of age (Statutory Rape) or is demented.
the injury will be considered but also the
medical attendance required to treat the injury.
Second Mode:
Rape Through Sexual Assault
So the healing duration may be one to nine days,
but if the medical treatment continues beyond
nine days, the physical injuries would already Elements:
qualify as less serious physical injuries.
(a) Offender commits an act of sexual assault;

Page 303 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(b) The act of sexual assault is committed by (c) Is a religious and such legitimate
any of the following means: vocation is known by the offender
before or at the time of rape
(1) By inserting his penis into another
person's mouth or anal orifice; or (d) is a child below 7 yrs. Old;
(2) By inserting any instrument or object (e) suffered permanent or physical
into the genital or anal orifice of another mutilation or disability by reason or on
person; the occasion of rape
(c) The act of sexual assault is accomplished (2) If the offender:
under any of the following circumstances:
(a) is afflicted with a sexually
(1) By using force or intimidation; or transmissible disease & the virus /
disease is transmitted to the victim;
(2) When the woman is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious; or (b) is a member of the AFP / PNP / any
law enforcement agency / penal
(3) By means of fraudulent machination or
institution, & took advantage of his
grave abuse of authority; or
position;
(4) When the woman is under 12 years of
(c) knew of the pregnancy of the offended
age or demented.
party at the time of the commission of
rape;
CLASSIFICATIONS OF RAPE (d) knew of the mental disability,
emotional disorder, & / or physical
(1) Rape by sexual intercourse
handicap of the offended party at the
1. Offended party is always a woman time of the commission of rape
2. Offender is always a man. (3) If Rape is committed in full view of the
spouse, parent, any of the children, or other
relatives w/in the 3rd civil degree of
(2) Sexual assault consanguinity
1. Rape can now be committed by a man
or a woman, that is, if a woman or a
man uses an instrument on anal orifice Old Anti-Rape Law vs. RA 8353
of male, she or he can be liable for Old Anti-Rape Law RA 8553
rape.
2. Inserting a finger inside the genital of a Crime against chastity Crime against persons
woman is rape through sexual assault May be committed by Under the 2nd type,
within the context of ‘object’.
a man against a sexual assault may be
woman only committed by any
person against any
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:
person
(1) If the victim:
PRIVATE CRIME May be prosecuted even
(a) Is under 18 yrs. old, & the offender is a if the woman does not
parent, ascendant, step-parent, Complaint must be
file a complaint
guardian, relative by consanguinity or filed by the woman or
affinity w/in the 3rd civil degree, or the her parents,
common law spouse of the parent of grandparents or
the victim guardian if the
woman was a minor
(b) Is under the custody of the police / or incapacitated
military authorities / law enforcement
agency Marriage of the victim Marriage extinguishes
Page 304 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Old Anti-Rape Law RA 8553
w/ one of the the penal action only as
offenders benefits not to the principal (the
only the principal but person who married the
also the accomplices victim), and cannot be
and accessories extended to co-
principals in case of
MULTIPLE RAPE
Marital rape NOT Marital rape recognized
recognized
Complete penetration is NOT necessary. The
slightest penetration—contact with the labia—
will consummate the rape. There is NO crime of
FRUSTRATED RAPE because in rape, from the
moment the offender has carnal knowledge of
the victim, he actually attains his purpose, all
the essential elements of the offense have been
accomplished. [People v. Orita (1990)]
Rape must have specific intent or lewd design.
For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or
scrape of the penis on the external layer of the
vagina will not suffice. Mere touching of the
external layer of the vagina without the intent to
enter the same cannot be construed as slight
penetration. Accused is only liable for
ATTEMPTED RAPE.
Conviction does not require a medico-legal
finding of any penetration on the part of the
woman.
FORCE, THREAT, OR INTIMIDATION
Force employed against the victim of the rape
need not be of such character as could be
resisted. When the offender has an ascendancy
or influence over the girl, it is not necessary that
she put up a determined resistance. A rape
victim does not have the burden of proving
resistance. [People v. Metin (2003)]
It is not necessary that the force employed
against the complaining woman in rape to be so
great or of such a character as could not be
resisted. It is sufficient that the force used is
Page 305 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
sufficient to consummate the culprit’s purpose
of copulating with the offended woman. [People
v. Savellano (1974)]
Intimidation must be viewed in light of the
victim’s perception and judgment at the time of
rape and not by any hard and fast rule. It is
enough that it produces fear – fear that if the
victim does not yield to the bestial demands of
the accused, something would happen to her at
the moment or thereafter, as when she is
threatened with death if she reports the incident.
[People v. Metin (2003)]
The Supreme Court has ruled that the moral
ascendancy or influence exercised by the
accused over the victim substitutes for the
element of physical force or intimidation such as
those committed by:
(a) Fathers against their daughters (People v.
Bayona, 2000)
(b) Stepfathers against their stepdaughters
(People v. Vitor, 2002)
(c) A godfather against his goddaughter
(People v. Casil, 1995)
(d) Uncles against their nieces (People v.
Betonio, 1997)
(e) The first cousin of the victim’s mother
(People v. Perez, 1999)
WHEN THE OFFENDED PARTY IS DEPRIVED OF
REASON OR IS OTHERWISE UNCONSCIOUS
In one case, this was ruled to cover the rape of a
16-year old mental retardate with the
intellectual capacity of a 9-year-old,
notwithstanding the victim’s actual age.
“Deprived of reason or unconscious” means that
the victim has no will to give consent
intelligently and freely. The inquiry should
likewise determine whether the victim was fully
informed of all considerations so as to make a
free and informed decision regarding the grant
of consent.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Whether the complaint stated that the victim
was fast asleep or half-asleep or drowsy or semi-
conscious is not determinative of the crime of
rape. For he who lies with a woman while the
latter is in a state of being drowsy is guilty of
rape. Drowsiness is defined as the state of being
drowsy, i.e., ready to fall asleep or half-asleep.
[People v. Siarza]
the accused is legally married to the victim’s
sister; and
the victim and the accused’s wife are full or half-
blood siblings.
In this case, relationship was not adequately
substantiated.

RAPE THROUGH SEXUAL ASSAULT

BY MEANS OF FRAUDULENT MACHINATION OR
The insertion of fingers constitutes
GRAVE ABUSE OF AUTHORITY
consummated rape through sexual assault
Rape by means of fraudulent machinations and under RA 8353. The contact of the male’s penis
grave abuse of authority absorbs the crime of with the woman’s vagina is referred to as ‘rape
qualified and simple seduction. with sexual intercourse”, while the sexual abuse
under par.2 of Art.266-A, RPC is categorized as
“rape through sexual assault”.
STATUTORY RAPE
1. Statutory rape is the rape of a woman who
Insertion of penis into the mouth of a 10-year old
is below 12 years of age. Here, the victim is
boy is “Rape by Sexual Assault” punished under
conclusively presumed incapable of giving
par.2, Article 266-A, RPC. [Ordinario v. People]
consent to sexual intercourse with another.
[People v. Negosa (2003)]
2. This is consummated when the victim is Evidence which may be accepted in the
below 12 yrs. old. Victim’s consent is prosecution of rape:
immaterial, and so is the offender’s
Any physical overt act manifesting resistance
knowledge of the victim’s age.
against the act of rape in any degree from the
3. Carnal knowledge of a child below 12 yrs. offended party; or
old even if she is engaged in prostitution is
Where the offended party is so situated as to
still considered statutory rape.
render him/her incapable of giving his consent

Special qualifying circumstances have to be

Rape shield rule - means that the character of
alleged in the information for it to be
the offended woman is immaterial in rape.
appreciated. [People v. Gallo] In this case, Gallo
was found guilty of the crime of qualified rape
with the penalty of death. The information filed An accused may be convicted of rape on the sole
against him does not allege his relationship with testimony of the offended woman.
the victim, his daughter, thus, it CANNOT be
considered as a qualifying circumstance. The
case was reopened and the judgment is When several persons conspired to rape a single
modified from death to reclusion perpetua. victim, each shall be liable for the rape
committed personally by him, as well as those
committed by the others.
Since relationship qualifies the crime of rape,
there must be clear proof of relationship.
[People v. Berana]In this case, a 14-year old was What Determines the Number of Times the
raped by her brother-in-law. To effectively Victim was Raped?
prosecute the accused for the crime of rape
committed by a relative by affinity w/in the 3rd In one case, the accused ejaculated twice during
civil degree, it must be established that: the time that he consummated the rape. He did
not withdraw his penis to insert it again into the
Page 306 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
vagina or to touch the labia majora and the labia
minora when he ejaculated the second time. It is
not the number of times that appellant
ejaculated but the penetration or ‘touching’ that
determines the consummation of the sexual act.
Thus appellant committed only one count of
rape. [People v. Ferrer; People v. Orilla]
Effect of Pardon
(a) Subsequent valid marriage between the
offender and the offended party shall
extinguish the criminal action or the penalty
imposed but only as to the husband
(b) When the legal husband is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or the penalty, provided that their
marriage is NOT VOID ab initio.
Rape with homicide is a special complex crime if
it is committed by reason or on the occasion of
the rape.
Rape may, likewise, be committed in a room
adjacent to where the victim's family is sleeping,
or even in a room shared with other people.
There is no rule that rape can only be committed
in seclusion. [People v. Glivano (2008)]
The force, violence or intimidation in rape is a
relative term, depending not only on the age,
size, and strength of the parties but also on their
relationship with each other. [People v. Tuazon
(2007)]
Attempted Rape with Homicide and Rape with
Homicide
Art 266-B defines and sets forth the composite
crimes of attempted rape with homicide and
rape with homicide. In both composite crimes,
the homicide is committed by reason or on the
occasion of rape. As can be noted, each of said
composite crimes is punished with a single
penalty.
The phrase by reason of the rape obviously
conveys the notion that the killing is due to the
rape, the offense the offender originally
Page 307 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
designed to commit. The victim of the rape is
also the victim of the killing.
To understand what homicide may be covered
by the phrase on the occasion of the rape, a
resort to the meaning the framers of the law
intended to convey thereby is helpful. The
legislative intent on the import of the phrase on
the occasion of the rape to refer to a killing that
occurs immediately before or after, or during the
commission itself of the attempted or
consummated rape, where the victim of the
homicide may be a person other than the rape
victim herself for as long as the killing is linked
to the rape, became evident. [People v.
Villaflores G.R. No. 184926 (2012)]
SPECIAL LAWS
B.7. RA 9262: ANTI-VIOLENCE AGAINST
WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004
Violence against women and their children –
refers to any act or series of acts committed by
any person against a women who is wife, former
wife, or against a woman with whom the person
has or had a sexual or dating relationship, or
with whom he has a common child, or against
her child whether legitimate or illegitimate,
within or without the family abode, which result
in or is likely to result in physical, sexual,
psychological harm or suffering, or economic
abuse including threats of such acts, battery,
assault, coercion, harrasment or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty.
Punishable Acts:
Sec. 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:
(1) Causing physical harm to the woman or her
child;
(2) Threatening to cause the woman or her
child physical harm;
(3) Attempting to cause the woman or her child
physical harm;
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(4) Placing the woman or her child in fear of
imminent physical harm;
(5) 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 money or properties, or
solely controlling the conjugal or
common money, or properties;
(6) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical
harm on oneself for the purpose of
controlling her actions or decisions;
(7) 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;
(8) 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:
Page 308 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
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;
(9) 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.
B.8. RA 9775: ANTI-CHILD PORNOGRAPHY
ACT OF 2009
Sec. 3.Definition of Terms. -
(a) "Child" refers to a person below eighteen
(18) years of age or over, but is unable to
fully take care of himself/herself from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or
discrimination because of a physical or
mental disability or condition.
For the purpose of this Act, a child shall
also refer to:
▪ a person regardless of age who is
presented, depicted or portrayed as a
child as defined herein; and
▪ computer-generated, digitally or
manually crafted images or graphics of
a person who is represented or who is
made to appear to be a child as defined
herein.
(b) "Child pornography" refers to any
representation, whether visual, audio, or
written combination thereof, by electronic,
mechanical, digital, optical, magnetic or
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
any other means, of child engaged or
involved in real or simulated explicit sexual
activities.
(c) "Explicit Sexual Activity" includes actual or
simulated –
▪ As to form:
a. sexual intercourse or lascivious act
including, but not limited to,
contact involving genital to genital,
oral to genital, anal to genital, or
oral to anal, whether between
persons of the same or opposite sex;
▪ bestiality;
▪ masturbation;
▪ sadistic or masochistic abuse;
▪ lascivious exhibition of the genitals,
buttocks, breasts, pubic area and/or
anus; or
▪ use of any object or instrument for
lascivious acts
(d) "Internet address" refers to a website,
bulletin board service, internet chat room or
news group, or any other internet or shared
network protocol address.
(e) "Internet cafe or kiosk" refers to an
establishment that offers or proposes to
offer services to the public for the use of its
computer/s or computer system for the
purpose of accessing the internet, computer
games or related services.
(f) "Internet content host" refers to a person
who hosts or who proposes to host internet
content in the Philippines.
(g) "Internet service provider (ISP)" refers to a
person or entity that supplies or proposes to
supply, an internet carriage service to the
public.
(h) "Grooming" refers to the act of preparing a
child or someone who the offender believes
to be a child for sexual activity or sexual
relationship by communicating any form of
child pornography. It includes online
enticement or enticement through any
other means.
(i) "Luring" refers to the act of communicating,
by means of a computer system, with a
Page 309 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
child or someone who the offender believes
to be a child for the purpose of facilitating
the commission of sexual activity or
production of any form of child
pornography.
(j) "Pandering" refers to the act of offering,
advertising, promoting, representing or
distributing through any means any
material or purported material that is
intended to cause another to believe that
the material or purported material contains
any form of child pornography, regardless
of the actual content of the material or
purported material.
(k) "Person" refers to any natural or juridical
entity.
Unlawful or Prohibited Acts
It shall be unlawful for any person:
(1) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or
coerce a child to perform in the creation or
production of any form of child
pornography;
(2) To produce, direct, manufacture or create
any form of child pornography;
(3) To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute,
broadcast, advertise, promote, export or
import any form of child pornography;
(4) To possess any form of child pornography
with the intent to sell, distribute, publish, or
broadcast: Provided, That possession of
three (3) or more articles of child
pornography of the same form shall be
prima facie evidence of the intent to sell,
distribute, publish or broadcast;
(5) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally
provide a venue for the commission of
prohibited acts as, but not limited to, dens,
private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or
in establishments purporting to be a
legitimate business;
(6) For film distributors, theaters and
telecommunication companies, by
themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of child
pornography;
(7) For a parent, legal guardian or person
having custody or control of a child to
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
knowingly permit the child to engage,
participate or assist in any form of child
pornography;
(8) To engage in the luring or grooming of a
child;
(9) To engage in pandering of any form of child
pornography;
(10) To willfully access any form of child
pornography;
(11) To conspire to commit any of the prohibited
acts stated in this section. Conspiracy to
commit any form of child pornography shall
be committed when two (2) or more persons
come to an agreement concerning the
commission of any of the said prohibited
acts and decide to commit it; and
(12) To possess any form of child pornography.
Syndicated Child Pornography - The crime of
child pornography is deemed committed by a
syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
more persons conspiring or confederating with
one another
Who May File a Complaint.
(1) Offended party;
(2) Parents or guardians;
(3) Ascendant or collateral relative within the
third degree of consanguinity;
(4) Officer, social worker or representative of a
licensed child-caring institution;
(5) Officer or social worker of the Department
of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD);
(6) Local social welfare development officer;
(7) Barangay chairman;
(8) Any law enforcement officer;
(9) At least three (3) concerned responsible
citizens residing in the place where the
violation occurred; or
(10) Any person who has personal knowledge of
the circumstances of the commission of any
offense under this Act.
Page 310 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
B.9. RA 8049: ANTI-HAZING LAW
Hazing; definition
Hazing, is an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in a
fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the
recruit, neophyte or applicant in some
embarrassing or humiliating situations such as
forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other
similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting
him to physical or psychological suffering or
injury. [Sec. 1 RA 8049]
The term "organization" shall include any club
or the Armed Forces of the Philippines,
Philippine National Police, Philippine Military
Academy, or officer and cadet corp of the
Citizen's Military Training and Citizen's Army
Training. The physical, mental and psychological
testing and training procedure and practices to
determine and enhance the physical, mental
and psychological fitness of prospective regular
members of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
and the Philippine National Police as approved
by the Secretary of National Defense and the
National Police Commission duly recommended
by the Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the
Philippines and the Director General of the
Philippine National Police shall not be
considered as hazing for the purposes of this
Act. [Sec. 1 RA 8049]
Allowed Initiation Rites
No hazing or initiation rites in any form or
manner by a fraternity, sorority or organization
shall be allowed without prior written notice to
the school authorities or head of organization
seven (7) days before the conduct of such
initiation. The written notice shall indicate the
period of the initiation activities which shall not
exceed three (3) days, shall include the names of
those to be subjected to such activities, and
shall further contain an undertaking that no
physical violence be employed by anybody
during such initiation rites. [Sec. 2 RA 8049]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
The head of the school or organization or their
representatives must assign at least two (2)
representatives of the school or organization, as
the case may be, to be present during the
initiation. It is the duty of such representative to
see to it that no physical harm of any kind shall
be inflicted upon a recruit, neophyte or
applicant. [Sec. 3 RA 8049]
Who Are Liable / Punishable Acts
If the person subjected to hazing or other forms
of initiation rites suffers any physical injury or
dies as a result thereof, the officers and
members of the fraternity, sorority or
organization who actually participated in the
infliction of physical harm shall be liable as
principals. The person or persons who
participated in the hazing shall suffer the
penalty of:
• reclusion perpetua (life imprisonment) if
death, rape, sodomy or mutilation results
therefrom.
• reclusion temporal in its maximum period if
in consequence of the hazing the victim
shall become insane, imbecile, impotent or
blind.
• reclusion temporal in its medium period if in
consequence of the hazing the victim 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 shall have
become incapacitated for the activity or
work in which he was habitually engaged.
• reclusion temporal in its minimum period if
in consequence of the hazing the victim
shall 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 on the
activity or work in which he was habitually
engaged for a period of more than ninety
(90) days.
• prision mayor in its maximum period if in
consequence of the hazing the victim shall
have been ill or incapacitated for the
performance on the activity or work in which
he was habitually engaged for a period of
more than thirty (30) days.
Page 311 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
• prision mayor in its medium period if in
consequence of the hazing the victim shall
have been ill or incapacitated for the
performance on the activity or work in which
he was habitually engaged for a period of
ten (10) days or more, or that the injury
sustained shall require medical assistance
for the same period.
• prision mayor in its minimum period if in
consequence of the hazing the victim shall
have been ill or incapacitated for the
performance on the activity or work in which
he was habitually engaged from one (1) to
nine (9) days, or that the injury sustained
shall require medical assistance for the
same period.
• prision correccional in its maximum period
if in consequence of the hazing the victim
sustained physical injuries which do not
prevent him from engaging in his habitual
activity or work nor require medical
attendance. [Sec. 4 RA 8049]
The responsible officials of the school or of the
police, military or citizen's army training
organization, may impose the appropriate
administrative sanctions on the person or the
persons charged under this provision even
before their conviction. The maximum penalty
herein provided shall be imposed in any of the
following instances:
(1) recruitment is accompanied by force,
violence, threat, intimidation or deceit on
the person of the recruit who refuses to join;
(2) recruit, neophyte or applicant initially
consents to join but upon learning that
hazing will be committed on his person, is
prevented from quitting;
(3) recruit, neophyte or applicant having
undergone hazing is prevented from
reporting the unlawful act to his parents or
guardians, to the proper school authorities,
or to the police authorities, through force,
violence, threat or intimidation;
(4) hazing is committed outside of the school
or institution; or
(5) victim is below twelve (12) years of age at
the time of the hazing.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

B.10. RA 7610: SPECIAL PROTECTION OF

CHILDREN AGAINST CHILD ABUSE,
The owner of the place where hazing is
EXPLOITATION AND DISCRIMINATION ACT
conducted shall be liable as an accomplice,
when he has actual knowledge of the hazing
conducted therein but failed to take any action
Coverage
to prevent the same from occurring. If the hazing
is held in the home of one of the officers or "Children" - person below 18 years of age or
members of the fraternity, group, or those over but are unable to fully take care of
organization, the parents shall be held liable as themselves or protect themselves from abuse,
principals when they have actual knowledge of neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination
the hazing conducted therein but failed to take because of a physical or mental disability or
any action to prevent the same from occurring. condition.

The school authorities including faculty members Child Prostitution/Punishable Acts

who consent to the hazing or who have actual
Section 5.Child Prostitution and Other Sexual
knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action
Abuse. – Children, whether male or female, who
to prevent the same from occurring shall be
for money, profit, or any other consideration or
punished as accomplices for the acts of hazing
due to the coercion or influence of any adult,
committed by the perpetrators.
syndicate or group, indulge in sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The officers, former officers, or alumni of the
organization, group, fraternity or sorority who
actually planned the hazing although not
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium
present when the acts constituting the hazing
period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
were committed shall be liable as principals. A
upon the following:
fraternity or sorority's adviser who is present
when the acts constituting the hazing were (1) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate
committed and failed to take action to prevent or induce child prostitution which include,
the same from occurring shall be liable as but are not limited to, the following:
principal. 1. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
2. Inducing a person to be a client of a child
The presence of any person during the hazing is prostitute by means of written or oral
prima facie evidence of participation therein as advertisements or other similar means;
principal unless he prevented the commission of 3. Taking advantage of influence or
the acts punishable herein. relationship to procure a child as
prostitute;
Any person charged under this provision shall 4. Threatening or using violence towards a
not be entitled to the mitigating circumstance child to engage him as a prostitute; or
that there was no intention to commit so grave a 5. Giving monetary consideration goods or
wrong. other pecuniary benefit to a child with
intent to engage such child in
prostitution.
This section shall apply to the president,
manager, director or other responsible officer of a (2) Those who commit the act of sexual
corporation engaged in hazing as a requirement intercourse of lascivious conduct with a
for employment in the manner provided herein. child exploited in prostitution or subject to
[Sec. 1 RA 8049] other sexual abuse; Provided, That when
the victims is under twelve (12) years of age,
the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under
Page 312 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
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
(3) 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.
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5,
Article III of R.A. No. 7610 are:
1. The accused commits the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct;
2. The said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse; and
3. The child, whether male or female, is below
18 years of age.[Imbo v. People G.R. No.
197712 (2015)]
If the victim of sexual intercourse is below 12
years of age, the offender should not be
prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory
rape under Article 266-A(1)(d) of the RPC. On
the other hand, if the victim is 12 years or older,
the offender should be charged with either
sexual abuse under Section 5(b) of RA 7610 or
rape under Article 266-A (except paragraph 1[d])
of the RPC. However, the offender cannot be
accused of both crimes for the same act because
his right against double jeopardy will be
prejudiced. [People v. MatiasG.R. No. 186469
(2012)]
Section 6.Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution.
– There is an attempt to commit child
prostitution under Section 5, paragraph (a)
hereof when any person who, not being a
relative of a child, is found alone with the said
child inside the room or cubicle of a house, an
Page 313 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
inn, hotel, motel, pension house, apartelle or
other similar establishments, vessel, vehicle or
any other hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which would lead a reasonable
person to believe that the child is about to be
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
There is also an attempt to commit child
prostitution, under paragraph (b) of Section 5
hereof when any person is receiving services
from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage
clinic, health club and other similar
establishments. A penalty lower by two (2)
degrees than that prescribed for the
consummated felony under Section 5 hereof
shall be imposed upon the principals of the
attempt to commit the crime of child
prostitution under this Act, or, in the proper
case, under the Revised Penal Code.
Child Trafficking/Punishable Acts
Section 7. Child Trafficking.– Any person who
shall engage in trading and dealing with
children including, but not limited to, the act of
buying and selling of a child for money, or for
any other consideration, or barter, shall suffer
the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua. The penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period when the victim is under
twelve (12) years of age.
Section 8. Attempt to Commit Child
Trafficking.– There is an attempt to commit
child trafficking under Section 7 of this Act:
(1) When a child travels alone to a foreign
country without valid reason therefor and
without clearance issued by the
Department of Social Welfare and
Development or written permit or
justification from the child's parents or legal
guardian;
(2) When a person, agency, establishment or
child-caring institution recruits women or
couples to bear children for the purpose of
child trafficking;
(3) When a doctor, hospital or clinic official or
employee, nurse, midwife, local civil
registrar or any other person simulates birth
for the purpose of child trafficking; or
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(4) When a person engages in the act of finding
children among low-income families,
hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-care
centers, or other child-caring institutions
who can be offered for the purpose of child
trafficking.
A penalty lower two (2) degrees than that
prescribed for the consummated felony under
Section 7 hereof shall be imposed upon the
principals of the attempt to commit child
trafficking.
B.11. RA 9344: JUVENILE JUSTICE AND
WELFARE ACT (AS FURTHER AMENDED BY
THE RA 10630/ THE ACT STRENGTHENING
THE JUVENILE JUSTICE SYSTEM IN THE
PHILIPPINES)
"Child in Conflict with the Law" - a child who is
alleged as, accused of, or adjudged as, having
committed an offense under Philippine laws.
"Juvenile Justice and Welfare System” – refers to
a system dealing with children at risk and
children in conflict with the law, which provides
child-appropriate proceedings, including
programs and services for prevention, diversion,
rehabilitation, re-integration and aftercare to
ensure their normal growth and development.
Punishable Acts
SEC. 60. Prohibition Against Labeling and
Shaming. - In the conduct of the proceedings
beginning from the initial contact with the child,
the competent authorities must refrain from
branding or labeling children as young
criminals, juvenile delinquents, prostitutes or
attaching to them in any manner any other
derogatory names. Likewise, no discriminatory
remarks and practices shall be allowed
particularly with respect to the child's class or
ethnic origin.
SEC. 61. Other Prohibited Acts. - The following
and any other similar acts shall be considered
prejudicial and detrimental to the psychological,
emotional, social, spiritual, moral and physical
Page 314 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
health and well-being of the child in conflict
with the law and therefore, prohibited:
(1) Employment of threats of whatever kind
and nature;
(2) Employment of abusive, coercive and
punitive measures such as cursing, beating,
stripping, and solitary confinement;
(3) Employment of degrading, inhuman end
cruel forms of punishment such as shaving
the heads, pouring irritating, corrosive or
harmful substances over the body of the
child in conflict with the law, or forcing
him/her to walk around the community
wearing signs which embarrass, humiliate,
and degrade his/her personality and
dignity; and
(4) Compelling the child to perform involuntary
servitude in any and all forms under any
and all instances.
SEC. 62. Violation of the Provisions of this Act or
Rules or Regulations in General. - Any person
who violates any provision of this Act or any rule
or regulation promulgated in accordance thereof
shall, upon conviction for each act or omission,
be punished by a fine of not less than P20,000
but not more than P50,000 or suffer
imprisonment of 8-10 years, or both such fine
and imprisonment at the discretion of the court,
unless a higher penalty is provided for in the
RPC or special laws. If the offender is a public
officer or employee, he/she shall, in addition to
such fine and/or imprisonment, be held
administratively liable and shall suffer the
penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification.
B.12. PD 603: CHILD AND YOUTH WELFARE
CODE
Punishable Acts
Article 59. Crimes. - Criminal liability shall
attach to any parent who:
• Conceals or abandons the child with intent
to make such child lose his civil status.
• Abandons the child under such
circumstances as to deprive him of the love,
care and protection he needs.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
• Sells or abandons the child to another
person for valuable consideration.
• Neglects the child by not giving him the
education which the family's station in life
and financial conditions permit.
• Fails or refuses, without justifiable grounds,
to enroll the child as required by Article 72.
• Causes, abates, or permits the truancy of
the child from the school where he is
enrolled. "Truancy" as here used means
absence without cause for more than 20
schooldays, not necessarily consecutive.
• It shall be the duty of the teacher in charge
to report to the parents the absences of the
child the moment these exceed 5
schooldays.
• Improperly exploits the child by using him,
directly or indirectly, such as for purposes of
begging and other acts which are inimical
to his interest and welfare.
• Inflicts cruel and unusual punishment upon
the child or deliberately subjects him to
indignation and other excessive
chastisement that embarrass or humiliate
him.
• Causes or encourages the child to lead an
immoral or dissolute life.
• Permits the child to possess, handle or carry
a deadly weapon, regardless of its
ownership.
• Allows or requires the child to drive without
a license or with a license which the parent
knows to have been illegally procured. If the
vehicle driven by the child belongs to the
parent, it shall be presumed that he
permitted or ordered the child to drive.
"Parents" as here used shall include the
guardian and the head of the institution or foster
home which has custody of the child.
B.13. RA 9372: HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF
2007
Punishable Acts of Terrorism/Who are Liable
Page 315 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Sec. 3 Terrorism – Any person who commits an
act punishable under any of the following
provisions of the RPC:
(1) Art. 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the
High Seas or in Philippine Waters);
(2) Art. 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
(3) Art. 143-A (Coup d’ Etat), including acts
committed by private persons;
(4) Art. 248 (Murder);
(5) Art. 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention);
(6) Art. 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction);
or under these special laws:
(1) PD 1613 (The Law on Arson);
(2) RA 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous
and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
(3) RA 5207 (Atomic Energy Regulatory and
Liability Act of 1968);
(4) RA 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
(5) PD 532 (Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery Law of 1974) and,
(6) PD 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the
Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession,
Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or
Explosives)
thereby sowing and creating 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 be guilty of the crime of terrorism and
shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of
imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as
provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise
known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as
amended.
Sec. 6 Accessory – Any person who, having
knowledge of the commission of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and
without having participated therein, either as
principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18
of the RPC, takes part subsequent to its
commission in any of the following manner: (a)
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

by profiting himself or assisting the offender to

profit by the effects of the crime; (b) by
concealing or destroying the body of the crime,
or the effects or instruments thereof, in order to
prevent discovery; (c) by harboring, concealing,
or assisting in the escape of the principal or
conspirator of the crime, shall suffer the penalty
of ten (10) years and one day to twelve years of
imprisonment.
Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the
penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be
imposed upon those who are such with respect
to their spouses, ascendants, descendants,
legitimate, natural and adopted brothers and
sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same
degree, with the single exception of accessories
falling within the provisions of subparagraph (a).

Page 316 of 407

UP LAW BOC
X. TITLE IX. CRIMES
AGAINST PERSONAL
LIBERTY AND SECURITY
CHAPTER I: CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
(1) Article 267 - Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention
(2) Article 268 - Slight Illegal Detention
(3) Article 269 - Unlawful Arrest
(4) Article 270 - Kidnapping and Failure to
Return a Minor
(5) Article 271 - Inducing a Minor to Abandon
His Home
(6) Article 272 – Slavery
(7) Article 273 - Exploitation of Child Labor
(8) Article 274 - Services Rendered Under
Compulsion in Payment of Debt
CHAPTER II: CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
(1) Article 275 - Abandonment of Persons in
Danger and Abandonment of Own Victim
(2) Article 276 - Abandoning a Minor
(3) Article 277 - Abandonment of Minor by
Person Entrusted With Custody;
Indifference of Parents
(4) Article 278 - Exploitation of Minors
(5) Article 280 - Qualified Trespass to
Dwelling
(6) Article 281 - Other Forms of Trespass
(7) Article 282 - Grave Threats
(8) Article 283 - Light Threats
(9) Article 284 - Bond for Good Behavior
(10) Article 285 - Other Light Threats
(11) Article 286 - Grave Coercions
(12) Article 287 - Light Coercions
(13) Article 288 - Other Similar Coercions
(14) Article 289 - Formation, Maintenance, and
Prohibition of Combination of Capital or
Labor through Violence or Threats
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
CHAPTER III: DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF
SECRETS
(1) Article 290 - Discovering Secrets through
Seizure of Correspondence
(2) Article 291 - Revealing Secrets with Abuse
of Office
(3) Article 292 - Revelation of Industrial
Secrets
A. CHAPTER I: CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
A.1. ARTICLE 267 - KIDNAPPING AND
SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION
Elements:
(a) Offender is a private individual;
(b) He kidnaps or detains another, or in any
other manner deprives the latter of his
liberty;
(c) The act of detention or kidnapping must be
illegal;
(d) In the commission of the offense, any of the
following circumstances is present:
(1) The kidnapping lasts for more than 3
days;
(2) It is committed simulating public
authority;
(3) Any serious physical injuries are inflicted
upon the person kidnapped or detained
or threats to kill him are made; or
(4) The person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, female, or a public officer.
The essential element of kidnapping is the
deprivation of the offended party’s liberty under
any of the four instances enumerated. But when
the kidnapping was committed for the purpose
of extorting ransom, it is not necessary that one
or any of circumstances enumerated be present.
If kidnapping be committed under element d (2),
(3), or (4), it is not necessary that the kidnapping
last for more than 3 days.
Page 317 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Qualifying Circumstances
(penalty → death)
(1) Purpose is to extort ransom.
(2) When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention.
(3) When the victim is raped.
(4) When victim is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts.
The offenders here are private individuals or
public officers acting in their private capacity. If
they are public officers, they are covered by the
crimes under Title 2.
When a public officer conspires with a private
person in the commission of any of the crimes
under Title IX, the crime is also one committed
under this title and not under Title II.
The purpose is immaterial when any of the
circumstances in the first paragraph of Art. 267
is present.
Ransom
Means money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for the redemption of a captured
person that would release him from captivity. No
specific form of ransom is required to
consummate the felony as long as the ransom
was intended as a bargaining chip in exchange
for the victim’s freedom. Whether or not ransom
is actually paid to or received by the perpetrator
is of no moment. [People v. Jatulan, 2007]
Actual demand for ransom is not necessary, as
long as it can be proven that the kidnapping was
done for the purpose of extorting money.
It is essential that there be actual confinement
or restriction of the person of the offended party.
It is not necessary that the victim be placed in an
enclosure, as long as he is deprived, in any
manner, of his liberty.
Page 318 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
It suffices that there be actual or manifest
restraint on the person or liberty of the victim.
Accused were guilty of kidnapping although the
victim was found, at the time of her rescue,
outside of the house where she was brought,
talking to the house owner who was the uncle of
the accused. Her failure to attempt to escape
was explained by her to be due to her fear and
threats of the accused to kill her should she do
so. In kidnapping, it is not necessary that the
offended party be kept within an enclosure to
restrict her freedom of locomotion. [People v.
Cortez, et al., 2000]
The victim’s lack of consent is also a
fundamental element of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention. The involuntariness of the
seizure and detention is the very essence of the
crime. Although the victim may have initially
consented to go with the offender to a place, but
the victim is thereafter prevented, with the use
of force, from leaving the place where he was
brought to with his consent and is detained
against his will, the offender is still guilty of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
[People v. Pickrell, 2003]
When detention is illegal
It is not ordered by competent authority nor
permitted by law.
Special complex crime of Kidnapping with
Murder
When the victim dies or is killed as a
consequence of the detention, which is covered
by the last paragraph of Art. 267 as amended.
Forcible abduction
If a woman is transported from one place to
another by virtue of restraining her of her liberty,
and that act is coupled with lewd designs.
Serious illegal detention
If a woman is transported just to restrain her of
her liberty. There is no lewd design or lewd
intent.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Grave coercion
If a woman is carried away just to break her will,
to compel her to agree to the demand or request
by the offender.
Illegal Detention Arbitrary Detention
Committed by a Committed by public
private individual who officer or employee who
unlawfully deprives a detains a person without
person of his liberty legal ground
Crime against Crime against the
personal liberty fundamental laws of the
State
Where the evident purpose of taking the victim
was to kill him, and from the acts of the accused
it cannot be inferred that the latter’s purpose
was to actually detain or deprive the victim of his
liberty, the subsequent killing of the victim did
not constitute the crime of kidnapping. The
demand for ransom did not convert the crime
into kidnapping, since no deprivation of liberty
was involved. [People v Padica (1993)]
The essence of kidnapping is the actual
deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with
the intent of the accused to effect it. [People v
Luartes (1999)]
Physical detention is not necessary. It is enough
that the victim is under the complete control of
the perpetrators as in this case when the
Japanese victim had to rely on his abductors for
survival after he was tricked into believing that
the police was after him. It was also held in this
case that keeping a person as collateral for
payment of an obligation is kidnapping. [People
v. Tomio]
Leaving a child in a place from which he did not
know the way home, even if he had the freedom
to roam around the place of detention, would
still amount to deprivation of liberty, for under
such a situation, the child’s freedom remains at
the mercy and control of the abductor. [People v
Baluya, 2011]
Page 319 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
The elements of kidnapping for ransom under
Article 267 of the RPC as amended by RA 7659
warranting the imposition of the death penalty
are as follows:
(1) intent on the part of the accused to deprive
the victim of his liberty;
(2) actual deprivation of the victim of his
liberty; and
(3) motive of the accused, which is extorting
ransom for the release of the victim.
Neither actual demand for nor payment of
ransom is necessary for the consummation of
the felony. It is sufficient that the deprivation of
liberty was for extorting ransom even if none of
the four circumstances mentioned in Article 267
were present in its perpetration. [People v.
Cenahonon (2007)]
Article 267 has been modified by RA 7659 (an
act to impose the death penalty on certain
heinous crimes, amending for that purpose the
revised penal laws, as amended, other special
penal laws, and for other purposes) in the
following respects:
(1) Illegal detention becomes serious when it
shall have lasted for more than three days,
instead of five days as originally provided;
(2) In paragraph 4, if the person kidnapped or
detained was a minor and the offender was
anyone of the parents, the latter has been
expressly excluded from the provision. The
liability of the parent is provided for in the
last paragraph of Article 271;
(3) A paragraph was added to Article 267,
which states: When the victim is killed or
dies as a consequence of the detention or is
raped, or is subjected to torture, or
dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed.
(4) The amendment introduced in our criminal
statutes the concept of "special complex
crime" of kidnapping with murder or
homicide.
(5) It eliminated the distinction drawn by the
courts between those cases where the
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

killing of the kidnapped victim was
purposely sought by the accused, and
those where the killing of the victim was
not deliberately resorted to but was merely
an afterthought.
(6) Although the victim was raped 27 times,
there is only one crime of kidnapping with
rape, not kidnapping with rape and 26
separate counts of rape. In a way, R.A.
7659 depreciated the seriousness of rape
because no matter how many times the
victim was raped, like in the present case,
there is only one crime committed – the
special complex crime of kidnapping with
rape. [People v Felipe Mirandilla, 2011]
Kidnapping with Forcible Abduction with
Rape Rape
Lewd design came At the outset, there is
after the intent to already lewd design
kidnap the victim
(b) He kidnaps or detains another, or in any
other manner deprives him of his liberty.
(c) The act of kidnapping or detention is
illegal;
(d) The crime is committed without the
attendance of any of the circumstances
enumerated in Article 267.
This felony is committed if any of the five
circumstances in the commission of kidnapping
or detention enumerated in Article 267 is not
present.
Privileged mitigating circumstances
– The penalty is lowered if:
(1) The offended party is voluntarily released
within three days from the start of illegal
detention;
(2) Without attaining the intended purpose;
AND
(3) Before the institution of the criminal action.

It is a special It is a complex crime

complex crime. under RPC 48 since The prevailing rule now is Asistio v. Judge, which
forcible abduction is a provides that voluntary release will only mitigate
necessary means of criminal liability if crime was slight illegal
committing the crime of detention. If serious, it has no effect.
rape.

It there is an If there is an attempted The liability of one who furnishes the place
attempted rape, it rape, the crime where the offended party is being held captive is
shall be considered committed is only forcible that of a principal and not of an accomplice.
as a separate crime. abduction, the former
being an expression of a
lewd design. A.3. ARTICLE 269 - UNLAWFUL ARREST
Elements
If there are multiple If there are multiple
rapes, there is only rapes, only one is (a) Offender arrests or detains another person;
one special complex complexed with forcible (b) The purpose of the offender is to deliver
crime of Kidnapping abduction and the rest him to the proper authorities;
with Rape. shall be considered as
separate crimes. (c) The arrest or detention is not authorized by
law or there is no reasonable ground
therefor.
A.2. ARTICLE 268 - SLIGHT ILLEGAL
DETENTION This felony consists in making an arrest or
Elements: detention without legal or reasonable ground for
(a) Offender is a private individual; the purpose of delivering the offended party to
the proper authorities.

Page 320 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Generally, this crime is committed by
incriminating innocent persons by the offender’s
planting evidence to justify the arrest – a
complex crime results, that is, unlawful arrest
through incriminatory machinations under
Article 363.
If the arrest is made without a warrant and
under circumstances not allowing a warrantless
arrest, the crime would be unlawful arrest.
If the person arrested is not delivered to the
authorities, the private individual making the
arrest incurs criminal liability for illegal
detention under Article 267 or 268.
If the offender is a public officer, the crime is
arbitrary detention under Article 124.
If the detention or arrest is for a legal ground,
but the public officer delays delivery of the
person arrested to the proper judicial
authorities, then Article 125 will apply.
Note: This felony may also be committed by
public officers.
Unlawful Arrest vs. Delay in the Delivery of
Detained Persons
DELAY IN THE DELIVERY UNLAWFUL
OF DETAINED PERSONS ARREST (Art. 269)
(Art. 125)
Detention is for some legal Detention is not
ground. authorized by law.
Crime is committed by Committed by
failing to deliver such making an arrest
person to the proper not authorized by
judicial authority within a law
certain period.
A.4. ARTICLE 270 - KIDNAPPING AND
FAILURE TO RETURN A MINOR
Elements:
Page 321 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(a) Offender is entrusted with the custody of a
minor person (whether over or under seven
years but less than 18 years of age)
(b) He deliberately fails to restore the said
minor to his parents or guardians
If any of the foregoing elements is absent, the
kidnapping of the minor will then fall under
Article 267.
The essential element which qualifies the crime
of kidnapping a minor under Art. 270 is that the
offender is entrusted with the custody of the
minor.
If the accused is any of the parents, Article 267
does not apply; Articles 270 and 271 will then
apply.
If the taking is with the consent of the parents,
the crime in Article 270 is committed.
What is punished is the deliberate failure of the
custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his
parents or guardians.
The deliberate failure to return a minor under
one’s custody constitutes deprivation of liberty.
Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is
necessarily included in kidnapping and serious
illegal detention of a minor under Article 267(4).
[People v. Generosa]
Where a minor child was taken by the accused
without the knowledge and consent of his
parents, the crime is kidnapping and serious
illegal detention under Article 267, not
kidnapping and failure to return a minor under
Article 270. [People v. Mendoza]
Art. 270 distinguished from Art. 267
Art. 270 Art. 267
Offender is The offender is not
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

entrusted with the entrusted with the custody (b) The purpose of the offender is to enslave
custody of the of the minor. such human being.
minor

What is punished is What is punished is the This is committed if anyone shall purchase,
the illegal deliberate failure of the kidnap, or detain a human being for the purpose
detaining or offender having custody of of enslaving him.
kidnapping of the the minor to restore him to
minor his parents or guardians
The penalty is increased if the purpose of the
offender is to assign the offended party to some
A.5. ARTICLE 271 - INDUCING A MINOR TO immoral traffic.
ABANDON HIS HOME
Elements: If the purpose of the kidnapping or detention is
(a) A minor (whether over or under seven years to enslave the offended party, slavery is
of age) is living in the home of his parents committed.
or guardians or the person entrusted with
his custody;
The crime is slavery if the offender is not
(b) Offender induces said minor to abandon engaged in the business of prostitution. If he is,
such home. the crime is white slave trade under Article 341.

Inducement must be (a) actual, and (b)
committed with criminal intent.
The minor should not leave his home of his own
free will. What constitutes the crime is the act of
inducing a minor to abandon the home of his
guardian, and it is not necessary that the minor
actually abandons the home.
Father or mother may commit the crimes in Art.
170 and 171 where they are living separately and
the custody of the minor children is given to one
of them.
The employment or custody of a minor with the
consent of the parent or guardian, although
against the child’s own will, cannot be
considered involuntary servitude.
But where it is proven that the defendant was
obliged to render service in plaintiff’s house as a
servant without remuneration whatever and to
remain there so long as she has not paid her
debt, there is slavery.
See Special Law: RA 9208 (Anti-Trafficking of
Person Act of 2003)

The law is intended to discourage and prevent
disruption of filial relationships and undue
interference with the parents’ right and duty to
the custody of their minor children and to rear
them.
A.6. ARTICLE 272 - SLAVERY
Elements:
(a) Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or
detains a human being;
A.7. ARTICLE 273 - EXPLOITATION OF CHILD
LABOR
Elements:
(a) Offender retains a minor in his services;
(b) It is against the will of the minor;
(c) It is under the pretext of reimbursing
himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant,
guardian or person entrusted with the
custody of such minor.

Page 322 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

The existence of indebtedness constitutes no render such assistance without detriment to

legal justification for holding a person and himself, unless such omission shall constitute a
depriving him of his freedom to live where he more serious offense.
wills.

A.8. ARTICLE 274 - SERVICES RENDERED
UNDER COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
Elements:
(a) Offender compels a debtor to work for him,
either as a household servant or farm
laborer;
(b) It is against the debtor’s will;
(c) The purpose is to require or enforce the
payment of a debt.
Service under Compulsion distinguished from
Exploitation of Child Labor
Elements:
(1) The place is not inhabited;
(2) Accused found there a person wounded or
in danger of dying;
(3) Accused can render assistance without
detriment to himself;
(4) Accused fails to render assistance.
MODE 2: Accidentally wound another
Failing to help or render assistance to another
whom the offender has accidentally wounded or
injured;

Service under Exploitation of Child MODE 3: Abandoning a child < 7

Compulsion Labor By failing to deliver a child, under seven years of
age, whom the offender has found abandoned,
Does not distinguish Victim must be a minor to the authorities or to his family, or by failing to
whether or not the deliver him to a safe place.
victim is a minor
Does not apply: When a person intentionally
The debtor himself The minor is compelled wounds another and leaves him in an
is the one compelled to render services for the uninhabited place.
to work for the supposed debt of his
offender parents or guardian
Immaterial: That the offender did not know that
Limited to Service is not limited the child is under seven years.
household work or
farm labor
The child under seven years of age must be
found by the accused in an unsafe place.

B. CHAPTER II: CRIMES AGAINST

SECURITY B.2. ARTICLE 276 - ABANDONING A MINOR
Elements:
B.1. ARTICLE 275 - ABANDONMENT OF (a) Offender has the custody of a child;
PERSONS IN DANGER AND ABANDONMENT
(b) The child is under seven years of age;
OF OWN VICTIM
(c) He abandons such child;
(d) He has no intent to kill the child when the
MODE 1: W/O detriment to self
latter is abandoned.
Failing to render assistance to any person whom
the offender finds in an uninhabited place,
wounded or in danger of dying when he can Circumstances qualifying the offense:
Page 323 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(1) When the death of the minor resulted from
such abandonment; or
(2) If the life of the minor was in danger
because of the abandonment.
The purpose in abandoning the minor under his
custody is to avoid the obligation of taking care
of said minor.
A permanent, conscious and deliberate
abandonment is required in this article. There
must be an interruption of the care and
protection the minor needs by reason of his age.
Intent to kill cannot be presumed from the death
of the child. When there is intent to kill, this
article does not apply.
The ruling that the intent to kill is presumed
from the death of the victim of the crime is
applicable only to crimes against persons, and
not to crimes against security, particularly the
crime of abandoning a minor under Art. 276.
If the offender is the parent of the minor who is
abandoned, he shall be deprived of parental
authority. (Civil Code, Art. 332)
B.3. ARTICLE 277 - ABANDONMENT OF
MINOR BY PERSON ENTRUSTED WITH
CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS
MODE 1: W/O consent of guardian
Delivering a minor to a public institution or other
persons without the consent of the one who
entrusted such minor to the care of the offender
or, in the absence of that one, without the
consent of the proper authorities;
Elements:
(a) Offender has charge of the rearing or
education of a minor;
(b) He delivers said minor to a public
institution or other persons;
Page 324 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(c) The one who entrusted such child to the
offender has not consented to such act; or
if the one who entrusted such child to the
offender is absent, the proper authorities
have not consented to it.
MODE 2: Neglecting education
Neglecting his (offender’s) children by not giving
them the education which their station in life
requires and financial condition permits.
Elements:
(a) Offender is a parent;
(b) He neglects his children by not giving them
education;
(c) His station in life requires such education
and his financial condition permits it.
Obligation to educate children terminates if the
mother and children refuse without good reason
to live with the accused.
Failure to give education must be due to
deliberate desire to evade such obligation. If the
parents cannot give education because they had
no means to do so, then they will not be liable
under this article.
B.4. ARTICLE 278 - EXPLOITATION OF
MINORS
MODE 1: Physical strength/contortion
Causing any boy or girl under 16 years of age to
perform any dangerous feat of balancing,
physical strength or contortion, the offender
being any person;
MODE 2: Exhibition/acrobat/circus
Employing children under 16 years of age who
are not the children or descendants of the
offender in exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast,
rope-walker, diver, or wild-animal tamer, the
offender being an acrobat, etc., or circus
manager or engaged in a similar calling;
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

MODE 3: Descendant employed like in Mode 2

Employing any descendant under 12 years of age If the employer is an ascendant, the crime is not
in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in the next committed, unless the minor is less than 12
preceding paragraph, the offender being years old.
engaged in any of the said callings;

If the minor so employed would suffer some

MODE 4: Delivering child under 16 to be injuries as a result of a violation of Article 278,
employed like in Mode 2 Article 279 provides that there would be
Delivering a child under 16 years of age additional criminal liability for the resulting
gratuitously to any person following any of the felony.
callings enumerated in Mode 2, or to any
habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender being
an ascendant, guardian, teacher or person EXPLOITATION OF MINORS INDUCING A
entrusted in any capacity with the care of such (RPC 278, PAR. 5) MINOR TO
child; ABANDON HIS
HOME (RPC 271)
MODE 5: inducing child under 16 to abandon Purpose of inducing the No such purpose
home to be employed like in Mode 2 minor to abandon his home is
Inducing any child under 16 years of age to to follow any person engaged
abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians, in any of the callings
curators or teachers to follow any person mentioned
engaged in any of the callings mentioned in
paragraph 2 or to accompany any habitual Victim is under 16 years of Victim is a minor
vagrantor beggar, the offender being any age (below 18 years
person. of age)

Circumstance qualifying the offense:

(1) If the delivery of the child to any person
following any of the calling of acrobat, B.5. ARTICLE 280 - QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO
gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-animal DWELLING
tamer or circus manager or to any habitual
vagrant or beggar is made in consideration
of any price, compensation or promise. Elements

(2) The offender is engaged in a kind of (a) Offender is a private person;

business that would place the life or limb of (b) He enters the dwelling of another;
the minor in danger, even though working
for him is not against the will of the minor. (c) Such entrance is against the latter’s will.

Qualifying Circumstance:
Nature of the Business: this involves circuses
which generally attract children so they The offense is committed by means of violence
themselves may enjoy working there unaware of or intimidation.
the danger to their own lives and limbs.

DWELLING – This is the place that a person

Age: Must be below 16 years. Article 278 has no inhabits. It includes the dependencies which
application if minor is 16 years old and above, have interior communication with the house.
but the exploitation will be dealt with by RA
7610.

Page 325 of 407

UP LAW BOC
It is not necessary that it be the permanent
dwelling of the person; hence, a person’s room
in a hotel may be considered a dwelling. It also
includes a room where one resides as a boarder.
If the purpose in entering the dwelling is not
shown, trespass is committed. If the purpose is
shown, it may be absorbed in the crime as in
robbery with force upon things, the trespass
yielding to the more serious crime.
If the purpose is not shown and while inside the
dwelling he was found by the occupants, one
whom he subsequently injured if there was a
struggle, the crime committed will be trespass
to dwelling and frustrated homicide or physical
injuries, or if there was no injury, unjust vexation.
If the entry is made by a way not intended for
entry, it is presumed to be against the will of the
occupant (example, entry through a window).
It is not necessary that there be a breaking.
“Against the will” – This means that the
entrance is, either expressly or impliedly,
prohibited or the prohibition is presumed.
It is a well-settled rule that whoever enters the
dwelling of another at late hour of the night
after the inmates have retired and closed their
doors does so against their will. Prohibition is
presumed. [US v Mesina; US v Panes]
Prohibition must be in existence prior to or at the
time of entrance, but prohibition is not necessary
when violence or intimidation is employed by the
offender (qualified trespass).
Fraudulent entrance may constitute trespass.
The prohibition to enter may be made at any
time and not necessarily at the time of the
entrance.
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
To prove that an entry is against the will of the
occupant, it is not necessary that the entry
should be preceded by an express prohibition,
provided that the opposition of the occupant is
clearly established by the circumstances under
which the entry is made, such as the existence of
enmity or strained relations between the
accused and the occupant.
If the offender is public officer, the crime is
violation of domicile.
Examples of trespass by means of violence:
(1) Pushing the door violently and maltreating
the occupants after entering.
(2) Cutting of a ribbon or string with which the
door latch of a closed room was fastened.
The cutting of the fastenings of the door
was an act of violence.
(3) Wounding by means of a bolo, the owner of
the house immediately after entrance
Examples of trespass by means of intimidation:
(1) Firing a revolver in the air by persons
attempting to force their way into a house.
(2) The flourishing of a bolo against inmates of
the house upon gaining an entrance
In the prosecution for trespass, the material fact
or circumstance to be considered is the
occurrence of the trespass. The gravamen of the
crime is violation of possession or the fact of
having caused injury to the right of the
possession. [Marzalado v. People]
If a person was killed after trespass by the
offender, the following crimes are committed:
o If there was no intent to kill when he
entered – separate crimes of homicide or
murder qualified by trespass to dwelling
o If there was intent to kill when he entered
– the crime of homicide/murder with
dwelling as an aggravating circumstance
Page 326 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Trespass may be committed by the owner of a (ART. 280)

dwelling (i.e. lessor enters the house leased to
another against the latter’s will). Offender is a private The offender is any person
person
Cases to which the provision of this article is Offender enters a Offender enters closed
NOT applicable: dwelling premises or fenced estate
(1) If the entrance to another’s dwelling is
made for the purpose of preventing some Place entered is Place entered is
serious harm to himself, the occupants of inhabited uninhabited
the dwelling, or a third person.
Act constituting the It is the entering the
(2) If the purpose is to render some service to crime is entering the closed premises or the
humanity or justice. dwelling against the fenced estate without
(3) If the place where entrance is made is a will of the owner securing the permission of
café, tavern, inn, and other public house, the owner or caretaker
while the same are open. thereof

Prohibition to enter Prohibition to enter must

Note: A person who believes that a crime has
been committed against him has every right to
go after the culprit and arrest him without any
warrant even if in the process he enters the
house of another against the latter’s will. [Sec. 6,
Rule 113, Rules of Court]
B.6. ARTICLE 281 - OTHER FORMS OF
TRESPASS
Elements:
(a) Offender enters the closed premises or the
fenced estate of another;
(b) The entrance is made while either of them
is uninhabited;
(c) The prohibition to enter is manifest;
(d) The trespasser has not secured the
permission of the owner or the caretaker
thereof.
Premises – signifies distinct and definite locality.
It may mean a room, shop, building or definite
area, but in either case, locality is fixed.
is express or implied be manifest
B.7. ARTICLE 282 - GRAVE THREATS
MODE 1: Threatening, even not unlawful
Threatening another with the infliction upon his
person, honor or property or that of this family of
any wrong amounting to a crime and
demanding money or imposing any other
condition, even though not unlawful, and the
offender attained his purpose;
Elements:
(a) Offender threatens another person with the
infliction upon the latter’s person, honor or
property, or upon that of the latter’s family,
of any wrong.
(b) Such wrong amounts to a crime.
(c) There is a demand for money or that any
other condition is imposed, even though
not unlawful.
(d) Offender attains his purpose.

Qualified Trespass vs. Other Forms of Trespass

MODE 2: Threat w/o attaining purpose
QUALIFIED OTHER FORMS OF Making such threat without the offender
TRESPASS TO TRESPASS attaining his purpose;
DWELLING (ART. 281) MODE 3: Threat = Crime

Page 327 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Threatening another with the infliction upon his
person, honor or property or that of his family of
any wrong amounting to a crime, the threat not
being subject to a condition.
Elements:
(a) Offender threatens another person with the
infliction upon the latter’s person, honor or
property, or upon that of the latter’s family,
of any wrong.
(b) Such wrong amounts to a crime.
(c) Threat is not subject to a condition.
Qualifying Circumstance:
If threat was made
(1) in writing OR
(2) through a middleman.
It is essential that there be intimidation.
As the crime consists in threatening another
with some future harm, it is not necessary that
the offended party was present at the time the
threats were made. It is sufficient that the
threats came to the knowledge of the offended
party.
When consummated: As soon as the threats
came to the knowledge of the offended party.
Threats made in connection with the
commission of other crimes are absorbed by the
latter.
The offender in grave threats does not demand
the delivery on the spot of the money or other
personal property demanded by him. When
threats are made and money is taken on the
spot, the crime may be robbery with
intimidation.
The penalties for the first two types of grave
threats depend upon the penalties for the crimes
threatened to be committed. One degree lower if
Page 328 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
the purpose is attained, and two degrees lower if
the purpose is not attained.
If the threat is not subject to a condition, the
penalty is fixed at arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos.
In the first two types, if the threat is made in
writing or through a middleman, the penalty is
to be imposed in its maximum period.
The third type of grave threats must be serious
and deliberate; the offender must persist in the
idea involved in his threats. The threat should
not be made in the heat of anger, because such
is punished under Article 285. If the condition is
not proved, it is grave threats of the third type.
B.8. ARTICLE 283 - LIGHT THREATS
Elements:
(a) Offender makes a threat to commit a
wrong;
(b) The wrong does not constitute a crime;
(c) There is a demand for money or that other
condition is imposed, even though not
unlawful;
(d) Offender has attained his purpose or, that
he has not attained his purpose.
The harm threatened must not be in the nature
of crime and there is a demand for money or any
other condition is imposed, even though lawful.
Blackmailing may be punished under this article.
GRAVE THREATS LIGHT THREATS
Act threatened Act threatened does not
amounts to a crime amount to a crime
B.9. ARTICLE 284 - BOND FOR GOOD
BEHAVIOR
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

When a person is required to give bail bond:

(1) When he threatens another under the
circumstances mentioned in Art. 282
(Grave Threats).
(2) When he threatens another under the
circumstances mentioned in Art. 283 (Light
Threats).
Bond for Good Behavior distinguished from Bond
to Keep the Peace
Bond for Good Bond to Keep the Peace
Behavior
Applicable only Not made applicable to any
to grave threats particular case
and light threats
MODE 3: Oral threat = not felony
Orally threatening to do another any harm not
constituting a felony.
Under the first type, the subsequent acts of the
offender must show that he did not persist in the
idea involved in the threat.
Threats which are ordinarily grave threats, if
made in the heat of anger, may be other light
threats.
If the threats are directed to a person who is
absent and uttered in a temporary fit of anger,
the offense is only other light threats.

If offender fails If the offender fails to give

to give bail, he bond, he shall be detained for OTHER LIGHT GRAVE THREATS AND
shall be a period not exceeding 6 THREATS LIGHT THREATS
sentenced to months (if prosecuted for
destierro grave/less grave felony) or not No demand for In certain cases, demand for
exceeding 30 days (light money money is material
felony)
No condition In certain cases, imposed
NOT a distinct A distinct penalty imposed condition is material.
penalty

Threat is not Threat is deliberate

deliberate

B.11. ARTICLE 286 - GRAVE COERCIONS

B.10. ARTICLE 285 – OTHER LIGHT THREATS
MODE 1: Threat w/weapon in a quarrel
Threatening another with a weapon, or by
drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in
lawful self-defense;
MODE 2: Oral threat = crime, in anger
Orally threatening another, in the heat of anger,
with some harm constituting a crime, without
persisting in the idea involved in his threat;
Page 329 of 407
MODE 1: Preventing w/violence, something not
prohibited by law
Preventing another, by means of violence,
threats or intimidation, from doing something
not prohibited by law;
Mode 2: compelling another to do something vs.
will
Compelling another, by means of violence,
threats or intimidation, to do something against
his will, whether it be right or wrong.
Elements:
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(a) 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;
(b) The prevention or compulsion be effected
by violence, threats or intimidation; and
(c) The person that restrained the will and
liberty of another had not the authority of
law or the right to do so, or in other words,
that the restraint shall not be made under
authority of law or in the exercise of any
lawful right.
Two ways of committing Grave Coercion:
(1) Preventive – Preventing another, by means
of violence, threats, or intimidation, from
doing something not prohibited by law
(2) Compulsive – Compelling another, by
means of violence, threats, or intimidation,
to do something against his will, whether it
be right or wrong
Purpose of the Law:
To enforce the principle that no person may take
the law into his hands, and that our government
is one of law, not of men.
Arises only if the act which the offender
prevented another to do is not prohibited by law
or ordinance.
If a person prohibits another to do an act
because the act is a crime, even though some
sort of violence or intimidation is employed, it
would not give rise to grave coercion. It may only
give rise to threat or physical injuries, if some
injuries are inflicted.
In case of grave coercion where the offended
party is being compelled to do something
against his will, whether it be wrong or not, the
crime of grave coercion is committed if violence
or intimidation is employed in order to compel
him to do the act.
Page 330 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
A public officer who shall prevent by means of
violence or threats the ceremonies or
manifestations of any religion is guilty of
interruption of religious worship (Art. 132).
Any person who, by force, prevents the meeting
of a legislative body is liable under Art. 143.
Any person who shall use force or intimidation to
prevent any member of Congress from attending
the meetings thereof, expressing his opinions, or
casting his vote is liable under Art. 145.
The crime is not grave coercion when the
violence is employed to seize anything
belonging to the debtor of the offender. It is light
coercion under Art. 287.
Coercion is consummated even if the offended
party did not accede to the purpose of coercion.
The owner of a thing has no right to prohibit the
interference of another with the same, if the
interference is necessary to avert an imminent
danger and the threatened damage, compared
to the damage arising to the owner from the
interference, is much greater. (Art. 432, Civil
Code)
Neither the crime of threats nor coercion is
committed although the accused, a branch
manager of a bank made the complainant sign a
withdrawal slip for the amount needed to pay
the spurious dollar check she had encashed, and
also made her execute an affidavit regarding the
return of the amount against her better sense
and judgment. The complainant may have acted
reluctantly and with hesitation, but still, it was
voluntary. [Lee v. CA]
B.12. ARTICLE 287 - LIGHT COERCIONS
Elements:
(a) Offender must be a creditor;
(b) He seizes anything belonging to his debtor:
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(c) The seizure of the thing be accomplished
by means of violence or a display of
material force producing intimidation;
(d) The purpose of the offender is to apply the
same to the payment of the debt.
Deals with light coercions wherein violence is
employed by the offender who is a creditor in
seizing anything belonging to his debtor for the
purpose of applying the same to the payment of
the debt.
Bar Question: A was caught peeping through a
small hole in the bathroom door while a young
16-year-old was taking a bath. A liable for: Light
Coercion.
Reason: Unjust vexation is defined as any act
committed without violence, but which
unjustifiably annoys or vexes an innocent person
amounts to light coercion. It should include any
human conduct which, although not productive
of some physical or material harm would,
however, unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent
person.
Unjust Vexation
Any act committed without violence, but which
unjustifiably annoys or vexes an innocent person
amounts to light coercion. It should include any
human conduct which, although not productive
of some physical or material harm would,
however, unjustifiably annoy or vex an innocent
person.
Unjust Vexation is distinguished from grave
coercion by the absence of violence.
THREATS COERCION
Intimidation is Intimidation or violence
essential is the essence of the
crime
Intimidation is future Force or violence must
and conditional be imminent, actual,
Page 331 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
and immediate
Intimidation is Intimidation is directed
directed against the against the victim only
victim or his family
B.13. ARTICLE 288 - OTHER SIMILAR
COERCIONS
MODE 1: Force/compel to buy commodities from
him
Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permitting the forcing or compelling
of the laborer or employee of the offender to
purchase merchandise of commodities of any
kind from him;
Elements:
(a) Offender is any person, agent or officer of
any association or corporation;
(b) He or such firm or corporation has
employed laborers or employees;
(c) He forces or compels, directly or indirectly,
or knowingly permits to be forced or
compelled, any of his or its laborers or
employees to purchase merchandise or
commodities of any kind from him or from
said firm or corporation.
MODE 2: Wages paid by token or object
Paying the wages due his laborer or employee by
means of tokens or object other than the legal
tender currency of the Philippines, unless
expressly requested by such laborer or
employee.
Elements:
(a) Offender pays the wages due a laborer or
employee employed by him by means of
tokens or object;
(b) Those tokens or objects are other than the
legal tender currency of the Philippines;
(c) Such employee or laborer does not
expressly request that he be paid by means
of tokens or objects.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
General Rule: wages shall be paid in legal tender
and the use of tokens, promissory notes,
vouchers, coupons or any other forms alleged to
represent legal tender is absolutely prohibited
even when expressly requested by the employee.
(Section 1, Rule VIII, Book III, Omnibus Rules
Implementing the Labor Code)
No employer shall limit or otherwise interfere
with the freedom of any employee to dispose of
his wages. He shall not in any manner force,
compel, oblige his employees to purchase
merchandise, commodities or other property
from the employer or from any other person.
(Art. 112, Labor Code.)
B.14. ARTICLE 289 - FORMATION,
MAINTENANCE, AND PROHIBITION OF
COMBINATION OF CAPITAL OR LABOR
THROUGH VIOLENCE OR THREATS
Elements:
(a) Offender employs violence or threats, in
such a degree as to compel or force the
laborers or employers in the free and legal
exercise of their industry or work;
(b) The purpose is to organize, maintain or
prevent coalitions of capital or labor, strike
of laborers or lockout of employers.
Repealed by the Labor Code.
C. CHAPTER III: DISCOVERY AND
REVELATION OF SECRETS
C.1. ARTICLE 290 - DISCOVERING SECRETS
THROUGH SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
Elements:
(a) Offender is a private individual or even a
public officer not in the exercise of his
official function;
(b) He seizes the papers or letters of another;
(c) The purpose is to discover the secrets of
such another person;
(d) Offender is informed of the contents of the
papers or letters seized.
Page 332 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
This is a crime against the security of one’s
papers and effects. The purpose must be to
discover its effects. The act violates the privacy
of communication.
According to Dean Ortega, it is not necessary
that the offender should actually discover the
contents of the letter. Reyes, citing People v.
Singh, CA, 40 OG, Suppl. 5, 35, believes
otherwise.
The last paragraph of Article 290 expressly
makes the provision of the first and second
paragraph thereof inapplicable to parents,
guardians, or persons entrusted with the
custody of minors placed under their care or
custody, and to the spouses with respect to the
papers or letters of either of them.
The teachers or other persons entrusted with the
care and education of minors are included in the
exceptions.
Distinction from estafa, damage to property, and
unjust vexation:
(1) If the act had been executed with intent to
gain, it would be estafa;
(2) If, on the other hand, the purpose was not
to defraud, but only to cause damage to
another, it would merit the qualification of
damage to property;
(3) If the intention was merely to cause
vexation preventing another to do
something which the law does not prohibit
or compel him to execute what he does not
want, the act should be considered as
unjust vexation.
C.2. ARTICLE 291 - REVEALING SECRETS
WITH ABUSE OF OFFICE
Elements:
(a) Offender is a manager, employee or
servant;
(b) He learns the secrets of his principal or
master in such capacity;
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(c) He reveals such secrets.
An employee, manager, or servant who came to
know of the secret of his master or principal in
such capacity and reveals the same shall also be
liable regardless of whether or not the principal
or master suffered damages.
Essence of this crime is that the offender learned
of the secret in the course of his employment.
He is enjoying a confidential relation with the
employer or master so he should respect the
privacy of matters personal to the latter.
Reason: no one has a right to the personal
privacy of another.
C.3. ARTICLE 292 - REVELATION OF
INDUSTRIAL SECRETS
Elements:
(a) Offender is a person in charge, employee or
workman of a manufacturing or industrial
establishment;
(b) The manufacturing or industrial
establishment has a secret of the industry
which the offender has learned;
(c) Offender reveals such secrets;
(d) Prejudice is caused to the owner.
Secrets must relate to manufacturing processes.
The act constituting the crime is revealing the
secret of the industry which the offender has
learned.
The revelation of the secret might be made after
the employee or workman had ceased to be
connected with the establishment.
Prejudice is an element of the offense.
D. SPECIAL LAWS
D.1. RA 4200 (ANTI WIRE TAPPING ACT)
Page 333 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Punishable Acts
It shall be unlawful for:
(1) Any person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication or
spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by
using any other device or arrangement, to
secretly overhear, intercept, or record such
communication or spoken word by using a
device commonly known as a dictaphone or
dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-talkie
or tape recorder, or however otherwise
described:
(2) Any person, be he a participant or not in
the act or acts penalized in the next
preceding sentence, to knowingly possess
any tape record, wire record, disc record, or
any other such record, or copies thereof, of
any communication or spoken word
secured either before or after the effective
date of this Act in the manner prohibited by
this law; or to replay the same for any other
person or persons; or to communicate the
contents thereof, either verbally or in
writing, or to furnish transcriptions thereof,
whether complete or partial, to any other
person: Provided, That the use of such
record or any copies thereof as evidence in
any civil, criminal investigation or trial of
offenses mentioned in section 3 hereof,
shall not be covered by this prohibition.
Section 2. Any person who willfully or knowingly
does or who shall aid, permit, or cause to be
done any of the acts declared to be unlawful in
the preceding section or who violates the
provisions of the following section or of any
order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or
causes such violation shall, upon conviction
thereof, be punished by imprisonment for not
less than six months or more than six years and
with the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification from public office if the offender
be a public official at the time of the commission
of the offense, and, if the offender is an alien he
shall be subject to deportation proceedings.
Exceptions:
Any peace officer, who is authorized by a written
order of the Court, to execute any of the acts
declared to be unlawful in the two preceding
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
sections in cases involving the crimes of treason,
espionage, provoking war and disloyalty in case
of war, piracy, mutiny in the high seas, rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion,
inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to
commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping
as defined by the RPC, and violations of
Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing
espionage and other offenses against national
security: 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 may produce and a showing:
(1) that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that any of the crimes enumerated
hereinabove has been committed or is
being committed or is about to be
committed: Provided, however, That in
cases involving the offenses of rebellion,
conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting
to sedition, such authority shall be granted
only upon prior proof that a rebellion or
acts of sedition, as the case may be, have
actually been or are being committed;
(2) that there are reasonable grounds to
believe that evidence will be obtained
essential to the conviction of any person
for, or to the solution of, or to the
prevention of, any of such crimes; and
(3) that there are no other means readily
available for obtaining such evidence.
D.2. RA 9327 (HUMAN SECURITY ACT)
Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and
Recording of Communications
SEC. 7. The provisions of RA 4200 (Anti-wire
Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a
police or law enforcement official and the
members of his team may, upon a written order
of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and
record, with the use of any Mode, form, kind or
type of electronic or other surveillance
equipment or intercepting and tracking devices,
or with the use of any other suitable ways and
means for that purpose, any communication,
message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or
written words between members of a judicially
Page 334 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
declared and outlawed terrorist organization,
association, or group of persons or of any person
charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Provided, That surveillance, interception and
recording of communications between lawyers
and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and
their sources and confidential business
correspondence shall not be authorized.
SEC. 8. Formal Application for Judicial
Authorization. - The written order of the
authorizing division of the Court of Appeals to
track down, tap, listen to, intercept, and record
communications, messages, conversations,
discussions, or spoken or written words of any
person suspected of the crime of terrorism or the
crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall
only be granted by the authorizing division of the
Court of Appeals upon an ex parte written
application of a police or of a law enforcement
official who has been duly authorized in writing
by the Anti-Terrorism Council created in Section
53 of this Act to file such ex parte application,
and upon examination under oath or affirmation
of the applicant and the witnesses he may
produce to establish: (a) that there is probable
cause to believe based on personal knowledge
of facts or circumstances that the said crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has
been committed, or is being committed, or is
about to be committed; (b) that there is
probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts or circumstances that
evidence, which is essential to the conviction of
any charged or suspected person for, or to the
solution or prevention of, any such crimes, will
be obtained; and, (c) that there is no other
effective means readily available for acquiring
such evidence.
SEC. 9.Classification and Contents of the Order
of the Court. - The written order granted by the
authorizing division of the Court of Appeals as
well as its order, if any, to extend or renew the
same, the original application of the applicant,
including his application to extend or renew, if
any, and the written authorizations of the Anti-
Terrorism Council shall be deemed and are
hereby declared as classified information:
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Provided, That the person being surveilled or

whose communications, letters, papers,
The authorizing division of the CA may extend or
messages, conversations. Discussions, spoken or
renew the said authorization for another non-
written words and effects have been monitored,
extendible period, which shall not exceed 30
listened to, bugged or recorded by law
days from the expiration of the original period:
enforcement authorities has the right to be
Provided, That the authorizing division of the CA
informed of the acts done by the law
is satisfied that such extension or renewal is in
enforcement authorities in the premises or to
the public interest: and Provided, further, That
challenge, if he or she intends to do so, the
the ex parte application for extension or
legality of the interference before the Court of
renewal, which must be filed by the original
Appeals which issued the written order. The
applicant, has been duly authorized in writing by
written order of the authorizing division of the
the Anti-Terrorism Council.
Court of Appeals shall specify the following: (a)
the identity, such as name and address, if
known, of the charged or suspected person
In case of death of the original applicant or in
whose communications, messages,
case he is physically disabled to file the
conversations, discussions, or spoken or written
application for extension or renewal, the one
words are to be tracked down, tapped, listened
next in rank to the original applicant among the
to, intercepted, and recorded and, in the case of
members of the team named in the original
radio, electronic, or telephonic (whether wireless
written order of the authorizing division of the
or otherwise) communications, messages,
CA shall file the application for extension or
conversations, discussions, or spoken or written
renewal: Provided, That, without prejudice to the
words, the electronic transmission systems or
liability of the police or law enforcement
the telephone numbers to be tracked down,
personnel under Section 20 hereof, the
tapped, listened to, intercepted, and recorded
applicant police or law enforcement official shall
and their locations or if the person suspected of
have thirty (30) days after the termination of the
the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
period granted by the Court of Appeals as
terrorism is not fully known, such person shall
provided in the preceding paragraphs within
be subject to continuous surveillance provided
which to file the appropriate case before the
there is a reasonable ground to do so; (b) the
Public Prosecutor’s Office for any violation of
identity (name, address, and the police or law
this Act.
enforcement organization) of the police or of the
law enforcement official, including the individual
identity (names, addresses, and the police or law If no case is filed within the thirty (30)-day
enforcement organization) of the members of his period, the applicant police or law enforcement
team, judicially authorized to track down, tap, official shall immediately notify the person
listen to, intercept, and record the subject of the surveillance, interception and
communications, messages, conversations, recording of the termination of the said
discussions, or spoken or written words; (c) the surveillance, interception and recording. The
offense or offenses committed, or being penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve
committed, or sought to be prevented; and, (d) (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed
the length of time within which the authorization upon the applicant police or law enforcement
shall be used or carried out. official who fails to notify the person subject of
the surveillance, monitoring, interception and
recording as specified above.
SEC. 10. Effective Period of Judicial
Authorization. - Only for the length of time
specified in the written order of the authorizing SEC. 11. Custody of Intercepted and Recorded
division of the Court of Appeals, which shall not Communications. - All tapes, discs, and
exceed a period of thirty (30) days from the date recordings made pursuant to the authorization
of receipt of the written order of the authorizing of the authorizing division of the CA, including
division of the CA by the applicant police or law all excerpts and summaries thereof as well as all
enforcement official. written notes or memoranda made in connection
Page 335 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

therewith, shall, within forty-eight (48) hours written authorization granted by the Anti-
after the expiration of the period fixed in the Terrorism Council to the applicant to file the ex
written order of the authorizing division of the parte application to conduct the tracking down,
CA or within forty-eight (48) hours after the tapping, intercepting, and recording, as well as
expiration of any extension or renewal granted the date of any extension or renewal of the
by the authorizing division of the Court of original written authority granted by the
Appeals, be deposited with the authorizing authorizing division of the Court of Appeals.
Division of the CA in a sealed envelope or sealed
package, as the case may be, and shall be
accompanied by a joint affidavit of the applicant The joint affidavit shall also certify under oath
police or law enforcement official and the that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any
members of his team. part of any of such tapes, discs, and recordings,
and that no duplicates or copies of the whole or
any part of any of such excerpts, summaries,
In case of death of the applicant or in case he is written notes, and memoranda, have been
physically disabled to execute the required made, or, if made, that all such duplicates and
affidavit, the one next in rank to the applicant copies are included in the sealed envelope or
among the members of the team named in the sealed package, as the case may be, deposited
written order of the authorizing division of the with the authorizing division of the Court of
CA shall execute with the members of the team Appeals.
that required affidavit.
It shall be unlawful for any person, police officer
It shall be unlawful for any person, police or law
or any custodian of the tapes, discs and
enforcement official to omit or exclude from the
recording, and their excerpts and summaries,
joint affidavit any item or portion thereof
written notes or memoranda to copy in whatever
mentioned in this Section.
form, to remove, delete, expunge, incinerate,
shred or destroy in any manner the items
enumerated above in whole or in part under any
Any person, police or law enforcement officer
pretext whatsoever.
who violates any of the acts proscribed in the
preceding paragraph shall suffer the penalty of
not less than ten (10) years and one day to
Any person who removes, deletes, expunges
twelve (12) years of imprisonment.
incinerates, shreds or destroys the items
enumerated above shall suffer a penalty of not
less than six (6) years and one day to twelve (12)
SEC. 13.Disposition of Deposited Materials. - The
years of imprisonment.
sealed envelope or sealed package and the
contents thereof, which are deposited with the
authorizing division of the Court of Appeals,
SEC. 12. Contents of Joint Affidavit. - The joint
shall be deemed and are hereby declared
affidavit of the police or of the law enforcement
classified information, and the sealed envelope
official and the individual members of his team
or sealed package shall not be opened and its
shall state: (a) the number of tapes, discs, and
contents (including the tapes, discs, and
recordings that have been made, as well as the
recordings and all the excerpts and summaries
number of excerpts and summaries thereof and
thereof and the notes and memoranda made in
the number of written notes and memoranda, if
connection therewith) shall not be divulged,
any, made in connection therewith; (b) the dates
revealed, read, replayed, or used as evidence
and times covered by each of such tapes, discs,
unless authorized by written order of the
and recordings; (c) the number of tapes, discs,
authorizing division of the Court of Appeals,
and recordings, as well as the number of
which written order shall be granted only upon a
excerpts and summaries thereof and the number
written application of the Department of Justice
of written notes and memoranda made in
filed before the authorizing division of the Court
connection therewith that have been included in
of Appeals and only upon a showing that the
the deposit; and (d) the date of the original
Department of Justice has been duly authorized
Page 336 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council to file
the application with proper written notice to the
person whose conversation, communication,
message discussion or spoken or written words
have been the subject of surveillance,
monitoring, recording and interception to open,
reveal, divulge, and use the contents of the
sealed envelope or sealed package as evidence.
Any person, law enforcement official or judicial
authority who violates his duty to notify in
writing the persons subject of the surveillance as
defined above shall suffer the penalty of six (6)
years and one day to eight (8) years of
imprisonment.
SEC. 14.Application to Open Deposited Sealed
Envelop or Sealed Package. - The written
application with notice to the party concerned to
open the deposited sealed envelope or sealed
package shall clearly state the purpose or
reason: (a) for opening the sealed envelope or
sealed package; (b) for revealing or disclosing its
classified contents; (c) for replaying, divulging,
and or reading any of the listened to,
intercepted, and recorded communications,
messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken
or written words (including any of the excerpts
and summaries thereof and any of the notes or
memoranda made in connection therewith);
and, (d) for using any of said listened to,
intercepted, and recorded communications,
messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken
or written words (including any of the excerpts
and summaries thereof and any of the notes or
memoranda made in connection therewith) as
evidence.
Any person, law enforcement official or judicial
authority who violates his duty to notify as
defined above shall suffer the penalty of six (6)
years and one day to eight (8) years of
imprisonment.
SEC. 15.Evidentiary Value of Deposited
Materials. - Any listened to, intercepted, and
recorded communications, messages,
conversations, discussions, or spoken or written
words, or any part or parts thereof, or any
information or fact contained therein, including
Page 337 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
their existence, content, substance, purport,
effect, or meaning, which have been secured in
violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act,
shall absolutely not be admissible and usable as
evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-
judicial, legislative, or administrative
investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.
SEC. 16.Penalty for Unauthorized or malicious
Interceptions and/or Recordings. - Any police or
law enforcement personnel who, not being
authorized to do so by the authorizing division of
the Court of Appeals, tracks down, taps, listens
to, intercepts, and records in whatever manner
or form any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or spoken or written
word of a person charged with or suspected of
the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy
to commit terrorism shall be guilty of an offense
and shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and
one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.
In addition to the liability attaching to the
offender for the commission of any other
offense, the penalty of ten (10) years and one day
to twelve (12) years of imprisonment and the
accessory penalty of perpetual absolute
disqualification from public office shall be
imposed upon any police or law enforcement
personnel who maliciously obtained an authority
from the Court of Appeals to track down, tap,
listen to, intercept, and record in whatever
manner or form any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or spoken or written
words of a person charged with or suspected of
the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism: Provided, That notwithstanding
Section 13 of this Act, the party aggrieved by
such authorization shall be allowed access to
the sealed envelope or sealed package and the
contents thereof as evidence for the prosecution
of any police or law enforcement personnel who
maliciously procured said authorization.
Restriction on Travel
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
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
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.
While under house arrest, he or she may not use
telephones, cellphones, e-mails, computers, the
internet or other means of communications with
people outside the residence until otherwise
ordered by the court.
The restrictions abovementioned shall be
terminated upon the acquittal of the accused or
of the dismissal of the case filed against him or
earlier upon the discretion of the court on
motion of the prosecutor or of the accused.
Examination of Bank Deposits and Documents
SEC. 27. Judicial Authorization Required to
Examine Bank Deposits, Accounts, and Records.
- The provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 as
amended, to the contrary notwithstanding, the
justices of the Court of Appeals designated as a
special court to handle anti-terrorism cases after
satisfying themselves of the existence of
probable cause in a hearing called for that
purpose that (1) a person charged with or
suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy
to commit terrorism, (2) of a judicially declared
and outlawed terrorist organization, association,
or group of persons, and (3) of a member of such
judicially declared and outlawed organization,
association, or group of persons, may authorize
in writing any police or law enforcement officer
and the members of his/her team duly
authorized in writing by the anti-terrorism
council to: (a) examine, or cause the examination
of, the deposits, placements, trust accounts,
assets and records in a bank or financial
institution; and (b) gather or cause the gathering
Page 338 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
of any relevant information about such deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records
from a bank or financial institution. The bank or
financial institution concerned shall not refuse
to allow such examination or to provide the
desired information, when so ordered by and
served with the written order of the Court of
Appeals.
Application
SEC. 28. Application to Examine Bank Deposits,
Accounts, and Records. - The written order of
the Court of Appeals authorizing the
examination of bank deposits, placements, trust
accounts, assets, and records: (1) of a person
charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2)
of any judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of persons, or
(3) of any member of such organization,
association, or group of persons in a bank or
financial institution, and the gathering of any
relevant information about the same from said
bank or financial institution, shall only be
granted by the authorizing division of the Court
of Appeals upon an ex parte application to that
effect of a police or of a law enforcement official
who has been duly authorized in writing to file
such ex parte application by the Anti-Terrorism
Council created in Section 53 of this Act to file
such ex parte application, and upon examination
under oath or affirmation of the applicant and
the witnesses he may produce to establish the
facts that will justify the need and urgency of
examining and freezing the bank deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records:
(1) of the person charged with or suspected of
the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit
terrorism, (2) of a judicially declared and
outlawed terrorist organization, association or
group of persons, or (3) of any member of such
organization, association, or group of persons.
SEC. 29. Classification and Contents of the Court
Order Authorizing the Examination of Bank
Deposits, Accounts, and Records. - The written
order granted by the authorizing division of the
Court of Appeals as well as its order, if any, to
extend or renew the same, the original ex parte
application of the applicant, including his ex
parte application to extend or renew, if any, and
the written authorizations of the Anti Terrorism
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Council, shall be deemed and are hereby
declared as classified information: Provided,
That the person whose bank deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records
have been examined, frozen, sequestered and
seized by law enforcement authorities has the
right to be informed of the acts done by the law
enforcement authorities in the premises or to
challenge, if he or she intends to do so, the
legality of the interference. The written order of
the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals
designated to handle cases involving terrorism
shall specify: (a) the identity of the said: (1)
person charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2)
judicially declared and outlawed terrorist
organization, association, or group of persons,
and (3) member of such judicially declared and
outlawed organization, association, or group of
persons, as the case may be, whose deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records
are to be examined or the information to be
gathered; (b) the identity of the bank or financial
institution where such deposits, placements,
trust accounts, assets, and records are held and
maintained; (c) the identity of the persons who
will conduct the said examination and the
gathering of the desired information; and, (d)
the length of time the authorization shall be
carried out.
SEC. 30. Effective Period of Court Authorization
to Examine and Obtain Information on Bank
Deposits, Accounts, and Records. - The
authorization issued or granted by the
authorizing division of the Court of Appeals to
examine or cause the examination of and to
freeze bank deposits, placements, trust
accounts, assets, and records, or to gather
information about the same, shall be effective
for the length of time specified in the written
order of the authorizing division of the Court of
Appeals, which shall not exceed a period of
thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the
written order of the authorizing division of the
Court of Appeals by the applicant police or law
enforcement official.
The authorizing division of the Court of Appeals
may extend or renew the said authorization for
another period, which shall not exceed thirty
(30) days renewable to another thirty (30) days
Page 339 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
from the expiration of the original period,
provided that the authorizing division of the
Court of Appeals is satisfied that such extension
or renewal is in the public interest, and provided
further that the application for extension or
renewal, which must be filed by the original
applicant, has been duly authorized in writing by
the Anti-Terrorism Council.
In case of death of the original applicant or in
case he is physically disabled to file the
application for extension or renewal, the one
next in rank to the original applicant among the
members of the team named in the original
written order of the authorizing division of the
Court of Appeals shall file the application for
extension or renewal: Provided, That, without
prejudice to the liability of the police or law
enforcement personnel under Section 19 hereof,
the applicant police or law enforcement official
shall have thirty (30) days after the termination
of the period granted by the Court of Appeals as
provided in the preceding paragraphs within
which to file the appropriate case before the
Public Prosecutor’s Office for any violation of
this Act.
If no case is filed within the thirty (30)-day
period, the applicant police or law enforcement
official shall immediately notify in writing the
person subject of the bank examination and
freezing of bank deposits, placements, trust
accounts, assets and records. The penalty of ten
(10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the
applicant police or law enforcement official who
fails to notify in writing the person subject of the
bank examination and freezing of bank deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets and records.
Any person, law enforcement official or judicial
authority who violates his duty to notify in
writing as defined above shall suffer the penalty
of six (6) years and one day to eight (8) years of
imprisonment.
SEC. 31. Custody of Bank Data and Information
Obtained after Examination of Deposits,
Placements, Trust Accounts, Assets and
Records. - All information, data, excerpts,
summaries, notes, memoranda, working sheets,
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
reports, and other documents obtained from the
examination of the bank deposits, placements,
trust accounts, assets and records of: (1) a
person charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit
terrorism, (2) a judicially declared and outlawed
terrorist organization, association, or group of
persons, or (3) a member of any such
organization, association, or group of persons
shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the
expiration of the period fixed in the written order
of the authorizing division of the Court of
Appeals or within forty-eight (48) hours after the
expiration of the extension or renewal granted
by the authorizing division of the Court of
Appeals, be deposited with the authorizing
division of the Court of Appeals in a sealed
envelope or sealed package, as the case may be,
and shall be accompanied by a joint affidavit of
the applicant police or law enforcement official
and the persons who actually conducted the
examination of said bank deposits, placements,
trust accounts, assets and records.
SEC. 32. Contents of Joint Affidavit. - The joint
affidavit shall state: (a) the identifying marks,
numbers, or symbols of the deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets, and records
examined; (b) the identity and address of the
bank or financial institution where such
deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets,
and records are held and maintained; (c) the
number of bank deposits, placements, trust
accounts, assets, and records discovered,
examined, and frozen; (d) the outstanding
balances of each of such deposits, placements,
trust accounts, assets; (e) all information, data,
excerpts, summaries, notes, memoranda,
working sheets, reports, documents, records
examined and placed in the sealed envelope or
sealed package deposited with the authorizing
division of the Court of Appeals; (f) the date of
the original written authorization granted by the
Anti-Terrorism Council to the applicant to file
the ex parte application to conduct the
examination of the said bank deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets and records,
as well as the date of any extension or renewal
of the original written authorization granted by
the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals;
and (g) that the items enumerated were all that
were found in the bank or financial institution
Page 340 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
examined at the time of the completion of the
examination.
The joint affidavit shall also certify under oath
that no duplicates or copies of the information,
data, excerpts, summaries, notes, memoranda,
working sheets, reports, and documents
acquired from the examination of the bank
deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and
records have been made, or, if made, that all
such duplicates and copies are placed in the
sealed envelope or sealed package deposited
with the authorizing division of the Court of
Appeals.
It shall be unlawful for any person, police officer
or custodian of the bank data and information
obtained after examination of deposits,
placements, trust accounts, assets and records
to copy, to remove, delete, expunge, incinerate,
shred or destroy in any manner the items
enumerated above in whole or in part under any
pretext whatsoever.
Any person who copies, removes, deletes,
expunges incinerates, shreds or destroys the
items enumerated above shall suffer a penalty of
not less than six (6) years and one day to twelve
(12) years of imprisonment.
Unauthorized Revelation of Classified Materials
SEC. 46. Penalty for Unauthorized Revelation of
Classified Materials. - The penalty of ten (10)
years and one day to twelve (12) years of
imprisonment shall be imposed upon any
person, police or law enforcement agent, judicial
officer or civil servant who, not being authorized
by the Court of Appeals to do so, reveals in any
manner or form any classified information under
this Act.
D.3. RA 9208: ANTI-TRAFFICKING IN
PERSONS ACT OF 2003
Trafficking in Persons - refers to the recruitment,
transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt
of persons with or without the victim's consent
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
or knowledge, within or across national borders
by means of threat or use of force, or other forms
of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse
of power or of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person, or, the giving or
receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the
consent of a person having control over another
person for the purpose of exploitation which
includes at a minimum, the exploitation or the
prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
servitude or the removal or sale of organs.
The recruitment, transportation, transfer,
harboring or receipt of a child for the purpose of
exploitation shall also be considered as
"trafficking in persons" even if it does not involve
any of the means set forth in the preceding
paragraph.
Punishable Acts
Section 4. Acts of Trafficking in Persons. - It shall
be unlawful for any person, natural or juridical,
to commit any of the following acts:
(1) To recruit, transport, transfer; harbor,
provide, or receive a person by any means,
including those done under the pretext of
domestic or overseas employment or
training or apprenticeship, for the purpose
of prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(2) To introduce or match for money, profit, or
material, economic or other consideration,
any person or, as provided for under
Republic Act No. 6955, any Filipino woman
to a foreign national, for marriage for the
purpose of acquiring, buying, offering,
selling or trading him/her to engage in
prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(3) To offer or contract marriage, real or
simulated, for the purpose of acquiring,
buying, offering, selling, or trading them to
engage in prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor or slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
Page 341 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(4) To undertake or organize tours and travel
plans consisting of tourism packages or
activities for the purpose of utilizing and
offering persons for prostitution,
pornography or sexual exploitation;
(5) To maintain or hire a person to engage in
prostitution or pornography;
(6) To adopt or facilitate the adoption of
persons for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced
labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt
bondage;
(7) To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct
a person, by means of threat or use of
force, fraud, deceit, violence, coercion, or
intimidation for the purpose of removal or
sale of organs of said person; and
(8) To recruit, transport or adopt a child to
engage in armed activities in the
Philippines or abroad.
Section 5. Acts that Promote Trafficking in
Persons.- The following acts which promote or
facilitate trafficking in persons, shall be unlawful
to:
(1) knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow
to be used any house, building or
establishment for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons;
(2) produce, print and issue or distribute
unissued, tampered or fake counseling
certificates, registration stickers and
certificates of any government agency
which issues these certificates and stickers
as proof of compliance with government
regulatory and pre-departure requirements
for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons;
(3) advertise, publish, print, broadcast or
distribute, or cause the advertisement,
publication, printing, broadcasting or
distribution by any means, including the
use of information technology and the
internet, of any brochure, flyer, or any
propaganda material that promotes
trafficking in persons;
(4) assist in the conduct of misrepresentation
or fraud for purposes of facilitating the
acquisition of clearances and necessary exit
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

documents from government agencies that (5) When the trafficked person is recruited to
are mandated to provide pre-departure engage in prostitution with any member of
registration and services for departing the military or law enforcement agencies;
persons for the purpose of promoting
(6) When the offender is a member of the
trafficking in persons;
military or law enforcement agencies; and
(5) facilitate, assist or help in the exit and entry
(7) When by reason or on occasion of the act of
of persons from/to the country at
trafficking in persons, the offended party
international and local airports, territorial
dies, becomes insane, suffers mutilation or
boundaries and seaports who are in
is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency
possession of unissued, tampered or
Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune
fraudulent travel documents for the
Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS).
purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons;
(6) confiscate, conceal, or destroy the
passport, travel documents, or personal
documents or belongings of trafficked
persons in furtherance of trafficking or to
prevent them from leaving the country or
seeking redress from the government or
appropriate agencies; and
(7) knowingly benefit from, financial or
otherwise, or make use of, the labor or
services of a person held to a condition of
involuntary servitude, forced labor, or
slavery.

Section 6. Qualified Trafficking in Persons. - The

following are considered as qualified trafficking:
(1) When the trafficked person is a child;
(2) When the adoption is effected through
Republic Act No. 8043, otherwise known as
the "Inter-Country Adoption Act of 1995"
and said adoption is for the purpose of
prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
(3) When the crime is committed by a
syndicate, or in large scale. Trafficking is
deemed committed by a syndicate if carried
out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one
another. It is deemed committed in large
scale if committed against three (3) or
more persons, individually or as a group;
(4) When the offender is an ascendant, parent,
sibling, guardian or a person who exercises
authority over the trafficked person or
when the offense is committed by a public
officer or employee;
Page 342 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
XI. TITLE X. CRIMES
AGAINST PROPERTY
Chapter I: Robbery in General
(1) Article 293 - Who Are Guilty of Robbery
(2) Article 294 - With Violence or Intimidation
of Persons
(3) Article 295 - Robbery with Physical Injuries,
in an Uninhabited Place and by a Band
(4) Article 296 - Definition of a Band and
Penalty Incurred by the Members Thereof
(5) Article 297 - Attempted and Frustrated
Robbery with Homicide
(6) Article 298 - Execution of Deeds through
Violence or Intimidation
(7) Article 299 - Robbery in an Inhabited
House or Public Building or Edifice Devoted
to Worship
(8) Article 300 - Robbery in an Uninhabited
Place and by a Band
(9) Article 302 - In an Uninhabited Place or
Private Building
(10) Article 303 - Robbery of Cereals, Fruits or
Firewood in an Inhabited Place or Private
Building
(11) Article 304 - Possession of Picklock or
Similar Tools
(12) Article 305 - False Keys
Chapter 2: Brigandage
(1) Article 306 - Who Are Brigands
(2) Article 307 - Aiding and Abetting a Band of
Brigands
Chapter 3: Theft
(1) Article 308 - Who Are Liable for Theft
(2) Article 309 – Penalties
(3) Article 310 - Qualified Theft
(4) Article 311 - Theft of the Property of the
National Library and National Museum
Page 343 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Chapter 4: Usurpation
(1) Article 312 - Occupation of Real Property or
Usurpation of Real Rights in Property
(2) Article 313 - Altering Boundaries or
Landmarks
Chapter 5: Culpable Insolvency
(1) Article 314 - Fraudulent Insolvency
Chapter 6: Swindling
(1) Article 315 – Estafa
(2) Article 316 - Other Forms of Swindling
(3) Article 317 - Swindling of a Minor
(4) Article 318 - Other Deceits
Chapter 7: Chattel mortgage
(1) Article 319 - Removal, Sale, or Pledge of
Mortgaged Property
Chapter 8: Arson and other Crimes involving
Destruction
Chapter 9: Malicious mischief
(1) Article 327 - Who Are Responsible
(2) Article 328 - Special Cases of Malicious
Mischief
(3) Article 329 - Other Mischiefs
(4) Article 330 - Damage and Obstruction to
Means of Communication
(5) Article 331 - Destroying or Damaging
Statues, Public Monuments or Paintings
Chapter 10: Exemption from Criminal Liability
(1) Article 332 - Exemption from Criminal
Liability in Crimes Against Property
A. CHAPTER I: ROBBERY IN GENERAL
A.1. ARTICLE 293 - WHO ARE GUILTY OF
ROBBERY
Elements of Robbery in General
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
1) That there is personal property belonging to
another;
2) That there is unlawful taking of that
property;
3) That the taking is with intent to gain; and
4) That there is violence against or intimidation
of persons or force upon things.
The property taken must be personal, if real
property/right is usurped the crime is usurpation
(Art. 312).
Prohibitive articles may be the subject of
robbery, e.g., opium
From the moment the offender gains possession
of the object, even without the chance to dispose
of the same, the unlawful taking is complete.
“Taking” – depriving the offended party of
possession of the thing taken with the character
of permanency.
Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful
taking. It cannot be established by direct
evidence, except in case of confession.
It is not necessary that violence or intimidation is
present from the beginning. If the violence or
intimidation at any time before asportation is
complete, the taking of property is qualified to
robbery.
When is violence committed?
General Rule: Violence or intimidation must be
present BEFORE the taking of personal property
is complete.
Exception: When violence results in homicide,
rape, intentional mutilation, or any of the serious
physical injuries penalized in par. 1 and 2 of Art.
263, the taking of the personal property is
robbery complexed with any of those crimes
under Art. 294, even if the taking was already
complete when violence was used by the
offender.
A.2. ARTICLE 294 – ROBBERY WITH
VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF
PERSONS
Acts punished under Art 294:
Page 344 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(1) When by reason or on occasion of the
robbery, Homicide is committed. (Robbery
with Homicide)
(2) When the robbery is accompanied by Rape
or Intentional Mutilation or Arson. (Robbery
with Rape, Robbery with Intentional
Mutilation, Robbery with Arson)
(3) When by reason or on occasion of such
robbery, any of the Physical Injuries
resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency,
or blindness is inflicted.
(4) When by reason or on occasion of robbery,
any of the Physical Injuries resulting in the
loss of the use of speech or the power to
hear or to smell, or the loss of an eye, a
hand, a foot, an arm or a leg or the loss of
the use of any such member, or incapacity
for the work in which the injured person is
theretofore habitually engaged is inflicted.
(5) If the violence or intimidation employed in
the commission of the robbery is carried to
a degree clearly unnecessary for the
commission of the crime.
(6) When in the course of its execution, the
offender shall have inflicted upon any
person not responsible for the commission
of the robbery any of the Physical Injuries in
consequence of which the person injured
becomes deformed or loses any other
member of his body or loses the use thereof
or becomes ill or incapacitatedfor the
performance of the work in which he is
habitually engaged for labor for more than
90 days or the person injured becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more than 30
days.
(7) If the violence employed by the offender
does not cause any of the serious physical
injuries defined in Art. 263, or if the offender
employs intimidation only.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

The crime defined in this article is a special VIOLENCE AGAINST USE OF FORCE UPON
complex crime. OR INTIMIDATION THINGS
OF PERSON

“On the occasion” and “by reason” mean that The taking is always The taking is robbery
homicide or serious physical injuries must be robbery. only if force is used to:
committed in the course or because of the
(1) enter the building
robbery.
(2) break doors,
wardrobes,
The violence must be against the person, not chests, or any
upon the thing taken. It must be present before other kind of
the taking of personal property is complete. locked or sealed
furniture or
receptacle inside
“Homicide” is used in its generic sense, as to the building; OR
include parricide and murder. Hence, there is no
robbery with murder. The crime is still robbery (3) force them open
with homicide even if, in the course of the outside after
robbery, the person killed was another robber or taking the same
a bystander. from the building
(Art. 299 & 302)

Value of the thing If committed in an

Even if the rape was committed in another place,
taken is immaterial. inhabited house,
it is still robbery with rape. When the taking of
The penalty depends public building, or
personal property of a woman is an independent
on: edifice devoted to
act following defendant’s failure to consummate
the rape, there are two distinct crimes religious worship, the
(1) the result of the
committed: attempted rape and theft. penalty is based on:
violence used
Additional rape committed on the same (homicide, rape, (1) the value of the
occasion of robbery will not increase the penalty. intentional thing taken and
mutilation,
(2) whether or not the
serious physical
offenders carry
Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of injuries, less
arms;
personal property grave coercion if there is serious or slight
violence used (Art. 286). physical injuries
resulted) and

If both violence/intimidation of persons (294) (2) the existence of

and force upon things (299/302) co-exist, it will
be considered as violation of Art 294 because it
is more serious than in Art 299/302.
BUT when robbery is under Art 294 par 4 & 5 the
penalty is lower than in Art 299 so the complex
crime should be imputed for the higher penalty
to be imposed without sacrificing the principle
that robbery w/ violence against persons is more
severe than that w/ force upon things. [Napolis
v. CA (1972)]
Page 345 of 407
intimidation only
When the taking of the victim’s gun was to
prevent the victim from retaliating, then the
crimes committed are theft and homicide not
robbery with homicide. [People v. Millian
(2000)]
These offenses are known as SPECIAL
COMPLEX CRIMES. Crimes defined under this
article are the following:
(1) Robbery with homicide
(2) Robbery with rape
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(3) Robbery with intentional mutilation
(4) Robbery with arson
(5) Robbery with serious physical injuries
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE; (Absorption Theory
applied)
Attempted homicide or attempted murder
committed during or on the occasion of the
robbery, as in this case, is absorbed in the crime
of Robbery with Homicide which is a special
complex crime that remains fundamentally the
same regardless of the number of homicides or
injuries committed in connection with the
robbery. [People v. Cabbab, Jr.(2007)]
ROBBERY WITH RAPE
If the intention of the accused was to rob, but
rape was committed even before the
asportation, the crime is the special complex
crime of Robbery with Rape. So long as the
intent of the accused is to rob, rape may be
committed before, during or after the robbery.
But if the primary intent of the accused was to
rape and his taking away the belongings of the
victim was only a mere afterthought, two
separate felonies are committed: Rape and
Theft or Robbery depending upon the
circumstances surrounding the unlawful taking.
[People v. Naag, GR No. 1361394, Feb. 15, 2001]
A.3. ARTICLE 295 - ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL
INJURIES, IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND
BY A BAND
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons is qualified when it is committed:
(1) In an Uninhabited place, or
(2) By a Band, or
(3) By Attacking a moving train, street car,
motor vehicle, or airship, or
(4) By Entering the passengers’
compartments in a train, or in any manner
taking the passengers thereof by surprise
in the respective conveyances, or
(5) On a Street, road, highway, or alley, AND
the intimidation is made with the use of
Firearms
Page 346 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Here, the offender shall be punished by the
maximum periods of the proper penalties in Art.
294. The penalty cannot be offset by a generic
mitigating circumstance.
The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies
only robbery on a street, road, highway, or alley.
Any of these qualifying circumstances must be
alleged in the information and proved during the
trial.
A.4. ARTICLE 296 – ROBBERY BY A BAND
(1) When at least 4 armed malefactors take
part in the commission of a robbery, it is
deemed committed by a band.
(2) When any of the arms used in the
commission of robbery is not licensed,
penalty upon all the malefactors shall be
the maximum of the corresponding
penalty provided by law, without prejudice
to the criminal liability for illegal
possession of such firearms.
(3) Any member of a band who was present
at the commission of a robbery by the
band, shall be punished as principal of
any of the assaults committed by the
band, unless it be shown that he
attempted to prevent the crime.
Requisites for Liability for the acts of the other
members:
(1) Member of the band.
(2) Present at the commission of the robbery.
(3) Other members committed an assault.
(4) He did not attempt to prevent assault.
Conspiracy is presumed when robbery is by
band.
When the robbery was not committed by a band,
the robber who did not take part in the assault
by another is not liable for that assault.
UP LAW BOC
When the robbery was not by a band and
homicide was not determined by the accused
when they plotted the crime, the one who did
not participate in the killing is liable for robbery
only. It is only when the robbery is in band that
all those present in the commission of the
robbery may be punished for any of the assaults
which any of its members might commit.
But when there is conspiracy to commit
homicide and robbery, all the conspirators, even
if less than 4 armed men, are liable for the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
Art 296 is not applicable to principal by
inducement, who was not present at the
commission of the robbery, if the agreement was
only to commit robbery.
The article speaks of more than 3 armed
malefactors who “takes part in the commission
of the robbery” and member of a band “who is
present at the commission of a robbery by a
band.” Thus, a principal by inducement, who did
not go with the band at the place of the
commission of the robbery, is not liable for
robbery with homicide, but only for robbery in
band, there being no evidence that he gave
instructions to kill the victim or intended that
this should be done.
When there was conspiracy for robbery only but
homicide was also committed on the occasion
thereof, all members of the band are liable for
robbery with homicide.
Whenever homicide is committed as a
consequence of or on the occasion of a robbery,
all those who took part in the commission of the
robbery are also guilty as principals in the crime
of homicide unless it appears that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.
Proof of conspiracy is not essential to hold a
member of the band liable for robbery with
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
homicide actually committed by the other
members of the band.
There is no crime as “robbery with homicide in
band”. Band is only ordinary aggravating
circumstance in robbery w/ homicide
In order for special aggravating circumstance of
unlicensed firearm to be appreciated, it is
condition sine qua non that offense charged be
robbery by a band under Art 295.
Pursuant to Art 295, circumstance of a band is
qualifying only in robbery under par 3, 4 & 5 of
Art 294.
Hence, Art. 295 does not apply to robbery with
homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery with
serious physical injuries under par. 1 of Art. 263.
Special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed
firearm is inapplicable to robbery w/ homicide,
or robbery with rape, or robbery with physical
injuries, committed by a band. [People v.
Apduhan]
A.5. ARTICLE 297 - ATTEMPTED AND
FRUSTRATED ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Elements:
(a) There is attempted or frustrated robbery
(b) A homicide is committed on the same
occasion
“Homicide” includes multiple homicides,
murder, parricide, or even infanticide.
The penalty is the same, whether robbery is
attempted or frustrated.
Robbery with homicide and attempted or
frustrated robbery with homicide are special
complex crimes, not governed by Art. 48, but by
the special provisions of Arts. 294 & 297,
respectively.
Page 347 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
There is only one crime of attempted robbery
with homicide even if slight physical injuries
were inflicted on other persons on the occasion
or by reason of the robbery.
A.6. ARTICLE 298 - EXECUTION OF DEEDS
THROUGH VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION
Elements:
(a) Offender has Intent to defraud another
(b) Offender Compels him to sign, execute, or
deliver any public instrument or document
(c) Compulsion is by means of violence or
intimidation.
If the violence resulted in the death of the
person to be defrauded, crime is robbery with
homicide and shall be penalized under Art 294
par. 1.
Art. 298 applies to private or commercial
document, but it does not apply if document is
void.
When the offended party is under obligation to
sign, execute or deliver the document under the
law, it is not robbery but coercion.
By Force Upon Things
Robbery by the use of force upon things is
committed only when either:
(1) Offender entered a house or building by
any of the means specified in Art. 299 or
Art. 302, or
(2) Even if there was no entrance by any of
those means, he broke a wardrobe, chest,
or any other kind of locked or closed or
sealed furniture or receptacle in the house
or building, or he took it away to be broken
or forced open outside.
A.7. ARTICLE 299 - ROBBERY IN AN
INHABITED HOUSE OR PUBLIC BUILDING OR
EDIFICE DEVOTED TO WORSHIP
Page 348 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Elements of robbery with force upon things under
SUBDIVISION (A):
(a) Offender entered
(1) An inhabited house
(2) Public building
(3) Edifice devoted to religious worship
(b) Entrance was effected by any of the following
means:
(1) Through an opening not intended for
entrance or egress;
(2) By breaking any wall, roof, or floor, or
door or window;
(3) By using False keys, picklocks or
similar tools; or
(4) By using any Fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public
authority.
(c) That once inside the building, the offender
took personal property belonging to another
with intent to gain.
There must be evidence that accused entered
the dwelling house or building by any of the
means enumerated in subdivision (a). In
entering the building, there must be the intent
to take personal property.
“Inhabited house” – any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons
even though the inhabitants thereof are
temporarily absent when the robbery is
committed.
“Public building” – every building owned by the
Government or belonging to a private person but
used or rented by the Government, although
temporarily unoccupied by the same.
Any of the four means described in subdivision
(a) must be resorted to enter a house or
building, not to get out otherwise it is only theft.
The whole body of the culprit must be inside the
building to constitute entering.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Illustration: If the culprit had entered the house
through an open door, and the owner, not
knowing that the culprit was inside, closed and
locked the door from the outside and left, and
the culprit, after taking personal property in the
house, went out through the window, it is only
theft, not robbery.
“Breaking” – means entering the building. The
force used must be actual, as distinguished
constructive force.
“False keys” – genuine keys stolen from the
owner or any keys other than those intended for
use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender.
The genuine key must be stolen, not taken by
force or with intimidation, from the owner.
If false key is used to open wardrobe or locked
receptacle or drawer or inside door it is only
theft.
Elements of robbery with force upon things under
SUBDIVISION (B) of Art. 299:
(a) Offender is inside a dwelling house, public
building, or edifice devoted to religious
worship, regardless of the circumstances
under which he entered it.
(b) Offender takes personal property belonging
to another, with intent to gain, under any of
the following circumstances:
(1) Breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or
any other kind of locked or sealed
furniture or receptacle; or
(2) Taking such furniture or objects away to
be broken or forced open outside the
place of the robbery.
Entrance into the building by any of the means
mentioned in subdivision (a) is not required in
robbery under subdivision (b)
The term “door” in par. 1, subdivision (b) of Art.
299, refers only to “doors, lids or opening
sheets” of furniture or other portable
receptacles—not to inside doors of house or
building.
Page 349 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Breaking the keyhole of the door of a wardrobe,
which is locked, is breaking a locked furniture.
It is theft if the locked or sealed receptacle is not
forced open in the building where it is kept or
taken from to be broken outside.
The penalty depends on the value of property
taken and on whether or not offender carries
arm. Arms carried must not be used to
intimidate. Liability for carrying arms is
extended to all those who participated in the
robbery, including those without arms.
The provision punishes more severely the
robbery in a house used as a dwelling than that
committed in an uninhabited place, because of
the possibility that the inhabitants in the former
might suffer bodily harm during the robbery.
A.8. ARTICLE 301 - WHAT IS AN INHABITED
HOUSE, PUBLIC BUILDING DEDICATED TO
RELIGIOUS WORSHIP AND THEIR
DEPENDENCIES:
“Inhabited house” – any shelter, ship, or vessel
constituting the dwelling of one or more persons
even though the inhabitants thereof are
temporarily absent when the robbery is
committed.
• Even if the occupant was absent during the
robbery, the place is still inhabited if the
place was ordinarily inhabited and intended
as a dwelling.
“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.
“Dependencies” – all interior courts, corrals,
warehouses, granaries or inclosed places
contiguous to the building or edifice, having an
interior entrance connected therewith, and
which form part of the whole (Art. 301, par. 2).
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Requisites:
(1) Contiguous to the building;
(2) Interior entrance connected therewith;
(3) Form part of the whole.
Orchards and lands used for cultivation or
production are not included in the term
“dependencies” (Art. 301, par. 3).
A.9. ARTICLE 300 – ROBBERY IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE AND BY A BAND
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building
or edifice dedicated to religious worship is
qualified when committed by a band and
located in an uninhabited place.
See discussion on Art. 296 for definition of
“band.”
To qualify Robbery w/ To qualify Robbery w/
force upon things (Art violence against or
299) intimidation of persons
It must be committed It must be committed
in uninhabited place in an uninhabited
and by a band (Art place or by a band
300) (Art. 295)
A.10. ARTICLE 302 – ROBBERY IN AN
UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING
Elements:
(a) Offender entered an uninhabited place or a
building which was not a dwelling house,
not a public building, or not an edifice
devoted to religious worship.
(b) That any of the following circumstances
was present:
(1) Entrance was effected through an
opening not intended for entrance or
egress;
Page 350 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(2) A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or
window was broken
(3) Entrance was effected through the use
of false keys, picklocks or other similar
tools;
(4) A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed
or closed furniture or receptacle was
broken; or
(5) A closed or sealed receptacle was
removed, even if the same be broken
open elsewhere.
(6) With intent to gain, the offender took
therefrom personal property belonging
to another.
“Building” – includes any kind of structure used
for storage or safekeeping of personal property,
such as (a) freight car and (b) warehouse.
Entrance through an opening not intended for
entrance or egress is not necessary, if there is
breaking of wardrobe, chest, or sealed or closed
furniture or receptacle, or removal thereof to be
broken open elsewhere.
Breaking padlock is use of force upon things.
Use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise
of public authority is not covered under this
article.
A receptacle is a container, which must be
“closed” or “sealed”.
Penalty is based only on value of property taken.
A.11. ARTICLE 303 - ROBBERY OF CEREALS,
FRUITS OR FIREWOOD IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING
In cases enumerated in Arts. 299 and 302, the
penalty is one degree lower when robbery
consists in the taking of cereals, fruits, or
firewood.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Cereals – seedlings which are the immediate (2) To kidnap for the purpose of extortion
product of the soil. The palay must be kept by or to obtain ransom; or
the owner as “seedling” or taken for that
(3) To attain by means of force and
purpose by the robbers.
violence any other purpose.

A.12. ARTICLE 304 - POSSESSION OF

Presumption of law as to brigandage: All are
PICKLOCK OR SIMILAR TOOLS
presumed highway robbers or brigands, if any of
them carries unlicensed firearm. The arms
Elements: carried may be any deadly weapon.
(a) Offender has in his possession picklocks or
similar tools;
The main object of the law is to prevent the
(b) Such picklock or similar tools are especially formation of band of robbers.
adopted to the commission of robbery;
(c) Offender does not have lawful cause for
such possession. The term “highway” includes city streets.

Possession of such tools, without lawful cause, is
punished. Actual use is not necessary. Since
picking of locks is one way to gain entrance to
commit robbery, a picklock is per se specially
adapted to the commission of robbery. [People v
Lopez, 1965]
If the person who makes such tools is a
locksmith, the penalty is higher.
The following must be proved:
(1) Organization of more than 3 armed
persons forming a band of robbers
(2) Purpose of the band is any of those
enumerated in Art. 306.
(3) That they went upon the highway or
roamed upon the country for that purpose.
(4) That the accused is a member of such
band.

A.13. ARTICLE 305 - FALSE KEYS

BRIGANDAGE ROBBERY IN
Deemed to include the following: BAND
(1) Tools mentioned in Article 304;
Purpose (1) Commit robbery Commit robbery,
(2) Genuine keys stolen from the owner; in a highway and not
(3) Any key other than those intended by the necessarily in a
(2) Kidnap to extort
owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by highway
or get ransom
the offender.
(3) Any other
purpose to be
B. CHAPTER II: BRIGANDAGE achieved by means
of force or violence

B.1. ARTICLE 306 - WHO ARE BRIGANDS

Proof Mere formation of a It is necessary to
band for any of the prove that the
Elements of Brigandage: above purposes is band actually
(a) There be at least 4 armed persons sufficient. There is committed the
no requirement that robbery.
(b) They formed a band of robbers the brigands Conspiracy to
(c) The purpose is any of the following: consummate the commit robbery
crime. is not
(1) To commit robbery in the highway; or
Page 351 of 407
UP LAW BOC
punishable.
B.2. ARTICLE 307 - AIDING AND ABETTING A
BAND OF BRIGANDS
Elements:
(a) There is a band of brigands
(b) Offender knows the band to be of brigands
(c) Offender does any of the following acts:
(1) He in any manner aids, abets or
protects such band of brigands; or
(2) He gives them information of the
movements of the police or other peace
officers; or
(3) He acquires or receives the property
taken by such brigands.
It is presumed that the person performing any of
the acts provided in this article has performed
them knowingly, unless the contrary is proven.
Any person who aids or protects highway
robbers or abets the commission of highway
robbery or brigandage shall be considered as an
accomplice.
C. CHAPTER III: THEFT
C.1. ARTICLE 308 - WHO ARE LIABLE FOR
THEFT
Elements:
(a) Taking of personal property
(b) Personal property belongs to another
(c) Taking was done with intent to gain.
(d) Taking was wiithout the consent of the
owner.
(e) Accomplished without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things.
Page 352 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
Persons Liable:
(1) Those who, with intent to gain, without
violence against or intimidation of persons
nor force upon things, take personal
property, of another without the latter’s
consent.
(2) Those who, having found lost property, fail
to deliver the same to the local authorities
or to its owner.
(3) Those who, after having maliciously
damaged the property of another, remove
or make use of the fruits or object of the
damage caused by them.
(4) Those who enter an inclosed estate or field
where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another and, without the
consent of its owner, hunt or fish upon the
same or gather fruits, cereals, or other
forest or farm products.
The theft is consummated & taking completed
once the culprit is able to place the thing taken
under his control, and in such a situation that he
could dispose of it at once.
In accordance with the definition in Art 308,
there is no frustrated theft. The offender has
either complete control of the property
(consummated) or without (attempted). Intent
to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of
personal property belonging to another.
[Valenzuela v. People (2007)]
If a person takes property of another, believing it
to be his own, presumption of intent to gain is
rebutted. Hence, he is not guilty of theft.
If one takes personal property openly and
avowedly under claim of title made in good faith,
he is not guilty of theft even though claim of
ownership is later found to be untenable.
If possession was only material or physical, the
crime is THEFT. If possession was juridical, crime
is ESTAFA.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Selling share of a partner or co-owner is not
theft. Actual or real gain is not necessary in
theft.
The consent contemplated in this article refers
to consent freely given, and not mere lack of
opposition by owner of the property taken.
It is not robbery when violence is for a reason
entirely foreign to the fact of taking.
Gulinao shot Dr. Chua and left. Then he went
back & took Dr. Chua’s diamond ring. The crime
was Theft and not robbery. Circumstances show
that the taking was merely an afterthought.
Violence used in killing Dr. Chua had no bearing
on the taking of the ring. [People v. Gulinao,
(1989)]
Properties were taken after accused has already
carried out his primary criminal intent of killing
the victim. Considering that the victim was
already heavily wounded when his properties
were taken, there was no need to employ
violence against or intimidation upon his person.
Hence, accused can only be held guilty of the
separate offense of theft. [People v. Basao
(1999)]
One in possession of part of recently stolen
property is presumed to be thief of all.
“Lost property” – embraces loss by stealing or by
act of the owner or by a person other than the
owner, or through some casual occurrence.
It is necessary to prove the following in order to
establish theft by failure to deliver or return lost
property:
(1) Time of the seizure of the thing
(2) It was a lost property belonging to another;
and
(3) That the accused having had the
opportunity to return or deliver the lost
Page 353 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
property to its owner or to the local
authorities, refrained from doing so.
The law does not require knowledge of the
owner of the property.
Elements of hunting, fishing or gathering fruits,
etc., in enclosed estate:
(1) That there is an enclosed estate or a field,
where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another
(2) Offender enters the same
(3) Offender hunts or fishes upon the same or
gathers fruits, cereals or other forest or
farm products in the estate or field; and
(4) That the hunting or fishing or gathering of
products is without the consent of the
owner.
Corpus Delicti
To be caught in possession of the stolen
property is not an element of the corpus delicti
in theft. Corpus delicti means the “body or
substance of the crime, and, in its primary sense,
refers to the fact that the crime has been
actually committed.”
In theft, corpus delicti has two elements,
namely:
(1) that the property was lost by the owner, and
(2) that it was lost by felonious taking. [Gan
vs. People(2007)]
Whether snatching is robbery or theft
It depends on whether the offender employed
violence or intimidation upon persons, or force
upon things.
Acampado (the victim) herself merely testified
that Concepcion (the accused) snatched her
shoulder bag which was hanging on her left
shoulder. Acampado did not say that
Concepcion used violence, intimidation or force
in snatching her shoulder bag. Given the facts,
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Concepcion’s snatching of Acampado’s shoulder
bag constitutes the crime of theft, not robbery.
[People v. Concepcion G.R. No. 200922(2012)]
C.2. ARTICLE 309 – PENALTIES
The basis of the penalty in theft is
(1) the value of the thing stolen, or
(2) the value and nature of the property taken,
or
(3) the circumstances that impelled the culprit
to commit the crime.
If there is no evidence of the value of the
property stolen, the court should impose the
minimum penalty corresponding to theft
involving the value of P5.00. The court may also
take judicial notice of its value in the proper
cases.
C.3. ARTICLE 310 - QUALIFIED THEFT
Theft is qualified if:
(1) Committed by a domestic servant
(2) Committed with grave abuse of confidence
(3) The property stolen is
(a) motor vehicle
(b) mail matter, or
(c) large cattle
(4) The property stolen consists of coconuts
taken from the premises of a plantation
(5) The property stolen is fish taken from a
fishpond or fishery
(6) The property is taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or
any other calamity, vehicular accident or
civil disturbance.
The penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees
higher.
Theft by domestic servant is always qualified.
There is no need to prove grave abuse of
confidence.
Page 354 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
The abuse of confidence must be grave. There
must be allegation in the information and proof
of a relation, by reason of dependence,
guardianship or vigilance, between the accused
and the offended party that has created a high
degree of confidence between them, which the
accused abused.
Theft of any material, spare part, product or
article by employees and laborers is heavily
punished under PD 133.
“Motor vehicle” - all vehicles propelled by power,
other than muscular power. Theft of motor
vehicle may now fall under the Anti-Carnapping
law.
When the purpose of taking the car is to destroy
it by burning it, the crime is arson.
If a private individual took a letter containing
postal money order, it is qualified theft. If it was
the postmaster, to whom the letter was
delivered, the crime would be infidelity in the
custody of documents.
Regarding the theft of coconuts and fish, what
matters is not the execution, but the location
where it is taken. It should be in the plantation
or in the fishpond.
C.4. PD 1612: ANTI-FENCING LAW
Fencing – The act ny person who, with intent to
gain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive,
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.
Elements:
(a) Robbery or theft has been committed.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(b) The accused, who is not a principal or
accomplice in the crime of robbery or theft,
buys, receives, possesses, keeps, acquires,
conceals, sells or disposes, or buys and
sells, or in any manner deals in any article,
item, object, or anything of value, which
has been derived from the proceeds of the
said crime.
(c) The accused knows or should have known
that the said article, item, object or
anything of value has been derived from
the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft.
(d) There is, on the part of the accused, intent
to gain for himself or another.
Mere possession of any good, article, item,
object, or anything of value which has been the
subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima
facie evidence of fencing. [People v. Dizon-
Pamintuan]
Robbery/theft and fencing are separate and
distinct offenses.
"Fence" – includes any person, firm, association,
corporation or partnership or other organization
who/which commits the act of fencing.
Presumption of Fencing
Mere possession of any good, article, item,
object, or anything of value which has been the
subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima
facie evidence of fencing.
Exception
With Clearance or Permit to Sell
Section 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used
Second Hand Articles. For purposes of this Act,
all stores, establishments or entities dealing in
the buy and sell of any good, article, item, object
or anything of value obtained from an
unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall
before offering the same for sale to the public,
secure the necessary clearance or permit from
Page 355 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
the station commander of the Integrated
National Police in the town or city where such
store, establishment or entity is located. The
Chief of Constabulary/Director General,
Integrated National Police shall promulgate
such rules and regulations to carry out the
provisions of this section. Any person who fails
to secure the clearance or permit required by
this section or who violates any of the provisions
of the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as
a fence.
C.5. RA 6539: ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT
Registration
Section 3. Registration of motor vehicle engine,
engine block and chassis. Within one year after
the approval of this Act, every owner or
possessor of unregistered motor vehicle or parts
thereof in knock down condition shall register
with the Land Transportation Commission the
motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis
in his name or in the name of the real owner who
shall be readily available to answer any claim
over the registered motor vehicle engine, engine
block or chassis. Thereafter, all motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis not
registered with the Land Transportation
Commission shall be considered as untaxed
importation or coming from an illegal source or
carnapped, and shall be confiscated in favor of
the Government.
All owners of motor vehicles in all cities and
municipalities are required to register their cars
with the local police without paying any charges.
Section 5. Registration of sale, transfer,
conveyance, substitution or replacement of a
motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis.
Every sale, transfer, conveyance, substitution or
replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine
block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be
registered with the Land Transportation
Commission. Motor vehicles assembled and
rebuilt or repaired by replacement with motor
vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not
registered with the Land Transportation
Commission shall not be issued certificates of
registration and shall be considered as untaxed
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
imported motor vehicles or motor vehicles
carnapped or proceeding from illegal sources.
Section 6.Original Registration of motor
vehicles. Any person seeking the original
registration of a motor vehicle, whether that
motor vehicle is newly assembled or rebuilt or
acquired from a registered owner, shall within
one week after the completion of the assembly
or rebuilding job or the acquisition thereof from
the registered owner, apply to the Philippine
Constabulary for clearance of the motor vehicle
for registration with the Land Transportation
Commission. The Philippine Constabulary shall,
upon receipt of the application, verify if the
motor vehicle or its numbered parts are in the
list of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor
vehicle parts. If the motor vehicle or any of its
numbered parts is not in that list, the Philippine
Constabulary shall forthwith issue a certificate of
clearance. Upon presentation of the certificate of
clearance from the Philippine Constabulary and
after verification of the registration of the motor
vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in the
permanent registry of motor vehicle engines,
engine blocks and chassis, the Land
Transportation Commission shall register the
motor vehicle in accordance with existing laws,
rules and regulations.
Who are Liable
Duty of Collector of Customs
Section 7.Duty of Collector of Customs to report
arrival of imported motor vehicle, etc. The
Collector of Customs of a principal port of entry
where an imported motor vehicle, motor vehicle
engine, engine block chassis or body is
unloaded, shall, within seven days after the
arrival of the imported motor vehicle or any of its
parts enumerated herein, make a report of the
shipment to the Land Transportation
Commission, specifying the make, type and
serial numbers, if any, of the motor vehicle
engine, engine block and chassis or body, and
stating the names and addresses of the owner or
consignee thereof. If the motor vehicle engine,
engine block, chassis or body does not bear any
serial number, the Collector of Customs
concerned shall hold the motor vehicle engine,
engine block, chassis or body until it is
Page 356 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
numbered by the Land Transportation
Commission.
Duty of Importers Distributors and Sellers
Section 8.Duty of importers, distributors and
sellers of motor vehicles to keep record of
stocks. Any person engaged in the importation,
distribution, and buying and selling of motor
vehicles, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks,
chassis or body, shall keep a permanent record
of his stocks, stating therein their type, make
and serial numbers, and the names and
addresses of the persons from whom they were
acquired and the names and addresses of the
persons to whom they were sold, and shall
render an accurate monthly report of his
transactions in motor vehicles to the Land
Transportation Commission.
Clearance and Permit
Section 10. Clearance and permit required for
assembly or rebuilding of motor vehicles. Any
person who shall undertake to assemble or
rebuild or cause the assembly or rebuilding of a
motor vehicle shall first secure a certificate of
clearance from the Philippine Constabulary:
Provided, That no such permit shall be issued
unless the applicant shall present a statement
under oath containing the type, make and serial
numbers of the engine, chassis and body, if any,
and the complete list of the spare parts of the
motor vehicle to be assembled or rebuilt
together with the names and addresses of the
sources thereof.
In the case of motor vehicle engines to be
mounted on motor boats, motor bancas and
other light water vessels, the applicant shall
secure a permit from the Philippine Coast Guard,
which office shall in turn furnish the Land
Transportation Commission the pertinent data
concerning the motor vehicle engines including
their type, make and serial numbers.
Definition of Terms/Punishable Acts
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
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

against or intimidation of persons, or by using

force upon things.
Any government official or employee who
directly commits the unlawful acts defined in
this Act or is guilty of gross negligence of duty or
Motor vehicle –is any vehicle propelled by any
connives with or permits the commission of any
power other than muscular power using the
of the said unlawful act shall, in addition to the
public highways, but excepting road rollers,
penalty prescribed in the preceding paragraph,
trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn
be dismissed from the service with prejudice to
mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts,
his reinstatement and with disqualification from
amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on
voting or being voted for in any election and
public highways, vehicles, which run only on
from appointment to any public office.
rails or tracks, and tractors, trailers and traction
engines of all kinds used exclusively for
agricultural purposes. Trailers having any
Section 14. Penalty for Carnapping. Any person
number of wheels, when propelled or intended
who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is
to be propelled by attachment to a motor
defined in Section two of this Act, shall,
vehicle, shall be classified as separate motor
irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken,
vehicle with no power rating.
be punished by imprisonment for not less than
fourteen years and eight months and not more
than seventeen years and four months, when the
Defacing or tampering with a serial number – is
carnapping is committed without violence or
the erasing, scratching, altering or changing of
intimidation of persons, or force upon things;
the original factory-inscribed serial number on
and by imprisonment for not less than seventeen
the motor vehicle engine, engine block or
years and four months and not more than thirty
chassis of any motor vehicle. Whenever any
years, when the carnapping is committed by
motor vehicle is found to have a serial number
means of violence against or intimidation of any
on its motor engine, engine block or chassis
person, or force upon things; and the penalty of
which is different from that which is listed in the
life imprisonment to death shall be imposed
records of the Bureau of Customs for motor
when the owner, driver or occupant of the
vehicles imported into the Philippines, that
carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the
motor vehicle shall be considered to have a
commission of the carnapping.
defaced or tampered with serial number.

Section 12. Defacing or tampering with serial

numbers of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks
and chassis. It shall be unlawful for any person
to deface or otherwise tamper with the original
or registered serial number of motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis.
Section 13. Penal Provisions. Any person who
violates any provisions of this Act shall be
punished with imprisonment for not less than
two years nor more than six years and a fine
equal in amount to the acquisition cost of the
motor vehicle, motor vehicle engine or any other
part involved in the violation: Provided, That if
the person violating any provision of this Act is a
juridical person, the penalty herein provided
shall be imposed on its president or secretary
and/or members of the board of directors or any
of its officers and employees who may have
directly participated in the violation.
Page 357 of 407
C.6. ARTICLE 311 - THEFT OF THE PROPERTY
OF THE NATIONAL LIBRARY AND NATIONAL
MUSEUM
Theft of property of the National Museum and
National Library has a fixed penalty (arresto
mayor of fine of P200-500 or both) regardless of
the property's value. But if it was with grave
abuse of confidence, the penalty for qualified
theft shall be imposed.
D. CHAPTER IV: USURPATION
D.1. ARTICLE 312 - OCCUPATION OF REAL
PROPERTY OR USURPATION OF REAL
RIGHTS IN PROPERTY
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Acts punishable under Art. 312:
(1) Taking possession of any real property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons
(2) Usurping any real rights in property
belonging to another by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons.
Elements:
(a) Offender takes possession of any real
property OR usurps any real rights in
property
(b) Real property or real rights belong to
another
(c) Violence against or intimidation of persons
is used by the offender in occupying real
property or usurping real rights in property.
(d) There is intent to gain.
If no violence or intimidation only civil liability
exists. Violence or intimidation must be the
means used in occupying real property or in
usurping real rights.
Art. 312 does not apply when the violence or
intimidation took place subsequent to the entry
into the property.
Art. 312 does not apply to a case of open
defiance of the writ of execution issued in the
forcible entry case.
Criminal action for usurpation of real property is
not a bar to civil action for forcible entry.
RA 947 punishes entering or occupying public
agricultural land including lands granted to
private individuals.
Theft or
Usurpation
Robbery
Page 358 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Act Occupation or Taking or
Usurpation asportation
What is Real property or Personal
Taken Real Right property
Intent To Gain To Gain
D.2. ARTICLE 313 - ALTERING BOUNDARIES
OR LANDMARKS
Elements:
(a) There are boundary marks or monuments
of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other
marks intended to designate the
boundaries of the same.
(b) The offender alters said boundary marks.
Provision does not require intent to gain.
The word “alter” may include:
(1) destruction of stone monument
(2) taking it to another place
(3) removing a fence
E. CHAPTER V: CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
E.1. ART. 314 - FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY
Elements:
(a) The offender is a debtor, and he has
obligations due and payable
(b) He absconds with his property
(c) There is prejudice to his creditors
Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required.
Even if the debtor disposes of his property,
unless it is shown that it has actually prejudiced
his creditor, conviction will not lie.
Fraudulent concealment of property is not
sufficient if the debtor has some property with
which to satisfy his obligation.
“Abscond” – does not require that the debtor
should depart and physically conceal his
UP LAW BOC
property. Real property could be the subject
matter of Art. 314.
The person prejudiced must be creditor of the
offender.
Art 314 Insolvency law
No need for Crime should be
insolvency committed after the
proceedings. institution of insolvency
proceedings
No need to be
adjudged bankrupt
or insolvent
F. CHAPTER VI: SWINDLING AND OTHER
DECEITS
F.1. ARTICLE 315 - ESTAFA
Elements of Estafa in General:
(a) The accused defrauded another
(1) by abuse of confidence; or
(2) by means of deceit; and
(b) The damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the
offended party or third person.
With Unfaithfulness or Abuse of Confidence (315
par. 1(a) (b) (c))
Par 1(a): Altering substance, quantity or quality of
object subject of obligation to deliver
Elements of estafa with unfaithfulness
(a) Offender has an onerous obligation to
deliver something of value.
(b) He alters its substance, quantity, or quality
(c) Damage or prejudice is caused to another
Deceit is NOT an essential element of estafa
with abuse of confidence.
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
Damage or prejudice must be capable of
estimation, because it is the basis of the penalty.
Delivery of anything of value must be “by virtue
of an onerous obligation to do so”.
It is not estafa if the thing delivered is not
acceptable to the complainant when there is no
agreement as to its quality.
Estafa may arise even if thing delivered is not
subject of lawful commerce, such as opium.
Par.1(b): Misappropriation and Conversion
Elements of estafa with abuse of confidence
(a) Money, goods, or other personal property is
received by the offender in trust, or in
commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to
make delivery of, or to return, the same;
(b) There is misappropriation or conversion of
such money or property by the offender, or
denial on his part of such receipt;
(c) Such misappropriation or conversion or
denial is to the prejudice of another; and
(d) There is a demand made by the offended
party to the offender
The 4th element is not necessary when there is
evidence of misappropriation of goods by the
defendant.
Check is included in the word “money”.
Money, goods or other personal property must
be received by the offender under certain kinds
of transaction transferring juridical possession to
him.
The offender acquires both physical possession
and juridical possession when the thing is
received by the offender from the offended party
Page 359 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(1) in trust, or
(2) on commission, or
(3) for administration,
“Juridical possession” – means a possession
which gives the transferee a right over the thing
which he may invoke even as against the owner.
When the delivery of a chattel does not transfer
juridical possession/title, it is presumed that the
possession/title of the thing remain w/ owner.
Failure to turn over to the bank the proceeds of
sale of goods covered by trust receipts is estafa.
The phrase “or under any obligation involving
the duty to make delivery of, or to return the
same”, includes quasi-contracts and certain
contracts of bailment. The obligation to return
the thing must be contractual but without
transferring to accused ownership of the thing.
When ownership is transferred to recipient, his
failure to return it results in civil liability only.
Applicable Civil Code provisions:
(1) Art. 1477. The ownership of the thing sold
shall be transferred to the vendee upon
actual or constructive delivery thereof.
(2) Art. 1482. Whenever earnest money is given
in a contract of sale, it shall be considered
as part of the price and as proof of the
perfection of the contract.
In estafa with abuse of confidence under par. (b),
subdivision 1 of Art. 315, the thing received must
be returned if there is an obligation to return it.
If no obligation to return there is only civil
liability.
No estafa when:
Page 360 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(1) Transaction sale fails. There is no estafa if
the accused refused to return the advance
payment.
(2) The money or personal property received by
accused is not to be used for a particular
purpose or to be returned.
(3) Thing received under a contract of sale on
credit
Payment by students to the school for the value
of materials broken is not mere deposit.
Novation of contract of agency to one of sale, or
to one of loan, relieves defendant from incipient
criminal liability under the first contract.
He exerted all efforts to retrieve dump truck,
albeit belatedly and to no avail. His ineptitude
should not be confused with criminal intent.
Criminal intent is required for the conviction of
estafa. Earnest effort to comply with obligation
is a defense against estafa. [Manahan vs CA
(1996)]
3 Ways of Committing Estafa With Abuse Of
Confidence Under Art. 315 Par. (B):
(1) Misappropriating the thing received.
(2) Converting the thing received.
(3) Denying that the thing was received.
“Misappropriating” – means to own, to take
something for one's own benefit.
“Converting” – Using or disposing of another’s
property as if it were one’s own.
“Conversion” – presupposes that the thing has
been devoted to a purpose or use different from
that agreed upon.
The fact that an agent sold the thing received on
commission for a lower price than the one fixed,
does not constitute estafa (US v Torres).
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
The law does not distinguish between temporary
and permanent misappropriations.
No estafa under Art. 315 par (b) when there is
neither misappropriation nor conversion.
Right of agent to deduct commission from
amounts
(1) If agent is authorized to retain his
commission out of the amounts he
collected, there is no estafa.
(2) Otherwise he is guilty of estafa, because his
right to commission does not make the
agent a co-owner of money
3rd element of estafa with abuse of confidence is
that the conversion, or denial by offender
resulted in the prejudice of the offended party.
“To the prejudice of another” – not necessarily of
the owner of the property.
General rule: Partners are not liable for estafa of
money or property received for the partnership
when the business commenced and profits
accrued. Failure of partner to account for
partnership funds may give rise to civil
obligation only, not estafa.
Exception: When a partner misappropriates the
share of another partner in the profits, the act
constitutes estafa.
A co-owner is not liable for estafa, but he is
liable if, after the termination of the co-
ownership, he misappropriates the thing which
has become the exclusive property of the other.
Estafa with abuse of
Theft
confidence
With juridical Only with physical /
possession of thing material possession of
misappropriated thing misappropriated
Page 361 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Offender receives the Offender takes the thing
thing from the victim
But when the money or property had been
received by a partner for specific purpose and he
misappropriated it, there is estafa.
Under the 4th element of estafa with abuse of
confidence demand may be required.
In estafa by means of deceit, demand is not
needed, because the offender obtains the thing
wrongfully from the start. In estafa with abuse of
confidence, the offender receives the thing under
a lawful transaction.
Demand is not required by law, but it may be
necessary, because failure to account upon
demand is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation. Presumption arises only when
the explanation of the accused is absolutely
devoid of merit.
The mere failure to return the thing received for
safekeeping or under any other obligation w/
the duty to return the same or deliver the value
thereof to the owner could only give rise to a civil
action and does not constitute the crime of
estafa.
There is no estafa through negligence.
The gravity of the crime of estafa is based on the
amount not returned before the institution of the
criminal action.
Test to distinguish theft from estafa:
In theft, upon the delivery of the thing to the
offender, the owner expects a return of the thing
to him.
General Rule: When the owner does not expect
the immediate return of the thing he delivered to
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

the accused, the misappropriation of the same is
estafa.
Exception: When the offender received the thing
from the offended party, with the obligation to
deliver it to a third person and, instead of doing
so, misappropriated it to the prejudice of the
owner, the crime committed is qualified theft.
Misappropriation of firearms received by a police
(1) ESTAFA: if it is not involved in the
commission of a crime
(2) MALVERSATION: if it is involved in the
commission of a crime.
F.2. P.D. 115 TRUST RECEIPTS LAW

Sale of thing received to be pledged for owner is Trust receipt

theft, when the intent to appropriate existed at
A trust receipt transaction is one where the
the time it was received.
entrustee has the obligation to deliver to the
entrustor the price of the sale, or if the
merchandise is not sold, to return the
Estafa with abuse of merchandise to the entruster. There are,
Malversation
confidence therefore, two obligations in a trust receipt
transaction: the first refers to money received
Entrusted with funds under the obligation involving the duty to turn it
or property over (entregarla) to the owner of the
merchandise sold, while the second refers to the
Both are continuing merchandise received under the obligation to
offenses “return” it (devolvera) to the owner.A violation of
any of these undertakings constitutes Estafa
Funds or property are Funds or property defined under Art. 315, par. 1(b) of the RPC, as
always private usually public provided in Sec. 13 of PD 115. [Yang v. People
G.R. No. 195117 (2013)]
Offender is a private Offender is a public
individual or public officer accountable for
officer not accountable public funds or property Loan not a trust receipt transaction
for public funds or
property Nonetheless, when both parties enter into an
agreement knowing fully well that the return of
Committed by Committed by the goods subject of the trust receipt is not
misappropriating, misappropriating, or possible even without any fault on the part of
converting or denying thru abandonment or the trustee, it is not a trust receipt transaction as
having received negligence, letting the only obligation actually agreed upon by the
money, other personal other person to take the parties would be the return of the proceeds of
property public funds or property the sale transaction. This transaction becomes a
mere loan. [Yang v. People G.R. No. 195117
There is no estafa There can be (2013)]
through negligence. malversation through
abandonment or
negligence. Who is liable
If the violation or offense is committed by a
corporation, partnership, association or other
When in prosecution for malversation the public juridical entities, the penalty provided for in this
officer is acquitted, the private individual in Decree shall be imposed upon the directors,
conspiracy w/ him may be held liable for estafa, officers, employees or other officials or persons
depending on the nature of the funds. therein responsible for the offense, without
prejudice to the civil liabilities arising from the
criminal offense.[Sec 13 PD 115]
Page 362 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Par.1(c): Taking advantage of signature in blank
Elements:
(a) Paper with the signature of the offended
party is in blank.
(b) Offended party delivered it to the offender.
(c) Above the signature of the offended party a
document is written by the offender
without authority to do so.
(d) The document so written creates a liability
of, or causes damage to, the offended party
or any third person.
Estafa by Means of False Pretenses or Fraudulent
Acts (315 par. 2(a) (b) (c) (d) (e); BP22):
Elements of estafa by means of deceit:
(a) There is a false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means.
(b) Such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means was made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud.
(c) Offended party relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that
is, he was induced to part with his money or
property because of such
(d) As a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.
The acts must be fraudulent. Acts must be
founded on deceit, trick, or cheat, and such must
be made prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud.
In false pretenses the deceit consists in the use
of deceitful words, in fraudulent acts the deceit
consists principally in deceitful acts. The
fraudulent acts must be performed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud.
Page 363 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
The offender must be able to obtain something
from the offended party because of the
fraudulent acts.
Knowledge of criminal intent of the principal is
essential to be convicted as an accomplice in
estafa through falsification of commercial
document. There must be knowing assistance in
the execution of the offense. [Abejuela vs People
(1991)]
In a tenant-landowner relationship, it was
incumbent upon the tenant to hold in trust and,
eventually, account for the share in the harvest
appertaining to the landowner, failing which the
tenant could be held liable for
misappropriation.
In [People v. Vanzuela (2008)], it was ruled that
share tenancy has been outlawed for being
contrary to public policy as early as 1963, with
the passage of R.A. 3844. What prevails today,
under R.A. 6657, is agricultural leasehold
tenancy relationship, and all instances of share
tenancy have been automatically converted into
leasehold tenancy. In such a relationship, the
tenant’s obligation is simply to pay rentals, not
to deliver the landowner’s share. Given this
dispensation, the petitioner’s allegation that the
respondents misappropriated the landowner’s
share of the harvest is untenable. Accordingly,
the respondents cannot be held liable under
Article 315, paragraph 4, No. 1(b) of the RPC.
It is well established in jurisprudence that a
person may be convicted of both illegal
recruitment and estafa. The reason, therefore, is
not hard to discern: illegal recruitment is
malum prohibitum, while estafa is malum in
se. [Lapasaran v. People (2009)]
Par 2(a): Using fictitious name or false pretenses
at power, influence… or other similar deceits
Ways of committing the offense:
(1) By using fictitious name;
(2) By falsely pretending to possess:
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(a) power,
(b) influence,
(c) qualifications,
(d) property,
(e) credit,
(f) agency,
(g) business or imaginary transactions;
(3) By means of other similar deceits.
For estafa under Art. 315 par. 2(a), it is
indispensable that the false statement or
fraudulent representation of the accused,
(1) be made prior to, or, at least simultaneously
with,
(2) the delivery of the thing by the complainant.
It is essential that such false statement or
fraudulent representation constitutes the cause
or only motive which induced the complainant to
part with the thing. If there be no such prior or
simultaneous false statement or fraudulent
representation, any subsequent act of the
accused, however fraudulent and suspicious it
may appear, cannot serve as a basis for
prosecution for this class of estafa.
A creditor who deceived his debtor is liable for
estafa.
In estafa by means of deceit under Art. 315 2(a),
there must be evidence that the pretense of the
accused is false. Without such proof, criminal
intent to deceive cannot be inferred. Fraud must
be proved with clear and positive evidence.
Estafa through false pretenses made in writing
is only a simple crime of estafa, not a complex
crime of estafa through falsification.
Par 2(b): by altering the quality, fineness or
weight of anything pertaining to art or business
Page 364 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Par. 2(c): by pretending to have bribed any
government employee
Manipulation of scale is punished under the
Revised Administrative Code.
Person would ask money from another for the
alleged purpose of bribing a government
employee but just pocketed the money.
Par 2(d): By postdating a check or issuing a
bouncing check
Elements:
(a) Offender postdated a check, or issued a
check in payment of an obligation;
(b) Such postdating or issuing a check was
done when the offender had no funds in the
bank, or his funds deposited therein were
not sufficient to cover the amount of the
check.
The check must be genuine, and not falsified.
The check must be postdated or for an
obligation contracted at the time of the issuance
and delivery of the check and not for pre-existing
obligation.
Exception:
(1) When postdated checks are issued and
intended by the parties only as promissory
notes
(2) When the check is issued by a guarantor
The accused must be able to obtain something
from the offended party by means of the check
he issues and delivers.
The mere fact that the drawer had insufficient or
no funds in the bank to cover the check at the
time he postdated or issued a check is sufficient
to make him liable for estafa.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
RA 4885 deleted the phrase “the offender
knowing at the time he had no funds in the
bank”:
(1) The failure of the drawer to deposit the
amount needed to cover his check
(2) Within 3 days from receipt of notice of
dishonor of check for lack or insufficiency of
funds
(3) Shall be prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or fraudulent
act.
Good faith is a defense in a charge of estafa by
postdating or issuing a check. One who got hold
of a check issued by another, knowing that the
drawer had no sufficient funds in the bank, and
used the same in the purchase of goods, is guilty
of estafa. [People v. Isleta]
PD 818, which increases the penalty for estafa
committed by means of bouncing checks,
applies only to estafa under par 2(d) of Art. 315,
and does not apply to other forms of estafa.
[People v Villaraza, 81 SCRA 95] Hence, the
penalty prescribed in PD 818, not the penalty
provided for in Art. 315, should be imposed when
the estafa committed is covered by par 2(d) of
Art. 315.
Estafa by issuing a bad check is a continuing
crime.
F.3. B.P. BLG. 22 BOUNCING CHECKS LAW
Two ways of violating B.P. Blg. 22
Sec. 1 Par. 1
Elements
(1) Making, drawing, and issuance of any
check to apply for account or for value
(2) Knowledge of the maker, drawer, or
issuer that at the time of issue he does
not have sufficient funds in or credit with
Page 365 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
the drawee bank for the payment of the
check in full upon its presentment; and
(3) Subsequent dishonor of the check by the
drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or
creditor dishonor for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid
cause, ordered the bank to stop
payment.[Campos v. People G.R. No.
187401(2014)]
Sec. 1 Par. 2
Elements
(1) Making or drawing and issuing a
checkhaving sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank
(2) Failure to keep sufficient funds or to
maintain a credit to cover the full
amount of the check if presented within
a period of ninety (90) days from the
date appearing thereon
(3) Check is dishonored by the drawee bank.
Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds
General rule: The making, drawing and issuance
of a check payment of which is refused by the
drawee because of insufficient funds in or credit
with such bank, when presented within ninety
(90) days from the date of the check, shall be
prima facie evidence of knowledge of such
insufficiency of funds or credit.
Exception: Unless maker or drawer pays the
holder thereof the amount due thereon, or
makes arrangements for payment in full by the
drawee of such check within (5) banking days
after receiving notice that such check has not
been paid by the drawee.[Sec 2 B.P. Blg. 22]
Distinguished from Estafa under Art. 315 2(d)
B.P. Blg. 22 Art. 315 2(d)
Deceit and damage are Deceit and damage are
not essential elements required
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

B.P. Blg. 22 Art. 315 2(d) for conviction under the law. The Court is
convinced that both the spirit and letter of the
Bouncing Checks Law would require for the act
Mere issuance of a No such presumption to be punished thereunder not only that the
check that is accused issued a check that is dishonored, but
dishonored gives rise that likewise the accused has actually been
to the presumption of notified in writing of the fact of dishonor.
knowledge on the part [Cabrera v. CA G.R. No. 150618 (2003)]
of the drawer that he
issued the same
without sufficient Double jeopardy does not apply because estafa
funds and hence in RPC is a distinct crime from BP 22. Deceit and
punishable damage are essential elements of RPC, which
are not required in BP 22. [Nierras vs Dacuycuy
Drawer of a dishonored Such circumstance (1990)]
check may be negates criminal
convicted even if he liability
had issued the same Estafa Through Other Fraudulent Means (315 Par
for a pre-existing 3 (a) (b) (c))
obligation
Par 3 (a): By inducing another, through deceit, to
Crime against public Crime against property
sign any document
interest as it does
injury to the entire
banking system Elements:
(a) Offender induced the offended party to sign
Mala prohibita Mala in se [Nierras v. a document.
Dacuycuy (1990)]
(b) Deceit was eployed to make offended party
sign the document.
Preference of imposition of fine (c) Offended party personally signed the
document.
The Judges concerned may, in the exercise of
sound discretion, and taking into consideration (d) Prejudice was caused.
the peculiar circumstances of each case,
determine whether the imposition of a fine alone
would best serve the interests of justice or Offender must induce the offended party to sign
whether forbearing to impose imprisonment the document. If offended party is willing from
would depreciate the seriousness of the offense, the start to sign the document, because the
work violence on the social order, or otherwise contents are different from those which the
be contrary to the imperatives of justice. [A.C. offended told the accused to state in the
NO. 13-2001 clarifying A.C. NO. 12-2000] document, the crime is falsification.

Notice of dishonor There can be no conviction for estafa in the

absence of proof that defendant made
While, indeed, Section 2 of B.P. Blg. 22 does not
statements tending to mislead complainant.
state that the notice of dishonor be in writing,
taken in conjunction, however, with Section 3 of
the law, i.e., "that where there are no sufficient
Par.3 (b): By resorting to some fraudulent
funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such
fact shall always be explicitly stated in the notice practice to ensure success in a gambling game
of dishonor or refusal,” a mere oral notice or
demand to pay would appear to be insufficient
Page 366 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Par.3 (c): By removing, concealing or destroying The crime of estafa is not obliterated by
any court record, office files, document or any acceptance of promissory note.
other papers
A private person who procures a loan by means
Elements: of deceit through a falsified public document of
(a) There are court record, office files, mortgage, but paid loan within the period
documents or any other papers. agreed upon, is not guilty of estafa but only
falsification of a public document.
(b) The offender removed, concealed or
destroyed any of them.
Accused cannot be convicted of estafa with
(c) The offender had Intent to defraud another.
abuse of confidence if charged w/ estafa by
means of deceit
If there is no malicious intent to defraud, the
destruction of court record is malicious mischief.
F.4. ARTICLE 316 - OTHER FORMS OF
SWINDLING AND DECEITS
Elements of deceit and abuse of confidence may
co-exist.
Par 1. By conveying, selling, encumbering, or
mortgaging any real property, pretending to be
If there is neither deceit nor abuse of confidence, the owner of the same
it is not estafa, even if there is damage. There is
only civil liability. Elements:
(a) The thing is immovable, such as a parcel of
land or a building.
Deceit through Infidelity in Custody
Fraudulent Means of Documents (b) Offender who is not the owner of said
property represents that he is the owner
Offender is a private Offender is a public thereof.
person OR a public person entrusted (c) Offender executed an act of ownership
person not entrusted w/ with the documents (selling, encumbering or mortgaging the
documents real property).
There is intent to defraud Intent to defraud is (d) The act was made to the prejudice of the
not required owner or a third person.

The element of damage or prejudice capable of The thing disposed of must be real property. If it
pecuniary estimation may consist in: is chattel, crime is Estafa.

(1) The offended party being deprived of his

money or property, as result of the fraud;
(2) Disturbance in property right; or
(3) Temporary prejudice
Payment subsequent to the commission of
estafa does not extinguish criminal liability or
reduce the penalty.
Page 367 of 407
There must be existing real property.
Even if the deceit is practiced against the second
purchaser but damage is incurred by the first
purchaser, there is violation of par.1 of Art. 316.
Since the penalty is based on the “value of the
damage” there must be actual damage caused.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Par. 2. By disposing of real property as free from
encumbrance, although such encumbrance be
not recorded
Elements:
(a) The thing disposed of is real property.
(b) Offender knew that the real property was
encumbered, whether the encumbrance is
recorded or not.
(c) There was express representation by the
offender that the real property is free from
encumbrance.
(d) Act of disposing of the real property was
made to the damage of another.
Act constituting the offense is disposing of the
real property representing that it is free from
encumbrance.
“Dispose” – includes encumbering or
mortgaging.
“Encumbrance” – includes every right or interest
in the land which exists in favor of third persons.
The offended party would not have granted the
loan had he known that the property was
already encumbered. When the loan had already
been granted when defendant offered the
property as security for the loan, Art. 316 par. 2 is
not applicable.
Usurious loan with equitable mortgage is not an
encumbrance on the property.
If 3rd element not established, there is no crime.
There must be damage caused. It is not
necessary that act prejudice the owner of the
land.
Page 368 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
The omitted phrase “as free from encumbrance”
in par 2 of Art. 316 is the basis of the ruling that
silence as to such encumbrance does not involve
a crime.
Par. 3. By wrongfully taking by the owner of his
personal property from its lawful possessor
Elements:
(a) Offender is the owner of personal property.
(b) Said property is in the lawful possession of
another.
(c) Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful
possessor.
(d) Prejudice is thereby caused to the lawful
possessor or third person.
Offender must wrongfully take the personal
property from the lawful possessor. Wrongfully
take does not include the use of violence or
intimidation.
If the thing is taken by means of violence,
without intent to gain, it is not estafa, but grave
coercion.
If the owner took the personal property from its
lawful possessor without the latter’s knowledge
and later charged him with the value of the
property, the crime is theft. If there is intent to
charge the bailee with its value, the crime is
robbery. [US v Albao]
Par. 4. By executing any fictitious contract to the
prejudice of another
Elements:
(a) Offender executes a contract
(b) Contract is fictitious
(c) Prejudice is caused.
Illustration: A person who simulates a
conveyance of his property to another to defraud
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
his creditors. If the conveyance is real and not
simulated, the crime is fraudulent insolvency.
Par. 5. By accepting any compensation for
services not rendered or for labor not performed
Elements:
(a) Offender accepts any compensation for
services or labor
(b) He did not render any service or perform
any labor
There must be fraud. Otherwise, it will only be
solutio indebiti, with civil obligation to return the
wrong payment.
If the money in payment of a debt was delivered
to a wrong person, Art. 316 par 5 is not
applicable.
In case the person who received it later refused
or failed to return it to the owner of the money,
Art. 315 subdivision 1(b) is applicable.
Par. 6. By selling, mortgaging or encumbering
real property or properties with which the
offender guaranteed the fulfilment of his
obligation as surety
Elements:
(a) Offender is a surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action.
(b) He guaranteed the fulfillment of such
obligation with his real property or
properties.
(c) He sells, mortgages, or, in any other
manner encumbers said real property.
(d) That such sale, mortgage,
encumbrance is
(1) Without express authority from the
court, or
(2) Made before the cancellation of his
bond, or
Page 369 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(3) Before being relieved from the
obligation contracted by him.
There must be damage caused under Art. 316.
F.5. ESTAFA UNDER PD 1689: INCREASING
THE PENALTY FOR CERTAIN FORMS OF
SWINDLING OR ESTAFA
Syndicated Estafa
(1) Estafa or other forms of swindling as
defined by Art. 315 and 316 RPC was
committed;
(2) The swindling is committed by a syndicate
consisting of five or more persons formed
with the intention of carrying the unlawful
or illegal
act/transaction/enterprise/scheme; and
(3) The defraudation results in the
misappropriation of money contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperative, “samahang nayon(s)”, or
farmers association, or of funds solicited by
corporations/associations from the general
public.
Penalty: Life imprisonment to death
Large-scale Estafa
(1) Estafa or other forms of swindling as
defined by Art. 315 and 316 RPC was
committed;
(2) The swindling is NOT committed by a
syndicate as defined above;
(3) The defraudation results in the
misappropriation of money contributed by
stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperative, “samahang nayon(s)”, or
farmers association, or of funds solicited by
or corporations/associations from the general
public; and
(4) Amount of fraud exceeds Php. 100,000
Penalty: Reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua
F.6. ARTICLE 317 - SWINDLING OF A MINOR
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Elements:
(a) Offender takes advantage of the
inexperience or emotions or feelings of a
minor.
(b) He induces such minor
(1) to Assume an obligation, or
(2) to Give release, or
(3) to Execute a transfer of any property
right.
(c) That the consideration is
(1) some loan of money,
(2) Credit, or
(3) Other personal property.
(d) That the transaction is to the detriment of
such minor.
Real property is not included because only
money, credit and personal property are
enumerated, and because a minor cannot
convey real property without judicial authority.
F.7. ARTICLE 318 - OTHER DECEITS
Acts Punished:
(1) By defrauding or damaging another by any
other deceit not mentioned in the preceding
articles.
(2) By interpreting dreams, by making
forecasts, by telling fortunes, or by taking
advantage of the credulity of the public in
any other manner, for profit or gain.
Any other kind of conceivable deceit may fall
under this article. As in other cases of estafa,
damage to the offended party is required.
The deceits in this article include false pretenses
and fraudulent acts.
Chattel Mortgage
The object of the Chattel Mortgage Law is to
give the necessary sanction to the statute, so
that mortgage debtors may be deterred from
Page 370 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
violating its provisions and mortgage creditors
may be protected against loss or inconvenience
from wrongful removal or sale of mortgaged
property.
G. CHAPTER VII: CHATTEL MORTGAGE
G.1. ARTICLE 319 - REMOVAL, SALE, OR
PLEDGE OF MORTGAGED PROPERTY
Acts punishable under Art. 319:
(1) By knowingly removing any personal
property mortgaged under the Chattel
Mortgage Law to any province or city other
than the one in which it was located at the
time of execution of the mortgage, without
the written consent of the mortgagee or his
executors, administrators or assigns.
(2) By selling or pledging personal property
already pledged, or any part thereof, under
the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law,
without the consent of the mortgagee
written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the record thereof in the office of
the register of deeds of the province where
such property is located.
Chattel mortgage must be valid and subsisting.
If chattel mortgage does not contain an affidavit
of good faith and is not registered, it is void and
cannot be prosecuted under Art 319
Elements of knowingly removing mortgaged
personal property:
(a) Personal property is mortgaged under the
Chatter Mortgage Law.
(b) Offender knows that such property is so
mortgaged.
(c) He removes such mortgaged personal
property to any province or city other than
the one in which it was located at the time
of the execution of the mortgage.
(d) The removal is permanent.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

(e) There is no written consent of the Chattel mortgage may give rise to estafa by
mortgagee or his executors, administrators means of deceit.
or assigns to such removal.

Art 319 Art 316 Estafa

A person other than the mortgagor who
removed the property to another province, In both there is selling
knowing it to be mortgaged, may be liable. The of a mortgaged
removal of the mortgaged personal property property.
must be coupled with intent to defraud.
Personal property Property involved is
real property(Art. 316
No felonious intent if transfer of personal par 2)
property is due to change of residence.
Committed by the mere Committed by selling
failure to obtain real property
If the mortgagee opted to file for collection, not consent of the mortgaged as free,
foreclosure, abandoning the mortgage as basis mortgagee in writing, even though the vendor
for relief, the removal of property to another even if offender should may have obtained the
province is not a violation of Art 319 par1. inform the purchaser consent of the
that the thing sold is mortgagee in writing.
mortgaged
In estafa, the property involved is real property.
In sale of mortgaged property, it is personal Purpose: to protect the Purpose: to protect the
property. mortgagee purchaser (1st or 2nd)

Elements of selling or pledging personal property
already pledged:
(a) Personal property is already pledged under
the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law.
(b) The offender, who is the mortgagor of such
property, sells or pledges the same or any
part thereof.
(c) There is no consent of the mortgagee
written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the record thereof in the office of
the register of deeds.
H. CHAPTER VIII: ARSON AND OTHER
CRIMES INVOLVING DESTRUCTION
Articles 320-326-B have been repealed by PD
1613 (Amending the Law on Arson)
There are actually two categories of arson,
namely: Destructive Arson under Article 320 of
the RPC and Simple Arson under P.D. No. 1316.
Said classification is based on the kind,
character and location of the property burned,
regardless of the value of the damage caused.

The consent of the mortgagee must be

Article 320 contemplates the malicious burning
(1) in writing, of structures, both public and private, hotels,
(2) on the back of the mortgage, and buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft,
factories and other military, government or
(3) noted on the record thereof in the office of commercial establishments by any person or
the register of deeds. group of persons. On the other hand, P.D. No.
1316 covers houses, dwellings, government
buildings, farms, mills, plantations, railways,
Damage is NOT essential. bus stations, airports, wharves and other
industrial establishments.

Page 371 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
H.1. SIMPLE 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.[Sec. 1 P.D. No. 1613]
The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion
Perpetua shall be imposed if the property
burned is any of the following:
a) Any building used as offices of the
government or any of its agencies;
b) Any inhabited house or dwelling;
c) Any industrial establishment, shipyard,
oil well or mine shaft, platform or
tunnel;
d) Any plantation, farm, pastureland,
growing crop, grain field, orchard,
bamboo grove or forest;
e) Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill
central; and
f) Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf
or warehouse.[Sec. 2 P.D. No. 1613]
H.2. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death shall be imposed
upon any person who shall burn:
a) One (1) or more buildings or edifices,
consequent to one single act of burning
or as a result of simultaneous burnings,
or committed on several or different
occasions;
b) Any building of public or private
ownership, devoted to the public in
general or where people usually 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
Page 372 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
merely incidental to a definite purpose
such as but not limited to hotels, motels,
transient dwellings, public conveyance
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.
c) Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel,
airship or airplane, devoted to
transportation or conveyance, or for
public use, entertainment or leisure.
d) Any building, factory, warehouse
installation and any appurtenances
thereto, which are devoted to the service
of public utilities.
e) 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.[Art. 320 RPC]
By two or more persons
Irrespective of the application of the above
enumerated qualifying circumstances, the
penalty of 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.[Art. 320
RPC]
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to death shall also be imposed
upon any person who shall burn:
a) Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or
military powder or fireworks factory,
ordinance, storehouse, archives or
general museum of the government.
b) In an inhabited place, any storehouse or
factory of inflammable or explosive
materials.
Arson resulting in death
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

If as a consequence of his commission of any of (3) If the offender is motivated by spite or

the acts penalized under this Article (320), death hatred towards the owner or occupant of
or injury results, or any valuable documents, the property burned;
equipment, machineries, apparatus, or other
(4) If committed by a syndicate.The offense
valuable properties were burned or destroyed,
is committed by a syndicate if its is
the mandatory penalty of death shall be
planned or carried out by a group of
imposed.[Art. 320 RPC]
three (3) or more persons.[Sec. 4 P.D.
No. 1613]
If by reason of or on the occasion of the arson
death results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua
Prima facie evidence of arson
to death shall be imposed.[Sec. 5 P.D. No. 1613]
Any of the following circumstances shall
constitute prima facie evidence of arson:
Arson and homicide/murder
(1) If the fire started simultaneously in more
[I]n cases where both burning and death occur, than one part of the building or
in order to determine what crime/crimes establishment.
was/were perpetrated whether arson, murder or
(2) If substantial amount of flammable
arson and homicide/murder, it is de rigueur to
substances or materials are stored
ascertain the main objective of the malefactor:
within the building note necessary in the
business of the offender nor for
household us.
Main objective Crime/s committed
(3) If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other
flammable or combustible substances or
Burning of the building Arsonand the resulting materials soaked therewith or containers
or edifice, but death homicide is absorbed thereof, or any mechanical, electrical,
results by reason or on chemical, or electronic contrivance
the occasion of arson designed to start a fire, or ashes or
traces of any of the foregoing are found
To kill a particular Murder in the ruins or premises of the burned
person who may be in building or property.
a building or edifice,
(4) If the building or property is insured for
when fire is resorted to
substantially more than its actual value
as the means to
at the time of the issuance of the policy.
accomplish such goal
(5) If during the lifetime of the
To kill a particular Two separate and corresponding fire insurance policy more
person, and in fact the distinct crimes than two fires have occurred in the same
offender has already committed or other premises owned or under the
done so, but fire is homicide/murder and control of the offender and/or insured.
resorted to as a means arson[People v. (6) If shortly before the fire, a substantial
to cover up the killing Baluntong G.R. No. portion of the effects insured and stored
182061 (2010)] in a building or property had been
withdrawn from the premises except in
the ordinary course of business.
Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson (7) If a demand for money or other valuable
The penalty in any case of arson shall be consideration was made before the fire
imposed in its maximum period; in exchange for the desistance of the
offender or for the safety of the person or
(1) If committed with intent to gain; property of the victim.[Sec. 6 P.D. No.
(2) If committed for the benefit of another; 1613]
Page 373 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Conspiracy to commit Arson
Conspiracy to commit arson shall be punished
by Prision Mayor in its minimum period.[Sec. 7
P.D. No. 1613]
I. CHAPTER IX MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Malicious Mischief – It is the willful causing of
damage to another’s property for the sake of
causing damage because of hate, revenge or
other evil motive.
I.1. ARTICLE 327 - WHO ARE RESPONSIBLE
Elements of malicious mischief:
(a) Offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another.
(b) Such act does not constitute arson or other
crimes involving destruction
(c) The act of damaging another’s property was
committed merely for the sake of damaging
it.
If there is no malice in causing damage, the
obligation to pay for the damages is only civil
(Art. 2176)
Damage means not only loss but also
diminution of what is a man’s own. Thus,
damage to another’s house includes defacing it.
[People v Asido]
I.2. ARTICLE 328 - SPECIAL CASES OF
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Special cases of malicious mischief: (qualified
malicious mischief)
(1) Causing damage to obstruct the
performance of public functions
(2) Using any poisonous or corrosive substance
(3) Spreading infection or contagion among
cattle
(4) Causing damage to property of the National
Museum or National Library, or to any
Page 374 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used in
common by the public.
I.3. ARTICLE 329 - OTHER MISCHIEFS
Other mischiefs not included in Art. 328 are
punished based on value of the damage caused.
If the amount involved cannot be estimated, the
penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding
P200 is fixed by law.
When several persons scattered coconut
remnants which contained human excrement on
the stairs and floor of the municipal building,
including its interior, the crime committed is
malicious mischief under Art. 329. [People v
Dumlao]
I.4. ARTICLE 330 - DAMAGE AND
OBSTRUCTION TO MEANS OF
COMMUNICATION
Committed by damaging any railway, telegraph,
or telephone lines. If the damage shall result in
any derailment of cars, collision, or other
accident, a higher penalty shall be imposed.
(Qualifying Circumstance)
Telegraph/phone lines must pertain to railways.
Q: What is the crime when, as a result of the
damage caused to railway, certain passengers of
the train are killed?
A: It depends. Art. 330 says “without prejudice
to the criminal liability of the offender for other
consequences of his criminal act.”
If there is no intent to kill, the crime is “damages
to means of communication” with homicide
because of the first paragraph of Art. 4 and Art.
48.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

offended party. There is no criminal, but only

civil liability.
If there is intent to kill, and damaging the
railways was the means to accomplish the
criminal purpose, the crime is murder
Art. 332 does not apply to a stranger who
participates in the commission of the crime.
I.5. ARTICLE 331 – DESTROYING OR
DAMAGING STATUES, PUBLIC MONUMENTS
Stepfather and stepmother are included as
OR PAINTINGS
ascendants by affinity. [People v Alvarez; People
Acts punished: v Adame]
(1) Destroying or damaging statues or any
other useful or ornamental public
monument Guevarra: An adopted or natural child should
also be considered as included in the term
(2) Destroying or damaging any useful or “descendants” and a concubine or paramour
ornamental painting of a public nature. within the term “spouses”.

The penalty is lower if the thing destroyed is a Art. 332 also applies to common-law spouses.
public painting, rather than a public monument. [Art. 144, CC; People v Constantino]

J. CHAPTER X: EXEMPTION FROM See again: RA 9372: Human Security Act on

CRIMINAL LIABILITY Punishable Acts of Terrorism, supra

J.1. ARTICLE 332 - EXEMPTION FROM

CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST
PROPERTY
Crimes involved in the exemption:
(1) Theft
(2) Swindling (estafa)
(3) Malicious mischief

If the crime is robbery, exemption does not lie.

Persons exempt from criminal liability:

(1) Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line.
(2) The widowed spouse with respect to the
property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same passed into the
possession of another.
(3) Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law
and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The law recognizes the presumed co-ownership
of the property between the offender and the

Page 375 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
XII. TITLE XI. CRIMES
AGAINST CHASTITY
(1) Art. 333: Adultery
(2) Art. 334: Concubinage
(3) Art. 336: Acts of Lasciviousness
(4) Art. 337: Qualified Seduction
(5) Art. 338: Simple Seduction
(6) Art. 339: Acts of Lasciviousness with the
consent of the offended party
(7) Art. 340: Corruption of minors
(8) Art. 341: White Slave Trade
(9) Art. 342: Forcible Abduction
(10) Art. 343: Consented Abduction
(11) Art. 344: Prosecution of the crimes of
Adultery
(12) Art. 345: Civil Liability
(13) Art. 346: Liability of ascendants, guardians,
teachers, or other persons entrusted with
custody of the offended party
A. ARTICLE 333 – ADULTERY
Elements:
(1) The woman is married;
(2) She has sexual intercoursewith a man
not her husband;
(3) As regards the man with whom she has
sexual intercourse: he knows her to be
married.
LEGENDS:
H – husband; W – wife; M - marriage
Offenders: Married woman and/or the man who
has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be
married, even if the M be subsequently declared
void. It is not necessary that there be a valid M
(i.e. void ab initio)
Essence of adultery: violation of the marital vow
Page 376 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Gist of the crime: the danger of introducing
spurious heirs into the family, where the rights of
the real heirs may be impaired and a man may
be charged with the maintenance of a family not
his own. (US v. Mata)
The offended party must be legally married to
the offender at the time of the filing of the
complaint, even if the marriage be subsequently
declared void.
Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of
adultery.
Abandonment without justification is not
exempting, but only mitigating. Both defendants
are entitled to this mitigating circumstance.
The man, to be guilty of adultery, must have
knowledge of the married status of the woman.
A married man who is not liable for adultery,
because he did not know that the woman is
married, may be held liable for concubinage.
Acquittal of one of the defendants does not
operate as a cause of acquittal of the other.
Under the law, there is no accomplice in
adultery.
Direct proof of carnal knowledge is not
necessary. Circumstantial evidence is sufficient.
(i.e. love letters signed by the paramour, photos
showing intimate relations, testimony of
witnesses)
Pardon by the H does not exempt the adulterous
W and her paramour from criminal liability for
adulterous acts committed subsequent to such
pardon, because the pardon refers to previous
and not to subsequent adulterous acts
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Effect of Pardon - applies to Concubinage as
well:
(1) The pardon must come before the
institution of the criminal prosecution; and
(2) Both the offenders must be pardoned by the
offended party.Act of sexual intercourse
subsequent to adulterous conduct is
considered as an implied pardon.
(3) Pardon of the offenders by the offended
party is a bar to prosecution for adultery or
concubinage.
(4) Delay in the filing of complaint, if
satisfactorily explained, does not indicate
pardon.
Effect of consent:
The husband, knowing that his wife, after
serving sentence for adultery, resumed living
with her co-defendant, did nothing to interfere
with their relations or to assert his rights as
husband. The second charge of adultery should
be dismissed because of consent. [People v.
Sensano and Ramos]
Agreement to separate may be used as evidence
to show consent by the husband to the infidelity
of his wife.
Effect of death of paramour: Offending wife may
still be prosecuted. The requirement that both
offenders should be included in the complaint is
absolute only when the two offenders are alive.
Effect of death of offended party: The
proceedings may continue. Art. 353 seeks to
protect the honor and reputation not only of the
living but of dead persons as well.
B. ARTICLE 334 – CONCUBINAGE
Elements:
(1) The man is married;
(2) He is either:
(a) keeping a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling;
Page 377 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(b) Having sexual intercourse under
scandalous circumstance with a
woman not his wife;
(c) Cohabiting with her in any other place;
(3) As regards the woman, she knows him to be
married.
Offenders: married man and the woman who
knows him to be married.
The woman only becomes liable if she knew him
to be married prior to the commission of the
crime.
In the 3rd way of committing the crime, mere
cohabitation is sufficient; Proof of scandalous
circumstances not necessary. [People v. Pitoc,
et. al.]
A married man is not liable for concubinage for
mere sexual relations with a woman not his
wife.A man would only be guilty of concubinage
if he appeared to be guilty of any of the acts
punished in Art. 334.
A married man who is not liable for adultery
because he did not know that the woman was
married, may be held liable for concubinage. If
the woman knew that the man was married, she
may be held liable for concubinage as well.
Mistress – a woman taken by the accused to live
with him in the conjugal dwelling as his
mistress/concubine. [People v. Bacon and
People v. Hilao]
Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling – no
positive proof of sexual intercourse is necessary
Conjugal Dwelling – the home of the husband
(H) and the wife (W)even if the wife appears to
be temporarily absent on any account.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
The dwelling of the spouses was constructed
from the proceeds of the sale of their conjugal
properties.
The fact that W never had a chance to reside
therein and that H used it with his mistress
instead, does not detract from its nature.
[People v. Cordova (1959)]
Cohabit – to dwell together as H and W for a
period of time (i.e. A week, a month, year or
longer)
Scandalous circumstances – Scandal consists in
any reprehensible word or deed that offends
public conscience, redounds to the detriment of
the feelings of honest persons, and gives
occasion to the neighbors’ spiritual damage or
ruin. [People v. Santos]
It is only when the mistress is kept elsewhere
(outside the conjugal dwelling) that “scandalous
circumstances” become an element of the crime.
[US v. Macabagbag]
Qualifying expression: Sexual act which may be
proved by circumstantial evidence
Scandal produced by the concubinage of H:
(1) H and mistress live in the same room of a
house
(2) They appear together in public,
(3) Perform acts in sight of the community
which give rise to criticism and general
protest among the neighbors.
When spies are employed for the purpose of
watching the conduct of the accused and it
appearing that none of the people living in the
vicinity has observed any suspicious conduct,
there is no evidence of scandalous
circumstances. [US v. Campos Rueda]
Reason: Adultery is punished more severely than
concubinage because adultery makes possible
the introduction of another man’s offspring into
Page 378 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
the family so that the offended H may have
another man’s son bearing H’s name and
receiving support from him.
C. ARTICLE 336 - ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS
Elements:
(a) The offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
(b) The act is committed against a person of
either sex;
(c) It is done under any of the ff. circumstances:
(1) By using force or intimidation; or
(2) When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious;
(3) By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority
(4) When the offended party is under 12
years of age or is demented.
Lewd – obscene, lustful, indecent, lecherous;
signifies form of immorality which has relation to
moral impurity or that which is carried in wanton
manner
Motive of lascivious acts is not important
because the essence of lewdness is in the very
act itself.
Example: If the kissing etc. was done inside
church (which is a public place), absence of lewd
designs may be proven, and the crime is unjust
vexation only. But if the kissing was done in the
house of a woman when she was alone, the
circumstances may prove the accused’s lewd
designs.
Absent any of the circumstances of rape under
the 3rd element, the crime is UNJUST VEXATION.
(e.g. touching of breast)
Lascivious intent is implied from the nature of
the act and the surrounding circumstances.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Consider the act and the environment to acts of lascivious

distinguish between Acts of Lasciviousness and character
Attempted Rape. Desistance in the commission
of attempted rape may constitute acts of Acts performed do not Acts performed clearly
lasciviousness. indicate that the indicate that the
accused was to lie w/ accused’s purpose was
the offended party. to lie w/ the offended
There is no attempted or frustrated act of woman.
lasciviousness.
Lascivious acts are the Lascivious acts are only
final objective sought the preparatory acts to
Acts of Lasciviousness v. Grave Coercion by the offender. the commission of
Acts of Lasciviousness Grave Coercion rape.

Compulsion or force is Compulsion or force is

included in the the very act Abuses against chastity (Art. 245) v Acts of
constructive element of constituting the lasciviousness (Art. 336)
force. offense of grave
coercion. Offenses against Abuses against
Chastity Chastity
Must be accompanied Moral compulsion
by acts of amounting to Committed by a private Committed by a public
lasciviousness or intimidation is individual, in most officer only
lewdness. sufficient. cases

Some act of Mere immoral or

lasciviousness should indecent proposal
Acts of Lasciviousness v. Attempted Rape have been executed by made earnestly and
Acts of Lasciviousness Attempted Rape the offender. persistently is
sufficient.
Same means of
committing the crime:
(1) Force, threat, or The accused followed the victim, held her,
intimidation is embraced her, tore her dress, and tried to touch
employed; or her breast. When a complaint for acts of
lasciviousness was filed against him, accused
(2) By means of claimed that he had no intention of having
fraudulent machination sexual intercourse with her and that he did the
or grave abuse of acts only as revenge. TC found the accused
authority; or guilty of FRUSTRATED ACTS OF
(3) The offended party LASCIVIOUSNESS. SC held that there is no
is deprived of reason or frustrated crime against chastity which includes
otherwise unconscious; acts of lasciviousness, adultery, and rape.
or [People v. Famularcano]
(4) Victim is under 12
yrs. of age or is From the moment the offender performs all the
demented elements necessary for the existence of the
felony, he actually attains his purpose.
Offended party is a
person of either sex.
Motive of revenge is of no consequence since the
The performance of element of lewdness is in the very act itself.
Page 379 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Example: Compelling a girl to dance naked
before a man is an act of lasciviousness, even if
the dominant motive is revenge, for her failure to
pay a debt.
Two kinds of seduction:
(1) Qualified seduction (Art. 337)
(2) Simple seduction (Art. 338)
“Lascivious Conduct” under RA 7610
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5
(b) of RA 7610 that must be proven in addition to
the elements of acts of lasciviousness are as
follows:
(1) The accused commits the act of sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct.
(2) The said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse.
(3) The child, whether male or female, is below
18 years of age. [Navarrete vs. People
(2007)]
“Lascivious conduct” is defined under Section 2
(h) of the rules and regulations of RA 7610 as:
(1) The intentional touching, either directly or
through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, OR
the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
(2) whether of the same or opposite sex,
(3) with an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the sexual
desire of any person,
(4) bestiality, masturbation, lascivious
exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a
person
Comparison with Art. 366, RPC
Acts of lasciviousness is punished under RA 7610
when performed on a child below 18 years of age
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse.
Page 380 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
See discussion above for other acts of abuse
The sweetheart theory applies in acts of
lasciviousness and rape, felonies committed
against or without the consent of the victim. It
operates on the theory that the sexual act was
consensual. It requires proof that the accused
and the victim were lovers and that she
consented to the sexual relations.
For purposes of sexual intercourse and
lascivious conduct in child abuse cases under RA
7610, the sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A
child exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse cannot validly give consent
to sexual intercourse with another person.
[Malto v. People (2007)]
D. ARTICLE 337 - QUALIFIED SEDUCTION
Seduction - enticing a woman to unlawful sexual
intercourse by promise of marriage or other
means of persuasion without use of force. It
applies when there is abuse of authority
(qualified seduction) or deceit (simple
seduction).
Two classes of Qualified Seduction and their
elements:
(1) Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and
under 18 years of age by certain persons
such as, a person in authority, priest,
teacher or any person who, in any capacity
shall be entrusted with the education or
custody of the woman seduced.
Elements:
(a) Offended party is a virgin, which is
presumed if she is unmarried and of good
reputation;
(b) She is over 12 and under 18 yrs. of age; (13-
17 years 11 months 29 days)
(c) Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
(d) There is abuse of authority, confidence, or
relationship on the part of the offender.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
(2) Seduction of a sister by her brother, or
descendant by her ascendant, regardless of
her age or reputation.
Elements
(a) Offended party need not be a virgin or she
may be over 18 years old
(b) Offender has sexual intercourse with her
(c) Offender is her brother or ascendant by
consanguinity, whether legitimate or
illegitimate.
Virgin - a woman of chaste character and of
good reputation. The offended party need not be
physically a virgin.
If there is no sexual intercourse and only acts of
lewdness are performed, the crime is acts of
lasciviousness. If any of the circumstances in the
crime of rape is present, the crime is not to be
punished under Art. 337.
The accused charged with rape cannot be
convicted of qualified seduction under the same
information.
Offenders in Qualified Seduction:
(1) Those who abused their authority:
(a) Person in public authority;
(b) Guardian;
(c) Teacher;
(2) Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted
with the education or custody of the woman
seduced.
(a) Those who abused confidence reposed
in them:
(b) Priest;
(c) House servant;
(d) Domestic
(3) Those who abused their relationship:
(a) Brother who seduced his sister;
Page 381 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
(b) Ascendant who seduced his
descendant.
“Domestic” - a person usually living under the
same roof, pertaining to the same house.
Not necessary that the offender be the teacher
of the offended party; it is sufficient that he is a
teacher in the same school.
Qualified seduction may also be committed by a
master to his servant, or a head of the family to
any of its members.
Qualified seduction of a sister or descendant,
also known as INCEST, is punished by a penalty
next higher in degree.
The age, reputation, or virginity of the sister or
descendant is irrelevant. The relationship need
not be legitimate.
A 15-year old virgin, who was brought by her
mother to the house of the accused and his wife
to serve as a helper, repeatedly yielded to the
carnal desires of the accused, as she was
induced by his promises of marriage and
frightened by his acts of intimidation.
HELD: DECEIT, although an essential element of
ordinary or simple seduction, does not need to
be proved or established in a charge of qualified
seduction. It is replaced by ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE. [People v. Fontanilla]
The accused, a policeman, brought a 13-year old
girl with low mentality, to the ABC Hall where he
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her.
The complaint did not allege that the girl was a
virgin. The accused was charged with RAPE but
convicted of QUALIFIED SEDUCTION.
HELD: Though it is true that virginity is
presumed if the girl is over 12 but under 18,
unmarried and of good reputation, virginity is
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
still an essential element of the crime of
qualified seduction and must be alleged in the
complaint. Accused is guilty of RAPE,
considering the victim’s age, mental abnormality
and deficiency. There was also intimidation with
the accused wearing his uniform. [Babanto v.
Zosa]
Perez succeeded in having sexual intercourse
with Mendoza after he promised to marry her. As
he did not make good on said promise, Mendoza
filed a complaint for Consented Abduction. Trial
Court found that the acts constituted seduction,
acquitting him on the charge of Consented
Abduction. Mendoza then filed a complaint for
Qualified Seduction. Perez moved to dismiss the
case on the grounds of double jeopardy.
HELD: There are similar elements between
consented abduction and qualified seduction,
namely:
(1) the offended party is a virgin, and
(2) over 12 but under 18 yrs. of age
However, an acquittal for CONSENTED
ABDUCTION will not preclude the filing of a
charge for QUALIFIED SEDUCTION because the
elements of the two crimes are different. [Perez
v. CA]
NOTE: The fact that the girl gave consent to the
sexual intercourse is not a defense.
E. ARTICLE 338 - SIMPLE SEDUCTION
Elements:
(a) Offended party is over 12 and under 18 years
of age;
(b) She is of good reputation, single or widow;
(c) Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
(d) It is committed by means of deceit.
Purpose of the law - To punish the seducer who
by means of promise of marriage, destroys the
Page 382 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
chastity of an unmarried female of previous
chaste character
Virginity of offended party is not essential, good
reputation is sufficient.
Virginity of offended party is not required.
Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled
promise of marriage.
Promise of marriage must be the inducement
and the woman must yield because of the
promise or other inducement.
What about unfulfilled promise of material
things, as when the woman agrees to sexual
intercourse in exchange for jewelry? This is not
seduction because she is a woman of loose
morals.
Promise of marriage after sexual intercourse
does not constitute deceit. Promise of marriage
by a married man is not a deceit, if the woman
knew him to be married.
Seduction is not a continuing offense.
F. ARTICLE 339 - ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH THE CONSENT
OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
Elements:
(a) Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or
lewdness;
(b) The acts are committed upon a woman who
is a virgin or single or widow of good
reputation, under 18 yrs. of age but over 12
yrs., or a sister or descendant, regardless of
her reputation or age;
(c) The offender accomplishes the acts by
abuse of authority, confidence, relationship,
or deceit.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

It is necessary that it be committed under

circumstances which would make it qualified or
There is a crime of Attempted Child Prostitution.
simple seduction had there been sexual
(Sec. 6, RA 7610)
intercourse, instead of acts of lewdness only.

See again: RA 7610: Special Protection of

When the victim is under 12 yrs., the penalty
Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
shall be one degree higher than that imposed by
Discrimination (supra)
law. (sec. 10 of R.A. 7610)

Males cannot be the offended party. H. ARTICLE 341 - WHITE SLAVE TRADE
Acts Punishable:
(1) Engaging in business of prostitution
Acts of Lasciviousness Acts of Lasciviousness (2) Profiting by prostitution
(Art. 336) with consent (Art. 339)
(3) Enlisting the services of women for the
purpose of prostitution.
Committed under Committed under
circumstances w/c, circumstances w/c, had
had there been carnal there been carnal Habituality is not a necessary element of white
knowledge, would knowledge, would slave trade.
amount to rape amount to either
qualified or simple
seduction ‘Under any pretext’ – one who engaged the
services of a woman allegedly as a maid, but in
Offended party is a Offended party should reality for prostitution, is guilty under this article.
female or male only be female

Victim is under 12 yrs., penalty shall be one

G. ARTICLE 340 - CORRUPTION OF
MINORS
Elements:
(a) Offender promotes or facilitates the
prostitution or corruption of persons under
age (minors),
(b) Purpose is to satisfy the lust of another
degree higher.
Offender need not be the owner of the house.
Maintainer or manager of house of ill-repute
need not be present therein at the time of raid or
arrest.

Habituality or abuse of authority or confidence is

not necessary. Corruption of Minors White Slave Trade

Minority of victims Minority is not required

It is not necessary that the unchaste acts shall essential
have been done.
Victims may be male or Applies only to females
female
Mere proposal will consummate the offense.
May not necessarily be Generally for profit
for profit
The victim must be of good reputation, not a
prostitute or corrupted person. Committed by a single Generally committed
Page 383 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

act habitually lending her to illicit intercourse with others, the

crime is not abduction but corruption of minors.

Two kinds of abduction:
(1) Forcible abduction (Art. 342)
(2) Consented abduction (Art. 343)
Rape may absorb forcible abduction, if the main
objective was to rape the victim.
Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible
abduction.

I. ARTICLE 342 - FORCIBLE ABDUCTION

Elements: Lewd designs may be shown by the conduct of
the accused. When there are several defendants,
(a) The person abducted is any woman,
it is enough that one of them had lewd designs.
regardless of her age, civil status or
Husband is not liable for abduction of his wife,
reputation;
as lewd design is wanting.
(b) The abduction is against her will;
(c) The abduction is with lewd designs.
Attempt to rape is absorbed in the crime of
forcible abduction, thus there is no complex
crime of forcible abduction with attempted rape.
Abduction – the taking away of a woman from
her house or the place where she may be for the
purpose of carrying her to another place with the
Nature of the crime - The act of the offender is
intent to marry or to corrupt her.
violative of the individual liberty of the abducted,
her honor and reputation, and public order.
Crimes against chastity where age and
reputation are immaterial:
Forcible Abduction Grave Coercion
(1) Acts of lasciviousness against the will or
without the consent of the offended party
There is violence or
(2) Qualified seduction of sister or descendant intimidation by the
offender.
(3) Forcible abduction
The offended party is
compelled to do
The taking away of the woman must be against
something against
her will.
her will.

Abduction is No lewd design, provided

The taking away of the woman may be
characterized by lewd that there is no
accomplished by means of deceit first and then
design. deprivation of liberty for
by means of violence and intimidation.
an appreciable length of
time.
If the female abducted is under 12, the crime is
forcible abduction, even if she voluntarily goes
with her abductor. Forcible Abduction Corruption of Minors

Purpose is to effect Purpose is to lend the

When the victim was abducted by the accused his lewd designs on victim to illicit
without lewd designs, but for the purpose of the victim. intercourse with others.

Page 384 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

The accused and 2 other men raped the victim.

The victim was a jeepney passenger who was
Serious Illegal prevented from leaving the jeepney. She was
Forcible Abduction
Detention taken to a remote place where she was raped.
There is deprivation of There is deprivation of
liberty and lewd liberty and no lewd HELD: The accused is guilty of FORCIBLE
designs. designs ABDUCTION WITH RAPE. It was proven that the
victim was taken against her will and with lewd
design, and was subsequently forced to submit
Forcible Abduction to the accused’s lust, rendering her unconscious
Kidnapping with rape in the process. [People v. Alburo]
with Rape

The violent taking of Not so motivated

the woman is There can only be one complex crime of forcible
motivated by lewd abduction with rape.
designs.

Crime against Crime against liberty
chastity
Forcible Abduction with Rape - a complex crime
under Art. 48, and not a special complex crime
The victim was abducted by the accused and
was brought to a hotel where the latter
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her.
The victim witnessed the killing of another by
the 2 accused. Upon seeing her, the accused
dragged her to a vacant lot where they took
turns in raping her. TC convicted them of rape.
HELD: FORCIBLE ABDUCTION is absorbed in
the crime of RAPE if the main objective is to rape
the victim. Conviction of acts of lasciviousness is
not a bar to conviction of forcible abduction.
[People v. Godines]

J. ARTICLE 343 - CONSENTED

HELD: The elements of both rape and forcible
abduction are proven. The presence of lewd
designs in forcible abduction is manifested by
the subsequent rape of the victim. [People v.
Sunpongco]
Maggie was abducted and brought to a hotel,
where the 4 accused took turns in raping her.
HELD: While the first act of rape was being
performed, the crime of forcible abduction had
already been consummated, hence, forcible
abduction can only be attached to the first act of
rape, detached from the 3 subsequent acts of
rape. The effect therefore would be one count of
forcible abduction with rape and 4 counts of
rape for each of the accused. [People v. Jose]
ABDUCTION
Elements:
(a) Offended party is a virgin;
(b) She is over 12 and under 18 yrs. of age;
(c) Offender takes her away with her consent,
after solicitation or cajolery from the
offender;
(d) The taking away is with lewddesigns.
Purpose of the law - Not to punish the wrong
done to the girl because she consents to it, but
to prescribe punishment for the disgrace to her
family and the alarm caused by the
disappearance of one who is, by her age and sex,
susceptible to cajolery and deceit.

Page 385 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
If the virgin is under 12 or is deprived of reason,
the crime is forcible abduction because such is
incapable of giving a valid consent.
The taking away of the girl need not be with
some character of permanence. Offended party
need not be taken from her house.
When there was no solicitation or cajolery and
no deceit and the girl voluntarily went with the
man, there is no crime committed even if they
had sexual intercourse.
K. ARTICLE 344 - PROSECUTION OF
PRIVATE OFFENSES
(1) Adultery
(2) Concubinage
(3) Seduction
(4) Abduction
(5) Acts of lasciviousness
Nature of the complaint: The complaint must be
filed in court, not with the fiscal.In case of
complex crimes, where one of the component
offenses is a public crime, the criminal
prosecution may be instituted by the fiscal.
The court motu proprio can dismiss the case for
failure of the aggrieved party to file the proper
complaint even if the accused never raised the
question on appeal.
Crimes against chastity cannot be prosecuted de
oficio.
ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE
Who may file the complaint: Adultery and
Concubinage must be prosecuted upon
complaint signed by the offended spouse.
Page 386 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
The offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including BOTH the guilty
parties if they are alive. Both parties must be
included in the complaint even if one of them is
not guilty.
Consent and pardon bar the filing of a criminal
complaint.
The imputation of a crime of prostitution against
a woman can be prosecuted de oficio, but crimes
against chastity cannot.
Prosecution of rape may be made upon
complaint by any person.
Effect of Pardon:
(1) Effect of Pardon in Adultery applies also to
Concubinage
(2) Condonation or forgiveness of one act of
adultery or concubinage is not a bar to
prosecution of similar acts that may be
committed by the offender in the future.
Consent:
(1) May be express or implied
(2) Given before the adultery or
concubinage was committed
(3) Agreement to live separately may be
evidence of consent.
(4) Affidavit showing consent may be a
basis for new trial.
SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION, ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS
Seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness
must be prosecuted upon complaint signed by—
(1) Offended party - When the offended
party is a minor, her parents may file
the complaint.
(2) When the offended party is of age
and is in complete possession of her
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
mental and physical faculties, she
alone can file the complaint.
(3) Parents, Grandparents or Guardian
in that order –
When the offended is a minor or incapacitated
and refuses to file the complaint, any of the
persons mentioned could file.
The term “guardian” refers to legal guardian. He
must be legally appointed by the Court.
The State may also file the complaint as parens
patriae when the offended party dies or becomes
incapacitated before she could file the complaint
and has no known parents, grandparents, or
guardians
Effect of Pardon:
(1) Offended party cannot institute criminal
proceedings if the offender has been
EXPRESSLY pardoned by the offended
party, or her parents, grandparents or
guardian.
(2) Pardon by the parent, grandparent, or
guardian must be accompanied by the
express pardon of the offended woman.
(3) The right to file action of the parents,
grandparents and guardian shall be
EXCLUSIVE of other persons and shall be
exercised successively in the order provided.
(4) Pardon by the offended party who is a
minor must have the concurrence of
parents, EXCEPT when the offended party
has no parents.
Rape complexed with another crime against
chastity need NOT be signed by the offended
woman, since rape is a public crime. When the
evidence fails to prove a complex crime of rape
with another crime, and there is no complaint
signed by the offended woman, the accused
CANNOT be convicted of rape.
Page 387 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Marriage of the offender with the offended party
in seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
and rape, extinguishes criminal action or remits
the penalty already imposed.
Marriage (in cases of seduction, abduction, and
acts of lasciviousness) extinguishes the criminal
action even as to co-principals, accomplices, and
accessories.
Marriage must be entered into in good faith.
Marriage may take place AFTER criminal
proceedings have commenced, or even after
conviction (extinguishes criminal action and
remits penalty).
L. ARTICLE 345: CIVIL LIABILITY OF
PERSONS GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST
CHASTITY
Those guilty of rape, seduction or abduction:
(1) Indemnify the offended woman
(2) Acknowledge the offspring, unless the law
should prevent him from doing so
(3) In every case to support the offspring,
EXCEPT:
(a) in cases of adultery and concubinage
(b) where either of the offended party or
accused is married
(c) when paternity cannot be determined,
such as in multiple rape
(d) other instances where the law prevents
such
The adulterer and the concubine can be
sentenced only to indemnify for damages
caused to the offended spouse.
Acknowledgment of offsrpring is not legally
possible, because only children born of parents
who could marry at the time of conception may
be acknowledged. Support of the offspring is
also not included, because the person who gives
birth is one of the offenders.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
In rape of a married woman, only indemnity is
allowed.
M. ARTICLE 346 – LIABILITY OF
ASCENDANTS, GUARDIANS, TEACHERS
AND OTHER PERSONS ENTRUSTED WITH
THE CUSTODY OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
(1) Persons who cooperate as accomplices but
are punished as principals in rape,
seduction, abduction, etc.
(a) Ascendants
(b) Guardians
(c) Curators
(d) Teachers, and
(2) any other person, who cooperate as
accomplice with abuse of authority or
confidential relationship
(3) The teachers or persons entrusted with
education and guidance of the youth shall
also be penalized with disqualification.
(4) 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.
N. RA 7877 ANTI-
SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT
Work, Education or Training-Related, Sexual
Harassment Defined
Work, education or training-related sexual
harassment is committed committed by an
employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent
of the employer, teacher, instructor, professor,
coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over
another in a work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or otherwise
requires any sexual favor from the other,
regardless of whether the demand, request
Page 388 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
or requirement for submission is accepted by
the object of said act. [Sec. 3 R.A. 7877]
Work-related environment
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in
the hiring or in the employment, re-
employment or continued employment of
said individual, or in granting said individual
favorable compensation, terms of
conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the
refusal to grant the sexual favor results in
limiting, segregating or classifying the
employee which in any way would
discriminate, deprive ordiminish
employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employee's
rights or privileges under existing labor
laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for the employee.[Sec. 3 R.A.
7877]
(4)
Education or training environment
(5) Against one who is under the care, custody
or supervision of the offender;
(6) Against one whose education, training,
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to
the offender;
(7) When the sexual favor is made a condition to
the giving of a passing grade, or the
granting of honors and scholarships, or the
payment of a stipend, allowance or other
benefits, privileges, or consideration; or
(8) When the sexual advances result in an
intimidating, hostile or offensive
environment for the student, trainee
or apprentice.[Sec. 3 R.A. 7877]
Other persons liable
Any person who directs or induces another to
commit any act of sexual harassment as herein
defined, or who cooperates in the commission
UP LAW BOC
thereof by another without which it would not
have been committed, shall also be held liable
under this Act.[Sec. 3 R.A. 7877]
Penalties
Any person who violates the provisions of this
Act shall, upon conviction, be penalized
by imprisonment of not less than one (1) month
nor more than six (6) months, or a fine of not
less than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000) or
more than Twenty thousand pesos (P20,000),
or both such fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the court. [Sec. 7 R.A. 7877]
Prescription
Any action arising from the violation of the
provisions of this Act shall prescribe in three (3)
years.[Sec. 3 R.A. 7877]
CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW
XIII. TITLE XII. CRIMES
AGAINST THE CIVIL
STATUS OF PERSONS
Chapter I: Simulation of Births and Usurpation of
Civil Status
(1) Art 347: Simulation of births, substitution of
one child for another and concealment or
abandonment of a legitimate child
(2) Art 348: Usurpation of civil status
Chapter II: Illegal Marriages
(1) Art 349: Bigamy
(2) Art 350: Marriage contracted against
provisions of law
(3) Art 351: Premature marriages
(4) Art 352: Performance of illegal marriage
ceremony
A. CHAPTER I: SIMULATION OF BIRTHS
AND USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
A.1. ARTICLE 347 - SIMULATION OF BIRTHS,
SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD FOR
ANOTHER, AND CONCEALMENT OR
ABANDONMENT OF A LEGITIMATE CHILD
MODE 1. Simulation of births;
MODE 2. Substitution of one child for another;
MODE 3. Concealing or abandoning any
legitimate child with intent to cause such child to
lose its civil status.
The object of the crime under Art. 347 is the
creation of false, or the causing of loss of, civil
status.
Simulation of birth
Page 389 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Takes place when the woman pretends to be
pregnant when in fact she is not, and on the day
of the supposed delivery, takes the child of
another as her own.
The simulation of birth which is a crime is that
which alters the civil status of a person.
The fact that the child will be benefited by the
simulation of its birth is not a defense.
Substitution of one child for another
This is committed when a child of a couple is
exchanged with a child of another couple
without the knowledge of the respective parents.
The substitution can also happen by placing a
live child of a woman in place of another’s dead
child.
Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child
REQUISITES:
(1) The child must be legitimate
(2) The offender conceals or abandons such
child; and
(3) The offender has the intent to cause such
child to lose its civil status.
The unlawful sale of a child by his father is not a
crime under this article.
“Abandon” as used in Art. 347 - The practice of
abandoning newly born infants and very young
child at the door of hospitals and churches.
Art. 347 Art. 246
Offender: Any person Offender: The one who
has the custody of the
child
Purpose: To cause Purpose: To avoid
Page 390 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
the child to lose his obligation of rearing and
civil status. caring for the child.
A physician or surgeon or public officer, who
cooperates in the execution of these crimes, is
also liable if he acts in violation of the duties of
his profession or office.
A.2. ARTICLE 348 - USURPATION OF CIVIL
STATUS
This crime is committed when a person
represents himself to be another and assumes
the filiation or the parental or conjugal rights of
such another person.
Usurpation of profession may be punished under
Art. 348.
There must be an intent to enjoy the rights
arising from the civil status of another.
The purpose of defrauding the offended party or
his heirs qualifies the crime.
B. CHAPTER II: ILLEGAL MARRIAGES
B.1. ARTICLE 349 – BIGAMY
Elements:
(a) Offender has been legally married;
(b) The marriage has not been legally dissolved
or, in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse could not yet be presumed
dead according to the Civil Code
(c) He contracts a second or subsequent
marriage
(d) The second or subsequent marriage has all
the essential requisites for validity.
The first marriage must be valid.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Nullity of marriage, not a defense in bigamy.
The fact that the first marriage is void from the
beginning is not a defense. As with voidable
marriage, there must be a judicial declaration of
nullity of marriage before contracting the second
marriage.
Good faith is a defense in bigamy.
Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the
whereabouts of the first wife is bigamy through
reckless imprudence.
One who contracted a subsequent marriage
before the declaration of presumptive death of
the absent spouse is guilty of bigamy.
The second marriage must have all the essential
requisites for validity.
One convicted of bigamy may also be
prosecuted for concubinage as both are distinct
offenses. The first is an offense against civil
status, which may be prosecuted at the instance
of the state; the second is an offense against
chastity, and may be prosecuted only at the
instance of the offended party.
The test is not whether the defendant has
already been tried for the same act, but whether
he has been put in jeopardy for the same
offense.
The second spouse is not necessarily liable for
bigamy.
Whether the second spouse should be included
in the information is a question of fact that was
to be determined by the fiscal who conducted
the preliminary investigation. (People v.
Nepomuceno, Jr., 64 SCRA 518)
The second husband or wife who knew of first
marriage is an accomplice.
Page 391 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
The witness who falsely vouched for the capacity
of either of the contracting parties is also an
accomplice.
Bigamy is not a private crime.
Jurisprudence
In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, we laid down the
elements of bigamy thus:
(1) The offender has been legally married;
(2) The first marriage has not been legally
dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is
absent, the absent spouse has not been
judicially declared presumptively dead;
(3) He contracts a subsequent marriage; and
(4) The subsequent marriage would have been
valid had it not been for the existence of the
first.
Applying the foregoing test to the instant case,
we note that the trial court found that there was
no actual marriage ceremony performed
between Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing
officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere
signing of the marriage contract by the two,
without the presence of a solemnizing officer.
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires
that the accused must have been legally
married. But in this case, legally speaking, the
petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete.
Thus, there is no first marriage to speak of.
Under the principle of retroactivity of a marriage
being declared void ab initio, the two were never
married “from the beginning.” The contract of
marriage is null; it bears no legal effect.
Taking this argument to its logical conclusion,
for legal purposes, petitioner was not married to
Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage
with Maria Jececha. The existence and the
validity of the first marriage being an essential
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical
that a conviction for said offense cannot be
sustained where there is no first marriage to
speak of. The petitioner, must, perforce be
acquitted of the instant charge. [Lucio Morigo v.
People(2002)]
The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity
of the first marriage was immaterial because
prior to the declaration of nullity, the crime had
already been consummated. Moreover,
petitioner's assertion would only delay the
prosecution of bigamy cases considering that an
accused could simply file a petition to declare
his previous marriage void and invoke the
pendency of that action as a prejudicial question
in the criminal case. We cannot allow that.
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of
petitioner's marriage to Narcisa had no bearing
upon the determination of petitioner's innocence
or guilt in the criminal case for bigamy, because
all that is required for the charge of bigamy to
prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at
the time the second marriage is contracted.
Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which
is void or voidable, shall be deemed valid until
declared otherwise in a judicial proceeding.
In this case, even if petitioner eventually
obtained a declaration that his first marriage
was void ab initio, the point is, both the first and
the second marriage were subsisting before the
first marriage was annulled. [Abunado v.
People(2004)]
A careful study of the disputed decision reveals
that respondent Judge had been less than
circumspect in his study of the law and
jurisprudence applicable to the bigamy case. In
his comment, respondent Judge stated: “That
the accused married Manuel P. Diego in the
honest belief that she was free to do so by virtue
of the decree of divorce is a mistake of fact.”
This Court, in People v. Bitdu, carefully
distinguished between a mistake of fact, which
could be a basis for the defense of good faith in
a bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which
Page 392 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
does not excuse a person, even a lay person,
from liability. Bitdu held that even if the
accused, who had obtained a divorce under the
Mohammedan custom, honestly believed that in
contracting her second marriage she was not
committing any violation of the law, and that
she had no criminal intent, the same does not
justify her act.
This Court further stated therein that with
respect to the contention that the accused acted
in good faith in contracting the second marriage,
believing that she had been validly divorced
from her first husband, it is sufficient to say that
everyone is presumed to know the law, and the
fact that one does not know that his act
constitutes a violation of the law does not
exempt him from the consequences thereof.
Moreover, squarely applicable to the criminal
case for bigamy, is People v. Schneckenburger,
where it was held that the accused who secured
a foreign divorce, and later remarried in the
Philippines, in the belief that the foreign divorce
was valid, is liable for bigamy. [Diego v.
Castillo(2004)]
B.2. ARTICLE 350 - MARRIAGE CONTRACTED
AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAWS
ELEMENTS:
(1) Offender contracted marriage;
(2) He knew at the time that –
(a) The requirements of the law were not
complied with; or
(b) The marriage was in disregard of a legal
impediment.
Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage.
Illegal marriage includes also such other
marriages which are performed without
complying with the requirements of law, or
marriages where the consent of the other is
vitiated, or such marriage which was solemnized
by one who is not authorized to solemnize the
same.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

authorities who shall perform or authorize any

illegal marriage ceremony
Conviction of a violation of Art. 350 involves a
crime of moral turpitude. (Villasanta v. Peralta)
The offender must be authorized to solemnize
marriages.
B.3. ARTICLE 351 - PREMATURE MARRIAGE

This provision has been repealed on 13 March

2015 when President Benigno Aquino III signed
into law RA 10655. Said law reads: “Without
prejudice to the provisions of the Family Code on
paternity and filiation, Article 351 of the Revised
Penal Code, punishing the crime of premature
marriage committed by a woman, is hereby
repealed.”

The author of RA 10655 explained that the law

on premature marriages “is discriminatory for it
curtails the right of a woman to marry under the
stated circumstances when no such penalty is
imposed on the man who does the same.
Similarly, the effect of the provision is an
enforced mourning period on the part of the
woman although none is imposed on the man.”

Before Repeal:
Persons liable:
(1) A widow who is married within 301 days
from the date of the death of her husband,
or before having delivered if she is pregnant
at the time of his death;
(2) A woman who, her marriage having been
annulled or dissolved, married before her
delivery or before the expiration of the
period of 301 days after the date of the legal
separation.

The purpose of the law punishing premature

marriages is to prevent doubtful paternity.
(People v. Rosal, 49 Phil. 509)

B.4. ARTICLE 352 - PERFORMANCE OF

ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY

PERSONS LIABLE: Priests or ministers of any

religious denomination or sect, or civil
Page 393 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Defamation is composed of:

XIV. TITLE XIII. CRIMES
(1) Libel – written defamation
AGAINST HONOR (2) Slander- oral defamation
(3) Slander by deed – defamation through acts
Chapter I: Libel
(1) Art 353: Definition of Libel
Test of the defamatory character of words used:
(2) Art 354: Privileged communication Whether they are calculated to induce the
(3) Art 355: Libel by means of writings or hearers to suppose and understand that the
similar means person against whom they (i.e. the defamatory
words) were uttered was guilty of certain
(4) Art 356: Threatening to publish and offer to offenses; OR are sufficient to impeach his
prevent such publication for a honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold him up
compensation to public ridicule. (U.S. vs. O’Connell)
(5) Art. 357: Prohibited Publication of Acts
Referred to in the course of Official
Proceedings First element: There must be an imputation of a
crime, a vice or defect, real or imaginary, OR any
(6) Art 358: Slander act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
(7) Art 359: Slander by Deed
Imputation of a criminal act may be implied
Chapter II: Incriminatory Machinations from the acts and statements of the accused.
(1) Art 363: Incriminating innocent person
(2) Art 364: Intriguing against honor Imputation of criminal intention is not libelous.
An expression of opinion by one affected by the
act of another and based on actual fact is not
A. CHAPTER I: LIBEL libelous.

A.1. ARTICLE 353 - DEFINITION OF LIBEL

Elements:
(1) There must be an imputation of–
(a) a crime,
(b) a vice or defect, real or imaginary,
OR
(c) any act, omission, condition, status,
or circumstance;
(2) The imputation must be made publicly;
(3) It must be malicious;
(4) The imputation must be directed at a
natural or juridical person, or one who is
dead; and
(5) The imputation must tend to cause
dishonor, discredit or contempt of the
offended party.
Second element: The imputation must be made
publicly.
Publication: communication of the defamatory
matter to some third person or persons. There is
no crime if the defamatory imputation is not
published.
Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the
offended party constitutes publication. [Magno
vs. People(2006)]
In libel, publication means making the
defamatory matter, after it is written, known to
someone other than the person against whom it
has been written.

Page 394 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Petitioner’s subject letter-reply itself states that
the same was copy furnished to all concerned.
Also, petitioner had dictated the letter to his
secretary. It is enough that the author of the
libel complained of has communicated it to a
third person. Furthermore, the letter, when
found in the mailbox, was open, not contained in
an envelope thus, open to public. [Buatis vs.
People (2006)]
Third element: The publication must be
malicious.
Malice in fact – may be shown by proof of ill-will,
hatred or purpose to injure.
Malice in law – presumed from a defamatory
imputation. Proof of malice is not required. (Art.
354, par.1)
But where the communication is privileged,
malice is not presumed from the defamatory
words.
Malice in law is not necessarily inconsistent with
honest or laudable purpose. Even if the
publication is injurious, the presumption of
malice disappears upon proof of good intentions
and justifiable motive.
But where malice in fact is present, justifiable
motive cannot exist, and the imputations
become actionable.
Fourth element: The imputation must be
directed at a natural or juridical person, or one
who is dead.
In order to maintain a libel suit, it is essential
that the victim be identifiable, although it is not
necessary that the person be named. It is
enough ifby intrinsic reference the allusion is
apparent or if the publication contains matters
of description or reference to facts and
circumstances from which others reading the
article may know the person alluded to, or if the
Page 395 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
latter is pointed out by extraneous
circumstances so that those knowing such
person could and did understand that he was
the person referred to.
Kunkle v. Cablenews-American and Lyons laid
the rule that this requirement is complied
withwhere a third person recognized or could
identify the party vilified in the article. [People
vs. Ogie Diaz (2007)]
Defamatory remarks directed at a group of
persons is not actionable unless the statements
are all-embracing or sufficiently specific for the
victim to be identifiable.
Libel published in different places may be taken
together to establish the identification of the
offended party.
While it is true that a publication's libelous
nature depends on its scope, spirit and motive
taken in their entirety, the article in question as a
whole explicitly makes mention of private
complainant Rivera all throughout. It cannot be
said that the article was a mere general
commentary on the alleged existing state of
affairs at the aforementioned public market.
Rivera was not only specifically pointed out
several times therein but was even tagged with
derogatory names. Indubitably, this name-
calling was, as correctly found by the two courts
below,directed at the very person of Rivera
himself. [Figueroa vs. People (2006)]
Fifth element: The imputation must tend to
cause dishonor, discredit or contempt of the
offended party.
Dishonor – disgrace, shame or ignominy
Discredit – loss of credit of reputation;
disesteem
Contempt – state of being despised
For a statement to be considered malicious, it
must be shown that it was written or published
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

with the knowledge that they are false OR in
reckless disregard of WON they were false.
Reckless disregard– the defendant entertains
serious doubt as to the truth of the publication,
OR that he possesses a high degree of
awareness of their probable falsity.
To avoid self-censorship that would necessarily
accompany strict liability for erroneous
statements, rules governing liability for injury to
reputation are required to allow an adequate
margin of error by protecting some inaccuracies.
[Borjal v. CA (1999)]
(1) A private communication made by any
person to another in the performance of any
legal, moral, or social duty;
(2) A fair and true report, made in good faith,
without any comments or remarks, of
(a) any judicial, legislative or other official
proceedings which are not of
confidential nature, OR
(b) any statement, report or speech
delivered in said proceedings, OR
(c) any other act performed by public
officers in the exercise of their
functions.

Defamatory remarks are PRESUMED malicious.

The presumption of malice is REBUTTED, if it is
shown by the accused that – (see discussion of
Art. 361)
Fine preferred penalty in libel cases
(1) The defamatory imputation is true, IN CASE
Administrative Circular No. 08-2008 stated the the law allows proof of the truth of the
rule of preference of fine only rather than imputation;
imprisonment in libel cases, having in mind the
(2) It is published with good intention; AND
ff. principles:
(3) There is justifiable motive for making it
1) The circular does not remove imprisonment as
an alternative penalty
2) Judges may, in the exercise of their discretion, Privileged communication is NOT PRESUMED
determine whether the imposition of fine alone malicious.
would best serve the interest of justice.
3) Should only a fine be imposed and the
Kinds of Privilege:
accused unable to pay the fine, there is no legal
obstacle to the application of the RPC on ABSOLUTE QUALIFIED
subsidiary imprisonment.
NOT actionable. Narrow Actionable IF Malice
and few: or Bad faith is proven
A.2. ARTICLE 354 - REQUIREMENT FOR (malice in fact)
(1) Privileged speeches in
PUBLICITY Congress
(2) Statements made in Based on par 1 and 2
General rule: MALICE IS PRESUMED in every judicial proceedings as of Art 354, although
defamatory imputation, even if it be true, if no long as they are relevant the list is not
good intention and justifiable motive for making to the issue exclusive
it is shown. (3) Military affairs

Exceptions: In privileged communications,

namely: Art 354 does not cover absolute privilege
because character of communications
mentioned therein is lost upon proof of malice in
fact.
Page 396 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

communication under par. 1 of Art. 354, it must

be shown that:
MALICE IN LAW MALICE IN FACT
1) The defendant acted with malice in fact; or
Presumed from To be proved by 2) There is no reasonable ground for believing
defamatory character of prosecution ONLY IF the charge to be true.
statement malice in law has
been rebutted
Fair and true report of official proceedings
Statement is presented Can be negated by Official proceedings refer to proceedings of the 3
to court, and the latter evidence of: branches of the government: judiciary,
will decide whether it is legislative, and executive.
(1) Good motives AND
defamatory or not
Justifiable ends; or
(2) Privileged Requisites:
character (1) That it is a fair and true report of a judicial,
legislative, or other official proceedings
which are not confidential in nature, or of a
Requisites of privileged communication under statement, report, or speech delivered in
par. 1 of art. 354: said proceedings, or of any other act
performed by a public officer in the exercise
(1) That the person who made the of his functions.
communication had a legal, moral or social
duty to make the communication, or, at (2) That it is made in good faith; and
least, he had an interest to be upheld; (3) That it is without comments or remarks
(2) That the communication is addressed to an
officer or board, or superior, having some
interest or duty in the matter. The communication must be pertinent and
material to the subject matter.
(3) That the statements in the communication
are made in good faith without malice in
fact. Doctrine of fair comment: Fair commentaries on
matters of public interest are privileged and
constitute a valid defense in an action for libel or
Applying to the wrong person due to honest slander.
mistake does not take the case out of privilege.
(US v. Bustos)
In order that a discreditable imputation to a
public official may be actionable, it must either
Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith. be:
(1) A false allegation of fact; OR
The privileged character simply does away with (2) A comment based on a false supposition.
the presumption of malice. [People v. Velasco (2000)]

The rule is that a communication loses its PUBLIC FIGURE – one who, by his
privileged character and is actionable on proof accomplishments, fame, Mode of living, OR by
of actual malice. adopting a profession or calling which gives the
public a legitimate interest in his doings, his
affairs and his character, has become a “public
That the statement is a privileged personage” [Ayer Productions v. Capulong
communication is a matter of defense. To (1988)]
overcome the defense of privileged
Page 397 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Based on the ruling in US v. Ocampo, proof of
knowledge of and participation in the
publication of the offending article is not
required, if the accused has been specifically
identified as “author, editor, or proprietor” or
“printer/publisher” of the publication.
A.3. ARTICLE 355 - LIBEL BY WRITING OR
SIMILAR MEANS
Libel may be committed by means of:
(1) Writing;
(2) Printing;
(3) Lithography;
(4) Engraving;
(5) Radio;
(6) Photograph;
(7) Painting;
(8) Theatrical exhibition;
(9) Cinematographic exhibition; or
(10) Any similar means. (e.g. video broadcast)
Common characteristic of written libel: their
permanent nature as a means of publication.
Use of amplifier system is not libel but oral
defamation (slander). But the defamation made
in the television program is libel.
A.4. ARTICLE 356 - THREATENING TO
PUBLISH AND OFFER TO PREVENT SUCH
PUBLICATION FOR A COMPENSATION
Acts Punished:
(1) Threatening another to publish a libel
concerning – him, his parents, spouse, child
or other members of his family
(2) Offering to prevent the publication of such
libel for compensation or money
consideration.
Page 398 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
The essence of this crime is blackmail, which is
defined as any unlawful extortion of money by
threats of accusation or exposure.
Blackmail can also be in the form of light
threats, which is punished under ARTICLE 283.
A.5. ARTICLE 357 - PROHIBITED
PUBLICATION OF ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE
COURSE OF OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS (GAG
LAW)
ELEMENTS:
(a) Offender is a reporter, editor or manager of
a newspaper, daily or magazine;
(b) He publishes facts connected with the
private life of another;
(c) Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue
and reputation of said person.
Requisites of Violation:
(1) That the article published contains facts
connected with the private life of an
individual; and
(2) That such facts are offensive to the honor,
virtue and reputation of said person.
This article is referred to as the Gag Law.
Prohibition applies even if the facts are involved
in official proceedings.
Newspaper reports on cases pertaining to
adultery, divorce, legitimacy of children, etc. are
barred from publication.
Under RA 1477, a newspaper reporter cannot be
compelled to reveal the source of the news
report he made, UNLESS the court or a House or
committee of Congress finds that such
revelation is demanded by the security of the
state.
A.6. ARTICLE 358 - SLANDER
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Slander, or oral defamation is composed of two
kinds:
(1) Simple slander
(2) Grave slander, when it is of serious and
insulting nature
Factors that determine the gravity of the oral
defamation:
(1) Expressions used
(2) Personal relations of the accused and the
offended party.
(3) The surrounding circumstances.
Illustration of grave slander:
A woman of violent temper hurled at a
respectable married lady with young daughters
offensive and scurrilous epithets including words
imputing unchastity to the mother and tending
to injure the character of the daughters [U.S. vs.
Toloso]
Illustration of simple slander:
(1) Calling a person a gangster
(2) Uttering defamatory words in the heat of
anger with some provocation on the part of
the offended party
The Court does not condone the vilification
or use of scurrilous language on the part of
petitioner, but following the rule that all
possible circumstances favorable to the
accused must be taken in his favor, it is our
considered view that the slander committed
by petitioner can be characterized as slight
slander following the doctrine that: uttering
defamatory words in the heat of anger, with
some provocation on the part of the
offended party, constitutes only a light
felony. [Villanueva vs. People (2006)]
(3) The word “putang ina mo” is a common
expression in the dialect that is often
employed not really to slander but rather to
express anger or displeasure. It is seldom, if
ever taken in its literal sense by the hearer,
Page 399 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
that is, as a reflection on the virtue of a
mother. [Reyes vs. People]
The slander need not be heard by the offended
party.
A.7. ARTICLE 359 - SLANDER BY DEED
Elements
(a) Offender performs any act not included in
any other crime against honor;
(b) Such act is performed in the presence of
other person/s; and
(c) Such act casts dishonor, discredit or
contempt upon the offended party.
Slander by deed is a crime against honor which
is committed by performing any act which casts
dishonor, discredit, or contempt upon another
person.
Slander by deed is of two kinds
(1) Simple slander by deed
(2) Grave slander by deed
There is no fixed standard in determining
whether a slander is serious or not; hence the
courts have sufficient discretion to determine the
same, basing the finding on the attendant
circumstances and matters relevant thereto.
Slapping the face of another is slander by deed if
the intention of the accused is to cause shame or
humiliation.
Fighting the offended party with intention to
insult him is slander by deed.
Pointing a dirty finger constitutes simple slander
by deed.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Slander by deed and acts of lasciviousness –
distinguished by presence of lewd designs. If
such is present, it is an act of lasciviousness.
Slander by deed and maltreatment – the nature
and effect of maltreatment determines the crime
committed. If the offended party suffered from
shame or humiliation caused by the
maltreatment, it is slander by deed.
Slander by deed and unjust vexation – If it merely
annoys and irritates, without any other
concurring factor, it is unjust vexation. If the
irritation or annoyance was attended by publicity
and dishonor, it is slander by deed.
A.8. ARTICLE 360 - PERSONS RESPONSIBLE
FOR LIBEL
(1) The person who publishes, exhibits or
causes the publication or exhibition of any
defamation in writing or similar means.
(2) The author or editor of a book or pamphlet.
(3) The editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper, magazine or serial publication.
(4) The owner of the printing plant which
publishes a libelous article with his consent
and all other persons who in any way
participate in or have connection with its
publication.
Liability of the editor is the same as that of the
author.
Lack of participation in the preparation of
libelous articles does not shield the persons
responsible from liability.
Under Republic Act 8792, otherwise known as
the Electronic Commerce Act, a party or person
acting as a service provider incurs NO civil or
criminal liability in the making, publication,
dissemination or distribution of libelous material
if:
(1) The service provider does not have actual
knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or
Page 400 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
circumstances from which it is apparent
that making, publication, dissemination or
distribution of such material is unlawful or
infringes any rights;
(2) The service provider does not knowingly
receive a financial benefit directly
attributable to the infringing activity;
(3) The service provider does:
(a) not directly commit any infringement
or other unlawful act and
(b) does not induce or cause another
person or party to commit any
infringement or other unlawful act
(c) and/or does not benefit financially
from the infringing activity or unlawful
act of another person or party (Section
30, in relation to Section 5, E-
Commerce Law).
Where to file the criminal action? It depends on
who the offended party is.
If he is a public officer, the criminal action can
only be instituted in either:
(1) RTC of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first
published, OR
(2) RTC of the province or city where he held
office at the time of the commission of the
offense
If he is a private person, the criminal action may
be brought in:
(1) RTC of the province or city where the
libelous article is printed and first
published, OR
(2) RTC of the province or city where he
actually resided at the time of the
commission of the offense
In order to obviate controversies as to the venue
of the criminal action for written defamation, the
complaint or information should contain
allegations as to whether, at the time the
offense was committed, the offended party was
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
a public officer or a private individual and where
he was actually residing at that time.
Whenever possible, the place where the written
defamation was printed and first published
should likewise be alleged. That allegation
would be a sine qua non if the circumstance as
to where the libel was printed and first
published is used as the basis of the venue of the
action. [Macasaet v. People (2005)]
Civil and criminal action must be filed with the
same court.
Offended party must file the complaint for
defamation imputing a crime which cannot be
prosecuted de officio.
Libel imputing a vice or defect, not being an
imputation of a crime, is always prosecuted
upon information signed and filed by the fiscal.
A.9. ARTICLE 361 - PROOF OF TRUTH
When admissible?
(1) When the act or omission imputed
constitutes a crime regardless of whether
the offended party is a private individual or
a public officer.
(2) When the offended party is a Government
employee, even if the imputation does not
constitute a crime, provided it is related to
the discharge of his official duties.
Rule of actual malice [or malice in fact]: Even if
the defamatory statement is false, NO liability
can attach IF it relates to official conduct,
UNLESS the public official concerned proves
that the statement was made with actual
malice, i.e., with knowledge that it was false or
with reckless disregard of WON it was false.
That the publication of the article was an honest
mistake is not a complete defense but serves
only to mitigate damages where article is
libelous per se.
Page 401 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Libel against a public official
An open letter addressed to the stockholders of
OPMC was the subject of a full-page
advertisement published in 5 major daily
newspapers. Coyiuto, Jr., wrote in his capacity as
Chairman of the Board and President of OPMC,
that there was a sweetheart deal between
Commissioner Mario Jalandoni of the PCGG and
Rizal Commercial Banking Corp. (RCBC) to the
prejudice of the Government.
In the recent case of Vasquez v. Court of
Appeals, et. al., the Court ruled that: "The
question is whether from the fact that the
statements were defamatory, malice can be
presumed so that it was incumbent upon
petitioner to overcome such presumption. Under
Art. 361 of the Revised Penal Code, if the
defamatory statement is made against a public
official with respect to the discharge of his
official duties and functions and the truth of the
allegation is shown, the accused will be entitled
to an acquittal even though he does not prove
that the imputation was published with good
motives and for justifiable ends."
Moreover, the Court has ruled in a plethora of
cases that in libel cases against public officials
which relate to official conduct liability will
attach only if the public official concerned
proves that the statement was made with actual
malice, that is, with knowledge that it was false.
Imputations regarding official conduct do not
carry the presumption of malice, hence even if
the defamatory statement is false, if malice was
not proven, there is no libel. Here petitioner
failed to prove actual malice on the part of the
private respondents. Nor was the Court of the
opinion that the open letter was written to cast
aspersion on the good name of the petitioner.
The paid advertisement merely served as a
vehicle to inform the stockholders of the goings-
on in the business world and only exposed the
irregularities surrounding the PCGG and RCBC
deal and the parties involved. [Mario C.V
Jalandoni v Secretary of Justice(2000)]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

Truth is a legitimate defense but only under the
condition that the accused has been prompted
in making the statement by good motives and
for justifiable ends. [Disini v. Secretary of Justice
(2014)]
(2) By such an act, he incriminates or imputes
to an innocent person the commision of a
crime
(3) Such act does not constitute perjury.

There must be sufficient evidence to permit the INTRIGUING SLANDER INCRIMINATING

conclusion that the accused in fact entertained AGAINST INNOCENT
serious doubts as to the truth of the statement HONOR PERSON
he published. Gross/extreme negligence is not
sufficient to establish actual malice. The The source of Offender Offender
prosecution bears the burden of proving the the made the performs an act
presence of actual malice in instances where defamatory utterance, by which he
such element is required to establish guilt. The utterance is where the directly
defense of absence of actual malice, even when unknown and source of the incriminates or
the statement turns out to be false, is available the offender defamatory imputes to an
where the offended party is a public official or simply nature of the innocent person
public figure. repeats or utterance is the commission
passes the known, and of a crime
same to offender
Malice is presumed, however, when the offended blemish the makes a
party is a private individual. The law presumes honor or republication
its existence (RPC Art 354) and the accused has reputation of thereof
the burden of proof to show that he has a another
justifiable reason for the defamatory statement.

As far as this crime is concerned, this has been

A.10. ARTICLE 362 - LIBELOUS REMARKS interpreted to be possible only in the so-called
(1) Libelous remarks or comments planting of evidence. If this act is resorted to, to
enable officers to arrest the subject, the crime is
(2) connected with the matter privileged under
unlawful arrest through incriminating innocent
the provisions of Art. 354,
persons.
(3) if made with malice,
This crime cannot be committed through verbal
(4) shall NOT exempt the author thereof nor incriminatory statements.
the editor or managing editor of a
newspaper from criminal liability.
PERJURY BY DEFAMATIO
INCRIMINATIN MAKING N
Libelous remarks or comments on matters G INNOCENT FALSE
privileged, if made with malice in fact, do not PERSON ACCUSATION
exempt the author and editor. S

Act of planting Giving of false Public and

B. CHAPTER II: INCRIMINATORY evidence and statement malicious
MACHINATIONS the like in order under oath or imputation
to incriminate making a false calculated to
an innocent affidavit, cause
B.1. ARTICLE 363 - INCRIMINATING person imputing to dishonor,
INNOCENT PERSON the person the discredit, or
Elements: commission of contempt
a crime upon the
(1) Offender performs an act
Page 402 of 407
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

offended other similar means which may be devised in the

party
B.2. ARTICLE 364 - INTRIGUING AGAINST
HONOR
Elements:
(a) Offender disseminates any intrigue
(b) Its principal purpose is to blemish the honor
or reputation of a person.
Intriguing against honor is referred to as
gossiping: the offender, without ascertaining the
truth of a defamatory utterance, repeats the
same and pass it on to another, to the damage
of the offended party
future constitute the offense of cybercrime
punishable under the Anti-Cybercrime Law.
[Sec. 4(c)(4) R.A. 10175]
Penalty
All crimes defined and penalized by the RPC, as
amended, and special laws, if committed by,
through and with the use of information and
communications technologies shall be covered
by the relevant provisions of this Act: Provided,
That the penalty to be imposed shall be one (1)
degree higher than that provided for by the RPC,
as amended, and special laws, as the case may
be.[Sec. 4(c)(4) R.A. 10175]

Administrative Circular 08-2008 Re: Guidelines

in the Observance of a Rule of Preference in the
Imposition of Penalties in Libel Cases
(1) This Administrative Circular does not
remove imprisonment as an alternative
penalty for the crime libel under Article 355
of the RPC
(2) The Judges concerned may, in the exercise
of sound discretion, and taking into
consideration the peculiar circumstances of
each case, determine whether the
imposition of a fine alone would best serve
the interests of justice or whether
forbearing to impose imprisonment would
depreciate the seriousness of the offense,
work violence on the social order, or
otherwise be contrary to the imperative of
justice;
(3) Should only a fine be imposed and the
accused be unable to pay the fine, there is
no legal obstacle to the application of the
RPC provision on subsidiary imprisonment.

B.3. R.A.10175
THE CYBERCRIME PREVENTION ACT OF 2012

The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as

defined in Article 355 of the RPC, as amended,
committed through a computer system or any

Page 403 of 407

UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
XV. TITLE XIV. QUASI-
OFFENSES
ARTICLE 365 - IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
Quasi-offenses punished:
(1) Committing through reckless imprudence
any act which, had it been intentional,
would constitute a grave or less grave
felony or light felony;
(2) Committing through simple imprudence or
negligence an act which would otherwise
constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
(3) Causing damage to the property of another
through reckless imprudence or simple
imprudence or negligence;
(4) Causing through simple imprudence or
negligence some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light
felony.
IMPRUDENCE NEGLIGENCE
Lack of skill Lack of foresight
Deficiency of action Deficiency of perception
Failure in precaution Failure in advertence
Imprudence or negligence is not a crime itself; it
is simply a way of committing a crime. It
becomes punishable only when it results in a
crime.
The rules for graduating penalties (under Art.
64) based on mitigating and aggravating
circumstances are NOT applicable to offenses
punishable thru criminal negligence.
Qualifying Circumstance: failure to render
immediate assistance to the injured party. This
qualifying circumstance must be distinguished
from the punishable OMISSION under Article
275.
Page 404 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
If the danger that may result from the criminal
negligence is clearly perceivable, the
imprudence is reckless. If it could hardly be
perceived, the criminal negligence would only be
SIMPLE.
Criminal negligence is only a modality in
incurring criminal liability. This is so because
under Article 3, a felony may result from dolo or
culpa. THEREFORE, even if there are several
results arising from ONLY ONE
CARELESSNESS, the accused may only be
prosecuted under one count for the criminal
negligence. Otherwise, double jeopardy would
arise.
Elements of Reckless Imprudence:
(a) The offender does or fails to do an act
(b) The doing of or the failure to do the act is
voluntary
(c) It is without malice
(d) Material damage results
(e) There is inexcusable lack of precaution on
the part of the offender, taking into
consideration:
(1) His employment/occupation
(2) Physical condition
(3) Degree of intelligence
(4) Other circumstances regarding the
persons, time and place
Note:
(1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide
(2) Resulting in Physical Injuries
Inexcusable lack of precaution
Factors to be considered in determining
inexcusable lack of precaution:
(1) Employment or occupation
(2) Degree of intelligence and physical
condition of the offender; and
(3) Other circumstances regarding persons,
time, and place.
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Force majeure is an event which cannot be
foreseen, or which being foreseen is inevitable; it
implies an extraordinary circumstance
independent of the will of the actor.
Once malice is proven, recklessness disappears.
[People v. Agliday (2001)}
Elements of Simple Imprudence
(a) There is lack of precaution on the part of the
offender
(b) The damage impending to be caused is not
immediate or the danger is not clearly
manifest.
Test of Negligence: Would a prudent man, in the
position of the person to whom negligence is
attributed, foresee harm as a result of the course
actually pursued? If so, it was the duty of the
actor to refrain from that course or to take
precautions against its mischievous results, and
the failure to do so constitutes negligence.
The measure of the damage should be the
difference in value of property immediately
before the incident and immediately after the
repair.
Art. 64 relative to mitigating and aggravating
circumstances is not applicable to crimes
committed through negligence.
The penalties provided in Art. 365 are not
applicable in the ff. cases:
(1) When the penalty provided for the offense is
equal to or lower than those provided in the
first two paragraphs of Art. 365, in which
case the courts shall impose the penalty
next lower in degree that that which should
be imposed, in the period which they may
deem proper to apply.
(2) When, by imprudence or negligence and
with violation of the Automobile Law, the
death of a person shall be caused, in which
case the defendant shall be punished by
Page 405 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods.
When death or serious bodily injury to any
person has resulted, the motor vehicle driver at
fault shall be punished under the Penal Code.
Contributory negligence is not a defense. It only
mitigates criminal liability.
Sec. 59 of Act 3992 (Revised Motor Vehicle Law)
gives the right of way to the driver coming from
the right of another, when both are travelling on
intersecting streets of the same class. The grant
of right of way does not relieve the motorist from
the duty of keeping a lookout for motorists
entering the intersection from his left or right.
Doctrine of last clear chance
The contributory negligence of the party injured
will not defeat the action if it be shown that the
accused might, by exercise of reasonable care
and prudence, have avoided the consequences
of the negligence of the injured party.
Emergency rule
An automobile driver who, by negligence of
another and not by his own negligence, is
suddenly placed in an emergency and
compelled to act instantly to avoid collision or
injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes such
a choice which a person of ordinary prudence
placed in such situation might make even
though he did not make the wisest choice.
One who suddenly finds himself in a place of
danger, and is required to act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger, is not guilty of
negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to
have been a better method, unless the
emergency in which he finds himself is brought
about by his own negligence. [Gan v. CA (1988)]
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2
Violation of a rule or regulation or law is proof of
negligence. But negligence cannot be
predicated upon the mere fact of minority or lack
of an operator’s license.
The penalty next higher in degree is imposed if
the offender fails to lend on the spot to the
injured parties such help as may be in his hands
to give.
Carillo v. People (1994): The gravamen of
SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE is the failure to exercise
the diligence necessitated or called for by the
situation which was NOT immediately life-
destructive BUT which culminated, as in the
present case, in the death of a human being 3
days later.
Medical malpractice, which is a form of
negligence, consists in the failure of a physician
or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine
that degree of care and skill which is ordinarily
employed by the profession generally, under
similar conditions, and in like surrounding
circumstances. [Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio
(1997)]
Res ipsa loquitur – the fact of the occurrence of
an injury, taken with the surrounding
circumstances, may permit an inference or raise
a presumption of negligence, or make out a
plaintiff’s prima facie case, and present a
question of fact for the defendant to meet with
an explanation. [Ramos v. CA (1999)]
Requisites for the application of res ipsa loquitur
(1) The accident was of a kind which does NOT
ordinarily occur UNLESS someone is
negligent;
(2) The instrumentality or agency which caused
the injury was under the exclusive control of
the person in charge; and
(3) The injury suffered must NOT have been
due to any voluntary action or contribution
of the person injured.
Page 406 of 407
CRIMINAL LAW
Ordinarily, only physicians and surgeons of skill
and experience are competent to testify as to
whether a patient has been treated or operated
upon with a reasonable degree of skill and care.
HOWEVER, testimony as to the statements and
acts of physicians and surgeons, external
appearances, and manifest conditions which are
observable by any one may be given by non-
expert witnesses. [Reyes v. Sis. of Mercy Hospital
(2000)]
Illustration:
People v. Carmen (2001): It would appear that
accused-appellants are members of a cult and
that the bizarre ritual performed over the victim
was consented to by the victim's parents. With
the permission of the victim's parents, accused-
appellant Carmen, together with the other
accused-appellants, proceeded to subject the
boy to a "treatment" calculated to drive the "bad
spirit" from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the
strange procedure resulted in the death of the
boy. Thus, accused-appellants had no criminal
intent to kill the boy.
Their liability arises from their reckless
imprudence because they ought that to know
their actions would not bring about the cure.
They are, therefore, guilty of reckless
imprudence resulting in homicide and not of
murder.
Art. 365 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
states that reckless imprudence consists in
voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing
to do an act from which material damage results
by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on
the part of the person performing such act.
Compared to intentional felonies, such as
homicide or murder, what takes the place of the
element of malice or intention to commit a
wrong or evil i: the failure of the offender to take
precautions due to lack of skill taking into
account his employment, or occupation, degree
of intelligence, physical condition, and other
UP LAW BOC CRIMINAL LAW 2 CRIMINAL LAW

circumstances regarding persons, time and

place.

The elements of reckless imprudence are

apparent in the acts done by accused-appellants
which, because of their lack of medical skill in
treating the victim of his alleged ailment,
resulted in the latter's death. As already stated,
accused-appellants, none of whom is a medical
practitioner, belong to a religious group, known
as the Missionaries of Our Lady of Fatima, which
is engaged in faith healing.

Ivler v. Modesto-San Pedro (2010):The accused

got involved in a car accident for which he was
charged with two separate offenses (RI resulting
to slight physical injuries and RI resulting to
homicide and damage to property). He was
convicted of the first offense and he wanted the
second information quashed on the ground of
double jeopardy. The Court held that the
Reckless Imprudence is a single crime and the
consequences on persons and property are
material only to determine the penalty. The
conviction or acquittal of such quasi-offense
bars subsequent prosecution for the same quasi-
offense, regardless of its various resulting acts.
The law penalizes the negligent act and not its
result.

Rafael Reyes Trucking v. People (2000): Much of

the confusion has arisen from the common use
of such descriptive phrase as 'homicide through
reckless imprudence', and the like; when the
strict technical sense is, more accurately,
'reckless imprudence resulting in homicide'; or
'simple imprudence causing damages to
property'."

Page 407 of 407