Art 346.

Art 347.
 Concealment to lose the civil status of the child is explained by the favorite
story re: Senator Poe
o If an abandonment will result to conceal the illegitimacy of Poe, it will
be a violation of Art 347.
Simulation of Births
 Usual example: Most of men are married couples without any children
 Middle 40s and a woman who cant have a child have their own way of
simulating the birth of a child
o H &W married for 14 years and still possible for a wife to conceive
o If in the province, the wife in order to stimulate the birth will tell the
chismis gang Mare I’m delayed by 2 months, My husband and I will go
to Manila for the check-up.
o The child is given inside a box with all pertinent papers in exchange
for the money
o Although the wife didn’t get pregnant, the wife is shown to have been
given birth (through documents)
o Then introduce to everybody the child as their own
Substitution of one child
 Exchange your child for another
Amended by Trafficking persons – RA 9208
 Life imprisonment for SIMULATION of Birth
Art 348.
 When carrying young people by the sea and lose one of the child. Then after
10 yrs, here come a man presenting a picture of their son and says I am your
son.
 But in reality he is not the son but he is trying to usurp the child’s status.
 MAGPANGGAP KA NA ANAK PERO HINDI TALAGA
 Defraud the parents of the child/the heirs
Art 349.
 Atty. Bede Tabalincos Case (AC6622)
 http://phlawnotes.blogspot.com/2013/09/manuel-g-villatuya-v-atty-bede-
s.html
 In order to be convicted, the second and third marriage must be VALID.
o If there is assemblance of void marriage, it can’t be.
 Simulated marriage / marriage by an unauthorized officiator is not allowed

 Second spouse need not be liable since she might not know that his or her
future spouse is already married
 Prosecutor must see to it that tere is PROBABLE CAUSE and there is proof
that the pther person knows that the person is married
o If he doesn’t know then it’s a matter of offense
 Both parties contracting the marriage must be both impleaded in the case
since it’s a PUBLIC OFFENSE
 o Each bigamous marriage is a separate offense filed under this article
o So if 2 bigamous marriages, then 2 separate cases of bigamy
 Exemption: Sharia Law
o Max of 4 wives as long as he can support them and with the consent of
the 1st wife
o Not criminally liable
Art 350.
 Contracted and he knew that he is suffering from impediments
 Must have been officiated by someone who has authority to conduct such
marriage
 Violation of Art 350 if same-sex marries here

Art 351
 Not in effect/repealed already since scientific way of tracing one’s DNA
composition
 Any person may be identified through his DNA. So no more problems with a
woman having her husband die.

Art 352.
 Those who officiate marriage without AUTHORITY

Art 353 – 354

 Public and malicious
 Published / Broadcasted
 Cause dishonor or defame a person
 Carries with it moral turpitude
 If there is malice, even if it is true it is LIBEL

Art 355
 “Any similar means”
 By means of publication
*Sec. Obial: Issue with 9208”
 Duque issued another IRR
 ISSUE ON WHY IRRs ARENT BINDING
Justice Peralta book on CRIMINAL LAW
 We basically consulted sir for the legal technique problem hahaha

Art 356.
 Envelopmental journalism – blackmail
Art 357.
 Reporter, editor, or manager is liable
 If it’s simply a publication that has happened in official proceeding and
quoting it – no libel
 The remarks or comments is what makes it a libelous one
o Impute something that is wrong
  Here no comments or remarks but is not allowed to be published
Art 358-359
Take note of DIFFERENT KINDS OF SLANDER
 Oral defamation
o Said in oral
o Unlike libel wherein it is in writing
 But (Theatrical) EXHIBITIONS even if not in writing is still libel
o Uttered orally
o But if said in the radio it’s libel already
 Serious slander
 Slander by deed
o Slapping the face of another person
o Spitting on his face
o
 Last ¶, Art 359: Is not of serious nature is called SLIGHT SLANDER BY
DEED (Art 359-B)
o Made a sign (like fuck you sign/dirty finger sign)
o Put your finger in your nose in front of someone
 Slander by deed and oral defamation has the same purpose BUT different
means
Art 360.
 Any person who shall publish or cause the publication
 As long as it is in writing

People
 Only the city and provincial prosector can Preliminary Investigate in case of
libel (no assistant)
 If the person conducted that conducted the PI is only an assistant prosecutor,
you can ask for the dismissal of the case since it’s a violation of 360.
Jurisidiction
 Private individual
o Prosecutor must file the libel case before the place of residence, RTC
that has jurisdiction
 Published
o Libelous was printed and first published in any publication it is
different when a person is a public officer or employee (3 venue
choices):
 RTC of Place of residence
 File it before the place it was printed and first published
 Place where he is performing his duties as public officer
 Petition of change of venue is allowed
Other notes on Libel
 Libel is imbued with moral turpitude even if penalty is correctional in nature,
person is disqualified from all of public office.
o Brillantes (an opponent of Binay) case
For Cyber libel (Pierre’s case)
 Place of residence who was the subject of the publication
 Or the imputation was printed and first published
 IRR is oly supposed to promulgate interim rules and regulations – they
cannot add anything more.
o No provision on penalties
Proof of truth
 Codal
 If true, good intention/motive, for justifiable ends, and not motivated by
malice (even if with intention that is good) = acquitted
 It is different if the person to whom the person is being alluded is a gov’t
employee/public officer
o The proof of truth is not admissible
o It can’t be admitted UNLESS it is facts related to the discharge of
their office
o Otherwise, proof of truth is NOT a defense.
Art 362.
 Privileged matters:
o Two kinds of communication:
 ABSOLUTELY privileged
 Libel may not be actionable even if it is in bad faith
 Ex: Priest-confessant; lawyer-client
 So if the communication is violated then it is not
actionable
 For sir: He thinks this is wrong cos it violates
confidentiality
 QUALIFIEDLY privileged
 Not actionable unless made with malice or bad faith
o When a lawyer and client revealed to each certain matters, lawyer is
bound by the lawyer-client relationship.
 The moment he reveals, he violates this relationship
 Court may punish him for violating his oath
 Same with a doctor-patient
 Limitation to the defense of privileged communication
o One can still be liable
o If there is malice = liable

Additional notes:
o Malice is presumed
 But there must be positive identification
 How to overcome:
 Showing that the accused published it with good
intentions/justifiable motive exists/communication
made is privileged (especially absolutely privilege), and
 it must prove the truth (when cases allow truth as a
defense)
 There must be positive identification of the offended
o if not identified, no conviction
o UNLESS it’s a group
o 27 SCRA 52
 Comments like describing him with qualities which the plaintiff
do not deserve because of social and political status in life
 publication is libelous
o Two types of Malice
 Malice in law v malice in fact (Beda memaid)
 In law: Presumed
 In fact:
 Better to defend if it’s defamatory without bad motive
o Art 353
 If addressed to the group IT is NOT LIBEL
 Sir: if the group is known to the genral public, it could
be libelous
o If the communication is privileged, is it a matter of course
 Not a good ground for a dismissal for a complaint of libel
 It’s only a matter of defense
 Privileged communication doesn’t mean it’s not actionable
 It just brushes away the presumption of malice
 Source: Jurisprudence
Art 363.
 What if in a civil or criminal proceeding a defendant and told the court that it
wasn’t me who committed it and it’s in fact Juan Dela Cruz. The defendant’s
statement is false, am I guilty of Art 363 or false testimony?
o Rules of false testimony:
o If it’s against the accused there is a need of finality of the judgment not
liable yet
o If it’s acquittal and against the accused it’s final and executory liable
already unless a petition for certiorari was filed
o The person who gave false testimony is the accused itself it’s false
testimony not Art 363.
 Art 9165
o Planting of evidence is punishable by life imprisonment
Art 364.
 If defamation source is identifiable = oral defamation
o Slight oral defamation is similar to other light threats
 If oral defamation was committed during times when feelings
are running high and there is a quarrel crime committed even
if serious in character is only slight oral defamation.
 Putang ina mo: Not oral defamation; it’s just an expression BUT
if there is emphasis, that will be different.
  If defamation source is not identifiable but the one spreading it can be
identified – intriguing against honor

Art 365.
 Penalty is different
 CODAL
 Important to distinguish whether IMPRUDENCE or NEGLIGENCE
o Imprudence: Penalty is higher (p. correc medium)
o Negligence: Penalty up to Arresto Mayor only (med and max if grave
felony; if less grave, minimum)
 The court is given the widest discretion in the imposition of this article
 Simple imprudence: lack of precaution
 Reckless imprudence cases:
o By simple negligence a person may be held criminally liable and the
employer is civilly liable by vicarious liability
o How to determine if negligent:
 defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent
person would have used in the same situation (Picart v Smith)
 Art 365 not applicable:
o Art 64: Modifying circumstance w/c may not be applicable (confused)
o Reckless imprudence no mitigating and aggravating
 Only aggravating: when you abandon
o Contributory is not a defense only mitigating
 Automobile laws
o Contributory negligence will not defeat the action
o Doctrine of last clear chance
 When a person crossed while the pedestrian stoplight is on red
but you still have ample time to step on the breaks
 People v Carillo
o Tranquiolizer which triggered a heart attack and brain damage
o Simple negligence resulting to homicide
o MALPRACTICE IN MEDICINE
 Ivler Case Doctrine
o US marine who shoots
o Person who is acquitted who is in the other case. Other case may still
be acquitted
 Force Majeure
o Inevitable Extraordinary circumstance independent of the will fo the
actor the immediate personal act or damage is (..)
 Driving within a speed limit does not guarantee exemption
o Not acceptable example of due care
 SPL important:
 RA 7610
 Anti Torture Act
 Anti Hazing Law
 RA 7438
 These are the laws rel. to physical injuries, homicide, and other laws we’ve
discussed.