Criminal law October 2, 2014

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

When you say crimes against persons it talks about killing. Now, there are several crimes that involve killing.
Example A killed B. What is the liability? You cannot answer that properly. You have to determine several facts
first.

You can answer that by the process of elimination. So first lets talk about yung baby pa, yung infanticide.
Article 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall
be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her
dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said
crime be committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall
be prision mayor.

Killing of a person who is 3 days old. That is infanticide. Please take note that it does not matter who the killer is
because the article says the offender can be any person. So if the offender is the parent or a stranger it does not
matter as long as the victim is less than 3 days old. Now, what point usually raised here is that there are babies
born na hindi full term. Meaning hindi umabot ng 9 months. If they are killed right after they are born,
infanticide parin yan kasi ang importante jan less than 3 days old.

Another issue there is when the accused will claim that the baby had an intrauterine life of less than 7 months
and was killed within 24 hours from the moment of birth. Pointing to an article in the civil code. Yung gud na if
the baby survives within the 24 hours he will be considered a person. Will that argument be valid? Well that
article in the civil code start with the phrase FOR CIVIL PURPOSES. In other words that article will only apply
to civil cases. Para sa criminal cases, as far as the revised penal code is concerned, bahala na kung unsa ang
intrauterine life diha basta when the baby is born and you killed that baby na less than 3 days old pa, infanticide
parin yan!

Now, when you look at the article it says there na ang penalty for parricide and murder shall be imposed.
Actually wala na yang distinction kasi the penalty for murder and parricide are now the same. Who ever the
killer is, whether a stranger or the parent, the penalty will be the same and that is Reclusion perpetua to Death.

Now, if the baby is more than 3 days old, he is still considered an infant diba. Pero this time the crime is
different na and It will depend on who the killer is. First, if the killer is the parent then it will fall under parricide.

Article 246. Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be
punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.

So please take note of that. kasi pag sinabi mong parricide it is always in the direct line tapos by blood. So
even if utol mo pinatay mo, is that direct line? By blood siguro pero not direct line! So therefore, it will not fall
under parricide. Ang parricide kasi direct line and by blood. Always remember that. And take note, when you
talk about father, mother, or child, the relationship may be legitimate or illegitimate.

BUT, when you talk about ascendant, descendants, and including the spouse, the relationship must now be
legitimate. Otherwise, they will not be parricide. For example, common law spouses, pinatay yung partner niya,
that will not fall under parricide because the relationship is not legitimate.

Now, Supposing a husband asks someone to kill his spouse. This is an example where there is a conspiracy diba?
And as you know na in conspiracy the act of one is the act of all. But here, although the act one of one is the act
of the other, THE CRIME OF ONE IS NOT THE CRIME OF THE OTHER. Because the relationship factor is not there
to the one who was assigned to kill the spouse. As to the husband, siya ang principal for parricide. Kato iyang
kasabot na killer, ibang crime yung sa kanya kasi wala naman cya relationship dun sa pinatay.

Now, next would be murder. Kasi nga process of elimination tayo diba. So, kunwari hindi less than 3 days old,
so wala na infanticide. Hindi rin father, mother, child, so hindi na rin parricide. So sa murder na tayo.

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, 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.
So murder is just killing someone outside of infanticide and parricide but with qualifying circumstances. The
qualifying circumstances are provided in article 248. So if the killing is attended by any of those mentioned, then
the crime because murder. So kung wala ang mga circumstances na yan, then it will not fall under murder, dun
yan mahuhulog sa homicide. So always remember the process of elimination ha. Tingnan mo muna if
infanticide, if hindi pasok dun then check mo sa parricide, if hindi parin then you check if murder if nandun ba
yung mga circumstances mentioned, if wala then homicide nay an.
Now, back to murder. If you have noticed, the circumstances listed are the same as those listed as aggravating
circumstances sa article 14. So, the principles that we have talked about article 14 are the same principles that
will apply if we talk about the circumstances in murder. So lahat yun, like treachery. Diba dapat the victim
should not be in the position to defend himself etc. so lahat un, lahat ng principles dun sa articles 14, you apply
those principles when you qualify the crime to murder.
What is different lang is yung etong number 6. yung scoffing or outraging at the person or the corpse. that is
not found in article 14 diba. So its not an aggravating circumstance, it is a qualifying circumstance. That is one
circumstance that qualifies the crime to murder but is not provided in article 14.
Ok, one question would be what if marami ang qualifying circumstances present in the killing? Kasi like I said,
anyone of them is sufficient to qualify the crime to murder. Pano if magsama sama yan? Like if may treachery
tapos may reward tapos may scoffing pa and etc. sa pano yan? ANG RULE JAN IS PILI KA LANG NG ISA TO
QUALIFY TAPOS THE REST YOU USE THEM AS AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES. Iba iba man yun. kasi diba
qualifying circumstances are those which change the nature of the crime. They do not exclude others. They are
not mutually exclusive. You can still use the others. So, one is used to qualify then the other is used to increase
the penalty to the maximum as long as you do not exceed the maximum penalty provided for by law diba.

Now, please do not forget also dun sa criminal procedure na all those circumstances should be ALLEGED
otherwise they cannot be considered to qualify the offense. Kelangan andun yan. If wala, then you cannot
charge murder.
So next topic would be the basic killing. Homicide. So if hindi mahulog sa infanticide, parricide, murder, then
homicide na yan.
Wait, please take note ha that under the child abuse law RA 7610, the killing of the child below 12 years old is
punished by reclusion perpetua. Kasi yung kanina, ung parricide, murder, infanticide perpetua yan. Ang
homicide naman is temporal. But if the victim if a child below 12 years old, the penalty would be different, the
penalty is perpetua.
Now, next would be ang pinaka sikat na provision ditto. Article 247.
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. - Any legally married person
who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any
of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical
injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters
under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
Now, remember ha na when you talk about 247, pwede ang death OR physical injuries dito. So
magapply parin ang 247 even if you were not able to kill the victim. Kahit physical injuries lang ang na inflict mo,
pwede parin gamitin ang article na ito.
Ok, we said that 247 is not realy a crime. Pero ang tanong ko naman is if it is not a crime, bakit nakalagay na
man jan na shall suffer a penalty of destierro. And diba ang basic principal natin diba is nullum crimen nulla
poena sine lege, and diba if there is a penalty attached then there is a crime. Now, when you kill someone you
will not be charged under article 247! You will be charged by murder or parricide. BUT you can use this article
247 as a DEFENSE. Ang sabi mo I killed them under the circumstances of article 247. sabihin mo na I killed them
DURING the act of sexual intercourse. So pasok ka na diba? So you use this as a defense. So klaro na ha?
DURING dapat diba?

So pano if BEFORE the act? Example, Pag uwi mo sa bahay, may narinig ka sa kwarto. Pag silip mo naghubad na
sila. Pumasok ka tapos pinag babaril mo silang dalawa. Now, nasa court ka na tapos sabi mo sa judge your
honor I invoke article 247 as a defense. Tapos tinanong ka ng judge, did you catch them during the act of sexual
intercourse? Ang sabi mo padulong na man toh your honor kay nag hubo na gani sila. The judge will ask you
again, BUT did you catch them DURING sexual intercourse? Jan na papasok ang problema mo! YOU MUST
CATCH THEM IN THE ACT OF SEXUAL INTERCOUSE!
Marami nga ang pumapalag dito eh, kelangan mo pa bang antayin na pumasok yung ari before mo patayin? That
seems to be unfair diba? Also take note na this would apply to both husband and wife ha. Ang wife, pwede rin
nya iinvoke ito. Anyway, that is the rule ha. You have to remember this is still killing somebody kasi. Actually,
this is a benefit kasi isipin mo naka patay ka tapos ang penalty mo lang is destierro. So, when you kill someone
and avail of article 247, it will be STRICTLY CONSTRUED against you. So, that is a basic requirement, that you
must catch them in the act of sexual intercourse. So if before sexual intercourse, kanang naghubo pa sila, dili pa
na pwede. Kahit na sabi mo na ABOUT TO or very very near na your honor, hindi parin pwede yan! Unsaon ta
man wala pa man nisulod.
Now, going back, basic requirement is that you must surprise them in the act of sexual intercourse. Now, what
is this phrase or immediately thereafter doing here? So you mean pwede pala na supposing you catch them na
naka bihis na or andun pa pero naka higa na, naga yosi2x na lang. They were just lying down na. pasok ka ba sa
sa 247? NO! kasi na dapat in the act of sexual intercourse. So what is the meaning of this phrase immediately
thereafter? THIS TALKS ABOUT THE KILLING. The law authorizes you to kill them after you have caught them
IN THE ACT. So you can kill them after. SO YOU MUST FIRST CATCH THEM DURING THE ACT OF SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE, THEN YOU HAVE THE OPTION TO KILL THEM DURING OR IMMEDIATELY THEREAFTER.
Now, what is the meaning of the word immediately? How is it used in the provision? Does it meaning pag
human jud mismo sa jer2x? May isang case jan, yung case ni Alano, yung misis nya nag paalam na alis muna ako
may bibilhin lang ako sa tindahan. Now, yung husband nagtaka na kasi ang tagal bumalik ng asawa nya. So he
went looking for his wife. Pag dating nya dun sa may bushes may narinig siya. Pag silip nya nakita nya dun ang
asawa nya. So pagkakita nya, tumakbo yung lalaki, so he went after the guy pero hindi nya naabutan kasi ang
bilis tumakbo. So what did he do? He went back to the bushes pero wala na dun ang asawa nya. So he went
home. Pag dating nya sa bahay, andun ang asawa nya. Dun pa nya gibirahan. Gi patay nya asawa nya dun. So is
that covered under the phrase immediately thereafter?

Yes! That is a continuous sequence.

So ang

immediately thereafter is not literal. As long as proximate dapat. There is that relation of cause and effect. It is
a continuous offense.
Distinguish that from another case. Nakita niya sa bahay niya, so in the act. Pero umalis siya, naghanap muna
siya ng weapon, bolo. Unya balik siya. Sabi ng Court, that is not covered.

But again, the most famous of them all, Abarca. Kato kay nihawa man pud siya. Kato kay nasurprise niya, pero
nasurprise pud siya kay napusilan siya. Abtik pud tong cholokoy. Lakaw siya, nangita pud ug weapon. Sabi ng
Court in this case, proximate pa rin yan. There is still a relation of cause and effect. The duration there was more
or less one hour yata. Doon niya na kita sa mahjongan, dun niya pinatay.

So take note of these cases. Yan yung "immediately thereafter" na problematic diyan. Walang problem kung
during kay klaro man. Wala ding problema kung immediately thereafter na literal. Ang problema mo niyan, kung
hindi doon sa situs, doon sa ibang place na. Whether it's a continuing event or not. Kasi if it can be considered
continuing, Abarca ka. Kung hindi, pasensya. You can avail of the other circumstances, pero you cannot avail of
247.

There's one more issue pala dun. Kasi, in Abarca, meron siyang tinamaan na ibang mga tao aside from the
cholokoy. Did he commit a crime against them? Remember the principle in Article 4, that one is responsible for
all the direct, natural and logical consequences of one's action. That is the doctrine of proximate cause. But
remember always, that that applies if you are committing a felony. You are committing a crime, kung anong
mangyari diyan, that which you did not intend, you are still responsible. You are still responsible even if that was
not the crime which you intended.

In this case of Abarca, he will responsible for the injuries of the other people there if he was committing a
felony. Kay Abarca, he can avail of the benefit of 247, but he should not have been negligent. Such that, doon
siya pinasok sa reckless imprudence. Kaya hindi siya liable kasi he is considered as not committing a felony, so
Article 4 will not apply.

So in this case of People v. Wagas:

The law is strict on this, authorizing as it does, a man to chastise her,

even with death. But killing the

errant spouse as a purification must is so severe as that it can only be justified when the unfaithful spouse
if caught in flagrante delicto; and it must be resorted to only with great caution so much so that the law
requires that it be inflicted only during the sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter.

Ito na mang illegal possession of firearms, RA 8294. What you need to know here, when you use a firearm in the
killing, homicide or murder, aggravating na yan. Wala nang separate crime of illegal possession. It serves to
aggravate the killing.

Take note also of unlicensed firearms because it includes firearms with license but expired. Pareho ra na.

Now, let's go to 251, Tumultuous affray.

Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. When, while several persons, not composing groups
organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault
each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone is killed, and it
cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who shall have used
violence upon the person of the victim.

You have to remember here pag muingon ug tumultuous affray, grupo, daghan. Daghang tao, nagsinumbagay,
binigyanay.

"Quarrel and assault each other in a confused" - riot siya kumbaga. Please be cautious also because not all riots
will fall under this article. Kasi may mga riot diba between versus mga gang, Batang City Jail versus Sputnik gang.
Klaro man na grupo sila pero ang dito kasi "not composing groups organized for the common purpose of
assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally".

In other words, when you say tumultuous affray, it's really a free for all. Diri, way klaro kinsay kalaban kinsay
amigo. Pag rumble, klaro man na kung unsan grupo sila. Dili sila tumultuous affray.

Now, dito sa 251, may namatay. Here, the person cannot be identified. Sabi "in the course of the affray
someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who
inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor."
Kung hindi malaman sinong nakapatay, hanapin mo ngayon kung sino yung nag inflict ng serious physical
injuries.

If it cannot be determined also who inflicted the serious physical injuries, hanapin mo ngayon anyone who
inflicted violence. Those are the persons you will hold liable.

Please take note also that the person killed here need not be part of the affray. Kung bystander or nagtan-aw
lang didto, kasama yan dito.

Now, 252.

Art. 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. When in a tumultuous affray as referred to in the
preceding article, only serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the participants thereof and the person
responsible thereof cannot be identified, all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the
offended party shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided for the physical injuries so
inflicted.
When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious nature and the person responsible therefor cannot be
identified, all those who appear to have used any violence upon the person of the offended party shall be
punished by arresto mayor from five to fifteen days.

Now ito, physical injuries lang. Similar to 251, hindi mo malaman ngayon sino ang nag inflict ng physical injuries.
So here, "all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party shall suffer the
penalty next lower in degree than that provided for the physical injuries so inflicted." So those who appear to
have used violence shall be responsible.

So yung second paragraph, yung less serious nature, ang punishment is arresto mayor from five to fifteen days.
Wala gihapon ko kasabot ana hangtod karon. Ngano man? Unsa diay ang arresto mayor? 1 month and 1 day to 6
months. Paano naging arresto mayor yan? Pwede mong sabihin ito ang gi-impose ng law. Pero gi-menor dapat
na. But when there is a conflict, the law will always prevail.

Problema mo ngayon, less serious yan, paano kung slight? Ibig sabihin diyan, hindi gilagay ang slight, walang
penalty. So the intent is not to punish pag slight.

Art. 253. Giving assistance to suicide. Any person who shall assist another to commit suicide shall suffer the
penalty of prision mayor; if such person leads his assistance to another to the extent of doing the killing
himself, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. However, if the suicide is not consummated, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, shall be imposed.

It's a crime to assist someone to commit suicide. But the person himself who wants to commit suicide is not
liable. Wala siyay sala. Pero if you assist, to the extent of doing the killing, the penalty is the same as homicide.
Kasi, gipatay mo pa rin siya. Pareho lang yan. Kung hindi yun ang extent, prision mayor.

And it does not matter who is the person giving assistance. Because the law says any person.

Art. 254. Discharge of firearms. Any person who shall shoot at another with any firearm shall suffer the
penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, unless the facts of the case are such that

the act can be held to constitute frustrated or attempted parricide, murder, homicide or any other crime for
which a higher penalty is prescribed by any of the Articles of this Code.

Discharge, we talked about this already. This should be without intent to kill. Although it says you "shoot at
another". So unsa man diay na? Tapos walay intent to kill. Kamo na lang sabot kung kailan yang mangyari. Imong
gipusil ang isa ka tao without intent to kill.

So let's go to Abortion.

Abortion, nasa loob pa, infanticide, lumabas na.

Art. 256. Intentional abortion. Any person who shall intentionally cause an
abortion shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have
consented.

Art. 257. Unintentional abortion. The penalty of prision correccional in its

minimum and medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but
unintentionally.

When you say intentional, the intent really is to abort. The penalties there will differ.

The usual case given: The husband inflicts violence on the wife who is pregnant. Tapos the wife dies and she was
pregnant so aborted. Anong crime yan? You have to distinguish. Kung talagang sinadya na mag-inflict ng
violence para ma-abort, iba yun. Doon ka sa intentional. Dito, unintentional. But there is violence inflicted on the
wife, kaya lang yung abortion diyan is unintentional. But you have the rule in complex crime wherein a single act
results in two or more grave or less grave felonies. So, parricide and unintentional abortion.

Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. The penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself
or shall consent that any other person should do so.
Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the

consent of said woman for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.

Take note that the penalty is lower if the crime is committed to conceal the dishonor. Usually ito nung unang
panahon kasi dati pag sabihin buntis ka tapos di kilala yung tatay, big deal yan. So some people resort to
abortion. The penalty is lower. Included diyan sa Article yung parents.

Art. 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel. The penalty of reclusion

temporal shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill his adversary in a duel.
If he shall inflict upon the latter physical injuries only, he shall suffer the penalty provided therefor, according
to their nature.
In any other case, the combatants shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, although no physical injuries have
been inflicted.

Now itong itong Duel, I don't think meron pang mafile-an niyan ngayon. Kasi a duel is a formal combat. May mga
ritual yan. Have you seen the movie Barry Lyndon? Yan ang duel. Count to 10, lakad kayo. Tapos you choose
your weapon. Meron kang mga alalay. Formal yan. Mga karaan yan.

Art. 261. Challenging to a duel. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall challenge another, or incite another to give or accept a challenge to a duel, or shall
scoff at or decry another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel.

It's also a crime to challenge someone to a duel. Also included is "to scoff at or decry another publicly for having
refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel." Ano yan? Nanganchaw. Ingnan nimog "Waa talawan! Gichallenge
sa duel, hadlok man."

Criminal Law Review October 3, 2014

PHYSICAL INJURIES: the common perception of people is that there are 3 kinds diba, serious, less serious and
slight. Under physical injuries, Chapter 2, the 1st kind of injury is actually MUTILATION. What is Mutilation?
Under 262- any person who shall intentionally mutilate another by depriving him either totally or partially, of
some essential organ of reproduction.

Here, we have 2 kinds of MUTILATION:

1.) The 1st one is Castration- yan yung you deprive somebody of an essential organ of reproduction. If you
deprive somebody of that, dili nah sya ordinary physical injuries, pinakaserious jud nah.
2.) Now the other is Mayhem. Diba in Castration is essential organ, yung mayhem naman is ANY OTHER
PART OF THE BODY other than the essential organ of reproduction. The limbs, arms, legs. That is
mayhem although it is also called mutilation.

Now, suppose during a fight, the essential organ of reproduction is cut off. Naay samurai, naigoh ang essential
organ. Unsa man i-file nimo? When you say mutilation, the object, the purpose, the intent is to deprive the
victim of the essential organ of reproduction or in the case of mayhem, to deprive the victim of any other part of
the body. That should be the intent to fall under mutilation, because if that is not the intent then it would fall
under the other physical injuries. Hanapin na lang dun, maraming klaseng physical injuries kasi.

Now, Article 263, eto na yung start nung physical injuries that many people know. In 263 which is SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURIES. Iba-ibang klase ito, iba-iba ang penalty sa kind of injury inflicted. What is common here in all
these kinds of physical injuries is the manner of inflicting the physical injuries. If you look at the first part, yan
yung manner.

Article 263. Serious physical injuries- Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another shall be guilty of the
crime of physical injuries.

Now, the penalty would depend on the kind of injury that would be inflicted in wounding, beating or assaulting
the victim. In number one, prision mayor ang penalty if in consequence, the injured person shall become insane,
imbecile, impotent, or blind. So, its really serious because gikulata nimo and the result is nabuang, naging
imbecile, naging impotent or naging blind, nabuta. Now, how do you distinguish the impotency referred to here
from the mutilation or castration referred to by the previous article? The first would be yung INTENT nga.
Anyway, lets look at impotency, ano ba ang impotency, hindi ito yung vitamins ha. Unsa man ning impotency,
how do you distinguish that from castration? In castration, putulin talaga, essential organ gideprive. Ang
impotency does not necessarily refer to cutting or kapon/kapun. Alam niyo yung kapon? Now, ano yan? Is
that castration? Ano ang essential organ diyan for reproduction? The BALLS or the TIN-TIN? (student: the balls!)
the balls? Now it would be castration. Now, anyway, we go back to impotency. Impotency is NOT NECESSARILY
removing or depriving, because as long as you lose your POWER TO PROCREATE yan ang impotency. Kasi pwede
mang makacopulate ka pa pero kung makacopulate ka pa, pwede ka ring impotent pa rin because you can no
longer procreate. Now, when you say blindness pala, it should be TOTAL. Hindi yang isang mata or naging blurry
ang vision mo, dapat total blindness itong sa 1st paragraph.

Now, itong pangalawa (referring to 2ng paragraph of Art.263), shall have lost the use of speech or the power to
hear or to smell or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg, or shall have lost the use of any such
member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which he was habitually engaged. Thats why in the
1st paragraph, both eyes talaga, total, kasi dito sa 2nd isang eye lang. The term member is used to describe the
principal parts or principal members of the body. Take note of the word or which is disjunctive. Now, itong
ginasabing work, this really means vocation. Hindi ibig sabihin na trabaho talaga, kaya nga may phrase na
habitually engaged.

In number 3 (of Article 263), the person injured shall have become deformed or shall have lost any part of his
body, or shall have lost the use thereof. When you say any part of the body, it is OTHER THAN THE PRINCIPAL
MEMBERS OF THE BODY mentioned by paragraph 2. Ano man ang kasali sa paragraph 2, yung mga arms, legs,
ganyan.Ayaw apila ang ulo ha kay kung wala na ulo, dili na mabuhi. Ano yung any part of his body other than the
principal members? Pwede na yung fingers. Does this include the use of the THUMB? Finger man kaha nah siya.
Pero there is a case, Spanish jurisprudence that if it is the thumb, it would fall under paragraph 2. Kasi hindi ka
na makahawak niyan eh. It is a very important principal member. Hindi ka na makatext diba.

In the case of Reullo, its an old case, 31 Phil 484. Because, ang labas nito, he was permanently disabled from
performing his customary work. Sabi ng court, this is covered by paragraph 2 NOT paragraph 3. Eto dito, yang
Reullo na yan, permanently disabled siya so hindi na siya maka-farm. So pinasok siya sa par.2 and the basis was
Spanish jurisprudence, a Spanish case of a clerk suffering injuries to his right hand which impaired the flexibility
of his finger preventing him from performing his sworn duties. Anyway, just take note of that because usually
pag sinabing fingers, they usually fall under paragraph 3, but then its not according to the case.

Now, merong gisample or giquestion si Dean Inigo yung sa under Art.247. Diba yung sa 247, nasurprise in the act
of sexual intercourse. Unya karon, instead of killing or inflicting serious physical injuries, ang ginawa ng husband,
anah siya dali diri, putlon nato nah imong esssential organ for reproduction. Karon gi-filan siya ug mutilation,
sabi ng husband-Im claiming the benefit of 247 because I caught them in the act of sexual intercourse and I
inflicted physical injuries. Unya tan-awa ang Art.247, nakabutang diha, the offender shall kill or inflict serious
physical injuries, walang sinabing MUTILATION. Anyway, yan ang sinabi ni Dean Inigo, he cannot avail of the
benefits of 247 because this is mutilation and not serious physical injuries. Actually ambot lang kung meron
talagang case because you could consider that na serious physical injuries kay part man siya dito na Chapter.
Just take note of that.

Next is (still paragraph 3) shall have been ill OR incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was
habitually engaged for a period of more than 90 days. Now, take note that the word is or, its disjunctive.
Either you are ILL or INCAPACITATED, pwede yan magfall under this paragraph. Kasi when you say ill, you need

not be incapacitated to be ill. Kasi pwede ka ma-ill but you can still go to work. Basta ILL ka lang because you are
wounded, assaulted or beaten, meron kang injuries. That is illness but not necessarily incapacity. And ang
incapacity, unlike sa previous paragraph (par.2) na permanent, dito (par.3) for a period of more than 90 days.
So kung ang incapacity mo is more than 90 days OR ang illness mo is more than 90 days, pasok ka dito sa
paragraph 3. So either/or.

In paragraph 4, merong illness OR incapacity for labor, but this time the period is more than 30 days. So more
than 30 up to 90.

Eto namang next paragraph (still Art.263), eto yung tinatawag na QUALIFIED PHYSICAL INJURIES. If the offense
shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in Art.246 (yung would amount to parricide if
killed- father, mother, child whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his
spouse).

And take note of that last paragraph: The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a
parent who shall inflict injuries upon his child by excessive chastisement. You have to relate that to RA 7610,
naa didto ang mga acts which are punished.

Also, I forgot to mention: Going back to the manner, diba wounding, assaulting or beating. Now, although its
not found here in the article itself, please take note that 1 element for physical injuries to be present is that ONE
ELEMENT SHOULD BE LACKING. Parang ganun, baliktad, because you have to distinguish this from attempted
homicide or frustrated homicide. What would be the distinction? Kasi sometimes the injury would be graver or
more serious and it would fall under serious physical injuries. And sometimes the injury is not that serious and it
would fall under attempted homicide, na halos walang injury but the crime is graver. What would be the
determining factor? The determining factor would be- INTENT TO KILL (this element should be lacking for
physical injuries to be present). If there is intent to kill, kahit na isang finger lang diyan ang natanggal, pero dahil
there is intent to kill, that would be attempted homicide, a graver offense. Then here comes, serious physical
injuries, example natanggal ang kamay but there is NO INTENT TO KILL, that will not fall under attempted
homicide, dito ka lang sa serious physical injuries. Gituyo tang-tang ang tiil, gituyo tang-tang ang tintin, diri nah
siya mahulog, dili sa attempted homicide. Of course, you have other evidence for that, to prove intent to kill,
circumstances like the weapon used, asa ka giigo, or the number of wounds received.

Now, lets go back pala. Deformity actually refers to disfigurement. When you say deformed, parang nahiwi,
pero its not necessary na nahiwi, this really means na there is.. Diri na lang ta sa 3 requirements para klaro: 1.)
PHYSICAL UGLINESS- diba when you say ugly, thats subjective diba. I will not file a case for deformity because it
is tantamount to saying Im ugly, bahala na mangita na lang kog lain nga paragraph diri, haha. As to what

constitutes ugliness, bahala mo dira. 2.) ITS SOMETHING PERMANENT- meaning it cannot be restored or healed
by nature. Kung nasumbagan ka, natangtang imong mga ngipon, that cannot be restored. 3.) VISIBILITY OR ITS
CONSPICUOUS- in other words, if the injury that you claim, resulted in deforming you or disfigurement, hindi
yan pwede magfall under deformity because it cannot be seen just by anybody. So lacking 1 requirement, it will
not be deformity.

Now under Article 264, nakalagay diyan without intent to kill.

Article 264. Administering injurious substances or beverages.The penalties established by the next preceding
article shall be applicable to any person who, without intent to kill, shall inflict upon another any serious physical
injury, by knowingly administering to him any injurious substances or beverages or by taking advantage of his
weakness of mind or credulity.

Now, under Article 265- LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES. This seems to be a continuation of serious physical
injuries. Diba ang serious kay 30 to 90 days. Dito, the offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or
more. Now, take note of this, in serious physical injuries- ILLNESS OR INCAPACITY. Dito (Less serious), may
incapacity parin pero ang kapartner is OR shall require MEDICAL ATTENDANCE for the same period. When you
say medical attendance, dapat nito ACTUAL, you are receiving medical attendance for that period.
Then, meron ka na namang QUALIFIED- (2nd paragraph) whenever less serious physical injuries shall have been
inflicted with the manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person, or under circumstances adding ignominy
to the offense.. and also this (3rd paragraph) inflicted upon the offenders parents, ascendants, guardians,
curators, teachers, or persons of rank, or persons in authority. Of course, the article itself says, that the
requirement is that the assault upon these people should not constitute direct assault. Kasi if the attack or
wounding,etc. would be such as to fall under direct assault, then doon ka sa direct assault.

Article 266, SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES. We see incapacity again for 1 to 9 days OR shall require medical
attendance for the same period. Now, suppose you are not incapacitated and you do not also require medical
attendance? Somebody beat you, gikulata ka, but you are not incapacitated pero naay mga lakra sa imong lawas
because of the injury, hindi ka rin nagpa-medical attendance within 1 to 9 days. Ngayon, more than 30 days have
passed and thats the time you decided to file the case. Take note ha, you were not incapacitated and you did
not require medical attendance, but the wounds were there all along and now its the 31st day. Kasi, more than
30 days na, and hindi ka man incapacitated BUT YOU WERE ILL because of the wounds. Yan ang ibig sabihin nun.
ILLNESS is NOT being equated to you requiring medical attendance. So in that case, although walang Slight/Less
serious physical injuries na ma-file because nga you were not incapacitated, you did not go to the doctor, on the
31st day pwede ka nang magfile ng SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES kasi doon ka na papasok sa illness because you

were ill for that number of days, atleast 31 days. That is because medical attendance is NOT REQUIRED is serious
physical injuries.

Now, ano tong ill-treat another by deed without causing any injury (Art.266 #3). Pwede ba yun? gi-ill treat mo
na pero walang injury. Ang example dito usually is sagpa, diba walang injury. Unsa man ang injury anah? Ang
imong pride, maulawan ka lang.

In relation to this, yung ANTI-HAZING LAW, RA 8049. Pareho yan sa physical injuries. Ang difference actually is
that the penalties are increased substantially. So if you are given a chance to file a case and it will fall under
hazing, mas mataas talaga sa hazing.

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

OCTOBER 8, 2014
TRANSCRIBED BY: ELA VELARDE

RAPE
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8353

AN ACT EXPANDING THE DEFINITION OF THE CRIME OF

RAPE, RECLASSIFYING THE SAME AS A CRIME AGAINST
PERSONS, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ACT NO.
3815, AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE
REVISED PENAL CODE, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of

Representatives of the Philippines in Congress
assembled:

Section 1. Short Title. - This Act shall be known as "The

Anti-Rape Law of 1997."

Sec. 2. Rape as a Crime Against Persons. - The crime of

rape shall hereafter be classified as a Crime Against
Persons under Title Eight of Act No. 3815, as amended,
otherwise known as the Revised Penal Code.
Accordingly, there shall be incorporated into Title Eight
of the same Code a new chapter to be known as

Chapter Three on Rape, to read as follows:

"Chapter Three
"Rape

"Article 266-A. Rape: When And How Committed. Rape is committed:

"1) By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a

woman under any of the following circumstances:

"a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;

"b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or

otherwise unconscious;

"c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse

of authority; and

"d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years

of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.

"2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances

mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act
of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another
person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or
object, into the genital or anal orifice of another
person.

"Article 266-B. Penalty. - Rape under paragraph 1 of

the next preceding article shall be punished by

reclusion perpetua.

"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a

deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the

victim has become insane, the penalty shall become
reclusion perpetua to death.

"When the rape is attempted and a homicide is

committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

"When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape,

homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.

"The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime

of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:

"l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age

and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of
the parent of the victim;

"2) When the victim is under the custody of the police

or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal
institution;

"3) When the rape is committed in full view of the

spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives
within the third civil degree of consanguinity;

"4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate

religious vocation or calling and is personally known to
be such by the offender before or at the time of the
commission of the crime;

"5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years

old;

"6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with

the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired
Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other
sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease
is transmitted to the victim;

"7) When committed by any member of the Armed

Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof
or the Philippine National Police or any law
enforcement agency or penal institution, when the
offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the
commission of the crime;

"8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the

victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or
disability;

"9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the

offended party at the time of the commission of the
crime; and

"10) When the offender knew of the mental disability,

emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the
offended party at the time of the commission of the
crime.

"Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article

shall be punished by prision mayor.

"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a

deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.

"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the

victim has become insane, the penalty shall be
reclusion temporal.

"When the rape is attempted and a homicide is

committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the
penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua.

"When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape,

homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua.

"Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is

committed with any of the ten aggravating/ qualifying
circumstances mentioned in this article.

"Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent valid

marriage between the offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty imposed.

"In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the

subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be
extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the
marriage is void ab initio.

"Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act

manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any

degree from the offended party, or where the

offended party is so situated as to render her/him
incapable of giving valid consent, may be accepted as
evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under
Article 266-A."

Sec. 3. Separability Clause. - If any part, Sec., or

provision of this Act is declared invalid or
unconstitutional, the other parts thereof not affected
thereby shall remain valid.

Sec. 4. Repealing Clause. - Article 336 of Act No. 3815,

as amended, and all laws, acts, presidential decrees,
executive orders, administrative orders, rules and
regulations inconsistent with or contrary to the
provisions of this Act are deemed amended, modified
or repealed accordingly.

Sec. 5. Effectivity. - This Act shall take effect fifteen (15)

days after completion of its publication in two (2)
newspapers of general circulation.
What is rape? It used to be a crime against chastity. Then came the law on rape where it made it a crime against
persons. Article 266-A. effectively, it was taken out as a crime against chastity to a crime against persons. It is
taken out of those crimes which cannot be prosecuted de oficio. Anglabasnyan is it can be prosecuted de oficio,
meaning it does not need the complaint of the private offended party. Kasidiba if you remember that private
crimes can only be prosecuted upon the instance of the offended party. But now, since it is already a crime
against persons, apparently the complaint can be instituted even if it is not at the instance of the private
offended party.
Rape is basically sexual intercourse without consent. That is the essence of rape because there is no problem
with sexual intercourse itself. Lami man nasya. then, why is it crime? Because the sexual intercourse itself is
not a crime, it becomes a crime if you force it; if there is no consent. So dapatyes! You want to establish clearly
that there was no consent.
Dati, in the concept of rape, the offender could only be a male and the victim can only be a female. But then this
new law on rape (RA 8353), there are 2 kinds of rape now.
1. Rape by sexual intercourse
By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances: x xx
2. Rape by sexual assault
By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall
commit an act of sexual assault x xx

And if you notice that the second kind of rape (Rape by sexual assault) the offender is any person. Ang first kind
(rape by sexual intercourse) yanyungdati: by a man who shall have carnal knowledge with a woman. That is
basically the old concept of rape.
Now, the CIRCUMSTANCES are what make it rape.
a) Through force, threat, or intimidation;
When you force a woman or you threaten a woman, or intimidate a woman. It is also basi and laid down in
jurisprudence that the force, threat or intimidation depends on the case. There is no hard anfd fast rule there na
kung anongklaseng force, threat or intimidation bayan. It depends if there is a relationship between the parties.
Usually, if there is a relationship between the parties, lesser ang violence, threat opr intimidation is required to
make it rape kasimeron man ascendancy, etc yang mgaganyan. Especially if anakyan, then, the force required is
lesser.
People vs. ____: The woman need not bite, kick, slap or scratch the offender with her nails to successfully claim
that she had been raped. It is enough that intercourse was undertaken against her will. It is sufficient that there
was carnal knowledge after the woman gave in because of the real fear of immediate death or any other bodily
harm.
There is this concept naiba-ibaang reaction ng rape victim. There are some that sill really fight while there are
some that will become immobilized. There are some victims who can no longer move because of the fear, etc.
So dependesyasaklase ng resistance, force or intimidation.
With respect to the STAGES. The issue raised here is when can it be an attempt or when can it be considered as
consummated. We all know that there is no frustrated rape.
When is it consummated? If there is penetration, then that is already consummated already. Penetration is not
measured by inches or full penetration, half, or 1/5 lang. the slightest penetration is sufficient to consummate
the rape. It is not necessary that there be full penetration. Bombardment of the draw bridge is evasion enough
even if the troops do not succeed in entering the castle.
Mere entry of the lips or labia of the female organ. Even without rupture of the hymen. That is enough to
convict the offender for consummate rape.
Another
case
naman.
The
male
member
was
very
big.
It
could
not
enter.
Ganunsyakalakiperohnditalagasyamakapasok. Is that attempted or consummated?
Remember that the slightest penetration is sufficient. In that case, syarowalaynasulodbsaggamay?! Kalakilakinyataposgiforcemonaipasokkahitnahndinapasok. There would have been slight penetration kahitna dun sa
outer lips lang and that is sufficient to consummate the case.
Another case, the de la Pea case. Sigesyaughirit, sigesyahiritperoangproblema is he could not get it up.
Gikapoynlangsigurosya, iyanlanggifingeruggitila-tilaan. Nakontentonasyaato. Prosecutred and convicted sya for
statutory rape. Pag-abotsa SC, the SC said its true that the slightest penetration is enough to consummate the
rape. But that principle is premised upon the existence of an erect penis. In other words, there has to be an
erection in order for there to be a penetration. Once there is penetration, there is consummation. Erection +
penetration = consummation. If there is no erection, there can be no penetration. Therefore, no penetration-no
consummation.
People vs. De la Pea

Settled is the rule that full penetration of the vaginal

orifice is not an essential ingredient in the commission
of the crime of rape. The mere touching of the external
genitalia by a penis capable of consummating the
sexual act constitutes carnal knowledge. When
accomplished together with the other elements
defined in the Revised Penal Code, the offense
constitutes rape.However, our decisions finding a case
for rape even if the attacker's penis merely touched
the external portions of the female genitalia were
made in the context of the presence of the existence of
an erectile penis capable of full penetration. The
physiologic impossibility of penetration absent an
erection-complete or otherwise-cannot be gainsaid
This is now a crime against person. Ang scenario ditos is physiological impossibility. Can we now connect that to
Article 4, meaning impossible crime. Hindi yansyanaging impossible crime in the past. Why? Because crime
against personif you remember ang impossible crime it could have been a crime against persons or property
were not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment, etc. And now, rape is now a crime against person.
If you are saying that there is no erection, it would bheimpssible to penetrate. Pwedenasyamaging impossible
crime. It could have been a crime against person if it were not for the inherent impossibility of its
accomplishment. But anyway, just consider that when you study rape.
Lets go back to the circumstances.
b) When the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
When you say deprived of reason, unsa man na? buang? Insane. Take note of the prevailing jurisprudence on
this. When the victim is insane or deprived of reason, it is not an element that the offender has knowledge of
the insanity or deprivation of reason of the offended party. If it turns out nanaaybuangngananitsit psssttsir,
come here. Jerjertayo sir, no strings attached. Ugbuangnasya eh rape na! rape is sexual assault without consent.
Dito eh sya pa ngaang nag-invite eh. Paano man mangyariyanna rape na that was sexual intercourse upon
invitation. Can you raise that as a defense? No. Hindi kailangannaalamnyana insane or depreived of reason
yunsya. Simpley because knowledge is not an element.
Etong otherwise unconscious, anoyansya? Tulog. Its rape because the victim was asleep when sexual
intercourse took place. (Sir talks about a movie he saw where the wife was raped when she was asleep or half
asleep. She thought that the one having sex with her was her husband because the offender did all the things
that her husband used to do before and during said husband would have sex with her. He followed all the
actions and activities that led the wife to think that it was his husband having sex with her while she was laying
down in the bed and half asleep.)
Can the woman be unconscious while having sexual intercourse.Pwdeba? Im asking you. Sigurokungpinainomka
ng
pampatulog.
Perokungyung
normal
langnatulog
eh
dibamagisingka
man
tlgakapagmerongsumundotsaiyosalikod. (Haha)
If the victim is asleep or otherwise unconscious then it would be rape. Ito yungmga cases napina-inom ng
something or yungmga beer pram aging drowsy. Kasimerong case nasabi ng offender na the victim was aware of
what was happening. Yes, she was aware. But if you take away their ability to resist, then, that is still rape. It is
not really that the victim is unconscious. It could be that the ability to resist is taken away.
Merong case that was decided against the victim kasiang allegation dun is maypina-inomdawsakanya so naging
unconscious or half conscioussya. But during the time she testified, she could clearly remember the chronology

of event that transpired when she was supposedly raped. Paano man yun eh unconscious ka man kaya so
paanomomaremember accurately lahat ng nagyari?! So it could be that you knew what was happening and you
gave your consent.
c) By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; and
Kasikung grave abuse of authority, dapatwalang consent parin. Otherwise, that can be seduction, sexual
intercourse nameronkang abuse of authority.
d) When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present.
This is what you know as statutory rape. Same ito dun sa deprivation of reason because it does not matter if
there is consent. Because the law presumes that the minor or girl under 12 is incapable of giving consent. That is
a given already. Legally, she could not give consent. Hence, any act of sexual intercourse with a minor under 12
is automatically rape because she is legally incapable of giving consent.
Demented. Parangbuang. Pero, based on jurisprudence, it is more on feeble-mindedness.
2) By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act
of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object,
into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Dati, sexual ingtercourselangtalaga. Ngayon, blowjob apilnanisya. Gilubotapilna.or any instrument so kung
penis ang vagina eh #1 ka! Kung penis and or anal orifice eh #2 ka. Take note na kung penis eh sa mouth, genital
or anal orifice. But kung instrument or object eh sa genital or anal lang.
Ano kaya itong any instrument or object? well, anything! May ibanganasaging eh. Perodapatwala pa rin
consent. But the question really is what happens if what is inserted is the finger? Can it be considered an
instrument? Kasi when you talk about instrument or object, it is inanimate. Is a finger included, can it fall under
instrument or object? Jurisprudence says YES, it is an object. Therefore, if you insert your finger without the
consent, it is rape. That leads us back to de la Pea. Bakit attempted yunnapinasoknya man yung finger nya?
Because the law on rape came after kaya attempted sya. Kasikungbeforeyun ng de la Pea eh pasoksya, it could
be consummated and not merely attempted.
Principles as to proof:
1. The testimony of the victim, if credible, is enough to support a conviction.
Kasi usually dibaang evidence sa rape is the word of the offended party only. This is a crime that
is not done publicly. In most cases, the only testimony you will have is the testimony of the
victim herself.
2. That no decent Filipino woman would publicly admit having been a victim of rape unless the charges
were true.
Maramingnaga-objection dito. This could have been true a long time ago because, in the past,
angbabaengpilipina would not accuse anyone of raping her kasinakakahiya man yan on her part.
But then, this is just a principle. It can be overcome by evidence.
3. The resulting force(?) need not be great but simply irresistible under the circumstances.
It would depend on the parties, whether or not there is a relationship for example.
Principles in reviewing evidence:

1. An accusation for rape can be easily made(?).

Meaning it is very easy to accuse somebody of rape.
2. It is difficult to prove but it is more difficult to disprove.
It is more difficult for the accused, although innocent, to disprove it.
In view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where there are only 2 persons involved, the
testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution. Thats the reason.
3. The evidence for the prosecuition must stand or fall on its own merits. It cannot be allowed to draw
strength from the weakness of the evidence of the defense.
Is there such a thing as MARITAL RAPE? If you look at Art. 266-C, it says that In case it is the legal husband who
is the offender x xx. obviously, the husband can be the offender. Kasi in the past, sinasabina there can be no
marital rape. Why? Because the concept was..kasidiba we say that rape is basically sexual intercourse without
consentin the case of spouses, the consent was given when they said I do to each other which included the
act of sexual intercourse at any time. Walang rape2x! but now, pwedena under sa C where it says that In case
it is the legal husband who is the offender. This means that there can be now a case for marital rape.
Article 266-C. Effect of Pardon. - The subsequent valid
marriage between the offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty imposed.

"In case it is the legal husband who is the offender,

the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or
the penalty: Provided, That the crime shall not be
extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if the
marriage is void ab initio. x xx

This article talks about pardon. the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty. When you say pardon, it extinguishes criminal action. Pardon will take care
of the remission as well as the extinction of the criminal action.
The subsequent valid marriage between the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty
imposed. This is the same rule as dun sa private crimes dba!
But what you should remember here is that this is one of the modes of extinction of criminal liability. But this
does not apply in case of multiple offenders. You are an offender because of the rape you committed.
Perokungmarami kayo, you are also a principal for the rapes committed by the others.
There is this case nung mayor ng Palawan. Sanchez vs. Demetrio. Boyfriend girlfriend ito. Girapenyayung
girlfriend. Pagkataposnyanggirape,angkanyangmga buddy eh nangrapepudsagirlfiend. 7 silakabuok. After
nilamahuman kay gipataynila. They were charged with rape with homicide. For mayor Sanchez kay 7 counts kasi
you are also a principal for the other rapes. Hiritsi mayor napaanodawnangyarina 7 counts of rape with homicide
na granting that she was raped 7 times but pinataysya 7 times? Yun anghiritnya.
Sabi ng SC: Anyway, the homicide is considered as a constituent element of the crime of rape with homicide. The
victim does not need to die several times because its just a constituent of the crime of rape with homicide. The
homicide committed on the occasion or by reason of each

Sanchez vs. Demetrio (November 9, 1993)

The petitioner submits that the seven informations

charging seven separate homicides are absurd because
the two victims in these cases could not have died
seven times.

This argument was correctly refuted by the Solicitor

General in this wise:

Thus, where there are two or more offenders who

commit rape, the homicide committed on the occasion
or by reason of each rape, must be deemed as a
constituent of the special complex crime of rape with
homicide. Therefore, there will be as many crimes of
rape with homicide as there are rapes committed.

In effect, the presence of homicide qualifies the crime

of rape, thereby raising its penalty to the highest
degree. Thus, homicide committed on the occasion or
by reason of rape, loses its character as an
independent offense, but assumes a new character,
and functions like a qualifying circumstance.
However,by fiction of law, it merged with rape to
constitute an constituent element of a special complex
crime of rape with homicide with a specific penalty
which is in the highest degree, i.e. death (reduced to
reclusion perpetua with the suspension of the
application of the death penalty by the Constitution).

It is clearly provided in Rule 110 of the Rules of Court

that:

Sec. 13. Duplicity of offense. A complaint or

information must charge but one offense, except only
in those cases in which existing laws prescribe a simple
punishment for various offenses.

Rape with homicide comes within the exception under

R.A. 2632 and R.A. 4111, amending the Revised Penal
Code.

The petitioner and his six co-accused are not charged

with only one rape committed by him in conspiracy
with the other six. Each one of the seven accused is
charged with having himself raped Sarmenta instead of
simply helping Sanchez in committing only one rape. In
other words, the allegation of the prosecution is that
the girl was raped seven times, with each of the seven
accused taking turns in abusing her with the assistance
of the other six. Afterwards, their lust satisfied, all
seven of them decided to kill and thus silence
Sarmenta.

Every one of the seven accused is being charged

separately for actually raping Sarmenta and later killing
her instead of merely assisting the petitioner in raping
and then slaying her. The separate informations filed
against each of them allege that each of the seven
successive rapes is complexed by the subsequent
slaying of Sarmenta and aggravated by the killing of
Allan Gomez by her seven attackers. The separate
rapes were committed in succession by the seven
accused, culminating in the slaying of Sarmenta.

It is of course absurd to suggest that Mary Eileen

Sarmenta and Allan Gomez were killed seven times,
but the informations do not make such a suggestion. It
is the petitioner who does so and is thus hoist by his
own petard.
Let us now go to PENALTY. Article 266-B.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall become
reclusion perpetua to death.
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua to death. (So walanang frustrated)
"When by reason or on the occasion ofthe rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death.

It does not matter how the homicide occurs or how the homicide results. If the homicide result because of the
rape or on the occasion of the rape, it does not matter. It is a special complex crime under 266-B.
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;
Just be familiar with these relatives who are the offenders. Then, the penalty is mandatory death.
In the case of People vs. Atop, the victim is the granddaughter of the accuseds common-law spouse. Is their
relationship qualifying?
People vs. Atop (286 SCRA 157)

Neither can we appreciate relationship as an

aggravating circumstance. The scope of relationship as
defined by law encompasses (1) the spouse, (2) an
ascendant, (3) a descendant, (4) a legitimate, natural
or adopted brother or sister, or (5) a relative by affinity
in the same degree. Relationship by affinity refers to a
relation by virtue of a legal bond such as marriage.
Relatives by affinity therefore are those commonly
referred to as in-laws, or stepfather, stepmother,
stepchild and the like; in contrast to relatives by
consanguinity or blood relatives encompassed under
the second, third and fourth enumeration above. The
law cannot be stretched to include persons attached
by common-law relations. Here, there is no blood
relationship or legal bond that links the appellant to his
victim.
Thus, the modifying circumstance of
relationship cannot be considered against him.
Merongcommon-law relation peroyung spouse. Ditto sa case kay granddaughter man ng accuseds common-law
spouse.
Another case. In People vs. Deleverio, the accused is the step-grandparent of the victim. Ganun din.
Angsabisihindikasamaang step-grandparent.
People vs. Deleverio (289 SCRA 547)

The mandatory death penalty is imposed under the

first case, immediately above, when the victim is under
eighteen 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." The trial court has thus held incorrectly in
considering appellant, who is legally married to
Roxans natural grandmother, as among those named
in the enumeration. Appellant is merely a stepgrandparent who obviously is neither an "ascendant"
nor a "step-parent" of the victim. In the recent case of
People vs. Atop, the Court rejected the application of
the mandatory death penalty to the rape of a 12-year
old victim by the common-law husband of the girl's
grandmother. The Court said:

"It is a basic rule of statutory construction that penal

statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the
accused. Court's must not bring cases within the
provision of a law which are not clearly embraced by it.
No act can be pronounced criminal which is not clearly
made so by statute; so, too, no person who is not
clearly within the terms of a statute can be brought
within them. Any reasonable doubt must be resolved
in favor of the accused."

2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal
institution;
3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other relatives within
the third civil degree of consanguinity;
4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known to
be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;
This time, the offender has to have knowledge that the victim is a religious.
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
Ibayung below 12 kasi statutory rape yun.Itong below 7, itoyung qualified.
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;
So kasaliyungmga ordinary STDs.
7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units thereof or
the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took
advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or
disability;

9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime;
and
Knowledge here is important with respect to the victim being pregnant.
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.
Knowledge here also.
Now, Article 266-D.
Article 266-D. Presumptions. - Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any
degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of
giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article 266A."
So it is really a case to case basis.

OCTOBER 9 Crim
Serious Illegal detention
Article 267, it says there kidnapping , but this article has nothing to do with kids. Kaya sa 267 gilagayjanna
and serious illegal detention. So when you say 267, that refers to serious illegal detention. So kung may
serious meron ding hindi serious slight (but there is nothing slight about slight illegal detention because the
penalty is a grave penalty nevertheless).
Title 9 is crimes against liberty, which is divided into 2. Crimes against personal liberty and crimes against
personal security.
When you say illegal detention it just means that you detain another or you restrain the freedom of another. As
to when they are serious and when they are slight, you have to look at the circumstances under 267. If they are
present, then it is serious. kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty so it is
not necessary that you chain somebody or handcuffs. That includes the restriction of freedom. There are cases
where the victims was allowed to roam the house or even patisa yard. The SC said that still consists of
deprivation of liberty. If all the other elements are present it would still constitute serious illegal detention.
There was a case where the child was allowed to do just that, perokasi he didnt know how to go home. So the
SC ruled that that is serious illegal detention.
It will be serious if 1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than 3 days.2. If it shall have been
committed simulating public authority. Meaning you pretend to be a police officer, you usurp the position of a
public officer. This would qualify to make the crime serious. Just take note of these circumstances:3. If any
serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill
him shall have been made.4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, except when the accused is
any of the parents, female or a public officer.So if you kidnap a public officer, it becomes serious illegal
detention.
What you have to remember here this next paragraph: The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or
detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if
none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense. So the penalty
there is mandatory, death, if it is for the purpose of extorting or obtaining ransom. So take note ha nafor the
purpose, meaning even if you were not successful in getting ransom. If the purpose is for ransom, mandatory
death nayan. The ransom is not required to be demanded from the victim only, you can demand it from any
other person also. This is true even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present. So
kahitnawalayung 3 days, yung simulating public authority etc. the moment you detain a person illegally for the
purpose of obtaining ransom

Yung mas anoditoyung composite crime, special complex crime, where the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the detention or is raped, so you have there Serious illegal Detention with Homicide/Murder
or Serious Illegal Detention with Rape or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty
shall be imposed. So in the past there used to be a controversy here, because before RA 7659, when the victim
is killed or dies while in detention minsanang ruling is separate crime xa - Kidnapping/serious illegal detention or
murder thru serious illegal detention or serious illegal detention with murder - parangganyan, ginawang
complex ba. Sometimes its complex sometimes its separate. Now, because of this, they changed it to where the
victim is killed or diesso you need not have an intent to kill. Kung pinataykasinabadripkasiwalang ransom, yan
special complex crime.Perokungnamataylangxa dun, walanamanxagiano, ginapakain, peronikiriglangxagkalit,
unyakaygidetainnimo, maolanggihapon, special complex crime or dies as a consequence.
Remember also that the detention must be the primary objective. Because in certain crimes, detention is
necessary although it is temporary, like if you want to kill somebody, you take him from his house (thats
detention), and you take him somewhere else and you kill him. For example robbery where the robber says
taasangkamaytaposbirahonkadidto, that is detaining somebody, that is restraining, yet that does not constitute
a separate offense the temporary detention.
How do you distinguish this from ARBITRARY? Ang arbitrary crime against the fundamental laws of the state,
the offender there is a public officer. Dito the offender is a private individual, or pwede din a public officer when
it is not part of his duty to arrest or detain people because that would fall under the crime against personal
liberty.
Going back to ransom, what is a ransom? It is the money, price, or consideration paid or demanded for the
redemption of the captured person/s. The payment that releases from captivity. A demand or receipt of money
as a prerequisite for releasing a person from captivity whatever motive they intended to do so, it is still ransom.
PP vsKapiran(?) where the purpose of the detention was to compel the payment of the hospitalization
expenses of the brother of one of the accused. That is still ransom.
Rayon (?) 217 scra 334 a woman was detained for 2 days to compel her to sign a promissory note. You
should be careful about this class ha, if you say compel you should also relate that to coercion because
coercion is also compelling somebody. If you compel somebody to stay, diba that is illegal detention? So
asa man ka? sa coercion or sa illegal detention? It is confusing sometimes. Take note naang detention is
basically detention, illegal ngalang, you dont have the authority to detain. Yang ransom etc, purpose
nay an, that will affect the penalty. As to the crime itself, yunlangyun, you detain without the authority
to detain. Coercion naman, youreforcing somebody to do something or not to do something. We will go
to that later. When you say illegal detention, yunlang, you detain somebody or in any manner deprive
him of his liberty or his freedom.
Also be careful about yung #4 except when the accused is any of the parents, kasi if the accused is any of the
parents, it will not fall here. So etotalagayung kidnapping because it involves a minor. Perokunganak, hindidito.
Usually that happens kung may away nasa custody, meronnang Habeas Corpus. You cannot treat that as serious
illegal detention under this article (its in a subsequent article we will discuss later)
Slight illegal detention
Lets go to slight. So as I said ang slight, is not really slight because ang penalty is grave or afflictive penalty
reclusion temporal. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any private individual who shall
commit the crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance of any of circumstances
enumerated therein. So meaning the detention did not last for more than 3 days, the detention was made
without simulating public authority etc. then it will be slight illegal detention. But again be careful here kasi for
example you detain somebody for the purpose of extorting ransom, now after 2 days napul-annasiguroang
kidnapper saimuha, sigiulinalangka! maramina man akongpera! paaak! Hahaha! Pinauwikangayon.Serious
illegal detention parinyan, because the purpose was to extort ransom which means it is taken away from the
coverage of slight. So pag for ransom, kahit after 1 day pinauwikana, art 267 parinyan.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime. So
same penalty, ang example dito usually is where the act of the principal as well as the accomplice are penalized
in the same degree. Same penalty, meaning, the penalty for the principal is the same penalty for anyone who

shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime usually the person who does that, when you cooperate
in the commission of the offense by a simultaneous or previous act, is an accomplice. But here the law itself says
that the penalty for you, although the act is that of an accomplice, is the same with the penalty of a principal for
slight illegal detention.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the
commencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of
criminal proceedings (meaning there is already a case against you) against him, the penalty shall be prision
mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos. Anglabasnito, in
effect its like a privileged mitigating therefore the penalty goes down to prision mayor. If there is already a case
against you, sorry nalang, youll have be considered as privileged mitigating circumstance. Take note also that
this does not apply even if without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of
criminal proceedingsif you detain somebody for the purpose of extorting ransom.
Unlawful arrest
any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground therefor, shall
arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.
Etoyungkay Bong Navarro. Gi arrest nila to deliver to the proper authorities kungbagacitizens arrest. It will be
unlawful if it will not fall under citizens arrest, in other words, you are not authorized to arrest the victim under
the law. Similarly, this may apply to public officers in as far as those who are not authorized to arrest.
Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
Etonangayonang kidnapping because it involves kids. What you want to remember here is that the crime is not
the detention. The crime is the failure to return. any person who, being entrusted with the custodyof a minor
person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.kasinasakanyaang minor, it
becomes a crime because he deliberately failed to deliver the minor to his parents or guardians. So
dapatnasakanya, hindilangnya gusto ibalik.
So those are the elements : 1) that the person is entrusted with the custody of a minor person 2) and he
deliberately fails to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.
When you say deliberate well advised, carefully considered, not sudden or rushed. Bastakaydeliberate,gituyo.
The refusal must be deliberate and persistent to oblige the parent or the guardians to seek the aid of the courts
to obtain the custody of the minor.
Ppvs Ty the word deliberate as used in the article must imply something more than mere negligence; it
must be premeditated, obstinate, headstrong, foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong.
Inducing a minor to abandon his home
Sa title pa langalammonaang crime. upon anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the home of his parent
or guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody.Saato pa imonggigalgalngalayas. Take note that the
motive here is not material. Walangsinabi about sa motive, bastakaygi induce. Of course, because this is a felony,
it must be intentional, committed with dolo/malice.
The penalty is lower if If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles shall
be the father or the mother(hindi BOTH ha) of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not
exceeding three hundred pesos, or both.
SLAVERY
upon anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap or detain (so parang illegal detention) a human being for the
purpose of enslaving him(but this time the purpose is to enslave).
If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party to some immoral traffic, the
penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.Now take note ito, this will also fall under Trafficking (well talk
about that later). Trafficking is under a special law, and technically there is no conflict, the elements are
different.
Exploitation and Services Renedered
Art 273 and 274, anoang difference nyangdalawa? Take note sa 273 this talks about utang eh. under the pretext
of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a
minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service.So the person who is being exploited is the child.
Angutangdiliutangsa child, utangsaascendant guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor. And

the offender will detain the minor in his service against the will of the minor.So etoyung defense dun nisugot
man!
So etongsa 274 were talking about here about the utangdiba. Etodito, the offender is the creditor and the
offended party who works for him is the one who has the debt. any person who, shall compel the debtor to
work for him, against his will, as household servant or farm laborer.And the purpose is:in order to require or
enforce the payment of a debt. In other words, if walay relationship of debtor creditor, dilinaxapwdediri.
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own victim
Ditoang cases na Hit and Run - abandonment of one's own victim.
1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place
wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance (you have to help! Of course if ) 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.Etoyung hit and run.
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.
Just take note that prosecution under this article is not a bar for the prosecution of the quasi-offense. Reckless
imprudence etc.
Abandoning a minor
Kung sabihinmong minor, hanapanmonalangkungsaanxamahulogdito!Actually kadamingkailanganiconsider,
child abuse etc, child and youth welfare code. So sometimes magulonga! Kung saantalaga mag fall ba. Therefore
hindikonamaxado tong iano (iano sir?! Haha.Kapoyna.) Just know that kung minors pwededito, pwede din sa
7610 or the child and youth welfare code. Mabuangmosa specifics.
What am I saying? All these laws, you just have to read them
Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents
277 upon the parents who shall neglect their children by not giving them the education which their station in
life require and financial conditions permit.Naapudnisa special law. If bataka and you are not given an
education, that is a crime.
Exploitation of minors
Etobasahinnyonalangkasimga circus circuseto e.
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen years of age to perform any dangerous feat of
balancing, physical strength, or contortion.So bakitmeron paring mgaganon?Meronyang permit and age
requirement.
2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of these kinds children under sixteen years of age who
are not his children or descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated in the next paragraph preceding who shall employ
any descendant of his under twelve years of age in such dangerous exhibitions.
Yung mga child actors/actresses, etc. bawal din kasiyan. hingisilang permit sa DOLE pati working hours regulated
yan. Its not only stated here, it is also in RA 7610. Even in commercial dilisilapwede in advertisements for alcohol,
nicotine etc. kaya puro toothbrush toothpaste, dirapwedenasila, ketchup.
Section Two. Trespass to dwelling
So again, seemingly (or paranglang) may counterpart eto dun sa crimes against the fundamental law
yungviolation to domicile, pagangpublic officer enters the dwelling against the will. Now kung private person
anggumawanyan, almost the same thing, it will fall under trespass.
Trespass - Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another against the latter's will. Yun langyun,
against the will of the owner.
Compare that to violation of domicile, diba 3 ways ang violation of domicile? 1)any public officer or employee
who, not being authorized by judicial order, shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof; 2)
search papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner, or 3) having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall refuse to do so.Dito,
against the will langanggibutang. Saato pa, kung abrinaimongpultahannyanaaytaomusulod, against the will na?

although here, pwede implied prohibition to enter. But if its open, thats an invitation to enter, so it cannot be
trespass. Angmagigingproblemalangdito is when the entrance is implied.
In a case, may room sa boarding house anggilagaykaytalilang, the defense raised was hindi man yan
prohibition to enter, open man yan. SC said that is implied prohibition, gitaliangani meaning do not
enter.
So against the will, yanang trespass. This is qualified by the second part - If the offense be committed by means
of violence or intimidation. What I want you to remember is: if committed with violence or intimidation,
hindinakailanganyung prohibition.Pinugsanaynagani.
Merong exempting dito, ang 3rd part. It is exempting even if you entered against the will of another if
(1)for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, you are being chased by a person with a bolo
unyanisulodkasabalasa lain, ay ayawgsulod!Dilimusulodjudkobahalaka! hahaha. So unsa man na? against the
will pero exempted.
(2)the occupants of the dwelling or a third person,
(3) nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some
service to humanity or justice, good Samaritan ka.you see somebody nagikulatasasulod, imonggitabangan.
(4) nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the same are
open.Etomaka smile ako always. ALANGAN! Open gani! Public place man na, dilikabawal!
Of course, you know the principles here ha. The aggravating circumstances of dwelling, or unlawful entry, they
are inherent in this crime.
What about the violence or intimidation? When should the violence or intimidation be present in order to
qualify the crime? Usually, right before or simultaneously. Kasi thats how you enter, with violence or
intimidation.Peromeron din kasing right after ang violence or intimidation.
When you say violence according to the SC need not be against persons. Pwedengpersonspwedeng violence
against the door/gate/window.
You allowed him to enter the terrace or veranda or something, according to a case Invitation to enter
the court(?) is not invitation to enter the house. Kung nisulodkasabalay against the will, that is still
trespass.
Also please take note of the principle that anyone in the household is presumed to have authority to invite
people in. thats a legal presumption. Generally all members of the household are presumed to have the
authority to extend an invitation to enter. So the authority to invite people is not limited to the owner, any
member of the household can do so.
Other forms of trespass
You distinguish that from 280. Here youre talking about closed premises. any person who shall enter the closed
premises (example warehouse)or the fenced estate of another, while either or them are uninhabited, if the
prohibition to enter be manifest(that is the key phrase there)and the trespasser has not secured the
permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
prohibition to enter be manifest, how is that shown? This is usually shown by posting a no trespassing sign.
Kung walangganyan and there is no manifest prohibition, then the crime is not committed.
Another distinction, dito uninhabited, sa trespass naman should be inhabited. And there is no such thing as an
implied prohibition ha, ditokasidapat manifest. The prohibition must always be express or manifest.

October 10, 2013

Crim 2
Section Three. Threats and coercion

Art. 282. Grave threats. Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person,

honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime be threatened to
commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other
condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the
offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have
been made subject to a condition

there are many kinds of threats. basically Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the
person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime. Any wrong
amounting to a crime. Now when we say infliction upon the person, honor or property, do not equate that sa
titles ng revised penal code. dibakasimerong crimes against persons, crimes against property,
crimes against honor. this has nothing to do with that . It's a generic kind of thing. say murder, I will threaten
you with death, if you do not giver me money I will kill you. that's crimes against persons, mag tama din
yanxadito. Or i will burn down you house if you do not see to my demands. yan, that's a crime against property.
panokasi if yung, if you do not see to my demands I will detain you. serious illegal detention, which is what? a
crime against personal liberty.Panoyan di napapasoktayodito? that is why actually this is not limited to crimes
against persons, crimes against property, or crime against honor. It is really a crime against the person, honor of
the person and the property of the person. So that's the first thing. Second, take note that the penalty is
different, it depends on whether the purpose of the demand is attained. So if the crime that you threatened to
commit is homicide, the penalty there would be your penalty if you made the threat demanding money. So
medyomalaki din yun ha, reclusion temporal on homicide, prison mayor on grave threats. if you do not attain
your purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed. soparang attempted. If the threat be made
in writing or through a middle man, maximum. so this operates like an aggravating circumstance.

So grave threats, there are two kinds. One where you impose a condition and those where you do not impose
a condition or you do not demand money. but it is still threats, why is that? because you are threatening to
inflict a wrong amounting to a crime against another. So it really doesn't matter if there is a condition or not,
although kung may condition mas mataasang penalty mo. well a demand of money is klaro. if you do not give
me money i will kill you. klaroyan, it's a threat to inflict a wrong amounting to a crime. And what is a
condition? and take note that the condition may not be unlawful. So why is it a crime then? Why is there a
crime of grave threat when the condition that you said is not unlawful. So example usually
dyanyungitanananganakmo, nagalityungtatay, kungdilinimominyuanakonganakpatyon taka! what is wrong
with diliminyuan, that is not an unlawful demand, unlawful condition but what makes a crime is not the
demand per se, what makes it a crime is that you said, I will kill you.if you do not marry my daughter. kayaxa
crime. walanglabotdoonyung phrase na even tough unlawful because that refers to the condition. Also, one
thing with grave threat is that, the threat should be in the future pa. hindiyanxa threat ngayon. I will kill you.
I'm not saying I'm going to kill you now. I you don't do this, or if you don't give me money, I will kill you later.
kasi kung now yan, diba? Patyon taka! patyondayon nimo. humannamatay. walana, the threat is not
separate. it is not a separate crime. kulatahon taka unyasigenanimogkulata. there is serious physical injuries
tapossabihinmo pang meron pang grave threat? you are already doing it, the threat will already be absorbed

now by the crime of physical injuries, there is no long a separate crime of grave threats because the threats
here should be in the future.

the threat itself. Let's try to define that. It is the declaration of the intention or determination to injure
another person, his honor or property of some wrong amounting to a crime. it is often that threat may be
deluded purpose creating in the mind of the person threatened that the threat will be carried on. It is
something that the threatened party really believe nagagawin, it does not come across as a joke. it is
something to be feared kasitotoo, totohaninnya.

let's go back to the example, if you do not marry my daughter, i will kill you. It is still a kind of grave threat
because of the phrase that you said that i will kill you, so if you say to the guy, if you do not marry my
daughter I will sue you of seduction. that is no longer a threat because your threat is to file a case which you
can very well do. yung previous threat mo is a crime because you said I will kill you.

Now, what about intent to gain. Is intent to gain an element here? well, when you are charged under grave
threats taposditokasa may demand of money of course that demand should be an element.
Now can this be a continuing offense? pwede. like in the case of somebody who wrote a letterna ongoing
xaba, unya installment. You give me one million otherwiswe I will kill you your family, your relatives
ubusinkosilanglahat. binigyanxa 500k muna. kulnag pa ug balance. isanganolangyun, hindiyun separate. It's
like a continuing offense yan.
Art. 283. Light threats. Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, made in the manner
expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Now next article. light threats. and light naman, the penalty is arresto mayor which is not really light.
expressed in subdivision 1, meaning there is a demand for money or a condition that is imposed. ok, yanang
light threat. but thenthat something that you threaten does not amount to any crime. bakitman naging crime
yanxana threat? this time because of the (inaudible) of the demand. yun grave threats kasi, what your
threatened to do amounts to a crime. Here ang light threats, hindi, well ang best example dito usually is yung
black mail. kayaangtawagdyan light threats, black mail actually ang example nyan. Anoba yang black mail?
for example, you know a secret, sometimes you threaten to divulge the secret. I post nakosa internet
imongsecretougdilikonimotagaanugkwarta or kung dilikonimoi.kiss (weeeee! lol) conditionyun, imposed. kiss
me! otherwise I will post your secret all over the internet. unsa may kuanana? is that a crime? the secret
does not amount to a crime.
Art. 284. Bond for good behavior. In all cases falling within the two next preceding articles, the
person making the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or
if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.
Art. 285. Other light threats. The penalty of arrestomenor in its minimum period or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall
threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful selfdefense.

2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with some harm not
constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts show that he did not persist in the idea involved
in his threat, provided that the circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the provisions
of Article 282 of this Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting a felony.
ang problemaditomeronnangang light threats meron pang other light threats. ano tong other light
threats? (readcodal above)
ang problemaditomeronnangang light threats meron pang other light threats. ano tong other light threats?

par. 1.
yan treats yan, you threaten another may mgabaril, kutsilyo, that is a threat, you do not even say anything.
tiunannimougkutsilyo, that is other light threats. kasiwalakanangibangginawala. kasi kung tirahinmosya,
dependeya. there is thin line between an attempt with this. because you are holding a weapon
gamaylangnaana, mahimonanang attempt. Unless, you draw your weapon in self defense.

par.2.

Please remove that word "not" there otherwise there will no difference between two and three. so in
paragraph 2, it should be some harm constituting a crime. take note that this is similar to grave threats
because you are threatening another with some harm that amounts to a crime. that constitutes a crime. but it
falls under light threats because you did it out of anger, in the heat, or in the moment so to speak.
sonasukoka, then gagokangbataakapatyon taka! ana, but your subsequent act show that you did not insist.
pag cool mona, nag ngisingisinaka. it's the same act, yungsa grave threats at dito. the difference is this is said
in anger. paggalittayodaminatingnasasabi which we regret later.

please take note of 284. what is that? that is an additional penalty for threats, grave threats and light
threats. well of course because this is an additional penalty bahalanasi judge. kung gusto niyangdungagan pa
ka ng bond for good behavior. and if you cannot put up a bond, then destierroka. yanangsinasabinga 284,
you're supposed to put up a bond para magbehaveka, you will not threaten the offended party, now if you
cvannot put up a bond, paalisinkanalangnya. now also please distinguish that from, diba may isa pang
bond? bond to keep the peace. ibayun, itokasi when yu say bond for good behavior it applies only to
threats. yung bond to keep the peace it applies in general to felonies. saanbayung bond to keep the peace?
dunsa 35. and if you fail to post a bond dun sa 35, subsidiary imprisonment and labasdoon.

par.3.
andyung number three, dyanmagpasokyung not.

Art. 286. Grave coercions. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall

be imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent
another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his
will, whether it be right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act or
to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.

Lets go to coercion.
grave coercion. you prevent somebody in doing something not prohibited by law.
gustoniyamutabokugkalsada, dilika gusto, ayawtabok kay maligsanka! ano man yan? practically compelling
him not to cross street. that is a crime. kayadilikadapatmagboot. that is the point of coercion. you should
not take the law into your own hands. kung gusto niyamukanta, gusto niyamusayaw. pabayai!
pugongpugongpakadha, ayawna! yanangsinasabi ng coercion that you should not take the law into your own
hands or compel him to do something against his will. "kanta! karonna! kitakaani, kitakaaningkumonako?
dilikamukantakatilawkaani." that's compulsion, compelling somebody, which is coercion. now, take note
dito, kasiangsabinga coercion whether it be right or wrong. now the thing is sometimes, ang coercion kasi,
you should consider coercion as a last resort. you try to find out first whether the act will fall under other acts,
other crimes. likediba we already talked about interruption of legislative meetings. so you prevent the
legislator from attending the meeting, there is a specific article which deals with that, preventing them from
attending
dun
kamagcharge,
wag
dito.
or
interruption
of
religious
worship.
imonggimanduanangparingaayawpagmisa! that is interruption religious worship. you consider this if there is
no other article in the revised penal code. and like i said last time , you go to a person, sabimo, give me all
your money, now! nag.unsa man ka, you are compelling him to do something against his will, will that
amount to coercion? ediba hold-up yan? that's robbery. saato pa, san kangayon? dunkasa robbery! well, for
one thing meron dung intent to gain diba? but seemingly parehosila. kayaunahimmomunayung kung saanxa
properly mag fall na article.

Now, the nature will depend on the parties. kay kung ang party being compelled or forced is somebody like
tyson. kusogkusogna violence and intimidation angkailanganana. or kung bataangano, gamaykaau,
baskinpaganaanaonlangnimo, pwedenama.violence. sodependeyan. the nature of the violence will depend on
the person. because actually this is not really limited to physical violence. pwede man moral pressure or
intimidation. but it is sufficient if the other ____ of the offender is notoriously menacing as to amount to a
grave intimidation or would create a situation that would necessarily intimidate the victim. because the
preventing of the compulsion, this is depicted by violence either by material force where such display of force
as would produce intimidation and control the will of the offender. So for example if people who have a
piece of land taposmerong squatters doonngayon gusto mosilangpaalisin so by violence, threat or
intimidation you eject them, is that a crime, is that coercion? that is my property they are there unlawfully,
so I ejected them physically remove them. ngayonikawang gi.file.an ngamga squatters ng coercion. Will it
propser? Again, the essence of coercion is taking the law into your own hands. so by removing them
physically with force violence and intimidation you are committing the crime of grave coercion. Even if that is
your property. You have no right to do that, you go to court. Ask the court for unlawful detainer or
whatever.

It's a different story if the squatters are trying to set up their whatever in that area, because you go to the civil
code, yung 429, yung doctrine of self help. I can use reasonable force to protect my property..yung self
defense of property remember? If they are still entering, you can prevent them kahit pa you use physical
force. but if they are already there you cannot do that you have to go now to court.

Suppose somebody wants to kill himself. pugngannimo by violence pajud. kulatahon taka if ipadayonnimona!
is that a crime? you are preventing somebody from doing something that he wants to do. Let's go back to the
basics in criminal law, the act is not criminal when the mind is not criminal. He must have criminal intent.
When you prevent him from killing himslef actually, your intention is not to commit a crime.
Art. 287. Light coercions. Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything belonging
to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but
in no case less than 75 pesos.
Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arrestomenor or a fine ranging from 5
pesos to 200 pesos, or both.

So there is firstly a relationship of creditor and debtor and the person here seizes property belonging to
debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt. Dili man kamubayad, ambinalangna,
naa man kay plasma ngatvlcd, akoanani, maonaningbayad. that is light coercion. of course diliniya gusto.
dilixamubayad, dili pod xa gusto ngakuhaonniyaimonggamit. but still, ikawyungnagpa.utangmeronkatalagang
right. well not right to get the thing. you have the right to demand payment. ehayawngamagbayad. so what
you do is, with violence kinuhamoyunggamitnya. actually that's dacionenpago but with violence.

Of course this would not be light if you hold a gun to his head, you do not pay now? I'll kill you! It cannot be
robbery because there is not intent to gain but that will be coercion. gravena.because you are threatening to
inflict a wrong that amounts to a crime. I will kill you if you do not pay. that cannot be light.

And second half nyan, itong 287, take note, that is the crime for unjust vexation which is not defined by the
revised penal code. angsinabilangdyan, any other coercion or unjust vexation shall be punished by
ganyanganyan. taposang cute pa talagadito, when you read the ganyanganyan, anodaw and vexation. how do
you define that, so itoyung definition nya... to vex, to irritate, to annoy, etc. pastilan! (lol) so angnangyari, this
appears to be a catch all provision. kunghindiyanmahulogsaibang article, because it annoys me, o sige fights
na! file tag unjust vexation. kasi nag cause ka nag irritation. that's a very broad ano. ofcourse we go back to
the basic principle that there should be dolo. Anything that will irritate you, or will vex you or annoy you
basta kay may doloyun.
there is no serious material harm here kaya nga any other coercion but the act is intended to vex annoy
irritate etc. example, remember that case nganaaypabasasa chapel human naay nag sigeug construct ug
fence. hindi man ito interruption of religious worship, unjust vexation langdaw. itomagandang example,
kissing an ex girl friend, paanonaging unjust vexation yan? kaygi-kiss mo because you wanted to vex, annoy or
irritate her. kay kung kiss yanna may lewd intent ka, edi acts of lasciviousness pero if naglagotka,

saimopajudkalagotgitilapannimo. ewewyan! waladapat lewd intent, otherwise walana. and the essence is
the same you cannot take the law into your own hands. we are a government of laws not of men.
Art. 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by
means of tokens.) The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both,
shall be imposed upon any person, agent or officer, of any association or corporation who shall
force or compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed
by him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or compelled, to purchase merchandise or
commodities of any kind.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the wages due a laborer or
employee employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of
the laborer or employee.

Basahanalangninyona.
Art. 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through
violence or threats. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 300 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, for the purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing coalitions
or capital or labor, strike of laborers or lock-out of employees, shall employ violence or threats in
such a degree as to compel or force the laborers or employers in the free and legal exercise of their
industry or work, if the act shall not constitute a more serious offense in accordance with the
provisions of this Code.
Chapter Three
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS

Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. The penalty of

prisioncorreccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any private individual who in order to discover the secrets of another, shall seize his
papers or letters and reveal the contents thereof.
If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos.
The provision shall not be applicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody
of minors with respect to the papers or letters of the children or minors placed under their care or
study, nor to spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.

though shall not commit chismis. take note that exempted ditoyung parents, guardians and persons entrusted
with the custody of minors. kayayanangmga mothers sigegpanghilabotsamgagamitsaanak. sigegpangbasa,
mga account safacebook pang hilabtan. Ipadabrihan. unsa man nisi mother wui. exempteddilina crime. also
take not exempted gihaponang spouse. kungmagminyomo, open judnangmga papers nimosaimongasawa.
sorrykanalang kung naaymgasulodnangakuan. soyan, take note of the exceptions.

Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any manager, employee, or servant who, in such
capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.
Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge,
employee or workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of
the owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.
trade secrets, kung magbuhatkag brownie, haloanniuggulay para masarap. tingalakasa party, lipay man
tanan, enjoy lahatba. yan trade secrets, isabimoyan divulge that...yan.

that's a practice now, pagnandaynkasa industry, before you are allowed to go on separation, you are
required to sign a contract non-disclosure. but even if you don't have that, pwedeka ma.file.an dito.

Criminal Law Review 2

October 13, 2014 full hour
Jen Yanto
I would like to emphasize some important points in Crim 1 and Crim 2. Distinctions between crimes mala in se
and mala prohibita.We say that in mala in se intent is necessary while in mala prohibita, it is not. Remember the
case of People vs. Sunico (C.A., 50 o.g. 5880) about schoolteachers as to the deprivation of their right to suffrage,
according to the CA decision, its the kind that is inherently bad or wrong and therefore should be pleaded as
such. Kailangan may intent even if the charge was under a special law.
People vs. Sunico

The omission or failure to include a votersname in the registry list of voters is not only wrong because it
is prohibited; it is wrong per se because it disenfranchises a voter and violates one of his fundamental
rights. Hence, for such act to be punishable, it must be shown that it has been committed with malice.
There is no clear showing in the instant case that the accused intentionally, willfully and maliciously
omitted or failed to include in the registry list of voters the names of those voters. They cannot be
punished criminally.

Plunder (RA 7080) I told you the predicate crimes of Plunder cannot be committed by a single act, it should be a
series of acts. These are separately filed by themselves but when they are used to charge under Plunder, they
become component crimes of Plunder which are like common crimes absorbed in Rebellion. Common crimes
are mostly felonies, like malversation, robbery. Accordingly, it is said that the component crimes of plunder are
inherently immoral (mala in se), even if punished by a special law and accordingly, criminal intent must be
established. Take note, because the component crimes establish the intent of the crime under RA 7080.
With respect to Habitual Delinquents, first is retroactivity. We say that laws are retroactive if favorable to the
accused but it does not apply to habitual delinquents. Now, also, the period of preventive suspension shall not
be credited in the service of the sentence when the convict is a HD under Article 39. Also under the ISL, he is not
entitled to it and neither is he eligible for parole. Being a HD applies whether the stage is consummated,

frustrated or attempted and does not apply only to consummated. It applies in the same manner, even if your
participation is only that of an accomplice or accessory.
Liability of conspirators in relation to Art.2.
People vs. Fontanil, (not sure about the case title, not clear, but ruling is the same for many conspiracy
cases)

each conspirator is responsible for everything done by his confederates which are complementary in
the execution of the common design so as its probable and natural consequences, even if it is not
intended as part of the original design, so hindisiyakasamasa original agreement. The responsibility of
a conspirator is not confined to the accomplishment of a particular purpose of conspiracy but extends to
matter or acts incident to and growing out of the purpose intended. Conspirators are there to have
intended the consequences of their act and by purposely engaging conspiracy which necessarily
produces the prohibited result. They are in contemplation of law chargeable with intending that result.
Conspirators are necessarily liable for the acts of another conspirator unless such act differs radically
and substantially from that which they intended to make.

Application of Aggravating Circumstances.Specific privilege, slight illegal detention, xx (inaudible). Special

mitigating, those are the two mitigating circumstances, no aggravating (Art 64, par 5). The principle is that the
aggravating circumstances under the RPC do not apply to special laws but take note of RA 8294, on the
unlicensed firearms, it is ordinary aggravating, therefore, subject to the offset rule.
Also, special aggravating under RA 9262, the acts committed against a woman who is pregnant or committed in
the presence of a child, elevates it to maximum. Special aggravating, therefore, offset is not applicable.
Mitigating or aggravating not considered in the imposition of a penalty when: 1. Penalty is single and indivisible.
2. Negligence 3. Penalty to be imposed on (sorry, inaudible) 4. Prescribed in fine imposed in an ordinance.
Homicide committed by a band, robbery with homicide. Theres robbery, theres also a special complex crime,
robbery with homicide or robbery with rape. Paanoipagsabayyan? Since theres a special complex crime
provided by the RPC for Robbery with Homicide, what happens if there is multiple homicides? How do you plead
the other homicides? If there are two or three people killed. Or Robbery with Rape, then the victim was also
killed. People vs. _ (inaudible). The court erred in finding the appellants guilty with Robbery with Homicide
committed by a band. This is an erroneous denomination of the crime committed. There is no crime of Robbery
with Homicide committed by a band. If Robbery with Homicide is committed by a band, it is indictable offense
denominated as Robbery with Homicide, the element of band will be ordinary aggravating.
People vs. Sultan

With respect to rapes, the court has declared in some cases that the additional rapes committed in the
same occasion of robbery do not increase the penalty. There were also cases, however, where the court
ruled that the additional rapes committed were considered as an aggravating circumstance. Finally, in
the case of People vs. Regala, the court held that the additional rapes committed SHOULD NOT BE
APPRECIATED AS AN AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE despite a resultant anomalous situation wherein
Robbery with rape would be in the same level as Robbery with Multiple Rape in terms of gravity. The
court realized that there was no law providing for the additional rapes or homicides for that matter to
be considered as aggravating circumstance. It further observed that the enumeration of aggravating
circumstances under Article 14 is exclusive unlike Article 13 which provides for other circumstances
analogous to. Hence, the remedy lies with the legislature. Consequently, unless and until a law is
passed providing for the additional rapes and homicides as aggravating, the court must construe the
penal law in favor of the offender as no person may be brought within its terms, if he is not clearly made

so by the statute.

Doctrine of Common Element. An element used to complete one crime cannot be legally reused to complete the
requisites of another crime. Example, Estafa through falsification of private document.
Robbery with Homicide
People vs. Baron 2010

A Conviction of homicide needs certainty that the Robbery is the central purpose of the malefactor and
the killing is made incidental to the robbery. Precisely there is Robbery as the main crime. The intent to
rob must precede the taking of human life, but the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery.
Then, when the homicide takes place by reason of or on the occasion of robbery, all those who took part
shall be guilty of the special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide, whether they actually took part in
the killing unless theres proof that they prevented the killing.

RA 9344.A child in conflict with the law commits a crime, he is 15 years old or under, the effect is exempting.
There is an intervention program in 9344. 15 years and 1 day above, without discernment, again it is exempting.
There is still intervention program. 15 years and 1 dayabove and below 18, with discernment, that becomes a
privilege mitigating. Under 9344, the intervention now becomes a diversion program. When is a minor not
qualified for diversion?
a. when the penalty imposable exceeds 6 years imprisonment. (RA 9344 states that diversion measures may be
resorted to only by the court if penalty exceeds six years imprisonment, while other diversion programs do not
require court proceedings. See Sec. 23 of RA 9344)
b. if the child, his parents or guardians, do not consent with diversion. The records of the case of the child shall
be forwarded to the law enforcement officer, prosecutor or the appropriate court, as the case may be.
Also, Section 58, persons below eighteen (18) years of age shall be exempt from prosecution for the crime of
vagrancy and prostitution under Section 202 of the Revised Penal Code. Now remember nawalana yang
Vagrancy under Act 1824. Also, of mendicancy under Presidential Decree No. 1563, and 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.
What are status offenses under that? "Status Offenses" refers to offenses which discriminate only against a child,
while an adult does not suffer any penalty for committing similar acts. Example: curfew violations.
Distinctions between PD 603 and RA 9344.Suspension of sentence is automatic in 9344, while you have to apply
in 603.
Declarador vs. Gubaton

Thus, it is clear that a person who is convicted of an offense punishable by death, life imprisonment, or
reclusion perpetua is disqualified from availing the benefits of a suspended sentence. "Punishable" is
defined as "deserving of, or capable, or liable to punishment; liable to be punished; may be punished;
liable to punishment." 15 The word "punishable" does not mean "must be punished," but "liable to be
punished" as specified. 16 In U.S. v. Villalon, the Court defined punishable as "deserving of, or liable for,
punishment." Thus, the term refers to the possible, not to the actual sentence. It is concerned with the
penalty which may be, and not which is imposed.

The law merely amended Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended by A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC, in that the
suspension of sentence shall be enjoyed by the juvenile even if he is already 18 years of age or more at
the time of the pronouncement of his/her guilt. The other disqualifications in Article 192 of P.D. No. 603,
as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC have not been deleted from Section 38 of Rep. Act
No. 9344. Evidently, the intention of Congress was to maintain the other disqualifications as provided in
Article 192 of P.D. No. 603, as amended, and Section 32 of A.M. No. 02-1-18-SC. Hence, juveniles who
have been convicted of a crime the imposable penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment
or reclusion perpetua to death or death, are disqualified from having their sentences suspended.
But consider Sec. 42 of RA 9344 which is probation as an alternative to imprisonment.

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.

The filing of the application in Section 4 shall be deemed a waiver of the right to appeal, or the
automatic withdrawal of a pending appeal. In other words, a child in conflict with the law can apply for
probation anytime pursuant to Article 42 of RA 9344. On the other hand, Sec. 9 of PD 968 states that
probation shall not to those sentenced to serve a maximum term of imprisonment of more than six
years imprisonment.

Sec. 5 par (m) of RA 9344 on the rights of the child in conflict with the law states the right to probation
as an alternative to imprisonment, if qualified under the Probation Law;
Thus, pursuant to Declarador, Hence, juveniles who have been convicted of a crime the imposable
penalty for which is reclusion perpetua, life imprisonment or reclusion perpetua to death or death, are
disqualified from having their sentences suspended. Neither can they apply for probation since Sec. 9 of
the Probation Law was not amended.

Parricide

Pimentel vs. Pimentel, Sept. 13, 2010

The annulment is not a prejudicial question in a criminal case for Parricide. The relationship between the
offender and the victim is the key element of the crime of parricide. The relationship between the
offender and the victim xxx however the issue xxx further, the relationship bet the victim and the

offender is not victim is a key element in parricide.

Kidnapping
People vs. Abad. June 15, 2010

In this case, the prosecution was able to prove all the elements of kidnapping:

(1)
The offender is a private individual; not either of the parents of the victim or a public officer who
has a duty under the law to detain a person;

(2)

He kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his liberty;

(3)

The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and

(4)

In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:

(a)

the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days;

(b)

it is committed by simulating public authority;

(c)
any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill
him are made or

(d)

the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public official.

The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled with
indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect the same. Moreover, if the victim is a minor, or

the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his
detention becomes inconsequential. Ransom here means money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for the redemption of a captured person that will release him from captivity.
As the CA correctly stated, although the accused testified that he was a member of the Philippine
Marines on November 12, 2001, he had no duty under the law to detain Ma. Angela. Her kidnapping
was clearly illegal and undertaken for the purpose of extorting ransom from her family.
Pp vs. Marquez April 13, 2011

Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. The penalty of reclusion
perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a
minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.[25]

This crime has two essential elements:

1.

The offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person; and

2.

The offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians.

This Court, in elucidating on the elements of Article 270, stated that while one of the essential
elements of this crime is that the offender was entrusted with the custody of the minor, what is actually
being punished is not the kidnapping but the deliberate failure of that person to restore the minor to his
parents or guardians. As the penalty for such an offense is so severe, the Court further explained what
deliberate as used in Article 270 means:
Indeed, the word deliberate as used in Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code must imply
something more than mere negligence - it must be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or
intentionally and maliciously wrong.

Rape.
People vs. Dahilig June 13, 2011

Under Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 in relation to RA 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse 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 Revised Penal Code and penalized with reclusion perpetua. 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 Revised Penal Code. However, the
offender cannot be accused of both crimes for the same act because his right against double jeopardy
will be prejudiced. A person cannot be subjected twice to criminal liability for a single criminal
act. Likewise, rape cannot be complexed with a violation of Section 5(b) of RA 7610. Under Section 48 of

the Revised Penal Code (on complex crimes), a felony under the Revised Penal Code (such as rape)
cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special law.

Sometimes, some people might be confused. One of the general principles is that there is no problem with
respect to charges arising from the same act where in fact one charge is under a general law and the other is a
special law. They have different elements, but here, when we talk about rape, it is not allowed. Anyway, it
cannot be because this will be tantamount to double jeopardy.
The sweetheart offense
People vs. Olseco (April 11, 2011)

The sweetheart theory or sweetheart defense is an oft-abused justification that rashly derides the
intelligence of this Court and sorely tests our patience. For the Court to even consider giving credence
to such defense, it must be proven by compelling evidence. The defense cannot just present testimonial
evidence in support of the theory, as in the instant case. Independent proof is required -- such as tokens,
mementos, and photographs. There is none presented here by the defense.

Delay in making accusations.

People vs. Saludo(April 6, 2011)

We have declared in a number of cases that delay or vacillation in making a criminal accusation does not
necessarily impair the credibility of witnesses if such delay is satisfactorily explained. Fear of reprisal,
social humiliation, familial considerations, and economic reasons have been considered as sufficient
explanations.

Dangerous drugs
People vs. Manlangit(June 12, 2010)

Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test buy does not affect the legality of the
buy-bust operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has left
to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective means to apprehend drug dealers. A
prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is not necessary, especially where the police operatives are
accompanied by their informant during the entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. We
have held that when time is of the essence, the police may dispense with the need for prior surveillance.
In the instant case, having been accompanied by the informant to the person who was peddling the
dangerous drugs, the policemen need not have conducted any prior surveillance before they undertook
the buy-bust operation.

Chain of custody
Pp. vs. Lorena (January 10, 2011)

While a perfect chain of custody is almost always impossible to achieve, an unbroken chain becomes
indispensable and essential in the prosecution of drug cases owing to its susceptibility to alteration,
tampering, contamination and even substitution and exchange. Hence, every link must be accounted
for.
Like I said in chain of custody, your evidence is only as strong or as weak as it can be. Pagmeronyan unaccounted
na link, walakangkaso, because of its susceptibility to alteration and substitution.
People vs. Ramolete (case not found but ruling is same as in other drugs cases)

Provided, further, that non-compliance with these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long as
the integrity and 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.
What is of utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity of the items seized. You have to go back to the
chain of custody, it is basic. If it is intact, the evidence still retains its integrity.
Presumption of Regularity

People vs. Capuno (January 19, 2011)

This presumption, it must be stressed, is not conclusive. It cannot, by itself, overcome the constitutional
presumption of innocence. Any taint of irregularity affects the whole performance and should make the
presumption unavailable. The presumption, in other words, obtains only when nothing in the records
suggests that the law enforcers involved deviated from the standard conduct of official duty as provided
for in the law. But where the official act in question is irregular on its face, as in this case, an adverse
presumption arises as a matter of course.

Transport in Drugs Cases.

San Juan vs. People (May 30, 2011)

Transport as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act is defined to mean: to carry or convey from one
place to another. The essential element of the charge is the movement of the dangerous drug from one
place to another. In the present case, although petitioner and his co-accused were arrested inside a car,
the car was not in transit when they were accosted. From the facts found by the RTC, that car was
parked and stationary. The prosecution failed to show that any distance was travelled by petitioner with

the drugs in his possession. The conclusion that petitioner transported the drugs merely because he
was in a motor vehicle when he was accosted with the drugs has no basis and is mere speculation. The
rule is clear that the guilt of the accused must be proved with moral certainty. All doubts should be
resolved in favor of the accused. It is the responsibility of the prosecution to prove the element of
transport of dangerous drugs, namely, that transportation had taken place, or that the accused had
moved the drugs some distance.

Anti-graft Law.
People vs. SantillanoMarch 3, 2010

Section 3 (e). While Section 3(e) does not contain reference to private individuals, they are under Sec. 4
(b) of the same law, nonetheless may be prosecuted under Sec 3(e) thereof if he knowingly refuses or
causes any public official to commit any offenses defined under Sec 3 (e). Clearly, the law punishes not
only public officers who commit prohibited acts enumerated under Sec 3. This is by Sec 9 which includes
private persons who are liable under Sec 3,4,5 and 6.

Description of RA 3019
PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS vs. Hon. AnianoDesierto
(August 14, 2001)
Under Republic Act No. 6770, the Ombudsman has the power to investigate and prosecute any act or
omission of a public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust,
improper or inefficient. In fact, the Ombudsman has the power to dismiss a complaint without going
through a preliminary investigation as provided in Administrative Order No, 07 of the Office of the
Ombudsman, otherwise known as the "Rules of Procedure of the Office of the Ombudsman."
The rationale underlying the Court's ruling has been explained in numerous cases. The rule is based not
only upon respect for the investigatory and prosecutory powers granted by the Constitution to the
Office of the Ombudsman but upon practicality as well.
Sec. 15 Art 11, of the 1987 Constitution, provided that the Ombudsmans power to investigate shall not be
barred by prescription, laches or estoppels. It applies only to civil action for recovery of ill-gotten wealth and not
criminal action including those involving offenses under RA 3019.
So yungsinabikona petition for forfeiture, the 1987 constitution effectively repealed that. But this refers only to
civil forfeiture. Although angsabi, there is a case under 1379, they are akin or the nature is that of criminal,
against property, it is only the nature. Under 1379, it does not prescribe. Pero if its criminal forfeiture, there is a
distinction. What is an example? We go back to Plunder. You remember, there is a specific penalty but that is
only for forfeiture. That is criminal procedure in nature.
Acts of lasciviousness.
People vs. Bonaagua (June 6, 2011)

Section 5 (b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610, defines and penalizes acts of lasciviousness committed against
a child as follows:

Section 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. -- Children, whether male or female, who for
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or
group, indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.

x xxx

(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is under twelve (12) years
of age, the perpetrators shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of
Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may be:
Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall
be reclusion temporal in its medium period.

Paragraph (b) punishes sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct not only with a child exploited in
prostitution, but also with a child subjected to other sexual abuses. It covers not only a situation where
a child is abused for profit, but also where one through coercion, intimidation or influence, engages in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct with a child.

Illegal possession of firearms.

Fajardo vs. People (January 10, 2011)

Certainly, illegal possession of firearms, or, in this case, part of a firearm, is committed when the holder
thereof:

(1)

possesses a firearm or a part thereof

(2)

lacks the authority or license to possess the firearm.

The rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
What the law requires is merely possession which includes not only actual physical possession but also
constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to ones control and management. This has to be
so if the manifest intent of the law is to be effective. The same evils, the same perils to public security,
which the law penalizes exist whether the unlicensed holder of a prohibited weapon be its owner or a
borrower. To accomplish the object of this law, the proprietary concept of the possession can have no
bearing whatsoever.

Cybercrime Law. (RA 10175)Cited libel as one of the content-related offenses under Chapter II in Punishable Acts.
Libel. The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future.

OCTOBER 16, 2014

PD 1405 SECRECY OF BANK DEPOSITS ACT
You cannot inquire into the bank deposits of anybody as a rule.
Section 2 All deposits of whatever nature with banks or banking institutions in the Philippines including
investments or bonds issued by the Government of the Philippines and political subdivisions, instrumentalities
are hereby considered as of absolutely confidential nature and may not be examined, inquired or looked into by
any person, government official or office EXCEPT:
1. Upon written permission of the depositor
2. In cases of impeachment
Corona Impeachment He did not want to disclose his dollar accounts. Why? he was standing on strong
legal grounds.
RA 6426 Foreign Currency Deposits Act
Section 8 all foreign currency deposits authorized under this act as well as other foreign currency deposits
are hereby declared, considered an absolutely confidential nature and EXCEPT upon written permission of
the depositor, in no instance shall his deposit be examined, reviewed, inquired or looked into by any person,
official, bureau or office whether judicial, administrative or legislative or any other entity whether private or
public. Provided however, this foreign currency shall be exempt from attachment, garnishment or any other
lawful order or process of the court, or any government agency.
Here, written consent is the ONLY exception.
3. In case of order of the court in cases of bribery, dereliction of duty of public officials
But this is allegedly useless because you are supposed to be looking for ill-gotten wealth, you can only
inquire when the case is already filed in court, precisely. How can you know na marami yung laman, ang
alam mo lang marami siyang pera. In the first place, we should be looking, investigating.
4. In cases where the money deposited or invested is the subject matter of the litigation
But it presupposes na alam mo magkano ang laman. You know very well it is there. But you cannot inquire!
Section 3 It shall be unlawful for any official or employee or banking institution to disclose to any person any
information concerning deposits.
This is my introduction to ANTI MONEY LAUNDERING ACT. This relaxes the above-mentioned laws.
It is a crime whereby the proceeds of unlawful activity are transacted thereby making them appear to have been
liquidated from legitimate sources. From criminal activities introduced into the financial system and then pag

labas nyan from various transactions, from that account transferred to another account pasok mo sa
corporation until later the money launderer will get that money clean na siya making them appear to originate
from legitimate sources.
Salient Features:
1. Criminalizes money laundering.
Before this Act, there was no law punishing money laundering.
2. Identifies predicate offenses.
All these money comes from somewhere. We are after those money kaya tinatawag silang dirty money,
because these are from criminal offenses, called predicate offenses.
Compliance Requirements:
1. Identify _____.
Di na pwede yung ginawa ni Erap dati na Velarde Account. Must be identified already.
2. Institutionalize the reporting of suspicious transcations.
3. Freezing accounts / forfeiture of money for ill gotten money transactions.
Elements:
1.
2.
3.
4.

Unlawful activity / predicate crimes

Monetary instrument or property
Attempt to transact
Knowledge that monetary instrument or property proceeds from the unlawful activity

UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY /PREDICATE CRIMES

Any act or omission, series or combination of unlawful acts. Unlike Plunder na serious or combination, dito
pwede single act lang talaga. But it can also be combination of acts. Basta it has something to do with:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.

Kidnapping with ransom

Drug trafficking RA 3019
Plunder
Robbery extortion
Qualified theft
Swindling
Smuggling
Arson
Murder
SEC
Felonies and offenses of a similar nature (trans-national offense) where money will be introduced here
and goes out somewhere in the Bahamas,etc.
12. Terrorism financing
13. (marami pa, not mentioned by sir until 34)
MONETARY INSTRUMENT OR PROPERTY
Kahit ano nalang dito. Cash, checks, notes,negotiable instruments, bonds, acontracts of insurance, suretyship, or
other similar instruments with the title assets.
What are reportable transactions?
There are transactions in cash or other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total money in excess of
500K within 1 day. It covers suspicious transactions and covered transactions of covered institutions.
What are covered institutions?

These are the banks or entities required under the law to report covered and suspicious transactions. This
includes banks, all other entities, subsidiaries affiliated, regulated by the BSP. Insurance companies, pre-need
companies, all other institutions regulated by the Insurance Commission. Securities dealers and all other entities
regulated by the SEC. Kasama ang jewelry dealers if the transaction involves 1million or above. Including also the
LRA for real estate purchases of 500K and above. But the casinos are not included kay di musugot ang Congress.
Covered Transactions
Covered transactions in excess of 500K in 1 day, the bank is supposed to report to the AMLA. The following day
naa pud withdrawal or deposit in excess of 500K, report ka nanaman.
Suspicious Transactions
However even if it does not exceed 500K, you are still mandated to report if it is a suspicious transaction. It
includes the following: when there is no underlying trade, economic justification, money does not
commensurate to the business of the client, there is structuring like depositing only 400K a day, there is a
pattern, or deviating from the pattern of his financial transactions.
Whether it be covered transactions exceeding 500K or suspicious transactions not exceeding 400K, the covered
institutions are sanctioned to report to AMLA.
Who are the offenders?
1. The person who transacts or attempts to transact the money launderer himself or herself.
2. The facilitator who assists the money launderer
3. Covered institutions that do not report to the AMLA the suspicious and the covered transactions
How do you launder money?
1. You introduce it first to the financial system by depositing.
2. Layering, you distance yourself from that money through various transactions.
3. Integration where it is made available to you again but its clean already.
If you have money from illegal sources, what can you do with money?
1. You spend the money, makikita yan. The point is, it will somehow be noticed.
2. You deposit it into the system.
3. You keep it para hindi makita ng government.
Freeze order
It only takes a resolution from AMLA filing ex parte petition to the CA who will issue the freeze order after
finding probable cause. It is effective for 20 days unless extended by CA upon motion by AMLA not exceeding 6
months. During the effectivity, AMLA can avail itself of other remedies, inquiries, forfeiture,
filing of AMLA case. Covered institutions shall not lift the freeze order without securing the official confirmation
of the AMLA.
No court may issue TRO or Writ of preliminary injunction except the SC. This is to protect the politicians wala
silang funds pang election. No asset of an electoral candidate shall be frozen during an election period.
Civil Forfeiture
Recovery of ill gotten wealth is imprescriptible, that is civil forfeiture. There is no need of prior conviction. AMLA,
under this law, only grants civil forfeiture. It is only a petition directed to the property. Jurisdiction over the
person is not necessary.
Attachment bond
When the State litigates, it is not required to put up a bond for damages or even an appeal bond. This is not
required.
Criminal Forfeiture

There is a need of prior conviction because he amassed ill-gotten wealth. Jurisdiction over the person is
necessary.

Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery. - Any person who, with intent to gain, shall take any
personal property belonging to another, by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or
using force upon anything shall be guilty of robbery.
This felony you have to give attention to because this is similar to other felonies.

Elements of Robbery
1. There subject matter is personal property
Personal property that is why, the oft repeated quote I was robbed of my land that land is mine. That is not
robbery because in robbery, it involves personal property.
2. The property belongs to another
Take note, it doenst say about ownership, the personal property that you got from another, even if he is not the
owner, that is still robbery. Suppose A, the personal property of A was stolen by B, and you also stole that
property. Reklamo ka nga di mana robbery kay gikawat man gihapon na niya. Wala mang sinabi ditto na ikaw
ang owner. Personal property belonging to another it doesnt require that you have to be the owner.
Suppose at gun point, you got the sachet of shabu belong to A, it is illegal, is that robbery? Wala ding sinabi na
legal ang dapat mong i-rob. For academic purposes, that is, even if it is illegal, still robbery because personal
property belonging to another.
3. There must be unlawful taking of the personal property (ASPORTATION)
This is what you call asportation. You dont have to, as long as the property is under your control, that is
robbery already, even if your possession is momentary. That is already robbery. If he got the property sandal
tapos pagtakbo may pulis pala, even if momentary that is robbery, already consummated.
4. There must be intent to gain on the part of the offender
5. The offender takes the property by:
a. means of violence or intimidation against persons, or
b. using force upon things
Robbery is with intent to gain. All the elements are there- a public officer or a private individual may be an
offender in a robbery. Usually robbery, hold up with violence against persons Give me money or I will kill you
that could also be a threat, I will kill you. Tapos made a condition. But the difference is, the threat is carried
out in the future, not now. Kung ganyan, you demand from me for money tapos merong threat and the threat is
in the future, doon ka sa threat. So similarly, hold up, if you dont give me money now, I will kill you, the threat is
absorbed by robbery. The threat is now, not in the future. If there is no intent to gain, suppose someone owes
you money, patyon tika ron kung di ko nimo bayran so you compel somebody to do something against his will
but there is no intent to gain there, that will be coercion. There must be element of intent to gain.
Eto pa, Robbery there must be 5.
The offender takes the property by means of violence or intimidation
against persons, or using force upon things. So yan.

going back to taking of property belonging to another, example nawala mo yung laptop mo, then you force
someone to give up his laptop to you and it turns out na iyo yun, since it doesnt belong to him, because it
belongs to you then that is not robbery. That is an impossible crime.

What is asked by dean Inigo is this, what if you rob not for your self but for others?
You rob rich people to give to poor people, there is still intent to gain because there is some satisfaction from
doing an act. That is still intent to gain.
There is also a similar crime, Bribery. Similar.
Suppose somebody is red handed in possessing illegal substance, pero ikaw police, binigyan ka nya ng pera. So
that you will not arrest the offender. Kunyari sabihin mo if you dont give us money, we will fabricate a case
against you, nasa kotse mo yan ano man yan? that is bribery. It can be qualified bribery, depending on the
penalty, depending on the crime committed. It can be privaricacion. So becareful with the elements. Twist the
facts then meron nang ibang crime.
Distinctions:
ROBBERY
1. The threatened harm is present and actual
2. The gain is immediate, he is getting the money or
thing now
3. The person threatened is the victim of the robbery
4. The intimidation is personal

GRAVE THREATS
The threat is conditional or future
The gain is conditional or in future
The threat might be on your person or that of your
family
It might be in writing or through a middleman

Robbery v. Grave Coercion

Distinctions:
ROBBERY
There is intent to gain

GRAVE COERCION
There is NO intent to gain

In the next section, you will see various kinds of committing robbery. These are variations of robbery.
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. - Any person
guilty of robbery with the use of violence against or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
the crime of homicide shall have been committed.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua when the
robbery shall have been accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on
occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1 of Article 263
shall have been inflicted; Provided, however, that when the robbery accompanied with rape is
committed with a use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be
reclusion perpetua to death (As amended by PD No. 767).
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the
physical injuries penalized in subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding
paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium

period, if the violence or intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery shall have
been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime, or when the
course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its
commission any of the physical injuries covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said Article 23.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium
period in other cases. (As amended by R. A. 18).

Robbery with violence against and intimidation against persons.

1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide shall have been committed.
This is a special complex crime.
What if you rob your mother and father? Then you kill them, is it robbery with homicide? Diba parricide mana
kay gipatay man nimo sila? Or suppose there was qualifying circumstance for murder. Should it be robbery with
murder? When you say robber with homicide, it is generic. It refers to any kind of killing parricide, infanticide,
murder. It does not solely refer to homicide under 248. It is generic, any killing.
And the issue there, in the case of PEOPLE vs MANGULABNAN, tung naa sa kisame, iyang mga anak, asawa naa
sa baba, siya naa sa kisame, human isa ka robber to control the crowd, he fired a shot in the air and
unfortunately, the guy he was there. The robbers didnt know that he shot somebody. Mao gifilan silag robbery
with homicide. So tingan mo jan, robbery with homicide when homicide shall have been committed, they
questioned why they should be guilty, because committed means intentional. This is erroneous translation of
the Spanish text because the Spanish text says Resultare in other words, this should be the crime of homicide
shall have resulted it doesnt mean intentional. It can be intentional or not. It simply means that during the
course of the robbery, death shall have resulted. It doesnt matter kung intentional or not. It doesnt even
matter even if the one who was killed was the robber, it is still robbery with homicide. Okay? It is not necessary
that the one who was killed be the victims or one of the victims. Even if one of the robbers dies in the course of
robbery, it is still robbery with homicide.
Now, is there such a thing, a robbery is committed by a band and the person dies during the course of robbery,
is it proper to charge them with robbery with homicide in a band? Diba? Pwede bay an? Robbery with homicide
in a band or robbery in a band with homicide?
PEOPLE vs SUGDAN(SUGAN) March 23, 2011: SC said, if robbery is committed by a band and a homicide results,
it would still be denominated as Robbery with Homicide. The element of band is considered as an aggravating
circumstance. Not robbery by a band with homicide, there is no such thing.
Another issue, when should the death occur? Kasi nga sinasabi jan, by reason of or on the occasion of robbery,
will it be robbery with homicide If death occurs before? During? After? Its still the same. Pero if after, not be 1
day after, it must be a reasonable time after. The killing still has a relation to the robbery. Anyway, the ruling,
the death may occur during, before or after PEOPLE vs BARONG/BARON June 28, 2010. 2 points: you are
charging somebody with robbery with homicide. Is it robbery or is it homicide? Ipinagsama mo sila, robbery
crimes against property, homicide is crimes against persons. Take not when you commit robbery with homicide,
the main offense is robbery. And in this case, the conviction, there must be certainty that robbery was the main
intention of the malefactor and that the killing is merely incidental. The intent to rob must precede the taking of
human life. But the killing may occur before, during or after the robbery. The premise is that, there is intent to
rob. When a homicide takes place, all those who took part shall be guilty of robbery with homicide, W/N they
actually participated in the killing. Unless there is proof, there was an endeavor to stop the killing. There must be
an attempt to stop the assault, otherwise, apil ka.

Now, the same thing is true with respect to, when there is a robbery, not only 1 person was killed, there are
many. Would that be, robbery with multiple homicide? There is no such thing. The crime is really, robbery with
homicide only even if several persons were killed.
If robbery shall be committed with rape, arson. Supposing daghan ang girape, still the same. Robbery with rape.
The issue actually here is, how are you going to treat the other killings or other rape. Still robbery with homicide
or rape, other killings or other rape shall be treated as aggravating circumstance. May mga cases na ganyan.
In the case of Regala and People vs Sultan, April 27, 2007, the SC said, on several cases, the additional rapes in
the same occasion committed in a robbery shall not be treated as separate offense or serve to aggravate the
offense but there are also certain cases wherein this court said that multiplicity of rapes committed shall be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance.
Finally, in the case of Regala, additional rapes, SC said it shall not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance
despite the anomalous situation wherein robbery with rape shall be treated as robbery with multiple rape
despite the multiplicity. The court realized that there was no law which provides that it must be appreciated as
aggravating circumstance. Article 14 is exclusive unlike article 13, which provides for analogous circumstances.
The remedy is with the legislature.
If committed by a band, aggravating pero if multiple rapes or homicide, hindi aggravating kasi there is no law.
Although of course, walang law, yung band, article 14 because it is an aggravating circumstance.
Again, the SC admits that it is an anomalous situation because it is equal footing, robbery with rape/homicide
and robbery with multiple rape and homicide. It is unfair.
Let us go back to the time when the death occurs.
Example of that is this
1. Suppose, I take your wallet, my intention is to take your wallet, but in order to do that without
resistance, I will kill you first. There must be intent to rob, so the killing is before the robbery. That is still
robbery with homicide
2. During the taking, sige kag struggle samuka nimo uy.
3. After, pagkakuha mo ng property, pinatay mo siya.
Before during after is homicide.
It would be different story if we talk about physical injuries.
So the purpose, if the purpose is the other way around, meaning, your purpose is to kill, tapos after you kill,
maganda yung relo niya ah or necklace, so you start getting all these ano, it cannot be robbery with homicide. It
should be murder or homicide. Paano yan maging robbery na patay na man yang kinuhaan mo?? That will be
theft. No more intimidation, no violence against for the reason na patay na. there will be 2 separate crimes.
This one, with respect to robbery with rape. Remember the case of Angeles? Kadtong gi rob ang babae tapos
after robbing, gidala siya ng robbers, ang ibang robbers nag uwian tapos yung isa, nang rape. They were all
charged with Robbery with rape. SC said, that cannot be because yung after niya matagal na talaga, is
separated by time and distance it cannot be considered as in the course of or after robbery. SC said, there is
robbery. What about the rape? Remember, kinuha mo muna siya, ibang intent yun. Tapos ni rape. Iba yung
robbery, that is a separate offense and another offense, a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape under
Article 48, not special complex but complex under 48.
Robbery with serious physical injuries. Again, the determining factor, by reason or on occasion of robbery there
was serious physical injuries which results and it refers to, anyway. Related to sub divisions in 263. So this will

cover also, not only serious physical injuries but also, less serious. Because if you will notice, basahin nyo jan. as
long as there is violence or initimidation, so yung less serious PI, dun siya papasok sa violence, there was
violence committed in the course of robbery. Yung sa slight, dun siya sa other cases.
Now, what you have to be careful is this. There is a different story if physical injuries ang kasama ng robbery.
Because it says here in paragraph 4, when the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any
person not responsible for its commission any of the physical injuries covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said
Article 23. Nawala na yung by reason of that is found in the law, is in the course of execution. These injuries
must be committed in the course of execution and not by reason of.
Sa paragraphs 1, 2,3, the death, serious PI, may be committed before during after.
One who is divested of his wallet, by a pickpocket, dinukutan siya. Anyway. Kasi diba, if there is no, the personal
property is taken, now, tapos nagsisigaw ngayon, after na. binalikan mo ngayon, imong kinulata. Is that robbery?
Wala man yung violence with initimidation, pero if serious PI, or gipatay gyud nimo, that would fall under
robbery with homicide. Violence against, ang importante, which paragraph, 1,2,3,, ang importante, on the
occasion of, or by reason of robbery. Because even if the violence is committed after, it is still robbery. Pero
yung itong last sub division, ang naka lagay nalang is in the course of. Kung after, like slight PI, dinukutan,
tapos nagsisikaw, gibalikanm gisagpa paghilom what is that? Robbery with serious physical injuries? Di na
pwedeng mangyari yun, the violence should be in the course of robbery, kani di man siya mag fall under
paragraph 1,2,3 and it was not committed in the course of. Unsa mana? Intimidation lang. ang labas non,
merong theft. Pero kunyari sinabihan mo ng paghilom ha kundi patyon tika that is also intimidation, pero din a
yan yung robbery with force or intimidation because wala naman ikaw ginawa, no violence there. Gi threaten
mo after, then there will be 2 separate crimes. Theft and threats.
Be careful about that. It makes a lot of difference by reason of as to what crime was committed, depending
when the violence or intimidation was committed and kung ano ang nangyari.
Okay.
Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place and by a band,
or with the use of firearm on a street, road or alley. - If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions
three, four, and five of the next preceding article shall have been committed in an uninhabited
place or by a band, or by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by
entering the passenger's compartments in a train or, in any manner, taking the passengers
thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and
the intimidation is made with the use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the
maximum period of the proper penalties.
In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon the leader of the
band.
Committed in an uninhabited place or by a band.
With physical injuries ni siya, or with use of fire arms. So specific ang grounds niya. Take note of use of fire arm,
if violence is used, then maximum penalty.
Now, lets go back sandali sa 294.
Paragraph 4 of 294: in the course of its execution. I told you earlier, that the victim of the violence may be one
of the robbers (robbery with homicide even if one of the robbers was killed). In paragraph 4, it must not be one

of the robbers, not responsible, yung kanina, if responsible kasama sya dun, in paragraph 4, should not be one
of the robbers. Okay ha. So.
Definition of band, more than 3 armed men or women. Armed, alam niyo nay an.
Firearm is unlicensed, maximum.
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.

So 297, special.
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances. - When
by reason or on occasion of an attempted or frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the
person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the
provisions of this Code.
This is special complex but, it only applies by reason of or on occasion of attempted or frustrated robbery. And
then death occurs.
Can this apply the other way around? Suppose it is the homicide, frustrated or attempted, and the robbery was
baliktad ba. No, that cannot apply because the law specifically provides na, frustrated robbery or attempted
robbery, human, may homicide. Yun lang yun siya. So that if there is consummated robbery and attempted
homicide, iba yun. We cannot use 48 for that. It can be separate. It will fall under 48 if one crime is committed to
perpetrate the other, then apply 48, or if one offense results to 2 or more grave or less grave, then doon ka sa
48. If not, then separate.
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation. - Any person who, with
intent to defraud another, by means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him to sign,
execute or deliver any public instrument or documents, shall be held guilty of robbery and
punished by the penalties respectively prescribed in this Chapter.
Just take note, there is attempt to defraud, by means of violence. It has specific applicability only to the
execution or delivery of public instrument.
It is very similar to grave coercion. But here there is intent to gain. You compel somebody, with force and
intimidation with intent to gain, then 298 siya. So specific siya ang application.
Article 296, ang sabi, merong circumstances, merong band, merong fire arm unlicensed. Both are supposed to
aggravate the crime. Iakyat mo. Maximum na kasi band, paano na yung unlicensed firearm? Basta mga ganyan,
you always go back to crim 1, when you say divisible penalties, it will always be divisible by 3. It can only be

divided by 3 even if only a period, kasi divisible man parin ang period, you can divide that using the formula,
apply mo yun.
So here, robbery with a band, maximum period ka na. ngayon, may unlicensed fire arm. Doon ka sa maximum,
divide mo yung period, get the maximum period of the maximum period. So yan.
Hanggang jan lang muna tayo. Any questions?

CRIM LAW REVIEW 2

OCT 21, 2014
Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without
violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another
without the latter's consent.
Theft is likewise committed by:
1. Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its
owner;
2. Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of
the fruits or object of the damage caused by him; and
3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or
other forest or farm products.
THEFT is robbery without violence against or intimidation of persons or without use of force upon things.
Violence is replaced by lack of consent. The other elements are the same. There is intent to gain, taking of
personal property and without the elements which will make it robbery. This still covers personal property.
If you will look at the full article, you will know that there are different kinds of theft. Theft is likewise committed
by Any person who, having found lost property, shall fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or to its
owner. In other words, there is no such thing as finders keeper. You are supposed to return that thing to the
owner or to the authorities. Under civil law pwdmagingsayoyan, but you have to follow certain procedure. Here
if you found something, you may be considered a thief if you keep it for yourself.
May nakitaka, lost and found. In this case somebody found a lost property and went to the police. You gave it to
the police for him to find the owner. Ang police, walaniyagipangita, iyahana daw to. Is he liable? Sabiniya, sabisa
code, any person who found lost property. I did not find this, so I cannot fall under this definition. Is he correct?
SC said, hindi. Yes it is true, you did not found it, not the actual founder. The person who actually found the item
is a finder-in-fact. Ikaw, nanisingitsa finder-in-fact is a finder-in-law. So finder by fiction of law. Ibigsabihin, he is
still liable for theft.
Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the
fruits or object of the damage caused by him;
There was a question in the bar, actually mcq. This person killed the goat of his neigborunyagipulutan. Unsaang
crime? After having maliciously damaged the property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or
object of the damage caused by him. Theft! Kung gipatayranimo, thats malicious mischief. But here, you made
use of the object you maliciously damaged.
Any person who shall enter an inclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to
another and without the consent of its owner, shall hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather cereals, or
other forest or farm products.

How is this different to other forms of trespass? May prohibition, pumasokkatalaga. Ngayonpag may kinuhaka
pa doon, that is theft.
Lets go back to the elements of theft.
1. Shall take personal property parehosa robbery, the elements are common. The principles with respect
thereto are the same.
Taking, does it have to be with a character of permanence?
VillacortavsInsurance Commission. One of the issues here, was there theft? Sabinila, it is not really taking
because there is an intention to return. Sabing court, theft pa rinyan, even if there is a joyride only because you
derived satisfaction already from the moment you took the car. That is the gain that you received by the taking.
From the moment you took the car and enjoyed it use, the crime is already consummated.
May pumuntang mall, may nagustuhansyang purse. Kinuhaniya, peroiniwanniyaang purse niya. Is that theft?
Walaka man damage. You go back to the basics. Taking of personal property, with intent to gain.
Another case is the filed insurance , a davao case, ganon din ginamit, gibaangsakyanan. Saboing court it is theft.
If the taking is with a color of title or a claim of ownership, that would be a defense. The premise here is a taking
of personal property belonging to another. If in your mind, you believe that it is yours, you have a color of a
title, nawalanayong taking of a personal property of another. You are not liable.
Sabing law is without the consent of the owner. One example is, naasasimbahannagluhod. Unyanaa nag pick
pocket salikod, because there was a mass going on, the owner did not do anything to not disturb the
proceeding. Sabing accuse, without the consent, alam man nya! Anosabing court? The words of the law is
without the consent of the owner, di sabing law na without the knowledge. He knew, pro walasya nag consent.
Also, reminder sa robbery with violence or intimidation at the time of the taking, then he flew, but you shouted
so he came back and threaten you, shut up ha, sagpaonteka.Anoyan? 2 different crimes. Dependesa
intimidation or violence. Peropag mag serious physical injury, lahinayanxa. That is no longer by reason of or on
relation of the violence can come before, during or after. Sa theft wala man violence yan. He left,
tapossumigawka, binaril. That is robbery na, may violence. Robbery with homicide, even if violence came after
the taking. Homicide resulted by reason or in relation of.
Art. 309. Penalties. Any person guilty of theft shall be punished by:
1. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the thing stolen is more
than 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, but if the value of the thing stolen exceeds the latter
amount the penalty shall be the maximum period of the one prescribed in this paragraph, and one year for
each additional ten thousand pesos, but the total of the penalty which may be imposed shall not exceed
twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be imposed and for the
purpose of the other provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion temporal,
as the case may be.
2. The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value of the thing stolen is
more than 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos.
3. The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of the property stolen is
more than 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos.
4. Arresto mayor in its medium period to prisioncorreccional in its minimum period, if the value of the
property stolen is over 50 pesos but does not exceed 200 pesos.
5. Arresto mayor to its full extent, if such value is over 5 pesos but does not exceed 50 pesos.
6. Arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
7. Arrestomenor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed under the circumstances
enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does not exceed 5

pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the provision of any of the five preceding subdivisions shall be
made applicable.
8. Arrestomenor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos, when the value of the thing stolen is
not over 5 pesos, and the offender shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of
earning a livelihood for the support of himself or his family.
Ditokailanganmo i-allege ang value, kasi the penalty depends on the value of the personal property taken, at
kung saanmo i-file MTC or RTC.
Take note of #8, penalty is arrestomenor if the value of the thing stolen is not over 5 pesos, and the offender
shall have acted under the impulse of hunger, poverty, or the difficulty of earning a livelihood for the support
of himself or his family. So gigutomlangxa, arrestomenor or fine not exceeding 50 pesos.Pero kung pan
ugsigarilyoanggikawat, kayusihonna pod kouggigutomna pod ko. Anyway, walaylabotna.
Take note of #7, Arrestomenor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, if the theft is committed under the
circumstances enumerated in paragraph 3 of the next preceding article and the value of the thing stolen does
not exceed 5 pesos. If such value exceeds said amount, the provision of any of the five preceding subdivisions
shall be made applicable.
Art. 310. Qualified theft. The crime of theft shall be punished by the penalties next higher by two degrees
than those respectively specified in the next preceding article, if committed by a domestic servant, or with grave
abuse of confidence, or if the property stolen is motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle or consists of coconuts
taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery, or if property is taken on the
occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance. (As amended by R.A. 120 and B.P. Blg. 71. May 1, 1980).
You are still talking about theft, so the elements are the same. It is qualified because of the circumstances
mentioned and present. If they are present, it is no longer simple theft, it becomes qualified. And what is the
effect? The penalty is 2 degrees higher. And I told you there is a counterpart in robbery, but in robbery, the
penalty is only 1 degree higher.
When the penalty prescribed by law for a given offense is 2 degrees higher from a given penalty, when such
penalty is theft, the same penalty for the accessory penalties shall be imposed. For example, nagkawatkang
diamonds, the penalty will depend on the value of the diamonds. Supposed that the penalty for the value of the
diamonds taken is reclusion temporal. And supposed that the diamonds were placed inside a mailing envelope,
a mail matter. One of the qualifying circumstances of theft is mail matter. When mail matter is stolen, it
becomes qualified, and therefore, the penalty should be 2 degrees higher. Since the penalty is for reclusion
temporal, since this is qualified, you should increase the penalty for 2 degrees, reclusion temporal to death.
When that happens, you do not impose death, you impose the same penalty which is reclusion temporal but the
accessory penalty will be that of death when not executed by reason of commutation or pardon, because, death
can only be executed if that is the penalty proscribed by law. If you arrive at death, there can be no more 2
degrees higher.
Another circumstance here is if committed by a domestic servant. Take note that with respect to domestic
servant, walangnilagaydyanna whether or not there is abuse of confidence. This states that the crime is qualified
if committed by a domestic servant. In other words, inherent na. Even if you dont trust your kasambahay, gina
lock moang room mo, the following day, you discovered gikawatanka. Sabiniya, wala man xa trust saakoa, bakit

man qualified? If you are a domestic helper, yon na yon. Of course, dapatdidtokanangawat kung asaka domestic
helper, hindisaibangbahaykanangawat.
Another one is with grave abuse of confidence, there must be confidence reposed on you. In another words, you
should be trusted. The best example there is your personal assistant. Kabalosyasaimo PIN, taposgisugonimosya
mag withdraw, perogikawatnyatananimosulodsabanko. That is qualified. Supposed sa office, ang janitor
sigelimpyo, sige pod try sa combination sa volt. Is that grave abuse of confidence? Wala, only simple theft.
If the property stolen is a motor vehicle, when you say motor vehicle, of course kanang nay motor. Kanagtrisikad,
imokawaton, dilinasyamao. Kanangtrisiboat, nay motor nadiba? Kawatonnimona qualified! Basta nay motor.
Kananggihinayhinayannimogkawatang parts sa motor, gi-unanimoang bolt. Is that qualified? Yes! What you are
getting comes from a motor vehicle; it does not matter if the engine is not running. Unya kung
kakitakaugsakyanan, gisulodnimonaa pa judangsusi. Peroangganahannimo, ang tires langjudniya
ibalhinmolang, taposbya-an molangang motor vehicle. Is that qualified theft? Remember that you drove the
motor vehicle to some place, taking is complete! It doesnt matter if what you get later is katolang tires.
Bastapadulongdidto, angtibuokimonggidala. It would be a different story if you get the tires right there and then
where you found the car, that would be theft of the tire, not of the motor vehicle.
This is qualified diba, you steal a car. Supposing in taking the car, you used violence against the driver. Diba
robbery with violence yan or with intimidation of persons, that cannot be theft kasi may violence nayan. May
nangyarikasiditona the carnappers realize that the penalty for robbery with intimidation was lesser than you
steal a car, thats why carnapping law came to be. If the taking off the car is by means of violence or
intimidation, mas mataastalagaang penalty.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 6539AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING CARNAPPING
Section 1. This Act shall be known and may be cited as the "Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972."
Sec. 2.Definition of terms. The terms "carnapping", "motor vehicle", "defacing or tampering with", "repainting",
"body-building", "remodeling", "dismantling", and "overhauling", as used in this Act, shall be understood,
respectively, to mean
"Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's
consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.
"Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular power using the public highways, but
excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts,
amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways, vehicles, which run only on rails or tracks, and
tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any
number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be
classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating.
"Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is the erasing, scratching, altering or changing of the original
factory-inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle engine, engine block or chassis of any motor vehicle.
Whenever any motor vehicle is found to have a serial number on its motor engine, engine block or chassis which
is different from that which is listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor vehicles imported into
the Philippines, that motor vehicle shall be considered to have a defaced or tampered with serial number.
"Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicle by means of painting. There is repainting whenever the
new color of a motor vehicle is different from its color as registered in the Land Transportation Commission.

"Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in order to replace its entire body with a new body.
"Remodeling" is the introduction of some changes in the shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle.
"Dismantling" is the tearing apart, piece by piece or part by part, of a motor vehicle.
"Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of the whole engine of a motor vehicle by separating the motor engine
and its parts from the body of the motor vehicle.chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Sec. 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.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 4.Permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis. The Land Transportation
Commission shall keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis of all motor
vehicles, specifying therein their type, make and serial numbers and stating therein the names and addresses of
their present and previous owners. Copies of the registry and of all entries made thereon shall be furnished the
Philippine Constabulary and all Land Transportation Commission regional, provincial and city branch offices:
Provided, That all Land Transportation Commission regional, provincial and city branch offices are likewise
obliged to furnish copies of all registration of motor vehicles to the main office and to the Philippine
Constabulary.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 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 imported motor vehicles or motor vehicles carnapped or proceeding from illegal
sources.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 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.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 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 numbered by the Land Transportation Commission.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 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.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 9. Duty of manufacturers of engine blocks, chassis or body to cause numbering of engine blocks, chassis or
body manufactured. Any person engaged in the manufacture of engine blocks, chassis or body shall cause the
numbering of every engine block, chassis or body manufactured in a convenient and conspicuous part thereof
which the Land Transportation Commission may direct for the purpose of uniformity and identification of the
factory and shall submit to the Land Transportation Commission a monthly report of the manufacture and sale
of engine blocks, chassis or body.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 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.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 11. Clearance required for shipment of motor vehicles, motor vehicle engines, engine blocks, chassis or
body. Any person who owns or operates inter-island shipping or any water transportation with launches, boats,
vessels or ships shall within seven days submit a report to the Philippine Constabulary on all motor vehicle,
motor vehicle engines, engine blocks, chassis or bodies transported by it for the motor vehicle, motor vehicle
engine, engine block, chassis or body to be loaded on board the launch, boat vessel or ship.chanroblesvirtualaw
library
Sec. 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.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 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.
Any government official or employee who directly commits the unlawful acts defined in this Act or is guilty of
gross negligence of duty or connives with or permits the commission of any of the said unlawful act shall, in
addition to the penalty prescribed in the preceding paragraph, be dismissed from the service with prejudice to

his reinstatement and with disqualification from voting or being voted for in any election and from appointment
to any public office.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 14.Penalty for Carnapping. Any person who is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Sec. two
of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than
fourteen years and eight months and not more than seventeen years and four months, when the carnapping is
committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for not less
than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by
means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon things; and the penalty of life
imprisonment to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped motor vehicle is
killed in the commission of the carnapping.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 15.Aliens. Aliens convicted under the provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately after service of
sentence without further proceedings by the Deportation Board.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 16.Reward. Any person who voluntarily gives information leading to the recovery of carnapped vehicles and
for the conviction of the persons charged with carnapping shall be given as reward so much reward money as
the Philippine Constabulary may fix. The Philippine Constabulary is authorized to include in its annual budget the
amount necessary to carry out the purposes of this section. Any information given by informers shall be treated
as confidential matter.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 17.Separability clause. If any provisions of this Act is declared invalid, the provisions thereof not affected by
such declaration shall remain in force and effect.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 18.Repealing clause. All laws, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof, inconsistent with the
provisions of this Act are hereby repealed or amended accordingly.chanroblesvirtualaw library
Sec. 19.Effectivity. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: August 26, 1972
Ordinary carnapping, imprisonment of 14 yrs and 8 months not more than 17yrs and 4 months. If there is
violence,imprisonment for not less than seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty years.
Penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the carnapped
motor vehicle is killed in the commission of the carnapping.
Sa large cattle, ang mag-apply nadito, anti-cattle rustling law. Take note ha, large cattle.Angiro, iring, dilinasya
large cattle.
Large cattle as herein used shall include the cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated member of
the bovine family.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 533 August 8, 1974THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974
WHEREAS, large cattle are indispensable to the livelihood and economic growth of our people, particularly the
agricultural workers, because such large cattle are the work animals of our farmers and the source of fresh meat
and dairy products for our people, and provide raw material for our tanning and canning industries;
WHEREAS, reports from the law-enforcement agencies reveal that there is a resurgence of thievery of large
cattle, commonly known as "cattle rustling", especially in the rural areas, thereby directly prejudicing the

livelihood of the agricultural workers and adversely affecting our food production program for self-sufficiency in
rice, corn and other staple crops, as well as in fresh meat;
WHEREAS, there is an urgent need to protect large cattle raising industry and small time large cattle owners and
raisers from the nefarious activities of lawless elements in order to encourage our hardworking cattle raisers
and farmers to raise more cattle and concentrate in their agricultural works, thus increasing our source of meat
and dairy products as well as agricultural production and allied industries which depend on the cattle raising
industry;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Republic of the Philippines, by virtue of the
powers vested in me by the Constitution and pursuant to Proclamations No. 1081, dated September 21, 1972
and No. 1104, dated January 17, 1973 and General Order No. 1 dated September 22, 1972, do hereby order and
decree as part of the law of the land, the following:
Section 1.Title. This Decree shall be known as the "Anti-Cattle Rustling Law of 1974."
Sec. 2.Definition of terms. The following terms shall mean and be understood to be as herein defined:
a. Large cattle as herein used shall include the cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated member of
the bovine family.
b. Owner/raiser shall include the herdsman, caretaker, employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged in the
raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful possession of such large cattle.
c. Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser,
of any of the above-mentioned animals whether or not for profit or gain, or whether committed with or without
violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things. It includes the killing of large cattle, or taking
its meat or hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.
Sec. 3.Duty of owner/raiser to register. The owner/raiser shall, before the large cattle belonging to him shall
attain the age of six months, register the same with the office of the city/municipal treasurer where such large
cattle are raised. The city/municipality concerned may impose and collect the fees authorized by existing laws
for such registration and the issuance of a certificate of ownership to the owner/raiser.
Sec. 4.Duty of city/municipal treasurers and other concerned public officers and employees. All public officials
and employees concerned with the registration of large cattle are required to observe strict adherence with
pertinent provisions of Chapter 22, Sec. 511 to 534, of the Revised Administrative Code, except insofar as they
may be inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree.
Sec. 5.Permit to buy and sell large cattle. No person, partnership, association, corporation or entity shall engage
in the business of buy and sell of large cattle without first securing a permit for the said purpose from the
Provincial Commander of the province where it shall conduct such business and the city/municipal treasurer of
the place of residence of such person, partnership, association, corporation or entity. The permit shall only be
valid in such province.
Sec. 6.Clearance for shipment of large cattle. Any person, partnership, association, corporation or entity desiring
to ship or transport large cattle, its hides, or meat, from one province to another shall secure a permit for such
purpose from the Provincial Commander of the province where the large cattle is registered. Before issuance of
the permit herein prescribed, the Provincial Commander shall require the submission of the certificate of
ownership as prescribed in Sec. 3 hereof, a certification from the Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that such
large cattle, hides or meat are free from any disease; and such other documents or records as may be necessary.
Shipment of large cattle, its hides or meat from one city/municipality to another within the same province may
be done upon securing permit from the city/municipal treasurer of the place of origin.

Sec. 7.Presumption of cattle rustling. Every person having in his possession, control or custody of large cattle
shall, upon demand by competent authorities, exhibit the documents prescribed in the preceding sections.
Failure to exhibit the required documents shall be prima facie evidence that the large cattle in his possession,
control or custody are the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling.
Sec. 8.Penal provisions. Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined shall, irrespective of the value
of the large cattle involved, be punished by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
medium period if the offense is committed without violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things. If the offense is committed with violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon things, the
penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If a person is
seriously injured or killed as a result or on the occasion of the commission of cattle rustling, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.
When the offender is a government official or employee, he shall, in addition to the foregoing penalty, be
disqualified from voting or being voted upon in any election/referendum and from holding any public office or
employment.
When the offender is an alien, he shall be deported immediately upon the completion of the service of his
sentence without further proceedings.
Sec. 9.Rules and Regulations to be promulgated by the Chief of Constabulary. The chief of Constabulary shall
promulgate the rules and regulations for the effective implementation of this Decree.
Section 10.Repealing clause. The provisions of Articles 309 and 310 of Act No. 3815, otherwise known as the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, all laws, decrees, orders, instructions, rules and regulations which are
inconsistent with this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 11.Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect upon approval.
Done in the City of Manila, this 8th day of August, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen hundred and seventy-four.
Coconuts taken from the premises of the plantation or fish taken from a fishpond or fishery. Kung ang
coconut naarasakilidsainyongbalay, gitapokdidto, didtokamangawatdilinasyaapil. Or katongnamaligyaug ice
buko, that is not qualified. Why does the law protect the coconut industry? Mahirap daw bantayananglubi,
naasataas. Ang fish, to be qualified, didtokasa fishpond nangawat. Kung nanguhakaugbangusdidtosapunong,
qualified theft. Unya kung gikuhanimolukon, shrimp, crabs? Apilna! this is generic. When you say fish,
bastanaasa fishpond.
If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic erruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident or civil disturbance. After the Yolanda typhoon, daghankawatan nag loot. That is qualified
theft!
Special Laws on Theft
1. Timber Smuggling PD 705
2. Electricity
3. Stealing gold highgrading

Art. 311. Theft of the property of the National Library and National Museum. If the property stolen be any
property of the National Library or the National Museum, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine ranging
from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, unless a higher penalty should be provided under other provisions of this
Code, in which case, the offender shall be punished by such higher penalty.
This should be amended. Imagine arresto mayor, tapos painting ng national museum. Kahoy pa
langmahalnamahalnayan. Sabi dun, unless a higher penalty should be provided under the provisions of this code.
Didtonalangkasa theft judkay mas taas pa ang penalty.
Article 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property. - Any person who, by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons, shall take possession of any real property or shall usurp any real
rights in property belonging to another, in addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence executed by
him, shall be punished by a fine from 50 to 100 per centum of the gain which he shall have obtained, but not less
than 75 pesos.
If the value of the gain cannot be ascertained, a fine of from 200 to 500 pesos shall be imposed.
This is called robbery of real estate. There is no such thing as robbery of land. You could only be subject of
robbery with respect of your personal property. If there is robbery of land then this would be this. It is the
occupation over the land or the usurpation of the real rights in your property. These words by means of violence
against or intimidation of person, this reminds us of robbery because there is a means of violence or
intimidation of persons kaya lang instead of personal property, real property. What does it say? It shall take
possession of any real property or shall usurp any real rights in property belonging to another. In other words
naakayyutanaay several persons came to you and said pahawadinhi kung dilipatyonkanamo. Nihawapudka,
alanganpatyongudka. Unsaangkaso? That is occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in property.
By the use of violence against or intimidation of person they managed to take possession of your property
belonging to another.
There was this case Pp vs. Peche(?) 211 SCRA 687, there is a tenant who was threatened napahawadiri kung
dilipatyonkanamo. Nihawapudang tenant. Tag-iya file ugkaso. Tama baang charge? Sabing SC: Mali
yankasisinobayungnasubject to violation or intimidation, yung may-ariba? Hindi man. The complainant was the
owner but the one who was subjected to the intimidation and intimidation is the tenant. So mali, the
information does not state a cause of action. Kinsay private offended party dinhi, ikawbaang complainant? Dili.
It is a crime against the tenant.
Ang issue dito is yungpenalty provided. Sabiditoin addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence
executed by him, shall be punished by a fine from 50 to 100 per centum of the gain which he shall have obtained,
but not less than 75 pesos.Anyway in this felony, it has a two-level penalty or two-tier penalty. Sabing SC it is a
single penalty although two-tier or two level. Kasiparasiyangspecial complex crime-composite crime, there is a
single act although there are two crimes isang penalty lang.Kasi in this crime there are threats and there are
also usurpation or occupation. It is still an issue, should this not be a complex crime? But Complex crime is
under Article 48 applied in crimes in general.
Article 48. Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies,
or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the penalty for the most serious crime shall
be imposed, the same to be applied in its maximum period.

In this one the law itself provides for the penalty when there is occupation, threat or intimidation taposmerong
usurpation. The SC said this is a special complex with a two-tiered penalty. The penalty is for the penalty of the
violence, threats and intimidation plus fine. Now remember hindibayancomplexed?
Should it not be also that the penalty is absorbed or is there an absorption badito.If absorption will apply here it
will result to absurdity. The crime here is really usurpation, yung threats kung baga unless the higher penalty of
threats but the real crime here is really usurpation and occupation. This is to fine 50 to 100% ibigsabihin if you
consider the doctrine of absorption it would result to absurdity where the crime of lesser penalty absorbs the
crime of a higher penalty.
It is not a complex crime it defines the penalizes a single and special indivisible crime although the penalty is
two-tiers.
If you notice that this is committed by means of violence or intimidation of persons supposed that the
possession or taking of possession, occupation.
SC when tenant-- that could be called usurpation because the tenant has real right over the property he has the
right to possession because he is the tenant. Hindi kailanganang owner ang mag file.
Suppose the occupation, possession is by means of stealth. It may not be under Art. 312 because this requires
violence against persons or intimidation against persons. Kung meron stealth diyan which usually happens
samga squatters. One day gumisingka, may nag occupy ng land mo but it is not usurpation kasi there is no
intimidation or violence. The squatters committed through stealth or strategy. You cannot just drag them out,
ikawangmafilanng coercion. Although that is your property, you cannot put the law in your own hands. You
need to file a case against them unlawful detainer. Forcible entry or trespassing. That is why in the past there is
an anti-squatting law RA 772. But girepealng RA 8368anti-squatting law repeal act. What about the
professional squatters?
Urban Devt Act of 1992. Also called the Lina Law. Under this law is no longer a crime but it can be if there is
squatters in the traditional sense you can file trespassing or forcible entry or unlawful detainer. But this law
allows a summary eviction or demolition of professional squatters and imposes criminal penalties against them.
If they can be covered under the term professional squatters there is provision which allows summary eviction
and demolition of professional squatters.
Now who are professional squatters?
1) they refer to individuals or groups who occupy land without the express consent of the land owners and who
have sufficient income for legitmitate housing. Meronnamansilang sufficient means of legitimate housing but
what they do is occupy another land without the consent of the owner .
2.It also covers those who are previously being awarded housing benefits or they were awarded home lots by
the government but who sold, lease, transfer the same to settle illegally to the same place or to another urban
area.
3. And those non-bona fide occupant and intruders of land reserved for socialized housing.

Article 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks. - Any person who shall alter the boundary marks or monuments
of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to designate the boundaries of the same, shall be
punished by arrestomenor or a fine not exceeding 100 pesos, or both.
Article 314. Fraudulent insolvency. - Any person who shall abscond with his property to the prejudice of his
creditors, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor, if he be a merchant and the penalty of prisioncorreccional in
its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, if he be not a merchant.
Penalty is different for merchants. The offender is a debtor who shall abscond with his property to the prejudice
of his creditors. It does not mean that you really need to leave or part away from the place. If you sell property
in fraud of creditor or you transfer property. Ang important dito is yung prejudice ng creditor. The essence
hereis any property of the debtor is made to disappear for the purpose of evading the fulfilment of the
obligations and liabilities contracted with one or more creditors. The fraudulent insolvency must result to the
prejudice of the creditors. The fraudulent concealment is not present if there are other properties which he can
make to satisfy the obligation. Unless the prejudice is shown there can be no conviction. Supposed the
fraudulent concealment of property is committed after the institution of insolvency proceedings meron special
laws requirements under the insolvency law.
-END-

October 22, 2014 full hour

Before we start ESTAFA, I just remembered in CARNAPPING, if a car is stolen, under what charge are you going
to file? Under Article 310, QUALIFIED THEFT OR CARNAPPING? Kasi sabi ng theft its qualified if the thing stolen
is a motor vehicle and we go back to theft, what are the elements, intent to gain, taking of personal property
belonging to another without consent. That is the same thing with respect to ANTI-CARNAPPING, the same
elements are there, of course kasama na doon ang violence against or intimidation against persons but if the
taking of a motor vehicle is without violence or intimidation against persons, under what law are you going to
file?
People vs. Bustinera, June 8, 2004. In that case, the law itself, ANTI-CARNAPPING, it was mentioned that it
exempts certain motor vehicles from its coverage, pison, mga road-rollers, mga tractor, walay labot. So
according to the court, if these are the vehicles stolen, you FILE UNDER QUALIFIED THEFT because it is not
covered by the anti-carnapping law. Now all others, they are covered. Now one thing that should interest you is,
in this same case, the charge was QUALIFIED THEFT and he was convicted of ANTI-CARNAPPING, SC said, no
problem, because the elements are the same. If you are able to prove the elements, all of them, then even if the
charge is qualified theft, pwede ka macharge sa anti-carnapping law, because the elements are the same, take
note of that.
Now, SWINDILING. In ESTAFA, it has been said that man is essentially good and essentially evil. Like in ESTAFA,
ang haba.
Article 315. Swindling (estafa). - Any person who shall defraud another by any of the means mentioned
hereinbelow shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if
the amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount
exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period,
adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which may be imposed shall not
exceed twenty years. In such cases, and in connection with the accessory penalties which may be
imposed under the provisions of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor or reclusion
temporal, as the case may be.
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud
is over 6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;

3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period if
such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed 6,000 pesos; and
4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that
in the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of value which the
offender shall deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be
based on an immoral or illegal consideration.
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any
other personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or
to return the same, even though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a
bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other property.
(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by
writing any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended
party or of any third person.
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means
of other similar deceits.
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or
business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the
action for calumny which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the
offender. In this case, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the
penalty.
(d) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the
offender therein were not sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the
drawer of the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check within three (3)
days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or holder that said check
has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As amended by R.A. 4885,
approved June 17, 1967.)
(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or accommodation at a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house and the like without paying
therefor, with intent to defraud the proprietor or manager thereof, or by obtaining
credit at hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house, or apartment house by
the use of any false pretense, or by abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of
his baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant, boarding house, lodging house or apartment
house after obtaining credit, food, refreshment or accommodation therein without

paying for his food, refreshment or accommodation.

3. Through any of the following fraudulent means:
(a) By inducing another, by means of deceit, to sign any document.
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in a gambling game.
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying, in whole or in part, any court record, office
files, document or any other papers.
You can subdivide this. Well sa haba nito but the elements can be brought down to two. What are these? Either
you have:
1) Abuse of Confidence plus damage or
2) Deceit plus damage.
Kasi kung lahat, kahaba nito, these are forms and variations of Estafa but basically, yun lang ang kailangan mo,
whatever variation it is, you must prove EITHER, abuse of confidence OR deceit and the damage, pecuniary
damage.
We can classify this or divide this---what are the means; no. 1 is with unfaithfulness and abuse of confidence, 2,
by means of false pretenses. Kanina ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE yung number one diba, number two, DECEIT. Ang
number 3, FRAUDULENT MEANS PA RIN SO REFERRING TO DECEIT still. Itong first, second and third, just take
note of that because these are the penalties kung magkano.
The penalties will depend on the amount involved in the defraudation. So depende ang penalty kung magkano
and perhaps this should also be amended. Anyway, with unfailfuness and or abuse of confidence.
Article 315
XXXXXX
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence, namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality or anything of value which the offender shall
deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so, even though such obligation be based on an immoral
or illegal consideration.
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other
personal property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even
though such obligation be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having
received such money, goods, or other property.
(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party in blank, and by writing
any document above such signature in blank, to the prejudice of the offended party or of any
third person.
In other words, you are obliged to deliver something but you alter the quality, quantity. Take note that this will
apply even if the items are immoral or even if the obligation is based on an immoral consideration. So mag order
ka ng shabu. Sabi mo 95% purity, unsa man ni 67 ra man ni. That is altering the quality of the substance,
something like that. Ang problema dito itong letter b, you have MISAPPROPRIATING, OR CONVERTING OR
DENYING. So misappropriating the goods, money or other personal property received by the defender in trust.
Misappropriation, you should be familiar with misappropriation, with respect to crimes committed by public
officers, misappropriation of public funds or appropriation is malversation. Now, that term, is here again.
So how do you distinguish misappropriation under malversation from misappropriation mentioned here in
estafa?

We know that malversation involves public officers, the offenders there are public officers who are not just
public officers but also accountable for that property or that funds which they have custody of. Here, the
offender in estafa with respect to misappropriation is a private individual, private person. Or even a public
officer but he must not have taken advantage or he must not in custody or he must not be the accountable
public officer. Almost the same ang elements nya, malversation by misappropriationm, that is also the case in
estafa. Although estafa says, misappropriation, although there is conversion or denial. And of course, private
and public funds.
What is converting?
When you convert or even misappropriate, you treat that something as yours, you consider that something to
be your property, something like that. Ang problema is, sometimes, there is a problem, how to distinguish that
from a civil obligation. How do you distinguish conversion, maremember nyo yung distinction ng commodatum
and mutuum? When you borrow my book, you are supposed to return the very same book to me. If you buy
from Rex Bookstore, hindi yan the same, you are supposed to return the one that I gave you, that is
commodatum. Mutuum, you borrow money from me, php100, hindi mo kailangan ibalik the very same bill I
gave you. So that is not estafa, there is transfer of ownership. But then you have to pay me but not necessarily
the same money. Yung sa commodatum, if you dont return the very same book, estafa yan. Yan ang isa sa mga
distinctions that you have to take note.
Now, the provision also mentions, DENYING. You borrow a book from me and then you deny that you borrowed
a book from me, so pasok yan estafa yan. You have the duty to make delivery of or to return the same.
What does in trust, or on commission or for administration mean?
Meaning, the personal property is received in TRUST or for COMMISSION or FOR ADMINISTRATION. In TRUST,
meaning, there is NO TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP because you are merely holding this item in trust, you are
supposed to return it or to deliver it later. So if you MISAPPROPRIATE, CONVERT or DENY having received it, in
trust, that is ESTAFA, under par. 1(b) or on commission. Commission here, does not refer to something where in
you sell something and you get the proceeds. Commission here is parang order ba, you are being commissioned
to do something. That is the meaning of the commission here.
Based on some cases, you are supposed to pay something, license, or tax or whatever, cedula or whatever.
Mamalihog ka sa bgy. Captain to pay your cedula and another also asked the bgy. Official to pay the cedula, but
he has no cash so, kani nalang isd, and he did not get the ctc of these people, ano ngayon ang liability nya?
Estafa? Or simple loan for collection of money? The answer to that was iba. The first one, he was commissioned
to go to the baranggay and pay the money there and bring back the CTC because he misappropriated the money,
that becomes estafa. Pero yung isa hindi yun estafa, so you have to distinguish yang mga ganyan.
Also, agency, agent and principal. Agent, he is not holding the property in the concept of an owner. You are
supposed to hold on to it and sell it and then remit the proceeds back to the principal. If you misappropriate the
proceeds, that is estafa. Or depositary ka, you are supposed to hold on to that and then if you misappropriate
the items deposited, liable ka for estafa. One other example here is katong nagbaligya ug typewriter, pero trial
muna, bigay ko sayo, 5 days, kasi ang distinction dyan is whether there is transfer of ownership. Now after 5
days, hindi binalik, hindi rin binayaran, so ano yan. Ang sabi dito, if the item is not returned within that period,
there is automatic sale, because sale is effective upon delivery, dili kailangan bayaran, so wala na giuli, imo na na,
bayari ko, so there is NO ESTAFA. As a general rule, ESTAFA, NO TRANSFER OF OWNERSHIP, example, the
money and the book. If you do not return the book, estafa, the money, may transfer of ownership kaya di yan
estafa.
One thing that you have to remember here is the DEFENSE of NOVATION.
Naalala nyo anong novation? A change in the terms of payment of the contract. So suppose in the case of an
agent and principal. The agent is unable to return the proceeds and he is also unable to return the goods. So sabi
nya sa principal, I promise to pay, I will execute a promissory note, I will pay for the value of the things in a
months time. After one month wala kabayad, so ano ngayon estafa? Or an action for a sum of money. In the
first place, meron silang contract of agency. If at that point, the principal chose to file a case, estafa talaga yun.
But what happened here, the contract was novated into one of a simple loan, kay nag execute ng promissory
note, in other words, kanya nay un and if he does not pay, that is a simple collection of money. Therefore, it is
NOT ESTAFA. That is NOVATION.
There is another similar crime or felony. Kanina we distinguish estafa from malversation. Another is THEFT AND
ESTAFA.

The usual distinction there is, kining estafa, if you look at the law, the things are received in trust or on
commission. In other words, the offender received, gidawat niya unya wala niya giuli. Ang theft if you remember,
is taking of personal propery with intent to gain. Estafa, gidawat. Theft, gikuha. But sometimes that is not a good
indicator because, for example in the case of a househelp. Ang househelp gihatagan nimo ug kwarta, palit sa
palengke unya wala na nibalik. Gihatag man nimo ang kwarta, the money is received, so is that estafa?
Househelp nga eh so qualified theft yan.
Or another example. Yung sasakyan. You have to distinguish between PHYSICAL POSSESSION AND JURIDICAL
POSSESSION. When you say JURIDICAL POSSESSION, that is POSSESSION that you can exercise even against the
owner, you are not the owner but you can exercise that even against the owner. An example there is yung
apartment, sabihin ng may-ari, alis ka na dyan. Merong contract of lease so hindi ka pwede basta nalang
mapaalis. Your possession of your apartment unit is JURIDICAL.
So when somebody rents a car, may rent a car company ka, give him the possession of the car, you give him the
keys, kung dili na iuli, unsa man na ron? That is JURIDICAL POSSESSION so that amounts to ESTAFA. Kung
transfer na PHYSICAL, THEFT yan sya. PHYSICAL POSSESSION ONLY.
But also, remember yung sa taxi, there is this ruling of the SC. Kung taxi, diba boundary man na, basta kay taga-I
kog isa ka libo, imoha na ang sobra. Unya karon wala gi-uli ang taxi, wala daw niya giuli kay wala sya kaabot
boundary. So is that theft or estafa? SC said, the relationship of the owner and the driver is that of EE-ER and
therefore the crime is THEFT. Although because its motor vehicle, qualified.
Another illustration is, ipatuloy ko yung with respect to JURIDICAL AND PHYSICAL POSSESSION only. Kasi yung sa
rental, that is juridical, you can insist your possession even against the owner. But suppose you have a car and a
personal driver, gisugo nimo, if you change your mind, can the driver insist? So that is possession that is not
juridical, that is merely physical possession.
Now, conversion also, in relation to this particular paragraph, par.1(b), relate this to P.D. 115, the TRUST
RECEIPT. Trust receipt transaction. Anyway, trust receipt transaction, P.D. 115
What constitutes Sec. 4 of trust receipts? What constitutes a trust receipt transaction? Under Sec. 4 of a trust
receipt.
P.D. 115
Section 4. What constitutes a trust receipt transaction. A trust receipt transaction, within the meaning of
this Decree, is any transaction by and between a person referred to in this Decree as the entruster, and
another person referred to in this Decree as entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns or holds
absolute title or security interests over certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the
same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter's execution and delivery to the entruster of a
signed document called a "trust receipt" wherein the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated
goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the
goods, documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof
to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or the goods,
documents or instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance
with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt, or for other purposes substantially
equivalent to any of the following:
1. In the case of goods or documents, (a) to sell the goods or procure their sale; or (b) to
manufacture or process the goods with the purpose of ultimate sale: Provided, That, in the case
of goods delivered under trust receipt for the purpose of manufacturing or processing before its
ultimate sale, the entruster shall retain its title over the goods whether in its original or
processed form until the entrustee has complied fully with his obligation under the trust receipt;
or (c) to load, unload, ship or tranship or otherwise deal with them in a manner preliminary or
necessary to their sale; or
2. In the case of instruments,
a) to sell or procure their sale or exchange; or

b) to deliver them to a principal; or

c) to effect the consummation of some transactions involving delivery to a depository or
register; or
d) to effect their presentation, collection or renewal
The sale of goods, documents or instruments by a person in the business of selling goods,
documents or instruments for profit who, at the outset of the transaction, has, as against the
buyer, general property rights in such goods, documents or instruments, or who sells the same
to the buyer on credit, retaining title or other interest as security for the payment of the
purchase price, does not constitute a trust receipt transaction and is outside the purview and
coverage of this Decree.
So merong entruster, merong entrusteee. The entruster is usually a bank, and ang nangutang entrustee.
Whereby the entruster holds absolute title or security interest over certain specified rules, documents and
instruments, releases the same to the possession of the entrustee, releases items to the entrustee, upon the
latters (entrustee) execution or delivery to the entruster of a signed document or a trust receipt. So ito ang nag
execute, ang entrustee, dili man ni magpautang pud ang banko (entruster) so what happens is that, kasi ito, this
was meant to help merchants and importers. Kung mag import ka, kelangan mo ng pera, you need financing,
you go to a bank unya kay maro man ning bangko, dili man pud na muhatag nalang. To ensure that they get back
what they let you borrow, execute ka ng trust receipt. But the merchandise that he will buy will be in the name
of the bank. The title is in the name of the bank, its not his. It is in the name of the bank but the possession of
these items is given to him by the bank, subject of course to, kung mabaligya niya, magbayad sya sa bangko, that
in a nutshell is a TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION, whereby the entrustee binds himself to hold the designated
goods, documents or instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods,
documents or instruments with the obligation to turnover to the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of
the amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust receipt of the goods themselves if they are not sold
or not otherwise disposed of. So parang estafa talaga sya.
Simply stated, trust receipt transaction, is one where the entrustee has the obligation to deliver to the entruster
the price of the sale or if the merchandise is not sold, to return the merchandise to the entruster. The proceeds
or the merchandise themselves. Proceeds syempre kay kung gibaligya na nimo, mag kita sya doon, magpatong
na sya, basta meron lang sya obligations from the proceeds.
There are therefore 2 obligations in a trust receipt transaction:
1. Money Received under the obligation or the duty to turn it over to the owner of the merchandise sold,
to the entruster
2. Merchandise Received under the obligation or the duty to return the proceeds or the merchandise and
this is one of the important phrases.
A violation of any of these undertakings, constitute ESTAFA defined under Article 315 (1)(b) of the RPC and this
is provided in the law itself, the trust receipts law, Section 13, which is the penalty clause.
Section 13. Penalty clause. The failure of an entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the
goods, documents or instruments covered by a trust receipt to the extent of the amount owing to the
entruster or as appears in the trust receipt or to return said goods, documents or instruments if they
were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms of the trust receipt shall constitute the crime
of estafa, punishable under the provisions of Article Three hundred and fifteen, paragraph one (b) of Act
Numbered Three thousand eight hundred and fifteen, as amended, otherwise known as the Revised
Penal Code. If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other
juridical entities, the penalty provided for in this Decree shall be imposed upon the directors, officers,
employees or other officials or persons therein responsible for the offense, without prejudice to the civil
liabilities arising from the criminal offense.

So in a nutshell, that sums it up. Violation ng trust receipt, file ka ng ESTAFA.

Now, this was challenged. The constitutionality was challenged. Because ang estafa, naa man nay imprisonment.
Isnt this unconstitutional, you will be imprisoned for contracting a debt. Di ba sabi ng constitution, dili jud ka
mapreso kung utang lang ang istoryahan and we know that this refers to contractual obligations. Isnt this a
contractual obligation.
Sabin g SC in one case, itong trust receipt, dalawa ang feature nito. One feature is the LOAN FEATURE, utang,
bayaran mo, so kung ganyan, you do not go to jail for the utang, that is in the constitution. But the other feature
of the trust receipt is the SECURITY FEATURE, that is why you are being charged. You are not being charged for
the simple loan. You are being imprisoned because you violated the SECURITY FEATURE, the trust receipt itself,
kasi yan, yan ang security for the bank.
A trust receipt does not involve a simple loan transaction, between a debtor and a creditor.
But in this case of, Hur Tin Yang vs. People August 14, 2013, andito na lahat all about trust receipts in relation to
estafa. In this case, SC said, nonetheless, when both parties enter into an agreement, knowing fully well that
the return of the goods, subject of the trust receipt is not possible, even without any fault on the part of the
trustee, it is NOT A TRUST RECEIPT TRANSACTION penalized under P.D. 115 in relation to 315 and the only
obligation agreed upon by the parties would be a return of the proceeds of the same transaction. This
transaction becomes a mere loan, where the borrower is obligated to pay the bank the amount spent for the
purchase of the goods. Because according to the court, parang contract of adhesion, nisugot nalang ka.
The true nature of a trust receipt transaction, can be found in the WHEREAS CLAUSE of P.D. 115
WHEREAS, the utilization of trust receipts, as a convenient business device to assist importers and
merchants solve their financing problems, had gained popular acceptance in international and domestic
business practices, particularly in commercial banking transactions;
WHEREAS, there is no specific law in the Philippines that governs trust receipt transactions, especially
the rights and obligations of the parties involved therein and the enforcement of the said rights in case
of default or violation of the terms of the trust receipt agreement;
WHEREAS, the recommendations contained in the report on the financial system which have been
accepted, with certain modifications by the monetary authorities included, among others, the
enactment of a law regulating the trust receipt transactions;
There were a lot of cases before, na ang sabi ng court before, mag apply to sa importing lang, importation. But
in one of the cases, sabi ng SC, wala man nakalagay sa P.D. 115 na for purposes of importation lang ito. So this
will also apply even if the merchant does not import. Basta nag execute ng trust receipt tapos dito binili,
domestic, mag apply gihapon na sya. So dito klaro, to assist merchants and importers solve their financing
problems. So obviously the state, in enacting the law, sought to find a way to assisting importers and merchants
in their financing in order to encourage commerce in the Philippines.
The Trust Receipts Law was created to "to aid in financing importers and retail dealers who do not have
sufficient funds or resources to finance the importation or purchase of merchandise, and who may not be
able to acquire credit except through utilization, as collateral, of the merchandise imported or
purchased.
Regardless of whether the transaction is foreign or domestic, it is important to note that the transactions
discussed in relation to trust receipts mainly involved sales.
Considering that the goods in this case were never intended for sale but for use in the fabrication of steel
communication towers, the trial court erred in ruling that the agreement is a trust receipt transaction.
Since Asiatrust knew that petitioner was neither an importer nor retail dealer, it should have known that
the said agreement could not possibly apply to petitioner.
When both parties enter into an agreement knowing that the return of the goods subject of the trust
receipt is not possible even without any fault on the part of the trustee, it is not a trust receipt
transaction.

We pointed out that the borrowers were not importers acquiring goods for resale. Indeed, goods sold in
retail are often within the custody or control of the trustee until they are purchased. In the case of
materials used in the manufacture of finished products, these finished products if not the raw materials
or their components similarly remain in the possession of the trustee until they are sold. But the goods
and the materials that are used for a construction project are often placed under the control and custody
of the clients employing the contractor, who can only be compelled to return the materials if they fail to
pay the contractor and often only after the requisite legal proceedings.
The practice of banks of making borrowers sign trust receipts to facilitate collection of loans and place
them under the threats of criminal prosecution should they be unable to pay it may be unjust and
inequitable. if not reprehensible. Such agreements are contracts of adhesion which borrowers have no
option but to sign lest their loan be disapproved. The resort to this scheme leaves poor and hapless
borrowers at the mercy of banks and is prone to misinterpretation.
Unfortunately, what happened in Colinares is exactly the situation in the instant case. This reprehensible
bank practice described in Colinares should be stopped and discouraged. For this Court to give life to the
constitutional provision of non-imprisonment for nonpayment of debts,22 it is imperative that petitioner
be acquitted of the crime of Estafa under Art. 315, par. 1 (b) ofthe RPC, in relation to PD 115. (HUR TIN
YANG VS. PEOPLE)
Note: these are exerpts of the case that sir read to the class.
Because it has really been a practice, simple loan lang, nagpapa execute ng trust receipt, kahit hindi kailangan
even when youre not going to buy merchandise for sale, execute ka pa rin ng Trust Receipt. That is according to
the SC is reprehensible.
Ang sunod nito is, by taking undue advantage of the signature of the offended party, you have a paper and you
write a document above the signature. Obviously may mga taong ganon noh, magiwan lang din ng signature, to
the prejudice of the offended party. That is estafa.

CRIM 2 OCT23, 2014 FIRST HOUR

2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously
with
the
commission
of
the
fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
When you use a fictitious name, one example given there is you redeemed a ticket sa pawnshop and you used a
fictitious name and pretend to be somebody, that would under this kind of estafa.
or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.Bastakay nay deceit.
For those of you who have read xxx ( cant clearly hear sirs voice..butang thought saiyagiingon, clerk of court
makes a decision instead of the judge, is that pretending to possess power, influence? Hindi. )
In one case Ilaganvs CA 239 S 575, he was an agent and he was strictly prohibited by his principal from collecting
money. However, he falsely pretended to the clients that he was authorized to collect money. There are actually
2 kinds of estafa there: 1. Estafa with abuse of confidence with respect to the principal and 2. Estafa by means of
deceit with respect to the 7 individuals from whom he collected money. And for each one of them, theres a
different count of estafa.

Just remember when you speak of estafa, the element of damage, actual damage is not really necessary as long
as it is capable of pecuniary estimation. Example, when you are deprived of property rights, there is damage.
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or weight of anything pertaining to his art or business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any Government employee, without prejudice to the action for calumny
which the offended party may deem proper to bring against the offender. In this case, the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty.
Pretending nabigyannangperaang judge.
(d) [By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in payment of an obligation when the offender therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the check. The failure of the drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three (3) days from receipt of notice from the bank and/or the payee or
holder that said check has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency of funds shall be prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or fraudulent act. (As amended by R.A. 4885, approved June 17, 1967.)]
This is the most important paragraph here. In this paragpraph, there are 2 acts: 1. Youpost-date a check or 2.
You issue a check nawalaypondo, or insufficient funds.
When you talk about checks, be sure you know that bouncing checks is a different crime. When you talk about
bouncing checks, there is a bouncing check law BP22.
Here, when you talk about about violation under Art 315, you talk about estafa. It is not about estafa by
bouncing checks. But when you talk about bouncing checks, it is BP22. Here, you talk about estafa, although
parangganon din anglabas, the check will bounce. In other words, it will not be honoured because of the
insufficiency of funds or no funds at all.
So there are 2 laws for the bouncing checks. We have to know this because they can go together, meaning, the
issuance of a bouncing check may be criminally chargeable under both BP22 as well as Art 315 (2) (d).
Sometimes it will fall under BP22 only, or sometimes in art 315 (2) (d) only. But there are instances where you
can be charged under both BP22 and Art 315 (2) (d).
In estafa, the offender post-dated or issued a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the
post-dating or of the issuance. In other words, you are issuing this check as payment for something at that time.
At the time of the issue, you got something in return. You want to buy TV, you dont have cash, you issued a
check. The TV was given to you because you issued a check. Obligation contracted at the time of the issuance of
the check. That is the order.
Another element is, at the time of the issuance the offender had no funds or the funds deposited are not
sufficient to cover the value of the check.
The last element there would be that the payee was defrauded.
Like I said, the payment of the check was a simultaneous obligation.
Under the xxx doctrine, if the check was issued to a payment of a pre-existing obligation, there is no estafa.
What do you mean by a pre-existing obligation? Naankadaanobligation, and you issued a check in payment of
the obligation. If the checked bounces, that is not estafa. Why? Because the payee was not defrauded at that
time. For example, you borrowed money from X. You said, you will pay next week. Next week comes,
singilnasiyasayo, walakapambayad. So you issued a check. Pag present sa bank, the check is dishonored. Is there
estafa? There is no estafa. Why? Because your obligation is not a pre-existing one. In other words, hindisya
simultaneous, hindisiyakaliwaan. Nalibabasyapag issue nimogcheke? Wala man.Nalibasya, even before
kaynituosyanimo. It is not estafa under a case like that for a pre-existing obligation. It will be a violation of BP22.
Suppose that the check is dishonoured because of stop payment. Is there a violation? Kasidiba,
isyuhannimougcheke, unyatawagannimoangbanko, you order stop payment. Is that estafa under art 315?As
long as the transaction covered is simultaneous, that is estafa. We are talking here of estafa by means of deceit.
Kung nalibaka, na deceive ka, na-defraud angtao because of your deceit, it will fall under Art 315. It is also true
with respect to the endorsement. Dibaangcheke is a negotiable instrument, so you can endorse it. If you are the
endorsee hindiikawang nag draw ng check. Ikawlangangnagpasa, ang nag negotiate. Are you liable? Of course,
you are. Because again you are saying that the check is good when in fact, it is not. That is still deceit.
PpvsLukbang 196 S 341.In this case, the check was not issued for payment. It was issued as a guaranty or
something like that, a guaranty for investment or a guaranty for payment. If the check is presented to the bank

and it was dishonoured, will it amount to estafa? Also gi-filanng falsification under untruthful statements in a
narration of facts.Kasisabimo may pondo, may amount naganyan, when in fact that is a false statement in a
narration of facts. Walakanamanperapala.Anongsabing SC? That is not falsification. Why? Because a check is not
a document. There is no narration there. Its not a narration of facts. A check is an order by the drawer telling
the bank to pay the holder of the check. With respect to the check issued as a security for the investment, the
court said that there is no crime because the check was not issued in payment of an obligation. If you look at
Art315 (2) (D), it says there in payment of an obligation. So if the check was merely for purposes of guaranty or
as an evidence of indebtedness, not for payment of an obligation, then it cannot be estafa.
The same thing if you look at cross-checks. What is the nature of a cross-check? A cross-check is not supposed to
be encash. It is supposed to be deposit. Kung ganyan, it is not a payment of something, so its not to be estafa.
People vsDizon.Sinabihannyaangtaonaitokulangangpondo. Now, the tao tried to encash it. Can there be estafa?
No, walang deceit. You go back to the basic principle estafa by means of deceit. If there is no deceit, you
cannot filer under this paragraph.
You have to take note of that because the rule is different when we talk about BP22. In BP22, the crime is really
basically the issuance of a check which is unfunded, a check which is insufficiently funded. That is the crime in
BP22. This bouncing check law was passed to protect the integrity of checks.
Section 1. Checks without sufficient funds. - Any person who makes or draws and issues any check to apply on
account or for value, knowing at the time of issue that he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank for the payment of such check in full upon its presentment, which check is subsequently
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have been dishonored for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop payment, shall be punished by
imprisonment of not less than thirty days but not more than one (1) year or by a fine of not less than but not
more than double the amount of the check which fine shall in no case exceed Two Hundred Thousand Pesos, or
both such fine and imprisonment at the discretion of the court.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who, having sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee
bank when he makes or draws and issues a check, shall fail 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, for which reason it is dishonored by the drawee bank.
Where the check is drawn by a corporation, company or entity, the person or persons who actually signed the
check in behalf of such drawer shall be liable under this Act.
There are 2 acts punish in BP22.
1. You make, draw, issue any check to apply on account or for value.
The phrase on account or for value makes a lot of difference. Like I said, sometime you can invoke both
BP22 and Art 315 when the check is issued for a simultaneous obligation. That is what is meant by for
value. The check is issued for value, saato pa kaliwaan. I give you this check, you give me the items.
Itongon account, what does that mean? That means a pre-existing obligation which is not punish if you
charge under Art 315. But here, if you make, draw, issue a check intended for payment to apply on
account. Ibigsabihin you are issuing a check for a pre-existing obligation, and therefore it constitutes a
violation of the BP22.
So that is one distinction between BP22 and Art 315.
BP22 applies even if there is a pre-existing obligation. In Art 315, it does not apply. It can only be estafa
if it is made to pay for a simultaneous obligation.
Is an endorser liable in BP22? Dibasabinatinsa Art 315, you are liable. If you look in the language of BP22,
the act punish is the making, drawing, issuing the check. Yong endorser, di syanaga draw, di syanaga
issue, therefore di syakasamasa BP22.
Another is, memorandum checks checks issued only as a guaranty or issued as evidence of
indebtedness, or cross-checks. Are you liable under BP22? This time the answer is yes. Compared to Art

315, hindi. Kasinga, here sa BP22, the essence is the issuance a of bad check. Mere issuance. So your
guaranty should be other way, not by issuing a check.
In BP22, sec 4 says
Section 4. Credit construed. - The word "credit" as used herein shall be construed to mean an arrangement or
understanding with the bank for the payment of such check.
May lusotkasisa BP22, when you present the check for payment, tapos you have insufficient funds pala. You are
given the opportunity to make good the check. Sometimes, may nagabigayng credit. Meaning, even if your
check is insufficiently funded. They will take it. Bayarannila yon. So you have a credit with bank. So if you make
arrangement with the bank, ok na yon kumbaga.
Also, when you present the check to the bank, sec 2 says..
Section 2. Evidence of knowledge of insufficient funds. - 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 unless such 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.
Here, even if it is a crime of malumprohibitum, you need evidence that the drawer knows nawalasyang funds.
Kailangan may knowledge. If within 90 days, di gi-honorngbank, that is now evidence that you acquired
knowledge that your check is unfunded or there is insufficient funds. That will be now evidence as knowledge.
unless such 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.
In other words, you are given opportunity under BP22, if you do not pay or make arrangement with the bank,
then liable kana.meronka pang leeway, within 5 banking days, ayusinmonayan, otherwise, igo n aka sa BP22.
This 90 days is for purposes of knowledge. Pag present sa bank taposdishonored, evidence na yon. So you have 5
banking days parabayaran yon or you make arrangement with the bank.
If you present your check after 90 days, walana yang presumption nayan. The 90 days is only for purposes of
presumption. Bakitkanamanpupuntasabanko after 90 days from the making or drawing? Mao ngginatawagna
stale check. Walang criminal liability.
Another thing is stop payment. Is the stop payment a violation of BP22? Again, basics. BP22 is making a bad
check. Eh kung may pondoyanpero gusto molang i-stop payment, is that a bad check? Its not a bad check! It is
not a violation of BP22. It would be a violation of Art 315. Nangatikka, sabimobayad,
taposimogitawaganangbankoparadiliibayad.
If the check is dishonored, ilagayang reason for the dishonor, insufficient of funds, stop payment or kung
insufficient tapos stop payment pa jud, ibutangnadidto.
which check is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit or would have
been dishonored for the same reason had not the drawer, without any valid reason, ordered the bank to stop
payment
kana, violation of BP22 and Art 315.
Lim vs CA vs 274 S 572.He was the authorized signatories of check, gisignanniyaang check, as to payee and
amount ibang division angnaga fill up. Ang issue dito is knowledge. According to the court, he cannot be held
liable. If such knowledge of insufficiency of funds is proven to be actually absent or non-existent, accused should
not be held liable. The prosecution must prove and defense must be given a chance to rebut. Although
malumprohibitum, the prosecution is not excused from the responsibility of proving beyond reasonable doubt
all the elements of the offense and that includes knowledge.
The notice of dishonour was sent to the corporation, not to the person who was authorized. There was no
notice. That is not knowledge. Kasi corporation ang nag issue eh.
Llamadovs CA 270 S 43.This time the signatory of the check denies knowledge. The check was signed in blank.
But he was held liable. Knowledge as a state of mind is difficult to prove. The statute itself creates a prima facie
presumption that drawer has knowledge. He failed to rebut the presumption by paying the amount of the check
within 5 days from notice of dishonour.

When you sign a check in blank, you made yourself prone to the charge of violation of BP22. It was incumbent
upon him to prove his defense of lack of involvement in the negotiation or in the transaction.
The directive I told you earlier with respect to banks to indicate the order of stop payment is in section 3
Section 3.Duty of drawee; rules of evidence. - It shall be the duty of the drawee of any check, when refusing to
pay the same to the holder thereof upon presentment, to cause to be written, printed, or stamped in plain
language thereon, or attached thereto, the reason for drawee'sdishonor or refusal to pay the same: Provided,
That where there are no sufficient funds in or credit with such drawee bank, such fact shall always be explicitly
stated in the notice of dishonor or refusal. In all prosecutions under this Act, the introduction in evidence of any
unpaid and dishonored check, having the drawee's refusal to pay stamped or written thereon or attached
thereto, with the reason therefor as aforesaid, shall be prima facie evidence of the making or issuance of said
check, and the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the dishonor thereof, and that the same was
properly dishonored for the reason written, stamped or attached by the drawee on such dishonored check.
Not with standing receipt of an order to stop payment, the drawee shall state in the notice that there were no
sufficient funds in or credit with such bank for the payment in full of such check, if such be the fact.
Both must appear, the stop payment and drawn against insufficient funds (DAIF). If they both exist, ilagaydoon.
Take note, the practice refer to drawer and other euphemisms is no longer allowed. Nakalagaydapat stop
payment or insufficient funds.Klarohana.
The other act punish in BP22 is
2. The failure to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a credit within a period of ninety (90) days from the date
appearing thereon.
Kaya ngadibamerontayo within 90 days you present, that is your obligation to maintain sufficient funds within
90 days. Kaya ngakung after 90 days kana nag present, walang liability ang nag issue under the BP22.
So how do you distinguish the first act from the second act.
1. Yong sa first, the check is worthless at the time of the issuance, whereas the 2nd type, its good when issued.
2. The 1st type, the drawer has knowledge of the insufficiency of funds or lack of funds, whereas in the 2 nd type,
knowledge is not a requisite.
3. The 1st type, the law compels the drawer to either deposit or arrange credit with the drawee upon 5 days
from presentment, the 2nd type, the law expects or compels the drawer maintain sufficient funds or enough
credit within 90 days from drawing or issuing.
Lozano vs Martinez 196 S 343.Where the constitutionality of the imprisonment was questioned. According to
the court, this is not a violation of the right against imprisonment for non-payment of debt. The purpose of the
law is to protect the integrity of the check as a form of payment in commercial transactions. The practice
proscribed is the act of making or issuing worthless checks which is considered as a public nuisance.

SEPT 23 2nd part

MILLER V. CA: dishonour due to closure of account, this is the same as failure to maintain necessary deposits. BP
22 applies even if the check is issued only as a guarantee, nag issue ka ng check as accommodation party not
meant as payment for an obligation. But because you issued a bad check, apil yan sa BP 22 although not
punished by Art 315, that is QUE V. PEOPLE what is prohibited is the mere issuance of an unfunded check. Other
way of putting it is evidence of indebtedness, investment, guarantee, accommodation party or security. Is this
applicable if check is drawn against a redundant account? In the case of REVILLA V. CA, SC said YES if it is drawn
or issued in the Philippines even if the ---is abroad. In PEOPLE V. NITAFAN, the court elaborated on the
memorandum check, MC is not meant for payment, it is only for guarantee of payment. It is an evidence of debt,
valid in the hands of the holder, still covered by BP 22 because a CHECK IS ALWAYS INTENDED FOR PAYMENT;
YOU CANNOT CHANGE ITS NATURE. The law does not distinguish. THE PRIVATE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE
PARTIES CANNOT PREVAIL OVER THE LAW. Why? Because if ganyan, you will have to look into the private
agreement of the parties, nawala na ang essence ng BP 22- ang issuance ng bad check, that is why all these
checks eh covered ng BP 22 kahit ano pa ang usapan niyo kahit pa it only serves as your security blanket, gunit-

gunitan lang nimo, pareho lang yan. Although in BARCA? v. CA 298scra656, ito yung sinasabi nila na gidecriminalize nila ang BP 22, THAT IS NOT ACCURATE because in this case the court only imposed a penalty of
fine kasi ang penalty under BP 22 is imprisonment OR a fine. In this case, SC imposed fine only kaya doon na
nagstart ang tsismis na gi-decriminalize nila ang BP 22 pero NOT ACCURATE kasi nandon pa sa law yung
imprisonment pero meron lang instruction ngayon or guide ang SC na diri lang ka sa fine kumbaga may
preference sa imposition of penalty. Imprisonment not less than 30 days and not more than 1 year or a fine or
double the amount of check but not more than OR kasi yan, the same philosophy underlying in ISL gaya ng
preventive unnecessary deprivation of liberty and economi usefulness and due reguard of socil. So pareho ang
philosophy ng ISL at BP 22. So in this case, SC deleted the imprisonment imposed by the lower court and instead
imposed the fine only. They considered the fact that the accused were first time offenders and they were
Filipinowho presumably contributes to the national economy. They made this statement that they brought
this appeal believing in good faith that they did not violate BP 22. In a similar case, ROSA LIM V. PEOPLE, same
thing happened citing again yung preventive unnecessary deprivation of liberty, that this would best serve the
criminal justice. Like i said base ito don sa circular kasi yun ang binigay nila sa mga judges. BP 22 ALSO STATES
THAT THIS IS W/O PREJUDICE TO THE LIABILITY UNDER THE RPC. That is why i said earlier na PWEDE KA MAFILEAN NG SABAY UNDER BP 22 AND 315. There is NO DOUBLE JEOPARDY BECAUSE THESE ARE TWO OFFENSES w/
different elements. NIERRAS V. DACUYCUY, 315 and BP 22 were distinguished. 315 deceit and damage, BP 22
mere issuance and knowledge of insufficiency is presumed. The penalty in 315 is contained in 38818 you dont
follow that in 315, the penalty is PM to RT depending on the amount. The violation of 315 is mala in se, BP 22 is
mala prohibita.
SORRY di ko talaga maintindihan (but this is under ART 316) OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING mortagages...that
is what is punished here, the law does not prohibit to encumber properties but if you falsely say that this
property is not encumbered, that is deceit and that is other form of swindling. In the case of ANTAZO V. PP,
there was a mortgaged property and it was sold as clean kuno but the mortgage was registered in ROD, that is
constructive notice diba, so dapat alam niya. Is this estafa pa rin under other forms of swindling? SC SAID,
CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE DOES NOT APPLY, the essence of this is the reliance on the sellers title, yes--registration
is notice to the whole world but there is no law which requires that the buyer checks, the buyer has the right to
rely on the words of the seller. Nangatik ka, ingon nimo limpyo pero dili diay, naay deceit. THAT REGISTRATION
IS NOTICE TO THE WHOLE DOES NOT APPLY BECAUSE THERE IS SWINDLING.
The owner of the property takes it from the lawful possessor, suppose you pledge your celfon to
somebody unya imong gikawat.
Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute any fictitious contract. Usually sa mga
creditors, you execute a fictitious contract like sale and you defraud creditors. That is OTHER FORMS OF
SWINDLING. Yung fraudulent insolvency, absconds with his property for the prejudice of his creditors,
ano ang difference nito? In 314 you really have defrauded your creditor, here atik-atik lang, really you
still have your properties. In here you simulated contracts to defraud your creditors, may deceit. Yung sa
314 you abscond and yung property were really sold.
Swindling of minors is also punishable. (story about sabatanapandesal vendor robbed)
OTHER DECEITS
Example of this is yung bus conductor daw, nangutanasiya as aka, gensantapostagaankaug ticket
buslutanperohanggangdigoslangpalaangnilagay so iyanggi-pocket ang difference, kung di
momabutangsaestafa or swindling dirisa other deceits.

CHATTEL MORTGAGE- REMOVAL OR SALE OF PROPERTY MORTGAGE

This talks about personal property that you mortgage, you are supposed to register it with the ROD,
usually yungmgasakyanan, you execute chattel mortgage kungdili cash. Among others, the usual
conditions there is you cannot remove that property from where you are, kung ditto, dirilangka, di
mopwedengdalhinsacebu o sa manila. Bakitganon? Kasikapagnatransport mon a yan, the real owner will
have difficulty of getting it back, that is the whole point of chattel mortgage, so there is prohibition to

transfer the chattel but you can still sell that, pwede man yung property already mortgage as long as you
have the written consent of the mortgagor. The counterpart of Art. 316(2), this speaks of real property.

PRESENTATION OF POWERPOINT: RA 7877 ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT (KUNYARI NAGDISCUSS NA DAW

NG ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS)
Seduction and acts of lasciviousness, ganon din ang element may lewd design. DitosaSEXUAL
HARASSMENT, kahityawyawlang you can be held liable na for harassing. This is the meat of SEXUAL
HARASSMENT, TAKE NOTE OF THE ENVIRONMENT: WORK, EDUCATION OR TRAININGOUTSIDE OF
THESE ENVIRONMENTS, 7877 WILL NOT APPLY. HARASSMENT MUST WITHIN WORKING ENVIRONMENT,
WITHIN EDUCATION ENVIRONMENTOR WITHIN TRAININGENVIRONMENT. Specified yan ng law, outside
of these environment there can be NO PROSECUTION UNDER 7877 and it is committed by EMPLOYER,
EMPLOYEE, SUPERVISOR, AGENT OR ETC. What does the offender do? DEMANDS OR REQUESTS OR
OTHERWISE REQUIRES ANY SEXUAL FAVOR FROM THE PERSON, REGARLESS OF WHETHER THE DEMAND
OR REQUEST IS ACCEPTED although if accepted, walanamansigurongkasokasinagkasinabotnamansila. Di
namansinabina sexual intercourse, basta sexual favor. Work related or employment where sexual favor
is a condition in hiring or employment to be employed or for continued employment.
Maramingganitodiba, even in government, angimongsweldokaltasan, gaya ng mag GRO
kamunabagokamaging teacher, that is a condition for hiring or continued in employment, gusto
modilinakitairenew, i-blowjob momunaakokasi kung hindi di kitairenew. Even in terms and conditions of
promotions,
privileges
and
usually
travel
abroad
like
tatlolangtos
contender
kaangmanyaknaamohiritpudug sexual favor. Request lang man yan but that is considered a sexual favor.
Or the sexual favor results in limiting, segregating or classifying employee which would discriminate,
deprive or diminish or etc. what is common is itong #3 if these acts will result into an intimidating,
hostile or offensive environment kasimaraming acts eh DEMANDING OR REQUESTING. IF ANY OF THESE
WILL RESULT INTO an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment FOR THE EMPLOYEE, PASOK DITO.
Any person threats or induces another to commit any act of sexual harassment shall also be liable,
similar to those persons criminally liable- Inducement or indispensable cooperation. But here, what we
have is induces another, so principal by inducement and principal by indispensable cooperation.
DUTY OF THE HEAD OF THE INSTITUTION should prevent or deter the harassment. It can issue,
promulgate..committee on decorum and investigation which must be in placed in offices. The law
mandates the creation of that committee.
The acts that will result into an intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for an employee (referring
sappt). Administrative sanctions shall not require to prosecution proper, it has something to do with
admin law. Example you are charged and found guilty for sexual harassment administratively, that will
not bar your prosecution under 7877. Take note of the liability: THE EMPLOYER OR HEAD OF OFFICE IS
SOLIDARILY LIABLE FOR DAMAGES ARISING FROM THE ACTS OF SEXUAL HARASSMENT IF HE IS
INFORMED OF THE ACT AND NO IMMEDIATE ACTION WAS TAKEN UN ANG QUALIFIER NIYA.
Sec 6 talks of independent action. So this is a penal statute so may criminal at civil ka pa na independent
action for damages and if the offender is a public officer yunyungsinasabikona THREE-FOLD RULE
LIABILITY, he will also be administratively liable.
Any action arising from the violation of this ACT SHALL PRESCRIBE IN 3 YEARS. YOU SHOULD BRING AN
ACTION W/IN 3 YEARS FROM THE TIME OF THE COMMISSION OF THE ACT COMPLAINED OF.
DISCIPLINARY RULES IS SIMILAR TO 1577? But this is more detailed because it is not only sexual favor, it
can be also verbal or physical behavior of a sexual nature. Work relatedterms and conditions of
promotions, conferences, symposiums (PLEASE READ DISCIPLINARY RULES UNDER THIS

ACT)bawalmagbutangugcalendaryonanaayhubo-hubo, tanduay and the like kasi it is creating an

offensive, hostile, intimidating environment and etc.
CLASSIFICATION: may grave, less grave, unwanted touching meaning walang consent, pinching- that is
less grave offense. Then may light offense yung surreptitiously looking in persons private parts or worn
undergarments aka upskirtingsigekagpanilip. Even telling sexy jokes gaya ng ang cute2x mo, joke lang
man un hanggang maglala. Maraming grounds such us unwanted phone calls and other analogous cases.
Jurisprudence, the accused here was a high ranking official, chairman of the NLRC.
gumaganda ka ata, sa ibang mga pagkakataon na nahawan at sabay pisil habang ako ay nagtatype, sa
mga pagkakataong ito kinakabahan ako nab aka mangyari sa akin ang napapabalitang insidente na
ngyari tungkol sa mga sekretarya niyang nagbitiw gawa ng mga mapanghahalay na panghihipo so there
is a pattern already na ang chairman mahilig manghipo, the other instances eh sige pangutana kung may
boyfriend ka nab a tapos binigyan pa siya ng pera pang enrol kasi nag law skul daw, tinaggap niya kasi
takot na sya pero later sinoli din niya. may kalive-in ka na ba? Sir, Malabo. Bakit malaki ang balakang
mo? Sir, kayo ha! Masama sa amin ang may kalive-in. Another instance, during meeting ang kanyang
mga titig ay umuusad mula ulo hanggang dibdib. May applicant, sabihin mo magpapsmear muna siya.
(THIS IS BASED SA RECORD NG CASE) another instance, habang naglalakad, nilagay ang kanang kamay sa
aking balikat at pinisil-pisil ito at pinagapang ito sa kanang bahagi ng aking leeg, sa tenga at tsaka kiniliti.
Hindi na nakayanan ng employee, she filed for leave of absence and asked for transfer then filed a
complaint for sexual harassment. TAKE NOTE: this is admin, ang DEFENSE niya: these acts alone w/o
corresponding demand, request or reqt do not constitute sexual harassment; Sec 4a of 7877 did not
delegate to the employer the power to promulgate rules that would provide additional forms of sexual
harassment or to come up with its own definition of sexual harassment. SC said, Sec 3 of 7877 defined
the criminal aspect of the unlawful act, same section authorizes the institution of independent civil
action for damages, administrative sanction will not be a bar. The CA correctly ruled that the liability is
not to be determined solely based on 7877 because admin ang charge not the criminal infraction of
sexual harassment. CA found sufficient evidence on the admin charge but even if the acts are to be
tested strictly by the standards set in 7877, he will still be liable. In other words, its true that this
provision calls for a demand, request or reqt but it is not necessary that the demand, request or reqt
be articulated in a categorical oral or written statement. It may be discerned with equal servitude of the
acts of the offender, defeaning clarity of unspoken sexual...also not required that the demand, request
or reqt is made a condition for future employment, IT IS ENOUGH THAT THE ACT OF REPSONDENT
CREATES AN INTIMIDATING, HOSTILE OR OFFENSIVE ENVIRONMENT FOR THE EMPLOYEE. THE REQUEST,
DEMAND OR REQT NEED NOT BE WRITTEN OR SPOKEN.

Criminal Law 2; October 27, 2014 (Complete Two Hours)

Chapter
ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING DESTRUCTIONS
Article 320 Destructive Arson. The penalty of
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death shall be imposed upon any person who
shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices,
consequent to one single act of burning,
or as result of simultaneous burnings,
or committed on several or different

Eight

occasions;
2. Any building of public or private
ownership, devoted to the use of the
public in general, or where people
usually gather or congregated for a
definite purpose such as but not limited
to official governmental function or
business,
private
transaction,
commerce, trade, worship, meetings
and conferences, or 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.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or
vessel, airship or airplane, devoted to
transportation or convenience, or
public use, entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse
installation and any appurtenances
thereto, which are devoted to the
service of public utilities.
5. Any building, the burning of which is
for the purpose of concealing or
destroying evidence of another
violation of law, or for the purpose of
concealing bankruptcy or defrauding
creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above
enumerated qualifying circumstances, the
penalty of 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
edifice, or the burning merely constitutes an
overt act in the commission or another violation

of law.
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.
If as a consequence of the commission of any of
the acts penalized under this Article, death or
injury results, or any valuable documents,
equipment, machineries, apparatus, or other
valuable properties were burned or destroyed,
the mandatory penalty of death shall be
imposed."

This is destruction of property of another by means of fire. There are two articles on Arson in the Revised Penal
Code which, however, have been repealed or amended by the Arson Law. P.D. 1613 is now the main law on
Arson. Actually, now, we have two laws on Arson. We have Article 320 and yun nga, P.D. 1613.
In the case of People v. Murcia, (2010) yan ang sinabi ng SC. There are actually two categories of ArsonDestructive Arson under Article 320 of the RPC and Simple Arson under P.D. 1613.
The said classification is based on the kind, character and location of the property burned, regardless of the
value of the damage caused. Article 320 contemplates the malicious burning of structures, both public and
private, hotels, buildings, edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories, and other military, government or
commercial establishments by any person or group of persons. On the other hand, Presidential Decree No. 1316
covers houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms, mills, plantations, railways, bus stations, airports,
wharves and other industrial establishments.
In any case, the same pa rin siya. It is still malicious destruction of property of another by means of fire.
Given that definition, can we say that it is still Arson if the property burned is your own property? If you look at
the law, under P.D. 1613, it says there, any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another...the same
penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his own property under circumstances which expose danger
to the life or property of another. So, it appears that the burning of your property under certain circumstances
will fall under the crime of Arson. K? So, please take note of that. So, when the definition says, the malicious
destruction of property of another by means of fire, it can also be Arson if you set fire to your own property
and endangers the life or property of others.
Now, we know that, by means of fire is an aggravating or a qualifying circumstance, so that if by means of fire
is included in the definition or is an element of the crime, then you no longer consider that, for purposes of
increasing or qualifying a crime. For example, by means of fire is a qualifying circumstance in killing of a person,
qualifying the killing to murder. So wala na ang aggravating circumstance doon. You do not consider that
anymore because it is already included in the definition or already an element of the crime.

Stages
Also, they say that it is difficult to identify the stages of Arson. For example, if you burn the D building kay lagot
na kaayo ka sa lawschool unya ang nasunog kay ground floor lang or ang library lang sa fifth floor. Ang nasunog
one floor lang. Is that frustrated kay na-frustrate ka? Or 1/3 lang nasunog (parang rape lang noh, yung matter of
inches lang). Anyway, in the crime of Arson, it does not matter how many percent was burned. Jurisprudence
tells us that as long any part of the building is burned, the crime is already consummated. Even if the whole
building is not burned, that is already consummated Arson.
What then is frustrated? Some authors are saying na walang frustrated. I think Boado is saying that. And I think
Reyes is saying na meron. Ang kanyang example is, someone set fire already on rags but no part of the building
got burned. Ang iniisip ko naman, ano yang rag, naga float yan siya diyan? For me, if it is there on the ground, it
is part of the building being burned. May apoy, andiyan sa floor, that is part of the building being burned.
Although yun ang sabi ni Reyes.
Ang attempted level is clearer, diba? Nothing is burning yet and you are still performing overt acts of setting fire.
So wala pa. So yan ang stages.
Death as a consequence of Arson
Also, take note that both P.D. 1613 and Article 320 mention death, death results as a consequence. Under
Article 320, it is mandatory death (penalty) if as a consequence of Arson, death results. Also in PD 1613, if by
reason of or on occasion of Arson death results, the penalty of Recusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed. So,
if you set fire to a building and death results, it is still Arson. You do not complex that. It is simply Arson if
somebody dies as a result of the commission of Arson.
But, if you kill somebody and you burn the house or building, then you are now killing somebody by means of
fire and the means of fire can now be used to qualify the killing to murder.
Another result with respect to killing would be, when you kill somebody and then you use fire to burn the
property, building or whatever, in order to conceal the fact of the crime. Kung masunog ang tanan, pati ang
evidence mawala. Pati yung pinatay mo, sunog din yan. Now what is the crime?
Well actually, its not what is the crime but what the crimes are because the act of killing is different with
the Arson. You remember our lesson in Complex Crimes, diba? When an act is committed to conceal the
commission of another crime, then they are separate crimes. Take note, ha? There is no such thing as a complex
crime of Arson with Homicide. So it really depends on the circumstances.
Also, take note of, meron nakalagay jan na, you burn the property in order for you to collect the insurance. That
is qualified (???)...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 that has been established from the past that people insure their property and then arrange for it to
be burned on the ground, then afterwards, they collect the insurance proceeds. That is still Arson.
Pima facie evidence of Arson
And then this one, Section 6. This constitutes prima facie evidence of Arson. If the law gives the prosecutors
presumptions in their favour, kasi nga, mahirap ma-prove ang Arson. So these circumstances constitute prima
facie evidence of Arson:
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or establishment.
2. If substantial amount of flammable substances or materials are stored within the building note necessary in
the business of the offender nor for household us.
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or materials soaked therewith
or containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical, chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire, or
ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found in the ruins or premises of the burned building or property.
4. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at the time of the issuance of
the policy.

4. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance policy more than two fires have occurred in the same
or other premises owned or under the control of the offender and/or insured.
5. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the effects insured and stored in a building or property had
been withdrawn from the premises except in the ordinary course of business.
6. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration was made before the fire in exchange for the
desistance of the offender or for the safety of the person or property of the victim.
Anyway, if you read these, you can deduce that something is fishy here. This section gives us a disputable
presumption. If you have these, you can now file for Arson. Bago nasunog, gipangkuha lahat ng mga
improtantent bagay doon. Ang natira nalang na nasunog ay yung building, which is insured. Of course, as I said,
this is just a presumption. Anyway, just take note of these.
Another thing to remember here is that, this is an exemption to the general rule on conspiracy being not
punishable because in Arson, conspiracy to commit Arson is punished by prision mayor.
Chapter
Nine
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Article 327. Who are liable for malicious
mischief. - Any person who shall deliberately
cause the property of another any damage not
falling within the terms of the next preceding
chapter shall be guilty of malicious mischief.
What is malicious mischief under Article 327? Malicious mischief, again, refers to destruction of property but
minus by means of fire. If the destruction is by means of fire, then go to Arson. If the destruction is by way of
other means, you go to Malicious Mischief.
Now, the concept of malicious mischief is destruction for the sake of destruction. You must have the intent to
cause damage to property of another by means other than fire. Of course, if you cause damage to anothers
property, that would be in conflict with the concept of malice in malicious mischief. Ang reckless imprudence,
lahi man na diba? Culpa. So if there is neglect and there is damage to another, do not go to malicious mischief.
Malicious mischief should be deliberate. If the act is neglectful but still voluntary, then, you go to quasi-offenses,
right? The crime is the imprudent act. The damage to property, death or injury are results and not the crime.
Going back to malicious mischief, I also gave you an example of killing a goat. Kanang goat sigeg kaon ug sagbot,
mga kamatis and laing gulay, naglagot ka, eh di imong gipatay. That is what? That is malicious mischief. Now as I
told you, yung lumabas sa bar exam, after killing the whatever animal, kinain nila ngayon. That is no longer
mischief! That would be theft. Actually, the phrase there is make use.
Article 328. Special cases of malicious
mischief. - Any person who shall cause damage
to obstruct the performance of public functions,
or using any poisonous or corrosive substance;
or spreading any infection or contagion among
cattle; or who cause damage to the property of
the National Museum or National Library, or to
any archive or registry, waterworks, road,
promenade, or any other thing used in common
by the public, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods, if the

value of the damage caused exceeds

1,000 pesos;
2. By arresto mayor, if such value does
not exceed the abovementioned
amount but it is over 200 pesos; and
3. By arresto menor, in such value does
not exceed 200 pesos.
Now, special cases of malicious mischief, you just read that. This is also one of the articles that must be
amended kay masyadong mababa ang penalties.
Article 329. Other mischiefs. - The mischiefs not
included in the next preceding article shall be
punished:
1. By arresto mayor in its medium and
maximum periods, if the value of the
damage caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;
2. By arresto mayor in its minimum and
medium periods, if such value is over
200 pesos but does not exceed 1,000
pesos; and
3. By arresto menor or fine of not less
than the value of the damage caused
and not more than 200 pesos, if the
amount involved does not exceed 200
pesos or cannot be estimated.
Then we have other forms of mischief. The penalty would depend on the value of the damage, and again,
mababa na naman masyado. This should be amended na. And if the value of the damage cannot be estimated,
one of the more unforgettable cases in criminal law is the case of People v. Dumlao. Ano yun? Kumuha siya ng
buok-buok (sorry not clear), gi-scatter niya doon sa bahay, sa doorknob, sa railing sa stairs, ganyan. Gikalat niya
doon. So, unsa may value sa damage ana? So this is an example where the value of the damage cannot be
estimated.
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means
of communication. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon any person who
shall damage any railway, telegraph or
telephone lines.
If the damage shall result in any derailment of
cars, collision or other accident, the penalty of
prision mayor shall be imposed, without
prejudice to the criminal liability of the offender

for the other consequences of his criminal act.

For the purpose of the provisions of the article,
the electric wires, traction cables, signal system
and other things pertaining to railways, shall be
deemed to constitute an integral part of a
railway system.

So with respect to railroad, kung naay mga nangamatay dira, walay labot ang nag-drive. So, without prejudice to
the the criminal liability of the offender for the other consequences of his criminal act because here, the criminal
act is damaging another, specific, by damaging railway, telegraph or telephone lines. So kung imong gi-hiwi ang
tracks didto, that is Article 330.
Now chapter 10 is the more important provision here.
Chapter
EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

Ten

Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal

liability. - No criminal, but only civil liability,
shall result from the commission of the crime of
theft, swindling or malicious mischief
committed or caused mutually by the following
persons:
1.
Spouses,
ascendants
and
descendants, or relatives by affinity in
the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to
the property which belonged to the
deceased spouse before the same shall
have passed into the possession of
another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-inlaw and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall
not be applicable to strangers participating in
the commission of the crime.
Now, we know that relationship can affect the criminal liability of a person. Usually, in crimes against property,
relationship is a mitigating circumstance. Here in Article 332, it is telling us that relationship can be an exempting
circumstance as far as specified crimes are concerned. What are these crimes? These are the crimes of:

1. Swindling (estafa)
2. Theft
3. Malicious Mischief
So, that is as long as they are committed by the persons indicated. So, spouses cannot commit theft against each
other or they cannot commit swindling against each other. Or they cannot, what, commit malicious mischief
against each other. That is as far as criminal liability goes. There is no criminal liability but there is civil liability.
That is the first phrase of Article 332, No criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the commission of the
crime of theft, swindling or malicious mischief... So, as far as these persons are concerned, walang criminal
liability ito sila. So, ang mga magtiayon, sigeg pangawat ang asawa sa pitaka sa bana or vice versa, dili na pwede
ma file-an ug theft. Pero, if you rob your wife or your husband, or your father or your lolo, there is criminal
liability simply because hindi yan siya kasama sa specified crimes under Article 332. Also included are ascendants,
descendants, mutually committed by them. Now, take note that descendants here includes those step
relationships (step mother, step father, step sister, step brother). Yan. Or, yung mga adopted. Yung mga
adopted child, kasama yan diyan. Even common-law spouses. Here, spouses relate to common-law. Why is that?
Are we not sanctioning common law relationships, because here, you are saying that there is no criminal liability
between them? Well, the reason for this is that under the Civil Code, what governs their property relationship?
What governs them is what, co-ownership. The premise here is that there is co-ownership between these
people. That is why, even if you steal, you swindle, pareho lang kayo eh, you are both co-owners. Walang
criminal liability although there is civil liability. Take note, iba yung rule natin sa accessories.
Anyway, the last paragraph there says, The exemption established by this article shall not be applicable to
strangers participating in the commission of the crime because the strangers do not have relationship with
these people, pretty much the same as the rule in parricide. So if the killing is done against the wife, eh di
parricide yan. But if the husband induces another to kill his wife, then the is not guilty of parricide kasi walang
relationship yan. Same thing here. If somebody is asked to steal from the husband, meron silang conspiracy,
they are liable, yes, but the crime of one is not the crime of all. In fact, the other does not commit a crime. But,
the person not included because there is no relationship is liable for theft, swindling or malicious mischief. Okay?
Yan.
Lets go to title eleven.
Title Eleven
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Adultery and Concubinage is Chapter One. This is one aspect of the law that Gabriela is up in arms. Lugi daw.
Unsang klase na! Ang Adultery, ani unya ang Concubinage lahi! Nganong dili man na mapareho? Bakit, ano pala
ang Adultery?
Article 333. Who are guilty of adultery. Adultery is committed by any married woman
who shall have sexual intercourse with a man
not her husband and by the man who has carnal
knowledge of her knowing her to be married,
even if the marriage be subsequently declared

void.
Adultery shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum
periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this
offense while being abandoned without
justification by the offended spouse, the
penalty next lower in degree than that provided
in the next preceding paragraph shall be
imposed.
Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband. So
that is Adultery. So when you are married woman, you are supposed to have sex or make love only with one
person that is your husband. Other than that, definitely, that is adultery.
So if you do not have a relationship, anong tawag diyan fuck buddies, no strings attached, magkita mo, magana mo, kung dili eh di wala, ana lang. Unya, minyo na babae. Muana siya na, wala man miy relationship! Is that
a crime? Yes, that is a crime because kasi nga, you are supposed to have sexual relationship only with your
husband. Other than that, Adultery yan.
Ngayon, how many counts? Kasi in a months time, mga 30 days so 30 din. Everyday kayo kasi bago pa kayo. So,
how many counts of Adultery do you have? You will have 30 counts, because the crime here is the sexual act!
For every sexual intercourse, there is a crime of Adultery because relationship is not the crime. The crime is the
act of sexual intercourse. Yan ang matindi sa Adultery.
Now, one misconception of laymen is that Adultery can only be committed by a woman and that Concubinage
can only be committed by a man. That is not so because read read read, ano man ang nakalagay diyan? and by
the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be subsequently
declared void. So you see? Adultery can also be committed by a man. Therefore, in Adultery, you should file
against both. You cannot file against one party only. Therefore, both parties can be held liable for Adultery. So, it
is wrong to say na babae lang ang may kasalanan niyan, sa Concubinage lalaki lang. Dili na mao. Although ang
defense ng lalaki diyan, I do not know shes married! So that is his defense to be exculpated from criminal
liability. But just the same, both of them are supposed to be charged! It is now for the court to acquit the guy if
he does not know of the marriage, ganoon yon. As far as filing is concerned, dalawa yan.
Also, the fact thatthe marriage be subsequently declared void is not a defense at all. In annulment diba, we are
saying that there is no marriage at all that took place. Now, that cannot be a defense in Adultery. You should
wait muna for the marriage to be annulled before you engage in sexual intercourse. Kung walang declaration,
you will be criminally liable, even if later on, your marriage will be subsequently declared void or annulled.
Ang last paragraph diyan is sort of a privileged mitigating circumstance kasi the penalty is lower in degree. So sa
ato pa, gimingaw siya. Wala siyang kasama. That is the reason why the penalty is one degree lower.
Also, in Adultery, there are no accomplices kasi the law seems to punish only the guilty parties. So the
accomplices, the BFFs, didto ka naga vent, sige kag yawyaw, unsa man ning akong bana unya naa siyay gipa-ila-

ila sa imo, pogi kaayo, buotan pa jud. Unya didto mo sa ilahang balay, didto mo. So apparently, he is an
accomplice because he concurred with the criminal offense by a previous or simultaneous act. But here, in
Adultery, wala yan. He will not be an accomplice.
Now, Concubinage. Sino ang may codal? Galing pa akong airport.
Article 334. Concubinage. - Any husband who
shall keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or
shall have sexual intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his
wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other
place, shall be punished by prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods.
The concubine shall suffer the penalty of
destierro.
Tatlo kasi dito sa Concubinage. So tanong ka, bakit naga-yawyaw ang Gabriela dito na tatlo man pala ang ways
na ma-commit and Concubinage tapos sa Adultery isa lang? Pero kung imong basahon ang Article 334,
muragmag-yawyaw jud ka kay lisod kaayo i-prove nimo ni.
1. By keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling
2. By having sexual intercourse, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife
3. By cohabiting with her in any other place
Sige daw be, huna-hunaa daw na. Kinsa man ang tigas na tao nga grabe ug talent na iyahang mistress, didto jud
puyo sa ilahang balay? I believe na talaga ako diyan, I believe! Anong meron ka na nasugot silang tanan? Happily
ever after tanan. Meron ba kayong kilala? Pinoy? Dili sila Dolphy? Kasi sila daghan ug anak diba? Pero kani, lahi
man ni. Ang imong other woman lives in your conjugal dwelling. Presumably, andiyan ang anak mo, andiyan ang
asawa mo, maglipat-lipat ka nalang ng kwarto niyan. Ang saya mo naman. Anyaway, meron ka bang ma file-an
na kaso na ganyan? Parang wala. Or, the probability is nil. Anyway,that is one mode of committing Adultery. You
keep you mistress in your conjugal dwelling. So X na yan siya. Di man jud na mahitabo, or very rare.
So the second mode, is having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances. Unsa man pud ni nga. Bakit
ka naman din na mag-sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances? Kahit nga kayo na mag-asawa kayo, itago niyo nga eh under normal circumstances. Dapat discrete. Unya karon, for it to be Concubinage, dapat under
scandalous circumstances. Scandalous nga. Diba, ibig sabihin niyan, may publicity, alam ng mga tao yan, Kahit
hindi siguro public pero abre ang bintana. Hala sige. Again, the probability lagi of conviction or a charge under
the second mode is close to nil. Parang Malabo yan.
Now, ano yung third? By cohabiting with her in any other place. So, parang swak na diba? Cohabitation with her
in any other place. This is popular among government officials, their number 2 in another house, number 3,4, 5
in a condo, etc. Is that Concubinage? Under the law and under our jurisprudence, that is not Concubinage! Kasi
when you say cohabit, you must live together as husband and wife. You must live in a character of a husband
and wife Didto ka naga-uli. Otherwise, that will not fall under Concubinage. Dapat mag-live-in kayo. Diba?

Anyway, that is the object of the protest of Gabriela. Gipasundan mo ang husband mo, tapos gi-picturan na naga
acrobatic sila. Nag-bali-bali na sila ug tiil. Unya, kinsa man ang na skandalo ana? Ikaw! Kay ikaw man nagsugo na
mag picture2x. That is not under scandalous circumstances. Ikaw lang nahago ug sunod2x. That is not
Concubinage pa rin.
Then, the concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
Chapter two. Wala ng rape diyan kasi rape has been classified as a crime against persons. We go to acts of
lasciviousness.
Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness. - Any person
who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon
other persons of either sex, under any of the
circumstances mentioned in the preceding
article, shall be punished by prision
correccional.
It is simply rape minus the sexual intercourse. Rape less sexual intercourse. Yan. All the other elements are the
same except that there is no sexual intercourse.
October 27, 2014
2nd half
Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness. - Any person who shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other
persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances mentioned in the preceding article, shall be
punished by prision correccional.
Well actually acts of lasciviousness (AOL) it is simply rape minus the sexual intercourse or rape less sexual
intercourse. All other elements are the same, parehas talaga sila ng rape minus the sexual intercourse lang, that
is all that you have to remember.
One difficulty here is that when do you determine if it is attempted rape or AOL because you see where you
attempt to rape somebody you are committing AOL, like you will hold or grab the private parts, etc, what is that?
That is also AOL. What makes it different from attempted rape? The same act. The difference here would be on
the intent. If there is intent to have sexual intercourse that would be attempted rape. If you do not have an
intent to have sexual intercourse you cannot have an attempted rape, although what we are talking about is the
same act. Kissing for example or grabbing the the private parts, the same, if there is an intention to have sexual
intercourse attempted rape yan, no intention AOL. AOL is rape without the sexual intercourse.
One other thing, same also with rape, itong AOL if you look at Art 336 any person who shall commit any act of
lasciviousness upon other persons of either sex so ang AOL pwede lalaki ang offended party or babae.
Ano ang Lascivious conducts? Ano yan yung bastos ba, kasi you have to get the nature of the crime, ito lewd
intent but no intent to have sexual intercourse. Because if you do not have lewd intent, the same act can fall in
another crime, pwede yan unjust vexation, if the intent is just really to annoy you. Like naglagot sya sa imuha
you hold her breast pero wla sya intent kay dili man sya ganahan nimo nglagot lang jud sya nimo. That cannot be
considered as AOL kasi wala man syang lewd intent. Ang iyahang purpose is really to embarrass or annoy you or
vex so unjust vexation only. So you really have to look at the intent because it can fall under different crimes
depending on the intent.

In one case, naa sa church, so paano maging lewd conduct yan na daghan tao, although ofcourse kung grabe jud
kamanyakis ni na dli jud makapugong sa iyang kaugalingon, well that is the matter of intent. The point is kung
ang intent lascivious dito ka sa AOL, if the intent is another pwede ka sa unjust vexation.
Also relate this to RA 7610 child abuse.
Chapter
SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF MINORS AND WHITE SLAVE TRADE

Three

Article 337. Qualified seduction. - The seduction of a

virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of
age, committed by any person in public authority,
priest, home-servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or
any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted
with the education or custody of the woman seduced,
shall be punished by prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed
upon any person who shall seduce his sister or
descendant, whether or not she be a virgin or over
eighteen years of age.
Under the provisions of this Chapter, seduction is
committed when the offender has carnal knowledge
of any of the persons and under the circumstances
described herein.
Article 338. Simple seduction. - The seduction of a
woman who is single or a widow of good reputation,
over twelve but under eighteen years of age,
committed by means of deceit, shall be punished
by arresto mayor.

Seduction is sexual intercourse with consent. Why is it a crime na nisugot man? Crime kay tanawa ang edad sa
imu gisexual intercourse, ang edad is over 12 but under 18, sa ato pa minor. Yung rape sexual intercourse
without consent, yung rape sexual intercourse with consent.
It is a crime because of four things:
1. Abuse of authority
2. Abuse of relationship
3. Abuse of confidence
4. Deceit
Mao ni sila ang ngtake sa place ng without consent. May consent nga eh but there is abuse of authority,
relationship, confidence, that is seduction, qualified actually.
What about the deceit? It will fall under simple seduction.
In qualified seduction tatlo yan, abuse of authority, relationship or confidence, so qualified yan. The other is
deceit, sa simple seduction yan.
So here sexual intercourse with consent, provided under Art 337 ang nkalagay is virgin, the seduction of a virgin
over twelve years and under eighteen years of age
So unsa man mgpacheck up pa ta ni sa doctor? ))

When you say virgin, that is not in the physical sense. Virgin is simply means a woman of good reputation. And if
there us abuse of authority like the mayor will commit it, kasi yung abuse of authority ang mg-take ng place ng
without consent. Here the victim is a minor and incapable of giving a perfect consent, the law presumes that.
Kumbaga this guy with abuse of authority had sexual intercourse with the victim, there is a presumption that
there is abuse of authority even if there is consent, kaya nga crime sya because that abuse of authority. Priest,
house servant like having sexual intercourse with the anak sa amo that is abuse of confidence.
What is the difference between a house servant and a domestic? Kasi diba pare-pareho lang, ang alam natin
domestic helper or house servant, dba pareho? Actually dito hindi yan pareho, domestic ang sinabi diyan.
Domestic is somebody who lives with you in the house, it could be a border yung ganun. Well that guy has
sexual intercourse with the daughter then that is qualified seduction.
Ofcourse, ang didto ha should always over 12 under 18, yan yung basic kasi. The only time where age is not a
requirement when the seduction is by means of abuse of relationship. Pag may abuse of relationship The
penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon any person who shall seduce his sister or descendant,
whether or not she be a virgin or over eighteen years of age.
So in cases of incest it does not matter, if the sister or descendant is over 18 years of age, pwede na tigulang na
basta kay sister or descendant it does not matter. Virginity also does not matter. Because ayaw ng law ng incest
kaya the penalty is one degree higher.
Yung ibang offender guardian, teacher, or any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted with the
education or custody of the woman seduced you suppose to educate pero lahing klase na education imuha
gibuhat, sexual education.
So again, pag-abuse of authority, relationship and confidence, tatlo yan qualified seduction. The other means is
deceit that would be simple seduction.
The deceit usually is the breach of a promise to marry. Kasi usual ito nuon, that in order to have sexual
intercourse with the girl you make a promise na minyoan nimo in all the churches in Mindanao or Philippines,
unya dili nimo tumanon deceit na. Kumbaga pumayag ng sexual intercourse, there is consent, because you
deceive the girl. Again over 12 under 18 yan who is single or a widow of good reputation, widow of good
reputation scratch that because you cannot be a widow of good reputation now because kay kung magminyo ka
karn 18 man ka so wla nay widow na below 18.
Suppose that, the man promise to give ipad or cell phone in order to have sexual intercourse with the woman,
but after the sexual intercourse, he will just say na joke lang to uie, is that seduction by means of deceit? Our
authors said that is not the deceit that we are talking about, kasi pag-ganyan prostitute ang labas nimo ana,
ngpabayad ka unya wla ka gibayri reklamo.
Article 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of
the offended party. - The penalty of arresto
mayor shall be imposed to punish any other acts of
lasciviousness committed by the same persons and the
same circumstances as those provided in Articles 337
and 338.
Now Art 339, acts of lasciviousness with the consent. Yung kanina acts of lasciviousness is the same as rape
without the sexual intercourse, into namang acts of lasciviousness with the consent, ibig sabihin nito is acts lang
sya kutob pero may consent. Parang seduction lang sya, ang seduction may consent but with sexual intercourse,
here walang sexual intercourse yan pero with consent kutob lang sya sa acts. So parang seduction pero walang
sexual intercourse, kasi ang seduction may sexual intercourse with consent.

Article 340. Corruption of minors. - Any person who

shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or
corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of
another, shall be punished by prision mayor, and if the
culprit is a pubic officer or employee, including those
in government-owned or controlled corporations, he
shall also suffer the penalty of temporary absolute
disqualification. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg.
92).

Article 341. White slave trade. - The penalty of prision

mayor in its medium and maximum period shall be
imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or
under any pretext, shall engage in the business or shall
profit by prostitution or shall enlist the services of any
other for the purpose of prostitution (As amended by
Batas Pambansa Blg. 186.)
Will skip that pag usapan natin sa trafficking, kung ang purpose mo is exploitative didto ka sa trafficking of
persons, includig 341, white slave trades, although of course pwede ka din dito pero mas mataas ang penalty
under the trafficking of persons. If the trafficking is for the purpose white slaves trade doon ka.
Chapter
ABDUCTION

Four

Article 342. Forcible abduction. - The abduction of any

woman against her will and with lewd designs shall be
punished by reclusion temporal.
The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the
female abducted be under twelve years of age.
Article 343. Consented abduction. - The abduction of a
virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of
age, carried out with her consent and with lewd
designs, shall be punished by the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
Abduction is just kidnapping, serious illegal detention. Forcible abduction ang serious illegal detention are the
same basically except that in forcible abduction there is an additional element and that is the element of lewd
intent. Kumbaga you detain somebody, you restrict her freedom, the same but if the intent is lewd that will fall
under forcible abduction. Yan lang basic difference from serious illegal detention.
Now there are two kinds of abduction:
1. Forcible, and
2. Consented
What is lewd? Obscene, lustful, indecent, lascivious. It signifies that kind or form of immorality which has
relation to moral impurity, or that which is carried on in a wanton manner.
Now, usually kasi nga may lewd intent so there is other purpose, this crime can be complex with rape. If you
have abducted and brought somewhere then rape her, that is a complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.

In the case of People vs. Angeles, here there is robbery, ngayon yung isang accused dinala ang isang babae sa
hotel, so there was separate crime of forcible abduction with rape complex yan, separate then yung robbery,
with respect to that particular accused.
Now suppose that, giabduct na tapos gi-rape, then the next day gi-rape na pud, kumbaga ginawang sex slave,
pagka ugma rape napud, is that maraming counts ng forcible abduction with rape? The ruling here isa lang yung
forcible abduction with rape, the other rapes are considered independent crimes yan, separate crimes. There is
only one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, yun lang pagkuha tapos gi-rape, yung succeeding rapes
independent crimes na yan.
What is consented? Take note ha abduction may lewd intent, unya karn naay consent, kumbaga the one who is
abducted kabalo sya na naay lewd intent unya nisugot sya. Unsa man na? Well, in tha past maraming cases na
ganito, the best example for this is yung ng elope or ng-taban or ng-tanan, nihawa sa balay ni-uban sa uyab.
Alam nya na mgkaroon sila ng sexual intercourse, nisugot sya , that is consented abduction.
Consent Abduction - The abduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of age, carried out
with her consent and with lewd designs
When you say abduction lewd design jud yan, ngayon kung without the consent, dito ka sa forcible, kya nga
forcible kasi gipugos, pero naa sab abduction na gipugos, that is consented abduction.
Lets go back to forcible abduction the 2nd paragraph say,the same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if the
female abducted be under twelve years of age. Now take note of that kasi kung under 12 it does not matter
kung may consent or wala, parang rape lang yan, ang rape pag under 12 rape statutory yan.
So parang abduction with lewd intent, kasi may consent pero under 12 ang dinala mo that cannot be a defense
because forcible abduction pa rin yan. Sabihin mo na pumayag man ang bata, under 12 pumayag? The law
presumed that under 12 cannot give consent therefore the crime is not consented abduction it should be
forcible abduction.
What crimes against where the age of the victim is an element? In the following, the age of the girl is material:
1. Qualified seduction with abuse authority, confidence and deceit;
2. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the offended party under the same condition;
3. Consented abduction.
What crimes where the age of the victim is immaterial?

1.
2.
3.
4.

Rape;
Acts of lasciviousness;
Qualified seduction with abuse of relationship (dito yung incest);
Forcible abduction (so sabi nga ni Dean Inigo na kahit lola nana 72 years old imu giabduct with lewd
intent forcible abduction pa din yan, so age does not matter)

Chapter
PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE PRECEDING CHAPTERS OF TITLE ELEVEN
Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery,
concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of

Five

lasciviousness. - The crimes of adultery and

concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including both the guilty parties,
if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have
consented or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,
grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the
offender has been expressly pardoned by the above
named persons, as the case may be.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender
with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or remit the penalty already imposed upon
him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be
applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and
accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned
crimes.
How do you prosecute these crimes? These are the crimes that sometimes called private crimes, it is also crimes
which cannot be prosecuted de officio. Meaning, you cannot file a complaint without the affidavit of the private
offended party. You have to have the complaint of the private offended party otherwise you cannot prosecute
this.
The rationale there is that the offended party may choose to suffer in isolation and not go through the spectacle
of a public trial, the law respect that. Kasi nga yan ang mahirap sa rape cases kasi nga ang victim pagtrial macross-examine sya, and the victim is made to undergo same ordeal again, kasi himay-himayon man jud ng
testimony, so from the start so maala-ala mo lahat yung mga nangyari, so when the victim does not want tofile a
case the law respects that and nobody can file a case for her. Kung dili gani gusto d dili, so this cannot be
prosecuted the officio because it is a private crime it needs the complaint of the offended party.
The 1st and 2nd paragraphs the crimes of adultery and concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse. The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without
including both the guilty parties, if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned
the offenders. So dalawa ang filelan mo, suppose nangabit ang bana pero love man jud sya sa wife ang filelan
lang sa wife ang kabit, dli namahimo.
You cannot also chage if there is consent or pardon. If you remember Art 89, pardon is not a mode of extinction
of criminal liability, so are we talking about? It is merely a bar to prosecution of a criminal case, in other words
kung mayroong pardon you are barred from filing a case because it is a bar to a criminal action. Like in adultery,
pghuman sa yaw2x nghinilakay na sila, ngsorry na giforgive na, that is pardon hindi kana pwede mgfile unless of
course may adultery na naman na ginawa. Like karn na forgive na so that is a bar to criminal action unya
pagkanext month ngcommit na sab, so lahi na sab to na adultery.
Ano namn itong with consent? Like for example muana ang asawa hala sige pangita ka-sex didto, okey lang sa
akin no hurt feelings. Basically that is consent. Marami dyan ng-hiwalay tapos ngayon they want to have there
own partner, to have their own life, to move on, so ngsabot cla na they can have their own partner and move on
with their lives. So they draft an agreement that we are free to go our own way, we are moving on separately,
consented that we can have own partners, so ganyan2x. Ngayon, in your civil law, is that a valid agreement?
That is void for being against public policy. But for purposesof defense in a criminal case of adultery and

concubinage that is an evidence of consent, when there is consent there is a bar to criminal case, you cannot
prosecute if you have consented to the act of adultery.
Ofcourse the consent should be given after the criminal act. For pardon to be effective you must extend the
pardon before the case is filed in court. Kumbaga, nasuko na asawa unya file daun sa korte unya ng-uli sila and
now the complainant wishes to withdraw the complaint. Unya kay naa namn sa korte? What was before a
private crime has now become a public crime because its under the control of the prosecutor, who is acting for
and in the interest of the state, hindi na yan private wala na kay labot ana except as witness. So kung ayaw mo
huwag kang mgfile pero kung na file na yan wala ka ng magawa dyan because nga it has passed on to the public
prosecutor, although ofcoursein reality mahirapan na ang prosecutor na iprove yan wla na syang witness but
purposes of our discussion wala na yan you cannot just withdraw your complaint kasi this is kumbaga this thing
is bigger than you, we are after yung society, family is the basic social institution etc etc, this is beyond you.
Before the filing sayo yun, if you withdraw that is with you, but now that you have file the case in court wala na,
the control passes to the state.
Naalala nyo yung case na Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera? Diba ang husband foreigner tapos gidivorce iya Filipina wife sa
abroad unya nibalik dri, ngfile sya ug adultery case sa wife. Sabi ng wife na dli na pwede dli na tika husband, sabi
naman ng foreigner na when you committed adultery I am still your husband. The SC said that the husband must
be the husband at the time of the filing of the complaint so walang adultery because the foreigner husband gets
a divorce the Filipina spouse can remarry.
3rd paragraph The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness, So it is not just adultery and
concubinage, it include also seduction, abduction, rape or acts of lasciviousness. Shall not be prosecuted except
upon a complaint filed by the offended party or her parents, grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the
offender has been expressly pardoned by the above named persons, as the case may be. So in that order ha.
Like I said pardon here is not a mode of extinction it is only a bar to criminal action.
4th paragraph 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
meaning the case is already in court and the parties get married, ngminyo ang offended and offender, so wala
na, so the criminal action will be extinguished. Now suppose the offender has already been convicted and
already serving his sentence in jail, yan yung ibig sabihin dyan na the penalty can be remitted. So it is a mode of
extinction of criminal liability.
The provisions of this paragraph shall also be applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and accessories after
the fact of the above-mentioned crimes. But with respect to rape diba when there is marriage between the
offender and the offended extinction yan sa rape. Now, this rule could not be applicable in cases of multiple
rape because with respect to the other offenders wala ka co-principal ka jpon.
In one example, A, husband, B, the wife, B has an affair with C, so mayroong adultery si B with C. Now gi-filelan
ng kaso unya namatay si A. Unya ngminyo si B ug si C. Is there criminal liability extinguish? Remember that B and
C they are not offended and offender parties, they are both offenders this will not apply.

Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes

against chastity. - Person guilty of rape, seduction or
abduction, shall also be sentenced:
1. To indemnify the offended woman.
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the
law should prevent him from so doing.
3. In every case to support the offspring.
The adulterer and the concubine in the case provided
for in Articles 333 and 334 may also be sentenced, in

the same proceeding or in a separate civil proceeding,

to indemnify for damages caused to the offended
spouse.
To indemnify the offended woman.
To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from so doing.
Kunwari minyo na, the victim is married and has kids tapos ngayon nabuntis dahil sa crime na yan, or there are
multiple offenders, sino ngayon ang ipaacknowledge mo diyan. Those were the instances where
acknowledgement is not an option. Isipin mo manuktok did2 ang offender or iyang representative mghatag ug
support like tuition sa iyang anak, so yan magkakaproblema.
Article 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians,
teachers, or other persons entrusted with the custody
of the offended party. - The ascendants, guardians,
curators, teachers and any person who, by abuse of
authority or confidential relationships, shall
cooperate as accomplices in the perpetration of the
crimes embraced in chapters, second, third and
fourth, of this title, shall be punished as principals.
Teachers or other persons in any other capacity
entrusted with the education and guidance of youth,
shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
special disqualification.
Any person falling within the terms of this article, and
any other person guilty of corruption of minors for
the benefit of another, shall be punished by special
disqualification from filling the office of guardian.
Take note they are considered as principals, although their actions are not really or they are only helping act, but
in these cases, seduction, abduction, ect, itong mga ascendant, guardians, teachers and any person who, by
abuse of authority or confidential relationships, shall cooperate as accomplices in the perpetration of the crimes,
shall be punish as principals, although their participation is that of accomplice according to this article they will
be punished as principals. Parang ano lang yan slight illegal detention na the one who furnishes the place is
punish as a principal even if really his action is only that of an accomplice, so similar sila.

Crim II TSN, October 28, 2014, Part 1 (34 minutes)

We come to CONSENTED ABDUCTION. We have this case People v. _______, this is an old case where the girl
submitted because of the promise of marriage, sabi natin, ano thats supposed to be Simple because of deceit.
But here, the Court said this is Consented Abduction. Simple Abduction is dissolved because of the consent. But
if the victim is raped, then thats another story because it will be the complex crime of Consented Abduction
with Rape. The abduction was used as a necessary means of committing rape. Also I forgot to tell you, well, diba
sabi nila there is consent? So ano ang crime when there is absolute consent? Well, the law seeks to protect not
just the victim but also the family of the victim kasi, ang ating example diyan, is tanan or taban. So the essence

of the crime is not the wrong done to the woman but the outrage committed against the family and the alarm
caused to them. Also, sa adultery, yung doctrine of in pari delicto, if youre both in the wrong, wala, para lang
offsetting. But in criminal law there is no such thing, if your spouse commits adultery, it cannot be a defense that
the other is also doing it with somebody. That cannot be used, even if true. The husband who filed was also
cohabiting with another, but he is not precluded from filing provided of course there was no consent or pardon.
Okay, lets not go to SIMULATION or CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS. Again, ang consent ang
tingnan niyo dito. The crime is against the civil status of persons. If you read 347, the simulation of births,
substitution of a child for another and concealment or abandonment, all of these affect the civil status of
persons. Youre familiar with this kay naay mga telenovela nga ingon ani. Mara Clara. Parang nagswitch yun sila
diba? Substitution of a child for another. Its a crime! Simulation of birth, hindi ka buntis unya nagbuntisbuntisan ka lang pero after 9 mos, meron kang baby to show to the whole world. Why is that a crime? What
defense is given? Maayo man ang bata, in fact, we are able to give a better life to the child kesa doon sa original
na pamilya. But that is not a defense kasi nga, yun, the civil status will be affected. Kanino ba yang anak?
Nasisira mo yung filiation. Yan actually ang crime diyan kaya even if your intention is noble, that is, to give a
much better life to the child, that is not a defense pa din. Because it creates a false status to the detriment of
the family, dun sa mga legitimate talaga, kunwari, simulated or substituted, you are going to introduce another
person to the family na hindi naman siya related, to the prejudice of the others. But of course we know that this
is a common practice especially in the provinces. Even until now. Na anak ng relative ihatag nalang didto sa
iyang relative gihapon. So the child grows up with the auntie and the uncle but calls them papa and mama. And
then nobody knows it. Diba yun ang problema? Anyway, the object here of substitution, simulation or
concealment is the creation of false civil status, you are causing the loss of any trace as to the filiation of the
child. Also, to be able to relate this to other crimes involving babies, when the woman gives birth and abandons
the baby, thats what we call abandonment, under Article 276. The intention was made to cause the child to lose
its civil status. Or if you leave the child in a forest or in a dangerous situation, if the child dies, that may be
parricide or homicide. Anyway, here, the concept is pinapakialaman mo ang status ng bata.
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS, example here, you present yourself to be another person and you assume the
filiation or parental rights of such other person. You are not just usurping the civil status of that person, you are
actually usurping the public status or profession of another. So if Im actually the heir of this rich guy, piata mo
pala. Also, we distinguish this from Estafa, kasi if the impersonation or usurpation is to defraud, papasok
nanaman ang element of deceit. Ito dito, you assume the filiation of another. So there is also actually a different
penalty if the purpose is to defraud, its called Qualified.
Now, BIGAMY. Merong nagtanong, what is the opposite of Mini Me in Criminal Law? The answer is this one,
Bigamy (HAHA). Okay, now, ano tong Bigamy, Chapter 2. Take note, when you say Bigamy, kasi ang common
concept diyan is dalawa. Dalawang marriages.Paano man yan if nakatatlo ka na o nakaapat? Trigamy?
Fourgamy? According to the RPC, the second and subsequent marriages are considered Bigamy pa din. Ah. Wag
mo na gawingTrigamy. Basta Bigamy na tanan. Why is this a crime? Because you contracted a marriage even
before your previous marriage is being legally dissolved. Thats 349. So when can you get married again? First,
kung namatay imong bana or asawa. Ikaduha, kung legally dissolved ang marriage. Ikatulo, if the spouse has
been declared presumptively dead. Outside of these 3 requirements, you will be subject or vulnerable to Bigamy.
Now, as far as the declaration of nullity or the dissolution of marriage is concerned, ayaw pagbuot2. Wait until it
is legally declared void. You cannot use as an excuse na pwede na ka magminyo ug usab kay nagfile na ka ug
action to have the first marriage declared void and then later on, it is really granted. In the case of Beltran v.
People (334 SCRA 126), according to the Court, the parties are not permitted to judge for themselves the nullity
of the marriage, they should wait for the Court to decide. So long as there is no such declaration, the
presumption is that the marriage exists. Therefore he who contracts a second marriage before the judicial
declaration of nullity of the first, assumes the risk of being prosecuted for Bigamy. Now, also one important
thing here is this: the bigamous marriage is for all intents and purposes, valid, except only that it is a second
marriage. In other words, all requisites for the validity of a marriage is here, except lang na pangalawa siya and
there is still that subsisting, that existing marriage. Because if the second marriage lacks any of the essential
requisites of a valid marriage, example consent, then that cannot be bigamous. It can only be bigamous if valid

siya, if nacomply lahat ng formal and essential requisites of a valid marriage. Ang problema lang talaga is that
meron pang subsisting marriage. That is the only flaw.
If the marriage is contracted abroad, if its not recognized here, wala na yan. Suppose A (married to B)
contracted marriage with C in Thailand, bumalik sila ditto sa PIlipinas and lived as husband and wife. Is there
Bigamy? Wala man! General characteristic of Criminal Law diba is territoriality? Saan ba yun kinasal, outside the
country! So anong pakialam ng Criminal Law diyan? Walang Bigamy. Although they lived together as husband
and wife here, that can be susceptible to the charge of concubinage or adultery as the case may be. But as far as
Bigamy is concerned, there is the principle of territoriality. Take note too that Bigamy is not a private crime,
therefore it can be prosecuted by kahit sino not just the offended party.
If you contract a bigamous marriage, now, is your partner also liable for bigamy? Remember the elements of the
crime. Parang malabo yan na ang partner maging liable din, but can he be considered an accomplice? Ang
problem diyan is that the crime would not have been accomplished without the cooperation of the partner.
Were it not for the cooperation of the partner, walang marriage na mahitabo. So the partner, by indispensable
cooperation, is also a principal! Mahitabo ba diay ng marriage kung muingon siya ug dili ko. Although yung
mga ninang, bridesmaid, of course, go back again to intent and knowledge. Alam mo na minyo na ni siya,
nagninong2 pa ka diha, kana pwede ka mahimong accomplice. Or bridesmaid ka, best man, alam mo na married
na ang barkada mo. Accomplice ka!
Now, can a person be convicted of Bigamy and also for Concubinage? Pwede ba? Go back to basics, pareho ba
sila ng elements? Hindi man. So if swak siya doon, swak siya dito, pwede man. They are distinct offenses having
their own elements.
MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST PROVISION OF THE LAW. First of all, it should not fall under Bigamy.
Contracting marriage knowing that the requirements of the law are not complied with or the marriage is in
disregard of a legal impediment. Alam mo palang may problema yang marriage na yan, humirit ka pa.
Knowingly again ha, knowingly. But the impediment diyan should not refer to the existence of a previous
marriage, otherwise, automatic yan na Bigamy. Itong PREMATURE MARRIAGE, sa ato pa, hindi ka pa dapat
nagmarry, una2 ka. Why is it a crime? Anyway, widow na nga siya, kasuhan pa. Namatyan na ka, prisuhon pa ka
because you are not supposed to get married agad. Well, this is to avoid confusion as to filiation if nanganak ka.
Youre not supposed to marry within a certain number of days. Kung you get married before 180 days after the
subsequent marriage the rule is the baby is conceived in the former marriage provided born within 300 days
after the termination of the first. The concept is para lang to avoid confusion.
352. PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY. The offender here are those authorized to solemnize
marriage and then they perform an illegal marriage. Crimes against Honor, first is 353. Definition of defamation
yan kasi it includes both libel and slander. What is defamation, yan. Malicious imputation of a vice or defect,
real or imaginary.
Crim 2 TSN, October 28, 2014, Part 2, 1st 30 minutes.
Lets go to some special laws. R.A. 9745. this is the Anti-Torture Act of 2009. Take note of the definition of
torture:
"Torture" refers to an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted
on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person information or a confession;
punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed; or
intimidating or coercing him/her or a third person; or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when
such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a person in
authority or agent of a person in authority. It does not include pain or Buffering arising only from, inherent in or
incidental to lawful sanctions.
The acts of torture is defined in Section 4. Just read it.

Section 4. 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;
(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;
(13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the perception, memory. alertness or will of a person, such as:
(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
(14) 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/fher 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 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.
Section 5. 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.

Section 6. Freedom from Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment, An
Absolute Bight. - 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.
Section 7. 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.
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.

Section 8. Applicability of the Exclusionary Rule; Exception. - Any confession, admission or statement obtained as
a result of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any proceedings, except if the same is used as evidence
against a person or persons accused of committing torture.

Take note of Section 10. The of Writs of Habeas Corpus, Amparo and Habeas Data Proceedings shall be given
priority.
Section 10. Disposition of Writs of Habeas Corpus, Amparo and Habeas Data Proceedings and Compliance with a
Judicial 0rder. - A writ of habeas corpus or writ of amparo or writ of habeas data proceeding, if any, filed on
behalf of the victim of torture or other cruel, degrading and inhuman treatment or punishment shall be disposed
of expeditiously and any order of release by virtue thereof, or other appropriate order of a court relative thereto,
shall be executed or complied with immediately.

Take note of Section 15. Torture shall not absorb or shall not be absorbed by any other crime or felony
committed.
Section 15. Torture as a Separate and Independent Crime. - Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be
absorbed by any other crime or felony committed as a consequence, or as a means in the conduct or
commission thereof. In which case, torture shall be treated as a separate and independent criminal act whose
penalties shall be imposable without prejudice to any other criminal liability provided for by domestic and
international laws.
Take note also of Section 16. which excludes those who committed torture from availing of special amnesty
laws.
Section 16. Exclusion from the Coverage of Special Amnesty Law. - In order not to depreciate the crime of
torture, persons who have committed any act of torture shall not benefit from any special amnesty law or
similar measures that will have the effect of exempting them from any criminal proceedings and sanctions.

Relate Section 18 on our discussion regarding the Board of Claims.

Section 18. Compensation to Victims of Torture. - Any person who has suffered torture shall have the right to
claim for compensation as provided for under Republic Act No. 7309: Provided, That in no case shall
compensation be any lower than Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00). Victims of torture shall also have the right to
claim for compensation from such other financial relief programs that may be made available to him/her under
existing law and rules and regulations.
The compensation in R.A. 7309 and R.A. 9745 are not the same. In R.A. 7309, the maximum is P10,000.00.
However, in R.A. 9745, the compensation shall not be lower than P10,000.00.
Take note also that the RPC is applied suppletorily.
Section 22. Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. - The provisions of the Revised Penal Code insofar as they are
applicable shall be suppletory to this Act. Moreover, if the commission of any crime punishable under Title Eight
(Crimes Against Persons) and Title Nine (Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security) of the Revised Penal Code
is attended by any of the acts constituting torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment as defined herein, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its maximum period.

In this instance, torture is still a different offense and will be prosecuted independently and separately. However,
if a crime punishable under Title 8 and Title 9 is committed along with torture, the penalty for the crime will be
imposed in its maximum period. (It seems like torture is a special aggravating circumstance).
This special law is discussed for Bar Exam purposes. It will not be included in the exams.
Another special law, R.A. 9775, deals with child pornography.
Section 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:
(1) a person regardless of age who is presented, depicted or portrayed as a child as defined herein; and
(2) 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 any other means, of child engaged or involved in real or
simulated explicit sexual activities.

(c) "Explicit Sexual Activity" includes actual or simulated

(1) As to form:
(i) 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;
(2) bestiality;
(3) masturbation;
(4) sadistic or masochistic abuse;
(5) lascivious exhibition of the genitals, buttocks, breasts, pubic area and/or anus; or
(6) use of any object or instrument for lascivious acts
"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.
"Luring" refers to the act of communicating, by means of a computer system, with a 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.(2) Bestiality;
Take note of this because this is related to the cybercrime law, which we will take on later.

"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.

Unlawful or Prohibited Acts. - It shall be unlawful for any person:

(a) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child to perform in the creation or production of
any form of child pornography;
(b) To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of child pornography;
(c) To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute, broadcast, advertise, promote, export or import any
form of child pornography;
(d) 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;
(e) 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;
(f) For film distributors, theaters and telecommunication companies, by themselves or in cooperation
with other entities, to distribute any form of child pornography;
(g) For a parent, legal guardian or person having custody or control of a child to knowingly permit the
child to engage, participate or assist in any form of child pornography;
(h) To engage in the luring or grooming of a child;
(i) To engage in pandering of any form of child pornography;
(j) To willfully access any form of child pornography;
(k) 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
(l) To possess any form of child pornography.
Take note the child pornography involves distribution of any form of child pornography. Even possession
of any form of child pornography is an unlawful act.
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 and
shall be punished under Section 15(a) of this Act.
Section 8. Jurisdiction. - Jurisdiction over cases for the violation of this Act shall be vested in the Family Court
which has territorial jurisdiction over the place where the offense or any of its essential elements was
committed pursuant to Republic Act No. 8369, otherwise known as "Family Courts Act of 1997".

Section 10. Responsibility of Mall Owners/Operators and Owners or Lessors of Other Business Establishments. All mall owners/operators and owners or lessors of other business establishments shall notify the PNP or the
NBI within seven (7) days from obtaining facts and circumstances that child pornography is being committed
in their premises. Provided, That public display of any form of child pornography within their premises is a
conclusive presumption of the knowledge of the mall owners/operators and owners or lessors of other business
establishments of the violation of this Act: Provided, further, That a disputable presumption of knowledge by
mall owners/operators and owners or lessors of other business establishments should know or reasonably know
that a violation of this Act is being committed in their premises.
Photo developers, information technology professionals, credit card companies and banks and any person who
has direct knowledge of any form of child pornography activities shall have the duty to report any suspected
child pornography materials or transactions to the proper authorities within seven (7) days from discovery
thereof.
Any willful and intentional violation of this provision shall be subject to the penalty provided under Section 15(l)
of this Act.
Section 11. Duties of an Internet Content Host. - An internet content host shall:
(a) Not host any form of child pornography on its internet address;
(b) Within seven (7) days, report the presence of any form of child pornography, as well as the
particulars of the person maintaining, hosting, distributing or in any manner contributing to such
internet address, to the proper authorities; and
(c) Preserve such evidence for purposes of investigation and prosecution by relevant authorities.
An internet content host shall, upon the request of proper authorities, furnish the particulars of users who
gained or attempted to gain access to an internet address that contains any form of child pornography.
An internet content host who shall knowingly, willfully and intentionally violate this provision shall be subject to
the penalty provided under Section 15(j) of this Act: Provided, That the failure of the internet content host to
remove any form of child pornography within forty-eight (48) hours from receiving the notice that any form of
child pornography is hitting its server shall be conclusive evidence of willful and intentional violation thereof.
Section 12. Authority to Regulate Internet Caf or Kiosk. - The local government unit (LGU) of the city or
municipality where an internet caf or kiosk is located shall have the authority to monitor and regulate the
establishment and operation of the same or similar establishments in order to prevent violation of the
provisions of this Act.
Section 13. Confidentiality. - The right to privacy of the child shall be ensured at any stage of the investigation,
prosecution and trial of an offense under this Act. Towards this end, the following rules shall be observed:
(a) The judge, prosecutor or any officer of the law to whom the complaint has been referred to may,
whenever necessary to ensure a fair and impartial proceeding and after considering all circumstances
for the best interest of the child conduct a closed-door investigation, prosecution or trial;
(b) The name and personal circumstances of the child, including the child's immediate family, or any
other information tending to establish his/her identity shall not be disclosed to the public;
(c) Any record regarding a child shall be confidential and kept under seal. Except upon written request
and order of the court, a record shall be released only to the following:

(1) Members of the court staff for administrative use;

(2) The prosecuting attorney;
(3) Defense counsel;
(4) The guardian ad litem;
(5) Agents of investigating law enforcement agencies and
(6) Other persons as determined by the court.
(d) Any form of child pornography that is part of the court records shall be subject to a protective order
that provides as follows:
(1) Any form of child pornography may be viewed only by the parties, their counsel, their expert
witness and guardian ad litem;
(2) Neither form of child pornography nor any portion thereof shall be divulged to any other
person, except as necessary for investigation, prosecution or trial; and
(3) No person shall be granted access to any form of child pornography or any part thereof
unless he/she signs a written affirmation that he/she has received and read a copy of the
protection order; that he/she submits to the jurisdiction of the court with respect to the
protective order; and that, in case of violation thereof, he/she will be subject to the contempt
power of the court; and
(e) In cases when prosecution or trial is conducted behind closed doors, it shall be unlawful for any
editor, publisher and reporter or columnist in case of printed materials, announcer or producer in case
of television and radio, producer and director of a film in case of the movie industry, or any person
utilizing the tri-media facilities or information technology to publish or broadcast the names of the
victims of any case of child pornography.
Any violation of this provision shall be subject to the penalty provided for under Section 15(m) of this Act.
Section 14. Care, Custody and Treatment of a Child Victim. - The DSWD shall ensure that the child who is a victim
of any form of child pornography is provided appropriate care, custody and support for their recovery and
reintegration in accordance with existing laws.
The child and his family shall be entitled to protection as well as to the rights and benefits of witnesses under
Republic Act No. 6981, otherwise known as "The Witness Protection, Security and Benefit Act".
The child shall also be considered as a victim of a violent crime defined under Section 3(d) of Republic Act No.
7309, otherwise known as "An Act Creating a Board of Claims under the Department of Justice for Victims of
Unjust Imprisonment or Detention and Victims of Violent Crimes and for Other Purposes", so that the child may
claim compensation therein.
A child victim is considered a victim of a violent crime so he/she is entitled to compensation in the Board of
Claims.
Section 17. Confiscation and Forfeiture of the Proceeds, Tools and Instruments Used in Child Pornography. - In
addition to the penalty imposed for the violation of this Act, the court shall order the confiscation and forfeiture

in favor of the government of all the proceeds, tools and instruments used in the commission of the crime,
unless they are the property of a third person not liable for the unlawful act; Provided, however, That all awards
for damages shall be taken from the personal and separate properties of the offender; Provided, further, That if
such properties are insufficient, the deficiency shall be taken from the confiscated and forfeited proceeds, tools
and instruments.

Take note that child pornography is a transnational crime.

Section 22. Child Pornography as a Transnational Crime. - Pursuant to the Convention on transnational
Organized Crime, the DOJ may execute the request of a foreign state for assistance in the investigation or
prosecution of any form of child pornography by: (1) conducting a preliminary investigation against the offender
and, if appropriate, to file the necessary charges in court; (2) giving information needed by the foreign state; and
(3) to apply for an order of forfeiture of any proceeds or monetary instrument or properly located in the
Philippines used in connection with child pornography in the court; Provided, That if the DOJ refuses to act on
the request of for delaying the execution thereof: Provided, further, That the principles of mutuality and
reciprocity shall, for this purpose, be at all times recognized.

Another special of interest is R.A. 9995, the "Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009". It is under this law
that Chito Miranda and Paulo Bediones are liable.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. - For purposes of this Act, the term:
(a) "Broadcast" means to make public, by any means, a visual image with the intent that it be viewed by
a person or persons.
(b) "Capture" with respect to an image, means to videotape, photograph, film, record by any means, or
broadcast.
(c) "Female breast" means any portion of the female breast.
(d) "Photo or video voyeurism" means the act of taking photo or video coverage of a person or group
of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing an image of the private area of a
person or persons without the latter's consent, under circumstances in which such person/s has/have a
reasonable expectation of privacy, or the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing,
showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity
through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or device without the written consent of
the person/s involved, notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or video coverage of same
was given by such person's.
In this provision, even if consent was given by the person allowing himself/herself to be photographed
or filmed, if the photo or video was sold, copied, reproduced, broadcasted, shared, shown or exhibited
without such persons WRITTEN CONSENT by anybody, then the latter is still liable under this Act. So, if
you are a professional nude photographer or a professional pornographer, you must first get the
written consent of the person subject of your nude photo or video before you can engage in the act of
selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting, sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video
coverage or recordings of such photos or videos.
(e) "Private area of a person" means the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area, buttocks or
female breast of an individual.

(f) "Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy" means believe that
he/she could disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or a private area of the person
was being captured; or circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe that a private area of
the person would not be visible to the public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or private
place.

Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and declared unlawful for any person:
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons performing sexual act or any similar
activity or to capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as the naked or undergarment clad
genitals, public area, buttocks or female breast without the consent of the person/s involved and under
circumstances in which the person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;

If you take a photo in a nudist beach, you do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.

(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or reproduced, such photo or video or recording of
sexual act or any similar activity with or without consideration;
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed, such photo or video or recording of sexual act,
whether it be the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media,
or show or exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such sexual act or any similar activity
through VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and other similar means or device.
The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply notwithstanding that consent to record or take
photo or video coverage of the same was given by such person/s. Any person who violates this provision shall be
liable for photo or video voyeurism as defined herein.

Section 6. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act, however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any
peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the court, to use the record or any copy thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo or video voyeurism: Provided, That such
written order shall only be issued or granted upon written application and the examination under oath or
affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed,
and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the conviction of any person for, or to the solution or
prevention of such, crime.
This provision is akin to an application of a warrant of arrest or a search warrant.
Section 7. Inadmissibility of Evidence. - Any record, photo or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any
person in violation of the preceding sections shall not be admissible in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative or administrative hearing or investigation.