ART. 269.

UNLAWFUL ARREST
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case
other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable
ground therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the
purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.
ELEMENTS
1. Offender arrests or detains another person
2. Purpose is to deliver him to the proper authorities
3. The arrest or detention is not authorized by law, or
there is no reasonable ground therefor
Offender is any person, whether public officer or private
individual
A private person may arrest individual without warrant
under same circumstances when public officer can
make arrest (Sec. 6, Rule 113 Revised Criminal
Procedure
o If private person arrests someone + no legal or
reasonable ground + purpose is to deliver person
arrested to proper authorities -> he is liable
Arbitrary Detention (Art.
124)
Unlawful arrests by public
officers: has authority to
arrest and detain person,
but NO legal ground

Unlawful Arrest (Art.

269)
Public officer has NO
authority to arrest and
detain; or did not act in
official capacity

No unlawful arrest when the arrest is authorized by

warrant issued by court
The proper issuance of valid warrant presupposed a
reasonable ground therefor (People v. Lim Chun, C.A.)
Unlawful Arrest
Purpose of locking up or
detaining victim is to
deliver him to proper
authorities + detention is
unlawful

Illegal Detention
Any other case

Victim was tied with piece of rope and conducted to the

municipal jail. The fact that accused immediately
conducted him to municipal jail brings the offense
within Art. 269 (U.S v. Fontanilla)

Article 125: Delay in

the Delivery of
Detained Persons to
the Proper Judicial
Authority

Unlawful Arrest

Detention is for some

legal ground
Crime committed by
failure to deliver person
to proper judicial
authority within certain
period of time

Detention not authorized

by law
Crime committed by
making an arrest not
authorized by law

With regard to length of detention, motive is controlling

for unlawful arrest.
o If purpose is to deliver him to proper authorities, it is
unlawful arrest.
o But absence of this motive may be shown by length
of time victim is detained
SECTION TWO: KIDNAPPING OF MINORS
CRIMES CALLED KIDNAPPING OF MINORS
1. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Art. 270)
2. Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 271)
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. (As amended by R.A. No. 18)
ELEMENTS
1. Offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor
person (whether over or under 7 years but less than
21 years)
2. He deliberately fails to restore minor to parents or
guardians
Age of minor is under 21 years
o Amendment is silent as to age of minor.
Reasonable belief: the legal provisions cover all
minors, whether under or over 7 years of age,
but less than 21. (Guevara) (Note: the age of

majority is now reduced to 18 years old by R.A.

No. 7809)
Deliberate failure of the custodian of the minor to
restore him to his parents or guardian is what is
punished
o Not about kidnapping of a minor, but deliberate
failure of custodian to such minor to restore him
to his parents or guardian
When crime is committed by father or mother of the
minor, the penalty is arresto mayor or a fine not
exceeding P300, or both
Article 270: Kidnapping
and Failure to Return a
Minor (as amended by
R.A. No 18)
Punishes deliberate failure
by person having custody
of the minor to restore
minor to his parents or
guardian
Offender is entrusted with
custody of the minor
*both constitute a deprivation

Article 267: Kidnapping

and Serious Illegal
Detention
The kidnapping of a minor
is also punished

Offender is not entrusted

with custody of the victim
of liberty

Kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Art. 270

is necessarily included in Art. 267 par. 4 (Kidnapping
and Serious Illegal Detention of Minor)
o People v. Jo-> Art. 270 par. 1 might have been
superseded by Art. 267, as amended, which punishes
as serious illegal detention, the kidnapping of a
minor, regardless of the purpose of detention
Essential element of Art. 270: offender is entrusted with
the custody of the minor
What is punished: deliberate failure of offender having
custody of the minor to restore him to parents or
guardian
Not necessary that the purpose of the offender is to
separate permanently the minor from his parents or
guardian
ART. 271. INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS HOME
The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding
seven hundred pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who
shall induce a minor to abandon the home of his parents or
guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody.

If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the

two preceding articles shall be the father or the mother of
the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not
exceeding three hundred pesos, or both. (As amended by
Republic A ct No. 18)
ELEMENTS
1. Minor is living in the home of his parents or guardian
or the person entrusted with his custody
2. Offender induces said minor to abandon such home
Age of the minor is under 21 years
o Term minor was inserted by R.A. No. 18,
Sec. 5 in lieu of person under age but over
seven years before the amendment. (Note:
the age of majority is now reduced to 18
years old by R.A. No. 6809)
Inducement must be actual, committed with criminal
intent, and determined by a will to cause damage.
People v. Paalam -> It is essential that the inducement
be actual, committed with criminal intent, and
determined by a will to cause damage.
o The representations made by the accused to
said minors highly praising Manila City and
her offer and promise to take them to that city
clearly do not constitute inducement which is
essential to the act.
o The phrase to induce means to influence;
to prevail on; to move by persuasion; to incite
by motives.
o There was also very little difference in their
ages, so there could not be much difference in
their degree of intelligence. (It cant be
supposed that the accused commanded such
ascendancy over the minors as to be able to
prevail on them)
What constitutes the crime is the act of inducing a
minor to abandon his home or the home of his guardian
o Not necessary that the minor actually
abandons home
People v. Apolinar-> The mere commission of any act
which tends to influence, persuade or prevail on a minor
to abandon his home is what constitutes the crime.
o So long as inducement is done maliciously
and with criminal intent, its effect on the
minor (such as whether by reason thereof he
actually decides to abandon his home) is
immaterial.

The minor should not leave his home of his own free
will.
o Soledad asked a minor named Belen Cabalfin
if she wanted to go to Manila and promised
that she would find a job and could continue
her studies in Manila. Belen agreed. Belen
was induced to abandon her parental home
because of the aforesaid promise of Soledad
Belo. (People v. Ricarte)
o Note: If the minor would leave his home of his
own free will and would go and live with
another person, the latter is not criminally
liable.
Father or mother may commit crimes under Articles 270
and 271.
o Where father and mother are living separately
and custody of minor is given to one of them,
the other parent who kidnaps such minor from
the one having custody OR induces such
minor to leave his home is liable
SECTION 3. SLAVERY AND SERVITUDE
CRIMES CALLED SLAVERY AND SERVITUDE
1. Slavery (Art. 272)
2. Exploitation of child labor (Art. 273)
3. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of
debt (Art. 274)
ART. 272. SLAVERY
The penalty of prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding
10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall
purchase, sell, kidnap, or detain a human being for the
purpose of enslaving him.
If the crime he committed for the purpose of assigning the
offended party to some immoral traffic, the penalty shall be
imposed in its maximum period.
ELEMENTS
1. Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a
human being
2. Purpose of offender is to enslave such human being
Qualifying circumstance: if purpose of offender is to
assign offended party to some immoral traffic
(prostitution). Penalty is higher.
Slavery
Purpose is to enslave the

Kidnapping; or Illegal
Detention
Other purpose

victim

The employment or custody of a minor with the consent

of the parent or guardian, although against the childs
own will, CANNOT be considered involuntary servitude
(U.S. v. Cabanag)
When it is proven that defendant was obliged to render
service in plaintiffs house as a servant without
remuneration, and to remain there so long as debt
hasnt been paid = SLAVERY (Reyes v. Alojado)
ART. 273. EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon anyone who, under the pretext of reimbursing
himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian, or
person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against
the latter's will, retain him in his service.
ELEMENTS
1. Offender retains a minor in his service
2. It is against the will of the minor
3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a
debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person
entrusted with the custody of such minor
Service of minor must be against his will. If minor
consents, no violation.
Indebtedness is not a ground for detention.
o The existence of an indebtedness constitutes no
legal justification for holding a person and depriving
him of his freedom to live where he wills (Caunca v.
Salazar)
ART. 274. SERVICES RENDERED UNDER
COMULSION IN PAYENT OF DEBT
The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any person who, in order to require or enforce the
payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him,
against his will, as household servant or farm laborer.

ELEMENTS
1. Offender compels a debtor to work for him, either as
household servant or farm laborer
2. It is against the debtors will
3. Purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a
debt

Specifically provides that the debtor is compelled to

work as HOUSEHOULD SERVANT or FARM LABORER.
(Office janitor is not allowed)
Does not distinguish w/n victim is a minor. (Unlike Art.
273)

Article 273
Article 274
The minor who is compelled The debtor himself is the
to render services for the
one compelled to work for
supposed debt of his parent the offender
or guardian
Service of minor is not
Only household and farm
limited to household and
work
farm work
CHAPTER 2: CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
SECTION 1. ABANDONMENT OF HELPLESS PERSONS
AND EXPLOITATION OF MINORS
CRIMES CALLED ABANDONMENT OF HELPLESS
PERSONS AND EXPLOITATION OF MINORS:
1. Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of ones victim (Art. 275)
2. Abandoning a minor (Art. 276)
3. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his
custody; indifference of parents (Art. 277)
4. Exploitation of minors (Art. 278)
ART. 275. ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER
AND ABANDONMENT OF ONES OWN VICTIM
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Anyone who shall fail to render assistance to any
person whom he shall find in an uninhabited place
wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render
such assistance without detriment to himself, unless
such omission shall constitute a more serious
offense;
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to
another whom he has accidentally wounded or
injured;

3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under

seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to
the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take
him to a safe place.

Acts punishable under Art. 275

1. Failing to render assistance when the offender finds
person in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger
of dying, when he can render assistance w/o
detriment to himself (unless, such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense)
Elements
a. Place is NOT inhabited
b. Accused found there a person wounded or in
danger of dying;
c. Accused can render assistance w/o detriment to
himself
d. Accused FAILS to render assistance
2. Failing to help or render assistance to another whom
offender accidentally wounded or injured
3. Failing to deliver child, under seven years old, whom
the offender has found abandoned, to authorities or
to his family, or by failing to take him to safe place
If person intentionally wounded another in uninhabited
place, par. 1 of Art. 275 is not applicable.
Omission constituting a more serious offense
o Example: Offender who failed to render assistance to
dying person in uninhabited place HAD THE CUSTODY
of such person who is a minor under seven years of
age, then the minor died-> penalty of prision
correccional (par. 2. Art 276) will be imposed, not
arresto mayor under this article
Paragraph 2 of this article only applies when
accidentally injured by accused.
o If person intentionally shoots or stabs someone who
is wounded and he does not render him assistance,
he doesnt fall under this article.
o He could be liable for homicide, physical injuries, etc
etc.
It is immaterial that the offender did not know the child
is under seven years. (Albert)

It seems that paragraph 3 applies also to one who found

a lost child, not just abandoned.
Child under 7 years must be found by the accused in
unsafe place.
ART. 276. ABANDONING A MINOR
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall abandon a
child under seven years of age, the custody of which is
incumbent upon him.
When the death of the minor shall result from such
abandonment, the culprit shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods; but if
the life of the minor shall have been in danger only, the
penalty shall be prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods.
The provisions contained in the two preceding paragraphs
shall not prevent the imposition of the penalty provided for
the act committed, when the same shall constitute a more
serious offense.
ELEMENTS
1. Offender: has custody of child
2. Child: under 7 years of age
3. Offender abandons child
4. Offender has no intent to kill child when latter is
abandoned
Purpose in abandoning minor is to avoid the obligation
of taking care of the minor (since he has custody).
If there is intent to kill and child dies, crime could be
murder, parricide, etc etc, as the case may be. But
cannot fall under this article.
o Reason: this article shall not prevent the
imposition of penalty when it constitutes a
more serious offense. (Art. 276, par. 3)
Intent to kill cant be presumed from death of child.
o Intent to kill is presumed from death of victim of
crime only applies to crimes against persons.
Permanent, conscious, and deliberate abandonment is
required.
o Par. 1 of this article penalizes mere abandonment of
child even when his life is not endangered only
need is that there is interruption of the care and
protection child needs by reason of his tender age
o Abandonment is not the momentary leaving of the
child.

Abandonment must deprive him of care and

protection from danger to his person
o Such act must be conscious and deliberate (People v.
Bandian)
Circumstances qualifying the offense:
1. Death of the minor resulted from such abandonment
2. Life of the minor was in danger because of the
abandonment
Parents guilty of abandoning their children shall be
deprived of parental authority.
ART. 277. ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY PERSON
ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE OF
PARENTS
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, having charge of
the rearing or education of a minor, shall deliver said minor
to a public institution or other persons, without the consent
of the one who entrusted such child to his care or, in the
absence of the latter, without the consent of the proper
authorities.
o

The same penalty shall be imposed upon the parents who

shall neglect their children by not giving them the education
which their station in life requires and financial condition
permits.
Acts punished under Art. 277
1. Delivering a minor to a public institution or other
persons
-without consent of the one who entrusted such
minor to the care of the offender or,
-in the absence of that one, without the consent of
the proper authorities
2. Neglecting his (offenders) children by:
-not giving them education which their a) station in
life requires and b) financial condition permits
Elements of abandonment of minor by one charged
w/ the rearing or education of said minor
a. Offender has charge of the rearing or education of a
minor
b. He delivers said minor to a public institution or other
persons
c. The one who entrusted child to the offender DID NOT
consent to such act;
-OR if the one who entrusted such child to offender is
absent, the proper authorities DID NOT consent to it
Only person charged with rearing or education of

minor is liable.
o Someone found a Negrito child in the forest and
brought her to Manila, gave her to another person
since he could not support her. He isnt guilty under
this article, he is not charged with rearing or
education of the minor Negrito. (U.S. v Payog)
o Rear- to bring to maturity by educating, nourishing,
etc; to rear children
Abandonment of minor
by person entrusted
with custody Art. 277
Custody of the offender is
specific-> rearing or
education of the minor
Minor is under 21 years of
age
(Note: age of majority is
now reduced to 18 years
old, R.A. No 6809)
Minor is delivered to a
public institution or other
person

Abandonment of a minor
under Art. 276
The custody of the offender
is stated in general
Minor is under 7 years of
age

Minor is abandoned in such

a way as to deprive him of
care and protection his
tender years need

Elements of indifference of parents

1. Offender is a parent
2. He neglects his children by not giving them
education
3. Station in life a) requires such education, and
b) financial condition permits it
Obligation to educate children terminates if mother and
children refuse without good reason to live with accused
o Accused had to go to another province to earn a
living. Wife and children refused to go with him.
Accused is not liable for abandoning family and for
neglecting children (People v. Miraflores)
Failure to give education must be due to deliberate
desire to evade such obligation
ART. 278. EXPLOITATION OF MINORS
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods6 and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall
be imposed upon:

1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under

sixteen years of age to perform any dangerous feat
of balancing, physical strength, or contortion.
2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, ropewalker, 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 preceding paragraph who
shall employ any descendant of his under twelve
years of age in such dangerous exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher, or person
entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child
under sixteen years of age, who shall deliver such
child gratuitously to any person following any of the
callings enumerated in paragraph 2 hereof, or to any
habitual vagrant or beggar.
If the delivery shall have been made in consideration
of any price, compensation, or promise, the penalty
shall in every case be imposed in its maximum period.
In either case, the guardian or curator convicted shall
also be removed from office as guardian or curator;
and in the case of the parents of the child, they may
be deprived, temporarily or perpetually, in the
discretion of the court, of their parental authority.
5. Any person who shall induce any child under sixteen
years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants,
guardians, curators, or teachers to follow any person
engaged in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph
2 hereof, or to accompany any habitual vagrant or
beggar.
Acts punished under this article
1. By causing boy or girl under 16 y.o. old to perform
any dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength or
contortion.
Offender: any person.
2. By employing children under 16 y.o. who arent
children or descendants of the offender in:
exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver,
or wild-animal tamer.

Offender: acrobat, etc.; or circus manager; or person

engaged in similar calling.
3. By employing any descendant under 12 y.o. in
dangerous exhibitions enumerated in next preceding
paragraph.
Offender: engaged in any of the said callings.
4. By delivering a child under 16 y.o. gratuitously to a)
any person following any of the callings enumerated
in par. 2;
or to b) any habitual vagrant or beggar.
Offender: ascendant, guardian, teacher or person
entrusted in any capacity with the care of the child.
5. By inducing any child under 16 y.o. to abandon the
home of its ascendants, guardians, curators or
teachers to follow ANY person in ANY calling
mentioned in par. .2,
or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar.
Offender: any person.
Exploitation of minors
Inducing a minor to
(Art. 278, par. 5)
abandon his home (Art.
271)
Purpose of inducing minor
If there is no such purpose
to abandon home is to
(mentioned in the left
follow any person engaged
column)
in the calling of being an
acrobat, gymnast, ropewalker, diver, wild-animal
tamer or circus manager;
Or to accompany any
habitual vagrant or beggar
Victim is under 16 years of
age

Victim is a minor under 21

years of age

(But always note: age of

majority is now reduced to
18 y.o. by R.A. No.6809)

Circumstance qualifying the offense: delivery of the

child is made in consideration of any price,
compensation or promise
Offender shall be deprived of parental authority or
guardianship
Exploitation of minor must be of such nature as to
endanger his life or safety
ART. 279. ADDITIONAL PENALTIES FOR OTHER
OFFENSES

The imposition of the penalties prescribed in the preceding

articles, shall not prevent the imposition upon the same
person of the penalty provided for any other felonies defined
and punished by this Code.
SECTION 2. TRESPASS TO DWELLING
ART. 280. QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING
Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another
against the latter's will, shall be punished by arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
If the offense be committed by means of violence or
intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods8 and a fine not exceeding
1,000 pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any
person who shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of
preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of
the dwelling, or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to
any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of
rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to
anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns, and other public
houses, while the same are open.
ELEMENTS OF TRESPASS TO DWELLING
1. Offender is a private person
2. He enters the dwelling of another
3. Entrance is against latters will
Circumstance qualifying the offense: violence or
intimidation
Offender is private person
o If public officer or employee-> violation of domicile
Dwelling place: any building or structure exclusively
devoted for rest and comfort (distinguished from places
for business, offices)
People v. Lamahang: a store of cheap goods which
happened to also be dwelling place of owner, considered
dwelling
W/N building is dwelling house or not: depends on the
USE to which it is put
Dwelling includes a room when occupied by another
person
o U.S. v Silvano: accused was living, as a boarder, in
same house which had the room of the victim. The
nature of the crime or accuseds responsibility is not
altered by the fact that he lived in the same house as
the victim.

Entrance must be against the will of owner or occupant.

o Against doesnt mean mere lack of consent of the
dweller-> mere absence of consent is not enough to
constitute trespass to dwelling
o To commit trespass, entrance should be against
presumed or express prohibition of the occupant.
Lack of permission should NOT be confused with
prohibition. (People v. De Peralta)
o Lack of permission does not amount to prohibition.
o Groizard, cited in People v. Peralta: Not necessary to
always obtain previous permission from owner. With
utmost good faith, a person, of whom entrance has
not been denied beforehand, may suppose the owner
has no objection to receiving him.
All members of household: presumed to have authority
to extend invitation to enter
o Invitation to enter, given by 12 year-old girl, an
inmate thereof = enough to justify claim that it
wasnt against occupants will, in the absence of
express prohibition (U.S. v. Dulfo)
Implied prohibition:
o Early in the morning, there was no lock to the door to
prevent the entrance of any person. Still, there is
trespass to dwelling. Express prohibition is not
necessary for prohibition in this case is presumed.
Consider the time (EARLY morning), the fact that the
door was closed, and that the daughter was sleeping
(People v. Clemente)
o Late hour of the night, after inmates have retired and
closed their doors. Express prohibition not needed
anymore here, it is presumed (U.S. v Mesina)
o Door was fastened by a string too weak and
inadequate to hold it fast -> still an implied
prohibition (U.S. v Silvano)
o Owner made defendants wait in the open porch and
then closed the door behind him as he entered
drawing room (Gabriel v. People)
o Whenever entrance is made through means not
intended for ingress (like window)
Prohibition is implied in entrance through the window,
even if the window was open. (People v. Marcial)
Prohibition must be in existence prior to, or at the time
of entrance.
Prohibition is not necessary when violence or
intimidation is employed by the offender.
o Violence or intimidation qualifies trespass to

dwelling, even if door of the house was already open,

and there was no express prohibition (U.S. v Abanto)
Trespass may be committed by owner of the dwelling.
o Even if he owns the house, he cannot enter the
house against the will of actual occupant. He could
have asked the court for aid for his proprietary rights
protection (People v. Almeda)
All trespassers ordinarily have intention to commit
another crime, BUT if NO over act of crime intended to
be committed -> ONLY crime is trespass to dwelling.
o Culprit who entered a dwelling through window to
steal, but was caught before he could take the
property= trespass to dwelling only, not attempted
robbery
o Intruder was caught in the act of forcibly attempting
to enter dwelling= attempted trespass to dwelling,
not attempted robbery (People v. Tayag and Morales)
When trespass to dwelling is separate from other
offense committed in the dwelling:
o People v. Medina: when accused entered the dwelling
through window, he had NO intent to kill person
inside. Intent to kill came while he was being
arrested (after he trespassed), so crime of trespass
to dwelling is separate and distinct offense.
o Facts of case: Accused entered window. He was
arrested but he resisted. He stabbed son of captain.
Son didnt die cause of timely medical attention. He
assaulted captain, wife, and daughter. -> Accused
committed trespass to dwelling through violence,
frustrated homicide, and less serious physical
injuries.
o If purpose of the accused was to kill person injured:
frustrated homicide only, and dwelling or unlawful
entry would just be aggravating circumstance.
Cases when this article are NOT applicable:
1. Entrance to anothers dwelling is to: prevent some
serous harm to himself, occupants of dwelling, or
third person
2. Purpose is to render some service to humanity or
injustice
3. Place where entrance made is: caf, tavern, inn, and
other public houses, while the same are open (Art.
280, last par.)
Gabriel v. People: Meralco line inspectors had no right to
enter house against his will just because of suspicion
that he was hiding a transformer used to steal

electricity. Render a service to justice cant be used

here.