CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW

BOOK II
From the lectures of Prosecutor Victoria C. Garcia

By: Dizon | Manalo | Navarez | Shyu | Tubio

Faculty of Civil Law – University of Santo Tomas
Updated: 2017
Disclaimer: Errors/mistakes are solely due to the transcribers.
Please use with due diligence and caution.
Also, please refrain from sharing this on any online library.
God bless!
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
TITLE ONE
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND
THE LAW OF NATIONS (Articles 114 – 122)
ARTICLE 114 – TREASON
Treason is committed by any Filipino citizen or an alien
residing in the Philippines who levies war against the
Philippine Government or adheres to her enemies by giving
them aid and comfort.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is by birth, a Filipino Citizen or an alien
residing in the Philippines.
The offender can either be:
➢ A Filipino citizen because a Filipino citizen
owes permanent allegiance to the Philippine
Government; or
➢ A foreigner, even if he is temporarily residing
in the Philippines because during his
temporary stay in the Philippines, he also
owes temporary allegiance to the Philippines
since he is given protection by the Philippine
Government under its laws therefore it is but
incumbent upon him to have temporary
allegiance to the Philippine Government.
2. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved.
➢ The second element is that there is a war in which
the Philippines is involved.
➢ In the case of Laura v. Misa, treason is a war
time offense. It can be committed only in times of
war. In times of peace, Treason remains to be
dormant crime, however, the moment when
emergency arises, the moment a war arises, it is
immediately put into effect as an act self-defense
and self-preservation for the Philippine
Government. Treason cannot be committed in
times of peace, because in times of peace, there are
EXAMPLES OF ACTS OF ADHERING TO THE ENEMIES
no traitors.
BY GIVING AID OR COMFORT:
 Who are these traitors?
➢ These enemies are troops of the enemy state
which is in war with the Philippines. Filipino
men like the MILF, NPAs, even if they are at
war with the Philippine government, they
cannot be considered as enemies because they
are still considered as Filipino citizens. So the
aliens refer to the citizens of the enemy state
which is at war with the Philippines.
3. That the offender either—
a) Levies war against the Philippine
government, or
b) Adheres to the enemies by giving them aid or
comfort.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
➢ The third element refers to the mode of
committing treason. Treason may be committed
by either:
a. Levies war against the Philippine government,
requires the concurrence of two elements:
1. There must be an actual of assembly of men
2. It is for the purpose of executing or effecting a
treasonable design by force.
Levying of war means that the said offenders,
Filipino citizens who are said to be in
collaboration – they connived and conspired with
the enemy troops in order to hand over the
Philippine Government to the enemy troops.
Absent of that collaboration, it cannot be
considered as treason.
b. Adheres to the enemies by giving them aid or
comfort.
Adherence to the enemies — means that the
Filipino citizen or the offender intentionally,
intellectually and emotionally favors the enemy.
Therefore, adherence to the enemies is an internal
state of mind, it is mental state, you cannot see
adherence to the enemies.
 How now would you know that a person is
adhering to the enemy state?
➢ It is manifested by his acts of giving aid
or comfort to the enemy. That is why
these two must concur:
1. Adherence to the enemies
2. Giving them aid or comfort
➢ Mere adherence to the enemies,
without any act of giving aid or comfort
to the enemy will not bring along
treason, it is the act of giving aid or
comfort which is the manifestation of the
adherence to the enemies.
a. By giving the enemies information, transportation,
arms, supplies, all of these will weaken the defense
of the Philippines and strengthen the enemy state.
b. People v. Perez: The court said, "the act of
commandeering women or giving women to the
enemy troops in times of war, to satisfy the lust of
the enemy troops is not considered as a
treasonable act." Because according the Court,
whatever benefit is given to the enemy is merely
trivial in nature, imperceptible and it was not the
intent of the offender (unintentionally).
1|
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
Two ways of proving treason under Article 114:
a. TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES, AT LEAST,
TO THE SAME OVERT ACT, OTHERWISE
KNOWN AS THE "TWO-WITNESS RULE"
➢ There must be two witnesses who will prove only
on the commission by the offender of an overt act
showing that he adheres to the enemy. There must
be two persons who had seen the overt act.
Therefore, treason cannot be proven by mere
substantial evidence. There must be direct
evidence, a witness to this act of giving aid or
comfort to the enemy.
b. CONFESSION OF THE OFFENDER OR THE
ACCUSED MADE IN AN OPEN COURT
➢ Confession of guilt must be made before a court. It
must be judicial confession made in court. Extra-
judicial confession will not give rise to conviction
in case of the crime of treason.
Q: What if there is war which the Philippines is involved? X
was among those who committed treason against the
government. Now X in committing treason killed a public
officer of the government of the Philippines, in furtherance
of his act of treason. Will such act amounting to murder
give rise to a separate and distinct crime? Will you charge
him for two crimes based on treason and murder?
A: There is only one crime committed by him
and the crime committed is treason. Common
crimes such as Murder, physical injuries, homicide,
arson, if they are committed in furtherance to, in
connection with or incidentally to treason shall be
absorbed in the crime of treason because they are
atrocities for war and therefore, they are considered as
absorbed in the crime of treason. It cannot even be
complex, they are considered absorbed in the crime of
treason.
ARTICLE 115 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
COMMIT TREASON
Conspiracy to commit treason – meeting of two or
more persons who come to an agreement to commit
treason and decide to commit it
Proposal to commit treason – a person has decided to
commit treason and proposes its execution to other person
or persons.
➢ The moment that other person whom the proposal was
given, raise to the commission of crime, we no longer
have proposal, but we have Conspiracy to commit
treason.
➢ Separate and distinct from treason
➢ Two-witness rule does not apply
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ARTICLE 116 – MISPRISION OF TREASON
➢ Every person owing allegiance to the Government of
the Philippine Islands, without being a foreigner,
and having knowledge of any conspiracy against
them, conceals or does not disclose and make known
the same, as soon as possible to the governor or
fiscal of the province, or the mayor or fiscal of the
city which he resides, as the case may be shall be
punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.
➢ TREASON can be committed both by Filipino
citizens and a foreigner temporarily residing in the
Philippines.
➢ MISPRISION OF TREASON can only be committed
by a Filipino citizen who owes permanent allegiance
to the Philippine government. It cannot be
committed by a foreigner residing in the Philippines.
Q: What if A, B and C, conspired and agreed to commit
treason against the Philippine Government. After their
conspiracy and agreement, A went to X. A told his friend X
that he was in conspiracy with B and C to commit treason
against the Philippine Government. After A told him such
conspiracy with X, A left. X, despite knowledge of the
conspiracy to commit treason among A, B, and C, did not
disclose such information to the proper authorities. What
crime/crimes is/are committed by A, B, C, and X?
A: A, B, and C are liable for conspiracy to
commit treason. There is a meeting of two or more
persons come to an agreement to commit the crime of
treason and decide to commit it.There is proposal to
commit treason when a person has decided to commit
the crime of treason and proposes its execution to
some other person or persons. The moment that other
person whom the proposal was given, raise to the
commission of crime, we no longer have proposal, but
we have Conspiracy to commit treason. In the problem,
A, B, and C, conspired, agreed to commit the crime of
treason against the Philippine government, therefore
they are all liable for conspiracy to commit treason.
Q: X, who had knowledge of the conspiracy to commit
treason among A, B, and C, however, despite that
knowledge, he did not disclose it to the proper authorities.
What is the liability of X?
A: X is liable for misprision of treason – is
committed by any person who owes permanent
allegiance to the Philippine Government who fails to
disclose of knowledge to commit treason as soon as
possible to the proper authorities. In the problem, C,
despite having knowledge of the conspiracy to commit
treason among A, B, and C did not divulge it, did not
disclose it to the proper authorities, therefore, X is
liable for misprision of treason.
2|
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
ARTICLE 117 – ESPIONAGE
TWO WAYS OF COMMITTING ESPIONAGE:
I. By entering, without authority therefor, a
warship, fort, or naval or military
establishment or reservation to obtain any
information, plans, photographs or other data
of a confidential nature, relative to the defense
of the Philippines
➢ The offender can be any person. He can be a
Filipino citizen or a foreigner, or he can be a
public officer or employee or a private
individual.
 When will the crime of espionage arise?
➢ Under the first mode, the crime of espionage
will arise moment the offender enters the
warship, fort or naval or military
establishment or reservation, without
authority if his intention is to obtain any
information, plans, photographs or other data
of a confidential nature, relative to the
defense of the Philippines.
➢ It is not necessary that for the crime to arise
that he is successful in obtaining the data. It is
not necessary that he indeed obtained the
data. The mere act of entering without
authority is sufficient if his intention is to
obtain the data of confidential manner
relative to the defense of the Philippines. The
law presumes that the moment he enters
without authority, his purpose is to obtain
confidential information. He may, however,
rebut this presumption.
II. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign
nation the contents of the articles, data or
information referred to in paragraph No. 1 of
art. 117, which he had in his possession by
reason of the public office he holds.
➢ This mode of committing espionage can only
be committed by a public officer who has been
trusted, by reason of his public position, of
articles, data of confidential nature relative to
the defense of the Philippines.
➢ The crime of espionage will arise the moment
the offender divulges or discloses the data and
information to a representative of a foreign
nation.
➢ So even if he is in possession of the same, but
he does not divulge it to any representative of
a foreign nation, the crime will not arise.
 Espionage can be committed in BOTH times of peace
and in times of war.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ARTICLE 118 –INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING
MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender performs unlawful or
unauthorized acts by the Philippine government.
2. That the said act provokes or gives occasion for a war
involving or liable to involve the Philippines or
exposes Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons
and property while they are in a foreign country.
3. He is not legally authorized to do so.
Inciting to war connotes that there is yet no war. It is
committed in times of peace.
Case of CAPTAIN MENDOZA
Hostage drama in Luneta. There were Hong Kong
citizens who boarded the bus and here comes Captain
Mendoza who was no longer a member of the military,
he entered the bus, with different weapons and
grenades and even killed some Hong Kong citizens.
Captain Mendoza performed unlawful and
unauthorized acts which exposed overseas Filipino
workers in Hong Kong and China to reprisals on their
persons or property. In fact, there was news at that
time that Hong Kong or China would be engaging in
war with the Philippines. Hence, one of the crimes that
may be held against Captain Mendoza is inciting to war
or giving motives for reprisals.
ARTICLE 119 – VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
ELEMENTS:
1. The crime is committed when there is a war but the
Philippines is not involved in the said war and;
2. The competent authority issued a regulation for the
purpose of enforcing neutrality among Filipino
citizens and ;
3. The offender violates such regulation imposed.
 Here, there is war but the Philippines is not involved in
the said war.
Q: There is a war between country X and country Y. Here
comes Pedro, a Filipino citizen, he was siding with country
X. Is he liable?
A: No, he is not liable of violation of neutrality
because in the problem, it did not say that the
competent authority (the President) issued a
proclamation or regulation imposing neutrality.
 The violation will only arise if there is a proclamation
or regulation imposing neutrality and a Filipino citizen
violates such declaration or regulation issued by a
competent authority. Therefore, absence of such
declaration of neutrality, the crime of violation of
neutrality does not arise.
3|
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
ARTICLE 120 – CORRESPONDENCE WITH
HOSTILE COUNTRY
ELEMENTS:
1. That it is in time of war in which the Philippines is
involved.
2. That the offender makes correspondence with an
enemy country or any territory occupied by enemy
troops.
3. That the correspondence is either —
a.) Prohibited by the Philippine Government; or
b.) Carried out in ciphers or conventional signs; or
c.) Containing notice or information which might
be useful to the enemy
 Here, there is a war in which the Philippines is
involved.
 If there is a declaration issued by a competent
authority that there shall be no correspondence with
the enemy country, any kind of correspondence will
make the offender criminally liable but if there is no
declaration that prohibits the same, the crime will only
arise if the correspondence is carried out in ciphers or
conventional signs, or if it contains notice or
information that will be useful to the enemy.
Q: The Philippines is at war with the another country. Here
comes X, a Filipino citizen who he has a pen pal who is a
citizen of the country which is at war with the Philippines.
The competent authority or the President issued a
declaration of proclamation saying that there should be no
correspondence to the enemy state. But X missed his
penpal, and so, he wrote in a small piece of paper, "I love
you, I miss you, muamua!" Is X liable of the crime of
correspondence with the enemy?
A: X is liable because there was a declaration issued
by a competent authority that correspondence with the
hostile country is prohibited and if there is no
declaration, proclamation coming from the competent
authority prohibiting correspondence, the crime will
only arise if the said crime is carried on in ciphers or
conventional signs or containing notice or information
which might be useful to the enemy.
ARTICLE 121 – FLIGHT TO ENEMY'S COUNTRY
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a war in which the Philippines is
involved.
2. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the
Philippine Government
3. That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy's
country
4. That going to the enemy country is prohibited by a
competent authority
➢ There must be a declaration or a proclamation issued
by a competent authority, that no Filipino shall flee to
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
the enemy's country and the offender violates such
proclamation.
➢ Mere attempt will readily rise to the crime. It is not
necessary that the offender has actually gone to the
country.
➢ The law says the offender owes allegiance to the
Philippines therefore it can be committed by a Filipino
citizen or a foreigner. The law does not require that he
owes permanent allegiance to the Government.
There are four crimes against the law of nations:
➢ Piracy
➢ Mutiny
➢ Qualified Piracy
➢ Qualified Mutiny
ARTICLE 122 – PIRACY
ELEMENTS:
1.
The vessel is on the high seas or on Philippine
waters.
 The first element is where the vessel is located.
The vessel can either be on the high seas (in
international waters) or on Philippine waters
(this was brought about by the amendment of
RA 7659). Before the amendment of RA 7659,
Piracy under Article 122 can only be committed
when the vessel is on the high seas. But because
of this amendment brought about by RA 7659,
Piracy now under Article 122 can be committed
when the vessel is on Philippine waters.
2. The offenders are not members of the complement or
passengers of the vessel.
 The second element provides for the offenders.
The offenders must NOT be members of the
complement or passengers of the vessel.
Therefore, the offenders must be STRANGERS
to the vessel. They must be coming from the
outside, not from the inside.
3. The offenders either:
a. The offenders either attack or seize the vessel;
or
b. The offenders either seize in whole or in part
the cargo, the equipment, or the personal
belongings of the passengers or members of
the complement.
 Based on these elements, you will notice that piracy is
akin to robbery. It is in effect robbery. It is just called
piracy because the object of the thing is either the
vessel or the cargo or equipment of the said vessel.
There is also the use of force or intimidation. There is
also the use of violence against persons. There is also
intent to gain. So it is akin, similar to robbery.
4|
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
ARTICLE 122 –MUTINY
ELEMENTS:
1. The vessel is either on the high seas or on Philippine
waters
2. The offenders are members of the complement or
passengers of the vessel
3. The offenders raise a commotion or disturbance on
the board the ship against the lawful command of
the captain or the commander of the ship.
 In mutiny, there is no taking because in mutiny there is
no intent to gain. Mutiny is the rising of commotion, a
resistance against the lawful command, against the
lawful authority of the commander or captain of the
ship.
 Since in mutiny, there is no intent to gain, mutiny is
akin to sedition. The rising of commotion, an uprising,
an act of dissent against lawful authority.
PIRACY vs. MUTINY
PIRACY MUTINY
The offenders are
necessarily inside the vessel,
The offenders are strangers
they are either members of
to the vessel
the complement or
passengers of the vessel
There is no intent to gain
There is intent to gain because the essence of the
because it is similar to crime is to go against the
robbery lawful authority of the
commander of the ship.
Q: The vessel is on the sea going to Mindoro. So while the
ship is on its way to Mindoro, suddenly there comes a big
storm. The commander or the captain of the ship said that
they should first move towards the shore and let the storm
comes calm in order to ensure the safety of the passengers
of the vessel. The passengers of the vessel and members of
the complement didn’t want the decision of the said captain
of the ship and so they seize the captain of the ship and
manned the vessel until they reach Mindoro. What crime, if
any, is committed by these members of the complement
and passengers of the vessel?
A: They are liable of MUTINY. The vessel is on
Philippine waters. The offenders are members of the
complement and they go against the lawful authority of
the captain of the ship. Therefore they are liable of
mutiny.
Q: While a vessel is on Philippine waters, here comes a
second vessel. Four men from the second vessel boarded
the first vessel and at gunpoint, took the cargo and
equipment of the said vessel. Placed them in the second
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
vessel and off they went. What crime is committed by these
four men?
A: They are liable of PIRACY UNDER ARTICLE
122. The vessel is on Philippine waters, the offenders
are not members of the complement or passengers of
the ship. They seize the cargo and equipment of the
vessel. Therefore, it is piracy under Article 122.
Q: The vessel is on Philippine waters. While the vessel is on
Philippine waters, the members of the complement and
passengers of the said vessel in conspiracy with one another
took the cargo and equipment of the said vessel, and then
they boarded a second vessel and off they went. What crime
is committed by the members of the complement and
passengers of the said vessel?
A: The members of the complement and
passengers of the vessel committed ACTS OF
PIRACY because they seize in whole or in part the
cargo or equipment of the vessel but NOT PIRACY
UNDER ARTICLE 122 because in Article 122, it is a
requisite that the offenders must be strangers to the
vessel. Here, the offenders are members of the
complement and passengers of the vessel. So the crime
committed is PIRACY BUT UNDER PD 532.
ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-ROBBERY LAW OF 1974
(PD 532)
Under PD 532, piracy is committed by attacking or seizing
the vessel or seizing in whole or in part the cargo,
equipment or personal belongings of the members of the
complement or passengers of the vessel IRRESPECTIVE of
the value thereof, committed by means of force and
violence and committed by any person whether he may a
member of the complement or passenger of the vessel or
strangers to the vessel BUT the vessel is on Philippine
waters. Therefore, for PIRACY UNDER PD 532 to arise, it
necessary that the vessel is on Philippine waters.If the
vessel is on the high seas, immediately rule out PD
532.
HOW COULD YOU KNOW IF IT IS PIRACY UNDER
PD 532 OR PIRACY UNDER ARTICLE 122 OF RPC?
➢ If the vessel is on Philippine waters, your choice is
either Piracy under PD 532 or Piracy Article 122.
 Where lies the difference?
➢ Since Article 122 of RPC is the main law, we
have to reconcile it with PD 532. Or PD 532
must be reconciled with Article 122. Piracy
under PD 532, the offenders can be any
person. He can be a stranger. He can be
members of the complement.
 Therefore, where does PD 532 apply?
➢ It will apply when the offenders are
members of the complement or
5|
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
passengers of the vessel and the vessel
is on the Philippine waters.
Q: The vessel is on Philippine waters, suddenly men from
the outside committed acts of piracy. What crime is
committed?
A: Piracy under Article 122
Q: The vessel is on Philippine waters. Acts of piracy were
committed by the members of the complement or
passengers of the vessel. What crime is committed?
A: Piracy under PD 532
Q: What if the vessel is on the high seas? While the vessel is
on the high seas, there comes a second vessel. Four men
from the second vessel boarded the first vessel and at
gunpoint took the cargo and equipment of the first vessel.
What crime is committed by these four men?
A: Piracy under Article 122. The vessel is on the high
seas. The offenders are not members of the
complement or the passengers of the vessel. They seize
in whole or in part the cargo and equipment of the said
vessel.
Q: While the vessel is on the high seas, members of the
complement or passengers of the vessel in conspiracy with
one another took away the cargo and equipment of the
vessel. What crime is committed?
 It is not piracy under Article 122 because
here, the offenders are members of the
complement or passengers of the vessel. In
Article 122, it is required that the offenders
must be strangers to the vessel. It cannot be
piracy under PD 532 because the vessel must
be on Philippine waters. In our problem, the
vessel is on the high seas. So, what crime is
committed?
A: Again, piracy is akin to robbery. Since Piracy under
Article 122 and Piracy under PD 532 do not apply, the
crime committed is ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE.
ARTICLE 123 – QUALIFIED PIRACY
 What are the circumstances which will qualify piracy?
➢ Under Article 122, the following circumstances
will qualify piracy:
1. Whenever the offender have seized a vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same; or
➢ It is necessary that the vessel itself
must be seized by boarding or firing
upon the same. Notwithstanding this
act of boarding or firing, if only the
cargo, equipment, or personal
belongings inside the vessel were
seized, it is not qualified piracy but
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
only a simply piracy because the law
specifies that it is the vessel that must
be seized to qualify piracy.
2. Whenever the offenders have aband0ned
their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
➢ There is intent to kill.
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by
murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape.
➢ Whenever these four crimes
accompanied the act of piracy, it will
not bring about a separate and distinct
crime or a separate and distinct charge
of murder, homicide, physical injuries
or rape. These crimes are absorbed
because they are circumstances which
will qualify the penalty to death.
 These circumstances are separate and distinct from
each other. It is not necessary that all of them must be
present. The presence of one will qualify piracy. Notice
the conjunction OR. These are qualifying
circumstances which are prejudicial to the accused
therefore they must be strictly construed.
Q: What if the vessel is on Philippine waters, and there
comes a second vessel? Four men from the second vessel
boarded the first vessel and at gunpoint, they asked the
passengers to give to them all their valuables. One woman
didn’t want to give her wedding ring because it was so
precious to her and so one of the men forcibly took the
wedding ring from the finger such that the finger was
severed from it. What crime is committed?
A: QUALIFIED PIRACY because piracy was
accompanied by physical injuries.
Q: What if in the same problem, the woman didn’t want to
give the ring so one of the men slapped the woman on the
face three times and the face of the woman became
reddish? She suffered slight physical injuries. What about
the fact that the injury suffered was only slight?
A: It will not make a difference although the injury
suffered was only slight. In the third circumstance
which will qualify piracy, the word “physical injuries”
is used in its generic sense. Therefore, whatever be the
kind of physical injuries, whether serious or slight for
as long as it was accompanied by piracy, it will be
considered as qualified piracy.
Q: What if in the same problem, the woman didn’t want to
give the ring and one of the men touched the private parts
of the said woman and after touching the private parts of
the said woman with lust, he forcibly took the ring. What
crime is committed by the said men?
A: All of them will be liable for piracy. However, the
man who touched the private part of the woman will be
liable for two crimes: piracy and acts of lasciviousness.
6|
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
Acts of lasciviousness is not mentioned in Article 123.
Therefore, its presence will not qualify piracy. It will
bring about a separate and distinct charge of acts of
lasciviousness.
➢ So, only these four crimes (murder, homicide,
physical injuries and rape) will qualify piracy. If
other crime is committed and accompanied by
piracy and is not among these four crimes
mentioned in Article 123, it will bring about a
separate and distinct charge.
QUALIFIED MUTINY
What are the circumstances which will qualify
mutiny?
➢ In Article 123, there is no specific mention of
qualified mutiny, however according to Reyes and
other legal luminaries, of the three circumstances
stated in Article 123, paragraphs 2 and 3 are
considered as circumstances which will qualify
mutiny. That is:
1. whenever the offenders have abandoned
their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
2. whenever the crime is accompanied with
murder, homicide, physical injuries, or
rape
➢ According to Reyes and other legal
luminaries, only these two are considered
qualified in mutiny because in mutiny,
the offenders are necessarily, ordinarily
inside the vessel because they are
members of the complement or
passengers of the vessel.
Q: The vessel was on Philippine waters sailing toward
Mindoro. A water boat went near the vessel. Two armed
men fired at the vessel and thereafter climbed the same. At
gunpoint, they took some of the cargoes and personal
belongings of the passengers and members of the vessel
and off, they left. What crime had been committed by these
two armed men?
A: Piracy. First, the vessel is on Philippine waters.
Second, they are not members of the vessel neither are
they the passengers. Third, they seized whole or in part
the cargo and personal belongings of the passengers
inside the vessel. All the elements of piracy under
Article 122 are present.
It is not qualified piracy because even if there was
boarding and firing, it is not the vessel that was seized
but only the personal belongings of the passengers and
cargoes inside the vessel.
Q: In the same problem, these two men, X and Y, entered
the same vessel and at gunpoint, they were able to take the
personal belongings of the members of the complement
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
and the passengers of the vessel, another passenger inside
the vessel, W, took the commotion as an opportunity to
settle the grudge against a fellow passenger, B. While the
people were afraid of X and Y, W went to the cabin of B and
there he repeatedly stabbed to death B. All were arrested
and charged with Qualified Piracy. Is the charge correct?
A: The charge is wrong.
Insofar as X and Y are concerned, as in the previous
problem, they are liable for simple piracy.
With respect to W, he cannot be held liable for
qualified piracy. Only the first element is present. He is
an insider, not a stranger to the vessel, he also has no
intent to attack or seize the vessel or to take the cargo
or equipment or personal belongings of the passengers
or members of the complement, his intention was to
kill an enemy, to settle a grudge and therefore he
cannot be held liable for qualified piracy.
Q: In the same problem, X and Y were convicted of Piracy
and then W was acquitted because the crime charge is
qualified piracy and he cannot be held to be liable of such
crime and he cannot also be held liable for murder – a
crime different to what was charged. The prosecution filed
a motion for reconsideration saying that they should all be
held liable for qualified piracy because of the third
qualifying circumstance and the act of piracy was
accompanied with murder committed by W against B and
since murder was committed by reason or on the occasion
of the said piracy, therefore they should all be liable for
qualified piracy. Is the contention correct?
A: The contention is wrong. This is not a special
complex crime and therefore it is necessary that the
said murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape must
be committed by the actual perpetrators of piracy.
These are not crimes by themselves but circumstances
which will qualify the penalty. Whenever any of these
four circumstances is present, they are absorbed
because they are qualifying circumstances. They are
not separate and distinct crime which will bring about
a special complex crime.
ANTI-HIJACKING LAW (R.A. No. 6235 otherwise
known as An Act Prohibiting Certain Acts inimical
to Civil Aviation)
Under RA 6235, there are four prohibited acts.
1. By compelling the pilot of an aircraft of Philippine
registry to change its course or destination OR by
seizing or usurping control thereof while it is in
flight
2. By compelling an aircraft of foreign registry to
land in Philippine territory OR by seizing or
usurping control thereof while the same is in
Philippine territory
7|
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
HOW COULD YOU DISTINGUISH THE FIRST ACT
FROM THE SECOND ACT?
➢ If the aircraft is of Philippine registry, the seizure
or usurpation to amount in violation of RA 6235,
requires that the aircraft must be in flight. An
aircraft is in flight the moment all its external
doors had been closed, following embarkation
until any of it external doors had been opened for
purposes of disembarkation.
➢ On the other hand, if the aircraft is of foreign
registry, the seizure or usurpation did not need
while it is in flight. For as long as the aircraft of
foreign registry is within the Philippine territory,
seizure or usurpation thereof will bring about
violation of RA 6235 even if all its doors are
opened; even if it is not in flight.
➢ Insofar as these two prohibited acts are concerned,
what are the circumstances which will qualify the
penalty?
➢ Under RA 6235, the following
circumstances will qualify the first two
acts:
a. By firing upon the pilot or the
member of the crew or passenger of
the aircraft; or
b. By exploding or attempting to
explode by means of a bomb or
explosive for purposes of destroying
the aircraft; or
c. Whenever the crime is
accompanied by murder, homicide,
serious physical injuries, or rape
➢ NOTE: In case of piracy, the law uses the
word “physical injuries” in its generic
sense. Whatever be the kind of physical
injury that will accompany piracy, the
crime committed is qualified piracy.
But in case of hijacking under RA
6235, the law is specific; it must be
serious physical injuries. Therefore,
if the physical injuries that would
accompany the act of usurpation and
seizure of the aircraft would only be less
serious physical injuries or slight physical
injuries, the penalty is not qualified. The
penalty is qualified because from the
penalty of 12 to 20 years, it would
become 15 years to death.
3. By carrying or loading on board a PASSENGER
AIRCRAFT operating as a public utility in the
Philippines materials or substances which are
explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous
4. By shipping, carrying or loading on board a
CARGO AIRCRAFT operating as a public utility in
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
the Philippines materials or substances which are
explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous in a
manner not in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the Air Transportation Office
HOW WOULD YOU DISTINGUISH THE 3RD FROM
THE 4TH ACT?
➢ If the aircraft is a PASSENGER AIRCRAFT, the
mere act of carrying or loading explosive,
flammable, corrosive or poisonous substances will
immediately constitute a violation of RA 6235.
➢ If however the aircraft is a CARGO AIRCRAFT,
the loading of these poisonous substances,
flammable substances, is allowed because it is a
cargo aircraft. The crime will only arise if such act
of loading is not in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the Air Transportation Office.
HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007
(R.A. No. 9372)
Q: What if there is a bus and the bus is parked at Luneta
Park and it was full of children. And here comes X, X had
different kinds of explosive all over his body. And at
gunpoint, entered the said bus and told the children to keep
quiet. Thereafter, there is a cartolina on the glass window of
the said bus. Written on the cartolina were his demands to
the government. His demands were first, that his brother, a
member of NPA and who is being incarcerated by the
military be released and his second demand, was that funds
be transferred to his account. So these were the demands
made by X against the government. Because of this, the
parents of the children arrived, the media arrived, all the
cabinet secretaries arrived. Only the president did not
arrive. So everybody was there. They were afraid that the
children might die so there was chaos in the entire
Philippines. It took the members of the military and police
12 hours to subdue X. So after 12 hours, they were able to
arrest X. What crime, if any, may be filed against X?
A: X will be charged of the crime of terrorism
under RA 9372, the Human Security Act of 2007.
Under Section 3 of Ra 9372, terrorism is committed
when the offender commits any of the following acts
punishable under the RPC:
a. Piracy
b. Rebellion
c. Coup d’Etat
d. Murder
e. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention
f. Crimes involving Destruction
If the offender commits any of these acts punishable under
the RPC or any of the following acts punishable under
special penal laws:
8|
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

a. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the Ammunitions or Explosives because he was full of firearms
High Seas or in the Philippine Waters); and ammunitions and explosives?
b. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
A: No more.
c. Article 134-a (Coup d’Etat), including acts
committed by private persons; Because of Section 49 of RA 9372. Under Section
d. Article 248 (Murder); 49 of RA 9372, whenever a person has been charged of
e. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal terrorism, or any act punishable under RA 9372, based
Detention); on the valid complaint or information, sufficient
f. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction), information and substance to bring about and
thereafter he is acquitted or the case is dismissed, he
or under
can no longer be subsequently prosecuted for any other
a) Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson); felony or offense necessarily included in the crime
b) Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and charged. The crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of detention is necessarily included in terrorism because
1990); it is one of the predicate crimes. Likewise, violation of
c) Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy PD 1866, as amended Illegal and Unlawful Possession
Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968); of Firearms is also necessarily included in terrorism
d) Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law); because it is one of the predicated crimes in terrorism.
e) Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti- Or any of these predicated crimes, he can no longer be
highway Robbery Law of 1974); and, charged because they are necessarily included in
f) Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree terrorism. This is known as the ABSORPTION
Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful PRINCIPLE in terrorism.
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition
Q: But what if in the same problem, while X was waiting for
or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or
his demands to be given by the government, he saw a girl
Explosives)
and with lewd design, he touched the private parts of the
If the offender commits any of these crimes under seven-year old girl. Therefore he committed a violation of
the RPC and any of the crimes under special penal RA 7610 the Anti-Child Abuse Law. He was acquitted of
laws, thereby sowing and creating a condition terrorism. Can the state prosecute him for violation of RA
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic 7610?
among the populace in order to coerce the
A: Yes, because it is not among the predicate
government to give in to an unlawful demand, he
crimes. It is not a crime necessarily included in the
is liable of terrorism and the penalty is 40 years
crime of terrorism.
imprisonment without the benefit of parole under
the Indeterminate Sentence Law. So it is the
maximum penalty of 40 years. He has to serve it
totally. Even if he has already served the
minimum, he cannot be given the benefit of parole
under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. So it is
necessary that he must commit any of these
predicate crimes and after committing these
predicate crimes, where lies the difference?
Because his act that sowed and created fear and
panic among the populace coupled with an
unlawful demand against the government.
Q: So let us say that X was charged with terrorism based on
a valid complaint or information a case of terrorism was
filed against him before the RTC. However, after trial on
the merits, the judge acquitted him. According to the judge,
the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused
beyond reasonable doubt therefore acquittal for reasonable
doubt. Since he is acquitted of terrorism under RA 9372,
can he still be prosecuted for his predicate crime of
kidnapping and illegal detention because he detained the
children for more than 12 hours? Can he still be prosecuted
for Illegal and Unlawful Possession of Firearms,
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 9|
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
TITLE TWO
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF
THE STATE (Articles 124 – 133)
The acts under TITLE TWO are made criminal because
they both appease the Bill of Rights. The rights stated under
the Constitution and the first of these is under ARTICLE
124, 125, and 126 – Arbitrary Detention.
BAR: THREE ACTS PUNISHED AS ARBITRARY
DETENTION:
1. Arbitrary Detention by detaining a person without
legal ground under Article 124
2. Arbitrary Detention by failing to deliver the detained
person to the proper judicial authorities within 12,
18 or 36 hours under Article 125
3. Arbitrary Detention by delaying the release of
prisoners despite the judicial or executive order to
do so under Article 126
ARTICLE 124 – ARBITRARY DETENTION BY
DETAINING A PERSON WITHOUT LEGAL
GROUND
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee.
➢ The offender is a public officer or employee.
But not all public officers or employees can
commit arbitrary detention. The public
officer of employee can commit arbitrary
detention are only those who have been
vested with authority to effect arrest
and detain a person or at least to cause
the detention of a person. Even if he is a
public officer and he detains another, but he
is not vested with authority to effect arrest or
detain another, although a public officer, he
was acting in hid private capacity, the crime
committed is either Article 267 – Illegal
Detention or Article 268 – Slight illegal
detention but it is not Arbitrary detention.
Public officers who have been vested with
authority to effects arrest and detain a person
are POLICE OFFICERS. On the other hand,
public officers vested with authority to cause
the detention of a person are MEMBERS OF
CONGRESS. They can order the detention of
a person who has been cited of contempt for
failing to accurate their proof, or we have
JUDGES they can order the summary
detention of persons cited in contempt of
court.
2. That he detains a person.
➢ There is detention when the offended party is
placed in incarceration, when the offended
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
party is placed behind bars or when the
offended party is restrained of his person or
liberty.
➢ In order to amount arbitrary detention there
must be an act of restraint on the
person or liberty of the offended party.
Absent that intent, absent the actual restraint
on the person or liberty of the offended party
– It can be any other crime BUT NOT
ARBITRARY DETENTION. Therefore,
Supreme Court said that intent to detain must
be manifest, it must be evident. Absent that,
it can be any other crime but not arbitrary
detention.
3. That the detention is without legal ground.
Detention is without legal grounds under Article
124:
(1) When the said offended party was
arrested without a warrant of arrest.
(2) When the said offended party was
arrested and his arrest and detention
does not fall under any of the
circumstances of a valid warrantless
arrest.
(3) When he is not suffering from violent
insanity or any other ailment which
requires compulsory confinement.
Valid grounds for detention:
(1) If the person was received and detained
by virtue of a warrant of arrest.
(2) If a person was arrested and detained
under any of the circumstances for a
valid warrantless arrest
(3) If a person was suffering violent insanity
or any illness which requires compulsory
confinement.
Q: So if a person, driving his vehicle entered a one way
street and in violation of the LTO rules and regulation, was
stopped by police officer, his license was taken, gave him a
ticket, and was brought to the nearest PNP station and was
placed behind bars. He was detained. That was 8 o’clock in
the morning then the arresting officer left. And on the
afternoon, the police officer returned to the police station.
Upon his arrival, he immediately released the incarcerated
person whom he detained for entering a one way street. Is
the said police officer liable for arbitrary detention under
Article 124?
A: YES, he is liable of ARBITRARY
DETENTION. He is a public officer vested with
authority to effect arrest and detain a person. If he
detained the person, the detention was without legal
ground. It is without legal ground because entering a
10 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
one way street and violating the traffic rules and
regulation is not a ground for incarceration. It is not a
ground for a person to be placed behind bars. If a
person committed a violation of traffic rules and
regulation like entering a one way street or beating the
red light, he should only be given a ticket. There should
not even be a confiscation of license. After that, he
should be allowed to leave but that is not a ground for
him to be placed under detention. Since the officer
detained the person without any legal ground HE IS
LIABLE FOR ARBITRARY DETENTION.
Q: What if X is suspected to be a snatcher and many
complaints was filed against him. One time, when the
police officers were conducting a patrol they saw X who was
perhaps waiting for a ride. When the police officers saw X
they immediately arrested X and brought him to the
nearest police station. They told X that he is to be
investigated for he is said to be a cellphone snatcher. So he
was brought to the investigation room however, the
investigation officer was not around so the arresting officer
told him that he needs to be investigated and that he can
leave but he must make sure to come back for purposes of
investigation otherwise if he does not come back the next
time they see him they will kill him. So because of that, X
would get out of the precinct but would immediately return.
Are the police officers liable for arbitrary detention?
A: NO, the police officers are not liable for
arbitrary detention. There is no intent to restrain
or detain the person or liberty of X, the offended party.
In order to amount to arbitrary detention it is
necessary that the intent of the public officer to
restrain the person or liberty of the offended party
must be manifest and it must be evident. In this case
however, it is not.
 Even if there is a threat on the part of the police
officer there is however no intent to detain X.
What are the crimes if any are the police officer
liable for?
➢ They committed GRAVE THREATS
because they threatened to kill X if he would
not come back. It is the grave threats that
made X come back in the police station.
Grave Threats by threatening another with the infliction
upon his person, honor, or property, or that of his family,
any wrong amounting to a crime and demanding or
imposing any other condition even though not unlawful.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ARTICLE 125 – ARBITRARY DETENTION BY
FAILING TO DELIVER THE DETAINED PERSON
TO THE PROPER JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES
WITHIN 12, 18 OR 36 HOURS
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender here is a public officer or employees
vested with authority to effect arrest and detain a
person.
2. That offender has detained a person for some legal
ground
➢ The second element requires that the offender
arrests and detains a person for some legal
ground.
Legal grounds referred to under Article 125?
The legal ground being referred to in Article 125 is
not the fact that the said arrest was made by virtue
of a warrant of arrest because if the offended party
was arrested by the public officer by virtue of a
valid warrant of arrest he does not have the
obligation to deliver him to the proper judicial
authorities.
Valid instances in arresting a person – these refer
to circumstances of valid warrantless arrests
under Section 5 Rule 112 of the Rules of Court. It
requires that a peace officer or a private individual
may even without a warrant arrest a person under
the following circumstances:
a.) That in his presence the person to be
arrested has committed, is actually
committing, or is attempting to commit a
crime. This is otherwise known as
INFLAGRANTE DELICTO ARREST
b.) When a crime has in fact just been
committed, and the police officer has
probable cause to believe based on personal
knowledge of facts and circumstances that
the person to be arrested is the one who
committed the crime. This is otherwise
known as HOT PURSUIT ARREST.
c.) When the person to be arrested is a
prisoner who has escaped from a penal
establishment or a place where he is serving
final sentence or temporarily detained
while his case is pending, or has escaped
while being transferred from one penal
institution to another.
3. That the offender failed to deliver the person
arrested to the proper judicial authorities within 12,
18 or 36 hours.
The third element requires that that the
offender fails to deliver the person arrested to
11 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
the proper judicial authorities within 12, 18 or
36 hours.
Delivery does not mean that you really have to deliver the
physical body of the person arrested to the court. It means
constructive delivery or legal delivery, meaning, the filing
of the appropriate case before the proper court. That is
delivery to proper judicial authorities - filing of the case
before the proper court.
The proper judicial authorities refers to courts of justices or
judges of the courts that has the power to order the
incarceration or detention of a person or his temporary
restraint upon posting of appropriate complaint. The
FISCAL does not belong to the proper judicial authority
because he belongs to the executive branch. The Fiscal is
under the Department of Justice and not under the
Supreme Court. The head of the Fiscal is Secretary De Lima
and the President and not Chief Justice Sereno. That’s why
a Fiscal is not within the meaning of a judicial authority.
Second, fiscal may recommend the bail but he does not
have the power to fix the bail and allow the accused to go on
temporary liberty. Only the judges are allowed to fix the
bail and order the temporary liberty of the accused until
upon the posting of the said bail (not mentioned in 2017
discussion).
The law says that a public officer must deliver the person
arrested to proper judicial authority within:
a) 12 hours, for crimes punishable by light penalties,
or their equivalent
b) 18 hours, for crimes punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent
c) 36 hours, for crimes punishable by afflictive or
capital penalties, or their equivalent
Q: What if a person has been arrested In flagrante delicto
in possession of an unlicensed firearm. Possession of
unlicensed firearm is punished by a special penal law (P.D.
1866 as amended). Is the arresting officer required to
deliver the accused to the proper judicial authorities? Does
Article 125 apply even to violation of special penal laws?
A: Yes, because the law says “or their
equivalent”. 12 hours, for crimes punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent. That means all their
equivalent refers to their equivalent even in cases of
violation of special penal laws. Therefore, even if the
crime committed or the crime for which the offender is
being arrested is based on violation of special penal
laws, the arresting police officer has the obligation to
deliver the person arrested to the proper judicial
authorities in consonance with Article 125 of the
Revised Penal Code.
Q: What if the police officers caught X in the actual act of
killing Y. So they saw X and Y fighting and they saw X
stabbed Y to death. Therefore, X is liable of homicide. They
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
arrested X and that was Saturday, 3 o’clock in the
afternoon. Sunday, there is no office. The following day,
Monday, happens to be declared a special non-working
holiday. Therefore, the police officers were able to deliver X
to the proper judicial officer only on Tuesday, 8 o’clock in
the morning. They were able to file the case in the Fiscal’s
office for purposes of proceedings Tuesday, 8 o’clock in the
morning, beyond 36 hours which was required by law. Are
the police officers liable for arbitrary detention?
A: NO, the police officers are not liable for
arbitrary detention. The Secretary of the
Department of Justice has made a legal opinion that
the said 12, 18 and 36 hours refers to WORKING
HOURS. These refer to the time when the courts are
open in order to receive the cases to be filed against
them. This does not include the crime wherein the
courts are closed and they did not receive the
complaint or information to be filed against the
accused.
ARTICLE 126 – ARBITRARY DETENTION BY
DELAYING THE RELEASE OF PRISONERS
DESPITE THE JUDICIAL OR EXECUTIVE ORDER
TO DO SO
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee
2. That there is a judicial or executive order for the
release of the prisoner or detention prisoner, or that
there is a proceeding upon a petition for the
liberation of such person.
3. That the offender without good/valid reason delays:
a. The service of the notice of such order to
the prisoner; or
b. The performance of such judicial or
executive order for the release of the
prisoner; or
c. The proceeding upon a petition for the
release of such person.
NOTE: What is punishable is the delay without valid
reason, the delay of the release of the prisoner despite the
judicial or executive order to do so.
➢ Example of judicial order for the release of a
prisoner let’s say that a person has been charged
in court and the public prosecutor failed to present
any evidence four consecutive times and no
witnesses has ever been presented since the
beginning. The judge will dismiss the case and
order the release of the accused from jail. This is
an example of a judicial order for the release of a
prisoner. Or let’s say the judge acquitted the
accused then he will order the release of the said
accused from jail.
➢ How about an example of an executive order for a
release of a prisoner? A person was arrested and
12 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

placed behind bars and proceeding was filed
before the fiscal’s office. The fiscal ordered the
release of the prisoner. This is an example of
executive order for the release the prisoner.
Q: What if X has been charged of two crimes - Illegal sale of
dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs?
So, two crimes were filed against him. The illegal
possession of dangerous drugs was filed before the RTC
Branch 6 on the other hand; the illegal sale was filed before
RTC Branch 87. Two different courts were filed with. In the
illegal possession of dangerous drugs which was filed in
RTC Branch 6, no witnesses were ever presented and so the
judge immediately declared the dismissal of the case and he
ordered that X should already be released from jail.
However, the case for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under
RTC Branch 87 is still ongoing. The jail warden receives the
order coming from the judge RTC Branch 6 that X should
be released. The jail warden did not comply. Is the jail
warden liable for arbitrary detention under Article 126 -
Arbitrary Detention by delaying the release of prisoners
despite the judicial or executive order to do so?
A: NO, the jail warden is not liable for arbitrary
detention under Article 126 because there is still
another pending case against the said prisoner before
another court. Therefore, it is incumbent upon him not
to compel with the judge of Branch 6 since there is
another case in Branch 87 which is still ongoing. What
the law punishes is delay without valid reason for the
release of the prisoner.
Q: The police officers were patrolling the area one Friday
evening and saw X in the act of snatching the cellphone of
the victim. They chased X and was able to arrest X. They
returned the cellphone. Thereafter, X was placed behind
bars. The following day, the office of the public prosecutor
was closed. The police officers were not able to file the
complaint. Sunday, it was closed so was on Monday, a
national holiday. They only filed the case on Tuesday, 8
o’clock. After the inquest proceedings, the fiscal filed the
case but it was way beyond the maximum hours provided
for under Article 125. Are the police officers liable under
Article 125?
A: No. This is because the “12, 18, and 36 hours”
refers to working hours – when the office of the public
prosecutor and the courts are open to receive the
complaint or information to be filed against the
accused. Whenever the office or the courts are closed,
the period does not run.
Q: The woman was arrested by the police. She was begging
alms with her young son. She was later placed behind bars.
She asked the crime she committed. The police officers did
not answer. There was no investigation, no mug shots were
taken, no finger prints. After three hours, she was
thereafter released. By the assistance of a PAO counsel, she
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
filed a case for arbitrary detention under Article 124 against
the arresting police officer. Is he liable?
A: Yes. He is a public officer vested with authority to
effect arrest against another. He detained a person
because there was obvious intent to detain her. If the
intent was to file a case, they could have investigated
her. Here, there was no such thing. She was just placed
behind bars. There was also no valid ground for the
detention because the police officer did not inform her
of the crime she committed, for this the detention is
without valid ground. He is liable.
Q: Adding facts to the problem, the woman was placed
behind bars. The police said that it was unlawful to beg and
therefore she was detained. There was no investigation.
After an hour, she was released of the prison cell, brought
to the office of the arresting police officer and there had
carnal knowledge with her. The woman filed a case for rape
through arbitrary detention because arbitrary detention
was necessary to commit rape. Is the charge correct?
A: No. There was no arbitrary detention. The second
element is absent – there was no manifest intent to
detain. The obvious intent was to rape the said woman.
Therefore the arbitrary detention was merely
incidental and as such absorbed in the commission of
the crime of rape. Hence, the appropriate charge is
rape.
Q: X was charged with two crimes – illegal sale of
dangerous drugs which is a non-bailable offense raffled to
RTC Branch 83 and illegal possession of dangerous drugs, a
bailable offense and raffled to RTC Branch 84. Both ensued
into trial. In illegal possession, fiscal failed to present
witnesses so the judge provisionally dismissed the case and
ordered the release of X. The jail warden was in possession
of the order but did not release X. Is he liable under Article
126?
A: No. What the law punishes is the act of failing to
release a prisoner despite the judicial order to do so
without any valid or justifiable ground. The jail warden
had a valid reason for not releasing X. Although RTC
84 dismissed the case and ordered the release of X, X
was facing another case which is the non-bailable
offense of illegal sale of dangerous drugs. Therefore
there was a valid reason to keep him and therefore the
jail warden is not liable.
ARTICLE 127 – EXPULSION
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. The public officer or employee acts either:
a.) By expelling a person from the Philippines
b.) By compelling a person to change his
residence
3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law
13 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
➢ What the law prohibits is that if this public officer
or employee expels him from the Philippines or
compels him to change his residence without
lawful authority to do so because there are persons
who have been authorized by law to deport a
person from the Philippines or to compel a person
to change his residence.
➢ For example, the President has the power to
deport or expel a person from the Philippines.
Another example is a foreigner who is known to be
a persona non grata; the President may order his
deportation to his home.
➢ The courts on the other hand, have the power to
compel a person to change his place of residence.
Let’s say the offender is a concubine and the
penalty to be imposed to a concubine is destierro.
Therefore, the concubine is prohibited from
entering a particular place based on the judgment
of the court. Now, the prohibited place from which
she is prohibited from entering is the place where
she lives. She cannot enter the said place
therefore; the court is empowered to compel her to
change her place of residence because she cannot
enter the place wherein her house is situated.
Q: X, a concubine, was sentenced to suffer the penalty for
destierro for being convicted of concubinage by a judge. She
was prohibited from entering an area which is within her
residence and therefore she was compelled to change her
residence. Is the judge liable for expulsion?
A: No. Although the first and second elements are
present, the third is absent. The judge had the
authority to compel a person to change his or her
address.
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE (ARTICLE 128, 129,
130)
➢ a public officer or employee entered into a dwelling
of another which is not armed with a search warrant
➢ different prohibited acts constituting violation of
domicile:
I. By entering any dwelling against the will of
the owner thereof; or
II. By searching papers or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of such
owner; or
III. By refusing to leave the premises, after having
surreptitiously entered.
ARTICLE 128 – VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee
➢ The offender in the violation of domicile is a
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
public officer or employee acting under color
of authority.
➢ A public officer or employee is said to be
acting under color of authority if he has been
vested with the authority to implement a
search warrant, but when he entered in the
said dwelling, he is not armed with a judicial
order or search warrant. Therefore, he was
acting under color of authority.
➢ Even if he is a public officer or employee, but
he did not act under color of authority, is
liable only, not for violation of domicile, but is
either liable for qualified trespass to dwelling
or trespass to property because the public
officer or employee is acting under his private
capacity.
2. He was not authorized by a judicial order to enter
the dwelling and/or make a search therein for
papers or other effects
 The second element requires that
entering upon the dwelling of another
which is not authorized by a judicial
order. The judicial order refers to a
search warrant
3. He either:
a. Enters the dwelling of another against the will
of the latter; or
b. Searching for papers or other effects found
therein without the consent of the owner; or
c. After having surreptitiously entered the
dwelling, being discovered and asked to leave,
he refuses to leave.
Different modes of violation of domicile:
(These three modes are separate and distinct from each
other – do not look for all the three modes in a problem,
violation of one of them will bring about violation of
domicile.)
1. By entering any dwelling against the will of the
owner thereof; or
➢ There must a prohibition, an opposition from
entering. It can either be an implied or expressed
opposition from entering.
Examples:
Implied opposition – the door is closed. It can
be said that the owner is saying that “No one
can enter my house”
Expressed prohibition – when the owner is
inside the house and the officer knocks upon
the door and upon seeing the officer, the owner
14 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

closes the door. If there are sayings – “Do not
enter”, “No entry”
➢ It does not mean entering without the consent. An
entry without the consent is not an entry against
the will.
➢ When you say entry against the will, there must be
an opposition or a prohibition from entering the
dwelling.
2. By searching papers or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of the
owner; or
➢ The consent of the owner matters. Even if the
public officer or employee is allowed inside, the
fact that he is allowed inside does not mean that
he is allowed to conduct the search.
➢ He must ask first for the previous consent of the
owner before proceeding with the search. Without
the previous consent of the owner to conduct the
search, any search would be a violation of
domicile.
3. By refusing to leave the premises, after having
surreptitiously entered the dwelling
➢ It is his refusal to leave the premises that will
bring about the violation of domicile, NOT the
surreptitiously entering. But it is required that
entering must be done surreptitiously.
Surreptitious entering – means entering the
dwelling secretly or candidly. Therefore, it is
important that he must refuse to leave after being
discovered and asked to leave in order to amount
to violation of domicile.
➢ Mere surreptitious entering will not bring about
violation of domicile.
Q: Two police officers and a barangay chairman, at about
12 midnight forcibly opened the locked door of the house of
W and barged inside the house. They began searching. W,
who was fast asleep, awakened and saw these three men.
He asked what their business was but they ignored him and
continued with the search. W asked if they have a search
warrant. They could not produce any. They later found an
airgun which they took. What crime was committed?
A: They are liable for violation of Domicile
under Article 128 with the qualifying
circumstances of nighttime and any evidence
as constituting the evidence of the crime was
not returned immediately to the owner thereof.
They are liable first, they are all public officers, second,
they are not armed with a judicial order, third, the
entry was done against the will of the owner thereof
because the door was closed. They also conducted the
search without the consent of W, the owner. The entry
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
was done surreptitiously and they refused to leave
when they were ordered to do so. Therefore they are
liable for violation of domicile. Also, the act was done
at nighttime and the airgun was not part of the
evidence and yet, they took the same without returning
to W. These circumstances will qualify the imposable
penalty.
Q: The door of the house was open. A police officer without
being armed with a search warrant, entered the door of the
house and went up to the sala. The owner of the house saw
him and asked him to leave, and he left. Is he liable for
violation of domicile?
A: He is not liable for violation of domicile.
When the door of the house is open, there is no
prohibition, there is no opposition from entering
anybody may enter even without a search warrant.
Since there is no prohibition or opposition from
entering, violation of domicile cannot be committed
under the first act. Under the second act, it cannot be
committed because he did not conduct the search. The
third act also is not committed because the entering of
the house is not done surreptitiously.
Q: What if in the same problem, the door of the house was
open, a public officer with the intent to conduct a search
warrant entered the house, when he was in the sala, the
owner of the house saw him and told him to leave. He did
not leave; he just stayed there and sat on the sofa. Is he
liable for violation of domicile?
A: He is not liable for violation of domicile.
Under the first act, is entry against the will? – NO, the
door was open. Therefore, there was no opposition or
prohibition from entering. Under the second act, he
did not conduct a search. Under the third act, is the
entering done surreptitiously? – NO, because the door
of the house was open; therefore, he did not violate any
of the following acts amounting to violation of
domicile.
 But he did not leave the house, although the owner
of the house asked him to leave. Is he liable? Yes.
He is liable for unjust vexation (nangiinis lang
siya). Although he did not leave the house, he
cannot be liable for violation of domicile because
his act does not constitute the acts prohibited by
Article 128.
Q: The door of the house was closed, but it was not locked.
A police officer without a search warrant opened the door,
realizing it was not locked, entered the house and went up
to the sala intending to conduct the search. Before he could
conduct the search, the owner of the house saw him, and
told him to leave and he left. Is he liable for violation of
domicile?
A: Yes. He is laible for violation of domicile.
Even if he left the said place upon being told to do it,
15 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
he is already liable because his entry was against the
will of the owner. The door was closed although it was
not locked. Therefore, there was an implied opposition,
an implied prohibition from entering. When he entered
without a search warrant intending to conduct a search
is already a violation of domicile.
Q: What if the police officer knocked on the door of the
house of X. X opened the door, upon seeing the public
officers, X allowed them to enter. The police officer told X
that they were looking for a stolen car stereo in the
neighborhood; we are going to conduct a search in your
house. X said, "No, you cannot conduct a search inside my
house.” The police officers agreed and left the house. Are
they liable for violation of domicile?
A: They are not liable. It is not entry against the
will. They did not conduct a search. The entry was not
done surreptitiously. It does not fall in any of the acts,
therefore, they are not liable for violation of domicile.
Q: In the same problem, when they told the owner that
they were conducting a search for the stolen car stereo, the
owner of the house said, “No, you cannot conduct a search.
There is nothing stolen inside my house.” but the police
officers proceeded with the search.
A: This time, they are liable for violation of
domicile because they made a search without the
previous consent of the owner – under the second act
of Art. 128
Q: What if in the same problem, the owner of the house
told the police officers, “No you cannot conduct a search,
there is nothing stolen inside my house.” The police officers
obliged, they were going to leave the house, obeying the
order of the owner. However, on their way out, before they
could go out, they saw near the door, a table and on top of
it, there were drug paraphernalia, contraband. And so, they
seized and confiscated the contraband and then thereafter
they leave the house. Are they liable for violation of
I.
domicile? Are the evidences confiscated admissible against
the owner?
A: They are not liable of violation of domicile.
When they were told not to conduct the search, they
did not conduct the search and they were about to
leave, therefore, not liable for violation of domicile. But
they confiscated the drug paraphernalia that they saw.
Yes, the confiscated drug paraphernalia were
admissible against the owner because they were
contraband. They are illegal per se. And the police
officers saw them without conducting the search, they
saw them inadvertently. Even without conducting the
search, the police officers would see contraband,
narcotics, in their presence, in their plain view, they
are mandated by law to seize and confiscate the same
under the plain view doctrine. So in this case, these
drug paraphernalia where under the plain view and
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
therefore under the obligation to seize and confiscate
them and these are admissible as evidence against the
owner of the house.
Q: What if a police officer was conducting a surveillance of
X, a well-known drug pusher, so he was always within the
vicinity of the house of X. One time, it was the birthday of
X, the gate of the house was open, and the door of the
house was opened. The police officer disguised himself as
one of the guests and he entered the house together with
the flow of the guests. His intention was to conduct a
search. He was already about to conduct the search when
the owner of the house recognized him. The owner of the
house came up to him. “I know you, you are a police officer.
Get out of my house right now” and he left. Is he liable for
violation of domicile?
A: No, he is not liable for violation of domicile.
The entry was done surreptitiously, secretly, candidly,
he was in disguise. It was not against the will of the
owner because the gates and the door were open. He
did not conduct the search because the owner saw him
before he could do so. The entry was done
surreptitiously. He was discovered and ordered to
leave, and he left. Therefore, he is not liable for
violation of domicile
 However, upon being discovered and ordered to
leave and stayed in the house.
➢ Here, he is liable for violation of domicile.
 Under Articles 129 and 130, there is still violation of
domicile despite the fact that the public officer or
employee is armed with a search warrant.
ARTICLE 129 – SEARCH WARRANTS
MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED AND ABUSE IN THE
SERVICE OF THOSE LEGALLY OBTAINED
COMMITTED THROUGH:
By procuring a search warrant without just
cause
➢ When a public officer or employee conducts a
search and the search warrant was an illegally
procured search warrant. It was procured without
just cause.
SEARCH WARRANT – is an order in writing, issued in
the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge
and directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search
for personal property described therein and to bring to
court the particular things to be seized.
Before a search warrant may be issued, the
following are the requisites to a valid search
warrant:
1.) It is required that it is for one specific offense.
16 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

2.) There must be probable cause
3.) The said probable cause was determined by the issuing
judge personally through searching questions and
answers in writing, under oath or affirmation as the
testimony given by applicant of the said search warrant
or any witnesses he may produce.
4.) The applicant of the search warrant and his witnesses
must testify only as to facts personally known to them
5.) The said search warrant must specifically state the
place to be searched and the thing to be seized.
➢ If any of these requisites is wanting, then the said
search warrant is illegally procured. It is procured
without just cause. A search conducted by virtue of a
search warrant illegally procured without just cause
is akin to a search without a search warrant.
Q: What if the police officer was armed with a search
warrant, he procured the search warrant illegally without
just cause. The police had an enemy, B, he then proceeded
to a judge to issue a search warrant testifying under oath,
the he is positive under his surveillance that B was in
possession of an unlicensed firearm inside his house. The
judge believed the police and issued a search warrant
against B. The police officer is now armed with a search
warrant, and went to the house of B and showed it to B. B,
upon reading the search warrant, knew it was maliciously
procured, it was procured without just cause. Should B
allow the police officer to conduct the search?
A: Yes. Even if the said search warrant was procured
without just cause, the police officer must be allowed to
enter and conduct the search, because of the so-called,
REGULARITY OF PERFORMANCE OF DUTY on the
part of the judge in issuing the said search warrant. He
is armed with a search warrant issued by the judge and
therefore, he must allow him to enter his house and to
conduct his search.
 What now would be the remedy of the owner of
the house?
The owner of the house has the following remedies:
1.) He can file a motion to quash the said
warrant
2.) He can file a motion to suppress the
evidence that have been confiscated
inside the house
3.) In addition to these motions, he can file a
case of violation of domicile against the
said public officer who conducted the
search. Violation of domicile under Art.
129 because he procured the said search
warrant without just cause.
 So in other words, the said police officers
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
must be allowed to enter and allowed to
conduct the search and the owner of the
house shall have the abovementioned
remedies thereafter.
II. By exceeding his authority or by using
unnecessary severity in executing a search
warrant legally procured
➢ A search warrant is valid only for a period of 10
days from the date of its issuance appearing on
the search warrant.
The public officer is said to have exceeded his
authority in the search warrant when despite the
discrepancy or the variance between the facts alleged in the
search warrant and the actual facts on the place to be
searched, the peace officer still proceeded with the search.
The Supreme Court said that a search warrant is always
specifically worded because the officers serving the search
warrant are not allowed to exercise discretion. They must
follow what is stated in the search warrant – the things to
be seized, the place to be searched, the time of the search.
There must be no deviation.
The public officer is said to have employed
excessive severity in the implementation of the
search warrant when in the conduct of search, they
deliberately caused damage on the property, they
deliberately caused harm or injury to any person in the
conduct of the said search.
EXCEPTION: Under the Rules of Court, the police
officers are allowed to break door or window if at the time
they will conduct the search, they are not allowed entry.
In real life, the police officers have this document, Affidavit
of Orderly Search which they will later ask the owner of the
place searched to sign in order to testify that the search was
done in an orderly manner.
 A search warrant is only valid for ten days. If a search
warrant was dated Dec. 1. A police officer received it on
Dec 3. The search was conducted Dec. 13. The said
search warrant is already invalid. When they
conducted the said search on Dec. 13, they already
exceeded the authority in the said search warrant.
Therefore, they are liable of violation of domicile under
Article 129.
Q: What if the said search warrant says that they could
conduct the search, anytime of the day. They conducted the
search at night time.
A: They are liable of violation of domicile under
Article 129 because they exceeded the authority in the
said search warrant.
 A search warrant may only be conducted at day
time. It may only be implemented at day time.
17 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
EXCEPTION: When there is a specific order in
the search warrant stating that it can be conducted
at any time of the day or night. Absence of such
order in the said search warrant, a search warrant
can only be implemented at day time.
 According to the Rules of Court, peace officers are
allowed to break open the door or window of a
house if at the time of the service of the search
warrant, they are not allowed entry. But if the said
officers, upon service of the search warrant were
allowed to enter and despite such fact, they still
caused damage upon the property and hurt
members of the family, they are liable under
Article 129 for employing excessive severity.
Q: What if a search warrant was issued against X, the place
to be search is located at 123 Valentino St. They police went
there. The house was owned not by X, but by Y. So they
look for the house of X, the house of X was 321 Valentino
St. They presented a search warrant to X. X said, “you
cannot conduct a search inside my house. The address in
the search warrant is 123 Valentino St. and my address is
321 Valentine St. Nevertheless, the officers conducted the
search and they found the illegal items inside the house.
Are the police officers liable of violation of domicile? Are
the confiscated items admissible evidence against the
owner?
A: The officers are liable for the violation of domicile.
When they conducted the said search, on a house that
has a different address from that said search warrant,
they exceeded their authority in the said search
warrant. The search warrant is so worded, expressly, as
to the thing or place to be searched. The police officer
cannot exercise discretion. They have to follow what is
stated in the search warrant. The moment they did not
follow what is stated in the search warrant, then they
exceeded the authority. In that case, when there is
variance between what is stated in the search warrant
and the actual facts of the case to be searched, the have
to go back to the judge that issued the said search
warrant and they have to ask or move for the
amendment of the said search warrant.
Q: What if the third punishable act under Art. 129
amounting to the violation of domicile, when the public
officer or employee exercised excessive severity in the
implementation of the said search warrant? What if a
search warrant is issued against X, the police officers went
to the house of X, upon reaching the house of X, they
showed the warrant to X and he allowed them to enter. The
search warrant said that they could search for dangerous
drugs, particularly, shabu. In searching for shabu, they
turned upside down and deliberately destroyed each and
every furniture and appliance inside the house of X. When
the wife of X saw this, she told the police officers to stop,
but she was slapped twice. She then suffered less serious
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
physical injuries. In deliberately destroying the furniture
and appliances of X, the public officers committed
malicious mischief. In slapping the wife, they committed
less serious physical injuries. What crime/crimes would
you file against the police officers?
A: You have to file 3 cases:
1. Violation of domicile – because they exercised
excessive severity in the implementation of the
said search warrant. They need not destroy the
property. They need not slap the wife. All of these
are excess of the search warrant. Therefore they
should be filed in violation of Art. 129, violation of
domicile, for exercising excessive severity.
2. Malicious mischief – for destroying the furniture
and appliances
3. Less serious physical injuries – for slapping the
wife
 Are you going to file all 3 cases or is it absorbed and
must be file within the court?
➢ Violation of domicile cannot absorb malicious
mischief or less serious physical injuries.
➢ Although in reality, these two are merely the
manifestations of the excess in the
implementation of the said search warrant,
they cannot be absorbed, they cannot be
complex. Under Art. 129, the law expressly
prohibits such absorption and such complexity
of crimes.
➢ Under Article 129, the liability for violation of
domicile shall be in addition to the liability
attaching to the offender for commission of any
other crime. Therefore, if aside from violation
of domicile, Another crime is committed by the
police officers, they had to be charged with all
these cases. Art. 129 prohibits the complexing
of a crime. It also prohibits the absorption of
this crime, therefore all 3 cases must be filed
against the said police officers.
ARTICLE 130 – SEARCHING DOMICILE
WITHOUT WITNESSES
Committed by conducting a search in the absence
of the owner of the house, or any member of his
family, or two witnesses residing in the same
locality
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. He is armed with a search warrant legally procured
3. He searches the domicile, papers, or other
belongings of any person
18 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
4. The owner or any member of his family or two
witnesses residing in the same locality are not
present
HIERARCHY:
1. Owner
2. Any member of his family
3. Two witnesses residing in the same locality
Q: A search warrant was issued against X and the police
officers went to the house of X. They showed the search
warrant to X and they were allowed inside to conduct the
search. In conducting the search, the search was witnessed
by 2 barangay tanods who came with them, who arrived
with them in the house of X. in the conduct of the search,
they told the owner of the house, X, that his wife and his
two children to remain in the sala while they conduct the
search inside the bedroom of X. In conducting the search in
the bedroom of X, the search was witnessed by 2 barangay
tanods and they found 2 plastic sachets of shabu
underneath the pillow inside the bedroom of X. Are the
police officers liable of violation of domicile under Article
130? Are the evidence seized admissible against the owner?
A: The police officers are liable of violation of domicile
under Article 130.
 Article 130 provides for a hierarchy of witnesses
who must be present in the conduct of the search.
The law says it must witnessed by the owner of the
house, it is only in the absence of the owner of the
house that it must be witnessed by any member of
his family. It is only in the absence of the owner of
the house or any member of his family that there
must be 2 witnesses residing from the same
locality.
In the problem, the owner of the house was there, the
members of his family were there but, they were not
allowed to witness the said search. Therefore, the said
search was conducted in violation of Article 130 and
any evidence confiscated will be inadmissible against
the owner of the house for being fruits of poisonous
tree under the exclusionary rule in Political Law or
Remedial Law.
Galvante v. Casimiro
The Supreme Court says that there is no such crime as
illegal search. So, what is prohibited only the searching
of the dwelling under Article 129. But, in case of search
under vehicle or any other places, there is no such
thing as illegal search. The remedy is to file an action
for damages, a civil action for damages.
ARTICLE 131 – PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION
AND DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
2. The offender committed any of the following acts:
a. By prohibiting or by interrupting, dissolving,
without legal ground, the holding of a
peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the same.
(any peaceful meeting)
b. By hindering any person from joining any
lawful association or from attending any of its
meetings.
c. By prohibiting or hindering any person from
addressing, either alone or together with
others, any petition to the authorities for the
correction of abuses or redress of grievances.
➢ For the crime to arise, it is necessary that the meeting
that was prevented, interrupted or dissolved must be a
peaceful meeting and it must be for any lawful
purpose. If the meeting is not a peaceful meeting or if
the meeting is not for lawful purpose, a public officer
or employee has all the rights to prevent, interrupt or
dissolve the said meeting.
➢ This is in the exercise of the freedom of speech,
freedom of expression and freedom of assembly.
However, these 3 freedoms are not absolute. The
Supreme Court has enjoined the power of the State to
regulate these meetings through permits.
➢ Before any of these peaceful meetings for a lawful
purpose may be held in a public place, there must be a
permit coming from the local authority of the place.
The permit is only to regulate the said meeting and not
to prohibit it. Regulate as to the time, place and to the
date, so that the public would not be in inconvenience.
ARTICLE 132 – INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP
ELEMENTS:
1. This is committed by an offender who is again a
public officer or employee.
2. Then there is a religious ceremony or manifestations
of any religion that is about to take place or are going
on.
3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the said
religious worship or religious ceremony.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE:
➢ If the offender makes use of violence or threats in
committing the crime, such use of violence or threats
would not constitute a separate and distinct charge.
Rather it is considered as an aggravating or
qualifying circumstance which would mean an
imposition of a higher penalty
Q: So what if there is a barrio fiesta and the priest is about
to celebrate the mass. Here comes X and he went to the
priest and pointed the gun at the priest. Then the priest was
19 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

about to celebrate the mass. At first the priest did not mind ➢ Acts directed against a religion in connection
him. But X intentionally pointed the gun to the head of the with its:
priest and said, “I will kill you if you will celebrate the a. Practice,
mass!” So the priest did not celebrate the mass and all the b. Ritual,
faithful went out of the church. What crime if any is c. Dogma
committed by X?
Or acts causing damage to the object of
A: X is liable for interruption of religious veneration.
worship under Article 132. What about the fact
3. The said offender performs acts:
that he pointed a gun at the head of the priest? Would
(1) in a place devoted to religious worship, or
it constitute a separate and distinct crime of grave
(2) during the celebration of any religious ceremony.
threats? It will not. The fact that threats were
➢ The third element requires that the said acts
employed in the commission of the crime would only
notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
mean the penalty will be imposed in its maximum
faithful can be committed only (1) in a place
period. It would be considered an aggravating
devoted to religious worship, or (2) during the
circumstance in committing the crime of interruption
celebration of any religious ceremony. The
of religious worship. BUT, IT WILL NOT BRING
law uses the word “or” therefore, if the act is
ABOUT A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT CHARGE FOR
done in a place devoted to religious worship,
GRAVE THREATS OR EVEN UNDER LIGHT
it is not necessary that there be a religious
THREATS.
ceremony ongoing. Because it can either be
ARTICLE 133 – OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS with or without a religious ceremony for as
FEELINGS long as the place is devoted for religious
worship.
ELEMENTS:
Q: So what if X (A private individual) entered a catholic
1. Committed by a public officer or employee or a
church after that the tabernacle was opened and he took
private individual.
out the chalice and inside the chalice was the host which
➢ The first element provides for the offender.
was being received by Catholics during communion. He
The offender may be a public officer or
poured the host in the floor then he destroyed them, spit on
employee or a private individual. This is the
them and stepped on them. Is he liable under Article 133?
only crime under Title Two where the
offender can be a private individual. From A: YES. The act he performed is notoriously
Article 124 to Article 132 under Title Two, the offensive to the feelings of the Catholics. If the
offender can ONLY be a public officer or same act is done to the object of veneration of the
employee. The only exception is Article 133, Buddhists or if the same act is done to the object of
offending the religious feelings wherein the veneration of the Muslims, they will also be offended.
offender can either be a public officer or Therefore, it is notoriously offensive to the feelings of
employee or a private individual. The reason the faithful because even if it is applied to other
is, whoever may be the offender, a public religions they would be offended too. And it was done
officer or employee or a private individual, in a place devoted to religious worship because it is
there will be the same offense made on the done inside the church even if no religious ceremony is
feelings of the faithful. ongoing.
2. That the acts must be notoriously offensive to the
Q: What if inside the PICC there was this art exhibit
feelings of the faithful.
ongoing and one artist, this was a controversy before right?
➢ The second element requires that the offender
There was this picture of Jesus Christ and on the picture of
performs acts notoriously offensive to the
Jesus Christ he put a representation of a penis on his face.
feelings of the faithful. Acts notoriously
Is the said artist liable under Article 133 offending the
offensive to the feelings of the faithful are
religious feelings?
those acts directed against their religious
dogma, ritual, faith of the religion, or mocks, A: NO. He cannot be liable for offending
ridicule, or scoffs of the said dogma, ritual, religious feelings under Article 133. Because the
faith or he attempts to damage the object of PICC is not a place devoted for religious worship and
veneration of a certain religion. The law says the art exhibit is not a celebration of a religious
“notoriously offensive”, according to Reyes, it ceremony. Therefore, since the last element is not
means that it is offensive to all kinds of present even if it offends religious feelings, he cannot
religion. If the same thing would be done to be held liable under Article 133 for the absence of the
any religion they will also be offended. 3rd element.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 20 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

Q: X, in a religious ceremony, called Father Y, the modern

Padre Damaso. Is X liable for offending religious feelings?
A: First element is present since X is a private
individual and third element, it was done during a
religious ceremony. The second is absent. The act of
calling Father Y as the modern Padre Damaso is not an
attack on the practice, ritual, or dogma against the
Catholic religion. Neither was there damage on the
object of veneration of Catholic religion.
Q: There was a procession for the feast day of the patron
saint of a municipality. The images of the saints were
paraded and followed by devotees. At the end, some of
them were praying the rosary and singing the religious
hymn. When they were in front of the house of W, a non-
believer, W increased the volume of his stereo to the
loudest such that one cannot hear the prayers anymore. Is
W liable?
A: Yes. First element, he is a private individual. Third
element, it was a religious ceremony. The second
element, however, is absent. The act of W cannot be
said to be an act of ridicule, mock on the practice of the
ritual or dogma of the religion. Neither was there an
attempt to cause damage on the object of veneration. It
is merely an act of annoying those who are
participating in the said procession. The crime
committed is not offending religious feelings. It was
only an unjust vexation according to the Supreme
Court.

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 21 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

TITLE THREE d. public utilities, or

CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER e. other facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power;
(Articles 134 – 160)
4. That the purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish
ARTICLE 134 - REBELLION OR INSURRECTION state power.
ELEMENTS: ➢ Committed by any person or persons belonging to the
military or police or holding any public office or
1. That there must be (a) public uprising, and (b)
employment, with or without civilian support, carried
taking up arms against the Government
out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the
2. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is Philippines for the purpose of seizing or diminishing
either – state power.
a. to remove from the allegiance to said  The essence of COUP D’ETAT is a swift attack
Government or its laws: directed against the duly constituted authorities, with
or without civilians.
1. the territory of the Philippines or any
part thereof; or REBELLION COUP D’ETAT
2. any body of land, naval or other armed Essence – an armed public Essence – swift attack
forces; or Uprising against the against the duly constituted
b. to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, Government authorities
wholly or partially, of any their powers or Crime of the Masses, it It can be committed with or
prerogatives. involves a multitude of without the participation of
 The essence or the gravamen of REBELLION is the people. The Supreme Court the public because it says,
armed public uprising against the Philippine said that it is akin to a civil with or without civilian
Government coupled with the taking up of arms. war. Public participation is support, provided it has
essential. been committed by any
➢ In case of Rebellion, it can be committed by any member of the military, the
person, or with a participation of the public. police or those holding
THE LEADERS – Any person who public office or
employment.
(a) promotes
(b) maintains or Purpose – Overthrow the Purpose – only to
(c) heads a rebellion or insurrection Government of the diminish state power, to
Philippines and replace it destabilize the government,
THE PARTICIPANTS – Any person who with the Government of the not entirely to overthrow
(a) participates Rebels the government.
(b) executes the commands of others in rebellion or Can only be committed by Can be committed not only
insurrection means of force and violence by means of force and
ARTICLE 134-A – COUP D’ETAT violence but also by means
of intimidation, threat,
ELEMENTS: strategy or stealth
1. That the offender is a person or persons belonging to
the military or police or holding any public office or
employment; THE LEADERS - Any person who

2. That it is committed by means of a swift attack (a) leads

accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, (b) directs or
strategy or stealth; (c) command others to undertake a coup d’etat

3. That the attack is directed against: THE PARTICIPANTS – Any member of the
Government who
a. duly constituted authorities of the Republic
of the Philippines, (a) participates
(b) executes the commands of others in undertaking a
b. or any military camp or installation,
coup d’etat
c. communication networks,
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 22 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
Any person who is not in the Government service
who:
1. Participates
2. Supports
3. Finances
4. abets or
5. aids in the undertaking of a coup d’etat
THEORY OF ABSORPTION IN REBELLION AND
COUP ’DETAT
 What if common crimes are committed in the course
of Rebellion?
➢ Common crimes committed in furtherance of,
incident to or in connection with Rebellion coup
d’etat are considered as ABSORBED in the crime
of Rebellion – known as the THEORY OF
ABSORPTION IN REBELLION.
➢ Whenever in the course of committing rebellion,
murder, homicide, arson, physical injuries, other
common crimes are committed, and these
common crimes are in furtherance to, incident to,
in connection with Rebellion is considered as
absorbed in the crime of Rebellion. Therefore,
only one charge of Rebellion should be charged
against the said offender.
➢ The Supreme Court said that before these
common crimes may be absorbed by Rebellion or
coup d’etat, there must be evidence showing in
what manner the commission of these common
crimes would be promoted or foster the ideals of
the rebels.
Q: There was this rebellion going on in the country. X was
among the participants and he burned several houses in a
certain barangay and in one house five members of the
family died. X was arrested and charged with Rebellion,
Multiple murder, and Arson. Are the charges correct?
A: The charges are wrong. X shall only be charged
of Rebellion because the commission of arson and
murder are absorbed since the same were committed
in furtherance of rebellion. In participating therein, he
had to commit these crimes.
Enrile v. Judge Amin
Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged with the Following
crimes:
1. charged with Rebellion
2. charged with Multiple Murder
3. Multiple frustrated murder
4. Violation of PD 1829 – obstruction of Justice
because he harbored or concealed then Colonel
Gregorio Honasan.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
The Supreme Court said only one charge and it should be
rebellion. The violation of PD 1829, the multiple murder
and multiple frustrated murder are absorbed in Rebellion
under the theory of absorption in Rebellion. The Supreme
Court further said that although violation of PD 1829 is a
violation of a special penal law, still if it is committed in
furtherance of Rebellion, such violation of special penal law
can still be absorbed in the crime of Rebellion.
Q: What if a police officer was on his way to the office,
suddenly here comes a member of the NPA, he saw the
police officer and shot him. What crime is committed? is it
Rebellion or murder?
 Rebellion can only be absorbed common crime
such as murder, if the commission of the crimes
was done in furtherance of Rebellion. Therefore, it
is necessary that there must be evidence shown in
what way the said killing has promoted, fostered
the idea of the Rebels. Absent any connection with
the commission of the common crime and the
furtherance of rebellion, the appropriate charge is
only murder, homicide, arson or physical injuries
as the case may be.
A: In the case, the proper charged would be
murder. There was no evidence showing in what way
the said NPA has promoted the ideas of the Rebels in
killing of the said police officer. Absent of that
evidence, it would be a charge of murder and not
rebellion.
Rebellion is a continuing crime. Therefore, these NPA
who rebelled against the Government, to overthrow the
Government, that one time uprising is sufficient, they
are already considered as rebels because it is a
continuing offense.
Gonzales v. Abaya
Senator Trillanes and company were charged with 2 crimes,
coup d’etat in the RTC of Makati and the violation of
articles of war, particularly acts of unbecoming of an officer
and a gentleman filed before the military court. While the
case was pending in the RTC of Makati, the lawyer filed a
petition, a motion, saying that the violation of the articles of
war should be absorbed by the case filed before the RTC of
Makati. Can Coup d’etat absorb the violations of article of
war?
➢ The Supreme Court ruled in the NEGATIVE.
According to the Supreme Court, for the theory
of absorption to apply, it is necessary that both
cases must be heard or may be heard before the
same civilian court. In this case, the coup d’etat
must be heard in a civilian court, RTC of
Makati, whereas the violations of the articles of
war can be heard only before a military court.
Therefore, one cannot absorb the other. Second
23 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

reasoning given by the Supreme Court, for the
theory to absorption to apply, it is necessary
that both crimes are punished by the same
penal statute. Third reasoning, violation of the
articles of war is sui generis. It is a kind of its
own. Nothing compares to it. Therefore, it
cannot be absorbed by any other crime.
ARTICLE 136 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
COMMIT COUP D’ETAT, REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION
➢ There is CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
REBELLION when two or more persons come into
an agreement concerning the commission of
rebellion (to rise publicly and take arms against the
Government to any of the purposes of rebellion) and
decide to commit it.
➢ There is PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
REBELLION when a person who decides to
commit rebellion proposes its execution to another
person it is necessary that the other person would
not agree, if that person agree, then it is already
conspiracy to commit rebellion
➢ Conspiracy is a bilateral act which involves two or
more persons, whereas proposal is a unilateral act
only one person decides to commit the crime and he
 Based on the objects of sedition, the purposes of
proposes its execution to another person.
 There is a conspiracy to commit coup d’etat the same
way of committing it. Also the proposal to commit
coup d’etat.
ARTICLE 138 – INCITING TO REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION
ELEMENTS:
1. It is committed by any person who does not take up
arms or is not in open hostility with the Government
2. he incites others to uprise for any of the purposes of
rebellion (incite others to the execution of any of the
acts of rebellion)
3. by means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, banners or other representations tending
to the same end.
 There is NO SUCH CRIME AS INCITING TO COUP
D’ETAT.
ARTICLE 139 – SEDITION
ELEMENTS:
Both have a public uprising, a participation of a multitude
1. That the offender rise (1) publicly, and (2)
tumultuously;
Public uprising must be
2. That they employ force, intimidation or other means
coupled with taking up of
outside of legal methods;
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
3. That the offenders employ any of those means to
attain any of the following objectives:
a. To prevent the promulgation or execution of
any law or the holding of any popular election
b. To prevent the National Government, or any
provincial or municipal government, or any
public officer thereof from freely exercising its
or his functions, or prevents the execution of
any administrative order;
c. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the
person or property of any public officer or
employee;
d. To commit, for any political or social end, any
act of hate or revenge against private persons
or any social class; and
e. To despoil, for any political or social end, any
person, municipality or province or the
National Government of all its property or
any part thereof
➢ There is a public uprising again but no taking up
of arms but it is done tumultuously by means of
force, intimidation or any other means outside the
legal methods.
sedition can either be political in nature or social in
nature.
➢ The purpose of sedition is not to overthrow the
government but to go against what the
government wants to implement. To go against a
new law, an administrative order or public officer
or employee.
➢ It is a disturbance, a commotion against the lawful
command of the authority.
➢ The rallies that you see everyday, the rallies
against a new law to be implemented, they are
considered as ordinary protest or rallies, but the
moment they are carried outside of legal methods,
by means of force and violence, they will become
to be a seditious act.
Sedition is like any other rally, it only becomes
seditious because there is the public uprising, done
tumultuously, by means of force, violation or any other
means outside of the legal method.
REBELLION SEDITION
of people.
Public uprising is not
required to be coupled with
24 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

arms taking up of arms. It duly constituted authorities thereof, which

suffices that it is carried tend to disturb the public peace.
out by unlawful or illegal
USE OF UNLICENSED FIREARM (PD 1866 as
methods.
amended by RA 8294, as amended further by
Objective – Political in Objective – can either be
RA 10591)
nature, to overthrow the Political or social in nature.
Government and to replace it The offenders have no RA 10591: SECTION 28 – If the violation of this act is in
with the Government of the intention to replace the furtherance of , or incident to, or in connection with the
Rebels government but they crime of rebellion or insurrection or attempted coup d’état,
intend to go against what such violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime
the government wants to of Rebellion or Insurrection, or Attempted Coup d’état.
enforce, implement, or they
Q: There was a public uprising carried out by means of
go against a certain public
violence or intimidation. The participants therein were
officer or employee
against the enforcement of a new law. Among them was X.
He was arrested and when he was frisked, a loose firearm
was found in his possession. So X was charged with two
ARTICLE 141 – CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT crimes – Sedition and Illegal Possession of Loose Firearms.
SEDITION X contended that the use of the loose firearm should be
 There is a crime of conspiracy to commit sedition absorbed. Is the contention correct?
but not proposal to commit sedition. A proposal A: No. Under Section 28 or RA 10591, if the offender
to commit sedition is not a punishable act used a loose firearm incident to, in furtherance of, or in
under the RPC. connection with Rebellion or Insurrection, or
ARTICLE 142 – INCITING TO SEDITION Attempted Coup d’etat, the use of said firearm shall be
absorbed by said crimes. Sedition had already been
ELEMENTS: deleted as among the crimes that will absorb the use of
1. The offender is not a participant (does not take a loose firearm. Therefore if a person is found in
direct part) in the crime of sedition possession of a loose firearm during a seditious rally,
you can apply either the first paragraph or third
2. He incites others to uprise for any of the purposes paragraph of Section 28.
of sedition
First paragraph: If the use of said firearm is
3. By means of speeches, proclamations, writings, inherent in sedition, it will be a special aggravating
emblems, cartoon, banners, or other circumstance.
representation tending to the same end.
Third paragraph: If the use is not inherent, it will
 Inciting to Rebellion or Inciting to Sedition can constitute a separate and distinct crime.
only be committed by a person who is not a
participant in the Rebellion or the Sedition, In the problem, the use of loose firearm is not inherent
because if he is a participant in the Rebellion or in the crime of sedition and therefore, there should be
Sedition, the appropriate charge is Rebellion or two charges – Sedition and Illegal Possession of Loose
Sedition as the case may be. Not merely inciting to Firearms.
Rebellion or Sedition. Q: What if X is a participant in Rebellion? While he was
Inciting to Sedition is committed not only by inciting participating, he was arrested and frisked. A loose firearm
others for any of the purposes of sedition. Different was found in his possession. He was charged with two cases
acts of inciting to sedition: – Rebellion and Illegal Possession of Loose Firearm. Are
the charges correct?
I. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any
of the acts which constitute sedition by means A: The charges are wrong. The loose firearm shall
of speeches, proclamations, writings, be absorbed by rebellion because the use of loose
emblems, etc. firearm is always in furtherance of, incident to, or in
connection with rebellion because rebellion is
II. Uttering seditious words or speeches which committed through public uprising with taking up of
tend to disturb the public peace arms and such use shall always be considered as an
III. Writing, publishing or circulating scurrilous element of rebellion. The appropriate charge shall only
libels against the Government, or any of the be Rebellion.

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 25 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
ARTICLE 143 – ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE
MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY AND SIMILAR
BODIES
ELEMENTS:
1. There is a there is a projected or actual meeting of
the Congress or constitutional committees or
provincial board or city or municipal council or
board; and
2. The offender, by means of force or fraud, prevents
such meeting
➢ The offender here is any person: he may be a
private individual, public officer or employee
➢ It is necessary that the offender prevents the
meeting of the Congress or any of its committees,
I.
or constitutional committees or any provincial city
or municipal board.
Q: So what if there is a meeting of the Sangguniang
Panlungsod. It was being presided by the Vice Mayor as the
presiding officer of the city council. During the session of
the SangguniangPanlungsod, here comes the mayor
together with some police officers. They entered the session
of and disturbed and prevented the said meeting by force.
What crime, if any, was committed?
II.
A: It is the violation of Article 143 – ACTS TENDING
TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF CONGRESS AND
SIMILAR BODIES.
ARTICLE 144 – DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS
ELEMENTS:
1. There is a meeting of Congress or of any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or
of any provincial board or city or municipal council
or board
2. The offender either:
- disturbs any of such proceedings; or
- he behaves while in the presence of such
proceedings in such a manner as to interrupt
the proceedings or impair the respect due it.
➢ So here, it is necessary that the offender, who was
present in the meeting, either he disturbs the said
proceeding, or while being there, he performed an
act which impair the respect due to them or which
interrupted the said proceeding
Q: The FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILL was on the
committee level. It was votation time. On the right side of
the said place or meeting, there were some observers or
people who were coming from the media. On the left side,
there were ordinary people who do not agree on the
freedom of information bill. It was time to vote for the
passage of Freedom of Information bill, the members of the
committee were voting when suddenly some members of
the media immediately pulled out a placard and shouted:
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
“YES TO FREEDOM TO INFORMATION BILL!” Are they
liable of any crime?
A: YES. They are liable of disturbance of
proceedings under Article 14 because while in the
presence of the said meeting, they behaved in such a
manner as to interrupt the proceedings, or impair the
respect due it.
ARTICLE 145 – VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY
IMMUNITY
Punishes violation of parliamentary immunity
TWO ACTS PUNISHED IN VIOLATION OF
PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY:
Penalty: Prision Mayor – committed by any person
who by means of force, intimidation, fraud or threat, or
any other means and by said means, he tried to prevent
any member of the Congress either from attending any
meeting of the Congress or its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or
committees or divisions thereof , from expressing his
opinions or casting his vote
➢ can be committed by anyone (private individual,
public officer or employee)
Penalty: Prision Correccional – can only be
committed by a public officer or employee who shall,
while the Congress is in regular or special session,
arrest or search any member thereof, except in case
such member has committed a crime punishable under
this Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender should be only a public officer or
employee and not any individual because any
individual cannot make a search or arrest a
member of the Congress.
2. The offender arrests or searches the member of
Congress
3. At the time of the arrest, the member of
Congress, the Congress must be in its regular or
special session.
4. The said member of Congress has committed a
crime which is not higher than Prision Mayor.
The case against Sen. Lacson was fortunately dismissed by
the Court of Appeals. But let us say, it is not dismissed by
the Court of Appeals, he was being charged of double
murder – Dacer-Corbito double-murder slay. He went into
hiding. Let us say that he made his appearance. Can he be
arrested even if the Congress is in regular or special
session? YES. Because the crime committed by him is
punishable by a crime committer higher than prision
mayor. It is punishable by reclusion perpetua. Therefore,
had it not been dismissed by Congress and he apparently
appeared and the Congress is in regular or special session,
he could be arrested.
26 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
Q: What if a Congressman is charged with the crime of libel
before the RTC. The RTC issued a warrant of arrest against
the Congressman. The police officers armed with a warrant
of arrest went inside the walls of Congress and they
arrested the said Congressman. Are the police officers liable
under this Article?
A: YES, they are liable for violation of
parliamentary immunity under the second.
Because at the time the Congress is in its regular
session and they arrested the said Congressman, Libel
under Article 355 is punishable only by Prision
Correcional in its minimum and medium period,
therefore it is below Prision Mayor, hence, the
Congressman cannot be arrested while the Congress is
in its regular or special session.
Q: What if Congressman A is charged with the crime of
attempted homicide. The fiscal found probable cause, the
case was filed in court. The court agrees with the fiscal and
a warrant of arrest was issued against Congressman A. The
warrant of arrest was issued by the judge on December 24,
the police officers had possession of the said warrant of
arrest on December 25, on Christmas Day. While
Congressman was inside his house, the police officers
arrived and arrested the said Congressman for having been
charged of the crime of Attempted Homicide. The penalty
for Attempted Homicide is Prision Correcional because
under Article 249, the penalty for Homicide is Reclusion
Temporal and the attempted is two degrees lower, one
degree is Prision Mayor, two degrees lower is Prision
Correcional, therefore, the penalty to be imposed in this
Attempted Homicide is Prision Correcional. So the police
officers armed with a warrant of arrest went inside the
house of the Congressman and arrested him on Christmas
Day, December 25, are the police officers liable for violating
parliamentary immunity under Article 145?
A: YES, they are liable for violation of
Parliamentary Immunity. Because during
Christmas break or during Holy week break or any
other kind of break, Congress is still in its regular
session. Because as stated in Political Law, in
Constitution, when does Congress start? 4 th Monday of
July, that is when the President states his SONA. When
does Congress ends? 30 days before the start of
Congress. Therefore, during Christmas break or during
Holy week break or any other break, the Congress is
still in its regular session. Any arrest of a member of
Congress during this time, if the said member of
Congress has not committed a crime where a penalty is
higher than Prision Mayor, shall be punished as
violation parliamentary immunity under Article 145.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ARTICLE 146 – ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY
TWO KINDS OF ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY:
I. Any meeting attended by armed persons for the
purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable
under the RPC.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be a meeting, a gathering or group of
persons, whether in fixed place or moving
2. The meeting is attended by armed persons; and
3. The purpose of the meeting is to commit any of
the crimes punishable under the Code
➢ In this case of illegal assembly, it is only necessary
that there be a meeting, the meeting must be
attended by armed persons, under the first mode.
In here, when it says “armed persons”, it is not
required that all those persons present in the
meeting must be with arms. It suffices that one,
two or more, or some of them would be with arms
during the meeting.
➢ When we say “arms,” it does not only mean
firearms, it refers to any things, knives, stones,
anything which can cause violence or injury to
another person.
➢ It is necessary however, that the purpose of the
meeting is unlawful – that is to commit any of the
crimes punishable under the RPC.
II. Any meeting in which the audience, whether armed or
not, is incited to the commission of the crime of
treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault
upon a person in authority or his agents
ELEMENTS:
1. There is a meeting, a gathering or group of
persons, whether in a fixed place or moving
2. The audience, whether armed or not, is incited
to the commission of the crime of treason,
rebellion, or insurrection, sedition or direct
assault.
➢ The said gathering of men or men, may or may not
be armed. It is not required that they be armed.
The crime will arise when the audience were
incited to commit treason, rebellion, or
insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in
authority or his agents)
➢ Under the second mode of committing illegal
assembly, again there is a meeting, and there is no
requisite that those in attendance must be armed,
therefore, they may or may not be with arms. But
it is required for the crime to arise that the
audience must be incited to commit treason,
rebellion, or insurrection, sedition or assault upon
a person in authority or his agents. Otherwise, the
crime will not arise.
27 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

In case of illegal assembly, the organizers or leader of the ➢ “PUBLIC MORALS” means anything that will go
meeting will be criminally liable, as well as the persons against public interest.
merely present in the said meeting.
ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION
➢ Under Article 146, first paragraph, last
PURPOSE – of the
sentence – it is provided that persons who are PURPOSE – will always
association may be for
merely present at the meeting shall be punished by be a violation under the
purpose of committing
Arresto Mayor, unless they are armed, the penalty RPC. Even under the
crimes violating the RPC or
shall be Prision Correcional, therefore, whether you second mode – inciting to
even in violation of special
are armed or not, you can be held criminally liable commit treason, rebellion,
penal laws, provided that it is
for illegal assembly, it will only differ in the penalty. or insurrection, sedition or
in violation of special penal
o If you are armed - Prision Correcional assault upon a person in
law, it must be against public
o Not armed - Arresto Mayor (lower) authority or his agents
morals
Q: The two heads of a telecommunication company, X and
Y, met with ten former military men. X and Y proposed to Necessary that there is an Not necessary that there be
the soldiers to go out on the streets to uprise for the actual meeting or assembly an actual meeting
purpose of preventing a new law imposing taxes on text Meeting and the Act of forming or organizing
messages. These ten former soldiers agreed. X and Y attendance at such and membership in the
promised that they will provide them and others with meeting are the acts association are the acts
firearms. Suddenly the police arrived then arrested them. punished punished
What case or cases may be filed against X and Y and ten
former military men?
A: First, Conspiracy to commit sedition. There is Q: So what if A, B and C gathered 20 persons and proposed
conspiracy because X and Y proposed to the military to them the idea of committing simultaneous bank robbery
men to uprise publicly to prevent a new law and these all over Metro Manila, so they will commit robbery in 4
soldiers agreed. When they agreed, there is conspiracy. banks simultaneously. So these 20 men agreed to the said
commission of bank robbery, and after they have come to
 Why not inciting to sedition? Because the the agreement, here comes the police, the police got a tip
agreement was done in secrecy, not publicly from an informer, the police arrived and they were all
through proclamation, speeches, writings so it arrested. What crime or crimes if any should they be
cannot be inciting to sedition. charged of?
The difference between proposal and inciting:
In proposal, it is done in secrecy. Inciting is A: They could not be charged of any crime.
done publicly through emblems, speeches, There is no such thing as conspiracy to commit
etc. robbery. Because in robbery, robbery is only a mode of
committing the crime, it is not a crime by itself, unlike
Second, they are liable for Illegal Assembly of in case of treason, rebellion, there is such a crime of
the second kind. The meeting was attended by these conspiracy to commit treason, conspiracy to commit
ten soldiers who are all incited to commit sedition. rebellion, and they are punished by such acts. There is
Even if they are unarmed during the meeting, since no such crime as conspiracy to commit robbery. So
they were incited to commit sedition, they are liable. here, conspiracy is a mere preparatory act which is not
ARTICLE 147 – ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS yet punishable by law. For them to be punished, it is
necessary that they must at least perform an overt act
TWO KINDS: directly connected to bank robbery. So here, they just
I. Associations totally or partially organized for the merely conspired to commit robbery without the
purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable performance of any overt act directly connected to
under the Code. robbery. Hence, they are not criminally liable. What
II. Associations totally or partially organized for some they did is only a preparatory act not directly
purpose contrary to public morals. connected to robbery.
Q: Why not illegal assembly?
➢ In case of illegal associations, it is necessary that there
be a formation of a group, not merely a meeting and in A: Because in the problem, it is not mentioned that the
the said association, not only the members of the persons were armed. Also, the crime of bank robbery is
association should be penalized, but also the founders, not among the crimes mentioned in the second act.
directors and president of the said association or Q: Why not illegal association?
organization should be held criminally liable.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 28 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
A: Because what they did was only a mere meeting, it
was not an organization or association.
Therefore, they are not liable of any crime.
Q: In the same problem, A, B, and C gathered 20 men – 10
were armed and the other 10 were not armed. Again, they
conspired and agreed to commit simultaneous bank
robbery all over Metro Manila. After their agreement, here
comes the police officers who arrested them. Of what crime
or crimes may the police officer file against them?
A: They should be charged of illegal assembly
under the first act. They have the gathering of men
and their purpose is to commit a crime punishable
under the RPC which is robbery and it is attended by
armed persons, even if only 10 were with arms, still it
is considered as illegal assembly. Because the law does
not require a number as to the persons who should be
armed. So, all of them should be held criminally liable.
A, B and C, as leaders or organizers of the said
meeting, are liable for illegal assembly. Those persons
who are armed, the penalty is higher than those who
are not armed.
Prision Correcional – if they are armed
Arresto Mayor – if they are not armed
Q: What if A, B and C gathered 1000 men and women.
Their intention was to incite the people to uprise against
the government to overthrow the present administration.
These 1000 men and women arrived in the said designated
place. These 1000 men and women were arranging the
chairs when suddenly here comes the police officers who
got a tip about the said meeting. The police officers
immediately arrested A, B and C and the 1000 men and
women. What crime or crimes if any may these 1000 men
and women be charged of?
A: They have not committed any crime. It cannot
be under the first act of illegal assembly because the
said 1000 men and women were not armed. It cannot
be under the second act of illegal assembly, because for
one to be liable under this act, note that even if not all
of them need not to be armed, it is required that the
audience must be incited to commit treason, rebellion,
or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in
authority or his agents. Here the intention of A, B and
C is to incite them to commit rebellion, BUT there was
no statement in the problem that they were indeed
incited to commit rebellion. In fact, they were just
arranging the chairs, the meeting was only about to
begin. Therefore, they have not yet committed any
crime.
Q: What if the jueteng lords of Southern Tagalog gathered,
they gathered in Batangas. So their purpose was to define
ways and means to propagate jueteng considering that the
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
government would not want to legalize jueteng, their
decision was define ways and means to propagate jueteng
by using minors, those 15 years of age or below as kubrador
in the case of jueteng, so that was the purpose of their
meeting. In the said meeting, they elected their would-be
president, vice president, treasurer, etc. So they formed an
organization, an association and they said that at the end of
the month, they would meet and define ways and means to
propagate jueteng. The police officers arrived and they were
all arrested. But they are not with arms, it is not mentioned
that any of them were with arms.
A: The crime committed is illegal association
under Article 147. It is an association totally and
partially organized for some purpose contrary to public
morals. Jueteng is in violation of PD 1602, illegal
gambling as amended and it is against public morals
because it has not yet been legalized by law.
ARTICLE 148 – DIRECT ASSAULT
TWO FORMS:
I. Without public uprising, by employing FORCE or
INTIMIDATION for the attainment of any of the
purposes enumerated defining the crimes of rebellion
and sedition.
➢ The intention of the offender is to commit any of
the purposes of rebellion or sedition.
PURPOSES OF REBELLION:
1. To remove from the allegiance to the
Government or its laws:
(a) the territory of the Philippines or
any part thereof; or
(b) any body of land, naval, or other
armed forces; or
2. To deprive the Chief Executive or Congress,
wholly or partially, of any of their powers or
prerogatives.
PURPOSES OF SEDITION:
1. To PREVENT the promulgation or
execution of any law or the holding of any
popular election;
2. To PREVENT the National Government, or
any provincial or municipal government or
any public officer thereof from freely
exercising its or his functions, or PREVENT
the execution of any administrative order;
3. To INFLICT any act of hate or revenge
upon the person or property of any public
officer or employee;
4. To COMMIT, for any political or social end,
any act of hate or revenge against private
persons or any social class;
5. To DESPOIL, for any political or social
end, any person, municipality, province, or
29 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
the National Government of all its property
or any part thereof
NOTE: The law says that there is no public uprising,
therefore whenever there is actual commission of rebellion
or sedition, direct assault can never be committed because
the element of direct assault in whatever form is that there
be no public uprising, on the other hand, a necessary
element in the crime of sedition or rebellion is there be
public uprising.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender employs force or intimidation
2. AIM of the offender is to attain any of the purposes
of the crime of rebellion or any of the objects of the
crime of sedition
3. There is no public uprising
II. Without public uprising, by ATTACKING, by
EMPLOYING FORCE, or by SERIOUSLY
INTIMIDATING or SERIOUSLY RESISTING any
person in authority or any of his agents, while in the
performance of official duties, or on the occasion of
such performance.
➢ Most popular form of direct assault
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender
a. Makes an attack,
b. Employs force,
c. Makes a serious intimidation, or
d. Makes a serious resistance
➢ If the offended party is a person in
authority, the attack or the employment
of force need not be serious because
under Article 148, the mere act of laying
of hands in the person in authority is
already qualified direct assault.
Therefore, the mere act of pushing a
person in authority is already qualified
direct assault because the offender
already laid hands upon a person in
authority. Hence, it need not be serious.
However, if the offended party is a
mere agent of a person in authority,
it is necessary that the employment of
force must be serious. The reason is that
in order to show defiance of law against a
mere agent of person in authority, it is
necessary that the attack or force
employed must be serious in nature.
➢ If what has been done is intimidation or
resistance, to amount to direct assault, it
must always be serious whether the
offended party is a person in authority or
a mere agent of a person in authority.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
2. The second element requires that the assault is
against a person in authority or an agent of a
person in authority
Persons in authority (Art 152)
1. Any person directly vested with
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or
as a member of some court or
government-owned and controlled
corporation, board or commission
2. A barangay captain and a barangay
chairman
3. Teachers, professors, or persons charged
with the supervision of public or duly
recognized private schools, colleges or
institutions
4. Lawyers while engaged in their
professional duties or while in the act of
their professional duties
Agent of a person in authority (Art 152(2))
➢ A person who, by direct provision of law,
by election or by appointment by
competent authority, is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and
property (e.g. police officer, councilors).
Likewise, it is stated that any person who
comes to the aid of a person in authority
is deemed an agent of person in
authority.
3. The third element provides that at the time of the
assault, the person in authority is engaged in the
performance of his official duties or the attack was
on occasion of such performance of official duty.
➢ Direct assault can be committed whether the
public officer or employee.
➢ Direct assault can be committed whether the
public officer or agent of a person in authority
is in the engaged in the performance of his
official duties or on occasion of such
performance.
➢ If a person in authority or his agent is
engaged in the performance of his official
duty at the time of the assault, regardless of
the motive of the offender, direct assault will
always arise. Whether there is a personal
vendetta, whether it is a public reason or
whatever reason, there is always direct
assault. There is defiance of authority because
the person in authority or his agent is actually
engaged in the performance of official duty
➢ But if the person in authority or his agent is
not engaged in the performance of his official
duty at the time of the assault, motive on the
part of offender becomes material. You have
30 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
to determine the motive on the part of the
offender. If the motive on the part of the
offender is a personal vendetta, the crime
committed is murder, homicide, serious
physical injuries or less serious physical
injuries, as the case may be. But if the motive
is by reason of the authorities’ past
performance of his official duty, the crime
committed is still direct assault.
➢ The phrase “on occasion of such
performance” means that the said assault was
by reason of the past performance of official
duty. So “on occasion” means it is by reason
of the past performance of official duty.
4. The fourth element provides that the offender
knows him to be a person in authority or an agent
of a person in authority. So it is that the offender
knows him to be a person in authority because
otherwise, he cannot be said that he defied the
law, he defied the authority. In the first place, he
didn’t know that the person he is attacking is a
person in authority or an agent of a person in
authority.
5. The fifth element requires that there be no public
uprising.
QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
There are three circumstances which will qualify direct
assault:
1. When the assault is committed by means of a
weapon;
➢ WEAPON - firearms, knives or any other
items which will inflict injury.
2. When the offender is a public officer or employee;
➢ So when a public officer or employee attacks
a person in authority, it is always qualified
direct assault.
3. When the offender lays hands upon a person in
authority
➢ Will only lie if the laying of hands is upon a
person in authority.
Any of these three circumstances will qualify direct assault.
NOTE: The first two qualifying circumstance affects both a
person in authority or agent of a person in authority.
However, the third qualifying circumstance (laying hands
upon a person in authority) will only lie if the offended
party is a person in authority. Mere laying of hands to an
agent of person in authority is not qualified. It will only
qualify if the laying of hands is upon a person in authority.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
COMPLEX CRIME OF DIRECT ASSAULT:
➢ Whenever the crime of direct assault is committed,
and there is a resulting felony (e.g. death, physical
injuries), you always complex it.
➢ Under Article 48, you should always complex it
because from a single act, two or more grave or less
grave felonies had resulted. Under Article 48, Book I,
you have to complex it. So it could be:
o Direct assault with Murder
o Direct assault with Homicide
o Direct assault with Serious Physical Injuries
o Direct assault with Less Serious Physical
Injuries
 But if the resulting felony is only SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES, you cannot complex it. It is
prohibited under Article 48 because:
1. It is only a light felony. Under Article 48,
you can only complex two or more grave or
less grave felonies but not a light felony.
2. Slight physical injury or light felony is
already absorbed in direct assault
because whenever you assault somebody,
definitely, somehow, any injury would happen
to him. That is why it is already absorbed in
direct assault.
Q: What if the city mayor attended the flag ceremony. It
was a mandate. So there was this flag ceremony attended by
the city mayor. After the flag ceremony, the mayor went to
the platform and was making an announcement to the city
hall employees. Suddenly here comes X. X went near the
mayor and shot the mayor on the head. The mayor died.
What crime is committed by X?
A: QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT WITH
MURDER. The city mayor was engaged in the
performance of his official duty at the time of the
assault therefore it is direct assault. Because the city
mayor was engaged in the performance of his official
duty regardless of the motive of X, even if it is by
mayor’s past performance of official duty or by reason
of personal vendetta, regardless of the motive of X, the
offender, since the mayor is engaged in the
performance of his official duty, it is direct assault.
Now, the mayor died. Therefore there is a resulting
felony of murder because obviously there was
treachery; therefore, it is direct assault with murder.
Now, the offender made use of a weapon, he made use
of a pistol gun, a firearm which is a qualifying
circumstance, therefore, the crime committed is
QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT WITH MURDER.
(EXAM TIP: the corresponding explanation must be
complete—what is the qualifying circumstance, what is
direct assault, what is a complex crime)
31 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
Q: What if the city mayor has just attended a Sunday mass.
He and his wife and children were getting out of the church
when suddenly here comes X. X, onboard the motorcycle
went straight to the city mayor and fired at the head of the
city mayor. The city mayor died. It was found that X was a
former employee of the city hall, who was dismissed by the
city mayor because he engaged in an anomalous
transaction. What crime is committed by X?
A: QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT WITH
MURDER. The city mayor was not engaged in the
performance of his official duty. Since the city mayor
was not engaged in the performance of his official duty,
he is a person in authority; you have to know the
reason, the motive of the offender. The offender was a
city hall employee who was dismissed by the city
mayor, therefore the motive was by reason of the past
performance of the said person in authority. So it is by
reason of the past performance of his official duty, the
attack, the firing was done on occasion of such
performance of official duty therefore the crime
committed is direct assault. The mayor died.
Obviously there was treachery therefore it is direct
assault with murder. The offender made use of a
firearm, which is a qualifying circumstance in direct
assault therefore it is QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
WITH MURDER.
Q: What if in the same problem, here comes X, the mayor
was coming out of the church, X shot the city mayor. Now X
happened to be a former gardener who was dismissed from
the service of the household because he performed a
wrongful act while gardening. Therefore his reason was a
personal vendetta. What crime is committed by X?
A: X committed a crime of MURDER. Obviously,
there was treachery on the part of X.
It is not direct assault because the mayor was not
engaged in the performance of his official duty and the
reason behind the assault was personal vendetta.
Therefore it cannot be said that the attack was on
occasion of such performance of official duty.
Q: What if the judge has just rendered judgment. After
rendering the judgment, after finding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, the accused got mad. He jumped
on the judge and he boxed the judge several times. The
court interpreter, the person nearest to the judge, came to
the aid of the judge. This angered the accused. The accused
got mad at the court interpreter and he boxed the court
interpreter as well. Thereafter the security guards arrived
and took away the said accused. The judge suffered serious
physical injuries whereas the court interpreter suffered
slight physical injuries. What crime or crimes is/are
committed by the accused, first against the judge, and
second against the court interpreter?
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
A: As against the judge, the accused is liable of
the crime of QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES. The
judge is a person in authority under Article 152. He
was engaged in the performance of his official duty at
the time of the assault therefore the crime committed
is direct assault. It has a resulting felony, serious
physical injuries; therefore it should be direct assault
with serious physical injuries. The accused in boxing
the judge, laid hands upon a person in authority
therefore it is QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT WITH
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES.
As against the court interpreter, the accused is
liable of the crime of DIRECT ASSAULT. At the
time the court interpreter came to the aid of a person
in authority, who was the victim of direct assault. Note
under Article 152, any person who comes to the aid of a
person in authority is deemed an agent of a person in
authority therefore, when the court interpreter came to
the aid of the said judge, who was a person in
authority, he became an agent of a person in authority.
And under Article 148, any attack on an agent of a
person in authority is direct assault. Therefore the
crime committed is direct assault. The said interpreter
suffered slight physical injury. You cannot complex it
because it is only a light felony. Therefore it is only
direct assault not complex. The said accused laid hands
upon the court interpreter, would you qualify it? No,
because he is mere agent of person in authority.
Therefore the crime committed is only direct assault.
ARTICLE 149 – INDIRECT ASSAULT
➢ Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct
assault is also committed
ELEMENTS:
1. An AGENT of a person in authority is the victim of
any of the forms of direct assault defined in Article
148.
2. A person comes to the aid of such agent
3. Offender makes use of force or intimidation upon
such person coming to the aid of the agent.
Q: What if a police officer was manning the traffic and it
was a heavy traffic so the vehicles were stuck. What if one
of the owners of the vehicles got mad at the police officer
and he went straight to the police officer, who at the time
has no pistol, and boxed the police officer. While he was
boxing a police officer, a pedestrian saw the incident. The
pedestrian came to the aid of the police officer. This
angered the owner of the vehicle so he, too, boxed the said
pedestrian. The said pedestrian suffered slight physical
injuries while the police officer suffered less serious
physical injuries. What crime or crimes is/are committed
by the said owner of the vehicle against:
a. The police officer
32 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
b. The pedestrian?
A: a. AS AGAINST THE POLICE OFFICER,
DIRECT ASSAULT WITH LESS SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURIES. The said owner of the
vehicle boxed the said police officer. The police officer
is an agent of a person in authority under Article 152
because he was charged with the maintenance of public
order. The police officer is in the actual performance of
his official duty at the time of the assault therefore the
crime committed is direct assault. There is also a
resulting felony which is less serious physical injuries,
a less grave felony; therefore we have to complex it,
direct assault with less serious physical injuries. The
offender laid hands upon the police officer, however,
laying of hands will not qualify because he is a mere
agent of person in authority; therefore the crime
committed against the police officer is direct assault
with less serious physical injuries.
(NOTE: an MMDA officer is also an agent of a person
in authority because he is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and
security of life and property)
b. AS AGAINST THE PEDESTRIAN, INDIRECT
ASSAULT under Art 149. An agent of a person in
authority was the victim of direct assault. A person
came to his aid who is the pedestrian. When the
pedestrian came to the aid of this agent of person in
authority, he did not become an agent of a person in
authority under Art 152 because under Art 152, a
person would only become an agent of a person in
authority if he came to the aid of a person in authority.
Here, the pedestrian merely came to the aid of an agent
of a person in authority who is the police officer.
Therefore, when the pedestrian came to the aid of the
police officer, he did not become also an agent of a
person in authority; as such, the crime committed is
INDIRECT ASSAULT. When the pedestrian came to
the aid of the police officer, force and intimidation
were employed against him so the crime committed by
the owner of the vehicle against the pedestrian is
indirect assault.
 Are you going to complex it to the crime of
slight physical injuries?
➢ No, because it is absorbed and it is only
a light felony.
Under Article 149, INDIRECT ASSAULT is committed
if a person in authority or an agent of a person in
authority is the victim of direct assault. Any person
who came to his aid and that person was employed with
force or intimidation by the offender.
➢ Why is it in the given problem, when the person
under attacked is a person in authority and when
someone came to his aid, and that someone was also
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
attacked, the crime committed is direct assault
against that someone. But when the victim of direct
assault is a mere agent of a person in authority, and
someone came to his aid, and that someone was also
attacked, the crime is indirect assault.
➢ The reason is that the Congress amended Article
152 without correspondingly amending Article
149.
➢ Based on the amendment made by Congress in
Article 152, it is stated that any person who
comes to the aid of a person in authority is
deemed an agent of person in authority. And if
an agent of a person in authority is attacked,
such attack is under Article 148 which is direct
assault and not indirect assault under Article
149.
➢ But if the victim of the said direct assault is a
mere agent of a person in authority, and
someone who comes to his aid will not become
an agent of a person in authority; therefore
when he is also attacked, it will only be indirect
assault under Article 149.
 In Statcon, when there are two provisions which are
contrary, you reconcile. So to reconcile, Article 149 or
indirect assault will only apply if the victim of direct
assault is a mere agent of person in authority and
someone came to his aid, and that someone was also
employed with force and intimidation.
ARTICLE 150 – DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS
ISSUED BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, ITS
COMMITTEES OR SUBCOMMITTTES, BY THE
CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSIONS, ITS
COMMITTEES, SUBCOMITTEES OR DIVISIONS
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey summons
issued by the Congress or any of its extensions or any
of its standing committees or subcommittees, by the
Constitutional Commissions, its committees,
subcommittees or any other body which has the power
to issue summons.
➢ Under the first act, for the crime to arise, it is
necessary that the offender’s refusal to obey the
summons is without any legal excuse. If there is
a valid reason, a legal excuse, why the offender
didn’t attend the said committee hearing of the
congress or why he failed to comply with the
said summons or any of the acts under Art. 150,
the crime will not arise.
II. By refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation
while being before such legislative or constitutional
body or official.
➢ The public official or the person was required to
appear in the said meeting and obey the
summons, however, the moment he appeared in
33 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
the said meeting, he does not want to be sworn
to and he refused to be placed under affirmation
before such legislative or constitutional body,
Art. 150 is still violated.
III. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce
any books, papers, documents, or records in his
possession, when required by them to do so in the
exercise of their functions.
➢ If, however, the reason for not answering or not
producing the books is that if he answers or
produces book, he will incriminate himself in
the commission of the crime, then he has the
right not to answer and not to produce the
books.
IV. By refusing another from attending as a witness in
such legislative or constitutional body.
➢ Under the fourth act punished, the said offender
did not fail to attend in the summons; he
restrained another from attending as a witness.
He prevented another person in attending as a
witness in such legislative or constitutional body
hearing.
V. By inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to
be sworn by any such body or official.
➢ NOTE that Congress where it be the House of
Representatives or the Senate has the power to
issue summons because they have the power to
investigate that is inquiry in aid of legislation.
Whatever be the findings in the said
investigating body, it will be used in the making
of a bill, a proposal. NOTE that they don’t have
the power to file a case so whatever be the
product of their investigation, they will give it
either to the Ombudsman or to the DOJ. It is up
to the DOJ or to the Ombudsman to file a case
because the purpose of the Senate or the HOR is
only inquiry in aid of legislation.
Q: What if there is this committee hearing, an investigation
about anomalous transactions entered into by a former
officials of the DENR. While the said official received the
summons, he failed to appear because he was at St. Lukes.
He was confined because he was suffering from
hypertension. Can he be held liable under Art. 150?
A: He cannot be held liable because he has a legal
excuse not to attend or to obey the summons issued by
the Congress. The moment that there is a legal excuse,
the crime will not arise BUT if his measure is without
any legal excuse NOTE that aside from violation of Art.
150, he can also be held liable or cited for contempt by
the said committee of Congress and usually when cited
for contempt, he is placed in detention in the Senate
Blue Ribbon Committee.
Q: He obeyed the summons, he appeared, he allowed
himself to be sworn in however, the moment that the
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Senators asked him questions, and he refused to answer the
questions. He said: I invoke my right against self-
incrimination. When he was solely required to produce the
books which were confirmed to be in his possession; He
didn’t want to produce the said books because according to
him, the production of these books would incriminate
himself. Can he be held liable under Art. 150?
A: He cannot. If the answer to any of the questions or
if the conduction of the same will incriminate the
person in the said crime; he has the right not to do so.
Under the Constitution, No person can be compelled to
be a witness against himself and asking him, requiring
him, ordering him to produce the books or to answer
any questions which would incriminate himself is akin
to making him a witness against himself and it is
unconstitutional.
ARTICLE 151 – RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE
TO A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENTS
OF SUCH PERSON
TWO ACTS:
I. RESISTANCE AND SERIOUS DISOBEDIENCE (PAR 1)
ELEMENTS:
1. The person in authority or his agent
a. is engaged in the performance of official
duty; or
b. gives a lawful order to the offender
2. Offender resists or seriously disobeys such
person in authority or his agent
3. That such resistance or disobedience will not
amount to
a. direct assault (Art 148),
b. indirect assault (Art 149); or
c. disobedience to summons issued by
Congress
II. SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE (PAR 2)
ELEMENTS:
1. An AGENT of a person in authority
a. is engaged in the performance of official
duty; or
b. gives a lawful order to the offender
2. The offender disobeys such order of the agent
3. Such disobedience is not serious in nature
Q: What if the mayor has a project, a cleaning act operation
in order to prevent dengue. So they were cleaning up the
canals. While the mayor was cleaning up the canals
together with other city hall employees, here comes Mang
Pedro who had taken beer and was a little tipsy. So the went
there and was shouting and making noise, disturbing the
people who were busy cleaning up the canals. And so the
police officer cleaning told Mang Pedro to go home because
he was disturbing the cleaning up operation. Mang Pedro,
instead of going home, merely sat nearby the canal being
34 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
cleaned by the people. What crime, if any, did Mang Pedro
commit?
A: Mang Pedro committed SIMPLE
DISOBEDIENCE UNDER ARTICLE 151 par 2.
Article 151, second paragraph, simple disobedience is
committed when an agent of a person in authority is
engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a
lawful order to the offender, that the offender disobeys
and such disobedience is not of serious nature. In the
problem, it was the police officer, an agent of a person
in authority, who gave the order to Mang Pedro and
Mang Pedro disobeyed him but such disobedience was
not serious in nature because he merely sat nearby the
canal; therefore there was no showing that such
disobedience is serious in nature so the crime
committed is simple disobedience.
Q: Is there direct assault with robbery? Let’s say that the
city mayor was assaulted and thereafter he took the watch
of the mayor.
A: No, there is no such crime. The crime
committed is not direct assault with robbery. It is
already robbery with any resulting felony, if there is
one.
➢ What if the original motive was to assault the city
mayor?
➢ If the original motive is to assault the city
mayor and not to commit robbery, but the
offender took the watch, there will be two
crimes because the offender already
performed two acts.
➢ If there are two separate and distinct crimes,
there shall be two information that will be
filed to the court. If it is a complex crime, only
one information is filed before the court.
➢ If the intention is to rob, and in the occasion of
the said robbery, homicide, serious physical
injuries, rape, intentional mutilation, arson
was committed, the crime committed under
Article 294 is robbery with homicide, robbery
with intentional mutilation, robbery with
rape, robbery with arson or robbery with
serious physical injuries.
➢ If the original intention was to assault the city
mayor and thereafter he committed robbery,
there will be two acts. Because his intention
was to assault and thereafter he committed
the second act of taking away the personal
property of the city mayor.
➢ In case of DIRECT ASSAULT WITH MURDER
or HOMICIDE, it is considered a complex
crime under Article 48 because based on the
single act performed, two or more grave or
less grave offense was committed. Because
with the single act of boxing, the offender
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
committed direct assault and serious/less
serious physical injuries.
ARTICLE 152 – PERSONS IN AUTHORITHY AND
AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
Q: Who are persons in authority?
A: The following are the persons in authority:
1. Municipal Mayors
2. Division Superintendent of schools
3. Public and private school teachers
4. Teacher-nurse
5. President of the sanitary division
6. Provincial Fiscal
7. Judges
8. Lawyers in actual performance of duties
9. Sangguniang Bayan member
10. Barangay Chairman
Q: Who is an agent of a person in authority?
A: Those who are in charged with:
▪ The maintenance of public order; and
▪ The protection and security of life and property
ARTICLE 153 – TUMULTS AND OTHER
DISTURBANCES
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Causing any serious disturbances in a public place,
office or establishment;
➢ For the said disturbance to be considered as a
violation of Art 153; it is necessary that the said
offender deliberately intended to disturb the
said meeting or public place. It was a planned
intentional act.
II. Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions or
gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not
included in Arts. 131 and 132;
➢ There is a qualification – that the interruption
or disturbance of public gatherings, functions,
and peaceful meetings must not fall as a
violation under Art 131 (Prohibition,
interruption, or dissolution of peaceful
meetings) or Art 132 (Interruption of religious
worship).
III. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or
sedition in any meeting, association, or public place.
IV. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a
disturbance of public order in such place;
➢ The third and fourth acts, whether this making of an
outcry or the displaying of placards or emblems, it is
necessary that such act of displaying placards or
emblems must be an unconscious outburst of emotion.
It must not be intentionally calculated to incite people
to rebel or to commit sedition because otherwise, the
35 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
crime would be inciting to rebellion or inciting to
sedition.
V. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been
legally executed.
➢ When you say legally executed; it means that the
said person has committed a heinous crime. The
penalty prescribed by law is death and so he was
killed by means of lethal injection but at present
because of Republic Act No. 9346, we have no
more death penalty. Death Penalty is prohibited
to be imposed.
➢ But in burying with pomp the body of the
person who has been legally executed; the said
person must be legally executed because the
said person has committed a heinous crime yet
when he was buried he was buried with such
extravagance as if as he is a hero, as if as the
government has committed a crime in legally
executing him therefore it causes sympathy
arising on the part of the people hence, it was a
disturbance of public order.
WHEN TUMULTUOUS:
➢ If any of these prohibited acts constituting violation
of Art 153 is committed by more than 3 persons who
are provided with arms or any means of violence it is
said to be tumultuous in nature therefore there must
be at least four persons who are armed or provided
with means of violence for it to be considered as
tumultuous.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ARTICLES 153, 131, & 132
Article 153 – tumults and other disturbances of public
order
Article 131 – prohibition, interruption and dissolution of
peaceful meetings
Article 132 – interrupting of religious worship
➢ Articles 131 and 132 can only be committed by a
Public Officer. It cannot be committed by a private
individual whereas under Art 153, it can be
committed both by a Public Officer and a private
individual.
 What if the offender is a public officer and he disturbs
a peaceful meeting. How would you distinguish if it is a
violation of Art 153 or a violation of Art 131 or 132?
➢ First, PARTICIPATION: in Art 131 or 132, the
public officer must not be a participant in the
meeting that he disturbed or interrupted. He must
be an outsider, a stranger in the said meeting.
On the other hand, in Art 153, the said Public
Officer must be a participant, one in attendance
in the said meeting.
➢ Second, PURPOSE: in Art 131, the
mere intention of the public officer is
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
to prevent a person from freely
exercising his freedom of speech and
expression whereas in Art 153, the
intention of the offender is to disturb
public peace and tranquility.
Q: What if since RH Bill was enacted into law, there was a
huge rally at the EDSA Shrine which was initiated by the
members of the CBCP. They were against this law and they
encouraged the people to file a case before the Supreme
Court questioning the constitutionality of the said law. At
first, the head of the CBCP spoke then after him another
person, a private individual spoke, the head of the
organization spoke and he kept on attacking and attacking
the President. He said that the President bribed the
members of the Congress in order to pass this bill so he
kept on attacking and attacking the President. One of the
police officers, who was assigned to maintain the peace and
order in the place, heard the attacks against the President.
This Police Officer was indebted to the President he owed
his position to the President. He went straight to the person
talking against the President and told him to stop. When he
didn’t stop, the Police Officer fired shots in the air and the
people scampered away and the peaceful
meeting/gathering was dissolved/ interrupted. What crime
was committed by the Police Officer?
A: The crime committed by the Police Officer is
not Art 153 but Art 131.Because the distinctions lie
in this case. First, the said Public Officer, a Police
Officer is not a participant in the said meeting. He is a
stranger, an outsider in the said meeting. Second, his
only purpose is to prevent the said person in freely
exercising his freedom of speech and expression, it is
his right to express his anger against the President yet
the said person prevented him in exercising such
freedom of Speech and expression therefore the Police
Officer is liable under Art 131 and not under Art 153.
For him to be liable under Art 153, let’s say that he is a
public officer, he is a participant in the said meeting
and while participating in the said meeting, he
interrupted the said meeting in order for him to cause
a disturbance of the said meeting. The crime is Art 153.
Q: There was this peaceful gathering, let’s say a public
meeting, a peaceful meeting about the increase of fares of
the MRT and the LRT. One of the participants therein, one
of the persons therein went to the platform and took the
mic and then he incite the people, induced the people to go
to the streets, uprise, rebel against the government, to
overthrow the government. What crime was committed?
A: The crime committed was inciting to
rebellion.
Q: What if, he was among the participants. The head of the
meeting, the Public Officer was discussing about the
increase of fares of the MRT and LRT. This person could no
36 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
longer control his emotions. Suddenly he stood up and he
said: “buwisit na gobyerno na ito naiinis na ako. Dapat na
tayong mag-rebel sa gobyerno walang ginawa kundi
increase ng taxes”. They go and rebel against the
government. What crime was committed?
A: Tumults and other disturbances of public
order. It is just an unconscious outburst of emotions
not an intentionally calculated to incite people to rebel
against the government.
ARTICLE 154 – UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF
PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCES
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. By publishing or causing to be published by means of
printing lithography or any other means of publication,
as news any false news which may endanger the public
order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the
State.
➢ The offender knew that the news that he will
publish is a false one and despite such
knowledge, he published the same if the news
would endanger public order or cause damage
to the interest or credit of the state.
II. By encouraging disobedience to the law or to the
constituted authorities or by praising, justifying or
extolling any act punished by law, by the same means
or by words, utterances or speeches.
III. By maliciously publishing or causing to be published
any official resolution or document without proper
authority, or before they have been published officially.
➢ NOTE that in the third act there is the word
Malicious. The offender must maliciously
publish or cause to be published any official
resolution. If the publication of the official
resolution without official authority or the
publication was not done maliciously, there was
no intent to cause damage, it was not done
maliciously, Art 154 is not violated. It is
necessary that the said publication must be
done maliciously under the third act.
IV. By printing, publishing, or distributing (or causing the
same) books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which
do not bear the real printer’s name or which are
classified as anonymous.
➢ It is necessary that any publication has
contained the real printer’s name. It must have
been anonymous. The publisher, the printer, the
author, must be stated even at the bottom.
Q: What if the Philippine Daily Inquirer has as its headline:
“KC Concepcion said Piolo Pascual is gay.” So that is the
headline of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. It was posted. KC
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
never categorically stated that Piolo is gay, she only
impliedly stated it but she never categorically stated it. So
the Daily Inquirer published a false news and PioloPascual
filed a case in violation of Art 154 against the Philippine
Daily Inquirer. The Philippine Daily Inquirer knew that it is
a false news yet they still published it as news.
A: Art. 154 is not violated because whether or not
Piolo is gay it will not endanger public order. It will not
cause damage to the credit or interest of the state.
Q: What if the headline of the Philippine Daily Inquirer
said: “Tomorrow, Megamall will be bombed from a very
reliable source.” That was the headline of the Philippine
Daily Inquirer. The Philippine Daily Inquirer later on
learned that it was false nevertheless; since it was already
there they still published it and distributed it. Can they be
held liable under Art 154?
A: Yes because the said news will endanger
public order. It can cause damage to the credit or
interest of the state. Imagine Megamall will be
bombed, no person will go to the said place, tourists
will not go to the said place therefore it will endanger
public order and can cause damage to the interest of
the state when the said newspaper published it despite
knowing that it was false news. Art 154 is violated.
Q: What if members of the CBCP, they are against the RH
Law. They made leaflets, pamphlets and distributed it to all
persons in the church, in market.. Therein is stated: Anyone
who would obey or comply with the RH Bill which is a
Catholic will be ex-communicated. Can they be held liable
of Art 154?
A: Yes because they encouraged disobedience
to the law. It has been enacted into law and by
encouraging the people that they would be ex-
communicated if you will obey it, then you can be held
liable for unlawful use of means of publication.
Q: A new law had been enacted by Congress and signed by
the President. A non-governmental organization was
against such law. The members prepared leaflets and
pamphlets that encourage the people to disobey the law.
The members of the NGO went to public places – outside
the churches, in public parks, markets and would distribute
these leaflets to the people. The members of NGO were
arrested. What crime may be filed against them? Is it
inciting to sedition or unlawful use of means of
publication?
A: Unlawful use of means of publication, under
Article 154 second act (by encouraging
disobedience to the law or the constituted authorities).
When they distributed these pamphlets or leaflets, they
encourage disobedience to the law. It is not inciting to
sedition because they did not encourage the people to
uprise publicly.
37 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
ARTICLE 155 – ALARMS AND SCANDALS
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other
explosives within any town or public place calculated
to cause (which produces) alarm or danger.
Discharging of firearms may result to different
crimes depending on the intent of the offender.
1. If a firearm is discharged in a public place
intending to cause alarm and danger –
Violation of Article 155 or Alarms and
Scandals
2. If the firearm is discharged in a public place
with the intention to kill a person even if the
person is not hit – Attempted homicide
3. If the discharge of the firearm is aimed at a
particular person but there is no intent to kill
– Violation of Article 254 or Discharge of
Firearms
II. Instigating or taking an active part in any charivari or
other disorderly meeting offensive to another or
prejudicial to public tranquility.
Charivari includes a medley of discordant voices,
a mock serenade of discordant noises (not music
but noises) made on kettles, tins, horns, etc.
designed to annoy and insult.
III. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at
night or while engaged in any other nocturnal
amusement.
IV. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places
while intoxicated or otherwise, provided Art 153 is not
applicable
*Note: As of now, those who are guilty of committing the
crime of Alarms and Scandals may apply for Probation (for
imprisonment of 6 years or below). Those involving crimes
against national security cannot apply.
Q: In a public park, there were so many people. Here comes
X. X went in the middle of the park and fired shots in the
air. The people were so afraid they scampered away. What
crime is committed?
A: Alarms and Scandals under Art 155. His act
can cause damage to public peace and tranquility.
Q: What if in the same problem, in a public park, there
were so many people and here comes X. X saw his enemy Y.
He took out his firearm, aiming his firearm at Y without
any intent to kill because he knew Y would not be killed and
he discharged the firearm. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is illegal discharge of
firearms under Art. 254 RPC.
Q: What if in the same public place, X saw his enemy Y. He
pulled out his firearm with intent to kill, he aimed his
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
firearm at Y, discharged the firearm but Y was not killed.
What crime was committed?
A: Attempted murder or Homicide as the case
may be.
▪ In case of alarms and scandals, the only intention
of the offender is to cause damage to public peace
and tranquility that is to cause alarm and danger.
That is his intention.
▪ In Illegal Discharge of Firearms under Art 1254 his
intention is to threaten the said person or any
other persons. He aimed the firearm and
discharges the firearm pointing at a particular
person absent: intent to kill. There was no intent
to kill, it is illegal discharge of firearm.
But given in the same problem, he knows his
enemy, pointed the firearm at his enemy but with
intent to kill. He discharged the firearm but his
enemy was not killed. It is attempted homicide or
murder as the case may be. Since there is an intent
to kill on the part of the offender even if the victim
was not killed it is still in the attempted stage.
Q: What if in the same problem, it was in a public place, X
went to the said place, he saw his enemy Y. He went near Y,
took out his gun and poked the gun at Y but did not
discharge the said gun. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is other light threats.
NOTE that under other light threats the offender
merely poked the firearm at the victim without
discharging or firing the firearm. If the firearm has
been discharged, 3 crimes may be committed
depending on the intent. It can be alarms and scandals,
illegal discharge of firearms or attempted homicide or
murder as the case may be.
Q: You have a neighbor, it was his birthday. They rented a
videoke and kept on singing along till 12mn. The guests
already left, the birthday celebrant was the only one left, it’s
already 1:30am and he’s still singing at the top of his voice
with the use of the mic. His neighbors cannot sleep because
of his ugly voice. Everyone in the neighborhood could hear
him and cannot sleep. Can he be held liable under Art 155
alarms and scandals?
A: Yes. He can be held liable under alarms and
scandals because his only intention that night is to
cause a disturbance of public peace and order.
Q: Let’s say a person was intoxicated. He was drunk. He
was on his way home. He was singing at the top of his voice.
Is he liable for alarms and scandals?
A: No because it is normal to sing at the top of his
voice.
38 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

Q: What if he saw this lead pipe (tubo) and upon seeing They are only accused, suspects therefore they
this lead pipe, he would bang all the gates that he would are presumed innocent unless and until
pass by. Is he liable for alarms and scandals? proven that they’re guilty of the crime
charged. They are merely detention prisoners.
A: Yes because his acts caused damage to public peace
II. A prisoner that is convicted by final
and tranquility.
judgment is one who has been convicted by
Q: X, the offender, was playing billiards in a billiard hall. the lower court and who did not appeal his
He lost in the game so he became mad. He started saying conviction within the period to perfect an
bad words against all the persons in the hall. There was a appeal then the judgment becomes final and
commotion. The police arrived and arrested him. What case executory. He has to serve the sentence. Or he
may be filed against him, Article 153 or Article 155? has been convicted then he appealed to the
higher court within the period to perfect an
A: Article 155, the last act (by causing any
appeal and the said higher court affirmed the
disturbance or scandal or public places whether
said conviction. The conviction will now
intoxicated or not provided Article 153 is not
become final and executory so he is now a
applicable). X caused a commotion or disturbance in a
prisoner convicted by final judgment.
public billiard hall, a public place. Article 153 will not
Generally, they are those who are serving
apply because it was not a planned disturbance and it
sentence in Muntinlupa.
was not serious in nature. X did not go there in order
to deliberately cause a disturbance. Likewise, the PENALTY IS QUALIFIED:
disturbance causes is not serious in nature and
1. If violence or intimidation has been used in the
therefore the crime committed is the last act of Article
commission of the crime; or
155.
2. Bribery is used in delivering prisoners from jail.
ARTICLE 156 – DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM
Q: Let’s say A is a prisoner convicted by final judgment. He
JAIL
is serving his sentence in Muntinlupa. B his friend visited
ELEMENTS: him. B was a rich man. He planned A’s escape on his
birthday. He did this by talking to the jail warden
1. That there is a person confined in a jail or penal
custodian. B the friend gave the jail warden custodian
establishment.
P500,000.00. He gave bribe to the jail warden custodian to
2. That the offender removes therefrom such persons,
allow A his friend to escape at that night. He also went to
or assisted in the escape of such person.
the guard at the entrance gate of the New Bilibid Prison and
 Who is the offender?
gave the guard P100,000.00, also to allow his friend to
➢ The offender is any person. He can be a private
leave at that night. That night, A escaped and left the penal
individual or a public officer or employee provided
institution. He went to the house of another friend who
that he is not the custodian of the said prisoner
harbored him and concealed him despite the fact that he
because if the offender who helped in the escape of
was an escapee from a penal institution. What are the
the prisoner from jail is the custodian of the said
crimes committed by A (the prisoner), B (the friend), jail
prisoner, the crime is under Article 223 –
warden custodian, the guard of the penal institution, and
Infidelity in the custody of prisoners by
the friend who harbored him?
connivance or consenting with the escape, or
Article 224 – Infidelity in the custody of prisoner A: A is liable of evasion of service of sentence under
by evasion through negligence because of the Art 157. He is a prisoner convicted by final judgment
element of breach of trust and confidence reposed therefore he is liable for evasion of service of sentence.
on him by the government.
Q: What if he is not serving his sentence in Muntinlupa.
 Who is the prisoner being referred to in delivering
Let’s say he is just a detention prisoner. Can he be held
persons from jail? He can either be:
liable for evasion of service of sentence?
I. A detention prisoner is a prisoner who is
behind bars but the case against him is A: No. Evasion of service of sentence can only be
ongoing either because the crime he committed by a prisoner convicted by final judgment.
committed is a non-bailable offense and
▪ In the given problem, A is convicted by final
evidence of guilt is strong or the crime he
judgment therefore A is liable for evasion of
committed is a bailable offense but he does
service of sentence under Art 157.
not have the enough funds to put up the
required bail. The prisoners at the provincial
▪ B the friend is liable under Art 156
jail, city jail, municipal jail, they are merely
Delivering prisoners from jail qualified by
detention prisoners. They are not yet convicts.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 39 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
the giving of bribe therefore his penalty will be
qualified because he gave bribe money inorder to
help in the escape of his friend. He will not be
liable for another crime of corruption of public
official because the giving of bribe is considered
clearly as a qualifying or as an aggravating
circumstance in delivering prisoners from jail.
▪ The jail warden custodian who received the
bribed money and allowed A’s escape is liable
under Art 223 infidelity in the custody of
prisoners. Aside from that, he is also liable
for direct bribery because in case of infidelity in
the custody of prisoners, the giving and receiving
of bribe is not a qualifying or aggravating
circumstance therefore the jail warden custodian
will be liable for 2 crimes; Infidelity in the custody
of prisoners and direct bribery for having received
the bribed money in the amount of P500,000.00.
▪ The guard at the entrance gate of the penal
institution will be liable for delivering
prisoners from jail. He is not the custodian and
he helped in the escape/removal of the prisoner
from jail. Therefore, he is liable for delivering
prisoners from jail. The fact that he received
bribed money will not make him liable of direct
bribery because in delivering prisoners from jail, it
is only a qualifying circumstance which will only
increase the imposable penalty.
▪ The friend who harbored and concealed him
will be liable under PD 1829 that is
obstruction of justice. It is committed by any
person who willfully or deliberately obstructs or
impedes the investigation or the apprehension of a
criminal.
 Why not an accessory?
o Because I did not mention in the problem the
crime committed by the prisoner. For an accessory
to the crime, it is necessary that the crime
committed by the prisoner must be treason,
parricide, murder, attempt to take the life of the
chief executive or is known to be habitually guilty
of some other crime. I did not mention the crime
committed by the prisoner. Therefore, his liability
is under PD 1829 Obstruction of Justice.
ARTICLE 157 – EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a convict by final judgment.
2. That he is serving his sentence which consists in
deprivation of liberty.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
3. That he evades the service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his sentence.
 Who is the offender?
➢ A prisoner convicted by final judgment.
➢ It cannot be committed by a mere detention
prisoner because he has no sentence to evade
because he is not yet convicted. Article 157 will
not apply to him.
PENALTY IS QUALIFIED if such evasion or escape
takes place:
1. By means of unlawful entry
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or
floors;
3. By using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit,
violence or intimidation; or
4. Done through connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution.
Q: You often read in the newspapers, heard over the radios,
watch on TV, 5 prisoners escaped from the Caloocan city
jail, 10 prisoners escaped from Palawan Provincial Jail. Did
they commit evasion of service of sentence?
A: No. These persons did not commit evasion of
service of sentence under art 157 because they are
merely detention prisoners. For evasion of sentence to
arise, the prisoner who has escaped must be a prisoner
convicted by final judgment.
Under Art 157, the said prisoner the said prisoner
must be serving which involves deprivation of
liberty and he escapes during the service of his
sentence by evading the service of sentence.
The law says, it is a prisoner serving his sentence
which involves deprivation of liberty. It is
necessary that the sentence imposed on him must
involve deprivation of liberty either it is behind
bars or he has been convicted of a crime wherein
the penalty is destierro. Even if the penalty
prescribed is destierro, the moment he enters the
place wherein he is prohibited from entering in
the judgment of the court, he also committed
evasion of service of sentence.
▪ Destierro under Art 27; Destierro is also
a penalty which involves deprivation of
liberty although partial not complete
deprivation of liberty because the
offender or the convict is not allowed to
enter a place designated in the judgment
of the court. The moment he enters the
said place, he commits evasion of service
of sentence.
Q: X is a prisoner convicted of a final judgment. Y is a
frequent visitor of X. Because of his frequent visits to X, Y
40 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
has already befriended the custodian of X and as such, the
custodian no longer be strict with Y in bodily searching him
when he visits. One time, Y visited X and the custodian did
not perform bodily search on him. Y was able to get inside
and smuggled two knives – one for X and one for Y. They
pointed the knives at the throat of the custodian and
because of this X was able to escape. What are the crimes
committed by X, Y, and the custodian?
A: X, a prisoner convicted of final judgment is
liable for evasion of service of sentence under
Article 157 qualified by intimidation. He is a
prisoner convicted by final judgment, his sentence
involves deprivation of liberty, and he evaded service
of sentence by escaping during the term of his
sentence. His penalty is qualified by intimidation
because in order to escape, he pointed the knife at the
custodian.
Y is liable for delivering prisoners from jail
under Article 156 qualified by intimidation.
There is a person confined in a penal institution, X. Y
assisted in the escape, he removes X from the penal
institution. Since the said removal was done by
intimidation for pointing a knife at the custodian
therefore the penalty is qualified.
The custodian is liable for infidelity in the
custody of prisoner by evasion through
negligence under Article 224. The custodian was
negligent in his duty. It was his duty to frisk and bodily
search any visitor. Failure to do so would amount to
deliberate non-performance of his duty, not a mere
laxity.
ARTICLE 158 – EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS,
CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER
CALAMITIES
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a convict by final judgment who
is confined in a penal institution.
2. That there is a disorder resulting from –
a. Conflagration
b. Earthquake
c. Explosion
d. Similar catastrophe
e. Mutiny in which he has not participated
3. That the offender evades the service of his sentence
by leaving the penal institution where he is
confined, on the occasion of such disorder or during
the mutiny.
4. That the offender fails to give himself up to the
authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of
a proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing
the passing away of such calamity.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
➢ It is required under Article 158 that the prisoner is
serving his sentence in a penal institution. In Article
157, all the law requires is that the prisoner convicted
of final judgment must be serving a sentence which
involves deprivation of liberty. Therefore, a person
sentenced with Destierro can commit violation of
evasion of service of sentence under Article 157 but not
158 because the law requires that he must be behind
bars.
➢ In this kind of evasion of service of sentence under Art
158, the crime will arise not upon the act of leaving the
penal institution but upon the convict’s failure to
return/to give himself to the proper authorities within
48 hours. That is only when the crime will arise.
Q: X was convicted of final judgment and was serving his
sentence in a penal institution. There was a strong
earthquake. He left the penal institution and stayed at his
mother’s home. After two days, he saw on television the
president announcing the passing away of earthquake.
Despite such knowledge, he did not return. What is the
crime committed?
A: X will be charged of violation of Article 158
or evasion of service of sentence in times of
disorder.
In case of conviction, the penalty that will be
imposed on him will be equivalent to 1/5 of the
remainder of his original sentence but in no case to
exceed six months.
Q: What if there was this earthquake, X was a prisoner
convicted by final judgment. Everything was shaking and
because of the earthquake, X escaped the penal institution.
He went to the house of his mother. That night while
watching the television, he saw the president
announced/declared that the calamity had already
ceased/passed away. Within 48hrs, he returned. What is
the effect on his criminal liability?
A: If the said convict escaped and returned to the
proper authorities within 48hrs, there shall be a credit
or a deduction from his sentence. There is 1/5
deduction/credit from his sentence. Under Art
98 this is special time allowance for loyalty. He was too
loyal to the government that even if he already left the
penal institution he still returned; such kind of loyalty
must be rewarded.
Q: What if 48 hrs had lapsed, still he did not return. What
is the effect of his criminal liability?
A: There will be an additional penalty imposed
on him which is 1/5 on the basis of the remainder of
his sentence but note that it shall not exceed six
months.
41 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
Q: There was this earthquake, everything was shaking. He
just hid under the table. He did not leave the penal
institution. He was so loyal to the government that he did
not even think to leave. Will he be given credit?
A: Yes. RA 10592: based on this amendment, if the
prisoner, in times of disaster or calamity, stayed in the
prison, he did not leave, there is a greater deduction,
he is given 2/5 deduction from the term of his
sentence because he is more loyal because he did not
leave the penal institution despite the disorder or
calamity.
Q: What if the prisoner is a mere detention prisoner? There
was an earthquake and all the detention prisoners in the
city jail left. Two days after leaving, X heard that the
president announced that the earthquake had lapsed. The
President then announced that the prisoners must give
themselves up. X followed. Within 48 hours, he returned.
What is the effect on his criminal liability?
A: Article 98 in relation to Article 158 had already
been amended by RA 10592. Based on this
amendment, if a prisoner undergoing a preventive
imprisonment, left the penal institution in times of
calamities and returned within 48 hours, he will have
the same benefit. 1/5 deduction from the term of his
sentence in case he is convicted.
Q: What if he did not leave? What is the effect?
A: Likewise, by the amendment of RA 10592, such
detention prisoner shall be given a deduction of 2/5
from the term of his sentence in case he is convicted.
 This benefit of Special Allowance for loyalty will apply
not only to a prisoner convicted by final judgment but
also to a mere detention prisoner. They will have the
same deduction. 1/5 if they left and returned. 2/5 if
they did not leave.
 Remember that Article 158 will only apply to a prisoner
convicted by final judgment and not to a detention
prisoner because only the benefit will apply to him.
Insofar as evasion of service of sentence is concerned,
it shall only be applied against a prisoner convicted by
final judgment.
Q: X is merely a detention prisoner in a penal institution.
There was a calamity so he left. But despite the lapse of 48
hours since the proclamation of the president of the passing
away of such calamity, he failed to return. The police found
him two years later and arrested him. Can he be charged
under Article 158?
A: No because he is not yet a prisoner convicted by
final judgment. The benefit only applies but the
violation of Article 158 will not apply.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ARTICLE 159 – EVASION OF SERVICE OF
SENTENCE BY VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL
PARDON
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender was a convict
2. He was granted a conditional pardon by the Chief
Executive
3. He violated any of the conditions of such pardon
TWO KINDS OF PARDON:
1. Absolute Pardon which totally extinguishes the
criminal liability
2. Conditional Pardon which partially extinguishes
criminal liability.
➢ Conditional Pardon is said to only partially
extinguish criminal liability because the said
pardon is subject to strict terms and
conditions. Therefore, there must be an
acceptance in the part of the prisoner granted
pardon. The moment he accepts the
conditional pardon, it means it is incumbent
upon him to comply to all of the strict
conditions. The moment he violates any of the
terms and conditions he commits evasion of
service of sentence because it shows that he
just accepted the conditional pardon so as to
free himself from taking place behind bars.
 Is violation of conditional pardon a substantive
offense or not?
➢ It depends. If you will look at Art 159, there
are 2 situations.
➢ Under Art 159, if the penalty remitted by the
grant of pardon does not exceed 6yrs, the
moment he violates any of the conditional
pardon, there is a new penalty imposed upon
him that is prision correccional minimum 6
months and 1 day to 2 years and 4 months. A
new penalty is imposed on him therefore in
this case, violation of the conditional pardon
is a substantive offense because a new penalty
is imposed on him.
➢ BUT on the second part of Art 159, if the
penalty remitted is more than 6 years; no new
penalty is imposed on him for having violated
the terms of the pardon. He is only required
to serve the remainder of the sentence. In this
case, violation of the conditional pardon is not
a substantive offense because there is no new
penalty imposed for the commission of the
crime.
42 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

ARTICLE 160 – COMMISSION OF ANOTHER

CRIME DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED
FOR ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender was already convicted by final
judgment of one offense.
2. He committed a new felony before beginning to
serve such sentence or while serving the same.

 Who is a quasi-recidivist?
➢ A quasi-recidivist is any person who shall commit
a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment before serving his sentence or while
serving his sentence.

➢ Under Article 160 it is stated that the maximum

penalty prescribed by law shall be imposed therefore it
is a special aggravating circumstance.
➢ Article 160 is a misplaced article because book 2 is
about felonies and Article 160 is a special aggravating
circumstance.

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 43 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
TITLE FOUR
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
(Articles 161 – 189)
ARTICLE 161 – COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT
SEAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE
PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, FORGING THE
SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Forging the Great Seal of the Government of the
Philippines.
II. Forging the signature of the President.
III. Forging the stamp of the President.
➢ Art 161 punishes the person who forges the great seal
of the Philippines, signature of the chief executive and
II.
forging the stamp of the chief executive.
➢ Art 161 is the crime when the person is the one who
committed the forgery, but if the offender is not the
one who forges the great seal, signature but he knows
that the document contain a forge stamp, signature of
III.
the President and despite such knowledge that it was a
forgery he makes use of the same, liability is under 162.
ARTICLE 162 – USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP (Art 162)
ELEMENTS:
1. That the Great Seal of the Republic was
counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the Chief
Executive was forged by another person.
2. That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or
forgery.
3. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature
or stamp.
➢ Art 162 punishes the person who, despite knowledge of
the forged signature, stamp, or great seal of the
Republic of the Philippines still he makes use of the
same document.
Q: In an official document, the signature of the President
was forged by A then it was given to B. B knew that it was a
forgery nevertheless he made use of the same. What crime
was committed?
A: A committed a crime under 161. And B
committed a crime under 162.
II.
ARTICLE 163 – MAKING AND IMPORTING AND
UTTERING FALSE COINS
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be false or counterfeited coins
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
2. That the offender either made, imported or uttered
such coins.
3. That in case of uttering such false or counterfeited
coins, he connived with the counterfeiters or
importers
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
I. Counterfeiting (imitation of false coins) is
committed by any person who shall imitate a genuine
and authentic coin making it appear that it is a true,
genuine, and authentic coin. The offender copies the
peculiar design of the coin and makes a spurious one
out of it.
• The coins which may be the subject of
counterfeiting may be any coin so long as it is
authentic and genuine. It can be a coin of present
circulation, a vintage coin, a coin of foreign
currency.
Importing false coins is committed by any person
who shall bring into the Philippine ports any false and
counterfeited coins. It is not necessary for the offender
to be liable that he shall circulate the false coins
because there is a third act of uttering false coins.
Uttering false coins is committed by any person
who shall circulate, give away to another, pass from
one person to another any counterfeited or false coins.
Q: A is in possession of a coin which was of legal tender
during the time of Marcos in 1972. It was a proven genuine
coin. He copied the said coin and made a spurious one out
of it. Is he liable under Art 163?
A: Yes he is liable for making and importing and
uttering false coins under Article 163.
Q: What if while he was in possession of the said coin; he
took out a part of the metal content of the said coin. Can he
be liable for Mutilation of coins under Art 164?
A: No, he cannot because in Art 164 or mutilation of
coins, it is necessary that the coin subject of mutilation
must be of legal tender. It must be in present currency
because otherwise, it cannot be said that the public has
been deceived.
ARTICLE 164 – MUTILATION OF COINS
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further
requirement that there be intent to damage or to
defraud another.
Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with the
further requirement that there must be connivance
with the mutilator or importer in case of uttering.
Mutilation is the act of taking off a part of the metal
content by filling it or substituting it for another metal of
inferior quality. The offender gathers the metal dust that he
44 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
has taken off from the said coin. While the offender took
out a part of the metal coin, he is in effect diminishing the
intrinsic value of the said coin therefore, anyone who would
be given the said coin would be deceived of the this crime
hence a crime in violation of public interest is committed.
• The crime would only apply if the coin mutilated is
one which is in present circulation or currency. It
II.
does not apply if the coin is an old coin or coin of
foreign currency. This is because if the coin is old
and vintage or of foreign currency, even if a part of
metal was scrapped off, the public will not be
deceived because it is not used as a medium of
exchange.
Q: There were 3 children/adults. They were playing kara-
krus. So they toss the coin, however before doing that, they
would scratch the coin on the steel therefore the metal
content of the coin is diminished. Can they be held liable
under Art 164?
A: No. because there was no intent to gather the metal
dust of the said coin.
 Can they be held liable of any crime?
➢ Yes. They can be held liable under PD
247
➢ PD 247 punishes any person who willfully or
knowingly defaces, mutilates, tears, burns or destroys
any currency notes or coins issued by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas.
➢ In case of violation of PD 247 it is not required that
there is intent to mutilate on the part of the offender. It
is not required that the offender has the intent to
gather the metal dust of the coin although these are
required under Art 164.
Q: In a P 1000.00 bill, a person put his cell phone no. on it.
Is he liable under PD 247?
A: Yes he is liable under PD 247.
➢ But PD 247 is akin to a dead law because no one has
been prosecuted by it.
ARTICLE 165 – SELLING OF FALSE OR
MUTILATED COIN, WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by
another person, with intent to utter the same, knowing
that it is false or mutilated.
ELEMENTS:
1. Possession,
2. With intent to utter, and
3. Knowledge
➢ Under the first act, the offender is in
possession of the false, mutilated,
counterfeited coin. It is another person who
counterfeited the coin. The offender is only in
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
possession of it but in order for him to be held
liable; he must have the knowledge that the
coin is counterfeited or mutilated and despite
having such knowledge; he has the intent to
utter, circulate, pass away, to give away to
another the said coin. Possession includes
actual and constructive possession.
Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin knowing
the same to be false or mutilated.
ELEMENTS:
1. Actually uttering, and
2. Knowledge.
➢ In the second act it is the act of actually
circulating or uttering the counterfeited coin
despite knowledge that it is counterfeited or
mutilated.
Q: What if A is under surveillance, reports came to the
police that he had been circulating false coins. A went to the
bakery store, he bought bread worth P 50.00. He gave the
store owner 5 P 10.00 counterfeited coins. Thereafter, after
giving the counterfeited coins, he immediately left. The
police arrived and A was gone and it was the owner of the
store who is left. The police officer asked the owner of the
store to open the cash bin. There they saw the 5 P 10.00
coins which were counterfeited. They arrested the owner of
the store. Is the owner of the store liable under Art 165?
A: No he is not liable of selling of false coins or
mutilated coins, without connivance under
Article 165. First, he was caught in possession.
 Was there possession?
➢ Yes. The counterfeited coins were found
in his cash drawer. Possession does not
only mean physical or actual possession.
Possession means constructive
possession which means that the
counterfeited or mutilated coins are in
his control and custody. Therefore the
first element of possession is present.
 Was there intent to utter the counterfeited coins
on the part of the said owner?
➢ Yes. The fact that he placed it in the cash
drawer means he can use it to buy
another thing or as a change to the
people who will buy from his bakery
therefore circulation has a way from one
person to another. Therefore the second
element is also present.
 How about the third element of knowledge on his
part the coin was counterfeited?
➢ The third element is absent evidently
based on the facts that the store owner
has no knowledge that the coins are
counterfeited. In fact he gave bread
worth P 50.00. He was also deceived. If
45 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
he had only known that the coins were
counterfeited, he would not have given
bread worth P 50.00.
Therefore, he may not be held liable
because, although he is in possession,
and he has the intent to utter the coins;
he does not have the knowledge that the
said coins were counterfeited.
ARTICLE 166 – FORGING TREASURY OR BANK
NOTES OR OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO
BEARER; IMPORTING, AND UTTERING SUCH
FALSE OR FORGED NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or
other documents payable to bearer.
II. Importation of such false or forged obligations or
notes.
III. Uttering of such false or forged obligations or notes in
connivance with the forgers or importers.
ARTICLE 167 – COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING,
AND UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE
TO BEARER
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be an instrument payable to order or
other document of credit not payable to bearer.
2. That the offender either forged, imported or uttered
such instrument.
3. That in case of uttering, he connived with the forger
or importer.
ARTICLE 168 – ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE
OF FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND
OTHER INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT
ELEMENTS:
1. That any treasury or bank note or certificate or other
obligation and security payable to bearer, or any
instrument payable to order or other document of
credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by
another person.
2. That the offender knows that any of those
instruments is forged or falsified.
3. That he performs any of these acts –
a. Using any of such forged or falsified
instruments; or
b. Possessing with intent to use any of such
forged or falsified instruments.
An instrument is payable to bearer when it can be
transferred by mere delivery.
e.g. Check payable to cash. Whoever is in
possession of the said check can come to the bank.
It can be transferred by mere delivery.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
On the other hand a check is payable to order where it
can be transferred by mere delivery when there is an
endorsement coming from the person named or specified
therein. It is an instrument payable to the order of a specific
person or his order.
e.g. Payable to the order of Charmaine. This
cannot be transferred from one person to another
without an order coming from Charmaine.
ARTICLE 169 – HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED:
1.
By giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned
therein, the appearance of a true and genuine
document.
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering
by any means the figures, letters, words, or sign
contained therein.
➢ If what has been falsified is a coin, you call it
counterfeiting.
➢ If it is the stamp, seal or signature of the President,
you call it forging.
➢ If it is treasury or bank notes, it is considered as
forging.
➢ It is a document, you call it falsification.
FALSIFICATION (ART 170, 171, 172)
➢ In case of FALSIFICATION, to amount to falsification,
it is necessary that the writing that is falsified must be
a document in a legal sense of the word – one
which is capable of making rights and/or extinguishing
an obligation. Therefore, it must be complete in itself
so that it would be sufficient to convey a particular
meaning, it must be susceptible of becoming evidence
of the facts stated therein.
➢ If a person is found is in possession of fake and unfilled
out forms, (e.g. unfilled out forms of driver’s license,
resident certificate, etc) such person cannot be held
liable for falsification. Falsification of mere forms does
not amount to falsification of a public document.
Because the said form is not yet a document in the
legal sense of the word, it is not yet complete in itself –
it has no name, no address – an unfilled-out/up form.
It is not falsification. It is not susceptible for becoming
evidence because there is no fact has been stated. The
crime committed would be Article 176 or possession of
instruments or implements which may be used for
falsification but not yet falsification.
Q: So what if A was found outside the building of the LTO
office. He was carrying falsified unfilled-out/up forms of
driver’s license. It was distinct, it was falsified, it was not
the real driver’s license form. He was arrested by the NBI.
Can he be held liable for falsification of a public document?
A: NO. Because what he is carrying is only an unfilled-
out form. It is not yet complete in itself. It is not yet
46 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
capable of creating rights or extinguishing an
obligation. It is not yet susceptible of evidence of the
facts stated thereon.
Q: So what crime if any was committed by A?
A: A merely committed violation of Article 176 – that is
mere possession of instrument or implements for
falsification, but not yet falsification of a public
document.
Four types of documents which may be falsified:
1. PUBLIC DOCUMENT – a document which is issued
by a notary public or competent public officer with
the solemnities required by law.
2. OFFICIAL DOCUMENT – a document issued by a
public official in the exercise of his official functions.
3. COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT – any document
defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce or
any other mercantile law.
4. PRIVATE DOCUMENT – a document, a deed or
instrument executed by a private person without the
intervention of the notary public of any other person
legally authorized, by which document some
disposition or agreement is proved, evidenced or set
forth.
All official documents are public documents, but
not all public documents are considered official
documents. Before a public document may be considered
as an official document, it is necessary that it shall be issued
by a public officer in the exercise of his official functions. If
there is a law that requires a public officer to issue the said
public document, then it becomes an official document.
A private document may become public or official
document if the said private document is submitted to a
government office and the same shall be released by the
custodian of the said office, it is no longer a private
document but a public document, an official document.
A PRIVATE DOCUMENT, one which has been executed by
a private person, if there is no intervention of public
official. A private document, however, even though
executed by a private person without the intervention of a
notary public or a legally authorized person, can also
become a public document. That is when the said private
document is submitted to the public officer and it becomes
part of the public records. The moment the said private
document becomes part of the public records, it is now a
public document and when it is issued and it is falsified,
what is falsified is a public document and no more a private
document.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
It is necessary to distinguish the kind of document that is
being falsified - whether it is a public, official, commercial
or private because of the different effects.
If what has been falsified is a PUBLIC, OFFICIAL OR
COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT, damage or intent to cause
damage to the offended party or to any other person is not
an element.
On the other hand, if what has been falsified is a PRIVATE
DOCUMENT, for the crime to arise, it is necessary that
there must be damage or at least, intent to cause damage to
the private offended party or to any other party.
If what has been falsified is a PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL
DOCUMENT, it is not necessary that there be damage or
intent to cause damage. Because a public document – an
official document - is presumed authentic and legal. It is
presumed to be “prima facie evidence” of the facts stated
therein. As such, the moment it is falsified, the crime will
immediately arise, without need that there be damage on
the part of the offended party. Because in Falsification of a
Public Document, what has been violated is the
PERVERSION OF TRUTH being solemnly proclaimed by
the said document. Hence DAMAGE IS NOT AN
ELEMENT.
ARTICLE 171 – FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC
OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, NOTARY PUBLIC, OR
ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer, employee, notary
public, or an ecclesiastical minister.
2. He takes advantage of his official position.
➢ The offender is said to have taken advantage
of his position or office when:
a. He has the duty to make or prepare or
to otherwise intervene in the
preparation of the document; or
b. He has the official custody of the
document which he falsifies
3. That the said offender falsifies a document by
committing any of the following modes stated
therein:
a. By counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric.
b. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate.
c. Attributing to persons who have participated
in an act or proceeding statement other than
those in fact made by them
d. Making untruthful statements in a narration
of facts
e. Altering true dates
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a
genuine document which changes its meaning
47 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

g. Issuing in authenticated form a document DIFFERENT ACTS OF FALSIFICATION: (These acts

purporting to be a copy of any original
document when no such original exists or
I.
including in such a copy a statement contrary
to or different from that of the genuine
original
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative
to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry
or official book.
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister,
the act of falsification is committed with respect to
any record or document of such character that the
falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
First element: The offender is a public officer, employee,
notary public or an ecclesiastical minister.
➢ If the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, for him
to be liable under Article 171, it is necessary that
the document that he falsifies must affect the civil
status of a person.
➢ If the document falsified by an ecclesiastical
minister will not affect the civil status of a person,
he is still liable for falsification, but not under Art.
II.
171, rather under Art. 172.
➢ So, a priest falsified the communion certificates of
one of the students/pupils receiving the first
communion, the crime committed is falsification
under Art. 172, not under Art. 171 because a
certificate of communion will not affect the civil
status of the said child.
Second element: He takes advantage of his official
position.
➢ It requires that the offender takes advantage of his
official position.
➢ The offender is said to have taken advantage of his
position or office when:
a. He has the duty to make or prepare or to
otherwise intervene in the preparation of the
document; or
b. He has the official custody of the document
which he falsifies
Third element: That the said offender falsifies a
document by committing any of the following modes stated
therein:
➢ If you will look at Art. 171, it does not state the
kind of document that has been falsified, it may
not be stated because it necessarily follows that
the document falsified is a public or official
document because the offender is public officer or
employee or notary public. Therefore necessarily,
the document being falsified in Art. 171 is a public
official or official document.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
of falsification are also applicable in Art. 172)
BY COUNTERFEITING OR IMITATING ANY
HANDWRITING, SIGNATURE OR RUBRIC.
 So what is COUNTERFEITING?
➢ The offender is said to have counterfeited a
signature, handwriting or rubric if he has
imitated an official handwriting, signature
or rubric.
➢ So there is an original handwriting or
signature and the offender imitiated or
copied the said original handwriting or
signature.
 Is COUNTERFEITING the same as FEIGNING?
➢ Feigning a handwriting, signature or rubric
is NOT THE SAME as counterfeiting. When
you say FEIGNING, it means “simulating” a
handwriting, signature or rubric. That is,
making a handwriting, signature or rubric
out of nothing which does not exist. It is an
imaginable, an inexistent handwriting,
signature or rubric.
CAUSING IT TO APPEAR THAT PERSONS HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN ANY ACT OR PROCEEDING
WHEN THEY DID NOT IN FACT SO PARTICIPATE.
Q: What if a notary public issued, he prepared or issued an
extrajudicial settlement of an estate. In the said
extrajudicial settlement of an estate, it is stated that all the
heirs of a certain decedent can already agree by themselves
to partition the property. So it is an extrajudicial settlement
of an estate and in it, the notary public made it appear that
all the 12 heirs of the decedent had participated, but in
truth and in fact, two of the heirs were in another country
and they did not participate in the execution of this
extrajudicial settlement of the estate. Is the notary public
liable?
A: YES. The notary public is LIABLE under the
second act (causing it to appear that persons
have participated in any act or proceeding
when they did not in fact so participate). He
caused it to appear that A and B participated in the
execution of the extrajudicial settlement of the estate,
when they did not in fact so participate.
Q: A notary public issued a deed of absolute sale allegedly
executed by X in favor of Y selling X a property. In reality,
no such deal was ever executed. What crime is committed
by the Notary Public?
A: Falsification under the Second Act. He issued
in an authenticated form a document purporting to be
a copy of an original deed of absolute sale when in fact
no such original exists.
If the notary public counterfeited the signature of a
party in the said document, the notary public also
48 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
becomes liable under the first paragraph – by
counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature,
or rubric.
III. ATTRIBUTING TO PERSONS WHO HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN AN ACT OR PROCEEDING
STATEMENT OTHER THAN THOSE IN FACT MADE
BY THEM
➢ So under the third act, persons participated in
an act or proceeding, they made statements
therein, however, the offender in a document
may appear that these persons have made
certain statements which were not in fact made
by them.
Q: So what if in the Sangguniang Panglungsod, an
ordinance was being passed. There was a votation, majority
of the councilors voted, two of the councilors dissented and
their vote were NO. They just stated that they were voting
in the negative, but, they did not give any explanation for
their dissent or the vote of NO. However, in the minutes
appeared by the Sangguniang Secretary, the latter made it
appear that the two councilors made statements that they
voted NO because the said ordinance is contrary to law. Is
the said secretary liable for falsification?
A: YES. He is a public officer. He is the one who
prepared the minutes for the SangguniangPanglungsod
and he made it appear that the 2 councilors stated that
the said ordinance is contrary to law and in truth and
fact, they did not made those statements. So the said
secretary is liable for falsification.
IV. MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A
NARRATION OF FACTS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender makes in a document
untruthful statement in a narration of facts;
2. That he has legal obligation to disclose the truth
of the facts narrated by him
3. The facts narrated by the offender are absolutely
false
4. The untruthful narration must be such as to
effect the integrity of the document and that the
offender does so with the intent to injure or
prejudice another person
➢ It is necessary that the intention of the intention
of the offender must be to INJURE ANOTHER
PERSON.
➢ In case of making false statements in a
narration of facts, it is necessary that the
offender must have the legal obligation to
disclose the truth in the said narration of facts.
But the Supreme Court has ruled that if the
document wherein the falsity was stated
happens to be a residence certificate or a
driver’s license, there is no need for a law to
state that only the truth must be stated therein
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
because by the nature of these documents, only
true statements must be stated therein.
➢ Absence of such legal obligation, then it cannot
be said that he is liable for falsification.
➢ When you say legal obligation, there is a law
which requires him to state nothing but the
truth in the said document.
Q: So what if the offender, a public officer, falsified the
statement in his residence certificate or community tax
certificate. Although he stated his true name, he did not
state his address, citizenship, etc. He makes false statement
of facts in his residence certificate or community tax
certificate, otherwise known as cedula. So he was charged
with falsification. He contended that there is no law which
requires him to state the truth in his residence certificate. Is
his contention correct?
A: His contention is wrong. According to a ruling in
the Supreme Court, if it is a residence certificate or
community tax certificate, there need not be a law
which requires a person to state the truth in the said
residence certificate, it is inherent in the kind of
document. Since it is a residence certificate or cedula,
it is inherent that in this document, nothing but the
truth must be stated – no falsity. Because it requires
identification.
V. ALTERING TRUE DATES
➢ It is necessary that what has been altered must
be a true date and in the alteration of the said
true date, the document will no longer have any
effect.
VI. MAKING ANY ALTERATION OR INTERCALATION
IN A GENUINE DOCUMENT WHICH CHANGES ITS
MEANING
TWO ACTS:
i. The offender makes an alteration
ii. The offender makes an intercalation in a
genuine document which changes its meaning
Alteration – changes in a document
Intercalation – there must be some insertion
made in the said document, in a genuine
document that changed the meaning of the said
document
VII. ISSUING IN AUTHENTICATED FORM A
DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO BE A COPY OF ANY
ORIGINAL DOCUMENT WHEN NO SUCH
ORIGINAL EXISTS OR INCLUDING IN SUCH A
COPY A STATEMENT CONTRARY TO OR
DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE GENUINE
ORIGINAL
49 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
TWO ACTS PUNISHED:
1. The offender issued in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be an authenticated
copy of an original document, but no such
original exists.
2. By including such copy a statement contrary to
or different from a genuine original.
Q: What if a notary public issued a deed of absolute sale
and he said that it is an original copy of a deed of absolute
sale between A and B. A selling his property to B, but in
truth and in fact, no such deed of absolute sale was
executed between A and B. Is the notary public liable?
A: YES. He is liable under the first act of falsification in
the seventh act of the 3rd element in Art. 171.
Q: What if a civil registrar issued a certificate of live birth.
So here comes A. A was asking that he should be given a
certified copy of a certificate of live birth. In the said
certificate of live birth issued by the said civil registrar,
there was a statement that A was an illegitimate child, but
in the original copy of the certificate of live birth submitted
to the office of the Office of the Civil Registrar, there was no
such statement. Is the civil registrar liable?
A: YES. He is liable under the second act of
falsification in the seventh act of the 3rd element in Art.
171. Because he included in the said copy a statement
contrary to or different from that of a genuine original.
VIII. INTERCALATING ANY INSTRUMENT OR NOTE
RELATIVE TO THE ISSUANCE THEREOF IN A
PROTOCOL, REGISTRY OR OFFICIAL BOOK.
Intercalation – making any insertion in any
instrument or note
So these acts, under ARTICLE 171, are also the very same
acts punished under Art. 172.
ARTICLE 172 – FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS AND USE OF FALSIFIED
DOCUMENTS
THREE PUNISHABLE ACTS:
I. Falsification of a public, official or commercial
document by a private individual
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a private person or a public officer
acting in his private capacity.
2. Offender commits any act of falsification under
Article 171.
3. It must be done either in a public, official, or
commercial document.
➢ So in case of FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC,
OFFICIAL OR COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT
by a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, is just the same
as ARTICLE 171 – they only differ in that in
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Art. 171, the offender is a public officer or
employee.
➢ In ARTICLE 172, yes, the document falsified
is a public, official or commercial document,
but, the offender is a private individual even
if the offender is a private individual, since
the document falsified is a public, official or
commercial document, DAMAGE OR
INTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGE IS NOT AN
ELEMENT.
II. Falsification of private document by any
person
ELEMENTS:
1. The document falsified is a private one.
2. There is damage or intent to cause damage
3. He commits any of the act of falsification under
Article 171 except paragraph 7 (can be
committed only by a public officer).
➢ The document falsified is a PRIVATE
DOCUMENT. The offender is any person. He
can be a private individual, he can be a private
officer or employee for as long as the document
falsified is a private document, it necessary that
there must be damage caused to a third person
or at least the intention of the offender is to
CAUSE DAMAGE.
➢ Absence of damage or intent to cause damage,
then falsification of a private document will not
arise.
III. Use of falsified document
➢ A document has been falsified and the offender
uses the said document.
➢ If the falsified document is used in a JUDICIAL
PROCEEDING, again, DAMAGE or INTENT TO
CAUSE DAMAGE is NOT AN ELEMENT
because it is a judicial proceeding.
➢ But if the said falsified document is used in any
other transaction, this time, damage or intent to
cause damage is an ELEMENT.
Q: X was applying for a position in the government. So he
submitted a curriculum vitae, clearances from DOJ or
Ombudsman, endorsements. So he attached the clearances.
Upon submitting the same, the reviewing committee found
out that the clearance allegedly issued by the DOJ is
falsified – the letterhead was falsified, the signature was
forged. So X was immediately charged with use of falsified
document under Article 172. Is the charge correct?
A: No. The appropriate charge is Falsification of
Public Document, not use of a falsified document. The
Supreme Court said that a person in possession of a
falsified document is deemed to be the falsifier.
Q: X was charged with falsification of a public document
but during the trial on the merits of the case, it was
discovered that it was not X who falsified the document. X
50 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
only used the same despite knowledge that it is falsified.
Therefore, the crime committed is use of falsified document
but the crime filed in court is falsification of a public
document. So what must be done?
A: Either:
1. The fiscal, upon presentation of the defense
evidence may move for the withdrawal of the
case of falsification and could file a new one –
Use of Falsified Documents to conform; or
2. The trial may proceed and the judge may
order an acquittal because he cannot be
convicted of use when the charge is
falsification since they have different
elements. And if the crime has not yet
prescribed, the public prosecutor may file a
case of use of falsified document. There is no
double jeopardy because falsification and use
of falsified documents have different
elements.
ARTICLE 173 – FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS
TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
I. Uttering fictitious, wireless, telegraph or telephone
message
II. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message
III. Using such falsified message
➢ If the act punished is uttering fictitious, wireless,
telegraph or telephone messages and falsifying
wireless, telegraph or telephone messages, note that
these can only be committed by a person working in a
department, agency or corporation which is engaged
in a business of receiving and sending wireless,
telegraph and telephone messages.
➢ Under the third act – using falsified wireless,
telegraph or telephone messages, this time, it can be
committed by any person.
Articles 174 and 175 refer to the persons who shall
be criminally liable in case of falsified document.
ARTICLE 174 – FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES,
FALSE CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE,
ETC
➢ Under Art. 174, if the offender is a PHYSICIAN OR
SURGEON who issues a false medical certificate in
the practice of his profession, he becomes liable
under Art. 174.
➢ Likewise, Art. 174 punishes a PUBLIC OFFICER
who issues a false certificate of merit, service or
good conduct, moral character, etc.
➢ And, under Art. 174, ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
who falsifies a medical certificate or certificate of
merit or service or good conduct shall be also
criminally liable.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
➢ The offender is the person who falsifies, issues the
false medical certificate or certificate or merit.
➢ If the offender is not the falsifier, but he knows
that the said document is falsified and he makes
use of the same, his liability is under Art. 175.
ARTICLE 175 – USING FALSE CERTIFICATE
➢ Under Art. 175, the offender knows that the
medical certificate or certificate of merit has been
falsified and despite that knowledge, he makes use
of the same.
Q: So what if the defense counsel is about to present his
witness. The witness is a person who was present in the
scene of the crime who actually saw the incident – that is
according to the defense counsel. However, on the date of
the said hearing, the said witness failed to appear, the
defense counsel said to the judge: “Your Honor, my witness
is in the hospital, he cannot even get out of bed. He is very,
very sick.” The judge, however, was doubtful of the said
manifestation of the defense counsel and so the judge told
the defense counsel: “Okay, let him appear in the next
hearing and make sure that he brings with him a medical
certificate to show that indeed he can testify in this hearing.
With that, the defense counsel informed the witness of the
said order of the court. The said witness was in that time,
healthy, it is just that he was too afraid to testify. However,
in the next hearing, he is deemed required to produce a
medical certificate showing that he was bedridden. And so,
he went to his medical doctor. He asked the doctor to issue
a medical certificate saying that he was very, very sick and
that he could not get out of bed on the said date. The said
doctor issued the said medical certificate and then his
witness appeared on the second hearing and presented him
to the court. It was submitted to the records of the court.
What crime or crimes is/are committed by doctor or the
physician as well as by the witness?
A: The PHYSICIAN is liable under Art. 174. He issues a
false medical certificate in the exercise or in the
practice of his profession.
On the other hand, the WITNESS, despite knowledge
that it is a falsified medical certificate, still made use of
the same and he presented and submitted it to the
court.
ARTICLE 176 – MANUFACTURING AND
POSSESSION OF INSTRUMENTS OR
IMPLEMENTS FOR FALSIFICATION
➢ This is the felony that is if a person was found in
possession of unfilled-out forms of driver’s license,
he can be held liable for falsification of a public
document and liable only in Article 176.
51 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps,
dies, marks or other instruments or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification.
2. Possessing with intent to use the instrument or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification made in
or introduced into the Philippines by another person.
ARTICLE 177 – USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Usurpation of authority is committed when a
person knowingly and falsely represents himself
to be an officer or agent of any department of the
Philippine government or agency thereof or of a
foreign government.
➢ The crime will immediately arise from the mere
act of person of knowingly and falsely
representing himself to be an officer or agent of
any department or agency of the Philippines or of
a foreign country. It is not necessary for the
offender to commit any act, to perform any act. It
suffices that he falsely represents himself to be an
officer or agent of the Philippine government. The
crime will immediately arise. However, the said
false representation, aside from being done
knowingly, must be such that he intended to be
known by such other person or by public as a
representative or agent of Philippine government.
II. There is usurpation of official function if any person
performs an act pertaining to a person in authority or
a public officer of the Philippine Government or of a
foreign government or agency thereof, under pretense
of official position, and without being lawfully entitled
to do so.
➢ It is necessary that the offender performs an act.
Mere representation will not suffice. It is I.
necessary that he performs an act pertaining to a
person in authority or a public officer of any
department or agency of the Philippine
government or of a foreign government.
➢ In usurpation of official functions, it is necessary
that the act pertaining to a person in authority or a
public officer must be under pretense of official
position and without being lawfully entitled to do
so. Without false pretense, the crime will not arise.
Q: What if an administrative case was filed against the
mayor before the Office of the Ombudsman. During the
investigation of the case, the Ombudsman preventively
suspended the mayor for a period of six months. The DILG
II.
implemented the suspension order and the vice-mayor was
made the acting mayor. However, upon advice of his
counsel, the suspended mayor began working, began
performing the acts of being a mayor after 90 days of
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
preventive suspension. That is because according to his
counsel, he can only be suspended for a period of 90 days.
So on the 91st day of his suspension, he again began
assuming the function of a mayor. He signed documents, he
issued memorandum, etc. as the city mayor. Is he liable
under Article 177 for usurpation of official function?
A: Yes, he is liable for usurpation of official
function under Article 177. The reason is that he is
still under preventive suspension. Unless and until it is
lifted by the Ombudsman and the said lifting was
implemented by the DILG, he remains to be a
suspended mayor. And for having acted, for having
performing an act pertaining to the office of a mayor,
he is said to be committed a violation of Article 177,
usurpation of official function.
Q: What if there was heavy traffic. So there was no MMDA
officer or policeman manning the traffic. One of the owners
of the vehicle caught in the traffic alighted from the vehicle
and he manned the traffic to ease the flow of the traffic. The
said man performed an act pertaining to an officer of the
MMDA, pertaining to a traffic enforcer. Is the said man
liable for usurpation of official function?
A: NO. While the man performed however he did not
do so under pretense of official position and without
being lawfully entitled to do so. There was no intent on
his part to falsely represent himself as to be in that
position. There was no false pretense of official
position therefore he cannot be held liable under
Article 177 or usurpation of official function because
his act was only done out of pacific (promote peace; to
end a conflict) spirit to help ease the said traffic.
ARTICLE 178 – USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND
CONCEALING TRUE NAME
ACTS PUNISHED:
USING FICTITIOUS NAME
➢ Committed by any person who shall use a
name other than his real name publicly for
concealing a crime, or evade the execution of a
judgment, or to cause damage to public
interest.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender uses a name other than his real
name
2. That he uses that fictitious name publicly
3. That the purpose of the offender is either:
a. to conceal a crime; or
b. to evade execution of a judgment; or
c. to cause damage to public interest.
CONCEALING TRUE NAME
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender conceals—
a. his true name; AND
52 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

b. all other personal circumstances Cesario Ursua v. CA

2. That the purpose is only to conceal his identity
The said accused made use of a different name. he used
the name of Oscar Perez in the office of the
USING FICTITIOUS NAME vs. CONCEALING TRUE Ombudsman as he was trying to get a copy of the
NAME complaint filed against him. It was however discovered
that a case of violation of CA 142 was filed against him.
The SC held that he is not criminally liable. The SC
USING FICTITIOUS CONCEALING TRUE
acquitted the accused because according to the SC, the
NAME NAME
use of the name Oscar Perez in an isolated transaction,
The use of a name other It is not necessary that the without any showing, absent an evidence that
than his real name is done use of another name, henceforth he wanted to be known by the name of
publicly. There is the concealing his true and real Oscar Perez in not within the prohibition of CA 142 as
element of publicity. name, must be done amended. There was no evidence that showed that
publicly. henceforth he wanted to be known by that name. There
was no showing that henceforth, he wanted to be called
purpose is to conceal a only purpose of the offender by the said name therefore it cannot be said that Oscar
crime, evade the execution is to conceal his true and Perez is an alias of the accused.
of judgment or to cause real identity.
damage to public interest. People v. Estrada
In this case, the former president made use of the
name Jose Velarde in signing a trust account. So he
ANTI-ALIAS LAW signed a trust account, using the name Jose Velarde
(C.A. No. 142, as amended) and so he was charged with violation of CA 142 as
amended.
Under C.A. 142, except as pseudonym, in literary, cinema,
television, radio and other entertainment purposes, and in Again, the SC said, the use by Erap of the name Jose
athletic events wherein the use of a pseudonym is a Velarde in a single, isolated transcation, without any
normally accepted practice, no person can use any name showing that henceforth he wanted to be known by
other than his name by which he is registered at birth at the such name, is not within the prohibition of CA 142 as
local civil registrar or by which he is registered by the amended. First, it was not done publicly and was in
Bureau of Immigration upon his entry into the Philippines, fact done secretly in the presence of Laquian and Chua
in case of an alien. and the said act of signing does not make it public
because these two are his close friends therefore it was
The use of a substitute name is only allowed upon approval done secretly, in a discreet manner. Hence, it was not
by the judicial or competent authority. Therefore, no done publicly. It was also not done habitually. The
person can use any other name other than the name by element of habituality is not present because there was
which he is baptized at the office of the civil registrar in no showing that in any other transaction, he made use
your place other than the name by which he is recorded in of the name Jose Velarde. Hence, he was also acquitted
Bureau of Immigration, if case he is a foreigner coming although convicted by Sandiganbayan, he was
here in the Philippines. He can only use his name. acquitted by the SC.
Q: What are the instances where a pseudonym may be Q: What if a lawyer was having a massage in a sauna bath
used? parlor. He did not know that as a front it is a sauna bath
1. For entertainment purposes parlor but in truth and in fact, it was a prostitution den. At
2. For literary purposes the time that he was having this massage service, the police
3. In athletic events raided the place because they were able to secure a search
4. If the use of substitute name is allowed by warrant. And among those arrested was the said attorney.
competent or judicial authority. The said attorney was brought to the PNP station and he
was asked of his name, ashamed to reveal his true identity,
ALIAS is a name or names use or intended to be used by a his true name, he said that he was Y and did not state that
person publicly and habitually, usually in business he was Atty. X. However, when he was asked his residence,
transaction other than the name registered at birth for the he stated the truth. As of the name of his wife, he stated the
first time before the local civil registrar. Absent the truth. As of the name of his children, he stated the truth.
elements of habituality and publicity, the offender is not
liable under CA 142, as amended.  Is he liable for using fictitious name?

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 53 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
A: He is not liable for using fictitious name.
First, he did not do so publicly. Second, his use of
the name was not done to conceal a crime, to evade
the execution of sentence or to cause damage to
public interest—none of these purposes is present;
therefore he is not liable for using fictitious name.
 Is he liable for concealing true name?
A: No, he is not liable for concealing true
name. Although he concealed his real name, Atty.
X, he did not conceal his other personal
circumstances. He divulged his address. He divulged
the name of his wife, the names of his children;
therefore, it cannot be said that he has the intention
to conceal his true identity. In fact, his true identity
can easily be verified just by going to the said
address, therefore he is not also liable for concealing
true name.
 Is he liable under CA 142, as amended?
A: He is also not liable under CA 142, as
amended, because the use of the name Y in a single
transaction, in a single isolated transaction, without
any showing that henceforth he wanted to be known
as Y is not within the prohibition of CA 142, as
amended.
ARTICLE 179 – ILLEGAL USE OF INSIGNIA,
UNIFORM, OR DRESS
➢ Committed by any person who makes use of any
insignia, uniform or dress which pertains to an
office not being held by the offender or to a class
of person of which he is not a member and he
makes use of such insignia, uniform or dress
publicly and improperly.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender makes use of INSIGNIA, UNIFORM
or DRESS
2. That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an
office not being held by the offender or to a class of
person of which he is not a member.
3. That the said insignia, uniform or dress is used
publicly and improperly.
 The offender uses the insignia, uniform or dress of an
office not held by him or a by a class of person of which
he is not a member and he used the same publicly and
improperly.
Q: What if a person was wearing a uniform. So he said that
it was a uniform of a certain organization known as H world
but in fact, no such organization ever existed. Is he liable
under Article 179?
A: No, he is not liable of Illegal use of insignia,
uniform or dress under Article 179. The reason is
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
that H world does not belong to any office, doesn’t
refer to a class of persons; therefore, he is not liable
under Article 179.
Q: What if a person made use of a uniform of a prisoner.
So, you see a person, he was receiving a holy communion,
he was wearing an orange t-shirt with a big letter P at the
back which means Prisoner. Can he be held liable under
Article 179?
A: He is not liable of Illegal use of insignia,
uniform or dress under Article 179. Although he
used the uniform of a prisoner, it is not an office held
by the offender, it is not also a class of persons. When
you say a class of persons of which he is a member, it
refers to a dignified class of persons. He is assuming
that he belongs to the said class of persons. Here, he is
even belittling himself because he was wearing a
uniform of a prisoner. Hence, it cannot be said that he
violated Article 179.
FALSE TESTIMONY (ART 180, 181, 182)
➢ False testimony can either be false testimony in
criminal cases (Articles 180 and 181), false
testimony in civil cases (Article 182) and false
testimony in other cases.
➢ False testimony in criminal cases can either be: (1)
false testimony against a defendant (Article 180)
and (2) false testimony favorable to defendant
(Article 181).
ARTICLE 180 – FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A
DEFENDANT
➢ In a criminal proceeding, the offender-witness
testified falsely against a defendant knowing that
his testimony is false and then the said defendant
is either acquitted or convicted.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be a criminal proceeding
2. That the offender testifies falsely under oath against
the defendant therein.
3. That the offender who gives false testimony knows
that it is false.
4. That the defendant against whom the false testimony
is given is either acquitted or convicted in a final
judgment (People v. Maneja).
ARTICLE 181 – FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE
TO DEFENDANT
➢ In a criminal proceeding, the offender-witness
testified falsely in favor of the defendant and he
knew that his testimony is indeed false.
ELEMENTS:
1. There is a criminal proceeding
54 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
2. The offender testifies falsely in favor of the
defendant
3. The offender knew that his testimony is false.
 Notice that the fourth element of Article 180 is absent
in Article 181.
 Right after the hearing of false testimony, the false
witness can already be prosecuted under Article 181.
But in case of Article 180, before the false witness can
be prosecuted, it is necessary that the defendant must
first be acquitted or convicted by final judgment.
REASON: Under Article 180, the penalty to be
imposed on the false witness is dependent on the final
sentence imposed on the defendant against whom the
false testimony is given.
FINAL SENTENCE PENALTY WHICH
IMPOSED ON SHALL BE IMPOSED
DEFENDANT ON FALSE WITNESS
Death Reclusion Temporal
Reclusion perpetua Prision mayor
Any other afflictive Prision correccional
penalty
A correctional penalty Fine or the defendant
Acquitted Arresto mayor
Q: What if A is being prosecuted for the crime of homicide,
for having killed the victim. So while he is being
prosecuted, the fiscal presented a witness. This witness was
also brought in by the heirs of the victim. The heirs of the
victim said that the witness saw the said act of killing. The
fiscal believed and the fiscal presented the said witness. The
witness however was not present at the scene of the crime
but in his testimony the witness said that he was present at
the scene of the crime and that he actually saw the accused
stabbing the victim to death. The accused, A knew that the
witness was testifying falsely because he knew that at the
scene of the crime, it was only he and the victim who were
present. After trial on the merits, the judge, acquitted the
said accused A. In other words, the judge did not give
weight to the testimony of the false witness. Can A still file a
case against the false witness?
A: Yes, A can still file a case of false testimony
against the false witness. He can still file a case of
false testimony against the said false witness even of
the court did not consider the said false testimony.
Even if the court did not give any merit on the said
false testimony and acquitted him. The crime will arise
the moment the said offender testified falsely in open
court whether in favor or against a defendant.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Q: What if in the same case, A was being prosecuted for
homicide. Then the prosecution presented the witness. The
witness testified falsely against the defendant saying that he
saw the actual act of killing. After trial on the merits, the
judge convicted the accused, the judge believed the false
testimony and so the judge convicted him. Upon conviction,
within 15 days from the promulgation of judgment, the said
accused, the said convict, filed an appeal before the CA.
While the case was pending before the CA, can the said
accused, the convicted person, already file a case of false
testimony against the false witness who testified against
him?
A: Not yet. Any case would still be a premature
case. In fact, you would not know what court will have
jurisdiction. You would not know if the court that will
have jurisdiction over the false testimony is the RTC or
the MTC because the penalty to be imposed on the
false witness is always dependent on the penalty
imposed on the convict.
 Under Article 180, if the defendant has been
convicted and the penalty imposed is capital
punishment or death then the false witness shall
be imposed with a penalty of reclusion temporal.
If the defendant, upon conviction is imposed with
a penalty of reclusion perpetua and reclusion
temporal, the penalty will be imposed on the false
witness is prision mayor. If the said defendant is
convicted and the penalty imposed on him is any
other afflictive penalty, the penalty to be imposed
on the false witness is prision correcional. On the
other hand, if the penalty imposed on the said
defendant is prision correcional, arresto mayor,
fine or he was acquitted. If he was acquitted, the
penalty to be imposed on the said person who
testified falsely is arresto mayor.
 So in this case, the penalty on the false witness is
always dependent on the penalty to be imposed by
the court on the defendant; therefore, there must
first be a final conviction by final judgment.
 NOTE: if it is an acquittal, the case can be
immediately filed because an acquittal is
immediately executory. You cannot appeal an
acquittal. It is immediately executory.
(IN FAVOR)
Q: So the case was filed against A for homicide, here comes
a witness, the witness testified falsely in favor of the
accused. Can the private complainant, the heirs of the
victim, immediately file a case of false testimony against the
witness right after the giving thereof?
A: Yes, because in case of false testimony in favor of
the defendant, the penalty of the false witness is not
dependent on the penalty to be imposed on the said
accused or defendant.
55 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
ARTICLE 182 – FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL
CASES
➢ Right after the giving of the false testimony, the
private complainant or the aggrieved party, can
immediately file a case against the false witness
who testified in favor of the defendant.
ELEMENTS:
1. The testimony must be given in a civil case
2. The testimony must relate to the issues presented in
said case (relative or pertinent)
3. The testimony must be false
4. The false testimony must be given by the defendant
knowing the same to be false.
5. The testimony must be malicious and given with
intent to affect the issues presented in the said case
(U.S. v. Aragon)
➢ In case of false testimony in a civil case, right after
the giving of the false testimony, the false witness
can be immediately prosecuted in court.
➢ In order to amount in false testimony in civil
cases, there must be litigation. Take for example a
sum of money, breach of contract. If the false
testimony is given in a special proceeding, for
example, petition for nullity of marriage, petition
for separation, petition for habeas corpus, these
are special proceedings and a false testimony of a
person who testified falsely during this special
proceeding, the case is under Article 183, false
testimony in other proceedings.
ARTICLE 183 – PERJURY
PERJURY is the willful and deliberate assertion of
falsehood on a material matter made before an officer duly
authorized to receive and administer oath.
ELEMENTS:
1. The accused made a statement under oath or
executed an affidavit upon a material matter
➢ There are two ways of committing perjury:
The offender either:
a. Makes a statement under oath (he
makes a false testimony); or
b. Executes an affidavit on a material
matter (if it is an affidavit, it is also
required under oath)
2. The said statement under oath or affidavit was made
before a competent officer duly authorized to receive
and administer oath
➢ In order to amount to perjury, it is necessary
that the said oath must be given before an
officer duly authorized to receive and
administer. Otherwise, it cannot be considered
as perjury because the essence of perjury is
the violation of the solemnity of oath.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
➢ If the person who received the oath is not duly
authorized, it cannot be said that there is a
violation of the solemnity of the oath.
3. That in the said statement or affidavit, the offender
makes a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood
➢ It is necessary for perjury to arise that the
offender deliberately, knowingly ascertained a
falsehood. There was a deliberate intent on his
part; therefore, good faith is a defense in
perjury.
➢ Perjury likewise cannot be committed out of
mere negligence. It is necessary that there
must be a deliberate intent on his part to assert
a falsity either in the statement or affidavit.
4. The said statement or affidavit containing falsity is
required by law.
➢ If it is not required by law then it cannot be
considered as a crime.
Q: What if X made a false statement in a criminal
proceeding, what crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is FALSE TESTIMONY.
Q: A makes a statement in a labor case against B. What
crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is PERJURY.
 If the false statement under oath is made in a judicial
proceeding whether it be a criminal or civil proceeding,
the crime committed is FALSE TESTIMONY.
 If the said false statement, however, is made in a non-
judicial proceeding, administrative proceedings,
or quasi-judicial proceedings, then the crime
committed is PERJURY. So if the false testimony or
the false statement is made in a labor case, in an
administrative case, in an application for search
warrant, during the preliminary investigation, before
the fiscals’ office, the crime committed is perjury.
Q: What if the offender makes false narration of facts in a
cedula? The offender makes a false narration of facts in a
driver’s license. What crime is committed?
A: FALSIFICATION.
Q: What if the offender makes a false narration of facts in a
statement of assets, liabilities and net worth. So a public
officer filed a statement of assets, liabilities and net worth.
It contains falsities, false narration of facts. What is the
liability?
A: The liability is PERJURY.
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN FALSIFICATION AND
PERJURY
➢ In falsification, the document is not required to be
under oath. In case of perjury, the document is
required to be under oath.
56 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
DIFFERENCE OF FALSE STATEMENT AND
PERJURY
➢ If the false statement is made in a judicial
proceeding, it is false testimony. If the false
statement is made in a non-judicial proceeding or
administrative proceeding or quasi-judicial
proceeding, it is perjury.
Q: An applicant for the bar filled out an application form
for the bar, there was a statement therein, “Have you ever
been fined or convicted of any crime?” and the answer was
no, however, in truth and in fact, he has already been fined
for the crime of jaywalking. He answered no and then this
application for the bar is required to be under oath. He was
looking for a notary public since it was a Sunday, there was
no office opened so he went to the legal office of his father,
hoping that there was a lawyer there. However, there was
only the janitor and he asked the janitor to sign in the
notary public part and then submitted it to the office of the
bar confidante. Is the said applicant for the bar liable for
perjury or is he liable for falsification?
A: He is liable of FALSIFICATION and not of
perjury because the person who received and
administered the oath is not a confidante officer duly
authorized to receive and administer the oath. He was
a mere janitor and not a notary public. As such, the
crime committed is falsification. Again, the essence of
perjury is the violation of the solemnity of the oath.
Q: A wrote a love letter to the girl that he is pursuing. In
the said love letter, he stated falsities such as “You are the
only one in my life.” when in truth there were three of
them. He stated “I love you and I miss you” and they were
all falsities. He even asked it to be notarized and sent it to
his third girlfriend. Is he liable for perjury?
A: No, he is not liable for perjury. He is not liable
for perjury because the said love letter is not required
by law. The fourth element requires, to amount to
perjury, the sworn statement under oath or the said
affidavit must be required by law because it is a crime
against public interest not a crime against personal
interest.
Q: What if in a case submitted in a fiscal’s office, so there
was a complaint and attached thereto is a sworn statement.
In the said sworn statement, the witness said that he saw
the accident. He saw the accused bumped the victim.
According to him, at the time, he was watching Saksi, when
suddenly a commotion occurred outside, he ran out of the
window, he saw at that particular time the accused hitting
the said victim with his vehicle and so he saw the accused
that caused the death of the victim. That was his statement
in the affidavit filed to the fiscal’s office. During
investigation, however, it was discovered he was not
watching Saksi, he was watching Bandila, the news
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
program in ABS-CBN and not the news program in GMA. Is
he liable of perjury?
A: No, he is not liable of perjury. Although it was
under oath, administered by a fiscal, still it is not
perjury because it is not on a material matter.
Whatever it is that he was watching at the time, even if
it is cartoon, it doesn’t matter. What matters is that he
heard the commotion, he ran to the window, and he
saw the accused bumping the victim. He saw that it
was the accused who killed the victim and that it was
the car of the accused that hit the victim. Only then, it
will be considered as perjury but whatever he was
watching, it was immaterial. It was not on a material
matter; therefore it will not amount to perjury.
SUBORNATION OF PERJURY is committed by a
person who knowingly and willfully procures another to
swear falsely and the witness suborned does testify under
the circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury.
NOTE: Subornation of perjury is not expressly penalized in
RPC; but the direct induction of a person by another to
commit perjury may be punished under Article 183 in
relation to Article 7, meaning, the crime is plain perjury but
the one inducing another will be liable as principal by
inducement and the one who testified as principal by direct
participation.
ARTICLE 184 – OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN
EVIDENCE
➢ Committed by any person who shall offer in evidence
any false testimony or any false witness either in a
judicial proceeding or in any official proceeding.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender offered in evidence a false witness or
false testimony.
2. The offender knew the witness or the testimony was
false.
3. The offer was made in a judicial or official
proceeding.
 Is this the same as subornation of perjury?
➢ Subornation of perjury is committed by any
person who procures a false witness in order to
perjure himself and testify falsely in a case.
There is no such crime as subornation of
perjury under the present RPC because we
already have Article 184.
➢ Article 184 is committed when any person who
procures a witness and offers him as evidence in
court can be held liable under Article 184 or he
can be held liable as a principal by inducement
in false testimony or as a principal by
inducement in perjury; therefore subornation of
perjury is not necessary and it is not a crime
under Philippine jurisdiction, under the RPC.
57 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

ARTICLE 185 – MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC other bidders was caused by a person, then he is liable
AUCTIONS under Article 185. Again, the intention of the offender
is to cause the reduction of the price of the thing which
ACTS PUNISHED:
is the subject of the public auction.
I. SOLICITING GIFT OR PROMISE
ARTICLE 186 – MONOPOLIES AND
➢ By soliciting any gift or promise as a
COMBINATIONS IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE
consideration for refraining from taking part in
any public auction. ACTS PUNISHED:
➢ The mere act of soliciting any gift or promise, so
I. COMBINATION TO PREVENT FREE
that he will refrain from taking part of the
COMPETITION IN THE MARKET
public auction, will already give rise to the
➢ This is committed by any person who shall enter
crime. It is not necessary that he actually
into any contract or agreement or taking part in
received the gift, it is not necessary that he
any combination whether in the form of trust or
actually will not participate in the said auction.
otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or
ELEMENTS:
to prevent by artificial means free competition
1. There be a public auction.
in the market.
2. The accused solicited any gift or a promise from any
II. MONOPOLY TO RESTRAIN FREE
of the bidders.
COMPETITION IN THE MARKET
3. That such gift or promise was the consideration for
➢ This is committed by monopolizing any
his refraining from taking part in that public auction.
merchandise or object of trade or commerce or
4. The accused had the intent to cause the reduction of
by combining with any other person or persons
the price of the thing auctioned.
in order to alter the prices thereof by spreading
II. ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE BIDDERS TO STAY
false rumors or making use of any other artifice
AWAY
to restrain free competition in the market.
➢ By attempting to cause bidders to stay away
III. MANUFACTURER, PRODUCER, OR
from an auction by threats, gifts, promises or
PROCESSOR OR IMPORTER COMBINING,
any other artifice
CONSPIRING OR AGREEING WITH ANY
➢ The mere attempt to cause bidders not to
PERSON TO MAKE TRANSACTIONS
participate in the said public auction by threats,
PREJUDICIAL TO LAWFUL COMMERCE OR
gifts or promise will already give rise to the
TO INCREASE THE MARKET PRICE OF
crime. It is not necessary that the bidders would
MERCHANDISE
not actually participate.
ELEMENTS:  The FIRST TWO ACTS under Article 186 can be
committed by any person and not necessarily by
1. There be a public auction
manufacturers, producer or processors. The THIRD
2. The accused attempted to cause the bidders to stay
ACT however, can be committed only by
away from that public auction.
manufacturers, processors, producers and importers
3. It was done by threats, gifts, promises or any other
who combined with any other person or persons in
artifice.
order to commit a transaction prejudicial to lawful
4. The accused had the intent to cause the reduction of
commerce or to increase the market price of any
the price of the thing auctioned.
merchandise or object of commerce
 Whether it be the first, second or third act, the mere
➢ In order to be liable for this crime, whether it be the act
conspiracy in order to restrain or to prevent free
of solicitation or the act of attempting to cause bidders
competition will already give rise to the crime. It is not
to stay away from public auction, it is necessary that
necessary that there be actual restraint in trade or
the intention of the offender is to cause the reduction
commerce.
of the price of the thing which is the subject of
the public auction. The acts complained of must be Q: What if Petron, Caltex and Shell connived, combined
done for the purpose of reducing the price of the and agreed with one another to hoard fuel. They know that
thing being auctioned. the fuel prices will increase by March and so they decided
➢ In public auction, it is necessary that the public must to hoard it. Can they be held liable under Article 186?
be able to get the best price for the thing being
A:
auctioned. If there will be less bidders, less participants
in the said public auction, then the public will not be  Juridical corporations cannot be the subject of
able to get the best price for the thing subject of the criminal action. First, it cannot be said that
public auction. Here, if the non-participation of the juridical persons can act with intent. Second, you
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 58 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

cannot imprison a juridical person in case of

conviction. So if the offender is a juridical entity,
who shall be held liable?
➢ The president, the directors or any of the
members of the said corporation, association
or partnership, who knowingly permitted
and allowed this combination or monopoly
in restraint of trade or commerce. Note that
they must have knowingly permitted the same
otherwise, they cannot be held criminally
liable.
➢ If the objects, which are the subject of this monopoly
or combination in restraint of trade or commerce are
prime commodities such as food, motor fuel,
lubricants, it is not even necessary that there be
conspiracy. A mere proposal, a mere intial step
to hoard, to prevent free competition in the
market will already give rise to the crime.
ARTICLE 187 – IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION
OF FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES
➢ Committed by any person who shall import, sell,
or dispose any article or merchandise made of
gold, silver, other precious materials, or their
alloys
ELEMENTS:
1.
The offender IMPORTS, SELLS or DISPOSES any
article or merchandise made of gold, silver, other
precious materials, or their alloys
2. That the STAMPS, BRANDS, or MARKS of those
articles or merchandise FAIL TO INDICATE the
actual fitness or quality of said metals or alloys
3. The OFFENDER KNOWS that the stamps, brands or
marks fail to indicate the actual fitness or quality of
the metals or alloys.
➢ This is considered a criminal act because the offender,
despite knowing that the articles or merchandise that
he imported are misbranded, he still imports the same,
sells the same or disposes the same
➢ Mere importation is a punishable act, therefore it is
not necessary for the offender to become liable under
Article 187 that he must have sold the misbranded
articles or that he must have disposed the article
because mere importation will already give rise
to the crime.

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 59 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
TITLE FIVE
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF
2002 (RA 9165)
SECTION 4 – IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSORS
AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS
Is committed by:
➢ Any person, who, unless authorized by law, shall
import or bring into the Philippines any dangerous
drug, regardless of the quantity and purity
involved.
In one Supreme Court decision, it held that: For one to be
liable for importation of dangerous drugs, it is
necessary to be proven that the dangerous drugs that were
taken in a vessel came from a foreign country with the said
dangerous drugs on board the said vessel; therefore, the
prosecution must prove that the vessel which came
into the Philippine ports had with it the dangerous
drugs. Only then can it be said that the dangerous drugs
have been imported from another country.
SECTION 5 – SALE, TRADING,
ADMINISTRATION, DISPENSATION, DELIVERY,
DISTRIBUTION AND TRANSPORTATION OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS AND/OR CONTROLLED
PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS
Selling of Dangerous Drugs
➢ Act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical
whether for money of any other consideration.
ELEMENTS OF SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS:
1. The identity of the buyer and the seller is established
➢ It is necessary that the identity of the buyer
and the seller are clearly identified.
2. The corpus delicti and the price must be established.
➢ In every prosecution for dangerous drugs,
Supreme Court said that corpus delicti is the
drugs itself which must actually be presented
in court, that which tested positive for
dangerous drugs. It cannot be proven by mere
assertion that there was a white crystalline
substance.
3. The drugs (corpus delicti) must be transferred from
the hands of the buyer to the hands of the seller.
➢ Because if the dangerous drugs had not been
delivered, the third element is lacking, the
sale is aborted, there is only ATTEMPTED
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ILLEGAL SALE of dangerous drugs not
consummated illegal sale of dangerous drugs
because the third element is lacking.
Q: What if a person has been prosecuted for Illegal sale of
Dangerous Drugs. The said operation was a buy bust
operation. It is an entrapment procedure which is allowed
by law. Here, the criminal/evil intent originated mainly
from the offender himself that’s why it is not considered as
an absolutory cause. Here, the Police Officers employed
means and methods to entrap and capture the criminal in
flagrante that is in the actual act of committing the crime.
So what if in the buy bust operation, the accused drug seller
was arrested. In the said operation, the informant acted as
the poseur-buyer. He was given marked money. The
policemen ran into the place of the drug seller. Only the
poseur-buyer knocked at the door of the drug seller. The
drug seller came out and the poseur-buyer said that he
wanted to buy dangerous drugs in the amount of P200. The
drug seller said okay and gave 2 plastic sachets of
dangerous drugs to the poseur buyer. However, the poseur-
buyer without having given the marked money yet to the
drug seller negligently removed his eyeglasses so the Police
officers thought that that was the signal that the sale has
been consummated. They arrived at the said place and
arrested the drug seller. The marked money was not given
to drug seller. During the prosecution, the prosecutor failed
to present the poseur-buyer because after the transaction,
he can no longer be found. Five police officers who were
nearby and allegedly saw the transaction from a distance.
The arguments of the accused:
1. There cannot be a conviction because the money
remained in the hands of the poseur-buyer and
therefore there was no consideration, no illegal sale.
2. The fiscal failed to produce the poseur-buyer. There
was actually no consummated transaction.
A:
1. The argument is erroneous. There is no
requisite that there must be simultaneous
exchange of money and drugs. The second
element only requires the corpus delicti and
the price be established. Here, the price is
established. He was buying 200 pesos worth
of drugs. No requisite that it must be given to
the seller. Here, the sale was consummated.
2. The argument is with merit. Although as a
rule, the non-presentation of the poseur-
buyer will not create a hiatus on the evidence
of the prosecution because the poseur-buyer
will merely corroborate the testimony of the
police officer, however, in this case, the drug
peddler denied the completion of the sale
transaction. Since it was denied and the police
officers were from a distance in the scene of
60 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

the crime, their testimony will only hearsay SECTION 6 – MAINTENANCE OF A DEN, DIVE, OR
evidence. They did not see that the RESORT
transaction was completed or consummated
➢ Any person who maintains a den, dive, or resort
or that the drugs given were indeed
for the use of illegal drugs are liable under this
dangerous drugs. Here, the prosecution must
section.
fail because only the poseur-buyer can testify
as to the consummation of the said crime SECTION 7 – EMPLOYESS AND VISITORS OF A
(People v. Andaya). DEN, DIVE, OR RESORT
General Rule: The testimony of the poseur-buyer is ➢ Under Section 7 of the act, even the employees
not indispensable in a case of illegal sale of dangerous who are aware of the nature of the said den, dive
drugs. or resort for the use and sale of dangerous drugs
are also criminally liable.
Exception: When the accused denies the existence of
the said transaction. If the prosecution failed to ➢ Likewise, even persons who are not employees
present the poseur-buyer to testify in court, it will which knowingly visit the same place despite the
amount to the dismissal of the case. knowledge of the nature of such den, dive, or
resort are also criminally liable.
DELIVERY – an act of knowingly passing a dangerous
drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any Q: What if the said den, dive, or resort is owned by a third
means, with or without consideration. person? Let’s say A and B rented a house. After giving the
down payment, A and B went to the said house. A and B
➢ It is necessary that for the courier of the
used the house as a den for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
dangerous drugs to be held liable that he has
The police officers were able to secure a warrant and A and
knowledge, that the thing he was delivering from
B were arrested. Can the owner of the said house be
one person to another is indeed dangerous drugs.
criminally liable for the maintenance of the said den? How
Lack of knowledge on the part of the courier would
about the house? Can it be forfeited in favor of the
be a defense on his part.
government?
Q: Let’s say there is this cigarette vendor on the side walk
A: Under Sec. 6, the said den, dive, or resort for the
and here comes a man who parked his car near the side
use of illegal sale of dangerous drugs shall be escheated
walk. He called the cigarette vendor and told the cigarette
in favor of the government provided that the following
vendor to deliver a package to the man inside the car which
circumstances concur:
is parked on the other side of the street. He told the
cigarette vendor that he will give him P1000 if the he 1. The information must allege that the said place is
agreed to deliver the package to the man inside the car intentionally being used in furtherance of illegal
which is parked at the other side of the street. The cigarette sale/use of dangerous drugs.
vendor asked the man what is inside the package however
2. Such intent must be proven by the prosecutor.
the man said “it’s none of your business to know what’s
inside that. I will give you P1000 if you deliver this to the 3. The owner of the said house must be included as
man inside that car parked at the other side of the street.” an accused in the information or complaint.
So the cigarette vendor with the P1000 got the bag and
➢ If these 3 elements are present; then the said
delivered it to the man at the other side of the street. He
house shall be confiscated and escheated in favor
knocked at the window and the man lowered his window.
of the government.
However at the time of the said delivery the police officers
arrived and arrested the cigarette vendor. Can he be
prosecuted for delivery of dangerous drugs? Can he be
SECTION 8 – MANUFACTURE OF DANGEROUS
convicted for delivery of dangerous drugs?
DRUGS
A: He can be prosecuted for delivery of dangerous
➢ The presence of any controlled precursor and
drugs however it is a defense on his part that he has no
essential chemical or laboratory equipment in the
knowledge that the thing he is delivering is dangerous
clandestine laboratory is a prima facie evidence of
drugs because under RA 9165, delivering has been
manufacture of any dangerous drug.
defined as the act of knowingly passing a dangerous
drug to another, personally or otherwise, and by any
means, with or without consideration. Therefore it is
necessary that the one delivering dangerous drug must
have the knowledge of the thing that he is delivering is
dangerous drug.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 61 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
SECTION 11 – ILLEGAL POSSESSION
DANGEROUS DRUGS
ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL DRUGS:
1. The accused was in possession of prohibited drug
➢ In illegal possession of dangerous drugs; the
word possession does not only mean actual
possession of the dangerous drug in his body. It
suffices that the said dangerous drug is found
in a place under the control and
dominion of the said offender.
➢ This is the burden of the prosecutor to prove.
Q: By virtue of a search warrant the police officers
conducted a search in the house of A to look for cocaine.
They looked inside the bedroom and underneath the pillow
on the bedroom of A, the found several sachets of cocaine.
Can it be held that A is in possession of the said drugs?
A: Yes because it is under his control and dominion.
Possession does not only mean physical or actual
possession. It also means as constructive possession
for as long as the dangerous drugs is under his control
and dominion.
2. Such possession is not authorized by law
➢ The offender is not authorized by law to possess
such drugs. Dangerous drugs are per se
contraband. They are per se illegal items. The
presumption is that such possession is without
authority of law. Therefore the burden of proof
is on the accused to prove that he has the
authority to possess unlike illegal possession of
firearms. Illegal possession of firearms is not
per se contraband therefore in illegal possession
of firearms, it is the prosecution who has the
burden of proof that the said person lacks
license.
➢ This is not for the prosecution to prove because
this is presumed by law since dangerous drugs
are per se illegal. Any person found in
possession of dangerous drugs is presumed by
law to have possessed the same illegally
therefore, it is upon him to prove that he was
authorized.
➢ In the case of Mark Anthony Fernandez, he was
arrested in Pampanga with boxes of Marijuana.
He was presented to the media (he was not
advised yet by his lawyer of the violation of the
police officers of presenting him to the
media/national television) and his defense was
that he was in possession of Marijuana because
his father died of cancer and that his doctor
advised him to use marijuana to prevent cancer.
So in effect, he was saying that he was in
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Updated by: Dinty
OF possession of marijuana to prevent cancer. This
is a wrong defense. It would have been different,
it would have been a more viable defense if he
said that he was sick of cancer and marijuana is
the only cure based on the prescription of the
doctor (pero diba prevention is better than cure
😜).
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed the
prohibited drug
➢ There must be an animus posidendi on the part
of the said accused. This animus posidendi on
the part of the accused is prima facie presumed
by law. The moment a person was found in
possession of dangerous drugs, the presumes
that the person knows that the thing in his
possession is dangerous drugs.
➢ Prosecution must prove this element.
SECTION 12 - ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUG
PARAPHERNALIA
➢ If a person was found in possession of a drug
paraphernalia, the law presumed that he used
dangerous drugs, to administer dangerous drugs
for himself.
e.g. A person was found in possession of empty plastic
sachets and other instruments used for using
dangerous drugs. He is therefore liable for Illegal
Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
Q: What if a person was found in possession of drug
paraphernalia can they avail the benefit of probation?
A: Yes he can avail for probation. The penalty
prescribed by law for illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia’s is an imprisonment ranging from 6
months and 1 day to 4 years which is within the
probationable penalty. Under Sec. 24 of R.A. 9165, any
person convicted for drug pushing and drug
trafficking, regardless of the penalty imposed by the
Court, cannot avail for probation.
So under Sec. 24; only those who are convicted of drug
pushing and drug trafficking which cannot avail for
probation therefore for any other violation of
Dangerous Drugs Act, for as long as the penalty
imposed by the court is 6 years and below, he can avail
for the benefit of probation. But if he is a drug
trafficker/ pusher, one who is engaged in selling
dangerous drugs, he cannot avail of the benefit of
probation even if the penalty imposed by the court is
within the probationable penalty because it is expressly
prohibited by Sec. 24 of RA 9165.
62 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
SECTION 13 – ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS DURING PARTIES, SOCIAL
GATHERINGS OR MEETINGS
➢ in Sec. 13, if any person was found in possession of
dangerous drug in a party, social gatherings or
meetings, or in the proximate company of at least
two (2) persons; the maximum penalty prescribed
by law shall be imposed, therefore this is
considered as aggravating circumstance.
SECTION 15 – ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender was apprehended/ arrested for the
commission of a crime.
➢ In the case of dela Cruz v. People, the
Supreme Court made a clarification that in
the first element, the word crime does not
refer to just any crime but only to those
crimes punished under RA 9165. Since he was
arrested for extortion, he cannot be subjected
to a drug test for this would be considered as
a violation of his rights.
2. He was subjected to a drug test
3. After a confirmatory test, he was found to be positive
for use of any dangerous drugs.
➢ He was at the PNP Crime Lab and after the
confirmatory test, he was found to be positive
for use of dangerous drugs.
Qualification in Section 15: provided that the accused
was not found in possession of other amount of dangerous
drugs must be found in his possession.
➢ If any other amount of dangerous drugs was
found in his possession (other than what he
was using), then the proper charge would no
longer be illegal use but illegal possession of
dangerous drugs.
First time offender – penalty is six months rehabilitation in
a government institution
Second time offender – prision mayor is the penalty
Q: The police officers saw a man snatched the cell phone of
a woman. Since the police officers saw the man in
committing the crime inflagrante delicto of actual act of
snatching and the man runaway, they followed the man.
The man entered the house. The police officers upon
entering the house saw 3 men on a round table; they were
in the actual act of sniffing shabu. They were arrested and
they were asked to stand up and fold their arms up and they
were searched. Upon the search, they found out that these 3
men; each of them was found a sachet of illegal drugs in
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
their pockets aside from the dangerous drug that they were
using. What cases will you file against the 3 men?
A: Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs. Not
illegal use of dangerous drugs because the third
element is wanting. Let’s say after the confirmatory
test they were found to be positive however 3 elements
must concur: 1st element: They were caught in the
actual act of sniffing shabu. 2nd element: After
confirmatory test they were found positive of the use of
dangerous drugs however the 3rd element is lacking
because they found to have in their possession a plastic
sachet of other dangerous drugs other than the one
they used. Therefore the proper crime charged is illegal
possession of dangerous drugs.
Dela Cruz v. People
The accused was apprehended for extortion. First, “[a]
person apprehended or arrested” cannot literally mean
any person apprehended or arrested for any crime. The
phrase must be read in context and understood in
consonance with R.A. 9165. Section 15 comprehends
persons arrested or apprehended for unlawful acts
listed under Article II of the law. To make the provision
applicable to all persons arrested or apprehended for
any crime not listed under Article II is tantamount to
unduly expanding its meaning. Note that accused
appellant here was arrested in the alleged act of
extortion.
SECTION 21 – PROCEDURE IN THE SEIZURE AND
CONFISCATION OF DANGEROUS DRUG (RA
10460)
“(1) The apprehending team having initial custody and
control of the dangerous drugs, controlled precursors
and essential chemicals, instruments/paraphernalia
and/or laboratory equipment shall, immediately after
seizure and confiscation,
a. conduct a physical inventory of the seized
items and
b. photograph the same in the presence of the
accused or the person/s from whom such
items were confiscated and/or seized, or
his/her representative or counsel, with an
elected public official and a representative of
the National Prosecution Service or the media
who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof:
Provided, That the physical inventory and photograph
shall be conducted at the place where the search
warrant is served; or at the nearest police station or at
the nearest office of the apprehending officer/team,
whichever is practicable, in case of warrantless
seizures: Provided, finally, That noncompliance of
these requirements under justifiable grounds, as long
63 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
as the integrity and the evidentiary value of the seized
items are properly preserved by the apprehending
officer/team, shall not render void and invalid such
seizures and custody over said items.
“x x x
“(3) A certification of the forensic laboratory
examination results, which shall be done by the
forensic laboratory examiner, shall be issued
immediately upon the receipt of the subject item/s:
Provided, That when the volume of dangerous drugs,
plant sources of dangerous drugs, and controlled
precursors and essential chemicals does not allow the
completion of testing within the time frame, a partial
laboratory examination report shall be provisionally
issued stating therein the quantities of dangerous
drugs still to be examined by the forensic laboratory:
Provided, however, That a final certification shall be
issued immediately upon completion of the said
examination and certification;
Q: What if the police officers failed to comply with this
procedure? In People v. Sta. Maria, the police officers
failed to comply with this procedure however there was
conviction. However, in the case of Dolera v. People; the
police officers failed to comply with Sec. 21 procedure and
this time there was an acquittal. Why is there an acquittal
in the case of Dolera and why is there a conviction in the
case of Sta. Maria?
A: The Supreme Court held that even if there is failure
to comply with the procedure underlined in Sec 21 of
RA 9165 by the arresting officers, there will still be
conviction if the said non-compliance is due to
justifiable reasons and provided that the police officers
were able to preserve the integrity and evidentiary
bond of the confiscated dangerous drugs this is in
consonance with the chain of custody rule.
If the police officers were not able to comply with the
procedure due to justifiable cause, they must be able to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary bond of the
confiscated dangerous drug that is; right after
confiscation, it must be marked to ensure that it was
the dangerous drugs taken from the accused and must
be turned over to the forensic laboratory for testing.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
➢ Chain of Custody Rule is defined as the duly
recorded authorized movements and custody of
dangerous drugs from the time of
confiscation/seizure to the receipt in the forensic
laboratory to safekeeping to presentation in court
for destruction (People v. Gutierrez)
➢ The purpose of Chain of Custody rule is to
ensure that the dangerous drug
seized/confiscated from the accused is the
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
very same dangerous drug which has been
tested by the forensic chemist and it is the
very same dangerous drug presented in
court that is; there has been no
substitution of evidence. Dangerous drugs are
so small. There can be a replacement of the effects
therefore this Chain of Custody rule will ensure
that there will be no substitution of the very same
dangerous drug seized/confiscated from the
accused at the time that they were presented to the
court.
Q: What if a person is charged for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs and during his arraignment, he pleaded
not guilty and during the pre-trial, he said that he will
change his plea if he will be allowed to plead guilty for a
lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia.
So he wanted to avail of the plea-bargaining rule under the
rules of court. Under the plea-bargaining rule, you can
plead guilty to a lesser offense provided that the said lesser
offense is necessary included in the offense charged. Here,
the charge is illegal possession of dangerous drugs; can he
plead for a lesser offense of illegal possession of drug
paraphernalia?
A: He cannot because Sec. 28 of R.A. 9165 provides
that any person charged in violation of any of the
crimes charged under this act cannot avail of the plea-
bargaining under the rules of court. Therefore any
person charged in violation of any of the punishable
acts under R.A. 9165 cannot plead guilty to a lower
offense.
People v. Enumerable
In this case, there was a glaring gap in the custody of
the illegal drug since the prosecution failed to
sufficiently establish who had custody of the illegal
drug from the moment it was allegedly transmitted to
the Batangas Provincial Crime Laboratory on 27 May
2004 until it was allegedly delivered to the Regional
Crime Laboratory on 4 June 2004. There was no
evidence presented how the confiscated sachets of
shabu were stored, preserved or labeled nor who had
custody prior to their delivery to the Regional Crime
Laboratory and their subsequent presentation before
the trial court. Since the failure of the prosecution to
establish every link in the chain of custody of the illegal
drug gravely compromised its identity and integrity,
which illegal drug is the corpus delicti of the offense
charged against appellant, his acquittal is therefore in
order.ch
People v. Badillo
The prosecution was able to demonstrate that the
integrity and evidentiary value of the confiscated drug
had not been compromised because it established the
crucial link in the chain of custody of the seized item
64 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

from the time it was first discovered until it was 1. Importation of any dangerous drug;
brought to the court for examination. The chain of
2. Sale, trading, administration, delivery,
custody rule requires the identification of the persons
distribution, transportation of dangerous
who handled the confiscated items for the purpose of
drug;
duly monitoring the authorized movements of the
illegal drugs and/or paraphernalia from the time they 3. Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort where
were seized from the accused until the time they are any dangerous drug is used in any form;
presented in court. In this case, the facts persuasively
4. Manufacture of any dangerous drug;
proved that the sachet of shabu presented in court was
the same item seized from appellant. The integrity and 5. Cultivation or culture of plants which are the
evidentiary value thereof were duly preserved. The sources of dangerous drugs.
marking and the handling of the specimen were
If any of these acts mentioned is committed by the
testified to by PO2 Paras and PO2 Espadero. During
offender, a mere attempt; or conspiracy will
the trial, the prosecution and the defense entered imto
already give rise to the crime as an exception to
a stipulation that witnesses PO2 Espadero and P/Sr.
the rule that in case of violation of penal law, there
Insp. Libres (the forensic chemist) could identify the
are no stages in the commission of the crime and
subject specimen as well as the documents they
conspiracy will not lie. So if any of the crime
prepared. The aforesaid witnesses testified about every
committed is any of these five acts, mere attempt
link in the chain, from the moment the seized item was
will lie against the offender, conspiracy will lie
picked up to the time it was offered into evidence in
against the offender.
court.
People v. Laylo
SECTION 24 – APPLICABILITY OF THE
PROBATION LAW FOR DRUG TRAFFICKERS AND The charge was only attempted illegal sale of
PUSHERS. dangerous drugs. The sale was aborted because even
before the said drug poseur was able to transfer the
➢ Any person convicted for drug trafficking or
dangerous drug to the police officer, the police officers
pushing under this Act, regardless of the penalty
already introduced themselves as such and arrested
imposed by the Court, cannot avail of the privilege
him. As such, we only have attempted illegal sale of
granted by the Probation Law or Presidential
dangerous drugs.
Decree No. 968, as amended.
People v. Morilla
SECTION 25 – A POSITIVE FINDING FOR THE
USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS SHALL BE A In conspiracy, it need not be shown that the parties
QUALIFYING AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE actually came together and agreed in express terms to
enter into and pursue a common design. The assent of
➢ Based on the decision of the Supreme Court in
the minds may be and, from the secrecy of the crime,
dela Cruz v. People, a positive finding for the
usually inferred from proof of facts and circumstances
use of dangerous drugs is a qualifying
which, taken together, indicate that they are parts of
circumstance will only apply if the crime
some complete whole. In this case, the totality of the
committed by the said offender is a violation of RA
factual circumstances leads to a conclusion that
9165 because only then can he be subjected to a
Morilla conspired with Mayor Mitra in a common
drug test.
desire to transport the dangerous drugs. Both vehicles
SECTION 26 –ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY loaded with several sacks of dangerous drugs, were on
convoy from Quezon to Manila. Mayor Mitra was able
➢ Express exception to the general rule that in case
to drive through the checkpoint set up by the police
of violation of a penal law, there are no stages and
operatives. When it was Morilla’s turn to pass through
there is no conspiracy.
the checkpoint, he was requested to open the rear door
➢ As a rule, in case of violation of penal law, we have for a routinary check. Noticing white granules
no attempted stages. In violation of special penal scattered on the floor, the police officers requested
laws, conspiracy unless expressly provided Morilla to open the sacks. If indeed he was not
because these are only for violation of the RPC, for involved in conspiracy with Mayor Mitra, he would not
felonies. One of those exceptions is under Section have told the police officers that he was with the
26 of RA 9165. Under Section 26 of RA 9165, any mayor.
attempt or conspiracy of any of the following acts
His insistence that he was without any knowledge of
shall be punished already by penalty prescribed by
the contents of the sacks and he just obeyed the
law:
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 65 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

instruction of his immediate superior Mayor Mitra in

driving the said vehicle likewise bears no merit.
Here, Morilla and Mayor Mitra were caught in
flagrante delicto in the act of transporting the
dangerous drugs on board their vehicles. "Transport"
as used under the Dangerous Drugs Act means "to
carry or convey from one place to another." It was well
established during trial that Morilla was driving the
ambulance following the lead of Mayor Mitra, who was
driving a Starex van going to Manila. The very act of
transporting methamphetamine hydrochloride is
malum prohibitum since it is punished as an offense
under a special law. The fact of transportation of the
sacks containing dangerous drugs need not be
accompanied by proof of criminal intent, motive or
knowledge.

SECTON 98 – LIMITED APPLICABILITY OF THE

RPC
➢ In Book I, under Article 10, the provisions of the
RPC shall apply suppletorily or supplementary to
the provisions of the special penal laws unless the
special penal law provides otherwise.

➢ One of the exceptions is provided for in Sec 98 of

RA 9165, it is provided that the provisions of RPC,
as amended, shall not apply to the provisions of
RA 9165. The law uses the word shall; therefore
you cannot apply the provision of RPC to the
provisions of RA 9165.
 Exception to Section 98: If the offender is a minor
offender.
➢ Where the offender is a minor, the penalty
for acts punishable by life imprisonment
to death provided shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 66 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

TITLE SIX A: YES. They are liable for grave scandal. They have
the right to engage in sexual conduct but the fact that
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS (Articles 200
they performed the sexual conduct in Luneta Park, a
– 202)
public place makes the act offensive to public morals,
ARTICLE 200 – GRAVE SCANDAL decency and good customs and the said act does not
constitute any other violation in the RPC because they
Grave Scandal – a highly scandalous act offensive to
have the right to engage in sexual intercourse.
good morals, good customs and decency committed in a
Therefore, the crime committed is grave scandal
public place or within public knowledge or public view.
because they performed the act in a public place even if
ELEMENTS: no one saw the commission of the said act still, still
because it is performed in a public place , it is
1. The offender performs an act or acts
presumed that someone may have seen the
2. Such act or acts be HIGHLY SCANDALOUS as commission of the highly scandalous act.
offending against decency or good customs
Q: So what if a wife and a husband, celebrating their
➢ It is necessary that the act must be highly anniversary, engaged in sexual intercourse in their terrace.
scandalous and offensive to morals, So the act is committed in their premises, in the terrace of
offensive to decency and offensive to good their house. However, the gate was open and so passersby
customs. would see them performing the sexual intercourse. Are they
liable for grave scandal?
3. That the highly scandalous conduct is not expressly
falling within any other article of this Code. A: YES. They are liable for grave scandal. The said act
does not constitute another offense in the RPC because
➢ The third element requires that it must not
they have the right to engage in sexual conduct. The
expressly fall within any other article of this
sexual conduct was performed in the privacy of their
code. It must not constitute any other
home however; people witnessed the commission of
violation in the RPC. Grave scandal is a
the said act. It now becomes a highly scandalous act
crime of last resort because you only file a
because it is within the knowledge of the public or
complaint for grave scandal when the said
within public view.
act is not punishable under any other article
in the RPC. Q: What if A and B are boyfriend and girlfriend. The
girlfriend is 11 yrs old and the boyfriend is 21 yrs old. And
4. The act or act complained of be committed in a public
because it is their monthsary the girlfriend thought of
place or within the public knowledge or view.
giving herself as a gift and engaged in sexual intercourse in
➢ Then the fourth element provides that the a public place Are they liable for grave scandal?
highly scandalous act must be committed
A: NO. They are not liable for grave scandal. The man
either in a public place or within public
is liable for statutory rape. A man who had sexual
knowledge or view. If the highly scandalous
intercourse with a child under 12 years of age,
act is committed in a public place, the crime
regardless of the consent, regardless of the willingness
of grave scandal will immediately arise. The
of the said child, the man is liable for statutory rape.
place being public, the law presumes that
Because in so far as criminal law is concerned, a child
someone may have witnessed the
under 12 yrs old has no intelligence of his/her own and
commission of the highly scandalous act.
is not capable of giving a valid consent. Therefore, even
However, if the crime is committed or if the
if the girl voluntarily gave herself in so far as the law is
highly scandalous act is committed in a
concerned, it is still statutory rape. It is not grave
private place, for the crime of grave scandal
scandal because the third element is wanting. The said
to arise, it is necessary that it must be
act fall under the violation of article of RPC that is
witnessed by one or more persons to be said
under article 266-A for rape. As I said, grave scandal is
that it is within the public knowledge or
a crime of last resort. You only charge it when the
public view.
crime committed does not constitute any other
Q: So let us say that A and B are boyfriend and girlfriend violation in the RPC.
and it is their anniversary. They went to Luneta Park and
Q: X lives in a condominium unit in 30th floor. She wanted
at exactly 12 midnight, in the middle of Luneta Park, they
to sunbathe so one morning, she went out to the terrace
engaged in sexual intercourse. No one witnessed their
naked. She thereafter exercised naked. While doing so, the
sexual intercourse. Are they liable for grave scandal?
men from other buildings wanted to look at her and

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 67 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

because it was quite a distance, they used binoculars to see crime of vagrancy. No person can longer be prosecuted
her. Is she liable of grave scandal? for being a vagrant.
A: No. To exercise naked, it may be offensive to  How about prostitution? Is there still a
morals especially to Filipino customs and traditions crime for prostitution?
The third element, the act does not fall in any other ➢ YES.
violation of RPC. The last element, the act was
PROSTITUTE – is any woman who, for money or profit,
performed in the privacy of her own home which is not
indulges in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct. So it is
within public knowledge or view. The men who looked
the work or job of a woman. Note that the law defines it to
at her still had to use gadgets or instruments in order
be a woman therefore; a man cannot be considered a
to see her exercising therefore it was not done within
prostitute. Before, if a man engages in sexual intercourse or
public knowledge or public view. Hence, she cannot be
lascivious conduct he can be punished under Article 202
held liable of grave scandal.
but now since vagrancy has been decriminalized by R.A.
ARTICLE 201 – IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE No. 10158, he can no longer be prosecuted. Only prostitutes
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS, AND who are women.
INDECENT SHOWS
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Public proclamations of doctrines openly contrary to
public morals
II. Publication of obscene literature. In case of publication
of obscene literature, it is the author, the editor, the
owner or proprietor of the establishment that sells the
said materials SHALL BE HELD CRIMINALLY
LIABLE.
III. The third act punished is the exhibition of indecent
shows, plays, scenes or acts in fairs, theaters, cinemas
or any other places.
IV. Selling, giving away or exhibiting films,, engravings,
sculptures or literature which are offensive to public
morals.
Q: So what if there is this building, when the person
entered the said building, on the floor of the said building
were these magazines. And the magazines contain men and
women engaging in sexual intercourse, naked women and
men, and other obscene materials. Who shall be held liable
when the place was raided by the police?
A: The author of the said literature, the editors
publishing such literature and the owner or proprietor
of the establishment where the said magazines were
being sold. They will be held criminally liable under
Article 201.
ARTICLE 202 – VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES
➢ Only prostitutes are held liable.
Q: Let us say that there is this man, a healthy man and he
can look for work but he does not want to work. So he was
just roaming around and he saw houses of prostitutes or
houses of ill-fames and he is always in this places. Can he
be held liable for vagrancy?
A: NO, because vagrancy has been
decriminalized by R.A. No. 10158 which was
approved on March 27, 2012. We no longer have the

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 68 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
TITLE SEVEN
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
(Articles 203 – 245)
ARTICLE 203 – PUBLIC OFFICERS
REQUISITES TO BE A PUBLIC OFFICER:
1. One must be taking part in the performance of public
functions in the Government or one must be
performing in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, of any rank or class; and
2. That his authority to take part in the performance of
public functions or to perform public duties must be –
a. by direct provision of the law; or
b. by popular election; or
c. by appointment by competent authority
OATH OF OFFICE
If he is high-ranking official, the oath is also before a
high-ranking official. If he is a cabinet secretary, the
oath is before the President or to the Supreme Court
Chief Justice.
If he is only an ordinary employee, still he has oath of
office. It is a document which is entitled, “OATH OF
OFFICE”, he merely signs it.
Felonies under TITLE SEVEN are felonies in violation of
this oath of office, they can either be:
MISFEASANCE – A public officer performs an
official act in a manner not in accordance with what
the law provides. Improper performance of some act
which might be lawfully done (Article 204 to 207).
MALFEASANCE – A public officer performs in his
public office an act prohibited by law. Performance of
some act which ought not to be done (Article 210-211).
NON-FEASANCE – A public officer knowingly,
willfully refuses or refrains from doing an act which is
his official duty to do. Omission of some act which
ought to be performed (Article 208).
ARTICLE 204 – KNOWINGLY RENDERING
UNJUST JUDGMENT
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a judge
2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to
him for decision
3. That the judgment is unjust
4. The judge knows that his judgment is unjust
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
UNJUST JUDGMENT – is one which is contrary to law,
or one that is not supported by evidence or both.
➢ If the source of an unjust judgment is mere error on
the part of the judge, then the said judge is not civilly,
criminally, and administratively liable.
In a case submitted to him for decision, the judge
wrongfully interpreted a provision of law. It is a
new law, there is no jurisprudence yet, the judge
wrongfully interpreted it. The judge cannot be
held civilly, administratively, and more so,
criminally liable. The said judgment is an unjust
judgment because it was based on this error in the
interpretation of the law. However, there was no
intent on the part of the said judge. Considering
the basis of the unjust judgment is mere error. The
said judge acted in good faith. This is
Judicial immunity from suit.
➢ If however, the unjust judgment is based on bad faith,
that is, it is based on ill-motive on the part of the said
judge, therefore, he can be held liable criminally, civilly
and administratively.
For him to be criminally liable, knowing that he
rendered an unjust judgment, it is necessary that
the unjust judgment is rendered out of ill-motive
or bad faith, out of greed, revenge, envy, or any
other ill-motive. Hence, he is known to have
rendered an unjust judgment.
ARTICLE 205 – JUDGMENT RENDERED
THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
➢ This is again committed by a judge, who in a case
submitted to him for decision, renders manifestly
unjust judgment.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a judge
2. That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to
him for decision
3. That the judgment is manifestly unjust
4. The it is due to his inexcusable negligence or
ignorance
MANIFESTLY UNJUST JUDGMENT – means that it is
evident that a judgment is unjust. A first year law student
would know that it is unjust, therefore it is manifestly
unjust judgment, because he acted in inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
ARTICLE 206 – UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY
ORDER
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a judge
69 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
2. That he performs any of the following acts:
a. knowingly renders unjust interlocutory order
or decree
b. renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory
order or decree through inexcusable
negligence or ignorance
ARTICLE 207 – MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a judge
2. There is a proceeding in his court
3. He delays the administration of justice
4. The delay is malicious, that is, delay is caused by the
judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage on
either party in the case.
ARTICLE 208 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES;
NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
I. By maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution
against violators of the law
➢ Note that the first crime, he knows that a
crime was committed but he does not
prosecute the offender;
II. By maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses
the second act, a crime was about to be committed, he
tolerates its commission. It must be done with
MALICE. Absent malice, Article 208 will not apply.
ELEMENTS OF DERELICTION OF DUTY IN THE
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES:
1. That the offender is a public officer or officer of the
law who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to
prosecute offenses.
2. That there is a dereliction of the duties of his office;
that is knowing the commission of the crime, he does
not cause the prosecution of the criminal or knowing
that a crime is about to be committed, he tolerates
its commission.
3. That the offender acts with malice and deliberate
intent to favor the violator of the law.
➢ Otherwise known as DERELICTION.
➢ Can only be committed by a public officer or an officer
of the law who has the duty to cause the prosecution of
or to prosecute the offenders. The said public officer
commits dereliction of duty in the prosecution of
offenses under any of the following circumstances:
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
a. knowing the commission of the crime, he
does not cause the prosecution of the
criminal, or
b. knowing that a crime is about to be
committed, he tolerates its commission
and the said offender acts with malice and
deliberate intent to favor the violator of the
law
➢ The dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses
cannot be committed by just any public officer.
➢ The public officer must be charged with the
prosecution of the cases or he is the one who can cause
the prosecution of these offenders.
CHARGED WITH THE PROSECUTION OF THE
OFFENDERS:
➢ Fiscals
➢ Prosecutors
➢ State Prosecutors
THOSE WHO CAN CAUSE THE PROSECUTION OF
THE OFFENDERS:
➢ Judges
➢ Barangay Chairman
➢ Persons in authority
ARTICLE 209 – BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN
ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR – REVELATION OF
SECRETS
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. By causing damage to his client, either
➢ by any malicious breach of professional duty
➢ by inexcusable negligence or ignorance
 THERE MUST BE DAMAGE TO HIS CLIENT
II. By revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by
him in his professional capacity.
 DAMAGE IS NOT NECESSARY
III. By undertaking the defense of the opposing party in
the same case, without the consent of his first client,
after having undertaken the defense of said first client
or after having received confidential information from
said client.
 IF THE CLIENT CONSENTS TO THE
ATTORNEY’S TAKING THE DEFENSE OF
THE OTHER PARTY, THERE IS NO CRIME
➢ Under Article 209, this betrayal of trust is in addition
to a proper administrative case which may be filed
70 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

against an attorney or solicitor. So aside from the
criminal case in violation of Article 209, he can also be
charged in a case also for disbarment, for violation of
lawyer’s oath of duty may be filed against him, and
these two cases can be proceeded at the same time.
Q: A lawyer for 3 consecutive times, without any justifiable
reason, failed to file his formal offer of exhibits. During the
first time he was given 15 days, he failed to file, second time
he was given 15 days, he failed to file. On the third time, he
was given 5 days still, he failed to file, without giving any
justifiable reason for his non-compliance with the order of
the court. By reason thereof, there is no evidence in behalf
of the defense of his client was admitted by the Court. Is the
lawyer liable?
A: He is liable. Because only evidence offered may be
admitted by the court. And so, the judge convicted the
accused, the client was prejudiced because of the
counsel’s malicious breach of his professional duty. It
is incumbent upon any counsel to file a pleading within
the reglementary period provided by law or required by
the court. For failing to do so without any justifiable
reason, he caused damage to his client by
malicious breach of his professional duty.
Q: What if Atty. A was the counsel of X, he was behind bars
for the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Atty. A visited X to
ask the facts of the case in order for him to study and to
nput up a good defense. During their conversation, X
informed his counsel, Atty. A that there will be another
kidnapping tomorrow night at 9PM in Quezon City, to be
done by his other gang mates who were at large. Atty. A,
upon knowing this information from his client X,
immediately went to the police officers of Quezon City in
order to pre-empt the commission of the crime. Is Atty. A
liable for the second act because he divulged the secrets of
his client which he learned in his professional capacity?
A: Atty. A is not liable under Article 209. The
I.
secrets being referred to under Article 209 refers to the
past crimes of the said client and it refers to the facts
and circumstances related to the crime which is being
handled by the said Attorney or counsel.
It does not refer to future crimes that are still about to
be committed. When a lawyer takes his oath of office,
he says, or he promise, he swears that he shall be liable
not only to the client, but also to the state, to the
government.
It is his duty to the Government, to the State of any
future crime that is about to be committed more than
his duty to his client. Hence, in this case, since it refers
to a future crime, for the protection of the state and the
citizenry, it is incumbent upon him to divulge, disclose
or to reveal the said secrets.
Q: What if A filed a case against B, Atty. X was the counsel
of A, A failed to give Atty. X his appearance list for 5
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
consecutive hearings, no appearance list. So Atty. X, filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel of A. The said motion to
withdraw was with the consent OF A, because without the
consent of A, the said motion to withdraw will not be
granted by the court. So the court granted and Atty. X is no
longer the counsel of A. When B learned about this, went
immediately to the office of X and secured the services of X.
Atty. X signed a contract and he is now the counsel of B. Is
Atty. X liable for betrayal of trust by an attorney?
A: Atty. X is liable for betrayal of trust by an
attorney. He takes the case of B, the opposing party,
even after he has already taken the case of A and after
he has acquired valuable information about his client.
How can he prevent himself from being convicted of the
betrayal of trust?
➢ He must first secure the consent of the said first
client
In the said problem, there was no consent. The said
consent was only in the motion to withdraw. The said
consent in the motion to withdraw is not the consent
on the acceptance of the case. For every motion to
withdraw, there must be a consent written, otherwise
the court will not grant the motion to withdraw. The
consent here is to secure or to accept the service s of
the other party.
Since consent was not given, he is liable for betrayal of
trust by an attorney.
a. Just remember aside from betrayal of trust, an
attorney or solicitor can also be held liable of
administrative case. So there may be disbarment.
b. He can be disbarred or he can be suspended by reason
of committing any of these acts.
ARTICLE 210 – DIRECT BRIBERY
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
By agreeing to perform, or by performing, in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present – an
act constituting a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duties.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender be a public officer within the scope
of Article 203
2. The offender accepts an offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present by himself or through
another.
3. That such offer or promise be accepted, or
received by the public officer with a view of
committing some crime.
4. That the act which the offender agrees to
perform or which he executes be connected with
the performance of his official duties.
71 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
II. By accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of
an act which does not constitute a crime, in connection
with the performance of his official duty.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender be a public officer within the scope
of Article 203
2. The offender accepts an offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present by himself or through
another.
3. That such offer or promise be accepted, or
received by the public officer in consideration of
the execution of an act, which does not
constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust
4. That the act which the offender agrees to
perform or which he executes be connected with
the performance of his official duties.
III. By agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing
something which it is his official duty to do, in
consideration of gift or promise.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender be a public officer within the
scope of Article 203
2. The offender accepts an offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present by himself or through
another.
3. That such offer or promise be accepted, or
received by the public officer to refrain from
doing something which it is his official duty to
do so.
4. That the act which the offender agrees to
perform or which he executes be connected with
the performance of his official duties.
FIRST ACT - By agreeing to perform or performing,
in consideration of offer or promise, gift or present
any act constituting a crime in connection with the
performance of his official duties
➢ If the thing which the public officer is required to
do, is an act which will constitute a crime, a mere
agreement to do so, will already give rise to direct
bribery. It is not necessary that he actually commits
the crime, it is not necessary that he actually
receives the gift or present.
 A MERE AGREEMENT WILL SUFFICE.
SECOND ACT – By accepting a gift in consideration
of execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime in connection with the performance of his
official duty.
➢ If the thing that a public officer is required to do,
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
does not constitute a crime, under the Second Act,
mere agreement will not suffice. There must be
actual acceptance of the thing. There must be
acceptance of the gift, in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime in connection with the performance of his
official duty because the thing that he is being
required to do is not a criminal act. It is his official
thing to do, but he does not want to do it without
the bribe first to be given to him.
 So it is only upon ACCEPTANCE OF THE BRIBE
that criminal liability for direct bribery will arise.
THIRD ACT - By agreeing to refrain or by
refraining from doing an act which is his official
duty to do, in consideration of an offer,
promise, gift or present.
➢ If the thing that a public officer is required to do, is
to refrain from doing an act which is his official
duty to do, a mere agreement to refrain to do an act
will already give rise to direct bribery. It is not
necessary to refrain from doing an act, it is not
necessary to receive the said gift.
 Whatever may be the act constituting direct bribery, in
order to amount to direct bribery, it must always be in
connection with the performance of his official duty. If
it is not in connection with his official duty, it could
other crime like estafa or swindling, but not direct
bribery.
Acejas, III v. People
It is the second act of direct bribery that has been
violated. The second act because it is the duty of the
said BID agent to return the passport. The duty to
return the passport is not a criminal act. It is also not
an act of refraining to do so. But he does not want to
perform the act without the bribe, so he becomes liable
under the 2nd act.
Q: What if a mother wanted her daughter to work in
another country. The daughter was still a minor, 16 years
old. The mother asked the civil registrar to alter the birth
date or the date in the certificate of live birth with a
promise that the first 2 months of the salary of the daughter
will be given to the civil registrar. The civil registrar altered
the date in the birth certificate. What crime/crimes is/are
committed by the civil registrar and by the mother?
A: The civil registrar is liable for direct bribery
because he agreed to perform an act constituting a
crime in consideration of a promise that the 2 months
salary will be given to him. The said act is in
connection with his performance of his official duty.
Therefore he is liable for direct bribery. He actually
performs the act, he actually committed a crime,
therefore he is also liable for the falsification of a
72 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
public document because he actually altered the birth
date which is a very important date in the birth
certificate so he is also liable for the falsification of a
public document.
Without the said bribe, the mother would not have
committed falsification, so are you going to complex
them? because direct bribery is a necessary means to
commit falsification.
 Even if in reality, they should be complex because
direct bribery is a necessary means to commit
falsification, you cannot complex them because
ARTICLE 210 PROHIBITS SUCH
COMPLEXITY OF CRIMES.
Under Article 210, it is expressly provided that the
penalty for direct bribery shall be IN ADDITION TO
THE LIABILITY FOR THE CRIME
COMMITTED. Here, he actually altered, actually
committed the crime, therefore his liability for
falsification is in addition for his liability for direct
bribery. Therefore, 2 separate distinct charges have to
be filed against the civil registrar, we have direct
bribery and the other one is falsification of the public
document.
The mother is liable for corruption of public
official (Art. 212). Direct bribery is the crime of the
public officer who receives the bribe. On the other
hand, the private individual or the public officer who
gives the bribe is liable for corruption of public official
under Art. 212. (Refer to Art. 212 – elements)
The mother gives a promise under circumstances in
which the public officer becomes liable for direct
bribery. She is liable for corruption of public official.
The mother is also liable for falsification of a public
document as a principal by inducement. Without the
bribe, without the said inducement, the said public
officer will not have committed the said falsification.
ARTICLE 211 – INDIRECT BRIBERY
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer
2. That he accepts gifts
3. That the gifts are offered to him by reason of his
office.
➢ Indirect Bribery is committed if the public officer
accepts any gift or present by reason of his office that
he owns. In case of indirect bribery, the public
officer is not deemed required to do a thing. By the
MERE ACCEPTANCE, indirect bribery is
consummated. NO ACCEPTANCE, NO CRIME IS
COMMITTED.
➢ It is always in the consummated stage because the
public officer is not being asked to do an act. The gift
was merely given and accepted because of his office.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Q: A is the newly appointed secretary of DENR. On his first
day of office, Mr. X visited him, paid a courtesy call. Mr. X
is the president of a big logging company. They exchanged
some pleasantries, thereafter, when this president of the
logging company left, he placed a small box on the table.
When he left, the new DENR secretary opened the box and
it was a key to a car parked in front of the building. The new
DENR secretary used it and drove the car. What is the
crime committed?
A: He is liable for Indirect Bribery. The president
of the logging company does not require him to do
anything, it was merely given to him because he was
newly appointed as the DENR secretary. His
acceptance brings about consummated indirect
bribery; therefore, indirect bribery has no attempted or
frustrated stage because outside acceptance, no crime
is committed.
ARTICLE 211-A – QUALIFIED BRIBERY
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer entrusted with law
enforcement.
2. The offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting
an offender who has committed a crime punishable
by reclusion perpetua and/or death
3. The offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting
the offender in consideration of any promise, gift, or
present.
➢ Qualified bribery is committed by any public officer
who is in charge with the enforcement of the law. So, in
order to amount to qualified bribery, it is necessary
that the offender whom the public officer does not
want to prosecute must have committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death.
➢ If the public officer himself solicits the bribe, the
penalty is death
➢ This Article 211-A is an insertion brought about by RA
7659, The Heinous Crime Law.
Q: A police officer was conducting a patrol. He saw a man
behind the tree, looking at the other house adjacent to the
tree as if waiting for someone. So the police officer parked
his vehicle and observed what this man would do. The
moment that a man came out of the gate of the house, this
man hiding behind the tree, immediately went directly to
him and shot him 5 times, and killing him instantly. Then,
the said man rode a motorcycle and left. The police officer
chased him. The Police officer arrested him, however, he
gave the police officer P500,000 and told the police officer,
“Mr. Police officer, you saw nothing, you heard nothing.”
And the police officer allowed him to leave. What
crime/crimes is/are committed by the said police officer?
73 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
A: The said police officer is liable for qualified
bribery. The crime committed by the said man is
murder, because obviously, in his act of killing, there
was treachery, the other party was defenseless and
obviously the said man deliberately and consciously
adopted the ways means and methods employed by
him in killing the victim. Since there was treachery, the
crime committed is murder, punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death. His failure to arrest and prosecute
this man constitute qualified bribery because he did so
after accepting P500,000.
Q: What if a police officer was conducting a patrol, he saw
A and B fighting, boxing each other, killing each other, until
they already on the ground. In the course thereof, A pulls
out his balisong and stabbed B several times on the heart, a
vital organ. B died instantly. Thereafter, A ran away, the
police officer tried to catch up with A and he was able to
arrest A. However A, gave the police officer P100,000. The
police officer allowed him to leave. What crime/crimes
is/are committed by the said police officer?
A: The crime committed by A in killing B is precedent
by a fight, therefore it is merely homicide. Homicide
is punishable only by reclusion temporal. Since it is
only punishable by reclusion temporal, therefore,
qualified bribery is not applicable.
He committed direct bribery, because he accepts a
bribe, in consideration of an act of refraining to arrest
the said criminal. He actually refrains from arresting
and prosecuting the criminal, therefore in addition to
direct bribery, he also committed dereliction of duty in
the prosecution of offenses because he actually
committed dereliction of duty by refraining from
arresting the person who has actually committed a
crime. So this time, there are 2 crimes committed:
 Direct bribery
 Dereliction of duty in the prosecution of
offenses
ARTICLE 212 – CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
OFFICIALS
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender makes or offers promises or gifts or
presents to a public officer.
2. That the offers or promises are made or the gifts or
the gifts or presents given to a public officer, under
circumstances that will make the public officer liable
for direct bribery or indirect bribery.
Q: A case was filed against Y before a police officer, X, is for
qualified rape. The police officer conducted the
investigation which was found that the charge was truthful
one. X invited Y for further investigation. Y learned that a
case for qualified rape will soon be filed against him before
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
the prosecutor, Y gave X 100K in exchange of non-filing of
the case. X accepted and did not file the case. What crime is
committed by
a. the police officer?
b. Y?
A:
a. Qualified Bribery. X is a public officer entrusted
with law enforcement. He does not want to prosecute a
person with a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/or death and the reason for non-filing is because
of the bribe given to him.
When the police officer did not file the case, it
would have amounted to Article 208
(dereliction of duty) but you should not file this
because this is already the very essence of
Article 211-A which is the non-arrest or non-
prosecution of a person who has committed a
crime punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or
death.
b. Corruption of Public Officials.
Q: The case filed by X against Y before P, a police officer, is
for homicide. P conducted an investigation and he invited
Y. When he learned that a case was to be filed against him,
he gave P 100K so the case would no longer be filed. P
accepted and did not file the case. What is the crime
committed by P?
A: P is liable for direct bribery third act. It is the
duty of the police officer to file the case against Y for
the crime of homicide, yet P did not file the case or did
not perform his duty by reason of the bribe given by Y.
P is also liable under Article 208 – dereliction
of duty. He actually refrained from arresting or
causing the prosecution of this offender, Y. Therefor P
is liable for Articles 210 and 208.
Q: A case was submitted against Y for a decision before a
judge for homicide. From the trial, it is obvious that it will
be a conviction but the accused does not want to spend time
in jail so he went to the judge and offered 5M for his
acquittal. The judge accepted and on the day the judgment
was promulgated. The judge acquitted Y. What is the crime
committed by the?
a. Judge
b. Accused
A:
a. The judge can be held liable for:
1. Direct bribery under the first act. The judge
actually renders an unjust decision despite the
knowledge that it is unjust because of the
74 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
money given to him. Knowingly rendering an
unjust decision is a criminal act under Article
204. SO he agrees and actually performs a
criminal act in connection with the
performance of his official function.
2. Since he actually performs the criminal act, he
actually rendered an unjust judgment despite
that the fact that it is contrary to law, to
evidence, he is also liable for Knowingly
rendering an unjust judgment.
3. He can also be held liable under Section
3(e) of RA 3019 – by causing undue injury to
any private party including the government or
by giving a party unwarranted benefit,
advantage, or preference in the discharge of his
functions through manifest partiality, evident
bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence.
 What if the judge argued that he cannot be
prosecuted in violation of RA 3019 because
he was already being prosecuted under
the RPC?
The contention was wrong because it is
expressly provided under RA 3019 that graft
and corrupt practices enumerated shall be in
addition to any act or omission committed by
public officers arising from our penal laws.
b. The accused is liable of:
1. Corruption of public official
2. Violation of Section 4 of RA 3019
THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES
ACT (RA 3019)
PUBLIC OFFICER – a public officer is any elective and
appointive officials and employees, permanent or
temporary, whether in the classified or unclassified or
exemption service receiving compensation, even nominal,
from the government. (Sec 2, RA 3019)
Javier v. Sandiganbayan
Although Javier has been appointed as a representative
of the private sector, in the book publishing board
attached to the office of the president (NBDB), she is
still considered as a public officer; first, the said board
functions as a collegial body performing public
functions; second, according to SC, she was
receiving allowance, a salary even though nominal,
from the government. Hence, she considered as a
public officer.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
SECTION 3 – CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another
public officer to perform an act constituting a
violation of rules and regulations duly
promulgated by competent authority or an offense
in connection with the official duties of the latter,
or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or
influenced to commit such violation or offense.
Persons liable:
1. Public officer who persuades, induces, or
influences another public officer;
2. Public officer who is persuaded induced or
influenced
Note: requesting or receiving any gift, present, or
benefit is not required in this provision.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any gift, present, share, percentage, or benefit, for
himself or for any other person, in connection with
any contract or transaction between the
Government and any other part, wherein the
public officer in his official capacity has to
intervene under the law.
1. the lack of demand is immaterial, the law uses
the word OR between requesting and
receiving.
➢ There must be clear intention on the part of the
public officer and consider it as his or her own
property from then on. Mere physical receipt
unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or
act to show acceptance is not sufficient to lead the
court to conclude that the crime has been
committed
➢ Refers to a public officer whose official
intervention is required by law in a contract or
transaction
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving
any gift, present or other pecuniary or material
benefit, for himself or for another, from any
person for whom the public officer, in any manner
or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will secure
or obtain, any Government permit or license, in
consideration for the help given or to be given,
without prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family
accept employment in a private enterprise which
has pending official business with him during the
pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.
75 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

(e) Causing any undue injury to any party including
the government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in
the discharge of his official, administrative or
judicial functions through manifest partiality,
evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
ELEMENTS:
1. The said offender was in charge of his official,
administrative or judicial function
2. That he acted with manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence
3. The said accused caused any undue injury to any
party, including the government, or gave any private
party unwarranted benefits, advantage, or
preference in the discharge of his official functions.
Santos v. People
➢ The Supreme Court said that there are two acts
punished under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019:
1. Causing any undue injury; or
2. Giving any private party any unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference
➢ The law uses the conjunctive “or”;
therefore, the fact that the offender
causes any undue injury to any party or
the fact that the offender gave any party
unwarranted benefit, advantage or
preference, they can be charged distinctly
or separately from each other.
➢ The Supreme Court also stated that the elements
of Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019
UNDUE INJURY – means there must be an actual
damage caused to the offended party. Absent any actual
damage caused to the offended party, then section 3 (e) is
not violated.
Ambil, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan
The mayor was charged with the crime of murder and
he was placed in the provincial jail. The governor
transferred the mayor to his house. The IBP learned
about this and conducted an investigation. Having
found probable cause, the IBP brought the matter to
the NBI. The NBI conducted further investigation and
it also found probable cause. It filed a case before the
Office of the Ombudsman. The ombudsman, after
investigating the matter found probable cause so it
filed a case before the Sandiganbayan. A violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019 was filed before the
Sandiganbayan against the Provincial Governor and
the jail warden as co-principals.
Contentions of the Governor:
1. He is the provincial jailer based on LGC and
therefore has the power to transfer one prisoner
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
from one place of detention to another. There was
no manifest partiality.
2. There was a threat on the life of the mayor
therefore he had no other recourse but to transfer
him to his house. There was no bad faith.
3. Based on the information charged, it was alleged
that he gave a private party unwarranted benefit.
According to him, the mayor is a public officer,
therefore, the mayor is not within the meaning of
private party.
Supreme Court:
➢ There is manifest partiality. In his house, the
governor can roam around, can eat good food, and
can do anything that he wants so, evidently, there
is manifest partiality.
➢ The mayor acted with evident bad faith. SC said
that under the LGC, there is no such thing as
provincial jailer. The governor acted with evident
bad faith because there was no court order that
would permit the transfer of the mayor from the
provincial jail to his house. A prisoner can only be
transferred from one detention prisoner to
another if there is a court order. Since there is
none, there was evident bad faith.
➢ Wrong interpretation of the term “private party”.
The SC distinguished a private person from a
private party. A private person is one who is not a
public officer or employee. Whereas, a private
party is one who is a private person or a public
officer acting in his private capacity. Since the
mayor was charged with murder, although he is a
public officer, he is acting in his private capacity
therefore third element is also present.
Contention of the jail warden:
He is not under the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
because he is only of the Salary Grade 22 and as such,
the case before him must be filed before the RTC.
Supreme Court:
The provincial jail warden was being charged as a co-
principal of the governor. The governor is way above
salary Grade 27. It suffices that any one of them is of
Salary Grade 27 and is within the jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan. Since they were both charged as co-
principals, both of them are under the jurisdiction of
the Sandiganbayan.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or
request, without sufficient justification, to act
within a reasonable time on any matter pending
before him for the purpose of obtaining, directly or
indirectly, from any person interested in the
76 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own
interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or
discriminating against any other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the
public officer profited or will profit thereby
➢ The public officer entered into any contract or
transaction on behalf of the government. The said
contract is manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the government.
In Nava v. Pallattao, the violation was Section 3 (g). The
DECS officials bought laboratory science materials and
after COA audited, it was discovered that there was an
overpricing. The same is true in Caunan v. People where
Joey Marquez and company bought walis-tingting, and
according to the COA auditors, there was also overpricing
of these walis-tingting. But in the case of Nava, there was
conviction but in the case of Caunan, there was an
acquittal.
 Where lies the difference?
➢ In the case of Nava, the COA officials proved
the overpricing because they bought the very
same laboratory materials from the same
supplier where the DECS officials bought and
by reason thereof, it was discovered that there
was indeed an overpricing.
➢ However, in the case of Caunan, Joey
Marquez bought from a different supplier
than where the COA officials bought. The
COA officials bought from a Las Pinas
supplier which they compared with the price
of walis-tingting bought by Joey Marquez.
Not only did they buy the said walis-tingting
from a different supplier, the walis-tingting
bought by COA officials was of different
specifications from that of the walis-tingting
bought by Joey Marquez and company.
Hence, the Supreme Court said that
prosecution was not able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that there was overpricing.
Because the walis-tingting bought by Joey
Marquez was very much different from the
walis-tingting bought by the COA officials.
They were not able to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that there was overpricing
because of the difference in specifications.
➢ In both cases, there was NO PUBLIC BIDDING.
 Will the mere lack of public bidding bring about a
violation of Section 3 (g) of RA 3019?
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
➢ The Supreme Court said that mere lack of
public bidding may mean that the
government was not able to get the best price
for the thing purchased. However, it does
not bring about a violation of Section 3
(g) because what Section 3 (g) requires is the
transaction must be manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the government and mere
lack of public bidding will not show such
gross and manifest disadvantage.
(h) Directly or indirectly having financing or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or
transaction in connection with which he intervenes
or takes part in his official capacity, or in which he
is prohibited by the Constitution or by any law
from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for
personal gain, or having a material interest in any
transaction or act requiring the approval of a
board, panel or group of which he is a member,
and which exercises discretion in such approval,
even if he votes against the same or does not
participate in the action of the board, committee,
panel or group.
➢ Interest for personal gain shall be presumed
against those public officers responsible for the
approval of manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or
irregular transaction or acts by the board, panel or
group to which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license,
permit, privilege or benefit in favor of any person
not qualified for or not legally entitled to such
license, permit, privilege or advantage, or of a
mere representative or dummy of one who is not so
qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a
confidential character, acquired by his office or by
him on account of his official position to
unauthorized persons, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized release
date.
➢ Note: if damage was caused, Article 229 under the RPC
is committed.
SECTION 4 – PROHIBITION ON PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS
➢ Under Section 4, it is unlawful for any private
individual who has a close personal relation to any
public officer to request, ask or receive present
from any person in any case from which the said
public officer has to control.
➢ Close personal relation does not only include
family members. It also includes those who have
77 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
social and fraternal relations; therefore even a
private individual who is not in conspiracy of a
public officer can be held liable under RA 3019.
➢ Not only public officers but also private
individuals can be held liable under RA 3019.
SECTION 9 – PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
➢ Under Section 9, both private individuals and
public officers have just the same penalty. It is six
years and one month to fifteen years plus
forfeiture of the ill-gotten wealth.
SECTION 7 – STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES & RA 6713
➢ Public officers can file their SALN within 30 days
from assumption into office. And then it must be
filed on or before the 30th day of April of the next
years and within 30 days after separation from the
service.
➢ In RA 3019, it is stated “on or before 15th of April”
but there is another law which provides also for
the filing of SALN and that is RA6713 which is the
code of ethical standards for public officers.
➢ Under RA 6713, and this is what is being followed,
it must be on or before the 30th day of April.
➢ So you file first within 30 days upon assumption
to office and then the years thereafter on or before
the 30th day of April and then if you got separated
from office, within 30 days from separation from
office.
➢ If the public officer fails to file his SALN within the
period required by law, he is liable under RA 3019.
But if he filed his SALN but the entries therein
were falsities, he is liable for Perjury.
SECTION 8 – PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AND
DISMISSAL DUE TO UNEXPLAINED WEALTH
➢ There arises a prima facie presumption of graft
and corrupt practices if a public officer has been
found to have in his possession money or
property, whether in his name or in that name of
another person, which is manifestly out of
proportion from his lawful income. There arises a
prima facie presumption of graft and corrupt
practices.
SECTION 10 – COMPETENT COURT & RA 8429
➢ You file a case of violation of Article 3019 before
the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction unless otherwise provided by law.
➢ There is a law, RA 8429 which provides for the
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan. Under this law, if a
public officer is of salary grade 27 and above, it
must be before the Sandiganbayan. If the public
officer is below salary grade 27, it must be before
the RTC.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
SECTION 11 – PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES
All offenses punishable under this Act shall prescribe
in twenty years (RA 10910). Same as plunder.
SECTION 13 – SUSPENSION AND LOSS OF
BENEFITS
Q: What if a public officer, has been charged for violation of
RA 3019, the Ombudsman found probable cause. The case
was now filed before the Sandiganbayan. Is it incumbent
upon the Sandiganbayan to immediately place him under
preventive suspension? Is preventive suspension
automatic? Is preventive suspension mandatory?
A: Preventive suspension is mandatory but it is
not automatic. There must first be a pre-suspension
period to determine the validity of the information.
The moment the Sandiganbayan discovers the said
information is valid, sufficient in substance to bring
about a conviction, it is now mandatory upon the
Sandiganbayan to place the said accused public officer
under preventive suspension.
So it is not automatic because there must first be a pre-
suspension period. The only issue in the pre-
suspension period is the information filed by the
Ombudsman against the said public officer valid, is it
sufficient enough to bring about a conviction in court?
If the answer is yes, immediately, mandatory on the
part of the Sandiganbayan, a ministerial duty, the said
public officer must be placed under preventive
suspension. It it ministerial not discretionary, not
either or.
 For how long should the suspension be?
➢ The suspension must not exceed the
maximum of ninety days, in consonance with
Section 52 of the Administrative Code.
SECTION 14 - EXCEPTION
Q: What if a public officer saw an old man waiting line. So
the old man received a notice, the notice said that his
license is ready, it has already been approved. So he was
waiting in line for the release of his license, it was already
approved. The head of office saw the old man. 85 years old,
under the heat of the sun and with his frail body. So the
head of office took the man and the head of office asked the
man to his office. The head of office asked the secretary, “Is
the license of this man approved?” The secretary said yes.
The head of office said, “get it.” The secretary took it and
gave to the head of office. The head of office, upon seeing
that it is approved, and the man was only waiting for its
release, gave it to the man; therefore the man need not wait
in the long line. The man was so thankful that the following
day, the man went back to the office with two big bilaos of
bibingka to the said head of office to say thank you. The
said head of office received two big bilaos of bibingka. Is the
said head of office liable under RA 3019?
78 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
A: No. It falls under the exception. Under Section
14, unsolicited gifts or presents of small or insignificant
value offered or given as a mere ordinary token of
friendship or gratitude, according to local customs or
usage is excepted from the provisions of RA 3019;
therefore the said public officer will not be held
criminally liable.
CHAPTER THREE – FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL
EXACTIONS AND TRANSACTIONS
ARTICLE 213 – FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC
TREASURY AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Fraud against public treasury (par.1)
II. Illegal exactions (par. 2)
ELEMENTS OF FRAUD AGAINST PUBLIC
TREASURY (ART. 213, PAR. 1):
1. That the offender is a public officer
2. that he should have taken advantage of his office,
that is he intervened in the transaction of his
official capacity
3. That he entered into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or made use of any
other scheme with regard to:
(1) furnishing supplies
(2) the making of contracts
(3) the adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds
4. That the accused had intent to defraud the
Government
➢ So here, the public officer took advantage of his official
position in entering into contract which involves the
furnishing of supplies, or which involves public funds
or property and the intention is to DEFRAUD THE
GOVERNMENT. It is not necessary that the
Government, the treasury be actually be defrauded, it
suffices that entering in the said contract, the intention
of the said offender, the public officer, is to defraud the
Government.
Q: The military in Mindanao needs blankets. The head of
military asked the supply officer in Manila how much a
blanket costs. They will be buying 1000 blankets. Supply
officer canvassed and found that a blanket cost 500. He
connived and conspired with the supplier of the blankets
and told him to price apiece of 600 pesos. So it was what
was delivered to Mindanao. Therefore, the government
issued a check in the amount of 600K wherein it should
only be 500K. What crime has been committed by the
supply officer?
A: The supply officer is liable for Article 213 first
paragraph (Fraud Against the Public Treasury)
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
because there is no allocation of the budget yet.
Therefore, when the treasury paid for more than what
has been paid, the treasury is defrauded. Hence, the
crim committed is Article 213 (1).
Q: What if the GAA had already been approved by the
Congress and signed by the President, there was already a
budget for the entire calendar year. In this budget, the
military was given a portion for the blankets. So there was
1000 blankets with 500K budget allocated. Upon the
enactment of the same, the head of the military asked the
supply officer to canvass. Upon canvassing, he found that
there were blankets that cost 500 pesos each. But the
supply officer connived with the supplier of the blankets
and told him that instead of delivering blankets with
premium quality costing 500 pesos, he should deliver only
inferior quality blankets costing 300 pesos each, anyway,
the people in Mindanao would not know. So the poor
quality blankets were delivered. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is not fraud against public
treasury but Other Frauds under Article 214. This is
because there is an allocation in the GAA and as such,
the treasury can no longer be defrauded because such
amount has long been allocated or earmarked for the
purchase of the blankets. The fraud is in the
implementation of the budget therefore it amounted to
Estafa. Other frauds is committed by any public officer,
who, by taking advantage of his official position would
commit any of the acts of Estafa under Articles 315 –
318.
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL EXACTION (ART. 213,
PAR. 2)
1. That the offender is a public officer entrusted with the
collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts.
2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:
(1) Demanding, directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or larger than
those authorized by law; or
(2) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as
provided by law, for any sum of money
collected by him officially; or
(3) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly,
by way of payment or otherwise, things or
objects of a nature different from that
provided by law.
Offender is a collecting public officer, a public officer
who has been entrusted with duty to collect taxes, licenses,
fees or other imposts. Only this kind of public officer can
commit this crime because illegal exaction involves
violation of rules on collection.
➢ This refers solely on the violation of the rules on
collection. It does not involve malversation or
79 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
misappropriation of the public funds he collected. If
aside from violation of rules on collection, he also
misappropriate, malversed the sum he collected, he
becomes liable under Article 217 – Malversation of
Public Funds or Property
1st Act - Demanding, directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or larger than
those authorized by law; or
Q: There was this cashier in the city treasurer’s office. Here
comes X, X said that he is going to get a cedula (residence
certificate) and then X said, “How much am I going to
pay?” and then, the cashier or the collecting officer said,
“you have to pay Php200” but it is actually Php20. X said,
“hmp, ang mahal pala, ayoko na.” and so he left. Is the said
collecting officer liable of any crime?
A: YES, he is liable. For merely demanding an
amount larger than that authorized by law, he is
already liable for ILLEGAL EXACTION under Article
213, Par. 2.
Q: He is already liable, he merely demanded, but what if in
the same problem, X said he was going to get a cedula. The
collecting officer saw him and he appears to be poor man
and so X asked the collecting officer, “How much am I
going to pay?” and the collecting officer took pity of X and
said, “Only Php 10”. So, the poor man said, “Oh, I have
more money, I’ll get two”. Is the collecting officer liable of
any crime?
A: YES, he is liable because he demanded an
amount different from that authorized by law. Note
that what the law requires is the demanding of an
amount, directly or indirectly, different from or larger
than those authorized by law. Therefore, even if it is
lower, so long as it is different from that provided by
law, and so long as it is demanded by the said
collecting officer, then it is considered as illegal
exaction.
It is not necessary for the said collecting officer to have
misappropriated the funds, the moment that he
misappropriates the funds, in addition to illegal
exaction, he may also be held liable for
MALVERSATION, because Illegal Exaction is only
about the rules on collection. It has nothing to do with
the appropriation or misappropriation of funds or
property. Only a violation of the rules on collection.
2nd Act - Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as
provided by law, for any sum of money collected by
him officially;
Q: So what if it was January 2, all kinds of payment are
being made at the start of the year. So the collecting officer
in the treasurer’s office rans out of official receipt (O.R.).
And so he got a half sheet of typewriting paper and he note
there about the said payment and a provisional receipt and
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
he gave it to the same person who made the payment. Is the
said collecting officer liable of illegal exaction?
A: He is not. Because he did not voluntarily fail to
issue the said O.R. He ran out of the said O.R., it was
not voluntary on his part. It was an emergency
situation. It is good that she even gave a provisional
receipt as a proof of payment. In this case, he cannot
be held liable for illegal exaction.
3rd Act - Collecting or receiving, directly or
indirectly, by way of payment or otherwise, things
or objects of a nature different from that provided
by law.
➢ Here, under the third act, it does not refer to the
amount of payment. It refers to the kind or nature of
payment. So, when the law says that it should be
paid in cash, only cash may be received by the said
collecting officer.
Q: So the collecting officer is known as a sabungero. So
here comes one of the persons who was making payment.
He has no money, but said, he has a magandang tandang.
And so, that was the payment received. What crime is
committed?
A: He commits a violation of illegal exaction.
Q: What if the person who demanded an amount or
different from or larger than that which is provided for by
law is an officer, a collecting officer from the Bureau of
Internal Revenue, or a collecting officer form the Bureau of
Customs. Is he liable under Article 213?
A: He is not liable for illegal exaction under
Art. 213. He is liable under the Tax Code or under the
Tariffs and Customs Code. Under Art. 213, it is
expressly provided that if the collecting officer is a
collecting officer coming from the Bureau of Internal
Revenue or Bureau of Customs is not liable under this
Article. The reason here is that, this collecting officer
from the BIR and the BOC, have the right to ask for
penalties, surcharges, and compromise. Therefore,
they can always demand and amount different from or
that which is larger than that authorized by law. If they
exceeded that authority, then they are liable under the
Tariffs and Customs Code or under the Tax Code, but
NOT UNDER THE RPC.
Q: X went to the collecting officer, A, and asked how much
should he pay for a license. A told X that it costs 2000
which is not true because only 1500. X believed so he paid.
Upon receipt, X asked for an OR but X said that he ran out
of receipt which is a lie because he did not want to disclose
his excess collection and so he issued a provisional receipt
to X. Then he told X to arrive some other time to check if
the OR had arrived. X left. The moment he left, A opened
the public cash vault and he placed therein the two 1000
peso bills. He closed the same. The following day, he
80 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
remembered that he had an excess collection and opened
the public vault and took 500 from inside. He uses it for his
personal needs. What crime or crimes had been committed
by A?
A: A is liable for ILLEGAL EXACTION 2ND
PARAGRAPH under the first and second acts.
He demanded an amount different from what is
provided by law. He voluntarily and deliberately issued
the OR to conceal the excess collection.
He is also liable for Malversation. This is because
the moment he opened the vault and took 500 pesos,
he also committed malversation under Article 217. The
moment A placed the entire 2000 in the public vault,
the entire 2000 which includes the 500 pesos excess
collection becomes part of public funds because it is
now comingled with public funds. Therefore, the
moment A took the 500 from the public cash vault,
although it is in excess, it was comingled with public
funds and as such became one, A, in effect, violated
Malversation under Article 217 using the same for his
own personal needs.
ARTICLE 214 – OTHER FRAUDS
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He takes advantage of his official position
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated
in Articles 315-318
If any of the public officer commits any of the frauds or
deceits constituting ESTAFA or SWINDLING, under Art.
315-318, and he does so by taking advantage of his official
position, his criminal liability is Other Frauds under Art.
214.
Not estafa, Not swindling. the reason is that in case of a
public officer, there is additional penalty. If you look at
Article 214, the law says that the penalty is the same penalty
as the first offense under Art. 315-318. But additional to
that, temporary disqualification to perpetual
disqualification for having taken advantage of his official
position. Therefore, if it is a public officer who commits
estafa or swindling, the crime is under Art. 214 and there is I.
an additional penalty.
II.
ARTICLE 215 – PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
III.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is an appointive public officer
IV.
2. He becomes interested, directly or indirectly in any
transaction of exchange or speculation
3. Transaction takes place within the territory subject
to his jurisdiction
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
4. He becomes interested in the transaction during his
incumbency
ARTICLE 216 – POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED
INTEREST BY A PUBLIC OFFICER
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Public Officer who, directly or indirectly, became
interested in any contract or business in which it was
his official duty to intervene.
2. Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, in
like manner, took part in any contract or transaction
connected with the estate or property in the appraisal,
distribution or adjudication of which they had acted
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the property
belonging to their wards or the estate
CHAPTER FOUR – MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY
ARTICLE 217 – MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC
FUNDS OR PROPERTY (PRESUMPTION OF
MALVERSATION)
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. He has the custody or control of funds or property by
reason of the duties of his office
3. Those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was accountable
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented, or through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them
The offender is an accountable public officer. An
accountable of public officer is an officer in the course of
the performance of his duties, receives funds or property
from the government which he has the obligation to
account later. So he has in his custody, public funds or
public property and he has the obligation to account these
to the Government.
ACTS PUNISHED:
Appropriating public funds or property
Taking or misappropriating the same
Consenting, through abandonment or negligence,
permitting any other person to take such public funds
or property
Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property
➢ Malversation of Public Funds and Property can be
committed either through a positive act, that is, that
the said public officer is the one who misappropriates,
81 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
takes or appropriates the public funds and property,
OR, through a passive act, that is, through his
abandonment or negligence, he permitted others to
misappropriate the same.
➢ Malversation can be committed either through a
positive act, which is through deliberate intent or
through dolo. He is the one who appropriates or
misappropriates, who took the the said public funds or
property
➢ Passive Act which is through his abandonment or
negligence, or cupla. He allowed others to appropriate
or misappropriate the said public funds or property
PRIMA FACIE PRESUMPTION OF
MALVERSATION:
Under Article 217, there arises prima facie presumption of
malversation of public funds or property when demand is
made by a duly authorized officer to an accountable public
officer to account for public funds or property, and the
same is not forthcoming
So the COA auditor, appeared and conducted an audit he
demanded for the said amount, the said accountable public
officer cannot reduce the said amount. There arises the
prima facie presumption that he has malversed the said
public funds or property. Although that is what is written
under Article 217, last paragraph. The Supreme Court in the
number of cases said:
“Mere shortage in audit will not suffice. For the Prima
facie presumption to arise the following requisites
must be present: - It is necessary that there must be
complete, thorough and reliable audit.
- In the said complete, thorough and reliable audit,
the following were discovered:
a. The public officer indeed receive the public
funds or property. That is, he is an
accountable public officer
b. The said public funds and property was
missing, or there was a shortage, or he
cannot produce it, and
c. The said public officer cannot give a
justifiable reason, a legal excuse for the said
shortage or missing of public funds or
property.”
If all of these are present, the Supreme Court says that
there arises the prima facie presumption that there is
malversation of public funds or property. Therefore, there
may NOT be direct evidence to convict one for malversation
of public funds or property. Obviously, there cannot be any
witness, because when you say direct evidence, there is a
witness. Of course, he would not let anyone see him
malversing the funds. It suffices in the audit, these three
things were discovered. If these three are discovered, then
there arises the prima facie presumption that there is a so-
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
called MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY
Q: What if a man was walking, in the middle of the night, a
police officer who was conducting a patrol saw something
bulging on his waist. The police officer stopped him and
frisked him and there, they saw a firearm. They ask for the
license, the said man could not produce the license for the
said firearm. He was arrested for illegal possession of
unlicensed firearm, and the firearm was confiscated.
During the trials of the case, the fiscal move for subpoena
for the custodian of the said firearm. The custodian
appeared but failed to bring the firearm. He had already
sold the said firearm confiscated. What crime is committed
by the said custodian?
A: He is liable for Malversation under Article
217.
Q: His contention was, it cannot be malversation, because
the firearm was owned by a private person. It is not a public
property, therefore I cannot be held liable for malversation.
Is the contention correct?
A: His contention is wrong. The said firearm has
already been confiscated by public authority, therefore
it is now deemed, CUSTODIA LEGIS. The moment it is
in custodia legis, it loses its character as a private
property and it now assumes a character of a public
property. Hence the crime committed is Malversation.
Q: What if, there was this collecting officer, a cashier, and
there were many persons paying. And the long line persons
paying, one cashier said that he needed to answer the call of
nature, and so he asked another fellow cashier to look after
his drawer, and so, he left and went to the restroom. But he
also left the key of his drawing on the key holder. And so,
the moment he left, his fellow cashier went to his drawer
and opened it and took Php 2000 from the collection of A
on the same day. Then A arrived, and he then accepted
collections. In the afternoon, there was a surprise audit
coming from the COA. and it was discovered that based on
the receipts, The 2000 were missing from the collection of
A. Therefore, A was charged. What crime if any, has been
committed by A? Is A liable for malversation?
A: Yes, he is liable for malversation through
negligence. That is the passive act. That is through
his abandonment or negligence, he permitted another
person, Cashier B to misappropriate a part of his
collection for the day. Hence A is also liable for
Malversation. Not B, but A, the one who went to the
restroom, because he is the one accountable for the
said public funds in his drawer.
That other person, B, who took the said property is
liable for qualified theft because he was entrusted
with the same funds, and he took the same funds.
82 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

Q: What if, in the same problem, after the COA auditor carried the millions worth of dangerous drugs in the
found out that Php 2000 was missing, A was charged with PDEA van, considering the value of the said dangerous
Malversation of public funds and property through dolo. drugs, he should have asked for back up. Yes, he
So, in the information, it was stated that he is the one who survived, but he was charged with Malversation of
misappropriates, appropriates or has taken the said public public funds or property through CULPA.
funds, and so he was charged with Malversation through
Q: What if, there is a public officer whose office is in pasay.
dolo, through deliberate intent. That was the case filed
He is going to have a meeting in Caloocan. And so he went
against him because they did not know that it was B who
to Caloocan in one afternoon and attended the said
took the money. So, the presumption is that, he is the one
meeting. He had to go to pasay in order to make a report,
who took the money, who appropriated it. During the trial
However, the traffic was heavy, so instead of using his car
of the merits, during the presentation of the defense
on the way back, he rode the LRT. Upon reaching the office,
evidence, when it was already A’s term to testify, it was
he realized that his bag was opened, and the cellphone
divulged or disclosed to the court that it was in fact another
which was issued to him by the Government was already
cashier, B who misappropriated the said funds through the
gone. By reason thereof, he was charged with Malversation
negligence of A. And by reason of this evidence presented in
under Article 217 because through his negligence, the
court, the said judge, convicted A of Malversation through
cellphone which was issued to him by the Government and
culpa, in an information of malversation through dolo. Is
for which he is accountable to the Government was now
the judge correct? can he convict A?
missing. It was taken or stolen by somebody. Is he liable?
A: Yes, the judge is correct. The reason is that, He was convicted by the Sandiganbayan but when it came
according to the Supreme Court, whether Malversation to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court acquitted him.
is committed through deliberate intent or culpa, DOLO
A: According to the Supreme Court, there was no
and CULPA are merely modalities of committing the
negligence on the part of the said public officer. He
crime. Nevertheless, it is still malversation, and if you
cannot be faulted for having taken the LRT because of
look at Article 217, whether malversation is committed
the said heavy traffic. It cannot be said that there was
through deliberate intent or through negligence, they
negligence on his part in placing the cellphone inside
just have one and the same penalties. Further, the
his bag, because, where else would you place a
Supreme Court said, Malversation through negligence
cellphone but inside the bag for safekeeping. It would
or culpa is NECESSARILY INCLUDED in Malversation
have been different while on board, he was using the
through deliberate intent or dolo. Hence, even if the
said cellphone. Hence, the Supreme Court said, there
information is Malversation through dolo, one can be
was no negligence and therefore, although convicted by
convicted of Malversation through Culpa or
the SandiganBayan, he was acquitted by the Supreme
Negligence.
Court.
Q: What if, there was this raid in a warehouse, in the course
ARTICLE 218 – FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE
of the said raid, dangerous drugs worth millions of pesos
OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS
were confiscated and they were placed in the PDEA
warehouse. The persons therein were charged with illegal ELEMENTS:
possession of dangerous drugs. In the course of the hearing
1. Offender is a public officer, whether in the service or
in this possession of dangerous drugs, the court sent a
separated therefrom
subpoena to the PDEA custodian, to bring to the Court the
said dangerous drugs which were confiscated. And so, on 2. He must be an accountable officer for public funds
the designated day, the said PDEA agent boarded all the or property
dangerous drugs confiscated in a PDEA van and off he went
3. He is required by law or regulation to render
to the Court. However, before the PDEA agent could reach
accounts to the Commission on Audit, or to a
the court, here comes two motorcycles who went in and
provincial Auditor
fired at him, and he fell on his seat, lifeless. And then, a big
vehicle arrived at the back of the said PDEA van and took 4. He fails to do so for a period of two months after
all the said dangerous drugs. Now the said PDEA agent was such accounts should be rendered
brought into the hospital and despite the fatal wound,
ARTICLE 219 – FAILURE OF RESPONSIBLE
because of the immediate medical intervention, he
PUBLIC OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS
survived. Is he liable of any crime?
BEFORE LEAVING THE COUNTRY
A: Yes, he is liable of Malversation of public
ELEMENTS:
funds or property under Article 217 through
Negligence. There was inexcusable negligence on his 1. Offender is a public officer
part said the Supreme Court, because all by himself,
2. He must be an accountable officer for public funds
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 83 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

or property appropriated by law or

ordinance that is why it is
3. He must have unlawfully left (or be on the point of
TECHNICAL
leaving) the Philippines without securing from the
MALVERSATION – the
Commission on Audit a certificate showing that his
offense is on the
accounts have been finally settled
technicality of the use of
ARTICLE 220 – ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS funds.
OR PROPERTY (Technical Malversation)
ELEMENTS:
The public officer has in his The public officer has in his
1. Offender is a public officer possession public funds or possession public funds or
property for safekeeping. It property is only under his
2. there is a public fund or property under his
is under his custody and administration. Not for
administration
control and therefore it is safekeeping, but only for
3. Such public fund or property has been appropriated for his safekeeping and he the purpose of
by law or ordinance has the obligation to account administrating it that is, for
it later on to the applying it for the purpose
4. He applies the same to a public use other than that
Government. which it has been
for which such fund or property has been
appropriated by law or
appropriated by law or ordinance.
ordinance.
Q: What if a public officer has under his administration
public funds which is for a certain project. So let us say that
X is the city administrator. Under his administration, there ➢ If the information alleged is under Article 217 –
was Php500,000, the said Php 500,000 was for the Malversation, if what was proven during trial is that
construction of a bridge between one barangay to another the accused violated Article 220 – technical
barangay. Then suddenly there was a typhoon, a big malversation, the judge could not convict accused
typhoon and many of the constituents were rendered under Article 220 because it is not necessarily included
homeless. And so, they had to stay in the basketball court, in Article 217. The accused would be deprived to be
they need food, clothing, water and other basic needs. And informed of the accusation against him. He should be
so, the city administrator made use of the Php 500,000 acquitted.
under his administration to buy these basic needs of his ➢ Good faith is not a defense because although Technical
constituents. Is the said public officer, the city Malversation is punishable under the RPC, it is malum
administrator liable of any crime? prohibitum therefore criminal intent is immaterial.
The very act punished is the transferring of funds
A: Yes, he is liable for technical Malversation
which has been appropriated by law to another public
under Article 220.
use notwithstanding that it is more urgent or more
EXAMPLE: beneficial to the people. The fact is the funds were
diverted or transferred from its supposed purpose to
GMA and other head of Philhealth before were charged by
another.
Frank Chavez because of Technical Malversation because of
transfer of COA funds, which was used for Philhealth ARTICLE 221 – FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF
purposes during the elections. And so, because of that, PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
according to Frank Chavez, they are liable for Malversation.
ELEMENTS:
They were charged with Technical Malversation. But their
contention was there was a law that allowed it. If there was 1. That the public officer has government funds in his
a law that allowed it, then, there was no violation. But, if possession
there is no law, there is an illegal transfer of funds, 2. That he is under obligation to make payments from
therefore, technical Malversation will resolve. such funds
3. That he fails to make payment maliciously
ARTICLE 217 ARTICLE 220
ACTS PUNISHED:
The public officer The public officer did not
misappropriates the fund for misappropriate the funds I. Failing to make payment by a public officer who is
his personal use. for his personal use, he under obligation to make such payment from
used it for another public Government funds in his possession
purpose other than that
which has been
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 84 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
II. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has
been ordered by competent authority to deliver any
property in his custody or under his administration
ARTICLE 222 – OFFICERS INCLUDED IN
PRECEDING PROVISIONS
Private Individual who may be liable under Art.
217-221:
1. Private Individual who in any capacity whatsoever,
have charge of national, provincial or municipal
funds, revenue or property
2. Administrator, depository of funds or property
attached, seized or deposited by public authority
even if such property belongs to a private individual
3. Those who acted in conspiracy in malversation
4. Accomplice and accessories to malversation
Can a private property be the subject of
Malversation?
1. YES, under the 2nd act in Article 222, that is
when the said funds or property has been
attached, seized or deposited by public
authority, it now becomes in custodia legis
and it now assumes the character of being
public funds or property. If any are
misappropriated, then the crime committed is
Malversation and not theft.
ANTI-PLUNDER ACT (RA 7080))
ILL-GOTTEN WEALTH
- means any asset, property, business enterprise or
material possession of any person within the purview
of Section two (2) hereof, acquired by him directly or
indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents,
subordinates and/or business associates by any
combination or series of the following means or similar
schemes:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury;
2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or
any/or entity in connection with any government
contract or project or by reason of the office or
position of the public officer concerned;
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of assets belonging to the National
government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities or government-owned or
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or
indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other
form of interest or participation including the
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
promise of future employment in any business
enterprise or undertaking;
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or
commercial monopolies or other combinations
and/or implementation of decrees and orders
intended to benefit particular persons or special
interests; or
6. By taking undue advantage of official position,
authority, relationship, connection or influence to
unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the
expense and to the damage and prejudice of the
Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines
Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder, Penalties. Any
public officer who, by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or other
persons, amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth
through a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as
described in Section 1 (d) hereof, in the aggregate amount
or total value of at least Fifty million pesos
(P50,000,000.00), shall be guilty of the crime of
plunder and shall be punished by life imprisonment with
perpetual absolute disqualification from holding any public
office. Any person who participated with the said public
officer in the commission of plunder shall likewise be
punished. In the imposition of penalties, the degree of
participation and the attendance of mitigating and
extenuating circumstances shall be considered by the court.
Q: Public officer X and his five subordinates were charged
of Plunder. The ombudsman found probable cause and
thereafter filed a case before the Sandiganbayan.
Sandiganbayan found probable cause and it issued a
warrant of arrest. Public Officer X got a tip from inside the
Sandiganbayan that a warrant against them had been
issued. Upon learning of this, they immediately went to the
police station and voluntarily gave themselves up. They
were placed behind bars and they are not allowed to post
bail because plunder is a non-bailable offense. After trial on
the merits, Sandiganbayan convicted them. But in its
decision, the jusitices ruled that X should be punished as
the principal and the five subordinates should be punished
as accomplices in the crime plunder since this is what was
proven. The Sandiganbayan also considered their acts of
surrendering to the police officer before they are arrested as
a mitigating circumstance. So the penalty was lowered. Are
the justices correct?
A: Yes. Although as a rule, violations of special penal
laws, you do not consider the degree of participation or
modifying circumstance, there is an exception – when
the law provides otherwise. In this case, under Section
2 of RA 7080, the law expressly provides that in
imposing the penalty, the degree of participation of the
offender and the presence of any mitigating and
extenuating circumstances shall be considered by the
85 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
court. Therefore the consideration of the degree of
participation and the consideration of mitigating
circumstance of voluntary surrender are correct.
Where do you file a case of Plunder?
1. Unless otherwise provided by law, Sandiganbayan
has original and exclusive jurisdiction.
2. But RA 8429 – only public officers with salary
grade 27 or above shall be within the jurisdiction
of the Sandiganbayan. Others, within the
jurisdiction of the RTC.
Sec. 4. Rule of Evidence. For purposes of establishing the
crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each
and every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance
of the scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or
acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish
beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts
indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
Sec. 6. Prescription of Crime. The crime punishable under
this Act shall prescribe in twenty (20) years from the last
act. However, the right of the State to recover properties
unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from
their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by
prescription, laches, or estoppel.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
Plunder, although a special law, is malum in se.
Therefore, criminal intent matters. It is part of the
prosecution to prove criminal intent.
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS
(Articles 223, 224, 225)
➢ The offender is always the custodian of the
prisoner. If he is not the custodian or the one
entrusted with the custody of the prisoner, the
crime committed is under Article 156 or delivering
prisoners from jail.
ARTICLE 223 – CONNIVING WITH OR
CONSENTING TO EVASION
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He has in his custody or charge a prisoner, either
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the
latter’s escape, or is with his consent
ARTICLE 224 – EVASION THROUGH
NEGLIGENCE
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a
prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by
final judgment
3. Such prisoner escapes through his negligence
ARTICLE 225 – ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER
THE CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC
OFFICER
ELEMENTS:
1.
Offender is a private individual
2.
Conveyance (or charge) of custody of prisoner or
person under arrest is confided to him
3. Prisoner or person under arrest escapes
4. Offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or
person under arrest or that the escape takes place
through his negligence
➢ Whether it be under Art. 223, 224, 225, the offender
infidelity in the custody of prisoners is one who has
been entrusted with the custody and charge of the
prisoner. Whether the prisoner is a prisoner convicted
by final judgment or a detention prisoner. He must be
charged, he must be the custodian of the said prisoner
because the essence of the crime is the violation of the
trust reposed on him. Because prisoners are
accountabilities of the Government.
 Can a private individual commit infidelity?
- Yes, under Art. 225. If he is entrusted with the
custody of this prisoner and the prisoner escapes,
either in connivance with him or through his
negligence, then his liability is infidelity in the
custody of prisoners
Q: A has been charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
She is behind bars, it is a non-bailable offense, and
therefore, while the case is ongoing, she is behind bars. So,
it was the hearing date, she was accompanied by the jail
warden, the jail guard to the court, and after trial, there was
this husband and two children of the said woman who was
in jail. The husband and two children talked, and when the
said woman prisoner was about to be brought to jail, the
husband talked to the jail warden. He invited the jail
warden for a merienda, in a canteen inside the hall of
justice. And so, the jail warden saw nothing wrong and so,
he had merienda with the woman prisoner, the husband
and the two children. The handcuffs had to be removed for
the woman prisoner to eat. After eating, the woman
prisoner said that she needed to answer the call of nature,
and so, she went to the restroom, also inside or within the
hall of justice. The jail guard allowed her inside while the
jail guard was left outside, waiting. Hours passed, no
woman prisoner came out. It so happens that the said
husband put some disguise for the woman to use so that
she could escape without being noticed by the said jail
guard, and woman prisoner was able to escape without
being noticed by the said jail guard. Is the said jail guard
liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner, or is it a mere
86 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

laxity which would not amount to infidelity in the custody escape. There was negligence and therefore they are
of prisoner? liable under Article 224.
A: People v. Nava – The Supreme Court said that (How about yung jail warden na nag-utos?)
mere laxity would not amount to negligence under Art.
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS
224. Because according to the Supreme Court in that
(ARTICLES 226, 227, 228)
old case, the negligence being required in order that a
public officer may be entitled, must be a deliberate ARTICLE 226 – REMOVAL, CONEALMENT OR
non-performance of his duty. Here, it is only a mere DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT
laxity on the part of the said public officer for not
ELEMENTS:
having accompanying the said woman in the rest room.
1. Offender is a public officer
Rodriguez v. Sandiganbayan (new case) – The
2. He removes, destroys, or conceals documents or
Supreme Court said otherwise. According to the
papers
Supreme Court, the moment that a public officer, a jail
3. Said documents or papers should have been
warden has accompanied a prisoner outside jail, he
entrusted to such public officer by reason of his
must not have lost sight of the said prisoner. The only
office
obligation of the said jail warden after the trial was to
4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or
bring her back to the court. The fact that the said jail
to the public interest should have been caused
guard allowed himself to have a merienda, and even
allowed the woman prisoner to go to the restroom Under Article 226, in order for infidelity in the custody of
alone, there was laxity on the part of the said jail guard. documents to arise, it is necessary that there be damage
The Supreme Court said, LAXITY is a deliberate non- caused to a third person or to the public interest.
performance of his official duty as the guard of the said
If damage is serious, the penalty is QUALIFIED,
prisoner, thereby amounting to infidelity in the
therefore, the damage may or may not be serious provided
custody of prisoner under Art. 224.
that there is damage, the crime will arise.
Q: A, B, C, and D are mere detention prisoners who had a
➢ DAMAGE IS NECESSARY in order to give rise to
hearing at 8:30 am. They were waiting for the service
infidelity in the custody of documents.
vehicle of the BJMP but it was already 8:15 and the vehicle
had not yet arrived. Since they were late, the jail warden ARTICLE 227 – OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
asked two jail guards to accompany these prisoners to the
ELEMENTS:
hall of justice. These two guards placed handcuffs to these
detention prisoners and they flagged down a jeepney. They 1. Offender is a public officer
asked the people in the jeepney to move forward and so 2. He is charged with the custody of papers or property
they were made to sit at the last portion of the jeepney with 3. These papers or property are sealed by proper
the two jail guards. On their way to the hall of justice, since authority
the road was rocky, the jeepney stopped and as soon as it 4. He breaks the seals or permits them to be broken
stopped, these prisoners jumped out of the window of the
Under Article 227, officer breaking the seal, infidelity in the
jeepney and off they ran. The two guards failed to chase the
custody of prisoners to arise, even without damage caused
so the prisoners were able to escape. Are the jail guards
to a third party or to public interest. Damage is NOT an
liable for infidelity in the custody of the prisoners?
element.
A: Yes, they are liable under Article 224 – evasion
MERE BREAKING of the seal of the document will
through negligence. The Supreme Court held that the
already consummate the crime.
negligence contemplated here is not one of mere laxity.
The negligence here must be one which is done with ARTICLE 228 – OPENING A CLOSED DOCUMENT
malice amounting to deliberate non-performance of
ELEMENTS:
one’s official duty. The act of these two jail guards in
boarding these prisoners in the jeepney to go to the 1. Offender is a public officer
hall of justice amounted to deliberate non-performance 2. Any closed papers, documents, or objects are
of their official duty. It is not a mere laxity. These jail entrusted to his custody
guards should not board these prisoners in a public 3. He opens or permits to be opened said closed
vehicle. They should have waited for the BJMP and papers, documents or objects
called the court telling them that they would be late. 4. He does not have proper authority
The court would wait. Or they could have the hearing
Infidelity in the custody of documents, the public officer
reset. Definitely they cannot board these prisoners in a
has been entrusted with papers, documents or objects,
public vehicle because there is a high risk that they will
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 87 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
which have been closed by proper authority and the said
public officer opened the said closed document or
permitted others to open the same. Again, Damage is NOT
an element.
MERE ACT OF OPENING the said closed document will
give rise to the crime.
Q: What if A has been charged with illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. The case was on trial, during the trial of
the case, the fiscal presented the first police officer who
acted as the poseur buyer in the course of the testimony of
the police officer, the fiscal produced and showed to him for
identification the marked money. So the marked money
consists of five 100-peso bills. The fiscal presented it to the
police and the police identified it as indeed the marked
money because of the serial numbers and because of the
markings, and thereafter the marked money have been
marked as Exhibit A, B, C, D, E for the prosecution. After
the trial, they were placed inside an envelope and given to
the clerk of court, the custodian of the evidence which have
already been marked. So trial ended that day, it was now
lunch time. The clerk of court was on her table and so the
vendor arrived. The clerk of court wanted to buy lunch and
she said, how much. The vendor said it costs 50 peso. The
clerk of court pulled out her money; it was a 1000 peso bill.
The vendor said, “ang laki naman niyan, wala akong
panukli” And so, by reason thereof, he gave it back to the
clerk of court. The clerk of court said that she had no
smaller bills, and he remembered the exhibits. And so, he
took 100 peso bill, marked as Exhibit E. And she paid it to
the vendor and the vendor gave him the change of 50 peso.
After eating, before 1:00, the said clerk of court
immediately went outside to change her big 1000 peso bill
into smaller bills. When he now has these smaller bills, he
got one 100 peso bill and marked it as Exhibit E and then
he signed it and placed it inside the envelope. Here comes
the next hearing date, on the next hearing date, another
police officer was presented, the fiscal produced the said
documentary exhibits, the marked money and asked it from
the clerk of court. So the fiscal showed it to the police
officer, the police officer identified Exhibits A, B, C, D.
However, when it comes to exhibit E, the police officer said,
“Your Honor, it has a different serial number from the one
in our sworn statement” and so because of that, an
investigation happened and the court learned that it was
taken by said clerk of court and used in buying food. What
crime, if any is committed by the said clerk of court? Is it
malversation or is it infidelity in the custody of documents?
A: The crime committed is infidelity in the
custody of documents under Art. 226 by the
public officer in destroying the said document.
This marked money becomes documentary evidence
the moment they have been marked as exhibits. Money
here is not used as a medium of exchange, but as
documents because they have been marked as
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
documentary evidence. The moment they have been
taken, removed, concealed or destroyed, the crime
committed is infidelity in the custody of documents
because the clerk of court is the custodian of the
documentary exhibits. If money is used, not as a
medium of exchange, but like this, as documentary
exhibits or any other use other than as a medium of
exchange, the one who malversed, or used it is the
custodian of the said documents, the crime is infidelity
in the custody of documents and NOT malversation.
When the clerk of court took the 100-peso bill, he
destroyed the exhibit, the documentary exhibit of the
said prosecution and the prosecution was seriously
damaged interface.
➢ Articles 227 and 228 – damage is not an element.
REVELATION OF SECRETS (Article 229-230)
ARTICLE 229 – REVELATION OF SECRETS BY AN
OFFICER
Punishable acts:
I. By revealing any secrets which affect public interest
learned by him in his official capacity
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He knows of a secret by reason of his official
capacity
3. He reveals such secret without authority or
justifiable reasons
4. Damage, great or small, is caused to the
public interest
It is necessary that there be Damage caused, whether
serious or not.
II. Wrongfully delivering papers or copies of papers of
which he may have charge and which should not be
published thereby causing damage, whether serious or
not, to a third party or to public interest.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He has charge of papers
3. Those papers should not be published
4. He delivers those papers or copies thereof to a
third person
5. The delivery is wrongful
6. Damage is caused to public interest
ARTICLE 230 – PUBLIC OFFICER REVEALING
SECRETS OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He knows of the secrets of private individual by
reason of his office
88 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
3. He reveals such secrets without authority or
justifiable reason
Damage is NOT an element in Article 230.
ARTICLE 231 – OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a judicial or executive officer
2. There is judgment, decision, or order of a superior
authority
3. Such judgment, decision or order was made within
the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior authority
and issued with all the legal formalities
4. Offender without any legal justification openly
refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or
order which he is duty bound to obey
Open Disobedience is committed by any judicial or
executive officer who shall openly refuse without any
legal motive to execute a judgment or decision rendered
by a superior authority in the exercise of his duty and in
the legal infirmities of the law.
Q: What if in the case of Duterte, the sheriff wishes to
execute a writ of execution and cause the squatters to leave
the place because of the execution issued by the court has to
be implemented. Had not the sheriff performed the said
act, is he liable of any crime? Had the sheriff refused to
execute the writ of execution issued by the said judge? Is he
liable of any crime?
A: Yes, he is liable of Open Disobedience under
Article 231. He openly refused to execute a writ of
execution issued by a judge.
ARTICLE 232 – DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF
SUPERIOR OFFICER, WHEN SAID ORDER WAS
SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR OFFICER
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. An order is issued by his superior for execution
3. He has for any reason suspended the execution of
such order
4. His superior disapproves the suspension of the
execution of the order
5. Offender disobeys his superior despite the
disapproval of the suspension
The offender refuses to disobey the suspension of the
said order which was disapproved by the said public
officer.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ARTICLE 233 – REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. Competent authority demands from the offender
that he lend his cooperation towards the
administration of justice or other public service
3. Offender fails to do so maliciously
Public officer who shall fail to lend his cooperation
towards the administration of justice or any other public
service despite demand by competent authority.
Q: A raped B. B was treated by a medico legal officer at the
PNP. This medico legal officer who has examined A, issued
a medical certificate, And so in the case filed by B against A
for this so-called “rape”, the fiscal moved that the subpoena
ad testificandum be sent to this public officer, the medico
legal office who examined the rape victim. However,
despite receipt of the said subpoena, the medico legal
officer failed to appear. He did not appear without any
justifiable reason at all. The said prosecutor move again for
the issuance of another subpoena, a second subpoena.
Again, despite the receipt, the medico legal officer failed to
appear in court and testified and failed to give the copy of
the medico legal certificate. What crime if any has the said
medico legal officer has committed?
A: He is liable for Refusal of Assistance under
Article 233. It is committed by a public offcer that
despite demands of the public authority shall fail to
lend his cooperation toward the administration of
justice or any other public service. Thereby, causing
damage serious or not, to public interest.
NOTE: If the damage is serious, the penalty is
QUALIFIED.
ARTICLE 234 – REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE
ELECTIVE OFFICE
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is elected by popular election to a public
office
2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the duties
of the said office
3. There is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn
in or to discharge the duties of said office
This is a crime which cannot be committed in Philippine
Jurisdiction. Refusal to discharge public duties is
committed by any person entitled to a public office by
means of popular election, refuses to assume to assume the
powers and duties of his office. He refuses to be sworn in.
This will not happen in our lifetime. This will never happen
in the Philippine Jurisdiction because here, even if he did
not win in the election, he wanted to hold office.
89 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

ARTICLE 235 – MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS at the instigation of or with the consent or

acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of a
ELEMENTS:
person in authority.
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
It does not include pain or Buffering arising only from,
2. He has under his charge a prisoner or detention
inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
prisoner
3. He maltreats such prisoner either of the following Acts of torture:
manners:
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or
inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in
handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner
authority upon another in his/her custody that causes
under his charge either:
severe pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or
i. By the imposition of
more parts of the body, such as:
punishments not authorized by
the rules and regulations (1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching,
ii. By inflicting such punishments kicking, striking with truncheon or rifle butt or other
(those authorized) in a cruel or similar objects, and jumping on the stomach;
humiliating manner
(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled
b. By maltreating such prisoner to extort a
food, animal or human excreta and other stuff or
confession or to obtain some information
substances not normally eaten;
from the prisoner
(3) Electric shock;
Offender – Any public officer or employee
(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated
offended party – He must be a prisoner
rods, hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of pepper or other
➢ In order to be considered a prisoner, it is chemical substances on mucous membranes, or acids
necessary that the said person has already been or spices directly on the wound(s);
arrested, brought to the PNP station and he has been
(5) The submersion of the head in water or water
incarcerated. If he is not a prisoner, then, the crime
polluted with excrement, urine, vomit and/or blood
can be physical injuries, whatever injuries that may
until the brink of suffocation;
have been sustained by the prisoner, but NOT
maltreatment of prisoners (6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful
➢ Maltreatment does not only include physical bodily position;
maltreatment. It shall also include moral, emotional,
(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of
psychological maltreatment because the law uses the
foreign objects into the sex organ or rectum, or
phrase physical injuries or damage caused.
electrical torture of the genitals;
➢ If as a result of maltreatment, the prisoner would die
or suffer injuries, there is a separate and distinct (8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of
charge for homicide or physical injuries because the the body such as the genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;
law provides that the liability for maltreatment shall
(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the teeth;
be in addition for any physical injuries or damage
caused. (10) Pulling out of fingernails;
ANTI-TORTURE ACT (RA 9745) (11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight
and extreme cold;
Torture refers to:
(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials placed
1. an act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
over the head to the point of asphyxiation;
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a
person for such purposes as obtaining from (13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the
him/her or a third person information or a perception, memory. alertness or will of a person, such
confession; as:
2. punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third
(i) The administration or drugs to induce confession
person has committed or is suspected of having
and/or reduce mental competency; or
committed;
3. or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third (ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or certain
person; symptoms of a disease; and
4. or for any reason based on discrimination of any
(14) Other analogous acts of physical torture; and
kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 90 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
(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.
 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.
Rights of Tortured Victims:
(a) To have a prompt and an impartial investigation by
the CHR and by agencies of government concerned
such as the Department of Justice (DOJ), the Public
Attorney's Office (PAO), the PNP, the National Bureau
of Investigation (NBI) and the AFP. A prompt
investigation shall mean a maximum period of sixty
(60) working days from the time a complaint for
torture is filed within which an investigation report
and/or resolution shall be completed and made
available. An appeal whenever available shall be
resolved within the same period prescribed herein,
(b) To have sufficient government protection against
all forms of harassment; threat and/or intimidation as
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
a consequence of the filing of said complaint or the
presentation of evidence therefor. In which case, the
State through its appropriate agencies shall afford
security in order to ensure his/her safety and all other
persons involved in the investigation and prosecution
such as, but not limited to, his/her lawyer, witnesses
and relatives; and
(c) To be accorded sufficient protection in the manner
by which he/she testifies and presents evidence in any
fora in order to avoid further trauma.
WHO ARE CRIMINALLY LIABLE
I. persons in authority; or
II. agents of a person in authority
 A private individual, by himself, cannot commit torture
but a private individual who is following orders from a
person in authority or his agent, conspiring with him
may commit the crime because what the law requires is
that this pain or suffering brought about by torture
must be inflicted by one with consent or acquiescence
of a person in authority or his agent. Therefore, there
must always be an involvement of a person in authority
or a person in authority.
Aggravating Circumstances in torture:
1. Torture resulting in the death of any person;
2. Torture resulting in mutilation;
3. Torture with rape;
4. Torture with other forms of sexual abuse and, in
consequence of torture, the victim shall have become
insane, imbecile, impotent, blind or maimed for life;
and
5. Torture committed against children.
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.
SECTION 16 – EXCLUSION FROM THE
COVERAGE OF SPECIAL AMNESTY LAW
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. (sec 16)
91 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

SECTION 17 – APPLICABILITY OF REFOULER No. You cannot complex them. Because under
Article 235, it is expressly provided that the liability for
No person shall be expelled, returned or extradited to
maltreatment of prisoners shall be in addition to the
another State where there are substantial grounds to
liability for any other physical injuries or damage
believe that such person shall be in danger of being
caused. Therefore, two crimes will be charged against
subjected to torture.
the police officer.
Q: What if A has just withdrawn his money from her ATM
There is also a violation of R.A. 9745, Anti-Torture
account, she placed the money inside her bag and she was
Act, because under Section 14 of the Anti-Torture Act,
already walking towards home when suddenly here comes
Torture shall not absorb and shall not be absorbed by
X. X snatched the handbag with the money. A police officer
any other crime committed as a consequence.
passing by saw the incident and on boarded their mobile
Therefore, he can also be held liable under the so-
patrol. They were able to arrest the man, took the bag, and
called Anti-Torture Law.
returned it to the said victim. Thereafter, they placed X
inside the mobile patrol. While inside, they kicked, mauled Q: What if these police officers contended that since these
the man. And so, the man suffered less serious physical three crimes arose from the same facts and circumstances
injuries. What crime is committed by the said police and therefore they should be charged only of one crime
officers? which is maltreatment of prisoners. Is this argument
correct?
A: The crime committed is less serious physical
injuries. It is not maltreatment of prisoners because A: No because it is expressly provided that the liability
the said person, X, is not yet a prisoner. He is only a shall be in addition for any physical injuries or damage
person under arrest because he has just been arrested caused and likewise, under RA 9745 Section 15, it is
for having committed a crime, but he is not yet a expressly provided that torture as a crime shall always
prisoner. In order to be considered as a prisoner, he be independent and separate from any other criminal
must be brought to the PNP station, taken a picture, liability.
left view, side view, front view, thumbmark and
Q: What if these officers were convicted of RA 9745 and
incarcerated. He is now an accountability of the
were put behind bars. There was an amnesty proclamation
Government, he is now a prisoner. But before that, he
by the state and these police officers wanted to avail of the
is not yet a prisoner. He is only a person under arrest.
said amnesty proclamation by the government. Can they do
That is why in the problem, the police officers are
so?
liable only for less serious physical injuries and not of
maltreatment of prisoners. A: No. they are prohibited. They cannot avail of such
amnesty proclamation or any other similar measure
They also committed RA 9745.
that would exempt them from criminal liability
Q: What if in the same problem, they chased the man. They (Section 16).
were able to catch the said man and brought him to the
ARTICLE 236 – ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A
PNP station. Booked him and incarcerated him, and all the
PUBLIC OFFICE
things needed to be done to a prisoner. Later, he was
brought out of jail for investigation to be brought in the ELEMENTS:
Investigation section. In the investigation, he was being
1. That the offender is entitled to hold a public office or
forced to admit to the commission of the crime. And so, by
employment either by election or appointment
reason thereof, the police officer boxed him and gave him a
2. Shall assume the performance of the duties and
huge black eye. The left eye suffered so much that he lost
powers of a public official or employee
sight, amounting to serious physical injuries. What are the
3. Without being sworn into office or having given the
crimes committed by the police officer?
bond required by law
A: Three crimes – Maltreatment of Prisoners,
ARTICLE 237 – PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF
Serious Physical Injuries, and Violation of RA
DUTIES AND POWERS
9745.
ELEMENTS:
Maltreatment of Prisoners because he is a prisoner
who was maltreated in order to extort a confession and 1. That the offender is holding a public office
Serious physical injuries because by reason of the 2. That the period allowed by law for him to exercise
injury inflicted, he lost an eye. such function and duties has already expired
3. That the offender continues to exercise such function
Are you going to complex them? because a single act
and duties
constitutes a grave and less grave felony, are you going
to complex them under Art. 48?
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 92 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
ARTICLE 238 – ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR
POSITION
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is holding a public office
2. That he formally resigns from his office
3. But before the acceptance of his resignation, he
abandons his office
 Abandonment of office is committed by a public officer
who has already formally resigns from his position,
and having formally resigned from his position, he
abandons to the detriment of public service despite the
fact that his resignation has not yet been accepted by a
superior authority. Under Labor Law, when you are an
employee, when you file a resignation, it does not
mean you are already resigned. There must be an
ACCEPTANCE from the superior officer before it can
be said that he have already resigned.
Q: So here, the public officer has already formally resigned,
his resignation has not been accepted, yet he abandons to
the detriment of public service. What is the penalty?
A: In the abandonment of office, the penalty is
QUALIFIED if the purpose of the said public officer is
to evade the prosecution punishment of the crime
involving violation of Title 1 – Book 2 (Crimes against
National Security), or Chapter 1 – Title 3 of Book 2
(Rebellion, Coup d’etat, Sedition, etc.)
ARTICLE 239 – USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWERS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an executive or judicial officer
2. That he:
a. Makes general rules and regulations beyond
the scope of his authority, or
b. Attempts to repeal a law, or
c. Suspend the execution thereof
NOTE: It can only be committed by an executive or
judicial officer
ARTICLE 240 – USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE
FUNCTIONS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a judge
2. That the offender:
a. Assumes the power exclusively vested to
executive authorities of the Government, or
b. Obstructs executive authorities from the lawful
performance of their functions
NOTE: It can only be committed by a Judge
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ARTICLE 241 – USURPATION OF JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is holding office under the
Executive Branch of the Government
2. That he:
a. Assumes the power exclusively vested in the
Judiciary, or
b. Obstructs the execution of any order or
decision given by a judge within his jurisdiction
NOTE: It can only be committed by a public officer of
the Executive Branch of the Government. Therefore,
if the person who assumes judicial power does not belong
to the Executive Branch, but belongs to the legislative
branch, the crime is not Usurpation of Judicial Function,
but USURPATION OF PUBLIC FUNCTION AND
OFFICIAL AUTHORITY under Article 177, because
Article 239, 240 and 241 are specific as to the offenders.
So, let us say, in the one who encroached upon the powers
of the Judge, does not belong to the executive branch but he
is legislator, it cannot be considered as usurpation of
judicial functions, rather it will be Usurpation Of Public
Function And Official Authority Under Article 177.
ARTICLE 242 – DISOBEYING REQUEST OF
DISQUALIFICATION
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer
2. That a proceeding is pending before such public
officer
3. That there has been a question regarding the
jurisdiction brought before the proper authority
4. There is a question brought before the proper
authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is yet to
be decided
ARTICLE 243 – ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS TO ANY JUDICIAL
AUTHORITY
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an executive officer
2. That the offender addresses any order or suggestion
to any judicial authority
3. That the order or suggestion relates to any case or
business within the exclusive jurisdiction of the
courts of justice
ARTICLE 244 – UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He nominates or appoints a person to a public office
3. Such person lacks the legal qualification thereof
93 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

4. Offender knows that his nominee or employee lacks such that if the woman would not comply then
the qualifications at the time he made the there would be an adverse effect on her part.
nomination or appointment ➢ If a jail warden impregnated a female detainee,
even if they love one another, still liable because
ARTICLE 245 – ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
detainees are liabilities of the state.
ACTS PUNISHED:
➢ Public officer solicits or makes any indecent or
immoral advances to a woman who is interested in
matters pending before his for his decision or where
the public officer is required to submit a report or to
consult with a superior officer
➢ Warden or other public officer directly charged with
the care and custody of prisoners or persons under
arrest, and he solicits or makes any indecent or
immoral advances to a woman
➢ Warden or other public officer directly charged with
the care and custody of prisoners or persons under
arrest, and the said officer makes any indecent or
immoral advances to the wife, daughter, sister or any
relative falling within the same degree of affinity of the
male prisoner.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer
2. That he solicits or makes any indecent or immoral
advances to a woman
3. That the offended party is a woman who is:
a. Interested in matters pending before the public
officer for his decision or where the public
officer is required to submit a report or to
consult with a superior officer; or
b. Under the custody of the offender, who is a
warden or other public officer directly charged
with the care and custody of prisoners or
persons under arrest; or
c. The wife, daughter, sister or any relative falling
within the same degree of affinity of the person
under the custody and charge of the offender
(Mother is not included here)
Offender – He must be a public officer because there
must be abuse of public office in making immoral or
indecent advances.
Victim – always a woman.
Essence of the crime is taking advantage of one’s
position in soliciting or making immoral or indecent
advances.
➢ Mere act of soliciting or making immoral and
indecent advances will already give rise to the
crime. It is not necessary that the woman will
comply with the said solicitation or immoral or
indecent advances.
➢ The solicitation must not be the gospel type of
solicitation. It must be bad, persistent, threatening
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 94 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
TITLE EIGHT
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS (ARTICLES 246 –
266-A)
ARTICLE 246 – PARRICIDE
➢ Parricide is committed when a person kills his father,
mother, child, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
legitimate other ascendant, legitimate other
descendant, or legitimate spouse. Therefore the
offended party or deceased or the victim is specified,
he must be the father, mother, child whether legitimate
or illegitimate, legitimate other ascendant, legitimate
other descendant, or legitimate spouse.
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person is killed
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused
3. That the deceased is the father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
other ascendant, or legitimate other descendant, or
legitimate spouse of the accused
Parricide is a crime based on relationship.
 What kind of relationship?
First, it must be a legitimate relationship except in
the case of parent and child.
Second, the said relationship must be in the direct
line
Third, the relationship must be by blood
(grandfather killed a grandson, a mother killing a
son, a son killing a father) except spouses
Q: So a father killed an illegitimate son. What crime is
committed?
A: It is parricide. Although the crime is based on
legitimate relationship, the exception is in case of
children, whether legitimate or illegitimate.
Q: A brother killed another brother. Is the crime
committed parricide?
A: No, the crime committed is murder or
homicide, as the case may be and not parricide
because the relationship between a brother and
another brother is in the collateral line and not in the
direct line.
Q: What if there was an argument between a legally
adopted son and his father. In the course of the argument,
the son stabbed and killed the father. What crime is
committed?
A: Homicide. The act of killing was preceded by an
argument, a fight and therefore there was no treachery
and none of the qualifying circumstances of murder is
present and therefore the crime is homicide. It is not
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
parricide because although the relationship is that of
legitimate father and son, the relationship is not based
on blood. Therefore, the crime is homicide and not
parricide.
Q: What if a stepfather killed his stepson?
A: The stepfather is not liable for parricide. It
can either be murder or homicide, as the case may be,
because their relationship is not based on blood.
 Again, the relationship must be
legitimate, in the direct line and by
blood.
➢ In Parricide, the circumstance which will qualify is the
relationship, therefore relationship between the
offender and the offended party must be stated in the
information.
Q: Let us say that the husband killed the wife. In the
information filed by the fiscal, the fiscal failed to state that
the husband is the legal husband of the said victim.
However, during trial, by virtue of a certificate of marriage,
it was proven that the accused was the legal husband of the
said victim-wife. Can the husband be convicted of
parricide?
A: No, the husband cannot be convicted of
parricide. This is because the relationship was not
alleged in the information although proven during
trial. Since the relationship between the husband and
the wife is not alleged in the information, although
proven during trial, he cannot be convicted of
parricide. It can only be murder or homicide, as the
case may be.
Q: What if a husband wanted to kill his wife. So he has a
mistress, the husband wanted to dispose his wife. However,
he cannot do it on his own and so the husband hired a high-
profile killer, he paid the man 100,000 pesos to kill the
wife. And so the man conducted surveillance on the wife,
checked the itinerary of the wife and so when the wife was
getting out of the grocery, here comes the killer. The killer,
on board a motorcycle, went directly to the wife, shot her
and off he went. The wife died. What crime/crimes is/are
committed by the husband and the hired killer?
A: The husband is liable of parricide as a
principal by inducement. The relationship between
legitimate spouses will make the crime of parricide.
The killer is liable for murder qualified by
treachery with the generic aggravating
circumstance of in consideration of price,
reward, or promise. The crime committed is
murder and there are two qualifying circumstances
attended it which are treachery because of the manner
of killing and in consideration of a price, reward, or
promise. But you only need one qualifying
circumstance to qualify the killing to murder and
95 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

therefore it is murder qualified by treachery. The other
qualifying aggravating circumstance shall be treated
only as a generic aggravating circumstance.
Conspiracy will not lie. Although they conspired for the
killing of the wife, the husband, being the principal by
inducement and the killer, being the principal by direct
participation, conspiracy will not lie. This is because
the circumstance which qualifies parricide, the
relationship, is personal to the husband and cannot be
transferred to a stranger. That is why there will be two
informations filed, one is parricide as against the
husband as a principal by inducement and the other
one is murder as against the killer.
ARTICLE 247 – DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES
INFLICTED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL
CIRCUMSTANCES
ELEMENTS:
1. That a legally married person or a parent surprises
his spouse or his daughter, the latter under 18 years
of age and living with him, in the act of committing
sexual intercourse with another person.
2. That the said legally married spouse he or she kills
any or both of them or inflicts upon any or both of
them any serious physical injury in the act or
immediately thereafter
3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or she
has not consented to the infidelity of the other
spouse.
FIRST REQUISITE/ELEMENT:
➢ Under the first element, it is required that the
legally married spouse surprises the other spouse
while in the actual act of sexual intercourse with
another person. So note the surprising must be
in the actual act of sexual intercourse and
NOT before, NOT after.
➢ If you will read the book of Reyes, Justice Laurel,
naghinanakit sya. Sabi nya, “Why? Why should it
be in the actual act of sexual intercourse, you
already saw your spouse with another man, why
wait for the sexual intercourse? You know it will
happen, why wait for it for Article 247? This is
what Justice Laurel said. But the Supreme Court
said no, the surprising must be in the act of sexual
intercourse with another person. Not before, not
after, not during the preliminaries.
SECOND REQUISITE/ELEMENT:
➢ The second element requires that the said legally
married spouse kills any or both of them or he
inflicts serious physical injuries upon any or both of
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
them. Again, while in the act of sexual intercourse or
immediately thereafter. There is no question as to
the “actual act of sexual intercourse” but what about
“immediately thereafter”?
 What does the phrase “immediately thereafter” mean?
➢ The Supreme Court said, “immediately thereafter”
means there must not be lapse of time between the
surprising and the killing or infliction of serious
physical injuries. Therefore, the surprising and the
killing or infliction of serious physical injuries must
be a continuing process.
Q: The wife arrived home from the market. She was about
to go the kitchen when suddenly, she heard voices in the
master’s bedroom and so she opened the said master’s
bedroom and saw her legal husband in actual sexual
intercourse with another woman, her sister. Upon seeing
that, the wife who still has a knife in the basket,
immediately went toward the husband and stabbed him.
She also stabbed her sister. The husband and the sister
both died. Of what crime would you prosecute the said
wife? The wife is liable for parricide under Article 246 for
having killed her husband. If you are the counsel of the said
wife, what defense would you put up in order to free your
client from criminal liability? As a judge, of what crime
should the wife be convicted of?
A: The prosecutor shall file a case for parricide for
killing her husband. He shall also file a case against her
for the killing her sister.
The defense should be Article 247 or Death
under exceptional circumstances.
The judge should convict the accused of parricide and
homicide but the penalty to be imposed is only
destierro because of Article 247.
In an old case, the Supreme Court said that Article 247 is
not a felony. Article 247 is a privilege, in fact is it a defense.
If Article 247 is invoked, the accused is free from criminal
liability. It is an absolutory cause, an exempting
circumstance. The Supreme Court said that the penalty
stated therein, destierro, is not really a penalty on the
legally married spouse who killed the other spouse. It is not
a penalty but it is more of a guard, a privilege for him so
that he may be free from any retaliation of any of the family
of the victim. So destierro here is not really a penalty.
Again, Article 247 is not a felony. It is a defense, a privilege;
it is an exempting circumstance or an absolutory cause.
➢ If you look at Article 247, if the injury inflicted by the
offender spouse is only less serious physical injuries or
slight physical injuries, totally there is no charge, there
is no penalty to be imposed. It is only when death and
serious physical injuries were inflicted.
Q: What if the husband arrived home and he saw in their
bedroom his wife in actual sexual act with another woman
96 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
and because of rage, he took a bolo and hacked his wife and
the woman who both died. Then he surrendered to the
police. If you were the public prosecutor, what case or cases
would you file against the husband? If you were the defense
counsel, what would be your line of defense? If you were
the judge, how would you rule in the case?
A: The prosecutor should file a case of parricide and
homicide.
As defense counsel, he may invoke Article 247.
There are also the mitigating circumstances of
immediate vindication of a grave offense, sudden
impulse of passion and obfuscation, and voluntary
surrender.
The judge should convict the accused as charged.
Parricide and Homicide. Article 247 is not applicable
here because Article 247 used the word sexual
intercourse which can happen only between a man and
a woman. It cannot happen between two women or two
men because when you say sexual intercourse, it
means the penis penetrates the genitalia of a woman.
Hence, since this is a case of a wife having sexual act
with another woman, it is not a sexual intercourse.
However, the judge shall consider the mitigating
circumstances of Sudden impulse of passion and
obfuscation, immediate vindication of grave offense,
and voluntary surrender so as to lower the imposable
penalty.
People v. Abarca
In this case, there was this student reviewing for the
bar. There were already rumors that his wife was
having an affair. So one time, he went home
unannounced. Upon his arrival, he saw his wife in
sexual intercourse with another man. The man jumped
out the window. The husband wanted to kill the man
but he had no weapon at the time. The man went away.
It took the husband an hour before he was able to find
a weapon and upon finding a weapon, he went directly
to the whereabouts of the man, the lover of the wife
and killed the man. It took him one hour. The killing
took place an hour, not in the actual sexual
intercourse, but is it immediately thereafter? Despite
the fact that one hour had lapsed, would it be within
the meaning of immediately thereafter?
The Supreme Court, in this special case, said yes.
According to Supreme Court, when the law uses the
phrase “immediately thereafter”; that the killing or the
infliction of serious physical injuries must take place
immediately thereafter, the law did not say that the
killing must be done instantly. According to the
Supreme Court, it suffices that the proximate cause for
the said killing is the said pain and the look on the said
husband upon chancing his wife in the basest act of
infidelity. This is an exceptional case.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
 Why an exceptional case?
➢ Because henceforth, after People v Abarca,
the Supreme Court has already interpreted
“immediately thereafter”, as there must be no
lapse of time between the surprising and the
killing. The surprising and the killing must be
continuous.
➢ Legal luminaries say that this is an
exceptional case because the husband was
reviewing for the bar which is why he was
given this special _. Because in all other cases
after this, the Supreme Court is strict in
implementing “immediately thereafter”. The
Supreme Court is strict because this is not a
felony, it is a privilege therefore it must be
strictly interpreted and not liberally
interpreted in favor of the accused.
➢ Look that if the injury inflicted by the legally
married spouse on the lover or the other
spouse, is less serious physical injuries or
slight physical injuries, he is totally free from
criminal liability. Liability will only come in if
the other spouse is killed or inflicted with
serious physical injuries.
➢ With regards to the liability of the accused to
the injuries sustained by other people, liable
to physical injuries through negligence, as the
case maybe. There is no intent to kill the other
victims.
➢ Note that the SC ruled that inflicting death
under exceptional circumstances is NOT
murder.
ARTICLE 248 – MURDER
ELEMENTS:
1.
That a person was killed
2.
That the accused killed him
3.
That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances mentioned in Article 248
4. That the killing is not parricide or infanticide
➢ Murder is committed by any person who shall kill
another person which will not amount to parricide or
infanticide and the killing is attended by the following
qualifying circumstances:
1. 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 mutiny.
2. In consideration of price, reward or promise
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of
an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or
with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin.
97 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
4. On occasion of any calamities enumerated in
the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic, or any other public calamities.
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
(RA 7659)
 These are the qualifying circumstances for murder
(See Article 14-aggravating circumstances, Book I)
Know the elements in Article 14.
 All of these are aggravating circumstance under
Article 14. Note, in order to qualify a killing to
murder, only one is necessary.
➢ If in the information, A killed B and it was attended by
treachery, in consideration of a price, reward or
promise, by means of a motor vehicle, so there are
three qualifying circumstances. Only one will suffice to
qualify the murder to killing, all the other aggravating
circumstances will be considered not as qualifying
circumstances but as mere generic aggravating
circumstances.
ARTICLE 249 – HOMICIDE
ELEMENTS:
1.That a person was killed
2.That the accused killed him without any justifying
circumstance
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is
presumed
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of
parricide or infanticide.
➢ When a person kills another person, and it is not
attended by any qualifying circumstance under Article
248, the killing is considered as Homicide under
Article 249.
ARTICLE 250 – PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED OR
ATTEMPTED PARRICIDE, MURDER OR
HOMICIDE
ARTICLE 251 – DEATH CAUSED IN A law is specific. The participants must be the one
TUMULTOUS AFFRAY
A tumultuous affray is a commotion, wherein people
fight in a tumultuous or confused manner such that it
cannot be ascertained or determined who has killed the
victim or who has inflicted physical injuries on the victim.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be several persons
2. That they did not compose groups organized for the
common purpose of assaulting and attacking each
other reciprocally
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
3.
That these several persons quarreled and assaulted
one another in a confused and tumultuous manner.
4. That someone was killed in the course of the affray.
5. That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the
deceased
6. That the person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries or who used violence can be
identified.
➢ Article 251, death in a tumultuous affray, is committed
when there are several persons who do not compose
groups which have been organized to assault and
quarrel with one another reciprocally, assaulted and
attacked each other reciprocally and in the course of
the affray, someone is killed. And it cannot be
ascertained or identified or determined who killed the
victim, then the person who inflicted serious physical
injuries or those who used violence against the said
victim can be identified.
 Someone is killed. Note that he can be any person; he
can be someone from the affray, he can be a mere
passerby, he can be just someone watching the affray,
so long as he is killed in the affray and it cannot be
ascertained who killed him, then the person who
inflicted serious physical injuries on him is liable if he
can be identified. If this person cannot be identified,
then the person who used any kind of violence against
him shall be criminally liable.
ARTICLE 252 – PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED
IN TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a tumultuous affray
2. That a participant or some participants thereof
suffer serious physical injuries or physical injuries
of a less serious nature only.
3. That the person responsible thereof cannot be
identified
4. That all those who appear to have used violence
upon the person of the offended party are known.
 Note that the victim here must be a participant. The
injured with serious physical injuries or less serious
physical injuries. Not slight physical injuries.
➢ Article 252, we have physical injuries inflicted in
tumultuous affray, is committed when in a tumultuous
affray, a participant has suffered serious physical
injuries or less serious physical injuries and it cannot
be ascertained who inflicted these injuries but the
person who used violence on the victim can be
identified or determined.
➢ If the injury caused to the victim is only slight physical
injuries, then no one is liable because if a person
engaged in a tumultuous affray or participated therein,
98 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
the law presumes that it is __ therefore no one is liable
if the injuries sustained is only slight physical injury
and it cannot be determined who inflicted the said
slight physical injury on the victim.
Q: There was this tumultuous affray, several people were
attacking and fighting each other. Suddenly, here comes a
balot vendor. He saw the affray. He was just there,
watching, suddenly he fell on the ground. He died because
of a stab wound. Now, it cannot be ascertained who stabbed
him, so no one saw who stabbed him. Who will be held
criminally liable?
A: Any person who inflicted serious physical
injuries on him. No one has seen also who had
inflicted serious physical injuries against him. The
any person who inflicted any violence against
him shall be criminally liable.
Q: There was this tumultuous affray, several people were
attacking and fighting each other. Suddenly, here comes a
balot vendor who saw the affray and he was just there,
watching. While he was watching the affray, one of the
participants of the affray, X, saw him and went directly to
the balot vendor and stabbed him twice. The balot vendor
died. What crime is committed? Is it under Article 251,
Death in tumultuous affray?
A: No. It is murder or homicide as the case may
be. This is because the perpetrator of the crime is
identified, ascertained or determined. Death in a
tumultuous affray under Article 251 can only be
charged if the actual perpetrator of the crime who
killed the victim cannot be ascertained or identified.
ARTICLE 253 – GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
TWO ACTS PUNISHABLE:
I. By assisting another to commit suicide, whether the
suicide is consummated or not; or
II. By lending assistance to another to commit suicide to the
extent of doing the killing himself.
➢ Giving assistance to suicide – binigyan mong rope;
binigyan mo ng poison.
➢ A friend wanted to commit suicide, he doesn’t know
the way, the means and you agreed with him, you
assisted and gave the best poison in the world. So you
assisted the said friend in committing suicide. Note
that if a person assisted in committing suicide by
giving him poison, the initiative must come from him.
The desire to kill himself must come from the victim.
He wanted to commit suicide and you merely provide
assistance in the commission of suicide.
➢ B wanted to commit suicide, here comes A, A gave
assistance to B but B survived. B did not die. Only A is
criminally liable because suicide or attempt to commit
suicide is not a felony within Philippine jurisdiction. It
is only the one who assisted to commit suicide is
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
criminally liable but not the person who attempted to
commit suicide.
Q: What if a terminally sick person with cancer, he was
lying in bed, almost lifeless and it was only a machine that
was giving life to his body. Now, the mother of the patient
and she took pity of her son because the son was agonizing
and was only breathing through the said machine. The
mother wanted to finish the suffering of the son and at the
time she visited the hospital, she turned off the machine
and the son died. He killed her son out of mercy. So it is
mercy-killing or euthanasia. Is the mother liable for giving
assistance to suicide?
A: No because the initiative to kill did not come from
the sai person who was ill. The crime committed by
the mother is parricide for killing her son. If it were
other person, it was murder. Evidently, it was murder
because there was evident premeditation; there was
thinking before doing the act of mercy-killing.
ARTICLE 254 – ILLEGAL DISCHARGE OF
FIREARMS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender discharges a firearm against or at
another person
2. That the offender has no intention to kill that person
Q: What if there was this park. The park was full of people
and then suddenly, here comes X, X went to the park, put
out his firearm, and he fired shots in the air. What crime is
committed?
A: X committed Alarms and Scandals under
Article 155. When he fired shots in the air, his intention
was to cause disturbance of public peace and
tranquility. The firearm was not aimed towards any
person.
Q: What if X went to a public place full of people. X saw his
enemy, Y, and so to threaten Y, X pulled out his firearm,
aimed the firearm at Y in order to threaten him. X
discharges the firearm, however, with no intention to kill Y.
His only intention is to threaten Y and Y was not killed.
What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is Article 254, Illegal
Discharge of Firearms. Illegal discharge of firearms
is committed by any person who aims and discharges
the firearm to any other person absent the intent to kill
the said person. The purpose is merely to threaten the
said person.
Q: What if in the same public place, X went there and
pulled out his firearm because he saw his enemy, Y. He
aimed the gun at Y with intent to kill, because he wanted to
kill his enemy. However, Y saw it and was able to avoid.
What crime is committed?
99 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
A: X committed attempted homicide or
murder, as the case may be. Although Y was not
hit, the fact that the said firearm was discharged with
intent to kill, it is already attempted homicide or
murder, as the case may be.
Q: What if in the said merry-making, there were so many
people. X went there. He saw his enemy Y and went directly
to Y, took out his gun and he poked the gun without
discharging. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is other light threats.
So here, threatening another with a gun, without
discharging, only poking. It is other light threats. It is
not grave threats, it is not light threats. It is only other
light threats, arrestomenor.
 So kapag discharge, pinutok – it could either be alarms
and scandals, illegal discharge of firearms, or
attempted or frustrated murder or homicide, as the
case may be.
 If no discharging, only poking, or threatening with a
firearm – it is only other light threats
ARTICLE 255 – INFANTICIDE
Infanticide is the killing of a child less than three (3) days
old or less than seventy-two (72) hours. So in the case of
infanticide, it is the age of the victim that is controlling. The
victim, the child, the infant, must be less than three (3)
days old. He must be less than seventy-two hours. If it is
only three (3) days old or above it is any other crime but not
infanticide.
Offender in Infanticide – the offender can be the
parents, the mother, the father, the grandparents or it can
be any other person so long as the child is less than three
(3) days old, it is infanticide. It is the age that is
controlling, not the relationship.
Q: So what if there was this woman and this woman gave
birth to a child. After giving birth to the child while the
child was only a day old, she already wanted to kill the child
in order to conceal her dishonor. However, she could not
kill the child by herself and so she asked a favor from a
friend. And so the friend arrived and both the mother and
the said friend killed the child, a day old, by suffocating the
said child with a big pillow. The child less than three days
old, died. What crime/s is/are committed?
A: The mother is liable for infanticide. The
said stranger friend is also liable for
infanticide. There was conspiracy on them. This
time conspiracy on life, both of them are liable for
infanticide under only one information. Isang
information lang sa court and that is infanticide. Both
the mother and the friend are conspirators of
infanticide.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Now let us say that the mother is convicted. If the
mother is convicted, the penalty imposed by the law as
provided in Article 255 is equivalent to parricide which
is reclusion perpetua to death. On the other hand, if
the stranger is convicted under Article 255, the penalty
to be imposed is equivalent to murder therefore, also
reclusion perpetua to death. But note the charge is
that he is guilty of infanticide. The fact that the said
mother killed the child, less than three days old, in
order to conceal dishonor will mitigate the
criminal liability of the mother.
NOTE: The penalty will be lowered not by one, but by two
degrees, from reclusion perpetua to death, the penalty of
the mother will only now become prision mayor.
Q: What if let us say that the killer of the less than three
day old child is the maternal grandparents. The
grandparents conspired in the killing in order to conceal
the dishonor of their daughter. What is the effect of the
concealment of the dishonor?
A: The concealment of the dishonor will also
mitigate the criminal liability of the maternal
grandparents that is one degree lower. So sa
mother, two degrees lower, from reclusion perpetua to
death magiging prision mayor. Sa maternal
grandparents one degree lower lang, from reclusion
perpetua to death it will now become reclusion
temporal. Whatever it is, concealment of dishonor is
akin to a privilege mitigating circumstance because the
lowering of the penalty is not merely by periods but by
degrees. So it is akin to a privilege mitigating
circumstance.
Q: So what if in the same problem I gave, the woman gave
birth to the child and wanted to kill the child but this time
the infant is already three days old and the child was killed
by the said mother and the friend. What are the crimes
committed?
A: The mother is liable for parricide while the
stranger/friend is liable for murder. And this
time no amount of concealment of dishonor will
mitigate the criminal liability of the mother. So there
lies a difference between parricide and infanticide if
the offender is the parent or the mother of the child.
JUST REMEMBER: If the child is less than three days
old or less than 72 hours, IT IS INFANTICIDE. It is the age
that controls. If the child is three days old and above,
PARRICIDE OR MURDER, as the case may be. It is
obvious murder because a three-day old child or infant is
totally defenseless.
100 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

ARTICLE 256, 257, 258 AND 259 ARE ALL ABOUT to abort the fetus. So what the boyfriend did was he went to
ABORTION the sidewalks of Quiapo and bought there aborting
beverages and he administered the same to the said
ARTICLE 256 – INTENTIONAL ABORTION
woman. And the female student drank the aborting
ARTICLE 257 – UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION beverage and the fetus died. What crime/s is/are
committed?
ARTICLE 258 – ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE
WOMAN HERSELF OR BY HER PARENTS A: In so far as the boyfriend is concerned, the crime
committed is intentional abortion under Article 256. In
ARTICLE 259 - ABORTION PRACTICED BY A
so far as the said female student is concerned, the
PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF
crime committed is also intentional abortion but it is
ABORTIVES
under Article 258 – Abortion practiced by the woman
Note that there are four (4) articles on abortion but there herself or by her parents. So, both of them are liable
are only two (2) type of abortion: for intentional abortion.

1.) INTENTIONAL ABORTION Q: But what if despite the fact that the female student had
2.) UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION already taken or drank the abortive beverage still the fetus
survived? Malakas ang kapit ng ba tasa maternal womb.
Because the abortion practiced by the woman herself or the
What crime is committed if any by the boyfriend and the
mother and the abortion practiced by a physician or
girlfriend? Is there a crime such as frustrated intentional
midwife are all intentional abortion. So in effect, we only
abortion?
have to kinds of abortion. We have intentional abortion and
unintentional abortion. A: YES. There is a crime such as frustrated
intentional abortion. Here, the said woman has
ABORTION – is the willful killing of a fetus from the
already taken the said abortive beverage. He has
mother’s womb or the violent expulsion of a fetus from the
already performed all the acts necessary to consume
maternal womb which results in the death of the fetus.
the crime of abortion however, abortion did not result
INTENTIONAL ABORTION is committed in three (3) because of causes independent of their will.
ways: Malakasangkapitngbatasa maternal womb and so the
baby survived. And so, they are both liable for
1.) By using violence upon the person of the pregnant
frustrated intentional abortion.
woman resulting to abortion.
Is there a crime such as frustrated unintentional
2.) Without violence, by acting without violence,
abortion?
without the consent of the woman by
➢ NO. This time there is no crime such as frustrated
administering aborting drugs or beverages without
unintentional abortion. Because in unintentional
the consent of the pregnant woman.
abortion, the intention is against the woman and
3.) By acting without violence, with the consent of the
abortion only happens unintentional.
pregnant woman that is by administering aborting
drugs or beverages to a pregnant woman this time Q: So let’s say a man exerted physical violence against the
with her consent. woman who happens to be his enemy. The said woman was
severely hurt however, the baby was not hurt. The fetus
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION can only be committed
inside the tummy did not die. What is the crime committed
in one (1) way and that is by exerting physical violence on a
by the said man?
pregnant woman. And in result thereof, an unintentional
abortion was suffered. In unintentional abortion the force A: Only serious physical Injuries against the
employed was physically exerted on a pregnant woman. woman. No crimes against the fetus because there
The intention of the offender is not against the baby or the was no intent in so far as the fetus is concerned.
fetus but against the mother. His intention is against the
Q: But what if in the said problem, the man inflicted
mother but in so doing, since the mother is pregnant, the
violence on the pregnant woman who happens to be his
baby/fetus was also aborted. So abortion was
enemy. Let’s say he kicked and moved the said woman
unintentionally caused.
severely and by reason thereof the pregnant woman
Q: So what if there were two college students, a boyfriend suffered serious physical injuries. What crime/s is/are
and girlfriend. The girlfriend became pregnant and the committed?
boyfriend said, ‘I am not yet ready. We are still so young so
A: The crime committed against the woman is
I cannot marry you.’ And so by reason thereof the girlfriend
serious physical injuries. As against the fetus,
said, ‘how about my situation? I am already pregnant.’ And
the crime committed is unintentional abortion.
so by reason thereof, they both decided in order to conceal
Now, it resulted from one single act therefore it will
the dishonor of the said female student, they both decided
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 101 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

result to a complex crime of SERIOUS PHYSICAL III. By making a combat by merely entering into a duel.
INJURIES WITH UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
ELEMENTS OF A DUEL:
under ARTICLE 48 OF BOOK 1. It is a complex crime.
It is a single act resulting to two less grave felonies. 1.
It is necessary that the offenders that there was an
agreement to engage in combat or in a fight.
Q: What if a husband arrived home at 5 o’clock in the
2. There must be two or more seconds for each
morning. He saw his wife looking at the children and is
combatant.
making breakfast. Suddenly the cellphone of the wife rang,
3. The firearms or the arms to be used as well as the
the pregnant wife answered the cellphone and she began
other terms of the combat must be agreed upon by
giggling. When she began giggling, the husband took the
the said seconds.
cellphone from the said wife and listened to the cellphone.
➢ So under Article 260, the persons who are liable are
He heard a voice of a man on the other line of the
the combatants and adversaries, those who engage in a
cellphone. Since he heard the voice of the man and he just
duel and yung kanilang alalay, yung seconds.
arrived from work, he became jealous and with the use of a
knife he stabbed the wife. The wife died and the fetus died. ARTICLE 261 – CHALLENGING TO A DUEL
What crime/s is/are committed?
THREE ACTS PUNISHED:
A: In so far as the wife is concerned, the crime
I. By challenging another to a duel.
committed is parricide. In so far as the baby is
II. By inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a
concerned, the crime committed is
duel.
unintentional abortion. Again, it resulted from
III. By scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having
one single act of stabbing the wife therefore it will give
refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel.
rise to a COMPLEX CRIME OF PARRICIDE WITH
➢ Under Article 261, the persons criminally liable are
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION. There is a crime
both the challenger and the instigator.
against the wife which is parricide and against the fetus
which is unintentional abortion resulting from a single NOTE that if it is not a duel or there is no agreement to
act therefore, it is parricide with unintentional combat or to fight, let’s say there was no agreement
abortion. between A and B to fight and yet they fought and B died,
the crime committed is HOMICIDE because Article 260
Q: What if she was able to go to the hospital but the doctors
and 261 only applies if there is an agreement to fight, to a
only saved the baby and not her? What is/are the
duel or a combat.
crime/crimes committed by the husband?
CRIMES OF PHYSICAL INJURIES:
A: parricide. There is only intent against the wife and
not on the fetus therefore if the fetus remained unhurt ARTICLE 262 – MUTILATION
or it did not die, there is no crime against the fetus or
Mutilation is the clipping off or chopping off of a
the baby.
particular part of a body which is not susceptible to grow
ARTICLE 259 - ABORTION PRACTICED BY A again.
PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF
Two kinds of mutilation:
ABORTIVES
1.) By intentionally depriving another of a part of his
➢ UNDER ARTICLE 259, there is another act
body which is an essential part for reproduction.
punished and that is dispensing of abortives.
2.) By intentionally committing other mutilation that
Dispensing of abortives is committed by a
is, by depriving him of any other part of his body
pharmacist who shall dispense an abortive without a
with intent to deprive him of such part of his body.
prescription from a physician. The mere act of
dispensing the said abortives without prescription Under the first kind, that is mutilating an organ
from a physician will hold the said pharmacist essential for reproduction, is otherwise known as
criminally liable. CASTRATION. You will know that the penalty is even
higher than homicide. Killing a person is only punishable
ARTICLE 260 - DUEL
by reclusion perpetua while castrating a person is
A DUEL is a combat with deadly weapons concerted punishable by reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
between two or more persons who have decided or agreed Because if you are castrated it is as if you are already killed.
to a fight. That’s why it has a higher penalty.
THREE ACTS PUNISHED IN A DUEL:  Mutilation is a felony which cannot be committed out
of imprudence or negligence. Because the law requires
I. By killing one’s adversary in a duel.
that there must be the deliberate intent to mutilate, the
II. By inflicting physical injuries upon one’s adversary.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 102 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
deliberate intent to clip off, to severe a particular part
of the body of a person. Absent that deliberate intent,
any person who loses a part of his body, it can only be
serious physical injuries but not mutilation. So in
mutilation it is always committed with deliberate
intent or dolo to mutilate. Absent that, it is serious
physical injury.
Q: Let’s say A and B were engaged in a fight, they were
both fighting and A was losing and so he took out his bolo.
His intention was to cut the body of B in order to defeat
him however, B tried to prevent him and placed his hand
and by reason thereof, the right hand of B was severed from
his body. Is the crime committed mutilation?
A: NO. It is not mutilation because there was
no deliberate intent to clip off or to severe the
right hand of B. His intention was to attack or to
stab B and in so doing, it resulted to the loss of an arm
therefore, the CRIME COMMITTED IS SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURIES. Physical injuries can either be
serious physical injuries, less serious physical injuries
or slight physical injuries.
Q: What if X is envious of the long, shiny hair of Y. One
day, when Y was asleep, X cut the long, shiny beautifully
colored hair of Y into a very short one. Is X liable of
mutilation? If no, what crime is committed?
A: No. The hair, although part of the body, is
susceptible of growing again.
The crime committed depends on the intention of X. If
the intent is to annoy or vex Y, it is unjust vexation. If
the intention is to humiliate Y, the crime is slander by
deed.
PHYSICAL INJURIES
➢ is the act of wounding, beating or assaulting another
with no intent to kill. It also involves the act of
knowingly administering injurious beverages or
substances absent intent to kill. So always there is
no intent to kill in order to amount to physical
injuries because even if the injury is only slight or no
injury at all but if there is intent to kill, it is already
in the stage of homicide. So there must be no intent
to kill.
➢ It also includes the act of knowing administering
injurious substances absent intent to kill.
➢ So always, there is no intent to kill in order to
amount to physical injuries.
➢ Because even if the injury is only SLIGHT or no
injury at all, but there is intent to kill, it is already in
the attempted stage of Homicide. So there must be
no intent to kill.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ARTICLE 263 – SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
Under Art. 263, the serious physical injuries
punished are:
1. When the injured person becomes insane,
imbecile, impotent, or blind in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted.
2. When the injured person:
a. Loses the use of speech or the power to
heal or to smell, or loses an eye, a hand, a
foot, an arm or a leg; or
b. Loses the use of any such member, or
c. Becomes incapacitated for the work in
which he was therefore habitually
engaged in the consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted
3. When the injured:
a. Becomes deformed
b. Loses any other member of his body; or
c. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he was
habitually engaged for more than 90
days, in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted
4. When the injured person becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more that 30 days (but
must not be more than 90 days), as a result of the
physical injuries inflicted.
Note: All of these, all of the enumeration mentioned in Art.
263 are already considered serious physical injury. If a
person becomes ill or incapacitated for more than 30 days,
it is already serious physical injuries. It is already divided
into categories for purposes of penalty. Because they differ
in penalty. But the moment the said person, by reason of
the said injury becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for
more than 30 days, it is already, serious physical injury.
So the FIRST CATEGORY is, that the injured person
becomes INSANE.
INSANITY refers to a mental disease by reason
thereof a person can no longer appreciate the
consequences of his act.
IMBECILITY is when a person is already advanced in
age, yet he has only the mind of a 2-7 year-old child.
IMPOTENCY includes the inability to copulate or
sterility.
BLINDNESS requires loss of vision of both eyes by
reason of the injury inflicted. Mere weakness in vision
is not contemplated.
Under the SECOND CATEGORY:
The offender loses the use of speech or the power to
heal or to smell, or loses an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm
or a leg.
103 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
- So if it is only an eye which has been lost, it is
serious physical injury but under the Second
Category already. The penalty is lesser than that of
the First Category.
Under the THIRD CIRCUMSTANCE/CATEGORY:
When the offender becomes DEFORMED.
So what is this so-called DEFORMITY which will result in
serious physical injury?
Q: A hacked B with the use of a bolo on his stomach. So
there was a big mark on his stomach despite the fact that it
was already healed, there was a big scar on the said
stomach. The doctor said that the said injury requires
medical treatment for 2 weeks. What crime is committed?
Is it serious physical injury or is it less serious physical
injury?
A: The crime committed is only LESS SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURY. There was no deformity.
Although there was a big scar on the stomach, it would
not amount to deformity. An injury in order to amount
to deformity which would bring about serious physical
injury must result to a physical ugliness on a person.
There are 3 requisites before deformity may be
considered as a serious physical injury:
1. There must be physical ugliness produced on
a body of a person
2. The said deformity should be permanent and
definite abnormality and it would not heal
through the natural healing process
3. The said deformity must be located in a
conspicuous and visible place
EXAMPLE OF “The said deformity should be permanent
and definite abnormality and it would not heal through the
natural healing process”:
Q: A boxed B. He lost his 2 front teeth permanently. What
crime was committed?
A: The crime committed was SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURY. Because it is a deformity even if the doctor
says that he can still replace it, the fact still remains
that it cannot be healed through a natural healing
process.
Q: A boxed B, A lost a molar tooth.
A: The crime committed will LESS SERIOUS OR
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES depending on the
medical attendance. Because it cannot be seen. It is not
located in a visible or conspicuous place.
Q: A poured muriatic acid on the face of another person
whom he hates and so because of that, the face of that
person becomes deformed, it became ugly. Later, she went
on a plastic surgeon. When he got out of the plastic surgery
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
clinic, she now looks like Vilma Santos. Is the accused
person liable for serious physical injuries?
A: Yes. Even if she became prettier than before, it is
still a fact that by reason of the said injury it cannot be
healed through the natural healing process. It will
require the attendance of medical surgeon. Therefore,
it is considered as a deformity.
If the said physical ugliness is not located on a visible or
conspicuous place, it would be depending on the
deployment of medical attendance.
QUALIFIED SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES:
1. If it is committed against any of the persons
enumerated in Parricide. That is when serious
physical injuries is committed against the father,
mother, child, whether legitimate or illegitimate;
legitimate other ascendant or other descendant
and legitimate spouse of the accused.
2. If in the infliction of serious physical injuries, it is
attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
for murder.
ARTICLE 264 – ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS
SUBSTANCE OR BEVERAGES
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender inflicted serious physical injuries upon
another
2. It was done by knowingly administering to him any
injurious substances or beverages or by taking
advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity
3. He had no intent to kill
ARTICLE 265 – LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES
➢ LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES is committed
if by reason of the injury inflicted, the offended party
requires medical attendance or he cannot perform
the work with which he is habitually engaged for a
period of 10-30 days. So the requirement of medical
attendance or his incapacity to do his work for a
period of 10-30 days, it will bring about less serious
physical injury.
QUALIFIED LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES:
1. When there is manifest intent to insult or offend
the injured person
2. When there are circumstances adding ignominy to
the offense
3. When the victim is the offender’s parents,
ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers
4. When the victim is a person of rank or person in
authority, provided the crime is not direct assault
104 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
ARTICLE 266 – SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
AND MALTREATMENT
Ill-treatment of another by deed – one wherein the
offender caused pain on the offended party although there
is no injury on the said offended party.
3 KINDS OF SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND
MALTREATMENT:
1. Physical injuries which incapacitated the offended
party for labor from 1 to 9 days, or required
medical attendance during the same period
2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the
offended party from engaging in his habitual work
or which did not require medical attendance
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing
any injury
Maltreatment of another by deed without causing any
injury is the act of INFLICTING PAIN ON ANOTHER
PERSON WITHOUT CAUSING ANY WOUND OR
INJURY.
People v. Mapalo (in Book I)
Let us say that A was walking. Here comes B. B used a
lead pipe, he went to A and hit the head of A with a
lead pipe. Thereafter, he ran away. The medical
certificate showed that the head of A did not sustain
any injury. He was charged with attempted homicide.
Supreme Court said, the crime committed is ILL-
TREATMENT OF ANOTHER BY DEED, a form of
slight physical injury under Art. 266.
According to the Supreme Court, there was pain
inflicted on A, but there was no injury and there was no
intent to kill because the said offender immediately ran
away after hitting him a single time. So the crime
committed is MALTREATMENT OF ANOTHER
PARTY.
ARTICLE 266-A – RAPE
RAPE is now a crime against person; it is no longer a crime
against chastity. Because of the amendment brought about
by RA 8353 – THE ANTI-RAPE LAW.
THREE TYPES OF RAPE:
I. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman
II. Sexual Assault
III. Marital rape
I. RAPE BY CARNAL KNOWLEDGE WHEN A
MAN HAS CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF A
WOMAN AGAINST HER WILL
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a man
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of the woman
against her will
3. Such act is accomplished under any of the following
circumstance:
a. Through force, threat, or intimidation
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason
or is otherwise unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of
age or is demented, even though the
circumstances mentioned above be present
FIRST - “OFFENDER IS A MAN”
Offender – A MAN.
Offended party – A WOMAN.
SECOND - “OFFENDER HAD CARNAL
KNOWLEDGE OF THE WOMAN AGAINST HER
WILL”"
The offender has carnal knowledge of a woman against her
will and it is committed by using force, threat, or
intimidation. When the offended party is deprived of
reason or otherwise unconscious.
Q: What if the woman was sleeping when a man had a
carnal knowledge of the said woman. Is it rape by carnal
knowledge?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court said that the woman who is
sleeping is unconscious.
Q: What if the woman is half asleep when the carnal
knowledge was done by the said man? Is it still rape?
A: Yes, said by the Supreme Court. The woman was
unconscious.
THIRD:
a. Through force, threat, or intimidation
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason
or is otherwise unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of
age or is demented, even though the
circumstances mentioned above be present
STATUTORY RAPE:
UNDER 12 YEARS OF AGE/ STATUTORY RAPE
➢ This is STATUTORY RAPE. Carnal knowledge
with a woman who is under 12 years of age is
always statutory rape even if the offended party
voluntarily gave her consent, even if it was she
who wanted the sexual intercourse because insofar
as criminal law is concerned, a child under 12
years of age cannot give a valid consent.
105 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
A is 11 years old. He is cohabiting with a man who is 20
years old. They are living together as if they are husband
and wife. Of course, they had carnal knowledge. The man is
liable for STATUTORY RAPE. The number of times that he
had carnal knowledge of the said woman, that is the
number of the counts of rape. So if he had carnal knowledge
of the woman 5 times during the time that they were
together – 5 counts of statutory rape. That is because the
child, the victim, is below 12 years of age. Insofar as
criminal law is concerned, she does not have a mind of her
own, she cannot give a valid consent.
Here, you only need to prove two things:
1. the age of the victim
2. the fact of carnal knowledge
INCESTUOUS RAPE:
Q: What if, so the law requires that the said act of carnal
knowledge must be with the use of force, threat, or
intimidation, a father raped his daughter. The daughter did
not put up a fight, the father did not use force, threat, or
intimidation in the said carnal knowledge of a daughter. Is
the crime committed rape?
A: Yes. The crime committed is rape. It is incestuous
RAPE. In case of incestuous rape, it is the
overpowering and overbearing moral influence or
moral ascendency of an ascendant over a descendant
which takes place of force, threat, or intimidation. That
is why in case of incestuous rape, force, threat, or
intimidation is not indispensable; it is not necessary.
Because it is the overpowering and overbearing moral
influence or moral ascendency which a father has over
his daughter which takes place of force, threat or
intimidation.
SWEETHEART DEFENSE THEORY
Q: What if A and B are lovers and then suddenly B filed a
case against A because according to B, he was raped by her
boyfriend. In the course of the trial of the case, the defense
of the man was the so-called, “sweetheart defense theory.”
According to him, “We are sweet lovers.” Therefore
according to him, it is impossible for him to have raped her
because we are sweet lovers. Will said sweetheart defense
theory lie in his favor?
A: Supreme Court said, in case of “sweetheart defense
theory”, for it to lie, mere oral testimony will not
suffice. There must be documentary evidence,
memorabilia, picture, love letters, etc. which would
show that indeed they are sweethearts – boyfriend &
girlfriend or lovers. But mind you, even the Supreme
Court said this, there was not a case wherein the
“sweetheart defense theory” has acquitted a man.
Therefore, under any all circumstances which involves the
“sweetheart defense theory” will not lie in favor of a man.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Because it does not mean that when you are the sweetheart,
you can no longer rape the other person.
NO FRUSTRATED RAPE
In Book I, there is no such thing as FRUSTRATED RAPE.
Rape admits only 2 stages: ATTEMPTED RAPE and
CONSUMMATED RAPE.
The reason is that a mere touch of an erected penis on the
labia or lips of a woman’s genitalia will already
consummate rape.
It is not necessary that there be deep or complete
penetration. It is not necessary that the vagina did
lacerated. Mere touch of the lips or the labia of a woman’s
genitalia already consummates rape.
Q: What if, what the erectile penis has touched was the
outer portion of genitalia, that portion which became hairy
during puberty, you have to distinguish whether it is acts of
lasciviousness or attempted rape.
A: CASE: People v. Jalosjos
If when an erectile penis has touched the outer
portion of a woman’s genitalia which becomes
hairy during puberty, if the intention of the said
offender is to lie, to have carnal knowledge against
the said woman, it is attempted rape. But if in
doing so, the said man has no intention to lie or to
have carnal knowledge, that is only ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS.
II. RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender commits an act of sexual assault
2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the
following means
a. By inserting his penis into another person’s
mouth or anal orifice, or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the
genital or anal orifice of another person
3. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any
of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave
abused of authority
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or
demented.
Offender – can be any person, male or female
Offended party – can also be any person, male or female
➢ So what if what has been inserted is the penis inside
the mouth or the anal orifice, before that would only
amount to acts of lasciviousness - before the passage of
106 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
RA 8353. The law says that it must be an instrument or
object which was inserted in the genitalia or in the anal
orifice of another person.
Q: What if it was the finger which was inserted in the
genitalia of a person? Is it acts of lasciviousness or rape by
sexual assault?
A: Supreme Court said it is RAPE BY SEXUAL
ASSAULT. According to the Supreme Court, it would
be so weird if what has been inserted is an instrument
or object, it would be rape by sexual assault, but if
it was finger, it would be rape by acts of
lasciviousness. The finger is within the meaning of
an instrument or object insofar as rape by sexual
assault is concerned.
Ricalde v. People
XXX, a 10-year old boy, requested his mother to pick
up Richard (Ricalde), 31 years old, from MacDonald’s
Bel-Air Sta.Rosa. Richard was a distant relative and
textmate of XXX. Because it was late, XXX’s mother
told Richard to spend the night at their house. Richard
slept in the sofa, while XXX slept on the living room
floor. Around 2:00 a.m., XXX woke to pain in his anus
and stomach and something inserted in his anus. He
also saw Richard fondling his penis. When Richard
returned to the sofa, XXX ran to her mother and told
her what happened. The mother armed herself with a
knife for self-defense and confronted Richard, who
remained silent. She then asked him to leave. The
mother reported the incident to the barangay, which
then referred them to the police. Upon medical
examination, the doctor found no signs of recent
trauma or presence of spermatozoa in his anus. A
criminal complaint was filed against Richard for rape
through sexual assault.
Supreme Court said that this is rape by sexual assault
in relation to RA 7610. It is important to state that such
assault is in relation to RA 7610 because the penalty for
Rape by sexual assault under Article 266-B is only
prision mayor which is a bailable offense but under RA
7610 Section 5 (d), the law provides that in case of acts
of lasciviousness, if the victim is a child under 12 years
of age, the penalty is reclusion temporal in its medium
period so it is important to increase the imposable
penalty.
III. MARITAL RAPE
There is marital rape when a legal husband shall have
carnal knowledge with his wife against the will of the wife.
People v. Jumawan
"Among the duties assumed by the husband are his
duties to love, cherish and protect his wife, to give her
a home, to provide her with the comforts and the
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
necessities of life within his means, to treat her kindly
and not cruelly or inhumanely. He is bound to honor
her x x x; it is his duty not only to maintain and
support her, but also to protect her from oppression
and wrong."
Husbands do not have property rights over their wives'
bodies. Sexual intercourse, albeit within the realm of
marriage, if not consensual, is rape. This is the clear
State policy expressly legislated in Section 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC), as amended by Republic
Act (R.A.) No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
Contentions of the accused:
1. Irrevocable implied consent theory
2. The case should be viewed and treated
differently from ordinary rape cases and that
the standards for determining the presence of
consent or lack thereof must be adjusted on
the ground that sexual community is a mutual
right and obligation between husband and
wife.
Supreme court: the contentions fail.
1. The ancient customs and ideologies from
which the irrevocable implied consent theory
evolved have already been superseded by
modem global principles on the equality of
rights between men and women and respect
for human dignity established in various
international conventions, such as the
CEDAW. It is now acknowledged that rape, as
a form of sexual violence, exists within
marriage. A man who penetrates her wife
without her consent or against her will
commits sexual violence upon her, and the
Philippines, as a State Party to the CEDA W
and its accompanying Declaration, defines
and penalizes the act as rape under R.A. No.
8353. A woman is no longer the chattel-
antiquated practices labeled her to be. A
husband who has sexual intercourse with his
wife is not merely using a property, he is
fulfilling a marital consortium with a fellow
human being with dignity equal to that he
accords himself. He cannot be permitted to
violate this dignity by coercing her to engage
in a sexual act without her full and free
consent. Surely, the Philippines cannot renege
on its international commitments and
accommodate conservative yet irrational
notions on marital activities that have lost
their relevance in a progressive society.
2. to treat marital rape cases differently from
non-marital rape cases in terms of the
elements that constitute the crime and in the
107 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
rules for their proof, infringes on the equal
protection clause. The Constitutional right to
equal protection of the laws ordains that
similar subjects should not be treated
differently, so as to give undue favor to some
and unjustly discriminate against others; no
person or class of persons shall be denied the
same protection of laws, which is enjoyed, by
other persons or other classes in like
circumstances. As above discussed, the
definition of rape in Section 1 of R.A. No.
8353 pertains to: (a) rape, as traditionally
known; (b) sexual assault; and (c) marital
rape or that where the victim is the
perpetrator's own spouse. The single
definition for all three forms of the crime
shows that the law does not distinguish
between rape committed in wedlock and
those committed without a marriage. Hence,
the law affords protection to women raped by
their husband and those raped by any other
man alike. The posture advanced by the
accused-appellant arbitrarily discriminates
against married rape victims over unmarried
rape victims because it withholds from
married women raped by their husbands the
penal redress equally granted by law to all
rape victims. Further, the Court adheres to
and hereby adopts the rationale in Liberta in
rejecting the argument akin to those raised by
herein accused-appellant. A marriage license
should not be viewed as a license for a
husband to forcibly rape his wife with
impunity. A married woman has the same
right to control her own body, as does an
unmarried woman. She can give or withhold
her consent to a sexual intercourse with her
husband and he cannot unlawfully wrestle
such consent from her in case she refuses.
Rape is a crime that evokes global condemnation
because it is an abhorrence to a woman's value and
dignity as a human being. It respects no time, place,
age, physical condition or social status. It can happen
anywhere and it can happen to anyone. Even, as shown
in the present case, to a wife, inside her time-honored
fortress, the family home, committed against her by
her husband who vowed to be her refuge from cruelty.
The herein pronouncement is an affirmation to wives
that our rape laws provide the atonement they seek
from their sexually coercive husbands.
Husbands are once again reminded that marriage is
not a license to forcibly rape their wives. A husband
does not own his wife's body by reason of marriage. By
marrying, she does not divest herself of the human
right to an exclusive autonomy over her own body and
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
thus, she can lawfully opt to give or withhold her
consent to marital coitus. A husband aggrieved by his
wife's unremitting refusal to engage in sexual
intercourse cannot resort to felonious force or coercion
to make her yield. He can seek succor before the
Family Courts that can determine whether her refusal
constitutes psychological incapacity justifying an
annulment of the marriage.
Sexual intimacy is an integral part of marriage because
it is the spiritual and biological communion that
achieves the marital purpose of procreation. It entails
mutual love and self-giving and as such it contemplates
only mutual sexual cooperation and never sexual
coercion or imposition.
The Court affirms the penalty of reclusion perpetua, for
each count of rape, meted upon the accused-appellant
for being in accord with Article 266-A in relation to
266-B of the RPC. Further, he shall not be eligible for
parole pursuant to Section 3 of R.A. No. 9346, which
states that "persons convicted of offenses punished
with reclusion perpetua, or whose sentences will be
reduced to reclusion perpetua, by reason of this Act,
shall not be eligible for parole under Act No. 4180,
otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law,
as amended.
ART 266-B - PENALTIES
In case of RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT, the penalty is
only PRISION MAYOR. It is a bailable offense.
If it is a RAPE BY CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, note that
the penalty is RECLUSION PERPETUA. It is a non-
bailable offense
QUALIFIED RAPE BY CARNAL KNOWLEDGE:
Reclusion Perpetua to Death:
1. When rape is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon
2. When rape is committed by two or more persons
3. When by reason or on occasion of rape, the victim
becomes insane
4. When rape is attempted and homicide is
committed
Penalty to be imposed is the capital punishment of
death, so the extreme penalty of death
1. When by reason or on the occasion of rape,
homicide is committed
2. When the victim is under 18 years of age and the
offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the 3rd civil degree, or the common-law
spouse of the victim
3. When the victim is under the custody of the police
or military authorities or any penal institution
108 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
4. When the rape is committed in full view of the
spouse, the parent, any of the children of the
relative by consanguinity within the 3rd civil
degree
5. When the victim is a religious and gauged in
legitimate religious calling or vocation and he
known to be such by the offender before or during
the commission of the rape
6. When the victim of the rape is below 7 years of age
7. When the said offender knows that he has been
afflicted with HIV virus or AIDS or any other
sexually transmissible disease and the virus of the
disease is transmitted to the victim
8. When the said offender is a member of the AFP or
parliamentary units, the PNP or any other
member of the law enforcement agency who took
advantage of his position in order to facilitate the
commission of the crime
9. By reason or on the occasion of rape, the said
victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or
disability
10. When the offender knew that the offended party
or victim is pregnant at the time of the
commission of rape
11. 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
Q: W, 19 years old but has only a mental capacity of a 7-
year-old child. She roams around the street, dirty. M saw
her and had carnal knowledge with her. M was charged of
simple rape. Is he liable as charged?
A: Yes. This is because has carnal knowledge of a
woman who is deprived of reason. A person who is a
mental retardate is one who is deprived of reason.
Q: What if in the information, it was alleged that the man
knew that the woman was a mental retardate at the time of
the commission of the crime? The same was proven during
trial. What crime is committed?
A: Qualified rape. Rape of a mental retardate, one
who is deprived of reason, one who is suffering from
dementia is only simple rape. But if in the information,
it was alleged that the offender knew of the mental
disorder and the same was proven during trial, it is
considered as qualified rape which has the penalty of
death.
 It is knowledge on the part of the accused of the
mental retardation of the victim and the allegation of
the same in the information and proof of such
knowledge will make the crime qualified rape.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME IN RAPE:
1. When rape is attempted and a homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion thereof
(attempted rape with homicide).
2. When by reason or on the occasion of rape,
homicide is committed (rape with homicide).
People v. Laoag and People v. Villaflores
“by reason or on the occasion of rape
homicide is committed”
By reason of rape, homicide is committed – the
criminal intent of the offender is to rape the victim and
in order to consummate the crime, he has to kill the
very victim of the rape therefore, the victim of the rape
is the victim of homicide.
On the occasion of rape, homicide is
committed – the original criminal intent is to rape
the victim but in the course of having carnal knowledge
of the victim, the accused had to kill someone. The
killing of the victim need not be the victim of the rape.
The victim of the killing may be any person so long as
the homicide took place on the occasion of rape.
People v. Laoag
There were two ladies, A and B, walking along the rice
field where they were met by Laog and dragged them
behind a building. When Laog tried to undress A, B
shouted. B was stabbed by Laog several times, hit her
with a lead pipe, and then covered her with grass.
Thereafter he raped A, and hit her with a lead pipe and
covered her with grass. Laog was prosecuted for
Murder and Rape. The RTC and CA convicted him for
rape and murder.
The Supreme Court said that since it is a special
complex crime of Rape with Homicide, it is immaterial
whether the victim of rape is different than the victim
of the killing. For as long as the killing took place by
reason or on the occasion of the said rape, even if the
victims are different, it is still a special complex crime
of Rape with Homicide wherein the penalty is the
maximum penalty of Death.
 Since Rape with Homicide is a special complex crime,
regardless of the number of times the victim is raped.
Regardless of the fact that the victim of rape is
different from the person who was killed, the crime
committed is a single indivisible offense, a composite
crime, a special complex crime of rape with homicide.
The same is true with Attempted Rape with Homicide.
In Attempted Rape with Homicide, regardless of the
fact that the victim of the attempted rape is different
from the victim of homicide, since it is a special
complex crime, we have attempted rape with homicide.
109 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
ART 266-C – EFFECT OF PARDON
In case of rape, PARDON will not extinguish the criminal
liability of the offender. According to Art. 266, pardon will
not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender. It is
only through:
1. The offended woman may pardon the offender
through a subsequent valid marriage, the effect of
which would be the extinction of the offender’s
liability
2. The legal husband maybe pardoned by forgiveness
of the wife provided that the marriage is not void
ab initio
EXCEPTION: In case of MARITAL RAPE. If the legal
wife has forgiven or pardoned the legal husband.
Q: A raped B. B filed a case against A. While the case is
ongoing trial, A asked for B’s forgiveness. B pardoned A.
What is the effect of such pardon?
A: The pardon has no effect at all on the
criminal liability of A. Pardon by the offended party
does not extinguish the criminal liability of the
offender in the crime of rape.
Q: A raped B. B filed a case against A. During trial on the
merits, they often see each other and they fell in love and
decided to get married. What is the effect of such valid
marriage on the criminal liability of the offender?
A: The valid marriage will extinguish the
criminal liability of the offender.
Q: A raped B. B filed a case against A. During trial on the
merits, they often see each other. However, marriage did
not take place. The offender was convicted by the court. The
judgment became final and executory. The accused is
already serving his sentence in Muntinlupa. Since the A and
B often see each other, B missed A. And so she visited the
accused in the prison cell. They fell in love and got married.
What is the effect of such valid marriage on the penalty
already imposed by the court?
A: Such penalty will be extinguished. A valid
marriage can extinguish a penalty already
imposed by the court.
Q: What if A and B are husband and wife. A, the husband
raped B, the wife. B filed a case against the husband.
During trial on the merits, A asked for B’s forgiveness. B
pardoned A. What is the effect of the pardon granted by B
to A?
A: In case of marital rape, pardon granted by
wife to the husband will extinguish the
criminal liability.
Q: What if the husband has already been convicted by final
judgment and is already serving his sentence behind bars
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
then suddenly, the wife decided to pardon the husband.
What is the effect of such pardon?
A: Such pardon by the wife will also extinguish
the penalty already imposed by the court.
ART 266-D – PRESUMPTIONS
➢ Any form of resistance will be considered as a
struggle in the crime of rape.
[Justice Peralta: Before RA 8353, the said accused can be
convicted of Rape, it is necessary that the woman must
prove that she struggled, “Tama na, tama na, tama na.” but
now, no more.]
A and B are lovers. A was trying to have sexual congress to
B. Initially, B consented but before the act, B said “stop”.
The man did not stop. A is liable of rape because any form
of resistance or when a woman is in such a situation that
she cannot give a valid consent, it is already considered as a
form of struggle in the crime of rape and therefore the
offender can be held liable for rape.
Q: When is there PRESUMPTION OF RESISTANCE?
A: If in the course of the commission of rape, the said
offended party has performed any acts in any degree
amounting to resistance of rape or when the said
offended party cannot give a valid consent.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR
CHILDRENA: ACT
The valid
(VAWC)marriage
– R.A.will
9262extinguish the crim
Violence against women and their children
➢ refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any
person against a woman who is his wife, former wife,
or against a woman with whom the person has or
had a sexual or dating relationship, or with whom he
has a common child, or against her child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, within or without the
family abode, which result in or is likely to result in
physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or
economic abuse including threats of such acts,
battery, assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty.
Acts consisting violence against women and
children:
A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily
or physical harm;
B. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which is sexual in
nature, committed against a woman or her child. It
includes, but is not limited to:
a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of lasciviousness,
treating a woman or her child as a sex object,
making demeaning and sexually suggestive
110 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
remarks, physically attacking the sexual parts of
the victim's body, forcing her/him to watch
obscene publications and indecent shows or
forcing the woman or her child to do indecent acts
and/or make films thereof, forcing the wife and
mistress/lover to live in the conjugal home or
sleep together in the same room with the abuser;
b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim
to engage in any sexual activity by force, threat of
force, physical or other harm or threat of physical
or other harm or coercion;
c) Prostituting the woman or child.
C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions
causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of
the victim such as but not limited to intimidation,
harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It
includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the
physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the
family to which the victim belongs, or to witness
pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to
pets or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to
custody and/or visitation of common children.
D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt
to make a woman financially dependent which includes, but
is not limited to the following:
1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing
the victim from engaging in any legitimate
profession, occupation, business or activity, except
in cases wherein the other spouse/partner objects
on valid, serious and moral grounds as defined in
Article 73 of the Family Code;
2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial
resources and the right to the use and enjoyment
of the conjugal, community or property owned in
common;
3. destroying household property;
4. controlling the victims' own money or
properties or solely controlling the conjugal
money or properties.
Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children - The
crime of violence against women and their children is
committed through any of the following acts:
(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her child;
(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child
physical harm;
(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child
physical harm;
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of imminent
physical harm;
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the woman or
her child to engage in conduct which the woman or her
child has the right to desist from or desist from
conduct which the woman or her child has the right to
engage in, or attempting to restrict or restricting the
woman's or her child's freedom of movement or
conduct by force or threat of force, physical or other
harm or threat of physical or other harm, or
intimidation directed against the woman or child. This
shall include, but not limited to, the following acts
committed with the purpose or effect of controlling or
restricting the woman's or her child's movement or
conduct:
(1) Threatening to deprive or actually depriving
the woman or her child of custody to her/his
family;
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman
or her children of financial support legally due her
or her family, or deliberately providing the
woman's children insufficient financial support;
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the woman
or her child of a legal right;
(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any
legitimate profession, occupation, business or
activity or controlling the victim's own mon4ey or
properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or
common money, or properties;
(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm on
oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or
decisions;
(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or her
child to engage in any sexual activity which does not
constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical
harm, or through intimidation directed against the
woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless
conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or
causes substantial emotional or psychological distress
to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not
be limited to, the following acts:
(1) Stalking or following the woman or her child in
public or private places;
(2) Peering in the window or lingering outside the
residence of the woman or her child;
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or on the
property of the woman or her child against her/his
will;
111 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
(4) Destroying the property and personal
belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of
the woman or her child; and
(5) Engaging in any form of harassment or
violence;
(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public
ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child,
including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or
custody of minor children of access to the woman's
child/children.
DATING RELATIONSHIP- refers to a situation wherein
the parties live as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a
continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A
casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two
individuals in a business or social context is not a dating
relationship.
SECTION 24 – PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD
If it involves physical abuse; it shall prescribe
after 20 years.
If it involves psychological, sexual, and
economical abuse; it shall prescribe in 10 years.
Del Socorro v. Van Wilsem
Petitioner Norma and respondent Ernst Johan
contracted marriage in Holland. They had a son.
However, their marriage was terminated by divorce.
Thereafter, petitioner and her son came home to the
Philippines. According to petitioner, respondent
made a promise to provide monthly support to their
son. However, since the arrival of petitioner and her
son in the Philippines, respondent never gave support
to the son, Roderigo. respondent came to the
Philippines and remarried in Cebu City, and since
then, have been residing thereat. Petitioner, through
her counsel, sent a letter demanding for support from
respondent. However, respondent refused to receive
the letter.
Because of the foregoing circumstances, petitioner
filed a complaint affidavit with the Provincial
Prosecutor of Cebu City against respondent for
violation of Section 5, paragraph E(2) of R.A. No. 9262
for the latter’s unjust refusal to support his minor child
with petitioner.
Arguments of Van Wilsem:
1. He is a Holland citizen and there is no law in
Holland obligating him to give support
2. He is a foreigner and as such, not bound
under RA 9262
3. The crime has already prescribed
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Supreme Court:
1. Under the Doctrine of Processual
Presumption, although there was allegation of
the Holland Law, he was not able to prove the
same and as such, it is as if the Holland Law is
the same as the Philippine law, hence he is
bound under RA 9262.
2. Under the Generality Characteristic of the
criminal law, although he is a foreigner, he is
residing in the Philippines and the crime
being committed in the Philippines, he is
liable under RA 9262.
3. The act of unjustified failure to give support
to his child is a continuing offense and as such
it has no prescriptive period.
SECTION 25 – PUBLIC CRIME
Q: A and B are husband and wife. The husband has been
beating the wife for years. The wife was only tolerating the
beatings so as not to break the marriage until one time, the
husband inflicted injuries to the wife. B suffered serious
physical injuries and became unconscious. She was brought
to the hospital. The neighbor who saw the incident took
pity of the wife and filed a case of Violence against Women
and their Children against the husband. Will the case
prosper although it was filed by a mere neighbor?
A: Yes, the case will prosper. This is because
under Section 25, RA 9262 is a public crime. Since it is
a public crime and not a private crime, it can be
brought to court by any competent person or citizen
who has personal knowledge of the facts and
circumstances relative to the crime. It is not necessary
that she is not the offended party or the wife or the
mistress who will file the case. It suffices that any
person who has knowledge of the facts and
circumstances relative to the said abuse/violence can
file a case against the offender
SECTION 26 – BATTERED WOMAN SYNDROME
AS A DEFENSE
➢Under Sec. 26, it is provided that victim survivors
founded to be suffering from this battered women
syndrome shall be exempted from both criminal and
civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of
the elements of self-defense.
➢ The court however shall be held by a testimony of a
psychologist or psychiatrist if the woman is indeed
suffering from the so called battered women
syndrome.
Q: What if the husband has been repeatedly beating his
wife. One time, he arrived home and did not beat the wife
and instead, went directly to the bedroom and slept. While
he was sleeping, the wife, who at the time was suffering
from Battered Woman Syndrome, took a knife and stabbed
the husband to death. He covered the husband with the
112 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
blanket and went out of the house with their children.
Later, neighbors smelled a bad odor coming from the house
and so they went inside the house and discovered the
deceased body of the husband. The wife was the suspect
and was arrested. She was prosecuted for the crime of
parricide. If you are the counsel of the wife, what defense
would you lay in order to exempt your client from criminal
liability.
A: The defense of Battered Woman Syndrome.
BWS is a scientifically defined pattern of psychological
and behavioral symptoms found in women in battering
relationship as a result of cumulative abuse; it is a
disease on the part of the woman. And under Section
26 of RA 9262, victim-survivors who are found by the
court to be suffering from BWS do not incur criminal
and civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of
the elements of justifying circumstance of self-defense.
BWS is akin to justifying circumstance. There is
no criminal and civil liability. It is not an exempting
circumstance because in exempting circumstance, you
do not incur any criminal liability but there is civil
liability.
To prove the fact that a woman is suffering
from BWS, it is necessary that the prosecution
must present expert witness (psychiatrist or
psychologist) because courts/judges by themselves
cannot determine if indeed the woman was
suffering from BWS. There must be expert
testimony coming from the psychiatrist or
psychologist.
SECTION 27 – PROHIBITIVE DEFFENSE
Q: The case filed against the husband prospered. It is now
on the trial of the merits and during trial, the husband
invoked as part of his defenses that at the time he was
beating the wife, he was under the influence of liquor or the
he is a drug addict, and so, according to him, he was not
knowledgeable or aware of his acts. Can these be invoked as
defenses on the part of the husband?
A: No, they cannot be invoked as defenses. This
is because under Article 27 of RA 9262 expressly
provides that these are prohibited defenses. The fact
that the offender was under the influence of a liquor or
any illicit drugs or any other mind-altering substances
are considered prohibitive defenses therefore the man
is prohibited to invoke these defenses.
ANTI-HAZING LAW – R.A. 8049
Hazing is an initiation rite or practice which is used as an
admission into membership in any fraternity or any other
organization wherein the said recruit/neophyte/applicant
is placed under embarrassing or humiliating situations
such as forcing him to do menial, silly, and foolish tasks or
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
services or subjecting him into psychological or physical
injury or crime.
People v. Bayabos (2015)
The indictment merely states that psychological pain
and physical injuries were inflicted on the victim.
There is no allegation that the purported acts were
employed as a prerequisite for admission or entry into
the organization. Failure to aver this crucial ingredient
would prevent the successful prosecution of the
criminal responsibility of the accused, either as
principal or as accomplice, for the crime of hazing.
Plain reference to a technical term – in this
case, hazing – is insufficient and incomplete, as it is
but a characterization of the acts allegedly committed
and thus a mere conclusion of law. Section 6, Rule 110
of the Rules of Court, expressly states that the
information must include, inter alia, both “the
designation of the offense given by the statute” and
“the acts or omissions complained of as constituting
the offense.” The Special Prosecutor’s belated
argument38 in his Petition before this Court that the
successful completion of the indoctrination and
orientation program was used as a prerequisite for
continued admission to the academy – i.e., attainment
of active midshipman status – does not cure this defect
in the Information. Thus, the Information must be
quashed, as the ultimate facts it presents do not
constitute the crime of accomplice to hazing.
Q: Is hazing totally prohibited in the Philippines?
A: No. Hazing is not totally prohibited in the
Philippines. Hazing is allowed provided that the
following requisites are present:
1. There must be a prior written notice sent to
the head of the school authorities or the head
of the organization 7 days before the said
initiation rites and this prior written notice
shall contain the following:
a. It shall indicate the date of the said
initiation rites which shall not be more
than 3 days.
b. It shall indicate/state the names of the
neophytes or applicants who will
undergo the said hazing or initiation
rites.
c. It shall contain an undertaking which
states that there shall be no physical
violence employed in any form on
these neophyte recruits or applicants.
2. Upon the receipt of such prior written notice;
the head of the school or organization shall
assign atleast 2 representatives from their
school or organization who must be present
during the time of the said initiation rite or
113 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
hazing and these 2 representatives shall see to
it that no amount of physical violence shall be
employed on any person or any neophyte or
recruit or applicant during the said hazing or
initiation rites.
Q: What if in the course of the said hazing or initiation rite
someone died or suffered physical injuries; who shall be
held criminally liable?
A: If in the course of hazing or initiation rite, someone
died or some suffered any physical injuries; all of the
officers and members of the said fraternity or
organization who are present and who participated in
the said initiation rite shall be liable as principal.
Q: What if the said initiation rite was conducted or held in
a house of an Aling Nene? Is Aling Nene criminally liable?
A: Aling Nene is liable as an accomplice if she
has knowledge of the conduct of the said initiation rites
and she did not do any act in order to prevent its
occurrence.
➢ If the said initiation rite took place in the house
of a member or an officer of the said fraternity or
sorority; the parents of the said members or
officers shall be held liable not as an accomplice
but as a principal if they have such knowledge
of the said conduct of the initiation rites and they
did not perform any act inorder to prevent its
occurrence.
Q: When is there a prima facie evidence of participation?
A: Any person who is present in the said hazing or
initiation rite shall constitute a prima facie evidence
that there is a participation and shall be held liable as
principal.
Q: What if in the said hazing an officer beat an applicant
and he hit the neck thereby causing the death of the said
neophyte/recruit/applicant and so when prosecuted he
said: “I have no intention to commit so grave a wrong as
that committed”. Can such defense be used so as to mitigate
his criminal liability?
A: No such defense is prohibited defense. Under RA
8049; the defense that such person has no intention to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed cannot be
used by an accused under RA 8049.
➢ Whenever a person hits an
applicant/neophyte, he is already performing a
felonious act therefore he shall be held
criminally liable for all the consequences of his
actions. (Art 4 book 1)
➢ In the case of Lenny Villa Hazing; Sereno et. al.
considered Art. 4 wherein they ruled Reckless
Imprudence resulting to homicide.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
o (I disagree) In Reckless imprudence,
the said person must be performing an
act which is not felonious but by reason
of negligence or imprudence, a felony
resulted. Therefore, in the case of
Lenny Villa, the ruling shall be
homicide, it shall not be reckless
imprudence.
ANTI- CHILD ABUSE ACT (R.A. 7610)
SECTION 3 –
CHILDREN – SUBJECTS OF RA 7610 ARE
CHILDREN WHO ARE:
1. Below 18 years of age
2. Above 18 years of age who do not have the capacity
to fully protect themselves against any abuse, neglect,
cruelty or maltreatment because of their physical or
mental disability or foundation
So even if the offended party is 21 years of age but he is
physically handicapped or he has a mental disability, RA
7610 will apply to the offended party
CHILD ABUSE – Child abuse refers to the
maltreatment, whether habitual or not, of the child
which includes any of the following:
▪ Physical or psychological abuse, neglect,
cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment;
▪ Any act by deeds or words which debases,
degrades or demean the intrinsic worth and
dignity of a child as a human being.
▪ Unreasonable deprivation of his basic needs
for survival, such as food and shelter; or
▪ Failure to immediately give medical
treatment to an injured child resulting in
serious impairment of his growth and
development or in his permanent incapacity
or death.
Q: What if two children, A and B were fighting over a gun
toy. The mother of A saw B beating A so A’s mother held B
and gave him a tender slap. However, because B is still a
child, his face became reddish. Based in the medical
certificate, it showed that the said act of slapping was the
cause of the injury sustained by B that made his face
reddish that will heal within the period of one hour. What
crime was committed by the mother of A? Is the mother
liable for Child abuse or is the mother liable for slight
physical injuries?
A: The mother of A is liable for slight physical
injuries only and not for violation of RA 7610. It
happened at the spur of the moment and cannot be
114 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
said that the mother had the intention to debase,
degrade, or demean the intrinsic worth of the child as a
human being.
Bongalon v. People
Not all acts committed against a child will result to
child abuse, a violation of RA 7619. It is necessary that
in the said act, there was this intention to debase,
degrade or demean the intrinsic worth of a child as a
human being.
Rosaldes v. People
The petitioner contends that she did not deliberately
inflict the physical injuries suffered by Michael Ryan to
maltreat or malign him in a manner that would debase,
demean or degrade his dignity. She characterizes her
maltreatment as an act of discipline that she as a
school teacher could reasonably do towards the
development of the child. She insists that her act
further came under the doctrine of in loco parentis.
In the crime charged against the petitioner, therefore,
the maltreatment may consist of an act by deeds or by
words that debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being. The act
need not be habitual. The CA concluded that the
petitioner "went overboard in disciplining Michael
Ryan, a helpless and weak 7-year old boy, when she
pinched hard Michael Ryan on the left thigh and when
she held him in the armpits and threw him on the floor
and as the boy fell down, his body hit the desk causing
him to lose consciousness but instead of feeling a sense
of remorse, the accused-appellant further held the boy
up by his ears and pushed him down on the floor." On
her part, the trial judge said that the physical pain
experienced by the victim had been aggravated by an
emotional trauma that caused him to stop going to
school altogether out of fear of the petitioner,
compelling his parents to transfer him to another
school where he had to adjust again. Such established
circumstances proved beyond reasonable doubt that
the petitioner was guilty of child abuse by deeds that
degraded and demeaned the intrinsic worth and
dignity of Michael Ryan as a human being.
Araneta v. People
The provision (Section (10) a) punishes not only those
enumerated under Article 59 of Presidential Decree
No. 603, but also four distinct acts, i.e., (a) child abuse,
(b) child cruelty, (c) child exploitation and (d) being
responsible for conditions prejudicial to the child’s
development. The Rules and Regulations of the
questioned statute distinctly and separately defined
child abuse, cruelty and exploitation just to show that
these three acts are different from one another and
from the act prejudicial to the child’s development.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Contrary to petitioner’s assertion, an accused can be
prosecuted and be convicted under Section 10(a),
Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610 if he commits any
of the four acts therein. The prosecution need not
prove that the acts of child abuse, child cruelty and
child exploitation have resulted in the prejudice of the
child because an act prejudicial to the development of
the child is different from the former acts.
Sanchez v. People
Appellant contends that, after proof, the act should not
be considered as child abuse but merely as slight
physical injuries defined and punishable under Article
266 of the Revised Penal Code. Appellant conveniently
forgets that when the incident happened, VVV was a
child entitled to the protection extended by R.A. No.
7610, as mandated by the Constitution. As defined in
the law, child abuse includes physical abuse of the
child, whether the same is habitual or not. The act of
appellant falls squarely within this definition. We,
therefore, cannot accept appellant’s contention.
SECTION 5 – CHILD PROSTITUTION AND OTHER
SEXUAL ABUSE
CHILDREN DEEMED TO BE EXPLOITED IN
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.
PERSONS LIABLE:
a. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
induce child prostitution
b. Those who commit any act of sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct with child exploited in
prostitution or subject to other sexual abuse.
c. Any person who shall derive any profit or
advantage therefrom, whether as manager or
owner of the establishment where the prostitution
takes place.
Jojit Garingaro v. People
In this case, a 16-year old girl was brought to a hospital
due to abdominal pain. She was advised to stay to be
observed. When her parents left her alone, Garingaro,
the nurse, entered the room and examined her. The
girl hesitated, however, Garingaro insisted and lifted
her blouse and touched her breasts and thereafter left.
After a few minutes, he returned with a stethoscope.
He placed it on her abdomen and suddenly lowered her
pajamas and inserted his finger in her genitalia. She
crossed her legs to stop the nurse and told him that she
115 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
just had her period. The nurse left the room after
washing his hands. When her parents arrived, she
asked to leave the hospital and told her parents what
happened upon arrival at their home. Garingaro was
charged with Acts of Lasciviousness in relation to RA
7610 (Anti-Child Abuse Act) He was convicted by the
lower court and CA which was affirmed by SC.
Caballo v. People
Christian, a dancer, met AAA, his choreographer’s
niece, in her uncle’s place. When she stayed in her
uncle’s place, she and Christian became sweethearts.
He succeeded in convincing her to have repeated
sexual intercourse because of his promise to marry and
an assurance that they will use the withdrawal method
so she will not get pregnant. She, however, became
pregnant, and Christian, shocked with the
development, proposed that she had an abortion. She
acceded to the request but failed, hence a child was
borne out of the relationship. When confronted by
Christian’s mother, he promised to marry AAA. The
mother later filed a case for violation of Section 10(a)
of Republic Act 7610. In his defense, Christian
contended that they were sweethearts; AAA was not a
virgin anymore when they had sexual intercourse;
eventually they broke up because of the intervention of
AAA’s mother. Christian was convicted by the Regional
Trial Court for violation of Section 10(a) of Republic
Act 7610.The issue presented before the Supreme
Court was whether or not Christian may be convicted
for violation of Republic Act 7610. He argues that his
promise to marry and use of the withdrawal method
are not inducement or persuasion as to make the case
within the purview of the offense. The phrase “due to
the coercion or influence of any adult” is the relevant
phrase for interpretation. According to him, it must be
accompanied by some form of coercion or intimidation
to constitute child abuse.
The Supreme Court:
“Section 5(b), Article III of RA 7610 pertinently reads:
SEC. 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse. –
Children, whether male or female, who for money,
profit, or any other consideration or due to the
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period
to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the
following: x x x x
(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,
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
That when the victim 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 x x x x (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
As determined in the case of Olivarez v. CA (Olivarez),
the elements of the foregoing offense are the following:
(a) The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse
or lascivious conduct; (b) The said act is performed
with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected to
other sexual abuse; and (c) The child, whether male or
female, is below 18 years of age.
In this case, the existence of the first and third
elements remains undisputed. Records disclose that
Caballo had succeeded in repeatedly having sexual
intercourse with AAA who, during all those instances,
was still a minor. Thus, the only bone of contention lies
in the presence of the second element. On this note,
the defense submits that AAA could not be considered
as a “child exploited in prostitution and other sexual
abuse” since the incidents to do not point to any form
of “coercion” or “influence” on Caballo’s part.”
In this relation, case law further clarifies that sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct under the coercion or
influence of any adult exists when there is some form
of compulsion equivalent to intimidation which
subdues the free exercise of the offended party’s free
will. Corollary thereto, Section 2(g) of the Rules on
Child Abuse Cases conveys that sexual abuse involves
the element of influence which manifests in a variety of
forms. It is defined as:
The employment, use, persuasion, inducement,
enticement or coercion of a child to engage in or assist
another person to engage in, sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct or the molestation, prostitution, or
incest with children.
To note, the term “influence” means the “improper use
of power or trust in any way that deprives a person of
free will and substitutes another’s objective.”
Meanwhile, “coercion” is the “improper use of x x x
power to compel another to submit to the wishes of
one who wields it.”
In view of the foregoing, the Court observes that
Caballo’s actuations may be classified as “coercion”
and “influence” within the purview of Section 5, Article
III of RA 7610:
First, the most crucial element is AAA’s minority. It is
undisputed that AAA was only 17 years old at the time
116 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
of the commission of the crime and is hence,
considered a child under the law.31 In this respect,
AAA was not capable of fully understanding or
knowing the import of her actions and in consequence,
remained vulnerable to the cajolery and deception of
adults, as in this case.
Based on this premise, jurisprudence settles that
consent is immaterial in cases involving a violation of
Section 5, Article III of RA 7610; as such, the argument
that AAA and Caballo were sweethearts remains
irrelevant. The Malto ruling is largely instructive on
this point:
For purposes of sexual intercourse and lascivious
conduct in child abuse cases under RA 7610, the
sweetheart defense is unacceptable. A child exploited
in prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse
cannot validly give consent to sexual intercourse with
another person.
The language of the law is clear: it seeks to punish
“[t]hose who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in
prostitution or subjected to other sexual abuse.”
Unlike rape, therefore, consent is immaterial in cases
involving violation of Section 5, Article III of RA 7610.
The mere act of having sexual intercourse or
committing lascivious conduct with a child who is
exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse
constitutes the offense. It is a malum prohibitum, an
evil that is proscribed. A child cannot give consent to a
contract under our civil laws. This is on the rationale
that she can easily be the victim of fraud as she is not
capable of fully understanding or knowing the nature
or import of her actions. The State, as parens patriae, is
under the obligation to minimize the risk of harm to
those who, because of their minority, are as yet unable
to take care of themselves fully. Those of tender years
deserve its protection.
The harm which results from a child’s bad decision in a
sexual encounter may be infinitely more damaging to
her than a bad business deal. Thus, the law should
protect her from the harmful consequences of her
attempts at adult sexual behavior. For this reason, a
child should not be deemed to have validly consented
to adult sexual activity and to surrender herself in the
act of ultimate physical intimacy under a law which
seeks to afford her special protection against abuse,
exploitation and discrimination. (Otherwise, sexual
predators like petitioner will be justified, or even
unwittingly tempted by the law, to view her as fair
game and vulnerable prey.) In other words, a child is
presumed by law to be incapable of giving rational
consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. x x
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied; citations
omitted)
Second, coupled with AAA’s minority is Caballo’s
seniority. Records indicate that Caballo was 23 years
old at the time of the commission of the offense and
therefore, 6 years older than AAA, more or less. The
age disparity between an adult and a minor placed
Caballo in a stronger position over AAA so as to enable
him to force his will upon the latter.
Third, Caballo’s actions effectively constitute overt acts
of coercion and influence. Records reveal that Caballo
repeatedly assured AAA of his love for her, and even,
promised to marry her. In addition, he also guaranteed
that she would not get pregnant since he would be
using the “withdrawal method” for safety. Irrefragably,
these were meant to influence AAA to set aside her
reservations and eventually give into having sex with
him, with which he succeeded.
Fourth, at least, with respect to the parties’ first sexual
encounter, it is observed that the brash and
unexpected manner in which Caballo pursued AAA to
her room and pressed on her to have sex with him,
effectively placed her in, to a certain extent, a position
of duress.. An important factor is that AAA refused
Caballo’s incipient advances and in fact, asked him to
leave. However, AAA eventually yielded. Thus, it
stands to reason that she was put in a situation
deprived bf the benefit of clear thought and choice. In
any case, the Court observes’ that any other choice
would, nonetheless, remain tarnished due to AAA ‘s
minority as above-discussed.
Hence, considering that Caballo’s acts constitute
“coercion” and “influence” within the context of the
law, and that AAA indulged in sexual intercourse
and/or lascivious conduct with Caballo due to the
same, she is deemed as a “child exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse”; as such, the
second element of the subject offense exists. In fine,
finding all elements to be present, the Court hereby
sustains Caballo’s conviction for violation of Section
5(b), Article III of RA 7610.”
Imbo v. People
Nonito was charged with violation Acts of
Lasciviousness in relation to Section 5, Article III of
Republic Act 7610. It appears that between the period
of October 14, 2003 to January 25, 2004, while the
entire household was asleep and retired for the night,
AAA, Nonito’s 11 year-old daughter was awakened by
her father committing acts of lasciviousness on her, by
mashing her breasts and licking her vagina. Despite
calls for help, CCC, her mother, did not wake up; her
repeated calls for help prompted Nonito to leave. The
next day, she told her mother of what Nonito had done
117 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
to her. In his defense, Nonito denied the charge,
averring that he and CCC fought on the night of August
6, 2010, which impelled CCC to manufacture the
charge against him. The RTC however, believed the
testimony of AAA, and convicted Nonito as charged,
sentencing him to suffer an indeterminate sentence of
FOURTEEN (14) YEARS, EIGHT (8) MONTHS OF
RECLUSION TEMPORAL AS MINIMUM TO
SEVENTEEN (17) YEARS, FOUR (4) MONTHS OF
RECLUSION TEMPORAL AS MAXIMUM in
accordance with Section 5 of Republic Act No. 7610,
otherwise known as the Special Protection of Children
Against Child Abuse, Exploitation and
Discrimination. His appeal to the Court of Appeals
denied, he went all the way to the Supreme Court,
assailing the credibility of the testimony of AAA, as
well as the imposition of the penalty provided for in
Section 5 RA 7610 despite the fact that the Information
in the case did not indicated its applicability.
Under Article 336 of the RPC, the elements of the
crime of Acts of Lasciviousness are:
(1) That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness
or lewdness;
(2) That it is done under any of the following
circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; and
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age.
(3) That the offended party is another person of either
sex.
Notably, the parties already stipulated on AAA’s
minority, that she was, at the time of the assault, under
12 years of age. The only issue in this case then
concerns the first element which is whether or not
petitioner committed acts of lasciviousness or
lewdness against his own daughter, AAA. The details of
the testimony on the act establish, even dramatize, the
gross incest during the night in question. The offended
daughter narrated that her lecherous father licked her
vagina and mashed her breasts. On more than one
occasion, we have held that the lone testimony of the
offended party, if credible, is sufficient to establish the
guilt of the accused.⁠ The fact that no other member of
their household corroborated the testimony of AAA is
not definitive of the commission of the crime. By its
very nature, sexual abuse, in this case, acts of
lasciviousness by the petitioner against his own
daughter, is generally done out of sight of people and is
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
only attested to by the victim and the perpetrator. On
the other hand, the inconsistencies pointed out by
petitioner do not discount at all the possibility of him
sexually abusing his own daughter on the night in
question. As already pointed out in the past: Lust is no
respecter of time and place⁠. In this case, both the trial
court and the Court of Appeals found the testimony of
AAA credible over petitioner’s defense of denial and
alibi. We subscribe to the settled rule that denial is a
weak defense as against the positive identification by,
and straightforward narration of the victim. Both
denial and alibi are inherently weak defenses and
constitute self-serving negative evidence which cannot
be accorded greater evidentiary weight than the
positive declaration by a credible witness. ⁠
We also affirm both lower courts’ ruling on the
application of Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 for
the imposable penalty on petitioner.
Contrary to the contention of petitioner that the
penalty in Section 5, Article III of R.A. No. 7610 is
inapplicable since there was no allegation relating
thereto in the Information, we find that the elements
and act of sexual abuse under R.A. No. 7610 were
sufficiently alleged in the Information and duly proven
during trial.
The Information specifically stated that: (1) At the time
of the incident, AAA was a minor; (2) Petitioner
committed a lascivious act against AAA by kissing her
private parts and mashing her breasts; and (3)
Corollary to paragraph 2, petitioner subjected AAA to
sexual abuse, debasing, degrading or demeaning the
offended party’s intrinsic worth and dignity as a
human being.
That petitioner committed Acts of Lasciviousness
against AAA is bolstered by Section 32, Article XIII of
the Implementing Rules and Regulations of R.A. No.
7610 which defines lascivious conduct as follows:
(T)he intentional touching, either directly or through
clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object
into the genitalia, anus or mouth of any person,
whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent to
abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade or arouse or gratify
the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
pubic area of a person.
It needs to be restated, too, that the mere act of
committing lascivious conduct with a child who is
exploited in prostitution or subjected to sexual abuse
constitutes the offense. It is a malum prohibitum, an
evil that is proscribed and was duly alleged in the
Information against petitioner.
118 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
Above all, it is quite clear by specific provision of
Section 5 Article III of R.A. No. 7610 that when the
victim is under 12 years of age, the perpetrators shall
be prosecuted under the RPC, but the penalty is that
which is provided in R.A. No. 7610. Petitioner’s
submission that he cannot be penalized under R.A. No.
7610 because the Information failed to indicate its
applicability, is, therefore, without merit.
SECTION 6 – ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CHILD
PROSTITUTION
a. There is an attempt to commit child prostitution
or exploitation when any person who, not being a
relative of a child, is found alone with the said
child inside a room or hotel or inn or any pension
house, apartelle or other similar establishments,
or vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded
area under the circumstances which would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the child is about
to be exploited in prostitution and other sexual
abuse.
b. There is an attempt to commit child position when
any person is found receiving services from a child
in a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic, health
club, and other similar establishment.
Q: What if an old man, 75 years old, who is not related to
the child who is a girl of seven years, were found in a room
inside a motel and both of them were dressed. They were
not doing any act when the police came and rescued the
girl. Can the police file a case against the man?
A: Yes, the police can file a case against the old
man. The man can be prosecuted for attempt
commit child prostitution or exploitation. There
is an attempt to commit child prostitution or
exploitation when any person who, not being a relative
of a child, is found alone with the said child inside a
room or hotel or inn or any pension house, apartelle or
other similar establishments, or vessel, vehicle or any
other hidden or secluded area under the circumstances
which would lead a reasonable person to believe that
the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and
other sexual abuse.
In this case, they were found in a motel room; they
were not related to each other. Definitely, any
reasonable mind would believe that something
happened to the man and the child because why would
a man bring a child seven years of age inside a motel
room and not in any other place. Evidently, any
reasonable mind would believe that the child is being
subjected to prostitution or exploitation.
Q: When the police raided a sauna bath, a lawyer was
found inside receiving services from a child. Can the lawyer
be prosecuted of any crime?
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
A: Yes, he can be prosecuted under RA 7610 for
attempt to commit child prostitution or child
exploitation for receiving services. There is an
attempt to commit child prostitution when any person
is found receiving services from a child in a sauna
parlor or bath, massage clinic, health club, and other
similar establishment.
 Sabi ni ma’am, “You men must beware, if you go
to a health clubs or clinic, make sure that the
person giving massage or any other services is not
a minor, otherwise you can be prosecuted. It is
just a matter of defense that you are not aware
that the said person is a minor. But still, you can
be prosecuted and arrested because it is a mere
attempt to commit child prostitution.” E pano pag
babae? HAHAHA
SECTION 7 – CHILD TRAFFICKING
Child Trafficking – is committed by any person who
shall engage in trading and dealing with children including,
but not limited to the act of buying and selling of a child for
money, or for any other consideration, or barter.
SECTION 8 – ATTEMPT TO COMMIT CHILD
TRAFFICKING
ACTS CONSIDERED AS AN ATTEMPT TO COMMIT
CHILD TRAFFICKING:
1. When a child travels alone to a foreign country
without any valid reason or without any clearance from
DSWD or without any written permit or justification
from the child’s parents or guardian.
2. When a pregnant woman executes an affidavit of
consent for adoption for consideration
3. When a person, agency, establishment or child-
caring institution recruits women or couples to bear
children for the purpose of child trafficking
4. When a doctor, hospital or clinic official or
employee, nurse, midwife, local civil registrar or any
other person simulates birth for the purpose of child
trafficking.
5. When a person engages in the act of finding children
among low income families, hospitals, clinics,
nurseries, day-care centers, or other child-caring
institutions who can be offered for the purpose of child
trafficking.
Q: A pregnant woman was on her seventh month. She
executed an affidavit of consent for the adoption of her
baby in exchange for 500, 000 pesos. Can the said would-
be mother be held liable of any crime?
A: Yes, is liable for attempt to commit child
trafficking. The baby has not yet been brought into
life and yet, the mother is already executing an
119 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

affidavit allowing the adoption of the said baby.

Obviously, the intention of the mother is to sell the
baby, to traffic the baby and therefore she can be held
liable for attempt to commit child trafficking.
SECTION 12 – EMPLOYMENT OF CHILDREN
What if children under 15 years of age are allowed
to work?
➢ As a rule, children under 15 years of age are not
allowed to work; they are prohibited from work.
How about what you see on TV? Before, there was
Santino. He was under 15 years of age. How come
he is allowed to work?
➢ There are exceptions wherein children under 15
years of age are allowed to work.
1. If the work is under the services of members of
the family of the minor provided that the minor is
being brought to school or given education.
2. Those in entertainment, TV or radio, provided
that it is allowed by the DOLE and provided that
there is a contract which is agreed by the parents
or guardian by the child.

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 120 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
TITLE NINE
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONSAL LIBERTY AND
SECURITY (ARTICLES 267 – 292)
ARTICLE 267 – KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS
ILLEGAL DETENTION
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a private individual
2. He kidnaps or detains another or in any other
manner to deprive him of his liberty
3. The kidnapping and detention is illegal; and
4. It is committed in any of the following
circumstances:
a. If the kidnapping or detention should have
lasted for more than 3 days.
b. If it is committed simulating a public
authority.
c. If threats to kill had been made upon the
person kidnapped or any serious physical
injuries are inflicted upon same.
d. If the person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, female, or a public officer.
 Any of the circumstances present, then we have serious
illegal detention.
Offender – He must be a private individual because if
he is a public officer who has been vested by law to make
arrest and he detains a person; it will be arbitrary detention
under Art 124.
Q: Can a public officer commit kidnapping and serious
illegal detention?
A: Yes, if the said public officer has not been vested by
law with the authority to effect arrest and to detain a
person then the said public officer is acting in his
private capacity. Although a public officer; since he is
acting in his private capacity, the crime committed is
kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Art 267
and not arbitrary detention under Art 124.
Q: When is there detention?
A: There is detention if the offender restrains a person
or the liberty of another person. He must be detained,
incarcerated. There must be showing that there is a
restraint on his person or liberty; otherwise, if there is
no restraint on the person or liberty on the part of the
offended party, it could be any other crime but not
kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
➢ The law requires that the kidnapping and detention
must be illegal therefore there must be no reasonable
ground.
Circumstances which will make the crime serious:
1. The kidnapping or detention should have lasted
for more than 3 days;
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
2. If it is committed by simulating public authority.
▪ By pretending to be police officers,
pretending to be NBI agents
3. If any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon
the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill
him are made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained is a minor
(unless the offender is his parents); a female, or a
public officer.
 The absence of any of the circumstance will make the
crime Slight Illegal Detention under Art 268.
 Note that the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
Circumstances which will qualify to death penalty:
1. If the purpose of the kidnapping is to extort ransom
from the victim or from any other person.
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention for
Ransom
RANSOM is the money, price, or any other consideration
given or demanded for the redemption of the liberty of the
person who has been detained or incarcerated.
People v. Mamantak
While the mother and the daughter where in a food
chain in tondo; the mother lost the said child. She had
been looking for the said child for a year. A year and six
months thereafter, the said mother received a call from
a woman who sounded to be a masculine man from
Lanaodel Norte according to the said woman. The
woman said that she has the child with her and the
woman was demanding P 30,000 in exchange for the
child. The said woman, Mamantak and company asked
the mother to go to a certain restaurant. The mother
went to the said restaurant however the mother
already informed the authorities. Upon the exchange of
the child and the demand; Mamantak and co. were
arrested by the said authorities. The crime charged
was: Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention for
Ransom.
RTC ruled that it is only kidnapping and serious
illegal detention but not for ransom because according
to the trial court; the amount given is measly a sum to
be considered as ransom because according to the
RTC; it is only in payment for the board and logging of
the child during the time that she was in the captivity
of the said woman.
SC ruled that the crime committed is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention for ransom. Even if it is only 5
centavos; if it was given in exchange for the liberty of a
person who has been detained, by whose liberty has
been restricted; it is already considered as ransom.
121 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
There is no such thing as small amount in so
far as ransom is concerned.
Q: Let’s say A is indebted to B; B was asking payment from
A, A however said that he has no money until B got fed up
so what B did is he kidnapped and detained the minor child
of A. He then called A telling the same: “I will only release
your minor child the moment you give your indebtedness in
the amount of a million pesos”. Is the crime committed
kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom?
A: Yes, it is already kidnapping and serious illegal
detention for ransom even if the amount being asked
by the kidnapper is the indebtedness of the father of
the said child. Any amount demanded in exchange for
the liberty of the person detained; that is already
considered as ransom.
2. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of
the kidnapping or detention.
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with
Homicide.
➢ This is a special complex crime. Therefore, since it
is a special complex crime; regardless of the number of
victims killed; it is still kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide.
People v. Laranaga
➢ There were two kidnap victims and these two
sisters were both killed and raped yet the SC held
that the crime committed was kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with homicide and rape.
➢ Despite the fact that there were 2 victims who
were killed and raped because regardless of the
numbers of the victims killed, since it is a special
complex crime; in the eyes of the law there is only
one crime committed so it is only: Kidnapping
and Serious illegal detention with homicide.
 Note however that it is required that the victim himself
is the one who has been killed. If it is another person; it
will result to a separate and distinct crime because the
law is particular that the person detained/ kidnapped
must be the one who is killed or died as a consequence
thereof.
Q: X abducted Y to extort ransom from the parents of Y. X
brought Y to a secret place but when Y attempted to escape,
X shot Y, the young boy and he died. What crime/crimes
committed by X?
A: The obvious intent of X is to detain Y in order to
extort money from the parents, therefore the crime
committed is Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
with Ransom. But in the course of the said detention,
the victim is killed, so we have the special complex
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
crime of Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention for Ransom with Homicide.
Q: What if in the same problem; the father learned about
the said kidnapping so the father informed the NBI agents.
The NBI agents were able to track down the place where the
said child was being hidden so the NBI agents together with
the said father went to the hideout. There was an exchange
of gun fires between A (the kidnapper) and the NBI agents.
While there was an exchange of gun fires, the father saw his
child so the father rushed towards the son, carry the son
and they were able to leave the said hideout. While they
were leaving, A the kidnapper saw them and A the
kidnapper shot the father. What crime/s is/are committed?
A: In so far as the minor is concerned; the crime
committed is Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention even if it did not last for a period of more
than 3 days, the fact that the offended party is a minor,
it is already kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
In so far as the father who has been killed; since he is
not the victim of serious illegal detention, it will
constitute a separate and distinct crime of homicide.
Therefore, there are 2 crimes committed by the said
kidnapper. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention in
so far as the child is concerned and homicide in so far
as the father who has been killed is concerned.
Q: What if both the father and son were shot by A? What
crime/crimes is/are committed?
A: Insofar as the child is concerned, the intent is to
extort ransom, therefor the crime committed is
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention for Ransom
but in the course thereof, he killed the child so the
crime is Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention for Ransom with Homicide.
As far as the father is concerned, the father is not the
victim of the kidnapping, therefore, the killing of the
father would constitute a separate and distinct charge
of homicide.
Hence, A would be liable of two crimes – Kidnapping
and Serious Illegal Detention for Ransom with
Homicide and Homicide.
3. When the victim is raped.
Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with
Rape
➢ It is necessary that the victim is the one who has
been raped.
➢ Again; since this is a special complex crime;
regardless of the times that the victim has been
raped. The crime committed is only kidnapping
and serious illegal detention with rape. There is no
122 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

kidnapping and serious illegal detention with raped, we have only the single indivisible offense of
multiple rape. Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention with Rape.
DIFFERENT FROM RAPE WITH HOMICIDE AND 4. When the victim is subjected to torture or any
ATTEMPTED RAPE WITH HOMICIDE; HOW dehumanizing acts.
In case of rape with homicide or attempted rape with Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention with
homicide, even if the victim of the homicide is the rape Physical Injuries
victim herself or any other person for as long as the killing
➢ The presence of any of these circumstances will bring
took place on occasion of the rape, it is rape with homicide.
about the imposition of maximum penalty of death.
The victim of the homicide need not be the victim of the
rape. Q: A, a 6 yr old child is playing at a playground at about 5
o’clock in the afternoon while the mother is hanging
In case of kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
clothes. A man (X) gave the child a candy and the child was
homicide or kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
so happy. Later, the man again approached the child and
rape, for this special complex crime to arise, the law
gave the child money and then the said man invited the
requires that the victim of the kidnapping must be the very
child to go with him. Since the child was so happy because
victim of the homicide, otherwise, it will give rise to a
the man was so good to her; the child went with the said
separate and distinct charge. Because the law say if the
man. At 6 o’clock; the mother came looking for the child
victim is killed or dies or if the victim is raped.
but the child was no longer in the playground. Meanwhile,
KIDNAPPING AND FORCIBLE ABDUCTION the man brought the child to his place. That evening, the
SERIOUS ILLEGAL WITH RAPE mother kept on looking for the child however they could
DETENTION WITH not locate the child. In the house of the man, the child was
RAPE molested and raped twice. The following morning, when
Special Complex Crime Complex crime the mother opened the door of the house, she saw her child
at the door with torn clothes and blood. So the man was
intent of offender, at the intent is with lewd design
outset is to detain the charged with serious illegal detention with rape. Is the
offended party charge correct?

if the said victim had been if there are many acts of A: The charge is wrong because the obvious intention
raped for a number of times, rape, you only need one act of the man is to rape the child and not to detain the
regardless of the number of of rape to complex with child therefore the SC said: the crime committed would
times she had been raped, forcible abduction. The be 2 counts of statutory rape not only a single
the crime committed is only other acts of rape will indivisible offense of kidnapping and serious illegal
one single indivisible constitute separate and
offense of KASIDWR – all distinct charges detention with rape but 2 counts of statutory rape
acts of rape are absorbed because the said child is under 12 years of age and she
was raped and molested twice. Therefore, unless and
if rape is only attempted, it in case of forcible until there was an intent to detain on the part of the
will constitute a separate abduction, if rape is only
offender; it could be any other crime but not
and distinct charge – so attempted, it is absorbed in
serious illegal detention and the crime of forcible kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
attempted rape abduction Q: A saw his rival in business walking. He abducted his
enemy and placed him inside the van to teach him a lesson.
The following morning, the said enemy was found in a
People v. Mirandilla
vacant lot with 10 gunshot wounds. What crime is
The girl just went out to buy candies. When she was committed?
out, a man, X, suddenly grabbed her and forcibly
A: The crime committed is Murder. Obviously, there
brought her on a tricycle then to different places. In
was no intent to detain the offended party. The intent
every place, he would have carnal knowledge with the
was to kill him. Therefore, the crime committed is
girl. This was the 39-ordeal of the girl who had been
murder and not kidnapping and serious illegal
raped for 27 times. The man is liable of only one crime
detention with homicide or murder as the case may be.
– Kidnapping with Serious Illegal Detention
with Rape. All the 27 counts of rape done by X on the ➢ In order for kidnapping and serious illegal detention to
woman, not only rape by carnal knowledge but also amount to with rape, murder, with homicide with
rape by sexual assault, are all considered as absorbed physical injuries; it is necessary that there is an intent
in the case of Kidnapping with Serious Illegal to detain and in the course of the said detention, the
Detention with Rape. Since this is a special complec victim dies, raped, subjected to torture or other
crime, regardless of how many times the victim was dehumanizing acts.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 123 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

➢ Again, as mentioned earlier; the absence of any of the detention and no amount of voluntary release will
circumstances which will make illegal detention mitigate the offender’s criminal liability.
serious will make the crime Slight Illegal Detention
under Art 268.
ARTICLE 269 – UNLAWFUL ARREST
ARTICLE 268 – SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
➢ Unlawful arrest is committed by any person who
ELEMENTS:
shall arrest or detain another without authority by
1. The offender is a private individual law or without reasonable ground therefor and his
2. That he kidnaps or detains another or in any other main purpose is to deliver him to the proper
manner deprived him of his liberty authorities.
3. Kidnapping is not attended by any of the
➢ The purpose is: to deliver him to the proper
circumstances in Article 267.
authorities.
Q: What if A was so envious of his neighbor. To teach the
➢ If the offender is a public officer, you have to know
neighbor a lesson, he kidnapped and detained the said
the intent of the offender.
neighbor and placed the said neighbor in a secluded place
in a vacant area one morning. However, later on, A felt If the intent is to detain – arbitrary detention.
sorry for his neighbor and he released his neighbor that
If the intent is to deliver him to the authorities, to
night. What is the effect in the criminal liability of the
file a case against him without legal ground – the
offender A?
crime is unlawful arrest.
A: Under Art 268 (Slight Illegal Detention); if the
Q: A was walking when suddenly he was arrested by B, a
offended party has been released. Such release will be
police officer. The police officer said that a case has to be
considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance
filed against him. The arrest was made without warrant of
because from the penalty of reclusion temporal, the
arrest. A was not caught committing a crime in flagrante
penalty would be lowered by one degree that is prision
delicto and not also an escapee but he was incarcerated.
mayor.
Thereafter a case has been filed against him however since
Voluntary release of the victim may only be there was no complainant, the fiscal dismissed the case for
considered as a privileged mitigating circumstance lack of probable cause. What crime is committed by the
the following requisites must concur: police officer?
1. It is necessary the release has been made within 3 A: The crime committed is unlawful arrest.
days from the commencement of the said
Q: What about the fact that he has been detained
kidnapping.
arbitrarily?
2. It must have been made without the offender
A: It is already absorbed because the intention of the
having attained or accomplished his purpose.
said police officer is to file a case against him that is; to
3. It must have been made before the institution of deliver him to the proper authorities. Therefore, the
the criminal proceedings against the said offender. arbitrary detention is merely incidental in the said act
of unlawful arrest.
Q: What if the person kidnapped by A is a public officer?
He is mad with the said public officer and so he kidnapped ARTICLE 270 – KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO
the same and detained him in the morning. In the evening, RETURN A MINOR
he immediately released the public officer because he told
➢ Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is
himself that perhaps the NBI would look after him so he
committed by: any person who had been entrusted
immediately released the public officer. Will such release
with the custody of a minor who shall deliberately
mitigate his criminal liability?
fail to restore the said minor to his parents or
A: No. the fact that the person kidnapped is a public guardians.
officer; the crime would immediately be kidnapping  What is being punished is the deliberate failure to
and serious illegal detention under 267. And if the restore the minor to his parents or guardians.
crime is committed under Art 267, no amount of
Q: Who is the offender?
voluntary release will mitigate the criminal liability of
the offender. A: The offender is the person entrusted with the
custody of a minor.
 So if the victim is a minor, a female, or a public officer;
automatically, it will be kidnapping and serious illegal

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 124 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

Q: When will the crime arise?  IN ARTICLES 270 AND 271, the crime may be
committed by the parents of the minors. If it is the
A: The crime will arise if the offender shall deliberately
parent, the penalty is only arresto mayor.
fail to restore the said minor to his parents or
guardians. ARTICLE 272 – SLAVERY
Q: What if A and B has a child and they entrusted the child ELEMENTS:
to X as they will be going for a vacation for a week. They
1. The offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a
told X to deliver the child to them after 7 days. A week after,
human being.
the husband and wife arrived home but X failed to deliver
the said child. The reason of X was he was so busy with his 2. The purpose of the offender is to enslave such
work that he forgot that it was already the 7 th day from the human being.
time that he has been entrusted with the child. Can he be
➢ It is committed by: Any person who shall buy,
held liable under Art 270?
sells, kidnaps or detains a person for the purpose
A: No because he did not deliberately fail to restore the of enslaving the said person.
said minor to his parents or guardians. The law
➢ If the purpose is to engage in immoral traffic; then
requires deliberate failure. Here, he only failed because
the penalty will be qualified.
of negligence or just because he was so busy.
ARTICLE 273 – EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR
ARTICLE 271 – INDUCING A MINOR TO
ABANDON HIS HOME ELEMENTS:
➢ It is committed by: any person who induces a minor 1. Offender retains a minor in his service.
to leave the home of his parents, guardians, or
2. It is against the will of the minor.
person entrusted with the custody of the said minor.
3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a
➢ The crime will arise even if the child has not left the
debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person
house of the parents or guardians. Mere inducement
entrusted with the custody of such minor.
with intent to cause damage will suffice.
➢ It is committed by: Any person who shall detain a child
Q: A and B husband and wife’s marriage has been declared
in his service against the will of the child under the
a nullity by the court and the custody of their 5 yr old child
pretext of reimbursing a debt incurred by the parents,
has been given definitely to the mother. However, the
ascendants, guardian or any person entrusted with the
father has been given visiting rights. One Sunday, the father
custody of the child.
visited the 5 yr old son and the son was brought out by the
father. Usually, whenever the father takes his son out; he ARTICLE 274 – SERVICES RENDERED UNDER
will return the child by night time. However, this time, the COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
father did not bring back the child to the house of the
ELEMENTS:
mother and so the mother demanded the return of her son
but the father still failed to return their child therefore the 1. Offender compels a debtor to work for him, either as
mother filed a case of Kidnapping and failure to return a household servant or farm laborer.
minor under Art 270 against the father. Will the case
2. It is against the debtor’s will.
prosper?
3. The purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a
A: Yes the case will prosper. Under Art 271 it is
debt.
provided that Art 270 and 271 can also be committed
not only by strangers but also by the father or the ➢ It is committed by: a creditor to shall compel a debtor
mother. The only difference is that under Art 270; if to work for him as a household servant or a farm
the offender is any other person the penalty is laborer against the will of the said debtor inorder to
reclusion perpetua. But if the offender is the father or require or enforce the payment of a debt.
the mother, note that the penalty is so low; only arresto
ARTICLE 275 – ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN
mayor or a fine of not more than P300 or both fine and
DANGER AND ABANDONMENT OF ONES OWN
penalty depending upon the discretion of the court
VICTIM
therefore, even the father or the mother can be held
liable under Articles 270 and 271. The only difference ACTS PUNISHED:
is their respective penalties.
I. Failing to render assistance to any person whom the
offender found in an uninhabited place wounded or in
danger of dying when he can render such assistance
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 125 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

without detriment to himself, unless such omission Q: What if when the left eye of the bystander bled; A saw
shall constitute a more serious offense. him and he knows that the bystander is his victim.
However, instead of bringing the bystander to the hospital;
ELEMENTS:
he increased his speed and left. Is A criminally liable this
1. The person wounded or dying is found in an time?
uninhabited place
A: Yes.
2. The giving of help would not be detrimental to
himself For the first act he is not liable because it is purely
3. He failed to render help accidental but when he failed to render help or
assistance to his own victim. This time, he is criminally
II. Failing to render help or assistance to another whom
liable under Art 275.
the offender has accidentally wounded or injured.
ARTICLE 276 – ABANDONING A MINOR
III. Failing to deliver a child under 7 years of age whom the
offender has found abandoned, to the authorities or to ELEMENTS:
his family, or failing to take him to a safe place.
1. Offender has the custody of the child.
Q: A saw B at Luneta Park. He was wounded and bitten by
2. Child is under 7 years of age.
a dog and he was crying for help. However, A, instead of
helping B left. Is A liable under Art 275? 3. He abandons such child.
A: No because the place is not an uninhabited place. 4. He has no intent to kill the child when the latter is
Luneta Park is a public place. People come and go abandoned.
there. Therefore, A is not liable under Art 275 despite
➢ Abandoning a minor is committed by any person who
the fact that B is wounded and dying.
has been entrusted with the custody of a child under 7
Uninhabited place years of age and he abandons the said child
permanently, deliberately, and consciously with no
➢ One wherein there’s a remote possibility for the
intent to kill the said child.
victim to receive some help.
➢ The penalty will be qualified if death resulted from the
Q: What if in the same problem, A found B in a forest? So A
said abandonment or when the safety of the child has
went hunting in a forest when he suddenly saw B in the
been placed in danger.
middle of the forest. There was this big trunk of tree on the
neck of B and he cannot move. He was begging for the help Q: A woman; an OFW worker who left her newly born child
of A. A however left. Later, B was rescued. Can he file a case inside a garbage bin of an aircraft/airplane and later she
in violation of Art 275 against A? has been arrested. What crime is committed by the said
mother?
A: Yes, because B was found by A in an uninhabited
place and he was wounded and in danger of dying A: The crime committed is Abandoning a Minor
because there’s a big trunk of tree on his neck and under Art. 276. The mother is in custody of the child
there’s no detriment on the part of A to render and she deliberately or and consciously abandoned her
assistance but he failed to render assistance therefore child without the intent to kill. Obviously, there was no
A may be held liable for violation of Art 275. intent to kill because she could have killed the said
child instead she placed her child inside a garbage can
Q: But what if when A found B and he was bitten by a snake
in the restroom of an aircraft so there was no intent to
and the snake was still there. B was asking for help however
kill therefore the crime committed is Abandoning a
A did not give help because there’s a snake. He’s afraid that
Minor under Art. 276.
he might get bitten by the snake too. Can A be held liable
under Art 275?
A: No because helping B will be detrimental on his
part.
Q: What if A was driving his vehicle when suddenly his car
tripped on a stone so the stone flew and hit an eye of a
bystander. The left eye bled. Is A liable?
A: No because it is purely accidental; it is an
exempting circumstance. He was performing an act
with due care and accident happened without fault or
negligence on his part
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 126 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
ARTICLE 277 – ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY A
PERSON ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY;
INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. ABANDONMENT OF A CHILD BY A PERSON
ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY.
➢ It is committed by: any person who, having
entrusted with the living and education of a minor
shall deliver a minor to a public institution or
other persons without the consent of the person
who entrusted such minor to the care of the
offender or, in his absence, without the consent of
the proper authorities.
II. INDIFFERENCE OF PARENTS
➢ It is committed by: any parent who neglects any of
his children by not giving them the education
which their station in life requires and financial
capability permits.
Q: H and W, husband and wife, got separated. The
husband would not give any support to their child. Later,
became sick and lost her job. She now has no means to
provide for the child so she asked H who is very rich to give
support but H refused. What case or cases may W file
against H?
A: W may file a case for Article 277 – Indifference of
Parents. Also, W may file a case for violation of RA
9262 – According to del Socorro v. Val Wilsem,
unjustified failure to give support is a criminal act.
ARTICLE 278 – EXPLOITATION OF A CHILD
ACTS PUNISHED:
I. Causing any boy or girl under 16 to engage in any
dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength or
contortion, the offender being any person.
II. Employing children under 16 years of age who are not
the children or descendants of the offender in
exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope walker, diver, or
wild animal tamer, the offender being an acrobat, etc.,
or circus manager or person engaged in any of said
callings.
III. Employing any descendants under 12 years of age in
dangerous exhibitions enumerated on the next
preceding paragraph, the offender being engaged in
any of the said callings.
IV. Delivering a child under 16 years of age gratuitously to
any person if any of the callings enumerated in
paragraph 2, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar, the
offender being an ascendant, guardian, teacher, or a
person entrusted in any capacity with the care if such
child.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
V. Including any child under 16 years of age to abandon
the home of its ascendants, guardians, curators or
teachers to follow any person entrusted in any of the
callings mentioned in paragraph 2 or to accompany
any habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender being any
person.
➢ These acts are considered as exploitation of minors
because these acts endanger the life and safety, the
growth and development of the minors. (usually these
involves circus)
Note: If the delivery of the said child is on the basis of a
consideration, compensation or money, the penalty will be
QUALIFIED.
➢ Mere act of delivering the child gratuitously under 16
years of age; the crime is already committed.
➢ The fact that it is with consideration; the penalty will
be qualified.
ARTICLE 280 – QUALIFIED TRESSPASS TO
DWELLING
➢ It is committed by: a private individual who shall
enter the dwelling of another against the will of the
latter.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a private individual
➢ It is committed by a private individual
because if it is a public officer acting under a
color of authority, then the crime is under Art
128 which is: Violation of Domicile.
2. He enters the dwelling of another
3. Such entrance is against the will of the latter.
➢ As discussed under Art. 128; when the law
says against the will, there must be a
prohibition or opposition from entering
whether express or implied.
➢ Mere entry without consent will not bring about
QUALIFIED TRESSPASS TO DWELLING.
➢ If the door is opened therefore it means that anyone
could enter even without the consent of the owner and
the moment he enters he is not liable for qualified
trespass to dwelling because there is no prohibition or
opposition from entering.
➢ It is necessary that there is an opposition or
prohibition from entering. It can be expressed
prohibition (e.g. A note which states: “Do Not Enter”
or the door was closed and a person knocked so the
owner got up and opened the door but upon seeing the
person he immediately closed the door) or implied
prohibition (e.g. Door is closed even if it is not locked).
127 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

WHEN A PERSON IS ALLOWED TO ENTER A A: It is trespass to property because it is closed

DWELLING (HE WILL NOT BE LIABLE FOR premises which is uninhabited at the time of the
TRESSPASS TO DWELLING): entering and he entered without first securing the
permission of the owner/care taker.
1. When the offender enters a dwelling of another for
the purpose of preventing some serious harm for Q: What if there is this house which is occupied by husband
himself or any other occupant of the dwelling or A and B. Husband A and B went for a vacation for a month.
any other person So for a month, there is no person in the said place. X
2. When the offender enters the dwelling to render learned that there is no person in the said place. He entered
some service to humanity or to justice the said place. What crime is committed? Is it qualified
3. When the place is entered to is a tavern or an inn trespass to dwelling or trespass to property?
and the public places are open at the time of
A: The crime committed is Qualified Trespass to
entering.
Dwelling. The said place is a residential place and
ARTICLE 281 – OTHER FORMS OF TRESSPASS TO there is someone who is occupying it even if at the
DWELLING moment there are no people because the said husband
A and B are on vacations, it is still considered as an
(TRESSPASS TO PROPERTY)
inhabited place. Therefore, the moment anyone enters,
ELEMENTS: the crime committed is trespass to dwelling and not
trespass to property.
1. Offender enters the closed premises or the fenced
estate of another. THREE KINDS OF THREATS:

2. Entrance is made while wither of them is 1. Grave threats

uninhabited. 2. Light threats
3. Other light threats
3. Prohibition to enter is manifest yet offender enters.
DISTINCTION: GRAVE, LIGHT, OTHER LIGHT
4. Trespasser has not secured the permission of the
THREATS
owner or the caretaker thereof.
GRAVE LIGHT OTHER LIGHT
Trespass to property is committed by any person, a private
THREATS THREATS THREATS
individual or a public officer, who enters a closed premises
or fenced estate which at that time is uninhabited (no one is The threat is The threat does Committed by
dwelling) and the prohibition to enter is manifest and the always & always not amount to a threatening another
offender enters the said uninhabited place without securing amounting to crime. It is with a weapon or
the permission of the owner or the care taker thereof. and constituting always and draw such weapon
a crime. It may always subject to in a quarrel, unless
TRESSPASS TO TRESSPASS TO
or may not be a demand of it be in lawful self-
DWELLING PROPERTY
subject to money or the defense; or orally
Place entered into is a closed demand of imposition of threatening, in the
Place entered into is a
premises or a fenced estate money or any other heat of anger,
dwelling and uninhabited.
which is uninhabited. imposition of condition, even another with some
other though not harm not
Prohibition to enter can
Prohibition to enter must be conditions. The unlawful. constituting a
either be expressed or
manifest. offender may or crime, and who by
implied.
may not attain subsequent acts
Entry was made against Entry was made without his purpose. show that he did
the will of the owner or securing the permission from not persist in the
the possessor of the said the owner or the care taker of idea involved in his
dwelling. the said property. threat; or orally
threatening to do
any harm not
Q: Let’s say there are these town houses. In one of the town constituting a
houses, town house A; there’s no person living at the felony.
moment and there was this sign: FOR RENT/ FOR LEASE.
X entered the said town house. What crime is committed by
X? Is it qualified trespass to dwelling or is it trespass to
property?
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 128 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

ARTICLE 282 – GRAVE THREATS DIFFERENCE BETWEEN GRAVE THREATS,

LIGHT THREATS, OR OTHER LIGHT THREATS
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
OTHER
I. Threatening another with the infliction upon his GRAVE LIGHT
LIGHT
person, honor or property or that of his family of any THREATS THREATS
THREATS
wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money or
imposing any other condition even though not Threatening
unlawful, and the offender attained his purpose. another by
II. By making such threat with the infliction upon his means of a
person, honor or property or that of his family of any weapon; or
wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money or
Threatening
imposing any other condition even though not
another to
unlawful and without the offender attaining his
commit a wrong
purpose. (Elements for this act are the same with the
amounting to a
first except that the purpose is not attained.)
crime BUT it is
III. By threatening another with the infliction upon his The wrong The wrong
done in the heat
person, honor or infliction upon his person, honor or threatened to threatened to be
of anger and
property or that of his family of any wrong amounting be committed committed does
orally without
to a crime, the threat not being subject to any demand always amount not amount to a
the offender
of money or imposition of any condition. to a crime. crime.
persisting in the
ARTICLE 283 – LIGHT THREATS idea involved in
the crime; or
Light threats is committed if a person threatens another
with the commission of any wrong which does not amount By threatening
to a crime. But it always subject to a demand of money or another orally to
the imposition of any other condition even though not do another
unlawful. harm not
constituting a
ARTICLE 284 – BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR
crime.
“In all cases falling within the two next preceding articles,
the person making the threats may also be required to give Always coupled
May or may
bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to with a demand of
not be coupled
give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.” money or an
with a demand
imposition of any
of money or an
ARTICLE 285 – OTHER LIGHT THREATS other condition,
imposition of
ACTS PUNISHED: even though
any condition.
lawful.
I. Threatening another with a weapon or by drawing such
weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense.
Here, the weapon must not be discharged.
II. Orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with ➢ So whether it be grave threats, light threats or other
some harm constituting a crime, without persisting in light threats, the essence of threats is
the idea involved in his threat. INTIMIDATION.
III. Any threat made in a jest or in the heat of anger ➢ Essence of threat: promise of a future wrong, a
constitutes light threat only. promise of a future harm. Not now, not personal but in
IV. Orally threatening to do another any harm not the future.
constituting a felony.
➢ Since it is a promise of a future wrong; threats may be
So whether it be grave threats, light threats or other light committed either personally or orally or it can also be
threats, the essence of threats is INTIMIDATION. It is a committed in writing or through an intermediary or a
promise of a future wrong, a promise of a future harm. Not third person.
now, but in the future.
➢ If threats are committed through writing or through
So, since it is a promise of a future wrong, threats may be an intermediary or a third person; the penalty is
committed either personally or orally or it can also be qualified.
committed in writing or through an intermediary. If threats
are committed through writing or through an intermediary,
the penalty is qualified.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 129 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
Q: So what if A went to the store and then from the said
store he learned that B had been spreading negative rumors
against him. And so A was so mad, he was so angry that he
went to the house of B and he called on B: “B get out of the I.
house! I will kill you! I will kill you! Get out of the house B!”
But B did not get out of the house. Instead, it was the son of
B who came out of the house and said: “What do you want II.
with my father?” A angrily said that, “You let your father
come out or I will kill him because he has been spreading
negative rumors about me.” The son went inside the house
and did not come back. The father also did not come out of
the house. And so later, A just left the house. What crime is
committed by A? Is it grave threats, light threats or is it
other light threats?
A: The crime committed is under Article 285 –
OTHER LIGHT THREATS. Orally, in the heat of
anger, he threatened another with a harm constituting
a crime, but he did not pursue with the idea in his
threat. It is only other light threats.
Q: What if, let us say, A saw that B has a new car. It was a
luxury car. He knew that it was smuggled and so he told B:
“B, if you will not give me P500,000, I will call the Bureau
of Customs, I will tell Commissioner Biazon right now that
your car is smuggled.” What crime if any is committed by A
against B?
A: It is LIGHT THREATS. He threatened to commit
a wrong which does not constitute a crime. It is not a
crime to inform the Bureau of Customs that the car
was smuggled and it is subject to a demand of money
and the imposition of any other condition even though
not unlawful.
Q: What if A, who is the creditor of B, was inside the house
of B. He was asking B to pay his indebtedness. B said: “Get
out of my house. If I still see you in the afternoon when I
get back inside my house and if you are still here, I will kill
you.” What crime is committed?
A: In this instance where B told A: “Get out of my
house. If I still see you in the afternoon when I get back
inside my house and if you are still here, I will kill you.”
The crime committed is GRAVE THREATS. There is
a promise of a future wrong to be committed in the
afternoon if A is still there in the house.
Q: What if in the same problem, A was asking B to pay his
indebtedness. B said: “Get out of my house! Otherwise, I
will kill you.” What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is GRAVE COERCION. The
threat is present, direct, personal, immediate, and
imminent. Not in the future, but now direct, personal
and immediate.
 Note that in case of threats made while committing
physical injuries, threats are absorbed.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ARTICLE 286 – GRAVE COERCIONS
2 way of committing grave coercion:
PREVENTIVE COERCION – if a person prevents
another, by means of violence, threat or intimidation,
from doing something not prohibited by law.
COMPULSIVE COERCION – if a person compels
another, by means of violence, threat or intimidation,
to do something against his will, whether it be right or
wrong, whether it be prohibited or not by law.
Q: What if, the offender prevents someone from doing
something which is prohibited by law? So let us say A,
wanted to enter the house of B, against the will of B. X saw
A wanting to enter the house of B against the will of B. X
prevented A. A in his act of wanting to enter the house of B,
is an act prohibited by law, so X prevented A from doing so.
However, A still pursued with the act of entering and so
what X did in order to prevent him is that X boxed A
resulting in his injury of slight physical injuries. What
crime is committed by X?
A: It is not grave coercion. Because X is preventing A
by means of violence and intimidation, not from doing
something which is prohibited by law but from doing
something which is prohibited by law. Therefore, it is
not grave coercion.
The crime committed is SLIGHT PHYSICAL
INJURIES.
 In case of grave coercion, it is necessary that the
offender compels another to do something against his
will, regardless of whether it be right or wrong,
regardless of whether it is allowed or prohibited by
law. The fact is a person cannot put the law in his
hands and prevent someone from doing something so
long as it is against his will.
 So in case of grave coercion, if the essence of threats is
intimidation or a promise of a future wrong, a promise
of a future injury, the injury or threat is present, direct,
personal, immediate and imminent. It is NOW. That is
why, grave coercion cannot be committed in writing or
through an intermediary because it is always personal.
Hence, it is about to take place imminent and
immediate.
THREAT v. COERCION
THREAT COERCION
The wrong threatened to be
The wrong threatened to be committed is direct,
committed is in the future personal, immediate and
imminent
May be committed in Cannot be committed in
writing or through an writing or through
intermediary intermediary because it is
130 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
always personal and
immediate
It is violence or intimidation
The essence of threat is
amounting serious enough
intimidation
to amount to violence
Penalty is qualified when:
The coercion has something to do with the offended party’s
right to suffrage or exercise of religion.
ARTICLE 287 – LIGHT COERCION
It is committed by a creditor who shall seize anything
belonging to his debtor by means of violence or
intimidation in order to apply the same to the
indebtedness.
There is one form of light coercion under Article 287, that is
UNJUST VEXATION. It is a form of light coercion.
UNJUST VEXATION – refers to any human conduct,
which although not capable of producing any material harm
or injury, annoys, vexes, or irritates an innocent person.
Example in Book I: a person walking and hit with a lead
pipe on the head.
CASE OF BALEROS, JR.:
There was a UST medical student. There was a cloth
soaked with chemical pressed on her face. So there was
this man, she was awakened with a man on top of her
placing a cloth soaked with chemical pressed on her
face. The charge was attempted rape. Supreme Court
said it was just UNJUST VEXATION – nang-iinis
lang daw yung lalaking yun. So, Supreme Court said
it is a human conduct which annoys or vexes the said
female medical student.
ARTICLE 288 – OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS;
(COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF MERCHANDISE
AND PAYMENT OF WAGES BY MEANS OF
TOKENS)
Other light coercion is committed by forcing or
compelling directly or indirectly or knowingly permitting
the forcing or compelling any employee or laborer to buy
merchandise or commodities from the said employer. And
lastly, by paying the wages due to the laborer or employees
by any tokens or object other than the legal tender currency
of the Philippines unless to be requested by the said
employee or laborer.
So it is more on LABOR – other light coercion.
Q: What if a person, A threatened to kill B. and so B filed a
case of grave threats against A. The case was filed before
the court. Upon the filing of the court, what bail, if any,
should the court impose on A in order to insure that A will
not make good the said threat?
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
A: Under Article 284, we have BOND FOR GOOD
BEHAVIOR. Bond for good behavior is a bail which is
required by the court to be posted by any accused only
in the crimes of grave threats and other light threats.
In the crimes of grave threats or other light threats, the
court would allow or would require an accused to file
or to post a bond for good behavior in order to ensure
that he will not make good the said threat. If the said
accused failed to pay or post the said bond for good
behavior, then the penalty hat would be imposed is
destierro in order to ensure that he will not make
good the said threat.
REVELATION OF SECRETS:
ARTICLE 290 – DISCOVERING SECRETS
THROUGH SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
We have seizure of correspondence in order to discover the
secrets of another.
This is committed by any person who shall seize any
correspondence of another in order to discover the secret of
any person.
NOTE: In case of seizure of correspondence in order to
discover the secrets of another, DAMAGE is not element.
Likewise, REVELATION is not an element.
The mere act of seizing the correspondence of
another with the intention to discover the secrets,
the crime is already consummated. It is not necessary
that the secret be revealed, it is not necessary that there be
damage on the part of the offended party.
ARTICLE 291 – REVEALING SECRETS WITH THE
ABUSE OF OFFICE
This is committed by a manager or by an employee or by a
servant who reveals the secrets of his principal or master
learned by him in such capacity.
It is the REVELATION OF SECRETS which will
consummate the crime, not merely discovery but
revelation of the said secrets. Again, damage is not an
element. It is not necessary that the offended party be
prejudiced or damaged.
ARTICLE 292 – REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL
SECRETS
This is committed by any person in charge, employee or
workman of a manufacturing or industrial establishment
who shall learn and discover the secrets of the industry and
shall reveal the same to the prejudice of the owner thereof.
In case of revelation of industrial secrets, mere
revelation of those secrets will not suffice. There
must be DAMAGE OR PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE
OFFENDED PARTY.
The law requires to the prejudice of the owner thereof.
131 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

RA 4200 – ANTI-WARTAPPING LAW BAR: TELEPHONE EXTENSION

The following acts are punishable: ➢ As held by Gaanan v. People, the one listening, Y,
is not liable for violation of RA 4200. The
1.) It shall be unlawful for any person, without
extension line of a telephone is not within the
securing the consent of all the parties to any
meaning of a tape recording device and therefore,
private communication or spoken word, to tap any
even if Y can overhear secretly the conversation,
wire or cable, or by using any other device or
RA 4200 is not violated.
arrangement to secretly overhear, intercept or
record such private communication or spoken
word by using a device commonly known as a
Dictaphone or dictagraph, walkie talkie, tape
recorder, or other similar devices.
2.) Knowingly possessing any tape record, wire
record, disc record, or any other such record, or
copies thereof, of these private communications or
spoken words.
3.) Replaying these any tape record, wire record, disc
record to another person.
4.) Communicating the contents of the said tape
record, wire record or disc record, in writing or
verbally to another person.
5.) Furnishing transcriptions of these tape record,
wire record or disc record whether totally or
partially to any other person.

What is foremost prohibited is the act of tapping, recording

or intercepting any private communication or spoken word
without the consent of all the parties. Without being
authorized by all the parties to the said private
communication or spoken word.
Q: So what if A told B to come inside his room and when B
entered the room, A started scolding B. In scolding B, A
said scandalous remarks against B. Unknown to A, B was
tape recording the private conversation between them. Can
B later use the said tape recording in order to file a case of
defamation or slander against A?
A: NO. Because the said act of tape recording
without being authorized by all the parties to a
private communication or spoken word is
inadmissible in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative or administrative proceedings or
investigation.

The ONLY EXCEPTION is when a police officer or peace

officer is authorized by written order of the court to listen
to, intercept or record any communication in crimes
involving treason, espionage, inciting to war or giving
motives for reprisals, piracy, mutiny, rebellion, conspiracy
and proposal to commit rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to
commit sedition and kidnapping. Only in these instances
and provided that the said peace officer is authorized by a
written order coming from the court may he be allowed to
intercept, listen to or record the private communication or
spoken word.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 132 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
TITLE TEN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
ARTICLE 293 – ROBBERY
Robbery is committed by any person, who with intent to
gain shall take any personal property belonging to another
by means of violence against, or intimidation of any person,
or using force upon anything.
ELEMENTS OF ROBBERY:
1. That the offender unlawfully takes a personal
property
2. That the said personal property belongs to another
person
3. There must be intent to gain in the taking of the said
property
4. That the said taking is either by means of violence
against, or intimidation of any person, or using force
upon anything
UNLAWFUL TAKING – is the deprivation of the
offended party of his personal property with an element of
permanency. So, it is necessary that in taking the personal
property from another person, there is an element of
permanency.
The law requires that the property must be personal
property, not real property because real property is under
Article 312 – Occupation of real property.
The personal property must belong to another person
because if it does not belong to another person it cannot be
said that there is intent to gain on the part of the offender.
The law requires that there must be intent to gain.
Intent to gain is an internal state of mind. So how can you
prove intent to gain? The law presumes there is intent to
gain the moment there is taking of the personal property of
another person. Intent to gain is presumed by law.
Two ways of committing robbery:
I. Robbery with violence against or intimidation
(Art.294)
II. Robbery with the use of force upon things (Art.299)
The value of the property taken in robbery with violence
against or intimidation against people is immaterial
because the penalty is dependent on the violence used by
the offender against the offended party. However, in
Robbery with the use of force upon things (Art.299), the
value of the property taken is material because the penalty
is dependent on the value of the property taken.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ARTICLE 294 - ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE
AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS
The following acts constitute robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons:
1.) When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the
crime of homicide is committed.
2.) When robbery is accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson.
3.) When by reason or on occasion of such robbery,
any of the physical injuries resulting in insanity,
imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted.
4.) When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of
the physical injuries resulting in the loss of the use
of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or the
loss of an eye, a hand, foot, an arm, or a leg or the
loss of the use of any such member or incapacity to
go to work in which the injured person is thereto
habitually engaged is inflicted.
5.) If violence or intimidation employed in the
commission of the robbery is carried to a degree
clearly unnecessary for the commission of the
crime
6.) When in the course of its execution, the offender
shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery any
of the physical injuries in consequence of which
the person injured becomes deformed or loses any
other member of his body or loses the use thereof
or becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he is habitually
engaged for more than 90 days or the person
injured becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for
more than 30 days
7.) If violence employed by the offender does not
cause any of the serious physical injuries defined
in Article 263, or if the offender employs
intimidation only.
In other words, we have
1. robbery with homicide
2. robbery with rape
3. robbery with intentional mutilation
4. robbery with arson
5. robbery with serious physical injuries
6. robbery with unnecessary violence
7. simple robbery
 The hierarchy must be observed because in the
commission of the crime of robbery, all had been
committed – there was homicide, there was rape, there
was intentional mutilation, there was serious physical
injuries, the house was burned –you only have one
single indivisible offense, the robber is only liable for
only one crime which is Robbery with Homicide
because it is the first in hierarchy. All the other acts are
absorbed in the single indivisible offense of Robbery
133 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
with Homicide. What you take in consideration is
hierarchy in the Article 294 and not the hierarchy as
how the crime is committed.
 Ex. In the course of the robbery, the robber first raped
the victim, thereafter, he killed the victim. Rape took
place ahead of homicide and yet, the crime committed
is Robbery with Homicide because you consider the
hierarchy of 294.
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime
or a composite crime or a single indivisible offense. In
reality two or more crimes have been committed, the
robbery and the homicide yet, in the eyes of the law
only one crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery
with homicide.
Q: When should the killing or the homicide take place?
A: In case of robbery with homicide, for as long as the
original intent of the offender, for as long original
criminal design is to commit robbery or to rob, the
killing may take place before, during or after the said
robbery provided, that the original intent/ original
criminal design is to commit robbery or to rob.
Since it is a special complex crime, regardless of the
number of the persons killed there is only a single
indivisible offense of robbery with homicide. Even if
the killing is an unintentional killing or accidental
killing still, it is a single indivisible offense of robbery
with homicide. Even if the victim of the said
robbery is different from the victim of the
killing, it is still robbery with homicide. There
lies the difference between Article 294 and Article 267.
In kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
homicide, the victim of the kidnapping and serious
illegal detention must be the victim in the said killing
to amount to kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
But in case of robbery with homicide, regardless of who
the offended party may be, whether the offended party
in robbery is different from the offended party in the
killing it is still robbery with homicide.
Q: So let us say, A entered the house of B in order to
commit robbery. He took the valuables therein and after
taking the jewelry suddenly the box of jewelry fell so X was
awaken. When A saw that X was awaken, A shot X. X died.
What crime is committed?
A: Robbery with homicide because by reason or on
occasion of robbery, homicide was committed.
Q: What if in the same problem, when X was awaken, the
robber, A, shot X. The wife was also awakened and so the
wife started shouting so A also shot the wife. The wife also
died. What crime/s is committed?
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
A: Two persons are killed still, the crime committed is
still a single indivisible offense of robbery with
homicide. All the killings are merged into a composite
intergraded whole that is a single indivisible offense of
robbery with homicide.
Q: What if let us say, in the same problem, so A went to the
house of X and took the jewelry. He was on his way out
when he bumped the door and so the owner of the house
was awakened. A went down and saw the back of the
robber. He chased the robber. In the garden, A tried to
shoot the owner of the house and so A jumped on him and
they struggled for the possession of the gun. In the course
of struggle for the possession of the gun, the gun fired
hitting a ballot vendor passing by. The ballot vendor died.
What crime/s is committed?
A: The crime committed is still the single indivisible
offense of robber with homicide. Since it is a special
complex crime, even if the victim of the robbery is
different from the victim of the homicide, it is still
robbery with homicide. Even if it is only accidental
killing it is still robbery with homicide so long as the
killing is by reason or on occasion of the said robbery.
Q: So what if, A, B, and C entered the house of X in order to
commit robbery. They have already taken the valuables
when the owner of the house was awakened. It was only A
who saw the owner of the house was awaken and so A shot
X and killed him. Are they all liable for robbery with
homicide or only A who shot X?
A: All of them are criminally liable for the crime of
robbery with homicide. Under Article 8, that in case of
an express or direct conspiracy, the conspirators are
liable only for the crime agreed upon. The crime agreed
is to commit robbery but how come all of them are
liable for homicide? Because it falls under the
exception that when the resulting felony is a special
complex crime because you cannot separate or divide a
special complex crime. Therefore, even if it was only A
who killed the victim, even if their agreement is only to
commit robbery, because homicide or the killing was
committed by reason or on occasion of the said
robbery, all of them are criminally liable for the crime
of robbery with homicide.
The only exception to the exception is when B and C
performed acts in order to prevent A from committing
the homicide.
People v. Cabbab
Let us say, A and B versus X, Y and Z. A and B
committed robbery and upon leaving the said place, X
and Y saw A and B and shot them and made gun fires.
Z, a police officer dove into the canal in order to
prevent himself from being killed. A and B went
directly to X and Y and killed them both. And
134 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
thereafter, A and B took the winnings. Based on the
circumstances or facts the fiscal filed the following
cases before the RTC, robbery, double murder, and
attempted murder, robbery because of the taking of the
winnings, double murder for the death of X and Y and
attempted murder as to the police officer who dove
into the canal. What is the ruling of the RTC? It said
wrong ka fiscal! The crime is robbery with double
homicide and attempted murder. Then it went to
appeal on the Court of Appeals, sabiniya wrong fiscal!
Wrong ka din RTC! The crime committed is robbery
with homicide and attempted murder. Then it went up
to the Supreme Court. Sc said, malika fiscal! Mali ka
RTC! Mali kadin CA! Mali kayo lahat! The only crime
committed is the single indivisible crime of robbery
with homicide. Because all the acts are considered
absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide despite
the fact that two persons were killed, despite the fact
that one person was greatly injured, all these
circumstances are merged into a composite integrated
whole that is single indivisible offense of robbery with
homicide.
ROBBERY WITH RAPE
Just like robbery with homicide, is also a special
complex crime or a single indivisible offense. So, for as
long as the intention of the offender is to commit
robbery, rape may be committed before, during or after
the commission of robbery. Since it is a special
complex crime, regardless of the number of times the
victim was raped, the crime committed is only robbery
with rape. There is no such crime as robbery with
multiple rapes. There is only robbery with rape.
Q: So a woman was walking on her way home and because
it was pay day here comes X. X dragged the woman in a
dark place and took the bag and took the money inside it.
And then he found the woman attractive so he raped the
woman not once but twice. What crime/s is committed?
A: X committed the crime of robbery with rape
regardless of the times the woman was raped.
People v. Suyu
Two persons, boyfriend and girlfriend, they were
having snack and saw the shadow of 3 men. And these
3 men were pushing the truck trying to open the door.
They took their valuables and the boyfriend hurriedly
left the girlfriend allegedly to ask help to the police.
The girlfriend was alone with the three men and they
dragged her into a nipa hut and there she was raped by
the mastermind, Suyu. Not only she was raped by
Suyu but also Cainglet while, the other two was outside
serving as lookouts. So the said woman, Clarissa, was
raped by two persons and she was raped three times.
Suyu and Cainglet raped her by carnal knowledge. Not
only that, Cainglet also inserted two fingers to her
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
genitals therefore, he also committed rape by sexual
assault. What crimes are committed by the 4 persons?
What crime/s they should be criminally liable of?
Supreme Court said, they are all liable for the single
indivisible offense of Robbery with Rape. Regardless
of the fact that two persons raped the victim,
regardless of the fact that the victim was raped 3 times,
regardless of the fact that there is two nature of rape
committed against the victim (rape by carnal
knowledge and rape by sexual assault), still the crime
committed is the single indivisible offense of robbery
with rape.
There are four conspirators but not all of them raped
the victim. Yet they are all liable for robbery with rape
because the two lookouts did not perform acts in order
to prevent the consummation of the said rape. So since
it is a special complex crime and a single indivisible
offense all the other rapes are merged into a composite
integrated whole that is robbery with rape.
The same theory applies in case of robbery with
intentional mutilation and robbery with arson.
Q: The woman, W, was walking when a man, M, appeared
in front of her. He boxed the woman and carried the
woman to a secluded place and had carnal knowledge with
her against her will. After, he had carnal knowledge with
her for the second time. When he was about to leave, he
saw the shiny, beautiful necklace of W and grabbed the
same while the woman tried to prevent him. Then he left.
What crime/crimes is/are committed?
A: There are two crimes committed – two
counts of rape and simple robbery (with
intimidation).
The intent was to rape the woman and he committed
the act twice so two counts of rape. Then he forcibly
took the necklace despite the fact that the woman tried
to prevent him from taking the same.
It is not robbery because the robbery was not the
original criminal intent.
ROBBERY WITH INTENTIONAL MUTILATION,
ARSON, AND SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
For as long as the intent or the criminal design of the
offender is to commit robbery, the intentional
mutilation, arson or serious physical injuries may be
committed before, during or after the commission of
the said robbery.
Q: So let say A and B saw X walking. It was pay day and so
A and B announced a holdup. They were both armed with
guns and so what X did since they were both armed with
guns, he gave the bag. By reason thereof, A and B already
left the place. While A and B was waiting for a ride in a
waiting shed, A and B divided the things they took from X.
135 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
So A told B, this is your share. B said, why is my share
smaller than your share?! And so B got and he shot A. A
died. What is the crime committed?
A: The crime committed is robbery with homicide
because even if it was also an offender who was killed,
the killing took place by reason of the said robbery.
Q: So what if in the same problem, so A and B were already
dividing the things they took and B said, wait why is my
share so small? B got mad shot A but A did not die. A
suffered serious physical injuries. What crime is
committed?
A: The crime committed is robbery with serious
physical injuries.
Q: What if in the same problem, A were dividing the things
and B said, why is my share so small compared to your
share? B got mad and what he did was took an ice pick from
his pocket and stab A in his face and placed the ice pick in
A’s face. A suffered serious physical injuries and deformity
in his face. It caused physical ugliness to A therefore there
is deformity. What crime/s is committed?
A: This time the crime committed by B is not the single
indivisible crime of robbery with serious physical
injuries but two crimes, Robbery and Serious physical
injuries under paragraph 3 of Article 263 because of
the deformity. Why? Because under paragraph 4 of
Article 294, when the serious physical injury that
resulted is a deformity or the loss of any of the member
of his body, the law requires that the said physical
injury or deformity must be inflicted because of the
execution of a robbery and to a person not responsible
to the commission of the crime of robbery. Here, the
deformity was inflicted after the robbery, not before.
Not only that. The deformity was inflicted on A, the
person responsible for the commission of the robbery.
If the serious physical injuries inflicted resulted to a
deformity or to a loss of any of the member of his body
or loss of the use of any such member or incapacity to
go to work in which the injured person is thereto
habitually engaged for more than 90 days, under
paragraph 3 of Article 263, it is required that in order
to amount to a single indivisible offense the said
deformity or serious physical injury must be inflicted
in the course of the execution of the robbery and to a
person not responsible to the commission of the
robbery. Otherwise, it will bring about a separate and
distinct crime.
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.
ARTICLE 296 – DEFINITION OF A BAND AND
PENALTY INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
THEREOF.
ARTICLE 297 – ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED
ROBBERY COMMITTED UNDER CERTAIN
CIRCUMSTANCES.
Q: A and B were walking when suddenly X stopped them
and announced a holdup. A struggled with X and in the
course thereof, X killed him by shooting him with his gun.
X tried to get the bag of B but police officers came into the
scene so he left. What crime/crimes is/are committed?
A: The original intent of X was to rob but in the course
thereof, he killed A so robbery with homicide.
However, X was not able to get the bag of B do the
crime committed is Attempted Robbery with
Homicide.
ARTICLE 298 – EXECUTION OF DEEDS BY
MEANS OF VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION
Section Two – Robbery by the use of force upon
things
ROBBERY WITH USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS
ARTICLE 299 – ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED
HOUSE OR PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE
DEVOTED TO WORSHIP
➢ Another form of robbery is robbery with the use of
force upon things in Art 299.
➢ In case of violence against persons, the value of the
property is not important because the penalty is the
basis of the violence.
➢ In Art. 299, the basis of the penalty is the value of
the property taken.
3 ways of committing robbery with use of force
upon things:
I. When a person enters the dwelling, house, public
building or edifice devoted to worship where personal
property is taken through:
a. An opening not intended for entrance or
egress
b. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or
breaking any door or window.
c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools
d. By using any fictitious name or pretending the
exercise of public authority
 Under the first act, the essence of the crime is in the
unlawful entry; it is the act of trespassing and also the
taking of the property of another. It is necessary that
the entire body must have entered, otherwise, even if
there is breaking, it would only amount to theft and
that breaking would amount only to aggravating
circumstance. The Supreme Court ruled that when the
law used the word “enter”, it means that the entire
136 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
body must have entered said place to take the property
of another.
Q: A, in order to rob the house made an opening in the
roof, sufficient for him to enter. So he used a rope in going
down and thereafter he took the valuables and then left.
What crime is committed?
A: Robbery by use of force upon things. A made an
opening and he was able to enter fully.
Q: What if he made an entry, let down a rope with a hook
and used it in taking the valuable?
A: The crime committed only is theft with aggravating
circumstance of the breaking of the roof. His body did
not enter the premises.
II. When the offender manages to enter said inhabited
place, dwelling, public place or place dedicated to
religious worship without any unlawful entry, or is an
insider, and once inside, he used force in opening in
order to:
➢ Break doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other
kind of locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle
 The second act is when the offender was able to enter
without unlawful entry or was an insider and once
inside, breaks the doors, wardrobes, chest, receptacles,
and thereafter took the personal properties inside the
house.
Q: A and B are brothers, living in the same house and in the
same room but have different cabinets where each of the
cabinets have locks. One time brother A was in need of
money and wanted to borrow money from brother B, but
brother B was out of the house. So what brother A did was
that he forcibly opened the cabinet of brother B and took
the expensive jewelry of brother B and appropriated the
jewelry? What are the crimes committed? Is Brother A only
liable civilly?
A: A is guilty of robbery with use of force upon things.
He is an insider, and he used force to break open the
cabinet of B. He did not commit theft. Since the crime
committed is robbery, brother A is criminally liable
and civilly liable. Because under Article 332, it is only
on cases of theft, swindling, estafa, and malicious
mischief, wherein there’s no criminal liability but only
civil liability in case of relatives living together.
Q: In the same problem, what if A was in need of money, he
saw the expensive watch of B on top of the table and sold
the watch. What crime was committed?
A: A committed the crime of theft since there is no
breaking or forcibly opening the receptacle. Under Art
332, he is only liable for civil liability. They are free
from criminal liability.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Art. 332. Persons exempt from
criminal liability. — No criminal, but only
civil liability, shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or
malicious mischief committed or caused
mutually by the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the
property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed
into the possession of another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law
and sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article
shall not be applicable to strangers
participating in the commission of the
crime.
➢ Since it refers to simple crimes, if the crime
committed is estafa through falsification of public
document, there will be criminal liability. This
exemption from criminal liability will only lie in
the cases mentioned in Art. 332.
III. When the offender manages to enter said inhabited
place, dwelling, public place, or place dedicated to
religious worship without any unlawful entry, once
inside he took the sealed receptacle outside to be
opened or forced open.
➢ The offender was able to enter and once inside, he
did not use force to open the close cabinet or
receptacle. Instead, he took the cabinet and
receptacle outside to open it.
Circumstances that will qualify robbery with use of
force upon things:
ARTICLE 300 – ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED
PLACE AND BY A BAND.
➢ Under Article 300, if robbery is committed with in
an uninhabited place and by a band — the law
used the conjunction AND, both must concur in
order to amount a qualifying circumstance, to
increase the penalty. So it should be in an
uninhabited place and by a band, therefore
both must be present.
Q: A, B, C, D, and E went inside an unlocked house of W
and his family while they were about to have dinner. A, B,
C, D, and E were armed with armalites and pointed them at
W and his family, saying “We are not here to harm you.
Give us your valuables.” W went to his bedroom and later
handed to A the valuables. A, B, C, D, and E left. Crime
committed?
137 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
A: Robbery in band. When more than three armed
malefactors committed the crime of robbery, it is
robbery in band.
Q: What if when the 5 armed men were about to leave but
they realized that the W and his family might identified
them so they fired against W and all eight members of the
family. Crime committed?
A: Robbery with Homicide. This is because the
original criminal intent was to rob and in the occasion
thereof, the victims were killed. Regardless of the
number of persons killed – nine – still, it is robbery
with Homicide. Supreme Court said that there is no
such crime as Robbery in Band with Homicide because
Robbery with Homicide is a special complex crime
which the law itself combined and the law only
combines robbery and homicide.
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.
• In case of robbery with serious physical injuries,
unnecessary violence or simple violence, how will the
crime be qualified?
The answer is under Art. 295, where if the said
robbery is:
1. Committed in an uninhabited place OR
by a band
2. By attacking any moving train, street car,
motor vehicle or airship
3. By entering the passenger’s
 If what is used is a locksmith; the penalty will be
compartments in a train; or
4. Taking the passengers by surprise in
their respective conveyances
5. On a street, road, highway, or alley and
the Intimidation is made use of a firearm
 That in case of robbery with violence or intimidation
on persons, the qualifying circumstances are present,
only one of these is sufficient to qualify the penalty.
The law here uses the conjunction OR not AND.
Q: What are the circumstances which will qualify the crime
of Robbery with Physical Injuries?
A: ART 295. When the robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons is qualified if
the Robbery is committed in:
1. an uninhabited place;
2. by a band;
3. by attacking a moving train, street car,
motor vehicle, or airship
4. by entering the passengers compartments
in a train, or in any other manner taking the
passengers thereof by surprise in the
respective conveyances
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
5.on a street, road, highway or alley and the
intimidation is made with use of firearms.
NOTE that the law used the conjunctive OR therefore, the
presence of anyone of this will already qualify the crime of
Robbery with Physical Injuries. However, this only applies
to Robbery with Physical Injuries, Robbery with
unnecessary violence, and Simple Robbery.
Q: What if A knows that the house of B was vacant so A saw
that there was a window opened and so he got a ladder put
it right beside the window and climb the ladder to get
inside the house by passing through the window.
Thereafter, he got out of the house and he passed through
the main door. And in the house there is a guard. The guard
arrested him and he was frisked. Upon being frisked; found
in his possession are picklocks. What crime if any is
committed by A?
A: The crimes committed by A are Robbery with
force upon things under Art. 299 and
Possession of Picklocks under Art. 304.
There are 2 crimes committed because the offender
entered the house through an opening not intended for
the entrance or egress. He entered through a window
and a window is an opening not intended for the
entrance or egress. By the mere act of entering, he
already committed Robbery by force upon things. He
did not use the picklocks. He passed through the
window. It is an act of unlawful entry.
Since he was found in possession of picklocks that is
intended for the commission of Robbery, he is
therefore liable under Art. 304.
qualified.
Q: What if let’s say A knew that the house of B was vacant
so A with the use of a picklock opened the front door of the
house by the use of the said picklocks and then he entered
the said house. He took the valuables and then he got out of
the said house and there was a guard who saw him and
frisked him and there was picklocks found in his
possession. What crime/s is/are committed by A?
A: In this case, A is only liable for 1 crime that is;
Robbery with force upon things under Art. 299.
He is no longer liable under Art. 304 because under
Art 299; may use a picklocks and other similar tools as
a mode of entering a house.
Q: Let’s say A was on board a jeepney was 5 passengers and
the moment the jeepney passed by a guard, A announced a
holdap. So he said holdap and pointed his gun towards
other passengers. While pointing out the gun towards the
passengers, he asked the passengers to give him their
valuables. While the other passengers was giving him their
valuables, one passenger tried to fight with A so A shot the
passenger and after that he left without being able to take
138 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

any of the valuables of the passengers. The passenger who victim. In order to amount to robbery with homicide, it
was shot was brought into the hospital but he did not is necessary that both crimes must be present and
survived. The intention was to rob however Robbery was there is no such thing as robbery with frustrated
not consummated. What crime/s is/are committed by A? homicide or attempted homicide, for it is the law
which provides for the crime which must be
A: The crime committed by A is attempted
complexed, and the law does not provide that
robbery with homicide. This is also a special
frustrated homicide or attempted homicide must be
complex crime. Here robbery was attempted because
complexed with robbery.
he was unable to take any of the property. The fact that
A was able to announce hold-up and bring the In the instant case, since the killing took place at the
valuables to him means that the original design is to spur of the moment, then it is robbery with homicide.
commit robbery. It was attempted because he was
Chapter Two
unable to take the property, and in the course of
thereof, he killed the owner. BRIGANDAGE
➢ In order to amount to special complex crime, it is What if robbery was committed by 4 armed men?
necessary that both the robbery and homicide
must be consummated. ARTICLE 296 – DEFINITION OF A BAND AND
PENALTY INCURRED BY THE MEMBERS
Q: What if in the course of robbery, the said owner was THEREOF
shot but was able to survive. What crime is committed?
Q: A was walking, suddenly there are 4 men with knives
A: The crime committed is robbery with physical and took A’s bag which is full of money. A put up a fight.
injuries depending on the injuries sustained by the And so these armed men killed A. What crime is
victim. In order to amount to robbery with homicide, it committed? Is the crime committed robbery in band with
is necessary that both crimes must be present and homicide?
there is no such thing as robbery with frustrated
homicide or attempted homicide, for it is the law A: There is no such crime as robbery by a band with
which provides for the crime which must be homicide. The said use of band is only an aggravating
complexed, and the law does not provide that circumstance. The proper designation of the crime is
frustrated homicide or attempted homicide must be robbery with homicide. The fact that it is committed by
complexed with robbery. 4 armed men is only an aggravating circumstance.
Under Art. 296, if a band committed robbery, it is only
In the instant case, since the killing took place at the
an aggravating circumstance.
spur of the moment, then it is robbery with homicide.
ARTICLE 306 – BRIGANDAGE
Q: A went to the house of B. A told B “this is a hold up and
bring out the valuables”. Instead of bringing the valuables Under Article 306, it is committed by at least 4 armed men
to A, B panicked and shouted. A therefore shot B. B died. A for the purposes of -
also panicked and left the place without bringing his loot.
1. committing robbery in the highway;
What is/are the crime/s committed?
2. kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion
A: The crime committed by A is attempted robbery or ransom
with homicide. This is also a special complex crime. 3. for any other purpose to be attained by means of
Here robbery was attempted because he was unable to force and violence.
take any of the property. The fact that A was able to
Art. 296 Art. 306
announce hold-up and bring the valuables to him
means that the original design is to commit robbery. It Both require at least 4 armed persons
was attempted because he was unable to take the
property, and in the course of thereof, he killed the It is required that the 4 The crime is already
owner. armed men must actually consummated by the mere
take part in the commission fact that 4 armed men
 In order to amount to special complex crime, it is of the robbery formed a band of robbers.
necessary that both the robbery and homicide must be
consummated. It is not required that they
actually commit the
Q: What if in the course of robbery, the said owner was enumerated purposes.
shot but was able to survive. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is robbery with physical
injuries depending on the injuries sustained by the
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 139 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

PD 532 (THE ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF moment they opened the door of the taxi, they, at gun point
1974) took his earnings and thereafter allowed the taxi driver to
get out of the said place. Thereafter, these four men gave
In PD 532, brigandage is defined as the seizure of any
the money that they took as payment to the owner of the
person for ransom, extortion, or other unlawful purposes,
canteen. The owner of the canteen saw how these four men
or the taking away of property of another by means of
got the money. The owner of the canteen received the
violence against or intimidation of persons of force upon
money in exchange of beer. What crime is committed by
things or other unlawful means, committed by any person
the 4 men?
on any Philippine highway.
A: The four men shall be liable for Highway
Art 306 vs. PD 532, or the Anti-Highway Robbery
Robbery or Brigandage under PD 532. It is
Law of 1974
Highway Robbery under PD 532 because the robbery
People v. Cerbito was committed indiscriminately, there is no particular
or predetermined victim.
Art. 306 PD 532
What crime is committed by the owner of the
Requires that there must be No requisite as to the canteen?
at least 4 armed men number of perpetrators of
the crime A: The owner of the canteen is liable as an
accomplice. This is because under Section 4 of PD
Even a single person can 532, it states that any person who knowingly and in
commit the crime of any manner aids or protects pirates or highway
brigandage robbers/brigands, such giving them any information as
The mere formation of the There must be an actual to the movements or whereabouts of police authorities,
band of robbers for any of commission of the crime or or who, in any manner, shall acquire or receive
the purposes mentioned no crime will arise property taken by the said band or persons shall be
will bring about the crime liable as an accomplice.
 If the crime is under Article 306, the owner of the
There is a predetermined or There is no preconceived canteen shall be held liable under Article 307 –
preconceived victim victim. It is committed Aiding and abetting a band of brigands.
indiscriminately on any
person passing on the Chapter Three
highway as long as it is THEFT
committed in a Philippine
highway. ARTICLE 308 – THEFT

Q: A, B, C, D, and E were having a drinking spree with W
where W divulge that he will withdraw the next day 5M for
him to buy a car. The next day, after withdrawing the cash
from the bank, while W was driving along a highway,
another van cut his vehicle and stopped him. A, B, C, D, and
E alighted armed with knives and at knifepoint, they took
the 5M. what is the crime committed?
A: Brigandage because here, there is
predetermined victim, W.
Q: Let’s say A, B, C, D, and E for a number of months or
weeks, they have already committing robbery along a
highway. This time, they were having a drinking spree in a
canteen along the highway. While they were having a
drinking spree in a canteen along the highway, they needed
more beer/liquors, however, they ran out of money and so
A, B, C, and D decided to commit robbery on any person
who passes by the highway. They positioned themselves
along the highway and flagged down the first vehicle that
they saw and it happened to be a taxi. The taxi driver,
thought that they were passengers so he stopped. The
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
➢ Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to
gain but without violence against or intimidation of
persons or without use of 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
a 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 enclosed 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.
The definition is almost the same as robbery. The difference
lies in the case of robbery where there is violence or
140 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
intimidation of persons and use of force upon things, while
in theft, there is no violence, intimidation against persons
or force upon things.
Other acts tantamount to theft:
1. A person who found a lost personal property of
another but did not give it to the lawful authority
or owner, there is theft.
2. A maliciously caused damaged to the property of
B, he makes use of the fruits of the damage.
3. Any person who enters a closed premises or
fenced property of another where trespass is
forbidden and without consent of the owner shall
hunt, or fish upon the same or shall gather, fruits,
cereals, or other forest or farm products.
Valenzuela v. People
There is no frustrated theft. In this case, the offender
took boxes of tide from SM North Edsa and placed it in
the taxi. Before they were able to left the premises of
SM, they were apprehended. The offenders were
charged of consummated theft. They did not deny that
they committed theft but their defense is that they
committed frustrated theft.
The SC En Banc in 2007 ruled that there is no crime as
frustrated theft. In case of theft, unlawful taking is
deemed complete the moment the offender gain
possession of the property of another, theft is
consummated.
ARTICLE 309 – PENALTIES
ARTICLE 310 – QUALIFIED THEFT
Theft is qualified in the following instances:
1. If theft is committed by a domestic servant
2. If committed with grave abuse of confidence
3. If the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b)
mail matter, or (c) large cattle
4. If the property stolen consists of coconuts taken
from the premises of the plantation
5. If the property stolen is taken from a fishpond or
fishery
6. If property taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil
disturbance.
Q: A is a domestic servant. When his master was out of the
house, A went to the masters’ bedroom and took the
jewelry. In the information cited that he was a domestic
servant but the information did not state that A took the
jewelry with grave abuse of confidence. Is A liable for
qualified theft?
A: Yes, according to the Supreme Court, the law uses
the conjunction OR. The fact that the accused is a
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
domestic servant, it will suffice. The law does not
require that abuse of confidence to be established. It
will suffice that the accused is a domestic servant.
Q: A was a security guard. The owner of the house left his
key to the security guard. However, the security guard used
the key to open the house of the owner and took the
valuables. What crime is committed?
A: The Security Guard is liable for qualified theft
because of grave abuse of confidence.
Q: X and Y are sisters. While Y was out, X took cellphone of
Y and appropriated the proceeds to her own personal
benefit. What crime is committed? Is she liable of theft or
qualified theft?
A: The crime is Simple Theft. It is not qualified theft
because the taking of the cellphone, although the same
may have been committed with abuse of confidence,
but this will not suffice to qualify theft. What will
qualify theft is grave abuse of confidence which the
Supreme Court defines as the existence of relationship
of guardianship, dependency, and vigilance between
the offender and offended party.
RA 6539, as amended by RA 10883
(ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT)
Anti-carnapping law was amended by RA 10883 which
provides that Carnapping – is the taking with intent to
gain, of motor vehicle belonging to another without the
consent of the latter, or by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, or by use of force upon things.
PENALTIES BROUGHT ABOUT BY RA 10883:
If carnapping is committed without violence against or
intimidation of persons, the penalty is 20 years and 1 day to
30 years.
If carnapping is committed with violence or intimidation of
persons, or by force upon things, the penalty is 30 years
and 1 day to 40 years.
If the carnapping is committed and in the course thereof,
the owner, the driver, or the occupant of the car is killed or
is raped, the penalty is life imprisonment.
ELEMENTS:
1. Actual taking of motor vehicle
2. The vehicle belongs to another
3. There is intent to gain in the taking of the vehicle
of another
4. Said taking is taking without the consent of the
owner or by means of violence or intimidation or
by means of force upon things.
Q: A was driving his car and suddenly felt the need to
answer the call of nature so he parked his vehicle.
Suddenly, there was X and saw A was out of the car, and the
141 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
door of the car was open and the key was left inside the car.
X drove away with the car. What is the crime committed?
A: The crime committed is carnapping. Even if there is
no violence or intimidation against person or force
upon things, so long as said taking is without the
consent of the owner, it will amount to carnapping.
If there is no intimidation, violence, or no force upon
things, the penalty is 20 years and 1 day to 30 years.
Q: In the given situation, what if A saw X and there was a
fight that ensued between them. X shot A, and X was able
to take the vehicle. A however survived due to immediate
medical treatment. What is/are the crimes committed by
X?
A: The crime committed by X is only carnapping. The
fact that X shot A, where there is frustrated homicide,
it falls under violence or intimidation which was used
by the offender in committing the crime. Since there is
violence, the penalty is 30 years and 1 say to 40 years.
I.
Q: If again, in the same problem, A tried to stop X and X
shot A. A died. What is the crime committed?
A: The fact that the owner is killed or raped as a
consequence, the penalty is life imprisonment. It will
II.
bring about a higher penalty, but not as a
special complex crime because it is a Special
Penal Law. Though it is akin to a special complex
crime, the killing is absorbed. The crime is carnapping.
PD 533 (ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW)
Cattle Rustling - defined as the taking away by any
means, method or scheme, without the consent of the
owner/raiser, of any large cattle whether or not for profit or
for gain, or whether committed with or without violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. It
includes the killing of a large cattle or taking it as a meat or
hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.
Large Cattle- shall include cow, carabao, horse, mule,
ass, or other domesticated member of the bovine family.
Goats are not large cattle. (sabi nung isang justice sa SC na
prof naming dati, si Lawyer daw pag kinidnap cattle
rustling daw tawag dun. Ang evil nya!)
Q: A’s carabao was tied on the mango tree. X saw the
carabao alone. So what X did was he untied the carabao and
took the carabao away. A saw X with his carabao so A tried
to catch up with X. As A was able to catch up with X, a fight
ensued. X took his bolo and hacked A to death. What is the
crime committed by X?
A: The crime committed by X is only cattle rustling.
The fact that the owner was killed is within the
meaning of violence or intimidation against persons. It
will not bring about a separate and distinct crime of
murder.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
The Anti-Cattle Rustling Law, although a special law, is not
malum prohibitum but a malum in se. Under Sec. 10 of the
law, it is expressly provided that this law amends Art. 309
and 310 of the RPC. Since it is an amendment, the SC it is a
malum in se and not a malum prohibitum.
ARTICLE 311 – THEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
NATIONAL LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM.
➢ The value of the property is immaterial because
the law prescribed the penalty of arresto mayor or
fine or both.
Chapter Four
USURPATION
ARTICLE 312 – OCCUPATION OF REAL
PROPERTY OR USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS
IN PROPERTY.
ACTS PUNISHED:
Occupation of real property which is committed by any
person who by means of violence against or
intimidation shall occupy the real property of another
➢ Penalty depends on resulting crime plus amount
of gain
Usurpation of real rights in property committed by any
person who by means of violence against or
intimidation shall usurp any real rights in property of
another person
Q: There was a vacant lot. Here comes A and B and his
family. The said land or property was being guarded by X. A
and B went inside the vacant lot and tried to build a nipa
house because they do not have any house. And so the
guard told them that A and B has no right to build a nipa
house because the lot is owned by Y. However, A and B told
the guard that they do not have any house. In the course of
the argument, A and B killed the guard. What is/are the
crimes committed?
A: The crime committed is only occupation of real
property. The killing is only a means to occupy the real
property. It falls under violence against or intimidation
of persons in occupying the real property.
Q: In the same problem A and B put up their house in the
vacant property. The owner learned this and went to A and
B’s house. However, A and B killed the owner.
A: In this case, two crimes are committed. The killing
took place after occupying the place. This time, the
crimes committed are occupation and homicide or
murder as the case maybe.
Art. 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks. — Any
person who shall alter the boundary marks or monuments
of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended
to designate the boundaries of the same, shall be punished
142 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 100 pesos, or both.
Chapter Five
CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
Art. 314. Fraudulent insolvency. — Any person who
shall abscond with his property to the prejudice of his
creditors, shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor, if he be
a merchant and the penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period, if
he be not a merchant.
CHAPTER SIX – SWINDLING AND OTHER
DECEITS
ARTICLE 315 – SWINDLING/ESTAFA
THREE KINDS OF ESTAFA:
I. ESTAFA WITH UNFAITHFULNESS OR ABUSE OF
AUTHORITY – ART 315 (1)
II. ESTAFA BY MEANS OF FALSE PRETENSES OR
FRAUDULENT ACTS EXECUTED PRIOR TO OR
SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE COMMISSION OF
THE CRIME – ART 315 (2)
III. ESTAFA THROUGH FRAUDULENT MEANS – ART
315 (3)
ELEMENTS: (whatever be the crime of estafa,
there are always two general/common elements):
1. The offender defrauded another by reason of abuse of
confidence or by means of deceit.
➢ It does not necessarily mean that there must
always be deceit. In lieu of deceit, estafa can be
committed by means of abuse of confidence.
2. Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation
is caused to the offended party or to a third person.
➢ It is necessary that there must be damage or
prejudice caused to the offended party or to a third
person.
➢ The law requires that this damage or prejudice
must be capable of pecuniary estimation because
the penalty in estafa is dependent on the damage
caused to the offended party. Hence, it is
necessary that the said damage or prejudice must
be capable of pecuniary estimation. You can
estimate its value because the penalty is
dependent on the value of the damage caused.
 Whatever be the kind of estafa, there must always
be the presence of these two elements.
 Estafa is always bailable. Unlike in Qualified
Theft, the higher the value of the property, the
higher the increase in penalty so it is possible that
the penalty will reach death penalty so there is a
situation wherein the offender is under preventive
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
detention because qualified theft is not a bailable
offense. Unlike in Estafa, the penalty is dependent
on the value of the damage but there is a
maximum penalty which is pegged at 20 years so
estafa is always bailable because the penalty
cannot go beyond 20 years. The only exception is
in case of Syndicated Estafa under PD 1689.
SYNDICATED ESTAFA:
ELEMENTS:
1. Any act of Estafa under Article 315 or 316 is
committed
2. It is committed by group of five persons acting as a
syndicate
3. The defraudation consists in the misappropriation of
money contributed by the stockholders or members
of the corporation, rural banks, cooperatives,
"samahang nayon(s)", or farmers' associations, or of
funds solicited by corporations/associations from
the general public.
People v. Tibayan
In this case, a judicious review of the records reveals
TGICI’s modus operandi of inducing the public to
invest in it on the undertaking that their investment
would be returned with a very high monthly interest
rate ranging from three to five and a half percent (3%-
5.5%). Under such lucrative promise, the investing
public are enticed to infuse funds into TGICI.
However, as the directors/incorporators of TGICI
knew from the start that TGICI is operating without
any paid-up capital and has no clear trade by which it
can pay the assured profits to its investors, they cannot
comply with their guarantee and had to simply
abscond with their investors’ money. Thus, the CA
correctly held that accused-appellants, along with the
other accused who are still at large, used TGICI to
engage in a Ponzi scheme, resulting in the defraudation
of the TGICI investors.
To be sure, a Ponzi scheme is a type of investment
fraud that involves the payment of purported returns
to existing investors from funds contributed by new
investors. Its organizers often solicit new investors by
promising to invest funds in opportunities claimed to
generate high returns with little or no risk. In many
Ponzi schemes, the perpetrators focus on attracting
new money to make promised payments to earlier-
stage investors to create the false appearance that
investors are profiting from a legitimate business. It is
not an investment strategy but a gullibility scheme,
which works only as long as there is an ever increasing
number of new investors joining the scheme. It is
difficult to sustain the scheme over a long period of
time because the operator needs an ever larger pool of
later investors to continue paying the promised profits
143 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
to early investors. The idea behind this type of swindle
is that the “con-man” collects his money from his
second or third round of investors and then absconds
before anyone else shows up to collect. Necessarily,
Ponzi schemes only last weeks, or months at the most.
As opposed to the case of:
Hao v. People
There was this duly formed company, ABC
Corporation, and this corporation enticed W to make
investment in the corporation. They promised huge
profits so W first invested 1M and a huge profit was
given to him prompting him to increase his
investment. So now he gave 10M of which he was given
50% of the profits. So he was enticed further and
deposited 100M. He was given a check and this time,
the check bounced. Looking for the officers of ABC
Corporation, he found out that they were already gone
and the office was closed. W charged all officers of ABC
Corporation of Syndicated Estafa. The Supreme Court
held that the officers are not liable of Syndicated Estafa
but only Simple Estafa under Article 315(2)(a) or
Estafa under False Pretense.
It is not syndicated estafa because there is only one
victim and that is W and therefore the third element of
Syndicated Estafa is wanting. Since there is only one
victim, it cannot be said that the money was solicited
from the general public.
I. ESTAFA WITH UNFAITHFULNESS OR ABUSE
OF CONFIDENCE
THREE PUNISHABLE ACTS:
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.
➢ It can either be based on legal or illegal
consideration. The law does not take into
consideration that it must always be
legal. Even if the consideration is
immoral or illegal, still, estafa is
committed if there is an alteration or
substitution.
Q: A and B entered into an agreement, A has to deliver to B
premium quality of marijuana. B paid. A delivered two
boxes of marijuana to B. When B reviewed the said boxes of
marijuana, B discovered that on the uppermost portion,
they were premium quality marijuana but on the lower
portion, they were of poor quality marijuana. Can B file a
case of estafa against A?
A: Yes, B can file a case of estafa with
unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence against
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
A. This is because the law says that even if it is based
on an illegal or immoral consideration, there must be a
substitution of the quality or quantity, in this case, of
the said dangerous drugs which have been delivered by
A to B.
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.
➢ VERY POPULAR KIND OF ESTAFA
➢ It is necessary that the offender received
from the offended party money, goods or
other personal property. When the said
offender receives such thing from the
offended party money, goods or personal
property, what has been transferred to
the offender was JURIDICAL
POSSESSION of the said property.
➢ If only material possession has been
transferred to the offender, and the
offender misappropriated or converted
the same, the crime committed is only
theft or qualified theft but not estafa. So
in order for the crime of estafa to arise, it
is necessary that the offender has
juridical possession of the money, goods
or personal property.
Juridical Possession – is a possession in the concept of
an owner; it is a real right over the property during the time
that the property is in his possession, he has better right
even than that of the owner of the said property.
Corpus v. People
In case of Estafa through misappropriation or
conversion, there is no requisite that demand be in
writing. Any form of demand so long as demand has
been made and the offender failed to return the thing,
there is already estafa. In fact, if it is already agreed
that the offender has already taken the thing, demand
is not necessary.
Q: What if A rented a bicycle from B. A will use the bicycle
for three hours and shall pay B 500 pesos for the use of the
said bicycle. Upon payment, A is now using the bicycle.
Three hours had lapsed, A failed to deliver the bicycle to B.
B demanded the return of the bicycle. A did not return the
bicycle. Can B file a case of estafa against A?
144 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
A: B can file a case of estafa against A. Estafa is
the crime committed by A because when B gave the
bicycle to A, it was based on a contract of lease (a
contract of rent), hence, juridical possession had been
transferred from B to A. A, during the three-hour
period has juridical possession over the said bicycle
and during this period, A has better right to the
property than B, the owner thereof. When A failed to
return the said bicycle to B after three hours, then he
committed estafa.
Q: What if A told B to obtain a loan in his favor in a bank
and then he gave B his diamond ring as collateral for the
said loan. However, B, instead of using the ring as collateral
for the loan, B sold the ring and misappropriated the
proceeds of sale. What case, if any, may A file against B? Is
B liable for estafa?
A: B is not liable for Estafa. When A gave the ring
to B, what has been transferred to B is only material
possession of the ring. It is not juridical possession
because B is merely an agent of A so that B will be the
one to use the said ring as collateral in order to obtain
a loan in favor of A. Juridical possession remains with
the owner, A, hence the crime committed is only
qualified theft.
Q: What if A is a regular customer in the bank. A went to
the bank, went to the teller who usually deposits his money
and he gave the teller 1 million in cash plus the passbook. A
told the teller, “Here is my passbook and 1 million in cash.
Please deposit it to my account. I am in a hurry to go to
work and be back in the afternoon.” A left the passbook to
the teller and went to the office. In the afternoon, before
going home, A went back to the bank, however the teller
was not there so A asked for his passbook. The bank gave
him the passbook but when A looked at the passbook, the 1
million was not deposited to his account. What
crime/crimes if any may A file against the teller on whom
he gave the said money to deposit in his bank account?
A: The crime committed by the teller is only
Qualified Theft. It is not estafa because when A gave
the money to the teller to deposit to his bank account,
what has been transferred was only material
possession of the said money. It is not the juridical
possession taking into consideration that the
participation of the said teller is as that of the bank, the
teller being a mere employee of the said bank. In fact,
in case of deposits in bank, the said client will not be
able to get back the very same money that he has
deposited. Hence, the crime committed by the teller is
only qualified theft but not estafa.
Q: What if A is an employee in a company, XYZ
corporation. He was a field worker and whenever he goes to
the field to work, he has this cash advance given by the
company. One time, he went to work with a cash advance,
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
however, upon returning to work, he failed to liquidate the
cash advance. A, despite notices by the company, failed to
liquidate the cash advance. So the corporation filed a case
against A. Will the case prosper?
A: The case will not prosper. The Supreme Court
said that a cash advance is equivalent to a loan,
therefore when the company gave cash advance to the
employee, there is not only transfer of the said money
to the employee but transfer of ownership of the said
money. The employee is now the owner of the said
money. When you say liquidate, it means that he is
paying his indebtedness to the company, therefore
their relationship as employer and employee, insofar
as the cash advance is concerned, is that of a creditor-
debtor and not that of entrustor-entrustee. Hence,
there is no estafa committed, there is no theft
committed. The liability of the employee is only civil in
nature. The company can only file a case of sum of
money against the employee for failing to pay his
indebtedness in the form of cash advance to the
company.
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.
Q: The manager of a company has a blank document which
contains only the signature. The manager gave it to the
secretary and told the secretary to use the document for
emergency purposes. When the manager left, the secretary
wrote in the document stating that the manager will
shoulder or pay his entire loan in a lending firm. What
crime is committed by the said secretary? Is the said
secretary liable for estafa or estafa through falsification of a
private document or falsification of a private document.
Which of the three crimes is committed by the secretary?
A: The crime committed is Estafa. This is because
the manager entrusted to the secretary the document
in blank which contains his signature and the secretary
wrote therein above the signature to the prejudice of
the manager because the manager now assumes an
obligation. SO the crime committed by the secretary is
estafa.
Q: What if in the same problem, the secretary placed the
blank document on top of his table. Here comes B, a
customer of the said company. B while talking to the
secretary saw the document with the signature of the
manager and so he surreptitiously took one of those
documents, brought it home and wrote in the document
above the signature that the manager shall be the one to
pay all his indebtedness in a lending firm. What crime is
committed by the said customer? Is the customer liable for
estafa or estafa through falsification of a private document.
145 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
A: The customer is liable for Falsification of a
Private Document under Art 172. This is because he
caused that the manager participated in an act or
proceeding when he did not so participate, one of the
acts of falsification punished in Article 171 and 172.
 Why not estafa through falsification of a
private document?
➢ Because there is no such crime as estafa
through falsification of a private
document. You cannot complex estafa
with falsification of a private document
because both estafa and falsification of a
private document HAVE DAMAGE AS
ELEMENT, and one and the same
damage cannot give rise to two crimes
therefore you can never complex estafa
and falsification of a private document. It
is either estafa or falsification of a private
document.
When is it estafa?
➢ If estafa can be committed without falsifying the
private document but the falsification of a private
document merely facilitated the commission of the
crime, then the appropriate charge is estafa
because the falsification of a private document is
merely incidental.
➢ If estafa cannot be committed without falsifying
the private document, the crime committed is
falsification of a private document because estafa
is a mere consequence.
➢ So you only have to choose between estafa and
falsification of a private document but you can
never complex the two. There is no such crime as
estafa through falsification of a private document.
➢ But there is such a thing as estafa through
falsification of a public document because in
falsification of a public document, damage is not
an element. So in a deed of absolute sale was
falsified in order to deceive another in the crime of
estafa, it will give rise to the complex crime of
estafa through falsification of a public document,
estafa through falsification of an official
document, estafa through falsification of a
commercial document. Because in these kinds of
falsification, damage is not an element.
II. ESTAFA BY MEANS OF FALSE PRETENSES OR
FRAUDULENT ACTS EXECUTED PRIOR TO
OR SIMULTANEOUSLY WITH THE
COMMISSION OF THE FRAUD
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
FIVE PUNISHABLE ACTS:
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.
Q: What of there were four licensed nurses who all want to
work in Canada. Here comes X. X learned that A, B, C, and
D passed the board so he went to their house and told them
that X has a placement agency that has all the qualifications
to help them find work in Canada. A, B, C, and D believed
X, and X demanded that they give X 100k for processing
fees. They gave the money to X. A, B, C, and D never saw X
again. Later X was arrested. What are the crimes
committed by X?
A: A, B, C, and D can file two cases against X.
Estafa under article 315 (2)(a) and Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale under the Labor
Code. These two cases are cumulative and not
exclusive each other; hence, the offender can be
charged of these two crimes at the same time.
Estafa under 315 (2) (a) is committed because X
misrepresented to them that he has the qualification
and the agency to bring them to work in another
country when in fact, he does not have such
qualification and agency. Where it not for the said
misrepresentation by X, the offended parties A, B, C
and D would not have parted with the said 100
Thousand pesos in cash.
The other crime committed by X is Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale. In Labor Code, if
Illegal Recruitment is committed against three or more
persons, individually or as a whole, it is considered as
Illegal Recruitment in Large Scale. On the other
hand, if it is committed by five or more persons, it is
considered as Syndicated Illegal Recruitment.
Both crimes are considered crimes involving economic
sabotage under the Labor Code and is the reason why
it is a non-bailable offense.
 So if the only charge is estafa under 315 (2)
(a) is the only charge, the offender can post
bail but if there is also a charge of Illegal
Recruitment in Large Scale, then he shall be
behind bars while the case is ongoing
b) By altering the quality, fitness, or weight of
anything pertaining to his art or business.
Q: In the market, you bought a kilo of apples. The vendor
put on the scale one apple which is already one kilo. What
crime if any is committed by the vendor?
A: The crime committed estafa by altering the
quality, fitness or weight of anything
146 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
pertaining to his art or business. He alters the
weight of the apple which pertains to his business and
therefore he can be held liable for estafa under 315
(2)(b).
c) By pretending to have bribed a
Government employee
d) By postdating a check or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the
offender had no funds in the bank OR his
funds deposited therein were not sufficient
to cover the amount of the check.
➢ Also a very popular form of estafa – estafa by
postdating a check.
➢ For this kind of estafa to arise, it is necessary
that the issuance of the check must be in
concomitance with the defraudation (act of
defrauding) because note that Art 315 says
that estafa by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts exerted prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of fraud.
Therefore, it is necessary that the issuance of
the check is in concomitance with the
defraudation, that is, the offender would not
have parted with his property would it not for
the promise that the check would be funded.
➢ The offender is given a period of three days to
make good of the check. If the offender failed
to make good the check, it is said to be prima
facie evidence of deceit constituting the
fraudulent act or false pretenses.
Q: A was constructing his vacation house. He suddenly ran
out of materials so A went to B. A told B that he is in need
of the construction materials. B said, “okay, you can get
your construction materials.” A said “I don’t have money at
the moment. I will pay next week.” So B gave the needed
construction materials, boarded them in A’s truck and A
went. A week after, B went to A, asking for the payment of
the construction materials. A said “B, I have no money at
the moment. B, I am issuing to you a check, post-dated, on
the thirtieth day of the month. B, I guarantee you, on the
thirtieth day of the month, this check will be funded. I will
have money deposited in here because it is my payday.” B
received the check. On the thirtieth day of the month, the
date stated on the check, B deposited the check, however
the check was dishonored due to insufficiency of funds. B
sent a notice of dishonor to A. However, A, despite receipt
of the said notice of dishonor failed to make good of the
check or make arrangement with the bank in order to cover
the amount of the check. What case, if any, can B file
against A? May B file a case of estafa under Art 315 (2)(d)
against A or can B file a case of violation of BP 22 against
A?
A: B can only file a case of violation of BP 22
against A. B cannot file a case of estafa under
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Art 315 (2) (d) because B has already boarded the
construction materials and A has already taken the
construction materials. A week later, B went to A
asking for the payment and it was only at the time that
A gave the check that bounced. Therefore the issuance
of the check was in payment of an obligation which
already exists at the time. Estafa under 315 (2)(d)
cannot be committed if the check was issued in
payment of a pre-existing obligation because for estafa
under Art 315 (2)(d) to arise, it is necessary that the
issuance of the check is in concomitance with the
defraudation.
Q: A is in need of construction materials, he went to B. A
said he needed construction materials. B said he can get it if
he had money. A said he didn’t have any money at the
moment but was issuing a postdated check instead dated on
the thirtieth day of the month. He guaranteed B that the
check will be funded on the thirtieth day of the month. B
received the check and boarded the construction materials
needed by A inside the truck of A. On the thirtieth day of
the month, B deposited the check but the check was
dishonored by the bank for insufficiency of funds. Notice of
dishonor was sent to A. However, despite of lapse of three
days, A failed to make good of the check or at least made
arrangement with the bank in order to cover the full
amount of check. May B file a case of estafa under Art 315
(2) (d) against A? May B file a case of violation of BP 22
against A?
A: B can file both Estafa under Art 315 (2) (d)
and violation of BP 22 against A. Estafa was
committed by A because the check was issued, it was
only received by B at the time of the construction of
materials was delivered. The check was received by B
upon guarantee given by A that on the thirtieth day of
the month, the check will be funded. Therefore, the
issuance of the check was in concomitance with the
defraudation. Estafa under Art 315(2)(d) is committed.
Likewise, violation against BP 22 is committed because
violation of BP 22 will arise whenever a check had been
issued and the said check was dishonored upon
presentment to the drawee bank. There immediately
arises violation of BP 22. (The essence of the crime of
BP 22 is the issuance of a worthless check)
A can be prosecuted for two crimes – Estafa under
Article 315 (2)(d) and violation of BP 22 – at the same
time. These remedies are committed not exclusively of
each other therefore A can be prosecuted at the same
time of both cases.
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
147 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
proprietor or manager thereof, OR by
obtaining credit at a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or
apartment house by the use of any false
pretense, OR by abandoning or
surreptitiously removing any part of his
baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house or
apartment house after obtaining credit,
food, refreshment or accommodation
therein without paying for his food,
refreshment or accommodation.
➢ The offender went to a hotel or inn to obtain
food, refreshment or accommodation, he did
not pay. Or he obtain credit, he did not pay.
Or his goods are inside the hotel, he
abandons his goods, he abandons his
valuables, he surreptitiously removes parts
of his baggage therein.
III. ESTAFA THROUGH FRAUDULENT MEANS
THREE PUNISHABLE ACTS:
a. By inducing another, by means of deceit, to
sign any document
➢ CASE: Intestate Estate Of Manolita
Gonzales Vda. De Carungcong v.
People
In this case, the Japanese son-in-law asks
the mother-in-law to sign a document.
He induced her to sign a document
saying that it was about taxes but in truth
and in fact, it is a SPA for the sale of the
property in Tagaytay and by reason
thereof, the mother-in-law, who was
already blind, signs the document
therefore Sato, the Japanese son-in-law,
was able to sell the said property. This is
the kind of Estafa by inducing another by
means of deceit to sign a document.
b. By resorting to some fraudulent practice to
insure success in a gambling game
➢ In the book of Reyes, there was a
cockfight. The offender removed the
thing on the feet of rooster and so, by
reason thereof, he won the game. So the
offender resorted to some fraudulent
practice to insure success in the gambling
game.
c. By removing, concealing, or destroying, in
whole or in part, any court record, office
files, document, or any other papers
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
BOUNCING CHECKS LAW (B.P. 22)
[relate to Art 315 (2) (d)]
SECTION 1 – CHECKS WITHOUT SUFFICIENT
FUNDS
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
I. Making or drawing and issuance of a check
knowing at the time of issue that the offender
does not have sufficient funds in the bank.
➢ The drawer of the check knew that at the time of
the issuing of the check, he has no funds in the
bank
II. The failing to give sufficient funds or credit
with the drawee bank such that when the check
presented within the period of 90 days from
the date appearing on the check, it was
dishonored by the drawee bank.
➢ At the time of the issuance of the check, the
drawer has funds in the bank, however, the crime
will arise because he failed to make good the check
or he failed to keep funds to the said drawee bank
within the period of 90 days such that when the
check was deposited within 90 days, it was
dishonored by the drawee bank.
SECTION 2 – PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF
KNOWLEDGE OF INSUFFICIENCY OF 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 constitute prima
facie knowledge of insufficiency of funds.
➢ This prima facie knowledge of insufficiency of
funds, however, will not arise if the drawer of the
check deposited the amount necessary to cover the
check within five (5) banking days from the date of
receipt of notice thereof.
➢ Therefore, for the prima facie of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds to arise, the following are
the elements or the requisites:
1. The check must be deposited within 90
days from the date appearing on the check.
2. That the drawer of the check received a
notice of dishonor either from the bank or
from the payee or holder of the check
3. The drawer of the check failed to make
good of the check within 5 banking days.
No prima facie knowledge of insufficiency of funds
1. The drawer of the check received a notice of
dishonor within five days, he deposited the
amount in the bank to cover the check, there will
arise no prima facie evidence of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds.
148 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
2. Within 5 banking days, he went to the bank and
made arrangement for the amount necessary to
cover the check.
 Five banking days is important
Q: What if A issued a check to B in favor of an obligation, B
was however a businessman who was too busy so he was
able to deposit the check 120 days from the date appearing
on the check (beyond the 90-day period). The check
presented was dishonored. Notice of dishonor was sent to A
and A failed to make good the check within 5 banking days.
Can B still file a case for violation of BP 22 against A?
A: Yes, B can file a case for violation of BP 22
against A. This is because for as long as a check is not
yet a stale check, if the check was deposited and it was
dishonored, violation of BP 22 is committed. Here, the
check was deposited 120 days from the date appearing
on the check. The fact that it was deposited beyond the
90-day period would only mean that there is no longer
prima facie presumption of knowledge of insufficiency
of funds. However, such prima facie presumption
knowledge of insufficiency of funds can be proven
through other evidence, so still, violation of BP 22 is
committed.
The 90-day period in the second act is only important
in order to determine prima facie knowledge of
insufficiency of funds. In the first act, at the outset, at
the time of the issuance of the check, the drawer, has
already prima facie knowledge that he has no funds in
the bank. In the second act, the fact that the offender
has kept funds in the bank for 90 days and thereafter
the depositor deposited the check beyond 90 days,
what is only erased is the act of prima facie knowledge
of insufficiency of funds by the drawer of the check but
this knowledge can still be proven by other facts,
hence, 90-day period does not mean that there is no
case of BP 22.
When is BP 22 not committed?
Wong v. Ca
In this case, the check was deposited 157 days after
the date appearing on the check.
The SC said that it is not yet a stale check. A check
becomes stale when it is deposited after six
months or after 180 days.
Q: B was so busy, he deposited the check on the 181st day
from the date appearing on the check. The check was
dishonored. Can he file a case of violation of BP 22 against
A?
A: No, B cannot file a case of violation of BP 22
against A. This is because the check has no more
value since it is already a stale check under the
Negotiable Instruments Law. It is no longer the fault of
the drawer that he has no funds in the bank. It is the
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
fault of the holder or the payee of the check that he
failed to deliver or deposited the check within the
period required by law.
SECTION 1 – PENALTY
Under Section 1 of BP 22, the penalty for violation of BP 22
is imprisonment of 30 days to 1 year or a fine not less than
but not more than double the value of the check or in no
case to exceed 200, 000 pesos, or both fine and
imprisonment at the discretion of the court
Are these still the penalties or have they been
amended by the SC by SC-A.C. No. 12-2000 and SC-
A.C. No. 13-2001?
The penalty of 30 days to 1 year and the fine are still
the penalty prescribed by law. Even if the SC issued
these two circulars, the SC cannot amend the law. The
SC does not have that power; only congress has that
power.
SC-A.C. No. 12-2000
It is stated in SC-A.C. No. 12-2000 that in lieu of
imprisonment, the penalty to be imposed in violation
of BP 22 should only be fine, that is, if based on the
facts and circumstances of the offense and the
offender, the check was issued in good faith or under
mere mistake of fact without any taint of negligence.
SC said that the appropriate penalty should be fine in
lieu of imprisonment.
Because of this SC-AC No. 12-2000, many MTC judges
thought that imprisonment is no longer a penalty for
violation of BP 22. They thought that now, the penalty
for violation of BP 22 is only fine. And because of this
misunderstanding on the part of MTC judges, the SC
has to issue another administrative circular, the SC-
A.C. No. 13-2001 in order to clarify SC-A.C. No. 12-
2000.
SC-A.C. No. 13-2001
The SC made the following clarifications:
1. The SC-A.C. No. 12-2000 does not remove
imprisonment as an alternative penalty for
violation of BP 22. Therefore, imprisonment is still
a penalty for violation of BP 22.
2. What SC-A.C. No. 12-2000 only establishes is a
rule of preference on the imposition of the penalty
such that if the offender acted in good faith or
under mere mistake of fact without any taint of
negligence, the appropriate penalty is fine in lieu
of imprisonment.
3. The SC said if the penalty imposed by the court is
fine only, and the said offender or drawer of the
check is insolvent to pay the fine, then there is no
legal obstacle for the imposition of subsidiary
imprisonment under Art. 39 of Book I of RPC.
149 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
Lim v. People
Even if the offender makes good of the check beyond
five-banking days allotted by law, still the fiscal, upon
learning that the offender had already made good the
check before the filing of the case before the court, the
fiscal should not have filed a case of BP 22 against the
offender. Unlike estafa, violation of BP 22 is a crime
against public interest and the moment the value of the
check had been paid, public interest is no longer
damaged.
The SC said, in the bottom of decision, that the ruling
is only applicable in violation of BP 22 and not in
Estafa by post-dating a check because in the latter,
even if the offender made good of the check after the
case has been filed, such act would not relieve the
person from criminal liability because what is being
punished in estafa is the presence of false pretense, the
presence of fraud therefore, in estafa by post-dating a
check, the offender is only given 3 days to make good
the check and if he failed, he is already liable for estafa
and no amount of payment would free him from
criminal liability.
ARTICLE 316 – OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING
OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING CAN BE
COMMITTED BY THE FOLLOWING:
➢ Any person who, pretending to be owner of any
real property, shall convey, sell, encumber or
mortgage the same.
➢ Any person, who, knowing that real property is
encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although
such encumbrance be not recorded.
➢ The owner of any personal property who shall
wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, to the
prejudice of the latter or any third person.
➢ Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall
execute any fictitious contract.
➢ Any person who shall accept any compensation
given him under the belief that it was in payment
of services rendered or labor performed by him,
when in fact he did not actually perform such
services or labor.
➢ Any person who, while being a surety in a bond
given in a criminal or civil action, without express
authority from the court or before the cancellation
of his bond or before being relieved from the
obligation contracted by him, shall sell, mortgage,
or, in any other manner, encumber the real
property or properties with which he guaranteed
the fulfillment of such obligation.
Q: What if A is a debtor, in order to defraud his creditor, A
as the debtor, has an obligation which is due and
demandable. He has only 1 property – a property in Quezon
City – which can be attached by his creditor. Now, in order
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
to defraud his creditor, he executed a fictitious contract
selling the said property to B with the intention to defraud
his creditor. What is the crime committed by A? Is A liable
for Fraudulent Insolvency under Art. 314 or is A liable of
other forms of swindling under Art. 316?
A: A is liable of other forms of swindling under
Art. 316. Because the contract that he executed in
favor of B is only a fictitious contract. It is not a real
contract of sale conveying his property to B.
Q: What if A is a debtor, in order to defraud his creditor, A
as the debtor, has an obligation which is due and
demandable. He has only 1 property – a property in Quezon
City – which can be attached by his creditor. To defraud his
creditor what he did was, he sold the said property to B via
a deed of absolute sale, his intention to defraud his creditor.
What crime if any is committed by A?
A: A committed Fraudulent Insolvency. The
contract is a real transfer of property from A to B. It is
not a fictitious contract.
If it is a fictitious contract – the crime committed is
other forms of swindling under Art. 316
If it is not - the crime committed is Fraudulent
Insolvency
ARTICLE 317 – SWINDLING A MINOR
Who is liable?
Any person who taking advantage of the inexperience
or emotions or feelings of a minor, to his detriment,
shall induce him to assume any obligation or to give
any release or execute a transfer of any property right
in consideration of some loan of money, credit or other
personal property, whether the loan clearly appears in
the document or is shown in any other form.
ARTICLE 318 – OTHER DECEITS
Who is liable?
➢ Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret
dreams, make forecasts, tell fortunes, or take
advantage of the credulity of the public in any
other similar manner.
➢ If the offender commits any act of swindling, any
act of deprivati0n not punishable under Art. 315,
316 and 317, it is punishable under Art. 318 –
Other Deceits.
So any other form of deprivation would be under Art. 318 –
Other Deceits.
Q: What about Madam Auring? She tells fortune. What if a
person went to Madam Auring asking for his fortune and
what is in his future, and based on the readings of the card,
Madam Auring said “You will get sick on this particular
day. You will die upon this particular day.” Because of this,
150 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
the person could no longer sleep. He has been thinking
about his sickness and his death. Can he file a case against
Madam Auring for Other Deceits under Art. 318?
A: Yes, he can file a case of Other Deceits
against Madam Auring. Because obviously for
profit or for gain, Madam Auring tells his fortune,
which is obviously an erroneous one. How can
someone predict the death of a person? How can
someone predict when a person will be ill or sick?
Obviously it is done in order to defraud this person and
this person had been damaged because this person
could no longer sleep and can think only of his sickness
and death.
CHAPTER SEVEN – CHATTEL MORTGAGE
ARTICLE 319 – REMOVAL, SALE OR PLEDGE OF
MORTGAGED PROPERTY
ACTS PUNISHABLE
➢ Any person who shall knowingly remove any personal
property mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage Law
to any province or city other than the one in which it
was located at the time of the execution of the
mortgage, without the written consent of the
mortgagee, or his executors, administrators or assigns.
➢ Any mortgagor who shall sell or pledge personal
property already pledged, or any part thereof, under
the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the
consent of the mortgagee written on the back of the
mortgage and noted on the record hereof in the office
of the Register of Deeds of the province where such
property is located.
CHAPTER EIGHT – ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES
INVOLVING DESTRUCTIONS
ARTICLES 320 – 326 speak about Arson. These had
already been repealed by PD 1613 – THE LAW ON
ARSON. However, although Articles 320 – 326 had
been repealed by PD 1613, Article 320 has been brought
back into life by RA 7659.
➢ That is why, insofar Article 320, the crime is
Destructive Arson. And we have PD 1613 which
punishes Simple Arson or Other Cases of Arson.
 Do not consider Section 2 of PD 1613 which
punishes Destructive Arson because Destructive
Arson is under Article 320 of the RPC as it has
been brought back by RA 7659.
Q: What if there was this maid, the want to go to the
province, let’s say it was Christmas time. He asked
permission from the master of the house, the master of the
house did not allow the maid to go to her province. So the
maid got mad. To make revenge, she burned the house at
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
night and left the house. However, the master of the house
together with his family were not awakened by the said
burning and so they all died by reason of the said fire. Not
only that, the said burning of the house of the master also
affected 5 nearby houses. All in all, 5 houses were burned
by the said fire and also the master and said members of
the family all died in the course of the said fire. What crime
is/are committed by the said helper?
A: The helper is liable only for the crime of
Simple Arson Other Cases of Arson under PD
1613 – Sec. 3. The fact that the master died would
only qualify the penalty imposable of her. But, it will
not bring about the crime of Arson with Homicide.
There is no such crime as Arson with Homicide or
Arson with Multiple Homicide.
➢ Why is it that the crime committed is
only Simple Arson or Other Cases of
Arson?
 The crime committed is Simple Arson or
Other Cases of Arson because the fact that
what the maid burned is an inhabited house
or dwelling, the crime is only Simple Arson or
Other Cases of Arson.
Destructive Arson is found under Art 320 of the
RPC while Simple Arson and other arson is
repealed by PD 1613 repealing Article 320 to 326 B
of the RPC. Even though there are five deaths, the
deaths will be absorbed in the crime of arson and
will only qualify the penalty to death. The maid is
only liable for simple arson, because what has
been burned is an inhabited dwelling. For as long
as the thing burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling, the crime committed is simple arson. If
in the course of burning the dwelling, homicide
results, the crime committed is still arson.
If the intention is to kill the offended party, and
the means employed is through burning the house,
the crime committed is MURDER. If however, the
intention of the offender is to destroy the property
of the offended party by fire, and the offender did
not know that someone is inside and death results,
the crime is still simple arson. It will only qualify
the penalty to RP to death.
Q: A killed B while sleeping. The crime committed is
murder. In order to conceal the crime, A burned the house.
A: This time, there are two crimes committed. A is
liable for Murder qualified by treachery for
killing B and Arson, in order to hide the crime
committed. The arson committed is destructive
arson, as it is defined by the law.
ARSON is the malicious destruction of the property by
means of fire.
151 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
2 KINDS OF ARSON:
1. DESTRUCTIVE ARSON – punished under Art.
320 of the RPC as amended by RA 7659
2. SIMPLE ARSON – punished under PD 1613
particular Section 3
If the problem given is arson, intent of offender must be
determined.
If intent is to kill Y by burning his nipa hut, the crime is
murder
X burned the house of Y. He did not know there was
someone inside and that someone died, crime is arson
because the intent to destroy someone’s property by fire.
ARTICLE 320 – DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
HOW IS DESTRUCTIVE ARSON COMMITTED?
1. One or more buildings or edifices, consequent to
one single act of burning, or as a result of
simultaneous burnings or committed on several or
different occasions;
2. Any building of public or private ownership,
devoted to public in general, or where people
usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose
such as but not limited to official government
function or business, private transaction,
commerce, trade workshop, meetings,
conferences, or merely incidental to or for a
definite purpose such as but not limited to motels,
transient dwellings, public conveyances or stops,
or terminals, regardless of whether the offender
had knowledge that there are persons in said
building or edifice at the time set on fire and
regardless also of whether the building is actually
inhabited or not.
3. Any train, locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or
airplane, devoted to transportation or conveyance,
or for public use, entertainment and leisure;
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and
any other 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 the evidence
of another violation of law, or for the purpose of
concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or
to collect from insurance.
There is also destructive arson in the following
instances:
1. When the arson is committed by 2 or more
persons, regardless of whether their purpose is
merely to burn or destroy the building or the
burning merely constitutes an overt act in the
commission of another violation of the law;
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
2. When any person shall burn:
a. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or
military power or fireworks factory,
ordinance, storehouse, archives or
general museum of the Government; or
b. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or
factory of inflammable or explosive
materials.
Q: What if in the course of the commission of Destructive
Arson, someone died. The airplane was burned. The
purpose was to burn the said airplane. Unknown to the
offender, someone was inside the said airplane and the said
person died. What crime is committed by the offender?
A: The offender is liable for Destructive
Arson under Article 320. The fact that
someone died will not give rise to a complex
crime. The crime committed is only Arson.
After the last paragraph of Article 320, it is stated
that – if as a consequence of the commission of any of the
acts constituting Arson, death results, then, the mandatory
penalty of death shall be imposed. So here, the fact that
someone died in the course of the commission of
Destructive Arson would mean that the penalty to be
imposed of the said offender would be death. But, the crime
committed is only Arson. There is no such thing as
Arson with Homicide.
ANTI-ARSON LAW (P.D. 1613)
SIMPLE ARSON OR OTHER CASES OF ARSON IS
COMMITTED IF WHAT HAS BEEN BURNED IS:
1. Any building used as offices of the government or
any of its agencies;
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or
mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
4. Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop,
grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill, or mill central;
6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf, or
warehouse.
Q: A plantation was burned. While the plantation was
burning, the field worker was sleeping and the field worker
died as a result of the said burning of the plantation. What
crime is committed by the offender?
A: The crime committed by the offender is only
Simple Arson or Other Cases of Arson under
PD 1613.
➢ What about the fact the someone died?
 Under Section 5 of PD 1613, if by reason or on
occasion of the said arson, death results, the
penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
Therefore, the crime committed is only
152 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
Arson. You do not complex it with Homicide. But
the fact that someone died, the penalty is
qualified. The penalty is increased to reclusion
perpetua to death.
PENALTY FOR DESTRUCTIVE ARSON: RECLUSION
PERPETUA TO DEATH
 If as a result of the commission of any acts of
destructive arson, death results, the penalty
should be death.
PENALTY FOR SIMPLE ARSON: RECLUSION
TEMPORAL TO RECLUSION PERPETUA
 Under Section 5 of PD 1613, if by reason or on
the occasion of simple arson, death results, the
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
 Therefore, whatever may be the crime may be, if
by reason of said arson, death results, it will
aggravate the crime of arson and the homicide
will be absorbed in the arson.
Q: What if a person wants to kill B. So in order to kill B, B
was sleeping inside his nipa hut, A burned the said nipa hut
and so, B died while sleeping. What crime is committed by
A?
A: A committed the crime of murder. His
intention is to kill B by burning.
Q: If A went inside the house of B and then he saw B and
stabbed B several times. B died. Thereafter, to conceal the
killing of B, a burned the house of B. it was a total burn.
A: This time, A committed two crimes. Murder
for killing B treacherously and Arson, because he
burned the house of B in order to conceal the
commission of the said act of killing. The arson
committed is simple arson.
Q: What if A wanted to get revenge at B so he decided to
burn the property of B. in the course thereof, a servant was
sleeping inside. What crime is committed by A?
A: A is liable only for Arson. The fact that someone
is killed in the course of the said Arson, the crime
committed is only arson. And the fact that the said
servant died while the said burning took place, you
only qualify the penalty, the crime committed is Arson
and the penalty is qualified to reclusion perpetua to
death.
Q: What if A wanted to burn the property of B. So what he
did was he poured gas on the said walls of the property.
However, before he could set the property on fire. Someone
saw him and so, he was arrested. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is Attempted Arson.
Q: What if A placed rags near the property of B. His
intention is to burn the property of B. and then he placed
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
gasoline on the said rags and set fire on the said rags. The
rags were burning. However, before said fire could have
burned any of the structure of the house, A was already
arrested. What crime is committed?
A: Some legal luminaries say, the crime committed is
frustrated arson. Other legal luminaries say there is no
such crime as frustrated arson.
Pros. Garcia is on the second luminary. She believes
that there is no such crime as frustrated arson because
arson is the burning of the property of another by
means of fire. The moment any part of the said
structure or building is burned, arson is already
consummated. If no part of the said structure or
building is burning, it is only Attempted Arson. There
cannot be a circumstance of frustrated arson.
Because how did a crime frustrate a felony? A
frustrated felony is committed when the offender
has performed all the acts of execution that would
produce the felony but nevertheless the felony was not
produced by reason of the causes independent of the
will of the perpetrator. The offender has performed all
the acts of execution in the crime of arson, for the
offender to be said that he had performed all the acts of
execution, it is necessary that the building or the
property has already been burned, otherwise, it cannot
be said that he has performed all the acts of execution.
So by the definition of a frustrated felony, she is with
the other legal luminaries who say that there is no such
thing as frustrated arson. Because the moment any
part of the property has been burned, it is
already considered as consummated arson.
ARTICLE 327 – MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
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.
Malicious Mischief – is the willful damaging of another’s
property for the sake of causing damage due to hate,
revenge or other evil motive.
If the intention of the offender is to cause damage in the
property of another, by any means outside arson, is
malicious mischief.
It is a crime which can only be committed by means of
intent. There must be deliberate intent to cause damage to
the property of another, because if there is no intent to
cause damage in the property, the liability will be damages
only; civil liability and not criminal liability.
In order for a crime to be considered as malicious mischief,
it is necessary that there must be DELIBERATE INTENT to
153 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
cause damage to the property of another. Absent that
deliberate intent to damage, to injure the property of
another, it cannot be considered as malicious mischief. The
said offender will only be liable for damages for causing
damage to the property of another; civil liability and not
criminal liability. Or, if there was negligence, imprudence
on his part, it would be reckless imprudence or simple
negligence causing damage to property. But for malicious
mischief to arise, it is necessary that there must be
deliberate intent to damage the property of another, only
for the purpose of damaging it or for the purpose of
invoking revenge.
Q: A and B were fighting, and in the course of their fight, A
fell on the floor and the floor was damaged.
A: The liability will only be a civil action for
damages. No deliberate intent to damage property.
ARTICLE 328 – SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF/QUALIFIED MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
(Penalty is qualified)
1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of
public functions;
2. Using poisonous or corrosive substances
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle
4. Causing damage to the property of the National
Library or to any archive or registry, waterworks,
road, promenade, or any other thing used in
common by public
ARTICLE 329 – OTHER MISCHIEFS
➢ Other damage would constitute ordinary malicious
mischief.
➢ The mischiefs not included in the next preceding
article.
ARTICLE 330 – DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
➢ What is punished is the damage and obstruction to
means of communication.
Who is liable?
➢ 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 is
qualified to prision mayor, 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
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
railways, shall be deemed to constitute an
integral part of a railway system.
ARTICLE 331 – DESTROYING OR DAMAGING
STATUES, PUBLIC MONUMENTS OR PAINTINGS
Who is liable?
➢ Any person who shall destroy or damage statues
or any other useful or ornamental public
monument. (penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium period to prision correccional in its
minimum period)
➢ If what has been damaged are only private
monuments or private paintings, it is only
ordinary malicious mischief.
➢ Any person who shall destroy or damage any
useful or ornamental painting of a public nature
shall suffer the penalty of arresto menor or a fine
not exceeding 200 pesos, or both such fine and
imprisonment, in the discretion of the court.
CHAPTER TEN – EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL
LIABILITY IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
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
estafa) or MALICIOUS MISCHIEF committed or
caused mutually by the following persons:
➢ Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives
by affinity in the same line.
➢ 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
➢ Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
 The exemption established by this article shall not be
applicable to strangers participating in the
commission of the crime.
 This exempting circumstance will not apply to
strangers. If the strangers connived with any the
persons mentioned in Article 332, so in that case, the
stranger is liable, only the enumerated persons is not
criminally liable.
Intestate Estate of Manolita Gonzales Vda. De
Carungcong v. People:
The Supreme Court said, this absolutory cause or
exempting circumstance under Article 332 applies
exclusively to simple crimes of theft, swindling (or
estafa) and malicious mischief. The exemption under
Article 332 will not arise, it will not absorb the
offender if the crime committed is already a
complex crime. In this case, the son-in-law of a
154 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

Japanese National committed estafa through

falsification of a public document. Because the
special power of attorney was falsified. Since the crime
committed was estafa through falsification of a public
document, the Supreme Court said, the said son-in-law
can be held criminally liable. So this apply only to
simple cases of theft, swindling (or estafa) and
malicious mischief. The son in law a Japanese
National, by means of deceit made his mother in law
sign a SPA, said SPA was used to sell the property of
Tagaytay. The mother died without receiving the
proceeds of the sale. The daughter of the mother
wanted to file a case against the son-in law. Note that
the wife of the Japanese national is already deceased.
Does article apply in this case where the crime
committed is estafa even if the wife of the Japanese
National is already dead? The relationship by affinity is
still existing. The purpose is to ensure harmony within
the family. Article 332 will still apply. The son-in-law
may be prosecuted. The crime is estafa through
falsification of public document. The crime committed
is the complex crime of estafa through falsification
of public document. Article 332 will not apply though
there is a relationship because the crime is already
complexed.
Based on jurisprudence:
The word SPOUSES include paramours and
mistresses, and other wives.
The word ASCENDANTS include step-father and
step mother.
The word DESCENDANTS include step children,
adopted children and natural children.
 The reason is that the exempting circumstance, the
absolutory cause under Article 332 is made in order to
insure HARMONY within the family.

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 155 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

TITLE ELEVEN A: The wife can be convicted for adultery and the lover
has his defense that he did not know that the woman is
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
married. It is a matter of defense.
(Articles 333 – 346)
 Both shall still be prosecuted. Otherwise, the case will
CHAPTER ONE – ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE not prosper under Art. 344

ARTICLE 333 – WHO ARE GUILTY OF ADULTERY

➢ If wife is abandoned by her husband without
Adultery is committed by any married woman who shall justification, mitigated
have sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and by ➢ Adultery is a crime of consequence, so there is
the man who has carnal knowledge of her knowing her to no attempted or frustrated stage.
be married, even if the marriage be subsequently declared o It is always in the consummated stage.
void. o It is an instantaneous crime –
consummated upon the carnal union of
Adultery shall be punished by prision correcional in its
the wife with the lover of the wife.
medium and maximum periods.
➢ Adultery may be proven by circumstantial evidence.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this offense while
The husband was working in Saudi for 10 years, and upon
being abandoned without justification by the offended
reaching home, he sees his wife pregnant for 9 months,
spouse, the penalty next lower in degree than that provided
obviously, if the wife is not a victim of rape, the wife
in the next preceding paragraph shall be imposed.
committed adultery.
➢ The penalty shall be mitigated; therefore, it is akin
ARTICLE 334 – CONCUBINAGE
to a mitigating circumstance.
Any husband who shall keep a mistress in the conjugal
Offender Legally Married Woman
dwelling, or shall have sexual intercourse, under
Offended party Husband scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not his
wife, or shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be
To whom shall the case be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
Wife and Lover
filed medium periods.
Only by the Offended The concubine shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
Who shall file
Husband
ELEMENTS:
ELEMENTS:
1. The man must be married
1. That the woman is married 2. That he committed any of the following acts:
2. She has sexual intercourse with a man who is not her a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
husband b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous
3. As regards the man whom she has sexual circumstances;
intercourse, he must know her to be married c. Cohabiting with her in any other place
Adultery is a private crime. It can only be prosecuted by 3. The woman must know that the man must be
the offended spouse. married

➢ Without the complaint filed by the offended spouse, Legally Married

Offender
no crime. Therefore, the state cannot, on its own, file Husband
a case of adultery against the wife. Offended party Wife
If the lover does not know that the woman is married, still To whom shall the case
the husband should file the case on both of them. Husband and Concubine
be filed
➢ It is a matter of defense only on the lover to say that “I Only by the Offended
do not know that she is married. Who shall file
Wife
➢ So, there are cases wherein only one is convicted and
the other one is acquitted.
Q: A, the wife had sexual intercourse with B, the lover. H, Just like adultery, Concubinage is a private crime.
the husband can file a case for adultery against the both of
➢ The wife must initiate the filing of the complaint
them. During trial of the merits, B was able to prove beyond
because it is a private crime.
reasonable doubt that A represented herself to be single
and that B believed that she was indeed single.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 156 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
➢ Without the complaint, the state cannot, on its own,
file the case of concubinage
➢ The wife must file the case against both the husband
and the concubine and is married.
Q: What if the concubine does not know that the husband
is married?
A: It is a matter of defense on the part of the
concubine that she was also deceived. She did
not know that the man is married. But she also must
be prosecuted.
FIRST ACT: KEEPING A MISTRESS IN THE
CONJUGAL DWELLING
➢ The conjugal dwelling refers the house of the husband
and the wife
➢ Husband brought her to the house
SECOND ACT: HAVING SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
UNDER SCANDALOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
➢ The best witnesses are the neighbors of the husband. It
must be in such a manner that the neighbors are
shocked.
Q: What if a married man who had sexual intercourse with
a woman inside a motel. Is the man liable for concubinage?
A: NO, because it was done in secrecy. In order
for the husband to be liable for concubinage by
having sexual intercourse with a woman who is not
his wife, it is necessary that the sexual intercourse
was committed under scandalous circumstances.
Their sexual congress must set a bad example,
misconduct among the people in the neighborhood.
THIRD ACT: COHABITING WITH A WOMAN IN
ANY OTHER PLACE
➢ Cohabitation means that the husband and the
concubine were living together as if they were husband
and wife without the benefit of marriage.
CHAPTER TWO – RAPE AND ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS
 Art. 335 - RAPE IS ALREADY REPEALED. Rape is no
longer a private crime. It is already a public crime and
located under title 8, crimes against persons.
TWO KINDS OF ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS:
I. Acts of Lasciviousness under circumstances of rape
under Art. 336
II. Acts of Lasciviousness under circumstances of
seduction under Art. 339
➢ When the offended party consented to the
acts of lasciviousness
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS – refers to acts which is
prompted by lust or lewd design.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
ARTICLE 336 – ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES OF RAPE
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.
ELEMENTS:
1.
That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness
or lewdness;
2. That the act of lasciviousness is committed against a
person of either sex;
3. That it is done under any of the following
circumstances:
a. Using force 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
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of
age or demented
➢ It is committed with unchaste design and done under
circumstances of rape.
Offender – any person
Offended party – any person
Q: Offender is the woman while the offended party is a
man. The man was being held by 2 other men when the
woman undressed the man, touched the private parts of the
man. What crime is committed?
A: Acts of Lasciviousness under
circumstances of rape under Art. 336. Under
Art. 336, the offender and the offended party may be
any person. The man was held by other two men and
the act of the woman was prompted by lust or lewd
design. Therefore, it is acts of lasciviousness under
circumstances of rape.
Q: In a school, the woman after unbuttoning the pants of
the said man, the woman forcibly entered the penis of the
man inside her mouth. Is the crime committed rape by
sexual assault?
A: No, but it is acts of lasciviousness. If you
look at rape by sexual assault, it is committed by “the
man inserting his penis into another persons’ mouth
or orifice.” It is the offender who must insert his
penis into the mouth or orifice. In the problem, it is
not the man who inserted his penis. It was the
woman who forcibly inserts the penis of the man
inside her mouth. Therefore, crime committed is only
acts of lasciviousness, because in rape by sexual
assault, it is the offender who has the penis and
inserted it forcibly to another.
157 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
CHAPTER THREE – SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION
OF MINORS AND
WHITE SLAVE TRADE
TWO KINDS OF SEDUCTION:
1. Qualified Seduction
2. Simple Seduction
 In seduction, whether qualified or simple, there must
always be sexual intercourse. The offended party had
consented to such sexual intercourse because she was
seduced and such was done by means of abuse of
authority or confidence or by deceit.
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.
TWO KINDS OF QUALIFIED SEDUCTION:
I. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years of age and under
18 years of age by persons who abuse their authority or
confidence reposed in them
ELEMENTS:
1. The offended party must be a virgin
2. She must be over 12 and under 18 years of age
3. The offender is a person in public authority, priest,
house servant, domestic, teacher, guardian or any
person, in any manner, shall be entrusted with the
education or custody of the woman seduced
4. The offender had sexual intercourse with of the
said offended party
5. There is abuse of authority, confidence or
relationship on the part of the offender
Offended party must be:
➢ Virgin
➢ over 12 under 18 years of age
 If the victim is under 12 years of age, even if there was
consent, it is statutory rape.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Offender must be:
1. Person in public authority
2. priest
3. house servant
4. domestic
5. teacher
6. guardian
7. any person who has custody of the seduced
woman
VIRGINITY does not refer to physical virginity. It would
suffice that the woman is not married, she is single and
living a chaste life. The law presumes that she is a virgin.
 sexual intercourse is an element of any kind of
seduction. It is committed with the abuse of authority,
confidence or relationship.
II. Seduction of a sister by her brother or
descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her age
and reputation.
Offended party must be: Sister or Descendant
Offender must be: Brother or Ascendant
➢ The brother or ascendant had sexual intercourse with
the sister or descendant, which is committed with
abuse of relationship.
➢ Age does not matter. Even if the sister is 18 and
above, still, seduction can still be committed.
➢ Status in life is not an element. Even if she is a
married woman, still, there can be seduction.
(Virginity does not matter)
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.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age
2. She must be of good reputation, single or widow
3. Offender has sexual intercourse with her
4. It is committed by means of deceit.
In case of simple seduction, the offended party must be a
WOMAN who is single or widow of good reputation, over
12 but must be under 18 years of age.
Offender – any person who had sexual intercourse with
her by means of deceit.
DECEIT- the offended party gave herself to the man
because of the latter’s promise. It may come in the form of
inducement, a false promise.
Q: In order to have sexual congress with the woman, the
man promised to marry the woman. The woman who
158 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
believed the promise gave herself to the man. What crime is
committed if any by the said man?
A: Simple seduction. In order to induce the woman
to give up her virginity was due to the deceit employed.
Q: The woman committed sexual congress with a married
man because the man promised that he will marry the
woman.
A: The SC said that there is no seduction. The fact
that the woman knows that the man is married, the
man cannot marry her. There is no deceit.
ARTICLE 339 – ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
UNDER CIRCUMSTANCES OF SEDUCTION (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.
➢ This is done with the consent of the offended party
➢ This is under circumstances of seduction.
Offender: Man
Offended Party: Woman
In seduction, the offended party is always the woman
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or
lewdness
2. Acts were committed upon a woman who is a
virgin, or single or widow of good reputation,
under 18 years of age but over 12 years, or a sister
or descendant regardless of her reputation or age
3. Offender accomplishes the acts by:
a. Abuse of authority
b. Abuse of confidence
c. Abuse of relationship
d. Means of deceit
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).
Corruption is committed by persons who: Promote
or facilitate the prostitution or the corruptions of minors in
order to satisfy the lust of another
➢ It is committed by pimps, or more commonly
known as “Bugaw”
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Q: If the offender is a public officer or employee, including
those in the government owned-controlled corporations?
A: there is an additional penalty of temporary absolute
disqualification
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.)
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
I. Engaging in the Business of Prostitution
II. Shall Profit by Prostitution
III. Enlist the services of any woman for the purpose of
prostitution
Chapter Four – ABDUCTION
TWO KINDS OF ABDUCTION:
a. Forcible Abduction
b. Consented Abduction
ARTICLE 342 – FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
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.
Forcible Abduction – abduction, taking away, or
carrying away of a woman against her will and with lewd
design.
➢ Woman can be any person.
➢ Regardless of age, virginity, civil status. They
are not material.
➢ For as long as the taking away is done with
lewd design and against her will.
 Sexual intercourse is NOT an element.
 If by reason of or on the occasion of forcible abduction,
the man had sexual intercourse with the woman, it
may result in a COMPLEX CRIME OF RAPE
WITH FORCIBLE ABDUCTION.
Q: Nena was waiting near the gate of her house, while
waiting for her father. Suddenly here comes Pedro. Pedro
abducted her. Forcibly took her away from her house and
brought her inside his house. The said taking was done with
lewd design. So Pedro held Nena inside her house for 7
days. Pedro said, “Marry Me”, Nena said, “I will never
marry you”. By reason thereof, Pedro raped Nena, and
during the 7 days when Nena was held in captivity inside
the house of Pedro, Pedro rape her one time a day. There
were 7 acts of rape. What crime/s is/are committed by
Pedro?
159 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

A: The crimes committed by X are 7 crimes. ARTICLE 343 – CONSENTED ABDUCTION

Pedro shall be charged by 7 informations. 1 crime
The abduction of a virgin over twelve years and under
forcible abduction with rape and 6 crimes of distinct
eighteen years of age, carried out with her consent and with
and separate charges of rape. One act of sexual
lewd designs, shall be punished by the penalty of prision
intercourse constitutes one charge. Here, only 1 rape
correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
can be complexed with forcible abduction. It is a
complexity of crimes under Art. 48, Book I of the ELEMENTS:
Revised Penal Code. It is not a special complex crime
1. The woman must be a virgin
because it is not the law that combines the crime but
2. She must be over 12 years but under 18 years of age
merely a complex crime since one offense is
3. The taking away must be with her consent, after
necessary to commit the other offense.
solicitation or cajolery from the offender
 only one forcible abduction is necessary to commit 4. The taking away must be with lewd designs.
the crime of rape and only 1 rape is necessary to
Offended party:
bring about complex crime of forcible abduction
with rape. ➢ She must be a virgin
➢ Over 12 and under 18 years of Age
Q: In the same case, the Nena was inside the house of the
Pedro. Pedro tried to rape Nena, he attempted to rape, Offender: Any Person
however, Nena was able to put up a fight and Nena kicked
Taking away of the woman must be WITH HER CONSENT.
Pedro, as a result, she ran outside the house. What crime/s
is/are committed by Pedro?  It was with her consent because it was made after
solicitation or cajolery from the offender
A: 2 crimes are committed, Forcible Abduction and
 the age (12-18) is what makes the crime of abduction.
Attempted Rape. BUT one charge can be filed which
is FORCIBLE ABDUCTION. The attempt to rape Q: A and B were girlfriend and boyfriend. A was a virgin
Nena is only the manifestation of the lewd design who was 16 years old, the man is 25 years old. The parents
which is an element of forcible abduction. Therefore, did not like the man. So with the inducement from the said
he can only be charged of Forcible abduction. man, with the solicitation, A and B decided to elope. So the
man carried away the said woman with her consent and
➢ Attempted rape was absorbed in the element of lewd
with lewd design and put the woman inside his house. That
design.
night while they were sleeping, the said man tried to have
➢ No such thing as Forcible Abduction with Attempted
sexual congress with the virgin girl. However, the girl
Rape because the attempt to rape is within the
refused. Nevertheless, the man by use of force, was able to
meaning of lewd design, therefore, absorbed in forible
have sexual congress with her. What crime/s is/are
abduction.
committed by B, the boyfriend?
Q: B, brother-in-law of Y, a 15 year-old girl had carnal
A: Consented Abduction, there was taking away of
knowledge with her in her bedroom despite her pleas.
the woman with lewd design and with her consent. In
Several days thereafter, on her way to school, she was
the course thereof, the man raped the girl, because
suddenly grabbed by B and placed in a tricycle, and brought
force was used in the sexual intercourse, therefore
her in the house of B’s parents and had carnal knowledge
there is another crime of rape. You have a COMPLEX
with her. He was later arrested and charged with two
CRIME OF CONSENTED ABDUCTION WITH
informations – qualified rape and forcible abduction with
RAPE. Abduction was a necessary means in order to
rape. Are the charges correct?
commit rape.
A: No. The accused is not liable of forcible abduction
The girl was 15 and the boyfriend was 25. The said
with rape because the accused is liable of two counts of
boyfriend was able to take away the girl with her consent.
qualified rape punishable by death penalty. The first
The parents of the girl filed a case. Per Ma’am, she was able
act is definitely a qualified rape because of the minority
to handle a similar case where the girl was 16 and the man
of the victim and the relationship between them.
was above 18. The parents of the girl do not like the man so
Insofar as the second act is concerned, SC said that it is
the lovers eloped and lived in the house of the man. The
not forcible abduction with rape but also another kind
mother filed a case of consented abduction. During the P.I.,
of qualified rape because the obvious intent of the
the said girl loved the man and even if the mother will take
accused in abducting the girl is to rape her and as such,
her away from the man, she will always return to the man.
the forcible abduction was mere incidental to achieve
Also, the woman has keys of the house of the man. Per
his intent therefore abduction is absorbed.
ma’am the man was not at fault because it was always the

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 160 |

 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
woman who would go to the man’s house. So she dismissed
the case.
In qualified seduction and consented abduction, acts of
lasciviousness in circumstances of seduction: INSTANCES
WHERE VIRGINITY IS AN ELEMENT
Note: In consented abduction, sexual intercourse is not an
element, so if after the woman ran away with the man, yet
she does not want to have sexual intercourse but the man
forced her and was able to succeed in having sexual
intercourse, the crime committed is consented
abduction with rape.
CHAPTER FIVE - PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE
PRECEDING CHAPTERS OF TITLE ELEVEN
ARTICLE 344 – PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMES
OF ADULTERY, CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION,
ABDUCTION, RAPE AND ACTS OF
LASCIVIOUSNESS
1. The crimes of adultery and concubinage
shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse.
2. 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.
3. 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.
4. 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.
WHO MAY
CRIME FILED AGAINST
FILE
Adultery Husband Wife and the Lover
Husband and the
Concubinage Wife
Concubine
➢ These are private crimes which can be prosecuted
upon the complaint filed by the private proper party.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness
➢ These are private crimes which can be prosecuted
upon the complaint by:
1. Offended party
2. Parents
3. Grandparents
4. Guardians in the order named above
➢ In Seduction, Abduction and even public crime of
Rape, the subsequent marriage of the offended party
and the offender shall extinguish the liability and
shall remove the penalty already imposed by the
court
ARTICLE 345 – CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS
GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY Person
guilty of rape, seduction or abduction, shall also be
sentenced:
• To indemnify the offended woman.
• To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law
should prevent him from so doing.
• In every case to support the offspring.
The adulterer and the concubine in the case provided for in
Articles 333 and 334 may also be sentenced, in the same
proceeding or in a separate civil proceeding, to indemnify
for damages caused to the offended spouse.
Civil Liability of Persons guilty of Rape, Seduction,
or Abduction:
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.
Q: What if it is a gang rape, so let us say that 5 men raped
the said woman, how can there be acknowledgement
because the woman suddenly became pregnant and all of
them are convicted. All of them shall indemnify the
offended party. How about the acknowledgement?
A: It can be easily determined from the DNA testing.
ARTICLE 346 – LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS,
GUARDIANS, TEACHERS, OR OTHER PERSONS
ENTRUSTED WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE
OFFENDED PARTY
1. 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.
2. Teachers or other persons in any other capacity
entrusted with the education and guidance of
youth, shall also suffer the penalty of temporary
161 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

special disqualification in its maximum period to 2. Against one whose education, training,
perpetual special disqualification. apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted
3. Any person falling within the terms of this article, with the offender
and any other person guilty of corruption of 3. When the sexual favor is made a condition
minors for the benefit of another, shall be to the giving of a passing grade, or the
punished by special disqualification from filling granting of honors and scholarships, or the
the office of guardian. payment of a stipend, allowance or other
benefits, privilege or consideration or;
ANTI-SEXUAL HARRASMENT ACT OF 1995
4. When the sexual advances result in the
(R.A. 7877) intimidating, hostile, or offensive
environment for the student trainee or
Sexual Harassment is about power. It is the use of sex as
practice.
an instrument or means of domination or supremacy.
Q: A is the victim of sexual harassment. What are the
Sexual Harassment in work, education and training-related
remedies on the part of A? What is/are cases may A file
environment is committed by:
against the offender B?
1. employer
A: A has 3 Remedies under the Law.
2. employee
3. manager 1. She can file a case for violation of R.A. 7877
4. supervisor and the penalty is imprisonment of 1 month
5. agent of employer to 6 months or a fine of P10,000 to P20,000
6. teacher or both fine and imprisonment at the
7. instructor discretion of the court
8. professor 2. She can file a civil action for damages or any
9. coach other affirmative defense
10.trainor 3. She can also file an administrative case
11.any person who having authority, influence or against the said offender. If he is a doctor, she
moral ascendancy over another person can file a case at the head of the hospital; if he
➢ shall demand, request or otherwise requires sexual professor, she can file a case at the head of the
favor from the other, regardless if whether the sexual school.
favor is accepted by the offended party. ➢ These remedies are CUMULATIVE. They are not
exclusive of each other
IN WORK RELATED OR EMPLOYMENT
 The offended party may, therefore, file all 3 cases
ENVIRONMENT, SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS
at the same time.
COMMITTED WHEN:
 A criminal case, civil case, and administrative case
1. Sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring, for the expulsion or suspension of the said
or in the employment of said individual, or in offender.
granting said individual favorable compensation,
People v. Jacutin
terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or
the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in There was this nursing graduate who wanted to apply
limiting, segregating, or classifying the employee for work and so she applied for work at the City Health
which in any way would discriminate, deprive or Office. She was interviewed, but before the interview
diminish employment opportunities or otherwise end, the City Health Officer told her to meet him in a
adversely affect said employee; certain place. And so, the City Health Officer went to
2. The above acts would impair the employer’s the said place and picked up the girl and inside the car
rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or he asked the girl to lower down her pants to see if there
3. The above acts would result in an intimidating, are varicose veins. He said it was part of the Physical
hostile or offensive environment for the Examination to lower her pants. However, the moment
employee. that the City Health Officer inserted his hands inside
the genitalia of the girl, the said woman immediately
IN AN EDUCATION OR TRAINING
pull up her pants. Then, the said City Health Officer to
ENVIRONMENT, SEXUAL HARASSMENT IS
pull up her shirt. The moment the girl pull up her shirt,
COMMITTED:
she thought it was still part of the physical
1. Against one who is under the care, custody examination. The City Health Officer fondled with her
or supervision of the offender breast, and that was the moment that the girl took her
bag and left out of the said car. And so, the girl wanted
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 162 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

to file a case of violation of R.A 7877 against the City Q: What if the man reproduced and distributed the said
Health Officer. It was a hard struggle for the girl, the tape. Is the said man liable?
police came to the girl giving her money for the girl not
A: Yes, he is liable.
to pursue the case. All the relatives of the girl
convinced her not to file a case against the City Health PENALTY: imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not
Officer. So this is the fight of the girl alone. She won. more than 7 years AND fine of not less than 100k but not
The Sandiganbayan convicted the Officer. After, an more than 500k, or both the fine and imprisonment at the
appeal to the Supreme Court, the Supreme Court discretion of the court.
convicted the said Officer and imposed upon him the
Q: What if the woman went to the mall, there was a need to
maximum penalty of 6 months imprisonment and a
answer the call of nature, she went to the rest room. In the
fine of P20,000 plus moral damages in the amount of
rest room, she saw a camera inserted near and in between
P30,000 and exemplary damages in the amount of
the wall of the said cubicle. The janitor placed it there. Is
P20,000.
the Janitor liable under R.A 9995?
The Penalty for sexual harassment is so low. Imagine only 1
A: Yes, he is liable for R.A. 9995.
to 6 months and a fine of P10,000 to P20,ooo. So if you
become congressmen and senators, you can amend the law, Case of Hayden Kho and Katrina Halili, if their case
increase the penalty took place after the effectivity of this act, Hayden Kho
should not be off the hook. It just so happen that this act
ANTI PHOTO and VIDEO VOYEURISM ACT OF
was not yet enforced at that time. So the case filed against
2009 (R.A 9995)
him is violation of R.A. 9262 – Violence against woman and
ACTS PROHIBITED: their children. Because the reason why the RTC dismissed
the case was that, according to the said court, there was
I. Taking photo or video coverage of a person or a group
consent given by Katrina Halili and so, according to the
of persons performing sexual act or any similar activity
court, there was no violence against women and their
or to capture an image of a private area of a person
children. But had R.A 9995 in effect at that time, even if
such as the naked or undergarment clad genitals,
consent was allegedly, although not proven, given by
public area, buttocks, or female breasts without the
Katrina Halili, Hayden Kho can be held liable under the 2nd
consent of the persons involved and under
and the 3rd Act. He was so lucky that this law was not yet in
circumstances in which the person/s has/have a
effect at that time.
reasonable expectation of privacy

➢ It is necessary, for the crime to arise, that there

must be NO consent on the part of the said
offended party. And, it must be in place where he
or she has a reasonable expectancy of privacy.
II. 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
III. To sell or distribute or to cause to be sold or
distributed , such photo or video or recording of sexual
act, whether the original copy or reproduction thereof;
IV. To publish or broadcast, or to 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/DVDV, internet, cellular phones and
other similar means or device.
Q: What if A and B are lovers, as lovers they often had
sexual congress. So A the man, told the girl can I videotape
our sexual congress, the girl said yes. So the girl consented.
So, while they engage in sexual congress, it was being
videotaped by the man. Is the man liable under R.A. 9995?
A: No, he is not liable, because there was a consent
given by the said girl.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 163 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
TITLE TWELVE
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF
PERSONS
(Articles 347 – 352)
CHAPTER ONE – SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
ARTICLE 347 – SIMULATION OF BIRTHS,
SUBSTITUTION OF ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER
AND CONCEALMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF A
LEGITIMATE CHILD
THREE ACTS PUNISHED UNDER ART. 347:
I. Simulation of birth
Simulation of birth- takes place when the woman
pretends to be pregnant when in fact she is not and on
the day of the delivery, takes the child of another as her
own.
➢ If the simulation is done in the birth certificate,
the crime committed is simulation of birth
➢ If the simulation is done in any other document
aside from birth certificate, the crime
committed is falsification of a public or private
document as the case may be.
Q: A was a pregnant. She told the midwife that she does not
want the baby. The midwife said that she knew a couple
who wanted a child. The couple arrived and the mother
gave the child to the couple. This couple took the baby and
registered the child as their own. What are the crimes
committed and who are criminally liable?
A: All of them are all liable for simulation of
birth. The mother, the midwife and the couple. The
said couple pretended that the child is their own child.
In that case, said child lost its original status.
II. Substitution of a child with another
In substitution of a child with another, the
classic example is MARA and CLARA.
➢ Mara was substituted as Clara and Clara
was substituted as Mara. As a result,
Mara loses her real civil status of being a
daughter of a rich family and assumes a
new civil status of being a daughter of a
poor family. The same happened to
Clara, Clara assumes a civil status of
being a daughter of a rich family and
loses her real civil status of being a
daughter of a poor family. Crime
committed is Substitution of a child with
another child which tend the child to lose
his or her real civil status
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
III. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with
intent to cause such child to lose its civil status
The offender conceals or abandons the legitimate
child and the intention of the offender is to lose the
child’s civil status.
It is necessary that the child is legitimate, not illegitimate.
Q: A and B husband and wife had a child. The child was
born without legs. So A and B could not accept the fact that
their child has no legs. They brought the child in the forest
for the child to die, to a forest with no people. Thereafter,
they left the child. What crime is committed by A and B?
A: If the child died, and the child was less than 3 days
old, the crime committed is infanticide. If the child
did not die, the crime committed is attempted
infanticide if the child was later on discovered and
rescued.
If the child is above 3 days old, the crime committed
would be parricide in case the child died when left in
the forest. If it did not die, attempted parricide.
Q: What if A and B, instead of going to the forest, went to
the mall. The mother went inside the restroom and placed
the said child in one of the cubicles in one of the restrooms
of the mall. What crime is committed by the mother and the
husband?
A: Abandoning the Minor under Art. 276. The
parents left her deliberately, consciously, and
permanently, without intent to kill. There was no
intent to kill because they could not kill the child. They
left it inside the restroom therefore obviously there was
no intent to kill.
Q: What if this husband and wife and the child that they
have happens to be their 13th child. They already had 12
children and these children are not going to school. So their
13th child was born and they wrapped the child in a nice
towel, placed it inside a basket and then placed it at the gate
of the house of a rich family. Then they rang the bell. What
crime is committed by the husband and the wife?
A: Violation of Art. 347 – Abandoning a
legitimate child with intent to lose its real civil
status. Obviously, the intent of the parents is for the
child, their 13th child to lose its real civil status of being
that of a poor family and assume a new civil status of
coming from a rich family because the child was left at
the gate and the parents rang the bell.
 It depends on the intent of the offender. It could be any
other crime, depending on the intent of the offender.
ARTICLE 348 – USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any
person who shall usurp the civil status of another, should
he do so for the purpose of defrauding the offended part or
164 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
his heirs; otherwise, the penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed.
1. It shall be committed by any person who shall
usurp the civil status of another, who shall
assume the filiation, or the paternal, or the
marital rights of another
2. Intention of the offender is to enjoy the civil
rights arising from the civil status of the person
whom he impersonates.
3. If the intention of the offender is to defraud the
offended party, or his heirs, the penalty is
QUALIFIED.
CHAPTER TWO – ILLEGAL MARRIAGES
ARTICLE 349 – BIGAMY
The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any
person who shall contract a second or subsequent marriage
before the former marriage has been legally dissolved, or
before the absent spouse has been declared presumptively
dead by means of a judgment rendered in the proper
proceedings.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender has been legally married
2. That the marriage has not been legally dissolved, in
case his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse
could not yet be presumed dead according to the Civil
Code
3. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage
4. That the second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity.
Bigamy shall be committed by any person who shall:
1. contracts a second or subsequent marriage before
the former marriage has been legally dissolved,
2. or who shall contract a subsequent or second
marriage before the absent spouse has been
declared presumptively dead, meaning in a
decision made in an appropriate proceeding.
➢ The offender is a married person, but he contracted
a second or subsequent marriage, his previous
marriage has not yet been declared null and void by
the court, or her spouse is absent and he or she
contracts a second or subsequent marriage before
the court has declared that the said spouse is
presumptively dead
Old case in the Book:
The wife contracted a second marriage because she
inquired from the relatives of the husband and the relatives
of the husband said, “He is already dead” and because of
that, the wife contracted a second or subsequent marriage.
The first husband appeared, and filed a case of bigamy
against the said wife. Is the wife liable for bigamy?
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
➢ The court said that the woman is liable for bigamy
through reckless imprudence, because according to
the court, there was imprudence because just by mere
reliance on the statement made by the parents of the
husband, she already contracted a second marriage
Is there such a crime of bigamy through reckless
imprudence?
➢ I do not believe in that decision. It is impossible
for this crime to have happened. because the law
says, without the first marriage being legally
dissolved, it means there must be a court
declaration of nullity of marriage, without that the
absent spouse being declared presumptively dead
in a decision made in an appropriate proceeding,
there must be a court decision.
➢ Since there is a need of a court decision before one
could contract a second or subsequent marriage,
there cannot be an instance of bigamy through
reckless imprudence. The moment the said
married person contracted a second or subsequent
marriage, without any court decision, the crime
committed is evidently BIGAMY. It cannot be
done through reckless imprudence or simple
negligence.
Sample problem:
A and B are married. B, the husband fell in love with
another woman, and married the woman thereafter. It is
now a bigamous married. A bigamous marriage is an
otherwise valid marriage, except for the fact that there is a
subsisting marriage.
ARTICLE 350 – MARRIAGE CONTRACTED
AGAINST PROVISIONS OF LAWS
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon any person who,
without being included in the provisions of the next
proceeding article, shall have not been complied with or
that the marriage is in disregard of a legal impediment.
If either of the contracting parties shall obtain the consent
of the other by means of violence, intimidation or fraud, he
shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty
provided in the next preceding paragraph.
Illegal marriage – marriage contracted without the
requisites of the law.
➢ Committed by any person who shall contract a
marriage knowing that he was not able to comply
with the requisites of law or if there is a legal
impediment of the said marriage.
➢ In the Family Code, before one can contract a
marriage, there is the so called essential and formal
requisites. All of these must be complied with. The
165 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

absence of any of these, the contracting parties knows

its absence, yet contracted the marriage, the liability
falls under Art. 350 f0r illegal marriage.
Q: What if the priest, or the minister who contracted or
solemnized the marriage, knows that there is a legal
impediment or knows that the parties failed to comply with
the requisites. What is the liability?
A: Liability is under Art. 352. Under Art. 352, there is a
liability of any priest, or minister of any denomination
or religious sect, or also civil authorities who shall
contract or solemnize any marriage which is not in
accordance with any requisites of the law.
ARTICLE 351 – PREMATURE MARRIAGES
Person Liable:
1. A woman who married within 301 days from the
death of her husband, or before delivery of her
baby if she is pregnant at the time of his death
2. A woman whose marriage having been annulled or
dissolved, married before delivery or before
expiration of the period of 301 days after the date
of legal separation.
Q: Why is a woman prohibited from marrying for a period
of 301 days?

A: This is to ensure that there is no doubt as to the

paternity of the child to be delivered, in order for the
child to know who is his father. Otherwise, if he is not
the one who died, he is the new husband of the wife.

➢ The period of 301 days is only important if the woman

is not pregnant
➢ If the woman is pregnant at the time of the death or at
the time of the declaration of the nullity of marriage, it
is only at the time of the delivery of the baby. After the
baby is delivered, she can already marry because there
is no doubt as to the paternity of the child.
➢ Nowadays, you can easily determine the paternity of
the child through DNA testing.
ARTICLE 352 – PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL
MARRIAGE CEREMONY
Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect,
or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any
illegal marriage ceremony shall be punished in accordance
with the provisions of the Marriage Law.
Q: X and Y fell in love and got married. Both are men.
What crime/s is/are committed?
A: Article 350. It is an illegal marriage because they
both knew that they are not allowed to contract a
marriage and yet, they still contracted on. Also, the one
who performed the marriage ceremony will be liable
under Article 352.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 166 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

TITLE THIRTEEN estafadora”. Is the crime committed libel or is it oral

defamation?
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
A: The crime committed is Oral Defamation or
(Articles 353 – 364)
Slander. The use of the microphone or the amplifier
CHAPTER ONE – LIBEL is not within the means provided for Art. 355.

Section One: Definitions, forms, and punishment THIRD ELEMENT:

of this crime.
Identity of the person- must be identified, not necessary
DEFAMATION – Kinds of Defamation: that the person must be named or described.

1. Written defamation or Libel
2. Oral defamation or Slander
3. Slander by deed
ARTICLE 353 – DEFINITION OF LIBEL
ARTICLE 354 – REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY
LIBEL – is public and malicious imputation of a crime, or
of a vice or defect, whether real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to
cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is
dead.
ELEMENTS:
1. There must be an imputation or allegation of a
crime, or a vice of defect, whether real or imaginary,
or any act or omission, condition, status or
circumstance which tend to dishonor or discredit a
natural or juridical person.
2. That there must be a publication of the said
defamatory statement or article
3. The identity of the person defamed must be
established or identified
4. The existence of malice
SECOND ELEMENT:
Publication – satisfied the moment that a 3rd person has
heard or read the libelous statement, even if the person
pertained has not heard or read it.
➢ So the basis is that a 3rd person has heard or read
the libelous statement.
Q: What if A, in national television said, “ikaw B, isa kang
estafadora”. A accused B of the crime of estafa. Is the crime
committed libel or oral defamation (slander)?
A: The crime committed is LIBEL. According to
the Supreme Court, Television is within the phrase
any similar means.
Q: The accused called a ranking official magnanakaw and
mandarambong over the radio. Crime committed?
➢ It suffices that any reader or a person who heard
would know that he is the person being referred
to.
➢ The moment a 3rd party has recognized or has
known that he is the one being referred to in the
defamatory statement, the identity of the offended
party is already present.
FOURTH ELEMENT in relation to Art. 354 –
Requirement for Publicity:
➢ As a rule, every defamatory statement is presumed
to be MALICIOUS, even if it is true.
➢ In defamatory statements, if the offender cannot
state any good intention or justifiable motive for
stating defamatory statements, the law presumes
malice.
MALICE IN LAW – Prosecution need not prove malice. It
is the defense who must prove that in stating the
defamatory statements, there was no malice on the part of
the offender because the law presumes malice in law.
MALICE IN FACT – There are certain statements
wherein the law does not presume malice. In this kind of
malice, it must be proven by the prosecution. It is available
in privilege communication.
 It is the burden of the prosecution to prove the
existence of malice on the part of the offender
when he said the defamatory mark or
statement. Otherwise, if not proven. There will
be an acquittal.
Two Kinds of Privilege Communications
(Exceptions)
1. Absolute Privilege Communication
2. Qualified Privilege Communication or Conditional
Privilege Communication
Absolute Privilege Communication – totally no actionable.
Ex: A senator stating slanderous remarks against a
well-known businessman in a privilege speech. The
businessman cannot file a case against such senator.

A: The crime committed is libel
Q: What if A, in the same incident, using a microphone,
using an amplifier sound system, called B “isa kang
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
The witness stating defamatory remarks against the
accused or complainant in open court during court
proceedings is not liable because such is totally not
actionable.
167 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
A lawyer stating slanderous remarks in a case or
pleading filed in court –totally not actionable.
Qualified Privilege Communication – actionable
The offended party may file a case against the offender
but the burden to prove malice lies with the
complainant. If the offended party fails to prove
malice, it would be an acquittal. Here, the court will
not presume malice. It is the burden of the prosecution
to prove the presence of malice.
Example:
A communication made by one person to another in
the exercise of his legal, professional, or moral duty
A fair and true report made in good faith without any
comment in a legislative or judicial proceedings or any
statements made before said proceedings
Any statements made regarding performance or
functions of public officers.
ARTICLE 355 – LIBEL MEANS BY WRITINGS OR
SIMILAR MEANS
A libel committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting,
theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or any
similar means, shall be punished by prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods or a fine ranging from
200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in addition to the civil action
which may be brought by the offended party.
➢ If the defamatory statement or article is published
through any of these means, then, the crime
committed is LIBEL.
➢ Although television is not mention, Supreme Court
said that television is within the meaning of other
similar means
ARTICLE 356 – THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND
OFFER TO PRESENT SUCH PUBLICATION FOR A
COMPENSATION
The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who
threatens another to publish a libel concerning him or the
parents, spouse, child, or other members of the family of
the latter or upon anyone who shall offer to prevent the
publication of such libel for a compensation or money
consideration.
Art. 355 enumerates how libel can be committed:
1. Writing
2. Printing
3. Lithography
4. Engraving
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
5. Radio
6. Phonograph
7. Painting
8. Theatrical Exhibition
9. Cinematographic Exhibition
10. Any similar means
Q: What if A told B, if you will not give me P100,000, I will
inform your husband that you are having an affair with
another man. What crime is committed by A?
A: Crime committed is Light Threats. It is a
form of Blackmailing which constitutes light
threats.
Q: If you will not give me P100,000, I will publish on the
magazine, on the newspaper, your love letters to the said
man who is not your husband. What crime is committed?
A: Crime committed is Threatening to
Publish a Libel, also a form of Blackmailing.
BLACKMAILING – is an unlawful extortion of money
appearing [on the fears] of the offended party, can either be
light threats or threatening to publish libel
➢ It is light threats if the offender asks the money or
any other consideration in exchange for a doing of a
wrong which does not constitute a crime.
➢ Otherwise, if the thing to be published would involve
the morality of the person, then you are threatening
to publish a libel.
Where do you file a case of Libel?
➢ You file a case of Libel before the Regional Trial
Court (RTC). Although the penalty for libel is
prision correcional in its minimum and medium
period, it should be filed before the MTC under the
Rules of Court, yet Revised Penal Code (RPC)
itself, a substantive law, states that all libel cases
must be filed before the RTC.
➢ Rules of Court is only a procedural law. Therefore
the substantive law, the Revised Penal Code,
should be followed.
Where shall be these cases of libel be filed?
➢ It depends. Generally, it should be filed before the
RTC where the article was printed or first published
or the RTC where the offended party is residing at the
time of the commission of the crime.
- If the offended party is a public officer and is working
in City of Manila, it must be filed before RTC of Manila
or the RTC where the article was printed and first
published.
- If the public officer is not working in Manila, it shall be
filed in the RTC of the province or city where he is
168 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
working at the time of the commission of the offense or
where the libelous article was printed or was first
published.
- If libelous article refers to a private individual who is
the offended party, it can be filed before the RTC of the
place where the private individual resides at the time of
the actual commission of the offense or where the
libelous material was printed or first published.
ARTICLE 357 – PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF
ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2,000
pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor
or manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who shall
publish facts connected with the private life of another and
offensive to the honor, virtue and reputation of said person,
even though said publication be made in connection with or
under the pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any
judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such facts
have been mentioned.
ARTICLE 358 – SLANDER
Oral defamation shall be punished by arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum
period if it is of a serious and insulting nature; otherwise
the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos.
ORAL DEFAMATION/SLANDER
1. Grave Slander – when serious and insulting in
nature.
2. Simple Slander
Factors to consider whether serious or insulting in
nature:
➢ there are no concrete parameters in order to
determine whether the said defamatory statement is
serious or insulting in nature. You have to take into
consideration the
a. grammar and meaning sense of the statement
b. Personal relations of the accused and the
offended party
c. Facts and Circumstances surrounding the
case
d. Social standing and position of the offended
party.
➢ All of which must be considered in order to determine
whether it would constitute Grave Slander or Simple
Slander
The same is true in Slander by deed.
Q: Calling a public officer a magnanakaw without any
evidence.
A: It would constitute criminal case of Slander
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
Q: What about the phrase of Putang ina mo? Is it
considered as a slanderous remark?
A: In the case of Pader vs. People, PUTANG INA
MO is not a slanderous remark. It is merely an
expression of the Filipino People. When a Filipino is
sad, happy, angry or surprised, he says this word.
Pader v. People
There was a drunk man who passed by the house of a
political candidate. Their families are enemies. A told
to the family of B, “putang ina mo B, magnanakaw ka
sa bayan”. So because of this, B filed a case of oral
defamation or slander.
The Supreme Court said that phrase is not considered
as a defamatory statement. It is a mere expression on
the part of the Filipino People. The crime committed
by the offender is only SIMPLE ORAL
DEFAMATION or SIMPLE SLANDER, not grave.
Although the offended party is running for a political
position. The Court has taken into consideration the
antecedent facts of the case, their families are enemies
of each other.
ARTICLE 359 – SLANDER BY DEED
The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine
ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who shall perform any act not included and
punished in this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or
contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a
serious nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine
not exceeding 200 pesos.
SLANDER BY DEED refers to the commission of acts, it
does not refer to the use of words, with the intent to
blemish the credit and reputation of another person.
It can also be
1. serious, grave slander by deed – serious and
insulting
2. simple slander by deed.
➢ The Supreme Court said that there are no concrete
parameters when you should consider it grave slander
by deed or simple slander by deed. It depends on the
sound discretion of the court.
Q: What if A, intending to defame or slander a priest,
slapped the priest in front of his congregates.
A: Crime committed is GRAVE SLANDER BY
DEED because of the reputation, the stature in life of
the offended person.
Q: The wife saw the mistress of her husband in a party.
Prior to this incident, the wife had already confronted the
mistress begging her to leave the husband (enters: Maricel
and Angelica) but the mistress was proud enough and
169 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

would not leave the husband (Angelica and Maricar, ARTICLE 361 – PROOF OF THE TRUTH
Cristine and Anne). In this party, the wife saw the mistress
ARTICLE 362 – LIBELOUS REMARKS.
and upon seeing her, she slapped twice the mistrees and
shouted, “Concubine!”, then she left. What case may be
filed by the mistress against the wife? Is it simple oral
CHAPTER TWO – INCRIMINATORY
defamation or grave oral defamation or grave slander by
MACHINATIONS
deed or simple slander by deed?
ARTICLE 363 – INCRIMINATING INNOCENT
A: It is only simple taking into consideration the
PERSON
relationship of the victims and facts and circumstances
surrounding the case. Any person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall
directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person the
Buatis v. People
commission of a crime, shall be punished by arresto
An open letter was addressed to the Atty. Pieraz which menor.
contained Libelous statements such as Satan, senile,
➢ Act committed by any person, directly incriminating or
stupid and according to the offender, the offended
imputes to an innocent person the commission of the
party uses carabao English and ended the letter in
crime outside perjury
Satan’s name. This letter was read by the wife of the
➢ It is necessary that it must not be made on an affidavit,
offended party. It came to the knowledge of not only
because if it is through an affidavit, it will be perjury.
the wife but also the children.
EXCEPTIONS:
Issue: would you consider the wife as a 3 rd person, a
public, in so far as libel is concerned? 1. perjury (sworn affidavit), or
2. sec 29 of RA 9165 (Planting of evidence)
SC: The wife is still considered as a third person.
Q: A in his counter-affidavit, in his sworn statement,
For an imputation to be libelous, the following
imputed upon A the commission of the crime of theft, what
requisites must concur:
crime is committed?
➢ It must be defamatory
A: PERJURY. It is a sworn statement under oath
➢ it must be malicious
before a public officer.
➢ It must be given publicly
➢ The victim must be identifiable Q: What if a Magic ballpen was lost in a party. A took the
magic ballpen of B, and then surreptitiously entered it
DEFAMATORY – The latter contained libelous remarks
inside the bag of C. And so when everybody was looking for
such us satan, senile, stupid, and English carabao
it, it was found in the bag of C. However, someone saw A
MALICIOUS – every defamatory imputation is presumed did the act. What crime if any is committed by A?
to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention or
A: A IS LIABLE FOR INCRIMINATING
justifiable motive for making it is shown
INNOCENT PERSONS. Incriminating innocent
PUBLICLY – publication means the making the persons is about PLANTING OF EVIDENCE in order
defamatory matter, after it is written, known to someone to impute, incriminate another person the
other than the person against whom it has been written. It commission of the crime.
is enough that the author of the libel has communicated it
Q: A and B are neighbors, A is mad at B, and deliberately
to a third person.
bumped B and in course thereof, he inserted a plastic
➢ In addition, the open letter was found in a mailbox, sachet of shabu in the pocket of B and then he told the
open to the public. police that B has a shabu inside his pocket. What crime if
any is committed by A?
IDENTIFIABLE – The libelous letter was addressed to
the respondent himself. A: Crime committed is Sec. 29 of R.A. 9165,
planting of evidence. If what has been planted is
Section two: General Provisions
any dangerous drugs, the crime committed is
[not discussed] particular, Sec. 29 of R.A. 9165, because the special
penal law specifically punishes the planting of
ARTICLE 360 – PERSONS RESPONSIBLE.
dangerous drugs. If it is any other thing, a necklace was
➢ The penalty is prision correccional in its medium and lost and A planted it inside the bag of B, the crime
minimum period therefore it is within the jurisdiction committed is incriminating innocent persons.
of MTC but the law expressly provides that libel cases
is within the jurisdiction of the RTC.
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 170 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

Q: What if a police officer was mad at X, and so what he did scheme in order to detain or blemish the
was, while X was sitting, he deliberately planted an reputation of another person
unlicensed firearm inside the bag of X and thereafter
Crime committed is INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR.
arrested X, what crime is committed by the said police
officer?
A: He committed unlawful arrest. He arrested X
without any justifiable reason thereof. He incriminates
upon the innocent person the commission of the crime
which is illegal possession of unlicensed firearm. So
here, unlawful arrest was committed by incriminating
innocent persons. UNLAWFUL ARREST
THROUGH INCRIMINATING INNOCENT
PERSONS. It is a complex crime under Art. 48 of
Book I because the incriminating of innocent persons
is a necessary means to commit unlawful arrest.
Q: Police officers told X he was under arrest and would file
a case against him. X asked but police officers did not reply.
He was brought to the police station where the contents of
his bag were laid on the table. Unknown to him, one of the
police officers inserted marked money in his wallet and so
when the money was brought to the table, the marked
money was there. The purpose is to impute upon him the
crime of theft. What is/are the crime/crimes committed by
the police officers?
A: The police officers are liable for two crimes. But:
First, unlawful arrest under Article 269 because they
unlawfully arrested X saying that they will file a case
against him but indeed no case had been filed. In the
police station, his money was mixed with the marked
money by a police officer to impute upon him the
crime of theft, therefore they also imputed upon him
incriminating innocent persons. Since, unlawful arrest
was a necessary means to commit incriminating of
innocent persons, the crime committed is
Incriminating of Innocent Persons through
unlawful arrest.
ARTICLE 364. INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOR
The penalty of arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200
pesos shall be imposed for any intrigue which has for its
principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation of a
person.
➢ This refers to any intrigue which has for its
purpose to cause blemish or dishonor on the
reputation of any person
➢ It refers to any scheme or plot which is
designed to blemish or dishonor the
reputation of any person
Common Example:

“Isang chismis na hindi alam kung saan nagsimula”

➢ It is an intrigue which spread a negative rumor,
you don’t even know where it started. It is a plot, a
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 171 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty
TITLE FOURTEEN
QUASI-OFFENSES
Sole Chapter – CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
Art. 365 – IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
Any person who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit
any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its medium
period; if it would have constituted a less grave felony, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
periods shall be imposed; if it would have constituted a
light felony, the penalty of arresto menor in its maximum
period shall be imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or negligence,
shall commit an act which would otherwise constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its
medium and maximum periods; if it would have
constituted a less serious felony, the penalty of arresto
mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article shall
have only resulted in damage to the property of another,
the offender shall be punished by a fine ranging from an
amount equal to the value of said damages to three times
such value, but which shall in no case be less than twenty-
five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure shall
be imposed upon any person who, by simple imprudence or
negligence, shall cause some wrong which, if done
maliciously, would have constituted a light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall exercise
their sound discretion, without regard to the rules
prescribed in Article sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be
applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is
equal to or lower than those provided in the first
two paragraphs of this article, in which case the
court shall impose the penalty next lower in degree
than that which should be imposed in the period
which they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with
violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a
person shall be caused, in which case the defendant
shall be punished by prision correccional in its
medium and maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but without
malice, doing or falling to do an act from which material
damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution
on the part of the person performing of failing to perform
such act, taking into consideration his employment or
DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013)
occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition and
other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution
displayed in those cases in which the damage impending to
be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest.
 The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for
in this article shall be imposed upon the offender who
fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties such help
as may be in this hand to give. (As amended by R.A.
1790, approved June 21, 1957).
 Remember that what is being punished by law is the
imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of
skill of the offender, therefore the crime would be
reckless imprudence resulting in homicide or reckless
imprudence resulting in physical injuries or reckless
imprudence resulting in multiple homicide.
Ivler v. Hon Modesto
There was this vehicular accident and the husband, Ponce,
died. The wife suffered only slight physical injuries. Two
charges were filed in the court: Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Slight Physical Injuries and Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Homicide and Damage to
Property. In the case of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
Slight Physical, Jason Ivler immediately pleaded guilty to
the crime charged. The judgment became final and
executory. During the arraignment of Reckless Imprudence
Resulting to Homicide and Damage to Property, the council
of Jason Ivler filed a motion to quash claiming that he can
no longer be prosecuted for Reckless Imprudence Resulting
to Homicide and Damage to Property because he has
already been convicted of Reckless Imprudence Resulting
to Slight Physical Injuries. He cannot be prosecuted based
on the same offense otherwise; the accused will be placed in
double jeopardy. This was denied so it went up to the SC by
a petition for certiorari. The SC said, Jason Ivler and his
counsel are correct. A person can no longer be prosecuted
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Homicide and
Damage to Property after he is convicted of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Slight Physical Injuries. SC said,
what is being punished is the reckless imprudence. Since
what is punished is reckless imprudence the damage to
property and slight physical injuries or homicide are only
resulting felonies. Since they are only resulting felonies,
since the crime being punished is the imprudence or
negligence, one can no longer be prosecuted or convicted
after he has already been convicted and prosecuted of the
same offense. Reckless imprudence and simple negligence
are crimes by themselves. THEY ARE QUASI-OFFENSES.
Therefore, to prosecute a person after he has been
convicted of simple negligence, will result to double
jeopardy.
172 |
 CRIMINAL LAW BOOK II 2017
Updated by: Dinty

Take note of the case of Ivler v. Hon Modesto.  Remember also that under Art 265 that if the result of
imprudence or negligence is only damage to property
Reckless imprudence or negligence is the crime itself.
the penalty shall only be fine. There is no penalty of
Hence, once committed or acquitted of a specific act of
imprisonment.
reckless imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted
again for that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense
➢ If due to reckless driving, two children died and their
of criminal negligence under Art 365 of the RPC lies in the
father suffered serious physical injuries and the driver
execution of an imprudent or negligent act that if
did not render help within his means the penalty is
intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The
RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING IN
law penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the
DOUBLE HOMICIDE AND SERIOUS
result thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken
PHYSICAL INJURIES. The fact that he did not do
into account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify
anything to render help will result in increase in
the substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is
penalty by one degree.
single, whether the injurious result should affect one
person or several persons, the offense (criminal negligence)
remains one and the same, and cannot be split into
different crimes and prosecutions.
1st case: reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical
injuries
2nd case: reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and
damage to property
1. One quasi-offense cannot give rise to another
quasi-offense.
2. Note simple negligence is not a means to commit a
crime. They are crimes by themselves.
Q: What if A was driving his car and he collided with
another car. As a result, let’s say that a person died and 4
persons suffered serious physical injuries, they have
wounds but they survived. And one person suffered slight
physical injuries. What is/are the crime committed by A?
A: The offender is liable for RECKLESS
IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE AND
MULTIPLE PHYSICAL INJURIES BUT NOT SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURY. There should be another charge
for RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES. You cannot complex
slight physical injury in the first crime because it is
only a light felony. And its complexity is prohibited
under Art.48. But in reality, you no longer file a case of
reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical injury
because the moment the offender is convicted, patay
na yung first case. Because there will already be
double jeopardy. In reckless imprudence and simple
negligence what is being punished is the imprudence
and negligence that’s why the appropriate name is
reckless imprudence resulting to homicide, simple
negligence causing damage to property, simple
negligence resulting to homicide not homicide through Joshua 1:9
reckless imprudence because what is being punished is
the imprudence and negligence. Homicide and Have I not commanded you? Be strong and courageous.
damage to property are merely results of the said Do not be afraid; do not be discouraged, for the LORD
imprudence or negligence. your God will be with you wherever you go.”
GOD BLESS!

DIZON | MANALO | NAVAREZ | SHYU | TUBIO (1-B 2012-2013) 173 |