Crimrev2 New

REVISED ORTEGA LECTURE NOTES ON CRIMINAL LAW
TITLE I. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL

SECURITY AND THE LAW OF NATIONS
Almost all of these are crimes committed in

times of war, except the following, which
can be committed in times of peace:
Crimes against national security
(1)
Espionage, under Article 114 This

is also covered by Commonwealth
Act No. 616 which punishes
conspiracy to commit espionage.
This may be committed both in
times of war and in times of peace.
(2)
Inciting to War or Giving Motives for

Reprisals, under Article 118 This
can be committed even if the
Philippines is not a participant.
Exposing the Filipinos or their
properties because the offender
performed an unauthorized act, like
those who recruit Filipinos to
participate in the gulf war. If they
involve themselves to the war, this
crime is committed. Relevant in the
cases of Flor Contemplacion or
Abner Afuang, the police officer who
stepped on a Singaporean flag.
(3)
Violation of Neutrality, under Article

119 The Philippines is not a party
to a war but there is a war going on.
This may be committed in the light
of the Middle East war.
1.
Treason (Art. 114);
2.
Conspiracy and proposal to commit

treason (Art. 115);
3.
Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and
4.
Espionage (Art. 117).
Crimes against the law of nations

1.
Inciting to war or giving motives for

reprisals (Art. 118);
2.
Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);
3.
Corresponding with hostile country

(Art. 120);
4.
Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121);

and
5.
Piracy in general and mutiny on the

high seas (Art. 122).
The crimes under this title can be

prosecuted even if the criminal act or acts
were committed outside the Philippine
territorial jurisdiction. However, prosecution
can proceed only if the offender is within
Philippine territory or brought to the
Philippines pursuant to an extradition
treaty. This is one of the instances where
the Revised Penal Code may be given
extra-territorial application under Article 2
(5) thereof. In the case of crimes against
the law of nations, the offender can be
prosecuted whenever he may be found
because the crimes are regarded as
committed against humanity in general.
Article 114. Treason

Elements
1.
Offender is a Filipino or resident

alien;
2.
There is a war in
Philippines is involved;
3.
Offender either
which
the
a.
levies war against

government; or
the
b.
adheres to the enemies,

giving them aid or comfort
1
within the
elsewhere
Philippines
or
2.
At least one person decides to

a.
Requirements of levying war

1. Actual assembling of men;
levy
war
against
government; or
the
b.
2. To execute a treasonable design by

force;
3. Intent is to deliver the country in whole
or in part to the enemy; and
4. Collaboration with foreign enemy or
some foreign sovereign
3.
adhere to the enemies,

giving them aid or comfort;
He proposes its execution to some
other persons.
Article 116. Misprision of Treason

Elements
1. Offender owes allegiance to the
government, and not a foreigner;
Two ways of proving treason

1.
Testimony of at least two witnesses

to the same overt act; or
2.
Confession of accused in open

court.
Article 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to

Commit Treason
2. He has knowledge of conspiracy to

commit treason against the
government;
3. He conceals or does not disclose and
make known the same as soon
as possible to the governor or
fiscal of the province in which he
resides, or the mayor or fiscal of
the city in which he resides.
Elements of conspiracy to commit treason

1.
There is a war in
2.
At least two persons come to an

agreement to
3.
which
the
a.
levy
war
against
government; or
the
b.
adhere to the enemies,

giving them aid or comfort;
They decide to commit it.
Elements of proposal to commit treason

1.
There is a war in
which
the
While in treason, even aliens can commit

said crime because of the amendment to
the article, no such amendment was made
in misprision of treason. Misprision of
treason is a crime that may be committed
only by citizens of the Philippines.
The essence of the crime is that there are
persons who conspire to commit treason
and the offender knew this and failed to
make the necessary report to the
government within the earliest possible
time. What is required is to report it as
soon as possible. The criminal liability
arises if the treasonous activity was still at
the conspiratorial stage. Because if the
treason already erupted into an overt act,
the implication is that the government is
already aware of it. There is no need to
report the same. This is a felony by
2
omission although committed with dolo, not

with culpa.
1.
Offender enters any of the

places mentioned;
The persons mentioned in Article 116 are

not limited to mayor, fiscal or governor. Any
person in authority having equivalent
jurisdiction, like a provincial commander,
will already negate criminal liability.
2.
He
has
therefore;
3.
His purpose is to obtain

information,
plans,
photographs or other data of
a confidential nature relative
to the defense of the
Philippines.
Whether the conspirators are parents or

children, and the ones who learn the
conspiracy is a parent or child, they are
required to report the same. The reason is
that although blood is thicker than water so
to speak, when it comes to security of the
state, blood relationship is always
subservient to national security. Article 20
does not apply here because the persons
found liable for this crime are not
considered accessories; they are treated
as principals.
2.
no
authority
By disclosing to the representative

of a foreign nation the contents of
the articles, data or information
referred to in paragraph 1 of Article
117, which he had in his possession
by reason of the public office he
holds.
Elements
In the 1994 bar examination, a problem

was given with respect to misprision of
treason. The text of the provision simply
refers to a conspiracy to overthrow the
government. The examiner failed to note
that this crime can only be committed in
times of war. The conspiracy adverted to
must be treasonous in character. In the
problem given, it was rebellion. A
conspiracy to overthrow the government is
a crime of rebellion because there is no
war. Under the Revised Penal Code, there
is no crime of misprision of rebellion.
1.
Offender is a public officer;
2.
He has in his possession the

articles, data or information
referred to in paragraph 1 of
Article 117, by reason of the
public office he holds;
He discloses their contents
to a representative of a
foreign nation.
3.
Article 117. Espionage
Commonwealth Act No. 616 An Act to

Punish Espionage and Other Offenses
against National Security
Acts punished
Acts punished
1.
1.
Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to

be obtained information affecting
national defense;
2.
Unlawful disclosing of information

affecting national defense;
3.
Disloyal acts or words in times of

peace;
By entering, without authority

therefore, a warship, fort or naval or
military establishment or reservation
to obtain any information, plans,
photograph or other data of a
confidential nature relative to the
defense of the Philippines;
Elements
4.
Disloyal acts or words in times of

war;
5.
Conspiracy to
sections; and
6.
Harboring or concealing violators of

law.
violate
hence, national security was not really

threatened. Now, the threat of rebellion or
internal wars is serious as a national threat.
preceding
Article 120.
Hostile Country
Correspondence
with
Elements
Article 118. Inciting to War or Giving
Motives for Reprisals
1.
It is in time of war in which the

Elements
2.
Offender makes correspondence

with an enemy country or territory
occupied by enemy troops;
3.
The correspondence is either
1. Offender
performs
unlawful
unauthorized acts;
or
2. The acts provoke or give occasion for

a.
a war involving or liable to

involve the Philippines; or
b.
exposure of Filipino citizens

to reprisals on their persons
or property.
a.
prohibited
government;
by
the
b.
carried on in ciphers or
conventional signs; or
c.
containing
notice
or
information which might be
useful to the enemy.
Article 119. Violation of Neutrality

Elements
Article 121.
1. There is a war in which the Philippines

is not involved;
Elements
2. There is a regulation issued by a

competent
authority
to
enforce
neutrality;
3.
Flight to Enemy's Country
1.
There is a war in
which
the
2.
Offender must be owing allegiance

to the government;
3.
Offender attempts to flee or go to

enemy country;
4.
Going to the enemy country is

prohibited by competent authority.
Offender violates the regulation.
When we say national security, it should be

interpreted as including rebellion, sedition
and subversion. The Revised Penal Code
does not treat rebellion, sedition and
subversion as crimes against national
security, but more of crimes against public
order because during the time that the
Penal Code was enacted, rebellion was
carried out only with bolos and spears;
In crimes against the law of nations, the

offenders can be prosecuted anywhere in
the world because these crimes are
considered as against humanity in general,
4
like piracy and mutiny. Crimes against

national security can be tried only in the
Philippines, as there is a need to bring the
offender here before he can be made to
suffer the consequences of the law. The
acts against national security may be
committed abroad and still be punishable
under our law, but it can not be tried under
foreign law.
Article 122. Piracy in general and Mutiny
on the High Seas or in Philippine Waters
Originally, the crimes of piracy and mutiny

can only be committed in the high seas,
that is, outside Philippine territorial waters.
But in August 1974, Presidential Decree
No. 532 (The Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery Law of 1974) was issued,
punishing piracy, but not mutiny, in
Philippine territorial waters. Thus came
about two kinds of piracy: (1) that which is
punished under the Revised Penal Code if
committed in the high seas; and (2) that
which is punished under Presidential
Decree No. 532 if committed in Philippine
territorial waters.
Acts punished as piracy

1.
Attacking or seizing a vessel on the

high seas or in Philippine waters;
2.
Seizing in the vessel while on the

high seas or in Philippine waters the
whole or part of its cargo, its
equipment or personal belongings
of its complement or passengers.
Elements of piracy
1. The vessel is on the high seas or
Philippine waters;
2. Offenders are neither members of its
complement nor passengers of
the vessel;
3. Offenders either
a.
b.
4.
attack or seize a vessel on

the high seas or in Philippine
waters; or
seize in the vessel while on
the high seas or in Philippine
waters the whole or part of
its cargo, its equipment or
personal belongings of its
complement or passengers;
There is intent to gain.
Amending Article 122, Republic Act No.

7659 included therein piracy in Philippine
waters, thus, pro tanto superseding
Presidential Decree No.
532.
As
amended, the article now punishes piracy,
as well as mutiny, whether committed in the
high seas or in Philippine territorial waters,
and the penalty has been increased to
reclusion perpetua from reclusion temporal.
But while under Presidential Decree No.
532, piracy in Philippine waters could be
committed by any person, including a
passenger or member of the complement
of a vessel, under the amended article,
piracy can only be committed by a person
who is not a passenger nor member of the
complement of the vessel irrespective of
venue. So if a passenger or complement
of the vessel commits acts of robbery in the
high seas, the crime is robbery, not piracy.
Note, however, that in Section 4 of
Presidential Decree No. 532, the act of
aiding pirates or abetting piracy is
penalized as a crime distinct from piracy.
Said section penalizes any person who
knowingly and in any manner aids or
protects pirates, such as giving them
information about the movement of the
police or other peace officers of the
government, or acquires or receives
property taken by such pirates, or in any
manner derives any benefit therefrom; or
who directly or indirectly abets the
commission of piracy. Also, it is expressly
5
provided in the same section that the

offender shall be considered as an
accomplice of the principal offenders and
punished in accordance with the Revised
Penal Code. This provision of Presidential
Decree No. 532 with respect to piracy in
Philippine water has not been incorporated
in the Revised Penal Code. Neither may it
be considered repealed by Republic Act
No. 7659 since there is nothing in the
amendatory law is inconsistent with said
section. Apparently, there is still the crime
of abetting piracy in Philippine waters
under Presidential Decree No. 532.
Considering that the essence of piracy is
one of robbery, any taking in a vessel with
force upon things or with violence or
intimidation against person is employed will
always be piracy. It cannot co-exist with
the crime of robbery. Robbery, therefore,
cannot be committed on board a vessel.
But if the taking is without violence or
intimidation on persons of force upon
things, the crime of piracy cannot be
committed, but only theft.
Questions & Answers

Could theft be committed on board
a vessel?
Yes. The essence of piracy is one of
robbery.
Elements of mutiny
Philippine waters;
2. Offenders are either members of its
complement, or passengers of
the vessel;
3. Offenders either
a.
attack or seize the vessel; or
b.
seize the whole or part of the

cargo, its equipment, or
personal belongings of the
crew or passengers.
Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a

superior officer, or the raising of
commotions and disturbances aboard a
ship against the authority of its commander.
Distinction between mutiny and piracy
(1)
As to offenders
Mutiny is committed by members of
the complement or the passengers
of the vessel.
Piracy is committed by persons who
are not members of the complement
or the passengers of the vessel.
(2)
As to criminal intent
In mutiny, there is no criminal intent.
In piracy, the criminal intent is for
gain.
Article 123. Qualified Piracy

Elements
Philippine waters:
2. Offenders may or may not be members
of
its
complement,
or
passengers of the vessel;
3. Offenders either
a.
attack or
vessel; or
seize
the
b.
6
seize the whole or part of

the cargo, its equipment.,
or personal belongings of
the crew or passengers;
4. The preceding were committed under
any of the following circumstances:
a.
whenever they have seized

a vessel by boarding or firing
upon the same;
b.
whenever the pirates have

abandoned
their
victims
without means of saving
themselves; or
c.
Note that the first circumstance which

qualifies piracy does not apply to mutiny.
Republic Act No. 6235 (The Anti HiJacking Law)

Anti hi-jacking is another kind of piracy
which is committed in an aircraft. In other
countries, this crime is known as aircraft
piracy.
Four situations governed by anti hi-jacking
law:
(1)
usurping or seizing control of an

aircraft of Philippine registry while it
is in flight, compelling the pilots
thereof to change the course or
destination of the aircraft;
(2)
usurping or seizing control of an

aircraft of foreign registry while
within Philippine territory, compelling
the pilots thereof to land in any part
of Philippine territory;
(3)
carrying or loading on board an

aircraft operating as a public utility
passenger
aircraft
in
the
Philippines,
any
flammable,
corrosive, explosive, or poisonous
substance; and
(4)
loading, shipping, or transporting on

board a cargo aircraft operating as
a public utility in the Philippines, any
flammable, corrosive, explosive, or
poisonous substance if this was
done not in accordance with the
rules and regulations set and
promulgated
by
the
Air
Transportation Office on this matter.
whenever the crime is

accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries or
rape.
If any of the circumstances in Article123 is

present, piracy is qualified. Take note of
the specific crimes involve in number 4 c
(murder, homicide, physical injuries or
rape).
When any of these crimes
accompany piracy, there is no complex
crime. Instead, there is only one crime
committed qualified piracy. Murder, rape,
homicide, physical injuries are mere
circumstances qualifying piracy and cannot
be punished as separate crimes, nor can
they be complexed with piracy.
Although in Article 123 merely refers to
qualified piracy, there is also the crime of
qualified mutiny. Mutiny is qualified under
the following circumstances:
(1)
When the offenders abandoned the

victims without means of saving
themselves; or
(2)
When the mutiny is accompanied by

rape, murder, homicide, or physical
injuries.
Between numbers 1 and 2, the point of

distinction is whether the aircraft is of
Philippine registry or foreign registry. The
common bar question on this law usually
involves number 1. The important thing is
7
that before the anti hi-jacking law can

apply, the aircraft must be in flight. If not in
flight, whatever crimes committed shall be
governed by the Revised Penal Code. The
law makes a distinction between aircraft of
a foreign registry and of Philippine registry.
If the aircraft subject of the hi-jack is of
Philippine registry, it should be in flight at
the time of the hi-jacking. Otherwise, the
anti hi-jacking law will not apply and the
crime is still punished under the Revised
Penal Code. The correlative crime may be
one of grave coercion or grave threat. If
somebody is killed, the crime is homicide or
murder, as the case may be. If there are
some explosives carried there, the crime is
destructive arson.
Explosives are by
nature pyro-techniques.
Destruction of
property with the use of pyro-technique is
destructive arson.
If there is illegally
possessed or carried firearm, other special
laws will apply.
On the other hand, if the aircraft is of
foreign registry, the law does not require
that it be in flight before the anti hi-jacking
law can apply. This is because aircrafts of
foreign registry are considered in transit
while they are in foreign countries.
Although they may have been in a foreign
country, technically they are still in flight,
because they have to move out of that
foreign country. So even if any of the acts
mentioned were committed while the
exterior doors of the foreign aircraft were
still open, the anti hi-jacking law will already
govern.
Note that under this law, an aircraft is
considered in flight from the moment all
exterior doors are closed following
embarkation until such time when the same
doors
are
again
opened
for
disembarkation. This means that there are
passengers that boarded. So if the doors
are closed to bring the aircraft to the
hangar, the aircraft is not considered as in
flight. The aircraft shall be deemed to be
already in flight even if its engine has not
yet been started.
Questions & Answers

1.
The pilots of the Pan Am
aircraft were accosted by some armed men
and were told to proceed to the aircraft to
fly it to a foreign destination. The armed
men walked with the pilots and went on
board the aircraft. But before they could do
anything on the aircraft, alert marshals
arrested them.
What crime was
committed?
The criminal intent definitely is to
take control of the aircraft, which is hijacking. It is a question now of whether the
anti-hi-jacking law shall govern.
The anti hi-jacking law is applicable
in this case. Even if the aircraft is not yet
about to fly, the requirement that it be in
flight does not hold true when in comes to
aircraft of foreign registry. Even if the
problem does not say that all exterior doors
are closed, the crime is hi-jacking. Since
the aircraft is of foreign registry, under the
law, simply usurping or seizing control is
enough as long as the aircraft is within
Philippine territory, without the requirement
that it be in flight.
Note, however, that there is no hijacking in the attempted stage. This is a
special law where the attempted stage is
not punishable.
2.
A Philippine Air Lines aircraft
is bound for Davao. While the pilot and copilot are taking their snacks at the airport
lounge, some of the armed men were also
there. The pilots were followed by these
men on their way to the aircraft. As soon
as the pilots entered the cockpit, they
pulled out their firearms and gave
instructions where to fly the aircraft. Does
the anti hi-jacking law apply?
No. The passengers have yet to
board the aircraft. If at that time, the
offenders are apprehended, the law will not
8
apply because the aircraft is not yet in

flight. Note that the aircraft is of Philippine
registry.
3.
While the stewardess of a
Philippine Air Lines plane bound for Cebu
was waiting for the passenger manifest,
two of its passengers seated near the pilot
surreptitiously entered the pilot cockpit. At
gunpoint, they directed the pilot to fly the
aircraft to the Middle East.
However,
before the pilot could fly the aircraft towards
the Middle East, the offenders were
subdued and the aircraft landed. What
crime was committed?
The aircraft was not yet in flight.
Considering that the stewardess was still
waiting for the passenger manifest, the
doors were still open. Hence, the anti hijacking law is not applicable. Instead, the
Revised Penal Code shall govern. The
crime committed was grave coercion or
grave threat, depending upon whether or
not any serious offense violence was
inflicted upon the pilot.
However, if the aircraft were of
foreign registry, the act would already be
subject to the anti hi-jacking law because
there is no requirement for foreign aircraft
to be in flight before such law would apply.
The reason for the distinction is that as
long as such aircraft has not returned to its
home base, technically, it is still considered
in transit or in flight.
As to numbers 3 and 4 of Republic Act No.
6235, the distinction is whether the aircraft
is a passenger aircraft or a cargo aircraft.
In both cases, however, the law applies
only to public utility aircraft in the
Philippines.
Private aircrafts are not
subject to the anti hi-jacking law, in so far
as transporting prohibited substances are
concerned.
If the aircraft is a passenger aircraft, the
prohibition is absolute. Carrying of any
prohibited,
flammable,
corrosive,
or
explosive substance is a crime under

Republic Act No. 6235. But if the aircraft is
only a cargo aircraft, the law is violated
only when the transporting of the prohibited
substance was not done in accordance
with the rules and regulations prescribed by
the Air Transportation Office in the matter of
shipment of such things. The Board of
Transportation provides the manner of
packing of such kind of articles, the
quantity in which they may be loaded at
any time, etc. Otherwise, the anti hijacking law does not apply.
However, under Section 7, any physical
injury or damage to property which would
result from the carrying or loading of the
flammable,
corrosive,
explosive,
or
poisonous substance in an aircraft, the
offender shall be prosecuted not only for
violation of Republic Act No. 6235, but also
for the crime of physical injuries or damage
to property, as the case may be, under the
Revised Penal Code. There will be two
prosecutions here.
Other than this
situation, the crime of physical injuries will
be absorbed.
If the explosives were
planted in the aircraft to blow up the
aircraft, the circumstance will qualify the
penalty and that is not punishable as a
separate crime for murder. The penalty is
increased under the anti hi-jacking law.
All other acts outside of the four are merely
qualifying circumstances and would bring
about higher penalty. Such acts would not
constitute another crime. So the killing or
explosion will only qualify the penalty to a
higher one.
Questions & Answers

1.
In the course of the hi-jack, a
passenger or complement was shot and
killed.
What crime or crimes were
committed?
The crime remains to be a violation
of the anti hi-jacking law, but the penalty
9
thereof shall be higher because a

passenger or complement of the aircraft
had been killed.
The
crime
of
homicide or murder is not committed.
2.
The hi-jackers threatened to
detonate a bomb in the course of the hijack.
What crime or crimes were
committed?
Again, the crime is violation of the
anti hi-jacking law. The separate crime of
grave threat is not committed. This is
considered as a qualifying circumstance
that shall serve to increase the penalty.
TITLE II.
CRIMES AGAINST THE
FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE STATE
Crimes against the fundamental laws of the
State
10.
Offending the religious feelings (Art.

133);
Crimes under this title are those which

violate the Bill of Rights accorded to the
citizens under the Constitution. Under this
title, the offenders are public officers,
except as to the last crime offending the
religious feelings under Article 133, which
refers to any person. The public officers
who may be held liable are only those
acting under supposed exercise of official
functions, albeit illegally.
In its counterpart in Title IX (Crimes Against
Personal Liberty and Security), the
offenders are private persons. But private
persons may also be liable under this title
as when a private person conspires with a
public officer. What is required is that the
principal offender must be a public officer.
Thus, if a private person conspires with a
public officer, or becomes an accessory or
accomplice, the private person also
becomes liable for the same crime. But a
private person acting alone cannot commit
the crimes under Article 124 to 132 of this
title.
1.
Arbitrary detention (Art. 124);
2.
Delay in the delivery of detained

persons to the proper judicial
authorities (Art. 125);
3.
Delaying release (Art. 126);
Article 124. Arbitrary Detention
4.
Expulsion (Art. 127);
Elements
5.
Violation of domicile (Art. 128);
1.
Offender is a public officer or

employee;
6.
Search
warrants
maliciously
obtained and abuse in the service of
those legally obtained (Art. 129);
2.
He detains a person;
3.
The detention
grounds.
7.
Searching
domicile
witnesses (Art. 130);
8.
Prohibition,
interruption,
and
dissolution of peaceful meetings
(Art. 131);
9.
without
Interruption of religious worship (Art.

132); and
is
without
legal
Meaning of absence of legal grounds

1.
No crime was committed by the

detained;
2.
There is no violent insanity of the

detained person; and
10
3.
The person detained has no ailment

which
requires
compulsory
confinement in a hospital.
The crime of arbitrary detention assumes

several forms:
(1)
Detaining a person without legal

grounds under;
(2)
Having arrested the offended party

for legal grounds but without
warrant of arrest, and the public
officer does not deliver the arrested
person to the proper judicial
authority within the period of 12, 18,
or 36 hours, as the case may be; or
(3)
Delaying release by competent

authority with the same period
mentioned in number 2.
Distinction between arbitrary detention and

illegal detention
1.
In arbitrary detention -The principal offender must be a

public officer. Civilians can commit
the crime of arbitrary detention
except when they conspire with a
public officer committing this crime,
or become an accomplice or
accessory to the crime committed
by the public officer; and
The offender who is a public officer
has a duty which carries with it the
authority to detain a person.
2.
In illegal detention -The principal offender is a private

person. But a public officer can
commit the crime of illegal detention
when he is acting in a private
capacity or beyond the scope of his
official duty, or when he becomes
an accomplice or accessory to the
crime committed
person.
by
private
The offender, even if he is a public

officer, does not include as his
function the power to arrest and
detain a person, unless he
conspires with a public officer
committing arbitrary detention.
Note that in the crime of arbitrary detention,
although the offender is a public officer, not
any public officer can commit this crime.
Only those public officers whose official
duties carry with it the authority to make an
arrest and detain persons can be guilty of
this crime. So, if the offender does not
possess such authority, the crime
committed by him is illegal detention. A
public officer who is acting outside the
scope of his official duties is no better than
a private citizen.
Questions & Answers

1.
A janitor at the Quezon City
Hall was assigned in cleaning the mens
room.
One day, he noticed a fellow
urinating so carelessly that instead of
urinating at the bowl, he was actually
urinating partly on the floor. The janitor
resented this. He stepped out of the mens
room and locked the same. He left. The
fellow was able to come out only after
several hours when people from the
outside forcibly opened the door. Is the
janitor liable for arbitrary detention?
No. Even if he is a public officer, he
is not permitted by his official function to
arrest and detain persons. Therefore, he is
guilty only of illegal detention. While the
offender is a public officer, his duty does
not include the authority to make arrest;
hence, the crime committed is illegal
detention.
2.
A municipal treasurer has
been courting his secretary. However, the
11
latter always turned him down. Thereafter,

she tried to avoid him. One afternoon, the
municipal treasurer locked the secretary
inside their office until she started crying.
The treasurer opened the door and allowed
her to go home.
What crime was
committed?
Illegal detention. This is because
the municipal treasurer has no authority to
detain a person although he is a public
officer.
does not know where he is, although free to

move about.
Was arbitrary or illegal
detention committed?
Either arbitrary detention or illegal
detention was committed. If a person is
brought to a safe house, blindfolded, even
if he is free to move as he pleases, but if he
cannot leave the place, arbitrary detention
or illegal detention is committed.
Distinction between arbitrary detention and
unlawful arrest
In a case decided by the Supreme Court a

Barangay Chairman who unlawfully detains
another was held to be guilty of the crime
of arbitrary detention. This is because he
is a person in authority vested with the
jurisdiction to maintain peace and order
within his barangay. In the maintenance of
such peace and order, he may cause the
arrest and detention of troublemakers or
those who disturb the peace and order
within his barangay. But if the legal basis
for the apprehension and detention does
not exist, then the detention becomes
arbitrary.
Whether the crime is arbitrary detention or
illegal detention, it is necessary that there
must be an actual restraint of liberty of the
offended party.
If there is no actual
restraint, as the offended party may still go
to the place where he wants to go, even
though there have been warnings, the
crime of arbitrary detention or illegal
detention is not committed. There is either
grave or light threat.
However, if the victim is under guard in his
movement such that there is still restraint of
liberty, then the crime of either arbitrary or
illegal detention is still committed.
Question & Answer

The offended party was brought to a
place which he could not leave because he
(1)
As to offender
In arbitrary detention, the offender is
a public officer possessed with
authority to make arrests.
In unlawful arrest, the offender may
be any person.
(2)
As to criminal intent
In arbitrary detention, the main
reason for detaining the offended
party is to deny him of his liberty.
In unlawful arrest, the purpose is to
accuse the offended party of a
crime he did not commit, to deliver
the person to the proper authority,
and to file the necessary charges in
a way trying to incriminate him.
When a person is unlawfully arrested, his

subsequent detention is without legal
grounds.
Question & Answer

A had been collecting tong from
drivers.
B, a driver, did not want to
contribute to the tong. One day, B was
apprehended by A, telling him that he was
driving carelessly. Reckless driving carries
with it a penalty of immediate detention and
12
arrest. B was brought to the Traffic Bureau

and was detained there until the evening.
When A returned, he opened the cell and
told B to go home. Was there a crime of
arbitrary detention or unlawful arrest?
Arbitrary detention. The arrest of B
was only incidental to the criminal intent of
the offender to detain him. But if after
putting B inside the cell, he was turned
over to the investigating officer who booked
him and filed a charge of reckless
imprudence against him, then the crime
would be unlawful arrest. The detention of
the driver is incidental to the supposed
crime he did not commit. But if there is no
supposed crime at all because the driver
was not charged at all, he was not given
place under booking sheet or report arrest,
then that means that the only purpose of
the offender is to stop him from driving his
jeepney because he refused to contribute
to the tong.
Article 125. Delay in the Delivery of
Detained Persons to the Proper Judicial
Authorities
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He detains a person for some legal
ground;
3. He fails to deliver such person to the
proper judicial authorities within
a. 12 hour for light penalties;
b. 18
hours
for
correctional
penalties; and
c. 36 hours for afflictive or capital

penalties.
This is a form of arbitrary detention. At the
beginning, the detention is legal since it is
in the pursuance of a lawful arrest.
However, the detention becomes arbitrary

when the period thereof exceeds 12, 18 or
36 hours, as the case may be, depending
on whether the crime is punished by light,
correctional or afflictive penalty or their
equivalent.
The period of detention is 12 hours for light
offenses, 18 hours for correctional offences
and 36 hours for afflictive offences, where
the accused may be detained without
formal charge. But he must cause a formal
charge or application to be filed with the
proper court before 12, 18 or 36 hours
lapse. Otherwise he has to release the
person arrested.
Note that the period stated herein does not
include the nighttime. It is to be counted
only when the prosecutors office is ready
to receive the complaint or information.
This article does not apply if the arrest is
with a warrant. The situation contemplated
here is an arrest without a warrant.
Question & Answer

Within what period should a police
officer who has arrested a person under a
warrant of arrest turn over the arrested
person to the judicial authority?
There is no time limit specified
except that the return must be made within
a reasonable time. The period fixed by law
under Article 125 does not apply because
the arrest was made by virtue of a warrant
of arrest.
When a person is arrested without a
warrant, it means that there is no case filed
in court yet. If the arresting officer would
hold the arrested person there, he is
actually depriving the arrested of his right
to bail. As long as there is no charge in the
court yet, the arrested person cannot
obtain bail because bail may only be
13
granted by the court. The spirit of the law

is to have the arrested person delivered to
the jurisdiction of the court.
If the arrest is by virtue of a warrant, it
means that there is already a case filed in
court. When an information is filed in court,
the amount of bail recommended is stated.
The accused person is not really denied his
right to bail. Even if he is interrogated in
the police precinct, he can already file bail.
Note that delivery of the arrested person to
the proper authorities does not mean
physical delivery or turn over of arrested
person to the court.
It simply means
putting the arrested person under the
jurisdiction of the court. This is done by
filing
the
necessary
complaint
or
information against the person arrested in
court within the period specified in Article
125. The purpose of this is for the court to
determine whether the offense is bailable
or not and if bailable, to allow him the right
to bail.
Under the Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of
Court, the arrested person can demand
from the arresting officer to bring him to any
judge in the place where he was arrested
and post the bail here. Thereupon, the
arresting officer may release him. The
judge who granted the bail will just forward
the litimus of the case to the court trying his
case. The purpose is in order to deprive
the arrested person of his right to post the
bail.
Under the Revised Rules of Court, when
the person arrested is arrested for a crime
which gives him the right to preliminary
investigation and he wants to avail his right
to a preliminary investigation, he would
have to waive in writing his rights under
Article 125 so that the arresting officer will
not immediately file the case with the court
that will exercise jurisdiction over the case.
If he does not want to waive this in writing,
the arresting officer will have to comply with
Article 125 and file the case immediately in
court without preliminary investigation. In
such case, the arrested person, within five

days after learning that the case has been
filed in court without
preliminary
investigation, may ask for preliminary
investigation. In this case, the public officer
who made the arrest will no longer be liable
for violation of Article 125.
Question & Answer

The arrest of the suspect was done
in Baguio City. On the way to Manila,
where the crime was committed, there was
a typhoon so the suspect could not be
brought to Manila until three days later.
Was there a violation of Article 125?
There was a violation of Article 125.
The crime committed was arbitrary
detention in the form of delay in the
delivery of arrested person to the proper
judicial authority. The typhoon or flood is a
matter of defense to be proved by the
accused, the arresting officer, as to
whether he is liable. In this situation, he
may be exempt under paragraph 7 of
Article 12.
Before Article 125 may be applied, it is
necessary that initially, the detention of the
arrested person must be lawful because
the arrest is based on legal grounds. If the
arrest is made without a warrant, this
constitutes an unlawful arrest. Article 269,
not Article 125, will apply. If the arrest is
not based on legal grounds, the arrest is
pure and simple arbitrary detention. Article
125 contemplates a situation where the
arrest was made without warrant but based
on legal grounds.
This is known as
citizens arrest.
Article 126. Delaying Release
Acts punished
14
1.
2.
3.
Delaying the performance of a

judicial or executive order for the
release of a prisoner;
Elements
Unduly delaying the service of the

notice of such order to said
prisoner;
2. He either
Unduly delaying the proceedings

upon any petition for the liberation
of such person.

employee;
2.
There is a judicial or executive order

for the release of a prisoner or
detention prisoner, or that there is a
proceeding upon a petition for the
liberation of such person;
3.
Offender
delays
without
good
reason
a.
the service of the notice of

such order to the prisoner;
b.
the performance of such

judicial or executive order for
the release of the prisoner;
or
c.
a. expels any person

from the Philippines; or
b. compels a person to
change residence;
3. Offender is not authorized to do so by
law.
Elements
1.
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
the proceedings upon a

petition for the release of
such person.
The essence of this crime is coercion but

the specific crime is expulsion when
committed by a public officer. If committed
by a private person, the crime is grave
coercion.
In Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778,
the mayor of the City of Manila wanted to
make the city free from prostitution. He
ordered certain prostitutes to be transferred
to Davao, without observing due processes
since they have not been charged with any
crime at all. It was held that the crime
committed was expulsion.
Questions & Answers

1.
Certain aliens were arrested
and they were just put on the first aircraft
which brought them to the country so that
they may be out without due process of law.
Was there a crime committed?
Yes. Expulsion.
Article 127. Expulsion
2.
If a Filipino citizen is sent out
of the country, what crime is committed?
Acts punished
1.
Expelling a
Philippines;
person
from
the
2.
Compelling a person to change his

residence.
Grave coercion, not expulsion,

because a Filipino cannot be deported.
This crime refers only to aliens.
Article 128. Violation of Domicile
15
Acts punished
1.
Entering any dwelling against the

will of the owner thereof;
2.
Searching papers or other effects

found therein without the previous
consent of such owner; or
3.
Refusing to leave the premises,

after having surreptitiously entered
said dwelling and after having been
required to leave the same
arrest, can break into the premise. He shall

not be liable for violation of domicile.
There are only three recognized instances
when search without a warrant is
considered valid, and, therefore, the
seizure of any evidence done is also valid.
Outside of these, search would be invalid
and the objects seized would not be
admissible in evidence.
(1)
Search made incidental to a valid

arrest;
(2)
Where the search was made on a

moving vehicle or vessel such that
the exigency of he situation
prevents the searching officer from
securing a search warrant;
(3)
When the article seized is within

plain view of the officer making the
seizure without making a search
therefore.
Common elements
1.

employee;
2.
He is not authorized by judicial order

to enter the dwelling or to make a
search therein for papers or other
effects.
There are three ways of committing the

violation of Article 128:
Circumstances qualifying the offense
1.
If committed at nighttime; or
2.
If any papers or effects not

constituting evidence of a crime are
not returned immediately after the
search made by offender.
Under Title IX (Crimes against Personal

Liberty and Security), the corresponding
article is qualified trespass to dwelling
under Article 280. Article 128 is limited to
public officers. The public officers who may
be liable for crimes against the
fundamental laws are those who are
possessed of the authority to execute
search warrants and warrants of arrests.
Under Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of
Court, when a person to be arrested enters
a premise and closes it thereafter, the
public officer, after giving notice of an
(1)
By simply entering the dwelling of

another if such entering is done
against the will of the occupant. In
the plain view doctrine, public officer
should be legally entitled to be in
the place where the effects were
found.
If he entered the place
illegally and he saw the effects,
doctrine inapplicable; thus, he is
liable for violation of domicile.
(2)
Public officer who enters with

consent searches for paper and
effects without the consent of the
owner. Even if he is welcome in the
dwelling, it does not mean he has
permission to search.
(3)
Refusing to leave premises after

surreptitious entry and being told to
leave the same. The act punished
is not the entry but the refusal to
leave. If the offender upon being
16
directed to eave, followed and left,

there is no crime of violation of
domicile. Entry must be done
surreptitiously; without this, crime
may be unjust vexation.
But if
entering was done against the will
of the occupant of the house,
meaning there was express or
implied prohibition from entering the
same, even if the occupant does
not direct him to leave, the crime of
is already committed because it
would fall in number 1.
1.
Elements
2.
Questions & Answers
1.
It was raining heavily. A
policeman took shelter in one persons
house. The owner obliged and had his
daughter serve the police some coffee.
The policeman made a pass at the
daughter. The owner of the house asked
him to leave. Does this fall under Article
128?
The crimes committed are (1)

qualified trespass to dwelling under Article
280, if there was an express or implied
prohibition against entering.
This is
tantamount to entering against the will of
the owner; and (2) violation of domicile in
the third form if he refuses to leave after
being told to.
Article 129. Search Warrants Maliciously
Obtained, and Abuse in the Service of
Those Legally Obtained
Acts punished
1.

employee;
2.
He procures
warrant;
3.
There is no just cause.
search
Exceeding his authority or by using

unnecessary severity in executing a
search warrant legally procured.
Elements
No. It was the owner of the house

who let the policeman in. The entering is
not surreptitious.
2.
A
person
surreptitiously
enters the dwelling of another. What crime
or crimes were possibly committed?
Procuring a search warrant without

just cause;
1.

employee;
2.
He has legally procured a

search warrant;
3.
He exceeds his authority or

uses unnecessary severity in
executing the same.
REBELLION
1.
said reaffirmation, some believe that it

has been a settled doctrine that
rebellion cannot be complexed with
common crimes, such as killing and
destruction of property, committed on
the occasion and in furtherance
thereof.
This thinking is no longer correct; there is

no legal basis for such rule now.
The statement in People v. Hernandez that
common crimes committed in furtherance
of rebellion are absorbed by the crime of
rebellion, was dictated by the provision of
Article 135 of the Revised Penal Code prior
to its amendment by the Republic Act No.
17
6968 (An Act Punishing the Crime of Coup

Detat), which became effective on October
1990. Prior to its amendment by Republic
Act No. 6968, Article 135 punished those
who while holding any public office or
employment, take part therein by any of
these acts: engaging in war against the
forces of Government; destroying property;
committing serious violence; exacting
contributions, diverting funds for the lawful
purpose for which they have been
appropriated.
Since a higher penalty is prescribed for the
crime of rebellion when any of the specified
acts are committed in furtherance thereof,
said acts are punished as components of
rebellion and, therefore, are not to be
treated as distinct crimes. The same acts
constitute distinct crimes when committed
on a different occasion and not in
furtherance of rebellion. In short, it was
because Article 135 then punished said
acts as components of the crime of
rebellion that precludes the application of
Article 48 of the Revised Penal Code
thereto. In the eyes of the law then, said
acts constitute only one crime and that is
rebellion. The Hernandez doctrine was
reaffirmed in Enrile v. Salazar because the
text of Article 135 has remained the same
as it was when the Supreme Court
resolved the same issue in the People v.
Hernandez. So the Supreme Court invited
attention to this fact and thus stated:
There is a an apparent need to restructure
the law on rebellion, either to raise the
penalty therefore or to clearly define and
delimit the other offenses to be considered
absorbed thereby, so that it cannot be
conveniently utilized as the umbrella for
every sort of illegal activity undertaken in its
name. The court has no power to effect
such change, for it can only interpret the
law as it stands at any given time, and
what is needed lies beyond interpretation.
Hopefully, Congress will perceive the need
for promptly seizing the initiative in this
matter, which is purely within its province.
Obviously, Congress took notice of this

pronouncement and, thus, in enacting
Republic Act No. 6968, it did not only
provide for the crime of coup detat in the
Revised Penal Code but moreover, deleted
from the provision of Article 135 that portion
referring to those
who, while holding any public office or
employment takes part therein [rebellion or
insurrection], engaging in war against the
forces of government, destroying property
or committing serious violence, exacting
contributions or diverting public funds from
the lawful purpose for which they have
been appropriated
Hence, overt acts which used to be
punished as components of the crime of
rebellion have been severed therefrom by
Republic Act No. 6968.
The legal
impediment to the application of Article 48
to rebellion has been removed. After the
amendment, common crimes involving
killings, and/or destructions of property,
even though committed by rebels in
furtherance of rebellion, shall bring about
complex
crimes
of
rebellion
with
murder/homicide, or rebellion with robbery,
or rebellion with arson as the case may be.
To reiterate, before Article 135 was
amended, a higher penalty is imposed
when the offender engages in war against
the government. "War" connotes anything
which may be carried out in pursuance of
war. This implies that all acts of war or
hostilities like serious violence and
destruction of property committed on
occasion and in pursuance of rebellion are
component crimes of rebellion which is why
Article 48 on complex crimes is
inapplicable. In amending Article135, the
acts which used to be component crimes of
rebellion, like serious acts of violence, have
been deleted. These are now distinct
crimes.
The legal obstacle for the
application of Article 48, therefore, has
been removed. Ortega says legislators
want to punish these common crimes
18
independently of rebellion. Ortega cites no

case overturning Enrile v. Salazar.
rebellion; and a lower penalty for those

who are only followers of the rebellion.
In People v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 569, it

was held that an accused already
convicted of rebellion may not be
prosecuted further for illegal possession of
firearm and ammunition, a violation of
Presidential Decree No. 1866, because this
is a necessary element or ingredient of the
crime of rebellion with which the accused
was already convicted.
Distinctions between rebellion and sedition
However, in People v. Tiozon, 198 SCRA

368, it was held that charging one of illegal
possession of firearms in furtherance of
rebellion is proper because this is not a
charge of a complex crime. A crime under
the Revised Penal Code cannot be
absorbed by a statutory offense.
In People v. de Gracia, it was ruled that
illegal possession of firearm in
furtherance of rebellion under
Presidential Decree No. 1866 is
distinct from the crime of rebellion
under the Revised Penal Code and,
therefore, Article 135 (2) of the
Revised Penal Code should not
apply.
The offense of illegal
possession of firearm is a malum
prohibitum, in which case, good
faith and absence of criminal intent
are not valid defenses.
(2)
(1)
As to nature
In rebellion, there must be taking up
or arms against the government.
In sedition, it is sufficient that the
public uprising be tumultuous.
As to purpose
In rebellion, the purpose is always
political.
In sedition, the purpose may be
political or social. Example: the
uprising of squatters against Forbes
park residents. The purpose in
sedition is to go against established
government, not to overthrow it.
When any of the objectives of rebellion is

pursued but there is no public uprising in
the legal sense, the crime is direct assault
of the first form. But if there is rebellion,
with public uprising, direct assault cannot
be committed.
Article 134-A. Coup d' etat
In People v. Lobedioro, an NPA cadre

killed a policeman and was convicted for
murder. He appealed invoking rebellion.
The Supreme Court found that there was
no evidence shown to further the end of the
NPA movement. It held that there must be
evidence shown that the act furthered the
cause of the NPA; it is not enough to say it.
Elements
1.
Offender is a person or persons

belonging to the military or police or
holding any public office or
employment;
2.
It is committed by means of a swift

attack accompanied by violence,
intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth;
3.
The attack is directed against the

duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any
military
camp
or
installation,
19
Rebellion may be committed even without

a single shot being fired. No encounter
needed. Mere public uprising with arms
enough.
Article 135, as amended, has two
penalties:
a higher penalty for the
promoters, heads and maintainers of the
communication networks, public

utilities or other facilities needed for
the
exercise
and
continued
possession of power;
4.
The purpose of the attack is to seize

or diminish state power.
The essence of the crime is a swift attack

upon the facilities of the Philippine
government,
military
camps
and
installations, communication networks,
public utilities and facilities essential to the
continued possession of governmental
powers. It may be committed singly or
collectively and does not require a
multitude of people. The objective may not
be to overthrow the government but only to
destabilize or paralyze the government
through the seizure of facilities and utilities
essential to the continued possession and
exercise of governmental powers.
It
requires as principal offender a member of
the AFP or of the PNP organization or a
public officer with or without civilian
support. Finally, it may be carried out not
only by force or violence but also through
stealth, threat or strategy.
Persons liable for rebellion, insurrection or
coup d' etat under Article 135
b.
Any person not in the

government service who
participates,
supports,
finances, abets or aids in
undertaking a coup d' etat.
Article 136. Conspiracy and Proposal to

Commit Coup d' etat, Rebellion or
Insurrection
Conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion are two different crimes, namely:
1.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion; and
2.
Proposal to commit rebellion.
There is conspiracy to commit rebellion

when two or more persons come to an
agreement to rise publicly and take arms
against government for any of the purposes
of rebellion and decide to commit it.
There is proposal to commit rebellion when
the person who has decided to rise publicly
and take arms against the government for
any of the purposes of rebellion proposes
its execution to some other person or
persons.
Article 137. Disloyalty of Public Officers
or Employees
Acts punished
1.
The leaders
a.
b.
2.
1.
Any person who promotes,
maintains
or
heads
a
rebellion or insurrection; or
By failing to resist a rebellion by all

the means in their power;
2.
Any person who leads,

directs or commands others
to undertake a coup d' etat;
By continuing to discharge the

duties of their offices under the
control of the rebels; or
3.
By accepting appointment to office

under them.
The participants
a.
Any person who participates

or executes the commands
of
others
in
rebellion,
insurrection or coup d' etat;
Offender must be a public officer or

employee.
Article 138.
Insurrection
Inciting to Rebellion or
20
Elements
1.
Offender does not take arms or is

not in open hostility against the
government;
2.
He incites others to the execution of

any of the acts of rebellion;
3.
The inciting is done by means of

speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems,
banners
or
other
representations tending to the same
end.
Distinction between inciting to rebellion and

proposal to commit rebellion
1.
In both crimes, offender induces

another to commit rebellion.
2.
In proposal, the person who

proposes has decided to commit
rebellion; in inciting to rebellion, it is
not required that the offender has
decided to commit rebellion.
3.
In proposal, the person who

proposes the execution of the crime
uses secret means; in inciting to
rebellion, the act of inciting is done
publicly.
Article 139. Sedition

Elements
1. Offenders
rise
tumultuously;
publicly
and
2. Offenders employ force, intimidation, or

other means outside of legal
methods;
3. Purpose is to attain any of the following
objects:
a. To prevent the promulgation or

execution of any law or
the holding of any
popular election;
b. To
prevent
the
national
government
or
any
provincial or municipal
government,
or
any
public
officer
from
exercising its or his
functions or prevent the
execution
of
an
administrative order;
c. To inflict any act of hate or

revenge upon the person
or property of any public
officer or employee;
d. To commit, for any political or
social end, any act of
hate or revenge against
private persons or any
social classes;
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.
The crime of sedition does not
contemplate the taking up of arms
against the government because the
purpose of this crime is not the
overthrow of the government. Notice
from the purpose of the crime of
sedition that the offenders rise publicly
and create commotion ad disturbance
by way of protest to express their
dissent
and
obedience
to
the
government or to the authorities
concerned. This is like the so-called
civil disobedience except that the
means employed, which is violence, is
illegal.
21
Persons liable for sedition under Article

140
1. The leader of the sedition; and
2. Other person participating in
the sedition.
Article 141.
Sedition
h. Inciting is done by means of speeches,

proclamations,
writings,
emblems, cartoons, banners, or
other representations tending
towards the same end.
Conspiracy to Commit
Only non-participant in sedition may be

liable.
In this crime, there must be an

agreement and a decision to rise
publicly and tumultuously to attain any
of the objects of sedition.
Considering that the objective of

sedition is to express protest against
the government and in the process
creating hate against public officers,
any act that will generate hatred
against the government or a public
officer concerned or a social class may
amount to Inciting to sedition. Article
142 is, therefore, quite broad.
There is no proposal to commit sedition.

Article 142. Inciting to Sedition
Acts punished
1. Inciting
others
to
the
accomplishment of any of the
acts which constitute sedition by
means
of
speeches,
proclamations,
writings,
emblems, etc.;
2. Uttering seditious words or
speeches which tend to disturb
the public peace;
3. Writing,
publishing,
or
circulating
scurrilous
libels
against the government or any
of
the
duly
constituted
authorities thereof, which tend to
disturb the public peace.
Elements
f.
g. He incites others to the accomplishment

of any of the acts which
constitute sedition; and
Offender does not take direct part in the

crime of sedition;
The mere meeting for the purpose of

discussing
hatred
against
the
government is inciting to sedition.
Lambasting government officials to
discredit the government is Inciting to
sedition. But if the objective of such
preparatory actions is the overthrow of
the government, the crime is inciting to
rebellion.
Article 143. Acts Tending to Prevent
the Meeting of the Congress of the
Philippines and Similar Bodies
Elements
1. There is a projected or actual
meeting of Congress or any of
its
committees
or
subcommittees,
constitutional
committees or divisions thereof,
or of any provincial board or city
or municipal council or board;
2. Offender, who may be any
person, prevents such meetings
by force or fraud.
22
Article
144.
Proceedings
Disturbance
1. Offender uses force,

intimidation, threats or
fraud;
of
2. The purpose of the

offender is to prevent any
member of Congress
from
Elements
1. There is a meeting of
Congress
or
any
of
its
committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or
or of any provincial board or city
or municipal council or board;
2. Offender does any of the
following acts:
a. attending the
meetings of the
Congress or of
any
of
its
committees
or
constitutional
commissions,
etc.;
a. He disturbs any of
such meetings;
b. expressing his
opinion; or
b. He behaves while in
the presence of any such
bodies in such a manner
as
to
interrupt
its
proceedings or to impair
the respect due it.
c. casting
vote.
Article
145.
Violation
Parliamentary Immunity
of
his
2. Arresting or searching any

member thereof while Congress
is in regular or special session,
except in case such member
has
committed
a
crime
punishable under the Code by a
penalty higher than prision
mayor.
Elements
Acts punished
1. Using force, intimidation,
threats, or frauds to prevent any
member of Congress from
attending the meetings of
Congress or of any of its
committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or
or from expressing his opinion or
casting his vote;
Elements
1. Offender is a public
officer of employee;
2. He
arrests
or
searches any member of
Congress;
3. Congress, at the time
of arrest or search, is in
regular
or
special
session;
4. The member arrested
or searched has not
committed
a
crime
punishable under the
23
Code by a penalty higher

than prision mayor.
Under Section 11, Article VI of the
Constitution, a public officer who arrests
a member of Congress who has
committed a crime punishable by prision
mayor (six years and one day, to 12
years) is not liable Article 145.
According to Reyes, to be consistent
with the Constitution, the phrase "by a
penalty higher than prision mayor" in
Article 145 should be amended to read:
"by the penalty of prision mayor or
higher."
Article 146. Illegal Assemblies
Acts punished
1. Any meeting attended by
armed persons for the purpose
of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Code;
Elements
1. There is a meeting, a
gathering or group of
persons, whether in fixed
place or moving;
2. The
attended
persons;
meeting
is
by
armed
3. The purpose of the

meeting is to commit any
of the crimes punishable
under the Code.
2. Any meeting in which the
audience, whether armed or not,
is incited to the commission of
the crime of treason, rebellion or
insurrection, sedition, or assault
upon person in authority or his
agents.
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.
Persons liable for illegal assembly
1. The organizer or leaders of
the meeting;
2. Persons merely present at
the meeting, who must have a
common intent to commit the
felony of illegal assembly.
If any person present at the meeting
carries an unlicensed firearm, it is
presumed that the purpose of the
meeting insofar as he is concerned is to
commit acts punishable under the
Revised Penal Code, and he is
considered a leader or organizer of the
meeting.
The gravamen of the offense is mere
assembly of or gathering of people for
illegal purpose punishable by the
Revised Penal Code.
Without
gathering, there is no illegal assembly.
If unlawful purpose is a crime under a
special law, there is no illegal assembly.
For example, the gathering of drug
pushers to facilitate drug trafficking is
not illegal assembly because the
purpose is not violative of the Revised
Penal Code but of The Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, as amended, which
is a special law.
Two forms of illegal assembly
24
(1) No attendance of armed

men, but persons in the meeting
are incited to commit treason,
rebellion or insurrection, sedition
or assault upon a person in
authority.
When the illegal
purpose of the gathering is to
incite people to commit the
crimes mentioned above, the
presence of armed men is
unnecessary.
The
mere
gathering for the purpose is
sufficient to bring about the
crime already.
(2) Armed men attending the
gathering If the illegal purpose
is other than those mentioned
above, the presence of armed
men during the gathering brings
about the crime of illegal
assembly.
Illegal associations
1. Associations
totally
partially organized for
purpose of committing any of
crimes punishable under
Code;
or
the
the
the
2. Associations
totally
or
partially organized for some
purpose contrary to public
morals.
Persons liable
i.
Founders, directors and president of the

association;
2.
Mere members of the association.
Example: Persons conspiring to

rob a bank were arrested.
Some were with firearms.
Liable for illegal assembly, not
for conspiracy, but for gathering
with armed men.
Distinction between illegal association and

illegal assembly
Distinction between illegal assembly

and illegal association
In illegal assembly, it is necessary

that there is an actual meeting or
assembly or armed persons for the
purpose of committing any of the
crimes punishable under the Code,
or of individuals who, although not
armed,
are
incited
to
the
commission of treason, rebellion,
sedition, or assault upon a person in
authority or his agent.
1.
In illegal assembly, the basis of liability

is the gathering for an illegal purpose
which constitutes a crime under the
Revised Penal Code.
In illegal association, the basis is the
formation of or organization of an
association to engage in an unlawful
purpose which is not limited to a
violation of the Revised Penal Code. It
includes a violation of a special law or
those against public morals. Meaning
of public morals: inimical to public
welfare; it has nothing to do with
decency., not acts of obscenity.
2.
In illegal association, it is not

necessary that there be an actual
meeting.
In illegal association, it is the act of

forming
or
organizing
and
membership in the association that
are punished.
In illegal assembly, it is the meeting
and attendance at such meeting
that are punished.
Article 147. Illegal Associations

25
3.
In illegal association, the persons

liable are (1) the founders, directors
and president; and (2) the members.
2.
The person assaulted is a

person in authority or his
agent;
3.
At the time of the assault,

the person in authority or his
agent is engaged in the
actual performance of official
duties, or that he is
assaulted by reason of the
past performance of official
duties;
4.
Offender knows that the one

he is assaulting is a person
in authority or his agent in
the exercise of his duties.
5.
There is no public uprising.
In illegal assembly, the persons

liable are (1) the organizers or
leaders of the meeting and (2) the
persons present at meeting.
Article 148. Direct Assault
Acts punished
1.
Without
public
uprising,
by
employing force or intimidation for
the attainment of any of the
purposes enumerated in defining
the crimes of rebellion and sedition;
Elements
1.
Offender employs force or

intimidation;
2.
The aim of the offender is to

attain any of the purposes of
the crime of rebellion or any
of the objects of the crime of
sedition;
3.
2.
There is no public uprising.
Without
public
uprising,
by
attacking, by employing force or by
seriously intimidating or by seriously
resisting any person in authority or
any of his agents, while engaged in
the performance of official duties, or
on occasion of such performance.
Elements
1.
Offender makes an attack,

employs force, makes a
serious
intimidation,
or
makes a serious resistance;
The crime is not based on the material

consequence of the unlawful act. The
crime of direct assault punishes the spirit of
lawlessness and the contempt or hatred for
the authority or the rule of law.
To be specific, if a judge was killed while he
was holding a session, the killing is not the
direct assault, but murder. There could be
direct assault if the offender killed the judge
simply because the judge is so strict in the
fulfillment of his duty. It is the spirit of hate
which is the essence of direct assault.
So, where the spirit is present, it is always
complexed with the material consequence
of the unlawful act. If the unlawful act was
murder or homicide committed under
circumstance of lawlessness or contempt of
authority, the crime would be direct assault
with murder or homicide, as the case may
be. In the example of the judge who was
killed, the crime is direct assault with
murder or homicide.
The only time when it is not complexed is
when material consequence is a light
felony, that is, slight physical injury. Direct
assault absorbs the lighter felony; the crime
of direct assault can not be separated from
26
the material result of the act. So, if an

offender who is charged with direct assault
and in another court for the slight physical
Injury which is part of the act, acquittal or
conviction in one is a bar to the prosecution
in the other.
Example of the first form of direct assault:
Three men broke into a National Food
Authority
warehouse
and
lamented
sufferings of the people. They called on
people to help themselves to all the rice.
They did not even help themselves to a
single grain.
The crime committed was direct assault.
There was no robbery for there was no
intent to gain. The crime is direct assault
by committing acts of sedition under Article
139 (5), that is, spoiling of the property, for
any political or social end, of any person
municipality or province or the national
government of all or any its property, but
there is no public uprising.
Person in authority is any person directly
vested with jurisdiction, whether
as an individual or as a member
of some court or government
corporation,
board,
or
commission.
A barangay
chairman is deemed a person in
authority.
Agent of a person in authority is any person
who by direct provision of law or
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, such
as a barangay councilman, barrio
policeman, barangay leader and
any person who comes to the aid
of a person in authority.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148
and 151, teachers, professors, and persons
charged with the supervision of public or
duly recognized private schools, colleges
and universities and lawyers in the actual

performance of their duties or on the
occasion of such performance, shall be
deemed a person in authority.
In direct assault of the first form, the stature
of the offended person is immaterial. The
crime is manifested by the spirit of
lawlessness.
In the second form, you have to distinguish
a situation where a person in authority or
his agent was attacked while performing
official functions, from a situation when he
is not performing such functions. If attack
was done during the exercise of official
functions, the crime is always direct
assault. It is enough that the offender
knew that the person in authority was
performing an official function whatever
may be the reason for the attack, although
what may have happened was a purely
private affair.
On the other hand, if the person in
authority or the agent was killed when no
longer performing official functions, the
crime may simply be the material
consequence of he unlawful act: murder or
homicide.
For the crime to be direct
assault, the attack must be by reason of his
official function in the past.
Motive
becomes important in this respect.
Example, if a judge was killed while
resisting the taking of his watch, there is no
direct assault.
In the second form of direct assault, it is
also important that the offended party knew
that the person he is attacking is a person
in authority or an agent of a person in
authority, performing his official functions.
No knowledge, no lawlessness or
contempt.
For example, if two persons were
quarreling and a policeman in civilian
clothes comes and stops them, but one of
the protagonists stabs the policeman, there
would be no direct assault unless the
offender knew that he is a policeman.
27
In this respect it is enough that the offender

should know that the offended party was
exercising some form of authority. It is not
necessary that the offender knows what is
meant by person in authority or an agent of
one because ignorantia legis non excusat.
Article 150. Disobedience to Summons

Issued by Congress, Its Committees or
Subcommittees, by the Constitutional
Commissions,
Its
Committees,
Subcommittees or Divisions
Acts punished
Article 149. Indirect Assault

1.
By refusing, without legal excuse, to

obey summons of Congress, its
special or standing committees and
subcommittees, the Constitutional
Commissions and its committees,
subcommittees or divisions, or by
any commission or committee
chairman or member authorized to
summon witnesses;
2.
By refusing to be sworn or placed

under affirmation while being before
such legislative or constitutional
body or official;
3.
By refusing to answer any legal

inquiry or to produce any books,
papers, documents, or records in his
possession, when required by them
to do so in the exercise of their
functions;
4.
By
restraining
another
from
attending as a witness in such
legislative or constitutional body;
5.
By inducing disobedience to a
summons or refusal to be sworn by
any such body or official.
Elements
1.
A person in authority or his agent is

the victim of any of the forms of
direct assault defined in Article 148;
2.
A person comes to the aid of such

authority or his agent;
3.
Offender makes use of force or

intimidation upon such person
coming to the aid of the authority or
his agent.
The victim in indirect assault should be a

private person who comes in aid of an
agent of a person in authority. The assault
is upon a person who comes in aid of the
person in authority. The victim cannot be
the person in authority or his agent.
There is no indirect assault when there is
no direct assault.
Take note that under Article 152, as
amended, when any person comes in aid
of a person in authority, said person at that
moment is no longer a civilian he is
constituted as an agent of the person in
authority. If such person were the one
attacked, the crime would be direct assault.
Due to the amendment of Article 152,
without the corresponding amendment in
Article 150, the crime of indirect assault can
only be committed when assault is upon a
civilian giving aid to an agent of the person
in authority. He does not become another
agent of the person in authority.
Article
151.
Resistance
and
Disobedience to A Person in Authority or
the Agents of Such Person
Elements
1.
of
resistance and serious

disobedience under the first
paragraph
A person in authority or his agent is

engaged in the performance of
28
official duty or gives a lawful order to

the offender;
2.
Offender
resists
or
seriously
disobeys such person in authority or
his agent;
3.
The act of the offender is not

included in the provision of Articles
148, 149 and 150.
Elements of simple disobedience under the

second paragraph
1.
An agent of a person in authority is

official duty or gives a lawful order to
the offender;
2.
Offender disobeys such agent of a

person in authority;
3.
Such disobedience is not of a

serious nature.
Distinction between resistance or serious

disobedience and direct assault
1.
In resistance, the person in authority

or his agent must be in actual
performance of his duties.
In direct assault, the person in
authority or his agent must be
official duties or that he is assaulted
by reason thereof.
2.
Resistance or serious disobedience

is committed only by resisting or
seriously disobeying a person in
Direct assault (the second form) is
committed in four ways, that is, (1)
by attacking, (2) by employing force,
(3) by seriously intimidating, and (4)
by seriously resisting a persons in
3.
In both resistance against an agent

of a person in authority and direct
assault by resisting an agent of a
person in authority, there is force
employed, but the use of force in
resistance is not so serious, as
there is no manifest intention to defy
the law and the officers enforcing it.
The attack or employment of force
which gives rise to the crime of
direct assault must be serious and
deliberate; otherwise, even a case
of simple resistance to an arrest,
which always requires the use of
force of some kind, would constitute
direct assault and the lesser offense
of resistance or disobedience in
Article 151 would entirely disappear.
But when the one resisted is a
person I authority, the use of any
kind or degree of force will give rise
to direct assault.
If no force is employed by the
offender in resisting or disobeying a
person in authority, the crime
committed is resistance or serious
disobedience
under
the
first
paragraph of Article 151.
Who are deemed persons in authority and

agents of persons in authority under Article
152
A person in authority is one directly vested
with jurisdiction, that is, the power and
authority to govern and execute the laws.
An agent of a person in authority is one
charged with (1) the maintenance of public
order and (2) the protection and security of
life and property.
Examples of persons in authority
29
1. Municipal mayor;
where public functions or performances are

being held.
2. Division superintendent of schools;

3. Public and private school teachers;
4. Teacher-nurse;
For a crime to be under this article, it must

not fall under Articles 131 (prohibition,
interruption, and dissolution of peaceful
meetings) and 132 (interruption of religious
worship).
5. President of sanitary division;

6. Provincial fiscal;
7. Justice of the Peace;
8. Municipal councilor;
9. Barrio captain and barangay chairman.
Article 153.
Tumults and
Disturbances of Public Order
Other
Acts punished
1.
Causing any serious disturbance in

a
public
place,
office
or
establishment;
2.
Interrupting
or
disturbing
performances,
functions
or
gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if
the act is not included in Articles 131
and 132;
3.
Making any outcry tending to incite

rebellion or sedition in any meeting,
association or public place;
4.
Displaying placards or emblems

which provoke a disturbance of
public order in such place;
5.
Burying with pomp the body of a

person who has been legally
executed.
In the act of making outcry during speech

tending to incite rebellion or
sedition, the situation must be
distinguished from inciting to
sedition or rebellion. If the
speaker, even before he delivered
his speech, already had the
criminal intent to incite the
listeners to rise to sedition, the
crime would be inciting to sedition.
However, if the offender had no
such criminal intent, but in the
course of his speech, tempers
went high and so the speaker
started inciting the audience to
rise in sedition against the
government,
the
crime
is
disturbance of the public order.
The disturbance of the pubic order is
tumultuous and the penalty is increased if it
is brought about by armed men. The term
armed does not refer to firearms but
includes even big stones capable of
causing grave injury.
It is also disturbance of the public order if a
convict legally put to death is buried with
pomp. He should not be made out as a
martyr; it might incite others to hatred.
Article 154. Unlawful Use of Means of
Publication and Unlawful Utterances
Acts punished
1.
The essence is creating public disorder.

This crime is brought about by creating
serious disturbances in public places,
public buildings, and even in private places
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
30
order; or cause damage to the

interest or credit of the State;
2.
3.
4.
Encouraging disobedience to the

law or to the constituted authorities
or praising, justifying or extolling any
act punished by law, by the same
means or by words, utterances or
speeches;
Maliciously publishing or causing to
be published any official resolution
or
document
without
proper
authority, or before they have been
published officially;
Printing, publishing or distributing
(or causing the same) books,
pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets
which do not bear the real printers
name, or which are classified as
anonymous.
4.
When a person discharges a firearm in

public, the act may constitute any of the
possible crimes under the Revised Penal
Code:
(1) Alarms and scandals if the firearm
when discharged was not
directed
to any particular
person;
(2) Illegal discharge of firearm under Article
254 if the firearm is directed or pointed
to a particular person when discharged
but intent to kill is absent;
(3)
Actual public disorder or actual damage to

the credit of the State is not necessary.
Republic Act No. 248 prohibits the
reprinting, reproduction or republication of
government publications and official
documents without previous authority.
Article 155. Alarms and Scandals
Acts punished
1.
Discharging any firearm, rocket,

firecracker, or other explosive within
any town or public place, calculated
to cause (which produces) alarm of
danger;
2.
Instigating or taking an active part in

any charivari or other disorderly
meeting offensive to another or
prejudicial to public tranquility;
3.
Disturbing the public peace while

wandering about at night or while
engaged in any other nocturnal
amusements;
Causing any disturbance or scandal

in public places while intoxicated or
otherwise, provided Article 153 in
not applicable.
Attempted homicide, murder, or

parricide if the firearm when
discharged is directed against a
person and intent to kill is present.
In this connection, understand that it is not

necessary that the offended party be
wounded or hit. Mere discharge of firearm
towards another with intent to kill already
amounts to attempted homicide or
attempted murder or attempted parricide. It
can not be frustrated because the offended
party is not mortally wounded.
In Araneta v. Court of Appeals, it was
held that if a person is shot at and is
wounded, the crime is automatically
attempted homicide. Intent to kill is
inherent in the use of the deadly
weapon.
The crime alarms and scandal is only one
crime.
Do not think that alarms and
scandals are two crimes.
Scandal here does not refer to moral
scandal; that one is grave scandal in Article
200.
The essence of the crime is
disturbance of public tranquility and public
31
peace. So, any kind of disturbance of

public order where the circumstance at the
time renders the act offensive to the
tranquility
prevailing,
the
crime
is
committed.
Charivari is a mock serenade wherein the
supposed serenaders use broken
cans, broken pots, bottles or other
utensils thereby creating discordant
notes. Actually, it is producing noise,
not music and so it also disturbs
public tranquility.
Understand the
nature of the crime of alarms and
scandals as one that disturbs public
tranquility or public peace. If the
annoyance is intended for a particular
person, the crime is unjust vexation.
Even if the persons involved are engaged
in nocturnal activity like those playing
patintero at night, or selling balut, if they
conduct their activity in such a way that
disturbs public peace, they may commit the
crime of alarms and scandals.
Article 156.
Jail
Delivering Prisoners from
Elements
1.
2.
There is a person confined in a jail

or penal establishment;
Offender removes therefrom such
person, or helps the escape of such
person.
Penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum

period to prision correccional in its minimum
period is imposed if violence, intimidation or
bribery is used.
Penalty of arresto mayor if other means are
used.
Penalty decreased to the minimum period if
the escape of the prisoner shall take place
outside of said establishments by taking the
guards by surprise.
In relation to infidelity in the custody of

prisoners, correlate the crime of
delivering person from jail with
infidelity in the custody of
prisoners punished under Articles
223, 224 and 225 of the Revised
Penal Code. In both acts, the
offender may be a public officer
or a private citizen. Do not think
that infidelity in the custody of
prisoners can only be committed
by a public officer and delivering
persons from jail can only be
committed by private person.
Both crimes may be committed
by public officers as well as
private persons.
In both crimes, the person involved may be
a convict or a mere detention prisoner.
The only point of distinction between the
two crimes lies on whether the offender is
the custodian of the prisoner or not at the
time the prisoner was made to escape. If
the offender is the custodian at that time,
the crime is infidelity in the custody of
prisoners. But if the offender is not the
custodian of the prisoner at that time, even
though he is a public officer, the crime he
committed is delivering prisoners from jail.
Liability of the prisoner or detainee who
escaped When these crimes are
committed, whether infidelity in the
custody of prisoners or delivering
prisoners from jail, the prisoner so
escaping may also have criminal
liability and this is so if the prisoner
is a convict serving sentence by
final judgment.
The crime of
evasion of service of sentence is
committed by the prisoner who
escapes if such prisoner is a
convict serving sentence by final
judgment.
If the prisoner who escapes is only a
detention prisoner, he does not incur
32
liability from escaping if he does not know

of the plan to remove him from jail. But if
such prisoner knows of the plot to remove
him from jail and cooperates therein by
escaping, he himself becomes liable for
delivering prisoners from jail as a principal
by indispensable cooperation.
4.
If three persons are involved a stranger,

the custodian and the prisoner three
crimes are committed:
(1)
By simply leaving or escaping from

the penal establishment under
Article 157;
(1)
Infidelity in the custody of prisoners;
(2)
(2)
Delivery of the prisoner from jail;

and
(3)
Evasion of service of sentence.
Failure to return within 48 hours

after
having
left
the
penal
establishment
because
of
a
calamity, conflagration or mutiny
and such calamity, conflagration or
mutiny has been announced as
already passed under Article 158;
(3)
Violating the condition of conditional

pardon under Article 159.
Article 157.
Sentence
Evasion of Service of
Elements
1. Offender is a convict by final judgment;
2. He is serving sentence which consists
in the deprivation of liberty;
3. He evades service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his
imprisonment.
Qualifying circumstances as to penalty
imposed
Through connivance with other

convicts or employees of the penal
institution.
Evasion of service of sentence has three

forms:
In leaving or escaping from jail or prison,

that the prisoner immediately
returned is immaterial.
It is
enough that he left the penal
establishment
by
escaping
therefrom. His voluntary return
may only be mitigating, being
analogous to voluntary surrender.
But the same will not absolve his
criminal liability.
If such evasion or escape takes place
Article 158.
Evasion of Service of
Sentence on the Occasion of Disorders,
Conflagrations, Earthquakes, or Other
Calamities
1.
Elements
By means of unlawful entry (this

should be by scaling - Reyes);
2.
By breaking doors, windows, gates,

walls, roofs or floors;
3.
By using picklock, false keys,

disguise,
deceit,
violence
or
intimidation; or
1.
Offender is a convict by final

judgment, who is confined in a
penal institution;
2.
There is disorder, resulting from

a.
conflagration;
b.
earthquake;
33
3.
4.
c.
explosion; or
d.
similar catastrophe; or
e.
mutiny in which he has not

participated;
He evades the service of his

sentence by leaving the penal
institution where he is confined, on
the occasion of such disorder or
during the mutiny;
He fails to give himself up to the
authorities within 48 hours following
the issuance of a proclamation by
the Chief Executive announcing the
passing away of such calamity.
The leaving from the penal establishment is

not the basis of criminal liability. It
is the failure to return within 48
hours after the passing of the
calamity, conflagration or mutiny
had been announced.
Under
Article 158, those who return
within 48 hours are given credit or
deduction from the remaining
period of their sentence equivalent
to 1/5 of the original term of the
sentence. But if the prisoner fails
to return within said 48 hours, an
added penalty, also 1/5, shall be
imposed but the 1/5 penalty is
based on the remaining period of
the sentence, not on the original
sentence. In no case shall that
penalty exceed six months.
Those who did not leave the penal
establishment are not entitled to the 1/5
credit. Only those who left and returned
within the 48-hour period.
The mutiny referred to in the second form

of evasion of service of sentence
does not include riot. The mutiny
referred
to
here
involves
subordinate
personnel
rising
against the supervisor within the
penal establishment. One who
escapes during a riot will be
subject to Article 157, that is,
simply leaving or escaping the
penal establishment.
Mutiny is one of the causes which may
authorize a convict serving sentence
in the penitentiary to leave the jail
provided he has not taken part in the
mutiny.
The crime of evasion of service of sentence
may be committed even if the
sentence is destierro, and this is
committed if the convict sentenced
to destierro will enter the
prohibited places or come within
the prohibited radius of 25
kilometers to such places as
stated in the judgment.
If the sentence violated is destierro, the
penalty upon the convict is to be served by
way of destierro also, not imprisonment.
This is so because the penalty for the
evasion can not be more severe than the
penalty evaded.
Article 159. Other Cases of Evasion of
Service of Sentence
Elements of violation of conditional pardon
1.
Offender was a convict;
2.
He was granted pardon by the Chief

Executive;
3.
He violated any of the conditions of

such pardon.
34
In violation of conditional pardon, as a rule,

the violation will amount to this
crime only if the condition is
violated during the remaining
period of the sentence.
As a
rule, if the condition of the pardon
is violated when the remaining
unserved portion of the sentence
has already lapsed, there will be
no more criminal liability for the
violation. However, the convict
maybe required to serve the
unserved portion of the sentence,
that is, continue serving original
penalty.
The administrative liability of the convict
under the conditional pardon is different
and has nothing to do with his criminal
liability for the evasion of service of
sentence in the event that the condition of
the pardon has been violated. Exception:
where the violation of the condition of the
pardon will constitute evasion of service of
sentence, even though committed beyond
the remaining period of the sentence. This
is when the conditional pardon expressly
so provides or the language of the
conditional pardon clearly shows the
intention to make the condition perpetual
even beyond the unserved portion of the
sentence. In such case, the convict may
be required to serve the unserved portion
of the sentence even though the violation
has taken place when the sentence has
already lapsed.
In order that the conditional pardon may be
violated, it is conditional that the pardonee
received the conditional pardon. If he is
released without conformity to the
conditional pardon, he will not be liable for
the crime of evasion of service of sentence.
Is the violation of conditional pardon

a substantive offense?
Under Article 159, there are two
situations provided:
(1)
There is a penalty of prision

correccional minimum for the
violation of the conditional pardon;
(2)
There is no new penalty imposed

for the violation of the conditional
pardon. Instead, the convict will be
required to serve the unserved
portion of the sentence.
If the remitted portion of the

sentence is less than six years or up to six
years, there is an added penalty of prision
correccional minimum for the violation of
the conditional pardon; hence, the violation
is a substantive offense if the remitted
portion of the sentence does not exceed six
years because in this case a new penalty is
imposed for the violation of the conditional
pardon.
But if the remitted portion of the
sentence exceeds six years, the violation of
the conditional pardon is not a substantive
offense because no new penalty is
imposed for the violation.
In other words, you have to qualify
your answer.
The Supreme Court, however, has
ruled in the case of Angeles v. Jose that
this is not a substantive offense. This has
been highly criticized.
Article 160.
Commission of Another
Crime During Service of Penalty Imposed
for Another Previous Offense
Elements
Question & Answer
1.
Offender was already convicted by

final judgment of one offense;
35
2.
11.
Falsification by private individuals

and use of falsified documents (Art.
172);
12.
Falsification of wireless, cable,

telegraph and telephone messages
and use of said falsified messages
(Art. 173);
13.
False medical certificates, false

certificates of merit or service (Art.
174);
14.
Using false certificates (Art. 175);
15.
Manufacturing and possession of

instruments or implements for
falsification (Art. 176);
16.
Usurpation of authority or official

functions (Art. 177);
17.
Using
fictitious
name
and
concealing true name (Art. 178);
18.
Illegal use of uniforms or insignia

(Art. 179);
19.
False testimony against a defendant

(Art. 180);
20.
False testimony favorable to the

defendant (Art. 181);
21.
False testimony in civil cases (Art.

182);
22.
False testimony in other cases and

perjury (Art. 183);
23.
Offering false testimony in evidence

(Art. 184);
He committed a new felony before

beginning to serve such sentence or
while serving the same.
TITLE IV.
INTEREST
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC
Crimes against public interest

1.
Counterfeiting the great seal of the

Government of the Philippines (Art.
161);
2.
Using
forged
signature
or
counterfeiting seal or stamp (Art.
162);
3.
Making and importing and uttering

false coins (Art. 163);
4.
Mutilation of coins, importation and

uttering of mutilated coins (Art. 164);
5.
Selling of false or mutilated coins,

without connivance (Art. 165);
6.
Forging treasury or bank notes or

other documents payable to bearer,
importing and uttering of such false
or forged notes and documents (Art.
166);
7.
8.
Counterfeiting,
importing
and
uttering instruments not payable to
bearer (Art. 167);
Illegal possession and use of forged
treasury or bank notes and other
instruments of credit (Art. 168);
9.
Falsification
of
documents (Art. 170);
legislative
24.
Machinations in public auction (Art.

185);
10.
Falsification by public officer,

employee or notary (Art. 171);
25.
Monopolies and combinations in

restraint of trade (Art. 186);
26.
Importation and
falsely
marked
disposition
articles
of
or
36
merchandise made of gold, silver, or

other precious metals or their alloys
(Art. 187);
27.
28.
Substituting and altering trade

marks and trade names or service
marks (Art. 188);
Unfair competition and fraudulent
registration of trade mark or trade
name, or service mark; fraudulent
designation of origin, and false
description (Art. 189).
2.
Offender knew of the counterfeiting

or forgery;
3.
He used the counterfeit seal or

forged signature or stamp.
Offender under this article should not be

the forger.
Article 163. Making and Importing and
Uttering False Coins
Elements
The crimes in this title are in the nature of

fraud or falsity to the public. The essence
of the crime under this title is that which
defraud the public in general. There is
deceit perpetrated upon the public. This is
the act that is being punished under this
title.
1.
There be false or counterfeited

coins;
2.
Offender either made, imported or

uttered such coins;
3.
In case of uttering such false or

counterfeited coins, he connived
with the counterfeiters or importers.
Article 161. Counterfeiting the Great

Seal of the Government of the Philippine
Islands, Forging the Signature or Stamp
of the Chief Executive
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is

punished
Acts punished
1.
Silver coins of the Philippines or

coins of the Central Bank of the
Philippines;
2.
Coins of the minor coinage of the

Philippines or of the Central Bank of
the Philippines;
3.
Coin of the currency of a foreign

country.
1.
Forging the great seal of

Government of the Philippines;
the
2.
Forging the
President;
the
3.
Forging the stamp of the President.
signature
of
Article 162. Using Forged Signature or

Counterfeit Seal or Stamp
Article 164. Mutilation of Coins
Elements
Acts punished
1.
1.
The great seal of the Republic was

counterfeited or the signature or
stamp of the Chief Executive was
forged by another person;
Mutilating coins of the legal

currency,
with
the
further
requirements that there be intent to
damage or to defraud another;
37
2.
Importing or uttering such mutilated

coins, with the further requirement
that there must be connivances with
the mutilator or importer in case of
uttering.
The first acts of falsification or falsity are

(1)
Counterfeiting refers to money or

currency;
(2)
Forgery refers to instruments of

credit and obligations and securities
issued by the Philippine government
or any banking institution authorized
by the Philippine government to
issue the same;
(3)
Falsification can only be

committed in respect of documents.
In so far as coins in circulation are

concerned, there are two crimes that may
be committed:
(1)
Counterfeiting coins -- This is the

crime of remaking or manufacturing
without any authority to do so.
In the crime of counterfeiting, the law is not

concerned with the fraud upon the public
such that even though the coin is no longer
legal tender, the act of imitating or
manufacturing the coin of the government
is penalized. In punishing the crime of
counterfeiting, the law wants to prevent
people from trying their ingenuity in their
imitation of the manufacture of money.
It is not necessary that the coin
counterfeited be legal tender. So that even
if the coin counterfeited is of vintage, the
crime of counterfeiting is committed. The
reason is to bar the counterfeiter from
perfecting his craft of counterfeiting. The
law punishes the act in order to discourage
people from ever attempting to gain
expertise in gaining money.
This is
because if people could counterfeit money
with impunity just because it is no longer

legal tender, people would try to counterfeit
non-legal tender coins.
Soon, if they
develop the expertise to make the
counterfeiting more or less no longer
discernible or no longer noticeable, they
could make use of their ingenuity to
counterfeit coins of legal tender. From that
time on, the government shall have
difficulty determining which coins are
counterfeited and those which are not. It
may happen that the counterfeited coins
may look better than the real ones. So,
counterfeiting is penalized right at the very
start whether the coin is legal tender or
otherwise.
Question & Answer

X has in his possession a coin
which was legal tender at the time of
Magellan and is considered a collectors
item. He manufactured several pieces of
that coin. Is the crime committed?
Yes. It is not necessary that the
coin be of legal tender. The provision
punishing counterfeiting does not require
that the money be of legal tender and the
law punishes this even if the coin
concerned is not of legal tender in order to
discourage people from practicing their
ingenuity of imitating money. If it were
otherwise, people may at the beginning try
their ingenuity in imitating money not of
legal tender and once they acquire
expertise, they may then counterfeit money
of legal tender.
(2)
Mutilation of coins -- This refers to

the deliberate act of diminishing the
proper metal contents of the coin
either by scraping, scratching or
filling the edges of the coin and the
offender gathers the metal dust that
has been scraped from the coin.
38
Requisites of mutilation under the Revised

Penal Code
about by the fact that the intrinsic value of

the coin is reduced.
(1)
(1)
Coin mutilated is of legal
tender;
(2)
Offender gains from the precious

metal dust abstracted from the coin;
and
(3)
It has to be a coin.
The offender must deliberately reduce the

precious metal in the coin. Deliberate
intent arises only when the offender
collects the precious metal dust from the
mutilated coin. If the offender does not
collect such dust, intent to mutilate is
absent, but Presidential Decree No. 247
will apply.
Mutilation is being regarded as a crime

because the coin, being of legal tender, it is
still in circulation and which would
necessarily prejudice other people who
may come across the coin. For example, X
mutilated a P 2.00 coin, the octagonal one,
by converting it into a round one and
extracting 1/10 of the precious metal dust
from it. The coin here is no longer P2.00
but only P 1.80, therefore, prejudice to the
public has resulted.
There is no expertise involved here. In
mutilation of coins under the Revised Penal
Code, the offender does nothing but to
scrape, pile or cut the coin and collect the
dust and, thus, diminishing the intrinsic
value of the coin.
Mutilation of coins is a crime only if the coin
mutilated is legal tender. If the coin whose
metal content has been depreciated
through scraping, scratching, or filing the
coin and the offender collecting the
precious metal dust, even if he would use
the coin after its intrinsic value had been
reduced, nobody will accept the same. If it
is not legal tender anymore, no one will
accept it, so nobody will be defrauded. But
if the coin is of legal tender, and the
offender minimizes or decreases the
precious metal dust content of the coin, the
crime of mutilation is committed.
In the example, if the offender has
collected 1/10 of the P 2.00 coin, the coin is
actually worth only P 1.80. He is paying
only P1.80 in effect defrauding the seller of
P .20. Punishment for mutilation is brought
Presidential
Decree
No.
247
(Defacement,
Mutilation,
Tearing,
Burning or Destroying Central Bank
Notes and Coins)
It shall be unlawful for any person to
willfully deface, mutilate, tear, burn, or
destroy in any manner whatsoever,
currency notes and coins issued by the
Central Bank.
Mutilation under the Revised Penal Code is
true only to coins. It cannot be a crime
under the Revised Penal Code to mutilate
paper bills because the idea of mutilation
under the code is collecting the precious
metal dust. However, under Presidential
Decree No. 247, mutilation is not limited to
coins.
Questions & Answers

1.
The people playing cara y
cruz, before they throw the coin in the air
would rub the money to the sidewalk
thereby diminishing the intrinsic value of the
coin. Is the crime of mutilation committed?
Mutilation, under the Revised Penal
Code, is not committed because they do
not collect the precious metal content that
is being scraped from the coin. However,
this will amount to violation of Presidential
Decree No. 247.
39
2.
When the image of Jose
Rizal on a five-peso bill is transformed into
that of Randy Santiago, is there a violation
of Presidential Decree No. 247?
Yes. Presidential Decree No. 247 is
violated by such act.
3.
Sometime before martial law
was imposed, the people lost confidence in
banks that they preferred hoarding their
money than depositing it in banks. Former
President Ferdinand Marcos declared upon
declaration of martial law that all bills
without the Bagong Lipunan sign on them
will no longer be recognized. Because of
this, the people had no choice but to
surrender their money to banks and
exchange them with those with the Bagong
Lipunan sign on them. However, people
who came up with a lot of money were also
being charged with hoarding for which
reason certain printing presses did the
stamping of the Bagong Lipunan sign
themselves to avoid prosecution.
Was
there a violation of Presidential Decree No.
247?
Yes. This act of the printing presses
is a violation of Presidential Decree No.
247.
4.
An old woman who was a
cigarette vendor in Quiapo refused to
accept one-centavo coins for payment of
the vendee of cigarettes he purchased.
Then came the police who advised her that
she has no right to refuse since the coins
are of legal tender. On this, the old woman
accepted in her hands the one-centavo
coins and then threw it to the face of the
vendee and the police.
Was the old
woman guilty of violating Presidential
Decree No. 247?
5.
A certain customer in a
restaurant wanted to show off and used a P
20.00 bill to light his cigarette. Was he
guilty of violating Presidential Decree No.
247?
He was guilty of arrested for
violating of Presidential Decree No. 247.
Anyone who is in possession of defaced
money is the one who is the violator of
Presidential Decree No. 247. The intention
of Presidential Decree No. 247 is not to
punish the act of defrauding the public but
what is being punished is the act of
destruction of money issued by the Central
Bank of the Philippines.
Note that persons making bracelets out of
some coins violate Presidential Decree No.
247.
The primary purpose of Presidential Decree
No. 247 at the time it was ordained was to
stop the practice of people writing at the
back or on the edges of the paper bills,
such as "wanted: pen pal".
So, if the act of mutilating coins does not
involve gathering dust like playing cara y
cruz, that is not mutilation under the
Revised Penal Code because the offender
does not collect the metal dust. But by
rubbing the coins on the sidewalk, he also
defaces and destroys the coin and that is
punishable under Presidential Decree No.
247.
Article 165. Selling of False or Mutilated
Coin, without Connivance
Acts punished
1.
She was guilty of violating

Presidential Decree No. 247 because if no
one ever picks up the coins, her act would
result in the diminution of the coin in
circulation.
Possession of coin, counterfeited or

mutilated by another person, with
intent to utter the same, knowing
that it is false or mutilated;
Elements
40
1. Possession;
2. With intent to utter; and
3. Knowledge.
2.
Actually uttering such false or

mutilated coin, knowing the same to
be false or mutilated.
Article 168. Illegal Possession and Use

of False Treasury or Bank Notes and
Other Instruments of Credit
Elements
1.
Any treasury or bank note or

certificate or other obligation and
security 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.
Offender knows that any of those

instruments is forged or falsified;
3.
He either
Elements
1. Actually uttering; and
2. Knowledge.
Article 166. Forging Treasury or Bank
Notes or Other Documents Payable to
Bearer; Importing and Uttering Such
False or Forged Notes and Documents
a.
uses any of such forged or

falsified instruments; or
b.
possesses with intent to use

any of such forged or
falsified instruments.
Acts punished
1.
Forging or falsification of treasury or

bank notes or other documents
payable to bearer;
2.
Importation of such false or forged

obligations or notes;
3.
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. There is an instrument payable to order
or other documents of credit not
payable to bearer;
2. Offender either forged, imported or
uttered such instrument;
3. In case of uttering, he connived with the
forger or importer.
How forgery is committed under Article 169

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.
Forgery under the Revised Penal Code
applies to papers, which are in the form
of obligations and securities issued by
the Philippine government as its own
obligations, which is given the same
status as legal tender. Generally, the
word counterfeiting is not used when it
comes to notes; what is used is
41
forgery.
Counterfeiting refers
money, whether coins or bills.
to
The Revised Penal Code defines

forgery under Article 169. Notice that
mere change on a document does not
amount to this crime. The essence of
forgery is giving a document the
appearance of a true and genuine
document. Not any alteration of a
letter, number, figure or design would
amount to forgery. At most, it would
only be frustrated forgery.
When what is being counterfeited is
obligation or securities, which under the
Revised Penal Code is given a status of
money or legal tender, the crime
committed is forgery.
Questions & Answers

1. Instead of the peso sign (P),
somebody replaced it with a dollar sign
($).
Was the crime of forgery
committed?
No. Forgery was not committed. The
forged instrument and currency note
must be given the appearance of a true
and genuine document.
The crime
committed is a violation of Presidential
Decree No. 247. Where the currency
note, obligation or security has been
changed to make it appear as one
which it purports to be as genuine, the
crime is forgery.
In checks or
commercial documents, this crime is
committed when the figures or words
are changed which materially alters the
document.
2. An old man, in his desire to earn
something, scraped a digit in a losing
sweepstakes ticket, cut out a digit from
another ticket and pasted it there to
match the series of digits corresponding
to the winning sweepstakes ticket. He
presented this ticket to the Philippine
Charity Sweepstakes Office. But the

alteration is so crude that even a child
can notice that the supposed digit is
merely superimposed on the digit that
was scraped. Was the old man guilty of
forgery?
Because of the impossibility of
deceiving whoever would be the person
to whom that ticket is presented, the
Supreme Court ruled that what was
committed was an impossible crime.
Note, however, that the decision has
been criticized. In a case like this, the
Supreme Court of Spain ruled that the
crime is frustrated.
Where the
alteration is such that nobody would be
deceived, one could easily see that it is
a forgery, the crime is frustrated
because he has done all the acts of
execution which would bring about the
felonious
consequence
but
nevertheless did not result in a
consummation for reasons independent
of his will.
3. A person has a twenty-peso bill. He
applied toothache drops on one side of
the bill. He has a mimeograph paper
similar in texture to that of the currency
note and placed it on top of the twentypeso bill and put some weight on top of
the paper. After sometime, he removed
it and the printing on the twenty-peso
bill was reproduced on the mimeo
paper. He took the reverse side of the
P20 bill, applied toothache drops and
reversed the mimeo paper and pressed
it to the paper. After sometime, he
removed it and it was reproduced. He
cut it out, scraped it a little and went to
a sari-sari store trying to buy a cigarette
with that bill. What he overlooked was
that, when he placed the bill, the
printing was inverted.
He was
apprehended and was prosecuted and
convicted of forgery. Was the crime of
forgery committed?
The Supreme Court ruled that it was
only
frustrated
forgery
because
42
although the offender has performed all

the acts of execution, it is not possible
because by simply looking at the forged
document, it could be seen that it is not
genuine.
It can only be a
consummated forgery if the document
which purports to be genuine is given
the appearance of a true and genuine
document. Otherwise, it is at most
frustrated.
Article
170.
Falsification
Legislative Documents
(1) Falsification
documents;
of
legislative
(2) Falsification of a document

by a public officer, employee or
notary public;
(3) Falsification of a public or
official,
or
commercial
documents
by
a
private
individual;
of
(4) Falsification of a private
document by any person;
Elements
1. There is a bill, resolution or
ordinance enacted or approved
or pending approval by either
House of the Legislature or any
provincial board or municipal
council;
2. Offender alters the same;
3. He has no proper authority therefor;
4. The alteration has changed
the meaning of the documents.
The words "municipal council" should
include the city council or municipal
board Reyes.
The crime of falsification must involve a
writing that is a document in the legal
sense. The writing must be complete in
itself and capable of extinguishing an
obligation or creating rights or capable
of becoming evidence of the facts
stated therein. Until and unless the
writing has attained this quality, it will
not be considered as document in the
legal sense and, therefore, the crime of
falsification cannot be committed in
respect thereto.
Five classes of falsification:
(5) Falsification of wireless,

telegraph
and
telephone
messages.
Distinction between falsification and
forgery:
Falsification is the commission of any of
the eight acts mentioned in Article 171
on legislative (only the act of making
alteration),
public
or
official,
commercial, or private documents, or
wireless, or telegraph messages.
The term forgery as used in Article 169
refers
to
the
falsification
and
counterfeiting of treasury or bank notes
or any instruments payable to bearer or
to order.
Note that forging and falsification are
crimes under Forgeries.
Article 171. Falsification by Public
Officer, Employee or Notary or
Ecclesiastical Minister
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer,
employee, or notary public;
2. He takes advantage of his
official position;
43
3. He falsifies a document by
committing any of the following
acts:
a. 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
statements other than
those in fact made by
them;
d. Making
untruthful
statements in a narration
of facts;
e. Altering true dates;
f. Making any alteration
or intercalation in a
genuine document which
changes its meaning;
g. Issuing
in
an
authenticated form a
document
purporting
to be a copy of an
original document when
no such original exists, or
including in such a copy
a statement contrary to,
or different from, that of
the genuine original; or
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 who shall
commit any of the offenses
enumerated, with respect to any
record or document of such
character that its falsification
may affect the civil status of
persons.
For example, a customer in a hotel did
not write his name on the registry book,
which was intended to be a memorial of
those who got in and out of that hotel.
There is no complete document to
speak of.
The document may not
extinguish or create rights but it can be
an evidence of the facts stated therein.
Note that a check is not yet a document
when it is not completed yet.
If
somebody writes on it, he makes a
document out of it.
The document where a crime was
committed or the document subject of
the prosecution may be totally false in
the sense that it is entirely spurious.
This notwithstanding, the crime of
falsification is committed.
It does not require that the writing be
genuine.
Even if the writing was
through and through false, if it appears
to be genuine, the crime of falsification
is nevertheless committed.
Questions & Answers

1. A is one of those selling residence
certificates in Quiapo. He was brought
to the police precincts on suspicion that
the certificates he was selling to the
public proceed from spurious sources
and not from the Bureau of Treasury.
Upon verification, it was found out that
the certificates were indeed printed with
a booklet of supposed residence
44
certificates.
committed?
What
crime
was
Crime committed is violation of Article

176 (manufacturing and possession of
instruments
or
implements
for
falsification). A cannot be charged of
falsification because the booklet of
residence certificates found in his
possession is not in the nature of
document in the legal sense. They
are mere forms which are not to be
completed to be a document in the
legal sense. This is illegal possession
with intent to use materials or
apparatus which may be used in
counterfeiting/forgery or falsification.
on a bond paper a subpoena for estafa.

The spinster agreed to pay.
The
spinster went to the prosecutors office
to verify the exact amount and found
out that there was no charge against
her. The lawyer was prosecuted for
falsification. He contended that only a
genuine document could be falsified.
Rule.
As long as any of the acts of
falsification is committed, whether the
document is genuine or not, the crime
of falsification may be committed. Even
totally false documents may be falsified.
There are four kinds of documents:
2. Public officers found a traffic

violation receipts from a certain person.
The receipts were not issued by the
Motor Vehicle Office. For what crime
should he be prosecuted for?
It cannot be a crime of usurpation of
official functions.
It may be the
intention but no overt act was yet
performed by him. He was not arrested
while performing such overt act. He
was apprehended only while he was
standing on the street suspiciously.
Neither can he be prosecuted for
falsification because the document is
not completed yet, there being no name
of any erring driver. The document
remains to be a mere form. It not being
completed yet, the document does not
qualify as a document in the legal
sense.
4. Can the writing on the wall be
considered a document?
Yes. It is capable of speaking of the
facts stated therein. Writing may be on
anything as long as it is a product of the
handwriting, it is considered a
document.
5. In a case where a lawyer tried to
extract money from a spinster by typing
(1) Public document in the

execution of which, a person in
authority or notary public has
taken part;
(2) Official document in the
execution of which a public
official takes part;
(3) Commercial document or
any document recognized by the
Code of Commerce or any
commercial law; and
(4) Private document in the
execution of which only private
individuals take part.
Public document is broader than the
term official document.
Before a
document may be considered official, it
must first be a public document. But
not all public documents are official
documents.
To become an official
document, there must be a law which
requires a public officer to issue or to
render such document. Example: A
cashier is required to issue an official
receipt for the amount he receives. The
official receipt is a public document
which is an official document.
45
committed with intent to cause such

damage.
Article 172. Falsification by Private

Individual and Use of Falsified
Documents
Elements under the last paragraph

Acts punished
In introducing in a judicial proceeding
1. Falsification of public, official
or commercial document by a
private individual;
1. Offender knew that the document was

falsified by another person;
2. Falsification
of
private
document by any person;
2. The false document is in Articles 171 or

172 (1 or 2);
3. Use of falsified document.
3. He introduced said document

evidence in any judicial proceeding.
Elements under paragraph 1
In use in any other transaction
1. Offender
is
a
private
individual or public officer or
employee who did not take
advantage of his official position;
in
1. Offender knew that a document was

falsified by another person;
2. The false document is embraced in
Articles 171 or 172 (1 or 2);
2. He committed any act of falsification;

3.
The falsification was committed in a

public, official, or commercial
document or letter of exchange.
3. He used such document;

4. The use caused damage to another or
at least used with intent to cause
damage.

1. Offender committed any of the acts of
falsification
except
Article
171(7), that is, issuing in an
authenticated form a document
purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such
original exists, or including in
such a copy a statement
contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original;
2. Falsification was committed in any
private document;
3. Falsification causes damage to a third
party or at least the falsification was
Article 173. Falsification of Wireless,

Cable,
Telegraph
and
Telephone
Messages, and Use of Said Falsified
Messages
Acts punished
1.
Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph

or telephone message;
Elements
1,
Offender is an officer or
employee of the government
or an officer or employee of
a
private
corporation,
engaged in the service of
sending
or
receiving
46
wireless, cable or telephone

message;
2.
2.
He utters fictitious wireless,

cable,
telegraph
or
telephone message.
Falsifying wireless,
telephone message;
telegraph
or
Elements
1,
2.
3.
Offender is an officer or
a
private
corporation,
sending
or
receiving
message;
Article 174. False Medical Certificates,

False Certificates of Merits or Service,
Etc.
Persons liable
1. Physician
or
surgeon
who,
in
connection with the practice of
his profession, issues a false
certificate (it must refer to the
illness or injury of a person);
[The crime here is false medical
certificate by a physician.]
2. Public
[The crime here is false

certificate of merit or service by
a public officer.]
He falsifies wireless, cable,

telegraph
or
telephone
message.
Using such falsified message.
officer who issues a false

certificate of merit of service,
good
conduct
or
similar
circumstances;
3. Private person who falsifies a certificate

falling within the classes mentioned in
the two preceding subdivisions.
Elements
1.
Offender knew that wireless,

cable,
telegraph,
or
telephone message was
falsified by an officer or
a
private
corporation,
sending
or
receiving
message;
such
Article 175. Using False Certificates

Elements
1.
The following
certificate:
a.
issues
false
Physician or surgeon, in
connection with the practice
of his profession, issues a
false certificate;
2.
He used
dispatch;
falsified
b.
3.
The use resulted in the

prejudice of a third party or
at least there was intent to
cause such prejudice.
Public officer issues a

false certificate of
merit of service, good
conduct or similar
circumstances;
c.
Private
person
falsifies a certificate
falling
within
the
classes mentioned in
47
the two preceding

subdivisions.
2.
Offender knows that

certificate was false;
3.
He uses the same.
Article
176.
Manufacturing
Possession
of
Instruments
Implements for Falsification
2.
Pertaining to any person

authority or public officer
the Philippine government
any foreign government,
any agency thereof;
3.
Under pretense of official

position;
4.
Without
being
entitled to do so.
the
and
or
Acts punished
1.
2.
Making or introducing into the

Philippines any stamps, dies, marks,
or other instruments or implements
for counterfeiting or falsification;
Acts punished
1.
Possession with intent to use the

instruments or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification made
in or introduced into the Philippines
by another person.
Using fictitious name

Elements
1.
Offender uses a name other

than his real name;
2.
He uses the fictitious name

publicly;
3.
Purpose of use is to conceal

a crime, to evade the
execution of a judgment or to
cause damage [to public
interest Reyes].
Acts punished
Usurpation of authority;
Elements
2.
lawfully
Article 178. Using Fictitious Name and

Concealing True Name
Article 177. Usurpation of Authority or

Official Functions
1.
in
of
or
or
1.
Offender
knowingly
and
falsely represents himself;
2.
As an officer, agent or
representative
of
any
department or agency of the
Philippine government or of
any foreign government.
2.
Concealing true name

Elements
1.
Offender conceals his true

name and other personal
circumstances;
2.
Purpose is only to conceal

his identity.
Usurpation of official functions.

Elements
1.
Offender performs any act;
Commonwealth Act No. 142 (Regulating

the Use of Aliases)
No person shall use any name different
from the one with which he was registered
48
at birth in the office of the local civil registry,

or with which he was registered in the
bureau of immigration upon entry; or such
substitute name as may have been
authorized by a competent court.
4.
Defendant against whom the false

testimony is given is either acquitted
or convicted in a final judgment.
Three forms of false testimony

Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary,
cinema, television,
radio, or other
entertainment and in athletic events where
the use of pseudonym is a normally
accepted practice.
Article 179.
Insignia
Illegal Use of Uniforms or
1.
False testimony in criminal cases

under Article 180 and 181;
2.
False testimony in civil case under

Article 182;
3.
False testimony in other cases

under Article 183.
Elements
1. Offender makes use of
uniforms or dress;
insignia,
Article 181. False Testimony Favorable

to the Defendant
Elements
2. The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains

to an office not held by such person or
a class of persons of which he is not a
member;
3.
Said insignia, uniform or dress is

used publicly and improperly.
Wearing the uniform of an imaginary office

is not punishable.
1.
A person gives false testimony;
2.
In favor of the defendant;
3.
In a criminal case.
Article 182. False Testimony in Civil

Cases
Elements
So also, an exact imitation of a uniform or

dress is unnecessary; a colorable
resemblance calculated to deceive the
common run of people is sufficient.
Article 180.
Defendant
1. Testimony given in a civil case;

2. Testimony relates to the
presented in said case;
issues
False Testimony against A

3. Testimony is false;
Elements
4. Offender knows that testimony is false;
1.
There is a criminal proceeding;
2.
Offender testifies falsely under oath

against the defendant therein;
5. Testimony is malicious and given with

an intent to affect the issues presented
in said case.
3.
Offender who gives false testimony

knows that it is false.
Article 183. False Testimony in Other

Cases and Perjury in Solemn Affirmation
49
Acts punished
Elements
1.
By falsely testifying under oath;
1.
There is a public auction;
2.
By making a false affidavit.
2.
Offender solicits any gift or a

promise from any of the
bidders;
3.
Such gift or promise is the

consideration
for
his
refraining from taking part in
that public auction;
4.
Offender has the intent to

cause the reduction of the
price of the thing auctioned.
Elements of perjury
1. Offender makes a statement under oath
or executes an affidavit upon a
material matter;
2. The statement or affidavit is made
before a competent officer,
authorized to receive and
administer oaths;
2.
3. Offender makes a willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood in the
statement or affidavit;
Attempting to cause bidders to stay

away from an auction by threats,
gifts, promises or any other artifice.
Elements
4. The sworn statement or affidavit

containing the falsity is required by law,
that is, it is made for a legal purpose.
1.
There is a public auction;
2.
Offender attempts to cause

the bidders to stay away
from that public auction;
3.
It is done by threats, gifts,

promises or any other
artifice;
4.
Offender has the intent to

cause the reduction of the
price of the thing auctioned.
Article 184. Offering False Testimony in

Evidence
Elements
1.
Offender offers in evidence a false

witness or testimony;
He knows that the witness or the

testimony was false;
3.
The offer is made in any judicial or

official proceeding.
Article
186.
Monopolies
Combinations in Restraint of Trade
and
Acts punished
Article 185.
Auctions
Machinations in Public
1.
Combination
to
prevent
competition in the market;
free
Acts punished
Elements
1.
Soliciting any gift or promise as a

consideration for refraining from
taking part in any public auction;
1.
Entering into any contract or

agreement or taking part in
any
conspiracy
or
50
combination in the form of a

trust or otherwise;
2.
2.
any merchandise or object of

commerce
manufactured,
produced,
processed,
assembled or imported into
the Philippines.
In restraint of trade or
commerce or to prevent by
artificial
means
free
competition in the market.
Monopoly
to
restrain
competition in the market;
free
Article 187. Importation and Disposition

of
Falsely
Marked
Articles
or
Merchandise Made of Gold, Silver, or
Other Precious Metals of Their Alloys
Elements
Elements
1.
2.
3.
3.
By
monopolizing
any
merchandise or object of
trade or commerce, or by
combining with any other
person
or
persons
to
monopolize
said
merchandise or object;
In order to alter the prices
thereof by spreading false
rumors or making use of any
other artifice;
1.
Offender imports, sells or disposes

articles made of gold, silver, or other
precious metals or their alloys;
2.
The stamps, brands, or marks of

those articles of merchandise fail to
indicate the actual fineness or
quality of said metals or alloys;
3.
Offender knows that the stamps,

brands, or marks fail to indicate the
actual fineness or quality of the
metals or alloys.
To restrain free competition

in the market
Manufacturer,
producer,
or
processor or importer combining,
conspiring or agreeing with any
person
to
make
transactions
prejudicial to lawful commerce or to
increase the market price of
merchandise.
Article 188. Substituting and Altering

Trademarks, Trade names, or Service
Marks
Acts punished
1.
Substituting the trade name or

trademark
of
some
other
manufacturer or dealer, or a
colorable imitation thereof for the
trade name or trademark of the real
manufacturer or dealer upon any
article of commerce and selling the
same;
2.
Selling or offering for sale such

articles of commerce knowing that
the trade name or trademark has
been fraudulently used;
3.
Using or substituting the service

mark of some other person, or a
51
Elements
1.
Manufacturer,
producer,
processor or importer of any
merchandise or object of
commerce;
2.
Combines,
conspires
agrees with any person;
3.
Purpose
is
to
make
transactions prejudicial to
lawful commerce or to
increase the market price of
or
colorable imitation of such mark n

the sale or advertising of his
services;
4.
Printing,
lithographing
or
reproducing trade name, trademark,
or service mark of one person or a
colorable imitation thereof to enable
another person to fraudulently use
the same knowing the fraudulent
purpose for which it is to be used.
Article 189.
Unfair Competition,
Fraudulent Registration of Trade Name,
Trademark, or Service Mark, Fraudulent
Designation of Origin, and False
Description
services a false designation

of origin, or any false
description or representation;
and
2.
3.
Selling such
services.
goods
or
Fraudulent registration
Elements
1.
By procuring fraudulently
from the patent office;
2.
The registration of trade

name, trademark or service
mark
Acts punished
1.
Unfair competition;
Elements
1.
2.
By selling his goods;
2.
Giving them the general

appearance of the goods of
another manufacturer or
dealer;
3.
The general appearance is

shown
in
the
goods
themselves,
or
in
the
wrapping of their packages,
or in the device or words
therein, or in any feature of
their appearance;
4.
There is actual intent to

deceive the public or defraud
a competitor.
Fraudulent designation of origin;

false description:
Elements
1.
Republic Act No. 8293 (An Act

Prescribing the Intellectual Property
Code and Establishing the Intellectual
Property Office, Providing for Its Power
and Functions, and for Other Purposes)
By affixing to his goods or

using in connection with his
Section 170.
Penalties.
Independent of the civil and administrative
sanctions imposed by law, a criminal
penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years
to five (5) years and a fine ranging from
Fifty thousand pesos (P 50,000.00) to Two
hundred thousand pesos (P 200,000.00),
shall be imposed on any person who is
found guilty of committing any of the acts
mentioned in Section 155, Section 168 and
Subsection 169.1.
Section
155.
Remedies;
Infringement. Any person who shall,
without the consent of the owner of the
registered mark:
155.1.
Use in commerce any
reproduction, counterfeit, copy, or colorable
imitation of a registered mark or the same
container or a dominant feature thereof in
connection with the sale, offering for sale,
distribution, advertising of any goods or
services including other preparatory steps
necessary to carry out the sale of any
52
goods or services on or in connection with

which such use is likely to course
confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
deceive; or
155.2. Reproduce, counterfeit, copy
or colorably imitate a registered mark or a
dominant feature thereof and apply such
reproduction, counterfeit, copy or colorable
imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages,
wrappers, receptacles or advertisement
intended to be used in commerce upon or
in connection with the sale, offering for
sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or
services on or in connection with which
such use is likely to cause confusion, or to
cause mistake, or to deceive shall be liable
in a civil action for infringement by the
registrant for the remedies hereinafter set
forth: Provided, that the infringement takes
place at the moment any of the acts stated
in Subsection 155.1 or this subsection are
committed regardless of whether there is
actual sale of goods or services using the
infringing material.
Section 168. Unfair Competition,
Rights, Regulation and Remedies.
168.1.
Any person who has
identified in the mind of the public the
goods he manufactures or deals in, his
business or services from those of others,
whether or not a registered mark is
employed, has a property right in the
goodwill of the said goods, business or
service so identified, which will be protected
in the same manner as other property
rights.
168.2.
Any person who shall
employ deception or any other means
contrary to good faith by which he shall
pass off the goods manufactured by him or
in which he deals, or his business, or
services for those of the one having
established such goodwill, or who shall
commit any acts calculated to produce said
result, shall be guilty of unfair competition,
and shall be subject to an action therefor.
168.3. In particular, and without in

any way limiting the scope of protection
against unfair competition, the following
shall be deemed guilty of unfair
competition:
(a)
Any person, who is selling
his goods and gives them the general
appearance
of
goods
of
another
manufacturer or dealer, either as to the
goods themselves or in the wrapping of the
packages in which they are contained, or
the devices or words thereon, on in any
other feature or their appearance, which
would be likely to influence purchasers to
believe that the goods offered are those of
a manufacturer or dealer, other than the
actual manufacturer or dealer, or who
otherwise clothes the goods with such
appearance as shall deceive the public and
defraud another of his legitimate trade, or
any subsequent vendor of such goods or
any agent of any vendor engaged in selling
such goods with a like purpose; or
(b)
Any person who by any
artifice, or device, or who employs any
other means calculated to induce the false
belief that such person is offering the
services of another who ahs identified such
services in the mind of the public; or
(c)
Any person who shall make
any false statement in the course of trade
or who shall commit any other act contrary
to good faith of a nature calculated to
discredit the goods, business or services of
another.
168.4. The remedies provided by
Section 156, 157 and 161 shall apply
mutatis mutandis.
Section 169. False Designation or
Origin;
False
Description
or
Representation.
169.1. Any person who, on or in
connection with any goods or services, or
any container for goods, uses in commerce
any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or
53
any combination thereof, or any false

designation of origin, false or misleading
description of fact, or false or misleading
representation of fact, which:
4. Being
(a)
Is likely to cause confusion,
or to cause mistake, or to deceive as to the
affiliation, connection, or association of
such person with another person, or as to
the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his
or her goods, services, or commercial
activities by another person; or
6. Possession or use of prohibited drugs;
(b)
In commercial advertising or
promotion, misrepresents the nature,
characteristics, qualities, or geographic
origin of his or her or another person's
goods, services or commercial activities,
shall be liable to a civil action for damages
and injunction provided in Section 156 and
157 of this Act by any person who believes
that he or she is or likely to be damaged by
such act.
TITLE V. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM
AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
Articles 190, 191, 192, 193 and194 of the
Revised Penal Code have been repealed
by Republic Act No. 6425 (The
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as
amended by Presidential Decree No. 1683
and further amended by Republic Act No.
7659.
employees and visitors

prohibited drug den;
of
5. Manufacture of prohibited drugs;
7. Cultivation of plants which are sources

of prohibited drugs;
8. Failure to comply with the provisions of
the Act relative to the keeping of
records of prescriptions, sales,
purchases, acquisitions and/or
deliveries of prohibited drugs;
9. Unlawful prescription
drugs;
of
prohibited
10. Unnecessary prescription of prohibited

drugs;
11. Possession of opium pipe and other
paraphernalia for prohibited
drugs;
12. Unauthorized importation, manufacture,
sale
administration,
dispensation,
delivery, transportation, distribution,
possession or use of regulated drugs,
failure to comply with the provisions of
the Act relative to the keeping of
records
of
prescriptions,
sales,
purchases,
acquisitions
and/or
deliveries,
unlawful
prescription,
unnecessary prescription of regulated
drugs, and maintenance of a den, dive
or resort for regulated drug users.
Acts punished by the Republic Act No.

6425
1. Importation of prohibited drugs;
2. Sale,
administration,
delivery,
distribution and transportation of
prohibited drugs;
TITLE VI.
MORALS
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC
Crimes against public morals

1. Gambling (Art. 195);
3. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for

prohibited drug users;
2. Importation, sale and possession of

lottery tickets or advertisements
(Art. 196);
54
3. Betting in sport contests (Art. 197);

4. Illegal betting on horse races (Art. 198);
5. Illegal cockfighting (Art. 199);
6. Grave scandal (Art. 200);
7. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications
and exhibitions (Art. 201); and
8. Vagrancy and prostitution (Art. 202).
4.
Knowingly and without lawful

purpose possessing lottery list,
paper, or other matter containing
letters, figures, signs or symbol
which pertain to or are in any
manner used in the game of jueteng
or any similar game.
Article 196. Importation, Sale and

Possession of Lottery Tickets or
Advertisements
Acts punished
Article 195. What Acts Are Punishable in

Gambling
Acts punished
1.
Taking part directly or indirectly in

a.
b.
2.
3.
any game of monte, jueteng,

or any other form of lottery,
policy,
banking,
or
percentage
game,
dog
races, or any other game or
scheme the results of which
depend wholly or chiefly
upon chance or hazard; or
wherein wagers consisting of
money, articles of value, or
representative of value are
made; or
the exploitation or use of any
other mechanical invention
or contrivance to determine
by chance the loser or
winner of money or any
object or representative of
value;
Knowingly permitting any form of

gambling to be carried on in any
place owned or controlled by the
offender;
Being maintainer, conductor, or
banker in a game of jueteng or
similar game;
1. Importing into the Philippines from any

foreign place or port any lottery
ticket or advertisement; or
2. Selling or distributing the same in
connivance with the importer;
3. Possessing, knowingly and with intent
to use them, lottery tickets or
advertisements; or
4. Selling or distributing the same without
connivance with the importer of the
same.
Note that possession of any lottery ticket or
advertisement is prima facie evidence of an
intent to sell, distribute or use the same in
the Philippines.
Article 197. Betting in Sport Contests
This article has been repealed by
Presidential Decree No. 483 (Betting,
Game-fixing
or
Point-shaving
and
Machinations in Sport Contests):
Section 2. Betting, game-fixing,
point-shaving
or
game
machination
unlawful. Game-fixing, point-shaving,
game machination, as defined in the
preceding section, in connection with the
games of basketball, volleyball, softball,
55
baseball; chess, boxing bouts, jai-alia, sipa,

pelota and all other sports contests, games
or races; as well as betting therein except
as may be authorized by law, is hereby
declared unlawful.
Article 198.
Race
and local fiestas for not more

than three days;
Also
Cockfighting
not
allowed
on
December 30, June 12,
November
30,
Holy
Thursday,
Good
Friday,
Election or Referendum Day,
and registration days for
referendums and elections;
Only municipal and city mayors are

allowed to issue licenses for such.
Illegal Betting on Horse
Acts punished
1. Betting on horse races during periods
not allowed by law;
2. Maintaining or employing a totalizer or
other device or scheme for betting on
races or realizing profit therefrom during
the periods not allowed by law.
When horse races not allowed
2. December 30 (Republic Act No. 229);

registration or voting days
(Republic Act No. 180, Revised
Election Code); and
4. Holy Thursday and

(Republic Act No. 946).
Good
provincial,
industrial,
carnivals,
more than
Presidential Decree No. 1602 (Simplifying

and Providing Stiffer Penalties for
Violations of Philippine Gambling Laws)
1. July 4 (Republic Act No. 137);
3. Any
allowed during
municipal, city,
agricultural fairs,
or exposition not
three days;
Friday
Article 199. Illegal Cockfighting

This article has been modified or repealed
by Presidential Decree No. 449 (The
Cockfighting Law of 1974):
Only
Cockfights can only be held in

licensed
cockpits
on
Sundays and legal holidays
allows one cockpit per

municipality,
unless
the
population exceeds 100,000
in which case two cockpits
may be established;
Section 1.
Violations and
Penalties. -- The penalty of prision mayor in
its medium degree or a fine ranging from
Five Hundred Pesos to Two Thousand
Pesos and in case of recidivism the penalty
of prision correccional in its medium degree
or a fine of ranging from One Thousand
Pesos to Six Thousand Pesos shall be
imposed upon:
(a)
Any person other than those
referred to in the succeeding subsection
who in any manner, shall directly or
indirectly take part in any game of
cockfighting, jueteng, bookies (jai- alai or
horse racing to include game fixing) and
other lotteries, cara y cruz or pompiang and
the like, black jack, lucky nine, pusoy or
Russian Poker, monte, baccarat and other
card games, palk que, domino, mahjong,
high and low, slot machines, roulette,
pinball and other mechanical inventories or
devices, dog racing, boat racing, car raising
and other races, basketball, volleyball,
boxing, seven-eleven dice games and the
56
like and other contests to include game

fixing,
point
shaving
and
other
machinations banking or percentage game,
or any other game or scheme, whether
upon chance or skill, which do not have a
franchise from the national government,
wherein wagers consisting of money,
articles of value of representative of value
are made;
(b)
Any person who shall
knowingly permit any form of gambling
referred to in the preceding subdivision to
be carried on in inhabited or uninhabited
places or any building, vessel or other
means of transportation owned or
controlled by him. If the place where
gambling is carried on has a reputation of a
gambling place or that prohibited gambling
is frequently carried on therein or the place
is a public or government building or
barangay hall, the culprit shall be punished
by the penalty provided for in its maximum
period and a fine of Six Thousand Pesos.
The penalty of prision correccional
in its maximum degree and a fine of Six
Thousand Pesos shall be imposed upon
the maintainer, conductor of the above
gambling schemes.
The penalty of prision mayor in its
medium degree and temporary absolute
disqualification and a fine of Six Thousand
Pesos shall be imposed if the maintainer,
conductor or banker is a government
official, or if a player, promoter, referee,
umpire, judge or coach in cases of gamefixing, point-shaving and other game
machination.
The penalty of prision correccional
in its medium degree and a fine ranging
from Five Hundred pesos to Two Thousand
Pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who shall knowingly and without lawful
purpose in any hour of any day shall have
in his possession any lottery list, paper, or
other matter containing letter, figures, signs
or symbols which pertain to or in any
manner used in the game of jueteng, jai-
alai or horse racing bookies and similar

game or lottery which has taken place or
about to take place.
Section 2.
Barangay Official.
Any barangay official in whose jurisdiction
such gambling house is found and which
house has the reputation of a gambling
place shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium period and a fine
ranging from Five Hundred to Two
Thousand Pesos and temporary absolute
disqualifications.
While the acts under the Revised Penal
Code are still punished under the new law,
yet the concept of gambling under it has
been changed by the new gambling law.
Before,
the
Revised
Penal
Code
considered the skill of the player in
classifying whether a game is gambling or
not. But under the new gambling law, the
skill of the players is immaterial.
Any game is considered gambling where
there are bets or wagers placed with the
hope to win a prize therefrom.
Under this law, even sports contents like
boxing, would be gambling insofar as those
who are betting therein are concerned.
Under the old penal code, if the skill of the
player outweighs the chance or hazard
involved in winning the game, the game is
not considered gambling but a sport. It
was because of this that betting in boxing
and basketball games proliferated.
Unless authorized by a franchise, any form
of gambling is illegal. So said the court in
the recent resolution of the case against
the operation of jai-alai.
There are so-called parlor games which
have been exempted from the operation of
the decree like when the games are played
during a wake to keep the mourners awake
at night.
Pursuant to a memorandum
circular issued by the Executive Branch,
57
the offshoot of the exemption is the

intentional prolonging of the wake of the
dead by gambling lords.
As a general rule, betting or wagering
determines whether a game is gambling or
not. Exceptions: These are games which
are expressly prohibited even without bets.
Monte, jueteng or any form of lottery; dog
races; slot machines; these are habitforming and addictive to players, bringing
about the pernicious effects to the family
and economic life of the players.
Mere possession of lottery tickets or lottery
lists is a crime punished also as part of
gambling. However, it is necessary to
make a distinction whether a ticket or list
refers to a past date or to a future date.
Illustration:
X was accused one night and found in his
possession was a list of jueteng. If the
date therein refers to the past, X cannot be
convicted of gambling or illegal possession
of lottery list without proving that such
game was indeed played on the date
stated. Mere possession is not enough. If
the date refers to the future, X can be
convicted by the mere possession with
intent to use. This will already bring about
criminal liability and there is no need to
prove that the game was played on the
date stated. If the possessor was caught,
chances are he will not go on with it
anymore.
There are two criteria as to when the lottery
is in fact becomes a gambling
game:
1.
2.
If the public is made to pay not only

for the merchandise that he is
buying, but also for the chance to
win a prize out of the lottery, lottery
becomes a gambling game. Public
is made to pay a higher price.
If the merchandise is not saleable
because of its inferior quality, so
that the public actually does not buy

them, but with the lottery the public
starts
patronizing
such
merchandise. In effect, the public is
paying for the lottery and not for the
merchandise, and therefore the
lottery is a gambling game. Public is
not made to pay a higher price.
Illustrations:
(1)
A certain supermarket wanted to

increase its sales and sponsored a
lottery where valuable prices are
offered at stake. To defray the cost
of the prices offered in the lottery,
the management increased their
prices of the merchandise by 10
cents each. Whenever someone
buys from that supermarket, he
pays 10 cents more for each
merchandise and for his purchase,
he gets a coupon which is to be
dropped at designated drop boxes
to be raffled on a certain period.
The increase of the price is to
answer for the cost of the valuable
prices that will be covered at stake.
The increase in the price is the
consideration for the chance to win
in the lottery and that makes the
lottery a gambling game.
But if the increase in prices of the
articles or commodities was not
general, but only on certain items
and the increase in prices is not the
same, the fact that a lottery is
sponsored does not appear to be
tied up with the increase in prices,
therefore not illegal.
Also, in case of manufacturers, you
have to determine whether the
increase in the price was due to the
lottery or brought about by the
normal price increase.
If the
increase in price is brought about by
the normal price increase [economic
factor] that even without the lottery
58
the price would be like that, there is

no consideration in favor of the
lottery and the lottery would not
amount to a gambling game.
If the increase in the price is due
particularly to the lottery, then the
lottery is a gambling game. And the
sponsors
thereof
may
be
prosecuted for illegal gambling
under Presidential Decree No.
1602.
Fund-raising campaigns are not gambling.

They are for charitable purposes but they
have to obtain a permit from Department of
Social Welfare and Development. This
includes concerts for causes, Christmas
caroling, and the like.
Article 200. Grave Scandal
Elements
1. Offender performs an act or acts;
(2)
The merchandise is not really

saleable because of its inferior
quality.
A certain manufacturer,
Bhey
Company,
manufacture
cigarettes which is not saleable
because the same is irritating to the
throat, sponsored a lottery and a
coupon is inserted in every pack of
cigarette so that one who buys it
shall have a chance to participate.
Due to the coupons, the public
started
buying
the
cigarette.
Although there was no price
increase in the cigarettes, the lottery
can be considered a gambling
game because the buyers were
really after the coupons not the low
quality cigarettes.
If without the lottery or raffle, the
public does not patronize the
product and starts to patronize them
only after the lottery or raffle, in
effect the public is paying for the
price not the product.
Under this decree, a barangay captain who

is responsible for the existence of gambling
dens in their own locality will be held liable
and disqualified from office if he fails to
prosecute these gamblers. But this is not
being implemented.
Gambling, of course,
authorized by law.
is
legal
when
2. Such act or acts be highly scandalous

as offending against decency or
good customs;
3. The highly scandalous conduct is not
expressly falling within any other
article of this Code; and
4. The act or acts complained of be
committed in a public place or within the
public knowledge or view.
In grave scandal, the scandal involved
refers to moral scandal offensive to
decency, although it does not disturb public
peace. But such conduct or act must be
open to the public view.
In alarms and scandals, the scandal
involved refers to disturbances of the public
tranquility and not to acts offensive to
decency.
Any act which is notoriously offensive to
decency may bring about criminal liability
for the crime of grave scandal provided
such act does not constitute some other
crime under the Revised Penal Code.
Grave scandal is a crime of last resort.
Distinction should be made as to the place
where the offensive act was
committed, whether in the public
place or in a private place:
59
(1)
(2)
In public place, the criminal liability

arises irrespective of whether the
immoral act is open to the public
view. In short public view is not
required.
When act offensive to decency is
done in a private place, public view
or public knowledge is required.
grave scandal. Her defense was

that she was doing it in her own
house.
It is no defense that she is doing it
in her private home. It is still open
to the public view.
(4)
Public view does not require numerous

persons.
Even if there was only one
person who witnessed the offensive act for
as long as the third person was not an
intruder, grave scandal is committed
provided the act does not fall under any
other crime in the Revised Penal Code.
Illustrations:
(1)
A man and a woman enters a movie

house which is a public place and
then goes to the darkest part of the
balcony and while there the man
started
performing
acts
of
lasciviousness on the woman.
If it is against the will of the woman,
the crime would be acts of
lasciviousness.
But if there is
mutuality, this constitutes grave
scandal.
Public view is not
necessary so long as it is performed
in a public place.
(2)
A man and a woman went to Luneta

and slept there.
They covered
themselves their blanket and made
the grass their conjugal bed.
This is grave scandal.
(3)
In a certain apartment, a lady tenant

had the habit of undressing in her
room without shutting the blinds.
She does this every night at about
eight in the evening. So that at this
hour of the night, you can expect
people outside gathered in front of
her window
looking at
her
silhouette. She was charged of
In a particular building in Makati

which stands right next to the house
of a young lady who goes
sunbathing in her poolside. Every
morning several men in the upper
floors would stick their heads out to
get a full view of said lady while in
her two-piece swimsuit. The lady
was then charged with grave
scandal. Her defense was that it is
her own private pool and it is those
men looking down at her who are
malicious.
This is an act which even though
done in a private place is
nonetheless open to public view.
Article 201. Immoral Doctrines, Obscene

Publications
and
Exhibitions
and
Indecent Shows
Acts punished
1.
Those who shall publicly expound or

proclaim doctrines openly contrary
to public morals;
2.
a.
The authors of obscene
literature, published with their
knowledge in any form, the editors
publishing such literature; and the
owners/operators
of
the
establishment selling the same;
b.
Those who, in theaters,
fairs, cinematographs, or any
other place, exhibit indecent or
immoral plays, scenes, acts, or
shows, it being understood that
the
obscene
literature
or
60
indecent or immoral plays,

scenes, acts or shows, whether
live or in film, which are
proscribed by virtue hereof,
shall include those which: (1)
glorify criminals or condone
crimes; (2) serve no other
purpose but to satisfy the
market for violence, lust or
pornography; (3) offend
any
race, or religion; (4) tend to
abet traffic in and use of
prohibited drugs; and (5) are
contrary to law, public order, morals,
good customs, established policies,
lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
and
3.
Those who shall sell, give away, or

exhibit films, prints, engravings,
sculptures, or literature which are
offensive to morals.
Article 202.
Penalty
Vagrants and Prostitutes;
Vagrants
1. Any person having no apparent means
of subsistence, who has the
physical ability to work and who
neglects to apply himself or
herself to some lawful calling;
2. Any person found loitering about public
or semi-public buildings or
places or trampling or wandering
about the country or the streets
without visible means of support;
3. Any idle or dissolute person who ledges
in houses of ill fame;
4. Ruffians or pimps and those who
habitually
associate
with
prostitutes;
5. Any person who, not being included in
the provisions of other articles of this
Code, shall be found loitering in any

inhabited
or
uninhabited
place
belonging to another without any lawful
or justifiable purpose;
6.
Prostitutes, who are women who, for

money or profit, habitually indulge in
sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct.
Prostitutes are women who, for money or

profit, habitually indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
deemed to be prostitutes.
Test of Obscenity: Whether or not the
material charged as obscene has the
tendency to deprave and corrupt the minds
of those open to the influence thereof, or
into whose hands such material may come
to (Kottinger Rule).
The test is objective. It is more on the
effect upon the viewer and not alone on the
conduct of the performer.
If the material has the tendency to deprave
and corrupt the mind of the viewer then the
same is obscene and where such
obscenity is made publicly, criminal liability
arises.
Because there is a government body which
deliberates whether a certain exhibition,
movies and plays is pornographic or not, if
such body approves the work the same
should not be charged under this title.
Because of this, the test of obscenity may
be obsolete already. If allowed by the
Movies and Television Review and
Classification Board (MTRCB), the question
is moot and academic.
The law is not concerned with the moral of
one person. As long as the pornographic
matter or exhibition is made privately, there
is no crime committed under the Revised
Penal Code because what is protected is
the morality of the public in general. Third
61
party is there.
another is not.
Performance of one to
Illustration:
A sexy dancing performed for a 90 year old
is not obscene anymore even if the dancer
strips naked. But if performed for a 15 year
old kid, then it will corrupt the kids mind.
(Apply Kottinger Rule here.)
In some instances though, the Supreme
Court did not stick to this test. It also
considered the intention of the performer.
In People v. Aparici, the accused was a
performer in the defunct Pacific
Theatre, a movie house which
opens only at midnight. She was
arrested because she was dancing
in a different kind of way. She was
not really nude. She was wearing
some sort of an abbreviated bikini
with a flimsy cloth over it. However,
on her waist hung a string with a
ball reaching down to her private
part so that every time she gyrates,
it arouses the audience when the
ball would actually touch her private
part. The defense set up by Aparici
was that she should not be
criminally liable for as a matter of
fact, she is better dressed than the
other dancers. The Supreme Court
ruled that it is not only the display of
the body that gives it a depraved
meaning but rather the movement
of the body coupled with the tomtom drums as background. Nudity
alone is not the real scale.
(Reaction Test)
Illustration:
A sidewalk vendor was arrested and
prosecuted for violation of Article 201. It
appears that the fellow was selling a
ballpen where one who buys the ballpen
can peep into the top of the pen and see a
girl dancing in it. He put up the defense
that he is not the manufacturer and that he
was merely selling it to earn a living. The

fact of selling the ballpen was being done
at the expense of public morals. One does
not have to be the manufacturer to be
criminally liable. This holds true for those
printing or selling Playboy Magazines.
The common concept of a vagrant is a
person who loiters n public places without
any visible means of livelihood and without
any lawful purpose.
While this may be the most common form
of vagrancy, yet even millionaires or one
who has more that enough for his livelihood
can commit vagrancy by habitually
associating with prostitutes, pimps, ruffians,
or by habitually lodging in houses of illrepute.
Vagrancy is not only a crime of the
privileged or the poor. The law punishes
the act involved here as a stepping stone
to the commission of other crimes. Without
this article, law enforcers would have no
way of checking a person loitering in the
wrong place in the wrong time.
The
purpose of the law is not simply to punish a
person because he has no means of
livelihood; it is to prevent further criminality.
Use this when someone loiters in front of
your house every night.
Any person found wandering in an estate
belonging to another whether public or
private without any lawful purpose also
commits vagrancy, unless his acts
constitutes some other crime in the
Revised Penal Code.
Question & Answer

If a person is found wandering in an
estate belonging to another, whether public
or private, without any lawful purpose, what
other crimes may be committed?
When a person is apprehended
loitering inside an estate belonging to
62
another, the following crimes may be

committed:
TITLE VII.
CRIMES COMMITTED BY
PUBLIC OFFICERS
(1)
Trespass to property under Article

281 if the estate is fenced and there
is a clear prohibition against
entering, but the offender entered
without the consent of the owner or
overseer thereof. What is referred
to here is estate, not dwelling.
Crimes committed by public officers
Attempted theft under Article 308,

paragraph 3, if the estate is fenced
and the offender entered the same
to hunt therein or fish from any
waters therein or to gather any farm
products
therein
without
the
consent of the owner or overseer
thereof;
(2)
(3)
1.
Knowingly
rendering
judgment (Art. 204);
2.
Judgment
rendered
negligence (Art. 205);
3.
Unjust interlocutory order (Art. 206);
4.
Malicious delay in the administration

of justice (Art. 207);
5.
Prosecution of offenses; negligence

and tolerance (Art. 208);
6.
Betrayal of trust by an attorney or

solicitor Revelation of secrets (Art.
209);
7.
Direct bribery (Art. 210);
8.
Indirect bribery (Art. 211);
9.
Qualified bribery (Art. 211-A);
10.
Corruption of public officials (Art.

212);
11.
Frauds against the public treasury

and similar offenses (Art. 213);
12.
Other frauds (Art. 214);
13.
Prohibited transactions (Art. 215);
14.
Possession of prohibited interest by

a public officer (Art. 216);
15.
Malversation of public funds or

property
Presumption
of
malversation (Art. 217)
16.
Failure of accountable officer to

render accounts (Art. 218);
Vagrancy under Article 202 if the

estate is not fenced or there is no
clear prohibition against entering.
Prostitution and vagrancy are both

punished by the same article, but
prostitution can only be committed by a
woman.
The term prostitution is applicable to a
woman who for profit or money habitually
engages in sexual or lascivious conduct. A
man if he engages in the same conduct
sex for money is not a prostitute, but a
vagrant.
In law the mere indulging in lascivious
conduct habitually because of money or
gain would amount to prostitution, even if
there is no sexual intercourse. Virginity is
not a defense. Habituality is the controlling
factor; is has to be more than one time.
There cannot be prostitution by conspiracy.
One who conspires with a woman in the
prostitution business like pimps, taxi drivers
or solicitors of clients are guilty of the crime
under Article 341 for white slavery.
unjust
through
63
17.
Failure of a responsible public

officer to render accounts before
leaving the country (Art. 219);
18.
Illegal use of public

property (Art. 220);
19.
Failure to make delivery of public

funds or property (Art. 221);
20.
Conniving with or consenting to

evasion (Art. 223);
21.
Evasion through negligence (Art.

224);
22.
Escape of prisoner under the

custody of a person not a public
officer (Art. 225);
funds
34.
Prolonging performance of duties

and powers (Art. 237);
35.
Abandonment of office or position

(Art. 238);
36.
Usurpation
(Art. 239);
37.
Usurpation of executive functions

(Art. 240);
38.
Usurpation of judicial functions (Art.

241);
39.
Disobeying
request
disqualification (Art. 242);
40.
Orders or requests by executive

officers to any judicial authority (Art.
243);
41.
Unlawful appointments (Art. 244);

and
Abuses against chastity (Art. 245).
or
of
legislative
powers
for
23.
Removal,
concealment
or
destruction of documents (Art. 226);
24.
Officer breaking seal (Art. 227);
25.
Opening of closed documents (Art.

228);
42.
26.
Revelation of secrets by an officer

(Art. 229);
27.
Public officer revealing secrets of

private individual (Art. 230);
28.
Open disobedience (Art. 231);
The designation of the title is misleading.

Crimes under this title can be committed by
public officers or a non-public officer, when
the latter become a conspirator with a
public officer, or an accomplice, or
accessory to the crime. The public officer
has to be the principal.
29.
Disobedience to order of superior

officer when said order was
suspended by inferior officer (Art.
232);
30.
Refusal of assistance (Art. 233);
31.
Refusal to discharge elective office

(Art. 234);
Requsites to be a public officer under

Article 203
32.
Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235);
1.
33.
Anticipation of duties of a public

office (Art. 236);
In some cases, it can even be committed

by a private citizen alone such as in Article
275 (infidelity in the custody of a prisoner
where the offender is not a public officer) or
in Article 222 (malversation).
Taking part in the performance of

public functions in the government;
or
64
Performing in said government or in

any of its branches public duties as
an employee, agent or subordinate
official, or any rank or class;
2.
His authority to take part in the

performance of public functions or
to perform public duties must be
a.
By direct provision of the

law;
b.
By popular election; or
c.
By
appointment
competent authority.
not in accordance with what the law

prescribes.
(3)
Nonfeasance - when a public officer

willfully refrains or refuses to
perform an official duty which his
office requires him to perform.
Article 204. Knowingly Rendering Unjust

Judgment
1. Offender is a judge;
by
2. He renders a judgment in a case

submitted to him for decision;
3. Judgment is unjust;
Originally, Title VII used the phrase public

officer or employee but the latter word has
been held meaningless and useless
because in criminal law, public officer
covers all public servants, whether an
official or an employee, from the highest to
the lowest position regardless of rank or
class; whether appointed by competent
authority or by popular election or by direct
provision of law.
Under Republic Act No. 3019 (The AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act), the term
public officer is broader and more
comprehensive because it includes all
persons whether an official or an
employee, temporary or not, classified or
not, contractual or otherwise. Any person
who receives compensation for services
rendered is a public officer.
Breach of oath of office partakes of three
forms:
(1)
(2)
4. The judge knows that his judgment is

unjust .
Article 205. Judgment Rendered through
Negligence
2. He renders a judgment in a case
submitted to him for decision;
3. The judgment is manifestly unjust;
4. It is due to his inexcusable negligence
or ignorance.
Article 206. Unjust Interlocutory Order
2. He performs any of the following acts:
Malfeasance - when a public officer

performs in his public office an act
prohibited by law.
a.
Knowingly
rendering
an
unjust interlocutory order or
decree; or
Example: bribery.
b.
Rendering
a
manifestly
unjust interlocutory order or
Misfeasance - when a public officer

performs official acts in the manner
65
decree through inexcusable

negligence or ignorance.
Article 208. Prosecution of Offenses;

Negligence and Tolerance
Acts Punished
The crime of knowingly rendering an unjust

judgment, or knowingly issuing an unjust
interlocutory order, may be committed only
by a judge of a trial court and never of an
appellate court. The reason for this is that
in appellate court, not only one magistrate
renders or issues the interlocutory order.
An appellate court functions as a division
and the resolutions thereof are handed
down only after deliberations among the
members of a division so that it cannot be
said that there is malice or inexcusable
negligence or ignorance in the rendering of
a judgment or order that is supposedly
unjust as held by the Supreme Court in one
administrative case.
There is more injustice done in cases of
judgment than mere interlocutory order that
is why the penalty is higher in the first case.
Article 207.
Malicious Delay in the
Administration of Justice
3. There is a proceeding in his court;
4. He delays in the administration of
justice;
5. The delay is malicious, that is, with
deliberate intent to inflict damage on
either party in the case.
Malice must be proven. Malice is present
where the delay is sought to favor one
party to the prejudice of the other.
These have been interpreted by the
Supreme Court to refer only to judges of
the trial court.
1.
Maliciously refraining from instituting

prosecution against violators of the
law;
2.
Maliciously
tolerating
commission of offenses.
the
Elements of dereliction of duty in the

prosecution of offenses
1. Offender is a public officer or officer of
the law who has a duty to cause
the prosecution of, or to
prosecute, offenses;
2. There is a dereliction of the duties of his
office, that is, knowing the
commission of the crime, he
does not cause the prosecution
of the criminal, or knowing that a
crime is about to be committed,
he tolerates its commission;
3. Offender acts with malice and
deliberate intent to favor the violator of
the law.
A public officer engaged in the prosecution
of offenders shall maliciously tolerate the
commission of crimes or refrain from
prosecuting offenders or violators of the
law.
This crime can only be committed by a
public officer whose official duty is to
prosecute offenders, that is, state
prosecutors. Hence, those officers who are
not duty bound to perform these obligations
cannot commit this crime in the strict
sense.
When
a
policeman
tolerates
the
commission of a crime or otherwise refrains
from apprehending the offender, such
66
peace officer cannot be prosecuted for this

crime but they can be prosecuted as:
(1)
An accessory to the crime

committed by the principal in
accordance
with
Article
19,
paragraph 3; or
(2)
He may become a fence if the crime

committed is robbery or theft, in
which case he violates the AntiFencing Law; or
(3)
He may be held liable for violating

the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act.
However,
in
distant
provinces
or
municipalities where there are no municipal
attorneys, the local chief of police is the
prosecuting officer. If he is the one who
tolerates the violations of laws or otherwise
allows offenders to escape, he can be
prosecuted under this article.
This is also true in the case of a barangay
chairman. They are supposed to prosecute
violators of laws within their jurisdiction. If
they do not do so, they can be prosecuted
for this crime.
Prevaricacion
This used to be a crime under the Spanish
Codigo Penal, wherein a public officer
regardless of his duty violates the oath of
his office by not carrying out the duties of
his office for which he was sworn to office,
thus, amounting to dereliction of duty.
But the term prevaricacion is not limited to
dereliction of duty in the prosecution of
offenders. It covers any dereliction of duty
whereby the public officer involved violates
his oath of office.
The thrust of
prevaricacion is the breach of the oath of
office by the public officer who does an act
in relation to his official duties.
While in Article 208, dereliction of duty
refers only to prosecuting officers, the term
prevaricacion applies to public officers in

general who is remiss or who is maliciously
refraining from exercising the duties of his
office.
Illustration:
The offender was caught for white slavery.
The policeman allowed the offender to go
free for some consideration.
The
policeman does not violate Article 208 but
he becomes an accessory to the crime of
white slavery.
But in the crime of theft or robbery, where
the policeman shared in the loot and
allowed the offender to go free, he
becomes a fence.
Therefore, he is
considered an offender under the AntiFencing Law.
Relative to this crime under Article 208,
consider the crime of qualified bribery.
Among the amendments made by Republic
Act No. 7659 on the Revised Penal Code is
a new provision which reads as follows:
Article.
211-A.
Qualified Bribery If any
public officer is entrusted
with law enforcement and he
refrains from arresting or
prosecuting an offender who
has committed a crime
punishable by Reclusion
Perpetua and/or death in
consideration of any offer,
promise, gift, or present, he
shall suffer the penalty for
the offense which was not
prosecuted.
If it is the public
officer who asks or demands
such gift or present, he shall
suffer the penalty of death.
Actually the crime is a kind of direct bribery
where the bribe, offer, promise, gift or
present has a consideration on the part of
67
the public officer, that is refraining from

arresting or prosecuting the offender in
consideration for such offer, promise, gift or
present. In a way, this new provision
modifies Article 210 of the Revised Penal
Code on direct bribery.
However, the crime of qualified bribery may
be committed only by public officers
entrusted with enforcement whose official
duties authorize then to arrest or prosecute
offenders.
Apparently, they are peace
officers and public prosecutors since the
nonfeasance refers to arresting or
prosecuting. But this crime arises only
when the offender whom such public officer
refrains from arresting or prosecuting, has
committed a crime punishable by reclusion
perpetua and/or death. If the crime were
punishable by a lower penalty, then such
nonfeasance by the public officer would
amount to direct bribery, not qualified
bribery.
Illustration:
A fiscal, for a sum of money, refrains from
prosecuting a person charged before him.
If the penalty for the crime involved is
reclusion perpetua, the fiscal commits
qualified bribery. If the crime is punishable
by a penalty lower than reclusion perpetua,
the crime is direct bribery.
In the latter situation, three crimes are
committed: direct bribery and dereliction of
duty on the part of the fiscal; and corruption
of a public officer by the giver.
Article 209. Betrayal of Trust by An
Attorney or Solicitor Revelation of
Secrets
Acts punished
1. Causing damage to his client, either
If the crime was qualified bribery, the

dereliction of the duty punished under
Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code
should be absorbed because said article
punishes the public officer who maliciously
refrains from instituting prosecution for the
punishment of violators of the law or shall
tolerate the commission of offenses. The
dereliction of duty referred to is necessarily
included in the crime of qualified bribery.
On the other hand, if the crime was direct
bribery under Article 210 of the Revised
Penal Code, the public officer involved
should be prosecuted also for the
dereliction of duty, which is a crime under
Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code,
because the latter is not absorbed by the
crime of direct bribery. This is because in
direct bribery, where the public officer
agreed to perform an act constituting a
crime in connection with the performance
of his official duties, Article 210 expressly
provides that the liabilty thereunder shall be
in addition to the penalty corresponding to
the crime agreed upon, if the crime shall
have been committed.
a.
By any malicious breach of

professional duty;
b.
By inexcusable negligence
or ignorance.
Note: When the attorney acts with

malicious abuse of his employment
or inexcusable negligence or
ignorance, there must be damage to
his client.
2.
Revealing any of the secrets of his

client learned by him in his
professional capacity;
3.
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 of after having
received confidential information
from said client.
68
Under
the
rules
on
evidence,
communications made with prospective
clients to a lawyer with a view to engaging
his professional services are already
privileged even though the client-lawyer
relationship did not eventually materialize
because the client cannot afford the fee
being asked by the lawyer. The lawyer and
his secretary or clerk cannot be examined
thereon.
That this communication with a prospective
client is considered privileged, implies that
the same is confidential. Therefore, if the
lawyer would reveal the same or otherwise
accept a case from the adverse party, he
would already be violating Article 209.
Mere malicious breach without damage is
not violative of Article 209; at most he will
be liable administratively as a lawyer, e.g.,
suspension or disbarment under the Code
of Professional Responsibility.
services. Otherwise, the communication

shall not be considered privileged and no
trust is violated.
Illustration:
A went to B, a lawyer/notary public, to have
a document notarized. A narrated to B the
detail of the criminal case. If B will disclose
what was narrated to him there is no
betrayal of trust since B is acting as a
notary public and not as a counsel. The
lawyer must have learned the confidential
matter in his professional capacity.
Several acts which would make a lawyer
criminally liable:
(1)
Maliciously causing damage to his

client through a breach of his
professional duty. The breach of
professional duty must be malicious.
If it is just incidental, it would not
give rise to criminal liability, although
it may be the subject of
administrative discipline;
(2)
Through gross ignorance, causing

damage to the client;
(3)
Inexcusable negligence;
(4)
Revelation of secrets learned in his

professional capacity;
(5)
Undertaking the defense of the

opposite party in a case without the
consent of the first client whose
defense
has
already
been
undertaken.
Illustration:
B, who is involved in the crime of seduction
wanted A, an attorney at law, to handle his
case. A received confidential information
from B.
However, B cannot pay the
professional fee of A. C, the offended
party, came to A also and the same was
accepted.
A did not commit the crime under Article
209, although the lawyers act may be
considered unethical. The client-lawyer
relationship between A and B was not yet
established. Therefore, there is no trust to
violate because B has not yet actually
engaged the services of the lawyer A. A is
not bound to B. However, if A would reveal
the confidential matter learned by him from
B, then Article 209 is violated because it is
enough that such confidential matters were
communicated to him in his professional
capacity, or it was made to him with a view
to engaging his professional services.
Here, matters that are considered
confidential must have been said to the
lawyer with the view of engaging his
Note that only numbers 1, 2 and 3 must

approximate malice.
A lawyer who had already undertaken the
case of a client cannot later on shift to the
opposing party. This cannot be done.
Under the circumstances, it is necessary
that the confidential matters or information
69
was confided to the lawyer in the latters

professional capacity.
was an adverse judgment, the client

suffered damages. The lawyer is liable.
It is not the duty of the lawyer to give

advice on the commission of a future crime.
It is, therefore, not privileged in character.
The lawyer is not bound by the mandate of
privilege if he reports such commission of a
future crime.
It is only confidential
information relating to crimes already
committed that are covered by the crime of
betrayal of trust if the lawyer should
undertake the case of opposing party or
otherwise divulge confidential information
of a client.
Breach of confidential relation
Under the law on evidence on privileged

communication, it is not only the lawyer
who is protected by the matter of privilege
but also the office staff like the secretary.
Revealing information obtained or taking

advantage thereof by accepting the
engagement with the adverse party. There
is no need to prove that the client suffered
damages. The mere breach of confidential
relation is punishable.
In a conjugal case, if the lawyer disclosed
the confidential information to other people,
he would be criminally liable even though
the client did not suffer any damage.
The client who was suing his wife disclosed
that
he
also
committed
acts
of
unfaithfulness. The lawyer talked about
this to a friend. He is, thus, liable.
The nominal liability under this article may

be constituted either from breach of
professional duties in the handling of the
case or it may arise out of the confidential
relation between the lawyer and the client.
Article 210. Direct Bribery
Breach of professional duty
1.
Tardiness in the prosecution of the case for

which reason the case was dismissed for
being non-prosecuted; or tardiness on the
part of the defense counsel leading to
declaration of default and adverse
judgment.
Agreeing to perform, or performing,

in consideration of any offer,
promise, gift or present an act
constituting a crime, in connection
with the performance of his official
duties;
2.
Professional duties Lawyer must appear

on time. But the client must have suffered
damage due to the breach of professional
duty. Otherwise, the lawyer cannot be held
liable.
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;
3.
Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining,

from doing something which it is his
official duty to do, in consideration
of gift or promise.
If the prosecutor was tardy and the case

was dismissed as non-prosecuted, but he
filed a motion for consideration which was
granted, and the case was continued, the
lawyer is not liable, because the client did
not suffer damage.
Acts punished
Elements
1.
If lawyer was neglectful in filing an answer,

and his client declared in default, and there
Offender is a public officer within the

scope of Article 203;
70
2.
Offender accepts an offer or a

promise or receives a gift or present
by himself or through another;
Note however that what may begin as an

indirect bribery may actually ripen into
direct bribery.
3.
Such offer or promise be accepted,

or gift or present received by the
public officer
Illustration:
a. With a view to committing some

crime; or
b. In consideration of the execution
of an act which does not
constitute a crime, but
the act must be unjust; or
c. To refrain from doing something
which it is his official duty to do.
4.
The act which offender agrees to

perform or which he executes be
connected with the performance of
his official duties.
It is a common notion that when you talk of

bribery, you refer to the one corrupting the
public officer. Invariably, the act refers to
the giver, but this is wrong. Bribery refers
to the act of the receiver and the act of the
giver is corruption of public official.
Distinction between direct bribery and
indirect bribery
Bribery is direct when a public officer is
called upon to perform or refrain from
performing an official act in exchange for
the gift, present or consideration given to
him.
If he simply accepts a gift or present given
to him by reason of his public position, the
crime is indirect bribery. Bear in mind that
the gift is given "by reason of his office",
not "in consideration" thereof. So never
use the term consideration. The public
officer in Indirect bribery is not to perform
any official act.
Without any understanding with the public

officer, a taxi operator gave an expensive
suiting material to a BLT registrar. Upon
receipt by the BLT registrar of his valuable
suiting material, he asked who the giver
was. He found out that he is a taxi
operator. As far as the giver is concerned,
he is giving this by reason of the office or
position of the public officer involved. It is
just indirect bribery
.
If the BLT registrar calls up his
subordinates and said to take care of the
taxis of the taxi operator so much so that
the registration of the taxis is facilitated
ahead of the others, what originally would
have been indirect bribery becomes direct
bribery.
In direct bribery, consider whether the
official act, which the public officer
agreed to do, is a crime or not.
If it will amount to a crime, it is not
necessary that the corruptor should deliver
the consideration or the doing of the act.
The moment there is a meeting of the
minds, even without the delivery of the
consideration, even without the public
officer performing the act amounting to a
crime, bribery is already committed on the
part of the public officer. Corruption is
already committed on the part of the
supposed giver. The reason is that the
agreement is a conspiracy involving the
duty of a public officer.
The mere
agreement is a felony already.
If the public officer commits the act which
constitutes the crime, he, as well as the
corruptor shall be liable also for that other
crime.
Illustrations:
71
(1)
If
the
corruptor
offers
a
consideration to a custodian of a
public record to remove certain files,
the mere agreement, without
delivery of the consideration, brings
about the crime of direct bribery and
corruption of public official.
If the records were actually
removed, both the public officer and
the corruptor will in addition to the
two felonies above, will also be
liable for the crime committed,
which is infidelity in the custody of
the public records for which they
shall be liable as principals; one as
principal by inducement, the other
as principal by direct participation.
(2)
A party litigant approached the

courts stenographer and proposed
the idea of altering the transcript of
stenographic notes.
The court
stenographer agreed and he
demanded P 2,000.00.
Unknown to them, there were law
enforcers who already had a tip that
the court stenographer had been
doing this before. So they were
waiting for the chance to entrap
him. They were apprehended and
they said they have not done
anything yet.
Under Article 210, the mere
agreement to commit the act, which
amounts to a crime, is already
bribery.
That
stenographer
becomes
liable
already
for
consummated crime of bribery and
the party who agreed to give that
money is already liable for
consummated
corruption,
even
though not a single centavo is
delivered yet and even though the
stenographer had not yet made the
alterations.
If he changed
another
crime
falsification.
the transcript,
is
committed:
The same criterion will apply with respect to

a public officer who agrees to refrain from
performing his official duties.
If the
refraining would give rise to a crime, such
as refraining to prosecute an offender, the
mere agreement to do so will consummate
the bribery and the corruption, even if no
money was delivered to him.
If the
refraining is not a crime, it would only
amount to bribery if the consideration be
delivered to him.
If it is not a crime, the consideration must
be delivered by the corruptor before a
public officer can be prosecuted for bribery.
Mere agreement, is not enough to
constitute the crime because the act to be
done in the first place is legitimate or in the
performance of the official duties of the
public official.
Unless the public officer receives the
consideration for doing his official duty,
there is no bribery. It is necessary that
there must be delivery of monetary
consideration. This is so because in the
second situation, the public officer actually
performed what he is supposed to perform.
It is just that he would not perform what he
is required by law to perform without an
added consideration from the public which
gives rise to the crime.
The idea of the law is that he is being paid
salary for being there. He is not supposed
to demand additional compensation from
the public before performing his public
service. The prohibition will apply only
when the money is delivered to him, or if he
performs what he is supposed to perform in
anticipation of being paid the money.
Here, the bribery will only arise when there
is already the acceptance of the
consideration because the act to be done
72
is not a crime. So, without the acceptance,

the crime is not committed.
Direct bribery may be committed only in the
attempted and consummated stages
because, in frustrated felony, the offender
must have performed all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony
as a consequence. In direct bribery, it is
possible only if the corruptor concurs with
the offender. Once there is concurrence,
the direct bribery is already consummated.
In short, the offender could not have
performed all the acts of execution to
produce the felony without consummating
the same.
Actually, you cannot have a giver unless
there is one who is willing to receive and
there cannot be a receiver unless there is
one willing to give. So this crime requires
two to commit. It cannot be said, therefore,
that one has performed all the acts of
execution which would produce the felony
as a consequence but for reasons
independent of the will, the crime was not
committed.
public officer also becomes equally

liable for consummated bribery.
(2)
If a public official demanded

something from a taxpayer who
pretended to agree and use marked
money with the knowledge of the
police, the crime of the public official
is attempted bribery. The reason is
that because the giver has no
intention to corrupt her and
therefore, he could not perform all
the acts of execution.
Be sure that what is involved is a
crime of bribery, not extortion. If it
were extortion, the crime is not
bribery, but robbery. The one who
yielded to the demand does not
commit corruption of a public officer
because it was involuntary.
Article 211. Indirect Bribery

Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
It is now settled, therefore, that the crime of

bribery and corruption of public officials
cannot be committed in the frustrated stage
because this requires two to commit and
that means a meeting of the minds.
2. He accepts gifts;
3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of
his office.
Illustrations:
(1)
If the public official accepted the

corrupt consideration and turned it
over to his superior as evidence of
the corruption, the offense is
attempted corruption only and not
frustrated. The official did not agree
to be corrupted.
If the public officer did not report the
same to his superior and actually
accepted it, he allowed himself to
be corrupted.
The corruptor
becomes liable for consummated
corruption of public official. The
The public official does not undertake to

perform an act or abstain from doing an
official duty from what he received.
Instead, the official simply receives or
accepts gifts or presents delivered to him
with no other reason except his office or
public position.
This is always in the
consummated stage.
There is no
attempted much less frustrated stage in
indirect bribery.
The Supreme Court has laid down the rule
that for indirect bribery to be committed, the
public officer must have performed an act
of appropriating of the gift for himself, his
family or employees.
It is the act of
73
appropriating that signifies acceptance.

Merely delivering the gift to the public
officer does not bring about the crime.
Otherwise it would be very easy to remove
a public officer: just deliver a gift to him.
Article 211-A. Qualified Bribery
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted
with law enforcement;
2. He
refrains
from
arresting
or
prosecuting an offender who has
committed a crime;
limited to the public officer only but also to

any member of his family.
Presidential Decree No. 749
The decree
grants
immunity from
prosecution to a private person or public
officer who shall voluntarily give information
and testify in a case of bribery or in a case
involving a violation of the Anti-graft and
Corrupt Practices Act.
It provides immunity to the bribe-giver
provided he does two things:
(1)
He
voluntarily
discloses
the
transaction he had with the public
officer constituting direct or indirect
bribery, or any other corrupt
transaction;
(2)
He must willingly testify against the

public officer involved in the case to
be filed against the latter.
3. Offender has committed a crime

punishable
by
reclusion
perpetua and/or death;
4. Offender refrains from arresting or
prosecuting in consideration of any
offer, promise, gift, or present.
Note that the penalty is qualified if the
public officer is the one who asks or
demands such present.
Presidential Decree No. 46
Presidential Decree No. 46 prohibits giving
and acceptance of gifts by a public officer
or to a public officer, even during
anniversary, or when there is an occasion
like Christmas, New Year, or any gift-giving
anniversary.
The Presidential Decree
punishes both receiver and giver.
Before the bribe-giver may be dropped

from the information, he has to be charged
first with the receiver.
Before trial,
prosecutor may move for dropping bribegiver from information and be granted
immunity. But first, five conditions have to
be met:
(1)
Information
must
consummated bribery;
(2)
Information is necessary for the

proper conviction of the public
officer involved;
(3)
That the information or testimony to

be given is not yet in the possession
of the government or known to the
government;
(4)
That the information can be

corroborated in its material points;
The prohibition giving and receiving gifts

given by reason of official position,
regardless of whether or not the same is for
past or future favors.
The giving of parties by reason of the
promotion of a public official is considered a
crime even though it may call for a
celebration. The giving of a party is not
refer
to
74
(5)
That the information has not been

convicted previously for any crime
involving moral turpitude.
These conditions are analogous to the

conditions under the State Witness Rule
under Criminal Procedure.
The immunity granted the bribe-giver is
limited only to the illegal transaction where
the informant gave voluntarily the
testimony. If there were other transactions
where the informant also participated, he is
not immune from prosecution.
The
immunity in one transaction does not
extend to other transactions.
Revised Penal Code or the Anti-Graft and

Corrupt Practices Act.
Under the law on plunder, the prescriptive
period is 20 years commencing from the
time of the last overt act.
Plunder
is
committed
through
combination or series of overt acts:
(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 other
form of pecuniary benefit from any
person and/or entity in connection
with any government contract or
project by reason of the office or
position of the public officer;
(3)
By illegal or fraudulent conveyance

or disposition of asset belonging to
the national government or any of
its
subdivisions,
agencies
or
instrumentalities or governmentowned 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
promise of future employment in
any business or undertaking;
(5)
By
establishing
agricultural,
industrial, or commercial monopolies
or other combinations and/or
implementations 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
75
The immunity attaches only if the

information given turns out to be true and
correct. If the same is false, the public
officer may even file criminal and civil
actions against the informant for perjury
and the immunity under the decree will not
protect him.
Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder)
Plunder is a crime defined and penalized
under Republic Act No. 7080, which
became effective in 1991.
This crime
somehow modified certain crimes in the
Revised Penal Code insofar as the overt
acts by which a public officer amasses,
acquires, or accumulates ill-gotten wealth
are felonies under the Revised Penal Code
like bribery (Articles 210, 211, 211-A), fraud
against the public treasury [Article 213],
other frauds (Article 214), malversation
(Article 217), when the ill-gotten wealth
amounts
to
a
total
value
of
P50,000,000.00. The amount was reduced
from P75,000,000.00 by Republic Act No.
7659 and the penalty was changed from
life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua to
death.
Short of the amount, plunder does not
arise.
Any
amount
less
than
P50,000,000.00 is a violation of the
the damage and prejudice of the

Filipino people, and the Republic of
the Philippines.
mala prohibita. Therefore, good faith is not

a defense.
Illustration:
While the crime appears to be malum

prohibitum, Republic Act No. 7080 provides
that in the imposition of penalties, the
degree of participation and the attendance
of
mitigating
and
aggravating
circumstances shall be considered by the
court.
Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and
Corrupt Practices Act)
The mere act of a public officer demanding
an amount from a taxpayer to whom he is
to render public service does not amount to
bribery, but will amount to a violation of the
Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Illustration:
A court secretary received P500 .00 from a
litigant to set a motion for an early hearing.
This is direct bribery even if the act to be
performed is within his official duty so long
as he received a consideration therefor.
If the secretary persuaded the judge to
make a favorable resolution, even if the
judge did not do so, this constitutes a
violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, Sub-Section A.
Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, particularly Section 3, there are several
acts defined as corrupt practices. Some of
them are mere repetitions of the act
already penalized under the Revised Penal
Code, like prohibited transactions under
Article 215 and 216. In such a case, the
act or omission remains to be mala in se.
But there are acts penalized under the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act which are
not penalized under the Revised Penal
Code. Those acts may be considered as
Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act causing undue injury to the
government or a private party by giving
unwarranted benefit to the party whom
does not deserve the same.
In this case, good faith is not a defense
because it is in the nature of a malum
prohibitum. Criminal intent on the part of
the offender is not required. It is enough
that he performed the prohibited act
voluntarily. Even though the prohibited act
may have benefited the government. The
crime is still committed because the law is
not after the effect of the act as long as the
act is prohibited.
Section 3 (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act where a public officer
entered into a contract for the government
which is manifestly disadvantageous to the
government even if he did not profit from
the transaction, a violation of the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act is committed.
If a public officer, with his office and a
private enterprise had a transaction and he
allows a relative or member of his family to
accept employment in that enterprise, good
faith is not a defense because it is a malum
prohibitum. It is enough that that the act
was performed.
Where the public officer is a member of the
board, panel or group who is to act on an
application of a contract and the act
involved one of discretion, any public
officer who is a member of that board,
panel or group, even though he voted
against the approval of the application, as
long as he has an interest in that business
enterprise whose application is pending
before that board, panel or group, the
public officer concerned shall be liable for
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. His only course of action to
76
avoid prosecution under the Anti-graft and

Corrupt Practices Act is to sell his interest
in the enterprise which has filed an
application before that board, panel or
group where he is a member. Or otherwise,
he should resign from his public position.
of a pedestrian. As he could not leave his

post, he summoned a civilian to deliver the
thief to the precinct. The civilian agreed so
he left with the thief. When they were
beyond the view of the policeman, the
civilian allowed the thief to go home. What
would be the liability of the public officer?
Illustration:
Sen. Dominador Aytono had an interest in
the Iligan Steel Mills, which at that time was
being subject of an investigation by the
Senate Committee of which he was a
chairman. He was threatened with
prosecution under Republic Act No. 3019
so he was compelled to sell all his interest
in that steel mill; there is no defense.
Because the law says so, even if he voted
against it, he commits a violation thereof.
These cases are filed with the Ombudsman
and not with the regular prosecutors office.
Jurisdiction is exclusively with the
Sandiganbayan. The accused public officer
must be suspended when the case is
already filed with the Sandiganbayan.
Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act, the public officer who is accused
should not be automatically suspended
upon the filing of the information in court. It
is the court which will order the suspension
of the public officer and not the superior of
that public officer. As long as the court has
not ordered the suspension of the public
officer involved, the superior of that public
officer is not authorized to order the
suspension simply because of the violation
of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
The court will not order the suspension of
the public officer without first passing upon
the validity of the information filed in court.
Without a hearing, the suspension would
be null and void for being violative of due
process.
The liability of the traffic policeman would

be merely administrative. The civilian has
no liability at all.
Firstly, the offender is not yet a prisoner so
there is no accountability yet. The term
prisoner refers to one who is already
booked and incarcerated no matter how
short the time may be.
The policeman could not be said as having
assisted the escape of the offender
because as the problem says, he is
assigned to direct traffic in a busy corner
street. So he cannot be considered as
falling under the third 3rd paragraph of
Article 19 that would constitute his as an
accessory.
The same is true with the civilian because
the crime committed by the offender, which
is snatching or a kind of robbery or theft as
the case may be, is not one of those crimes
mentioned under the third paragraph of
Article 19 of the Revised Penal Code.
Where the public officer is still incumbent,
the prosecution shall be with the
Ombudsman.
Where the respondent is separated from
service and the period has not yet
prescribed, the information shall be filed in
any prosecutions office in the city where
the respondent resides. The prosecution
shall file the case in the Regional Trial
Court unless the violation carries a penalty
higher than prision correccional, in which
case the Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction.
Illustration:
A public officer was assigned to direct
traffic in a very busy corner. While there, he
caught a thief in the act of lifting the wallet
The fact that the government benefited out

of the prohibited act is no defense at all,
the violation being mala prohibita.
77
Section 3 (f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt

Practices Act where the public officer
neglects or refuses to act on a matter
pending before him for the purpose of
obtaining any pecuniary or material benefit
or advantage in favor of or discriminating
against another interested party.
The law itself additionally requires that the
accuseds dereliction, besides being
without justification, must be for the
purpose of obtaining from any person
interested in the matter some pecuniary or
material benefit or for the purpose of
favoring
any
interested
party,
or
discriminating against another interested
party. This element is indispensable.
respondent to show cause why the illgotten wealth described in the petition
should not be forfeited in favor of the
government. This is covered by the Rules
on Civil Procedure. The respondent is given
15 days to answer the petition. Thereafter
trial would proceed. Judgment is rendered
and appeal is just like in a civil case.
Remember that this is not a criminal
proceeding. The basic difference is that the
preliminary investigation is conducted by
the prosecutor.
Article 212.
Officials
Corruption
of
Public
In other words, the neglect or refusal to act

must motivated by gain or benefit, or
purposely to favor the other interested
party as held in Coronado v. SB, decided
on August 18, 1993.
Republic Act No. 1379 (Forfeiture of Illgotten Wealth)
Correlate with RA 1379 -- properly under
Remedial Law. This provides the procedure
for forfeiture of the ill-gotten wealth in
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act. The proceedings are civil and
not criminal in nature.
Any taxpayer having knowledge that a
public officer has amassed wealth out of
proportion to this legitimate income may file
a complaint with the prosecutors office of
the place where the public officer resides or
holds office. The prosecutor conducts a
preliminary investigation just like in a
criminal case and he will forward his
findings to the office of the Solicitor
General. The Solicitor General will
determine whether there is reasonable
ground to believe that the respondent has
accumulated an unexplained wealth.
If the Solicitor General finds probable
cause, he would file a petition requesting
the court to issue a writ commanding the
78
Elements
Elements of frauds against public treasury

under paragraph 1
1.
1.
2.
He has taken advantage of his

office, that is, he intervened in the
transaction in his official capacity;
3.
He entered into an agreement with

any interested party or speculator or
made use of any other scheme with
regard to furnishing supplies, the
making of contracts, or the
adjustment
or
settlement
of
accounts relating to public property
or funds;
4.
He had intent
government.
2.
Offender makes offers or promises

or gives gifts or presents to a public
officer;
The offers or promises are made or
the gifts or presents given to a
public officer, under circumstances
that will make the public officer
liable for direct bribery or indirect
bribery.
Article 213. Frauds against the Public

Treasury and Similar Offenses
Acts punished
1.
Entering into an agreement with any

interested party or speculator or
making use of any other scheme, to
defraud the government, in dealing
with any person with regard to
furnishing supplies, the making of
contracts, or the adjustment or
settlement of accounts relating to
public property or funds;
2.
Demanding, directly or indirectly, the

payment of sums different from or
larger than those authorized by law,
in collection of taxes, licenses, fees,
and other imposts;
3.
Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt,

as provided by law, for any sum of
money collected by him officially, in
the collection of taxes, licenses,
fees, and other imposts;
4.
to
defraud
the
The essence of this crime is making the

government pay for something not received
or making it pay more than what is due. It
is also committed by refunding more than
the amount which should properly be
refunded. This occurs usually in cases
where a public officer whose official duty is
to procure supplies for the government or
enter into contract for government
transactions, connives with the said
supplier with the intention to defraud the
government. Also when certain supplies
for the government are purchased for the
high price but its quantity or quality is low.
Illustrations:
(1)
A public official who is in charge of

procuring
supplies
for
the
government obtained funds for the
first class materials and buys
inferior quality products and pockets
the excess of the funds. This is
usually committed by the officials of
the Department of Public Works and
Highways.
(2)
Poorest quality of ink paid as if it

were of superior quality.
79
Collecting or receiving, directly or

indirectly, by way of payment or
otherwise, things or objects of a
nature different from that provided
by law, in the collection of taxes,
licenses, fees, and other imposts.
(3)
(4)
One thousand pieces of blanket for

certain unit of the Armed Forces of
the Philippines were paid for but
actually, only 100 pieces were
bought.
The Quezon City government
ordered 10,000 but what was
delivered was only 1,000 T-shirts,
the public treasury is defrauded
because the government is made to
pay that which is not due or for a
higher price.
Not all frauds will constitute this crime.

There must be no fixed allocation or
amount on the matter acted upon by the
public officer.
The allocation or outlay was made the
basis of fraudulent quotations made by the
public officer involved.
For example, there was a need to put some
additional lighting along the a street and no
one knows how much it will cost.
An
officer was asked to canvass the cost but
he connived with the seller of light bulbs,
pricing each light bulb at P550.00 instead
of the actual price of P500.00. This is a
case of fraud against public treasury.
If there is a fixed outlay of P20,000.00 for
the lighting apparatus needed and the
public officer connived with the seller so
that although allocation was made a lesser
number was asked to be delivered, or of an
inferior quality, or secondhand. In this case
there is no fraud against the public treasury
because there is a fixed allocation. The
fraud is in the implementation of
procurement. That would constitute the
crime of other fraud in Article 214, which
is in the nature of swindling or estafa.
Be sure to determine whether fraud is
against public treasury or one under Article
214.
Elements of
paragraph 2
illegal
exactions
under
1.
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:
a.
Demanding,
directly
or
indirectly, the payment of
sums different from or larger
than those authorized by
law; or
b.
Failing voluntarily to issue a

receipt, as provided by law,
for any sum of money
collected by him officially; or
c.
Collecting
or
receiving,
directly or indirectly, by way
of payment or otherwise,
things or objects of a nature
different from that provided
by law.
This can only be committed principally by a

public officer whose official duty is to collect
taxes, license fees, import duties and other
dues payable to the government.
Not any public officer can commit this
crime. Otherwise, it is estafa. Fixers
cannot commit this crime unless he
conspires with the public officer authorized
to make the collection.
Also, public officers with such functions but
are in the service of the Bureau of Internal
Revenue and the Bureau of Customs are
not to be prosecuted under the Revised
Penal Code but under the Revised
Administrative Code. These officers are
authorized to make impositions and to
enter into compromises. Because of this
discretion, their demanding or collecting
different from what is necessary is legal.
80
This provision of the Revised Penal Code

was provided before the Bureau of Internal
Revenue and the Tariff and Customs Code.
Now, we have specific Code which will
apply to them. In the absence of any
provision
applicable,
the
Revised
Administrative Code will apply.
abstract the P100.00, issued a

receipt for only P400.00.
The
taxpayer would naturally ask the
municipal treasurer why the receipt
was only for P400.00.
The
treasurer
answered
that
the
P100.00 is supposed to be for
documentary stamps. The taxpayer
left.
The essence of the crime is not

misappropriation of any of the amounts but
the improper making of the collection which
would prejudice the accounting of collected
amounts by the government.
On the first form of illegal exaction
He has a receipt for P400.00. The

municipal treasurer turned over to
the government coffers P400.00
because that is due the government
and pocketed the P100.00.
In this form, mere demand will consummate

the crime, even if the taxpayer shall refuse
to come across with the amount being
demanded.
That will not affect the
consummation of the crime.
The mere fact that there was a

demand for an amount different
from what is due the government,
the public officer already committed
the crime of illegal exaction.
In the demand, it is not necessary that the

amount being demanded is bigger than
what is payable to the government. The
amount being demanded maybe less than
the amount due the government.
On the P100.00 which the public

officer
pocketed,
will
it
be
malversation or estafa?
In the example given, the public
officer did not include in the official
receipt the P100.00 and, therefore,
it did not become part of the public
funds. It remained to be private. It
is the taxpayer who has been
defrauded of his P100.00 because
he can never claim a refund from
the government for excess payment
since the receipt issued to him was
only P400.00 which is due the
government. As far as the P100.00
is concerned, the crime committed
is estafa.
Note that this is often committed with

malversation or estafa because when a
public officer shall demand an amount
different from what the law provides, it can
be expected that such public officer will not
turn over his collection to the government.
Illustrations:
(1)
(2)
A taxpayer goes to the local

municipal treasurer to pay real
estate taxes on his land. Actually,
what is due the government is
P400.00 only but the municipal
treasurer demanded P500.00. By
that demand alone, the crime of
illegal exaction is already committed
even though the taxpayer does not
pay the P500.00.
Suppose the taxpayer came across
with P500.00. But the municipal
treasurer, thinking that he would
(3)
A taxpayer pays his taxes. What is

due the government is P400.00 and
the public officer issues a receipt for
P500.00 upon payment of the
taxpayer of said amount demanded
by the public officer involved. But
he altered the duplicate to reflect
only P400.00 and he extracted the
difference of P100.00.
81
In this case, the entire P500.00 was

covered by an official receipt. That
act of covering the whole amount
received from the taxpayer in an
official receipt will have the
characteristics of becoming a part of
the public funds.
The crimes
committed, therefore, are the
following:
(a)
(b)
(c)
Illegal
exaction
for
collecting more than he is
authorized to collect. The
mere act of demanding is
enough to constitute this
crime.
Falsification because there
was an alteration of official
document
which is the
duplicate of the official
receipt to show an amount
less than the actual amount
collected.
Malversation because of
his act of misappropriating
the P100.00 excess which
was covered by an official
receipt already, even though
not
payable
to
the
government.
The entire
P500.00 was covered by the
receipt, therefore, the whole
amount
became
public
funds.
So when he
appropriated the P100 for
his own benefit, he was not
extracting
private
funds
anymore but public funds.
Should
the
falsification
be
complexed with the malversation?
As far as the crime of illegal
exaction is concerned, it will be the
subject of separate accusation
because there, the mere demand
regardless of whether the taxpayer
will pay or not, will already
consummate the crime of illegal
exaction. It is the breach of trust by

a public officer entrusted to make
the collection which is penalized
under such article. The falsification
or alteration made on the duplicate
can not be said as a means to
commit malversation. At most, the
duplicate was altered in order to
conceal the malversation. So it
cannot be complexed with the
malversation.
It cannot also be said that the
falsification is a necessary means to
commit the malversation because
the public officer can misappropriate
the
P100.00
without
any
falsification. All that he has to do is
to get the excess of P100.00 and
misappropriate
it.
So
the
falsification
is
a
separate
accusation.
However, illegal exaction may be
complexed
with
malversation
because illegal exaction is a
necessary means to be able to
collect the P100.00 excess which
was malversed.
In this crime, pay attention to
whether the offender is the one
charged with the collection of the
tax, license or impost subject of the
misappropriation. If he is not the
one authorized by disposition to do
the collection, the crime of illegal
exaction is not committed.
If it did not give rise to the crime of
illegal exaction, the funds collected
may not have become part of the
public funds. If it had not become
part of the public funds, or had not
become impressed with being part
of the public funds, it cannot be the
subject of malversation. It will give
rise to estafa or theft as the case
may be.
82
(3)
The Municipal Treasurer demanded

P500.00 when only P400.00 was
due.
He issued the receipt at
P400.00 and explained to taxpayer
that the P100 was for documentary
stamps. The Municipal Treasurer
placed the entire P500.00 in the
vault of the office. When he needed
money, he took the P100.00 and
spent it.
On the second form of illegal exaction

The act of receiving payment due the
government without issuing a receipt will
give rise to illegal exaction even though a
provisional receipt has been issued. What
the law requires is a receipt in the form
prescribed by law, which means official
receipt.
Illustration:
The
following
committed:
crimes
were
(a)
Illegal
exaction
demanding
a
amount;
for
different
(b)
Estafa for deceiving the

taxpayer; and
(c)
Malversation for getting

the P100.00 from the vault.
If a government cashier or officer to whom

payment is made issued a receipt in his
own private form, which he calls
provisional, even though he has no
intention of misappropriating the amount
received by him, the mere fact that he
issued a receipt not in the form prescribed
by law, the crime of illegal exaction is
committed. There must be voluntary failure
to issue the Official Receipt.
On the third form of illegal exaction
Although the excess P100.00 was

not covered by the Official Receipt,
it was commingled with the other
public funds in the vault; hence, it
became part of public funds and
subsequent
extraction
thereof
constitutes malversation.
Under the rules and regulations of the

government, payment of checks not
belonging to the taxpayer, but that of
checks of other persons, should not be
accepted to settle the obligation of that
person.
Illustration:
Note that numbers 1 and 2 are complexed

as illegal exaction with estafa, while in
number 3, malversation is a distinct
offense.
The issuance of the Official Receipt is the
operative fact to convert the payment into
public funds. The payor may demand a
refund by virtue of the Official Receipt.
In cases where the payor decides to let the
official to keep the change, if the latter
should pocket the excess, he shall be liable
for malversation. The official has no right
but the government, under the principle of
accretion, as the owner of the bigger
amount becomes the owner of the whole.
A taxpayer pays his obligation with a check

not his own but pertaining to another.
Because of that, the check bounced later
on.
The crime committed is illegal exaction
because the payment by check is not
allowed if the check does not pertain to the
taxpayer himself, unless the check is a
managers check or a certified check,
amended already as of 1990. (See the
case of Roman Catholic.)
Under Article 213, if any of these acts
penalized as illegal exaction is committed
by those employed in the Bureau of
Customs or Bureau of Internal Revenue,
83
the law that will apply to them will be the

Revised Administrative Code or the Tariff
and Customs Code or National Revenue
Code.
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.
This crime does not require damage to the

government.
Article 214. Other Frauds
Elements
1.
2.
He takes advantage of his official

position;
Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution
3.
He commits any of the frauds or

deceits enumerated in Article 315 to
318.
Article 215. Prohibited Transactions

Elements
1.
Offender is an appointive public

officer;
2.
He becomes interested, directly or

indirectly, in any transaction of
exchange or speculation;
3.
The transaction takes place within

the
territory
subject
to
his
jurisdiction;
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
contracts or business in which it was
his official duty to intervene;
No Senator or Member of the House

of Representatives may personally appear
as counsel before any court of justice or
before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasijudicial and other administrative bodies.
Neither shall he, directly or indirectly, be
interested financially in any contract with, or
in any franchise or special privilege granted
by the Government or any subdivision,
agency or instrumentality thereof, including
any government-owned or controlled
corporation or its subsidiary, during his term
of office. He shall not intervene in any
matter before any office of the government
for his pecuniary benefit or where he may
be called upon to act on account of his
office.
Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution
The President, Vice-President, the
Members of the Cabinet and their deputies
or assistant shall not, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold any other
office or employment during their tenure.
They shall not, during said tenure, directly
or indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially
interested in any contract with, or in any
franchise, or special privilege granted by
the Government or any subdivision, agency
or
instrumentality
thereof,
including
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries. They
84
shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in the

conduct of their office.
2.
He had the custody or control of

funds or property by reason of the
duties of his office;
Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution
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.
No member of a Constitutional
Commission shall, during his tenure, hold
any office or employment. Neither shall he
engage in the practice of any profession or
in the active management or control of any
business which in any way may be affected
by the functions of his office, nor shall he
be financially interested, directly or
indirectly, in any contract with, or in any
franchise or privilege granted by the
government, or any of its subdivisions,
agencies, or instrumentalities, including
government-owned
or
controlled
corporations or their subsidiaries.
Article 217.
Malversation of Public
Funds or Property Presumption of
Malversation
Acts punished
1.
Appropriating
property;
2.
Taking
same;
3.
Consenting,
or
through
abandonment
or
negligence,
permitting any other person to take
such public funds or property; and
4.
Being otherwise guilty of the

misappropriation or malversation of
such funds or property.
or
public
funds
misappropriating
Elements common to all

malversation under Article 217
1.
acts
or
the
of
This crime is predicated on the relationship

of the offender to the property or funds
involved.
The offender must be
accountable
for
the
property
misappropriated. If the fund or property,
though public in character is the
responsibility
of
another
officer,
malversation is not committed unless there
is conspiracy.
It is not necessary that the offender profited
because somebody else may have
misappropriated the funds in question for
as long as the accountable officer was
remiss in his duty of safekeeping public
funds or property.
He is liable for
malversation if such funds were lost or
otherwise misappropriated by another.
There is no malversation through simple
negligence
or
reckless
imprudence,
whether deliberately or negligently. This is
one crime in the Revised Penal Code
where the penalty is the same whether
committed with dolo or culpa.
Question & Answer

What crime under the Revised
Penal Code carries the same penalty
whether committed intentionally or through
negligence?
85
Malversation under Article 217.

There is no crime of malversation through
negligence. The crime is malversation,
plain and simple, whether committed
through dolo or culpa. There is no crime of
malversation under Article 365 on
criminal
negligence
because
in
malversation under Article 217, the same
penalty
is
imposed
whether
the
malversation results from negligence or
was the product of deliberate act.
The crime of malversation can be
committed only by an officer accountable
for the funds or property which is
appropriated. This crime, therefore, bears
a relation between the offender and the
funds or property involved.
The offender, to commit malversation, must
be accountable for the funds or property
misappropriated by him. If he is not the
one accountable but somebody else, the
crime committed is theft. It will be qualified
theft if there is abuse of confidence.
Accountable officer does not refer only to
cashier, disbursing officers or property
custodian.
Any public officer having
custody of public funds or property for
which he is accountable can commit the
crime of malversation if he would
misappropriate such fund or property or
allow others to do so.
Questions & Answers

1.
An unlicensed firearm was
confiscated by a policeman. Instead of
turning over the firearm to the property
custodian for the prosecution of the
offender, the policeman sold the firearm.
What crime was committed?
The
crime
committed
is
malversation because that firearm is
subject to his accountability. Having taken
custody of the firearm, he is supposed to
account for it as evidence

prosecution of the offender.
for
the
2.
Can the buyer be liable
under the Anti-fencing law?
No. The crime is neither theft nor
robbery, but malversation.
3.
A member of the Philippine
National Police went on absence without
leave. He was charged with malversation
of the firearm issued to him. After two
years, he came out of hiding and
surrendered the firearm. What crime was
committed?
The
crime
committed
was
malversation.
Payment of the amount
misappropriated or restitution of property
misappropriated does not erase criminal
liability but only civil liability.
When private property is attached or seized
by public authority and the public officer
accountable therefor misappropriates the
same, malversation is committed also.
Illustration:
If a sheriff levied the property of the
defendants and absconded with it, he is not
liable of qualified theft but of malversation
even though the property belonged to a
private person. The seizure of the property
or fund impressed it with the character of
being part of the public funds it being in
custodia legis. For as long as the public
officer is the one accountable for the fund
or property that was misappropriated, he
can be liable for the crime of malversation.
Absent such relation, the crime could be
theft, simple or qualified.
Question & Answer

There was a long line of payors on
the last day of payment for residence
86
certificates. Employee A of the municipality

placed all his collections inside his table
and requested his employee B to watch
over his table while he goes to the
restroom. B took advantage of As absence
and took P50.00 out of the collections. A
returned and found his money short. What
crimes have been committed?
(4)
When he is constituted as the

depositary or administrator of funds
or property seized or attached by
public authority even though said
funds or property belong to a private
individual.
Illustration:
A is guilty of malversation through
negligence because he did not exercise
due diligence in the safekeeping of the
funds when he did not lock the drawer of
his table. Insofar as B is concerned, the
crime is qualified theft.
Under jurisprudence, when the public
officer leaves his post without locking his
drawer, there is negligence. Thus, he is
liable for the loss.
Illustration:
A government cashier did not bother to put
the public fund in the public safe/vault but
just left it in the drawer of his table which
has no lock. The next morning when he
came back, the money was already gone.
He was held liable for malversation through
negligence because in effect, he has
abandoned the fund or property without
any safety.
Municipal treasurer connives with outsiders

to make it appear that the office of the
treasurer was robbed. He worked overtime
and the co-conspirators barged in, hog-tied
the treasurer and made it appear that there
was a robbery.
Crime committed is
malversation because the municipal
treasurer was an accountable officer.
Note that damage on the part of the
government is not considered an essential
element. It is enough that the proprietary
rights of the government over the funds
have been disturbed through breach of
trust.
It is not necessary that the accountable
public
officer
should
actually
misappropriate the fund or property
involved. It is enough that he has violated
the trust reposed on him in connection with
the property.
Illustration:
private person may also commit

malversation under the following
situations:
(1)
Conspiracy with a public officer in

committing malversation;
(2)
When
he
has
become
an
accomplice or accessory to a public
officer who commits malversation;
(3)
When the private person is made

the custodian in whatever capacity
of public funds or property, whether
belonging to national or local
government,
and
he
misappropriates the same;
(1)
It is a common practice of
government cashiers to change the
checks of their friends with cash in
their custody, sometimes at a
discount. The public officer knows
that the check is good because the
issuer thereof is a man of name. So
he changed the same with cash.
The check turned out to be good.
With that act of changing the cash
of the government with the check of
a private person, even though the
check is good, malversation is
committed. The reason is that a
check is cleared only after three
87
days. During that period of three

days, the government is being
denied the use of the public fund.
With more reason if that check
bounce because the government
suffers.
(2)
An accountable public officer, out of

laziness, declares that the payment
was made to him after he had
cleaned his table and locked his
safe for the collection of the day. A
taxpayer came and he insisted that
he pay the amount so that he will
not return the next day. So he
accepted the payment but is too
lazy to open the combination of the
public safe. He just pocketed the
money. When he came home, the
money was still in his pocket. The
next day, when he went back to the
office, he changed clothes and he
claims that he forgot to put the
money in the new funds that he
would collect the next day.
Government auditors came and
subjected him to inspection. He
was found short of that amount. He
claimed that it is in his house -- with
that alone, he was charged with
malversation and was convicted.
Any overage or excess in the collection of

an accountable public officer should not be
extracted by him once it is commingled with
the public funds.
Illustration:
When taxpayers pay their accountabilities
to the government by way of taxes or
licenses like registration of motor vehicles,
the taxpayer does not bother to collect
loose change. So the government cashier
accumulates the loose change until this
amounts to a sizable sum. In order to
avoid malversation, the cashier did not
separate what is due the government
which was left to her by way of loose
change. Instead, he gets all of these and
keeps it in the public vault/safe. After the
payment of the taxes and licenses is

through, he gets all the official receipts and
takes the sum total of the payment. He
then opens the public vault and counts the
cash. Whatever will be the excess or the
overage, he gets.
In this case,
malversation is committed.
Note that the moment any money is
commingled with the public fund even if not
due the government, it becomes impressed
with the characteristic of being part of
public funds. Once they are commingled,
you do not know anymore which belong to
the government and which belong to the
private persons. So that a public vault or
safe should not be used to hold any fund
other that what is due to the government.
When
does
presumption
misappropriation arise?
of
When a demand is made upon an

accountable officer and he cannot produce
the fund or property involved, there is a
prima facie presumption that he had
converted the same to his own use. There
must be indubitable proof that thing
unaccounted for exists. Audit should be
made to determine if there was shortage.
Audit must be complete and trustworthy. If
there is doubt, presumption does not arise.
Presumption arises only if at the time the
demand to produce the public funds was
made, the accountability of the accused is
already determined and liquidated.
A
demand upon the accused to produce the
funds in his possession and a failure on his
part to produce the same will not bring
about this presumption unless and until the
amount of his accountability is already
known.
88
In Dumagat v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA

483, it was held that the prima facie
presumption under the Revised
Penal Code arises only if there is no
issue
as
to
the
accuracy,
correctness and regularity of the
audit findings and if the fact that
public funds are missing is
indubitably established. The audit
must be thorough and complete
down to the last detail, establishing
with absolute certainty the fact that
the funds are indeed missing.
In De Guzman v. People, 119 SCRA 337,
it was held that in malversation, all
that is necessary to prove is that the
defendant
received
in
his
possession the public funds and
that he could not account for them
and that he could not give a
reasonable
excuse
for
their
disappearance.
An accountable
public officer may be convicted of
malversation even if there is no
direct evidence of misappropriation
and the only evidence is the
shortage in the accounts which he
has not been able to explain
satisfactorily.
In Cabello v. Sandiganbaya, 197 SCRA
94, it was held it was held that
malversation may be committed
intentionally or by negligence. The
dolo or culpa bringing about the
offences is only a modality in the
perpetration of the offense. The
same offense of malversation is
involved,
whether
the
mode
charged differs from the mode
established in the commission of
the crime. An accused charged with
willful
malversation
may
be
convicted of Malversation through
her negligee.
In Quizo v. Sandiganbayan, the accused

incurred shortage (P1.74) mainly
because the auditor disallowed
certain cash advances the accused
granted to employees. But on the
same date that the audit was made,
he partly reimbursed the amount
and paid it in full three days later.
The Supreme Court considered the
circumstances as negative of
criminal intent. The cash advances
were made in good faith and out of
good will to co-employees which
was a practice tolerated in the
office. The actual cash shortage
was only P1.74 and together with
the disallowed advances were fully
reimbursed within a reasonable
time. There was no negligence,
malice, nor intent to defraud.
In Ciamfranca Jr. v. Sandiganbayan,
where the accused in malversation
could not give reasonable and
satisfactory explanation or excuse
for the missing funds or property
accountable by him, it was held that
the return of the funds or property is
not a defense and does not
extinguish criminal liability.
In Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, 197
SCRA 173, it was held that a public
officer charged with malversation
cannot be convicted of technical
malversation (illegal use of public
funds under Article 220). To do so
would violate accuseds right to be
informed of nature of accusation
against him.
Technical malversation is not included in
the crime of malversation. In malversation,
the offender misappropriates public funds
or property for his own personal use, or
allows any other person to take such funds
or property for the latters own personal
use. In technical malversation, the public
officer applies the public funds or property
under his administration to another public
use different from that for which the public
89
fund was appropriated by law or ordinance.

Recourse: File the proper information.
because he has misappropriated the funds

under his accountability.
Elements
Who can commit this crime? A responsible

public
officer,
not
necessarily
an
accountable one, who leaves the country
without first securing clearance from the
Commission on Audit.
1. Offender is public officer, whether in the

service or separated therefrom
by resignation or any other
cause;
The purpose of the law is to discourage

responsible or accountable officers from
leaving without first liquidating their
accountability.
2. He is an accountable officer for public

funds or property;
Mere leaving without securing clearance

constitutes violation of the Revised Penal
Code. It is not necessary that they really
misappropriated public funds.
Article 218. Failure of Accountable

Officer to Render Accounts
3. He is required by law or regulation to

render account to the Commission on
Audit, or to a provincial auditor;
4.
He fails to do so for a period of two

months after such accounts should
be rendered.
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or

property
Elements
Article 219. Failure of A Responsible

Public Officer to Render Accounts before
Leaving the Country
2. There are public funds or property

under his administration;
3. Such
Elements
fund
or
appropriated
ordinance;
property
were
by
law
or

2. He is an accountable officer for public
funds or property;
3. He unlawfully leaves or attempts to
leave the Philippine Islands without
securing a certificate from the
Commission on Audit showing that his
accounts have been finally settled.
When an accountable officer leaves the
country
without
first
settling
his
accountability or otherwise securing a
clearance from the Commission on Audit
regarding
such
accountability,
the
implication is that he left the country
4. He applies such public fund or property

to any public use other than for which it
was appropriated for.
Illegal use of public funds or property is
also known as technical malversation. The
term technical malversation is used
because in this crime, the fund or property
involved is already appropriated or
earmarked for a certain public purpose.
The offender is entrusted with such fund or
property only to administer or apply the
same to the public purpose for which it was
appropriated by law or ordinance. Instead
of applying it to the public purpose to which
90
the fund or property was already

appropriated by law, the public officer
applied it to another purpose.
Since damage is not an element of
malversation, even though the application
made proved to be more beneficial to
public interest than the original purpose for
which the amount or property was
appropriated by law, the public officer
involved is still liable for technical
malversation.
If public funds were not yet appropriated by
law or ordinance, and this was applied to a
public purpose by the custodian thereof,
the crime is plain and simple malversation,
not technical malversation. If the funds had
been appropriated for a particular public
purpose, but the same was applied to
private purpose, the crime committed is
simple malversation only.
Illustration:
The office lacked bond papers. What the
government cashier did was to send the
janitor, get some money from his collection,
told the janitor to buy bond paper so that
the office will have something to use. The
amount involved maybe immaterial but the
cashier commits malversation pure and
simple.
This crime can also be committed by a
private person.
Illustration:
A certain road is to be cemented. Bags of
cement were already being unloaded at the
side. But then, rain began to fall so the
supervisor of the road building went to a
certain house with a garage, asked the
owner if he could possibly deposit the bags
of cement in his garage to prevent the
same from being wet. The owner of the
house, Olive, agreed. So the bags of
cement were transferred to the garage of
the private person. After the public officer
had left, and the workers had left because
it is not possible to do the cementing, the

owner of the garage started using some of
the cement in paving his own garage. The
crime of technical malversation is also
committed.
Note that when a private person is
constituted as the custodian in whatever
capacity, of public funds or property, and he
misappropriates the same, the crime of
malversation is also committed. See Article
222.
Illustration:
The payroll money for a government
infrastructure project on the way to the site
of the project, the officers bringing the
money were ambushed. They were all
wounded. One of them, however, was able
to get away from the scene of the ambush
until he reached a certain house. He told
the occupant of the house to safeguard the
amount because it is the payroll money of
the government laborers of a particular
project.
The occupant of the house
accepted the money for his own use. The
crime is not theft but malversation as long
as he knew that what was entrusted in his
custody is public fund or property.
Question & Answer

The sheriff, after having levied on
the property subject of a judgment,
conducted a public auction sale.
He
received the proceeds of the public auction.
Actually, the proceeds are to be delivered
to the plaintiff. The sheriff, after deducting
the sheriffs fees due to the office, spent
part of that amount. He gave the balance
to the plaintiff and executed a promissory
note to pay the plaintiff the amount spent
by him. Is there a crime committed?
The Supreme Court ruled that the
sheriff committed the crime of malversation
91
because the proceeds of the auction sale

was turned over to the plaintiff, such
proceeds
is
impressed
with
the
characteristic of being part of public funds.
The sheriff is accountable therefore
because he is not supposed to use any
part of such proceeds.
Article 221. Failure to Make Delivery of
Public Funds of Property
Acts punished
1.
2.
Failing to make payment by a public

officer who is under obligation to
make
such
payment
from
government
funds
in
his
possession;
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.
2.
3.
Classes of prisoners involved

1.
If the fugitive has been sentenced

by final judgment to any penalty;
2.
If the fugitive is held only as

detention prisoner for any crime or
violation of law or municipal
ordinance.
Article 224. Evasion through Negligence

Elements
2. He is charged with the conveyance or
custody of a prisoner or prisoner
by final judgment;
3. Such
prisoner
negligence.
Elements of failure to make payment

1.
4. He was in connivance with the prisoner

in the latters escape.
Public officer has government funds

in his possession;
He is under obligation to make
payment from such funds;
He fails to make the payment
maliciously.
223.
Conniving with
Consenting to Evasion
or
Elements
1. Offender is a private person;
2. He had in his custody or charge a

prisoner,
either
detention
prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment;
prisoner
custody;
escaped
conveyance or custody of a
prisoner or person under arrest
is confided to him;
3. The prisoner or person under arrest

escapes;
3. Such
through
Article 225. Escape of Prisoner under the

Custody of a Person not a Public Officer
2. The
Article
escapes
from
4. Offender consents to the escape, or

that the escape takes place through his
negligence.
his
92
The crime is infidelity in the custody of

prisoners if the offender involved is the
custodian of the prisoner.
If the offender who aided or consented to
the prisoners escaping from confinement,
whether the prisoner is a convict or a
detention prisoner, is not the custodian, the
crime is delivering prisoners from jail under
Article156.
The crime of infidelity in the custody of
prisoners can be committed only by the
custodian of a prisoner.
If the jail guard who allowed the prisoner to
escape is already off-duty at that time and
he is no longer the custodian of the
prisoner, the crime committed by him is
delivering prisoners from jail.
Note that you do not apply here the
principle of conspiracy that the act of one is
the act of all. The party who is not the
custodian who conspired with the
custodian in allowing the prisoner to
escape does not commit infidelity in the
custody of the prisoner. He commits the
crime of delivering prisoners from jail.
Question & Answer

If a private person approached the
custodian of the prisoner and for a certain
consideration, told the custodian to leave
the door of the cell unlocked for the
prisoner to escape. What crime had been
committed?
It is not infidelity in the custody of
prisoners because as far as the private
person is concerned, this crime is
delivering prisoners from jail. The infidelity
is only committed by the custodian.
This crime can be committed also by a
private person if the custody of the prisoner
has been confided to a private person.
Illustration:
A policeman escorted a prisoner to court.
After the court hearing, this policeman was
shot at with a view to liberate the prisoner
from his custody. The policeman fought the
attacker but he was fatally wounded.
When he could no longer control the
prisoner, he went to a nearby house, talked
to the head of the family of that house and
asked him if he could give the custody of
the prisoner to him. He said yes. After the
prisoner was handcuffed in his hands, the
policeman expired. Thereafter, the head of
the family of that private house asked the
prisoner if he could afford to give
something so that he would allow him to
go. The prisoner said, Yes, if you would
allow me to leave, you can come with me
and I will give the money to you. This
private persons went with the prisoner and
when the money was given, he allowed
him to go.
What crime/s had been
committed?
Under Article 225, the crime can be
committed by a private person to whom the
custody of a prisoner has been confided.
Where such private person, while
performing a private function by virtue of a
provision of law, shall accept any
consideration or gift for the nonperformance of a duty confided to him,
Bribery is also committed. So the crime
committed by him is infidelity in the custody
of prisoners and bribery.
If the crime is delivering prisoners from jail,
bribery is just a means, under Article 156,
that would call for the imposition of a
heavier penalty, but not a separate charge
of bribery under Article 156.
But under Article 225 in infidelity, what is
basically punished is the breach of trust
because the offender is the custodian. For
that, the crime is infidelity. If he violates the
trust because of some consideration,
bribery is also committed.
93
A higher degree of vigilance is required.

Failure to do so will render the custodian
liable. The prevailing ruling is against laxity
in the handling of prisoners.
Illustration:
A prison guard accompanied the prisoner in
the toilet. While answering the call of
nature, police officer waiting there, until the
prisoner escaped.
Police officer was
accused of infidelity.
There is no criminal liability because it does
not constitute negligence.
Negligence
contemplated here refers to deliberate
abandonment of duty.
Note, however, that according to a recent
Supreme Court ruling, failure to accompany
lady prisoner in the comfort room is a case
of negligence and therefore the custodian
is liable for infidelity in the custody of
prisoner.
Prison guard should not go to any other
place not officially called for. This is a case
of infidelity in the custody of prisoner
through negligence under Article 224.
only be committed by the public officer who

is made the custodian of the document in
his official capacity. If the officer was
placed in possession of the document but it
is not his duty to be the custodian thereof,
this crime is not committed.
Illustration:
A letter is entrusted to a postmaster for
transmission of a registered letter to
another. The postmaster opened the letter
and finding the money, extracted the same.
The crime committed is infidelity in the
custody of the public document because
under Article 226, the law refers also to
papers entrusted to public officer involved
and currency note is considered to be
within the term paper although it is not a
document.
With respect to official documents, infidelity
is committed by destroying the document,
or removing the document or concealing
the document.
Damage to public interest is necessary.
However, material
damage
is
not
necessary.
Illustration:
Article 226. Removal, Concealment, or

Destruction of Documents
Elements
1.
2.
He abstracts, destroys or conceals a

document or papers;
3.
Said document or papers should

have been entrusted to such public
officer by reason of his office;
4.
Damage, whether serious or not, to

a third party or to the public interest
has been caused.
Crimes falling under the section on infidelity

in the custody of public documents can
If any citizen goes to a public office,

desiring to go over public records and the
custodian of the records had concealed the
same so that this citizen is required to go
back for the record to be taken out, the
crime of infidelity is already committed by
the custodian who removed the records
and kept it in a place where it is not
supposed to be kept. Here, it is again the
breach of public trust which is punished.
Although there is no material damage
caused, mere delay in rendering public
service is considered damage.
Removal of public records by the custodian
does not require that the record be brought
out of the premises where it is kept. It is
enough that the record be removed from
94
the place where it should be and

transferred to another place where it is not
supposed to be kept. If damage is caused
to the public service, the public officer is
criminally liable for infidelity in the custody
of official documents.
3.
These papers or property are sealed

by proper authority;
4.
He breaks the seal or permits them

to be broken.
Distinction between infidelity in the custody

of public document, estafa and malicious
mischief
If the official document is sealed or

otherwise placed in an official envelope,
the element of damage is not required.
The mere breaking of the seal or the mere
opening of the document would already
bring about infidelity even though no
damage has been suffered by anyone or
by the public at large. The offender does
not have to misappropriate the same. Just
trying to discover or look what is inside is
infidelity already.
In infidelity in the custody of public

document, the offender is
the custodian of the official
document
removed
or
concealed.
In estafa, the offender is not the

custodian of the document
removed or concealed.
In malicious mischief, the offender

purposely destroyed and damaged
the property/document.
Where in case for bribery or corruption, the

monetary considerations was marked as
exhibits, such considerations acquires the
nature of a document such that if the same
would be spent by the custodian the crime
is not malversation but Infidelity in the
custody of public records, because the
money adduced as exhibits partake the
nature of a document and not as money.
Although such monetary consideration
acquires the nature of a document, the best
evidence rule does not apply here.
Example, photocopies may be presented in
evidence.
Article 227. Officer Breaking Seal
The act is punished because if a document

is entrusted to the custody of a public
officer in a sealed or closed envelope, such
public officer is supposed not to know what
is inside the same. If he would break the
seal or open the closed envelop,
indications would be that he tried to find out
the contents of the document. For that act,
he violates the confidence or trust reposed
on him.
A crime is already committed regardless of
whether the contents of the document are
secret or private. It is enough that it is
entrusted to him in a sealed form or in a
closed envelope and he broke the seal or
opened the envelop. Public trust is already
violated if he managed to look into the
contents of the document.
Distinction between infidelity and theft
There is infidelity if the offender

opened the letter but did not
take the same.
There is theft if there is intent to

gain when the offender took the
money.
Elements
1.
2.
He is charged with the custody of

papers or property;
95
Note that he document must be complete

in legal sense. If the writings are mere
form, there is no crime.
2.
He knows of a secret by
reason
of
his
official
capacity;
Illustration:
3.
As regard the payroll, which has not been

signed by the Mayor, no infidelity is
committed because the document is not yet
a payroll in the legal sense since the
document has not been signed yet.
He reveals such secret

without authority or justifiable
reasons;
4.
Damage, great or small, is

caused to the public interest.
2.
In "breaking of seal", the word "breaking"
should not be given a literal meaning.
Even if actually, the seal was not broken,
because the custodian managed to open
the parcel without breaking the seal.
Article 228.
Documents
Opening
of
Elements
1.
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.
Closed
Elements
1.
2.
Any closed papers, documents, or

object are entrusted to his custody;
3.
He opens or permits to be opened

said closed papers, documents or
objects;
4.
Delivering wrongfully papers or

copies of papers of which he may
have charge and which should not
be published.
He does not have proper authority.
Article 229. Revelation of Secrets by An

Officer
Article 230.
Public Officer Revealing
Secrets of Private individual
Elements
Acts punished
1.
1.
Revealing any secrets known to the

offending public officer by reason of
his official capacity;
2.
He knows of the secrets of a private

individual by reason of his office;
Elements
3.
He reveals such secrets without

authority or justifiable reason.
1.

Article 231.
Open Disobedience
96
Elements
1.
Officer is a judicial or executive

officer;
2.
There is a judgment, decision or

order of a superior authority;
3.
Such judgment, decision or order

was made within the scope of the
jurisdiction of the superior authority
and issued with all the legal
formalities;
4.
He, without any legal justification,

openly refuses to execute the said
judgment, decision or order, which
he is duty bound to obey.
Article 232. Disobedience to Order of

Superior Officer When Said Order Was
Suspended by Inferior Officer
Elements
1.
2.
An order is issued by his superior

for execution;
3.
He has for any reason suspended

the execution of such order;
administration of justice or other

public service;
3. Offender
maliciously.
fails
to
do
so
Any public officer who, upon being

requested to render public assistance
within his official duty to render and he
refuses to render the same when it is
necessary in the administration of
justice or for public service, may be
prosecuted for refusal of assistance.
This is a crime, which a policeman may
commit when, being subpoenaed to
appear in court in connection with a
crime investigated by him but because
of some arrangement with the
offenders, the policeman does not
appear in court anymore to testify
against the offenders. He tried to assail
the subpoena so that ultimately the
case would be dismissed.
It was
already held that the policeman could
be prosecuted under this crime of
refusal of assistance and not that of
dereliction of duty.
Illustration:
4.
His superior disapproves

the
suspension of the execution of the
order;
5.
Offender disobeys his superior

despite the disapproval of the
suspension.
Article 233. Refusal of Assistance

1.
1. A competent authority demands from

the offender that he lend his
cooperation
towards
the
A government physician, who had been

subpoenaed to appear in court to testify
in connection with physical injury cases
or cases involving human lives, does
not want to appear in court to testify.
He may be charged for refusal of
assistance. As long as they have been
properly notified by subpoena and they
disobeyed the subpoena, they can be
charged always if it can be shown that
they are deliberately refusing to appear
in court.
It is not always a case or in connection
with the appearance in court that this
crime may be committed. Any refusal
by the public officer to render
assistance
when
demanded
by
competent public authority, as long as
97
the assistance requested from them is

within their duty to render and that
assistance is needed for public service,
the public officers who are refusing
deliberately may be charged with
refusal of assistance.
Note that the request must come from
one public officer to another.
Article 235.
Prisoners
Maltreatment
of
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or
employee;
2. He has under his charge a
prisoner or detention prisoner;
Illustration:
A fireman was asked by a private
person for services but was refused by
the former for lack of consideration.
It was held that the crime is not refusal
of assistance because the request did
not come from a public authority. But if
the fireman was ordered by the
authority to put out the fire and he
refused, the crime is refusal of
assistance.
If he receives consideration therefore,
bribery is committed. But mere demand
will fall under the prohibition under the
provision of Republic Act No. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
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 said
office;
3. There is no legal motive for
such refusal to be sworn in or to
discharge the duties of said
office.
3. He maltreats such prisoner

in either of the following
manners:
a. By overdoing himself
in the correction or
handling of a prisoner or
detention prisoner under
his charge either
(1) By
imposition
punishment
authorized by
regulations; or
the
of
not
the
(2) By
inflicting
such punishments
(those authorized)
in a cruel and
humiliating
manner; or
b. By maltreating such
prisoners to extort a
confession or to obtain
some information from
the prisoner.
This is committed only by such public
officer charged with direct custody of
the prisoner. Not all public officer can
commit this offense.
If the public officer is not the custodian
of the prisoner, and he manhandles the
latter, the crime is physical injuries.
98
The maltreatment does not really

require physical injuries. Any kind of
punishment not authorized or though
authorized if executed in excess of the
prescribed degree.
Illustration:
Make him drink dirty water, sit on ice,
eat on a can, make him strip, hang a
sign on his neck saying snatcher.
But if as a result of the maltreatment,
physical injuries were caused to the
prisoner, a separate crime for the
physical injuries shall be filed. You do
not complex the crime of physical
injuries with the maltreatment because
the way Article 235 is worded, it
prohibits the complexing of the crime.
If the maltreatment was done in order to
extort
confession,
therefore,
the
constitutional right of the prisoner is
further violated. The penalty is qualified
to the next higher degree.
The offended party here must be a
prisoner in the legal sense. The mere
fact that a private citizen had been
apprehended or arrested by a law
enforcer does not constitute him a
prisoner. To be a prisoner, he must
have been booked and incarcerated no
matter how short it is.
Illustration:
A certain snatcher was arrested by a
law enforcer, brought to the police
precinct, turned over to the custodian of
that police precinct.
Every time a
policeman entered the police precinct,
he would ask, What is this fellow doing
here? What crime has he committed?.
The other policeman would then tell,
This fellow is a snatcher. So every
time a policeman would come in, he
would inflict injury to him. This is not
maltreatment of prisoner because the
offender is not the custodian.

crime is only physical injuries.
The
But if the custodian is present there and

he allowed it, then he will be liable also
for the physical injuries inflicted, but not
for maltreatment because it was not the
custodian who inflicted the injury.
But if it is the custodian who effected
the maltreatment, the crime will be
maltreatment of prisoners plus a
separate charge for physical injuries.
If a prisoner who had already been
booked was make to strip his clothes
before he was put in the detention cell
so that when he was placed inside the
detention cell, he was already naked
and he used both of his hands to cover
his private part, the crime of
maltreatment of prisoner had already
been committed.
After having been booked, the prisoner
was made to show any sign on his arm,
hand or his neck; Do not follow my
footsteps, I am a thief.
That is
maltreatment of prisoner if the offended
party had already been booked and
incarcerated no matter how short, as a
prisoner.
Before this point in time, when he is not
yet a prisoner, the act of hanging a sign
on his neck will only amount to slander
because the idea is to cast dishonor.
Any injury inflicted upon him will only
give rise to the crime of physical
injuries.
Article 236. Anticipation of Duties of
A Public Office
Elements
1. Offender is entitled to hold a
public office or employment,
either
by
election
or
appointment;
99
2. The law requires that he

should first be sworn in and/or
should first give a bond;
3. He
assumes
the
performance of the duties and
powers of such office;
4. He has not taken his oath of
office and/or given the bond
required by law.
Article 237. Prolonging Performance
of Duties and Powers
Article 239. Usurpation of Legislative

Powers
Elements
1. Offender is an executive or
judicial officer;
2. He (a) makes general rules
or regulations beyond the scope
of his authority or (b) attempts to
repeal a law or (c) suspends the
execution thereof.
Article 240. Usurpation of Executive
Functions
Elements
Elements
1. Offender is holding a public
office;
2. The period provided by law,
regulations or special provision
for holding such office, has
already expired;
3. He continues to exercise the
duties and powers of such
office.
Article 238.
or Position
Abandonment of Office
2. He (a) assumes a power
pertaining to the executive
authorities, or (b) obstructs the
executive authorities in the
lawful exercise of their powers.
Article 241.
Functions
Usurpation of Judicial
Elements
1. Offender is an officer of the
executive
branch
of
the
government;
Elements
2. He formally resigns from his
position;
2. His resignation has
accepted;
not
yet
been
4. He abandons his office to

the detriment of the public
service.
2. He (a) assumes judicial

powers, or (b) obstructs the
execution of any order or
decision rendered by any judge
within his jurisdiction.
Article 242. Disobeying Request for
Disqualification
Elements
100
2. A proceeding is pending
before such public officer;
Acts punished
1.
Soliciting or making immoral or

indecent advances to a woman
interested in matters pending before
the offending officer for decision, or
with respect to which he is required
to submit a report to or consult with
a superior officer;
2.

indecent advances to a woman
under the offenders custody;
3.

indecent advances to the wife,
daughter, sister or relative within the
same degree by affinity of any
person in the custody of the
offending warden or officer.
3. There is a question brought

before the proper authority
regarding his jurisdiction, which
is not yet decided;
3. He has been lawfully required to refrain
form continuing the proceeding;
4. He continues the proceeding.
Article 243.
Orders or Request by
Executive Officers to Any Judicial
Authority
Elements
1.
Offender is an executive officer;
2.
He addresses any order or

suggestion to any judicial authority;
3.
The order or suggestion relates to

any case or business coming within
the exclusive jurisdiction of the
courts of justice.
Article 244. Unlawful Appointments
Elements:
1.
2.
He solicits or makes immoral or

indecent advances to a woman;
3.
Such woman is
a.
interested in matters pending

before the offender for
decision, or with respect to
which he is required to
submit a report to or consult
with a superior officer; or
b.
under the custody of the

offender who is a warden or
other public officer directly
charged with the care and
custody of prisoners or
persons under arrest; or
c.
the wife, daughter, sister or

relative within the same
degree by affinity of the
person in the custody of the
offender.
101
Elements
1.
2.
He nominates or appoints a person

to a public office;
3.
Such person lacks

qualifications therefore;
the
4.
Offender knows that his nominee or

appointee lacks the qualification at
the time he made the nomination or
appointment.
Article 245. Abuses against Chastity
legal
immoral or indecent solicitation, a

crime is already committed even if
the woman did not accede to the
solicitation.
The name of the crime is misleading. It

implies that the chastity of the offended
party is abused but this is not really the
essence of the crime because the essence
of the crime is mere making of immoral or
indecent solicitation or advances.
Even if the woman may have lied

with the hearing officer or to the
public officer and acceded to him,
that does not change the crime
because the crime seeks to
penalize the taking advantage of
official duties.
Illustration:
Mere indecent solicitation or advances of a
woman over whom the public officer
exercises a certain influence because the
woman is involved in a case where the
offender is to make a report of result with
superiors or otherwise a case which the
offender was investigating.
This crime is also committed if the woman
is a prisoner and the offender is her jail
warden or custodian, or even if the prisoner
may be a man if the jail warden would
make the immoral solicitations upon the
wife, sister, daughter, or relative by affinity
within the same degree of the prisoner
involved.
Three instances when this crime may arise:
(1)
The woman, who is the offended

party, is the party in interest in a
case where the offended is the
investigator or he is required to
render a report or he is required to
consult with a superior officer.
This does not include any casual or
incidental interest. This refers to
interest in the subject of the case
under investigation.
If the public officer charged with the
investigation or with the rendering of
the report or with the giving of
advice by way of consultation with a
superior, made some immoral or
indecent solicitation upon such
woman, he is taking advantage of
his position over the case. For that
It is immaterial whether the woman

did not agree or agreed to the
solicitation. If the woman did not
agree and the public officer involved
pushed through with the advances,
attempted rape may have been
committed.
(2)
The woman who is the offended

party in the crime is a prisoner
under the custody of a warden or
the jailer who is the offender.
If the warden or jailer of the woman
should make immoral or indecent
advances to such prisoner, this
crime is committed.
This crime cannot be committed if
the warden is a woman and the
prisoner is a man. Men have no
chastity.
If the warden is also a woman but is
a lesbian, it is submitted that this
crime could be committed, as the
law does not require that the
custodian be a man but requires
that the offended be a woman.
Immoral or indecent advances
contemplated
here
must
be
persistent. It must be determined.
A mere joke would not suffice.
Illustrations:
102
(1)
(2)
An investigating prosecutor
where the woman is charged
with
estafa
as
the
respondent, made a remark
to the woman, thus: You
know, the way of deciding
this case depends on me. I
can just say this is civil in
character. I want to see a
movie tonight and I want a
companion. Such a remark,
which is not discerned if not
persistent will not give rise to
this crime. However, if the
prosecutor kept on calling
the woman and inviting her,
that
makes
the
act
determined and the crime is
committed.
A jailer was prosecuted for
abuse against chastity. The
jailer said, It was mutual on
their part. I did not really
force my way upon the
woman. The woman fell in
love with me, I fell in love
with the woman.
The
woman became pregnant.
The woman admitted that
she was not forced. Just the
same,
the
jailer
was
convicted of abuse against
chastity.
Legally,
a
prisoner
is
an
accountability of the government.
So the custodian is not supposed to
interfere. Even if the prisoner may
like it, he is not supposed to do that.
Otherwise, abuse against chastity is
committed.
Being responsible for the pregnancy
is itself taking advantage the
prisoner.
If he forced himself against the will
of the woman, another crime is
committed, that is, rape aside from
abuse against chastity.
You cannot consider the abuse

against chastity as absorbed in the
rape because the basis of
penalizing the acts is different from
each other.
(3)
The crime is committed upon a

female relative of a prisoner under
the custody of the offender, where
the woman is the daughter, sister or
relative by affinity in the same line
as of the prisoner under the custody
of the offender who made the
indecent or immoral solicitation.
The mother is not included so that
any immoral or indecent solicitation
upon the mother of the prisoner
does not give rise to this crime, but
the offender may be prosecuted
under the Section 28 of Republic
Act No. 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act).
Why is the mother left out?
Because it is the mother who easily
succumbs to protect her child.
If the offender were not the
custodian, then crime would fall
under Republic Act No. 3019 (The
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act).
Republic Act No.

Harassment Act)
7877
(Anti-Sexual
Committed by any person having authority,

influence or moral ascendancy over
another in a work, training or education
environment when he or she demands,
requests, or otherwise requires any sexual
favor from the other regardless of whether
the demand, request or requirement for
submission is accepted by the object of the
said act (for a passing grade, or granting of
scholarship or honors, or payment of a
stipend,
allowances,
benefits,
considerations; favorable compensation
terms, conditions, promotions or when the
103
refusal to do so results in a detrimental

consequence for the victim).
13.
Duel (Art. 260);
Also holds liable any person who directs or

induces another to commit any act of
sexual harassment, or who cooperates in
the commission, the head of the office,
educational or training institution solidarily.
14.
Challenging to a duel (Art. 261);
15.
Mutilation (Art. 262);
16.
Serious physical injuries (Art. 263);
Complaints to be handled by a committee

on decorum, which shall be determined by
rules and regulations on such.
17.
Administering injurious substances

or beverages (Art. 264);
18.
Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar
to prosecution in the proper courts for
unlawful acts of sexual harassment.
Less serious physical injuries (Art.

265);
19.
Slight
physical
injuries
maltreatment (Art. 266); and
TITLE VIII. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
20.
Rape (Art. 266-A).
and
Crimes against persons

The essence of crime here involves the
taking of human life, destruction of the
fetus or inflicting injuries.
1.
Parricide (Art. 246);
2.
Murder (Art. 248);
3.
Homicide (Art. 249);
4.
Death caused in a tumultuous affray

(Art. 251);
As to the taking of human life, you have:
5.
Physical injuries inflicted

tumultuous affray (Art. 252);
in
6.
Giving assistance to suicide (Art.

253);
7.
Discharge of firearms (Art. 254);
8.
Infanticide (Art. 255);
9.
Intentional abortion (Art. 256);
10.
Unintentional abortion (Art. 257);
11.
Abortion practiced by the woman

herself or by her parents (Art. 258);
12.
Abortion practiced by a physician or

midwife and dispensing of abortives
(Art. 259);
(1)
Parricide;
(2)
Murder;
(3)
Homicide;
(4)
Infanticide; and
(5)
Giving assistance to suicide.
Note that parricide is premised on the

relationship between the offender and the
offended. The victim is three days old or
older. A stranger who conspires with the
parent is guilty of murder.
In infanticide, the victim is younger than
three days or 72 hours old; can be
committed by a stranger. If a stranger who
conspires with parent, both commit the
crime of infanticide.
Article 246. Parricide
104
Elements
1.
A person is killed;
2.
The deceased is killed by the

accused;
3.
The deceased is the father, mother,

or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other
ascendant or other descendant, or
the legitimate spouse, of the
accused.
relationship between A and D is no longer

legitimate. Hence, the crime committed is
homicide or murder.
Since parricide is a crime of relationship, if
a stranger conspired in the commission of
the crime, he cannot be held liable for
parricide. His participation would make him
liable for murder or for homicide, as the
case may be. The rule of conspiracy that
the act of one is the act of all does not
apply here because of the personal
relationship of the offender to the offended
party.
Illustration:
This is a crime committed between people

who are related by blood.
Between
spouses, even though they are not related
by blood, it is also parricide.
The relationship must be in the direct line
and not in the collateral line.
The relationship between the offender and
the offended party must be legitimate,
except when the offender and the offended
party are related as parent and child.
If the offender and the offended party,
although related by blood and in the direct
line, are separated by an intervening
illegitimate relationship, parricide can no
longer be committed.
The illegitimate
relationship between the child and the
parent renders all relatives after the child in
the direct line to be illegitimate too.
The only illegitimate relationship that can
bring about parricide is that between
parents and illegitimate children as the
offender and the offended parties.
A spouse of B conspires with C to kill B. C

is the stranger in the relationship. C killed
B with treachery. The means employed is
made known to A and A agreed that the
killing will be done by poisoning.
As far as A is concerned, the crime is
based on his relationship with B. It is
therefore parricide. The treachery that was
employed in killing Bong will only be
generic aggravating circumstance in the
crime of parricide because this is not one
crime
that
requires
a
qualifying
circumstance.
But that same treachery, insofar as C is
concerned, as a stranger who cooperated
in the killing, makes the crime murder;
treachery
becomes
a
qualifying
circumstance.
In killing a spouse, there must be a valid
subsisting marriage at the time of the
killing. Also, the information should allege
the fact of such valid marriage between the
accused and the victim.
Illustration:
A is the parent of B, the illegitimate
daughter. B married C and they begot a
legitimate child D. If D, daughter of B and
C, would kill A, the grandmother, the crime
cannot be parricide anymore because of
the
intervening
illegitimacy.
The
In a ruling by the Supreme Court, it was

held that if the information did not allege
that the accused was legally married to the
victim, he could not be convicted of
parricide even if the marriage was
established during the trial. In such cases,
105
relationship shall be appreciated as generic

aggravating circumstance.
Two stages contemplated before the article

will apply:
The Supreme Court has also ruled that

Muslim husbands with several wives can
be convicted of parricide only in case the
first wife is killed. There is no parricide if
the other wives are killed although their
marriage is recognized as valid. This is so
because a Catholic man can commit the
crime only once. If a Muslim husband
could commit this crime more than once, in
effect, he is being punished for the
marriage which the law itself authorized
him to contract.
(1)
When the offender surprised the

other spouse with a paramour or
mistress.
The attack must take
place while the sexual intercourse is
going on. If the surprise was before
or after the intercourse, no matter
how immediate it may be, Article
247 does not apply. The offender in
this situation only gets the benefit of
a mitigating circumstance, that is,
sufficient provocation immediately
preceding the act.
That the mother killed her child in order to

conceal her dishonor is not mitigating. This
is immaterial to the crime of parricide,
unlike in the case of infanticide. If the child
is less than three days old when killed, the
crime is infanticide and intent to conceal
her dishonor is considered mitigating.
(2)
When the offender kills or inflicts

serious physical injury upon the
other spouse and/or paramour while
in the act of intercourse, or
immediately thereafter, that is, after
surprising.
Article 247. Death or Physical Injuries

Inflicted
under
Exceptional
Circumstances
Elements
1.
2.
3.
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;
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;
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.
You have to divide the stages because as

far as the first stage is concerned, it does
not admit of any situation less than sexual
intercourse.
So if the surprising took place before any
actual sexual intercourse could be done
because the parties are only in their
preliminaries, the article cannot be invoked
anymore.
If the surprising took place after the actual
sexual intercourse was finished, even if the
act being performed indicates no other
conclusion but that sexual intercourse was
had, the article does not apply.
As long as the surprising took place while
the sexual intercourse was going on, the
second stage becomes immaterial.
It is either killing or inflicting physical
injuries while in that act or immediately
thereafter. If the killing was done while in
that act, no problem. If the killing was done
when sexual intercourse is finished, a
problem arises. First, were they surprised
106
in actual sexual intercourse?

Second,
were they killed immediately thereafter?
The phrase immediately thereafter has
been interpreted to mean that
between the surprising and the
killing of the inflicting of the
physical injury, there should be
no break of time. In other words,
it must be a continuous process.
The article presumes that a legally married
person who surprises his or her better half
in actual sexual intercourse would be
overcome by the obfuscation he felt when
he saw them in the act that he lost his
head. The law, thus, affords protection to a
spouse who is considered to have acted in
a justified outburst of passion or a state of
mental disequilibrium.
The offended
spouse has no time to regain his selfcontrol.
If there was already a break of time
between the sexual act and the killing or
inflicting of the injury, the law presupposes
that the offender regained his reason and
therefore, the article will not apply
anymore.
Where the accused surprised his wife and

his paramour in the act of illicit
intercourse, as a result of which he
went out to kill the paramour in a fit
of passionate outburst. Although
about one hour had passed
between the time the accused
discovered his wife having sexual
intercourse with the victim and the
time the latter was actually killed, it
was held in People v. Abarca, 153
SCRA 735, that Article 247 was
applicable, as the shooting was a
continuation of the pursuit of the
victim by the accused. Here, the
accused, after the discovery of the
act of infidelity of his wife, looked for
a firearm in Tacloban City.
Article 247 does not provide that the victim
is to be killed instantly by the accused after
surprising his spouse in the act of
intercourse. What is required is that the
killing is the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused upon the
discovery of the infidelity of his spouse.
The killing should have been actually
motivated by the same blind impulse.
Illustration:
As long as the act is continuous, the article

still applies.
A upon coming home, surprised his wife, B,

together with C. The paramour was fast
enough to jump out of the window. A got
the bolo and chased C but he disappeared
among the neighborhood. So A started
looking around for about an hour but he
could not find the paramour. A gave up
and was on his way home. Unfortunately,
the paramour, thinking that A was no longer
around, came out of hiding and at that
moment, A saw him and hacked him to
death. There was a break of time and
Article 247 does not apply anymore
because when he gave up the search, it is
a circumstance showing that his anger had
already died down.
Article 247, far from defining a felony
merely grants a privilege or benefit, more of
an exempting circumstance as the penalty
107
is intended more for the protection of the

accused than a punishment. Death under
exceptional character can not be qualified
by either aggravating or mitigating
circumstances.
In the case of People v. Abarca, 153
SCRA 735, two persons suffered physical
injuries as they were caught in the crossfire
when the accused shot the victim. A
complex crime of double frustrated murder
was not committed as the accused did not
have the intent to kill the two victims. Here,
the accused did not commit murder when
he fired at the paramour of his wife.
Inflicting
death
under
exceptional
circumstances is not murder. The accused
was held liable for negligence under the
first part, second paragraph of Article 365,
that is, less serious physical injuries
through simple negligence. No aberratio
ictus because he was acting lawfully.
A person who acts under Article 247 is not
committing a crime. Since this is merely an
exempting circumstance, the accused must
first be charged with:
(1)
Parricide if the spouse is killed;
(2)
Murder or homicide depending on

how the killing was done insofar as
the paramour or the mistress is
concerned;
(3)
Homicide
through
simple
negligence, if a third party is killed;
(4)
Physical injuries through reckless

imprudence, if a third party is
injured.
If death results or the physical injuries are

serious, there is criminal liability although
the penalty is only destierro.
The
banishment is intended more for the
protection of the offender rather than a
penalty.
If the crime committed is less serious

physical injuries or slight physical injuries,
there is no criminal liability.
The article does not apply where the wife
was not surprised in flagrant adultery but
was being abused by a man as in this case
there will be defense of relation.
If the offender surprised a couple in sexual
intercourse, and believing the woman to be
his wife, killed them, this article may be
applied if the mistake of facts is proved.
The benefits of this article do not apply to
the person who consented to the infidelity
of his spouse or who facilitated the
prostitution of his wife.
The article is also made available to
parents who shall surprise their daughter
below 18 years of age in actual sexual
intercourse while living with them. The
act should have been committed by the
daughter with a seducer. The two stages
also apply. The parents cannot invoke this
provision if, in a way, they have
encouraged the prostitution of the
daughter.
The phrase living with them is understood
to be in their own dwelling,
because of the embarrassment
and humiliation done not only to
the parent but also to the
parental abode.
If it was done in a motel, the article does
not apply.
Illustration:
A abandoned his wife B for two years. To
support their children, A had to accept a
relationship with another man. A learned of
this, and surprised them in the act of sexual
intercourse and killed B. A is not entitled to
Article 248. Having abandoned his family
for two years, it was natural for her to feel
some affection for others, more so of a
man who could help her.
108
Homicide committed under exceptional

circumstances, although punished with
destierro, is within the jurisdiction of the
Regional Trial Court and not the MTC
because the crime charged is homicide or
murder. The exceptional circumstances, not
being elements of the crime but a matter of
defense, are not pleaded. It practically
grants a privilege amounting to an
exemption for adequate punishment.
Article 248. Murder

Elements
1.
A person was killed;
2.
Accused killed him;
3.
The killing was attended by any of

the
following
qualifying
circumstances
a.
With
treachery,
taking
advantage
of
superior
strength, with the aid or
armed men, or employing
means
to
waken
the
defense, or of means or
persons to insure or afford
impunity;
b.
In consideration of a price,
reward or promise;
c.
By means of inundation, fire,

poison,
explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault
upon a railroad, fall of an
airship, by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of
any other means involving
great waste and ruin;
d.
On occasion of any of the

calamities enumerated in the
preceding paragraph, or of
an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic, or any other public
calamity;
e.
With evident premeditation;
f.
With cruelty, by deliberately

and inhumanly augmenting
the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.
109
4.
The killing
infanticide.
is
not
parricide
or
Homicide is qualified to murder if any of the

qualifying circumstances under Article 248
is present. It is the unlawful killing of a
person not constituting murder, parricide or
infanticide.
In murder, any of the following qualifying
circumstances is present:
(1)
Treachery, taking advantage of

superior strength, aid or armed
men, or employing means to waken
the defense, or of means or persons
to insure or afford impunity;
There is treachery when the
offender commits any of the crimes
against the person employing
means, methods or forms in the
execution thereof that tend directly
and especially to insure its
execution without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.
This circumstance involves means,
methods, form in the execution of
the killing which may actually be an
aggravating circumstance also, in
which case, the treachery absorbs
the same.
Illustration:
A person who is determined to kill
resorted to the cover of darkness at
nighttime to insure the killing.
Nocturnity becomes a means that
constitutes treachery and the killing
would be murder.
But if the
aggravating
circumstance
of
nocturnity is considered by itself, it
is not one of those which qualify a
homicide to murder. One might
think the killing is homicide unless
nocturnity
is
considered
as
constituting treachery, in which case

the crime is murder.
The essence of treachery is that the
offended party was denied the
chance to defend himself because
of the means, methods, form in
executing the crime deliberately
adopted by the offender. It is a
matter of whether or not the
offended party was denied the
chance of defending himself.
If the offended was denied the
chance to defend himself, treachery
qualifies the killing to murder. If
despite the means resorted to by
the offender, the offended was able
to put up a defense, although
unsuccessful, treachery is not
available.
Instead, some other
circumstance may be present.
Consider now whether such other
circumstance qualifies the killing or
not.
Illustration:
If the offender used superior
strength and the victim was denied
the chance to defend himself, there
is treachery. The treachery must be
alleged in the information. But if the
victim was able to put up an
unsuccessful resistance, there is no
more treachery but the use of
superior strength can be alleged
and it also qualifies the killing to
murder.
One
attendant
qualifying
circumstance is enough. If there
are more than one qualifying
circumstance
alleged
in
the
information for murder, only one
circumstance will qualify the killing
to
murder
and
the
other
circumstances will be taken as
generic.
110
To be considered qualifying, the

particular circumstance must be
alleged in the information. If what
was alleged was not proven and
instead another circumstance, not
alleged, was established during the
trial, even if the latter constitutes a
qualifying
circumstance
under
Article 248, the same can not
qualify the killing to murder. The
accused can only be convicted of
homicide.
neighborhood despite the warning

they gave him. So one evening,
after the victim had visited the girl,
they seized and tied him to a tree,
with both arms and legs around the
tree. They thought they would give
him a lesson by whipping him with
branches of gumamela until the
victim fell unconscious.
The
accused left not knowing that the
victim died.
The crime committed was murder.
The accused deprived the victim of
the chance to defend himself when
the latter was tied to a tree.
Treachery
is
a
circumstance
referring
to
the
manner
of
committing the crime. There was no
risk to the accused arising from the
defense by the victim.
Generally, murder cannot

be
committed if at the beginning, the
offended had no intent to kill
because
the
qualifying
circumstances must be resorted to
with a view of killing the offended
party. So if the killing were at the
spur of the moment, even though
the victim was denied the chance to
defend himself because of the
suddenness of the attack, the crime
would only be homicide. Treachery
contemplates that the means,
methods and form in the execution
were consciously adopted and
deliberately resorted to by the
offender, and were not merely
incidental to the killing.
If the offender may have not
intended to kill the victim but he only
wanted to commit a crime against
him in the beginning, he will still be
liable for murder if in the manner of
committing the felony there was
treachery and as a consequence
thereof the victim died. This is
based on the rule that a person
committing a felony shall be liable
for the consequences thereof
although different from that which
he intended.
Illustration:
The accused, three young men,
resented the fact that the victim
continued to visit a girl in their
Although what was initially intended

was physical injury, the manner
adopted by the accused was
treacherous and since the victim
died as a consequence thereof, the
crime is murder -- although
originally, there was no intent to kill.
When the victim is already dead,
intent to kill becomes irrelevant. It is
important only if the victim did not
die to determine if the felony is
physical injury or attempted or
frustrated homicide.
So long as the means, methods and
form in the execution is deliberately
adopted, even if there was no intent
to kill, there is treachery.
(2)
In consideration of price, reward or

promises;
(3)
Inundation, fire, poison, explosion,

shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a street
car or locomotive, fall of an airship,
by means of a motor vehicle, or with
111
the use of other means involving

great waste and ruin;
making him a frenzied, shrieking

human torch. The retard died.
The only problem insofar as the

killing by fire is concerned is
whether it would be arson with
homicide, or murder.
It was held that Pugay was guilty of

homicide
through
reckless
imprudence. Samson only guilty of
homicide,
with the mitigating
circumstance of no intention to
commit so grave a wrong. There
was no animosity between the two
accused and the victim such that it
cannot be said that they resort to
fire to kill him. It was merely a part
of their fun making but because
their acts were felonious, they are
criminally liable.
When a person is killed by fire, the

primordial criminal intent of the
offender is considered.
If the
offender is to kill and fire was only
used as a means to do so, the
crime is only murder.
If the
offender is to destroy property with
the use of pyrotechnics and
incidentally, somebody within the
premises is killed, the crime is arson
with homicide. But this is not a
complex crime under Article 48. This
is single indivisible crime penalized
under Article 326, which is death as
a consequence of arson.
That
somebody died during such fire
would not bring about murder
because there is no intent to kill in
the mind of the offender.
He
intended only to destroy property.
However, a higher penalty will be
applied.
In People v. Pugay and Samson,
167 SCRA 439, there was a town
fiesta and the two accused were at
the
town
plaza
with
their
companions. All were uproariously
happy, apparently drenched with
drink. Then, the group saw the
victim, a 25 year old retard walking
nearby and they made him dance
by tickling his sides with a piece of
wood. The victim and the accused
Pugay were friends and, at times,
slept in the same place together.
Having gotten bored with their form
of entertainment, accused Pugay
went and got a can of gasoline and
poured it all over the retard. Then,
the accused Samson lit him up,
(4)
On occasion of any of the calamities

enumerated in the preceding
paragraph c, or an earthquake,
eruption of volcano, destructive
cyclone, epidemic or any other
public calamity;
(5)
Evident premeditation; and
(6)
Cruelty,
by
deliberately
and
inhumanly augmenting the suffering
of the victim, or outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse.
Cruelty includes the situation where
the victim is already dead and yet,
acts were committed which would
decry or scoff the corpse of the
victim. The crime becomes murder.
Hence, this is not actually limited to
cruelty.
It goes beyond that
because even if the victim is already
a corpse when the acts deliberately
augmenting the wrong done to him
were committed, the killing is still
qualified to murder although the
acts done no longer amount to
cruelty.
Under Article 14, the generic
aggravating circumstance of cruelty
requires that the victim be alive,
when the cruel wounds were
112
inflicted and, therefore, must be

evidence to that effect. Yet, in
murder, aside from cruelty, any act
that would amount to scoffing or
decrying the corpse of the victim will
qualify the killing to murder.
relationship to the deceased was

not alleged in the information, she
also should be convicted of murder
but the relationship should be
appreciated as aggravating.
(6)
Killing of the victims hit by hand

grenade thrown at them is murder
qualified by explosion not by
treachery.
(7)
Where the accused housemaid

gagged a three year old boy, son of
her master, with stockings, placed
him in a box with head down and
legs upward and covered the box
with some sacks and other boxes,
and the child instantly died because
of suffocation, and then the
accused demanded ransom from
the parents, such did not convert
the offense into kidnapping with
murder.
The accused was well
aware that the child could be
suffocated to death in a few minutes
after she left. Ransom was only a
part of the diabolical scheme to
murder the child, to conceal his
body and then demand money
before discovery of the body.
Illustration:
Two people engaged in a quarrel
and they hacked each other, one
killing the other. Up to that point,
the crime is homicide. However, if
the killer tried to dismember the
different parts of the body of the
victim, indicative of an intention to
scoff at or decry or humiliate the
corpse of the victim, then what
would have murder because this
circumstance is recognized under
Article 248, even though it was
inflicted or was committed when the
victim was already dead.
The following are holdings of the Supreme
Court with respect to the crime of murder:
(1)
Killing of a child of tender age is

murder qualified by treachery
because the weakness of the child
due to his tender age results in the
absence of any danger to the
aggressor.
(2)
Evident premeditation is absorbed

in price, reward or promise, if
without the premeditation the
inductor would not have induced the
other to commit the act but not as
regards the one induced.
(3
Abuse of superior strength is

inherent in and comprehended by
the circumstance of treachery or
forms part of treachery.
(4)
Treachery is inherent in poison.
(5)
Where one of the accused, who

were charged with murder, was the
wife of the deceased but here
The essence of kidnapping or serious

illegal detention is the actual confinement
or restraint of the victim or deprivation of
his liberty. If there is no showing that the
accused intended to deprive their victims of
their liberty for some time and there being
no appreciable interval between their being
taken and their being shot, murder and not
kidnapping with murder is committed.
113
Article 249. Homicide
committed will be serious physical

injuries
through
reckless
imprudence as the element of intent
to kill in frustrated homicide is
incompatible with negligence or
imprudence.
Elements
1.
A person was killed;
2.
Offender killed him without any

justifying circumstances;
3.
Offender had the intention to kill,

which is presumed;
4.
The killing was not attended by any

of the qualifying circumstances of
murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide.
Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person

not constituting murder, parricide or
infanticide.
Distinction between homicide and physical
injuries:
(4)
Where the intent to kill is not

manifest, the crime committed has
been generally considered as
physical injuries and not attempted
or frustrated murder or homicide.
(5)
When several assailants not acting

in conspiracy inflicted wounds on a
victim but it cannot be determined
who inflicted which would which
caused the death of the victim, all
are liable for the victims death.
Note that while it is possible to have a

crime of homicide through reckless
imprudence, it is not possible to have a
crime of frustrated homicide through
reckless imprudence.
In attempted or frustrated homicide, there

is intent to kill.
In physical injuries, there is none.
However, if as a result of the physical
injuries inflicted, the victim died, the crime
will be homicide because the law punishes
the result, and not the intent of the act.
Court with respect to the crime of homicide:
(1)
(2)
(3)
Physical injuries are included as

one of the essential elements of
frustrated homicide.
If the deceased received two
wounds from two persons acting
independently of each other and the
wound inflicted by either could have
caused death, both of them are
liable for the death of the victim and
each of them is guilty of homicide.
Article 251.
Death
Tumultuous Affray
Caused
in
Elements
1.
There are several persons;
2.
They do not compose groups

organized for the common purpose
of assaulting and attacking each
other reciprocally;
3.
These several persons quarreled

and assaulted one another in a
confused and tumultuous manner;
4.
Someone was killed in the course of

the affray;
5.
It can not be ascertained who

actually killed the deceased;
If the injuries were mortal but were

only due to negligence, the crime
114
6.
The person or persons who inflicted

serious physical injuries or who
used violence can be identified.
(2)
If they could not be known, then

anyone who may have employed
violence on that person will answer
for his death.
Tumultuous affray simply means a

commotion in a tumultuous and
confused manner, to such an
extent that it would not be possible
to identify who the killer is if death
results, or who inflicted the serious
physical injury, but the person or
persons who used violence are
known.
(3)
If nobody could still be traced to

have employed violence upon the
victim, nobody will answer. The
crimes
committed
might
be
disturbance of public order, or if
participants are armed, it could be
tumultuous
disturbance,
or if
property was destroyed, it could be
malicious mischief.
It is not a tumultuous affray which brings

about the crime; it is the inability to
ascertain actual perpetrator.
It is
necessary that the very person who caused
the death can not be known, not that he
can not be identified. Because if he is
known but only his identity is not known,
then he will be charged for the crime of
homicide or murder under a fictitious name
and not death in a tumultuous affray. If
there is a conspiracy, this crime is not
committed.
The fight must be tumultuous.

The
participants must not be members of an
organized group. This is different from a
rumble which involves organized groups
composed of persons who are to attack
others. If the fight is between such groups,
even if you cannot identify who, in
particular, committed the killing, the
adverse party composing the organized
group will be collectively charged for the
death of that person.
Illustration:
To be considered death in a tumultuous

affray, there must be:
(1)
a quarrel, a free-for-all,
which
should not involve organized group;
and
(2)
someone who is injured or killed

because of the fight.
As long as it cannot be determined who

killed the victim, all of those persons who
inflicted serious physical injuries will be
collectively answerable for the death of that
fellow.
The Revised Penal Code sets priorities as
to who may be liable for the death or
physical injury in tumultuous affray:
(1)
The persons who inflicted serious

physical injury upon the victim;
If a fight ensued between 20 Sigue-Sigue

Gang men and 20 Bahala-Na- Gang men,
and in the course thereof, one from each
group was killed, the crime would be
homicide or murder; there will be collective
responsibility on both sides. Note that the
person killed need not be a participant in
the fight.
Article 252. Physical Injuries Inflicted in
A Tumultuous Affray
Elements
1.
There is a tumultuous affray;
2.
A participant or some participants

thereof suffered serious physical
injuries or physical injuries of a less
serious nature only;
115
3.
The person responsible thereof can

not be identified;
4.
All those who appear to have used

violence upon the person of the
offended party are known.
If in the course of the tumultuous affray,

only serious or less serious physical injuries
are inflicted upon a participant, those who
used violence upon the person of the
offended party shall be held liable.
In physical injuries caused in a tumultuous
affray, the conditions are also the same.
But you do not have a crime of physical
injuries resulting from a tumultuous affray if
the physical injury is only slight. The
physical injury should be serious or less
serious and resulting from a tumultuous
affray.
So anyone who may have
employed violence will answer for such
serious or less serious physical injury.
If the physical injury sustained is only slight,
this is considered as inherent in a
tumultuous affray.
The offended party
cannot complain if he cannot identify who
inflicted the slight physical injuries on him.
In this crime, the intention must be for the

person who is asking the assistance of
another to commit suicide.
If the intention is not to commit suicide, as
when he just wanted to have a picture
taken of him to impress upon the world that
he is committing suicide because he is not
satisfied with the government, the crime is
held to be inciting to sedition.
He becomes a co-conspirator in the crime
of inciting to sedition, but not of giving
assistance to suicide because the
assistance must be given to one who is
really determined to commit suicide.
If the person does the killing himself, the
penalty is similar to that of homicide, which
is reclusion temporal. There can be no
qualifying circumstance because the
determination to die must come from the
victim.
This does not contemplate
euthanasia or mercy killing where the crime
is homicide (if without consent; with
consent, covered by Article 253).
Court with respect to this crime:
(1)
The crime is frustrated if the

offender gives the assistance by
doing the killing himself as firing
upon the head of the victim but who
did not die due to medical
assistance.
(2)
The person attempting to commit

suicide is not liable if he survives.
The accused is liable if he kills the
victim, his sweetheart, because of a
suicide pact.
Article 253. Giving Assistance to Suicide

Acts punished
1.
2.
Assisting another to commit suicide,

whether the suicide is consummated
or not;
Lending his assistance to another to
commit suicide to the extent of
doing the killing himself.
Giving assistance to suicide means giving

means (arms, poison, etc.) or whatever
manner of positive and direct cooperation
(intellectual aid, suggestions regarding the
mode of committing suicide, etc.).
In other penal codes, if the person who

wanted to die did not die, there is liability
on his part because there is public
disturbance committed by him.
Our
Revised Penal Code is silent but there is
no bar against accusing the person of
disturbance of public order if indeed
116
serious disturbance of public peace

occurred due to his attempt to commit
suicide. If he is not prosecuted, this is out
of pity and not because he has not violated
the Revised Penal Code.
In mercy killing, the victim is not in a
position to commit suicide. Whoever would
heed his advice is not really giving
assistance to suicide but doing the killing
himself. In giving assistance to suicide, the
principal actor is the person committing the
suicide.
discharge of firearm, or if less

serious physical injury, the complex
crime of less serious physical injury
with illegal discharge of firearm will
apply.
(2)
Firing a gun at a person even if

merely to frighten him constitutes
illegal discharge of firearm.
Article 255. Infanticide

Elements
Both in euthanasia and suicide, the

intention to the end life comes from the
victim himself; otherwise the article does
not apply. The victim must persistently
induce the offender to end his life. If there
is only slight persuasion to end his life, and
the offender readily assented thereto.
Article 254. Discharge of Firearms
1. Offender discharges a firearm against
or at another person;
2. Offender had no intention to kill that
person.
This crime cannot be committed through
imprudence because it requires that the
discharge must be directed at another.
If the firearm is directed at a person and
the trigger was pressed but did not fire, the
crime is frustrated discharge of firearm.
If the discharge is not directed at a person,
the crime may constitute alarm and
scandal.
Court with respect to this crime:
(1)
If serious physical injuries resulted

from
discharge,
the
crime
committed is the complex crime of
serious physical injury with illegal
1. A child was killed by the accused;

2. The deceased child was less than
72 hours old.
This is a crime based on the age of the
victim. The victim should be less than
three days old.
The offender may actually be the parent
of the child. But you call the crime
infanticide, not parricide, if the age of
the victim is less than three days old. If
the victim is three days old or above,
the crime is parricide.
Illustration:
An unmarried woman, A, gave birth to a
child, B. To conceal her dishonor, A
conspired with C to dispose of the child.
C agreed and killed the child B by
burying the child somewhere.
If the child was killed when the age of
the child was three days old and above
already, the crime of A is parricide. The
fact that the killing was done to conceal
her dishonor will not mitigate the
criminal liability anymore because
concealment of dishonor in killing the
child is not mitigating in parricide.
If the crime committed by A is parricide
because the age of the child is three
117
days old or above, the crime of the coconspirator C is murder.

It is not
parricide because he is not related to
the victim.
3. Acting (by administering

drugs or beverages), with the
consent of the pregnant woman.
If the child is less than three days old

when killed, both the mother and the
stranger commits infanticide because
infanticide is not predicated on the
relation of the offender to the offended
party but on the age of the child. In
such a case, concealment of dishonor
as a motive for the mother to have the
child killed is mitigating.
Concealment of dishonor is not an
element of infanticide. It merely lowers
the penalty. If the child is abandoned
without any intent to kill and death
results as a consequence, the crime
committed is not infanticide but
abandonment under Article 276.
Elements
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is exerted, or drugs
or beverages administered, or
that the accused otherwise acts
upon such pregnant woman;
3. As a result of the use of violence or
drugs or beverages upon her, or any
other act of the accused, the fetus dies,
either in the womb or after having been
expelled therefrom;
4.
The abortion is intended.
If the purpose of the mother is to

conceal her dishonor, infanticide
through imprudence is not committed
because the purpose of concealing the
dishonor is incompatible with the
absence of malice in culpable felonies.
Abortion is the violent expulsion of a fetus

from the maternal womb. If the fetus has
been delivered but it could not subsist by
itself, it is still a fetus and not a person.
Thus, if it is killed, the crime committed is
abortion not infanticide.
If the child is born dead, or if the child is

already dead, infanticide is not
committed.
Distinction between infanticide and abortion
Article 256. Intentional Abortion

Acts punished
It is infanticide if the victim is already a

person less that three days old or 72 hours
and is viable or capable of living separately
from the mothers womb.
It is abortion if the victim is not viable but
remains to be a fetus.
1. Using any violence upon the

person of the pregnant woman;
2. Acting, but without using
violence, without the consent of
the woman. (By administering
drugs or beverages upon such
pregnant woman without her
consent.)
Abortion is not a crime against the woman

but against the fetus. If mother as a
consequence of abortion suffers death or
physical injuries, you have a complex crime
of murder or physical injuries and abortion.
In intentional abortion, the offender must
know of the pregnancy because the
particular criminal intention is to cause an
abortion. Therefore, the offender must
118
have known of the pregnancy for

otherwise, he would not try an abortion.
If the woman turns out not to be pregnant
and someone performs an abortion upon
her, he is liable for an impossible crime if
the woman suffers no physical injury. If she
does, the crime will be homicide, serious
physical injuries, etc.
Under the Article 40 of the Civil Code, birth
determines personality.
A person is
considered born at the time when the
umbilical cord is cut. He then acquires a
personality separate from the mother.
But even though the umbilical cord has
been cut, Article 41 of the Civil Code
provides that if the fetus had an intrauterine life of less than seven months, it
must survive at least 24 hours after the
umbilical cord is cut for it to be considered
born.
Illustration:
A mother delivered an offspring which had
an intra-uterine life of seven months.
Before the umbilical cord is cut, the child
was killed.
If it could be shown that had the umbilical
cord been cut, that child, if not killed, would
have survived beyond 24 hours, the crime
is infanticide because that conceived child
is already considered born.
If it could be shown that the child, if not
killed, would not have survived beyond 24
hours, the crime is abortion because what
was killed was a fetus only.
In abortion, the concealment of dishonor as
a motive of the mother to commit the
abortion upon herself is mitigating. It will
also mitigate the liability of the maternal
grandparent of the victim the mother of
the pregnant woman if the abortion was
done with the consent of the pregnant
woman.
If the abortion was done by the mother of

the pregnant woman without the consent of
the woman herself, even if it was done to
conceal dishonor, that circumstance will not
mitigate her criminal liability.
But if those who performed the abortion are
the parents of the pregnant woman, or
either of them, and the pregnant woman
consented for the purpose of concealing
her dishonor, the penalty is the same as
that imposed upon the woman who
practiced the abortion upon herself .
Frustrated abortion is committed if the fetus
that is expelled is viable and, therefore, not
dead as abortion did not result despite the
employment of adequate and sufficient
means to make the pregnant woman abort.
If the means are not sufficient or adequate,
the crime would be an impossible crime of
abortion. In consummated abortion, the
fetus must be dead.
One who persuades her sister to abort is a
co-principal, and one who looks for a
physician to make his sweetheart abort is
an accomplice.
The physician will be
punished under Article 259 of the Revised
Penal Code.
Article 257. Unintentional Abortion
1.
There is a pregnant woman;
2.
Violence is used upon such

pregnant woman without intending
an abortion;
1. The violence is intentionally exerted;

4.
As a result of the violence, the fetus

dies, either in the womb or after
having been expelled therefrom.
Unintentional abortion requires physical

violence
inflicted
deliberately
and
voluntarily by a third person upon the
person of the pregnant woman. Mere
119
intimidation is not enough unless the

degree
of
intimidation
already
approximates violence.
If the pregnant woman aborted because of
intimidation, the crime committed is not
unintentional abortion because there is no
violence; the crime committed is light
threats.
If the pregnant woman was killed by
violence by her husband, the crime
committed is the complex crime of parricide
with unlawful abortion.
there is no liability. If the act of violence is

not felonious, but there is knowledge of the
womans pregnancy, the offender is liable
for unintentional abortion.
Illustration:
The act of pushing another causing her to
fall is a felonious act and could result in
physical injuries. Correspondingly, if not
only physical injuries were sustained but
abortion also resulted, the felonious act of
pushing is the proximate cause of the
unintentional abortion.
Unintentional abortion may be committed

through negligence as it is enough that the
use of violence be voluntary.
Illustration:
A quarrel ensued between A, husband, and
B, wife. A became so angry that he struck
B, who was then pregnant, with a soft drink
bottle on the hip. Abortion resulted and B
died.
In US v. Jeffry, 15 Phil. 391, the Supreme
Court said that knowledge of pregnancy of
the offended party is not necessary. In
People v. Carnaso, decided on April 7,
1964, however, the Supreme Court held
that knowledge of pregnancy is required in
unintentional abortion.
Criticism:
Under Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised
Penal Code, any person committing a
felony is criminally liable for all the direct,
natural, and logical consequences of his
felonious acts although it may be different
from that which is intended. The act of
employing violence or physical force upon
the woman is already a felony. It is not
material if offender knew about the woman
being pregnant or not.
If the act of violence is not felonious, that
is, act of self-defense, and there is no
knowledge of the womans pregnancy,
Questions & Answers

1.
to commit
window of
passerby.
followed.
abortion?
A pregnant woman decided

suicide. She jumped out of a
a building but she landed on a
She did not die but an abortion
Is she liable for unintentional
No.
What is contemplated in
unintentional abortion is that the force or
violence must come from another. If it was
the woman doing the violence upon
herself, it must be to bring about an
abortion, and therefore, the crime will be
intentional abortion. In this case, where
the woman tried to commit suicide, the act
of trying to commit suicide is not a felony
under the Revised Penal Code. The one
penalized in suicide is the one giving
assistance and not the person trying to
commit suicide.
2.
If the abortive drug used in
abortion is a prohibited drug or regulated
drug under Presidential Decree No. 6425
(The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as
amended, what are the crimes committed?
The crimes committed are (1)
intentional abortion; and (2) violation of the
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972.
120
Article 258. Abortion Practiced by the

Woman Herself or by Her Parents
Elements
1.
There is a pregnant woman who has

suffered an abortion;
2.
The abortion is intended;
3.
Abortion is caused by
Illustration:
A woman who is pregnant got sick. The
doctor administered a medicine which
resulted in Abortion. The crime committed
was
unintentional
abortion
through
negligence or imprudence.
Question & Answer
a.
The
pregnant
herself;
woman
b.
Any other person, with her

consent; or
c.
Any of her parents, with her

consent for the purpose of
concealing her dishonor.
Article 259. Abortion Practiced by A

Physician or Midwife and Dispensing of
Abortives
What is the liability of a physician

who aborts the fetus to save the life of the
mother?
None. This is a case of therapeutic
abortion which is done out of a state of
necessity. Therefore, the requisites under
Article 11, paragraph 4, of the Revised
Penal Code must be present. There must
be no other practical or less harmful means
of saving the life of the mother to make the
killing justified.
Elements
Article
260.
Responsibility
Participants in A Duel
1.
Acts punished
There is a pregnant woman who has

suffered an abortion;
1.
Killing ones adversary in a duel;
2.
Inflicting upon
physical injuries;
Making a combat although no

physical injuries have been inflicted.
2.
The abortion is intended;
3.
Offender, who must be a physician

or midwife, caused or assisted in
causing the abortion;
3.
Said physician or midwife took

advantage of his or her scientific
knowledge or skill.
Persons liable
4.
If the abortion is produced by a physician to

save the life of the mother, there is no
liability. This is known as a therapeutic
abortion.
But abortion without medical
necessity to warrant it is punishable even
with the consent of the woman or her
husband.
of
such
adversary
1.
The person who killed or inflicted

physical injuries upon his adversary,
or both combatants in any other
case, as principals.
2.
The seconds, as accomplices.
121
There is no such crime nowadays because

people hit each other even without entering
into any pre-conceived agreement. This is
an obsolete provision.
Acts punished
1.
A duel may be defined as a formal or

regular combat previously consented to by
two parties in the presence of two or more
seconds of lawful age on each side, who
make the selection of arms and fix all the
other conditions of the fight to settle some
antecedent quarrel.
Elements
If these are not the conditions of the fight, it

is not a duel in the sense contemplated in
the Revised Penal Code. It will be a
quarrel and anyone who killed the other will
be liable for homicide or murder, as the
case may be.
The concept of duel under the Revised
Penal Code is a classical one.
2.
Article 261. Challenging to A Duel
Acts punished
1.
Challenging another to a duel;
2.
Inciting another to give or accept a

challenge to a duel;
3.
Scoffing at or decrying another

publicly for having refused to accept
a challenge to fight a duel.
Illustration:
If one challenges another to a duel by
shouting Come down, Olympia, let us
measure your prowess. We will see whose
intestines will come out. You are a coward
if you do not come down, the crime of
challenging to a duel is not committed.
What is committed is the crime of light
threats under Article 285, paragraph 1 of
the Revised Penal Code.
Intentionally mutilating another by

depriving him, either totally or
partially, of some essential organ for
reproduction;
1.
There be a castration, that

is, mutilation of organs
necessary for generation,
such as the penis or
ovarium;
2.
The mutilation is caused

purposely and deliberately,
that is, to deprive the
offended party of some
essential
organ
for
reproduction
Intentionally
making
other
mutilation, that is, by lopping or
clipping off any part of the body of
the offended party, other than the
essential organ for reproduction, to
deprive him of that part of his body.
Mutilation is the lopping or clipping off of

some part of the body.
The intent to deliberately cut off the
particular part of the body that was
removed from the offended party must be
established. If there is no intent to deprive
victim of particular part of body, the crime is
only serious physical injury.
The common mistake is to associate this
with the reproductive organs only.
Mutilation includes any part of the human
body that is not susceptible to grow again.
If what was cut off was a reproductive
organ, the penalty is much higher than that
for homicide.
Article 262. Mutilation

122
This cannot be committed through criminal

negligence.
3.
Article 263. Serious Physical Injuries
When the person injured

a.
Becomes deformed; or
b.
Loses any other member of

his body; or
c.
Loses the use thereof; or
d.
Becomes ill or incapacitated

for the performance of the
work in which he was
habitually engaged for more
than
90
days
in
consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted;
How committed
1.
By wounding;
2.
By beating;
3.
By assaulting; or
4.
By
administering
substance.
injurious
4.
In one case, the accused, while conversing

with the offended party, drew the latters
bolo from its scabbard. The offended party
caught hold of the edge of the blade of his
bolo and wounded himself. It was held that
since the accused did not wound, beat or
assault the offended party, he can not be
guilty of serious physical injuries.
Serious physical injuries
1.
2.
When the injured person becomes

insane, imbecile, impotent or blind in
consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted;
When the injured person
a.
Loses the use of speech or

the power to hear or to smell,
or loses an eye, a hand,
afoot, an arm, or a leg;
b.
Loses the use of any such

member; or
c.
Becomes incapacitated for

the work in which he was
theretofore
habitually
engaged, in consequence of
the physical injuries inflicted;
When the injured person becomes

ill or incapacitated for labor for more
than 30 days (but must not be more
than 90 days), as a result of the
physical injuries inflicted.
The crime of physical injuries is a crime of

result because under our laws the crime of
physical injuries is based on the gravity of
the injury sustained.
So this crime is
always consummated, notwithstanding the
opinion of Spanish commentators like
Cuello Calon, Viada, etc., that it can be
committed in the attempted or frustrated
stage.
If the act does not give rise to injuries, you
will not be able to say whether it is
attempted
slight
physical
injuries,
attempted less serious physical injuries, or
attempted serious physical injuries unless
the result is there.
The reason why there is no attempted or
frustrated physical injuries is because the
crime of physical injuries is determined on
the gravity of the injury. As long as the
injury is not there, there can be no
attempted or frustrated stage thereof.
Classification of physical injuries:
123
(1)
Between slight physical injuries and

less serious physical injuries, you
have a duration of one to nine days
if slight physical injuries; or 10 days
to 20 days if less serious physical
injuries. Consider the duration of
healing and treatment.
The significant part here is between
slight physical injuries and less
serious physical injuries. You will
consider not only the healing
duration of the injury but also the
medical attendance required to treat
the injury. So the healing duration
may be one to nine days, but if the
medical treatment continues beyond
nine days, the physical injuries
would already qualify as less
serious physical injuries.
The
medical treatment may have lasted
for nine days, but if the offended
party is still incapacitated for labor
beyond nine days, the physical
injuries are already considered less
(2)
Between less serious physical

injuries
and
serious
physical
injuries, you do not consider the
period of medical treatment. You
only consider the period when the
offended
party
is
rendered
incapacitated for labor.
If
the
offended
party
is
incapacitated to work for less than
30 days, even though the treatment
continued beyond 30 days, the
physical injuries are only considered
less serious because for purposes
of classifying the physical injuries as
serious, you do not consider the
period of medical treatment. You
only consider the period of
incapacity from work.
(3)
When the injury created a deformity

upon the offended party, you
disregard the healing duration or the
period
of
medical
treatment
involved. At once, it is considered

So even though the deformity may
not have incapacitated the offended
party from work, or even though the
medical treatment did not go
beyond nine days, that deformity
will bring about the crime of serious
physical injuries.
Deformity requires the concurrence
of the following conditions:
(1)
The injury
ugliness;
must
produce
(2)
It must be visible;
(3)
The
ugliness
will
not
disappear through natural
healing process.
Illustration:
Loss of molar tooth This is not
deformity as it is not visible.
Loss of permanent front tooth This
is deformity as it is visible and
permanent.
Loss of milk front tooth This is not
deformity as it is visible but will be
naturally replaced.
Question & Answer

The offender threw acid on the face
of the offended party. Were it not for timely
medical attention, a deformity would have
been produced on the face of the victim.
After the plastic surgery, the offended party
was more handsome than before the injury.
What crime was committed? In what stage
was it committed?
The crime is serious physical
injuries because the problem itself states
124
that the injury would have produced a

deformity. The fact that the plastic surgery
removed the deformity is immaterial
because in law what is considered is not
the artificial treatment but the natural
healing process.
In a case decided by the Supreme Court,
accused was charged with serious physical
injuries because the injuries produced a
scar. He was convicted under Article 263
(4). He appealed because, in the course of
the trial, the scar disappeared. It was held
that accused can not be convicted of
serious physical injuries. He is liable only
for slight physical injuries because the
victim was not incapacitated, and there was
no evidence that the medical treatment
lasted for more than nine days.
Serious physical injuries is punished with
higher penalties in the following
cases:
(1)
If it is committed against any of the

persons referred to in the crime of
parricide under Article 246;
(2)
If any of the
qualifying murder
commission.
circumstances
attended its
Thus, a father who inflicts serious physical

injuries upon his son will be liable for
qualified serious physical injuries.
Republic Act No. 8049 (The Anti-Hazing
Law)
Hazing -- This is any initiation rite or
practice which is a prerequisite for
admission into membership in a fraternity or
sorority or any organization which places
the neophyte or applicant in some
embarrassing or humiliating situations or
otherwise subjecting him to physical or
psychological suffering of injury. These do
not
include
any
physical,
mental,
psychological
testing
and
training
procedure and practice to determine and
enhance the physical and psychological

fitness of the prospective regular members
of the below.
Organizations include any club or AFP,
PNP, PMA or officer or cadet corps of the
CMT or CAT.
Section 2 requires a written notice to school
authorities from the head of the
organization seven days prior to the rites
and should not exceed three days in
duration.
Section 3 requires supervision by head of
the school or the organization of the rites.
Section 4 qualifies the crime if rape,
sodomy or mutilation results therefrom, if
the person becomes insane, an imbecile, or
impotent or blind because of such, if the
person loses the use of speech or the
power to hear or smell or an eye, a foot, an
arm or a leg, or the use of any such
member or any of the serious physical
injuries or the less serious physical injuries.
Also if the victim is below 12, or becomes
incapacitated for the work he habitually
engages in for 30, 10, 1-9 days.
It holds the parents, school authorities who
consented or who had actual knowledge if
they did nothing to prevent it, officers and
members
who
planned,
knowingly
cooperated or were present, present alumni
of the organization, owner of the place
where such occurred liable.
Makes presence a prima facie presumption
of guilt for such.
Article 264.
Administering Injurious
Substances or Beverages
Elements
1.
Offender inflicted upon another any

serious physical injury;
125
2.
3.
It
was
done
by
knowingly
administering to him any injurious
substance or beverages or by taking
advantage of his weakness of mind
or credulity;
He had no intent to kill.
Article 265.
Injuries
Less Serious Physical
Matters to be noted in this crime

1.
Offended party is incapacitated for

labor for 10 days or more (but not
more than 30 days), or needs
medical attendance for the same
period of time;
2.
The physical injuries must not be

those described in the preceding
articles.
If the physical injuries do not incapacitate

the offended party nor necessitate medical
attendance, slight physical injuries is
committed. But if the physical injuries heal
after 30 days, serious physical injuries is
committed under Article 263, paragraph 4.
Article 265 is an exception to Article 48 in
relation to complex crimes as the latter only
takes place in cases where the Revised
Penal Code has no specific provision
penalizing the same with a definite, specific
penalty. Hence, there is no complex crime
of slander by deed with less serious
physical injuries but only less serious
physical injuries if the act which was
committed produced the less serious
physical injuries with the manifest intent to
insult or offend the offended party, or under
circumstances adding ignominy to the
offense.
Qualified as to penalty
Article 266. Slight Physical Injuries and

Maltreatment
1.
Acts punished
A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in

addition to arresto mayor, shall be
imposed for less serious physical
injuries when
1.
Physical injuries incapacitated the

offended party for labor from one to
nine 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;
A higher penalty is imposed when

the victim is either
3.
Ill-treatment of another by deed

without causing any injury.
a.
The
offenders
parents,
ascendants,
guardians,
curators or teachers; or
This involves even ill-treatment where there

is no sign of injury requiring medical
treatment.
b.
Persons of rank or person in

authority, provided the crime
is not direct assault.
Slapping the offended party is a form of illtreatment which is a form of slight physical
injuries.
a.
b.
2.
There is a manifest intent to

insult or offend the injured
person; or
There are circumstances
adding ignominy to the
offense.
126
But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor

upon the person slapped, the crime is
slander by deed. If the slapping was done
without the intention of casting dishonor, or
to humiliate or embarrass the offended
party out of a quarrel or anger, the crime is
still ill-treatment or slight physical injuries.
the reference to Article 249 of the Code

which defines and penalizes the crime of
homicide were the victim is under 12 years
old is an error. Killing a child under 12 is
murder, not homicide, because the victim is
under no position to defend himself as held
in the case of People v. Ganohon, 196
SCRA 431.
Illustration:
If Hillary slaps Monica and told her You
choose your seconds . Let us meet behind
the Quirino Grandstand and see who is the
better and more beautiful between the two
of us, the crime is not ill-treatment, slight
physical injuries or slander by deed; it is a
form of challenging to a duel. The criminal
intent is to challenge a person to a duel.
The crime is slight physical injury if there is
no proof as to the period of the offended
partys incapacity for labor or of the
required medical attendance.
Republic
Act
No.
7610
(Special
Protection of Children against Child
Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination
Act), in relation to murder, mutilation or
injuries to a child
The last paragraph of Article VI of Republic
Act No. 7610, provides:
For purposes of this Act, the penalty for
the commission of acts punishable under
Articles 248, 249, 262 (2) and 263 (1) of Act
No 3815, as amended of the Revised Penal
Code for the crimes of murder, homicide,
other intentional mutilation, and serious
physical injuries, respectively, shall be
reclusion perpetua when the victim is under
twelve years of age.
The provisions of Republic Act No. 7160
modified the provisions of the Revised
Penal Code in so far as the victim of the
felonies referred to is under 12 years of
age. The clear intention is to punish the
said crimes with a higher penalty when the
victim is a child of tender age. Incidentally,
For murder, the penalty provided by the

Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
7659, is reclusion perpetua to death
higher than what Republic Act no. 7610
provides. Accordingly, insofar as the crime
is murder, Article 248 of the Code, as
amended, shall govern even if the victim
was under 12 years of age. It is only in
respect of the crimes of intentional
mutilation in paragraph 2 of Article 262 and
of serious physical injuries in paragraph 1
of Article 263 of the Code that the quoted
provision of Republic Act No. 7160 may be
applied for the higher penalty when the
victim is under 12 years old.
Article 266-A.
Committed
Rape, When and How

1.
Offender is a man;
2.
Offender had carnal knowledge of a

woman;
3.
Such act is accomplished under any

of the following circumstances:
a.
By
using
intimidation;
force
or
b.
When the woman is deprived

of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
c.
By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse
of authority; or
127
d.
When the woman is under

12
years
of
age
or
demented.
Classification of rape
(1)
Traditional concept under Article 335

carnal knowledge with a woman
against her will. The offended party
is always a woman and the offender
is always a man.
(2)
Sexual assault - committed with an

instrument or an object or use of the
penis with penetration of mouth or
anal orifice. The offended party or
the offender can either be man or
woman, that is, if a woman or a man
uses an instrument on anal orifice of
male, she or he can be liable for
rape.

1.
2.
3.
Offender commits an act of sexual

assault;
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;
Rape is committed when a man has carnal

knowledge of a woman under the
following circumstances:
(1)
Where intimidation or violence is

employed with a view to have carnal
knowledge of a woman;
(2)
Where the victim is deprived of

reason or otherwise unconscious;
(3)
Where the rape was made possible

because of fraudulent machination
or abuse of authority; or
(4)
Where the victim is under 12 years

of age, or demented, even though
no intimidation nor violence is
employed.
The act of sexual assault is

accomplished under any of the
a.
By
using
intimidation; or
force
or
b.
When the woman is deprived

of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or
c.
By means of fraudulent
machination or grave abuse
of authority; or
d.
When the woman is under

12
years
of
age
or
demented.
Republic Act No. 8353 (An Act Expanding

the Definition of the Crime of Rape,
Reclassifying the Same as A Crime
against Persons, Amending for the
Purpose the Revised Penal Code)
repealed Article335 on rape and added a
chapter on Rape under Title 8.
Sexual assault is committed under the

(1)
Where the penis is inserted into the

anal or oral orifice; or
(2)
Where an instrument or object is

inserted into the genital or oral
orifice.
If the crime of rape / sexual assault is

committed with the following circumstances,
the following penalties are imposed:
128
(1)
(2)
(3)
consanguinity within the 3rd

civil degree;
Reclusion perpetua to death/ prision

mayor to reclusion temporal -(d)
Where the victim is a

religious, that is, a member
of a legitimate religious
vocation and the offender
knows the victim as such
before or at the time of the
commission of the offense;
death/
(e)
Where the victim is a child

under 7 yrs of age;
(a)
Where the victim of the rape

has become insane; or
(f)
(b)
Where the rape is attempted

but a killing was committed
by the offender on the
occasion or by reason of the
rape.
Where the offender is a

member of the AFP, its
paramilitary arm, the PNP, or
any law enforcement agency
and the offender took
advantage of his position;
(g)
Where the offender is

afflicted with AIDS or other
sexually
transmissible
diseases, and he is aware
thereof when he committed
the rape, and the disease
was transmitted;
(h)
Where
the
victim has
suffered permanent physical
mutilation;
(i)
Where the pregnancy of the

offended party is known to
the rapist at the time of the
rape; or
(j)
Where the rapist is aware of

the victims mental disability,
emotional disturbance or
physical handicap.
(a)
Where rape is perpetrated

by the accused with a deadly
weapon; or
(b)
Where it is committed by two

or more persons.
Reclusion perpetua
reclusion temporal --
to
Death / reclusion perpetua -Where homicide is committed by

reason or on occasion of a
consummated rape.
(4)
Death/reclusion temporal -(a)
(b)
(c)
Where the victim is under 18

years of age and the
offender is her ascendant,
stepfather,
guardian,
or
relative
by
affinity
or
consanguinity within the 3rd
civil degree, or the common
law husband of the victims
mother; or
Where the victim was under
the custody of the police or
military authorities, or other
law enforcement agency;
Where the rape is committed
in full view of the victims
husband, the parents, any of
the children or relatives by
Prior to the amendment of the law on rape,

a complaint must be filed by the offended
woman. The persons who may file the
same in behalf of the offended woman if
she is a minor or if she was incapacitated
to file, were as follows: a parent; in default
129
of parents, a grandparent; in default or

grandparent, the judicial guardian.
evidence to show that carnal knowledge

was against his or her will.
Since rape is not a private crime anymore,

it can be prosecuted even if the woman
does not file a complaint.
When the victim is below 12 years old,

mere sexual intercourse with her is already
rape. Even if it was she who wanted the
sexual intercourse, the crime will be rape.
This is referred to as statutory rape.
If carnal knowledge was made possible

because of fraudulent machinations and
grave abuse of authority, the crime is rape.
This absorbs the crime of qualified and
simple seduction when no force or violence
was used, but the offender abused his
authority to rape the victim.
Under Article 266-C, the offended woman
may pardon the offender through a
subsequent valid marriage, the effect of
which would be the extinction of the
offenders liability.
Similarly, the legal
husband may be pardoned by forgiveness
of the wife provided that the marriage is not
void ab initio. Obviously, under the new
law, the husband may be liable for rape if
his wife does not want to have sex with
him. It is enough that there is indication of
any amount of resistance as to make it
rape.
Incestuous rape was coined in Supreme
Court decisions.
It refers to rape
committed by an ascendant of the offended
woman. In such cases, the force and
intimidation need not be of such nature as
would be required in rape cases had the
accused been a stranger. Conversely, the
Supreme Court expected that if the
offender is not known to woman, it is
necessary that there be evidence of
affirmative resistance put up by the
offended woman. Mere no, no is not
enough if the offender is a stranger,
although if the rape is incestuous, this is
enough.
The new rape law also requires that there
be a physical overt act manifesting
resistance, if the offended party was in a
situation where he or she is incapable of
giving valid consent, this is admissible in
In other cases, there must be force,

intimidation, or violence proven to have
been exerted to bring about carnal
knowledge or the woman must have been
deprived
of
reason
or
otherwise
unconscious.
Where the victim is over 12 years old, it
must be shown that the carnal knowledge
with her was obtained against her will. It is
necessary that there be evidence of some
resistance put up by the offended woman.
It is not, however, necessary that the
offended party should exert all her efforts to
prevent the carnal intercourse. It is enough
that from her resistance, it would appear
that the carnal intercourse is against her
will.
Mere initial resistance, which does not
indicate refusal on the part of the offended
party to the sexual intercourse, will not be
enough to bring about the crime of rape.
Note that it has been held that in the crime
of rape, conviction does not require
medico-legal finding of any penetration on
the part of the woman. A medico-legal
certificate is not necessary or indispensable
to convict the accused of the crime of rape.
It has also been held that although the
offended woman who is the victim of the
rape failed to adduce evidence regarding
the damages to her by reason of the rape,
the court may take judicial notice that there
is such damage in crimes against chastity.
The standard amount given now is P
30,000.00, with or without evidence of any
moral damage. But there are some cases
where the court awarded only P 20,000.00.
130
An accused may be convicted of rape on

the sole testimony of the offended woman.
It does not require that testimony be
corroborated before a conviction may
stand.
This is particularly true if the
commission of the rape is such that the
narration of the offended woman would
lead to no other conclusion except that the
rape was committed.
The fact that he did not remove the

underwear of the victim indicates that he
does not have a real intention to effect a
penetration. It was only to satisfy a lewd
design.
Illustration:
TITLE IX. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL

LIBERTY AND SECURITY
Daughter accuses her own father of having

raped her.
Allegation of several accused that the
woman consented
to their sexual
intercourse with her is a proposition which
is revolting to reason that a woman would
allow more than one man to have sexual
intercourse with her in the presence of the
others.
It has also been ruled that rape can be
committed in a standing position because
complete penetration is not necessary. The
slightest penetration contact with the
labia will consummate the rape.
On the other hand, as long as there is an
intent to effect sexual cohesion, although
unsuccessful,
the
crime
becomes
attempted rape. However, if that intention
is not proven, the offender can only be
convicted of acts of lasciviousness.
The main distinction between the crime of
attempted rape and acts of lasciviousness
is the intent to lie with the offended woman.
In a case where the accused jumped upon
a woman and threw her to the ground,
although the accused raised her skirts, the
accused did not make any effort to remove
her underwear. Instead, he removed his
own underwear and placed himself on top
of the woman and started performing
sexual movements. Thereafter, when he
was finished, he stood up and left. The
crime committed is only acts of
lasciviousness and not attempted rape.
Is there a complex crime under Article 48 of

kidnapping with rape? Read kidnapping.
Crimes against liberty

1.
Kidnapping and serious

detention (Art. 267);
illegal
2.
Slight illegal detention (Art. 268);
3.
Unlawful arrest (Art. 269);
4.
Kidnapping and failure to return a

minor (Art. 270);
5.
Inducing a minor to abandon his

home (Art. 271);
6.
Slavery (Art. 272);
7.
Exploitation of child labor (Art. 273);
8.
Services
rendered
under
compulsion in payment of debts
(Art. 274).
Crimes against security

1.
Abandonment of persons in danger

and abandonment of one's own
victim (Art. 275);
2.
Abandoning a minor (Art. 276);
3.
Abandonment of minor by person

entrusted
with
his
custody;
indifference of parents (Art. 277);
4.
Exploitation of minors (Art. 278);

131
5.
Trespass to dwelling (Art. 280);
6.
Other forms of trespass (Art. 281);
7.
Grave threats (Art. 282);
8.
Light threats (Art. 283);
9.
Other light threats (Art. 285);
10.
Grave coercions (Art. 286);
11.
Light coercions (Art. 287);
12.
Other similar coercions (Art. 288);
13.
Formation,
maintenance
and
prohibition of combination of capital
or labor through violence or threats
(Art. 289);
14.
Discovering secrets through seizure

of correspondence (Art. 290);
15.
Revealing secrets with abus of

office (Art. 291);
16.
Revealing of industrial secrets (Art.

292).
b.
It is committed simulating
public authority;
c.
Any serious physical injuries

are inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained or
threats to kill him are made;
or
d.
The person kidnapped or

detained is a minor, female,
or a public officer.
If there is any crime under Title IX which

has no corresponding provision with crimes
under Title II, then, the offender may be a
public officer or a private person. If there is
a corresponding crime under Title II, the
offender under Title IX for such similar
crime is a private person.
When a public officer conspires with a
private person in the commission of any of
the crimes under Title IX, the crime is also
one committed under this title and not
under Title II.
Illustration:
Article 267.
Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention
Elements
1.
Offender is a private individual;
2.
He kidnaps or detains another, or in

any other manner deprives the latter
of his liberty;
3.
The act of detention or kidnapping

must be illegal;
4.
In the commission of the offense,

any of the following circumstances
is present:
a.
The kidnapping lasts

more than 3 days;
for
If a private person commits the crime of

kidnapping or serious illegal detention,
even though a public officer conspires
therein, the crime cannot be arbitrary
detention. As far as that public officer is
concerned, the crime is also illegal
detention.
In the actual essence of the crime, when
one says kidnapping, this connotes the
idea of transporting the offended party from
one place to another. When you think
illegal detention, it connotes the idea that
one is restrained of his liberty without
necessarily transporting him from one place
to another.
The crime of kidnapping is committed if the
purpose of the offender is to extort ransom
either from the victim or from any other
132
person. But if a person is transported not

for ransom, the crime can be illegal
detention. Usually, the offended party is
brought to a place other than his own, to
detain him there.
If a woman is carried against her will but

without lewd design on the part of the
offender, the crime is grave coercion.
Illustration:
When one thinks of kidnapping, it is not

only that of transporting one person from
one place to another. One also has to
think of the criminal intent.
Forcible abduction -- If a woman is
transported from one place to another by
virtue of restraining her of her liberty, and
that act is coupled with lewd designs.
Serious illegal detention If a woman is
transported just to restrain her of her liberty.
There is no lewd design or lewd intent.
Grave coercion If a woman is carried
away just to break her will, to compel her to
agree to the demand or request by the
offender.
In a decided case, a suitor, who cannot get
a favorable reply from a woman, invited the
woman to ride with him, purportedly to take
home the woman from class. But while the
woman is in his car, he drove the woman to
a far place and told the woman to marry
him.
On the way, the offender had
repeatedly touched the private parts of the
woman. It was held that the act of the
offender of touching the private parts of the
woman could not be considered as lewd
designs because he was willing to marry
the offended party. The Supreme Court
ruled that when it is a suitor who could
possibly marry the woman, merely kissing
the woman or touching her private parts to
compel her to agree to the marriage, such
cannot be characterized as lewd design. It
is considered merely as the passion of a
lover. But if the man is already married,
you cannot consider that as legitimate but
immoral and definitely amounts to lewd
design.
Tom Cruz invited Nicole Chizmacks for a

snack. They drove along Roxas Boulevard,
along the Coastal Road and to Cavite. The
woman was already crying and wanted to
be brought home. Tom imposed the
condition that Nicole should first marry him.
Nicole found this as, simply, a mission
impossible. The crime committed in this
case is grave coercion. But if after they
drove to Cavite, the suitor placed the
woman in a house and would not let her
out until she agrees to marry him, the crime
would be serious illegal detention.
If the victim is a woman or a public officer,
the detention is always serious no matter
how short the period of detention is.
Circumstances
which
detention serious
make
illegal
(1)
When the illegal detention lasted for

three days, regardless of who the
offended party is;
(2)
When the offended party is a

female, even if the detention lasted
only for minutes;
(3)
If the offended party is a minor or a

public officer, no matter how long or
how short the detention is;
(4)
When threats to kill are made or

serious physical injuries have been
inflicted; and
(5)
If it shall have been committed

simulating public authority.
Distinction between illegal detention and

arbitrary detention
133
Illegal detention is committed by a private

person who kidnaps, detains, or otherwise
deprives another of his liberty.
Arbitrary detention is committed by a public
officer who detains a person without legal
grounds.
This amendment brings about a

composite crime of kidnapping with
homicide when it is the victim of the
kidnapping who was killed, or dies
as a consequence of the detention
and, thus, only one penalty is
imposed which is death.
The penalty for kidnapping is higher than

for forcible abduction.
This is wrong
because if the offender knew about this, he
would perform lascivious acts upon the
woman and be charged only for forcible
abduction instead of kidnapping or illegal
detention. He thereby benefits from this
absurdity, which arose when Congress
amended Article 267, increasing the
penalty thereof, without amending Article
342 on forcible abduction.
Article 48, on complex crimes, does not

govern in this case. But Article 48 will
govern if any other person is killed aside,
because the provision specifically refers to
victim. Accordingly, the rulings in cases of
People v. Parulan, People v. Ging Sam,
and other similar cases where the accused
were convicted for the complex crimes of
kidnapping with murder have become
academic.
Article 267 has been modified by Republic

Act No. 7659 in the following respects:
(1)
Illegal detention becomes serious

when it shall have lasted for more
than three days, instead of five days
as originally provided;
(2)
In paragraph 4, if the person

kidnapped or detained was a minor
and the offender was anyone of the
parents, the latter has been
expressly
excluded
from
the
provision. The liability of the parent
is provided for in the last paragraph
of Article 271;
(3)
A paragraph was added to Article

267, which states:
When the victim is
killed or dies as a
consequence of the
detention or is raped,
or is subjected to
torture,
or
dehumanizing acts,
the maximum penalty
shall be imposed.
In the composite crime of kidnapping with

homicide, the term homicide is used in the
generic sense and, thus, covers all forms of
killing whether in the nature of murder or
otherwise. It does not matter whether the
purpose of the kidnapping was to kill the
victim or not, as long as the victim was
killed, or died as a consequence of the
kidnapping or detention. There is no more
separate crime of kidnapping and murder if
the victim was kidnapped not for the
purpose of killing her.
If the victim was raped, this brings about
the composite crime of kidnapping with
rape. Being a composite crime, not a
complex crime, the same is regarded as a
single indivisible offense as in fact the law
punishes such acts with only a single
penalty.
In a way, the amendment
depreciated the seriousness of the rape
because no matter how many times the
victim was raped, there will only be one
kidnapping with rape. This would not be
the consequence if rape were a separate
crime from kidnapping because each act of
rape would be a distinct count.
However for the crime to be kidnapping
with rape, the offender should not have
taken the victim with lewd designs as
134
otherwise the crime would be forcible

abduction; and if the victim was raped, the
complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape would be committed. If the taking was
forcible abduction, and the woman was
raped several times, there would only be
one crime of forcible abduction with rape,
and each of the other rapes would
constitute distinct counts of rape. This was
the ruling in the case of People v. Bacalso.
Elements
1.
Offender is a private individual;
2.
He kidnaps or detains another, or in

any other manner deprives him of
his liberty.
3.
The act of kidnapping or detention is

illegal;
In People v. Lactao, decided on October

29, 1993, the Supreme Court stressed that
the crime is serious illegal detention if the
purpose was to deprive the offended party
of her liberty. And if in the course of the
illegal detention, the offended party was
raped, a separate crime of rape would be
committed. This is so because there is no
complex crime of serious illegal detention
with rape since the illegal detention was
not a necessary means to the commission
of rape.
4.
The crime is committed without the

attendance
of
any
of
the
circumstances enumerated in Article
267.
In People v. Bernal, 131 SCRA 1, the

appellants were held guilty of separate
crimes of serious illegal detention and of
multiple rapes. With the amendment by
Republic Act No. 7659 making rape a
qualifying circumstance in the crime of
kidnapping and serious illegal detention,
the jurisprudence is superseded to the
effect that the rape should be a distinct
crime. Article 48 on complex crimes may
not apply when serious illegal detention
and rape are committed by the same
offender. The offender will be charged for
the composite crime of serious illegal
detention with rape as a single indivisible
offense, regardless of the number of times
that the victim was raped.
(1)
The offended party is voluntarily

released within three days from the
start of illegal detention;
(2)
Without attaining the purpose;
(3)
Before the institution of the criminal

action.
Also, when the victim of the kidnapping and

serious illegal detention was subjected to
torture and sustained physical injuries, a
composite crime of kidnapping with
physical injuries is committed.
Article 268. Slight Illegal Detention
This felony is committed if any of the five

circumstances in the commission of
kidnapping or detention enumerated in
Article 267 is not present.
The penalty is lowered if
One should know the nature of the illegal

detention to know whether the voluntary
release of the offended party will affect the
criminal liability of the offender.
When the offender voluntarily releases the
offended party from detention within three
days from the time the restraint of liberty
began, as long as the offender has not
accomplished his purposes, and the
release was made before the criminal
prosecution was commenced, this would
serve to mitigate the criminal liability of the
offender, provided that the kidnapping or
illegal detention is not serious.
If the illegal detention is serious, however,
even if the offender voluntarily released the
135
offended party, and such release was

within three days from the time the
detention began, even if the offender has
not accomplished his purpose in detaining
the offended party, and even if there is no
criminal prosecution yet, such voluntary
release will not mitigate the criminal liability
of the offender.
One who furnishes the place where the
offended party is being held generally acts
as an accomplice. But the criminal liability
in connection with the kidnapping and
serious illegal detention, as well as the
slight illegal detention, is that of the
principal and not of the accomplice.
Before, in People v. Saliente, if the
offended party subjected to serious illegal
detention was voluntarily released by the
accused in accordance with the provisions
of Article 268 (3), the crime, which would
have been serious illegal detention,
became slight illegal detention only.
The prevailing rule now is Asistio v.
Judge, which provides that voluntary
release will only mitigate criminal liability if
crime was slight illegal detention.
If
serious, it has no effect.
a condition for the release is ransom, under

this article.
In the case of People v. Roluna, decided
March 29, 1994, witnesses saw a person
being taken away with hands tied behind
his back and was not heard from for six
years. Supreme Court reversed the trial
court ruling that the men accused were
guilty of kidnapping with murder. The crime
is only slight illegal detention under Article
268, aggravated by a band, since none of
the circumstances in Article 267 has been
proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The
fact that the victim has been missing for six
years raises a presumption of death, but
from this disputable presumption of death,
it should not be further presumed that the
persons who were last seen with the
absentee
is
responsible
for
his
disappearance.
Article 269. Unlawful Arrest
Elements
1.
Offender arrests or detains another

person;
2.
In kidnapping for ransom, voluntary release
will not mitigate the crime. This is because,
with the reimposition of the death penalty,
this crime is penalized with the extreme
penalty of death.
The purpose of the offender is to

deliver him to the proper authorities;
3.
The arrest or detention is not

authorized by law or there is no
reasonable ground therefor.
What is ransom? It is the money, price or

consideration paid or demanded
for redemption of a captured
person or persons, a payment
that releases a person from
captivity.
This felony consists in making an arrest or

detention without legal or reasonable
ground for the purpose of delivering the
offended party to the proper authorities.
The definition of ransom under the

Lindberg law of the U.S. has been adopted
in our jurisprudence in People v. Akiran,
18 SCRA 239, 242, such that when a
creditor detains a debtor and releases the
latter only upon the payment of the debt,
such payment of the debt, which was made
The offended party may also be detained

but the crime is not illegal detention
because the purpose is to prosecute the
person arrested. The detention is only
incidental; the primary criminal intention of
the offender is to charge the offended party
for a crime he did not actually commit.
136
Generally, this crime is committed by

incriminating innocent persons by the
offenders planting evidence to justify the
arrest a complex crime results, that is,
unlawful arrest through incriminatory
machinations under Article 363.
If the arrest is made without a warrant and
under circumstances not allowing a
warrantless arrest, the crime would be
unlawful arrest.
If the person arrested is not delivered to the
authorities, the private individual making
the arrest incurs criminal liability for illegal
detention under Article 267 or 268.
If the offender is a public officer, the crime
is arbitrary detention under Article 124.
If the detention or arrest is for a legal
ground, but the public officer delays
delivery of the person arrested to the
proper judicial authorities, then Article 125
will apply.
Note that this felony may
committed by public officers.
also
be
If the accused is any of the parents, Article

267 does not apply; Articles 270 and 271
apply.
If the taking is with the consent of the
parents, the crime in Article 270 is
committed.
In People v. Generosa, it was held that
deliberate failure to return a minor under
ones custody constitutes deprivation of
liberty. Kidnapping and failure to return a
minor is necessarily included in kidnapping
and serious illegal detention of a minor
under Article 267(4).
In People v. Mendoza, where a minor child
was taken by the accused without the
knowledge and consent of his parents, it
was held that the crime is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention under Article 267,
not kidnapping and failure to return a minor
under Article 270.
Article 271. Inducing A Minor to Abandon
His Home
Elements
Article 270. Kidnapping and Failure to

Return A Minor
1.
A minor (whether over or under

seven years of age) is living in the
home of his parents or guardians or
the person entrusted with his
custody;
2.
Offender induces said minor to

abandon such home.
Elements
1.
2.
Offender is entrusted with the

custody of a minor person (whether
over or under seven years but less
than 21 years of age);
He deliberately fails to restore the
said minor to his parents or
guardians.
If any of the foregoing elements is absent,

the kidnapping of the minor will then fall
under Article 267.
Article 272. Slavery

Elements
1.
Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps

or detains a human being;
2.

enslave such human being.
137
This is committed if anyone shall purchase,

kidnap, or detain a human being for the
purpose of enslaving him. The penalty is
increased if the purpose of the offender is
to assign the offended party to some
immoral traffic.
This is distinguished from illegal detention
by the purpose. If the purpose of the
kidnapping or detention is to enslave the
offended party, slavery is committed.
Article 275. Abandonment of Persons in

Danger and Abandonment of Ones Own
Victim
Acts punished
1.
The crime is slavery if the offender is not

engaged in the business of prostitution. If
he is, the crime is white slave trade under
Article 341.
Failing to render assistance to any

person whom the offender finds in
an uninhabited place wounded or in
danger of dying when he can render
such assistance without detriment to
himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense.
Elements
Article 273. Exploitation of Child Labor

1.
The place is not inhabited;
2.
Accused found there

person wounded or
danger of dying;
Elements
a
in
1.
Offender retains a minor in his

services;
2.
It is against the will of the minor;
3.
3.
It is under the pretext of reimbursing

himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or person
entrusted with the custody of such
minor.
Accused
can
render
assistance without detriment
to himself;
4.
Accused fails
assistance.
1.
Offender compel a debtor to work

for him, either as household servant
or farm laborer;
2.
It is against the debtors will;
3.
The purpose is to require or enforce

the payment of a debt.
render
2.
Failing to help or render assistance

to another whom the offender has
accidentally wounded or injured;
3.
By failing to deliver a child, under

seven years of age, whom the
offender has found abandoned, to
the authorities or to his family, or by
failing to take him to a safe place.
Article 274. Services Rendered under

Compulsion in Payment of Debt
Elements
to
Under the first act, the offender is liable

only when he can render such assistance
without detriment to himself, unless such
omission shall constitute a more serious
offense. Where the person is already
wounded and already in danger of dying,
there is an obligation to render assistance
only if he is found in an uninhabited place.
138
If the mortally wounded, dying person is

found in a place not uninhabited in legal
contemplation, abandonment will not bring
about this crime. An uninhabited place is
determined by possibility of person
receiving assistance from another. Even if
there are many houses around, the place
may still be uninhabited if possibility of
receiving assistance is remote.
Acts punished
1.
If what happened was an accident at first,

there would be no liability pursuant to
Article 12 (4) of the Civil Code damnum
absque injuria. But if you abandon your
victim, you will be liable under Article 275.
Here, the character of the place is
immaterial. As long as the victim was
injured because of the accident caused by
the offender, the offender would be liable
for abandonment if he would not render
assistance to the victim.
Delivering a minor to a public

institution or other persons without
the consent of the one who
entrusted such minor to the care of
the offender or, in the absence of
that one, without the consent of the
proper authorities;
Elements
1.
Offender has charge of the

rearing or education of a
minor;
2.
He delivers said minor to a

public institution or other
persons;
3.
The one who entrusted such

child to the offender has not
consented to such act; or if
the one who entrusted such
child to the offender is
absent,
the
proper
authorities
have
not
consented to it.
Article 276. Abandoning A Minor

Elements
1.
Offender has the custody of a child;
2.
The child is under seven years of

age;
3.
He abandons such child;
4.
He has no intent to kill the child

when the latter is abandoned.
Circumstances qualifying the offense

1.
2.
When the death of the minor

resulted from such abandonment; or
2.
Neglecting his (offenders) children

by not giving them the education
which their station in life requires
and financial condition permits.
Elements:
1.
Offender is a parent;
2.
He neglects his children by

not giving them education;
3.
His station in life requires

such education and his
financial condition permits it.
If the life of the minor was in danger

because of the abandonment.
Article 278. Exploitation of Minors

Article 277. Abandonment of Minor by
Person Entrusted with His Custody;
Indifference of Parents
Acts punished
139
1.
Causing any boy or girl under 16

years of age to perform any
dangerous feat of balancing,
physical strength or contortion, the
offender being any person;
2.
Employing children under 16 years

of age who are not the children or
descendants of the offender in
exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast,
rope-walker, diver, or wild-animal
tamer, the offender being an
acrobat, etc., or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling;
3.
Employing any descendant under

12 years of age in dangerous
exhibitions enumerated in the next
preceding paragraph, the offender
being engaged in any of the said
callings;
4.
Delivering a child under 16 years of

age gratuitously to any person
following any of the callings
enumerated in paragraph 2, or to
any habitual vagrant or beggar, the
offender being an ascendant,
guardian,
teacher
or
person
entrusted in any capacity with the
care of such child; and
5.
Inducing any child under 16 years of

age to abandon the home of its
ascendants, guardians, curators or
teachers to follow any person
engaged in any of the callings
mentioned in paragraph 2 or to
accompany any habitual vagrant or
beggar, the offender being any
person.
Nature of the Business This involves

circuses which generally attract
children so they themselves may
enjoy working there unaware of
the danger to their own lives and
limbs.
Age Must be below 16 years. At this age,
the minor is still growing.
If the employer is an ascendant, the crime
is not committed, unless the minor is less
than 12 years old. Because if the employer
is an ascendant, the law regards that he
would look after the welfare and protection
of the child; hence, the age is lowered to
12 years. Below that age, the crime is
committed.
But remember Republic Act No. 7610
(Special Protection of Children against
Child
Abuse,
Exploitation
and
Discrimination Act). It applies to minors
below 18 years old, not 16 years old as in
the Revised Penal Code. As long as the
employment is inimical even though there
is no physical risk and detrimental to the
childs interest against moral, intellectual,
physical, and mental development of the
minor the establishment will be closed.
Article 278 has no application if minor is 16
years old and above. But the exploitation
will be dealt with by Republic Act No. 7610.
If the minor so employed would suffer
some injuries as a result of a violation of
Article 278, Article 279 provides that there
would be additional criminal liability for the
resulting felony.
Illustration:
The offender is engaged in a kind of

business that would place the life or limb of
the minor in danger, even though working
for him is not against the will of the minor.
The owner of a circus employed a child

under 16 years of age to do a balancing act
on the tightrope. The crime committed is
exploitation of minors (unless the employer
is the ascendant of the minor who is not
below 12 years of age). If the child fell and
suffered physical injuries while working, the
employer shall be liable for said physical
140
injuries in addition to his liability for

exploitation of minors.
persons room in a hotel may be considered

a dwelling. It also includes a room where
one resides as a boarder.
Article 280.
Dwelling
If the purpose in entering the dwelling is

not shown, trespass is committed. If the
purpose is shown, it may be absorbed in
the crime as in robbery with force upon
things, the trespass yielding to the more
serious crime. But if the purpose is not
shown and while inside the dwelling he
was found by the occupants, one of whom
was injured by him, the crime committed
will be trespass to dwelling and frustrated
homicide, physical injuries, or if there was
no injury, unjust vexation.
Qualified
Trespass
to
Elements
1.
Offender is a private person;
2.
He enters the dwelling of another;
3.
Such entrance is against the latters

will.
Two forms of trespass

1.
2.
Qualified trespass to dwelling This

may be committed by any private
person who shall enter the dwelling
of another against the latters will.
The house must be inhabited at the
time of the trespass although the
occupants are out.
Or offender
breaks in with force and violence
(Article 280).
Trespass to property - Offender
enters the closed premises or
fenced estate of another;
such
close premises or fenced estate is
uninhabited; there is a manifest
prohibition against entering such
closed premises or fenced estate;
and offender has not secured the
permission of the owner or
caretaker thereof (Article 281).
If the entry is made by a way not intended

for entry, that is presumed to be against the
will of the occupant (example, entry
through a window). It is not necessary that
there be a breaking.
Against the will -- This means that the
entrance is, either expressly or impliedly,
prohibited or the prohibition is presumed.
Fraudulent
entrance
may
constitute
trespass. The prohibition to enter may be
made at any time and not necessarily at
the time of the entrance.
To prove that an entry is against the will of
the occupant, it is not necessary that the
entry should be preceded by an express
prohibition, provided that the opposition of
the occupant is clearly established by the
circumstances under which the entry is
made, such as the existence of enmity or
strained relations between the accused
and the occupant.
(See also Presidential Decree No. 1227

regarding unlawful entry into any military
base in the Philippines.)
Dwelling This is the place that a person
inhabits.
It includes the dependencies
which have interior communication with the
house. It is not necessary that it be the
permanent dwelling of the person. So, a
141
On violence, Cuello Calon opines that

violence may be committed not
only against persons but also
against things. So, breaking the
door or glass of a window or
door constitutes acts of violence.
Our Supreme Court followed this
view in People v. Tayag.
Violence or intimidation must,
however,
be
anterior
or
coetaneous with the entrance
and must not be posterior. But if
the
violence
is
employed
immediately after the entrance
without the consent of the owner
of the house, trespass is
committed.
If there is also
violence or intimidation, proof of
prohibition to enter is no longer
necessary.
Distinction between qualified trespass to
dwelling and violation of domicile
Unlike qualified trespass to dwelling,
violation of domicile may be committed only
by a public officer or employee and the
violation may consist of any of the three
acts mentioned in Article 128 (1) entering
the dwelling against the will of the owner
without judicial order; (2) searching papers
or other effects found in such dwelling
without the previous consent of the owner
thereof; and (3) refusing to leave the
dwelling when so requested by the owner
thereof, after having surreptitiously entered
such dwelling.
(3)
Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 113 of the

Rules of Court, a person who believes that
a crime has been committed against him
has every right to go after the culprit and
arrest him without any warrant even if in
the process he enters the house of another
against the latters will.
Article 281. Other forms of trespass
Elements
1.
Offender enters the closed premises

or the fenced estate of another;
2.
The entrance is made while either of

them is uninhabited;
3.
The prohibition to enter is manifest;
4.
The trespasser has not secured the

permission of the owner or the
caretaker thereof.
Article 282. Grave Threats

Acts punished:
1.
Threatening another with the

infliction upon his person, honor or
property or that of this family of any
wrong amounting to a crime and
demanding money or imposing any
other condition, even though not
unlawful, and the offender attained
his purpose;
2.
Making such threat without the

offender attaining his purpose;
3.
Threatening another with the

infliction upon his person, honor or
property or that of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime, the
threat not being subject to a
condition.
Cases when Article 280 does not apply:

(1)
(2)
When the purpose of the entrance

is to prevent serious harm to
himself, the occupant or third
persons;
When the purpose of the offender in
entering is to render some service
to humanity or justice;
Anyone who shall enter cafes,

taverns, inns and other public
houses while they are open .
142
Threat is a declaration of an intention or

determination to injure another by the
commission upon his person, honor or
property or upon that of his family of some
wrong which may or may not amount to a
crime:
involved; hence, there is no futurity in the

harm or wrong done.
In threat, the wrong or harm done is future
and conditional. In coercion, it is direct and
personal.
Distinction between threat and robbery:
(1)
(2)
Grave threats when the wrong

threatened to be inflicted amounts
to a crime. The case falls under
Article 282.
Light threats if it does not amount
to a crime. The case falls under
Article 283.
But even if the harm intended is in the

nature of a crime, if made orally and in the
heat of anger and after the oral threat, the
issuer of the threat did not pursue the act,
the crime is only other light threats under
Article 285.
To constitute grave threats, the threats
must refer to a future wrong and is
committed by acts or through words of
such efficiency to inspire terror or fear upon
another. It is, therefore, characterized by
moral pressure that produces disquietude
or alarm.
The greater perversity of the offender is
manifested when the threats are made
demanding money or imposing any
condition, whether lawful or not, and the
offender shall have attained his purpose.
So the law imposes upon him the penalty
next lower in degree than that prescribed
for the crime threatened to be committed.
But if the purpose is not attained, the
penalty lower by two degrees is imposed.
The maximum period of the penalty is
imposed if the threats are made in writing
or through a middleman as they manifest
evident premeditation.
(1)
As to intimidation In robbery, the

intimidation is actual and immediate;
in threat, the intimidation is future
and conditional.
(2)
As to nature of intimidation In
robbery, the intimidation is personal;
in threats, it may be through an
intermediary.
(3)
As to subject matter Robbery

refers to personal property; threat
may refer to the person, honor or
property.
(4)
As to intent to gain In robbery,

there is intent to gain; in threats,
intent to gain is not an essential
element.
(5)
In robbery, the robber makes the

danger involved in his threats
directly imminent to the victim and
the obtainment of his gain
immediate, thereby also taking
rights to his person by the
opposition or resistance which the
victim might offer; in threat, the
danger to the victim is not instantly
imminent nor the gain of the culprit
immediate.
Article 283. Light Threats

Elements
1.
Offender makes a threat to commit

a wrong;
2.
The wrong does not constitute a

crime;
143
Distinction between threat and coercion:

The essence of coercion is violence or
intimidation.
There is no condition
3.
There is a demand for money or

that other condition is imposed,
even though not unlawful;
4.
Offender has attained his purpose

or, that he has not attained his
purpose.
In order to convict a person of the crime of

light threats, the harm threatened must not
be in the nature of crime and there is a
demand for money or any other condition is
imposed, even though lawful.
2.
Orally threatening another, in the

heat of anger, with some harm
constituting
a
crime,
without
persisting in the idea involved in his
threat;
3.
Orally threatening to do another any

harm not constituting a felony.
Article 286. Grave Coercions

Acts punished
1.
Preventing another, by means of

violence, threats or intimidation,
from doing something not prohibited
by law;
2.
Compelling another, by means of

violence, threats or intimidation, to
do something against his will,
whether it be right or wrong.
Question & Answer

Blackmailing constitutes what
crime?
It is a crime of light threat under
Article 283 if there is no threat to publish
any libelous or slanderous matter against
the offended party. If there is such a threat
to make a slanderous or libelous
publication against the offended party, the
crime will be one of libel, which is penalized
under Article 356. For example, a person
threatens to expose the affairs of married
man if the latter does not give him money.
There is intimidation done under a demand.
The law imposes the penalty of bond for
good behavior only in case of grave and
light threats. If the offender can not post
the bond, he will be banished by way of
destierro to prevent him from carrying out
his threat.
Article 285. Other Light Threats
Elements
1.
A person prevented another from

doing something not prohibited by
law, or that he compelled him to do
something against his will; be it right
or wrong;
2.
The prevention or compulsion be

effected by violence, threats or
intimidation; and
3.
The person that restrained the will

and liberty of another had not the
authority of law or the right to do so,
or in other words, that the restraint
shall not be made under authority of
law or in the exercise of any lawful
right.
Acts punished
1.
Threatening another with a weapon,

or by drawing such weapon in a
quarrel, unless it be in lawful selfdefense;
Grave coercion arises only if the act which

the offender prevented another to do is not
prohibited by law or ordinance. If the act
prohibited was illegal, he is not liable for
grave coercion.
144
If a person prohibits another to do an act

because the act is a crime, even though
some sort of violence or intimidation is
employed, it would not give rise to grave
coercion. It may only give rise to threat or
physical injuries, if some injuries are
inflicted.
However, in case of grave
coercion where the offended party is being
compelled to do something against his will,
whether it be wrong or not, the crime of
grave coercion is committed if violence or
intimidation is employed in order to compel
him to do the act. No person shall take the
law into his own hands.
Illustration:
Compelling the debtor to deliver some of
his properties to pay a creditor will amount
to coercion although the creditor may have
a right to collect payment from the debtor,
even if the obligation is long over due.
The violence employed in grave coercion
must be immediate, actual, or imminent. In
the absence of actual or imminent force or
violence, coercion is not committed. The
essence of coercion is an attack on
individual liberty.
The physical violence is exerted to (1)
prevent a person from doing something he
wants to do; or (2) compel him to do
something he does not want to do.
serious that it is not a threat anymore it

approximates violence.
In Lee v. CA, 201 SCAR 405, it was held
that neither the crime of threats nor
coercion is committed although the
accused, a branch manager of a
bank made the complainant sign a
withdrawal slip for the amount
needed to pay the spurious dollar
check she had encashed, and also
made her execute an affidavit
regarding the return of the amount
against her better sense and
judgment. According to the court,
the complainant may have acted
reluctantly and with hesitation, but
still, it was voluntary. It is different
when
a
complainant
refuses
absolutely to act such an extent that
she becomes a mere automaton
and acts mechanically only, not of
her own will. In this situation, the
complainant ceases to exits as an
independent personality and the
person who employs force or
intimidation is, in the eyes of the
law, the one acting; while the hand
of the complainant sign, the will that
moves it is the hand of the offender.
Article 287. Light Coercions
Elements
Illustration:
1.
Offender must be a creditor;
If a man compels another to show the

contents of the latters pockets, and takes
the wallet, this is robbery and not grave
coercion. The intimidation is a means of
committing robbery with violence or
intimidation of persons.
Violence is
inherent in the crime of robbery with
violence or intimidation upon persons and
in usurpation of real properties because it
is the means of committing the crime.
2.
He seizes anything belonging to his

debtor:
3.
The seizure of the thing be

accomplished by means of violence
or a display of material force
producing intimidation;
4.

apply the same to the payment of
the debt.
Exception to the rule that physical violence

must be exerted: where intimidation is so
145
The first paragraph deals with light

coercions wherein violence is employed by
the offender who is a creditor in seizing
anything belonging to his debtor for the
purpose of applying the same to the
payment of the debt.
to
purchase
merchandise
of
commodities of any kind from him;
Elements:
In the other light coercions or unjust

vexation embraced in the second
paragraph, violence is absent.
In unjust vexation, any act committed
without violence, but which unjustifiably
annoys or vexes an innocent person
amounts to light coercion.
1.
Offender is any person,

agent or officer of any
association or corporation;
2.
He
or
such
firm
or
corporation has employed
laborers or employees;
3.
He forces or compels,
directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permits to be
forced or compelled, any of
his or its laborers or
employees
to
purchase
merchandise or commodities
of any kind from him or from
said firm or corporation.
As a punishable act, unjust vexation should

include any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or
material harm would, however, unjustifiably
annoy or vex an innocent person.
It is distinguished from grave coercion
under the first paragraph by the absence of
violence.
Illustration:
Persons stoning someone elses house.
So long as stoning is not serious and it is
intended to annoy, it is unjust vexation. It
disturbs the peace of mind.
2.
Paying the wages due his laborer or

employee by means of tokens or
object other than the legal tender
currency of the Philippines, unless
expressly requested by such laborer
or employee.
Elements:
1.
The main purpose of the statute penalizing

coercion and unjust vexation is precisely to
enforce the principle that no person may
take the law into his hands and that our
government is one of laws, not of men.
The essence of the crimes is the attack on
individual liberty.
Article 288. Other Similar Coercions
Acts punished:
1.
Forcing or compelling, directly or

indirectly, or knowingly permitting
the forcing or compelling of the
laborer or employee of the offender
Offender pays the wages

due a laborer or employee
employed by him by means
of tokens or object;
1. Those tokens or objects are

other than the legal
tender currency of the
Philippines;
3. Such employee or
laborer
does
not
expressly request that he
be paid by means of
tokens or objects.
Article 289. Formation, Maintenance,
and Prohibition of Combination of
146
Capital or Labor through Violence or

Threats
Elements
1. Offender employs violence
or threats, in such a degree as
to compel or force the laborers
or employers in the free and
legal exercise of their industry or
work;
2. The purpose is to organize,
maintain or prevent coalitions of
capital or labor, strike of laborers
or lockout of employers.
Article 290. Discovering Secrets
through Seizure of Correspondence
Elements
1. Offender
is
a
private
individual or even a public officer
not in the exercise of his official
function;
The last paragraph of Article 290

expressly makes the provision of the
first and second paragraph thereof
inapplicable to parents, guardians, or
persons entrusted with the custody of
minors placed under their care or
custody, and to the spouses with
respect to the papers or letters of either
of them. The teachers or other persons
entrusted with the care and education
of minors are included in the
exceptions.
In a case decided by the Supreme
Court, a spouse who rummaged and
found love letters of husband to
mistress does not commit this crime,
but the letters are inadmissible in
evidence because of unreasonable
search and seizure. The ruling held
that the wife should have applied for a
search warrant.
Distinction from estafa, damage to
property, and unjust vexation:
2. He seizes the papers or

letters of another;
If the act had been executed with intent

of gain, it would be estafa;
3. The purpose is to discover

the secrets of such another
person;
If, on the other hand, the purpose was

not to defraud, but only to cause
damage to anothers, it would merit the
qualification of damage to property;
4. Offender is informed of the

contents of the papers or letters
seized.
This is a crime against the security of
ones papers and effects. The purpose
must be to discover its effects. The act
violates the privacy of communication.
According to Ortega, it is not necessary
that the offender should actually
discover the contents of the letter.
Reyes, citing People v. Singh, CA, 40
OG, Suppl. 5, 35, believes otherwise.
If the intention was merely to cause

vexation preventing another to do
something which the law does not
prohibit or compel him to execute what
he does not want, the act should be
considered as unjust vexation.
Revelation of secrets discovered not an
element of the crime but only increases
the penalty.
Article 291. Revealing Secrets with
Abuse of Office
147
Elements
3. Offender
secrets;
1. Offender is a
employee or servant;
such
manager,
2. He learns the secrets of his

principal or master in such
capacity;
3. He reveals such secrets.
An employee, manager, or servant who
came to know of the secret of his
master or principal in such capacity and
reveals the same shall also be liable
regardless of whether or not the
principal or master suffered damages.
The essence of this crime is that the
offender learned of the secret in the
course of his employment.
He is
enjoying a confidential relation with the
employer or master so he should
respect the privacy of matters personal
to the latter.
If the matter pertains to the business of
the employer or master, damage is
necessary and the agent, employee or
servant shall always be liable. Reason:
no one has a right to the personal
privacy of another.
Article 292.
Secrets
reveals
4. Prejudice is caused to the

owner.
A business secret must not be known to
other business entities or persons. It is
a matter to be discovered, known and
used by and must belong to one person
or entity exclusively. One who merely
copies their machines from those
already existing and functioning cannot
claim to have a business secret, much
less,
a
discovery
within
the
contemplation of Article 292.
TITLE X. CRIMES AGAINST
PROPERTY
Crimes against property
1. Robbery
with
violence
against
or
intimidation
of
persons (Art. 294);
2. Attempted and frustrated
robbery committed under certain
circumstances (Art. 297);
3. Execution of deeds by
means of violence or intimidation
(Art. 298);
Revelation of Industrial
Elements
1. Offender is a person in
charge, employee or workman of
a manufacturing or industrial
establishment;
2. The
manufacturing
or
industrial establishment has a
secret of the industry which the
offender has learned;
4. Robbery in an inhabited
house or public building or
edifice devoted to worship (Art.
299);
5. Robbery in an inhabited
place or in a private building
(Art. 302);
6. Possession of picklocks or
similar tools (Art. 304);
7. Brigandage (Art. 306);
148
8. Aiding and abetting a band

of brigands (Art. 307);
9. Theft (Art. 308);
27. Special case of malicious

mischief (Art. 328);
28. Damage and obstruction to
means of communication (Art.
330);
10. Qualified theft (Art. 310);

11. Theft of the property of the
National Library and National
Museum (Art. 311);
29. Destroying
or damaging
statues, public monuments or
paintings (Art. 331).
12. Occupation of real property

or usurpation of real rights in
property (Art. 312);
Article 293. Who Are Guilty of

Robbery
13. Altering
boundaries
landmarks (Art. 313);
or
14. Fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314);
Robbery This is the taking or personal

property belonging to another, with
intent to gain, by means of violence
against, or intimidation of any person,
or using force upon anything.
15. Swindling (Art. 315);

Elements of robbery in general
16. Other forms of swindling (Art. 316);
17. Swindling a minor (Art. 317);
18. Other deceits (Art. 318);
1. There is personal property

belonging to another;
2. There is unlawful taking of
that property;
19. Removal, sale or pledge of

mortgaged property (Art. 319);
3. The taking must be with

intent to gain; and
20. Destructive arson (Art. 320);

21. Other forms of arson (Art. 321);
4. There is violence against or

intimidation of any person, or
force upon anything.
22. Arson of property of small

value (Art. 323);
23. Crimes involving destruction
(Art. 324);
Article 294. Robbery with Violence

against or Intimidation of Persons
Acts punished
24. Burning ones own property

as means to commit arson (Art.
325);
25. Setting fire to
exclusively owned
offender (Art. 326);
property
by the
1. When by reason or on
occasion of the robbery (taking
of personal property belonging
to another with intent to gain),
the crime of homicide is
committed;
26. Malicious mischief (Art. 327);

149
2. When
the
robbery
is
accompanied
by
rape
or
intentional mutilation or arson;
3. When by reason of on
occasion of such robbery, any of
the physical injuries resulting in
insanity, imbecility, impotency or
blindness is inflicted;
4. When by reason or on
occasion of robbery, any of the
physical injuries resulting in the
loss of the use of speech or the
power to hear or to smell, or the
loss of an eye, a hand, a foot,
an arm, or a leg or the loss of
the use of any such member or
incapacity for the work in which
the injured person is theretofore
habitually engaged is inflicted;
5. If the violence or intimidation
employed in the commission of
the robbery is carried to a
degree 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
sue 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 the violence employed by
the offender does not cause any
of the serious physical injuries
defined in Article 263, or if the
offender
only.
employs
intimidation
Violence or intimidation upon persons

may result in death or mutilation or rape
or serious physical injuries.
If death results or even accompanies a
robbery, the crime will be robbery with
homicide provided that the robbery is
consummated.
This is a crime against property, and
therefore, you contend not with the
killing but with the robbery.
As long as there is only one (1) robbery,
regardless of the persons killed, the
crime will only be one (1) count of
robbery with homicide. The fact that
there are multiple killings committed in
the course of the robbery will be
considered only as aggravating so as to
call for the imposition of the maximum
penalty prescribed by law.
If, on the occasion or by reason of the
robbery, somebody is killed, and there
are also physical injuries inflicted by
reason or on the occasion of the
robbery, dont think that those who
sustained
physical
injuries
may
separately prosecute the offender for
physical injuries.
Those physical
injuries are only considered aggravating
circumstances in the crime of robbery
with homicide.
This is not a complex crime as
understood under Article 48, but a
single indivisible crime.
This is a
special complex crime because the
specific penalty is provided in the law.
In Napolis v. CA, it was held that when
violence or intimidation and force upon
things are both present in the robbery,
the crime is complex under Article 48.
150
In robbery with violence of intimidation,

the taking is complete when the
offender has already the possession of
the thing even if he has no opportunity
to dispose of it.
In robbery with force upon things, the
things must be brought outside the
building for consummated robbery to be
committed.
On robbery with homicide
The term homicide is used in the
generic sense, and the complex crime
therein contemplated comprehends not
only robbery with homicide in its
restricted sense, but also with robbery
with murder. So, any kind of killing by
reason of or on the occasion of a
robbery will bring about the crime of
robbery with homicide even if the
person killed is less than three days
old, or even if the person killed is the
mother or father of the killer, or even if
on such robbery the person killed was
done by treachery or any of the
qualifying circumstances.
In short,
there is no crime of robbery with
parricide, robbery with murder, robbery
with infanticide any and all forms of
killing is referred to as homicide.
Illustration:
The robbers enter the house.
In
entering through the window, one of the
robbers stepped on a child less than
three days old.
The crime is not
robbery with infanticide because there
is no such crime. The word homicide
as used in defining robbery with
homicide is used in the generic sense.
It refers to any kind of death.
treachery will be considered a generic

aggravating circumstance because of
the homicide.
When two or more persons are killed
during the robbery, such should be
appreciated
as
an
aggravating
circumstance.
As long as there is only one robbery,
regardless of the persons killed, you
only have one crime of robbery with
homicide. Note, however, that one
robbery does not mean there is only
one taking.
Illustration:
Robbers decided to commit robbery in a
house, which turned out to be a
boarding house.
Thus, there were
different boarders who were offended
parties in the robbery. There is only
one count of robbery. If there were
killings done to different boarders
during the robbery being committed in a
boarders quarter, do not consider that
as separate counts of robbery with
homicide because when robbers decide
to commit robbery in a certain house,
they are only impelled by one criminal
intent to rob and there will only be one
case of robbery. If there were homicide
or death committed, that would only be
part of a single robbery. That there
were several killings done would only
aggravate the commission of the crime
of robbery with homicide.
Although it is a crime against property

and treachery is an aggravating
circumstance that applies only to crimes
against persons, if the killing in a
robbery is committed with treachery, the
151
In People v. Quiones, 183 SCRA

747, it was held that there is no crime of
robbery with multiple homicides. The
charge should be for robbery with
homicide only because the number of
persons killed is immaterial and does
not increase the penalty prescribed in
Article 294. All the killings are merged
in the composite integrated whole that
is robbery with homicide so long as the
killings were by reason or on occasion
of the robbery.
In another case, a band of robbers
entered a compound, which is actually
a sugar mill. Within the compound,
there were quarters of the laborers.
They robbed each of the quarters. The
Supreme Court held that there was only
one count of robbery because when
they decided and determined to rob the
compound, they were only impelled by
one criminal intent to rob.
With more reason, therefore, if in a
robbery, the offender took away
property belonging to different owners,
as long as the taking was done at one
time, and in one place, impelled by the
same criminal intent to gain, there
would only be one count of robbery.
In robbery with homicide as a single
indivisible offense, it is immaterial who
gets killed. Even though the killing may
have resulted from negligence, you will
still designate the crime as robbery with
homicide.
Illustration:
On the occasion of a robbery, one of
the offenders placed his firearm on the
table. While they were ransacking the
place, one of the robbers bumped the
table. As a result, the firearm fell on the
floor and discharged.
One of the
robbers was the one killed.
Even
though the placing of the firearm on the
table where there is no safety
precaution taken may be considered as
one of negligence or imprudence, you

do not separate the homicide as one of
the product of criminal negligence. It
will still be robbery with homicide,
whether the person killed is connected
with the robbery or not. He need not
also be in the place of the robbery.
In one case, in the course of the
struggle in a house where the robbery
was being committed, the owner of the
place tried to wrest the arm of the
robber. A person several meters away
was the one who got killed. The crime
was held to be robbery with homicide.
Note that the person killed need not be
one who is identified with the owner of
the place where the robbery is
committed or one who is a stranger to
the robbers. It is enough that the
homicide was committed by reason of
the robbery or on the occasion thereof.
Illustration:
There are two robbers who broke into a
house and carried away some
valuables. After they left such house
these two robbers decided to cut or
divide the loot already so that they can
go of them. So while they are dividing
the loot the other robber noticed that
the one doing the division is trying to
cheat him and so he immediately boxed
him. Now this robber who was boxed
then pulled out his gun and fired at the
other one killing the latter. Would that
bring about the crime of robbery with
homicide? Yes. Even if the robbery
was already consummated, the killing
was still by reason of the robbery
because they quarreled in dividing the
loot that is the subject of the robbery.
152
In People v. Domingo, 184 SCRA 409,

on the occasion of the robbery, the
storeowner, a septuagenarian, suffered
a stroke due to the extreme fear which
directly caused his death when the
robbers pointed their guns at him. It
was held that the crime committed was
robbery with homicide. It is immaterial
that death supervened as a mere
accident as long as the homicide was
produced by reason or on the occasion
of the robbery, because it is only the
result which matters, without reference
to the circumstances or causes or
persons intervening in the commission
of the crime which must be considered.
Remember also that intent to rob must
be proved. But there must be an
allegation as to the robbery not only as
to the intention to rob.
If the motive is to kill and the taking is
committed thereafter, the crimes
committed are homicide and theft. If
the primordial intent of the offender is to
kill and not to rob but after the killing of
the victims a robbery was committed,
then there are will be two separate
crimes.
Illustration:
If a person had an enemy and killed
him and after killing him, saw that he
had a beautiful ring and took this, the
crime would be not robbery with
homicide because the primary criminal
intent is to kill. So, there will be two
crimes: one for the killing and one for
the taking of the property after the
victim was killed. Now this would bring
about the crime of theft and it could not
be robbery anymore because the
person is already dead.
For robbery with homicide to exist,
homicide must be committed by reason
or on the occasion of the robbery, that
is, the homicide must be committed in
the course or because of the robbery.
Robbery and homicide are separate

offenses when the homicide is not
committed on the occasion or by
reason of the robbery.
Where the victims were killed, not for
the purpose of committing robbery, and
the idea of taking the money and other
personal property of the victims was
conceived by the culprits only after the
killing, it was held in People v.
Domingo, 184 SCRA 409, that the
culprits committed two separate crimes
of homicide or murder (qualified by
abuse of superior strength) and theft.
The victims were killed first then their
money was taken the money from their
dead bodies.
This is robbery with
homicide. It is important here that the
intent to commit robbery must precede
the taking of human life in robbery with
homicide. The offender must have the
intent to take personal property before
the killing.
It must be conclusively shown that the
homicide was committed for the
purpose of robbing the victim. In
People v. Hernandez, appellants had
not thought of robbery prior to the
killing.
The thought of taking the
victims wristwatch was conceived only
after the killing and throwing of the
victim in the canal. Appellants were
convicted of two separate crimes of
homicide and theft as there is absent
direct relation and intimate connection
between the robbery and the killing.
On robbery with rape
This is another form of violence or
intimidation upon person. The rape
accompanies the robbery. In this case
where rape and not homicide is
committed, there is only a crime of
robbery with rape if both the robbery
and the rape are consummated. If
during the robbery, attempted rape
153
were committed, the crimes would be

separate, that is, one for robbery and
one for the attempted rape.
The rape committed on the occasion of
the robbery is not considered a private
crime because the crime is robbery,
which is a crime against property. So,
even though the robber may have
married the woman raped, the crime
remains robbery with rape. The rape is
not erased. This is because the crime
is against property which is a single
indivisible offense.
If the woman, who was raped on the
occasion of the robbery, pardoned the
rapist who is one of the robbers, that
would not erase the crime of rape. The
offender would still be prosecuted for
the crime of robbery with rape, as long
as the rape is consummated.
If the rape is attempted, since it will be
a separate charge and the offended
woman pardoned the offender, that
would bring about a bar to the
prosecution of the attempted rape. If
the offender married the offended
woman, that would extinguish the
criminal liability because the rape is the
subject of a separate prosecution.
The intention must be to commit
robbery and even if the rape is
committed before the robbery, robbery
with rape is committed. But if the
accused tried to rape the offended
party and because of resistance, he
failed to consummate the act, and then
he snatched the vanity case from her
hands when she ran away, two crimes
are committed: attempted rape and
theft.
There is no complex crime under Article
48 because a single act is not
committed and attempted rape is not a
means necessary to commit theft and
vice-versa.
The Revised Penal Code does not

differentiate
whether
rape
was
committed before, during or after the
robbery. It is enough that the robbery
accompanied the rape. Robbery must
not be a mere accident or afterthought.
In People v. Flores, 195 SCRA 295,
although the offenders plan was to get
the victims money, rape her and kill her,
but in the actual execution of the crime,
the thoughts of depriving the victim of
her valuables was relegated to the
background and the offenders prurient
desires surfaced. They persisted in
satisfying their lust. They would have
forgotten about their intent to rob if not
for the accidental touching of the
victims ring and wristwatch. The taking
of the victims valuables turned out to
be an afterthought. It was held that two
distinct crimes were committed: rape
with homicide and theft.
In People v. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493, it
was held that if the original criminal
design of the accused was to commit
rape and after committing the rape, the
accused committed robbery because
the opportunity presented itself, two
distinct crimes rape and robbery were
committed not robbery with rape. In
the latter, the criminal intent to gain
must precede the intent to rape.
On robbery with physical injuries
To be considered as such, the physical
injuries must always be serious. If the
physical injuries are only less serious or
slight, they are absorbed in the robbery.
The crime becomes merely robbery.
But if the less serious physical injuries
were committed after the robbery was
already consummated, there would be
a separate charge for the less serious
physical injuries.
It will only be
absorbed in the robbery if it was
inflicted in the course of the execution
154
of the robbery. The same is true in the

case of slight physical injuries.
Illustration:
After the robbery had been committed
and the robbers were already fleeing
from the house where the robbery was
committed, the owner of the house
chased them and the robbers fought
back. If only less serious physical
injuries were inflicted, there will be
separate crimes: one for robbery and
one for less serious physical injuries.
But if after the robbery was committed
and the robbers were already fleeing
from the house where the robbery was
committed, the owner or members of
the family of the owner chased them,
and they fought back and somebody
was killed, the crime would still be
robbery with homicide. But if serious
physical injuries were inflicted and the
serious physical injuries rendered the
victim impotent or insane or the victim
lost the use of any of his senses or lost
a part of his body, the crime would still
be robbery with serious physical
injuries. The physical injuries (serious)
should not be separated regardless of
whether they retorted in the course of
the commission of the robbery or even
after the robbery was consummated.
In Article 299, it is only when the
physical injuries resulted in the
deformity or incapacitated the offended
party from labor for more than 30 days
that the law requires such physical
injuries to have been inflicted in the
course of the execution of the robbery,
and only upon persons who are not
responsible in the commission of the
robbery.
But if the physical injuries inflicted are
those falling under subdivision 1 and 2
of Article 263, even though the physical
injuries were inflicted upon one of the
robbers themselves, and even though it
had been inflicted after the robbery was

already consummated, the crime will
still be robbery with serious physical
injuries. There will only be one count of
accusation.
Illustration:
After the robbers fled from the place
where the robbery was committed, they
decided to divide the spoils and in the
course of the division of the spoils or
the loot, they quarreled. They shot it
out and one of the robbers was killed.
The crime is still robbery with homicide
even though one of the robbers was the
one killed by one of them. If they
quarreled and serious physical injuries
rendered one of the robbers impotent,
blind in both eyes, or got insane, or he
lost the use of any of his senses, lost
the use of any part of his body, the
crime will still be robbery with serious
physical injuries.
If the robbers quarreled over the loot
and one of the robbers hacked the
other robber causing a deformity in his
face, the crime will only be robbery and
a separate charge for the serious
physical injuries because when it is a
deformity that is caused, the law
requires that the deformity must have
been inflicted upon one who is not a
participant in the robbery. Moreover,
the physical injuries which gave rise to
the deformity or which incapacitated the
offended party from labor for more than
30 days, must have been inflicted in the
course of the execution of the robbery
or while the robbery was taking place.
If
it
was
inflicted
when
the
thieves/robbers are already dividing the
spoils, it cannot be considered as
inflicted in the course of execution of
the robbery and hence, it will not give
rise to the crime of robbery with serious
physical injuries. You only have one
count of robbery and another count for
the serious physical injuries inflicted.
155
If, during or on the occasion or by

reason of the robbery, a killing, rape or
serious physical injuries took place,
there will only be one crime of robbery
with homicide because all of these
killing, rape, serious physical injuries -are contemplated by law as the
violence
or
intimidation
which
characterizes the taking as on of
robbery. You charge the offenders of
robbery with homicide. The rape or
physical injuries will only be appreciated
as aggravating circumstance and is not
the subject of a separate prosecution.
They will only call for the imposition of
the penalty in the maximum period.
If on the occasion of the robbery with
homicide, robbery with force upon
things was also committed, you will not
have only one robbery but you will have
a complex crime of robbery with
homicide and robbery with force upon
things (see Napolis v. CA). This is
because robbery with violence or
intimidation upon persons is a separate
crime from robbery with force upon
things.
Robbery with homicide, robbery with
intentional mutilation and robbery with
rape are not qualified by band or
uninhabited place. These aggravating
circumstances only qualify robbery with
physical injuries under subdivision 2, 3,
and 4 of Article 299.
When it is robbery with homicide, the
band or uninhabited place is only a
generic aggravating circumstance. It
will not qualify the crime to a higher
degree of penalty.
In People v. Salvilla, it was held that if
in a robbery with serious physical
injuries, the offenders herded the
women and children into an office and
detained them to compel the offended
party to come out with the money, the
crime of serious illegal detention was a
necessary means to facilitate the

robbery; thus, the complex crimes of
robbery with serious physical injuries
and serious illegal detention.
But if the victims were detained
because of the timely arrival of the
police, such that the offenders had no
choice but to detain the victims as
hostages in exchange for their safe
passage, the detention is absorbed by
the crime of robbery and is not a
separate crime. This was the ruling in
People v. Astor.
On robbery with arson
Another innovation of Republic Act No.
7659 is the composite crime of robbery
with arson if arson is committed by
reason of or on occasion of the robbery.
The composite crime would only be
committed if the primordial intent of the
offender is to commit robber and there
is no killing, rape, or intentional
mutilation committed by the offender
during the robbery. Otherwise, the
crime would be robbery with homicide,
or robbery with rape, or robbery with
intentional mutilation, in that order, and
the arson would only be an aggravating
circumstance.
It is essential that
robbery precedes the arson, as in the
case of rape and intentional mutilation,
because the amendment included
arson among the rape and intentional
mutilation which have accompanied the
robbery.
Moreover, it should be noted that arson
has been made a component only of
robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons in said Article
294, but not of robbery by the use of
force upon things in Articles 299 and
302.
So, if the robbery was by the use of
force upon things and therewith arson
156
was committed, two distinct crimes are

committed.
3. The other members of the

band committed an assault;
Article 295. Robbery with Physical

Injuries, Committed in An Uninhabited
Place and by A Band
4. He did not attempt to prevent

the assault.
Robbery with violence against or

intimidation of person qualified is
qualified if it is committed
Article 298. Execution of Deeds by

Means of Violence or intimidation
Elements
1. In an uninhabited place;
2. By a band;
1. Offender has
defraud another;
intent
to
3. By attacking a moving train,

street car, motor vehicle, or
airship;
2. Offender compels him to

sign, execute, or deliver any
public instrument or document.
4. By entering the passengers

compartments in a train, or in
any
manner
taking
the
passengers thereof by surprise
in the respective conveyances;
or
3. The compulsion is by means

of violence or intimidation.
5. On a street, road, highway or

alley, and the intimidation is
made with the use of firearms,
the offender shall be punished
by the maximum periods of the
proper penalties prescribed in
Article 294.
Article 296 defines a robbery by a band
as follows: when at least four armed
malefactors take part in the commission
of a robbery.
Requisites for liability for the acts of the
other members of the band
1. He was a member of the
band;
2. He was present at the
commission of a robbery by that
band;
Article 299. Robbery in An Inhabited

House or Public Building or Edifice
Devoted to Worship
Elements under subdivision (a)
1. Offender
entered
an
inhabited house, public building
2. The entrance was effected
by any of the following means:
a. Through 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;
or
d. By using any fictitious
name or pretending the
157
exercise
authority.
of
public
Two predicates that will give rise to the

crime as robbery:
3. Once inside the building,

offender took personal property
belonging to another with intent
to gain.
1. By mere entering alone, a

robbery will be committed if any
personal property is taken from
within;
Elements under subdivision (b):

1. Offender is inside a dwelling
house, public building, or edifice
devoted to religious worship,
regardless of the circumstances
under which he entered it;
2. Offender takes personal
property belonging to another,
with intent to gain, under any of
the following circumstances:
a. By the breaking of
doors,
wardrobes,
chests, or any other kind
of locked or sealed
furniture or receptacle; or
b. By
taking
such
furniture or objects away
to be broken or forced
open outside the place of
the robbery.
"Force upon things" has a technical
meaning in law. Not any kind of force
upon things will characterize the taking
as one of robbery. The force upon
things contemplated requires some
element
of
trespass
into
the
establishment where the robbery was
committed. In other words, the offender
must have entered the premises where
the robbery was committed. If no entry
was effected, even though force may
have been employed actually in the
taking of the property from within the
premises, the crime will only be theft.
2. The entering will not give

rise
to
robbery
even
if
something is taken inside. It is
the breaking of the receptacle or
closet or cabinet where the
personal property is kept that
will give rise to robbery, or the
taking of a sealed, locked
receptacle to be broken outside
the premises.
If by the mere entering, that would
already qualify the taking of any
personal property inside as robbery, it is
immaterial whether the offender stays
inside the premises. The breaking of
things inside the premises will only be
important to consider if the entering by
itself will not characterize the crime as
robbery with force upon things.
Modes of entering that would give rise
to the crime of robbery with force upon
things if something is taken inside the
premises: entering into an opening not
intended for entrance or egress, under
Article 299 (a).
Illustration:
The entry was made through a fire
escape. The fire escape was intended
for egress.
The entry will not
characterize the taking as one of
robbery because it is an opening
intended for egress, although it may not
be intended for entrance.
If the
entering were done through the
window, even if the window was not
broken, that would characterize the
taking of personal property inside as
robbery because the window is not an
opening intended for entrance.
158
Illustration:
On a sari-sari store, a vehicle bumped
the wall. The wall collapsed. There
was a small opening there. At night, a
man entered through that opening
without breaking the same. The crime
will already be robbery if he takes
property from within because that is not
an opening intended for the purpose.
Even of there is a breaking of wall, roof,
floor or window, but the offender did not
enter, it would not give rise to robbery
with force upon things.
Breaking of the door under Article299
(b) Originally, the interpretation was
that in order that there be a breaking of
the door in contemplation of law, there
must be some damage to the door.
Before, if the door was not damaged
but only the lock attached to the door
was broken, the taking from within is
only theft.
But the ruling is now
abandoned because the door is
considered useless without the lock.
Even if it is not the door that was
broken but only the lock, the breaking
of the lock renders the door useless
and it is therefore tantamount to the
breaking of the door. Hence, the taking
inside is considered robbery with force
upon things.
from inside the room where the door

leads to will only give rise to theft. The
breaking of doors contemplated in the
law refers to the main door of the house
and not the interior door.
But if it is the door of a cabinet that is
broken and the valuable inside the
cabinet was taken, the breaking of the
cabinet door would characterize the
taking as robbery.
Although that
particular door is not included as part of
the house, the cabinet keeps the
contents thereof safe.
Use of picklocks or false keys refers to
the entering into the premises If the
picklock or false key was used not to
enter the premises because the
offender had already entered but was
used to unlock an interior door or even
a receptacle where the valuable or
personal belonging was taken, the use
of false key or picklock will not give rise
to the robbery with force upon things
because these are considered by law
as only a means to gain entrance, and
not to extract personal belongings from
the place where it is being kept.
The law classifies robbery with force
upon things as those committed in:
(1) an inhabited place;
(2) public buildings;
If the entering does not characterize the

taking inside as one of robbery with
force upon things, it is the conduct
inside that would give rise to the
robbery if there would be a breaking of
sealed, locked or closed receptacles or
cabinet in order to get the personal
belongings
from
within
such
receptacles, cabinet or place where it is
kept.
(3) a place
worship.
devoted
to
religious
If in the course of committing the

robbery within the premises some
interior doors are broken, the taking
When the robbery is committed in a

house which is inhabited, or in a public
building or in a place devoted to
159
The law also considers robbery

committed not in an inhabited house or
in a private building.
Note that the manner of committing the
robbery with force upon things is not
the same.
religious worship, the use of fictitious

name or pretension to possess
authority in order to gain entrance will
characterize the taking inside as
robbery with force upon things.
Question & Answer

Certain men pretended to be from the
Price Control Commission and went to a
warehouse owned by a private person.
They told the guard to open the
warehouse purportedly to see if the
private person is hoarding essential
commodities there. The guard obliged.
They went inside and broke in . They
loaded some of the merchandise inside
claiming that it is the product of
hoarding and then drove away. What
crime was committed?
It is only theft because the premises
where the simulation of public authority
was committed is not an inhabited
house, not a public building, and not a
place devoted to religious worship.
Where the house is a private building or
is uninhabited, even though there is
simulation of public authority in
committing the taking or even if he used
a fictitious name, the crime is only theft.
Note that in the crime of robbery with
force upon things, what should be
considered is the means of entrance
and means of taking the personal
property from within. If those means do
not come within the definition under the
Revised Penal Code, the taking will
only give rise to theft.
Those means must be employed in
entering. If the offender had already
entered when these means were
employed, anything taken inside,
without breaking of any sealed or
closed receptacle, will not give rise to
robbery.
Illustration:
A found B inside his (As) house. He
asked B what the latter was doping
there. B claimed he is an inspector
from the local city government to look
after the electrical installations. At the
time B was chanced upon by A, he has
already entered. So anything he took
inside without breaking of any sealed or
closed receptacle will not give rise to
robbery because the simulation of
public authority was made not in order
to enter but when he has already
entered.
Article 301 defines an inhabited house,
public building, or building dedicated to
religious
worship
and
their
dependencies, thus:
Inhabited house Any shelter, ship, or
vessel constituting the dwelling of one
or more persons, even though the
inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be
absent therefrom when the robbery is
committed.
Public building Includes every building
owned by the government or belonging
to a private person but used or rented
by
the
government,
although
temporarily unoccupied by the same.
Dependencies of an inhabited house,
public building, or building dedicated to
religious worship All interior courts,
corrals, warehouses, granaries, barns,
coachhouses,
stables,
or
other
departments, or enclosed interior
entrance connected therewith and
which form part of the whole. Orchards
and other lands used for cultivation or
production are not included, even if
closed, contiguous to the building, and
having direct connection therewith.
Article 302.
Robbery in An
Uninhabited Place or in A Private
Building
160
Elements
Elements
1. Offender
entered
an
uninhabited place or a building
which was not a dwelling house,
not a public building, or not an
edifice devoted to religious
worship;
2. Any
of
the
following
circumstances was present:
a. The entrance was
effected
through
an
opening not intended for
entrance or egress;
b. A wall, roof, floor, or
outside door or window
was broken;
c. The entrance was
effected through the use
of false keys, picklocks
or other similar tools;
d. A door, wardrobe,
chest, or any sealed or
closed
furniture
or
receptacle was broken;
or
e. A closed or sealed
receptacle was removed,
even if the same be
broken open elsewhere.
3. Offender took therefrom
personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain.
1. Offender
has
in
his
possession picklocks or similar
tools;
2. Such picklock or similar tools
are especially adopted to the
commission of robbery;
3. Offender does not
lawful
cause
for
possession.
Article 305 defines
include the following:
have
such
false keys to
1. Tools mentioned in Article

304;
2. Genuine keys stolen from
the owner;
3. Any key other than those
intended by the owner for use in
the lock forcibly opened by the
offender.
Brigandage This is a crime committed
by more than three armed persons who
form a band of robbers for the purpose
of committing robbery in the highway or
kidnapping persons for the purpose of
extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any
other purpose to be attained by means
of force and violence.
Article 306. Who Are Brigands
Elements of brigandage
Under Article 303, if the robbery under

Article 299 and 302 consists in the
taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood, the
penalty imposable is lower.
1. There are least four armed

persons;
2. They
robbers;
Article 304. Possession of Picklock

or Similar Tools
formed
band
of
2. The purpose is any of the following:

161
a.
To commit robbery in the

highway;
b.
To kidnap persons for the

purpose of extortion or to
obtain ransom; or
c.
To attain by means of force

and violence any other
purpose.
Article 307. Aiding and Abetting A Band

of Brigands
Elements
1.
There is a band of brigands;
2.
Offender knows the band to be of

brigands;
3.
Offender does any of the following

acts:
a.
He in any manner aids,

abets or protects such band
of brigands;
b.
He gives them information of

the movements of the police
or other peace officers of the
government; or
c.
He acquires or receives the

property taken by such
brigands.
in the highway, kidnapping for

purposes of extortion or ransom, or
for any other purpose to be attained
by force and violence. The mere
forming of a band, which requires at
least four armed persons, if for any
of the criminal purposes stated in
Article
306,
gives
rise
to
brigandage.
(2)
Highway robbery/brigandage under

Presidential Decree No. 532 is the
seizure of any person for ransom,
extortion or for any other lawful
purposes, or the taking away of the
property of another by means of
violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things or
other unlawful means committed by
any person on any Philippine
highway.
Brigandage under Presidential Decree No.

532 refers to the actual commission of the
robbery on the highway and can be
committed by one person alone. It is this
brigandage which deserves some attention
because not any robbery in a highway is
brigandage or highway robbery.
A
distinction should be made between
highway robbery/brigandage under the
decree and ordinary robbery committed on
a highway under the Revised Penal Code.
Distinction between brigandage under the

Revised Penal Code and highway
robbery/brigandage
under
Presidential Decree No. 532:
(1)
Brigandage as a crime under the

Revised Penal Code refers to the
formation of a band of robbers by
more than three armed persons for
the purpose of committing robbery
162
In People v. Puno, decided February 17,

1993, the trial court convicted the
accused of highway robbery/
brigandage
under
Presidential
Decree No. 532 and sentenced
them to reclusion perpetua. On
appeal, the Supreme Court set
aside the judgment and found the
accused guilty of simple robbery as
punished in Article 294 (5), in
relation to Article 295, and
sentenced them accordingly. The
Supreme Court pointed out that the
purpose of brigandage is, inter alia,
indiscriminate highway robbery.
And that PD 532 punishes as
highway robbery or Brigandage only
acts of robbery perpetrated by
outlaws indiscriminately against any
person or persons on a Philippine
highway as defined therein, not acts
committed against a predetermined
or particular victim. A single act of
robbery against a particular person
chosen by the offender as his
specific victim, even if committed on
a highway, is not highway robbery
or brigandage.
In US v. Feliciano, 3 Phil. 422, it was
pointed out that highway robbery or
brigandage is more than ordinary robbery
committed on a highway. The purpose of
brigandage is indiscriminate robbery in
highways.
If the purpose is only a
particular robbery, the crime is only robbery
or robbery in band, if there are at least four
armed participants.
Presidential Decree No. 532 introduced
amendments to Article 306 and 307 by
increasing the penalties. It does not require
at least four armed persons forming a band
of robbers.
It does not create a
presumption that the offender is a brigand
when he an unlicensed firearm is used
unlike the Revised Penal Code. But the
essence of brigandage under the Revised
Penal Code is the same as that in the
Presidential Decree, that is, crime of
depredation wherein the unlawful acts are
directed not only against specific, intended

or preconceived victims, but against any
and all prospective victims anywhere on
the highway and whoever they may
potentially be.
Article 308. Who Are Liable for Theft
Persons liable
1.
Those who with intent to gain, but

without
violence
against
or
intimidation of persons nor force
upon things, take personal property
of another without the latters
consent;
2.
Those who having found lost

property, fails to deliver the same to
the local authorities or to its owner;
3.
Those who, after having maliciously

damaged the property of another,
remove or make use of the fruits or
objects of the damage caused by
them;
4.
Those who enter an enclosed estate

or a field where trespass is
forbidden or which belongs to
another and, without the consent of
its owner, hunt or fish upon the
same or gather fruits, cereals or
other forest or farm products.
Elements
1.
There is taking of personal property;
2.
The property
another;
3.
The taking was done with intent to

gain;
4.
The taking was done without the

consent of the owner;
taken
belongs
to
163
5.
The taking is accomplished without

the use of violence against or
intimidation of persons of force
upon things.
Fencing under Presidential Decree No.

1612 is a distinct crime from theft and
robbery. If the participant who profited is
being prosecuted with person who robbed,
the person is prosecuted as an accessory.
If he is being prosecuted separately, the
person who partook of the proceeds is
liable for fencing.
In People v. Judge de Guzman, it was
held that fencing is not a continuing
offense. Jurisdiction is with the court of the
place where the personal property subject
of the robbery or theft was possessed,
bought, kept, or dealt with. The place
where the theft or robbery was committed
was inconsequential.
serve as notice. He may be liable for

fencing even if he paid the price because
of the presumption.
Cattle Rustling and Qualified Theft of Large
Cattle The crime of cattle-rustling is
defined and punished under Presidential
Decree No. 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling
law of 1974, as the taking by any means,
method or scheme, of any large cattle, with
or without intent to gain and whether
committed with or without violence against
or intimidation of person or force upon
things, so long as the taking is without the
consent of the owner/breed thereof. The
crime includes the killing or taking the meat
or hide of large cattle without the consent
of the owner.
Since the intent to gain is not essential, the
killing or destruction of large cattle, even
without taking any part thereof, is not a
crime of malicious mischief but cattlerustling.
Since Section 5 of Presidential Decree No.

1612 expressly provides that mere
possession of anything of value
which has been subject of theft or
robbery shall be prima facie
evidence of fencing, it follows that a
possessor of stolen goods is
presumed to have knowledge that
the goods found in his possession
after the fact of theft or robbery has
been established. The presumption
does not offend the presumption of
innocence in the fundamental law.
This was the ruling in Pamintuan v.
People, decided on July 11, 1994.
The Presidential Decree, however, does

not supersede the crime of qualified theft of
large cattle under Article 310 of the
Revised Penal Code, but merely modified
the penalties provided for theft of large
cattle and, to that extent, amended Articles
309 and 310. Note that the overt act that
gives rise to the crime of cattle-rustling is
the taking or killing of large cattle. Where
the large cattle was not taken, but received
by the offender from the owner/overseer
thereof, the crime is not cattle-rustling; it is
qualified theft of large cattle.
Burden of proof is upon fence to overcome

presumption; if explanation insufficient or
unsatisfactory, court will convict. This is a
malum prohibitum so intent is not material.
But if prosecution is under the Revised
Penal Code, as an accessory, the criminal
intent is controlling.
Where the large cattle was received by the

offender who thereafter misappropriated it,
the crime is qualified theft under Article 310
if only physical or material possession
thereof was yielded to him. If both material
and juridical possession thereof was
yielded to him who misappropriated the
large cattle, the crime would be estafa
under Article 315 (1b).
When there is notice to person buying,

there may be fencing such as when the
price is way below ordinary prices; this may
164
Presidential Decree No. 533 is not a

special law in the context of Article
10 of the Revised Penal Code. It
merely modified the penalties
provided for theft of large cattle
under the Revised Penal Code and
amended Article 309 and 310. This
is explicit from Section 10 of the
Presidential Decree. Consequently,
the trial court should not have
convicted the accused of frustrated
murder separately from cattlerustling, since the former should
have been absorbed by cattlerustling as killing was a result of or
on the occasion of cattle-rustling. It
should only be an aggravating
circumstance.
But because the
information did not allege the injury,
the same can no longer be
appreciated; the crime should,
therefore be only, simple cattlerustling. (People v. Martinada,
February 13, 1991)
Article 311. Theft of the Property of the

National Library or National Museum
If the property stolen is any property of the
National Library or of the National Museum
Article 312. Occupation of Real Property
or Usurpation of Real Rights in Property
Acts punished:
1.
Taking possession of any real

property belonging to another by
means of violence against or
intimidation of persons;
2.
Usurping any real rights in property

belonging to another by means of
violence against or intimidation of
persons.
Elements
1.
Offender takes possession of any

real property or usurps any real
rights in property;
2.
The real property or real rights

belong to another;
3.
Violence against or intimidation of

persons is used by the offender in
occupying real property or usurping
real rights in property;
4.
There is intent to gain.
Article 310. Qualified Theft

Theft is qualified if
1.
Committed by a domestic servant;
2.
Committed with grave abuse of

confidence;
3.
The property stolen is a motor

vehicle, mail matter, or large cattle;
4.
The property stolen consists of

coconuts taken from the premises of
a plantation;
5.
The property stolen is fish taken

from a fishpond or fishery; or
6.
If property is taken on the occasion

of
fire,
earthquake,
typhoon,
volcanic eruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident, or civil
disturbance.
Use the degree of intimidation to determine

the degree of the penalty to be applied for
the usurpation.
165
Usurpation under Article 312 is committed

in the same way as robbery with
violence or intimidation of persons.
The main difference is that in
robbery, personal property is
involved; while in usurpation of real
rights, it is real property. (People v.
Judge Alfeche, July 23, 1992)
Usurpation of real rights and property
should not be complexed using Article 48
when violence or intimidation is committed.
There is only a single crime, but a twotiered penalty is prescribed to be
determined on whether the acts of violence
used is akin to that in robbery in Article
294, grave threats or grave coercion and
an incremental penalty of fine based on the
value of the gain obtained by the offender.
Therefore, it is not correct to state that the
threat employed in usurping real property is
absorbed in the crime; otherwise, the
additional penalty would be meaningless.
The complainant must be the person upon
whom violence was employed. If a tenant
was occupying the property and he was
threatened by the offender, but it was the
owner who was not in possession of the
property who was named as the offended
party, the same may be quashed as it does
not charge an offense. The owner would,
at most, be entitled to civil recourse only.
offender but was delivered by the owner or

the possessor to the offender, who
thereafter misappropriated the same, the
crime is either qualified theft under Article
310 of the Revised Penal Code or estafa
under Article 315 (b) of the Revised Penal
Code. Qualified theft of a motor vehicle is
the crime if only the material or physical
possession was yielded to the offender;
otherwise, if juridical possession was also
yielded, the crime is estafa.
On squatting
According to the Urban Development and
Housing Act, the following are squatters:
1. Those who have the capacity or means
to pay rent or for legitimate
housing but are squatting
anyway;
2. Also the persons who were awarded
lots but sold or lease them out;
3. Intruders of lands reserved for
socialized housing, pre-empting
possession by occupying the
same.
Article 313.
Landmarks
Altering Boundaries or
Elements
On carnapping
vehicle
and
theft
of
motor
The taking with intent to gain of a motor

vehicle belonging to another, without the
latters consent, or by means of violence or
intimidation of persons, or by using force
upon things is penalized as carnapping
under Republic Act No. 6539 (An Act
Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping),
as amended. The overt act which is being
punished under this law as carnapping is
also the taking of a motor vehicle under
circumstances of theft or robbery. If the
motor vehicle was not taken by the
1. There are boundary marks or

monuments of towns, provinces,
or estates, or any other marks
intended to designate the
boundaries of the same;
2. Offender
alters
boundary marks.
Article
314.
Insolvency
said
Fraudulent
Elements
166
1. Offender is a debtor, that is,

he has obligations due and
payable;
2. He absconds
property;
with
his
3. There is prejudice to his

creditors.
Under paragraph (a)

1. Offender has an onerous
obligation to deliver something
of value;
2. He alters its
quantity, or quality;
substance,
3. Damage or prejudice
caused to another.
is
Article 315. Swindling (Estafa)

Under paragraph (b)
Elements in general
1. Accused defrauded another
by abuse of confidence or by
means of deceit; and
This covers the three different
ways of committing estafa under
Article 315; thus, estafa is
committed
a. With unfaithfulness or
abuse of confidence;
b. By means of false
pretenses or fraudulents
acts; or
c. Through
means.
fraudulent
(The first form under subdivision

1 is known as estafa with abuse
of confidence; and the second
and
third
forms
under
subdivisions 2 and 3 cover cover
estafa by means of deceit.)
2. Damage
or
prejudice
capable of pecuniary estimation
is caused to the offended party
or third person.
Elements of estafa with unfaithfulness
of abuse of confidence under Article
315 (1)
1. Money, goods, or other

personal property is received by
the offender is trust, or on
commission,
or
for
administration, or under any
other obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of, or to
return, the same;
2. There is misappropriation or
conversion of such money or
property by the offender, or
denial on his part of such
receipt;
3. Such misappropriation or
conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and
4. There is a demand made by the
offended party to the offender.
(The fourth
element
is not
necessary when there is evidence
of misappropriation of the goods by
the defendant. [Tubb v. People, et
al., 101 Phil. 114] ).
Under Presidential Decree No. 115, the
failure of the entrustee to turn over the
proceeds of the sale of the goods,
documents, or instruments covered by a
trust receipt, to the extent of the amount
owing to the entruster, or as appearing in
the trust receipt; or the failure to return said
167
goods, documents, or instruments if they

were not sold or disposed of in accordance
with the terms of the trust receipt constitute
estafa.
Under paragraph (d)

1.
Offender postdated a check, or

issued a check in payment of an
obligation;
2.
Such postdating or issuing a check

was done when the offender had no
funds in the bank, or his funds
deposited therein were not sufficient
to cover the amount of the check.
Under paragraph (c)

1.
The paper with the signature of the

offended party is in blank;
2.
Offended party delivered it to the

offender;
3.
Above the signature of the offended

party, a document is written by the
offender without authority to do so;
4.
The document so written creates a

liability of, or causes damage to, the
offended party or any third person.
Note that this only applies if

(1)
The obligation is not pre-existing;
(2)
The check is drawn to enter into an

obligation;
(Remember that it is the check that
is supposed to be the sole
consideration for the other party to
have entered into the obligation.
For example, Rose wants to
purchase a bracelet and draws a
check without insufficient funds. The
jeweler sells her the bracelet solely
because of the consideration in the
check.)
Elements of estafa by means of false

pretenses or fraudulent acts under Article
315 (2)
Acts punished under paragraph (a)
1.
Using fictitious name;
2.
Falsely pretending to possess

power, influence,
qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; or
3.
By means of other similar deceits.
Under paragraph (b)

Altering the quality, fineness, or weight of
anything pertaining to his art or business.
Under paragraph (c)
Pretending to have bribed any government
employee, without prejudice to the action
for calumny which the offended party may
deem proper to bring against the offender.
(3)
It does not cover checks where the

purpose of drawing the check is to
guarantee a loan as this is not an
obligation contemplated in this
paragraph
The check must be genuine. If the check is

falsified and is cashed with the bank or
exchanged for cash, the crime is estafa
thru falsification of a commercial document.
The general rule is that the accused must
be able to obtain something from the
offended party by means of the check he
issued and delivered. Exception: when the
check is issued not in payment of an
obligation.
168
It must not be promissory notes, or

guaranties.
B.
1.
Good faith is a defense.

If the checks were issued by the defendant
and he received money for them, then
stopped payment and did not return the
money, and he had an intention to stop
payment when he issued the check, there
is estafa.
Deceit is presumed if the drawer fails to
deposit the amount necessary to cover the
check within three days from receipt of
notice of dishonor or insufficiency of funds
in the bank.
A person has sufficient funds

in or credit with the drawee
bank when he makes or
draws and issues a check;
2.
He fails to keep sufficient

funds or to maintain a credit
to cover the full amount of
the check if presented within
90 days from the date
appearing;
3.
The check is dishonored by

the drawee bank.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
Distinction between estafa under Article

315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code and
violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22:
How violated
(1)
A.
1.
2.
3.
A person makes or draws

and issues any check;
The check is made or drawn
and issued to apply on
account or for value;
Under both Article 315 (2) (d) and

Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, there is
criminal liability if the check is drawn
for non-pre-existing obligation.
If the check is drawn for a preexisting obligation, there is criminal
liability only under Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22.
Thus, it can apply to preexisting obligations, too.
(2)
The person who makes or

draws and issued the check
knows at the time of issue
that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit
with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full
upon its presentment;
Estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) is a

crime against property while Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 is a crime
against public interest.
The
gravamen for the former is the
deceit employed, while in the latter,
it is the issuance of the check.
Hence, there is no double jeopardy.
(3)
In the estafa under Article 315 (2)

(d), deceit and damage are
material, while in Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22, they are immaterial.
(4)
In estafa under Article 315 (2) (d),

knowledge by the drawer of
insufficient funds is not required,
while in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22,
knowledge by the drawer of
insufficient funds is reqired.
169
1. The check is subsequently

dishonored by the drawee bank
for insufficiency of funds or
credit, or would have been
dishonored for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any
valid reason, ordered the bank
to
stop
payment.
1.
a.
When is there prima facie evidence of

knowledge of insufficient funds?
There is a prima facie evidence of
knowledge of insufficient funds when the
check was presented within 90 days from
the date appearing on the check and was
dishonored.
Exceptions
1.
2.
2.
When the check was presented

after 90 days from date;
When the maker or drawer -a.
b.
3.
Pays the holder of the check

the amount due within five
banking days after receiving
notice that such check has
not been paid by the drawee;
Makes arrangements for
payment in full by the
drawee of such check within
five banking days after
notice of non-payment
The drawee must cause to be written or

stamped in plain language the reason for
the dishonor.
If the drawee bank received an order of
stop-payment from the drawer with no
reason, it must be stated that the funds are
insufficient to be prosecuted here.
The unpaid or dishonored check with the
stamped information re: refusal to pay is
prima facie evidence of (1) the making or
issuance of the check; (2) the due
presentment to the drawee for payment &
the dishonor thereof; and (3) the fact that
the check was properly dishonored for the
reason stamped on the check.
Obtaining food, refreshment,

or accommodation at a hotel,
inn, restaurant, boarding
house, lodging house, or
apartment house;
b.
Without paying therefor;
c.
With intent to defraud the

proprietor or manager.
a.
Obtaining credit
at
any of the establishments;
b.
Using false pretense;
a.
Abandoning or
surreptitiously removing any
part of his baggage in the
establishment;
b.
After obtaining credit, food,

refreshment,
accommodation;
c.
Without paying.
Estafa through any of the following

fraudulent means under Article 315 (3)
Under paragraph (a)
1.
Offender induced the offended party

to sign a document;
2.
Deceit was employed to make him

sign the document;
3.
Offended party personally signed

the document;
4.
Prejudice was caused.
Under paragraph (b)

Resorting to some fraudulent practice to
insure success in a gambling game;
Acts punished under paragraph (e)

Under paragraph (c)
170
On issuance of a bouncing check

1.
Offender removed, concealed or

destroyed;
2.
Any court record, office files,

documents or any other papers;
3.
With intent to defraud another.
In Kim v. People, 193 SCRA 344, it was

held that if an employee receives
cash advance from his employer to
defray his travel expenses, his
failure to return unspent amount is
not estafa through misappropriation
or conversion because ownership of
the money was transferred to
employee and no fiduciary relation
was created in respect to such
advance. The money is a loan.
The employee has no legal
obligation to return the same
money, that is, the same bills and
coins received.
In Saddul Jr. v. CA, 192 SCRA 277, it was
held that the act of using or disposing of
anothers property as if it were ones own,
or of devoting it to a purpose or use
different from that agreed upon, is a
misappropriation and conversion to the
prejudice of the owner. Conversion is
unauthorized assumption an exercise of the
right of ownership over goods and chattels
belonging to another, resulting in the
alteration of their condition or exclusion of
the owners rights.
In Allied Bank Corporation v. Secretary
Ordonez, 192 SCRA 246, it was
held that under Section 13 of
Presidential Decree No. 115, the
failure of an entrustee to turn over
the proceeds of sale of the goods
covered by the Trust Receipt, or to
return said goods if they are not
sold, is punishable as estafa Article
315 (1) (b).
The issuance of check with insufficient

funds may be held liable for estafa and
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 expressly provides that
prosecution under said law is without
prejudice to any liability for violation of any
provision in the Revised Penal Code.
Double Jeopardy may not be invoked
because a violation of Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22 is a malum prohibitum and is being
punished as a crime against the public
interest for undermining the banking
system of the country, while under the
RevisedPenal Code, the crime is malum in
se which requires criminal intent and
damage to the payee and is a crime
against property.
In estafa, the check must have been issued
as a reciprocal consideration for parting of
goods (kaliwaan).
There must be
concomitance. The deceit must be prior to
or simultaneous with damage done, that is,
seller relied on check to part with goods. If
it is issued after parting with goods as in
credit accommodation only, there is no
estafa. If the check is issued for a preexisting obligation, there is no estafa as
damage had already been done. The
drawer is liable under Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22.
For criminal liability to attach under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22, it is enough that the
check was issued to "apply on account or
for value" and upon its presentment it was
dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds, provided that the
drawer had been notified of the dishonor
and inspite of such notice fails to pay the
holder of the check the full amount due
thereon within five days from notice.
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a drawer
must be given notice of dishonor and given
five banking days from notice within which
to deposit or pay the amount stated in the
check to negate the presumtion that drawer
knew of the insufficiency. After this period,
171
it is conclusive that drawer knew of the

insufficiency, thus there is no more defense
to the prosecution under Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22.
The mere issuance of any kind of check
regardless of the intent of the parties,
whether the check is intended to serve
merely as a guarantee or as a deposit,
makes the drawer liable under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 if the check bounces.
As a matter of public policy, the issuance of
a worthless check is a public nuisance and
must be abated.
In De Villa v. CA, decided April 18, 1991,
it was held that under Batas Pambansa
Blg. 22, there is no distinction as to the kind
of check issued. As long as it is delivered
within Philippine territory, the Philippine
courts have jurisdiction. Even if the check
is only presented to and dishonored in a
Philippine bank, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
applies. This is true in the case of dollar or
foreign currency checks. Where the law
makes no distinction, none should be
made.
In People v. Nitafan, it was held that as
long as instrument is a check under the
negotiable instrument law, it is covered by
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. A memorandum
check is not a promissory note, it is a check
which have the word memo, mem,
memorandum written across the face of
the check which signifies that if the holder
upon maturity of the check presents the
same to the drawer, it will be paid
absolutely. But there is no prohibition
against
drawer
from
depositing
memorandum check in a bank. Whatever
be the agreement of the parties in respect
of the issuance of a check is
inconsequential to a violation to Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 where the check
bounces.
But overdraft or credit arrangement may be
allowed by banks as to their preferred
clients and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 does
not apply. If check bounces, it is because
bank has
agreement.
been
remiss
in
honoring
The check must be presented for payment

within a 90-day period. If presented for
payment beyond the 90 day period and the
drawers funds are insufficient to cover it,
there is no Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
violation.
Where check was issued prior to August 8,
1984, when Circular No. 12 of the
Department of the Justice took
effect, and the drawer relied on the
then prevailing Circular No. 4 of the
Ministry of Justice to the effect that
checks issued as part of an
arrangement/agreement
of
the
parties to guarantee or secure
fulfillment of an obligation are not
covered by Batas Pambansa Blg.
22, no criminal liability should be
incurred by the drawer. Circular
should not be given retroactive
effect. (Lazaro v. CA, November
11, 1993, citing People v. Alberto,
October 28, 1993)
Article 316. Other Forms of Swindling
Under paragraph 1 By conveying, selling,
encumbering, or mortgaging any real
property, pretending to be the owner of the
same
Elements
1.
There is an immovable, such as a

parcel of land or a building;
2.
Offender who is not the owner

represents himself as the owner
thereof;
3.
Offender executes an act of

ownership such as selling, leasing,
encumbering or mortgaging the real
property;
172
4.
The act is made to the prejudice to

the owner or a third person.
Under paragraph 2 by disposing of real

property as free from encumbrance,
although such encumbrance be not
recorded
Under paragraph 5 by accepting any

compensation for services not rendered or
for labor not performed
Under paragraph 6 by selling, mortgaging
or encumbering real property or properties
with which the offender guaranteed the
fulfillment of his obligation as surety
Elements
Elements
1.
2.
The thing
property:
disposed
is
real
Offender knew that the real property

was encumbered, whether the
encumbrance is recorded or not;
3.
There
must
be
express
representation by offender that the
real
property
is
free
from
encumbrance;
4.
The act of disposing of the real

property is made to the damage of
another.
1.
Offender is a surety in a bond given

in a criminal or civil action;
2.
He guaranteed the fulfillment of

such obligation with his real property
or properties;
Under paragraph 3 by wrongfully taking

by the owner of his personal property from
its lawful possessor
Elements
1.
Offender is the owner of personal

property;
2.
Said personal property is in the

lawful possession of another;
3.
Offender wrongfully takes it from its

lawful possessor;
4.
Prejudice is thereby caused to the

possessor or third person.
Under paragraph 4 by executing any

fictitious contract to the prejudice of another
173
3.
4.
He sells, mortgages, or in any

manner encumbers said real
property;
Acts punished
1.
Such
sale,
mortgage
or
encumbrance is without express
authority from the court, or made
before the cancellation of his bond,
or before being relieved from the
obligation contracted by him.
Knowingly removing any personal

property mortgaged under the
Chattel Mortgage law to any
province or city other than the one
in which it was located at the time of
execution of the mortgage, without
the
written
consent
of
the
mortgagee
or
his
executors,
administrators or assigns;
Article 317. Swindling A Minor
Elements:
Elements
1.
Personal
property
is
mortgaged under the Chattel
Mortgage Law;
2.
Offender knows that such

property is so mortgaged;
3.
Offender
removes
such
mortgaged personal property
to any province or city other
than the one in which it was
located at the time of the
execution of the mortgage;
4.
The removal is permanent;
5.
There is no written consent

of the mortgagee or his
executors, administrators or
assigns to such removal.
1.
2.
Offender takes advantage of the

inexperience or emotions or feelings
of a minor;
He induces such minor to assume
an obligation or to give release or to
execute a transfer of any property
right;
3.
The consideration is some loan of

money, credit or other personal
property;
4.
The transaction is to the detriment

of such minor.
Article 318. Other deceits

Acts punished
1.
Defrauding or damaging another by

any other deceit not mentioned in
the preceding articles;
2.
Interpreting dreams, by making

forecasts, by telling fortunes, or by
taking advantage or the credulity of
the public in any other similar
manner, for profit or gain.
2.
Selling
or
pledging
personal
property already pledged, or any
part thereof, under the terms of the
Chattel Mortgage Law, without the
consent of the mortgagee written on
the back of the mortgage and noted
on the record thereof in the office of
the register of deeds of the province
where such property is located.
Elements:
1.
Article 319. Removal, Sale or Pledge of

Mortgaged Property
Personal property is already

pledged under the terms of
the Chattel Mortgage Law;
174
2.
Offender,
who
is
the
mortgagor of such property,
sells or pledges the same or
any part thereof;
3.
There is no consent of the

mortgagee written on the
back of the mortgage and
noted on the record thereof
in the office of the register of
deeds.
Arson
Kinds of arson
1.
Arson,
under
Section
1
Presidential Decree No. 1613;
of
2.
Destructive arson, under Article 320

of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659;
3.
Other cases of arson, under

Section 3 of Presidential Decree
No. 1613.
Article 327. Who Are Liable for Malicious

Mischief
Elements
1.
Offender
deliberately
caused
damage to the property of another;
2.
Such act does not constitute arson

or
other
crimes
involving
destruction;
3.
The act of damaging anothers

property was committed merely for
the sake of damaging it;
There is destruction of the property of

another but there is no misappropriation.
Otherwise, it would be theft if he gathers
the effects of destruction.
175
Article 328.
Mischief
Special Case of Malicious
Persons exempted from criminal liability

1.
Spouse,
ascendants
and
descendants, or relatives by affinity
in the same line;
2.
Widowed spouse with respect to the

property which belonged to the
deceased spouse before the same
passed into the possession of
another
3.
Brothers and sisters and brothersin-law and sisters-in-law, if living

together.
Acts punished
1.
Causing damage to obstruct the

performance of public functions;
2.
Using any poisonous or corrosive

substance;
3.
Spreading
any
infection
contagion among cattle;
4.
or
Causing damage to the property of

the National Museum or National
Library, or to any archive or registry,
waterworks, road, promenade, or
any other thing used is common by
the pubic.
Article 329. Other Mischiefs

All other mischiefs not included in the next
preceding article
Article 330. Damage and Obstruction to
Means of Communication
This is committed by damaging any railway,
telegraph or telephone lines.
Only the relatives enumerated incur no

liability if the crime relates to theft (not
robbery), swindling, and malicious mischief.
Third parties who participate are not
exempt.
The relationship between the
spouses is not limited to legally married
couples; the provision applies to live-in
partners.
Estafa should not be complexed with any
other crime in order for exemption to
operate.
TITLE XI. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Crimes against chastity
Article 331. Destroying or Damaging

Statues, Public Monuments, or Paintings
Article 332.
Persons Exempt from
Criminal Liability
1.
Adultery (Art. 333);
2.
Concubinage (Art. 334);
3.
Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336);
4.
Qualified seduction (Art. 337);
5.
Simple seduction (Art. 338);
6.
Acts of lasciviousness with the

consent of the offended party (Art.
339);
7.
Corruption of minors (Art. 340);
Crimes involved in the exemption

1.
Theft;
2.
Estafa; and
3.
Malicious mischief.
176
8.
White slave trade (Art. 34);
9.
Forcible abduction (Art. 342);
10.
Consented abduction (Art. 343).
The crimes of adultery, concubinage,

seduction,
abduction
and
acts
of
lasciviousness are the so-called private
crimes. They cannot be prosecuted except
upon the complaint initiated by the
offended party.
The law regards the
privacy of the offended party here as more
important than the disturbance to the order
of society. For the law gives the offended
party the preference whether to sue or not
to sue. But the moment the offended party
has initiated the criminal complaint, the
public prosecutor will take over and
continue with prosecution of the offender.
That is why under Article 344, if the
offended party pardons the offender, that
pardon will only be valid if it comes before
the prosecution starts. The moment the
prosecution starts, the crime has already
become public and it is beyond the
offended party to pardon the offender.
Article 333. Who Are Guilty of Adultery
Elements
information. This is so because whether he

knows the woman to be married or not is a
matter of defense and its up to him to
ventilate that in formal investigations or a
formal trial.
If after preliminary investigation, the public
prosecutor is convinced that the man did
not know that the woman is married, then
he could simply file the case against the
woman.
The acquittal of the woman does not
necessarily result in the acquittal of her coaccused.
In order to constitute adultery, there must
be a joint physical act. Joint criminal intent
is not necessary. Although the criminal
intent may exist in the mind of one of the
parties to the physical act, there may be no
such intent in the mind of the other party.
One may be guilty of the criminal intent, the
other innocent, and yet the joint physical
act necessary to constitute the adultery
may be complete. So, if the man had no
knowledge that the woman was married,
he would be innocent insofar as the crime
of adultery is concerned but the woman
would still be guilty; the former would have
to be acquitted and the latter found guilty,
although they were tried together.
1.
The woman is married;
A husband committing concubinage may

be required to support his wife committing
adultery under the rule in pari delicto.
2.
She has sexual intercourse with a

man not her husband;
There is no frustrated adultery because of

the nature of the offense.
3.
As regards the man with whom she

has sexual intercourse, he must
know her to be married.
For adultery to exist, there must be a

marriage although it be subsequently
annulled.
There is no adultery, if the
marriage is void from the beginning.
Adultery is a crime not only of the married

woman but also of the man who had
intercourse with a married woman knowing
her to be married. Even if the man proves
later on that he does not know the woman
to be married, at the beginning, he must
still be included in the complaint or
Adultery is an instantaneous crime which is

consummated and completed at the
moment of the carnal union. Each sexual
intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery.
Adultery is not a continuing crime unlike
concubinage.
177
Illustration:
3.
Madamme X is a married woman residing
in Pasay City. He met a man, Y, at Roxas
Boulevard. She agreed to go with to
Baguio City, supposedly to come back the
next day. When they were in Bulacan, they
stayed in a motel, having sexual
intercourse there.
After that, they
proceeded again and stopped at Dagupan
City, where they went to a motel and had
sexual intercourse.
There are two counts of adultery committed
in this instance: one adultery in Bulacan,
and another adultery in Dagupan City.
Even if it involves the same man, each
intercourse is a separate crime of adultery.
Article 334. Concubinage
Acts punished
1.
Keeping a mistress in the conjugal

dwelling;
2.
Having sexual intercourse, under

scandalous circumstances;
3.
Cohabiting with her in any other

place.
As regards the woman, she knows

that the man is married.
With respect to concubinage the same

principle applies: only the offended spouse
can bring the prosecution. This is a crime
committed by the married man, the
husband. Similarly, it includes the woman
who had a relationship with the married
man.
It has been asked why the penalty for
adultery is higher than concubinage when
both crimes are infidelities to the marital
vows. The reason given for this is that
when the wife commits adultery, there is a
probability that she will bring a stranger into
the family.
If the husband commits
concubinage, this probability does not arise
because the mother of the child will always
carry the child with her. So even if the
husband brings with him the child, it is
clearly known that the child is a stranger.
Not in the case of a married woman who
may bring a child to the family under the
guise of a legitimate child. This is the
reason why in the former crime the penalty
is higher than the latter.
Unlike
adultery,
continuing crime.
concubinage
is
Elements
Article 335. Rape
1.
The man is married;
2.
He is either
a.
This has been repealed by Republic Act

No. 8353 or the Anti-Rape Law of 1997.
See Article 266-A.
Keeping a mistress in the

conjugal dwelling;
Article 336. Acts of Lasciviousness
b.
c.
Having sexual intercourse

under
scandalous
circumstances with a woman
who is not his wife; or
Cohabiting with a woman
who is not his wife in any
other place;
Elements
1.
Offender commits any act

lasciviousness or lewdness;
of
2.
It is done under any of the following

circumstances:
178
a.
By
using
intimidation;
force
b.
When the offended party is

deprived or reason of
otherwise unconscious; or
c.
When the offended party is

another person of either sex.
or simple seduction, that is, the

offender took advantage of his
position of ascendancy over the
offender woman either because he
is a person in authority, a domestic,
a househelp, a priest, a teacher or a
guardian, or there was a deceitful
promise of marriage which never
would really be fulfilled.
or
See Article 339.

Note that there are two kinds of acts of
lasciviousness under the Revised Penal
Code: (1) under Article 336, and (2) under
Article 339.
1.

Under this article, the offended
party may be a man or a woman.
The crime committed, when the act
performed with lewd design was
perpetrated under circumstances
which would have brought about the
crime of rape if sexual intercourse
was
effected,
is
acts
of
lasciviousness under this article.
This means that the offended party
is either
2.
(1)
under 12 years of age; or
(2)
being over 12 years of age,

the lascivious acts were
committed on him or her
through
violence
or
intimidation,
or while the
offender party was deprived
of reason, or otherwise
unconscious.

with the Consent of the Offended
Party:
Under this article, the victim is
limited only to a woman.
The
circumstances under which the
lascivious acts were committed
must be that of qualified seduction
Always remember that there can be no

frustration of acts of lasciviousness, rape or
adultery because no matter how far the
offender may have gone towards the
realization of his purpose, if his
participation amounts to performing all the
acts of execution, the felony is necessarily
produced as a consequence thereof.
Intent to rape is not a necessary element of
the crime of acts of lasciviousness.
Otherwise, there would be no crime of
attempted rape.
Article 337. Qualified Seduction
Acts punished
1.
Seduction of a virgin over 12 years

and under 18 years of age by
certain persons, such as a person in
authority, priest, teacher; and
Elements
1.
Offended party is a virgin,

which is presumed if she is
unmarried and of good
reputation;
2.
She is over 12 and under 18

years of age;
3.
Offender
has
intercourse with her;
sexual
179
4.
2.
There is abuse of authority,

confidence or relationship on
the part of the offender.
seduction, it is not necessary that the

woman be a virgin. It is enough that she is
of good repute.
Seduction of a sister by her brother,

or descendant by her ascendant,
regardless of her age or reputation.
For purposes of qualified seduction,

virginity does not mean physical virginity. It
means that the offended party has not had
any experience before.
Person liable
1.
Those who abused their authority

a.
Person in public authority;
b.
Guardian;
c.
Teacher;
Although in qualified seduction, the age of

the offended woman is considered, if the
offended party is a descendant or a sister
of the offender no matter how old she is
or whether she is a prostitute the crime of
qualified seduction is committed.
Illustration:
d.
2.
3.
Person who, in any capacity,

is
entrusted
with
the
education or custody of the
woman seduced;
Those who abused

reposed in them
a.
Priest;
b.
House servant;
c.
Domestic;
confidence
Those who abused their relationship
a.
Brother who seduced his

sister;
b.
Ascendant who seduced his

descendant.
This crime also involves sexual intercourse.

The offended woman must be over 12 but
below 18 years.
If a person goes to a sauna parlor and

finds there a descendant and despite that,
had sexual intercourse with her, regardless
of her reputation or age, the crime of
qualified seduction is committed.
In the case of a teacher, it is not necessary
that the offended woman be his student. It
is enough that she is enrolled in the same
school.
Deceit is not necessary in qualified
seduction.
Qualified seduction
is
committed even though no deceit
intervened or even when such carnal
knowledge was voluntary on the part of the
virgin. This is because in such a case, the
law takes for granted the existence of the
deceit as an integral element of the crime
and punishes it with greater severity than it
does the simple seduction, taking into
account the abuse of confidence on the
part of the agent. Abuse of confidence
here implies fraud.
Article 338.
Simple Seduction
Elements
The distinction between qualified seduction
and simple seduction lies in the fact,
among others, that the woman is a virgin in
qualified seduction, while in simple
1.
Offender party is over 12 and under

18 years of age;
180
2.
She is of good reputation, single or

widow;
3.
Offender has sexual intercourse

with her;
4.
It is committed by means of deceit.
This crime is committed if the offended

woman is single or a widow of good
reputation, over 12 and under 18 years of
age, the offender has carnal knowledge of
her, and the offender resorted to deceit to
be able to consummate the sexual
intercourse with her.
The offended woman must be under 18 but
not less than 12 years old; otherwise, the
crime is statutory rape.
Unlike in qualified seduction, virginity is not
essential in this crime. What is required is
that the woman be unmarried and of good
reputation.
Simple seduction is not
synonymous with loss of virginity. If the
woman is married, the crime will be
adultery.
The failure to comply with the promise of
marriage constitutes the deceit mentioned
in the law.
3.
Offender accomplishes the acts by

abuse of authority, confidence,
relationship, or deceit.
Article 340. Corruption of Minors

This punishes any person who shall
promote or facilitate the prostitution or
corruption of persons under age to satisfy
the lust of another.
It is not required that the offender be the
guardian or custodian of the minor.
It is not necessary that the minor be
prostituted or corrupted as the law merely
punishes the act of promoting or facilitating
the prostitution or corruption of said minor
and that he acted in order to satisfy the lust
of another.
Article 341. White Slave Trade
Acts punished
1.
Engaging in
prostitution;
the
business
2.
Profiting by prostitution;
3.
Enlisting the services of women for

the purpose of prostitution.
Article 339. Acts of Lasciviousness with

the Consent of the Offender Party
Article 342. Forcible Abduction
Elements
Elements
1.
Offender
commits
acts
lasciviousness or lewdness;
of
2.
The acts are 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;
of
1.
The person abducted is any woman,

regardless or her age, civil status, or
reputation;
2.
The abduction is against her will;
3.
The abduction is with lewd designs.
A woman is carried against her will or

brought from one place to another against
her will with lewd design.
181
If the element of lewd design is present,

the carrying of the woman would qualify as
abduction; otherwise, it would amount to
kidnapping. If the woman was only brought
to a certain place in order to break her will
and make her agree to marry the offender,
the crime is only grave coercion because
the criminal intent of the offender is to force
his will upon the woman and not really to
restrain the woman of her liberty.
If the offended woman is under 12 years
old, even if she consented to the
abduction, the crime is forcible abduction
and not consented abduction.
Where the offended woman is below the
age of consent, even though she had gone
with the offender through some deceitful
promises revealed upon her to go with him
and they live together as husband and wife
without the benefit of marriage, the ruling is
that forcible abduction is committed by the
mere carrying of the woman as long as that
intent is already shown. In other words,
where the man cannot possibly give the
woman the benefit of an honorable life, all
that man promised are just machinations of
a lewd design and, therefore, the carrying
of the woman is characterized with lewd
design and would bring about the crime of
abduction and not kidnapping. This is also
true if the woman is deprived of reason and
if the woman is mentally retardate. Forcible
abduction is committed and not consented
abduction.
Lewd designs may be demonstrated by the
lascivious acts performed by the offender
on her. Since this crime does not involve
sexual intercourse, if the victim is subjected
to this, then a crime of rape is further
committed and a complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape is committed.
The taking away of the woman may be
accomplished by means of deceit at the
beginning and then by means of violence
and intimidation later.
The virginity of the complaining witness is

not a determining factor in forcible
abduction.
In order to demonstrate the presence of the
lewd design, illicit criminal relations with the
person abducted need not be shown. The
intent to seduce a girl is sufficient.
If there is a separation in fact, the taking by
the husband of his wife against her will
constitutes grave coercion.
Distinction between forcible abduction and
illegal detention:
When a woman is kidnapped with lewd or
unchaste designs, the crime committed is
forcible abduction.
When the kidnapping is without lewd
designs, the crime committed is illegal
detention.
But where the offended party was forcibly
taken to the house of the defendant to
coerce her to marry him, it was held that
only grave coercion was committed and not
illegal detention.
Article 343. Consented Abduction
Elements
1.
Offended party is a virgin;
2.
She is over 12 and under 18 years

of age;
3.
Offender takes her away with her

consent, after solicitation or cajolery;
4.
The taking
designs.
away
is with
lewd
Where several persons participated in the

forcible abduction and these persons also
raped the offended woman, the original
ruling in the case of People v. Jose is that
182
there would be one count of forcible

abduction with rape and then each of them
will answer for his own rape and the rape
of the others minus the first rape which was
complexed with the forcible abduction.
This ruling is no longer the prevailing rule.
The view adopted in cases of similar nature
is to the effect that where more than one
person has effected the forcible abduction
with rape, all the rapes are just the
consummation of the lewd design which
characterizes the forcible abduction and,
therefore, there should only be one forcible
abduction with rape.
In the crimes involving rape, abduction,
seduction, and acts of lasciviousness, the
marriage by the offender with the offended
woman generally extinguishes criminal
liability, not only of the principal but also of
the accomplice and accessory. However,
the mere fact of marriage is not enough
because it is already decided that if the
offender marries the offended woman
without any intention to perform the duties
of a husband as shown by the fact that
after the marriage, he already left her, the
marriage would appear as having been
contracted only to avoid the punishment.
Even with that marriage, the offended
woman could still prosecute the offender
and that marriage will not have the effect of
extinguishing the criminal liability.
Pardon by the offended woman of the
offender is not a manner of extinguishing
criminal liability but only a bar to the
prosecution of the offender. Therefore, that
pardon must come before the prosecution
is commenced. While the prosecution is
already commenced or initiated, pardon by
the offended woman will no longer be
effective because pardon may preclude
prosecution but not prevent the same.
All these private crimes except rape
cannot be prosecuted de officio. If any
slander or written defamation is made out
of any of these crimes, the complaint of the
offended party is till necessary before such
case for libel or oral defamation may
proceed. It will not prosper because the

court cannot acquire jurisdiction over these
crimes unless there is a complaint from the
offended party. The paramount decision of
whether he or she wanted the crime
committed on him or her to be made public
is his or hers alone, because the indignity
or dishonor brought about by these crimes
affects more the offended party than social
order. The offended party may prefer to
suffer the outrage in silence rather than to
vindicate his honor in public.
In the crimes of rape, abduction and
seduction, if the offended woman had
given birth to the child, among the liabilities
of the offender is to support the child. This
obligation to support the child may be true
even if there are several offenders. As to
whether all of them will acknowledge the
child, that is a different question because
the obligation to support here is not
founded on civil law but is the result of a
criminal act or a form of punishment.
It has been held that where the woman
was the victim of the said crime could not
possibly conceive anymore, the trial court
should not provide in its sentence that the
accused, in case a child is born, should
support the child. This should only be
proper when there is a probability that the
offended woman could give birth to an
offspring.
TITLE XII. CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL
STATUS OF PERSONS
Crimes against the civil status of persons
1.
Simulation of births, substitution of

one
child
for
another
and
concealment or abandonment of a
legitimate child (art. 347);
2.
Usurpation of civil status (Art. 348);
3.
Bigamy (Art. 349);

183
4.
Marriage
contracted
against
provisions of law (Art. 350);
the child. What crime is committed by the

woman?
5.
Premature marriages (Art. 351);
The crime committed is abandoning

a minor under Article 276.
6.
Performance of illegal
ceremony (Art. 352).
marriage
Article 347.
Simulation of Births,
Substitution of One Child for Another,
and Concealment of Abandonment of A
Legitimate Child
Acts punished
1.
Simulation of births;
2.
Substitution of one child for another;
3.
Concealing or abandoning any

legitimate child with intent to cause
such child to lose its civil status.
Illustration:
People who have no child and who buy
and adopt the child without going through
legal adoption.
If the child is being kidnapped and they
knew that the kidnappers are not the real
parents of their child, then simulation of
birth is committed. If the parents are
parties to the simulation by making it
appear in the birth certificate that the
parents who bought the child are the real
parents, the crime is not falsification on the
part of the parents and the real parents but
simulation of birth.
Questions & Answers

1.
A woman who has given
birth to a child abandons the child in a
certain place to free herself of the
obligation and duty of rearing and caring for
2.
Suppose that the purpose of
the woman is abandoning the child is to
preserve the inheritance of her child by a
former marriage, what then is the crime
committed?
The crime would fall under the
second paragraph of Article 347. The
purpose of the woman is to cause the child
to lose its civil status so that it may not be
able to share in the inheritance.
3.
Suppose a child, one day
after his birth, was taken to and left in the
midst of a lonely forest, and he was found
by a hunter who took him home. What
crime was committed by the person who
left it in the forest?
It is attempted infanticide, as the act
of the offender is an attempt against the life
of the child. See US v. Capillo, et al., 30
Phil. 349.
Article 349. Usurpation of Civil Status
This crime is committed when a person
represents himself to be another and
assumes the filiation or the parental or
conjugal rights of such another person.
Thus, where a person impersonates
another and assumes the latter's right as
the son of wealthy parents, the former
commits a violation of this article.
The term "civil status" includes one's public
station, or the rights, duties, capacities and
incapacities which determine a person to a
given class. It seems that the term "civil
status" includes one's profession.
184
Article 349. Bigamy
the same act, but whether he has been put

in jeopardy for the same offense.
Elements
1.
Offender has been legally married;
2.
The marriage has not been legally

dissolved or, in case his or her
spouse is absent, the absent
spouse could not yet be presumed
dead according to the Civil Code;
3.
He
contracts
a
second
subsequent marriage;
or
4.
The second or subsequent marriage

has all the essential requisites for
validity.
The crime of bigamy does not fall within the

category of private crimes that can be
prosecuted only at the instance of the
offended party. The offense is committed
not only against the first and second wife
but also against the state.
Good faith is a defense in bigamy.
Failure to exercise due diligence to
ascertain the whereabouts of the first wife
is bigamy through reckless imprudence.
One who, although not yet married before,

knowingly consents to be married to one
who is already married is guilty of bigamy
knowing that the latters marriage is still
valid and subsisting.
Distinction between bigamy and illegal
marriage:
Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage. The
offender must have a valid and subsisting
marriage.
Despite the fact that the
marriage is still subsisting, he contracts a
subsequent marriage.
Illegal marriage includes also such other
marriages which are performed without
complying with the requirements of law, or
such premature marriages, or such
marriage which was solemnized by one
who is not authorized to solemnize the
same.
For bigamy to be committed, the second
marriage must have all the attributes of a
valid marriage.
Article 350. Illegal Marriage
The second marriage must have all the

essential requisites for validity were it not
for the existence of the first marriage.
Elements
1.
Offender contracted marriage;
A judicial declaration of the nullity of a

marriage, that is, that the marriage was
void ab initio, is now required.
2.
He knew at the time that
One convicted of bigamy may also be

prosecuted for concubinage as both are
distinct offenses. The first is an offense
against civil status, which may be
prosecuted at the instance of the state; the
second is an offense against chastity, and
may be prosecuted only at the instance of
the offended party. The test is not whether
the defendant has already been tried for
a.
The requirements of the law

were not complied with; or
b.
The
marriage
disregard
of
impediment.
was
in
a
legal
Marriages contracted against the provisions

of laws
185
1. The
marriage
bigamy.
does
not
constitute
2. The marriage is contracted knowing that

the requirements of the law have
not been complied with or in
disregard of legal impediments.
him, that belief of the woman that after all

there could be no confusion even if she
would marry within 301 days may be taken
as evidence of good faith and that would
negate criminal intent.
TITLE XIII. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
3. One where the consent of the other was

obtained by means of violence,
intimidation or fraud.
Crimes against honor

1.
Libel by means of writings or similar

means (Art. 355);
2.
Threatening to publish and offer to

prevent such publication for a
compensation (Art. 356);
3.
Prohibited publication of acts

referred to in the course of official
proceedings (Art. 357);
4.
Slander (Art. 358);
Article 351. Premature Marriage
5.
Slander by deed (Art. 359);
Persons liable
6.
Incriminating innocent person (Art.

363);
7.
Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).
4. If the second marriage is void because

the
accused
knowingly
contracted it without complying
with legal requirements as the
marriage license, although he
was previously married.
5. Marriage solemnized by a minister or
priest who does not have the required
authority to solemnize marriages.
1.
2.
A widow who is married within 301

days from the date of the death of
her husband, or before having
delivered if she is pregnant at the
time of his death;
A woman who, her marriage having
been annulled or dissolved, married
before her delivery or before the
expiration of the period of 301 days
after the date of the legal
separation.
The Supreme Court has already taken into

account the reason why such marriage
within 301 days is made criminal, that is,
because of the probability that there might
be a confusion regarding the paternity of
the child who would be born. If this reason
does not exist because the former husband
is impotent, or was shown to be sterile
such that the woman has had no child with
Article 353. Definition of Libel

A libel is a public and malicious imputation
of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission, condition,
status, or circumstances 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 of a

crime, or of a vice or defect, real or
imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance;
2.
The imputation
publicly;
must
be
made
186
3.
It must be malicious;
4.
The imputation must be directed at

a natural or juridical person, or one
who is dead;
5.
The imputation must tend to cause

the dishonor, discredit or contempt
of the person defamed.
When the privileged character is said to be

absolute, the statement will not be
actionable whether criminal or civil because
that means the law does not allow
prosecution on an action based thereon.
Illustration:
Distinction between malice in fact and

malice in law
Malice in fact is the malice which the law
presumes from every statement whose
tenor is defamatory. It does not need
proof. The mere fact that the utterance or
statement is defamatory negates a legal
presumption of malice.
In the crime of libel, which includes oral
defamation, there is no need for the
prosecution to present evidence of malice.
It is enough that the alleged defamatory or
libelous statement be presented to the
court verbatim. It is the court which will
prove whether it is defamatory or not. If the
tenor of the utterance or statement is
defamatory, the
legal presumption of
malice arises even without proof.
Malice in fact becomes necessary only if
the malice in law has been rebutted.
Otherwise, there is no need to adduce
evidence of malice in fact. So, while malice
in law does not require evidence, malice in
fact requires evidence.
As regards the statements made by

Congressmen while they are deliberating or
discussing in Congress, when the
privileged character is qualified, proof of
malice in fact will be admitted to take the
place of malice in law.
When the
defamatory statement or utterance is
qualifiedly privileged, the malice in law is
negated.
The utterance or statement
would not be actionable because malice in
law does not exist. Therefore, for the
complainant to prosecute the accused for
libel, oral defamation or slander, he has to
prove that the accused was actuated with
malice (malice in fact) in making the
statement.
When a libel is addressed to several
persons, unless they are identified in the
same libel, even if there are several
persons offended by the libelous utterance
or statement, there will only be one count
of libel.
If the offended parties in the libel were
distinctly identified, even though the libel
was committed at one and the same time,
there will be as many libels as there are
persons dishonored.
Illustration:
Malice in law can be negated by evidence

that, in fact, the alleged libelous or
defamatory utterance was made with good
motives and justifiable ends or by the fact
that the utterance was privileged in
character.
In law, however, the privileged character of
a defamatory statement may be absolute or
qualified.
If a person uttered that All the Marcoses

are thieves," there will only be one libel
because
these
particular
Marcoses
regarded as thieves are not specifically
identified.
If the offender said, All the Marcoses
the father, mother and daughter are
thieves. There will be three counts of libel
because each person libeled is distinctly
dishonored.
187
If you do not know the particular persons

libeled, you cannot consider one libel as
giving rise to several counts of libel. In
order that one defamatory utterance or
imputation may be considered as having
dishonored more than one person, those
persons dishonored must be identified.
Otherwise, there will only be one count of
libel.
Note that in libel, the person defamed need
not be expressly identified. It is enough
that he could possibly be identified
because innuendos may also be a basis
for prosecution for libel. As a matter of fact,
even a compliment which is undeserved,
has been held to be libelous.
The crime is libel is the defamation is in
writing or printed media.
The crime is slander or oral defamation if it
is not printed.
Requisites of defense in defamation

1.
If it appears that the matter charged

as libelous is true;
2.
It was published with good motives;
3.
It was for justifiable ends.
If a crime is a private crime, it cannot be

prosecuted de officio. A complaint from the
offended party is necessary.
Article 355. Libel by Means of Writings
or Similar Means
A libel may be committed by means of
1.
Writing;
2.
Printing;
3.
Lithography;
4.
Engraving;
5.
Radio;
6.
Photograph;
7.
Painting;
8.
Theatrical exhibition;
When proof of truth is admissible
9.
Cinematographic exhibition; or
1.
10.
Any similar means.
Even if what was imputed is true, the crime

of libel is committed unless one acted with
good motives or justifiable end. Poof of
truth of a defamatory imputation is not even
admissible in evidence, unless what was
imputed pertains to an act which
constitutes a crime and when the person to
whom the imputation was made is a public
officer and the imputation pertains to the
performance of official duty. Other than
these, the imputation is not admissible.
2.
When the act or omission imputed

constitutes a crime regardless of
whether the offended party is a
private individual or a public officer;
When the offended party is a
government employee, even if the
act or omission imputed does not
constitute a crime, provided if its
related to the discharged of his
official duties.
Article 356. Threatening to Publish and

Offer to Prevent Such Publication for A
Compensation
Acts punished
1.
Threatening another to publish a

libel concerning him, or his parents,
188
spouse, child, or other members of

his family;
Article 359. Slander by Deed
2.
Offering to prevent the publication of

such libel for compensation or
money consideration.
Blackmail In its metaphorical sense,

blackmail may be defined as any unlawful
extortion of money by threats of accusation
or exposure. Two words are expressive of
the crime hush money. (US v. Eguia, et
al., 38 Phil. 857) Blackmail is possible in
(1) light threats under Article 283; and (2)
threatening to publish, or offering to
prevent the publication of, a libel for
compensation, under Article 356.
Elements
1.
Offender performs any act not

included in any other crime against
honor;
2.
Such act is
presence of
persons;
3.
Such act casts dishonor, discredit or

contempt upon the offended party.
performed in the
other person or
Slander by deed refers to performance of

an act, not use of words.
Article 357. Prohibited Publication of
Acts Referred to in the Course of Official
Proceedings
Two kinds of slander by deed

1.
Simple slander by deed; and
2.
Grave slander by deed, that is,

which is of a serious nature.
Elements
1.
Offender is a reporter, editor or

manager of a newspaper, daily or
magazine;
2.
He publishes facts connected with

the private life of another;
3.
Such facts are offensive to the

honor, virtue and reputation of said
person.
The provisions of Article 357 constitute the

so-called "Gag Law."
Whether a certain slanderous act

constitutes slander by deed of a serious
nature or not, depends on the social
standing of the offended party, the
circumstances under which the act was
committed, the occasion, etc.
Article 363.
Persons
Incriminating
Innocent
Elements
Article 358. Slander
1.
Offender performs an act;
Slander is oral defamation. There are tow

kinds of oral defamation:
2.
By such an act, he incriminates or

imputes to an innocent person the
commission of a crime;
3.
Such act does not constitute perjury.
(1)
Simple slander; and
(2)
Grave slander, when it is of a

serious and insulting nature.
189
This crime cannot be committed through

verbal incriminatory statements.
It is
defined as an act and, therefore, to commit
this crime, more than a mere utterance is
required.
If the incriminating machination is made
orally, the crime may be slander or oral
defamation.
If the incriminatory machination was made
in writing and under oath, the crime may be
perjury if there is a willful falsity of the
statements made.
If the statement in writing is not under oath,
the crime may be falsification if the crime is
a material matter made in a written
statement which is required by law to have
been rendered.
As far as this crime is concerned, this has
been interpreted to be possible only in the
so-called planting of evidence.
If the offender made the utterance, where

the source of the defamatory nature of the
utterance is known, and offender makes a
republication thereof,
even though he
repeats the libelous statement as coming
from another, as long as the source is
identified, the crime committed by that
offender is slander.
Distinction between intriguing against
honor and incriminating an innocent
person:
In intriguing against honor, the offender
resorts to an intrigue for the purpose of
blemishing the honor or reputation of
another person.
In incriminating an innocent person, the
offender performs an act by which he
directly incriminates or imputes to an
innocent person the commission of a crime.
TITLE XVI. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
Article 364. Intriguing against Honor

Article 365. Imprudence and Negligence
This crime is committed by any person who
shall make any intrigue which has for its
principal purpose to blemish the honor or
reputation of another person.
Intriguing against honor is referred to as
gossiping.
The
offender,
without
ascertaining the truth of a defamatory
utterance, repeats the same and pass it on
to another, to the damage of the offended
party. Who started the defamatory news is
unknown.
Distinction between
honor and slander:
intriguing
against
When the source of the defamatory

utterance is unknown and the offender
simply repeats or passes the same, the
crime is intriguing against honor.
Quasi-offenses punished
1.
Committing
through
reckless
imprudence any act which, had it
been intentional, would constitute a
grave or less grave felony or light
felony;
2.
Committing
through
simple
imprudence or negligence an act
which would otherwise constitute a
grave or a less serious felony;
3.
Causing damage to the property of

another
through
reckless
imprudence or simple imprudence or
negligence;
4.
Causing through simple imprudence

or negligence some wrong which, if
done maliciously, would have
constituted a light felony.
190
Distinction between reckless imprudence

and negligence:
The two are distinguished only as to
whether the danger that would be
impending is easily perceivable or not. If
the danger that may result from the criminal
negligence is clearly perceivable, the
imprudence is reckless. If it could hardly
be perceived, the criminal negligence
would only be simple.
There is no more issue on whether culpa is
a crime in itself or only a mode of incurring
criminal liability. It is practically settled that
criminal negligence is only a modality in
incurring criminal liability.
This is so
because under Article 3, a felony may
result from dolo or culpa.
Since this is the mode of incurring criminal
liability, if there is only one carelessness,
even if there are several results, the
accused may only be prosecuted under
one count for the criminal negligence. So
there would only be one information to be
filed, even if the negligence may bring
about resulting injuries which are slight.
Do not separate the accusation from the
slight physical injuries from the other
material result of the negligence.
If the criminal negligence resulted, for
example, in homicide, serious physical
injuries and slight physical injuries, do not
join only the homicide and serious physical
injuries in one information for the slight
physical injuries. You are not complexing
slight when you join it in the same
information. It is just that you are not
splitting the criminal negligence because
the real basis of the criminal liability is the
negligence.
If you split the criminal negligence, that is
where double jeopardy would arise.
191

Crimrev2 New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crimrev2 New

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Crimrev2 New

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

REVISED ORTEGA LECTURE NOTES ON CRIMINAL LAW

TITLE I. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL

Almost all of these are crimes committed in

Crimes against national security

Espionage, under Article 114 This

Inciting to War or Giving Motives for

Violation of Neutrality, under Article

Treason (Art. 114);

Conspiracy and proposal to commit

Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and

Espionage (Art. 117).

Crimes against the law of nations

Inciting to war or giving motives for

Violation of neutrality (Art. 119);

Corresponding with hostile country

Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121);

Piracy in general and mutiny on the

The crimes under this title can be

Article 114. Treason

Offender is a Filipino or resident

levies war against

adheres to the enemies,

REVISED ORTEGA LECTURE NOTES ON CRIMINAL LAW

At least one person decides to

Requirements of levying war

2. To execute a treasonable design by

adhere to the enemies,

Article 116. Misprision of Treason

Two ways of proving treason

Testimony of at least two witnesses

Confession of accused in open

Article 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to

2. He has knowledge of conspiracy to

Elements of conspiracy to commit treason

At least two persons come to an

adhere to the enemies,

They decide to commit it.

Elements of proposal to commit treason

While in treason, even aliens can commit

REVISED ORTEGA LECTURE NOTES ON CRIMINAL LAW

omission although committed with dolo, not

Offender enters any of the

The persons mentioned in Article 116 are

His purpose is to obtain

Whether the conspirators are parents or

By disclosing to the representative

In the 1994 bar examination, a problem

Offender is a public officer;

He has in his possession the

Article 117. Espionage

Commonwealth Act No. 616 An Act to

Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to

Unlawful disclosing of information

Disloyal acts or words in times of

By entering, without authority

REVISED ORTEGA LECTURE NOTES ON CRIMINAL LAW

Disloyal acts or words in times of

Harboring or concealing violators of

hence, national security was not really