Criminal Law 1 Notes

Application of RPC Provisions
Art. 2.
Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of

preferential application, the provisions of this Code shall be enforced not only within the
Philippine Archipelago, including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime zone,
but also outside of its jurisdiction, against those who:
1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship
RULES:
1. Philippine vessel or airship – Philippine law shall apply to offenses committed in

vessels registered with the Philippine Bureau of Customs. It is the registration, not the
citizenship of the owner which matters.
2. Foreign vessel
a. French Rule
General Rule: Crimes committed aboard a foreign vessel within the territorial waters of a
country are NOT triable in the courts of such country.
Exception: commission affects the peace and security of the territory, or the safety of the
state is endangered.
b. English Rule
General Rule: Crimes committed aboard a foreign vessel within the territorial waters of a
country are triable in the courts of such country.
Exception: When the crime merely affects things within the vessel or it refers to the
internal management thereof.
This is applicable in the Philippines.
When the crime is committed in a war vessel of a foreign country, the NATIONALITY of
the vessel will ALWAYS determine jurisdiction because war vessels are part of the
sovereignty of the country to whose navel force they belong.
These rules are NOT applicable if the vessel is on the high seas when the crime was
committed, in these cases, the laws of the nationality of the ship will always apply.
The country of registry determines the nationality of the vessel, NOT ITS OWNERSHIP.
A Filipino-owned vessel registered in China must fly the Chinese flag.
Extraterritorial refers to the application of the Revised Penal Code outside the
Philippines territory:
Three International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction
a. Free Zone Theory

The atmosphere over the country is free and not subject to the jurisdiction of the
subjacent state, except for the protection of its national security and public order.
b. Relative Theory
The subjacent state exercises jurisdiction over the atmosphere only to the extent that it
can effectively
exercise control thereof.

c. Absolute Theory
1. The subjacent state has complete jurisdiction over the atmosphere above it subject
only to the
innocent passage by aircraft of a foreign country.
NOTE: The Philippines adopts this theory.
2. Under this theory, if the crime is committed in an aircraft, no matter how high, as long
as it can be
established that it is within the Philippine atmosphere, Philippine criminal law will govern.
2000 Bar Exam Question
2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or

obligations and securities issued by the Government of the Philippine Islands;
1. The forgery is committed abroad

2. And it refers to Philippine coin, currency note, obligation and security
3. Should be liable for acts connected with the introduction into these islands of the
obligations and securities mentioned in the presiding number;
4. While being public officers or employees, should commit an offense in the exercise of
their functions; or
a) Those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country.

b) The functions contemplated are those, which are, under the law:
i) to be performed by the public officer
ii) in the Foreign Service of the Philippine government
iii) in a foreign country.
NOTE: The Revised Penal Code governs if the crime (whether or not in relation to the
exercise of
public functions) was committed within the Philippine Embassy or within the embassy
grounds
in a foreign country. This is because embassy grounds are considered an extension of
sovereignty.
Thus the crime is deemed to have been committed in Philippine soil.
Illustration:
A Philippine consulate official who is validly married here in the Philippines and who
marries again in a foreign country cannot be prosecuted here for bigamy because this is
a crime not connected with his official duties. However, if the second marriage was
celebrated within the Philippine embassy, he may be prosecuted here, since it is as if he
contracted the marriage here in the Philippines.
5. Should commit any of the crimes against national security and the law of nations,
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code.
1. Rebellion is not included.

2. Any crime against public order is under the jurisdiction of the host country.
Bar Exam Question (2006)
Jurisdiction; Impeachable Public Officers (2006)
Judge Rod Reyes was appointed by former President Fidel Ramos as Deputy
Ombudsman for the Visayas for a term of 7 years commencing on July 5,1995. Six
months thereafter, a lady stenographer filed with the Office of the Ombudsman a
complaint for acts of lasciviousness and with the Supreme Court a petition for
disbarment against him. Forthwith, he filed separate motions to dismiss the complaint for
acts of lasciviousness and petition for disbarment, claiming lack of jurisdiction over his
person
and office. Are both motions meritorious?
Suggested Answer:
The motion to dismiss the complaint of the Deputy Ombudsman for the acts of
lasciviousness should be denied as only the Ombudsman is included in the list of
impeachable officers found in Article XI of the 1987 Constitution. Therefore, the
Sandiganbayan has jurisdiction over his prosecution (Office of the Ombudsman vs. CA,
G.R. 146486, March 4, 2005). Likewise, the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over the
petition for disbarment, as he is a member of the bar. His motion to dismiss should be
denied (See Rule 139 and 139 of the Rules of Court).
Felonies
Art. 3.
Definitions - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
Felonies are committed not only be means of deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault
(culpa).
There is deceit when the act is performed with deliberate intent and there is fault when
the wrongful act results from imprudence, negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
Felonies – acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code
Crime – acts and omissions punishable by any law.
Act – an overt or external act
Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law
ELEMENTS OF FELONIES
a. There must be an act or omission
b. That the act or omission must be punishable by the RPC
c. That the act is performed or the commission incurred by means of dolo or culpa
Dolo - deliberate intent.Must be coupled with freedom of action and intelligence on the
part of the offender as to the act done by him.
Actus Reus - Physical act
Mens rea - a guilty mind, a guilty or wrongful purpose or criminal intent. Gravamen of the
offense
Omission is
a. the failure to perform a duty
b. required by law.
c. It is important that there is a law requiring the performance of an act, if there is no
positive duty, there is no liability.
Examples: Omission
1. Failure to render assistance
2. Failure to issue receipt
3. Non disclosure of knowledge of conspiracy against the government.
NULLUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE – There is no crime when there is no
law punishing it.
Classification Of Felonies According To The Means By Which They Are Committed:

1. Intentional Felonies- by means of deceit (dolo)
Requisites:
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. intent.
MISTAKE OF FACT – (Ignorantia Facti Excusat)misapprehension of fact on the part of

the person who caused injury to another. He is not criminally liable.

Requisites:
a. the act done would have been lawful had the facts been as the accused believed
them to be
b. intention is lawful
c. mistake must be without fault or carelessness by the accused
Example:
People v. Ah Chong (1910)

A houseboy who stabs his roommate in the dark, honestly mistaking the latter to be a
robber responsible for a series of break-ins in the area, and after crying out sufficient
warnings and believing himself to be under attack, cannot be held criminally liable
for homicide.
2. Culpable Felonies- by means of fault (culpa)

Requisites:
a. freedom
b. intelligence
c. negligence (lack of foresight) and imprudence (lack of skill)
ART.4
Criminal Liability
Par.1 Criminal liability for a felony committed different from that intended to be

committed
Requisites:
1. felony has been committed intentionally
2. injury or damage done to the other party is the direct, natural and logical consequence
of the felony
Hence, since he is still motivated by criminal intent, the offender is criminally liable in:
1. Error in personae – mistake in identity
2. Abberatio ictus – mistake in blow
3. Praetor intentionem - lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong
PROXIMATE CAUSE – the cause, which in the natural and continuous sequence
unbroken by any efficient intervening cause, produces the injury, without which the result
would not have occurred
1996 Bar Examination Question (Proximate Cause)

2003 Bar Examination Question (Immediate Cause)
Par. 2 Impossible Crime
Requisites:
1. Act would have been an offense against persons or property.
2. There was criminal intent.
3. Accomplishment is inherently impossible; or inadequate or ineffectual means are
employed.
4. Act is not an actual violation of another provision of the Code or of special law.
Impossible crime occurs when there is:

1. inherent impossibility to commit the crime
2. inadequate means to consummate the crime
3. ineffectual means to consummate the crime
Read:
1996 Bar Examination Question (felonious act of scaring)

2000 Bar Examination Question (impossible crime)
Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae.
Aberratio ictus or mistake in the blow occurs when a felonious act missed the person
against whom it was directed and hit instead somebody who was not the intended victim.
Error in personae, or mistake in identity occurs when the felonious act was directed at
the person intended, but who turned out to be somebody else. Aberratio ictus brings
about at least two (2) felonious consequence, ie. the attempted felony on the intended
victim who was not hit and the felony on the unintended victim who was hit. A complex
crime of the first form under Art. 48, RPC generally result. In error in personae only one
crime is committed.
What do you understand by aberratio ictus: error in personae; and praeter intentionem?
Do
they alter the criminal liability of an accused?
ABERRATIO ICTUS or mistake in the blow occurs when the offender delivered the blow
at his intended victim but missed, and instead such blow landed on an unintended
victim. The situation generally brings about complex crimes where from a single act, two
or more grave or less grave felonies resulted, namely the attempt against the intended
victim and the consequence on the unintended victim. As complex crimes, the penalty
for the more serious crime shall be the one imposed and in the maximum period. It is
only when the resulting felonies are only light that complex crimes do not result and the
penalties are to be imposed distinctly for each resulting crime.
ERROR IN PERSONAE or mistake in identity occurs when the offender actually hit the
person to whom the blow was directed but turned out to be different from and not the
victim intended. The criminal liability of the offender is not affected, unless the mistake in
identity resulted to a crime different from what the offender intended to commit, in which
case the lesser penalty between the crime intended and the crime committed shall be
imposed but in the maximum period (Art. 49, RPC).
PRAETER INTENTIONEM or where the consequence went beyond that intended or

expected. This is a mitigating circumstance (Art. 13. par. 3, RPC) when there is a
notorious disparity between the act or means employed by the offender and the resulting
felony, i,e., the resulting felony could not be reasonably anticipated or foreseen by the of
fender from the act or means employed by him.
2000 Bar Examination Question
Despite the massive advertising campaign in media against firecrackers and gun-firing
during the New Year's celebrations, Jonas and Jaja bought ten boxes of super lolo and
pla-pla in Bocaue, Bulacan. Before midnight of December 31, 1999, Jonas and Jaja
started their celebration by having a drinking spree at Jona's place by exploding their
high-powered firecrackers in their neighborhood. In the course of their conversation,
Jonas confided to Jaja that he has been keeping a long-time grudge against his
neighbor Jepoy in view of the latter's refusal to lend him some money. While under the
influence of liquor, Jonas started throwing lighted super lolos inside Jepoy's fence to
irritate him and the same exploded inside the latter's yard. Upon knowing that the
throwing of the super lolo was deliberate, Jepoy became furious and sternly warned
Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument
between Jonas and Jepoy ensued but Jaja tried to calm down his friend. At midnight,
Jonas convinced Jaja to lend him his .45 caliber pistol so that he could use it to knock
down Jepoy and to end his arrogance. Jonas thought that after all, explosions were
everywhere and nobody would know who shot Jepoy. After Jaja lent his firearm to
Jonas, the latter again started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard
in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out,
Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead,
the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously, a) What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain.
Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with
homicide because a single act caused a less grave and a grave felony (Art. 48. RPC).
Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while consummated homicide is a grave felony:

both are punishable by afflictive penalties
Art. 5:
Duty of the court in connection with acts which should

be repressed but which are not covered by the law, and in cases
of excessive penalties
Note: Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special

law, including profiteering, and illegal possession of firearms
or drugs. There can be no executive clemency for these crimes.
Article 5 covers two situations:

1. The court cannot convict the accused because the acts do not
constitute a crime.

a. The proper judgment is acquittal.
b. The court is mandated to report to the Chief Executive that
said act be made subject of penal legislation and why.
2. Where the court finds the penalty prescribed for the crime
too harsh considering the conditions surrounding the
commission of the crime,
a. The judge should impose the law.

b. The most that he could do is recommend to the Chief
Executive to grant executive clemency.
ART.6
STAGES OF EXECUTION:
1. CONSUMMATED – when all the elements necessary for its execution
and accomplishment are present
2. FRUSTRATED
Elements:
a. offender performs all acts of execution
b. all these acts would produce the felony as a consequence
c. BUT the felony is NOT produced
d. by reason of causes independent of the will of the
perpetrator
3. ATTEMPTED
Elements:
a. offender commences the felony directly by overt acts
b. does not perform all acts which would produce the felony
c. his acts are not stopped by his own spontaneous desistance
Crimes, which do not admit of Frustrated and Attempted Stages:

1. Offenses punishable by Special Penal Laws, unless the law
provides otherwise
2. Formal crimes – consummated in one instance
(Ex: slander, adultery, etc.)
3. Impossible Crimes
4. Crimes consummated by mere attempt
(Ex: attempt to flee to an enemy country, treason, corruption of minors)
5. Felonies by omission
6. Crimes committed by mere agreement (Ex: betting in sports: “ending,”
corruption of public officers)
Crimes which do not admit of Frustrated Stage:

1. Rape
2. Bribery
3. Corruption of Public Officers
4. Adultery
5. Physical Injury
2 stages in the development of a crime:

1. Internal acts
- e.g. mere ideas of the mind
- not punishable
2. External acts
a. Preparatory acts - ordinarily not punishable except when
considered by law as independent crimes (e.g. Art. 304,
Possession of picklocks and similar tools)
b. Acts of Execution - punishable under the RPC
ART.7
General Rule: Punishable only when they have been consummated
Exception:
Even if not consummated, if committed against persons or
property
Ex: slight physical injuries, theft, alteration of
boundary marks, malicious mischief, and intriguing
against honor.
Note: Only principals and accomplices are liable;

accessories are NOT liable even if committed against
persons or property.
Conspiracy
ART.8
Requisites:
1. Two or more persons come to an agreement
2. For the commission of a felony
3. And they decide to commit it
Concepts of Conspiracy:
1. As a crime in itself
Ex: conspiracy to commit rebellion, insurrection, treason, sedition, coup d’ etat
2. Merely as a means to commit a crime
Requisites:
a. a prior and express agreement
b. participants acted in concert or simultaneously, which is indicative of a meeting of the
minds towards a common criminal objective
Note: Conspiracy to commit a felony is different from conspiracy as a manner of

incurring criminal liability.
General Rule: Conspiracy to commit a felony is not punishable since it is merely a

preparatory act.
Exception: when the law specifically provides for a penalty

Ex: rebellion, insurrection, sedition, coup d’ etat
General Rule: The act of one is the act of all.
Exception: Unless one or some of the conspirators committed some other crime
which
is not part of the intended crime.
Exception to the exception: When the act constitutes an indivisible offense.
People v. Abut, et al. (GR No. 137601, April 24, 2003)

OVERT ACTS IN CONSPIRACY MUST CONSIST OF:
1. Active participation in the actual commission of the crime itself, or
2. Moral assistance to his co-conspirators by being present at the time of the
commission of the crime, or
3. Exerting a moral ascendance over the other co-conspirators by moving them to
execute or implement the criminal plan
PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY

Requisites:
1. A person has decided to commit a felony
2. And proposes its execution to some other person or persons
People vs. Nierra

If a co-conspirator merely cooperated in the commission of the crime with insignificant or
minimal acts, such co-conspirator should be punished as an accomplice only. The
common notion is that when there is conspiracy involved, the participants are punished
as principals. This notion is no longer absolute. The reason given is that penal laws
always favor a milder form of responsibility upon and offender.
Illustration:
There was a planned robbery, and the taxi driver was present during the planning. The
taxi driver agreed for the use of his cab but said, “I will bring you there, and after
committing the robbery I will return later.” The taxi driver brought the conspirators where
the robbery would be committed. After the robbery was finished, he took the conspirators
back to his taxi and brought them away. It was held that the taxi driver was liable only as
an accomplice. His cooperation was not really indispensable. The robbers could have
engaged another taxi. The taxi driver did not really stay during the commission of the
robbery. At most, what he only extended was his cooperation.
A conspiracy is possible even when participants are not known to each other. When
several persons who do not know each other simultaneously attack the victim, the act of
one is the act of all, regardless of the degree of injury inflicted by any one of them. All
will be liable for the consequences. Do not think that participants are always known to
each other.
The Supreme Court has ruled that one who desisted is not criminally liable. As pointed
out earlier, desistance is true only in the attempted stage. Before this stage, there is only
a preparatory stage. Conspiracy is only in the preparatory stage..
Illustrations:
A thought of having her husband killed because the latter was maltreating her. She hired
some persons to kill him and pointed at her husband. The goons got hold of her husband
and started mauling him. The wife took pity and shouted for them to stop but the goons
continued. The wife ran away. The wife was prosecuted for parricide. But the Supreme
Court said that there was desistance so she is not criminally liable.
Do not search for an agreement among the participants. If they acted simultaneously to
bring about their common intention, conspiracy exists. And when conspiracy exists, do
not consider the degree of participation of each conspiracy because the act of one is the
act of all. As a general rule, they have equal responsibility.
Illustration:
A, B and C have been courting the same lady for several years. On several occasions,
they even visited the lady on intervening hours. Because of this, A, B and C became
hostile with one another. One day, D invited the young lady and she accepted the
invitation. Eventually, the young lady agreed to marry D. When A, B and C learned about
this, they all stood up to leave the house of the young lady feeling disappointed. When A
looked back at the young lady with D, he saw D laughing menacingly. At that instance, A
stabbed D. C and B followed. In this case, it was held that conspiracy was present
People v. Pangilinan,
Implied Conspiracy Conspiracy need not be direct but may be inferred from the conduct
of the parties, their joint purpose, community of interest and in the mode and manner of
commission of the offense. The legal effects of implied conspiracy are:
a. Not all those present at the crime scene will be considered conspirators;
b. Only those who participated in the criminal acts during the commission of the crime
will be considered co-conspirators;
c. Mere acquiescence to or approval of the commission of the crime, without any act of
criminal participation, shall not render one criminally liable as co-conspirator.
Siton vs. CA,

The idea of a conspiracy is incompatible with the idea of a free for all. There is no
definite opponent or definite intent as when a basketball crowd beats a referee to death.

2003 Bar Examination Question (Implied Conspiracy)
Grave Felonies, Less Grave Felonies and Light Felonies
ART.9
Importance of Classification
1. To determine whether the felonies can be complexed or not.
2. To determine the prescription of the crime and of the penalty.
Penalties (imprisonment):
1. Grave felonies – afflictive penalties: 6 yrs. and 1 day to reclusion perpetua (life)
2. Less grave felonies – correctional penalties: 1 month and 1 day to 6 years
3. Light felonies - arresto menor (1 day to 30 days)
As to the liability of the participants in a grave, less grave or light felony:

1. When the felony is grave, or less grave, all participants are criminally liable.
2. But where the felony is only light, only the principal and the accomplice are liable. The
accessory is not.
Therefore, it is only when the light felony is against persons or property that criminal liability
attaches to the principal or accomplice, even though the felony is only attempted or frustrated,
but accessories are not liable for light felonies.
ART.10
General Rule: RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws.
Exceptions:
1. when special law provides otherwise
2. when provision of RPC are impossible of application, either
by express provision or by necessary implication
Provisions of RPC applicable to special laws:

- Art. 16 Participation of Accomplices
- Art. 22 Retroactivity of Penal laws if favorable to the accused
- Art. 45 Confiscation of instruments used in the crime
Note: When the special law adopts the penalties

imposed in the RPC i.e. penalties as reclusion
perpetua, prision correccional, etc. the provisions of
the RPC on imposition of penalties based on stages
of execution, degree of participation and attendance
of mitigating and aggravating circumstance may be
applied by necessary implication.
Justifying Circumstances – where the act of a person is in accordance with law such
that said person is deemed not to have violated the law.
General Rule: No criminal and civil liability incurred.
Exception: There is civil liability with respect to par. 4 where the liability is borne by
persons benefited by the act.
Par. 1 Self-defense
Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression
- indispensable requirement
- There must be actual physical assault or aggression or an immediate and imminent
threat, which must be offensive and positively strong.
- The defense must have been made during the existence of aggression, otherwise, it is
no longer justifying.
While generally an agreement to fight does not constitute unlawful aggression, violation
of the terms of the agreement to fight is considered an exception.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
Test of reasonableness depends on:

(1) weapon used by aggressor
(2) physical condition, character, size and other circumstances of aggressor
(3) physical condition, character, size and circumstances of person defending himself
(4) place and occasion of assault
3. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part of the person defending himself
NOTE: Perfect equality between the weapons used, nor material commensurability
between the means of attack and defense by the one defending himself and that of the
aggressor is not required
REASON: the person assaulted does not have sufficient opportunity or time to think and
calculate.
Rights included in self-defense:

1. defense of person
2. defense of rights protected by law
3. defense of property (only if there is also an actual and imminent danger on the
person of the one defending)
4. defense of chastity
Kinds of Self-Defense:
1. self-defense of chastity – there must be an attempt to rape the victim
2. defense of property – must be coupled with an attack on the person of the owner, or
on one entrusted with the care of such property.
People v. Narvaez, (GR No. L-33466-67, April 20, 1983) Attack on property alone was
deemed sufficient to comply with element of unlawful aggression.
3. self-defense in libel – justified when the libel is aimed at a person’s good name.
“Stand ground when in the right” - the law does not require a person to retreat when his
assailant is rapidly advancing upon him with a deadly weapon.
NOTE: Under Republic Act 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act
of 2004), victim-survivors who are found by the Courts to be suffering from Battered
Woman Syndrome (BWS) do not incur any criminal or civil liability despite absence of
the necessary elements for the justifying circumstance of self-defense in the RPC. BWS
is a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in
women living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
Justifying Circumstances: Defense of Honor
When A arrived home, he found B raping his daughter. Upon seeing A, B ran away. A
took his gun and shot B, killing him. Charged with Homicide, A claimed he acted in
defense of his daughter's honor.
Is A correct? If not, can A claim the benefit of any mitigating circumstance or

circumstances?
No, A cannot validly invoke defense of his daughter's honor in having killed B since rape
was already consummated; moreover, B already ran away, hence, there was no
aggression to defend against and no defense to speak of.
A may, however, invoked the benefit of the mitigating circumstance of having acted in
immediate vindication of a grave offense to a descendant, his daughter, under par.5,
article 13 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
2003 Bar Exam Question and Answer (Defense of Property)
The accused lived with his family in a neighborhood that often was the scene of frequent
robberies. At one time, past midnight, the accused went downstairs with a loaded gun to
investigate what he thought were footsteps of an uninvited guest. After seeing what
appeared to him as an armed stranger looking around and out to rob the house, he fired
his gun seriously injuring the man. When the lights were turned on, the unfortunate
victim turned out to be a brother-in-law on his way to the kitchen to get some light
snacks. The accused was indicted for serious physical injuries.
Should the accused, given the circumstances, be convicted or acquitted? Why?
The accused should be convicted because, even assuming the facts to be true in his
belief, his act of shooting a burglar when there is no unlawful aggression on his person is
not justified. Defense of property or property right does not justify the act of firing a gun
at a burglar unless the life and limb of the accused is already in imminent and immediate
danger. Although the accused acted out of a misapprehension of the facts, he is not
absolved from criminal liability.
Alternative Answer:
Considering the given circumstances, namely: the frequent robberies in the

neighborhood, the time was past midnight, and the victim appeared to be an armed
burglar in the dark and inside his house, the accused could have entertained an honest
belief that his life and limb or those of his family are already in immediate and imminent
danger. Hence, it may be reasonable to accept that he acted out of an honest mistake
of fact and therefor without criminal intent. An honest mistake of fact negatives criminal
intent and thus absolves the accused from criminal liability.
2000 Bar Exam Question; Defense of Honor
Osang, a married woman in her early twenties, was sleeping on a banig on the floor of
their nipa hut beside the seashore when she was awakened by the act of a man
mounting her. Thinking that it was her husband, Gardo, who had returned from fishing in
the sea, Osang continued her sleep but allowed the man, who was actually their
neighbor, Julio, to have sexual intercourse with her. After Julio satisfied himself, he said
"salamat osang" as he turned to leave. Only then did Osang realize that the man was
not her husband. Enraged, Osang grabbed a balisong from the wall and stabbed Julio to
death. When tried for homicide, Osang claimed defense of honor.
Should the claim be sustained? Why?
No, Osang's claim of defense of honor should not be sustained because the aggression
on her honor had ceased when she stabbed the aggressor. In defense of rights under
paragraph 1, Article 11 of the RPC, It is required inter alia that there be 1.Unlawful
aggression and 2.Reasonable necessity of the means employed to to prevent or repel it.
The unlawful aggression must be continuing when the aggressor was injured or disabled
by the person making a defense.
But if the aggression that was begun by the injured or disabled party already ceased to
exist when the accused attacked him, as in the case at bar, the attack made is a
retaliation, and not a defense. Paragraph 1, Article 11 of the code does not govern.
Hence, Osang's act of stabbing Julio to death after the sexual intercourse was finished,
is not defense of honor but an immediate vindication of a grave offense committed
against her, which is only mitigating.
1996 Bar Exam Question (Defense of Property)
A security guard, upon seeing a man scale the wall of a factory compound which he was
guarding, shot and killed the latter. Upon investigation by the police who thereafter
arrived at the scene of the shooting, it was discovered that the victim was unarmed.
When prosecuted for homicide, the security guard claimed that he merely acted in self-
defense of property and in the performance of his duty as a security guard.
If you were the judge, would you convict him of homicide? Explain.
Yes. I would convict the security guard for homicide if I were the judge, because his
claim of having acted in defense of property and in the performance of a duty cannot be
fully justified. Even assuming that he victim was scaling the wall of the factory compound
to commit a crime inside the same, shooting him is never justifiable, even admitting that
such act is considered unlawful aggression on property rights. In People vs. Narvaes,
121 SCRA 329, a person is justified to defend his property rights, but all the elements of
self-defense under Art.11 , must be present. In the instant case, just like in Narvaes, the
second element (reasonable necessity of the means employed) is absent. Hence, he
should be convicted of homicide but entitled to incomplete self-defense.
Par. 2 Defense of Relative
Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression (indispensable requirement)
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. In case the provocation was given by the person attacked, the one making the
defense had no part in such provocation.
Relative entitled to the defense:

1. spouse
2. ascendants
3. descendants
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brothers and sisters, or
relatives by affinity in the same degrees
5. relatives by consanguinity within the 4th civil degree
NOTE: The relative defended may be the original aggressor. All that is required to justify
the act of the relative defending is that he takes no part in such provocation.
Par. 3 Defense of Stranger

Elements:
1. unlawful aggression (indispensable requirement)
2. reasonable necessity of the means employed to prevent or repel it
3. person defending be not induced by revenge, resentment or other evil motive
A chanced upon three men who were attacking B with fist blows. C, one of the men,
was about to stab B with a knife. Not knowing that B was actually the aggressor
because he had earlier challenged the three men to a fight. A shot C as the latter was
about to stab B.
May A invoked the defense of a stranger as a justifying circumstance in his favor? Why?
Yes. A may invoke the justifying circumstance of defense of stranger since he was not
involved in the fight and he shot C, when the latter was about to stab B. There being no
indication that A was induced by revenged, resentment or any other evil motive in
shooting C, his act is justified under paragraph 3, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code
as amended.
Par. 4 State of Necessity (Avoidance of Greater Evil or Injury)

Elements:
1. evil sought to be avoided actually exists
2. injury feared be greater than that done to avoid it
3. no other practical and less harmful means of preventing it
NOTE: The necessity must not be due to the negligence or violation of any law by the
actor.
Par. 5 Fulfillment of Duty or Lawful Exercise of a Right or Office

Elements:
1. accused acted in the performance of duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office
2. the injury caused or offense committed be the necessary consequence of the due
performance of the duty, or the lawful exercise of such right or office.
NOTE: The accused must prove that he was duly appointed to the position claimed he
was discharging at the time of the commission of the offense. It must also be shown that
the offense committed was the necessary consequence of such fulfillment of duty, or
lawful exercise of a right or office.
2000 Bar Examination Question (Fulfillment of Duty)
Lucresia, a store owner, was robbed of her bracelet in her home. The following day, at
about 5 o'clock in the afternoon, a neighbor, 22-year old Jun-Jun, who had an unsavory
reputation, came to her store to buy bottles of beer.Lucresia noticed her bracelet around
the right arm of Jun-Jun. As soon as the latter left, Lucresia went to the nearby police
stationand sought the help of a policeman on duty, Pat. Willie Reyes. He went with
Lucresia to the house of Jun-Jun to confront the latter. Pat. Reyes introduced himself as
a policeman and tried to get hold of Jun-Jun who resisted and ran away. Pat. Reyes
chased him and fired two warning shots in the air. Jun-Jun continued to run and when he
was about seven meters away, Pat. Reyes shot him in the right leg. Jun-Jun was hit and
he fell down but he crawled towards a fence, intending to pass through an opening
underneath. When Pat. Reyes was about 5 meters away, he fired another shot at Jun-
Jun hitting him at the right lower hip. Pat. Reyes brought Jun-Jun to the hospital, but
because of profuse bleeding, he eventually died. Pat. Reyes was subsequently charged
with Homicide. During the trial, Pat. Reyes raised the defense, by way of exoneration,
that he acted in the fulfillment of a duty.
Is the defense tenable? Explain.
No, the defense of Pat.Reyes is not tenable. The defense of having acted in the
fulfillment of a duty requires as a condition, inter alia, that the injury or offense committed
be the unavoidable or necessary consequence of the due performance of duty (People
vs. Oanis, et. al, 74 Phil. 257). It is not enough that the accused acted in the fulfillment of
a duty.
After Jun-Jun was shot in the right leg and was already crawling, there was no need for
Pat. Reyes to shoot him further. Clearly, Pat. Reyes acted beyond the call of duty which
brought about the cause of death of the victim.
Par. 6 Obedience to a Superior Order

Elements:
1. an order has been issued
2. order has a lawful purpose (not patently illegal)
3. means used by subordinate to carry out said order is lawful
NOTE: The superior officer giving the order cannot invoke this justifying circumstance.
Good faith is
material, as the subordinate is not liable for carrying out an illegal order if he is not aware
of its illegality and he is not negligent.
General Rule: Subordinate cannot invoke this circumstance when order is patently
illegal.
Exception: When there is compulsion of an irresistible force, or under impulse of

uncontrollable fear.
ART.12
EXEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES – grounds for exemption from punishment because

there is wanting in the agent of the crime any of the conditions which make the act
voluntary or negligent.
Basis: The exemption from punishment is based on the complete absence of

intelligence, freedom of action, or intent, or on the absence of negligence on the part of
the accused.
Burden of proof: Any of the circumstances is a matter of defense and must be proved by
the defendant to the satisfaction of the court.
Par. 1 Imbecility or Insanity
IMBECILE – one while advanced in age has a mental development comparable to that
of children between 2 and 7 years old. He is exempt in all cases from criminal liability.
INSANE – one who acts with complete deprivation of intelligence/reason or without the
least discernment or with total deprivation of freedom of will. Mere abnormality of the
mental faculties will not exclude imputability.
General Rule: Exempt from criminal liability
Exception: The act was done during a lucid interval.
NOTE: Defense must prove that the accused was insane at the time of the commission
of the crime because the presumption is always in favor of sanity.
Par. 2 Under Nine Years of Age
Requisite: Offender is under 9 years of age at the time of the commission of the crime.
There is absolute criminal irresponsibility in the case of a minor under 9 years of age.
NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 or the Juvenile Justice And Welfare Act a minor 15 years and
below is exempt from criminal liability
1998 Bat Exam Question

John, an eight-year old boy, is fond of watching the television program "Zeo Rangers"."
One evening while he was engrossed watching his favorite television show, Petra, a
maid changed the channel to enable her to watch "Home along the Riles." This enraged
John who got his father's revolver, and without warning, shot Petra at the back of her
head causing her instantaneous death.
Is John Criminally liable?
No, John is not criminally liable for killing Petra because he is only 8 years old when he
committed the killing. A minor below nine (9) years old is absolutely exempt from
criminal liability although not from civil liability. (Art.12, par.2, RPC).
Par. 3 Person Over 9 and Under 15 Acting Without Discernment
NOTE: Such minor must have acted without discernment to be exempt. If with
discernment, he is criminally liable.

Presumption: The minor committed the crime without discernment.
DISCERNMENT – mental capacity to fully appreciate the consequences of the unlawful

act, which is shown by the:
1. manner the crime was committed
2. conduct of the offender after its commission
NOTE: Under R.A. 9344 a minor over 15 but but below 18 who acted without
discernment is exempt from criminal liability
While they were standing in line awaiting their vaccination at the school clinic, Pomping
repeatedly pulled the ponytail of Katreena, his 11 years, 2 months and 13 days old
classmate in Grade 5 at the Sampaloc Elementary School. Irritated, Katreena turned
around and swung at Pomping with a ball pen. The top of the ball pen hit the right eye
Pomping which bleed profusely. Realizing what she had caused, Katreena immediately
helped Pomping. When investigated, she freely admitted to the school principal that she
was responsible for the injury to Pomping's eye. After the incident, she executed a
statement admitting her culpability. Due to the injury, Pomping lost his right eye.
a. Is Karen criminally liable? Why?

b. Discuss the attendant circumstances and effect thereof.
a. No, Katreena is not criminally liable although she is civilly liable. Being a minor less
than fifteen (15) years old although over nine (9) years of age, she is generally exempt
from criminal liability. The exception is where the prosecution proved that the act was
committed with discernment. The burden is upon the prosecution to prove that the
accused acted with discernment.
The presumption is that such minor acted without discernment, and this is strengthened
by the fact that Katreena only reacted with a ballpen which she must be using in class at
the time, and only to stop Pomping's vexatious act of repeatedly pulling her ponytail. In
other words, the injury was accidental.
b. The attendant circumstances which may be considered are:
1. Minority of the accused as an exempting circumstances under Art.12. paragraph 3,

Revised Penal Code, where she shall be exempt from criminal liability, unless it was
proved that she acted with discernment. She is however, civilly liable.
2. If found criminally liable, the minority of the accused is a privilege mitigating

circumstance. A discretionary penalty lower by at least two (2) degrees than that
prescribed for the crime committed shall be imposed in accordance with Art.68.
paragraph 1, Revised Penal Code. The sentence, however, should automatically be
suspended in accordance with Section 5(a) of Republic Act No.8369 otherwise known as
the "Family Courts Act of 1997".
(1) Also if found criminally liable, the ordinary mitigating circumstance of not intending to
commit so grave a wrong as that committed, under Art.13. paragraph 3, Revised Penal
Code; and
(2) The ordinary mitigating circumstance of sufficient provocation on the part of the
offended party immediately preceded the act.
Par. 4 Accident without fault or intention of causing it

Elements:
1. A person is performing a lawful act
2. with due care
3. He causes injury to another by mere accident
4. Without fault or intention of causing it.
Par. 5 Irresistible Force
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE – offender uses violence or physical force to compel another

person to commit a crime.
Elements:
1. The compulsion is by means of physical force.
2. The physical force must be irresistible.
3. The physical force must come from a third person
NOTE: Force must be irresistible so as to reduce the individual to a mere instrument.
Par. 6 Uncontrollable Fear
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR – offender employs intimidation or threat in compelling

another to commit a crime.
DURESS – use of violence or physical force
Elements:
1. The threat which causes the fear is of an evil greater than, or at least equal to, that
which he is required to commit.
2. It promises an evil of such gravity and imminence that an ordinary man would have
succumbed to it.
NOTE: Duress to be a valid defense should be based on real, imminent or reasonable

fear for one’s life or limb. It should not be inspired by speculative, fanciful or remote fear.
A threat of future injury is not enough.
ACTUS ME INVITO FACTUS NON EST MEUS ACTUS – Any act done by me against
my will is not my act.
PAR 7. Insuperable Cause
INSUPERABLE CAUSE – some motive, which has lawfully, morally or physically

prevented a person to do what the law commands
Elements:
1. An act is required by law to be done.
2. A person fails to perform such act.
3. His failure to perform such act was due to some lawful or insuperable cause.
Ex:
1. A priest can’t be compelled to reveal what was confessed to him.
2. No available transportation – officer not liable for arbitrary detention
3. Mother who was overcome by severe dizziness and extreme debility, leaving child to
die – not liable for infanticide (People v. Bandian, 63 Phil 530)
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES – where the act committed is a crime but for some reason of
public policy and sentiment, there is no penalty imposed. Exempting and justifying
circumstances are absolutory causes.
Examples of such other circumstances are:

1. spontaneous desistance (Art. 6)
2. accessories exempt from criminal liability (Art. 20)
3. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
4. persons exempt from criminal liability from theft, swindling, malicious mischief (Art
332)
5. instigation
NOTE: Entrapment is NOT an absolutory cause. A buy-bust operation conducted in

connection with illegal drug-related offenses is a form of entrapment.
Entrapment from Instigation

1. The ways and means are resorted to for the purpose of trapping and capturing the
lawbreaker in the execution of his criminal plan. while The Instigator practically induces
the would-be accused into the commission of the offense and himself becomes a co-
principal
2. In Entrapment, not a bar to accused prosecution and conviction while in Instigation,
Accused will be acquitted.
3. Entrapment is not an absolutoty cause while Instigation is an absolutory cause
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES – those which if present in the commission of the
crime reduces the penalty of the crime but does not erase criminal liability nor change
the nature of the crime.
NOTE: A mitigating circumstance arising from a single fact absorbs all the other
mitigating circumstances arising from that same fact.
ART.13
Par. 1 Incomplete Justifying or Exempting Circumstances
NOTE: This applies when not all the requisites are present. If two requisites are present,
it is considered a privileged mitigating circumstance. However, in reference to Art.11(4) if
any of the last two requisites is absent, there is only an ordinary mitigating circumstance.
Remember though, that in self-defense, defense of relative or stranger, unlawful
aggression must always be present as it is an indispensable requirement
Par. 2 Under 18 or Over 70 Years Old
NOTE: Age of accused is determined by his age at the date of commission of crime, not
date of trial.
Par. 3 No Intention to Commit so Grave a Wrong
NOTE: Can be used only when the proven facts show that there is a notable and evident
disproportion between the means employed to execute the criminal act and its
consequences.
Factors that can be considered are:

1. weapon used
2. injury inflicted
3. part of the body injured
4. mindset of offender at the time of commission of crime
This provision addresses the intention of the offender at the particular moment when the
offender executes or commits the criminal act, not to his intention during the planning
stage
NOTE: In crimes against persons – if victim does not die, the absence of the intent to kill
reduces the felony to mere physical injuries. It is not considered as mitigating. It is
mitigating only when the victim dies.
NOTE: It is not applicable to felonies by negligence because in felonies through

negligence, the offender acts without intent. The intent in intentional felonies is replaced
by negligence or imprudence. There is no intent on the part of the offender, which may
be considered as diminished
Par. 4 Provocation or Threat
Provocation – any unjust or improper conduct or act of the offended party, capable of
exciting, inciting or irritating anyone.
Requisites:
1. provocation must be sufficient
2. it must originate from the offended party
3. must be immediate to the commission of the crime by the person who is provoked
NOTE: Threat should not be offensive and positively strong. Otherwise, it would be an
unlawful aggression, which may give rise to self-defense and thus no longer a mitigating
circumstance.
Par. 5 Vindication of Grave Offense
Requisites:
1. a grave offense done to the one committing the felony, his spouse, ascendants,
descendants, legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or sisters or relatives by affinity
within the same degrees
2. the felony is committed in immediate vindication of such grave offense
NOTE: “Immediate” allows for a lapse of time, as long as the offender is still suffering
from the mental agony brought about by the offense to him. (proximate time, not just
immediately after)
Par. 6 Passion or Obfuscation
Requisites:
1. offender acted upon an impulse
2. the impulse must be so powerful that it naturally produced passion or obfuscation in
him
NOTE: Act must have been committed not in the spirit of lawlessness or revenge; act
must come from lawful sentiments.
Act, Which Gave Rise To Passion And Obfuscation:

1. That there be an act, both unlawful and unjust
2. The act be sufficient to produce a condition of mind
3. That the act was proximate to the criminal act, not admitting of time during which the
perpetrator might recover his normal equanimity
4. The victim must be the one who caused the passion or obfuscation
NOTE: Passion and obfuscation cannot co-exist with treachery since this means that the
offender had time to ponder his course of action.
Passion or Obfuscation from Irresistable Force
1. Passion or obfuscation is mitigating while Irresistable force is exempting
2. Passion or Obfuscation, no physical force needed while irresistable force requires
physical force.
3. Passion and Obfuscation must come from the offender himself while Irresistable
Force must come from 3rd peson
4. Paasion or Obfuscation must come from lawful sentiments while Irresistable force is
unlawful.
Par. 7 Surrender and Confession of Guilt
WHEN SURRENDER VOLUNTARY

- must be spontaneous, showing the intent of the accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities, either because:
1. he acknowledges his guilt; or
2. he wishes to save them the trouble and expense necessarily incurred in his search
and capture.
NOTE: If both are present, considered as two independent mitigating circumstances.

Further mitigates penalty
NOTES:
Plea made after arraignment and after trial has begun does not entitle accused to the
mitigating circumstance.
If accused pleaded not guilty, even if during arraignment, he is entitled to mitigating

circumstance as long as he withdraws his plea of not guilty to the charge before the
fiscal could present his evidence.
Plea to a lesser charge is not a Mitigating Circumstance because to be such, the plea of
guilt must be to the offense charged.
Plea to the offense charged in the amended info, lesser than that charged in the original
info, is Mitigating Circumstance.
1999 Bar Exam Question (Mitigating;Plea of Guilty)
An accused charged with the crime of homicide pleaded "not guilty" during
the preliminary investigation before the municipal court. Upon the elevation of the case
to the Regional Trial Court of competent jurisdiction, he pleaded guilty freely and
voluntarily upon arraignment.
Can his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court be considered spontaneous and
thus entitle him to the mitigating circumstance of spontaneous plea of guilty under
Art.13(7), RPC?
Yes, his plea of guilty before the Regional Trial Court can be considered spontaneous,
for which he is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of plea of guilty. His plea of not
guilty before the Municipal Court is immaterial as it was made during the preliminary
investigation only and before a court not competent to render judgment.
1999 Bar Exam Question (Mitigating;Plea of Guilty;Requisites)
In order that the plea of guilty may be mitigating, what requisites must be complied with?
For plea of guilty to be mitigating, the requisites are:
1. That the accused spontaneously pleaded to the crime charged;

2. That such plea was made before the court competent to try the case and render
judgment; and
3. That such plea was made prior to the presentation of evidence for the prosecution.
1997 Bar Exam Question (Mitigating;Plea of Guilty;Requisites)
After killing the victim, the accused absconded. He succeeded in eluding the police until
he surfaced and surrendered to the authorities about two years later. Charged with
murder, he pleaded not guilty but, after the prosecution had presented two
witnesses implicating him to the crime, he changed his plea to that of guilty.
Should the mitigating circumstances of voluntary surrender and plea of guilty be

considered in favor of the accused?
Suggested Answer:
Voluntary surrender should be considered as a mitigating circumstance. After two years,

the police were still unaware of the whereabouts of the accused and the latter could
have continued to elude arrest. Accordingly, the surrender of the accused should be
considered mitigating because it was done spontaneously, indicative of the remorse or
repentance on the part of said accused and therefore, by his surrender, the accused
saved the government expenses, efforts, and time.
Alternative Answer:
Voluntary surrender may not be appreciated in favor of the accused. Two years is too
long a time to consider the surrender spontaneous (People vs. Ablao, 183 SCRA 658).
For sure the government had already incurred considerable efforts and expenses in
looking for the accused.
Plea of guilty can no longer be appreciated as a mitigating circumstance because the

prosecution had already started with the presentation of evidence (Art.13, par.7 RPC).
1996 Bar Examination (Mitigating;Voluntary Surrender)
Hilario, upon seeing his son engaged in a scuffle with Rene, stabbed and killed and
latter. After the stabbing, he brought his son home. The Chief of police of the town,
accompanied by several policemen, went to hilario's house, Hilario, upon seeing the
approaching policemen, came down from his house to meet them and voluntarily went
with them to the police station to be investigated in connection with the killing. When
eventually charged with and convicted of homicide, Hilario, on appeal, faulted the trial
court for not appreciating in his favor the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender.
Is he entitled to such a mitigating circumstance?
Yes, Hilario is entitled to the mitigating circumstance of voluntary surrender. The crux of
the issue is whether the fact that Hilario went home after the incident, but came down
and met the police officers and went with them is considered "voluntary surrender". The
voluntariness of surrender is tested if the same is spontaneous showing the intent of the
accused to submit himself unconditionally to the authorities. This must be either (a)
because he acknowledges his guilt, or (b) because he wishes to save the trouble and
expenses necessarily incurred in his search and capture. Thus, the act of the accused in
hiding after commission of the crime, but voluntarily went with the policemen who had
gone to his hiding place to investigate, was held to be mitigating circumstance.(People
vs. Dayrit)
Par. 8 Physical Defect of Offender
The offender is deaf and dumb, blind or otherwise suffering from some physical defect,
restricting his means of action, defense or communication with others.
NOTE: The physical defect must relate to the offense committed.
Par. 9 Illness of the Offender
Requisites:
1. The illness of the offender must diminish the exercise of his will-power.
2. Such illness should not deprive the offender of consciousness of his acts.
Par. 10 Similar and Analogous Circumstances
Example:
1. Defendant who is 60 years old with failing eyesight is similar to a case of one over 70
years old.
2. Outraged feeling of an owner of an animal taken for ransom is analogous to
vindication of grave offense.
3. Impulse of jealous feeling, similar to passion and obfuscation.
4. Voluntary restitution of property, similar to voluntary surrender.
5. Extreme poverty, similar to incomplete justification based on state necessity.
Aggravating Circumstances
ART.14
Par. 1. That advantage be taken by the offender of his public position
Requisites:
1. Offender is public officer
2. Public officer must use the influence, prestige, or ascendancy which his office gives
him as means to realize criminal purpose
It is not considered as an aggravating circumstance where taking advantage of official

position is made by law an integral element of the crime or inherent in the offense,
Ex: malversation (Art. 217), falsification of a document committed by public officers (Art.
171).
When the public officer did not take advantage of the influence of his position, this
aggravating circumstance is not present
NOTE : Taking advantage of a public position is also inherent in the case of accessories
under Art. 19, par. 3 (harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal of
the crime), and in crimes committed by public officers (Arts. 204-245).
Par. 2. That the crime be committed in contempt of or with insult to public

authorities
Requisites:
1. That the public authority is engaged in the exercise of his functions.
2. That he who is thus engaged in the exercise of said functions is not the person
against whom the crime is committed.
3. The offender knows him to be a public authority.

4. His presence has not prevented the offender from committing the criminal act.
PERSON IN AUTHORITY – public authority, or person who is directly vested with

jurisdiction and has the power to govern and execute the laws
Ex:
1. Governor
2. Mayor
3. Barangay captain/ chairman
4. Councilors
5. Government agents
6. Chief of Police
NOTE: A teacher or professor of a public or recognized private school is not a “public

authority within the contemplation of this paragraph. While he is a person in authority
under Art. 152, that status is only for purposes of Art. 148 (direct assault) and Art.152
(resistance and disobedience)
The crime should not be committed against the public authority (otherwise it will
constitute direct assault under Art.148) This is NOT applicable when committed in the
presence of a mere agent.
AGENT – subordinate public officer charged w/ the maintenance of public order and
protection and
security of life and property
Ex: barrio vice lieutenant, barrio councilman
Par. 3. That the act be committed:

(1) with insult or in disregard of the respect due the offended party on account of
his
(a)rank,
(b) age, or
(c) sex or
(2) that it be committed in the dwelling of the offended party, if the latter has not
given provocation
Rules regarding par 3(1):

1. These circumstances shall only be considered as one aggravating circumstance.
2. Rank, age, sex may be taken into account only in crimes against persons or honor,
they cannot be
invoked in crimes against property.
3. It must be shown that in the commission of the crime the offender deliberately
intended to offend or insult the sex, age and rank of the offended party.
RANK – The designation or title of distinction used to fix the relative position of the
offended party in reference to others (There must be a difference in the social condition
of the offender and the offended party).
AGE – may refer to old age or the tender age of the victim.
SEX– refers to the female sex, not to the male sex.
The AC of disregard of rank, age, or sex is not applicable in the following cases:
1. When the offender acted with passion and obfuscation.
2. When there exists a relationship between the offended party and the offender.
3. When the condition of being a woman is indispensable in the commission of the
crime.
(Ex: in parricide, abduction, seduction and rape)
People vs. Lapaz, March 31, 1989

Disregard of sex and age are not absorbed in treachery because treachery refers to the
manner of the commission of the crime, while disregard of sex and age pertains to the
relationship of the victim.
DWELLING – must be a building or structure exclusively used for rest and comfort
(combination of house and store not included), may be temporary as in the case of
guests in a house or bedspacers. It includes dependencies, the foot of the staircase and
the enclosure under the house
NOTES:
The aggravating circumstance of dwelling requires that the crime be wholly or partly
committed therein or in any integral part thereof.
Dwelling does not mean the permanent residence or domicile of the offended party or
that he must be the owner thereof. He must, however, be actually living or dwelling
therein even for a temporary duration or purpose.
It is not necessary that the accused should have actually entered the dwelling of the
victim to commit the offense; it is enough that the victim was attacked inside his own
house, although the assailant may have devised means to perpetrate the assault from
without.
What aggravates the commission of the crime in one’s dwelling:

1. The abuse of confidence which the offended party reposed in the offender by opening
the door to him; or
2. The violation of the sanctity of the home by trespassing therein with violence or
against the will of the owner.
Meaning of provocation in the aggravating circumstance of dwelling:

The provocation must be:
1. Given by the owner of the dwelling,
2. Sufficient, and
3. Immediate to the commission of the crime.
NOTE: If all these conditions are present, the offended party is deemed to have given
the provocation, and the fact that the crime is committed in the dwelling of the offended
party is NOT an aggravating circumstance.
REASON: When it is the offended party who has provoked the incident, he loses his
right to the respect and consideration due him in his own house
Dwelling is not aggravating in the following cases:

1. When both the offender and the offended party are occupants of the same house, and
this is true even if offender is a servant in the house.
exception: In case of adultery in the conjugal dwelling, the same is aggravating.
However, if the paramour also dwells in the conjugal dwelling, the applicable aggravating
circumstance is abuse of confidence.
2. When robbery is committed by the use of force upon things, dwelling is not
aggravating because it is inherent.
However, dwelling is aggravating in robbery with violence against or intimidation of

persons because
this class of robbery can be committed without the necessity of trespassing the sanctity
of the offended party’s house.
3. In the crime needed to see this picture. dwelling, it is inherent or included by law in
defining the crime.
4. When the owner of the dwelling gave sufficient and immediate provocation.
There must exist a close relation between the provocation made by the victim and the
commission of the crime by the accused.
5. The victim is not a dweller of the house.
Par. 4. That the act be committed with: (1) abuse of confidence or (2) obvious
ungratefulness
There are two aggravating circumstances present under par.4 which must be
independently appreciated if present in the same case.
While one may be related to the other in the factual situation in the case, they cannot be
lumped together. Abuse of confidence requires a special confidential relationship
between the offender and the victim, while this is not required for there to be obvious
ungratefulness
Requisites Of Abuse Of Confidence:

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender.
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party.
3. That the abuse of confidence facilitated the commission of the crime.
NOTE: Abuse of confidence is inherent in malversation (Art. 217), qualified theft (Art.
310), estafa by conversion or misappropriation (Art. 315), and qualified seduction (Art.
337).
Requisites of obvious ungratefulness:

1. That the offended party had trusted the offender;
2. That the offender abused such trust by committing a crime against the offended party.
3. That the act be committed with obvious ungratefulness.
NOTE: The ungratefulness contemplated by par. 4 must be such clear and manifest
ingratitude on the part of the accused.
Par. 5. That the crime be committed in the palace of the Chief Executive, or in his
presence, or where public authorities are engaged in the discharge of their
duties, or in a place dedicated to religious worship.
Actual performance of duties is not necessary when crime is committed in the palace or
in the presence of the Chief Executive.
Requisites Regarding Public Authorities:

1. crime occurred in the public office
2. public authorities are actually performing their public duties
Requisites (Place Dedicated To Religious Worship):

1. The crime occurred in a place dedicated to the worship of God regardless of religion
2. The offender must have decided to commit the crime when he entered the place of
worship
Except for the third which requires that official functions are being performed at the time
of the
commission of the crime, the other places mentioned are aggravating per se even if no
official duties or acts of religious worship are being conducted there.
Cemeteries, however respectable they may be, are not considered as place dedicated to
the worship of God.
Par. 6. That the crime be committed (1) in the nighttime, or (2) in an uninhabited

place, or (3) by a band, whenever such circumstance may facilitate the
commission of the offense
NOTE: When present in the same case and their element are distinctly palpable and can
subsist
independently, they shall be considered separately.
When nighttime, uninhabited place or band aggravating:

1. When it facilitated the commission of the crime; or
2. When especially sought for by the offender to insure the commission of the crime or
for the purpose of impunity; or
3. When the offender took advantage thereof for the purpose of impunity
NIGHTTIME (obscuridad) – that period of darkness beginning at the end of dusk and
ending at dawn.
Commission of the crime must begin and be accomplished in the nighttime. When the
place of the crime is illuminated by light, nighttime is not aggravating. It is not considered
aggravating when the crime began at daytime.
Nighttime is not especially sought for when the notion to commit the crime was
conceived of shortly before commission or when crime was committed at night upon a
casual encounter
However, nighttime need not be specifically sought for when

(1) it facilitated the commission of the offense, or
(2) the offender took advantage of the same to commit the crime
A bare statement that crime was committed at night is insufficient. The information must
allege that nighttime was sought for or taken advantage of, or that it facilitated the crime
GENERAL RULE: Nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
EXCEPTION: Where both the treacherous mode of attack and nocturnity were
deliberately decided upon in the same case, they can be considered separately if such
circumstances have different factual bases. Thus:
In People vs. Berdida, et. al. (June 30, 1966),

- nighttime was considered since it was purposely sought, and treachery was further
appreciated because the victim’s hands and arms were tied together before he was
beaten up by the accused.
In People vs. Ong, et. al. (Jan. 30, 1975), there was treachery as the victim was stabbed
while lying face up and defenseless, and nighttime was considered upon proof that it
facilitated the commission of the offense and was taken advantage of by the accused.
UNINHABITED PLACE (despoblado) – one where there are no houses at all, a place at
a considerable distance from town, where the houses are scattered at a great distance
from each other.
Solitude must be sought to better attain the criminal purpose.
What should be considered here is whether in the place of the commission of the
offense, there was
a reasonable possibility of the victim receiving some help.
BAND (en cuadrilla) – whenever there are more than 3 armed malefactors that shall
have acted together in the commission of an offense
NOTE: There must be four or more armed men
If one of the four-armed malefactors is a principal by inducement, they do not form a

band because it is undoubtedly connoted that he had no direct participation.
“By a band” is aggravating in crimes against property or against persons or in the crime
of illegal detention or treason but does not apply to crimes against chastity
“By a band” is inherent in brigandage
This aggravating circumstance is absorbed in the circumstance of abuse of superior

strength
1994 Bar Exam Question (Aggravating;Nighttime;Band)
At about 9:30 in the evening, while Dino and Raffy were walking along Padre Faura
Street, Manila, Johnny hit them with a rock injuring Dino at the back. Raffy approached
Dino, but suddenly, Bobby, Steve, Danny, and Nonoy surrounded the duo. Then Bobby
stabbed Dino. Steve, Danny, Nonoy, and Johnny kept on hitting Dino and Raffy with
rocks. As a result, Dino died. Bobby, Steve, Danny, Nonoy, and Johnny were charged
with homicide.
Can the court appreciate the aggravating circumstances of nighttime and band?
No, nighttime can not be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance because there is

no indication that the offenders deliberately sought the cover of darkness to facilitate the
commission of the crime or that they took advantage of nighttime.(People vs. De los
Reyes, 203 SCRA 707).
Besides, judicial notice can be taken of the fact that Padre Faura Street is well lighted.
However, Band should be considered as the crime was committed by more than three
armed malefactors. In a recent Supreme Court Decision, stones or rocks are considered
deadly weapons.
1996 Bar Examination (Aggravating Circumstances)
Jose,Domingo,Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at about one o'clock in the
morning, robbed a house at a desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three
daughters were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking Danilo's house,
Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's daughters was trying to get away, ran after her
and finally caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the house. Fernando,
before bringing back the daughter to the house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four
carted away the belongings of Danilo and his family.
a. What crime did Jose,Domingo,Manolo, and Fernando commit? Explain.
b. Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the three daughters of Danilo
inside the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole family to prevent
identification, what crime did the four commit? Explain.
c. Under the facts of the case, what aggravating circumstances maybe appreciated
against the four? Explain.
a. Jose,Domingo, and Manolo committed robbery, while Fernando committed complex

crime of Robbery with Rape.
b. The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the killings were by reason (to
prevent identification) and on the occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed
and the fact that several persons were killed (homicide), would be considered as
aggravating circumstances. The rapes are synonymous with ignominy and the
additional killing synonymous with cruelty.(People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA; People vs.
Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)
c. The aggravating circumstances which may be considered in the premises are:

1. Band because all the four offenders are armed.
2. Nocturnity because evidently the offenders took advantage of nighttime.
3. Dwelling; and
4. Uninhabited place because the house where the crimes were committed was "at a
desolate place" and obviously the offenders took advantage of this circumstance in
committing the crime.
Par. 7. That the crime be committed on the occasion of a conflagration, shipwreck,

earthquake, epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
Requisites:
1. The crime was committed when there was a calamity or misfortune
2. The offender took advantage of the state of confusion or chaotic condition from such
misfortune
If the offended was PROVOKED by the offended party during the calamity/misfortune,
this aggravating circumstance may not be taken into consideration.
Par. 8.That the crime be committed with the aid of

(1) armed men or
(2) persons who insure or afford impunity
Requisites:
1. That armed men or persons took part in the commission of the crime, directly or
indirectly.
2. That the accused availed himself of their aid or relied upon them when the crime was
committed
NOTE: This aggravating circumstance requires that the armed men are accomplices
who take part in a minor capacity directly or indirectly, and not when they were merely
present at the crime scene. Neither should they constitute a band, for then the proper
aggravating circumstance would be cuadrilla.
When This Aggravating Circumstance Shall Not Be Considered:

1. When both the attacking party and the party attacked were equally armed.
2. When the accused as well as those who cooperated with him in the commission of the
crime acted under the same plan and for the same purpose.
3. When the others were only “casually present” and the offender did not avail himself of
any of their aid or when he did not knowingly count upon their assistance in the
commission of the crime
If there are four armed men, aid of armed men is absorbed in employment of a band. If
there are three armed men or less, aid of armed men may be the aggravating
circumstance.
“Aid of armed men” includes “armed women.”
Par. 9. That the accused is a recidivist
RECIDIVIST – one who at the time of his trial for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the RPC.
Requisites:
1. That the offender is on trial for an offense;
2. That he was previously convicted by final judgment of another crime;
3. That both the first and the second offenses are embraced in the same title of the
Code;
4. That the offender is convicted of the new offense.
MEANING OF “at the time of his trial for one crime.” It is employed in its general sense,
including the rendering of the judgment. It is meant to include everything that is done in
the course of the trial, from arraignment until after sentence is announced by the judge in
open court.
What is controlling is the TIME OF THE TRIAL, not the time of the commission of the
offense.
GENERAL RULE: To prove recidivism, it is necessary to allege the same in the

information and to attach thereto certified copy of the sentences rendered against the
accused.
Exception: If the accused does not object and when he admits in his confession and on
the witness stand.
Recidivism must be taken into account no matter how many years have intervened
between the
first and second felonies.
Amnesty extinguishes the penalty and its effects. However, pardon does not obliterate
the fact that
the accused was a recidivist. Thus, even if the accused was granted a pardon for the
first offense but he commits another felony embraced in the same title of the Code, the
first conviction is still counted to make him a recidivist
Being an ordinary aggravating circumstance, recidivism affects only the periods of a

penalty, except in prostitution and vagrancy (Art. 202) and gambling (PD 1602) wherein
recidivism increases the penalties by degrees. No other generic aggravating
circumstance produces this effect
In recidivism it is sufficient that the succeeding offense be committed after the

commission of the
preceding offense provided that at the time of his trial for the second offense, the
accused had
already been convicted of the first offense.
If both offenses were committed on the same date, they shall be considered as only one,
hence, they
cannot be separately counted in order to constitute recidivism. Also, judgments of
convicted handed down on the same day shall be considered as only one conviction.

REASON: Because the Code requires that to be considered as a separate convictions,
at the time of his trial for one crime the accused shall have been previously convicted by
final judgment of the other.
2001 Bar Exam Question (Aggravating;Recidivism)
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft
when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. In the last case, the trial judge
considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused
appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider
against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency.
Is the appeal meritorious? Explain.
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly
considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual
delinquency.
Juan is a recidivist because he had been previously convicted by final judgment for theft
and again found guilty of Robbery with Homicide, which are both crimes against
property, embraced under the same title (title ten, book 2) of the Revised Penal Code.
The implication is that he is specializing in the commission of crimes against property,
hence aggravating in the conviction for Robbery with Homicide.
Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional penalty when an offender is

convicted a third time or more for specified crimes, is correctly considered.
Par. 10. That the offender has been previously punished for an offense to which
the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two or more crimes to which it
attaches a lighter penalty.
Requisites Of Reiteracion Or Habituality:

1. That the accused is on trial for an offense;
2. That he previously served sentence for another offense to which the law attaches an
a) Equal or
b) Greater penalty, or
c) For two or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter penalty than that for the new
offense; and
3. That he is convicted of the new offense
Habituality vs Recidivism
1. As To The First offense
Habituality - It is necessary that the offender shall shall have served out his sentence for
the first offense.
Recidivism - It is enough that a final judgment has been rendered in the first offense.
2. As to the kind of offenses involved
Habituality - The previous and subsequent offenses must not be embraced in the same
title of the code.
Recidivism - Requires that the offenses be included in the same title of the code.
THE FOUR FORMS OF REPETITION ARE:

1. Recidivism (par. 9, Art. 14) – Where a person, on separate occasions, is convicted of
two offenses
embraced in the same title in the RPC. This is a generic aggravating circumstance.
2. Reiteracion or Habituality (par. 10, Art. 14) – Where the offender has been previously
punished for
an offense to which the law attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two crimes to
which it attaches
a lighter penalty. This is a generic aggravating circumstance.
3. Multi-recidivism or Habitual delinquency (Art.62, par, 5) – Where a person within a
period of ten
years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of serious or less
serious physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification, is found guilty of the said
crimes a third time or oftener. This is an extraordinary aggravating circumstance.
4. Quasi-recidivism (Art. 160) – Where a person commits felony before beginning to
serve or while
serving sentence on a previous conviction for a felony. This is a special aggravating
circumstance.
Since reiteracion provides that the accused has duly served the sentence for his
previous conviction/s, or is legally considered to have done so, quasi-recidivism cannot
at the same time constitute reiteracion, hence this aggravating circumstance cannot
apply to a quasi-recidivist.
If the same set of facts constitutes recidivism and reiteracion, the liability of the accused
should be
aggravated by recidivism which can easily be proven.
Par. 11. That the crime be committed in consideration of price, reward or promise.

Requisites:
1. There are at least 2 principals:
- The principal by inducement (one who offers)
- The principal by direct participation (accepts)
2. The price, reward, or promise should be previous to
and in consideration of the commission of the
criminal act
NOTE: The circumstance is applicable to both principals.

It affects the person who received the price / reward as
well as the person who gave it.
If without previous promise it was given voluntarily after

the crime had been committed asan expression of his
appreciation for the sympathy and aid shown by the other
accused, it should not be taken into consideration for the
purpose of increasing the penalty.
The price, reward or promise need not consist of or refer

to material things or that the same were actually delivered,
it being sufficient that the offer made by the principal
by inducement be accepted by the principal by direct
participation before the commission of the offense.
The inducement must be the primary consideration for the

commission of the crime.
Par. 12. That the crime be committed by means of inundation, fire, explosion,

stranding of a vessel or intentional damage thereto, derailment of a locomotive, or
by use of any artifice involving great waste and ruin
The circumstances under this paragraph will only be considered

as aggravating if and when they are used by the offender as a
means to accomplish a criminal purpose
When another aggravating circumstance already qualifies the

crime, any of these aggravating circumstances shall be
considered as generic aggravating circumstance only
When used as a means to kill another person, the crime is

qualified to murder.
Par. 13. That the act be committed with evident premeditation
Requisites:
The prosecution must prove –
1. The time when the offender determined to commit the crime;
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to
his determination; and
3. A sufficient lapse of time between the determination and
execution, to allow him to reflect upon the consequences
of his act and to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will.
Essence of premeditation: The execution of the criminal act

must be preceded by cool thought and reflection upon the
resolution to carry out the criminal intent during the space
of time sufficient to arrive at a calm judgment.
To establish evident premeditation, it must be shown that there

was a period sufficient to afford full opportunity for
meditation and reflection, a time adequate to allow the
conscience to overcome the resolution of the will, as well as
outward acts showing the intent to kill. It must be shown that
the offender had sufficient time to reflect upon the
consequences of his act but still persisted in his determination
to commit the crime. (PEOPLE vs. SILVA, et. al., GR No.
140871, August 8, 2002)
Premeditation is absorbed by reward or promise.
When the victim is different from that intended, premeditation

is not aggravating. However, if the offender premeditated on
the killing of any person, it is proper to consider against
the offender the aggravating circumstance of premeditation,
because whoever is killed by him is contemplated in his
premeditation.
Par. 14. That (1) craft,

(2) fraud, or
(3) disguise be employed.
Requisite
The offender must have actually used craft, fraud, or disguise
to facilitate the commission of the crime.
CRAFT (astucia) – involved the use of intellectual trickery or

cunning on the part of the accused. A chicanery resorted to
by the accused to aid in the execution of his criminal design.
It is employed as a scheme in the execution of the crime
FRAUD (fraude) – insidious words or machinations used to induce

the victim to act in a manner which would enable the offender
to carry out his design
Craft and fraud may be absorbed in treachery ifthey have been

deliberately adopted as the means, methods or forms for the
treacherous strategy, or they may co-exist independently where
they are adopted for a different purpose in the commission
of the crime.
Ex:
In People vs. San Pedro (Jan. 22, 1980),
where the accused pretended to hire the driver in order to
get his vehicle, it was held that there was craft directed
to the theft of the vehicle, separate from the means
subsequently used to treacherously kill the defenseless
driver.
In People vs. Masilang (July 11, 1986)

there was also craft where after hitching a ride, the accused
requested the driver to take them to a place to visit somebody,
when in fact they had already planned to kill the driver.
DISGUISE (disfraz) – resorting to any device to conceal identity
The test of disguise is whether the device or contrivance

resorted to by the offender was intended to or did make
identification more difficult, such as the use of a mask or
false hair or beard.
The use of an assumed name in the publication of a libel

constitutes disguise.
Par. 15. That (1) advantage be taken of superior strength, or

(2) means be employed to weaken the defense.
Par. 15 contemplates two aggravating circumstances, either of

which qualifies a killing to murder.
MEANING OF “advantage be taken”:To deliberately use excessive

force that is out of proportion to the means for self-defense
available to the person attacked. (PEOPLE vs. LOBRIGAS, et.
al., GR No. 147649, December 17, 2002)
No Advantage Of Superior Strength In The Following:

1. One who attacks another with passion and obfuscation does
not take advantage of his superior strength.
2. When a quarrel arose unexpectedly and the fatal blow was
struck at a time when the aggressor and his victim were
engaged against each other as man to man.
TEST for abuse of superior strength: the relative strength of

the offender and his victim and whether or not he took
advantage of his greater strength.
When there are several offenders participating in the crime,

they must ALL be principals by direct participation and their
attack against the victim must be concerted and intended
to be so.
Abuse of superior strength is inherent in the crime of

parricide where the husband kills the wife. It is generally
accepted that the husband is physically stronger than the wife.
Abuse of superior strength is also present when the offender

uses a weapon which is out of proportion to the defense
available to the offended party.
NOTE: Abuse of superior strength absorbs cuadrilla (“band”).
MEANING OF “Means employed to weaken defense” - the offender

employs means that materially weaken the resisting power of
the offended party.
Ex:
1. Where one, struggling with another, suddenly throws a
cloak over the head of his opponent and while in this
situation he wounds or kills him.
2. One who, while fighting with another, suddenly casts sand
or dirt upon the latter eyes and then wounds or kills him.
3. When the offender, who had the intention to kill the
victim, made the deceased intoxicated, thereby materially
weakening the latter’s resisting power.
NOTE: This circumstance is applicable only to crimes against

persons, and sometimes against person and property, such as
robbery with physical injuries or homicide.
Par. 16. That the act be committed with treachery (alevosia)
TREACHERY – when the offender commits any of the crimes against

the person, employing means, methods or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to insure its
execution without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the offended party might make.
Requisites:
1. That at the time of the attack, the victim was not in a
position to defend himself; and
2. That the offender consciously adopted the particular means,
method or form of attack employed by him.
TEST: It is not only the relative position of the parties but,
more specifically, whether or not the victim was forewarned or
afforded the opportunity to make a defense or to ward off
the attack.
Rules Regarding Treachery:

1. Applicable only to crimes against persons.
2. Means, methods or forms need not insure accomplishment of crime.
3. The mode of attack must be consciously adopted.
Treachery is taken into account even if the crime against the

person is complexed with another felony involving a different
classification in the Code. Accordingly, in the special complex
crime of robbery with homicide, treachery but can be
appreciated insofar as the killing is concerned.
The suddenness of attack in itself does not constitute treachery,

even if the purpose was to kill, so long as the decision was
made all of a sudden and the victim’s helpless position was
accidental.
Treachery applies in the killing of a child even if the manner

of attack is not shown.
Treachery must be convincing evidence proved by clear and
Treachery is considered against all the offenders when there

is conspiracy.
WHEN MUST TREACHERY BE PRESENT:

1. When the aggression is continuous, treachery must be present
in the beginning of the assault. (PEOPLE vs. MANALAD, GR
No. 128593, August 14, 2002)
Thus, even if the deceased was shot while he was lying wounded
on the ground, it appearing that the firing of the shot was
a mere continuation of the assault in which the deceased was
wounded, with no appreciable time intervening between the
delivery of the blows and the firing of the shot, it cannot
be said that the crime was attended by treachery.
2. When the assault was not continuous, in that there was
interruption, it is sufficient that treachery was present
at the moment the fatal blow was given.
Hence, even though in the inception of the aggression

which ended in the death of the deceased, treachery
was not present, if there was a break in the continuity of
the aggression and at the time of the fatal wound was
inflicted on the deceased he was defenseless, the
circumstance of treachery must be taken into account.
Treachery Should Be Considered Even If:

1. The victim was not predetermined but there was a generic
intent to treacherously kill any first two persons belonging
to a class. (The same rule obtains for evident premeditation).
2. There was aberratio ictus and the bullet hit a person different
from that intended. (The rule is different in evident
premeditation).
3. There was error in personae, hence the victim was not the
one intended by the accused. (A different rule is applied in
evident premeditation).
REASON FOR THE RULE: When there is treachery, it is impossible

for either the intended victim or the actual victim to defend
himself against the aggression.
TREACHERY ABSORBS:
1. Craft
2. Abuse of superior strength
3. Employing means to weaken the defense
4. Cuadrilla (“band”)
5. Aid of armed men
6. Nighttime
Par. 17. That means be employed or circumstances brought about which add

ignominy to the natural effects of the act
IGNOMINY – is a circumstance pertaining to the moral order,

which adds disgrace and obloquy to the material injury caused
by the crime.

MEANING OF “which add ignominy to the natural effects thereof”
The means employed or the circumstances brought about must tend
to make the effects of the crime more humiliating to victim or
to put the offended party to shame, or add to his moral
suffering. Thus it is incorrect to appreciate ignominy where
the victim was already dead when his body was dismembered, for
such act may not be considered to have added to the victim’s
moral suffering or humiliation. (People vs. Carmina,
G.R. No. 81404, January 28, 1991)
Applicable to crimes against chastity, less serious physical

injuries, light or grave coercion, and murder.
Par. 18. That the crime be committed after an unlawful entry.
UNLAWFUL ENTRY - when an entrance is effected by a way not intended for the
purpose.
NOTE: Unlawful entry must be a means to effect entrance and not for escape.
REASON FOR AGGRAVATION: One who acts, not respecting the walls erected by men
to guard their property and provide for their personal safety, shows a greater perversity,
a greater audacity; hence, the law punishes him with more severity.
1997 Bar Examination Question(Treachery;Unlawful Entry)
The accused and the victim occupied adjacent apartments, each being a separate
dwelling unit of one big house.The accused suspected his wife of having an illicit relation
with the victim. One afternoon, he saw the victim and his wife together on board a
vehicle. In the evening of that day, the accused went to bed early and tried to sleep, but
being so annoyed over the suspected relation between his wife and the victim, he could
not sleep. later in the night, he resolved to kill the victim. He rose from bed and took hold
of a knife. He entered the apartment of the victim through an unlock window. Inside, he
saw the victim soundly asleep. He thereupon stabbed the victim, inflicting several
wounds,
which caused his death within a few hours.
Would you say that the killing was attended by the qualifying or aggravating
circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, nighttime, and unlawful entry?
1. Evident premeditation cannot be considered against the accused because he

resolved to kill the victim "later in the night" and there was no sufficient lapse of time
between the determination and execution, to allow his conscience to overcome the
resolution of his will.
2. Treachery may be present because the accused stabbed the victim while the latter
was sound asleep. Accordingly, he employed means and methods which directly and
specially insured the execution of the act without risk to himself arising from the defense
which the victim might have made.(People vs. Dequina, 60 Phil. 27, People vs.
Miranda,et.al, 90 Phil. 91)
3. Nighttime cannot be appreciated because there is no showing that the accused

deliberately sought or availed of nighttime to insure the success of his act. The intention
to commit the crime was conceived shortly before its commission.(People vs. Pardo, 79
Phil. 568) Moreover, nighttime is absorbed in treachery.
4. Unlawful entry may be appreciated as an aggravating circumstance, in as much as

the accused entered the room of the victim through the window, which is not the proper
place for entrance into the house.(Art.14. par.18. Revised Penal Code, People vs.
Baruga, 61 Phil. 318)
Par. 19. That as a means to the commission of a crime, a wall, roof, floor, door, or
window be broken.
Applicable only if such acts were done by the offender to effect ENTRANCE. If the wall,
etc., is broken in order to get out of the place, it is not an aggravating circumstance.
It is NOT necessary that the offender should have entered the building Therefore, If the
offender broke a window to enable himself to reach a purse with money on the table
near that window, which he took while his body was outside of the building, the crime of
theft was attended by this aggravating circumstance.
NOTE: Breaking in is lawful in the following instances:

1. An officer, in order to make an arrest, may break open a door or window of any
building in which the person to be arrested is or is reasonably believed to be;
2. An officer, if refused admittance, may break open any door or window to execute the
search warrant or liberate himself,
3. Replevin, Section 4, Rule 60 of the Rules of Court
Par. 20. That the crime be committed

(1) with the aid of persons under fifteen (15) years of age, or
(2) by means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means.
TWO DIFFERENT CIRCUMSTANCES GROUPED IN THIS PARAGRAPH:

1. With the aid of persons under fifteen years of age:
Intends to repress, so far as possible, the frequent practice resorted to by professional

criminals to avail themselves of minors taking advantage of their irresponsibility.
2. By means of motor vehicles, airships, or other similar means:
Intended to counteract the great facilities found by modern criminals in said means to
commit crime and flee and abscond once the same is committed.
Use of motor vehicle is aggravating where the accused purposely and deliberately used
the motor vehicle in going to the place of the crime, in carrying away the effects thereof,
and in facilitating their escape.
MEANING OF “or other similar means” Should be understood as referring to motorized

vehicles or other efficient means of transportation similar to automobile or airplane.
Par. 21. That the wrong done in the commission of the crime be deliberately
augmented by causing other wrong not necessary for its commission
CRUELTY – there is cruelty when the culprit enjoys and delights in making his victim
suffer slowly and gradually, causing unnecessary physical pain in the consummation of
the criminal act.
Requisites:
1. That the injury caused be deliberately increased by causing other wrong;
2. That the other wrong be unnecessary for the execution of the purpose of the offender.
Cruelty is not inherent in crimes against persons.
In order for it to be appreciated, there must be positive proof that the wounds found on
the body of the victim were inflicted while he was still alive in order unnecessarily to
prolong physical suffering.
Cruelty cannot be presumed
If the victim was already dead when the acts of mutilation were being performed, this
would also qualify the killing to murder due to outraging of his corpse.
Ignominy involves moral suffering. Cruelty refers to physical suffering.
Unlike mitigating circumstances (par. 10, Art. 13), there is NO provision for aggravating

circumstances of a similar or analogous character.
1994 Bar Examination Question (Cruelty;Relationship)
Ben, a widower, driven by bestial desire, poked a gun on his daughter Zeny, forcibly
undressed her and tied her legs to the bed. He also burned her face with a lighted
cigarette. Like a madman, he laugh while raping her.
What aggravating circumstances are present in this case?
a. Cruelty, for burning the victim's face with a lighted cigarette, thereby deliberately
augmenting the victim's suffering by acts clearly unnecessary to the rape, while the
offender delighted and enjoyed seeing the victim suffer in pain.(People vs. Lucas, 181
SCRA 316)
b. Relationship, because the offended party is a descendant (daughter) of the offender

and considering that the crime is one against chastity.
Alternative Circumstances – Those which must be taken into consideration
as aggravating or mitigating according to the nature and effects of the crime and the
other conditions attending its commission. (Art.15)
Basis
The nature and effects of the crime and the other conditions attending its commission.
The Alternative Circumstances Are:

1. Relationship;
2. Intoxication; and
3. Degree of instruction and education of the offender.
Relationship
The alternative circumstance of relationship shall be taken into consideration when the
offended party is the –
1. Spouse,
2. Ascendant,
3. Descendant,
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted brother or sister, or
5. Relative by affinity in the same degree of the offender.
Other Relatives Included (By Analogy):

1. The relationship of stepfather or stepmother and stepson or stepdaughter.
REASON: It is the duty of the step-parents to bestow upon their stepchildren a

mother’s/father’s affection, care and protection.
2. The relationship of adopted parent and adopted child.
NOTE: But the relationship of uncle and niece is not covered by any of the relationship
mentioned.
When Relationship Mitigating And When Aggravating:

1. As a rule, relationship is mitigating in crimes against property, by analogy to the
provisions of Art. 332.
Thus, relationship is mitigating in the crimes of robbery (Arts. 294-302), usurpation (Art.
312), fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314) and arson (Arts. 321-322, 325-326).
2. In crimes against persons –

a) It is aggravating where the offended party is a relative of
(1). a higher degree than the offender, or
(2). when the offender and the offended party are relatives of the same level (e.g.
brothers)
b) But when it comes to physical injuries:

(1). It is aggravating when the crime involves serious physical injuries (Art.263), even if
the offended
party is a descendant of the offender. But the serious physical injuries must not be
inflicted by a parent upon his child by excessive chastisement.
(2). It is mitigating when the offense committed is less serious physical injuries or slight
physical injuries, if the offended party is a relative of a lower degree.
(3). It is aggravating if the offended party is a relative of a higher degree of the offender.
c) When the crime is homicide or murder, relationship is aggravating even if the victim of
the crime is a relative of a lower degree.
d) In rape, relationship is aggravating where a stepfather raped his stepdaughter or in a

case where a father raped his own daughter.
3. In crimes against chastity, like acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336), relationship is always

aggravating, regardless of whether the offender is a relative of a higher or lower degree
of the offended party. When the qualification given to the crime is derived from the
relationship between the offender and the offended party, it is neither mitigating nor
aggravating, because it is inseparable from and inherent in the offense. (e.g. parricide,
adultery and concubinage).
Intoxication - When Intoxication Mitigating And When Aggravating:
1. Mitigating –
a. If intoxication is not habitual, or
b. If intoxication is not subsequent to the plan to commit a felony.
2. Aggravating –
a. If intoxication is habitual, or
b. If it is intentional (subsequent to the plan to commit a felony).
To Be Entitled To The Mitigating Circumstance Of Intoxication, It Must Be Shown:

1. That at the time of the commission of the criminal act, the accused has taken such
quantity of alcoholic drinks as to blur his reason and deprive him of a certain degree of
control, and
2. That such intoxication is not habitual, or subsequent to the plan to commit the felony.
To be mitigating, the accused’s state of intoxication must be proved. Once intoxication is

established by satisfactory evidence, in the absence of proof to the contrary, it is
presumed to be non-habitual or unintentional.
2000 Bar Exam Question (Non-Intoxication)
Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted.A heated argument
Jonas, the latter again started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at Jepoy's yard
in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When Jepoy came out,
Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his target. Instead,
the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him, killing the boy
instantaneously.
a. What crime or crimes can Jonas and Jaja be charged with? Explain.
b. If you were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, what possible defenses would you set up in
favor of your clients? Explain.
a. Jonas and Jaja, can be charged with the complex crime of attempted murder with
homicide because a single act caused a less grave and and a grave felony.(Art.48 RPC)
b. If I were Jonas' and Jaja's lawyer, I will use the following defenses:
1. That the accused had no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that committed as
they merely intended to frighten Jepoy.
2. That Jonas committed the crime in a state of intoxication thereby impairing his will
power or capacity to understand the wrongfulness of his act. Non-intentional intoxication
is a mitigating circumstance (People vs. Fortich, 281 SCRA 600 (1997); Art.15, RPC).
2002 Bar Examination Question (Alternative Circumstances;Intoxication)
A was invited to a drinking spree by friends. After having had a drink too many, A and B
had a heated argument, during which A stabbed B. As a result, B suffered serious
physical injuries.
May the intoxication of A be considered aggravating or mitigating?
The intoxication of A may be prima facie considered mitigating since it was merely
incidental to the commission of the crime. It may not be considered aggravating as there
is no clear indication from the facts of the case that it was habitual or intentional on the
part of A. Aggravating circumstances are not to be presumed; they should be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
Instruction or Education
As an alternative circumstance it does not refer only to literacy but more to the level of
intelligence of the accused.
Refers to the lack or presence of sufficient intelligence and knowledge of the full
significance of one’s acts.
Low degree of instruction and education or lack of it is generally mitigating. High degree
of instruction and education is aggravating, when the offender took advantage of his
learning
in committing the crime.
GENERAL RULE: Lack of sufficient education is mitigating

EXCEPTIONS:
1. Crimes against property (e.g. arson, estafa, theft, robbery)
2. Crimes against chastity, and
3. Treason – because love of country should be a natural feeling of every citizen,
however unlettered or uncultured he may be.
Who Are Criminally Liable

On Criminal Law
ART.16
Under the Revised Penal Code, when more than one person
participated in the commission of the crime, the law looks into
their participation because in punishing offenders, the Revised
Penal Code classifies them as:
PRINCIPAL;
ACCOMPLICE; OR
ACCESSORY.
This classification is true only under the Revised Penal Code

and is not applied under special laws, because the penalties
under the latter are never graduated.
Do not use the term “principal” when the crime committed is a

violation of special law (use the term “offender/s, culprit/s,
accused”).
As to the liability of the participants in a grave, less grave

or light felony:
1. When the felony is grave, or less grave, all participants are
criminally liable.
2. But where the felony is only light, only the principal and
the accomplice are liable. The accessory is not.
Therefore, it is only when the light felony is against persons

or property that criminal liability attaches to the principal
or accomplice, even though the felony is only attempted or
frustrated, but accessories are not liable for light felonies.
Note that accessories are not liable for light felonies.
REASON: In the commission of light felonies, the social wrong

as well as the individual prejudice is so small that penal
sanction is unnecessary.
The classification of the offenders as principal, accomplice

or an accessory is essential under the RPC. The classification
maybe applied to special laws only if the latter provides for
the same graduated penalties as those provided under the RPC.
There Are Two Parties In All Crimes:

1. Active subject (the criminal)

Art. 16 enumerates the active subjects of the crime.
2. Passive subject (the injured party) Is the holder of the

injured right: the man, the juristic person, the group, and
the State.
Note: Only natural persons can be the active subject of crime
because of the highly personal nature of the criminal
responsibility.
However, corporation and partnership can be a passive subject of

a crime.
GENERALLY: Corpses and animals cannot be passive subjects

because they have no rights that may be injured.
EXCEPTION: Under Art. 253, the crime of defamation may be

committed if the imputation tends to blacken the memory of
one who is dead.
This article applies only when the offenders are to be judged

by their individual, and not collective, liability.
Principal By Direct Participation
ART.17.PRINCIPALS
THREE TYPES OF PRINCIPALS:

1. Principal by DIRECT PARTICIPATION (par.1)
2. Principal by INDUCTION (par.2)
3. Principal by INDISPENSABLE COOPERATION (par.3)
Par. 1 – Principals by direct participation

Requisites:
1. That they participated in the criminal resolution; and (conspiracy
2. That they carried out their plan and personally took part in its execution by acts which
directly tended to the same end.
NOTE: If the second element is missing, those who did not participate in the commission
of the acts of execution cannot be held criminally liable, unless the crime agreed to be
committed is treason, sedition, coup d’ etat or rebellion
MEANING OF “personally took part in its execution”

- That the principal by direct participation must be at the scene of the commission of the
crime, personally taking part in its execution.
- Under conspiracy, although he was not present in the scene of the crime, he is equally
liable as a principal by direct participation.
Ex: One serving as guard pursuant to the conspiracy is a principal by direct participation
CONSPIRACY – there is unity of purpose and intention.
How conspiracy is established:

- It is proven by overt act beyond reasonable doubt.
- Mere knowledge or approval is insufficient
- It is not necessary that there be formal agreement
- Conspiracy is implied when the accused had a common purpose and were united in
execution.
- Unity of purpose and intention in the commission of the crime may be shown in the
following cases:
1. Spontaneous agreement at the moment of the commission of the crime
2. Active cooperation by all the offenders in the perpetration of the crime
3. Contribution by positive acts to the realization of a common criminal intent
4. Presence during the commission of the crime by a band and lending moral support
thereto.
While conspiracy may be implied from the circumstances attending the commission of
the crime, it is nevertheless a rule that conspiracy must be established by positive and
conclusive evidence.
NOTES:
Conspirator is not liable for the crimes of the others which are not the object of the
conspiracy nor are logical or necessary consequences thereof
Regarding multiple rape – each rapist is liable for another’s crime because each
cooperated in the commission of the rapes perpetrated by the others
EXCEPTION: in the crime of murder w/ treachery – all the offenders must at least know
that there will be treachery in executing the crime or cooperate therein.
No such thing as conspiracy to commit an offense through negligence. However, special

laws may make one a co-principal.
Conspiracy is negated by the acquittal of co-defendant.
Those who are liable:

1. Materially execute the crime
2. Appear at the scene of the crime
3. Perform acts necessary in the commission of the offense
Why one who does not appear at the scene of the crime is not liable:
1. His non-appearance is deemed desistance which is favored and encouraged;
2. Conspiracy is generally not a crime unless the law specifically provides a penalty
therefor.
3. There is no basis for criminal liability because there is no criminal participation.
Principal by induction/Inducement
Art.17 Par 2. Principal By Induction
Requisites:
1. That the inducement be made directly with the intention of procuring the commission
of the crime; and
2. That such inducement be the determining cause of the commission of the crime by
the material executor.
One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of the crime without first
being shown that the crime was actually committed (or attempted) by another.
Thus, there can be no principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation) unless

there is a principal by direct participation. But there can be a principal by direct
participation without a
principal by inducement (or by indispensable cooperation).
Two Ways Of Becoming Principal By Induction:

1. By directly forcing another to commit a crime by :
a) Using irresistible force.
b) Causing uncontrollable fear.
In these cases, there is no conspiracy, not even a unity of criminal purpose and
intention. Only the one using the force or causing the fear is criminally liable. The
material executor is not criminally liable because of Art. 12, pars. 5 and 6 (exempting
circumstances)
2. By directly inducing another to commit a crime by –

a) Giving of price, or offering of reward or promise.
The one giving the price or offering the reward or promise is a principal by inducement
while the one
committing the crime in consideration thereof is a principal by direct participation. There
is collective criminal responsibility.
b) Using words of command The person who used the words of command is a principal
by inducement while the person who committed the crime because of the words of
command is a principal by direct participation. There is also collective criminal
responsibility.
Requisites for words of command to be considered inducement:

1. Commander has the intention of procuring the commission of the crime
2. Commander has ascendancy or influence
3. Words used be so direct, so efficacious, so powerful
4. Command be uttered prior to the commission
5. Executor had no personal reason
NOTE: Words uttered in the heat of anger and in the nature of the command that had to
be obeyed do not make one an inductor
The inducement must precede the act induced and must be so influential in producing
the criminal act that without it, the act would not have been performed. Mere imprudent
advice is not inducement.
If the person who actually committed the crime had reason of his own to commit the
crime, it cannot be said that the inducement was influential in producing the criminal act.
Effects Of Acquittal Of Principal By Direct Participation Upon Liability Of Principal

By Inducement:
1. Conspiracy is negatived by the acquittal of co- defendant.
2. One cannot be held guilty of having instigated the commission of a crime without first
being shown that the crime has been actually committed by another.
But if the one charged as principal by direct participation is acquitted because he acted
without criminal intent or malice, his acquittal is not a ground for the acquittal of the
principal by inducement.
REASON FOR THE RULE: In exempting circumstances, such as when the act is not
voluntary because of lack of intent on the part of the accused, there is a crime
committed, only that the accused is not a criminal.
Examples:
While in the course of a quarrel, a person shouted to A, “Kill him! Kill him!” A killed the
other person. Is the person who shouted criminally liable? Is that inducement?
- No. The shouting must be an irresistible force for the one shouting to be liable.
There was a quarrel between two families. One of the sons of family A came out with a
shotgun. His mother then shouted, “Shoot!” He shot and killed someone. Is the mother
liable?
- No.
People v. Balderrama 226 SCRA 537 (1993),

Ernesto shouted to his younger brother Oscar, “Birahin mo na, birahin mo na!” Oscar
stabbed the victim. It was held that there was no conspiracy. Joint or simultaneous
action per se is not indicia of conspiracy without showing of common design. Oscar has
no rancor with the victim for him to kill the latter. Considering that Ernesto had great
moral ascendancy and influence over Oscar, being much older (35 years old), than the
latter, who was 18 years old, and it was Ernesto who provided his allowance, clothing,
as well as food and shelter, Ernesto is principal by inducement.
People v. Agapinay, 188 SCRA 812 (1990),

The one who uttered “kill him, we will bury him.” while the felonious aggression was
taking place cannot be held liable as principal by inducement. Utterance was said in the
excitement of the hour, not a command to be obeyed.
People v. Madall, 188 SCRA 69 (1990),

The son was mauled. The family was not in good terms with their neighbors. The father
challenged everybody and when the neighbors approached, he went home to get a rifle.
The shouts of his wife “here comes another, shoot him” cannot make the wife a principal
by inducement. It is not the determining cause of the crime in the absence of proof that
the words had great influence over the
husband. Neither is the wife’s act of beaming the victim with a flashlight indispensable to
the killing. She assisted her husband in taking good aim, but such assistance merely
facilitated the felonious act of shooting. Considering that it was not so dark and the
husband could have accomplished the deed without his wife’s help, and considering
further that doubts must be resolved in favor of the accused, the liability of the wife is
only that of an accomplice.
A asked B to kill C because of a grave injustice done to A by C. A promised B a reward.

B was willing to kill C, not so much because of the reward promised to him but because
he also had his own long-standing grudge against C, who had wronged him in the past.
If C is killed by B, would A be liable as a principal by inducement?
No. A would not be liable as a principal by inducement because the reward he promised
B is not the sole impelling reason which made B to kill C. To bring about criminal liability
of a co-principal, the inducement made by the inducer must be the sole consideration
which caused the person induced to commit the crime and without which the crime
would not have been committed. The facts of the case indicate that B, the killer
supposedly induced by A, had his own reason to kill C out of a long standing grudge.
Tata owns a three-storey building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She
wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. So,
she insured the building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for
monetary consideration, to burn her building so she could collect the insurance
proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What is
their respective criminal liability?
Tata is a principal by inducement because she directly induced Yoboy and Yongsi, for a
price or monetary consideration, to commit arson which the latter would not have
committed were it not for such reason. Yoboy and Yongsi are principals by direct
participation .
Principal By Indispensable Cooperation
Art.17 Par. 3 – Principal by indispensable cooperation
Requisites:
1. Participation in the criminal resolution, that is, there is either anterior conspiracy or
unity of criminal purpose and intention immediately before the commission of the crime
charged; and
2. Cooperation in the commission of the offense by performing another act, without
which it would not have been accomplished.
MEANING OF “cooperation in the commission of the offense”

- To desire or wish in common a thing. But that common will or purpose does not
necessarily mean previous understanding, for it can be explained or inferred from the
circumstances of each case.
NOTE: If the cooperation is not indispensable, the offender is only an accomplice.
Collective Criminal Responsibility:

- This is present when the offenders are criminally liable in the same manner and to the
same extent. The penalty to be imposed must be the same for all.
Principals by direct participation have collective criminal responsibility. Principals by

induction, (except those who directly forced another to commit a crime) and principals by
direct participation have collective criminal responsibility. Principals by indispensable
cooperation have collective criminal responsibilities with the principals by direct
participation.
Individual Criminal Responsibility:

- In the absence of any previous conspiracy, unity of criminal purpose and intention
immediately before the commission of the crime, or community of criminal design, the
criminal responsibility arising from different acts directed against one and the same
person is considered as individual and not collective, and each of the participants is
liable only for the act committed by him.
QUASI-COLLECTIVE criminal responsibility: Some of the offenders in the crime are

principals and the others are accomplices.
What is the essence of being a principal by indispensable cooperation:

- The focus is not just on participation but on the importance of participation in
committing the crime.
- The basis is the importance of the cooperation to the consummation of the crime.
- If the crime could hardly be committed without such cooperation, then such cooperation
would bring about a principal.
- If the cooperation merely facilitated or hastened the consummation of the crime, this
would make the cooperator merely an accomplice.
In case of doubt, favor the lesser penalty or liability. Apply the doctrine of pro reo.
Jonas to stop his malicious act or he would get what he wanted. A heated argument
Jonas, the latter again started started throwing lighted super lolos and pla-plas at
Jepoy's yard in order to provoke him so that he would come out of his house. When
Jepoy came out, Jonas immediately shot him with Jaja's .45 caliber gun but missed his
target. Instead, the bullet hit Jepoy's five year old son who was following behind him,
killing the boy instantaneously, If you were the Judge, how would you decide the case?
Explain.
I would convict Jonas as principal by direct participation and Jaja as co-principal by

Indispensable cooperation for the complex crime of murder with homicide. Jaja should
be held liable as co-principal and not only as an accomplice because he knew of Jonas'
criminal design even before he lent his firearm to Jonas and still he concurred in that
criminal design by providing the firearm.
Accomplice
ART.18
ACCOMPLICES - Persons who do not act as principals but cooperate in the execution of
the offense by previous and simultaneous acts, which are not indispensable to the
commission of the crime. They
act as mere instruments that perform acts not essential to the perpetration of the
offense.
Requisites: (the following must concur)

1. That there be community of design; that is, knowing the criminal design of the
principal by direct participation, he concurs with the latter his purpose;
2. That he cooperates in the execution of the offense by previous or simultaneous acts,
with the intention of supplying material or moral aid in the execution of the crime in an
efficacious way; and
3. That there be a relation between the acts done by the principal and those attributed to
the person charged as an accomplice.
NOTES:
Before there could be an accomplice, there must be a principal by direct participation.
The person charged as an accomplice should not have inflicted a mortal wound. If he
inflicted a mortal wound, he becomes a principal by direct participation.
In case of doubt, the participation of the offender will be considered that of an

accomplice rather than that of a principal.
When is one regarded as an accomplice:
Determine if there is a conspiracy.

- If there is, as a general rule, the criminal liability of all will be the same, because the act
of one is the act of all.
Exception:
- If the participation of one is so insignificant
- such that even without his cooperation,
- the crime would be committed just as well,
- then notwithstanding the existence of a conspiracy,
such offender will be regarded only as an accomplice.
What are the other traits of an accomplice

- does not have a previous agreement or understanding; or
- is not in conspiracy with the principal by direct participation
In Principal by Cooperation - Cooperation is indispensable in the commission of the act.
Accomplice - Cooperation is not indispensable in the commission of the act.
Accomplice from Conspirator
Who are Accessories ?
ART.19
Accessories are those who:

1. having knowledge of the commission of the crime, and
2. without having participated therein either as principals or accomplices, take part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following acts:
a. By profiting themselves or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
b. Assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
c. By concealing or destroying the body of the crime to prevent its discovery.
In profiting by the effects of the crime, the accessory must receive the property from the
principal. He should not take it without the consent of the principal. If he took it without
the consent of the principal, he is not an accessory but a principal in the crime of theft.
EXAMPLE:
PAR. 1 - person received and used property from another, knowing it was stolen
Read: Illustrative case, 1998 Bar Exam Question
PAR. 2 - placing a weapon in the hand of the dead who was unlawfully killed to plant
evidence, or burying the deceased who was killed by the principals
PAR. 3 -
a) public officers who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of any
crime (not light felony) with abuse of his public functions.
b) private persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the crime
– guilty of
treason, parricide, murder or an attempt against the life of the President, or who is
known to be habitually guilty of some crime.
GENERAL RULE: If the Principal is acquitted the Accessory is also acquitted. The
responsibility of the accessory is subordinate to that of the principal in a crime.
Exception: When the crime was in fact committed by the principal, but the principal is
covered by exempting circumstances (Art 12) and as a result he is not held liable.
However, it is possible that the accessory may still be held liable even if the principal
was acquitted by an exempting circumstance.
Trial of accessory may proceed without awaiting the result of the separate charge
against the principal because the criminal responsibilities are distinct from each other.
Two classes of accessories contemplated in par. 3 of art. 19

1. PUBLIC officers, who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the principal of any
crime (not light felony) with abuse of his public functions.
Requisites:
1. The accessory is a public officer.
2. He harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of the principal.
3. The public officer acts with abuse of his public functions.
4. The crime committed by the principal is any crime, provided it is not a light felony.
2. PRIVATE persons who harbor, conceal or assist in the escape of the author of the
crime who is guilty of treason, parricide, murder, or attempts against the life of the
President, or who is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
Requisites:
1. The accessory is a private person.
2. He harbors, conceals or assists in the escape of the author of the crime.
3. The crime committed by the principal is either:
a. Treason,
b. Parricide,
c. Murder,
d. An attempt against the life of the President, or
e. That the principal is known to be habitually guilty of some other crime.
Neither the letter nor the spirit of the law requires that the principal be convicted before
one may be punished as an accessory. As long as the corpus delicti is proved and the
accessory’s participation as such is shown, he can be held criminally responsible and
meted out the corresponding penalty (Inovero vs. Coronel, CA, 65 O.G.3160).
The prescribed acts of the accessory under par.2 must have been intended to prevent
the discovery of the crime, hence, mere silence does not make one an accessory. If,
however, the crime involved is a conspiracy to commit treason, his silence may hold him
liable for misprision of treason (Art. 116) but as a principal thereof.
Where the accused misleads the authorities by giving them false information, such act is
equivalent to concealment and he should be held as an accessory.
Principal Distinguished from Accessory

1. Principal - Takes direct part or cooperates in, or induces the commission of the crime.
Accessory - Does NOT take direct part or cooperates in, or induces the commission of
the crime.
2. Principal - cooperates in the commission of the offense by acts either prior thereto or
simultaneous therewith.
Accessory - does not take part in the commission of the offense.
3. Principal - Participates during commission of the crime.
Accessory - Participation of the accessory in all cases always SUBSEQUENT to the

2004 Bar Exam Question (Criminal Liability;Non-Exemption as Accessory)
DCB, the daughter of MCB, stole the earrings of XYZ, a stranger. MCB pawned the
earrings with TBI pawnshop as a pledge for Php500 loan. During the trial, MCB raised
the defense that being the mother of DCB, she cannot be held liable as an accessory.
Will MCB's defense prosper? Reason briefly.
No, MCB's defense will not prosper because the exemption from criminal liability of an
accessory by virtue of relationship with the principal does not cover accessories who
themselves profited from or assisted the offender to profit by the effects or proceeds of
the crime. This non-exemption of an accessory, though related to the principal of the
crime, is expressly provided in Art.20 of the Revised Penal Code.
Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability
ART.20
BASIS:
The exemption provided for in this article is based on the ties of blood and the
preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name, which compels one to conceal crimes
committed by relatives so near as those mentioned in this article.
AN ACCESSORY IS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY WHEN THE PRINCIPAL IS

HIS :
1. spouse, or
2. ascendant, or
3. descendant, or
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or relative by affinity within the same
degree.
Accessory Is Not Exempt From Criminal Liability Even If The Principal Is Related To
Him, If Such Accessory –
1. profited by the effects of the crime, or
2. assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
REASON: Because such acts are prompted not by affection but by a detestable greed.
NOTES:
Nephew and Niece not included
Public officer contemplated in par. 3 of Art. 19 is exempt by reason of relationship to the
principal, even if such public officer acted with abuse of his official functions.
REASON: Ties of blood or relationship constitutes a more powerful incentive than the
call of duty.
P.D. 1829 penalizes the act of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution
of criminal cases.
The benefits of the exception in Art. 20 do not apply to PD 1829. PD 1829 - The law
penalizing obstruction of justice.
Accessories who are exempt from criminal liability
ART.20
BASIS:
The exemption provided for in this article is based on the ties of blood and the
preservation of the cleanliness of one’s name, which compels one to conceal crimes
committed by relatives so near as those mentioned in this article.
AN ACCESSORY IS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY WHEN THE PRINCIPAL IS

HIS :
1. spouse, or
2. ascendant, or
3. descendant, or
4. legitimate, natural or adopted brother, sister or relative by affinity within the same
degree.
Accessory Is Not Exempt From Criminal Liability Even If The Principal Is Related To
Him, If Such Accessory –
1. profited by the effects of the crime, or
2. assisted the offender to profit by the effects of the crime.
REASON: Because such acts are prompted not by affection but by a detestable greed.
NOTES:
Nephew and Niece not included
Public officer contemplated in par. 3 of Art. 19 is exempt by reason of relationship to the
principal, even if such public officer acted with abuse of his official functions.
REASON: Ties of blood or relationship constitutes a more powerful incentive than the
call of duty.
P.D. 1829 penalizes the act of any person who knowingly or willfully obstructs, impedes,
frustrates or delays the apprehension of suspects and the investigation and prosecution
of criminal cases.
The benefits of the exception in Art. 20 do not apply to PD 1829. PD 1829 - The law
penalizing obstruction of justice.
Penalties that may be imposed
Art.21 Penalties that may be imposed. — No felony shall be punishable by any penalty
not prescribed by law prior to its commission.
PENALTY – suffering inflicted by the State for the transgression of a law.
Different Juridical Conditions Of Penalty:

1. Must be productive of suffering, without however affecting the integrity of the human
personality.
2. Must be commensurate with the offense – different crimes must be punished with
different penalties.
3. Must be personal – no one should be punished for the crime of another.
4. Must be legal – it is the consequence of a judgment according to law.
5. Must be certain – no one may escape its effects.
6. Must be equal for all.
7. Must be correctional.
Purpose Of The State In Punishing Crimes

- The State has an existence of its own to maintain, a conscience to assert, and moral
principles to be vindicated. Penal justice must therefore be exercised by the State in the
service and satisfaction of a duty and rests primarily on the moral rightfulness of the
punishment inflicted (to secure justice). The basis of the right to punish violations of
penal law is the police power of the State.
Theories Justifying Penalty:
1. Prevention – to prevent or suppress the danger to the State arising from the
criminal act of the offender.
2. Self-defense – so as to protect society from the threat and wrong inflicted by the
criminal.
3. Reformation – the object of punishment in criminal cases is to correct and reform
the offender.
4. Exemplarity – the criminal is punished to serve as an example to deter others
from committing crimes.
5. Justice – that crime must be punished by the State as an act of retributive justice,
a vindication of absolute right and moral law violated by the criminal.
Three-Fold Purpose Of Penalty Under The Code:
1. Retribution or expiation – the penalty is commensurate with the gravity of the

offense.
2. Correction or reformation – shown by the rules which regulate the execution of
the penalties consisting of deprivation of liberty.
3. Social defense – shown by its inflexible severity to recidivists and habitual
delinquents.
Penalties: Factors to consider
Imagine that you are a Judge trying a case, and based on the evidence presented and
the applicable law, you have decided on the guilt of two (2) accused. Indicate the five (5)
steps
you would follow to determine the exact penalty to be imposed.
Stated differently, What are the factors you must consider to arrive at the correct
penalty?
Suggested Answer:
1. The crime committed;

2. Stage of execution and degree of participation;
3. Determine the penalty;
4. Consider the modifying circumstances;
5. Determine whether Indeterminate Sentence Law is applicable or not.
Retroactive Effect Of Penal Laws
On Criminal Law
ART.22
NOTE: According to Reyes, Art. 22 is NOT applicable to the

provisions of the RPC. Its application to the RPC can only be
invoked where some former or subsequent law is under consideration
GENERAL RULE: Penal laws are applied prospectively.
EXCEPTION: When retrospective application will be favorable

to the person guilty of a felony; Provided that:
1. The offender is NOT a habitual criminal (delinquent)
under Art. 62(5);
2. The new or amendatory law does NOT provide against its
retrospective application.
The favorable retroactive effect of a new law may find the

defendant in one of the 3 situations:
1. The crime has been committed and the prosecution begins
2. The sentence has been passed but service has not begun
3. The sentence is being carried out
HABITUAL DELINQUENT - A person who, within a period of ten years

from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of
serious or less serious physical injuries, robbery, theft,
estafa, or falsification,is found guilty of any said crimes a
third time or oftener.
EX POST FACTO LAW - An act which when committed was not a crime,
cannot be made so by statute without violating the constitutional
inhibition as to ex post facto laws. An ex post facto law is one
which:
1. Makes criminal an act done before the passage of the law
and which was innocent when done;
2. Aggravates a crime, or makes it greater than it was,
when committed;
3. Changes the punishment and inflicts a greater punishment
than the law annexed to the crime when committed;
4. Alters the legal rules of evidence, and authorizes
conviction upon a less or different testimony than the
law required at the time of the commission of the offense;
5. Assumes to regulate civil rights and remedies only, in
effect imposing a penalty or deprivation of a right for
something which when done was lawful; and
6. Deprives a person accused of a crime of some lawful
protection to which he has become entitled, such as the
protection of a former conviction or acquittal, or a
proclamation of amnesty.
If retroactive effect of a new law is justified, it shall apply
to the defendant even if he is:
1. presently on trial for the offense;
2. has already been sentenced but service of which has not begun; or
3. already serving sentence
The retroactive effect of criminal statutes does NOT apply to

the culprit’s civil liability.
REASON: The rights of offended persons or innocent third

parties are not within the gift of arbitrary disposal of
the State.
The provisions of Art. 22 are applicable even to special laws

which provide more favorable conditions to the accused.
New law may provide that its provisions not to be applied to

cases already filed in court at the time of the approval of
such law.
Criminal liability SUBSISTS: under the repealed law

1. When the provisions of the former law are reenacted; or
Note: The right to punish offenses committed under an old

penal law is not extinguished if the offenses are still
punishable in the repealing penal law.)
2. When the repeal is by implication; or
Note: When a penal law, which impliedly repealed an old

law, is itself repealed, the repeal of the repealing law
revives the prior penal law, unless the language of the
repealing statute provides otherwise. If the repeal is
absolute, criminal liability is obliterated.)
3. When there is a saving clause.
BILL OF ATTAINDER – A legislative act which inflicts punishment

without trial.
Effect Of Pardon By The Offended

Party
On Criminal Law
ART.23
GENERAL RULE: Pardon by the offended party does not extinguish

the criminal liability of the offender.
REASON: A crime committed is an offense against the State.

Only the Chief Executive can pardon the offenders.
EXCEPTION: Pardon by the offended party will bar criminal

prosecution in the following crimes:
1. Adultery and Concubinage (Art. 344,RPC)
- EXPRESS or IMPLIED pardon must be given by offended
party to BOTH offenders.
- Pardon must be given PRIOR to institution of criminal
action.
2. Seduction, Abduction, Acts of Lasciviousness (Art. 344, RPC)
- EXPRESS pardon given by offended party or her parents
or grandparents or guardian
- Pardon must be given PRIOR to the institution of the
criminal action.
However, marriage between the offender and the
offended party EVEN AFTER the institution of the
criminal action or conviction of the offender will
extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty
already imposed against the offender, his co- principals,
accomplices and accessories after the fact.
3. Rape (as amended by R.A. 8353)
- The subsequent valid marriage between the offender
and the offended party shall extinguish criminal
liability or the penalty imposed. In case the legal
husband is the offender, subsequent forgiveness by
the wife as offended party shall also produce the same
effect.
NOTE:
Pardon by the offended party under Art. 344 is ONLY A BAR to

criminal prosecution; it is NOT a ground for extinguishment of
criminal liability. It DOES NOT extinguish criminal liability.
It is not one of the causes that totally extinguish criminal
liability in Art 89.
Nevertheless, civil liability may be extinguished by the EXRESS

WAIVER of the offended party.Civil liability w/ regard to the
interest of the injured party is extinguished by the latter’s
express waiver because personal injury may be repaired through
indemnity. Waiver must be express. State has no reason to insist
on its payment.
AN OFFENSE CAUSES TWO CLASSES OF INJURIES:

1. Social Injury
2. Personal Injury
1. Social Injury - Produced by the disturbance and alarm which

are the outcome of the offense.
Personal Injury - Caused to the victim of the crime who suffered
damage either to his person, to his property, to his honor or
to her chastity.
2. Social Injury - Is sought to be repaired through the imposition

of the corresponding penalty.
Personal Injury - Is repaired through indemnity.
3. Social Injury - The offended party cannot pardon the offender

so as to relieve him of the penalty.
Personal Injury - The offended party may waive the indemnity

and the State has no reason to insist in its payment.
Measures Of Prevention Or Safety

Which Are Not Considered
Penalties
On Criminal Law
ART.24
The Following Shall Not Be Considered As Penalties:

1. The arrest and temporary detention of accused persons, as
well as their detention by reason of insanity or imbecility,
or illness requiring their confinement in a hospital.
2. The commitment of a minor to any of the institutions mentioned
in Art. 80 (now Art. 192, PD No. 603) and for the purposes
specified therein.
3. Suspension from the employment or public office during the
trial or in order to institute proceedings.
4. Fines and other corrective measures which, in the exercise of
their administrative or disciplinary powers, superior officials
may impose upon their subordinates.
5. Deprivation of rights and the reparations which the civil law
may establish in penal form.
Reasons why they are not penalties:

1. Because they are not imposed as a result of judicial
proceedings. Those mentioned in paragraphs 1, 3 and 4 are
merely preventive measures before conviction of offenders.
2. The offender is not subjected to or made to suffer these
measures in expiation of or as punishment for a crime.
Note: Those in par 1, 3 and 4 are merely preventive measures

before the conviction of offenders.
Par. 1 refers to “accused persons” who are detained “by reason of

insanity or imbecility.” It does not refer to the confinement of
an insane or imbecile who has not been arrested for a crime.
Paragraphs 3 and 4 refer to administrative suspension and

administrative fines and not to suspension or fine as penalties
for violations of the RPC. Fines in par. 4 do not constitute as
penalties because they are not imposed by the court.
The deprivations of rights established in penal form by the civil

laws is illustrated in the case of parents who are deprived of
their parental authority if found guilty of the crime of
corruption of their minor children, in accordance with Art. 332
of the Civil Code.
Where a minor offender was committed to a reformatory pursuant

to Art. 80 (now, PD 603), and while thus detained he commits a
crime therein, he cannot be considered a quasi-recidivist since
his detention was only a preventive measure, whereas a quasi-
recidivism presupposes the commission of a crime during the
service of the penalty for a previous crime.
Commitment of a minor is not a penalty because it is not imposed

by the court in a judgment. The imposition of the sentence in
such a case is suspended.
Penalties Which May Be Imposed

On Criminal Law
Art. 25
The penalties which may be imposed according to this Code, and

their different classes, are those included in the following:
Capital punishment:
- Death
Afflictive penalties:
- Reclusion perpetua,
- Reclusion temporal,
- Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
- Perpetual or temporary special disqualification,
- Prision mayor.
Correctional penalties:
- Prision correccional,
- Arresto mayor
- Suspension
- Destierro
Light penalties:
- Arresto menor,
- Public censure
Penalties common to the three preceding classes:

- Fine, and
- Bond to keep the peace.
SCALE OF ACCESSORY PENALTIES

- Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
- Perpetual or temporary special disqualification
- Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the profession or calling.
- Civil interdiction,
- Indemnification,
- Forfeiture or confiscation of instruments and proceeds of
the offense,
- Payment of costs.
MAJOR CLASSIFICATION
1. PRINCIPAL PENALTIES – those expressly imposed by the court
in the judgment of conviction.
2. ACCESSORY PENALTIES – those that are deemed included in the
imposition of the principal penalties.
Other classifications of penalties:

According to their divisibility:
1. Divisible - those that have fixed duration and are
divisible into three periods.
2. Indivisible - those which have no fixed duration.
- Death
- Reclusion perpetua
- Perpetual absolute or special disqualification
- Public censure
According to subject-matter
1. Corporal - (death)
2. Deprivation of freedom - (reclusion, prision, arresto)
3. Restriction of freedom - (destierro)
4. Deprivation of rights - (disqualification and suspension)
5. Pecuniary - (fine)
According to their gravity

1. Capital
2. Afflictive
3. Correctional
4. Light
Note:
Public censure is a penalty,
- thus, it is not proper in acquittal.
- However, the Court in acquitting the accused may criticize
his acts or conduct.
Penalties that are either principal or accessory:

1. Perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification,
2. Perpetual or temporary special disqualification, and
3. Suspension

May be principal or accessory penalties, because they formed in
the 2 general classes.
When Afflictive, Correctional, Or

Light Penalty
On Criminal Law
ART.26
Fines:
1. Afflictive – over 6000
2. Correctional – 201 to 6000
3. Light – 200 and less
NOTES:
The classification applies if the fine is imposed as a single

or alternative penalty. Hence, it does not apply if the fine
is imposed together with another penalty.
Fines are imposed either as alternative (Ex: Art 144 punishing

disturbance of proceedings with arresto mayor or fine from 200
pesos to 1000 pesos) or single (Ex. fine of 200 to 6000 pesos)
Penalty cannot be imposed in the alternative since it is the

duty of the court to indicate the penalty imposed definitely
and positively. Thus,the court cannot sentence the guilty
person in a manner as such as “to pay fine of 1000 pesos, or
to suffer an imprisonment of 2 years, and to pay the costs.”
If the fine imposed by the law for the felony is exactly 200
pesos, it is a light felony.
People vs. Yu Hai (99 Phil. 725):

Under Art. 9, where the fine in question is exactly P200, it
is a light penalty, thus the offense is a light felony; whereas
under Art. 26, it is a correctional penalty, hence the offense
involved is a less grave felony. It that this discrepancy
should be resolved liberally in favor of the accused, hence
Art. 9 prevails over Art. 26
Distinction between classification of Penalties in Art. 9

and Art. 26
Article 9 - Applicable in determining the prescriptive period

of felonies
Article 26 - Applicable in determining the prescriptive

period of penalties
Reclusion Perpetua
On Criminal Law
Reclusion Perpetua
Art.27
1. Reclusión Perpetua – 20 years and 1 day to 40 years

2. Reclusión temporal – 12 years and 1 day to 20 years
3. Prisión mayor and temporary disqualification – 6 years and 1 day to 12 years, except
when disqualification is an accessory penalty, in which case its duration is that of the
principal penalty
4. Prisión correccional, suspension, and destierro – 6 months and 1 day to 6 years,
except when suspension is an accessory penalty, in which case its duration is that of the
principal penalty
5. Arresto mayor – 1 month and 1 day to 6 months
6. Arresto menor – 1 day to 30 days
7. Bond to keep the peace – The period is discretionary on the court.
NOTES:
1. Destierro is a principal, divisible, and correctional penalty.

2. Cases when destierro imposed:
a. Serious physical injuries or death under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
b. In case of failure to give bond for good behavior (Art. 284)
c. As a penalty for the concubine in concubinage (Art. 334)
d. In cases where after reducing the penalty by one or more degrees, destierro is the
proper penalty.
Any person sentenced to any of the perpetual penalties shall be pardoned after
undergoing the penalty for thirty years unless such person by reason of his conduct or
some other serious cause shall be considered by the Chief Executive as unworthy of
pardon.
Computation Of Penalties
On Criminal Law
ART.28
Rules on Computation of Penalties:

1. When the offender is in prison – the duration of the temporary
penalties (Permanent Absolute Disqualification, Temporary
Absolute Disqualification, detention, suspension) is from
the day on which the judgment of conviction becomes final.
2. When the offender is not in prison – the duration of the
penalty of deprivation of liberty is from the day that the
offender is placed at the disposal of judicial authorities
for the enforcement of the penalty
3. The duration of the other penalties – the duration is from
the day on w/c the offender commences to serve his sentence
NOTES:
Reason for rule (a) – Under Art 24, the arrest and temporary
detention of the accused is not considered a penalty.
If in custody, the accused appealed, the service of the

sentence should commence from the date of the promulgation
of the decision of the appellate court, not the trial court.
Service in prison begins only on the day the judgment of

conviction becomes final.
In cases of temporary penalties, and if the offender is under

detention (as when undergoing preventive imprisonment), rule
(a) applies.
If he is not under detention (released on bail), rule

(c) applies.
If offender is under preventive imprisonment, rule (c)

applies, not rule (a).
The offender is entitled to a deduction of the full time or

4/5 of the time of his detention.
Period Of Preventive
Imprisonment Deducted From
Term Of Imprisonment
On Criminal Law
Preventive Imprisonment
ART.29
Period of preventive imprisonment deducted from term of imprisonment. – Offenders or

accused who have undergone preventive imprisonment shall be credited in the service
of their sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty, with the full time during which they
have undergone preventive imprisonment if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in
writing after being informed of the effects thereof and with the assistance of counsel to
abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners, except in the
following cases:
"1. When they are recidivists, or have been convicted previously twice or more times of
any crime; and
"2. When upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence they have failed to
surrender voluntarily.
"If the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same disciplinary rules imposed
upon convicted prisoners, he shall do so in writing with the assistance of a counsel and
shall be credited in the service of his sentence with four-fifths of the time during which he
has undergone preventive imprisonment.
"Credit for preventive imprisonment for the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
deducted from thirty (30) years.1âwphi1
"Whenever an accused has undergone preventive imprisonment for a period equal to

the possible maximum imprisonment of the offense charged to which he may be
sentenced and his case is not yet terminated, he shall be released immediately without
prejudice to the continuation of the trial thereof or the proceeding on appeal, if the same
is under review. Computation of preventive imprisonment for purposes of immediate
release under this paragraph shall be the actual period of detention with good conduct
time allowance: Provided, however, That if the accused is absent without justifiable
cause at any stage of the trial, the court may motu proprio order the rearrest of the
accused: Provided, finally, That recidivists, habitual delinquents, escapees and persons
charged with heinous crimes are excluded from the coverage of this Act. In case the
maximum penalty to which the accused may be sentenced is lestierro, he shall be
released after thirty (30) days of preventive imprisonment." (RA 10592)
Instances when accused undergoes preventive suspension:

1. offense is non-bailable
2. bailable but can’t furnish bail
Notes:
The full time or 4/5 of the time during which the offenders have undergone preventive
suspension shall be deducted from the penalty imposed:
full time: if the detention prisoner agrees voluntarily in writing to abide by the same
disciplinary rules
imposed upon convicted prisoners
four-fifths of the time: if the detention prisoner does not agree to abide by the same
disciplinary rules imposed upon convicted prisoners
In the case of a youthful offender who has been proceeded against under the Child and
Youth Welfare Code, he shall be credited in the service of his sentence with the full time
of his actual detention, regardless if he agreed to abide by the same disciplinary rules of
the institution or not.
Offenders not entitled to be credited with the full time or four-fifths of the time of their
preventive imprisonment.
Recidivists or those convicted previously twice or more times of any crime.
Those who, upon being summoned for the execution of their sentence, failed to
surrender voluntarily (convicts who failed to voluntarily surrender to serve their penalties
under a final judgment, not those who failed or refused to voluntarily surrender after the
commission of the crime)
Habitual Delinquents are not entitled to credit of time under preventive imprisonment
since he is necessarily a recidivist or has been convicted previously twice or more times
of any crime.
Duration of RP is to be computed at 30 years, thus, even if the accused is sentenced to

life imprisonment, he is entitled to the full time or 4/5 of the time of preventive
suspension.
Credit is given in the service of sentences consisting of deprivation of liberty
(imprisonment and destierro), whether perpetual or temporal. Thus, persons who had
undergone
preventive imprisonment but the offense is punishable by a fine only would not be given
credit.
Destierro is considered a “deprivation of liberty.”
If the penalty imposed is arresto menor to destierro, the accused who has been in prison
for 30 days (arresto menor to 30 days) should be released because although the
maximum penalty is destierro (6 months and 1 day to 6 years), the accused sentenced
to such penalty does not serve it in prison.
Effects Of The Penalties Of

Perpetual Or Temporary Absolute
Disqualification
On Criminal Law
ART.30
NOTES:
The exclusion is a mere disqualification from protection, and

not for punishment – the withholding of a privilege, not a
denial of a right.
Perpetual absolute disqualification is effective during the

lifetime of the convict and even after the service of the sentence.
Temporary absolute disqualification is effective during the

term of sentence and is removed after the service of the same.
Exceptions: (1) deprivation of the public office or employment;

(2) loss of all rights to retirement pay or other
pension for any office formerly held.
A plebiscite is not mentioned or contemplated in Art.30, par.2

(deprivation of the right to vote), hence, the offender may
vote in that exercise, subject to the provisions of pertinent
election laws at the time.
Effects of Perpetual and temporary absolute disqualification:

1. Deprivation of any public office or employment of offender
2. Deprivation of the right to vote in any election or to
be voted upon
3. Loss of rights to retirement pay or pension
All these effects last during the lifetime of the convict and
even after the service of the sentence except as regards
paragraphs 2 and 3 of the above in connection with Temporary
Absolute Disqualification.
Effect Of The Penalties Of

Perpetual Or Temporary Special
Disqualification
On Criminal Law
ART. 31
NOTE: Temporary disqualification if imposed is an accessory penalty. Its duration is that

of the principal penalty.
Effects of Perpetual and Temporary Special Disqualification:

1. For public office, profession, or calling

a. Deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected
b. Disqualification for holding similar offices or employment during the period of
disqualification
2. For the exercise of the right of suffrage

a. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected in an office
b. Cannot hold any public office during the period of disqualification
Effect Of The Penalties Of

Perpetual Or Temporary Special
Disqualification
On Criminal Law
ART. 31
NOTE: Temporary disqualification if imposed is an accessory penalty. Its duration is that

of the principal penalty.
Effects of Perpetual and Temporary Special Disqualification:

1. For public office, profession, or calling

a. Deprivation of the office, employment, profession or calling affected
b. Disqualification for holding similar offices or employment during the period of
disqualification
2. For the exercise of the right of suffrage

a. Deprivation of the right to vote or to be elected in an office
b. Cannot hold any public office during the period of disqualification
Effects Of The Penalties Of

Suspension From Any Public
Office
On Criminal Law
ART. 33: EFFECTS OF THE PENALTIES OF SUSPENSION FROM ANY PUBLIC

OFFICE, PROFESSION OR CALLING, OR THE RIGHT OF SUFFRAGE
Effects:
1. Disqualification from holding such office or the exercise of

such profession or right of suffrage during the term of the
sentence
2. Cannot hold another office having similar functions during

the period of suspension
Civil Interdiction
On Criminal Law
Civil Interdiction
ART.34
Effects of Civil Interdiction
Deprivation of the following rights:

1. Parental rights
2. Guardianship over the ward
3. Marital authority
4. Right to manage property and to dispose of the same by acts inter vivos
Civil Interdiction is an accessory penalty to the following principal penalties:
1. Death if commuted to life imprisonment
2. Reclusion perpetua
3. Reclusion temporal
He can dispose of such property by will or donation mortis causa.
2004 Bar Exam Question (Pardon;Effect;Civil Interdiction)
TRY was sentenced to death by final judgment. But subsequently, he was granted
pardon by the President. The pardon was silent on the perpetual disqualification of TRY
to hold any public office. After his pardon, TRY ran for office as Mayor of APP, his home
town. His opponent sought to disqualify him. TRY contended he is not disqualified
because he was already pardoned by the President unconditionally.
Is TRY's contention correct? Reason Briefly
No, TRY's contention is not correct. Article 40 of the Revised Penal Code expressly
provides that when the death penalty is not executed by reason of commutation or
pardon, the accessory penalties of perpetual absolute disqualification and civil
interdiction during 30 years from the date of the sentence shall remain as effects thereof,
unless such accessory penalties have been expressly remitted in the pardon. This is
because pardon only excuses the convicts from serving the sentence but does not
relieve him of the effects of the conviction unless expressly remitted in the pardon.
Effects Of Bond To Keep The

Peace
On Criminal Law
ART.35
Effects of bond to keep the peace

- It shall be the duty of any person sentenced to give bond
to keep the peace, to present two sufficient sureties who
shall undertake that such person will not commit the
offense sought to be prevented, and that in case such
offense be committed they will pay the amount determined
by the court in the judgment, or otherwise to deposit such
amount in the office of the clerk of the court to guarantee
said undertaking. The court shall determine, according to
its discretion, the period of duration of the bond. Should
the person sentenced fail to give the bond as required he
shall be detained for a period which shall in no case exceed
six months, is he shall have been prosecuted for a grave or
less grave felony, and shall not exceed thirty days, if
for a light felony.
2 WAYS OF GIVING BOND
1) The offender must present
- 2 sufficient sureties who shall undertake that
a. the offender will not commit the offense sought to
be prevented
b. and that in case such offense be committed they will
pay the amount determined by the court
2) The offender must deposit such amount with the clerk of
court to guarantee said undertaking;
The court shall determine the period of duration of the bond
The offender may be detained, if he cannot give the bond

a. for a period not to exceed 6 months if prosecuted for
grave or less grave felony, or
b. for a period not to exceed 30 days, if for a light felony.
Bond to keep the peace is different from bail bond which is

posted for the provisional release of a person arrested for or
accused of a crime. Bond to keep the peace or for good behavior
is imposed as a penalty in threats.
Pardon; Its Effect

On Criminal Law
Effects of Pardon
ART.36
NOTES:
Pardon by the President does not restore the right to public office or suffrage except
when both are expressly restored in the pardon. Nor does it exempt one from civil
liability or from payment of civil indemnity
Limitations to President’s power to pardon:

- can be exercised only after final judgment
- does not extend to cases of impeachment
- does not extinguish civil liability – only criminal liability
General Rule: Pardon granted in general terms does not include accessory penalties.
Exceptions:
1. if the absolute pardon is granted after the term of imprisonment has expired, it
removes all that is left of the consequences of conviction. However, if the penalty is life
imprisonment and after the service of 30 years, a pardon is granted, the pardon does not
remove the accessory penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification.
2. if the facts and circumstances of the case show that the purpose of the President is to
precisely restore the rights i.e., granting absolute pardon after election to a post (mayor)
but before the date fixed by law for assuming office to enable him to assume the position
in deference to the popular will
Pardon by the offended party – does not extinguish criminal liability; may include
offended party waiving civil indemnity and it should be done before the institution of the
criminal prosecution and extended to both offenders.
Pardon
Cost; What Are Included

On Criminal Law
ART. 37
Costs include:
1. fees
2. Indemnities in the course of judicial proceedings
NOTE:
Costs (expenses of the litigation) are chargeable to the accused

in case of conviction. In case of acquittal, the costs are
de oficio, each party bearing his own expense.
No costs are allowed against the Republic of the Philippines,

until law provides the contrary.
The payment of costs is fully discretionary on the Court.
Costs may be fixed amounts determined by law or regulations or

subject to a schedule.
Pecuniary Liabilities; Order Of

Payment
On Criminal Law
Pecuniary Liabilities; order of Payment
ART.38
Pecuniary liabilities of persons criminally liable, in the following order:

1. The reparation of the damage caused
2. Indemnification of the consequential damages
3. Fine
4. Costs of proceedings
NOTES:
It is applicable in case the properties of the offender are not sufficient for the payment of
all his pecuniary liabilities. Hence, if the offender has insufficient or no property, there is
no use for Art 38.
Order of payment is mandatory.
Ex. Juan inflicted serious physical injuries against Pedro and took the latter’s watch and
ring. He incurred P500 worth of hospital bills and failed to earn P300 worth of salary.
Given
that Juan only has P1000 worth of property not exempt from execution, it shall first be
applied to the payment of the watch and ring which cannot be returned, as such is
covered by
“reparation of the damage caused,” thus, no. 1 in the order of payment. The 500 and 300
are covered by “indemnification of the consequential damage,” thus, no. 2 in the order of
payment.
Subsidiary Penalty
On Criminal Law
Subsidiary Penalty
Art. 39
If the convict has no property with which to meet the fine mentioned in paragraph 3 of
the next preceding article, he shall be subject to a subsidiary personal liability at the rate
of one day for each eight pesos, subject to the following rules:
1. If the principal penalty imposed be prision correccional or arresto and fine, he

shall remain under confinement until his fine referred to in the preceding paragraph is
satisfied, but his subsidiary imprisonment shall not exceed one-third of the term of the
sentence, and in no case shall it continue for more than one year, and no fraction or
part of a day shall be counted against the prisoner.
2. When the principal penalty imposed be only a fine, the subsidiary imprisonment
shall not exceed six months, if the culprit shall have been prosecuted for a grave or
less grave felony, and shall not exceed fifteen days, if for a light felony.
3. When the principal imposed is higher than prision correctional, no subsidiary
imprisonment shall be imposed upon the culprit.
4. If the principal penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement in a penal
institution, but such penalty is of fixed duration, the convict, during the period of time
established in the preceding rules, shall continue to suffer the same deprivations as
those of which the principal penalty consists.
5. The subsidiary personal liability which the convict may have suffered by reason of
his insolvency shall not relieve him, from the fine in case his financial circumstances
should improve. (As amended by RA 5465, April 21, 1969).
NOTES:
When the penalty prescribed is imprisonment, it is the penalty actually imposed by the
Court, not the penalty provided for by the Code, which should be considered in
determining whether or not subsidiary penalty should be imposed.
There is no subsidiary penalty for non-payment of reparation, indemnification and costs

in par 1, 2 and 4 of Art 38. It is only for fines.
Art 39 applies only when the convict has no property with which to meet the fine in par 3
of art 38. Thus, a convict who has non-exempt property enough to meet the fine cannot
choose to serve
the subsidiary penalty instead of payment of the fine.
Subsidiary imprisonment is not an accessory penalty. It is covered by Arts. 40-45 of this

Code. Accessory penalties are deemed imposed even when not mentioned, while
subsidiary imprisonment must be expressly imposed.
RULES AS TO SUBSIDIARY PENALTY
1. If the penalty imposed is prisión correccional or arrest and fine – subsidiary

imprisonment is not to exceed 1/3 of the term of the sentence, and in no case to
continue for more than one year. Fraction or part of a day, not counted.
2. When the penalty imposed is fine only – subsidiary imprisonment is:

- not to exceed 6 months – if the culprit is prosecuted for grave or less grave felony, and
- not to exceed 15 days – if prosecuted for light felony.
3. When the penalty imposed is higher than prisión correccional

– no subsidiary imprisonment.
4. If the penalty imposed is not to be executed by confinement, but of fixed duration –

subsidiary penalty shall consist in the same deprivations as those of the principal
penalty, under the same rules as nos. 1, 2 and 3 above.
5. In case the financial circumstances of the convict should improve, he shall pay the
fine, notwithstanding the fact that the convict suffered subsidiary personal liability
therefor.
WHERE NO SUBSIDIARY PENALTY SHALL BE IMPOSED:

1. The penalty imposed is higher than prisión correccional or 6 years,
2. For non-payment of reparation or indemnification,
3. For non-payment of costs, and
4. Where the penalty imposed is a fine and another penalty without fixed duration, like
censure.
There is no subsidiary penalty for non-payment of civil liability.
Penalties: Fine or Imprisonment vs. Subsidiary Imprisonment
E and M are convicted of a penal law that imposes a penalty of fine or imprisonment or
both fine and imprisonment. The judge sentenced them to pay the fine, jointly and
severally, with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency.
Is the penalty proper? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
The penalty is not proper. The two accused must separately pay the fine, which is their
penalty.
Solidary liability applies only to civil liabilities.
Alternative Answer:
No. because in penal law when there are several offenders, the court in the exercise of
its
discretion shall determine what shall be the share of each offender depending upon the
degree of participation, as principal, accomplice, or accessory. If within each class of
offender,'
there are more of them, such as more than one principal or more than one accomplice or
accessory, the liability in each class of offender shall be subsidiary. Anyone of them may
be required to pay
the civil liability pertaining to such an offender without prejudice to recovery from those
whose share has been paid by another.
May the judge impose an alternative penalty of fine or imprisonment? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No. A fine, whether imposed as a single or as an alternative penalty, should not and
cannot be reduced or converted into a prison term. There is no rule for the transmutation
of the amount of a fine into a term of imprisonment. ( People vs. Dacuycuiy, G.R. No. L-
45127 May 5, 1989)
Death; Its Accessory Penalties

On Criminal Law
Art. 40. Death; Its Accessory Penalties

Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and Reclusion Temporal; their
Accessory Penalties
Art. 42. Prision Mayor; Its Accessory Penalties
Art. 43. Prision Correccional; Its Accessory Penalties
Art. 44. Arresto; Its Accessory Penalties
1. Death, if not executed because of commutation or pardon

a. perpetual absolute disqualification
b. civil interdiction during 30 years (if not expressly remitted in the pardon)
2. Reclusion Perpetua and Reclusion Temporal

a. civil interdiction for life or during the sentence
b. perpetual absolute disqualification (unless expressly remitted in the pardon)
3. Prision Mayor
a. temporary absolute disqualification
b. perpetual special disqualification from suffrage (unless expressly remitted in the
pardon)
4. Prision Correccional
a. suspension from public office, profession or calling
b. perpetual special disqualification from suffrage if the duration of the imprisonment
exceeds 18 months (unless expressly remitted in the pardon)
5. Arresto Mayor/Arresto Menor
a. Suspension of right to hold office
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
NOTES:
The accessory penalties in Art 40-44 must be suffered by the offender, although
pardoned as to the principal penalties. To be relieved of these penalties, they must be
expressly remitted in the pardon.
No accessory penalty for destierro.
Persons who served out the penalty may not have the right to exercise the right of
suffrage. For a prisoner who has been sentenced to one year of imprisonment or more
for any crime, absolute pardon restores to him his political rights. If the penalty is less
than one year, disqualification does not attach
except if the crime done was against property.
The nature of the crime is immaterial when the penalty imposed is one year
imprisonment or more.
The accessory penalties are understood to be always imposed upon the offender by the
mere fact that the law fixes a certain penalty for the crime.
The accessory penalties do not affect the jurisdiction of the court in which the
information is filed because they do not modify or alter the nature of the penalty provided
by law. What determines jurisdiction in criminal cases is the principal penalty.
Reclusion Perpetua from Life Imprisonment Distinguished

1. Reclusion Perpetua - Specific duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years and
accessory penalties.
Life Imprisonment - no definite term or accessory penalties.
2. Reclusion Perpetua - Imposable on felonies punished by the RPC.
Life Imprisonment - Imposable on crimes punishable by special laws
Death; Its Accessory Penalties

On Criminal Law
Art. 40. Death; Its Accessory Penalties

Art. 41. Reclusion perpetua and Reclusion Temporal; their
Accessory Penalties
Art. 42. Prision Mayor; Its Accessory Penalties
Art. 43. Prision Correccional; Its Accessory Penalties
Art. 44. Arresto; Its Accessory Penalties
1. Death, if not executed because of commutation or pardon

a. perpetual absolute disqualification
b. civil interdiction during 30 years (if not expressly remitted in the pardon)
2. Reclusion Perpetua and Reclusion Temporal

a. civil interdiction for life or during the sentence
b. perpetual absolute disqualification (unless expressly remitted in the pardon)
3. Prision Mayor
a. temporary absolute disqualification
b. perpetual special disqualification from suffrage (unless expressly remitted in the
pardon)
4. Prision Correccional
a. suspension from public office, profession or calling
b. perpetual special disqualification from suffrage if the duration of the imprisonment
exceeds 18 months (unless expressly remitted in the pardon)
5. Arresto Mayor/Arresto Menor

a. Suspension of right to hold office
b. Suspension of the right of suffrage during the term of the sentence.
NOTES:
The accessory penalties in Art 40-44 must be suffered by the offender, although
pardoned as to the principal penalties. To be relieved of these penalties, they must be
expressly remitted in the pardon.
No accessory penalty for destierro.
Persons who served out the penalty may not have the right to exercise the right of
suffrage. For a prisoner who has been sentenced to one year of imprisonment or more
for any crime, absolute pardon restores to him his political rights. If the penalty is less
than one year, disqualification does not attach
except if the crime done was against property.
The nature of the crime is immaterial when the penalty imposed is one year
imprisonment or more.
The accessory penalties are understood to be always imposed upon the offender by the
mere fact that the law fixes a certain penalty for the crime.
The accessory penalties do not affect the jurisdiction of the court in which the
information is filed because they do not modify or alter the nature of the penalty provided
by law. What determines jurisdiction in criminal cases is the principal penalty.
Reclusion Perpetua from Life Imprisonment Distinguished

1. Reclusion Perpetua - Specific duration of 20 years and 1 day to 40 years and
accessory penalties.
Life Imprisonment - no definite term or accessory penalties.

2. Reclusion Perpetua - Imposable on felonies punished by the RPC.
Life Imprisonment - Imposable on crimes punishable by special laws
Confiscation And Forfeiture Of

The Proceeds Or Instruments Of
The Crime
On Criminal Law
Confiscation And Forfeiture Of The Proceeds Or Instruments Of The Crime
ART. 45
1. Every penalty imposed carries with it the forfeiture of the proceeds of the crime and
the instruments or tools used in the commission of the crime.
2. The proceeds and instruments/tools of the crime are confiscated in favor of the
government.
3. The property of 3rd persons (not liable for the offense) is not subject to confiscation
and forfeiture.
4. Property not subject of lawful commerce (whether it belongs to the accused or a 3rd
person) shall be destroyed.
NOTES:
There cannot be confiscation or forfeiture unless there’s a criminal case filed, tried and
accused is convicted.
Third person must be indicted to effect confiscation of his property.
Instruments of the crime belonging to an innocent 3rd person may be recovered.
Confiscation can be ordered only if the property is submitted in evidence or placed at the
disposal of the court.
When the order of forfeiture has already become final, the articles which were forfeited
can not be returned, even in case of an acquittal.
There must be conviction by final judgment. However, even if the accused is acquitted
on reasonable doubt, but the instruments or proceeds are contraband, the judgment of
acquittal shall order their forfeiture for appropriate disposition.
Confiscation & forfeiture are additional penalties. When the penalty imposed did not
include the confiscation of the goods involved, the subsequent confiscation & forfeiture
of said goods would be an additional penalty, amounting to an increase of the penalty
already imposed, thereby placing the accused in double jeopardy. In case the accused
appeals, confiscation and forfeiture not ordered by the trial court may be imposed by the
appellate court.
The government can not appeal the modification of a sentence if the defendant did not
appeal. But if the defendant appeals, it removes all bars to the review and correction of
the penalty imposed by the court below, even if an increase thereof should be the result.
When Art. 45 cannot apply:

1. The instruments belong to innocent third parties
2. Such properties have not been placed under the jurisdiction of the court
3. When it is legally or physically impossible.
Penalty To Be Imposed Upon

Principals In General
On Criminal Law
ART. 46
GENERAL RULE: The penalty prescribed by law in general terms

shall be imposed:
1. upon the principals
2. for consummated felony
EXCEPTION: when the law fixes a penalty for the frustrated or

attempted felony. Whenever it is believed that the penalty
lower by one or two degrees corresponding to said acts of
execution is not proportionate to the wrong done, the law
fixes a distinct penalty for the principal in the frustrated
or attempted felony.
The Graduation Of Penalties Refers To:

1. By degree
a. stages of execution (consummated, frustrated, attempted)
b. degree of the criminal participation of the offender
(principal, accomplice, accessory)
2. By period
- (minimum, medium, maximum) - refers to the proper period
of the penalty w/c should be imposed when aggravating or
mitigating circumstances attend the commission of the crime
People v. Formigones (1950)

Facts: The accused without a previous quarrel or provocation
took his bolo and stabbed his wife in the back resulting to
the latter’s death. The accused was sentenced to the penalty
of reclusion perpetua.
Held: The penalty applicable for parricide under Art. 246 of

the RPC is composed only of 2 indivisible penalties, reclusion
perpetua to death. Although the commission of the act is
attended by some mitigating circumstance without any aggravating
circumstance to offset them, Art. 63 of the RPC should be
applied. The said article provides that when the commission of
the act is attended by some mitigating circumstance and there is
no aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied
In What Cases The Death Penalty

Shall Not Be Imposed
On Criminal Law
Death Penalty
ART. 47
Death Penalty Not Imposed In The Following Cases:

1. under age - when the offender is under 18 yrs of age at the time of commission. Why?
- Because minority is always a mitigating circumstance
2. over age - when the person is more than 70 years old at time RTC sentenced him
3. no court majority - when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the SC, the
vote of eight members is not obtained for the imposition of death.
JUSTIFICATION FOR THE DEATH PENALTY: social defense and exemplarity. Not
considered cruel and unusual because it does not involve torture or lingering death.
CRIMES PUNISHABLE BY DEATH UNDER THE DEATH PENALTY LAW (RA 7659)
1. Treason
2. Qualified Piracy
3. Qualified Bribery
4. Parricide
5. Murder
6. Infanticide
7. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
8. Robbery – with Homicide, Rape, Intentional Mutilation, or Arson
9. Rape – with the use of a deadly weapon, or by two or more persons
- where the victim became insane
- with Homicide
10. Qualified Rape
11. Destructive Arson
12. Plunder
13. Violation of certain provisions of the Dangerous Drugs Act
14. Carnapping
RA 9346 or “An Act Prohibiting the Imposition of Death Penalty in the Philippines”
- expressly repealed RA 8177 or “Act Designating Death by Lethal Injection” and RA
7659 or “Death Penalty Law”.
RA 9346 repealed all the other laws imposing death penalty.

- Section 2 states that: “In lieu of the death penalty, the following shall be imposed:
a. the penalty of reclusion perpetua, when the law violated makes use of the
nomenclature of the
penalties of the Revised Penal Code; or
b. the penalty of life imprisonment, when the law violated does not make use of the
nomenclature of
the penalties of the Revised Penal Code.”
Bar Exam Question 2004 (Death Penalty)
A. The death penalty cannot be inflicted under which of the following circumstances:
1) When the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime.
2) When the guilty person is more than 70 years of age.
3) When upon appeal to or automatic review by the Supreme Court, the required
majority for the imposition of the death penalty is not obtained.
4) When the person is convicted of a capital crime but before execution becomes
insane.
5) When the accused is a woman while she is pregnant or within one year after delivery.
Explain your answer or choice briefly. (5%)
A. Understanding the word "inflicted" to mean the imposition of the death penalty, not its
execution, the circumstance in which the death penalty cannot be inflicted is no. 2:
"when the guilty person is more than 70 years of age" (Art. 47, Revised Penal Code).
Instead, the penalty shall be commuted to reclusion perpetua, with the accessory
penalties provided in Article 40, RFC.
In circumstance no. 1 when the guilty person is at least 18 years of age at the time of the
commission of the crime, the death penalty can be imposed since the offender is already
of legal age when he committed the crime.
Circumstance no. 3 no longer operates, considering the decision of the Supreme Court
in People vs. Efren Mateo (G.R. 147678-87, July 7, 2004) providing an intermediate
review for such cases where the penalty imposed is death, reclusion perpetua or life
imprisonment before they are elevated to the Supreme Court.
In circumstances nos. 4 & 5, the death penalty can be imposed if prescribed by the law
violated although its execution shall be suspended when the convict becomes insane
before it could be executed and while he is insane.
Likewise, the death penalty can be imposed upon a woman but its execution shall be
suspended during her pregnancy and for one year after her delivery.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The word "INFLICTED" is found only in Art. 83 to the effect that the death penalty may
not be "INFLICTED" upon a pregnant woman, such penalty is to be suspended. If
"INFLICTED" is to be construed as "EXECUTION", then No. 5 is the choice.
Penalty For Complex Crimes

On Criminal Law
Penalty for Complex Crimes
ART.48
Penalty for complex crimes. - When a single act constitutes two or more grave or less
grave felonies, or when an offense is a necessary means for committing the other, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed, the same to be applied in its
maximum period.
COMPLEX CRIME – although there actually are two or more crimes, the law treats
them as constituting only one - as there is only one criminal intent. Only one information
need to be filed.
2 Kinds Of Complex Crimes:

1. Compound crime – a single act constitutes 2 or more grave or less grave felonies.
Requisites:
a. that only one single act is performed by the offender
b. that the single act produces
i. 2 or more grave felonies
ii. one or more grave and one or more less grave felonies
iii. 2 or more less grave felonies
2. Complex crime proper – when an offense is a necessary means for committing

another.
Requisites:
1. That at least 2 offenses are committed
2. That one or some of the offenses must be necessary to commit the other
3. That both or all the offenses must be punished under the same statute
No Single Act In The Following Cases:

1. When 2 persons are killed one after the other, by different acts, although these 2
killings were the result of a single criminal impulse. The different acts must be
considered as distinct crimes.
2. When the acts are wholly different, not only in themselves but also because they are
directed against 2 different persons, as when one fires his gun twice in succession,
killing one and injuring the other.
Light felonies produced by the same act should be treated and punished as separate
offenses or may be absorbed by the grave felony.
NOTES:
When in obedience to an order, several accused simultaneously shot many persons, w/o
evidence how many each killed, there is only a single offense, there being a single
criminal impulse.
For the attainment of a single purpose w/c constitutes an offense, various acts are
executed, such acts must be considered only as one offense.
When a complex crime is charged and one offense is not proven, the accused can be
convicted of the other.
There is no complex crime of arson w/homicide.
Art 48 is applicable to crimes through negligence.
Kidnapping the victim to murder him in a secluded place – ransom wasn’t paid so the
victim was killed. The kidnapping was a necessary means to commit murder. But where
the victim was taken from his home but it was solely for the purpose of killing him and
not for detaining him illegally or for the purpose of ransom, the crime is simple murder.
“Necessary means” does not mean “indispensable means”. Indispensable would mean it
is an element of the crime. The crime can be committed by another mean. The means
actually employed (another crime) was merely to facilitate and insure the consummation
of the crime.
It is not a complex crime when trespass to dwelling is a direct means to commit a grave

offense. Like rape, there is no complex crime of trespass to dwelling with rape. Trespass
will be considered as aggravating (unlawful entry or breaking part of a dwelling)
When the offender had in his possession the funds w/c he misappropriated, the
falsification of a public or official document involving said funds is a separate offense.
But when the offender had to falsify a public or official document to obtain possession of
the funds w/c he misappropriated, the
falsification is a necessary means to commit malversation.
There is no complex crime of rebellion w/ murder, arson, robbery or other common

crimes. They are mere ingredients of the crime of rebellion – absorbed already.
When 2 crimes produced by a single act are respectively within the exclusive jurisdiction
of 2 courts of different jurisdiction, the court of higher jurisdiction shall try the complex
crime.
Art. 48 is intended to favor the culprit.
The penalty for complex crime is the penalty for the most serious crime, the same to be
applied in its maximum period. If the different crimes resulting from one single act are
punished w/ the same penalty, the penalty for any one of them shall be imposed, the
same to be applied in the maximum period. The same rule shall be observed when an
offense is a necessary means to commit the other.
A complex crime of the second form may be committed by two persons.
But when one of the offenses, as a means to commit the other, was committed by one of
the accused by reckless imprudence, the accused who committed the crime by reckless
imprudence is liable
for his acts only.
When two felonies constituting a complex crime are punishable by imprisonment and
fine, respectively, only the penalty of imprisonment shall be imposed. Reason: Fine is
not included in
the list of penalties in the order of severity and it is the last in the graduated scales in Art.
71.
When a single act constitutes two grave or less grave or one grave and another less
grave, and the penalty for one is imprisonment while that for the other is fine, the
severity of the penalty for the more serious crime should not be judged by the
classification of each of the penalties involved, but by
the nature of the penalties.
In the order of severity of the penalties, arresto mayor and arresto menor are considered
more severe than destierro and arresto menor is higher in degree than destierro.
There is NO COMPLEX CRIME in the following:

1. In case of continuing crimes
2. When one offense is committed to conceal the other
3. When the other crime is an indispensable part or an element of the other offenses as
defined
4. Where one of the offenses is penalized by a special law
5. When the law provides one single penalty for special complex crime:
a. Robbery with Homicide
b. Robbery with Rape
c. Rape with Homicide
d. Kidnapping with Serious Physical Injuries
e. Kidnapping with Homicide
PLURALITY OF CRIMES – consists in the successive execution by the same individual

of different criminal acts upon any of which no conviction has yet been declared.
Kinds Of Plurality Of Crimes:
1. Formal or Ideal – only one criminal liability. Formal or ideal crimes are further divided
into three groups, where a person committing multiple crimes is punished with only one
penalty:
a. when the offender commits any of the complex crimes defined in Art. 48
b. when the law specifically fixes a single penalty for 2 or more offenses committed:
robbery w/ homicide, kidnapping w/ serious physical injuries
c. when the offender commits continued crimes
2. Real Or Material – there are different crimes in law as well as in the conscience of the
offender. In such cases, the offender shall be punished for each and every offense that
he committed
Under Art.49 - Lesser penalty to be imposed in its maximum period

Under Art.48 - Penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
CONTINUED CRIME – refers to a single crime consisting of a series of acts but all
arising from one criminal resolution. Although there is a series of acts, there is only one
crime committed, so
only one penalty shall be imposed.
Example of continued crimes:

a. A collector of a commercial firm misappropriates for his personal use several
amounts collected by him from different persons. There is only one crime because the
different and successive appropriations are but the different moments during w/c one
criminal resolution arises.
b. Juan steals 2 books belonging to 2 different persons. He commits only one crime
because there is unity of thought in the criminal purpose of the offender
NOTE: A continued crime is not a complex crime, as the offender does not perform a
single act but a series of acts. Therefore:
a. penalty not to be imposed in the maximum
b. no actual provision punishing continued crime – It is a principle applied in connection
with 2 or more crimes committed with a single intention.
NOTE: A continued (continuous or continuing) crime is different from a transitory crime.

Transitory crime is “moving crime”.
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between compound and complex crimes as concepts in
the Penal Code.
COMPOUND CRIMES result when the offender committed only a single felonious act
from which
two or more crimes resulted. This is provided for in modified form in the first part of
Article 48, Revised Penal Code, limiting the resulting crimes to only grave and/or less
grave felonies. Hence, light felonies are excluded even though resulting from the same
single act.
COMPLEX CRIMES results when the offender has to commit an offense as a necessary
means for committing another offense. Only one information shall be filed and if proven,
the penalty for the more serious crime shall be imposed.
Distinguish the following from each other: Complex Crime vs. Special Complex Crime
vs. Delito Continuado.
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of two or more crimes being punished in

distinct
provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one information either because they
were brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a necessary
means for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one information
so that only one penalty shall be imposed. As to penalties, ordinary complex crime, the
penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period.
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes
which are
considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in one
provision of the Revised Penal Code. As to penalties, special complex crime, only one
penalty is specifically prescribed for all the component crimes which are regarded as one
indivisible offense. The component crimes are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the
penalty for the most serious crime is not the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum
period. It is the penalty specifically provided for the special complex crime that shall be
applied according to the rules on imposition of the penalty.
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME, is a term used to denote as only one

crime a
series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible of
division, which is carried out in the same place and at about the same time, and violating
one and the same penal provision. The acts done must be impelled by one criminal
intent or purpose, such that each act merely constitutes a partial execution of a particular
crime, violating one and the same penal provision. It involves a concurrence of felonious
acts violating a common right, a common penal provision, and Impelled by a single
criminal impulse (People vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).
2003 Bar Exam Question (complex crime and rebellion and sedition)
1. Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with rebellion?

2. Can there be a complex crime of coup d'etat with sedition?
1. Yes, if there was a conspiracy between the offender/offenders committing the coup
d'etat and the offenders committing the rebellion. By conspiracy, the crime of one would
be the crime of the other and vice versa. This is possible because the offender in coup
d'etat may be any person or persons belonging to the military or the national police or a
public officer, whereas rebellion does not so require. Moreover, the crime of coup d'etat
may be committed singly, whereas rebellion requires a public uprising and taking up
arms to overthrow the duly constituted government. Since the two crimes are essentially
different and punished with distinct penalties, there is no legal impediment to the
application of art.48 of the revised penal code.
2. Yes, coup d'etat can be complexed with sedition because the two crimes are
essentially different and distinctly punished under the revised penal code. Sedition may
not be directed against the government or non-political in the objective, whereas coup
d'etat is always political in objective as it is directed against the government and led by
persons or public officer holding public office belonging to the military or national police.
Art.48 of the code may apply under the condition therein provided.
Alternative Answer:
The crime of coup d'etat cannot be complexed with the crime of rebellion because both
crimes are directed against the government or for political purposes, although the
principal offenders are different. The essence may be the same and thus constitute only
one crime. In this situation, the two crimes are not distinct and therefore, may not be
proper to apply art.48 of the code.
1999 Bar Exam Question (Complex Crimes; Determination of the Crime)
A, actuated by malice and with the use of a fully automatic M-14 sub-machine gun, shot
a group of persons who were seated in a cockpit with one burst of successive,
continuous, automatic fire. Four (4) persons were killed thereby, each having hit by
different bullets coming from the sub-machine gun of A. Four (4) cases of murder were
filed against A. The trial court ruled that there was only one crime committed by A for the
reason that, since A performed only one act, he having pressed the trigger of his gun
only once, the crime committed was murder. Consequently, the trial judge sentenced A
to just one penalty of reclusion perpetua. Was the decision of the trial judge correct?
Explain.
The decision of the trial judge is not correct. When the offender made use of an
automatic firearm, the acts committed are determined by the number of bullets
discharged inasmuch as the firearm being automatic, the offender need only press the
trigger once and it would fire continually. For each death caused by a distinct and
separate bullet, the accused incurs distinct criminal liability. Hence, it is not the act of
pressing the trigger which should be considered as producing the several felonies, but
the number of bullets which actually produced them.
1999 Bar Exam Question (Complex Crimes; Nature & Penalty Involved)
What constitutes a complex crime? How many crimes may be involved in a complex
crime? What is the penalty therefor? (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A complex crime is constituted when a single act caused two or more grave or less
grave felonies or when an offense is committed as a necessary means to commit
another offense (Art. 48, RPC). At least two (2) crimes are involved in a complex crime;
either two or more grave or less grave felonies resulted from a single act, or an offense
is committed as a necessary means for committing another. The penalty for the more
serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum period. (Art. 48, RPC)
2003 Bar Examination Question (Complex Crimes; Ordinary Complex Crime vs. Special
Complex Crime)
Distinguish between ordinary complex crime and a special complex crime as to their
concepts and as to the imposition of penalties. 2%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
IN CONCEPT -
An ORDINARY COMPLEX CRIME is made up of two or more crimes being punished in

distinct provisions of the Revised Penal Code but alleged in one Information either
because they were brought about by a single felonious act or because one offense is a
necessary means for committing the other offense or offenses. They are alleged in one
Information so that only one penalty shall be imposed.
A SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, on the other hand, is made up of two or more crimes
that are considered only as components of a single indivisible offense being punished in
one provision of the Revised Penal Code.
AS TO PENALTIES -In ORDINARY COMPLEX

CRIME, the penalty for the most serious crime shall be imposed and in its maximum
period.
In SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME, only one penalty is specifically prescribed for all the
component crimes which are regarded as one indivisible offense. The component crimes
are not regarded as distinct crimes and so the penalty for the most serious crime is not
the penalty to be imposed nor in its maximum period. It is the penalty specifically
provided for the special complex crime that shall be applied according to the rules on
imposition of the penalty.
1994 Bar Examination Question (Continuing Offense vs. Delito Continuado)

Differentiate delito continuado from a continuing offense.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
DELITO CONTINUADO, or CONTINUOUS CRIME, is a term used to denote as only one

crime a series of felonious acts arising from a single criminal resolution, not susceptible
of division, which are carried out in the same place and at about the same time, and
violating one and the same penal provision. The acts done must be impelled by one
criminal intent or purpose, such that each act merely constitutes a partial execution of a
particular crime, violating one and the same penal provision. It involves a concurrence of
felonious acts violating a common right, a common penal provision, and impelled by a
single criminal impulse (People vs. Ledesma, 73 SCRA 77).
On the other hand, a CONTINUING OFFENSE is one whose essential ingredients took
place in more than one municipality or city, so much so that the criminal prosecution may
be instituted and the case tried in the competent court of any one of such municipality or
city.
The term "CONTINUED CRIME" or delito continuado mandates that only one
information should be filed against the offender although a series of felonious acts were
performed; the term "continuing crime" is more pertinently used with reference to the
venue where the criminal action may be instituted.
Penalty When Crime Committed

Different Than Intended
On Criminal Law
Penalty When Crime Committed Different Than Intended
ART. 49:
PENALTY TO BE IMPOSED UPON THE PRINCIPALS WHEN THE CRIME

COMMITTED IS DIFFERENT FROM THAT INTENDED
RULES:
1. If the penalty for the felony committed be higher than the penalty for the offense which
the accused intended to commit, the lower penalty shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
2. If the penalty for the felony committed be lower than the penalty for the offense which
the accused intended to commit, the lower penalty shall be imposed in its maximum
period.
3. If the act committed also constitutes an attempt or frustration of another crime, and
the law prescribes a higher penalty for either of the latter, the penalty for the attempted
or frustrated crime shall be imposed in its maximum period.
NOTES:
Art. 49 has reference to the provision in the 1st par of Art.4 which provides that criminal
liability shall be incurred “by any person committing a felony although the wrongful act
done be
different from that which he intended.”
Art. 49 is applicable only in cases when there is a mistake in identity of the victim of the
crime (error in personae) and the penalty for the crime committed is different from that
for the
crime intended to be committed.
Art. 49 also has no application where a more serious consequence not intended by the
offender befalls the same person. In Art. 49, pars. 1 and 2, the lower penalty in its
maximum period is always
imposed.
In Par. 3 the penalty for the attempted or frustrated crime shall be imposed in its
maximum period. This rule is not necessary and may well be covered by Art. 48, in view
of the fact that the same act also constitutes an attempt or a frustration of another crime.
Application Of Article 50 To 57
On Criminal Law
Art.50 - 57
Art. 50: Penalty to be imposed upon principals of a frustrated crime
Art. 51: Penalty to be imposed upon principals of attempted crimes
Art. 52: Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in consummated crime
Art. 53: Penalty to be imposed upon accessories to the commission of a
consummated felony
Art. 54: Penalty to imposed upon accomplices in a frustrated crime
Art. 55: Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of a frustrated crime
Art. 56: Penalty to be imposed upon accomplices in an attempted crime
Art. 57: Penalty to be imposed upon accessories of an attempted crime

Art.50 - 57
NOTES:
Art. 50-57 are not applicable when the law specifically prescribes
the penalty for the frustrated and attempted felony or that to be
imposed upon the accomplices and accessories. (examples: qualified
seduction, flight to enemy country, kidnapping)
Degree – one whole penalty, one entire penalty or one unit of the
penalties enumerated in the graduated scales provided for in Art. 71

Period – one of 3 equal portions, min/med/max of a divisible penalty.
A period of a divisible penalty when prescribed by the Code as a
penalty for a felony, is in itself a degree.
Distinction Between a Degree and a Period
1. Degree - Refers to the penalty imposable for a felony committed
considering the stages of execution and the degree of participation
of the offender.
Period - Refers to the duration of the penalty consisting of the
maximum, medium, and minimum, after considering the presence or
absence of aggravating circumstances.
2. Degree - May refer to both divisible and indivisible penalties.
Period - Refers only divisible penalties.
NOTE: The rules provided in Arts. 53, 55 and 57 do not apply if the
felony is light because accessories are not liable for the same.
Additional Penalty To Be Imposed

Upon Certain Accessories
On Criminal Law
Additional penalty to be imposed upon certain accessories
Art. 58.
Those accessories falling within the terms of paragraphs 3 of Article 19 of this Code who
should act with abuse of their public functions, shall suffer the additional penalty of
absolute perpetual disqualification if the principal offender shall be guilty of a grave
felony, and that of absolute temporary disqualification if he shall be guilty of a less grave
felony.
NOTE: Art. 58 is limited only to grave and less grave felonies since it is not possible to
have accessories liable for light felonies. It is further limited to those whose participation
in the crime is characterized by the misuse of public office or authority.
Additional Penalties for Public Officers who are accessories:

1. Absolute Perpetual Disqualification, if the principal offender is guilty of a grave felony
2. Absolute temporary disqualification, if the principal offender is guilty of less grave
felony
ART. 59: Penalty To Be Imposed In Case Of Failure To Commit The Crime Because The
Means Employed Or The Aims Sought Are Impossible
NOTES:
Basis for the imposition of proper penalty in impossible crimes: social danger and degree
of criminality shown by the offender
The penalty for impossible crime is arresto mayor (imprisonment of 1 month and 1 day to
6 months) or fine ranging from 200-500 pesos.
Art. 59 is limited to grave and less grave felonies.
However, considering Article 4, this article is actually limited to offenses against persons

or property.
Exception To The Rules

Established In Art. 50 To 57
On Criminal Law
ART. 60
The provisions contained in Articles 50 to 57, inclusive, of this

Code shall not be applicable to cases in which the law expressly
prescribes the penalty provided for a frustrated or attempted
felony, or to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
Arts. 50 to 57 shall not apply to cases where the law expressly

prescribes the penalty for frustrated or attempted felony, or
to be imposed upon accomplices or accessories.
GENERAL RULE: An accomplice is punished by a penalty one degree

lower than the penalty imposed upon the principal.
EXCEPTIONS:
a. The ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers and any
person who by abuse of authority or confidential relationship,
shall cooperate as accomplices in the crimes of rape, acts
of lasciviousness, seduction, corruption of minors, white
slate trade or abduction. (Art. 346)
b. One who furnished the place for the perpetration of the
crime of slight illegal detention. (Art. 268)
Two cases where the accomplice is punished with the same penalty
imposed upon the principal:
1. ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers and any person who,
by abuse of authority or confidential relationship, shall
cooperate as accomplices in the crimes of rape, acts of
lasciviousness, seduction, corruption of minors, white slave
trade or abduction.
2. one who furnished the place for the perpetration of the crime
of slight illegal detention
NOTE: Accessory punished as principal: Art 142 – punishes an

accessory for knowingly concealing certain evil practices
GENERAL RULE: An accessory is punished by a penalty two degrees

lower than the penalty imposed upon the principal.
EXCEPTION: When accessory is punished as principal – knowingly

concealing certain evil practices is ordinarily an act of the
accessory, but in Art. 142, such act is punished as the act
of the principal.
When accessories are punished with a penalty one degree lower:

Instead of two degrees.
a. Knowingly using counterfeited seal or forged signature or
stamp of the President (Art. 162).
b. Illegal possession and use of a false treasury or bank
note (Art. 168).
c. Using falsified document (Art. 173 par.3 )
d. Using falsified dispatch (Art. 173 par. 2)
Rules For Graduating Penalties

On Criminal Law
Rules for graduating penalties
ART. 61
The rules provided in this Article should also apply in determining the minimum of the
Indeterminate Sentence Law (ISL). It also applies in lowering the penalty by one or two
degrees by reason of the
presence of the privileged mitigating circumstance, or when the penalty is divisible and
there are two or more mitigating circumstances and there are no aggravating
circumstances.
GRADUATED SCALE IN ART. 71
Indivisible Penalties:
1. Death
2. Reclusion Perpetua
Divisible Penalties:(maximum,medium,minimum)
1. Reclusion Temporal
2. Prision Correcional
3. Arresto Mayor
4. Destierro
5. Arresto Menor
6. Public Censure
7. Fine
RULES TO BE OBSERVED IN LOWERING THE PENALTY BY ONE OR TWO

DEGREES
Rule No. 1:
when the penalty is single and indivisible (ex. RP), the penalty next lower shall be
reclusion temporal.
Rule No. 2:
1. when the penalty is composed of two indivisible penalties; or
2. when the penalty is composed of one or more divisible penalties to be imposed to
their full extent the penalty next lower in degree shall be that immediately following the
lesser of the penalties prescribed
Rule No. 3:

when the penalty is composed of 1 or 2 indivisible penalties and the maximum period of
a divisible penalty
Ex. penalty for murder is reclusion temporal to death. The point of reference will be on
the proper divisible penalty which is RT.
Under the 3 rule, the penalty next lower to RT is composed of the medium and minimum
periods of RT and the max of prision mayor.
Rules 4 and 5:
1. if the penalty prescribed in the Code consists of three periods corresponding to
different divisible penalties, the penalty next lower is that consisting in the three periods
down the scale
2. if the penalty prescribed in the Code consists of two periods, the penalty next lower is
that consisting in two periods down the scale
3. if the penalty prescribed in the Code consists in only one period, the penalty next
lower is the next period down in the scale
NOTE: Mitigating and Aggravating circumstances are first disregarded in the application

of the rules for graduating penalties. It is only after the penalty next lower in degree is
already determined that the mitigating and aggravating circumstances should be
considered.
Effect Of The Attendance Of
Habitual Delinquency
On Criminal Law
Effect Of The Attendance Of Mitigating Or Aggravating Circumstances And Of Habitual

Delinquency
ART. 62
Par. 1:
Aggravating circumstances are not to be taken into account when:
1. they themselves constitute a crime. Ex. by “means of fire” – arson
2. they are included by law in the definition of a crime
Par. 2:
Same rules apply when the aggravating circumstance is inherent in the crime
Par. 3:
Aggravating or mitigating circumstances arising from any of the following affect only
those to whom such circumstances are attendant:
1. from the moral attributes of the offender
2. from his private relations w/ the offended party
3. from any other personal cause
Par. 4:
The circumstances which consist of the following shall serve to aggravate and mitigate
the liability only of those who had knowledge of them at the time of the commission of
the offense
1. material execution of the act
2. means employed to accomplish the crime
Par. 5:
Habitual Delinquent is a person who within the period of 10 years from the date of his
(last) release or last conviction of the crimes of:
1. Falsification
2. Robbery
3. Estafa
4. Theft
5. Serious or less serious physical injuries is found guilty of any of the said crimes a third
time or oftener.
NOTES:
Effects of the circumstances:
- Aggravating circumstances (generic and specific) have the effect of increasing the
penalty, without however exceeding the maximum period provided by law.
- Mitigating circumstances have the effect of diminishing the penalty.
- Habitual delinquency has the effect, not only of increasing the penalty because of
recidivism which is generally implied in habitual delinquency, but also of imposing an
additional penalty.
- Ten year period to be computed from the time of last release or conviction
- Subsequent crime must be committed after conviction of the former crime. Cases still
pending are not to be taken into consideration.
Habitual Delinquency and Recidivism Compared.

1. Habitual Delinquency - Crimes to be committed are specified
Recidivism - Same title
2. Habitual Delinquency - W/ in 10 years
Recidivism - No time fixed by law
3. Habitual Delinquency - Must be found guilty 3rd time or oftener
Recidivism - Second conviction
4. Habitual Delinquency - Additional penalty is imposed
Recidivism - Is not offset by MC, increases penalty to maximum
REQUISITES Of Habitual Delinquency:

1. That the offender had been convicted of any of the crimes of serious or less serious
physical injuries, robbery, theft, estafa or falsification
2. That after conviction or after serving his sentence, he again committed, and, within 10
years from his last release of first conviction, he was again convicted of any of the said
crimes for the second time
3. That after his conviction of, or after serving sentence for the second offense, he again
committed, and, within 10 years from his last release or last conviction, he was again
convicted of any of said offenses, the third time or oftener
Rulings on Habitual Delinquency:

1. The law on habitual delinquency does not contemplate the exclusion from the
computation of prior conviction those falling outside the 10-year period immediately
preceding the crime for which the defendant is being tried.
2. Ten-year period is counted not from the date of commission of the subsequent
offense but from the date of conviction thereof in relation to the date of his last release or
last conviction.
3. When an offender has committed several crimes mentioned in the definition of
habitual delinquent, without being first convicted of any of them before committing the
others, he is not a habitual delinquent.
4. Convictions on the same day or at about the same time are considered as one only
(days, weeks..).
5. Crimes committed on the same date, although convictions on different dates are
considered as one.
6. Previous convictions are considered every time a new offense is committed.
7. Commissions of those crimes need not be consummated.
8. Habitual delinquency applies to accomplices and accessories.
9. A crime committed during the minority of the offender is not counted because
proceedings as regards that crime are suspended.
10.Imposition of additional penalty is mandatory and constitutional.
11. Modifying circumstances are applicable to an additional penalties.
12. Habitual delinquency is not a crime. It is simply a fact or circumstance which if
present gives rise to the imposition of additional penalty.
13. Penalty for habitual delinquency is a real penalty that determines jurisdiction.
14. A habitual delinquent is necessarily a recidivist.
15. In imposing the additional penalty, recidivism is not aggravating. The additional
penalty must be imposed at its minimum.
16. An offender can be a habitual delinquent without being a recidivist when no two of
the crimes committed are embraced in the same title of the Code.
NOTES:
In no case shall the total penalties imposed upon the offender exceed 30 years.
The imposition of the additional penalties on habitual delinquents is constitutional, it is

simply a punishment on future crimes on account of the criminal propensities of the
accused.
The imposition of such additional penalties is mandatory.
Habitual delinquency applies at any stage of the execution because subjectively, the
offender reveals the same degree of depravity or perversity as the one who commits a
consummated crime.
Habitual delinquency applies to all participants because it reveals persistence in them of

the inclination to wrongdoing and of the perversity of character that led them to commit
the
previous crime.
1998 Bar Examination Question (Aggravating; Recidivism; Quasi-Recidivism)
Distinguish between recidivism and quasi-recidivism.
In recidivism
1. The convictions of the offender are for crimes embraced in the same title of the
Revised Penal Code; and
2. This circumstance is generic aggravating and therefore can be effectively offset by
ordinary mitigating circumstances.
Whereas in quasi-recidivism
1. The convictions are not for crimes embraced in the same title of the Revised Penal
Code, provided that it is a felony that was committed by the offender before serving
sentence by final judgment for another crime or while serving sentence for another
crime; and
2. This circumstance is a special aggravating circumstance that cannot be offset by any
mitigating circumstance.
Bar Exam Question (2001) Habitual Delinquency & Recidivism
Juan de Castro already had three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for theft
when he was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. in the last case, the trial judge
considered against the accused both recidivism and habitual delinquency. The accused
appealed and contended that in his last conviction, the trial court cannot consider
against him a finding of recidivism and, again, of habitual delinquency.
Is the appeal meritorious? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No, the appeal is not meritorious. Recidivism and habitual delinquency are correctly
considered in this case because the basis of recidivism is different from that of habitual
delinquency. Juan is a recidivist...Habitual delinquency, which brings about an additional
penalty when an offender is convicted a third time or more specified crimes, is correctly
considered because one had already three (3) previous convictions by final judgment for
theft and again convicted for Robbery with Homicide. And the crimes specified as a
basis for habitual delinquency includes, inter alia, theft, and robbery.
Rules For The Application Of

Indivisible Penalties
On Criminal Law
Rules For The Application Of Indivisible Penalties
ART. 63
Rules for the application of indivisible penalties:

1. Penalty is single and indivisible – applied regardless of the presence of aggravating
and mitigating circumstances.

Example: Death or Reclusion Perpetua
2. Penalty composed of two indivisible penalties

a. One aggravating circumstance present – higher penalty
b. One mitigating circumstance present – lower penalty
c. Some mitigating circumstances present and no aggravating
– lower penalty
d. Mitigating and Aggravating Circumstances are present-basis in number and
importance
NOTES:
Art 63 applies only when the penalty prescribed by the Code is either one indivisible
penalty or 2 indivisible penalties.
Par.4: the moral value rather than the numerical weight shall be taken into account.
GENERAL RULE: When the penalty is composed of 2 indivisible penalties, the penalty
cannot be lowered by one degree, no matter how many mitigating circumstances are
present

EXCEPTION: In cases of privileged mitigating circumstances
Rules For The Application Of

Penalties Which Contain 3 Periods
On Criminal Law
Rules For The Application Of Penalties Which Contain 3 Periods
ART. 64
Rules For The Application Of Divisible Penalties:

1. No aggravating and no mitigating circumstances – medium period
2. One mitigating circumstance – minimum period
3. One aggravating circumstance – maximum period
4. Mitigating and aggravating circumstance offset each other and according to relative
weight
5. 2 or more mitigating without any aggravating circumstance – one degree lower
NOTES:
Art. 64 applies when the penalty has 3 periods because they are divisible. If the penalty
is composed of 3 different penalties, each forms a period according to Art. 77
Par. 4: the mitigating circumstances must be ordinary, not privileged. The aggravating
circumstances must be generic or specific, not qualifying or inherent.
The court has discretion to impose the penalty within the limits fixed by law.
Art. 64 not applicable when the penalty is indivisible or prescribed by special law or a
fine.
Cases where the attending aggravating or mitigating circumstances are not considered
in the imposition of penalties:
- Penalty that is single and indivisible
- Felonies through negligence
- Where the penalty is only a fine imposed by an ordinance (subject to discretion of court
– see Article 66)
- Penalty is prescribed by a special law
Rule In Cases In Which The
Penalty Is Not Composed Of Three
Periods
On Criminal Law
Art. 65. .
In cases in which the penalty prescribed by law is not composed

of three periods, the courts shall apply the rules contained
in the foregoing articles, dividing into three equal portions
of time included in the penalty prescribed, and forming one period
of each of the three portions.
Computations:
Example: Prision Mayor (6 years, 1 day to 12 years)
1. subtract the minimum (disregard 1 day) from the maximum

12 years – 6 years = 6 years
2. Divide the difference by 3. 6 years / 3 = 2 years
3. Use the minimum (6 years and 1 day) as the minimum of

the minimum period. Then add the 2 years (disregarding the 1 day)
to the minimum to get the maximum of the minimum period.
6 years (minimum of the minimum)

+
2 years (difference)
-------------------------------------------
8 years (maximum of the minimum).
4. Use the maximum of the minimum period as the minimum of the

medium period and add 1 day to distinguish from the minimum
period. Then add 2 years to the minimum of the medium
(disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximum of the medium period.
8 years (minimum of the medium)

+
------------------------------------------
10 years (maximum of the medium)
Therefore, medium period of prision mayor = 8 years 1 day

to 10 years
5. Use the maximum of the medium period as the minimum of the
maximum pd, and add 1 day to distinguish it from the maximum
of the medium period. Then add 2 years to the minimum of the
maximum pd (disregarding the 1 day) to get the maximum of the
maximum period)
10 years (maximum of the medium)

+
----------------------------------------------
12 years (maximum of the maximum)
Therefore, maximum period of prision mayor = 10 years 1 day

to 12 years
Computation above is applicable to all others except to arresto mayor.
Example: Prision Mayor minimum (6 years 1 day to 8 years) only

1. Subtract minimum from the maximum.
8 years – 6 years = 2 years
2. Divide the difference by 3.

2 years / 3 = 8 months
3. Use the minimum of the given example as the minimum period.

Then to get to get the maximum of the minimum, add the 8 months.
6 years + 8 months = 6 years and 8 months
Therefore, minimum of prision mayor minimum = 6 years 1 day

to 6 years 8 months
4. Use the maximum of the minimum as the minimum of the medium

period. Add 1 day to distinguish it from the maximum of the
minimum. Add the 8 months and this becomes the maximum of the
medium
6 years 8 months + 8 months = 7 years 4 months
Therefore, the medium period of prision mayor minimum = 6

years, 8 months 1 day to 7 years, 4 months
5. Use the maximum of the medium as the minimum period of the

maximum period and add 1 day to distinguish. Add the 8 months
to get the maximum of the maximum
7 years 4, months + 8 months = 8 years
Therefore, maximum of prision mayor = 7 years, 4 months,

1 day to 8 years
Imposition of Fines
On Criminal Law
Imposition of Fines
ART. 66
1. The court can fix any amount of the fine within the limits established by law.
2. Court must consider the following in imposing the fines:

a. mitigating and aggravating circumstances
b. more particularly, the wealth and means of the culprit
3. The following may also be considered by the court:

a. the gravity of the crime committed
b. the heinousness of its perpetration
c. the magnitude of its effects on the offender’s victims.
Penalty To Be Imposed When Not

All The Requisites Of Exemption
Of The Fourth Circumstance Of
Article 12 Are Present
On Criminal Law
Art. 67.
When all the conditions required in circumstances Number 4 of

Article 12 of this Code to exempt from criminal liability are
not present, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period
to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon the culprit if he shall have been guilty of a grave felony,
and arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if of a
less grave felony.
Requisites of Art. 12 par.4

1. act causing the injury must be lawful
2. act performed w/ due care
3. injury was caused by mere accident
4. no fault or intention to cause injury
NOTE: If these conditions are not all present, then

the following penalties shall be imposed:
1. grave felony – arresto mayor maximum to prision
correcional minimum
2. less grave felony – arresto mayor minimum to
arresto mayor medium
Penalty To be Imposed Upon A

Person Under 18 Years Of Age
On Criminal Law
Penalty To be Imposed Upon A Person Under 18 Years Of Age
ART. 68
Penalty to be imposed upon a person under eighteen years of age. - When the offender
is a minor under eighteen years and his case is one coming under the provisions of the
paragraphs next to the last of Article 80 of this Code, the following rules shall be
observed:
1. Upon a person under fifteen but over nine years of age, who is not exempted from
liability by reason of the court having declared that he acted with discernment, a
discretionary penalty shall be imposed, but always lower by two degrees at least than
that prescribed by law for the crime which he committed.
2. Upon a person over fifteen and under eighteen years of age the penalty next lower
than that prescribed by law shall be imposed, but always in the proper period.
Art. 68 provides for 2 privileged mitigating circumstances:

1. If the act is attended by two or more mitigating circumstances and no aggravating
circumstance, the penalty being divisible, a minor over 15 but under 18 may still get a
penalty two degrees lower.
2. under 15 but over 9 and has acted w/ discretion: 2 degrees lower
3. under 18 but over 15: 1 degree lower
NOTE: Art. 68 applies to such minor if his application for suspension of sentence is
disapproved or if while in the reformatory institution he becomes incorrigible, in which
case he shall be returned to the court for the imposition of the proper penalty.
Art. 68 applies to such minor if his application for suspension of sentence is disapproved
or if while in the reformatory institution he becomes incorrigible in which case he shall be
returned to the court for the imposition of the proper penalty.
9 to 15 years only with discernment: at least 2 degrees lower.
15 to 18 years old: penalty next lower
Art. 68 provides for two of the PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
If the act is attended by two or more mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, the
penalty being divisible, a minor over 15 but under 18 years old may still get a penalty two
degrees lower.
Penalty To Be Imposed When The

Crime Committed Is Not Wholly
Excusable
On Criminal Law
Art. 69
A penalty lower by one or two degrees than that prescribed by

law shall be imposed if the deed is not wholly excusable by
reason of the lack of some of the conditions required to justify
the same or to exempt from criminal liability in the several
cases mentioned in Article 11 and 12, provided that the majority
of such conditions be present. The courts shall impose the penalty
in the period which may be deemed proper, in view of the number
and nature of the conditions of exemption present or lacking.
NOTE: Penalty to be imposed when the crime committed is not

wholly excusable:1 or 2 degrees lower if the majority of the
conditions for justification or exemption in the cases provided
in Arts. 11 and 12 are present.
People v. Lacanilao (1988)

Facts: The CFI found the accused, a policeman, guilty of homicide.
On appeal before the CA, the CA found that the accused
acted in the performance of a duty but that the shooting
of the victim was not the necessary consequence of the
due performance thereof, therefore crediting to him the
mitigating circumstance consisting of the incomplete
justifying circumstance of fulfillment of duty. The CA
lowered the penalty merely by one period applying Art. 64
(2) appreciating incomplete fulfillment of duty as a mere
generic mitigating circumstance lowering the penalty to
minimum period.
Held: CA erred because incomplete fulfillment of duty is a
privileged mitigating circumstance which not only cannot be
offset by aggravating circumstances but also reduces the
penalty by one or two degrees than that prescribed b law. The
governing provision is Art. 69 of the RPC.
Successive Service Of Sentence

On Criminal Law
ART. 70
NOTES:
The Three-Fold Rule

1. Maximum duration of the convict’s sentence:
Not more than 3 times the most severe penalty imposed
2. Maximum duration: shall not exceed 40 yrs
3. Subsidiary imprisonment: This shall be excluded in computing
for the maximum duration.
The three-fold rule shall apply only when the convict is to

serve 4 or more sentences successively.
All the penalties, even if by different courts at different

times, cannot exceed three-fold the most severe.
Different Systems Of Penalty (Relative To The Execution Of Two

Or More Penalties Imposed The Same Accused)
1. Material accumulation system - No limitation whatsoever, and
accordingly, all the penalties for all the violations were
imposed even if they reached beyond the natural span of human
life.
2. Juridical accumulation system - Limited to not more than
three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most
severe and in no case to exceed 40 years. This is followed
in our jurisdiction.
3. Absorption system - The lesser penalties are absorbed by the
graver penalties.
Outline of the provisions of this Article:

1. When the culprit has to serve 2 or more penalties, he shall
serve them simultaneously if the nature of the penalties will
so permit.
2. Otherwise, the order of their respective severity shall be
followed.
3. The respective severity of the penalties is as follows:
a.Death
b.Reclusion perpetua
c. Reclusion temporal
d.Prision mayor
e.Prision correccional
f. Arresto mayor
g.Arresto menor
h.Destierro
i. Perpetual absolute disqualification
j. Temporary absolute disqualification
k.Suspension from public office, the right to vote, and be
voted for, the right to follow profession or calling, and
l. Public censure
The penalties which can be simultaneously served are:

1. Perpetual absolute disqualification
2. Perpetual special disqualification
3. Temporary absolute disqualification
4. Temporary special disqualification
5. Suspension
6. Destierro
7. Public Censure
8. Fine and Bond to keep the peace
9. Civil interdiction
10.Confiscation and payment of costs
The above penalties, except destierro, can be served

simultaneously with imprisonment.
Penalties consisting in deprivation of liberty cannot be served

simultaneously by reason of the nature of such penalties.
Court must impose all the penalties for all the crimes of which
the accused is found guilty, but in the service of the same,
they shall not exceed three times the most severe and shall not
exceed 40 years.
Indemnity is a penalty.
Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan (1987)

Facts: The petitioner was convicted of violating Section 3(E)
of RA No. 3019 aka the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
One of the issues raised by the petitioner concerns the penalty
imposed by the Sandiganbayan which totals 56 years and 8 days of
imprisonment. He impugns this as contrary to the three-fold rule
and insists that the duration of the aggregate penalties should
not exceed 40 years.
Held: Petitioner is mistaken in his application of the 3-fold

rule as set forth in Art.70 of the RPC. This article is to be
taken into account not in the imposition of the penalty but
in connection with the service of the sentence imposed. Art.
70 speaks of “service” of sentence,“duration” of penalty and
penalty “to be inflicted”. Nowhere in the article is anything
mentioned about the “imposition of penalty”. It merely provides
that the prisoner cannot be made to serve more than three times
the most severe of these penalties the maximum which is 40 years.
Graduated Scales
On Criminal Law
Graduated Scales
Art. 71
In the case in which the law prescribed a penalty lower or higher by one or more
degrees than another given penalty, the rules prescribed in Article 61 shall be observed
in graduating such penalty.
The lower or higher penalty shall be taken from the graduated scale in which is
comprised the given penalty.
The courts, in applying such lower or higher penalty, shall observe the following
graduated scales:
SCALE NO. 1
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Destierro,
8. Arresto menor,
9. Public censure,
10. Fine.
SCALE NO. 2
1. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
2. Temporal absolute disqualification
3. Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted for, the right to follow a
profession or calling,
4. Public censure,
5. Fine.
Preference In The Payment Of The

Civil Liabilities
On Criminal Law
Art. 72
The civil liabilities of a person found guilty of two or more

offenses shall be satisfied by following the chronological order
of the dates of the judgments rendered against him, beginning with
the first in order of time.
NOTE: The penalties shall be satisfied according to the

chronological order of the dates of the final judgment. (Art.70)
Art. 70. Successive service of sentence. — When the culprit has
to serve two or more penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously
if the nature of the penalties will so permit otherwise, the
following rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of their respective

severity shall be followed so that they may be executed successively
or as nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have been
granted as to the penalty or penalties first imposed, or should
they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the next preceding

paragraph the respective severity of the penalties shall be
determined in accordance with the following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor,
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10 Temporal absolute disqualification.
11.Suspension from public office, the right to vote and be voted
for, the right to follow a profession or calling, and
12.Public censure.
Notwithstanding the provisions of the rule next preceding, the

maximum duration of the convict's sentence shall not be more
than three-fold the length of time corresponding to the most
severe of the penalties imposed upon him. No other penalty to
which he may be liable shall be inflicted after the sum total
of those imposed equals the same maximum period.
Such maximum period shall in no case exceed forty years. In

applying the provisions of this rule the duration of perpetual
penalties (pena perpetua) shall be computed at thirty years.
Presumption In Regard To The

Imposition Of Accessory Penalties
On Criminal Law
Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties
Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which, by provision

of law, carries with it other penalties, according to the
provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this Code, it
must be understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed
upon the convict.
NOTE: Accessory penalties are deemed imposed with the principal

penalty. However, the subsidiary imprisonment must be expressly
stated in the decision, as it is not considered an accessory
penalty.
Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases.
In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher than another

given penalty, without specially designating the name of the
former, if such higher penalty should be that of death, the same
penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be
considered as the next higher penalty.
NOTE: If the decision or law says higher than reclusion perpetua

or 2 degrees higher than reclusion temporal, then the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal as the case
may be, and not death. Death must be designated by name.
However, for the other penalties, this does not apply.
Ex: the penalty for crime X is 2 degrees lower than

RP. The penalty imposed is prision mayor.
Presumption In Regard To The

Imposition Of Accessory Penalties
On Criminal Law
Art. 73. Presumption in regard to the imposition of accessory penalties
Whenever the courts shall impose a penalty which, by provision

of law, carries with it other penalties, according to the
provisions of Articles 40, 41, 42, 43 and 44 of this Code, it
must be understood that the accessory penalties are also imposed
upon the convict.
NOTE: Accessory penalties are deemed imposed with the principal

penalty. However, the subsidiary imprisonment must be expressly
stated in the decision, as it is not considered an accessory
penalty.
Art. 74. Penalty higher than reclusion perpetua in certain cases.
In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty higher than another

given penalty, without specially designating the name of the
former, if such higher penalty should be that of death, the same
penalty and the accessory penalties of Article 40, shall be
considered as the next higher penalty.
NOTE: If the decision or law says higher than reclusion perpetua

or 2 degrees higher than reclusion temporal, then the penalty
imposed is reclusion perpetua or reclusion temporal as the case
may be, and not death. Death must be designated by name.
However, for the other penalties, this does not apply.
Ex: the penalty for crime X is 2 degrees lower than

RP. The penalty imposed is prision mayor.
Divisible Penalties
On Criminal Law
Art. 75. Increasing or reducing the penalty of fine by one or more degrees
Whenever it may be necessary to increase or reduce the penalty of fine by one or more

degrees, it shall be increased or reduced, respectively, for each degree, by one-fourth of
the maximum amount
prescribed by law, without however, changing the minimum. The same rules shall be
observed with regard of fines that do not consist of a fixed amount, but are made
proportional.
To get the lower degree:

1. Max: reduce by one-fourth
2. Min: the same
Art. 76. Legal period of duration of divisible penalties
The legal period of duration of divisible penalties shall be considered as divided into
three parts, forming three periods, the minimum, the medium, and the maximum in the
manner shown
in the following table:
Table Showing The Duration of Divisible Penalties
When The Penalty Is A Complex

One Composed Of Three Distinct
Penalties
On Criminal Law
Art. 77
In cases in which the law prescribes a penalty composed of three

distinct penalties, each one shall form a period; the lightest
of them shall be the minimum the next the medium, and the most
severe the maximum period.
Whenever the penalty prescribed does not have one of the forms
specially provided for in this Code, the periods shall be
distributed, applying by analogy the prescribed rules.
NOTE: If there are 3 distinct penalties; there shall be

a minimum, a medium and a maximum.
Ex: Reclusion temporal max to death
Art. 78. When and how a penalty is to be executed
No penalty shall be executed except by virtue of a final judgment.
A penalty shall not be executed in any other form than that

prescribed by law, nor with any other circumstances or incidents
than those expressly authorized thereby.
In addition to the provisions of the law, the special regulations

prescribed for the government of the institutions in which the
penalties are to be suffered shall be observed with regard to the
character of the work to be performed, the time of its performance,
and other incidents connected there with, the relations of the
convicts among themselves and other persons, the relief which
they may receive, and their diet.
The regulations shall make provision for the separation of the

sexes in different institutions, or at least into different
departments and also for the correction and reform of the convicts.
The judgment must be final before it can be

executed, because the accused may still appeal
within 15 days from its promulgation. But if the
defendant has expressly waived in writing his
right to appeal, the judgment becomes final and
executory.
NOTES:
Only a penalty by final judgment can be executed. Judgment is

final if the accused has not appealed within 15 days or he has
expressly waived in writing that he will not appeal.
There could be no subsidiary liability if it was not expressly

ordered in the judgment.
Suspension Of The Execution And

Service Of The Penalties In Case
Of Insanity
On Criminal Law
Suspension Of The Execution And Service Of The Penalties In Case Of Insanity
Art. 79.
When a convict shall become insane or an imbecile after final sentence has been
pronounced, the execution of said sentence shall be suspended only with regard to the
personal penalty, the provisions of the second paragraph of circumstance number 1 of
Article 12 being observed in the corresponding cases.
If at any time the convict shall recover his reason, his sentence shall be executed,
unless the penalty shall have prescribed in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
The respective provisions of this section shall also be observed if the insanity or
imbecility occurs while the convict is serving his sentence.
Cases of insanity:
1. After final sentence, suspend the sentence regarding the personal penalties.
2. If he recovers, the sentence is executed unless it has prescribed.
3. The payment of civil or pecuniary liabilities shall not be suspended.
Only execution of personal penalty is suspended: civil liability may be executed even in
case of insanity of convict.
An accused may become insane:

a. at the time of commission of the crime
- exempt from criminal liability
b. at the time of the trial
- court shall suspend hearings and order his confinement in a hospital until he recovers
his reason
c. at the time of final judgment or while serving sentence
– execution suspended with regard to the personal penalty only
Suspension Of Sentence Of Minor

Delinquents
On Criminal Law
Suspension Of Sentence Of Minor Delinquents
Art. 80
SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE OF MINOR DELINQUENTS (AS REPEALED BY PD 603: CHILD AND YOUTH
WELFARE CODE)
1. Youthful offender – over 9 but under 18 at the time of the commission of the offense.
2. A child nine years of age or under at the time of the commission of the offense shall be exempt
from criminal liability and shall be committed to the care of his or her father or mother, or nearest
relative or family friend in the discretion of the court and subject to its supervision.
3. The same shall be done for a child over nine years and under fifteen years of age at the time of the
commission of the offense, unless he acted with discernment, in which case he shall be proceeded
against in accordance with Article 192.
4. A youthful offender held for examination or trial who cannot furnish bail will be committed to the
DSWD/local rehabilitation center or detention home.
5. If the court finds that the youthful offender committed the crime charged against him, it shall
determine the impossible penalty and the civil liability chargeable against him, but it may not
pronounce judgment of conviction. Instead, the court shall suspend all further proceedings if, upon
application of the youthful offender, it finds that the best interest of the public and that of the
offender will be served thereby.
EXCEPTIONS to suspension of sentence

a. those who previously enjoyed a suspension of sentence
b. those convicted of death or life imprisonment
c. those convicted for an offense by the military tribunals
6. The youthful offender shall be returned to the court for pronouncement of judgment when the
youthful offender
(1) has been found incorrigible, or

(2) has willfully failed to comply with the conditions of his rehabilitation programs; or
(3) when his continued stay in the training institution would be inadvisable
7. When the youthful offender has reached the age of twenty-one while in commitment, the court
shall determine whether-
a. To dismiss the case, if the youthful offender has behaved properly and has shown his capability to
be a useful member of the community; or
b. To pronounce the judgment of conviction, if the conditions mentioned are not met.
In the latter case, the convicted offender may apply for probation. In any case, the youthful offender
shall be credited in the service of his sentence with the full time spent in actual commitment and
detention.
8. The final release of a youthful offender, based on good conduct as provided in Art. 196 shall not
obliterate his civil liability for damages.
9. A minor who is ALREADY AN ADULT at the time of his conviction is not entitled to a suspension of
sentence.
10. The records of the proceeding shall be privileged and shall not be disclosed.
11. The civil liability of the youthful offender may be voluntarily assumed by a relative or a friend
12. The parent or guardian of the child is liable when he aids, abets or connives for the commission
of the crime or does an act producing, promoting or contributing to the child’s being a juvenile
delinquent.
13.Penalties for the parent or guardian: Fine not exceeding P500 and/or imprisonment not
exceeding 2 years.
Related:
There are at least 7 instances or situations in criminal cases wherein the accused, either as an adult
or as a minor, can apply for and/or be granted a suspended sentence. Enumerate at least 5 of them.
Suggested Answer:
1. Suspension of sentence of minor under P.D. 603 as amended by R.A. 9344.
2. Suspension of sentence of minor above 15 but below 18 years of age at the time of trial under
R.A. 9344.
3. Suspension of sentence of minor above 15 but below 18 years of age at the commission of the
offense, while acting with discernment.
4. Suspension of sentence by reason of insanity (Art.79, Revised Penal Code).
5. Suspension of sentence for first offense of a minor violating R.A. 9165.
6. Suspension of sentence under the probation law. (P.D. 968)
7. Suspension of death sentence of a pregnant woman. (Art.83, Revised Penal Code)
A was 2 months below 18 years of age when he committed the crime. He was charged
with the crime 3 months later. He was 23 when he was finally convicted and sentenced.
Instead of preparing to serve a jail term, he sought a suspension of sentence on the
ground that he was a juvenile offender. Should he be entitled to a suspension of
sentence? Reasons.
Suggested Answer:
No, A is not entitled to a suspension of sentence because he is no longer a minor at the

time of promulgation of the sentence. For purposes of suspension of sentence, the
offender's age at the time of promulgation of the sentence is the one considered, not his
age when he committed the crime. So although A was below 18 years old when he
committed the crime, he was already 23 years old when sentenced, he is no longer
eligible for suspension of the sentence.
Can juvenile offenders, who are recidivist, validly ask for suspension of sentence?
Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, so long as the offender is still a minor at the time of the promulgation of the
sentence. The law establishing Family Courts. RA 8369, provides to this effect: that if the
minor is found guilty, the court should promulgate the sentence and ascertain any civil
liability which the accused may have incurred. However, the sentence shall be
suspended without the need of application pursuant to PD 603, otherwise known as the
'Child and Youth Welfare Code" (RA 8639, Sec.5a), it is under PD 603 than an
application for suspension of the sentence is required and thereunder it is one of the
conditions for suspension of sentence that the offender be a first time convict: this has
been displaced by RA 8369.
Victor, Ricky, Rod, and Ronnie went to the store of Mang Pandoy. Victor and Ricky
entered the store while Rod and Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering
beer Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang Pandoy vehemently
denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a knife as he announced 'Hold-up ito" and
stabbed Mang Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl Lucy to prevent her from
helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out of the store to seek help from people next
door she was chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang Pandoy, Victor
scooped up the money from the cashbox. Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street
and shouted, 'Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The money and
other articles looted from the store of Mang Pandoy were later found in the houses of
Victor and Ricky.
1. Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod, and Ronnie.
2. Are the minors Rod and Ronnie entitled to suspended sentence under the Child and
Youth Welfare Code? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
1. All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide...
2. No, because the benefits of suspension of a sentence are not available where the
youthful offender has been convicted of an offense punishable by life imprisonment or
death, pursuant to P.D.603, Art.192, the complex crime of robbery with homicide is
punishable by reclusion perpetua to death under Art,294 (1), RPC (People vs. Galit 230
SCRA 486).
Execution Of Principal Penalties

On Criminal Law
Art. 81. When and how the death penalty is to be executed

The death sentence shall be executed with reference to any other
and shall consist in putting the person under sentence to death
by electrocution. The death sentence shall be executed under
the authority of the Director of Prisons, endeavoring so far as
possible to mitigate the sufferings of the person under sentence
during electrocution as well as during the proceedings prior to
the execution.
If the person under sentence so desires, he shall be anaesthetized
at the moment of the electrocution.
Art. 82. Notification and execution of the sentence and assistance

to the culprit
The court shall designate a working day for the execution but
not the hour thereof; and such designation shall not be
communicated to the offender before sunrise of said day, and the
execution shall not take place until after the expiration of at
least eight hours following the notification, but before sunset.
During the interval between the notification and the execution,
the culprit shall, in so far as possible, be furnished such
assistance as he may request in order to be attended in his last
moments by priests or ministers of the religion he professes and
to consult lawyers, as well as in order to make a will and confer
with members of his family or persons in charge of the management
of his business, of the administration of his property, or of
the care of his descendants.
NOTE: Designate a working day, which shall not be communicated

to the offender before the sunrise of said day. The execution
shall not take place until after the expiration of at least 8
hours following such notification.
ART. 83: Suspension Of The Execution Of The Death Sentence

Death sentence commuted to RP:
1. woman, while pregnant
2. woman, within 1 year, after delivery
3. person over 70 years of age
4. convict who becomes insane after final sentence of death
has been pronounced
Art. 84. Place of execution and persons who may witness the same
The execution shall take place in the penitentiary of Bilibid in
a space closed to the public view and shall be witnessed only by
the priests assisting the offender and by his lawyers, and by his
relatives, not exceeding six, if he so request, by the physician
and the necessary personnel of the penal establishment, and by
such persons as the Director of Prisons may authorize.
Art. 85. Provisions relative to the corpse of the person

executed and its burial
Unless claimed by his family, the corpse of the culprit shall,
upon the completion of the legal proceedings subsequent to the
execution, be turned over to the institute of learning or
scientific research first applying for it, for the purpose of
study and investigation, provided that such institute shall take
charge of the decent burial of the remains. Otherwise, the
Director of Prisons shall order the burial of the body of the
culprit at government expense, granting permission to be present
thereat to the members of the family of the culprit and the friends
of the latter. In no case shall the burial of the body of a person
sentenced to death be held with pomp.
Art. 86. Reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor,

prision correccional and arresto mayor
The penalties of reclusion perpetua, reclusion temporal, prision mayor,
prision correccional and arresto mayor, shall be executed and
served in the places and penal establishments provided by the
Administrative Code in force or which may be provided by law in
the future.
ART. 87: DESTIERRO

Destierro Shall Be Imposed In The Following Cases:
1. Death or serious physical injuries is caused or are inflicted
under exceptional circumstance
2. Person fails to give bond for good behavior
3. Concubine’s penalty for the crime of concubinage
4. Lowering the penalty by degrees
Execution of Destierro:
1. Convict shall not be permitted to enter the place designated
in the sentence nor within the radius specified, which shall
not be more than 250 and not less than 25 km from the place
designated.
2. If the convict enters the prohibited area, he commits evasion
of sentence.
ART. 88: ARRESTO MENOR
NOTE:
Served where:
1. In the municipal jail
2. In the house of the offender, but under the surveillance of
an officer of the law whenever the court so provides in the
decision due to the health of the offender. But the reason is
not satisfactory just because the offender is a respectable
member of the community.
How Criminal Liability Is Totally

Extinguished?
On Criminal Law
How Is Criminal Liability Extinguished?
ART. 89
PAR. 1. BY DEATH
NOTES:
Extinguishment of criminal liability is a ground for a motion to quash.
Criminal liability whether before or after a final judgment is extinguished upon death
because it is a personal penalty.
Pecuniary penalty is extinguished only when death occurs before final judgment.
The death of the offended party however does not extinguish the criminal liability of the
accused because it is a crime against the state.
For defrauding Lorna, Alma was charged before the Municipal Trial Court of Malolos,
Bulacan. After a protracted trial. Alma was convicted. While the case was pending
appeal in the Regional Trial Court of the same province, Lorna who was then suffering
from breast cancer, died. Alma manifested to the court that with Lorna's death, her
(Alma's) criminal and civil liabilities are now extinguished. Is Alma's contention correct?
What if it were Alma who died, would it affect her criminal and civil liabilities? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No. Alma's contention is not correct. The death of the offended party does not extinguish
the criminal liability of the offender, because the offense is committed against the state.
(People vs. Misola, 87 Phil. 830,833). Hence, it follows that the civil liability of Alma
based on the offense committed by her is not extinguished. The estate of Lorna can
continue the case.
On the other hand, if it were Alma who died pending appeal of her conviction, her
criminal liability shall be extinguished and therewith the civil liability under the Revised
penal Code (Art.89, par. 1, RPC). However, the claim for civil indemnity may be
instituted under the Civil Code (Art. 1157) if predicated on a source of obligation other
than delicts, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts, and quasi-delicts. (People vs.
Bayotas 236 SCRA 239, G.R. 152007, September 2, 1994)
PAR. 2. BY SERVICE OF SENTENCE
NOTES:
Crime is a debt, hence extinguished upon payment. Service does not extinguish civil
liability.
PAR. 3. BY AMNESTY
Amnesty – is an act of the sovereign power granting oblivion or general pardon. It wipes
all traces and vestiges of the crime but does not extinguish civil liability.
Read:
1. Amnesty; Crimes covered (Bar Exam Question 2006)
2. Pardon vs. Amnesty
PAR. 4. BY ABSOLUTE PARDON
Pardon – an act of grace proceeding from the power entrusted with the execution of
laws, which exempts the individual from the punishment the law inflicts for the crime.
Amnesty From Pardon

1. Amnesty - Extended to classes of persons who may be guilty of political offenses.
Pardon - Exercised individually by the President
2. Amnesty - Exercised even before trial or investigation
Pardon - Exercised when one is convicted
3. Amnesty - Looks backward and abolishes the offense itself
Pardon - Looks forward and relieves the offender of

the consequences
4. Amnesty - Does not extinguish civil liability

Pardon - same
5. Amnesty - A public act that needs the declaration of the President with the
concurrence of Congress
Pardon - A private act of the President
6. Amnesty - Courts should take judicial notice
Pardon - Must be pleaded and proved
Linda was convicted by the Sandiganbayan of estafa, through falsification of public

document. She was sentenced accordingly and ordered to pay, among others,
P5,000.00 representing the balance of the amount defrauded. The case reached the
Supreme Court which affirmed the judgment of conviction. During the pendency of
Linda's motion for reconsideration in the said Court, the President extended to her an
absolute pardon which she accepted. By reason of such pardon, she wrote the
Department of Finance requesting that she be restored to her former post as assistant
treasurer, which is still vacant. The Department ruled that Linda may be reinstated to her
former position without the necessity of a new appointment and directed the City
Treasurer to see to it that the sum of P5,000.00 be satisfied. Claiming that she should
not be made to pay P5,000.00, Linda appealed to the Office of the President. The Office
of the President dismissed the appeal and held that acquittal, not absolute pardon is the
only ground for reinstatement to one's former position and that the absolute pardon does
not exempt the culprit from payment of civil liability. Is Linda entitled to reinstatement?
Suggested Answer:
No, Linda is not entitled to reinstatement to her former position inasmuch as her right
thereto had been relinquished or forfeited by reason of her conviction. The absolute
pardon merely extinguished her criminal liability, removed her disqualification, and
restored her eligibility for appointment to that office. She has to re-apply for such position
and under the usual procedure required for a new appointment. Moreover, the pardon
does not extinguish the civil liability arising from the crime. (Monsanto vs.Factoran, Jr.,
170 SCRA 191); see Art. 36, RPC)
PAR. 5. BY PRESCRIPTION OF CRIME
Prescription of a crime – is the loss/forfeiture of the right of the state to prosecute the
offender after the lapse of a certain time.
NOTE: When the crime prescribes, the state loses the right to prosecute
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS OF CRIMES:

1. Crimes punishable by:
a. Death, reclusión perpetua or reclusión temporal – 20 years

b. afflictive penalties – 15 years
c. correctional penalties – 10 years,
d. except those punishable by arresto mayor which shall prescribe in 5 years

2. Crime of libel – 1 year
3. Offenses of oral defamation and slander by deed – 6 months
4. Light offenses – 2 months
When the penalty is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made the basis of the
application of the above rules.
Joe and Marcy were married in Batanes in 1955. After two years, Joe left Marcy and
settled in Mindanao where he later met and married Linda on 12 June 1960. The second
marriage was registered in the civil registry of Davao City three days after its celebration.
On 10 October 1975 Marcy who remained in Batanes discovered the marriage of Joe to
Linda. On 1 March 1976 Marcy filed a complaint for bigamy against Joe.
The crime of bigamy prescribed in fifteen years computed from the day the crime is
discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. Joe raised the defense
of prescription of the crime, more than fifteen years having elapsed from the celebration
of the bigamous marriage up to the filing of Marcy's complaint. He contended that the
registration of his second marriage in the civil registry of Davao City was constructive
notice to the whole world of the celebration thereof thus binding upon Marcy.
Has the crime of bigamy charged against Joe already prescribed? Discuss fully.
Suggested Answer:
No. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the crime
was discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their agents. The principle of
constructive notice which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes should not be
applied to the crime of bigamy, as marriage is not property. Thus when Marcy filed a
complaint for bigamy on 7 March 1976, it was well within the reglementary period as it
was barely a few months from the time of discovery on 10 October 1975. (Sermonia vs.
CA, 233 SCRA 155)
OW is a private person engaged in cattle ranching. One night, he saw AM stab CV

treacherously, then throw the dead man's body into a ravine. For 25 years, CVs body
was never seen nor found; and OW told no one what he had witnessed. Yesterday after
consulting the parish priest, OW decided to tell the authorities what he witnessed and
revealed that AM had killed CV 25 years ago. Can AM be prosecuted for murder despite
the lapse of 25 years? Reason briefly.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, AM can be prosecuted for murder despite the lapse of 25 years, because the crime
has not yet prescribed and legally, its prescriptive period has not even commenced
running. The period of prescription of a crime shall commence running only from the day
on which the crime has been discovered by the offended party, the authorities, or their
agents (Art. 91, Revised Penal Code). OW, a private person who saw the killing but
never disclosed it, is not the offended party nor has the crime been discovered by the
authorities or their agents.
On June 1, 1988, a complaint for concubinage committed in February 1987 was filed

against Roberto in the Municipal Trial Court of Tanza, Cavite for purposes of preliminary
investigation. For various reasons, it was only on July 3, 1998, when the Judge of said
court decided the case by dismissing it for lack of jurisdiction since the crime was
committed in Manila. The case was subsequently filed with the City Fiscal of Manila but
it was dismissed on the ground that the crime had already prescribed. The law provides
that the crime of concubinage prescribes in ten (10) years. Was the dismissal by the
fiscal correct? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No, the Fiscal's dismissal of the case on alleged prescription is not correct. The filing of
the complaint with the Municipal Trial Court, although only for preliminary investigation,
interrupted and suspended the period of prescription in as much as the jurisdiction of a
court in a criminal case is determined by the allegations in the complaint or information,
not by the result of proof. (People vs. Galano. 75 SCRA 193)
Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a
prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their heated
argument. While the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned down and the
entire records of the case were destroyed. Later, the records were reconstituted. Andrew
was again called to the witness stand. This time he testified that his first testimony was
false and the truth was he was abroad when the crime took place. The judge
immediately ordered the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony favorable to
the defendant in a criminal case.
1. Will the case against Andrew prosper?

2. Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final on January 10, 1987. On June 18,
1994 a case of giving false testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal
step will you take?
Suggested Answer:
1. Yes. ...
2. As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the Information on the ground of
prescription. The crime of
false testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed because Paolo, the accused in the
principal case, was acquitted on
January 10, 1987, and therefore the penalty prescribed for such crime is arresto mayor
under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC.
Crimes punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years (Art. 90, par. 3, RPC).
But the case against Andrew
was filed only on June 18, 1994, whereas the principal criminal case was decided with
finality on January 10, 1987
and, thence the prescriptive period of the crime commenced to run. From January 10,
1987, to June 18, 1994 is more than five (5) years.

A was charged in an information with the crime of grave oral defamation but after trial,
the court found him guilty only of the offense of simple slander. He filed a motion for
reconsideration contending that, under the law, the crime of simple slander would have
prescribed in two months from commission, and since the information against him was
filed more than four months after the
alleged commission of the crime, the same had already prescribed. The Solicitor
General opposed the motion on two grounds: first, in determining the prescriptive period,
the nature of the offense charged in the Information should be considered, not the crime
proved; second, assuming that the offense had already prescribed, the defense was
waived by the failure of A to raise it in a motion to quash. Resolve the motion for
reconsideration.
Suggested Answer:
The motion for reconsideration should be granted.-
a) The accused cannot be convicted of the offense of simple slander although it is

necessarily included in the offense of grave slander charged in the information, because,
the lesser offense had already prescribed at the time the information was filed (People
us. Rarang, (CA) 62 O.G. 6468; Francisco vs. CA, 122 SCRA 538; Magat vs. People.
201 SCRA 21) otherwise prosecutors can easily circumvent the rule of prescription in
light offenses by the simple expedient of filing a graver offense which includes such light
offense.
b) While the general rule is the failure of an accused to file a motion to quash before he
pleads to the complaint or information, shall be deemed a waiver of the grounds of a
motion to quash, the exceptions to this are: (1) no offense was charged in the complaint
or information; (2) lack of
Jurisdiction; (3) extinction of the offense or penalty; and (4) double jeopardy. Since the
ground invoked by the accused in his motion for reconsideration is extinction of the
offense, then it can be raised even after plea. In fact, it may even be invoked on appeal
(People vs. Balagtas)
PAR. 6. BY PRESCRIPTION OF PENALTY
NOTE: means the loss/forfeiture of the right of the government to execute the final
sentence after the lapse of a certain time.
Conditions:
1. There must be final judgment.
2. The period must have elapsed.
PRESCRIPTIVE PERIODS OF PENALTIES:

1. Death and reclusión perpetua – 20 years
2. Other afflictive penalties – 15 years
3. Correctional penalties – 10 years, except for the penalty of arresto mayor which
prescribes in 5 years
4. Light penalties – 1 year
PAR. 7. BY MARRIAGE OF THE OFFENDED WOMAN (ART. 344)
NOTE:
Crimes covered:
1. rape
2. seduction
3. abduction
4. acts of lasciviousness
The marriage must be contracted in good faith.
Bar Exam Question 2006)
Amnesty vs. PD 1160
Can former DSWD Secretary Dinky Soliman apply for amnesty? How about columnist
Randy David? (You are supposed to know the crimes or offenses ascribed to them as
published in almost all newspapers for the past several months.)
Suggested Answer:
Proclamation 1160, which amended Proclamation 724, applies only to offenses

committed prior to 1999. Thus, their applications shall be ineffectual and useless.
General Lim and General Querubin of the Scout Rangers and Philippine Marines,
respectively, were charged with conduct unbecoming an officer and gentlemen under the
Articles of War. Can they apply for amnesty?
Suggested Answer:
Proclamation 1160, which amended Proclamation 724, applies only to offense

committed prior to 1999. Thus, their applications shall be ineffectual and useless.
Prescription Of Crime
On Criminal Law
ART. 90
NOTES:
In computing for the period, the first day is excluded and the
last day included. Period is subject to leap years.
When the last day of the prescriptive period falls on a Sunday

or a legal holiday, the information can no longer be filed the
following day.
Simple slander prescribes in 2 months and grave slander in 6 months.
Since destierro is a correctional penalty, it prescribes in 10

years. For afflictive penalties, period is 15 years.
If it is a compound penalty, basis will be the highest penalty.
If fine is an alternative penalty (imposed together with a penalty

lower than the fine), fine shall be the basis.
Prescription begins to run from the discovery thereof. It is

interrupted when proceedings are instituted and shall begin to
run again when the proceedings are dismissed.
If an accused fails to move to quash before pleading, he is deemed

to have waived all objections, except if the grounds are:
1. facts charged do not constitute an offense
2. court has no jurisdiction
3. criminal action or liability has been extinguished
4. the averments, if true, would constitute a legal excuse or
justification (See Rule 117, Sec 9,RoC)
Prescription does not take away the court’s jurisdiction but

only absolves the defendant and acquits him.
Computation Of Prescription Of
Offenses
On Criminal Law
Computation Of Prescription Of Offenses
ART. 91
NOTES:
If there is nothing concealed (appears in a public document), the crime commences to

run on the date of the commission.
The period of prescription for crimes which continue never runs.
Crime needs to be discovered by:

1. offended party
2. authorities
3. their agents
If a person witnesses the crime but only tells the authorities 25 years later, prescription
commences on the day the authorities were told.
What Interrupts Prescription?

1. Preliminary examination or investigation which is similar to judicial proceeding
2. Filing the proper complaint with the prosecutor’s office. Police not included.
3. Filing complaint with the court that has proper jurisdiction
The Period Commences To Run Again When The Proceeding Is Terminated:

1. Without the accused being convicted or acquitted
2. The proceeding is unjustifiably stopped for a reason not imputable to the offender.
When such proceedings terminate – termination that is final; an unappealed conviction

or acquittal
Unjustifiably stopped for any reason – ex: accused evades arrest, proceedings must be
stopped
NOTE:
Art. 91 applies to a special law when said law does not provide for the application but
only provides for the period of prescription.
When And How Penalties

Prescribe
On Criminal Law
ART. 92
NOTES:
Final sentence must be imposed.
If a convict can avail of mitigating circumstances and the penalty

is lowered, it is still the original penalty that is used as the
basis for prescription. However, if the convict already serves a
portion of his sentence and escapes after, the penalty that was
imposed (not the original) shall be the basis for prescription.
Fines less than P200 fall under light penalty.

Those above are correccional.
Definition Prescription of Penalties: The loss or forfeiture of
the right of the government to execute the final sentence after
the lapse of a certain time.
Prescriptive Periods of Penalties

- Death and reclusion perpetua - 20 years
- Other afflictive penalties - 15 years
- Correctional penalties - 10 years
Note: If arresto mayor - 5 years
- Light penalties - 1 year
Computation Of The Prescription

Of Penalties
On Criminal Law
Computation of the prescription of penalties
ART. 93
Computation of the prescription of penalties. - The period of prescription of penalties

shall commence to run from the date when the culprit should evade the service of his
sentence, and it shall be interrupted if the defendant should give himself up, be
captured, should go to some foreign country with which this Government has no
extradition treaty, or should commit another crime before the expiration of the period of
prescription.
The period of prescription commences to run from the date when the culprit evaded the
service of his sentence.
Requisites:
1. Penalty is imposed by final sentence.
2. Convict evaded service of the sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence.
3. Convict has not given himself up, or been captured, or gone to a foreign country with
which we have no extradition treaty, or committed another crime.
4. Penalty has prescribed, because of the lapse of time from the date of the evasion of
the service of the sentence.
Interruption Of The Period: If the convict

1. gives himself up
2. be captured
3. goes to a foreign country with which the Philippines has no extradition treaty
4. commits another crime before the expiration of the period of prescription
5. accepts a conditional pardon
NOTES:
If a government has an extradition treaty with the country to which a convict escaped,
but the crime is not included in the treaty, the running of the prescription is still
interrupted.
Evasion of sentence starts the running of the prescription. It does not interrupt it.
Acceptance of the conditional pardon interrupts the prescription period.
Rolito Go case: Since he was captured, he is only supposed to serve the remainder of
his sentence. Reason: During the period he escaped, his existence was one of fear and
discomfort.
Partial Extinction Of Criminal

Liability
On Criminal Law
Partial Extinction of Criminal Liability
ART. 94.
Partial extinction of criminal liability. – Criminal liability is extinguished partially:
"1. By conditional pardon;
"2. By commutation of the sentence; and
"3. For good conduct allowances which the culprit may earn while he is undergoing
preventive imprisonment or serving his sentence." (RA 10592)
Kinds of Partial Extinguishment:

1. By Conditional Pardon
2. By Commutation of sentence
3. For good conduct, allowances which the culprit may earn while he is serving
sentence
Conditional pardon – a contract between the sovereign power of the executive and the
convict
NOTE: Convict shall not violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines.
In Case Of Violation Of Conditions:

1. Offender is re-arrested and re-incarcerated
2. Prosecution under Art. 159
COMMUTATION – change in the decision of the court by the chief regarding the:
1. degree of the penalty
2. by decreasing the length of the imprisonment or fine
Commutation Allowed When:

1. person is over 70 years old
2. 8 justices fail to reach a decision affirming the death penalty
Conditional Pardon From Parole

1. Conditional Pardon - Given after final judgment
Parole - Given after service of the minimum penalty
2. Conditional Pardon - Granted by Chief Executive

Parole - Given by the Board of Pardons and Parole
3. Conditional Pardon - For violation, the convict may be prosecuted under 159
Parole - For violations, may be rearrested, convict serves the remaining sentence
Obligations Incurred By Person

Granted Conditional Pardon
On Criminal Law
Art. 95
Any person who has been granted conditional pardon shall incur
the obligation of complying strictly with the conditions imposed
therein otherwise, his non-compliance with any of the conditions
specified shall result in the revocation of the pardon and the
provisions of Article 159 shall be applied to him.
NOTES:
Question: What is the effect of the acceptance of the convict

of a conditional pardon?
Answer: It would interrupt the acceptance of the prescriptive period.
If delivered and accepted, it is a contract between the executive

and the convict that the former will release the latter upon
compliance with the condition.
Example of a condition: “Not to violate any of the penal laws of
the country again”.
Consent is not necessary in commutation.
Prisoner is also allowed special time allowance for loyalty

which is 1/5 deduction of the period of his sentence.
PAROLE – consists in the suspension of the sentence of a convict

after serving the minimum term of the indeterminate penalty,
without granting pardon, prescribing the terms upon which the
sentence shall be suspended. In case his parole conditions are
not observed, a convict may be returned to the custody and continue
to serve his sentence without deducting the time that elapsed.
Good conduct allowance during confinement –

Deduction for the term of sentence for good behavior
Allowances For Good Conduct Per Year
Years Allowance
First 2 years 5 days per month of good behavior
3rd to 5th years 8 days per month of good behavior
Following years up to 10th year 10 days per month of good behavior
11th year and successive years 15 days per month of good behavior
NOTE: Condition of pardon is limited to unserved

portion of the sentence, unless an intention to extend
it beyond the time is manifest.
Allowance For Good Conduct

On Criminal Law
Allowance for Good Conduct
Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence

The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different length and nature
shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former.
ART. 97: ALLOWANCE FOR GOOD CONDUCT
Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of any offender qualified for credit for
preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner
in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail shall
entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence:
"1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty
days for each month of good behavior during detention;
"2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
reduction of twenty-three days for each month of good behavior during detention;
"3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall
be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during
detention;
"4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of thirty days for each month of good behavior during detention; and
"5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction
of fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study,
teaching or mentoring service time rendered.
"An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances
for good conduct." (RA 10592)
NOTES:
Allowance for good conduct not applicable when prisoner released under
conditional pardon.
Good conduct time allowance is given in consideration of good conduct of prisoner while
he is serving sentence.
The convict may earn these while he is serving his sentence.

Example:
Article 158. A convict who escapes the place of confinement on the occasion of disorder
resulting from a conflagration, earthquake or similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in
which he has not participated; but who returns within 48 hours after the proclamation
that the calamity had passed shall be given credit of 1/5 deduction of the original
sentence.
Note:
Not an automatic right for it has to be granted by the Director of Prisons (Art. 99). Also,
he must be serving his sentence. Thus, if released because of conditional pardon, this
provision is not applicable.
Allowance For Good Conduct
On Criminal Law
Allowance for Good Conduct
Art. 96. Effect of commutation of sentence

The commutation of the original sentence for another of a different length and nature
shall have the legal effect of substituting the latter in the place of the former.
ART. 97: ALLOWANCE FOR GOOD CONDUCT
Allowance for good conduct. – The good conduct of any offender qualified for credit for
preventive imprisonment pursuant to Article 29 of this Code, or of any convicted prisoner
in any penal institution, rehabilitation or detention center or any other local jail shall
entitle him to the following deductions from the period of his sentence:
"1. During the first two years of imprisonment, he shall be allowed a deduction of twenty
days for each month of good behavior during detention;
"2. During the third to the fifth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
reduction of twenty-three days for each month of good behavior during detention;
"3. During the following years until the tenth year, inclusive, of his imprisonment, he shall
be allowed a deduction of twenty-five days for each month of good behavior during
detention;
"4. During the eleventh and successive years of his imprisonment, he shall be allowed a
deduction of thirty days for each month of good behavior during detention; and
"5. At any time during the period of imprisonment, he shall be allowed another deduction
of fifteen days, in addition to numbers one to four hereof, for each month of study,
teaching or mentoring service time rendered.
"An appeal by the accused shall not deprive him of entitlement to the above allowances
for good conduct." (RA 10592)
NOTES:
Allowance for good conduct not applicable when prisoner released under
conditional pardon.
Good conduct time allowance is given in consideration of good conduct of prisoner while
he is serving sentence.
The convict may earn these while he is serving his sentence.

Example:
Article 158. A convict who escapes the place of confinement on the occasion of disorder
resulting from a conflagration, earthquake or similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in
which he has not participated; but who returns within 48 hours after the proclamation
that the calamity had passed shall be given credit of 1/5 deduction of the original
sentence.
Note:
Not an automatic right for it has to be granted by the Director of Prisons (Art. 99). Also,
he must be serving his sentence. Thus, if released because of conditional pardon, this
provision is not applicable.
Special Time Allowance For

Loyalty
On Criminal Law
Special Time Allowance for Loyalty
ART. 98.
Special time allowance for loyalty. – A deduction of one fifth of the period of his sentence
shall be granted to any prisoner who, having evaded his preventive imprisonment or the
service of his sentence under the circumstances mentioned in Article 158 of this Code,
gives himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe referred to in
said article. A deduction of two-fifths of the period of his sentence shall be granted in
case said prisoner chose to stay in the place of his confinement notwithstanding the
existence of a calamity or catastrophe enumerated in Article 158 of this Code.
"This Article shall apply to any prisoner whether undergoing preventive imprisonment or
serving sentence." (RA 10592)
NOTES:
The article applies only to prisoners who escaped.
There is a deduction of 1/5 of the period of sentence of prisoner who, having evaded the
service of his sentence during the calamity or catastrophe mentioned in Art 158, gives
himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of the proclamation
by the President announcing the passing away of the calamity or catastrophe.
The deduction is based on the original sentence and not on the unexpired portion.
Art 158 provides for increased penalties:
A convict who has evaded the service of his sentence by leaving the penal institution on
the occasion of disorder resulting from conflagration, earthquake or similar catastrophe
or during mutiny in which he did not participate is liable to an increased penalty (1/5 of
the time still remaining to be served – not to exceed 6 months), if he fails to give himself
up to the authorities within 48 hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the
President announcing the passing away of the calamity.
Who grants time allowances?

On Criminal Law
Who grants time allowances?
ART. 99.
Who grants time allowances. – Whenever lawfully justified, the Director of the Bureau of
Corrections, the Chief of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology and/or the
Warden of a provincial, district, municipal or city jail shall grant allowances for good
conduct. Such allowances once granted shall not be revoked." (RA 10592)
NOTES:
The authority to grant time allowance for good conduct is exclusively vested in the
Director. (e.g. provincial warden cannot usurp Director’s authority) - now amended by RA
10592
It is not an automatic right, and once granted, cannot be revoked by him.

Civil Liability Of A Person Guilty
Of Felony
On Criminal Law
Civil Liability of a Person Guilty of Felony
ART. 100
Civil liability of a person guilty of felony. - Every person criminally liable for a felony is
also civilly liable.
TWO CLASSES OF CIVIL LIABILITY

1. Social injury – produced by disturbance and alarm which are the outcome of the
offense
2. Personal injury – caused by the victim who may have suffered damage, either to his
person, property, honor or chastity
Dual Character Of The Crime As Against:

1. the state, because of the disturbance of peace and order
2. the private person injured, unless it involves the crime of treason, rebellion,
espionage, contempt and others where no civil liability arises on the part of the offender
either because there are no damages or there is no private person injured by the crime
Damage that may be recovered in criminal cases:

1. Crimes against persons, like crime of physical injuries – whatever he spent for
treatment of wounds, doctor’s fees, medicines as well as salary or wages unearned
2. Moral Damages: seduction, abduction, rape or other lascivious acts, adultery or
concubinage, illegal or arbitrary detention or arrest, illegal search, libel, slander or any
other form of defamation, malicious prosecution
3. Exemplary Damages: imposed when crime was committed with one or more
aggravating circumstances
NOTES:
If there is no damage caused by the commission of the crime, offender is not civilly
liable.
Dismissal of the information or the criminal action does not affect the right of the
offended party to institute or continue the civil action already instituted arising from the
offense, because such dismissal does not carry with it the extinction of the civil one.
When accused is acquitted on ground that his guilt has not been proven beyond
reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or omission may be
instituted.
Exemption from criminal liability in favor of an imbecile or insane person, and a person
under 15 years, or over 15 but under 18 who acted without discernment and those acting
under the
impulse of irresistible force or under the impulse of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury does not include exemption from civil liability.
Acquittal in the criminal action for negligence does not preclude the offended party from
filing a civil action to recover damages, based on the theory that the act is a quasi-delict.
When the court found the accused guilty of criminal negligence but failed to enter
judgment of civil liability, the private prosecutor has a right to appeal for the purposes of
the civil liability of the accused. The appellate court may remand the case to the trial
court for the latter to include in its
judgment the civil liability of the accused.
Before expiration of the 15-day period to appeal, the trial court can amend the judgment
of conviction by adding a provision for the civil liability of the accused, even if the convict
has started serving the sentence.
If offender dies prior to the institution of the action or prior to the finality of judgment, civil
liability ex delicto is extinguished.
An independent civil action may be brought by the injured party during the pendency of
the criminal case provided the right is reserved. Reservation is necessary in the
following cases:
i. any of the cases referred to in Art 32 (perpetual or temporary disqualification for
exercise of the right of suffrage)
ii. defamation, fraud and physical injury (bodily injury and not the crime of physical injury)
iii. civil action is against a member of a city or municipal police force for refusing or failing
to render aid or protection to any person in case of danger to life or property.
Prejudicial Question – one which arises in a case, the resolution of which is a logical
antecedent of the issue involved in said case and the cognizance of which pertains to
another tribunal.
(elements provided in Rule 111, Section 7 of RoC) For the principle to apply, it is
essential that there be 2 cases involved, a civil and a criminal case. Prejudicial questions
must be decided before any criminal prosecution may be instituted or may proceed.
Civil Liability; When Mandatory; Criminal Liability (2005)
The accused was found guilty of 10 counts of rape for having carnal knowledge with the
same woman. In addition to the penalty of imprisonment, he was ordered to pay
indemnity in the amount of P50,000.00 for each count. On appeal, the accused
questions the award of civil indemnity for each count, considering that the victim is the
same woman. How would you rule on the contention of the accused? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
The contention is unmeritorious. Under the law, every person criminally liable is civilly
liable. (Art. 100, Revised Penal Code) Since each count charges different felonious acts
and ought to be punished differently, the concomitant civil indemnity ex delicto for every
criminal act should be adjudged. Said civil indemnity is mandatory upon a finding of the
fact of rape; it is distinct from and should not be denominated as moral damages which
are based on different jural foundations. (People v. Jalosjos, G.R. Nos. 132875-76,
November 16, 2001)
Rules Regarding Civil Liability In

Certain Cases
On Criminal Law
Rules Regarding Civil Liability In Certain Cases
ART. 101
General Rule: Exemption from criminal liability does not include exemption from civil
liability.
Exception: No civil liability in Art. 12, par. 4 (injury caused by mere accident) and par. 7
(failure to perform an act required by law when prevented by some lawful or insuperable
cause).
Pars. 1,2,3,5 and 6 are NOT exempt from civil liability although exempt from criminal
liability.
Who Are Civilly Liable For: -

1. Acts of insane or minor exempt from criminal liability
a. primarily persons having legal authority or control over him, if at fault or negligent
(except if proven that they acted without fault or with due diligence)
b. If there is no fault or negligence, or even with fault but are insolvent and there are no
persons having legal authority over them, the property of the insane, minor or imbecile
not exempt from execution shall be held liable.
2. Over 15 but under 18, with discernment

a. The father and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, are responsible for the
damages caused by the minor children who live in their company.
b. Guardians over minors who are under their authority and live in their company
c. If there are no parents or guardian, the minor or insane person shall be answerable
with his own property in an action against him where a guardian ad litem shall be
appointed.
NOTE: Final release of a child based on good conduct does not remove his civil liability
for damages.
3. Persons acting under an irresistible force or uncontrollable ear – Persons using

violence or causing the fear are primarily liable. If there are none, those doing the act are
responsible.
General Rule: no civil liability in justifying circumstances
Exception: par. 4 of Art. 11, where a person does an act, causing damage to another, in
order to avoid evil or injury, the person benefited by the prevention of the evil or injury
shall be civilly liable in proportion to the benefit he received.
Civil liability in case of state of necessity
Those who benefited by the act are liable. The court shall determine the proportionate
amount for which each shall be liable. If the government or majority of the inhabitants
are held responsible, such will be determined by special laws or regulations.
Subsidiary Civil Liability Of

Innkeepers
On Criminal Law
ART. 102:
Subsidiary Civil Liability Of Innkeepers, Tavern Keepers

And Proprietors Of Establishments
PAR. 1
Requisites:
1. The innkeeper, tavern keeper or proprietor of the
establishment or his employee committed a violation of
municipal ordinance or some general or special police
regulation.
2. A crime is committed in such establishment.
3. The person criminally liable is insolvent.
NOTE: When all these are present, the innkeeper, tavern keeper
or any other person or corporation is subsidiarily liable
for the crime committed in his establishment.
PAR. 2:
Requisites:
1. The guests notified in advance the innkeeper of the
deposit of such goods within the inn or house.
2. The guests followed the directions of the innkeeper or
his representative with respect to the care of and
vigilance over such goods.
3. Such goods of the guests and a lodging therein were
taken by robbery with force upon things or theft
committed within the inn or house.
Subsidiary Civil Liability Of Other

Persons
On Criminal Law
Subsidiary Civil Liability Of Other Persons
ART. 103
Requisites:
1. The employer, teacher, person, or corporation is engaged in any kind of industry.
2. Any of their servants, pupils, workmen, apprentices or employees commits a felony
while in the discharge of his duties.
3. The said employee is insolvent and has not satisfied his civil liability.
Industry – any department or branch of art, occupation or business; especially one w/c
employs so much labor and capital is a distinct branch of trade.
NOTES:
Hospitals are not engaged in industry; hence, they are not subsidiarily liable for acts of
nurses.
Private persons without business or industry are not subsidiarity liable.
A separate trial is not necessary to enforce the subsidiary liability of the employer. The
judgment obligee only needs to file a motion for subsidiary execution. During the hearing
of the said motion, it is incumbent upon the movant to prove that;
(1) an employer-employee relationship exists;
(2) the employer is engaged in an industry;
(3) the convict committed the crime while in the discharge of his duties; and
(4) the writ of execution was returned unsatisfied.
The employer’s subsidiary liability arises when it is proved that the convict committed the
crime while at the service of the employer and the writ of execution issued against the
accused is returned unsatisfied. On the other hand, if the convict committed the crime
but NOT while in the service of an
employer and he cannot pay his civil liability, Art. 39 on subsidiary penalty will apply.
Civil liabilities vs. Pecuniary Liabilities

1. Civil Liabilities - Includes reparation and indemnification
Pecuniary Liabilities - same
2. Civil Liabilities - Includes restitution (return property taken), nothing to pay in terms of
money.
Pecuniary Liabilities - No restitution as the liabilities are to paid out of the property of the
offender.
3. Civil Liabilities - No fines and costs of proceedings. Pecuniary Liabilities - includes

fines and costs of proceedings
Civil Liability; Subsidiary; Employers (1998)
Guy, while driving a passenger jeepney owned and operated by Max, bumped Demy, a
pedestrian crossing the street. Demy sustained injuries which required medical
attendance for three months. Guy was charged with reckless imprudence resulting to
physical injuries. Convicted by the Metropolitan Trial Court. Guy was sentenced to suffer
a straight penalty of three months of arresto mayor and ordered to indemnify Demy in
the sum of P5,000 and to pay P1,000 as attorney's fees. Upon finality of the decision, a
writ of execution was served upon Guy but was returned unsatisfied due to his
insolvency. Demy moved for a subsidiary writ of execution against Max. The latter
opposed the motion on-the-ground that the decision made no mention of his subsidiary
liability and that he was not impleaded in the case. How will you resolve the motion?
Suggested Answer:
The motion is to be granted. Max as an employer of Guy and engaged in an industry

(transportation business) where said employee is utilized, is subsidiarily civilly liable
under Article 103 of the Revised Penal Code. Even though the decision made no
mention of his subsidiary liability, the law violated (Revised Penal Code) itself mandates
for such liability, and Max is deemed to know it because ignorance of the law is never
excused. And since his liability is not primary but only subsidiary in case his employee
cannot pay; he need not be impleaded in the criminal case. It suffices that he was duly
notified of the motion for issuance of a subsidiary writ of execution and thus given the
opportunity to be heard.
What Is Included in Civil Liability

On Criminal Law
What Is Included in Civil Liability
ART. 104
What is included in civil liability. - The civil liability established in Articles 100, 101, 102,
and 103 of this Code includes:
1. Restitution;
2. Reparation of the damage caused;
3. Indemnification for consequential damages.
NOTE:
The first remedy granted by law is restitution of the thing taken away by the offender; if
restitution cannot be made by the offender or by his heirs, the law allows the offended
party reparation. In either case, indemnity for consequential damages may be required.
Restitution – In theft, the culprit is duty-bound to return the property stolen.
Reparation – In case of inability to return the property stolen, the culprit must pay the
value of the property stolen.
In case of physical injuries, the reparation of the damage caused would consist in the
payment of hospital bills and doctor’s fees to the offended party.
Indemnification – the loss of salary or earnings.

Damages; Homicide; Temperate Damages (2006)
In a crime of homicide, the prosecution failed to present any receipt to substantiate the
heirs' claim for an award of actual damages, such as expenses for the wake and burial.
What kind of damages may the trial court award to them and how much?
Suggested Answer:
The court may award temperate damages in the amount of twenty-five (P25,000.00)
thousand pesos. Under jurisprudence, temperate damages is awarded in homicide when
no sufficient proof of actual damages is offered or if the actual damages proven is less
than twenty-five thousand (P25,000) (People v. Salona, G.R. No. 151251, May 19,
2004).
Restitution; How Made

On Criminal Law
ART. 105
NOTES:
The convict cannot, by way of restitution, give to the offended

party a similar thing of the same amount, kind or species and
quality. The very thing should be returned.
If the property stolen while in the possession of the third party

suffers deterioration due to his fault, the court will assess
the amount of the deterioration and, in addition to the return
of the property, the culprit will be ordered to pay such amount.
The owner of the property illegally taken by the offender can

recover it from whomsoever is in possession thereof. Thus, even
if the property stolen was acquired by a 3rd person by purchase
without knowing that it has been stolen, such property will be
returned to the owner.
If the thing is acquired by a person knowing that it was stolen,

then he is an accessory and therefore criminally liable.
The third party who acquired the stolen property may be

reimbursed with the price paid therefor if it be acquired at
(a) a public sale and (b) in good faith.
Circumstances which bar an action for recovery: (a) torrens title,

(b) when sale is authorized
When the liability to return a thing arises from a contract,
and not from a criminal act, the court cannot order its return
in the criminal case
Restitution may be ordered, even if accused is acquitted,

provided the offense is proved and it is shown that the thing
belongs to someone else.
When crime is not against property, no restitution or reparation

of the thing can be done.
Payment of salary of an employee during the period of suspension

cannot, as a general rule, be properly decreed by the court in a
judgment of acquittal. It devolves upon the head of the department
concerned to do so.
The court has authority to order the reinstatement of the accused

acquitted of a crime punishable by the penalty of perpetual
or temporary disqualification.
Reparation; How Made

On Criminal Law
Reparation: How Made?
ART. 106
NOTES:
The court orders reparation if restitution is not possible.
Reparation shall be: the price of the thing, plus its sentimental value.
If there is no evidence as to the value of the thing unrecovered, reparation cannot be

made.
Payment by the insurance company does not relieve the offender of his obligation to
repair the damage caused.
Damages shall be limited to those caused by the crime.
The accused is liable for the damages caused as a result of the destruction of the
property after the crime was committed, either because it was lost or destroyed by the
accused himself or that by any other person or as a result of any other cause or causes.
Indemnification; What is Included

On Criminal Law
ART. 107
NOTES:
Indemnity refers to crimes against persons while reparation to

crimes against property.
Indemnity for medical services still unpaid may be recovered.
Contributory negligence on the part of the offended party reduces

the civil liability of the offender.
The civil liability may be increased only if it will not require

an aggravation of the decision in the criminal case on which
it is based.
The amount of damages for death shall be at least 50,000, even

though there may have been mitigating circumstances.
In addition:
1. payment for the loss of the earning capacity of the deceased
2. If the deceased was obliged to give support, the recipient,
who is not an heir, may demand support from the defendant.
3. The spouse, illegitimate descendants and ascendants of the
deceased may demand for moral damages.
Moral damages may be recovered in the following:

1. physical injuries
2. seduction, abduction, rape
3. adultery, concubinage
4. illegal or arbitrary detention
5. illegal search
6. libel, slander, defamation
7. malicious prosecution
Obligation To Make Restoration;

Upon Whom It Devolves
On Criminal Law
ART. 108:
Obligation To Make Restoration, Reparation For Damages,

Or Indemnification For Consequential Damages And Actions To
Demand The Same; Upon Whom It Devolves
NOTES:
The heirs of the person liable has no obligation if restoration
is not possible and the deceased left no property.
Civil liability is possible only when the offender dies after

final judgment.
If the death of the offender took place before any final judgment
of conviction was rendered against him, the action for restitution
must necessarily be dismissed.
ART. 109: SHARE OF EACH PERSON CIVILLY LIABLE
NOTE: In case of insolvency of the accomplices, the principal

shall be subsidiarily liable for their share of the indemnity.
In case of the insolvency of the principal, the accomplices
shall be subsidiarily liable, jointly and severally liable,
for the indemnity due from said principal.
Several And Subsidiary Liability

Of Principals
On Criminal Law
ART. 110
Several And Subsidiary Liability Of Principals, Accomplices

And Accessories Of A Felony; Preference In Payment
Each class of principals, accomplices and accessories is liable

solidary for their share and subsidiarily liable for the share
of the other classes.
Preference In Enforcement Of Subsidiary

Liability:
1. against the property of the principal
2. against that of the accomplice
3. against that of the accessories
ART. 111: Obligation To Make Restitution In Certain Cases
NOTES:
This refers to a person who has participated gratuitously in

the proceeds of a felony and he is bound to make restitution
in an amount equivalent to the extent of such participation.
The third person must be innocent of the commission of the crime,
otherwise he would be liable as an accessory and this article will
not apply.
Ex. A stole a ring worth 1k which he gave to B who accepted

it without knowledge that it was stolen. B sold the ring
to C for 500. B is liable to make restitution up to
500 only.
Extinction Of Civil Liability

On Criminal Law
Extinction Of Civil Liability
ART. 112
Civil Liability Is Extinguished By:

1. payment or performance
2. loss of the thing due
3. condonation or remission of the debt
4. confusion or merger of the rights of creditor and debtor
5. compensation
6. novation
Loss of the thing due

- does not extinguish civil liability because if the offender cannot make restitution, he is
obliged to make reparation.
Unless extinguished, civil liability subsists

- even if the offender has served sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other
rights or has served the same, due to amnesty, pardon, commutation of sentence, or
any other reason.
AX was convicted of reckless imprudence resulting in homicide. The trial court

sentenced him to a prison term as well as to pay Php150,000 as civil indemnity and
damages. While his appeal was pending, AX met a fatal accident. He left a young
widow, 2 children, and a million-peso estate. What is the effect, if any, of his death on his
criminal as well as civil liability? Explain briefly.
Suggested Answer:
The death of AX while his appeal from the judgment of the trial court is pending,
extinguishes his criminal liability. The civil liability insofar as it arises from the crime and
recoverable under the Revised Penal Code is also extinguished; but indemnity and
damages may be recovered in a civil action if predicated on a source of obligation under
Art.1157, Civil Code, such as law, contracts, quasi-contracts and quasi-delicts, but not
on the basis of delicts. (People vs. Bayotas, 236 SCRA 239).
Civil indemnity and damages under the Revised Penal Code are recoverable only if the
accused had been convicted with finality before he died.
Obligation to satisfy civil liability

On Criminal Law
Obligation to satisfy civil liability
Art.113
Article 113. Obligation to satisfy civil liability. - Except in case of extinction of his civil
liability as provided in the next preceding article the offender shall continue to be obliged
to satisfy the civil liability resulting from the crime committed by him, notwithstanding the
fact that he has served his sentence consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights, or
has not been required to serve the same by reason of amnesty, pardon, commutation of
sentence or any other reason.
NOTES:
Unless extinguished, civil liability subsists even if the offender has served sentence
consisting of deprivation of liberty or other rights or has not served the same, due to
amnesty, pardon, commutation of the sentence, or any other reason.
Under the law as amended, even if the subsidiary imprisonment is served for non-
payment of fines, this pecuniary liability of the defendant is not extinguished.
While amnesty wipes out all traces and vestiges of the crime, it does not extinguish the
civil liability of the offender. A pardon shall in no case exempt the culprit from the
payment of the civil indemnity imposed upon him by the sentence.
Probation affects only the criminal aspect of the crime.
Civil liability; Effect of Acquittal (2000)
Name at least two exceptions to the general rule that in case of acquittal of the accused
in a criminal case, his civil liability is likewise extinguished.
Suggested Answer:
Exceptions to the rule that acquittal from a criminal case extinguishes civil liability, are:
1) When the civil action is based on obligations not arising from the act complained of as
a felony;
2) When acquittal is based on reasonable doubt or acquittal is on the ground that guilt
has not been proven beyond reasonable doubt (Art. 29, New Civil Code);
3) Acquittal due to an exempting circumstance, like Insanity;
4) Where the court states in its Judgment that the case merely involves a civil obligation;
5) Where there was a proper reservation for the filing of a separate civil action;
6) In cases of independent civil actions provided for in Arts. 31, 32, 33 and 34 of the New
Civil Code;
7) When the judgment of acquittal includes a declaration that the fact from which the civil
liability might arise did not exist (Sapiera vs. CA, 314 SCRA 370);
8) Where the civil liability is not derived or based on the criminal act of which the
accused is acquitted (Sapiera vs. CA. 314 SCRA 370).
Civil liability; Effect of Acquittal (2000)
A was a 17-year old working student who was earning his keep as a cigarette vendor. B
was driving a car along busy Espana Street at about 7:00 p.m. Beside B was C. The car
stopped at an intersection because of the red signal of the traffic light. While waiting for
the green signal, C beckoned A to buy some cigarettes. A approached the car and
handed two sticks of cigarettes to C. While the transaction was taking place, the traffic
light changed to green and the car immediately sped off. As the car continued to speed
towards Quiapo, A clung to the window of the car but lost his grip and fell down on the
pavement. The car did not stop. A suffered serious injuries which eventually caused his
death. C was charged with ROBBERY with HOMICIDE. In the end, the Court was not
convinced with moral certainty that the guilt of C has been established beyond
reasonable doubt and, thus, acquitted him on the ground of reasonable doubt. Can the
family of the victim still recover civil damages in view of the acquittal of C? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, as against C, A's family can still recover civil damages despite C's acquittal. When
the accused in a criminal prosecution is acquitted on the ground that his guilt has not
been proved beyond reasonable doubt, a civil action for damages for the same act or
omission may be instituted. Such action requires only a preponderance of evidence {Art.
29, CC). If A's family can prove the negligence of B by preponderance of evidence, the
civil action for damages against B will prosper based on quasi-delict. Whoever by act or
omission causes damage to another, there being fault or negligence, is obliged to pay
for the damage done. Such fault or negligence, about pre-existing contractual relation
between the parties, is called a quasi-delict [Art. 2176, CC). This is entirely separate and
distinct from civil liability arising from negligence under the Penal Code [Arts, 31, 2176,
2177, CC}.
BOOK II
Crimes Against National Security And The Law Of Nations - Title I
Treason
On Criminal Law
What is Treason ?
ART 114
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien resident
2. There’s a war in and Philippines is involved; and
3. Offender either –
a. Levies war against the government; or
b. Adheres to enemies, giving aid or comfort
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Filipino – permanent allegiance; can commit treason anywhere
2. Alien Residing – temporary allegiance; commit treason only while residing in
Philippines
Notes:
Treason committed in a foreign country may be prosecuted in the Philippines. (Art.2,

RPC)
Treason by an alien must be committed in the Philippines. (EO 44).
Treason – breach of allegiance to the government by a person who owes allegiance to it.
Allegiance – obligation of fidelity and obedience which individuals owe to the

government under which they live or to their sovereign, in return for protection they
receive.
Treason is a war crime - punished by state as a measure of self-protection.
Committed in times of war (not peace) when

- there is actual hostilities
- no need for a declaration of war.
Mere acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy do not
constitute per se the felony of treason. But when the position is policy-determining, the
acceptance of public office and the discharge of official duties constitute treason.
WAYS TO COMMIT TREASON:

1. Levying war against government - requires:
a. Actual assembling of men
b. Purpose of executing a treasonable design, by force
2. Adheres to enemies – following must concur together:
a. Actual adherence
b. Give aid or comfort
NOTES:
Levying war - must be with intent to overthrow the government as such, not merely to
repeal a particular statute or to resist a particular officer.
Requirements of levying war

1. Actual assembling of men;
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
Not necessary that those attempting to overthrow the government by force of arms
should have the apparent power to succeed in their design, in whole or in part.
Adherence – intellectually or emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or

convictions disloyal to his country’s policy or interest.
Aid or Comfort – act w/c strengthens or tends to strengthen the enemy of the
government in the conduct of war against the government, or an act w/c weakens or
tends to weaken the power of the government or the country to resist or to attack the
enemies of the gov’t or country
WAYS TO PROVE:
1. Treason
a. Testimony of at least 2 witnesses to the same overt act
b. Judicial confession of accused
2. Adherence
a. One witness
b. Nature of act itself
c. Circumstances surrounding act
Notes:
To convict: testimonies must relate to the same overt act – not two similar acts.
If act is separable – each witness can testify to parts of it; but the act, as a whole, must
be identifiable as an overt act.
Confession must be in open court.
Reason for 2-witness rule

special nature of the crime requires that the accused be afforded a special protection not
required in other cases so as to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Extreme seriousness of
the crime, for which death is one of the penalties provided by law, and the fact that the
crime is committed in abnormal times, when small differences may in mortal enmity wipe
out all scruples in sacrificing the truth.
General Notes:
Inherent circumstances - they do not aggravate the crime.

- Evident premeditation are needed to see this picture.
- superior strength
- treachery
Treason is a continuing crime. Even after the war, offender can still be prosecuted.
No treason through negligence since it must be intentional.
No complex crime of treason with murder – murder is the overt act of aid or comfort and
is therefore inseparable from treason itself.
DEFENSE:
- Duress or uncontrollable fear
- Obedience to de facto government
NOT DEFENSE:
- Suspended allegiance
- Joining the enemy army thus becoming a citizen of the enemy
Conspiracy and Proposal To

Commit Treason
On Criminal Law
ART. 115.
ELEMENTS – CONSPIRACY:
1. In time of war;
2. Two or more persons come to an agreement to -
a. levy war against the government, or
b. adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort
3. They decide to commit it.
ELEMENTS – PROPOSAL:
1. In time of war
2. A person who has decided to levy war against the government,
or to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort
3. Proposes its execution to some other person/s.
Notes:
As a general rule, conspiracy and proposal to commit a felony is

not punishable (ART.8). Art 115 is an exception as it specifically
penalizes conspiracy and proposal to commit treason.
Mere agreement and decision to commit treason is punishable.
Two-witness rule – not applicable since this is a crime separate

from treason.
Mere proposal even without acceptance is punishable, too. If the

other accepts, it is already conspiracy.
If actual acts of treason are committed after the conspiracy or

proposal, the crime committed will be treason, and the conspiracy
or proposal is considered as a means in the commission thereof.
Misprision of Treason
On Criminal Law
Misprision of Treason
ART. 116.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender owes allegiance to the government
2. Not a foreigner
3. Has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason) against the government
4. He conceals or does not disclose the same to the authorities in w/c he resides.
NOTES:
Offender is punished as an accessory to the crime of treason.
But is actually principal to this crime.
Crime doesn't apply if crime of treason is already committed and it is not reported.
It is a crime of omission.
RPC mentions 4 individuals (i.e. governor, provincial fiscal, mayor or city fiscal), but what
if you report to some other high-ranking government. official?
Ex: PNP Director? Judge Pimentel says any government. official of the DILG is OK..
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.
Any person in authority having the equivalent jurisdiction (of a mayor, fiscal or governor),
like a provincial commander, will already negate criminal liability.
Blood relationship is always subservient to national security. Article 20 does not apply

here.
Under the Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of misprision of rebellion.
Espionage
On Criminal Law
Espionage
ART. 117
ESPIONAGE – is the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing information respecting

the national defense with intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to
the injury of
the Republic of the Philippines or the advantage of a foreign nation.
MODES of COMMITTING ESPIONAGE:

1. By entering, without authority, a warship, fort, or military or naval establishment or
reservation to obtain any information, plan or other data of confidential nature relative to
the defense of the Philippines.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender enters a warship, fort, naval or military establishment or reservation;
2. That he has no authority therefor; and
3. That his purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a
confidential nature relative to the defense of the Philippines.
2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data
or information referred to in the preceding paragraph, which he had in his possession by
reason of the public office he holds.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he has in his possession the articles, data or information referred to in the first
mode of committing espionage, by reason of the public office he holds; and
3. That he discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign nation.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. First mode:
a. Filipino
b. alien residing
2. Second mode:
a. Offender is a public officer.
NOTES:
Being a public officer is a requirement in the second paragraph
It is aggravating in the first.
Espionage is the offense of gathering, transmitting, or losing information respecting the

national defense with the intent or reason to believe that the information is to be used to
the injury of the Philippines or the advantage of any foreign nation. It is not conditioned
on citizenship.
Wiretapping is not espionage if the purpose is not connected with the defense.
In the first mode of committing the felony, it is not necessary that the offender succeeds
in obtaining the information.
Inciting To War Or Giving
Motives For Reprisal
On Criminal Law
ART. 118.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts;
2. Such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable
to involve the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to
reprisals on their persons or property;
NOTES:
Crime committed in time of peace.
Intent of the offender is immaterial.
In inciting to war, the offender is any person. If the offender is a

public officer, the penalty is higher.
Reprisals are not limited to military action, it could be economic

reprisals, or denial of entry into their country.
Example: X burns Chinese flag. If China bans the entry of Filipinos

into China, that is reprisal.
Violation of neutrality
On Criminal Law
Violation of neutrality
ART. 119.
Violation of neutrality. - The penalty of prision correccional shall be inflicted upon anyone
who, on the occasion of a war in which the Government is not involved, violates any
regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is war in which the Philippines is not involved;
2. That there is a regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing
neutrality; and
3. That the offender violates such regulation.
NOTES:
This crime is committed only in time of war.
Neutrality of the Philippines that was violated.
There has to be a regulation issued by competent authority for enforcement of neutrality

– offender violated it.
Being a public officer or employee has higher penalty.
Correspondence With Hostile

Country
On Criminal Law
ART. 120.
ELEMENTS:
1. There’s a war in and Philippines is involved;
2. That the offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory
occupied by enemy troops;
3. That the correspondence is either –
a. prohibited by the government, or
b. carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or
c. containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES:
1. Notice or information might be useful to the enemy.
2. Offender intended to aid the enemy.
NOTES:
Circumstances qualifying the offense:

1. notice or information might be useful to the enemy
2. offender intended to aid the enemy
A hostile country exists only during hostilities or after the declaration of war.
Correspondence to enemy country is correspondence to officials of enemy

country even if said official is related to the offender.
It is not correspondence with private individual in enemy country.
If ciphers were used, no need for prohibition of the government.
If ciphers were not used, there is a need for prohibition of the government.
It is immaterial if correspondence contains innocent matters. If prohibited,

correspondence is punishable.
Flight To Enemy's Country

On Criminal Law
ART. 121.
ELEMENTS:
1. There’s a war and Philippines is involved;
2. Offender owes allegiance to the government;
3. Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country; and
4. Going to enemy country is prohibited by competent authority.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Filipino citizen
2. Alien residing in the Philippines
NOTES:
Mere attempt consummates the crime.
There must be a prohibition. If there is none, even if one went to enemy country,
there is no crime.
An alien resident may be held guilty for this crime because an alien owes
allegiance to the Philippine government albeit temporary.
Piracy In General and Mutiny on

the High Seas
On Criminal Law
Piracy in General and Mutiny on the High Seas
ART. 122
Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall
be inflicted upon any person who, on the high seas, shall attack or seize a vessel or, not
being a member of its complement nor a passenger, shall seize the whole or part of the
cargo of said vessel, its equipment, or personal belongings of its complement or
passengers.
PIRACY – MODES TO COMMIT:

1. By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in the Philippine waters (PD 532);
2. By seizing the whole or part of the cargo of said vessels, its equipment, or personal
belongings of its complement or passengers, the offenders being strangers to the
vessels.
PIRACY – it is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority
and done with animo furandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.
MUTINY – the unlawful resistance to a superior, or the raising of commotion and

disturbances on board a ship against the authority of its commander.
ELEMENTS of PIRACY:
1. A vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2. Offenders – not members of its complement nor passengers of the vessel; and
3. That the offenders –
a. attack or seize vessel (if committed by crew or passengers, the crime is not piracy but
robbery in the high seas), or
b. seize whole or part of vessel’s cargo, equipment, or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers.
NOTES:
High seas - any waters on the sea-coast which are without the boundaries of the low
water mark although such waters may be in the jurisdictional limits of a foreign
government; parts of the sea that are not included in the exclusive economic zone, in the
territorial seas, or in the internal waters of a state, or in the archipelagic waters of an
archipelagic state (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea).
Philippine waters – all bodies of water, such as but not limited to seas, gulfs, bays,
around, between and connecting each of the islands of the Philippine Archipelago,
irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or dimension, and all waters belonging to the
Philippines by historic or legal title, including the territorial sea, the sea- bed, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas over which the Philippines has sovereignty and
jurisdiction. (Sec. 2, P.D. No. 532)
Now, Art. 122, as amended by R.A. 7659 Piracy and Mutiny in Philippine waters is
punishable.
Before R. A. 7659 amended Art 122, piracy and mutiny only on the high seas was
punishable. However, the commission of the acts described in Arts. 122 and 123 in
Philippine waters were under P.D. No. 532.
Piracy in high seas – jurisdiction of any court where offenders are found or arrested.
Piracy in internal waters – jurisdiction of Philippine courts.
For purposes of the Anti-Fencing Law, piracy is part of robbery and theft.
Qualified Piracy
On Criminal Law
Qualified Piracy
ART. 123.
Qualified piracy. - The penalty of reclusion temporal to death shall be imposed upon
those who commit any of the crimes referred to in the preceding article, under any of the
following circumstances:
1. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
3. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape.
1. Seizure of the vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
2. Abandonment of victims without means of saving themselves; or
3. Piracy was accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape.
NOTES:
If any of the circumstances in Article 123 is present, piracy is qualified.
Parricide/infanticide should be included (according to Judge Pimentel).
There is a conflict between this provision and the provision on rape.

Ex: If rape is committed on someone below 7 yrs. old – penalty is death under the new
rape law. But if rape committed on someone below 7 during the time of piracy –
reclusion perpetua to death.
The murder/rape/homicide/physical injuries must have been committed on the

passengers or on the complement of the vessel.
Piracy is a crime not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be
punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender may be found or
into which he may be carried.
QUALIFIED PIRACY – a SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME punishable by reclusión

perpetua to death, regardless of the number of victims.
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 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.
Note that the first circumstance which qualifies piracy does not apply to mutiny.
Example of Qualified Piracy (2006 Bar Exam)
While the S.S. Nagoya Maru was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong towards
Manila, and while still 300 miles from Aparri, Cagayan, its engines malfunctioned. The
Captain ordered the ship to stop for emergency repairs lasting for almost 15 hours. Due
to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep. While the ship was anchored, a
motorboat manned by renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and took
advantage of the situation. They cut the ship's engines and took away several heavy
crates of electrical equipment and loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left
hurriedly towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a robbery took place. They
radioed the Appari Port Authorities resulting in the apprehension of the culprits.
What crime was committed? Explain.
Piracy in the high seas was committed by the renegade Ybanags. The culprits who are
neither members of the complement not passengers of the ship, seized part of the
equipment of the vessel while it was three hundred miles away from Aparri, Cagayan.
(Art.122, RPC)
Supposing that while the robbery was taking place, the culprits stabbed a member of the
crew while sleeping. What crime was committed? Explain.
The crime committed is qualified piracy, because it was accompanied by physical

injuries/homicide. The culprits stabbed a member of the crew while sleeping. (Art.123,
RPC)
Crimes Against The Fundamental Laws Of The State - Title II
Arbitrary Detention
On Criminal Law
Arbitrary detention
ART. 124
Any public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person, shall suffer;
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the
detention has continued more than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days
but not more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee (whose official duties include the
authority to make an arrest and detain persons);
2. That he detains a person; and
3. That it was without legal grounds.
NOTES:
Arbitrary detention is the deprivation by a public officer of the liberty of a person w/o any
legal ground.
Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or employee, private
individuals who conspire with public officers can be liable as principals.
Legal grounds for the detention of any person:

a. commission of a crime
b. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a
hospital
Grounds for warrant-less arrest:

a. Crime is about to be, is being, or has been committed;
b. Arresting officer must have personal knowledge that the person probably committed
the crime; or
c. Person to be arrested is an escaped prisoner.
CLASSES OF ARBITRARY DETENTION:

1. By detaining a person without legal ground
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
3. Delaying release
A public officer is deemed such when he is acting within the bounds of his official
authority or function.

A police officer who employs force in excess of what is necessary is acting outside the
bounds of his duties and is considered acting in his private capacity.
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 jurisdiction to maintain peace
and order within his barangay (Milo v. Salanga,1987).
There must be an actual restraint of liberty of the offended party.

- The crime committed is only grave or light threat if the offended party may still go to the
place where he wants to go, even though there have been warnings.
If the offender falsely imputes a crime against a person to be able to arrest him and
appear not determined to file a charge against him, the crime is arbitrary detention
through unlawful arrest (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law).
Rolito Go v. CA is an example of arbitrary detention (Judge Pimentel)
Ramos v. Enrile:
Rebels later on retire. Once you have committed rebellion and have not been punished
or amnestied, the rebels continue to engage in rebellion, unless the rebels renounce
their affiliation. Arrest can be made without a warrant because rebellion is a continuing
crime.
Arbitrary Detention Illegal Detention Unlawful Arrest

1. Offender Public officer who has Private person or Any person.
authority to make arrest Public officer who is
detain persons. acting in a private
capacity or beyond the
cope of his official
duty.
2. Criminal Deny the offended Deny the offended party Accuse the offended
Intent party of his liberty of his liberty party of a crime he
did not commit, deliver
him to the proper
authority and file the
necessary charges to
incriminate him.
Arbitrary Detention; Elements; Grounds (2006)
What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary detention? Explain each.
Suggested Answer:
The 3 ways of arbitrary detention are:
1) Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without legal ground committed by any

public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person (Art. 124,
Revised Penal Code).
2) Delay in the delivery of detained persons tothe proper judicial authorities which is
committed by a public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal
ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the
period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offense punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent;
eighteen hours (18), for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional facilities, or their
equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours for crimes or offenses punishable by afflictive or
capital penalties, or their equivalent (Art. 125, Revised Penal Code).
3) Delaying release is committed by any public officer or employee who delays the
release for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or
executive order for the release of the prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice
of such order to said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of
such person (Art. 126, Revised Penal Code).
Article 124. Arbitrary detention. - Any public officer or employee who, without legal
grounds, detains a person, shall suffer;
1. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, if the detention has not exceeded three days;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the
detention has continued more than three but not more than fifteen days;
3. The penalty of prision mayor, if the detention has continued for more than fifteen days
but not more than six months; and
4. That of reclusion temporal, if the detention shall have exceeded six months.
What are the legal grounds for detention?
Suggested Answer:
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the
compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital shall be considered legal grounds for
the detention of any person (Art. 124[2], Revised Penal Code).
Delay In The Delivery Of Detained
Persons To The Proper Judicial
Authorities
On Criminal Law
Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons
ART. 125.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee;
2. That he has detained a person for some legal ground; and
3. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within:
a. 12 hours, detained for crimes punishable by light penalties, or equivalent;
b. 18 hours, for crimes punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent; or
c. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive
penalties, or their equivalent.
NOTES:
The felony means delay in filing the necessary information or charging of person
detained in court which may be waived if a preliminary investigation is asked for. This
does not contemplate actual physical delivery.
The filing of the information in court beyond the specified periods does not cure illegality
of detention. Neither does it affect the legality of the confinement under process issued
by the court.
To prevent committing this felony, officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver of
Art. 125 which should be under oath and with assistance of counsel. Such waiver is not
violative of the constitutional right of the accused.
Contemplates arrest by virtue of some legal ground or valid warrantless arrest.
If arrested by virtue of arrest warrant, person may be detained until case is decided.
LENGTH OF WAIVER:
- Light offense – 5 days.
- Serious and less serious offenses – 7 to 10 days.
- If offender is a private person, the crime is illegal detention.
This is applicable ONLY WHEN the arrest is without a warrant.
At the beginning, the detention is legal since it is in the pursuance of a lawful arrest.
Detention becomes arbitrary when the - applicable period lapses without the arresting
officer filing a formal charge with the proper court.
The periods stated are counted only when the prosecutor’s office is ready to receive the
complaint or information. - Nighttime is NOT included in the period.
CASES:
Sayo v. Chief of Police (1948)

“Deliver” means the filing of correct information with the proper court (or constructive
delivery --- turning over the person arrested to the jurisdiction of the court).
- Purpose is to determine whether the offense is bailable or not.
People v. Tan (1998)

The elements of custodial investigation are:
- The suspect is deprived of liberty in any significant manner;
- The interrogation is initiated by law enforcement authorities;
- The interrogation is inculpatory in character.
Sanchez v. Demetriou (1993)

Where the invitation comes from a powerful group composed predominantly of ranking
military officers and the designated interrogation site is a military camp, the same can be
easily taken, NOT as a strictly voluntary invitation.
- It is an authoritative command that one can only defy at his peril.
Delaying Release
On Criminal Law
ART. 126: DELAYING RELEASE
ELEMENTS:
2. That 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; and
3. That the offender without good reason delays:
a. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner, or
b. the performance of such judicial or executive order for the release
of the prisoner, or
c. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such person.
NOTE:
Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision.
Expulsion
On Criminal Law
ART. 127.
ELEMENTS:
2. That he expels any person from the Philippines, or compels a person to change
his residence; and
3. That the offender is not authorized to do so by law.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. by expelling a person from the Philippines; or
2. by compelling a person to change his residence
NOTES:
Acts punishable:
The crime of expulsion absorbs that of grave coercion. If done by a private

person, act will amount to grave coercion.
Crime does not include expulsion of undesirable aliens, destierro, or when

sent to prison.
If a Filipino who, after voluntarily leaving the country, is illegally refused

re-entry is considered a victim of being forced to change his address.
Threat to national security is not a valid ground to expel or to compel one to

change his address.
The Chief Executive has the power to deport undesirable aliens.
CASES:
Villavicencio v. Lukban (1919)

The city mayor of Manila committed the crime of expulsion when he ordered
certain prostitutes to be transferred to Davao WITHOUT observing due processes
since they have not been charged with any crime.
Marcos v. Manglapus (1989)

The request or demand of the Marcoses to be allowed to return to the Philippines
cannot be considered in light solely of the constitutional provisions
guaranteeing liberty of abode and the right to travel which are neither
absolute nor inflexible.
- Considering the unusual circumstances and the attendant national security
issues, the matter can be appropriately addressed by the residual powers
of the president which are implicit in and correlative to the paramount duty
residing in that office to safeguard and protect general welfare.
Violation Of Domicile
On Criminal Law
Violation of Domicile
ART. 128.
Violation of domicile. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who, not being authorized by judicial order,
shall enter any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof, search papers or other
effects found therein without the previous consent of such owner, or having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and being required to leave the premises, shall
refuse to do so.
If the offense be committed in the night-time, or if any papers or effects not constituting
evidence of a crime be not returned immediately after the search made by the offender,
the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
ELEMENTS:
2. That he is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling and/or to make a
search therein for papers or other effects; and
3. That he commits any of the following acts:
a. entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
b. searching papers or other effects found therein without the previous consent of such
owner;
c. refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and
after having been required to leave the same.
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES:

1. nighttime
2. papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime are not returned immediately
NOTES:
The judicial order is the search warrant.
If the offender who enters the dwelling against the will of the owner thereof is a private
individual, the crime committed is trespass to dwelling (Art 280).
When a public officer searched a person “outside his dwelling” without a search warrant
and such person is not legally arrested for an offense, the crime committed by the public
officer is either:
- grave coercion if violence or intimidation is used (Art 286), or
- unjust vexation if there is no violence or intimidation (Art. 287)
Public officer without a search warrant cannot lawfully enter the dwelling against the will
of the owner, even if he knew that someone in that dwelling is in unlawful possession of
opium.
Under RULE 113 OF THE REVISED RULES OF COURT a public officer, who breaks
into the premise, incurs no liability WHEN a person to be arrested enters said premise
and closes it thereafter.
- The public officer should have first given notice of an arrest.
According to People vs. Doria (1999) and People vs. Elamparo (2000), the following are
the accepted exceptions to the warrant requirement:
- Search incidental to an arrest;
- Search of moving vehicles;
- Evidence in plain view;
- Customs searches; AND
- Consented warrantless search.
Stop and frisk is no longer included.
“Against the will” means that the offender ignored the prohibition of the owner which may
be express or implied as when the door is closed even though not locked (Boado,
Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law)
Violation of Domicile vs Trespass to Dwelling (2002)
What is the difference between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling?
Suggested Answer:
The differences between violation of domicile and trespass to dwelling are;

1. The offender in violation of domicile is a public officer acting under color of authority;
in trespass to dwelling, the offender is a private person or public officer acting in a
private capacity.
2. Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different ways:
(1) by entering the dwelling of another against the will of the latter;
(2) searching papers and other effects inside the dwelling without the previous consent
of the owner; or
(3) refusing to leave the premises which he entered surreptitiously, after being required
to leave the premises.
3. Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one way; that is, by entering the dwelling of
another against the express or implied will of the latter.
Search Warrants Maliciously
Obtained
On Criminal Law
Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained and Abuse In The Service Of Those Legally
Obtained
ART. 129.
Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained.
- In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other
offense, the penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period and a fine not exceeding P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
public officer or employee who shall procure a search warrant without just cause, or,
having legally procured the same, shall exceed his authority or use unnecessary severity
in executing the same.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. procuring a search warrant without just cause

ELEMENTS:
2. That he procures a search warrant; and
3. That there is no just cause.
2. exceeding his authority by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant

legally procured

ELEMENTS:
2. That he has legally procured a search warrant; and
3. That he exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity in executing the same.
NOTES:
Search warrant is valid for 10 days from its date of issue.
If there is no just cause, the warrant is unjustified.
The search is limited to what is described in the warrant, all details must be with set forth
with particularity.
Example of a warrant maliciously obtained:
X was a respondent of a search warrant for illegal possession of firearms. A return was
made. The gun did not belong to X and the witness had no personal knowledge that
there is a gun in that place.
Examples of abuse in service of warrant:

1. X owner was handcuffed while search was going-on.
2. Tank was used to ram gate prior to announcement that a search will be made.
3. Persons who were not respondents were searched.
An exception to the necessity of a search warrant is the right of search and seizure as
an incident to a lawful arrest.
S H A R E
Searching Domicile Without

Witnesses
On Criminal Law
Searching Domicile Without Witnesses
ART. 130.
ELEMENTS:
2. That he is armed with a search warrant legally procured;
3. That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person; and
4. That the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same
locality are not present.
NOTES:
Order of those who must witness the search:

- Homeowner
- Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion
- Responsible members of the community
Validity of the search warrant can be questioned only in 2 courts: where issued or where
the case is pending. The latter is preferred for objective determination.
RULE 116: SEARCH AND SEIZURE
A search warrant is an order in writing

- Signed by a judge
- Directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court.
Requisites for issuing and search warrant:

- Probable cause, in connection with one specific offense, to be determined personally
by the judge
- AFTER examination under oath or affirmation of the complainant and the witness
he may produce
- Particular description of
- Place to be searched; AND
- Things to be seized which may be anywhere in the Philippines
EVEN IF the search warrant is valid there is violation of domicile in the following
situations where:
- The officer exceeded his authority under the search warrant;
- He employed excessive severity or destruction in the house;
- The search was made when the occupants were absent and the search is conducted
without at least 2 witnesses residing in the locality where the search was made
An officer may break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or any part of a
house or anything therein WHEN these circumstances concur:
- He is refused admittance to the place of directed search;
- His purpose is to execute the warrant to liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding
him when unlawfully detained therein;
- He has given notice of his purpose and authority.
The warrant must direct that it be served in the day time.

- HOWEVER, it can be served at any time of the day or night WHEN the affidavit asserts
that the property is on the person or in the place ordered to be searched.
A search warrant shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date.
The officer seizing the property under the warrant must give a detailed receipt for the
same to the lawful occupant of the premises in whose presence the search and seizure
were made.
- In the absence of such occupant, the officer must leave a receipt in the place in which
he found the seized property in the presence of at least two witnesses of sufficient age
and discretion residing in the same locality.
Prohibition, Interruption, and

Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
On Criminal Law
Prohibition, Interruption, and Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
ART. 131.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. prohibiting or interrupting, without legal ground the holding of a peaceful meeting, or
dissolving the same (e.g. denial of permit in arbitrary manner).
b. hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its
meetings
c. prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with
others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of
grievances.
NOTES:
If the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order (Art 153).
Meeting must be peaceful and there is no legal ground for prohibiting, dissolving or
interrupting that meeting.
Offender must be a stranger, not a participant, in the peaceful meeting; otherwise, the
offense is unjust vexation.
Interrupting and dissolving a meeting of the municipal council by a public officer is a

crime against the legislative body and not punishable under this article.
The person talking on a prohibited subject at a public meeting contrary to agreement that
no speaker should touch on politics may be stopped.
But stopping the speaker who was attacking certain churches in public meeting is a
violation of this article.
Those holding peaceful meetings must comply with local ordinances. Example:
Ordinance requires permits for meetings in public places. But if a police stops a meeting
in a private place because there’s no permit, officer is liable for stopping the meeting.
The government has a right to require a permit before any gathering could be made.
HOWEVER, the government only has regulatory, NOT PROHIBITORY, powers with
regard to such requirement.
The permit should state the day, time,and place of the gathering.
If the permit is denied arbitrarily, OR the officer dictates the place where the meeting is
to be held, this article is VIOLATED.
If in the course of the assembly, which started out peacefully, the participants committed
illegal acts like oral defamation or inciting to sedition, a public officer or law enforcer can
stop or dissolve the meeting.
Two criteria to determine whether this article would be violated:

- Dangerous tendency rule applicable in times of national unrest such as to prevent coup
d’etat.
- Clear and present danger rule – applied in times of peace. Stricter rule.
Interruption Of Religious Worship

On Criminal Law
ART. 132.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the officer is a public officer or employee;
2. That religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to
take place or are going on; and
3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the same.
NOTES:
Qualifying circumstances:
1. violence; or
2. threats.
Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a
ceremony or manifestation of religion, but only a meeting of a religious sect.
But if done in a private home, it’s a religious service.
Religious Worship includes people in the act of performing religious rites for
a religious ceremony or a manifestation of religion.
Examples: Mass, baptism, marriage
X, a private person, boxed a priest while the priest was giving homily and
maligning a relative of X. Is X liable? X may be liable under Art 133
(Offending religious feelings) because X is a private person.
Qualified if committed by violence or threat.
Offending Religious Feelings

On Criminal Law
ART. 133.
ELEMENTS:
1. Acts complained of were performed –
a. in a place devoted to religious feelings, or
b. during the celebration of any religious ceremony
2. Acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful;
3. Offender is any person; and
4. There’s a deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, directed against
religious tenet.
NOTES:
If in a place devoted to religious purpose, there is no need for an ongoing

religious ceremony.
Example of religious ceremony (acts performed outside the church):Processions

and special prayers for burying dead persons but NOT prayer rallies.
Acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the
purpose of ridicule, as mocking or scoffing or attempting to damage an
object of religious veneration.
There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, mere arrogance
or rudeness is not enough.
CASES:
1. People v. Baes (1939)

An act is NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE to the religious feelings when a person:
- ridicules or makes light of anything constituting a religious dogma
- works or scoffs at anything devoted to religious ceremonies
- plays with or damages or destroys any object or veneration by the faithful
Whether Or Not an act is offensive to the religious feelings, is a question of

fact which must be adjudged only according to the feelings of the Catholics and
not those of other faithful ones.
What happened in this case was that a Catholic priest complained against a group
that passed by the churchyard as they were holding the funeral rites of a
Church of Christ member.
Laurel Dissent: The determination should NOT be made to depend upon more or less
broad or narrow conception of any given religion. Facts and circumstances should be
viewed through an unbiased judicial criterion.
This later became the majority decision in People v. Tengson.
2.People v. Nanoy
The crime is only UNJUST VEXATION when the act is NOT directed to the religious
belief itself and there is no intention of causing so serious a disturbance as
to interrupt a religious ceremony.
Crimes Against Public Order - Title III
Coup d'etat
Art. 134-A.
Coup d'etat; How committed. - The crime of coup d'etat is a swift attack accompanied by
violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly constituted
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation,
communications network, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out anywhere in the
Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police or holding any
public office of employment with or without civilian support or participation for the
purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a person or persons belonging to the military, or police or holding any
public office or employment,
2. Committed by means of swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat,
strategy or stealth;
3. Directed against:
a. duly constituted authorities of the Philippines
b. any military camp or installation
c. communication networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power
4. For the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Any person who leads or in any manner directs or commands others to undertake
coup d’etat (leaders);
2. Any person in the government service who participates or executes directions or
commands of others in undertaking coup d’etat (participants from government);
3. Any person not in the government service who participates, or in any manner,
supports, finances, abets, or aids in undertaking a coup d’etat (participants not from
government); and
4. Any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other
documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels
(deemed leader if leader is unknown)
Notes:
Essence of the crime: Swift attack against the government, its military camps an
installations, etc.
It may be committed singly or collectively.
Requires as a principal offender a member of the AFP, PNP, or a public officer with or
without civilian support.
Objective: To destabilize, immobilize, or paralyze the existing government by taking over

such facilities essential to the continued exercise of governmental powers.
Committed through force, violation, intimidation, threat, strategy, or stealth.
Mere silence or omission is not punishable.
If under the command of unknown leaders, any person who spoke for, signed receipts
and other documents issued in their name on behalf of the rebels shall be deemed a
leader.
Not a defense: The accused did not take the oath of allegiance to, or that they never
recognized the government.
Question: What is a political crime?
Answer: Those directly aimed against the political order; includes common crimes
committed to achieve a political purpose. Decisive factor: Intent.
coup d' etat
Art 134-A: Coup d’ etat & Rape; Frustrated (2005)
Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies of coup d’ etat and rape,
may one be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, one cannot be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape because
in coup d’ etat the mere attack directed against the duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or installation, communication
networks, public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and continued
possession of power would consummate the crime. 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.
On the other hand, in the crime of rape there is no frustrated rape it is either attempted
or consummated rape. If the accused who placed himself on top of a woman, raising her
skirt and unbuttoning his pants, the endeavor to have sex with her very apparent, is
guilty of Attempted rape. On the other hand, entry on the labia or lips of the female organ
by the penis, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the vagina,
consummates the crime of rape. More so, it has long abandoned its "stray" decision in
People vs. Erina 50 Phil 998 where the accused was found guilty of Frustrated rape.
Article 134-A. Coup d'etat; How committed. - The crime of coup d'etat is a swift attack
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, directed against duly
constituted authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communications network, public utilities or other facilities needed for the
exercise and continued possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out
anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons, belonging to the military or police
or holding any public office of employment with or without civilian support or participation
for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (As amended by R.A. 6968).
If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a swift attack, accompanied
by violence, intimidation, and threat against a vital military installation for the purpose of
seizing power and taking over such installation, what crime or crimes are they guilty of?
Suggested Answer:
The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed Forces, would be guilty of the
crime of coup d'etat, under Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
because their attack was against vital military installations which are essential to the
continued possession and exercise of governmental powers, and their purpose is to
seize power by taking over such installations.
B. If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown, who shall be deemed the leader
thereof?
Suggested Answer:
The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed the others, spoke for them,
signed receipts and other documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on
behalf of the group shall be deemed the leader of said coup d'etat (Art 135, R.P.C.)
Art 134-A; Coup d’etat; New Firearms Law (1998)
1. How is the crime of coup d'etat committed?

2. Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup d'etat using an unlicensed
firearm. What crime or crimes did he commit?
Suggested Answer:
1. The crime of coup d'etat is committed by a swift attack, accompanied by violence,

intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth against the duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, military camps and installations, communication networks,
public utilities and facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of power,
carried out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines by persons belonging to
the military or police or holding public office, with or without civilian support or
participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (Art 134-A, RPC).
2. The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his participation therein. His
use of an unlicensed firearm is absorbed in the coup d'etat under the new firearms law
(Rep. Act No. 8294).
ART. 135.
WHO ARE LIABLE AND PENALTIES:

REBELLION:
1. Leaders – reclusion perpetua
2. Participants – reclusion temporal
3. Deemed leader – reclusion perpetua
COUP D’ETAT:
1. Leaders – reclusion perpetua
2. Participants (gov’t) – reclusion temporal
3. Participants (not gov’t) – prision mayor
4. Deemed leader – reclusion perpetua
Question: What is a political crime?

Answer: Those directly aimed against the political order; includes common crimes
committed to achieve a political purpose. Decisive factor: Intent.
Not a defense: The accused did not take the oath of allegiance to, or that they
never recognized the government.
If under the command of unknown leaders, any person who spoke for,
signed receipts and other documents issued in their name on behalf of the
rebels shall be deemed a leader.
Mere silence or omission is not punishable.

Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Rebellion, Coup d'etat or Insurrection
ART. 136.
Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat, rebellion or insurrection. - The

conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d'etat shall be punished by prision mayor in
minimum period and a fine which shall not exceed eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00).
The conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion or insurrection shall be punished

respectively, by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine which shall not
exceed five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) and by prision correccional in its medium
period and a fine not exceeding two thousand pesos (P2,000.00). (As amended by R.A.
6968, approved October 24, 1990).
ELEMENTS OF CONSPIRACY:
1. Two or more persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take arms against the
government;
2. For any of the purposes of rebellion; and
3. They decide to commit it.
ELEMENTS OF PROPOSAL:
1. A person who has decided to rise publicly and take arms against the government;
2. For any of the purposes of rebellion; and
3. Proposes its execution to some other person/s.
NOTES:
Conspiracy - 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.
Proposal - 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.
Organizing a group of soldiers, soliciting membership in, and soliciting funds for the
organization show conspiracy to overthrow the government.
The mere fact of giving and rendering speeches favoring Communism would not make
the accused guilty of conspiracy if there is no evidence that the hearers then and there
agreed to rise up in arms against the government.
The advocacy of Communism or Communistic theory is not a criminal act of conspiracy

unless converted into advocacy of action.
People vs. Hernandez

Only when the Communist advocates action and actual uprising, war or otherwise, does
he become guilty of conspiracy to commit rebellion.
Art 136; Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion (1994)
VC, JG. GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine Government. VG was

recognized as the titular head of the conspiracy. Several meetings were held and the
plan was finalized. JJ, bothered by his conscience, confessed to Father Abraham that
he, VG, JG and GG have conspired to overthrow the government. Father Abraham did
not report this information to the proper authorities. Did Father Abraham commit a
crime? If so, what crime was committed? What is his criminal liability?
Suggested Answer:
No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the conspiracy involved is one to
commit rebellion, not a conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person criminally
liable under Art 116, RPC. And even assuming that it will fall as misprision of treason,
Father Abraham is exempted from criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as his failure to
report can be considered as due to "insuperable cause", as this involves the sanctity and
inviolability of a confession. Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to
the co-conspirators, but not to a person who learned of such and did not report to the
proper authorities (US vs. Vergara, 3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza. 56 Phil. 353).
ART. 137.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Failing to resist rebellion by all the means in their power; or
2. Continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of rebels; or
3. Accepting appointment to office under rebels.
NOTES:
There must be actual rebellion for this crime to be committed.
It must not be committed in conspiracy with rebels or coup plotters for this crime
to be committed.
If position is accepted in order to protect the people, not covered by this article.
The crime presupposes rebellion committed by other persons.
Offender must not be in conspiracy with the rebels.
Effect of conspiracy: Public officer is himself guilty of rebellion.

ART. 138.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the
government;
2. That he incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion; and
3. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems,
banners or other representations tending to the same end.
NOTES:
Inciting must have been intentionally calculated to seduce others to rebellion.

In both proposal to commit rebellion and in inciting to rebellion, rebellion should
not actually be committed by the persons to whom it was proposed, or who
were incited. If they commit rebellion because of the proposal or incitement, the
proponent, or the one inciting may become a principal by inducement in
the crime of rebellion.
Can only be committed by civilians who do not take part therein.
NOTE: In both, the crime of rebellion should not be actually committed by the
persons to whom it is proposed or who are incited; otherwise, they become
principals by inducement in the crime of rebellion.
Difference Between Inciting to Rebellion and Proposal to Commit Rebellion

ART. 139.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offenders rise –
a. Publicly; and
b. Tumultuously;
2. That they employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods; and
3. That the offenders employ any of those means 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 thereof from freely exercising its or his functions, or
prevent the execution of any administrative order;
c. to inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any
public officer or employee;
d. to commit for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against
private persons or any social class; or
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.
NOTES:
People vs.Perez
Sedition is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. Its ultimate
object is a violation of the public peace or at least such a course of measures as
evidently engenders it.
People v. Umali
Common crimes are not absorbed in sedition.
People v Cabrera
- Definition of Sedition: The raising of commotions or disturbance in the State
- No distinction! It is not necessary that the offender be a private citizen and
the offended party a public functionary.
Tumultuous uprising means that it is caused by more than 3 persons who are armed
or provided w/ means of violence.
In sedition, offender may be a private or public person.
Preventing election through legal means is NOT sedition.
If the purpose of the offenders is to attain the objects of rebellion or sedition by

force or violence, but there is no public uprising, the crime committed is
direct assault.
There is conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141) but no proposal to commit sedition.
Definition of Tumultuous: If caused by more than three persons who are armed or
provided with the mans of violence.
The purpose of this crime is not the overthrow of the government but the
violation of public peace.
Under R.A. 8294, sedition absorbs the use of unlicensed firearm as an element
thereof; hence, not aggravating, and the offender can no longer be prosecuted for
illegal possession of firearm. (Boado, Comprehensive Reviewer in Criminal Law).
ART. 140.
1. leader of the sedition, and

2. other persons participating in the sedition.
Can there be a complex crime of coup d’etat with sedition?

- YES, coup d’etat can be complexed with sedition because the two crimes are
essentially different and distinctly punished under the Revised Penal Code.
Sedition may not be directed against the Government or non-political in objective,
whereas coup d’etat is always political in objective as it is directed against the
Government and led by persons or public officer holding public office belonging
to the military or national police. Art. 48 of the Code may apply under the
conditions therein provided. (2003 Bar Examinations)
- ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime of coup d'etat cannot be complexed with the crime of rebellion
because both crimes are directed against the Government or for political
purposes, although the principal offenders are different. The essence may be the
same and thus constitute only one crime. In this situation, the two crimes are
not distinct and therefore, may not be proper to apply Article 48 of the Code.
ART. 141.
NOTE:
There must be an agreement and a decision to rise publicly and tumultuously to

attain any of the objects of sedition in order to constitute crime of
conspiracy to commit sedition.
In this crime, there must be an agreement and a decision to rise

publicly and tumultuously to attain any of the objects of sedition.
There is no proposal to commit sedition.
Persons conspiring to commit the crime of sedition shall be punished by prision

correccional in its medium period.
Inciting to Sedition
Art. 142.
Inciting to sedition. - The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine
not exceeding 2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without taking any
direct part in the crime of sedition, should incite others to the accomplishment of any of
the acts which constitute sedition, by means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end, or upon
any person or persons who shall utter seditious words or speeches, write, publish, or
circulate scurrilous libels against the (Government of the United States or the
Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines) or any of the duly constituted
authorities thereof, or which tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the
functions of his office, or which tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for
unlawful purposes, or which suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots, or which
lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb the peace of
the community, the safety and order of the Government, or who shall knowingly conceal
such evil practices. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
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 [vulgar, mean, libelous] libels against the
government or any of the duly constituted authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the
public peace; or
4. Knowingly concealing such evil practices.
ELEMENTS of ACT 1:
1. That the offender does not take a direct part in the crime of sedition;
2. That he incites others to the accomplishment of any of the acts which constitute
sedition; and
3. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writing, emblems,
cartoons, banners, or other representations tending to the same end.
Acts No. 2 and No.3 Punishable when:

1. They tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in executing the functions of his
office
2. They tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes
3. They suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots
4. They lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or disturb the
peace of the community, and the safety and order of the government.
UTTERING AND WRITING PUNISHABLE:

1. when they tend to disturb or obstruct any public officer in executing the functions of
his office; or
2. when they tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes;
or
3. when they suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; or
4. when they lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful authorities or to disturb
the peace of the community, the safety and order of the government.
3 RULES RELATIVE TO SEDITIOUS WORDS:

1. Dangerous Tendency rule
2. Clear and Present Danger rule
3. Balance of Interests rule
Only non-participant in sedition may be liable.
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.
Tests relative to seditious words:

Clear and Present Danger, and Dangerous Tendency
US v Tolentino
The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play, in view of the time, place, and manner
of its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of hatred and enmity against the American
people and the Government of the US in the Philippines.
ART. 143.
ELEMENTS:
1. A projected or actual meeting of Congress or any of its committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial
board or city or municipal council or board; and
2. That the offender who may be any person prevents such meeting by force or fraud.
NOTE:
Chief of Police and mayor who prevented the meeting of the municipal council are
liable under Art. 143, when the defect of the meeting is not manifest
and requires an investigation before its existence can be determined.
RT. 144.
ELEMENTS:
1. An actual meeting of Congress or any of its committees, constitutional commissions or
committees or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal
council or board; and
2. That the offender does any of the following acts
a. he disturbs any of such meetings
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.
NOTE:
Complaint may be filed by a member of the legislative body.
One who disturbs may also be punished for contempt by Congress.

ARTICLE 145.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. By using force, intimidation, threats, or fraud to prevent any member of Congress
from attending the meeting of the assembly or any of its committees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or from expressing his opinions or
casting his vote.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender uses force, intimidation, threat or fraud
2. Purpose is to prevent any member of Congress from:
a. Attending the said meetings;
b. Expressing his opinions; or
c. Casting his vote.
2. By arresting or searching any member thereof while Congress is in a 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:
1. Offender is a public officer or 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. member arrested o searched hasn’t committed a crime by a penalty prision mayor
or higher.
NOTES:
Parliamentary immunity does not mean exemption from criminal liability, except
from a crime that may arise from any speech that the member of Congress may deliver
on
the floor during regular or special session.
To be consistent with the 1987 Constitution, the phrase “by a penalty higher than prision
mayor” in Art. 145 should be amended to read “by the penalty of prision mayor or
higher.”
Parliamentary immunity does not protect members of Congress from responsibility

before Congress itself.
1987 Constitution:
Members of Congress not liable for offenses punishable by a penalty less than
prision mayor (6 yrs and 1 day to 12 yrs), while Congress is in session.
ART. 146.
2 TYPES OF ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES:

1. Meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the Revised Penal Code;
REQUISITES:
1. There’s a meeting – gather or group of persons whether fixed or moving;
2. Meeting is attended by armed persons
3. The Purpose of meeting is to commit any of the crimes punishable under the
RPC.
2. A meeting in w/c the audience is incited to the commission of the crimes of treason,
rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority or his
agent.
REQUISITES:
1. There’s a meeting – gather or group of persons whether fixed or moving;
2. Audience whether armed or not is incited to the commission of the
crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition or direct assault.
WHEN A PERSON CARRIES UNLICENSED FIREARM IN THE 1st ASSEMBLY:

1. Presumed that the purpose of meeting is to commit any crime under RPC
2. Presumed that the one in possession of unlicensed firearm is the leader or organizer
of the meeting
NOTES:
Not all the persons present at the meeting of the first form of illegal assembly need
to be armed.
Persons liable for illegal assembly:

- the organizers or leaders of the meeting
- persons merely present at the meeting (except when presence is out of curiosity –
not liable)
Presumptions if a person carried an unlicensed firearm:

1. The purpose of the meeting insofar as he is concerned is to commit acts
punishable under the RPC
2. He is considered a leader or organizer of the meeting. (Note: Not all persons
present at the meeting of the first form of illegal assembly must be armed.)
ARTICLE 147.
2 KINDS OF ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS:

1. Organizations totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing
any of the crimes in RPC; or
2. For some purpose contrary to public morals.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. founders, directors and president of the association; and
2. mere members of the association
Public Morals - matters which affect the interest of society and public
convenience and is not limited to good customs.
Direct Assault
ART. 148.
Direct assaults. - Any person or persons who, without a public uprising, shall employ
force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the purpose enumerated in defining the
crimes of rebellion and sedition, or shall attack, employ force, or seriously intimidate or
resist any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of
official duties, or on occasion of such performance, shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P1,000
pesos, when the assault is committed with a weapon or when the offender is a public
officer or employee, or when the offender lays hands upon a person in authority. If none
of these circumstances be present, the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
period and a fine not exceeding P500 pesos shall be imposed.
2 WAYS TO COMMIT DIRECT ASSAULT:
1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for attainment of any of the
purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition (first form)
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender employs force or intimidation;
2. Aim of offender is to attain any of the purposes of the crime of rebellion and sedition;
and
3. That there is no public uprising.
2. 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. (second form)
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender
(a) makes an attack,
(b) employs force,
(c) makes a serious intimidation, or
(d) makes a serious resistance;
2. Person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent;
3. At the time of the assault the person in authority or his agent
a. is engaged in the actual performance of official duties (motive is not essential); or
b. is assaulted by reason of the past performance of official duties (motive is essential);
4. That the offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a person in authority or his
agent (with intention to offend, injure or assault); and
5. No public uprising.
NOTES:
General Rule: Direct assault is always complexed with the material consequence of the
act (Ex. direct assault with murder).
Exception: If resulting in a light felony, the consequent crime is absorbed.
The force employed need not be serious when the offended party is a person in authority
(Ex. Laying of hands).
The intimidation or resistance must be serious whether the offended party is an agent-

only or a person in authority (Ex. Pointing a gun).
A person in authority is any person directly vested with jurisdiction (power or authority to
govern and execute the laws) whether as an individual or as a member of some court or
governmental corporation, board, or commission.
Examples: A barangay captain, a Division Superintendent of Schools, President of

Sanitary Division and a teacher.
An agent is one 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.
Examples: Barrio councilman and any person who comes to the aid of the person in
authority, policeman, municipal treasurer, postmaster, sheriff, agents of the BIR,
Malacañang confidential agent.
Even when the person in authority or the agent agrees to fight, direct assault is still
committed.
When the person in authority or the agent provoked/attacked first, innocent party is
entitled to defend himself and cannot be held liable for assault or resistance nor for
physical injuries, because he acts in legitimate self-defense.
There can be no assault upon or disobedience to one’s authority by another when they
both contend that they were in the exercise of their respective duties.
When assault is made by reason of the performance of his duty there is no need for
actual performance of his official duty when attacked.
Direct assault cannot be committed during rebellion.
Direct assault may be committed upon a private person who comes to the aid of a
person in authority since he is then considered an agent of a person in authority.
Classifications of direct - simple and qualified.
1. when the assault is committed with a weapon;
2. when the offender is a public officer or employee; or
3. when the offender lays hand upon a person in authority
The first form of direct assault is tantamount to rebellion or sedition, except that there is
no pubic uprising.
When the assault results in the killing of that agent or of a person in authority, there
arises a complex crime of 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.
Resistance or disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is always serious, but to

an agent of a person in authority, it may or may not be serious.
If the public officer is not a person in authority, the assault on him is an aggravating
circumstance in Art. 14, no. 3 (rank).
Teachers, lawyers and heads of schools recognized by government are persons in

authority only for purposes of Art. 152 in relation to Arts. 148 and 151, and in connection
with their duties.
A person in authority includes a barangay chairman and members of the Lupong
Tagapagkasundo as provided under the Local Government Code.
Example of Direct Assault (1995 Bar Examination Question)
On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found himself surrounded by four
men. One of them wrestled the police officer to the ground and disarmed him while the
other companions who were armed with a hunting knife, an ice pick, and a balisong,
repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman died as a result of the multiple stab wounds
inflicted by his assailants.
What crime or crimes were committed? Discuss fully.
All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified by treachery,(which
absorbed abuse of superior strength) as the attack was sudden and unexpected and the
victim was totally defenseless. Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the
assailants. Direct assault would not complex the crime, as there is no showing that the
assailants knew that the victim was a policeman; even if there was knowledge, the fact is
that he was not in the performance of his official duties, and therefore there is no direct
assault.
Art 148; Direct Assault vs. Resistance & Disobedience
A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X, one of his pupils, because of
the latter's throwing paper clips at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out of the
classroom crying and proceeded home located at the back of the school. He reported to
his parents Y and Z what A had done to him. Y and Z immediately proceeded to the
school building and because they were running and talking in loud voices, they were
seen by the barangay chairman, B, who followed them as he suspected that an
untoward incident might happen. Upon seeing A inside the classroom, X pointed him out
to his father, Y, who administered a fist blow on A, causing him to fall down. When Y
was about to kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter's arms. Seeing his
father being held by B, X went near and punched B on the face, which caused him to
lose his grip on Y. Throughout this incident, Z shouted words of encouragement at Y, her
husband, and also threatened to slap A. Some security guards of the school arrived,
intervened and surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could be investigated in the
principal's office. Before leaving, Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot at him
but it was deflected by B.
a) What, if any, are the respective criminal liability of X Y and Z?

b) Would your answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only?
Suggested Answer:
a) X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physcal injuries inflicted on B, the
Barangay Chairman, to be only slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct
assault. A Barangay Chairman is a person in authority (Art. 152, RPC) and in this case,
was performing his duty of maintaining peace and order when attacked. Y is liable for
the complex crimes of Direct Assault With Less Serious Physical Injuries for the fist blow
on A, the teacher, which caused the latter to fall down. For purposes of the crimes in
Arts. 148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, a teacher is considered a person in
authority, and having been attacked by Y by reason of his performance of official duty,
direct assault is committed with the resulting less serious physical injuries completed. Z,
the mother of X and wife of Y may only be liable as an accomplice to the complex crimes
of direct assault with less serious physical injuries committed by Y. Her participation
should not be considered as that of a co-principal since her reactions were only incited
by her relationship to X and Y. as the mother of X and the wife of Y.
b) If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of laying hand on him, being an agent
of a person in authority only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and Disobedience
under Article 151, since X, a high school pupil, could not be considered as having acted
out of contempt for authority but more of helping his father get free from the grip of B.
Laying hand on an agent of a person in authority is not ipso facto direct assault, while it
would always be direct assault if done to a person in authority in defiance to the latter is
exercise of authority.
Art 148; Direct Assault; Teachers and Professors (2002)
A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed B, one of the students,
cheating. She called the student's attention and confiscated his examination booklet,
causing embarrassment to him. The following day, while the class was going on, the
student, B, approached A and, without any warning, slapped her. B would have inflicted
further injuries on A had not C, another student, come to A's rescue and prevented B
from continuing his attack. B turned his ire on C and punched the latter. What crime or
crimes, if any, did B commit? Why?
Suggested Answer:
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for slapping the professor, A, who was
then conducting classes and thus exercising authority; and another one for the violence
on student C, who came to the aid of the said, professor. By express provision of Article
152, in relation to Article
148 of the Revised Penal Code, teachers, and professors of public or duly recognized
private schools, colleges and universities in the actual performance of their professional
duties or on the occasion of such performance are deemed persons in authority for
purposes of the crimes of direct assault and of resistance and disobedience in Articles
148 and 151 of said Code. And any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority
shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority. Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the
eyes of the law, an attack on an agent of a person in authority, not just an attack on a
student.
Complex Crime; Direct Assault with murder (2000)
Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel, Bulacan, a dance was held in
Barangay Camias. A, the Barangay Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to start the
dance. While A was delivering his speech. B, one of the guests, went to the middle of
the dance floor making obscene dance movements, brandishing a knife, and challenging
everyone present to a fight. A approached B and admonished him to keep quiet and not
to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the advice of A,
stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his back to proceed to the
microphone to continue his speech. A fell to the ground and died. At the time of the
incident A was not armed. What crime was committed?
Explain.
Suggested Answer:
The complex crime of direct assault with murder was committed. A, as a Barangay
Captain, is a person in authority and was acting in an official capacity when he tried to
maintain peace and order during the public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to
keep quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the occasion. When B, instead of
heeding A's advice, attacked the latter, B acted in contempt and lawless defiance of
authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which characterized the stabbing of A.
And since A was stabbed at the back when he was not in a position to defend himself
nor retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence, the death caused by such
stabbing was murder and having been committed with direct assault, a complex crime of
direct assault with murder was committed by B.
Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato, a

resident of the neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher
which he often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers there.
This was bitterly resented by Pascual, one afternoon Pascual, and his two sons
confronted Renato and his men who were operating their
mobile rice thresher along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A
barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascual's men tried to appease Pascual
and Renato to prevent a violent confrontation. However, Pascual resented the
intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him to death. What crime was
committed by Pascual? Discuss fully.
Suggested Answer:
Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in
authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law
(Art. 152), a person in authority and if he is attacked while in the performance of his
official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct assault is committed.
Art. 48, RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single act produces two or more grave
or less grave felonies, a complex crime is committed. Here, the single act of the offender
in hacking the victim to death resulted in two felonies, homicide which is grave and direct
assault which is less grave.
Indirect Assault
ARTICLE 149.
ELEMENTS:
1. The direct assault is committed against an agent of a person in authority;
2. That the offended party comes to the aid of such agent of a person in authority; and
3. That the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon the said offended party.
NOTES:
Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct assault is also being committed.
To be indirect assault, the person who should be aided is the agent and not the person
in authority. In the latter case, it is already direct assault. According to Art 152: The
person coming to the aid of the person in authority is considered an agent and an attack
on the latter is already direct assault.
Art. 152 clothes any person who comes to the aid of a person in authority with the fiction
of an agent of a person in authority. Any assault on him on the occasion of his aiding a
person in authority or his agent in indirect assault.
ARTICLE 150.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Disobedience w/o legal excuse to summons issued by the Congress or any of
its committees or subcommittees;
2. Refusal of any person present before a legislative or constitutional body or official to:
(a) to be sworn or placed under affirmation;
(b) to answer any legal inquiry; or
(c) to produce books, documents, records etc. when required to do so by the said
bodies in the exercise of their functions;
3. Restraining another from attending as witness in such body; or
4. Inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn.
Note:
The testimony of a person summoned must be upon matters into which the
legislature has jurisdiction to inquire.
Resistance and Disobedience To A Person In Authority Or The Agent Of Such
Person
ART.151.
ELEMENTS of RESISTANCE and SERIOUS DISOBEDIENCE (par. 1):

1. That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty
or gives a lawful order to the offender;
2. That the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or his agent;
and
3. That the act of the offender is not included in the provisions of arts. 148, 149, and 150.
ELEMENTS of SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE (par. 2)

1. That an agent of a person in authority is engaged in the performance of official duty
gives a lawful order to the offender;
2. That the offender disobeys such agent of a person in authority; and
3. That such disobedience is not of a serious nature.
NOTES:
While being arrested and there’s serious resistance, person resisting must know that the
one arresting him is an officer
Picketing (economic coercion) must be lawful otherwise police can disperse them
Disobedience in 2nd par. must not be serious. Otherwise, it will fall under the 1st par.
Resistance mustn’t be serious otherwise it’s direct assault.
The accused must have knowledge that the person giving the order is a peace officer.
Resistance and Disobedience Penalty
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who shall resist or seriously disobey any person in authority, or the agents of
such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
When the disobedience to an agent of a person in authority is not of a serious nature,

the penalty of arresto menor or a fine ranging from 10 to P100 pesos shall be imposed
upon the offender.
The duration of the penalty of arresto mayor shall be from one month and one day to six
months.
The duration of the penalty of arresto menor shall be from one day to thirty days.
Person In Authority And Agents Of Persons In Authority - Who Shall Be Deemed
As Such?
ART.152.
Persons in authority and agents of persons in authority; Who shall be deemed as such. -
In applying the provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any person
directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court
or governmental corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person in
authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall also be deemed a person in
authority.
A 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 barrio councilman, barrio policeman, and
barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority, shall be
deemed an agent of a person in authority.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of this Code, 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 professional
duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority.
(As amended by PD No. 299, Sept. 19, 1973, and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873, June 12,
1985).
PERSON IN AUTHORITY – any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an

individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board, or
commission.
They include:
a. Barangay captain
b. Barangay chairman
For the purposes of Art. 148 and 151:

a. Teachers
b. Professors
c. Persons charged with the supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
colleges, and universities
d. Lawyers in the actual performance of their professional duties or on the occasion of
such performance
AGENT OF PERSON IN AUTHORITY – 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. They include:
a. Barrio councilman
b. Barrio policeman
c. Barangay leader
d. Any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority
Notes:
Section 388 of the Local Gov’t. Code provides that for purposes of the RPC, the
punong barangay, sangguniang barangay members and members of the lupong
tagapamayapa
in each barangay shall be deemed as persons in authority in their jurisdictions.
Other barangay officials and members who may be designated by law or ordinance and
charged with the maintenance of public order, protection and the security of life,
property, or the maintenance of a desirable and balanced environment, and any
barangay member who comes to the aid of persons in authority shall be deemed agent
of persons in authority.
It seems that teachers, professors, lawyers, etc could be considered as persons in

authority not only for Arts. 148 and 151 but also for Art 149 (L.B. Reyes)
Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of persons in authority?
Suggested Answer:
Persons in authority are persons directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an

individual or as a member of some court or government corporation, board, or
commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are also deemed persons in
authority. (Article 152, RPC)
Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct provision of law or by-election
or by appointment by a competent authority, are charged with the maintenance of public
order, the protection, and security of life and property, such as barrio councilman, barrio
policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority (Art. 152, RPC), In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of the Rev.
Penal Code, 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 professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority. (P.D. No. 299, and
Batas Pambansa Blg. 873).
ART.153.
TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES:

1. Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment;
2. Interrupting or disturbing public performances, functions, gatherings or
peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in Art 131 and 132 (Public Officers
interrupting peaceful meetings or religious worship);
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.
TUMULTUOUS - caused by more than 3 persons who are armed or provided with
means of violence.
NOTES:
If the act of disturbing or interrupting a meeting or religious ceremony is not

committed by public officers, or if committed by public officers who are
participants therein, this article applies. Art 131 and 132 punishes the same acts if
committed by public officers who are not participants in the meeting.
The outcry is merely a public disorder if it is an unconscious outburst which,

although rebellious or seditious in nature, is not intentionally calculated to induce
others to commit rebellion or sedition, otherwise, it is inciting to rebellion or
sedition.
Qualifying circumstance – if it is TUMULTUOUS
Serious disturbance must be planned or intended.
This article applies if the disturbance is not caused by a public officer; or, if
it is committed by a public officer, he is a participant therein.
ART.154.
Acts Punished:
1. Publishing or causing to be published as news any false news which may endanger
the
public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit of the State
2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or the constituted authorities or by praising,
justifying or extolling any act punished law, by the same means or by words,
utterances
or speeches
3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official resolution or document
without authority, or before they have been published officially
4. Printing,publishing or distributing (or causing the same)books,pamphlets, periodicals,
or leaflets which do no bear the real printer’s name, or which are classified as
anonymous.
ART.155.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosive within any town or
public place, calculated to cause alarm or danger.
2. Instigating or taking 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 amusement.
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise,
provided the act is not covered by Art 153 (tumult).
NOTES:
Charivari is a mock serenade or discordant noises made with kettles, tin horns etc.,
designed to deride, insult or annoy.
Firearm must not be pointed at a person, otherwise, it is illegal discharge of firearm

(Art. 254).
What governs is the result, not the intent of the offender.
The crime alarms and scandal is only one crime.
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 peace.
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.
Definition of charivari: includes a medley of discordant voices, a mock serenade

of discordant noises made on kettles, tin, horns, etc. designed to annoy or insult.
Delivery of Prisoners from Jail
ART.156.
Delivery of prisoners from jails.-The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period of
prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed. upon any person who shall
remove from any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein or shall help
the escape of such person, by means of violence, intimidation, or bribery. If other means
are used, the penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed.
If the escape of the prisoner shall take place outside of said establishments by taking the
guards by surprise, the same penalties shall be imposed in their minimum period.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment;
2. That the offender removes therefrom such person, or helps the escape of such
person.
NOTES:
Prisoner may be detention prisoner or one sentenced by virtue of a final judgment.
Escapee, if already serving final judgment, will in turn be held liable for evasion of
sentence (Art. 157).
If merely detention prisoner he is not criminally liable.
The offender is an outsider to the jail. If the offender is a public officer or a private person
who has custody of the prisoner and who helps a prisoner under his custody, Arts.
223 (infidelity in the custody of a prisoner) and 225 (escape of prisoner under custody of
private person) will apply, respectively.
This felony may also be committed through imprudence or negligence.
Circumstance qualifying: use of violence, intimidation or bribery.
Mitigating circumstance: if it takes place outside the penal establishment 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.
The only point of distinction between the two crimes lies in whether the offender is the
custodian of the prisoner or not at the time the prisoner was made to escape.
If the prisoner who escapes is only a detention prisoner, he does not incur 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.
If three persons are involved – a stranger, the custodian, and the prisoner, three crimes
are committed:
(1)Infidelity in the custody of prisoners;
(2)Delivery of the prisoner from jail; and
(3)Evasion of service of sentence.
Art 156; Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (2002)
A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for emergency medical treatment. His
followers, all of whom were armed, went to the hospital to take him away or help him
escape. The prison guards, seeing that they were outnumbered and that resistance
would endanger the lives of other patients, deckled to allow the prisoner to be taken by
his followers. What crime, if any, was committed by A's followers? Why?
Suggested Answer:
A's followers shall be liable as principals in the crime of delivery of prisoner from Jail
(Art. 156, Revised Penal Code). The felony is committed not only by removing from any
jail or penal establishment any person confined therein but also by helping in the escape
of such person outside of said establishments by means of violence, intimidation,
bribery, or any other means.
Evasion of Service of Sentence
ART.157.
Evasion of service of sentence. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed upon any convict who shall evade service of his
sentence by escaping during the term of his imprisonment by reason of final judgment.
However, if such evasion or escape shall have taken place by means of unlawful entry,
by breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs, or floors, or by using picklocks, false
keys, deceit, violence or intimidation, or through connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its
maximum period.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a convict by final judgment;
2. That he is serving his sentence which consists in deprivation of liberty (destierro
included); and
3. That he evades the service of his sentence by escaping during the term of his
sentence.
NOTES:
This is a continuing offense.
This article does not apply to minor delinquents, detention prisoners, or deportees.
If the offender escaped within the 15-day appeal period, crime is not evasion because
judgment is not yet final.
Circumstances qualifying the offense:

Evasion of Sentence was done through:
- unlawful entry (by “scaling”);
- breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors;
- using pick locks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or intimidation; or
- connivance with other convicts or employees of the penal institution.
Evasion of service of sentence has three forms:

(1)By simply leaving or escaping from the penal establishment under Article 157;
(2)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.
In leaving or escaping from jail or prison, that the prisoner immediately returned is
immaterial. It may be mitigating, but it will not absolve his criminal liability.
Art 157; Evasion of Service of Sentence (1998)
Manny killed his wife under exceptional circumstances and was sentenced by the
Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City to suffer the penalty of destierro during which he
was not to enter the city. While serving sentence, Manny went to Dagupan City to visit
his mother. Later, he was arrested in Manila.
1. Did Manny commit any crime?

2. If so, where should he be prosecuted?
Suggested Answer:
1. Yes. Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of sentence when he went to
Dagupan City, which he was prohibited from entering under his sentence of destierro.
A sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded when the convict enters any of
the place/places he is prohibited from entering under the sentence or come within the
prohibited radius. Although destierro does not involve imprisonment, it is nonetheless a
deprivation of liberty. (People vs. Abilong. 82 Phil. 172).
2. Manny may be prosecuted in Dagupan City or in Manila where he was arrested. This
is so because evasion of service of sentence is a continuing offense, as the convict is a
fugitive from justice in such case. (Parulan vs. Dir. of Prisons, L-28519, 17 Feb. 1968)
ART.158.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a convict by final judgment who is confined in a penal
institution.
2. That there is disorder, resulting from:
a. conflagration,
b. earthquake,
c. explosion,
d. similar catastrophe, or
e. mutiny in which he has not participated;
3. That the offender evades the service of his sentence by leaving the penal institution
where he is confined, on the occasion of such disorder or during the mutiny; and
4. That the offender fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48 hours following
the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing the passing
away of such calamity.
NOTES:
Penalty of commission of this felony is an increase by 1/5 of the time remaining to

be served under the original sentence, in no case to exceed 6 months.
The special allowance for loyalty (i.e. deduction of sentence) authorized by

Articles 98 and 158(2nd paragraph) refers to those convicts, who having evaded the
service of their sentences by leaving the penal institution, give themselves up within 48
hours.
A mutiny is an organized unlawful resistance to a superior officer, a sedition, or a revolt.

Disarming the guards is not mutiny.
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.
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.
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.
ART.159.
Other Cases of Evason of Service of Sentence
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender was a convict;
2. That he was granted a conditional pardon by the chief executive; and
3. That he violated any of the conditions of such pardon.
TWO PENALTIES:
1. prision correccional in its minimum period – if the penalty remitted does not exceed 6
years.
2. the unexpired portion of his original sentence – if the penalty remitted is higher than 6
years.
NOTES:
Offender must have been found guilty of the subsequent offense (through w/c he
violated his conditional pardon) before he can be prosecuted under this Article. But
under the Revised Admin. Code, no conviction is necessary. President has the power to
arrest and reincarcerate offenders without trial.
When the penalty remitted is destierro, under no circumstance may the penalty for the
violation of conditional pardon be destierro.
Violation of conditional pardon is a distinct crime.
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.
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 may be required to serve the unserved portion of the sentence,
that is, continue serving the original penalty.
ART.160.
NOTE: this article provides for quasi-recidivism
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender was already convicted by final judgment of one offense; and
2. That he committed a new felony before beginning to serve such sentence or
while serving the same.
NOTES:
Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance where a person, after having

been convicted by final judgment, shall commit a new felony before beginning to
serve such sentence, or while serving the same.
Second crime must belong to the RPC, not special laws. First crime may be either
from the RPC or special laws.
The aggravating circumstance of reiteracion, on the other hand, requires that

the offender shall have served out his sentence for the prior offense.
General Rule: A quasi-recidivist may be pardoned at age 70... Exception: Unworthy,

or habitual delinquent
If new felony is evasion of sentence, offender is not a quasi-recidivist.
The penalty: maximum period of the penalty for the new felony should be imposed.
Mitigating circumstance can only be appreciated if the maximum penalty is divisible.
Quasi-Recidivism may be offset by a special privileged mitigating circumstance.
(Ex. Minority)
Crimes Against Public Interest - Title IV

RT.161.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Forging the great seal of the Government;
2. Forging the signature of the President; or
3. Forging the stamp of the President.
NOTE:
When the signature of the President is forged, it is not falsification but forging of
signature under this article.
When the signature of the president is forged, the crime committed is covered by this
provision and not falsification of public document.
ART.161.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Forging the great seal of the Government;
2. Forging the signature of the President; or
3. Forging the stamp of the President.
NOTE:
When the signature of the President is forged, it is not falsification but forging of
signature under this article.
When the signature of the president is forged, the crime committed is covered by this
provision and not falsification of public document.
ART.162.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the great seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the
chief executive was forged by another person;
2. That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery; and
3. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp
NOTE:
Offender is NOT the forger or the cause of the counterfeiting
The participation of the offender is in effect that of an accessory.
Although the general rule is that he should be punished by a penalty of

two degrees lower, under Art. 162 he is punished by a penalty only one degree lower.
ART.163.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be false or counterfeited coins (need not be legal tender);
2. That the offender either made, imported or uttered such coins; and
3. That, in case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he connives with
counterfeiters or importers.
NOTES:
A coin is counterfeit, if it is forged, or if it is not authorized by the government

as legal tender, regardless if it is of intrinsic value.
Counterfeiting is the imitation of legal or genuine coin such as to deceive an ordinary
person in believing it to be genuine.
To utter is to pass counterfeited coins, deliver or give away. To import is to bring

them into port. Importation is complete even before entry at the Customs House.
This article also applies to Philippine coins, foreign state coins, and coins withdrawn
from circulation. This does not require that the coins counterfeited be legal tender.
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished

- Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the Central Bank of the Philippines;
- Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the
Philippines;
- Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
People vs. Kong Leon, 48 OG 664

Former coins withdrawn from circulation may be counterfeited under Art 163 because
of the harm that may be caused to the public in case it goes into circulation again.
Mutilation of Coins
ART.164.
This has been repealed by PD 247.
ACTS PUNISHABLE (PD 247):

1. willful defacement
2. mutilation
3. tearing
4. burning
5. destruction of Central Bank notes and coins
NOTES:
Mutilation is to take off part of the metal either by filing it or substituting it for another
metal of inferior quality, to diminish by ingenious means the metal in the coin.
Foreign notes and coins not included under this article. Mutilation must be of Philippine
legal tender.
There must be intention to mutilate.
The first acts of falsification or falsity are

- Counterfeiting
- Forgery
- Falsification
In so far as coins in circulation are concerned, there are two crimes that may be
committed:
- Counterfeiting coins
- Mutilation of coins
Requisites of mutilation under the Revised Penal Code

(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;
(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust abstracted from the coin;
(3) It has to be a coin.
The coin mutilated should be of legal tender and only of the Philippines.
There is no expertise involved here.
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.
Presidential Decree No. 247

Selling of False or mutilated Coin Without Connivance
ART.165.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Possession of a coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent
to utter the same, knowing that it is false or mutilated.
ELEMENTS:
1. possession
2. with intent to utter, and
3. knowledge
2. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the same to be false or
mutilated.
ELEMENTS:
1. actually uttering, and
2. knowledge
NOTES:
Possession or uttering does not require that coins be legal tender.
Crime under this article includes constructive possession or the subjection of the
thing to ones’ control.
R.A. 427 punishes possession of silver or nickel coins in excess of P50.00. It is a

measure of national policy to protect the people from the conspiracy of those hoarding
silver or nickel coins and to preserve and maintain the economy.
The possession prohibited in this article pertains not only to physical
possession but also to constructive possession or subjection of the thing
to one’s control.
The possessor should not be the counterfeiter, mutilator, or importer of the coins
The offender need not connive with the counterfeiter or mutilator as long

as he has knowledge that the coin is false or mutilated.
ART.166.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or documents payable to bearer;
2. Importing of such notes; or
3. Uttering of such false or forged obligations and notes in connivance with forgers and
importers.
NOTES:
Forging is committed by giving a treasury or bank note or document payable to bearer

or order an appearance of a true and genuine document.
Falsification is committed by erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by

any means the figures and letters, words, signs contained therein. Example:
falsifying lotto or sweepstakes ticket constitutes the complex crime of
attempted estafa through falsification of a government security.
Forging PNB checks is not included under this article. That is falsification
of commercial document under Article 172.
Obligation or security includes bonds, certificate of indebtedness, bills, national

bank notes, coupons, treasury notes, certificates of deposit, checks, drafts for
money, and sweepstakes money.
ART.167.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be an instrument payable to order or other document of credit not
payable to bearer;
2. That the offender either forged, imported or uttered such instruments; and
3. That in case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer.
This covers instruments or other documents of credit issued by a foreign government or

ba Illegal Possession And Use Of False Treasury Or Bank Notes And Other Instruments Of
Credit
ART.168.
Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes and other instruments of
credit. - Unless the act be one of those coming under the provisions of any of the
preceding articles, any person who shall knowingly use or have in his possession, with
intent to use any of the false or falsified instruments referred to in this section, shall
suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in said articles.
Elements:
1. That any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable
to bearer, or any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to
bearer is forged or falsified by another person;
2. That the offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified; and
3. That he performs any of these acts:
a. using any of such forged or falsified instruments, or
b. possessing with intent to use any of such forged or falsified instruments.
The act sought to be punished is knowingly possessing with intent to use any of such
forged treasury or bank notes.
The accused has the burden to give a satisfactory explanation of his possession of
forged bills. Mere possession of false money bill, without intent to use it to the damage of
another, is not a crime.
People vs. Sendaydiego, 82 SCRA 120 (1978)

The rule is that if a person had in his possession a falsified document and he made use
of it, taking advantage of it and profiting thereby, the presumption is that he is the
material author of the falsification.
False Notes; Illegal Possession (1999)

1. Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under Article 168 of the Revised
Penal Code? Explain.
2. The accused was caught in possession of 100 counterfeit P20 bills. He could not
explain how and why he possessed the said bills. Neither could he explain what he
intended to do with the fake bills. Can he be held criminally liable for such possession?
Decide.
Suggested Answer:
1. No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone without an intent to use it, is not
punishable. But the circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to utter,
sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal possession of false notes.
2. Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to use it may be shown by the
conduct of the accused. So, possession of 100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that the
bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same.
nk.
How Forgery is Committed?
ART.169.
How forgery is committed. - The forgery referred to in this section may be committed by
any of the following means:
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument, payable to bearer or order
mentioned therein, the appearance of a true genuine document.
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters,

words or signs contained therein.
If all acts are done but genuine appearance is not given, the crime is frustrated.
P.D. No. 247 punishes the willful defacement, mutilation, tearing, burning, or destruction
in any manner of currency notes or coins issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines.
For possession of false treasury or bank note to constitute a criminal offense, it must be
with intent to use.
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.
People vs. Galano, 3 SCRA 650

It was held that forgery can be committed through the use of genuine paper bills that
have been withdrawn from circulation, by giving them the appearance of some other true
and genuine document.
However, the dissenting opinion stated that the provision only embraces situations in
which spurious, false or fake documents are given the appearance of a true and genuine
document.
Forgery & Falsification (1999)
How are "forging" and "falsification" committed?
Suggested Answer:
FORGING or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument

payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true and genuine document; or by
erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words
or signs contained therein.
FALSIFICATION, on the other hand, is committed by:
1. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
2. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate;
3. Attributing to persons who have participated in an act or proceeding statements other
than those in fact made by them;
4. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5. Altering true dates;
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its
meaning;
7. 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 copy a statement contrary to,
or different from, that of the genuine original; or
8. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol,
registry, or official book.
ART.170.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be a bill, resolution, or ordinance enacted or approved or pending
approval by Congress or any provincial board or municipal council;
2. That the offender (any person) alters the same;
3. That he has no proper authority therefor; and
4. That the alteration has changed the meaning of the document.
Accused must not be a public official entrusted with the custody or possession of
such document, otherwise Art. 171 applies.
There can be no falsification through reckless imprudence as that will be

inconsistent with the element of intent to cause damage in said crime.
Falsification by a public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastical minister
ART 171.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public.
2. That he takes advantage of his official position.
a. He has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of
the document;
b. He has the official custody of the document which he falsifies
3. That 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 that changes its meaning.
g. Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary
to, or different from, that of the genuine original.
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol,
registry or official book.
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed

with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect
the civil status of persons.
PERSONS WHO MAY BE HELD LIABLE

1. Public officer, employee, or notary public who takes advantage of his official position
2. Ecclesiastical minister if the act of falsification may affect the civil status of persons
3. Private individual, if in conspiracy with public officer
ACTS OF FALSIFICATION
a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric.
COUNTERFEITING
ELEMENTS:
1) That there be an intent to imitate, or an attempt to imitate; and
2) That the two signatures or handwriting, the genuine and the forged, bear some
resemblance, to each other.
- Lack of similitude/imitation of genuine signature will not be a ground for conviction

under par. 1 but such is not an impediment to conviction under par. 2.
b. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in an act or a proceeding

1. That the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or persons
participated in an act or a proceeding
2. That such person did not, in fact, participate in the act or proceeding
c. Attributing to persons who have participated in any act or proceeding statements other
than those in fact made by them.
1. That a person or persons participated in an act or a proceeding
2. That such person or persons made statements in that act or proceeding; and
3. That the offender, in making a document, attributed to such person or persons
statements other than those in fact made by such person or persons
d. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts
2. That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him
3. That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false;
4. That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent
of injuring a third person
There must be a narration of facts, not a conclusion of law. Narration must be on a

material matter.
The person making the narration of facts must be aware of the falsity of the facts
narrated by him. This kind of falsification may be committed by omission.
Legal obligation means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts
narrated. Ex. Residence certificates
Enemecio v. Office of the Ombudsman, GR 146731, 1/13/04

As the Ombudsman correctly pointed out, Enemecio failed to point to any law imposing
upon Bernante, the legal obligation to disclose where he was going to spend his leave of
absence. “Legal obligation” means that there is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth
of the facts narrated. Bernante may not be convicted of the crime of falsification of public
document by making false statements in a narration of facts absent any legal obligation
to disclose where he would spend his vacation leave and forced leave.
e. Altering true dates.

- Date must be essential
- Alteration must affect veracity of document or effects
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its

meaning.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be an alteration (change) or intercalation (insertion) on a document
2. That it was made on a genuine document
3. That the alteration or intercalation has changed the meaning of a document
4. That the change made the document speak something false
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 copy a statement contrary
to, or different from, that of the genuine original.
- If no knowledge - falsification through negligence
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol,

registry or official book.
- This involves a genuine document
- There is no crime of attempted or frustrated falsification of public document.
- If offender does not take advantage of his public position, he may still be
liable for falsification of documents by a private person under Art. 172.
- It is not necessary that what is falsified is a genuine or real document. It is
enough that it gives an appearance of a genuine article.
DOCUMENT - any written statement by which a right is established or an obligation is

extinguished
COUNTERFEITING – intent or attempt to imitate
FEIGNING - to represent by false appearance when no original exists
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.
There are four kinds of documents:

(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.
To become an official document, there must be a law that requires a public officer to
issue or to render such document.
The element of damage is not necessary because it is the interest of the community
which is intended to be guaranteed. The character of the offender and his faithfulness to
his duty is mainly taken into consideration.
Related Article:
 Falsification of legislative documents

 Manufacturing and possession of instruments for falsification
Falsification by Private Individuals and Use of Falsified Instruments
Art. 172.
Falsification by private individual and use of falsified documents. - The penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not more than P5,000
pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any private individual who shall commit any of the falsifications enumerated in the
next preceding article in any public or official document or letter of exchange or any
other kind of commercial document; and
2. Any person who, to the damage of a third party, or with the intent to cause such
damage, shall in any private document commit any of the acts of falsification
enumerated in the next preceding article.
Any person who shall knowingly introduce in evidence in any judicial proceeding or to
the damage of another or who, with the intent to cause such damage, shall use any of
the false documents embraced in the next preceding article, or in any of the foregoing
subdivisions of this article, shall be punished by the penalty next lower in degree.
Elements of Falsification of Public, Official, or Commercial Document By A Private

Individual (par 1):
1. That the offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not
take advantage of his official position;
2. That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in ART. 171;
3. That the falsification was committed in any public or official or commercial document.
Under this paragraph, damage is not essential, it is presumed.
Lack of malice or criminal intent may be put up as a defense under this article.
The following writings are public:

a. written official acts or records of acts of the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and of the public officers, legislative, judicial and executive, whether of the
Philippines or of a foreign country;
b. Documents acknowledged before notary public except last wills and testaments;
c. Public records, kept in the Philippines, of private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
Commercial documents: warehouse receipts, airway bills, bank checks, cash files,

deposit slips, and bank statements, journals, books, ledgers, drafts, letters of credit and
other negotiable instruments.
Cash disbursement vouchers or receipts evidencing payments are not commercial

documents.
A mere blank form of an official document is not in itself a document.
The possessor of the falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification.
Issuing in authenticated form a document(art. 171(7)) purporting to be a copy of an

original document when no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement
contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original - can be committed only by a
public officer or notary public who takes advantage of his official position since the
authentication can be made only by the custodian or the one who prepared and retained
a copy of the original document.
Elements of Falsification of Private Document

1. That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification, except those in paragraph
7 and 8, enumerated in art. 171;
2. That the falsification was committed in any private document; and
3. That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was
committed with intent to cause such damage
- It is not necessary that the offender profited or hoped to profit

A document falsified as a necessary means to commit another crime (complex crime)
must be public, official or commercial. Hence, there is no complex crime of estafa
through falsification of private document because the immediate effect of the latter is the
same as that of estafa.
There is no falsification through reckless imprudence if the document is private and no

actual damage is caused.
If the estafa was already consummated at the time the falsification of a private document
was committed for the purpose of concealing the estafa, the falsification is not
punishable. As regards the falsification of the private document, there was no damage or
intent to cause damage.
A private document may acquire the character of a public document when it becomes
part of an official record and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law.
The crime is falsification of public documents even if the falsification took place before
the private document became part of the public records.
Elements of Use of Falsified Document (par. 3, art. 172):

Introducing in a judicial proceeding
1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.
2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any subdivisions nos. 1 and 2 of
art. 172.
3. That he introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding.
Use in any other transaction

1. That the offender knew that a document was falsified by another person.
2. That the false document is embraced in art. 171 or in any of subdivision nos. 1 and 2
of art. 172.
3. That he used such documents (not in judicial proceedings).
4. That the use of the documents caused damage to another or at least was used with
intent to cause such damage
The user of the falsified document is deemed the author of the falsification, if:
1. The use was so closely connected in time with the falsification, and
2. The user had the capacity of falsifying the document.
Falsification Of Private Documents - Damage to third party is an element of the offense.
Falsification Of Public/Official Documents - Damage to third persons is immaterial. what

is punished is the violation of public faith and perversion of truth which the document
proclaims.
People vs. Manansala, 105 Phil 1253

The possessor of a falsified document is presumed to be the author of the falsification
People vs. Sendaydiego, 82 SCRA 120

The presumption also holds if the use was so closely connected in time with the
falsification and the user had the capacity of falsifying the document
There is no crime of estafa through falsification of a private document.

- Both crimes require the element of damage which each of the two should have its
own.
- The fraudulent gain obtained through deceit should not be the very same damage
caused by the falsification of the private document.
Since damage is not an element of falsification of a public document, it could be

complexed with estafa as a necessary means to commit the latter.
There can be falsification of public document through reckless imprudence but there is
no crime of falsification of private document through negligence or imprudence.
If the document is intended by law to be part of the public or official record,

the falsification, although it was private at the time of falsification, is
regarded as falsification of a public or official document.
Falsification; Presumption of Falsification (1999)
A falsified official or public document was found in the possession of the accused. No
evidence was introduced to show that the accused was the author of the falsification. As
a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the accused of falsification of official or public
document mainly on the proposition that "the only person who could have made the
erasures and the superimposition mentioned is the one who will be benefited by the
alterations thus made" and that "he alone could have the motive for making such
alterations". Was the conviction of the accused proper although the conviction was
premised merely on the aforesaid ratiocination? Explain your answer.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a presumption in law that the possessor
and user of a falsified document is the one who falsified the same.
Related Article:
 Falsification of wireless cable, telegraph, and telephone messages

 Falsification of legislative documents
Falsification of wireless, cable telegraph, and telephone messages, and use of
said falsified messages
ART.173.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Uttering fictitious, wireless, telegraph or telephone message or falsifying message.
ELEMENTS:
a. That the 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
wireless, cable or telephone message; and
b. That the accused commits any of the following acts:
- uttering fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message, or
- falsifying wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message

A private individual may be a principal by inducement but not direct participation
2. Using such falsified message.

ELEMENTS:
a. That the accused knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or telephone message was
falsified by any of the person specified in the first paragraph of art.173;
b. That the accused used such falsified dispatch; and
c. That the use of the falsified dispatch resulted in the prejudice of a third party, or that
the use thereof was with intent to cause such prejudice.
The public officer, to be liable, must be engaged in the service of sending or receiving
wireless, cable and telegraph or telephone message.
Act No. 1851 Sec.4, punishes private individuals who forge or alter telegram
Related Article:
 Illegal possession and use of false treasury or bank notes

 Using false certificates
ART.174.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, issued a
false certificate which refers to the illness or injury of a person.
2. Public officer who issued a false certificate of merit of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances. Ex. Certificate of residence
3. Private individual who falsified a certificate under (1) and (2).
ART.175.
ELEMENTS:
1. That a physician or surgeon has issued a false medical certificate, or a public officer
has issued a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct, or similar
circumstances, or a private person had falsified any of said certificates;
2. That the offender knew that the certificate was false; and
3. That he used the same.
CERTIFICATE - any writing by which testimony is given that a fact has or has not taken
place
When any of false certificates mentioned in Article 174 is used in judicial proceedings,
Article 172 does not apply because it is limited only to those false documents embraced
in Articles 171 and 172.
ART.176.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies or marks or other
instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification.
2. Possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting
or falsification made in or introduced into the Philippines by another person.
NOTES:
The implements confiscated need not form a complete set. It is enough that they may
be employed by themselves or together with other implements to commit the crime of
counterfeiting or falsification.
Constructive possession is also punished.
Article 165 and 176 of the Revised Penal Code, also punish constructive possession.
As in Art. 165, the possession contemplated here is constructive possession.

The implements confiscated need not form a complete set.
Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions

Art. 177
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Usurpation of authority: By knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an
officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the Philippine or
any foreign government
2. Usurpation of official functions: By performing an act pertaining to any
person in authority or public officer of the Philippines or foreign government under
the pretense of such official position, and without being lawfully entitled to do so.
Penalty
Prision Correccional in its minimum and medium period. The Penalty of Prision
Correccional has a duration of 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.
Usurpation of Authority Elements

1. Offender knowingly and falsely represent himself
2. As an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of the
Philippine government or of any foreign government.
Usurpation of Official Functions Elements

1. Offender performs any act
2. Pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the Philippine
government or any foreign government or any agency thereof
3. Under pretense of official position
4. Without being lawfully entitled to do so
NOTES:
In usurpation of authority, the mere act of knowingly and falsely representing
oneself is sufficient. It is not necessary that he performs an act pertaining to a public
officer.
There must be positive, express and explicit representation and not merely a failure to
deny. Representation may be shown by acts.
In usurpation of official functions, it is essential that the offender should have

performed an act pertaining to a person in authority.
A public officer may also be an offender.
Note: the usurpation must pertain to a department or agency of the Philippine

Government or any foreign government.
Sec. 1 RA 75 punishes any person who shall falsely assume and take upon himself to
act
as a diplomatic, consular, or any other official of a foreign government duly accredited as
such to the Government of the Republic of the Philippines with intent to defraud such
foreign government or the Government of the Philippines; in addition to penalties
imposed
in RPC, the offender shall be fined not more
than P5,000 or shall be imprisoned for not more than 5 years or both.
If it can be proven that the usurpation of authority or official functions by accused was
done in good faith or under cloth of authority, then the charge of usurpation will not
apply.
Ex. See Estrada v. Desierto
Jurisprudence
Estrada v. Desierto, GR 156160, 12/9/04

Hefti was charged with Usurpation of Official Function for issuing a notice of distraint,
a function of the BIR Commissioner. While it is true that under Sec. 206 of
the NIRC as amended, the Commissioner of the BIR and not any Officer of the BIR
was the
one granted with the power to issue a notice of distraint, it bears to stress, however,
that when respondent Hefti exercised such function of the BIR Commissioner, she
was
then designated Officer-In-Charge of the BIR by President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo,
as
evidenced by a photocopy of her Memorandum of Appointment dated January 23,
2001.Suffice it
to say that when respondent Hefti issued the notice of distraint, she was clothed with
authority to issue the same in view of her appointment as the then Officer-In-Charge
of
the BIR. Hence, the charge for Usurpation of Official Function does not apply to said
respondent.
ART.178.
ELEMENTS OF USING FICTITIOUS NAME:

1. That the offender uses a name other than his real name;
2. That he uses that fictitious name publicly;
3. That the purpose of the offender is –
a. To conceal a crime,
b. To evade the execution of a judgment, or
c. To cause damage to public interest.
Ex. Signing fictitious name for a passport
ELEMENTS OF CONCEALING TRUE NAME:

1. That the offender conceals –
a. his true name, and
b. all other personal circumstances; and
2. That the purpose is only to conceal his identity.
Related Article: Anti-Alias Law
ART.179.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress;
2. That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the offender or
to a class of persons of which he is not a member;
3. That said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly.
NOTES:
An exact imitation of the dress or uniform is unnecessary; a colorable resemblance

calculated to deceive is sufficient
The term “improperly” means that the offender has no right to use the uniform or
insignia.
Wearing the uniform of an imaginary office, not punishable
Using naval, military, police or other official uniform, decoration or regalia of

foreign State with intent to deceive or mislead is punished by RA 75 by a fine not
exceeding P200 or imprisonment not exceeding 6 months, or both
Wearing insignia, badge or emblem of rank of the members of the Armed Forces of the
Philippine or Constabulary is punished by RA 493 by a fine of not less than P100 and
not exceeding P2,000 or by imprisonment for not less than one month or not exceeding
two years, or both, except if used in playhouse or theater or in moving picture films
False Testimony Against A Defendant
ART.180.
False testimony against a defendant. - Any person who shall give false testimony
against the defendant in any criminal case shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if the defendant in said case shall have been
sentenced to death;
2. The penalty of prision mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to reclusion
temporal or reclusion perpetua;
3. The penalty of prision correccional, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to any
other afflictive penalty; and
4. The penalty of arresto mayor, if the defendant shall have been sentenced to a
correctional penalty or a fine, or shall have been acquitted.
In cases provided in subdivisions 3 and 4 of this article the offender shall further suffer a
fine not to exceed 1,000 pesos.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be a Criminal proceeding;
2. Offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant therein;
3. Offender knows that it is false; and
4. The defendant against whom the false testimony is given is either acquitted or
convicted in a final judgment.
FALSE TESTIMONY - committed by a person who, being under oath and required to
testify as to the truth of a certain matter at a hearing before a competent authority, shall
deny the truth or say something contrary to it
NOTES:
Violation of this article requires criminal intent. Hence, it cannot be committed through
negligence.
The offender need not impute guilt upon the accused to be liable.
The defendant must at least be sentenced to a correctional penalty or a fine or must

have been acquitted.
The witness who gave false testimony is liable even if the court did not consider his
testimony.
Penalty depends upon sentence imposed on the defendant except in the case of a
judgment of acquittal. Since Art. 180 does not prescribe the penalty where the defendant
in a criminal case is sentenced to a light penalty, false testimony in this instance cannot
be punished considering that a penal must be strictly construed.
Three forms of false testimony

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.
Articles 180 – 184 punish the acts of making false testimonies since because such acts
seriously expose the court to miscarriage of justice.
False Testimony Favorable To The Defendant
ART.181:
False testimony favorable to the defendants. - Any person who shall give false testimony
in favor of the defendant in a criminal case, shall suffer the penalties of arresto mayor in
its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period a fine not to exceed
1,000 pesos, if the prosecution is for a felony punishable by an afflictive penalty, and the
penalty of arresto mayor in any other case.
Elements:
1. A person gives false testimony;
2. In favor of the defendant;
3. In a criminal case.
The testimony need not be beneficial to the defendant.
Conviction or acquittal of defendant in the principal case is not necessary.
Rectification made spontaneously after realizing the mistake is not false testimony.
NOTES:
False testimony by negative statement is still in favor of the defendant.
False testimony in favor of defendant need not directly influence the decision of acquittal
nor benefit the defendant(intent to favor defendant sufficient)
A statement of mere opinion is not punishable.
Conviction or acquittal is not necessary (final judgment is not necessary), but gravity of
crime in the principal case should be shown
A defendant who voluntarily goes up on the witness stand and falsely imputes to another
person the commission of the offense is liable under this article. If he merely denies the
commission of the offense, he is not liable.
Rectification made spontaneously after realizing mistake is not false testimony (Not
liable if there is no evidence that accused acted with malice or criminal intent to testify
falsely)
The penalty in this article is less than that which is provided in the preceding article
because there is no danger to life or liberty of the defendant.
False Testimony (1994)
Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial Court of Manila. Andrew, a
prosecution witness, testified that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their heated
argument. While the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned down and the
entire records of the case were destroyed. Later, the records were reconstituted. Andrew
was again called to the witness stand. This time he testified that his first testimony was
false and the truth was he was abroad when the crime took place. The judge
immediately ordered the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony favorable to
the defendant in a criminal case.
1. Will the case against Andrew prosper?
2. Paolo was acquitted. The decision became final on January 10, 1987. On June 18,
1994 a case of giving false testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what legal
step will you take?
Suggested Answer:
1) Yes. For one to be criminally liable under Art. 181, RPC, it is not necessary that the
criminal case where Andrew testified is terminated first. It is not even required of the
prosecution to prove which of the two statements of the witness is false and to prove the
statement to be false by evidence other than the contradictory statements (People vs.
Arazola, 13 Court of Appeals Report, 2nd series, p. 808).
2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the Information on the ground of
prescription. The crime of false testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed because Paolo,
the accused in the principal case, was acquitted on January 10, 1987 and therefore the
penalty prescribed for such crime is arresto mayor under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC. Crimes
punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years (Art. 90, par. 3, RPC). But the
case against Andrew was filed only on June 18, 1994, whereas the principal criminal
case was decided with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the prescriptive period of
the crime commenced to run. From January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than five
(5) years.
ART.182.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the testimony must be given in a civil case;
2. That the testimony must relate to the issues presented in said case;
3. That the testimony must be false;
4. That the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to
be false; and
5. That the testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect the issues
presented in the said case.
This article is not applicable when testimony is given in a special proceeding. In
this case, the crime is perjury.
Basis of penalty: amount involved in the civil case.
The testimony need not be beneficial to the defendant.
Conviction or acquittal of defendant in the principal case is not necessary.
Rectification made spontaneously after realizing the mistake is not false

testimony.
False Testimony In Other Cases And Perjury In Solemn Affirmation
ART.183.
False testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation. - The penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any person, who knowingly makes untruthful statements and not being
included in the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall testify under oath, or make
an affidavit, upon any material matter before a competent person authorized to
administer an oath in cases in which the law so requires.
ELEMENTS:
1. That an accused made a statement under oath or made an affidavit upon a material
matter;
2. That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to
receive and administer oath;
3. That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion
of a falsehood; and
4. That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law.
Two (2) Ways Of Committing Perjury:

a. by falsely testifying under oath
b. by making a false statement
NOTES:
Subornation of perjury is committed if a person procures another to swear falsely and

the witness suborned does testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury.
This is now treated as plain perjury, the one inducing another as principal by inducement
and the one induced as principal by direct participation.
Solemn affirmation refers to non-judicial proceedings and affidavits.
A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may give rise to perjury.
A matter is material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue.
A “competent person authorized to administer an oath” means a person who has a right
to inquire into the questions presented to him upon matters under his jurisdiction.
There is no perjury through negligence or imprudence since the assertion of falsehood

must be willful and deliberate.
Even if there is no law requiring the statement to be made under oath, as long as it is
made for a legal purpose, it is sufficient.
Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other than those taken in the course of
judicial proceedings.
False testimony before the justice of the peace during a preliminary investigation may
give rise to the crime of perjury, not false testimony in judicial proceedings. The latter
crime contemplates an actual trial where a judgment of conviction or acquittal is
rendered.
Diaz vs. People, 191 SCRA 86
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;
3. Offender makes a willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood in the statement or
affidavit;
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law, that is, it is
made for a legal purpose.
The statement should be outside the coverage of art 180-181.
Because of the requirement that the assertion of falsehood be made willfully and
deliberately, there could be no perjury through negligence or imprudence.
Furthermore, good faith or lack of malice is a defense in perjury.
It is not necessary that there be a law requiring the statement to be made under oath, as
long as it is made for a legal purpose.
Sisenando purchased the share of the stockholders of Estrella Corporation in two

installments, making him the majority stockholder thereof and eventually, its president.
Because the stockholders who sold their stocks failed to comply with their warranties
attendant to the sale, Sisenando withheld payment of the second installment due on the
shares and deposited the money in escrow instead, subject to release once said
stockholders comply with their warranties. The stockholders concerned, in turn,
rescinded the sale in question and removed Sisenando from the Presidency of the
Estrella Corporation, Sisenando then filed a verified complaint for damages against said
stockholders in his capacity as president and principal stockholder of Estrella
Corporation. In retaliation, the stockholders concerned, after petitioning the Securities
and Exchange Commission to declare the rescission valid, further filed a criminal case
for perjury against Sisenando, claiming that the latter perjured himself when he stated
under oath in the verification of his complaint for damages that he is the President of the
Estrella Corporation when in fact he had already been removed as such. Under the facts
of the case, could Sisenando be held liable for perjury? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No, Sisenando may not be held liable for perjury because It cannot be reasonably
maintained that he willfully and deliberately made an assertion of a falsehood when he
alleged in the complaint that he is the President of the Corporation, obviously, he made
the allegation on the premise that his removal from the presidency is not valid and that is
precisely the issue brought about by his complaint to the SEC. It is a fact that Sisenando
has been the President of the corporation and it is from that position that the
stockholders concerned purportedly removed him, whereupon he filed the complaint
questioning his removal. There is no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood which
is a requisite of perjury.
Bar ExamQuestion (1997)
A, a government employee, was administratively charged with immorality for having an

affair with B, a co-employee in the same office who believed him to be single. To
exculpate himself, A testified that he was single and was willing to marry B, He induced
C to testify and C did testify that B was single. The truth, however, was that A had earlier
married D, now a neighbor of C. Is A guilty of perjury? Are A and C guilty of
subordination of perjury?
Suggested Answer:
No. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful falsehood asserted by him is not material
to the charge of immorality.
Whether A is single or married, the charge of immorality against him as a government
employee could proceed or prosper. In other words, A's civil status is not a defense to
the charge of immorality, hence, not a material matter that could influence the charge.
There is no crime of subornation of perjury. The crime is now treated as plain perjury
with the one inducing another as the principal inducement, and the latter, as principal by
direct participation (People vs. Podol 66 Phil. 365). Since in this case A cannot be held
liable for perjury, the matter that he testified to being immaterial, he cannot, therefore, be
held responsible as a principal by inducement when he induced C to testify on his status.
Consequently, C is not liable as principal by direct participation in perjury, having
testified on matters not material to an administrative case.
Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for naturalization, with the
Regional Trial Court of Manila. In his petition, he stated that he is married to Leni Chua;
that he is living with her in Sampaloc, Manila; that he is of good moral character; and
that he has conducted himself in an irreproachable manner during his stay in the
Philippines. However, at the time of the filing of the petition, Leni Chua was already living
in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes Toh in Manila, with whom he has an amorous
relationship. After his direct testimony, Al Chua withdrew his petition for naturalization.
What crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua commit? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Al Chua committed perjury. His declaration under oath for naturalization that he is of
good moral character and residing at Sampaloc, Manila are false. This information is
material to his petition for naturalization. He committed perjury for this willful and
deliberate assertion of falsehood which is contained in a verified petition made for a legal
purpose. (Choa v. People, G.R. No. 142011, March 14, 2003)
ART. 184.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender offered in evidence a false witness or false testimony;
2. That he knew the witness or the testimony was false; and
3. That the offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding.
NOTES:
This article applies when the offender, without inducing another but knowing him to be a
false witness, presented him and the latter testified falsely in a judicial or official
proceeding.
The felony is consummated the moment a false witness is offered in any judicial or
official proceeding. Looking for a false witness is not punished by law as that is not
offering a false witness.
The false witness need not be convicted of false testimony. A mere offer to present him
is sufficient.
The counsel is the one liable in this case.

ART.185.
Acts punished
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking
part in any public auction;
Elements
a. There is a public auction;
b. Offender solicits any gift or a promise from any of the bidders;
c. Such gift or promise is the consideration for his refraining from taking part
in that public auction;
d. Offender has the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats,

gifts, promises or any other artifice.
Elements
a. There is a public auction;
b. Offender attempts to cause the bidders to stay away from that public auction;
c. It is done by threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice;
d. Offender has the intent to cause the reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.
NOTES:
The crime is consummated by the mere act of soliciting a gift or promise for the purpose
of
abstaining from taking part in any public auction.
The threat need not be effective nor the offer or gift accepted for the crime to arise.
Execution sales should be opened to free and full competition in order to secure the
maximum benefit for the debtors.
The crime is consummated by:

- mere solicitation of gift or promise as consideration for not bidding, or
- by mere attempt to cause prospective bidders to stay away from an auction
ART.186.
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. Conspiracy or combination to prevent free competition in the market
2. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market
3. 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
NOTES:
Combination to prevent free competition in the market

- By entering into a contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or
combination in the form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce
or to prevent by artificial means free competition in the market; It is enough that
initial steps are taken. It is not necessary that there be actual restraint
of trade.
Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market

- By monopolizing any merchandise or object of trade or commerce, or by combining
with any 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 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 the merchandise.
Also liable as principals:

a. corporation/association
b. agent/representative
c. director/manager who willingly permitted or failed to prevent commission of above
offense
When offense is committed by a corporation or association, the president and directors

or
managers are liable.
Mere conspiracy or combination is punished
Crime is aggravated if the items involved are:

a. food substance
b. motor fuel or lubricants
c. goods of prime necessity
RA 3720 - created Food and Drug Administration

RA 6361 - created Price Control Council
RA 1180 - an Act to regulate the Retail Business
MONOPOLY - is a privilege or peculiar advantage vested in one or more persons or

companies, consisting in the exclusive right or power to carry on a particular business
or trade, manufacture a particular article, or control the sale or the whole supply of a
particular commodity. It is a form of market structure in which one or only a few firms
dominate the total sales of a product or service.
COMBINATION IN RESTRAINT OF TRADE - is an agreement or understanding

between
two or more persons,in the form of a contract, trust, pool, holding company or other form
of
association, for the purpose of unduly restricting competition, monopolizing trade and
commerce in a certain commodity, controlling its production, distribution and price, or
otherwise interfering with freedom of trade without statutory authority. Combination in
restraint of trade
refers to the means while monopoly refers to the end.
ART.187.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender imports, sells or disposes of any article or merchandise made of
gold,
silver or other precious metals;
2. That the stamps, brands, or marks of those articles or merchandise fails to indicate
the
actual fineness or quality of said metals or alloys; and
3. That the offender knows that the said stamp, brand, or mark fails to indicate the actual
fineness or quality of the metals or alloys.
When evidence show the article to be imported, selling the misbranded articles is not
necessary.
The manufacturer who alters the quality or fineness is liable for estafa under Art. 315,
2(b)
ART.188.
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. By (a) substituting the trade name (t/n) or trademark (t/m) of some other manufacturer
or dealer or a colorable imitation thereof, for the t/n or t/m of the real manufacturer
or dealer upon any article of commerce; and (b) selling the same.
2. By selling or by offering for sale such article of commerce, knowing that the t/n or t/m
has been fraudulently used.
3. By using or substituting the service mark of some other person, or a colorable
imitation
of such marks, in the sale or advertising of services.
4. By printing, lithographing or reproducing t/n, t/m 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.
TRADE-NAME OR TRADE-MARK – is a word or words, name, title, symbol, emblem,

sign or device, or any combination thereof used as an advertisement, sign, label, poster,
or
otherwise, for the purpose of enabling the public to distinguish the business of the
person
who owns and uses said trade-name or trade-mark
SERVICE MARK – is a mark used in the sale or advertising of services to identify the
services
of one person and distinguish them from the services of others and includes without
limitation
the marks, names, symbols, titles, designations, slogans, character names, and
distinctive features
of radio or other advertising
NOTES:
The provisions of Articles 188 and 189 of the Revised Penal Code which are
inconsistent
with R. A. 8293 (Intellectual Property Code of the Philippines) are repealed.
The trade name, trademark or service mark need not be identical; a colorable imitation is
sufficient. There must not be differences which are glaring and striking to the eye.
“Mark” means any visible sign capable of distinguishing the goods or services of an
enterprise and shall include a stamped or marked container.
Trade name: identify or distinguish an enterprise; not necessarily attached or affixed

to the goods of the owner.
Trademarks: to indicate origin of ownership of goods to which it is affixed
In trademarks, it is not necessary that the goods of the prior user and the later user of
the trademark are of the same categories. The meat of the matter is the likelihood of
confusion, mistake or deception upon purchasers of the goods of the junior user of
the mark and goods manufactured by the previous user.
The trade name or trademark must be registered. Trademark must not be merely
descriptive
or generic.
The exclusive right to an originally valid trademark or trade name is lost, if for any
reason it loses its distinctiveness or has become “publici juris.”
Unfair Competition, Fraudulent Registration Of Trade Name, TradeMark, Or Service
Mark, Fraudulent Designation Of Origin, And False Description
ART.189.
Superseded by RA 8293, the Intellectual Property Code, Jan. 1, 1998.
UNFAIR COMPETITION: consists of employing deception or any other means contrary

to good
faith by which any person 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 goodwill, or
committing any acts calculated to produce such result
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. Unfair competition by selling his goods, giving them the general appearance of the
goods of another manufacturer or dealer.
2. Fraudulent designation of origin by
(a) affixing to his goods or using in connection with his services a false designation of
origin; or any false description or representation, and
(b) selling such goods or services.
3. Fraudulent registration by procuring fraudulently from the patent office the registration
of t/m, t/m, or service mark.
ELEMENTS OF UNFAIR COMPETITION:

1. That the offender gives his goods the general appearance of the goods of another
manufacturer or dealer;
2. That the general appearance is shown in the
(a) goods themselves,
(b) wrapping of their packages,
(c) device or words therein, or in
(d) any other feature of their appearance;
3. That the offender offers to sell or sells those goods or gives other persons a chance or
opportunity to do the same with a like purpose; and
4. That there is actual intent to deceive the public or defraud a competitor.
CRIMES RELATED TO OPIUM AND OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS - Title V
Art.190 to 194 - repealed by RA 6425 - Dangerous Drugs Act Of 1972

Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002
RA 9165
Articles 190-194 of the Revised Penal Code are repealed by Republic Act No. 6425 “The
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972” which took effect on March 30, 1972 (Sec. 42), as
amended by PD No. 1683 and further amended by RA No. 7659
THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 (R. A. NO. 9165, repealing R. A. No.6425
and RPC provisions on crimes related to opium and other prohibited drugs)
Policy
1. Campaign against Drugs and Protection of State
2. Balance - Medicinal Purpose
3. Rehabilitation
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Importation of dangerous drugs (even for floral, decorative and
culinary purposes) and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals

Qualifying circumstance:
a. If the importation was through the use of a diplomatic passport, diplomatic
facilities or any other means involving the offender’s official status.
b. Organizes, manages or acts as a financier
- The protector or coddler is also liable.
2. Sale, administration, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous

drugs
a. Within 100 meters from a school;
b. If minors/mentally incapacitated individuals are used as runners, couriers and
messengers of drug pushers;
c. If the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited/regulated drug
involved in any offense under this section be the proximate cause of the death
of a victim thereof
d. Organizes, manages or acts as financier
3. Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort where any controlled precursor

and essential chemical is sold or used
1. where a prohibited/regulated drug is administered, delivered, or sold to a minor
who is allowed to use the same in such place; or
2. should a prohibited drug be the proximate cause of the death of the person using
the same in such den, dive or resort.
3. Organizes, manages or acts as financier

- If place owned by third person, the same shall be confiscated and escheated
in favor of government IF
1. Complaint specifically allege that such place used intentionally for
furtherance of crime
2. Prosecution proves intent on part of owner
3. Owner included as accused in criminal complaint
Opium Dive or Resort - place where dangerous drug and/or controlled

precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal
purposes, distributed, sold or used in any form (To be habitual – prior

conviction, reputation of place)
4. Being employees or visitors of drug den who are aware of the nature of such
place
- For the employee who is aware of nature of place and any person who
knowingly visits such place
- A person who visited another who was smoking opium shall not be liable
if the place is not an opium dive or resort
5. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential

chemicals

Aggravating circumstance: Clandestine lab is undertaken under the following
circumstances:
1. Any phase conducted in presence or with help of minors
2. Established/undertaken within 100m of residential, business, church or school
premises
3. Lab secured/protected by booby traps
4. Concealed with legitimate business operations
5. Employment of practitioner, chemical engineer, public official or foreigner
Qualifying circumstance: Organizes, manages or acts as financier
Prima facie proof of manufacture: presence of controlled precursor and essential

chemical or lab equipment in the clandestine lab
CLANDESTINE LABORATORY:Any facility used for illegal manufacture of any

dangerous
drug and or controlled precursor and essential chemicals
6. Illegal chemical diversion of precursor and essential chemicals
CHEMICAL DIVERSION: sale, distribution, transport of legitimately imported,

in-transit, manufactured or procured controlled precursors or essential chemicals
to any person or entity engaged in manufacture of dangerous drug and concealment
of such transaction through fraud, destruction of documents, fraudulent use of
permits, misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail fraud
7. Manufacture or delivery of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other

paraphernalia for dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemicals
Acts Punishable:
1. deliver
2. possess with intent to deliver
3. manufacture with intent to deliver the paraphernalia, knowing, or under
circumstances where one reasonably should know
Qualifying circumstance - use of a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual

to deliver such equipment, instrument, apparatus or other paraphernalia
8. Possession of dangerous drugs, regardless of the degree of purity

- Penalties are graduated to the amount of drugs (the only violation where
quantity matters)
- The kinds of drugs have different respective amounts for the graduation of
penalties
Qualifying circumstance: Party, social gathering, or in the proximate company

of at least 2 persons, regardless of quantity
Possession: unauthorized, either actual or constructive, irrespective of quantity,

with intent to possess(full knowledge that what was possessed was any of
prohibited or regulated drug)
Elements of possession of opium: (RA 6425)

1. occupancy or taking
2. intent to possess
What is punished is present possession, not past possession
It is not necessary to allege in information that accused is not authorized to

possess opium
9. Possession apparatus and other paraphernalia fit for introducing dangerous

drugs into the body
Possession of such equipment = Prima facie evidence that possessor has used a
dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Sec. 15, use of dangerous
drug.
The possession of PARAPHERNALIA is absorbed by USE of dangerous drug.
Qualifying circumstance: Party, social gathering, or in the proximate company of

at least 2 persons.
10. Use of dangerous drugs

Must be found positive after a confirmatory test
1st conviction – minimum of 6 mos. of rehabilitation
2nd conviction – imprisonment and fine
Where the accused is also found to be in possession of dangerous drugs, this

Section shall not apply. Sec. 11, possession of dangerous drugs, shall apply.
Hence, USE is subsumed by POSSESSION.
Ex. If the offender is caught with possession of paraphernalia, possession of
dangerous drugs and use of dangerous drugs, the offense is POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS.
11.Cultivation or culture of plants which are dangerous drugs or are sources

thereof
The land/portions thereof and/or greenhouses in which any of the said plants is
cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and escheated to the State, unless
the owner thereof prove that he did not know of such cultivation or culture
despite the exercise of due diligence on his part.
1) The land is part of the public domain
2) Organizes, manages or acts as financier
12. Failure to keep of original records of transactions of dangerous drugs
Persons liable: practitioner, manufacturer, wholesaler, importer, distributor,

dealer, or retailer
The additional penalty of revocation of his license to practice his profession

in case of a practitioner, or of his or its business license in case of
manufacturer, seller, importer, distributor or dealer, shall be imposed.
13. Unnecessary prescription of dangerous drugs
Person Liable: Practitioner who shall prescribe any dangerous drug for any person
whose physical/physiological condition does not require the use of thereof or
in the dosage therein.
14. Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs
Also Punishable -
ATTEMPT AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE FOLLOWING OFFENSES:

a. Importation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical,
b. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and
transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical,
c. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for dangerous drugs,
d. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical,and
e. Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
The penalty for such attempt and conspiracy is the same penalty prescribed
for the commission. Thus, where the offense of sale was not consummated, the
accused should not be prosecuted under mere possession, but under Sec. 26.
(Justice Peralta)
OTHER PERSONS LIABLE:

1. Public officer or employee who misappropriates, misapplies or fails to account
for confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, etc.
2. Any elective local or national official who have benefited from the proceeds of
trafficking of dangerous drugs or have received any financial/material contributions
or donations from natural or juridical persons guilty of drug trafficking.
3. If the violation of the Act is committed by a partnership, corporation, association
or any judicial person, the partner, president, director, or manager who consents to
or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held criminally liable as co-principal.
4. Partner, president, director, manager, officer or stockholder, who knowingly
authorizes, tolerates, or consents to the use of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft as
an instrument in the importation, sale, delivery, distribution or transportation of
dangerous drugs, or to the use of their equipment, machines or other instruments in
the manufacture of any dangerous drugs, if such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment,
or other instrument, is owned or under the control and supervision of the partnership,
corporation, association or judicial entity to which they are affiliated.

5. Any person who is found guilty of “planting” any dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemicals, regardless of quantity or purity (penalty of death).
6. Any person violating a regulation issued by the Dangerous Drugs Board
7. Any person authorized to conduct drug test who issues false or fraudulent drug test
results knowingly, willfully or through gross negligence.
8. Any government officer tasked with the prosecution of drug-related cases under this
Act who delays or bungles the prosecution.
For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act, all school heads,
supervisors and teachers shall be deemed to be persons in authority
and, as such, are vested with the power to apprehend, arrest, or cause the
apprehension or arrest of any person who shall violate any of the said provision.
They shall be considered as persons in authority if they are in the school or
within its immediate vicinity, or beyond such immediate vicinity if they are
in attendance in any school or class function in their official capacity as
school heads, supervisors or teachers.
Any teacher or school employee who discovers or finds that any person in the
school or within its immediate vicinity is violating this Act shall have
the duty to report the violation to the school head or supervisor who shall,
in turn, report the matter to the proper authorities. Failure to report in
either case shall, after hearing, constitute sufficient cause for disciplinary
action by the school authorities. (Sec. 44)
RULES FOR EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF DRU DEPENDENTS

THROUGH VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION:
A. Drug dependent who is finally discharged from confinement shall be exempt

subject to the ff. conditions:
1) Complied with the rules of the Center
2) Never been charged or convicted of any offense under this Act, the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, the RPC, or any special penal laws.
3) No record of escape from the Center; provided if he escaped, he surrendered
by himself or through his parent, spouse, guardian, or relative w/in 1 week.
4) Poses no serious danger to himself, family or community.
B. Voluntary submission of a drug dependent to confinement, treatment and
rehabilitation by the drug-dependent himself or through his parent,
guardian or relative within the 4th in a center and compliance with such conditions
therefor as the Dangerous Drugs Board may prescribe shall exempt him from
criminal liability for possession or use of the dangerous drug.
C. Should the drug-dependent escape from the center, he may submit himself for
confinement within 1 week from the date of his escape, of his parent guardian
or relative may, within the same period surrender him for confinement.
D. Upon application of the Board, the Court shall issue an order for recommitment
if the drug dependent does not resubmit himself for confinement or if he is
not surrendered for recommitment.
E. If, subsequent to such recommitment, he should escape again, he shall no longer be

exempt from criminal liability for the use or possession of any dangerous drug.
F. If a person charged with an offense with an imposable penalty of less than

6 years and 1 day, and the Court or prosecutor, at any stage of the proceedings,
finds that the person charged with an offense is a drug dependent, the fiscal
or court as the case may be, shall suspend all further proceedings and transmit
records of the case to the Board. If the Board determines that public interest
requires that such person be committed, it shall file a petition for commitment.
After commitment and discharge, the prosecution shall continue. In case of
conviction, the judgment shall, if certified by the center for good behavior,
indicate that he shall be given full credit for the period of confinement;
provided when the offense is use of dangerous drugs, and the accused is not a
recidivist, the penalty shall have deemed to have been served in the center
upon release.
G. The period of prescription of the offense charged shall not run during the time
that the respondent/accused is under detention or confinement in a center.
H. A drug dependent who is discharged as rehabilitated, but does not qualify for
exemption, may be charged under this Act, but shall be placed on probation
and undergo community service in lieu of imprisonment and/or fine in the
court’s discretion.
I. A drug dependent who is not rehabilitated after the second commitment to the
Center under the voluntary submission program shall, upon recommendation of
the Board, be charged for violation of Sec. 15, (use of dangerous drug) and
be prosecuted like any other offender. If convicted, he shall be credited for
the period of confinement in the Center.
RULES ON SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE FOR FIRST OFFENSE OF A MINOR:
A. Supervision and rehabilitative surveillance of the Board and under such

conditions that the court may impose for a period of 6-18 mos.
Requisites for suspension:

1. Accused is a minor over 15 years at the time of the commission of the
offense but not more than 18 years of age when the judgment should have
been promulgated.
2. He has not been previously convicted of violating this Act, Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, RPC or any special penal laws.
3. He has not been previously committed to a Center or to the care of a DOH-
accedited
physician.
4. The Dangerous Drugs Board favorably recommends that his/her sentence be
suspended.
Where the minor is under 15 years at the time of the commission, Art. 192 of
Child and Youth Welfare Code shall apply (suspension of sentence and
commitment)
B. The privilege of suspended sentence may be availed of only once.
C. If the minor violates any of the conditions of his suspended sentence, rules
of the Board, or rules of the center, the court shall pronounce judgment of
conviction and he shall serve sentence as any other convicted person.
D. Upon promulgation of sentence, the court may, in its discretion, place the
accused under probation, or impose community service in lieu of imprisonment.
RULES FOR LAB EXAMINATION OF APPREHENDED/ARRESTED OFFENDERS :

1. If reasonable ground to believe that offender is under the influence of
dangerous drugs, conduct examination w/in 24 hours.
2. Positive results shall be challenged w/in 15 days after receipt of the result
through a confirmatory test.
3. Confirmed test shall be prima facie evidence that offender has used dangerous drugs.
4. Positive test must be confirmed for it to be valid in a court of law.
OTHER RULES:
1. In buy-bust operations, there is no law or rule requiring policemen to adopt a
uniform way of identifying buy money.
2. Absence of ultraviolet powder on the buy money is not fatal for the prosecution.
3. If offender is an alien, an additional penalty of deportation without further
proceedings shall be imposed immediately after service of sentence.
4. A person charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act shall not be allowed to avail of
plea-bargaining.
5. A positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating
circumstance in the commission of a crime by the offender.
6. If public official/employee is the offender, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
7. Any person convicted of drug trafficking or pushing cannot avail of the
Probation Law.
8. Immunity from prosecution and punishment shall be granted to an informant,
provided the ff. conditions concur:
1) necessary for conviction
2) not yet in the possession of the State
3) can be corroborated on material points
4) has not been previously convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, except
when there is no other direct evidence
5) comply with conditions imposed by the State
6) does not appear to be the most guilty
7) no other direct evidence available
Mandatory drug testing includes:

1) All persons charged with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty
of not less than 6 years and 1 day.
2) All candidates for public office, whether appointed or elected.
Limited applicability of the RPC - The RPC shall not apply to this Act, except
in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty
for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.
Hence, since RPC nomenclature of penalties is used, the minor is then

entitled to mitigating circumstances under the RPC (Martin Simon case).
Thus, the minor does not receive the death penalty. (Justice Peralta)
People v. Adam GR 143842, 10/13/03

Appellant is guilty of the crime of attempted sale of shabu. As gleaned from
the testimony of the poseur-buyer, the appellant merely showed the bag
containing the shabu and held on to it before it was confiscated. There is
no evidence that the poseur- buyer talked about and agreed with the appellant on
the purchase price of the shabu. There is no evidence that the appellant handed
over the shabu to the poseur buyer
People v. Yang, GR 148077, 2/16/04

The consummation of the crime charged herein may be sufficiently established
even in the absence of an exchange of money. The offer to sell and then
the sale itself arose when the poseur-buyer showed the money to appellant,
which prompted the latter to show the contents of the carton, and hand it over
to the poseur-buyer. Mere showing of the said regulated drug does not negate
the existence of an offer to sell or an actual sale. The absence of actual or
completed payment is irrelevant, for the law itself penalizes the very act of
delivery of a dangerous drug, regardless of any consideration. Payment of
consideration is likewise immaterial in the distribution
of illicit drugs.
People v. Chua, GR 149878, 7/1/03

In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, mere possession
of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under the
Dangerous Drugs Act. Lack of criminal intent or good faith does not exempt
appellants from criminal liability.
People v. Cadley, GR 150735, 3/15/04

A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment
or buy- bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method
People v. Del Norte, GR 149462, 3/31/04

In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following
facts must be proven with moral certainty:
(1) that the accused is in possession of the object identified as a
prohibited or regulated drug;
(2) that such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. In this
case, proof of the accused’s ownership of the house where the prohibited
drugs were discovered is necessary.
What is the PDEA?

The PDEA is the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. It serves as the
implementing arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board It shall be responsible for the
efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in this Act.
Section 82, Article IX, RA 9165
What are the functions of the Dangerous Drugs Board?

The Board shall Be the policy-making and strategy-formulating body in the
planning and formulation of policies and programs on drug prevention and control.
Develop and adopt a comprehensive, integrated, unified and balanced national

drug abuse prevention and control strategy.
Under the Office of the President.
How long will the drug dependent be confined for treatment and rehabilitation?
- Confinement in a Center for treatment and rehabilitation shall not exceed
one (1) year, after which time the Court, as well as the Board, shall be
apprised by the head of the treatment and rehabilitation center of the status
of said drug dependent and determine whether further confinement will be for
the welfare of the drug dependent and his/her family or the community.
Crimes Against Public Morals - Title VI
Art.195 to 199 - repealed by PD 1602
Grave Scandal
ART. 200.
The penalties of arresto mayor and public censure shall be imposed upon any person
who shall offend against decency or good customs by any highly scandalous conduct
not expressly falling within any other article of this Code.
Elements:
1. That the offender performs an act;
2. That such act/s be highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs;
3. That the highly scandalous conduct does not expressly fall within any other article of
the RPC; and
4. That the act/s complained of be committed in a public place or within the public
knowledge or view.
Grave scandal consists of acts that are offensive to decency and good customs. They
are committed publicly and thus, give rise to public scandal to persons who have
accidentally witnessed the acts. The public view is not required. It is sufficient if
committed in a public place. For being committed
within public knowledge, it may occur even in a private place; the number of people who
see it is not material.
Decency means properly observing the requirements of modesty, good taste.
Customs refers to established usage, social conventions carried on by tradition and

enforced by social disapproval in case of violation.
The essence of grave scandal is publicity and that the acts committed are not only
contrary to morals and good customs but must likewise be of such character as to cause
public scandal to those witnessing it.
The acts must be performed in a public place or within the public knowledge or view.
If it is committed in a private place, the crime of grave scandal is not committed.
In conduct involving lasciviousness, it is grave scandal only where there is mutual

consent.
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.
DECENCY - means proprietary of conduct; proper observance of the requirements of

modesty, good taste, etc.
CUSTOMS - established usage, social conventions carried on by tradition and enforced

by social disapproval of any violation thereof.
GRAVE SCANDAL - consists of acts which are offensive to decency and good customs
which, having committed publicly, have given rise to public scandal to persons who have
accidentally witnessed the same.
Illustration:
A man and a woman went to Luneta and slept there. They covered themselves with their
blanket and made the grass their conjugal bed. This is grave scandal.

Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush condominium in Makati City sunbathed
naked at its penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware that the business
executives holding office at the adjoining tall buildings reported to office every Sunday
morning and, with the use of powerful binoculars, kept on gazing at her while she
sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing became the talk of the town.
1) What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Explain,
2) What crime, if any, did the business executives commit? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
1) Pia did not commit a crime, the felony closest to making Pia criminally liable is Grave
Scandal, but then such act is not to be considered as highly scandalous and offensive
against decency and good customs. In the first place, it was not done in a public place
and within public knowledge or view. As a matter of fact it was discovered by the
executives accidentally and they have to use binoculars to have public and full view of
Pia sunbathing in the nude.
2) The business executives did not commit any crime. Their acts could not be acts of
lasciviousness (as there was no overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk of the
town, resulting from her sunbathing, is not directly imputed to the business executives,
and besides such topic is not intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule.
You may want to read:

1. Alarm and Scandal
ART. 201
Persons liable:
1. Those who publicly expound or proclaim doctrines that are contrary to
public morals.
2. Authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form.
3. Editors publishing such obscene literature.
4. Owners or operators of establishment selling obscene literature.
5. Those who exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows in
theaters, fairs, cinemas or any other place.
6. Those who sell, distribute, or exhibit prints, engraving, sculptures
or literature which are offensive to morals.
Considered as obscene literature or immoral or indecent plays, scenes or acts:

1. those w/c glorify criminals or condone crimes;
2. those w/c serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence,
lust or pornography;
3. those w/c offend against any race or religion;
4. those w/c tend to abet the traffic and the use of prohibited drugs; and
5. those that are contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs,
established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts.
NOTES:
Morals imply conformity to generally accepted standards of goodness or
rightness in conduct or character.
The test of obscenity is whether the matter has a tendency to deprave or

corrupt the minds of those who are open to immoral influences. A matter
can also be considered obscene if it shocks the ordinary and common sense
of men as indecency.
Mere nudity in paintings and pictures is not obscene.
Pictures w/ a slight degree of obscenity having no artistic value and

being intended for commercial purposes fall within this article.
Publicity is an essential element.
MORALS - imply conformity with the generally accepted standards of

goodness or rightness in conduct or character, sometimes,
specifically, to sexual conduct.
THE TEST OF OBSCENITY:
- 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.
- 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.
People v Kottinger (1923)

The SC said that the postcards were not obscene because the
aggregate judgment of the community, and the moral sense of the
people were not shocked by those pictures. They were not offensive
to chastity but merely depicted persons as they actually lived.
People v Aparici
The reaction of the public during the performance of a dance by one
who had nothing to cover herself with, except nylon patches over her
breasts and too abbreviated pair of nylon panties to interrupt her
stark nakedness should be made the gauge in the determination of
whether the dance or exhibition was indecent or immoral.
People v Padan (1957)

An actual exhibition of the sexual act can have no redeeming
feature - no room for art. Therefore, it is a clear and unmitigated
obscenity.
ART. 202
Who are considered VAGRANTS:
1. Those who have no apparent means of subsistence and who have the physical
ability to work yet neglect to apply themselves to some useful calling;
2. Persons found loitering around public and semi-public places without
visible means of support;
3. Persons tramping or wandering around the country or the streets with no
visible means of support;
4. Idle or dissolute persons lodging in houses of ill-fame;
5. Ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate with prostitutes
(may include even the rich); and
6. Persons found loitering in inhabited or uninhabited places belonging to
others, without any lawful or justifiable reason, provided the act does
not fall within any otherarticle of the RPC
PROSTITUTES - women who habitually(not just 1 man) indulge in sexual

intercourse or lascivious conduct for money or profit (If a man indulges
in the same conduct, the crime committed is vagrancy.)
DISSOLUTE – lax, unrestrained, immoral (includes maintainer of house of prostitution)
RUFFIANS – brutal, violent, lawless
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.
If fenced and with prohibition of entry - Trespass to dwelling
If fenced and entered to hunt/fish - Attempted theft
If not fenced and with no prohibition of entry – Vagrancy

Holding of Cockfights – Cockfighting shall be allowed only in

licensed cockpits on
1. Sundays
2. Legal Holidays, except: December 30, June 12, November 30,
Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Election or Referendum Day and
during Registration Days for such election or referendum
3. During local fiestas for not more than 3 days
4. Provincial, city or municipal agriculture, commercial or industrial
fair, carnival or exposition for a similar period of three days
upon resolution, subject to approval of Chief of Constabulary or
his authorized representative—not allowed within month of local
fiesta of for more than two occasions a year in same city or
municipality
Cockfighting for Entertainment of Tourists or for Charitable Purposes:

Chief of Constabulary or his authorized representative may also allow
the holding of cockfighting for:
1. Entertainment of foreign dignitaries
2. Tourists
3. Balikbayan
4. For support of national fund-raising campaigns for charitable
purposes as may be authorized by the Office of the President,
upon resolution of a provincial board, city or municipal council
- In licensed cockpits or in playgrounds or parks

- Extended for only one time, for a period not exceeding 3 days,
within a year to a province, city or municipality
NOTES:
Permitting gambling of any kind in cockpit is punished under the

same Decree (Owner, manager or lessee of cockpit that permits
gambling shall be criminally liable)
Spectators in cockfight are not liable unless he participates as bettor
Gambling in all its forms, unless allowed by law, is generally

prohibited. The prohibition does not mean that the Government cannot
regulate it in the exercise of police power.
There are particular days where Cockfighting and Horse Racing are
allowed. Betting in Horse Races is allowed during periods
provided by law but betting in cockfights is prohibited at all times.
Sports Contests: Betting, Game-fixing, Point- Shaving,

Game Machinations prohibited
Only allows one cockpit per municipality, unless the population

exceeds 100,000 in which case two cockpits may be established;
Cockfights can only be held in licensed cockpits on Sundays

and legal holidays and local fiestas for not more than three days;
Also allowed during provincial, municipal, city, industrial, agricultural

fairs, carnivals, or exposition not more than three days;
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.
This decree does not punish a person attending as a spectator in a
cockfight. To be liable, he must participate as a bettor.
Repealed Art. 195-199 RPC, PD 483 betting law, and PD 449 cockfighting law)
Acts Punished Penalty

1. Any person who shall directly or indirectly Prision Correccional medium
take part in any illegal or unauthorized or fine ranging from P1000
activities or games of: to P6000
(1) Cockfighting, jueting, jai-alai, or horse
racing to include bookie operations and game In case of recidivism, Prision
fixing, numbers, bingo and other forms of Mayor Medium or fine ranging
lotteries. from P5000 to P10000
(2) Cara y cruz, pompiang and the like
(3) 7-11 and any game using dice
(4) Black jack, lucky nine, poker and its

derivatives, monte, baccarat, cuajo,
pangguigue and other card games
(5) Pak que, high and low, mahjong, domino and

other games using plastic tiles and the like
(6) Slot machines, roulette, pinball and other

mechanical contraptions and devices
(7) Dog racing, boat racing, car racing and

other forms of races
(8) Basketball, boxing, volleyball, bowling,

pingpong and other forms of individual or
team contests to include game fixing,
point shaving and other machinations
(9) Banking or percentage game, or any other

game or scheme, whether upon chance
or skill, wherein wagers consisting of
money, articles of value or representative
of value are at stake or made
2. Any person who KNOWINGLY permits any form of

gambling in an inhabited or uninhabited place or
in any building, vessel or other means of
transportation owned or controlled by him

(1) Gambling in place with reputation of gambling, Prision correccional maximum,
frequent gambling place, government building fine of P6,000
or barangay hall
(2) Maintainer or conductor of above gambling

schemes
- Government official maintainer, conductor, Prision Mayor Medium with

banker of gambling schemes; player, temporary absolute
promoter, referee, umpire, judge or coach in disqualification or fine of
case of game fixing, point shaving P6000
and machination
- Any person who knowingly and without lawful Prision Correccional Medium
purpose possess lottery list, paper or other or fine P400 to P2000
matter containing letters, figures, signs or
symbols pertaining to or in any manner used
in the games of jueteng, jai-alai or horse
racing bookies, and similar games of
lotteries and numbers which have taken place
or about to take place
- Barangay official who with knowledge of Temporary Absolute

gambling house/place in his jurisdiction disqualification
fails to abate or take action
- Security officer, watchman, private or Prision Correccional

house detective of hotels, villages, maximum or fine P500
buildings, enclosures and the like to P2000
which have reputation of gambling place
or where gambling activities are
being held
NOTES:
Playing for money is not a necessary element. The law’s purpose is to prohibit
absolutely those games.
Any other games if with wager of money, articles, or value are at stake or made
Individual/team contests: game-fixing, point- shaving, other machinations
Spectators are not liable: must directly or indirectly take part; The law does
not make it an offense to be present in a gambling house.
A game or scheme is punishable even if winning depends upon skill as long as

wagers (consisting of money, articles of value or representative of value)
are at stake or made.
Lottery:
Requisites:
1. Consideration
2. Chance
3. Prize/advantage/inequality in amount value which is in the nature of prize
NOTES:
Distribution of prizes by chance
No lottery where there is full value of money(criminal case-Olsen), but

if inducement to win prize is reason for purchase/subscription/others then
even if full value for money is received - still lottery
Proof that game took place or is about to take place is not necessary;
burden of evidence is shifted to accused to show that his possession is
lawful or is not connected with jueteng game; but proof to the contrary
is necessary when jueteng lists pertain to games played on other dates
MAINTAINER – person who sets up and furnishes means to carry on gambling

or scheme
CONDUCTOR – person who manages or carries on gambling game or scheme

Crimes Committed By Public Officers - Title VII
Who Are Public Officers?
ART. 203
Who are public officers. - For the purpose of applying the provisions of this and the
preceding titles of this book, any person who, by direct provision of the law, popular
election or appointment by competent authority, shall take part in the performance of
public functions in the Government of the Philippine Islands, of shall perform in said
Government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, of any rank or class, shall be deemed to be a public officer.
Requisites:
To be a public officer, one must be -
1. Taking part in the performance of public functions in the Government, or performing
public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or class, in the
government or any of its branches; and
2. That his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform
public duties must be -
a. by direct provision of the law, or
b. by popular election, or
c. by appointment by competent authority.
Notes:
Public officers include every public servant from the lowest to the highest rank provided
that they exercise public functions.
A government laborer is not a public officer. However, temporary performance by a

laborer of public functions makes him a public officer.
Officers and employees of government owned and controlled corporations but not those
of a sequestered corporations.
Malfeasance
Doing of an act which a public officer should not have done
Malfeasance:
1. Direct bribery
2. Indirect bribery
Misfeasance
Improper doing of an act which a person might lawfully do
Misfeasance:
1. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
2. Rendering judgment through negligence
3. Rendering unjust interlocutory order
4. Malicious delay in the administration of justice
Nonfeasance
Failure of an agent to perform his undertaking for the principal
Nonfeasance:
1. dereliction of duty in prosecution of offenses
2. betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor – revelation of secrets
Public Officers; definition (1999)
Who are public officers?
Suggested Answer:
Public Officers are persons who, by direct provision of the law, popular election or
appointment by competent authority, takes part in the performance of public functions in
the Government of the Philippines, or performs in said Government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official, of any rank or
class (Art. 203, RPC)
ART. 204
Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge;
2. That he renders a judgment in the case submitted to him for decision;
3. That the judgment is unjust; and
4. That the judge knows that the decision is unjust.
NOTES:
A judgment is a final consideration and determination by a court of competent

jurisdiction of the issues submitted to it in an action or proceeding.
An unjust judgment is one which is contrary to law, or not supported by the
evidence, or both
An unjust judgment may result from:

1. error (w/ bad faith)
2. ill-will or revenge
3. bribery
There must be evidence that the decision rendered is unjust. It is not presumed.
Knowingly – deliberately or maliciously, conscious and deliberate intent to do an

injustice; (no liability if error in good faith)
Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment cannot likewise serve as basis

for rendering an unjust judgment in the absence of proof or an allegation of bad
faith (motive or improper consideration).
No liability if mere error in good faith.
There must be evidence that the judgment is unjust for it cannot be presumed.
ART. 205
Elements:
2. That he renders judgment in a case submitted to him for decision;
3. That the judgment is manifestly unjust; and
4. That it is due to inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
MANIFESTLY UNJUST JUDGMENT – manifestly

contrary to law that even a person having meager
knowledge of law cannot doubt the injustice; not
abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment
A manifestly unjust judgment is one which is so manifestly contrary to law

that even a person having a few knowledge of the law cannot doubt
the injustice.
Louis Vuitton SA v. Judge Villanueva

The Supreme Court held that a judgment is said to be unjust when it is
contrary to the standards of conduct prescribed by law. The test to
determine whether an order or judgment is unjust maybe inferred from the
circumstances that it is contrary to law or is not supported by evidence.
ART. 206
Elements:
1. That the offender is a judge; and
2. That he performs any of the following acts:
a. knowingly renders an unjust interlocutory order or decree, or
b. renders a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through
inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER - one issued by the court deciding a collateral or

incidental matter; it is not a final determination of the issues of the
action or proceeding
The crime 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.
If the order leaves something to be done in the trial court with respect to
the merits of the case, it is interlocutory. If it does not, it is final.
ART. 207
Elements:
2. That there is a proceeding in his court;
3. That he delays the administration of justice; and
4. That the delay is malicious, that is, the delay is caused by the judge
with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in the case.
NOTE:
Mere delay without malice is not punishable.
Malice must be proven. Malice is present where the delay is sought to

favor one party to the prejudice of the other.
ART. 208
Acts punishable:
1. By maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators
of the law
2. By maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses
Dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses:
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has a
duty to cause the prosecution of, or to prosecute offenses;
2. That there is dereliction of the duties of his office, that is, knowing
the commission of the crime, he does not cause
(a) the prosecution of the criminal (People vs. Rosales, G.R. no. 42648) or
(b) knowing that a crime is about to be committed he tolerates its
commission; (If gift/promise is a consideration for his conduct, crime
is direct bribery.) and
3. That the offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the
violator of the law.
NOTES:
Prevaricacion means the negligence and tolerance in the prosecution of

an offense.
There must be a duty on the part of the public officer to prosecute or

move for the prosecution of the offender. However, a fiscal is under no
compulsion to file an information based upon a complaint if he is
convinced that the evidence before him is insufficient to warrant filing
an action in court.
The crime must be proved first before an officer can be convicted of

dereliction of duty.
“Maliciously” signifies deliberate evil intent; a dereliction of duty

caused by poor judgment or honest mistake is not punishable.
A public officer who harbors, conceals, or assists in the escape of an

offender, when it is his duty to prosecute him, is liable as principal
in the crime of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses. He
is not an accessory.
This article not applicable to revenue officers.
This crime can only be committed by a public officer whose official duty
is to prosecute offenders.
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.
ART. 209
Acts punishable:
1. Causing damage to client either
a. by any malicious breach of professional duty, or
b. by inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his
professional capacity.
Here, damage is not necessary.
3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same case,
without the consent of his 1st client, after having undertaken the
defense of a client or having received confidential information from
said client
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.
The confidential matters or information must be confided to the lawyer

in the latter’s professional capacity.
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.
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.
People v. Sandiganbayan
The Supreme Court held that not all information received by counsel from
client is classified as privileged. A distinction must be made between
confidential communications relating to past crimes already committed, and
future crimes intended to be committed by the client.
Direct Bribery
ART. 210.
Any public officer who shall agree to perform an act constituting a crime, in connection
with the performance of this official duties, in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or
present received by such officer, personally or through the mediation of another, shall
suffer the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods and a fine of not
less than the value of the gift and] not less than three times the value of the gift in
addition to the penalty corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the same shall have
been committed.
If the gift was accepted by the officer in consideration of the execution of an act which
does not constitute a crime, and the officer executed said act, he shall suffer the same
penalty provided in the preceding paragraph; and if said act shall not have been
accomplished, the officer shall suffer the penalties of prision correccional, in its medium
period and a fine of not less than twice the value of such gift.
If the object for which the gift was received or promised was to make the public officer
refrain from doing something which it was his official duty to do, he shall suffer the
penalties of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine of not less than the
value of the gift and not less than three times the value of such gift.
In addition to the penalties provided in the preceding paragraphs, the culprit shall suffer
the penalty of special temporary disqualification.
The provisions contained in the preceding paragraphs shall be made applicable to

assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or any other persons
performing public duties. (As amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 871, approved May 29,
1985).
Elements:
1. That the offender be a public officer;
2. That the offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or present by himself
or through another;
3. That such offer or promise be accepted or gift/present received by the public officer
(Mere agreement consummates the crime and delivery of consideration is not
necessary) -
a. with a view to committing some crime;
b. in consideration of an execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, but the
act must be unjust; (contemplates an accepted gift, and an overt act)
c. to refrain from doing something which is his official duty to do; (should not be a crime)
4. That the act which the offender agrees to perform or which he executes be connected
with the performance of his official duties. (need not be a statutory duty)
NOTES:
The gift must have a value or capable of pecuniary estimation. It could be in the form of
money, property, or services.
If the act required of the public officer amounts to a crime and he commits it, he shall be
liable for the penalty corresponding to the crime.
The third type of bribery and prevaricacion (art 208) are similar offenses, both consisting
of omissions to do an act required to be performed. In direct bribery however, a gift or
promise is given in consideration of the omission. This is not necessary in prevaricacion.
Direct bribery does not absorb Art. 208 (dereliction of duty).
For purposes of this article, temporary performance of public functions is sufficient to

constitute a person a public officer. A private person may commit this crime only in the
case in which custody of prisoners is entrusted to him.
Applicable also to assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners, experts or

any other person performing public duties.
This felony cannot be frustrated. It may only be attempted or consummated.
Bribery exists when the gift is:

1. voluntarily offered by a private person
2. solicited by the public officer and voluntarily delivered by the private person
3. solicited by the public officer but the private person delivers it out of fear of the
consequences should the public officer perform his functions (Here, the crime by the
giver is not corruption of public officials due to his involuntariness.)
Actual receipt of the gift is not necessary. An accepted offer or promise of a gift is
sufficient. However, if the offer is not accepted, only the person offering the gift is liable
for attempted corruption of a public officer.
The gift must have a value or be capable of pecuniary estimation. It could be in the form
of money, property or services.
If the act required of the public officer amounts to a crime and he commits it, he shall be
liable for the penalty corresponding to the crime.
The crime of bribery cannot be complexed with or absorbed by other crimes as the
penalty for bribery is in addition to the penalties for those other crimes.
The third type of bribery and prevaricacion (art 208) are similar offenses, both consisting
of omissions to do an act required to be performed. In direct bribery however, a gift or
promise is given in consideration of the omission. This element is not necessary in
prevaricacion.
Direct Bribery: Infidelity in the Custody of Documents (2005)
During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for selling 20 grams of
methamphetamine hydrochloride(shabu) to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an
intermediary, paid Patrick, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic Chemistry
Section, the amount of P500,000.00 in consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the
drug. Patrick managed to destroy the drug. State with reasons whether Patrick
committed the following
crimes:
1. Direct Bribery;
2. Indirect Bribery;
3. Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
4. Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829;
Suggested Answer:
1. Direct Bribery;
Suggested Answer:
Patrick committed the crimes of Direct Bribery and Infidelity in the Custody of
Documents. When a public officer is called upon to perform or refrain from performing an
official act in exchange for a gift, present or consideration given to him (Art. 210, Revised
Penal Code), the crime committed is direct bribery. Secondly, he destroyed the shabu
which is an evidence in his official custody, thus, constituting infidelity in the custody of
documents under Art. 226 of the Revised Penal Code.
2. Indirect Bribery
Suggested Answer:
Indirect bribery was not committed because he did not receive the bribe because of his
office but in consideration
of a crime in connection with his official duty.
3. Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
Suggested Answer:
See. 3(e), R.A. No. 8019 was not committed because there was no actual injury to the
government. When there is no specific quantified injury, violation is not committed.
(Garcia-Rueda vs Amor, et al., G.R. No. 116938, September 20, 2001)
4. Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829;
Suggested Answer:
Patrick committed the crime of obstruction of justice although the feigner penalty
imposable on direct bribery or infidelity in the custody of documents shall be imposed.
Sec. 1 of P.D. No. 1829 refers merely to the imposition of
the higher penalty and does not preclude prosecution for obstruction of justice, even if
the same not constitute
another offense.
Alternate Answer:
Obstruction of Justice is not committed in this case, because the act of destroying the
evidence in his custody is
already penalized by another law which imposes a higher penalty. (Sec. 1, P.I). No.
1829)
ART. 111
Indirect Bribery
1. Offender is a public officer;

2. He accepts gifts; and
3. Gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
NOTES:
The gift is given in anticipation of future favor

from the public officer.
There must be clear intention on the part of the public officer to take the gift offered and
consider the property as his own for that moment. Mere
physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or act to show such
acceptance is not sufficient to convict the officer.
There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery.
Public officers receiving gifts and private persons giving gifts on any occasion, including
Christmas, are liable under PD 46.
The criminal penalty or imprisonment is distinct from the administrative penalty of

suspension from the service.
The principal distinction between direct and indirect bribery is that in

the former, the officer agrees to perform or refrain from doing an act in
consideration of the gift or promise. In the latter case, it is not necessary that the officer
do any act. It is sufficient that he accepts the gift offered by reason of his office.
If after receiving the gift, the officer does any act in favor of the giver
which is unfair to the others, it ceases to be indirect but becomes direct
bribery.
This is always in the consummated stage. There is no attempted much

less frustrated stage in indirect bribery.
There must be clear intention on the part of the public officer

a.to take the gift offered and
b.consider the property as his own for that moment.
Mere physical receipt unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or act

to show such acceptance is not sufficient to convict the officer.
Public officers receiving gifts and private persons giving gifts on any
occasion, including Christmas are liable under PD 46.

Qualified Bribery
ART.211-A
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement;
2. That he refrains from arresting/ prosecuting offender for crime punishable by reclusion
perpetua and/or death (if lower penalty than stated above, direct bribery is the crime);
and
3. In consideration of any offer, promise or gift.
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.
The penalty is qualified if the public officer is the one who asks or demands such
present.
If penalty is lower than reclusion perpetua and/or death, the crime is direct bribery.
The dereliction of the duty punished under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code is
absorbed.
Corruption of Public Officials
Art. 212.
Corruption of Public Officials. — The same penalties imposed upon the officer corrupted,
except those of disqualification and suspension, shall be imposed upon any person who
shall have made the offers or promises or given the gifts or presents as described in the
preceding articles.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents to a public
officer; and
2. That 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.
The offender is the giver of the gift or the offeror of the promise. The act may or may not
be accomplished.
Bribery is usually proved by evidence acquired in entrapment.
Under PD 749, givers of bribes and other gifts, as well as accomplices in bribery and
other graft cases, are immune from prosecution if they voluntarily give any information
about any commission of direct, indirect, and qualified bribery, and any corruption of
public officials, provided that:
1. The information must refer to consummated violations of any of the above-mentioned
provisions of law, rules and regulations
2. Information and testimony are necessary for the conviction of the accused public
officer, not in possession of the State, and can be corroborated on its material points
3. Informant or witness has not been previously convicted of a crime involving moral
turpitude
4. Immunity shall not attach should the information and/or testimony is false and
malicious or made only for the purpose of harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing
the public officer denounced
Bribery and Corruption of Public Official

Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of Court a Writ of Execution in
the case of Ejectment filed by
Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in favor of Estrada, Rivas went
to her lawyer's office where
he was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriff's fees and expenses for
execution in the total amount of P550.00, aside from P2,000.00 in consideration of
prompt enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The writ was successfully
enforced.
a) What crime, if any, did the sheriff commit?

b) Was there any crime committed by Estrada and her lawyer and if so, what crime?
Suggested Answer:
a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under the second paragraph of
Article 210, Revised Penal Code,
since the P2,000 was received by him "in consideration" of the prompt enforcement of
the writ of execution which is an official duty of the sheriff to do.
Alternative Answer;
a) On the premise that even without the P2,000, Sheriff Ben Rivas had to carry out the
writ of execution and not that he would be implementing the writ only because of the
P2,000.00, the receipt of the amount by said sheriff may be regarded as a gift received
by reason of his office and not as a "consideration" for the performance of an official
duty; hence, only indirect Bribery would be committed by said sheriff.
b) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver of the bribe-money, the crime is
Corruption of Public Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal Code.
The following are the SPECIAL LAWS related to the prosecution and punishment of
GRAFT and CORRUPTION:
1. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 749
2. RA NO. 3019 (ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT)
3. RA NO. 7080 (ANTI-PLUNDER ACT)
5. PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 46
6. RA 6713: CODE OF CONDUCT AND ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR PUBLIC
OFFICIALS AND EMPLOYEES
ART.213
FRAUDS AGAINST PUBLIC TREASURY

ELEMENTS:
2. That he should have taken advantage of his office, that is,
he intervened in the transaction in his official capacity;
3. That he entered into an agreement with any interested party
or speculator or made use of any other scheme with regard to
(a) furnishing supplies
(b) the making of contracts, or
(c) the adjustment or settlement of account relating to a
public property or funds; and
4. That the accused had intent to defraud the government.
The felony is consummated by merely entering into an agreement

with any interested party or speculator or by merely making use
of any scheme to defraud the Government.
ILLEGAL EXACTIONS
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection
of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts; and
2. That 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.
Mere demand of a larger or different amount is sufficient to

consummate the crime. The essence is the improper collection and
damage to the government is not required.
If sums are received without demanding the same, a felony under

this article is not committed. However, if the sum is given as a
sort of gift or gratification, the crime is indirect bribery.
When there is deceit in demanding larger fees,

the crime committed is estafa.
This felony may be complexed with malversation.
Ex. A tax collector who collected a sum larger than that
authorized by law and spent all of them is guilty of
two crimes, namely:
(1) illegal exaction, for demanding a greater amount; and
(2) malversation for misappropriating the amount collected.
A public officer who has the duty to collect taxes is directly

accountable to the Government for money he collected since such
money acquires the character of a public fund.
Officers and employees of the BIR or Customs are not covered by

th ART.213
FRAUDS AGAINST PUBLIC TREASURY

ELEMENTS:
2. That he should have taken advantage of his office, that is,
he intervened in the transaction in his official capacity;
3. That he entered into an agreement with any interested party
or speculator or made use of any other scheme with regard to
(a) furnishing supplies
(b) the making of contracts, or
(c) the adjustment or settlement of account relating to a
public property or funds; and
4. That the accused had intent to defraud the government.
The felony is consummated by merely entering into an agreement

with any interested party or speculator or by merely making use
of any scheme to defraud the Government.
ILLEGAL EXACTIONS
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection
of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts; and
2. That 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.
Mere demand of a larger or different amount is sufficient to
consummate the crime. The essence is the improper collection and
damage to the government is not required.
If sums are received without demanding the same, a felony under

this article is not committed. However, if the sum is given as a
sort of gift or gratification, the crime is indirect bribery.
When there is deceit in demanding larger fees,

the crime committed is estafa.
This felony may be complexed with malversation.

Ex. A tax collector who collected a sum larger than that
authorized by law and spent all of them is guilty of
two crimes, namely:
(1) illegal exaction, for demanding a greater amount; and
(2) malversation for misappropriating the amount collected.
A public officer who has the duty to collect taxes is directly

accountable to the Government for money he collected since such
money acquires the character of a public fund.
Officers and employees of the BIR or Customs are not covered by

this article but by the NIRC or the Administrative Code.is article but by the NIRC or the
Administrative Code.
ART. 214
ELEMENTS:
2. That he takes advantage of his official position; and
3. That he commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated
in art. 315 and 316. (estafa, swindling)
RTC has jurisdiction over the offense because the principal

penalty is disqualification.
ART.215
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an appointive public officer;
2. That he becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in any
transaction of exchange or speculation;
3. That the transaction takes place within the territory subject
to his jurisdiction; and
4. That he becomes interested in the transaction during his incumbency.
Examples of transactions of exchange or speculation are buying and

selling stocks, commodities, land, etc. wherein one hopes to
take advantage of an expected rise or fall in price
for gain or profit and not merely as investment
Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is simple investment

and not a violation of the article. However, regularly buying
securities for resale is speculation.
Appointive public officials should not devote himself to commerce

ART.216
WHO ARE LIABLE:

1. Public officer who became interested in any contract or business
in which it is his official duty to intervene.
2. Experts, arbitrators and private accountants who took part in any
contract or transaction connected with the estate or property in
the approval, distribution or adjudication of which they had acted.
3. Guardians and executors with respect to property belonging to their
wards or the estate.
Actual fraud is not necessary
Intervention must be by virtue of public office held
Act is punished because of the possibility that fraud may be

committed or that the officer may place his own interest above
that of the Government or of the party which he represents.
Constitutional prohibitions exist

- Congress: cannot personally appear as counsel, cannot be
interested financially in any franchise or special privilege
granted by government, cannot intervene in any matter
before office of Goevrnment

- Executive – cannot hold any other office
- Constitutional Commission – cannot hold any other office,

engage in practice of profession
Malversation of Public Funds or Property
ART.217
Malversation of public funds or property; Presumption of malversation. - Any public

officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or
property, shall appropriate the same or shall take or misappropriate or shall consent,
through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public
funds, or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be guilty of the misappropriation
or malversation of such funds or property, shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount
involved in the misappropriation or malversation does not exceed two hundred pesos.
2. The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods, if the amount
involved is more than two hundred pesos but does not exceed six thousand pesos.
3. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its
minimum period, if the amount involved is more than six thousand pesos but is less than
twelve thousand pesos.
4. The penalty of reclusion temporal, in its medium and maximum periods, if the amount
involved is more than twelve thousand pesos but is less than twenty-two thousand
pesos. If the amount exceeds the latter, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal in its
maximum period to reclusion perpetua.
In all cases, persons guilty of malversation shall also suffer the penalty of perpetual
special disqualification and a fine equal to the amount of the funds malversed or equal to
the total value of the property embezzled.
The failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property with
which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly authorized officer, shall be prima
facie evidence that he has put such missing funds or property to personal use. (As
amended by RA 1060).
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender be a public officer (or private person if entrusted with public funds or
if in connivance with public officers);
2. That he had the custody or control of funds or property (if not accountable for the
funds, crime committed is theft or qualified theft);
3. That those funds or property were public funds or property (even if private funds, they
become public if attached, seized, deposited or commingled with public funds); and
4. That he...
a. Appropriated the funds or property
b. Took or misappropriated them
c. Consented or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted any other person to
take such public funds or property.
It is not necessary that the offender profited by his malversation. His being remiss in the
duty of safekeeping public funds violates the trust reposed.
Public funds taken need not be misappropriated.
Malversation is otherwise called embezzlement.
It can be committed either with malice or through negligence or imprudence (penalty is

the same).
In determining whether the offender is a public officer, what is controlling is the nature of
his office and not the designation - contemplates public officer who receives money or
property from government for which he is bound to account, must have authority to
collect or receive
The funds or property must be received in an official capacity. Otherwise, the crime
committed is estafa.
Government funds include revenue funds and trust funds. If funds or property placed in
custody of public officer, and they are accountable, such funds or property partake
nature of a public fund.
A public officer who has qualified charge of gov’t property without authority to part with
its physical possession upon order of an immediate superior cannot be held liable under
this article.
A qualified charge of properties does not qualify to possession contemplated in the crime
of malversation where the possessor is only accountable to his immediate superior and
not the government; his superior is the one accountable to the government
Private individuals can also be held liable for malversation under 2 circumstances:
1. when they are in conspiracy with public officers; and
2. when they have charge of national, provincial or municipal funds, revenues or
property in any capacity.
In malversation through negligence, the negligence of the accountable public officer

must be positively and clearly shown to be inexcusable, approximating fraud or malice.
The measure of negligence to be observed is the standard of care commensurate with
the occasion.
When malversation is not committed through negligence, lack of criminal intent or good
faith is a defense.
The failure of a public officer to have any duly forthcoming public funds or property upon
demand, by any authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence that he has put such
missing funds or property to personal use. However, if at the very moment when the
shortage is discovered, the accountable officer is notified, and he immediately pays the
amount from his pocket, the presumption does not arise.
Returning the embezzled funds is not an exempting circumstance but only mitigating.
There is also no malversation when the accountable officer is obliged to go out of his
office and borrow the amount corresponding to the shortage and later, the missing
amount is found in an unaccustomed place.
A person whose negligence made possible the commission of malversation by another

can be held liable as a principal by indispensable cooperation.
Demand by or damage to the government are not necessary elements of the crime of
malversation.
Technical malversation is not included in the crime of malversation.

Presumption of misappropriation:
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 things unaccounted for exists. Audit should be
made to determine if there was a shortage. The audit must be complete and trustworthy.
If there is a doubt, the presumption does not arise.
People v. Hipol, GR 140549, 7/22/03

The fact that the obligation to deposit the collections of the City Treasurer's Office is not
covered by appellant's official job description is of no legal consequence in a prosecution
for Malversation. What is essential is that appellant had custody or control of public
funds by reason of the duties of his office.
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 goodwill to co-employees which was a
practice tolerated in the office. There was no negligence, malice, nor intent to defraud.
Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an Armalite rifle (Ml6) and a Smith and
Wesson Revolver. Cal. 38. After a year, the NBI Director made an inspection of all the
firearms issued. Randy, who reported for work that morning, did not show up during the
inspection. He went on absence without leave (AWOL). After two years, he surrendered
to the NBI the two firearms issued to him. He was charged with malversation of
government property before the Sandiganbayan. Randy put up the defense that he did
not appropriate the Armalite rifle and the revolver for his own use, that the delay in
accounting for them does not constitute conversion and that actually the firearms were
stolen by his friend, Chiting. Decide the case.
Suggested Answer:
Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. He is accountable for the firearms they
issued to him in his official capacity. The failure of Randy to submit the firearms upon
demand created the presumption that he converted them for his own use. Even if there
is no direct evidence of misappropriation, his failure to account for the government
property is enough factual basis for a finding of malversation. Indeed, even his
explanation that the guns were stolen is incredible. For if the firearms were actually
stolen, he should have reported the matter immediately to the authorities. (People vs.
Baguiran ,20 SCRA 453; Felicilda us. Grospe, GR No. 10294, July 3, 1992)
What constitutes the crime of malversation of public funds or property?
Suggested Answer:
Malversation of public funds or property is committed by any public officer who, by
reason of the duties of his office, is accountable for public funds or property, shall take or
misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or negligence, shall permit any
other person to take such public funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise
be guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property. (Art, 217,
RPC)
A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or property, encashed with public
funds private checks drawn in favor of his wife. The checks bounced, the drawer not
having enough cash in the drawee bank. The Municipal Treasurer, in encashing private
checks from public funds, violated regulations of his office. Notwithstanding restitution of
the amount of the checks, can the Municipal Treasurer nevertheless be criminally liable?
What crime did he commit? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of the check, the Municipal Treasurer
will be criminally liable as
restitution does not negate criminal liability although it may be considered as a mitigating
circumstance similar or analogous to voluntary surrender. (People vs. Velasquez, 73 Phil
98), He will be criminally liable for malversation.
However, if the restitution was made immediately, under vehement protest against an
imputation of malversation and without leaving the office, he may not be criminally liable.
Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former warehousemen of the Rustan
Department Store. In 1986, the PCGG sequestered the assets, fund, and properties of
the owners-incorporators of the store, alleging that they constitute "Ill-gotten wealth" of
the Marcos family. Upon their application, Reyes and Santos were appointed as fiscal
agents of the sequestered firm and they were given custody and possession of the
sequestered building and its contents, including various vehicles used in the firm's
operations. After a few months, an inventory was conducted and it was discovered that
two (2) delivery vans were missing. After demand was made upon them, Reyes and
Santos failed to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing or to turn
them over to the PCGG; hence, they were charged with Malversation of Public Property.
During the trial, the two accused claimed that they are not publicly accountable officers
and, if any crime was committed, it should only be Estafa under Art. 315, par. l(b) of the
Revised Penal Code. What is the proper offense committed? State the reason(s) for
your answer.
Suggested Answer:
The proper offense committed was Malversation of Public Property, not estafa,

considering that Reyes and Santos, upon their application, were constituted as "fiscal
agents" of the sequestered firm and were "given custody and possession" of the
sequestered properties, including the delivery vans which later they could not account
for. They were thus made the depositary and administrator of properties deposited by
public authority and hence, by the duties of their office/position, they are accountable for
such properties. Such properties, having been sequestered by the Government through
the PCGG, are in custodia legis and therefore impressed with the character of public
property, even though the properties belong to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC). The
failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were
missing, is prima facie evidence that they had put the same to their personal use.
1. In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a government banking institution,
hired Henry dela Renta, a CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he resigned and was
employed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance Corporation (PDIC), another government-
owned and controlled corporation. In 1995, after the PNB management unearthed many
irregularities and violations of the bank's rules and regulations, dela Renta was found to
have manipulated certain accounts involving trust funds and time
deposits of depositors. After investigation, he was charged with malversation of public
funds before the Sandiganbayan. He filed a motion to dismiss contending he was no
longer an employee of the PNB but of the PDIC. Is dela Renta's contention tenable?
Suggested Answer:
The contention of Henry dela Renta is not tenable. Dela Renta may be prosecuted for
malversation even if he had ceased to be an employee of the PNB. At the time of the
commission of the offense, PNB was a government-owned and controlled corporation
and therefore, any crime committed by the Regional Bank Auditor, who is a public
officer, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan (See R.A. 7975 as amended
by RA. 8249).
2. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for his suspension pendente lite,
to which he filed an opposition claiming that he can no longer be suspended as he is no
longer an employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC. Explain whether he may or may not
be suspended.
Suggested Answer:
Dela Renta may still be suspended pendente lite despite holding a different public office,
the PDIC, when he was charged. The term "office" in Sec. 13 of R.A. 3019 applies to
any office which the officer might currently be holding and not necessarily the office or
position in relation to which he is charged (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122740,
March 30,1998).
Malversation vs. Estafa
How is malversation distinguished from estafa?
Suggested Answer:
Malversation differs from estafa in that malversation is committed by an accountable

public officer involving public funds or property under his custody and accountability;
while estafa is committed by non-accountable public officer or private individuals
involving funds or property for which he is not accountable to the government.
Malversation: Anti-Fencing: Carnapping (2005)
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona, was in a hurry to return to
his office after a day-long official conference. He alighted from the government car which
was officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and
the car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander, drove off with the car and
later sold the same to his brother, Danny for P20,000.00, although the car was worth
P800,000.00. What are the respective crimes, if any, committed by
Allan, Danny and Jules? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for malversation committed through negligence or
culpa. The government car which was assigned to him is public property under his
accountability by reason of his duties. By his act of negligence, he permitted the taking
of the car by another person, resulting in malversation, consistent with the language of
Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code.
Danny violated the Anti-Fencing Law. He is in possession of an item which is the subject

of thievery. P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law) under Section 5 provides that mere
possession of any good, article, item, object or any thing of value which has been the
subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie, evidence of fencing.
Jules is guilty of carnapping. He took the motor vehicle belonging to another without the
latter's consent. (R.A. No. 6539)
What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Allan is under obligation to restitute the vehicle or make reparation if not possible. Jules
must pay the amount he gained from the sale of the car which is P20,000.00. Danny
must make reparation corresponding to the value of the car which is P800,000.00.
ART.218
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer, whether in the service or
separated therefrom;
2. That he must be an accountable officer for public funds or property;
3. That he is required by law or regulation to render accounts to the
Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor; and
4. That he fails to do so for a period of two months after such accounts
should be rendered.
Demand and misappropriation are not necessary.
Demand for accounting is not necessary. It is also not essential that

there be misappropriation because if present, the malversation.
ART.219
ELEMENTS:
2. That he must be an accountable officer for public funds or
property; and
3. That he must have unlawfully left (or be on the point of leaving)
the Philippines without securing from the Commission on Audit a
certificate showing that his accounts have been finally settled.
The act of leaving the Philippines must be unauthorized or not permitted

by law.
The purpose of the law is to discourage responsible or accountable

officers from leaving without first liquidating their accountability.
It is not necessary that they really misappropriated public funds.
Illegal Use Of Public Funds
ART.220
Illegal use of public funds or property. - Any public officer who shall apply any public fund
or property under his administration to any public use other than for which such fund or
property were appropriated by law or ordinance shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from one-half to the total of the sum
misapplied, if by reason of such misapplication, any damages or embarrassment shall
have resulted to the public service. In either case, the offender shall also suffer the
penalty of temporary special disqualification.
If no damage or embarrassment to the public service has resulted, the penalty shall be a
fine from 5 to 50 per cent of the sum misapplied.
ELEMENTS OF TECHNICAL MALVERSATION:

2. That there is public fund or property under his administration;
3. That such public fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance (without
this, it is simple malversation) ; and
4. That he applies the same to a public use other than for which such fund or property
has been appropriated by law or ordinance.
To distinguish this article with Art 217 (malversation), in illegal use of public funds or
property, the offender does not derive any personal gain, the funds are merely devoted
to some other public use.
Absence of damage is only a mitigating circumstance.
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.
Technical Malversation (1996)
Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc, Zambales. On January 10, 1994, she
received, as municipal treasurer,
from the Department of Public Works and Highways, the amount of P100,000.00 known
as the fund for construction, rehabilitation, betterment, and Improvement (CRBI) for the
concreting of Barangay Phanix Road located in Masinloc, Zambales, a project
undertaken on proposal of the Barangay Captain. Informed that the fund was already
exhausted while the concreting of Barangay Phanix Road remained unfinished, a
representative of the Commission on Audit conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth who
failed to account for the Pl00,000 CRBI fund. Elizabeth, who was charged with
malversation of public funds, was acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of that charge but
was nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal case, for illegal use of public funds. On
appeal, Elizabeth argued that her conviction was erroneous as she applied the amount
of P50,000.00 for a public purpose without violating any law or ordinance appropriating
the said amount for any specific purpose. The absence of such law or ordinance was, in
fact, established. Is the contention of Elizabeth legally tenable? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Elizabeth's contention that her conviction for illegal use of public funds (technical
malversation) was erroneous, is legally tenable because she was charged for
malversation of public funds under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code but was
convicted for Illegal use of public funds which is defined and punished under Art. 220 of
said Code. A public officer charged with malversation may not be validly convicted of
illegal use of public funds (technical malversation) because the latter crime is not
necessarily included nor does it necessarily include the crime of malversation. The
Sandiganbayan should have followed the procedure provided in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the
Rules of Court and order the filing of the proper Information. (Parungao us.
Sandiganbayan. 197 SCRA 173.) From the facts, there is no showing that there is a law
or ordinance appropriating the amount to a specific public purpose. As a matter of fact,
the problem categorically states that the absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact,
established." So, procedurally and substantially , the Sandiganbayan's decision suffers
from serious Infirmity.
ART.221
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. By failing to make payment by a public officer who is under
obligation to make such payment from Government funds in his
possession
2. By 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 (must be malicious)
ELEMENTS:
1. That the public officer has gov’t. funds or property in his
possession.
2. That he is under obligation to either:
a. make payment from such funds, or
b. to deliver property in his custody or administration when
ordered by competent authority; and
3. That he maliciously fails or refuses to do so.
Penalty is based on value of funds/property to be delivered.

Officers included in the preceding provisions
ART.222
The provisions of this chapter shall apply to private individuals who in any capacity
whatever, have charge of any insular, provincial or municipal funds, revenues, or
property and to any administrator or depository of funds or property attached, seized or
deposited by public authority, even if such property belongs to a private individual.
PERSONS LIABLE UNDER ART. 217 TO 221:
1. Private individual who, in any capacity, have charge of any national, provincial or
municipal funds, revenue, or property.
Example: a withholding tax agent
2. Administrator or depositary of funds or property that has been attached, seized or

deposited by public authority, even if owned by a private individual.
Sheriffs and receivers fall under the term “administrator”
Judicial administrator not covered by this article. (Appointed to administer estate of

deceased and not in charge of property attached, impounded or placed in deposit by
public authority)
Private property is included if it is attached, seized, or deposited by public authority.
Malversation; Properties; Custodia Legis (2001)
Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a Regional Trial Court, levied on the personal
properties of a defendant in a civil case before said court, pursuant to a writ of execution
duly issued by the court. Among the properties levied upon and deposited inside the
"evidence room" of the Clerk of Court for Multiple RTC Salas were a refrigerator, a stock
of cassette tapes, a dining table set of chairs and several lampshades. Upon the
defendant's paying off the judgment creditor, he tried to claim his properties but found
out that several items were missing, such as the cassette tapes, chairs and lampshades.
After due and diligent sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the case, these
missing items were found in the house of accused Santos, who reasoned out that he
only borrowed them temporarily. If you were the fiscal /prosecutor, what would be the
nature of the information to be filed against the accused? Why?
Suggested Answer:
If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an information for Malversation against Juan
Santos for the cassette tapes, chain and lampshades which he, as deputy sheriff, levied
upon and thus under his accountability as a public officer. Said properties being under
levy, are in custodia legis and thus impressed with the character of public property,
misappropriation of which constitutes the crime of malversation although said properties
belonged to a private individual (Art. 222, RPC). Juan Santos misappropriated such
properties when, in breach of trust, he applied them to his own private use and benefit.
His allegation that he only borrowed such properties is a lame excuse, devoid of merit as
there is no one from whom he borrowed the same. The fact that it was only "after due
and diligent sleuthing by the police detectives assigned to the case", that the missing
items were found in the house of Santos, negates his pretension.
Alternative Answer:
An information for Theft may be filed, considering that the sheriff had already deposited
the properties levied upon in the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court and may have
already been relieved of his accountability therefor. If Juan Santos was no longer the
public officer who should be accountable for the properties levied upon and found in his
house, his taking of such properties would no longer constitute Malversation but Theft,
as there was taking with intent to gain, of personal property of another without the
consent of the latter.
Conniving with or consenting to evasion
ART.223
Conniving with or consenting to evasion. - Any public officer who shall consent to the
escape of a prisoner in his custody or charge, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual special disqualification, if the fugitive
shall have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty.
2. By prision correccional in its minimum period and temporary special disqualification, in

case the fugitive shall not have been finally convicted but only held as a detention
prisoner for any crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer (on duty);
2. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention
prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
3. That such prisoner escaped from his custody; and
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape.
DETENTION PRISONER - A person becomes a detention prisoner from the moment he

is booked. This refers to the accomplishment of the booking sheet and made to fill a
form (sic) where he is finger printed. From that time on, he is already a detention
prisoner even if he is not yet incarcerated.
The release of a detention prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial authorities
within the time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Neither is mere
leniency or laxity in the performance of duty constitutes of infidelity.
There is real and actual evasion of service of sentence when the custodian permits the
prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his imprisonment.
Classes of prisoners involved

1. Those who have been sentenced by final judgment to any penalty;
2. Detention prisoners who are temporarily held in custody for any crime or violation of
law or municipal ordinance.
This includes allowing prisoners to sleep and eat in the officer’s house or utilizes the
prisoner’s services for domestic chores.
The release of a detention prisoner who could not be delivered to judicial authorities
within the time fixed by law is not infidelity in the custody of a prisoner.
Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners (1996)
A chief of police of a municipality, believing in good faith that a prisoner serving a ten-
day sentence in the municipal jail, would not escape, allowed said prisoner to sleep at
the latter's house because the municipal Jail was so congested and there was no bed
space available. Accordingly, the prisoner went home to sleep every night but returned
to jail early each morning, until the ten-day sentence had been fully served. Did the Chief
of Police commit any crime? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC, consenting or conniving to
evasion, the elements of which are
(a) he is a public officer,
(b) he is in charge or custody of a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final judgment,
(c) that the prisoner escaped, and (d) there must be connivance.
Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity, thus making the penalty ineffectual;

although the convict may not have fled (US vs. Bandino, 9 Phil. 459) it is still violative of
the provision. It also includes a case when the guard allowed the prisoner, who is
serving a six-day sentence in the municipal Jail, to sleep in his house and eat there
(People vs. Revilla).

During a town fiesta. A, the chief of police, permitted B, a detention prisoner and his
compadre, to leave the municipal jail and entertain visitors in his house from 10:00 a.m.
to 8:00 p.m. B returned to the municipal jail at 8:30 p.m. Was there any crime committed
by A?
Suggested Answer:
Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a prisoner. Since B is a

detention prisoner. As Chief of Police, A has custody over B. Even if B returned to the
municipal Jail at 8:30 p.m. A, as custodian of the prisoner, has maliciously failed to
perform the duties of his office, and when he permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation
of his imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner escaping the punishment of being
deprived of his liberty which can be considered real and actual evasion of service under
Article 223 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Leon Bandino 29 Phil. 459).
Alternative answer:
No crime was committed by the Chief of Police. It was only an act of leniency or laxity in
the performance of his
duty and not in excess of his duty (People vs. Evangelista (CA) 38 O.G. 158).
ART.224
ELEMENTS of Evasion through negligence

2. That he is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either detention
prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; and
3. That such prisoner escapes through his negligence.
NOTES:
The article punishes a definite laxity which amounts to deliberate non-performance of a

duty.
The fact that the public officer recaptured the prisoner who had escaped from his
custody does not afford him complete exculpation.
The liability of an escaping prisoner:

a. if he is a prisoner by final judgment, he is liable for evasion of service (art 157)
b. if he is a detention prisoner, he does not incur criminal liability (unless cooperating
with the offender).
The negligent public officer suffers the same penalty regardless of whether the prisoner
is a convict or merely a detention prisoner.
This covers only positive carelessness and definite laxity which amounts to deliberate
non-performance of duties.
ART.225
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a private person;
2. That the conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest is confided to
him;
3. That the prisoner or person under arrest escapes; and
4. That the offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or person under arrest, or
that the escape takes place through his negligence.
This article is not applicable if a private person made the arrest and he consented to the
escape of the person he arrested.
If the offender who aided or consented to the prisoner’s 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 Article 156.
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.
Art. 225 not applicable if a private person was the one who made the arrest and he
consented to the escape of the person he arrested.
Infidelity in the Custody of Documents
ART.226. Removal, Concealment, Or Destruction Of Documents
ELEMENTS OF INFIDELITY IN CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS:

2. That he abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or papers
3. That the said document or paper should have been entrusted to such public officer by
reason of his office; and
4. That damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public interest should
have been caused.
NOTES:
The document must be complete and one by which a right could be established or an
obligation could be extinguished.
Books, periodicals, pamphlets, etc. are not documents.
“Papers” would include checks, promissory notes and paper money.
A post office official who retained the mail without forwarding the letters to their
destination is guilty of infidelity in the custody of papers.
Removal of a document or paper must be for an illicit purpose. There is illicit purpose
when the intention of the offender is to:
a. tamper with it,
b. to profit by it, or
c. to commit any act constituting a breach of trust in the official care thereof.
Removal is consummated upon removal or secreting away of the document from its
usual place. It is immaterial whether or not the illicit purpose of the offender has been
accomplished.
Infidelity in the custody of documents through destruction or concealment does not

require proof of an illicit purpose.
Delivering the document to the wrong party is infidelity in the custody thereof.
The damage may either be great or small.
Can 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.
The offender must be in custody of such documents because of his official capacity.
Damage to public interest is necessary. However, material damage is not necessary.
Damage in this article may consist in mere alarm to the public or in the alienation of its
confidence in any branch of the government service.
ART.227
ELEMENTS:
2. That he is charged with the custody of papers or property;
3. That these papers or property are sealed by proper
authority; and
4. That he breaks the seals or permits them to be broken.
It is the breaking of the seals and not the opening of a

closed envelope which is punished.
Damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary; damage is

presumed.
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.
The element of damage is not required.
ART.228
ELEMENTS:
2. That any closed papers, documents, or objects are
entrusted to his custody;
3. That he opens or permits to be opened said closed
papers, documents or objects; and
4. That he does not have proper authority.
The act should not fall under 227.
Damage is not necessary.

Art.229
ELEMENTS OF PAR. 1 (SECRETS KNOWN BY REASON OF HIS

OFFICIAL CAPACITY):
2. That he knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity;
3. That he reveals such secret without authority or justifiable
reasons; and
4. That damage, great or small, be caused to the public interest.

Secret must affect public interest.

Secrets must affect public interest. Secrets of private persons
are not included.
Espionage for the benefit of another State is not contemplated by

the article. If regarding military secrets or secrets affecting
state security, the crime may be espionage.
ELEMENTS OF PAR. 2 (WRONGFULLY DELIVERING PAPERS OR

COPIES OF PAPERS OF WHICH HE MAY HAVE CHARGE AND
WHICH SHOULD NOT BE PUBLISHED):
2. That he has charge of papers;
3. That those papers should not be published;
4. That he delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third person;
5. That the delivery is wrongful; and
6. That damage be caused to public interest.
CHARGE means custody or control. If he is merely entrusted with the

papers and not with the custody thereof, he is not liable under this
article.
If the papers contain secrets which should not be published, and the
public officer having charge thereof removes and delivers them
wrongfully to a third person, the crime is revelation of secrets.
On the other hand, if the papers do not contain secrets, their
removal for an illicit purpose is infidelity in the custody of
documents.
D ART.230
ELEMENTS:
2. That he knows of the secret of a private individual by reason of his office; and
3. That he reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable reason.
Revelation to one person is sufficient.
If the offender is an attorney, he is properly liable under Art. 209 (betrayal of trust by an

attorney).
Damage to private individual is not necessary.

Damage is essential to the act committed.
ART.231
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a judicial or executive officer;
2. That there is a judgment, decision or order of superior
authority;
3. That such judgment, decision or order was made within
the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior authority
and issued with all the legal formalities; and
4. That the offender without any legal justification openly
refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or under
which he is duty bound to obey.
Judgment should have been rendered in a hearing and issued

within proper jurisdiction and with all required legal
ART.232
ELEMENTS:
2. That an order is issued by his superior for execution;
3. That he has for any reason suspended the execution of
such order;
4. That his superior disapproves the suspension of the
execution of the order; and
5. That the offender disobeys his superior despite the
disapproval of the suspension.
A public officer is not liable if the order of the superior

is illegal.
ART.231
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a judicial or executive officer;
2. That there is a judgment, decision or order of superior
authority;
3. That such judgment, decision or order was made within
the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior authority
and issued with all the legal formalities; and
4. That the offender without any legal justification openly
refuses to execute the said judgment, decision or under
which he is duty bound to obey.
Judgment should have been rendered in a hearing and issued

within proper jurisdiction and with all required legal
solemnities.
ART.234
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is elected by popular election to a public
office;
2. That he refuses to be sworn in or discharge the duties of
said office;
3. That there is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn
in or to discharge the duties of said office.
If the elected person is disqualified, his refusal to be sworn

in or to discharge the duties of the office is justified.
Refusal to discharge the duties of an appointive office is not

covered by this article.
Once an individual is elected to an office by the will of the

people, discharge of duties becomes a matter of duty, not only
a right.
This only applies for elective, not appointive officers.

Maltreatment Of Prisoners
ART.235
Maltreatment of prisoners. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or
damage caused, shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall overdo
himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge,
by the imposition of punishment not authorized by the regulations, or by inflicting such
punishment in a cruel and humiliating manner.
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort a confession, or to obtain some

information from the prisoner, the offender shall be punished by prision correccional in
its minimum period, temporary special disqualification and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos, in addition to his liability for the physical injuries or damage caused.
ELEMENTS:
2. That he has charge of a prisoner or detention prisoner (otherwise the crime is physical
injuries); and
3. That 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 –
i. by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations, or
ii. by inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in a cruel and humiliating manner, or
b. by maltreating such prisoner to extort a confession or to obtain some information from
the prisoner.
The public officer must have actual charge of the prisoner in order to be held liable (not
merely by legal fiction)
1. Offended party: Convict by final judgment or detention prisoner
- To be considered a detention prisoner, the person arrested must be placed in jail even
for just a short time.
- Maltreatment not due to personal grudge.
2. Offenders may also be held liable for physical injuries or damage caused. (Penalty
provided in Article 235 is imposed in addition to penalty for injury or damage caused)
This is committed only by such public officer charged with direct custody of the prisoner.
If the public officer is not the custodian of the prisoner, and he manhandles the latter, the
crime is physical injuries.
The offended party can either be a convict by final judgment or a detention prisoner.
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.
If the maltreatment was done in order to extort confession, the penalty is qualified to the
next higher degree.
Grave Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner (1999)

Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person was tortured and maltreated by
agents of the law in order to compel him to confess a crime imputed to him. The agents
failed, however, to draw from him a confession which was their intention to obtain
through the employment of such means. What crime was committed by the agents of the
law? Explain your answer.
Suggested Answer:
Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the agents of the law is a suspect and
may have been detained by them. If so and he had already been booked and put in jail,
the crime is maltreatment of prisoner and the fact that the suspect was subjected to
torture to extort a confession would bring about a higher penalty. In addition to the
offender's liability for the physical injuries inflicted. But if the suspect was forcibly brought
to the police headquarters to make him admit the crime and tortured/ maltreated to make
him confess to such crime, but later released because the agents failed to draw such
confession, the crime is grave coercion because of the violence employed to compel
such confession without the offended party being confined in jail. (US vs. Cusi, 10 Phil
143) It is noted that the offended party was merely "brought" to the police headquarters
and is thus not a detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested, the crime committed
would be maltreatment of prisoners.
ART.236
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is entitled to hold a public office or
employment, either by election or appointment;
2. That the law requires that he should first be sworn in
and/or should first give a bond;
3. That he assumes the performance of the duties and powers
of such office; and
4. That he has not taken his oath of office and/or given the
bond required by law.
ART.237
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is holding a public office;
2. That the period provided by law, regulations or special
provisions for holding such office has already expired; and
3. That he continues to exercise the duties and powers of
such office.
The article contemplates officers who have been suspended,

separated, declared over-aged or dismissed.
ART.238
ELEMENTS:
2. That he formally resigns from his position;
3. That his resignation has not yet been accepted; and
4. That he abandons his office to the detriment of the
public service.
There must be formal or written resignation.
For the resignation to be formal, it has to be in

written form.
The offense is qualified when the purpose of the

abandonment is to evade the discharge of duties of
preventing, prosecuting, punishing any of the crimes
falling within Title One and Chapter One of Title Three of
book two of the RPC. In this case, the penalty is higher.
This involves the following crimes:
a. treason
b. conspiracy and proposal to commit conspiracy
c. misprision of treason
d. espionage
e. inciting to war or giving motives to reprisals
f. violation of neutrality
g. correspondence with hostile country
h. flight to enemy country
i. piracy and mutiny on the high seas
j. rebellion
k. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion
l. disloyalty to public officers
m. inciting to rebellion
n. sedition
o. conspiracy to commit sedition
p. inciting to sedition
Usurpation Of Legislative Powers
ART.239
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an executive or judicial officer; and
2. That 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.
Arts 239-241 punish interference by public officers of the executive or judiciary with the
functions of another department of government to keep them within legitimate confines
of their respective jurisdictions.
Legislative officers are not liable for usurpation of powers.

ART.241
Usurpation of judicial functions. - The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to
prision correccional in its minimum period and shall be imposed upon any officer of the
executive branch of the Government who shall assume judicial powers or shall obstruct
the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within its jurisdiction.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an officer of the executive branch of the government; and
2. That he
(a) assumes judicial powers or
(b) obstructs the execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge within his
jurisdiction.
A mayor is guilty under this article when he investigates a case while a justice of the
peace is in the municipality.

1. Usurpation of Legislative Powers
RT.242
ELEMENTS:
2. That a proceeding is pending before such public officer;
3. That there is a question brought before the
proper authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is
not yet decided;
4. That he has been lawfully required to refrain from
continuing the proceeding; and
5. That he continues the proceeding.
The disobedient officer is liable even if the jurisdictional

question is resolved in his favor.
ART.243
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an executive officer;
2. That he addresses any order or suggestion to any
judicial authority; and
3. That the order or suggestion relates to any case
or business coming within the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of justice.
Legislative or judicial officers are not liable

under this article.
The purpose is to maintain the independence of the

judiciary from executive dictations.
ART.244
ELEMENTS:
2. That he nominates or appoints a person to a public office;
3. That such person lacks the legal qualification therefor; and
4. That the offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks
the qualification at the time he made the nomination or
appointment.
Recommending, knowing that the person recommended is not

qualified, is not a crime.
There must be a law providing for the qualifications of a

person to be nominated or appointed to a public office.
This can also be covered by RA 3019.

ART.245
The penalties of prision correccional in its medium

and maximum periods and temporary special
disqualification shall be imposed:
ELEMENTS:
2. That he solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances
to a woman; and
3. That such woman must be –
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 care
and custody of prisoners or person 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.
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;
a woman under the offender’s custody;
the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same
degree by affinity of any person in the custody of the
offending warden or officer.
The mother of the person in the custody of the public
officer is not included but the offender may be
prosecuted under the Section 28 of Republic Act
No. 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
To solicit means to propose earnestly and persistently

something unchaste and immoral to a woman.
Proof of solicitation is not necessary

when there is sexual intercourse.
The advances must be immoral or indecent.
The crime is consummated by mere proposal.
Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there is

sexual intercourse.
If the offender were not the custodian, then crime

would fall under Republic Act No. 3019
(The Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Abuse against chastity is not absorbed in rape

because the basis of penalizing the acts is
different from each other.
Crimes Against Persons - Title VIII
Parricide
ART.246
Parricide. - Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or his spouse, shall be guilty of
parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
ELEMENTS of Parricide
1. That a person is killed;
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused;
3. That the deceased is the
a. father, mother, or
b. child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or
c. legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or
d. legitimate spouse of the accused.
The relationship of the offender with the victim is the essential element of parricide.
Essential element: relationship of offender with the victim; except for spouses, only
relatives by blood and in direct line (adopted are not included)
Parents and children are not included in the term “ascendants” or “descendants”.
The other ascendant or descendant must be legitimate. On the other hand, the father,
mother or child may be legitimate or illegitimate.
The child should not be less than 3 days old. Otherwise, the offense is infanticide.
Supreme Court ruled that Muslim husbands with several wives can be convicted of
parricide only in case the first wife is killed.
Relationships must be alleged and proved. If not, the relationship would only be
considered as aggravating circumstances.
A stranger who cooperates in committing parricide is liable for murder or homicide.
Even if the offender did not know that the person he had killed is his son, he is still liable
for parricide because the law does not require knowledge of the relationship.
Cases of parricide when the penalty shall not be reclusion perpetua to death:
1. parricide through negligence (Art.365)
2. parricide by mistake (Art. 49)
3. parricide under exceptional circumstances (Art. 247)
People vs. Dalag

A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the commission of the crime of parricide, is
not guilty of parricide but only homicide or murder, as the case may be. The key element
in parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim.
Complex Crime; Parricide w/ unintentional abortion (1994)
Aldrich was dismissed from his Job by his employer. Upon reaching home, his pregnant
wife, Carmi, nagged him about money for her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal
and angered by the nagging of his wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to the
ground. As a result, she and her unborn baby died. What crime was committed by
Aldrich?
Suggested Answer:
Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. When Aldrich struck
his wife, Carmi, with his fist, he committed the crime of maltreatment under Art, 266, par.
3 of the Revised Penal Code, Since Carmi died because of the felonious act of Aldrich,
he is criminally liable of parricide under Art. 246, RPC in relation to Art. 4, par. 1 of the
same Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi died in the process, but Aldrich had no
intention to cause the abortion of his wife, Aldrich committed unintentional abortion as
defined in Art. 257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single act of Aldrich produced two grave or
less grave felonies, he falls under Art, 48, RPC, ie. a complex crime (People vs.
Salufrancia, 159 SCRA 401).
Parricide (1999)
In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, abandoned his wife and their son, Ricky, who
was then only three years old. Twenty years later, an affray took place in a bar in
Olongapo City between Pedro and his companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his
friends, upon the other, without the father and son knowing each other. Ricky stabbed
and killed Pedro in the fight, only to find out, a week later, when his mother arrived from
Manila to visit him in jail, that the man whom he killed was his own
father.
1) What crime did Ricky commit? Explain.

2) Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his father, but he nevertheless
killed him out of bitterness for having abandoned him and his mother, what crime did
Ricky commit? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
1) Ricky committed parricide because the person killed was his own father, and the law
punishing the crime (Art. 246, RPC) does not require that the crime be "knowingly"
committed. Should Ricky be prosecuted and found guilty of parricide, the penalty to be
imposed is Art. 49 of the Revised Penal Code for Homicide (the crime he intended to
commit) but in its maximum period.
Alternative Answer:
Ricky should be held criminally liable only for homicide, not parricide because the
relationship which qualified the killing to parricide is virtually absent for a period of twenty
years already, such that Ricky could not possibly be aware that his adversary was his
father. In other words, the moral basis for imposing the higher penalty for parricide is
absent.
Suggested Answer:
2) The crime committed should be parricide if Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is
his father because the moral basis for punishing the crime already exists. His having
acted out of bitterness for having been abandoned by his father may be considered
mitigating.
A, a young housewife, and B, her paramour, conspired to kill C her husband, to whom
she was lawfully married, A and B bought pancit and mixed it with poison. A gave the
food with poison to C, but before C could eat it. D, her illegitimate father, and E, her
legitimate son, arrived. C, D and E shared the food in the presence of A who merely
watched them eating. C, D and E died because of having partaken of the poisoned food.
What crime or crimes did A and B commit?
Suggested Answer:
A committed the crime of multiple parricide for the killing of C, her lawful husband, D, her
illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son. All these killings constitute parricide under
Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code because of her relationship with the victims. B
committed the crime of murder as a co-conspirator of A in the killing of C because the
killing was carried out by means of poison (Art. 248. par. 3, Revised Penal Code). But for
feloniously causing the death of D and E, B committed two counts of homicide. The plan
was only to kill C.
Related:
 Penalties; Parricide with mitigating circumstances

 Death or Physical Injuries Under Exceptional Circumstances

ART.247

 Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. - Any legally
married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or both of them in the act or
immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious physical injury, shall
suffer the penalty of destierro.

 If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt
from punishment.

 These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with
respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while
the daughters are living with their parents.

 Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter,
or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be
entitled to the benefits of this article.

ELEMENTS:
1. A legally married person or parent surprises his spouse or daughter (the latter
must be under 18 and living with them) in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person;
2. He/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; and
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or
that he has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.
This article does not define or penalize a felony, the penalty is destierro.
Penalty of destierro for killer spouse is meant to protect him from acts of reprisal
by relatives of dead spouse.
It is not necessary that the parent be legitimate for the application of this article.
This article applies only when the daughter is single.
Surprise means to come upon suddenly or unexpectedly.

Art. 247 is applicable even when the accused did not see his spouse in the act
sexual intercourse with another person. It is enough that circumstances
reasonably show that the carnal act is being committed or has been committed.
Sexual intercourse does not include preparatory acts.
Article does not apply: If the surprising took place before any actual sexual
intercourse could be done or after the actual sexual intercourse was finished.
“Immediately thereafter” means that the discovery, escape, pursuit and the killing
must all form parts of one continuous act.
Immediately thereafter – may be an hour after proximate result of outrage

overwhelming accused after chancing upon spouse in basest act of infidelity.
The killing must be the direct by-product of the rage of the accused.
No criminal liability is incurred when less serious or slight physical injuries are
inflicted. Moreover, in case third persons caught in the crossfire suffer physical
injuries, the accused is not liable for physical injuries. The principle that one is
liable for the consequences of his felonious act is not applicable, because his act
under Art.247 does not amount to a felony.
Requisites must be established by evidence of the defense
living with parent - is understood to be in their own dwelling because of the

embarrassment and humiliation done to the parent and parental abode
- If done in a motel, article does not apply.
People v. Puedan
Evidence of the victim’s promiscuity is inconsequential to the killing. The offender
must prove that he actually surprised his wife and her paramour in flagrante
delicate, and that he killed the man during or immediately thereafter.
People v. Abarca
The killing must be the direct result of the outrage suffered by the cuckolded
husband. 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 that Article 247 was applicable, as the
shooting was a continuation of the pursuit of the victim by the accused. Inflicting
death under exceptional circumstances is not murder. Two other 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. No aberratio
ictus because he was acting lawfully.

 Bar Exam Question (2001)

 Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2001)

 A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as a security guard at Landmark,
his shift being from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. One night, he felt sick and cold,
hence, he decided to go home around midnight after getting permission from his
duty officer. Upon reaching the front yard of his home, he noticed that the light in
the master bedroom was on and that the bedroom window was open.
Approaching the front door, he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the
bedroom. He opened the door very carefully and peeped inside where he saw his
wife B having sexual intercourse with their neighbor
 C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the latter managed to wrest himself free
and jumped out of the window, A followed suit and managed to catch C again
and after a furious struggle, managed also to strangle him to death. A then
rushed back to his bedroom where his wife B was cowering under the bed
covers. Still enraged, A hit B with fist blows and rendered her unconscious. The
police arrived after being summoned by their neighbors and arrested A who was
detained, inquested and charged for the death of C and serious physical Injuries
of B.

 a) Is A liable for C's death? Why?
 b) Is A liable for B's injuries? Why?

 Suggested Answer:

 a) Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional circumstances in Article
247 of the Revised Penal Code, where only destierro is prescribed. Article 247
governs since A surprised his wife B in the act of having sexual intercourse with
C, and the killing of C was "Immediately thereafter" as the discovery, escape,
pursuit and killing of C form one continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194)

 b) Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries he inflicted on his wife B
but under the same exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised
Penal Code, for the same reasons.


 Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2005)

 Pete, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He
was shocked to see Flor, his wife, and Benjie, his best friend, completely naked
having sexual intercourse. Pete pulled out his service gun and shot and killed
Benjie. Pete was charged with murder for the death of Benjie. Pete contended
that he acted in defense of his honor and that, therefore, he should be acquitted
of the crime. The court found that Benjie died under exceptional circumstances
and exonerated Pete of the crime, but sentenced him to destierro, conformably
with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Pete to pay
indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00. Is the defense
of Pete meritorious? Explain.


 No. A person who commits acts penalized under Article 247 of the Revised Penal
Code for death or serious physical injuries inflicted under exceptional
circumstances is still criminally liable. However, this is merely an exempting
circumstance when the victim suffers any other kind of physical injury. In the case
at bar, Pete will suffer the penalty
 of destierro for the death of Benjie.

 Alternative Answer:

 No. Pete did not act in defense of his honor. For this defense to apply under Art.
11, there must be an unlawful aggression which is defined as an attack or
material aggression that poses a danger to his life or personal safety. It must be a
real aggression characterized by a physical force or with a weapon to cause
injury or damage to one's life. (People v. Nahayra, G.R. Nos. 96368-69, October
17, 1991; People v. Housing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991)

 Did the court correctly order Pete to pay indemnity despite his exoneration under
Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain.


 Yes, because the privilege defined under this Article exempts the offender from
criminal liability but not from civil liability. (People v. Abarca, G.R, No. L-74483,
September 14, 1987; Art. 12, Revised Penal Code)
 Murder
ART.248

 Murder. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246 shall kill
another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished by reclusion temporal in
its maximum period to death, if committed with any of the following attendant
circumstances:

 1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed
men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to
insure or afford impunity.

 2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

 3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great
waste and ruin.

 4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph,
or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other
public calamity.

 5. With evident premeditation.

 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the
victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.

ELEMENTS:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him;
3. That the killing was attended by any of the following qualifying circumstances:
a. with treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed
men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to
insure or afford impunity,
b. in consideration of price, reward or promise,
c. by means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of vessel,
derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of airship, by means of
motor vehicles or with the use of any other means involving great waste or 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, or
f. with cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanely augmenting the suffering of the
victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse; and
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
The victim must be killed in order to consummate the offense. Otherwise, it would
be attempted or frustrated murder.
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.
That murder will exist with only one of the circumstances described in Article 248.
When more than one of said circumstances are present, the others must be
considered as generic aggravating.
That when the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying

circumstance, they cannot be considered as generic aggravating.
Any of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information.

Otherwise, they will only be considered as generic aggravating circumstances.
Treachery and premeditation are inherent in murder with the use of poison.
PEOPLE vs. SANTOS, GR 127492, 1/16/04

A sudden and unexpected attack under circumstances which render the victim
unable to defend himself by reason of the suddenness and severity of the attack
constitutes alevosia.
PEOPLE vs. ERIC GUILLERMO, GR 147786, 1/20/04

Dismemberment of a dead body is one manner of outraging or scoffing at the
corpse of the victim.
PEOPLE vs. MONTAÑEZ, GR 148257, 3/17/04

The barefaced fact that Daniel Sumaylo pleaded guilty to the felony of homicide
is not a bar to the
appellant being found guilty of murder as a principal. It bears stressing that
Sumaylo plea-bargained on his re-arraignment. Even if the public prosecutor and
the father of the victim agreed to Sumaylo's plea, the State is not barred from
prosecuting the appellant for murder on the basis of its evidence, independently
of Sumaylo's plea of guilt.
People v. Pugay and Samson

Intent to kill must be present for the use of fire to be appreciated as a qualifying
circumstance. Intending to make fun of a retard, Pugay poured gasoline on the
latter while Samson set him on fire. The retard died. 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.
POISON - Treachery and evident premeditation are inherent in murder by poison

only if the offender has the intent to kill the victim by use of poison.
EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
- act of the offender manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination to kill
his victim
- 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.
CRUELTY - Under Article 14, the generic aggravating circumstance of cruelty

requires that the victim be alive, when the cruel wounds were 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.


 Murder & Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165 (2005)

 Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bumped him. The
innocent bystander died as a result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and
was tested to be positive for the use of "shabu" at the time he committed the
stabbing. What should be the proper charge against Candido? Explain.


 The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated
under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. The killing, however, constitutes
murder because the commission of a crime under the influence of prohibited
drugs is a qualifying, aggravating circumstance. (Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165)


 Murder (1999)

 The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot the victim while
the victim was turning his back to him. He aimed at and hit the victim only on the
leg. The victim, however, died because of the loss of blood. Can the accused be
liable for homicide or murder, considering that treachery was clearly involved but
there was no attempt to kill? Explain your answer.


 The accused is liable for the death of the victim even though he merely aimed
and fired at the latter's leg, "not intending to kill the victim", considering that the
gunshot was felonious and was the proximate cause of death. An offender is
liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his felonious act
although different from what he intended. However, since specific intent to kill is
absent, the crime for said death is only homicide and not murder (People vs.
Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439)

 Alternative Answer:

 The accused is liable for the death of the victim in as much as his act of shooting
the victim at the leg is felonious and is the proximate cause of death. A person
performing a felonious act is criminally liable for all the direct, natural, and logical
consequences of such act although different from what he intended. And since
such death was attended by treachery, the same will constitute murder but the
accused should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not
intend to commit so grave a wrong as that which was committed (Art. 13(3),
RPC)


 Murder; Definition & Elements (1999)

 a. Define murder. b. What are the elements of the crime?


 (a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which otherwise would constitute
only homicide, had it not been attended by any of the following circumstances:

 1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior strength, or with the aid of
armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or persons
to insure or afford impunity;

 2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;

 3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck,
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or
by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great
waste and ruin;

 4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic or other public calamity;

 5. With evident

 6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting premeditation; the
suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.


 (b) The elements of murder are:

 (1) that a person was unlawfully killed;
 (2) that such killing was attended by any of the above-mentioned circumstances;
 (3) that the killing is not parricide nor infanticide; and
 (4) that the accused killed the victim.


 Murder; Evident Premeditation (1996)

 Fidel and Fred harbored a long-standing grudge against Jorge who refused to
marry their sister Lorna, after the latter got pregnant by Jorge. After weeks of
surveillance, they finally cornered Jorge in Ermita, Manila, when the latter was
walking home late at night. Fidel and Fred forcibly brought Jorge to Zambales
where they kept him hog-tied in a small nipa house located in the middle of a rice
field. Two days later, they killed Jorge and dumped his body into the river. What
crime or crimes did Fidel and Fred commit? Explain.


 Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under Art 248, RPC, the killing
being qualified by evident premeditation. This is due to the long-standing grudge
entertained by the two accused occasioned by the victim's refusal to marry their
sister after impregnating her. In People vs. Alfeche. 219 SCRA 85, the intention
of the accused is determinative of the crime committed. Where the intention is to
kill the victim and the latter is forcibly taken to another place and later killed, it is
murder. There is no indication that the offenders intended to deprive the victim of
his liberty. Whereas, if the victim is kidnapped, and taken to another situs and
killed as an afterthought, it is kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RPC.


 Murder; Homicide; Infanticide; Parricide (1999)

 A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived without benefit of clergy, (2) their child
who was only two days old, (3) their daughter, and (4) their adopted son. What
crime or crimes did A commit?


 A committed the following crimes:

 (1) HOMICIDE or murder as the case may be, for the killing of his common-law
wife who is not legally considered a "spouse".

 (2) INFANTICIDE for the killing of the child as said child is less than three (3)
days old. (Art. 255, RPC), However, the penalty corresponding to parricide shall
be imposed since A is related to the child within the degree defined in the crime
of parricide.

 (3) PARRICIDE for the killing of their daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
as long as she is not less than three (3) days old at the time of the killing.

 (4) MURDER for the killing of their adopted son as the relationship between A
and the said son must be by blood in order for parricide to arise.


 Murder; Reckles Imprudence (2001)

 Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his ten-year-old grandson along
Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at the intersection of Makati Avenue but
both were hit by a speeding CRV Honda van and were sent sprawling on the
pavement a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo, stopped his car after
hitting the two victims but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose's
prostrate body anew and third time by advancing his car forward. The grandson
suffered broken legs only and survived but Mang Jose suffered multiple fractures
and broken ribs, causing his instant death. The driver was arrested and charged
with murder for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical Injuries through
Reckless Imprudence with respect to the grandson. Are the charges correct?
Explain.


 Yes, the charges are correct. For deliberately running over Mang Jose's prostrate
body after having bumped him and his grandson, the driver indeed committed
Murder, qualified by treachery. Said driver's deliberate intent to kill Mang Jose
was demonstrated by his running over the latter's body twice, by backing up the
van and driving it forward, whereas the victim was helpless and not in a position
to defend himself or to retaliate. As to the serious physical injuries sustained by
Mang Jose's
 10-year old grandson, as a result of having been hit by the speeding vehicle of
said driver, the same were the result of reckless imprudence which is punishable
as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge of
Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Serious Physical Injuries is correct. The
penalty next higher in degree to what ordinarily should be imposed is called for
since the driver did not lend help on the spot, which help he could have given to
the victims.


 Murder; Treachery (1995)

 On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found himself surrounded
by four men. One of them wrestled the police officer to the ground and disarmed
him while the other three companions who were armed with a hunting knife, an
ice pick, and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman died as a result
of the multiple stab wounds inflicted by his assailants. What crime or crimes were
committed? Discuss fully.


 All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, (which
absorbed abuse of superior strength) as the attack was sudden and unexpected
and the victim was totally defenseless. Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted
acts of the assailants. Direct assault would not complex the crime, as there is no
showing that the assailants knew that the victim was a policeman; even if there
was knowledge, the fact is that he was not in the performance of his official
duties, and therefore there is no direct assault.


 Murder; Use of Illegal Firearms (2004)

 PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for Mayor of their town.
The Information against PH alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm in the
killing of the victim, and this was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the
prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder and illegal
possession of firearms. Is the conviction correct? Reason briefly.


 No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal possession of firearm
is not correct. Under the new law on illegal possession of firearms and
explosives, Rep. Act No. 8294, a person may only be criminally liable for illegal
possession of firearm if no other crime is committed therewith; if a homicide or
murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance. PH therefore may only be convicted
of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in its commission may only be
appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance, provided that such use is
alleged specifically in the information for Murder.
Homicide
ART.249
Homicide. - Any person who, not falling within the provisions of Article 246, shall kill
another without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in the next
preceding article, shall be deemed guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion
temporal.
ELEMENTS of Homicide:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him without any justifying circumstances;
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or
by that of parricide or infanticide.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. Hence, evidence of intent to
kill is required only in attempted or frustrated homicide.
There is no crime of frustrated homicide through negligence/imprudence.
Physical injuries are one of the essential elements of frustrated homicide.

Use of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating circumstance in homicide.
In accidental homicide wherein death of a person is brought about by a lawful act

performed with proper care and skill and without homicidal intent, there is no liability.
When the wounds that caused death were inflicted by 2 different persons, even if they
were not in conspiracy, each one of them is guilty of homicide.
In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an element, there must
be satisfactory evidence of
(1) the fact of death and
(2) the identity of the victim.
Penalty shall be one degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under 12
years of age
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 victim’s death.
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.
Corpus delicti – actual commission of crime charged
PEOPLE vs. DELA CRUZ, G.R. No. 152176, 10/1/03

The qualifying circumstance of treachery was not sufficiently established by the
prosecution. The prosecution witness did not see the actual stabbing of the victim.
Therefore, there is no way of determining on how the attack was initiated. In the same
way that no testimony would prove that the appellant contemplated upon the mode to
insure the killing. The crime committed by appellant is homicide.
GOROSPE vs. PEOPLE, G.R. No. 147974. 1/29/04

No error was committed by the trial court in characterizing the felonious assault as
frustrated homicide and convicting appellant therefor. The appellant acted with intent to
kill in firing the gun at
Miguel. Usually, the intent to kill is shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender
and the parts of the victim’s body at which the weapon was aimed, as shown by the
wounds inflicted.
ARADILLOS vs. COURT OF APPEALS G.R. No. 135619, 1/15/04

An accused may be convicted of slight, less serious or serious physical injuries in a
prosecution for homicide or murder, inasmuch as the infliction of physical injuries could
lead to any of the latter
offenses when carried to its utmost degree despite the fact that an essential requisite of
the crime of homicide or murder - intent to kill - is not required in a prosecution for
physical injuries.
People v. Castillo
There is no offense of frustrated homicide through imprudence. Accused pharmacist
prepared the medicine on prescription but erroneously used a highly poisonous
substance. When taken by the patient, the latter nearly died. Accused is guilty only of
physical injuries through reckless imprudence. The element of intent to kill in frustrated
homicide is incompatible with negligence or imprudence.
Homicide; Frustrated; Physical Injuries (1994)
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay,
Mamerto's son, saw Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on
his abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was
about to escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered injuries which, were it not for the
timely medical attendance, would have caused his death. Mamerto sustained Injuries
that incapacitated him for 25 days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?
Suggested Answer:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of
Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto. The crime of qualified
trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated homicide ... Dante
committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay because he had already
performed all the acts of execution which would have produced the intended felony of
homicide were it not for causes independent of the act of Dante. Dante had the intent to
kill judging from the weapon used, the manner of committing the crime and the part of
the body stabbed. Dante is guilty of less serious physical injuries for the wounds
sustained by Mamerto.
There appears to be no intent to kill because Dante merely assaulted Mamerto without
using the knife.
 What is the penalty for homicide? Bar Exam Question (1995)

Penalty For Frustrated Parricide, Murder Or Homicide
ART.250
Courts may impose a penalty:

a. 2 degrees lower for frustrated parricide, murder, or homicide
b. 3 degrees lower for attempted parricide, murder, or homicide
Death Caused In A Tumultuous Affray
Article 251.
Death caused in a tumultuous affray. - When, while several persons, not composing
groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other
reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and
in the course of the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually
killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can
be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed
upon all those who shall have used violence upon the person of the victim.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be several persons;
2. That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting
and attacking each other reciprocally;
3. That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and
tumultuous manner;
4. That someone was killed in the course of the affray;
5. That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased; and
6. That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used
violence can be identified.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. person/s who inflicted serious physical injuries
2. if it is not known who inflicted serious physical injuries on the deceased, all persons
who used violence upon the person of the victim.
Tumultuous affray exists when at least 4 persons take part in it.
When there are 2 identified groups of men who assaulted each other, there is no
tumultuous affray.
The person killed need not be a participant in the affray
Those who used violence are liable for death caused in a tumultuous affray only if it
cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased
“Tumultuous” in Article 153 – more than three persons who are armed or provided with
means of violence
Tumultuous affray is a commotion in a confused manner to 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.
If there is conspiracy, this crime is not committed.
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.
Criminal Liability; Tumultous Affray (1997)
During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in the public plaza. As a result of the
tumultuous affray, A sustained one fatal and three superficial stab wounds. He died a
day after. B, C, D, and E were proven to be participants in the "rumble", each using a
knife against A, but it could not be ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal
injury. Who shall be held criminally liable for the death of A and for what?
Suggested Answer:
B, C, D, and E being participants in the tumultuous affray and having been proven to
have inflicted serious physical injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are
criminally liable for the latter's death. And because it cannot be ascertained who among
them inflicted the mortal injury on A, there being a free-for-all fight or tumultuous affray.
B, C, D, and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a tumultuous affray under
Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code.
Criminal Liability; Tumultuous Affray (2003)
In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some customers inside a night club became
unruly, guns were fired by a group, among them A and B, that finally put the customers
back to their senses. Unfortunately, one customer died. Subsequent investigation
revealed that A's gunshot had inflicted on the victim a slight wound that did not cause
the deceased's death nor materially contribute to it. It was B's gunshot that inflicted a
fatal wound on the deceased. A contended that his liability should, if at all, be limited to
slight physical injury. Would you agree? Why?
Suggested Answer:
No, I beg to disagree with A's contention that his liability should be limited to slight
physical injury only. He should be held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted
said injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal weapon. Intent to kill is inherent in
the use of a firearm. (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 123 [1990])
Alternative Answer:
Yes, I would agree to A's contention that his criminal liability should be for slight physical
injury only, because he fired his gun only to pacify the unruly customers of the night club
and therefore, without intent to kill. B's gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the
deceased may not be imputed to A because conspiracy cannot exist when there is a
free-for-all brawl or tumultuous affray. A and B are liable only for their respective act.
ART.253
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is
consummated or not.
2. Lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent
of doing the killing himself.
A person who attempts to commit suicide is not criminally liable.
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.).
A pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide by means of poison but
instead of dying, the fetus in her womb was expelled, is not liable
for abortion.
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).
Assistance to suicide is different from mercy- killing. Euthanasia or

mercy-killing is the practice of painlessly putting to death a person
suffering from some incurable disease. In this case, the person does
not want to die. A doctor who resorts to euthanasia may be held liable
for murder.
Penalty is mitigated if suicide is not successful.
The person attempting to commit suicide is not liable if he survives.
Euthanasia is not lending assistance to suicide. In euthanasia, the

victim is not in a position to commit suicide. A doctor who resorts to
euthanasia of his patient may be liable for murder.
ART.254
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person; and
2. That the offender has no intention to kill that person.
The offender must shoot at another with any firearm without intention of killing him. If the
firearm is not discharged at a person, the act is not punished under this article.
No crime if firearm is not discharged.
A discharge towards the house of the victim is not discharge of firearm. Firing a gun at
the house of the offended party, not knowing in what part of the house the people were,
is only alarm under Art. 155.
Usually, the purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or frighten the offended party.
If there is intention to kill, it may be classified as frustrated or attempted parricide,

murder, or homicide.
No intent to kill if the distance is 200 meters.
There is a special complex crime of illegal discharge of firearm with serious or less
serious physical injuries.
It is essential for prosecution to prove that the discharge of firearm was directed
precisely against the offended party.
Intent to kill is negated by the fact that the distance between the victim and the offender
is 200 yards.
A person can be held liable for discharge even if the gun was not pointed at the offended
party when it fired as long as it was initially aimed at or against the offended party.
Infanticide
ART.255
Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article
248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of
age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the
purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be committed for the same purpose
by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be prision mayor.
ELEMENTS:
1. That a child was killed;
2. That the deceased child was less than three days (72 hours) of age; and
3. That the accused killed the said child.
When the offender is the father, mother, or legitimate ascendant, he shall suffer the
penalty prescribed for parricide. If the offender is any other person, the penalty is that for
murder. In either case, the proper qualification for the offense is infanticide.
If the offender is the parent and the victim is less than three days old, the crime is
infanticide and not 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.
Only the mother and maternal grandparents of the child are entitled to the mitigating
circumstance of concealing the dishonor.
When infanticide is committed by the mother or maternal grandmother of the victim in

order to conceal the mother’s dishonor, such fact is only mitigating.
The delinquent mother who claims that she committed the offense to conceal the
dishonor must be of good reputation. Hence, if she is a prostitute, she is not entitled to a
lesser penalty because she has no honor to protect.
There is no infanticide when the child was born dead, or although born alive it could not
sustain an independent life when it was killed.
A stranger who cooperates in the perpetration of infanticide committed by the mother or

grandparent on the mother’s side is liable for infanticide, but he must suffer the penalty
prescribed for murder.
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.
Infanticide (2006)
Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for more than 2 years. She fell in love with
Oniok, the bartender, who impregnated her. But Ana did not inform him about her
condition and instead, went home to Cebu to conceal her shame. However, her parents
drove her away. So she returned to Manila and stayed with Oniok in his boarding house.
Upon learning of her pregnancy, already in an advanced state, Oniok tried to persuade
her to undergo an abortion, but she refused. Because of their constant and bitter
quarrels, she suffered birth pangs and gave birth prematurely to a live baby girl while
Oniok was at his place of work. Upon coming home and learning what happened, he
prevailed upon Ana to conceal her dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in a shoebox
and threw it into a nearby creek. However, an inquisitive neighbor saw them and with the
help of others, retrieved the infant who was
already dead from drowning. The incident was reported to the police who arrested Ana
and Oniok. The 2 were charged with parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal
Code. After trial, they were convicted of the crime charged. Was the conviction correct?
Suggested Answer:
The conviction of Ana and Oniok is not correct. They are liable for infanticide because
they killed a child less than three days of age (Art. 255, Revised Penal Code).
ART.256
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman;
2. That violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered,
or that the accused otherwise acts upon such pregnant woman;
3. That 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. That the abortion is intended.
A fetus about six months old cannot subsist by itself, outside

the maternal womb. Abortion usually means expulsion before 6th
month or before term of its viability
Viada: Abortion, as long as fetus dies as a result of violence

used or drugs administered
Infanticide, if: (1) Fetus could sustain independent life after

its separation from maternal womb, and
(2) it is killed
Fetus survives in spite of attempt to kill it or use of violence:

a. Abortion intended, all acts of execution performed –
frustrated intentional abortion
b. Abortion not intended, fetus does not die – physical injuries
No frustrated unintentional abortion
Ways of committing intentional abortion

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.)
3. Acting (by administering drugs or beverages), with the consent
of the pregnant woman.
If the 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.
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.
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.
Unintentional Abortion
ART.257
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman;
2. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion;
3. That the violence is intentionally exerted; and
4. That as a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been
expelled therefrom.
Committed only by violence(giving of bitter substance with no intention to cause abortion

is not unintentional abortion)
Violence must be intentionally exerted
Unintentional abortion may be complexed with other crimes such as parricide or

homicide
The accused can only be held liable if he knew that the woman was pregnant. If there is
no intention to cause abortion and neither was violence exerted, Arts. 256 and 257 does
not apply.
Unintentional abortion requires physical violence inflicted deliberately and voluntarily by

a third person upon the pregnant woman.
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.
Unintentional abortion may be committed through negligence as it is enough that the use
of violence be voluntary.
If the act of violence is not felonious, that is, act of self-defense, and there is no
knowledge of the woman’s pregnancy, there is no liability. If the act of violence is not
felonious, but there is knowledge of the woman’s pregnancy, the offender is liable for
unintentional abortion.
People vs. Jose

Unintentional abortion can also be committed through negligence. Jose is declared guilty
of the crime of unintentional abortion through reckless imprudence for having bumped a
calesa which resulted a pregnant woman to bump her abdomen against the wall of the
calesa and eventually led to an abortion.
People v. Salufrania
Mere boxing of the stomach taken together with the immediate strangling of the victim in
a fight, is not sufficient proof to show an intent to cause abortion. The accused must
have merely intended to kill the victim but not necessarily to cause abortion. The
accused is liable for complex crime of parricide with unintentional abortion for it was
merely incidental to the killing.
People v. Carnaso
For the crime of abortion, even unintentional, to be held committed, the accused must
have known of the pregnancy.
ART.258
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion;
2. That the abortion is intended; and
3. That the abortion is caused by –
a. the pregnant woman herself
b. any other person, with her consent, or
c. any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of
concealing her dishonor.
The liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if the purpose

is to conceal her dishonor. However, there is no mitigation for
the parents of the pregnant women even if their purpose is to
conceal their daughter’s dishonor, unlike in infanticide.
ART.259
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion;
2. That the abortion is intended;
3. That the offender, who must be a physician or midwife, causes or
assists in causing the abortion; and
4. That said physician or midwife takes advantage of his or her
scientific knowledge or skill.
It is not necessary that the pharmacist knew that the abortive would
be used to cause abortion. What is punished is the act of dispensing
an abortive without the proper prescription. It is not necessary that
the abortive be actually used.
If the pharmacist knew that the abortive would be used to cause

abortion and abortion results, he is liable as an accomplice.
RA 4729: regulates the sale, dispensation, and/or distribution of

contraceptive drugs and devices
If the abortion is produced by a physician to save the life of the

mother, there is no liability.
It is not unlawful if Sale, dispensation or distribution of

contraceptive drug or contraceptive device is by a duly licensed
drug store or pharmaceutical company and with prescription of
qualified medical practitioner.
ART.260
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. Killing one’s adversary in a duel.
2. Inflicting upon the adversary serious physical injuries.
3. Making combat although no physical injuries have been inflicted.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Principals – person who killed or inflicted physical injuries
upon his adversary, or both combatants in any other cases.
2. Accomplices – as seconds
A duel is a formal or regular combat previously concerted between

2 parties in the presence of 2 or more seconds of lawful age on
each side, who make the selection of arms and fix all the other
conditions of the fight.
If death results, the penalty is the same as that for homicide.
The law disregards intent to kill in a duel

In case of slight physical injuries inflicted on another, penalty
is arresto menor, 3rd paragraph applies only when no physical
injuries are inflicted
There is no such crime nowadays because people hit each other even
without entering into any pre- conceived agreement. This is an
obsolete provision.
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
Challenging to a duel
ART.261
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
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.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Challenger
2. Instigators
People v. Tacomoy
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.
Mutilation
ART.262
KINDS OF MUTILATION:
1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, totally or partially, of some essential
organ for reproduction.
2. Intentionally making other mutilation, i.e. lopping, 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.
ELEMENTS OF THE FIRST KIND OF MUTILATION:

1. Castration, i.e. mutilation of organs necessary for generation such as the penis or
ovarium; and
2. Purposely and deliberately.
In the first kind of mutilation, the castration must be made purposely. Otherwise, it will be
considered as mutilation of the second kind.
Mayhem refers to any other intentional mutilation.
Under R.A. 7610, the penalty for the second type of mutilation shall be one degree
higher when the victim is below 12 years old.
Intent to mutilate must be established. If there is no intent, the crime is only serious

physical injury
Serious Physical Injuries
ART.263
HOW COMMITTED:
1. Wounding;
2. Beating;
3. Assaulting; or
4. Administering injurious substances.
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES:
1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind in consequence
of the physical injuries inflicted.
2. When the injured person –

a. loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, loses an eye, a hand, foot,
arm or leg,
b. loses the use of any such member, or
c. becomes incapacitated for the work in which he had been habitually engaged
3. When the injured person –

a. becomes deformed,
b. loses any other member of his body,
c. loses the use thereof, or
d. becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he had been
habitually engaged in for more than 90 days
4. When the injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days
(but not more than 90 days).
Serious physical injuries may be committed through reckless imprudence or simple

imprudence.
There must be no intent to kill.

Impotence includes inability to copulate and sterility.
Blindness requires lost of vision in both eyes. Mere weakness in vision is not
contemplated.
Loss of power to hear must involve both ears. Otherwise, it will be considered as serious
physical injuries under par 3.
Loss of the power to hear in the right ear is considered as merely loss of use of some
other part of the body. Loss of use of hand or incapacity of usual work in paragraph 2
must be permanent.
Paragraph 2 refers to principal members of the body. Paragraph 3, on the other hand,
covers any other member that is not a principal part of the body. In this respect, a front
tooth is considered as a member of the body and not a principal member.
Deformity means physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality that is not
curable by natural means or by nature. It must be conspicuous and visible. Thus, if the
scar is usually covered by a dress, it would not be conspicuous and visible. Loss of teeth
as deformity will not apply to child or old man.
The loss of 3 incisors is a visible deformity. Loss of one incisor is not. However, loss of
one tooth which impaired appearance is a deformity.
Deformity by loss of teeth refers to injury which cannot be repaired by the action of
nature.
Loss of both outer ears, loss of the power to hear, and loss of the lobule of the ear
constitute deformity.
Loss of the index and middle fingers is either a deformity or loss of a member, not a
principal one, of his body or use of the same.
If the injury would require medical attendance for more than 30 days, the illness of the
offended party may be considered as lasting more than 30 days. The fact that there was
medical attendance for that period of time shows that the injuries were not cured for that
length of time.
Under paragraph 4, all that is required is illness or incapacity, not medical attendance.
In determining incapacity, the injured party must have an avocation or work at the time of
the injury. Work includes studies or preparation for a profession.
When the category of the offense of serious physical injuries depends on the period of
the illness or incapacity for labor, there must be evidence of the length of that period.
Otherwise, the offense will only be considered as slight physical injuries.
There is no incapacity if the injured party could still engage in his work although less
effectively than before.
Serious physical injuries is qualified when the crime is committed against the same
persons enumerated in the article on parricide or when it is attended by any of the
circumstances defining the crime of murder. However, serious physical injuries resulting
from excessive chastisement by parents is not qualified serious physical injuries.
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. It is a crime of result. As
long as the injury is not there, there can be no attempted or frustrated stage thereof.
ART.264
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender inflicted upon another person any serious physical
injury;
2. That it was done by knowingly administering to him any injurious
substances or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind
or credulity; and
3. He had no intent to kill.
It is frustrated murder when there is intent to kill
Administering means introducing into the body the substance, thus throwing
of the acid in the face is not contemplated.
W Less Serious Physical Injuries
ART.265
ELEMENTS:
1. That the 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; and
2. That the physical injuries must not be those described in the preceding articles.
CIRCUMSTANCES QUALIFYING THE OFFENSE:

1. when there is manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person
2. when there are circumstances adding ignominy to the offense
3. when the victim is either the offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians, curators or
teachers
4. when the victim is a person of rank or person in authority, provided the crime is not
direct assault
This article applies even if there was no incapacity but the medical treatment was for
more than 10 days.
ART.266
THREE (3) KINDS:

1. That which incapacitated the offended party for labor from 1-9 days or
required medical attendance during the same period.
2. That which did not prevent the offended party from engaging in his
habitual work or which did not require medical attendance (Ex. blackeye).
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed w/o causing any injury.
(Ex. slapping but w/o causing dishonor)
When there is no evidence of actual injury Supervening event converting

crime into serious physical injuries after filing of information can still
be the subject of a new charge
This involves even ill-treatment where there is no sign of injury requiring

medical treatment.
Slapping the offended party is a form of ill-treatment which is a form of

slight physical injuries.
But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor upon the person slapped, or
to humiliate or embarrass the offended party out of a quarrel or
anger, the crime is slander by deed.
Between slight physical injuries and less serious physical injuries, not
only the healing duration of the injury will be considered 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 serious physical
injuries.
Where there is no evidence of actual injury, it is only slight physical

injuries. In the absence of proof as to the period of the offended party’s
incapacity for labor or of the required medical attendance, the crime
committed is slight physical injuries.
Rape
ART.266A-266B.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353) now classified the crime of rape as a Crime
Against Persons. It incorporated rape into Title 8 of the RPC.
ELEMENTS:
Rape is committed -
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a. through force, threat or intimidation;
b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
d. when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none
of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
a. his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice; or
b. any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Rape committed under paragraph 1 is punishable by:

1. reclusion perpetua
2. reclusion perpetua to DEATH when:
a. victim became insane by reason or on the occasion of rape; or
b. the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion
thereof.
3. DEATH when:
a. homicide is committed;
b. victim is under 18 years old and offender is:
(1) parent,
(2) ascendant,
(3) step-parent,
(4) guardian,
(5) relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree,
(6) common law spouse of victim’s parent;
c. under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal
institution;
d, committed in full view of the spouse, parent or any of the children or other relatives
within the 3rd degree of consanguinity;
e, victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is
personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of
the crime;
f. a child below 7 years old;
g. offender knows he is afflicted with HIV or AIDS or any other sexually transmissible
disease and the virus is transmitted to the victim;
h. offender is a member of the AFP, or para-military units thereof, or the PNP, or any law
enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his
position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
i. the victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;
j. the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission
of the crime; and
k. when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical
handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.

1. prision mayor
2. prision mayor to reclusion temporal when:
a. there was use of deadly weapon, or
b. when committed by two or more persons.
3. reclusion temporal – when the victim has become insane
4. reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua – rape is attempted and homicide is
committed
5. reclusion perpetua – homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of rape
6. reclusion temporal – committed with any of the 10 aggravating circumstances
mentioned above
Dividing age in rape:

1. less than 7 years old - mandatory death
2. less than 12 years old - statutory rape
3. less than 18 years old and there is relationship (e.g. parent, etc.) - mandatory death
Degree of Force necessary:

1. Force sufficient to consummate culprit’s purpose
2. Consider age, size and strength of parties and their relation to each other
Rape may be committed by employing intimidation(Intimidation Moral kind)
When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence over the girl, it is not
necessary to put up determined resistance
Rape may be proved by testimony of woman alone

1. An accusation for rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult
for person accused, though innocent, to disprove
2. Nature only two persons are involved, testimony of complainant must be scrutinized
with extreme caution
3. The evidence for prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from weakness of evidence for defense
Deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be complete, mental abnormality or

deficiency is sufficient
CONSUMMATED RAPE: penetration of labia consummates the crime of rape
ATTEMPTED RAPE: intent to have carnal knowledge must be clearly shown
Multiple rape by two or more offenders each one is responsible not only for rape
personally committed but also for rape committed by others
Rape with homicide is now a special complex crime
Rape infecting victim with gonorrhea that caused death is an illustration of rape with
homicide
Indemnity in Rape: P50,000 mandatory; if circumstances which death penalty is

authorized P75,000; Rape with homicide P100,000
Moral damages P50,000, without need of proof
Exemplary damages if the crime committed with one or more aggravating circumstances
PEOPLE vs.NEQUIA, G.R. No. 146569.10/6/03

In rape by sexual assault, the word "instrument or object" should be construed to include
a human finger.
ORDINARIO vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 155415. 520/04

The definition of the crime of rape has been expanded with the enactment of Republic
Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, to include not only "rape
by sexual intercourse" but now likewise "rape by sexual assault." An act of sexual
assault under the second paragraph of the article can be committed by any person who,
under the circumstances mentioned in the first paragraph of the law, inserts his penis
into the mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice,
of another person. The law, unlike rape under the first paragraph of Article 266-A of the
Code, has not made any distinction on the sex of either the offender or the victim.
Neither must the courts make such distinction.
PEOPLE vs. BALLENO G.R. No. 149075. 8/7/03

The fact that no laceration and no ruptured hymen were found in this case, does not
necessarily negate rape. The fact that the hymen was intact upon examination does not,
likewise, belie rape, for a
broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, nor does the fact that the victim
remained a virgin
exclude the crime.
PEOPLE vs. NAVARRO, G.R. No. 137597. 10/24/03

Even the slightest contact of the penis with the labia under the circumstances
enumerated under Art. 266- A of the Revised Penal Code constitutes rape. A flaccid
penis can do as much damage as an erect one — at least insofar as the crime of rape is
concerned.
PEOPLE vs. AGSAOAY, G.R. Nos. 132125-26. 6/3/04

An unchaste woman who habitually goes out with different men may be a victim of rape.
The victim’s moral character is not among the elements of the crime of rape. It does not
negate the existence of rape.
PEOPLE vs. LALINGJAMAN, G.R. No. 132714. 6/6/01

Rape may be committed anywhere — even in places where people congregate such as
parks, along the road side, within school premises, and inside a house where there are
other occupants. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place.
PEOPLE vs. OLAYBAR G.R. Nos. 150630-31. 101/03

The trial court has decreed the penalty of death on account of the circumstance under
Article 266-A, i.e., that when "the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human
Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any
other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the
victim," the imposition of the extreme penalty of death would be warranted.
PEOPLE vs. DE LA TORRE G.R. Nos. 121213 & 121216-23. 1/13/04

An accused may be considered a principal by direct participation, by inducement, or by
indispensable cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a woman, provided of
course a man is charged together with her. Thus, in two cases the Court convicted the
woman as a principal by direct participation since it was proven that she held down the
complainant in order to help her co-accused spouse consummate the offense.
PEOPLE vs. ESPINOSA G.R. No. 138742 6/15/04
Absence of resistance does not mean consent. The complainant was only 14 years old
when the rape took place. At her age, it could easily be conceived that she feared the
appellant and believed his threats, that he would kill her and her family if she reported
the incident to anyone. The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a
reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the
desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out.
PEOPLE vs. MALONES, G.R. Nos. 124388-90. 3/11/04

The negative findings of spermatozoa on the medico-legal report does not prove that no
rape was committed.
PEOPLE vs. ROTE, G.R. No. 146188, 12/11/03

Where the girl is below 12 years old, the only subject of inquiry is whether “carnal
knowledge” took place. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary since none
of these is an element of statutory rape. There is a conclusive presumption of absence
of free consent of the rape victim is below the age of 12.
PEOPLE vs.SABARDAN, G.R. No. 132135. 5/21/04

When the original and primordial intention of the appellant in keeping the victim in his
apartment was to rape her and not to deprive her of her liberty, the appellant is guilty
only of rape under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, and not of the
complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape under Article 267, in relation to
Articles 335 and 48 of the Code.
PEOPLE vs. BALATAZO, G.R. No. 118027. 1/29/04

Force or intimidation may be actual or constructive. In this case, the victim is a mental
retardate. The appellant took advantage of her condition and succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with her. Hence, he is guilty of forcible rape.
PEOPLE vs. FUCIO, G.R. Nos. 151186-95. 2/13/04

The qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship does not include god-father
relationship
PEOPLE vs. ANCHETA, G.R. No. 142431. 1/14/04

To justify the imposition of the death penalty in cases of incestuous rape, the
concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender constitutes
one special qualifying circumstance which must be both alleged and proved with moral
certainty.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MAURICIO WATIWA, G.R. No. 139400,

September 3, 2003
In Qualified Rape, the term “guardian” refers to a legal guardian as in the case of
parents or guardian ad litem or judicial guardian appointed by the court, and not merely
to an uncommitted caretaker over a limited period of time.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. LAMBID G.R. Nos. 133066-67, October 1, 2003
The force or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends not only on the
age, size, and strength of the persons involved but also on their relationship with each
other. In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's parental
authority and moral ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation over the latter
who, expectedly, would just cower in fear and resign to the father's wicked deeds.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTHONY SANDIG G.R. No. 143124. 7/25/03
The mere assertion of a love relationship does not necessarily rule out the use of force
to consummate the crime of rape. A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against
her will. Definitely, a man can neither demand sexual gratification from a fiancée nor
employ violence upon her, on the pretext of love.
PEOPLE vs. JOEL AYUDA G.R. No. 128882. 10/2/03

A "sweetheart defense," to be credible, should be substantiated by some documentary
or other evidence of the relationship — like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and
the like. Here, no such evidence was ever presented by appellant.
PEOPLE vs. ACERO, G.R. Nos. 146690- 91. 3/17/04

A defense based on “sweetheart theory” in rape cases is not a defense at all in rape
where the victim is a mental retardate.
PEOPLE vs. OGA, G.R. No. 152302. 6/8/04

Sweetheart theory prevails as a defense in rape when it casts reasonable doubt as to
the guilt of the accused.
People v. Orita
A soldier raped a 19-year old student by poking a knife on her neck. Only a portion of his
penis entered her vagina because the victim kept on struggling until she was able to
escape. The accused was convicted of frustrated rape.
HELD: There is NO crime of FRUSTRATED RAPE because in rape, from the moment
the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his purpose, all the
essential elements of the offense have been accomplished.
People v. Campuhan
The accused had his pants down and was on top of the 4-year old child when the child’s
mother arrived. Medical findings showed no signs of genital injury and the victim’s
hymen was intact.
HELD: For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or scrape of the penis on the
external layer of the vagina will not suffice. Mere touching of the external layer of the
vagina is not the same as ‘slightest penetration’. Accused is only liable for ATTEMPTED
RAPE.
People v. Atento
A 16-year old mental retardate, who has the intellectual capacity of a 9 and 12-year-old,
was repeatedly raped by the accused.
HELD: The accused was found guilty of raping a woman deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious and was also held liable for rape under the Par. that pertains to a victim
under 12
notwithstanding the victim’s actual age. Age requirement was amended to refer to
mental age.
People v. Gallo
Gallo was found guilty of the crime of qualified rape with the penalty of death. The
information filed against him does not allege his relationship with the victim, his
daughter, thus, it CANNOT be considered as a qualifying circumstance.
HELD: Special qualifying circumstances have to be alleged in the information for it to be

appreciated. The case was reopened and the judgment is modified from death to
reclusion Perpetua.
People v. Berana
A 14-year old was raped by her brother-in-law.
HELD: To effectively prosecute the accused of the crime of rape committed by a relative
by affinity w/in the 3rd civil degree, it must be established that:
1) the accused is legally married to the victim’s sister; and
2) the victim and the accused’s wife are full or half-blood siblings. Since relationship
qualifies the crime of rape, there must be clearer proof of relationship and in this case, it
was not adequately substantiated.
Death Penalty; Qualified Rape; Requisites; (Bar Exam Question 2004)
GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he was sentenced to death. It was
alleged in the information that the victim was a minor below seven years old, and her
mother testified that she was only six years old and ten months old, which her aunt
corroborated on the witness stand. The information also alleged that the accused was
the victim's uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution.
On automatic review before the supreme court, accused appelant contends that capital
punishment could not be imposed on him because of the inadequacy of the charges and
the insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the elements of the heinous crime of rape
Is appellant's contention correct? Reason briefly.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the age of the victim is concerned. The
aged of the victim raped has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the
crime of qualified rape and deserving of the death penalty. The guidelines in
appreciating age as a qualifying circumstance in rape cases have not been met, to wit:
1. The primary evidence of the age of the victim is her birth certificate;
2. in the absence of the birth certificate, age of the victim may be proven by authentic
documents, such as baptismal certificate and school records;
3. If the aforesaid documents are shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise
unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible of the victim's mother or any member of
the family, by consanguinity or affinity, who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section
40, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence shall be sufficient but only under the following
circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that she is less than 7 years old;
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the
victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age under the circumstances above
stated, complainant's sole testimony can suffice, provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused (People vs. Pruna, 390 SRA 577 [2002]).
Criminal Liabilities; Rape; Homicide & Theft (1998)
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after
consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and
violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry. Doming, King's
adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body,
cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King gave Jose,
his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the
jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000. What crime or
crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities.
Suggested Answer:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible
offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is
already dead is only theft.
Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him. He then violently threw her on
the floor and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a result Alma suffered
(a) Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain.
(b) Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries? Explain.
(c) Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before the incident Gavino and Alma
were legally separated? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
(a) No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife because of the
matrimonial consent which she gave when she assumed the marriage relation, and the
law will not permit her to retract in order to charge her husband with the offense (Sate
vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So. 372; 441 RA 837).
(b) Yes, he may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This offense is specially mentioned
in Art. 263 [4], paragraph 2 which imposes a higher penalty for the crime of physical
injuries in cases where the offense shall have been committed against any of the
persons enumerated in Art 246 (the crime of parricide).
(c) No, my answer will not be the same. If Gavino, and Alma were legally separated at
the time of the incident, then Gavino could be held liable for rape. A legal separation is a
separation of the spouses from bed and board (U.S. vs. Johnson, 27 Phil. 477, cited in II
Reyes, RFC, p. 853. 1981 edition), In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the
infliction of physical injuries suffered by the victim on the occasion of the rape, is
absorbed by the crime of rape. The injuries suffered by the victim may, however, be
considered in determining the proper penalty which shall be imposed on the offender.
Serious physical injuries cannot be absorbed in rape; it can be so if the injury is slight.
Rape; Absence of Force & Intimidation (1995)
Three policemen conducting routine surveillance of a cogonal area in Antipole chanced

upon Ruben, a 15-year old tricycle driver, on top of Rowena who was known to be a
child prostitute. Both were naked from the waist down and appeared to be enjoying the
sexual activity. Ruben was arrested by the policemen despite his protestations that
Rowena enticed him to have sex with her in advance celebration of her twelfth birthday.
The town physician found no semen nor any bleeding on Rowena's hymen but for a
healed scar. Her hymenal opening easily admitted two fingers showing that no external
force had been employed on her. Is Ruben liable for any offense? Discuss fully.
Suggested Answer:
Ruben is liable for rape, even if force or intimidation is not present. The gravamen of the
offense is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age (People vs. Dela
Cruz, 56 SCRA 84) since the law doesn't consider the consent voluntary and presumes
that a girl below twelve years old does not and cannot have a will of her own. In People
us. Perez, CA 37 OG 1762 , it was held that sexual intercourse with a prostitute below
twelve years old is rape. Similarly, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the
consummation as the important consideration is not the emission but the penetration of
the female body by the male organ (People vs. Jose 37 SCRA 450; People vs.
Carandang. 52
SCRA 2.
What other acts are considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, amending the
Revised Penal Code?
Suggested Answer:
The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 are:
1. having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority,
2. having carnal knowledge of a demented woman by a man even if none of the
circumstances required in rape be present; and
3. committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a person's penis into the victim's
mouth or anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into the genital or anal
orifice of another person.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from a crime against honor, a private
offense, to that of a crime against persons. Will the subsequent marriage of the offender
and the offended party extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the
subsequent valid marriage between the offender and offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty imposed, although rape has been reclassified from a crime
against chastity, to that of a crime against persons.
Rape; Male Victim
A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through threat and intimidation,
succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability?
Why?
Suggested Answer:
A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual assault against B, by
inserting his penis into the anus of the latter. Even a man may be a victim of rape by
sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
"when the offender's penis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice."
Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City which was driven by Roger,
Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always placing his car freshener in front of the car
aircon ventilation but did not bother asking Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy
and became unconscious. Instead of bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought
Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for two (2) weeks. She was
raped for the entire duration of her detention. May Roger be charged and convicted of
the crime of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal
detention. Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct
offense and should be punished separately. Evidently, his principal intention was to
abuse Flordeluna; the detention was only incidental to the rape.
Alternative Answer:
detention, since the detention was incurred in raping the victim during the days she was
held. At most, Roger may be prosecuted for forcible abduction for taking Flordeluna to
Cavite against the latter's will and with lewd designs. The forcible abduction should be
complexed with one of the multiple rapes committed, and the other rapes should be
prosecuted and punished separately, in as many rapes were charged and proved.
Proper Party (1993)

Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into having sexual intercourse
with him. Rachel's mother immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn
statement, before the City Prosecutor's Office. After the necessary preliminary
investigation, an information was signed by the prosecutor but did not contain the
signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC (prosecution of the
crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.
Suggested Answer:
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law (People us. Ilarde, 125 SCRA
11). It is enough that a complaint was filed by the offended party or the parents in the
Fiscal's Office.
Rape; Statutory Rape; Mental Retardate Victim (1996)
The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental retardate with an intellectual capacity

between the ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during the trial how she felt
when she was raped by the accused, replied "Masarap, it gave me much pleasure." With
the claim of the accused that the complainant consented for a fee to the sexual
intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of the complainant, would you convict the
accused of rape if you were the judge trying the case? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a mental retardate with the
intellectual capacity of a child less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving a
valid consent to the sexual Intercourse. The sexual intercourse is tantamount to a
statutory rape because the level of intelligence is that of a child less than twelve years of
age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate, violence or Intimidation is not
essential to constitute rape. (People us. Trimor, G,R. 106541-42, 31 Mar 95) As a matter
of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RPC, by adding the
phrase "or is demented."
Crimes Against Personal Liberty And Security - Title IX

Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
ART.267
Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. - Any private individual who shall kidnap or
detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the
circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission of the offense.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a private individual;
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the liberty;
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
4. That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances are present
(detention becomes serious):
a. that the kidnapping/detention lasts for more than 3 days,
b. that it is committed by simulating public authority,
c. that any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained
or threats to kill him are made, or
d. that the person kidnapped or detained is a minor (except if parent is the offender),
female or a public officer.
Qualifying Circumstances:Death is imposed [death penalty suspended]

1. Purpose is to extort ransom.
2. When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention.
3. When the victim is raped.
4. When victim is subjected to torture of dehumanizing act
The offenders here are private individuals or public officers acting in their private
capacity. If they are public officers, they are covered by the crimes under Title 2.
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.
The purpose is immaterial when any of the circumstances in the first paragraph of Art.
267 is present.
Essential element: deprivation of liberty.
Definition of 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
Special complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder: When the victim dies or is killed as a
consequence of the detention.
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.
PEOPLE vs. OBESO G.R. No. 152285. 10/24/03
It is true that for kidnapping to take place, it is not necessary that the victim be placed in
an enclosure; neither is it necessary that the detention be prolonged. However, the
essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with
indubitable proof of the intent of the accused to effect such deprivation.
PEOPLE vs. PICKRELL, G.R No. 120409. 10/23/03

Although the victim my have inceptually consented to go with the offender to a place but
the victim is thereafter prevented, with the use of force, from leaving the place where he
was brought to with his
consent and is detained against his will, the offender is guilty of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention.
PEOPLE vs. PUA, G.R. NO. 144050. 11/11/03

The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the
purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the
circumstances mentioned in Article 267 were present in the commission of the offense
People v Padica (1993)

Where the evident purpose of taking the victim was to kill him, and from the acts of the
accused it cannot be inferred that the latter’s purpose was to actually detain or deprive
the victim of his liberty, the subsequent killing of the victim did not constitute the crime of
kidnapping.
The demand for ransom did not convert the crime into kidnapping, since no deprivation
of liberty was involved.
People v Luartes (1999)

The essence of kidnapping is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled with
the intent of the accused to effect it.
People v Pavillare (2000)

The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours does not alter the nature of the
crime committed.
People v. Tomio
Physical detention is not necessary. It is enough that the victim is under the complete
control of the perpetrators as in this case when the Japanese victim had to rely on his
abductors for survival after
he was tricked into believing that the police was after him.
It was also held in this case that keeping a person as a collateral for payment of an
obligation is kidnapping.
The amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of "special complex
crime" of kidnapping with murder or homicide.
Kidnapping (2006)
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles factory of Luke Tan, agreed to kill him
due to his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him and loaded him in
a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they will only teach Luke a lesson in Christian
humility. Mario drove them to a fishpond in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil
and Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in their shack because he
was running from the NBI. The trio then left in Mario's car for Manila where they called
up Luke's family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they give a ransom within 24
hours. Unknown to them, because of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over the
radio and TV. Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked, especially when the
announcer stated that there is a shoot-to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie
took Luke to the seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they smashed his head with a shovel
and buried him in the sand. However, they were seen by a barangay kagawad who
arrested them and brought them to the police station. Upon interrogation, they confessed
and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping.
Later, the 4 were arrested
and charged. What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit?
Alternative Answer:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with homicide. The original intention
was to demand ransom from the family with the threat of killing. As a consequence of the
kidnapping, however, Luke was killed. Thus, the victim was deprived of his freedom and
the subsequent killing, though committed by another person, was a consequence of the
detention. Hence, this properly qualified the crime as the special complex crime of
kidnapping for ransom with homicide (People v. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554, October 1,
2003; Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the sand
committed murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not
liable for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the intention
to detain Luke whom they were informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised
Penal Code).
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian
humility" does not constitute a crime.
Alternative Answer:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with ransom. After kidnapping Luke,
they demanded ransom with the threat of killing him. However, the killing of Luke is
separate from the kidnapping having been committed by other persons, who had nothing
to do with the kidnapping, and who will be liable for a different crime (Penultimate par. of
Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the sand
committed murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not
liable for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the intention
to detain Luke whom they were informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised
Penal Code).
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian
humility" does not constitute a crime.
Kidnapping w/ Homicide (2005)
Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses
Martin and Pops Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old mother was seriously
ill, she asked Martin for a cash advance of P1,000.00 but Martin refused. One morning,
Paz gagged the mouth of Martin’s son with stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it
with masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in the afternoon, she demanded
P5,000.00 as ransom for the release of his son. Martin did not pay the ransom.
Subsequently, Paz disappeared. After a couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the
attic with his child already dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of
asphyxiation barely three minutes after the box was sealed. What crime or crimes did
Paz commit? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Paz committed the composite crime of kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RPC as
amended by R.A. No. 7659. Under the law, any person who shall detain another or in
any manner deprive him of liberty and the victim dies as a consequence is liable for
kidnapping with homicide and shall be penalized with the maximum penalty. In this case,
notwithstanding the fact that the one-week-old child was merely kept in the attic of his
house, gagged with stockings and placed in a box sealed with tape, the deprivation of
liberty and the intention to kill becomes apparent. Though it may appear that the means
employed by Paz was attended by treachery (killing of an infant), nevertheless, a
separate charge of murder will not be proper in view of the amendment. Here, the term
"homicide" is used in its generic sense and covers all forms of killing whether in the
nature of murder or otherwise. It is of no moment that the evidence shows the death of
the child took place three minutes after the box was sealed and the demand for the
ransom took place in the afternoon. The intention is controlling here, that is, ransom was
demanded.
Alternative Answer:
Murder qualified by treachery because the victim was only one week old. The offense
was attended with the aggravating circumstance of lack of respect due to the age of the
victim, cruelty and abuse of confidence. In People v. Lora (G.R. No, L-49430, March 30,
1982), the Court found that a child subjected to similar treatment as the infant, in this
case, would have died instantly, negating any intent to kidnap or detain when ransom
was sought. Demand for ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping with murder
because the demand was merely a scheme by the offender (Paz) to conceal the body of
her victim.
Kidnapping; Effects; Voluntary Release (2004)

DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day, DAN released
CHU even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the trial of his case,
DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the
child before the lapse of the 3-day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping
were instituted. Will DAN's defense prosper? Reason briefly.
Suggested Answer:
No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the offended
party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and immaterial
in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such
circumstance does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in the crime of
Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 (Asistio v. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673 [1964])
Kidnapping; Illegal Detention; Minority (2006)
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with
her that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man,
rejected him. This angered Job, Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her
sister Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and
pushed them inside a white van. They brought them to an abandoned warehouse where
they forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby
barangay where they took turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered
Nonoy to push Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and
Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was
never seen again.
1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy?
Suggested Answer:
Job and Nonoy committed 1) kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and
rape for the subsequent death of Dang, and 2) kidnapping with rape against her sister,
Lyn. The victims, who were kidnapped and detained, were subsequently raped and killed
(as regards Dang) in the course of their detention. The composite crime is committed
regardless of whether the subsequent crimes were purposely sought or merely an
afterthought (People v. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-5, Februarys,
2004).
Alternative Answer:
Job and Nonoy committed 2 counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape
(Art. 342, Revised Penal Code) and the separate offense of murder against Dang. The
crime committed is abduction because there was lewd design when they took the victims
away and subsequently raped them. The killing thereafter constitutes the separate
offense of murder qualified by treachery.
2. What penalties should be imposed on them?

Suggested Answer:
Since the death penalty has already been prohibited, reclusion perpetua is the
appropriate penalty (RA. 9346). In the case of the minor Nonoy, his penalty shall be one
degree lower (Art. 68, Revised Penal Code).
3. Will Nonoy's minority exculpate him?
Suggested Answer:
Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act, which retroacts to the date that
the crime was committed, Nonoy will be exculpated if he was 15 years old or below.
However, if he was above 15 years old but below 18 years of age, he will be liable if he
acted with discernment. As the problem shows that Nonoy acted with discernment, he
will be entitled to a suspension of sentence. (NOTA BENE: R.A. 9344 is outside the
coverage of the examination)
4. Is the non-recovery of Lyn's body material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy?
Suggested Answer:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy,
because the corpus delicti of the crime which is kidnapping with rape of Lyn has been
duly proven.
Alternative Answer:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy,
because the corpus delicti of the crime which is forcible abduction with rape of Lyn has
been duly proven.
Kidnapping; Proposal to Kidnap (1996)
Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is

courting so that he may succeed to raping her and eventually making her accede to
marry him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered
because Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported Edgardo to the
police.
May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act to
kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo
has done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a
preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences with
the commission of overt act, not
preparatory act. Proposal to commit kidnapping is not a crime.
Kidnapping; Serious Illegal Detention (1997)
A and B conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and detained him. The duo then called
up C's wife informing her that they had her husband and would release him only if she
paid a ransom in the amount of P10,000,000 and that, if she were to fail, they would kill
him. The next day, C, who had just recovered from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he
might die if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B released C during the early morning
of the third day of detention. Charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention
provided in Article 267, RPC, A and B filed a petition for bail. They contended that since
they had voluntarily released C within three days from commencement of the detention,
without having been paid any amount of the ransom demanded and before the institution
of criminal proceedings against them, the crime committed was only slight illegal
detention prescribed in Article 268, RPC. After hearing, the trial court found the evidence
of guilt to be strong and therefore denied the petition for bail. On appeal, the only issue
was: Was the crime committed kidnapping and serious detention or slight Illegal
detention? Decide.
Suggested Answer:
The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and serious illegal detention because
they made a demand for ransom and threatened to kill C if the latter's wife did not pay
the same. Without the demand for ransom, the crime could have been slight illegal
detention only. The contention of A and B that they had voluntary released C within three
days from the commencement of the detention is immaterial as they are charged with a
crime where the penalty prescribed is death (Asistio vs. San Diego. 10SCRA673). They
were properly denied bail because the trial court found that the evidence of guilt in the
information for kidnapping and serious Illegal detention is strong.
ART.268
ELEMENTS:
2. That he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner deprives
the liberty or he furnishes the place for the perpetuation of the
detention;
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
4. That the crime is committed without the attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated in Art. 267.
PRIVILEGED MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE:Penalty is lowered

If the offender:
1. voluntarily releases the person so kidnapped or detained within 3
days from the commencement of the detention;
2. without having attained the purpose intended; and
3. before the institution of criminal proceedings against him.
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.
The liability of one who furnishes the place where the offended
party is being held captive is that of a principal and not of an
accomplice.
ART.269
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender arrests or detains another person;
2. That the purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper authorities; and
3. That the arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground
therefor.
Offender is any person. Either a public officer or private individual may be liable.
Arrest/ detention refers to warrantless arrests.
In Article 125 (Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial

authorities), the detention is for some legal ground. While in an unlawful arrest, the
detention is not authorized by law.
Generally, this crime is committed by incriminating innocent persons by the offender’s

planting evidence to justify the arrest – a complex crime results, that is, unlawful arrest
through incriminatory machinations under Article 363.
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.
Kidnapping and Failure To Return A Minor
ART.270
Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. - The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall
deliberately fail to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person; and
2. That he deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents.
If any of the foregoing elements is absent, the kidnapping of the minor will then fall
under Article
267.
The essential element which qualifies the crime of kidnapping a minor under Art. 270 is
that the offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor.
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.
People v. Generosa
The deliberate failure to return a minor under one’s 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).
People v. Mendoza
Where a minor child was taken by the accused without the knowledge and consent of his
parents, the crime is kidnapping and serious illegal detention under Article 267, not
kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 270.
A and B were legally separated. Their child C, a minor, was placed in the custody of A
the mother, subject to monthly visitations by B, his father. On one occasion, when B had
C in his company, B decided not to return C to his mother. Instead, B took C with him to
the United States where he intended for them to reside permanently. What crime, if any,
did B commit? Why?
Suggested Answer:
B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 271, in
relation to Article 270, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Article 271 expressly
penalizes any parent who shall take from and deliberately fail to restore his or her minor
child to the parent or guardian to whom custody of the minor has been placed. Since the
custody of C, the minor, has been given to the mother and B has only the right of
monthly visitation, the latter's act of taking C to the United Slates, to reside there
permanently, constitutes a violation of said provisions of law.
ART.271
ELEMENTS:
1. That the minor is living in the home of his parents or guardians or
the person entrusted with his custody; and
2. That the offender induces a minor to abandon such home.
Inducement must be actual, committed with criminal intent and determined

by a will to cause damage.
The minor should not leave his home of his own free will.
Mitigated if committed by the father or mother of the victim.
The minor need not actually abandon his home or home of guardian.
Mere commission of any act which tends to influence, persuade or prevail
on a minor to abandon his home is what constitutes a crime.
Father or mother may commit the crimes in Art. 170 and 171 where they
are living separately and the custody f the minor children is given
to one of them.
Slavery
ART.272
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a human being; and
2. That the purpose of the offender is to enslave such human being.
Qualifying circumstance – if the purpose is some immoral traffic (Ex. prostitution).
The penalty is increased if the purpose of the offender is to assign the offended party to
some immoral traffic.
If the purpose of the kidnapping or detention is to enslave the offended party, slavery is
committed.
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.
The employment or custody of a minor with the consent of the parent or guardian
although against the child’s own will cannot be considered involuntary servitude.
But where is proven that the defendant was obliged to render service in plaintiff’s house
as a servant without remuneration whatever and to remain there so long as she has not
paid her debt, there is slavery.
RT.273
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender retains a minor in his service;
2. That it is against the will of the minor; and
3. That 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.
Indebtedness is not a ground for detention

ART.274
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender compels a debtor to work for him, either as
household servant or farm laborer;
2. That it is against the debtor’s will; and
3. That the purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a debt.
RA 9231: ANTI-CHILD LABOR ACT OF 2003
RA 9231 amended RA 7160 by imposing heavier penalties on parents,

guardians and employers of children 18 yrs. and below who commit any of
the following acts:
1. Using, procuring or offering the child for purposes of
prostitution or pornographic activities;
2. Using, procuring or offering the child for illicit activities,
such as trafficking of drugs and other illegal substances;
3. Making the child work in hazardous working conditions;
4. Subjecting the child to various forms of slavery as defined in
RA 9208, incl. Trafficking of children, recruitment of child
soldiers, etc.
ART.275
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. By 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:
a. That place is not inhabited.
b. The accused found there a person wounded or in danger of dying.
c. The accused can render assistance without detriment to himself.
d. The accused fails to render assistance.
2. By failing to help or render assistance to another whom the offender

has accidentally wounded or injured;
3. By failing to deliver a child under 7 whom the offender has found

abandoned, to the authorities or to his family, or by failing to take
him to a safe place. (may be applied to a lost child)
Does not apply: When a person intentionally wounds another and leaves
him in an uninhabited place
Immaterial: That the offender did not know that the child is under seven
years.
ART.276
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender has the custody of a child;
2. That the child is under 7 years of age;
3. That he abandons such child; and
4. That he has no intent to kill the child when the latter is abandoned.
Abandonment must be conscious, deliberate, and permanent.
a. death of the minor; or
b. life was in danger because of the abandonment.
Parent guilty of abandoning their children shall be deprived of parental

authority.
The purpose in abandoning the minor under his custody is to avoid the
obligation of taking care of said minor.
Intent to kill cannot be presumed from the death of the child. The ruling
that the intent to kill is presumed from the death of the victim of the
crime is applicable only to crimes against persons, and not to crimes
against security, particularly the crime of abandoning a minor under
Art. 276.
ART.277
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. By delivering a minor to a public institution or other persons w/o
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:
a. Offender has charge of the rearing or education of a minor;
b. He delivers said minor to a public institution or other
persons.; and
c. That 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.
2. By neglecting his children by not giving them

education which their station in life requires and
financial condition permits;
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a parent;
b. That he neglects his children by not giving them education; and
c. That his station in life requires such education and his
financial condition permits it.
Obligation to educate children terminates if mother and children refuse

without good reason to live with accused.
Failure to give education must be due to deliberate desire to evade

such obligation.
ART.278
Acts punished:
1. By causing any boy or girl under 16 to perform any dangerous feat

of balancing, physical strength or contortion, the offender being
any person.
2. By employing children under 16 who are not the children or

descendants of the offender in exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast,
rope-walker, diver, or wild-animal tamer or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling.
3. By employing any descendant under 12 in dangerous exhibitions

enumerated in the next preceding paragraph, the offender being
engaged in any of said callings.
4. By delivering a child under 16 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.
5. By inducing any child under 16 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.
Qualifying Circumstance: (Penalty is Higher)If the delivery of the

child to any person following any of the callings of acrobat,
rope-walker, diver or wild-animal trainer or circus manager or to any
habitual vagrant of beggar is made in consideration of any price,
compensation or promise.
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.
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.
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 employer is an ascendant, the crime is not committed, unless the

minor is less than 12 years old.
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.
ART.279
The imposition of the penalties prescribed in the preceding articles,

shall not prevent the imposition upon the same person of the penalty
provided for any other felonies defined and punished by this Code.
Trespass to Dwelling
Art.280
Qualified trespass to dwelling. - Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of
another against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 1,000 pesos.
If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be

prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000
pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter
another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the
occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be applicable to any person who
shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice,
nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the
same are open.
ELEMENTS:
2. That he enters the dwelling of another; and
3. That such entrance is against the latter’s will.
Qualifying circumstance: If the offense is committed by means of violence or

intimidation.
There must be an opposition on the part of the owner of the house to the entry of the
accused.
Dwelling: any building or structure exclusively devoted for rest and comfort, depends
upon use; maybe a room; implied prohibition depending on circumstances
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; hence, a person’s room in a hotel may be considered
a dwelling. It also includes a room where one resides as a boarder.
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.
Implied prohibition is present considering the following situation. Ex. Felony was
committed late at night and everyone’s asleep or entrance was made through the
window.
Prohibition is not necessary when violence or intimidation is employed by the offender.
When there is no overt act of the crime intended to be committed (Ex. theft), the crime is
trespass to dwelling.
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.
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.
Offender is public officer: Crime is violation of domicile.
No overt act of the crime intended to be committed: Crime is trespass to dwelling.
Trespass may be committed even by the owner of the dwelling against the actual
occupant thereof.
NOT APPLICABLE TO:

- entrance is for the purpose of preventing harm to himself, the occupants or a third
person;
- purpose is to render some service to humanity or justice; and
- place is a café, tavern, etc. while it is open.
Medina case:
When the accused entered the dwelling through the window, he had no intent to kill any
person inside. His intention to kill came to his mind when he was being arrested by the
occupants thereof. Hence, the crime of trespass to dwelling is a separate and distinct
offense from frustrated homicide.
Examples of trespass by means of violence:

1. Pushing the door violently and maltreating the occupants after entering.
2. Cutting of a ribbon or string with which the door latch of a closed room was fastened.
The cutting of the fastenings of the door was an act of violence.
3. Wounding by means of a bolo, the owner of the house immediately after entrance
Examples of trespass by means of intimidation:

1. Firing a revolver in the air by persons attempting to force their way into a house.
2. The flourishing of a bolo against inmates of the house upon gaining an entrance.
Trespass to Dwelling; Private Persons (2006)

Under what situations may a private person enter any dwelling, residence, or other
establishments without being
liable for trespass to dwelling?
Suggested Answer:
Trespass to dwelling is not applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling
for the purpose of:
a) Preventing some serious harm to himself, its occupants, or a third person; and
b) Rendering service to humanity or justice; Any person who shall enter cafes, taverns,
inns, and other public houses, while the same are open will likewise not be liable (Art.
280, Revised Penal Code).
Tresspass to Dwelling; Rule of Absorption (1994)
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay.
Mamerto's son, saw Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on
his abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was
about to escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered Injuries which, were it not for the
timely medical attendance, would have caused his death. Mamerto sustained Injuries
that incapacitated him for 25 days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?
Suggested Answer:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of
Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto. The crime of qualified
trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated homicide because when
the trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious offense, trespass to
dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime, and the former constitutes an aggravating
circumstance of dwelling (People vs. Abedoza, 53 Phil.788).
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay.... Dante is guilty of less
serious physical injuries for the wounds sustained by Mamerto..
ART.281
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate
of another;
2. That the entrance is made while either of them is uninhabited;
3. That the prohibition to enter be manifest; and
4. That the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or
the caretaker thereof.
Premises: signifies distinct and definite locality. It may mean a room,

shop, building or definite area, but in either case, locality is fixed.
Grave Threats
ART.282
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of
his 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. By making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose.
3. By 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.
Aggravating circumstances:
(1) if made in writing, or
(2) made through a middleman.
The crime is frustrated if the threat was not received by the person being threatened.
Threat not made in heat of anger, because such threat would be punished as “Other
Light Threats”
Grave threats may be committed by indirect challenge to a gunfight, even if complainant

was absent when challenge was made; it is sufficient that threats came to knowledge of
offended party
Threats made in connection with the commission of other crimes are absorbed by the
latter.
The offender in grave threats does not demand the delivery on the spot of the money or
other personal property asked by him
When consummated: As soon as the threats came to the knowledge of the offended
party.
It is not necessary that the offended party was present at the time the threats were
made. It is sufficient that the threats came to his knowledge.
ART.283
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender makes a threat to commit a wrong;
2. That the wrong does not constitute a crime;
3. That there is a demand for money or that other condition is
imposed, even though not unlawful.
In light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime.
Requires that there be a demand of money or that other condition

be imposed
Blackmailing may be punished under this provision
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.
Bond for Good Behavior
ART.284
WHEN A PERSON IS REQUIRED TO GIVE BAIL BOND

1. When he threatens another under the circumstances mentioned in Art. 282.
2. When he threatens another under the circumstances mentioned in Art. 283.
The person making the threats under the 2 preceding articles (grave and light threats)
may also be required by the court to give bail conditioned upon the promise not to
molest the person threatened.
Other light threats
ART.285
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. By threatening another with a weapon, or by drawing a weapon in a quarrel, unless it
be in lawful self-defense.
2. By orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with some harm constituting a
crime, without persisting in the idea involved in the threat.
3. By orally threatening another with harm not constituting a felony.
No demand for money or condition involved.
Threat is not deliberate.
Under the first type, the subsequent acts of the offender must show that he did not
persist in the idea involved in the threat.
If the threats are directed to a person who is absent and uttered in a temporary fit of
anger, the offense is only other light threats.
Threats which are ordinarily grave threats, if made in the heat of anger, may be other
light threats.
Grave Coercion
ART.286
The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another
from doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his
will, whether it be right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any
religious act or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in degree shall be
imposed.
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person...
a. prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law or
b. compel him to do something against his will, be it right or wrong
2. Violence, threats or intimidation, either material force or such display of force as would
produce intimidation and control of the will.
3. Without authority of law
Aggravating circumstances:
1. Violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage
2. Compelling another to perform a religious act or
3. preventing another from exercising such right or from doing such act (as amended by
RA. 7890)
The crime is not grave coercion when the violence is employed to seize anything
belonging to the debtor of the offender. It is light coercion under Art. 287.
Any person who shall use force or intimidation to prevent any member of Congress from
attending the meetings thereof, expressing his opinions, or casting his vote is liable
under Art. 145.
Any person who, by force, prevents the meeting of a legislative body is liable under Art.
143.
A public officer who shall prevent by means of violence or threats the ceremonies or
manifestations of any religion is guilty of interruption of religious worship (Art. 132).
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.
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.
Arises only if the act which the offender prevented another to do is not prohibited by law
or ordinance.
Purpose Of The Law: To enforce the principle that no person may take the law into his
hands, and that our government is one of law, not of
men.
The thing prevented from execution must not be prohibited by law. Otherwise, there will
be no coercion.
Lee v. CA, 201 SCRA 405

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.
The complainant may have acted reluctantly and with hesitation, but still, it was
voluntary.
Grave Coercion (1998)
Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy wearing the said necklace.
Isagani asked Roy to return to him the necklace as it belongs to him, but Roy refused.
Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, "If you will not give back the necklace to me, I
will kill you!" Out of fear for his life and against his will, Roy gave the necklace to Isagani,
What offense did Isagani commit?
Suggested Answer:
Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286, RPC) for compelling Roy, by
means of serious threats or intimidation, to do something against the latter's will,
whether it be right or wrong. Serious threats or intimidation approximating violence
constitute grave coercion, not grave threats. Such is the nature of the threat in this case
because it was committed with a gun, is a deadly weapon. The crime is not robbery
because intent to gain, which is an essential element of robbery, is absent since the
necklace belongs to Isagani.
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)
Suggested Answer:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as follows: in coercion, the basis of
criminal liability is the employment of violence or serious intimidation approximating
violence, without authority of law, to prevent a person from doing something not
prohibited by law or to compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right or
wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual restraint or locking up
of a person, thereby depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there was no
intent to lock up or detain the offended party unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is
not committed.
Light Coercions
ART.287
Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything belonging to his debtor for
the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of
arresto mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in
no case less than 75 pesos.
Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine
ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.
Elements
1. Offender must be a creditor;
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. The purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the payment of the debt.
Any other coercion or unjust vexation
Paragraph 2 of Art. 287 covers unjust vexation. It includes any human conduct which,
although not productive of some physical or material harm would, however, unjustly
annoy or vex an innocent person.
Light coercion under the 1st paragraph of this article will only be unjust vexation if the
3rd element (employing violence or intimidation) is absent.
Unjust Vexation is distinguished from grave coercion by the absence of violence.

Unjust Vexation vs Acts of Lasciviousness (1994)
When is embracing, kissing, and touching a girl's breast considered only unjust vexation
instead of acts of
lasciviousness?
Suggested Answer:
The acts of embracing, kissing of a woman arising either out of passion or other motive
and the touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without lewd design
constitute merely unjust vexation (People vs, Ignacio. CA GRNo. 5119-R, September 30,
1950). However, where the kissing, embracing and the touching of the breast of a
woman are done with lewd design, the same constitute acts of lasciviousness (People
vs. Percival Gilo, 10 SCRA 753).
RT.288
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. By forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or knowingly
permitting the forcing or compelling of the laborer or employee
of the offender to purchase merchandise or commodities of any
kind from him.
2. By paying the wages due his laborer or employee by means of
tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of the
Philippines, unless expressly requested by such laborer or
employee.
ELEMENTS OF NO. 1:
1. That the offender is any person , agent or officer of any
association or corporation.
2. That he or such firm or corporation has employed laborers
or employees
3. That 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.
ELEMENTS OF NO. 2:
1. That the offender pays the wages due a laborer or employee
employed by him by means of tokens or objects
2. That those tokens or objects are other than the legal tender
currency of the Philippines.
3. That such employee or laborer does not expressly request that
he be paid by means of tokens or objects
General rule: wages shall be paid in legal tender and the use of
tokens, promissory notes, vouchers, coupons or any other forms
alleged to represent legal tender is absolutely prohibited even
when expressly requested by the employee. (Section 1, Rule VIII,
Book III, Omnibus Rules Implementing the Labor Code)
No employer shall limit or otherwise interfere with the freedom

of any employee to dispose of his wages. He shall not in any
manner force, compel, oblige his employees to purchase
merchandise, commodities or other property from the employer or
from any other person. (Art. 112, Labor Code.)
ART.289
ELEMENTS:
1. That the 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; and
2. That the purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent coalitions
of capital or labor, strike of laborers or lockout of employees.
3. If the act shall not constitute a more serious offense.
The act should not be a more serious offense. If death or some

serious physical injuries are caused in an effort to curtail
the exercise of the rights of the laborers and employers,
the act should be punished in accordance with the other provisions
of the Code.
Peaceful picketing is not prohibited.
Threats made or violence employed by picketers may make them liable

for coercion.
ART.290
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a private individual or even a public
officer not in the exercise of his official function;
2. That he seizes the papers or letters of another;
3. That the purpose is to discover the secrets of such another
person; and
4. That offender is informed of the contents or the
papers or letters seized.
This article is not applicable to parents with respect to their

minor children or to spouses with respect to the papers or
letters of either of them.
Contents of the correspondence need not be secret. The purpose

of the offender prevails.
Qualifying circumstance: When the offender reveals the contents
of such papers or letters to a 3rd person.
This article does not require that the offended party be

prejudiced.
This is a crime against the security of one’s 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.
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.
Distinction from estafa, damage to

property, and unjust vexation:
- If the act had been executed with intent of gain, it would

be estafa;

- If, on the other hand, the purpose was not to defraud, but
only to cause damage to another’s, it would merit the
qualification of damage to property;

- 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.
ART.291
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a manager, employee or servant;
2. That he learns the secrets of his principal or master in such
capacity; and
3. That he reveals such secrets.
Damage is not required by this article.
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.
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.
ART.292
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a person in charge, employee or workman
of a manufacturing or industrial establishment;
2. That the manufacturing or industrial establishment has a secret
of the industry which the offender has learned;
3. That the offender reveals such secrets; and
4. That prejudice is caused to the owner.
Prejudice is an essential element of this offense
Secrets must relate to manufacturing processes.
The act constituting the crime is revealing the secret of the

industry which the offender has learned.
The revelation of the secret might be made after the employee

or workman had ceased to be connected with the establishment.
Crimes Against Property - Title X
Who are guilty of robbery?
ART.293
ELEMENTS of robbery IN GENERAL:

1. That there be personal property belonging to another (bienes muebles)
2. That there is unlawful taking of that property (apoderamiento or asportacion)
3. That the taking must be with intent to gain; (animus lucrandi)
4. That there is violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon anything.
Person from whom property was taken need not be the owner. Legal possession is
sufficient.
General rule: The identity of the real owner is not essential so long as the personal
property taken does not belong to the accused. Exception: If the crime is robbery with
homicide
The taking of personal property must be unlawful in order to constitute robbery. If the
property is in the possession of the offender because it was given to him in trust by the
owner, the crime is estafa.
If taking was lawful, then misappropriated after possession crime may be malversation,
(estafa)
As to robbery w/ violence or intimidation, from the moment the offender gains

possession of the
thing even if offender has had no opportunity to dispose of the same, the unlawful taking
is complete.
As to robbery w/ force upon things, thing must be taken out of the building in order to
consummate robbery.
Intent to gain is presumed from unlawful taking of personal property.
The unlawful taking must not be under the claim of title or ownership.
When there is no intent to gain but there is violence in the taking, the crime is grave
coercion.
The violence or intimidation must be committed against the person of the offended party,
not upon the thing taken.
General rule: Violence or intimidation must be present before the “taking” is complete.
Exception: When violence results in homicide, rape, intentional mutilation or any of the
serious physical injuries in paragraphs 1 and 2 of Art. 263 (Serious Physical injuries), the
taking of the property is robbery complexed w/ any of these crimes under Art. 294, even
if the taking is already complete when violence was used by the offender.
Use of force upon things is entrance to the building by means described in Arts. 299 and
302.
When both violence or intimidation and force upon things concur in committing the
crime, it is robbery w/ violence against persons.
If not personal property but real property or rights crime may be usurpation.
Theft, not robbery, where accused cut with bolo the strings tying opening of a sack and
then took the palay.
RA 6539 is applicable when property taken in robbery is a motor vehicle (Carnapping:

taking with intent to gain of motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s
consent, or by means of violence against or intimidation of persons or by using force
upon things; Unqualified -14years and 8 months to 17 years and 4 months;
violence/force upon things -17 years and 4 months to 30 years; occupant killed or raped
– reclusion perpetua to death)
PEOPLE vs. BOCALAN, G.R. No. 141527. 9/4/03

For the appellant to be guilty of consummated robbery, there must be incontrovertible
proof that property was taken from the victim. The appellant is guilty of attempted
robbery only when he commences the commission of robbery directly by overt acts and
does not perform all the acts of execution which would produce robbery by reason of
some causes or accident other than his own spontaneous desistance.
Robbery Grave Threats Grave Coercion

Robbery With Violence Against Or Intimidation Of Persons
ART.294.
ACTS PUNISHED AS ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR INTIMIDATION OF

PERSONS:
1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery, homicide is committed;

2. When the robbery is accompanied w/ rape or intentional mutilation or arson;
3. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting in
insanity, imbecility, impotency, or blindness is inflicted;
4. When by reason of or on occasion of the robbery, serious 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,
hand, foot, arm, leg, or the loss of the use of any such member or incapacity for work in
w/c victim is habitually engaged is inflicted;
5. If the violence / intimidation employed in committing the robbery shall have been
carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the crime;
6. When in the course of its execution, offender inflicts upon any person not responsible
for the commission of robbery any of the physical injuries resulting to deformity, loss of
any part of the body or the use thereof, or illness or incapacity for the performance of the
work for > 90 days or > 30 days;
7. If the violence employed does not cause any serious physical injuries defined in Art.
263, or if offender employs intimidation only
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES WITH SPECIFIC PENALTIES PRESCRIBED:
1. Robbery with homicide is committed if original design is robbery and homicide was
committed although homicide precedes the robbery by an appreciable time. If original
design is not robbery but robbery was committed after homicide as an afterthought,
offender committed 2 separate offenses of robbery and homicide. The crime is still
robbery with homicide if the person killed was an innocent bystander and not the person
robbed and even if the death supervened by mere accident.
2. In robbery with rape, the intent to commit robbery must precede rape. Prosecution of
the crime need not be by the offended party and the fiscal can sign the information.
When rape and homicide co-exist in a robbery, rape should be considered
as aggravating only and the crime is still robbery with homicide.
1996 Bar Examination Question - Conspiracy; Complex Crime with Rape
3. Robbery with intimidation is committed when the acts done by the accused, by their
own nature or by reason of the circumstances, inspire fear in the person against whom
the acts are directed.
The crime defined in this article is a special complex crime.
The violence must be against the person of the offended party, not upon the thing taken.
It must be present before the taking of personal property is complete.
Exception: When the violence results in:
(1) homicide,
(2) rape,
(3) intentional mutilation, or
(4) any of the serious physical injuries penalized in paragraphs 1 & 2 of Art. 263,
- the taking of personal property is robbery complexed with any of those crimes under
Art. 294,
- even if the taking was already complete when the violence was used by the offender.
There is no crime as robbery with murder.
The crime is still robbery with homicide if, in the course of the robbery, a person was
killed even if it was another robber or a bystander.
Even if the rape was committed in another place, it is still robbery with rape.
When the taking of personal property of a woman is an independent act following

defendant’s failure to consummate the rape, there are two distinct crimes committed:
attempted rape and theft.
Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will not increase the
penalty.
When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, the crime is robbery
with homicide, the rape to be considered as an aggravating circumstance only.
Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of personal property grave coercion if
there is violence used (Art. 286).
PEOPLE vs. COMILING, G.R. No. 140405. 3/4/04

As correctly stressed by the Solicitor General, robbery with homicide is a “special
complex crime.” It is enough that in order to sustain a conviction for this crime, the killing,
which is designated as “homicide,” has a direct relation to the robbery, regardless of
whether the latter takes place before or after the killing. For as long as the killing occurs
during or because of the heist, even if the killing is merely accidental, robbery with
homicide is committed.
PEOPLE vs. BOLINGET, G.R. Nos. 137949-52. 12/11/03

Well entrenched in this jurisprudence is the doctrine that when homicide takes place as
a consequence or on occasion a robbery, all those who took part in the robbery are
guilty as principals in the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide, even if they did not actually took part in
the homicide. The only exception is when it is clearly shown that the accused
endeavored to prevent the unlawful killing.
PEOPLE vs. HIJADA, G.R. No. 123696. 311/04

There is no crime of Robbery with Multiple Homicide under the Revised Penal Code.
The crime is Robbery with Homicide notwithstanding the number of homicides
committed on the occasion of the robbery and even if murder, physical injuries and rape
were also committed on the same occasion.
NAPOLIS V.CA (1972)

1. If both violence/intimidation of persons (294) and force upon things(299/302) exist it
will be considered as violation of Art 294 because it is more serious than in Art 299/302.
2. BUT when robbery is under Art 294 par 4 & 5 the penalty is lower than in Art 299 so
the complex crime should be imputed for the higher penalty to be imposed without
sacrificing the principle that robbery w/ violence against persons is more severe than
that w/ force upon things
PEOPLEV. MILLIAN (2000)

When taking of victims gun was to prevent the victim from retaliating crimes are theft and
homicide not robbery w/homicide
ART.295
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES IN ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE

OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS:
If any of the offenses defined in subdivisions 3, 4 and 5 of Art. 294

is committed -
1. in an uninhabited place, or
2. by a band, or
3. by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or
4. by entering the passenger’s compartments in a train, or in any manner
taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective
conveyances, or
5. on a street, road, highway or alley and the intimidation is made
with the use of firearms.
The qualifying circumstances of robbery with violence or intimidation

must be alleged in the information and proved during the trial.
Being qualifying circumstances, they cannot be offset by generic

mitigating circumstances.
This article will not apply to the special complex crimes of

robbery w/ homicide, w/ rape, or w/ serious physical injuries under
paragraph 1 of Art. 263.
It cannot be offset by a generic mitigating circumstance.
The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only robbery on a

street, road, highway, or alley.
ART.296
When at least four armed malefactors take part in the commission of

a robbery, it is deemed committed by a band.
Requisites for liability for the acts of the other members of the band:
1. That the accused was a member of the band;
2. That he was present at the commission of a robbery by that band;
3. That the other members of the band committed an assault; and
4. That he did not attempt to prevent the assault.
Conspiracy is presumed when 4 or more armed persons committed robbery.
In robbery committed by a band, all are liable for any assault committed
by the band, unless the others attempted to prevent the assault.
There is no crime as “robbery with homicide in band”. Band is only

ordinary aggravating circumstance in robbery w/ homicide
People V. Apduhan
1. In order that special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed
firearm be appreciated it is condition sine qua non that
offense charged be robbery by a band under Art 295.
2. Pursuant to Art 295, the circumstance of a band is qualifying
only in robbery under par 3, 4 &5 of Art 294. Thus Art. 295
does not apply to robbery with homicide, or robbery with rape,
or robbery with serious physical injuries under par. 1 of Art.
263.
3. So special aggravating circumstance of unlicensed firearm is
inapplicable to robbery w/ homicide robbery with rape, or
robbery with physical injuries, committed by a band
ART.297
Same penalty, whether robbery is attempted or frustrated, as long is homicide is

committed by reason or on occasion thereof.
Where the offense is attempted or frustrated robbery with serious physical injuries, Art.
48 (complex crimes) is applicable.
Homicide - includes multiple homicides, murder, parricide, or even infanticide.
The penalty is the same, whether robbery is attempted or frustrated.
Robbery with homicide and attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide are special
complex crimes, not governed by Art. 48, but by the special provisions of Arts. 294 &
297, respectively.
There is only one crime of attempted robbery with homicide even if slight physical
injuries were inflicted on other persons on the occasion or by reason of the robbery.
ART.298
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender has intent to defraud another;
2. That the offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public instrument or
document; and
3. That the compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation.
This article is not applicable if the document is void.
Applies even if document signed, executed or delivered is a private or commercial

document.
If the violence resulted in the death of the person to be defrauded, crime is robbery with
homicide and shall be penalized under Art 294 par. 1.
Art. 298 applies to private or commercial document.
Art. 298 is not applicable if the document is void.
When the offended party is under obligation to sign, execute or deliver the document
under the law, it is not robbery but coercion
ART.299
ELEMENTS of robbery with force upon things under subdivision (a):

1. That the offender entered
(a) an inhabited house, or
(b) public building, or
(c) edifice devoted to religious worship;
2. That 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 exercise of public
authority; and
3. That once inside the building, the offender took personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain.
Inhabited house is any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the dwelling

of one or more person even though temporarily absent therefrom when
robbery is committed. It includes dependencies, courts, corals, barns,
etc. It does not include orchards and lands for cultivation.
Public building - 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.
Breaking - means entering the building. The force used in this means
must be actual, as distinguished from that in the other means which is
only constructive force.
In robbery by use of force upon things, it is necessary that offender

enters the building or where object may be found. When there was no
entry, no robbery was committed.
Whole body must be inside the house, public building or place devoted
to worship to constitute entering.
Passing through an open door but getting out of a window is not robbery
but theft.
To constitute robbery, the outside door must be broken or smashed. If

the lock was merely removed or door was merely pushed, crime is
only theft.
False keys are genuine keys stolen from the owner or any keys other
than those intended by the owner for use in the lock w/c was forcibly
opened by the offender.
Picklocks are those specially adopted for commission of the robbery.
The key must have been stolen not by force. Otherwise, it’s robbery
by violence and intimidation against persons.
False key must have been used in opening house and not any furniture
inside. Otherwise, the crime is only theft.
General Rule: If false key/picklock was used to open an inside door

(Ex. door of a room) and offender took personal property, the crime
is only theft.
Exception: If the room is a separate dwelling place, crime is robbery.
The use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to exercise

authority must be committed for the purpose of entering the building.
ELEMENTS of robbery with force upon things under subdivision (b):

1. That the offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or
edifice devoted to religious worship, regardless of the
circumstances under which he entered it; and
2. That the 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.
It is not necessary that entrance was made through any of the means
mentioned in subdivision (a).
Offender may be servants or guests.
Destruction of keyhole of cabinet is robbery under this subsection.
When sealed box is taken out for the purpose of breaking it, crime is
already consummated robbery. There is no need to actually open it
inside the building from where it was taken.
But if the box was confided into the custody of accused and he takes
the money contained therein, the crime is estafa.
The crime is theft if the box was found outside of the building and
the accused forced it open.
Mitigating circumstance:
1. Offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken
exceeds 250 pesos.
2. Offenders are armed, but the value does not exceed 250 pesos.
3. Offenders do not carry arms and the value does not exceed 250
pesos penalty of a) or b) in minimum period.
4. Committed in dependencies
People vs. Tayag

In entering the building, the offender must have an intention to take
personal property Public building includes every building owned,
rented or used by the government although owned by private persons or
temporarily vacant.
Illustration:
If the culprit had entered the house through an open door, and the
owner, not knowing that the culprit was inside, closed and locked
the door from the outside and left, and the culprit, after taking
personal property in the house, went out through the window, it is
only theft, not robbery.
The penalty depends on the value of property taken and on whether

or ART.300
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted to religious worship is
qualified when committed by a band and in an uninhabited place.
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or edifice to religious worship is qualified

when committed by a band and located in an uninhabited place.
To qualify Robbery w/ force upon things (Art 299) It must be committed in uninhabited

place AND by a band (Art 300)
To qualify Robbery with violence against or intimidation It must be committed in an

uninhabited place OR by a band (Art. 295).
ART.301
Dependencies of an inhabited house, public building or building

dedicated to religious worship are all interior courts, corrals,
warehouses, granaries or enclosed places:
1. contiguous to the building, having an interior entrance connected
therewith, and
2. forming part of the whole.
A garage, in order to be considered as a dependency of a house, must

have the 3 foregoing requirements.
The place is still inhabited even if the occupant was absent.
Dependencies - all interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries

or in closed places contiguous to the building or edifice, having
an interior entrance connected therewith, and which form part of
the whole (Art.301, par. 2).
Requisites:
1. Must be contiguous to the building;
2. Must have an interior entrance connected therewith;
3. Must form part of the whole.
Orchards and lands used for cultivation or production are not

included in the term “dependencies” (Art. 301, par. 3).
ART.302
ELEMENTS:
1. That the 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. That any of the following circumstances was present:
a. That 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; and
3. That with intent to gain, the offender took therefrom personal
property belonging to another.
This article covers the second kind of robbery with force upon things.
Uninhabited place under this article is an uninhabited building w/c

is not a dwelling house, public building, or edifice for worship.
Ex. warehouse, freight car, store.
Robbery under this article is committed in the same manner as in

Art. 299 (Robbery in inhabited house, public building, and edifice
devoted to religious worship) except that what was entered into was
an uninhabited place or a bldg. other than the 3 mentioned in
Art. 299. The use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of
public authority is not also included in this article.
The breaking of padlock but not of the door is only theft.
Building - includes any kind of structure used for storage or

safekeeping of personal property, such as (a) freight car ad
(b) warehouse.
Entrance through an opening not intended for entrance or egress

is not necessary, if there is breaking of wardrobe, chest, or
sealed or closed furniture or receptacle, or removal thereof to be
broken open elsewhere.
Breaking padlock is use of force upon things.
Use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public

authorities is not covered under this article.
The receptacle must be “closed” or “sealed”.
Penalty is based only on value of property taken.

ART.303
When the robbery described in Arts. 299 and 302 consists in

the taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood, the penalty is
one degree lower.
The penalty is one degree lower
The palay must be kept by the owner as “seedling” or taken

for that purpose by the robbers.
ART.304
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools;
2. That such picklocks or similar tools are specially adopted to
the commission of robbery; and
3. That the offender does not have lawful cause for such possession.
Actual use of the picklocks or similar tools is not necessary.

ART.305
FALSE KEYS include:

1. picklocks or similar tools,
2. genuine keys stolen from the owner; and
3. any key other than those intended by owner for use in the lock
forcibly opened by the offender.
Possession of false keys in paragraphs (1) and (2) above is not

punishable.
If the key was entrusted to the offender and he used it to steal,

crime is not robbery but theft.
ART.306
There is brigandage when –

1. at least four armed persons,
2. band of robbers, and
3. their purpose is any of the ff:
a. Robbery in the highway
b. Kidnapping for extortion or ransom
c. Any other purpose to be obtained by means of force and violence.
Presumption of law as to brigandage: all are presumed highway

robbers or brigands, if any of them carries unlicensed firearm.
The arms carried may be any deadly weapon.
The main object of the law is to prevent the formation of band of

robbers.
The term highway includes city streets.
The following must be proved:

1. That there is an organization of more than 3 armed persons
forming a band of robbers
2. That the purpose of the band is any of those enumerated in Art. 306.
3. That they went upon the highway or roamed upon the country for
that purpose.
4. That the accused is a member of such band.
Aiding And Abetting A Band Of Brigands
ART.307
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a band of brigands;
2. That the offender knows the band to be of brigands; and
3. That the offender does any of the following acts:
a. he in any manner aids, abets, or protects such band of brigands, or
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.
P. D. No. 532 defines brigandage as the seizure of any person for:

(a) ransom;
(b) extortion or other unlawful purpose; or
(c) the taking away of property by violence or intimidation or force upon things or other
unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine highway.
The Anti-Carnapping Act defines carnapping as the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things. This law also penalizes the
defacing or tampering with the original serial number of motor vehicle engines, engine
blocks, and chassis.
It is presumed that the person performing any of the acts provided in this article has
performed them knowingly unless the contrary is proven.
Any person who aids or protects highway robbers or abets the commission of highway
robbery or brigandage shall be considered as an accomplice.
Theft
ART.308
ELEMENTS of Theft
1. That there be taking of personal property;
2. That said property belongs to another;
3. That the taking be done with intent to gain;
4. That the taking be done without the consent of the owner; and
5. That the taking be accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of
persons or force upon things.
Theft: committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without violence against or
intimidation of persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another
without the latter’s consent.
Taking - if bulky, must be taken away(when place surrounded by fence or wall),

otherwise, the moment he had full possession of thing, asportation is complete; does not
need a character of
permanency.
Intent to Gain – taking must be accompanied by intention, at the time of taking, of

withholding the thing with character of permanency; presumed from unlawful taking of
personal property of
another.
Gain desired by the offender may not only be money. It may include satisfaction, use,
pleasure or any benefit; includes satisfaction of taking revenge.
It is not required that the offender realized actual gain in committing theft. It is sufficient
that he took personal property of another with intent to gain.
Trust, Commission, Administration: Juridical possession of thing transferred to another
If only custody of object (i.e. only material possession) was given to the accused and it is
actually taken by him with no intent to return, the crime is theft. But if juridical possession
is
transferred (Ex., by a contract of bailment) is given to the accused and he takes the
property with intent to gain, the crime is estafa.
Personal property: includes electricity and gas, promissory note and check. Ex. the
inspector misreads the meter to profit thereby, or one using a jumper.
Consent: freely given and not merely lack of objection
Allegation in the information of the lack of the owner’s consent is important.
Finder: may be a finder in law
Theft is consummated when the offender is able to place the thing taken under his
control and in such a situation as he could dispose of it at once (although there is
actually no opportunity to dispose).
Servant using his employer’s car without permission is guilty of qualified theft although
his use thereof was only temporary. However, Reyes says that there must be some
character of permanency in depriving owner of the use of the object and making himself
the owner. Therefore, “joyride” must be deemed as qualified theft.
An employee taking his salary before it is actually delivered to him is guilty of theft.
If the offender, in good faith, claims property as his own, no theft is committed although
his claim of ownership is later found to be untrue. However, if his claim is in bad faith, he
is guilty of theft.
PERSONS LIABLE FOR THEFT:

1. Those who:
a. with intent to gain,
b. but w/o violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things
c. take
d. personal property
e. of another
f. w/o the latter’s consent.
2. Those who:
a. having found lost property,
b. fail to deliver the same to the local authorities or its owner.
Retention of money/property found is theft. What is punished is retention or failure to

return with intent to gain.
The offender’s knowledge of the identity of the owner of the property is not required. His
knowledge that the property is lost is enough.
The finder of the lost property is liable for his deliberate failure to return the lost
property, he knowing that the property does not belong to him.
3. Those who:
a. after having maliciously damaged the property of another,
b. remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by them.
Killing the cattle of another which destroyed his(offender’s) property and getting meat for
himself is theft.
4. Those who hunting, fishing or gathering fruits, etc. in enclosed estate
ELEMENTS(Par. 3 of Art 308):

1. That there is an enclosed estate or a field where trespass is forbidden or which
belongs to another;
2. That the offender enters the same;
3. That the offender hunts or fishes upon the same or gathers fruits, cereals or other
forest or farm products in the estate or field; and
4. That the hunting or fishing or gathering of products is without the consent of the
owner.
The fishing in this article is not in the fishpond or fishery. If the fish is taken from a
fishpond or a fishery, the crime is qualified theft.
Valenzuela v. People (June 2007)

There is no frustrated theft because of the definition of theft in Art 308. The offender has
either complete control of the property (consummated) or without (attempted)
There is “taking” even if the offender received the thing from the offended party.
If juridical possession of thing was transferred as opposed to physical possession and

thing was appropriated the crime is ESTAFA not theft
Selling share of a partner or co-owner is not theft.
Employee is not the owner of separation pay which is not actually delivered to him.
Actual or real gain is not necessary in theft. The consent contemplated in the element of
theft refers to consent freely given and not mere lack of opposition by owner of the
property taken.
It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely foreign to the fact of taking.
People v. Gulinao
1. Gulinao shot Dr. Chua & left. Then he went back & took Dr. Chua’s diamond ring.
2. The crime was Theft and not robbery as the taking of the ring was just an
afterthought. Violence used in killing Dr. Chua had no bearing on the taking of the ring.
One in possession of part of recently stolen property is presumed to be thief of all.
Lost property - embraces loss by stealing or by act of he owner or by a person other

than the owner, or through some casual occurrence.
what are the penalties for theft?
ART.309
The basis of the penalty in theft is:

(1) the value of the thing stolen, and in some cases,
(2) the value and also the nature of the property taken, or
(3) the circumstances or causes that impelled the culprit to commit the crime.
If there is no evidence of the value of the property stolen, the court should impose the
minimum penalty corresponding to theft involving the value of P5.00. The court may also
take judicial notice of its value in the proper cases.
Qualified Theft
Theft is qualified if
1. It is committed by a domestic servant, or
2. Committed with grave abuse of confidence,or
3. The property stolen is a:
a. motor vehicle,
b. mail matter,
c. large cattle,
d. coconut from the premises of a plantation,
e. fish from a fishpond or fishery, or
4. Committed on the occasion of calamities, vehicular accident
and civil disturbance.
Grave abuse of confidence - necessitates a high degree of

confidence between the offender and the offended party.
(Ex. guests). Hence, when there is no confidence b/w the parties,
the crime is not qualified theft.
Theft is qualified if it is committed by one who has access to

the place where stolen property is kept. (Ex. security guards, tellers)
Novation theory (i.e. the victim’s acceptance of payment converted

the offender’s liability to a civil obligation) applies only if
there is a contractual relationship b/w the accused and
the complainant.
When the accused treated the deed of sale as sham and he had intent
to gain, his absconding with the object of the sale is qualified
theft
When a PUV in “boundary” system entrusted tothe offender is sold to
another, the crime is theft. On the other hand, if the motor vehicle
is not used for public utility in “boundary” system but under contract
of lease, the crime is estafa.
The penalty for qualified theft is 2 degrees higher.
Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. There’s no need

to prove grave abuse of discretion.
The abuse of confidence must be grave. There must be allegation

in the information and proof of a relation, by reason of dependence,
guardianship or vigilance, between the accused and the offended
party, that has created a high degree of confidence between
them, which the accused abused.
Theft of any material, spare part, product or article by employees

and laborers is heavily punished under PD 133.
Motor vehicle: all vehicles propelled by power, other than

muscular power.
When the purpose of taking the car is to destroy by burning it,

the crime is arson.
If a private individual took a letter containing postal money order

it is qualified theft. If it was the postmaster, to whom the letter
was delivered, the crime would be infidelity in the custody of
documents.
ART.311
Theft of property on National Library and Museum has a fixed

penalty regardless of its value.
Theft of property of the National Museum and National Library has

a fixed penalty regardless of its value. But if it was with grave
abuse of confidence, the penalty for qualified theft shall be
imposed.
PD 704 ILLEGAL FISHING
Prima facie presumption of illegal fishing

when:
1) Explosive, obnoxious or poisonous
substance or equipment or device
for electric fishing are found in the
fishing boat or in the possession of
fisherman; or
2) When fish caught with the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous
substances or by electricity are
found in a fishing boat
PD 533 ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW
Cattle rustling:taking away by means,methors or schemes, without the

consent of theowner/raiser, of any large cattle whether or not for
profit, or whether committed with or without violence against or
intimidation of person or force upon things. It includes killing of
large cattle, taking itsmeat or hide without the consent of
owner/raiser.
Large cattle: include cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, other

domesticated member of bovine family. A goat is not included
because it is not large
Presumption: Every person in possession of large cattle shall

upon demand by competent authorities exhibit required documents.
Failure to do so is prima facie evidence that large cattle in
possession are fruits of crime of cattle rustling
Killing of owner is absorbed in cattle rustling

Usurpation of Real Rights in Property
ART.312
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights in
property;
2. That the real property or real rights belong to another;
3. That violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupying
real property or usurpation real rights in property; and
4. That there is intent to gain.
Acts punishable under Art. 312:

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.
If no violence or intimidation only civil liability exists.

Art. 312 does not apply when the violence or intimidation took place subsequent to the
entry into the property. Violence or intimidation must be the means used in occupying
real property
or in usurping real rights.
Art. 312 does not apply to a case of open defiance of the writ of execution issued in the
forcible entry case.
Criminal action for usurpation of real property is not a bar to civil action for forcible entry.
RA 947
Punishes entering or occupying public agricultural land including lands granted to private
individuals.
RA.No.947
AN ACT MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, CORPORATION OR

ASSOCIATION TO FORCIBLY ENTER OR OCCUPY PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL
LANDS AND PENALIZING VIOLATIONS THEREOF
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation or association to enter or

occupy, through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, any public agricultural land
including such public lands as are granted to private individuals under the provisions of
the Public Land Act or any other laws providing for the disposal of public agricultural
lands in the Philippines, and are duly covered by the corresponding applications required
for the purpose notwithstanding the fact that title thereto still remains in the Government;
or for any person, natural or juridical, to instigate, induce or force another to commit such
acts.
Sec. 2. The criminal action for any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be
instituted within one year from the time the cause of action arises.
Sec. 3. Any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not
exceeding one thousand pesos or imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both
such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. In case of insolvency, the
offender shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment to be computed in accordance with the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
If the offender is a corporation or association, the president, director, manager or

managing partner thereof shall be held criminally liable therefor.
Sec. 4. This Act shall take effect upon its approval.
Approved: June 20
ART.313
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be boundary marks or monuments of towns,
provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to
designate the boundaries of the same; and
2. That the offender alters said boundary marks.
Art. 313 does not require intent to gain.
The word “alter” may include:

a. destruction of stone monument
b. taking it to another place
c. removing a fence
The Penalty for this crime is arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
P100 or both.
During the fifteenth Congress, a bill was passed to increase the

amount of fine to P8,000 but it never became a law. P100
fine is too low at this present day.
ART.314
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a debtor; that is, he has obligations due and payable;
2. Absconds with his property; and
3. Prejudice to his creditors.
Actual prejudice to the creditors is required.
Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required. Even if the

debtor disposes of his property, unless it is shown that it has
actually prejudiced his creditor, conviction will not lie.
Fraudulent concealment of property is not sufficient if the debtor
has some property with which to satisfy his obligation.
Abscond: does not require that the debtor should depart and
physically conceal his property. Real property could be the
subject matter of Art. 314.
The person prejudiced must be creditor of the offender.
Art 314 - No need to have defendant adjudged bankrupt or insolvent.
Insolvency law - Crime should be committed after the institution of

insolvency proceedings.
Estafa (Swindling)
ART.315
ELEMENTS OF ESTAFA IN GENERAL:

1. Defrauded another
(a) by abuse of confidence, or
(b) by means of deceit; and
2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended
party or third person.
3 Ways Of Committing Estafa With Abuse Of Confidence Under Art. 315 Par. (B):
1. By misappropriating the thing received.
2. By converting the thing received.
3. By denying that the thing was received.
Estafa
Related:
1. What is the penalty for the complex crime of estafa?

What is the penalty for Complex Crime of Estafa?
Penalties; Complex Crime of Estafa (1997 Bar Exam Question)
A was convicted of the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public document.
Since the amount involved did not exceed Php 200.00, the penalty prescribed by law for
estafa is arresto mayor in its medium and maximum and periods. The penalty prescribed
by law for falsification of public document is prision mayor plus fine not to exceed Php
5,000.00.
Impose the proper prison penalty.
Suggested Answer:
The proper penalty is Any Range Within prision correctional (6 months and 1 day to 6
years) as Minimum, to Any Range within prision mayor maximum (10 years and 1 day
to 12 years) as Maximum. This is in accordance with People vs. Gonzales, 73 Phil. 549,
where it was ruled that for the purpose of determining the penalty next lower in degree,
the penalty that should be considered as a starting point is the whole prision mayor, it
being the penalty prescribed by law, and not prision mayor in its maximum period, which
is only the penalty actually applied because of Art.48 of the Revised Penal Code. The
penalty next lower in degree therefor is prision correccional and it is within the range of
thi ART.316
1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of any real property,

shall convey, sell, encumber or mortgage the same.
2. Any person, who, knowing that real property is encumbered,
shall dispose of the same, although such encumbrance be not
recorded.
3. The owner of any personal property who shall wrongfully take
it from its lawful possessor, to the prejudice of the latter
or any third person.
4. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall execute
any fictitious contract.
5. Any person who shall accept any compensation given him under
the belief that it was in payment of services rendered or
labor performed by him, when in fact he did not actually

perform such services or labor.
6. Any person who, while being a surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action, without express authority from the
court or before the cancellation of his bond or before being
relieved from the obligation contracted by him, shall sell,
mortgage, or, in any other manner, encumber the real property
or properties with which he guaranteed the fulfillment of
such obligation.
ELEMENTS OF SWINDLING BY CONVEYING, SELLING, ENCUMBERING, OR

MORTGAGING ANY REAL PROPERTY, PRETENDING TO BE THE
OWNER OF THE SAME:
1. That the thing be immovable, such as a parcel of land or a
building;
2. That the offender, who is not the owner of said property,
represented that he is the owner thereof;
3. That the offender should have executed an act of ownership
(selling, leasing, encumbering or mortgaging the real
property).
4. That the act be made to the prejudice of the owner or a
third person.
ESTAFA INFIDELITY IN THE

CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS
1. Private individual 1. Public Officer Entrusted
was entrusted
2. Intent to defraud 2. No Intent to defraud
The thing disposed of must be real property. If it’s

chattel, crime is Estafa.
Even if the deceit is practiced against the second purchaser

but damage is incurred by the first purchaser, there
is violation of par.1 of Art. 316.
Since the penalty is based on the “value of the damage”

there must be actual damage caused.
ELEMENTS of SWINDLING BY DISPOSING OF REAL PROPERTY AS FREE FROM

ENCUMBRANCE, ALTHOUGH SUCH ENCUMBRANCE BE NOT RECORDED:
1. That the thing disposed of be real property;
2. That the offender knew that the real property was encumbered,
whether the encumbrance is recorded or not.
3. That there must be express representation by the offender that
the real property is free from encumbrance; and
4. That the act of disposing of the real property be made to the
damage of another.
Encumbrance: includes every right or interest in the land

which exists in favor of third persons.
The offended party would not have granted the loan had he
known that the property was already encumbered.
When the loan had already been granted when defendant

offered the property as security for the loan, Art. 316
par. 2 is not applicable.
Usurious loan with equitable mortgage is not an encumbrance

on the property.
There must be damage caused. It is not necessary that act
prejudice the owner of the land.
ELEMENTS of SWINDLING BY WRONGFULLY TAKING BY THE OWNER HIS

PERSONAL FROM ITS LAWFUL POSSESSOR:
1. That the offender is the owner of personal property;
2. That said personal property is in the lawful possession of
another;
3. That the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful
possessor; and
4. That prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or third
person.
US vs Albao
If the owner took the personal property from its lawful
possessor without the latter’s knowledge and later
charged him with the value of the property, the crime
is theft
If the thing is taken by means of violence, without

intent to gain, it is not estafa, but grave coercion.
BY EXECUTING ANY FICTITIOUS CONTRACT TO THE PREJUDICE OF ANOTHER
Illustration:
A person who simulates a conveyance of his property to
another, to defraud his creditors. If the conveyance is
real and not simulated, the crime is fraudulent
insolvency.
BY ACCEPTING ANY COMPENSATION FOR SERVICES NOT RENDERED

OR FOR LABOR NOT PERFORMED
Elements:
1. Accepting a compensation given to accused for service not
rendered
2. Malicious failure to return the compensation wrongfully
received (fraud)
There must be fraud otherwise it will only be solutio

indebiti, with civil obligation to return the wrong
payment.
If the money in payment of a debt was delivered to a
wrong person, Art. 316 par 5 is not applicable, in
case the person who received it later refused or failed
to return it to the owner of the money. Art. 315
subdivision 1(b) is applicable.
ELEMENTS of SWINDLING BY SELLING, MORTGAGING OR ENCUMBERING REAL

PROPERTY OR PROPERTIES WITH WHICH THE OFFENDER GUARANTEED
THE FULFILLMENT OF HIS OBLIGATION AS SURETY:
1. That the offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal
or civil action;
2. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with
his real property or properties;
3. That he sells, mortgages, or, in any other manner encumbers
said real property;
4. That such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is
(a) without express authority from the court, or
(b) made before the cancellation of his bond, or
(c) before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him.
ART.317
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender takes advantage of the inexperience or
emotions or feelings of a minor;
2. That he induces such minor
(a) to assume an obligation, or
(b) to give release, or
(c) to execute a transfer of any property right;
3. That the consideration is
(a) some loan of money,
(b) credit or
(c) other personal property; and
4. That the transaction is to the detriment of such minor.
ART.318
OTHER DECEITS ARE:

1. By defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit
not mentioned in preceding articles; and
2. By interpreting dreams, making forecasts,
fortune-telling, or by taking advantage of the credulity
of the public in any other similar manner for profit or gain.
Any other kind of conceivable deceit may fall under this

article. As in other cases of estafa, damage to the
offended party is required.
The deceits in this article include false pretenses and

fraudulent acts.
ARTICLE 319.
ELEMENTS of SELLING OR PLEDGING PERSONAL PROPERTY

ALREADY PLEDGED:
1. That personal property is already pledged under the terms
of the Chattel Mortgage Law;
2. That the offender, who is the mortgagor of such property,
sells or pledges the same or any part thereof; and
3. That 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.
ELEMENTS of KNOWINGLY REMOVING MORTGAGED PERSONAL PROPERTY:

1. That personal property is mortgaged under the Chattel
Mortgage Law;
2. That the offender knows that such property is so mortgaged;
3. That he removes such mortgaged personal to any province or
city other than the one in which it was located at the time
of the execution of the mortgage;
4. That the removal is permanent; and
5. That there is no written consent of the mortgagee or his
executors, administrator or assignees to such removal.
The object of the Chattel Mortgage Law is to give the

necessary sanction to the statute, so that mortgage debtors
may be deterred from violating its provisions and
mortgage creditors may be protected against loss of
inconvenience from wrongful removal or sale of
mortgaged property.
Chattel mortgage must be valid and subsisting. If chattel

mortgage does not contain an affidavit of good faith
and is not registered, it is void and cannot be prosecuted
under Art 319
A person other than the mortgagor who removed the property

to another province, knowing it to be mortgaged,
may be liable.
The removal of the mortgaged personal property must be

coupled with intent to defraud. No felonious intent if
transfer of personal property is due to change of residence.
If the mortgagee opted to file for collection, not

foreclosure, abandoning the mortgage as basis for relief,
the removal of property to another province is not a
violation of Art 319 par1
Destructive Arson
Art.320 - Art.326 expressly repealed by PD 1613 But PD 1744 revived Art.320

(Destructive Arson)
Arson is the malicious destruction of property by fire.
Arson committed by any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another or to his
own property under circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of
another.
Attempted: Ex. Rags in gasoline,
Consummated: If any part of building burned
Frustrated: there is fire, but no part of house burned
THREE KINDS OF ARSON:

1. Arson
2. Destructive arson; and
3. Other cases of arson.
A. ELEMENTS of CRIME INVOLVING DESTRUCTION:

1. That the offender causes destruction of the property; and
2. That the destruction was done by means of:
a. explosion,
b. discharge of electric current,
c. inundation,
d. sinking or stranding of a vessel,
e. damaging the engine of the vessel,
f. taking up rails from the railway track,
g. destroying telegraph wires and posts or those of any other system, or
h. other similar effective means of destruction.
B. ELEMENTS of BURNING ONE’S PROPERTY AS A MEANS TO COMMIT ARSON:

1. That the offender set fire to or destroyed his own property;
2. That the purpose of the offender in doing so was to commit arson or to cause great
destruction; and
3. That the property belonging to another was burned or destroyed.
C. ELEMENTS of ARSON:
1. That the property burned is the exclusive property of the offender; and
2. That
(a) the purpose of the offender is burning it is to defraud or cause damage to another, or
(b) prejudice is actually caused, or
(c) the thing burned is a building in an inhabited place.
Special aggravating circumstances in arson:

1. If committed with intent to gain;
2. If committed for the benefit of another;
3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the
property burned; or
4. If committed by a syndicate.
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON:
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. Building or Edifice
2. Building Open to Public
3. Train, Locomotive, Ship or Vessel for transportation, public use, leisure, entertainment
4. Building, factory, warehouse for service of Public Utilities
5. Building to conceal evidence, conceal bankruptcy, defraud creditors
6. Arsenal/Military/General Museum
7. Inhabited Place
SECTION 6 OF PD 1613: PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF GUILT

1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or establishment
2. If substantial amount of flammable substances or materials are stored within the
building not of the offender nor for household use
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or
materials soaked therewith or containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical,
chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire, or ashes or traces of any of
the foregoing are found in the ruins or premises of the burned building or property
4. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at the
time of the issuance of this policy
5. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance policy more than two fires
have occurred in the same or other premises owned or under control of the offender
and/or insured
6. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the effects insured and stored in a
building or property had been withdrawn from the premises except in the ordinary course
of business
7. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration was made before the fire in
exchange for the desistance of the offender or for the safety of the person or property of
the victim
Tata owns a three-story building located at No. 3 Herran Street. Paco, Manila. She
wanted to construct a new building but had no money to finance the construction. So,
she insured the building for P3,000,000.00. She then urged Yoboy and Yongsi, for
monetary consideration, to burn her building so she could collect the insurance
proceeds. Yoboy and Yongsi burned the said building resulting to its total loss. What
crime did Tata, Yoboy, and Yongsi commit?
Suggested Answer:
Tata, Yoboy, and Yongsi committed the crime of destructive arson because they
collectively caused the destruction of property by means of fire under the circumstances
which exposed to danger the life or property of others (Art, 320, par. 5, RPC. as
amended by RA No. 7659).
Arson; Destructive Arson (2000)
One early evening, there was a fight between Eddie Gutierrez and Mario Cortez. Later
that evening, at about 11 o'clock, Eddie passed by the house of Mario carrying a plastic
bag containing gasoline, threw the bag at the house of Mario who was inside the house
watching television, and then lit it. The front wall of the house started blazing and some
neighbors yelled and shouted. Forthwith, Mario poured water on the burning portion of
the house. Neighbors also rushed in to help put the fire under control before any great
damage could be inflicted and before the flames have extensively spread. Only a portion
of the house was burned. Discuss Eddie's liability.
Suggested Answer:
Eddie is liable for destructive arson in the consummated stage. It is destructive arson
because fire was resorted to in destroying the house of Mario which is an inhabited
house or dwelling. The arson is consummated because the house was in fact already
burned although not totally. In arson, it is not required that the premises be totally burned
for the crime to be consummated. It is enough that the premises suffer destruction by
burning.
Arson; New Arson Law (2004)
CD is the stepfather of FEL. One day, CD got very mad at FEL for failing in his college
courses. In his fury, CD got the leather suitcase of FEL and burned it together with all its
contents.
1. What crime was committed by CD?

2. Is CD criminally liable? Explain briefly.
Suggested Answer:
1. The crime committed by CD is arson under Pres. Decree No. 1613 (the new Arson
Law) which punishes any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another
(Section 1 of Pres. Decree No. 1613).
2. CD is criminally liable although he is the stepfather of FEL whose property he burnt,
because such a relationship is not exempting from criminal liability in the crime of arson
but only in crimes of theft, swindling or estafa, and malicious mischief (Article 332,
Revised Penal Code). The provision (Art. 323) of the Code to the effect that burning
property of small value should be punished as malicious mischief has long been
repealed by Pres. Decree 1613; hence, there is no more legal basis to consider burning
property of small value as malicious mischief.
ART.327
Who are liable for Malicious Mischief
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property of
another;
2. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving
destruction; and
3. That the act damaging another’s property be committed merely for
the sake of damaging it.
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF: willful damaging of another’s property for the

sake of causing damage due to hate, revenge or other evil motive
Malicious mischief cannot be committed through negligence because the

offender acts with a specific desire to inflict injury to another.
If there is no malice in causing injury, the offender incurs only

civil liability.
Damage caused may also be a diminution in value of the property.
But if the offender used the property after causing damage to it, the
crime is theft.
Damage in malicious mischief must not result from a crime.

(Ex. Breaking windows during robbery is not malicious mischief.)
A person charged with malicious mischief may be found guilty of damage

to property through reckless imprudence
VALEROSO vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 149718. 0/29/03

The elements of the crime of malicious mischief under Article 327
of the Revised Penal Code are:
(1) That the offender deliberately caused damage to the property
of another;
(2) That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving
destruction;
(3) That the act of damaging another's property be committed merely for
the sake of damaging it.
As to the third element, petitioner was not justified in summarily

and extra judicially demolishing private complainant's structure. As
it is, the petitioner proceeded proceeded not so much to safeguard
the lot as it is the vent to his anger and disgust over the “no
tresspassing” sign he placed thereon. Indeed, his act of summarily
demolishing the house smacks of his pleasure in causing damage to it.
ART.328
CASES OF QUALIFIED MALICIOUS MISCHIEF:

1. Causing damage to obstruct performance of public functions.
2. Using poisonous or corrosive substance.
3. Spreading infection or contagion among cattle.
4. Damage to property of National Museum or National Library, archive,
registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used in
common by the public.
Qualified malicious mischief is different from sedition because the

element of tumultuous uprising is not present in the former crime.
ART.329
Mischiefs not included in Art. 328 are punished according to the

value of the damage caused.
Ex. scattering human excrement in public building, killing

of cow as an act of revenge, A servant who released bird
from cage as act of hate against owner
If the amount involved cannot be estimated, the penalty of arresto

menor of fine not exceeding P200 is fixed by law.
People v Dumlao, 38 OG 3715:

When several persons scattered coconut remnants which contained
human excrement on the stairs and floor of the municipal building,
including its interior, the crime committed is malicious mischief
under Art. 329.
RT.330
This crime is done by damaging railways, telegraph or telephone lines.
Railway system – includes electric wires, traction cables, signal

system, and other things pertaining to railways
Removing rails from a railway track to cause destruction constitutes

crime involving destruction under Art. 324.
Art. 330 is not applicable when the damaged telegraph/phone lines do

not pertain to a railway system. Hence, cutting telephone lines or
those for transmission of electric power/light not pertaining to
railways is not covered by this article.
If people are killed as a result of the damage caused and the offender
had no intent to kill, the crime is damages to means of communication
with homicide. If there is intent to kill and damaging the railways
was the means to accomplish the criminal purpose, the crime is murder.
If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision or

other accident, a higher penalty shall be imposed.
Derailment of cars should not have been purposely sought for
Question. When as a result of the damage caused to railway, certain

passengers of the train are killed:
Ans.:It depends. Art. 330 says “without prejudice to the criminal
liability of the offender for other consequences of his
criminal act.” If there is no intent to kill, the crime is
“damages to means to means of communication” with homicide
because of the first paragraph of Art. 4 and Art. 48. If
there is intent to kill, and damaging the railways was the
means to accomplish the criminal purpose, the crime is murder
Persons Exempt From Criminal Liability In Crimes Against Property
ART.331. DESTROYING OR DAMAGING STATUES, PUBLIC

MONUMENTS OR PAINTINGS
The penalty is lower if the thing destroyed is a public painting, rather than a public
monument.
ART.332
OFFENSES INVOLVED IN THE EXEMPTION:

1. Theft,
2. Swindling (estafa), and
3. Malicious mischief
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY:

1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property w/c belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same passed into the possession of another.
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and sisters-in-law, if living together.
Only civil liability is incurred by the offenders who are exempt by law from criminal
liability.
Parties to the crime who are not related to the offended party still remain criminally
liable.
Law recognized presumed co-ownership of property between offender and offended
party
Persons exempt from criminal liability include:

1. stepfather/mother (ascendants by affinity)
2. adopted children (descendants)
3. concubine/paramour (spouse)
4. common-law spouse.
People v Alvarez, 52 Phil 65; People v Adame

- Stepfather and stepmother are included as ascendants by affinity.
An adopted or natural child should also be considered as included in the term

“descendants” and a concubine or paramour within the term “spouses”.
Art. 144, CC; People v Constantino, CA, 60 OG 3605:

- Art. 332 applies to common-law spouses.
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with his friends, took the coconut
shell which is being used by A as a bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using
their common key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell outside of their home in the
presence of their friends.
a. What is the criminal liability of A if any? Explain.

b. Is A exempted from criminal liability under Art.332 of the Revised Penal Code for
being a brother of B? Explain.
a. A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things.

b. No, B is not exempt from criminal liability under Art.332 because said article applies
only to theft, swindling or malicious mischief. Here, the crime committed is robbery.
Crimes Against Chastity - Title XI

Adultery
ART.333
ELEMENTS:
1. That the woman is married (even if marriage is subsequently declared void);
2. That she has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband; and
3. That as regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse, he must know her to
be married.
Adultery may be attempted.
Sheer necessity, though woman not abandoned by her husband, mitigates liability of
married woman.
The offended party must be legally married to the offender at the time of the criminal
case.
Carnal knowledge may be proved by circumstantial evidence.
Each sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery.
People vs. Avelino

Adultery is mitigated if the adulterous wife was abandoned w/o justification by the
offended spouse. Both the wife and her paramour are entitled to this mitigating
circumstance.
Even if the husband pardons the adulterous wife, such pardon would not exempt the
wife and her paramour from criminal liability for adulterous acts committed after the
pardon had been granted, because the pardon refers to previous and not to subsequent
adulterous acts.
A married man who is not liable for adultery, because he did not know that the woman
was married, may be held liable for concubinage. If the woman knew that the man was
married, she may be held liable for concubinage as well.
Acquittal of one of the defendants does not operate as a cause of acquittal of the other.
Effect of death of paramour: Offending wife may still be prosecuted. The requirement
that both offenders should be included in the complaint is absolute only when the two
offenders are alive.
EFFECT OF PARDON:
The pardon must come before the institution of criminal prosecution.
Both the offenders must be pardoned by the offended party.
Act of intercourse subsequent to adulterous conduct is an implied pardon.
Consent is a cause for dismissal of complaint.
Effect of death of offended party: The proceedings may continue. Pardon by the

offended party to be effective must be granted to both offenders before the institution of
criminal proceedings.
Effect of consent:
People v. Sensano and Ramos

The husband, knowing that his wife, after serving sentence for adultery, resumed living
with her co-defendant, did nothing to interfere with their relations or to assert his rights
as husband. The second charge of adultery should be dismissed because of consent.
Agreement to separate
may be used as evidence to show consent by the husband to the infidelity of his wife
U Concubinage
Art.334
ELEMENTS:
1. The man must be married;
2. That he committed any of the following acts:
a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling,

b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not
his wife,
c. Cohabiting with her in any other place;
3. That as regards the woman, she must know him to be married.
A married man is not liable for concubinage for mere sexual relations with a woman, not
his wife.
CONJUGAL DWELLING means the home of the husband and wife even if the wife
happens to be temporarily absent on any account.
SCANDAL consists in any reprehensible word/deed that offends public conscience,

redounds to the detriment of the feelings of honest persons, and gives occasion to the
neighbors’ spiritual damage and ruin.
COHABIT means to dwell together, in the manner of husband and wife, for some period
of time, as distinguished from occasional, transient interviews for unlawful intercourse.
That woman must be taken into conjugal dwelling as a concubine
People in the vicinity are the best witnesses to prove scandalous circumstances
Adultery is more severely punished than concubinage.
The woman becomes liable only when she knew him to be married prior to the
ART.336
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender commits any act of lasciviousness
or lewdness;
2. That the act of lasciviousness is committed against
a person of either sex; and
3. That it is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. by using force or intimidation, or
b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or
c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse
of authority, or
d. when the offended party is under 12 years of age
or is demented.
Q: How is the crime of acts of lasciviousness distinguished

from attempted rape?
A: The following are the distinctions:
(a) If the acts performed by the offender clearly
indicate that his purpose was to lie with the
offended woman – attempted rape.
(b) In the case of attempted rape, the lascivious
acts are but the preparatory acts to the
commission of rape; whereas in acts of
lasciviousness, the lascivious acts are
themselves the final objective sought by the
offender.
PEOPLE vs. PALMA, G.R. Nos. 148869-74. 12/11/03

In the absence of convincing proof that the penis had
slid into the female organ, rape was not committed.
Where the victim merely stated that she was carried
around the sala with appellant's penis "touching" her
vagina, it would not be right to conclude that the act
of the penis "touching" the vagina was an entry or
penetration, even slightly, of the labia majora or the
labia minora of the pudendum. The appellant is guilty
of acts of lasciviousness and not rape.
PEOPLE vs. AQUINO G.R. No. 139181. 10/27/03

The appellant’s act of directing Analyn to remove her
lower apparel constitutes an act of lasciviousness
under Article 336 of the Revised Penal Code, and not
rape
No attempted or frustrated Acts of Lasciviousness.
Lewd design – act with particular design to independently

derive vicarious pleasure therefrom; not merely
a “silly whim”
The difference between Acts of Lasciviousness and Unjust

Vexation is that in the former there is lewd design –
this can be inferred from circumstances surrounding the
commission of the crime: place, time, presence of other
people, what was done; But if it is clear that intention
is to have intercourse, crime could be attempted rape;
if accused desisted in the commission of attempted rape,
it may be a consummated crime of acts of lasciviousness
Acts of Lasciviousness
Qualified Seduction
ART.337
2 CLASSES OF QUALIFIED SEDUCTION:

1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age by certain persons, such as a
person in authority, priest, teacher, etc.;and
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother or descendant by her ascendant, regardless of
her age or reputation. (incestuous seduction)
SEDUCTION means the enticing a woman to unlawful sexual intercourse by promise of

marriage or other means of persuasion without the use of force.
2 KINDS OF SEDUCTION:
1. qualified seduction
2. simple seduction.
ELEMENTS OF QUALIFIED SEDUCTION OF A VIRGIN:

1. That the offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good
reputation;
2. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age;
3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her; and
4. That there is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship on the part of the offender
(person entrusted with education or custody of victim; person in public authority, priest;
servant).
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Those who abuse their authority:
a. persons in public authority
b. guardian
c. teacher
d. person who, in any capacity, is entrusted w/ the education or custody of the woman
seduced
2. Those who abused the confidence reposed in them:
a. priest
b. house servant
c. domestic
3. Those who abused their relationship:
a. brother who seduced his sister
b. ascendant who seduced his descendant
The penalty for qualified seduction of a sister or descendant is higher than qualified
seduction of a
virgin.
Deceit is not an element of qualified seduction.
Abuse of Confidence, acts punished because of character of person committing the

same, and
excess of power or abuse of confidence.
Virginity: a woman of chaste character and of good reputation. The offended party need
not be
physically a virgin.
Domestic: a person usually living under the same roof, pertaining to the same house.
The offended party need not be a virgin physically – virgin is a virtuous woman of good
reputation
Deceit is not an element of qualified seduction; it is an element of simple seduction
Accused charged with rape cannot be convicted of qualified seduction under the same
information.
Qualified seduction of a sister or descendant, also known as INCEST, is punished by a

penalty next higher in degree. The age, reputation, or virginity of the sister or
descendant is irrelevant. The relationship need not be legitimate.
Not necessary that the offender be the teacher of the offended party; it is sufficient that
he is a
teacher in the same school.
Seduction: enticing a woman to unlawful sexual intercourse by promise of marriage or

other means
of persuasion without use of force. It applies when there is abuse of authority (qualified
seduction) or
deceit (simple seduction).
People v. Fontanilla
A 15-year old virgin, who was brought by her mother to the house of the accused and his
wife to serve as a helper, repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of the accused, as she
was induced by his promises of marriage and frightened by his acts of intimidation.
HELD: DECEIT, although an essential element of ordinary or simple seduction, does not
need to be proved or established in a charge of qualified seduction. It is replaced by
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE.
Babanto v. Zosa
The accused, a policeman, brought a 13- year old girl with low mentality, to the ABC Hall
where he succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. The complaint did not allege
that the girl was a virgin. The accused was charged with RAPE but convicted of
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION.
HELD: Though it is true that virginity is presumed if the girl is over 12 but under 18,
unmarried and of good reputation, virginity is still an essential element of the crime of
qualified seduction and must be alleged in the complaint. Accused is guilty of RAPE,
considering the victim’s age, mental abnormality and deficiency. There was also
intimidation with the accused wearing his uniform.
Perez v. CA
Perez succeeded in having sexual intercourse with Mendoza after he promised to marry
her. As he did not make good on said promise, Mendoza filed a complaint for Consented
Abduction. Trial Court found that the acts constituted seduction, acquitting him on the
charge of Consented Abduction. Mendoza then filed a complaint for Qualified Seduction.
Perez moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of double jeopardy.
HELD:There are similar elements between consented abduction and qualified seduction,
namely:
1) the offended party is a virgin, and
2) over 12 but under 18 yrs. of age
However, an acquittal for CONSENTED ABDUCTION will not preclude the filing of a

charge for QUALIFIED SEDUCTION because the element of the two crimes are
different.
That the girl gave consent to the sexual intercourse is not a defense.
Under the Revised Penal Code, Qualified Seduction Penalty is prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods.The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon
any person who shall seduce his sister or descendant, whether or not she be a virgin or
over 18 years of age.
ART.338
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offended party is over 12 and under 18 years
of age;
2. That she must be of good reputation, single or widow;
3. That the offender has sexual intercourse with her; and
4. That it is committed by means of deceit.
What is the purpose of the law?

- To punish the seducer who by means of promise of
marriage, destroys the chastity of an unmarried
female of previous chaste character
Virginity of offended party is not required, good

reputation is sufficient.
Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled

promise to marry.
Promise of marriage by a married man, whom the victim knew

to be married, is not deceit.
Promise of marriage after sexual intercourse is not deceit.
No continuing offense of seduction
Man may be willing and ready to marry the girl but simple
seduction is still committed when man knows that the
offended party cannot legally consent to marriage.
What about unfulfilled promise of material things, as when

the woman agrees to sexual intercourse in exchange for
jewelry?
- This is not seduction because she is a woman of loose
morals.
Promise of marriage by a married man is not a deceit, if

th ART.339
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. That the acts are committed upon a woman who is a virgin or
single or a widow of good reputation, under 18 years of age
but over 12 years, or a sister or descendant regardless of
her reputation or age.
3. That the offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority,
confidence, relationship, or deceit.
It is necessary that it be committed under circumstances which

would make it qualified or simple seduction had there been
sexual intercourse, instead of acts of lewdness only.
When the victim is under 12 yrs., the penalty shall be one

degree higher than that imposed by law.
Art.339 Acts of Lasciviousness with consent...

ART.340
The act punishable is the promotion or facilitating the

prostitution or corruption of persons under age to satisfy
the lust of another.
It is not necessary that the unchaste acts shall have been

done to the minor. Hence, a mere proposal will consummate
the offense.
Who can be liable?

- Any person
- A public officer or employee, including those in government-
owned or controlled corporations
- Punishable by prision mayor
- shall also be penalized by temporary absolute
disqualification
Habituality or abuse of authority or confidence is not necessary.

It is not necessary that the unchaste acts shall have been done.
Mere proposal will consummate the offense.
R.A. 7610 punishes child prostitution committed by:

1. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate
or induce child prostitution;
2. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution
or subjected to other sexual abuse;
3. Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom.
(Ex. manager/owner of the establishment where child
prostitution takes place);
4. Any person, not being a relative of the child, is found
alone with the said child in a hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which lead a reasonable person to believe that
the child is about to be exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse; and
5. Any person who receives services from a child in a sauna parlor
or bath, massage clinic, health club, and other similar
establishments.
Q: What is Child Prostitution?

A: It is engaging in sexual intercourse or acts of lasciviousness
with a child, who for money or profit or due to coercion is
exploited to indulge in such activities. The victim maybe male
or female.If the victim is under twelve (12) years of age, the
offender shall NOT be prosecuted under RA 7610, but shall be
prosecuted for statutory rape or acts of lasciviousness as the
case maybe.
Q: What is an Attempt to Commit Child Prostitution under RA 7610?

A: It an offense committed by a person who, not being a relative
of a child, is found alone with said child inside the room or
cubicle of a house, hotel, or other similar establishments
vessel, vehicle or any other secluded area under circumstances
which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the child
is about to be exploited in prostitution and other child abuse.
It is also committed by one person who receives services from a
child in a sauna parlor, massage clinic, or any other similar
establishments.
Q: What is Child Trafficking?

A: It is the act of buying and selling a child for money, or
for any other consideration, or barter.
White Slave Trade
ART.341
ACTS PENALIZED:
1. Engaging in the business of prostitution;
2. Profiting by prostitution; and
3. Enlisting the service of women for the purpose of prostitution.
One of those above-mentioned acts is sufficient to constitute the offense.
Habituality not a necessary element of white slave trade.
Offender need not be owner of house and need not be present at time of raid; it suffices
that he maintains or engages in business.
Under any pretext – if real purpose is prostitution, it doesn’t matter if one engages
services of woman ostensibly as maid, for example.
Victim is under 12 yrs., penalty shall be one degree higher.
Maintainer or manager of house of ill- repute need not be present therein at the time of
raid or arrest.
ART.342
ELEMENTS:
1. That the person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age,
civil status, or reputation;
2. That the abduction is against her will; and
3. That the abduction is with lewd designs.
When there is deprivation of liberty and no lewd designs, the

crime is kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
Any woman, may be married; if child under 12 years of age, crime

is forcible abduction, even if she voluntarily goes with her
abductor
Taking away must be against will of woman; may be accomplished

by means of deceit first and then by means of violence and
intimidation
Actual intercourse not necessary; lewd designs may be shown by

conduct of the accused; intent to seduce girl sufficient; lewd
designs present in hurried ceremony of marriage by force where
marriage is merely an artifice by which accused sought to
escape criminal consequences of his acts
When there are several defendants, it is enough that one of them

had lewd designs
Husband not liable for abduction of wife as lewd design is

wanting
Nature of crime: against liberty, honor and reputation, and

public order Forcible abduction v. Grave coercion v. Kidnapping
– presence of lewd design makes it forcible abduction; Kidnapping
and Serious illegal detention if there is deprivation of liberty
with no lewd design (Violent taking of woman motivated by lewd
design and victim raped - Forcible abduction with rape, instead
of Kidnapping with rape; Attempt to rape is absorbed in abduction)
Forcible Abduction v. Corruption of minors – depends on purpose;

purpose of Corruption is to lend her to illicit intercourse
with others
Forcible Abduction v. Rape: if resistance of woman to alleged

rape was not tenacious; rape may also absorb forcible abduction
if main objective was to rape the victim
Attempt to rape absorbed in element of lewd design
Conviction of Acts of Lasciviousness, not a bar to conviction of

forcible abduction
PEOPLE vs. CARAANG, GR 148424-27. 12/11/03

The complex crime of forcible abduction with Rape occurs when
there is carnal knowledge of the abducted woman under any of the
circumstances mentioned earlier when force or intimidation is
used; when the woman is deprived of reason or is otherwise
unconscious; and when the woman is under twelve years of age or
is demented. The employment of deception suffices to constitute
forcible abduction. This Court has previously ruled that if the
victim's consent was obtained through deceit and there was
therefore no valid consent, the crime is forcible abduction, as
the deceit may be considered as constructive force.
The second element, lewd design, was established by the actual
rapes.
People v. Sunpongco
The victim was abducted by the accused and was brought to a hotel
where the latter succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her.

HELD: The elements of both rape and forcible abduction are
proven. The presence of lewd designs in forcible
abduction is manifested by the subsequent rape of the
victim.
People v. Jose
This is the Maggie Dela Riva story wherein Maggie was abducted
and brought to a hotel, where the 4 accused took turns in
raping her.

HELD: While the first act of rape was being performed, the
crime of forcible abduction had already been consummated,
hence, forcible abduction can only be attached to the
first act of rape, detached from the 3 subsequent
acts of rape.
People v. Alburo
The accused and 2 other men raped the victim. The victim was a
jeepney passenger who was prevented from leaving the jeepney.
She was taken to a remote place where she was raped.
HELD: The accused is guilty of FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH RAPE.

It was proven that the victim was taken against her
will and with lewd design, and was subsequently forced
to submit to the accused’s lust, rendering her
unconscious
in the process.
People v. Godines
The victim witnessed the killing of another by the 2 accused.
Upon seeing her, the accused dragged her to a vacant lot where
they took turns in raping her. TC convicted them of rape.
HELD: FORCIBLE ABDUCTION is absorbed in the crime of RAPE if

the main objective is to rape the victim.
AGE AND REPUTATION NOT NECESSARY:

1. Rape
2. Acts of lasciviousness against the will or without the consent
of the offended party
3. Qualified seduction of sister or descendant
4. Forcible Abduction
Consented abduction
ART.343
Consented abduction. - The abduction of a virgin over twelve years and under eighteen
years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd designs, shall be punished by
the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offended party must be a virgin;
2. That she must be over 12 and under 18 years of age;
3. That the taking away of the offended party must be with her consent, after solicitation
or cajolery from the offender; and
4. That the taking away of the offended party must be with lewd designs.
If the virgin is under 12 years of age, the crime committed is forcible abduction, even if
the girl consented to the elopement.
If the virgin is under 12 or is deprived of reason, the crime is forcible abduction because

such is incapable of giving a valid consent.
When there was no solicitation or cajolery and no deceit and the girl voluntarily went with
the man, there is no crime committed even if they had sexual intercourse.
The abduction of the victim need not be with some character of permanence.
Virginity: not in a material sense as to exclude the idea of abduction of a virtuous woman
of good reputation
It is sufficient that abductor was instrumental in escape of victim, need not be taken from
her house
Requires solicitation or cajolery
What is the purpose of the law?

- To prescribe punishment for the disgrace to her family and the alarm caused by the
disappearance of one who is, by her age and sex, susceptible to cajolery and deceit.
Rape; Consented Abduction (2002)
A with lewd designs took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his farm and there had sexual
intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she was infatuated
with the man, who was good-looking and belonged to a rich and prominent family in the
town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? Why?
Suggested Answer:
A committed the crime of consented abduction under Article 343 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended. The said Article punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12 and
under 18 years of age, carried out with her consent, and with lewd designs. Although the
problem did not indicate the victim to be virgin, virginity should not be understood in its
material sense, as to exclude a virtuous woman of good reputation, since the essence of
the crime is not the injury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to her family
(Valdepenas vs. People,16 SCRA 871 [1966]).
Alternative Answer:
A committed "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610. As defined in said law, "child
abuse" includes sexual abuse or any act which debases, degrades or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a human being, whose age is below eighteen (18)
years.
ART.344
1. Adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon complaint

signed by the offended spouse.
2. Seduction, abduction, or acts of lasciviousness must be
prosecuted upon complaint signed by:
a. offended party,
b. by her parents,
c. grandparents, or
d. guardians
- in the order in which they are named above.
General Rule: Marriage in good faith of the offender w/ the

offended party extinguishes the criminal action or remit the
penalty already imposed upon him. This applies as well to the

accomplices, accessories-after-the-fact.
Exception: In case of multiple rape.
Who may file the complaint?

- Adultery and concubinage must be prosecuted upon complaint
signed by the offended spouse.
The court motu proprio can dismiss the case for failure of the
aggrieved party to file the proper complaint even if the
accused never raised the question on appeal.
Crimes against chastity prosecuted de oficio.
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera
A foreigner, married to a Filipina, was able to obtain a decree
of divorce in another country against the latter. After the
issuance of the decree of divorce, the foreigner filed 2

complaints of adultery against the accused.
HELD: The person who initiates an ADULTERY / CONCUBINAGE case

must be an offended spouse, and by this is meant that
he is still married to the accused spouse, at the time
of the filing of the complaint.
Adultery and Concubinage
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without

including BOTH the guilty parties if they are alive.
Consent and pardon bar the filing of a criminal complaint.
Both parties must be included in the complaint even if one of

them is not guilty.
Prosecution of rape may be made upon complaint by any person.
When the offended party is a minor, her parents may file the
complaint.
When the offended party is of age and is in complete possession

of her mental and physical faculties, she alone can file the
complaint.
The term “guardian” refers to legal guardian.
The complaint must be filed in court, not with the fiscal.
In case of complex crimes, where one of the component offenses

is a public crime, the criminal prosecution may be instituted
by the fiscal.
Effect of Pardon:
Pardon of the offenders by the offended party is a bar to

prosecution for adultery or concubinage.
Pardon must exist before the institution of the criminal action.
Both offenders must be pardoned by the offended party.
Delay in the filing of complaint, if satisfactorily explained,

does not indicate pardon.
Condonation or forgiveness of one act of adultery or concubinage

is not a bar to prosecution of similar acts that may be
committed by the offender in the future.
Consent:
- may be express or implied
- given before the adultery or concubinage was committed
- Agreement to live separately may be evidence of consent.
- Affidavit showing consent may be a basis for new trial.
Seduction, Abduction, Acts of lasciviousness
Must be prosecuted complaint signed by:

1. Offended Party
i. even if a minor
ii. of legal age and not incapacitated, only she can file the
complaint
iii. minor or incapacitated and refuses to file, either of the
following persons may file
2. Either of the parents
3. Either of the grandparents paternal or maternal side
4. Legal or Judicial Guardian
5. The State as parens patriae when the offended party dies
or becomes incapacitated before she could file the complaint
and has no known parents, grandparents, or guardians
Effect of Pardon:
Offended party cannot institute criminal proceedings if the

offender has been EXPRESSLY pardoned by the offended party, or
her parents, grandparents or guardian.
Pardon by the parent, grandparent, or guardian must be

accompanied by the express pardon of the offended woman.
The right to file action of the parents, grandparents and

guardian shall be EXCLUSIVE of other persons and shall be
exercised successively in the order provided.
Pardon by the offended party who is a minor must have the

concurrence of parents, EXCEPT when the offended party has no
parents
When the offended party is a minor, her parents may file the
complaint.
Offended party is of age and is in complete possession of her

mental and physical faculties, she alone can file the complaint.
The guardian must be legally appointed by the court.
Rape complexed with another crime against chastity need NOT

be signed by the offended woman, since rape is a public crime.
When the evidence fails to prove a complex crime of rape with

another crime, and there is no complaint signed by the
offended woman, the accused CANNOT be convicted of rape.
Marriage of the offender with the offended party in seduction,

abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, extinguishes
criminal action or remits the penalty already imposed.
Marriage (in cases of seduction, abduction, and acts of

lasciviousness) extinguishes the criminal action even
as to co-principals, accomplices, and accessories.
Marriage must be entered into in good faith.
Marriage may take place AFTER criminal proceedings have

commenced, or even after conviction (extinguishes criminal
action and remits penalty).
ART.345.
1. To indemnify the offended woman.

2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law
should prevent him from so doing.
3. In every case to support the offspring.
EXCEPT:
a. in cases of adultery and concubinage
b. where either of the offended party or accused is married
c. when paternity cannot be determined, such as in multiple
rape
The adulterer and the concubine in the case provided for in

Articles 333 and 334 may also be sentenced, in the same
proceeding or in a separate civil proceeding, to indemnify
for damages caused to the offended spouse.
No civil liability for Acts of Lasciviousness
Moral damages may be awarded to offended party, and the parents

for seduction, abduction, rape, other lascivious acts
(Article 2219 Civil Code)
Multiple Rape(by multiple offenders): all of them must support

offspring, not one may be made to acknowledge offspring
Amount and terms of support to be determined in a hearing

(Article 201 Family Code)
Only Indemnity in Rape of Married Woman
Art. 283 (1), CC: Judgment to recognize the offspring may

only be given if there is pregnancy within the period of
conception, which is within 120 days from the commission of
the offense.
The adulterer and the concubine can be sentenced only to

indemnify for damages caused to the offended spouse.
ART.346
Persons who cooperate as accomplices but are punished as

principals in rape, seduction, abduction, etc:
1) Ascendants,
2) Guardians,
3) Curators,
4) Teachers, and
5) Any other person, who cooperates as accomplice with abuse of
authority or confidential relationship.
The teachers or persons entrusted with education and guidance

of the youth shall also be penalized with disqualification.
“Crimes embraced in the 2nd, 3rd, & 4th of this title”:

1) rape
2) acts of lasciviousness
3) qualified seduction
4) simple seduction
5) acts of lasciviousness with consent
of the offended party
6) corruption of minors
7) white slave trade
8) forcible abduction
9) consented abduction
Crimes Against The Civil Status Of Persons - Title XII
ART.347
Acts punished:
1. Simulation of births

ELEMENTS:
a) The child is baptized or registered in the Registry of
birth as the offender’s;
b) The child loses its real status and acquires a new one; and
c) The offender’s purpose was to cause the loss of any trace
as to the child’s true filiation.
2. Substitution of one child for another, or
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child w/ the intent

to cause such child to lose its civil status.

ELEMENTS:
a) The child must be legitimate;
b) The offender conceals or abandons such child; and
c) The offender has the intent to cause the child to lose
its civil status.
The fact that child will be benefited by simulation of birth is

not a defense since it creates a false status to the detriment of
members of family to which the child is introduced
Father who sells child is not liable under this article since
there is no abandonment.
Illustration:
People who have no child and who buy and adopt the child
without going through legal adoption.
Same is true even if the child was kidnapped but they knew
that the kidnappers are not the real parents of the child.
When the real parents make it appear in the birth certificate

ART.348
This felony is committed by a person who assumes the filiation,

or the parental or conjugal rights of another.
Criminal intent to enjoy the civil rights of another by the

offender knowing he is not entitled thereto is necessary to
constitute this crime.
Circumstance qualifying the offense: When the purpose of the

impersonation is to defraud the offended party or his heirs.
Civil status seems to include one’s profession.

There must be an intent to enjoy the rights arising from the
civil status of another.
Bigamy
ART.349
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender has been legally married;
2. That 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. That he contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
4. That 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. Hence, it can be
prosecuted even w/o the initiative of the offended party.
The fact that the 1st marriage is void from the beginning is not a defense in a bigamy
charge. There is a need for judicial declaration of the nullity of the 1st marriage.
Similarly,
there must also be a summary proceeding to declare the absent spouse presumptively
dead for purposes of remarriage.
Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the whereabouts of the 1st wife and the
husband’s remarriage is bigamy through reckless imprudence.
One convicted for bigamy may be prosecuted for concubinage as both are distinct
offenses.
The second spouse is not necessarily liable for bigamy.
One who falsely vouches for the capacity of the either of the contracting parties knowing
that one of the parties is already married is an accomplice.
A pardon by the offended party does not extinguish criminal action considering that a
crime is committed against the State and the crime of Bigamy is a public offense which
can be denounced not only by the person affected thereby but even by a civic-spirited
citizen who may come to know the same.
Good faith is a defense in bigamy.
A judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage, that is, that the marriage was void ab
initio, is now required.
1994 Bar Exam Question on Bigamy

Can you be prosecuted for Bigamy committed abroad?
Bar Exam 1994
Abe, married to Liza, contracted another marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter,
Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the
hometown
of Abe in Calamba, Laguna.
Can Abe be prosecuted for Bigamy?
No, Abe can not be prosecuted for Bigamy since the bigamous marriage was contracted
or
solemnized in Singapore, hence such violation is not one of those where the Revised
Penal Code, under Article 2 thereof, may be applied extra-territorially.
The general rule on territoriality of criminal law governs the situation.
Disclaimer: This is not a legal advice. For your legal needs, consult a Philippine member
of the bar.
ART.350
Elements:
1. Offender contracted marriage;
2. He knew at the time that –
a. The requirements of the law were not complied with; or
b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment.
Circumstance qualifying the offense: if either of the

contracting parties obtains the consent of the other by means
of violence, intimidation or fraud.
Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage. Illegal marriage includes

also such other marriages which are performed without complying
with the requirements of law, or marriages where the consent of
the other is vitiated, or such marriage which was solemnized by
one who is not authorized to solemnize the same.
Premature Marriages
ART.351
Premature marriages. - Any widow who shall marry within three hundred and one day
from the date of the death of her husband, or before having delivered if she shall have
been pregnant at the time of his death, shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine
not exceeding 500 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any woman whose marriage shall have been
annulled or dissolved, if she shall marry before her delivery or before the expiration of
the period of three hundred and one day after the legal separation.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. A widow who 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.
2. A woman whose marriage having been dissolved or annulled, married before her
delivery, or w/in 301 days after the date of the legal separation.
The purpose of the law in punishing the foregoing acts is to prevent doubtful paternity.
The Supreme Court considered the reason behind making such marriages within 301
days 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 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.
ART.352
Act punished:
1.Performance or authorization by a priest or minister of any

religious denomination or sect or by civil authorities of
any illegal marriage ceremony.
2. But a clergyman who performed a marriage ceremony without

knowledge of the minority of one of the parties is not liable.
PERSONS LIABLE:
- Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect, or
- civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any
illegal marriage ceremony
Crimes Against Honor - Title XIII
ART.353
ELEMENTS:
1. That 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. That the imputation must be made publicly;
3. That it must be malicious;
4. That the imputation must be directed at a natural or
juridical person, or one who is dead;
5. That the imputation must tend to cause the dishonor,
discredit or contempt of the person defamed.
Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or a

vice or defect, real or imaginary or any act, commission,
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.
Kinds of malice:
(a) malice in law – that which should be proved, or
(b) malice in fact – that which may be taken for granted
due to the grossness of the imputation.
Defamation is the proper term for libel as used in Article 353
Defamation: may be libel or slander
No distinction between calumny, insult, and libel: all kinds

of attack against honor and reputation is punished
Malice is presumed to exist in injurious publications.
Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter to

some third person/s.
Person libeled must be identified. But the publication need not

refer by name to the libeled party. If not named it must be
shown that the description of the person referred to in the
defamatory publication was sufficiently clear so that at least
a 3rd person would have identified the offended party.
It is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it

is not necessary that he be named.
Meaning of writer immaterial
Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons are not

actionable unless the statements are all embracing or
sufficiently specific for each victim to be identifiable.
There are as many counts of libel as there are persons defamed.
To presume publication, there must be a reasonable probability

that the alleged libelous matter was thereby exposed to be
read or seen by 3rd persons.
In libel, the false accusation need not be made under oath.

Perjury requires that the false accusation is made under oath
Seditious libel is punished under Article 142
Criteria to determine whether statements are defamatory:

1. Words are calculated to induce the hearers to suppose
and understand that the person against whom they are
uttered were guilty of certain offenses, or are
sufficient to impeach their honesty, virtue or reputation,
or to hold the person up to public ridicule; and (US v O’Connel)
2. Words are construed not only as to the expression used but

also with respect to the whole scope and apparent object
of the writer. (People vs. Encarnacion)
There is no crime if the defamatory imputation is not published,

meaning, it is not communicated to a third person.
People v. Velasco (2000)

DOCTRINE OF FAIR COMMENT: Fair commentaries on matters of
public and interest are privileged constitute a valid defense in an
action for libel or slander.
In order that a discreditable imputation to a public

official may be actionable, it must either be:
- A false allegation of fact; OR
- A comment based on a false supposition.
Ayer Productions v. Capulong (1988)

PUBLIC FIGURE – one who, by his accomplishments, fame, mode
of living, OR by adopting a profession or calling which gives the
public a legitimate interest in his doings, his affairs and
his character, has become a “public personage”
Borjal v. CA (1999)
For a statement to be considered malicious, it must be shown
that it was written or published with the knowledge that they
are false OR in reckless disregard of WON they were false
RECKLESS DISREGARD – the defendant entertains serious

doubt as to the truth of the publication, OR that he possesses a high
degree of awareness of their probable falsity
To avoid self-censorship that would necessarily accompany

strict liability for erroneous statements, rules governing
liability for injury to reputation are required to allow an
adequate margin of error by protecting some inaccuracies.
Requirement of Publicity
ART.354
Kinds of privileged communication:

1. Absolutely privileged – not actionable even if the actor has acted in bad faith;
2. Qualifiedly privileged – those which, although containing defamatory imputations, are
not actionable unless made with malice or bad faith.
General Rule: Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, even if it be true, if

no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown.
Exceptions:
1. private communication in performance of legal, moral or social duty
2. Requisites:
a. That the person who made the communication had a legal, moral or social duty to
make the communication or at least he had an interest to be upheld;
b. That the communication is addressed to an officer or a board, or superior, having
some interest or duty on the matter; and
c. That the statements in the communication are made in good faith without malice in
fact.
3. fair and true report of official proceedings, made in good faith, without any comments
and remarks
4. Requisites:

a. That the publication of a report of an official proceeding is a fair and true report of a
judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or of
a statement, report, or speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act
performed by a public officer in the exercise of his functions;
b. That it is made in good faith; and
c. That it is made without any comments or remarks
Prosecution must prove malice in fact to convict the accused in case of qualified
privileged communication.
The privilege simply does away with presumption of malice.
Absolute Privileged Communication: not actionable even if done in bad faith –

statements made by members of Congress in discharge of functions, Judicial
Proceedings when pertinent and relevant to subject of inquiry
Qualified privilege is lost by proof of malice
Applying to wrong person due to honest mistake does not take case out of the privilege
Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith
Defense of privileged communication in paragraph 1: will be rejected if it is shown that

accused acted with malice in fact and there is no reasonable ground for believing the
charge to be true(for example, no personal investigation made; probable cause in belief
is sufficient)
Malice in fact: rivalry or ill-feeling existing at date of publication, intention to injure the
reputation of
offended party, motivated by hate and revenge
In proceedings, communication/ pleadings/others must be pertinent and material to

subject matter to be covered by privilege.
Only matters which are not confidential in nature may be published.
Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of public officers which are
related to the discharge of their official duties will not constitute libel if defendant proves
the truth of imputation; any attack upon private character on matters not related to
discharge of official duties may be libelous.
Conduct related to discharge of duties of public officers are matters of public interest.
Mental, moral and physical fitness of candidates for public office may be object of
criticism; criticism – does not follow a public man into his private life and domestic
concerns.
Statements made in self defense or in mutual controversy are often privileged; person
libeled is justified to hit back with another libel.
However, retaliation and vindictiveness cannot be basis of self-defense in defamation;

self-defense must be on matters related to imputations made on person invoking
defense.
He who published what is true, and in good faith and for justifiable ends, incurs no
responsibility.
ART.355
The means by which libel may be committed are writing, printing,

lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting, theatrical
or cinematographic exhibitions, or any similar means.
Use of amplifier slander not libel.
Television program libel.
Penalty is in addition to civil liability

Libel may be absorbed in crime of threats if intent to threaten
is principal aim and object.
If defamatory remarks are made in the heat of passion which

culminated in a threat, the derogatory statements will not
constitute an independent crime of libel but a part of the more
serious crime of threats.
In a libel case filed in August 2006 against RP Nuclear

Solutions and blogger Abe Olandres, the Pasig City
Prosecutor dismissed the charges against them because they
have no participation in the creation nor authority to modify
the content of the site being hosted where the allegedly
libelous remarks were posted.2
The prosecutor however ordered the filing of cases against
two other respondents who never denied authorship of the
posted comments.
It remains debatable when the moment of publication occurs with

respect to statements made over the Internet.
One view holds that there is publication once the statement
is uploaded or posted on a website.
The other view maintains that publication occurs only when

another person gains access or reads the statement on the
site.
ART.356
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. By threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or
his parents, spouse, child, or other members of his family; or
2. By offering to prevent the publication of such libel for
compensation, or money consideration.
BLACKMAIL as any unlawful extortion of money by threats of

accusation and exposure is possible in the crimes of light
threats (Art. 283) and in threat to publish libel (Art 356).
Blackmail can also be in the form of light threats, which is

punished under ARTICLE 283.
ARTICLE 357
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a
newspaper, daily or magazine;
2. That he publishes facts connected with the private life of
another; and
3. That such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and
reputation of said person.
The prohibition to publish applies even such publication be

made in connection w/ or under the pretext that it is necessary
in the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings
wherein such facts have been mentioned.
Art. 357 constitutes the “Gag law” which bars from publication
news reports on cases pertaining to adultery, divorce, issues
about the legitimacy of children, etc.
Source of news report may not be revealed unless court or

Congress finds such revelation is demanded by the security
of the State
This article is referred to as the Gag Law.
Under RA 1477, a newspaper reporter cannot be compelled to

reveal the source of the news report he made, UNLESS –

the court or a House or committee of Congress finds that
such revelation is demanded by the security of the state.
Libel - Defamation is in writing. Print media

Slander - is oral defamation. It can be grave or simple
ART.358
KINDS OF ORAL DEFAMATION:

1. Grave slander - defamation is of a serious and insulting
nature;
2. Simple slander - light insult or defamation.
FACTORS THAT DETERMINE GRAVITY OF THE OFFENSE:

1. expressions used
2. personal relations of the accused and the offended party,
3. circumstances surrounding the case, and
4. social standing and position of the victim.
Words uttered in the heat of anger constitute light

oral defamation.
If the utterances were made publicly and were heard by many

people and the accused at the same time pointed his finger at
the complainant, oral defamation is committed.
Slander by Deed
ART.359
The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who shall perform any act not included and punished in this title, which shall cast
dishonor, discredit or contempt upon another person. If said act is not of a serious
nature, the penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honor;
2. That such act is performed in the presence of other person or persons; and
3. That such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon the offended party.
Seriousness of slander by deed depends on the social standing of offended party, the
circumstances surrounding the act, the occasion.
Distinctions:
1. Unjust vexation - irritation or annoyance; anything that annoys or irritates without
justification.
2. Slander by deed - irritation or annoyance + attendant publicity and dishonor or
contempt.
3. Acts of lasciviousness - irritation or annoyance + any of the 3 circumstances provided
in Art. 335 on rape (i.e. use of force or intimidation; deprivation of reason or rendering
the offended unconscious; or if the offended party was under 12 years old, together with
lewd designs)
ALSO of two kinds:

1. Simple
2. Grave: of a serious nature
ACTUS REUS resulting in ANNOYANCE = UNJUST VEXATION
ACTUS REUS resulting in DAMAGE TO PROPERTY = MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
ACTUS REUS + PUBLICITY resulting in DISHONOR = SLANDER BY DEED
ACTUS REUS + CIRCUMSTANCES IN RAPE (NO CARNAL KNOWLEDGE) + LEWD

DESIGNS = ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
RT.360
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. The person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication
or exhibition of any defamation in writing or similar means;
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet;
3. The editor or business manager of a daily newspaper magazine
or serial publication; and
4. The owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous
article with his consent and all other persons, who in any
way participate in or have connection with its publication.
VENUE OF CRIMINAL AND CIVIL ACTION FOR DAMAGES
IN CASES OF WRITTEN DEFAMATION:
1. where the libelous article is printed and 1st published, or
2. where any of the offended parties actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense, or
3. where one of the offended parties is a public officer:
a. if his office is in the City of Manila, with the RTC of
Manila, or the city/province where the article is printed
and 1st published
b. otherwise, with the RTC of the city/province where he
held office at the time of offense; or where the article
is 1st published, or
4. where one of the offended parties is a private individual,
with the RTC of province/city where he actually resides at
the time of the crime or where the article was printed or
1st published.
Complaint for defamation imputing a private crime (i.e.

adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction, and acts of
lasciviousness) must be filed by the offended party.
Person who publishes libelous letter written by offended party

is liable (publishing and not composing is the prime requisite
of crime)
Liability of editor is same as author
Limitations of venue: in order to minimize interference with

public function if a public officer, and also to avoid
unnecessary harassment of accused(to limit out-of-town
libel suits)
Actual damages need not be proved where publication is libelous

per se
Action for exemplary damages may be awarded if action is based

on quasi-delict
No remedy for damages for slander or libel in case of absolutely

privileged communication
Under Republic Act no. 8792, otherwise known as the Electronic

Commerce Act, a party or person acting as a service provider
incurs NO civil or criminal liability in the making, publication,
dissemination or distribution of libelous material if:
a) the service provider does not have actual knowledge, or is not
aware of the facts or circumstances from which it is apparent
that making, publication, dissemination or distribution of
such material is unlawful or infringes any rights;
b) the service provider does not knowingly receive a financial

benefit directly attributable to the infringing activity;
c) the service provider does not directly commit any

infringement or other unlawful act and does not
induce or cause another person or party to commit any
infringement or other unlawful act and/or does not benefit
financially from the infringing activity or unlawful act of
another person or party (Section 30, in relation to Section
5, E- Commerce Law
Proof Of The Truth
ART.361
PROOF OF TRUTH IS ADMISSIBLE WHEN:

1. the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended
party is a private individual or a public officer, or
2. the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission imputed
does not constitute a crime, provided, it is related to the discharge of his official duties.
REQUISITES FOR ACQUITTAL FROM A LIBEL CHARGE :

1. it appears that the matter charged as libelous is TRUE (for situations (a) and (b)
above); and
2. it was published with good motives and for a justifiable end (for situation (a) only).
The proof of the truth of the accusation cannot be made to rest upon mere hearsay,
rumors, or suspicion but upon positive, direct evidence upon which a definite finding may
be made by the court.
An imputation that a person has contagious disease might under ordinary circumstances
be defamatory but loses such character when made with good intention and justifiable
motive
There is no libel when there is no malice
Retraction may mitigate the damages; if article is libelous per se, publication due to
honest mistake is only mitigating
RULE OF ACTUAL MALICE: Even if the defamatory statement is false, NO liability can
attach IF it relates to official conduct, UNLESS ---
- The public official concerned proves that the statement was made with actual malice,
i.e., with knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it was false or
not
Libelous Remarks
ART.362
Libelous remarks. - Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged
under the provisions of Article 354, if made with malice, shall not exempt the author
thereof nor the editor or managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability.
Libelous remarks or comments on privileged matters (under Art. 354), if made with

malice in fact, will not exempt the author and editor or managing editor of a newspaper
from criminal liability.
This article is a limitation to the defense of privileged communication. Even if matter is

privileged and malice in fact is proved, author and editor is liable.
Author/editor of publication who distorts, mutilates or discolors official proceedings

reported by him, or add comments thereon to cast aspersion on character of parties
concerned is guilty of libel.
ART.363
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender performs an act;
2. That by such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an
innocent person the commission of a crime; and
3. That such act does not constitute perjury.
2 KINDS OF INCRIMINATING AN INNOCENT PERSON:

1. Making a statement which constitutes:
a. defamation, or
b. perjury (if made under oath and is false)
2. Planting evidence
Art 363 is limited to planting evidence and the like, which
tend directly to cause false prosecution.
Incriminatory machinations distinguished from defamation – does

not avail himself of written or spoken words
There is a complex crime of incriminating an innocent person

through unlawful arrest.
As far as this crime is concerned, this has been interpreted

to be possible only in the so-called planting of evidence.
- If this act is resorted to, to enable officers to arrest
the subject, the crime is unlawful arrest through
incriminating innocent persons.
Art.363. Incriminating Innocent Person

ntriguing Against Honor
This felony 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. It is committed
by saying to others an unattributable thing, that if it said to the person himself, slander is
committed.
Intriguing against honor refers to any scheme or plot designed to blemish the reputation
of another by means w/c consist of some trickery.
The intrigue is resorted to to blemish honor or reputation of another person.
Must be committed by means of some tricky and secret plot, and not gossiping which
falls under defamation.
Where the source or author of derogatory information cannot be determined and

defendant passes it to others, defendant’s act is one of intriguing against honor; if it
came from a definite source, crime is slander.
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.
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

Quasi - Offenses - Title XIV
Criminal Negligence; IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
Art.365.
QUASI-OFFENSES ARE COMMITTED IN 4 WAYS:

1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional,
would
constitute a grave or less grave felony or light felony;
2. By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an act w/c would otherwise
constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
3. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or
simple imprudence or negligence; or
2. By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong w/c, if done
maliciously, would have constitutes a light felony.
ELEMENTS OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE:
1. That the offender does or fails to do an act;
2. That the doing of or the failure to do that act is voluntary;
3. That it be without malice;
4. That material damage results; and
5. That there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into
consideration
a. his employment or occupation,
b. degree of intelligence, physical condition, and
c. other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
ELEMENTS OF SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE:

1. That there is lack of precaution on the part of the offender; and
2. That the damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly
manifest.
Art. 64 on mitigating and aggravating circumstances is not applicable in quasi-offenses.
Qualifying circumstance in quasi-offenses: The offender’s failure to lend on-the-spot

assistance
to the victim of his negligence.
Abandoning one’s victim is usually punishable under Art. 275. But if it is charged under
Art.
365, it is only a qualifying circumstance, and if not alleged, it cannot even be an
aggravating
circumstance.
Imprudence or Negligence is not a crime in itself, but simply a way of committing a

crime.
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.
Criminal negligence is only a modality in incurring criminal liability. THEREFORE, even if

there are several results arising from ONLY ONE CARELESSNESS, the accused may
only be prosecuted under one count for the criminal negligence. Otherwise, double
jeopardy would arise.
Technical term “Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide”; what is punished is not the
act itself but the mental attitude or condition behind the act.
Negligence is a quasi-offense. What is punished is not the effect of the negligence

but the recklessness of the accused.
Test of Negligence: Would a prudent man foresee harm as a reasonable consequence

of the course about to be pursued? Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by ignoring
of admonition born of this provision.
Reckless Imprudence v. Force Majeure: Force Majeure is an event that cannot be

foreseen, or which being foreseen is inevitable; implies an extraordinary circumstance
independent of will of actor; in reckless imprudence damage or injury may be
preventable by exercise of reasonable care and threatened upon conduct about to be
pursued by the actor.
Contributory negligence of offended party is not a defense but only mitigates criminal
liability.
Last Clear Chance Rule – The contributory negligence of the injured party will not defeat
the action if it be shown that the accused might, by the exercise of reasonable care and
prudence, have avoided the consequences of the negligence of the injured party.
Emergency Rule: A person confronted with emergency may be left with no time for
thought, must make speedy decision based on impulse or instinct, and cannot be held
liable for same conduct as one who had opportunity to reflect; applicable only when
situation that arises is sudden and unexpected, and is such as to deprive him of all
opportunity for deliberation Ex. An automobile driver, who, by the negligence of another,
is suddenly placed in an emergency and compelled to act instantly to avoid a collision or
injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes a choice which a person of ordinary
prudence placed in such a position might make even though he did not make the wisest
choice.
Emergency Rule (as a defense): one who suddenly finds himself in a place of danger,
and is required to act without time to consider the best means that may be adopted to
avoid the impending danger, is NOT guilty of negligence, if he fails to adopt what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to have been a better method UNLESS
the emergency in which he finds himself is brought about by his own negligence.
Violation of a rule or regulation or law is proof of negligence.
Reyes v. Sis. of Mercy Hospital (2000)

Elements involved in medical negligence cases:
1. Duty
2. Breach
3. Injury
4. Proximate causation
Garcia-Rueda v. Pascasio (1997)

MEDICAL MALPRACTICE, which is a form of negligence, consists in the failure of a
physician or surgeon to apply to his practice of medicine that degree of care and skill
which is ordinarily employed by the profession generally, under similar conditions, and in
like surrounding circumstances.
Carillo v. People (1994)

The gravamen of SIMPLE NEGLIGENCE is the failure to exercise the diligence
necessitated or called for by the situation which was NOT immediately life- destructive
BUT which culminated, as in the present case, in the death of a human being 3 days
later.
Special Crimes
Act No. 3326
[ Act No. 3326, December 04, 1926 ]
AN ACT TO ESTABLISH PERIODS OF PRESCRIPTION FOR VIOLATIONS

PENALIZED BY SPECIAL ACTS AND MUNICIPAL ORDINANCES AND TO PROVIDE
WHEN PRESCRIPTION SHALL BEGIN TO RUN. BE IT ENACTED BY THE SENATE
AND HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PHILIPPINES IN LEGISLATURE
ASSEMBLED AND BY THE AUTHORITY OF THE SAME:
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in

Legislature assembled and by the authority of the same:
SECTION 1. Violations penalized by special acts shall, unless otherwise provided in

such acts, prescribe in accordance with the following rules: (a) after a year for offences
punished only by a fine or by imprisonment for not more than one month, or both; (b)
after four years for those punished by imprisonment for more than one month, but less
than two years; (c) after eight years for those punished by imprisonment for two years or
more, but less than six years; and (d) after twelve years for any other offence punished
by imprisonment for six years or more, except the crime of treason, which shall prescribe
after twenty years. Violations penalized by municipal ordinances shall prescribe after two
months.
SEC. 2. Prescription shall begin to run from the day of the commission of the violation of
the law, and if the same be not known at the time, from the, discovery thereof and the
institution of judicial proceedings for its investigation and punishment.
The prescription shall be interrupted when proceedings are instituted against the guilty
person, and shall begin to run again il the proceedings are dismissed for reasons not
constituting jeopardy.
SEC. 3. For the purposes of this Act, special acts shall be acts defining and penalizing
violations of the law not included in the Penal Code.
SEC. 4. This Act shall take effect on its approval.
Approved, December 4, 1926.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law applies to both violations of the Revised Penal Code
and special laws and is based on the penalty actually imposed.
The Indeterminate Sentence Law shall not apply to the following persons.
1. Those sentenced to death penalty or life imprisonment
2. Those convicted of treason, or conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage
4. Those convicted of piracy
5. Those who are habitual delinquents
6. Those who have escaped from confinement, or evaded sentence
7. Those granted with conditional pardon by the President but violated the terms thereof
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed 1 year

9. Those who are sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension only
Indeterminate sentence is mandatory where imprisonment would exceed one year.
IF THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED BY THE RPC:

1. The Maximum Term – is that which could be properly imposed under the RPC,
considering the aggravating and mitigating circumstances.
2. The Minimum Term – is within the range of the penalty one degree lower than that
prescribed by the RPC, without considering the circumstances.
BUT when there is a privileged mitigating circumstance, so that the penalty has to be
lowered by one degree, the STARTING POINT for determining the minimum term of the
indeterminate penalty is the penalty next lower than that prescribed by the Code for the
offense.
IF THE PENALTY IS IMPOSED BY SPECIAL PENAL LAW

1. The Maximum Term – must not exceed the maximum term fixed by said law.
2. The Minimum Term – must not be less than the minimum term prescribed by the
same.
For SPECIAL LAWS, it is anything within the inclusive range of the prescribed penalty.
Courts are given discretion in the imposition of the indeterminate penalty. The
aggravating and mitigating circumstances are not considered unless the special law
adopts the same terminology for penalties as those used in the RPC (such as reclusión
perpetua and the like).
RELEASE OF THE PRISONER ON PAROLE

The Board of Pardons and Parole may authorize the release of a prisoner on parole,
after he shall have served the minimum penalty imposed on him, provided that:
1. Such prisoner is fitted by his training for release,
2. There is reasonable probability that he will live and remain at liberty without violating
the law,
3. Such release will not be incompatible with the welfare of society.
ENTITLEMENT TO FINAL RELEASE AND DISCHARGE

If during the period of surveillance such paroled prisoner shall:
(a) show himself to be a law abiding citizen and,
(b) shall not violate any law,
the Board may issue a final certification in his favor, for his final release and discharge.
SANCTION FOR VIOLATION OF CONDITIONS OF THE PAROLE

When the paroled prisoner shall violate any of the conditions of his parole:
(a) the Board may issue an order for his arrest, and thereafter,
(b) the prisoner shall serve the remaining unexpired portion of the maximum sentence
for which he was originally committed to prison.
REASONS FOR FIXING THE MAXIMUM AND MINIMUM TERMS IN THE

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE
The minimum and maximum terms in the Indeterminate Sentence must be fixed,
because they are the basis for the following:
1. Whenever a prisoner has:
(a) served the MINIMUM penalty imposed on him, and
(b) is fit for release of the prisoner on parole, upon terms and conditions prescribed by
the Board.
2. But when the paroled prisoner violates any of the conditions of his parole during the
period of surveillance, he may be rearrested to serve the remaining unexpired portion of
the MAXIMUM sentence.
3. Even if a prisoner has already served the MINIMUM, but he is not fitted for release on
the parole, he shall continue to serve until the end of the MAXIMUM term.
Why is Indeterminate Sentence LAW mandatory?

In the application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law the judge will get the maximum
penalty and likewise the minimum penalty. If the accused was already able to serve the
minimum term of his indeterminate sentence and upon the approval of the Board, the
accused now becomes eligible for parole. ISLAW is favorable to the accused.
Purpose of the law:
1. to uplift and redeem valuable human material and prevent unnecessary and
excessive deprivation of liberty and economic usefulness
2. It is necessary to consider the criminal first as an individual, and second as a
member of the society.
3. The law is intended to favor the defendant, particularly to shorten his term of
imprisonment, depending upon his behavior and his physical, mental and moral
record as a prisoner, to be determined by the Board of Indeterminate Sentence.
The settled practice is to give the accused the benefit of the law even in crimes
punishable with death or life imprisonment provided the resulting penalty, after
considering the attending circumstances is reclusion temporal or less.
If the accused was granted parole and violated some conditions of the parole, What will
happen?
A warrant of arrest will be issued by the court and the accused will be made to serve the
rest of the remaining or unexpired portion of his sentence. (But in probation you go back
to number 1, serving of sentence will be from the beginning)
Application of ISLAW:
How to get maximum and minimum penalty in Special Law:

1. The maximum penalty should NOT exceed the maximum provided for by that law.
2. The minimum penalty should NOT fall below the minimum provided by the law.
How to get maximum and minimum penalty in Revised Penal Code:

Example: In the crime of homicide, under the Revised Penal Code,
the offender is sentenced to reclusion temporal.
The maximum penalty under the Indeterminate Sentence Law is reclusion temporal. But
reclusion temporal is a divisible penalty consisting of maximum, medium and minimum
periods. Which period will we place the maximum term of the Indeterminate Sentence?
Guide for determining the maximum penalty:

1. Determine the entire range of the penalty
2. Determine if there is mitigating or aggravating circumstance
Which period will the maximum penalty be placed?

In pursuant to art 64, when there is no mitigating and no aggravating circumstance, it
should be placed at the medium period. Thus, the maximum penalty for the example
above is reclusion temporal in the medium period.
What is the minimum penalty now?

In getting the minimum penalty, the rule is to simply get the penalty one (1) degree lower
from the maximum penalty without taking into account the mitigating and aggravating
circumstance. Thus, the penalty one degree lower from reclusion temporal, without
taking into account any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, is prision mayor. Prision
mayor is now the minimum penalty for our example.
Important: If your maximum penalty is wrong, it follows that the minimum penalty will
also be wrong.
Again, prision mayor is a divisible penalty. Which period can it

be placed?
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, it would depend upon the discretion of the court
on which period to place it. Thus, the minimum penalty is prision mayor in any of its
periods.
Factors that could affect the imposition of the minimum penalty:
1. Age
2. Conduct during trial
3. Mental or physical condition
Suppose in the example above, 1 aggravating circumstance was proven.

What is now the maximum penalty?
It would still be reclusion temporal, but it shall be placed in the maximum period because
of the presence of 1 aggravating circumstance.
How about the minimum penalty?

It would still be 1 degree lower from reclusion temporal, which is prision mayor. In which
period? It shall be discretionary upon the court.
Some More Illustrations:
1 mitigating but NO aggravating

maximum penalty: reclusion temporal in the minimum period
minimum penalty: prision mayor in any period
2 mitigating, NO aggravating (privileged mitigating)

maximum penalty: prision mayor in the medium period
minimum penalty: prision correctional any period
The preceding example is an exception to the rule. If there is a privileged mitigating

circumstance, we take it into account first in order to obtain the proper maximum penalty.
Then, from that maximum
penalty, we obtain the proper minimum penalty by getting the penalty 1 degree lower.
Same rule applies as to the period of the minimum penalty.
Remember: It will never become a privileged mitigating circumstance if there is an

aggravating circumstance present. 8 mitigating and 1 aggravating will never become
privileged mitigating circumstance.
3 mitigating, NO aggravating
maximum penalty: prision mayor in the minimum period
minimum penalty: prision correctional any period
In the preceding example, there are 3 mitigating circumstance present and no

aggravating circumstance. The first two mitigating circumstance shall be a privileged
mitigating circumstance. Thus, the penalty will be reduced by 1 degree from reclusion
temporal to prision mayor. The 3rd mitigating circumstance shall place the penalty in the
minimum period.
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the medium period
(2 privileged circumstance. Thus we lower by 2 degrees)
minimum penalty: arresto mayor any period
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
At most we can only lower by 2 degrees. Thus, if there are 6 mitigating circumstance
and NO aggravating:
maximum penalty: prision correctional in the minimum period
How is Indeterminate Sentence Law applied in complex crimes (Article 48)?

A complex crime is punished by the most serious offense and shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
Example: Estafa through falsification of public documents.
Under the Revised Penal Code, falsification of public documents (Article 171) is a more
serious offense punished by prision mayor than estafa (Article 315), punished only by
prision correctional.
Thus, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum penalty for estafa
through falsification of public documents shall be prison mayor in the maximum period.
Minimum penalty shall be prision
correctional, any period.
Suppose there was 1 mitigating circumstance proven. Maximum penalty would still be
prision mayor in the maximum period. In pursuant to Article 48, even if there is a
mitigating circumstance present, it should still be imposed at the maximum period.
How about if there are 2 mitigating circumstances and no aggravating?

The rule is, if it is a privileged mitigating circumstance, we lower by the penalty by one
degree but still place it at the maximum period. Thus, the maximum penalty shall be
prision correctional in the
maximum period.
maximum penalty: arresto mayor in its maximum period
Example:
People v. Campuhan
The penalty for attempted rape is two (2) degrees lower than the imposable penalty of
death for the offense charged, which is statutory rape of a minor below seven (7) years.
Two (2) degrees lower is reclusion temporal, the range of which is twelve (12) years and
one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, and in the
absence of any mitigating or aggravating circumstance, the maximum of the penalty to
be imposed upon the accused shall be taken from the medium period of reclusion
temporal, the range of which is fourteen (14) years, eight (8) months and (1) day to
seventeen (17) years and four (4) months, while the minimum shall be taken from the
penalty next lower in degree, which is prision mayor, the range of which is from six (6)
years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years, in any of its periods.

Itos was convicted of an offense penalized by a special law. The penalty prescribed is
not less than six years but not more than twelve years. No modifying circumstance
attended the commission of the crime.
If you were the judge, will you apply the Indeterminate Sentence law? If so, how will you
apply it?
If I were the judge, I will apply the provisions of the Indeterminate sentence law, as the
last sentence of section 1 Act 4103, specifically provides the application thereof for
violations of special laws.
Under the same provision, the minimum must not be less than the minimum provided
therein (six years and one day) and the maximum shall not be more than the maximum
provided therein, i.e. twelve years. (People vs. Rosalina Reyes, 186 SCRA 184)
Andres is charged with an offense defined by a special law. The penalty prescribed for
the offense
is imprisonment of not less than five (5) years but not more than ten (10) years. Upon
arraignment,
he entered a plea of guilty.
In the imposition of the proper penalty, should the Indeterminate Sentence Law be
applied? If you
were the judge trying the case, what penalty would you impose on Andres?
Suggested Answer:
Yes, the Indeterminate Sentence law should be applied because the minimum
imprisonment is more than one (1) year.
If I were the judge, I will impose an indeterminate sentence, the maximum of which shall
not
exceed the maximum fixed by law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum
penalty
prescribed by the same. I have the discretion to impose the penalty within the said
minimum and maximum.
A was convicted of illegal possession of grease guns and two Thompson sub-machine
guns punishable under the old law (RA No.4) with imprisonment of from five (5) to ten
(10) years. The trial court sentenced the accused to suffer imprisonment of five (5) years
and one (1) day.
Is the penalty thus imposed correct? Explain.
Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply to: The penalty imposed, being only a
straight penalty, is not correct because it does not comply with the Indeterminate
Sentence Law which applies to this case. Said law requires that if the offense punished
by any law other than the Revised Penal Code, the court shall sentence the accused to
an indeterminate sentence, the maximum term of which shall not exceed the maximum
penalty fixed by the law and the minimum shall not be less than the minimum penalty
prescribed by the same.
How are the maximum and the minimum terms of the indeterminate sentence for
offenses punishable under the Revised Penal Code determined?
Suggested Answer:
For crimes punished under the Revised Penal Code, the maximum term of the
indeterminate sentence shall be the penalty properly imposable under the same code
after considering the attending mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances according
to Art.64 of said code. The minimum term of the same sentence shall be fixed within the
range of the penalty next lower in degree to that prescribed for the crime under said
code.
Under the law, what is the purpose of fixing the maximum and minimum terms of the
indeterminate sentence?
Suggested Answer:
The purpose of the law in fixing the minimum term of the sentence is to set the grace
period at which the convict may be released on parole from imprisonment unless by his
conduct he is not deserving of parole and thus he shall continue serving his prison term
in jail but in no case to go beyond the maximum term fixed in the sentence.
Harold was convicted of a crime defined and penalized by a special penal law where the
imposable penalty is from 6 months, as minimum, to 3 years, as maximum.
State with reasons whether the court may correctlhy impose the following penalties:
a) a straight penalty of 10 months;
Suggested Answer:
Yes, because the penalty is less than one year, a straight penalty may be imoposed.
(People vs. Arellano, G.R. No.46501, October 5, 1939)
Alternative Answer:
Under the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum imposable penalty shall be
imposed but the maximum shall not exceed the maximum imposable by law.
b) 6 months, as minimum, to 11 months, as maximum;
Suggested Answer:
No, because Indeterminate Sentence Law does not apply when the penalty imposed is
less than one year (Section 2, Act. 4103, as amended)
c) a straight penalty of 2 years
Suggested Answer:
No, because the Indeterminate Sentence Law will apply when the minimum of the
penalty exceeds one year.
Alternative Answer:
If the imposition of straight penalty which consists of the minimum period of the penalty
prescribed by law, then it may be allowed because it favors the accused.
Indeterminate Sentence Law; Exceptions
Under what circumstances is the Indeterminate Sentence Law not applicable?
Suggested Answer:
1. Persons convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life imprisonment

2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage
5. Those who are habitual delinquents
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence
7. Those who have violated the terms of conditional pardon granted to them by the Chief
Executive
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year
9. Those who, upon the approval of the law (December 5, 1933) had been sentenced by
final judgment
10. Those sentenced to the penalty of destierro or suspension.
When would the Indeterminate Sentence Law be inapplicable?
Suggested Answer:
The Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to:
1. Those person convicted of offenses punished with death penalty or life

imprisonment or reclusion perpetual;
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit treason;
3. Those convicted of misprision of treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents;
6. Those who shall have escaped from confinement or evaded sentence
7. Those who having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive shall
have violated the terms thereof;
8. Those whose maximum term of imprisonment does not exceed one year;
9. Those already sentenced by final judgment at the time of the approval of this act;
and
10. Those whose sentence impose penalties which do not involve imprisonment, like
destierro.
PD 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.
Both giver and receiver are punished.
The giving of a party is also punishable and is not limited to the public officer only but
also to any member of his family.
PD No.90
Somebody on my facebook page asked, Is there a law in the Philippines

penalizing the deliberate spreading of fake news or fake information.
I searched my old law books and I came across this law enacted during the term
of President Ferdinand Marcos.
It is a Presidential Decree. Laws decreed by President Marcos during the martial

law were called Presidential decree.
Fake news by the way is defined as a type of yellow journalism or propaganda

that consists of deliberate misinformation or hoaxes spread via traditional
print and broadcast news media or online social media.
This false information is mainly distributed by social media, but is periodically

circulated through mainstream media. Fake news is written and published with
the intent to mislead in order to damage an agency, entity, or person, and/or
gain financially or politically, often using sensationalist, dishonest,
or outright fabricated headlines to increase readership, online sharing,
and Internet click revenue.
Spreading rumors or false news is punishable under Philippine law.
Presidential Decree No.90 penalizes the deliberate spreading of fake news

with imprisonment.
Here is the complete text of the law.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No.90 January 6, 1973
DECLARING UNLAWFUL RUMOR-MONGERING AND SPREADING FALSE

INFORMATION
WHEREAS, a primordial objective of Proclamation No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972
is the early restoration of peace, order and tranquility throughout the country;
WHEREAS, one of the most insidious means of disrupting such peace, order and
tranquility is the utterance, publication, distribution, circulation and
spread of rumors, false news or information and gossip that cause divisive
effects among the people, discredit of or distrust for the duly constituted
authorities and/or that undermine the stability of the government and
the objectives of the New Society and, therefore, inimical to the best
interests of the State;
WHEREAS, to attain the aforesaid primordial objective of Proclamation No. 1081,

it is imperative that such acts be curbed and penalized;
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, in my capacity as Commander-in-

Chief
of all the Armed Forces of the Philippines and pursuant to Proclamation
No. 1081 dated September 21, 1972, do hereby order and decree that any
person who shall offer, publish, distribute, circulate and spread rumors,
false news and information and gossip, or cause the publication,
distribution, circulation or spreading of the same, which cause or
tend to cause panic, divisive effects among the people, discredit
of or distrust for the duly constituted authorities, undermine the
stability of the Government and the objectives of the New Society,
endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest or credit
of the State shall, upon conviction, be punished by prision correccional.
In case the offender is a government official or employee, the accessory
penalty of absolute perpetual disqualification from holding any public
office shall be imposed.
Done in the City of Manila, this 6th day of January, in the year of Our Lord,
nineteen hundred and seventy-three.
Prision correctional has a duration of imprisonment from 6 months and 1 day

to 6 years.
Worth reading also is art.154 of the revised penal code which has something to do
with fake news.
Art.154 penalizes the publication or as news any false news which may endanger
the public order.
RT.311
Theft of property on National Library and Museum has a fixed

penalty regardless of its value.
Theft of property of the National Museum and National Library has

a fixed penalty regardless of its value. But if it was with grave
abuse of confidence, the penalty for qualified theft shall be
imposed.
PD 704 ILLEGAL FISHING
Prima facie presumption of illegal fishing

when:
1) Explosive, obnoxious or poisonous
substance or equipment or device
for electric fishing are found in the
fishing boat or in the possession of
fisherman; or
2) When fish caught with the use of
explosives, obnoxious or poisonous
substances or by electricity are
found in a fishing boat
PD 533 ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW
Cattle rustling:taking away by means,methors or schemes, without the

consent of theowner/raiser, of any large cattle whether or not for
profit, or whether committed with or without violence against or
intimidation of person or force upon things. It includes killing of
large cattle, taking itsmeat or hide without the consent of
owner/raiser.
Large cattle: include cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass, other
domesticated member of bovine family. A goat is not included
because it is not large
Presumption: Every person in possession of large cattle shall

upon demand by competent authorities exhibit required documents.
Failure to do so is prima facie evidence that large cattle in
possession are fruits of crime of cattle rustling
Killing of owner is absorbed in cattle rustling
C.A. NO. 142 (Anti-Alias Law)

PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Any person who uses any name different from the one w/ w/c he was registered at
birth in
the office of the local civil registry, or w/ w/c he was registered in the bureau of
immigration
upon entry, or such substitute name as may have been authorized by a competent
court.
Exempted from criminal liability are persons who use another name as a pseudonym
solely
for literary, cinema, television, radio, or other entertainment purposes and in athletic
events; and
2. Any person who having been baptized with a name different from what was
registered, or
who had obtained judicial authority for use of an alias, or who uses a pseudonym,
represents
himself in any public or private document w/o stating or affixing his real or original
name
or aliases or pseudonym he is authorized to use.
NOTES:
A judicial authority must be first secured by a person who desires to use an alias.
However, a common-law wife does not incur criminal liability under the Anti-Alias Law if
she
uses the surname of the man she has been living w/ for the past 20 years and has been
introducing
herself to the public as his wife.
CC Art. 379
The employment of pen names or stage names is permitted, provided it is done in good
faith
and there is no injury to third persons. Pen names and stage names cannot be usurped.
CC Art. 380.
Except as provided in the
preceding article, no person shall use different names and surnames.
PD. NO. 247

On Special Crime
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.
Note that persons making bracelets out of some coins violate Presidential Decree No.
247. 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.
PD NO. 749
On Special Crime
Givers of bribes and other gifts as well as accomplices in

bribery and violations of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices
Act are immune from prosecution under the following circumstances:
a. information refers to consummated violations

b. necessity of the information or testimony
c. the information and testimony are not yet in the possession of
the State
d. information and testimony can be corroborated on its material
points
e. informant has been previously convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude
Before the bribe-giver may be dropped from the information, he has

to be charged first with the receiver.
The immunity granted the bribe-giver is limited only to the illegal
transaction where the informant gave voluntarily the testimony.
The immunity shall not attach when it turns out that the information
given is false and malicious, for the purposes of harassing the officer.
The public officer in this even is entitled to the appropriate
action against the informant.
PD 532
ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF 1974
VESSEL – any vessel or watercraft used for

(a) transport of passengers and cargo or
(b) for fishing.
AIDING OR ABETTING PIRACY REQUISITES:

1. Knowingly aids or protects pirates;
2. Acquires or receives property taken by such pirates, or in any manner derives any
benefit;
3. Directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy.
NOTE:
Was issued in August 1974, 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.
Under PD 532, piracy may be committed even by a passenger or member of the

complement of the vessel.
Republic Act No. 7659 (AN ACT TO IMPOSE THE DEATH PENALTY ON CERTAIN
HEINOUS
CRIMES, AMENDING FOR THAT PURPOSE THE REVISED PENAL CODE, AS
AMENDED, OTHER SPECIAL PENAL LAWS, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES) -
amended Presidential Decree No. 532 and 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.
There is still the crime of abetting piracy in Philippine waters under Presidential Decree
No. 532.
Piracy 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.
PIRACY is is a crime against humanity (hostes humanes generis)
PD 1612 (Anti-Fencing Law of

1979)
On Criminal Law
PD 1612
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
WHEREAS, reports from law enforcement agencies reveal that there is rampant robbery
and thievery of government and private properties;
WHEREAS, such robbery and thievery have become profitable on the part of the lawless
elements because of the existence of ready buyers, commonly known as fence, of stolen
properties;
WHEREAS, under existing law, a fence can be prosecuted only as an accessory after
the fact and punished lightly;
WHEREAS, is imperative to impose heavy penalties on persons who profit by the effects

of the crimes of robbery and theft.
NOW, THEREFORE, I, FERDINAND E. MARCOS, President of the Philippines by virtue

of the powers vested in me by the Constitution, do hereby order and decree as part of
the law of the land the following:
Section 1. Title. This decree shall be known as the Anti-Fencing Law.
Section 2. Definition of Terms. The following terms shall mean as follows:
(a) “Fencing” is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for himself or for another,
shall buy, receive, possess, keep, acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and
sell, or in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything of value which he
knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the
crime of robbery or theft.
(b) “Fence” includes any person, firm, association corporation or partnership or other
organization who/which commits the act of fencing.
1995 Bar Exam Question (Fencing;Elements)
What are the elements of fencing?
The elements of fencing are:

1. A crime of robbery or theft has been committed;
2. Accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the crime, buys, receives, possesses,
keeps, acquires, conceals, or disposes, or buys and sells, or in any manner deals in any
article, item, object, or anything of value, which has been derived from the proceeds of
said crime;
3. The accused knows or should have known that said article, item, object or anything of
value has been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft; and
4. There is on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or another.
1996 Bar Exam Question (Anti-Fencing Law;Fencing)
Flora, who was engaged in the purchase and sale of jewelry, was prosecuted for the
violation of P.D. 1612, otherwise known as the Anti-Fencing Law, for having been found
to be in possession of recently stolen jewelry valued at Php100,000.00 at her jewelry
shop at Zapote Road, Las Pinas, Metro Manila. She testified during the trial that she
merely bought the same from one named Cecilino, in the past, used to deliver to her
jewelries for sale but is presently nowhere to be found. Convicted by the trial court for
violation of the Anti-Fencing Law, she argued (or her acquittal on appeal, contending
that the prosecution failed to prove that she knew or should have known that the
jewelries recovered from her were the proceeds of the crime of robbery or theft.
Is Flora's defense well taken?
No, Flora's defense is not well taken because mere possession of any article of value
which has been the subject of theft or robbery shall prima facie evidence of fencing (P.D.
1612). The burden is upon the accused to prove that she acquired the jewelry
legitimately. Her defense of having bought bought the jewelry from someone whose
whereabouts is unknown, does not overcome the presumption of fencing against her.
(Pamintuan vs. People, G.R. 111426, July 1994) Buying personal property puts the
buyer on caveat because of the phrases that he should have known or ought to know
that it is the proceed from robbery or theft. Besides, she should have followed the
administrative procedure under the decree that of getting a clearance from the
authorities in case the dealer is unlicensed in order to escape liability.
Section 3. Penalties. Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder

indicated:
(a) The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property involved is more than
12,000 pesos but not exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum
period, adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty which
may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall be
termed reclusion temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto provided in the
Revised Penal Code shall also be imposed.
(b) The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the value
of the property robbed or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding 12,000
pesos.
(c) The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if the value of
the property involved is more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
(d) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its
minimum period, if the value of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not exceeding
200 pesos.
(e) The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period if such value is over five (5) pesos
but not exceeding 50 pesos.
(f) The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period if such value does not exceed 5
pesos.
Section 4. Liability of Officials of Juridical Persons. If the fence is a partnership, firm,

corporation or association, the president or the manager or any officer thereof who
knows or should have known the commission of the offense shall be liable.
Section 5. Presumption of Fencing. Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or
anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie
evidence of fencing.
Section 6. Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles. For purposes of this

Act, all stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and sell of any good, article
item, object of anything of value obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof,
shall before offering the same for sale to the public, secure the necessary clearance or
permit from the station commander of the Integrated National Police in the town or city
where such store, establishment or entity is located. The Chief of Constabulary/Director
General, Integrated National Police shall promulgate such rules and regulations to carry
out the provisions of this section. Any person who fails to secure the clearance or permit
required by this section or who violates any of the provisions of the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder shall upon conviction be punished as a fence.
Section 7. Repealing Clause. All laws or parts thereof, which are inconsistent with the
provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or modified accordingly.
Section 8. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect upon approval.
Done in the City of Manila, this 2nd day of March, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and seventy-nine.
(Sgd.) FERDINAND E. MARCOS
President of the Philippines
1995 Bar Exam Question (Anti-Fencing law;Fencing vs. Theft or Robbery)
What is the difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery? Explain. Is
there any similarity between them?
One difference between a fence and an accessory to theft or robbery is the penalty
involved; a fence is punished as a principal under P.D. No. 1612 and the penalty is
higher, whereas an accessory to robbery or theft under the Revised Penal Code is
punished two degrees lower than the principal, unless he bought or profited from the
proceeds of theft or robbery arising from robbery in Philippine highways under P.D. No.
532 where he is punished as an accomplished, hence, the penalty is one degree lower.
Also, fencing is malum prohibitum and therefore there is no need to prove criminal intent
of the accused; this is not so in violations of Revised Penal Code.
Yes, there is a similarity in the sense that all the acts of one who is an accessory to the
crimes of robbery or theft are included in the acts defined as fencing. In fact, the
accessory in the crimes of robbery or theft could be prosecuted as such under the
Revised Penal Code or as a fence under P.D. No. 1612.(Dizon-Pamintuan vs. People,
234 SCRA 63)
1998 Bar Examination Question (Accessories and Fence)
consuming three bottles of beer, King made advances to her and with force and
violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry.
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house,
hid her body, cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to laura.
Jose knew that the jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless sold it for Php2000.
What crime or crimes did King, Doming, and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal
liabilities.
King committed the composite crime of Rape with Homicide as a single indivisible
offense, not a complex crime and theft.
Doming's acts, having been done with knowledge of the commission of the crime and
obviously to conceal the body of the crime to prevent its discovery, makes him an
accessory to the crime of rape with homicide under Art.19, par.2 of the Revised Penal
Code, being an adopted brother of the principal.
Jose incurs criminal liability either as an accessory to the crime of theft committed by
King, or as a fence. Although he is a legitimate brother of King, the exemption
under Art.20 does not include the participation he did, because he profited from the
effects of such theft by selling the jewelry knowing that the same was taken from Laura,
or Jose may be prosecuted for fencing under the Anti-Fencing Law of 1979
(PD.No.1612) since the jewelry was the proceeds of theft with intent to gain, he received
it from King and sold it.
PD. NO. 1613 Destructive Arson

On Special Crime
SEC. 2. Destructive Arson - The penalty of Reclusion Temporal in its maximum period to
Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:
1. Any ammunition factory and other establishment where explosives, inflammable or
combustible materials are stored.
2. Any archive, museum, whether public or private, or any edifice devoted to culture,
education or social services.
3. Any church or place of worship or other building where people usually assemble.
4. Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or watercraft, or conveyance for
transportation of persons or property.
5. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative, judicial, or
administrative proceeding.
6. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing tenement, shopping center,
public or private market, theater or movie house or any similar place or building.
7. Any building, whether used as dwelling or not, situated in populated or congested
area.
SEC. 3. Other Cases of Arson - The penalty of Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion

Perpetua shall be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:
1. Any building used as offices of the government or any of its agencies
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling
3. Any industrial shipyard, oil well platform or tunnel OF establishment, or mine shaft,
3. OTHER MISCHIEFS (329)
4. Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo grove
or forest;
5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central
6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse
Criminal Liability; Destructive

Arson
On Criminal Law
A, B, C, and D, all armed with armalites, proceeded to the house of X. Y, a neighbor of

X, who happened to be passing by, pointed to the four culprits the room that X occupied.
The four culprits peppered the room with bullets. Unsatisfied, A even threw a hand
grenade that totally destroyed X's room. However, unknown to the four culprits, X was
not inside the room and nobody was hit or injured during the incident.
Are A, B, C, and D liable for any crime? Explain.
Yes. A, B, C, and D are liable for destructive arson because of the destruction of the

room of X with the use of an explosive, the hand grenade. Liability for an impossible
crime is to be imposed only if the act committed would not constitute any other crime
under the Revised Penal Code.
Although the fact involved are parallel to the case of Intod vs. Court of Appeals (215
SCRA 52), where it was ruled that the liability of the offender was for an impossible
crime, no hand grenade was used in said case, which constitutes a more serious crime
though different from what was intended.
Mendicancy Law of 1978

On Special Crime
Mendicancy Law
Mendicancy Law of 1978
PD 1563
Persons liable:
1. Mendicant – Those with no visible and legal means of support, or lawful employment
and physically able to work but neglects to apply himself to lawful calling and instead
uses begging as means of living (higher penalty if convicted 2 or more times)
2. Any person who abets mendicancy by giving alms on public roads, sidewalks, parks
and bridges except if given through organized agencies operating under rules and
regulations of Ministry of Public Information
NOTE: Giving alms through organized agencies operating under the rules and
regulations of the Ministry of Public Information is not a violation of the Mendicancy Law.
Under R.A. 9344 persons below eighteen (18) years of age shall be exempt from
prosecution
for the crime of vagrancy and prostitution under Section 202 of the Revised Penal Code,
of
mendicancy under Presidential Decree No. 1563, and sniffing of rugby under
Presidential
Decree No. 1619, such prosecution being inconsistent with the United Nations
Convention
of the Rights of the Child:
Those enumerated in section 4, who are not considered mendicants are the following:
1. Any infant or child 8 years old and below who is found begging or is being utilized by
a mendicant for purposes of begging
2. Any minor over 9 years of age and under 15 found begging or is being utilized for
purposes of begging, and who acted with or without discernment
3. Any person who is found begging and who is physically or mentally incapable of
gainful occupation
Who are punishable?
1. A mendicant shall, upon conviction, be punished by a fine not exceeding P500.00 or

by imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years or both at the discretion of the court.
2. A habitual mendicant (one who has been convicted of mendicancy under this law 2 or
more times) shall be punished by a fine not exceeding P1000.00 or by imprisonment for
a period not exceeding years, or both at the discretion of the court.
Anti-Bomb Joke Law or PD 1727

On Criminal Law
Anti-Bomb Joke Law / PD 1727:Photo Owner PIA
Anti-Bomb Joke law is a special crime that is committed when there is any unlawful
dissemination of false information or when there is willful making of any threat
concerning bombs, explosives, or any similar device or means of destruction.
The offender of this crime when convicted shall be punished with imprisonment of not
more than five (5) years or a fine of not more than forty thousand pesos (P40,000) or
both.
Occupation Of Real Property Or

Usurpation Of Real Rights In
Property
On Criminal Law
Usurpation of Real Rights in Property
ART.312
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights in
property;
2. That the real property or real rights belong to another;
3. That violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupying
real property or usurpation real rights in property; and
4. That there is intent to gain.
Acts punishable under Art. 312:

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.
If no violence or intimidation only civil liability exists.
Art. 312 does not apply when the violence or intimidation took place subsequent to the
entry into the property. Violence or intimidation must be the means used in occupying
real property
or in usurping real rights.
Art. 312 does not apply to a case of open defiance of the writ of execution issued in the
forcible entry case.
Criminal action for usurpation of real property is not a bar to civil action for forcible entry.
RA 947
Punishes entering or occupying public agricultural land including lands granted to private
individuals.
RA.No.947
AN ACT MAKING IT UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PERSON, CORPORATION OR

ASSOCIATION TO FORCIBLY ENTER OR OCCUPY PUBLIC AGRICULTURAL
LANDS AND PENALIZING VIOLATIONS THEREOF
Section 1. It shall be unlawful for any person, corporation or association to enter or

occupy, through force, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth, any public agricultural land
including such public lands as are granted to private individuals under the provisions of
the Public Land Act or any other laws providing for the disposal of public agricultural
lands in the Philippines, and are duly covered by the corresponding applications required
for the purpose notwithstanding the fact that title thereto still remains in the Government;
or for any person, natural or juridical, to instigate, induce or force another to commit such
acts.
Sec. 2. The criminal action for any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be
instituted within one year from the time the cause of action arises.
Sec. 3. Any violation of the provisions of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not
exceeding one thousand pesos or imprisonment for not more than one year, or by both
such fine and imprisonment in the discretion of the court. In case of insolvency, the
offender shall suffer subsidiary imprisonment to be computed in accordance with the
provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
If the offender is a corporation or association, the president, director, manager or

managing partner thereof shall be held criminally liable therefor.
Approved: June 20
RA NO 3019 Anti-Graft And

Corrupt Practices Act
On Special Crime
RA NO 3019 Anti-Graft And Corrupt Practices Act
Persons Liable:
1. Any public officer who shall perform any of the following acts:
(1) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer
to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an
offense in connection with the official duties of the latter,
or allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced

to commit such violation or offense.

NOTE: Persuasion need not be successful. The
gravamen of the offense is the persuasion.
(2) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,

present, share, percentage, or benefit for himself or for
any other person in connection with any contract or transaction

between the government and any other party wherein the public
officer in his official capacity has to intervene under the law.

(3) Directly, or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present, or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself
or for another, from any person for whom the public officer,
in any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will
secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in
consideration for the help given or to be given.
NOTE: If the act does not fall under b and c, then Art. 210,
direct bribery, may apply.
(4) Accepting or having any member of his family accept employment

in a private enterprise which has pending official business with
him during the pendency thereof or within one year after its
termination.
NOTE: The act is mala prohibita. Hence, the public official need
not have even recommended the employment.
(5) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the Government,
or giving any private party any unwarranted benefits, advantage,
or preference in the discharge of his official, administrative or
judicial function through manifest partiality, evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall apply to
officers and employees of offices or government corporations
charged with the grant of licenses or permits or other concessions.
NOTES:
The best defense is that the partiality was not manifest. That
the partiality is manifest is a heavy burden on the prosecution.
Another defense is the Arias doctrine. The defense applies in a
case where the accused is an approving officer and is on trial for
signing an unjust contract.
The defense is that the approving officer relied on the prior

signatures of his subordinates and had no reason to suspect
wrong-doing and was swamped with a lot of documents on that day
that he signed.
There is no attempted or frustrated stage of the crime defined

in Sec. 3(e) of R.A. No. 3019.
(6) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request, without

sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable time on
any matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining
directly or indirectly, from any person interested in the matter
some pecuniary or material benefit or advantage, or for the
purpose of favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage
in favor of or discriminating against any other interested
party.
(7) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract or

transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the same,
whether or not the public officer profited or will profit thereby.

In determining whether the contract was manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous, it is not merely consideration of the
pecuniary amount involved.
(8) Directly or indirectly having financial or pecuniary interest

in any business, contract or transaction in connection with
which he intervenes or take part in his official capacity, or in
which he is prohibited by the constitution or by any law from
having any interest.
Under the Code of Professional Conduct, the public officer

MUST divest his interest.
(9) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal gain,

or having a material interest in any transaction or act
requiring the approval of a board, panel, or group of which
he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such approval,
even if he votes against the same or does not participate in the
action of the board, committee, panel or group.
(10)Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit, privilege,

or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or not
legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege, or
advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one who is
not so qualified or entitled.
(11)Divulging valuable information of a confidential character,

acquired by his office or by him on account of his official
position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized release date
2. Any person having family or close personal relation with any public
official who shall capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such
family or close personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting
or receiving any present, gift, or material, or pecuniary advantage
from any person having some business, transaction, application,
request, or contract with the government in which such public
official has to intervene (Sec. 4)
3. Any person who shall knowingly induce or cause any public official
to commit any of the offenses under (A). (Sec. 4)
4. Spouse or any relative, by consanguinity or 3rd civil degree, of the

affinity, within the President of the Philippines, the Vice-President,
the President of the Senate, or Speaker of the House of
Representatives, who shall intervene, directly or indirectly, in any
business transaction, contract or application with the government
(Sec.5)
This prohibition shall not apply to:

1. Any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of
the above officials to whom he is related, has been already
dealing with the government along the same line of business;
2. Any transaction, contract or application already existing or
pending at the time of such assumption of public office;
3. Any application filed by him, the approval of which is not
discretionary on the part of the official(s) concerned but
depends upon compliance with requisites provided by law,
or rules or regulations issued pursuant to law;
4. Any act lawfully performed in an official capacity or in
the exercise of a profession.
5. Any member of Congress, during the term for which he has been
elected, who shall acquire or receive any personal pecuniary
interest in any specific business enterprise which shall be
directly and particularly favored or benefited by any law or
resolution authored by him previously approved or adopted by
Congress during his term.
6. Any public officer who recommended the initiation in Congress

of the enactment or adoption of any law or resolution and
acquires or receives such interest during his incumbency.
Unlawful for such member of Congress or other public officer,

who, having such interest prior to the approval of such law or
resolution authored or recommended by him, continues for 30
days after such approval to retain such interest.
7. Any public officer who shall fail to file a true, detailed and
sworn statement of assets and liabilities within 30 days after
assuming office and thereafter on or before the 15 day of April
following the close of every calendar year, as well as upon the
expiration of his term of office, or upon his resignation or
separation from office (Sec. 7).
Prima Facie evidence Of and dismissal due to unexplained WEALTH (SEC.8)
1. If a public official has been found to have acquired during

his incumbency, whether in his name or in the name of other
persons, an amount of property and/or money manifestly out of
proportion to his salary and to his other lawful income.
2. Properties in the name of the spouse and dependents of such

public official may be taken into consideration, when their
acquisition through legitimate means cannot be satisfactorily shown.
3. Bank deposits in the name of or manifestly excessive expenditures

incurred by the public official, his spouse or any of their
dependents including but not limited to activities in any club
or association or any ostentatious display of wealth including
frequent travel abroad of a non-official character by any public
official when such activities entail expenses evidently out of
proportion to legitimate income.
NOTE: Competent court is the Sandiganbayan (Sec.10).
General Rule:
Prescriptive period is 15 years (Sec.11).

Exceptions: Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or
insignificant value offered or given as a mere
ordinary token of gratitude of friendship according
to local customs or usage, shall be excepted from
the provisions of this act (Sec. 14).
NOTES:
No public officer shall be allowed to resign or retire pending an investigation

Suspension while pending in court after valid information (cannot be automatic), and loss
of benefits if convicted by final judgment; maximum duration of preventive suspension is
90 days;
Acquittal - reinstatement and salaries and benefits which he failed to receive
The courts are not bound by the statement of assets and liabilities filed.
Penalty of forfeiture can be applied retroactively.
RA No. 3326
On Criminal Law
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3326
AN ACT CREATING FOUR ADDITIONAL POSITIONS OF ASSISTANT PROVINCIAL

FISCAL IN THE PROVINCE OF ORIENTAL MISAMIS, AMENDING FOR THIS
PURPOSE Sec. SIXTEEN HUNDRED SEVENTY-FOUR OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE
CODE, AS AMENDED
Section 1. The provisions of Section sixteen hundred seventy-four of the Administrative

Code, as amended, relative to the number of assistant provincial fiscals in the Province
of Oriental Misamis, is further amended to read as follows:
“Oriental Misamis, six assistant provincial fiscals;”
Enacted, without Executive approval, June 18, 1961.
RA 4200 Anti-Wiretapping Law

On Special Crime
RA 4200 Anti Wiretapping law
It shall be unlawful for any person, not being authorized by all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any other device or
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or record such communication or spoken
word by using a device commonly known as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or
walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise described
It shall also be unlawful for any person, be he a participant or not in the act or acts
penalized in the next preceding sentence, to knowingly possess any tape record, wire
record, disc record, or any other such record, or copies thereof, of any communication or
spoken word secured either before or after the effective date of this Act in the manner
prohibited by this law; or to replay the same for any other person or persons, or to
communicate the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, or to furnish
transcriptions thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other person:
Provided, That the use of such record or any copies thereof as evidence in any civil,
criminal investigation or trial of offenses shall not be covered by this prohibition.
Any person who willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid, permit or cause to be done
any of the acts declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or who violates the
provisions of the following section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or
causes such violation shall, upon conviction thereof, be punished
by imprisonment for not less than six months or more than six years and with the
accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office if the
offender be a public official at the time of the commission of the offense, and, if the
offender is an alien he shall be subject to deportation proceedings.
RA No. 4661
On Criminal Law
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 4661
AN ACT SHORTENING THE PRESCRIPTIVE PERIOD FOR LIBEL AND OTHER

SIMILAR OFFENSES, AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ARTICLE NINETY OF THE
REVISED PENAL CODE
Section 1. Article ninety of the Revised Penal Code is hereby amended to read as
follows:
“Art. 90. Prescription of crimes. — Crimes punishable by death, reclusion perpetua or

reclusion temporal shall prescribe in twenty years.
“Crimes punishable by other afflictive penalties shall prescribe in fifteen years.
“Those punishable by a correctional penalty shall prescribe in ten years; with the
exception of those punishable by arresto mayor, which shall prescribe in five years.
“The crime of libel or other similar offenses shall prescribe in one year.
“The offenses of oral defamation and slander by deed shall prescribe in six months.
“Light offenses prescribe in two months.
“When the penalty fixed by law is a compound one, the highest penalty shall be made
the basis of the application of the rules contained in the first, second and third
paragraphs of this article.”
Sec. 2. The provision of this amendatory Act shall not apply to cases of libel already filed
in court at the time of approval of this amendatory Act.
Approved: June 18, 1966
RA NO. 6235
On Special Crime
Anti-Hijacking Law
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. By compelling a change in the course or destination of an aircraft of Philippine
registry, or seizing or usurping the control thereof while it is in flight;
2. By compelling an aircraft of foreign registry to land in Philippine territory or
seizing or usurping the control thereof while it is in the said territory; and
3. By shipping, loading, or carrying in any passenger aircraft operating as a public utility
w/in the Philippines, any explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or
material.
IN FLIGHT – From the moment all exterior doors are closed following embarkation until
the same
doors are again opened for disembarkation.
NOTES:
Where the aircraft is of Philippine registry, the offense must be committed while in
flight. Hence, the act must take place after all exterior doors are closed following
embarkation.
Where the aircraft is of foreign registry, offense need not take place while in
flight.
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES (Par 1 & 2):

1. Firing upon the pilot, member of the crew or passenger of the aircraft;
2. Exploding or attempting to explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the aircraft; or
3. The crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries, or rape.
NOTES:
For “firing upon” to qualify the offense, offender must have actually fired
weapon. Mere attempt is not enough.
For “firing upon” to qualify the offense, offender need not succeed in hitting
pilot, crew member or passenger.
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 hijacking 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.
The important thing is 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.
RA 6713 Code Of Conduct And

Ethical Standards For Public
Officials And Employees
On Special Crime
Definition of terms:
A. "Conflict of interest" arises when a public official or employee is a
member of a board, an officer, or a substantial stockholder of a private
corporation or owner or has a substantial interest in a business, and
the interest of such corporation or business, or his rights or duties
therein, may be opposed to or affected by the faithful performance
of official duty.
B. "Divestment" is the transfer of title or disposal of interest in

property by voluntarily, completely and actually depriving or
dispossessing oneself of his right or title to it in favor of a
person or persons other than his spouse and relatives as defined in
this Act.
C. "Relatives" refers to any and all persons related to a public official or

employee within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity,
including bilas, inso and balae.
Prohibited Acts and Transactions (sec. 7):
A. Public officials and employees shall not have any financial or material
interest in any transaction requiring the approval of their office.
B. Public officials and employees during their incumbency shall not:

1. Own, control, manage or accept employment as officer, employee,
consultant, counsel, broker, agent, trustee or nominee in any
private enterprise regulated, supervised or licensed by their
office unless expressly allowed by law;
2. Engage in the private practice of their profession unless
authorized by the Constitution or law, provided, that such practice
will not conflict or tend to conflict with their official functions;
or
3. Recommend any person to any position in a private enterprise which
has a regular or pending official transaction with their office.
C. Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge, confidential

or classified information officially known to them by reason of their
office and not made available to the public, either:
1. To further their private interests, or give undue advantage to anyone; or
2. To prejudice the public interest.
D. Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or

indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan or anything of
monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or
in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction
which may be affected by the functions of their office.
Gifts or grants from foreign governments
A. The acceptance and retention by a public official or employee of a gift

of nominal value tendered and received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;
B. The acceptance by a public official or employee of a gift in the nature
of a scholarship or fellowship grant or medical treatment; or
C. The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel grants or

expenses for travel taking place entirely outside the Philippine
(such as allowances, transportation, food, and lodging) of more than
nominal value if such acceptance is appropriate or consistent with the
interests of the Philippines, and permitted by the head of office,
branch or agency to which he belongs.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one (1) year
after resignation, retirement, or separation from public office, except
in the case
Divestment (sec 9):

When a conflict of interest arises, he shall resign from his position
in any private business enterprise within thirty (30) days from his
assumption of office and/or divest himself of his shareholdings or
interest within sixty (60) days from such assumption.
The same rule shall apply where the public official or employee is a
partner in a partnership.
RA 7080 An Act Defining And

Penalizing The Crime Of Plunder
On Special Crime
RA 7080
An Act Defining and Penalizing
the Crime of Plunder
Ill-Gotten Wealth: Any asset, property,
business enterprise or material possession of any person acquired by him
directly or indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates,
and/or business associates by any combination or series of the
following means or similar schemes:
A. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse or malversation of

public funds or raids on the public treasury.
B. 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 or by reason of the office or position of the public
officer concerned;
C. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of assets

belonging to the National Government or any of its subdivisions,
agencies or instrumentalities or government-owned or controlled
corporations and their subsidiaries;
D. 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 enterprise or undertaking.
E. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial monopolies

or other combinations, and/or implementation of decrees and orders
intended to benefit particular persons or special interests;
F. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority,

relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich himself or
themselves at the expense and to the damage or prejudice of the
Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
PERSONS LIABLE:
A. Any public officer who, by himself or in with members of his family,
relatives by affinity or consanguinity, business associates and
subordinates or other persons, amasses, accumulates, or acquires
ill-gotten wealth through a combination or series of overt or criminal
acts as described under above in the aggregate amount or total value
of at least 50 million pesos, shall be guilty of the crime
of plunder (as amended by RA 7659).
B. Any person who participated with the said public officer in the
commission of plunder.
JURISDICTION: Sandiganbayan.
RULE OF EVIDENCE: For purposes of establishing the crime of plunder,
it shall not be necessary to prove each and every criminal act done
by the accused in furtherance of the scheme and conspiracy to amass,
accumulate or acquire ill-gotten wealth, it being sufficient to
establish beyond reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal
acts indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
PRESCRIPTION: 20 years. However, the right of the State to recover

properties unlawfully acquired by public officers from them or from
their nominees or transferees shall not be barred by prescription,
laches or estoppel.
ESTRADA VS. SANDIGANBAYAN, GR NO. 148560, NOVEMBER 21, 2001

what is meant by “combination” and “series” of overt or criminal
acts under the plunder law?
When the plunder law speaks of “combination”, it is referring
to at least two (2) acts falling under different categories of
enumeration provided in sec. 1, par. (d). example: raids on the
public treasury in sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1), and
fraudulent conveyance of assets belonging to the national
government under sec. 1 par. (d), subpar. (3). On the other
hand, to constitute a “series” there must be two (2) or more
overt or criminal acts falling under the same category of
enumeration found in sec. 1, par. (d), say, misappropriation,
malversation and raids on the public treasury, all of which falls
under sec. 1, par. (d), subpar. (1). verily, had the legislature
intended a technical or distinctive meaning for “combination”
and “series”, it would have taken greater pains in specially
providing for it in the law.
Joseph Ejercito Estrada vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 148560,

November 21, 2001
Is the crime of plunder malum in se or malum prohibitum?

Plunder is a crime of malum in se because the constitutive
crimes are mala in se. the elements of mens rea must be proven
in a prosecution for plunder. moreover, any doubt as to whether
the crime of plunder is malum in se must be deemed to have been
resolved in the affirmative decision of congress in 1993 to
include it among the heinous crimes punishable by reclusion
perpetua to death. the legislative declaration in r.a. 7659
that plunder is a heinous offense implies that it is malum in
se for when the acts punished are inherently immoral or
inherently wrong, they are mala in se and it does not matter
that such acts are punished in a special law, especially since in
the case of plunder the predicate crimes are
mainly mala in se.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
The Supreme Court held that the means and schemes to acquire ill-
gotten wealth should be committed by a combination or through a
series of acts. There should be at least two acts otherwise the
accused should be charged with the particular crime committed and
not with plunder. A combination means at least two acts of a
different category while a series means at least two acts of the
same category.
RA 7438
On Criminal Law
RA 7438
RA 7438
An Act Defining Certain Rights of Person Arrested, Detained or Under
Custodial Investigation as Well as the Duties of the Arresting, Detaining
and Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties for Violations
Thereof.
Rights of Persons Arrested, Detained, or Under Custodial Investigation;

Duties of Public Officers
Be informed, in a language known to and understood by him, of his rights to

remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel
Be assisted by counsel at all times

Preferably of his own choice
- If the person arrested, detained, or under custodial investigation cannot afford
the services of counsel, the investigating officer must provide him with one.
- Counsel shall at all times be allowed to confer privately with the person
Be visited by or have conferences with:

Any member of his immediate family, which INCLUDES –
- spouse,
- fiancee,
- parent or child,
- brother or sister,
- grandparent or grandchild,
- uncle or aunt,
- nephew or niece, AND
- guardian or ward
Any medical doctor OR priest OR religious minister
- Chosen by him, or by any member of his immediate family, or by his counsel
Any national non-governmental organization duly accredited by the Commission
on Human Rights or the Office of the President.
The custodial investigation report shall be reduced to writing by the

investigating officer.
- Its contents shall be read and adequately explained by the counsel to the
person arrested or detained BEFORE he signs or puts his thumb mark thereto.
- Otherwise, such investigation report shall be null and void and of
no effect whatsoever.
Any extrajudicial confession made by a person arrested, detained or under custodial

investigation shall be in writing.
- It shall be signed by the person in the presence of his counsel.
- In the absence of counsel AND upon a valid waiver, in the presence of any of
the following:
- Parents;
- Elder brothers and sisters;
- Spouse;
- Municipal mayor,
- municipal judge, district school supervisor; OR
- Priest or minister of the gospel as chosen by the person
- Otherwise, such extra judicial confession shall be inadmissible as

evidence in any proceeding.
Any waiver by a person arrested or detained under the provisions of Article

125 of the Revised Penal Code, or under custodial investigation, shall be in
writing and signed by such person in the presence of his counsel.
R. A. NO. 7659
On Special Crime
HEINOUS CRIMES ACT OF 1993 (R. A. NO. 7659)
The crimes punishable by death are:

1. Treason (Art. 114)
2. Qualified Piracy (Art. 123)
3. Qualified Bribery (Art. 211-A)
4. Parricide (Art. 246)
5. Murder (Art. 248)
6. Infanticide (Art. 255) HOWEVER: If any crime penalized in this Article be committed
by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be
committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them,
the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.
7. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention (Art. 267)
8. Robbery (Art. 294): when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of
homicide shall have been committed, or when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson.
9. Destructive Arson (Art. 320)
10. Rape (Art. 335)
a. Committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons
b. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane
c. When the rape is attempted or frustrated and a homicide is committed by reason or
on
the occasion thereof
d. Committed with attendant circumstances
11. Plunder (R. A. 7080)
12. Violations of Dangerous Drugs Act
13. Carnapping (R. A. 6539)
GENERAL RULE: The death penalty shall be imposed in all cases upon which it must
be imposed
under existing laws.
EXCEPTIONS (In which cases the penalty shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua):

1. when the guilty person is below 18 years of age at the time of the commission of the
crime;
2. when the guilty person is more than 70 years of age;
3. when upon appeal or automatic review of the case by the Supreme Court, the
required
majority vote is not obtained for the imposition of the death penalty,
RA. NO. 8049 The Anti-Hazing

Law
On Special Crime
HAZING - is an initiation rite or practice as a prerequisite for admission

into membership in a fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the
recruit, neophyte or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations
such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and other similar tasks or
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or psychological suffering
or injury.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. The officers and members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who
actually participated in the infliction of physical harm shall be liable as
principals if the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation
rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof;
a. when the recruitment is accompanied by force, violence, threat, intimidation
or deceit on the person of the recruit who refuses to join;
b. when the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially consents to join but upon
learning that hazing will be committed on his person, is prevented from
quitting;
c. when the recruit, neophyte or applicant having undergone hazing is prevented
from reporting the unlawful act to his parents or guardians, to the proper
school authorities, or to the police authorities, through force, violence,
threat or intimidation;
d. when the hazing is committed outside of the school or institution; or
e. when the victim is below twelve (12) years of age at the time of the hazing.
2. The school authorities including faculty members who consent to the hazing or
who have actual knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to prevent
the same from occurring shall be punished as accomplices for the acts of
hazing committed by the perpetrators;
3. The officers, former officers, or alumni of the organization, group,
fraternity or sorority who actually planned the hazing although not present
when the acts constituting the hazing were committed shall be liable as
principals.
4. A fraternity or sorority's adviser who is present when the acts constituting
the hazing were committed and failed to take action to prevent the same
from occurring shall be liable as principal.
The presence of any person during the hazing is prima facie evidence of
participation therein as principal unless he prevented the commission of
the illegal acts.
Any person charged under this provision shall not be entitled to the
circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
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. This makes
presence a prima facie presumption of guilt for such.
R.A. NO. 8294 An Act Amending

The Provisions of PD 1866
On Special Crime
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess
any low-powered firearm, part of firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument
used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any firearm or ammunition;
The owner, president, manager, director or other responsible officer of any public or
private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow
any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by
any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding
paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed firearms
or firearms without any legal authority to be carried outside of their residence in the
course of their employment;
2. Any person who shall carry any licensed firearm outside his residence without legal
authority therefor - Penalty is Arresto Mayor
3. Any person who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble, deal in, acquire, dispose
or possess hand grenade(s), rifle grenade(s), and other explosives or other incendiary
devices capable of producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury
or death to any person; Any person who shall unlawfully tamper, change, deface or
erase the serial number of any firearm; and
4. Any person who shall unlawfully repack, alter or modify the composition
of any lawfully manufactured explosives.
Note:
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm,such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Note:
If the violation of this Sec. is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crime of
rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'etat, such violation shall be absorbed as an
element of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted
coup d'etat.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner, president, manager, director or other
responsible officer of any public or private firm, company, corporation or entity, who shall
willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or
entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty of violating the provisions of the
preceding paragraphs or willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed firearms or
firearms without any legal authority to be carried outside of their residence in the course of their
employment.
Note:
When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the Revised Penal Code or special laws with
the use of the aforementioned explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices, which
results in the death of any person or persons, the use of such explosives,detonation agents or
incendiary devices shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
Under R.A. 8294, sedition absorbs the use of unlicensed firearm as an element thereof;
hence, not aggravating, and the offender can no longer be prosecuted for illegal
possession of firearm.
Coverage of the Term Unlicensed Firearm. — The term unlicensed firearm shall include:
A. A firearm with expired license; or
B. Unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission of the crime.
People vs. Ladjaalam, (2000)

The language of RA 8294 effectively exonerates the accused of illegal possession, an offense
which may carry a heavier penalty than the “other crime” committed. Indeed, the accused may
evade
conviction for illegal possession by committing a lighter offense, like alarm and scandal.
However, the wisdom of RA 8294 is not subject to the Court’s review.
People v Nepomuceno (1999)

Accused can no longer be separately charged with parricide and illegal possession of firearms.
The amendment says that the latter is only to be treated as an aggravating circumstance.
People v De Gracia (1994)

Rule: Ownership is not an essential element of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition.
What the law requires is merely possession which includes not only actual physical possession
but also constructive possession.
Advincula v CA (2000)
Two things must be shown to exist:
• The existence of the firearm
• The fact that it is not licensed
However, it should also be shown that even of he has a license, he cannot carry the
firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefore.
People v Tiozon (1991)

It may be loosely said that homicide or murder qualifies the offense. It does not follow however
that the homicide or murder is absorbed in the offense. It would be anomalous: a more
serious crime is absorbed by a statutory offense which is just malum prohibitum.
In fine then the killing of a person with the use of an unlicensed firearm
may give rise to separate prosecutions for (a) violation of section 1 of PD 1866, or (b) murder or
homicide. The accused cannot plead one as a bar to another.
RA 8294
Rape
On Criminal Law
Rape
ART.266A-266B.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353) now classified the crime of rape as a Crime
Against Persons. It incorporated rape into Title 8 of the RPC.
ELEMENTS:
Rape is committed -
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
a. through force, threat or intimidation;
b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious;
c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
d. when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none
of the circumstances mentioned above be present.
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof,
shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
a. his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice; or
b. any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
1. reclusion perpetua
2. reclusion perpetua to DEATH when:
a. victim became insane by reason or on the occasion of rape; or
b. the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion
thereof.
3. DEATH when:
a. homicide is committed;
b. victim is under 18 years old and offender is:
(1) parent,
(2) ascendant,
(3) step-parent,
(4) guardian,
(5) relative by consanguinity or affinity within the 3rd civil degree,
(6) common law spouse of victim’s parent;
c. under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal
institution;
d, committed in full view of the spouse, parent or any of the children or other relatives
within the 3rd degree of consanguinity;
e, victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is
personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of
the crime;
f. a child below 7 years old;
g. offender knows he is afflicted with HIV or AIDS or any other sexually transmissible
disease and the virus is transmitted to the victim;
h. offender is a member of the AFP, or para-military units thereof, or the PNP, or any law
enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his
position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
i. the victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or disability;
j. the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission
of the crime; and
k. when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical
handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.

1. prision mayor
2. prision mayor to reclusion temporal when:
a. there was use of deadly weapon, or
b. when committed by two or more persons.
3. reclusion temporal – when the victim has become insane
4. reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua – rape is attempted and homicide is
committed
5. reclusion perpetua – homicide is committed by reason or on occasion of rape
6. reclusion temporal – committed with any of the 10 aggravating circumstances
mentioned above
Dividing age in rape:

1. less than 7 years old - mandatory death
2. less than 12 years old - statutory rape
3. less than 18 years old and there is relationship (e.g. parent, etc.) - mandatory death
Degree of Force necessary:

1. Force sufficient to consummate culprit’s purpose
2. Consider age, size and strength of parties and their relation to each other
Rape may be committed by employing intimidation(Intimidation Moral kind)
When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence over the girl, it is not
necessary to put up determined resistance
Rape may be proved by testimony of woman alone

1. An accusation for rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult
for person accused, though innocent, to disprove
2. Nature only two persons are involved, testimony of complainant must be scrutinized
with extreme caution
3. The evidence for prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from weakness of evidence for defense
Deprivation of reason contemplated by law need not be complete, mental abnormality or

deficiency is sufficient
CONSUMMATED RAPE: penetration of labia consummates the crime of rape
ATTEMPTED RAPE: intent to have carnal knowledge must be clearly shown
Multiple rape by two or more offenders each one is responsible not only for rape
personally committed but also for rape committed by others
Rape with homicide is now a special complex crime
Rape infecting victim with gonorrhea that caused death is an illustration of rape with
homicide
Indemnity in Rape: P50,000 mandatory; if circumstances which death penalty is

authorized P75,000; Rape with homicide P100,000
Moral damages P50,000, without need of proof
Exemplary damages if the crime committed with one or more aggravating circumstances
PEOPLE vs.NEQUIA, G.R. No. 146569.10/6/03

In rape by sexual assault, the word "instrument or object" should be construed to include
a human finger.
ORDINARIO vs. PEOPLE G.R. No. 155415. 520/04

The definition of the crime of rape has been expanded with the enactment of Republic
Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, to include not only "rape
by sexual intercourse" but now likewise "rape by sexual assault." An act of sexual
assault under the second paragraph of the article can be committed by any person who,
under the circumstances mentioned in the first paragraph of the law, inserts his penis
into the mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice,
of another person. The law, unlike rape under the first paragraph of Article 266-A of the
Code, has not made any distinction on the sex of either the offender or the victim.
Neither must the courts make such distinction.
PEOPLE vs. BALLENO G.R. No. 149075. 8/7/03

The fact that no laceration and no ruptured hymen were found in this case, does not
necessarily negate rape. The fact that the hymen was intact upon examination does not,
likewise, belie rape, for a
broken hymen is not an essential element of rape, nor does the fact that the victim
remained a virgin
exclude the crime.
PEOPLE vs. NAVARRO, G.R. No. 137597. 10/24/03

Even the slightest contact of the penis with the labia under the circumstances
enumerated under Art. 266- A of the Revised Penal Code constitutes rape. A flaccid
penis can do as much damage as an erect one — at least insofar as the crime of rape is
concerned.
PEOPLE vs. AGSAOAY, G.R. Nos. 132125-26. 6/3/04

An unchaste woman who habitually goes out with different men may be a victim of rape.
The victim’s moral character is not among the elements of the crime of rape. It does not
negate the existence of rape.
PEOPLE vs. LALINGJAMAN, G.R. No. 132714. 6/6/01

Rape may be committed anywhere — even in places where people congregate such as
parks, along the road side, within school premises, and inside a house where there are
other occupants. The beast in him bears no respect for time and place.
PEOPLE vs. OLAYBAR G.R. Nos. 150630-31. 101/03

The trial court has decreed the penalty of death on account of the circumstance under
Article 266-A, i.e., that when "the offender knows that he is afflicted with Human
Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV), Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any
other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted to the
victim," the imposition of the extreme penalty of death would be warranted.
PEOPLE vs. DE LA TORRE G.R. Nos. 121213 & 121216-23. 1/13/04

An accused may be considered a principal by direct participation, by inducement, or by
indispensable cooperation. This is true in a charge of rape against a woman, provided of
course a man is charged together with her. Thus, in two cases the Court convicted the
woman as a principal by direct participation since it was proven that she held down the
complainant in order to help her co-accused spouse consummate the offense.
PEOPLE vs. ESPINOSA G.R. No. 138742 6/15/04
Absence of resistance does not mean consent. The complainant was only 14 years old
when the rape took place. At her age, it could easily be conceived that she feared the
appellant and believed his threats, that he would kill her and her family if she reported
the incident to anyone. The test is whether the threat or intimidation produces a
reasonable fear in the mind of the victim that if she resists or does not yield to the
desires of the accused, the threat would be carried out.
PEOPLE vs. MALONES, G.R. Nos. 124388-90. 3/11/04

The negative findings of spermatozoa on the medico-legal report does not prove that no
rape was committed.
PEOPLE vs. ROTE, G.R. No. 146188, 12/11/03

Where the girl is below 12 years old, the only subject of inquiry is whether “carnal
knowledge” took place. Proof of force, intimidation or consent is unnecessary since none
of these is an element of statutory rape. There is a conclusive presumption of absence
of free consent of the rape victim is below the age of 12.
PEOPLE vs.SABARDAN, G.R. No. 132135. 5/21/04

When the original and primordial intention of the appellant in keeping the victim in his
apartment was to rape her and not to deprive her of her liberty, the appellant is guilty
only of rape under Article 335, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, and not of the
complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape under Article 267, in relation to
Articles 335 and 48 of the Code.
PEOPLE vs. BALATAZO, G.R. No. 118027. 1/29/04

Force or intimidation may be actual or constructive. In this case, the victim is a mental
retardate. The appellant took advantage of her condition and succeeded in having
sexual intercourse with her. Hence, he is guilty of forcible rape.
PEOPLE vs. FUCIO, G.R. Nos. 151186-95. 2/13/04

The qualifying circumstance of minority and relationship does not include god-father
relationship
PEOPLE vs. ANCHETA, G.R. No. 142431. 1/14/04

To justify the imposition of the death penalty in cases of incestuous rape, the
concurrence of the minority of the victim and her relationship to the offender constitutes
one special qualifying circumstance which must be both alleged and proved with moral
certainty.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. MAURICIO WATIWA, G.R. No. 139400,

September 3, 2003
In Qualified Rape, the term “guardian” refers to a legal guardian as in the case of
parents or guardian ad litem or judicial guardian appointed by the court, and not merely
to an uncommitted caretaker over a limited period of time.
PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. vs. LAMBID G.R. Nos. 133066-67, October 1, 2003
The force or violence necessary in rape is a relative term that depends not only on the
age, size, and strength of the persons involved but also on their relationship with each
other. In a rape committed by a father against his own daughter, the former's parental
authority and moral ascendancy substitutes for violence or intimidation over the latter
who, expectedly, would just cower in fear and resign to the father's wicked deeds.
PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES vs. ANTHONY SANDIG G.R. No. 143124. 7/25/03
The mere assertion of a love relationship does not necessarily rule out the use of force
to consummate the crime of rape. A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex against
her will. Definitely, a man can neither demand sexual gratification from a fiancée nor
employ violence upon her, on the pretext of love.
PEOPLE vs. JOEL AYUDA G.R. No. 128882. 10/2/03

A "sweetheart defense," to be credible, should be substantiated by some documentary
or other evidence of the relationship — like mementos, love letters, notes, pictures and
the like. Here, no such evidence was ever presented by appellant.
PEOPLE vs. ACERO, G.R. Nos. 146690- 91. 3/17/04

A defense based on “sweetheart theory” in rape cases is not a defense at all in rape
where the victim is a mental retardate.
PEOPLE vs. OGA, G.R. No. 152302. 6/8/04

Sweetheart theory prevails as a defense in rape when it casts reasonable doubt as to
the guilt of the accused.
People v. Orita
A soldier raped a 19-year old student by poking a knife on her neck. Only a portion of his
penis entered her vagina because the victim kept on struggling until she was able to
escape. The accused was convicted of frustrated rape.
HELD: There is NO crime of FRUSTRATED RAPE because in rape, from the moment
the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, he actually attains his purpose, all the
essential elements of the offense have been accomplished.
People v. Campuhan
The accused had his pants down and was on top of the 4-year old child when the child’s
mother arrived. Medical findings showed no signs of genital injury and the victim’s
hymen was intact.
HELD: For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or scrape of the penis on the
external layer of the vagina will not suffice. Mere touching of the external layer of the
vagina is not the same as ‘slightest penetration’. Accused is only liable for ATTEMPTED
RAPE.
People v. Atento
A 16-year old mental retardate, who has the intellectual capacity of a 9 and 12-year-old,
was repeatedly raped by the accused.
HELD: The accused was found guilty of raping a woman deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious and was also held liable for rape under the Par. that pertains to a victim
under 12
notwithstanding the victim’s actual age. Age requirement was amended to refer to
mental age.
People v. Gallo
Gallo was found guilty of the crime of qualified rape with the penalty of death. The
information filed against him does not allege his relationship with the victim, his
daughter, thus, it CANNOT be considered as a qualifying circumstance.
HELD: Special qualifying circumstances have to be alleged in the information for it to be

appreciated. The case was reopened and the judgment is modified from death to
reclusion Perpetua.
People v. Berana
A 14-year old was raped by her brother-in-law.
HELD: To effectively prosecute the accused of the crime of rape committed by a relative
by affinity w/in the 3rd civil degree, it must be established that:
1) the accused is legally married to the victim’s sister; and
2) the victim and the accused’s wife are full or half-blood siblings. Since relationship
qualifies the crime of rape, there must be clearer proof of relationship and in this case, it
was not adequately substantiated.
Death Penalty; Qualified Rape; Requisites; (Bar Exam Question 2004)
GV was convicted of raping TC, his niece, and he was sentenced to death. It was
alleged in the information that the victim was a minor below seven years old, and her
mother testified that she was only six years old and ten months old, which her aunt
corroborated on the witness stand. The information also alleged that the accused was
the victim's uncle, a fact proved by the prosecution.
On automatic review before the supreme court, accused appelant contends that capital
punishment could not be imposed on him because of the inadequacy of the charges and
the insufficiency of the evidence to prove all the elements of the heinous crime of rape
Is appellant's contention correct? Reason briefly.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, appellant's contention is correct insofar as the age of the victim is concerned. The
aged of the victim raped has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt to constitute the
crime of qualified rape and deserving of the death penalty. The guidelines in
appreciating age as a qualifying circumstance in rape cases have not been met, to wit:
1. The primary evidence of the age of the victim is her birth certificate;
2. in the absence of the birth certificate, age of the victim may be proven by authentic
documents, such as baptismal certificate and school records;
3. If the aforesaid documents are shown to have been lost or destroyed or otherwise
unavailable, the testimony, if clear and credible of the victim's mother or any member of
the family, by consanguinity or affinity, who is qualified to testify on matters respecting
pedigree such as the exact age or date of birth of the offended party pursuant to Section
40, Rule 130 of the Rules of Evidence shall be sufficient but only under the following
circumstances:
a. If the victim is alleged to be below 3 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
b. If the victim is alleged to be below 7 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
c. If the victim is alleged to be below 12 years of age and what is sought to be proved is
that she is less than 18 years old.
4. In the absence of a certificate of live birth, authentic document, or the testimony of the
victim's mother or relatives concerning the victim's age under the circumstances above
stated, complainant's sole testimony can suffice, provided that it is expressly and clearly
admitted by the accused (People vs. Pruna, 390 SRA 577 [2002]).
Criminal Liabilities; Rape; Homicide & Theft (1998)
consuming three bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and
violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her jewelry. Doming, King's
adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body,
cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room. Later, King gave Jose,
his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the
jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000. What crime or
crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities.
Suggested Answer:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible
offense, not a complex crime, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is
already dead is only theft.
Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him. He then violently threw her on
the floor and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a result Alma suffered
(a) Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain.
(b) Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries? Explain.
(c) Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before the incident Gavino and Alma
were legally separated? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
(a) No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife because of the
matrimonial consent which she gave when she assumed the marriage relation, and the
law will not permit her to retract in order to charge her husband with the offense (Sate
vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So. 372; 441 RA 837).
(b) Yes, he may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This offense is specially mentioned
in Art. 263 [4], paragraph 2 which imposes a higher penalty for the crime of physical
injuries in cases where the offense shall have been committed against any of the
persons enumerated in Art 246 (the crime of parricide).
(c) No, my answer will not be the same. If Gavino, and Alma were legally separated at
the time of the incident, then Gavino could be held liable for rape. A legal separation is a
separation of the spouses from bed and board (U.S. vs. Johnson, 27 Phil. 477, cited in II
Reyes, RFC, p. 853. 1981 edition), In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the
infliction of physical injuries suffered by the victim on the occasion of the rape, is
absorbed by the crime of rape. The injuries suffered by the victim may, however, be
considered in determining the proper penalty which shall be imposed on the offender.
Serious physical injuries cannot be absorbed in rape; it can be so if the injury is slight.
Rape; Absence of Force & Intimidation (1995)
Three policemen conducting routine surveillance of a cogonal area in Antipole chanced

upon Ruben, a 15-year old tricycle driver, on top of Rowena who was known to be a
child prostitute. Both were naked from the waist down and appeared to be enjoying the
sexual activity. Ruben was arrested by the policemen despite his protestations that
Rowena enticed him to have sex with her in advance celebration of her twelfth birthday.
The town physician found no semen nor any bleeding on Rowena's hymen but for a
healed scar. Her hymenal opening easily admitted two fingers showing that no external
force had been employed on her. Is Ruben liable for any offense? Discuss fully.
Suggested Answer:
Ruben is liable for rape, even if force or intimidation is not present. The gravamen of the
offense is the carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age (People vs. Dela
Cruz, 56 SCRA 84) since the law doesn't consider the consent voluntary and presumes
that a girl below twelve years old does not and cannot have a will of her own. In People
us. Perez, CA 37 OG 1762 , it was held that sexual intercourse with a prostitute below
twelve years old is rape. Similarly, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the
consummation as the important consideration is not the emission but the penetration of
the female body by the male organ (People vs. Jose 37 SCRA 450; People vs.
Carandang. 52
SCRA 2.
What other acts are considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, amending the
Revised Penal Code?
Suggested Answer:
The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 are:
1. having carnal knowledge of a woman by a man by means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority,
2. having carnal knowledge of a demented woman by a man even if none of the
circumstances required in rape be present; and
3. committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a person's penis into the victim's
mouth or anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into the genital or anal
orifice of another person.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from a crime against honor, a private
offense, to that of a crime against persons. Will the subsequent marriage of the offender
and the offended party extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the
subsequent valid marriage between the offender and offended party shall extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty imposed, although rape has been reclassified from a crime
against chastity, to that of a crime against persons.
Rape; Male Victim
A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through threat and intimidation,
succeeds in inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability?
Why?
Suggested Answer:
A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual assault against B, by
inserting his penis into the anus of the latter. Even a man may be a victim of rape by
sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended,
"when the offender's penis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice."
Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City which was driven by Roger,
Flordeluna noticed that Roger was always placing his car freshener in front of the car
aircon ventilation but did not bother asking Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy
and became unconscious. Instead of bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought
Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for two (2) weeks. She was
raped for the entire duration of her detention. May Roger be charged and convicted of
the crime of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
detention. Roger may be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct
offense and should be punished separately. Evidently, his principal intention was to
abuse Flordeluna; the detention was only incidental to the rape.
Alternative Answer:
detention, since the detention was incurred in raping the victim during the days she was
held. At most, Roger may be prosecuted for forcible abduction for taking Flordeluna to
Cavite against the latter's will and with lewd designs. The forcible abduction should be
complexed with one of the multiple rapes committed, and the other rapes should be
prosecuted and punished separately, in as many rapes were charged and proved.
Proper Party (1993)
Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into having sexual intercourse
with him. Rachel's mother immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn
statement, before the City Prosecutor's Office. After the necessary preliminary
investigation, an information was signed by the prosecutor but did not contain the
signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC (prosecution of the
crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.
Suggested Answer:
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law (People us. Ilarde, 125 SCRA
11). It is enough that a complaint was filed by the offended party or the parents in the
Fiscal's Office.
Rape; Statutory Rape; Mental Retardate Victim (1996)
The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental retardate with an intellectual capacity

between the ages of nine and twelve years, when asked during the trial how she felt
when she was raped by the accused, replied "Masarap, it gave me much pleasure." With
the claim of the accused that the complainant consented for a fee to the sexual
intercourse, and with the foregoing answer of the complainant, would you convict the
accused of rape if you were the judge trying the case? Explain.
Suggested Answer:
Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a mental retardate with the
intellectual capacity of a child less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving a
valid consent to the sexual Intercourse. The sexual intercourse is tantamount to a
statutory rape because the level of intelligence is that of a child less than twelve years of
age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate, violence or Intimidation is not
essential to constitute rape. (People us. Trimor, G,R. 106541-42, 31 Mar 95) As a matter
of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RPC, by adding the
phrase "or is demented."
Philippine Anti Money Laundering

Act Of 2001
On Special Crime
Money laundering - is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful activity are
transacted, thereby making them appear to have originated from legitimate sources.
PERSONS LIABLE:
1. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property represents, involves,
or relates to, the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact
said monetary instrument or property.
2. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property involves the proceeds
of any unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he
facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in paragraph (a) above.
3. Any person knowing that any monetary instrument or property is required under this
Act to
be disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do so.
Covered transaction:
Transaction In excess of P500,000 within one banking day.
Suspicious transaction, Requisites:

1. Covered institution,
2. Regardless of amount, and
3. Any of the ff. circumstances:
a. no economic justification
b. client not properly identified
c. amount not commensurate with financial capacity
d. structured to avoid reporting
e. deviation from client’s profile or past transactions
f. unlawful activity under this Act
g. Similar or analogous
UNLAWFUL ACTIVITY:
1. Kidnapping for ransom
2. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 (Sec. 4,5,6,8,9,10,12,14,15,16)
3. Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (Sec. 3, par. B,C,E,G,H and I)
4. Plunder
5. Robbery and extortion
6. Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal gambling
7. Piracy on the high seas
8. Qualified theft
9. Swindling
10.Smuggling
11.Electronic Commerce Act of 2000
12.Hijacking and other violation of RA 6235; destructive and murder, including those
perpetrated by terrorists against non-combatants
13. Securities Regulations Code of 2000
14. Offenses of similar nature punishable by foreign penal laws
WHAT IS REQUIRED TO BE REPORTED?

Covered institutions shall report to the Anti Money Laundering Council all covered
transactions and suspicious transactions within 5 working days from the occurrence.
AUTHORITY TO INQUIRE INTO BANK DEPOSITS:

1. Court order upon showing of probable cause that the deposit is related to an unlawful
activity or a money laundering offense.

2. No court order required for the ff. unlawful activities:
a. Kidnapping for ransom
b. Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002 Hijacking and other violation of RA
6235;
destructive and murder, including those perpetrated by terrorists against non-
combatants
PROSECUTION OF MONEY LAUNDERING:

1. Offender may be charged with and convicted of BOTH money laundering and the
unlawful
activity
2. Proceeding of unlawful activity shall be given precedence over the prosecution for
money laundering, without prejudice to freezing and other remedies of this Act.
RA NO.9165 Comprehensive
On Special Crime
Dangerous Drugs Act Of 2002

RA 9165
Articles 190-194 of the Revised Penal Code are repealed by Republic Act No. 6425 “The
Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972” which took effect on March 30, 1972 (Sec. 42), as
amended by PD No. 1683 and further amended by RA No. 7659
THE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002 (R. A. NO. 9165, repealing R. A. No.6425
and RPC provisions on crimes related to opium and other prohibited drugs)
Policy
1. Campaign against Drugs and Protection of State
2. Balance - Medicinal Purpose
3. Rehabilitation
ACTS PUNISHABLE:
1. Importation of dangerous drugs (even for floral, decorative and culinary purposes)
and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals

a. If the importation was through the use of a diplomatic passport, diplomatic
facilities or any other means involving the offender’s official status.
b. Organizes, manages or acts as a financier
2. Sale, administration, delivery, distribution, and transportation of dangerous drugs
a. Within 100 meters from a school;
b. If minors/mentally incapacitated individuals are used as runners, couriers and
messengers of drug pushers;
c. If the victim of the offense is a minor, or should a prohibited/regulated drug
involved in any offense under this section be the proximate cause of the death
of a victim thereof
d. Organizes, manages or acts as financier
3. Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort where any controlled precursor and essential

chemical is sold or used
1. where a prohibited/regulated drug is administered, delivered, or sold to a minor
who is allowed to use the same in such place; or
2. should a prohibited drug be the proximate cause of the death of the person using
the same in such den, dive or resort.
3. Organizes, manages or acts as financier

- If place owned by third person, the same shall be confiscated and escheated
in favor of government IF
1. Complaint specifically allege that such place used intentionally for
furtherance of crime
2. Prosecution proves intent on part of owner
3. Owner included as accused in criminal complaint
Opium Dive or Resort - place where dangerous drug and/or controlled

precursor and essential chemical is administered, delivered, stored for illegal
purposes, distributed, sold or used in any form (To be habitual – prior

conviction, reputation of place)
4. Being employees or visitors of drug den who are aware of the nature of such place
- For the employee who is aware of nature of place and any person who
knowingly visits such place
- A person who visited another who was smoking opium shall not be liable
if the place is not an opium dive or resort
5. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursors and essential chemicals

Aggravating circumstance: Clandestine lab is undertaken under the following
circumstances:
1. Any phase conducted in presence or with help of minors
2. Established/undertaken within 100m of residential, business, church or school
premises
3. Lab secured/protected by booby traps
4. Concealed with legitimate business operations
5. Employment of practitioner, chemical engineer, public official or foreigner
Qualifying circumstance: Organizes, manages or acts as financier

Prima facie proof of manufacture: presence of controlled precursor and essential
chemical or lab equipment in the clandestine lab
CLANDESTINE LABORATORY:Any facility used for illegal manufacture of any

dangerous
drug and or controlled precursor and essential chemicals
6. Illegal chemical diversion of precursor and essential chemicals
CHEMICAL DIVERSION: sale, distribution, transport of legitimately imported,

in-transit, manufactured or procured controlled precursors or essential chemicals
to any person or entity engaged in manufacture of dangerous drug and concealment
of such transaction through fraud, destruction of documents, fraudulent use of
permits, misdeclaration, use of front companies or mail fraud
7. Manufacture or delivery of equipment, instrument, apparatus, and other

paraphernalia for dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential chemicals
Acts Punishable:
1. deliver
2. possess with intent to deliver
3. manufacture with intent to deliver the paraphernalia, knowing, or under
circumstances where one reasonably should know
Qualifying circumstance - use of a minor or a mentally incapacitated individual

to deliver such equipment, instrument, apparatus or other paraphernalia
8. Possession of dangerous drugs, regardless of the degree of purity

- Penalties are graduated to the amount of drugs (the only violation where
quantity matters)
- The kinds of drugs have different respective amounts for the graduation of
penalties
Qualifying circumstance: Party, social gathering, or in the proximate company

of at least 2 persons, regardless of quantity
Possession: unauthorized, either actual or constructive, irrespective of quantity,

with intent to possess(full knowledge that what was possessed was any of
prohibited or regulated drug)
Elements of possession of opium: (RA 6425)

1. occupancy or taking
2. intent to possess
What is punished is present possession, not past possession
It is not necessary to allege in information that accused is not authorized to

possess opium
9. Possession apparatus and other paraphernalia fit for introducing dangerous drugs into
the body
Possession of such equipment = Prima facie evidence that possessor has used a
dangerous drug and shall be presumed to have violated Sec. 15, use of dangerous
drug.
The possession of PARAPHERNALIA is absorbed by USE of dangerous drug.
Qualifying circumstance: Party, social gathering, or in the proximate company of

at least 2 persons.
10. Use of dangerous drugs

Must be found positive after a confirmatory test
1st conviction – minimum of 6 mos. of rehabilitation
2nd conviction – imprisonment and fine
Where the accused is also found to be in possession of dangerous drugs, this

Section shall not apply. Sec. 11, possession of dangerous drugs, shall apply.
Hence, USE is subsumed by POSSESSION.
Ex. If the offender is caught with possession of paraphernalia, possession of
dangerous drugs and use of dangerous drugs, the offense is POSSESSION OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS.
11.Cultivation or culture of plants which are dangerous drugs or are sources thereof
The land/portions thereof and/or greenhouses in which any of the said plants is
cultivated or cultured shall be confiscated and escheated to the State, unless
the owner thereof prove that he did not know of such cultivation or culture
despite the exercise of due diligence on his part.
1) The land is part of the public domain
2) Organizes, manages or acts as financier
12. Failure to keep of original records of transactions of dangerous drugs
Persons liable: practitioner, manufacturer, wholesaler, importer, distributor,

dealer, or retailer
The additional penalty of revocation of his license to practice his profession

in case of a practitioner, or of his or its business license in case of
manufacturer, seller, importer, distributor or dealer, shall be imposed.
13. Unnecessary prescription of dangerous drugs
Person Liable: Practitioner who shall prescribe any dangerous drug for any person
whose physical/physiological condition does not require the use of thereof or
in the dosage therein.
14. Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs
Also Punishable -
ATTEMPT AND CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT THE FOLLOWING OFFENSES:

a. Importation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical,
b. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery, distribution and
transportation of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical,
c. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for dangerous drugs,
d. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and/or controlled precursor and essential
chemical,and
e. Cultivation or culture of plants which are sources of dangerous drugs.
The penalty for such attempt and conspiracy is the same penalty prescribed
for the commission. Thus, where the offense of sale was not consummated, the
accused should not be prosecuted under mere possession, but under Sec. 26.
(Justice Peralta)
OTHER PERSONS LIABLE:

1. Public officer or employee who misappropriates, misapplies or fails to account
for confiscated, seized, or surrendered dangerous drugs, plant sources of
dangerous drugs, etc.
2. Any elective local or national official who have benefited from the proceeds of
trafficking of dangerous drugs or have received any financial/material contributions
or donations from natural or juridical persons guilty of drug trafficking.
3. If the violation of the Act is committed by a partnership, corporation, association
or any judicial person, the partner, president, director, or manager who consents to
or knowingly tolerates such violation shall be held criminally liable as co-principal.
4. Partner, president, director, manager, officer or stockholder, who knowingly
authorizes, tolerates, or consents to the use of a vehicle, vessel, or aircraft as
an instrument in the importation, sale, delivery, distribution or transportation of
dangerous drugs, or to the use of their equipment, machines or other instruments in
the manufacture of any dangerous drugs, if such vehicle, vessel, aircraft, equipment,
or other instrument, is owned or under the control and supervision of the partnership,
corporation, association or judicial entity to which they are affiliated.

5. Any person who is found guilty of “planting” any dangerous drugs and/or controlled
precursor and essential chemicals, regardless of quantity or purity (penalty of death).
6. Any person violating a regulation issued by the Dangerous Drugs Board
7. Any person authorized to conduct drug test who issues false or fraudulent drug test
results knowingly, willfully or through gross negligence.
8. Any government officer tasked with the prosecution of drug-related cases under this
Act who delays or bungles the prosecution.
For the purpose of enforcing the provisions of this Act, all school heads,
supervisors and teachers shall be deemed to be persons in authority
and, as such, are vested with the power to apprehend, arrest, or cause the
apprehension or arrest of any person who shall violate any of the said provision.
They shall be considered as persons in authority if they are in the school or
within its immediate vicinity, or beyond such immediate vicinity if they are
in attendance in any school or class function in their official capacity as
school heads, supervisors or teachers.
Any teacher or school employee who discovers or finds that any person in the
school or within its immediate vicinity is violating this Act shall have
the duty to report the violation to the school head or supervisor who shall,
in turn, report the matter to the proper authorities. Failure to report in
either case shall, after hearing, constitute sufficient cause for disciplinary
action by the school authorities. (Sec. 44)
RULES FOR EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY OF DRU DEPENDENTS

THROUGH VOLUNTARY SUBMISSION:
A. Drug dependent who is finally discharged from confinement shall be exempt

subject to the ff. conditions:
1) Complied with the rules of the Center
2) Never been charged or convicted of any offense under this Act, the Dangerous
Drugs Act of 1972, the RPC, or any special penal laws.
3) No record of escape from the Center; provided if he escaped, he surrendered
by himself or through his parent, spouse, guardian, or relative w/in 1 week.
4) Poses no serious danger to himself, family or community.
B. Voluntary submission of a drug dependent to confinement, treatment and

rehabilitation by the drug-dependent himself or through his parent,
guardian or relative within the 4th in a center and compliance with such conditions
therefor as the Dangerous Drugs Board may prescribe shall exempt him from
criminal liability for possession or use of the dangerous drug.
C. Should the drug-dependent escape from the center, he may submit himself for
confinement within 1 week from the date of his escape, of his parent guardian
or relative may, within the same period surrender him for confinement.
D. Upon application of the Board, the Court shall issue an order for recommitment
if the drug dependent does not resubmit himself for confinement or if he is
not surrendered for recommitment.
E. If, subsequent to such recommitment, he should escape again, he shall no longer be

exempt from criminal liability for the use or possession of any dangerous drug.
F. If a person charged with an offense with an imposable penalty of less than

6 years and 1 day, and the Court or prosecutor, at any stage of the proceedings,
finds that the person charged with an offense is a drug dependent, the fiscal
or court as the case may be, shall suspend all further proceedings and transmit
records of the case to the Board. If the Board determines that public interest
requires that such person be committed, it shall file a petition for commitment.
After commitment and discharge, the prosecution shall continue. In case of
conviction, the judgment shall, if certified by the center for good behavior,
indicate that he shall be given full credit for the period of confinement;
provided when the offense is use of dangerous drugs, and the accused is not a
recidivist, the penalty shall have deemed to have been served in the center
upon release.
G. The period of prescription of the offense charged shall not run during the time
that the respondent/accused is under detention or confinement in a center.
H. A drug dependent who is discharged as rehabilitated, but does not qualify for
exemption, may be charged under this Act, but shall be placed on probation
and undergo community service in lieu of imprisonment and/or fine in the
court’s discretion.
I. A drug dependent who is not rehabilitated after the second commitment to the
Center under the voluntary submission program shall, upon recommendation of
the Board, be charged for violation of Sec. 15, (use of dangerous drug) and
be prosecuted like any other offender. If convicted, he shall be credited for
the period of confinement in the Center.
RULES ON SUSPENSION OF SENTENCE FOR FIRST OFFENSE OF A MINOR:
A. Supervision and rehabilitative surveillance of the Board and under such

conditions that the court may impose for a period of 6-18 mos.
Requisites for suspension:

1. Accused is a minor over 15 years at the time of the commission of the
offense but not more than 18 years of age when the judgment should have
been promulgated.
2. He has not been previously convicted of violating this Act, Dangerous Drugs
Act of 1972, RPC or any special penal laws.
3. He has not been previously committed to a Center or to the care of a DOH-
accedited
physician.
4. The Dangerous Drugs Board favorably recommends that his/her sentence be
suspended.
Where the minor is under 15 years at the time of the commission, Art. 192 of
Child and Youth Welfare Code shall apply (suspension of sentence and
commitment)
B. The privilege of suspended sentence may be availed of only once.
C. If the minor violates any of the conditions of his suspended sentence, rules
of the Board, or rules of the center, the court shall pronounce judgment of
conviction and he shall serve sentence as any other convicted person.
D. Upon promulgation of sentence, the court may, in its discretion, place the
accused under probation, or impose community service in lieu of imprisonment.
RULES FOR LAB EXAMINATION OF APPREHENDED/ARRESTED OFFENDERS :

1. If reasonable ground to believe that offender is under the influence of
dangerous drugs, conduct examination w/in 24 hours.
2. Positive results shall be challenged w/in 15 days after receipt of the result
through a confirmatory test.
3. Confirmed test shall be prima facie evidence that offender has used dangerous drugs.
4. Positive test must be confirmed for it to be valid in a court of law.
OTHER RULES:
1. In buy-bust operations, there is no law or rule requiring policemen to adopt a
uniform way of identifying buy money.
2. Absence of ultraviolet powder on the buy money is not fatal for the prosecution.
3. If offender is an alien, an additional penalty of deportation without further
proceedings shall be imposed immediately after service of sentence.
4. A person charged under the Dangerous Drugs Act shall not be allowed to avail of
plea-bargaining.
5. A positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying aggravating
circumstance in the commission of a crime by the offender.
6. If public official/employee is the offender, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
7. Any person convicted of drug trafficking or pushing cannot avail of the
Probation Law.
8. Immunity from prosecution and punishment shall be granted to an informant,
provided the ff. conditions concur:
1) necessary for conviction
2) not yet in the possession of the State
3) can be corroborated on material points
4) has not been previously convicted of a crime of moral turpitude, except
when there is no other direct evidence
5) comply with conditions imposed by the State
6) does not appear to be the most guilty
7) no other direct evidence available
Mandatory drug testing includes:

1) All persons charged with a criminal offense having an imposable penalty
of not less than 6 years and 1 day.
2) All candidates for public office, whether appointed or elected.
Limited applicability of the RPC - The RPC shall not apply to this Act, except
in the case of minor offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty
for acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be reclusion
perpetua to death.
Hence, since RPC nomenclature of penalties is used, the minor is then

entitled to mitigating circumstances under the RPC (Martin Simon case).
Thus, the minor does not receive the death penalty. (Justice Peralta)
People v. Adam GR 143842, 10/13/03

Appellant is guilty of the crime of attempted sale of shabu. As gleaned from
the testimony of the poseur-buyer, the appellant merely showed the bag
containing the shabu and held on to it before it was confiscated. There is
no evidence that the poseur- buyer talked about and agreed with the appellant on
the purchase price of the shabu. There is no evidence that the appellant handed
over the shabu to the poseur buyer
People v. Yang, GR 148077, 2/16/04

The consummation of the crime charged herein may be sufficiently established
even in the absence of an exchange of money. The offer to sell and then
the sale itself arose when the poseur-buyer showed the money to appellant,
which prompted the latter to show the contents of the carton, and hand it over
to the poseur-buyer. Mere showing of the said regulated drug does not negate
the existence of an offer to sell or an actual sale. The absence of actual or
completed payment is irrelevant, for the law itself penalizes the very act of
delivery of a dangerous drug, regardless of any consideration. Payment of
consideration is likewise immaterial in the distribution
of illicit drugs.
People v. Chua, GR 149878, 7/1/03

In a prosecution for illegal possession of a dangerous drug, mere possession
of a regulated drug without legal authority is punishable under the
Dangerous Drugs Act. Lack of criminal intent or good faith does not exempt
appellants from criminal liability.
People v. Cadley, GR 150735, 3/15/04

A prior surveillance is not a prerequisite for the validity of an entrapment
or buy- bust operation, the conduct of which has no rigid or textbook method
People v. Del Norte, GR 149462, 3/31/04

In a prosecution for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, the following
facts must be proven with moral certainty:
(1) that the accused is in possession of the object identified as a
prohibited or regulated drug;
(2) that such possession is not authorized by law; and
(3) that the accused freely and consciously possessed the said drug. In this
case, proof of the accused’s ownership of the house where the prohibited
drugs were discovered is necessary.
What is the PDEA?

The PDEA is the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency. It serves as the
implementing arm of the Dangerous Drugs Board It shall be responsible for the
efficient and effective law enforcement of all the provisions on any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and essential chemical as provided in this Act.
Section 82, Article IX, RA 9165
What are the functions of the Dangerous Drugs Board?

The Board shall Be the policy-making and strategy-formulating body in the
planning and formulation of policies and programs on drug prevention and control.
Develop and adopt a comprehensive, integrated, unified and balanced national

drug abuse prevention and control strategy.
Under the Office of the President.
How long will the drug dependent be confined for treatment and rehabilitation?
- Confinement in a Center for treatment and rehabilitation shall not exceed
one (1) year, after which time the Court, as well as the Board, shall be
apprised by the head of the treatment and rehabilitation center of the status
of said drug dependent and determine whether further confinement will be for
the welfare of the drug dependent and his/her family or the community.
RA. NO. 9262 Anti Violence

Against Women And Their
Children Act Of 2004
On Special Crime
RA No. 9262
Anti Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004
What is the Battered Woman Syndrome?

What is its effect on the criminal liability of the accused?
Battered Woman Syndrome refers to a scientifically defined pattern of psychological and

behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering relationships as a result of
cumulative abuse.
Battery refers to any act of inflicting physical harm upon the woman or her child resulting
in physical and psychological or emotional distress.
Victim-survivors who are found by the courts to be suffering from Battered Woman
Syndrome do not incur any criminal or civil liability notwithstanding the absence of any of
the elements for justifying circumstances of self-defense under the RPC.
PEOPLE vs. GENOSA, G.R. No. 135981. 1/15/04

In order to be classified as a battered woman, the accused and her spouse must go
through the battering cycle at least twice. Any woman may find herself in an abusive
relationship with a man once. If it occurs a second time, and she remains in the situation,
she is defined as a battered woman.
RA 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act

On Special Crime
Republic Act No. 9485 or the Anti-Red Tape Act provides that government employees
engaging in illicit transactions with fixers can be dismissed from service.
Violators shall face imprisonment of less than six years and fines ranging from P20,000
to P200,000.
People who deal with fixers when applying for documents from any government office can
be held liable under the law.
In one case, the Supreme Court held that "a public official or employee should avoid any
appearance of impropriety affecting the integrity of government services" (GR.
NO.178454) fb/phijurisOfficial/

1. Infidelity in the custody of documents
Infidelity in the Custody of

Documents
On Criminal Law
Infidelity in the Custody of Documents
ART.226. Removal, Concealment, Or Destruction Of Documents
ELEMENTS OF INFIDELITY IN CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS:

2. That he abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or papers
3. That the said document or paper should have been entrusted to such public officer by
reason of his office; and
4. That damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the public interest should
have been caused.
NOTES:
The document must be complete and one by which a right could be established or an
obligation could be extinguished.
Books, periodicals, pamphlets, etc. are not documents.
“Papers” would include checks, promissory notes and paper money.
A post office official who retained the mail without forwarding the letters to their
destination is guilty of infidelity in the custody of papers.
Removal of a document or paper must be for an illicit purpose. There is illicit purpose
when the intention of the offender is to:
a. tamper with it,
b. to profit by it, or
c. to commit any act constituting a breach of trust in the official care thereof.
Removal is consummated upon removal or secreting away of the document from its
usual place. It is immaterial whether or not the illicit purpose of the offender has been
accomplished.
Infidelity in the custody of documents through destruction or concealment does not

require proof of an illicit purpose.
Delivering the document to the wrong party is infidelity in the custody thereof.
The damage may either be great or small.
Can 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.
The offender must be in custody of such documents because of his official capacity.
Damage to public interest is necessary. However, material damage is not necessary.
Damage in this article may consist in mere alarm to the public or in the alienation of its
confidence in any branch of the government service.
RA 10591 | Comprehensive
Firearms and Ammunition
Regulation Act
On Special Crime
RA 10591
AN ACT PROVIDING FOR A COMPREHENSIVE LAW ON FIREARMS AND

AMMUNITION AND PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS THEREOF
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in

Congress assembled:
ARTICLE I
TITLE, DECLARATION OF POLICY AND DEFINITION OF TERMS
Section 1. Short Title. – This Act shall be known as the

"Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation Act".
Section 2. Declaration of State Policy. – It is the policy of the State to maintain peace
and order and protect the people against violence. The State also recognizes the right of
its qualified citizens to self-defense through, when it is the reasonable means to repel
the unlawful aggression under the circumstances, the use of firearms. Towards this end,
the State shall provide for a comprehensive law regulating the ownership, possession,
carrying, manufacture, dealing in and importation of firearms, ammunition, or parts
thereof, in order to provide legal support to law enforcement agencies in their campaign
against crime, stop the proliferation of illegal firearms or weapons and the illegal
manufacture of firearms or weapons, ammunition and parts thereof.
Section 3. Definition of Terms. – As used in this Act:
(a) Accessories refer to parts of a firearm which may enhance or increase the
operational efficiency or accuracy of a firearm but will not constitute any of the major or
minor internal parts thereof such as, hut not limited to, laser scope, telescopic sight and
sound suppressor or silencer.
(b) Ammunition refers to a complete unfixed unit consisting of a bullet, gunpowder,

cartridge case and primer or loaded shell for use in any firearm.
(c) Antique firearm refers to any: (1) firearm which was manufactured at least seventy-
five (75) years prior to the current date but not including replicas; (2) firearm which is
certified by the National Museum of the Philippines to be curio or relic of museum
interest; and (3) any other firearm which derives a substantial part of its monetary value
from the fact that it is novel, rare, bizarre or because of its association with some
historical figure, period or event.
(d) Arms smuggling refers to the import, export, acquisition, sale, delivery, movement or
transfer of firearms, their parts and components, and ammunition, from or across the
territory of one country to that of another country which has not been authorized in
accordance with domestic law in either or both country/countries.
(e) Authority to import refers to a document issued by the Chief of the Philippine National
Police (PNP) authorizing the importation of firearms, or their parts, ammunition and other
components.
(f) Authorized dealer refers to any person, legal entity, corporation, partnership or
business entity duly licensed by the Firearms and Explosive Office (FEO) of the PNP to
engage in the business of buying and selling ammunition, firearms or parte thereof, at
wholesale or retail basis.
(g) Authorized importer refers to any person, legal entity, corporation, partnership or
business duly licensed by the FEO of the PNP to engage in the business of importing
ammunition and firearms, or parts thereof into the territory of the Republic of the
Philippines for purposes of sale or distribution under the provisions of this Act.
(h) Authorized manufacturer refers to any person, legal entity, corporation, or partnership
duly licensed by the FEO of the PNP to engage in the business of manufacturing
firearms, and ammunition or parts thereof for purposes of sale or distribution.
(i) Confiscated firearm refers to a firearm that is taken into custody by the PNP, National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI), Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), and all
other law enforcement agencies by reason of their mandate and must be necessarily
reported or turned over to the PEO of the PNP.
(j) Demilitarized firearm refers to a firearm deliberately made incapable of performing its
main purpose of firing a projectile.
(k) Duty detail order refers to a document issued by the juridical entity or employer
wherein the details of the disposition of firearm is spelled-out, thus indicating the name
of the employee, the firearm information, the specific duration and location of posting or
assignment and the authorized bonded firearm custodian for the juridical entity to whom
such firearm is turned over after the lapse of the order.
(l) Firearm refers to any handheld or portable weapon, whether a small arm or light
weapon, that expels or is designed to expel a bullet, shot, slug, missile or any projectile,
which is discharged by means of expansive force of gases from burning gunpowder or
other form of combustion or any similar instrument or implement. For purposes of this
Act, the barrel, frame or receiver is considered a firearm.
(m) Firearms Information Management System (FIMS) refers to the compilation of all
data and information on firearms ownership and disposition for record purposes.
(n) Forfeited firearm refers to a firearm that is subject to forfeiture by reason of court
order as accessory penalty or for the disposition by the FEO of the PNP of firearms
considered as abandoned, surrendered, confiscated or revoked in compliance with
existing rules and regulations.
(o) Gun club refers to an organization duly registered with and accredited in good
standing by the FEO of the PNP which is established for the purpose of propagating
responsible and safe gun ownership, proper appreciation and use of firearms by its
members, for the purpose of sports and shooting competition, self-defense and
collection purposes.
(p) Gunsmith refers to any person, legal entity, corporation, partnership or business duly
licensed by the FEO of the PNP to engage in the business of repairing firearms and
other weapons or constructing or assembling firearms and weapons from finished or
manufactured parts thereof on a per order basis and not in commercial quantities or of
making minor parts for the purpose of repairing or assembling said firearms or weapons.
(q) Imitation firearm refers to a replica of a firearm, or other device that is so substantially
similar in coloration and overall appearance to an existing firearm as to lead a
reasonable person to believe that such imitation firearm is a real firearm.
(r) Licensed citizen refers to any Filipino who complies with the qualifications set forth in
this Act and duly issued with a license to possess or to carry firearms outside of the
residence in accordance with this Act.
(s) Licensed, juridical entity refers to corporations, organizations, businesses including

security agencies and local government units (LGUs) which are licensed to own and
possess firearms in accordance with this Act.
(t) Light weapons are: Class-A Light weapons which refer to self-loading pistols, rifles
and carbines, submachine guns, assault rifles and light machine guns not exceeding
caliber 7.62MM which have fully automatic mode; and Class-B Light weapons which
refer to weapons designed for use by two (2) or more persons serving as a crew, or rifles
and machine guns exceeding caliber 7.62MM such as heavy machine guns, handheld
under-barrel and mounted grenade launchers, portable anti-aircraft guns, portable anti-
tank guns, recoilless rifles, portable launchers of anti-tank missile and rocket systems,
portable launchers of anti-aircraft missile systems, and mortars of a caliber of less than
100MM.
(u) Long certificate of registration refers to licenses issued to government agencies or

offices or government-owned or -controlled corporations for firearms to be used by their
officials and employees who are qualified to possess firearms as provided in this Act,
excluding security guards.
(v) Loose firearm refers to an unregistered firearm, an obliterated or altered firearm, a

firearm which has been lost or stolen, illegally manufactured firearms, registered
firearms in the possession of an individual other than the licensee and those with
revoked licenses in accordance with the rules and regulations.
(w) Major part or components of a firearm refers to the barrel, slide, frame, receiver,
cylinder or the bolt assembly. The term also includes any part or kit designed and
intended for use in converting a semi-automatic burst to a full automatic firearm.
(x) Minor parts of a firearm refers to the parts of the firearm other than the major parts
which are necessary to effect and complete the action of expelling a projectile by way of
combustion, except those classified as accessories.
(y) Permit to carry firearm outside of residence refers to a written authority issued to a
licensed citizen by the Chief of the PNP which entitles such person to carry his/her
registered or lawfully issued firearm outside of the residence for the duration and
purpose specified in the authority.
(z) Permit to transport firearm refers to a written authority issued to a licensed citizen or
entity by the Chief of the PNP or by a PNP Regional Director which entitles such person
or entity to transport a particular firearm from and to a specific location within the
duration and purpose in the authority.
(aa) Residence refers to the place or places of abode of the licensed citizen as indicated
in his/her license.
(bb) Shooting range refers to a facility established for the purpose of firearms training
and skills development, firearm testing, as well as for sports and competition shooting
either for the exclusive use of its members or open to the general public, duly registered
with and accredited in good standing by the FEO of the PNP.
(cc) Short certificate of registration refers to a certificate issued by the FEO of the PNP
for a government official or employee who was issued by his/her employer department,
agency or government-owned or -controlled corporation a firearm covered by the long
certificate of registration.
(dd) Small arms refer to firearms intended to be or primarily designed for individual use
or that which is generally considered to mean a weapon intended to be fired from the
hand or shoulder, which are not capable of fully automatic bursts of discharge, such as:
(1) Handgun which is a firearm intended to be fired from the hand, which includes:
(i) A pistol which is a hand-operated firearm having a chamber integral with or

permanently aligned with the bore which may be self-loading; and
(ii) Revolver which is a hand-operated firearm with a revolving cylinder containing

chambers for individual cartridges.
(2) Rifle which is a shoulder firearm or designed to be fired from the shoulder that can
discharge a bullet through a rifled barrel by different actions of loading, which may be
classified as lever, bolt, or self-loading; and
(3) Shotgun which is a weapon designed, made and intended to fire a number of ball
shots or a single projectile through a smooth bore by the action or energy from burning
gunpowder.
(ee) Sports shooting competition refers to a defensive, precision or practical sport

shooting competition duly authorized by the FEO of the PNP.
(ff) Tampered, obliterated or altered firearm refers to any firearm whose serial number or
other identification or ballistics characteristics have been intentionally tampered with,
obliterated or altered without authority or in order to conceal its source, identity or
ownership.
(gg) Thermal weapon sight refers to a battery operated, uncooled thermal imaging
device which amplifies available thermal signatures so that the viewed scene becomes
clear to the operator which is used to locate and engage targets during daylight and from
low light to total darkness and operates in adverse conditions such as light rain, light
snow, and dry smoke or in conjunction with other optical and red dot sights.
ARTICLE II
OWNERSHIP AND POSSESSION OF FIREARMS
Section 4. Standards and Requisites for Issuance of and Obtaining a License to Own
and Possess Firearms. – In order to qualify and acquire a license to own and possess a
firearm or firearms and ammunition, the applicant must be a Filipino citizen, at least
twenty-one (21) years old and has gainful work, occupation or business or has filed an
Income Tax Return (ITR) for the preceding year as proof of income, profession, business
or occupation.
In addition, the applicant shall submit the following certification issued by appropriate
authorities attesting the following:
(a) The applicant has not been convicted of any crime involving moral turpitude;
(b) The applicant has passed the psychiatric test administered by a PNP-accredited
psychologist or psychiatrist;
(c) The applicant has passed the drug test conducted by an accredited and authorized
drug testing laboratory or clinic;
(d) The applicant has passed a gun safety seminar which is administered by the PNP or
a registered and authorized gun club;
(e) The applicant has filed in writing the application to possess a registered firearm
which shall state the personal circumstances of the applicant;
(f) The applicant must present a police clearance from the city or municipality police
office; and
(g) The applicant has not been convicted or is currently an accused in a pending criminal
case before any court of law for a crime that is punishable with a penalty of more than
two (2) years.
For purposes of this Act, an acquittal or permanent dismissal of a criminal case before
the courts of law shall qualify the accused thereof to qualify and acquire a license.
The applicant shall pay the reasonable licensing fees as may be provided in the
implementing rules and regulations of this Act.
An applicant who intends to possess a firearm owned by a juridical entity shall submit
his/her duty detail order to the FEO of the PNP.
Section 5. Ownership of Firearms and Ammunition by a Juridical Entity. – A juridical

person maintaining its own security force may be issued a regular license to own and
possess firearms and ammunition under the following conditions:
(a) It must be Filipino-owned and duly registered with the Securities and Exchange
Commission (SEC);
(b) It is current, operational and a continuing concern;
(c) It has completed and submitted all its reportorial requirements to the SEC; and
(d) It has paid all its income taxes for the year, as duly certified by the Bureau of Internal
Revenue.
The application shall be made in the name of the juridical person represented by its
President or any of its officers mentioned below as duly authorized in a board resolution
to that effect: Provided, That the officer applying for the juridical entity, shall possess all
the qualifications required of a citizen applying for a license to possess firearms.
Other corporate officers eligible to represent the juridical person are the vice president,
treasurer, and board secretary.
Security agencies and LGUs shall be included in this category of licensed holders but
shall be subject to additional requirements as may be required by the Chief of the PNP.
Section 6. Ownership of Firearms by the National Government. – All firearms owned by

the National Government shall be registered with the FEO of the PNP in the name of the
Republic of the Philippines. Such registration shall be exempt from all duties and taxes
that may otherwise be levied on other authorized owners of firearms. For reason of
national security, firearms of the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), Coast Guard
and other law enforcement agencies shall only be reported to the FEO of the PNP.
Section 7. Carrying of Firearms Outside of Residence or Place of Business. – A permit

to carry firearms outside of residence shall be issued by the Chief of the PNP or his/her
duly authorized representative to any qualified person whose life is under actual threat or
his/her life is in imminent danger due to the nature of his/her profession, occupation or
business.
It shall be the burden of the applicant to prove that his/her life is under actual threat by
submitting a threat assessment certificate from the PNP.
For purposes of this Act, the following professionals are considered to be in imminent
danger due to the nature of their profession, occupation or business:
(a) Members of the Philippine Bar;
(b) Certified Public Accountants;
(c) Accredited Media Practitioners;
(d) Cashiers, Bank Tellers;
(e) Priests, Ministers, Rabbi, Imams;
(f) Physicians and Nurses;
(g) Engineers; and
(h) Businessmen, who by the nature of their business or undertaking, are exposed to
high risk of being targets of criminal elements.
ARTICLE III
REGISTRATION AND LICENSING
Section 8. Authority to Issue License. – The Chief of the PNP, through the FEO of the
PNP, shall issue licenses to qualified individuals and to cause the registration of
firearms.
Section 9. Licenses Issued to Individuals. – Subject to the requirements set forth in this
Act and payment of required fees to be determined by the Chief of the PNP, a qualified
individual may be issued the appropriate license under the following categories;
Type 1 license – allows a citizen to own and possess a maximum of two (2) registered
firearms;
Type 2 license – allows a citizen to own and possess a maximum of five (5) registered
firearms;
Type 3 license – allows a citizen to own and possess a maximum of ten (10) registered
firearms;
Type 4 license – allows a citizen to own and possess a maximum of fifteen (15)
registered firearms; and
Type 5 license – allows a citizen, who is a certified gun collector, to own and possess
more than fifteen (15) registered firearms.
For Types 1 to 5 licenses, a vault or a container secured by lock and key or other
security measures for the safekeeping of firearms shall be required.
For Types 3 to 5 licenses, the citizen must comply with the inspection and bond
requirements.
Section 10. Firearms That May Be Registered. – Only small arms may be registered by
licensed citizens or licensed juridical entities for ownership, possession and concealed
carry. A light weapon shall be lawfully acquired or possessed exclusively by the AFP, the
PNP, and other law enforcement agencies authorized by the President in the
performance of their duties: Provided, That private individuals who already have licenses
to possess Class-A light weapons upon the effectivity of this Act shall not be deprived of
the privilege to continue possessing the same and renewing the licenses therefor, for the
sole reason that these firearms are Class "A" light weapons, and shall be required to
comply with other applicable provisions of this Act.
Section 11. Registration of Firearms. – The licensed citizen or licensed juridical entity
shall register his/her/its firearms so purchased with the FEO of the PNP in accordance
with the type of license such licensed citizen or licensed juridical entity possesses. A
certificate of registration of the firearm shall be issued upon payment of reasonable fees.
For purposes of this Act, registration refers to the application, approval, record-keeping,
and monitoring of firearms with the FEO of the PNP in accordance with the type of
license issued to any person under Section 9 of this Act.
Section 12. License to Possess Ammunition Necessarily Included. – The licenses

granted to qualified citizens or juridical entities as provided in Section 9 of this Act shall
include the license to possess ammunition with a maximum of fifty (50) rounds for each
registered firearm: Provided; That the FEO of the PNP may allow more ammunition to be
possessed by licensed sports shooters.
Section 13. Issuance of License to Manufacture or Deal In Firearms and Ammunition. –

Any person desiring to manufacture or deal in firearms, parts of firearms or ammunition
thereof, or instruments and implements used or intended to be used in the manufacture
of firearms, parts of firearms or ammunition, shall make an application to:
(a) The Secretary of the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) in the
case of an application for a license to manufacture; and
(b) The Chief of the PNP in the case of a license to deal in firearms and firearms parts,
ammunition and gun repair.
The applicant shall state the amount of capitalization for manufacture or cost of the
purchase and sale of said articles intended to be transacted by such applicant; and the
types of firms, ammunition or implements which the applicant intends to manufacture or
purchase and sell under the license applied for; and such additional information as may
be especially requested by the Secretary of the DILG or the Chief of the PNP.
The Secretary of the DILG or the Chief of the PNP may approve or disapprove such an
application based on the prescribed guidelines. In the case of approval, the Secretary of
the DILG or the Chief of the PNP shall indicate the amount of the bond to be executed
by the applicant before the issuance of the license and the period of time by which said
license shall be effective unless sooner revoked by their authority.
Upon approval of the license to manufacture or otherwise deal in firearms by the

Secretary of the DILG or the Chief of the PNP as the case may be, the same shall be
transmitted to the FEO of the PNP which shall issue the license in accordance with the
approved terms and conditions, upon the execution and delivery by the applicant of the
required bond conditioned upon the faithful compliance on the part of the licensee to the
laws and regulations relative to the business licensed.
Section 14. Scope of License to Manufacture Firearms and Ammunition. – The scope of
the License to Manufacture firearms and ammunition shall also include the following:
(a) The authority to manufacture and assemble firearms, ammunition, spare parts and
accessories, ammunition components, and reloading of ammunitions, within sites, areas,
and factories stated therein. The Secretary of the DILG shall approve such license;
(b) The license to deal in or sell all the items covered by the License to Manufacture,
such as parts, firearms or ammunition and components;
(c) The authority to subcontract the manufacturing of parts and accessories necessary
for the firearms which the manufacturer is licensed to manufacture: Provided, That the
subcontractor of major parts or major components is also licensed to manufacture
firearms and ammunition; and
(d) The authority to import machinery, equipment, and firearm parts and ammunition
components for the manufacture thereof. Firearm parts and ammunition components to
be imported shall, however, be limited to those authorized to be manufactured as
reflected in the approved License to Manufacture. The Import Permit shall be under the
administration of the PNP.
A licensed manufacturer of ammunition is also entitled to import various reference

firearms needed to test the ammunition manufactured under the License to Manufacture.
A licensed manufacturer of firearms, on the other hand, is entitled to import various
firearms for reference, test and evaluation for manufacture of similar, types of firearms
covered by the License to Manufacture.
An export permit shall, however, be necessary to export manufactured parts or finished

products of firearms and ammunition. The Export Permit of firearms and ammunition
shall be under the administration of the PNP.
Section 15. Registration of Locally Manufactured and Imported Firearms. – Local
manufacturers and importers of firearms and major parts thereof shall register the same
as follows:
(a) For locally manufactured firearms and major parts thereof, the initial registration shall
be done at the manufacturing facility: Provided, That firearms intended for export shall
no longer be subjected to ballistic identification procedures; and
(b) For imported firearms and major parts thereof, the registration shall be done upon
arrival at the FEO of the PNP storage facility.
Section 16. License and Scope of License to Deal. – The License to Deal authorizes the
purchase, sale and general business in handling firearms and ammunition, major and
minor parts of firearms, accessories, spare parts, components, and reloading machines,
which shall be issued by the Chief of the PNP.
Section 17. License and Scope of License for Gunsmiths. – The license for gunsmiths
shall allow the grantee to repair registered firearms. The license shall include
customization of firearms from finished or manufactured parts thereof on per order basis
and not in commercial quantities and making the minor parts thereof, i.e. pins, triggers,
trigger bows, sights and the like only for the purpose of repairing the registered firearm.
The license for gunsmiths shall be issued by the Chief of the PNP.
Section 18. Firearms for Use in Sports and Competitions. – A qualified individual shall
apply for a permit to transport his/her registered firearm/s from his/her residence to the
firing range/s and competition sites as may be warranted.
Section 19. Renewal of Licenses and Registration. – All types of licenses to possess a
firearm shall be renewed every two (2) years. Failure to renew the license on or before
the date of its expiration shall cause the revocation of the license and of the registration
of the firearm/s under said licensee.
The registration of the firearm shall be renewed every four (4) years. Failure to renew
the registration of the firearm on or before the date of expiration shall cause the
revocation of the license of the firearm. The said firearm shall be confiscated or forfeited
in favor of the government after due process.
The failure to renew a license or registration within the periods stated above on two (2)
occasions shall cause the holder of the firearm to be perpetually disqualified from
applying for any firearm license. The application for the renewal of the license or
registration may be submitted to the FEO of the PNP, within six (6) months before the
date of the expiration of such license or registration.
Section 20. Inspection and Inventory. – The Chief of the PNP or his/her authorized
representative shall require the submission of reports, inspect or examine the inventory
and records of a licensed manufacturer, dealer or importer of firearms and ammunition
during reasonable hours.
ARTICLE IV
ACQUISITION, DEPOSIT OF FIREARMS, ABANDONED, DEMILITARIZED AND
ANTIQUE FIREARMS
Section 21. Acquisition or Purchase and Sale of Firearms and Ammunition. – Firearms
and ammunition may only be acquired or purchased from authorized dealers, importers
or local manufacturers and may be transferred or sold only from a licensed citizen or
licensed juridical entity to another licensed citizen or licensed juridical entity: Provided,
That, during election periods, the sale and registration of firearms and ammunition and
the issuance of the corresponding licenses to citizens shall be allowed on the condition
that the transport or delivery thereof shall strictly comply with the issuances, resolutions,
rules and regulations promulgated by the Commission on Elections.
Section 22. Deposit of Firearms by Persons Arriving From Abroad. – A person arriving in
the Philippines who is legally in possession of any firearm or ammunition in his/her
country of origin and who has declared the existence of the firearm upon embarkation
and disembarkation but whose firearm is not registered in the Philippines in accordance
with this Act shall deposit the same upon written receipt with the Collector of Customs
for delivery to the FEO of the PNP for safekeeping, or for the issuance of a permit to
transport if the person is a competitor in a sports shooting competition. If the importation
of the same is allowed and the party in question desires to obtain a domestic firearm
license, the same should be undertaken in accordance with the provisions of this Act. If
no license is desired or leave to import is not granted, the firearm or ammunition in
question shall remain in the custody of the FEO of the PNP until otherwise disposed of
in-accordance with law.
Section 23. Return of Firearms to Owner upon Departure from the Philippines. – Upon
the departure from the Philippines of any person whose firearm or ammunition is in the
custody of the FEO of the PNP, the same shall, upon timely request, be delivered to the
person through the Collector of Customs. In the case of a participant in a local sports
shooting competition, the firearm must be presented to the Collector of Customs before
the same is allowed to be loaded on board the carrier on which the person is to board.
Section 24. Safekeeping of Firearms and Ammunition. – Any licensee may deposit a
registered firearm to the FEO of the PNP, or any Police Regional Office for safekeeping.
Reasonable fees for storage shall be imposed.
Section 25. Abandoned Firearms and Ammunition. – Any firearm or ammunition

deposited in the custody of the FEO of the PNP pursuant to the provisions of this Act,
shall be deemed to have been abandoned by the owner or his/her authorized
representative if he/she failed to reclaim the same within five (5) years or failed to advise
the FEO of the PNP of the disposition to be made thereof. Thereafter, the FEO of the
PNP may dispose of the same after compliance with established procedures.
Section 26. Death or Disability of Licensee. – Upon the death or legal disability of the
holder of a firearm license, it shall be the duty of his/her next of kin, nearest relative,
legal representative, or other person who shall knowingly come into possession of such
firearm or ammunition, to deliver the same to the FEO of the PNP or Police Regional
Office, and such firearm or ammunition shall be retained by the police custodian pending
the issuance of a license and its registration in accordance, with this Act. The failure to
deliver the firearm or ammunition within six (6) months after the death or legal disability
of the licensee shall render the possessor liable for illegal possession of the firearm.
Section 27. Antique Firearm. – Any person who possesses an antique firearm shall
register the same and secure a collector’s license from the FEO of the PNP. Proper
storage of antique firearm shall be strictly imposed. Noncompliance of this provision
shall be considered as illegal possession of the firearm as penalized in this Act.
ARTICLE V
PENAL PROVISIONS
Section 28. Unlawful Acquisition, or Possession of Firearms and Ammunition. – The

unlawful acquisition, possession of firearms and ammunition shall be penalized as
follows:
(a) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a small arm;
(b) The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed if three (3)
or more small arms or Class-A light weapons are unlawfully acquired or possessed by
any person;
(c) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-A light weapon;
(d) The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall,
unlawfully acquire or possess a Class-B light weapon;
(e) The penalty of one (1) degree higher than that provided in paragraphs (a) to (c) in
this section shall be imposed upon any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm
under any or combination of the following conditions:
(1) Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded magazine;
(2) Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to guide the shooter to hit the target
such as thermal weapon sight (TWS) and the like;
(3) Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm muffler or firearm silencer;
(4) Accompanied with an extra barrel; and
(5) Converted to be capable of firing full automatic bursts.
(f) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a small arm;
(g) The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a small arm or Class-A
light weapon. If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person charged
with the unlawful acquisition or possession of a small arm, the former violation shall be
absorbed by the latter;
(h) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a Class-A light weapon;
(i) The penalty of prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a Class-A light weapon. If the
violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person charged with the unlawful
acquisition or possession of a Class-A light weapon, the former violation shall be
absorbed by the latter;
(j) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess a major part of a Class-B light weapon;
and
(k) The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall unlawfully acquire or possess ammunition for a Class-B light weapon.
If the violation of this paragraph is committed by the same person charged with the
unlawful acquisition or possession of a Class-B light weapon, the former violation shall
be absorbed by the latter.
Section 29. Use of Loose Firearm in the Commission of a Crime. – The use of a loose
firearm, when inherent in the commission of a crime punishable under the Revised Penal
Code or other special laws, shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance:
Provided, That if the crime committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the
law with a maximum penalty which is lower than that prescribed in the preceding section
for illegal possession of firearm, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm shall be
imposed in lieu of the penalty for the crime charged: Provided, further, That if the crime
committed with the use of a loose firearm is penalized by the law with a maximum
penalty which is equal to that imposed under the preceding section for illegal possession
of firearms, the penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed in
addition to the penalty for the crime punishable under the Revised Penal Code or other
special laws of which he/she is found guilty.
If the violation of this Act is in furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the
crime of rebellion of insurrection, or attempted coup d’ etat, such violation shall be
absorbed as an element of the crime of rebellion or insurrection, or attempted coup d’
etat.
If the crime is committed by the person without using the loose firearm, the violation of
this Act shall be considered as a distinct and separate offense.
Section 30. Liability of Juridical Person. – The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum to
prision mayor in its medium period shall be imposed upon the owner, president,
manager, director or other responsible officer of/any public or private firm, company,
corporation or entity who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the firearms owned by
such firm, company, corporation or entity to be used by any person or persons found
guilty of violating the provisions of the preceding section, or willfully or knowingly allow
any of them to use unregistered firearm or firearms without any legal authority to be
carried outside of their residence in the course of their employment.
Section 31. Absence of Permit to Carry Outside of Residence. – The penalty of prision
correccional and a fine of Ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) shall be imposed upon any
person who is licensed to own a firearm but who shall carry the registered firearm
outside his/her residence without any legal authority therefor.
Section 32. Unlawful Manufacture, Importation, Sale or Disposition of Firearms or

Ammunition or Parts Thereof, Machinery, Tool or Instrument Used or Intended to be
Used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or Parts Thereof. – The penalty of
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall
unlawfully engage in the manufacture, importation, sale or disposition of a firearm or
ammunition, or a major part of a firearm or ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument
used or intended to be used by the same person in the manufacture of a firearm,
ammunition, or a major part thereof.
The possession of any machinery, tool or instrument used directly in the manufacture of
firearms, ammunition, or major parts thereof by any person whose business,
employment or activity does not lawfully deal with the possession of such article, shall be
prima facie evidence that such article is intended to be used in the unlawful or illegal
manufacture of firearms, ammunition or parts thereof.
The penalty of prision mayor in its minimum period to prision mayor in its medium period
shall be imposed upon any laborer, worker or employee of a licensed firearms dealer
who shall unlawfully take, sell or otherwise dispose of parts of firearms or ammunition
which the company manufactures and sells, and other materials used by the company in
the manufacture or sale of firearms or ammunition. The buyer or possessor of such
stolen part or material, who is aware that such part or material was stolen, shall suffer
the same penalty as the laborer, worker or employee.
If the violation or offense is committed by a corporation, partnership, association or other

juridical entity, the penalty provided for in this section shall be imposed upon the
directors, officers, employees or other officials or persons therein who knowingly and
willingly participated in the unlawful act.
Section 33. Arms Smuggling. – The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon
any person who shall engage or participate in arms smuggling as defined in this Act.
Section 34. Tampering, Obliteration or Alteration of Firearms Identification. – The penalty

of prision correccional to prision mayor in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any
person who shall tamper, obliterate or alter without authority the barrel, slide, frame,
receiver, cylinder, or bolt assembly, including the name of the maker, model, or serial
number of any firearm, or who shall replace without authority the barrel, slide, frame,
receiver, cylinder, or bolt assembly, including its individual or peculiar identifying
characteristics essential in forensic examination of a firearm or light weapon.
The PNP shall place this information, including its individual or peculiar identifying
characteristics into the database of integrated firearms identification system of the PNP
Crime Laboratory for future use and identification of a particular firearm.
Section 35. Use of an Imitation Firearm. – An imitation firearm used in the commission of
a crime shall be considered a real firearm as defined in this Act and the person who
committed the crime shall be punished in accordance with this Act: Provided, That
injuries caused on the occasion of the conduct of competitions, sports, games, or any
recreation activities involving imitation firearms shall not be punishable under this Act.
Section 36. In Custodia Legis. – During the pendency of any case filed in violation of this
Act, seized firearm, ammunition, or parts thereof, machinery, tools or instruments shall
remain in the custody of the court. If the court decides that it has no adequate means to
safely keep the same, the court shall issue an order to turn over to the PNP Crime
Laboratory such firearm, ammunition, or parts thereof, machinery, tools or instruments in
its custody during the pendency of the case and to produce the same to the court when
so ordered. No bond shall be admitted for the release of the firearm, ammunition or parts
thereof, machinery, tool or instrument. Any violation of this paragraph shall be
punishable by prision mayor in its minimum period to prision mayor in its medium period.
Section 37. Confiscation and Forfeiture. – The imposition of penalty for any violation of
this Act shall carry with it the accessory penalty of confiscation and forfeiture of the
firearm, ammunition, or parts thereof, machinery, tool or instrument in favor of the
government which shall be disposed of in accordance with law.
Section 38. Liability for Planting Evidence. – The penalty of prision mayor in its
maximum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall willfully and maliciously
insert; place, and/or attach, directly or indirectly, through any overt or covert act, any
firearm, or ammunition, or parts thereof in the person, house, effects, or in the immediate
vicinity of an innocent individual for the purpose of implicating or incriminating the
person, or imputing the commission of any violation of the provisions of this Act to said
individual. If the person found guilty under this paragraph is a public officer or employee,
such person shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
Section 39. Grounds for Revocation, Cancellation or Suspension of License or Permit. –

The Chief of the PNP or his/her authorized representative may revoke, cancel or
suspend a license or permit on the following grounds:
(a) Commission of a crime or offense involving the firearm, ammunition, of major parts
thereof;
(b) Conviction of a crime involving moral turpitude or any offense where the penalty
carries an imprisonment of more than six (6) years;
(c) Loss of the firearm, ammunition, or any parts thereof through negligence;
(d) Carrying of the firearm, ammunition, or major parts thereof outside of residence or
workplace without, the proper permit to carry the same;
(e) Carrying of the firearm, ammunition, or major parts thereof in prohibited places;
(f) Dismissal for cause from the service in case of government official and employee;
(g) Commission of any of the acts penalized under Republic Act No. 9165, otherwise
known as the "Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002″;
(h) Submission of falsified documents or misrepresentation in the application to obtain a

license or permit;
(i) Noncompliance of reportorial requirements; and
(j) By virtue of a court order.
Section 40. Failure to Notify Lost or Stolen Firearm or Light Weapon. – A fine of Ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) shall be imposed upon any licensed firearm holder who
fails to report to the FEO of the PNP that the subject firearm has been lost or stolen
within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of discovery.
Likewise, a fine of Five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) shall be imposed upon any person
holding a valid firearm license who changes residence or office address other than that
indicated in the license card and fails within a period of thirty (30) days from said transfer
to notify the FEO of the PNP of such change of address.
Section 41. Illegal Transfer/Registration of Firearms. – It shall be unlawful to transfer

possession of any firearm to any person who has not yet obtained or secured the
necessary license or permit thereof.
The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed upon any person who shall violate
the provision of the preceding paragraph. In addition, he/she shall be disqualified to
apply for a license to possess other firearms and all his/her existing firearms licenses
whether for purposes of commerce or possession, shall be revoked. If government-
issued firearms, ammunition or major parts of firearms or light weapons are unlawfully
disposed, sold or transferred by any law enforcement agent or public officer to private
individuals, the penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed.
Any public officer or employee or any person who shall facilitate the registration of a
firearm through fraud, deceit, misrepresentation or submission of falsified
documents shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional.
ARTICLE VI
FINAL PROVISIONS
Section 42. Firearms Repository. – The FEO of the PNP shall be the sole repository of
all firearms records to include imported and locally manufactured firearms and
ammunition. Within one (1) year upon approval of this Act, all military and law
enforcement agencies, government agencies, LGUs and government-owned or
-controlled corporations shall submit an inventory of all their firearms and ammunition to
the PNP.
Section 43. Final Amnesty. – Persons in possession of unregistered firearms and

holders of expired license or unregistered firearms shall register and renew the same
through the Final General Amnesty within six (6) months from the promulgation of the
implementing rules and regulations of this Act. During the interim period of six (6)
months, no person applying for license shall be charged of any delinquent payment
accruing to the firearm subject for registration. The PNP shall conduct an intensive
nationwide campaign to ensure that the general public is properly informed of the
provisions of this Act.
Section 44. Implementing Rules and Regulations. – Within one hundred twenty (120)
days from the effectivity of this Act, the Chief of the PNP, after public hearings and
consultation with concerned sectors of society shall formulate the necessary rules and
regulations for the effective implementation of this Act to be published in at least two (2)
national newspapers of general circulation.
Section 45. Repealing Clause. – This Act repeals Sections 1, 2, 5 and 7 of Presidential
Decree No. 1866, as amended, and Section 6 of Republic Act No. 8294 and all other
laws, executive orders, letters of instruction, issuances, circulars, administrative orders,
rules or regulations that are inconsistent herewith.
Section 46. Separability Clause. – If any provision of this Act or any part thereof is held
invalid or unconstitutional, the remainder of the law or the provision not otherwise
affected shall remain valid and subsisting.
Section 47. Effectivity. – This Act shall take effect after fifteen (15) days from its
publication in a newspaper of nationwide circulation.
Approved,
(Sgd.) JUAN PONCE ENRILE

President of the Senate (Sgd.) FELICIANO BELMONTE JR.
Speaker of the House of Representatives
This Act which is a consolidation of Senate Bill No. 3397 and House Bill No. 5484 was
finally passed by the Senate and the House of Representatives on February 4, 2013,
and February 5, 2013, respectively.
(Sgd.) EDWIN B. BELLEN

Acting Senate Secretary
(Sgd.) MARILYN B. BARUA-YAP

Secretary-General
House of Representatives
Approved: May 29, 2013
(Sgd.) BENIGNO S. AQUINO III

President of the Philippines
Salient Features of RA 11053 or

The Anti-Hazing Act of 2018
On Criminal Law
President Rodrigo Duterte signed RA 11053 or The Anti-Hazing Act of 2018.
RA 11053 is an act prohibiting hazing and regulating other forms of initiation rites of
fraternities, sororities, and other organizations.
This new law amends RA 8049 or the Anti Hazing Act.
Republic Act 11053 or the Anti-Hazing Act of 2018 gives teeth to the previous 1995
version of the law as it now outrightly prohibits and makes hazing a criminal act while
providing more substantial penalties for those who will be proven guilty.
What are the salient features of the new law, RA 11053?
1. The new law imposes penalties such as reclusion perpetua and up to P3 million in

fines.
2. Under the new law, the definition of hazing has been expanded to include "physical or
psychological suffering, harm or injury inflicted on a recruit, member, neophyte, or
applicant" as a prerequisite for admission or for continued membership in an
organization.
3. Banned under the law are "all forms of hazing" not only in fraternities, sororities or
organizations in schools, but also those in communities and even businesses and
uniformed service learning institutions.
4. The law also requires schools to be "more active and proactive" in regulating school-
based initiation rites, with schools required to exercise reasonable supervision and take
proactive steps to protect students from the danger of participating in activities that will
involve hazing.
5. All members of the fraternity, sorority or organization who participated in unauthorized

initiation rites, even if no hazing was conducted, shall be punished accordingly. Persons
who had knowledge of any hazing acts committed but failed to report it to the authorities
or those to be found guilty of hiding, concealing or hampering or obstructing investigation
should be penalized.
Liabilities include:
* penalty of reclusion temporal and P1 million on the participating officer and members of
the fraternity who were involved in the hazing
* reclusion perpetua and P2 million on members who actually participated in hazing
when under the influence of alcohol or drugs; and on non-resident or alumni who
participate in hazing
* reclusion perpetua and P3 million on those who participated in hazing that resulted in
death, rape, sodomy, or mutilation * P1 million on the school if it approved an initiation of
a fraternity, sorority or
organization where hazing occurred * prision correccional (six months to six years) on
anyone who intimidates or threatens another for recruitment. This includes "persistent
and repeated" proposals or invitations to those who refused to join at least twice.
* P1 million for former officers or alumni who try to hide or obstruct an investigation
If the offender is a member of the Bar, he or she shall be subject to disciplinary

proceedings by the Supreme Court. If the offender is in another profession, he or she will
be subject to regulation by the Professional Regulation Commission.
6. Senator Ping Lacson, a former PNP Chief sponsored this law.

Criminal Law 1 Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Criminal Law 1 Notes

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

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

Criminal Law 1 Notes

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Application of RPC Provisions

Application of its provisions. — Except as provided in the treaties and laws of

1. Should commit an offense while on a Philippine ship or airship

1. Philippine vessel or airship – Philippine law shall apply to offenses committed in

This is applicable in the Philippines.

Three International Theories on Aerial Jurisdiction

a. Free Zone Theory

NOTE: The Philippines adopts this theory.

2000 Bar Exam Question

2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin or currency note of the Philippine Islands or

1. The forgery is committed abroad

a) Those having to do with the discharge of their duties in a foreign country.

1. Rebellion is not included.

Bar Exam Question (2006)

Jurisdiction; Impeachable Public Officers (2006)

Definitions - Acts and omissions punishable by law are felonies (delitos).

Felonies – acts and omissions punishable by the Revised Penal Code

Crime – acts and omissions punishable by any law.

Act – an overt or external act

Omission – failure to perform a duty required by law

Actus Reus - Physical act

Classification Of Felonies According To The Means By Which They Are Committed:

MISTAKE OF FACT – (Ignorantia Facti Excusat)misapprehension of fact on the part of

People v. Ah Chong (1910)

2. Culpable Felonies- by means of fault (culpa)

Par.1 Criminal liability for a felony committed different from that intended to be

1996 Bar Examination Question (Proximate Cause)

Par. 2 Impossible Crime

Impossible crime occurs when there is:

1996 Bar Examination Question (felonious act of scaring)

1994 Bar Exam Question

Distinguish aberratio ictus from error in personae.

1999 Bar Exam Question

PRAETER INTENTIONEM or where the consequence went beyond that intended or

2000 Bar Examination Question

Attempted murder is a less grave felony, while consummated homicide is a grave felony:

Duty of the court in connection with acts which should

Note: Paragraph 2 does not apply to crimes punishable by special

Article 5 covers two situations:

a. The judge should impose the law.

Crimes, which do not admit of Frustrated and Attempted Stages:

Crimes which do not admit of Frustrated Stage:

2 stages in the development of a crime:

General Rule: Punishable only when they have been consummated

Note: Only principals and accomplices are liable;

Note: Conspiracy to commit a felony is different from conspiracy as a manner of

General Rule: Conspiracy to commit a felony is not punishable since it is merely a

Exception: when the law specifically provides for a penalty

General Rule: The act of one is the act of all.

Exception to the exception: When the act constitutes an indivisible offense.

People v. Abut, et al. (GR No. 137601, April 24, 2003)

PROPOSAL TO COMMIT A FELONY

People vs. Nierra

Siton vs. CA,

1997 Bar Examination Question

As to the liability of the participants in a grave, less grave or light felony:

General Rule: RPC provisions are supplementary to special laws.

Provisions of RPC applicable to special laws:

Note: When the special law adopts the penalties