Escolar Documentos
Profissional Documentos
Cultura Documentos
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
A. ELEMENTS OF PARRICIDE: (246)
1. That a person is killed.
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused.
3. That the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse of the accused.
Notes:
1. The relationship of the offender with the victim is the essential element of the
felony
2. Parents and children are not included in the term ascendants or
descendants
3. The other ascendant or descendant must be legitimate. On the other hand,
the father, mother or child may be legitimate or illegitimate
4. The child should not be less than 3 days old. Otherwise, the offense is
infanticide
5. Relationship must be alleged
6. A stranger who cooperates in committing parricide is liable for murder or
homicide
7. 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
B. DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
Requisites:
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
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.
Notes:
1. Article does not define or penalize a felony
2. Not necessary that the parent be legitimate
1 | Page
Acts punishable:
Notes:
Notes:
1. 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
2. A discharge towards the house of the victim is not discharge of firearm. On
the other hand, firing a gun against the house of the offended party at
random, not knowing in what part of the house the people were, it is only
alarm under art 155.
3. Usually, the purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or frighten the
offended party
4. Intent to kill is negated by the fact that the distance between the victim and
the offender is 200 yards
4 | Page
5. A person can be held liable for discharge even if the gun was not pointed at
the offended party when it fired for as long as it was initially aimed at or
against the offended party.
J. ELEMENTS OF INFANTICIDE: (255)
1. That a child was killed.
2. That the deceased child was less than three days (72 hours) of age.
3. That the accused killed the said child.
Notes:
1. 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
2. When infanticide is committed by the mother or maternal grandmother in
order to conceal the dishonor, such fact is only mitigating
3. 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 conceal
4. 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.
K. ELEMENTS OF INTENTIONAL ABORTION: (256)
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.
L. ELEMENTS OF UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION: (257)
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.
4. That as a result of the violence that fetus dies, either in the womb or after
having been expelled therefrom.
Notes:
1. Unintentional abortion can also be committed through negligence
1. The accused can only be held liable if he knew that the woman was
pregnant
5 | Page
6 | Page
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
Notes:
1. Duel: 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
2. If death results, the penalty is the same as that for homicide
P. CHALLENGING TO A DUEL: (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
II. PHYSICAL INJURIES
1. A.
MUTILATION: (262)
Kinds of Mutilation
1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, totally or partially, of some
essential organ for reproduction
2. Intentionally making another 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 the body
Elements:
1. There be a castration i.e. mutilation of organs necessary for generation
2. Mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately
Notes:
1. In the first kind of mutilation, the castration must be made purposely.
Otherwise, it will be considered as mutilation of the second kind
2. Mayhem: refers to any other intentional mutilation
1. B.
How Committed
7 | Page
1. Wounding
2. Beating
3. Assaulting
4. Administering injurious substances
What are serious physical injuries:
1. Injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent or blind
2. Injured person
1. loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, loses an eye,
a hand, foot, arm or leg
2. loses the use of any such member
3. becomes incapacitated for the work in which he had been habitually
engaged
3. Injured person
1. becomes deformed
2. loses any other member of his body
3. loses the use thereof
4. becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the work in which
he had been habitually engaged in for more than 90 days
1. Injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more
than 30 days (but not more than 90 days)
Notes:
1. Serious physical injuries may be committed through reckless imprudence or
simple imprudence
2. There must be no intent to kill
3. Impotent should include inability to copulate and sterility
4. Blindness requires lost of vision in both eyes. Mere weakness in vision is not
contemplated
5. Loss of power to hear must involve both ears. Otherwise, it will be considered
as serious physical injuries under par 3
6. Loss of use of hand or incapacity of usual work in par 2 must be permanent
7. Par 2 refers to principal members of the body. Par 3 on the other hand, covers
any other member which is not a principal part of the body. In this respect, a
front tooth is considered as a member of the body, other than a principal
member
8. Deformity: means physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality. Not
curable by natural means or by nature. It must be conspicuous and visible.
8 | Page
9 | Page
2. Administering means introducing into the body the substance, thus throwing
of the acid in the face is not contemplated.
1. D.
Notes:
1. 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 offenders 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
5. It falls under this article even if there was no incapacity but the
medical treatment was for 13 days
1. E.
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. Black-eye)
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury (ex. slapping but
without causing dishonor)
1. F.
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (RA 8353) now classified the crime of rape as Crime
Against Personsincorporated into Title 8 of the RPC to be known as Chapter 3
Elements: Rape is committed
1. By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following
circumstances:
1. through force, threat or intimidation
2. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious
3. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
4. when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even
though none of the circumstances mentioned above be present
10 | P a g e
11 | P a g e
10.j.
the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the
time of the commission of the crime; and
11.k. when the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional
disorder and/or physical handicap or the offended party at the time of
the commission of the crime
Rape committed under par 2 is punishable by:
1. 1.
prision mayor
2. 2.
xxxx
2.
By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of fraud:
(a)
by using fictitious name, or actions, falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualification, property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
12 | P a g e
The elements of the crime of estafa under the foregoing provision are: (1) there
must be a false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means; (2) such false
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have
relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means and was thus
induced to part with his money or property; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended
party suffered damage.[13]
The petitioners also contend that they are not criminally liable since the transaction
withLourdeswas a contract of sale. This contention does not deserve serious
consideration. While the fact that they entered into a contract withLourdescannot
be denied, the transaction transpired due to their deceit. It was their
misrepresentation that inducedLourdesto sign the Sales Proposal agreement and
part with her money.
The Penalty
Having committed the crime of estafa, the petitioners must suffer the proper
penalties provided by law. The law imposes the penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period if the amount is over
P12,000.00 but does not exceed P22,000.00. If the amount swindled exceeds
P22,000.00, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year
for each additional P10,000.00, but the total penalty which may be imposed shall
not exceed 20 years.[15] To determine the minimum of the indeterminate penalty,
prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period
shall be reduced by one degree, that is, to prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods. The minimum period of the indeterminate penalty shall be taken
from the full range of the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, which is six (6) months and one (1) day to four (4) years and two (2)
months. With the amount of the fraud at P80,000.00, there is P58,000.00 in excess
of P22,000.00. Five years must therefore be added to the maximum period of the
prescribed penalty ranging from six (6) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21)
days to eight (8) years. Thus, the maximum term of the penalty would range from
eleven (11) years, eight (8) months and twenty-one (21) days to thirteen (13) years.
This is in accord with our ruling in People v. Temparada,[16] viz:
The prescribed penalty for estafa under Article 315, par. 2(d) of the RPC, when the
amount defrauded exceeds P22,000.00, is prision correccional maximum to prision
mayor minimum. The minimum term is taken from the penalty next lower or
anywhere within prision correccional minimum and medium (i.e. from 6 months and
1 day to 4 years and 2 months). Consequently, the RTC correctly fixed the minimum
term for the five estafa cases at 4 years and 2 months of prision correccional since
this is within the range of prision correccional minimum and medium.
On the other hand, the maximum term is taken from the prescribed penalty of
prision correccional maximum to prision mayor minimum in its maximum period,
14 | P a g e
WHEREFORE, the petitions for review on certiorari are DENIED. The Decision of the
Court of Appeals in CA-G.R. CR No. 27414 which affirmed with modification the
Decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 52, in Criminal Case No. 99-173688
convicting petitioners Lyzah Sy Franco and Steve Besario of the crime of estafa is
AFFIRMED with further modification that the indeterminate prison term imposed on
each of the petitioners is four (4) years and two (2) months of prision correccional
as minimum to thirteen (13) years of reclusion temporal as maximum.
Qualified theft defined; proper penalty explained
Item No
"x x x.
The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article 308 9 of the Revised
Penal Code are as follows: (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.10 Theft becomes qualified when any of the following circumstances
under Article 31011 is present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant;
(2) the theft is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen is
either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property stolen consists
of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation; (5) the property stolen is fish
taken from a fishpond or fishery; and (6) the property was taken on the occasion of
fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
accident or civil disturbance.12
Here, the prosecution was able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the amount
of P797,187.85 taken does not belong to petitioner but to VCCI and that petitioner
15 | P a g e
took it without VCCIs consent and with grave abuse of confidence by taking
advantage of her position as accountant and bookkeeper. The prosecutions
evidence proved that petitioner was entrusted with checks payable to VCCI or Viva
by virtue of her position as accountant and bookkeeper. She deposited the said
checks to the joint account maintained by VCCI and Jefferson Tan, then withdrew a
total ofP797,187.85 from said joint account using the pre-signed checks, with her as
the payee. In other words, the bank account was merely the instrument through
which petitioner stole from her employer VCCI.
xxx
We find no cogent reason to disturb the above findings of the trial court which were
affirmed by the CA and fully supported by the evidence on record. Time and again,
the Court has held that the facts found by the trial court, as affirmed in toto by the
CA, are as a general rule, conclusive upon this Court 13 in the absence of any
showing of grave abuse of discretion. In this case, none of the exceptions to the
general rule on conclusiveness of said findings of facts are applicable. 14 The Court
gives weight and respect to the trial courts findings in criminal prosecution because
the latter is in a better position to decide the question, having heard the witnesses
in person and observed their deportment and manner of testifying during the
trial.15 Absent any showing that the lower courts overlooked substantial facts and
circumstances, which if considered, would change the result of the case, this Court
gives deference to the trial courts appreciation of the facts and of the credibility of
witnesses.
Moreover, we agree with the CA when it gave short shrift to petitioners argument
that full ownership of the thing stolen needed to be established first before she
could be convicted of qualified theft. As correctly held by the CA, the subject of the
crime of theft is any personal property belonging to another. Hence, as long as the
property taken does not belong to the accused who has a valid claim thereover, it is
immaterial whether said offender stole it from the owner, a mere possessor, or even
a thief of the property.16 In any event, as stated above, the factual findings of the
courts a quo as to the ownership of the amount petitioner stole is conclusive upon
this Court, the finding being adequately supported by the evidence on record.
However, notwithstanding the correctness of the finding of petitioners guilt, a
modification is called for as regards the imposable penalty. On the imposition of the
correct penalty, People v. Mercado17 is instructive. Pursuant to said case, in the
determination of the penalty for qualified theft, note is taken of the value of the
property stolen, which is P797,187.85 in this case. Since the value
exceeds P22,000.00, the basic penalty is prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods to be imposed in the maximum period, that is, eight (8) years, eight (8)
months and one (1) day to ten (10) years of prision mayor.
To determine the additional years of imprisonment to be added to the basic penalty,
the amount ofP22,000.00 is deducted fromP797,187.85, which yields a remainder
of P775,187.85. This amount is then divided by P10,000.00, disregarding any
amount less thanP10,000.00. The end result is that 77 years should be added to the
basic penalty. However, the total imposable penalty for simple theft should not
exceed 20 years. Thus, had petitioner committed simple theft, the penalty would be
20 years of reclusion temporal. As thepenalty for qualified theft is two degrees
higher, the trial court, as well as the appellate court, should have imposed the
penalty ofreclusion perpetua."
16 | P a g e
MALACAANG
Manila
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 1613
AMENDING THE LAW ON ARSON
WHEREAS, findings of the police and intelligence agencies of the government reveal
that fires and other crimes involving destruction in Metro Manila and other urban
centers in the country are being perpetrated by criminal syndicates, some of which
have foreign connections;
WHEREAS, the current law on arson suffers from certain inadequacies that impede
the successful enforcement and prosecution of arsonists;
WHEREAS, it is imperative that the high incidence of fires and other crimes involving
destruction be prevented to protect the national economy and preserve the social,
economic and political stability of the country;
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. Arson. Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another shall
be punished by Prision Mayor.
The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire to his own property
under circumstances which expose to danger the life or property of another.
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
4. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative, judicial,
administrative or other official proceedings.
5. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing tenement, shopping
center, public or private market, theater or movie house or any similar place or
building.
6. Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not, situated in a 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;
17 | P a g e
3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain field, orchard, bamboo
grove or forest;
4. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and
5. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse.
Sec. 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson. The penalty in any case of
arson shall be imposed in its maximum period;
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;
4. If committed by a syndicate.
The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is planned or carried out by a group of
three (3) or more persons.
Sec. 5. Where Death Results from Arson. If by reason of or on the occasion of the
arson death results, the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed.
Sec. 6. Prima Facie evidence of Arson. Any of the following circumstances shall
constitute prima facie evidence of arson:
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building or
establishment.
2. If substantial amount of flammable substances or materials are stored within the
building note necessary in the business of the offender nor for household us.
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or
materials soaked therewith or containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical,
chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start a fire, or ashes or traces of any
of the foregoing are found in the ruins or premises of the burned building or
property.
4. If the building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at
the time of the issuance of the policy.
4. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance policy more than two
fires have occurred in the same or other premises owned or under the control of the
offender and/or insured.
5. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the effects insured and stored in
a building or property had been withdrawn from the premises except in the ordinary
course of business.
6. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration was made before the fire
in exchange for the desistance of the offender or for the safety of the person or
property of the victim.
Sec. 7. Conspiracy to commit Arson. Conspiracy to commit arson shall be punished
by Prision Mayor in its minimum period.
18 | P a g e
Sec. 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. The building which is the object of arson
including the land on which it is situated shall be confiscated and escheated to the
State, unless the owner thereof can prove that he has no participation in nor
knowledge of such arson despite the exercise of due diligence on his part.
Sec. 9. Repealing Clause. The provisions of Articles 320 to 326-B of the Revised
Penal Code and all laws, executive orders, rules and regulations, or parts thereof,
inconsistent with the provisions of this Decree are hereby repealed or amended
accordingly.
Section 10. Effectivity. This Decree shall take effect immediately upon publication
thereof at least once in a newspaper of general circulation.
Done in the City of Manila, this 7th day of March, in the year of Our Lord, nineteen
hundred and seventy-nine.
19 | P a g e