CRIM II MIDTERM TRANSCRIPT Par 3

from Fiscal Carillo 1. Manufacturer;

2. Producer; or
ART 185 Machination in public auctions 3. Processor
Acts punished: -of any merchandise or object of
commerce; or
1. The offender solicits as a consideration
from refraining from taking part; 4. Importer of any merchandise or object
2. The offender attempts to cause of commerce from any foreign country
bidders to stay away from the auction
Either as:
Mere solicitation/attempt consummates the
crime a. Principal or agent;
b. Wholesaler;
Intention- reduction of the price and c. Retailer
auctioned. Who:
combine
This protects the integrity of the public conspire, or
auction that it is open to everybody. agree in any manner

ART 186 Monopolies and combinations with any person for the purpose of:
in restraint of trade. (walay pulos mani,
so himuon nto memoriza nlng ni para 1. Making transactions prejudicial to
sayon) lawful commerce, or
2. Increasing the market price of the
Acts punished: merchandise or any at the
manufacturer of which the said
Par 1
merchandise is used.
1. Enter into a contract
Qualifying circumstance for all 3 acts:
2. Enter into an agreement
3. Take part in any conspiracy Offense affects:
4. Take part in any combination
food substance;
-all acts must be:
motor fuel or lubricants;
In restraint of trade or commerce, or other article of prime necessity.
Prevent by artificial means free
If committed by corporation or
competition in market
association:
Par 2
president;
1. Monopolize any merchandise, or directors;
object of trade or commerce; managers
2. Combine with any person to
monopolize said merchandise or -who knowingly permitted or failed to
object; prevent the commission of the offense is/are
liable.
In order to alter the price thereof by;
a. Spreading false rumors
b. Making use of any artifice to
restrain free competition in the
market
 1. Validity of plaintiffs mark;
2. Plaintiffs ownership of the mark;
3. Use of the mark or its colourable
imitation by the offender likely to
cause confusion.
a. FOR COLOURABLE IMITATION
TO BE PRESENT IT MUST
PART 2 LIKELY TO CAUSE
CONFUSION.
ART 187 Importation and Disposition of
Falsely Marked Articles or Merchandise IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH THAT A MARK
Made of Gold, Silver and other precious HAS BEEN REGISTERED IN THE IPO,
metals or alloys THEN IT ESTABLISHES THE FOLLWING
DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS:
Elements:
Registration with the IPO
1. The offender imports, sells or dispose
of articles or merchandise made of Certificate of Registration prima facie
Gold, Silver or other precious metals evidence of:
or alloys.
2. The merchandise or articles fails to 1. Validity of registration;
2. Ownership of mark;
indicate actual fineness or quality.
3. Exclusive right to use mark.
3. The offender knows that the article or
merchandise fails to indicate such
fineness or quality. Cannot be registered.

What is punished here is that you do not 1. Generic,

indicate the true quality. So those who deals
or sells these merchandise must indicate the
actual quality of the precious metal.
RA 8293 Intellectual Property Code
2. Common descriptive names,
3. Genus of which a product is a species,
EX. FLOWERS, BREAD, LECHON
4. Commonly used description of a kind
of goods.

The three more common/relevant

criminal offenses under the IPC are: 3rd element: Colorable Imitation
o Infringement (Sec 155)
MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR.
o Unfair competition (Sec 168);
and This term has been defined as such a close
o False designation/description or or ingenious imitation as to be
Representation (Sec. 169). calculated to deceive ordinary
purchasers, or such resemblance of the
Infringement.
infringing mark to the original as to deceive
Mark may refer to trademark (goods) or an ordinary purchaser giving such
Service mark (services). attention as a purchaser usually gives,
and to cause him to purchase the one
Marks PURPOSE IS TO distinguish the goods supposing it to be the other. (EMERALD vs
or services of one person from that of CA)
another and to indicate the origin or
ownership. IN THE SAME CASE A QUESTION WAS ASKED
IF CAN AN ORDINARY PURCHASER BE
Elements of infringement DECIEVED INTO BUYING A PAIR OF
FANTASTIC MR. LEE JEANS SUPPOSING IT TO
BE LEE JEANS?
SC SAID NO. FILIPINOS ARE DISCRIMINATING
PURCHASERS. JEANS ARE NOT INEXPENSIVE.
BECAUSE OF THIS YOU GIVE IT A LOT OF
ATTENTION WHEN BUYING. FILIPINOS BUY
THEIR JEANS BY THE BRAND. WHEN YOU
SPEAK OF AN ORDINARY PURCHASER
ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF JEANS YOU
DONT TALK OF A TOTALLY UNAWARE BUYER.
YOU TALK OF A PERSON WHO IS WELL
INFORMED OF WHAT HE IS ABOUT TO BUY,
HOW MUCH IT COSTS AND ITS
DISTINGUISHING FEATURES. THE WORDS
FANTASTIC MR. LEE ARE TOO IMMINENT
TO CONFUSE A PURCHASER OF SUCH
JEANS.
Unfair competition
Any person who has identified in the mind of
the public the goods he manufactures or
deals in, his business or service from those of
others, whether or not a registered mark
is employed, has property right in the
goodwill of the said goods, business or
service so identified. (SEC 168.1, IPC)
Elements of unfair competition
1. Confusing similarity in the general
appearance of the goods
2. Intent to deceive.
The essence of unfair competition is the
passing off of ones goods, business or
services for that of another who
established goodwill of said goods,
business or services.
- What is important here is that somebody
has generated something through his
goodwill. Unlike infringement that it needs to
be registered, goodwill doesnt need to be.
So you need to prove to court that goodwill
has been established by the plantiff of the
particular product.
Unfair competition has a broader coverage
because infirngement only refers to marks.
Here you pass of your goods so it is not
necessary you use the marks but anything to
pass off your goods as that of somebody who
has greated goodwill of the same goods.
You do not need to imitate or give it the
appearance the goods but what you need is
to decieve the public that your goods are the
same as the one who created the goodwill.
False designation
Any person who, in connection with any
goods or services or any container for
goods, uses in commerce, any word, term,
name symbol, or device, or any false
designation of origin, false or misleading
description of fact, or false or misleading
representation of fact.
likely to cause confusion, or deceive as to
the affiliation, connection or association of
such person with another person as to the
origin, sponsorship or approval of his or her
goods, services or commercial activities or:
in commercial advertising, or promotion,
misrepresents the nature, characteristics,
qualities, or geographic origin of his goods,
services or commercial activities.
PART 3
PD 1602 Gambling, acts punished:
1. Taking part (directly or indirectly) in
any illegal or unauthorized
activities or games.
2. Illegal gambling includes activities that
depend upon skill where betting is
conducted.
a. Any person who shall permit
illegal gambling to be carried
on.
b. Maintainer or conductor.
3. Maintainer is the person who sets up
and furnishes the means with which to
carry on gambling game or scheme.
4. Conductor is the person who
manages or carries on the gambling
game or scheme.
 a. Any person who knowingly,
without any lawful purpose,
possess lottery lists, papers
containing letters, numbers or
symbols pertaining to jueteng,
jai-alai, etc.
b. A barangay official who, with
knowledge of the existence of a
gambling house or place in his
jurisdiction fails to abate the
same or take action in
connection therewith.
5. Security guard/officer, watchman, etc.,
of hotels, villages, buildings,
enclosures which have the reputation
of a gambling place or where
gambling activities are being held.
*RA 9287 increased the penalties for
numbers games, eg jueteng, jai-alai.
PD 449, Cock Fighting Law of 1974
Cockfighting allowed only in a licensed
cockpit during:
Sundays and legal holidays
Local fiestas (not more than 3 days)
Provincial, city, municipal, agricultural,
commercial or industrial fairs, carnival
or exposition upon resolution of local
leg upon approval of Chief of
Constabulary or rep.
To entertain foreign dignitaries or
tourists, balikbayans, fund-raising
campaigns for charitable purposes.
ART 200. Grave Scandal
Elements:
1. Ordinary performs an act;
2. Act is highly scandalous;
3. Act is not any other felony;
4. Public/public knowledge
SAMANIEGO (16 Phil 663), Publicity
FACTS: a married woman was seen
Evidence:
Seen walking together at the botanical
gardens,
Looking for a house to rent they spent
a few hours in the house and came
out, and
Talking at the sidewalk
*only the cochero and one daughter saw the
accused Samniego at the lower level of the
house wearing only his drawers.
So are these enough to convict them of
grave scandal?
SC said no. of the 4 incidents there was
nothing scandalous. The element of publicity
is missing. Publicity requires the public to
scandalized. Here only two seen the accused,
it is not enough.
ART 201. Immoral Doctrines, Obscene
publications and exhibitions, and
indecent shows.
Elements:
a. The materials, publication, picture or
literature are obscene; and
b. The offender sold, exhibited, published
or gave away such materials.
What do we mean by obscene?
PP vs KOTTINGER, GR NO 20569, Oct.
29, 1923
FACTS: accused was selling postcards
with naked women on the post cards.
Was it obscene?
SC said no. these are pictures of naked
women as they would appear in their
villages. They did not make any unsual
poses or exgerated sexually message in
the postcards. It is obscene because
what is obscene is
The word obscene and the term
obscenity may be defined as meaning
something offensive to chastity,
decency, or delicacy. indecency is an act
against good behaviour and a just delicacy.
deprave of corrupt those whose
minds are open to such immoral
influences and into whose hands a
publication or other article charged as
being obscene may fall.
Another test of obscenity is that which
shocks the ordinary and common sense
of men as an indecency.
FERNANDO vs CA, GR 159751, Dec 6,
2006 (READ TO UNDERSTAND MORE
WHAT IS DECENT or NOT)
Test of Obscenity
Latest guidelines:
a. Whether to the average person,
applying contemporary standards
would find the work, taken as a whole,
appeals to the prurient interest;
b. Whether the work depicts
describes, in patently offensive way,
sexual conduct specifically defined by
the applicable state law; and
c. Whether the work, taken as a whole.
Lacks serious literary, artistic, political,
or scientific value.
ART 202. Vagrants and prostitutes. (has
been decriminialized)
Offenders:
a. One who neglects to apply himself to
some lawful calling, if physically able
to (w/o visible means of support);
b. One who loiters around public or semi-
public bldgs. Or places tramping or
wandering around (w/o visible means
of support);
c. Idle or dissolute persons who lodges in
houses of ill-repute and ruffians or
pimps who habitually associate with
prostitutes;
d. One who loiters in inhabited or
uninhabited places w/o any lawful or
justifiable purpose; and
e. Prostitutes.
Vagrancy decriminalized.
RA NO 10158 (April 2012)
decriminalized vagrancy.
All pending cases dismissed, all serving
sentence released.
Prostitutes
Elements:
1. Women
2. Engage in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct,
3. Habitual kung panalagsa ra, pang
load, pang tuition - not prostitution
must be done habitually, and
4. For money or profit.
*RA 9208
or
ART 203 Public Officers
every public servant from the highest to
the lowest. (MANIEGO vs PP, 88 Phil 494)
Examples:
-swimming instructor at UP Los Banos PP vs
LARIN, Oct 7, 1998
Swimming instructor liable for malesting a
student who said no, im just a private life
guard at UP not public officer.
SC said no. you are receiving something from
UP it means you are a public officeras well as
a pervert.
-fiscal analyst for the city of Zamboanga PP
vs KULAIS, July 16, 1998
Malfeasance and Misfeasance
Misfeasance- improper performance of
some act which might lawfully be done.
Malfeasance- performance of some act
which ought not to be done.
ART 204. Knowingly rendering unjust
judgement.
Elements:
1. Judge;
2. Renders a judgement;
3. Judgement is unjust;
4. Judge knows.
Are we saying that a judge cannot make a
mistake?
- no, a judge may make a mistake as
long as he does not know that he is
making a mistake and despite knowing
it is a wrong judgement he will insist in
promulgating that judgement.
- Pero kung sayop lang jud sya, wa sya
kabalo sa balaod, I dont know why he
became a judge, he may be liable for
some administrative penalty but not
this article. Because again, there must
be criminal intent.
1. Judge;
2. He: a) knowingly renders unjust
interlocutory order or decree or b)
renders manifestly unjust interlocutory
order or decree through inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
Interlocutory order
Issued by the court between commencement
and the end of a suit or action and which
decides some point or matter, but
which, however, is not a final decision of
the matter in issue.
does it leave something to be done in the
trial court with respect to the merits of the
case main issue?
Yes interlocutory order.
JUDGEMENT disposes an issue of a cases
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER an order that does
not dispose of the main issue of the case, a
preliminary injuction, a writ attachment and
other else.
- can be done in between the beginning and
end of case.
ART 207. Malicious delay in the
administration of justice.

Elements:

1. Judge;
ART 205. Judgement rendered through 2. There is a proceeding in his court;
negligence. 3. Delays the administration of justice;
4. Malice; inflict damage on either party
Elements: to the case.
1. Judge; ART 208. Negligence and tolerance in
2. Renders a judgement;
the prosecution of offenses.
3. Judgement is manifestly unjust;
4. Due to inexcusable negligence or
Acts punished:
ignorance.
1. Negligence- not lack of foresight or
204 intentional, unjust
skill, neglects to file a case that should
205 manifestly unjust, negligence be filed.
2. Tolerance- allowing an offense to be
ART 206. Unjust interlocutory order. committed without prosecuting the
same.
Elements: - usually prosecutor is charged in here.
ART 209. Betrayal of trust by an
attorney or solicitor, revelation of
secrets.
Acts punished:
1. Causing damage to a client by
malicious breach of professional duty
or inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
2. Revealing secrets learned by him in
his professional capacity (damage is
not necessary.)
3. Undertaking the defense of an
opposing party in the same case w/o
consent of the first client, when the
offender has undertaken the defense
of the first party or has received
confidential information from the said
first party.
PART 3
ART 210. Direct Bribery.
1. Agree to perform an act constituting a
crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duties, in
consideration of any offer, promise,
gift or present.
2. Accepting a gift, in consideration of
the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime.
3. Agreeing to refrain or refraining
from doing something which was his
official duty to do in consideration of a
gift or promise of a gift.
Elements
1. Public officer (Art 203)
2. Accepts an offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present
(himself/another);
3. Offer, promise, gift, present is
received/accepted:
a. Commit some crime;
b. In consideration of some act not
a crime;
c. Refrain from doing his official
duty
4. Act is connected with his official duties
1st paragraph ..in consideration of any
offer promise, gift or present received
by such officer
It is not necessary that the offender recieves
a gift or present.
It is sufficient that the offender accepts an
offer of a gift or present.
If the public officer does not accept the
offer, only the person making the offer is
criminally liable (Art 212 Corruption of
Public Officer)
What if the public officer actually commits
the act that constitutes a crime? Lets say a
court stenographer agrees to commit
falsification okay ra atty alisodon nko ang
yes og no. The mere act of agreeing to
commit the crime constitute direct bribery.
So both falsification and direct bribery.
2nd paragraph ..in consideration of
the execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime,
The act does not constitute a crime
- a policeman accepting a gift in
consideration for making an arrest.
- a government employee processing
documents in consideration of a gift.
Gift must be accepted. If not all you end up
with is a public officer doing his duty.
if the gift was accepted.. if said act
shall not have been accomplished,
The public officer must accept the gift.
The implication is that an acceptance of an
offer or promise is not sufficient.
Mere agreement to execute the act is
not sufficient. Either the offender
accomplishes the act or at least commences
the same by overt acts.
So mere saying na o ako bahala ana
without accepting the gift or commencing
the act by overt acts then there is no bribery.
Must ACCEPT.
What if you just accept the gift and not do
any overt act yet? Yah gi dawat ang kwarta
but does not do anything. Unsa man?
Estafa- if really no intention to do the act
Indirect Bribery no intent to decieve but
wala lang jud gi buhat. Nearest would be
3rd
paragraph ..refrain from doing
something which it was his official duty
to do,
If the failure to perform the official duty shall
also constitute a crime, the offender shall be
liable under paragraph 1.
Example:
A prosecutor who shall not prosecute a case
in consideration of a gift or promise of a gift.
(Art 208)
So why was in TAD-Y vs PP, why was he
acquitted?
You have the building official and city
engineer. They were acquiitted because
apparently because the document to be
issued was not supposedly to be issued
by another office and not their office.
Naka lusot.
Must relate to the official functions of
the public officer.
however, where the act is entirely
outside of the official functions of the
officer to whom the money is offered,
the offense is not bribery. (TAD-Y vs PP,
GR NO 148862, August 11, 2005)
ART 211 Indirect Bribery
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Accepts gifts;
3. Gifts were offered by reason of his
office.
..accepts gifts
The offender must accept a gift.
In this case, they were planning to entrap anf
officer however the officer was not taking tha
bait.
there must be a clear intention on the part
of the public officer to take the gift so offered
and consider the same as his own property
from then on, such as putting away the gift
for safekeeping or pocketing the same.
(FORMILLEZA vs SANDIGANBAYAN, 159 SCRA
1)
ART 211-A Qualified Bribery
Elements:
1. Public officer entrusted with law
enforcement;
2. Refrains from arresting/prosecuting an
offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/or death;
3. In consideration of any promise, gift or
reward.
ART 212 Corruption of public official
Elements:
1. Offer/ promise/ gives gifts to present
to a public officer;
2. Offer/promise is made or gift/present
is given under circumstances that
would make the public officer liable for
direct/indirect bribery.
- if public officer does not accept the gift.
If accepted. Bribery on the public officer
and corruption on the part of the private
party.
ART 213 Frauds against the public
treasury and similar offenses.
A public officer who in his official capacity
with regard to furnishing supplies, the
making of contracts, or adjustment or
settlement of accounts relating to public
property or funds shall enter into an
agreement with any interested party or
speculator or make use of any other scheme
to defraud the government.
-entering an agreement to defraud the
government.
A public officer entrusted with the collection
of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts,
shall:
-demand payment of sums different from or
larger than those authorized by law;
-voluntarily fail to issue a receipt, as provided
by law, for any sum collected by him
officially;
-collecting or receiving by payment or
otherwise, things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law.
Par 1. in his official capacity.. to
defraud the government;
The offender must take advantage of his
public office and must act in his official
capacity.
There must be intent to defraud the
government.
ART 214 Other Frauds
Additional penalties in case a public officer
who takes advantage of his official position
violates any of the felonies under ART 315
(Estafa), 316 (Other forms of swindling), 317
(Swindling a minor), and 318 (Other Delicts).
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he takes advantage of his official
position.
3. That he commits any of the frauds or
deceits enumerated in Articles 315 to
318.
ART 215 Prohibited Transactions
The officer must be an appointive public
officer.
The transaction involving exchange or
speculation must take place within the
territory subject to the offenders jurisdiction.
The offender becomes interested therein
during his incumbency.
ART 216 Possession of prohibited
interest by a public officer.
The article does not distinguish between
elective, appointive or whether the public
officer is such by provision of law.
The felony consists in becoming interested in
any contract or business in which it was his
official duty to intervene.
The article also punishes private individuals
like experts, arbitrators, private accountants,
guardians and executors as long as it was
their duty to intervene in the contract or
business that he takes interest in. even
though they are not public officers.
What is punished here possible conflict of
interest. Public official ka then you intervene
because of your official duties and yet you
are interested, and tend to give the
interpretation most favorable to you.
ART 217 Malversation.
The acts punished are:
1. Appropriating;
2. Taking or misappropriating;
3. Consenting, or thru abandonment
or negligence, permitting other
persons totake public funds or
property;
4. o/w guilty of misappropriation or
Malversation.
Penalty for Malversation:
Penalty for Malversation is the same
whether committed with malice or
through negligence.
Elements:
1. public officer;
2. custody or control of
funds/property by reason of his
public office by reason of public
office;
3. offender is accountable for the
funds/property;
4. offender commits any of the four
acts previously enumerated.
Custody or control of funds
It is the nature of the duties and not the
title thereof that is controlling.
if he is an employee of, or in some way
connected with the govt and that, in the
course of his employment, he receives
money or prop belonging to the govt for
which he is bound to account. (US vs
VELASQUEZ, 32 Phil 157)
Qualified Charge
He had no authority of his own volition to
withdraw funds from the safe upon any
pretext whatsoever. The funds were placed in
the safe and could only be taken from it by
his superior officer or by his order.
Defendants possession of the key and the
combination of the safe gave him control
over the contents (US vs F. WICKER SHAM,
GR No 6781, 1911 Nov 6, 1911)
Since he was not fully in control of the funds
that were taken from the safe he could not
be liable for malversation but may be liable
for either theft or estafa but not
malversation.
When you do not have full control of the
money and you took it then it may be theft.
Accountable officer
The vital fact is not so much the manner in
which appellant could lawfully perform his
duties in relation to said funds as the fact
that he received money belonging to
the Govt for which he was bound to
account (VELASQUEZ)
As long as money was handed to you and
you had to account for it. And control comes
hand in hand with account.
Private individuals are also liable
ART 222 The provision of this chapter shall
apply to private individuals who in any
capacity whatsoever, have charge of
public funds, revenues, or property
even if such property belongs to a
private individual.
Examples:
-property in custodia legis
-property seized by law enforcement agents
Presumption of personal use.
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 uses. (last paragraph, ART 217)
PP vs JOSE TING LAN UY, JR, Nov 17,
2005, GR No 157399
Even on the putative assumption that
evidence against petitioner yielded a case of
Malversation by negligence but the
information was for intentional
Malversation, under the circumstances
of this case his conviction under the
first mode of misappropriation would
still be in order. Malversation is
committed either intentionally or by
negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in
the offense is only a modality in the
perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode
charged differs from mode proved, the same
offense of Malversation is involved and
conviction thereof is proper.
Naay caso na gi pangita-an sya ug sinsiyo,
he was able to produce the change from his
pocket. Ingun SC that is not malversation
because he was able to account for it.
But in another case where he had to go out
of the room, borrow some money form some
friends turn It over to the person demanding
to account, is considered to have failed to
account because he had to get out of the
office and borrow money from other people.
PART 4
ART 218 Failure to render accounts
In this felony, the offender who is required
to render an account to the COA or
auditor fails to do so.
This felony may be committed by a public
officer:
-still in service;
-separated from service by resignation;
or
-separated from service for any other
cause
ART 219 Failure of a responsible officer
to render account before leaving the
country
The felony is the act of unlawfully leaving
the country or an attempt thereof
without securing a certificate from COA.
ART 220 Illegal use of public funds or
property. (TECHNICAL MALVERSATION)
Elements:
1. public officer;
2. public funds/property under his
administration;
3. funds/property has been appropriated
by law or ordinance;
4. offender applies the same to a public
use other than for which it was
appropriated.
In malversation the officer uses the funds for
personal purposes. Here its not, its still for
public purpose but for a different purpose for
which it was supposed to be used for.
Ex. Funds for a road were used instead to
build a road. Intention does not matter.
Bahalag for a good cause.
ART 221 Failure to make delivery of
public funds or property
Acts punished:
1. Failure to make payment. Ex dka
musweldo sa employees kay laban ka
sa suspended governor.
2. Refusing to make delivery.
INFIDELITY IN DEALING with THE
CUSTODY OF PRISONERS.
ART 223 Conniving with or consenting
to evasion
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Custody/charge of a prisoner;
3. Prisoner escapes;
4. Connivance
- must have custody or charge like
warden or jail guard for a specific
prisoner when goes to court.
- Must be intentional
ART 224 Evasion thru negligence
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Charged with conveyance or custody
of a prisoner;
3. Escapes through negligence.
- version of 223 but with negligence.
WERE A JAILGUARD ALLOWED A PRISONER
TO GO TO THE RESTROOM BUT INSPECTED
THE RESTROOM FIRST BEFORE THE
PRISONER WENT IN. THEN HE STAYED
OUTSIDE WHILE THE PRISONER DID HIS
BUSINESS BUT EVENTUALLY ESCAPED.
SC SAID THAT IS NOT NEGLIGENCE.
COMPARED TO GUARD GUARDING AT THE
FRONT YARD TALKING TO SOMEBODY ELSE
WHILE SMOKING. KANA KLARO NAJUD NA
NEGLIGENCE.
Negligence
it is only that positive carelessness that is
short of deliberate non-performance of his
duties as guard that is the gravamen of the
crime of infidelity.
Liability of escaping prisoner
Convict - evasion of service of sentence ART
157.
Detention prisoner no liability
WILL THE GUARD STILL BE LIABLE IF THE
PRISONER IS A DETENTION PRISONER UNDER
224?
YES.
ART 225 Escape of prisoner under the
custody of a person not a public officer.
Elements:
1. Private person;
2. Conveyance of a prisoner is confided
to him;
3. Escape;
4. Consent/negligence
ART 226 Removal, Concealment
Destruction of Documents.
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Abstracts, destroys, or conceals,
documents or papers;
3. Documents/papers entrusted by
reason of office;
4. Damage to a 3rd party or public
interest.
Removal, concealment or destruction.
If the act is removing, there must be an
illicit purpose, which, however, need not be
accomplished.
If the act is by concealing or destroying,
the same does not require proof of an
illicit purpose. here presumption is
that you have intention and you need to
rebut this presumption.
ART 227 Officer breaking seal. pag ka
way hinumdan
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Charged with custody of
papers/property;
3. Sealed with proper authority;
4. Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Breaking seal.
The offender is charged with the sealed
paper or property.
The envelope or parcel need not be
opened, what is required is that the seal
is broken by the offender or he permits
another to break the said seal.
No damage is required.
or
ART 228 Opening of closed documents.
Elements:
1. Public officer;
 2. Closed papers, documents or objects The offender receives an order from his
are entrusted to his custody; superior for execution.
3. Opens/permits them to be opened;
4. No authority. The offender suspends its execution and

What if the document was not intrusted to the superior officer disapproves the
him. Yang gi kawat nyah iyang gi abri. suspension.
Masuod sya ani na article?
Nagbalik2x ni sya pero of course kinsa mu
YES daog ang superior jud.

ART 229 Revelation of secrets by an The felony consists in disobeying the

officer.
Acts punishable:
1. Revealing any secrets known by public
officer by reason of official capacity;
2. Delivering wrongful papers or copies
of papers of which he may have
charge and which should not be
published.
superior despite the disapproval of the
suspension.
ART 233 Refusal of assistance.
Offender is a public officer.
Competent authority demands that he lends
his cooperation in the administration of
justice or other public service.

Offender maliciously fails to do so.

ART 230 Public officer revealing secrets
Serious damage to a third party or
of private individual.
public interest is qualifying.
Elements:

1. Public officer;
2. Secrets of a private individual by
reason of his office
3. Reveals secrets without authority or
justifiable reason.
ART 231 Open disobedience
The offender is a judicial or executive officer.
You will notice walay legislative. I dont know
why. Probably because they made the law.
Nganu apil2x man nto ato kaugalingon na
kita man ga himo.
The offender, without legal justification,
openly refuses to execute a judgement,
decision or order issued by a superior
authority.
ART 232 Disobedience to a superior
officer, when said order was suspended
by inferior officer.
The offender is a public officer.
ART 234 Refusal to discharge elective
office.
Offender is elected by popular election.
The felony is committed when the offender,
without legal motive, refuses to:
a. Be sworn in; or
b. Discharge the duties of his office.
ART 235 Maltreatment of prisoners
Offender is a public officer who has under his
charge a prisoner.
Maltreatment consists in:
1. Overdoing the correction or handling
of prisoners:
a. Punishments not authorized
b. Authorized punishments in a
humiliating manner
2. Extort a confession or obtain
information.
ART 236 Anticipation of duties of a No, because the consitution allows it.
public office.

Offender is entitled to hold public

office/employment by election or
appointment. ART 240 Usurpation of executive
The offender assumes the performance of functions
duties without taking his oath of office The offender is a judge who:
or give the bond required by law.
a. Assumes powers pertaining to the
ART 237 Prolonging performance of executive; or
duties and powers. b. Obstructs the executive in the lawful
exercise of their powers.
The public officers period to hold public
office has expired as provided by law, ART 241 Usurpation of judicial
regulation or special provision. functions.
The felony consists in the public officer The offender is a member of the executive
continuing to exercise his duties and powers branch who:
of such office despite the expiration of the
period. a. Assumes judicial powers; or
b. Obstructs the execution of any order
So how about this issue about our suspended or decision rendered by an judge w/in
governor, is she liable under this article? his jurisdiction.

No because her term has not expired. ART 242 Disobeying request for
disqualification
ART 238 Abandonment of office or
position. The offense is the disobedience of a public
officer who has been lawfully refrained,
The public officer formally resigns from his
due to questions of jurisdiction, from
position.
continuing with proceedings in his office.
Without his resignation being accepted, the
Ex. Quoaranto proceedings questioning
public officer abandon his office to the
qualification of a particular person.
detriment of public service.
ART 243 Orders or requests by
ART 239 Usurpation of legislative
executive officers to any judicial
powers.
authority
The offender is an executive or judicial
The offender is a member of the executive
officer.
branch.
The offender:
He issues an order or suggestion addressed
a. Makes general rules or regulations to any judicial authority which order or
beyond scope of his authority; or suggestion relates to any case or business
b. Attempts to repeal a law; or w/in the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of
c. Suspends the execution thereof. justice.

How about the SC in their rules of court, are - judicial independence

they liable under this article?
ART 244 Unlawful appointments.
The offender appoints or nominates another a. Other ascendants or
to a public office knowing that the appointee descendants, not the
or person nominated lacks the qualifications father/mother or child of the
at the time of the appointment or offender who must be
nomination. legitimate.
OR
Appointment of non-eligibles - must not b. Spouse, who must be
exceed three months (Rev Adm Code) legitimate of the offender
Di pwede nang live-in

Relationship by blood.

What distinguishes parricide from other

felonies involving destruction of life is the
element of relationship by blood. Even in the
ART 245 Abuses against chastity na
case of legal adoption, the killing of an
sa-ag na article
adopted child is not parricide as the
Offenders: relationship is not by blood.

1. Any public officer before whom Knowledge of such relationship by the

matters for decision are pending or offender is not required.
with respect to which he is required to
How about an adopted child?
submit a report to, or consult with a
superior officer. FMC says that adopted child for all intesive
2. A warden or public officer charged
purposes what? Adopted child angay daug-
with care and custody of prisoners or
daugon. Aw. Di diay legitimate diay.
persons under arrest.
Reyes book is not updated may not have
Abuses against chastity
considered the FMC.
The felony consists in soliciting or making
In keeping with the times, killing an adopted
immoral or indecent advances to a
child should be considered as parricide.
woman.
IN A CASE WHERE A WIFE AND A LOVER
It can also be done to the wife, daughter,
CONSPIRING TO KILL THE HUSBAND BY
sister or relative within the same degree of
PLACING A BOMB IN HIS CAR THE WIFE WAS
affinity of the person in custody. (Mother is
CONVICTED OF PARRICIDE while the LOVER
not included) nganu man wala sila
MURDER. Why? Because....
kadungog ug MILF?!! man diay?? Thats
the law. Art 62, par 3 RPC Book I.

LAST circumstances that arise from the private

relations with the offended party serve to
ART 246 Parricide
aggravate or mitigate the liability of those as
In this felony, the person killed must be: to whom such circumstances are attendant.

a. Father ]\ ART 247 Death or physical injuries

b. Mother ] > whether under exceptional circumstances.
legitimate or illegitimate
c. Child ]/ Preliminary requisites:
d. Or:
 a. Legally married person with respect to
his/her spouse.
b. Parents with respect to daughters
a. Legitimate or illegitimate.
b. Under 18 years of age, and
c. Living with them
Common requisites.
The married person or parent surprises the
spouse/daughter in the act of sexual
intercourse;
The spouse/daughter and their paramour
or seducer are killed or serious physical
injuries are inflicted upon them by the
married person or parent.
Why Not a felony, no penalty.? Bec
The act is a justified burst of passion.
In book 1, where a husband caught his wife
and the lover in their house and then he
attacked the lover and the lover defended
himself, the lover was able to kill the
husband and then interposed self defense.
SC said no aggression was lawful. In fact if he
would have killed you or the wife, it would
have been a justified burst of passion.
- must be caught in the act or inflicts the
injury or kills in the act or immediately there
after. As long as it can be established that
they had sexual intercourse right then and
there before they were caught.
Destierro is a measure to protect the
spouse/parent from possible retaliation from
the relatives of the deceased or injured.
in the act or immediately
thereafter,
The killing/serious physical injuries must be
committed while the wife/daughter is in the
act of sexual intercourse or immediately
thereafter (right after the sexual intercourse)
Where there is no clear showing that
sexual intercourse has occurred, the article
is not applicable. BITUANAN (man and wife
were seen sleeping on the same bed),
GONZALES (Wife was rising up while a man
was buttoning his drawers) in these cases it
cannot be.
It is not necessary that he see the carnal act.
It is enough that the circumstances
reasonably show thet the carnal act is being
committed or has just been committed.
It is therefore, necessary that sexual
intercourse is established.
Where sexual intercourse is not clearly
established or if only preparatory acts are
committed, Art 247 is not applicable. Also in
premeditated plans to avail of the
circumstance it cannot be justified. So it
must be strictly construed. Only during the
act or immediately after.
Highly unlikely
Farmer in the morning when he went
back to his house catches the wife and
the lover and the lover ran away. So the
husband warned the wife not to do it
again. In the afternoon husband found
them again in the toilet. Farmer found
his wife rise from the ground and the
lover buttoning his drawers. It is then
he attacked both of them.
SC did not believe him. said:
Neither ii it likely that a woman thirty years
of age, like Sixta Quilason, and twenty-five-
year old Isabelo EVangelio, both of sound
judgment as is to be supposed, had dared to
have carnal intercourse near the toilet of the
offended partys house, a place which is
naturally frequented by some persons. (PP vs
GONZALES, 69 Phil 66)
- it may be that it was only an
afterthought of gonzales of not killing
them in the morning.
PP vs abarca
The husband just came home from taking the
bar exam. Uli sya sa ila, want to go to
another town so went to the bus terminal
early. Only to find out that all the buses were
full. So balik sya ilang bahay. So naa man ni
puli sa iyang place sa bed. So pag lili nya sa
vents around the room. True enough his wife
and the lover was having sexual intercourse
but he made a noise wherein nakakit nuon
ang lover sa iya. Ma pa nasuko gi tiunan sya
ug pusil, dagan sya ngita sya sa iyang amigo
na sundalo huwam syag pusil when he went
to the place of the lover iyang gi rakrakan
naa na-apil lain.
SC said as far as shooting the lover no
liabilty. But to the other people reckless
imprudence. Why? The act was lawful it was
a justified burst of passion.
ART 248 Murder
The unlawful killing of another which is not
parricide or infanticide, with the presence of
any of the six circumstances enumerated:
1. Treachery
2. Price
3. Inundation
4. Calamities
5. Evident premeditation
6. Cruelty
Par 3 vs Par 1,2, 4, 5 and 6
Par 3. by means of inundation, fire,
poison must be consciously adopted
Pars 1, 5 and 6. with
Par 2 in consideration
Par 4 on the occasion..
By means of fire
The rule in these decisions is that: there is a
need to establish intent to kill, by means of
fire, on the part of the offender to qualify the
killing to murder.
-PP vs GALURA, 16 CA Rep 70
girl was given a chocolate. The intent
was not to kill but to sexually arouse the
girlfriend. Nyah ang girlfriend inhan kaayo ug
chocolate gi kaon ang whole box namatay.
not murder but homicide because it was not
conciously adopted.
-PP vs PUGNAY, GR No 74324, Nov 17, 1988.
By means of fire. Playing a simple
prank on a retarded child. Ang usa gi bubu-
an ug gasolina. Another accused put fire on
the soaked victim so victim burned.
SC said its not murder because there was no
evidence that it was intentionally done. All
the evidence will show that it was just a
prank taken to extreme but still a prank. Fire
and gasoline were not intentionally adopted
here in the crime.
In arson, where you burn a house not
knowing that there are persons inside that is
still arson not murder because there was no
intention. But if you burned the house
knowing the victim is inside. Then that is
murder. Depends upon the intent when we
talk about par. 2.
PP vs CAGOCO, GR No. 38511, October
6, 1933.
considering that there is no moral or legal
incompatibility between treachery and the
mitigating circumstance No. 3 of Art 9 of the
Penal Code, because the former depends
upon the manner of execution of the crime
and the latter upon the tendency of the will
towards a definite purpose,
here he punched the person because he
thought he was being cheated in cards.
Victim fell down and died as a reuslt of the
injuries. SC said. Yes you are liable for
treachery because you hit him from behind
in a sudden and treatcherous manner.
Killing a child of tender years.
..the killing of a child in tender age,
defenceless and unprotected, must always
be classified as murder. Even though the
deceased children had been awake they
could not have defended themselves or have
fled or escaped from the attack of their
assailants. (US vs ANTOBIO, GR No 10562,
August 3, 1915)
Intent to kill: so if you hit somebody with an
iron bar. That person does not die. Intent to
kill is important to distinguish or dertermine
the exact felony.
When intent to kill is present so it may be
attempted or frustrated murder/homicide.
If no intent it may be a case of physical
injuries.
But if the person dies, intent to kill is
conclusively presumed di nata mag hisgot
kung naa bay intent or wa. Kung namantay
intent to kill is conclusively presumed wana
malalis ana.
So like in cagoco, no intent to kill on his part
but he died so no need to argue if there was
intent to kill because death of the victime is
a conclusive presumption of intent to kill.
The most we can do is give the mitigating
circumstance of no intent to commit a grave
so wrong.
So if the victim dies pili-on ra ana kay
murder, homicide or reckless imprudence
resulting to homicide. Mao ra na ang la-lison
sa court dili na mahimo physical injuries
kung namatay na.
Treachery
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and
sudden attack that renders the victim unable
and unprepared to defend himself by reason
of the suddenness and severity of the attack.
(PP vs LOPEZ, GR No. 177302, April 16, 2009)
Must be consciously adopted so there would
not be any risk from the victim to defend
himself.
Killing was preceded by a fight.
There may still be treachery even if,
before the assault, the assailant and the
victim had an altercation and a fisticuffs and,
after the lapse of some time from the
said altercation, the assailant attacks
the unsuspecting victim without
affording the latter any real chance to
defend himself. (PP vs LACADEN, GR No.
187682, Nov 25, 2009)
What if all qualifying circumstance gi gamit
nimu? I want an express ticket to hell, unsa
man mahitabo sa imo? Only one as a
qualifying and the rest as an aggravatign
circumastance.
Several qualifying circumstances.
the trial court ruled that the crime
committed was murder after finding that the
killings were attended by treachery, evident
premeditation, dwelling and price or reward.
Only one aggravating circumstance is
enough to qualify the killing to murder,
the rest constitute generic aggravating
circumstances. (PANA vs JUDGE BUYSER,
GR No 130144, May 24, 2001)
Taking advantage of superior strength.
To take advantage of superior strength is to
use force out of proportion to the means
available to the person attacked to defend
himself. In order to be appreciated, it must
be clearly shown that there was
deliberate intent on the part of the
malefactors to take advantage thereof.
(PP vs REGALRIO, GR No. 174483, Mar 31,
2009)
To appreciate the attendant circumstance of
abuse of superior strength, what should be
considered is whether the aggressors took
advantage of their combined strength in
order to consummate the offense. Mere
superiority in number is not enough to
constitute superior strength. There must be
clear proof that the assailants purposely
used excessive force out of proportion to the
defense available to the person attacked. (PP
vs AMODIA, GR No. 177356 Nov 20, 2008)-
here the offenders took turns in punching the
victim. SC said so if u took turns then its
homicide because they did not use of their
numerical superiority.
Qualifying circumstances must be
proved.
It is an ancient but revered doctrine that
qualifying and aggravating circumstances
before being taken into consideration, for the
purpose of increasing the penalty to be
imposed, must be proved with equal
certainty as those which establish the
commission of the criminal offense. (PP
vs ABDULAH, GR No. 182518, Jan 20, 2009)
- victim was found near garbage dumpster,
there was evidence that her hands were tied
behind her back. Murder ang gi kiha. There
was evidence though that she was killed in
such a position. SC said then that is not
enough to prove treachery in crime with just
circumstancial evidence.
Sec 8 and 9, Rule 110, RROC
Sec. 8 Designation of the offense ..specify
its qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
Sec. 9 Cause of the accusation ..the
qualifying and aggravating circumstances
must be stated in ordinary and concise
language
Must be specifically mentioned in the
information.
ART 249 Homicide.
The elements of homicide are as follows:
1. A person was killed;
2. The accused killed him without any
justifying circumstance;
3. The accused had the intention to kill,
which is presumed; and
4. The killing was not attended by any of
the qualifying circumstances of
murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide. (VILLAMOR vs PP, GR No.
182156, Nov 25, 2009)
Intent to kill
Intent to kill specific intent which the
prosecution must prove by direct or
circumstantial evidence,
General criminal intent presumed from the
commission of a felony by dolo.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when
the victim dies.
What if victim does not die how
Establishing intent to kill.
..the means used by the malefactors,
the nature, location and number of
wounds sustained by the victim, the
conduct of the malefactors before, the time,
or immediately after the killing of the victim,
the circumstances under which the crime
was committed and the motives of the
accused. (RIVERA vs PP, GR No. 166326, Jan
25, 2006)
Inconsistent with negligence.
No such felony as Reckless imprudence
resulting in attempted homicide. Only
reckless imprudence resulting in physical
injuries.
If there is intent (dolo) it follows that there
can be no culpa.
ART 250 Penalty for frustrated
parricide, murder, or homicide.
Courts may impose a penalty two
degrees lower in cases of frustrated
parricide, murder or homicide and a
penalty three degrees lower on cases of
an attempted felony.
50:37
ART 251. Death caused in a tumultuous
affray.
Several individuals involved that do not
constitute organized groups.
They fight or quarrel in a confused and
tumultuous manner.
Someone is killed in the fight and the one
responsible cannot be ascertained.
Offender
1. One who inflicted serious physical
injuries on the victim, or
2. One who used violence on the
victim.
- injuries must not have caused
the death because if it is then you
are liable instead for murder or
homicide.
The victim need not be a participant in
the fight.
ART 252 Physical injuries inflicted in a
tumultuous affray.
The victim must be a participant in the fight.
The offender is the one who used violence
upon the person of the victim.
Slight physical injuries are not included.
ART 253 Giving assistance to suicide.
The person commititng suicide is not
liable. No felony of suicide.
The scenarios are:
1. A person assists another to commit
suicide and the suicide is
consummated (prision mayor);
2. A person assists another to commit
suicide and the suicide is not
consummated (arresto mayor med-
max);
3. A person assist another to commit
suicide by doing the killing himself
and the suicide is consummated
(reclusion temporal);
4. A person assist another to commit
suicide by doing the killing himself
and the suicide is not
consummated (one or two degrees
lower than reclusion temporal,)
ART 254 Discharge of firearms.
Elements:
1. The offender discharges a firearm
against or at another person; must
aim at the victim but
2. That the offender has no intention
to kill that person. Intent is to
intimidate.
who shall shoot at another with any
firearm..
It is not necessary that the firearm was
pointed at the victim at the actual time of
discharge. It is sufficient that the firearm was
pointed at the victim prior to the actual
discharge.
There must be no intent to kill. The
purpose is to intimidate or frighten the
victim.
You must discharge. Recent
jurisprudence states that before the
discharge it may not be pointed at a
person it is sufficient that the discharge
was for the purpose of intimidating or
frightening the victim.
ART 255. Infanticide
Elements:
1. A child is killed;
2. The child is less than 3 days
(72hours) of age;
3. The offender killed the child.
Infanticide
When the mother or grandparents of the
victim commits the crime to conceal the
mothers dishonour Mitigating.
If the child is born dead or could not sustain
independent life outside the womb,
infanticide is not committed.
ART 256 Intentional Abortion ART 258 Abortion practiced by the
woman herself or by her parents.
Abortion is the killing of a fetus in the womb
or its expulsion from the womb causing its The woman who consents to the abortion is
death. liable under this article. The penalty is
mitigated if the purpose is to conceal her
2 ways of committing intentional abortion. dishonour.
1. Using violence upon the pregnant The parents of the pregnant woman with her
woman; consent for the purpose of concealing her
2. Without using violence
dishonour are also liable.
(drugs/beverages)
a. With consent of the pregnant ART 259 Abortion practiced by a
woman, physician or midwife and dispensing
b. Without consent of the
abortives.
pregnant woman.
Applicable only in intentional abortion.
Elements of intentional abortion
Physician or midwife who causes the
1. Pregnant woman;
abortion and takes advantage of scientific
2. Violence exerted or drugs or
knowledge or skill is imposed the maximum
beverages are administered, or
penalty.
offender acts upon such pregnant
woman; ART 260 Duel
3. The fetus dies as a result;
4. Intentional. It must refer to a formal or regular combat
previously concerted between two parties in
ART 257 Unintentional Abortion
the presence of 2 or more seconds of lawful
Elements: age on each side, who make selection of
arms and fix all the other conditions of the
1. Pregnant woman; fight.
2. Violence is used without intending an
abortion; Persons liable.
3. The violence is intentional;
4. Fetus dies as a result of the violence. 1. Person who killed his adversary
(Reclusion temporal)
Violence is intentional but the abortion 2. Person who inflicted physical injuries
is unintentional. on his adversary (According to the
nature of the injury)
Knowledge of pregnancy (BASAHA NING 3. Combatants where no physical injuries
DUHA KA CASO) are inflicted (Arresto Mayor)
JEFFREY - the offender need not know that ART 261 Challenging to a duel human
the woman was pregnant. jud oh. With plenty of time to spare.
Maayo jud ko na maestro oi.
CARNASO accused must have known of the
pregnancy. Acts punished:
Chocking the pregnant wife attempted 1. Challenging to a duel;
parricide with unintentional abortion (without 2. Inciting another to give or accept a
intention to abort the child) challenge to a duel;
3. Scoffing or decrying another publicly
for having to refused to accept a
challenge to fight a duel.