Crim Review Midterms Transcript 2015

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 MIDTERMS BOOK 2
USC Criminal Law Review 2015 - 2016 as discussed by Atty. Petralba

Title 1. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY
1. Treason (Art 114)

2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. 115)
3. Misprision of treason
4. Espionage
CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS:
1. Inciting to war or giving of motives for reprisals (Art. 118)

2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119)
3. Correspondence with hostile country (Art. 120)
4. Flight to enemys country (Art. 121)
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas (Art. 122)
Except for piracy, all other crimes in Title One involve a foreign country or element. It has an external sovereignty
involve. Article 2 on extra-territoriality applies to all crimes punished under Title One. Wherever the crime is
committed, the crime can be punished under Philippine laws using the RPC.
Crimes against national security
Although rebellion and coup dtat affect national security, they were classified as crimes
against public order because at the time of the passage of RPC, rebellion was small-scale and
coup dtat was unheard of.
TREASON is committed in two ways: (1) the act of levying war against the Philippines or (2) adhering to the
enemies giving them aid and comfort.
(1) the act of levying war against the Philippines

LEVYING WAR is not simply inciting people to go to war.
There must be an ACTUAL assemblage of men with the purpose of delivering in whole or in part, to the
enemy, the government of the Philippines. That is the foreign element I was talking about. OR ADHERING
TO THE ENEMIES, but simply adhering to them will not suffice. There has to be the giving of the aid or
comfort.
The number of men should be substantial enough to constitute Treason.
The purpose must be to deliver in whole or in part, the country.
o If the purpose is merely to over the governance and you are all Filipino, it is not treason. Rather,
it is rebellion.
Treason Rebellion
Involves a foreign element. There is no foreign element.
Can only be committed during war. Committed during peace times.
In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 1

Treason is essentially a war crime
How proved
- 2 witness rule for the same overt act; or
- Confession by accused in open court
Treason is essentially a war crime and the law itself provides for the quantum of evidence necessary. Evidentiary
matters are provided in the law itself, aside from defining the crime and meting out the penalty. Treason will not
likely happen again that is why there is not much jurisprudence.
(2) adhering to the enemies giving them aid and comfort.

In order to constitute treason, there must not only be adherence to the enemy country, there must also be the act
of giving them aid and comfort.
No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses at least to the same overt act
or on confession of the accused in open court.
This is not part of the elements. This is more of an evidentiary matter.
This seems to be misplaced under the RPC because this involves a procedural matter rather than a
substantial one.
Crimes that can be committed during peace time:
1. Espionage
2. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals
3. Violation of neutrality
4. Piracy and mutiny
For treason, there is also a crime for CONSPIRACY to commit treason, PROPOSAL to commit treason, and
MISPRISION of treason.
Conspiracy can only be a crime to itself when the RPC so defines it and provides a penalty therefore.
The same is true with proposal. Insofar as conspiracy is involved, it may be a crime or a mode of
committing criminal liability.
So the RPC defines conspiracy to commit treason as a crime in itself.
So even if there is no actual treason, if there is conspiracy to commit treason, or proposal, then there can
be a crime.
MISPRISION: Now misprision is only punishable in treason, not in any other crimes. It is a crime by omission
which consists in not reporting that there conspiracy to commit treason.
o This crime is committed by dolo, and not by culpa, i.e. the failure must be DELIBERATE.
o But, it only applies when there is DUTY TO REPORT, and this is availing if the person concerned
owes allegiance to the country.

o If the person concerned does not owe allegiance, there is no duty to report. Therefore, a non-
Filipino cannot commit this crime. A non-Filipino citizen who does not report conspiracy to
commit treason will not be liable because he is not duty-bound to reveal or report such.
o In misprision of treason, there is knowledge that he ought to report treason but he did not. But,
he must not be unable because of ignorance, or lack of knowledge or foresight.
o Example: If one failed to report because he was drunk, there is no misprision of treason.
o Remember, committed by DOLO not by CULPA.
o In misprision, the offenders will not be liable as accessory or accomplices but rather as principals.
As to CONSPIRACY: there can be criminal liability even if it treason is in its initial stage because when it is not
anymore in its initial stage, then there is already treason, not anymore conspiracy. In relation to misprision of
treason, you only report it when it is conspiracy to commit treason. There is no more duty to report there is
already treason.
Can treason be complexed with common crimes?
No. Treason absorbs crimes committed in the furtherance thereof. (PP vs. Prieta, 80 Phil 138)
Can treason be complexed? Generally, No.

DOCTRINE OF ABSORPTION it absorbs any crime committed in furtherance thereof.
Rape is now considered as a war crime under International Law.
In international law, gi consider na gyud ang rape as a war crime. So I am not too sure anymore if that would be
the same ruling that the supreme court will arrive at, but we dont know if it will change or not. So what is
absorbed though are only those crimes committed in the furtherance of the war.
For example, not all killings, not all arson or torture are absorbed in relation to Russells question, not all
rapes could be absorbed, it will depend on whether or not that particular crime is committed in the
furtherance of treason or just as another common crime. So dili tanan, it must be in the furtherance of
treason. Okay?
Art. 117 ESPIONAGE

MODE 1: Entering of establishment to obtain confidential information regarding defense of the Philippines
Elements:
(1) That the offender enters a warship, fort, or naval or military establishment or reservation;
(2) That he has no authority therefor;
(3) That his purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential nature relative to
the defense of the Philippines.

MODE 2: Disclosing by public officer of confidential information to a foreign representative

Elements:
(1) That the offender is a public officer;
(2) That he has in his possession the articles, data or information of a confidential nature relative to the defense of
the Philippines, by reason of the public office he holds; That he discloses their contents to a representative of a
foreign nation.
Espionage is committed either:
1. You have to enter the warship of the Philippines;
2. The purpose of which must be to obtain information;
3. The information must be of confidential nature relative to the defense of the phils., ( without entering
there can be no espionage)
OR
As a public officer you were able to get information relating to the defense of the phils and disclose to the
representative of a foreign nation. This is how espionage s defined under the law. If therefore there is
theft of information by hacking for example, then the crime would not fall anymore under this law but
under the cybercrime Law.
Art. 118 Inciting to war and giving motives to reprisals.

Elements:
(1) Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts
(2) The acts provoke or give occasion for
(a) A war involving or liable to involve the Philippines; or
(b) Exposure of Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property
This crime is committed in time of peace. In inciting to war, there must be a foreign country involved. In the case of
Datu Kiram, what he did was he went to Sabah with almost 200 armed men for the purpose of taking back Sabah
and because of that many Filipinos in Sabah were killed or in short there were reprisals. Was there violation of this
Article? Knowing that they are fully armed in going there. So here this could be giving motives to reprisals.
Art. 119 Violation of Neutrality

Elements:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is not involved
(2) There is a regulation issued by a competent authority to enforce neutrality
(3) Offender violates the regulation
When we say neutrality, that does not just mean that the Phils is not involved. Not being involved in a war does
not mean that the country is already neutral, it has to be that there is an official declaration of neutrality. So
therefore when there is a war going on in Iraq, we sometimes even set rules like we send troops in Liberia, in
Kosovo and we are not involved in the war. Is that a violation of neutrality? No, because we never said that we
were neutral in those wars.

Art. 120 Correspondence with hostile country.

Elements:
(1) It is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved
(2) Offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops
(3) 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.
The word used there is WITH HOSTILE COUNTRY. Thus corresponding with that country is a crime. It does not
mean that corresponding with a person who is found on that country is a crime.
Art. 121 Flight to enemys country.

Elements:
(1) There is a war in which the Philippines is involved
(2) Offender must be owing allegiance to the government
(3) Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country
(4) Going to the enemy country is prohibited by compete
If there is a decree prohibiting the flight to an enemy country then going there would be a crime, so there must be
a declaration that such country is an enemy country.
Art. 122 Piracy

Elements:
(1) The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters
(2) Offenders are neither members of its complement nor passengers of the vessel
(3) Offenders either
(a) Attack or seize that vessel; or
(b) Seize the whole or part of its cargo, its equipment or personal belongings of its complement or
passengers
(4) There is intent to gain
122 and 123 are already amended. In the old RPC it was stated that piracy can only be committed on the high seas,
now piracy can be committed not only on the high seas but also in Philippine waters. PD 532 says that Piracy can
be committed in the Philippines waters only. Mutiny is not considered. Here any person can commit the crime,
could be crew, third persons or passengers and it includes all kinds of boats/ vessels. The penalty is lower than that
provided in the RPC. We also have RA 7659, here piracy cannot be committed by a passenger or crew. This can be
committed only by third persons.
Ex. 1. If muadto ang banca sa Bohol and somebody will grab a passenger who is going to Bohol, what is the crime
and what is the law punishing it? It will be PD 532.
Ex. 2. Let us say that Juan is going to Bohol with a lot of cash and then he fell asleep, and Pedro secretly got his
wallet containing his cash, what is the crime? The crime is theft! In order to constitute piracy, the taking must be in

the nature of Robbery. But the piracy will be qualified if the boarding of the vessel is with the use of firing upon the
vessel.
Remember that the objective of piracy is economic gain while the objective in Mutiny is political or semi-political
uprising rather than economic. Thus if you get hold or control of the vessel and later sell it, then there is piracy
because obviously your objective there is economic gain. However if you get hold of the vessel, take control over it
and serve as the boss of vessel so that every person there has to follow your command, then the crime would then
be mutiny because of your political objective.
PIRACY
Section Three. Piracy 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.
The same penalty shall be inflicted in case of mutiny on the high seas.
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.
Pertinent laws:
1. Art. 122 on Piracy in general and Art. 123 on Qualified Piracy piracy and mutiny can be
committed on the high seas only. Penalty was Reclusion Temporal.
2. RA 532 Piracy only in Philippine waters punished, but not Mutiny. Any person may commit Piracy.
(PP vs. Tulin, Aug 30, 2001) Reclusion temporal unless other crimes are committed. All kinds of boats
are included.
3. RA 7659 Piracy and Mutiny on the high seas and Philippine waters punished, with a higher penalty,
i.e., reclusion perpetua. Cannot be committed by a passenger or crew irrespective of venue. Amends
Art. 122, RPC.
4. PD 6235 Anti-Hijacking Law applies for aircraft
Note: Aiding and abetting Piracy under RA 532 still stands.
People vs Tulin
FACTS:
- A cargo vessel owned by PNOC loaded with barrels of kerosene, regular gasoline and diesel oil was
boarded by 7 fully armed pirates. The pirates including the accused Roger Tulin, Virigilio Loyola and
Andres Infante Jr. detained the crew and completely took over the vessel. The vessel was directed to
proceed to Singapore where the cargoes were unloaded, transferred and sold under the direct
supervision of accused Cheong San Hiong. Thereafter, the captive vessel returned to the Philippines
- Accused Cheong argues that the trial court erred in convicting and punishing him as an accomplice
when the acts allegedly committed by him were done or executed outside of Philippine waters and
territory, stripping the Philippine courts of jurisdiction to hold him for trial, to convict and sentence.
ISSUE: WON the PH has jurisdiction to try a crime committed outside the Philippine waters and territory?
HELD:

- Yes. SC affirms the conviction of all the accused appellants

- To summarize, Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that piracy
must be committed on the high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger
thereof. Upon its amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was
widened to include offenses committed "in Philippine waters." On the other hand, under Presidential
Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including "a
passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or
not, a member of the complement or not, any person is covered by the law.
- Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential
Decree No. 532. There is no contradiction between the two laws. All the presidential decree did was
to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with the intent to protect the citizenry as well as
neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations. Piracy under the Article 122, as amended,
and piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.
- As regards the contention that the trial court did not acquire jurisdiction over the person of accused-
appellant Hiong since the crime was committed outside Philippine waters, suffice it to state that
unquestionably, the attack on and seizure of "M/T Tabangao" (renamed "M/T Galilee" by the pirates)
and its cargo were committed in Philippine waters, although the captive vessel was later brought by
the pirates to Singapore where its cargo was off-loaded, transferred, and sold. And such transfer was
done under accused-appellant Hiong's direct supervision. Although Presidential Decree No. 532
requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in Philippine waters, the
disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act of piracy, hence,
the same need not be committed in Philippine waters.
- Moreover, piracy falls under Title One of Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an
exception to the rule on territoriality in criminal law. The same principle applies even if Hiong, in the
instant case, were charged, not with a violation of qualified piracy under the penal code but under a
special law, Presidential Decree No. 532 which penalizes piracy in Philippine waters
Discussion:
- Notice that the charges in the information were both for violation of the RPC and PD 532
- Others performed their acts while in the PH waters while Hiong participated while the vessel was
already in Singapore.
- Remember that PD 532 applies only to those committed within PH waters then there is a possibility
that Hiong could be absolved if this was the only charge. However he liable under the RPC.
- Even if the RPC states that piracy can only be committed in the PH waters and likewise on the high
seas, but applying ART 2 which says that piracy is a crime that involves the law of nations and
therefore extraterritoriality applies Hiong is still liable.
- Piracy may be prosecuted by PH laws wherever it is committed.
- Heung was found liable as an accomplice. What was the reason for that? Section 2 of PD 532 provides
that abetting or assisting pirates to benefit from the proceeds of the piracy will give rise to criminal
liability on the part of the person abetting. His liability is only as an accomplice
- Even if PD 532 is a special law, and as a general rule the principles of the RPC do not apply to SPL, in
PD 532 it is expressly provided that there may be an accomplice.
- GR: we dont have accomplices, accessories in crimes punished by SPL; EXC: when the SPL itself so
provides
Piracy must be committed with intent to gain.

If there is no intent to gain, it could be any other crime like mutiny.

There must be force upon things or violence or intimidation against persons, otherwise, the crime would
be merely theft.
Also, there is NO COMPLEXING for piracy when it is committed with homicide, murder, rape OR physical
injuries. These crimes will QUALIFY the piracy. It becomes a qualifying circumstance. But only insofar as
these crimes are concerned.
o Do you complex piracy with robbery?
- GR: Robbery is already absorbed, it is inherent in the piracy.
PROBLEM:
Juan boarded a vessel plying Manila- Davao route and while the passengers were asleep, he picked their wallets.
Among the victims were A and B. Another question is while Juan was picking the wallets, C woke up and saw what
Juan was doing so Juan threatened C with a gun and got Cs wallet as well. What crime was committed against C?
o In the first question, the answer is the crime is merely theft
o In the second question, the crime is PIRACY under PD 532
Lets check: under PD 532 piracy is committed in Philippine water and any person can
commit the crime and it pertains to all kind of both.
Under art 122, this can now be committed not only in the high seas but also in
Philippine water and even in the waters of other countries applying art 2 on extra-
territoriality because piracy belongs to title 1 and art2 of RPC says that there can be
extraterritoriality in title 1. Thats why RPC applies wherever the piracy is committed.
So here Juan is a passenger so he can be held liable for piracy under 532.
MUTINY
There is qualified piracy, there can also be QUALIFIED MUTINY. And qualified mutiny when
1. The offenders abandon the victims, or
2. When murder, homicide, rape, physical injuries accompany the mutiny.
Q: Regarding the case of Tulin, the SC was saying about the effect of the continuity of the offense of piracy.
Supposedly, the RA 7659 amendment was later. Could it be said that art 122 could be made applicable
instead of RA 7659.
A: There is no conflict in Art 122 and RA 7659
Q. But isnt it that the SC justified the ruling on the basis that the act committed by the accused was actually
a part of the commission of piracy, because the piracy was committed in the Philippine waters but the act
of distribution was in Singapore. That act of distribution was part of the piracy committed in the
Philippines.
A: Lets revisit what you know about continuing crimes. Let us say that there is a kidnapping and as we know
that kidnapping is a continuing offense like piracy. Lets say the kidnapping took place in Malaysia, like the
Sipadan case), victim was brought to Mindanao, thats only one crime. Therefore you can only file one
case. There is only one case because you cannot chop chop the crime. The same with piracy, you cannot
chop chop the crime. Therefore, you can file the case either in the Philippines in the Philippines or in
Singapore.
In this case, its easier if filed in Singapore because all the acts of execution was in Singapore. But the
question is, what about Hiong? It is a continuing crime, and as you know that the court acquires

jurisdiction first will exclude the others. Since the Philippines acquired jurisdiction first, we can prosecute
the persons who committed the kidnapping or piracy here. It will now exclude Singapore provided that
the conspirator committed the crime in both because if he did not commit it in one place, that place
cannot acquire jurisdiction over him.
The continuity is not the question. Place of commission is jurisdictional. So if the crime is committed here
and continued in another jurisdiction and in the course of the crime, a conspirator joined in that other
jurisdiction, can he be prosecuted here in the Philippines? Now what did we learn if a conspirator joins
belatedly? If he joins belatedly, he will also be liable for the acts of the other conspirators. Remember the
doctrine for liability for prior acts because its a continuing crime. So that even if he did not actually
participate in the taking of the vessel but because he participated in the conspiracy, he concurred in the
criminal resolution, he can also be prosecuted for the piracy itself.
The question is where did he commit the piracy? So the bottom line of the ruling of the SC after making all
the arguments, because piracy is a crime against the whole world, a crime against humanity, and because
of that, he could be prosecuted anywhere. Pero that is based now on international law rather than the
RPC.
PP vs. TULIN, Aug. 30, 2001

o Although PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be committed in
Philippine waters, the disposition of the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still deemed part of the act
of piracy, hence the same need not be committed in Philippine waters.
o The principle on extra-territoriality also applies in PD 532.
NOTE: the crime in Tulin was committed in 1991, before the enactment of RA 7659
Piracy must be committed with intent to gain
It must be with the use of force upon things or violence or intimidation against persons, otherwise the
crime would be Theft
There is no complex crime of Piracy with homicide, murder, rape, physical injuries. The crime would be
Qualified Piracy.
SC RULING: The bottom-line is Piracy is a crime against HUMANITY. Thus can be prosecuted anywhere.
But it is based on International Law rather than RPC.
Thats why, I wondered why the SC did not touch on Art.2, RPC? Because Art. 2 says that Philippine laws
apply extra-territorially. So Art.2 still applies as legal basis.
Because Piracy falls under Title I and under Art. 2, extra-territoriality applies. (Remember SFION), N stands
for Crimes against National Security and Law of Nation. So because piracy is a crime against the Law of
Nations, extra-territoriality of the RPC including Art. 122 will apply. So now, we will apply Art. 122 even if
it committed in Singapore not because its a continuing crime alone.
So, I would say that the graver reasoning there would be Art. 2. But in the case, the SC didnt dwell so
much on Art. 2, rather after all the arguments it reached eventually on a decision that Piracy is a crime
against humanity- HOSTIS HUMANI GENERIS (The enemy of mankind).
It just means that even if we dont have Art. 2, by virtue of Public International Law, and under the
Incorporation Clause, Gen. Principles of International Law becomes part of the law of the land. And
because the UN General Assembly considered piracy a crime against the law nations, it can be tried
everywhere. The Philippines is a signatory.

Question: Assuming NO LAW on Piracy, can we prosecute Piracy?

NO. If we dont have a law punishing piracy, we cannot exercise our domestic jurisdiction.
In Universal Jurisdiction, any country can use its domestic laws to prosecute the case even if committed
elsewhere.
But, if we dont have a law, we cannot prosecute it.
o Like what happened to the I Love You Virus, the person who spread the virus was not prosecuted
coz we dont have a law and we do not have the duty to surrender him to another country or
extradite him coz its not a crime against humanity.
But in case of Piracy, because we are one of the countries who is a signatory to the declaration that Piracy is a
crime against humanity. We had a lofty position then in the UN. That is why we have the duty to extradite
because we dont have a law. So when you notice now, if we enter into a treaty we have the obligation to pass
a law.
Question: Can we acquire jurisdiction under Section 2 of Art. II of the 1987 Constitution?
So if for example, we dont have the domestic law. But because of the Incorporation Clause we can adopt Gen.
Principles on International Law. So if the International Community declares it a crime against humanity, we
have to declare it as such. We consider it a crime.
But even if you consider it as a crime against humanity, you cannot prosecute it unless you have a domestic
law defining the crime, elements and penalties. (NULUM CRIMEN, NULLA POENA SINE LEGE)
So no domestic law, no prosecution. Thats the reason why we have to extradite.
So in the case of the I LOVE YOU virus person, we werent able to prosecute him and extradite him because
we dont have the obligation to do so because we dont have the law and it is not considered a crime against
humanity, even until now. So thats part of international Criminal Law.
Take note that the Gen. Principles in International Criminal Law are more or less the same with our principles
in our Municipal Criminal Law, e.g. Territoriality, Generality.
So regarding whether it is continuing? Yes it is continuing, ABC who started here and ended there, so they can be
prosecuted either here or there. But once they are prosecuted here, they cannot anymore be prosecuted there.
Q: So in other words Maam, SC in discussing the continuity of the offense just wanted to fortify there holding
that the Philippines has jurisdiction over that Singaporean guy.
Fiscal: Yes. But like what I said, my take on that is that our hold in prosecuting him is more on Art. 2 rather than the
continuity of the offense.
Q: I was referring to the nature of the crime piracy coz indeed it is a continuing crime. But what I am saying was,
even if lets say for instance Art. 122 was not yet amended, in the case SC said that it can still be under 122 even
if 122 covers only those committed in Philippine waters coz the initial commission was done in the Philippines
and the act done (distribution) in Singapore is just part and parcel of the whole act which was initially
committed in the Philippines. Which I think really that it is just one of the justification of the SC that Philippine
has jurisdiction.
But the thing is Tulin was committed before the amendment, so it is misplaced to even mention RA 7659
because of retroactivity. So I wonder why it came up, it should not have come up because it was
committed before the amendment. So before the amendment, it did not say that if the crime is

committed in Philippine waters, Art. 122 applies. So before the amendment, it says in the high seas. So
why are we talking about Art. 122 and in the Philippines?
So assuming arguendo, it is continuing, so initially committed in the Philippines therefore those belated
conspirators, will be responsible as well for the acts which begun in the Philippines. But Art. 122 does not
state that it applies when the crime is committed in the Philippines and between Singapore and the
Philippines, there is no high seas. So strictly speaking, Art. 122 does not apply whether its the original or
the amended. Because under the original wording, it says high seas, while under the amended it says
Philippine and the high seas. While Tulin was committed before the inclusion of the Philippine waters. So,
I would say that the rationale there should be Art. 2.
Its kinda confusing why RA7659 is included. So you already know why theres more than one crime in the
information. You already know your CrimPro right? But we are not saying that 532 amended 122, 7659 amended
122 not 532. So why are they under one information? Why are they being mentioned? So there will come a time
that the SC will make another ruling on that once there will be another piracy case.
Now, what happens if you are asked in the Bar exam? Now you fully understand the impact of Art. 2 and the
interplay of PIL principles and you can also argue by using the Tulin even if you dont agree with it.
(Here is an excerpt from the TULIN Case as regards the Art. 122, RA 7659 and PD 532.4)
To summarize, Article 122 of the Revised Penal Code, before its amendment, provided that piracy must be
committed on the high seas by any person not a member of its complement nor a passenger thereof. Upon its
amendment by Republic Act No. 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses
committed "in Philippine waters." On the other hand, under Presidential Decree No. 532 (issued in 1974), the
coverage of the law on piracy embraces any person including "a passenger or member of the complement of said
vessel in Philippine waters." Hence, passenger or not, a member of the complement or not, any person is covered by
the law.
Republic Act No. 7659 neither superseded nor amended the provisions on piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532.
There is no contradiction between the two laws. There is likewise no ambiguity and hence, there is no need to
construe or interpret the law. All the presidential decree did was to widen the coverage of the law, in keeping with
the intent to protect the citizenry as well as neighboring states from crimes against the law of nations. As expressed
in one of the "whereas" clauses of Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy is "among the highest forms of lawlessness
condemned by the penal statutes of all countries." For this reason, piracy under the Article 122, as amended, and
piracy under Presidential Decree No. 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.
TITLE II
Crimes against the Fundamental Law of the State
o So all crimes under this Title, violates the Bill of rights under the Constitution and committed largely by
public officers except Art. 133 which can be committed by any person. Arts. 124, 132 can only be
committed by public officers because these are guarantees by the State to the citizens. And the State that
guarantees these rights and freedom is abstract and will act only through the state actors- the public
officials. So for instance, the State says that no person will be deprived of his right to liberty without a
warrant from the judge after conducting searching questions specifying the things or place to be searched
and seized.
o The state that guarantees this rights and freedoms is an abstract. It cannot act on its own. Rather it acts
through the state actors which refer to the public officials. So, when the state makes the guarantee, since
the state is an abstract as it can only acts through its officials and employees, the latter must then
recognize and respect these rights under the bill of rights.
o The offenders are the public officers. Private persons can be held liable if they conspire or accomplices or
accessories to the crime committed by the public officers.

Art. 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.
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.
o If the offender is NOT a public officer, the crime would be illegal detention and it carries with it a higher
penalty if it is serious. But if it slight it will have a lower penalty.
o There is an arrest without legal grounds
o In the case of Ancheta, if the public officer acted in good faith and without negligence, even if it turned
out that the person detained was innocent of the crime, the accused officer will be absolved from
criminal liability for arbitrary detention.
o In Batalunes, SC said that arbitrary detention can be committed through unlawful arrest or imprudence.
It can be committed through negligence.
Ex. Juan killed Pedro. But the one picked up and detained by the police was Jose. If the police is
negligent in verifying the identity of the accused, then the police can be held liable for arbitrary
detention through imprudence.
o Arbitrary detention can only be committed by a public officer and there must be an arrest or detention
without legal grounds.
Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities. The penalties provided in the next preceding article
shall be imposed upon the 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 offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent;
eighteen (18) hours, for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent and thirty-six (36) hours, for crimes, or
offenses punishable by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent.
In every case, the person detained shall be informed of the cause of his detention and shall be allowed upon his request, to communicate and
confer at any time with his attorney or counsel. (As amended by E.O. Nos. 59 and 272, Nov. 7, 1986 and July 25, 1987, respectively).
o Sometimes Art. 124-126 are lumped together and called arbitrary detention. However, legally speaking
when we talk about arbitrary detention, it refers to detention without legal grounds (Art. 124). In Art.
125, there is detention but there is legal ground for detention. Probably, the person arrested committed
a crime in flagrante delicto or in hot pursuit.
o When an arrest is by virtue of a court order, Art. 125 does not apply. Now if there is an arrest, the MTC
judge can no longer issue a warrant of arrest under what used to be a preliminary examination because
this has been deleted under Rule 122 of the Rules on Criminal Procedure. The only officers who can
conduct the preliminary investigations are the prosecutors or ombudsman.
PERIOD FOR THE DELIVERY OF PERSONS TO JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES:

1. Punishable by light penalties or equivalent 12 hours
2. Punishable by correctional penalties or equivalent 18 hours
3. Punishable by afflictive/capital penalties or equivalent 36 hours

o this also applies to crimes punished under the Special Penal Laws
o when a police officer arrest a person and detains him, he must file the case in court immediately if it is an
MTC case and not committed in a chartered city. Complaint can be filed directly. But if the penalty for the
crime is more than 4 years 2 months and 1 day, there must be a preliminary investigation before the
prosecutor. Even if it is less than 4 years 2 months and 1 day but committed in a chartered city, still there
must be a preliminary investigation before the prosecutor.
Situation: Juan was arrested without a warrant for pushing dangerous drugs. He was detained for two (2) weeks
before a case was filed against him in the prosecutors office. It took one (1) month for the prosecutor to finally file
the information in court. After the case was docketed in court, the court issued an order for the commitment of
the accused in the prison. Juan asked to be released because his case was not an inquest case and that the officers
who detained him violated Art. 125. Is there a violation of Art. 125?
Ans. Yes, because he was detained for 2 weeks. The most that he could be detained is only 36 hours. But
he can be released? No because there was already an order from the court for his detention.
o In Soria vs. Desierto, the accused was arrested on a Friday for illegal possession of firearms. Aside from
that, he possessed the firearm during the election period. So two laws were violated - the gun ban and
the illegal possession. However, there was no court on Saturday, Sunday as well as on Monday because it
was the Election Day. So the case was filed against him only on Tuesday. Was the police officers violating
Art. 125 for detaining him for more than 36 hours?
o SC: We are talking here of a constitutional right not to be detained without a court order, the right must
be strictly interpreted against the state and in favor of the offender. Therefore, we start counting from
the very hour that the suspect was arrested. Since he was arrested on Friday count then on Friday. The
th th th
counting is continuous. However, upon reaching the 36 , 18 , or 12 hours, but if there is no office then
filing of the case may be done on the next business day. Since Soria was arrested on a Friday, if you count
th
right away, the 36 hour will be on Sunday. But since there is no office on Sunday and Monday that can
receive the complaint, the next business day is Tuesday. Hence, the police officers did not commit delay in
the delivery because the first opportunity for them to file the case was only on Tuesday. SC said no office
DAY not office HOUR. Also, you dont start counting on the first business day but the very hour that
deprivation of liberty was done.
Situation: The accused was arrested for pushing drugs and the crime was committed in Camotes Island. The Coast
Guard said that there will be no sea trip because of typhoon signal no. 2 for 3 days.
- If you apply the Soria case, you count immediately upon arrest.
o BUT--For crimes committed in Camotes, the court which has jurisdiction is Danao.
o And before they can even go to Danao, they have to come to Cebu City because preliminary
investigation will be done in the latter
o After the PI, go back to Danao for the issuance of a commitment order by a judge. But here,
chances are, the judge will order to transport the accused back in Cebu City because the
provincial jail is there.
- Is there office? Yes, there is. But you cannot deliver the accused to the judicial authority because of the
typhoon.
- And when you can finally come to the mainland, you cannot deliver the accused nor file a case right away
because you have to submit the evidence to the crime lab first. You need the results from the crime lab
before you can file a case. These are the causes of delay.
Question: will these delays (transpo, crime labs and etc.) be counted?
- SC said in Sayo vs Chief of Police that you dont count these types of delay.

- Why? Because in order to commit this crime of unreasonable delay on the part of the police, there should
be fault or intent to delay on the part of the arresting officer.
- So if the reason of the delay is because of circumstances beyond the control of the public officer, then he
cannot be criminally liable.
Sayo vs Chief of Police G.R. No. L-2128

For the purpose of determining the criminal liability of an officer detaining a person for more than six hours
prescribed by the Revised Penal Code, the means of communication as well as the hour of arrest and other
circumstances, such as the time of surrender and the material possibility for the fiscal to make the investigation
and file in time the necessary information, must be taken into consideration.
Art. 126. Delaying release. The penalties provided for in Article 124 shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who delays for the
period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive order for the release of a prisoner or detention 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.
- We have here a person LAWFULLY ARRESTED, and then there is an order of release from the court. So the law
enforcer who is detaining the person should release the latter immediately.
Section Two. 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.
- Offender: public officer

- If the offender is not a public officer, the crime would have been trespass.
- 3 ways to be committed:
a. the public officer enters the dwelling against the owners will;
to be considered against the will, there must be an act or utterance from the owner telling
the public officer not to go inside the house.
b. the public officer entered the dwelling with the consent of the owner, but once hes inside, he
searches the papers or other effects without the consent of the owner.
What is without consent is the searching of papers and other effects, not the entering of
dwelling.
c. The public officer surreptitiously entered said dwelling, and was being required to leave the
premises but refuses to do so.
Here, the entry is not against the will nor is it with consent.
- Any of the 3 acts will give rise to criminal liability for the violation of domicile.
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.
- When the public officer obtains a search warrant with FALSEHOOD, there is violation of Art. 129 and perjury,
of course.

- When you apply for a warrant, there must be depositions of the witness and the complainant which are
UNDER OATH.
o If the witness was the one not telling the truth, he shall be liable for perjury
o If the public officer was the one who forced or convinced the witness to lie, the public officer will be
liable unde Art. 129.
Art. 130. Searching domicile without witnesses. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a
public officer or employee who, in cases where a search is proper, shall search the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person, in the
absence of the latter, any member of his family, or in their default, without the presence of two witnesses residing in the same locality.
- GR: Under Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, even if you have a search warrant, you cannot search if there is no
lawful occupant, or his representative, in the premises.
- EXC: You can still search the premises provided there is 2 witnesses residing in the same locality.
- Who are these witnesses?
o They must have GOOD STANDING in the same locality/community. (e.g. barangay tanod)
Section Three. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings

Art. 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any public officer or employee who, without legal ground, shall prohibit or interrupt the holding of a peaceful meeting, or shall
dissolve the same.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon a public officer or employee who shall hinder any person from joining any lawful association or from
attending any of its meetings.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any public officer or employee who shall prohibit or hinder any person from addressing, either alone
or together with others, any petition to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances.
- This is pursuant to the constitutional guarantee to peaceably assemble.

- However, LGUs can require the participants in a meeting to secure a permit from the local chief executive.
o EXC: when the peaceful meeting is conducted in a freedom park, no permit is required from the LCE
of the LGU.
Freedom park of Cebu City: only the COLON STREET.
- Question: the rally in Makati happened recently, can it be dissolved? Yes, it was NOT peaceful anymore.
Section Four. Crimes against religious worship

Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any public
officer or employee who shall prevent or disturb the ceremonies or manifestations of any religion.
If the crime shall have been committed with violence or threats, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Art. 133. Offending the religious feelings. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period
shall be imposed upon anyone who, in a place devoted to religious worship or during the celebration of any religious ceremony shall perform
acts notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.
- Art. 133 can be committed by a PRIVATE PERSON.

- For a person to be liable:
o The act must be NOTORIOUSLY OFFENSIVE.
o Must be committed in a PLACE OF WORSHIP, or DURING A RELIGIOUS CEREMONY
- Situation: a painting of Jesus displayed in the CCCP (Cultural Center) wherein some parts of the anatomy were
placed in the face of Jesus, which was considered offensive by the faithful not covered under Art. 133.

o For Art. 133 to apply, it must be in a place of worship or during a religious ceremony. Here, it was
only an art exhibit and was in a cultural center, not a place of worship.
- ANY religious ceremony: it can be a mass, novena, community prayers and etc. because of the word ANY.
- NOTE: it is not clear if the place of worship should necessary be that of the victim.
Title Three: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

REBELLION, SEDITION AND DISLOYALTY
Crimes against public order tend to disrupt the functions of the government. Unlike title one, there is no foreign
sovereignty involved. Unlike title two, the public officials are usually the victims in title three.
1. Rebellion and Insurrection
Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection; How committed. The crime of rebellion or insurrection is committed by rising publicly and
taking arms against the Government for the purpose of removing from the allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory
of the Philippine Islands or any part thereof, of any body of land, naval or other armed forces, depriving the Chief Executive or the
Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. (As amended by R.A. 6968)
Although punished under the same article, Insurrection is lesser in scope.

Elements:
a. There has to be an armed uprising
b. Political in nature
c. Substantial number of rebels required
Gravamen of the crime is armed public uprising.
Generally, common crimes are absorbed in Rebellion.
Lemidioro: Other crimes committed in pursuance of Rebellion are absorbed. They will lose their common
crime complexion and they will become political in nature.
In another case, the burden of demonstrating political motive falls on the defense. It is more difficult to
prosecute Rebellion because not only will the elements of the common crime be proven, but the
prosecution also has to prove the political complexion. Once Rebellion is proved, the penalty will be lower
as compared to the crime of murder which is committed in furtherance thereof. Basically, the graver
offense is absorbed in the lighter offense.
-The penalty for Rebellion is Reclusion Temporal for members and Reclusion Perpetua for
leaders. While the penalty for murder is Reclusion Perpetua, when it is absorbed in Rebellion, the
penalty would only be Reclusion Temporal, unless the offender is a leader.
-In rebellion, bail becomes a matter of right. But if the accused is charged with murder, bail
becomes uncertain.
People vs. Hernandez: Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political order as well as such
common crimes as maybe committed to achieve the political purpose. The decisive factor is the intent or
motive. It becomes imperative to ascertain whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a political
end.
-Mere membership in a leftist organization is not enough to prove a political purpose.

If you are charged with Murder, chances are the elements are only for Murder. Since the elements of
rebellion are lacking, you cannot be convicted for Rebellion because the crime requires additional
elements. Remember, what determines conviction is the charge. If Murder is proved, you will be
convicted of Murder. If Rebellion is proved, it would depend if substitution is still possible under the
Rules of Court.
In connection with the question:

If you can prove murder, it is possible that he can be convicted of murder.
If rebellion is proved, then it depends if substitution is possible. Remember Rule 110 section 14 (par. 2).
So this will not be a case of amendment, because as you know, we cannot have a formal amendment after
the arraignment, if substantial changes
o But after the arraignment, you can still do substitution, when the evidence presented so
warrants.
It happens, because they want to bail. Because if it is ordinary crime, chances are, you can bail. But if the
doctrine applies, the doctrine applies even if the crime that is absorbed is graver.
Q: Five years ago, A committed rebellion and murder. What if he was charged for rebellion, but no one knew of the
murder at that time. If he was convicted for rebellion and after such a conviction, then came a later a case for
murder. Can you raise the defense in the murder trial that it was actually in the furtherance of rebellion?
A: Yes. It is more advantageous to him, now he could say that, that he could not be charged anymore because ma
double jeopardy na.
Q: But if in the rebellion trial, there was no mention at all of murder, no one knew that he committed murder,
would he still be able to raise the defense?
A: Yes. Because an element of rebellion is that it always involves murder, because public armed man siya, because
of the armed public appraising to overthrow the government. In the course of the rebellion, he would
necessarily kill, in order to champion the cause. So if he is already convicted of rebellion, charging him this time
of separate crime of murder, which is ought to be absorbed already. So if murder is committed already during
his rebellion days, in the course of rebellion, then he could even claim double jeopardy. Because that is already
supposed to be absorbed.
Enrile vs Amin
SC said that the principle of absorption is true even if the common crime is punished under SPL.
In the case, Enrile was charged for rebellion. Rebellion is a continuing crime, it does not consist of one act.
Then after that, it was found out that he was harboring Gringo Honasan, and he was charged for
harboring this fugitive from justice, so gi filean nasad si Enrile og obstruction of Justice, which is a SPL.
SC: No you cannot anymore file a case for obstruction of justice. Why? Because you already file rebellion,
prior to the obstruction. And rebellion is a continuing crime, so if nag rebellion na siya, kanang
obstruction, part na siya sa rebellion. Even if the obstruction is punished under SPL, it is sill absorbed in
the rebellion.
Doctrine of Absorption
Doctrine of absorption refers to crimes of rebellion committed before the amendment of the RPC
because in 1991, RA 6968 was passed creating the crime of coup detat ( passed on October 24, 1990)

RPC is a 1932 law. So in 1932, there were only insurrection, Katipuneros, there was no coup detat.
And then in 1990s or late 80s early 90s Gringo Honasan invented coup detat, and yet there was no law
punishing coup detat, cause all we have was the RPC, so congress passed RA 6968 , penalizing the crime
of coup detat.
o Gringo cant be punished under rebellion or insurrection, because it should be public in nature.
And in the case of Gringo, it was not public, it was a very limited uprising, the right term was
coud detat
o But since there was no law punishing coup detat at that time, he cant be criminally held liable
Article 134 of RPC, that is rebellion and then article Article 134 A, is coup detat
When coup detat was criminalized, with the enactment of RA 6968, this law does not only criminalize
coup detat, it also redefined or changed the definition of rebellion. Before, the definition of rebellion
includes how to commit the rebellion, that the rebellion be committed by means of killing, robbery or
arson.
Theory of Inigo (with regards to the doctrine of absorption):

When the law was passed the definition was shorten, they excluded that how to commit the rebellion.
Thus, there are authors who say that, since the means of committing the rebellion is already excluded
from the new definition of rebellion, therefore now there is no more absorption.
Before, there is absorption, because of the definition of rebellion was an armed public apprising xxxxx by
means of xxx.. so because of the by means of, meaning there is absorption of killing, robbery, arson,
because it becomes part of the definition
So pag putol atong definition sa rebellion wala natong by means of so according to Inigo and others,
they said that, now therefore murder can be complexed with rebellion. If the murder is a means of
committing another crime which is rebellion, swak na swak ang formula under article 48.
SUPREME COURT (with regards to the doctrine of absorption): (Then as you know, we follow the SC.)
After the 1990 enactment, even year 2000 rulings, SC is consistent that there is the doctrine of
absorption.
Rebellion vs. Sedition

In Rebellion, there is taking up arms against the government. In Sedition, there is public uprising
which is tumultuous, but not armed.
(In Tumultuous Disturbance, there is public disturbance but participants are lesser in number than
Sedition.)
In Rebellion, the purpose is always political. In Sedition, the purpose may be political or social.
In both crimes, there is public uprising.
Rebellion Sedition
armed public uprising the public uprising is not armed
always political may be political or it can be social.

Punishes: conspiracy to commit rebellion, proposal to Punishes: conspiracy to commit sedition, there is no
proposal to commit sedition, but we have inciting to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion
commit sedition.
Sedition Direct Assault of the First Kind
Public uprising No public uprising
Proposal to Commit Rebellion and Inciting to Rebellion

In inciting, there must be acts done publicly; whereas in proposal, the acts are usually done secretly.
In proposal, the one who proposes has decided to commit rebellion. In inciting, the offender has not
decided to commit rebellion himself.
There is also the conspiracy to commit to rebellion.
In Treason, there is: In Rebellion, there is: In Sedition, there is:

1. Conspiracy to commit 1. Conspiracy to commit 1. Conspiracy to
treason rebellion commit sedition
2. Proposal to commit 2. Proposal to commit 2. Inciting to sedition
treason rebellion
3. Misprision of treason 3. Inciting to rebellion
NO INCITING NO MISPRISION
Inciting to Rebellion Proposal to Commit Rebellion
there must be acts which are done publicly acts are usually done secretly
not necessary that the one who is inciting / making noise is the one who proposes has decided to
himself decided to commit the rebellion. It is possible that he commit rebellion. If he has not decided
is just making noise / inciting without really being decided in to commit rebellion, then there is no
committing the rebellion. proposal as a crime.
In the case of Beltran vs Gonzales

SC: attendance in meetings to discuss plans to bring down the government, is mere preparatory step, it is not
rebellion. So if they are caught in the act of planning or meeting, they cannot yet be charged on the basis of those
acts alone for rebellion, because that is only conspiracy to commit rebellion, but not rebellion, because there is no
armed public uprising yet. Mere meeting does not comply with the requirements.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE DISCUSSION by Fiscal.

In rule 110, that is actually considered defective (2 charges in one information).

Because the rule is, 1 information there can only be one charge.
But that defect can be cured by failing to file a motion to quash the information. The accused is supposed to
file a motion quash. If he fails to file a motion to quash because he allowed to be arraigned (he cannot
anymore file a motion to quash if he is arraigned), the defect is cured. You can be convicted of as many crimes
that are charged and proven even if placed in one information.
Why not file a motion a quash if it is defective? (Whats the advantage?)
You only have to post one bail. If you file a motion to quash, it can still be re-filed. When it is re-filed,
you have to post bail again. So it is not a smart move. Lawyers would usually not file a motion to
quash.
BACK TO THE LESSON
So it is possible that one information would charge proposal (which is a separate crime and one complete crime)
and conspiracy.
It can happen when Juan proposed to Pedro but it was not accepted. Another instance, he proposed to Jose and
the latter agreed. You now have two separate cases. He can be convicted for two separate crimes provided each
and every crime is complete sa tanan elements. Because if it is only half conspiracy and half proposal, then you
have to decide which. Cannot be both if not complete.
So if 2 charges of a crime (proposal and conspiracy) placed in one information, there can be two convictions.
Question on obstruction of Justice.

Case of Enrile. Where he was harbouring Honasan, he was charged for obstruction of justice. But he was
already charged with rebellion. The latter case was already dismissed. When it was dismissed, it includes
everything that were absorbed in rebellion. Thats why they invented Plunder.
Thats why no one charges for rebellion because it is harder to prove and it kinds of embraces everything
including special penal laws like illegal possession of firearms. If the rebellion is acquitted, everything else
is acquitted.
QUESTION:
Juan who considers himself as a peaceful loving citizen lives in the mountain where rebels camp. Despite the
knowledge of their presence, Juan did not report to the authorities. One day, he heard the rebels inciting the
farmers in the community to join the series of riots and to destroy the peace of the town and was even to join. But
he refused for health reason. Again Juan did not report the incident to the authorities. Is he criminally liable?
Misprision only applies to treason. There is no crime of misprision of rebellion. Here, failing to report is not
misprision. So what is the crime?
Answer: Last Paragraph of Article 142 It is considered as 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).
Art 137 also punishes a public official.
Art. 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon public
officers or employees who have failed to resist a rebellion by all the means in their power, or shall continue to discharge the duties of their

offices under the control of the rebels or shall accept appointment to office under them. (Reinstated by E.O. No. 187).
***Take note that this one here must be with dolo, intentional. Not merely culpable. It must not be failure to
disclose because of negligence;
But it must be failure to report because he intended to keep it a secret. There must be criminal intent not to do
something. Your answer here must be qualified. If it is concealment, it has to be knowingly concealed the activities
of sedition.
Coup detat
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).
Elements of Coup detat:

1. The offender here must belong to the government either as military, police, public officer or
employee.
2. There must be a swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth.
3. The attack is against duly constituted authorities or any other camp or installation, communication or
other public facilities and such. (Like bombing Globe or MCWD. Thats also a way of committing coup
detat.)
4. The purpose is to seize or diminish state power.
There can also be conspiracy, proposal and inciting. Like rebellion.

SEDITION
Art. 139. Sedition; How committed. The crime of sedition is committed by persons who rise publicly and tumultuously in order to attain by
force, intimidation, or by other means outside of legal methods, any of the following objects:
1. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election;
2. To prevent the National Government, or any provincial or municipal government or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his
functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order;
3. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee;
4. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any social class; and
5. To despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the National Government (or the Government of the
United States), of all its property or any part thereof.
Elements of Sedition:
1. There must be a public and tumultuous uprising
2. Not necessarily armed. It does not also necessarily require that is it unarmed. It is possible that some
leaders are armed but the nature of the uprising is not armed. It is tumultuous but it is not achieve by the
use of arms.
-Because sedition does not involve armed uprising, it only says tumultuous public uprising. While
Sedition can absorb threats, grave coercion, but it will not absolve murder, homicide, arson and
robberies. There may be complexing in sedition. It is not always the rule. Grave coercion and
grave threats, alarms and scandals may be absorbed.

i. Review: treason absorbed; rebellion absorbed; sedition not absorbed (complex is

possible)
In inciting to sedition, the offender what he does is he gave public utterances to the audience to commit sedition.
There is now a thin line between a valid and constitutional exercise of the freedom of expression (reminded by the
exam before class) and speech and also this criminal act of inciting to sedition. In order to determine which is valid
and criminal, there has to be tests.
TEST:
-If the effect is to agitate or to invite others into action to do something, then that would be sedition. But
if you would just say, Kana sila mga kawatan! That might be libelous;
-but if you say, this government has done nothing blah blah blah then that is perfectly valid and
constitutional.
FREEDOM OF EXPRESSION vs INCITING TO SEDITION:

There is a thin line of difference between the two therefore there are tests to distinguish the
two.
The Test to determine it is inciting to sedition:
o the effect is to agitate others; or
o to invite others into action to do something
CRIMES AGAINST LEGISLATIVE BODIES:

Art. 143 on preventing the meeting of legislative bodies must be with the use of
force or fraud
o Here there is still no meeting.
Art. 144 on disturbance of proceedings punishes the acts of disturbing,
interrupting proceedings or impairing the respect due to legislative bodies.
o Here there is already meeting and there was disturbance
Art. 145 on Violation of parliamentary immunity
o The offender is the person who will arrest the person with the parliamentary
immunity
o BELTRAN CASE:
Beltran was arrested for inciting to sedition or sedition. Then later on an
inquest was made for rebellion.
But in an inquest case there has to be in flagrante. He was charged for
rebellion but there was no Preliminary investigation.
He stayed in congress so that he will not be arrested.
Had the officers went to congress and arrested him there that would have
been a violation of parliamentary immunity.
Officers who arrest people enjoying such immunity will be criminally liable.
:

Arts. 146 and 147 Illegal Assembly and Illegal Association

Art. 146 Illegal Assembly
o punishes the activity or meeting;
o can be committed in 2 ways (by leaders and organizers, even if they are not the
speakers):
Attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any crime under the
RPC
Audience is incited to commit treason, rebellion, sedition or direct assault
Art. 147 Illegal Association
o punishes the association itself, whether meeting or not;
o the association must be declared illegal
EX: A B C & D nag meeting because they will murder X. is that a crime?
o No. because there is no crime of conspiracy to commit murder
o However, if they are armed. They can be charged for illegal assembly. PROVIDED
they are armed.
DIRECT ASSAULT
Art. 148 Direct Assault (DA)
Two kinds:
1. Would have been rebellion or sedition but without public uprising
2. Attack, force, SERIOUSLY intimidate or resist a person in authority or his agent while
engaged in the performance of official duties
1. Would have been rebellion or sedition but without public uprising

Here this is a DA where the objective is political in nature or sedition. BUT NO PUBLIC
UPRISING
2. Attack, force, SERIOUSLY intimidate or resist a person in authority or his agent while
engaged in the performance of official duties
Most common DA.
Elements:
i. Offender makes an:
1. attack or
2. employs force or
3. makes a serious intimidation or
4. makes a serious resistance.

ii. The person assaulted is a person in authority or his agent

iii. At the time of assault the person in authority or his agent is engaged in the
actual performance of official duties OR resulted from performance of a past
duty
iv. Offender has knowledge that the person he is attacking is a person in authority
or his agent
v. No public uprising.
TN: At the time of assault the person in authority or his agent is engaged in the actual
performance of official duties in several decisions of the SC this phrase has been expanded to
mean including the performance of official duty as the reason for the attack.
This means that it is not anymore necessary that a person in authority or his agents is in the
actual performance of his duty it is already extended to mean that attack was for reason of
performance of duty .
EX. a judge was coming out of the church and a person who he convicted waited for him
outside and when he came out he was attacked by such person it was held as direct assault
because it was connected to the performance of the judges function.
WHO ARE PERSONS IN AUTHORITY:
Is one vested with jurisdiction and includes brgy captain the lupon, the captain, and the
kagawad. Accoriding to the Local Gov. Code.
Includes the lupon who are not elected but appointed.
WHO ARE AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY:

A person charged with the maintenance of public order and the retention of security of life and
property.
Includes the brgy. Tanods.
When a private person can be the victim of Direct Assault: MT

1. If he is a person in authority or an agent of a person in authority, even if he is not a public
officer, i.e. professors, lawyers
2. If offender employs violence against private person for similar purpose as rebellion or
sedition but without public uprising
3. If he comes to the aid of a person in authority [RA 1978 (1957); BP 873 on lawyers (1985)]
Question: What if there was an illegal arrest first then resisting such arrest the person arrested directly
assaulted the person in authority?
There is still direct assault as long as all the elements are present. A person may resist such
arrest especially when it is unlawful but one is not supposed to attack the arresting officer.
TN of the elements. As long as all are present then there is DA.

Can we complex DA?

Yes. The only time you cant if the other crime is a light felony.
INDIRECT ASSAULT
When is there Indirect Assault?
When the victim is someone coming to the aid of an agent of a person in authority.
There is now direct assault for the attack on the agent and indirect assault for the attack of
the person coming to the aid of the agent.
Case Study
Brgy. Tagay held a public disco on the occasion of its fiesta. Its bachelor barangay captain
Pedro was looking forward to this occasion to show off his dancing skills.
One of the spectators, Juan, did not like that his girlfriend seemed so impressed with Kapitan
Pedro and was dancing with him all through the night.
Unable to control the rage inside him, Juan approached Kapitan Pedro and boxed him.
Seeing this, Barangay Tanod Alex immediately tried to neutralize Juan, but he was also
boxed by Juan.
What crime/s were committed?
o There is DA. ( No further discussion bec everyone was excited to go home)
ANS as of discussion in 2013:
o CAPTAIN PEDRO. There is no question that insofar as Kapitan Pedro is
concerned, there is no Direct Assault. Why? Because the reason why he was
boxed was not because of a performance of an official xxx factor. So insofar as
Kapitan Pedro is concerned, its probably just Physical Injuries. the official functions of
a local public official these are defined in the Local Government Code. You can find
the functions there. I am sure that it does not include sayaw2x.
o BRGY TANOD ALEX Art. 152 enumerates who are persons in authority and who are
agents of persons in authority. So is there a Direct Assault according to 152
o The primary reason why there is Direct Assault here is not because he came to
the aid, but rather because he was an agent himself.
So the next question is, supposing hes not an agent (a private person) and he
came to the aid of another person, can he become an agent of a person in
authority such that he could be a victim of Direct Assault as well (if the
main victim could not be considered a Direct Assault because, although he
was a person in authority, he was not performing official functions or the
reason he was attacked was not because of performance of official
functions)?
The answer is no. if there is no person in authority, a private
person coming to the aid of that person who is not performing
public (official) function will not become an agent of a person in
authority.

Meaning, there must be 2 Direct Assaults, not just one. The reason
why we only have 1 Direct Assault here because he himself is an
agent.
Art. 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, by the Constitutional Commissions,
its committees, subcommittees or divisions. The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from two hundred to one thousand pesos, or
both such fine and imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who, having been duly summoned to attend as a witness before the
National Assembly, (Congress), its special or standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees,
subcommittees, or divisions, or before any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to summon witnesses, refuses, without
legal excuse, to obey such summons, or being present before any such legislative or constitutional body or official, refuses to be sworn or
placed under affirmation or to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents, or records in his possession, when
required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions. The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall restrain another
from attending as a witness, or who shall induce disobedience to a summon or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
WHOSE orders are disobeyed?

1. Congress; or
2. Committees & Subcommittees of Congress; or
3. Constitutional Commissions ( COA, COMELEC & CSC ); or
4. Committees & Subcommittees of the Con Coms
WHAT acts are punished:
1) Refusing to obey summons WITHOUT a VALID EXCUSE; or
o Order of Pres. Arroyo to cabinet secretaries not to appear before the Senate Blue Ribbon
Committee is valid excuse for the Cabinet Secretaries not to obey the subpoena
2) Refusing to be Sworn; or
3) Refusing to Answer; or
4) Refusing to produce documents; or
5) Inducing disobedience
The acts in this Article are not only grounds for disciplinary measures under the House Rules but are also
considered as crimes.
Disobeying summons of Congress gives rise to criminal liability but disobeying Court summons only gives
rise to Judicial Discipline, not criminal liability.
Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in authority or the agents of such person. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who not being included in the provisions of the preceding articles 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.
ACTS punished:
1. Resisting or
2. Seriously disobeying or
3. Disobeying
Any person in authority, or the agents of such person, while engaged in the performance of official duties.
CORRELATE with Art. 148 on DIRECT ASSAULT (DA):

o In DA, the RESISTANCE must be SERIOUS. In Art. 151 the resistance is NOT serious.
On the matter of disobedience, it may be serious or not serious only that the penalty will differ.
Hypothetical:
While SPO1 Juan was chasing a snatcher, Pedro and Marcial were laughing and making annoying remarks at his
physical appearance and his awkward movements. SPO1 Juan was distracted and lost the snatcher. Since he lost
the snatcher, he arrested Pedro and Marcial instead for violation of Art. 151. Have Pedro and Marcial committed
acts in Art. 151?
Answer: No, they have not committed acts in Art. 151 because there was no resistance and neither was there
a lawful order that was disobeyed.
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).
Defines who are PERSONS IN AUTHORITY
Chapter Five
PUBLIC DISORDERS
Art. 153. Tumults and other disturbance of public orders; Tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to cause disturbance. The penalty
of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon
any person who shall cause any serious disturbance in a public place, office, or establishment, or shall interrupt or disturb public performances,
functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included in the provisions of Articles 131 and 132.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon persons causing any disturbance or interruption of a tumultuous character.
The disturbance or interruption shall be deemed to be tumultuous if caused by more than three persons who are armed or provided with
means of violence.
The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon any person who in any meeting, association, or public place, shall make any outcry tending
to incite rebellion or sedition or in such place shall display placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of the public order.
The penalty of arresto menor and a fine not to exceed P200 pesos shall be imposed upon these persons who in violation of the provisions
contained in the last clause of Article 85, shall bury with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed.
DIFFERENTIATE with REBELLION and SEDITION
Rebellion Sedition Tumultuous Disturbance
ARMED public uprising May be a public uprising but NOT Tumultuous disturbance NOT
ARMED necessarily a public uprising (not
massive in number)
Caused by MORE THAN 3 persons

(Thus 4 or more)
They must be ARMED or PROVIDED
WITH MEANS OF VIOLENCE
Art. 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and unlawful utterances. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine ranging from P200 to
P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who by means of printing, lithography, or any other means of publication shall publish or cause 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. Any person who by the same means, or by words, utterances or speeches shall encourage disobedience to the law or to the constituted
authorities or praise, justify, or extol any act punished by law;
3. Any person who shall maliciously publish or cause to be published any official resolution or document without proper authority, or before
they have been published officially; or
4. Any person who shall print, publish, or distribute or cause to be printed, published, or distributed books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets
which do not bear the real printer's name, or which are classified as anonymous.
Differs from SLANDER or LIBEL because the purpose here is NOT to EMBARRASS.
It is a crime against PUBLIC ORDER not a crime against the personal Honor of another person
Purpose here is to CREATE CHAOS or to DISTURB PUBLIC PEACE
Case in point the Chona Mae incident; the utterance created public chaos here in Cebu
That person who made the utterance about the tsunami created public chaos. That is actually a crime
under Art. 154.
Art. 155. Alarms and scandals. The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding P200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who within any town or public place, shall discharge any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other explosives calculated to cause
alarm or danger;
2. Any person who shall instigate or take an active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to
public tranquility;
3. Any person who, while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusements, shall disturb the public peace; or
4. Any person who, while intoxicated or otherwise, shall cause any disturbance or scandal in public places, provided that the circumstances of
the case shall not make the provisions of Article 153 applicable.
In number 1
The discharge of the firearm must be for the purpose of creating public disorder. Otherwise, if it is aimed
at another, the crime would become illegal discharge, still a crime punished under RPC.
In number 3
It can only be committed at nighttime.
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.
The offender here is the person who removed the prisoner whether convicted or not. It is a crime against
public order.

Illustration: A prisoner (X) escapes with the help of another (Y) and the case of X is still pending trial and
he was not able to post bail because he was charged for a non-bailable offense. In this case, only Y will be
held liable and not X.
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.
Art. 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the occasion of disorder, conflagrations, earthquakes, or other calamities. A convict who shall
evade the service of his sentence, by leaving the penal institution where he shall have been confined, on the occasion of disorder resulting from
a conflagration, earthquake, explosion, or similar catastrophe, or during a mutiny in which he has not participated, shall suffer an increase of
one-fifth of the time still remaining to be served under the original sentence, which in no case shall exceed six months, if he shall fail to give
himself up to the authorities within forty-eight hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing the passing
away of such calamity.
Convicts who, under the circumstances mentioned in the preceding paragraph, shall give themselves up to the authorities within the above
mentioned period of 48 hours, shall be entitled to the deduction provided in Article 98.
The prisoner who escapes under these circumstances can be held liable if he escapes on the occasion of
disorder or calamities and he fails to return.
Art. 159. Other cases of evasion of service of sentence. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon the
convict who, having been granted conditional pardon by the Chief Executive, shall violate any of the conditions of such pardon. However, if the
penalty remitted by the granting of such pardon be higher than six years, the convict shall then suffer the unexpired portion of his original
sentence.
Art. 157 159 cannot be committed by pre-trial prisoners/detention prisoners.

Escape means unlawful departure from the custody. If he has not yet been committed to prison, he
cannot be said to have escaped.
Ex. Pedro was tried for less serious physical injuries and pending the trial of his case he posted
bail. He subsequently escaped. What will happen on his case? The case against him can still
proceed because there can be trial in absentia provided that the accused has already been
arraigned. If he disappears and sentenced afterwards for the crime he committed but he cannot
be anymore made to serve his sentence, would he be liable as well for evasion of service? No,
because in order to be liable for evasion first he must be serving the sentence. If he has not
commenced serving the sentence, he cannot be held liable under Art. 157-159.
Art. 160. Commission of another crime during service of penalty imposed for another offense; Penalty. Besides the provisions of Rule 5 of
Article 62, any person who shall commit a felony after having been convicted by final judgment, before beginning to serve such sentence, or
while serving the same, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by law for the new felony.
Any convict of the class referred to in this article, who is not a habitual criminal, shall be pardoned at the age of seventy years if he shall have
already served out his original sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching the said age, unless by reason of his conduct or other
circumstances he shall not be worthy of such clemency.
o Quasi-recidivism is not a crime but a special aggravating circumstance which has the effect of maximizing
the penalty. The most important element here is that the person must be convicted already.
FOUR KINDS OF REPEAT OFFENSES:

o RECIDIVISM a recidivist is one who at the time of his trial of one crime shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime embraced in the same title of the Code. The effect is
ordinary aggravating and can be offset by ordinary mitigating.

o REITERACION/HABITUALITY also an ordinary aggravating circumstance. It is the circumstance where the

offender has been previously punished (has served sentence). The first offense must have been punished
with equal or greater penalty; or he has committed two or more crimes previously to which the law
attaches a lighter penalty. It does not require that the offenses be covered under the same title of the
Code.
o MULTIRECIDIVISM/HABITUAL DELINQUENCY a person is a habitual delinquent if within the period of 10
years from the date of his release or last conviction of the crimes of falsification, robbery, estafa, theft,
serious or less serious physical injuries (FRETSeL), he is found guilty of said crimes a third time or oftener.
The result of multirecidivism is additional penalty/incremental penalty. The more crimes committed, the
higher the additional penalty.
o QUASI-RECIDIVISM- the offender has been previously convicted by final judgment and before beginning
to serve such sentence, or while serving the same he committed a felony. This is a special aggravating
circumstance which must be alleged in the Information and may not be offset by an ordinary mitigating
circumstance.
o In all these circumstances, there must have already been a prior conviction. There can be no repeat
offender if there is no prior conviction.
Title Four
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
Chapter One
FORGERIES
o Crimes against public interest are crimes which involve defraudation of the public in general. The victims
are not necessarily individuals but involves the interest of the public in general.
o Estafa is not a crime against public interest because it involves defraudation of an individual rather than
the public in general.
Art. 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands, forging the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.
The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any person who shall forge the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands
or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive.
o When the signature of the President is forged, the crime is not falsification but that of Art. 161.
Art. 162. Using forged signature or counterfeit seal or stamp. The penalty of prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who shall
knowingly make use of the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp mentioned in the preceding article.
Section Two. Counterfeiting Coins
Art. 163. Making and importing and uttering false coins. Any person who makes, imports, or utters, false coins, in connivance with
counterfeiters, or importers, shall suffer:
1. Prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be silver coin of the
Philippines or coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines of ten centavo denomination or above.
2. Prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine of not to exceed P2,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coins be any of the
minor coinage of the Philippines or of the Central Bank of the Philippines below ten-centavo denomination.
3. Prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P1,000 pesos, if the counterfeited coin be currency of a foreign
country.(As amended by R.A. No. 4202, approved June 19, 1965).
Art. 164. Mutilation of coins; Importation and utterance of mutilated coins. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period and a
fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who shall mutilate coins of the legal currency of the United States or of the
Philippine Islands or import or utter mutilated current coins, or in connivance with mutilators or importers.
o Here the coin must be legal tender.

Art. 165. Selling of false or mutilated coin, without connivance. The person who knowingly, although without the connivance mentioned in
the preceding articles, shall possess false or mutilated coin with intent to utter the same, or shall actually utter such coin, shall suffer a penalty
lower by one degree than that prescribed in said articles.
o The possession here must be with intent to sell or distribute. Mere possession is not punished. Possession
must be coupled with intent to distribute false or mutilated coins.
Art. 166. Forging treasury or bank notes on other documents payable to bearer; importing, and uttering such false or forged notes and
documents. The forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or certificates or other obligations and securities payable to bearer and the
importation and uttering in connivance with forgers or importers of such false or forged obligations or notes, shall be punished as follows:
1. By reclusion temporal in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P10,000 pesos, if the document which has been falsified, counterfeited,
or altered, is an obligations or security of the United States or of the Philippines Islands.
The word "obligation or security of the United States or of the Philippine Islands" shall be held to mean all bonds, certificates of indebtedness,
national bank notes, fractional notes, certificates of deposit, bills, checks, or drafts for money, drawn by or upon authorized officers of the
United States or of the Philippine Islands, and other representatives of value, of whatever denomination, which have been or may be issued
under any act of the Congress of the United States or of the Philippine Legislature.
2. By prision mayor in its maximum period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or altered document is a circulating note issued
by any banking association duly authorized by law to issue the same.
3. By prision mayor in its medium period and a fine not to exceed P5,000 pesos, if the falsified or counterfeited document was issued by a
foreign government.
4. By prision mayor in its minimum period and a fine not to exceed P2,000 pesos, when the forged or altered document is a circulating note or
bill issued by a foreign bank duly authorized therefor.
Acts Penalized:
1) Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or other documents payable to bearer
2) Importation of the same
3) Uttering the same with connivance with forgers or importers
Uttering forged bills must be with connivance
Art. 167. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering instruments not payable to bearer. Any person who shall forge, import or utter, in
connivance with the forgers or importers, any instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer, shall suffer the
penalties of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding P6,000 pesos.
o This involves instruments which are payable to bearer or not payable to bearer
ELEMENTS:
1) That there be an instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer
2) That the offender either forged , imported or uttered such instrument
3) That in case of uttering he connived with the importer or forger
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 the treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and certificate payable to bearer or any
instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by
another
2) The offender knows that any of these instrument is forged or falsified
3) That he performs any of these acts:

a) Using any of such forged or falsified instruments

b) Possession with intent to use, any of the forged or falsified documents
Here, in Art. 168, this involves the paper bills. Mere possession is not punishable. There must be knowledge that
the money is fake and there must be intent to use the fake money. So, you must know that the bank note is fake
(KNOWLEDGE) and there must be intent to use.
Example: Chinese businessmen in Manalili displayed fake bank note/money. Punishable or not?
NO. Mere possession is not punishable. Possession must be coupled with intent to use as a legal tender.
Who certifies that the money is fake? It is the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas that will certify that the money is fake.
For without the certification from BSP, there can be no successful prosecution. It is only the BSP.
How is Forgery of a Bank Note committed?

Can be done by:
- giving the bank note an appearance of a true and genuine document or
Ex. Play money? NOT LIABLE IF NOT IN APPEARANCE OF A TRUE AND GENUINE DOCUMENT.
- erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering the figures, letters, words or signs therein
Ex. Writing something in bank note? Wanted text mate? NOT LIABLE because not erasing nor substituting.
Another example, what if youll draw a hat or whatever on NINOYs image in a P500 bill, is that a crime?
(unanswered)
Caselet:
Juan got hold of a check representing a teachers salary. By pretending to be the teacher and signing as the payee
and encashed the check? Is there a violation of Art 167?
NO, the means used is not included in Art. 169. In order to be considered as violation of 167 or 168, the means
used must be those mentioned in Art. 169, there are no others. But he may be held liable for the crime of ESTAFA
because Juan is pretending to possess credit, qualification, etc.. In order for forgery to be committed there must be
something to be done on the money or instrument itself.
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.
How Committed:
1) By giving to treasury or bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order the appearance of a true
and genuine document
2) By erasing, substituting, or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signatures contained therein
Includes falsification and counterfeiting

Section Four. Falsification of legislative, public, commercial, and private documents, and wireless, telegraph, and
telephone message.
KINDS OF DOCUMENTS:
Public Document authorized by law or regulation; person authorized to administer oath intervenes for the
purpose of authenticating the same
Ex. Notary Public of a Deed of Sale
- Only between 2 private persons but somebody intervenes as authorized by law to notarize (lawyer)
becomes a public document
Affidavit notarized
Application for taking the Bar required by regulation
Marriage License required by regulation
Drivers License required by regulation
Official Document issued by a public employee as part of public record
Ex. Police Clearance, NBI Clearance, Police Report, documents that are confidential, cases involving
children
Commercial Document authorized and regulated under Commercial Laws
Ex. Any commercial document used in the course of business or commerce
Private Document
Ex. Love letter from Juan to Maria
Why is it important to know which document?

Because some elements specify which kind of document (Public, Official, Commercial)
There can be falsification of all these documents except if its a Private Document. Because there is the
additional element of Damage. If there is no damage, then there is no crime of falsification of private document.
If Public, Official, Commercial?

Even if there is no damage, there is already a crime of falsification.
MANNER OF COMMITTING FALSIFICATION:

1. Falsification of Public, Official and Commercial document without damage
2. Falsification of private document with damage
3. Use of falsified documents in judicial proceedings
Art. 170. Falsification of legislative documents. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine not exceeding P6,000
pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without proper authority therefor alters any bill, resolution, or ordinance enacted or
approved or pending approval by either House of the Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council.
ELEMENTS:
1) That there be a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved by either House of the Legislative or any
provincial board or municipal council

2) The offender alters the same

3) That alteration changed the meaning of the document
In Art. 171, it is falsification by a Public Officer who is taking advantage of his official position. You have to make a
distinction between 171 and 172 because in 171, it has a higher penalty. The penalty is prision mayor which means
that the court that has jurisdiction is the RTC now. For ordinary mortals who commit falsification, the crime would
be 172 and the penalty is lower it is only prision correccional. So the public officer who commits any of the crimes
mentioned in 172 will be meted with higher penalty. But for private individuals, regardless of the document he will
be punished with prision correccional.
How is forgery committed? Art 171.
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary or ecclesiastic minister. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine not to exceed
P5,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any public officer, employee, or notary who, taking advantage of his official position, shall falsify a
document by committing any of the following acts:
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 a 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.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any ecclesiastical minister who shall commit any of the offenses enumerated in the preceding
paragraphs of this article, with respect to any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of
persons.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer, employee or notary public.
2. That he takes advantage of his official position
When:
a) He has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of the
document
b) He has the official custody of the document which he falsifies
If he did not take advantage of his official position, he would be guilty of falsification of public
document by a private individual.
3. The offender falsifies a document,
DOCUMENT- any written statement by which a right is established or an obligation extinguished or by
which a fact may be proven or affirmed
DIFFERENT MODES OF FALSIFYING A DOCUMENT:

i. COUNTERFEITING OR IMITATING ANY HANDWRITING, SIGNATURE OR RUBRIC
Requisites:

a) That there be an intent to imitate or an attempt to imitate

b) The two signature or handwriting, the genuine and the forged bear some resemblance to each
other
ii. CAUSING IT TO APPEAR THAT PERSONS HAVE PARTICIPATED IN AN ACT OR PROCEEDING

Requisites:
a) that the offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or persons participated in an
act or proceeding
b) that such persons did not in fact so participate in the action proceeding
iii. ATTRIBUTING TO PERSONS WHO HAVE PARTICIPATED IN ANY ACT OR PROCEEDING STATEMENTS
OTHER THAN THOSE IN FACT MADE BY THEM
Requisites:
a) that persons participated in an act or proceeding
b) that such person or persons made statements in that act or proceeding
c) that the offender in making a document, attributed to such person, statements other than
those in fact made by such person.
iv. MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A NARRATION OF FACTS

Requisites:
a) That the offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts
b) That he has the legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him
c) That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely false
d) That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a
third person
v. ALTERING TRUE DATES

Date must be essential.
The alteration of the date or dates in a document must affect either the veracity of the document or
the effects thereof.
Alteration of dates in official receipts to prevent discovery of malversation is falsification
vi. MAKING ALTERATION OR INTERCALATION IN GENUINE DOCUMENT WHICH CHANGSE ITS MEANING
Requisites:
a) That there be an alteration or intercalation (insertion) on a document
b) That it was made on a genuine document
c) That the alteration and intercalation has changed the meaning of the document
d) That the change made the document speak something false

vii. ISSUING IN AN AUTHENTICATED FORM A DOCUMENT PURPORTING TO BE A COPY OF AN ORIGINAL

DOCUMENT WHEN NO SUCH ORIGINAL EXIST OR INCLUDING IN SUCH A COPY A STATEMENT CONTRARY
TO OR DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE GENUINE ORIGINAL
CANNOT be committed by a private individual or by a notary or public officer who DOES NOT take
advantage of his official position.
Intent to gain or prejudice is not necessary
Not only committed by copying the signature. It is possible that there is forgery even if you create your own
signature provided that you make it appear that you were somebody else.
Altering the substance or date = Falsification
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.
Acts Punished:
1. Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual
ELEMENTS:
a) The offender is a private individual or a public officer or employee who did not take advantage of his
official position
b) That he committed any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art.171
c) That the falsification was committed in a public or official or commercial document
2. Falsification of private document by any person

ELEMENTS:
a) That the offender committed any of the acts of falsification except those in par. 7, enumerated in Art.171.
b) That the falsification was committed in a private document.
c) That the falsification caused damage to a third party or at least the falsification was committed with the
intent to cause damage
3. Use of falsified documents

ELEMENTS:
Introducing in a judicial proceeding-
1. that the offender knew that the document was falsified by another person
2. that he false document was embraced in Art. 171 or in any subdivisions No.1 or 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 the document was falsified by another person
2. that the false document was embraced in Art. 171 or in any of subdivision No. 1 or 2 of Art. 172
3. that he used such document (not in judicial proceeding)
4. that the use of the false document caused damage to another or at least it was used with intent to cause
damage
Usually, nobody knows who commits the Falsification for it is usually done secretly. Thus, usually there is no
witness. So the law created the presumption that whoever possesses the falsified document is the falsifier and
most especially if a person gets to be benefited from the falsification. However, this presumption is NOT
CONCLUSIVE. It is disputable. They can be rebutted by presenting evidences to the contrary.
Legal Presumptions (Disputable):
-The one who has possession of the falsified document
-The person gets benefited from the falsification
Q: What are the valid defenses?
Fiscal: Personal opinion only, the following are possible defenses:
1. Lack of knowledge- e.g. There is a falsified document received by a buyer of a parcel of land sold by
Juan this month. The public document was forged 3 years ago and the buyer had knowledge long
after the falsification was committed. Lack of knowledge of the falsification can be a defense, not
Good Faith.
2. The impossibility of having committed forgery (similar to alibi)
Take note that Good Faith for sure is not a defense: e.g. Juan sent text message to his sister, Juana, that she could
sign a deed of sale in his behalf for emergency reasons. And she signed not as an agent, not by virtue of an SPA but
rather she signed as JUAN even if you are not JUAN so there is good faith. But nonetheless, it could be a crime for
making it appear that the person signing acted as another person where in fact he is not.
In our lower years, it has been told that if the falsification of the document is intended or done in order to deceive
another person, then there is complexing. And further it has been discussed that complexing is possible if there is
one complete crime as means of committing another complete crime. And because of that, as a general rule, you
can only complex Estafa with Falsification of Public, Commercial or Official document. Because the foregoing cases
do not require damage or intent to cause damage. It is a complete, independent and stand-alone crime.
But in the case of falsification of PRIVATE document, the crime also includes the element of damage or intent to
cause damage. On the other hand, the crime of Estafa necessarily includes the element of damage as well. So if
there is only one damage, it could either be Falsification of Private document or Estafa.
In cases decided by SC, if you have falsification of private document which was used in order to defraud another,
the crime would become FALSIFICATION of private document.
However, sometimes it would depend on who is filing the case. Because if the person who is filing the case is the
person whose signature is forged, that person will file of course FALSIFICATION, provided there is damage to him.
But if the person filing the case is not the person whose signature is forged but nevertheless incurred damage, e.g.
relied on a forged/falsified signature, then naturally he will not file a case for Falsification rather he probably will
file Estafa. But according to SC, when these 2 crimes are present, FALSIFICATION of Private Documents and Estafa,
the crime would be FALSIFICATION OF PRIVATE DOCUMENT.

NB: Good faith is not a defense.

Example: Juan told his sister, Juana, to sign the deed of sale in his (Juan) behalf, because we need to sell that in
order to defray expenses, and then Juana signed, not as agent, not by a virtue of SP, rather she signed, as Juan,
even if she is not Juan, there is good faith, because she was told to do so
Q: is there a crime?
A: So, it is a crime. For making it appear that this person was the one signing when he is not. But there is good
faith, but here, good faith is not a defense.
Article 173. Crime of falsification of wireless, telegraph, telephone message

Maybe this is no longer applicable in the present state of technology: first, we dont have telegraph
anymore; second, how can you falsify a text message. Lisod daw
Article 174. Falsifying medical certificate or certificate of merits, or service
When you pretend that you graduated for that school, that can be a crime, but the thing is it comes with a
lower penalty as compared to estafa
Example: take kag bar or mo apply kag prosecutor, unya magpahimo kag diploma, using false certificate
NB: It can also be estafa, estafa by pretending to possess qualifications, or property.
Q: Can you complex estafa with using?
A: Yes.
Article 176. manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements for falsification
The problem is, it can be any implement, even printer, computer and scanner can already be used, so, it is
important there must be proof that these things were used for the falsification. Its unlike the picklock and
the false keys, which by themselves, you can readily conclude that possession of these things, even if not
used are illegal per se. But for 176, the implements here may not be illegal per se. so therefore to connect
the thing the instrument with an activity which is illegal, because the thing itself may not be illegal.
Usurpation
Art. 177 Usurpation of authority or official functions
This pertains to a public function:
o could be ELECTIVE
o could be APPOINTIVE.
Now in usurpation of public functions, remember even the original holder of the position may be held
liable for usurpation.
Example: A governor may be held liable for usurpation of public functions of a governor.
o Gwen, she was suspended. During her suspension, she could not function, could not sign checks, and if
she did function as such, she could be held liable for usurpation of her own office.
Art. 178 Using fictitious name and concealing true name

(purpose must be to CONCEAL a crime, EVADE a judgment, or cause public damage)
Let us assume that we have Juan dela Cruz, but Juan, we dont really know that it is his name, in the
community he is known as Johnny gwapohon, and then he was a notorious drug lord, and there was a

warrant of arrest for Johnny gwapohon, and so he went to another town and decided not to use the name
of Johnny gwapohon anymore, so he began to use his real name, Juan dela Cruz, in order to conceal his
crime.
Q: Is he liable under 178? Because he dropped his popular name in order to conceal a crime?
A: He would NOT be liable, because in 178, what must be used is an alias, kinahanglan mo gamit kag alias to
conceal a crime.
But if it is the other way around, you dropped an alias and use your real name, even if the purpose is to
conceal a crime. Cause dapat, using fictitious name and concealing true name.
Art. 179 Illegal use of uniform or insignia CA 142, as amended by RA 6085 Anti Alias Law
We are talking about the use of an official uniform or insignia
Here, it is not necessary that the person or the accused performed the functions.
Examples:
There are uniforms, pananglitan army, if you were a cadette officer diba you will use the same uniform,
but you will not use the patches or gadgets, because once you use the gadget, that is already a crime.
The same is true with police, those who are taking up criminal justice course, they use the same cloth and
everything but without the patches, because once it is the exact replica, then criminally liable na siya.
So Halloween costumes, mere colorable imitations, but not really the complete set.
However, it does happen, we had a roleplay and then ang skit, kay cpdrc dancing inmates, ang ending
kay, kintahay ang prisoner, mo kanta, niya ma acquitted siya, daun celebration manayaw daun they
dont care about us there somebody played the role of the police nga ni dakop, way budget so we
borrowed from a police the real uniform, would that be a crime? No, because the objective there is not to
confuse the public, it was just for that particular program for entertainment purposes. Otherwise, kanang
nagpa pulis pulis, kanang mga artista, pwede unta sila ma illegal use. Because they use the uniforms in tv
and movies.
NB: The objective there must be to create public confusion or to defraud the public in general. We go back to the
general objective of the crimes punished under this title, which is, it must be used to defraud to or to cause
confusion of the public. So if for entertainment, yeko ar.
FALSE TESTIMONIES:
Art. 180 False testimony against a defendant
false testimony against an accused
Art. 181 False testimony favorable to the defendant
false testimony in favor of the accused
Both 180 and 181 talk about a criminal case, the defendant here is the accused.
Art. 182 False testimony in civil cases
false testimony in civil cases: BOTH favorable and against are punished;
*It is not necessary that the testimony be actually considered by the Court in its decision.
It is NOT necessary that the testimony be given weight in the resolution or disposition of the case. What is
important is that the accused testified, when we said testified does not necessarily mean nga ni lingkod siya

sa witness stand, what is important is that, he gave testimony whether oral or written, is submitted to the
court.
Art. 183 False testimony in other cases and Perjury

ELEMENTS OF PERJURY:
1. Accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit;
2. It pertains to a material matter;
3. It was made before a competent officer;
4. There is a deliberate assertion of falsehood;
5. It is required by law.
Recap:
ARTICLE 180 and 181 Criminal case
ARTICLE 182 Civil case

st
ARTICLE 183, 1 part any other case
1st part refers to false testimonies given in other proceedings, meaning mo include og administrative
cases or labor cases or maybe cadastral cases
o False testimony in other cases speaks of a person testifying during an investigation but no
affidavit is made

nd
2 partperjury
o There is no case
o Here we do not talk about testimony, we do not talk about case. What is important is that here is
a person he executed an affidavit, must be a statement under oath. The statement must pertain
to a material matter.
o If maghimo siya og statement under oath but not pertaining to a material matter like na sayop
alng iya address or age, then it is not material, so dli na siya perjury.
o Because in perjury, all these elements must concur, which means that you need to memorize it.
o NB: Absent one element, you have no perjury.
Example 1: Juan executes an affidavit stating that he is single when in truth and in fact he is married. Juan does not
commit the crime of perjury because such affidavit is not required by law.
Case Study: Juan has two children, Pedro and Petra. When Juan died, Pedro executed an affidavit of adjudication
stating that he is the only heir. By reason of such affidavit containing his misrepresentations, Pedro was able to
transfer the title of the property solely to himself.
1) Did Pedro commit Perjury?
2) Did Pedro commit Falsification of Public Document?
ANS:
1) Yes, Pedro committed Perjury because he executed an affidavit required by a law (Rule 74, Section 1) pertaining
to a material matter before a competent officer in which he made a deliberate assertion of falsehood.

2) No, Pedro did not commit Falsification of Public Document because the title issued by the Register of Deeds is
genuine. Pedro did not commit any acts under Article 171 which would constitute Falsification of Public Document.
Pedro did not imitate the signature of the RoD. Neither did he sign as if he is the RoD. Neither did he make any
alterations to the Title.
Take note: Pedro made untruthful statements in the affidavit but NOT in the Title issued by the RoD.
Example: Juan executed a Deed of Sale of land. The land pertains to a 1-hectare lot which is owned by
Juan. For Juan to commit Falsification of Public Document, he may imitate the signature of the RoD in the
Deed of Sale, or make an untruthful statement in the Deed of Sale that size of the lot is 2-hectare.
Nota bene: Making misrepresentations or untruthful statements in an affidavit required by law is
punished under Article 183, not in Article 171 or 172.
Thus, if one executes an affidavit which is not required by law, even if notarized, it is not a perjury.
Again, you have to memorize all those elements. Because if you are confronted for example of a
hypothetical wherein there is a document, make sure to determine what kind of document it is, where it
is public, commercial, official, private or affidavit because if it is an affidavit then 183 applies, if its either
of the four, 171 or 172 apply. 171 if the offender is a public official taking advantage of his position.
Katong akong example ba si Juan ug si Juana, igsuon sila. Si Juan toa sa US and they need to sell a parcel of
land to defray the expenses so there is a need nga magpirma ug deed of sale.
The land is co-owned by Juan and Juana. Lets say that Juan told Juana nga pirmahi nalang na diha akong
lugar, so she signed as Juan and then sign nalang sad as if naa ko diha, okay?
I am emphasizing this, ang akong pasabot is that she was not armed with a SPA but rather Juana signed as
if she was Juan, making it appear that Juan also signed the document when in truth and in fact it was just
her signing for herself and signing for Juan, and then if I contest na later ang validity of sale as to Juans
share on the ground that how could Juan sign the doc when Juan at that time was in US?
Inig question ana, dili makaingon si juana nga giingnan man gud ko ni Juan. So good faith is not a defense.
Dili necessary ang prejudice sa public document. Damage is not necessary.

nd
Again, basta affidavit ang applicable law is not 172 but 183 2 paragraph.
Remember: One can commit perjury by making untruthful statement/ narration of facts in an affidavit plus
falsification of public document for untruthful statements in a deed of sale.
Affidavit must be one that is required by law not necessarily ORDERED by law.
Layug vs Sandiganbayan: There was falsification in the narration of facts. The offender believed that the facts
were true, when in fact, they were not. The statements were not entirely the truth, neither were they absolute
lies. The Supreme Court ruled that in this particular mode of committing falsification of public document, where
the narration of facts is later on proven to be untrue, but the one making the narration thought they were true,
good faith can be a defense.
This is limited to this mode of commission of falsification. Good faith as a defense is not available in
falsification by intercalating or imitating a signature.
Offenses Against Decency and Good Customs
Art. 200. Grave scandal. 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.
This is a catch all provision because many of the crimes which are against decency and good customs have
already been covered by SPL (such as illegal gambling, illegal numbers game, and etc).

So if theres no other specific law that will apply (RPC or SPL), and the act is highly scandalous, then it can
be punished as grave scandal.
Public view is not always necessary as long as the act was performed in public place
Its either public place or public view, because there is the element of public knowledge or showing to the
public.
Thus walking around naked in your own home or private dwelling because youre feeling sexy, is not
covered under this provision. The exhibitionism must be done in a public place or within public view
to be charged of grave scandal.
Art. 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows. The penalty of prision mayor or a fine ranging from
six thousand to twelve thousand pesos, or both such imprisonment and fine, shall be imposed upon:
1. 1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
2. 2. (a) the authors of obscene literature, published with their knowledge in any form; the editors publishing such literature; and the
owners/operators of the establishment selling the same;
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit, indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether live or
in film, which are prescribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which (1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but
to satisfy the market for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs; and
(5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, and good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts;
3. 3. Those who shall sell, give away or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculpture or literature which are offensive to morals. (As amended by PD
Nos. 960 and 969).
This article covers a very broad subject because it could include the exhibition; it could include the
teaching (for example of doctrines), it could even include possession with intent to sell or distribute.
Mere possession of obscene literature, as a general rule is not a crime.
So in an example where the Juans house was raided by police by virtue of a search
warrant and what was found were firearms, gambling paraphernalia, and drugs, as well as
pornographic material, Juan can only be prosecuted for the drugs, unlicensed firearms,
and gambling materials, and not the pornographic materials.
Possession must be coupled with intent to distribute.
Under SPL, however, the anti-child pornography law punishes the mere possession of child
pornography.
Thus, if the pornographic material does not depict a child, then Art. 201 would be
applicable, and the possession must be coupled with intent to distribute or sell.
Also covers hubo-hubo shows, girly bars, and selling of tabloids with pornographic materials
In the case of video and movies, theres a regulatory body that screens that. What is moral to some, may
not be moral to others, so its kind of relative. Apparently in the end, what is moral to the censors, is
moral for the public, because it seems that what is not moral to them, should not be moral to the public.
What is moral or what is lewd is obscene to some, might not be obscene to others. FHM apparently is
acceptable, because you can even buy it in National Bookstore. The general consensus is that FHM is not
considered pornographic, lewd or obscene. In the end its the judgment of the authorities, like in the case
of the movies, its the judgment of MTCRB. If its ok for them, then it can be released. If you dont like it,
you dont watch the movie, it becomes your call.
- Its relative. There is no hard and fast definition of what is obscene or not. It would depend on who is
looking. What is obscene to some may not be obscene to others.
- As a general rule, sexual movements are not fit to be shown to the public or depicted in movies
- If there is a child involved the standards are stricter

- However, artists like Michelangelo or Da vinci can get away with nude pictures. Their artworks are even
found inside churches. So we cannot say that it is automatically lewd if its nude.
- According to some, a double entendre is not immoral because it is not outrightly immoral. It is susceptible
of another meaning.
- Q: If a girl takes an indecent/obscene photo of herself and uploads it on facebook can she be held liable
under 201 because it only mentions of obscene literature
o Atty: Obviously, there was no internet before so on the part of the defense they can say that the
law must be interpreted in favor of the accused so if not part the elements then it not a crime
under the RPC. But what is literature? Does it have to be on print? We are not sure. Anyhow if
there is a possibility that if you can get away with 201 that you can still be liable under anti cyber
crime law which imposes a higher penalty
o What is literature? It does not say there should be printed literature because it can also be
exhibiting. Exhibiting does not talk about a particular medium. So the exhibition, as long as it has
a public reach, whether it is live or through movies or print, I would say that it could fall under
exhibition
- So that makes it very hard to prosecute. It would depend on the judge or court hearing the case
- There was a time when there was a provincial board resolution declaring the articles or picture on local
tabloids as obscene. On the other hand, the media invoked their freedom of expression.
- There was also once this artist who depicted Jesus Christ with the male genital on the face and it was
displayed in the Cultural Center of the Phil. There was a lot of furor from the Catholics. But the act could
not constitute a violation of ART 133 (Offending against the religious feelings of another). ART 133 could
not apply because it was in the CCP not in a place of worship or during a religious worship.
- So since ART 133 cant apply does it now fall under ART 201? Was it obscene? To have the face of religious
figure to be depicted in that way? So it was not clear
Art. 202. Vagrants and prostitutes; penalty. The following are vagrants:
1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, who has the physical ability to work and who neglects to apply himself or
herself to some lawful calling;
2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public buildings or places or trampling or wandering about the country or the
streets without visible means of support;
3. Any idle or dissolute person who ledges in houses of ill fame; ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate with
prostitutes;
4. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of this Code, shall be found loitering in any inhabited or
uninhabited place belonging to another without any lawful or justifiable purpose;
5. Prostitutes
For the purposes of this article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to
be prostitutes.
Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by this articles shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos,
and in case of recidivism, by arresto mayor in its medium period to prision correccional in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to
2,000 pesos, or both, in the discretion of the court.
- ART 202 used to punish two crimes: vagrancy and prostitution

- In 2012, President Aquino approved a law decriminalizing vagrancy. So what remains now is only
prostitution
- It is the prostitute who is penalized
- The offender must be a woman.

o If offender is not a woman, there is no crime. If offender is a transgender (like Jennifer Laude)
then there is no crime. This is solely applicable to women who are prostitutes. Even if there are a
lot of male prostitutes already, their act is not punished by law
- Prostitutes under the RPC requires habituality in engaging in sexual in engaging in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct
o A onetime act will not give rise to prostitution.
o Note that sexual intercourse is not necessary because the law penalizes prostitution even if what
is involved is merely lascivious conduct
- If you look at the elements of being a woman and habituality then it might seem that the job of a GRO
might fit the description because she does not have to be caught with her pants down
- Time was when in order to catch a prostitute, the police would employ a decoy. A police officer would
really have sexual intercourse with the prostitute then arrest her. That was before the enactment of the
Human Trafficking Act
- In the law punishing human trafficking, it is provided there that when a prostitute trafficked, she is
considered a victim and therefore not prosecuted. She is not treated as a criminal
o Does the Human Trafficking Act have the effect of repealing ART 202? NO because they can
stand together. What is punished under the human trafficking law is the exploitation of persons
for sexual purposes or engaging in these things. Under the law the prostitute is considered a
victim only if she is trafficked. If not trafficked, meaning she is a free lancer, she could be held
liable for ART 202
o Those in Kamagayan with the bugaw, they are victims. The ones punished are the pimps and all
those people exploiting them.
She is not treated as a criminal.
Q: So, would they be able to stand together? In other words, does the human trafficking law have the effect of
repealing Article 202?
A: No, they can stand together, because what is punished under the human trafficking law is the exploitation of
persons for sexual purposes. So, if engaging in these things, so under the human trafficking law the prostitute is
considered a victim but only if she is trafficked.
If the prostitute is not trafficked, meaning the prostitute is a free-lancer. It is the free-lancers who could
be held liable for violation of article 202.
Those in Kamagayan with the bugaw, they are victims. And the ones who are punished are the pimps and
the bugaws and all those people who exploiting them. So no more vagrancy.
The girls in Dacasa case, the girls with the pimps, they are not prosecuted under article 202.
Title VII
Crimes committed by public officer (CCPO)
Q: Who are public officers:
A: they are those who perform functions by provision of law by popular election or appointment
Manigo vs PP.
SC: that it is not the nature of appointment but the duties performed that determines whether a person is public
officer or not

which means that, if for example, the government offices would hire contractual employees, even LGUs
would hire social workers or doctors and they are contractual, but because they are performing public
service of an LGU, they could be liable under title VII, even if technically, they are not there by reason of
election or appointment by provision of law.
Under RA 3019, public officers has a wider scope, and includes temporary, contractual, causal employees or those
receiving compensation from the government, provided they are receiving compensation from the government.
Q: What are the crimes that they can commit?

A: general terms:
Malfeasance the doing of something which is wrong. The act itself is wrong.
Misfeasance the doing of something that is authorized but doing it wrongly. The mode of doing it is
wrong.
Nonfeasance the omission to do an act that should be done
Specifics:
MALFEASANCE AND MISFEASANCE
Arts. 204-207 can be committed by judges only:
Art 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
Art. 204 - Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. Judgment meaning final judgment.
Art. 205. Judgment rendered through negligence

Art. 205 - Judgment rendered through negligence, again final judgment, not malicious or intentional.
Art. 206. Unjust interlocutory order

Art. 206 - For those orders which are not final or interlocutory orders, there can be criminal liability
if it is unjust.
Final judgment/ decision it terminates the case on the merits after trial or presentation of
evidence of both sides
Interlocutory order an order which does not terminate a case
Whether it pertains to a judgment or to an interlocutory order whether it is malicious whether it is
culpable, it is punished under the Revised Penal Code
Art. 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice.

Art. 207 - Delaying. Delaying alone by itself is not a crime. If it is, all judges would go to jail. What
constitutes the crime is malice. Malicious delay in the administration of justice.
Article 208.
penalizes dereliction of office of prosecutor, by malicously refraining from instituting prosecution, or
tolerating the commission of offense.
Dereliction of office by the prosecutor by maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution or tolerating
the commission of the offense. It must be with malice. During Preliminary Investigation, there is wide

latitude of discretion which is given to prosecution. The court cannot order the prosecutor to file a case
through mandamus since it is not ministerial.
Art. 209 punishes prevaricacion or betrayal of trust by an attorney

Can only be committed by the prosecutor. Note that there should be malicious refraining. If there is no
malice, meaning there is an exercise of discretion even if the discretion is wrong or erroneous, provided
that it is not malicious, then it is not a crime. Because prosecutor cannot be subjected to injunction or
mandamus
Prevaricacion or betrayal of trust by an attorney is also punished. Dereliction of duty whereby the public
officer violates his oath of office.
Note: Prevaricacion covers any dereliction of duty whereby the public officer violates his oath of office.
Bribery and corruption

Bribery act of receiving
Corruption act of giving
Two kinds of bribery:

1. Direct Bribery
the receiving of a thing or gift or promise or agreement must pertain to the performance of an
official function
meaning it is subject to the condition that the receiver will do something, in exchange for the gift
in connection with the performance of his official duties
mere promises are sufficient, it would consummate the crime
the consideration may not be cash or thing, it can be a promise
2. Indirect Bribery
No condition in the giving or receiving
The sole reason for the giving is that the receiver occupies a public position
given by reason of his office
mere promises are not sufficient
it must be something either in cash or in kind
Example: If the money given is fake. The crime committed would still be direct bribery, because the mere
agreement consummates the crime. It is not impossible crime, because when we talk about impossible crimes, we
talk about crimes against persons or property. It is not also attempted, because when we say attempted, it means
that not all the acts of execution were performed. But in this case, all the acts of execution were performed. So
consummated direct bribery.
Frauds and illegal exaction
This pertain to frauds against the public treasury and prohibited transaction and there are public officials
who are not allowed to transact certain transaction where they have to perform a function or in relation
to their public office.

So if their office is involved in the giving of license or permit to that transaction or if they have relatives
who are involved in the transaction, then it is prohibited for them to do so.
The more recent jurisprudence with regard to these crimes are more a violation of RA 3019, rather than
RPC. RA 3019, provides for a higher penalty and when the prosecution is made under RA 3019, there can
be administrative liability aside from the criminal liability. Also, there can be preventive suspension even
before prosecution. As it is now, jurisprudence are more in line with RA 3019 than RPC
Article 213. illegal exactions

First paragraph:
o a public officer have official capacity with persons furnishing supplies.
Second paragraph
o Illegal exaction.
o The public officer is entrusted to collect fees and the public officer who is authorized to collect
fees must not have the discretion to compromise.
Because if the officer has the discretion to compromise, he cant be guilty of illegal
exaction.
o In order to constitute the crime of illegal exaction, the person must have the duty to collect fees and
he collects the wrong amount. It could be higher, maka ginansiya.
o What is punished here is not only that what was collected is lower, but what was collected was a
different amount.
Three ways:
1. demanding an amount different
2. failing to issue a receipt
3. collecting, receiving as payment things of nature different from that required by law
Malversation of public funds

Q: what do we need to remember in malversation (elements):
1. Offender is an accountable officer;
2. Public funds or property are involved;
GR: funds must be public funds
EXC: jurisprudence: even if funds are not coming from the government coffers but rather coming from private
persons but have partaken of public nature.
3. He has custody by reason of his office;
4. There is misappropriation (either by himself or by another);
5. Committed through intent or negligence.
The funds are not exactly from the government coffers but coming from private persons but have
partaken of public nature. So bisag dili sya kwarta sa gobyerno, pwede siya ma public funds.
For ex: donations for Yolanda victims. These are not coming from the government coffers but these were
probably coming from private contributions but once they are received by the government and to be

distributed for a public purpose then they would partake of public funds/ property. So you take note of
the nature of the funds, they should be public.
1. Persons involved must be accountable public officers.
GR: He must be an accountable officer.
EXC: Even if the offender really is not an accountable officer or the custodian of the funds that there is a
possibility that he could be held liable for malversation. (Transcribers Note: To be discussed later)
2. He has custody by reason of the office.
3. There was misappropriation.
Misappropriation need not be done by the offender himself. Malversation is a crime that can be
committed with intent or even with negligence. So even if it is a very malicious crime but actually it need
not always be intentional. For example, ikaw si treasurer, you have this money, then youll go somewhere,
they you entrust the bag to another person, then the person entrusted fled with the money. Kinsa man
ang ma liable? Also the treasurer because this crime can be committed through negligence and it is not
necessary that he is the one who misappropriated the public funds.
Malversation vs. Estafa
Malversation Estafa
Nature of the GR: Public GR: Private

Property
However, it does not mean to say Also, it does not mean to say that if
that when the fund is public that it is its private that it is always estafa.
always malversation. Remember that even if its private
but if it partakes of the nature of
For example, treasurer was deceived
public funds, one can be liable for
in buying a property which was not
malversation.
really owned by the seller. So thats
estafa by deceit. Its not
malversation because there is no
misappropriation, instead there is
fraud or deceit. (On the part of the
seller siguro? Kay it can be
committed through negligence man
kaha?) So its not necessary that if
the fund involved public that the
crime cannot be estafa.
Offender Either a private person or if public

officer, must be acting in private
capacity.
Damage Damage is not an element.

People vs Tolentino
Demand No need for demand (People vs.

Tolentino.

Can a private person commit malversation?

Yes, 4 instances:
1. If he is a conspirator
2. If he is an accomplice/ accessory
3. Private person entrusted with the custody of public funds and he misappropriates.
o Ex. The money used in 4Ps, in far flung places where there are no banks, they will send it
via Western Union, Palawan, these are actually public funds but in the custody of
private entity. If the private entity misappropriates it, he can commit malversation, not
necessarily theft.
4. Depositary of fund or property seized or attached by a government/court order even if the
property is a private person.
o Situation: Jose, court sheriff, levied on the monies of Juan to satisfy the judgment debt
owed to Pedro. Thereafter, Jose absconded with the amount and misappropriated the
same for his own use.
o The crime is not qualified theft but malversation even if the funds belong to a private
person. Because once the funds are in custodia legis, it was already impressed with the
character of public fund or property.
Q: In government practice, those who are regular employees can be disbursing officers. But what is
actually done is that they make the regular officers the disbursing employees in name only but the casual
employees actually handle the funds. This casual employee failed to liquidate. Who is liable?
A: Both of them can be liable for malversation kay this time kadtong private person, maigo na man siya
ani: that even if he was a private person buy he is custody of public funds, and when he misappropriate,
all the elements are present. On the other hand, on the part of the person under whose name the funds
were entrusted but does not actually misappropriate the funds, all the elements are also present. He let
somebody to misappropriate it through his lack of supervision.
The thing is can this person who is the holder in name only go after the casual employee? Yes, but that
will not necessarily exclude him from liability.
Q: But one of the elements is that funds or property for which he was accountable. But the casual
employee is not accountable because it was not him under whose name the funds were entrusted. Can he
still be held liable?
A: Supreme Court has in several decisions stated that there are exceptions. So even if it says that the
offender is an accountable officer, there are decisions of the SC that said that the term accountable
officers can extend to other persons who are not public officers or employee but by reason of a limited
engagement only were temporarily accountable. So the meaning of accountable officer is stretched. The
same is true with public funds, the meaning is already stretched- that sometimes it could involve funds
that are not really public but already partook of a public nature.
In fact, a private person may commit malversation if he is entrusted with the custody of public funds. In
your case, he was even a casual employee. In a sense, he was embraced in the definition of public officer.
And he is supposed to be accountable for that because he is to disburse the property in accordance to
certain uses or purposes.
Accountability may branch off. Here is the bigger guy who is entrusted with big funds and this fund is
divided to several people and these several people are accountable to a fraction of the whole. But still,
they would be embraced because SC decisions expanded the meaning to mean not only the persons who
has to make the report but even to those who actually held the money for distribution purposes.

For ex: 4Ps. The Giving of the money is supposed to be done by the DSWD and then DSWD will course it
through other people. Sometimes they will course it through accredited cooperatives. In a sense, these
people through whom the distribution is assigned would become accountable, so they would fall probably
in exception no. 3. Even if they were not the accountable officer but they were entrusted.
Updates:
In malversation, return the funds will not exculpate the offender because it means that the crime has
already been consummated.
rd
CLARIFICATION OF THE 3 ELEMENT:
o When an officer is entrusted with funds entrusts it to another person who misappropriates such funds
shall be held liable for malversation because of his negligence
o The person entrusted as well shall be held liable also for malversation even if he is a private person
because he misappropriated the funds.
o Both shall be liable for malversation under the same article but with different elements.
o Why not just say conspired?
o First you cannot prove the conspiracy
o Second the accountable concern you cannot prove that he is the one who misappropriated
UPDATES IN MALVERSATION:
o MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE:
o Return of the funds will not exculpate the criminal offender from the liability because return
means that the crime has already been committed and we do not talk about civil liability where
there is private offended party who can wave or pardon the offender.
o The reimbursement will only be used as a MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE analogous to
voluntary surrender, it will not exculpate the offender from criminal liability.
o MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCE analogous to voluntary surrender also applies to Article 218:
failure to make an accounting
o CAN THE PUBLIC OFFICER UNDER RA 1319, be still held liable under the RPC?
o Yes because:
o One is punished under a special law the other is the revised penal code.
o Both have different elements, same act but different offenses.
o No double jeopardy
o Prior Demand to Liquidate is not Required
o If the auditor arrives, the accountable officer fails to liquidate, the crime is already
consummated.
o Demand is not required.
TECHINICAL MALVERSATION:
Technical Malversation (Art. 220)

In technical malversation, public funds is still used for a public purpose, but it was earmarked for another
particular public purpose
o There is public fund and Expended for a public purpose but not the purpose in its allocation
o Example: there is budget allocation for a basketball court; problem is no one knows how to
play basketball in the place so they converted it to a health center, which will prove to be a
more useful facility. Is there technical malversation in this case?
o YES. Because when a fund is set aside for a particular purpose it cannot be used for any
other purpose even if the other purpose would be more beneficial to the people.
o In order to do this legally, there has to be a realignment of funds by a law which will
authorize the spending of the money for another purpose.
INFIDELITY OF PUBLIC OFFICERS

1. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners;
2. Infidelity in the custody of documents;
3. Revelation of secrets
1. INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS:

o The offender must be in custody of the prisoner and caused the escape of the prisoner.
o The prisoner need not be convicted it may either be detention or conviction.
o Different from the other crime which was removal from prison because it was a crime that can be
committed by anybody not necessarily a public officer or a pubic officer in custody of a prisoner.
2. INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS:

o The offender is officially entrusted with the custody of the documents and he losses or misappropriates
them
o The documents need not be necessarily public in character, it is just that they were in the custody of the
public officer
o Example: when a mailman losses the mail in can be infidelity in custody of documents. Even
though the mail does not belong to the government.
OFFENSES IN RELATION TO ELECTIVE OFFICE

Art. 234. Refusal to discharge elective office
Art. 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office
Art. 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers
Art. 238. Abandonment of office or position
o Here the offender runs for an elective office, when the winner is proclaimed, the proclaimed winner will
assume the office on noon time of June 30.
o EXAMPLE: Here if the winner:
o does not assume the office on June 30 there is a crime of refusal to discharge elective office.

o If he holds office before June 30 there is a crime of anticipation of duties of a public office
o If the previous elected officer does not step down there is a crime of prolonging performance
of duties and powers
o If it is still not June 30 and the incumbent officer abandons the position there is a crime of
abandonment of office or position
USURPATION OF POWERS AND UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS

Art. 239. Usurpation of legislative powers.
Art. 240. Usurpation of executive functions.
Art. 241. Usurpation of judicial functions
Art. 242. Disobeying request for disqualification
Art. 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to any judicial authority
Art. 244. Unlawful appointments
Usurpation, Art. 239, 240, 241

o there are three departments in the government: executive, legislative and judicial.
o These are independent of each other and an official in one branch cannot be allowed to
encroach or usurp the powers and functions of the other branches; otherwise, he may be held
liable for usurpation of legislative power, executive functions or judicial functions as the case may
be.
Usurpation of legislative powers:

o can be committed by executive and judicial officials.
o While executive officials generally have no legislative powers, there was a time when the chief
executive had the power to make laws during martial law.
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

In crimes against person, the person the victim could be killed or dead, and when the person is killed the crime
could be infanticide, murder, parricide or 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:
1. Person is killed;
2. Offender killed him without any justifying circumstances;
3. Offender had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and
4. Killing was not attended by any qualifying circumstances of murder, or that of parricide or infanticide.
When a person is killed, the general rule is that the crime is homicide if it is not parricide because of the
absence of relationship, or not murder because of the absence of qualifying circumstance or not
infanticide because the victim is not less than 3 days of age.

If the crime is consummated, intent to kill is not necessary because such is presumed.
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:
1. A person is killed;
2. Deceased is killed by the accused;
3. Deceased is the
a. Legitimate / illegitimate father
b. Legitimate / illegitimate mother
c. Legitimate / illegtimate child (should not be less than 3 days old otherwise the crime is infanticide)
d. Other legitimate ascendant
e. Other legitimate descendant
f. Legitimate spouse.
Thus If the victim is the spouse, (legitimate) then the crime is parricide. The relationship here defines the
crime. But remember that if there are other circumstances that would aggravate the crime, they will now
be considered as ordinary aggravating or special aggravating, not anymore qualifying. The relationship
must be by blood. With regard to ascendants and descendants, the relationship must be legitimate. But
with respect to parents and children, the legitimacy does not matter. So its always parricide even if the
parent is not legitimate.
Uncles are not included. Brothers and sisters are not included even if related full-blood.
Common law spouses are not included.
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. Person is killed;
2. Accused killed him;
3. Killing attended by any qualifying circumstance stated under article 248; and
4. The killing is neither parricide nor infanticide.

To be considered qualifying, the circumstance must be specifically sought and should facilitate the
commission of the crime. If it is just accidental then it will not qualify.
In the Galorra case, a CA decision, the offender here place chemicals for the purpose of exciting the girl,
but contrary to the intention of the offender, namatay ang girl and the reason was that she died of
poisoning because of the chemicals placed by the offender sa food. SC said that even if the death resulted
to murder, this cannot be murder because even if it is true that there was the use of chemical, the same
was not specifically sought in order to kill the victim. The intention of putting was not to kill. So again, to
qualify the killing to murder, it must be specifically sought and it should facilitate the commission of the
crime.
Also in another case, the fact that the victim was killed at night time does not necessarily mean that there
is treachery of night time because night time must be specifically sought. So if it just so happened nga nag
tagbo si pedro ug iyang kontra or nag chance upon each other, and the night time was not specifically
sought, then the night time will not be appreciated as treachery as a qualifying because night time in itself
is not a qualifying circumstance. However if night time was the reason why the victim was not able to put
up a defense or gituyo nga gabie, then it becomes treachery which now becomes a qualifying
circumstance.
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. A child was killed by the accused; and
2. The deceased child is less than 3 days old.
Do not be fooled by the 3 because in band it is MORE than 3. In infanticide, it is less than 3. So if the victim
is already 3 days old, the crime is either murder or parricide. But can never become plainly homicide
unless the homicide was culpable. In one case, the SC said, when the victim in unintentional killing is a
child of tender years, there is automatically an abuse of superior/strength or treachery. Again victim must
be less than 3 days old (asked in the BAR).
The victim must also be born alive; otherwise the crime is abortion or no crime at all.
If victim is killed, regardless of intent to kill, once the crime is consummated, the crime would be homicide
or murder or infanticide or parricide.
KILLING A PERSON:
A. VICTIM IS KILLED: (regardless of intent)
-HOMICIDE with or without intent to kill; maybe committed through reckless or simple
imprudence;
-MURDER if qualifying circumstance/s is/are present
-INFANTICIDE if victim is less than 3 days old
-PARRICIDE if victim is ascendant/descendant or legitimate spouse
B. VICTIM IS NOT KILLED:

1. without intent to Kill:

-Physical injuries: serious, less serious, slight, mutilation

-slander by deed no physical injury but there is public humiliation (slapping to embarrass)
-maltreatment no physical injury nor public humiliation (slapping in a private
setting)
2. with intent to Kill:

a. fatal injury FRUSTRATED murder, homicide, parricide, infanticide
b. non-fatal injury or no injury ATTEMPTED homicide, murder, parricide,
infanticide
Commentary:
once the crime is consummated and the victim is killed then the crime would be homicide or murder or
infanticide or parricide.
If the victim is not killed then we have to distinguish whether there is intent to kill or no intent to kill and what is
the injury caused and even what is the weapon used because sometimes the weapon used would also define what
the crime is.
If there is no intent to kill, and there are physical injuries caused, the crime would be either serious, less
serious or slight physical injuries. I included mutilation because in mutilation, there is no intent to kill but
there could be injuries caused. When there is no intent to kill, it is possible that the crime is mutilation.
Mutilation, however, is a crime that is malicious. It is an intentional crime and the crime must be
committed with malice but not considered as physical injuries. Slander by deed there is no injury but
the act caused the humiliation of the victim. Or there is no injury, there is no intent to kill but it results in
the stress or maltreatment of the victim because remember in slight physical injuries there is also this
maltreatment and in maltreatment, it is not necessary that there is physical injury. So these are the
crimes without intent to kill and the victim does not die. If the victim does not die then those are would
be the probable crimes committed.
If the victim does not die and there was intent to kill then the crime could be frustrated parricide,
murder, infanticide, homicide. Frustrated stage of those crimes if there was intent to kill and the injury is
fatal. If there is intent to kill and the injury is not fatal or even if there is no injury at all it can be
attempted. You will have to note that in attempted, it is possible that there is no injury caused.
Q: Can there be a crime of Frustrated Homicide through reckless imprudence?
A: - No. Frustrated/Attempted Homicide/Murder/Parricide/Infanticide
-Can only be committed when there is intent To kill, hence, it cannot be committed through imprudence.
Fiscal: There can be no crime of frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence because in frustrated homicide,
there must be intent to kill.
Use of a Firearm in Crimes Against Persons

-for frustrated stage, there must be fatal wound
-for attempted stage, the firearm must be fired
-for grave threats, threats must be clear
-mere drawing of firearm in a quarrel is only Other Light Threats

Commentary:
When firearm is used, and there is intent to kill, and the injury is fatal, like we said a while ago, the crime
would be frustrated stage.
But for attempted stage, the firearm must be fired. Otherwise, the crime would not be attempted
murder, parricide, infanticide, homicide. It must be fired.
For grave threats with the use of a firearm, the threats must be clear. How do you determine if there are
threats? Well maybe in the actuation of the offender, or maybe in the facial expression of the offender or
maybe in the utterances made by the offender.
Mere drawing of firearm in a quarrel is only other light threat, not Grave.
Art. 254. Discharge of firearms. Any person who shall shoot at another with any firearm shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods, unless the facts of the case are such that the act can be held to constitute frustrated or attempted
parricide, murder, homicide or any other crime for which a higher penalty is prescribed by any of the articles of this Code.
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person.
2. That the offender has no intention to kill that person.
Art. 254 Discharge of Firearm

*The firearm is aimed, but there is no intent to kill. Since it must be directed at another, it cannot be committed
through imprudence.
*Is there a complex crime of discharge of firearm and serious or less serious physical injuries? Yes (Justice Javier)
*If only slight physical injuries are inflicted, there are two crimes: discharge and slight physical injuries. (Justice
Javier)
-Note that discharge of Firearm is a crime under RPC, not under RA 8294, hence can be complexed. Ladjaalam does
not apply (RA 10591)
Regarding the use of firearm:

In discharge of firearm, there is firearm, there are no injuries, there is no intent to kill, there are no threats, there
is no intention to cause alarm because once there is intention to cause alarm, it could be alarms and scandals.
When there are threats, it could be grave threats. Here, the firearm is fired but since there is no injury, we cannot
say it is physical injuries and all. And since there is no intent to kill, it cannot be attempted murder, parricide,
homicide, infanticide. So no intent to kill, no injuries. But the firearm is discharged and it is directed towards a
person. It is aimed, there is no intent to kill, and so the crime is violation of 254 discharge of firearm. Since
discharge of firearm is punished with correctional penalty and it is punished under the revised penal code,
therefore discharge of firearm can be complexed. So there can be discharge of firearm and less serious or serious
physical injuries, cannot be slight because we cannot complex slight. But there can be discharge of firearm with
physical injuries and that happens if the firearm is fired while being aimed at another and causing injuries which
are not slight and there is no intent to kill. So we can complex them.
The effect of the complexing would only make the penalty maximum. However, in special penal laws, if the
firearm used is a loose firearm, it would not matter anymore if you complex or not because if it a loose firearm,
the penalty would be that of the loose firearm.
Loose firearm is what people usually call as unlicensed firearm. But the term used now is loose because
unlicensed firearm is not accurate. (Maam used as analogy, registration of vehicles and issuance of drivers
license. For cars, it must registered, while the holder/driver of the car must be licensed. The same is true with the

firearm. In firearms, the holder is the one considered as licensed, while the firearm must be registered not
licensed. So it is incorrect to say unlicensed ang firearm.)
Question: For murder Maam, if you alleged in the information one specific qualifying circumstances but it was not
proved and that another qualifying was proved, can you still be convicted of murder?
Answer:
If you remember your CrimPro, you have to allege now not only the qualifying but even the ordinary aggravating.
- What may not be alleged are the mitigating because of the right of the accused to be informed of the nature
and cause of the accusation against him. Because of that constitutional right, its not just statutory or a right
under the rules but it is a constitutional right. Because the accused has that constitutional right, you cannot
increase the penalty if the accused is not informed during the arraignment. Remember, it is during the
arraignment when the charges will be read to him and when he will be asked how he pleads to the charges,
guilty or not guilty.
- So thats the reason that after the arraignment you cannot change anymore if the change or amendment is
substantial. You could be violating either the right of the accused to be informed or it would result to double
jeopardy. Remember also that once there is arraignment, you can no longer terminate the case because it
could give rise now to double jeopardy.
- Aggravating circumstances, whether special or ordinary which will have the effect of increasing the penalty.
Thus, such must be alleged in the information including the qualifying, especially the qualifying, because a
qualifying will change the nature of the offense. So it must be alleged.
- So, now you alleged treachery. And what was proven was not treachery but evident premeditation.
Remember evident premeditation is also qualifying but it was not alleged in the information so the rule is you
can only convict the person for the charges that are proven.
- So the charge should be mentioned in the information AND it must be proven. Because if its only proven
but not mentioned in the info, it is not allowed. On the other hand, if alleged but not proven, it is also not
allowed it may only result to homicide. ALLEGED and PROVEN must go together. It must be alleged in the
information and it must be proven during trial. Absent of either one will result in the conviction not of the
higher offense but only of the lower offense. So it would be better to just alleged all of them and prove later.
Question: A person who was presumed dead (judicial declaration), and later re-appeared and was killed by the
spouse, will it still be a crime?
Answer: He was killed by the spouse? Yes, it will still be a crime.
Yeah. Thats only a judicial declaration. Thats only a declaration owing to the absence. But the judicial
declaration is only of a presumptive death, not of a conclusive death. He is only presumed dead because of his
absence. If that person re-appears, the declaration will be mooted. Mawa nato.
(Storytelling about Double Jeopardy movie)
Q: Can she still be held liable?
o Remember that she was already tried and convicted for the killing of the husband. Then the husband
reappeared. It is just presumptive death. He is not yet conclusively pronounce dead. Since it is only
presumptive, it can still be subject to reappearance or evidence to the contrary. The judicial declaration
over actual state of the person.
o Do not confuse parricide with RA 9262 because in the latter, the relationship between parties could be
married, dating, or sexual. RA 9262 applies to those not yet married or ex husband/wife. But in parricide,
it is important that the relationship is legitimate. If the marriage is void ab initio, there has to be a judicial
declaration. If the marriage is voidable, you have to annul it.

Q: What if the spouse is a transgender, is it parricide or homicide?

o Because it is void ab initio, it is as if there is no valid marriage. The Judicial declaration would only be
required if you want to remarry. It cannot be parricide because they are not legitimately married.
Q: What if Ron and Mel were married but the former was declared presumptively dead. Later Mel married Janjo.
After few years, Ron resurfaced. Realizing that Mel still loves Ron, the former decided to kill Janjo. Whats the
crime?
o Because the marriage between Mel and Janjo is legitimate, if Mel kills the second husband, it could still be
parricide.
Q: What if Mel kills Ron instead?

o Maam is of the view that since the marriage bond between Ron and Mel was cut upon presumptive
declaration of death, then it will not be parricide. It is the declaration of death that temporarily dissolves
the first marriage and not the contracting of the second marriage. This interpretation would be
advantageous to the accused.
Russells Question: But is it not that the execution of the affidavit of reappearance of the first spouse automatically
dissolves the second marriage? (Fiscal not sure with her answer)
o Dean Monteclars book: Under Art. 42 of the Family Code, if the absent spouse turns out to be alive, then
the subsequent marriage contracted by the present spouse will be terminated but only upon the
execution of the affidavit of reappearance by the reappearing spouse or any of the interested party. The
fact that the absent spouse is still alive renders the subsequent marriage a bigamous but valid marriage.
It is bigamous because the first marriage is still subsisting but valid because of the judicial declaration of
presumptive death.
PREJUDICIAL QUESTION
o The fact that the marriage is void ab initio, it cannot be a defense in bigamy. In a lot of cases, when there
is a prejudicial question as to the issue of validity of a marriage, that prejudicial question cannot be made
as a defense in bigamy. Because it is possible that the person who is at fault or bad faith why he/she
married a minor for example. If he/she is a minor, he/she may invoke the defense since he/she is the
victim. If the minor was the one defrauded, the one who committed the fraud cannot file an annulment or
declaration of nullity and make this case as a defense in bigamy. But it should not be applied in parricide
because the provision is clear that the relationship must be legitimate.
o In all other cases, the prejudicial question may be used. For example in qualified theft nag.away mo ug
property, Juan gathered the coconut and he was later sued for qualified theft. SC said that how can we
know that the elements of qualified theft are present if we will not resolve the issue in the civil as to the
ownership of the property. The only exception is in bigamy. The prejudicial question can be used as
defense if the one who invokes it in not the guilty party.
Re: 2014 Bar question relating to prior declaration of nullity in criminal case.
Difference between voidable and void ab initio marriage.
VOIDABLE VOID AB INITIO
Valid until the court declares it void Void from the start
No need for annulment by the court

For purposes of PARRICIDE always remember the element:

That at the time of the killing, there was a legitimate act (a.k.a. valid marriage)
If the marriage was VOIDABLE, and BEFORE the ANNULMENT of the marriage the killing happened - - - it is
PARRICIDE.
Why parricide? Because the killing happened when the marriage was legitimate. Thus they were legally
husband and wife.
If the marriage was VOID AB INITIO, and the killing happened before the declaration of nullity - - - there
was no part of iyang life that it was ever valid.
Requirement of parricide is that the marriage was legitimate. Thus kung void ab initio, it could not be
parricide because it was never legitimate ang marriage.
TN: UP Law Complex suggested answer is that it is parricide.
But Maams take is that it cannot be parricide because of the elements which includes that the marriage
must be legitimate. Void ab initio marriage can never be legitimate, with or without the declaration.
Inaudible ang query ni Bing. Voices ni Karren ug ni Kuya Tristan ang ni overlap.
But based on the succeeding answers of Maam the query is most likely if the criminal court can determine the fact
of nullity of marriage in the same criminal case in the case that 2 men are married (transgender ang usa).
In criminal cases, the court would only determine whether the elements of the crime charged are present
or not. It is not for that same court to rule.
It would have been different if there was a prejudicial question.
Related question:
So in that case, before the criminal case for parricide will pursue, you have to wait for a decision in the
civil case before declaring it void ab initio?
This is only true if there is a pending ANNULMENT case.
Criminal courts can take judicial notice that marriage between 2 men is not valid. No need for
declaration.
SOLUTION SA TANAN PROBLEMS GE PRESENT:
The prosecution will charge for parricide being the graver crime.
But if dili maka prove sa relationship, the court will not wait for the civil. It will rule either
MURDER or HOMICIDE which is covered by the charge of parricide.
So a conviction is still possible. Acquittal does not necessarily result if dili ma prove ang
relationship. Its just that dili lang ma convict for Parricide.
INJURIES
If there were injuries caused, the crime is physical injuries. This crime could be serious, less serious or
slight. It is said to be a formal crime because there is no attempted or frustrated stage.
ARTICLE 263. Serious Physical Injuries. Any person who shall wound, beat, or assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious physical
injuries and shall suffer:

1. The penalty of prisin mayor, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the injured person shall become insane, imbecile, impotent,
or blind;
o If the injury causes the loss of the use of an organ, whether it be sight, smell, hearing, feeling or taste, it is
automatically serious. For example Juan boxed Pedro, even if there is no apparent injury but the act
caused the blindness of Pedro, it is automatically serious if there is no intent to kill.
2. The penalty of prisin correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person
injured shall have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or shall have
lost the use of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated for the work in which he was theretofore habitually engaged;
Q: What is the distinction between of serious physical injuries consisting of the loss of the use or the cutting off a
limb and mutilation?
o In mutilation, there is an additional element of malicious. When the cutting off is intentional and
maliciously done to deprive the victim of the use of that body part then that becomes mutilation. But if
the course of the quarrel a limb is cut off then that would be serious physical injuries even if there is no
intent to deprive the victim of that particular part of the body.
3. The penalty of prisin correccional in its minimum and medium periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person injured
shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or
incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he was habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety days;
In deformity, there are three (3) factors that must concur:

1. There must be an ugliness;
2. It must be visible;
3. It must not heal naturally.
o For instance, the physical injury resulted in a scar in the face and then pag.adto ni Belo nigwapa na
hinuon, can you still file a case of serious physical injuries by reason of deformity? Still YES, because the
healing must be natural.
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prisin correccional in its minimum period, if the physical injuries inflicted shall have
caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured person for more than thirty days.
o It carries with it the least penalty.

If the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in article 246, or with attendance of any of the circumstances
mentioned in article 248, the case covered by subdivision number 1 of this article shall be punished by reclusin temporal in its medium and
maximum periods; the case covered by subdivision number 2 by prisin correccional in its maximum period to prisin mayor in its minimum
period; the case covered by subdivision number 3 by prisin correccional in its medium and maximum periods; and the case covered by
subdivision number 4 by prisin correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a parent who shall inflict physical injuries upon his child by excessive
chastisement.
o Qualified Serious Physical Injuries - this happens when the crime would have been parricide or murder
minus the intent to kill. If the kind of injury defined as serious physical injury is inflicted on the spouse,
ascendant, descendant then it will be qualified. Example is when there was no intent to kill but there is a
qualifying circumstance like our illustration before in Macario where there was no intent to kill but the
victim died anyway and there was treachery, so murder. If Macario in that example did not die then the
crime would be qualified serious physical injury.
o Assuming na gepaak imo dunggan and by reason of that you lost your sense of hearing (under par. 1)
and at the same time there is also deformity (par. 2), because there is only one act then there will only be
one serious physical injury but the one which carries the higher penalty will be controlling.
ARTICLE 265. Less Serious Physical Injuries. Any person who shall inflict upon another physical injuries not described in the preceding articles,
but which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall require medical attendance for the same period, shall be
guilty of less serious physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
Whenever less serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted with the manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person, or under

circumstances adding ignominy to the offense, in addition to the penalty of arresto mayor, a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Any less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the offender's parents, ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, or persons of rank, or persons
in authority, shall be punished by prisin correccional in its minimum and medium periods, provided that, in the case of persons in authority,
the deed does not constitute the crime of assault upon such persons.
ARTICLE 266. Slight Physical Injuries and Maltreatment . The crime of slight physical injuries shall be punished:
1. B y arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine
days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure when the offender has caused physical injuries which do not prevent the
offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical attendance.
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50 pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing
any injury.
The time to heal in less serious is 10 30 days. In slight, the time is up to 9 days. Art. 266 punish not only slight
physical injury but also punishes maltreatment where there is no injury at all but still punished in the same article.
Will the deformity be considered as aggravating? Well, is there an ordinary aggravating which would fit?
It seems that there is no ordinary aggravating which can arise from deformity. Because there is no
ordinary aggravating circumstance, so the basis for the imposition of penalty would simply be A263 (1).
Article 262. Mutilation. - The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall intentionally
mutilate another by depriving him, either totally or partially, or some essential organ of reproduction.
Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods.
There are two kinds of mutilation

1. By intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential
organ of reproduction. (Reyes)
o Mutilation where the victim is deprived whether partially or totally of an organ of reproduction
o Im underlining the word deprived because in depriving you do not have to cut it. It is just
rendered useless.
2. By intentionally making other mutilation, that is by lopping or clipping off any part of the body of the
offended party, other than the essential organ for reproduction, to deprive him of that part of his
body. (Reyes)
o The body part must be cut off and the body part that is cut off need not be a reproductive organ.
It can be an arm, a limb, an ear.
What is important in mutilation, there is maliciously lopping off or clipping off of the body part or
rendering it useless.
There must be intent to kill because if there is intent to kill, it may be attempted or frustrated parricide,
murder, homicide.
Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill his
adversary in a duel.
If he shall inflict upon the latter physical injuries only, he shall suffer the penalty provided therefor, according to their nature.
In any other case, the combatants shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, although no physical injuries have been inflicted.

The seconds shall in all events be punished as accomplices.

Article 261. Challenging to a duel. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
challenge another, or incite another to give or accept a challenge to a duel, or shall scoff at or decry another publicly for having refused to
accept a challenge to fight a duel.
There is a gentlemens agreement to fight and with all the formalities of a fight wherein there would be
seconds.
A mere fight which is a result of an agreement is not necessarily a duel. Kung muingon ka, Sumbagay ta
sa gawas bai, that will not make it duel. There is just an agreement to fight and the likelihood is that if
one is killed, the crime would likely be homicide rather murder because of the agreement to fight.
Article 254. Discharge of firearms. - Any person who shall shoot at another with any firearm shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods, unless the facts of the case are such that the act can be held to constitute frustrated or attempted parricide,
murder, homicide or any other crime for which a higher penalty is prescribed by any of the articles of this Code.
There is a firearm, there is no intent to kill. It is directed at another, there must be no injuries.
Crimes against persons with the use of firearm for frustrated stage, there must be fatal wound. For
attempted stage, the firearm must be fired. The overt act showing the intent to kill would begin from the
firing/pulling of the trigger.
For grave threats, the threats must be clear. The mere drawing of a firearm will only give rise to other
light threats.
Article 256. Intentional abortion. - Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have consented.
Article 257. Unintentional abortion. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period shall be imposed upon any person
who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.
Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. - The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or shall consent that any other person should do so.
Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods.
If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the consent of said woman for the
purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives. - The penalties provided in Article 256 shall be imposed in
its maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause an
abortion or assist in causing the same.
Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, shall dispense any abortive shall sufferarresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 1,000 pesos.
The killing of a fetus whether the fetus be killed while inside the womb or the fetus be expelled and then
he died. The abortion is not a crime against the mother.
2 kinds:
1. Intentional
o In intentional abortion, there can be differences in the penalties. If the offender if the mother or
the parents of the woman, if the purpose of the abortion is to conceal the dishonor, there will be
some mitigating circumstance which has the effect of penalty.

o The offender must know of the pregnancy.

2. Unintentional
o It is important that this crime be committed by violence or force. It cannot be committed by
intimidation so there must be force or violence employed. But the force or violence employed
need not be for the purpose of abortion because if the violence or force is already for the
purpose of abortion, it will now become intentional.
o It can be committed had no knowledge of the pregnancy of the victim or he did not intend to
cause the abortion even if he had knowledge but must always be with the use of violence. For ex:
Nag away si Maria and Juana. Sige siga sigaan ni Maria si Juana, dili katug si Juana and then dili
katug si Juana. Can that be unintentional abortion? No, because unintentional abortion can only
be committed with the use of violence or force. Is there a crime committed? Yes, against the
mother, but not against the child/ fetus.
Juan was having a mother, sister and step- father. In the heat of anger, he fired a single shot, hitting all
three. It turned out that his sister was pregnant at that time and by reason of her injuries also died, only
the mother survived even if she sustained fatal wounds. What crime/s did Juan commit?
o Obviously, there is aberatio ictus. There is a complex crime. In so far as Juans mother is concerned,
there is frustrated parricide. As far as the sister is concerned there is homicide. Step-father
homicide. Baby unintentional abortion.
o All of them will become a Complex crime of double homicide with frustrated parricide with
unintentional abortion.
SCENARIO 2:
Pedro was driving his car recklessly one evening and hit a lady pedestrian plus another old lady and a small boy. All
three were fatally wounded but survived. The pedestrian was 7 months pregnant and she prematurely gave birth
to the child. 2 days after being born, the baby died for unrelated causes. The old lady turned out to be Pedros
grandmother and the small boy was his half-brother. What Crime/s was/were committed by Pedro.
A: Reckless Imprudence resulting in Multiple Serious Physical Injuries. As far as the baby is concerned, it wouldve
been infanticide but not necessarily committed by Pedro because were not saying that the baby died because it
was killed by Pedro. Were just saying the baby died because of unrelated causes. (I think maam is trying to say
that Pedros recklessness was not the proximate cause of the babys death.)
RAPE
Art 266-A Rape; When and How Committed 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; and
d. When the offended party is under twelve (12) years of age or is demented, even though none of the circumstances
mentioned above be present.
2) By any person who, under of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault by inserting
his penis into another persons mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
There are now two kinds of rape: 1) Carnal Knowledge; and, 2) Sexual Assault.
These two kinds of rape must be committed by any of these means
a) Force, Threat; or Intimidation

b) By making the victim deprive of reason

c) Employed fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
d) Offended party is under 12 years old or is demented
Same modes of committing in both.
Under the old revised penal code, there were only 3 modes of committing rape. No letter c yet.
If there is no sexual assault or sexual intercourse, the crime could be acts of lasciviousness.
When they made it 4 means to commit rape, the 4 means are limited only to the rape. Not necessarily to
the acts of lasciviousness.
So what happens is that there are only 3 means or modes of committing acts of lasciviousness but 4
means of committing the rape, kay naapil na si number 4 (letter d in the above enumerated).
In rape number 1 (classic rape), the victim must be a woman and the offender must be a man. The same is
not true for number 2 (sexual assault) because the offender may be any gender.
Force, Threat or Intimidation

SC has ruled in a number of cases that there is such a thing as constructive force.
Meaning there is no need for actual physical force. (pwede wala ka gikulata)
But force could also take the shape of being a relative or being a person of moral ascendancy. When the
rape for example is perpetrated by a person of authority, then that offender does not necessarily have to
employ physical force in order to commit rape. Just the fact that the rapist is a father, the likelihood is
that such offender does not need to inflict injuries on the victim because the fact that he is a person of
some moral ascendancy to the victim would enough to cover the victim to submission.
SC said that when we say force it could does not only include actual physical force, but also constructive
force. So that even if the victim did not put up any resistance, that would be enough that the moral
ascendancy would be enough to constitute the sexual intercourse as one of rape.
Deprived of reason
Offended party is deprived of reason does not necessarily mean that the victim is insane or of unsound
mind; this could also include a victim who is drunk.
Fraudulent Machination
The interesting part here is letter C. Fraudulent Machination or abuse of authority
When we say fraudulent machination, it talks about ilad2x in order to get the woman to have sex with a
man. Is that rape? Well According to the wording of the law, it seems there is rape.
But then we have to take consideration that there is also the crime of seduction. What is seduction? In
Seduction, there is also ilad the thing with seduction is, you cannot commit seduction against a woman
who is not either a virgin or not a minor. The victim in seduction must be chaste or is a minor. Because if
they are not chaste or minor, like shes old and ilaron siya, the crime would be rape.
We dont have jurisprudence yet in so far as to this kind of rape because the tendency here would be to
downgrade it to seduction rather than rape.
For example:
after our class tonight, mu.suroy ka didto sa silingan, and there is a bugaw who will say to you chicks ka dong?.
Then you would probably say, pila man? He answers 500. Then you say okay. But then afterwards you will

only give P50 or P20. Is that rape by fraudulent machination because you got the sex by reason of fraud? (there is
no jurisprudence yet)
Below 12 or Demented Person

So if the offended party is under 12 or is demented it is automatically Rape.
SEXUAL ASSAULT
So we go to sexual assault. If you look at the law and sexual assault is very specific as to what act/s constitute
sexual assault.
In rape of sexual assault, we are talking here of not necessarily a female genitalia, it could also be
anybodys anal orifice, or vaginal orifice or even oral orifice.
Its very specific. If the act does not fall under the acts enumerated in the law, then the act would not be
rape by sexual assault. It could be acts of lasciviousness but not rape.
So therefore, if the victims male genitalia was put into the mouth of the offender, you will see that it is
not rape by sexual assault, rather it is acts of lasciviousness.
But if the reverse of that (offenders male genitalia into the mouth of the victim), it would be rape by
sexual assault. Doesnt matter here who is the offended, whether male or female.
Offender nag BJ sa victim will never be rape by sexual assault.
Nathans question on older woman forcing a man to have sex

Maam: If were talking about penal penetration of the vaginal organ of the female, its not possible only in that
sense only. But if the woman will put objects on the anal orifice of the man, thats still (wala tiwasa ni maam. But I
nd
think this would already fall under the 2 kind of rape which is sexual assault).
The thing about sexual assault is that there must be an orifice.
And the only orifice that a man has is the oral and anal.
But if you put something in the mouth of a man which is not male genitalia, then thats not rape.
So the only rape that a woman can do unto the man is when the woman inserts an object on the anal
orifice of the man. That can happen.
- People vs Dalisay, G.R. No. 133926, Aug 6, 2003: Full penetration is not required to consummate carnal
knowledge, as proof of entrance showing slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or
pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. (also People vs Jalosjos, Nov 16, 2001) Thus there can be
Rape even if the parties are standing.
- People vs Basquez, G.R. No. 144035, Sep 27, 2001: Penile invasion necessarily entails contact with the
labia. Even the briefest of contacts, without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape.
- Because the slightest penetration will consummate the rape, there is no frustrated rape.
- No penetration attempted; slightest penetration consummated
- So in Rape by Sexual Assault, is it the same? Could there be no frustrated rape by sexual assault?
o SC decision stating that there is no frustrated rape applies to a set of facts which show rape in
the first kind but I think the same principle can be applied. Its either in or out. Whether the rape
is the first or the second kind there is no frustrated
- The briefest contact without laceration is already rape

- In another decision, SC said that the mere epidermal touching is not penetration. Penetration is more
than the touching. No consummated rape yet at that stage
- May a woman commit rape?

o Rape by sexual assault may be committed by a woman even against another woman
o Rape by sexual intercourse may be committed by a woman, provided that she commits it together
with a man. (Conspiracy)
- What is the degree of resistance required in rape?

o People vs Gondaway, July 23, 2002: Any physical overt act manifesting resistance in any degree
from the victim is admissible as evidence of lack of consent. Tenacious resistance is not required.
Neither is determined and persistent physical struggle necessary. (This is a deviation from People
vs Lago, CA, 46 O.G. 1356, which required tenacious resistance and not mere initial reluctance)
o People vs Guttierez, May 9, 2003: Physical resistance need not be proved in rape when
intimidation is exercised upon the victim and she submits herself, against her will, to the rapists
advances because of fear for her life and personal safety.
- Sweetheart theory
o It is a defense but a weak defense like alibi or frame up
o Rape can be committed even between sweethearts or married couples
o Sweetheart theory will be effective as a defensive only if:
There is proof of the fact of being lovers
There is compelling evidence that the sex was consented
o People vs Bautista, June 3, 2004: Love is not a license for lust.
o People vs Agsaoay, June 3, 2004: Moral character of the victim is immaterial in rape.
- Complexing Rape and Forcible Abduction

o People vs Lining, July 11, 2002: The main objective of the accused when the victim was taken to
the house of Mila Salvacion was to rape her. Hence, forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of
rape. No complexing here.
the taking was absorbed in rape here
This more the exception than the rule because when the intention of the offender (to
rape or mere lewd designs) at the time of taking is not yet clear then there can be
complexing Forcible abduction with Rape
If the intention to rape was already clear then apply the Lining case
o People vs Jose et al. (Rape of Maggie De la Riva)
Let us say there were five of them. The woman was abducted then raped by all of them.
SC convicted each of them with forcible abduction with rape because of conspiracy.
They were convicted for five complex crimes of forcible abduction with rape.

Later on the SC corrected itself. Only one complex crime of forcible abduction with rape
because there was only one abduction. So complex in so far as the first rape but only
rape for the rest. But all the same all five are liable in this case because of the
conspiracy. All participants to the conspiracy are each liable for all the crimes
If they were not conspirators, each of them would only be liable for the rape they
actually committed. However when it is gang rape, then each rape is a conspiracy and all
of the five would be liable for the five rapes, not only the actual rapist. Each act of
sexual intercourse is already one count of rape
- Kidnapping with Rape

o If the taking was not for the purpose of raping or with lewd designs but done to deprive the
victim of liberty then afterwards raped. The main objective must not be rape
o Magkagamay ang intention to rape, magka dako ang crime
o The same reasoning in forcible abduction may be applied. The can be only one complex crime of
kidnapping with rape. There was only one taking
o Example: A,B,C,D,E kidnapped X. Ang mag cge ug rape kay si A ra. A raped X five times one
kidnapping with rape, four rape. In all the five cases all of them are liable because of the
conspiracy.
Q: What are the crimes?
A: There will be one kidnapping with rape and 4 counts of rape. Pero in all those five cases, all of them could be
held liable because of the conspiracy.
Student: Can you argue that it cannot be applied by analogy, considering the fact that in forcible abduction with
rape, it is a complex crime under article 48 but kidnapping with rape is special l complex crime?
Maam: that is a good argument, but it in the end its just the classification of the complex crime, it is just that, but
really the more compelling argument would be that kausa ra man gyud siya g kidnap, whether it is ordinary
complex or special complex you must have at least two crimes. But in that case there is only one
kidnapping plus five rapes. So you can only complex kidnapping with one rape. You cannot complex one
kidnapping with multiple rapes, because it cannot fall under ordinary complex crimes, because you cannot
kidnap and rape five times at the same time. So d siya gyud mo fall, plus it already is specifically provided
by law to be a special complex crime. So kausa ra gyud ka mo complex. So whether special or ordinary I
think the same argument can apply. Because the classification as special or ordinary is not as compelling as
the argument that there is actually only one kidnapping.
Student: how do you count the counts of rape in every rape?

Maam: because it seems that in such cases the SC applied, it did not really call it single impulse doctrine, but it is
similar thereto. As a general rule for each penetration, that is one rape.
o The rule is that, for every rape for every sexual intercourse, thats already a crime. Now, what if the
woman was abducted or taken to a secluded house and she was raped at 8 and 9 and 10 and 11; well, the
SC rules in this manner that kung if the victim was raped 3 times or 2 times, that would actually be two
rapes.
o However, this time murag same ni sa single impulse doctrine, but, kung ma count og usa or duha, ma
klaro that would be two counts of rape. But in one case, where the victim was abducted, and for a long
time was held captive and continuously raped, d na ma klaro og pila siya rape ang nahitabo. So what

happened there was it was impossible to determine exactly how many rapes were committed in one day,
ang nahitabo kung g rap ka ani nga date, usa nalang na, and pagka sunod, usa nalang pud na, even if
actually you raped ka duha or katulo. If the rape occurred over a long period of time. And the reason for
the SC ruling was because it was already impossible to describe and each and every rape.
o But kung long period of time na, dli na na ma siya count, like sex slaves, if the person is made into a sex
slave so over a long period of time like 1 month, d n maklaro kung kapila dli naper sexual intercourse,
because that would not be possible to count if pila.
GR: it is not the means, rather it is the act.

o So if the child is 11 years old, and she was raped with the use of force, intimidation, deprived of reason,
tanan na means, pero kausa ra siya g rape. That is still one count of rape. But the other means may be
come aggravating.
Student: pwede ba masabay ang rape sa traditional sense and sexual assault. Like you rape first then the next time
around, during the act of the traditional rape you also do the insertion of the orifice
Maam: yes. Those are two different things or crimes. Complete in themselves. Two kinds of rape. It is possible that
on one occasion there was rape by sexual assault and by sexual intercourse. We are talking here of actually
two acts. It could be two informations.
Student: high school teacher against her student. The teacher goes down on the student, so act of lasciviousness,
then they have sexual intercourse. It is not rape in that scenario. What if the teacher will let the boy go
down on her, diba putting things in the mouth of a boy constitute rape? Will that be then rape by sexual
assault? But here, it is continuous.
Maam: there are actually several acts there. Even if it is on one occasion, but there are already several acts. We do
not count by occasion, we count by act. The thing is, specific kau ng what to put into what. For example,
if you put a pen in the mouth of a boy, that is not sexual assault. So it has to be a penile organ, male
genitalia, in either the mouth or the anal orifice.
Baleros vs People.
Q: When do we have attempted rape or acts of lasciviousness or unjust vexation
A: We know, that unjust vexation is more or less a catch all provision that anything that causes the annoyance of
the victim could be unjust vexation. Also, in acts of lasciviousness, there must be lewd design in the touching or
doing of an act.
In Baleros, what happened was, there was a girl nga gi attangan sa guy. Pag agi sa girl, the guy placed in her mouth
a cloth for her to smell which made here unconscious. She was touched, the public, the private and everywhere.
But there was no sexual assault yet. And then, somebody rescued her, so wa madayon whatever it was that
Baleros intended to do. Baleros was charged with attempted rape
Q: did the acts constitute attempted rape?

A: there was not attempted rape, because in attempted the acts must be overt acts must already be preparatory
to having sexual intercourse.
Q: Were the acts so far done by the accused, can we already say that they were preparatory to having sexual
intercourse?

A: No. not yet. Because although she was touched and she was made to smell the cloth with substance thingy to
render her unconscious, but the intention of Baleros was not clear if it was to have carnal knowledge or merely to
touch the woman. Then the SC said that the acts made by the accused merely constitute the crime of acts of
lasciviousness and not yet attempted rape.
However, it could be different, pagka human, she was undressed and the guy was naked na, and she was
laid on the ground, then g rescue. Then at that stage the intention is clear which was to have carnal
knowledge
Difference of the two, in the acts of lasciviousness, maklaro na ang lewd design, but in attempted rape,
the intention to have carnal knowledge is clear.
In unjust vexation, if there is some touching which cause the annoyance of the victim, but the led design cant be
determined yet. Example, agbay agbayan and you did not like it, this depends on the recipient. It cannot be
determined if there is lewd design, simply because it is committed in places where there are many people.
Student: can you complex rape with unintentional abortion?

Maam: definitely, there is no special complex crime of rape with unintentional abortion. So let us go to article 48,
one act equals two or more. so the raping caused the abortion. Was it the raping or just the force??? And
the other kind of complex crime is the raping as a means to commit the unintentional abortion. It cannot
be compound crime, but the complex crime proper, which is the rape as a means to commit the
unintentional abortion. If unintentional d ka mo gamit og means, kay if means, meaning intentional. Pwede
siguro mahitabo na siya sa attempted rape. Compound pero attempted. Like imo siya sukmagon niya
makuhaan siya. Kay kung attempted rape, aron imo siya ma rape imo siya sukmagon para ma unconscious,
the sukmag is part of the attempted rape daun ma abort. But if consummated na rape, we are talking here
of the sexual intercourse as the cause of the abortion.
Qualified rape, the victim who is 7 or below. But statutory rape, the victim who is 11 below.
Student: if twin fetus, what would be the crime?

Maam: if both of them died, two counts, since the victim is the fetus and not the mother. The single impulse
doctrine will not apply, because in single impulse doctrine, we are talking about you cannot determine
who killed who. But we can complex, one act resulting to two or more crimes, compound crime, wherein
one act resulting in two or more grave or less grave.
Student: sa sexual assault gi separate niya. Kung male genitalia, oral og anal. Kung any object og instrument, kay
genitalia og anal. If mo ingon kag any instrument, does it include the male genitalia?
A: It includes the male genitalia, the body part or inanimate object. Mao na ang fingering g consider sad the object.
If you do not use the finger, but a ballpen, that is still object. So the object is not the object like a ballpen for
example, it could also include the finger. So sexual assault ghpon, any object or instrument. So pwede sad siya
ma commit sa transgender. But specific kau ang enumeration, so kato wa na apil sa enumeration, d na siya ma
apil sa sexual assault.
If the victim maoy gi blowjob, wa nay apil sa enumeration so dli sexual assault, so acts of lasciviousness na siya.
Title 9. Crimes Against Personal Liberty and Security

Illegal Detention vs. Arbitrary Detention

In Arbitrary Detention, the offender must be a public officer, and there is no ground for the arrest. In
Illegal Detention, the offender is a private individual.
Kidnapping vs. Abduction

In Abduction there must be lewd designs, while the essence and main objective of Kidnaping is the
deprivation of liberty.
Kidnapping is not limited to taking of a person

What is punished under Art. 267, is not only the kidnapping which constitutes in taking of a person to
another place, but also includes the deprivation of a person of his freedom of movement,
notwithstanding the lack of taking him from one place to another.
Ex. A person lives in this house, but he was locked in the house. There is no taking in this instance, but
still there is a crime committed under Art. 267.
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 three 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.
Art. 268. Slight illegal detention. The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any private individual who
shall commit the crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance of any of circumstances
enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the commencement
of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal proceedings
against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven
hundred pesos.
Kidnapping is serious when:

1. The detention lasted more than 3 days.
2. Shall have been committed simulating public authority.
3. If there were serious physical injuries or threats to kill him.
4. If person to be kidnapped be a minor, female or public officer.
In number 4, it is automatically serious, regardless of period of time of detention.
In the case of Vhong Navarro:

He filed charges for illegal detention, the reason why it was considered serious even if he was not a female,
minor or a person in public authority or that it did not last for more than 3 days, the reason it was considered
serious and therefore non-bailable, because of the THREATS & SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES.

Art. 270 offender is entrusted with custody and refuses to return the minor
Art. 271 offender induces the minor to abandon his home
Note that the RPC provides for other penalties where the offender is a parent and the person is kidnapped is a
minor. The parent will not be prosecuted under article 267 but rather under article 270 and 271.
When the person who is entitled to the custody of the child and fails to return him or encourages the minor to
abandon his home they shall be liable under article 270 and 271.
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME arising from KIDNAPPING:
RA 7659: Section 8. Article 267 of the same Code is hereby amended to read as follows:
"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 three 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, except when the accused is any of the parents, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death penalty 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.
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the
maximum penalty shall be imposed."
o Special complex crime of kidnapping under RA 7659 are:

o Kidnapping with death
Where there is death on the occasion of the kidnapping. What is important here is that
during the kidnapping there is death.
TN: the law states death here it does not mean kidnapping with homicide because the
law does not specify that homicide be used in its generic sense.
SC in several decision used the term kidnapping with murder not kidnapping with
homicide which is different from robbery with homicide because the term homicide was
expressly by law.
o Kidnapping with rape
o Kidnapping with torture
Here the torture does not require that there be physical injuries
The definition however here of torture is not clear because the law does not provide.
This is different because this law was before the special law defining torture was
enacted.
Here the definition of torture is different from those definition in other special penal
law like that the person doing the torture must be by a public officer.
Here the torture is very broad.
o TN: kidnapping with serious physical injuries is NOT a special complex crime but is Serious Illegal
Detention or Kidnapping only because such act is already part of the definition

PP VS RAMOS:
ISSUE:
ESSENCE OF KIDNAPPING:
. The essence of the crime of kidnapping as defined and penalized under Art. 267 of The
Revised Penal Code, as amended by Sec. 8 of RA No. 7659 is:
o the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with
o an indubitable proof of intent on the part of the malefactor to effect such restraint on
the offended party's liberty.
The term "actual deprivation of liberty" consists not only of placing a person in an enclosure
but also of detaining a person or depriving him in any manner of his liberty.
In the instant case, actual restraint of the victim's liberty was evident from the moment she
was forcibly prevented by accused-appellant from going to at Meralco and taken instead
against her will to Bulacan. Her freedom of movement was effectively restricted by her
abductor who, armed with a .22 caliber Smith and Wesson revolver, which instilled fear in
her, compelled her to go with him to Bulacan
o So here there is no need that the child is held inside anf enclosure.
o In one case where a child was taken outside of the school, where at the entrance
the accused held tightly to the hand of the child, that by standers who knew of the
child directly said oi anak mana ni.. the accused then let go of the child. SC ruled
that there this is not an attempted stage anymore but consummated because there
is already actual deprivation coupled by intent to deprive one of his libery.
ACCUSED WAS CONVICTED WITH SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH
MURDER
o Here the victim was kidnapped, they asked for ransom and then afterwards the victim was
killed. However here it is the victim who asked for the ransom not the accused
o While it may be true that it was the victim, not accused-appellant, who made the call and asked
for the money, it must be stressed nonetheless that actual demand for ransom by the accused
from the relatives or friends of the victim is not necessary, much less essential, as the demand
may be made directly on the victim herself. This convenient method commonly resorted to by
kidnappers, more often, proves to be very effective not only in compelling the relatives and
friends of victims to pay ransom but also in concealing the identities of the malefactors
o TN: in kidnapping with ransom it is not necessary that the ransom be paid. What is important
is the intent of asking the ransom and the corresponding asking of such ransom
o Considering the evidence extant on record, we agree with the trial court that victim Alicia
Abanilla was indeed kidnapped for ransom and then murdered by accused-appellant. But the
kidnapping for ransom and murder should not be treated as separate crimes for which two (2)
death penalties must as a consequence be imposed. Instead, under Art. 267 of The Revised Penal
Code, as amended by RA No. 7659, accused-appellant should be convicted of the special complex
crime of KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH MURDER and impose upon him the maximum penalty
of DEATH
o Prior to 31 December 1993, the date of effectivity of RA No. 7659, the rule was:
that where the kidnapped victim was subsequently killed by his abductor, the crime
committed would either be a complex crime of kidnapping with murder under Art. 48 of
The Revised Penal Code, or two (2) separate crimes of kidnapping and murder.

Thus, where the accused kidnapped the victim for the purpose of killing him,
and he was in fact killed by his abductor, the crime committed was the complex
crime of kidnapping with murder under Art. 48 of The Revised Penal Code, as
the kidnapping of the victim was a necessary means of committing the murder.
On the other hand, where the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of
killing him but was subsequently slain as an afterthought, two (2) separate
crimes of kidnapping and murder were committed.
o However, RA No. 7659 amended Art. 267 of The Revised Penal Code by adding thereto a
last paragraph which provides
o When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is raped, or is
subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed.
This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of "special complex crime"
of kidnapping with murder or homicide.
o It effectively eliminated the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases
where the killing of the kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the accused, and
those where the killing of the victim was not deliberately resorted to but was
merely an afterthought.
o Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course
of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was
merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be
complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished
as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by
RA No. 7659.
Obviously, the instant case falls within the purview of the aforequoted provision of
Art. 267, as amended. Although the crime of kidnapping for ransom was already
consummated with the mere demand by the accused for ransom - even before the
ransom was delivered - the deprivation of liberty of the victim persisted and
continued to persist until such time that she was killed by accused-appellant while
trying to escape. Hence, the death of the victim may be considered "a consequence
of the kidnapping for ransom."
QUESTION: ATTEMPTED VS CONSUMATED KIDNAPPING; 3 very similar cases but different ruling by
the court.
o Kid was taken outside of the school
nd
2 instance: attempted kidnapping
here the kid was asked by the accused to go to the clinic, the kid believing
that the accused was acting in good faith accompanied the accused until
when they reached outside the gate of the school the neighbors was able to
intercept the accused.
The court ruled that there was still no complete deprivation here of the
liberty of the victim. So this is only attempted because there were only overt
acts to perform the kidnapping but was not accomplished. There was intent
but NO ACTUAL RESTRAINT because the neighbors were able to stop such.
NO TOTAL DEPRIVATION BECAUSE IT WAS ONLY LEADING TO DEPRIVATION
NOT COMPLETED.

rd
3 instance: consummated kidnapping
here the 5yr old kid was taken. Placed inside a house and was able to move
freely inside the house. She could go to the kitchen =, bathroom, she was
eating ice cream, play inside the house and she was treated nicely. But only
inside the house.
SC said that despite the fact that she can move freely inside the house.
There is still completed deprivation despite the treatment to her.
SC ruled that even though the child can still move around inside the house, but the DEPRIVATION WAS ALREADY
COMPLETED., regardless that she was treated very nicely and the child didnt feel like she was maltreated. In this
case, it was already CONSUMMATED.
Q: taken inside a car, is it already deprivation?

A: it depends.
- If the victim can still go outside the car on his/her own: No deprivation.
- But if she/he cant go outside the car because it was intentionally locked or something: there is already
deprivation.
Another Example:
- if the victim was taken inside the car for the purpose of kidnapping her somewhere but she somehow
escaped during her taking in the car this is ATTEMPTED.
- But if the victim was taken inside the car but okay ra pud mugawas siya NO DEPRIVATION. NO
KIDNAPPING AT ALL.
o Reason: it would seem that in this instance, the 2 important elements of (1) ACTUAL DEPRIVATION
and (2) INTENT would not be present.
TAKE NOTE:
- Both elements should be present --- (1) ACTUAL DEPRIVATION and (2) INTENT --- for there to be
kidnapping.
- If there is actual deprivation MINUS the intent to deprive liberty, it will not constitute kidnapping.
Case with no citation

Facts: a Cebuano lawyer who is now facing a charge of serious illegal detention because there was a problem in
Talisay regarding illegal occupants and this lawyer intentionally locked the said area wherein there was a child
inside.
Ruling: there is serious illegal detention because there was a child.
The thing with the elements on kidnapping, it is not what the victim believes, but rather IT IS THE INTENTION
OF THE OFFENDER.
- Example: the purpose of the offender was to lock up the victim and while he closed the front door but he
forgot to close and locked the back door. The victim didnt bother to check any open doors because she is
an obedient victim (Stockholm syndrome).

o What is important is not what the victim believes, rather, the intention of the offender. And such
intention (of the offender) should be proven.
COMPLEXING KIDNAPPING
- Ramos case
Facts: The victim was kidnapped and the offender demanded ransom and later the offender killed the
victim before the delivery of the ransom. But the killing was mere an afterthought.
Ruling: whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping cannot be
complexed under Art. 48 because RA 7689 already took effect making such crime as a special complex
crime of KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH MURDER.
- Sulangon case
This case involves a crime prior to the passage of RA 7659, which was in 1993, but was only decided in
2007. So here the crime was ordinary complex crime.
o Applying the requisites of Art. 48, here, the kidnapping was the means in order to commit the
murder.
o But if the situation was that the killing was merely an afterthought, there can be no complexing.
Hence, making it a separate crime of kidnapping and a separate crime of murder or homicide.
o BUT this is NOT ANYMORE CONTROLLING.
The rule now is when there is death during the kidnapping, its automatically special complex crime of
kidnapping with murder.
Q: does the kidnapping needed to be consummated before we can complex the crime?
A: Yes, because in special complex crimes, we need to see what the law provides. And RA 7659 only mentions of
kidnapping (consummated) coupled with the death of the victim. Both should be in its consummated stage.
RECAP (Process of Elimination in COMPLEXING A CRIME):

st
1 : determine whether there is a special complex crime. How? MEMORIZE what are the special complex crimes.
nd
2 : If it does not fall under No. 1, determine whether it falls within Article 48 using its formula.
rd
3 : if it does not fall under no. 2, determine whether Doctrine of Absorption applies.
th
4 : if it does not fall under No. 3, determine whether such crime is a continuing crime or continued crime.
th
5 : if still does not fall in any of the foregoing, then IT IS A SEPARATE CRIME.
TN: Do not always conclude that because its not special complex, then it is a separate crime. THATS NOT
CORRECT. Follow the above rule.
- Para ma 48 sya, dapat gi kidnap sya para patyon.

- Kay kong wala sya kidnap para patyon then the kidnapping was not an offense committed as a means of
murder. So tungod kay dli sya means, dili sya ma 48. Hence, separate sya.

- This is because sauna wala pamay special complex. Now that we have that, niingon ang law basta the
victim is killed in the course of the kidnapping, its always special complex, never mind if the crime or
kidnapping was a means to commit the murder or whether the murder was only an afterthought.
- We do not have formula under special complex crime but only under article 48. So it doesnt matter
whether it is merely an afterthought or a means. So again the rule is, where the person kidnapped is killed
in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an
afterthought, it doesnt matter. So separate crime.
Pero possible gihapon nga mahitabo ang separate after mabuhian na ang victim. e.g. Gibuhian naka then gukron
na pud ka ug balik. So there, separate nana kay dili naman na in the course of the detention.
There is no attempted and frustrated in special complex. Puros consummated.
In robbery with homicide, if there is a shootout and it cannot be determined who killed the victim, then
the presumption is that the death resulted from the act of the accused. But wala ni nga ruling sa
kidnapping ha? However if it can be determined that this particular person was the one who killed the
victim and that person is not the kidnapper then the kidnapper cannot be liable for the killing of the
person. But if dili ma determine siya gyud ang mapasanginlan.
So basta killing gani, dili nana mo matter if afterthought basta kay IN THE COURSE.
.In Dionaldo, it was already cleared. That principle in Boado is no longer applicable. It was clarified in Dionaldo,
which is a 2014 case, that the rule now is where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention
regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was merely an afterthought. More or less it copied the
decision in Ramos Case.
The Kidnapping part in P.D. 532, is also amended in 765.
Chapter Two
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
Section One. Abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors.
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own victim. The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find 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.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities or to
his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
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) The 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 seven years of age whom the offender has found abandoned, to the
authorities or to his family, or by failing to take him to a safe place.
Abandonment of Persons
Uninhabited place is determined by the possibility of a person receiving assistance from another. Even if there
are many buildings but the possibility of rescue is remote, there is still abandonment.
In cases of imprudence, if the victim is abandoned by the offender, Art. 365 applies, and the penalty shall be one
degree higher. Hence, it must be alleged in the Information.
In Art. 275, the wounding must be accidental but not through negligence. E.g., Illegal discharge of firearm of
firearm causing injury
Commentary:
There are 3 instances when there can be abandonment.
First, when there is a person who is dying and he is an uninhabited place and the person who has the opportunity
and could render assistance without endangering himself. If he fails to render assistance, he can be held liable
under the law.
Second, when it was the offender who caused the accident (e.g. siyay nakaligis) and then he fails to also render
assistance.
Third, failure to turn-over a child maybe to the parents or to the authorities would also be considered
abandonment.
So what is the meaning of uninhabited place? It doesnt necessarily mean that there are no buildings. Uninhabited
means its a place where the likelihood of being rescued is nil or remote.
Article 365 (Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence) also increases the penalty by 1 degree if there is reckless
imprudence resulting in injuries and there is failure to render assistance. We also call it hit and run.
What are the cases against 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.
Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not exceeding seven hundred
pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the home of his parent or guardians or the persons
entrusted with his custody.
If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles shall be the father or the mother of the minor,
the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding three hundred pesos, or both.
Art. 272. Slavery. The penalty of prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who
shall purchase, sell, kidnap or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him.
If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party to some immoral traffic, the penalty shall be imposed
in its maximum period.
Art. 273. Exploitation of child labor. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service.
Art. 276. Abandoning a minor. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any one
who shall abandon a child under seven years of age, the custody of which is incumbent upon him.
When the death of the minor shall result from such abandonment, the culprit shall be punished by prision correccional in its

medium and maximum periods; but if the life of the minor shall have been in danger only, the penalty shall be prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions contained in the two preceding paragraphs shall not prevent the imposition of the penalty provided for the act
committed, when the same shall constitute a more serious offense.
Art. 277. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents. The penalty of arresto mayor
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, having charge of the rearing or education of a minor,
shall deliver said minor to a public institution or other persons, without the consent of the one who entrusted such child to his
care or in the absence of the latter, without the consent of the proper authorities.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the parents who shall neglect their children by not giving them the education which
their station in life require and financial conditions permit.
Art. 278. Exploitation of minors. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen years of age to perform any dangerous feat of balancing,
physical strength, or contortion.
2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager or engaged in a
similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of these kinds children under sixteen years of age who are not his children or
descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated in the next paragraph preceding who shall employ any descendant
of his under twelve years of age in such dangerous exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child under sixteen years of age,
who shall deliver such child gratuitously to any person following any of the callings enumerated in paragraph 2 hereof, or to
any habitual vagrant or beggar.
If the delivery shall have been made in consideration of any price, compensation, or promise, the penalty shall in every case
be imposed in its maximum period.
In either case, the guardian or curator convicted shall also be removed from office as guardian or curator; and in the case of
the parents of the child, they may be deprived, temporarily or perpetually, in the discretion of the court, of their parental
authority.
5. Any person who shall induce any child under sixteen years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians,
curators, or teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the callings mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, or to accompany
any habitual vagrant or beggar.
Crimes Against MINOR

-Abandonment of minor is also punished in RA 9262 or 7610
-exploitation of minors could also fall under worst forms of Labor (RA 9231)
-Slavery
Commentary:
Neglect, abandonment. They are also punished either in Article 9262 or 7610 or even 9231. We will not be taking
up Article 9231 when we go to special penal laws because it has never been part of the Bar syllabus. Slavery is also
punished. In slavery, a person is made to work against his will and without compensation. That crime and is also
punished under R.A. 9208 as amended, the Anti-human Trafficking law.
Involuntary servitude
Involuntary servitude is also punished under the Revised Penal Code, still also punished under the Anti-human
Trafficking law. Involuntary servitude is when a person is being made to work for the payment of a debt. That is a
crime.

However, if not only was the victim made to work in payment of a debt but he was also detained in order to work
for the payment of a debt then that is already considered kidnapping for ransom. If he is not detained, the crime
would simply be involuntary servitude.
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.
Art. 281. Other forms of trespass. The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon
any person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of another, while either or them are uninhabited, if the
prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
TRESSPASS
Dwelling is the place that a person inhabits or any building or structure exclusively devoted for rest and comfort. It
includes the dependencies which have interior communication with the house. It is not necessary that it be a
permanent dwelling of a person.
Against the will means that the entrance is either expressly or impliedly prohibited.
No trespass if consent is given by an occupant of sufficient discretion, even if the one who allowed was not the
owner.
Dwelling is a place where a person inhabits, a structure devoted for rest and comfort including the dependencies
of the house. Not necessarily mean that it is a permanent dwelling. When we say dependencies, it include stairs
and CR.
But it does not include places in a building which is not used for rest or as a dwelling. If one building is partly public
place and partly dwelling, only the dwelling part is included. Stairs maybe part of the dwelling if exclusively for
private use. If the stairs are for public use then it will not be considered dwelling.
The entrance in the dwelling must be against the will. Against the will means there must be an act coming from
the owner of the house. So, if he is merely sleeping and then someone enters the house and the door was not
closed anyway then there is no trespass because it must be against the will.
But against the will may be impliedly made.
If the door is closed, the implication is that entrance is prohibited. There is implied prohibition. When there is
implied prohibition and the offender enters, then there is trespass.
TRESSPASS contd
Violence or intimidation used in Qualified Tresspass includes BOTH violence or intimidation of persons as well as
force upon things. (PP vs. Tayag, 59 Phil 606)
Owner of a house may commit trespass if lawfully occupied by another. Tresspass in not anchored on ownership

but also on valid right to possess. (PP vs. Uy Almeda, 75 Phil. 476)
Entry or squatting in a closed or fenced premises where prohibition to enter is manifest maybe prosecuted under
Art. 281.
Owner of a house may commit trespass if lawfully occupied by another. There is no crime as illegal trespassing.
Trespass may be committed by an owner because what is important is that the victim must be the occupant,
whether he is the owner or not owner it doesnt matter. There is trespass not in a dwelling which is prosecuted in
Art. 281.
THREATS and COERCION
Art. 282. Grave threats. Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his
family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime be threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the
threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the
offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition.
Art. 283. Light threats. Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, made in the manner expressed in subdivision 1 of the next
preceding article, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Art. 284. Bond for good behavior. In all cases falling within the two next preceding articles, the person making the threats may also be
required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.
Art. 285. Other light threats. The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such
weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with some harm not constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts
show that he did not persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided that the circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the
provisions of Article 282 of this Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting a felony.
Art. 286. Grave coercions. 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.
Art. 287. Light coercions. 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.
Art. 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by means of tokens.) The penalty of
arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person, agent or officer, of any association or
corporation who shall force or compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed by him or by such
firm or corporation to be forced or compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the wages due a laborer or employee employed by him, by means of
tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of the laborer or employee.

Art. 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence or threats. The penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, for the purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing
coalitions or capital or labor, strike of laborers or lock-out of employees, shall employ 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, if the act shall not constitute a more serious offense in
accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Threats
Grave Threats when the wrong threatened to be inflicted amounts to a crime.
Light Threats - when the act threatened to be done does not amount to a crime.
Other Light Threats
a. without being Grave or Light Threats, threatening another with a weapon or drawing weapon in a
quarrel
b. orally threatening with harm that is not a crime, but did not persist
c. orally threatening another a harm that is not a felony.
Threats may be grave, light or other light threats. We have no problem in other light threats because they are
enumerated.
When the wrong threatened to be inflicted amounts to a crime, it is grave.
If it does not amount to a crime, it is light.
So if it is neither grave nor light but is consist in A, B, C, then it is other light threats.
What is the difference between threats and coercion?
Threats from Coercion

In Coercion, desired purpose is achieved; in Threats, act desired is not immediately consummated
In Threats, the harm is future harm; In Coercion, the threatened harm is immediate and present
In Threats, the harm is directed against the person, family, honor or property of the victim; In Coercion, the harm is directed towards
Threats and coercion are absorbed in other crimes, e.g., Robbery, Rape, Trafficking, etc.
In coercion, the purpose is achieved in threats. Its not immediately consummated. Its like a future harm. In
coercion, the harm is immediate and present. In threats, the harm is directed against the person, family or honor
of the victim. In coercion, it is personal. It cannot be that the person coerced is not the real victim.
COERCION
Grave coercion arises only if the act which the offender prevented another to do is not prohibited by law or ordinance. If the act was
Grave coercion maybe prevented or compulsive
Grave Coercion is committed by means of violence, threats or intimidation
Coercion has 2 kinds: preventive and compulsive.

-In preventive, you are not allowed to do something. In compulsive, you are forced to do something.
-Grave coercion is always committed by means of violence, threats or intimidation.

-It is important to determine whether the coercion is preventive or compulsive because in grave coercion that is
compulsive, it does not matter whether the thing ordered to be done is a crime or not. You are forced to do
something legal or illegal. As long as it is compulsive, it is always a crime.
-In preventive grave coercion, the thing which is being prohibited from being done must be a legal act. If the
preventive grave coercion refers to an illegal act, it is not anymore a crime.
Example:
Compulsive grave coercion (Always a crime)
Legal Act You build me a house otherwise I will kill you.
Illegal Act Panulis sa balay ni Juan.
Preventive grave coercion (Crime only if Legal Act) Ayaw og adto didto.
-Preventive is only a crime if the act ordered to be done is not illegal.

-Coercion may be absorbed in other crimes such as robbery, rape, trafficking and others.
-In threats, you are not being made to do something or not to do something. Its just scaring you of an injury.
Question: Regarding the previous slide, Maam. Coercion will be committed through threats? Arent they different,
coercion and threat?
Answer: They are different crimes. In threats, you are not made to do something or prevented from doing
something. In coercion, pabuhaton ka or di pabuhaton, ikaw mismo. Sa threats, dili raman ka pabuhaton. You are
just being threatened (i.e. patyon taka). Ang coercion, you do this or else Or else lang siya.
LIGHT COERCIONS AND OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS

Light Coercions by means of violence, seizing anything belonging to a debtor for the purpose of applying it to the payment of debt.
Unjust Vexation anything that annoys the offended party. This is a crime by dolo, malice is inherent and need not be alleged in the I
Other Similar Coercions compelling an employee to purchase merchandise; payment of wages with objects other than legal tender,
Question: Other light threats, Maam. What is an example of orally threatened to do another any harm not
constituting a crime?
Answer: It has been ruled in the Supreme Court nga muingon gani ka nga ikiha taka. Thats not a crime. That
might threaten you to do something but it is not a crime. Kanang muingon nga isumbong taka sa imong asawa.
Dili daw na siya crime. Or when you say, IPAKAON tika sa Dinosaur. LOL.
Question: Ive read in the commentary of Reyes ba nga ang paragraph is not included daw kay its not the correct
English, so the NOT must be deleted.
Answer: Anyway, it was already clarified in the Supreme Court by its rulings nga dili na siya crime nga ikiha tika.
So its not a crime.
Unjust Vexation
Its more of a catch-all provision wherein any act that is annoying to the offended party could constitute Unjust
Vexation provided that there is malice.

In unjust vexation, it would also depend on the recipient.
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS

Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any private individual who in order to discover the secrets of another, shall seize
his papers or letters and reveal the contents thereof.
If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
The provision shall not be applicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of minors with respect to the papers or
letters of the children or minors placed under their care or study, nor to spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.
Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon
any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.
Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding
500 pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge, employee or workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the
prejudice of the owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.
Discovering of secrets through seizure of correspondence cannot be committed by parents, guardians or spouses
pero if uyab, pwede.
TITLE TEN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY

- ELEMENTS OF THEFT:
1. There must be a taking and what is taken must be personal property
2. Property must belong to another
3. The person to whom the thing belongs to has not given his consent to the taking
4. Specific criminal intent to gain
- ROBBERY if you have the same four elements and if the means of taking is by the use of force upon
things or with violence against or intimidation of persons
- QUALIFIED THEFT when the same four elements are present and (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 (ART 310)
- In qualified theft, the penalty is two degrees higher than theft
- Classification of Robbery:
1. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons (Arts. 294, 297 and 298)
2. Robbery by the use of force upon things (Arts. 299 and 302)
- When violence or intimidation AND force upon things are present in a Robbery, it will be characterized by
the violence or intimidation. This is because the violence or intimidation against persons is considered the
graver condition.

- However, we recall the Napolis case where the SC said that simply because by classifying it as a crime
against persons, it could mean a lesser penalty. Remember in robbery with use of force upon things, the
penalty could be Reclusion Temporal whereas if the crime is robbery with violence or intimidation against
persons it can be as low as Prision Correctional. Which means that MTC ra gani siya.
- Napolis v CA
o FACTS: Robbery committed by breaking through the wall of the store adjacent to the house and
subsequently inflicting violence against the homeowners. RTC and CA applied ART 294, as
intimidation characterized the robbery, even though it had a lighter penalty compared to ART
299
o HELD: Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons is a much graver crime, with ART
294 being the applicable provision. Due to the circumstances of the case, however, a much
lighter penalty of PC max to PM min as compared to the RT imposed by ART 299 if robbery is
committed by breaking into an inhabited house without inflicting violence. SC resolved then to
make a complex crime (ART 294 and ART 299) when the elements of both crimes are present,
with the resulting penalty of RT max.
- Robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons

Article 294. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons; Penalties. - Any person guilty of robbery with the use of violence against
or intimidation of any person shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion perpetua to death, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of homicide shall have been
committed.
2. The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to reclusion perpetua when the robbery shall have been accompanied by
rape or intentional mutilation, or if by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in subdivision 1
of Article 263 shall have been inflicted; Provided, however, that when the robbery accompanied with rape is committed with a use
of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death (As amended by PD No. 767).
3. The penalty of reclusion temporal, when by reason or on occasion of the robbery, any of the physical injuries penalized in
subdivision 2 of the article mentioned in the next preceding paragraph, shall have been inflicted.
4. The penalty of prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion temporal in its medium period, if the violence or intimidation
employed in the commission of the robbery shall have been carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for the commission of the crime,
or when the course of its execution, the offender shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for its commission any of the
physical injuries covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 of said Article 23.
5. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its medium period in other cases. (As amended by R.
A. 18).
Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use of firearm on a street, road or
alley. - If the offenses mentioned in subdivisions three, four, and five of the next preceding article shall have been committed in an uninhabited
place or by a band, or by attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle or airship, or by entering the passenger's compartments in a train
or, in any manner, taking the passengers thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances, or on a street, road, highway, or alley, and the
intimidation is made with the use of a firearm, the offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the proper penalties.
In the same cases, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed upon the leader of the band.
Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the members thereof. - When more than three armed malefactors take part in the
commission of a robbery, it shall be deemed to have been committed by a band. When any of the arms used in the commission of the offense
be an unlicensed firearm, the penalty to be imposed upon all the malefactors shall be the maximum of the corresponding penalty provided by
law, without prejudice of the criminal liability for illegal possession of such unlicensed firearms.
Any member of a band who is present at the commission of a robbery by the band, shall be punished as principal of any of the assaults
committed by the band, unless it be shown that he attempted to prevent the same.
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed under certain circumstances. - When by reason or on occasion of an attempted or
frustrated robbery a homicide is committed, the person guilty of such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period
to reclusion perpetua, unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code.
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or intimidation. - Any person who, with intent to defraud another, by means of violence or
intimidation, shall compel him to sign, execute or deliver any public instrument or documents, shall be held guilty of robbery and punished by

the penalties respectively prescribed in this Chapter.
o In violence, it is possible that there are injuries inflicted. In intimidation, it is not necessary that
there are threats employed. In such case the threats and the coercion are absorbed
- Robbery with use of force upon things
Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship. - Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an
inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property
taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and if:
(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery was
committed, by any of the following means:
1. Through a opening not intended for entrance or egress.
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window.
3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools.
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority.
Or if -
(b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances:
1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle;
2. By taking such furniture or objects to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery.
When the offenders do not carry arms, and the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be
imposed.
The same rule shall be applied when the offenders are armed, but the value of the property taken does not exceed 250 pesos.
When said offenders do not carry arms and the value of the property taken does not exceed 250 pesos, they shall suffer the penalty prescribed
in the two next preceding paragraphs, in its minimum period.
If the robbery be committed in one of the dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or building dedicated to religious worship, the
penalties next lower in degree than those prescribed in this article shall be imposed.
Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a band. - The robbery mentioned in the next preceding article, if committed in an
uninhabited place and by a band, shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty provided therefor.
Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship and their dependencies. - Inhabited house
means any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even though the inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be
absent therefrom when the robbery is committed.
All interior courts, corrals, waterhouses, granaries, barns, coach-houses, stables or other departments or inclosed places contiguous to the
building or edifice, having an interior entrance connected therewith, and which form part of the whole, shall be deemed dependencies of an
inhabited house, public building or building dedicated to religious worship.
Orchards and other lands used for cultivation or production are not included in the terms of the next preceding paragraph, even if closed,
contiguous to the building and having direct connection therewith.
The term "public building" includes every building owned by the Government or belonging to a private person not included used or rented by
the Government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same.
Article 302. Robbery is an uninhabited place or in a private building. - Any robbery committed in an uninhabited place or in a building other
than those mentioned in the first paragraph of Article 299, if the value of the property taken exceeds 250 pesos, shall be punished by prision
correccional if any of the following circumstances is present:
1. If the entrance has been effected through any opening not intended for entrance or egress.
2. If any wall, roof, flour or outside door or window has been broken.
3. If the entrance has been effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar tools.
4. If any dorm, wardrobe, chest or by sealed or closed furniture or receptacle has been broken.
5. If any closed or sealed receptacle, as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, has been removed even if the same to broken open

elsewhere.
When the value of the property takes does not exceed 250 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree shall be imposed.
In the cases specified in Articles 294, 295, 297, 299, 300, and 302 of this Code, when the property taken is mail matter or large cattle, the
offender shall suffer the penalties next higher in degree than those provided in said articles.
Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an uninhabited place or private building. - In the cases enumerated in Articles 299 and 302,
when the robbery consists in the taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood, the culprit shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that
prescribed in said articles.
Article 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools. - Any person who shall without lawful cause have in his possession picklocks or similar tools
especially adopted to the commission of the crime of robbery, shall be punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon any person who shall make such tools. If the offender be a locksmith, he shall suffer the penalty of
prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Article 305. False keys. - The term "false keys" shall be deemed to include:
1. The tools mentioned in the next preceding articles.
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner.
3. Any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender.
o The place where the robbery is committed may be inhabited or may not be inhabited or it may
be considered a public building or an edifice devoted to worship. In which case, the crime carries
a higher penalty
o If the robbery is committed in an uninhabited place or private building, it can be as low as PC
o The manner of committing this is either by entering the house or building or breaking doors or by
taking furniture to be opened (?) outside
o Take note if inhabited kailangan i enter ang house. So that if there is any breaking of a wall, roof,
floor, door or window the breaking must be used to enter the house
o Different if committed in an uninhabited place or private building because it is not necessary that
the breaking of a wall, roof, floor, door or window be for the purpose of entering. It is possible
that the breaking be done to exit the building.
o Using fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority can also be considered as
robbery with use of force. There is use of constructive force
o Even if the entry into the house was made not by breaking anything but once the offender is able
to enter the house and he takes furniture or receptacles to be broken outside or he breaks them
while inside the house that would also make the crime robbery.
- There are differences in so far as the unlawful taking is concerned:

o If with use of violence or intimidation, the robbery is consummated right after the physical taking
of the offender
o If with force upon things, he must be able to get out of the place before the robbery is
considered consummated
- Can a robber/thief be considered a victim of robbery/theft with respect to the thing stolen?
Snatcher for example, na.snatchan sad! He could also be a victim.
Single Larceny Doctrine, we already discussed this when we took up complex crimes. The doctrine still stands.

The latest case of Miriam Santiago still upheld the single larceny doctrine. Mao ni siya ang kadtong nangawat of
manok. One chicken coup, the chickens belong to different owners.
Exercise:
Juan planned on stealing Pedros new iPad. When Pedro went out of the house to his garden and left the door
open, Juan sneaked inside the house and took the iPad. As Juan was coming out, he heard the footsteps then
panicked and jumped out through the kitchen window. What is the crime? Only theft because he just sneaked in.
Juan planned to steal Pedros new iPhone. He entered through the door because it was left opened. The iPhone
was placed in a locked receptacle. So Juan broke the receptacle but the noise alerted Pedro, who went back to the
house. Juan fled outside by destroying the CR window without the receptacle and the iPhone? Whats the crime?
Attempted Robbery by use of force upon things.
Jose broke the jalousy blade of Marias window and upon seeing the latters cellphone, he reached for it through
the window without entering the house. Whats the crime? Theft because there was no entry.
Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to worship. Any armed person who shall commit robbery in an
inhabited house or public building or edifice devoted to religious worship, shall be punished by reclusion temporal, if the value of the property
taken shall exceed 250 pesos, and if:
(a) The malefactors shall enter the house or building in which the robbery was committed, by any of the following means:
1. Through a opening not intended for entrance or egress.
2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or breaking any door or window.
3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools.
4. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise of public authority. Or if
(b) The robbery be committed under any of the following circumstances:
1. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle;
2. By taking such furniture or objects to be broken or forced open outside the place of the robbery.
In order that a robbery may be committed, he either enters a house by doing all these things or breaking
receptacles or taking receptacles out to be broken outside.
Complex Crimes involving Robbery (usually comes out of the BAR)
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIMES

Robbery with Homicide
- Unlike in kidnapping where the law mentions death or killing, in robbery with homicide, the law specifies
as homicide. Thats the reason why we cannot change the terms.
- It has to be robbery with homicide notwithstanding the fact that the homicide could be murder actually or
could be infanticide or could be parricide. It is always robbery with homicide because the law mentions
homicide.
- The law interprets homicide has a generic sense / application. Even if there are several homicides that
happened in one robbery, the crime would still be robbery with homicide and not robbery with multiple
homicide because the law itself specifies that the robbery is committed with homicide.

- You will see that in robbery and homicide, there is a need that there must be a consummated, either
robbery or the homicide, or both. If both are not consummated, there is no more special complex crime.
It is either robbery with homicide, or attempted or frustrated robbery with homicide.
Robbery with serious physical injuries

- It has to be serious physical injuries because that is the only crime that could be complexed according to
the law.
- The law specifies that the robbery is a special complex only when coupled with homicide or serious
physical injuries whether the serious physical injuries be in number 1 category or 2, 3, 4 of article 263.
- Basta kinahanglan siya maserious. If the physical injuries that goes together with the robbery is not
serious, then there is no more special complex.
- What happens is that either it is absorbed or a separate crime. It is possible that it is ordinary complex
under article 48 if less serious injuries was a means of committing the robbery; otherwise, if article 48
would not apply because it was not the means of committing the robbery.
- It just perhaps occurred during the occasion of the robbery but it was not the means of committing the
robbery, then there would be two separate offenses of robbery and less serious.
We do not also have robbery with attempted or frustrated murder or homicide because the homicide word here is
used in its generic sense. So, can there be robbery with attempted homicide? The answer is yes but ordinary
complex. Not special complex.
If there is Juan, he wanted to get the ipod of Pedro with intent to kill, stabs Pedro in order to get the ipod, what do
you have? You have Robbery with serious physical injuries.
If wala nadayon og kuha ang ipod, it will become attempted robbery with attempted homicide. There is no special
complex for that but article 48 can now apply because the attempted homicide was the means of committing the
robbery. It is now an ordinary complex.
Robbery with homicide

The law specifies that the homicide need not be the means of committing the robbery. Because the law says that
if death occur on the occasion of robbery, the crime becomes special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
Even if the homicide is not related to the robbery. BUT the main objective must be the robbery.
If the main objective is not the robbery, then we do not have a special complex. It is possible that we have 2 crimes
of murder (because of evident premeditation) and theft (because if the robbery was supposed to be accompanied
with intimidation, the offender cannot anymore intimidate a dead person.) The separation can only occur if the
main objective was to kill. If the main objective was to rob, it does not matter if there was a relation with the killing
and the robbery.
As long as the killing occurred on the occasion of the robbery.

Same with Robbery with rape and Robbery with mutilation.
We can only special complex them if the main objective was the robbery. The wording of the law by reason of or
on the occasion of the robbery
Review: no robbery with murder nor multiple homicide. Only Robbery with homicide.

All the other circumstances will only because ordinary aggravating circumstances.
SCENARIO:
A and B robbed a bank in Carcar, Cebu. The manager of the bank was able to run away through the back door and
reported the robbery. While the robbery was ongoing, the police arrived.
2 persons came out from the front door and one of them drew a fire arm. The responding police engaged into a
firefight. After the fight, one of the robbers, A, lay dead and the other was injured.
The problem was what charge will be filed.
Questions:
If the persons who shot A can not be determined because of the shoot out. What crime would B be liable for?
Robbery with homicide because the homicide transpired during the occasion of the robbery. In Robbery with
homicide, it is not necessary that the homicide was the means of committing the robbery. Not necessary that the
victim in the homicide would also be the victim in the robbery. So he can be any person (by stander or third
person) he can even be the co-robber. As long as they are killed during the occasion of the robbery.
In Robbery with Homicide, it is not necessary that the homicide is a means to commit robbery. Its also not
necessary that the victim in the Robbery be the victim in the Homicide. It is even possible that the victim in the
Homicide is the co-robber. Also, if it could not be determined who killed the co-robber, it would still be Robbery
with Homicide. However, if the responding policemen were positively identified as the persons who killed the
robber, then the crime committed would only be Robbery.
In Robbery with Homicide, the main objective must be to rob. In the conspiracy theory in relation to Art. 8, if A B C
agree to rob, they are not only liable for the robbery but also for any crime committed during the robbery which
are FORESEEABLE (eg. Homicide). In short, the conspiracy extends not only to the crime agreed upon but also on
the crime committed during such robbery which are FORESEEABLE.
In Robbery in Band, they must be at least four armed persons. In this crime, the robbers will not only be liable for
crimes committed during the robbery that are foreseeable, but they are also liable for crimes that are NOT
FORESEEABLE for as long as:
1. they were present when the crime was committed; and
2. they did not prevent the crime.
TN: Band is an aggravating circumstance and it becomes a special aggravating when the crime committed is
Robbery, but for other crimes, it is merely an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
Read the case of People vs Tolentino, G.R. No. L-59097 September 20, 1988. A very short case, but not short
enough to be included in this transcript. Also consider reading the case of People vs Gapasin 145 SCRA 178.
IMPORTANT PRINCIPLES IN ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

1. The Homicide was committed on the occasion of the taking with intent to gain.
2. Robbery must be the main objective in order to have a special complex crime of Robbery with Homicide.
3. The victim must still be alive when the property is taken. Otherwise, he could no longer be intimidated
and the crime would no longer be Robbery.

Robbery with Serious Physical Injury
ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES
In Robbery with Physical Injuries, the injuries must always be serious for it to be a Special
Complex. Less serious and slight physical injuries are absorbed in the Robbery. But if these
injuries are committed after the Robbery was consummated, there will be separate crimes.
If the physical injuries fall under Nos. 1 or 2 of Art. 263 (loss of organ or use thereof,
deformity), they may be committed by reason of or on the occasion of robbery.
If the physical injuries fall under Nos. 3 or 4 (deformity/30 days), it must be committed against a
person who is not a co-robber (otherwise there are 2 separate crimes of Robbery and SPI).
If there are several victims during the Robbery with Homicide arising from a single criminal
intent, there is 1 complex crime.
If the Physical Injury is less serious, it may still be a complex crime. However, it would no longer be a Special
Complex. If it is just slight physical injury, chances are it may be absorbed, but if these were committed after the
Robbery has been consummated there can be two separate crime.
Brigandage
Brigandage
Brigandage in the RPC mere formation on the group is punished; can only be committed by
4 or more armed persons
Brigandage / Highway Robbery in PD 532 the actual robbery is punished; may be
committed by only 1 person; robbery must be indiscriminate
Ordinary Robbery in the highway committed on the highway but not indiscriminate
Query on Robbery with Rape

Same principle with Robbery with Homicide. Even if there are several rapes committed on the occasion of the
Robbery, it would still be considered as one Robbery with Rape.
Student: (Inaudible)
Maam: trespass means trespass to dwelling. Kinahanglan man siya trespass to the dwelling. Attempted robbery if
he already commenced the execution of an overt act of taking. Kung ni katkat palang siya niya wa pa siya
ka kuha, and na dakpan, it is not yet attempted. Kay sa force upon things, ma consummate na nimo if mo
gawas naka. So if masakpan ka sa sulod, attempted pa na siya. Kinahanglan nga nag take naka, nanguha
naka. It cannot be trespass, kay kinhanglan man nga dwelling, it cannot also be attempted robbery, it can
probably be maliscious mischief for the breaking of the gate, but it cannot be attempted, kaysa attempted
mo start naka og kuha. Because at that stage, remember the definition of attempted, the acts would
already show the intention to rob. When you enter the gate there no is showing yet of the intention to rob.
So you cannot say attempted robbery. Kinahanglan mo show na ang intent. Makita na ang intent which is
to rob.

In theft
o There has to be physical handling of the personal property.
o So when we say physical handling, the personal property must be capable of being physically handled.
Q: So what if ang imo g kawat is intangible, like mangawat ka sa internet, this will not be covered. Example,
mangawat kag kurytne, untouchable kau, d gyd ma cover.
A: Not capable of physical handling. No theft

o In theft, the taking could also include receiving.
o It is not that, there was something that was taken without the consent, it could also be that:
o initially, something was received and then later on the possession was not anymore with the
consent.
o Example: there was consent as a matter of fact it was given, but the offender was supposed to
return it but aws not able to return, so the continuous possession was without consent na, so
there is taking
Article 310. Qualified theft

QUALIFIED THEFT
Penalty is 2 degrees higher:
a) Committed by domestic servant; or
b) With grave abuse of confidence; or
c) Property stolen is mail matter; or
d) Coconuts taken from plantation; or
e) Fish taken from fishpond or fishery; or
f) Property taken on occasion of earthquake, fire, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance
When we talk about grave abuse of discretion. We do not talk about any employee, it must be one who
enjoys the trust of confidence. So if he is just a mere employee, it is not qualified theft only theft
When we say coconuts taking form the plantation, it must be from a plantation really
If fish taken from the fish pond, according to Reyes, apil and shrimp. But remember that penal laws are
always interpreted against the state, so if not fish, like shrimp is not a fish, so dli na siya qualified
It is very clear in the law that the penalty for qualified theft is two degrees higher. If the helper will get
your cellphone which is worth 15,000 the penalty is reclusion perpetua.
Pero mangawat na sila sa bank, armed men or syndicate basta wala lay masamdan or mamatay, the
penalty would be prision mayor and the bail would be 100,000. Bail is a matter of right

Case Study
Juan was employed by Pedro to do certain carpentry jobs in his house for two weeks. Juan was not staying in,
but he usually eats his meals together with Pedros other employees in Pedros kitchen, without the latters
express permission.
One day, Juan surreptitiously went inside the bedroom of Pedro and stole the laptop and wallet which
were lying on the table.
Is Juan liable for Qualified Theft?
A: merely theft. Because he was not enjoying the trust and confidence of the victim
Is there a complex crime of Estafa through Theft?

Juan stole a pawnshop receipt belonging to Pedro, which represented Pedros pledge of jewelries to ABC
Pawnshop.
Juan then went to the pawnshop and, pretending to be Pedro, redeemed the jewelries.
The taking of pawn tickets payable to bearer without the owners consent, with intent to gain and
without violence or intimidation against persons, nor force upon things, constitutes the crime of theft.
The redemption of pawned jewels by means of pawn tickets to bearer, effected by a person who has
stolen said tickets, and pretends to own said jewels, availing himself of the numbers of said tickets to
identify the jewels, but without presenting the aforesaid tickets, constitutes the crime of estafa.
The accused, then, committed the crimes of theft and estafa, the former being a necessary means for the
commission of the latter. (People vs Yusay)
By pretending to be the owner that is estafa

By taking the receipt that is theft
The estafa could not be committed without the theft. So there is ordinary complex of estafa through theft
ESTAFA
Elements of Estafa:
1. Defraudation by abuse of confidence or by means of deceit;
a) With unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
b) By means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts;
c) Through fraudulent means
2. Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is caused to the victim
the most common estafa :

1. (b) By misappropriating or converting, to the prejudice of another, money, goods, or any other personal
property received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under any other

obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to return the same, even though such obligation be
totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or by denying having received such money, goods, or other
property.
here, kini sia 1(B) there is something received, and that something is either goods or any money
and there is the obligation either to return the very same thing or to remit the proceeds if we are talking
about an agency of sale. And then he was not able to make the remittance either because he
misappropriated the proceeds or the thing itself. In this case, there is the additional element of demand,
importante and demand, without the demand there will be no cause of action, because although the
victim here has a right to get back the property or the money, ang iyang right wala pa naviolated unless
there is a demand.
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
The other kind of estafa which is 2(A) this is not abuse of confidence, but deceit or g ilad. There is false
pretense or faudelnt act or means. And then the offended party relied on the pretense for which he
parted probably money or something and damage was caused on him.
Nature of the possession.
o If the thing is taken, chances are the crimes committed could either be theft, qualified theft or robbery.
o But if the thing is received, chances are the crime is estafa. But not always. Because what really
determines the nature of the crime is not whether there is taking or receiving but rather what is the
nature of the possession.
o So, kaning possession we have to remember, this is only applicable sa article 315 (1)(B), abuse of
confidence
Why does the nature of the possession matter?

Physical or material possession
o Because if the nature of the possession is that of physical or material, then the crime will not be
estafa.
o The crime would only be theft, qualified theft or robbery
Juridical possession
o possession is juridical in nature, because there is a contract of agency, such that the possessor
can transfer title to it, has a legal right to the possession of the property, and if he fails to return
the thing, the crime would be estafa
ownership
o If possession is more of ownership, then there is only civil liability.
o There is no crime
Example: Maria sells jewelry, and iya g sugo si Juana to take the jewelry to Pedro because Pedro would like to buy
the jewelries. Juana misappropriated the jewelries.
What is the crime?
A: the nature of the possession is merely physical. So if dli e tunol or dli e uli. So there is theft

But if Maria would tell Juana, if gnhan bah si juana mamalgy,a niya if nay mahalin e hatag bayad and naa siya
commission.
Here there is a contract of agency
So that Juana has possession of the property, she can sell it. And when she sells the property, she can effectively
transfer valid title. So when Pedro buys the property from Juana, Maria cannot go to Pedro because by virtue of
the contract of agency, she has authorized Juana to transfer the ownership.
However, when the property was not sold and Juana does not want to return the property to Maria, the crime
here is ESTAFA because there is misappropriation. There was an obligation to return but Juana did not do so.
Another Example:
Maria sells jewelry and offered to Juana the jewelry and Juana replies, pwede 10 gives? Or mudown lang ku ug
5,000. And now the property is with Juana. However, Juana failed to pay the balance. What is the crime?
NO CRIME. In this case, there was a contract of sale. The ownership was already transferred to Juana.
THE DETERMINATION OF WHAT KIND OF POSSESSION DOES THE OFFENDER HAVE IS ONLY APPLICABLE TO
ART. 315.
Example: Maria hires Juana to design the formers newly bought condominium because of Juanas
misrepresentation that she is a world-renowned interior designer. Then Maria gave Juana 1 million as
consideration of designing the condo. But after Juana received such payment, wa na siya nagpakita taking
away the money with her. Is there a crime? If so, what is the crime?
Answer: here, there is deceit. This is not about trust and confidence anymore. This is ESTAFA by DECEIT.
2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the
fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of other similar deceits.
In Estafa 2(a), when a person misrepresents or makes use of false pretenses, and by this reason, money or
something was given and the offended party relied on the false pretense causing damage --- that is ESTAFA,
regardless whether there was civil contract or not.
ESTAFA 2(A) ALSO APPLIES TO REDISCOUNTING CHECKS.

- In rediscounting of a check, which probably does not belong to you, falls under the phrase pretending to
possess xxx credit, hence, it is Estafa 2(a).
- If the rediscounted check belongs to you, it falls under Estafa 2(d).
ESTAFA No. 1 DISTINGUISH FROM ESTAFA No. 2

- Difference in the manner of commission
- Example:
o you bought a Louise Vuitton bag from A because you trusts A, but it turned out the bag he gave you
was fake. --- ESTAFA No. 1

o if you dont know personally the person whom you bought the bag --- ESTAFA No. 2
- END OF DISCUSSION -
From the Midterms Crim Team
BURDEOS, BONGHANOY, CADORNA, COROMINAS, ENTERA, EROJO,

GOCUAN, HONCULADA, OTERO, QUERUBIN, ROCHA, SEVILLA
Dont study until you get it right.

Study until you cant get it wrong.
God bless sa midterm exams!!!
COVERAGE: start of Book 2 until estafa
POINTERS:
(something shown in the slide) --- include in your readings
estafa
robbery with homicide
rape; kidnapping with rape; forcible abduction with rape;
direct assault
malversation
piracy
misprision of treason; citing to sedition
art. 125
abortion
attempted and frustrated murder
attempted and frustrated parricide
attempted and frustrated homicide
NO MCQ!

Crim Review Midterms Transcript 2015

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Crim Review Midterms Transcript 2015

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW 2015-2016 MIDTERMS BOOK 2

USC Criminal Law Review 2015 - 2016 as discussed by Atty. Petralba

1. Treason (Art 114)

CRIMES AGAINST THE LAW OF NATIONS:

1. Inciting to war or giving of motives for reprisals (Art. 118)

Crimes against national security

(1) the act of levying war against the Philippines

Involves a foreign element. There is no foreign element.

Can only be committed during war. Committed during peace times.

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 1

Treason is essentially a war crime

(2) adhering to the enemies giving them aid and comfort.

Crimes that can be committed during peace time:

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 2

Can treason be complexed with common crimes?

Can treason be complexed? Generally, No.

Art. 117 ESPIONAGE

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 3

MODE 2: Disclosing by public officer of confidential information to a foreign representative

Art. 118 Inciting to war and giving motives to reprisals.

Art. 119 Violation of Neutrality

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 4

Art. 120 Correspondence with hostile country.

Art. 121 Flight to enemys country.

Art. 122 Piracy

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 5

Section Three. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 6

- Yes. SC affirms the conviction of all the accused appellants

Piracy must be committed with intent to gain.

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 7

If there is no intent to gain, it could be any other crime like mutiny.

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 8

PP vs. TULIN, Aug. 30, 2001

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 9

Question: Assuming NO LAW on Piracy, can we prosecute Piracy?

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 10

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 11

PERIOD FOR THE DELIVERY OF PERSONS TO JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES:

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 12

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 13

Sayo vs Chief of Police G.R. No. L-2128

Section Two. Violation of domicile

- Offender: public officer

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 14

Section Three. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings

- This is pursuant to the constitutional guarantee to peaceably assemble.

Section Four. Crimes against religious worship

- Art. 133 can be committed by a PRIVATE PERSON.

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 15

Title Three: CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER

Although punished under the same article, Insurrection is lesser in scope.

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 16

In connection with the question:

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 17

Theory of Inigo (with regards to the doctrine of absorption):

Rebellion vs. Sedition

In both crimes, there is public uprising.

armed public uprising the public uprising is not armed

always political may be political or it can be social.

In UNION, there is STRENGTH. Page 18

Sedition Direct Assault of the First Kind

Public uprising No public uprising

Proposal to Commit Rebellion and Inciting to Rebellion