Title 8 With BQ

Kiddy and Mondy
Reyes 2001 Book II Outline - Title Eight
Title Eight
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
What are the crimes against persons?
1. Parricide (Art. 246)
2. Murder (Art. 248)
3. Homicide (Art.249)
4. Death caused in a tumultuous affray

(Art. 251)
5. Physical injuries inflicted in a

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

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

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

midwife and dispensing of abortives
(Art. 259)
13. Duel (Art. 260)
14. Challenging to a duel (Art. 261)
15. Mutilation (Art. 262)
16. Serious Physical Injuries (Art. 263)
17. Administering injurious substances

or beverages (Art.264)
18. Less Serious Physical Injuries (Art.

265)
19. Slight Physical Injuries (Art. 266)
20. Rape (Art.266-A)
Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

Constitutes as a waiver of the authors from any liability whatsoever
1
Kiddy and Mondy
Chapter One
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
Section One. — Parricide, murder, homicide
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. That a person is killed;
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused;
3. That the deceased in relation to the accused is the:
a. Father
b. Mother
Legitimate or Illegitimate
c. Child
d. Other ascendant
e. Other descendant Legitimate
f. Spouse
Essential element of parricide is the relationship of the offender with the victim.
Parents and children are not included in the term "ascendant or "descendant".
"Other ascendant or descendant" must be legitimate.

• He who kills an illegitimate grandfather or illegitimate grandson is not guilty of parricide but of simple
homicide or murder.
• The term "illegitimate" embraces all children born out of wedlock.

o Adulterine
o Incestuous
o Sacrilegious
The father, mother or child may be legitimate or illegitimate.
The child should not be less than 3 years old; otherwise the crime would be infanticide.
Only relatives by blood and in direct line, except spouse are considered in parricide.

2
Kiddy and Mondy
Only relatives by blood may be legitimate or illegitimate. On the other hand, the "ascendants or descendants"
must be legitimate. They too must be relatives by blood.
• Therefore, an adopted father or adopted son or father-in-law or son-in-law is not included in this
provision of parricide.
Spouse must be legitimate.
Killing an illegitimate wife is only homicide or murder and not parricide.
Marriages among Muslims or among members or the ethnic cultural communities performed in accordance with
their customs, rites or practices are valid.
Relationship MUST BE ALLEGED!

• Wife of victim cannot be convicted or parricide if charged only with murder. However, relationship must
be considered aggravating even if not alleged in the information. 1 (In light of recent Rules of Court, I
don't know if this still holds true.)
Parricide through reckless imprudence

• The husband who, while struggling for the possession of the gun with his children, without intent to kill
anyone, pulled the trigger of the gun which fired and hit his wife who was approaching them is guilty of
parricide through reckless imprudence.
• Parricide through reckless imprudence is punished by arresto mayor maximum to prision correccional
medium.
• If committed through simple negligence or imprudence, penalty is arresto mayor medium and maximum.
Parricide by mistake
• A person wanting to kill a stranger but by mistake killed his own father is liable for parricide but
Article 49 applies as regards the proper penalty.
• If a person kills another, not knowing it was his son is still guilty for parricide because the law does not
require knowledge of relationship.
A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the commission of parricide is not guilty of parricide but only of
homicide or murder.
Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances. — Any legally married person
who having surprised his spouse in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill
any of them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them any serious
physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with respect to their daughters
under eighteen years of age, and their seducer, while the daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or daughter, or shall otherwise have
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
1 People v Jumawan, 116 SCRA 739.

3
Kiddy and Mondy
Requisites for the application of this Article:

1. That a legally married person or a parent
a. surprises his spouse or his daughter (below 18 years old and living with him)
b. in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person;
2. That he or she kills any or both of them or

a. inflicts upon any or both of them any serious physical injury
b. In the act or immediately thereafter.
3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter or
a. That he or she has not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.
This article does not define or penalize a felony, for if the killing of, or inflicting of the serious physical injuries
on, the spouse and/or paramour is done under the circumstances mentioned; the accused shall be sentenced to
destierro, instead of the severe penalty for parricide, homicide or serious physical injuries.
The requisites of this Article must be established by the evidence of the defense because the prosecution will
have to charge the defendant with parricide and/or homicide or serious physical injuries.
Since Article 247 does not charge a distinct crime, the accused cannot enter into a conditional plea of guilty
The accused must be a legally married person

• A man surprising his common-law wife in the act of sexual intercourse with another man and killed her or
both is not entitled to the benefits of this Article.
The wife who kills or inflicts serious physical injuries on her husband and/or his concubine, under the
circumstances in this Article is entitled to the benefits as well.
This article does not seem to require that the parents must be legitimate. It only requires (1) that the daughter be
less than 18 years old and (2) that she is living with her parents.
It would seen that although the law does not use the word "unmarried" in relation to the daughter, this article
applies only when the daughter is single because while under 18 years old and single, she is under parental
authority. If she is married, her husband alone can claim the benefits of this article. (Besides, the marrying
age is 18 years old, d'ba?)
"Surprise means to come upon suddenly and unexpectedly.

• But in a case where the husband, peeping through a hole near the kitchen door, commenced the attack
only after watching while his wife and paramour kiss then undress was found not to be liable for the
injuries suffered by the paramour.
The person claiming the benefits of Article 247 MUST SURPRISE his spouse or daughter, in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person. If he has not surprised them in the act, this Article will
not apply.
This article will also NOT APPLY when the accused did NOT SEE his spouse in the act of sexual intercourse
with another person.

4
Kiddy and Mondy
• Neither does it include a situation where the accused surprised his wife AFTER the act, as when he saw
her already rising up and the man buttoning his drawers.
But for a husband to be justified, it is not necessary that he sees the carnal act being committed with his own eyes.
It is enough that he surprises them under such circumstances as to show reasonably that the carnal act is being
committed or has just been committed.
Does "sexual intercourse" include preparatory acts?

• In a situation where the wife and her paramour entered a room alone, undressed and performed mutual
acts of lasciviousness all in prelude to the carnal act, and then and there the offended husband who saw all
these things killed one or both, is he entitled to the benefits of this Article?
• Majority of the justices in People v Gonzales said that there must be actual sexual intercourse.
• Justice Laurel dissented stating that "Must the offended husband look on in the meantime and wait until
the very physical act takes place? This interpretation is far from being rational and certainly does violence
to reason and purpose of the law"
The killing or inflicting of serious physical injuries must be

1. in the act of sexual intercourse, OR
2. immediately thereafter
• In a case where the wife was not killed in the very place where she was caught because the
husband preferred to attack the despoiler of his honor first and only afterwards the adulterous
wife who succeeded in getting away from the place where she was caught, the assault upon the
woman must be understood to be A CONTINUATION of the act of the wronged husband in
pursuit of her paramour, who had the good fortune to escape. Consequently, although the
deceased did not fall dead in the place where she was caught, but in another place nearby,
logically, it must be understood that the case comes within Article 247.2
• The DISCOVERY, the ESCAPE, the PURSUIT, and the KILLING must all form part of one
continuous act.
The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.

• The RPC, in requiring that the accused "shall kill…immediately" after surprising his spouse in the act of
sexual intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly. It only requires that the death
caused by the proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon the
spouse. But the killing should have been actually motivated by the same blind impulse and must not be
influenced by external factors.
The killing of his spouse by the accused must be by reason of having surprised her in the act of sexual intercourse
with another person.
• Where the man upon surprising her wife doing that thing you do merely received a severe scolding and
ordered her to leave the house and as she gathered her clothes, picked up a bolo and attacked his husband,
wounding him twice in the abdomen, the husband was held not to be entitled to the benefits when he was
able to wrestle the bolo and stab his wife in the breast, causing her death because although he found his
wife in bed with another, did not kill her but only upbraided her and bade her to leave.
Article 247 applies, in the case of a husband, only when he surprises his wife in flagrant adultery.
2 U.S. v Alano, 32 Phil 383.

5
Kiddy and Mondy
• In a case when a husband caught a man having sex with his wife against her will, as she was then
shouting for help, the attack upon that man may be a defense of relative under Article 11, par. 2 BUT
NOT under this Article.
No criminal liability when less serious or slight physical injuries are inflicted.
Where physical injuries were suffered by third persons as a result of being caught in the crossfire as the accused
shot the victim, the Court held that although as a rule, one committing an offense is liable for all the
consequences of his act, the rule presupposes that the act done amounts to a felony. In the instant case, the
accused was not committing murder when he discharged his rifle upon the accused. Inflicting death under the
exceptional circumstances is not murder. The accused cannot be held liable for injuries suffered by third
persons as a result thereof.
Not applicable to persons who consented to the infidelity of spouse, or who facilitated the prostitution of his wife
or daughter.
Banishment not intended as a penalty.

• Art. 247, in effect, confers upon the offended spouse or parent, the power to inflict the supreme penalty of
death.
• Destierro is not really intended as a penalty but to remove the killer spouse from the vicinity and to
protect him or her from acts of reprisal principally from the relatives of the deceased.
WHAT CASES IS A PERSON WHO COMMITTED PARRICIDE NOT BE PUNISHED with reclusion
perpetua to death?
1. Parricide through negligence (Art. 365)
2. Committed by mistake (Art. 249)
3. When it is committed under exceptional circumstances. (Art. 247)
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
Kiddy and Mondy
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging
or scoffing at his person or corpse.
Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is NOT PARRICIDE or INFANTICIDE, provided that any of
the following circumstances is present:
1. With treachery,
a. taking advantage of superior strength,
b. with aid of armed men, or
c. employing means to weaken the defense or
d. of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
3. By means of inundation,
a. fire,
b. poison,
c. explosion,
d. shipwreck,
e. stranding of a vessel,
f. derailment or assault upon a railroad,
g. fall of an airship,
h. by means of motor vehicle, or
i. with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin
4. On occasion of any of the calamities
a. enumerated in the preceding paragraph or
b. of an earthquake,
c. eruption of a volcano,
d. destructive cyclone,
e. epidemic, or
f. any other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty,
a. by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim or
b. outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse
Elements:
1. That a person was killed;
2. That the accused killed him;

7
Kiddy and Mondy
3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248;
4. That the killing is not parricide or homicide
Although Art. 248 makes reference only to Article 246, which defines and penalized, it is understood that the
person killed should not be less than 3 days old, for otherwise it would be infanticide.
"Shall kill one another"

• The victim must be killed to consummate the crime. If not, the crime would be attempted or frustrated.
The offender must have INTENT TO KILL to be liable for murder committed by means of fire or other means
enumerated in par.3 of Art 248.
Killing a person with treachery is MURDER EVEN IF there is no intent to kill.

• If the defendant had not committed the assault in a treacherous manner, he would nevertheless have been
guilty of homicide, although he did not intend to kill the deceased; and since the defendant did commit
the crime with treachery, he is guilty of murder because of the voluntary presence of the qualifying
circumstance of treachery.3
• This ruling may be applicable to all other circumstances in pars. 1, 2, 4, 5 and 6.
• The ruling is based on Article 4, par.1 of the Code.
Rules for the application of the circumstances which qualify the killing to murder:
1. That murder will exist with only one of the circumstances described in Art. 248.
a. When more than one of said circumstances are present, the others must be considered as generic
aggravating.
2. That when the other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot
be considered as generic aggravating.
a. When there were ten or more armed captors of the female victim and one or some of them shot
her at the back, the qualifying circumstance of murder is either treachery, abuse of superior
strength, or with the aid of armed men; 4 but if treachery is chosen to qualify the crime, the others
are not generic aggravating circumstances, because they are included in the qualifying
circumstance of treachery.5
3. That any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated in Art. 248 must be alleged in the information.6
The qualifying circumstances of murder, EXCEPT "outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse" are among
those defined in Art. 14.
With treachery:
• Whenever present, qualifies the killing of the victim and raises it to the category of murder.
3 People v Cagoco, 58 Phil 530.

4 People v Remalante, 92 Phil 48.
5 People v Sespeñe, 102 Phil 199.
6 US v Campo, 23 Phil 369.
8
Kiddy and Mondy
• Treachery when the shooting was sudden and unexpected and the victims were not in a position to defend
themselves
• Treachery is present when the shooting is sudden and unexpected to the point of incapacitating the victim
to rep or escape it. And where the hands were raised as ordered by the accused who fired at him without
any risk to the accused.
• THE MEANS, METHODS or FORMS of attack must be CONSCIOUSLY ADOPTED by the offender.
The killing of a child of tender years is murder even if the manner of attack was not shown, alevosia being present
in the commission of the crime.
Taking advantage of superior strength

• An attack by a man with a weapon upon a girl is murder because his sex and weapon gave him superior
strength
• The circumstance of superior strength is present when the deceased, already earlier wounded by one of
the accused was dragged by three accused armed with bladed weapons while seeking treatment and once
more attacked.
• To qualify the killing, SUPERIOR STRENGHT must be TAKEN ADVANTAGE of.
With aid of armed men

• If the accused had companions who were armed when he committed the crime, this circumstance is
present.
• The armed men MUST TAKE PART in the commission of the crime DIRECTLY or INDIRECTLY and
the accused MUST AVAIL himself of their aid or RELY upon them when the crime is committed.
Employing means to weaken the defense

• Throwing a cloak over the head of his opponent and while in this situation, he kills him or
• One who suddenly casts sand or dirt upon the eyes of the victim and then kills him
Employing means or persons to insure or afford impunity

• When means or persons are employed by the accused who killed the deceased to prevent his being
recognized, or
• To secure himself against detection and punishment,
• One who covered his face with handkerchief before killing his victim is liable for murder because he
employed means to insure or afford impunity
In consideration of price, reward, or promise

• The person who received the price or reward or who accepted a promise of price or reward would not
have killed the victim were it not for that price, reward or promise. Such person is a Principal by Direct
Participation
• The one who gave the price or reward or who made the promise is a Principal by Induction
• When this circumstance is alleged, BOTH ARE GUILTY for murder.

9
Kiddy and Mondy
By means of fire, poison, explosion, etc…

• It is intended that there should be an ACTUAL DESIGN TO KILL and that the USE OF FIRE should be
PURPOSELY ADOPTED as a MEANS TO THAT END
• Setting fire to an automobile in the basement of an inhabited house, resulting in the burning of the house
also and the death of one of its inmates, is NOT MURDER but only HOMICIDE
• In a case where both the paramour and the wife of the deceased, wanting to eliminate the husband,
allowed the wife to take Arsenic powder meant for poisoning rats and put it in the coffee of her husband
who was shown to have died due to the poisoned coffee, the paramour was found guilty of murder
• A person who threw a hand grenade at his victim who was killed as a result of the explosion is guilty of
murder
• Treachery and premeditation are inherent in murder by poison
• People v Galura:
o To excite a woman sexually so that he could easily consummate his dastardly lewd desire, the
accused gave her chocolate with an overdose of cantharide. The woman died because cantharide
contained poison. No question that the accused merely intended to excite the woman.
o It was held that the crime was homicide. Applying Art. 4, par. 1 correctly wherein the Court held
that the crime committed was homicide. The accused had no intention to kill but having
committed a felony, he was responsible for the consequences even if the wrongful act done was
different from that which he intended.
o It is not correct to say that the use of poison is inherent in murder. It becomes inherent only when
the offender has the intent to kill the victim and he uses poison as a MEANS TO KILL
o
.
o The words "by means" presuppose an objective to bring about a result. On the other hand, in
murder qualified by treachery, it is required only that there is treachery in the attack, and this is
true even if the offender has no intent to kill the person assaulted.
On the occasion of inundation, shipwreck, etc., of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, epidemic or any
other public calamity
• Killing a person on the occasion of those mentioned, when taken advantage of by the offender, qualifies
the crime to murder
With evident premeditation

• This circumstance is present and it qualifies the killing to murder when the prosecution proves:
o The time when the offender determined (conceived) to kill his victim;
o An act of the offender manifestly indicating that he clung to his determination to kill his victim;
o A sufficient lapse of time (at least three hours) between the determination and the execution of
the killing7
7 People v Leano, 36 O.G. 1120.

10
Kiddy and Mondy
With cruelty
• There is cruelty when other injuries or wounds are inflicted deliberately by the offender, which are not
necessary for the killing of the victim.
• The victim must be alive when the other injuries or wounds are inflicted.
• There is no cruelty, when the offender is inflicting several other wounds on the victim has only a
decided purpose to kill him
Outraging or scoffing at the person or corpse of the victim

• A person found dead with wounds in the back, neck and other parts of the body is murder. It is either
cruelty if the victim was still alive. Otherwise, it is outraging or scoffing at his corpse.
• "Outraging" means to commit an extremely vicious or deeply insulting act.
• "Scoffing" means to jeer, and implies a showing of irreverence.
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.
Homicide is the unlawful killing of any person, which is neither parricide, murder or infanticide.
Elements:
1. That a person is killed;
2. That the accused had the intention to kill without any justifying circumstance;
3. That the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed;
4. That the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder or by that of parricide
or infanticide
"Shall kill another"

• The victim must be killed to consummate the crime. If not, it is either attempted or frustrated
The penalty for homicide shall be one degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under 12 years
of age. (§10, RA 7610)
When death resulted, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is homicide, not merely physical injuries, because
with respect to crimes of personal violence, penal law looks particularly to the material results following the
unlawful act and holds the aggressor responsible for all the consequences thereof.
Evidence of intent to kill is important only in attempted or frustrated homicide. If there is no intent to kill on the
part of the offender, he is liable for physical injuries.
• It is usually shown by the kind of weapon used by the offender and the parts of the victim's body at which
the weapon was aimed, as shown by the wounds inflicted.
• Exception: If in going to the house of his wife, who lived separately from him, in order to entreat her to
live with him again, was provoked by a cousin of his wife and caused him to assault the cousin with a
bolo, inflicting physical injuries, caused indiscriminately and not deliberately, the purpose of the accused
11
Kiddy and Mondy
in going to the house, and not the kind of weapon he carried nor the parts of the bodies of the victims on
which the wounds were inflicted, is indicative and determinative of his intention. Accused is liable for
physical injuries only.
Intent to kill must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.

• The inference of intent to kill should not be drawn in the absence of circumstances sufficient to prove
such intent beyond reasonable doubt.
That the death of the deceased was due to his refusal to be operated on, IS NOT A DEFENSE.
The killing MUST NOT be JUSTIFIED
In the absence of clear proof of any circumstance that would qualify as murder, the killing of the deceased, the
guilty person is only liable for homicide.
• In the same vein, the offense must not be attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of parricide or
infanticide
No offense of FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE THROUGH IMPRUDENCE

• Where the accused pharmacist prepared the medicine on prescription by a doctor erroneously used a
highly poisonous substance which almost caused the patient to die is not liable for frustrated homicide
thru reckless imprudence but rather physical injuries thru reckless imprudence. The element of intent to
kill in frustrated homicide is incompatible with negligence or imprudence. Intent in felonies by means of
dolo is replaced with lack of foresight or skill in felonies by culpa.8
Where the wounds that caused death were inflicted by two different persons, even if they were not in conspiracy,
each one of them is guilty of homicide.
• X shot Y with a pistol and almost immediately after, Z shot Y with a pistol. Both wounds inflicted were
mortal. C died as a result of the wounds received from A and B, acting independently of each other.
• Since either wound could cause the death of C, both are liable and each one of them is guilty of homicide.
The burden of proof is on each defendant to show that the wound inflicted by him did not cause the death.
The one who inflicted a wound that contributed to the death of the victim is equally liable.
• When it is clearly established by the evidence that the deceased died as result of several wound inflicted
upon him by A and P, and it has not been shown which wounds were inflicted by one or the other, both
will be liable for the death.
• This ruling is applicable only when there is no conspiracy between and among the accused. When there is
conspiracy, it is not necessary to apply this ruling, the act of one is the act of all.
When the act of mortally wounding the victim and that the victim later on knowing that he would die, committed
suicide, the contention of the defense that it was the victim who killed himself and not the accused is
untenable. When the death of the victim occurred, the wound caused by the accused did contribute to the
event. The victim was actually dying when he committed suicide.
Accidental homicide is the death of a person brought about by a lawful act performed with proper care and skill,
and without homicidal intent.
• A boxing bout where the game is freely permitted by law or local ordinance and all rules of the game
have been observed, the resulting death or injuries cannot be deemed felonious since the game is a lawful
act.
8 People v Castillo, 76 Phil 72.

12
Kiddy and Mondy
• But, if the rules have been violated, such as a foul blow, and death resulted, the crime would be homicide
through negligence.
• If the foul blow was intended for the purpose of killing the opponent, the crime of intentional homicide is
committed.
"Corpus delicti" means the actual commission of the crime charged.

• Means that the crime was actually perpetrated and does not refer to the body of the murdered person.
• In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an element of the offense, there must be
satisfactory evidence of
o The fact of death
o The identity of the victim
Art. 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide. — The courts, in view of the facts of the case,
may impose upon the person guilty of the frustrated crime of parricide, murder or homicide, defined and
penalized in the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree than that which should be imposed under
the provision of Article 50.
The courts, considering the facts of the case, may likewise reduce by one degree the penalty which under
Article 51 should be imposed for an attempt to commit any of such crimes.
Courts may impose a penalty two degrees lower for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide.
• The court may impose a penalty lower by one degree than that imposed under Article 50.
• Article 50 provides that the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the consummated
felony shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.
• THEREFORE, the court can impose a penalty TWO DEGREES lower, in view of the facts of the case.
(Permissive, not mandatory)
Courts may impose a penalty three degrees lower for attempted parricide, murder or homicide.
An attempt on, or a conspiracy against, the life of the chief executive is punishable by death.
Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. — When, while several persons, not composing groups
organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault
each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone is killed, and it
cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the person or persons who inflicted serious
physical injuries can be identified, such person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon all those who shall have used
violence upon the person of the victim.
Elements:
1. That there be several persons;

13
Kiddy and Mondy
2. That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each
other reciprocally;
3. That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner;
4. That someone was killed in the course of the affray;
5. That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased;
6. That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence can be identified
Tumultuous affray exists when at least four persons took part.
When there are two identified groups of men who assaulted each other, then there is no tumultuous affray.
When there was confusion in the fight and the person who inflicted the wounds could not be identified, the crime
is death caused in a tumultuous affray.
• In a case where although there is a group of four and a group of three on the one hand which seem to form
two groups, and a person died but it did not appear who inflicted the wound, such would fall under this
article because there was no unity of purpose and intention among the persons who used violence.
The person killed in the course of the affray need not be one of the participants in the affray.
If the one who inflicted the fatal wound is known, the crime is not homicide in the tumultuous affray. It is a case
of homicide under Art. 249 against the one inflicted the fatal wound.
The serious physical injuries, if inflicted by one of the participants, should noe be the cause of death of deceased.
Who are liable for death in a tumultuous affray?

1. The person or persons who inflicted the serious physical injuries are liable
2. If it is not known who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, all the persons who used
violence upon the person of the victim are liable, but with lesser liability.
After a free-for-all fight, one of the participants died the next day. There was no convincing evidence that it was
the knife which the accused wielded upon the body of the deceased. All the wounds sustained by the deceased
were inflicted by protagonists not composing groups. It was held that the accused, having used violence upon
the person of the decease in wielding the knife, was liable under the second paragraph of Art. 251.
Those who used violence upon the person of the victim are liable for death caused in a tumultuous affray only "if
it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased."
Art. 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. — When in a tumultuous affray as referred to in
the preceding article, only serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the participants thereof and the
person responsible thereof cannot be identified, all those who appear to have used violence upon the person
of the offended party shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that provided for the physical
injuries so inflicted.
When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious nature and the person responsible therefor cannot
be identified, all those who appear to have used any violence upon the person of the offended party shall be
punished by arresto mayor from five to fifteen days.

14
Kiddy and Mondy
Elements:
1. That there is a tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding article;
2. That a participant or some participants thereof suffer serious physical injuries or physical injuries of a
less serious nature ONLY;
3. That the person responsible cannot be identified;
4. That all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party are known.
Article only applies when in a tumultuous affray, ONLY serious or physical injuries of a less serious nature occur.
If a person is killed OR if the person who inflicted serious physical injuries be known, this article is not
applicable.
The injured party must be ONE or SOME of the participants in the affray, unlike in Art. 251.
Penalty is one degree lower than that provided for the physical injuries inflicted.
Only the one who used violence is liable.
There is no clear provision for SLIGHT physical injuries in a tumultuous affray. The second paragraph mentions
physical injuries of a less serious nature. It seems that they refer to less serious physical injuries.
• It being the intention of Legislature to provide a penalty one degree lower for crimes committed during a
tumultuous affray, and considering that the penalty for slight physical injuries is at most arresto menor,
and one degree lower than that is public censure, it is believed that in providing for the penalty of arresto
mayor from 5-15 days for physical injuries of a less serious in a tumultuous affray, the Leg. Intended to
EXCLUDE slight physical injuries.
Art. 253. Giving assistance to suicide. — Any person who shall assist another to commit suicide shall suffer
the penalty of prision mayor; if such person leads his assistance to another to the extent of doing the killing
himself, he shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. However, if the suicide is not consummated, the
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum periods, shall be imposed.
Acts punishable:
1. By assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is consummated or not.
2. By lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself.
Second sentence of Article 253 has reference to the FIRST WAY of giving assistance to suicide (only furnishing
the person to commit suicide the means with which to kill himself).
If the offender who lends his assistance performs acts to do the killing himself, and the suicide is NOT
CONSUMMATED, the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum in the second sentence should
NOT BE IMPOSED.

15
Kiddy and Mondy
The penalty one or two degrees lower than that provided for consummated suicide, where the assistance of
the offender consists of performing acts to do the killing himself, should be imposed, depending upon whether
it is frustrated or it is attempted suicide.9
Art. 253 does not distinguish and does not make any reference to the relation of the offender with the person
committing suicide.
A person who attempts to commit suicide is not criminally liable.
A pregnant woman who tried to commit suicide by means of poison, but instead of dying, the fetus in her womb is
not liable for abortion because in order to incur criminal liability for the result no intended, one must be
committing a felony. Committing suicide is not a felony.
What this article considers unlawful is assisting another to commit suicide.
Assistance to suicide is DIFFERENT from mercy-killing

• Euthanasia or mercy-killing is the practice of painlessly putting to death a person suffering from some
incurable disease.
• It is not lending assistance to suicide. In euthanasia, the person killed does not want to die. A doctor who
resorts to mercy-killing of his patient may be liable for murder.
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.
The act constituting the offense is shooting at another with any firearm, without intent to kill. If the firearm is not
discharged at a person, there is no crime of discharge of firearm.
Discharge towards the house of victim is NOT illegal discharge of firearm. It is essential for prosecution to prove
in a positive way that the discharged was directed precisely against the offended party.
Firing a gun against the house at random, not knowing in what part of the house where the people were is only
Alarm under Article 115.
There must be intention to kill.

• In this article, the purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or frighten the offended party.
• Intent to kill is negatived by distance of 200 yards between the victim and the offender.
9 Any person who shall assist another to commit suicide Æ prision mayor
If such person lends his assistance to another to the extent of doing the killing himself Æ reclusion temporal
If the suicide is not consummated - arresto mayor in medium and maximum period
16
Kiddy and Mondy
There is a complex crime of illegal discharge of firearm with serious or less serious physical injuries if the
offended party is hit and wounded by the illegal discharge.
The crime is discharge of firearm, even if the gun was not pointed at the offended party when it fires, as long as it
was initially aimed by the accused at or against the offended party.
Section Two. — Infanticide and abortion.
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.
Infanticide may be defined as the killing of any child less than three days of age, whether the killer is the parent,
grandparent or any other relative of the child or a stranger.
Elements:
1. That a child was killed;
2. That the deceased child was less than three days old;
3. That the accused killed said child.
The penalty is that for parricide or murder, but the name of the crime is always infanticide.
Father or mother or legitimate other ascendant who kills a child less than three days old suffers the penalty
corresponding to parricide.
Other person who kills a child less than three days old suffers the penalty corresponding to murder.
In a case wherein an unmarried woman, after giving birth to a live child, immediately and hastily left the house,
taking the infant with her and in a nearby place buried the child was held to be guilty because the body was
found to have abrasion on both sides of the nose probably caused by pressure exerted by another person. The
death might have been due to suffocation. Inasmuch as it was born alive and in a healthy condition, it is not
presumed, without some just reason that it died a natural death within the extremely short time that elapsed
between its birth and its burial. The facts proven clearly revealed her decided intent to kill the newly born
child in order to conceal her dishonor.
Concealing dishonor is not an element of infanticide; it merely mitigates the liability of the mother or maternal
grandparents who committed the crime.
Only the mother and maternal grandparents of the child are entitled to the mitigating circumstance of concealing
the dishonor.
• If mother Æ penalty is prision mayor in its medium and maximum
• If maternal grandparents Æ penalty is reclusion temporal

17
Kiddy and Mondy
• The accused who killed the newborn baby of his sister-in-law in order to conceal her dishonor, was
convicted of infanticide and sentenced to reclusion perpetua10
The delinquent mother must be of good reputation and good morals, in order that concealing dishonor may
mitigate her liability.
• If she is a prostitute, she is not entitled to a lesser penalty.
Stranger cooperating with the mother in killing a child less than three days old is guilty of infanticide also but the
penalty is that for murder.
No crime of homicide where the child was born dead or although born alive, it could no sustain an independent
life when it was killed.
Art. 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.
Abortion is the willful killing of the fetus in the uterus or the violent expulsion of the fetus from the material
womb which results in the death of the fetus.
Fetus must die in consummated abortion.

• If the fetus survives in spite of the attempt to kill it or the use of violence, abortion is not consummated.
If abortion is intended and the fetus does not die, it is frustrated intentional abortion when all acts of
execution have been performed by the offender.
• If abortion is not intended and the fetus does not die, in spite of the violence intentionally exerted, the
crime may only be physical injuries. There is NO FRUSTRATED UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION,
in view of lack of intention to cause abortion.
Fetus may be over or less than six months

• Under the RPC, abortion ordinarily means the expulsion of the fetus before the sixth month or before the
term of its viability, that is, capable of sustaining life.
• But, as long as the fetus dies as a result of the violence used or the drugs administered, the crime of
abortion exists, even if the fetus is full term.
Ways of committing intentional abortion:

1. By using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman
2. By acting, but without using violence, without the consent of the woman (By administering drugs or
beverages upon such pregnant woman without her consent)
10 People v Jaca and Rasalan, 55 Phil 952.

18
Kiddy and Mondy
Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman;
2. That violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the accused otherwise acts upon such
pregnant woman;
3. That as a result of the use of violence, drugs or beverages upon her, or any other act of the accused, the
fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom;
4. That the abortion is intended.
The person who intentionally caused the abortion is liable under Art. 256. The woman is liable under Art. 258, if
she consented to the abortion caused on her. If she did not consent, she is not liable.
Art. 256, par.3 which provides for the least penalty, "if the woman shall have consented" to the act causing the
abortion, should be construed in relation to that in par. 2 of Art. 256, because the absence of consent of the
woman is mentioned in connection with a case where the offender acted "without using violence."
Abortion distinguished from Infanticide
Abortion Infanticide
• Fetus acquired a human for and about six • Fetus could sustain an independent life after its
months old. separation from the maternal womb
• Did not have its own life, independently of the • Fetus dies
mother
• It could not subsist by itself, outside the
maternal womb
• It did not unite all the conditions for legal
viability
• Under these conditions, would necessarily
succumb a few moments after its expulsion
from the maternal womb
Art. 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.
Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman;
2. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion;
3. That the violence is intentionally exerted;
4. That as a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in the womb
Unintentional abortion is committed only by violence.

• Where a man pointed a gun to a pregnant woman threatening to kill her and because of the fright she
suffers an abortion, the offender is guilty of THREATS only.

19
Kiddy and Mondy
Violence must be intentionally exerted.
A truck driver who accidentally hit a calesa that caused the pregnant woman riding the calesa to have an abortion
three days after was liable for UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION THRU RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE.
Even though it was not the criminal intent of the defendant to cause the abortion, the fact that without any
apparent reason whatsoever, he maltreated T, presumably not knowing that she was pregnant, as author of the
abuse which caused the miscarriage, he is liable not only for such maltreatment but also for abortion.
Notwithstanding the fact that it was established by the prosecution that the woman was only two months
pregnant, which would mean that her condition was not noticeable at all and in the absence of a definite proof
that F knew of the pregnancy, in his favor must be considered that for the crime of abortion, even
unintentional, to be held committed, the accused must have known of the pregnancy.
Where the accused, in becoming angry with a pregnant woman, struck her with his fist, causing her to fall to the
ground and when she got up, hit her again a second time causing her to fall again resulting in a premature
delivery of one of her twin babies, the other not having been born because the woman died is liable for
HOMICIDE with UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION.11
However, mere boxing on the stomach, taken together with immediate strangling of the victim in a fight is not
sufficient proof to show an intent to cause abortion. In fact, the accused must have merely intended to kill the
victim but not necessarily to cause an abortion.12
A husband who with violence kills his pregnant wife, thus, occasioning the death of the fetus, is guilty of
PARRICIDE WITH UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION.
No intention to cause abortion, no violence, Art. 256 or 257 does not apply, no abortion of any kind.
Art. 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.
Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion;
2. That the abortion is intended;
3. That the abortion is caused by -

a. The pregnant woman herself;
b. Any other person, with the pregnant woman's consent;
11 People v Genoves, 33 O.G. 2201.

12 People v Salufrancia, 159 SCRA 401.

20
Kiddy and Mondy
c. Any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of concealing her dishonor.
Only the woman or any of her parents is liable under Art. 258, if the purpose of the latter is to conceal her
dishonor.
Liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if the purpose is to conceal her dishonor.
If committed by any of the parents of a pregnant woman and with consent of such woman to conceal her dishonor,
the penalty is the same as that for the woman who practiced abortion upon herself without such purpose of
concealing her dishonor.
• No mitigation for the parents of the pregnant woman, unlike in infanticide.
Art. 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
suffer arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion;
2. That the abortion is intended;
3. That the offender, who must be a physician or midwife, causes or assists in causing, the abortion;
4. That said physician or midwife takes advantage of his or her scientific knowledge or skill.
Penalty of Intentional Abortion is imposed in its maximum on the physician or midwife.

• This is so, because they incur a heavier guilt in making use of their knowledge for the destruction of
human life, where it should be used only for its preservation.
As to PHARMACISTS, the elements are:

1. That the offender is a pharmacist;
2. That there is no proper prescription from a physician;
3. That the offender dispenses any abortive.
This article does not require that the pharmacist knows that the abortive would be used to cause abortion. What is
punished is the dispensing of abortive without the proper prescription from a physician.
• If the physician knew that the abortive would be used to cause an abortion and abortion resulted from the
use, the physician would be an ACCOMPLICE in the crime of ABORTION.
• The act constituting the offense is dispensing abortive without the proper prescription from a physician.
NOT NECESSARY that the abortive be ACTUALLY USED.
Republic Act 4729 (June 28, 1966) regulates the sale, dispensation, and/or distribution of contraceptive drugs and
devices.

21
Kiddy and Mondy
§1 It shall be unlawful for any person, partnership or corporation to sell, dispense or otherwise distribute
whether for or without consideration, any contraceptive drug or device, unless such sale, dispensation or
distribution is by a duly licensed drug store or pharmaceutical company and with the prescription of a
qualified medical practitioner.
§2 For the purpose of this Act:

a. "Contraceptive drug" is any medicine, drug, chemical or potion which is used exclusively for the
purpose of preventing fertilization of the female ovum; and
b. "Contraceptive device" is any instrument, device, material or agent introduced into the female
reproductive system for the primary purpose of preventing contraception.
§3 Any person, partnership or corporation, violating the provision of this Act shall be punished with a fine of
not more than five hundred pesos or an imprisonment of not less than six months or more than one year or
both, in the discretion of the Court.
Section Three. — Duel
Art. 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.
Duel is a formal or regular combat previously concerted between two parties in the presence of two or more
seconds of lawful age on each side, who make the selection of arms and fix all the other conditions of the
fight.
Acts punished:
1. By killing one's adversary in a due.
2. By inflicting upon such adversary, physical injuries.
3. By making a combat although no physical injuries have been inflicted.
Who are liable in a duel?

1. The person who killed or inflicted physical injuries upon his adversary or both combatants in any other
case, as principals.
2. The seconds, as accomplices.
If death results, the penalty is the same as that of homicide.
Must the penalty be that for physical injuries only when the agreement is to fight to the death?
• Art. 260 makes no distinction and the rule is that we must not distinguish if the law does not distinguish.

22
Kiddy and Mondy
• The general principle is that when there is intent to kill, the inflicting of physical injuries is either
attempted or frustrated homicide. The penalty for duel, when a person kills his adversary is the same as
that for homicide because when death results, the intent to kill is conclusively presumed.
• When there is an agreement to fight to the death, there is intent to kill on the part of the combatants.
However, the Code disregards the intent to kill in considering the penalty for duel when only physical
injuries are inflicted.
If NO PHYSICAL INJURIES are inflicted in a duel, the penalty to be imposed upon the combatants is arresto
mayor. On the other hand, if a person inflicted upon his adversary in a duel, physical injuries only, he shall
suffer the penalty provided therefore, according to their nature.
• If a person inflicted slight physical injuries upon his adversary in a duel, the penalty is arresto menor and
not arresto mayor.
• Par. 3 applies only when no physical injuries are inflicted by either of the combatants on the other. In
which case, both of the combatants shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Art. 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.
Acts punished:
1. By challenging another to a duel.
2. By inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a duel.
3. By scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refuses to accept a challenge to fight a duel.
Persons responsible:
1. Challenger
2. Instigators
A challenge to fight, without contemplating a duel is not a "challenging to a duel." The person making the
challenge must have in mind a formal combat to be concerted between him and the one who challenged
in the presence of two or more seconds.
A person who had ill-feelings and moved by hatred, the accused challenged the offended party to a duel, inciting
the latter to accept said challenge by uttering: "Come down, let us measure your prowess, we shall see whose
intestine will come out. You are a coward if you do not come down." The offended party refused to come
down and accept the challenge. Later when the accused saw the offended party running toward a nearby
house, the accused chased him but desisted upon seeing that the offended party had a companion. The accused
was found guilty only of LIGHT THREATS.
Chapter Two
PHYSICAL INJURIES
What are the crimes of physical injuries?

1. Mutilation

23
Kiddy and Mondy
2. Serious Physical Injuries
3. Administering injurious substances or beverages
4. Less serious physical injuries
5. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment
Art. 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.
Mutilation means the lopping or clipping off of some part of the body.
• Putting out of an eye does not fall under this definition.
Two kinds of mutilation:

1. By intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential organ
for reproduction;
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.
Elements:
1. That there be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs necessary for generation, such as the penis or
ovarium;
2. That the mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of some
essential organ for reproduction.
Castration consists of the amputation of whatever organ is necessary for generation. The law could not fail to
punish with the utmost severity such a crime, which, although not destroying life, deprives a person of the
means to transmit it. But according to this article, in order for "castration" to exist, it is indispensable that the
"castration" be made purposely. The law does not look only to the result but also to the intention of the act.
• If by reason of an injury or attack, although voluntary, not being intentional to that end, it would not come
under the provision of this Article.
If the mutilation involves a part of the body, other than an organ for reproduction, such as the cutting of the outer
ear or arm of the offended party, with a deliberate purpose of depriving him of the part of his body, it is other
intentional mutilation, under the second paragraph of Art.262.
• "Mayhem" is the term used for "other mutilation"
The penalty when the victim of other intentional mutilation is under 12 years old shall be one degree higher than
that imposed by law.
The offender must bave the intention to deprive the offended party of a part of his body.
Art. 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:

24
Kiddy and Mondy
1. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the injured
person shall become insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind;
2. The penalty of prision 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 therefor habitually
engaged;
3. The penalty of prision 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 as habitually engaged for a period of more than ninety
days;
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision 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.
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 reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum periods; the case
covered by subdivision number 2 by prision correccional in its maximum period to prision mayor in its
minimum period; the case covered by subdivision number 3 by prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods; and the case covered by subdivision number 4 by prision 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.
How is the crime of serious physical injuries committed?

1. By wounding;
2. By beating; or
3. By assaulting; or
4. By administering injurious substances. (Art. 262)
The accused, while talking to X, drew X's bolo from its scabbard. X got hold of the blade of his bolo, wounding
himself. The accused was not found guilty of serious physical injuries because he did not wound, beat or
assault X.
Serious physical injuries may be committed by reckless imprudence or by simple imprudence or negligence.
What are serious physical injuries?

1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile, impotent, or blind in consequece of the injuries
inflicted;

25
Kiddy and Mondy
2. When the injured person (a) loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell or loses an eye, a
hand, a foot, an arm or a leg or (b) becomes incapacitated for work he was habitually engaged in as a
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted;
3. When the person injured (a) becomes deformed, or (b) loses any other member of his body, or (c) loses
the use thereof or (d) becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of work which he was habitually
engaged for more than 90 days
4. When the injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days [but must not be
more than 90 days], as a result of the injuries inflicted.
Art. 263 is divided with specifications, in each case, of (1) the consequence of the injuries inflicted, (2) the nature
and character of the wound inflicted, and (3) the proper penalty.
If there was intent to kill when the offender inflicted any of the serious physical injuries described, the crime
would be FRUSTRATED or ATTEMPTED murder, parricide or homicide, as the case may be.
Physical Injuries distinguished from Attempted or Frustrated Homicide:

Attempted or Frustrated
Physical Injuries
Homicide
Offender inflicts physical injuries. ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE may be committed even if
no physical injuries are inflicted.
The offender has NO INTENT TO KILL The offender has an INTENT TO KILL.
Since the effect is the same: loss of power to procreate, the term impotent should include inability to copulate and
sterility.
The penalty shall be one degree higher than that imposed by law when the victim is under 12 year of age as per
R.A. 7610.
Under par. 1, the blindness must be of two eyes.
Under par. 2, it covers the loss of one eye only.
Under par. 2, it must be the loss of power to hear of both ears.

• If loss of hearing is only as to one ear, it falls under par. 3.
The loss of use of hand or incapacity for habitual work under par. 2 must be PERMANENT.
All those mentioned in par. 2 are principal members of the body.
Par. 3 covers any other member of the body that is not principal member of the body, such as fingers.
• However, where it was alleged in the information and proved that the loss of the use of three fingers also
resulted in the loss of the use of the hand itself, it then falls under the 2 nd par.
It is a serious physical injury when the offended party becomes deformed.
DEFORMITY requires:
1. Physical ugliness;
2. Permanent and definite abnormality; and

26
Kiddy and Mondy
3. Conspicuous and visible.
Loss of teeth (three incisors) is a visible deformity but loss of one incisor does not constitute deformity.
However, loss of one tooth, which was visible and impaired the appearance of the victim is deformity.
A front tooth is a member of the body, other than a principal member within the meaning of par 3
Loss of both outer ears constitutes deformity. But if there is loss of power to hear of both ears as a result of the
loss of both outer ears, the crime is punished under par. 2.
The loss of the lobule of the ear is deformity.
Loss of index and middle finger is either deformity or loss of a member (not principal one) of his body or use of
the same.
Loss of power to hear on the right ear only is loss of use of other part of body under par. 3.
There is illness (according to par. 3 and 4) for a certain period of time, when the wound inflicted did not heal
within that period.
• It would seem that if the injury would require medical attendance for more than 30 days, the illness may
be considered as lasting for more than 30 days. The fact that there was medical attendance for that period
of time shows that the injuries were not cured for that length of time.
Note that the incapacity of the offended party refers to the work "in which he was habitually engaged."
• Under par. 2 and 3, at least, the offended party must have an avocation or work at the time of the injury.
• "Work" includes studies or preparation for a profession
• Incapacity for a certain kind of work only, but not for all is a serious physical injury under par. 2 or 3.
• The incapacity must show that the physical injury has rendered the offended party incapable of working
in the fields which was the occupation in which at the time he had been habitually engaged.
Paragraph 4 speaks of incapacity for any kind of labor. It does not refer to labor in which the offended party is
engaged at the time the serious physical injuries were inflicted. The incapacity is for ANY KIND OF
LABOR.
Injury requiring hospitalization for more than 30 days is serious physical injuries under par. 4.
Where the category of the offense of serious physical injuries depends on the period of illness or incapacity for
labor, there must be evidence of the length of that period; otherwise, the offense is only slight physical
injuries.
There is no incapacity if the injured party could still engage in his work although less effectively than before.
Ordinary physical injuries distinguished from mutilation
Mutilation Physical Injuries

Caused purposely and deliberately to lop or clip off This special intention is not present in the different
some part of the body so as to deprive the offended kinds of physical injuries.

27
Kiddy and Mondy
part of such part of the body
QUALIFIED SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES is committed against any of the persons enumerated in the
article defining parricide or with the attendance of any of the circumstances mentioned in the article defining
murder.
• HOWEVER, serious physical injuries by excessive chastisement by parents are not qualified.
Art. 264. Administering injurious substances or beverages. — The penalties established by the next
preceding article shall be applicable in the respective case to any person who, without intent to kill, shall
inflict upon another any serious, physical injury, by knowingly administering to him any injurious
substance or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity.
Elements:
1. That the offender inflicted upon another any serious physical injury;
2. That it was done by knowingly administering to him any injurious substances or beverages or by taking
advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity;
3. That he had no intent to kill.
If the offender had any intention to kill, the crime would be frustrated murder, the injurious substance to be
considered as poison.
If the accused did not know of the injurious substances he administered, he is not liable under this article.
Administering injurious substance means the introducing into the body the substance.
• Throwing mordant chemicals or poisons on the face or upon the body is not contemplated in this article
because it is not administering.
This article does not apply when the physical injuries that result are less serious or slight because if specifically
mentioned "any serious physical injuries"
"Taking advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity" may take place in the case of witchcraft, philters,
magnetism, etc.
Art. 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 assistance 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 kill 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 prision 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 person.
Matters to be noted in the crime of LESS SERIOUS physical injuries:

28
Kiddy and Mondy
1. That the offended party is incapacitated for labor for ten days or more (but not more than 30 days) or
needs medical attendance for the same period of time.
2. That the physical injuries must not be those described in the preceding articles.
Qualified less serious physical injuries

1. A fine not exceeding P500, in addition to arresto mayor, shall be imposed for less serious physical
injuries when:
a. There is a manifest intent to insult or offend the injured person, or
b. There are circumstances adding ignominy o the offense;
2. A higher penalty is imposed when the victim is either:

a. The offender's parents, ascendants, guardians, curators or teachers; or
b. Persons of rank or persons in authority, provided the crime is not direct assault.
Medical attendance or incapacity is required in less serious physical injuries
The crime is less serious physical injuries even if there was no incapacity, but medical treatment was for 13 days.
Physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work or require medical
attendance are classified as SLIGHT. This is true even if the injuries were cured, but without medical
attendance.
• But suppose the injuries, without medical attendance, were healed only after two months, it may be
considered as illness for 30 days and thus SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES.
Art. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. — The crime of slight physical injuries shall be
punished:
1. By 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 20 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 assistance.
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.
Three kinds of slight physical injuries:

1. Physical injuries which incapacitated the offended party for labor from one to nine days or required
medical attendance during the same period;
2. Physical injuries which do not prevent the offended party from engaging in his habitual work or which
did not require medical attendance;
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury.
A physical injury which incapacitates the offended party from working for 9 days and some hours without
amounting to 10 days, is a slight physical injury.

29
Kiddy and Mondy
Examples: contusion on the face or black eye
In the absence of evidence to show actual injury, as when the deceased died of other causes and there is no
evidence as to how many days the deceased lived after the injury, the crime is only slight physical injury, it
appearing that the wounds inflicted by the accused could not have caused death.
Any physical violence which does not produce injury, such as slapping the face of the offended party, without
causing dishonor, is slight physical injury
Where the original information was for slight physical injuries, in the belief of the fiscal that the wound suffered
by the accused would heal after 8 days but in the preliminary investigation conducted by the justice of the
peace, it was found that the wound would heal after 30 days, the act which converted the crime into a more
serious one had SUPERVENED after the filing of the original information, this supervening event can still be
the subject of AMENDMENT or of a NEW CHARGE without necessarily placing the accused in double
jeopardy.
The jurisdiction of the RTC by virtue of the appeal is limited to the crime object of the judgment, from which the
appeal has been taken. It has no jurisdiction to impose a sentence on the accused, on appeal from the MTC
over which the MTC has no jurisdiction.
Article 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 any of the circumstances mentioned in paragraph 1 hereof, shall commit an
act of sexual assault by inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument
or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Article 266-B. Penalty - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article shall be punished by reclusion
perpetua.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall become
reclusion perpetua to death
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
shall be reclusion perpetua to death.

30
Kiddy and Mondy
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be death
The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed with any of the following
aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
l) When the victim is under eighteen (18) years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree, or the common-
law spouse of the parent of the victim;
2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement
or penal institution;
3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the children or other
relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity;
4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is
personally known to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime;
5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus
(HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or any other sexually transmissible disease
and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim;
7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or para-military units
thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law enforcement agency or penal institution, when
the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical
mutilation or disability;
9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of the commission of
the crime; and
10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap
of the offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by prision mayor.
Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two or more persons, the penalty
shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become insane, the penalty shall be reclusion
temporal
When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua.
When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the penalty shall be reclusion
perpetua

31
Kiddy and Mondy
Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the ten aggravating/ qualifying
circumstances mentioned in this article.
Elements of Rape under par. 1 (Rape of the 1 st kind):

1. That the offender is a man;
2. That the offender had carnal knowledge of a woman;
3. That such act is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:

a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c. By means of fraudulent machinations or grave abuse of authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.
Elements of Rape under par. 2 (Rape of the 2 nd kind):

1. That the offender commits an act of sexual assault;
2. That the act of sexual assault is committed by any of the following means:
a. By inserting his penis into another person's mouth or anal orifice; or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice of another person;
3. That the act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or demented.
Under RA 8353, the crime of rape can now be committed by a male or a female. Before its amendment, rape
could only be committed by a male person.
Under par. 1, there must be sexual intercourse:

• Penetration, even partial is necessary
• Slightest penetration is enough
• Proof of emission is not necessary
• Absence of spermatozoa does not negative rape
• If there is no sexual intercourse and only acts of lewdness, the crime may be acts of lasciviousness only.
Only one of the four circumstances mentioned in par. 1 is sufficient.

32
Kiddy and Mondy
Degree of force necessary to constitute rape
• A verbal refusal alone will not do. There must be physical struggle, taxing her powers to the utmost.
Thus, mere initial resistance of the offended party is not manifest and tenacious resistance that the law
requires.
• ***NOTE*** as per Atty. Padilla's lectures, as far as we remember, this is no longer the case because
resistance is not an element of rape. Please clarify.
• Force need not be irresistible. It need but be present and so long as it brings the desired result, all
considerations of whether it was more or less irresistible is beside the point.
Force employed against the victim of rape need not be of such character as could be resisted. It is enough that the
force used is sufficient to consummate the culprit's purpose. The force or violence necessary in rape is
naturally a relative term, depending on age, size, and strength of the parties and their relation to each other.
Rape by employing intimidation

• In a case where a girl, thirteen years old, an immature teenager who could easily be coerced or cowed by
a big old farmer and former security guard who had a brother who was a policeman is not far from that of
an eleven year old girl with whom voluntary carnal knowledge is considered rape.
• Intimidation includes the moral kind such as the fear caused by threatening the girl with a knife or a
pistol.
When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence over the girl, it is not necessary that she put up a
determined resistance.
Rape may be proved by the uncorroborated testimony of the offended woman.

• In reviewing the evidence in a prosecution for rape, three well-known principles should guide an appellate
court:
a. That an accusation for rape can be made with facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult for
the person accused, though innocent, to disprove;
b. That in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of rape, where only two persons are usually
involved, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized with extreme caution;
c. That the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be allowed
to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
• Where the testimony coming from the offended party is firm, categorical and straightforward, her
clothing, including the most intimate garments, soiled and smudged, ripped and torn, which are mute
witness of the futile resistance she put up, the accused should be convicted on the basis of the testimony.
• But where the complainant did not shout despite the presence of student boarders and patients in the clinic
at the time of the alleged rape, her testimony which is uncorroborated cannot support the conviction of the
accused.
Offended person deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious:
• In this circumstance, the victim has no will.

• Sex with an insane woman was considered rape in People v Layson.

33
Kiddy and Mondy
• Cohabitation with feebleminded, idiotic woman is rape. The deprivation of reason contemplated by law
does not need to be complete.
• Mental abnormality or deficiency is sufficient.
• Intercourse with a deaf-mute woman is NOT RAPE, in the absence of proof that she is an imbecile.
• The following were considered rape because the woman is unconscious:
a. Carnal act while the offended party was asleep or before the woman awoke
b. When the woman was in a lethargy produced by sickness
c. After the woman was knocked unconscious
d. When narcotic was administered to the woman

BUT, where consent is induced by the administration of drugs or liquor, which incites her
passions but does not deprive her of her will power, the accused is not guilty of rape.
e. When a potion is given to a woman

It is rape if a potion is given and as a result, she felt dizzy, weak and experienced a
sudden loss of control over her person and was thereafter abused.
For the consummation of rape, it is not essential that there be a complete penetration, neither is it essential that
there be a rupture of the hymen.
There is no crime of FRUSTRATED RAPE. The moment the offender has carnal knowledge, he actually attains
his purpose and from that moment also, all the essential elements of rape have been accomplished. Nothing
more is left to be done.
Necessarily, rape is ATTEMPTED if there is no penetration of the female organ because not all acts of execution
was performed. The offender merely commenced the commission of a felony directly by overt acts.
The case of People v Erinia, where it was committed upon a three-year old girl, there being no evidence of
penetration of her genital organ, is a stray decision, as stated in the case of People v Orita.
Attempted rape was committed by the accused after raising the dress of the woman who was then asleep and
placing himself on top of her, and when the woman was awakened the accused threatened her with a knife,
but because of her continued shouting and offering of resistance, a neighbor came to her rescue.13
• Note that in this case, there was intent on the part of the accused to have carnal knowledge.
In another case, taking advantage of the fact that the woman was asleep, the accused had carnal knowledge. His
defense that the woman consented because when she woke up she made no resistance was futile, as the crime
had already been consummated.
When a girl is under 12 year old:

1. Where the offended party is less than twelve years old, rape is committed ALTHOUGH she consented.
2. Sexual intercourse with a 9 year old girl
3. It is committed even if the girl under 12 is a prostitute.
Character of the offended woman in rape is IMMATERIAL
13 People v Tayaba, 62 Phil 559.

34
Kiddy and Mondy
Multiple rape by two or more offenders

• In a case where Z pointed a gun at Y while X rapes her and then in turn, X pointed the gun on Y as Z
raped Y were each guilty to suffer two sentences.
When rape is punished by death (prior to the abolition of the Death Penalty):
1. When by reason or on occasion of the rape, a homicide is committed
2. When the victim is under eighteen years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, stepparent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil degree or the common-law spouse of
the parent of victim
3. When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities or any law enforcement or penal
institution
4. When the rape is committed in full view of the husband, parent, any of the children or other relatives
within the third civil degree of consanguinity
5. When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or calling and is personally known
to be such by the offender before or at the time of the commission of the crime
6. When the victim is a child below 7 years old
7. When the offender knows that he is afflicted with HIV/AIDS or any other sexually transmissible disease
(STD) and the virus or disease is transmitted to the victim
8. When committed by any member of the AFP or paramilitary unit or the PNP or any other law
enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of his position to facilitate the
commission of the crime
9. When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered permanent physical mutilation or
disability
10. When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the time of commission of the crime
11. When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder and/or physical handicap of the
offended party at the time of the commission of the crime.
Rape with homicide is a special complex crime like robbery with homicide, in view of the amendment to Art.
335.
When the homicide is committed NOT by reason or on the occasion of the rape
• Where the accused murdered two sisters and as the elder sister was dying, the accused had carnal
intercourse with her was held to be not the special complex crime of rape with homicide, since the victim
was already at the threshold of death when she was ravished. That bestiality may be regarded either as a
form of ignominy causing disgrace or as a form of cruelty which aggravated the murder, it being
unnecessary to the commission thereof. The accused was held guilty for two counts of murder
Rape with homicide can be committed by a rapist who was suffering from gonorrhea, infected the victim who
died as a result thereof.
Table of Penalties for Rape:

35
Kiddy and Mondy
2 nd kind
Rape… 1 st kind
Prision mayor
Committed under any of the four circumstances Reclusion perpetua
Prision mayor to
Committed with the use of a deadly weapon, or Reclusion perpetua to
Reclusion temporal
By two or more persons death
Reclusion perpetua to Reclusion temporal

Where the victim becomes insane
Death (?)
Reclusion temporal to
Reclusion perpetua to
Attempted rape and homicide is committed Reclusion perpetua
Death (?)
Reclusion perpetua
With homicide Death (?)
Death (?) Reclusion temporal

With aggravating/qualifying circumstances
Indemnity in Rape
• The award of P50, 000 as indemnity ex-delicto is MANDATORY upon the finding of the fact of rape14
• If the circumstance of rape is committed or effectively qualified by any of the circumstances under which
death penalty is authorized by the present amended law, the indemnity shall be increased but not less than
P75,000.
Indemnity in Rape with Homicide follows the rule that the victim of rape with homicide should be awarded the
amount of P100, 000.
Moral damages in the amount of P50, 000 is to be automatically awarded in rape cases without need of proof.
• It may be awarded to the victim in such amount as the court deems just, without necessity for pleading or
proof of mental or physical suffering other than the commission of the offense.
Exemplary damages may be awarded in criminal cases as part of the civil liability if the crime was committed by
one or more aggravating circumstances.
Article 266-C Effect of Pardon - The subsequent valid marriage between the offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty: Provided, that the crime shall not be extinguished
or the penalty shall not be abated if the marriage is void ab initio.
Effects of marriage:
• Marriage extinguishes not only the penal action, but likewise the penalty that may be imposed.
• ***In crimes against chastity, such effect benefits not only the principals but also the accomplices and
accessories. However, since rape has ceased to be a crime against chastity, but is now a crime against
persons, it now appears that marriage extinguishes that penal action and the penalty only as to the
principal and not as to the accomplices and accessories.
14 People v Tano, GR# 133872 [2000]; People v Maglente, 306 SCRA 546 [1999].

36
Kiddy and Mondy
• Further, this principle does not apply where multiple rape is committed, because while marriage with one
defendant extinguishes the criminal liability, its benefits cannot be extended to the acts committed by the
others of which he is a co-principal.
Rape by husband
• Prior to RA 8353, a husband cannot be guilty of raping his wife because of the matrimonial consent
which she gave when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law will not permit her to retract in order
to charge her husband with the offense.
• 2 nd par. of 266-C of RA 8353 is explicit in providing that a husband may be guilty of rape of his wife.
• In such a case, the subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or the penalty, provided that the crime shall nt be extinguished or the penalty shall not be abated if
the marriage is void ab initio.
Article 266-D Presumptions. - Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any
degree from the offended party, or where the offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable
of giving valid consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished under Article
266-A.
Evidence which may be accepted in the prosecution of rape:

1. Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the act of rape in any degree from the offended
party; or
Where the offended party is so situated as to render him/her incapable of giving consent
Crimes Against Persons
Complex Crime; Homicide w/ Assault-Authority (1995)
Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where he resided. Renato, a resident of the
neighboring Barangay Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he often brought to Barangay
Napnud to thresh the palay of the farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual, One afternoon
Pascual, and his two sons confronted Renato and his men who were operating their mobile rice thresher
along a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A barangay captain who was fetched by one of
Pascual's men tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent confrontation. However, Pascual
resented the intervention of the barangay captain and hacked him to death. What crime was committed
by Pascual? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a person in authority (Arts. 148 and
249 in relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law (Art. 152), a person in authority and if he
is attacked while in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion thereof the felony of direct
assault is committed.
Art. 48, RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single act produces two or more grave or less grave
felonies, a complex crime is committed. Here, the single act of the offender in hacking the victim to death
resulted in two felonies, homicide which is grave and direct assault which is less grave.
Complex Crime; Parricide w/ unintentional abortion (1994)
Aldrich was dismissed from his Job by his employer. Upon reaching home, his pregnant wife, Carmi,
nagged him about money for her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and angered by the nagging of his
wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with his fist. She fell to the ground. As a result, she and her unborn baby died.
What crime was committed by Aldrich?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with unintentional abortion. When Aldrich struck his wife, Carmi,
with his fist, he committed the crime of maltreatment under Art, 266, par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code,
Since Carmi died because of the felonious act of Aldrich, he is criminally liable of parricide under Art. 246,
RPC in relation to Art. 4, par. 1 of the same Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi died in the process, but
Aldrich had no intention to cause the abortion of his wife, Aldrich committed unintentional abortion as
defined in Art. 257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single act of Aldrich produced two grave or less grave felonies,
he falls under Art, 48, RPC, ie. a complex crime (People vs. Salufrancia, 159 SCRA 401).
Criminal Liabilities; Rape; Homicide & Theft (1998 No)

37
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura offered him a drink and after consuming three
bottles of beer. King made advances to her and with force and violence, ravished her. Then King killed
Laura and took her jewelry.
Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body,
cleaned everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the
jewelry was taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000. What crime or crimes did King,
Doming and Jose commit? Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide as a single indivisible offense, not a complex
crime, and Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is already dead is only theft.
Criminal Liability; Tumultous Affray (1997)
During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in the public plaza. As a result of the tumultuous affray, A
sustained one fatal and three superficial stab wounds. He died a day after. B, C, D and E were proven to
be participants in the "rumble", each using a knife against A, but it could not be ascertained who among
them inflicted the mortal injury. Who shall be held criminally liable for the death of A and for what?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B, C, D, and E being participants in the tumultuous affray and having been proven to have inflicted serious
physical injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are criminally liable for the latter's death. And
because it cannot be ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury on A, there being a free-for-
all fight or tumultuous affray. B, C, D, and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a tumultuous
affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal Code.
Criminal Liability; Tumultuous Affray (2003)
In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some customers inside a night club became unruly, guns were
fired by a group, among them A and B, that finally put the customers back to their senses. Unfortunately,
one customer died. Subsequent investigation revealed that A's gunshot had inflicted on the victim a slight
wound that did not cause the deceased's death nor materially contribute to it. It was B's gunshot that
inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. A contended that his liability should, if at all, be limited to slight
physical injury. Would you agree? Why? 6%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I beg to disagree with A's contention that his liability should be limited to slight physical injury only.
He should be held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted said injury with the use of a firearm
which is a lethal weapon. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of a firearm. (Araneta, Jr. v. Court of Appeals,
187 SCRA 123 [1990])
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, I would agree to A's contention that his criminal liability should be for slight physical injury only,
because he fired his gun only to pacify the unruly customers of the night club and therefore, without
intent to kill. B's gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased may not be imputed to A because
conspiracy cannot exist when there is a free-for-all brawl or tumultuous affray. A and B are liable only for
their respective act
Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2001)
A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as a security guard at Landmark, his shift being from 11:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m. One night, he felt sick and cold, hence, he decided to go home around midnight after
getting permission from his duty officer. Upon reaching the front yard of his home, he noticed that the
light in the master bedroom was on and that the bedroom window was open. Approaching the front door,
he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the bedroom. He opened the door very carefully and
peeped inside where he saw his wife B having sexual intercourse with their neighbor
C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the latter managed to wrest himself free and jumped out of the
window, A followed suit and managed to catch C again and after a furious struggle, managed also to
strangle him to death. A then rushed back to his bedroom where his wife B was cowering under the bed
covers. Still enraged, A hit B with fist blows and rendered her unconscious. The police arrived after being
summoned by their neighbors and arrested A who was detained, inquested and charged for the death of C
and serious physical Injuries of B. a) Is A liable for C's death? Why? (5%) b) Is A liable for B's
injuries? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised
Penal Code, where only destierro is prescribed. Article 247 governs since A surprised his wife B in the act
of having sexual intercourse with C, and the killing of C was "Immediately thereafter" as the discovery,
escape, pursuit and killing of C form one continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194)
b) Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries he inflicted on his wife B but under the same
exceptional circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, for the same reasons.
Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2005)
Pete, a security guard, arrived home late one night after rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Flor,
his wife, and Benjie, his best friend, completely naked having sexual intercourse. Pete pulled out his
service gun and shot and killed Benjie. Pete was charged with murder for the death of Benjie. Pete
contended that he acted in defense of his honor and that, therefore, he should be acquitted of the crime.
The court found that Benjie died under exceptional circumstances and exonerated Pete of the crime, but
sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code. The court also
ordered Pete to pay indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of P50,000.00. (5%)
Is the defense of Pete meritorious? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A person who commits acts penalized under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code for death or serious
physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances is still criminally liable. However, this is merely
an exempting circumstance when the victim suffers any other kind of physical injury. In the case at bar,
Pete will suffer the penalty of destierro for the death of Benjie.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. Pete did not act in defense of his honor. For this defense to apply under Art. 11, there must be an
unlawful aggression which is defined as an attack or material aggression that poses a danger to his life or
personal safely. It must be a real aggression characterized by a physical force or with a weapon to cause
injury or damage to one's life. (People v. Nahayra, G.R. Nos. 96368-69, October 17, 1991; People v.
Housing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991)
Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, is destierro a penalty? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the case of People v. Abarca, G.R. No. 74433, September 14, 1987, the Court ruled that Article 247
does not define a felony. However, it went on to state that the penalty is merely banishment of the
accused, intended for his protection. Punishment, therefore, is not inflicted on the accused.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code does not define and provide for a specific crime but grants a
privilege or benefit to the accused for the killing of another or the infliction of Serious Physical Injuries.
Destierro is a punishment whereby a convict is banished to a certain place and is prohibited from entering
or coming near that place designated in the sentence, not less than 25 kms. (People v. Araquel, G.R. No.
L-12629, December 9, 1959)
Did the court correctly order Pete to pay indemnity despite his exoneration under Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because the privilege defined under this Article exempts the offender from criminal liability but not
from civil liability. (People v. Abarca, G.R, No. L-74483, September 14, 1987; Art. 12, Revised Penal
Code)
Homicide; Fraustrated; Physical Injuries (1994)
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay, Mamerto's son,
saw Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his abdomen. Mamerto heard the
commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered
injuries which, were it not for the timely medical attendance, would have caused his death. Mamerto
sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25 days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less
serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated homicide ...
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay because he had already performed all the
acts of execution which would have produced the intended felony of homicide were it not for causes
independent of the act of Dante. Dante had the intent to kill judging from the weapon used, the manner of
committing the crime and the part of the body stabbed. Dante is guilty of less serious physical injuries for
the wounds sustained by Mamerto. There appears to be no intent to kill because Dante merely assaulted
Mamerto without using the knife.
Infanticide (2006)
Ana has been a bar girl/GRO at a beer house for more than 2 years. She fell in love with Oniok, the
bartender, who impregnated her. But Ana did not inform him about her condition and instead, went home
to Cebu to conceal her shame. However, her parents drove her away. So she returned to Manila and
stayed with Oniok in his boarding house. Upon learning of her pregnancy, already in an advanced state,
Oniok tried to persuade her to undergo an abortion, but she refused. Because of their constant and bitter
quarrels, she suffered birth pangs and gave birth prematurely to a live baby girl while Oniok was at his
place of work. Upon coming home and learning what happened, he prevailed upon Ana to conceal her
dishonor. Hence, they placed the infant in a shoe box and threw it into a nearby creek. However, an
inquisitive neighbor saw them and with the help of others, retrieved the infant who was already dead from
drowning. The incident was reported to the police who arrested Ana and Oniok. The 2 were charged with
parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal Code. After trial, they were convicted of the crime
charged. Was the conviction correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The conviction of Ana and Oniok is not correct. They are liable for infanticide because they killed a child
less than three days of age (Art. 255, Revised Penal Code).
Murder & Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165 (2005)
Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally bumped him. The innocent bystander died as a
result of the stabbing. Candido was arrested and was tested to be positive for the use of “shabu” at the
time he committed the stabbing. What should be the proper charge against Candido? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances enumerated under Article 248 of the
Revised Penal Code. The killing, however, constitutes murder because the commission of a crime under
the influence of prohibited drugs is a qualifying, aggravating circumstance. (Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165)
Murder (1999)
The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously shot the victim while the victim was turning his
back to him. He aimed at and hit the victim only on the leg. The victim, however, died because of loss of
blood. Can the accused be liable for homicide or murder, considering that treachery was clearly involved
but there was no attempt to kill? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused is liable for the death of the victim even though he merely aimed and fired at the latter's leg,
"not intending to kill the victim", considering that the gunshot was felonious and was the proximate cause
of death. An offender is liable for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his felonious act
although different from what he intended. However, since specific intent to kill is absent, the crime for
said death is only homicide and not murder (People vs. Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The accused is liable for the death of the victim in as much as his act of shooting the victim at the leg is
felonious and is the proximate cause of death. A person performing a felonious act is criminally liable for
all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of such act although different from what he intended. And
since such death was attended by treachery, the same will constitute murder but the accused should be
given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that
which was committed (Art. 13(3), RPC)
Murder; Definition & Elements (1999)
Define murder. What are the elements of the crime? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which otherwise would constitute only homicide, had it not
been attended by any of the following circumstances:
1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior strength, or with the aid of armed men, or employing
means to weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of
any other means involving great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public
calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging or
scoffing at his person or corpse.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The elements of murder are: (1) that a person was unlawfully killed; (2) that such a killing was
attended by any of the above-mentioned circumstances; (3) that the killing is not parricide nor infanticide;
and (4) that the accused killed the victim.
Murder; Evident Premeditation (1996)
Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge against Jorge who refused to marry their sister Lorna,
after the latter got pregnant by Jorge. After weeks of surveillance, they finally cornered Jorge in Ermita,
Manila, when the latter was walking home late at night. Fidel and Fred forcibly brought Jorge to
Zambales where they kept him hog-tied in a small nipa house located in the middle of a rice field. Two
days later, they killed Jorge and dumped his body into the river. What crime or crimes did Fidel and Fred
commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under Art 248, RPC, the killing being qualified by evident
premeditation. This is due to the long standing grudge entertained by the two accused occasioned by the
victim's refusal to marry their sister after impregnating her.
In People vs. Alfeche. 219 SCRA 85, the intention of the accused is determinative of the crime committed.
Where the intention is to kill the victim and the latter is forcibly taken to another place and later killed, it
is murder. There is no indication that the offenders intended to deprive the victim of his liberty. Whereas,
if the victim is kidnapped, and taken to another situs and killed as an afterthought, it is kidnapping with
homicide under Art. 267, RPC.
Murder; Homicide; Infanticide; Parricide (1999)
A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived without benefit of clergy, (2) their child who was only two days
old, (3) their daughter, and (4) their adopted son. What crime or crimes did A commit? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the following crimes:
1.] HOMICIDE or murder as the case may be, for the killing of his common-law wife who is not
legally considered a "spouse"
2.] INFANTICIDE for the killing of the child as said child is less than three (3) days old. (Art. 255,
RPC) However, the penalty corresponding to parricide shall be imposed since A is related to the child
within the degree defined in the crime of parricide.
3.] PARRICIDE for the killing of their daughter, whether legitimate or illegitimate, as long as she is
not less than three (3) days old at the time of the killing.
4.] MURDER for the killing of their adopted son as the relationship between A and the said son must
be by blood in order for parricide to arise.
Murder; Reckles Imprudence (2001)
Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his ten-year old grandson along Paseo de Roxas and
decided to cross at the intersection of Makati Avenue but both were hit by a speeding CRV Honda van and
were sent sprawling on the pavement a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo, stopped his car after
hitting the two victims but then reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose's prostrate body anew and
third time by advancing his car forward. The grandson suffered broken legs only and survived but Mang
Jose suffered multiple fractures and broken ribs, causing his instant death. The driver was arrested and
charged with Murder for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical Injuries through Reckless
Imprudence with respect to the grandson. Are the charges correct? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the charges are correct. For deliberately running over Mang Jose's prostrate body after having
bumped him and his grandson, the driver indeed committed Murder, qualified by treachery. Said driver's
deliberate intent to kill Mang Jose was demonstrated by his running over the latter's body twice, by
backing up the van and driving it forward, whereas the victim was helpless and not in a position to defend
himself or to retaliate.
As to the serious physical injuries sustained by Mang Jose's 10-year old grandson, as a result of having
been hit by the speeding vehicle of said driver, the same were the result of reckless imprudence which is
punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the Revised Penal Code. The charge of Reckless
Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries is correct. The penalty next higher in degree to what
ordinarily should be imposed is called for, since the driver did not lend help on the spot, which help he
could have given to the victims.
Murder; Treachery (1995)
On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found himself surrounded by four men. One of
them wrestled the police officer to the ground and disarmed him while the other three companions who
were armed with a hunting knife, an ice pick, and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him. The policeman died
as a result of the multiple stab wounds inflicted by his assailants. What crime or crimes were committed?
Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified by treachery, (which absorbed abuse of
superior strength) as the attack was sudden and unexpected and the victim was totally defenseless.
Conspiracy is obvious from the concerted acts of the assailants. Direct assault would not complex the
crime, as there is no showing that the assailants knew that the victim was a policeman; even if there was
knowledge, the fact is that he was not in the performance of his official duties, and therefore there is no
direct assault.
Murder; Use of Illegal Firearms (2004)
PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for Mayor of their town. The Information against PH
alleged that he used an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim, and this was proved beyond
reasonable doubt by the prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two crimes: murder and illegal
possession of firearms. Is the conviction correct? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal possession of firearm is not correct. Under the
new law on illegal possession of firearms and explosives, Rep. Act No. 8294, a person may only be
criminally liable for illegal possession of firearm if no other crime is committed therewith; if a homicide or
murder is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
PH therefore may only be convicted of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in its commission may
only be appreciated as a special aggravating circumstance, provided that such use is alleged specifically in
the information for Murder.
Parricide (1999)
Who may be guilty of the crime of parricide? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Any person who kills his father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or his ascendants or
descendants, or spouse, shall be guilty of parricide. (Art. 246, RPC)
Parricide (1999)
In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, abandoned his wife and their son, Ricky, who was then only
three years old. Twenty years later, an affray took place in a bar in Olongapo City between Pedro and his
companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his friends, upon the other, without the father and son knowing
each other. Ricky stabbed and killed Pedro in the fight, only to find out, a week later, when his mother
arrived from Manila to visit him in jail, that the man whom he killed was his own father. 1) What crime did
Ricky commit? Explain. 2) Suppose Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his father, but he
nevertheless killed him out of bitterness for having abandoned him and his mother, what crime did Ricky
commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Ricky committed parricide because the person killed was his own father, and the law punishing the
crime (Art. 246, RPC) does not require that the crime be "knowingly" committed. Should Ricky be
prosecuted and found guilty of parricide, the penalty to be imposed is Art. 49 of the Revised Penal Code
for Homicide (the crime he intended to commit) but in its maximum period.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Ricky should be held criminally liable only for homicide not parricide because the relationship which
qualified the killing to parricide is virtually absent for a period of twenty years already, such that Ricky
could not possibly be aware that his adversary was his father. In other words, the moral basis for
imposing the higher penalty for parricide is absent.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) The crime committed should be parricide if Ricky knew before the killing that Pedro is his father,
because the moral basis for punishing the crime already exists. His having acted out of bitterness for
having been abandoned by his father may be considered mitigating.
Parricide; Multiple Parricide; Homicide (1997)
A, a young housewife, and B, her paramour, conspired to kill C. her husband, to whom she was lawfully
married, A and B bought pancit and mixed it with poison. A gave the food with poison to C, but before C
could eat it. D, her illegitimate father, and E, her legitimate son, arrived.
C. D and E shared the food in the presence of A who merely watched them eating. C, D and E died
because of having partaken of the poisoned food. What crime or crimes did A and B commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of multiple parricide for the killing of C, her lawful husband, D, her illegitimate
father, and E, her legitimate son. All these killings constitute parricide under Article 246 of the Revised
Penal Code because of her relationship with the victims.
B committed the crime of murder as a co-conspirator of A in the killing of C because the killing was carried
out by means of poison (Art. 248. par. 3, Revised Penal Code). But for feloniously causing the death of D
and E, B committed two counts of homicide. The plan was only to kill C.
Rape (1995)
Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him. He then violently threw her on the floor and
forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. As a result Alma suffered serious physical injuries.
(a) Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain.
(b) Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries? Explain
(c) Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before the incident Gavino and Alma were legally
separated? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his wife because of the matrimonial consent which
she gave when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law will not permit her to retract in order to
charge her husband with the offense (Sate vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So. 372; 441 RA 837).
(b) Yes, he may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This offense is specially mentioned in Art. 263 [4],
paragraph 2 which imposes a higher penalty for the crime of physical injuries in cases where the offense
shall have been committed against any of the persons enumerated in Art 246 (the crime of parricide).
(c) No, my answer will not be the same. If Gavino, and Alma were legally separated at the time of the
incident, then Gavino could be held liable for rape.
A legal separation is a separation of the spouses from bed and board (U.S. vs. Johnson, 27 Phil. 477, cited
in II Reyes, RFC, p. 853. 1981 edition),
In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the infliction of physical injuries suffered by the victim on
the occasion of the rape, is absorbed by the crime of rape. The injuries suffered by the victim may,
however, be considered in determining the proper penalty which shall be imposed on the offender. Serious
physical injuries cannot be absorbed in rape; it can be so if the injury is slight.
Rape; Absence of Force & Intimidation (1995)
Three policemen conducting routine surveillance of a cogonal area in Antipole chanced upon Ruben, a 15-
year old tricycle driver, on top of Rowena who was known to be a child prostitute. Both were naked from
the waist down and appeared to be enjoying the sexual activity. Ruben was arrested by the policemen
despite his protestations that Rowena enticed him to have sex with her in advance celebration of her
twelfth birthday. The town physician found no semen nor any bleeding on Rowena's hymen but for a
healed scar. Her hymenal opening easily admitted two fingers showing that no external force had been
employed on her. Is Ruben liable for any offense? Discuss fully. Answer;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruben is liable for rape, even if force or intimidation is not present. The gravamen of the offense is the
carnal knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age (People vs. Dela Cruz, 56 SCRA 84) since the law
doesn't consider the consent voluntary and presumes that a girl below twelve years old does not and
cannot have a will of her own. In People us. Perez, CA 37 OG 1762, it was held that sexual intercourse
with a prostitute below twelve years old is rape.
Similarly, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the consummation as the important
consideration is not the emission but the penetration of the female body by the male organ (People vs.
Jose 37 SCRA 450; People vs. Carandang. 52 SCRA 259).
Rape; Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (2002)
What other acts are considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, amending the Revised Penal Code?
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of 1997 are: 1.] having carnal knowledge of a
woman by a man by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority, 2.] having carnal
knowledge of a demented woman by a man even if none of the circumstances required in rape be present;
and 3.] committing an act of sexual assault by inserting a person's penis into the victim's mouth or anal
orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Rape; Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (2002)
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from a crime against honor, a private offense, to that of a
crime against persons. Will the subsequent marriage of the offender and the offended party extinguish the
criminal action or the penalty imposed? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, the subsequent valid
marriage between the offender and offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty
imposed, although rape has been reclassified from a crime against chastity, to that of a crime against
persons.
Rape; Consented Abduction (2002)
A with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in his farm and there had sexual intercourse with
her. The girl did not offer any resistance because she was infatuated with the man, who was good-looking
and belonged to a rich and prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was committed by A? Why?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of consented abduction under Article 343 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended.
The said Article punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 years of age, carried out with her
consent and with lewd designs. Although the problem did not indicate the victim to be virgin, virginity
should not be understood in its material sense, as to exclude a virtuous woman of good reputation, since
the essence of the crime is not the injury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to her family
(Valdepenas vs. People,16 SCRA 871 [1966]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A committed "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610. As defined in said law, "child abuse" includes sexual
abuse or any act which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic worth and dignity of a child as a
human being, whose age is below eighteen (18) years.
Rape; Effect; Affidavit of Desistance (1993)
Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into having sexual Intercourse with him. Rachel's
mother immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn statement, before the City Prosecutor's
Office. After the necessary preliminary investigation, an information was signed by the prosecutor but did
not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC (prosecution of the
crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.
After the prosecution had rested its case, Ariel presented a sworn affidavit of desistance executed by
Rachel and her mother stating that they are no longer interested in prosecuting the case and that they
have pardoned Ariel. What effect would this affidavit of desistance have on the criminal and civil aspects
of the case? Explain fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) The case should not be dismissed. ... 2) The affidavit of desistance will only amount to the condonation
of civil liability but not criminal liability hence the case should still proceed.
Rape; Male Victim (2002)
A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there, through threat and intimidation, succeeds in
inserting his penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of sexual assault against B, by inserting his penis
into the anus of the latter.
Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual assault under par. 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, "when the offender's penis is inserted into his mouth or anal orifice."
Rape; Multiple Rapes; Forcible Abduction (2000)
Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City which was driven by Roger, Flordeluna noticed
that Roger was always placing his car freshener in front of the car aircon ventilation but did not bother
asking Roger why. Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy and became unconscious. Instead of bringing her to
Quezon City, Roger brought Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for two (2) weeks.
She was raped for the entire duration of her detention. May Roger be charged and convicted of the crime
of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention. Roger
may be charged and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct offense and should be punished
separately. Evidently, his principal intention was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention was only incidental to
the rape.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of rape with serious illegal detention, since the
detention was incurred in raping the victim during the days she was held. At most, Roger may be
prosecuted for forcible abduction for taking Flordeluna to Cavite against the latter's will and with lewd
designs. The forcible abduction should be complexed with one of the multiple rapes committed, and the
other rapes should be prosecuted and punished separately, in as many rapes were charged and proved.
Rape; Proper Party (1993)
Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into having sexual Intercourse with him. Rachel's
mother immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn statement, before the City Prosecutor's
Office. After the necessary preliminary investigation, an information was signed by the prosecutor but did
not contain the signature of Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC (prosecution of the
crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law (People us. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11). It is enough
that a complaint was filed by the offended party or the parents in the Fiscal's Office.
Rape; Statutory Rape; Mental Retardate Victim (1996)
The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental retardate with an intellectual capacity between the ages of
nine and twelve years, when asked during the trial how she felt when she was raped by the accused,
replied "Masarap, it gave me much pleasure."
With the claim of the accused that the complainant consented for a fee to the sexual intercourse, and with
the foregoing answer of the complainant, would you convict the accused of rape if you were the judge
trying the case? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is a mental retardate with an intellectual
capacity of a child less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving a valid consent to the sexual
Intercourse. The sexual intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the level of intelligence is
that of a child less than twelve years of age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate, violence or
Intimidation is not essential to constitute rape. (People us. Trimor, G,R. 106541-42, 31 Mar 95) As a
matter of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art. 335, RPC, by adding the phrase "or is
demented."

Title 8 With BQ

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

Title 8 With BQ

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

Kiddy and Mondy

Reyes 2001 Book II Outline - Title Eight

What are the crimes against persons?

1. Parricide (Art. 246)

2. Murder (Art. 248)

4. Death caused in a tumultuous affray

5. Physical injuries inflicted in a

6. Giving assistance to suicide

7. Discharge of firearms (Art. 254)

8. Infanticide (Art. 255)

9. Intentional abortion (Art. 256)

10. Unintentional abortion (Art.257)

11. Abortion practiced by the woman

12. Abortion practiced by a physician or

13. Duel (Art. 260)

14. Challenging to a duel (Art. 261)

15. Mutilation (Art. 262)

16. Serious Physical Injuries (Art. 263)

17. Administering injurious substances

18. Less Serious Physical Injuries (Art.

19. Slight Physical Injuries (Art. 266)

20. Rape (Art.266-A)

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

Section One. — Parricide, murder, homicide

2. That the deceased is killed by the accused;

3. That the deceased in relation to the accused is the:

e. Other descendant Legitimate

"Other ascendant or descendant" must be legitimate.

• The term "illegitimate" embraces all children born out of wedlock.

The father, mother or child may be legitimate or illegitimate.

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

Spouse must be legitimate.

Killing an illegitimate wife is only homicide or murder and not parricide.

Relationship MUST BE ALLEGED!

Parricide through reckless imprudence

1 People v Jumawan, 116 SCRA 739.

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

Requisites for the application of this Article:

b. in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person;

2. That he or she kills any or both of them or

b. In the act or immediately thereafter.

The accused must be a legally married person

"Surprise means to come upon suddenly and unexpectedly.

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

Does "sexual intercourse" include preparatory acts?

The killing or inflicting of serious physical injuries must be

The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.

2 U.S. v Alano, 32 Phil 383.

Banishment not intended as a penalty.

1. Parricide through negligence (Art. 365)

2. Committed by mistake (Art. 249)

3. When it is committed under exceptional circumstances. (Art. 247)

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an

5. With evident premeditation.

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

a. taking advantage of superior strength,

b. with aid of armed men, or

c. employing means to weaken the defense or

d. of means or persons to insure or afford impunity;

2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;

f. derailment or assault upon a railroad,

h. by means of motor vehicle, or