This document summarizes various provisions in the Philippines Revised Penal Code relating to crimes against chastity, the civil status of persons, and other sexual offenses. It discusses the crimes of adultery, concubinage, acts of lasciviousness, qualified seduction, forcible abduction, consented abduction, simulation of birth, and bigamy. It also provides answers to bar examination questions testing the application and elements of these offenses.
This document summarizes various provisions in the Philippines Revised Penal Code relating to crimes against chastity, the civil status of persons, and other sexual offenses. It discusses the crimes of adultery, concubinage, acts of lasciviousness, qualified seduction, forcible abduction, consented abduction, simulation of birth, and bigamy. It also provides answers to bar examination questions testing the application and elements of these offenses.
This document summarizes various provisions in the Philippines Revised Penal Code relating to crimes against chastity, the civil status of persons, and other sexual offenses. It discusses the crimes of adultery, concubinage, acts of lasciviousness, qualified seduction, forcible abduction, consented abduction, simulation of birth, and bigamy. It also provides answers to bar examination questions testing the application and elements of these offenses.
of the law refers to consummation only. However, most of the Spanish commentators as well as the Supreme Court of Spain hold that attempted adultery is possible, if the acts of execution have been commenced directly towards the commission of the sexual intercourse, as for example, when the couple were surprised in the room of the hotel already undressed. There is no frustrated stage. Accomplice- If a person performs the acts of an accomplice (e.g., informing the accused of the absence of the husband of the married woman and watching for his return), said person cannot be punished as an accomplice because this crime must be understod in the restrictive sense. Both woman and the paramour must be prosecuted. However, it is not necessary that there be joint criminal intent, hence, the conviction of one does not necessarily result in the conviction of the other. BAR Q: A, a married woman, had sexual intercourse with a man who was not her husband. The man did not know she was married. What crime, if any, did each of them commit? A: A, the married woman, committed the crime of adultery under Art 333 of the RPC, having sexual intercourse with a man not her husband while her marriage is still subsisting. But the man, not knowing her to be married, shall not be liable for adultery
Art. 334. Concubinage - Three ways of committing:
1) by keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; 2) by having sexual intercourse in scandalous circumstances with a woman, who is not his wife; 3) by cohabiting with her in any place.
BAR Q: Abe, married to Liza, contracted another
marriage with Connie in Singapore. Thereafter, Abe and Connie returned to the Philippines and lived as husband and wife in the hometown of Abe in Calamba, Laguna. 1) Can Abe be prosecuted for bigamy? 2) If not, can he be prosecuted for any other crime? A: ) No, Abe may not be prosecuted for bigamy since the second marriage was celebrated in Singapore , x x x 2) Yes, Abe, together with Connie, may be prosecuted for concubinage under Art. 334 of the RPC for having cohabited as husband and wife.
BAR Q: A is married. He has a girlfriend with whom
he has sexual relations on a more or less regular basis. They meet at least once a week in hotels, motels and other places where they can be alone. Is A guilty of any crime? Why?
A: You can answer this in two ways. First, you can
say that A is guilty of the crime of concubinage by having sexual intercourse under scandalous circumstances with a woman who is not his wife. Having sexual intercourse on a more or less regular basis in hotels, motels and other places may be considered a scandalous circumstance that offends public conscience. Second, you can say that his weekly meetings with his girlfriend does not per se constitute scandalous circumstance.
If the problem does not say that the sexual relation
is not on a regular basis, like a husband caught on videotape having sexual relation with another woman, that is not concubinage. Why? Because he did not keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling; did not have sexual intercourse in scandalous circumstances with a woman, who is not his wife; or did not cohabit with her in any place.
Art, 336. Acts of lasciviousness or lewdness; under
any of the following circumstances: using force or intimidation/offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious/offended party is under 12 years of age. BAR Q: When is embracing, kissing and touching a girl's breast considered only unjust vexation instead of acts of lasciviousness? A: The acts of embracing, kissing a woman arising either out of passion or other motive and the touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without lewd design constitutes merely unjust vexation, however, when the kissing and the embracing and the touching of the breast of a woman are done with lewd design, the same constitute acts of lasciviousness.
Art. 337 - Qualified Seduction
BAR Q: What are the 3 classes of offenders in a crime of qualified seduction? A: 1. Those who exercise moral influence over the victim, like a priest who acts as the spiritual adviser of the victim, or a teacher where the victim is enrolled; 2. a brother or an ascendant by consanguinity, like an uncle; 3. those considered as "domestic" in relation to the victim, enjoying the confidence and intimacy shared by the members of the household.
Art. 342. Forcible Abduction
Elements of FA with rape: 1) the person abducted is a woman, regardless of age, civil status or reputation; 2) she is taken against her will; 3) the abduction is with lewd design; 4) the abducted woman is raped under any of the circumstances in Art. 266-A. Only one of the several rapes is complexed with FA. The other rapes are charged separately as one count each.
For the conviction of various defendants for
the crime of abduction, it is enough that there was lewd design by one of them, and the same was known to the others who cooperated in the commission of the felony. Once conspiracy is established, the acts of the co-conspirator should be considered as the acts executed by all, and therefore, the conspiracy of each and everyone should be the same. BAR Q: Pretty was a campus beauty queen who, because of her looks and charms, attracted many suitors. Having decided that she would become a nun, Pretty turned down all her suitors. Gwapo, one of her persistent suitors, could not handle rejection and one night decided decided to accost Pretty as she walked home. Together with Pogi, Gwapo forced Pretty into his car and forced Pretty into his car and drove her to an abandoned warehouse where he and Pogi froced Pretty to dance for them. Later, the two took turns in raping her. After satisfying their lusts, Gwapo and Pogi dropped her off at her house. 1) What crime was committed? - complex crime of forcible abduction with rape, plus separate counts of rape. The forcible abduction was a necessary means of committing the rape. 2) If after the ordeal, Pretty decided to take her own life by hanging herself. Will the duo be liable for Pretty's death? - No. Suicide is an efficient intervening cause that has broken the causal connection between the rapes and the death.
Art. 343 - Consented Abduction (versus seduction)
In consented abduction, the gravamen is the alarm and disturbance to the parents and the family of the victim and the infringement of their rights. In seduction, the gravamen is the wrong done to the woman. BAR Q: A, with lewd design, took a 13-yr old gir to a nipa hut in his farm and there had sexual intercourse with her. The girl did not offer any resisitance because she was infatuated with the man, who was good-looking and belonged to a rich and prominent family in the town. What crime was committed? A: A committed the crime of consented abduction under Article 343 of the Revised Penal Code. 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 a virgin, virginity should not be understood in its material sense, as to exclude a virtuous woman of good reputatio, since the essence ofthe crime is not the injury to the woman but the outrage and alarm to her family.
TITLE 12. CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF
PERSONS
Art. 347. Simulation of Birth - must be made in the
record of birth; simulation in any other document is falsification. Under RA 7610, child trafficking is committed by the parents who agree to the adoption of a child for consideration and by a physician who makes it appear in the record of birth that the supposed parents are the natural parents.
BAR Q: A childless couple, A and B, wanted to have
a child they could call their own. C, an unwed mother, sold her newborn baby to them. Thereafter, A and B caused their names to be stated in the birth certificate of the child as his parents. This was done in connivance with the doctor who assisted in the delivery of C. What are the criminal liabilities, if any, of the couple and the doctor?
A: The couple and the doctor shall be liable for the
crime of simulation of birth, penalized under Article 347 of the RPC, as amended. Tha act of making it appear in the birth certificate that the persons named therein are the parents of the child when they are not really the biological parents of said child constitutes the crime of simulation of birth. C, the unwed mother is criminally liable for "child trafficking", a violation of Article IV, Sec. 7 of Rep. Act No. 7610. The law punishes inter alia the act of buying and selling of a child. ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The couple A and B, the unwed mother C, and the
doctor being all involved in the simulation of birth of the newborn child, violated Rep. Act No. 7610. Their acts constitute child trafficking which are penalized under Article IV of said law.
Art. 349. Bigamy.
The subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of marriage does not retroact to the date of the celebration of marriage insofar as the penal laws are concerned. One who contracts a subsequent marriage during the subsistence of a valid marriage is liable for bigamy, notwithstanding the subsequent judicial declaration that the second marriage is void ab initio. The prescriptive period for the crime of bigamy is computed from the time the crime was discovered by the offended party, the authorities or their agents. The principle ofconstructive notice which ordinarily applies to land or property disputes should not be applied to the crime of bigamy, as marriage is not property.
BAR Q: Joselito married Ramona in July, 1995,
only to learn later on that Ramona was previously married to David, from whom Ramona had been separated for more than ten years. Believing that his marriage to Ramona was an absolute nullity, Joselito contracted a subsequent marriage with Anabelle. Can Joselito be prosecuted for bigamy? A: Yes, Joselito can be prosecuted for bigamy for his subsequent marriage with Anabelle even though his marriage with Ramona was an absolute nullity. Despite the nullity of the first marriage, Joselito should have filed a case of dissolution of such marriage under Art. 40, Family Code, before contracting a second marriage.
BAR Q: CBP is legally married to OEM. Without
obtaining a marriage license, CBP contracted a second marriage to RST. Is CBP liable for bigamy? A: Whether CBP could be held liable for bigamy or not, depends on whether the second marriage is invalid or valid even without a marriage license. Although as a general rule,marriages solemnized without license are null and void ob initio, there are marriages exempted from license requirement under Chapter 2, Title 1 of the Family Code. If the second marriage was valid even without a marriage license, then CBP would be liable for bigamy. Otherwise, CBP is not liable for bigamy but for Illegal Marriage in Art. 350 for the Revised Penal Code.
BAR Q: Assuming the existence of the first
marriage when accused contracted the second marriage and the subsequent judicial declaration of nullity of the second marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity, would you render a judgment of conviction for bigamy?
A: Yes. A declaration of the nullity of the second
marriage on the ground of psychological incapacity is of no moment insofar as the State's penal laws are concerned. Since a marriage contracted during the subsitence of a valid marriage is automatically void, the nullity of the second marriage is not per se an argument for the avoidance of the criminal liability for bigamy.
BAR Q: Raissa and Martin are married to each other
but had been separated for the last five years. Raissa decided to wed Juan, her suitor, who had no inkling that she was married. Raissa and Juan accomplished an application for marriage license which they subscribed and swore to before the Local Civil Registrar. Raissa declared in the application that she is single. The marriage license was issued. In due time, the couple were married by the mayor. Raissa and Juan had their first sexual intercourse later in the evening. What crime/crimes, if any, did Raissa commit?
A: Raissa committed bigamy for contracting a
second marriage while her first marriage was subsisting. She is also guilty of perjury for making untruthful statements under oath or executing an affidavit upon a material matter, when she declared she was not married in the application for marriage license, a public document. She also committed adultery for having sexual intercourse with Juan, although she is a married woman. Art, 353. Libel Every defamatory imputation is presumed malicious, except in: 1. Private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral or social duty; 2. A fair and true report made in good faith, without any comments or remarks of a) any judicial, legislative, or other official proceedings which are not of confidential nature, or b) any statement, report, speech delivered in said proceedings, or c ) any other act performed by public officers in exercise of their functions. 3. Fair commentaries on matters of public interest.
ABSOLUTELY PRIVILEGED STATEMENTS - not
actionable regardless of the existence of malice in fact. QUALIFIEDLY PRIVILEGED STATEMENTS - are susceptible to libel suits provided the presence of malice in fact is established. Kinds of malice: 1) malice in law- that which the law presumes to be present where the offender cannot establish justifiable reasons or good motives for the imputation. The complainant does not have to prove its existence because it is presumed by law. 2) malice in fact- that which the complainant must prove to exist. The offended party must prove, where malice in law does not exist, the existence of malice in order to hold the offender criminally and civilly liable.
- statements by lawyers in pleadings which are
defamatory but not relevant to the issue may be subject to proof of actual malice. - truth is not an absolute defense in libel. Proof of truth shall be admissible in libel cases only if the same imputes a crime or is made against a public officer with respect to the fact related to the discharge of their official duties, and moreover must have been published with good motives and for justificable ends. Truth then, on its own, is not enough. Doctrine of Fair Comment - while in general every discernable imputation publicly made is deemed false, and every false imputation is deemed malicious, nevertheless, when the discreditable imputation is directed against a public person in his public capacity, it is not necessary actionable. In order that discreditable imputation to a public official may be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on a false supposition.
BAR Q: In her weekely gossip column in a tabloid,
Gigi wrote an unflattering article about Pablo, a famous singer, and his bitter separation from his wife. The article portrayed Pablo as an abusive husband, which caused the loss of his lucrative endorsement contracts. Pablo charged Gigi with libel. In her defense, Gigi countered that she did not commit libel because Pablo has attained the status of a public figure so that even his personal lif has become a legitimate subject of public interest. Is Gigi correct? A: No. Gigi was attacking the personal life of Pablo as a husband and not his public life as a famous singer. She portrayed Pablo as an abusive husband. Such defamatory utterances are not protected. Any attack upon the private character of a public figure on matters which are not related to their works would constitute libel.
BAR Q: In his Answer to the complaint, Atty. A
stated that Atty B is "bobo, inutil, good for nothing, stupid, and a menace to the clients. Can Atty A be liable for libel? A: Yes. Although a pleading is a privileged communication, malicious statements that are irrelevant and impertinent to the issue in the pleading may be libelous.
BAR Q: Angelina maintains a website where visitors
can give their comments on the posted pictures of the goods she sells in her exclusive boutique. Bettina posted a comment that the red Birkin bag shown in Angelina's website is fake and that Angelina is known to sell counterfeit items. Angelina wants to file a case against Bettina. She seeks your advice. What advice will you give her? A: I will advise Angelina to file a criminal case of libel against Bettina because the imputation made by Bettina is libelous. Whether the imputation of a defect, status or condition is real or imaginary, if it publicly tends to discredit, dishonor, or place in contempt or ridicule a particular person who is identified, the imputation is presumed by law to be malicious and thus penalized as libel.
Moreover, if Bettina is engaged in similar line of
trade, her statement against the goods sold by angelina may constitute a violation of the law on Unfair Competition.
BAR Q: A was nominated Secretary of a
Department in the Executive Branch of the government. His nomination was thereafter submitted to the Commission on Appointments for confirmation. While the Commission was considering the nomination, a group of concerned citizens caused to be published in the newspapers a full-page statement objecting to A's appointment They alleged that A was a drug dependent, that he had several mistresses, and that he was corrupt, having accepted bribes or favors from parties transacting business in his previous office, and therefore he was unfit for the position to which he had been nominated. As a result of the publication, the nomination was not confirmed by the Commission on Appointments. The official sued the concerned citizens and the newspapers for libel and damages on account of his non-confirmation. How will you decide the case? A: I will acquit the concerned citizens and the newspapers involved, from the crime of libel, because obviously they made the denunciation out of a moral or social duty and thus there is absence of malice. Since A was a candidate for a very important public position of a Department Secretary, his moral, mental and physical fitness for the public trust in such position becomes a public concern as the interest of the public is at stake. It is pursuant to such concern that the denunciation was made; hence, bereft of malice. BAR Q. If defamatory imputations are made not by publication in the newspapers but by broadcast over the radio, do they constitute libel? Why? A: Yes, because libel may be committed by radio broadcast Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code punishes libel committed by means, among others, of radio broadcast, inasmuch as the broadcast made by radio is public and may be defamatory. BAR Q:During a seminar workshop attended by government employees from the Bureau of Customs and the Bureau f Internal Revenue, A, the speaker, in the course of his lecture, lamented the fact that a great majority of those serving in said agencies were utterly dishonest and corrupt. The following morning, the whole group of employees in the two bureaus who attended the seminar, as complainants, filed a criminal complaint against A for uttering what the group claimed to be defamatory statements of the lecturer. In court, A filed a motion to quash the information, reciting fully the above facts, on the ground that no crime were committed. If you were the judge, how would you resolve the motion? ANSWER: I would grant the motion to quash on the ground that the facts charged do not constitute an offense, since there is no definite person or persons dishonored. The crime of libel or slander, is a crime against honor such that the person or persons dishonored must be identifiable even by innuendoes: otherwise the crime against honor is not committed. Moreover, A was not making a malicious imputation, but merely stating an opinion; he was delivering a lecture with no malice at all during a seminar workshop. Malice being inherently absent in the utterance, the statement is not actionable as defamatory.
BAR Q: Distinguish clearly but briefly between oral
defamation and criminal conversation. A: Oral defamation, known as SLANDER, is a malicious imputation of any act, omission, condition or circumstance against a person, done orally in public, tending to cause dishonor, discredit, contempt, embarassment or ridicule to the latter. This is a crime against honor penalized in Art. 358 of the Revised Penal Code. CRIMINAL CONVERSATION. The term is used in making a polite reference to sexual intercourse as in certain crimes, like rape, seduction and adultery. It has no definite concept as a crime.
Art. 365. Criminal Negligence
Culpa is either a crime (Art 365) or a modality of committing a crime (Art 3). Reckless imprudence consists in voluntarily, but without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical condition, and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place.
BAR Q: Olimpio caught a cold and was running a
fever. His doctor prescribed paracetamol. Olimpio went to a drug store with the prescription, and the pharmacist sold him three tablets. Upon arriving home, he took a tablet. One hour later, he had a serious seizure and died. The autopsy showed that the tablet he had taken was not paracetamol but a pill to which he was allergic. The pharmacist was charged with murder. Is the charge proper? If not, what should it be? A: The charge was improper. The pharmacist should be charged with criminal negligence, or reckless imprudence resulting in homicide, because there was no intent to kill Olimpio. The accused inexcusably lacked precaution in failing to dispense the proper medicine to the victim which caused his death.
BAR Q: Eddie brought his son Randy to a local
faithhealer known as "Mother Himala". He was diagnosed by the faithhealer as being possessed by an evil spirit. Eddie thereupon authorized the conduct of a "treatment" calculated to drive the spirit from the boy's body. Unfortunately, the procedure conducted resulted in the boy's death. The faithhealer and three others who were part of the healing ritual were charged with murder and convicted by the lower court. If you are an appellate court justice, would you sustain the conviction upon appeal?
A: No, the conviction of murder should not be
sustained, because there is no indication that the accused acted with intent to kill Randy. On the contrary, the facts show that the accused acted to "treat" the victim in a way of driving the evil spirit which was believed to have "possessed" him. Considering that the proximate cause of the victim's death was the healing ritual done by the accused which is not recognized in law as legitimate, the accused are criminally liable for the victim's death. As they may have overdone the "healing ritual" they conducted on the victim's body, causing the latter's death, although the intent to kill was absent, the accused may be held criminally liable for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide.