CRIMINAL LAW 2

TITLE ONE  Who are these traitors? enemies by giving them EXAMPLES OF ACTS OF ADHERING TO THE ENEMIES BY
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE  These enemies are troops of aid or comfort. GIVING AID OR COMFORT:
LAW OF NATIONS (Articles 114 – 122) the enemy state which is in war Adherence to the o By giving the enemies information,
with the Philippines. Filipino enemies— mean that transportation, arms, supplies, all of these will
ARTICLE 114 – TREASON men like the MILF, NPAs, even the Filipino citizen or the weaken the defense of the Philippines and
if they are at war with the offender intentionally, strengthen the enemy state.
- is committed by a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in
Philippine government, they intellectually and o People vs. Perez:The court said, "the act of
the Philippines who levies war against the Philippine
cannot be considered as emotionally favors the commandeering women or giving women to the
Government or adheres to her enemies by giving them
enemies because they are still enemy. enemy troops in times of war, to satisfy the lust
aid and comfort
considered as Filipino citizens. Therefore,adherence to of the enemy troops is not considered as a
ELEMENTS:
So the aliens refer to the the enemies is an internal treasonable act." Because according the Court,
1. The offender is by birth, a Filipino Citizen
citizens of the enemy state state of mind, it is mental whatever benefit is given to the enemy is merely
or an alien residing in the Philippines, even
which is at war with the state, you cannot see trivial in nature,imperceptible and it was not the
if temporary allegiance
Philippines. adherence to the enemies intent of the offender (unintentionally).
 The offender may either be a
Filipino citizen, because a
3. That the offender either—  How now would you  There are two ways of proving treason under Article
Filipino citizen owes permanent
a) Levies war against the know that a person 114:
allegiance to the Philippine
Philippine government, or is adhering to the 1. TESTIMONY OF TWO WITNESSES, AT
Government; or another
b) Adheres to the enemies enemy state? LEAST, TO THE SAME OVERT ACT,
offender is a foreigner,an alien
by giving them aid or  It is OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "TWO-
temporarily residing in the
comfort. manifested by WITNESS RULE"
Philippines. During his
 The third element refers his acts of  There must be two witnesses who will
temporary stay in the
to the mode of giving aid or prove only on the commission by the
Philippines, he is given
committing treason. comfort to the offender of an overt act showing that he
protection by the Philippine
treason may be enemy. That adheres to the enemy. Therefore, treason
Government under its laws
committed by either: is why these cannot be proven by mere substantial
therefore it is but incumbent
a. Levies war against the two must evidence. There must be direct evidence, a
upon him to have temporary
Philippine concur: witness to this act of giving aid or comfort
allegiance to the Philippine
government,requires the 1. Adherence to the enemy.
Government. That is why even
concurrence of two to the 2. CONFESSION OF THE OFFENDER OR THE
an alien, a foreigner
elements: enemies ACCUSED MADE IN AN OPEN COURT
temporarily residing in the
1) there must 2. Giving  Confession of guilt must be made before a
Philippines can also commit
be an actual of assembly them aid or court. Extra-judicial confession will not give
treason in times of war.
of men comfort rise to conviction in case of the crime of
2) it is for the treason.
2. That there is a war in which the Philippines
purpose of  Mere
is involved
executing or adherence
 The second element is that ILLUSTRATION:
effecting a to the
there is a war in which the Q: What if there is war which the Philippines is involved? X
treasonable enemies,
Philippines is involved. In the was among those who committed treason against the
design by without any
case of Laura vs. Misa, treason government. now X in committing treason killed a public
force. act of giving
is a war time offense. It can be officer of the government of the Philippines, in furtherance
This means that the said aid or comfort
committed only in times of war. of his act of treason. Will such act amounting to murder give
offenders, Filipino citizens to the enemy
In times of peace, Treason rise to a separate and distinct crime? Will you charge him for
who are said to be in will not
remains to be dormant crime, two crimes based on treason and murder?
collaboration with the bring along
however, the moment when an A: There is only one crime committed by
enemy troops in order to treason, it is
emergency arises, the moment him and the crime committed is
hand over the Philippine the act of
a war arises, it is immediately treason. Common crimes such as Murder,
Government to the giving aid or
put into effect as an act self- physical injuries, homicide, arson, if they are
enemy troops. Absent of comfort which
defense and self-preservation committed in furtherance to, in connection with
that collaboration, it is the
of the Philippine Government. or incidentally to treason shall be absorbed in the
cannot be considered as manifestation
Treason cannot be committed crime of treason because they are atrocities for
treason of the
in times of peace, because in war and therefore, they are considered as
adherence to
times of peace, there are no absorbed in the crime of treason. It cannot even
b. Adheres to the the enemies.
traitors. be complex, they are considered absorbed in the

crime of treason.

Page 1

Q: What if A, B and C, conspired and agreed to commit
treason against the Philippine Government. After their
conspiracy and agreement, A went to X. A told his friend X
that he was in conspiracy with B and C to commit treason
against the Philippine Government. After A told him such
conspiracy with X, A left. X, despite knowledge of the
conspiracy to commit treason among A, B, and C, did not
disclose such information to the proper authorities. What
crime/crimes is/are committed by A, B, C, and X?
A: A, B, and C are liable for the conspiracy
to commit treason. There is a meeting of two
or more persons come to an agreement to
commit the crime of treason and decide to
commit it.There is proposal to commit treason
when a person has decided to commit the crime
of treason and proposes its execution to some
other person or persons. The moment that other
person whom the proposal was given, raise to
the commission of crime, we no longer have
proposal, but we have Conspiracy to commit
treason. In the problem, A, B, and C, conspired,
agreed to commit the crime of treason against
the Philippine government, therefore they are all
liable for conspiracy to commit treason.
Q: X, who had knowledge of the conspiracy to commit
treason among A, B, and C, however, despite that
knowledge, he did not disclose it to the proper authorities.
What is the liability of X?
A: X is liable for misprision of treason – is
committed by any person who owes permanent
allegiance to the Philippine Government who fails
to disclose of knowledge to commit treason as
soon as possible to the proper authorities.In the
problem, C, despite having knowledge of the
conspiracy to commit treason among A, B, and C
did not divulge it, did not disclose it to the
proper authorities, therefore, X is liable for
misprision of treason.
 TREASON can be committed both by Filipino citizens
and a foreigner temporarily residing in the Philippines,
but MISPRISION OF TREASON can only be committed
by a Filipino citizen who owes permanent allegiance to
the Philippine government, it cannot be committed by
a foreigner residing in the Philippines.
ARTICLE 117 – ESPIONAGE
There are two ways of committing espionage under Article
117:
I. By entering, without authority therefor, a
warship, fort, or naval or military
establishment or reservation to obtain any
CRIMINAL LAW 2
information, plans, photographs or other
data of a confidential nature, relative to
the defense of the Philippines
 The offender can be any person. He can be
a Filipino citizen, or a foreigner, or he can
be a public officer or employee, or he can
be a private individual.
 When will the crime of espionage arise?
 Under the first mode, the crime of
espionage will arise moment the offender
enters the warship, fort or naval or military
establishment or reservation, without
authority if his intention is to obtain any
information, plans, photographs or other
data of a confidential nature, relative to the
defense of the Philippines.
 It is not necessary that for the crime to
arise that he is successful in obtaining the
data. It is not necessary that he indeed
obtained the data. The mere act of
entering without authority is sufficient if his
intention is to obtain the data of
confidential manner relative to the defense
of the Philippines.
II. By disclosing to the representative of a
foreign nation the contents of the articles,
data or information referred to in
paragraph No. 1 of art. 117, which he had
in his possession by reason of the public
office he holds.
 This mode of committing espionage can
only be committed by a public officer who
has been trusted, by reason of his public
position, of articles, data of confidential
nature relative to the defense of the
Philippines.
 The crime of espionage will arise the
moment the offender divulges or discloses
the data and information to a
representative of a foreign nation.
 So even if he is in possession of the same,
but he does not divulge it to any
representative of a foreign nation, the
crime will not arise.
 Espionage can be committed in BOTH, in times of
peace and in times of war.
ARTICLE 118 –INCITING TO WAR OR GIVING
MOTIVES FOR REPRISALS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender performs unlawful or
unauthorized acts by the Philippine government.
2. That the said act provoke or give occasion for a
war involving or liable to involve the Philippines
or expose Filipino citizens to reprisals on their
persons and property while they are in a foreign
country.
3. He is not legally authorized to do so.
 Inciting to war connotes that there is yet no war. It
is committed in times of peace.
Case of CAPTAIN MENDOZA
Hostage drama in Luneta. There were Hongkong
citizens boarded the bus and here comes captain
mendoza who was no longer a member of the
military, he entered the bus, with different
weapons and grenades and even killed some
hongkong citizens. Captain mendoza performed
unlawful, unauthorized acts which expose
overseas Filipino workers in Hongkong and china
to reprisals on their person or property. In fact,
there were news at that time that Hongkong or
China would be engaging in war with the
Philippines. Head captain Mendoza, one of the
crimes that may be held against him is inciting to
war or giving motives for reprisals.
ARTICLE119 – VIOLATION OF NEUTRALITY
ELEMENTS:
1. The crime is committed when there is a war but
the Philippines is not involved in the said war
and;
2. The competent authority issued a regulation for
the purpose of enforcing neutrality among
Filipino citizens and ;
3. The offender violates such regulation imposed.
 Here, there is war but the Philippines is not involved in
the said war.
Q: There is a war between country X and country Y. Here
comes Pedro, a Filipino citizen, he was siding with country X.
Is he liable?
A: No, he is not liable of violation of
neutrality because in the problem, it did not say
that the competent authority (the President)
issued a proclamation or regulation imposing
neutrality.
 The violation will only arise if there is a proclamation
or regulation imposing neutrality and a Filipino citizen
violates such declaration or regulation issued by a
competent authority. Therefore, absence of such
declaration of neutrality, the crime of violation of
neutrality does not arise.
ARTICLE120 – CORRESPONDENCE WITH HOSTILE
COUNTRY
ELEMENTS:
1. That it is in time of war in which the Philippines
is involved.
2. That the offender makes correspondence with an
enemy country or any territory occupied by enemy
troops.
3. That the correspondence is either —
a.) Prohibited by the Philippine Government
b.) Carried on in ciphers or conventional signs
c.) Containing notice or information which
might be useful to the enemy
 Here, there is a war in which the Philippines is
involved.
Q: The Philippines is at war with the another country. Here
comes X, a Filipino citizen, he has a pen pal who is a citizen
of the country which is at war with the Philippines. The
competent authority or the President issued a declaration of
proclamation saying that there should be no correspondence
to the enemy state. But X missed his penpal, and so, he
wrote in a small piece of paper, "i love you, i miss you,
muamua!" Is X liable of the crime of correspondence with
the enemy?
A:X is liable because there was a declaration issued
by a competent authority that correspondence with the
hostile country is prohibited and if there is no
declaration, proclamation coming from the competent
authority prohibiting correspondence, the crime will
only arise if the said crime is carried on in ciphers or
conventional signs or Containing notice or information
which might be useful to the enemy.
ARTICLE 121 – FLIGHT TO ENEMY'S COUNTRY
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is s war in which the Philippines is
involved.
2. That the offender must be owing allegiance to the
Philippine Government
3. That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy's
country
4. That going to the enemy country is prohibited by a
competent authority
 There must be a declaration or a proclamation issued
by a competent authority, that no Filipino shall flee to
Page 2

the enemy's country and the offender violates such
proclamation.
 Mere attempt will readily rise to the crime. It is not
necessary that the offender has actually gone to the
country.
 There must be declaration or proclamation prohibiting
flight to enemy state.
ARTICLE 122 – PIRACY
ELEMENTS:
1. The first element is where the vessel is
located. The vessel can either be on the
high seas or on Philippine waters (this was
brought about by the amendment of RA
7659). Before the amendment of RA 7659,
Piracy under Article 122 can only be
committed when the vessel is on the high
seas. But because of this amendment
brought about by RA 7659, Piracy now
under Article 122 can be committed when
the vessel is on Philippine waters.
2. The second element provides for the
offenders. The offenders must NOT be
members of the complement or passengers
of the vessel. Therefore, the offenders
must be STRANGERS to the vessel. They
must be coming from the outside, not from
the inside.
3. The third element refers to the mode of
committing piracy.
a. The offenders either ATTACK or
SEIZE the vessel.
b. The offenders either SEIZE IN
WHOLE or IN PART the cargo,
the equipment or the personal
belongings of the passengers or
members of the complement.
 Based on these elements, you will notice that piracy is
akin to robbery. It is in effect robbery. It is just called
piracy because the object of the thing is either the
vessel or the cargo or equipment of the said vessel.
There is also the use of force or intimidation. There is
also the use of violence against persons. There is also
intent to gain.So it is akin, similar to robbery.
ARTICLE122 –MUTINY
COMMITTED WHEN:
1. The vessel is either on the high seas or on
Philippine waters
CRIMINAL LAW 2
2. The OFFENDERS are MEMBERS OF THE
COMPLEMENT or PASSENGERS OF THE
VESSEL
3. The offenders raise a commotion or
disturbance on the board the ship against
the lawful command of the captain or the
commander of the ship.
In mutiny, there is no taking because in mutiny there is no
intent to gain. Mutiny is the rising of commotion, a
resistance against the lawful command, against the lawful
authority of the commander or captain of the ship.
Since in mutiny, there is no intent to gain, mutiny is akin to
sedition. The rising of commotion, an uprising, an act of
dissent against lawful authority.
SO HOW DO YOU DISTINGUISH PIRACY VS.
MUTINY?
1. In piracy, the offenders are strangers to the
vessel, whereas, in mutiny, the offenders are
necessarily inside the vessel, they are either
members of the complement or passengers of
the vessel
2. In Piracy, there is intent to gain because it is
similar to robbery, whereas, in mutiny, there is
no intent to gain because the essence of the
crime is to go against the lawful authority of the
commander of the ship.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: The vessel is on the sea going to Mindoro. So while the
ship is on its way to Mindoro, suddenly there comes a big
storm. The commander or the captain of the ship said that
they should first move towards the shore and let the storm
comes calm in order to ensure the safety of the passengers
of the vessel. The passengers of the vessel and members of
the complement didn’t want the decision of the said captain
of the ship and so they seize the captain of the ship and
manned the vessel until they reach Mindoro. What crime, if
any, is committed by these members of the complement and
passengers of the vessel?
A: They are liable of MUTINY. The vessel is
on Philippine waters. The offenders are members
of the complement and they go against the
lawful authority of the captain of the ship.
Therefore they are liable of mutiny.
Q: While a vessel is on Philippine waters, here comes a
second vessel. Four men from the second vessel boarded
the first vessel and at gunpoint, took the cargo and
equipment of the said vessel. Placed them in the second
vessel and off they went. What crime is committed by these
four men?
A: They are liable of PIRACY UNDER
ARTICLE 122. The vessel is on Philippine
waters, the offenders are not members of the
complement or passengers of the ship. They
seize the cargo and equipment of the vessel.
Therefore, it is piracy under Article 122.
Q: The vessel is on Philippine waters. While the vessel is on
Philippine waters, the members of the complement and
passengers of the said vessel in conspiracy with one another
took the cargo and equipment of the said vessel, and then
they boarded a second vessel and off they went. What crime
is committed by the members of the complement and
passengers of the said vessel?
A: The members of the complement and
passengers of the vessel committed ACTS
OF PIRACY because they seize in whole or in
part the cargo or equipment of the vessel but
NOT PIRACY UNDER ARTICLE 122 because in
Article 122, it is a requisite that the offenders
must be strangers to the vessel. Here, the
offenders are members of the complement and
passengers of the vessel. So the crime
committed is PIRACY BUT UNDER PD 532.
ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-ROBBERY LAW OF 1974 (PD
532)
Under PD 532, piracy is committed by attacking or seizing
the vessel or seizing in whole or in part the cargo,
equipment or personal belongings of the members of the
complement or passengers of the vessel IRRESPECTIVE of
the value thereof, committed by means of force and violence
and committed by any person whether he may a member of
the complement or passenger of the vessel or strangers to
the vessel BUT the vessel is on Philippine waters. Therefore,
for PIRACY UNDER PD 532 to arise, it necessary that the
vessel is on Philippine waters.If the vessel is on the high
seas, immediately rule out PD 532.
HOW COULD YOU KNOW IF IT IS PIRACY UNDER PD
532 OR PIRACY UNDER ARTICLE 122 OF RPC?
 If the vessel is on Philippine waters, your choice
is either Piracy under PD 532 or Piracy Article
122.
 Where lies the difference?
 Since Article 122 of RPC
is the main law, we have
to reconcile it with PD
532. Or PD 532 must be
reconciled with Article
122. Piracy under PD
532, the offenders can
be any person. He can
be a stranger. He can
be members of the
complement.
 Therefore, where does PD 532 apply?
 It will apply when the
offenders are
members of the
complement or
passengers of the
vessel and the vessel
is on the Philippine
waters.
Q: The vessel is on Philippine waters, suddenly men from
the outside committed acts of piracy. What crime is
committed?
A: Piracy under Article 122
Q: The vessel is on Philippine waters. Acts of piracy were
committed by the members of the complement or
passengers of the vessel. What crime is committed?
A: Piracy under PD 532
Q: What if the vessel is on the high seas? While the vessel is
on the high seas, there comes a second vessel. Four men
from the second vessel boarded the first vessel and at
gunpoint took the cargo and equipment of the first vessel.
What crime is committed by these four men?
A: Piracy under Article 122. The vessel is on the
high seas. The offenders are not members of the
complement or the passengers of the vessel.
They seize in whole or in part the cargo and
equipment of the said vessel.
Q: While the vessel is on the high seas,members of the
complement or passengers of the vessel in conspiracy with
one anothertook away the cargo and equipment of the
vessel. What crime is committed?
 NOTE: It is not piracy under Article
122 because here, the offenders are
members of the complement or
passengers of the vessel. In Article
122, it is required that the offenders
must be strangers to the vessel. It
cannot be piracy under PD 532
because the vessel must be on
Philippine waters. In our problem,
the vessel is on the high seas. So,
what crime is committed?
A: Again, piracy is akin to robbery. Since Piracy
under Article 122 and Piracy under PD 532 do
not apply, the crime committed is ROBBERY IN
AN UNINHABITED PLACE.
ARTICLE 123 – QUALIFIED PIRACY
 What are the circumstances which will qualify piracy?
 Under Article 122, the following
circumstances will qualify piracy:
Page 3
 CRIMINAL LAW 2
1. Whenever the offender have Q: What if in the same problem, the woman didn’t want to  According to Reyes  Insofar as these two prohibited acts are
seized a vessel by boarding give the ring, one of the men slapped the woman on the and other legal concerned, what are the circumstances which
or firing upon; or face three times and the face of the woman became reddish. luminaries, only will qualify the penalty?
2. Whenever the offenders have She suffered slight physical injuries. What about the fact these two are  Under RA 6235, the following
aband0ned their victims that the injury suffered was only slight? considered qualified circumstances will qualify the first
without means of saving A: It will not make a difference although the in mutiny because two acts:
themselves; or injury suffered was only slight. In the third in mutiny, the a. By firing upon the pilot or the
 There is intent to circumstance which will qualify piracy, the word offenders are member of the crew or
kill. “physical injuries” is used in its generic sense. necessarily, passenger of the aircraft; or
3. Whenever the crime is Therefore, whatever be of kind of physical ordinarily inside the b. By exploding or attempting to
accompanied by murder, injuries, whether serious or slight for as long as vessel because they explode by mean of a bomb
homicide, physical injuries it was accompanied by piracy, it will be are members of the or explosive for purposes of
or rape considered as qualified piracy. complement or destroying the aircraft; or
 Whenever these passengers of the c. Whenever the crime is
four crimes Q: What if in the same problem, the woman didn’t want to vessel. accompanied by murder,
accompanied the give the ring and one of the men touched the private parts homicide, serious physical
act of piracy, it will of the said woman and after touching the private parts of ANTI-HIJACKING LAW (R.A. No. 6235 otherwise injuries or rape
not bring about a the said woman with lust, he forcibly took the ring. What known as An Act Prohibiting Certain Acts inimical to
separate and crime is committed by the said men? Civil Aviation)  NOTE: In case of piracy, the
distinct crime or a Under RA 6235, there are four prohibited acts. law uses the word “physical
A: All of them will be liable for piracy. However,
separate and injuries” in its generic sense.
the man who touched the private part of the 1. By compelling the pilot of an aircraft of Philippine
distinct charge of Whatever be the kind of
woman will be liable for two crimes: piracy and registry to change its course or destination OR
murder, homicide, physical injury that will
acts of lasciviousness. Acts of lasciviousness is by seizing or usurping control thereof while it is
physical injuries or accompany piracy, the crime
not mentioned in Article 123. Therefore, its in flight
rape. These crimes committed is qualified
presence will not qualify piracy. It will bring
are absorbed piracy. But in case of
about a separate and distinct charge of acts of 2. By compelling an aircraft of foreign registry to
because they are hijacking under RA 6235,
lasciviousness. land in Philippine territory OR by seizing or
circumstances the law is specific; it
 So, only these four crimes (murder, homicide, usurping control thereof while the same is in
which will qualify must be serious physical
physical injuries and rape) will qualify piracy. If Philippine territory
the penalty to injuries. Therefore, if the
death. other crime is committed and accompanied by physical injuries that would
piracy and is not among these four crimes  These are the first two prohibited acts. How
NOTE: These circumstances are accompany the act of
mentioned in Article 123, it will bring about a could you distinguish the first act from the
separate and distinct from each usurpation and seizure of
separate and distinct charge. second act?
other. It is not necessary that all of the aircraft would only be
 If the aircraft is of Philippine
themmust be present. The presence less serious physical injuries
registry, the seizure or usurpation
of one will qualify piracy. Notice the or slight physical injuries,
to amount in violation of RA 6235,
conjunction OR. These are qualifying QUALIFIED MUTINY the penalty is not qualified.
requires that the aircraft must be in
circumstances which are prejudicial  Insofar as mutiny is concerned, what are the The penalty is qualified
flight. An aircraft is in flight the
to the accused therefore they must circumstances which will qualify mutiny? because from the penalty of
moment all its external doors had
be strictly construed.  In Article 123, there is no specific mention 12 to 20 years, it would
been closed, following embarkation
of qualified mutiny, however according to become 15 years to death.
until any of it external doors had
ILLUSTRATION: Reyes and other legal luminaries, of the
been opened for purposes of
three circumstances stated in Article 123, 3. By carrying or loading on board a PASSENGER
Q: What if the vessel is on Philippine waters, and there disembarkation.
paragraphs 2 and 3 are considered as AIRCRAFT operating as a public utility in the
comes a second vessel. Four men from the second vessel  On the other hand, if the aircraft is
circumstances which will qualify mutiny. Philippines materials or substances which are
boarded the first vessel and at gunpoint, they asked the of foreign registry, the seizure or
That is: explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous
passengers to give to them all their valuables. One woman usurpation did not need while it is
1. whenever the offenders 4. By shipping, carrying or loading on board a
didn’t want to give her wedding ring because it was so in flight. For as long as the aircraft
have abandoned their CARGO AIRCRAFT operating as a public utility in
precious to her and so one of the men forcibly took the of foreign registry is within the
victims without means of the Philippines materials or substances which are
wedding ring from the finger such that the finger was Philippine territory, seizure or
saving themselves; or explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous in a
severed from it. What crime is committed? usurpation thereof will bring about
2. whenever the crime is manner not in accordance with the rules and
A: QUALIFIED PIRACY because piracy was violation of RA 6235 even if all its
accompanied with regulations of the Air Transportation Office
accompanied by physical injuries. doors are opened; even if it is not
murder, homicide, in flight.
physical injuries or rape HOW WOULD YOU DISTINGUISH THE 3RD FROM THE
4TH ACT?

Page 4

 If the aircraft is a PASSENGER AIRCRAFT,
the mere act of carrying or loading
explosive, flammable, corrosive or
poisonous substances will immediately
constitute a violation of RA 6235.
 If however the aircraft is a CARGO
AIRCRAFT, the loading of these poisonous
substances, flammable substances, is
allowed because it is a cargo aircraft. The
crime will only arise if such act of loading is
not in accordance with the rules and
regulations of the Air Transportation Office.
HUMAN SECURITY ACT OF 2007 (R.A. No. 9372)
Q: What if there is a bus and the bus is parked at
Lunetapark and it was full of children. And here comes X, X
had different kinds of explosive all over his body. And at
gunpoint, entered the said bus and told the children to keep
quiet. Thereafter, there is a cartolina on the glass window of
the said bus. Written on the cartolina were his demands to
the government. His demands were first, that his brother, a
member of NPA and who is being incarcerated by the
military be released and his second demand, was that funds
be transferred to his account. So these were the demands
made by X against the government. Because of this, the
parents of the children arrived, the media arrived, all the
cabinet secretaries arrived. Only the president did not arrive.
So everybody was there. They were afraid that the children
might die so there was chaos in the entire Philippines. It
took the members of the military and police 12 hours to
subdue X. So after 12 hours, they were able to arrest X.
What crime, if any, may be filed against X?
A: X will be charged of the crime of
terrorism under RA 9372, the Human Security
Act of 2007. Under Section 3 of Ra 9372,
terrorism is committed when the offender
commits any of the following acts punishable
under the RPC:
a. Piracy
b. Rebellion
c. Coup d’Etat
d. Murder
e. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention
f. Crimes involving Destruction
If the offender commits any of these acts
punishable under the RPC or any of the following
acts punishable under special penal laws:
1. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas
or in the Philippine Waters);
2. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
3. Article 134-a (Coup d’Etat), including acts committed by
CRIMINAL LAW 2
private persons; person has been charged of terrorism, or any act  The offender is a public
4. Article 248 (Murder); punishable under RA 9372, based on the valid officer or employee. BUT
5. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention); complaint or information, sufficient information NOT ALL PUBLIC OFFICERS
6. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction, and substance to bring about and thereafter he OR EMPLOYEES can commit
or under is acquitted or the case is dismissed, he can no arbitrary detention. The public
1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson); longer be subsequently prosecuted for any other officer of employee can commit
2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous felony or offense necessarily included in the arbitrary detention are only
and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990); crime charged. The crime of kidnapping and those who have been
3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and serious illegal detention is necessarily included in vested with authority to
Liability Act of 1968); terrorism because it is one of the predicate effect arrest and detain a
4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law); crimes. Likewise, violation of PD 1866, as person or at least to cause
5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti-highway amended Illegal and Unlawful Possession of the detention of a person.
Robbery Law of 1974); and, Firearms is also necessarily included in terrorism Public officers who have been vested
6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree because it is one of the predicated crimes in with authority to effects arrest and
Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, terrorism. Or any of these predicated crimes, he detain a person are POLICE
Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of can no longer be charged because they are OFFICERS. On the other hand, public
Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives) necessarily included in terrorism. This is known officers vested with authority to
as the ABSORPTION PRINCIPLE in terrorism. cause the detention of a person are
If the offender commits any of these crimes MEMBERS OF CONGRESS. They can
under the RPC and any of the crimes under Q: But what if in the same problem, while X was waiting for order the detention of a person who
special penal laws, thereby sowing and creating his demands to be given by the government, he saw a girl has been cited of contempt for failing
a condition widespread and extraordinary fear and with lewd design, he touched the private parts of the to accurate their proof, or we have
and panic among the populace in order to coerce seven-year old girl. Therefore he committed a violation of RA JUDGES they can order the summary
the government to give in to an unlawful 7610 the Anti-Child Abuse Law. He was acquitted of detention of persons cited in
demand, he is liable of terrorism and the penalty terrorism. Can the state prosecute him for violation of RA contempt of court.
is 40 years imprisonment without the benefit of 7610? 2. That he detains a person
parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. A: Yes, because it is not among the The second element requires that the
So it is the maximum penalty of 40 years. He has predicate crimes. It is not a crime necessarily offender detains a person.
to serve it totally. Even if he has already served included in the crime of terrorism.  So when is there detention?
the minimum, he cannot be given the benefit of  There is detention when the
parole under the Indeterminate Sentence Law. TITLE TWO offended party is placed in
So it is necessary that he must commit any of incarceration. When the
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE
these predicate crimes and after committing offended party is placed behind
STATE (Articles 124 – 133)
these predicate crimes, where lies the bars or when the offended
difference? Because his act that sowed and party is restrained of his person
The acts under TITLE TWO are made criminal because they or liberty.
created fear and panic among the populace
both appease the Bill of Rights. The rights stated under the  In order to amount arbitrary
coupled with an unlawful demand against the
Constitution and the first of these is under ARTICLE 124, detention there must be an
government.
125 and 126 – Arbitrary Detention. act of restraint on the
person or liberty of the
Q: So let us say that X was charged with terrorism based on
3 KINDS OF ARBITRARY DETENTION: offended party. Absent that
a valid complaint or information a case of terrorism was filed
1. Arbitrary Detention by detaining a person intent, absent the actual
against him before the RTC. However, after trial on the
without legal ground under Article 124 restraint on the person or
merits, the judge acquitted him. According to the judge, the
2. Arbitrary Detention by failing to deliver the liberty of the offended party –
prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
detained person to the proper judicial authorities It can be any other crime
reasonable doubt therefore acquittal for reasonable doubt.
within 12, 18 or 36 hours under Article 125 BUT NOT ARBITRARY
Since he is acquitted of terrorism under RA 9372, can he still
3. Arbitrary Detention by delaying the release of DETENTION. Therefore,
be prosecuted for his predicate crime of kidnapping and
prisoners despite the judicial or executive order Supreme Court said that intent
illegal detention because he detained the children for more
to do so under Article 126 to detain must be manifest, it
than 12 hours? Can he still be prosecuted for Illegal and
must be evident. Absent that,
Unlawful Possession of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives
ARTICLE124 – ARBITRARY DETENTION BY it can be any other crime but
because he was full of firearms and ammunitions and
DETAINING A PERSON WITHOUT LEGAL GROUND not arbitrary detention.
explosives?
A: No more. Because of Section 49 of RA ELEMENTS:
3. That the detention is without legal grounds
9372. Under Section 49 of RA 9372, whenever a 1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
 Who is the offender in Article 124?
Page 5

The third element requires that the
detention must be without legal ground.
 So when is detention without
legal grounds under Article 124?
 1. When the said offended
party was arrested without a
warrant of arrest.
2. When the said offended
party was arrested and his
arrest and detention does not
fall under any of the
circumstances or a valid
warrantless arrest.
3. When he is not suffering
from violent insanity or any
other ailment which requires
compulsory confinement.
 All of these are not
considered valid
grounds for
detention.
 So to reverse, what are the valid
grounds for detention?
 The following are valid grounds
for detention:
a.) If the person does not
receive and detained by
virtue of a warrant of
arrest.
b.) If a person was arrested
and detained under any
of the circumstances for a
valid warrantless arrest
c.) If a person was suffering
violent insanity or any
illness which requires
compulsory confinement.
 These are the valid
ground for the
arrest and detention
of a person.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So if a person, driving his vehicle entered a one way
street and in violation of the LTO rules and regulation, was
stopped by police officer, his license was taken and gave
him a ticket and was bought to the nearest PNP station and
was placed behind bars. He was detained. That was 8
o’clock in the morning then the arresting officer left. And on
the afternoon, the police officer returned to the police
station. Upon his arrival, he immediately released the
incarcerated person whom he detained for entering a one
way street. Is the said police officer liable for arbitrary
detention under Article 124?
CRIMINAL LAW 2
A: YES, he is liable ofARBITRARY JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES WITHIN 12, 18 OR 36 arrested is the one
DETENTION. He is a public officer vested with HOURS who committed the
authority to effect arrest and detain a person. If ELEMENTS: crime. This is
he detained the person, the detention was 1. The offender here is a public officer or otherwise known as
without legal ground. It is without legal ground employee vested with authority to effect HOT PURSUIT
because entering a one way street and violating arrest and detain a person ARREST.
the traffic rules and regulation is not a ground 2. That offender has detained a person for c.) When the person to
for incarceration. It is not a ground for a person some legal ground be arrested is a
to be placed behind bars. If a person committed The second element requires that the prisoner who has
a violation of traffic rules and regulation like offender arrests and detains a person escaped from a
entering a one way street or beating the red for some legal ground. penal establishment
light, he should only be given a ticket. There  What are these legal grounds or a place where he
should not even be a confiscation of license. referred to under Article 125? is serving final
After that, he should be allowed to leave but that  The legal ground being referred sentence or
is not a ground for him to be placed under to in Article 125 is not the fact temporarily
detention. Since the officer detained the person that the said arrest was made detained while his
without any legal ground HE IS LIABLE FOR by virtue of a warrant of arrest case is pending, or
ARBITRARY DETENTION. because if the offended party has escaped while
was arrested by the public being transferred
Q: What if X is suspected to be a snatcher and many officer by virtue of a valid from one penal
complaints was filed against him. One time, when the police warrant of arrest he does not institution to
officers were conducting a patrol they saw X who was have the obligation to deliver another.
perhaps waiting for a ride. When the police officers saw X him to the proper judicial  These are the
they immediately arrested X and brought him to the nearest authorities. circumstances
police station. They told X that he is to be investigated for  So what are these valid instances in for a valid
he is said to be a cellphone snatcher. So he was brought to arresting a person? warrantless
the investigation room however, the investigation officer was  These refer to circumstances of arrest. These
not around so the arresting officer told him that he needs to valid warrantless arrests under are the
be investigated and that he can leave but he must make Section 5 Rule 112 of the Rules circumstances
sure to come back for purposes of investigation otherwise if of Court. It requires that a referred to in
he does not come back the next time they see him they will peace officer or a private the second
kill him. So because of that, X would get out of the precinct individual may even without a element of
but would immediately return. Are the police officers liable warrant arrest a person under Article 125.
for arbitrary detention? the following circumstances:
A: NO, the police officers are not liable for a.) That in his presence 3. That the offender fails to deliver the person
arbitrary detention. There is no intent to the person to be arrested to the proper judicial authorities
restrain or detain the person or liberty of X, the arrested has within 12, 18 or 36 hours.
offended party. In order to amount to arbitrary committed, is The third element requires that that the
detention it is necessary that the intent of the actually committing, offender fails to deliver the person arrested
public officer to restrain the person or liberty of or is attempting to to the proper judicial authorities within 12,
the offended party must be manifest and it must commit a crime. 18 or 36 hours.
be evident. In this case however, it is not. This is otherwise  What do you mean by delivery?
known as  Delivery does not mean that
 Even if there is a threat on the part of the police INFLAGRANTE you really have to deliver the
officer there is however no intent to detain X. DELICTO ARREST physical body of the person
What are the crimes if any are the police officer b.) When a crime has arrested to the court. It means
liable for? in fact just been constructive delivery or legal
 They committed GRAVE THREATS committed, and the delivery, meaning, the filing of
because they threatened to kill X if he police officer has the appropriate case before the
would not come back. It is the grave probable cause to proper court. That is delivery to
threats that made X come back in the believe based on proper judicial authorities -
police station. personal knowledge filing of the case before the
of facts and proper court.
ARTICLE125 – ARBITRARY DETENTION BY FAILING circumstances that  The law says that a public officer
TO DELIVER THE DETAINED PERSON TO THE PROPER the person to be must deliver to the proper judicial
Page 6

authorities. So judicial authority,
what does it mean?
 The proper judicial authorities
refers to COURTS OF JUSTICES
OR JUDGES OF THE COURTS
THAT HAS THE POWER TO
ORDER THE INCARCERATION
OR DETENTION OF A PERSON
OR HIS TEMPORARY RESTRAIN
UPON POSTING OF
APPROPRIATE COMPLAIN.
The FISCAL does not belong to
the proper judicial authority
because he belongs to the
executive branch. The Fiscal is
under the Department of
Justice and not under the
Supreme Court. The head of
the Fiscal is Secretary De Lima
and the President and not Chief
Justice Sereno. That’s why a
Fiscal is not within the meaning
of a judicial authority. Second,
the fiscal may fix or the fiscal
may recommend the bail but he
does not have the power to fix
the bail and allow the accused
to go on temporary liberty.
Only the judges are allowed to
fix the bail and order the
temporary liberty of the
accused until upon the posting
of the said bail.
The law says that a public officer must deliver the person
arrested to proper judicial authority within:
a) 12 hours, for crimes punishable by light
penalties, or their equivalent
b) 18 hours, for crimes punishable by correctional
penalties, or their equivalent
c) 36 hours, for crimes punishable by afflictive or
capital penalties, or their equivalent
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a person has been arrested Inflagrante Delicto in
possession of an unlicensed firearm. Possession of
unlicensed firearm is punished by a special penal law (P.D.
1866 as amended). Is the arresting officer required to
deliver the accused to the proper judicial authorities? Does
Article 125 apply even to violation of special penal laws?
A: Yes, because the law says “or their
equivalent”. 12 hours, for crimes punishable
by light penalties, or their equivalent. That
CRIMINAL LAW 2
means all their equivalent refers to their
equivalent even in cases of violation of special
penal laws. Therefore, even if the crime
committed or the crime for which the offender is
being arrested is based on violation of special
penal laws, the arresting police officer has the
obligation to deliver the person arrested to the
proper judicial authorities in consonance with
Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code.
Q: What if the police officers caught X in the actual act of
killing Y. So they saw X and Y fighting and they saw X
stabbed Y to death. Therefore, X is liable of homicide. They
arrested X and that was Saturday, 3 o’clock in the afternoon.
Sunday, there is no office. The following day, Monday,
happens to be declared a special non-working holiday.
Therefore, the police officers were able to deliver X to the
proper judicial officer only on Tuesday, 8 o’clock in the
morning. They were able to file the case in the Fiscal’s office
for purposes of proceedings Tuesday, 8 o’clock in the
morning, beyond 36 hours which was required by law. Are
the police officers liable for arbitrary detention?
A: NO, the police officers are not liable for
arbitrary detention. The Secretary of the
Department of Justice has made a legal opinion
that the said 12, 18 and 36 hours refers to
WORKING HOURS. These refer to the time when
the courts are open in order to receive the cases
to be filed against them. This does not include
the crime wherein the courts are closed and they
did not receive the complaint or information to
be filed against the accused.
ARTICLE126 – ARBITRARY DETENTION BY
DELAYING THE RELEASE OF PRISONERS DESPITE
THE JUDICIAL OR EXECUTIVE ORDER TO DO SO
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee
2. That there is a judicial or executive order
for the release of the prisoner or detention
prisoner, or that there is a proceeding
upon a petition for the liberation of such
person.
3. That the offender without good/valid
reason delays: (1) the service of the notice
of such order to the prisoner; or (2) the
performance of such judicial or executive
order for the release of the prisoner; or (3)
the proceeding upon a petition for the
release of such person.
NOTE: What is punishable is the delay without valid reason,
the delay of the release of the prisoner despite the judicial
or executive order to do so.
 Example of judicial order for the release of a
prisoner let’s say that a person has been charged
in court and the public prosecutor failed to
present any evidence for consecutive times and
no witnesses has ever been presented since the
beginning. The judge will dismiss the case and
order the release of the accused from jail. This is
an example of a judicial order for the release of
a prisoner. Or let’s say the judge acquitted the
accused then he will order the release of the said
accused from jail.
 How about an example of an executive order for
a release of a prisoner? A person was arrested
and placed behind bars and proceeding was filed
before the fiscal’s office. The fiscal ordered the
release of the prisoner. This is an example of
executive order for the release the prisoner.
Q: What if X has been charged of two crimes - Illegal sales
of dangerous drugs and illegal possession of dangerous
drugs? So, two crimes were filed against him. The illegal
possession of dangerous drugs was filed before the RTC
Branch 6 on the other hand; the illegal sale was filed before
RTC Branch 87. Two different courts were filed with. In the
illegal possession of dangerous drugs which was filed in RTC
Branch 6, no witnesses were ever presented and so the
judge immediately declared the dismissal of the case and he
ordered that X should already be released from jail.
However, the case for illegal sale of dangerous drugs under
RTC Branch 87 is still ongoing. The jail warden receives the
order coming from the judge RTC Branch 6 that X should be
released. The jail warden did not compel. Is the jail warden
liable for arbitrary detention under Article 126 - Arbitrary
Detention by delaying the release of prisoners despite the
judicial or executive order to do so?
A: NO, the jail warden is not liable for
arbitrary detention under Article 126
because there is still another pending case
against the said prisoner before another court.
Therefore, it is incumbent upon him not to
compel with the judge of Branch 6 since there is
another case in Branch 87 which is still ongoing.
What the law punishes is delay without valid
reason for the release of the prisoner.
ARTICLE127 – EXPULSION
Expulsion is committed by public officers or employees who
shall expel any person from the Philippines or who compels
him to change his residence without any lawful authority to
do so.Again, the offender is a public officer or employee who
acts either:
a.) By expelling a person from the Philippines
b.) By compelling a person to change his
residence
 What the law prohibits is that if this public officer
or employee expels him from the Philippines or
compels him to change his residence without
lawful authority to do so because there are
persons who have been authorized by law to
deport a person from the Philippines or to
compel a person to change his residence.
 For example, the President has the power to
deport or expel a person from the Philippines.
Another example is a foreigner who is known to
be a persona non grata; the President may order
his deportation to his home.
 The courts on the other hand, have the power to
compel a person to change his place of
residence. Let’s say the offender is a concubine
and the penalty to be imposed to a concubine is
destierro. Therefore, the concubine is prohibited
from entering a particular place based on the
judgment of the court. Now, theprohibited place
from which she is prohibited from entering is the
place where she lives. She cannot enter the said
place therefore; the court is empowered to
compel her to change her place of residence
because she cannot enter the place wherein her
house is situated.
VIOLATION OF DOMICILE (ARTICLE 128, 129, 130)
 a public officer or employee entered into a
dwelling of another which is not armed with a
search warrant
 different prohibited acts constituting violation of
domicile:
I. By entering any dwelling against the
will of the owner thereof; or
II. By searching papers or other effects
found therein without the previous
consent of such owner; or
III. By refusing to leave the premises,
after having surreptitiously entered
ARTICLE128 – VIOLATION OF DOMICILE
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer or employee
 Who is the offender in the violation of domicile?
 He must be a public officer or employee
acting under color of authority
 A public officer or employee is said to be
acting under color of authority if he has
been vested with the authority to
implement a search warrant, but when he
Page 7

entered in the said dwelling, he is not
armed with a search warrant. Therefore,
he was acting under color of authority.
 Even if he is a public officer or employee,
but he did not act under color of authority,
is liable only, not for violation of domicile,
but is either liable for qualified trespass to
dwelling or trespass to property because
the public officer or employee is acting
under his private capacity.
2. He was not authorized by a judicial order to
enter the dwelling and/or make a search therein
for papers or other effects
 The second element requires that
entering upon the dwelling of
another which is not authorized by a
judicial order. The judicial order
refers to a search warrant
3. He either enters the dwelling of another against
the will of the latter or searching for papers or
other effects found therein without the consent
of the owner, or after having surreptitiously
entered the dwelling, being discovered and
asked to leave, he refuses to leave.
The third elements provides for the different modes
of violation of domicile
(These three modes are separate and distinct from each
other – do not look for all the three modes in a problem,
violation of one of them will bring about violation of
domicile)
1. By entering any dwelling against the will of the
owner thereof; or
There must a prohibition, an opposition from entering.
- Anybody may enter even without a search
It can either be an implied or expressed opposition
from entering.
Example:
implied opposition – the door is closed. It can
be said that the owner is saying that “No one
can enter my house”
expressed prohibition – when the owner is
inside the house and the officer knocks upon
the door and upon seeing the officer, the
owner closes the door.
if there are sayings – “Do not enter”, “No
entry”
- It does not mean entering without the consent. An
entry without the consent is not an entry against the
will.
- When you say entry against the will, there must be an
opposition or a prohibition from entering the dwelling.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
2. By searching papers or other effects found
therein without the previous consent of the
owner; or
- The consent of the owner matters. Even if the public
officer or employee is allowed inside, the fact that he
is allowed inside does not mean that he is allowed to
conduct the search.
- He must ask first for the previous consent of the
owner before proceeding with the search. Without the
previous consent of the owner to conduct the search,
any search would be a violation of domicile.
3. By refusing to leave the premises, after having
surreptitiously entered the dwelling
- it is his refusal to leave the premises that will bring
about the violation of domicile, NOT the surreptitiously
entering. But it is required that entering must be done
surreptitiously.
- Surreptitious entering means entering the dwelling
secretly, candidly.
- Therefore, it is important that he mus-t refuse to leave
after being discovered and asked to leave in order to
amount to violation of domicile.
- Mere surreptitious entering will not bring about
violation of domicile.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q:What if the door of the house was opened, a police officer
without being armed with a search warrant, entered the
door of the house and went up to the sala. The owner of the
house saw him and asked him to leave, and he left. Is he
liable for violation of domicile?
A: He is not liable for violation of domicile.
When the door of the house is open, there is no
prohibition; there is no opposition from entering.
warrant; therefore, since there is no prohibition
or opposition from entering, violation of domicile
cannot be committed under the first act. Under
the second act, it cannot be committed because
he did not conduct the search. The third act also
not done because the entering of the house is
not done surreptitiously.
Q: What if in the same problem, the door of the house was
opened, a public officer with the intent to conduct a search
warrant entered the house, when he was in the sala, the
owner of the house saw him and told him to leave. He did
not leave; he just stayed there and sat on the sofa. Is he
liable for violation of domicile?
A: He is not liable for violation of domicile.
Under the first act, is entry against the will? – NO,
the door was opened. Therefore, there was no
opposition or prohibition from entering. Under the
second act, he did not conduct a search. Under
the third act, is the entering done surreptitiously?
– NO, because the door of the house was opened;
therefore, he did not violate any of the following
acts amounting to violation of domicile.
 But he did not leave the house, although the
owner of the house asked him to leave. Is he
liable?
 Yes. He is liable for unjust
vexation. (Nangiinislangsiya)
 Although he did not the house,
he cannot be liable for violation
of domicile because his act does
not constitute the acts prohibited
by Article 128.
Q: The door of the house was closed, but it was not locked.
A police officer without a search warrant opened the door,
realizing it was not locked, entered the house and went up
to the sala intending to conduct the search. Before he could
conduct the search, the owner of the house saw him, and
told him to leave and he left. Is he liable for violation of
domicile?
A: Yes. He is laible for violation of domicile.
Even if he left the said place upon being told to
do it, he is already liable because his entry was
against the will of the owner. The door was
closed although it was not locked. Therefore,
there was an implied opposition, an implied
prohibition from entering.When he entered
without a search warrant intending to conduct a
search is already a violation of domicile
Q: What if the police officer knocked on the door of the
house of X. X opened the door, upon seeing the public
officers, X allowed them to enter. The police officer told X
that they were looking for a stolen car stereo in the
neighborhood; we are going to conduct a search in your
house. X said, "No, you cannot conduct a search inside my
house”. The police officers agreed and left the house. Are
they liable for violation of domicile?
A: They are not liable. It is not entry against
the will. They did not conduct a search. The
entry was not done surreptitiously. It does not
fall any of the acts, therefore, they are not liable
for violation of domicile.
Q: In the same problem, when they told the owner that they
were conducting a search for the stolen car stereo, the
owner of the house said, “No, you cannot conduct a search.
There is nothing stolen inside my house” but the police
officers proceeded with the search.
A: This time, they are liable for violation of
domicile because they made a search without
the previous consent of the owner – under the
second act of Art. 128
Q: What if in the same problem, the owner of the house told
the police officers, “No you cannot conduct a search, there is
nothing stolen inside my house” The police officers obliged,
they were going to leave the house, obeying the order of the
owner. However, on their way out, before they could go out,
they saw near the door, a table and on top of it, there were
drug paraphernalia, contraband. And so, they seized and
confiscated the contraband and then thereafter they leave
the house. Are they liable for violation of domicile? Are the
evidences confiscated admissible against the owner?
A: They are not liable of violation of
domicile. When they were told not to conduct
the search, they did not conduct the search and
they were about to leave, therefore, not liable
for violation of domicile. But they confiscated the
drug paraphernalia that they saw. Yes, the
confiscated drug paraphernalia were admissible
against the owner because they were
contraband. They are illegal per se. And the
police officers saw them without conducting the
search, they saw them inadvertently. Even
without conducting the search, the police officers
would see contraband, narcotics, in their
presence, in their plain view, they are mandated
by law to seize and confiscate the same under
the plain view doctrine. So in this case, these
drug paraphernalia where under the plain view
and therefore under the obligation to seize and
confiscate them and these are admissible as
evidence against the owner of the house.
Q: What if a police officer was conducting a surveillance of
X, a well-known drug pusher, so he was always within the
vicinity of the house of X. One time, it was the birthday of X,
the gate of the house was open, and the door of the house
was opened. The police officer disguised himself as one of
the guests and he entered the house together with the flow
of the guests. His intention was to conduct a search. He was
already about to conduct the search when the owner of the
house recognized him. The owner of the house came up to
him. “I know you, you are a police officer. Get out of my
house right now” and he left. Is he liable for violation of
domicile?
A: No, he is not liable for violation of
domicile. The entry was done surreptitiously,
secretly, candidly, he was in disguise. It was not
against the will of the owner because the gates
and the door were open. He did not conduct the
search because the owner saw him before he
could do so. The entry was done surreptitiously.
Page 8

He was discovered and ordered to leave, and he
left. Therefore, he is not liable for violation of
domicile
 However, upon being discovered and ordered to
leave and stayed in the house.
 Here, he is not liable for violation
of domicile.
 Under Articles 129 and 130, there is still violation of
domicile despite the public officer or employee is
armed with a search warrant.
ARTICLE129 – SEARCH WARRANTS MALICIOUSLY
OBTAINED AND ABUSE IN THE SERVICE OF THOSE
LEGALLY OBTAINED
 Prohibited acts – violation of domicile is
committed through:
I. By procuring a search warrant
without just cause
 When a public officer or
employee conducts a search and
the search warrant was an
illegally procured search warrant.
It was procured without just
cause.
SEARCH WARRANT – is an order in writing, issued in the
name of the People of the Philippines, signed by a judge and
directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for
personal property described therein and to bring to court the
particular things to be seized.
Before a search warrant may be issue, the following
are the requisites to a valid search warrant:
1.) It is required that it is for one specific offense.
2.) There must be probable cause
3.) The probable cause must be determined personally by
the issuing judge
4.) The said probable cause was determined by the
issuing judge personally through searching questions
and answers in writing, under oath or affirmation as
the testimony given by applicant of the said search
warrant or any witnesses he may produce.
5.) The applicant of the search warrant and his witnesses
must testify only as to facts personally known to them
6.) The said search warrant must specifically state the
place to be searched and the place to be seized.
- If any of these requisites is wanting, then the said
search warrant is illegally procured. It is procured
without just cause
- A search conducted by virtue of a search warrant
CRIMINAL LAW 2
illegally procured without just cause is a kin to a
search without a search warrant.
Q: What if the police officer was armed with a search
warrant, he procured the search warrant illegally without
just cause. The police had an enemy, B, then proceeded to a
judge to issue a search warrant testifying under oath, the he
is positive under his surveillance that B was in possession of
an unlicensed firearm inside his house. The judge believed
the police and issued a search warrant against B. The police
officer is now armed with a search warrant, and went to the
house of B and showed it to B. B, upon reading the search
warrant, knew it was maliciously procured, it was procured
without just cause. Should B allow the police officer to
conduct the search?
A: Yes. Even if the said search warrant was
procured without just cause, the police officer
must be allowed to enter and conduct the
search, because of the so-called, REGULARITY
OF PERFORMANCE OF DUTY on the part of the
judge in issuing the said search warrant. He is
armed with a search warrant issued by the judge
and therefore, he must allow him to enter his
house and to conduct his search.
 What now would be the remedy of the
owner of the house?
 The owner of the house has the
following remedies:
1.) He can file a motion to quash
the said warrant
2.) He can file a motion to
suppress the evidence that
have been confiscated inside
the house.
 In addition to these motions, he
can file a case of violation of
domicile against the said public
officer who conducted the search.
Violation of domicile under Art.
129 because he procured the said
search warrant without just
cause.
 So in other words, the said police
officers must be allowed to enter
and allowed to conduct the search
and the owner of the house shall
have the abovementioned
remedies thereafter.
II. By exceeding his authority or by using
unnecessary severity in executing a
search warrant legally procured
 A search warrant is valid only for a period of
10 days from the date of its issuance
appearing on the search warrant.
ILLUSTRATION:
A search warrant was dated Dec. 1, a police officer received
it on Dec 3. The search was conducted Dec. 13. The said
search warrant is already invalid.
 When they conducted the said search on
Dec. 13, they already exceeded the authority
in the said search warrant. Therefore, they
are liable of violation of domicile under
Article 129.
Q: What if the said search warrant says that they could
conduct the search, anytime of the day. They conducted the
search at night time.
A: They are liable of violation of domicile
under Article 129 because they exceeded the
authority in the said search warrant.
A search warrant may only be conducted at day time. It may
only be implemented at day time, EXCEPTIONS:
 When there is a specific order in the
search warrant stating that if can be
conducted at anytime of the day or
night.
 Absence of such order in the said
search warrant, a search warrant can
only be implemented at day time.
Q: What if a search warrant was issued against X, the place
to be search is located at 123 valentiono St. They police
went there. The house was owned not by X, but by Y. So
they look for the house of X, the house of X was 321
valentino St. They presented a search warrant to X. X said,
“you cannot conduct a search inside my house. The address
in the search warrant is 123 valentinost. and my address is
321 valentinost. Nevertheless, the officers conducted the
search and they found the illegal items inside the house. Are
the police officers liable of violation of domicile? Are the
confiscated admissible evidence against the owner?
A: The officers are liable for the violation of
domicile. When they conducted the said search,
on a house that has a different address from that
said search warrant, they exceeded their
authority in the said search warrant. The search
warrant is so worded, expressly, as to the thing
or place to be searched. The police officer cannot
exercise discretion. They have to follow what is
stated in the search warrant. The moment they
did not follow what is stated in the search
warrant, then they exceeded the authority.
 In that case, when there is variance between
what is stated in the search warrant and the
actual facts of the case to be searched, the have
to go back to the judge that issued the said
search warrant and they have to ask or move for
the amendment of the said search warrant.
Q: What if the third punishable act under Art. 129
amounting to the violation of domicile, when the public
officer or employee exercised excessive severity in the
implementation of the said search warrant.
What if a search warrant is issued against X, the
police officers went to the house of X, upon reaching the
house of X, they showed the warrant to X and he allowed
them to enter. The search warrant said that they could
search for dangerous drugs, particularly, shabu. In searching
for shabu, they turned upside down and deliberately
destroyed each and every furniture and appliance inside the
house of X. When the wife of X saw this, she told the police
officers to stop, but she was slapped twice. she then
suffered less serious physical injuries. In deliberately
destroying the furniture and appliances of X, the public
officers committed malicious mischief. In slapping the wife,
they committed less serious physical injuries. What
crime/crimes would you file against the police officers?
A: You have to file 3 cases:
1. Violation of domicile – because they
exercised excessive severity in the
implementation of the said search
warrant. They need not destroy the
property. They need not slap the wife.
All of these are excess of the search
warrant.
 Therefore they should be
filed in violation of Art. 129,
violation of domicile, for
exercising excessive severity.
2. Malicious mischief – for destroying the
furniture and appliances
3. less serious physical injuries – for
slapping the wife
 Are you going to file all 3 cases or is it absorbed and
must be file within the court?
 Violation of domicile cannot absorb malicious
mischief nor less serious physical injuries.
 Although in reality, these two are merely the
manifestations of the excess in the
implementation of the said search warrant,
they cannot be absorbed, they cannot be
complex. Under Art. 129, he expressly
prohibits such absorption and such
complexity of crimes
Page 9

 Under Article 129, the liability for violation of
domicile shall be in addition to the liability
attaching to the offender for commission of
any other crime. Therefore, if aside from
violation of domicile, Another crime is
committed by the police officers, they had to
be charged with all these cases. Art. 129
prohibits the complexing of a crime. It also
prohibits the absorption of this crime,
therefore all 3 cases must be filed against
the said police officers.
ARTICLE130 – SEARCHING DOMICILE WITHOUT
WITNESSES
 Prohibited act:
I. By conducting a search in the absence of
the owner of the house, or any member of
his family, or two witnesses residing in the
same locality
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if under Article 130, violation of domicile is
committed when the search was conducted in the absence
of the owner of the house, or any member of his family or
two witnesses residing from the same locality.
A search warrant was issued against X and the police
officers went to the house of X. They showed the search
warrant to X and they were allowed inside to conduct the
search. In conducting the search, the search was witnessed
by 2 barangay tanods who came with them, who arrived
with them in the house of X. in the conduct of the search,
they told the owner of the house, X, that his wife and his
two children to remain in the sala while they conduct the
search inside the bedroom of X. In conducting the search in
the bedroom of X, the search was witnessed by 2 barangay
tanods and they found 2 plastic sachets of shabu
underneath the pillow inside the bedroom of X. Are the
police officers liable of violation of domicile under Article
130? Are the evidence seized admissible against the owner?
A: The police officers are liable of violation of
domicile under Article 130.
Article 130 provides for an hierarchy of witnesses
who must be present in the conduct of the
search. The law says it must witnessed by the
owner of the house, it is only in the absence of
the owner of the house that it must be witnessed
by any member of his family. It is only in the
absence of the owner of the house or any
member of his family that there must be 2
witnesses residing from the same locality.
In the problem, the owner of the house was
there, the members of his family were there
but, they were not allowed to witness the
CRIMINAL LAW 2
said search. Therefore, the said search was
conducted in violation of Article 130 and any
evidence confiscated will be inadmissible
against the owner of the house for being
fruits of poisonous tree under the
exclusionary rule in Political Law
GALVANTE VS. CASIMIRO
The Supreme Court says,
“There is no such crime as illegal search. So,
what is prohibited only the searching of the dwelling under
Article 129. But, in case of search under vehicle or any other
places, there is no such thing as illegal search. The remedy
is to file an action for damages, a civil action for damages.”
ARTICLE131 – PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND
DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
 This is committed by a public officer or employee
who commits any of the following acts:
I. By prohibiting or by interrupting,
without legal ground, the holding of a
peaceful meeting, or by dissolving
the same. (any peaceful meeting)
II. By hindering any person from joining
any lawful association or from
attending any of its meetings.
III. By prohibiting or hindering any
person from addressing, either alone
or together with others, any petition
to the authorities for the correction of
abuses or redress of grievances.
 For the crime to arise, it is necessary that the meeting
that was prevented, interrupted or dissolved must be a
peaceful meeting and it must be for any lawful
purpose. If the meeting is not a peaceful meeting or if
the meeting is not for lawful purpose, a public officer
or employee has all the rights to prevent, interrupt or
dissolve the said meeting.
This is in the exercise of the freedom of speech,
freedom of expression and freedom of assembly. However,
these 3 freedoms are not absolute. The Supreme Court has
enjoined the power of the State to regulate these meetings
through permits.
Before any of these peaceful meetings for a lawful purpose
may be held in a public place, there must be a permit
coming from the local authority of the place. The permit is
only to regulate the said meeting and not to prohibit it.
Regulate as to the time, place and to the date, so that the
public would not be in inconvenience.
ARTICLE132 – INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS
WORSHIP
ELEMENTS:
1. This is committed by an offender who is
again a public officer or employee.
2. Then there is a religious ceremony or
manifestations of any religion are about to
take place or are going on.
3. That the offender prevents or disturbs the
said religious worship or religious
ceremony.
 If the offender makes us of violence or threats
in committing the crime, such use of violence or
threats would not constitute a separate and
distinct charge. Rather it is considered as an
aggravating or qualifying circumstance
which would mean an imposition of a higher
penalty.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if there is a barrio fiesta and the priest is about
to celebrate the mass. Here comes X and he went to the
priest and point the gun to the priest. Then the priest was
about to celebrate the mass. At first the priest did not mind
him. But X intentionally pointed the gun to the head of the
priest and said, “I will kill you if you will celebrate the mass!”
So the priest did not celebrate the mass and all the faithful
went out of the church. What crime if any is committed by
X?
A: X is liable for interruption of religious
worship under Article 132. What about the
fact that he pointed a gun at the head of the
priest? Would it constitute a separate and
distinct crime of grave threats? It will not. The
fact that threats were employed in the
commission of the crime would only mean the
penalty will be imposed in its maximum period.
It would be considered an aggravating
circumstance in committing the crime of
interruption of religious worship. BUT, IT WILL
BRING ABOUT A SEPARATE AND DISTINCT
CHARGE FOR GRAVE THREATS OR EVEN UNDER
LIGHT THREATS.
ARTICLE133 – OFFENDING THE RELIGIOUS
FEELINGS
ELEMENTS:
1. Committed by a public officer or employee
or a private individual.
 The first element provides for
the offender. The offender may
be a public officer or employee
or a private individual. This is
the only crime under Title Two
where the offender can be a
private individual. From Article
124 to Article 132 under Title
Two, the offender can ONLY be
a public officer or employee.
The only exception is Article
133, offending the religious
feelings wherein the offender
can either be a public officer or
employee or a private
individual. The reason is,
whoever may be the offender,
a public officer or employee or
a private individual, there will
be the same offense made on
the feelings of the faithful.
2. The said offender performs acts (1) in a
place devoted to religious worship, or (2)
during the celebration of any religious
ceremony.
 The second element requires
that the offender performs acts
notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful. Acts
notoriously offensive to the
feelings of the faithful are those
acts directed against their
religious dogma, ritual, faith of
the religion, or mocks, ridicule,
or scoffs of the said dogma,
ritual, faith or he attempts to
damage the object of
veneration of a certain religion.
The law says “notoriously
offensive”, according to Reyes,
it means that it is offensive
to all kinds of religion. If
the same thing would be done
to any religion they will also be
offended.
3. That the acts must be notoriously offensive
to the feelings of the faithful.
 The third element requires that
the said acts notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the
faithful can be committed only
(1) in a place devoted to
religious worship, or (2) during
the celebration of any religious
ceremony. The law uses the
word “or” therefore, if the act is
done in a place devoted to
religious worship, it is not
Page 10
 CRIMINAL LAW 2
necessary that there be a a. to remove from the allegiance to said directed against the duly constituted authorities, with ABSORPTION IN REBELLION.
religious ceremony ongoing. Government or its laws: or without civilians.
Because it can either be with or (1) the territory of the THEORY OF ABSORPTION IN REBELLION
without a religious ceremony Philippines or any part REBELLION COUP D’ETAT  Whenever in the course of committing rebellion,
for as long as the place is thereof; or murder, homicide, arson, physical injuries, other
Essence – an Armed public Essence – swift attack
devoted for religious worship. (2) any body of land, naval or common crimes are committed, and these
Uprising against the against the duly constituted
other armed forces; or Government authorities common crimes are in furtherance to, incident
ILLUSTRATION: b. to deprive the Chief Executive or to, in connection with Rebellion is considered as
Crime of the Masses, it It can be committed with or
Q: So what if X (A private individual) entered a catholic Congress, wholly or partially, of any involves a multitude of without the participation of absorbed in the crime of Rebellion. Therefore,
church after that the tabernacle was opened and he took out their powers or prerogatives. people the public because it says, only one charge of Rebellion should be charged
the chalice and inside the chalice was the host which was  The essence or the gravamen of REBELLION is : with or without civilian against the said offender.
being received by Catholics during communion. He poured - The armed uprising against the Philippine Government. support, provided it has
the host in the floor then he destroyed them, spit on them So it is a public uprising with the taking up of arms. been committed by any ENRILE v SALAZAR
and stepped on them. Is he liable under Article 133? AN ARMED PUBLIC UPRISING. member of the military, the Senator Juan Ponce Enrile was charged with the Following
A: YES. The act he performed is notoriously  In case of Rebellion, it can be committed by any police or those holding crimes:
offensive to the feelings of the Catholics. If person, or with a participation of the public. public office or employment. 1. charged with Rebellion
the same act is done to the object of veneration Purpose – Overthrow the Purpose – only to diminish 2. charged with multipleMurder
of the Buddhists or if the same act is done to the Government of the state power, to destabilize
THE LEADERS - Any person who 3. Multiple frustrated murder
object of veneration of the Muslims, they will Philippines and replace it the government, not entirely
(a) promotes 4. violation of PD 1829 – obstruction of Justice because
also be offended. Therefore, it is notoriously with the Government of the to overthrow the
offensive to the feelings of the faithful because (b) maintains or he harbored or concealed then Colonel Gregorio
Rebels government. Honasan.
even if it is applied to other religions they would (c) heads a rebellion or insurrection
Can only be committed by Can be committed not only
be offended too. And it was done in a place
means of force and violence by means of force and  What did the Supreme Court say?
devoted to religious worship because it is done THE PARTICIPANTS – Any person who
violence but also by means
inside the church even if no religious ceremony is (a) participates  The Supreme Court said:
of intimidation, threat,
ongoing. (b) executes the commands of others in rebellion or “only one charge and it should be rebellion. The
strategy or stealth
insurrection violation of PD 1829, the multiple murder and
Q: What if inside the PICC there was this art exhibit ongoing multiple frustrated murder are absorbed in
and one artist, this was a controversy before right? There THE LEADERS - Any person who Rebellion under the theory of absorption in
ARTICLE134-A – COUP D’ETAT (a) leads
was this picture of Jesus Christ and on the picture of Jesus Rebellion.”
ELEMENTS:
Christ he put a representation of a penis on his face. Is the (b) directs or The Supreme Court further said that although
1. That the offender is a person or persons violation of PD 1829 is a violation of a special
said artist liable under Article 133 offending the religious (c) command others to undertake a coup d’etat
belonging to the military or police or holding any penal law, still if it is committed in furtherance of
feelings?
public office or employment; Rebellion, it can still be absorbed in the crime of
A: NO. He cannot be liable for offending THE PARTICIPANTS – Any member of the
2. That it is committed by means of a swift attack Rebellion.
religious feelings under Article 133. Government who
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat,
Because the PICC is not a place devoted for (a) participates
strategy or stealth; ILLUSTRATION:
religious worship and the art exhibit is not a (b) executes the commands of others in undertaking a coup
celebration of a religious ceremony. Therefore, 3. That the attack is directed against duly Q: What if a police officer was on his way to the office,
constituted authorities of the Republic of the d’etat
since the last element is not present even if it suddenly here comes a member of the NPA, he saw the
offends religious feelings, he cannot be held Philippines, or any military camp or installation, police officer and shot him. What crime is committed? is it
communication networks, public utilities or other Any person who is not in the Government service
liable under Article 133 for the absence of the 3 rd Rebellion or murder?
facilities needed for the exercise and continued who
element.  Rebellion can only be absorbed
possession of power; (a) Participates
common crime such as murder, if the
4. That the purpose of the attack is to seize or (b) Supports commission of the crimes was done
TITLE THREE
diminish state power. (c) Finances in furtherance of Rebellion.
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER (Articles
134 – 160) (d) abets or Therefore, it is necessary that there
 Committed by any person or persons belonging to the (e) aids in the undertaking of a coup d’etat must be evidence shown in what way
military or police or holding any public office or the said killing has promoted,
ARTICLE134 - REBELLION OR INSURRECTION
employment, with or without civilian support, carried  What if common crimes are committed in the fostered the idea of the Rebels.
ELEMENTS: out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the Absent any connection with the
course of Rebellion?
1. That there must be (a) public uprising, and Philippines for the purpose of seizing or diminishing commission of the common crime
(b) taking arms against the Government  Common crimes committed in furtherance of,
state power. and the furtherance of rebellion, the
incident to or in connection with Rebellion are
2. That the purpose of the uprising or appropriate charge is only murder,
considered as ABSORBED in the crime of
movement is either –  The essence of COUP D’ETAT is a swift attack homicide, arson or physical injuries
Rebellion – known as the THEORY OF

Page 11

as the case maybe.
A: In the case, the proper charged would
be murder. There was no evidence showing in
what way the said NPA has promoted the ideas
of the Rebels in killing of the said police officer.
Absent of that evidence, it would be a charge of
murder and not rebellion.
Rebellion is a continuing crime. Therefore, these
NPA who rebelled against the Government, to
overthrow the Government, that one time
uprising is sufficient, they are already considered
as rebels because it is a continuing offense.
GONZALES v ABAYA
Senator Trillanes and company was charged with 2 crimes,
coup d’etat in the RTC of Makati and the violation of articles
of war, particularly acts of unbecoming of an officer and a
gentleman filed before the military court. While the case was
pending in the RTC of Makati, the lawyer filed a petition, a
motion, saying that the violation of the articles of war should
be absorbed by the case filed before the RTC of Makati. Can
Coup d’etat absorb the violations of article of war?
 The Supreme Court ruled in the NEGATIVE.
 According to the Supreme Court, for the
theory of absorption to apply, it is necessary
that both cases must be heard or may be
heard before the same civilian court.
 In this case, the coup d’etat must be heard
in a civilian court, RTC of Makati, whereas
the violations of the articles of war can be
heard only before a military court. Therefore,
one cannot absorb the other.
 Second reasoning given by the Supreme
Court, for the theory to absorption to apply,
it is necessary that both crimes are punished
by the same penal statute
 Third reasoning, violation of the articles of
war is sui generis. It is a kind of its own.
Nothing compares to it. Therefore, it cannot
be absorbed by any other crime.
ARTICLE136 – CONSPIRACY AND PROPOSAL TO
COMMIT COUP D’ETAT, REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION
 There is CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
REBELLION when two or more persons come
into an agreement concerning the commission of
rebellion (to rise publicly and take arms against
the Government to any of the purposes of
rebellion) and decide to commit it.
 There is PROPOSAL TO COMMIT
REBELLION when a person who decides to
CRIMINAL LAW 2
commit rebellion proposes its execution to
another person it is necessary that the other
person would not agree, if that person agree,
then it is already conspiracy to commit rebellion
 Conspiracy is a bilateral act which involves two
or more persons, whereas proposal is a unilateral
act only one person decides to commit the crime
and he proposes its execution to another person.
 There is a conspiracy to commit coup d’etat the same
way of committing it. Also the proposal to commit
coup d’etat.
ARTICLE138 – INCITING TO REBELLION OR
INSURRECTION
Inciting to Rebellion is a crime under the Revised
Penal Code.
ELEMENTS:
1. It is committed by any person who does not take
up arms or is not in open hostility with the
Government
2. he incites others to uprise for any of the
purposes of rebellion (incite others to the
execution of any of the acts of rebellion)
3. by means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, banners or other representations
tending to the same end.
 There is NO SUCH CRIME AS INCITING TO COUP
D’ETAT.
SEDITION (ARTICLE 139)
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender rise (1) publicly, and (2)
tumultuously;
2. That they employ force, intimidation or other
means outside of legal methods;
3. That the offenders employ any of those means
to attain any of the following objectives:
a. To prevent the promulgation or
execution of any law or the holding
of any popular election
b. To prevent the National Government,
or any provincial or municipal
government, or any public officer
thereof from freely exercising its or
his functions, or prevents the
execution of any administrative
order;
c. To inflict any act of hate or revenge
upon the person or property of any
public officer or employee;
d. To commit, for any political or social
end, any act of hate or revenge
against private persons or any social
class; and
e. To despoil, for any political or social
end, any person, municipality or
province or the National Government
of all its property or any part thereof
 There is a public uprising again but no taking up
of arms but it is done tumultuously by means of
force, intimidation or any other means outside
the legal methods.
 Therefore, based on the objects of sedition, the
purposes of sedition can either be political in nature or
social in nature.
 The purpose of sedition is not to overthrow the
government but to go against what the
government wants to implement. To go against a
new law, an administrative order or public officer
or employee.
 It is a disturbance, a commotion against the
lawful command of the authority.
 The rallies that you see everyday, the rallies
against a new law to be implemented, they are
considered as ordinary protest or rallies, but the
moment they are carried outside of legal
methods, by means of force and violence, they
will become to be a seditious act.
 So, sedition is like any other rally, it only becomes
seditious because there is the public uprising, done
tumultuously, by means of force, violation or any other
means outside of the legal method.
REBELLION SEDITION
Both have a public uprising
Objective – Political in nature Objective – can either be
To overthrow the Political or social in nature
Government and to replace
the it with the Government of
the Rebels
ARTICLE141 – CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT SEDITION
 There is a crime conspiracy to commit sedition
but not proposal to commit sedition. A proposal
to commit sedition is not a punishable act under
the RPC.
ARTICLE142 – INCITING TO SEDITION
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is not a participant (does not take
direct part) in the crime of sedition
2. He incites others to uprise for any of the
purposes of sedition
3. By means of speeches, proclamations, writings,
emblems, cartoon, banners, or other
representation tending to the same end.
 Inciting to Rebellion or Inciting to Sedition can
only be committed by a person who is not a
participant in the Rebellion or the Sedition,
because if he is a participant in the Rebellion or
Sedition, the appropriate charge is Rebellion or
Sedition as the case may be. Not merely inciting
to Rebellion or Sedition.
 Inciting to Sedition is committed not only by
inciting others for any of the purposes of
sedition. Different acts of inciting to sedition:
I. Inciting others to the accomplishment of
any of the acts which constitute sedition by
means of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems, etc.
II. Uttering seditious words or speeches which
tend to disturb the public peace
III. Writing, publishing or circulating scurrilous
libels against the Government, or any of
the duly constituted authorities thereof,
which tend to disturb the public peace.
USE OF UNLICENSED FIREARM (PD 1866 as amended
by RA 8294 otherwise known as the laws on
illegal/unlawful possession, manufacture, dealing in,
acquisition or disposition of firearms, ammunition or
explosives or instruments used in the manufacture of
firearms, ammunition or explosives)
See: People vs. Ladjaalam and Celino Sr. vs. People
 Under Section 1 – If the use of an unlicensed
firearm is in furtherance of, incident to, or in
connection with the crime of rebellion or
sedition, or attempted coup d’état, such use of
unlicensed firearm shall be absorbed in the crime
of rebellion, sedition or attempted coup d’état.
 Therefore, the use of unlicensed firearm in case
of rebellion or sedition, or attempted coup d’état
will not bring about a separate or distinct charge.
There is only one crime that is rebellion or
sedition, or attempted coup d’état. The use of
unlicensed firearm is not even an aggravating
circumstance. It is absorbed in the crime of
rebellion or sedition, or attempted coup d’état.
 Under the same Section 1 of PD 1866 as
amended by RA 8294, if the use of an unlicensed
firearm is in the crime of homicide or murder, as
the case may be, the use of unlicensed firearm
Page 12

shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. So in the law, it is an
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
 WHAT KIND OF AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE?
 As decided by the Supreme Court in
number of cases, it is a SPECIAL
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
which cannot be offset by any mitigating
circumstance. The Supreme Court also
held that the use of the word “homicide
or murder” under Section 1 is in its
generic sense, therefore, whatever be the
kind of killing for as long as the
unlicensed firearm is used, such use of
unlicensed firearm is considered as a
SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So if a son had an argument with his father, in the
course of the argument with his father, the son killed the
father, the firearm was recovered. What crime or crimes
would you file against the son?
A: The son is liable of the crime
ofPARRICIDE, for having killed his own father.
The use of unlicensed firearm shall be
considered as a SPECIAL AGGRAVATING
CIRCUMSTANCE. Because as held by the
Supreme Court, the use of the word “murder” is
in its generic sense, therefore it includes any
kind wherein the imposable penalty is
RECLUSION PERPETUA TO DEATH such as
Parricide.
Under Section 1 of PD 1866 as amended, it also provided
that a person can only be held liable of illegal possession of
unlicensed firearm provided that no other crime was
committed by the person arrested. It is necessary that no
other crime was committed by the person arrested.
PEOPLE VS. LADJAALAM
The police officers armed with a warrant of
arrest went to the house of WalpanLadjaalam to
effect the warrant of arrest. WalpanLadjaalam,
upon seeing the police officers, fired shots at the
officers. Hence, he was charged with direct
assault with multiple attempted homicide. Aside
from that, he was also charged with illegal
possession of unlicensed firearms. He was
convicted of both crimes before the Regional
Trial Court. On appeal before the Supreme Court,
SC said the illegal possession of firearms case
should be dismissed. He should be acquitted in
CRIMINAL LAW 2
the said case because he committed another
crime, and that is, DIRECT ASSAULT WITH
MULTIPLE ATTEMPTED HOMICIDE.
What about in the case of CELINO, SR. VS. PEOPLE?
In this case, it was election time, there was a
COMELEC gun ban. A person was found in
possession of an unlicensed firearm. Arrested, he
was charged of 2 crimes: (1) violation of the
COMELEC gun ban, and (2) illegal possession of
unlicensed firearms. During the arraignment for
the violation of the COMELEC gun ban, he
pleaded not guilty. However, during the
arraignment for illegal possession of an
unlicensed firearm, he filed a motion to quash
the information. According to him, he cannot be
charged of illegal possession of an unlicensed
firearm because the law says that you can only
be charged of illegal possession of an unlicensed
firearm provided that no other crime is
committed by the person arrested. He said here,
he committed violation of COMELEC gun ban,
therefore, he can no longer be liable for violation
of PD 1866 that is Illegal Possession of
Unlicensed Firearm.
 IS HIS CONTENTION CORRECT?
 His contention is wrong because
according to the Supreme Court, when the
law says “provided that no other crime is
committed by the person arrested”, the
word “committed” means that there is
already a final determination of guilt – a
final conviction of guilt based on a
successful prosecution or a judicial
admission. Therefore, the word
“committed” means he has already been
held guilty beyond reasonable doubt a final
judgment.
 2.
In the case of CELINO SR., he was not yet convicted. He
was only being prosecuted. He was only being charged of
illegal possession of unlicensed firearm. Therefore, both
cases can proceed. He can be charged both of illegal
possession of unlicensed firearms and violation of COMELEC
gun ban. However, the moment he is convicted of violation
of COMELEC gun ban, he should be acquitted of illegal
possession of unlicensed firearm, because this time, the law
says provided that no other crime is committed by the
person arrested. Therefore, a final conviction is
necessary before the illegal possession of unlicensed
firearm may be dismissed or he may be acquitted of
the same. So that is the relation of PD 1866 to sedition,
rebellion and coup d’état.
ARTICLE143 – ACTS TENDING TO PREVENT THE committee were voting when suddenly some members of
MEETING OF THE ASSEMBLY AND SIMILAR BODIES the media immediately pulled out a placard and shouted:
 Punishes acts preventing the meeting of “YES TO FREEDOM TO INFORMATION BILL!”Are they liable
Congress of any crime?
 The crime is committed if there is a projected or A: YES. They are liable of disturbance of
actual meeting of the Congress and the offender, proceedings under Article 144. Because
by means of force or fraud, prevents such while in the presence of the said meeting, they
meeting behaved in such a manner as to interrupt the
 The offender here is any person: he may be a proceedings, or impair the respect due it.
private individual, public officer or employee
 It is necessary that the offender prevents the ARTICLE145 – VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY
meeting of the Congress or any of its IMMUNITY
committees, or constitutional committees or any  Punishes violation of parliamentary immunity
provincial city or municipal board.  There are TWO (2) ACTS PUNISHED IN
VIOLATION OF PARLIAMENTARY
ILLUSTRATION: IMMUNITY:
Q: So what if there is a meeting of the 1. Penalty: Prision Mayor –
SangguniangPanlungsod. It was being presided by the Vice committed by any person who
Mayor as the presiding officer of the city council. During the by means of force, intimidation,
session of the SangguniangPanlungsod, here comes the fraud or threat, or any other
mayor together with some police officers. They entered the means and by said means, he
session of and disturbed and prevented the said meeting by tried to prevent any member of
force. What crime, if any, was committed? the Congress either from
A: It is the violation of Article 143 – ACTS attending any meeting of the
TENDING TO PREVENT THE MEETING OF Congress or its committees or
CONGRESS AND SIMILAR BODIES. subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or
ARTICLE144 – DISTURBANCE OF PROCEEDINGS divisions thereof , from
expressing his opinions or
 Punishes disturbance of proceedings
casting his vote
 In disturbance of proceedings, there is a meeting
 can be
of Congress or of any of its committees or
committed by
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or
anyone
committees or divisions thereof, or of any
(private
provincial board or city or municipal council or
individual,
board
public officer
 The offender either disturbs any of such
or employee)
proceedings or he behaves while in the presence
of such proceedings in such a manner as to
Penalty: PrisionCorreccional
interrupt the proceedings or impair the respect
– can only be committed by a
due it.
public officer or employee who
 So here, it is necessary that the offender, who
shall, while the Congress is in
was present in the meeting, either he disturbs
regular or special session,
the said proceeding, or while being there, he
arrest or search any member
performed an act which impair the respect due
thereof, except in case such
to them or which interrupted the said proceeding
member has committed a crime
punishable under this Code by
ILLUSTRATION: a penalty higher than prision
Q: The FREEDOM OF INFORMATION BILLwas on the mayor.
committee level. It was votation time. On the right side of  Offender
the said place or meeting, there were some observers or should be only
people who were coming from the media. On the left side, a public
there were ordinary people who do not agree on the officer or
freedom of information bill. It was time to vote for the employee and
passage of Freedom of Information bill, the members of the not any
Page 13
 CRIMINAL LAW 2
individual A:YES, they are liable for violation of 1. That there be a authority or
because any parliamentary immunity under the second. meeting, a his agents)
individual Because at the time the Congress is in its regular gathering or group
cannot make session and they arrested the said Congressman, of persons, whether  In case of illegal assembly, it is only necessary that
a search or Libel under Article 355 is punishable only by in fixed place or there be a meeting, the meeting must be attended
arrest a Prision Correcional in its minimum and medium moving by armed persons, under the first mode. In here,
member of period, therefore it is below Prision Mayor, 2. The meeting is when it says “armed persons”, it is not required that
the Congress hence, the Congressman cannot be arrested attended by armed all those persons present in the meeting must be
 It is necessary while the Congress is in its regular or special persons with arms. It suffices that one, two or more, or
that at the session. 3. The purpose of the some of them would be with arms.
time of the meeting is to9  When we say “arms,” it does not only mean
arrest, the Q: What if Congressman A is charged with the crime of commit any of the firearms, it refers to any things, knives, stones,
member of attempted homicide. The fiscal found probable cause, the crimes punishable anything which can cause violence or injury to
Congress, the case was filed in court. The court agrees with the fiscal and under the Code another person.
Congress a warrant of arrest was issued against Congressman A. The  It is necessary however, that the purpose of the
must be in its warrant of arrest was issued by the judge on December 24, II. Any meeting in which the audience, meeting is unlawful – that is to commit any of the
regular or the police officers had possession of the said warrant of whether armed or not, is incited to the crimes punishable under the RPC.
special arrest on December 25, on Christmas Day. While commission of the crime of treason,  Under the second mode of committing illegal
session. Congressman was inside his house, the police officers rebellion or insurrection, sedition or assault assembly, again there is a meeting, and there is no
 Likewise, it is arrived and arrested the said Congressman for having been upon a person in authority or his agents requisite that those in attendance must be armed,
necessary that charged of the crime of Attempted Homicide. The penalty for ELEMENTS: therefore, they may or may not be with arms. But it
the said Attempted Homicide is Prision Correcional because under 1. There is a meeting, is requires for the crime to arise that the audience
member of Article 249, the penalty for Homicide is Reclusion Temporal a gathering or must be incited to commit treason, rebellion, or
Congress has and the attempted is two degrees lower, one degree is group of persons, insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in
committed a Prision Mayor, two degrees lower is Prision Correcional, whether in fixed authority or his agents. Otherwise, the crime will
crime which is therefore, the penalty to be imposed in this Attempted place or moving not arise.
not higher Homicide is Prision Correcional. So the police officers armed 2. The audience,  In case of illegal assembly, the organizers or leader
than Prision with a warrant of arrest went inside the house of the whether armed or of the meeting will be criminally liable, as well as
Mayor. Congressman and arrested him on Christmas Day, December not, is incited to the the persons merely present in the said meeting.
25, are the police officers liable for violating parliamentary commission of the  Under Article 146, first paragraph, last
ILLUSTRATION: immunity under Article 145? crime of treason, sentence – it is provided that persons who are
Q: How about in the case of PanfiloLacson? A:YES, they are liable for violation of rebellion, or merely present at the meeting shall be punished by
Parliamentary Immunity.Because during insurrection, Arresto Mayor, unless they are armed, the penalty
A: The case against Sen. Lacson was fortunately
Christmas break or during Holy week break or sedition or direct shall be Prision Correcional, therefore, whether you
dismissed by the Court of Appeals. But let us
any other kind of break, Congress is still in its assault are armed or not, you can be held criminally liable
say, it is not dismissed by the Court of Appeals,
regular session. Because as stated in Political  The said for illegal assembly, it will only differ in the penalty.
he was being charged of double murder – Dacer-
Law, in Constitution, when does Congress start? gathering of o If you are armed - Prision Correcional
Corbito double murder slay. He went into hiding.
4th Monday of July, that is when the President men or men, o Not armed - Arresto Mayor (lower)
Let us say that he made his appearance. Can he
states his SONA. When does Congress ends? 30 may or may
be arrested even if the Congress is in regular or
days before the start of Congress. Therefore, not be armed.
special session? YES. Because the crime ARTICLE147 – ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS
during Christmas break or during Holy week It is not
committed by him is punishable by a crime WHAT ARE ILLEGAL ASSOCIATIONS?
break or any other break, the Congress is still in required that
committer higher than prision mayor. It is 1. Associations totally or partially organized for the
its regular session. Any arrest of a member of they be
punishable by reclusion perpetua. Therefore, had purpose of committing any of the crimes
Congress during this time, if the said member of armed.
it not been dismissed by Congress and he punishable under the Code
Congress has not committed a crime where a Provided that
apparently appeared and the Congress is in 2. Associations totally or partially organized for
penalty is higher than Prision Mayor, shall be the audience
regular or special session, he could be arrested. some purpose contrary to public morals
punished as violation parliamentary immunity where incited
to commit  In case of illegal associations, it is necessary that
Q: What if a Congressman is charged with the crime of libel under Article 145. there be a formation of a group, not merely a
treason,
before the RTC. The RTC issued a warrant of arrest against rebellion, or meeting and in the said association, not only the
the Congressman. The police officers armed with a warrant ARTICLE146 – ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY insurrection, members of the association should be penalized,
of arrest went inside the walls of Congress and they arrested  There are 2 KINDS OF ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY: sedition or but also the founders, directors and president of the
the said Congressman. Are the police officers liable under I. Any meeting attended by armed persons assault upon a said association or organization should be held
this Article? for the purpose of committing any of the person in criminally liable.
crimes punishable under this Code
ELEMENTS:

Page 14

ILLEGAL ASSEMBLY ILLEGAL ASSOCIATION
the purpose will always be the purpose of the association
a violation under the RPC. may be for purpose of
Even under the second committing crimes violating
mode – inciting to commit the RPC or even in violation
treason, rebellion, or of special penal laws,
insurrection, sedition or provided that it is in violation
assault upon a person in of special penal law, it must
authority or his agents be against public morals
Necessary that there is an
Not necessary that there be
actual meeting or
an actual meeting
assembly
Meeting and the Act of forming or organizing
attendance at such and membership in the
meeting are the acts association are the acts
punished punished
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if A, B and C gathered 20 persons and proposed
to them the idea of committing simultaneous bank robbery
all over Metro Manila, so they will commit robbery in 4 banks
simultaneously. So these 20 men agreed to the said
commission of bank robbery, and after they have come to
the agreement, here comes the police, the police got a tip
from an informer, the police arrived and they were all
arrested. What crime or crimes if any should they be
charged of?
A:They could not be charged of any crime.
There is no such thing as conspiracy to commit
robbery. Because in robbery, robbery is only a
mode of committing the crime, it is not a crime
by itself, unlike in case of treason, rebellion,
there is such a crime of conspiracy to commit
treason, conspiracy to commit rebellion, and they
are punished by such acts. There is no such
crime as conspiracy to commit robbery. So here,
conspiracy is a mere preparatory act which is not
yet punishable by law. For them to be punished,
it is necessary that they must at least perform an
overt act directly connected to bank robbery. So
here, they just merely conspired to commit
robbery without the performance of any overt
act directly connected to robbery. Hence, they
are not criminally liable. What they did is only a
preparatory act not directly connected to
robbery.
Q: Why not illegal assembly?
A: Because in the problem, it is not mentioned
that the persons were armed. Also, the crime of
bank robbery is not among the crimes mentioned
in the second act.
Q: Why not illegal association?
CRIMINAL LAW 2
A: Because what they did was only a mere
meeting, it was not an organization or
association.
- Therefore, they are not liable of any crime.
LET US ADD FACTS TO THE PROBLEM.
Q: Let us say A, B, and C gathered 20 men – 10 were armed
and the other 10 were not armed. Again, they conspired and
agreed to commit simultaneous bank robbery all over Metro
Manila. After their agreement here comes the police officers,
the police officers arrested them. Of what crime or crimes
may the police officer file against them?
A:They should be charged of illegal
assembly under the first act. They have the
gathering of men and their purpose is to commit
a crime punishable under the RPC which is
robbery and it is attended by armed persons,
even if only 10 were with arms, still it is
considered as illegal assembly. Because the law
does not require a number as to the persons
who should be armed. So, all of them should be
held criminally liable.
A, B and C, as leaders or organizers of the said
meeting, are liable for illegal assembly. Those
persons who are armed, the penalty is higher
than those who are not armed. Prision
Correcional – if they are armed
Arresto Mayor – if they are not armed
Q: What if A, B and C gathered 1000 men and women. Their
intention was to incite the people to uprise against the
government to overthrow the present administration. These
1000 men and women arrived in the said designated place.
These 1000 men and women were arranging the chairs
when suddenly here comes the police officers who got a tip
about the said meeting. The police officers immediately
arrested A, B and C and the 1000 men and women. What
crime or crimes if any may these 1000 men and women be
charged of?
A:They have not committed any crime. It
cannot be under the first act of illegal assembly
because the said 1000 men and women were not
armed. It cannot be under the second act of
illegal assembly, because for one to be liable
under this act, note that even if not all of them
need not to be armed, it is required that the
audience must be incited to commit treason,
rebellion, or insurrection, sedition or assault
upon a person in authority or his agents. Here
the intention of A, B and C is to incite them to
commit rebellion, BUT there was no statement in
the problem that they were indeed incited to
commit rebellion. In fact, they were just
arranging the chairs, the meeting was only about
to begin. Therefore, they have not yet public officer thereof from
committed any crime. freely exercising its or his
functions, or PREVENT the
Q: What if the jueteng lords of Southern Tagalog gathered, execution of any administrative
they gathered in Batangas. So their purpose was to define order;
ways and means to propagate jueteng considering that the 3. To INFLICT any act of hate or
government would not want to legalize jueteng, their revenge upon the person or
decision was define ways and means to propagate jueteng property of any public officer or
by using minors, those 15 years of age or below as kubrador employee;
in the case of jueteng, so that was the purpose of their 4. To COMMIT, for any political or
meeting. In the said meeting, they elected their would-be social end, any act of hate or
president, vice president, treasurer, etc. So they formed an revenge against private persons
organization, an association and they said that at the end of or any social class;
5. To DESPOIL, for any political or
the month, they would meet and define ways and means to
propagate jueteng. The police officers arrived and they were social end, any person,
all arrested. But they are not with arms, it is not mentioned municipality, province, or the
National Government of all its
that any of them were with arms.
A:The crime committed is illegal property or any part thereof
association under Article 147. It is an NOTE: The law says that there is no
association totally and partially organized for public uprising, therefore whenever
some purpose contrary to public morals. Jueteng there is actual commission of
is in violation of PD 1602, illegal gambling as rebellion or sedition, direct assault
amended and it is against public morals because can never be committed because the
element of direct assault in whatever
it has not yet been legalized by law.
form is that there be no public
uprising, on the other hand, a
ARTICLE148 – DIRECT ASSAULT
necessary element in the crime of
 The two forms in committing the crime of direct sedition or rebellion is there be public
assault under Article 148 are: uprising.
I. Without public uprising, by employing FORCE or
INTIMIDATION for the attainment of any of the
ELEMENTS:
purposes enumerated defining the crimes of
1. The offender employs force or
rebellion and sedition.
intimidation
 The intention of the offender is to commit
2. AIM of the offender is to attain any
any of the purposes of rebellion or
of the purposes of the crime of
sedition.
rebellion or any of the objects of the
 PURPOSES OF REBELLION:
crime of sedition
1. To remove from the allegiance
3. There is no public uprising
to the Government or its laws:
(a) the territory of the
II. Without public uprising, by ATTACKING, by
Philippines or any
EMPLOYING FORCE, or by SERIOUSLY
part thereof; or
INTIMIDATING or SERIOUSLY RESISTING any
(b) any body of land,
person in authority or any of his agents, while in
naval, or other
the performance of official duties, or on the
armed forces; or
occasion of such performance.
2. To deprive the Chief Executive or
 Most popular form of direct assault
Congress, wholly or partially, of any ELEMENTS:
of their powers or prerogatives.
1. The offender
 PURPOSES OF SEDITION: a. Makes an attack,
1. To PREVENT the promulgation b. Employs force,
or execution of any law or the c. Makes a serious intimidation,
holding of any popular election; or
2. To PREVENT the National d. Makes a serious resistance
Government, or any provincial  If the offended party
or municipal government or any is a person in
Page 15

authority, the attack or
the employment of force
need not be serious
because under Article
148, the mere act of
laying of hands in the
person in authority is
already qualified direct
assault. Therefore, the
mere act of pushing a
person in authority is
already qualified direct
assault because the
offender already laid
hands upon a person in
authority. Hence, it
need not be serious.
However, if the
offended party is a
mere agent of a
person in authority, it
is necessary that the
employment of force
must be serious. The
reason is that in order
to show defiance of law
against a mere agent of
person in authority, it is
necessary that the
attack or force
employed must be
serious in nature.
 If what has been done
is intimidation or
resistance, to amount to
direct assault, it must
always be serious
whether the offended
party is a person in
authority or a mere
agent of a person in
authority.
2. The second element requires that the
assault is against a person in
authority or an agent of a person in
authority
 Who are these so-
calledpersons in authority?
(Art 152)
1. Any person directly
vested with
jurisdiction,
whether as an
individual or as a
CRIMINAL LAW 2
member of some the public officer or serious physical
court or employee. injuries, as the case
government-owned  Direct assault can be may be. But if the
and controlled committed whether motive is by reason
corporation, board the public officer or of the authorities’
or commission agent of a person in past performance of
2. A barangay captain authority is in the his official duty, the
and a barangay engaged in the crime committed is
chairman performance of his still direct assault.
3. Teachers, official duties or on  The phrase “on
professors, or occasion of such occasion of such
persons charged performance. performance” means
with the supervision  If a person in that the said assault
of public or duly authority or his agent was by reason of the
recognized private is engaged in the past performance of
schools, colleges or performance of his official duty. So “on
institutions official duty at the occasion” means it is
4. Lawyers while time of the assault, by reason of the past
engaged in their regardless of the performance of
professional duties motive of the official duty.
or while in the act offender, direct
of their professional assault will always 4. The fourth element provides that the
duties arise. Whether there offender knows him to be a person in
is a personal authority or an agent of a person in
 Who is an agent of a person vendetta, whether it authority. So it is that the offender
in authority? (Art 152, par is a public reason or knows him to be a person in
2) whatever reason, authority because otherwise, he
 A person who, by there is always direct cannot be said that he defied the
direct provision of assault. There is law, he defied the authority. In the
law, by election or by defiance of authority first place, he didn’t know that the
appointment by because the person person he is attacking is a person in
competent authority, in authority or his authority or an agent of a person in
is charged with the agent is actually authority.
maintenance of engaged in the
public order and the performance of 5. The fifth element requires that there
protection and official duty be no public uprising.
security of life and  But if the person in
property (e.g. police authority or his agent QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
officer, councilors). is not engaged in the There are three circumstances which will qualify direct
Likewise, it is stated performance of his assault:
that any person who official duty at the
1. When the assault is committed by means of a
comes to the aid of a time of the assault,
weapon;
person in authority is motive on the part of
 WEAPON - firearms, knives or any other
deemed an agent of offender becomes
items which will inflict injury.
person in authority. material. You have to
determine the motive
2. When the offender is a public officer or
3. The third element provides that at on the part of the
employee;
the time of the assault, the person in offender. If the
 So when a public officer or employee
authority is engaged in the motive on the part of
attacks a person in authority, it is always
performance of his official duties or the offender is a
qualified direct assault.
the attack was on occasion of such personal vendetta,
performance of official duty. the crime committed
3. When the offender lays hands upon a person in
 Direct assault can be is murder, homicide,
authority
committed whether serious physical
 Will only lie if the laying of hands is upon
injuries or less
a person in authority.
Page 16

Any of these three circumstances will qualify direct assault.
NOTE: The first two qualifying circumstance affects both a
person in authority or agent of a person in authority.
However, the third qualifying circumstance (laying hands
upon a person in authority) will only lie if the offended party
is a person in authority. Mere laying of hands to an agent of
person in authority is not qualified. It will only qualify if the
laying of hands is upon a person in authority.
COMPLEX CRIME OF DIRECT ASSAULT:
Whenever the crime of direct assault is committed, and
there is a resulting felony (e.g. death, physical injuries), you
always complex it.
Under Article 48, you should always complex it because from
a single act, two or more grave or less grave felonies had
resulted. Under Article 48, Book I, you have to complex it.
So it could be:
o Direct assault with Murder
o Direct assault with Homicide
o Direct assault with Serious Physical
Injuries
o Direct assault with Less Serious
Physical Injuries
 But if the resulting felony is only SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES, you cannot complex it. It is
prohibited under Article 48 because:
1. It is only a light felony. Under Article
48, you can only complex two or more
grave or less grave felonies but not a light
felony.
2. Slight physical injury or light felony is
already absorbed in direct assault
because whenever you assault somebody,
definitely, somehow, any injury would
happen to him. That is why it is already
absorbed in direct assault.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if the city mayor attended the flag ceremony. It
was a mandate. So there was this flag ceremony attended
by the city mayor. After the flag ceremony, the mayor went
to the platform and was making an announcement to the
city hall employees. Suddenly here comes X. X went near
the mayor and shot the mayor on the head. The mayor died.
What crime is committed by X?
A: QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT WITH
MURDER. The city mayor was engaged in the
performance of his official duty at the time of the
assault therefore it is direct assault. Because the
city mayor was engaged in the performance of
his official duty regardless of the motive of X,
CRIMINAL LAW 2
even if it is by mayor’s past performance of
official duty or by reason of personal vendetta,
regardless of the motive of X, the offender, since
the mayor is engaged in the performance of his
official duty, it is direct assault.
Now, the mayor died. Therefore there is a
resulting felony of murder because obviously
there was treachery; therefore, it is direct assault
with murder.
Now, the offender made use of a weapon, he
made use of a pistol gun, a firearm which is a
qualifying circumstance, therefore, the crime
committed is QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
WITH MURDER.
(EXAM TIP: the corresponding explanation must
be complete—what is the qualifying
circumstance, what is direct assault, what is a
complex crime)
Q: What if the city mayor has just attended a Sunday mass.
He and his wife and children were getting out of the church
when suddenly here comes X. X, onboard the motorcycle
went straight to the city mayor and fired at the head of the
city mayor. The city mayor died. It was found that X was a
former employee of the city hall, who was dismissed by the
city mayor because he engaged in an anomalous
transaction. What crime is committed by X?
A:QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT WITH
MURDER.The city mayor was not engaged in
the performance of his official duty. Since the
city mayor was not engaged in the performance
of his official duty, he is a person in authority,
you have to know the reason, the motive of the
offender.
The offender was a city hall employee who was
dismissed by the city mayor, therefore the
motive was by reason of the past performance of
the said person in authority. So it is by reason of
the past performance of his official duty, the
attack, the firing was done on occasion of such
performance of official duty therefore the crime
committed is direct assault.
The mayor died. Obviously there was treachery
therefore it is direct assault with murder.
The offender made use of a firearm, which is a
qualifying circumstance in direct assault
therefore it is QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
WITH MURDER.
Q: What if in the same problem, here comes X, the mayor
was coming out of the church, X shot the city mayor. Now X
happened to be a former gardener who was dismissed from
the service of the household because he performed a
wrongful act while gardening. Therefore his reason was a
personal vendetta. What crime is committed by X?
A: X committed a crime ofMURDER.
Obviously, there was treachery on the part of X.
It is not direct assault because the mayor was
not engaged in the performance of his official
duty and the reason behind the assault was
personal vendetta. Therefore it cannot be said
that the attack was on occasion of such
performance of official duty.
Q: What if the judge has just rendered judgment. After
rendering the judgment, after finding the accused guilty
beyond reasonable doubt, the accused got mad. He jumped
on the judge and he boxed the judge several times. The
court interpreter, the person nearest to the judge, came to
the aid of the judge. This angered the accused. The accused
got mad at the court interpreter and he boxed the court
interpreter as well. Thereafter the security guards arrived
and took away the said accused. The judge suffered serious
physical injuries whereas the court interpreter suffered slight
physical injuries. What crime or crimes is/are committed by
the accused, first against the judge, and second against the
court interpreter?
A: As against the judge, the accused is
liable of the crime of QUALIFIED DIRECT
ASSAULT WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURIES. The judge is a person in authority
under Article 152. He was engaged in the
performance of his official duty at the time of the
assault therefore the crime committed is direct
assault. It has a resulting felony, serious physical
injuries; therefore it should be direct assault with
serious physical injuries. The accused in boxing
the judge, laid hands upon a person in authority
therefore it is QUALIFIED DIRECT ASSAULT
WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES.
As against the court interpreter, the
accused is liable of the crime of DIRECT
ASSAULT. At the time the court interpreter
came to the aid of a person in authority, who
was the victim of direct assault. Note under
Article 152, any person who comes to the aid of
a person in authority is deemed an agent of a
person in authority therefore, when the court
interpreter came to the aid of the said judge,
who was a person in authority, he became an
agent of a person in authority. And under Article
148, any attack on an agent of a person in
authority is direct assault. Therefore the crime
committed is direct assault. The said interpreter
suffered slight physical injury. You cannot
complex it because it is only a light felony.
Therefore it is only direct assault not complex.
The said accused laid hands upon the court
interpreter, would you qualify it? No, because he
is mere agent of person in authority. Therefore
the crime committed is only direct assault.
ARTICLE149 – INDIRECT ASSAULT
 Indirect assault can be committed only when a direct
assault is also committed
ELEMENTS:
1. An AGENT of a person in authority is the
victim of any of the forms of direct assault
defined in Article 148.
2. A person comes to the aid of such agent
3. Offender makes use of force or intimidation
upon such person coming to the aid of the
agent.
Q: What if a police officer was manning the traffic and it was
a heavy traffic so the vehicles were stuck. What if one of the
owners of the vehicles got mad at the police officer and he
went straight to the police officer, who at the time has no
pistol, and boxed the police officer. While he was boxing a
police officer a pedestrian saw the incident .the pedestrian
came to the aid of the police officer. This angered the owner
of the vehicle so he, too, boxed the said pedestrian. The
said pedestrian suffered slight physical injuries while the
police officer suffered less serious physical injuries. What
crime or crimes is/are committed by the said owner of the
vehicle against:
a. The police officer
b. The pedestrian?
A: a. DIRECT ASSAULT WITH LESS
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES. The said
owner of the vehicle boxed the said police
officer. The police officer is an agent of a person
in authority under Article 152 because he was
charged with the maintenance of public order.
The police officer is in the actual performance of
his official duty at the time of the assault
therefore the crime committed is direct assault.
There is also a resulting felony which is less
serious physical injuries, a less grave felony;
therefore we have to complex it, direct assault
with less serious physical injuries. The offender
laid hands upon the police officer, however,
laying of hands will not qualify because he is a
mere agent of person in authority; therefore the
crime committed against the police officer is
direct assault with less serious physical injuries.
(NOTE: an MMDA officer is also an agent of a
person in authority because he is charged with
the maintenance of public order and the
protection and security of life and property)
Page 17

b. INDIRECT ASSAULT under Art 149. An
agent of a person in authority was the victim of
direct assault. A person came to his aid who is
the pedestrian. When the pedestrian came to the
aid of this agent of person in authority, he did
not become an agent of a person in authority
under Art 152 because under Art 152, a person
would only become an agent of a person in
authority if he came to the aid of a person in
authority. Here, the pedestrian merely came to
the aid of an agent of a person in authority who
is the police officer. Therefore, when the
pedestrian came to the aid of the police officer,
he did not become also an agent of a person in
authority; as such, the crime committed is
INDIRECT ASSAULT. When the pedestrian came
to the aid of the police officer, force and
intimidation were employed against him so the
crime committed by the owner of the vehicle
against the pedestrian is indirect assault.
 Are you going to complex it to the crime
of slight physical injuries?
 No, because it is absorbed and it
is only a light felony.
Under Article 149, INDIRECT ASSAULT is committed if a
person in authority or an agent of a person in
authority is the victim of direct assault. Any person
who came to his aid and that person was employed with
force or intimidation by the offender.
 Why is it in the given problem, when the person
under attacked is a person in authority and when
someone came to his aid, and that someone was also
attacked, the crime committed is direct assault
against that someone. But when the victim of direct
assault is a mere agent of a person in authority, and
someone came to his aid, and that someone was also
attacked, the crime is indirect assault.
 The reason is that the Congress
amended Article 152 without
correspondingly amending Article
149.
 Based on the amendment made by
Congress in Article 152, it is stated
that any person who comes to the
aid of a person in authority is
deemed an agent of person in
authority. And if an agent of a person
in authority is attacked, such attack is
under Article 148 which is direct
assault and not indirect assault under
Article 149.
 But if the victim of the said direct
assault is a mere agent of a person in
CRIMINAL LAW 2
authority, and someone who comes
to his aid will not become an agent of
a person in authority; therefore when
he is also attacked, it will only be
indirect assault under Article 149.
 In statcon, when there are two provisions which
are contrary, you reconcile. So to reconcile,
Article 149 or indirect assault will only apply if
the victim of direct assault is a mere agent of
person in authority and someone came to his
aid, and that someone was also employed with
force and intimidation.
ARTICLE150 – DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS ISSUED
BY THE NATIONAL ASSEMBLY, ITS COMMITTEES OR
SUBCOMMITTTES, BY THE CONSTITUTIONAL
COMMISSIONS, ITS COMMITTEES, SUBCOMITTEES
OR DIVISIONS
 Acts Punished:
I. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey
summons issued by the Congress or any of
its extensions or any of its standing
committees or subcommittees, by the
Constitutional Commissions, its
committees, subcommittees or any other
body which has the power to issue
summons.
 Under the first act, for the crime to
arise, it is necessary that the
offender’s refusal to obey the
summons is without any legal
excuse. If there is a valid reason, a
legal excuse, why the offender
didn’t attend the said committee
hearing of the congress or why he
failed to comply with the said
summons or any of the acts under
Art. 150; the crime will not arise.
II. By refusing to be sworn or placed under
affirmation while being before such
legislative or constitutional body or official.
 Under the second act the public
official or the person was required
to appear in the said meeting and
obey the summons however, the
moment he appeared in the said
meeting, he refused to be sworn to.
He does not want to be sworn to
and he refused to be placed under
affirmation before such legislative
or constitutional body. Art. 150 is
still violated.
III. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or for contempt, he is placed in detention in the
to produce any books, papers, documents, Senate Blue Ribbon Committee.
or records in his possession, when required
by them to do so in the exercise of their Q: He obeyed the summons, he appeared, he allowed
functions. himself to be sworn in however, the moment that the
Senators asked him questions, and he refused to answer the
IV. By refusing another from attending as a questions. He said: I invoke my right against self-
witness in such legislative or constitutional incrimination. When he was solely required to produce the
body. books which were confirmed to be in his possession; He
 Under the fourth act punished, the didn’t want to produce the said books because according to
said offender did not fail to attend in him, the production of these books would incriminate
the summons; he restrained another himself. Can he be held liable under Art. 150?
from attending as a witness. He A: He cannot. If the answer to any of the
prevented another person in questions or if the conduction of the same will
attending as a witness in such incriminate the person in the said crime; he has
legislative or constitutional body the right not to do so. Under the Constitution, No
hearing. person can be compelled to be a witness against
himself and asking him, requiring him, ordering
V. By inducing disobedience to a summons or him to produce the books or to answer any
refusal to be sworn by any such body or questions which would incriminate himself is akin
official. to making him a witness against himself and it is
 NOTE that Congress where it be the unconstitutional.
House of Representatives or the
Senate has the power to issue
summons because they have the ARTICLE151 – RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE TO
A PERSON IN AUTHORITY OR THE AGENTS OF SUCH
power to investigate that is inquiry in
PERSON
aid of legislation. Whatever be the
findings in the said investigating  Punishes two acts:
I. RESISTANCE AND SERIOUS DISOBEDIENCE
body, it will be used in the making of
a bill, a proposal. NOTE that they (PAR 1)
ELEMENTS:
don’t have the power to file a case so
whatever be the product of their 1. The person in authority or his
agent
investigation, they will give it either
a. is engaged in the
to the Ombudsman or to the DOJ. It
performance of
is upto the DOJ or to the
official duty; or
Ombudsman to file a case because
b. gives a lawful order
the purpose of the Senate or the
to the offender
HOR is only inquiry in aid of
2. Offender resists or seriously
legislation.
disobey such person in
authority or his agent
ILLUSTRATION:
3. That such resistance or
Q: What if there is this committee hearing, an investigation disobedience will not amount to
about anomalous transactions entered into by a former a. direct assault (Art
officials of the DENR. While the said official received the 148),
summons, he failed to appear because he was at St. Lukes. b. indirect assault (Art
He was confined because he was suffering from 149); or
hypertension. Can he be held liable under Art. 150? c. disobedience to
A: He cannot be held liable because he has a summons issued by
legal excuse to attend or to obey the summons Congress
issued by the Congress. The moment that there
is a legal excuse, the crime will not arise BUT if II. SIMPLE DISOBEDIENCE (PAR 2)
his measure is without any legal excuse NOTE ELEMENTS:
that aside from violation of Art. 150, he can also 1. An AGENT of a person in authority
be held liable or cited for contempt by the said
committee of Congress and usually when cited
Page 18
 CRIMINAL LAW 2
a. is engaged in the  If there are two separate and distinct  Acts punished: death penalty. Death Penalty is
performance of official crimes, there shall be two information that I. Causing any serious disturbances in a prohibited to be imposed.
duty; or will be filed to the court. If it is a complex public place, office or establishment;
b. gives a lawful order to crime, only one information is filed before  For the said disturbance to be  But in burying with pomp the
the offender the court. considered as a violation of Art body of the person who has
2. The offender disobeys such order  If the intention is to rob, and in the occasion 153; it is necessary that the been legally executed; the said
of the agent of the said robbery, homicide, serious said offender deliberately person must be legally
3. Such disobedience is not serious in physical injuries, rape, intentional intended to disturb the said executed because the said
nature mutilation, arson was committed, the crime meeting or public place. It was person has committed a
committed under Article 294 is robbery a planned intentional act. heinous crime yet when he was
ILLUSTRATION: with homicide, robbery with intentional buried he was buried with such
Q: What if the mayor has a project, a cleaning act operation mutilation, robbery with rape, robbery with II. Interrupting or disturbing performances, extravagance as if as he is a
in order to prevent dengue. So they were cleaning up the arson or robbery with serious physical functions or gatherings, or peaceful hero, as if as the government
canals. While the mayor was cleaning up the canals together injuries. meetings, if the act is not included in Arts. has committed a crime in
with other city hall employees, here comes Mang Pedro who  If the original intention was to assault the 131 and 132; legally executing him therefore
had taken beer and was a little tipsy. So the went there and city mayor and thereafter he committed  NOTE that there is a it causes sympathy arising on
was shouting and making noise, disturbing the people who robbery, there will be two acts. Because his qualification made by law the part of the people hence, it
were busy cleaning up the canals. And so the police officer intention was to assault and thereafter he provided that the said was a disturbance of public
cleaning told Mang Pedro to go home because he was committed the second act of taking away interruption or disturbance of order.
disturbing the cleaning up operation. Mang Pedro, instead of the personal property of the city mayor. public gatherings, functions and
going home, merely sat nearby the canal being cleaned by  In case of DIRECT ASSAULT WITH MURDER peaceful meetings must not fall  If any of these prohibited acts
the people. What crime, if any, did Mang Pedro commit? or HOMICIDE, it is considered a complex as a violation under Art 131 or constituting violation of Art 153
crime under Article 48 because based on Art 132. is committed by more than 3
A: Mang Pedro committed SIMPLE
the single act performed, two or more persons who are provided with
DISOBEDIENCE UNDER ARTICLE 151 par 2.
grave or less grave offense was committed. III. Making any outcry tending to incite arms or any means of violence
Article 151, second paragraph, simple
Because with the single act of boxing, the rebellion or sedition in any meeting, it is said to be tumultuous
disobedience is committed when an agent of a
offender committed direct assault and association or public place. therefore there must be at least
person in authority is engaged in the
serious/less serious physical injuries. four persons who are armed or
performance of official duty or gives a lawful
IV. Displaying placards or emblems which provided with means of
order to the offender, that the offender disobeys
ARTICLE152 – PERSONS IN AUTHORITHY AND provoke a disturbance of public order in violence for it to be considered
and such disobedience is not of serious nature.
AGENTS OF PERSONS IN AUTHORITY such place; as tumultuous.
In the problem, it was the police officer, an
Q: Who are persons in authority?  Whether this making of an
agent of a person in authority, who gave the
A: The following are the persons in outcry or the displaying of SO WHERE LIES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ART 153
order to Mang Pedro and Mang Pedro disobeyed
authority: placards or emblems, it is AND ART 131 OR 132?
him but such disobedience was not serious in
necessary that such act of  Article 153 punishes TUMULTS ANS OTHER
nature because he merely sat nearby the canal; 1. Municipal Mayors
displaying placards or emblems DISTURBANCES OF PUBLIC ORDER, Article 131
therefore there was no showing that such 2. Division Superintendent of schools
must be an unconscious punishes PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION AND
disobedience is serious in nature so the crime 3. Public and private school teachers
outburst of emotion. It must DISSOLUTION OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS, Article 132
committed is simple disobedience. 4. Teacher-nurse
not be intentionally calculated punishes INTERRUPTING OF RELIGIOUS FEELINGS
5. President of the sanitary division
to incite people to rebel or to
Q: Is there direct assault with robbery? Let’s say that the 6. Provincial Fiscal
commit sedition because  Articles 131 and 132 can only be committed by a
city mayor was assaulted and thereafter he took the watch 7. Judges
otherwise, the crime would be Public Officer. It cannot be committed by a
of the mayor. 8. Lawyers in actual performance of
inciting to rebellion or inciting private individual whereas under Art 153, it can
A: No, there is no such crime. The crime duties
to sedition. be committed both by a Public Officer and a
committed is not direct assault with robbery. It is 9. Sangguniang Bayan member
10. Barangay Chairman private individual.
already robbery with any resulting felony, if V. Burying with pomp the body of a person
there is one. who has been legally executed.
Q: Who is an agent of a person in authority?  What if the offender is a public officer and he disturbs
 What if the original motive was to assault the  When you say legally executed;
A: Those who are in charged with: a peaceful meeting. How would you distinguish if it is a
city mayor? it means that the said person violation of Art 153 or a violation of Art 131?
 If the original motive is to assault the city  The maintenance of public order; has committed a heinous crime.
mayor and not to commit robbery, but the and The penalty prescribed by law  First, In Art 131, the public officer must not
offender took the watch, there will be two  The protection and security of life is death and so he was killed by be a participant in the meeting that he disturb
crimes because the offender already and property means of lethal injection but at or interrupted. He must be an outsider, a
performed two acts. present because of Republic Act stranger in the said meeting. On the other hand,
ARTICLE153 – TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES No. 9346, we have no more in Art 153, the said Public Officer must be a

Page 19

participant, one in attendance in the said
meeting.
Second, in Art 131, the mere intention of the
public officer is to prevent a person from freely
exercising his freedom of speech and expression
whereas in Art 153, the intention of the offender
is to disturb public peace and tranquility.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if since RH Bill was enacted into law, there was a
huge rally at the EDSA Shrine which was initiated by the
members of the CBCP. They were against this law and they
encouraged the people to file a case before the Supreme
Court questioning the constitutionality of the said law. At
first, the head of the CBCP spoke then after him another
person, a private individual spoke, the head of the
organization spoke and he kept on attacking and attacking
the President. He said that the President bribed the
members of the Congress in order to pass this bill so he kept
on attacking and attacking the President. One of the police
officers, who was assigned to maintain the peace and order
in the place, heard the attacks against the President. This
Police Officer was indebted to the President he owed his
position to the President. He went straight to the person
talking against the President and told him to stop. When he
didn’t stop, the Police Officer fired shots in the air and the
people scampered away and the peaceful meeting/gathering
was dissolved/ interrupted. What crime was committed by
the Police Officer?
A: The crime committed by the Police
Officer is not Art 153 but Art 131.Because
the distinctions lie in this case. First, the said
Public Officer, a Police Officer is not a participant
in the said meeting. He is a stranger, an outsider
in the said meeting. Second, his only purpose is
to prevent the said person in freely exercising his
freedom of speech and expression, it is his right
to express his anger against the President yet
the said person prevented him in exercising such
freedom of Speech and expression therefore the
Police Officer is liable under Art 131 and not
under Art 153.
For him to be liable under Art 153, let’s say that
he is a public officer, he is a participant in the
said meeting and while participating in the said
meeting, he interrupted the said meeting in
order for him to cause a disturbance of the said
meeting. The crime is Art 153.
Q: There was this peaceful gathering, let’s say a public
meeting, a peaceful meeting about the increase of fares of
the MRT and the LRT. One of the participants therein, one of
the persons therein went to the platform and took the mic
CRIMINAL LAW 2
and then he incite the people, induced the people to go to
the streets, uprise, rebel against the government, to
overthrow the government. What crime was committed?
A:The crime committed was inciting to
rebellion.
Q: What if, he was among the participants. The head of the
meeting, the Public Officer was discussing about the
increase of fares of the MRT and LRT. This person could no
longer control his emotions. Suddenly he stood up and he
said: “buwisitnagobyernonaitonaiinisnako. Dapatnatayong
mag rebeldesagobyernowalangginawakundi increase ng
taxes”. They go and rebel against the government. What
crime was committed?
A:Tumults and other disturbances of public
order. It is just an unconscious outburst of
emotions not an intentionally calculated to incite
people to rebel against the government.
ARTICLE154 – UNLAWFUL USE OF MEANS OF
PUBLICATION AND UNLAWFUL UTTERANCESActs
punished:
I. By publishing or causing to be published by
means of printing lithography or any other
means of publication, as news any false
news which may endanger the public
order, or cause damage to the interest or
credit of the State.
II. By encouraging disobedience to the law or
to the constituted authorities or by
praising, justifying ot extolling any act
punished by law, by the same means or by
words, utterances or speeches.
III. By maliciously publishing or causing to be
published any official resolution or
document without proper authority, or
before they have been published officially.
 NOTE that in the third act
there is the word Malicious. The
offender must maliciously
publish or cause to be
published any official
resolution. If the publication of
the official resolution without
official authority or the
publication was not done
maliciously, there was no intent
to cause damage, it was not
done maliciously. Art 154 is not
violated. It is necessary that
the said publication must be
done maliciously under the
third act.
IV. By printing, publishing or distributing (or
causing the same) books, pamphlets,
periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear
the real printer’s name or which are
classified as anonymous.
 It is necessary that any
publication has contained the
real printer’s name. It must
have been anonymous. The
publisher, the printer, the
author, must be stated even at
the bottom.
Q: What if the Philippine Daily Inquirer has as its headline:
“KC Concepcion said..PioloPascual is gay.” So that is the
headline of the Philippine Daily Inquirer. It was posted. KC
never categorically stated that Piolo is gay, she only
impliedly stated it but she never categorically stated it. So
the Daily Inquirer published a false news and PioloPascual
filed a case in violation of Art 154 against the Philippine
Daily Inquirer. The Philippine Daily Inquirer knew that it is a
false news yet they still published it as news.
A: Art. 154 is not violated because whether or
notPiolo is gay it will not endanger public order.
It will not cause damage to the credit or interest
of the state.
Q: What if the headline of the Philippine Daily Inquirer said:
“Tomorrow, Megamall will be bombed from a very reliable
source.” That was the headline of the Philippine Daily
Inquirer. The Philippine Daily Inquirer later on learned that it
was false nevertheless; since it was already there they still
published it and distributed it. Can they be held liable under
Art 154?
A: Yes because the said news will
endanger public order. It can cause damage
to the credit or interest of the state. Imagine
Megamall will be bomb, no person will go to the
said place, tourists will not go to the said place
therefore it will endanger public order and can
cause damage to the interest of the state when
the said newspaper published it despite knowing
that it was false news. Art 154 is violated.
Q: What if members of the CBCP, they are against the RH
Law. They made leaflets, pamphlets and distributed it to all
persons in the church, in market.. Therein is stated: Anyone
who would obey or comply with the RH Bill which is a
Catholic will be ex-communicated. Can they be held liable of
Art 154?
A:Yes because they encouraged
disobedience to the law. It has been enacted
into law and by encouraging the people that they
would be ex-communicated if you will obey it,
then you can be held liable for unlawful use of
means of publication.
ARTICLE155 – ALARMS AND SCANDALS
 Acts punished:
I. Discharging any firearm, rocket,
firecracker, or other explosives within any
town or public place calculated to cause
(which produces) alarm or danger.
II. Instigating or taking an active part in any
charivari or other disorderly meeting
offensive to another or prejudicial to public
tranquility.
 Charivari includes a medley of
discordant voices, a mock
serenade of discordant noises
made on kettles, tins, horns,
etc. designed to annoy and
insult.
III. Disturbing the public peace while
wandering about at night or while engaged
in any other nocturnal amusement.
IV. Causing any disturbance or scandal in
public places while intoxicated or
otherwise, provided Art 153 is not
applicable
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: In a public park, there were so many people here comes
X. X went in the middle of the park and fired shots in the air.
The people were so afraid they scampered away. What
crime is committed?
A: Alarms and Scandals under Art 155. His
act can cause damage to public peace and
tranquility.
Q: What if in the same problem, in a public park, there were
so many people and here comes X. X saw his enemy Y. He
took out his firearm, aiming his firearm at Y without any
intent to kill because he knew Y would not be killed and he
discharged the firearm. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is illegal
discharged of firearms under Art. 1254.
Q: What if in the same public place, X saw his enemy Y. He
pulled out his firearm with intent to kill, he aimed his firearm
at Y, discharged the firearm but Y was not killed. What crime
was committed?
A: Attempted murder or Homicide as the
case may be.
 In case of alarms and scandals, the
only intention of the offender is to
cause damage to public peace and
Page 20

tranquility that is to cause alarm and
danger. That is his intention.
 In Illegal Discharge of Firearms
under Art 1254 his intention is to
threaten the said person or any other
persons. He aimed the firearm and
discharges the firearm pointing at a
particular person absent: intent to
kill. There was no intent to kill, it is
illegal discharge of firearm.
But given in the same problem, he
knows his enemy, pointed the firearm
at his enemy but with intent to kill.
He discharged the firearm but his
enemy was not killed. It is attempted
homicide or murder as the case may
be. Since there is an intent to kill on
the part of the offender even if the
victim was not killed it is still in the
attempted stage.
Q: What if in the same problem, it was in a public place, X
went to the said place, he saw his enemy Y. He went near Y,
took out his gun and poked the gun at Y but did not
discharge the said gun. What crime is committed?
A:The crime committed is other light
threats. NOTE that under other light threats
the offender merely poked the firearm at the
victim without discharging or firing the firearm. If
the firearm has been discharged, 3 crimes may
be committed depending on the intent. It can be
alarms and scandals, illegal discharge of firearms
or attempted homicide or murder as the case
may be.
Q: You have a neighbor, it was his birthday. They rented a
videoke and kept on singing along till 12mn. The guests
already left, the birthday celebrant was the only one left, it’s
already 1:30am and he’s still singing at the top of his voice
with the use of the mic. His neighbors cannot sleep because
of his ugly voice. Everyone in the neighborhood could hear
him and cannot sleep. Can he be held liable under Art 155
alarms and scandals?
A: Yes. He can be held liable under alarms and
scandals because his only intention that night is
to cause a disturbance of public peace and order.
Q: Let’s say a person was intoxicated. He was drunk. He
was on his way home. He was singing at the top of his
voice. Is he liable for alarms and scandals?
A: No because it is normal to sing at the top of
his voice.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
Q: What if he saw this lead pipe (tubo) and upon seeing this
lead pipe, he would bang all the gates that he would pass
by. Is he liable for alarms and scandals?
A: Yes because his acts caused damage to public
peace and tranquility.
ARTICLE156 – DELIVERING PRISONERS FROM JAIL
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a person confined in a jail or penal
establishment.
2. That the offender removes therefrom such
persons, or helps the escape of such person.
 The PENALTY for the crime is QUALIFIED if violence or
intimidation has been used in the commission of the
crime also if bribery is used in delivering prisoners
from jail.
 Who is the offender?
 The offender is any person. He can be a private
individual or a public officer or employee
provided that he is not the custodian of the said
prisoner because if the offender who helped in
the escape of the prisoner from jail is the
custodian of the said prisoner, the crime is under
Art 223 Infidelity in the custody of prisoners
because the element of breach of trust and
confidence reposed on him by the government.
 Who is the prisoner being referred to in delivering
persons from jail?
 He can be a detention prisoner or a prisoner
convicted by final judgment for as long as he is
in a jail or penal institution.
 A detention prisoner is a prisoner who is
behind bars but the case against him is
ongoing either because the crime he
committed is a non-bailable offense and
evidence of guilt is strong or the crime he
committed is a bailable offense but he does
not have the enough funds to put up the
required bail.
The prisoners at the provincial jail, city jail,
municipal jail, they are merely detention
prisoners. They are not yet convicts. They
are only accused, suspects therefore they
are presumed innocent unless and until
proven that they’re guilty of the crime
charged. They are merely detention
prisoners.
 On the other hand, a prisoner that is
convicted by final judgment is one who
has been convicted by the lower court and
who did not appeal his conviction within
the period to perfect an appeal then the
judgment becomes final and executory. He
has to serve the sentence. Or he has been
convicted then he appealed to the higher
court within the period to perfect an appeal
and the said higher court affirmed the said
conviction. The conviction will now become
final and executory so he is now a prisoner
convicted by final judgment. Generally,
they are those who are serving sentence in
Muntinlupa.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: Let’s say A is a prisoner convicted by final judgment. He
is serving his sentence in Muntinlupa. B his friend visited
him. B was a rich man. He planned A’s escape on his
birthday. He did this by talking to the jail warden custodian.
B the friend gave the jail warden custodian P500,000.00. He
gave bribe to the jail warden custodian to allow A his friend
to escape at that night. He also went to the guard at the
entrance gate of the New Bilibid Prison and gave the guard
P100,000.00, also to allow his friend to leave at that night.
That night, A escaped and left the penal institution. He went
to the house of another friend who harbored him and
concealed him despite the fact that he was an escapee from
a penal institution. What are the crimes committed by A (the
prisoner), B (the friend), jail warden custodian, the guard of
the penal institution, and the friend who harbored him?
A: A is liable of evasion of service of sentence
under Art 157. He is a prisoner convicted by final
judgment therefore he is liable for evasion of
service of sentence.
Q: What if he is not serving his sentence in Muntinlupa. Let’s
say he is just a detention prisoner. Can he be held liable for
evasion of service of sentence?
A: No. Evasion of service of sentence can only
be committed by a prisoner convicted by final judgment.
 In the given problem, A is convicted by
final judgment therefore A is liable for
evasion of service of sentence under
Art 157.
 B the friend is liable under Art 156
Delivering prisoners from jail
qualified by the giving of bribe
therefore his penalty will be qualified
because he gave bribe money inorder to
help in the escape of his friend. He will not
be liable for another crime of corruption of
public official because the giving of bribe is
considered clearly as a qualifying or as an
aggravating circumstance in delivering
prisoners from jail.
 The jail warden custodian who received
the bribed money and allowed A’s escape
is liable under Art 223 infidelity in the
custody of prisoners. Aside from that,
he is also liable for direct bribery
because in case of infidelity in the custody
of prisoners, the giving and receiving of
bribe is not a qualifying or aggravating
circumstance therefore the jail warden
custodian will be liable for 2 crimes;
Infidelity in the custody of prisoners and
direct bribery for having received the
bribed money in the amount of
P500,000.00.
 The guard at the entrance gate of the
penal institution will be liable for
delivering prisoners from jail. He is not
the custodian and he helped in the
escape/removal of the prisoner from jail.
Therefore, he is liable for delivering
prisoners from jail. The fact that he
received bribed money will not make him
liable of direct bribery because in delivering
prisoners from jail, it is only a qualifying
circumstance which will only increase the
imposable penalty.
 The friend who harbored and concealed
him will be liable under PD 1829 that
is obstruction of justice. It is committed
by any person who willfully or deliberately
obstructs or impedes the investigation or
the apprehension of a criminal.
 Why not an accessory?
o Because I did not mention in the
problem the crime committed by the
prisoner. For an accessory to the
crime, it is necessary that the crime
committed by the prisoner must be
treason, parricide, murder, attempt
to take the life of the chief executive
or is known to be habitually guilty of
some other crime. I did not mention
the crime committed by the prisoner.
Therefore his liability is under PD
1829 Obstruction of Justice.
ARTICLE157 – EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
(Art 157)
Page 21

ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a convict by final judgment.
2. That he is serving his sentence which consists in
deprivation of liberty.
3. That he evades the service of his sentence by
escaping during the term of his sentence.
 Evasion of service of sentence can only be committed
by a person convicted by final judgment. It cannot be
committed by a mere detention prisoner.
 not even think to leave. Will he be given credit?
PENALTY IS QUALIFIED if such evasion or escape takes
place:
1. By means of unlawful entry
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs
or floors;
3. By using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit,
violence or intimidation; or
4. Through connivance with other convicts or
employees of the penal institution.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: You often read in the newspapers, heard over the radios,
watch on TV, 5 prisoners escaped from the Caloocan city
jail, 10 prisoners escaped from Palawan Provincial Jail. Did
they commit evasion of service of sentence?
A: No. These persons did not commit evasion of
service of sentence under art 157 because they
are merely detention prisoners. For evasion of
sentence to arise, the prisoner who has escaped
must be a prisoner convicted by final judgment.
Under Art 157, the said prisoner the said
prisoner must be serving which involves
deprivation of liberty and he escapes during the
service of his sentence by evading the service of
sentence.
The law says, it is a prisoner serving his
sentence which involves deprivation of liberty. It
is necessary that the sentence imposed on him
must involve deprivation of liberty either it is
behind bars or he has been convicted of a crime
wherein the penalty is destierro. Even if the
penalty prescribed is destierro, the moment he
enters the place wherein he is prohibited from
entering in the judgment of the court, he also
committed evasion of service of sentence.
 Destierro under Art 27; Destierro is
also a penalty which involves
deprivation of liberty although partial
not complete deprivation of liberty
because the offender or the convict is
not allowed to enter a place
designated in the judgment of the
court. The moment he enters the
CRIMINAL LAW 2
said place, he commits evasion of
service of sentence.
ARTICLE158 – EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
ON THE OCCASION OF DISORDERS,
CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES, OR OTHER
CALAMITIES (ART 158)
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a convict by final judgment
who is confined in a penal institution.
2. That there is a disorder resulting from ----
a. Conflagration
b. Earthquake
c. Explosion
d. Similar catastrophe
e. Mutiny in which he has not
participated
3. That the offender evades the service of his
sentence by leaving the penal institution where
he is confined, on the occasion of such disorder
or during the mutiny.
4. That the offender fails to give himself up to the
authorities within 48 hours following the issuance
of a proclamation by the Chief Executive
announcing the passing away of such calamity.
 It is required under Art 158 that the prisoner is serving
his sentence in a penal institution.
 In this kind of evasion of service of sentence under Art
158, the crime will arise not upon the act of leaving
the penal institution but upon the convict’s failure to
return/to give himself to the proper authorities within
48 hours. That is only when the crime will arise.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if there was this earthquake, X was a prisoner
convicted by final judgment. Everything was shaking and
because of the earthquake, X escaped the penal institution.
He went to the house of his mother. That night while
watching the television, he saw the president
announced/declared that the calamity had already
ceased/passed away. Within 48hrs he returned. What is the
effect on his criminal liability?
A:If the said convict escaped and returned
to the proper authorities within 48hrs;
there shall be a credit or a deduction from
his sentence. There is 1/5 deduction/credit
from his sentence. Under Art 98 this is special
time allowance for loyalty. He was too loyal to
the government that even if he already left the
penal institution he still returned; such kind of
loyalty must be rewarded.
Q: What if 48hrs had lapsed, still he did not return. What is
the effect of his criminal liability?
A:There will be an additional penalty
imposed on him. 1/5 on the basis of the
remainder of his sentence but note that it shall
not exceed six months.
Q: There was this earthquake, everything was shaking. He
just hid under the table. He did not leave the penal
institution. He was so loyal to the government that he did
A:No. Under Art 158 there is no credit to be
given to him. Under Art 98, there is no special
time allowance of loyalty for just hiding under
the table and not leaving the penal institution.
Q: Why those who are loyal to the government and did not
leave the penal institution be not given credit? Isn’t it unfair?
A: The reason is that prisoners are considered
as accountabilities of the government. It is the
duty of the government to protect the prisoners.
In times of calamities or public disorders, the
state cannot protect these prisoners therefore
the State encourages them to leave inorder to
protect themselves. But important thing is that
they show their loyalty to the government hence
they will return.
ARTICLE159 – EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
BY VIOLATION OF CONDITIONAL PARDON
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender was a convict
2. He was granted a conditional pardon by the
Chief Executive
3. He violated any of the conditions of such pardon
TWO KINDS OF PARDON:
1. Absolute Pardon which totally extinguishes the
criminal liability
2. Conditional Pardon which partially
extinguishes criminal liability.
 Conditional Pardon is said to only partially
extinguishes criminal liability because the
said pardon is subject to strict terms and
conditions. Therefore, there must be an
acceptance in the part of the prisoner
granted pardon. The moment he accepts
the conditional pardon, it means it is
incumbent upon him to comply to all of the
strict conditions. The moment he violate
any of the terms and conditions he
commits evasion of service of sentence
because it shows that he just accepted the
conditional pardon so as to free himself
from taking place behind bars.
 Is violation of conditional pardon a substantive
offense or not?
 It depends. If you will look at Art 159,
there are 2 situations. Under Art 159, if the
penalty remitted by the grant of pardon
does not exceed 6yrs, the moment he
violates any of the conditional pardon,
there is a new penalty imposed upon him
that is prisioncorreccional minimum 6
months and 1 day to 2 years and 4
months. A new penalty is imposed on him
therefore in this case, violation of the
conditional pardon is a substantive offense
because a new penalty is imposed on him.
BUT on the second part of Art 159, if the
penalty remitted is more than 6 years; no
new penalty is imposed on him for having
violated the terms of the pardon. He is only
required to serve the remainder of the
sentence. In this case, violation of the
conditional pardon is not a substantive
offense because there is no new penalty
imposed for the commission of the crime.
ARTICLE160 – COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME
DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR
ANOTHER PREVIOUS OFFENSE
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender was already convicted by final
judgment of one offense.
2. He committed a new felony before beginning to
serve such sentence or while serving the same.
 Who is a quasi-recidivist?
 A quasi-recidivist is any person who shall commit
a felony after having been convicted by final
judgment before serving his sentence or while
serving his sentence.
 Under Art 160 it is stated that the maximum penalty
prescribed by law shall be imposed therefore it is a
special aggravating circumstance.
 Art 160 is a misplaced article because book 2 is about
felonies and art 160 is a special aggravating
circumstance.
TITLE FOUR
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST (Articles 161 –
189)
ARTICLE161 – COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL
OF THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE
Page 22

ISLANDS, FORGING THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
 Acts punished:
I. Forging the Great Seal of the Government of
the Philippines.
II. Forging the signature of the President.
III. Forging the stamp of the President.
 Art 161 punishes the person who forges the great seal
of the Philippines, signature of the chief executive and
forging the stamp of the chief executive.
 Art 161 is the crime when the person is the one who
committed the forgery, but if the offender is not the
one who forges the great seal, signature but he knows
that the document contain a forge stamp, signature of
the President and despite such knowledge that it was a
forgery he makes use of the same, liability is under
162.
ARTICLE162 – USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP (Art 162)
ELEMENTS:
1. That the Great Seal of the Republic was
counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the
Chief Executive was forged by another person.
2. That the offender knew of the counterfeiting or
forgery.
3. That he used the counterfeit seal or forged
signature or stamp.
 Art 162 punishes the person who, despite knowledge
of the forged signature, stamp or great seal of the
Republic of the Philippines still he makes use of the
same document.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: In an official document, the signature of the President
was forged by A then it was given to B. B knew that it was a
forgery nevertheless he made use of the same. What crime
was committed?
A:A committed a crime under 161. And B
committed a crime under 162.
ARTICLE163 – MAKING AND IMPORTING AND
UTTERING FALSE COINS
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be false or counterfeited coins
2. That the offender either made, imported or
uttered such coins.
3. That in case of uttering such false or
counterfeited coins, he connived with the
counterfeiters or importers
CRIMINAL LAW 2
 When is it committed?
 A. Counterfeiting (imitation of false
coins) is committed by any person who
shall imitate a genuine and authentic coin
making it appear that it is a true, genuine,
and authentic coin. The offender copies the
peculiar design of the coin and makes a
spurious one out of it.
B. Importing false coins is committed
by any person who shall bring into the
Philippine ports any false and counterfeited
coins. It is not necessary for the offender
to be liable that he shall circulate the false
coins because there is a third act of
uttering false coins.
C. Uttering false coins is committed by
any person who shall circulate, give away
to another, pass from one person to
another any counterfeited or false coins.
 In case of counterfeited or imitated false coins, it is
not necessary that the coins be the subject of
counterfeiting must be of legal tender. Even if the coin
is not a gold coin, if the offender copies or imitates or
counterfeits the peculiar design of the said coin; he
becomes liable under Art 163.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: A is in possession of a coin which was of legal tender
during the time of Marcos in 1972. It was a proven genuine
coin. He copied the said coin and made a spurious one out
of it. Is he liable under Art 163?
A: Yes he is liable for making and importing
and uttering false coins under Article 163.
Q: What if while he was in possession of the said coin; he
took out a part of the metal content of the said coin. Can he
be liable for Mutilation of coins under Art 164?
A:No, he cannot because in Art 164 or
mutilation of coins, it is necessary that the coin
subject of mutilation must be of legal tender. It
must be in present currency because otherwise,
it cannot be said that the public has been
deceived.
ARTICLE164 – MUTILATION OF COINS
 Acts punished:
I. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the
further requirement that there be intent to
damage or to defraud another.
II. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with
the further requirement that there must be
connivance with the mutilator or importer in case
of uttering.
 Mutilation is the act of taking off a part of the metal
content by filing it or substituting it for another metal
of inferior quality.
 The offender gathers the metal dust that he has taken
off from the said coin.
 While the offender took out a part of the metal coin,
he is in effect diminishing the intrinsic value of the said
coin therefore who would be given the said coin would
be deceived of the this crime hence a crime in violation
of public interest is committed.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: There were 3 children/adults. They were playing kara-
krus. So they toss the coin, however before doing that, they
would scratch the coin on the steel therefore the metal
content of the coin is diminished. Can they be held liable
under Art 164?
A: No. because there was no intent to gather the
metal dust of the said coin.
 Can they be held liable of any crime?
 Yes. They can be held liable under
PD 247
 PD 247 punishes any person who willfully or
knowingly defaces, mutilates, tears, burns or destroys
any currency notes or coins issued by the
BangkoSentralngPilipinas.
 In case of violation of PD 247 it is not required that
there is intent to mutilate on the part of the offender.
It is not required that the offender has the intent to
gather the metal dust of the coin although these are
required under Art 164.
Q: In a P 1000.00 bill, a person put his cell phone no. on it.
Is he liable under PD 247?
A: Yes he is liable under PD 247.
 But PD 247 is akin to a dead law because no one has
been prosecuted by it.
ARTICLE165 – SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED
COIN, WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
 Acts punished:
I. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by
another person, with intent to utter the same,
knowing that it is false or mutilated.
ELEMENTS:
1. Possession,
2. With intent to utter, and
3. Knowledge
 Under the first act, the offender is in
possession of the false, mutilated,
counterfeited coin. It is another
person who counterfeited the coin.
The offender is only in possession of
it but in order for him to be held
liable; he must have the knowledge
that the coin is counterfeited or
mutilated and despite having such
knowledge; he has the intent to
utter, circulate, pass away, to give
away to another the said coin.
II. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin
knowing the same to be false or mutilated.
ELEMENTS:
1. Actually uttering, and
2. Knowledge.
 In the second act it is the act of
actually circulating or uttering the
counterfeited coin despite knowledge
that it is counterfeited or mutilated.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if A is under surveillance, reports came to the
police that he had been circulating false coins. A went to the
bakery store, he bought bread worth P 50.00. He gave the
store owner 5 P 10.00 counterfeited coins. Thereafter, after
giving the counterfeited coins, he immediately left. The
police arrived and A was gone and it was the owner of the
store who is left. The police officer asked the owner of the
store to open the cash bin. There they saw the 5 P 10.00
coins which were counterfeited. They arrested the owner of
the store. Is the owner of the store liable under Art 165?
A:No he is not liable of selling of false coins
or mutilated coins, without connivance under Article
165. First, he was caught in possession.
 Was there possession?
 Yes. The counterfeited coins were
found in his cash drawer. Possession
does not only mean physical or actual
possession. Possession means
constructive possession which means
that the counterfeited or mutilated
coins are in his control and custody.
Therefore the first element of
possession is present.

 Was there intent to utter the counterfeited coins
on the part of the said owner?
 Yes. The fact that he placed it in the
cash drawer means he can use it to
buy another thing or as a change to
the people who will buy from his
Page 23

bakery therefore circulation has a
way from one person to another.
Therefore the second element is also
present.
 instruments is forged or falsified.
 How about the third element of knowledge on
his part the coin was counterfeited?
 The third element is absent evidently
based on the facts that the store
owner has no knowledge that the
coins are counterfeited. In fact he
gave bread worth P 50.00. He was
also deceived. If he had only known
that the coins were counterfeited, he
would not have given bread worth P
50.00.
Therefore, he may not be held liable
because also he is in possession, and
he has the intent to utter the coins;
he does not have the knowledge that
the said coins were counterfeited.
ARTICLE166 – FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES
OR OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER;
IMPORTING, AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE OR
FORGED NOTES AND DOCUMENTS
 Acts punished:
I. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank
notes or other documents payable to
bearer.
II. Importation of such false or forged
obligations or notes.
III. Uttering of such false or forged obligations
or notes in connivance with the forgers or
importers.
ARTICLE167 – COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING, AND
UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be an instrument payable to
order or other document of credit not
payable to bearer.
2. That the offender either forged, imported
or uttered such instrument.
3. That in case of uttering, he connived with
the forger or importer.
ARTICLE168 – ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF
FALSE TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER
INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT
ELEMENTS:
1. That any treasury or bank note or
certificate or other obligation and security
payable to bearer, or any instrument
CRIMINAL LAW 2
payable to order or other document of
credit not payable to bearer is forged or
falsified by another person.
2. That the offender knows that any of those
3. That he performs any of these acts ----
a. Using any of such forged or
falsified instruments; or
b. Possessing with intent to use
any of such forged or falsified
instruments.
 An instrument is payable to bearer when it can be
transferred by mere delivery.
e.g. Check payable to cash. Whoever
is in possession of the said check can
come to the bank. It can be
transferred by mere delivery.
 On the other hand a check is payable to order where
it can be transferred by mere delivery when there is an
endorsement coming from the person named or
specified therein. It is an instrument payable to the
order of a specific person or his order.
e.g. Payable to the order of
Charmaine. This cannot be
transferred from one person to
another without an order coming
from Charmaine.
ARTICLE169 – HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED (Art
169)
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or to order
mentioned therein, the appearance of a
true and genuine document.
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or
altering by any means the figures, letters,
words, or sign contained therein.
 If what has been falsified is a coin; you call it
counterfeiting.
If it is the stamp, seal or signature of the President;
 instrument executed by a private person without
you call it forging.
 If it is treasury or bank notes; it is considered as
forging.
It is a document; you call it falsification.
 evidenced or set forth
FALSIFICATION (ART 170, 171, 172)
 In case of FALSIFICATION, to amount to falsification,
it is necessary that the writing that is falsified must be
a document in a legal sense of the word – capable of
making rights and/or extinguishing an obligation.
Therefore, it must be complete in itself so that it would
be sufficient in evidence.
 Falsification of mere forms does not amount to
falsification of a public document. Because the said
form is not yet complete in itself – it has no name, no
address – an unfilled-out/up form. It is not
falsification.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if A was found outside the building of the LTO
office. He was carrying falsified unfilled-out/up forms of
driver’s license. It was distinct, it was falsified, it was not the
real driver’s license form. He was arrested by the NBI. Can
he be held liable for falsification of a public document?
A: NO. Because what he is carrying is only an
unfilled-out form. It is not yet complete in itself.
It is not yet capable of creating rights or
extinguishing an obligation. It is not yet
susceptible of evidence of the facts stated
thereon.
Q: So what crime if any was committed by A?
A: A merely committed violation of Article 176 –
that is mere possession of instrument or
implements for falsification, but not yet
falsification of a public document.
There 4 types of documents which may be falsified:
1. PUBLIC DOCUMENT – a document which is
issued by a notary public or competent public
official with the solemnities required by law
2. OFFICIAL DOCUMENT – a document issued by a
public official in the exercise of his official
functions
3. COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT – any document
defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce
or any other mercantile law
4. PRIVATE DOCUMENT – a document, a deed or
the intervention of the notary public of any other
person legally authorized, by which document
some disposition or agreement is proved,
 Is a public document distinct from an official
document?
 All official documents are considered
as public documents, but not all
public documents are considered
official documents. Before a public
document may be considered as an official
document, it is necessary that it shall be
issued by a public officer in the exercise of
his official functions. There is a law that
requires a public officer to issue the said
public document, then it becomes an
official document.
 A PRIVATE DOCUMENT, one which has been executed
by a private person, if there is no intervention of public
official.
 A PRIVATE DOCUMENT however, even though
executed by a private person without the intervention
of a notary public or a legally authorized person, can
also become a public document. That is when the said
private document is submitted to the public officer and
it becomes part of the public records. The moment the
said private document becomes part of the public
records, it is now a public document and when it is
issued and it is falsified, what is falsified is a public
document and no more a private document.
 It is necessary to distinguish the kind of document that
is being falsified - whether it is a public, official,
commercial or private because of the different effects.
 If what has been falsified is a PUBLIC, OFFICIAL OR
COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT, damage or intent to cause
damage to the offended party or to any other person
is not an element.
 On the other hand, if what has been falsified is a
PRIVATE DOCUMENT, for the crime to arise, it is
necessary that there must be damage or at least,
intent to cause damage to the private offended party
or to any other party.
 If what has been falsified is a PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL
DOCUMENT, it is not necessary that there be damage
or intent to cause damage. Because a public document
– an official document - is presumed authentic and
legal. It is presumed to be “prima facie evidence” of
the facts stated therein. As such, the moment it is
falsified, the crime will immediately arise, without need
that there be damage on the part of the offended
party. Because in Falsification of a Public Document,
what has been violated is the PERVERSION OF TRUTH
being solemnly proclaimed by the said document.
Hence DAMAGE IS NOT AN ELEMENT.
ARTICLE171 – FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER,
EMPLOYEE OR NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTICAL
MINISTER
Page 24

 The first kind of falsification under Article 171, we have
the falsification committed by a public officer,
employee or notary public or an ecclesiastical minister.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer, employee, notary
public or an ecclesiastical minister.
2. He takes advantage of his official position.
 The offender is said to have taken
advantage of his position or office
when:
a. He has the duty to make or
prepare or to otherwise
intervene in the preparation of
the document; or
b. He has the official custody of
the document which he falsifies
3. That the said offender falsifies a document by
committing any of the following modes stated
therein:
a. By counterfeiting or imitating
any handwriting, signature or
rubric.
b. Causing it to appear that
persons have participated in
any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so
participate.
c. Attributing to persons who
have participated in an act or
proceeding statement other
than those in fact made by
them
d. Making untruthful statements in
a narration of facts
e. Altering true dates
f. Making any alteration or
intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its
meaning
g. Issuing in authenticated form a
document purporting to be a
copy of any original document
when no such copy a statement
contrary to, or different from
that of the genuine original
h. Intercalating any instrument or
note relative to the issuance
thereof in a protocol, registry or
official book.
i.
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister,
the act of falsification is committed with respect
to any record or document of such character that
CRIMINAL LAW 2
the falsification may affect the civil status of
persons.
EXPLANATIONS:
1. The offender is a public officer, employee, notary
public or an ecclesiastical minister.
 If the offender is an ecclesiastical
minister, for him to be liable under
Article 171, it is necessary that the
document that he falsifies must affect
the civil status of a person.
 If the document falsified by an
ecclesiastical minister will not affect
the civil status of a person, he is still
liable for falsification, but not under
Art. 171, rather under Art. 172.
 So, a priest falsified the communion
certificates of one of the
students/pupils receiving the first
communion, the crime committed is
falsification under Art. 172, not under
Art. 171 because a certificate of
communion will not affect the civil
status of the said child.
2. He takes advantage of his official position.
 It requires that the offender takes
advantage of his official position.
 The offender is said to have taken
advantage of his position or office
when:
a. He has the duty to make or
prepare or to otherwise
intervene in the preparation of
the document; or
b. He has the official custody of
the document which he falsifies
3. That the said offender falsifies a document by
committing any of the following modes stated
therein:
 If you will look at Art. 171, it does
not state the kind of document that
has been falsified, it may not be
stated because it necessarily follows
that the document falsified is a public
or official document because the
offender is public officer or employee
or notary public. Therefore
necessarily, the document being
falsified in Art. 171 is a public official
or official document.
III.
Art. 171 provides for the DIFFERENT ACTS OF
FALSIFICATION. These acts of falsification are also
applicable in Art. 172:
I. BY COUNTERFEITING OR IMITATING ANY
HANDWRITING, SIGNATURE OR RUBRIC.
 So what is COUNTERFEITING?
 The offender is said to have
counterfeited a signature,
handwriting or rubric if he has
imitated an official handwriting,
signature or rubric.
 So there is an original handwriting or
signature and the offender imitiated
or copied the said original
handwriting or signature.
 Is COUNTERFEITING the same as
FEIGNING?
 Feigning a handwriting, signature or
rubric is NOT THE SAME as
counterfeiting. When you say
FEIGNING, it means “simulating” a
handwriting, signature or rubric. That
is, making a handwriting, signature
or rubric out of nothing which does
not exist. It is an imaginable, an
inexistent handwriting, signature or
rubric.
IV.
II. CAUSING IT TO APPEAR THAT PERSONS HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN ANY ACT OR PROCEEDING WHEN
THEY DID NOT IN FACT SO PARTICIPATE.
Q: What if a notary public issued, he prepared or issued an
extrajudicial settlement of an estate. In the said extrajudicial
settlement of an estate, it is stated that all the heirs of a
certain decedent can already agree by themselves to
partition the property. So it is an extrajudicial settlement of
an estate and in it, the notary public made it appear that all
the 12 heirs of the decedent had participated, but un truth
and in fact, two of the heirs where in another country and
they did not participate in the execution of this extrajudicial
settlement of the estate. Is the notary public liable?
A: YES. The notary public is LIABLE under
the second act (causing it to appear that
persons have participated in any act or
proceeding when they did not in fact so
participate).He caused it to appear that A and
B participated in the execution of the
extrajudicial settlement of the estate, when they
did not in fact so participate.
ATTRIBUTING TO PERSONS WHO HAVE
PARTICIPATED IN AN ACT OR PROCEEDING
STATEMENT OTHER THAN THOSE IN FACT MADE BY
THEM
 So under the third act, persons participated
in an act or proceeding, they made
statements therein, however, the offender
in a document may appear that these
persons have made certain statements
which were not in fact made by them.
Q: So what if in the SangguniangPanglungsod, an ordinance
was being passed. There was a votation, majority of the
councilors voted, two of the councilors dissented and their
vote were NO. they just stated that they were voting in the
negative, but, they did not give any explanation for their
dissent or the vote of NO. however, in the minutes appeared
by the Sangguniang Secretary, the latter made it appear that
the two councilors made statements that they voted NO
because the said ordinance is contrary to law. Is the said
secretary liable for falsification?
A: YES. He is a public officer. He is the one who
prepared the minutes for the
SangguniangPanglungsod and he made it appear
that the 2 councilors stated that the said
ordinance is contrary to law and in truth and
fact, they did not made those statements. So the
said secretary is liable for falsification.
MAKING UNTRUTHFUL STATEMENTS IN A
NARRATION OF FACTS
 The evidence of this act of falsification
requires:
i. That the offender makes in a
document untruthful statement in
a narration of facts;
ii. That he has legal obligation to
disclose the truth of the facts
narrated by him
iii. The facts narrated by the offender
are absolutely false
iv. The untruthful narration must be
such as to effect the integrity of
the document and that the
offender does so with the intent to
injure or prejudice another person
 It is necessary that the intention of the
intention of the offender must be to
INJURE ANOTHER PERSON.
 In case of making false statements in a
narration of facts, it is necessary that the
offender must have the legal obligation to
disclose the truth in the said narration of
facts.
Page 25

 Absence of such legal obligation, then it
cannot be said that he is liable for
falsification.
 When you say legal obligation, there is a
law which requires him to state nothing but
the truth in the said document.
Q: So what if the offender, a public officer, falsified the
statement in his residence certificate or community tax
certificate. Although he stated his true name, he did not
state his address, citizenship, etc. So makes false statement
of facts in his residence certificate or community tax
certificate, otherwise known as cedula. So he was charged
with falsification. He contended that there is no law which
requires him to state the truth in his residence certificate. Is
his contention correct?
A: His contention is wrong. According to a ruling
in the Supreme Court, if it is a residence
certificate or community tax certificate, there
need not be a law which requires a person to
state the truth in the said residence certificate, it
is inherent in the kind of document. Since it is a
residence certificate or cedula, it is inherent that
in this document, nothing but the truth must be
stated – no falsity. Because it requires
identification.
V. ALTERING TRUE DATES
 It is necessary that what has been altered
must be a true date and in the alteration of
the said true date, the document will no
longer have any effect.
VIII.
VI. MAKING ANY ALTERATION OR INTERCALATION IN A
GENUINE DOCUMENT WHICH CHANGES ITS MEANING
 2 ACTS:
i. The offender makes an alteration
ii. The offender makes an intercalation
in a genuine document which
changes its meaning
 ALTERATION – changes in a document
 INTERCALATION – there must be some
insertion made in the said document, in a
genuine document that changed the
meaning of the said document
VII. ISSUING IN AUTHENTICATED FORM A DOCUMENT
PURPORTING TO BE A COPY OF ANY ORIGINAL
DOCUMENT WHEN NO SUCH COPY A STATEMENT
CONTRARY TO, OR DIFFERENT FROM THAT OF THE
GENUINE ORIGINAL
 2 ACTS PUNISHED:
1. The offender issued in an authenticated
form a document purporting to be an
CRIMINAL LAW 2
authenticated copy of an original
document, but no such original exists
2. By including such copy a statement
contrary to or different from a genuine
original
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a notary public issued a deed of absolute sale
and he said that it is an original copy of a deed of absolute
sale between A and B. A selling his property to B, but in
truth and in fact, no such deed of absolute sale was
executed between A and B. Is the notary public liable?
A: YES. He is liable under the second act of
falsification in the seventh act of the 3 rd element
in Art. 171.
Q: What if a civil registrar issued a certificate of live birth. So
here comes A. A was asking that he should be given a
certified copy of a certificate of live birth. In the said
certificate of live birth issued by the said civil registrar, there
was a statement that A was an illegitimate child, but in the
original copy of the certificate of live birth submitted to the
office of the Office of the Civil Registrar, there was no such
statement. Is the civil registrar liable?
A: YES. He is liable under the second act of
falsification in the seventh act of the 3 rd element
in Art. 171. Because he included in the said copy
a statement contrary to or different from that of
a genuine original.
INTERCALATING ANY INSTRUMENT OR NOTE
RELATIVE TO THE ISSUANCE THEREOF IN A
PROTOCOL, REGISTRY OR OFFICIAL BOOK.
 INTERCALATION – making any insertion in
any instrument or note
 So these acts, under ARTICLE 171, are also the very
same acts punished under Art. 172.
ARTICLE172 – FALSIFICATION BY PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS AND USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS
 THREE PUNISHABLE ACTS/FELONIES?
I. Falsification of a public, official or
commercial document by a private
individual
 So in case of FALSIFICATION OF A PUBLIC,
OFFICIAL OR COMMERCIAL DOCUMENT by
a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL, is just the same
as ARTICLE 171 – they only differ in that in
Art. 171, the offender is a public officer or
employee.
 In ARTICLE 172, yes, the document
falsified is a public, official or commercial
document, but, the offender is a private
individual even if the offender is a private
individual, since the document falsified is a
public, official or commercial document,
DAMAGE OR INTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGE
IS NOT AN ELEMENT.
II. Falsification of private document by any
person
 The document falsified is a PRIVATE
DOCUMENT. The offender is any person.
He can be a private individual, he can be a
private officer or employee for as long as
the document falsified is a private
document, it necessary that there must be
damage caused to a third person or at
least the intention of the offender is to
CAUSE DAMAGE.
 Absence of damage or intent to cause
damage, then falsification of a private
document will not arise.
III. Use of falsified document
 A document has been falsified and the
offender uses the said document.
 If the falsified document is used in a
JUDICIAL PROCEEDING, again, DAMAGE or
INTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGE is NOT AN
ELEMENT because it is a judicial
proceeding.
 But if the said falsified document is used in
any other transaction, this time, damage or
intent to cause damage is an ELEMENT.
ARTICLE173 – FALSIFICATION OF WIRELESS
TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES
 Punishable acts
I. Uttering fictitious, wireless, telegraph
or telephone message
II. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or
telephone message
III. Using such falsified message
 If the act punished is UTTERING FICTITIOUS,
WIRELESS, TELEGRAPH OR TELEPHONE MESSAGES
and FALSIFYING WIRELESS, TELEGRAPH OR
TELEPHONE MESSAGES, note that these can only be
committed by a person working in a department,
agency or corporation which is engaged in a business
of receiving and sending wireless, telegraph and
telephone messages.
 Under the third act – USING FALSIFIED WIRELESS,
TELEGRAPH OR TELEPHONE MESSAGES, this time, it
can be committed by any person.
Articles 174 and 175 refer to the persons who shall
be criminally liable in case of falsified document.
ARTICLE174 – FALSE MEDICAL CERTIFICATES, FALSE
CERTIFICATES OF MERIT OR SERVICE, ETC
 Under Art. 174, if the offender is a PHYSICIAN OR
SURGEON who issues a false medical certificate in the
practice of his profession, he becomes liable under Art.
174.
 Likewise, Art. 174 punishes a PUBLIC OFFICER who
issues a false certificate of merit, service or good
conduct, moral character, etc.
 And, under Art. 174, ANY PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL who
falsifies a medical certificate or certificate of merit or
service or good conduct shall be also criminally liable.
 The offender is the person who falsifies, issues the
false medical certificate or certificate or merit.
 If the offender is not the falsifier, but he knows that
the said document is falsified and he makes use of the
same, his liability is under Art. 175.
ARTICLE175 – USING FALSE CERTIFICATE
 Under Art. 175, the offender knows that the medical
certificate or certificate of merit has been falsified and
despite that knowledge, he makes use of the same.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if the defense counsel is about to present his
witness. The witness is a person who was present in the
scene of the crime who actually saw the incident – that is
according to the defense counsel. However, on the date of
the said hearing, the said witness failed to appear, the
defense counsel said to the judge: “Your Honor, my witness
is in the hospital, he cannot even get out of bed. He is very,
very sick.” The judge, however, was doubtful of the said
manifestation of the defense counsel and so the judge told
the defense counsel: “Okay, let him appear in the next
hearing and make sure that he brings with him a medical
certificate to show that indeed he can testify in this hearing.
With that, the defense counsel informed the witness of the
said order of the court. The said witness was in that time,
healthy, it is just that he was too afraid to testify. However,
in the next hearing, he is deemed required to produce a
medical certificate showing that he was bedridden. And so,
he went to his medical doctor. He asked the doctor to issue
a medical certificate saying that he was very, very sick and
that he could not get out of bed on the said date. The said
doctor issued the said medical certificate and then his
witness appeared on the second hearing and presented him
to the court. It was submitted to the records of the court.
Page 26

What crime or crimes is/are committed by doctor or the
physician as well as by the witness?
A: The PHYSICIAN is liable under Art. 174. He
issues a false medical certificate in the exercise
or in the practice of his profession.
On the other hand, the WITNESS, despite
knowledge that it is a falsified medical certificate,
still made use of the same and he presented and
submitted it to the court.
ARTICLE176 – MANUFACTURING AND POSSESSION
OF INSTRUMENTS OR IMPLEMENTS FOR
FALSIFICATION
 This is the felony that is if a person was found in
possession of unfilled-out forms of driver’s license, he
can be held liable for falsification of a public document
and liable only in Article 176.
 Under Art. 176, what was being punished are:
1. Making or introducing into the Philippines any
stamps, dies, marks or other instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification.
2. Possessing with intent to use the instrument or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification
made in or introduced into the Philippines by
another person.
ARTICLE177 – USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR
OFFICIAL FUNCTIONS
I. Usurpation of authority is committed when a
person knowingly and falsely represents himself
to be an officer or agent of any department of
the Philippine government or agency thereof or
of a foreign government.
 The crime will immediately arise from the
mere act of person of knowingly and falsely
representing himself to be an officer or
agent of any department or agency of the
Philippines or of a foreign country. It is not
necessary for the offender to commit any
act, to perform any act. It suffices that he
falsely represents himself to be an officer
or agent of the Philippine government. The
crime will immediately arise. However, the
said false representation, aside from being
done knowingly, must be such that he
intended to be known by such other person
or by public as a representative or agent of
Philippine government.
II. There is usurpation of official function if any
person performs an act pertaining to a person in
authority or a public officer of the Philippine
Government or of a foreign government or
CRIMINAL LAW 2
agency thereof, under pretense of official
position, and without being lawfully entitled to
do so.
 It is necessary that the offender performs an
act. Mere representation will not suffice. It
is necessary that he performs an act
pertaining to a person in authority or a
public officer of any department or agency
of the Philippine government or of a
foreign government.
 In usurpation of official functions, it is
necessary that the act pertaining to a
person in authority or a public officer must
be under pretense of official position and
without being lawfully entitled to do so.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if an administrative case was filed against the
mayor before the Office of the Ombudsman. During the
investigation of the case, the Ombudsman preventively
suspended the mayor for a period of six months. The DILG
implemented the suspension order and the vice-mayor was
made the acting mayor. However, upon advice of his
counsel, the suspended mayor began working, began
performing the acts of being a mayor after 90 days of
preventive suspension. That is because according to his
counsel, he can only be suspended for a period of 90 days.
So on the 91st day of his suspension, he again began
assuming the function of a mayor. He signed documents, he
issued memorandum, etc. as the city mayor. Is he liable
under Article 177 for usurpation of official function?
A: Yes, he is liable for usurpation of official
function under Article 177. The reason is that
he is still under preventive suspension. Unless
and until it is lifted by the Ombudsman and the
said lifting was implemented by the DILG, he
remains to be a suspended mayor. And for
having acted, for having performing an act
pertaining to the office of a mayor, he is said to
be committed a violation of Article 177,
usurpation of official function.
Q: What if there was heavy traffic. So there was no MMDA
officer or policeman manning the traffic. One of the owners
of the vehicle caught in the traffic alighted from the vehicle
and he manned the traffic to ease the flow of the traffic. The
said man performed an act pertaining to an officer of the
MMDA, pertaining to a traffic enforcer. Is the said man liable
for usurpation of official function?
A: NO. While the man performed however he
did not do so under pretense of official position
and without being lawfully entitled to do so.
There was no intent on his part to falsely
represent himself as to be in that position. There
was no false pretense of official position
therefore he cannot be held liable under Article
177 or usurpation of official function because his
act was only done out of pacific (promote peace;
to end a conflict) spirit to help ease the said
traffic.
ARTICLE178 – USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND
CONCEALING TRUE NAME
 Punishes two acts:
I. USING FICTITIOUS NAME
 Committed by any person who shall
use a name other than his real name
publicly for concealing a crime, or
evade the execution of a judgment,
or to cause damage to public
interest.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender uses a name other than his
real name
2. That he uses that fictitious name
publicly
3. That the purpose of the offender is
either:
a. to conceal a crime; or
b. to evade execution of a
judgment; or
c. to cause damage to public
interest.
II. CONCEALING TRUE NAME
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender conceals—
a. his true name; AND
b. all other personal circumstances
2. That the purpose is only to conceal his
identity
HOW WOULD YOU DISTINGUISH IF THE CRIME
COMMITTED IS USING FICTITIOUS NAME OR
CONCEALING TRUE NAME?
 In case of using fictitious name, the use of a
name other than his real name, is done publicly.
There is the element of publicity. Whereas, in
case of concealing true name, it is not necessary
that the use of another name, concealing his
true and real name must be done publicly.
 Using fictitious name and concealing true name
differ in purposes. In case of using fictitious
name, the purpose is to conceal a crime, evade
the execution of judgment or to cause damage
to public interest. On the other hand, in
concealing true name, the only purpose of the
offender is to conceal his true and real identity.
ANTI-ALIAS LAW (C.A. No. 142, as amended)
SO RELATED IN ARTICLE 178 IS C.A. 142 AS AMENDED
 What is an alias? What does C.A. 142, as amended,
or the Anti-Alias Law provide?
 According to the SC, an alias is a name or names
use intended to be used by a person publicly and
habitually, usually in business transaction other
than the name registered at birth for the first
time before the local civil registrar.
 Under C.A. 142 as amended, except as
pseudonym, in literary, cinema, television, radio
and other entertainment purposes, and in
athletic events wherein the use of a pseudonym
is a normal practice, no person can use any
name other than his name by which he is
registered at birth at the local civil registrar or by
which he is registered by the Bureau of
Immigration upon his entry into the Philippines.
 The use of any other name must only be upon
approval by the judicial or competent authority.
 Therefore, no person can use any other name
other than the name by which he is baptized at
the office of the civil registrar in your place other
than the name by which he is recorded in Bureau
of Immigration, if case he is a foreigner coming
here in the Philippines. He can only use his
name. EXCEPT if he is an actor, if he is an
athlete, then he is allowed to use a pseudonym.
When he is a writer of a book, then he is allowed
to use a pseudonym, a pen name other than his
real name because it is a normal practice OR if
he files the use of a substitute name before the
court and he is allowed by judicial or competent
authority to use any other name, then he can
also use another name. But outside these, a
person can only use the name by which he is
registered at the office of civil registrar.
CESARIO URSUA v. CA
 The said accused made use of a different name.
he used the name of Oscar Perez in the office of
the Ombudsman as he was trying to get a copy
of the complaint filed against him. It was
however discovered that a case of violation of CA
142 was filed against him.
 The SC held that he is not criminally liable. The
SC acquitted the accused because according to
the SC, the use of the name Oscar Perez in an
isolated transaction, without any showing,
absent an evidence that henceforth he wanted to
be known by the name of Oscar Perez in not
within the prohibition of CA 142 as amended.
There was no evidence that showed that
henceforth he wanted to be known by that
name. There was no showing that henceforth, he
wanted to be called by the said name therefore it
Page 27

cannot be said that Oscar Perez is an alias of the
accused.
PEOPLE v. ESTRADA
 In this case, the former president made use of
the name Jose Velarde in signing a trust account.
So he signed a trust account, using the name
Jose Velarde and so he was charged with
violation of CA 142 as amended.
 Again, the SC said, the use by Erap of the name
Jose Velarde in a single, isolated transcation,
without any showing that henceforth he wanted
to be known by such name, is not within the
prohibition of CA 142 as amended. First, it was
not done publicly and was in fact done secretly in
the presence of Laquian and Chua and the said
act of signing does not make it public because
these two are his close friends therefore it was
done secretly, in a discreet manner. Hence, it
was not done publicly. It was also not done
habitually. The element of habituality is not
present because there was no showing that in
any other transaction, he made use of the name
Jose Velarde. Hence, he was also acquitted
although convicted by Sandiganbayan, he was
acquitted by the SC.
Q: What if a lawyer was having a massage in a sauna bath
parlor. He did not know that as a front it is a sauna bath
parlor but in truth and in fact, it was a prostitution den. At
the time that he was having this massage service, the police
raided the place because they were able to secure a search
warrant. And among those arrested was the said attorney.
The said attorney was brought to the PNP station and he
was asked of his name, ashamed to reveal his true identity,
his true name, he said that he was Y and did not state that
he was Atty. X. However, when he was asked his residence,
he stated the truth. As of the name of his wife, he stated the
truth. As of the name of his children, he stated the truth. Is
he liable for using fictitious name?
A: He is not liable for using fictitious name.
First, he did not do so publicly. Second, his use
of the name was not done to conceal a crime, to
evade the execution of sentence or to cause
damage to public interest—none of these
purposes is present; therefore he is not liable for
using fictitious name.
 Is he liable for concealing true name?
 No, he is not liable for concealing
true name. Although he concealed his
real name, Atty. X, he did not conceal his
other personal circumstances. He
divulged his address. He divulged the
name of his wife, the names of his
children; therefore, it cannot be said that
CRIMINAL LAW 2
he has the intention to conceal his true
identity. In fact, his true identity can
easily be verified just by going to the said
address; therefore he is not also liable for
concealing true name.
 Is he liable under CA 142, as amended?
 He is also not liable under CA 142, as
amended, because the use of the name
Y in a single transaction, in a single
isolated transaction, without any showing
that henceforth he wanted to be known
as Y is not within the prohibition of CA
142, as amended.
ARTICLE179 – ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORMS AND
INSIGNIA
 Committed by any person who makes use of any
insignia, uniform or dress which pertains to an
office not being held by the offender or to a class
of person of which he is not a member and he
makes use of such insignia, uniform or dress
publicly and improperly.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender makes use of INSIGNIA,
UNIFORM or DRESS
2. That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to
an office not being held by the offender or to a
class of person of which he is not a member.
3. That the said insignia, uniform or dress is
used publicly and improperly.
 The offender uses the insignia, uniform or dress of an
office not held by him or a by a class of person of
which he is not a member and he used the same
publicly and improperly.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a person was wearing a uniform. So he said that
it was a uniform of a certain organization known as H world
but in fact, no such organization ever existed. Is he liable
under Article 179?
A: No, he is not liable of Illegal use of
insignia, uniform or dress Article 179. The
reason is that H world does not belong to any
office, doesn’t refer to a class of persons;
therefore, he is not liable under Article 179.
Q: What if a person made use of a uniform of a prisoner. So
you see a person, he was receiving a holy communion, he
was wearing an orange t-shirt with a big letter P at the back
which means Prisoner. Can he be held liable under Article
179?
A: He is not liable of Illegal use of insignia,
uniform or dress under Article 179. Although he used
the uniform of a prisoner, it is not an office held by the
offender, it is not also a class of persons. When you say a
class of persons of which he is a member, it refers to a
dignified class of persons. He is assuming that he belongs to
the said class of persons. Here, he is even belittling himself
because he was wearing a uniform of a prisoner. Hence, it
cannot be said that he violated Article 179.
FALSE TESTIMONY (ART 180, 181, 182)
 False testimony can either be false testimony in
criminal cases (Articles 180 and 181), false
testimony in civil cases (Article 182) and false
testimony in other cases.
 False testimony in criminal cases can either be:
(1) false testimony against a defendant (Article
180) and (2) false testimony favorable to
defendant (Article 181).
ARTICLE180 – FALSE TESTIMONY AGAINST A
DEFENDANT
 In a criminal proceeding, the offender-witness
testified falsely against a defendant knowing that
his testimony is false and then the said
defendant is either acquitted or convicted.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be a criminal proceeding
2. That the offender testifies falsely under oath
against the defendant therein.
3. That the offender who gives false testimony
knows that it is false.
4. That the defendant against whom the false
testimony is given is either acquitted or
convicted in a final judgment. (People v.
Maneja)
ARTICLE181 – FALSE TESTIMONY FAVORABLE TO
DEFENDANT
 In a criminal proceeding, the offender-witness
testified falsely in favor of the defendant and he
knew that his testimony is indeed false.
 Whether it be a false testimony against or false
testimony in favor of a defendant, it is immaterial
whether the court will consider or not the said false
testimony. The case may be filed.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if A is being prosecuted for the crime of homicide,
for having killed the victim. So while he is being prosecuted,
the fiscal presented a witness. This witness was also brought
in by the heirs of the victim. The heirs of the victim said that
the witness saw the said act of killing. The fiscal believed
and the fiscal presented the said witness. The witness
however was not present at the scene of the crime but in his
testimony the witness said that he was present at the scene
of the crime and that he actually saw the accused stabbing
the victim to death. The accused, A knew that the witness
was testifying falsely because he knew that at the scene of
the crime, it was only he and the victim who were present.
After trial on the merits, the judge, acquitted the said
accused A. In other words, the judge did not give weight to
the testimony of the false witness. Can A still file a case
against the false witness?
A:Yes, A can still file a case of false
testimony against the false witness. He can
still file a case of false testimony against the said
false witness even of the court did not consider
the said false testimony. Even if the court did not
give any merit on the said false testimony and
acquitted him. The crime will arise the moment
the said offender testified falsely in open court
whether in favor or against a defendant.
Q: What if in the same case, A was being prosecuted for
homicide. Then the prosecution presented the witness. The
witness testified falsely against the defendant saying that he
saw the actual act of killing. After trial on the merits, the
judge convicted the accused, the judge believed the false
testimony and so the judge convicted him. Upon conviction,
within 15 days from the promulgation of judgment, the said
accused, the said convict, filed an appeal before the CA.
While the case was pending before the CA, can the said
accused, the convicted person, already file a case of false
testimony against the false witness who testified against
him?
A:Not yet. Any case would still be a
premature case. In fact, you would not know
what court will have jurisdiction. You would not
know if the court that will have jurisdiction over
the false testimony is the RTC or the MTC
because the penalty to be imposed on the false
witness is always dependent on the penalty
imposed on the convict.
 Under Article 180, if the defendant has been
convicted and the penalty imposed is capital
punishment or death then the false witness shall
be imposed with a penalty of reclusion temporal.
If the defendant, upon conviction is imposed
with a penalty of reclusion perpetua and
reclusion temporal, the penalty will be imposed
on the false witness is prision mayor. If the said
defendant is convicted and the penalty imposed
on him is any other afflictive penalty, the penalty
to be imposed on the false witness is prision
correcional. On the other hand, if the penalty
imposed on the said defendant is prision
correcional, arresto mayor, fine or he was
Page 28

acquitted. If he was acquitted, the penalty to be
imposed on the said person who testified falsely
is arresto mayor.
 So in this case, the penalty on the false witness
is always dependent on the penalty to be
imposed by the court on the defendant;
therefore, there must first be a final conviction
by final judgment.
 NOTE: if it is an acquittal, the case can be
immediately filed because an acquittal is
immediately executory. You cannot appeal an
acquittal. It is immediately executory.
Q: So the case was filed against A for homicide, here comes
a witness, the witness testified falsely in favor of the
accused. Can the private complainant, the heirs of the
victim, immediately file a case of false testimony against the
witness right after the giving thereof?
A: Yes, because in case of false testimony in
favor of the defendant, the penalty of the false
witness is not dependent on the penalty to be
imposed on the said accused or defendant.
ARTICLE182 – FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES
 Right after the giving of the false testimony, the
private complainant or the aggrieved party, can
immediately file a case against the false witness
who testified in favor of the defendant.
ELEMENTS:
1. The testimony must be given in a civil case
2. The testimony must relate to the issues
presented in said case (relative or
pertinent)
3. The testimony must be false
4. The false testimony must be given by the
defendant knowing the same to be false.
5. The testimony must be malicious and given
with intent to affect the issues presented in
the said case (U.S. v. Aragon)
 In case of false testimony in a civil case, right
after the giving of the false testimony, the false
witness can be immediately prosecuted in court.
 In order to amount in false testimony in civil
cases, there must be litigation. Take for example
a sum of money, breach of contract. If the false
testimony is given in a special proceeding, for
example, petition for nullity of marriage, petition
for separation, petition for habeas corpus, these
are special proceedings and a false testimony of
a person who testified falsely during this special
proceeding, the case is under Article 183, false
testimony in other proceedings.
ARTICLE183 – PERJURY
CRIMINAL LAW 2
 PERJURY is the willful and deliberate assertion of
falsehood on a material matter made before an officer
duly authorized to receive and administer oath.
ELEMENTS:
1. The accused made a statement under oath
or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter
 There are two ways of committing
perjury:
The offender either:
1. Makes a statement
under oath (he makes a false
testimony); or
2. Executes an affidavit
on a material matter
(if it is an affidavit, it
is also required
under oath)
2. The said statement under oath or affidavit
was made before a competent officer duly
authorized to receive and administer oath
 In order to amount to perjury, it is
necessary that the said oath must be
given before an officer duly
authorized to receive and administer.
Otherwise, it cannot be considered as
perjury because the essence of
perjuryis the violation of the
solemnity of oath.
 If the person who received the oath
is not duly authorized, it cannot be
said that there is a violation of the
solemnity of the oath.
3. That in the said statement or affidavit, the
offender makes a willful and deliberate
assertion of falsehood
 It is necessary for perjury to arise
that the offender deliberately,
knowingly ascertained a falsehood.
There was a deliberate intent on his
part; therefore, good faith is a
defense in perjury.
 Perjury likewise cannot be committed
out of mere negligence. It is
necessary that there must be a
deliberate intent on his part to assert
a falsity either in the statement or
affidavit.
4. The said statement or affidavit containing
falsity is required by law.
 If it is not required by law then it
cannot be considered as a crime.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if X made a false statement in a criminal
proceeding, what crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is FALSE TESTIMONY.
Q: A makes a statement in a labor case against B. What
crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is PERJURY.
 If the false statement under oath is made in a judicial
proceeding whether it be a criminal or civil proceeding,
the crime committed is FALSE TESTIMONY. If the said
false statement, however, is made in a non-judicial
proceeding, administrative proceedings, or quasi-
judicial proceedings, then the crime committed is
PERJURY. So if the false testimony or the false
statement is made in a labor case, in an administrative
case, in an application for search warrant, during the
preliminary investigation, before the fiscals’ office, the
crime committed is perjury.
Q: What if the offender makes false narration of facts in a
cedula. The offender makes a false narration of facts in a
driver’s license. What crime is committed?
A: FALSIFICATION.
Q: What if the offender makes a false narration of facts in a
statement of assets, liabilities and net worth. So a public
officer filed a statement of assets, liabilities and net worth. It
contains falsities, false narration of facts. What is the
liability?
A: The liability is PERJURY.
WHERE LIES THE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN
FALSIFICATION AND PERJURY?
 In falsification, the document is not required to
be under oath. In case of perjury, the document
is required to be under oath.
HOW ABOUT THE DIFFERENCE OF FALSE STATEMENT
AND PERJURY?
 If the false statement is made in a judicial
proceeding, it is false testimony. If the false
statement is made in a non-judicial proceeding
or administrative proceeding or quasi-judicial
proceeding, it is perjury.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: An applicant for the bar filled out an application form for
the bar, there was a statement therein, “Have you ever been
fined or convicted of any crime?” and the answer was no,
however, in truth and in fact, he has already been fined for
the crime of jaywalking. He answered no and then this
application for the bar is required to be under oath. He was
looking for a notary public since it was a Sunday, there was
no office opened so he went to the legal office of his father,
hoping that there was a lawyer there. However, there was
only the janitor and he asked the janitor to sign in the
notary public part and then submitted it to the office of the
bar confidante. Is the said applicant for the bar liable for
perjury or is he liable for falsification?
A: He is liable of FALSIFICATION and not of
perjury because the person who received and
administered the oath is not a confidante officer
duly authorized to receive and administer the
oath. He was a mere janitor and not a notary
public. As such, the crime committed is
falsification. Again, the essence of perjury is the
violation of the solemnity of the oath.
Q: A wrote a love letter to the girl that he is pursuing. In the
said love letter, he stated falsities such as “You are the only
one in my life.” when in truth there were three of them. He
stated “I love you and I miss you” and they were all falsities.
He even asked it to be notarized and sent it to his third
girlfriend. Is he liable for perjury?
A: No, he is not liable for perjury. He is not
liable for perjury because the said love letter is
not required by law. The fourth element
requires, to amount to perjury, the sworn
statement under oath or the said affidavit must
be required by law because it is a crime against
public interest not a crime against personal
interest.
Q: What if in a case submitted in a fiscal’s office, so there
was a complaint and attached thereto is a sworn statement.
In the said sworn statement, the witness said that he saw
the accident. He saw the accused bumped the victim.
According to him, at the time, he was watching Saksi, when
suddenly a commotion occurred outside, he ran out of the
window, he saw at that particular time the accused hitting
the said victim with his vehicle and so he saw the accused
that caused the death of the victim. That was his statement
in the affidavit filed to the fiscal’s office. During
investigation, however, it was discovered he was not
watching Saksi, he was watching Bandila, the news program
in ABS-CBN and not the news program in GMA. Is he liable
of perjury?
A:No, he is not liable of perjury. Although it
was under oath, administered by a fiscal, still it is
no perjury because it is not on a material matter.
Whatever it is that he was watching at the time,
even if it is cartoon, it doesn’t matter. What
matters is that he heard the commotion, he ran
to the window, and he saw the accused bumping
the victim. He saw that it was the accused who
killed the victim and that it was the car of the
accused that hit the victim. Only then, it will be
Page 29

considered as perjury but whatever he was
watching, it was immaterial. It was not on a
material matter; therefore it will not amount to
perjury.
SUBORNATION OF PERJURY is committed by a person
who knowingly and willfully procures another to swear
falsely and the witness suborned does testify under the
circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury.
NOTE: Subornation of perjury is not expressly penalized in
RPC; but the direct induction of a person by another to
commit perjury may be punished under Article 183 in
relation to Article 7, meaning, the crime is plain perjury but
the one inducing another will be liable as principal by
inducement and the one who testified as principal by direct
participation.
ARTICLE184 – OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONY IN
EVIDENCE
 Committed by any person who shall offer in evidence
any false testimony or any false witness either in a
judicial proceeding or in any official proceeding.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender offered in evidence a false
witness or false testimony.
2. The offender knew the witness or the
testimony was false.
3. The offer was made in a judicial or official
proceeding.
 Is this the same as subornation of perjury?
 Subornation of perjury is committed by any
person who procures a false witness in
order to perjures himself and testify falsely
in a case. There is no such crime as
subornation of perjury under the
present RPC because we already have
Article 184.
 Article 184 is committed when any person
who procures a witness and offers him as
evidence in court can be held liable under
Article 184 or he can be held liable as a
principal by inducement in false testimony
or as a principal by inducement in perjury;
therefore subornation of perjury is not
necessary and it is not a crime under
Philippine jurisdiction, under the RPC.
ARTICLE185 – MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC
AUCTIONS
 There are two acts punishable under Article 185
I. SOLICITING GIFT OR PROMISE
 By soliciting any gift or promise as a
consideration for refraining from
taking part in any public auction.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
 The mere act of soliciting any gift or
promise, so that he will refrain from
taking part of the public auction, will
already give rise to the crime. It is
not necessary that he actually
received the gift, it is not necessary
that he actually will not participate in
the said auction.
ELEMENTS:
1. There be a public auction.
2. The accused solicited any gift or a
promise from any of the
bidders.
3. That such gift or promise was the
consideration for his refraining
from taking part in that public
auction.
4. The accused had the intent to
cause the reduction of the price
of the thing auctioned.
II. ATTEMPTING TO CAUSE BIDDERS TO
STAY AWAY
 By attempting to cause bidders to
stay away from an auction by
threats, gifts, promises or any other
artifice
 The mere attempt to cause bidders
not to participate in the said public
auction by threats, gifts or promise
will already give rise to the crime. It
is not necessary that the bidders
would not actually participate.
ELEMENTS:
1. There be a public auction
2. The accused attempted to cause
the bidders to stay away from
that public auction.
3. It was done by threats, gifts,
promises or any other artifice.
4. The accused had the intent to
cause the reduction of the price
of the thing auctioned.
 In order to be liable for this crime, whether it be the
act of solicitation or the act of attempting to cause
bidders to stay away from public auction, it is
necessary that the intention of the offender is to cause
the reduction of the price of the thing which is
the subject of the public auction. The acts
complained of must be done for the purpose of
reducing the price of the thing being auctioned.
 In public auction, it is necessary that the public must
be able to get the best price for the thing being
auctioned. If there will be less bidders, less
participants in the said public auction, then the public
will not be able to get the best price for the thing
subject of the public auction. Here, if the non-
participation of the other bidders was caused by a
person, then he is liable under Article 185. Again, the
intention of the offender is to cause the reduction of
the price of the thing which is the subject of the public
auction.
ARTICLE186 – MONOPOLIES AND COMBINATIONS IN
RESTRAINT OF TRADE
 Acts punished:
I. COMBINATION TO PREVENT FREE
COMPETITION IN THE MARKET
 This is committed by any person who
shall enter into any contract or
agreement or taking part in any
combination whether in the form of
trust or otherwise, in restraint of
trade or commerce or to prevent by
artificial means free competition in
the market.
II. MONOPOLY TO RESTRAIN FREE
COMPETITION IN THE MARKET
 This is committed by monopolizing
any merchandise or object of trade or
commerce or by combining with any
other person or persons in order to
alter the prices thereof by spreading
false rumors or making use of any
other artifice to restrain free
competition in the market.
III. MANUFACTURER, PRODUCER, OR
PROCESSOR OR IMPORTER
COMBINING, CONSPIRING OR
AGREEING WITH ANY PERSON TO
MAKE TRANSACTIONS PREJUDICIAL
TO LAWFUL COMMERCE OR TO
INCREASE THE MARKET PRICE OF
MERCHANDISE
 The FIRST TWO ACTS under Article 186 can be
committed by any person and not necessarily by
manufacturers, producer or processors. The THIRD
ACT however, can be committed only by
manufacturers, processors, producers and importers
who combined with any other person or persons in
order to commit a transaction prejudicial to lawful
commerce or to increase the market price of any
merchandise or object of commerce
 Whether it be the first, second or third act, the mere
conspiracy in order to restrain or to prevent free
competition will already give rise to the crime. It is not
necessary that there be actual restraint in trade or
commerce.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if Petron, Caltex and Shell connived, combined and
agreed with one another to hoard fuel. They know that the
fuel prices will increase by March and so they decided to
hoard it. Can they be held liable under Article 186?
 Juridical corporations cannot be the subject of
criminal action. First, it cannot be said that
juridical persons can act with intent. Second, you
cannot imprison a juridical person in case of
conviction. So if the offender is a juridical entity,
who shall be held liable?
 The president, the directors or any of the
members of the said corporation,
association or partnership, who knowingly
permitted and allowed this combination or
monopoly in restraint of trade or
commerce. Note that they must have
knowingly permitted the same otherwise,
they cannot be held criminally liable.
 If the objects, which are the subject of this monopoly
or combination in restraint of trade or commerce are
prime commodities such as food, motor fuel,
lubricants, it is not even necessary that there be
conspiracy. A mere proposal, a mere intial step to
hoard, to prevent free competition in the market
will already give rise to the crime.
ARTICLE187 – IMPORTATION AND DISPOSITION OF
FALSELY MARKED ARTICLES
 Committed by any person who shall imports, sells or
disposes any article or merchandise made of gold,
silver, other precious materials, or their alloys
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender IMPORTS, SELLS or DISPOSES
any article or merchandise made of gold,
silver, other precious materials, or their
alloys
2. That the STAMPS, BRANDS, or MARKS of
those articles or merchandise FAIL TO
INDICATE the actual fitness or quality of
said metals or alloys
3. The OFFENDER KNOWS that the stamps,
brands or marks fail to indicate the actual
fitness or quality of the metals or alloys.
 This is considered a criminal act because the offender,
despite knowing that the articles or merchandise that
he imported are misbranded, he still imports the same,
sells the same or disposes the same
Page 30

 Mere importation is a punishable act; therefore it is
not necessary for the offender to become liable under
Article 187 that he must have sold the misbranded
articles or that he must have disposed the article
because mere importationwill already give rise to
the crime.
TITLE FIVE
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
PROHIBITED DRUGS
COMPREHENSIVE DANGEROUS DRUGS ACT OF 2002
(RA 9165)
SECTION 4 – IMPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
AND/OR CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND
ESSENTIAL CHEMICALS
 Is committed by:
Any person, who, unless authorized
by law, shall import or bring into the Philippines
any dangerous drug, regardless of the quantity
and purity involved.
 In one Supreme Court decision, it held that: For
one to be liable for importation of
dangerous drugs, it is necessary to be proven
that the dangerous drugs that were taken in a
vessel came from a foreign country with the said
dangerous drugs on board the said vessel;
therefore the prosecution must prove that
the vessel which came into the Philippine
ports had with it the dangerous drugs. Only
then can it be said that the dangerous drugs
have been imported from another country.
SECTION 5 – SALE, TRADING, ADMINISTRATION,
DISPENSATION, DELIVERY, DISTRIBUTION AND
TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS DRUGS AND/OR
CONTROLLED PRECURSORS AND ESSENTIAL
CHEMICALS
Selling Dangerous Drugs
 Act of giving away any dangerous drug and/or
controlled precursor and essential chemical
whether for money of any other consideration.
ELEMENTS OF SALE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS:
1. The identity of the buyer and the seller
 It is necessary that the identity
of the buyer and the seller are
clearly identified.
2. The object and the consideration
CRIMINAL LAW 2
3. The delivery of the thing sold and the
payment thereof
 Because if the dangerous drugs
had not been delivered, the
third element is lacking, the
sale is abds forted, there is only
ATTEMPTED ILLEGAL SALE of
dangerous drugs not
consummated illegal sale of
dangerous drugs because the
third element is lacking.
Q: What if a person has been prosecuted for Illegal sale of
Dangerous Drugs. The said operation was a buy bust
operation. It is an entrapment procedure which is allowed by
law. Here, the criminal/evil intent originated mainly from the
offender himself that’s why it is not considered as an
absolutory cause. Here, the Police Officers employed means
and methods to entrap and capture the criminal in flagrante
that is in the actual act of committing the crime. So what if
in the buy bust operation, the accused drug seller was
arrested. In the said operation, the informant acted as the
posuer buyer. He was given marked money. The policemen
ran into the place of the drug seller. Only the poseur-buyer
knocked at the door of the drug seller. The drug seller came
out and the poseur-buyer said that he wanted to buy
dangerous drugs in the amount of P200. The drug seller said
okay and gave 2 plastic sachets of dangerous drugs to the
poseur buyer. However, the poseur-buyer without having
given the marked money yet to the drug seller negligently
removed his eyeglasses so the Police officers thought that
that was the signal that the sale has been consummated.
They arrived at the said place and arrested the drug seller.
The marked money was not given to drug seller. Does that
constitute his acquittal?
A: No provided that all the elements are
present:
Note that the second element only requires the
crime must be established. The corpus delicti
and the price must be established. It does not
require that there must be giving of the
price/money. It suffices that the crime was
established.
When the poseur-buyer said that he wants to
buy illegal drugs for P200, the price has already
been established. Therefore, all the elements will
suffice even if the marked money has not been
given by the buyer to the seller. In fact, even if
the marked money is not presented in court it
will not be a hiatus on the evidence of the
prosecution provided that the police officers and
the witnesses were able to prove the crime of
illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
Q: How about the poseur-buyer? Is it necessary for the
poseur buyer to testify in court? What if the prosecutor
failed to have the poseur-buyer testify in court? Does it
mean to an acquittal?
A: The testimony of the poseur-buyer is not
indispensable in a case of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs. It is not indispensable because
the transaction can be proven by the other police
officers who have witnessed the transaction.
However if the seller denies the existence of the
said transaction; it is the incumbent upon the
prosecution to grove the said transaction by the
presentation the said poseur-buyer.
General Rule: The testimony of the poseur-
buyer is not indispensable in a case of illegal sale
of dangerous drugs.
Exemption: When the accused denies the
existence of the said transaction. If the
prosecution failed to present the poseur-buyer to
testify in court, it will amount to the dismissal of
the case.
Q: Let’s say there is this cigarette vendor on the side walk
and here comes a man who parked his car near the side
walk. He called the cigarette vendor and told the cigarette
vendor to deliver a package to the man inside the car which
is parked on the other side of the street. He told the
cigarette vendor that he will give him P1000 if the he agreed
to deliver the package to the man inside the car which is
parked at the other side of the street. The cigarette vendor
asked the man what is inside the package however the man
said “it’s none of your business to know what’s inside that. I
will give you P1000 if you deliver this to the man inside that
car parked at the other side of the street.” So the cigarette
vendor with the P1000 got the bag and delivered it to the
man at the other side of the street. He knocked at the
window and the man lowered his window. However at the
time of the said delivery the police officers arrived and
arrested the cigarette vendor. Can he be prosecuted for
delivery of dangerous drugs? Can he be convicted for
delivery of dangerous drugs?
A: He can be prosecuted for delivery of
dangerous drugs however it is a defense on his
part that he has no knowledge that the thing he
is delivering is dangerous drugs because under
RA 9165, delivering has been defined as the act
of knowingly passing a dangerous drug to
another, personally or otherwise, and by any
means, with or without consideration. Therefore
it is necessary that the one delivering dangerous
drug must have the knowledge of the thing that
he is delivering is dangerous drug.
DELIVER – an act of knowingly passing a dangerous drug
to another, personally or otherwise, and by any means, with
or without consideration.
SECTION 6 – MAINTENANCE OF A DEN, DIVE, OR
RESORT
 Any person who maintains a den, dive, or resort
for the use of illegal drugs are liable under this
section.
 Are the owners, persons maintaining the said
dangerous drug dens are only the ones who are
criminally liable?
 Under Section 7 of the act, even the
employees who are aware of the nature of
the said den, dive or resort for the use and
sale of dangerous drugs are also criminally
liable. Likewise, even persons who are not
employees which knowingly visit the same
place despite the knowledge of the nature
of such den, dive, or resort are also
criminally liable.
Q: What if the said den, dive, or resort is owned by a third
person? Let’s say A and B rented a house. After giving the
down payment, A and B went to the said house. A and B
used the house as a den for illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
The police officers were able to secure a warrant and A and
B were arrested. Can the owner of the said house be
criminally liable for the maintenance of the said den? How
about the house? Can it be forfeited in favor of the
government?
A: Under Sec. 6, the said den, dive, or resort for
the use of illegal sale of dangerous drugs shall
be escheated in favor of the government
provided that the following circumstances
concur:
1. The information must allege that the
said place is intentionally being used
in furtherance of illegal sale/use of
dangerous drugs.
2. Such intent must be proven by the
prosecutor.
3. The owner of the said house must be
included as an accused in the
information or complaint.
Page 31

If these 3 elements are present; then the
said house shall be confiscated and
escheated in favor of the government.
SECTION 8 – MANUFACTURE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
 The presence if any controlled precursor and
essential chemical or laboratory equipment in the
clandestine laboratory is a prima facie evidence
of manufacture of any dangerous drug.
SECTION 11 – ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS
ELEMENTS OF POSSESSION OF ILLEGAL
DRUGS:
1. The accused was in possession of prohibited
drug
 In illegal possession of dangerous
drugs; the word possession does
not only mean actual possession of
the dangerous drug in his body. It
suffices that the said dangerous drug
is found in a place under the
control and dominion of the said
offender.
Q: By virtue of a search warrant the police officers
conducted a search in the house of A to look for cocaine.
They looked inside the bedroom and underneath the pillow
on the bedroom of A, the found several sachets of cocaine.
Can it be held that A is in possession of the said drugs?
A: Yes because it is under his control
and dominion. Possession does not
only mean physical or actual
possession. It also means as
constructive possession for as long as
the dangerous drugs is under his
control and dominion.
2. Such possession is not authorized by law
 The offender is not authorized by law
to possess such drugs. Dangerous
drugs are per se contraband. They
are per se illegal items. The
presumption is that such possession
is without authority of law. Therefore
the burden of proof is on the accused
to prove that he has the authority to
possess unlike illegal possession of
firearms. Illegal possession of
firearms is not per se contraband
therefore in illegal possession of
CRIMINAL LAW 2
firearms, it is the prosecution who
has the burden of proof that the said
person lacks license.
3. The accused freely and consciously
possessed the prohibited drug
 There must be an animus posidendi
on the part of the said accused. This
animus posidendi on the part of the
accused is a prima facie presumed by
law. The moment a person was
found in possession of dangerous
drugs, the presumes that the person
knows that the thing in his
possession is dangerous drugs.
SECTION 12 - ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DRUG
PARAPHERNALIA
e.g. A person was found in possession of empty
plastic sachets and other instruments used for
using dangerous drugs. He is therefore liable for
Illegal Possession of Drug Paraphernalia.
Q: What if a person was found in possession of drug
paraphernalia can they avail the benefit of probation?
A: Yes he can avail for probation. The
penalty prescribed by law for illegal possession
of drug paraphernalia’s is an imprisonment
ranging from 6 months and 1 day to 4 years
which is within the probationable penalty. Under
Sec. 24 of R.A. 9165, any person convicted for
drug pushing and drug trafficking, regardless of
the penalty imposed by the Court, cannot avail
for probation.
So under Sec. 24; only those who are convicted
of drug pushing and drug trafficking which
cannot avail for probation therefore for any other
violation of Dangerous Drugs Act, for as long as
the penalty imposed by the court is 6 years and
below, he can avail for the benefit of probation.
But if he is a drug trafficker/ pusher, one who is
engaged in selling dangerous drugs, he cannot
avail of the benefit of probation even if the
penalty imposed by the court is within the
probationable penalty because it is expressly
prohibited by Sec. 24 of RA 9165.
SECTION 13 – ILLEGAL POSSESSION OF DANGEROUS
DRUGS DURING PARTIES, SOCIAL GATHERINGS OR
MEETINGS
 in Sec. 13, if any person was found in possession
of dangerous drug in a party, social gatherings
or meetings, or in the proximate company of at
least two (2) persons; the maximum penalty
prescribed by law shall be imposed.
SECTION 15 – ILLEGAL USE OF DANGEROUS DRUGS
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL USE OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS:
1. The offender was apprehended/ arrested in
the actual use of dangerous drugs.
 The first element requires that
the offender must be actually
using, sniffing the dangerous
drugs.
2. After a confirmatory test; he was found to
be positive for use of any dangerous drugs.
 He was at the PNP Crime Lab
and after the confirmatory test,
he was found to be positive for
use of dangerous drugs.
3. No other amount of dangerous drugs must
be found in his possession.
 If any other amount of
dangerous drugs was found in
his possession, then the proper
charge would no longer be
illegal use but illegal possession
of dangerous drugs.
Q: The police officers saw a man snatched the cell phone of
a woman. Since the police officers saw the man in
committing the crime inflagrante delicto of actual act of
snatching and the man runaway, they followed the man. The
man entered the house. The police officers upon entering
the house saw 3 men on a round table; they were in the
actual act of sniffing shabu. They were arrested and they
were asked to stand up and fold their arms up and they
were searched. Upon the search, they found out that these
3 men; each of them was found a sachet of illegal drugs in
their pockets aside from the dangerous drug that they were
using. What cases will you file against the 3 men?
A: Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs.
No illegal use of dangerous drugs because the
third element is one thing. Let’s say after the
confirmatory test they were found to be positive
however 3 elements must concur: 1st element:
They were caught in the actual act of sniffing
shabu. 2nd element: After confirmatory test they
were found positive of the use of dangerous
drugs however the 3rd element is lacking because
they found to have in their possession a plastic
sachet of other dangerous drugs other than the
one they used. Therefore the proper crime
charged is illegal possession of dangerous drugs.
SECTION 21 – PROCEDURE IN THE SEIZURE AND
CONFISCATION OF DANGEROUS DRUG
The apprehending team which has the initial
possession of the seized/confiscated dangerous
drugs shall:
1. Inventory the dangerous drugs
2. Take photographs of the same
in the presence of the accused
or from the person whom the
dangerous drugs have been
confiscated or in the presence
of his counsel, a representative
from the media, a
representative from the
Department of Justice, and an
elected public official who shall
be given a copy of the said
inventory and who shall be
required to sign the same.
Procedure:
1. Upon seizure/ confiscation of dangerous drugs,
the same must be stated in the inventory list.
2. There must be a picture taking of the dangerous
drugs in the presence of the accused or from the
person whom the dangerous drugs have been
confiscated or in the presence of his counsel, a
representative from the media, a representative
from the Department of Justice, and an elected
public official.
3. The elected public official must be required to
sign the inventory list and shall be given a copy
of the same.
Q: What if the police officers failed to comply with this
procedure? In People vs. Sta. Maria, the police officers failed
to comply with this procedure however there was conviction.
However, in the case of Dolera vs. People; the police officers
failed to comply with Sec. 21 procedure and this time there
was an acquittal. Why is there an acquittal in the case of
Dolera and why is there a conviction in the case of Sta.
Maria?
A: The Supreme Court held that even if there is
failure to comply with the procedure underlined
Page 32

in Sec 21 of RA 9165 by the arresting officers,
there will still be conviction if the said non-
compliance is due to justifiable reasons and
provided that the police officers were able to
preserve the integrity and evidentiary bond of
the confiscated dangerous drugs this is in
consonance with the chain of custody rule.
If the police officers were not able to comply
with the procedure due to justifiable cause, they
must be able to preserve the integrity and
evidentiary bond of the confiscated dangerous
drug that is; right after confiscation, it must be
marked to ensure that it was the dangerous
drugs taken from the accused and must be
turned over to the forensic laboratory for testing.
CHAIN OF CUSTODY RULE
 What is the Chain of Custody rule? (People v
Gutierrez)
 It is defined as the duly recorded
authorized movements and custody of
dangerous drugs from the time of
confiscation/seizure to the receipt in the
forensic laboratory to safekeeping to
presentation in court for destruction.
 What is the purpose Chain of Custody rule?
 The purpose of Chain of Custody rule is to
ensure that the dangerous drug
seized/confiscated from the accused
is the very same dangerous drug
which has been tested by the forensic
chemist and it is the very same
dangerous drug presented in court
that is; there has been no substitution
of evidence.
 Dangerous drugs are so small. There can
be a replacement of the effects therefore
this Chain of Custody rule will ensure that
there will be no substitution of the very
same dangerous drug seized/confiscated
from the accused at the time that they
were presented to the court.
Q: What if a person is charged for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs and during his arraignment, he pleaded not
guilty and during the pre-trial, he said that he will change his
plea if he will be allowed to plead guilty for a lesser offense
of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia. So he wanted to
avail of the plea-bargaining rule under the rules of court.
Under the plea-bargaining rule, you can plead guilty to a
lesser offense provided that the said lesser offense is
necessary included in the offense charged. Here, the charge
CRIMINAL LAW 2
is illegal possession of dangerous drugs; can he plead for a
lesser offense of illegal possession of drug paraphernalia?
A: He cannot because Sec. 28 of R.A. 9165
provides that any person charged in violation of
any of the crimes charged under this act cannot
avail of the plea-bargaining under the rules of
court. Therefore any person charged in violation
of any of the punishable acts under R.A. 9165
cannot plead guilty to a lower offense.
SECTION 25 – A POSITIVE FINDING FOR THE USE OF
DANGEROUS DRUGS SHALL BE A QUALIFYING
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE
Q: A killed B. The police officers arrested A and they brought
him to the crime lab to be tested for the use of illegal use of
dangerous drugs. After testing, he was found positive for the
use of dangerous drugs. What is the effect of it in the
criminal liability of A?
A: Sec 25 states the a positive finding for the
use of dangerous drugs shall be a qualifying
aggravating circumstance.
 What is the effect of a qualifying aggravating
circumstance?
 It changes the nature of the crime or even
without changing the nature of the crime it
will bring about a higher imposition of
penalty.
SECTION 26 –ATTEMPT OR CONSPIRACY
 Express exception to the general rule that in case
of violation of a penal law, there are no stages
and there is no conspiracy.
 As a rule, in case of violation of penal law, we have no
attempted stages. In violation of special penal laws,
conspiracy unless expressly provided because these
are only for violation of the RPC, for felonies. One of
those exceptions is under Section 26 of RA 9165.
Under Section 26 of RA 9165, any attempt or
conspiracy of any of the following acts shall be
punished already by penalty prescribed by law:
1. Importation of any dangerous drug;
2. Sale, trading, administration, delivery,
distribution, transportation of dangerous
drug;
3. Maintenance of a den, dive, or resort
where any dangerous drug is used in any
form;
4. Manufacture of any dangerous drug;
5. Cultivation or culture of plants which are
the sources of dangerous drugs.
 If any of these acts mentioned is committed by
the offender, a mere attempt; or conspiracy will
already give rise to the crime as an exception to
the rule that in case of violation of penal law,
there are no stages in the commission of the
crime and conspiracy will not lie. So if any of the
crime committed is any of these five acts, mere
attempt will lie against the offender, conspiracy
will lie against the offender.
As held in the case of People v Rolando Laylo, the charge
was only attempted illegal sale of dangerous drugs. The sale
was aborted because even before the said drug poseur was
able to transfer the dangerous drug to the police officer, the
police officers already introduced themselves as such and
arrested him. As such, we only have attempted illegal sale of
dangerous drugs.
SECTON 98 – LIMITED APPLICABILITY OF THE RPC
 In Book I, under Article 10, the provisions of the
RPC shall apply suppletorily or supplementarily to
the provisions of the special penal laws UNLESS
the special penal law provides otherwise.
 One of the exceptions is provided for in Sec 98
of RA 9165, it is provided that the provisions of
RPC, as amended, shall not apply to the
provisions of RA 9165. The law uses the word
shall; therefore you cannot apply the provision of
RPC to the provisions of RA 9165.
 Exception to Section 98: If the offender is a minor
offender.
 Where the offender is a minor, the
penalty for acts punishable by life
imprisonment to death provided shall
be reclusion perpetua to death.
TITLE SIX
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS (Articles 200 –
202)
ARTICLE200 – GRAVE SCANDAL
Grave Scandal – a highly scandalous act
offensive to good morals, good customs and
decency committed in a public place or within
public knowledge or public view.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender performs an act or acts
2. Such act or acts be HIGHLY SCANDALOUS as
offending against decency or good customs
 It is necessary that the act must
be highly scandalous and
offensive to morals, offensive to
decency and offensive to good
customs.
3. That the highly scandalous conduct is not
expressly falling within any other article of
this Code.
 The third element requires that it
must not expressly fall within any
other article of this code. It must
not constitute any other violation
in the RPC. Grave scandal is a
crime of last resort because
you only file a complaint for
grave scandal when the said act
is not punishable under any
other article in the RPC.
4. The act or act complained of be committed in
a public place or within the public knowledge
or view.
 Then the fourth element
provides that the highly
scandalous act must be
committed either in a public
place or within public knowledge
or view. If the highly scandalous
act is committed in a public
place, the crime of grave scandal
will immediately arise. The place
being public, the law presumes
that someone may have
witnessed the commission of the
highly scandalous act. However,
if the crime is committed or if the
highly scandalous act is
committed in a private place, for
the crime of grave scandal to
arise, it is necessary that it must
be witnessed by one or more
persons to be said that it is
within the public knowledge or
public view.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So let us say that A and B are boyfriend and girlfriend
and it is their anniversary. They went to Luneta Park and at
exactly 12 midnight, in the middle of Luneta Park, they
engaged in sexual intercourse. No one witnessed their
sexual intercourse. Are they liable for grave scandal?
Page 33

A: YES. They are liable for grave scandal. They
have the right to engage in sexual conduct but
the fact that they performed the sexual conduct
in Luneta Park, a public place makes the act
offensive to public morals, decency and good
customs and the said act does not constitute any
other violation in the RPC because they have the
right to engage in sexual intercourse. Therefore,
the crime committed is grave scandal because
they performed the act in a public place even if
no one saw the commission of the said act still,
still because it is performed in a public place , it
is presumed that someone may have seen the
commission of the highly scandalous act.
Q: So what if a wife and a husband, celebrating their
anniversary, engaged in sexual intercourse in their terrace.
So the act is committed in their premises, in the terrace of
their house. However, the gate was open and so passersby
would see them performing the sexual intercourse. Are they
liable for grave scandal?
A: YES. They are liable for grave scandal. The
said act does not constitute another offense in
the RPC because they have the right to engage
in sexual conduct. The sexual conduct was
performed in the privacy of their home however;
people witnessed the commission of the said act.
It now becomes a highly scandalous act because
it is within the knowledge of the public or within
public view.
Q: What if A and B are boyfriend and girlfriend. The
girlfriend is 11 yrs old and the boyfriend is 21 yrs old. And
because it is their monthsary the girlfriend thought of giving
herself as a gift and engaged in sexual intercourse in a
public place Are they liable for grave scandal?
A: NO. They are not liable for grave scandal.
The man is liable for statutory rape. A man who
had sexual intercourse with a child under 12
years of age, regardless of the consent,
regardless of the willingness of the said child, the
man is liable for statutory rape. Because in so far
as criminal law is concerned, a child under 12 yrs
old has no intelligence of his/her own and is not
capable of giving a valid consent. Therefore,
even if the girl voluntarily gave herself in so far
as the law is concerned, it is still statutory rape.
It is not grave scandal because the third element
is wanting. The said act fall under the violation of
article of RPC that is under article 266-A for rape.
As I said, grave scandal is a crime of last resort.
You only charge it when the crime committed
does not constitute any other violation in the
RPC.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
ARTICLE201 – IMMORAL DOCTRINES, OBSCENE
PUBLICATIONS AND EXHIBITIONS, AND INDECENT
SHOWS
Punishes:
I. Public proclamations of doctrines openly
contrary to public morals
II. Publication of obscene literature. In case of
publication of obscene literature, it is the author,
the editor, the owner or proprietor of the
establishment that sells the said materials SHALL
BE HELD CRIMINALLY LIABLE.
III. The third act punished is the exhibition of
indecent shows, plays, scenes or acts in fairs,
theaters, cinemas or any other places.
IV. Selling, giving away or exhibiting films,,
engravings, sculptures or literature which are
offensive to public morals.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if there is this building, when the person entered
the said building, on the floor of the said building were these
magazines. And the magazines contain men and women
engaging in sexual intercourse, naked women and men, and
other obscene materials. Who shall be held liable when the
place was raided by the police?
A: The author of the said literature, the editors
publishing such literature and the owner or
proprietor of the establishment where the said
magazines were being sold. They will be held
criminally liable under Article 201.
VAGRANTS AND PROSTITUTES (ART 202)
Q: Let us say that there is this man, a healthy man and he
can look for work but he does not want to work. So he was
just roaming around and he saw houses of prostitutes or
houses of ill-fames and he is always in this places. Can he be
held liable for vagrancy?
A:NO, becausevagrancy has been
decriminalized by R.A. No. 10158 which was
approved on March 27, 2012. We no longer have
the crime of vagrancy. No person can longer be
prosecuted for being a vagrant.
 How about prostitution? Is there still a
crime for prostitution?
 YES.
Who is a prostitute?
 of some act which
 A prostitute is any woman who, for money
or profit, indulges in sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct. So it is the work or job
of a woman. Note that the law defines it to
be a woman therefore; a man cannot be
considered a prostitute. Before, if a man 210-211
engages in sexual intercourse or lascivious  ARTICLE  ARTICLE
conduct he can be punished under Article 204 TO 207 208
202 but now since vagrancy has been
decriminalized by R.A. No. 10158, he can
ARTICLE204 – KNOWINGLY RENDERING UNJUST
no longer be prosecuted. Only prostitutes
JUDGMENT
who are woman.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a judge
TITLE SEVEN
2. That he renders a judgment in a case
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS (Articles
submitted to him for decision
203 – 245)
3. That the judgment is unjust
4. The judge knows that his judgment is unjust
ARTICLE203 – PUBLIC OFFICERS
REQUISITES TO BE A PUBLIC OFFICER:
UNJUST JUDGMENT – is one which is contrary to law, or
1. One must be taking part in the performance
one that is not supported by evidence or both.
of public functions in the Government or one
 The source of unjust judgment can either be mere
must be performing in said Government or in
error or ill-will. If the source of an unjust judgment
any of its branches public duties as an
is mere error on the part of the judge, then the said
employee, agent or subordinate official, of
judge is not civilly, criminally, and administratively
any rank or class; and
liable.
2. That his authority to take part in the
performance of public functions or to
ILLUSTRATION:
perform public duties must be –
a. by direct provision of the law; or In a case submitted to him for decision, the judge wrongfully
b. by popular election; or interpreted a provision of law. It is a new law, there is no
jurisprudence yet, the judge wrongfully interpreted it. The
c. by appointment by competent
judge cannot be held civilly, administratively, and more so,
authority
criminally liable. The said judgment is an unjust judgment
because it was based on this error in the interpretation of
Whenever a person applies to a public office, he has the so-
the law. However, there was no intent on the part of the
called, OATH OF OFFICE. If he is high-ranking official, the said judge. Considering the basis of the unjust judgment is
oath is also before a high-ranking official. If he is a cabinet mere error. The said judge acted in good faith.
secretary, the oath is before the President or to the Supreme If however, the unjust judgment is based on bad
Court Chief Justice. If he is only an ordinary employee, still faith, that is, it is based on ill-motive on the part of the said
he has oath of office. It is a document which is entitled,
judge, therefore, he can be held liable criminally, civilly and
“OATH OF OFFICE”, he merely signs it.
administratively
Felonies under TITLE SEVEN are felonies in violation of this
- For him to be criminally liable, knowing that he
oath of office, they can either be:
rendered an unjust judgment, it is necessary
NON-
MISFEASANCE MALFEASANCE that the unjust judgment is rendered out of ill-
FEASANCE
motive or bad faith, out of greed, revenge,
A public officer A public officer A public officer envy, or any other ill-motive. Hence he is
performs an performs in his knowingly, known to have rendered an unjust judgment.
official acts in a public office an act willfully refuses
manner not in prohibited by law. or refrains from BASED ON MERE ERROR – no criminal, no civil, no
accordance with doing an act administrative liability
what the law which is his
provides official duty to
(GN: Performance ARTICLE205 – JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH
do.
NEGLIGENCE
(GN: Improper This is again committed by a judge, who in a
ought not to be
performance of (GN: Omission case submitted to him for decision, renders manifestly unjust
done
some act which of some act judgment.
might be lawfully which ought to
 ARTICLE ELEMENTS:
done) be performed)
Page 34

1. The offender is a judge
2. That he renders a judgment in a case
submitted to him for decision
3. That the judgment is manifestly unjust
4. The it is due to his inexcusable negligence or
ignorance
MANIFESTLY UNJUST JUDGMENT – means that it is
evident that a judgment is unjust. A first year law student
would know that it is unjust, therefore it is manifestly unjust
judgment, because he acted in inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
ARTICLE206 – UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a judge
2. That he performs any of the following acts:
a. knowingly renders unjust
interlocutory order or decree
b. renders a manifestly unjust
interlocutory order or decree
through inexcusable negligence
or ignorance
ARTICLE207 – MALICIOUS DELAY IN
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a judge
2. There is a proceeding in his court
3. He delays the administration of justice
4. The delay is malicious, that is, delay is caused
by the judge with deliberate intent to inflict
damage on either party in the case.
ARTICLE208 – PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES;
NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE
 ACTS PUNISHABLE:
I. By maliciously refraining from
instituting prosecution against
violators of the law
Note that the first crime, he knows
that a crime was committed but he
does not prosecute the offender;
II. By maliciously tolerating the
commission of offenses
the second act, a crime was about to
be committed, he tolerates its
commission. It must be done with
MALICE. Absent malice, Article 208
will not apply.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
ELEMENTS OF DERELICTION OF DUTY IN
THE PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES:
1. That the offender is a public officer or officer
of the law who has a duty to cause the
prosecution of, or to prosecute, offenses.
2. That there is a dereliction of the duties of his
office; that is knowing the commission of the
crime, he does not cause the prosecution of the
criminal or knowing that a crime is about to be
committed, he tolerates its commission.
3. That the offender acts with malice and
deliberate intent to favor the violator of the law.
 Otherwise known as DERELICTION.
 Can only be committed by a public officer or a officer
of the law who has the duty to cause the prosecution
of or to prosecute the offenders. The said public officer
commits dereliction of duty in the prosecution of
offenses under any of the following circumstances:
a. knowing the commission of the crime,
he does not cause the prosecution of
the criminal, or
b. knowing that a crime is about to be
committed, he tolerates its commission
and the said offender acts with malice
THE
and deliberate intent to favor the
violator of the law
 The dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses
cannot be committed by just any public officer.
 The public officer must be charged with the
prosecution of the cases or he is the one who can
cause the prosecution of these offenders.
CHARGED WITH THE PROSECUTION OF THE
OFFENDERS:
- Fiscals
- Prosecutors
- State Prosecutors
THOSE WHO CAN CAUSE THE PROSECUTION OF THE
OFFENDERS:
- Judges
- Barangay Chairman
- Persons in authority
ARTICLE209 – BETRAYAL OF TRUST BY AN
ATTORNEY OR SOLICITOR – REVELATION OF
SECRETS
 ACTS PUNISHED AS BETRAYAL OF TRUST
BY ATTORNEY:
I. By causing damage to his client,
either
a. by any malicious breach of
professional duty
b. by inexcusable negligence or
ignorance
 THERE MUST BE DAMAGE TO
HIS CLIENT
II. By revealing any of the secrets of his
client learned by him in his
professional capacity.
 DAMAGE IS NOT NECESSARY
III. By undertaking the defense of the
opposing party in the same case,
without the consent of his first client,
after having undertaken the defense
of said first client or after having
received confidential information
from said client.
 IF THE CLIENT CONSENTS TO
THE ATTORNEY’S TAKING THE
DEFENSE OF THE OTHER
PARTY, THERE IS NO CRIME
ELEMENTS:
1. Causing damage to his client, either:
a. by any malicious breach of professional
duty
b. by inexcusable negligence or ignorance
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned
by him in his professional capacity
3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in
the same case, without the consent of his first
client or after having received confidential
information from said client
 Under Article 209, this betrayal of trust is IN
ADDITION TO A PROPER ADMINISTRATIVE CASE
which may be filed against an attorney or solicitor. So
aside from the criminal case in violation of Article 209,
he can also be charged in a case also for disbarment,
for violation of lawyer’s oath of duty may be filed
against him, and these two cases can be proceeded at
the same time.
ILLUSTRATION:
A lawyer for 3 consecutive times, without any
justifiable reason, failed to file his formal offer of exhibits.
During the first time he was given 15 days, he failed to file,
second time he was given 15 days, he failed to file. On the
third time, he was given 5 days still, he failed to file, without
giving any justifiable reason for his non-compliance with the
order of the court. By reason thereof, there is no evidence in
behalf of the defense of his client was admitted by the
Court. Because only evidences offered may be admitted by
the court. And so, the judge convicted the accused, the
client was prejudiced because of the counsel’s malicious
breach of his professional duty. It is incumbent upon any
counsel to file a pleading within the reglementary period
provided by law or required by the court.
- For failing to do so without any justifiable
reason, he caused damage to his client by
malicious breach of his professional duty.
Q: What if Atty. A was the counsel of X, he was behind bars
for the crime of kidnapping for ransom. Atty. A visited X to
ask the facts of the case in order for him to study and to
nput up a good defense. During their conversation, X
informed his counsel, Atty. A that there will be another
kidnapping tomorrow night at 9PM in Quezon City, to be
done by his other gang mates who were at large. Atty. A,
upon knowing this information from his client X, immediately
went to the police officers of Quezon City in order to pre-
empt the commission of the crime. Is Atty. A liable for the
second act because he divulged the secrets of his client
which he learned in his professional capacity?
A: Atty. A is not liable under Article 209.
The secrets being referred to under Article 209
refers to the past crimes of the said client and
it refers to the facts and circumstances related
to the crime which is being handed by the said
Attorney or counsel.
It does not refer to future crimes that are still
about to be committed. When a lawyer takes
his oath of office, he says, or he promise, he
swears that he shall be liable not only to the
client, but also to the STATE, to the
GOVERNMENT.
It is his duty to the Government, to the State
of any future crime that is about to be
committed more than his duty to his client.
Hence, in this case, since it refers to a future
crime, for the protection of the state and the
citizenry, it is incumbent upon him to divulge,
disclose or to reveal the said secrets.
Q: What if A filed a case against B, Atty. X was the counsel
of A, A failed to give Atty. X his appearance list for 5
consecutive hearings, no appearance list. So Atty. X, filed a
motion to withdraw as counsel of A. The said motion to
withdraw was with the CONSENT OF A, because without the
consent of A, the said motion to withdraw will not be
granted by the court. So the court granted and Atty. X is no
longer the counsel of A. When B learned about this, went
immediately to the office of X and secured the services of X.
Page 35

Atty. X signed a contract and he is now the counsel of B. Is
Atty. X liable for betrayal of trust by an attorney?
A: Atty. X is liable for betrayal of trust by
an attorney. He takes the case of B, the
opposing party, even after he has already
taken the case of A and after he has acquired
valuable information about his client. How can
he prevent himself from being convicted of the
betrayal of trust?
 He must first secure the consent of
the said first client
- In the said problem, there was no consent.
The said consent was only in the motion to
withdraw. The said consent in the motion to
withdraw is not the consent on the acceptance
of the case. For every motion to withdraw,
there must be a consent written, otherwise the
court will not grant the motion to withdraw.
The consent here is to secure or to accept the
service s of the other party.
- Since consent was not given, he is liable for
betrayal of trust by an attorney.
 Just remember aside from betrayal of
trust, an attorney or solicitor can also
be held liable of administrative case.
So there may be disbarment.
 He can be disbarred or he can be
suspended by reason of committing
any of these acts.
ARTICLE210 – DIRECT BRIBERY
 ACTS PUNISHABLE:
I. By agreeing to perform, or by
performing, in consideration of any
offer, promise, gift or present – an
act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of
his official duties.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender be a public officer
within the scope of Article 203
2. The offender accepts an offer or a
promise or receives a gift or
present by himself or through
another.
3. That such offer or promise be
accepted, or received by the
public officer with a view of
committing some crime.
4. That the act which the offender
agrees to perform or which he
executes be connected with the
performance of his official
duties.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
II. By accepting a gift in consideration of
the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime, in connection
with the performance of his official
duty.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender be a public officer
within the scope of Article 203
2. The offender accepts an offer or a
promise or receives a gift or
present by himself or through
another.
3. That such offer or promise be
accepted, or received by the
public officer in consideration of
the execution of an act, which
does not constitute a crime, but
the act must be unjust
4. That the act which the offender
agrees to perform or which he
executes be connected with the
performance of his official
duties.
III. By agreeing to refrain, or by
refraining, from doing something
which it is his official duty to do, in
consideration of gift or promise.
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender be a public officer
within the scope of Article 203
2. The offender accepts an offer or a
promise or receives a gift or
present by himself or through
another.
3. That such offer or promise be
accepted, or received by the
public officer to refrain from
doing something which it is his
official duty to do so.
4. That the act which the offender
agrees to perform or which he
executes be connected with the
performance of his official
duties.
Under the First Act - By agreeing to perform or
performing, in consideration of offer or promise, gift
or present any act constituting a crime in connection
with the performance of his official duties
- If the thing which the public officer is required
to do, is an act which will constitute a crime, a
mere agreement to do so, will already give rise
to direct bribery. It is not necessary that he
actually commits the crime, it is not necessary
that he actually receives the gift or present.
 A MERE AGREEMENT WILL
SUFFICE.
Likewise in the Third Act - By agreeing to
refrain or by refraining from doing an act which is his
official duty to do, in consideration of an offer,
promise, gift or present.
- If the thing that a public officer is required to
do, is to refrain from doing an act which is his
official duty to do, a mere agreement to refrain
to do an act will already give rise to direct
bribery. It is not necessary to refrain from
doing an act, it is not necessary to receive the
said gift.
However, if the thing that a public officer is
required to do, does not constitute a crime, under the
Second Act, mere agreement will not suffice. There
must be actual acceptance of the thing. There must be
acceptance of the gift, in consideration of the execution of
an act which does not constitute a crime in connection with
the performance of his official duty. WHY?
- because the thing that he is being required to
do is not a criminal act. It is his official thing to
do, but he doesn’t want to do it without the
bribe first to be given to him. So it is only upon
ACCEPTANCE OF THE BRIBE that criminal
liability for direct bribery will arise.
Whatever may be the act constituting direct
bribery, in order to amount to direct bribery, it must always
be in connection with the performance of his official duty. If
it is not in connection with his official duty, it could other
crime like estafa or swindling, but NOT DIRECT BRIBERY.
ACEJAS, III vs. PEOPLE
It is the second act of direct bribery that has
been violated. The second act because it is the duty of the
said BID agent to return the passport. The duty to return the
passport is not a criminal act. It is also not an act of
refraining to do so. But he does not want to perform the act
without the bribe, so he becomes liable under the 2nd act.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a mother wanted her daughter to work in another
country. The daughter was still a minor, 16 years old. So
what the mother did, was to ask the civil registrar to alter
the birth date or the date in the certificate of live birth with a
promise that the first 2 months of the salary of the daughter
will be given to the civil registrar. The civil registrar altered
the date in the birth certificate. What crime/crimes is/are
committed by the civil registrar and by the mother?
A: The civil registrar is liable for direct
bribery because he agreed to perform an act
constituting a crime in consideration of a
promise that the 2 months salary will be given
to him. The said act is in connection with his
performance of his official duty. Therefore he
is liable for direct bribery. He actually performs
the act, he actually committed a crime,
therefore he is also liable for the falsification of
a public document because he actually altered
the birth date which is a very important date in
the birth certificate so he is also liable for the
falsification of a public document.
Without the said bribe, the mother would not
have committed falsification, so are you going
to complex them? because direct bribery is a
necessary means to commit falsification.
 Even if in reality, they should be
complex because direct bribery is a
necessary means to commit
falsification, you cannot complex
them because ARTICLE 210
PROHIBITS SUCH COMPLEXITY
OF CRIMES.
Under Article 210, it is expressly provided that
the penalty for direct bribery shall be IN
ADDITION TO THE LIABILITY FOR THE
CRIME COMMITTED. Here, he actually
altered, actually committed the crime,
therefore his liability for falsification is in
addition for his liability for direct bribery.
Therefore, 2 separate distinct charges have to
be filed against the civil registrar, we have
direct bribery and the other one is falsification
of the public document.
The mother is liable for corruption of
public official (Art. 212). Direct bribery is
the crime of the public officer who receives the
bribe. On the other hand, the private individual
or the public officer who gives the bribe is
liable for corruption of public official under Art.
212. (Refer to Art. 212 – elements)
The mother gives a promise under
circumstances in which the public officer
becomes liable for direct bribery. She is liable
for corruption of public official. The mother is
also liable for falsification of a public document
as a principal by inducement. Without the
Page 36

bribe, without the said inducement, the said
public officer will not have committed the said
falsification.
ARTICLE211 – INDIRECT BRIBERY
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer
2. That he accepts gifts
3. That the gifts are offered to him by reason of
his office.
 Indirect Bribery is committed if the public officer
accepts any gift or present by reason of his office that
he owns. In case of indirect bribery, the public officer
is not deemed required to do a thing. By the MERE
ACCEPTANCE, indirect bribery is consummated. NO
ACCEPTANCE, NO CRIME IS COMMITTED.
ILLUSTRATION:
A is the newly appointed secretary of DENR. On his
first day of office, Mr. X visited him, paid a courtesy call. Mr.
X is the president of a big logging company. They
exchanged some pleasantries, thereafter, when this
president of the logging company left, he placed a small box
on the table. When he left, the new DENR secretary opened
the box and it was a key to a car parked in front of the
building. The new DENR secretary used it and drove the car
- He is liable for Indirect Bribery. The
president of the logging company does not
require him to do anything, it was merely given
to him because he was newly appointed as the
DENR secretary. His acceptance brings about
consummated indirect bribery; therefore,
indirect bribery has no attempted or frustrated
stage because outside acceptance, no crime is
committed.
ARTICLE211-A – QUALIFIED BRIBERY
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a public officer entrusted with
law enforcement
2. The offender refrains from arresting or
prosecuting an offender who has committed
a crime punishable by reclusion perpetua
and/or death
3. The offender refrains from arresting or
prosecuting the offender in consideration of
any promise, gift or present.
 Qualified bribery is committed by any public officer
who is in charge with the enforcement of the law. So,
in order to amount to qualified bribery, it is necessary
that the offender whom the public officer does not
CRIMINAL LAW 2
want to prosecute must have committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or death.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: A police officer was conducting a patrol. He saw a man
behind the tree, looking at the other house adjacent to the
tree as if waiting for someone. So the police officer parked
his vehicle and observed what this man would do. The
moment that a man came out of the gate of the house, this
man hiding behind the tree, immediately went directly to
him and shot him 5 times, and killing him instantly. Then,
the said man rode a motorcycle and left. The police officer
chased him. The Police officer arrested him, however, he
gave the police officer P500,000 and told the police officer,
“Mr. Police officer, you saw nothing, you heard nothing.”
And the police officer allowed him to leave. What
crime/crimes is/are committed by the said police officer?
A: The said police officer is liable for
qualified bribery. The crime committed by
the said man is murder, because obviously, in
his act of killing, there was treachery, the other
party was defenseless and obviously the said
man deliberately and consciously adopted the
ways means and methods employed by him in
killing the victim. Since there was treachery,
the crime committed is murder, punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death. His failure to
arrest and prosecute this man constitute
qualified bribery because he did so after
accepting P500,000.
Q: What if a police officer was conducting a patrol, he saw A
and B fighting, boxing each other, killing each other, until
they already on the ground. In the course thereof, A pulls
out his balisong and stabbed B several times on the heart, a
vital organ. B died instantly. Thereafter, A ran away, the
police officer tried to catch up with A and he was able to
arrest A. However A, gave the police officer P100,000. The
police officer allowed him to leave. What crime/crimes is/are
committed by the said police officer?
A: The crime committed by A in killing B is
precedent by a fight, therefore it is merely
homicide. Homicide is punishable only by
reclusion temporal. Since it is only punishable
by reclusion temporal, therefore, qualified
bribery is not applicable.
He committed direct bribery, because he
accepts a bribe, in consideration of an act of
refraining to arrest the said criminal. He
actually refrain from arresting and prosecuting
the criminal, therefore in addition to direct
bribery, he also committed dereliction of duty
in the prosecution of offenses because he
actually committed dereliction of duty by
refraining from arresting the person who has
actually committed a crime. So this time, there
are 2 crimes committed:
 DIRECT BRIBERY (ARTICLE 210)
AND
 DERELICTION OF DUTY IN THE
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES
(ARTICLE 208)
ARTICLE 212 – CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC OFFICIALS
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender makes offersor promises or gives
or presents to a public officer.
2. That the offers or promises are made or the
gifts or the gifts or presents given to a public
officer, under circumstances that will make
the public officer liable for direct bribery or
indirect bribery.
THE ANTI-GRAFT AND CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT (RA
3019)
PUBLIC OFFICER - a public officer is any
elective and appointive officials and employees,
permanent or temporary, whether in the
classified or unclassified or exemption service
receiving compensation, even nominal, from the
government. (Sec 2, RA 3019)
JAVIER v SANDIGANBAYAN
Although Javier has been appointed as a
representative of the private sector, in the book
publishing board attached to the office of the
president (NBDB), she is still considered as a
public officer; first, the said board functions as a
collegial body performing public functions;
second, according to SC, she was receiving
allowance, a salary even though nominal, from
the government. Hence, she considered as a
public officer.
SECTION 3 – CORRUPT PRACTICES OF PUBLIC
OFFICERS
 IMPORTANT PROVISIONS OF SECTION 3:
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party including
the government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in
the discharge of his official, administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad
faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
ELEMENTS:
1. The said offender was in charge of his official,
administrative or judicial function
2. That he acted with manifest partiality, evident
bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence
3. The said accused caused any undue injury to
any party, including the government, or gave
any private party unwarranted benefits,
advantage, or preference in the discharge of his
official functions.
SANTOS v PEOPLE
 The Supreme Court said that there are two acts
punished under Section 3 (e) of RA 3019:
1. Causing any undue injury; or
2. Giving any private party any unwarranted
benefit, advantage or preference
 The law uses the conjunctive “or”;
therefore, the fact that the offender
causes any undue injury to any party
or the fact that the offender gave any
party unwarranted benefit,
advantage or preference, they can be
charged distinctly or separately from
each other.
 The Supreme Court also stated that the elements
of Sec 3 (e) of RA 3019
UNDUE INJURY – means there must be an actual
damage caused to the offended party. Absent any
actual damage caused to the offended party, then
section 3 (e) is not violated.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the
public officer profited or will profit thereby
 The public officer entered into any contract
or transaction on behalf of the
government. The said contract is
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to
the government.
In NAVA v PALLATTAO, the violation was Section 3 (g).
The DECS officials bought laboratory science materials and
after COA audited, it was discovered that there was an
overpricing. The same is true in CAUNAN v PEOPLE where
Joey Marquez and company bought walis-tingting, and
according to the COA auditors, there was also overpricing of
these walis-tingting. But in the case of Nava, there was
conviction but in the case of Caunan, there was an
acquittal.
 Where lies the difference?
 In the case of Nava, the COA officials
proved the overpricing because they
bought the very same laboratory materials
from the same supplier where the DECS
officials bought and by reason thereof, it
Page 37

was discovered that there was indeed an
overpricing.
 However, in the case of Caunan, Joey
Marquez bought from a different supplier
than where the COA officials bought. The
COA officials bought from a Las Pinas
supplier which they compared with the
price of walis-tingting bought by Joey
Marquez. Not only did they buy the said
walis-tingting from a different supplier, the
walis-tingting bought by COA officials was
of different specifications from that of the
walis-tingting bought by Joey Marquez and
company. Hence, the Supreme Court said
that prosecution was not able to prove
beyond reasonable doubt that there was
overpricing. Because the walis-tingting
bought by Joey Marquez was very much
different from the walis-tingting bought by
the COA officials. They were not able to
prove beyond reasonable doubt that there
was overpricing because of the difference
in specifications.
 In both cases, there was NO PUBLIC BIDDING.
 Will the mere lack of public bidding bring about a
violation of Section 3 (g) of RA 3019?
 The Supreme Court said that mere lack of
public bidding may mean that the
government was not able to get the best
price for the thing purchased. However, it
does not bring about a violation of
Section 3 (g) because what Section 3 (g)
requires is the transaction must be
manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to
the government and mere lack of public
bidding will not show such gross and
manifest disadvantage.
SECTION 4 – PROHIBITION ON PRIVATE
INDIVIDUALS
 Under Section 4, it is unlawful for any
private individual who has a close personal
relation to any public officer to request, ask
or receive present from any person in any
case from which the said public officer has
to control.
 Close personal relation does not only
include family members. It also includes
those who have social and fraternal
relations; therefore even a private
individual who is not in conspiracy of a
public officer can be held liable under RA
3019.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
 Not only public officers but also private
individuals can be held liable under RA
3019.
Enumerated corrupt practices of Public Officials
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public officer
to perform an act constituting a violation of rules and
regulations duly promulgated by competent authority or an
offense in connection with the official duties of the latter, or
allowing himself to be persuaded, induced, or influenced to
commit such violation or offense.
Persons liable:
1. Public officer who persuades, induces, or
influences another public officer;
2. Public officer who is persuaded induced or
influenced
Note: requesting or receiving any gift, present, or benefit is
not required in this provision.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for any
other person, in connection with any contract or transaction
between the Government and any other part, wherein the
public officer in his official capacity has to intervene under
the law.
Note:
 the lack of demand is immaterial, the law uses the
word OR between requesting and receiving.
 There must be clear intention on the part of the
public officer and consider it as his or her own
property from then on. Mere physical receipt
unaccompanied by any other sign, circumstance or
act to show acceptance is not sufficient to lead the
court to conclude that the crime has been committed
 Refers to a public officer whose official intervention is
required by law in a contract or transaction
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for himself or
for another, from any person for whom the public officer, in
any manner or capacity, has secured or obtained, or will
secure or obtain, any Government permit or license, in
consideration for the help given or to be given, without
prejudice to Section thirteen of this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise which has pending
official business with him during the pendency thereof or
within one year after its termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
This provision shall apply to officers and employees of
offices or government corporations charged with the grant
of licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request,
without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable
time on any matter pending before him for the purpose of
obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person interested
in the matter some pecuniary or material benefit or
advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his own interest or
giving undue advantage in favor of or discriminating against
any other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract
or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous to the
same, whether or not the public officer profited or will profit
thereby.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his
official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the
Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal
gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or act
requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of which
he is a member, and which exercises discretion in such
approval, even if he votes against the same or does not
participate in the action of the board, committee, panel or
group.
Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against those
public officers responsible for the approval of manifestly
unlawful, inequitable, or irregular transaction or acts by the
board, panel or group to which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit,
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified for or
not legally entitled to such license, permit, privilege or
advantage, or of a mere representative or dummy of one
who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential
character, acquired by his office or by him on account of his
official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing such
information in advance of its authorized release date.
Note: if damage was caused, Article 229 under the RPC is
committed.
SECTION 9 – PENALTIES FOR VIOLATIONS
 Under Section 9, both private individuals
and public officers have just the same
penalty. It is six years and one month to
fifteen years plus forfeiture of the ill-gotten
wealth.
SECTION 7 – STATEMENT OF ASSETS AND
LIABILITIES & RA 6713
 When do the officers file the statement of assets,
liabilities and net worth?
 The said public officer can file his SALN within 30
days from assumption into office. And then it
must be filed on or before the 30th day of April of
the next years and within 30 days after
separation from the service.
 In RA 3019, it is stated “on or before 15th of
April” but there is another law which provides
also for the filing of SALN and that is RA6713
which is the code of ethical standards for public
officers.
 Under RA 6713, and this is what is being
followed, it must be on or before the 30 th day of
April.
 So you file first within 30 days upon assumption
to office and then the years thereafter on or
before the 30th day of April and then if you got
separated from office, within 30 days from
separation from office.
SECTION 8 – PRIMA FACIE EVIDENCE OF AND
DISMISSAL DUE TO UNEXPLAINED WEALTH
 When is there a prima facie presumption of graft and
corrupt practices?
 There arises a prima facie presumption of graft
and corrupt practices if a public officer has been
found to have in his possession money or
property, whether in his name or in that name of
another person, which is manifestly out of
proportion from his lawful income. There arises a
prima facie presumption of graft and corrupt
practices.
SECTION 10 – COMPETENT COURT & RA 8429
 Where do you file a case for violation of RA 3019?
 You file a case of violation of Article 3019 before
the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan has
jurisdiction unless otherwise provided by law.
 There is a law, RA 8429 which provides for the
jurisdiction of Sandiganbayan. Under this law, if
a public officer is of salary grade 27 and above,
it must be before the Sandiganbayan. If the
public officer is below salary grade 27, it must be
before the RPC.
SECTION 11 – PRESCRIPTION OF OFFENSES
 When is the prescriptive period?
 Violation for RA 3019 shall prescribe after 15
years. However, the right of the government to
forfeit or to recover ill-gotten wealth does not
prescribe. So there are no latches and estoppel
insofar as the right of the government to recover
ill-gotten wealth is concerned.
Page 38

 When do you start counting the running of the
prescriptive period of crime?
 From the time the crime has been committed or
if it is not known, that is from the time of the
discovery of the said crime, then it is from the
time of the institution of the criminal
perseverance.
SECTION 13 – SUSPENSION AND LOSS OF BENEFITS
Q: What if a public officer, has been charged for violation of
RA 3019, the Ombudsman found probable cause. The case
was now filed before the Sandiganbayan. Is it incumbent
upon the Sandiganbayan to immediately place him under
preventive suspension? Is preventive suspension automatic?
Is preventive suspension mandatory?
A: Preventive suspension is mandatory but
it is not automatic. There must first be a pre-
suspension period to determine the validity of
the information. The moment the Sandiganbayan
discovers the said information is valid, sufficient
in substance to bring about a conviction, it is
now mandatory upon the Sandiganbayan to
place the said accused public officer under
preventive suspension.
So it is not automatic because there must first be
a pre-suspension period. The only issue in the
pre-suspension period is the information filed by
the Ombudsman against the said public officer
valid, is it sufficient enough to bring about a
conviction in court? If the answer is yes,
immediately, mandatory on the part of the
Sandiganbayan, a ministerial duty, the said
public officer must be placed under preventive
suspension. It it ministerial not discretionary, not
either or.
 For how long should the suspension be?
 The suspension must not exceed the
maximum of ninety days, in consonance
with Section 52 of the Administrative Code.
SECTION 14 - EXCEPTION
Q: What if a public officer saw an old man waiting line. So
the old man received a notice, the notice said that his
license is ready, it has already been approved. So he was
waiting in line for the release of his license, it was already
approved. The head of office saw the old man. 85 years old,
under the heat of the sun and with his frail body. So the
head of office took the man and the head of office asked the
man to his office. The head of office asked the secretary, “Is
the license of this man approved?” The secretary said yes.
The head of office said, “get it.” The secretary took it and
gave to the head of office. The head of office, upon seeing
that it is approved, and the man was only waiting for its
CRIMINAL LAW 2
release, gave it to the man; therefore the man need not wait
in the long line. The man was so thankful that the following
day, the man went back to the office with two big bilaos of
bibingka to the said head of office to say thank you. The
said head of office received two big bilaos of bibingka. Is the
said head of office liable under RA 3019?
A: No. It falls under the exception. Under
Section 14, unsolicited gifts or presents of small or
insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token
of friendship or gratitude, according to local customs or
usage is excepted from the provisions of RA 3019; therefore
the said public officer will not be held criminally liable.
RA 7080: ANTI-PLUNDER ACT
Ill-gotten wealth
- means any asset, property, business enterprise or material
possession of any person within the purview of Section two
(2) hereof, acquired by him directly or indirectly through
dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or business
associates by any combination or series of the following
means or similar schemes:
1. Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation of public funds or raids on the public treasury;
2. By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission, gift,
share, percentage, kickbacks or any/or entity in connection
with any government contract or project or by reason of the
office or position of the public officer concerned;
3. By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition of
assets belonging to the National government or any of its
subdivisions, agencies or instrumentalities or government-
owned or controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4. By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or indirectly
any shares of stock, equity or any other form of interest or
participation including the promise of future employment in
any business enterprise or undertaking;
5. By establishing agricultural, industrial or commercial
monopolies or other combinations and/or implementation of
decrees and orders intended to benefit particular persons or
special interests;or
6. By taking undue advantage of official position, authority,
relationship, connection or influence to unjustly enrich
himself or themselves at the expense and to the damage
and prejudice of the Filipino people and the Republic of the
Philippines
Sec. 2. Definition of the Crime of Plunder, Penalties. Any
public officer who, by himself or in connivance with
members of his family, relatives by affinity or consanguinity,
business associates, subordinates or other persons,
amasses, accumulates or acquires ill-gotten wealth through
a combination or series of overt or criminal acts as described
in Section 1 (d) hereof, in the aggregate amount or total
value of at least Seventy-five million pesos
(P75,000,000.00), shall be guilty of the crime of plunder and
shall be punished by life imprisonment with perpetual
absolute disqualification from holding any public office. Any
person who participated with the said public officer in the
commission of plunder shall likewise be punished. In the
imposition of penalties, the degree of participation and the
attendance of mitigating and extenuating circumstances
shall be considered by the court.
Sec. 4. Rule of Evidence. For purposes of establishing the
crime of plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and
every criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the
scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-
gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts
indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.
Sec. 6. Prescription of Crime. The crime punishable under
this Act shall prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the
right of the State to recover properties unlawfully acquired
by public officers from them or from their nominees or
transferees shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or
estoppel.
RA 9745 Anti-Torture Act:
Torture refers to:
1. an act by which severe pain or suffering,
whether physical or mental, is intentionally
inflicted on a person for such purposes as
obtaining from him/her or a third person
information or a confession;
2. punishing him/her for an act he/she or a third
person has committed or is suspected of having
committed;
3. or intimidating or coercing him/her or a third
person;
4. or for any reason based on discrimination of any
kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by
or at the instigation of or with the consent or
acquiescence of a person in authority or agent of
a person in authority.
It does not include pain or Buffering arising only from,
inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Acts of torture:
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment
inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority upon another in his/her custody that causes severe
pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more
parts of the body, such as:
(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching,
kicking, striking with truncheon or rifle butt or
other similar objects, and jumping on the
stomach;
(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with
spoiled food, animal or human excreta and other
stuff or substances not normally eaten;
(3) Electric shock;
(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically
heated rods, hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of
pepper or other chemical substances on mucous
membranes, or acids or spices directly on the
wound(s);
(5) The submersion of the head in water or
water polluted with excrement, urine, vomit
and/or blood until the brink of suffocation;
(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and
stressful bodily position;
(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the
insertion of foreign objects into the sex organ or
rectum, or electrical torture of the genitals;
(8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential
parts of the body such as the genitalia, ear,
tongue, etc.;
(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the
teeth;
(10) Pulling out of fingernails;
(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as
sunlight and extreme cold;
(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials
placed over the head to the point of
asphyxiation;
(13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change
the perception, memory. alertness or will of a
person, such as:
(i) The administration or drugs to induce
confession and/or reduce mental competency; or
(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or
certain symptoms of a disease; and
(14) Other analogous acts of physical torture;
and
(b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts committed
by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority
which are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or
undermine a person's dignity and morale, such as:
(1) Blindfolding;
Page 39

(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/fher
relative(s) with bodily harm, execution or other
wrongful acts;
(3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret
detention places;
(4) Prolonged interrogation;
(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public
display or public humiliation of a detainee or
prisoner;
(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person
deprived of liberty from one place to another,
creating the belief that he/she shall be
summarily executed;
(7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;
(8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed
by the person's family, relatives or any third
party;
(9) Denial of sleep/rest;
(10) Shame infliction such as stripping the
person naked, parading him/her in public places,
shaving the victim's head or putting marks on
his/her body against his/her will;
(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to
communicate with any member of his/her family;
and
(12) Other analogous acts of
mental/psychological torture.
Any confession, admission or statement obtained as a result
of torture shall be inadmissible in evidence in any
proceedings, except if the same is used as evidence against
a person or persons accused of committing torture.
Rights of Tortured Victims:
(a) To have a prompt and an impartial investigation by the
CHR and by agencies of government concerned such as the
Department of Justice (DOJ), the Public Attorney's Office
(PAO), the PNP, the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI)
and the AFP. A prompt investigation shall mean a maximum
period of sixty (60) working days from the time a complaint
for torture is filed within which an investigation report
and/or resolution shall be completed and made available. An
appeal whenever available shall be resolved within the same
period prescribed herein,
(b) To have sufficient government protection against all
forms of harassment; threat and/or intimidation as a
consequence of the filing of said complaint or the
presentation of evidence therefor. In which case, the State
through its appropriate agencies shall afford security in
order to ensure his/her safety and all other persons involved
in the investigation and prosecution such as, but not limited
to, his/her lawyer, witnesses and relatives; and
CRIMINAL LAW 2
(c) To be accorded sufficient protection in the manner by
which he/she testifies and presents evidence in any fora in
order to avoid further trauma.
Who are Criminally Liable. - Any person who actually
participated Or induced another in the commission of torture
or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment or who cooperated in the execution of the act of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable
as principal
Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or
senior government official who issued an order to any lower
ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever purpose
shall be held equally liable as principals.
The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of
the AFP or the immediate senior public official of the PNP
and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a
principal to the crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment for any act or
omission, or negligence committed by him/her that shall
have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or
indirectly, the commission thereof by his/her subordinates. If
he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at
the time, should have known that acts of torture or other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment shall
be committed, is being committed, or has been committed
by his/her subordinates or by others within his/her area of
responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take
preventive or corrective action either before, during or
immediately after its commission, when he/she has the
authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture or
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment but failed to prevent or investigate allegations of
such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence shall
also be liable as principals.
Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an accessory
if he/she has knowledge that torture or other cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment is being committed
and without having participated therein, either as principal
or accomplice, takes part subsequent to its commission in
any of the following manner:
(a) By themselves profiting from or assisting the
offender to profit from the effects of the act of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment;
(b) By concealing the act of torture or other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment and/or destroying the effects or
instruments thereof in order to prevent its
discovery; or(c) By harboring, concealing or
assisting m the escape of the principal/s in the
act of torture or other cruel, inhuman and
degrading treatment or punishment: Provided,
That the accessory acts are done with the abuse
of the official's public functions.
Aggravating Circumstances in torture:
(1) Torture resulting in the death of any person;
(2) Torture resulting in mutilation;
(3) Torture with rape;
(4) Torture with other forms of sexual abuse and, in
consequence of torture, the victim shall have become
insane, imbecile, impotent, blind or maimed for life; and
(5) Torture committed against children.
Note:
 Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not
be absorbed by any other crime or felony
committed as a consequence, or as a means in
the conduct or commission thereof. In which
case, torture shall be treated as a separate and
independent criminal act whose penalties shall
be imposable without prejudice to any other
criminal liability provided for by domestic and
international laws. (Sec 15)
 Persons who have committed any act of torture
shall not benefit from any special amnesty law or
similar measures that will have the effect of
exempting them from any criminal proceedings
and sanctions. (sec 16)
Refouler- No person shall be expelled, returned or
extradited to another State where there are substantial
grounds to believe that such person shall be in danger of
being subjected to torture.
CHAPTER THREE – FRAUDS AND ILLEGAL EXACTIONS
AND TRANSACTIONS
ARTICLE 213 – FRAUDS AGAINST THE PUBLIC
TREASURY AND SIMILAR OFFENSES
Article 213 punishes two (2) acts:
1. Fraud against public treasury (par.1)
2. Illegal exactions (par. 2)
ELEMENTS OF FRAUD AGAINST PUBLIC TREASURY
(ART. 213, PAR. 1):
1. That the offender is a public officer
2. that he should have taken advantage of his office, that
is he intervened in the transaction of his official
capacity
3. That he entered into an agreement with any interested
party or speculator or made use of any other scheme
with regard to:
(1) furnishing supplies
(2) the making of contracts
(3) the adjustment or settlement of
accounts relating to public property or
funds
4. That the accused had intent to defraud the
Government
So here, the public officer took advantage of his official
position in entering into contract which involves the
furnishing of supplies, or which involves public funds or
property and the intention is to DEFRAUD THE
GOVERNMENT. It is not necessary that the Government,
the treasury be actually be defrauded, it suffices that
entering in the said contract, the intention of the said
offender, the public officer, is to defraud the Government.
ELEMENTS OF ILLEGAL EXACTION (ART. 213, PAR. 2)
1. That the offender is a public officer entrusted with the
collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts.
2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:
(1) Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of
sums different from or larger than those
authorized by law; or
(2) Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided
by law, for any sum of money collected by him
officially; or
(3) Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by
way of payment or otherwise, things or objects
of a nature different from that provided by law.
Here, the offender is a COLLECTING PUBLIC
OFFICER. A public officer who has been entrusted with
duty to collect taxes, licenses, fees or other imposts. Only
this kind of public officer can commit this crime because
ILLEGAL EXACTION involves violation of rules on collection.
1st Act - Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of
sums different from or larger than those authorized by
law;or
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: There was this cashier in the city treasurer’s office. Here
comes X, X said that he is going to get a cedula (residence
certificate) and then X said, “How much am I going to pay?”
and then, the cashier or the collecting officer said, “you have
to pay Php200” but it is actually Php20. X said, “hmp,
angmahalpala, ayokona.” and so he left. Is the said
collecting officer liable of any crime?
A:YES, he is liable. For merely demanding an
amount larger than that authorized by law, he is
already liable for ILLEGAL EXACTION under
Article 213, Par. 2.
Q: He is already liable, he merely demanded, but what if in
the same problem, X said he was going to get a cedula. The
collecting officer saw him and he appears to be poor man
and so X asked the collecting officer, “How much am I going
to pay?” and the collecting officer took pity of X and said,
Page 40

“Only Php 10”. So, the poor man said, “Oh, I have more
money, I’ll get two”. Is the collecting officer liable of any
crime?
A:YES, he is liable because he demanded an
amount different from that authorized by law.
Note that what the law requires is the
demanding of an amount, directly or indirectly,
different from or larger than those authorized by
law. Therefore, even if it is lower, so long as it is
different from that provided by law, and so long
as it is demanded by the said collecting officer,
then it is considered as ILLEGAL EXACTION.
It is not necessary for the said collecting officer to
have misappropriate the funds, the moment that
he misappropriates the funds, in addition to illegal
exaction, he may also be held liable for
MALVERSATION, because Illegal Exaction is only
about the rules on collection. It has nothing to do
with the appropriation or misappropriation of
funds or property. Only a violation of the rules on
collection.
nd
2 Act - Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by
law, for any sum of money collected by him officially;
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if it was January 2, all kinds of payment are
being made at the start of the year. So the collecting officer
in the treasurer’s office rans out of official receipt (O.R.).
And so he got a half sheet of typewriting paper and he note
there about the said payment and a provisional receipt and
he gave it to the same person who made the payment. Is
the said collecting officer liable of illegal exaction?
A: He IS NOT. Because he did not voluntarily
fail to issue the said O.R. He ran out of the
said O.R., it was not voluntary on his part. It
was an emergency situation. It is good that
she even gave a provisional receipt as a
proof of payment. In this case, he cannot be
held liable for illegal exaction.
3rd Act - Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way
of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law.
Here, under the third act, it does not refer to the
amount of payment. It refers to the KIND OR NATURE OF
PAYMENT. So, when the law says that it should be paid in
cash, ONLY CASH may be received by the said collecting
officer.
ILLUSTRATION:
CRIMINAL LAW 2
So the collecting officer is known as a sabungero. So
here comes one of the persons who was making payment.
He has no money, but said, he has a magandangtandang.
And so, that was the payment received. He commits a
violation of illegal exaction.
Q: What if the person who demanded an amount or different
from or larger than that which is provided for by law is an
officer, a collecting officer from the Bureau of Internal
Revenue, or a collecting officer form the Bureau of Customs.
Is he liable under Article 213?
A: He is not liable for illegal exaction
under Art. 213. He is liable under the Tax
Code or under the Tariffs and Customs Code.
Under Art. 213, it is expressly provided that if
the collecting officer is a collecting officer
coming from the Bureau of Internal Revenue
or Bureau of Customs is not liable under this
Article. The reason here is that, this
collecting officer from the BIR and the BOC,
have the right to ask for penalties,
surcharges, and compromise. Therefore,
they can always demand and amount
different from or that which is larger than
that authorized by law. If they exceeded that
authority, then they are liable under the
Tariffs and Customs Code or under the Tax
Code, but NOT UNDER THE RPC.
ARTICLE 214 – OTHER FRAUDS
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He takes advantage of his official position
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in
Articles 315-318
If any of the public officer commits any of the frauds
or deceits constituting ESTAFA or SWINDLING, under Art.
315-318, and he does so by taking advantage of his official
position, his criminal liability is Other Frauds under Art. 214.
- Not estafa, Not swindling. the reason is that in
case of a public officer, there is additional
penalty. If you look at Article 214, the law says
that the penalty is the same penalty as the
first offense under Art. 315-318. But additional
to that, temporary disqualification to perpetual
disqualification for having taken advantage of
his official position. Therefore, if it is a public
officer who commits estafa or swindling, the
crime is under Art. 214 and there is an
additional penalty.
ARTICLE 215 – PROHIBITED TRANSACTIONS
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is an appointive public officer
2. He becomes interested, directly or indirectly in any
transaction of exchange or speculation
3. Transaction takes place within the territory subject to
his jurisdiction
4. He becomes interested in the transaction during his
incumbency
ARTICLE 216 – POSSESSION OF PROHIBITED
INTEREST BY A PUBLIC OFFICER
ELEMENTS:
1. Public Officer who, directly or indirectly, became
interested in any contract or business in which it was
his official duty to intervene.
2. Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, in
like manner, took part in any contract or transaction
connected with the estate or property in the appraisal,
distribution or adjudication of which they had acted
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the property
belonging to their wards or the estate
CHAPTER FOUR – MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
OR PROPERTY
ARTICLE 217 – MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS
OR PROPERTY (PRESUMPTION OF MALVERSATION)
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. He has the custody or control of funds or property by
reason of the duties of his office
3. Those funds or property were public funds or property
for which he was accountable
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented,
or through abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them
 Who is the offender?
- The offender is an accountable public officer. An
accountable of public officer is an officer in the
course of the performance of his duties, receives
funds or property from the government which he
has the obligation to account later. So he has in
his custody, public funds or public property and
he has the obligation to account these to the
Government.
Punishable acts:
1. Appropriating public funds or property
2. Taking or misappropriating the same
3. Consenting, through abandonment or negligence,
permitting any other person to take such public funds
or property
4. Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property
Malversation of Public Funds and Property can be
committed either through a positive act, that is, that the said
public officer is the one who misappropriates, takes or
appropriates the public funds and property, OR, through a
passive act, that is, through his abandonment or negligence,
he permitted others to misappropriate the same.
- Malversation can be committed either through a
positive act, which is through deliberate intent
or through dolo. He is the one who appropriates
or misappropriates, who took the the said public
funds or property
- Passive Act which is through his abandonment
or negligence, or cupla. he allowed others to
appropriate or misappropriate the said public
funds or property
When is there prima facie presumption of malversation?
- Under Article 217, there arises prima facie
presumption of malversation of public funds or
property when demand is made by a duly
authorized officer to an accountable public officer
to account for public funds or property, and the
same is not forthcoming
ILLUSTRATION:
So the COA auditor, appeared and conducted an
audit He demanded for the said amount, the said
accountable public officer cannot reduce the said amount.
There arises the prima facie presumption that he has
malverse the said public funds or property. Although that is
what is written under Article 217, last paragraph. The
Supreme Court in the number of cases said:
“Mere shortage in audit will not suffice. For the Prima
facie presumption to arise the following requisites
must be present: - It is necessary that there must be
complete, thorough and reliable audit.
- In the said complete, thorough and reliable
audit, the following were discovered:
a. The public officer indeed receive the
public funds or property. That is, he is an
accountable public officer
b. The said public funds and property was
missing, or there was a shortage, or he
cannot produce it, and
c. The said public officer cannot give a
justifiable reason, a legal excuse for the
said shortage or missing of public funds or
property.”
Page 41

If all of these are present, the Supreme Court
says that there arises the prima facie presumption that there
is malversation of public funds or property. Therefore, there
may NOT be direct evidence to convict one for malversation
of public funds or property. Obviously, there cannot be any
witness, because when you say direct evidence, there is a
witness. Of course, he would not let anyone see him
malversing the funds. It suffices in the audit, these three
things were discovered. If these three are discovered, then
there arises the prima facie presumption that there is a so-
called MALVERSATION OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a man was walking, in the middle of the night, a
police officer who was conducting a patrol saw something
bulging on his waist. The police officer stopped him and
frisked him and there, they saw a firearm. They ask for the
license, the said man could not produce the license for the
said firearm. He was arrested for illegal possession of
unlicensed firearm, and the firearm was confiscated. During
the trials of the case, the fiscal move for subpoena for the
custodian of the said firearm. The custodian appeared but
failed to bring the firearm. He had already sold the said
firearm confiscated. What crime is committed by the said
custodian?
A: He is liable for Malversation under Article 217.
Q: His contention was, it cannot be malversation, because
the firearm was owned by a private person. It is not a public
property, therefore I cannot be held liable for malversation.
Is the contention correct?
A: His contention is wrong. The said
firearm has already been confiscated by
public authority, therefore it is now deemed,
CUSTODIA LEGIS. The moment it is in
custodialegis, it loses its character as a
private property and it now assumes a
character of a public property. Hence the
crime committed is Malversation.
Q: What if, there was this collecting officer, a cashier, and
there were many persons paying. And the long line persons
paying, one cashier said that he needed to answer the call of
nature, and so he asked another fellow cashier to look after
his drawer, and so, he left and went to the restroom. But he
also left the key of his drawing on the key holder. And so,
the moment he left, his fellow cashier went to his drawer
and opened it and took Php 2000 from the collection of A on
the same day. Then A arrived, and he then accepted
collections. In the afternoon, there was a surprise audit
coming from the COA. and it was discovered that based on
the receipts, The php 2000 were missing from the collection
CRIMINAL LAW 2
of A. Therefore, A was charged. What crime if any, has been
committed by A? Is A liable for malversation?
A: Yes, he is liable for malversation
through negligence. That is the passive act.
That is through his abandonment or negligence,
he permitted another person, Cashier B to
misappropriate a part of his collection for the
day. Hence A is also liable for Malversation. Not
B, but A, the one who went to the restroom,
because he is the one accountable for the said
public funds in his drawer.
That other person, B, who took the said property
is liable for qualified theft. because he was
entrusted with the same funds, and he took the
same funds.
Q: What if, in the same problem, after the COA auditor
found out that Php 2000 was missing, A was charged with
Malversation of public funds and property through dolo. So,
in the information, it was stated that he is the one who
misappropriate, appropriates or has taken the said public
funds, and so he was charged with Malversation through
dolo, through deliberate intent. That was the case filed
against him because they did not know that it was B who
took the money. So, the presumption is that, he is the one
who took the money, who appropriated it. During the trial
of the merits, during the presentation of the defense
evidence, when it was already A’s term to testify, it was
divulged or disclosed to the court that it was in fact another
cashier, B who misappropriated the said funds through the
negligence of A. And by reason of this evidence presented in
court, the said judge, convicted A of Malversation through
culpa, in an information of malversation through dolo. Is the
judge correct? can he convict A?
A: Yes, the judge is correct. The reason is
that, according to the Supreme Court, whether
Malversation is committed through deliberate
intent or culpa, DOLO and CULPA are merely
modalities of committing the crime.
Nevertheless, it is still malversation, and if you
look at Article 217, whether malversation is
committed through deliberate intent or through
negligence, they just have one and the same
penalties. Further, the Supreme Court said,
Malversation through negligence or culpa is
NECESSARILY INCLUDED in Malversation
through deliberate intent or dolo. Hence, even if
the information is Malversation through dolo, one
can be convicted of Malversation through Culpa
or Negligence.
Q: What if, there was this rape in a warehouse, in the
course of the said rape, dangerous drugs worth millions of
pesos were confiscated and they were placed in the PDEA
warehouse. The persons therein were charged with illegal
possession of dangerous drugs. In the course of the hearing
in this possession of dangerous drugs, the court sent a
subpoena to the PDEA custodian, to bring to the Court the
said dangerous drugs which were confiscated. And so, on
the designated day, the said PDEA agent boarded all the
dangerous drugs confiscated in a PDEA van and off he went
to the Court. However, before the PDEA agent could reach
the court, here comes two motorcycles who went in and
fired at him, and he fell on his seat, lifeless. And then, a big
vehicle arrived at the back of the said PDEA van and took all
the said dangerous drugs. Now the said PDEA agent was
brought into the hospital and despite the fatal wound,
because of the immediate medical intervention, he survived.
Is he liable of any crime?
A: Yes, he is liable of Malversation of public
funds or property under Article 217
through Negligence. There was inexcusable
negligence on his part said the Supreme Court,
because all by himself, carried the millions worth
of dangerous drugs in the PDEA van, considering
the value of the said dangerous drugs, he should
have asked for back up. Yes, he survived, but he
was charged with Malversation of public funds or
property through CULPA.
Q: What if, there is a public officer whose office is in pasay.
He is going to have a meeting in Caloocan. And so he went
to Caloocan in one afternoon and attended the said meeting.
He had to go to pasay in order to make a report, However,
the traffic was heavy, so instead of using his car on the way
back, he rode the LRT. Upon reaching the office, he realized
that his bag was opened, and the cellphone which was
__5:17___ by the Government was already gone. By reason
thereof, he was charged with Malversation under Article 217
because through his negligence, the cellphone which was
____ to him by the Government and for which he is
accountable to the Government was now missing. It was
taken or stolen by somebody. Is he liable? He was convicted
by the SandiganBayan but when it came to the Supreme
Court, the Supreme Court acquitted him.
A: According to the Supreme Court, there was
no negligence on the part of the said public
officer. He cannot be faulted for having taken
the LRT because of the said heavy traffic. It
cannot be said that there was negligence on his
part in placing the cellphone inside his bag,
because, where else would you place a cellphone
but inside the bag for safekeeping. It would have
been different while on board, he was using the
said cellphone. Hence, the Supreme Court said,
there was no negligence and therefore, although
convicted by the SandiganBayan, he was
acquitted by the Supreme Court.
ARTICLE 218 – FAILURE OF ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER
TO RENDER ACCOUNTS
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer, whether in the service or
separated therefrom
2. He must be an accountable officer for public funds or
property
3. He is required by law or regulation to render accounts
to the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial Auditor
4. He fails to do so for a period of two months after such
accounts should be rendered
ARTICLE 219 – FAILURE OF RESPONSIBLE PUBLIC
OFFICER TO RENDER ACCOUNTS BEFORE LEAVING
THE COUNTRY
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He must be an accountable officer for public funds or
property
3. He must have unlawfully left (or be on the point of
leaving) the Philippines without securing from the
Commission on Audit a certificate showing that his
accounts have been finally settled
ARTICLE 220 – ILLEGAL USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR
PROPERTY (Technical Malversation)
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender s a public officer
2. there is a public fund or property under his
administration
3. Such public fund or property has been appropriated by
law or ordinance
4. He applies the same to a public use other than that for
which such fund or property has been appropriated by
law or ordinance.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if a public officer has under his administration
public funds which is for a certain project. So let us say that
X is the city administrator. Under his administration, there
was Php500,000, the said Php 500,000 was for the
construction of a bridge between one barangay to another
barangay. Then suddenly there was a typhoon, a big
typhoon and many of the constituents were rendered
homeless. And so, they had to stay in the basketball court,
they need food, clothing, water and other basic needs. And
so, the city administrator made use of the Php 500,000
under his administration to buy these basic needs of his
Page 42

constituents. Is the said public officer, the city administrator
liable of any crime?
A: Yes, he is liable for technical
Malversation under Article 220.
BEST EXAMPLE:
GMA and other head of Philhealth before was
charged by Frank Chavez because of Technical Malversation
because of transfer of COA funds, which was used for
Philhealth purposes during the elections. And so, because of
that, according to Frank Chavez, they are liable for
Malversation. They were charged with Technical
Malversation. But their contention was there was a law that
allowed it. If there was a law that allowed it, then, there was
no violation. But, if there is no law, there is an illegal
transfer of funds, therefore, technical Malversation will
resolve.
ARTICLE 217 ARTICLE 220
The public officer The public officer did not
misappropriates the fund for misappropriate the funds
his personal use. for his personal use, he
used it for another public
purpose other than that
which has been
appropriated by law or
ordinance that is why it is
TECHNICAL
MALVERSATION – the
offense is on the
technicality of the use of
funds.
The public officer has in his The public officer has in his
possession public funds or possession public funds or
property for safekeeping. It is property is only under his
under his custody and control administration. Not for
and therefore it is for his safekeeping, but only for
safekeeping and he has the the purpose of
obligation to account it later administrating it that is, for
on to the Government applying it for the purpose
which it has been
appropriated by law or
ordiance
ARTICLE 221 – FAILURE TO MAKE DELIVERY OF
PUBLIC FUNDS OR PROPERTY
ELEMENTS:
1. That the public officer has government funds in his
possession
CRIMINAL LAW 2
2. That he is under obligation to make payments from
such funds
3. That he fails to make payment maliciously
Punishable acts:
1. Failing to make payment by a public officer who is
under obligation to make such payment from
Government funds in his possession
2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has
been ordered by competent authority to deliver any
property in his custody or under his administration
ARTICLE 222 – OFFICERS INCLUDED IN PRECEDING
PROVISIONS
Private Individual who may be liable under Art. 217-
221:
1. Private Individual who in any capacity whatsoever,
have charge of national, provincial or municipal funds,
revenue or property
2. Administrator, depository of funds or property
attached, seized or deposited by public authority even
if such property belongs to a private individual
3. Those who acted in conspiracy in malversation
4. Accomplice and accessories to malversation
Can private property be the subject of Malversation?
- YES, under the 2nd act in Article 222, that is when
the said funds or property has been attached,
seized or deposited by public authority, it now
becomes in custodialegis and it now assumes the
character of being public funds or property. If any
are misappropriated, then the crime committed is
Malversation and not theft.
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS
(Articles 223, 224, 225)
ARTICLE 223 – CONNIVING WITH OR CONSENTING
TO EVASION
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He has in his custody or charge a prisoner, either
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody
4. That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the
latter’s escape, or is with his consent
ARTICLE 224 – EVASTION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a
prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final
judgment
3. Such prisoner escapes through his negligence
ARTICLE 225 – ESCAPE OF PRISONER UNDER THE
CUSTODY OF A PERSON NOT A PUBLIC OFFICER
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a private individual
2. Conveyance (or charge) of custody of prisoner or
person under arrest is confided to him
3. Prisoner or person under arrest escapes
4. Offender consents to the escape of the prisoner or
person under arrest or that the escape takes place
through his negligence
Whether it be under Art. 223, 224, 225, the offender
infidelity in the custody of prisoners is one who has been
entrusted with the custody and charge of the prisoner.
Whether the prisoner is a prisoner convicted by final
judgment or a detention prisoner. He must be charged, he
must be the custodian of the said prisoner because the
essence of the crime is the violation of the trust reposed on
him. Because prisoners are accountabilities of the
Government.
 Can a private individual commit infidelity?
- Yes, under Art. 225. If he is entrusted with the
custody of this prisoner and the prisoner escapes,
either in connivance with him or through his
negligence, then his liability is infidelity in the
custody of prisoners
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: A has been charged with illegal sale of dangerous drugs.
She is behind bars, it is a non-bailable offense, and
therefore, while the case is ongoing, she is behind bars. So,
it was the hearing date, she was accompanied by the jail
warden, the jail guard to the court, and after trial, there was
this husband and two children of the said woman who was
in jail. The husband and two children talked, and when the
said woman prisoner was about to be brought to jail, the
husband talked to the jail warden. He invited the jail warden
for a merienda, in a canteen inside the hall of justice. And
so, the jail warden saw nothing wrong and so, he had
merienda with the woman prisoner, the husband and the
two children. The handcuffs had to be removed for the
woman prisoner to eat. After eating, the woman prisoner
said that she needed to answer the call of nature, and so,
she went to the restroom, also inside or within the hall of
justice. The jail guard allowed her inside while the jail guard
was left outside, waiting. Hours passed, no woman prisoner
came out. It so happens that the said husband put some
disguise for the woman to use so that she could escape
without being noticed by the said jail guard, and woman
prisoner was able to escape without being noticed by the
said jail guard. Is the said jail guard liable for infidelity in the
custody of prisoner, or is it a mere laxity which would not
amount to infidelity in the custody of prisoner?
A: People vs. Nava – The Supreme Court said
that mere laxity would not amount to negligence
under Art. 224. Because according to the
Supreme Court in that old case, the negligence
being required in order that a public officer may
be entitled, must be a deliberate non-performance
of his duty. Here, it is only a mere laxity on the
part of the said public officer for not having
accompanying the said woman in the rest room.
Rodriguez vs. SandiganBayan(new case) –
The Supreme Court said otherwise. According to
the Supreme Court, the moment that a public
officer, a jail warden has accompanied a prisoner
outside jail, he must not have lost sight of the
said prisoner. The only obligation of the said jail
warden after the trial was to bring her back to the
court. The fact that the said jail guard allowed
himself to have a merienda, and even allowed the
woman prisoner to go to the restroom alone,
there was laxity on the part of the said jail guard.
The Supreme Court said, LAXITY is a deliberate
non-performance of his official duty as the guard
of the said prisoner, thereby amounting to
infidelity in the custody of prisoner under Art.
224.
INFIDELITY IN THE CUSTODY OF DOCUMENTS
(ARTICLES 226, 227, 228)
ARTICLE 226 – REMOVAL, CONEALMENT OR
DESTRUCTION OF DOCUMENT
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He removes, destroys, or conceals documents or
papers
3. Said documents or papers should have been entrusted
to such public officer by reason of his office
4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to
the public interest should have been caused
Under Article 226, in order for infidelity in the custody
of documents to arise, it is necessary that there be damage
caused to a third person or to the public interest. If damage
is serious, the penalty is QUALIFIED, therefore, the
damage may or may not be serious provided that there is
damage, the crime will arise.
DAMAGE IS NECESSARY in order to give rise to
infidelity in the custody of documents.
ARTICLE 227 – OFFICER BREAKING SEAL
Page 43

ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He is charged with the custody of papers or property
3. These papers or property are sealed by proper
authority
4. He breaks the seals or permits them to be broken
Under Article 227, officer breaking the seal, infidelity in
the custody of prisoners to arise, even without damage
caused to a third party or to public interest. Damage is NOT
an element.
MERE BREAKING of the seal of the document will
already consummate the crime.
ARTICLE 228 – OPENING A CLOSED DOCUMENT
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. Any closed papers, documents, or objects are
entrusted to his custody
3. He opens or permits to be opened said closed papers,
documents or objects
4. He does not have proper authority
Infidelity in the custody of documents, the public
officer has been entrusted with papers, documents or
objects, which have been closed by proper authority and the
said public officer opened the said closed document or
permitted others to open the same. Again, Damage is NOT
an element.
MERE ACT OF OPENING the said closed document
will give rise to the crime.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if A has been charged with illegal sale of dangerous
drugs. The case was on trial, during the trial of the case, the
fiscal presented the first police officer who acted as the
poseur buyer in the course of the testimony of the police
officer, the fiscal produced and showed to him for
identification the marked money. So the marked money
consists of 5, 100 peso bill. The fiscal presented it to the
police and the police identified it as indeed the marked
money because of the serial numbers and because of the
markings, and thereafter the marked money have been
marked as Exhibit A, B, C, D, E for the prosecution. After the
trial, they were placed inside an envelope and given to the
clerk of court, the custodian of the evidence which have
already been marked. So trial ended that day, it was now
lunch time. The clerk of court was on her table and so the
vendor arrived. The clerk of court wanted to buy lunch and
she said, how much. The vendor said it costs 50 peso. The
clerk of court pulled out her money; it was a 1000 peso bill.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
The vendor said, “anglakinamanniyan, walaakongpanukli”
And so, by reason thereof, he gave it back to the clerk of
court. The clerk of court said that she had no smaller bills,
and he remembered the exhibits. And so, he took 100 peso
bill, marked as Exhibit E. And she paid it to the vendor and
the vendor gave him the change of 50 peso. After eating,
before 1:00, the said clerk of court immediately went outside
to change her big 1000 peso bill into smaller bills. When he
now has these smaller bills, he got one 100 peso bill and
marked it as Exhibit E and then he signed it and placed it
inside the envelope. Here comes the next hearing date, on
the next hearing date, another police officer was presented,
the fiscal produced the said documentary exhibits, the
marked money and asked it from the clerk of court. So the
fiscal showed it to the police officer, the police officer
identified Exhibits A, B, C, D. However, when it comes to
exhibit E, the police officer said, “Your Honor, it has a
different serial number from the one in our sworn
statement” and so because of that, an investigation
happened and the court learned that it was taken by said
clerk of court and used in buying food. What crime, if any is
committed by the said clerk of court? Is it malversation or is
it infidelity in the custody of documents?
A: The crime committed is infidelity in the
custody of documents under Art. 226 by
the public officer in destroying the said
document. This marked money becomes
documentary evidence, the moment they have
been marked as exhibits. Money here is not used
as a medium of exchange, but as documents
because they have been marked as documentary
evidence. The moment they have been taken,
removed, concealed or destroyed, the crime
committed is infidelity in the custody of
documents because the clerk of court is the
custodian of the documentary exhibits. If money
is used, not as a medium of exchange, but like
this, as documentary exhibits or any other use
other than as a medium of exchange, the one
who malverse, or use it is the custodian of the
said documents, the crime is infidelity in the
custody of documents and NOT malversation.
When the clerk of court took the 100 peso bill,
he destroyed the exhibit, the documentary
exhibit of the said prosecution and the
prosecution was seriously damaged interface.
REVELATION OF SECRETS (Article 229-230)
ARTICLE 229 – REVELATION OF SECRETS BY AN
OFFICER
Punishable acts:
1. By revealing any secrets which affect public interest
learned by him in his official capacity
ELEMENTS:
(1) Offender is a public officer
(2) He knows of a secret by reason of his
official capacity
(3) He reveals such secret without authority
or justifiable reasons
(4) Damage, great or small, is cause to the
public interest
It is necessary that there be Damage caused, whether
serious or not.
2. Wrongfully delivering papers or copies of papers of
which he may have charge and which should not be
published thereby causing damage, whether serious or
not, to a third party or to public interest.
ELEMENTS:
i. Offender is a public officer
ii. He has charge of papers
iii. Those papers should not be published
iv. He delivers those papers or copies
thereof to a third person
v. The delivery is wrongful
vi. Damage is caused to public interest
ARTICLE 230 – PUBLIC OFFICER REVEALING
SECRETS OF PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He knows of the secrets of private individual by reason
of his office
3. He reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable
reason
Damage is NOT an element in Article 230.
ARTICLE 231 – OPEN DISOBEDIENCE
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a judicial or executive officer
2. There is judgment, decision, or order of a superior
authority
3. Such judgment, decision or order was made within the
scope of the jurisdiction of the superior authority and
issued with all the legal formalities
4. Offender without any legal justification openly refuses
to execute the said judgment, decision or order which
he is duty bound to obey
Open Disobedience is committed by any judicial or
executive officer who shall openly refuse without any legal
motive to execute a judgment or decision rendered by a
superior authority in the exercise of his duty and in the legal
infirmities of the law.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if in the case of Duterte, the sheriff wishes to
execute a writ of execution and cause the squatters to leave
the place because of the execution issued by the court has
to be implemented. Had not the sheriff performed the said
act, is he liable of any crime? Had the sheriff refused to
execute the writ of execution issued by the said judge? Is he
liable of any crime?
A: Yes, he is liable of Open Disobedience
under Article 231. He openly refused to
execute a writ of execution issued by a judge.
ARTICLE 232 – DISOBEDIENCE TO ORDER OF
SUPERIOR OFFICER, WHEN SAID ORDER WAS
SUSPENDED BY INFERIOR OFFICER
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. An order is issued by his superior for execution
3. He has for any reason suspended the execution of
such order
4. His superior disapproves the suspension of the
execution of the order
5. Offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval
of the suspension
The offender refuses to disobey the suspension of the
said order which was disapproved by the said public officer.
ARTICLE 233 – REFUSAL OF ASSISTANCE
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. Competent authority demands from the offender that
he lend his cooperation towards the administration of
justice or other public service
3. Offender fails to do so maliciously
Public officer who shall fail to lend his cooperation
towards the administration of justice or any other public
service despite demand by competent authority.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: A raped B. B was treated by a medico legal officer at the
PNP. This medico legal officer who has examined A, issued a
medical certificate, And so in the case filed by B against A
for this so-called “rape”, the fiscal moved that the subpoena
(adjustificandum) be sent to this public officer, the medico
legal office who examined the rape victim. However, despite
receipt of the said subpoena, the medico legal officer failed
Page 44

to appear. He did not appear without any justifiable reason
at all. The said prosecutor move again for the issuance of
another subpoena, a second subpoena. Again, despite the
receipt, the medico legal officer failed to appear in court and
testified and failed to give the copy of the medico legal
certificate. What crime if any has the said medico legal
officer has committed?
A: He is liable for Refusal of Assistance
under Article 233. It is committed by a public offcer that
despite demands of the public authority shall fail to lend his
cooperation toward the administration of justice or any other
public service. Thereby, causing damage serious or not, to
public interest.
NOTE: If the damage is serious, the penalty is QUALIFIED.
ARTICLE 234 – REFUSAL TO DISCHARGE ELECTIVE
OFFICE
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is elected by popular election to a public
office
2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of
the said office
3. There is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn in
or to discharge the duties of said office
This is a crime which cannot be committed in
Philippine Jurisdiction. Refusal to discharge public duties is
committed by any person entitled to a public office by
means of popular election, refuses to assume to assume the
powers and duties of his office. He refuses to be sworn in.
This will not happen in our lifetime. This will never happen in
the Philippine Jurisdiction because here, even if he did not
win in the election, he wanted to hold office.
ARTICLE 235 – MALTREATMENT OF PRISONERS
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee
2. He has under his charge a prisoner or detention
prisoner
3. He maltreats such prisoner either of the following
manners:
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or
handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner
under his charge either:
i. By the imposition of punishments not
authorized by the rules and
regulations
CRIMINAL LAW 2
ii. By inflicting such punishments (those
authorized) in a cruel or humiliating
manner
b. By maltreating such prisoner to extort a
confession or to obtain some information
from the prisoner
 Who is the offender?
- Any public officer or employee
 Who is the offended party?
- He must be a prisoner
In order to be considered a prisoner, it is necessary that the
said person has already been arrested, brought to the PNP
station and he has been incarcerated. If he is not a prisoner,
then, the crime can be physical injuries, whatever injuries
that may have been sustained by the prisoner, but NOT
maltreatment of prisoners
What if maltreatment does not only include physical
maltreatment. It shall also include moral, emotional,
psychological maltreatment because the law uses the phrase
physical injuries or damage caused.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: What if A has just withdrew his money from her ATM
account, she placed the money inside her bag and she was
already walking towards home when suddenly here comes X.
X snatched the handbag with the money. A police officer
passing by saw the incident and on boarded their mobile
patrol. They were able to arrest the man, took the bag and
returned it to the said victim. Thereafter, they placed X
inside the mobile patrol. While inside, they kicked, mold the
man. And so, the man suffered less serious physical injuries.
What crime is committed by the said police officers?
A: The crime committed is less serious
physical injuries. It is not maltreatment of prisoners
because the said person, X, is not yet a prisoner. He is only
a person under arrest because he has just been arrested for
having committed a crime, but he is not yet a prisoner. In
order to be considered as a prisoner, he must be brought to
the PNP station, taken a picture, left view, side view, front
view, thumbmark and incarcerated. He is now an
accountability of the Government, he is now a prisoner. But
before that, he is not yet a prisoner. He is only a person
under arrest. That is why in the problem, the police officers
are liable only for less serious physical injuries and not of
maltreatment of prisoners.
Q: What if in the same problem, they chased the man. They
were able to catch the said man and brought him to the PNP
station. Booked him and incarcerated him, and all the things
needed to be done to a prisoner. Later, he was brought out
of jail for investigation to be brought in the Investigation
section. In the investigation, he was being forced to admit to
the commission of the crime. And so, by reason thereof, the
police officer boxed him and gave him a huge black eye. The
left eye suffered so much that he lost sight, amounting to
serious physical injuries. What are the crimes committed by
the police officer?
A: Two crimes – Maltreatment of Prisoners
and Serious Physical Injuries.
Maltreatment of Prisoners because he is a
prisoner who was maltreated in order to extort a
confession and Serious physical injuries because
by reason of the injury inflicted, he lost an eye.
Q: Are you going to complex them? because a single act
constitute a grave and less grave felony, are you going to
complex them under Art. 48?
A: No. You cannot complex them. Because under
Article 235, it is expressly provided that the liability
for maltreatment of prisoners shall be in addition to
the liability for any other physical injuries or damage
caused. Therefore two crimes will be charged against
the police officer.
There is also a violation of R.A. 9745, Anti-
Torture Act, because under Section 14 of the Anti-
Torture Act, Torture shall not absorb and shall not be
absorbed by any other crime committed as a
consequence. Therefore, he can also be held liable
under the so-called Anti-Torture Law.
ARTICLE 236 – ANTICIPATION OF DUTIES OF A
PUBLIC OFFICE
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is entitled to hold a public office or
employment either by election or appointment
2. Shall assume the performance of the duties and
powers of a public official or employee
3. Without being sworn into office or having given the
bond required by law
ARTICLE 237 – PROLONGING PERFORMANCE OF
DUTIES AND POWERS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is holding a public office
2. That the period allowed by law for him to exercise
such function and duties has already expired
3. That the offender continues to exercise such function
and duties
ARTICLE 238 – ABANDONMENT OF OFFICE OR
POSITION
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is holding a public office
2. That he formally resigns from his office
3. But before the acceptance of his resignation, he
abandons his office
Abandonment of office is committed by a public officer
who has already formally resigns from his position, and
having formally resigned from his position, he abandons to
the detriment of public service. Despite the fact that his
resignation has not yet been accepted by a superior
authority. Under Labor Law, when you are an employee,
when you file a resignation, it does not mean you are
already resigned. There must be an ACCEPTANCE from the
superior officer before it can be said that he have already
resigned.
So here, the public officer has already formally
resigned, his resignation has not been accepted, yet he
abandons to the detriment of public service. What is the
penalty?
- In the abandonment of office, the penalty is
QUALIFIED if the purpose of the said public
officer is to evade the prosecution punishment of
the crime involving violation of Title 1 – Book 2
(Crimes against National Security), or Chapter 1 –
Title 3 of Book 2 (Rebellion, Coup d’etat, Sedition,
etc.)
ARTICLE 239 – USURPATION OF LEGISLATIVE
POWERS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an executive or judicial officer
2. That he:
a. Makes general rules and regulations beyond
the scope of his authority, or
b. Attempts to repeal a law, or
c. Suspend the execution of thereof
NOTE: It can only be committed by an executive or
judicial officer
ARTICLE 240 – USURPATION OF EXECUTIVE
FUNCTIONS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a judge
2. That the offender:
a. Assumes the power exclusively vested to
executive authorities of the Government, or
b. Obstructs executive authorities from the
lawful performance of their functions
NOTE: It can only be committed by a Judge
Page 45

ARTICLE 241 – USURPATION OF JUDICIAL
FUNCTIONS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is holding office under the Executive
Branch of the Government
2. That he:
a. Assumes the power exclusively vested in the
Judiciary, or
b. Obstructs the execution of any order or
decision given by a judge within his
jurisdiction
NOTE: It can only be committed by a public officer of the
Executive Branch of the Government
Therefore, if the person who assumes judicial
power does not belong to the Executive Branch, but belongs
to the legislative branch, the crime is not Usurpation of
Judicial Function, but USURPATION OF PUBLIC
FUNCTION AND OFFICIAL AUTHORITY under Article
177, because Article 239, 240 and 241 are specific as to
the offenders.
So, let us say, in the one who encroached upon
the powers of the Judge, does not belong to the executive
branch but he is legislator, it cannot be considered as
usurpation of judicial functions, rather it will beUsurpation Of
Public Function And Official Authority Under Article 177.
ARTICLE 242 – DISOBEYING REQUEST OF
DISQUALIFICATION
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer
2. That a proceeding is pending before such public officer
3. That there has been a question regarding the
jurisdiction brought before the proper authority
4. There is a question brought before the proper
authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is yet to be
decided
ARTICLE 243 – ORDERS OR REQUESTS BY
EXECUTIVE OFFICERS TO ANY JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is an executive officer
2. That the offender addresses any order or suggestion
to any judicial authority
3. That the order or suggestion relates to any case or
business within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts
of justice
ARTICLE 244 – UNLAWFUL APPOINTMENTS
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a public officer
2. He nominates or appoints a person to a public office
3. Such person lacks the legal qualification thereof
CRIMINAL LAW 2
4. Offender knows that his nominee or employee lacks
the qualifications at the time he made the nomination
or appointment
ARTICLE 245 – ABUSES AGAINST CHASTITY
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender is a public officer
2. That he solicits or makes any indecent or immoral
advances to a woman
3. That the offended party is a woman who is:
a. Interested in matters pending before the
public officer for his decision or where the
public officer is required to submit a report or
to consult with a superior officer; or
b. Under the custody of the offender, who is a
warden or other public officer directly
charged with the care and custody of
prisoners or persons under arrest; or
c. The wife, daughter, sister or any relative
falling within the same degree of affinity of
the person under the custody and charge of
the offender
 How are abuses against chastity is committed?
- There are three acts. (Refer to the elements)
1. Public officer solicits or makes any
indecent or immoral advances to a
woman who is interested in matters
pending before his for his decision or
where the public officer is required to
submit a report or to consult with a
superior officer
2. Warden or other public officer directly
charged with the care and custody of
prisoners or persons under arrest, and
he solicits or makes any indecent or
immoral advances to a woman
3. Warden or other public officer directly
charged with the care and custody of
prisoners or persons under arrest, and
the said officer makes any indecent or
immoral advances to the wife,
daughter, sister or any relative falling
within the same degree of affinity of
the male prisoner.
 Who is the offender?
- He must be a public officer because there must be
abuse of public office in making immoral or
indecent advances.
Essence of the crime is taking advantage of one’s
position in soliciting or making immoral or indecent
advances.
Mere act of soliciting or making immoral and indecent
advances will already give rise to the crime. It is not
necessary that the woman will comply with the said
solicitation or immoral or indecent advances.
The solicitation must not be the gospel type of
solicitation. It must be bad, persistent, threatening such that
if the woman would not comply then it would adverse on her
part.
If a jail warden impregnated a female detainee, even if they
love one another, still liable because detainees are liabilities
of the state.
TITLE EIGHT
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS (ARTICLES 246 – 266-A)
ART 246 – PARRICIDE
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person is killed
2. That the deceased is killed by the accused
3. That the deceased is the father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
other ascendant, or legitimate other descendant,
or legitimate spouse of the accused
 Parricide is committed when a person kills his father,
mother, child, whether legitimate or illegitimate,
legitimate other ascendant, legitimate other
descendant, or legitimate spouse. Therefore the
offended party or deceased or the victim is specified,
he must be the father, mother, child whether
legitimate or illegitimate, legitimate other ascendant,
legitimate other descendant, or legitimate spouse.
 Parricide is a crime based on relationship.
 What kind of relationship?
 First, it must be a legitimate relationship
except in the case of parent and child.
Second, the said relationship must be in
the direct line
Third, the relationship must be by blood
(grandfather killed a grandson, a mother
killing a son, a son killing a father)
Q: So a father killed an illegitimate son. What crime is
committed?
A: It is parricide. Although the crime is based
on legitimate relationship, the exception is in
case of children, whether legitimate or
illegitimate.
Q: A brother killed another brother. Is the crime committed
parricide?
A: No, the crime committed is murder or
homicide, as the case may be and not
parricide because the relationship between a
brother and another brother is in the collateral
line and not in the direct line.
Q: What if a stepfather killed his stepson?
A: The stepfather is not liable for parricide.
It can either be murder or homicide, as the case
may be, because their relationship is not based
on blood.
 Again, the relationship must be
legitimate, in the direct line and by
blood.
 In Parricide, the circumstance which will qualify is the
relationship, therefore relationship between the
offender and the offended party must be stated in the
information.
Q: Let us say that the husband killed the wife. In the
information filed by the fiscal, the fiscal failed to state that
the husband is the legal husband of the said victim.
However, during trial, by virtue of a certificate of marriage, it
was proven that the accused was the legal husband of the
said victim-wife. Can the husband be convicted of parricide?
A: No, the husband cannot be convicted of
parricide. This is because the relationship was
not alleged in the information although proven
during trial. Since the relationship between the
husband and the wife is not alleged in the
information, although proven during trial, he
cannot be convicted of parricide. It can only be
murder or homicide, as the case may be.
Q: What if a husband wanted to kill his wife. So he has a
mistress, the husband wanted to dispose his wife. However,
he cannot do it on his own and so the husband hired a high-
profile killer, he paid the man 100,000 pesos to kill the wife.
And so the man conducted surveillance on the wife, checked
the itinerary of the wife and so when the wife was getting
out of the grocery, here comes the killer. The killer, on
board a motorcycle, went directly to the wife, shot her and
off he went. The wife died. What crime/crimes is/are
committed?
A: The husband is liable for principal but
said killer is liable for murder. Conspiracy will
not lie. Although they conspired for the killing of
the wife, the husband, being the principal by
inducement and the killer, being the principal by
direct participation, conspiracy will not lie. This is
because the circumstance which qualifies
parricide, the relationship, is personal to the
husband and cannot be transferred to a
stranger. That is why there will two informations
filed, one is parricide as against the husband as
Page 46

a principal by inducement and the other one is
murder as against the killer.
ART 247 – DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES
INFLICTED UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
ELEMENTS:
1. That a legally married person or a parent
surprises his spouse or his daughter, the latter
under 18 years of age and living with him, in
the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another person.
2. That the said legally married spouse he or she
kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any
or both of them any serious physical injury in
the act or immediately thereafter
3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the
prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he
or she has not consented to the infidelity of
the other spouse.
FIRST REQUISITE/ELEMENT:
 Under the first element, it is required that the
legally married spouse surprises the other
spouse while in the actual act of sexual
intercourse with another person. So note the
surprising must be in the actual act of
sexual intercourse and NOT before, NOT
after.
 If you will read the book of Reyes, Justice Laurel,
naghinanakitsya. Sabinya, “Why? Why should it
be in the actual act of sexual intercourse, you
already saw your spouse with another man, why
wait for the sexual intercourse? You know it will
happen, why wait for it for Article 247? This is
what Justice Laurel said. But the Supreme Court
said no, the surprising must be in the act of
sexual intercourse with another person. Not
before, not after, not during the preliminaries.
SECOND REQUISITE/ELEMENT:
 The second element requires that the said
legally married spouse kills any or both of them
or he inflicts serious physical injuries upon any
or both of them. Again, while in the act of
sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter.
There is no question as to the “actual act of
sexual intercourse” but what about
“immediately thereafter”?
 What does the phrase “immediately thereafter”
mean?
 The Supreme Court said, “immediately
thereafter” means there must not be lapse
of time between the surprising and the
killing or infliction of serious physical
CRIMINAL LAW 2
injuries. Therefore the surprising and the
killing or infliction of serious physical
injuries must be a continuing process.
Q: What if the husband arrived home and the wife arrived
home from the market. She was about to go the kitchen
when suddenly, she heard voices in the master’s bedroom
and so she opened the said master’s bedroom and saw her
legal husband in actual sexual intercourse with another
person. Notice that the law says, “other person” which
means it could be a man or a woman. Upon seeing that, the
wife who still has a knife in the basket, immediately went
towards the husband and stabbed him. The woman fled.
The husband died. Of what crime would you prosecute the
said wife? The wife is liable for parricide under Article 246
for having killed her husband. If you are the counsel of the
said wife, what defense would you put up in order to free
your client from criminal liability?
A: Article 247 or Death under exceptional
circumstances. The Supreme Court said that
Article 247 is not a felony. Article 247 is a
privilege, in fact is it a defense. If Article 247 is
invoked, the accused is free from criminal
liability. It is an absolutory cause, an exempting
circumstance. The Supreme Court said that the
penalty stated therein, destierro, is not really a
penalty on the legally married spouse who killed
the other spouse. It is not a penalty but it is
more of a guard, a privilege for him so that he
may be free from any retaliation of any of the
family of the victim. So destierro here is not
really a penalty. Again, Article 247 is not a
felony. It is a defense, a privilege; it is an
exempting circumstance or an absolutory cause.
PEOPLE v. ABARCA
In this case, there was this student reviewing for the
bar. There were already rumors that his wife was having an
affair. So one time, he went home unannounced. Upon his
arrival, he saw his wife in sexual intercourse with another
man. The man jumped out the window. The husband
wanted to kill the man but he had no weapon at the time.
The man went away. It took the husband an hour before he
was able to find a weapon and upon finding a weapon, he
went directly to the whereabouts of the man, the lover of
the wife and killed the man. It took him one hour. The killing
took place an hour, not in the actual sexual intercourse, but
is it immediately thereafter? Despite the fact that one hour
had lapsed, would it be within the meaning of immediately
thereafter?
The Supreme Court, in this special case, said yes.
According to Supreme Court, when the law uses the phrase
“immediately thereafter”; that the killing or the infliction of
serious physical injuries must take place immediately
thereafter, the law did not say that the killing must be done
instantly. According to the Supreme Court, it suffices that
the proximate cause for the said killing is the said pain and
the look on the said husband upon chancing his wife in the
basest act of infidelity. This is an exceptional case.
 Why an exceptional case?
 Because henceforth, after People v Abarca,
the Supreme Court has already interpreted
“immediately thereafter”, as there must be
no lapse of time between the surprising
and the killing. The surprising and the
killing must be continuous.
 Legal luminaries say that this is an
exceptional case because the husband was
reviewing for the bar which is why he was
given this special _. Because in all other
cases after this, the Supreme Court is strict
in implementing “immediately thereafter”.
The Supreme Court is strict because this is
not a felony, it is a privilege therefore it
must be strictly interpreted and not
liberally interpreted in favor of the accused.
 Look that if the injury inflicted by the
legally married spouse on the lover or the
other spouse, is less serious physical
injuries or slight physical injuries, he is
totally free from criminal liability. Liability
will only come in if the other spouse is
killed or inflicted with serious physical
injuries.
 With regards to the liability of the accused
to the injuries sustained by other people,
liable to physical injuries through
negligence, as the case maybe. There is no
intent to kill the other victims.
 Note that the SC ruled that inflicting death
under exceptional circumstances is NOT
murder.
ART 248 – MURDER
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person was killed
2. That the accused killed him
3. That the killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances mentioned in Article 248
4. That the killing is not parricide or infanticide
 Murder is committed by any person who shall kill
another person which will not amount to parricide or
infanticide and the killing is attended by the following
qualifying circumstances:
1. 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
mutiny.
2. In consideration of price, reward or
promise
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel,
derailment or assault upon a railroad, 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 calamities
enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or
of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic, or any
other public calamities.
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 (RA 7659)
 These are the qualifying circumstances for
murder (See Article 14-aggravating
circumstances, Book I) Know the elements in
Article 14.
 All of these are aggravating circumstance under
Article 14. Note, in order to qualify a killing to
murder, only one is necessary.
 If in the information, A killed B and it was attended by
treachery, in consideration of a price, reward or
promise, by means of a motor vehicle, so there are
three qualifying circumstances. Only one will suffice to
qualify the murder to killing, all the other aggravating
circumstances will be considered not as qualifying
circumstances but as mere generic aggravating
circumstances.
ART 249 – HOMICIDE
ELEMENTS:
1. That a person was killed
2. That the accused killed him 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.
 When a person kills another person, and it is not
attended by any qualifying circumstance under Article
Page 47

248, the killing is considered as Homicide under Article
249.
ART 250 – PENALTY FOR FRUSTRATED OR
ATTEMPTED PARRICIDE, MURDER OR HOMICIDE
ART 251 – DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTOUS AFFRAY
 What is a tumultuous affray?
 A tumultuous affray is a commotion, wherein
people fight in a tumultuous or confused manner
such that it cannot be ascertained or determined
who has killed the victim or who has inflicted
physical injuries on the victim.
ELEMENTS:
1. That there be several persons
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.
 Article 251, death in a tumultuous affray, is committed
when there are several persons who do not compose
groups which have been organized to assault and
quarrel with one another reciprocally, assaulted and
attacked each other reciprocally and in the course of
the affray, someone is killed. And it cannot be
ascertained or identified or determined who killed the
victim, then the person who inflicted serious physical
injuries or those who used violence against the said
victim can be identified.
 Someone is killed. Note that he can be any person; he
can be someone from the affray, he can be a mere
passerby, he can be just someone watching the affray,
so long as he is killed in the affray and it cannot be
ascertained who killed him, then the person who
inflicted serious physical injuries on him is liable if he
can be identified. If this person cannot be identified,
then the person who used any kind of violence against
him shall be criminally liable.
ART 252 – PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
CRIMINAL LAW 2
ELEMENTS:
1. That there is a tumultuous affray
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 thereof cannot be
identified
4. That all those who appear to have used violence
upon the person of the offended party are known.
 Note that the victim here must be a participant. The
law is specific. The participants must be the one
injured with serious physical injuries or less serious
physical injuries. Not slight physical injuries.
 Article 252, we have physical injuries inflicted in
tumultuous affray, is committed when in a tumultuous
affray, a participant has suffered serious physical
injuries or less serious physical injuries and it cannot
be ascertained who inflicted these injuries but the
person who used violence on the victim can be
identified or determined.
 If the injury caused to the victim is only slight physical
injuries, then no one is liable because if a person
engaged in a tumultuous affray or participated therein,
the law presumes that it is __ therefore no one is
liable if the injuries sustained is only slight physical
injury and it cannot be determined who inflicted the
said slight physical injury on the victim.
Q: There was this tumultuous affray, several people were
attacking and fighting each other. Suddenly, here comes a
balot vendor. He saw the affray. He was just there,
watching, suddenly he fell on the ground. He died because
of a stab wound. Now, it cannot be ascertained who stabbed
him, so no one saw who stabbed him. Who will be held
criminally liable?
A: Any person who inflicted serious
physical injuries on him. No one has seen
also who had inflicted serious physical injuries
against him. The any person who inflicted
any violence against him shall be criminally
liable.
Q: There was this tumultuous affray, several people were
attacking and fighting each other. Suddenly, here comes a
balot vendor who saw the affray and he was just there,
watching. While he was watching the affray, one of the
participants of the affray, X, saw him and went directly to
the balot vendor and stabbed him twice. The balot vendor
died. What crime is committed? Is it under Article 251,
Death in tumultuous affray?
A: No. It is murder or homicide as the case
may be. This is because the perpetrator of the
crime is identified, ascertained or determined.
Death in a tumultuous affray under Article 251
can only be charged if the actual perpetrator of
the crime who killed the victim cannot be
ascertained or identified.
ART 253 – GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE
TWO ACTS PUNISHABLE:
I.By assisting another to commit suicide, whether the
suicide is consummated or not; or
II.By lending assistance to another to commit suicide to
the extent of doing the killing himself.
 Giving assistance to suicide – binigyanmong rope;
binigyanmong poison.
 A friend wanted to commit suicide, he doesn’t know
the way, the means and you agreed with him, you
assisted and gave the best poison in the world. So you
assisted the said friend in committing suicide. Note
that if a person assisted in committing suicide by
giving him poison, the initiative must come from him.
The desire to kill himself must come from the victim.
He wanted to commit suicide and you merely provide
assistance in the commission of suicide.
 B wanted to commit suicide, here comes A, A gave
assistance to B but B survived. B did not die. Only A is
criminally liable because suicide or attempt to commit
suicide is not a felony within Philippine jurisdiction. It
is only the one who assisted to commit suicide is
criminally liable but not the person who attempted to
commit suicide.
Q: What if a terminally sick person with cancer, he was lying
in bed, almost lifeless and it was only a machine that was
giving life to his body. Now, the mother of the patient and
she took pity of her son because the son was agonizing and
was only breathing through the said machine. The mother
wanted to finish the suffering of the son and at the time she
visited the hospital, she turned off the machine and the son
died. He killed her son out of mercy. So it is mercy-killing or
euthanasia. Is the mother liable for giving assistance to
suicide?
A: No because the initiative to kill did not come
from the sai person who was ill. The crime
committed by the mother is parricide for
killing her son. If it were other person, it was
murder. Evidently, it was murder because there
was evident premeditation; there was thinking
before doing the act of mercy-killing.
ART 254 – DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS/ ILLEGAL
DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS
ELEMENTS:
1. That the offender discharges a firearm against or at
another person
2. That the offender has no intention to kill that
person
Q: What if there was this park. The park was full of people
and then suddenly, here comes X, X went to the park, put
out his firearm, and he fired shots in the air. What crime is
committed?
A: X committed Alarms and Scandals under
Article 155. When he fired shots in the air, his
intention was to cause disturbance of public
peace and tranquility. The firearm was not aimed
towards any person.
Q: What if X went to a public place full of people. X saw his
enemy, Y, and so to threaten Y, X pulled out his firearm,
aimed the firearm at Y in order to threaten him. X
discharges the firearm, however, with no intention to kill Y.
His only intention is to threaten Y and Y was not killed. What
crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is Article 254,
Illegal Discharge of Firearms. Illegal
discharge of firearms is committed by any person
who aims and discharges the firearm to any
other person absent the intent to kill the said
person. The purpose is merely to threaten the
said person.
Q: What if in the same public place, X went there and pulled
out his firearm because he saw his enemy, Y. He aimed the
gun at Y with intent to kill, because he wanted to kill his
enemy. However, Y saw it and was able to avoid. What
crime is committed?
A: X committed attempted homicide or
murder, as the case may be. Although Y was
not hit, the fact that the said firearm was
discharged with intent to kill, it is already
attempted homicide or murder, as the case may
be.
Q: What if in the said merry-making, there were so many
people. X went there. He saw his enemy Y and went directly
to Y, took out his gun and he poked the gun without
discharging. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is other light
threats. So here, threatening another with a
gun, without discharging, only poking. It is other
light threats. It is not grave threats, it is not light
threats. It is only other light threats,
arrestomenor.
Page 48

 So kapag discharge, pinutok – it could either be alarms
and scandals, illegal discharge of firearms or
attempted or frustrated murder or homicide, as the
case may be.
 If no discharging, only poking, or threatening with a
firearm, it is only other light threats
ARTICLE 255 – INFANTICIDE
Infanticide is the killing of a child less than three
(3) days old or less than seventy-two (72) hours. So in the
case of infanticide, it is the age of the victim that is
controlling. The victim, the child, the infant, must be less
than three (3) days old. He must be less than seventy-two
hours. If it is only three (3) days old or above it is any other
crime but not infanticide.
 Who is the offender in Infanticide?
The offender can be the parents, the mother, the
father, the grandparents or it can be any other person so
long as the child is less than three (3) days old, it is
infanticide. It is the age that is controlling, not the
relationship.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if there was this woman and this woman gave
birth to a child. After giving birth to the child while the child
was only a day old, she already wanted to kill the child in
order to conceal her dishonor. However, she could not kill
the child by herself and so she asked a favor from a friend.
And so the friend arrived and both the mother and the said
friend killed the child, a day old, by suffocating the said child
with a big pillow. The child less than three days old, died.
What crime/s is/are committed?
A: The mother is liable for infanticide. The
said stranger friend is also liable for
infanticide. There was conspiracy on them.
This time conspiracy on life, both of them are
liable for infanticide under only one information.
Isang information langsa court and that is
infanticide. Both the mother and the friend are
conspirators of infanticide.
Now let us say that the mother is convicted. If
the mother is convicted, the penalty imposed by the law as
provided in Article 255 is equivalent to parricide which is
reclusion perpetua to death. On the other hand, if the
stranger is convicted under Article 255, the penalty to be
imposed is equivalent to murder therefore, also reclusion
perpetua to death. But note the charge is that he is guilty of
infanticide.
The fact that the said mother killed the child,
less than three days old, in order to conceal dishonorwill
mitigate the criminal liability of the mother. NOTE:The
penalty will be lowered not by one, but by two degrees,
CRIMINAL LAW 2
from reclusion perpetua to death, the penalty of the mother
will only now become prision mayor.
Q: What if let us say that the killer of the less than three day
old child is the maternal grandparents. The grandparents
conspired in the killing in order to conceal the dishonor of
their daughter. What is the effect of the concealment of the
dishonor?
A: The concealment of the dishonor will
also mitigate the criminal liability of the
maternal grandparents that is one degree
lower. So sa mother, two degrees lower, from
reclusion perpetua to death magigingprision
mayor. Sa maternal grandparents one degree
lower lang, from reclusion perpetua to death it
will now become reclusion temporal. Whatever it
is, concealment of dishonor is akin to a privilege
mitigating circumstance because the lowering of
the penalty is not merely by periods but by
degrees. So it is akin to a privilege mitigating
circumstance.
Q: So what if in the same problem I gave, the woman gave
birth to the child and wanted to kill the child but this time
the infant is already three days old and the child was killed
by the said mother and the friend. What are the crimes
committed?
A: The mother is liable for
parricidewhile the stranger/friend is liable
for murder. And this time no amount of
concealment of dishonor will mitigate the
criminal liability of the mother. So there lies a
difference between parricide and infanticide if
the offender is the parent or the mother of the
child.
JUST REMEMBER: If the child is less than three days old
or less than 72 hours, IT IS INFANTICIDE. It is the age that
controls. If the child is three days old and above, PARRICIDE
OR MURDER, as the case may be. It is obvious murder
because a three day old child or infant is totally defenseless.
ARTICLE 256, 257, 258 AND 259 ARE ALL ABOUT
ABORTION
ARTICLE 256 – INTENTIONAL ABORTION
ARTICLE 257 – UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
ARTICLE 258 – ABORTION PRACTICED BY THE
WOMAN HERSELF OR BY HER PARENTS
ARTICLE 259 - ABORTION PRACTICED BY A
PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF
ABORTIVES
Note that there are four (4) articles on abortion but there
are only two (2) type of abortion:
1.) INTENTIONAL ABORTION
2.) UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
Because the abortion practiced by the woman herself or the
mother and the abortion practiced by a physician or midwife
are all intentional abortion. So in effect, we only have to
kinds of abortion. We have intentional abortion and
unintentional abortion.
ABORTION – is the willful killing of a fetus from the mother’s
womb or the violent expulsion of a fetus from the maternal
womb which results in the death of the fetus.
INTENTION ABORTION is committed in three (3) ways:
1.) By using violence upon the person of the
pregnant woman resulting to abortion.
2.) Without violence, by acting without violence,
without the consent of the woman by
administering aborting drugs or beverages
without the consent of the pregnant woman.
3.) By acting without violence, with the consent of
the pregnant woman that is by administering
aborting drugs or beverages to a pregnant
woman this time with her consent.
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION can only be committed in one
(1) way and that is by exerting physical violence on a
pregnant woman. And in result thereof, an unintentional
abortion was suffered.
In unintentional abortion the force employed was
physically exerted on a pregnant woman. The intention of
the offender is not against the baby or the fetus but against
the mother. His intention is against the mother but in so
doing, since the mother is pregnant, the baby/fetus was also
aborted. So abortion was unintentionally caused.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So what if there were two college students, a boyfriend
and girlfriend. The girlfriend became pregnant and the
boyfriend said, ‘I am not yet ready. We are still so young so
I cannot marry you.’ And so by reason thereof the girlfriend
said, ‘how about my situation? I am already pregnant.’ And
so by reason thereof, they both decided in order to conceal
the dishonor of the said female student, they both decided
to abort the fetus. So what the boyfriend did was he went to
the sidewalks of Quiapo and bought there aborting
beverages and he administered the same to the said
woman. And the female student drank the aborting
beverage and the fetus died. What crime/s is/are
committed?
A: In so far as the boyfriend is concerned, the
crime committed is intentional abortion under
Article 256. In so far as the said female student is
concerned, the crime committed is also intentional
abortion but it is under Article 258 – Abortion
practiced by the woman herself or by her parents.
So, both of them are liable for intentional
abortion.
Q: But what if despite the fact that the female student had
already taken or drank the abortive beverage still the fetus
survived? Malakasangkapitngbatasa maternal womb. What
crime is committed if any by the boyfriend and the
girlfriend? Is there a crime such as frustrated intentional
abortion?
A: YES. There is a crime such asfrustrated
intentional abortion. Here, the said woman
has already taken the said abortive beverage. He
has already performed all the acts necessary to
consume the crime of abortion however, abortion
did not result because of causes independent of
their will. Malakasangkapitngbatasa maternal
womb and so the baby survived. And so, they
are both liable for frustrated intentional abortion.
IS THERE A CRIME SUCH AS FRUSTRATED
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION?
NO. This time there is no crime such
as frustrated unintentional abortion. Because in
unintentional abortion, the intention is against
the woman and abortion only happens
unintentional.
ILLUSTRATION:
Q: So let’s say a man exerted physical violence against the
woman who happens to be his enemy. The said woman was
severely hurt however, the baby was not hurt. The fetus
inside the tummy did not die. What is the crime committed
by the said man?
A: Only serious physical Injuries against the
woman. No crimes against the fetus because
there was no intent in so far as the fetus is
concerned.
Q: But what if in the said problem, the man inflicted violence
on the pregnant woman who happens to be his enemy. Let’s
say he kicked and moved the said woman severely and by
reason thereof the pregnant woman was 1:44:17. What
crime/s is/are committed?
A: The crime committed against the
woman is serious physical injuries. As
against the fetus, the crime committed is
unintentional abortion. Now, it resulted from
one single act therefore it will result to a complex
crime of SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES WITH
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION under ARTICLE 48
OF BOOK 1. It is a complex crime. It is a single
act resulting to two less grave felonies.
Page 49

Q: What if a husband arrived home at 5 o’clock in the
morning. He saw his wife looking at the children and is
making breakfast. Suddenly the cellphone of the wife rang,
the pregnant wife answered the cellphone and she began
giggling. When she began giggling, the husband took the
cellphone from the said wife and listened to the cellphone.
He heard a voice of a man on the other line of the
cellphone. Since he heard the voice of the man and he just
arrived from work, he became jealous and with the use of a
knife he stabbed the wife. The wife died and the fetus died.
What crime/s is/are committed?
A: In so far as the wife is concerned, the
crime committed is parricide. In so far as
the baby is concerned, the crime
committed is unintentional abortion. Again,
it resulted from one single act of stabbing the
wife therefore it will give rise to a COMPLEX
CRIME OF PARRICIDE WITH UNINTENTIONAL
ABORTION. There is a crime against the wife
which is parricide and against the fetus which is
unintentional abortion resulting from a single act
therefore, it is parricide with unintentional
abortion.
ARTICLE 259 - ABORTION PRACTICED BY A
PHYSICIAN OR MIDWIFE AND DISPENSING OF
ABORTIVES
UNDER ARTICLE 259, there is another act punished and
that is dispensing of abortives. Dispensing of abortives is
committed by a pharmacist who shall dispense an abortive
without a prescription from a physician. The mere act of
dispensing the said abortives without prescription from a
physician will hold the said pharmacist criminally liable.
ARTICLE 260 - DUEL
ARTICLE 261 – CHALLENGING TO A DUEL
What is a duel?
A duel is a combat with deadly weapons
concerted between two or more persons who have decided
or agreed to fight.
ELEMENTS OF A DUEL:
1.) It is necessary that the offenders that there was
an agreement to engage in combat or in a fight.
2.) There must be two or more seconds for each
combatant.
3.) The firearms or the arms to be used as well as
the other terms of the combat must be agreed
upon by the said seconds.
Under Article 260 - Duel, there are three acts punished in
a duel:
CRIMINAL LAW 2
1.) By killing one’s adversary in a duel.
2.) By inflicting physical injuries upon one’s
adversary.
3.) By making a combat by merely entering into a
duel.
So under Article 260, the persons who are liable are the
combatants and adversaries, those who engage in a duel
and yungkanilangalalay, yung seconds.
Under Article 261- Challenging to a duel, there are also
three 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 refused to accept a challenge to fight a
duel.
Under Article 261, the persons criminally liable are both the
challenger and the instigator.
NOTE that if it is not a duel or there is no agreement to
combat or to fight, let’s say there was no agreement
between A and B to fight and yet they fought and B died,
the crime committed is HOMICIDE because Article 260 and
261 only applies if there is an agreement to fight, to a duel
or a combat.
CRIMES OF PHYSICAL INJURIES:
ARTICLE 262 – MUTILATION
Mutilation is the clipping off or chopping off of
a particular part of a body which is not susceptible to grow
again.
Two kinds of mutilation:
1.) By intentionally depriving another of a part of his
body which is an essential part for reproduction.
2.) By intentionally committing other mutilation that
is, by depriving him of any other part of his body
with intent to deprive him of such part of his
body.
Under the first kind, that is mutilating an organ
essential for reproduction, is otherwise known as
CASTRATION. You will know that the penalty is even higher
than homicide. Killing a person is only punishable by
reclusion perpetua while castrating a person is punishable by
reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua. Because if you are
castrated it is as if you are already killed. That’s why it has
a higher penalty.
 Mutilation is a felony which cannot be committed
out of imprudence or negligence. Because the
law requires that there must be the deliberate
intent to mutilate, the deliberate intent to clip looses an eye, a hand, a foot,
off, to severe a particular part of the body of a an arm or a leg; or
person. Absent that deliberate intent, any b. Loses the use of any such
person who loses a part of his body, it can only member, or
be serious physical injuries but not mutilation. So c. Becomes incapacitated for the
in mutilation it is always committed with work in which he was therefore
deliberate intent or dolo to mutilate. Absent that, habitually engaged in the
it is serious physical injury. consequence of the physical
ILLUSTRATION injuries inflicted
Q: Let’s say A and B were engaged in a fight, they were 3. When the injured:
both fighting and A was losing and so he took out his bolo. a. Becomes deformed
His intention was to cut the body of B in order to defeat him b. Loses any other member of his
however, B tried to prevent him and placed his hand and by body; or
c. Becomes ill or incapacitated for
reason thereof, the right hand of B was severed from his
body. Is the crime committed mutilation? the performance of the work in
A: NO. It is not mutilation because there was which he was habitually
engaged for more than 90
no deliberate intent to clip off or to severe
the right hand of B. His intention was to attack or days, in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted
to stab B and in so doing, it resulted to the loss of
an arm therefore, the CRIME COMMITTED IS 4. When the injured person becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more that 30 days
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES. Physical injuries can
(but must not be more than 90 days), as a result
either be serious physical injuries, less serious
of the physical injuries inflicted.
physical injuries or slight physical injuries.
Note: All of this, all of the enumeration mentioned in Art.
PHYSICAL INJURIES is the act of wounding, beating or
263 are already considered serious physical injury. If a
assaulting another with no intent to kill. It also involves the
person becomes ill or incapacitated for more than 30 days, it
act of knowingly administering injurious beverages or
is already serious physical injuries. It is already divided into
substances absent intent to kill. So always there is no intent
categories for purposes of penalty. Because they differ in
to kill in order to amount to physical injuries because even if
the injury is only slight or no injury at all but if there is intent penalty. But the moment the said person, by reason of the
to kill, it is already in the stage of homicide. So there must said injury becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more
be no intent to kill. than 30 days, it is already, serious physical injury.
It also includes the act of knowing administering injurious
substances absent intent to kill. So the FIRST CATEGORYis, that the injured person
becomes INSANE.
So always, there is no intent to kill in order to amount to
physical injuries. INSANITY refers to a mental disease by reason thereof a
person can no longer appreciate the consequences of his
act.
Because even if the injury is only SLIGHT or no injury at all,
but there is intent7 to kill, it is already in the attempted
stage of Homicide. So there must be no intent to kill. IMBECILITY is when a person is already advanced in age,
yet he has only the mind of a 2-7 year old child.
ARTICLE 263 –SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
IMPOTENCY includes the inability to copulate or sterility.
Under Art. 263, the serious physical injuries punished
BLINDNESS requires loss of vision of both eyes by reason of
are:
the injury inflicted. Mere weakness in vision is not
contemplated.
1. When the injured person becomes insane,
imbecile, impotent, or blind in consequence of
the physical injuries inflicted. Under the SECOND CATEGORY:
2. When the injured person:
a. Loses the use of speech or the The offender loses the use of speech or the power to heal or
power to heal or to smell, or to smell, or looses an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm or a leg.
Page 50

- So if it is only an eye which has been lost, it is
serious physical injury but under the Second
Category already. The penalty is lesser than that
of the First Category.
Under the THIRD CIRCUMSTANCE/CATEGORY:
When the offender becomes DEFORMED.
So what is this so-called DEFORMITY which will result in
serious physical injury?
Q: A hacked B with the use of a bolo on his stomach. So
there was a big mark on his stomach despite the fact that it
was already healed, there was a big scar on the said
stomach. The doctor said that the said injury requires
medical treatment for 2 weeks. What crime is committed? Is
it serious physical injury or is it less serious physical injury?
A: The crime committed is only LESS SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURY. There was no deformity.
Although there was a big scar on the stomach, it
would not amount to deformity. An injury in
order to amount to deformity which would bring
about serious physical injury must result to a
physical ugliness on a person. There are 3
requisites befor deformity may be considered as
a serious physical injury:
1. There must be physical ugliness produced
on a body of a person
2. The said deformity should be permanent
and definite abnormality and it would not
heal through the natural healing process
3. The said deformity must be located in a
conspicuous and visible place
EXAMPLE OF “The said deformity should be permanent and
definite abnormality and it would not heal through the
natural healing process”:
A boxed B. He lost his 2 front teeth permanently. What
crime was committed?
A: The crime committed was SERIOUS PHYSICAL
INJURY. Because it is a deformity even if the
doctor says that he can still replace it, the fact
still remains that it cannot be healed through a
natural healing process.
A boxed B, A lost another tooth.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
A: The crime committed will LESS SERIOUS OR
SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES depending on the
medical attendance. Because it cannot be seen.
It is not located in a visible or conspicuous place.
A poured muriatic acid on the face of another person whom
he hates and so because of that, the face of that person
becomes deformed, it became ugly. Later, she went on a
plastic surgeon. When he got out of the plastic surgery
clinic, she now looks like Vilma Santos. Is the accused
person liable for serious physical injuries?
A: Yes. Even if she became prettier than before,
it is still a fact that by reason of the said injury it
cannot be healed through the natural healing
process. It will require the attendance of medical
surgeon. Therefore, it is considered as a
deformity.
If the said physical ugliness is not located on a visible or
conspicuous place, it would be depending on the
deployment of medical attendance.
Q: When is serious physical injuries qualified?
A: Serious physical injuries is qualified:
1. If it is committed against any of the
persons enumerated in Parricide. That is
when serious physical injuries is committed
against the father, mother, child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate; legitimate other
ascendant or other descendant and
legitimate spouse of the accused.
2. If in the infliction of serious physical
injuries, it is attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances for murder. That
is, if it is done with treachery, evident
premeditation, the crime committed is
qualified serious physical injuries.
ARTICLE 264 –ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS
SUBSTANCE OR BEVERAGES
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender inflicted serious physical injuries
upon another
2. It was done by knowingly administering to him
any injurious substances or beverages or by
taking advantage of his weakness of mind or
cruelty
3. He had no intent to kill
ARTICLE 265 – LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES is committed
if by reason of the injury inflicted, the offended party
requires medical attendance or he cannot perform the work
with which he is habitually engaged for a period of 10-30
days. So the requirement of medical attendance or his
incapacity to do his work for a period of 10-30 days, it will
bring about less serious physical injury.
Q: What circumstances will QUALIFY LESS SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURIES?
1. When there is manifest intent to insult or offend
the injured person
2. When there are circumstances adding ignominy
to the offense
3. When the victim is the offender’s parents,
ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers
4. When the victim is a person of rank or person in
authority, provided the crime is not direct assault
So the crime committed here, with the attendance of these
circumstances qualify less serious physical injuries.
ARTICLE 266 – SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES AND
MALTREATMENT
3 KINDS OF SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES AND
MALTREATMENT:
1. Physical injuries which incapacitated the
offended party for labor from 1 to 9 days, or
required medical attendance during the same
period
2. Physical injuries which did 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
Maltreatment of another by deed without causing any injury
is the act of INFLICTING PAIN ON ANOTHER PERSON
WITHOUT CAUSING ANY WOUND OR INJURY.
CASE: PEOPLE VS MAPALO (in Book I)
Let us say that A was walking. Here comes B. B
used a lead pipe, he went to A and hit the head of A with a
lead pipe. Thereafter, he ran away. The medical certificate
showed that the head of A did not sustain any injury. He
was charged with wttempted homicide. Supreme Court said,
the crime committed is ILL-TREATMENT OF ANOTHER BY
DEED, a form of slight physical injury under Art. 266.
According to the Supreme Court, there was pain
inflicted on A, but there was no injury and there was no
intent to kill because the said offender immediately ran away
after hitting him a single time. So the crime committed is
MALTREATMENT OF ANOTHER PARTY.
ARTICLE 266-A – RAPE
RAPE is now a crime against person; it is no
longer a crime against chastity. Because of the amendment
brought about by RA 8353 – THE ANTI-RAPE LAW.
2 TYPES OF RAPE/HOW RAPE IS COMMITTED:
1. By a man who shall have carnal knowledge of a
woman
2. Sexual Assault
There is RAPE BY CARNAL KNOWLEDGE when a man has
carnal knowledge of a woman against her will.
ELEMENTS OF A RAPE BY A MAN WHO SHALL HAVE
CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF A WOMAN :
1. Offender is a man
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of the woman
against her will
3. Such act is accomplished under any of the
following circumstance:
a. Through force, threat, or intimidation
b. When the offended party is deprived of
reason or is otherwise unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority
d. When the offended party is under 12 years
of age or is demented, even though the
circumstances mentioned above be present
FIRST - “OFFENDER IS A MAN”
So in rape by carnal knowledge, who is the offender? A
MAN.
Who is the offendeaprty? A WOMAN.
The law is SPECIFIC.
SECOND - “OFFENDER HAD CARNAL KNOWLEDGE OF
THE WOMAN AGAINST HER WILL”"
The offender has carnal knowledge of a woman against her
will and it is committed by using force, threat, or
intimidation. When the offended party is deprived of reason
or otherwise unconscious.
Page 51

Q: What if the woman was sleeping when a man had a
carnal knowledge of the said woman. Is it rape by carnal
knowledge?
A: Yes. The Supreme Court said that the woman
who is sleeping is unconscious.
Q: What if the woman is half asleep when the carnal
knowledge was done by the said man? Is it still rape?
A: Yes, said by the Supreme Court. The woman
was unconscious.
THIRD:
A is 11 years old. He is cohabiting with a man who is 20
years old. They are luvingtgether as if they are husband and
wife. Of course, they had carnal knowledge. The man is
liable for STATUTORY RAPE. The number of times that he
had carnal knowledge of the said woman, that is the number
of the counts of rape. So if he had carnal knowledge of the
woman 5 times during the time that they were together – 5
counts of statutory rape. That is because the child, the
victim, is below 12 years of age. Insofar as criminal law is
concerned, she does not have a mind of her own, she
cannot give a valid consent.
Q: What if, so the law requires that the said act of carnal
knowledge must be with the use of force, threat, or
intimidation, a father raped his daughter. The daughter did
not put up a fight, the father did not use force, threat, or
intimidation in the said carnal knowledge of a daughter. Is
the crime committed rape?
A: Yes. The crime committed is rape. It is
INCESTUOUS RAPE. In case of incestuous rape,
it is the overpowering and overbearing moral
influence or moral ascendency of an ascendant
over a descendant which takes place of force,
threat, or intimidation. That is why in case of
inceuous rape, force, threat, or intimidation is
not indispensable; it is not necessary. Because it
is the overpowering and overbearing moral
influence or moral ascendency which a father
has over his daughter which takes place of force,
threat or intimidation.
Q: What if A and B are lovers and then suddenly B filed a
case against A because according to B, he was raped by her
boyfriend. In the course of the trial of the case, the defense
of the man was the so-called, “sweetheart defense theory.”
According to him, “We are sweet lovers.” Therefore
CRIMINAL LAW 2
according to him, it is impossible for him to have raped her
because we are sweet lovers. Will said sweetheart defense
theory lie in his favor?
A: Supreme Court said, in case of “sweetheart
defense theory”, for it to lie, mere oral
testimonty will not suffice. There must be
documentary evidence, memorabilia, picture,
love letters, etc. which would show that indeed
they are sweethearts – boyfriend & girlfriend or
lovers. But mind you, even the Supreme Court
said this, there was not a case wherein the
“sweetheart defense theory” has acquitted a
man.
Therefore, under any all circumstances which involves the
“sweetheart defense theory” will not lie in favor of a man.
Because it does not mean that when you are the
sweetheart, you can no longer rape the other person.
In Book I, there is no such thing as FRUSTRATED RAPE.
Rape admits only 2 stages: ATTEMPTED RAPE and
CONSUMMATED RAPE.
The reason is that a mere touch of an erected penis on the
labia or lips of a woman’s genitalia will already consummate
rape.
It is not necessary that there be deep or complete
penetration. It is not necessary that the vagina did
lacerated. Mere touch of the lips or the labia of a woman’s
genitalia already consummates rape.
Q: What if, what the erectile penis has touched was the
outer portion of genitalia, that portion which became hairy
during puberty, you have to distinguish whether it is acts of
lasciviousness or attempted rape.
A:
CASE: PEOPLE VS JALOSJOS
If when an erectile penis has touched the outer
portion of a woman’s genitalia which becomes
hairy during puberty, if the intention of the said
offender is to lie, to have carnal knowledge
against the said woman, it is attempted rape.
But if in doing so, the said man has no intention
to lie or to have carnal knowledge, that is only
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS.
What about the other form of Rape – RAPE BY
SEXUAL ASSAULT
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender commits an act of sexual assault
2. 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. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under
any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abused of authority
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age
or demented
*So what if what has been inserted is the penis inside the
mouth or the anal orifice, before that would only amount to
acts of lasciviousness - before the passage of RA 8353.
*The law says that it must be an instrument or object which
was inserted in the genitalia or in the anal orifice of another
person.
Q: What if it was the finger which was inserted in the
genitalia of a person? Is it acts of lasciviousness or rape by
sexual assault?
A: Supreme Court said it is RAPE BY SEXUAL
ASSAULT. According to the Supreme Court, it
would be so weird if what has been inserted is
an instrument or object, it would be rape by
sexual assault, but if it was finger, it would be
rape by acts of lasciviousness. The finger is
within the mean of an instrument or object
insofar as rape by sexual assault is concerned.
Q: In case of RAPE, what are the circumstances which will
qualify the penalty?
A: In case of RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT, the
penalty is only PRISION MAYOR. It is a bailable
offense.
If it is a RAPE BY CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, note
that the penalty is RECLUSION PERPETUA. It is a
non-bailable offense
Q: In case of a RAPE BY CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, when is a
penalty qualified?
A: Reclusion Perpetua to Death:
1. When rape is committed with the use of a
deadly weapon
2. When rape is committed by two or more
persons
3. When by reason or on occasion of rape,
the victim becomes insane
4. When rape is attempted and homicide is
committed
Q: What are the instances wherein the penalty to be
imposed is the capital punishment of death, so the extreme
penalty of death?
1. When by reason or on the occasion of rape,
homicide is committed
2. When the victim is under 18 years of age and
the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the 3rd civil degree, or the common law
spouse of the victim
3. When the victim is under the custody of the
police or military authorities or any penal
institution
4. When the rape is committed in full view of the
spouse, the parent, any of the children of the
relative by consanguinity within the 3rd civil
degree
5. When the victim is a religious and gauged in
legitimate religious calling or vocation and he
known to be such by the offender before or
during the commission of the rape
6. When the victim of the rape is below 7 years of
age
7. When the said offender knows that he has been
afflicted with HIV virus or AIDS or any other
sexually transmissible disease and the virus of
the disease is transmitted to the victim
8. When the said offender is a member of the AFP
or parliamentary units, the PNP or any other
member of the law enforcement agency who
took advantage of his position in order to
facilitate the commission of the crime
9. By reason or on the occasion of rape, the said
victim suffered permanent physical mutilation or
disability
10. When the offender knew that the offended party
or victim is pregnant at the time of the
commission of rape
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
Page 52

The presence of any of these circumstances will bring about
the imposition of the maximum penalty of death. However,
death is lifted because of RA 9346 which prohibits the
imposition of death penalty.
In case of rape, PARDON will not extinguish the criminal
liability of the offender. According to Art. 266, pardon will
not extinguish the criminal liability of the offender. It is only
through:
1. The offended woman may pardon the offender
through a subsequent valid marriage, the effect
of which would be the extinction of the
offender’s liability
2. The legal husband maybe pardoned by
forgiveness of the wife provided that the
marriage is not void ab initio
EXCEPTION: In case of MARITAL RAPE. If the legal wife
has forgiven or pardoned the legal husband.
Q: When is there PRESUMPTION OF RESISTANCE?
A: If in the course of the commission of rape, the
said offended party has performed any acts in
any degree amounting to resistance of rape or
when the said offended party cannot give a valid
consent.
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR CHILDREN
ACT (VAWC) – R.A. 9262
Violence against women and their children
- refers to any act or a series of acts committed by any
person against a woman who is his wife, former wife, or
against a woman with whom the person has or had a sexual
or dating relationship, or with whom he has a common child,
or against her child whether legitimate or illegitimate, within
or without the family abode, which result in or is likely to
result in physical, sexual, psychological harm or suffering, or
economic abuse including threats of such acts, battery,
assault, coercion, harassment or arbitrary deprivation of
liberty.
Acts consisting violence against women and children:
A. "Physical Violence" refers to acts that include bodily or
physical harm;
B. "Sexual violence " refers to an act which is sexual in
nature, committed against a woman or her child. It includes,
but is not limited to:
a) rape, sexual harassment, acts of
lasciviousness, treating a woman or her child as
a sex object, making demeaning and sexually
suggestive remarks, physically attacking the
sexual parts of the victim's body, forcing her/him
CRIMINAL LAW 2
to watch obscene publications and indecent
shows or forcing the woman or her child to do
indecent acts and/or make films thereof, forcing
the wife and mistress/lover to live in the conjugal
home or sleep together in the same room with
the abuser;
b) acts causing or attempting to cause the victim
to engage in any sexual activity by force, threat
of force, physical or other harm or threat of
physical or other harm or coercion;
c) Prostituting the woman or child.
C. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or omissions
causing or likely to cause mental or emotional suffering of
the victim such as but not limited to intimidation,
harassment, stalking, damage to property, public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and mental infidelity. It
includes causing or allowing the victim to witness the
physical, sexual or psychological abuse of a member of the
family to which the victim belongs, or to witness
pornography in any form or to witness abusive injury to pets
or to unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the right to
custody and/or visitation of common children.
D. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that make or attempt to
make a woman financially dependent which includes, but is
not limited to the following:
1. withdrawal of financial support or preventing
the victim from engaging in any legitimate
profession, occupation, business or activity,
except in cases wherein the other
spouse/partner objects on valid, serious and
moral grounds as defined in Article 73 of the
Family Code;
2. deprivation or threat of deprivation of financial
resources and the right to the use and
enjoyment of the conjugal, community or
property owned in common;
3. destroying household property;
4. controlling the victims' own money or
properties or solely controlling the conjugal
money or properties.
Acts of Violence Against Women and Their Children.- The
crime of violence against women and their children is
committed through any of the following acts:
(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her
child;
(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child
physical harm;
(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child
physical harm;
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of
imminent physical harm;
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the
woman or her child to engage in conduct which
the woman or her child has the right to desist
from or desist from conduct which the woman or
her child has the right to engage in, or
attempting to restrict or restricting the woman's
or her child's freedom of movement or conduct
by force or threat of force, physical or other
harm or threat of physical or other harm, or
intimidation directed against the woman or child.
This shall include, but not limited to, the
following acts committed with the purpose or
effect of controlling or restricting the woman's or
her child's movement or conduct:
(1) Threatening to deprive or actually
depriving the woman or her child of
custody to her/his family;
(2) Depriving or threatening to
deprive the woman or her children of
financial support legally due her or
her family, or deliberately providing
the woman's children insufficient
financial support;
(3) Depriving or threatening to
deprive the woman or her child of a
legal right;
(4) Preventing the woman in
engaging in any legitimate
profession, occupation, business or
activity or controlling the victim's own
mon4ey or properties, or solely
controlling the conjugal or common
money, or properties;
(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical
harm on oneself for the purpose of controlling
her actions or decisions;
(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman
or her child to engage in any sexual activity
which does not constitute rape, by force or
threat of force, physical harm, or through
intimidation directed against the woman or her
child or her/his immediate family;
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless
conduct, personally or through another, that
alarms or causes substantial emotional or
psychological distress to the woman or her child.
This shall include, but not be limited to, the
following acts:
(1) Stalking or following the woman
or her child in public or private
places;
(2) Peering in the window or
lingering outside the residence of the
woman or her child;
(3) Entering or remaining in the
dwelling or on the property of the
woman or her child against her/his
will;
(4) Destroying the property and
personal belongings or inflicting harm
to animals or pets of the woman or
her child; and
(5) Engaging in any form of
harassment or violence;
(i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public
ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child,
including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and
emotional abuse, and denial of financial support
or custody of minor children of access to the
woman's child/children.
DATING RELATIONSHIP- refers to a situation wherein the
parties live as husband and wife without the benefit of
marriage or are romantically involved over time and on a
continuing basis during the course of the relationship. A
casual acquaintance or ordinary socialization between two
individuals in a business or social context is not a dating
relationship.
Q: The neighbor was aware of the beatings that the
husband has been doing to his wife so the neighbor who
was a witness to all these beatings filed a case against the
husband. Will the case prosper?
A: Yes because under sec. 25, Violation Against
Women and Children (VAWC) is a public
offense.
Q: When does the crime prescribe?
A: If it involves physical abuse; it shall prescribe
after 20 years. If it involves psychological,
sexual, and economical abuse; it shall prescribe
in 10 years.
Q: Let’s say the wife filed a case against the husband for
violation of RA 9262; during the presentation of evidence by
the defense, the husband testified that he was always drunk.
He was alcoholic. That’s why he lost temper and beats the
wife. Will such defense mitigate the criminally guilty
husband? Can he use such defense?
A: Under Sec. 27 it cannot be used because
under Sec. 27; the fact that the husband is
under the influence of alcohol, any illicit drug, or
any other mind-alteringsubstance cannot be
used as defense in VAWC therefore; alcoholism
and drug addiction cannot be a defense in
VAWC.
Battered Women Syndrome (Sec. 26)
- Scientifically defined pattern of
psychological and behavioral symptoms
Page 53

found in the battering relationship as a
result of cumulative abuse.
 Under Sec. 26, it is provided that victim survivors
founded to be suffering from this battered
women syndrome shall be exempted from both
criminal and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements of self-defense.
 The court however shall be held by a testimony
of a psychologist or psychiatrist if the woman is
indeed suffering from the so called battered
women syndrome.
ANTI-HAZING LAW – R.A. 8049
Q: What is hazing?
A: Hazing is an initiation rite or practice which is
used as an admission into membership in any
fraternity or any other organization wherein the
said recruit/neophyte/applicant is placed under
the an embarrassing or humiliating situations
such as forcing him to do menial, silly, and
foolish tasks or services or subjecting him into
psychological or physical injury or crime.
Q: Is hazing totally prohibited in the Philippines?
A: No. Hazing is not totally prohibited in the
Philippines. Hazing is allowed provided that the
following requisites are present:
1. There must be a prior written notice sent
to the head of the school authorities or the
head of the organization 7 days before the
said initiation rites and this prior written
notice shall contain the following:
a. It shall indicate the date of the
said initiation rites which shall not
be more than 3 days.
b. It shall indicate/state the names of
the neophytes or applicants who
will undergo the said hazing or
initiation rites.
c. It shall contain an undertaking
which states that there shall be no
physical violence employed in any
form on these neophyte recruits or
applicants.
2. Upon the receipt of such prior written
notice; the head of the school or
organization shall assign atleast 2
representatives from their school or
organization who must be present during
the time of the said initiation rite or hazing
CRIMINAL LAW 2
and these 2 representatives shall see to it
that no amount of physical violence shall
be employed on any person or any
neophyte or recruit or applicant during the
said hazing or initiation rite.
Q: What if in the course of the said hazing or initiation rite
someone died or suffered physical injuries; who shall be held
criminally liable?
A: If in the course of hazing or initiation rite,
someone died or some suffered any physical
injuries; all of the officers and members of the
said fraternity or organization who are present
and who participated in the said initiation rite
shall be liable as principal.
Q: What if the said initiation rite was conducted or held in a
house of an Aling Nene? Is Aling Nene criminally liable?
A: Aling Nene is liable as an
accomplice if she has knowledge of the conduct
of the said initiation rites and she did not do any
act in order to prevent its occurrence.
 If the said initiation rite took place in the
house of a member or an officer of the said
fraternity or sorority; the parents of the
said members or officers shall be held
liable not as an accomplice but as a
principal if they have such knowledge of
the said conduct of the initiation rites and
they did not perform any act inorder to
prevent its occurrence.
Q: When is there a prima facie evidence of participation?
A: Any person who is present in the said
hazing or initiation rite shall constitute a prima
facie evidence that there is a participation and
shall be held liable as principal.
Q: What if in the said hazing an officer beat an applicant
and he hit the neck thereby causing the death of the said
neophyte/recruit/applicant and so when prosecuted he said:
“I have no intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed”. Can such defense be used so as to mitigate his
criminal liability?
A: No such defense is prohibited defense. Under
RA 8049; the defense that such person has no
intention to commit so grave a wrong as that
committed cannot be used by an accused under
RA 8049.
 Whenever a person hits an
applicant/neophyte, he is already performing
a felonious act therefore he shall be held
criminally liable for all the consequences of
his actions. (Art 4 book 1)
 In the case of Lenny Villa Hazing; Serenoet.
al. considered Art. 4 wherein they ruled
Reckless Imprudence resulting to homicide.
o (I disagree) In Reckless
imprudence, the said person must
be performing an act which is not
felonious but by reason of
negligence or imprudence, a
felony resulted. Therefore, in the
case of Lenny Villa, the ruling shall
be homicide, it shall not be
reckless imprudence.
ANTI- CHILD ABUSE ACT – R.A. 7610
In so far as RA 7610 is concerned; Children are those:
 Below 18 years of age
 Above 18 years of age who does not have the
capacity to fully protect themselves against any
abuse, cruelty or maltreatment because of their
physical or mental disability.
Q: What if two children, A and B were fighting over a gun
toy. The mother of A saw B beating A so A’s mother held B
and gave him a tender slap. However, because B is still a
child, his face became reddish. Based in the medical
certificate, it showed that the said act of slapping was the
cause of the injury sustained by B that made his face
reddish. What crime was committed by the mother of A? Is
the mother liable for Child abuse or is the mother liable for
slight physical injuries?
A: The mother of A is liable for slight
physical injuries only and not for violation of
RA 7610.
Q: What do you mean by Child Abuse?
A: Child abuse refers to the maltreatment,
whether habitual or not, of the child which
includes any of the following:
 Physical or psychological abuse, neglect,
cruelty, sexual abuse and emotional
maltreatment;
 Any act by deeds or words which debases,
degrades or demean the intrinsic worth
and dignity of a child as a human being.
 Unreasonable deprivation of his basic
needs for survival, such as food and
shelter; or
 Failure to immediately give medical
treatment to an injured child resulting in
serious impairment of his growth and
development or in his permanent
incapacity or death.
 Not all acts committed against a child will result
to child abuse. It is necessary that in the said
act, there was this intention to debase, degrade
or demean the intrinsic worth of a child as a
human being.
Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse
What is child prostitution?
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit, or
any other consideration or due to the coercion or influence
of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
Aggravating Circumstances:
(a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
induce child prostitution which include, but are
not limited to, the following:
(1) Acting as a procurer of a child
prostitute;
(2) Inducing a person to be a client
of a child prostitute by means of
written or oral advertisements or
other similar means;
(3) Taking advantage of influence or
relationship to procure a child as
prostitute;
(4) Threatening or using violence
towards a child to engage him as a
prostitute; or
(5) Giving monetary consideration
goods or other pecuniary benefit to a
child with intent to engage such child
in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse of lascivious conduct with a child
exploited in prostitution or subject to other
sexual abuse; Provided, That when the victims is
under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph
3, for rape and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as
amended, the Revised Penal Code, for rape or
lascivious conduct, as the case may be:
Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct
when the victim is under twelve (12) years of
age shall be reclusion temporal in its medium
period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage
therefrom, whether as manager or owner of the
Page 54

establishment where the prostitution takes place,
or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort, place of
entertainment or establishment serving as a
cover or which engages in prostitution in addition
to the activity for which the license has been
issued to said establishment.
When is there attempt to commit child prostitution?
1. when any person who, not being a relative of a
child, is found alone with the said child inside the
room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel,
pension house, apartelle or other similar
establishments, vessel, vehicle or any other
hidden or secluded area under circumstances
which would lead a reasonable person to believe
that the child is about to be exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
2. when any person is receiving services from a
child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage clinic,
health club and other similar establishments.
What is Child Trafficking
Any person who shall engage in trading and dealing with
children including, but not limited to, the act of buying and
selling of a child for money, or for any other consideration,
or barter
Aggravating Circumstance: if the victim is under 12
years of age
Attempt to Commit Child Trafficking. – There is an
attempt to commit child trafficking under Section 7 of this
Act:
(a) When a child travels alone to a foreign
country without valid reason therefor and
without clearance issued by the Department of
Social Welfare and Development or written
permit or justification from the child's parents or
legal guardian;
(b) when the pregnant mother executes an
affidavit of consent for adoption for
consideration;
(c) When a person, agency, establishment or
child-caring institution recruits women or couples
to bear children for the purpose of child
trafficking; or
(d) When a doctor, hospital or clinic official or
employee, nurse, midwife, local civil registrar or
any other person simulates birth for the purpose
of child trafficking; or
(e) When a person engages in the act of finding
children among low-income families, hospitals,
clinics, nurseries, day-care centers, or other
child-during institutions who can be offered for
the purpose of child trafficking.
TITLE NINE
CRIMINAL LAW 2
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONSAL LIBERTY AND
SECURITY (ARTICLES 267 – 292)
ART 267 – KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION
 It is committed when: a private individual kidnaps or
detains another or in any other manner to deprive him
of his liberty when such detention is illegal and it is
committed in any of the following circumstances:
1. If the kidnapping or detention should have
lasted for more than 3 days.
2. If it is committed simulating a public
authority.
3. If threats to kill had been made upon the
person kidnapped or any serious physical
injuries are inflicted upon same.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained is a
minor, female, or a public officer.
 Any of the circumstances present, then we have
serious illegal detention.
Q: Who is the offender in Art 267?
A: He must be a private individual
because if he is a public officer who has
been vested by law to make arrest and he
detains a person; it will be arbitrary
detention under Art 124.
Q: Can a public officer commit kidnapping and serious
illegal detention?
A: Yes if the said public officer has not
been vested by law with the authority to
effect arrest and to detain a person then
the said public officer is acting in his
private capacity. Although a public officer;
since he is acting in his private capacity,
the crime committed is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention under Art 267 and
not arbitrary detention under Art 124.
 The second element requires that the offender kidnaps
or detains another or in any other manner depriving
him of his liberty.
Q: When is there detention?
A: There is detention if the offender
restrains a person or the liberty of another
person. He must be detained, incarcerated.
There must be showing that there is a
restraint on his person or liberty;
otherwise, if there is no restraint on the
person or liberty on the part of the
offended party, it could be any other crime
but not kidnapping and serious illegal
detention.
 The law requires that the kidnapping and detention
must be illegal therefore there must be no reasonable
ground.
Circumstances which will make the crime serious:
1. The kidnapping or detention should have lasted
for more than 3 days;
2. If it is committed by simulating public authority.
 By pretending to be police officers,
pretending to be NBI agents
3. If any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon
the person kidnapped or detained or threats to
kill him are made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained is a minor
(unless the offender is his parents); a female, or
a public officer.
 The presence of any of these circumstances will meet
the crime of Serious Illegal Detention and the absence
of any of the circumstance will make the crime Slight
Illegal Detention under Art 268.
Note that the penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
Circumstances which will qualify the penalty:
1. If the purpose of the kidnapping is to extort
ransom from the victim or from any other
person.
 Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention for Ransom.
Q: What is ransom?
A: A ransom is the money, price, or
any other consideration given or
demanded for the redemption of the
liberty of the person who has been
detained or incarcerated.
PEOPLE VS. MAMANTAK
- While the mother and the daughter where in a
food chain in tondo; the mother lost the said
child.
- she had been looking for the said child for a
year.
- A year and six months thereafter, the said
mother received a call from a woman who
sounded to be a masculine man from Lanaodel
Norte according to the said woman.
- The woman said that she has the child with her
and the woman was demanding P 30,000 in
exchange for the child.
- The said woman, Mamantak and company asked
the mother to go to a certain restaurant.
- The mother went to the said restaurant however
the mother already informed the authorities.
- Upon the exchange of the child and the demand;
Mamantak and co. were arrested by the said
authorities.
- The crime charged was: Kidnapping and Serious
Illegal Detention for Ransom.
- RTC ruled that it is only kidnapping and serious
illegal detention for ransom but not for ransom
because according to the trial court; the amount
given is measly a sum to be considered as
ransom because according to the RTC; it is only
in payment for the board and logging of the child
during the time that she was in the captivity of
the said woman.
- SC ruled that the crime committed is kidnapping
and serious illegal detention for ransom. Even if
it is only 5 centavos; if it was given in exchange
for the liberty of a person who has been
detained, by whose liberty has been restricted; it
is already considered as ransom.
- There is no such thing as small amount in
so far as ransom is concerned.
Q: Let’s say A is indebted to B; B was asking payment
from A, A however said that he has no money until B
got fed up so what B did is he kidnapped and detained
the minor child of A. He then called A telling the same:
“I will only release your minor child the moment you
give your indebtedness in the amount of a million
pesos”. Is the crime committed kidnapping and serious
illegal detention for ransom?
A: Yes it is already kidnapping and
serious illegal detention for ransom
even if the amount being asked by
the kidnapper is the indebtedness of
the father of the said child. Any
amount demanded in exchange for
the liberty of the person detained;
that is already considered as ransom.
2. When the victim is killed or dies as a
consequence of the kidnapping or detention.
 Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention with Homicide.
Page 55

 This is a special complex
crime. Therefore, since it
is a special complex
crime; regardless of the
number of victims killed;
it is still kidnapping and
serious illegal detention
with homicide.
PEOPLE VS. LARANAGA
- There were two kidnap victims and these two
sisters were both killed and raped yet the SC
held that the crime committed was kidnapping
and serious illegal detention with homicide and
rape.
- Despite the fact that there were 2 victims who
were killed and raped because regardless of the
numbers of the victims killed, since it is a special
complex crime; in the eyes of the law there is
only one crime committed so it is only:
Kidnapping and Serious illegal detention with
homicide.
 Note however that it is required that the victim himself
is the one who has been killed. If it is another person;
it will result to a separate and distinct crime because
the law is particular that the person detained/
kidnapped must be the one who is killed or died as a
consequence thereof.
Q: What if A kidnapped the child of B who is his
enemy. The said child is 10 years old and he was
placed in a hideout. The child tried to escape but A
saw him so A fired a shot towards the child which
resulted to the death of the child. What crime is
committed?
A: The crime committed is
kidnapping with serious illegal
detention with homicide.
Q: What if in the same problem; the father learned
about the said kidnapping so the father informed the
NBI agents. The NBI agents were able to track down
the place where the said child was being hidden so the
NBI agents together with the said father went to the
hideout. There was an exchange of gun fires between
A (the kidnapper) and the NBI agents. While there was
an exchange of gun fires, the father saw his child so
the father rushed towards the son, carry the son and
they were able to leave the said hideout. While they
were leaving, A the kidnapper saw them and A the
kidnapper shot the father. What crime/s is/are
committed?
CRIMINAL LAW 2
A: In so far as the minor is
concerned; the crime committed is
Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention even if it did not last for a
period of more than 3 days, the fact
that the offended party is a minor, it
is already kidnapping and serious
illegal detention.
In so far as the father who has been
killed; since he is not the victim of
serious illegal detention, it will
constitute a separate and distinct
crime of: homicide.
Therefore, there are 2 crimes
committed by the said kidnapper.
Kidnapping and serious illegal
detention in so far as the child is
concerned and homicide in so far as
the father who has been killed is
concerned.
3. When the victim is raped.
 Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention with Rape.
 It is necessary that the victim is the one
who has been raped.
 Again; since this is a special complex
crime; regardless of the times that the
victim has been raped. The crime
committed is only kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with rape. There is no
kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with multiple rape.
4. When the victim is subjected to torture or any
dehumanizing acts.
 The presence of any of these circumstances will bring
about the imposition of maximum penalty of death.
Q: A, a 6 yr old child is playing at a playground at
about 5 o’clock in the afternoon while the mother is
hanging clothes. A man (X) gave the child a candy and
the child was so happy. Later, the man again
approached the child and gave the child money and
then the said man invited the child to go with him.
Since the child was so happy because the man was so
good to her; the child went with the said man. At 6
o’clock; the mother came looking for the child but the
child was no longer in the playground. Meanwhile, the
man brought the child to his place. That evening, the
mother kept on looking for the child however they
could not locate the child. In the house of the man,
the child was molested and raped twice. The following
morning, when the mother opened the door of the
house, she saw her child at the door with torn clothes
and blood. So the man was charged with serious illegal
detention with rape. Is the charge correct?
A: The charge is wrong because the
obvious intention of the man is to
rape the child and not to detain the
child therefore the SC said: the crime
committed would be 2 counts of
statutory rape not only a single
indivisible offense of kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape but
2 counts of statutory rape because
the said child is under 12 years of
age and she was raped and molested
twice. Therefore, unless and until
there was an intent to detain on the
part of the offender; it could be any
other crime but not kidnapping and
serious illegal detention.
Q: A saw his enemy walking. He abducted his enemy
and placed him inside the van. The following morning,
the said enemy was found in a vacant lot with 10
gunshot wounds. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is Murder.
Obviously, there was no intent to
detain the offended party. The intent
was to kill him. Therefore the crime
committed is murder and not
kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide or murder as
the case may be.
 Inorder for kidnapping and serious illegal detention to
amount to with rape, murder, with homicide with
physical injuries; it is necessary that there is an intent
to detain and in the course of the said detention, the
victim dies, raped, subjected to torture or other
dehumanizing acts.
 Again, as mentioned earlier; the absence of any of the
circumstances which will make illegal detention serious
will make the crime Slight Illegal Detention under Art
268.
ART 268 – SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION
 Slight illegal detention is committed by: any
person who shall kidnap or detains another or in
any other manner deprive him of his liberty when
the said detention is illegal absent of any of the
circumstances under Art 267; it will only be slight
illegal detention.
Q: What if A was so envious of his neighbor. To teach
the neighbor a lesson, he kidnapped and detained the
said neighbor and placed the said neighbor in a
secluded place in a vacant area one morning.
However, later on, A felt sorry for his neighbor and he
released his neighbor that night. What is the effect in
the criminal liability of the offender A?
A: Under Art 268 (Slight Illegal
Detention); if the offended party has
been released. Such release will be
considered as a privileged mitigating
circumstance because from the
penalty of reclusion temporal, the
penalty would be lowered by one
degree that is prision mayor.
 Note however that this voluntary release of the victim
may only be considered as a privileged mitigating
circumstance the ff requisites must concur:
1. It is necessary the release has
been made within 3 days from
the commencement of the said
kidnapping.
2. It must have been made
without the offender having
attained or accomplished his
purpose.
3. It must have been made before
the institution of the criminal
proceedings against the said
offender.
 If all of these 3 are present then such
voluntary release of the offender will
mitigate the criminal liability of the
said offender.
Q: What if the person kidnapped by A is a public
officer? He is mad with the said public officer and
so he kidnapped the same and detained him in
the morning. In the evening, he immediately
released the public officer because he told
himself that perhaps the NBI would look after
him so he immediately released the public
officer. Will such release mitigate his criminal
liability?
A: No. the fact that the person
kidnapped is a public officer; the
crime would immediately be
kidnapping and serious illegal
detention under 267. And if the crime
is committed under Art 267, no
Page 56

amount of voluntary release will
mitigate the criminal liability of the
offender.
 So if the victim is a minor, a female, or a public
officer; automatically, it will be kidnapping and
serious illegal detention and no amount of
voluntary release will mitigate the offender’s
criminal liability.
ART 269 – UNLAWFUL ARREST
 Unlawful arrest is committed by: any person who
shall arrest or detain another without authority
by law or without reasonable ground therefore
and his main purpose is to deliver him to the
proper authorities.
 The purpose is: to deliver him to the proper
authorities.
Q: A was walking when suddenly he was arrested by
B, a police officer. The police officer said that a case
has to be filed against him. The arrest was made
without warrant of arrest. A was not caught
committing a crime inflagrante delicto and not also an
escapee but he was incarcerated. Thereafter a case
has been filed against him however since there was no
complainant, the fiscal dismissed the case for lack of
probable cause. What crime is committed by the police
officer?
A: The crime committed is unlawful
arrest.
Q: What about the fact that he has been detained
arbitrarily?
A: It is already absorbed because the
intention of the said police officer is
to file a case against him that is; to
deliver him to the proper authorities.
Therefore the arbitrary detention is
merely incidental in the said act of
unlawful arrest.
ART 270 – KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A
MINOR
 Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is
committed by: any person who had been
entrusted with the custody of a minor who shall
deliberately fail to restore the said minor to his
parents or guardians.
Q: Who is the offender?
A: The offender is the person
entrusted with the custody of a minor.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
difference is that under Art 270; if 2. It is against the debtor’s will.
Q: When will the crime arise? the offender is any other person the 3. The purpose is to require or enforce
A: The crime will arise if the offender penalty is reclusion perpetua. But if the payment of a debt.
shall deliberately fail to restore the the offender is the father or the
said minor to his parents or mother, note that the penalty is so  It is committed by: a creditor to shall compel a
guardians. low; only arresto mayor or a fine of debtor to work for him as a household servant or
not more than P300 or both fine and a farm laborer against the will of the said debtor
penalty depending upon the inorder to require or enforce the payment of a
Q: What if A and B has a child and they entrusted the
discretion of the court therefore, debt.
child to X as they will be going for a vacation for a
even the father or the mother can be
week. They told X to deliver the child to them after 7
held liable under Articles 270 and
days. A week after, the husband and wife arrived ART 275 – ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER
271. The only difference is their
home but X failed to deliver the said child. The reason AND ABANDONMENT OF ONES OWN VICTIM
respective penalties.
of X was he was so busy with his work that he forgot ACTS PUNISHED:
that it was already the 7th day from the time that he 1. Failing to render assistance to
has been entrusted with the child. Can he be held any person whom the offender
liable under Art 270? ART 272 – SLAVERY
found in an uninhabited place
A: No because he did not deliberately ELEMENTS: wounded or in danger of dying
fail to restore the said minor to his 1. The offender purchases, sells, when he can render such
parents or guardians. The law kidnaps or detains a human assistance without detriment to
requires deliberate failure. Here, he being. himself, unless such omission
only failed because of negligence or 2. The purpose of the offender is shall constitute a more serious
just because he was so busy. to enslave such human being. offense.
ART 271 – INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS  It is committed by: Any person who shall buy, 2. Failing to render help or
HOME sells, kidnaps or detains a person for the purpose assistance to another whom the
 It is committed by: any person who induces a of enslaving the said person. offender has accidentally
minor to leave the home of his parents,  If the purpose is to engage in immoral traffic; wounded or injured.
guardians, or person entrusted with the custody then the penalty will be qualified.
of the said minor. 3. Failing to deliver a child under
 The crime will arise even if the child hasn’t left ART 273 – EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR 7 years of age whom the
the house of the parents or guardians. Mere ELEMENTS: offender has found abandoned,
inducement with intent to cause damage will to the authorities or to his
1. Offender retains a minor in his
suffice. family, or failing to take him to
service.
2. It is against the will of the a safe place.
Q: A and B husband and wife’s marriage has been minor.
declared a nullity by the court and the custody of their Q: A saw B at Luneta Park. He was wounded and
3. It is under the pretext of
5 yr old child has been given definitely to the mother. bitten by a dog and he was crying for help.
reimbursing himself of a debt
However the father has been given visiting rights. One However, A, instead of helping B left. Is A liable
incurred by an ascendant,
Sunday, the father visited the 5 yr old son and the son under Art 275?
guardian or person entrusted
was brought out by the father. Usually, whenever the A: No because the place is not an
with the custody of such minor.
father takes his son out; he will return the child by uninhabited place. Luneta Park is a
night time. However this time, the father did not bring public place. People come and go
back the child to the house of the mother and so the  It is committed by: Any person who shall detain
a child in his service against the will of the child there. Therefore, A is not liable under
mother demanded the return of her son but the father Art 275 despite the fact that B is
still failed to return their child therefore the mother under the pretext of reimbursing a debt incurred
by the parents, ascendants, guardian or any wounded and dying.
filed a case of Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
person entrusted with the custody of the child.
under Art 270 against the father. Will the case
Uninhabited place
prosper?
- One wherein there’s a remote possibility for the
ART 274 – SERVICES RENDERED UNDER
victim to receive some help.
A: Yes the case will prosper. Under COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBT
Art 271 it is provided that Art 270 ELEMENTS:
Q: What if in the same problem, A found B in a
and 271 can also be committed not 1. Offender compels a debtor to work for
only by strangers but also by the him, either as household servant or forest? So A went hunting in a forest when he
farm laborer. suddenly saw B in the middle of the forest. There
father or the mother. The only
Page 57

was this big trunk of tree on the neck of B and
he cannot move. He was begging for the help of
A. A however left. Later, B was rescued. Can he
file a case in violation of Art 275 against A?
A: Yes because B was found by A in
an uninhabited place and he was
wounded and in danger of dying
because there’s a big trunk of tree on
his neck and there’s no detriment on
the part of A to render assistance but
he failed to render assistance
therefore A may be held liable for
violation of Art 275.
Q: But what if when A found B and he was bitten
by a snake and the snake was still there. B was
asking for help however A did not give help
because there’s a snake. He’s afraid that he
might get bitten by the snake too. Can A be held
liable under Art 275?
A: No because helping B will be
detrimental on his part.
Q: What if A was driving his vehicle when
suddenly his car tripped on a stone so the stone
flew and hit an eye of a bystander. The left eye
bled. Is A liable?
A: No because it is purely accidental;
it is an exempting circumstance. He
was performing an act with due care
and accident happened without fault
or negligence on his part
Q: What if when the left eye of the bystander
bled; A saw him and he knows that the
bystander is his victim. However, instead of
bringing the bystander to the hospital; he
increased his speed and left. Is A criminally liable
this time?
A: Yes.
 For the first act he is not liable
because it is purely accidental but
when he failed to render help or
assistance to his own victim. This
time, he is criminally liable under Art
275.
ART 276 – ABANDONING A MINOR
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender has the custody of the
child.
2. Child is under 7 years of age.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
3. He abandons such child.
4. He has no intent to kill the child
when the latter is abandoned.
 Abandoning a minor is committed by any person
who has been entrusted with the custody of a
child under 7 years of age and he abandons the
said child permanently, deliberately, and
consciously with no intent to kill the said child.
 The penalty will be qualified if DEATH resulted
from the said abandonment or WHEN THE
SAFETY OF THE CHILD HAS BEEN PLACED IN
DANGER.
Q: A woman; an OFW worker who left her newly
born child inside a garbage bin of an
aircraft/airplane and later she has been arrested.
What crime is committed by the said mother?
A: The crime committed is
Abandoning a Minor under Art.
276. The mother is in custody of the
child and she deliberately or and
consciously abandoned her child
without the intent to kill. Obviously
there was no intent to kill because
she could have killed the said child
instead she placed her child inside a
garbage can in the restroom of an
aircraft so there was no intent to kill
therefore the crime committed is
Abandoning a Minor under Art. 276.
ART 277 – ABANDONMENT OF MINOR BY A PERSON
ENTRUSTED WITH HIS CUSTODY; INDIFFERENCE OF
PARENTS
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. Abandonment of a child by a person
entrusted with his custody.
 It is committed by: any
person who, having
entrusted with the living
and education of a minor
shall deliver a minor to a
public institution or other
persons without the
consent of the person who
entrusted such minor to
the care of the offender or,
in his absence, without the
consent of the proper
authorities.
2. Indifference of parents
 It is committed by: any
parent who neglects any of
his children by not giving
them the education which
their station in life requires
and financial capability
permits.
ART 278 – EXPLOITATION OF A CHILD
ACTS PUNISHED:
1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 to
engage in any dangerous feat of
balancing, physical strength or
contortion, the offender being any
person.
2. Employing children under 16 years of
age who are not the children or
descendants of the offender in
exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope
walker, diver, or wild animal tamer,
the offender being an acrobat, etc., or
circus manager or person engaged in
any of said callings.
3. Employing any descendants under 12
years of age in dangerous exhibitions
enumerated on the next preceding
paragraph, the offender being
engaged in any of the said callings.
4. Delivering a child under 16 years of
age gratuitously to any person if any
of the callings enumerated in
paragraph 2, or to any habitual
vagrant or beggar, the offender being
an ascendant, guardian, teacher, or a
person entrusted in any capacity with
the care if such child.
5. Including any child under 16 years of
age to abandon the home of its
ascendants, guardians, curators or
teachers to follow any person
entrusted in any of the callings
mentioned in paragraph 2 or to
accompany any habitual vagrant or
beggar, the offender being any person.
 These acts are considered as exploitation of minors
because these acts endanger the life and safety, the
growth and development of the minors. (usually these
involves circus)
Note: If the delivery of the said child is on the basis of a
consideration, compensation or money, the penalty will be
QUALIFIED.
 Mere act of delivering the child gratuitously under 16
years of age; the crime is already committed.
 The fact that it is with consideration; the penalty will
be qualified.
ART 280 – QUALIFIED TRESSPASS TO DWELLING
 It is committed by: a private individual who
shall enter the dwelling of another against the
will of the latter.
ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a private individual
 It is committed by a private individual
because if it is a public officer; then
the crime is under Art 128 which is:
Violation of Domicile.
2. He enters the dwelling of another
3. Such entrance is against the will of the
latter.
 As discussed under Art. 128;
when the law says against the
will, there must be a prohibition
or opposition from entering
whether express or implied.
 Mere entry without consent will not bring about
QUALIFIED TRESSPASS TO DWELLING.
 If the door is opened therefore it means that anyone
could enter even without the consent of the owner and
the moment he enters he is not liable for qualified
trespass to dwelling because there is no prohibition or
opposition from entering.
 It is necessary that there is an opposition or
prohibition from entering. It can be expressed
prohibition (e.g. A note which states: “Do Not Enter”
or the door was closed and a person knocked so the
owner got up and opened the door but upon seeing
the person he immediately closed the door) or implied
prohibition (e.g. Door is closed even if it is not locked).
ART 281 – OTHER FORMS OF TRESSPASS TO
DWELLING
(TRESSPASS TO PROPERTY)
ELEMENTS
1. Offender enters the closed
premises or the fenced estate
of another.
2. Entrance is made while wither
of them is uninhabited.
3. Prohibition to enter is manifest.
Page 58
 CRIMINAL LAW 2
4. Trespasser has not secured the A: The crime committed is Qualified There are 3 instances or punishable acts under light another with a harm amounting to a crime. But
permission of the owner or the Trespass to Dwelling. The said threats: he did not pursue with the idea involved in his
caretaker thereof. place is a residential place and there 1. Threatening another with a weapon or by threat. And the last one is by orally threatening
is someone who is occupying it even drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in another which does not constitute a crime.
 Trespass to property is committed by: any if at the moment it is not people lawful self-defense. Here, the weapon must not
person who enters a closed premises or fenced because the said husband A and B be discharged. Q: So what if A went to the store and then from the said
estate which at that time is uninhabited and the are on vacations, it is still considered 2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, store he learned that had been spreading negative rumors
prohibition to enter is manifest and the as an inhabited place. Therefore, the with some harm constituting a crime, without against him. And so A was so mad, he was so angry that he
offender enters the said uninhabited place moment anyone enters, the crime persisting in the idea involved in his threat. went to the house of B and he called on B: “B get out of the
without securing the permission of the owner committed is trespass to dwelling and 3. Any threat made in a jest or in the heat of anger house! I will kill you! I will kill you! Get out of the house B!”
or the care taker thereof. not trespass to property. constitutes light threat only. But B did not get out of the house. Instead, it was the son of
4. Orally threatening to do another any harm not B who came out of the house and said: “What do you want
THREE KINDS OF THREATS: constituting a felony. with my father?” A angrily said that, “You let your father
TRESSPASS TO TRESSPASS TO 1. Grave threats come out or I will kill him because he has been spreading
DWELLING PROPERTY 2. Light threats So whether it be grave threats, light threats or other light negative rumors about me.” The son went inside the house
3. Other light threats threats, the essence of threats is INTIMIDATION. It is a and did not come back. The father also did not come out of
Place entered into is a promise of a future wrong, a promise of a future harm. Not the house. And so later, A just left the house. What crime is
Place entered into is
closed premises or a now, but in the future. committed by A? Is it grave threats, light threats or is it
a dwelling and ARTICLE 282 – GRAVE THREATS
fenced estate which is other light threats?
uninhabited. PUNISHABLE ACTS:
uninhabited.
So, since it is a promise of a future wrong, threats may be A: The crime committed is under Article 285 –
Prohibition to enter 1. Threatening another with the infliction upon his
committed either personally or orally or it can also be OTHER LIGHT THREATS. Orally, in the heat of
can either be Prohibition to enter person, honor or property or that of his family of
committed in writing or through an internet chat. If threats anger, he threatened another with a harm
expressed or must be manifest. any wrong amounting to a crime and demanding
are committed through writing or through an internet chat, constituting a crime, but he did not pursue with
implied. money or imposing any other condition even
the penalty is qualified. the idea in his threat. It is only other light
though not unlawful, and the offender attained
Entry was made threats.
Entry was made his purpose.
without securing the
against the will of 2. By making such threat with the infliction upon Q: What is the difference between grave threats, light
permission from the Q: What if, let us say, A saw that B has a new car. It was a
the owner or the his person, honor or property or that of his threats or other light threats?
owner or the care luxury car. He knew that it was smuggled and so he told B:
possessor of the family of any wrong amounting to a crime and
taker of the said “B, if you will not give me P500,000, I will call the Bureau of
said dwelling. demanding money or imposing any other A: In GRAVE THREATS, the threat will always
property. Customs, I will tell ComissionerBiazon right now that your
condition even though not unlawful and without amount or constitute a crime. It may or may not
the offender attaining his purpose. (Elements for be subject to a demand money or condition. The car is smuggled.” What crime if any is committed by A
this act are the same with the first except that offender may or may not attain his purpose. But, against B?
Q: Let’s say there are these town houses. In one the purpose is not attained.) in grave threats, the threats will always amount A: It is LIGHT THREATS. He threatened to
of the town houses, town house A; there’s no 3. By threatening another with the infliction upon or will always constitute to a crime. On the other commit a wrong which does not constitute a
person living at the moment and there was this his person, honor or infliction upon his person, hand, in case of LIGHT THREATS, the threat crime. It is not a crime to inform the Bureau of
sign: FOR RENT/ FOR LEASE. X entered the said honor or property or that of his family of any will not constitute to a crime but it is always and Customs that the car was smuggled and it is
town house. What crime is committed by X? Is it wrong amounting to a crime, the threat not always subject to a demand of money or the subject to a demand of money and the
qualified trespass to dwelling or is it trespass to being subject to any demand of money or imposition of any other condition. imposition of any other condition even though
property? imposition of any condition. not unlawful.
A: It is trespass to property So in LIGHT THREATS, the threat threatened
because it is a closed premises which ARTICLE 283 – LIGHT THREATS Q: What if A, who is the creditor of B, was inside the house
to be committed will not amount to a crime, will
is uninhabited at the time of the of B. He was asking B to pay his indebtedness. B said: “Get
Light threats is committed if a person threatens another with not constitute to a crime, however it is always
entering and he entered without first the commission of any wrong which does not amount to a subject to a demand of money or the imposition out of my house. If I still see you in the afternoon when I
securing the permission of the get back inside my house and if you are still here, I will kill
crime. But it always subject to a demanded money or the of any other condition, even though not
owner/care taker. imposition of any other condition even though not unlawful. unlawful. you.” What crime is committed?
A: In this instance where B told A : “Get out of
Q: What if there is this house which is occupied Art. 284 – BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR Lastly, in case of OTHER LIGHT THREATS, my house. If I still see you in the afternoon
by husband A and B. Husband A and B went for “In all cases falling within the two next preceding when I get back inside my house and if you are
other light threats can be done by threatening
a vacation for a month. So for a month, there is articles, the person making the threats may also be required still here, I will kill you.” The crime committed is
another with a weapon or by drawing such
no person in the said place. X learned that there to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he GRAVE THREATS. There is a promise of a
weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-
is no person in the said place. He entered the shall fail to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to defense or it can be done by orally threatening future wrong to be committed in the afternoon if
said place. What crime is committed? Is it destierro.” A is still there in the house.
another with a harm amounting to a crime in the
qualified trespass to dwelling or trespass to heat of anger. So it is necessary that the
property?
ARTICLE 285 – OTHER LIGHT THREATS offender is in the heat of anger or he threatens

Page 59

Q: What if in the same problem, A was asking B to pay his
indebtedness. B said: “Get out of my house! Otherwise, I will
kill you.” What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is GRAVE COERCION.
The threat is present, direct, personal,
immediate and imminent. Not in the future, but
now direct, personal and immediate.
Note that in case of threats made while committing
physical injuries, threats are absorbed.
ARTICLE 286 – GRAVE COERCIONS
2 way of committing grave coercion:
1. Preventive Coercion
2. Compulsive Coercion
PREVENTIVE COERCION – if a person prevents another, by
means of violence, threat or intimidation, from doing
something not prohibited by law.
COMPULSIVE COERCION – if a person compels another, by
means of violence, threat or intimidation, to do something
against his will, whether it be right or wrong, whether it be
prohibited or not by law.
So, to amount to preventive coercion, the offender by means
of violence prevents someone form doing something which
is not prohibited by law.
Q: Therefore, what if, the offender prevents someone form
doing something which is prohibited by law? So let us say A,
wanted to enter the house of B, against the will of B. X saw
A wanting to enter the house of B against the will of B. X
prevented A. A in his act of wanting to enter the house of B,
is an act prohibited by law, so X prevented A from doing so.
However, A still pursued with the act of entering and so
what X did in order to prevent him is that X boxed A
resulting in his injury of slight physical injuries. What crime
is committed by X?
A: It is not grave coercion. Because X is
preventing A by means of violence and
intimidation, not from doing something which is
prohibited by law but from doing something
which is prohibited by law. Therefore, it is not
grave coercion.
So what crime is committed?
The crime committed is SLIGHT PHYSICAL
INJURIES.
Q: What if in case of grave coercion, it is necessary that the
offender compels another to do something against his will,
regardless of whether it be right or wrong, regardless of
whether it is allowed or prohibited by law. The fact is a
person cannot put the law in his hands and prevent
CRIMINAL LAW 2
someone from doing something so long as it is against his
will.
A: So in case of grave coercion, if the essence of
threats is intimidation or a promise of a future
wrong, a promise of a future injury, the injury or
threat is present, direct, personal, immediate and
imminent. It is NOW. That is why, grave coercion
cannot be committed in writing or through an
internet chatting because it is always personal.
Hence, it is about to take place imminent and
immediate.
Q: So how would you distinguish threat vs. coercion?
THREAT COERCION
The wrong threatened to be
The wrong threatened to be committed is direct,
committed is in the future personal, immediate and
imminent
Cannot be committed in
May be committed in writing
writing or through internet
or through an internet
chatting because it is always
chatting
personal and immediate
It is violence or intimidation
The essence of threat is
amounting serious enough
intimidation
to amount to violence
ARTICLE 287 – LIGHT COERCION
It is committed by a creditor who shall seize anything
belonging to his debtor by means of violence or intimidation
in order to apply the same to the indebtedness.
There is one form of light coercion under Article 287, that is
UNJUST VEXATION. It is a form of light coercion.
UNJUST VEXATION – refers to any human conduct, which
although not capable of producing any material harm or
injury, annoys, vexes or irritates an innocent person.
Example in Book I: a person walking and hit with a lead pipe
on the head.
CASE OF BALEROS, JR.:
There was a UST medical student. There was a
cloth soaked with chemical pressed on her face.
So there was this man, she was awakened with a
man on top of her placing a cloth soaked with
chemical pressed on her face. The charge was
attempted rape. Supreme Court said it was just
UNJUST VEXATION – nang-
iinislangdawyunglalakingyun. So, Supreme Court
said it is a human conduct which annoys or
vexes the said female medical student.
Art. 288 – OTHER SIMILAR COERCIONS;
(COMPULSORY PURCHASE OF MERCHANDISE AND
PAYMENT OF WAGES BY MEANS OF TOKENS)
Other light coercion is committed by forcing or compelling
directly or indirectly or knowingly permitting the forcing or
compelling any employee or laborer to buy merchandise or
commodities from the said employer. And lastly, by paying
the wages due to the laborer or employees by any tokens or
object other than the legal tender currency of the Philippines
unless to be requested by the said employee or laborer.
So it is more on LABOR – other light coercion.
Q: What if a person, A threatened to kill B. and so B filed a
case of grave threats against A. The case was filed before
the court. Upon the filing of the court, what bail, if any,
should the court impose on A in order to insure that A will
not make good the said threat?
A: Under Article 284, we have BOND FOR
GOOD BEHAVIOR. Bond for good behavior is a
bail which is required by the court to be posted
by any accused only in the crimes of grave
threats and other light threats. In the crimes of
grave threats or other light threats, the court
would allow or would require an accused to file
or to post a bond for good behavior in order to
ensure that he will not make good the said
threat. If the said accused failed to pay or post
the said bond for good behavior, then the
penalty hat would be imposed is destierro in
order to ensure that he will not make good the
said threat.
REVELATION OF SECRETS:
ARTICLE 290 – DISCOVERING SECRETS THROUGH
SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE
We have seizure of correspondence in order to discover the
secrets of another.
This is committed by any person who shall seize any
correspondence of another in order to discover the secret of
any person.
NOTE: In case of seizure of correspondence in order to
discover the secrets of another, DAMAGE is not element.
Likewise, REVELATION is not an element.
The mere act of seizing the correspondence of
another with the intention to discover the secrets, the
crime is already consummated. It is not necessary that the
secret be revealed, it is not necessary that there be damage
on the part of the offended party.
ARTICLE 291 – REVEALING SECRETS WITH THE
ABUSE OF OFFICE
This is committed by a manager or by an employee or by a
servant who reveals the secrets of his principal or master
learned by him in such capacity.
It is the REVELATION OF SECRETS which will
consummate the crime, not merely discovery but
revelation of the said secrets. Again, damage is not an
element. It is not necessary that the offended party be
prejudiced or damaged.
ARTICLE 292 – REVELATION OF INDUSTRIAL
SECRETS
This is committed by any person in charge, employee or
workman of a manufacturing or industrial establishment who
shall learn and discover the secrets of the industry and shall
reveal the same to the prejudice of the owner thereof.
In case of revelation of industrial secrets, mere revelation
of those secrets will not suffice. There must be
DAMAGE OR PREJUDICE CAUSED TO THE OFFENDED
PARTY.
The law requires to the prejudice of the owner thereof.
RA 92400 - ANTI-WARTAPPING LAW
The following acts are punishable:
1.) It shall be unlawful for any person, without
securing the consent of all the parties to
any private communication or spoken
word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using
any other device or arrangement to
secretly overhear, intercept or record such
private communication or spoken word by
using a device commonly known as a
Dictaphone or dictagraph, walkie talkie,
tape recorder, or other similar devices.
2.) Knowingly possessing any tape record,
wire record, disc record, or any other such
record, or copies thereof, of these private
communication or spoken word.
3.) Replaying these any tape record, wire
record, disc record to another person.
4.) Communicating the contents of the said
tape record, wire record or disc record, in
writing or verbally to another person.
5.) Furnishing transcriptions of these tape
record, wire record or disc record whether
totally or partially to any other person.
What is foremost prohibited is the act of tapping, recording
or intercepting any private communication or spoken word
without the consent of all the parties. Without being
authorized by all the parties to the said private
communication or spoken word.
Page 60

Q: So what if A told B to come inside his room and when B
entered the room, A started scolding B. In scolding B, A said
scandalous remarks against B. Unknown to A, B was tape
recording the private conversation between them. Can B
later use the said tape recording in order to file a case of
defamation or slander against A?
A: NO. Because the said act of tape recording
without being authorized by all the parties to a
private communication or spoken word is
inadmissible in any judicial, quasi-judicial,
legislative or administrative proceedings or
investigation.
The ONLY EXCEPTION is when a police officer or peace
officer is authorized by written order of the court to listen to,
intercept or record any communication in crimes involving
treason, espionage, inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals, piracy, mutiny, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal
to commit rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition
and kidnapping. Only in these instances and provided that
the said peace officer is authorized by a written order
coming from the court may he be allowed to intercept, listen
to or record the private communication or spoken word.
TITLE TEN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Art. 293 – Who are guilty of robbery?
Robbery is committed by any person, who with
intent to gain shall take any personal property belonging to
another by means of violence against, or intimidation of any
person, or using force upon anything.
Elements of Robbery:
1. That the offender unlawfully takes a personal
property
2. That the said personal property belongs to
another person
3. There must be intent to gain in the taking of the
said property
4. That the said taking is either by means of
violence against, or intimidation of any person,
or using force upon anything
5.
Unlawful taking – is the deprivation of the offended party of
his personal property with an element of permanency. So, it
is necessary that in taking the personal property from
another person, there is an element of permanency.
The law requires that the property must be personal
property, not real property because real property is under
Article 312 – Occupation of real property.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
The personal property must belong to another person
because if it do not belong to another person it cannot be
said that there is intent to gain on the part of the offender.
The law requires that there must be intent to gain.
Intent to gain is an internal state of mind. So how can you
prove intent to gain? The law presumes there is intent to
gain the moment there is taking of the personal property of
another person. Intent to gain is presumed by law.
Two ways of committing robbery:
1.) Robbery with violence against or intimidation
(Art.294)
2.) Robbery with the use of force upon things
(Art.299)
The value of the property taken in robbery with violence
against or intimidation against people is immaterial because
the penalty is dependent on the violence used by the
offender against the offended party. However, in Robbery
with the use of force upon things (Art.299), the value of the
property taken is material because the penalty is dependent
on the value of the property taken.
Art.294 - Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
The following acts constitute robbery with violence against
or intimidation of persons:
1.) When by reason or on occasion of the robbery,
the crime of homicide is committed.
2.) When robbery is accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson.
3.) When by reason or on occasion of such robbery,
any of the physical injuries resulting in insanity,
imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted.
4.) When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any
of the physical injuries resulting in the loss of the
use of speech or the power to hear or to smell,
or the loss of an eye, a hand, foot, an arm, or a
leg or the loss of the use of any such member or
incapacity to go to work in which the injured
person is thereto habitually engaged is inflicted.
5.) If violence or intimidation employed in the
commission of the robbery is carried to a degree
clearly unnecessary for the commission of the
crime
6.) When in the course of its execution, the offender
shall have inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery
any of the physical injuries in consequence of
which the person injured becomes deformed or
loses any other member of his body or loses the
use thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for
the performance of the work in which he is
habitually engaged for more than 90 days or the
person injured becomes ill or incapacitated for
labor for more than 30 days
7.) If violence employed by the offender does not
cause any of the serious physical injuries defined
in Article 263, or if the offender employs
intimidation only.
In other words, we have robbery with homicide, robbery
with rape, robbery with intentional mutilation, robbery with
arson, robbery with serious physical injuries, robbery with
unnecessary violence and lastly, simple robbery.
Robbery with Homicide
Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime or a
composite crime or a single indivisible offense. In reality
two or more crimes have been committed, the robbery and
the homicide yet, in the eyes of the law only one crime, a
single indivisible offense of robbery with homicide.
Q: When should the killing or the homicide take place?
A: In case of robbery with homicide, for as long
as the original intent of the offender, for as long original
criminal design is to commit robbery or to rob, the killing
may take place before, during or after the said robbery
provided, that the original intent/ original criminal design is
to commit robbery or to rob.
Since it is a special complex crime, regardless
of the number of the persons killed there is only a single
indivisible offense of robbery with homicide. Even if the
killing is an unintentional killing or accidental killing still, it is
a single indivisible offense of robbery with homicide. Even if
the victim of the said robbery is different from the victim of
the killing, it is still robbery with homicide. There lies the
difference between Article 294 and Article 267.
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide, the
victim of the kidnapping and serious illegal detention must
be the victim in the said killing to amount to kidnapping and
serious illegal detention. But in case of robbery with
homicide, regardless of who the offended party may be,
whether the offended party in robbery is different from the
offended party in the killing it is still robbery with homicide.
Q: So let us say, A entered the house of B in order to
commit robbery. He took the valuables therein and after
taking the jewelries suddenly the box of jewelries fell so X
was awaken. When A saw that X was awaken, A shot X. X
died. What crime is committed?
A: Robbery with homicide. Because by reason or
on occasion of robbery, homicide was
committed.
Q: What if in the same problem, when X was awaken, the
robber, A, shot X. The wife was also awaken and so the wife
started shouting so A also shot the wife. The wife also
died. What crime/s is committed?
A: Two persons are killed still, the crime
committed is still a single indivisible offense of
robbery with homicide. All the killings are
merged into a composite intergraded whole that
is a single indivisible offense of robbery with
homicide.
Q: What if let us say, in the same problem, so A went to the
house of X and took the jewelries. He was on his way out
when he bumped the door and so the owner of the house
was awaken. So A went down and saw the back of the
robber. And so he chased the robber. In the garden, A tried
to shoot the owner of the house and so A jumped on him
and they struggled for the possession of the gun. In the
course of struggle for the possession of the gun, the gun
fired hitting a ballot vendor passing by. The ballot vendor
died. What crime/s is committed?
A: The crime committed is still the single
indivisible offense of robber with homicide.
Since it is a special complex crime, even if the
victim of the robbery is different from the victim
of the homicide, it is still robbery with homicide.
Even if it is only accidental killing it is still
robbery with homicide so long as the killing is by
reason or on occasion of the said robbery.
Q: So what if, A, B, and C entered the house of X in order to
commit robbery. They have already taken the valuables
when the owner of the house was awaken. It was only A
who saw the owner of the house was awaken and so A shot
X and killed him. Are they all liable for robbery with
In
homicide or only A who shot X?
A: All of them are criminally liable for the crime
of robbery with homicide. Under Article 8, that in case of an
express or direct conspiracy, the conspirators are liable only
for the crime agreed upon. The crime agreed is to commit
robbery but how come all of them are liable for homicide?
Because it falls under the exception that when the resulting
felony is a special complex crime because you cannot
separate or divide a special complex crime. Therefore, even
if it was only A who killed the victim, even if their agreement
is only to commit robbery, because homicide or the killing
was committed by reason or on occasion of the said
robbery, all of them are criminally liable for the crime of
robbery with homicide.
The only exception to the exception is when B
and C performed acts in order to prevent A from committing
the homicide.
CASE OF PEOPLE vs CABBAB
Page 61

Let us say, A and B versus X, Y and Z. A and B
committed robbery and upon leaving the said place, X and Y
saw A and B and shot them and made gun fires. Z, a police
officer dove into the canal in order to prevent himself from
being killed. A and B went directly to X and Y and killed
them both. And thereafter, A and B took the winnings.
Based on the circumstances or facts the fiscal filed the
following cases before the RTC, robbery, double murder, and
attempted murder, robbery because of the taking of the
winnings, double murder for the death of X and Y and
attempted murder as to the police officer who dove into the
canal. What is the ruling of the RTC? It said wrong ka fiscal!
The crime is robbery with double homicide and attempted
murder. Then it went to appeal on the Court of Appeals,
sabiniya wrong fiscal! Wrong ka din RTC! The crime
committed is robbery with homicide and attempted murder.
Then it went up to the Supreme Court. Sc said, malika fiscal!
Mali ka RTC! Mali kadn CA! Mali kayo lahat! The only crime
committed is the single indivisible crime of robbery with
homicide. Because all the acts are considered absorbed in
the crime of robbery with homicide despite the fact that two
persons were killed, despite the fact that one person was
greatly injured, all these circumstances are merged into a
composite integrated whole that is single indivisible offense
of robbery with homicide.
Robbery with rape
Just like robbery with homicide, is also a special
complex crime or a single indivisible offense. So, for as long
as the intention of the offender is to commit robbery, rape
may be committed before, during or after the commission of
robbery. Since it is a special complex crime, regardless of
the number of times the victim was raped, the crime
committed is only robbery with rape. There is no such crime
as robbery with multiple rapes. There is only robbery with
rape.
Q: So a woman was walking on her way home and because
it was pay day here comes X. X dragged the woman in a
dark place and took the bag and took the money inside it.
And then he found the woman attractive so he raped the
woman not once but twice. What crime/s is committed?
A: X committed the crime of robbery with rape
regardless of the times the woman was raped.
CASE OF PEOPLE vs SUYU
Two persons, boyfriend and girlfriend, they were
having snack and saw the shadow of 3 men. And these 3
men were pushing the truck trying to open the door. They
took their valuables and the boyfriend hurriedly left the
girlfriend allegedly to ask help to the police. And so the
girlfriend was alone with the three men and they dragged
her into a nipa hut and there she was raped by the
mastermind, Suyu. Not only she was raped by Suyu but also
CRIMINAL LAW 2
Cainglet while, the other two was outside serving as
lookouts. So the said woman, Clarissa, was raped by two
persons and she was raped three times. Suyu and Cainglet
raped her by carnal knowledge. Not only that, Cainglet also
inserted two fingers to her genitals therefore, he also
committed rape by sexual assault. What crimes are
committed by the 4 persons? What crime/s they should be
criminally liable of?
Supreme Court said, they are all liable for the
single indivisible offense of Robbery with Rape. Regardless
of the fact that two persons raped the victim, regardless of
the fact that the victim was raped 3 times, regardless of the
fact that there is two nature of rape committed against the
victim (rape by carnal knowledge and rape by sexual
assault), still the crime committed is the single indivisible
offense of robbery with rape.
There are four conspirators but not all of them
raped the victim. Yet they are all liable for robbery with rape
because the two lookouts did not perform acts in order to
prevent the consummation of the said rape. So since it is a
special complex crime and a single indivisible offense all the
other rapes are merged into a composite integrated whole
that is robbery with rape.
The same theory applies in case of robbery with intentional
mutilation and robbery with arson.
Robbery with intentional mutilation, arson and
serious physical injuries
For as long as the intent or the criminal design of
the offender is to commit robbery, the intentional mutilation,
arson or serious physical injuries may be committed before,
during or after the commission of the said robbery.
Q: So let say A and B saw X walking. It was pay day and so
A and B announced a holdup. They were both armed with
guns and so what X did since they were both armed with
guns, he gave the bag. By reason thereof, A and B already
left the place. While A and B was waiting for a ride in a
waiting shed, A and B divided the things they took from X.
So A told B, this is your share. B said, why is my share
smaller than your share?! And so B got and he shot A. A
died. What is the crime committed?
A: The crime committed is robbery with homicide
because even if it was also an offender who was
killed, the killing took place by reason of the said
robbery.
Q: So what if in the same problem, so A and B were already
dividing the things they took and B said, wait why is my
share so small? B got mad shot A but A did not die. A
suffered serious physical injuries. What crime is committed?
A: The crime committed is robbery with serious
physical injuries.
Q: What if in the same problem, A were dividing the things
and B said, why is my share so small compared to your
share? B got mad and what he did was took an ice pick from
his pocket and stab A in his face and placed the ice pick in
A’s face. A suffered serious physical injuries and deformity in
his face. It caused physical ugliness to A therefore there is
deformity. What crime/s is committed?
A: This time the crime committed by B is not the
single indivisible crime of robbery with serious
physical injuries but two crimes, Robbery and
Serious physical injuries under paragraph 3 of
Article 263 because of the deformity. Why?
Because under paragraph 4 of Article 294, when
the serious physical injury that resulted is a
deformity or the loss of any of the member of his
body, the law requires that the said physical
injury or deformity must be inflicted because of
the execution of a robbery and to a person not
responsible to the commission of the crime of
robbery. Here, the deformity was inflicted after
the robbery, not before. Not only that. The
deformity was inflicted on A, the person
responsible for the commission of the robbery.
If the serious physical injuries inflicted resulted to a
deformity or to a loss of any of the member of his body or
loss of the use of any such member or incapacity to go to
work in which the injured person is thereto habitually
engaged for more than 90 days, under paragraph 3 of
Article 263, it is required that in order to amount to a single
indivisible offense the said deformity or serious physical
injury must be inflicted in the course of the execution of the
robbery and to a person not responsible to the commission
of the robbery. Otherwise, it will bring about a separate and
distinct crime.
Title Nine
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND
SECURITY
Chapter One
CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
Section One – Illegal Detention
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
 It is committed when any private individual who
kidnaps or detains another, or in any other
manner deprive him of his liberty. When such
detention is illegal or committed in any of the
following circumstances:
a. If the kidnapping or detention shall
have lasted more than three days;
b. If it shall have been committed
simulating public authority;
c. If any serious physical injuries shall
have been inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained; or if threats
to kill him shall have been made;
d. If the person kidnapped or detained
shall be a minor, female or a public
officer.
- The crime committed is serious illegal
detention.
1st Element
 Who is the offender?
- He must be a private individual because if
he is a public officer vested with the power
to effect arrest and detain a person, he will
be liable for arbitrary detention under
Article 124.
 Can a public officer also commit kidnapping and
serious illegal detention?
- Yes. If said public officer has not been
vested by law with the authority to effect
arrest and detain a person, then said
person is acting in his private capacity.
Since he is acting in his private capacity
then he is liable for kidnapping and serious
illegal detention and not under Article 124
which is arbitrary detention.
2nd Element
 When is there detention?
- There is detention if the offender detains
the person or liberty of another person. He
must be detained or incarcerated, there
must be showing that there was restraint
in his person or liberty. Otherwise, if there
is no restraint in his person or liberty, it
could be any other crime but not
kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
- The law requires that detention must be
illegal. Therefore, there should be no
reasonable ground thereof.
 Circumstances that will make the crime serious
illegal detention:
a. The kidnapping or detention shall
have lasted more than three days;
b. It shall have been committed
simulating public authority;
Page 62

- By pretending to be a public
officer, pretending to be NBI
agent.
c. Any serious physical injuries shall
have been inflicted upon the person
kidnapped or detained; or if threats
to kill him shall have been made;
d. The person kidnapped or detained
shall be a minor, female or public
officer.
 The presence of any of these circumstances will
make the crime serious illegal detention and the
absence of any of these circumstances will make
the crime slight illegal detention under Article
268.
 Note that the penalty is reclusion perpetua to
death. What then are the circumstances that will
qualify the penalty that will make the institution
of the maximum penalty of death?
- The circumstances are the following:
a. If the purpose of the kidnapping or
detention was to extort ransom from
the victim or any other person.
Therefore, we have kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with
ransom.
b. If the person kidnapped or detained
died or is killed as a consequence of
kidnapping and serious illegal
detention, we have kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with
homicide.
c. If the person kidnapped or detained
is raped, we have kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with
rape.
d. If person kidnapped or detained is
subjected to torture or other
dehumanizing acts.
 Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
with Ransom
- Ransom
- Any money, price or consideration given
or demanded as a redemption for the
liberty of the person detained. Any money,
price or consideration which is given in
exchange for the liberty of the person
detained or incarcerated is considered
ransom.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
- People vs. Mamantak
While the mother and her daughter were in
a food chain in Tondo, the mother lost her
daughter. She searched for her daughter
over a year. A year and 6 months
thereafter, she received a phone call from
a Muslim woman claiming that she has her
daughter and she was demanding P30,000
in exchange of her child. The woman
instructed the mother to go to a
restaurant, where the exchange will take
place. However, the mother already
reported the call to the police. When they
were in the restaurant and while the
exchange was taking place, the police
apprehended Mamantak. The crime
charged was kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with ransom. The RTC convicted
the accused, however for kidnapping and
serious illegal detention but not for
ransom. According to the RTC, the amount
given, 30 thousand pesos, is such a small
amount to be considered ransom.
According to the RTC it is merely a
payment for the board and lodging of the
child during the child was held by
Mamantak.
- SC: The crime committed is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with ransom. Kahit
5 pesos pa yan if it was given or demanded
as a redemption for the liberty of the
person detained it is already considered as
ransom. There is no such thing as small
amount in so far as ransom is concerned.
Example
 A was indebted to B. B was asking for the
payment, however A failed to pay. B got fed up
therefore he kidnapped the minor child of A. B
called A telling him that he would only release
his child if he pays his indebtedness of half a
million. Is the crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with ransom committed?
- Yes, it is already kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with ransom even if the
amount being asked by the kidnapper is
the indebtedness of the father of the
kidnapped child. So any amount given or
demanded for the release of the person
detained, that is already considered
ransom.
 Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
with Homicide
- It is a special complex crime. Therefore,
since it is a special complex crime,
regardless of the number of the victims, it
is still kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with murder or homicide.
- People vs. Laranaga
- There were 2 kidnapped victims. They
were sisters kidnapped and raped,
thereafter killed. SC held that even though
there were 2 victims the crime committed
is kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with homicide.
- NOTE: It is the victim himself or herself
who died. If it is another person, it is
another separate and distinct crime
Example:
because the law is particular that the victim
 A, is a 6 year old child, while playing in the
himself is the one that is killed or dies as
consequence thereof.
Example:
 A kidnapped the child of B who is his enemy.
Child is 10 years old. While being held, the child
tried to escape. A caught the child trying to
escape. He shot the child. What was the crime
committed?
- The crime committed was kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with homicide
 But what if in the same problem, the father told
the NBI agents about the kidnapping. The agents
were ale to track down than place where the
child was being kept. They went over the hide
out and exchange of gunfire took place. The
father saw that his child and took him away.
While they were escaping the kidnapper saw
them and shot the father. What crime or crimes
was or were committed?
- In so far as the minor is concerned, the
crime committed is kidnapping and serious
illegal detention. Even if it has not lasted
for a period of more than three day, the
fact that the victim is a minor, the crime
committed is kidnapping and serious illegal
detention.
- In so far as the father is concerned, since
he is not the victim of the crime of
kidnapping, a separate crime of homicide
should be filed.
- Therefore, there are 2 crimes committed
by said kidnapper: kidnapping and serious
illegal detention, in so far as the minor is
concerned and homicide in so far as the
father is concerned.
 NOTE: The same is true for kidnapping and
serious illegal detention with rape. It is necessary
that the victim is the one raped and since it is
again a special complex crime regardless of the
number of times that the victim was raped the
crime committed is only kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with rape. There is no such
crime as kidnapping and serious illegal detention
with multiple rapes. Only kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with rape and so with
kidnapping and serious illegal detention with
physical injuries which is also a special complex
crime.
playground was approached by X and gave her
candy. Meanwhile, the mother was busy hanging
their clothes. After a while, X came back and this
time gave the child money. The child was so
happy and easily persuaded to go with X. The
mother searched for her daughter but she was
nowhere to be found. X brought the child in his
house and molested her twice. The following
day, the mother found her child in their house
with torn and blooded clothes. The crime
charged was kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with rape. Is the crime charged
proper?
- No, the charge is wrong because the
obvious intention is to rape the child and
not to detain her. SC held that the man is
guilty of 2 counts of statutory rape because
the child is below 12 years of age and she
was molested twice. Therefore, unless and
until there was an intention to detain the
child on the part of the offender, it could
be any other crime but not kidnapping and
serious illegal detention.
 A saw his enemy walking. He abducted his
enemy and placed him in a vacant lot. The
following morning, his enemy was found in a
vacant lot dead with 10 gun shot wounds. The
crime committed is murder. Obviously there was
no intent to detain the said offended party. The
intent was to kill him. Therefore, the proper
charge is murder and not kidnapping and serious
illegal detention with murder or homicide as the
case maybe. In order to amount to kidnapping
Page 63

and serious illegal detention with homicide or
murder or physical injuries, it is necessary that
there must be intent to detain and in the course
of such detention the victim is killed or raped or
subjected to torture or other dehumanizing acts.
 If any of the circumstances is absent it will only
be slight illegal detention under article 268.
Art. 268. Slight illegal detention.
Elements:
1. Offender is a private individual
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other
manner deprive him of his liberty
3. The act of kidnapping or detention is illegal
4. Committed absent any of the circumstances
under Art. 267
Example
 A, was envious of his neighbor. He kidnapped
said neighbor in the morning and placed him in a
secluded place. A realized that he might be
imprisoned, so he decided to release his
neighbor in the evening. What is the effect if
such release to the criminal liability of A?
- Under Article 268, slight illegal detention, it
is provided that if the victim is released,
such release shall be considered as a
privilege mitigating circumstance because
from the penalty of reclusion temporal, the
penalty will be lowered by one degree
which is prision mayor. However, in order
that this voluntary release maybe
considered a privilege mitigating
circumstance these are the requisites:
a. The release must be within three
days from the commencement of
the detention;
b. It must be made without having
attained the purpose intended;
c. It must be made before the
institution of criminal proceedings
against him.
- If all these are present, then such
voluntary release of the offender will
mitigate the criminal liability of said
offender.
 A kidnapped a public officer in the morning. In
the evening he released the said public officer.
Will such release mitigate the criminal liability of
A?
- No. Because the fact that the person
CRIMINAL LAW 2
kidnapped is a public officer the crime
committed is already kidnapping and
serious illegal detention under Article 267.
If the crime committed is Article 267, no
amount of voluntary release will mitigate
the criminal liability of the offender.
 NOTE: If the victim is a minor, female, public
officer automatically the crime committed is a
kidnapping and serious illegal detention under
Article 267 and no amount of voluntary release
will mitigate the criminal liability of the offender.
Art. 269. Unlawful arrest.
Elements:
1. Offender arrests or detains another person
2. The purpose of the offender is to deliver him to
the proper authorities
3. The arrest or detention is not authorized by law
or there is no reasonable ground therefor.
Example:
 A was walking when he was arrested by B a
police officer. The arrest was without warrant
but the same was not executed under any of the
circumstances for a valid warrantless arrest.
Because there were no complainants and
evidence presented, the fiscal dismissed the
case. What is the proper crime to be charged?
- The public officer is guilty of unlawful
arrest. The fact that he has been detained
is already absorbed because the intention
of the said public officer is to file a case
against him, that is, to deliver him to the
proper authorities. Therefore the arbitrary
detention is absorbed in unlawful arrest.
Section Two – Kidnapping of minors
Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
Elements:
1. Offender is any person entrusted with the
custody of a minor
2. He deliberately fails to restore the minor to his
parents or guardians or any person charged with
the custody of the minor
Example
 A and B has a child who was entrusted to X
because they were going on vacation for a week.
They instructed X to return the child after 7
days. When they came back home X failed to
return the child. X was so busy and she forgot to
return the child. Can X be charged with
kidnapping under Article 270?
- No because he did not deliberately fail to Art. 272. Slavery
restore the child to his parents or guardian. Elements:
The law requires deliberately. Here he 1. Offender is any person who shall purchase, sell,
failed to return the child because of his kidnap or detain a human being
negligence. He was so busy. 2. The purpose is to enslave the human being
Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home  If the purpose is to engage in some immoral
Elements: traffic, the penalty shall be qualified.
1. That a minor is living in the home of his parents
or guardian or the person entrusted with his Art. 273. Exploitation of child labor
custody
Elements:
2. The offender induces said minor to abandon
1. Offender is any person who retains a minor in his
such home
service
2. It is against the will of the minor
 It is committed by any person who shall induce a
3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of
minor to abandon the home of his parent or
a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or
guardians or the persons entrusted with his
person entrusted with the custody of a minor
custody.
Art. 274. Services rendered under compulsion in
 The crime will arise even if the child has not left
payment of debt
the house of his parents or guardian. Mere
Elements:
inducement with intent to cause damage will
suffice. 1. Offender is a creditor who compels a debtor to
Example work for him, either as household or farm laborer
2. It is against the debtor’s will
 A and B, husband and wife, whose marriage has
been declared a nullity by the court. The custody 3. The purpose is to require or enforce the payment
of their child who is 5 years of age is given to of a debt
the mother as provided by law. The father was
granted visitation rights. One Sunday the father Chapter Two
visited the 5 years old son and he brought him CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
out. Usually, he would return the child by
nighttime. However, the father did not bring Section One – Abandonment of helpless persons and
back the child to his mother’s house. The mother Exploitation of minors
demanded the return of the child but the father
still failed to return the child. Therefore the
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and
mother filed a case of kidnapping under article
abandonment of one's own victim
270 against the father. Will the case prosper?
 3 acts punished:
- Yes the case will prosper. Under article 271 it is
provided that the father or the mother of the
minor may commit any of the crimes covered by 1) Any one who shall fail to render assistance
the two preceding articles. The only difference is to any person whom he shall find in an
that in case kidnapping and failure to return a uninhabited place wounded or in danger of
minor under Art. 270, the penalty of reclusion dying, when he can render such assistance
perpetua shall be imposed upon any other without detriment to himself, unless such
omission shall constitute a more serious
person but if it shall be the father or the mother
of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor offense;
Elements:
or a fine or both under the discretion of the
court. Therefore, even the mother or the father 1. The place is not inhabited
can be criminally liable under articles 270 and 2. The accused found there is a
271. The only difference is in the penalty person wounded or in danger
of dying
Section Three – Slavery and Servitude 3. The accused can render
assistance w/out detriment to
himself
Page 64

4. The accused fails to render
assistance
2) Anyone who shall fail to help or render
assistance to another whom he has
accidentally wounded or injured;
3) Anyone who, having found an abandoned
child under seven years of age, shall fail to
deliver said child to the authorities or to his
family, or shall fail to take him to a safe
place.
Example
 A saw B at Luneta Park. He was wounded, he
was bitten by a dog. He was crying for help,
instead of helping B, A took off. Is he liable
under Article 275?
- No because Luneta park is not an
uninhabited place. Uninhabited place is one
where there is remote possibility for the
victim to receive some help. Luneta Park is
a public place. Therefore, A cannot be held
liable under Article 275.
 1st Act
Example
 A was hunting in the forest. He found B in the
middle of the forest. There was a big trunk of a
tree in his neck; thus, B cannot move. He was
begging for help. A however just left. B
thereafter was rescued. Can A be held liable
under Article 275?
- Yes because A found B in an uninhabited
place, the forest. He was wounded, he was
in danger of dying because there was a big
trunk in his neck. There was no detriment
on the part of A if he renders assistance
but he failed to render the same. Therefore
he is liable under Article 275.
 But what if A found B. B was bitten by a snake
and it was still there. B was asking for help but A
did not help him because he was afraid that the
snake too might bite him. Can A be held liable
under Article 275?
- No, because helping B would be
detrimental on his part.
 2nd Act
Example
 A was driving his car when suddenly it tripped
over a stone. The stone flew, hitting the left eye
CRIMINAL LAW 2
of a bystander. Is A liable?
- No because it was purely accidental. It is
an exempting circumstance. he was
performing a lawful act with due care. An
incident happened without fault or accident
on his part.
 However, when the left eye of the bystander
bled, he saw it, instead of bringing the person to
the hospital, he sped up. Is A criminally liable?
- Yes, A is criminally liable. When he failed to
render assistance to his victim, he is
criminally liable under Article 275.
Art. 276. Abandoning a minor
Elements:
1. Offender is any person who has custody of a
child
2. The child is under 7 years of age
3. That he permanently, deliberately and
consciously abandons such child
4. That he has no intent to kill the child when the
latter is abandoned
 Penalty will be qualifiedif –
a. death of the minor shall result by reason of
such abandonment or
b. the safety of the child has been placed in
danger.
Art. 277. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted
with his custody; indifference of parents
 2 acts punished:
1) Abandonment of a child by a person
entrusted with the custody
Elements:
1. The offender is any person who
has charge of the rearing or
education of a minor
2. The he deliver said minor to a
public institution or other
persons
3. That it is without the consent of
the one who entrusted such
child to his care or in the
absence of the latter, without
the consent of the proper
authorities
2) Indifference of Parents
Elements:
1. The offender is a parent
2. The he neglects his children by
not giving them the education
3. That his station in life requires
such education and financial
conditions permits it
Art. 278. Exploitation of minors.
 The following are the acts punished:
1) Any person who shall cause any boy
or girl under sixteen years of age to
perform any dangerous feat of
balancing, physical strength, or
contortion;
2) Any person who, being an acrobat,
gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-
animal tamer or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling, shall
employ in exhibitions of these kinds
children under sixteen years of age
who are not his children or
descendants;
3) Any person engaged in any of the
callings enumerated in the next
paragraph preceding who shall
employ any descendant of his under
twelve years of age in such
dangerous exhibitions;
4) Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or
person entrusted in any capacity
with the care of a child under sixteen
years of age, who shall deliver such
child gratuitously to any person
following any of the callings
enumerated in paragraph 2 hereof,
or to any habitual vagrant or beggar.
In either case, the guardian or
curator convicted shall also be
removed from office as guardian or
curator; and in the case of the
parents of the child, they may be
deprived, temporarily or perpetually,
in the discretion of the court, of their
parental authority;
5) Any person who shall induce any
child under sixteen years of age to
abandon the home of its ascendants,
guardians, curators, or teachers to
follow any person engaged in any of
the callings mentioned in paragraph
2 hereof, or to accompany any
habitual vagrant or beggar.
 These acts are considered exploitation of minors
because these acts endanger the life and safety,
the growth and development of said minors. This
usually involves circus.
Art. 279. Additional penalties for other offenses. —
The imposition of the penalties prescribed in the preceding
articles, shall not prevent the imposition upon the same
person of the penalty provided for any other felonies defined
and punished by this Code.
Section Two – Trespass to dwelling
Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling
Elements:
1. Offender is a private person
2. He enters the dwelling of another
3. That such entrance is against the latter’s will
 Trespass to Dwelling or Qualified Trespass
to Dwelling is committed by any private person
who shall enter the dwelling of another against
the latter's will
 It is committed by a private person because if it
is public officer the crime committed is under Art.
128 which is Violation of Domicile. Under Art.
128, when the law says “against the will”, it
means that there is some prohibition, there is
opposition of entering whether express or
implied. Mere entry without the consent of the
owner will not bring about qualified trespass to
dwelling. If the door is open it means that
anybody can enter even without the consent of
the owner. The moment he enters he cannot be
held liable with qualified trespass because there
is no prohibition or opposition to enter. It is
necessary that there must be prohibition or
opposition from entering.
- It can be express an express
prohibition such as, when there is a
note stating “ DO NOT ENTER” or
when the door is closed after a
person knocks when the owner sees
the person knocking.
- It is implied if the door is closed even
if it is not locked.
Page 65
 CRIMINAL LAW 2
that there was no one inside the house. he entered the  A threatened to kill B. B filed a case of grave threats threatening to do
Art. 281. Other forms of trespass. — The penalty house. what crime was committed? Is it Trespass to against A. Upon filing of the case, what bail if any should any harm not
of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or Property or Qualified Trespass to Dwelling? the court impose upon A? constituting a
both, shall be imposed upon any person who shall - Qualified Trespass to Dwelling. It is a ANS: BOND FOR GOOD BEHAVIOR - is a bail felony.
enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of residential place and someone is occupying it required by the court to be posted by any Example:
another, while either or them are uninhabited, if the even if at the moment it is uninhabited accused only in the crimes of grave threats and  A learned that B was spreading negative rumors against
prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser because the owners went on vacation. It is other light threats. This is to ensure that the him. A was so mad so he went to the house of B and
has not secured the permission of the owner or the considered an inhabited place therefore the offender will not make good the threat imposed shouted, “B get out of your house. I will kill you! I will kill
caretaker thereof. moment someone enters, it is considered by him. Failure to post the bond, the offender you!” But B did not go out of the house. Instead, it was
trespass to dwelling and not trespass to shall be sentenced to destierro. the son of B who went out. A told the son to let his father
 Trespass to Property property. go out because A would kill him. Upon hearing this, the
Elements: Art. 285. Other light threats son went inside the house and did not go back. B as well
1. Offender is any person who shall enter Section Three – Threats and coercion Acts punished: did not go out. Later, A left B’s house.
the closed premises or the fenced CRIME: A committed other light threats. A, in the
estate of another person 3 kinds of threats: 1) Threatening another with a weapon or draw such heat of anger, orally threatened B with a wrong
2. The entrance is made while either of 1. Grave threats weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self- constituting a crime but he did not pursue the
them is uninhabited 2. Light threats defense idea.
3. That the prohibition to enter be 3. Other light threats 2) Orally threatening, in the heat of anger, another  A saw that B has a new Lexus. A knew that the car was
manifest with some harm not constituting a crime, and smuggled. A told B. “If you will not give me 500,000php,
Art. 282. Grave threats who by subsequent acts show that he did not I will tell the Bureau of Customs that your car is
4. That the trespasser has not secured
Acts punished: persist in the idea involved in his threat smuggled.”
the permission of the owner or the
caretaker thereof 3) Orally threatening to do another any harm not CRIME: Light threats. A threatened to commit a
constituting a felony wrong not constituting a crime. It is not a crime
1) Threaten another with the infliction upon the
 Whether it be grave, light or other light threats, the to tell Customs that the car was smuggled. The
 Trespass to Dwelling vs. Trespass to person, honor or property of the latter or of his
essence of the threats is intimidation- the promise of a threat is subject to a demand of money or the
Property family of any wrong amounting to a crime
future wrong or harm. imposition of any other condition, even though
coupled with a demand of money or imposition
not unlawful.
Trespass to Trespass to
of any other condition, even though not
unlawful, and said offender attained his purpose  A, creditor of B, was inside the house of the latter seeking
Dwelling Property  Threats can be committed personally, orally, in writing or
for payment of debt. B said, “get out of my house. If I
through an intermediary. If committed in writing or
Place is a dwelling and Place is a closed 2) Threaten another with the infliction upon the still see you later afternoon in my house when I come
through an intermediary, the penalty is qualified.
inhabited premise or the fenced back, I will kill you!”
person, honor or property of the latter or of his
estate of another family of any wrong amounting to a crime CRIME: B committed Grave threats because
which is unihabited DISTINCTION: GRAVE, LIGHT, OTHER LIGHT
coupled with the demand of money of money or there is a promise of a future wrong of killing to
THREATS
Prohibition to enter can Prohibition to enter imposition any other condition, even though not be committed in the afternoon.
either be express or must be manifest GRAVE LIGHT OTHER LIGHT  A, creditor of B, was inside the house of the latter seeking
unlawful, and said offender did not attain his
implied THREATS THREATS THREATS for payment of debt. B said, “get out of my house right
purpose
Entry was made Entry was made The threat is The threat does Committed by now or else I will kill you!”
against the will of the without seeking the 3) Threaten another with the infliction upon the always & always not amount to a threatening another CRIME: B committed Grave coercion. The threat
owner/possessor of permission of the person, honor or property of the latter or of his amounting to crime. It is with a weapon or is present, direct, personal, immediate and
property owner/caretaker family of any wrong amounting to a crime and constituting always and draw such weapon imminent. It is not in the future.
thereof without the demand of money or imposition of a crime. It may always subject in a quarrel, unless
any other condition or may not be to a demand of it be in lawful self-
Art. 286. Grave coercions
subject to money or the defense; or orally
Example 2 ways to commit grave coercion:
demand of imposition of threatening, in the
 Townhouse A was currently uninhabited. There was a Art. 283. Light threats 1. PREVENTIVE COERCION
money or any other heat of anger,
notice posted that it was for rent. X entered the said Light threats: imposition of condition, even another with some - if a person prevents another by
townhouse. What crime was committed by A? - Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting other conditions. though not harm not means of violence or intimidation
- Trespass to Property because at that time the a crime, but it is always subject to a demand of The offender unlawful. constituting a from doing something not prohibited
premises was closed and uninhabited and he money or imposition of any other condition, even may or may not crime, and who by by law.
enters without securing the permission of the though not unlawful attain his subsequent acts Example:
owner or the caretaker. purpose. show that he did  A wanted to enter the house of B against the latter’s will.
Art. 284. Bond for good behavior not persist in the X saw A, so he prevented A. Nevertheless, A continued to
 A and B, husband and wife, went on vacation for a Example: idea involved in his enter. Because of this, X boxed A resulting to slight
month. Their house was therefore uninhabited. X learned threat; or orally physical injuries.

Page 66

CRIME: Slight physical injuries because X
prevents a person from doing something
prohibited by law. In grave coercion, the
offender prevents someone to do something not
prohibited by law.
2. COMPULSORY COERCION
- if a person compels another by
means of violence and intimidation
from doing something against his
will, whether it be right or wrong,
prohibited or not.
- Unlike in threats where the essence
of the threats is the promise to do a
future wrong or injury; in coercion,
the threat is present, direct, personal
and imminent. Hence, grave coercion
cannot be committed through an
intermediary or in writing because
the threat is always personal, present
and imminent. The threatened act is
about to be committed.
DISTINCTION: THREAT AND COERCION
THREAT COERCION
the wrong threatened to be the wrong threatened to be
committed is in the future committed is direct,
personal, present and
imminent
threats may be committed in threats cannot be
writing or through an committed in writing or
intermediary through an intermediary
because they should always
be personal and direct
threat means intimidation it is violence; or intimidation
sufficient enough to amount
to violence
Art. 287. Light coercions
LIGHT COERCION - committed by a creditor who shall
seize anything belonging to his debtor by means of violence
or intimidation for the purpose of applying the same to the
indebtedness
- related to light coercion is UNJUST
VEXATION which refers to any human
conduct, although not capable of producing
any harm or material injury, annoys or
vexes an innocent person.
Art. 288. Other similar coercions
OTHER LIGHT COERCION - more on labor
CRIMINAL LAW 2
Acts punished:
1) Committed by forcing or compelling directly,
indirectly, knowingly permitting or forcing an
employee or laborer to buy merchandise or
commodities from the employer
2) By paying the wages due to the employees or
laborers by objects other than the legal tender of
the Philippines, unless it is requested by the
employee or laborer
Chapter Three
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS
Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of
correspondence
SEIZURE OF CORRESPONDENCE to discover the
secrets of another
- committed by any person who shall seize any
correspondence of another to discover the
secrets of the latter. DAMAGE is not a
requirement. The mere act of seizing the
correspondence to discover the latter’s secrets
will consummate the crime. It is also NOT
necessary that the secret be REVEALED.
Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office
REVEALING SECRETS BY ABUSING OFFICE
- committed by a manager, employee or servant
who reveals the secrets of his master learned by
him in such capacity. It is the revelation of
secrets which will consummate the crime, not
mere discovery. DAMAGE is also not an element.
Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets
REVELATION OF INUSTRIAL SECRETS
- committed by any person in charge or an
employee in an industrial of manufacturing
establishment who shall learn and discover the
secrets of the industry and shall reveal the same
to the prejudice of the owner thereof. DAMAGE
must be caused to the offended party. Mere
revelation of secrets will not suffice.
In relation to –
RA 4200 (ANTI-WIRE TAPPING LAW)
ACTS:
1) It shall be unlawful for any person, not obtaining
the consent of all the parties to any private
communication or spoken word, to tap any wire
or cable, or by using any other device or by means of violence or intimidation of any person, or using
arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or force upon anything
record such communication or spoken word by
using a device like dictaphone or dictagraph or Elements:
dictaphone or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or 1. Offender unlawfully takes the personal
other similar means property of another
UNLAWFUL TAKING - deprivation
Exapmle: of the offended party of his personal
 A told B to go inside his room. When inside the room, property.
A started scolding B saying slanderous remarks against 2. The personal property belongs to another
him. Unknown to A, B was recording the private person
communication between them. Can B use the record in - If the property does not belong to
filing a case for slander against A? another person, it cannot be said that
ANS: No, because the act of tape recording there is intent to gain on the part of
without being authorized by all the parties in a the offender
private communication is inadmissible in
3. Intent to gain in taking the property
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative
- Intent to gain is an internal state of
or administrative proceeding or investigation.
mind. The law presumes that there is
intent to gain the moment that there
The only exception is when a police officer is is taking of personal property of
authorized by a written orderofthe court to another
listen to, intercept or record any communication
4. Taking is with violence and intimidation or
in crimes involving treason, espionage, provoking force upon things
war and disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny
in the high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and
Section One – Robbery with violence against or
proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to
intimidation of persons
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition,
inciting to sedition and kidnapping.
Art. 294. Robbery with violence against or
2) Knowingly possessing any tape record, wire intimidation of persons
record, disc record, or any other such record, or
copies thereof, of any private communication or 2 Types of Robbery:
spoken word 1. WITH VIOLENCE AND INTIMIDATION
- In this kind of robbery, the value of the
3) By replaying the wire record, tape record, disc property taken is immaterial because the
record for any other person or persons; or penalty is dependent on the violence
communicating the contents thereof, either employed by the offender.
verbally or in writing, to another person 2. WITH FORCE UPON THINGS
- The value of the property taken is material
4) Furnishing transcriptions of the wire record, disc because the penalty is dependent upon the
record or tape record, whether totally or value of the property.
partially, to any other person
 ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AND
Title Ten INTIMIDATION
ACTS:
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
1) When by reason or on the occasion of
Chapter One robbery, homicide is committed
2) When robbery is accompanied by rape,
ROBBERY IN GENERAL
intentional mutilation, or arson
3) When by reason or on the occasion of
Art. 293. Who are guilty of robbery robbery, any of the serious physical injuries
ROBBERY- committed by any person who, with intent to resulting to insanity, imbecility, impotency
gain, shall take any personal property belonging to another, or blindness was committed
Page 67

4) When by reason or on the occasion or
robbery, any of the of the serious physical
injuries resulting to the loss of 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
5) When the commission of the robbery is
carried to a degree clearly unnecessary for
the commission of the crime
6) In the execution of the robbery, and 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
7) If the violence employed in the commission
or robbery does not constitute the physical
injuries covered by sub-divisions 3 and 4 of
said Article 263 or that only intimidation is
employed.
Based on the foregoing, there exists crimes such as robbery
with homicide, robbery with rape, robbery with serious
physical injuries and robbery with unnecessary violence and
simple robbery.
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
- is a special complex crime because in
reality there are two crimes committed but
in the eyes of the law, there is only one
crime. For as long as the original intent or
original criminal design of the offender is to
rob, the killing may take place before,
during or after the robbery
- regardless of the number of persons killed,
there is only one crime committed. Also,
even if the killing is unintentional or
accidental, there is still one crime
committed.
- even if the victim of the killing is different
from the victim of the robbery, still it is
robbery with homicide. This constitutes the
difference between kidnapping with serious
illegal detention because in this crime, the
victim of the kidnapping must also be the
victim of the killing
Example:
People vs Cabbab
CRIMINAL LAW 2
 A went to the house of B and took the valuables
therein. During the taking, one jewelry box suddenly
fell on the floor. This awakened the owner of the
house, X. When A saw this, he immediately shot X
CRIME: Robbery with homicide because by
reason or on the occasion of robbery, homicide
was committed.
 In same problem, wife of X was also awakened and
she started to shout. Because of this, A also shot the
wife
CRIME: Robbery with homicide even if two
persons were killed since the crime is a special
complex crime. All the offenses are merged into
a single indivisible crime of robbery with
homicide.
 A was about to go out bringing with him the valuables
he robbed. However, he bumped the door. This
awakened the owner, X, who tried to chase A. They
reached the garden part of the house. While therein, A
positioned himself to shoot X, so X jumped on A to
struggle possession of the gun. In the course of the
struggle, the gun fired and hit a balot vendor who
passed by the house of X.
CRIME: Robbery with homicide. Since it is a
special complex crime, even if the victim of
robbery is different from the victim of homicide
or even if the killing is accidental, there is only a
single indivisible crime committed. So long as the
killing is by reason or on the occasion of the
robbery.
 A, B and C entered the house of X to commit robbery.
After taking the valuables and as they were about to
leave, X was awakened. Among the three, it was only
A who shot and killed X.
CRIME: All are criminally liable even if it is only A
who shot X. While there is a rule that in an
express or direct conspiracy the conspirators are
liable only for the crime agreed upon by them,
the situation however falls under the exception.
EXCEPTION: That is, when the conspiracy results
to a special complex crime. The crimes cannot be
separated from each other. Thus, even if it’s only
A who shot X or even if the agreement is only to
commit robbery, since homicide was committed
by reason or on the occasion of robbery, all are
criminally liable for the crime of robbery with
homicide.
EXCEPTION TO THE EXCEPTION: is when B and
C performed acts to prevent A from killing X.
In a game played by A, B, X, Y and Z, it was A who won the
game. After the game, while A, B and Z were about to leave,
X and Y were furiously looking at them. Suddenly, X and Y
fired several shots against A, B and Z. Z, who was a police
officer, dove into the canal in order to prevent himself from
being killed. Z was injured. Unfortunately, A and B were
killed and thereafter, the winnings of A were taken by X and
Y.
Fiscal filed the cases of - 1. Robbery because of the taking of
the winnings, 2. Double murder because of the death of A
and B, and 3. Attempted murder insofar as Z is concerned.
RTC ruled that the charges were wrong because the crime
committed is robbery with double homicide and attempted
murder
Upon appeal, CA ruled that the ruling of RTC is incorrect
because the crime committed is robbery with homicide and
attempted murder
SC: The Fiscal, RTC and CA were all wrong. The
crime committed is only the single indivisible
offense of robbery with homicide. All the acts are
considered absorbed by robbery with homicide
despite the fact that 2 persons were killed and 1
person was injured. All these circumstances are
merged into an integrated whole; that is, the
single indivisible offense of robbery with
homicide
ROBBERY WITH RAPE
- is also a special complex crime. So long as
the intention of the offender is to commit
robbery, the rape can be committed
before, during and after the robbery.
Regardless of the number of rapes, there is
only a single indivisible crime. There is no
such crime as robbery with multiple rapes.
Example:
 A woman was walking on her way home. It was payday
and her salary was inside her bag. X, the robber, took the
bag of the woman and got the money therein. X found
the woman attractive so he raped her twice.
CRIME: Robbery with rape, regardless of the
number of times the woman was raped.
People vs Suyu
A couple was having snack inside the car. While eating, they
saw shadows of four men trying to push the car. One of
them was Suyu. The couple was forced to open the door
and get out of the car. The men took the valuables of the
couple. While the men were taking the valuables, the
boyfriend ran and left the girlfriend. After taking the
valuables, the men dragged the abandoned girlfriend to a
nearby nipa hut. Inside the nipa hut, the girlfriend was
raped by Suyu, the mastermind. After Suyu, the girlfriend
was again raped by the other companion. The girlfriend was
raped three times. Rape with carnal knowledge and rape
with sexual assault were committed against her. The other
two men remained outside the nipa hut to serve as lookouts.
CRIME: Robbery with rape. Regardless of the
fact that two persons raped the victim,
regardless of the fact that the victim was raped
three times, and regardless of the fact that two
natures of rape (carnal knowledge and sexual
assault) were committed against the victim,
there is only one indivisible crime.
Even if not all of the offenders raped the victim,
still all of them are criminally liable for the crime
of robbery with rape because the two lookouts
did not perform acts to prevent the rape.
ROBBERY WITH INTENTIONAL MUTILATION,
ROBBERY WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES AND
ROBBERY WITH ARSON
- For as long as the original intent is to
commit robbery, the intentional mutilation,
serious physical injury or arson may be
committed before, during or after the
robbery.
Example:
 It was payday. A and B saw X with a bag. A and B
signaled X to give them his bag. X gave the bag and left.
A and B went to a nearby waiting shed bringing with
them the bag of X. In the waiting shed, A and B divided
the money of X. In the course of the partition, A gave B
only a small share of the money. B got mad. B shot A.
CRIME: Robbery with Homicide, even if it was an
offender killed. This is because the killing took
place by reason of the robbery, while A and B
were dividing the loot.
 In the same problem, while A and B were dividing the
loot, B got a small share. Because of this, B without intent
to kill shot A who suffered serious physical injuries.
CRIME: Robbery with serious physical injuries
 In the same problem, while A and B were dividing the
loot, B got a small share. Because of this, B took his ice
pick from his pocket and used it to put an X mark on the
face of A. This serious physical injury resulted to
deformity.
CRIME: Robbery and Serious Physical injury.
Under Art. 294 par 4, when the serious physical
injury that resulted is a deformity, or the loss of
any other member of his body, the law requires
Page 68

that the said serious physical injury or deformity
is inflicted in the course of the execution of the
robbery upon a person not responsible for the
robbery. Otherwise, it will bring about a separate
and distinct crime.
Here, the deformity was inflicted after the
robbery and upon a person responsible for the
commission of the robbery. Thus, there are two
crimes committed: Robbery and Serious Physical
Injury.
 What if A went to the house of B, instead of X which was
his original plan. A, while taking the valuables, made
some noise and awakened the owner of the house, and
so A shot the owner of the house. The owner of the
house died. Thereafter A hurriedly went downstairs.
Downstairs he saw the wife, found the wife attractive,
and he raped the wife. After raping the wife, he also saw
the maid and found the maid attractive, so he raped the
maid. The moment he got out of the door of the house,
the gardener saw him and tried to prevent A from leaving
the house. And so A shot the gardener, and in shooting
the gardener, A shot the arms several times, resulting in
the severance of the arm, so intentional mutilation. Not
only that, when he was going out of the gate, here comes
the driver, preventing A from leaving the house. So what
A did was that he boxed the driver several times which
resulted to serious physical injuries. What are the crimes
committed?
So we have one death, two rapes, intentional
mutilation and serious physical injuries.
A only committed the single indivisible offense of
robbery with homicide. All the rape, intentional
mutilation and serious physical injuries are
merged into the composite integrated offense
and that is, the single indivisible offense of
robbery with homicide.
 You have to observe the sequence because
the highest is robbery with homicide.
 If rape took place after A committed robbery, A after
taking the valuables of the house, raped the wife and
while he was raping the wife, the husband saw A, so A
killed the husband, and then later the driver put up a
fight and resulted to serious physical injuries. What are
the crimes committed?
The crime committed is robbery with homicide.
 The first is homicide, rape, intentional
mutilation, arson, serious physical injuries,
unnecessary violence and simple robbery.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
All the others are merged, and that is
robbery with homicide. The other offenses
will not be considered as aggravating
circumstances because there is nothing in
Art. 14 that will consider the other offenses
as aggravating circumstances. That is why
you have to observe the sequence. So if
there was only rape, intentional mutilation,
serious physical injuries, it will be robbery
with rape. It will only be a single indivisible
offense. It will be a special complex crime.
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed
in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the
use of firearm on a street, road or alley.
Art. 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by
the members thereof.
Art. 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery
committed under certain circumstances.
Art. 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or
intimidation.
Section Two – Robbery by the use of force upon
things
 ROBBERY WITH USE OF FORCE UPON
THINGS
Art. 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public
building or edifice devoted to worship
 Another form of robbery is robbery with the use of
force upon things in Art 299.
 In case of violence against persons, the value of the
property is not important because the penalty is the
basis of the violence.
 In Art. 299, the basis of the penalty is the value of the
property taken.
3 ways of committing robbery with use of force upon
things:
1) When a person enters the dwelling, house, public
building or edifice devoted to worship where
personal property is taken through:
a. An opening not intended for entrance
or egress
b. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or
breaking any door or window.
c. By using false keys, picklocks or
similar tools
d. By using any fictitious name or
pretending the exercise of public
authority
NOTE:
 Under the first act, the essence of the crime is in
the unlawful entry; it is the act of trespassing
and also the taking of the property of another.
 It is necessary that the entire body must have
enter, otherwise, even if there is breaking, it
would only amount to theft and that breaking
would amount only to aggravating circumstance.
The Supreme Court ruled that when the law used
the word “enter”, it means that the entire body
must have entered said place to take the
property of another.
Example
 A, in order to rob the house made an opening in the roof,
sufficient for him to enter. So he used a rope in going
down and thereafter he took the valuables and then left.
What crime is committed?
Robbery by use of force upon things. A made an
opening and he was able to enter fully.
 What if he made an entry, let down a rope with a hook
and used it in taking the valuable.
The crime committed only is theft with
aggravating circumstance of the breaking of the
roof. His body did not enter the premises.
2) When the offender manages to enter said
inhabited place, dwelling, public place or place
dedicated to religious worship without any
unlawful entry, or is an insider, and once inside,
he used force in opening in order to:
a. Break doors, wardrobes,
chests, or any other kind of
locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle
NOTE:
 The second act is when the offender was able to
enter without unlawful entry or was an insider
and once inside, breaks the doors, wardrobes,
chest, receptacles, and thereafter took the
personal properties inside the house.
Example
 A and B are brothers, living in the same house and in the
same room but have different cabinets where each of the
cabinets have locks. One time brother A was in need of
money and wanted to borrow money from brother B, but
brother B was out of the house. So what brother A did
was that he forcibly opened the cabinet of brother B and
took the expensive jewelries of brother B and
appropriated the jewelry? What are the crimes
committed? Is Brother A only liable civilly?
A is guilty of robbery with use of force upon
things. He is an insider, and he used force to
break open the cabinet of B. He did not commit
theft. Since the crime committed is robbery,
brother A is criminally liable and civilly liable.
Because under Article 332, it is only on cases of
theft, swindling, estafa, and malicious mischief,
wherein there’s no criminal liability but only civil
liability in case of relatives living together.
 In the same problem, what if A was in need of money, he
saw the expensive watch of B on top of the table and sold
the watch. What crime was committed?
A committed the crime of theft since there is no
breaking or forcibly opening the receptacle.
Under Art 332, he is only liable for civil liability.
They are free from criminal liability.
Art. 332. Persons exempt from
criminal liability. — No criminal,
but only civil liability, shall result from
the commission of the crime of theft,
swindling or malicious mischief
committed or caused mutually by the
following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and
descendants, or relatives by
affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with
respect to the property which
belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall
have passed into the
possession of another; and
3.Brothers and sisters and
brothers-in-law and sisters-in-
law, if living together.
The exemption established by this
article shall not be applicable to
strangers participating in the
commission of the crime.
 Since it refers to simple crimes, if the crime committed is
estafa through falsification of public document, there will
Page 69

be criminal liability. This exemption from criminal liability
will only lie in the cases mentioned in Art. 332.
3) When the offender manages to enter said
inhabited place, dwelling, public place, or place
dedicated to religious worship without any
unlawful entry, once inside he took the sealed
receptacle outside to be opened or forced open.
 The offender was able to enter and once inside,
he did not use force to open the close cabinet or
receptacle. Instead, he took the cabinet and
receptacle outside to open it.
Circumstances that will qualify robbery with use of
force upon things:
Art. 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a
band.
 Under Article 300, if robbery is committed
with in an uninhabited place and by a band
— the law used the conjunction AND, both
must concur in order to amount a
qualifying circumstance, to increase the
penalty. So it should be in an uninhabited
place and by a band, therefore both
must be present.
Art. 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed
in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the
use of firearm on a street, road or alley.
 In case of robbery with serious physical injuries,
unnecessary violence or simple violence, how will the
crime be qualified?
The answer is under Art. 295, where if the said
robbery is:
1. Committed in an uninhabited place
OR by a band
2. By attacking any moving train, street
car, motor vehicle or airship
3. By entering the passenger’s
compartments in a train; or
4. Taking the passengers by surprise in
their respective conveyances
5. On a street, road, highway, or alley
and the Intimidation is made use of a
firearm
NOTE:
 That in case of robbery with violence or
intimidation on persons, the qualifying
circumstances are present, only one of these is
sufficient to qualify the penalty. The law here
uses the conjunction OR not AND.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
designation of the crime is robbery with highway as long as it is
Example: homicide. The fact that it is committed by 4 committed in a Philippine
 A went to the house of B. A told B “this is a hold up and armed men is only an aggravating circumstance. highway.
bring out the valuables”. Instead of bringing the valuables Under Art. 296, if a band committed robbery, it
to A, B panicked and shouted. A therefore shot B. B died. is only an aggravating circumstance. Chapter Three
A also panicked and left the place without bringing his THEFT
loot. What is/are the crime/s committed? Art. 306. Brigandage.
The crime committed by A is attempted robbery Under Article 306, it is committed by at least 4 armed men Art. 308. Who are liable for theft. — Theft is
with homicide. This is also a special complex for the purposes of - committed by any person who, with intent to gain
crime. Here robbery was attempted because he 1. committing robbery in the highway; but without violence against or intimidation of
was unable to take any of the property. The fact 2. kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion persons nor force upon things, shall take personal
that A was able to announce hold-up and bring or ransom property of another without the latter's consent.
the valuables to him means that the original 3. for any other purpose to be attained by means
design is to commit robbery. It was attempted of force and violence.
Theft is likewise committed by:
because he was unable to take the property, and
in the course of thereof, he killed the owner. 1. Any person who, having found lost
Art. 296 Art. 306 property, shall fail to deliver the same to
Both require at least 4 armed persons the local authorities or to its owner;
 In order to amount to special complex crime, it is
It is required that the 4 The crime is already 2. Any person who, after having maliciously
necessary that both the robbery and homicide
armed men must actually consummated by the mere damaged the property of another, shall
must be consummated.
take part in the commission fact that 4 armed men remove or make use of the fruits or object
of the robbery formed a band of robbers. of the damage caused by him; and
 What if in the course of robbery, the said owner was shot 3. Any person who shall enter an inclosed
It is not required that they
but was able to survive. What crime is committed? actually commit the estate or a field where trespass is
The crime committed is robbery with physical enumerated purposes. forbidden or which belongs to another and
injuries depending on the injuries sustained by without the consent of its owner, shall
the victim. In order to amount to robbery with hunt or fish upon the same or shall gather
PD 532 (THE ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW OF
homicide, it is necessary that both crimes must cereals, or other forest or farm products.
be present and there is no such thing as 1974)
robbery with frustrated homicide or The definition is almost the same as robbery. The difference
attempted homicide, for it is the law which In PD 532, brigandage is defined as the seizure of any
lies in the case of robbery where there is violence or
provides for the crime which must be complexed, person for ransom, extortion, or other unlawful purposes, or
intimidation of persons and use of force upon things, while
and the law does not provide that frustrated the taking away of property of another by means of violence
in theft, there is no violence, intimidation against persons or
homicide or attempted homicide must be against or intimidation of persons of force upon things or
force upon things.
complexed with robbery. other unlawful means, committed by any person on any
Philippine highway.
Example:
In the instant case, since the killing took place at
Art 306 vs. PD 532, or the Anti-Highway Robbery Law 1. A person who found a lost personal property of
the spur of the moment, then it is robbery with
of 1974 another but did not give it to the police, there is
homicide.
theft.
2. A damaged the property of B, he make use of
Chapter Two Art. 306 PD 532 that damage.
BRIGANDAGE Requires that there must be No requisite as to the # of 3. There is a vacant lot guarded by X. A person
at least 4 armed men perpetrators of the crime entered the vacant lot and took the fruits.
What if robbery was committed by 4 armed men? Even a single person can
commit the crime of Valenzuela v. People
brigandage
Art. 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by There is no frustrated theft. In this case, the offender took
The mere formation of the There must be an actual
the members thereof. boxes of tide from SM North Edsa and placed it in the taxi.
 A was walking, suddenly there are 4 men with knives and band of robbers for any of commission of the crime or Before they were able to left the premises of SM, they were
took A’s bag which is full of money. A put up a fight. And the purposes mentioned will no crime will arise apprehended. The offenders were charged of consummated
so these armed men killed A. What crime is committed? bring about the crime theft. They did not deny that they committed theft but their
Is the crime committed robbery in band with homicide? There is a predetermined or There is no preconceived defense is that they committed frustrated theft.
There is no such crime as robbery by a band preconceived victim victim. It is committed The SC En Banc in 2007 ruled that there is no crime as
with homicide. The said use of band is only an indiscriminately on any frustrated theft. In case of theft, unlawful taking is deemed
aggravating circumstance. The proper person passing on the
Page 70

complete the moment the offender gain possession of the
property of another, theft is consummated.
Art. 309. Penalties
 When is theft qualified?
Art. 310. Qualified Theft
Theft is qualified in the following instances:
1. If theft is committed by a domestic servant
2. If committed with grave abuse of confidence
3. If the property stolen is a (a) motor vehicle, (b)
mail matter, or (c) large cattle
4. If the property stolen consists of coconuts taken
from the premises of the plantation
5. If the property stolen is taken from a fishpond or
fishery
6. If property taken on the occasion of fire,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any
other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
Example:
 A is a domestic servant. When his master was out of the
house, A went to the masters’ bedroom and took the
jewelries. In the information cited that he was a domestic
servant but the information did not state that A took the
jewelries with grave abuse of confidence. Is A liable for
qualified theft?
Yes, according to the Supreme Court, the law
uses the conjunction OR. The fact that the
accused is a domestic servant, it will suffice. The
law does not require that abuse of confidence to
be established. It will suffice that the accused is
a domestic servant.
 A was a security guard. The owner of the house left his
key to the security guard. However, the security guard
used the key to open the house of the owner and took
the valuables. What crime is committed?
The Security Guard is liable for qualified theft
because of grave abuse of confidence.
RA 6539 (ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT)
Carnapping- is the taking with intent to gain, of motor
vehicle belonging to another without the consent of the
latter, or by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons, or by use of force upon things.
Elements:
1. Actual taking of motor vehicle
2. The vehicle belongs to another
CRIMINAL LAW 2
3. There is intent to gain in the taking of the vehicle
of another
4. Said taking is taking without the consent of the
owner or by means of violence or intimidation or
by means of force upon things.
Example:
 A was driving his car and suddenly felt the need to
answer the call of nature so he parked his vehicle.
Suddenly, there was X and saw A was out of the car, and
the door of the car was open and the key was left inside
the car. X drove away with the car. What is the crime
committed?
The crime committed is carnapping. Even if there
is no violence or intimidation against person or
force upon things, so long as said taking is
without the consent of the owner, it will amount
to carnapping.
Under Sec. 14, the penalty if there no violence or
intimidation against persons or use of force on
things, the penalty is 14 years and 8 months to
17 years and 4 months.
 In the given situation, what if A saw X and there was a
fight that ensued between them. X shot A, and X was
able to take the vehicle. A however survived due to
immediate medical treatment. What is/are the crimes
committed by X?
The crime committed by X is only carnapping.
The fact that X shot A, where there is frustrated
homicide, it falls under violence or intimidation
which was used by the offender in committing
the crime. Since there is violence, the penalty is
17 years and 4 months to 30 years.
 If again, in the same problem, A tried to stop X and X
shot A. A died. What is the crime committed?
The fact that the owner is killed or raped as a
consequence, the penalty is reclusion perpetua
to death. It will bring about a higher
penalty, but not as a special complex crime
because it is a Special Penal Law. Though it
is akin to a special complex crime, the killing is
absorbed. The crime is carnapping. It is also not
a bailable offense.
PD 533 (ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW)
Cattle Rustling - defined as the taking away by any
means, method or scheme, without the consent of the
owner/raiser, of any large cattle whether or not for profit or
for gain, or whether committed with or without violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things. It
includes the killing of a large cattle or taking it as a meat or
hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.
Large Cattle- shall include cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass,
or other domesticated member of the bovine family. Goats
are not large cattle. (sabi nung isang justice sa SC na prof
naming dati, si Lawyer daw pag kinidnap cattle rustling daw
tawag dun. Ang evil nya!)
Example:
 A’s carabao was tied on the mango tree. X saw the
carabao alone. So what X did was he untied the carabao
and took the carabao away. A saw X with his carabao so
A tried to catch up with X. As A was able to catch up with
X, a fight ensued. X took his bolo and hacked A to death.
What is the crime committed by X?
The crime committed by X is only cattle rustling.
The fact that the owner was killed is within the
meaning of violence or intimidation against
persons. It will not bring about a separate and
distinct crime of murder. The Anti-Cattle Rustling
Law, although a special law, is not malum
prohibitum but a malum in se. Under Sec. 10 of
the law, it is expressly provided that this law
amends Art. 309 and 310 of the RPC. Since it is
an amendment, the SC it is a malum in se and
not a malum prohibitum.
Art. 311. Theft of the property of the National Library
and National Museum.
 The value of the property is immaterial because
the law prescribed the penalty of arresto mayor
or fine or both.
Chapter Four
USURPATION
Art. 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of
real rights in property.
2 acts punished under Art 312:
1) Occupation of real property which is committed
by any person who by means of violence against
or intimidation shall occupy the real property of
another
2) Usurpation of real rights in property committed
by any person who by means of violence against
or intimidation shall usurp any real rights in
property of another person
Example:
 There was a vacant lot. Here comes A and B and his
family. The said land or property was being guarded by X.
A and B went inside the vacant lot and tried to build a
nipa house because they do not have any house. And so
the guard told them that A and B has no right to build a
nipa house because the lot is owned by Y. However, A
and B told the guard that they do not have any house. In
the course of the argument, A and B killed the guard.
What is/are the crimes committed?
The crime committed is only occupation of real
property. The killing is only a means to occupy
the real property. It falls under violence against
or intimidation of persons in occupying the real
property.
 In the same problem A and B put up their house in the
vacant property. The owner learned this and went to A
and B’s house. However, A and B killed the owner.
In this case, two crimes are committed. The
killing took place after occupying the place. This
time, the crimes committed are occupation and
homicide or murder as the case maybe.
Art. 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks. — Any
person who shall alter the boundary marks or monuments of
towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to
designate the boundaries of the same, shall be punished by
arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 100 pesos, or both.
Chapter Five
CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
Art. 314. Fraudulent insolvency. — Any person who shall
abscond with his property to the prejudice of his creditors,
shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor, if he be a merchant
and the penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its medium period, if he be not a
merchant.
Chapter Six
SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
Art. 315. Swindling (estafa). — Any person who shall
defraud another by any of the means mentioned here in
below shall be punished by:
1st. The penalty of prision correccional in its maximum
period to prision mayor in its minimum period, if the
amount of the fraud is over 12,000 pesos but does not
exceed 22,000 pesos, and if such amount exceeds the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall
be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year
Page 71

for each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years.
In such cases, and in connection with the accessory
penalties which may be imposed under the provisions
of this Code, the penalty shall be termed prision mayor
or reclusion temporal, as the case may be.
2nd. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods, if the amount of the fraud is over
6,000 pesos but does not exceed 12,000 pesos;
3rd. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum
period to prision correccional in its minimum period if
such amount is over 200 pesos but does not exceed
6,000 pesos; and
4th. By arresto mayor in its maximum period, if such
amount does not exceed 200 pesos, provided that in
the four cases mentioned, the fraud be committed by
any of the following means:
1. With unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence, namely:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or
quality or anything of value which the
offender shall deliver by virtue of an
obligation to do so, even though such
obligation be based on an immoral or
illegal consideration.
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to
the prejudice of another, money,
goods, or any other personal property
received by the offender in trust or on
commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving
the duty to make delivery of or to
return the same, even though such
obligation be totally or partially
guaranteed by a bond; or by denying
having received such money, goods, or
other property.
(c) By taking undue advantage of the
signature of the offended party in
blank, and by writing any document
above such signature in blank, to the
prejudice of the offended party or of
any third person.
2. By means of any of the following false
pretenses or fraudulent acts executed
prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely
CRIMINAL LAW 2
pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property,
credit, agency, business or imaginary
transactions, or by means of other
similar deceits.
(b) By altering the quality, fineness or
weight of anything pertaining to his art
or business.
(c) By pretending to have bribed any
Government employee, without
prejudice to the action for calumny
which the offended party may deem
proper to bring against the offender.
In this case, the offender shall be
punished by the maximum period of
the penalty.
(d) [By post-dating a check, or issuing a
check in payment of an obligation
when the offender therein were not
sufficient to cover the amount of the
check. The failure of the drawer of the
check to deposit the amount necessary
to cover his check within three (3)
days from receipt of notice from the
bank and/or the payee or holder that
said check has been dishonored for
lack of insufficiency of funds shall be
prima facie evidence of deceit
constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act. (As amended by R.A.
4885, approved June 17, 1967.)]
(e) By obtaining any food, refreshment or
accommodation at a hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house, lodging
house, or apartment house and the
like without paying therefor, with
intent to defraud the proprietor or
manager thereof, or by obtaining
credit at hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house, or
apartment house by the use of any
false pretense, or by abandoning or
surreptitiously removing any part of his
baggage from a hotel, inn, restaurant,
boarding house, lodging house or
apartment house after obtaining credit,
food, refreshment or accommodation
therein without paying for his food,
refreshment or accommodation.
3. Through any of the following fraudulent
means:
(a) By inducing another, by means of
deceit, to sign any document.
(b) By resorting to some fraudulent
practice to insure success in a
gambling game.
(c) By removing, concealing or destroying,
in whole or in part, any court record,
office files, document or any other
papers.
3 ways of committing estafa or swindling:
1) Estafa with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence
Art 315 (1)
2) By means of false pretense or by fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneous to the
commission of the offense Art 315 (2)
3) Through fraudulent means Art 315 (3)
Whatever be the crime of estafa, there are always 2 general
elements:
1. That the accused defrauded another by means of
abuse of confidence, or by means of deceit; and
2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or
third persons.
ESTAFA WITH UNFAITHFULNESS or ABUSE OF
CONFIDENCE (1st form)
Committed through:
(a) By altering the substance, quantity, or quality
or anything of value which the offender shall
deliver by virtue of an obligation to do so,
even though such obligation be based on an
immoral or illegal consideration.
 NOTE: The law says that even if it based on an
immoral or illegal consideration.
Example:
 A is bound to deliver boxes of marijuana to B. At the
bottom of the box were inferior qualities of marijuana
while on top are high grade marijuana. Is A liable of
estafa?
A is liable for estafa. B can file a case of estafa
against A. (for purposes of example only because
B may be held liable for dangerous drugs act)
(b) By misappropriating or converting, to the
prejudice of another, money, goods, or any
other personal property received by the
offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation
involving the duty to make delivery of or to
return the same, even though such obligation
be totally or partially guaranteed by a bond; or
by denying having received such money,
goods, or other property.
 The moment that the offended party entrusted
the money or goods or any other personal
property to the offender, it is necessary that
there must be a transfer of juridical possession.
Juridical possession is a legal right over the
property; possession in the concept of the
owner. During the time that the possessor has
legal possession of the property, even the owner
cannot file estafa to the possessor because it is
the rightful possessor at that moment.
 If what has been transferred is material or
physical possession, and the offender
misappropriates the same, he is only liable for
qualified theft.
Example:
 A rented a bicycle from B for Php500 for 2 hours. A was
in possession of the said bicycle. 2 hours had lapsed, A
was not able to return the bicycle to B. B demanded that
A return the bicycle, but A did not. What is the crime
committed by A?
The crime committed by A is estafa because it
there is a lease agreement. What has been
transferred to A is juridical possession of the
property by virtue of the lease agreement.
 A gave B a watch. A told B “This is my watch, use it as a
collateral for my debt”. B however, instead of using it as
collateral for the loan of A, sold the watch and
appropriated the proceeds of the watch. What is the
crime committed?
The crime committed by B is qualified theft and
not estafa. There is no transfer of juridical
possession. A remains to be the owner of the
watch, and said watch is only used as a
collateral.
 A went to the bank and then A told the teller, “Here is
100k, kindly deposit this to my account. Here is my
passbook and here is the money. Deposit it because I am
in a hurry and I will drop by later in the afternoon.”
However, A was not able to drop by in the afternoon. So
A went the following day. When A asked for the
passbook, he realized that the 100k was not deposited by
the teller to his account. The teller misappropriated the
100k. What is the crime committed?
Page 72

The crime committed is Qualified Theft. The SC
ruled that when the depositor leaves to the bank
his money for deposit, what has been transferred
is only the material or physical possession. The
juridical possession of the money remains with
the owner of the money. Hence, when it is
misappropriated by the teller of the bank, it is
only qualified theft and not estafa.
 A works in the field and makes cash advance to his
company. One time he went to a certain place and there
is a cash advance. When A returned, A failed to liquidate
the expenses in the cash advance despite demands. What
is the crime committed by A?
According to the SC, a cash advance is in the
nature of a loan. When an employee makes a
cash advance to the company, it is in effect
obtaining a loan from the company. Therefore
ownership is transferred to the employee
because there is no obligation to return the very
same money. Hence there can be no estafa.
Since ownership was transferred and that the
employee cannot pay, we have the relationship
of creditor and debtor, not that entrustor-
entrustee. There will be no criminal case but only
civil liability. Hence, we have a civil case of
collection for sum of money.
(c) By taking undue advantage of the signature of
the offended party in blank, and by writing any
document above such signature in blank, to
the prejudice of the offended party or of any
third person.
Example:
 The owner of the company has blank documents with his
signature and gave it to his secretary. The said
documents will be used in case of emergency. One time
the secretary wrote a document above the blank
signature stating that the said owner will be assuming the
indebtedness of the secretary.
The crime committed by the secretary is estafa
because there is abuse of confidence. The owner
entrusted the blank document to the secretary.
 What if the secretary placed the blank document it on the
table. Here comes a visitor, and upon seeing the blank
document, he took one and then he went to his house
and wrote a document stating that the said owner shall
assume his liability.
The crime committed is not estafa but
falsification of a private document because he
made it appear that the owner participated in
CRIMINAL LAW 2
procuring the document when in fact, the owner
did not.
ESTAFA BY MEANS OF FALSE PRETENSE or BY
FRAUDULENT ACTS PRIOR TO OR SIMULTANEOUS TO
THE COMMISSION OF THE OFFENSE (2ND form)
(a) By using fictitious name, or falsely pretending
to possess power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of other
similar deceits.
Example:
 A, Band C are newly graduates. They just passed the
nursing board exam. X learned that A, B, and C passed
the board so he went to the house of A, B and C and told
them that X has a placement agency that will help them
find work abroad. AB and C believed X, and X demanded
that they give X 100k for processing fees. A, B, and C
never saw X again. Later X was arrested. What are the
crimes committed by X?
X may be liable of estafa by falsely pretending to
possess power or agency, where in fact, he is
not licensed by the POEA of Department of
Labor.
 Can he also be held liable for illegal recruitment?
He can also be liable for illegal recruitment under
the labor code.
Under PD 2018, which amended Article 38 and
39 of the Labor Code, where if illegal recruitment
is committed by a syndicate (3 or more persons)
or in large scale (where the victims are 3 or
more persons individually or as a group), the
crime committed is economic sabotage.
By reason thereof, the offender is liable for 2
crimes, and that is estafa and illegal recruitment.
 Can the offender be prosecuted at the same time?
Yes, because estafa requires illegal deceit or
false pretense, while in illegal recruitment does
not require deceit or false pretense. The mere
fact of recruiting where he does not have any
license makes him liable for illegal recruitment.
(d) By post-dating a check, or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation when the offender
therein were not sufficient to cover the
amount of the check. The failure of the
drawer of the check to deposit the amount
necessary to cover his check within three (3)
days from receipt of notice from the bank
and/or the payee or holder that said check
has been dishonored for lack of insufficiency
of funds shall be prima facie evidence of
deceit constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act. (As amended by R.A. 4885,
approved June 17, 1967.)
BP 22 (BOUNCING CHECKS LAW)
2 acts punished in BP 22:
1) Making or drawing and issuing a check knowing at
the time of issue that he does not have sufficient
funds.
 The offender knows that he does not have
sufficient funds in his account at the time of the
issuance of the check.
2) Failing to keep sufficient funds to cover the full
amount of the check.
 The funder knows that he has sufficient amount
at the time of the issuance of the check but
failed to keep sufficient funds to cover the
amount after the issuance of the check. The
crime will arise for his failure to keep sufficient
funds or maintain his credit to cover the full
amount for a period of 90 days from the date
appearing on the check.
Example:
 A is building a house, so he went to B, who is the owner
of the hardware store. A told B that he doesn’t have any
money at the moment but he will be issuing a check
guaranteeing that it will be funded on the 15 th, which is
the maturity date. B believed A’s representation that the
check will be funded so B placed the construction
materials to A. On the 15th day of the month, the check
bounced. B sent a notice of dishonor to A, but despite
such notice of dishonor, months had passed and yet A
still failed to pay. What crimes may be filed against A?
B may file a case of estafa because the said
check was issued in concomitance with the said
fraud. Where it not for the said check, B would
not give the construction materials to A.
 Aside from that, can A also be held liable for violation of
BP22?
A may also be held liable for violation of BP 22.
It will apply in any cases the moment the check
bounce. The essence of BP22 is the issuance of
the worthless check.
o However, said offense will not automatically
amount to estafa. In order to amount estafa, it is
necessary that the issuance of the check is the
reason of the defraudation. That is, where it not
for the said check, where it not for the promise
of the said check, the offended party would not
have parted with his property or money.
o In order to amount estafa by postdating a check,
the issuance of the check must not be in
payment of a pre-existing obligation. It is
necessary that the obligation is in concomitance
with the issuance of the check.
o In case of BP 22, even if in payment of pre-
existing obligation, the moment the check
bounced, BP 22 will apply.
o In case of estafa, the offender must make good
of the check within a period of 3 days. In BP 22,
the offender must make good of the check within
5 banking days.
When is there prima facie evidence of knowledge of
insufficiency of funds in BP 22?
Section 2 of BP 22, there arises the prima facie knowledge of
insufficiency of funds when the offender makes or draws
and issues a check which bounced when deposited within
the period of 90 days from the moment of its issue.
Elements of prima facie knowledge:
1. The check must be deposited within 90 days
from date appearing on the check;
2. There must be notice of dishonor received by the
drawer of the check;
3. The drawer of the check failed to make good of
the check within 5 banking days from receipt of
the notice of dishonor.
 If the drawer was able to make good of the
check within 5 banking days, the prima facie
presumption of knowledge of insufficiency of
funds will not arise.
Example:
 If the holder deposited the check on the 100 th day. Can
the drawer of the check be still held liable for violation of
BP 22?
Yes, the drawer is liable for violation of BP 22.
What is erased only is the prima facie knowledge
of insufficiency of funds. But so long as the
check is not a stale check (check beyond 6
months or 120 days). If said check is dishonored,
violation of BP 22 can still arise, because the
prima facie knowledge of insufficiency of funds
can be proven by other evidence.
Penalty for violation of BP22:
Page 73

Imprisonment of not less than 30 days but not
more than 1 year or a fine of not less than but
not more than double the amount of the check
which fine shall in no case exceed PHP200,000,
or both such fine and imprisonment at the
discretion of the court.
NOTE:
 In consonance with this penalty, the SC in the
cases of Rosalie v. CA and VACA v. CA, SC issued
AC 10-2000. In this Supreme Court AC, because
of its decision in the said cases, in lieu of
penalty, in lieu of imprisonment, the proper
penalty to be imposed would be fine, if the
offender acted in good faith or clear mistake of
fact without any taint of negligence.
 The SC again issued AC 13-2001 to clarify the
first circular. AC 13-2001 states that the tenor
and intent of AC 10-2000 does not erase
imprisonment as an alternative penalty. What
10-2000 establishes is a rule of preference, and
that is, if the offender acted in good faith, and
there is clear mistake of fact without any taint of
negligence, fine should be the appropriate
penalty. Nevertheless, still whether to impose
penalty of imprisonment of fine is within the
sound discretion of the court.
 In case the penalty imposed is only fine, there is
no hindrance in the court to impose subsidiary
imprisonment in case of failure to pay fine.
Art. 316. Other forms of swindling. — The penalty of
arresto mayor in its minimum and medium period and a fine
of not less than the value of the damage caused and not
more than three times such value, shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, pretending to be owner of any real
property, shall convey, sell, encumber or mortgage
the same.
2. Any person, who, knowing that real property is
encumbered, shall dispose of the same, although
such encumbrance be not recorded.
3. The owner of any personal property who shall
wrongfully take it from its lawful possessor, to the
prejudice of the latter or any third person.
4. Any person who, to the prejudice of another, shall
execute any fictitious contract.
5. Any person who shall accept any compensation
given him under the belief that it was in payment of
services rendered or labor performed by him, when
in fact he did not actually perform such services or
labor.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
6. Any person who, while being a surety in a bond
given in a criminal or civil action, without express
authority from the court or before the cancellation
of his bond or before being relieved from the
obligation contracted by him, shall sell, mortgage,
or, in any other manner, encumber the real
property or properties with which he guaranteed
the fulfillment of such obligation.
Art. 317. Swindling a minor. — Any person who taking
advantage of the inexperience or emotions or feelings of a
minor, to his detriment, shall induce him to assume any
obligation or to give any release or execute a transfer of any
property right in consideration of some loan of money, credit
or other personal property,whether the loan clearly appears
in the document or is shown in any other form, shall suffer
the penalty of arresto mayor and a fine of a sum ranging
from 10 to 50 per cent of the value of the obligation
contracted by the minor.
Art. 318. Other deceits. — The penalty of arresto mayor
and a fine of not less than the amount of the damage
caused and not more than twice such amount shall be
imposed upon any person who shall defraud or damage
another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding
articles of this chapter.
Any person who, for profit or gain, shall interpret dreams,
make forecasts, tell fortunes, or take advantage of the
credulity of the public in any other similar manner, shall
suffer the penalty of arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos.
Chapter Seven
CHATTEL MORTGAGE
Art. 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged
property. — The penalty or arresto mayor or a fine
amounting to twice the value of the property shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall knowingly remove any
personal property mortgaged under the Chattel
Mortgage Law to any province or city other than
the one in which it was located at the time of the
execution of the mortgage, without the written
consent of the mortgagee, or his executors,
administrators or assigns.
2. Any mortgagor who shall sell or pledge personal
property already pledged, or any part thereof,
under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage Law,
without the consent of the mortgagee written on
the back of the mortgage and noted on the record
hereof in the office of the Register of Deeds of the
province where such property is located.
Chapter Eight
ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING
DESTRUCTIONS
Chapter Eight
ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING
DESTRUCTIONS
Art. 320. Destructive arson. — The penalty of
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person
who shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military
powder or fireworks factory, ordinance, storehouse,
archives or general museum of the Government.
2. Any passenger train or motor vehicle in motion or
vessel out of port.
3. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of
inflammable or explosive materials.
Art. 321. Other forms of arson. — When the arson
consists in the burning of other property and under
the circumstances given hereunder, the offender
shall be punishable:
1. By reclusion temporal or reclusion perpetua:
(a) if the offender shall set fire to any building,
farmhouse, warehouse, hut, shelter, or vessel in port,
knowing it to be occupied at the time by one or more
persons;
(b) If the building burned is a public building and
value of the damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos;
(c) If the building burned is a public building and the
purpose is to destroy evidence kept therein to be
used in instituting prosecution for the punishment of
violators of the law, irrespective of the amount of the
damage;
(d) If the building burned is a public building and the
purpose is to destroy evidence kept therein to be
used in legislative, judicial or administrative
proceedings, irrespective of the amount of the
damage; Provided, however, That if the evidence
destroyed is to be used against the defendant for the
prosecution of any crime punishable under existing
laws, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua;
(e) If the arson shall have been committed with the
intention of collecting under an insurance policy
against loss or damage by fire.
2. By reclusion temporal:
(a) If an inhabited house or any other building in
which people are accustomed to meet is set on fire,
and the culprit did not know that such house or
building was occupied at the time, or if he shall set
fire to a moving freight train or motor vehicle, and
the value of the damage caused exceeds 6,000
pesos;
(b) If the value of the damage caused in paragraph
(b) of the preceding subdivision does not exceed
6,000 pesos;
(c) If a farm, sugar mill, cane mill, mill central,
bamboo groves or any similar plantation is set on fire
and the damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos; and
(d) If grain fields, pasture lands, or forests, or
plantings are set on fire, and the damage caused
exceeds 6,000 pesos.
3. By prision mayor:
(a) If the value of the damage caused in the case
mentioned in paragraphs (a), (c), and (d) in the next
preceding subdivision does not exceed 6,000 pesos;
(b) If a building not used as a dwelling or place of
assembly, located in a populated place, is set on fire,
and the damage caused exceeds 6,000 pesos;
4. By prision correccional in its maximum period to
prision mayor in its medium period:
(a) If a building used as dwelling located in an
uninhabited place is set on fire and the damage
caused exceeds 1,000 pesos;
(b) If the value or the damage caused in the case
mentioned in paragraphs (c) and (d) of subdivision 2
of this article does not exceed 200 pesos.
5. By prision correccional in its medium period to
prision mayor in its minimum period, when the
damage caused is over 200 pesos but does not
exceed 1,000 pesos, and the property referred to in
paragraph (a) of the preceding subdivision is set on
fire; but when the value of such property does not
exceed 200 pesos, the penalty next lower in degree
than that prescribed in this subdivision shall be
imposed.
6. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium
and maximum periods, if the damage caused in the
case mentioned in paragraph (b) of subdivision 3 of
this article does not exceed 6,000 pesos but is over
200 pesos.
7. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods, if the damage caused in the
case mentioned paragraph (b) subdivision 3 of this
article does not exceed 200 pesos.
8. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine ranging
from fifty to one hundred per centum if the damage
caused shall be imposed, when the property burned
Page 74

consists of grain fields, pasture lands, forests, or
plantations when the value of such property does not
exceed 200 pesos. (As amended by R.A. 5467,
approved May 12, 1969).
Art. 322. Cases of arson not included in the preceding
articles. — Cases of arson not included in the next
preceding articles shall be punished:
1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods, when the damage caused does not exceed
50 pesos;
2. By arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period, when the
damage caused is over 50 pesos but does not exceed
200 pesos;
3. By prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, if the damage caused is over 200 pesos but
does not exceed 1,000 pesos; and
4. By prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if it is over 1,000 pesos.
Art. 323. Arson of property of small value. — The
arson of any uninhabited hut, storehouse, barn, shed,
or any other property the value of which does not
exceed 25 pesos, committed at a time or under
circumstances which clearly exclude all danger of the
fire spreading, shall not be punished by the penalties
respectively prescribed in
this chapter, but in accordance with the damage
caused and under the provisions of the following
chapter.
Art. 324. Crimes involving destruction. — Any person
who shall cause destruction by means of explosion,
discharge of electric current, inundation, sinking or
stranding of a vessel, intentional damaging of the
engine of said vessel, taking up the rails from a
railway track, maliciously changing railway signals
for the safety of moving trains, destroying telegraph
wires and telegraph posts, or those of any other
system, and, in general, by using any other agency or
means of destruction as effective as those above
enumerated, shall be punished by reclusion temporal
if the commission has endangered the safety of any
person, otherwise, the penalty of prision mayor shall
be imposed.
Art. 325. Burning one's own property as means to
commit arson. — Any person guilty of arson or
causing great destruction of the property belonging
to another shall suffer the penalties prescribed in this
chapter, even though he shall have set fire to or
CRIMINAL LAW 2
destroyed his own property for the purposes of
committing the crime.
Art. 326. Setting fire to property exclusively owned
by the offender. — If the property burned shall be the
exclusive property of the offender, he shall be
punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period, if the
arson shall have been committed for the purpose of
defrauding or causing damage to another, or
prejudice shall actually have been caused, or if the
thing burned shall have
been a building in an inhabited place.
Art. 326-A. In cases where death resulted as a
consequence of arson. — If death resulted as a
consequence of arson committed on any of the
properties and under any of the circumstances
mentioned in the preceding articles, the court shall
impose the death penalty.
Art. 326-B. Prima facie evidence of arson. — Any of
the following circumstances shall constitute prima
facie evidence of arson:
1. If after the fire, are found materials or substances
soaked in gasoline, kerosene, petroleum, or other
inflammables, or any mechanical, electrical chemical
or traces or any of the foregoing.
2. That substantial amount of inflammable substance
or materials were stored within the building not
necessary in the course of the defendant's business;
and
3. That the fire started simultaneously in more than
one part of the building or locale under
circumstances that cannot normally be due to
accidental or unintentional causes: Provided,
however, That at least one of the following is present
in any of the three above-mentioned circumstances:
(a) That the total insurance carried on the building
and/or goods is more than 80 per cent of the value of
such building and/or goods at the time of the fire;
(b) That the defendant after the fire has presented a
fraudulent claim for loss.
The penalty of prision correccional shall be imposed
on one who plants the articles above-mentioned, in
order to secure a conviction, or as a means of
extortion or coercion. (As amended by R.A. 5467,
approved May 12, 1969).
ARSON- is the malicious destruction of property set by fire.
It can be either destructive or simple arson. Destructive or
simple arson is not dependent on the value of the property
but rather on the
SAMPLE PROBLEM:
1. A is a maid and it was Christmas time. A wanted
to go to the province so she asked the master of
the house if she can go to the province. The
master of the house said no. The maid got mad,
so while the master of the house and his family
are sleeping, A burned the house and left. The
house of the master was not the only one
burned, but also the neighbors’ houses. The
master and his children were killed. What is/are
the crimes committed by A? Is A liable for
destructive arson or simple arson only?
Destructive Arson is found under Art 320 of the RPC while
Simple Arson and other arson is repealed by PD 1613
repealing Article 320 to 326 B of the RPC. Even though
there are five deaths, the deaths will be absorbed in the
crime of arson and will only qualify the penalty to death. The
maid is only liable for simple arson, because what has been
burned is an inhabited dwelling. For as long as the thing
burned is an inhabited house or dwelling, the crime
committed is simple arson. If in the course of burning the
dwelling, homicide results, the crime committed is still arson.
If the intention is to kill the offended party, and the means
employed is through burning the house, the crime
committed is MURDER. If however, the intention of the
offender is to destroy the property of the offended party by
fire, and the offender did not know that someone is inside
and death results, the crime is still simple arson. It will only
qualify the penalty to RP to death.
2. A killed B while sleeping. The crime committed is
murder. In order to conceal the crime, A burned
the house. This time, the crime committed is 2.
Murder for killing B and Arson, order to hide the
crime committed. The arson committed is
destructive arson, as it is defined by the law.
How is destructive arson committed?
1. One or more buildings or edifices, consequent to
one single act of burning, or as a result of
simultaneous burnings or committed on several
or different occasions;
2. Any building of public or private ownership,
devoted to public in general, or where people
usually gather or congregate for a definite
purpose such as but not limited to official
government function or business, private
transaction, commerce, trade workshop,
meetings, conferences, or merely incidental to or
for a definite purpose such as but not limited to
motels, transient dwellings, public conveyances
or stops, or terminals, regardless of whether the
offender had knowledge that there are persons
in said building or edifice at the time set on fire
and regardless also of whether the building is
actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train, locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or
airplane, devoted to transportation or
conveyance, or for public use, entertainment and
leisure;
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and
any other appurtenances thereto, which are
devoted to the service of public utilities;
5. Any building the burning of which is for the
purpose of concealing or destroying the evidence
of another violation of law, or for the purpose of
concealing bankruptcy or defrauding creditors or
to collect from insurance.
There is also destructive arson in the following
instances:
1. When the arson is committed by 2 or more
persons, regardless of whether their purpose is
merely to burn or destroy the building or the
burning merely constitutes an overt act in the
commission of another violation of the law;
2. When any person shall burn:
a. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or
military power or fireworks factory,
ordinance, storehouse, archives or
general museum of the Government;
or
b. In an inhabited place, any storehouse
or factory of inflammable or explosive
materials.
When is there simple arson otherwise known as
other cases of arson in PD 1613?
Burning of:
1. Any building used as offices of the government
or any of its agencies;
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or
mine shaft, platform or tunnel;
4. Any plantation, farm, pasture land, growing crop,
grain field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
5. Any rice mill, sugarmill, cane mill, or mill central;
6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf, or
warehouse.
Penalty for destructive arson: Reclusion Perpetua to
Death
Page 75

 If as a result of the commission of any acts of
destructive arson, death results, the penalty
should be death.
 In case of simple arson, reclusion temporal to
reclusion perpetua
 Under Sec 5 of PD 1613, if by reason or on the
occasion of simple arson, death results, the
penalty is reclusion perpetua to death.
Therefore, whatever may be the crime may be, if
by reason of said arson, death results, it will
aggravate the crime of arson and the homicide
will be absorbed in the arson.
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Art. 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief. — Any
person who shall deliberately cause the property of
another any damage not falling within the terms of
the next preceding chapter shall be guilty of
malicious mischief.
Art. 328. Special cases of malicious mischief. — Any
person who shall cause damage to obstruct the
performance of public functions, or using any
poisonous or corrosive substance; or spreading any
infection or contagion among cattle; or who cause
damage to the property of the National Museum or
National Library, or to any archive or registry,
waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing
used in common by the public, shall be punished:
1. By prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds
1,000 pesos;
2. By arresto mayor, if such value does not exceed
the abovementioned amount but it is over 200 pesos;
and
3. By arresto menor, in such value does not exceed
200 pesos.
Art. 329. Other mischiefs. — The mischiefs not
included in the next preceding article shall be
punished:
1. By arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods, if the value of the damage caused exceeds
1,000 pesos;
2. By arresto mayor in its minimum and medium
periods, if such value is over 200 pesos but does not
exceed 1,000 pesos; and
3. By arresto menor or fine of not less than the value
of the damage caused and not more than 200 pesos,
if the amount involved does not exceed 200 pesos or
cannot be estimated.
CRIMINAL LAW 2
Malicious Mischief- is the willful damaging of another’s
property for the sake of causing damage due to hate,
revenge or other evil motive.
If the intention of the offender is to cause damage in the
property of another, by any means outside arson, is
malicious mischief.
It is a crime which can only be committed by means of
intent. There must be deliberate intent to cause damage to
the property of another, because if there is no intent to
cause damage in the property, the liability will be damages
only; civil liability and not criminal liability.
Sample problem:
A and B were fighting, and in the course of their fight, A fell
on the floor and the floor was damaged. The liability will
only be a civil action for damages.
Special cases of Malicious Mischief:
1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of
public functions;
2. Using poisonous or corrosive substances
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among
cattle
4. Causing damage to the property of the National
Library or to any archive or registry, waterworks,
road, promenade, or any other thing used in
common by public
Art. 330. Damage and obstruction to means of
communication. — The penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed upon any person who shall damage any
railway, telegraph or telephone lines.
If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars,
collision or other accident, the penalty of prision
mayor shall be imposed, without prejudice to the
criminal liability of the offender for the other
consequences of his criminal act.
For the purpose of the provisions of the article, the
electric wires, traction cables, signal system and
other things pertaining to railways, shall be deemed
to constitute an integral part of a railway system.
Art. 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public
monuments or paintings. — Any person who shall
destroy or damage statues or any other useful or
ornamental public monument shall suffer the penalty
of arresto mayor in its medium period to prision
correccional in its minimum period.
Any person who shall destroy or damage any useful
or ornamental painting of a public nature shall suffer
the penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos, or both such fine and imprisonment, in
the discretion of the court.
Chapter Ten
EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY
IN CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Art. 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability. — No
criminal, but only civil liability, shall result from the
commission of the crime of theft, swindling or
malicious mischief committed or caused mutually by
the following persons:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives
by affinity in the same line.
2. The widowed spouse with respect to the property
which belonged to the deceased spouse before the
same shall have passed into the possession of
another; and
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
sisters-in-law, if living together.
The exemption established by this article shall not be
applicable to strangers participating in the
commission of the crime.
1st Act
Q:In the Case of Carungcong vs People, the son in law a
Japanese National , by means of deceit made his mother in
law sign a SPA, said SPA was used to sell the property of
Tagaytay. The mother died without receiving the proceeds
of the sale. The daughter of the mother wanted to file a
case against the son-in law. Note that the wife of the
Japanese national is already deceased. Does article apply in
this case where the crime committed is estafa even if the
wife of the Japanese National is already dead?
A:The relationship by affinity is still existing. The purpose is
to ensure harmony within the family. Article 332 will still
apply. The Son in law may be prosecuted. The crime is
estafa through falsification of public document. The crime
committed is the complex crime of estafa through
falsification of public document. Article 332 will not apply
though there is a relationship because the crime is already
complexed.
Article 332, paramours, mistresses, are within the meaning
of wives. Step fathers- ascendants, step children-
descendants.
Title Eleven
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Chapter One
ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE
Art. 333. Who are guilty of adultery. — Adultery is
committed by any married woman who shall have
sexual intercourse with a man not her husband and
by the man who has carnal knowledge of her
knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be
subsequently declared void.
Adultery shall be punished by prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods.
If the person guilty of adultery committed this
offense while being abandoned withoutjustification
by the offended spouse, the penalty next lower in
degree than thatprovided in the next preceding
paragraph shall be imposed.
Offender: legally married woman
Offended party: husband
To whom shall the case be filed: Wife and Lover
Who shall file: only by the offended husband.
Adultery is a private crime. It can only be prosecuted by the
offended spouse. Without the complaint filed by the
offended spouse, no crime.
 If the lover does not know that the woman is
married, still the husband should file the case on
both of them. it is a matter of defense only on
the lover. So, there are cases where only one is
convicted and the other one is acquitted. The
wife is convicted and the lover is acquitted
 If adultery is abandoned by her husband without
justification, mitigated
 Adultery is a crime of consequence, so there is
no attempted or frustrated stage. It is always in
the consummated stage.
 Adultery may be proven by circumstantial
evidence.
o For example, the husband was
working in Saudi for 10 years, and
upon reaching home, he sees his wife
pregnant, there is adultery except if
the wife is raped.
Art. 334. Concubinage. — Any husband who shall
keep a mistress in the conjugal dwelling, or shall
have sexual intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances, with a woman who is not his wife, or
shall cohabit with her in any other place, shall be
punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods.The concubine shall suffer the
penalty of destierro.
Elements of concubinage:
1. The man must be married
2. That he committed any of the following acts:
a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal
dwelling;
Page 76

b. Having sexual intercourse under
scandalous circumstances;
c. Cohabiting with her in any other
place
3. The woman must know that the man must be
married
1st Act: the conjugal dwelling is the house of the husband
2nd Act: the best witnesses are the neighbors of the
husband. It must be in such a manner that the neighbors
are shocked.
Just like adultery, concubinage is a private crime. It cannot
be prosecuted if the offended spouse will not file a complaint
against the offender spouse. The wife must also prosecute
both the husband and the concubine. It is a matter of
defense on the concubine that she does not know the
husband is married.
The penalty for the concubine is destierro.
RAPE IS ALREADY REPEALED
Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness. — Any person who
shall commit any act of lasciviousness upon other
persons of either sex, under any of the circumstances
mentioned in the preceding article, shall be punished
by prision correccional.
Acts of lasciviousness- acts committed with unchaste
design and done under circumstances of rape.
As it is done under circumstances of rape, so the
offender may be any person, for example a man
touching the private parts of another man.
Elements:
1. That the offender commits any act of
lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. That the act of lasciviousness is committed
against a person of either sex;
3. That it is done under any of the following
circumstances:
a. Using force 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
d. When the offended party is under 12
years of age or demented
Chapter Three
CRIMINAL LAW 2
SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF MINORS
AND WHITE SLAVE TRADE
Art. 337. Qualified seduction. — The seduction of a
virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of
age, committed by any person in public authority,
priest, home-servant, domestic, guardian, teacher, or
any person who, in any capacity, shall be entrusted
with the education or custody of the woman seduced,
shall be punishedby prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods.
The penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed
upon any person who shall seduce his sister or
descendant, whether or not she be a virgin or over
eighteen years of age.
Under the provisions of this Chapter, seduction is
committed when the offender has carnal knowledge
of any of the persons and under the circumstances
described herein.
Two kinds of qualified seduction:
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years of age and
under 18 years of age by persons who abuse
their authority or confidence reposed in them
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother or
descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her
age and reputation.
In the 1st kind is the seduction of a virgin
1. Committed by a public officer, a domestic
servant, a priest, teacher, guardian or any
person who has custody over the person
2. In this case, the elements are:
a) The offended party must be a virgin
b) She must be over 12 and under 18
c) The offender is a priest, domestic
servant, teacher, guardian
d) The offender had sexual intercourse
with her
e) There is abuse of authority,
confidence or relationship on the part
of the offender
Virginity does not refer to physical virginity. It would suffice
that the woman is not married, she is single and living a
chaste life. The law presumes that she is a virgin.
The offender is any person, public authority, priest, guardian
Note: sexual intercourse is an element of any kind of
seduction.
In the 2nd case:
Virginity does not matter, even if the said sister or
descendant is a married woman. Likewise, age does not
matter. There can still be a seduction of a sister or
descendant. There must be an element of sexual intercourse
and committed in abuse of authority.
Art. 338. Simple seduction. — The seduction of a
woman who is single or a widow of good reputation,
over twelve but under eighteen years of age,
committed by means of deceit, shall be punished by
arresto mayor.
In case of simple seduction, the offended party must be a
WOMAN who is single or widow.
Deceit- the offended party gave herself to the man because
of the latter’s promise.
Sample Problem:
In order to have sexual congress with the woman, the man
promised to marry the man. Crime committed is seduction.
In one case, the woman committed sexual congress with a
married man because the man promised that he will marry
the woman. The SC said that there is no seduction. The fact
that the woman knows that the man is married, the man
cannot marry her. There is no deceit.
Art. 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of
the offended party. — The penalty of arresto mayor
shall be imposed to punish any other acts of
lasciviousness committed by the same persons and
the same circumstances as those provided in Articles
337 and 338.
This is under circumstances of seduction.
Offender: Man
Offended Party: woman
Under this circumstance, the acts of lasciviousness are
committed through:
a) Abuse of authority
b) Abuse of confidence
c) Abuse of relationship
d) Means of deceit
Art. 340. Corruption of minors. — Any person who
shall promote or facilitate the prostitution or
corruption of persons underage to satisfy the lust of
another, shall be punished by prision mayor, and if
the culprit is a pubic officer or employee, including
those in government-owned or controlled
corporations, he shall also suffer the penalty of
temporary absolute disqualification. (As amended by
Batas Pambansa Blg. 92).
Art. 341. White slave trade. — The penalty of prision
mayor in its medium and maximum period shall be
imposed upon any person who, in any manner, or
under any pretext, shall engage in the business or
shall profit by prostitution or shall enlist the services
of any other for the purpose of prostitution (As
amended by Batas Pambansa Blg. 186.)
Chapter Four
ABDUCTION
Art. 342. Forcible abduction. — The abduction of any
woman against her will and with lewd designs shall
be punished by reclusion temporal.
The same penalty shall be imposed in every case, if
the female abducted be under twelve years of age.
Art. 343. Consented abduction. — The abduction of a
virgin over twelve years and under eighteen years of
age, carried out with her consent and with lewd
designs, shall be punished by the penalty of prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
Forcible abduction- taking away of a woman against her will
with lewd design.
Woman can be any person. Age, virginity, civil status is not
material. For as long as the taking away is done with lewd
design and against her will.
 note that sexual intercourse is not an element. If
by reason of the forcible abduction, the man had
sexual intercourse with the woman, it may result
in a complex crime of rape with forcible
abduction.
SAMPLE PROBLEM:
1. X is a turned down suitor of A. X forcibly took A,
who was sitting in the door step of her house. X
professed his love to A. However, A did not
accept him so X raped him 7 times within 7 days.
How many crimes are committed? What are the
crimes committed?
The crimes committed by X are 7 crimes: 1 crime forcible
abduction with rape and 6 crimes of rape. Separate and
distinct from each other.
 Note that only 1 forcible abduction is necessary
and only 1 rape is necessary to bring about
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
The other rapes are separate and distinct from
the crime of rape
Page 77

2. In the same case, the woman was inside the
house of the man. The man attempted to rape
the woman but the woman was able to run
away.
There is no crime of forcible abduction with attempted rape.
The attempt to rape the woman is the manifestation of the
lewd design which is an element of forcible abduction.
CONSENTED ABDUCTION:
Elements:
1. The woman must be a virgin
2. She must be over 12 years but under 18
3. The taking away must be with her consent, after
solicitation or cajolery from the offender
4. The taking away must be with lewd designs.
This time, the offended party consented to the taking away.
But take note of the age (12-18). This is what makes the
crime of abduction.
Sample Problem
The girl was 15 and the boyfriend was 25. The said
boyfriend was able to take away the girl with her consent.
The parents of the girl filed a case. Per Ma’am, she was able
to handle a similar case where the girl was 16 and the man
was above 18. The parents of the girl do not like the man so
the lovers eloped and lived in the house of the man. The
mother filed a case of consented abduction. During the P.I.,
the said girl loved the man and even if the mother will take
her away from the man, she will always return to the man.
Also, the woman has keys of the house of the man. Per
ma’am the man was not at fault because it was always the
woman who would go to the man’s house. So she dismissed
the case.
In qualified seduction and consented abduction, acts of
lasciviousness in circumstances of seduction: INSTANCES
WHERE VIRGINITY IS AN ELEMENT
Note: In consented abduction, sexual intercourse is not an
element, so if after the woman ran away with the man, yet
she does not want to have sexual intercourse but the man
forced her and was able to succeed in having sexual
intercourse, the crime committed is consented abduction
with rape.
Chapter Five
PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE PRECEDING
CHAPTERS OF TITLE ELEVEN
Art. 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery,
concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness. — The crimes of adultery and
CRIMINAL LAW 2
concubinage shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal
prosecution without including both the guilty parties,
if they are both alive, nor, in any case, if he shall
have consented or pardoned the offenders.
The offenses of seduction, abduction, rape or acts of
lasciviousness, shall not be prosecuted except upon a
complaint filed by the offended party or her parents,
grandparents, or guardian, nor, in any case, if the
offender has been expressly pardoned by the above
named persons, as the case may be.
In cases of seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness and rape, the marriage of the offender
with the offended party shall extinguish the criminal
action or remit the penalty already imposed upon
him. The provisions of this paragraph shall also be
applicable to the co-principals, accomplices and
accessories after the fact of the above-mentioned
crimes.
Art. 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes
against chastity. — Person guiltyof rape, seduction or
abduction, shall also be sentenced:
1. To indemnify the offended woman.
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law
should prevent him from so doing.
3. In every case to support the offspring.
The adulterer and the concubine in the case provided
for in Articles 333 and 334 may also be sentenced, in
the same proceeding or in a separate civil
proceeding, to indemnify for damages caused to the
offended spouse.
Art. 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians, teachers,
or other persons entrusted with the custody of the
offended party. — The ascendants, guardians,
curators, teachers and any person who, by abuse of
authority or confidential relationships, shall
cooperate as accomplices in the perpetration of the
crimes embraced in chapters,
second, third and fourth, of this title, shall be
punished as principals.
Teachers or other persons in any other capacity
entrusted with the education and guidance of youth,
shall also suffer the penalty of temporary special
disqualification in its maximum period to perpetual
special disqualification.
Any person falling within the terms of this article,
and any other person guilty of corruption of minors
for the benefit of another, shall be punished by
special disqualification from filling the office of
guardian.
Title Twelve
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
Chapter one
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND USURPATION OF CIVIL
STATUS
Art. 347. Simulation of births, substitution of one
child for another and concealment or abandonment
of a legitimate child. — The simulation of births and
the substitution of one child for another shall be
punished by prision mayor and a fine of notexceeding
1,000 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any
person who shall conceal or abandonany legitimate
child with intent to cause such child to lose its civil
status.
Any physician or surgeon or public officer who, in
violation of the duties of hisprofession or office, shall
cooperate in the execution of any of the crimes
mentioned in the two next preceding paragraphs,
shall suffer the penalties therein prescribed and also
the penalty of temporary special disqualification.
Three acts punished under Art. 347:
1. Simulation of birth
2. Substitution of a child
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child
with intent to cause such child to lose its civil
status
Simulation of birth- takes place when the woman pretends
to be pregnant when in fact she is not and on the day of the
delivery, takes the child of another as her own.
Sample problem:
1. A was a pregnant. She told the midwife that she
does not want the baby. The midwife said that
she knew a couple who wanted a child. This
couple took the baby and registered the child as
their own. What are the crimes committed and
who are liable?
All of them are all liable for simulation of birth. The said
couple pretended that the child is their own child. In that
case, said child lost its original status.
2. In substitution of a child, the classic example is
MARA and CLARA.
3. In the 3rd act, it is necessary that the child is
legitimate, not illegitimate. The offender conceals
or abandons the legitimate child and the
intention of the offender is to lose the child’s civil
status.
Sample problem:
1. The offender abandons the child in the forest.
The child is one month old. Later however the
child was rescued. The crime committed was
attempted parricide, because it can be seen that
there was intent to kill.
2. A couple gave birth to its 13th child. They are
very poor. So the couple placed the baby in the
gate of a well-known family. What crimes are
committed?
-Crime committed abandonment of the legitimate
child with the intent to lose its civil status. There
is no other intent of the parents but to lose its
status as a poor child.
Art. 348. Usurpation of civil status. — The penalty of
prision mayor shall be imposed upon any person who
shall usurp the civil status of another, should he do
so for the purpose of defrauding the offended part or
his heirs; otherwise, the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods
shall be imposed.
Chapter Two
ILLEGAL MARRIAGES
Art. 349. Bigamy. — The penalty of prision mayor
shall be imposed upon any person who shall contract
a second or subsequent marriage before the former
marriage has been legally dissolved, or before the
absent spouse has been declared presumptively dead
by means of a judgment rendered in the proper
proceedings.
Sample problem:
A and B are married. B, the husband fell in love with another
woman, and married the woman thereafter. It is now a
bigamous married. A bigamous marriage is an otherwise
valid marriage, except for the fact that there is a subsisting
marriage.
Bigamous marriage through reckless imprudence- in the
book, there is such crime because a woman contracted a
marriage because she believed the statements of the
relatives of her former spouse that the latter is already dead.
However, such ruling was erroneous. There must be a
declaration of presumptive death.
Page 78

Art. 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of
laws. — The penalty of prisioncorreccional in its
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed
upon any person who, without being included in the
provisions of the next proceeding article, shall have
not been complied with or that the marriage is in
disregard of a legal impediment.
If either of the contracting parties shall obtain the
consent of the other by means of violence,
intimidation or fraud, he shall be punished by the
maximum period of the penalty provided in the next
preceding paragraph.
Illegal marriage- marriage contracted without the requisites
of the law.
If a person contracted marriage if knowledge of the
infirmities, liable under 350
The solemnizing officer is liable also criminally.
Art. 351. Premature marriages. — Any widow who
shall marry within three hundred and one day from
the date of the death of her husband, or before
having delivered if she shall have been pregnant at
the time of his death, shall be punished by arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any
woman whose marriage shall have been annulled or
dissolved, if she shall marry before her delivery or
before the expiration of the period of three hundred
and one day after the legal separation.
Person liable:
1. A woman who married within 301 days from the
death of her husband, or before delivery of her
baby
2. A woman whose marriage having been annulled
or dissolved, married before delivery or before
expiration of the period of 301 days after the
date of legal separation.
The requirement that the marriage must be done within 301
days must only apply if the woman is not pregnant. If the
woman is pregnant, it is only at the time of the delivery of
the baby. After the baby is delivered, she can already marry.
Why is it that the law requires that the baby must be first
delivered, or it must be 301 days? This is to ensure that
there is no doubt as to the paternity of the child, otherwise
there would be confusion.
Art. 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony.
— Priests or ministers of any religious denomination
or sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or
CRIMINAL LAW 2
authorize any illegal marriage ceremony shall be
punished in accordance with the provisions of the
Marriage Law.
Title Thirteen
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Chapter One
LIBEL
Section One. — Definitions, forms, and punishment of
this crime.
Art. 353. Definition of libel. — A libel is public and
malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause
the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one
who is dead.
Art. 354. Requirement for publicity. — Every
defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious,
even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable
motive for making it is shown, except in the
following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to
another in the performance of any legal, moral or
social duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without
any comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative
or other official proceedings which are not of
confidential nature, or of any statement, report or
speech delivered in said proceedings, or of any other
act performed by public officers in the exercise of
their functions.
Art. 355. Libel means by writings or similar means. —
A libel committed by means of writing, printing,
lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting,
theatrical exhibition, cinematographic exhibition, or
any similar means, shall be punished by prision
correccional in its minimum and medium periods or a
fine ranging from 200 to 6,000 pesos, or both, in
addition to the civil action which may be brought by
the offended party.
Art. 356. Threatening to publish and offer to present
such publication for a compensation. — The penalty
of arresto mayor or a fine from 200 to 2,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any person who
threatens another to publish a libel concerning him
or the parents, spouse, child, or other members of
the family of the latter or upon anyone who shall
offer to prevent the publication of such libel for a
compensation or money consideration.
Art. 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in
the course of official proceedings. — The penalty of
arresto mayor or a fine of from 20 to 2,000 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any reporter, editor or
manager or a newspaper, daily or magazine, who
shall publish facts connected with the private life of
another and offensive to the honor, virtue and
reputation of said person, even though said
publication be made in connection with or under the
pretext that it is necessary in the narration of any
judicial or administrative proceedings wherein such
facts have been mentioned.
Art. 358. Slander. — Oral defamation shall be
punished by arresto mayor in its maximum period to
prision correccional in its minimum period if it is of a
serious and insulting nature; otherwise the penalty
shall be arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200
pesos.
Art. 359. Slander by deed. — The penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to
1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who
shall perform any act not included and punished in
this title, which shall cast dishonor, discredit or
contempt upon another
person. If said act is not of a serious nature, the
penalty shall be arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos.
Forms of libel:
1. Written defamation
2. Oral defamation
3. Slander by deed
4. Defamatory acts
Elements of libel:
1. There must be an imputation or allegation of a
crime, or a vice of defect, real or imaginary, or
any act or omission, condition, status or
circumstance which tend to dishonor or discredit
a natural or juridical person.
2. That there must be a publication of these
imputation;
3. The identity of the person defamed must be
established or identified;
4. The existence of malice.
Publication- satisfied the moment that a 3rd person has
heard or read the libelous statement, even if the person
pertained has not read it. So the basis is that a 3rd person
has heard or read the libelous statement.
Identity of the person- must be identified, not necessary that
the person must be named. It suffices that the person is
described and identifiable by a third person.
Malice- malice is presumed as a rule for every statements
made. However in defamatory statements, if the offender
cannot state any good intention for stating defamatory
statements, the law presumes malice.
Prosecution need not prove malice because the law
presumes malice. This is MALICE IN LAW.
Instances:
Malice in fact- refers to privilege in communication, refers to
private communication, reports, or any acts performed by a
public officer. In this case the law does not presumes
malice. Malice must be proven by the prosecution otherwise
there would be acquittal
Libel can be committed through the following:
1. Writing
2. Printing
3. Lithography
4. Engraving
5. Radio
6. Phonograph
7. Painting
8. Theatrical exhibition
9. Cinematographic exhibition
10. Or any similar means
 If libel is committed, the liability is prision
correctional.
 TV is within the phrase any similar means.
 If amplifier or microphone was used for everyone
to hear, the crime committed is slander or oral
defamation, but not libel.
Venue: RPC provides that even if the crime is prision
correccional, it must be filed before the RTC where the
article was printed or first published, or RTC where any of
the offended party is residing. Note that this is a substantive
law. It is not found in the Rules of Court
If the offended party is a public officer and is working in
Manila, it must be filed before RTC of Manila or where the
article was first published. If the public officer is not working
in Manila, it shall be filed in the RTC where he is working at
the time of the commission of the offense or where the
libelous article was printed or was first published.
If private individual is the offended party, RTC of the place
where the private individual resides at the time of the actual
commission of the offense or where the libelous material
was published
Page 79

ORAL DEFAMATION/SLANDER
1. Grave oral defamation- when serious and
insulting and nature.
Factors to consider: not only the grammar and meaning, but
also the:
a) Personal relations of the accused and the
offended party
b) Facts and Circumstances surrounding the case
c) Social standing and position of the offended
party.
 PUTANG INA MO is not a slanderous remark; it is
merely an expression of the Filipino People.
(Pader vs People)
2. Simple slander
SLANDER BY DEED
Slander by deed- refers to acts not words, with the intent to
defame the person. It can also be (a)serious, grave slander
by deed, or (b) simple slander by deed.
 A priest was slapped by a person, serious slander
by deed
Section Two. — General provisions
Art. 360. Persons responsible. — Any person who
shall publish, exhibit, or cause the publication or
exhibition of any defamation in writing or by similar
means, shall be responsible for the same.
The author or editor of a book or pamphlet, or the
editor or business manager of a daily newspaper,
magazine or serial publication, shall be responsible
for the defamations contained therein to the same
extent as if he were the author thereof.
The criminal and civil action for damages in cases of
written defamations as provided for in this chapter,
shall be filed simultaneously or separately with the
court of first instance of the province or city where
the libelous article is printed and first published or
where any of the offended parties actually resides at
the time of the commission of
the offense: Provided, however, That where one of
the offended parties is a public officer whose office is
in the City of Manila at the time of the commission of
the offense, the action shall be filed in the Court of
First Instance of the City of Manila, or of the city or
province where the libelous article is printed and first
published, and in case such public officer does not
hold office in the City of Manila, the action shall be
filed in the Court of First Instance of the province or
city where he held office at the time of the
commission of the offense or where the libelous
article is printed and first published and in case one
CRIMINAL LAW 2
of the offended parties is a private individual, the
action shall be filed in the Court of First Instance of
the province or city where he actually resides at the
time of the commission of the offense or where the
libelous matter is printed and first published:
Provided, further, That the civil action shall be filed
in the same court where the criminal action is filed
and vice versa: Provided, furthermore,
That the court where the criminal action or civil
action for damages is first filed, shall acquire
jurisdiction to the exclusion of other courts: And,
provided, finally, That this amendment shall not
apply to cases of written defamations, the civil
and/or criminal actions which have been filed in
court at the time of the effectivity of this law.
Preliminary investigation of criminal action for
written defamations as provided for in the chapter
shall be conducted by the provincial or city fiscal of
the province or city, or by the municipal court of the
city or capital of the province where such action may
be instituted in accordance with the provisions of this
article.
No criminal action for defamation which consists in
the imputation of a crime which cannot be
prosecuted de oficio shall be brought except at the
instance of and upon complaint expressly filed by the
offended party. (As amended by R.A. 1289, approved
June 15, 1955, R.A. 4363, approved June 19, 1965).
Art. 361. Proof of the truth. — In every criminal
prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in
evidence to the court and if it appears that the
matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover,
that it was published with good motives and for
justifiable ends, the defendants shall be acquitted.
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or
omission not constituting a crime shall not be
admitted, unless the imputation shall have been
made against Government employees with respect to
facts related to the discharge of their official duties.
In such cases if the defendant proves the truth of the
imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.
Art. 362. Libelous remarks. — Libelous remarks or
comments connected with the matter privileged
under the provisions of Article 354, if made with
malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the
editor or managing editor of a newspaper from
criminal liability.
Chapter Two
INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS
Art. 363. Incriminating innocent person. — Any
person who, by any act not constituting perjury, shall
directly incriminate or impute to an innocent person
the commission of a crime, shall be punished by
arresto menor.
Act of directly incriminating or imputes to an innocent
person the commission of the crime. It is necessary that it
must not be made on an affidavit, because if it is through an
affidavit, it will be perjury. It will only arise if it will not
amount to (a) perjury or (b) sec 29 of RA 9165
Sample problem
 A’s ballpen was lost. B took it and placed it in the
bag of C so that C will be liable for theft. B
committed incriminating innocent person.
 In the case of dangerous drugs, the law that will
govern is sec 29 of RA 9165, or planting of
evidence. Person found guilty of planting
evidence, regardless of quantity or purity of the
dangerous drugs shall suffer the penalty of
death.
Art. 364. Intriguing against honor. — The penalty of
arresto menor or fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall
be imposed for any intrigue which has for its
principal purpose to blemish the honor or reputation
of a person.
Title Fourteen
QUASI-OFFENSES
Sole Chapter
CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
Art. 365. Imprudence and negligence. — Any person
who, by reckless imprudence, shall commit any act
which, had it been intentional, would constitute a
grave felony, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional
in its medium period; if it would have constituted a
less grave felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum and medium periods shall be imposed; if it
would have constituted a light felony, the penalty of
arresto menor in its maximum period shall be
imposed.
Any person who, by simple imprudence or
negligence, shall commit an act which would
otherwise constitute a grave felony, shall suffer the
penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and
maximum periods; if it would have constituted a less
serious felony, the penalty of arresto mayor in its
minimum period shall be imposed.
When the execution of the act covered by this article
shall have only resulted in damage to the property of
another, the offender shall be punished by a fine
ranging from an amount equal to the value of said
damages to three times such value, but which shall in
no case be less than twenty-five pesos.
A fine not exceeding two hundred pesos and censure
shall be imposed upon any person who, by simple
imprudence or negligence, shall cause some wrong
which, if done maliciously, would have constituted a
light felony.
In the imposition of these penalties, the court shall
exercise their sound discretion, without regard to the
rules prescribed in Article sixty-four.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be
applicable:
1. When the penalty provided for the offense is equal
to or lower than those provided in the first two
paragraphs of this article, in which case the court
shall impose the penalty next lower in degree than
that which should be imposed in the period which
they may deem proper to apply.
2. When, by imprudence or negligence and with
violation of the Automobile Law, to death of a person
shall be caused, in which case the defendant shall be
punished by prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods.
Reckless imprudence consists in voluntary, but
without malice, doing or falling to do an act from
which material damage results by reason of
inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the
person performing of 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.
Simple imprudence consists in the lack of precaution
displayed in those cases in which the damage
impending to be caused is not immediate nor the
danger clearly manifest.
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided
for in this article shall be imposed upon the offender
who fails to lend on the spot to the injured parties
such help as may be in this hand to give. (As
amended by R.A. 1790, approved June 21, 1957).
Take note of the case of Ivler vs Modesto.
Reckless imprudence or negligence is the crime itself. Hence,
once committed or acquitted of a specific act of reckless
imprudence, the accused may not be prosecuted again for
that same act. For the essence of the quasi offense of
criminal negligence under Art 365 of the RPC lies in the
execution of an imprudent or negligent act that if
intentionally done, would be punishable as a felony. The law
penalizes thus the negligent or careless act, not the result
thereof. The gravity of the consequence is only taken into
Page 80

account to determine the penalty; it does not qualify the
substance of the offense. And, as the careless act is single,
whether the injurious result should affect one person or
several persons, the offense (criminal negligence) remains
one and the same, and cannot be split into different crimes
and prosecutions.
1st case: reckless imprudence resulting to slight physical
injuries
2nd case: reckless imprudence resulting to homicide and
damage to property
 One quasi-offense cannot give rise to another
quasi-offense.
 Note simple negligence is not a means to commit
a crime. They are crimes by themselves.
R.A 9995 Anti-Voyeurism Law
Acts Punished:
a) Taking photo or video coverage of a person or a
group of persons performing sexual act or any
similar activity or to capture an image of a
private area of a person such as the naked or
undergarment clad genitals, public area,
buttocks, or female breasts without the consent
of the persons involved and under circumstances
in which the person/s has/have a reasonable
expectation of privacy
b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied
or reproduced such photo or video or recording
of sexual act or any similar activity with or
without consideration
c) To sell or distribute or to cause to be sold or
distributed , such photo or video or recording of
sexual act, whether the original copy or
reproduction thereof;
d) To publish or broadcast, or to cause to be
published or broadcast whether in print or
broadcast media, or show or exhibit the photo or
video coverage or recordings of such sexual act
or any similar activity through VCD/DVDV,
internet, cellular phones and other similar means
or device.
Sample problem:
A and B are having sex. B proposed to video their sexual act
to which A consented. There is no crime. However, if B later
on reproduced the video, B is still liable.
Penalty: imprisonment of not less than 3 years but not more
than 7 years AND fine of not less than 100k but not more
than 500k, or both at the discretion of the court.
RA 7877 Anti-Sexual Harassment Act
CRIMINAL LAW 2
Definition of Work, Education, or Training Related Sexual
Harrassment
- Committed by an employer, employee, manager,
supervisor, agent of the employer, teacher, instructor,
professor, coach, trainor, or any other person who, having
authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a
work or training or education environment, demands,
requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the
other, regardless of whether the demand, request or
requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said
Act.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual
harassment is committed when:
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in
the hiring or in the employment, re-employment
or continued employment of said individual, or in
granting said individual favorable compensation,
terms of conditions, promotions, or privileges; or
the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in
limiting, segregating or classifying the employee
which in any way would discriminate, deprive
ordiminish employment opportunities or
otherwise adversely affect said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employee's
rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or
(3) The above acts would result in an
intimidating, hostile, or offensive environment for
the employee.
(b) In an education or training environment, sexual
harassment is committed:
(1) Against one who is under the care, custody
or supervision of the offender;
(2) Against one whose education, training,
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the
offender;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to
the giving of a passing grade, or the granting of
honors and scholarships, or the payment of a
stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges,
or consideration; or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for
the student, trainee or apprentice.
Any person who directs or induces another to commit any
act of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who
cooperates in the commission thereof by another without
which it would not have been committed, shall also be held
liable under this Act.
Page 81