Ortega Lecture Notes Criminal Law II

P.J.G.
1
REVISED ORTEGA LECTURE NOTES ON CRIMINAL LAW
TITLE I. CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE (2) Inciting to War or Giving Motives for Reprisals,
LAW OF NATIONS under Article 118 – This can be committed even if
the Philippines is not a participant. Exposing the
Filipinos or their properties because the offender
Crimes against national security performed an unauthorized act, like those who
recruit Filipinos to participate in the gulf war. If
1. Treason (Art. 114); they involve themselves to the war, this crime is
committed. Relevant in the cases of Flor
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason (Art. Contemplacion or Abner Afuang, the police officer
115); who stepped on a Singaporean flag.
3. Misprision of treason (Art. 116); and (3) Violation of Neutrality, under Article 119 – The
Philippines is not a party to a war but there is a
4. Espionage (Art. 117). war going on. This may be committed in the light
of the Middle East war.
Crimes against the law of nations

Article 114. Treason
1. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals (Art.
118); Elements
2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119); 1. Offender is a Filipino or resident alien;
3. Corresponding with hostile country (Art. 120); 2. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121); and 3. Offender either –
5. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas a. levies war against the government; or
(Art. 122).
b. adheres to the enemies, giving them aid
or comfort within the Philippines or
The crimes under this title can be prosecuted even if the elsewhere
criminal act or acts were committed outside the Philippine
territorial jurisdiction. However, prosecution can proceed
only if the offender is within Philippine territory or brought Requirements of levying war
to the Philippines pursuant to an extradition treaty. This is
one of the instances where the Revised Penal Code may be 1. Actual assembling of men;
given extra-territorial application under Article 2 (5)
thereof. In the case of crimes against the law of nations, 2. To execute a treasonable design by force;
the offender can be prosecuted whenever he may be found
because the crimes are regarded as committed against 3. Intent is to deliver the country in whole or in part
humanity in general. to the enemy; and
Almost all of these are crimes committed in times of war, 4. Collaboration with foreign enemy or some foreign
except the following, which can be committed in times of sovereign
peace:
(1) Espionage, under Article 114 – This is also covered Two ways of proving treason
by Commonwealth Act No. 616 which punishes
conspiracy to commit espionage. This may be 1. Testimony of at least two witnesses to the same
committed both in times of war and in times of overt act; or
peace.
2. Confession of accused in open court.
P.J.G. 2
failed to make the necessary report to the government

Article 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Treason within the earliest possible time. What is required is to
report it as soon as possible. The criminal liability arises if
Elements of conspiracy to commit treason the treasonous activity was still at the conspiratorial stage.
Because if the treason already erupted into an overt act,
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved; the implication is that the government is already aware of
it. There is no need to report the same. This is a felony by
2. At least two persons come to an agreement to – omission although committed with dolo, not with culpa.
a. levy war against the government; or The persons mentioned in Article 116 are not limited to
mayor, fiscal or governor. Any person in authority having
b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid equivalent jurisdiction, like a provincial commander, will
or comfort; already negate criminal liability.
3. They decide to commit it. Whether the conspirators are parents or children, and the
ones who learn the conspiracy is a parent or child, they are
required to report the same. The reason is that although
Elements of proposal to commit treason blood is thicker than water so to speak, when it comes to
security of the state, blood relationship is always
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved; subservient to national security. Article 20 does not apply
here because the persons found liable for this crime are not
2. At least one person decides to – considered accessories; they are treated as principals.
a. levy war against the government; or In the 1994 bar examination, a problem was given with
respect to misprision of treason. The text of the provision
b. adhere to the enemies, giving them aid simply refers to a conspiracy to overthrow the government.
or comfort; The examiner failed to note that this crime can only be
3. He proposes its execution to some other persons. committed in times of war. The conspiracy adverted to
must be treasonous in character. In the problem given, it
was rebellion. A conspiracy to overthrow the government is
Article 116. Misprision of Treason a crime of rebellion because there is no war. Under the
Revised Penal Code, there is no crime of misprision of
Elements rebellion.
1. Offender owes allegiance to the government, and

not a foreigner; Article 117. Espionage
2. He has knowledge of conspiracy to commit Acts punished

treason against the government;
1. By entering, without authority therefore, a
warship, fort or naval or military establishment or
3. He conceals or does not disclose and make known
reservation to obtain any information, plans,
the same as soon as possible to the governor or
photograph or other data of a confidential nature
fiscal of the province in which he resides, or the
relative to the defense of the Philippines;
mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides.
Elements
While in treason, even aliens can commit said crime
1. Offender enters any of the places
because of the amendment to the article, no such
mentioned;
amendment was made in misprision of treason. Misprision
of treason is a crime that may be committed only by
2. He has no authority therefore;
citizens of the Philippines.
3. His purpose is to obtain information,
The essence of the crime is that there are persons who
plans, photographs or other data of a
conspire to commit treason and the offender knew this and
P.J.G. 3
confidential nature relative to the b. exposure of Filipino citizens to reprisals

defense of the Philippines. on their persons or property.
2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign

nation the contents of the articles, data or Article 119. Violation of Neutrality
information referred to in paragraph 1 of Article
117, which he had in his possession by reason of Elements
the public office he holds.
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is not
Elements involved;
1. Offender is a public officer; 2. There is a regulation issued by a competent

authority to enforce neutrality;
2. He has in his possession the articles, data
or information referred to in paragraph 1 3. Offender violates the regulation.
of Article 117, by reason of the public
office he holds;
3. He discloses their contents to a When we say national security, it should be interpreted as
representative of a foreign nation. including rebellion, sedition and subversion. The Revised
Penal Code does not treat rebellion, sedition and
subversion as crimes against national security, but more of
Commonwealth Act No. 616 – An Act to Punish Espionage crimes against public order because during the time that
and Other Offenses against National Security the Penal Code was enacted, rebellion was carried out only
with bolos and spears; hence, national security was not
Acts punished really threatened. Now, the threat of rebellion or internal
wars is serious as a national threat.
1. Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be obtained
information affecting national defense;
Article 120. Correspondence with Hostile Country
2. Unlawful disclosing of information affecting
national defense; Elements
3. Disloyal acts or words in times of peace; 1. It is in time of war in which the Philippines is
involved;
4. Disloyal acts or words in times of war;
2. Offender makes correspondence with an enemy
5. Conspiracy to violate preceding sections; and country or territory occupied by enemy troops;
6. Harboring or concealing violators of law. 3. The correspondence is either –
a. prohibited by the government;

Article 118. Inciting to War or Giving Motives for
Reprisals b. carried on in ciphers or conventional
signs; or
Elements
c. containing notice or information which
1. Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts; might be useful to the enemy.
2. The acts provoke or give occasion for –

Article 121. Flight to Enemy's Country
a. a war involving or liable to involve the
Philippines; or Elements
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;

P.J.G. 4
4. There is intent to gain.

2. Offender must be owing allegiance to the
government;
Originally, the crimes of piracy and mutiny can only be
3. Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy committed in the high seas, that is, outside Philippine
country; territorial waters. But in August 1974, Presidential Decree
No. 532 (The Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of
4. Going to the enemy country is prohibited by 1974) was issued, punishing piracy, but not mutiny, in
competent authority. Philippine territorial waters. Thus came about two kinds of
piracy: (1) that which is punished under the Revised Penal
Code if committed in the high seas; and (2) that which is
In crimes against the law of nations, the offenders can be punished under Presidential Decree No. 532 if committed
prosecuted anywhere in the world because these crimes in Philippine territorial waters.
are considered as against humanity in general, like piracy
and mutiny. Crimes against national security can be tried Amending Article 122, Republic Act No. 7659 included
only in the Philippines, as there is a need to bring the therein piracy in Philippine waters, thus, pro tanto
offender here before he can be made to suffer the superseding Presidential Decree No. 532. As amended,
consequences of the law. The acts against national the article now punishes piracy, as well as mutiny, whether
security may be committed abroad and still be punishable committed in the high seas or in Philippine territorial
under our law, but it can not be tried under foreign law. waters, and the penalty has been increased to reclusion
perpetua from reclusion temporal.
Article 122. Piracy in general and Mutiny on the High But while under Presidential Decree No. 532, piracy in
Seas or in Philippine Waters Philippine waters could be committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of the complement of a
Acts punished as piracy vessel, under the amended article, piracy can only be
committed by a person who is not a passenger nor
1. Attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in member of the complement of the vessel irrespective of
Philippine waters; venue. So if a passenger or complement of the vessel
commits acts of robbery in the high seas, the crime is
2. Seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in robbery, not piracy.
Philippine waters the whole or part of its cargo,
its equipment or personal belongings of its Note, however, that in Section 4 of Presidential Decree No.
complement or passengers. 532, the act of aiding pirates or abetting piracy is penalized
as a crime distinct from piracy. Said section penalizes any
Elements of piracy person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects
pirates, such as giving them information about the
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine movement of the police or other peace officers of the
waters; government, or acquires or receives property taken by such
pirates, or in any manner derives any benefit therefrom; or
2. Offenders are neither members of its who directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy.
complement nor passengers of the vessel; Also, it is expressly provided in the same section that the
offender shall be considered as an accomplice of the
principal offenders and punished in accordance with the
3. Offenders either –
Revised Penal Code. This provision of Presidential Decree
No. 532 with respect to piracy in Philippine water has not
a. attack or seize a vessel on the high seas
been incorporated in the Revised Penal Code. Neither may
or in Philippine waters; or
it be considered repealed by Republic Act No. 7659 since
there is nothing in the amendatory law is inconsistent with
b. seize in the vessel while on the high seas
said section. Apparently, there is still the crime of abetting
or in Philippine waters the whole or part
piracy in Philippine waters under Presidential Decree No.
of its cargo, its equipment or personal
532.
belongings of its complement or
passengers;
P.J.G. 5
Considering that the essence of piracy is one of robbery, In piracy, the criminal intent is for gain.
any taking in a vessel with force upon things or with
violence or intimidation against person is employed will
always be piracy. It cannot co-exist with the crime of Article 123. Qualified Piracy
robbery. Robbery, therefore, cannot be committed on
board a vessel. But if the taking is without violence or Elements
intimidation on persons of force upon things, the crime of
piracy cannot be committed, but only theft. 1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine
waters:
Questions & Answers 2. Offenders may or may not be members of its

complement, or passengers of the vessel;
Could theft be committed on board a vessel?
Yes. The essence of piracy is one of robbery.
a. attack or seize the vessel; or
Elements of mutiny b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its

equipment., or personal belongings of
the crew or passengers;
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine
waters;
4. The preceding were committed under any of the
following circumstances:
2. Offenders are either members of its complement,
or passengers of the vessel;
a. whenever they have seized a vessel by
boarding or firing upon the same;
b. whenever the pirates have abandoned
a. attack or seize the vessel; or their victims without means of saving
themselves; or
b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its
equipment, or personal belongings of c. whenever the crime is accompanied by
the crew or passengers. murder, homicide, physical injuries or
rape.
Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or

the raising of commotions and disturbances aboard a ship If any of the circumstances in Article123 is present, piracy
against the authority of its commander. is qualified. Take note of the specific crimes involve in
number 4 c (murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape).
Distinction between mutiny and piracy When any of these crimes accompany piracy, there is no
complex crime. Instead, there is only one crime committed
(1) As to offenders – qualified piracy. Murder, rape, homicide, physical
injuries are mere circumstances qualifying piracy and
Mutiny is committed by members of the cannot be punished as separate crimes, nor can they be
complement or the passengers of the vessel. complexed with piracy.
Piracy is committed by persons who are not Although in Article 123 merely refers to qualified piracy,
members of the complement or the passengers of there is also the crime of qualified mutiny. Mutiny is
the vessel. qualified under the following circumstances:
(2) As to criminal intent (1) When the offenders abandoned the victims
without means of saving themselves; or
In mutiny, there is no criminal intent.
P.J.G. 6
(2) When the mutiny is accompanied by rape, homicide or murder, as the case may be. If there are some
murder, homicide, or physical injuries. explosives carried there, the crime is destructive arson.
Explosives are by nature pyro-techniques. Destruction of
Note that the first circumstance which qualifies piracy does property with the use of pyro-technique is destructive
not apply to mutiny. arson. If there is illegally possessed or carried firearm,
other special laws will apply.
On the other hand, if the aircraft is of foreign registry, the

law does not require that it be in flight before the anti hi-
Republic Act No. 6235 (The Anti Hi-Jacking Law) jacking law can apply. This is because aircrafts of foreign
registry are considered in transit while they are in foreign
Anti hi-jacking is another kind of piracy which is committed countries. Although they may have been in a foreign
in an aircraft. In other countries, this crime is known as country, technically they are still in flight, because they
aircraft piracy. have to move out of that foreign country. So even if any of
the acts mentioned were committed while the exterior
Four situations governed by anti hi-jacking law: doors of the foreign aircraft were still open, the anti hi-
jacking law will already govern.
(1) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of
Philippine registry while it is in flight, compelling Note that under this law, an aircraft is considered in flight
the pilots thereof to change the course or from the moment all exterior doors are closed following
destination of the aircraft; embarkation until such time when the same doors are
again opened for disembarkation. This means that there
(2) usurping or seizing control of an aircraft of foreign are passengers that boarded. So if the doors are closed to
registry while within Philippine territory, bring the aircraft to the hangar, the aircraft is not
compelling the pilots thereof to land in any part of considered as in flight. The aircraft shall be deemed to be
Philippine territory; already in flight even if its engine has not yet been started.
(3) carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating

as a public utility passenger aircraft in the
Questions & Answers
Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive,
or poisonous substance; and
1. The pilots of the Pan Am aircraft were
(4) loading, shipping, or transporting on board a accosted by some armed men and were told to proceed to
cargo aircraft operating as a public utility in the the aircraft to fly it to a foreign destination. The armed
Philippines, any flammable, corrosive, explosive, men walked with the pilots and went on board the aircraft.
or poisonous substance if this was done not in But before they could do anything on the aircraft, alert
accordance with the rules and regulations set and marshals arrested them. What crime was committed?
promulgated by the Air Transportation Office on
this matter. The criminal intent definitely is to take control of
the aircraft, which is hi-jacking. It is a question now of
Between numbers 1 and 2, the point of distinction is whether the anti-hi-jacking law shall govern.
whether the aircraft is of Philippine registry or foreign
registry. The common bar question on this law usually The anti hi-jacking law is applicable in this case.
involves number 1. The important thing is that before the Even if the aircraft is not yet about to fly, the requirement
anti hi-jacking law can apply, the aircraft must be in flight. that it be in flight does not hold true when in comes to
If not in flight, whatever crimes committed shall be aircraft of foreign registry. Even if the problem does not
governed by the Revised Penal Code. The law makes a say that all exterior doors are closed, the crime is hi-
distinction between aircraft of a foreign registry and of jacking. Since the aircraft is of foreign registry, under the
Philippine registry. If the aircraft subject of the hi-jack is of law, simply usurping or seizing control is enough as long as
Philippine registry, it should be in flight at the time of the the aircraft is within Philippine territory, without the
hi-jacking. Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law will not apply requirement that it be in flight.
and the crime is still punished under the Revised Penal
Code. The correlative crime may be one of grave coercion
or grave threat. If somebody is killed, the crime is
P.J.G. 7
Note, however, that there is no hi-jacking in the law is violated only when the transporting of the prohibited
attempted stage. This is a special law where the substance was not done in accordance with the rules and
attempted stage is not punishable. regulations prescribed by the Air Transportation Office in
the matter of shipment of such things. The Board of
2. A Philippine Air Lines aircraft is bound for Transportation provides the manner of packing of such
Davao. While the pilot and co-pilot are taking their snacks kind of articles, the quantity in which they may be loaded
at the airport lounge, some of the armed men were also at any time, etc. Otherwise, the anti hi-jacking law does
there. The pilots were followed by these men on their way not apply.
to the aircraft. As soon as the pilots entered the cockpit,
they pulled out their firearms and gave instructions where However, under Section 7, any physical injury or damage to
to fly the aircraft. Does the anti hi-jacking law apply? property which would result from the carrying or loading of
the flammable, corrosive, explosive, or poisonous
No. The passengers have yet to board the substance in an aircraft, the offender shall be prosecuted
aircraft. If at that time, the offenders are apprehended, not only for violation of Republic Act No. 6235, but also for
the law will not apply because the aircraft is not yet in the crime of physical injuries or damage to property, as the
flight. Note that the aircraft is of Philippine registry. case may be, under the Revised Penal Code. There will be
two prosecutions here. Other than this situation, the crime
3. While the stewardess of a Philippine Air of physical injuries will be absorbed. If the explosives were
Lines plane bound for Cebu was waiting for the passenger planted in the aircraft to blow up the aircraft, the
manifest, two of its passengers seated near the pilot circumstance will qualify the penalty and that is not
surreptitiously entered the pilot cockpit. At gunpoint, they punishable as a separate crime for murder. The penalty is
directed the pilot to fly the aircraft to the Middle East. increased under the anti hi-jacking law.
However, before the pilot could fly the aircraft towards
the Middle East, the offenders were subdued and the All other acts outside of the four are merely qualifying
aircraft landed. What crime was committed? circumstances and would bring about higher penalty. Such
acts would not constitute another crime. So the killing or
The aircraft was not yet in flight. Considering that explosion will only qualify the penalty to a higher one.
the stewardess was still waiting for the passenger
manifest, the doors were still open. Hence, the anti hi-
jacking law is not applicable. Instead, the Revised Penal
Questions & Answers
Code shall govern. The crime committed was grave
coercion or grave threat, depending upon whether or not
any serious offense violence was inflicted upon the pilot. 1. In the course of the hi-jack, a passenger
or complement was shot and killed. What crime or crimes
However, if the aircraft were of foreign registry, were committed?
the act would already be subject to the anti hi-jacking law
because there is no requirement for foreign aircraft to be The crime remains to be a violation of the anti hi-
in flight before such law would apply. The reason for the jacking law, but the penalty thereof shall be higher
distinction is that as long as such aircraft has not returned because a passenger or complement of the aircraft had
to its home base, technically, it is still considered in transit been killed. The crime of homicide or murder is not
or in flight. committed.
2. The hi-jackers threatened to detonate a

As to numbers 3 and 4 of Republic Act No. 6235, the bomb in the course of the hi-jack. What crime or crimes
distinction is whether the aircraft is a passenger aircraft or were committed?
a cargo aircraft. In both cases, however, the law applies
only to public utility aircraft in the Philippines. Private Again, the crime is violation of the anti hi-jacking
aircrafts are not subject to the anti hi-jacking law, in so far law. The separate crime of grave threat is not committed.
as transporting prohibited substances are concerned. This is considered as a qualifying circumstance that shall
serve to increase the penalty.
If the aircraft is a passenger aircraft, the prohibition is
absolute. Carrying of any prohibited, flammable,
corrosive, or explosive substance is a crime under Republic TITLE II. CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF
Act No. 6235. But if the aircraft is only a cargo aircraft, the THE STATE
P.J.G. 8
3. The detention is without legal grounds.

Crimes against the fundamental laws of the State
1. Arbitrary detention (Art. 124); Meaning of absence of legal grounds
2. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the 1. No crime was committed by the detained;
proper judicial authorities (Art. 125);
2. There is no violent insanity of the detained
3. Delaying release (Art. 126); person; and
4. Expulsion (Art. 127); 3. The person detained has no ailment which

requires compulsory confinement in a hospital.
5. Violation of domicile (Art. 128);
6. Search warrants maliciously obtained and abuse The crime of arbitrary detention assumes several forms:
in the service of those legally obtained (Art. 129);
(1) Detaining a person without legal grounds under;
7. Searching domicile without witnesses (Art. 130);
(2) Having arrested the offended party for legal
8. Prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of grounds but without warrant of arrest, and the
peaceful meetings (Art. 131); public officer does not deliver the arrested person
to the proper judicial authority within the period
9. Interruption of religious worship (Art. 132); and of 12, 18, or 36 hours, as the case may be; or
10. Offending the religious feelings (Art. 133); (3) Delaying release by competent authority with the
same period mentioned in number 2.
Crimes under this title are those which violate the Bill of Distinction between arbitrary detention and illegal
Rights accorded to the citizens under the Constitution. detention
Under this title, the offenders are public officers, except as
to the last crime – offending the religious feelings under 1. In arbitrary detention --
Article 133, which refers to any person. The public officers
who may be held liable are only those acting under The principal offender must be a public officer.
supposed exercise of official functions, albeit illegally. Civilians can commit the crime of arbitrary
In its counterpart in Title IX (Crimes Against Personal detention except when they conspire with a public
Liberty and Security), the offenders are private persons. officer committing this crime, or become an
But private persons may also be liable under this title as accomplice or accessory to the crime committed
when a private person conspires with a public officer. by the public officer; and
What is required is that the principal offender must be a
public officer. Thus, if a private person conspires with a The offender who is a public officer has a duty
public officer, or becomes an accessory or accomplice, the which carries with it the authority to detain a
private person also becomes liable for the same crime. But person.
a private person acting alone cannot commit the crimes
under Article 124 to 132 of this title. 2. In illegal detention --
The principal offender is a private person. But a

Article 124. Arbitrary Detention public officer can commit the crime of illegal
detention when he is acting in a private capacity
Elements or beyond the scope of his official duty, or when
he becomes an accomplice or accessory to the
1. Offender is a public officer or employee; crime committed by a private person.
2. He detains a person;
P.J.G. 9
The offender, even if he is a public officer, does maintenance of such peace and order, he may cause the
not include as his function the power to arrest and arrest and detention of troublemakers or those who
detain a person, unless he conspires with a public disturb the peace and order within his barangay. But if the
officer committing arbitrary detention. legal basis for the apprehension and detention does not
exist, then the detention becomes arbitrary.
Note that in the crime of arbitrary detention, although the
offender is a public officer, not any public officer can Whether the crime is arbitrary detention or illegal
commit this crime. Only those public officers whose official detention, it is necessary that there must be an actual
duties carry with it the authority to make an arrest and restraint of liberty of the offended party. If there is no
detain persons can be guilty of this crime. So, if the actual restraint, as the offended party may still go to the
offender does not possess such authority, the crime place where he wants to go, even though there have been
committed by him is illegal detention. A public officer who warnings, the crime of arbitrary detention or illegal
is acting outside the scope of his official duties is no better detention is not committed. There is either grave or light
than a private citizen. threat.
However, if the victim is under guard in his movement such

that there is still restraint of liberty, then the crime of
Questions & Answers
either arbitrary or illegal detention is still committed.
1. A janitor at the Quezon City Hall was

assigned in cleaning the men’s room. One day, he noticed
Question & Answer
a fellow urinating so carelessly that instead of urinating at
the bowl, he was actually urinating partly on the floor. The
janitor resented this. He stepped out of the men’s room The offended party was brought to a place which
and locked the same. He left. The fellow was able to he could not leave because he does not know where he is,
come out only after several hours when people from the although free to move about. Was arbitrary or illegal
outside forcibly opened the door. Is the janitor liable for detention committed?
arbitrary detention?
Either arbitrary detention or illegal detention was
No. Even if he is a public officer, he is not committed. If a person is brought to a safe house,
permitted by his official function to arrest and detain blindfolded, even if he is free to move as he pleases, but if
persons. Therefore, he is guilty only of illegal detention. he cannot leave the place, arbitrary detention or illegal
While the offender is a public officer, his duty does not detention is committed.
include the authority to make arrest; hence, the crime
committed is illegal detention.
Distinction between arbitrary detention and unlawful
2. A municipal treasurer has been courting arrest
his secretary. However, the latter always turned him
down. Thereafter, she tried to avoid him. One afternoon, (1) As to offender
the municipal treasurer locked the secretary inside their
office until she started crying. The treasurer opened the In arbitrary detention, the offender is a public
door and allowed her to go home. What crime was officer possessed with authority to make arrests.
committed?
In unlawful arrest, the offender may be any
Illegal detention. This is because the municipal person.
treasurer has no authority to detain a person although he
is a public officer. (2) As to criminal intent
In arbitrary detention, the main reason for

In a case decided by the Supreme Court a Barangay detaining the offended party is to deny him of his
Chairman who unlawfully detains another was held to be liberty.
guilty of the crime of arbitrary detention. This is because
he is a person in authority vested with the jurisdiction to In unlawful arrest, the purpose is to accuse the
maintain peace and order within his barangay. In the offended party of a crime he did not commit, to
P.J.G. 10
deliver the person to the proper authority, and to

file the necessary charges in a way trying to This is a form of arbitrary detention. At the beginning, the
incriminate him. detention is legal since it is in the pursuance of a lawful
arrest. However, the detention becomes arbitrary when
When a person is unlawfully arrested, his subsequent the period thereof exceeds 12, 18 or 36 hours, as the case
detention is without legal grounds. may be, depending on whether the crime is punished by
light, correctional or afflictive penalty or their equivalent.
The period of detention is 12 hours for light offenses, 18

Question & Answer
hours for correctional offences and 36 hours for afflictive
offences, where the accused may be detained without
A had been collecting tong from drivers. B, a formal charge. But he must cause a formal charge or
driver, did not want to contribute to the tong. One day, B application to be filed with the proper court before 12, 18
was apprehended by A, telling him that he was driving or 36 hours lapse. Otherwise he has to release the person
carelessly. Reckless driving carries with it a penalty of arrested.
immediate detention and arrest. B was brought to the
Traffic Bureau and was detained there until the evening. Note that the period stated herein does not include the
When A returned, he opened the cell and told B to go nighttime. It is to be counted only when the prosecutor’s
home. Was there a crime of arbitrary detention or office is ready to receive the complaint or information.
unlawful arrest?
This article does not apply if the arrest is with a warrant.
Arbitrary detention. The arrest of B was only The situation contemplated here is an arrest without a
incidental to the criminal intent of the offender to detain warrant.
him. But if after putting B inside the cell, he was turned
over to the investigating officer who booked him and filed
a charge of reckless imprudence against him, then the
Question & Answer
crime would be unlawful arrest. The detention of the
driver is incidental to the supposed crime he did not
commit. But if there is no supposed crime at all because Within what period should a police officer who
the driver was not charged at all, he was not given place has arrested a person under a warrant of arrest turn over
under booking sheet or report arrest, then that means that the arrested person to the judicial authority?
the only purpose of the offender is to stop him from driving
his jeepney because he refused to contribute to the tong. There is no time limit specified except that the
return must be made within a reasonable time. The period
fixed by law under Article 125 does not apply because the
Article 125. Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons to arrest was made by virtue of a warrant of arrest.
the Proper Judicial Authorities
Elements When a person is arrested without a warrant, it means

that there is no case filed in court yet. If the arresting
1. Offender is a public officer or employee; officer would hold the arrested person there, he is actually
depriving the arrested of his right to bail. As long as there
2. He detains a person for some legal ground; is no charge in the court yet, the arrested person cannot
obtain bail because bail may only be granted by the court.
The spirit of the law is to have the arrested person
3. He fails to deliver such person to the proper
delivered to the jurisdiction of the court.
judicial authorities within –
If the arrest is by virtue of a warrant, it means that there is
a. 12 hour for light penalties;
already a case filed in court. When an information is filed
in court, the amount of bail recommended is stated. The
b. 18 hours for correctional penalties; and
accused person is not really denied his right to bail. Even if
he is interrogated in the police precinct, he can already file
c. 36 hours for afflictive or capital
bail.
penalties.
P.J.G. 11
Note that delivery of the arrested person to the proper Before Article 125 may be applied, it is necessary that
authorities does not mean physical delivery or turn over of initially, the detention of the arrested person must be
arrested person to the court. It simply means putting the lawful because the arrest is based on legal grounds. If the
arrested person under the jurisdiction of the court. This is arrest is made without a warrant, this constitutes an
done by filing the necessary complaint or information unlawful arrest. Article 269, not Article 125, will apply. If
against the person arrested in court within the period the arrest is not based on legal grounds, the arrest is pure
specified in Article 125. The purpose of this is for the court and simple arbitrary detention. Article 125 contemplates a
to determine whether the offense is bailable or not and if situation where the arrest was made without warrant but
bailable, to allow him the right to bail. based on legal grounds. This is known as citizen’s arrest.
Under the Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, the

arrested person can demand from the arresting officer to Article 126. Delaying Release
bring him to any judge in the place where he was arrested
and post the bail here. Thereupon, the arresting officer Acts punished
may release him. The judge who granted the bail will just
forward the litimus of the case to the court trying his case. 1. Delaying the performance of a judicial or
The purpose is in order to deprive the arrested person of executive order for the release of a prisoner;
his right to post the bail.
2. Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such
Under the Revised Rules of Court, when the person order to said prisoner;
arrested is arrested for a crime which gives him the right to
preliminary investigation and he wants to avail his right to 3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any
a preliminary investigation, he would have to waive in petition for the liberation of such person.
writing his rights under Article 125 so that the arresting
officer will not immediately file the case with the court that
will exercise jurisdiction over the case. If he does not want Elements
to waive this in writing, the arresting officer will have to
comply with Article 125 and file the case immediately in 1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
court without preliminary investigation. In such case, the
arrested person, within five days after learning that the 2. There is a judicial or executive order for the
case has been filed in court without preliminary release of a prisoner or detention prisoner, or
investigation, may ask for preliminary investigation. In this that there is a proceeding upon a petition for the
case, the public officer who made the arrest will no longer liberation of such person;
be liable for violation of Article 125.
3. Offender without good reason delays –
a. the service of the notice of such order to

Question & Answer
the prisoner;
The arrest of the suspect was done in Baguio City. b. the performance of such judicial or
On the way to Manila, where the crime was committed, executive order for the release of the
there was a typhoon so the suspect could not be brought prisoner; or
to Manila until three days later. Was there a violation of
Article 125? c. the proceedings upon a petition for the
release of such person.
There was a violation of Article 125. The crime
committed was arbitrary detention in the form of delay in
the delivery of arrested person to the proper judicial Article 127. Expulsion
authority. The typhoon or flood is a matter of defense to
be proved by the accused, the arresting officer, as to Acts punished
whether he is liable. In this situation, he may be exempt
under paragraph 7 of Article 12. 1. Expelling a person from the Philippines;
2. Compelling a person to change his residence.

P.J.G. 12
3. Refusing to leave the premises, after having

surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after
Elements having been required to leave the same
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;

Common elements
2. He either –
a. expels any person from the Philippines;
or 2. He is not authorized by judicial order to enter the
dwelling or to make a search therein for papers or
b. compels a person to change residence; other effects.
3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law.

Circumstances qualifying the offense
1. If committed at nighttime; or
The essence of this crime is coercion but the specific crime
is “expulsion” when committed by a public officer. If
2. If any papers or effects not constituting evidence
committed by a private person, the crime is grave coercion.
of a crime are not returned immediately after the
In Villavicencio v. Lukban, 39 Phil 778, the mayor of the
search made by offender.
City of Manila wanted to make the city free from
prostitution. He ordered certain prostitutes to be
transferred to Davao, without observing due processes
Under Title IX (Crimes against Personal Liberty and
since they have not been charged with any crime at all. It
Security), the corresponding article is qualified trespass to
was held that the crime committed was expulsion.
dwelling under Article 280. Article 128 is limited to public
officers. The public officers who may be liable for crimes
against the fundamental laws are those who are possessed
Questions & Answers of the authority to execute search warrants and warrants
of arrests.
1. Certain aliens were arrested and they
Under Rule 113 of the Revised Rules of Court, when a
were just put on the first aircraft which brought them to
person to be arrested enters a premise and closes it
the country so that they may be out without due process
thereafter, the public officer, after giving notice of an
of law. Was there a crime committed?
arrest, can break into the premise. He shall not be liable
for violation of domicile.
Yes. Expulsion.
There are only three recognized instances when search
2. If a Filipino citizen is sent out of the
without a warrant is considered valid, and, therefore, the
country, what crime is committed?
seizure of any evidence done is also valid. Outside of these,
search would be invalid and the objects seized would not
Grave coercion, not expulsion, because a Filipino
be admissible in evidence.
cannot be deported. This crime refers only to aliens.
(1) Search made incidental to a valid arrest;
Article 128. Violation of Domicile
(2) Where the search was made on a moving vehicle
or vessel such that the exigency of he situation
Acts punished
prevents the searching officer from securing a
search warrant;
1. Entering any dwelling against the will of the
owner thereof;
(3) When the article seized is within plain view of the
officer making the seizure without making a
2. Searching papers or other effects found therein
search therefore.
without the previous consent of such owner; or
P.J.G. 13
There are three ways of committing the violation of Article

128: Article 129. Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained, and
Abuse in the Service of Those Legally Obtained
(1) By simply entering the dwelling of another if such
entering is done against the will of the occupant. Acts punished
In the plain view doctrine, public officer should be
legally entitled to be in the place where the effects 1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause;
were found. If he entered the place illegally and
he saw the effects, doctrine inapplicable; thus, he Elements
is liable for violation of domicile.
(2) Public officer who enters with consent searches
for paper and effects without the consent of the 2. He procures a search warrant;
owner. Even if he is welcome in the dwelling, it
does not mean he has permission to search. 3. There is no just cause.
(3) Refusing to leave premises after surreptitious

entry and being told to leave the same. The act 2. Exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary
punished is not the entry but the refusal to leave. severity in executing a search warrant legally
If the offender upon being directed to eave, procured.
followed and left, there is no crime of violation of
domicile. Entry must be done surreptitiously; Elements
without this, crime may be unjust vexation. But if
entering was done against the will of the 1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
occupant of the house, meaning there was
express or implied prohibition from entering the 2. He has legally procured a search
same, even if the occupant does not direct him to warrant;
leave, the crime of is already committed because
it would fall in number 1. 3. He exceeds his authority or uses
unnecessary severity in executing the
same.
Questions & Answers
Article 130. Searching Domicile without Witnesses
1. It was raining heavily. A policeman took
shelter in one person’s house. The owner obliged and had Elements
his daughter serve the police some coffee. The policeman
made a pass at the daughter. The owner of the house 1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
asked him to leave. Does this fall under Article 128?
2. He is armed with search warrant legally procured;
No. It was the owner of the house who let the
policeman in. The entering is not surreptitious. 3. He searches the domicile, papers or other
belongings of any person;
2. A person surreptitiously enters the
dwelling of another. What crime or crimes were possibly 4. The owner, or any members of his family, or two
committed? witnesses residing in the same locality are not
present.
The crimes committed are (1) qualified trespass to
dwelling under Article 280, if there was an express or
implied prohibition against entering. This is tantamount to Crimes under Articles 129 and 130 are referred to as
entering against the will of the owner; and (2) violation of violation of domicile. In these articles, the search is made
domicile in the third form if he refuses to leave after being by virtue of a valid warrant, but the warrant
told to. notwithstanding, the liability for the crime is still incurred
through the following situations:
P.J.G. 14
a. prohibiting or by interrupting, without

(1) Search warrant was irregularly obtained – This legal ground, the holding of a peaceful
means there was no probable cause determined meeting, or by dissolving the same;
in obtaining the search warrant. Although void,
the search warrant is entitled to respect because b. hindering any person from joining any
of presumption of regularity. One remedy is a lawful association, or attending any of its
motion to quash the search warrant, not refusal meetings;
to abide by it. The public officer may also be
prosecuted for perjury, because for him to c. prohibiting or hindering any person from
succeed in obtaining a search warrant without a addressing, either alone or together with
probable cause, he must have perjured himself or others, any petition to the authorities for
induced someone to commit perjury to convince the correction of abuses or redress of
the court. grievances.
(2) The officer exceeded his authority under the

warrant – To illustrate, let us say that there was a The government has a right to require a permit before any
pusher in a condo unit. The PNP Narcotics Group gathering could be made. Any meeting without a permit is
obtained a search warrant but the name of a proceeding in violation of the law. That being true, a
person in the search warrant did not tally with the meeting may be prohibited, interrupted, or dissolved
address stated. Eventually, the person with the without violating Article 131 of the Revised Penal Code.
same name was found but in a different address.
The occupant resisted but the public officer But the requiring of the permit shall be in exercise only of
insisted on the search. Drugs were found and the government’s regulatory powers and not really to
seized and occupant was prosecuted and prevent peaceful assemblies as the public may desire.
convicted by the trial court. The Supreme Court Permit is only necessary to regulate the peace so as not to
acquitted him because the public officers are inconvenience the public. The permit should state the day,
required to follow the search warrant to the time and the place where the gathering may be held. This
letter. They have no discretion on the matter. requirement is, therefore, legal as long as it is not being
Plain view doctrine is inapplicable since it exercised in as a prohibitory power.
presupposes that the officer was legally entitled
to be in the place where the effects where found. If the permit is denied arbitrarily, Article 131 is violated. If
Since the entry was illegal, plain view doctrine the officer would not give the permit unless the meeting is
does not apply. held in a particular place which he dictates defeats the
exercise of the right to peaceably assemble, Article 131 is
(3) When the public officer employs unnecessary or violated.
excessive severity in the implementation of the
search warrant. The search warrant is not a At the beginning, it may happen that the assembly is
license to commit destruction. lawful and peaceful. If in the course of the assembly the
participants commit illegal acts like oral defamation or
(4) Owner of dwelling or any member of the family inciting to sedition, a public officer or law enforcer can stop
was absent, or two witnesses residing within the or dissolve the meeting. The permit given is not a license
same locality were not present during the search. to commit a crime.
There are two criteria to determine whether Article 131

Article 131. Prohibition, Interruption, and Dissolution of would be violated:
Peaceful Meetings
(1) Dangerous tendency rule – applicable in times of
Elements national unrest such as to prevent coup d’etat.
Offender is a public officer or employee; (2) Clear and present danger rule – applied in times
of peace. Stricter rule.
He performs any of the following acts:
P.J.G. 15
Distinctions between prohibition, interruption, or 2. The acts must be notoriously offensive to the
dissolution of peaceful meetings under Article 131, and feelings of the faithful.
tumults and other disturbances, under Article 153
There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the
(1) As to the participation of the public officer faithful.
In Article 131, the public officer is not a

participant. As far as the gathering is concerned, TITLE III. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
the public officer is a third party.
If the public officer is a participant of the Crimes against public order

assembly and he prohibits, interrupts, or dissolves
the same, Article 153 is violated if the same is 1. Rebellion or insurrection (Art. 134);
conducted in a public place.
2. Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion (Art.
(2) As to the essence of the crime 136);
In Article 131, the offender must be a public 3. Disloyalty to public officers or employees (Art.
officer and, without any legal ground, he 137);
prohibits, interrupts, or dissolves a peaceful
meeting or assembly to prevent the offended 4. Inciting to rebellion (Art. 138);
party from exercising his freedom of speech and
that of the assembly to petition a grievance 5. Sedition (Art. 139);
against the government.
6. Conspiracy to commit sedition (Art. 141);
In Article 153, the offender need not be a public
officer. The essence of the crime is that of 7. Inciting to sedition (Art. 142);
creating a serious disturbance of any sort in a
public office, public building or even a private 8. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of Congress
place where a public function is being held. and similar bodies (Art. 143);
9. Disturbance of proceedings of Congress or similar

Article 132. Interruption of Religious Worship bodies (Art. 144);
Elements 10. Violation of parliamentary immunity (Art. 145);
1. Offender is a public officer or employee; 11. Illegal assemblies (Art. 146);
2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any 12. Illegal associations (Art. 147);

religious are about to take place or are going on;
13. Direct assaults (Art. 148);
3. Offender prevents or disturbs the same.
14. Indirect assaults (Art. 149);
Qualified if committed by violence or threat.
15. Disobedience to summons issued by Congress, its
committees, etc., by the constitutional
Article 133. Offending the Religious Feelings commissions, its committees, etc. (Art. 150);
Elements 16. Resistance and disobedience to a person in

authority or the agents of such person (Art. 151);
1. Acts complained of were performed in a place
devoted to religious worship, or during the 17. Tumults and other disturbances of public order
celebration of any religious ceremony; (Art. 153);
P.J.G. 16
18. Unlawful use of means of publication and the exercise of governmental authority with respect to
unlawful utterances (Art. 154); particular matters of subjects (Reyes, citing 30 Am. Jr. 1).
19. Alarms and scandals (Art. 155);

Rebellion can now be complexed with common crimes.
20. Delivering prisoners from jails (Art. 156); Not long ago, the Supreme Court, in Enrile v. Salazar, 186
SCRA 217, reiterated and affirmed the rule laid down in
21. Evasion of service of sentence (Art. 157); People v. Hernandez, 99 Phil 515, that rebellion may not
be complexed with common crimes which are committed
22. Evasion on occasion of disorders (Art. 158); in furtherance thereof because they are absorbed in
rebellion. In view of said reaffirmation, some believe that
23. Violation of conditional pardon (Art. 159); and it has been a settled doctrine that rebellion cannot be
complexed with common crimes, such as killing and
24. Commission of another crime during service of destruction of property, committed on the occasion and in
penalty imposed for another previous offense furtherance thereof.
(Art. 160).
This thinking is no longer correct; there is no legal basis for
such rule now.
Article 134. Rebellion or Insurrection
The statement in People v. Hernandez that common crimes
Elements committed in furtherance of rebellion are absorbed by the
crime of rebellion, was dictated by the provision of Article
1. There is a public uprising and taking arms against 135 of the Revised Penal Code prior to its amendment by
the government; the Republic Act No. 6968 (An Act Punishing the Crime of
Coup D’etat), which became effective on October 1990.
2. The purpose of the uprising or movement is – Prior to its amendment by Republic Act No. 6968, Article
135 punished those “who while holding any public office or
a. to remove from the allegiance to the employment, take part therein” by any of these acts:
government or its laws Philippine engaging in war against the forces of Government;
territory or any part thereof, or any body destroying property; committing serious violence; exacting
of land, naval, or other armed forces; contributions, diverting funds for the lawful purpose for
which they have been appropriated.
or
Since a higher penalty is prescribed for the crime of
b. to deprive the Chief Executive or rebellion when any of the specified acts are committed in
Congress, wholly or partially, of any of furtherance thereof, said acts are punished as components
their powers or prerogatives. of rebellion and, therefore, are not to be treated as distinct
crimes. The same acts constitute distinct crimes when
committed on a different occasion and not in furtherance
The essence of this crime is a public uprising with the of rebellion. In short, it was because Article 135 then
taking up of arms. It requires a multitude of people. It punished said acts as components of the crime of rebellion
aims to overthrow the duly constituted government. It that precludes the application of Article 48 of the Revised
does not require the participation of any member of the Penal Code thereto. In the eyes of the law then, said acts
military or national police organization or public officers constitute only one crime and that is rebellion. The
and generally carried out by civilians. Lastly, the crime can Hernandez doctrine was reaffirmed in Enrile v. Salazar
only be committed through force and violence. because the text of Article 135 has remained the same as it
was when the Supreme Court resolved the same issue in
the People v. Hernandez. So the Supreme Court invited
Rebellion and insurrection are not synonymous. Rebellion attention to this fact and thus stated:
is more frequently used where the object of the
movement is completely to overthrow and supersede the “There is a an apparent need to restructure the law on
existing government; while insurrection is more commonly rebellion, either to raise the penalty therefore or to clearly
employed in reference to a movement which seeks merely define and delimit the other offenses to be considered
to effect some change of minor importance, or to prevent absorbed thereby, so that it cannot be conveniently utilized
P.J.G. 17
as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity undertaken crime of rebellion with which the accused was already
in its name. The court has no power to effect such change, convicted.
for it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given
time, and what is needed lies beyond interpretation. However, in People v. Tiozon, 198 SCRA 368, it was held
Hopefully, Congress will perceive the need for promptly that charging one of illegal possession of firearms in
seizing the initiative in this matter, which is purely within furtherance of rebellion is proper because this is not a
its province.” charge of a complex crime. A crime under the Revised
Penal Code cannot be absorbed by a statutory offense.
Obviously, Congress took notice of this pronouncement In People v. de Gracia, it was ruled that illegal possession
and, thus, in enacting Republic Act No. 6968, it did not of firearm in furtherance of rebellion under Presidential
only provide for the crime of coup d’etat in the Revised Decree No. 1866 is distinct from the crime of rebellion
Penal Code but moreover, deleted from the provision of under the Revised Penal Code and, therefore, Article 135
Article 135 that portion referring to those – (2) of the Revised Penal Code should not apply. The
offense of illegal possession of firearm is a malum
“…who, while holding any public office or employment prohibitum, in which case, good faith and absence of
takes part therein [rebellion or insurrection], engaging in criminal intent are not valid defenses.
war against the forces of government, destroying property
or committing serious violence, exacting contributions or In People v. Lobedioro, an NPA cadre killed a policeman
diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which and was convicted for murder. He appealed invoking
they have been appropriated …” rebellion. The Supreme Court found that there was no
evidence shown to further the end of the NPA movement.
Hence, overt acts which used to be punished as It held that there must be evidence shown that the act
components of the crime of rebellion have been severed furthered the cause of the NPA; it is not enough to say it.
therefrom by Republic Act No. 6968. The legal impediment
to the application of Article 48 to rebellion has been Rebellion may be committed even without a single shot
removed. After the amendment, common crimes involving being fired. No encounter needed. Mere public uprising
killings, and/or destructions of property, even though with arms enough.
committed by rebels in furtherance of rebellion, shall bring
about complex crimes of rebellion with murder/homicide, Article 135, as amended, has two penalties: a higher
or rebellion with robbery, or rebellion with arson as the penalty for the promoters, heads and maintainers of the
case may be. rebellion; and a lower penalty for those who are only
followers of the rebellion.
To reiterate, before Article 135 was amended, a higher
penalty is imposed when the offender engages in war Distinctions between rebellion and sedition
against the government. "War" connotes anything which
may be carried out in pursuance of war. This implies that (1) As to nature
all acts of war or hostilities like serious violence and
destruction of property committed on occasion and in In rebellion, there must be taking up or arms
pursuance of rebellion are component crimes of rebellion against the government.
which is why Article 48 on complex crimes is inapplicable.
In amending Article135, the acts which used to be In sedition, it is sufficient that the public uprising
component crimes of rebellion, like serious acts of violence, be tumultuous.
have been deleted. These are now distinct crimes. The
legal obstacle for the application of Article 48, therefore, (2) As to purpose
has been removed. Ortega says legislators want to punish
these common crimes independently of rebellion. Ortega In rebellion, the purpose is always political.
cites no case overturning Enrile v. Salazar.
In sedition, the purpose may be political or social.
In People v. Rodriguez, 107 Phil. 569, it was held that an Example: the uprising of squatters against Forbes
accused already convicted of rebellion may not be park residents. The purpose in sedition is to go
prosecuted further for illegal possession of firearm and against established government, not to overthrow
ammunition, a violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866, it.
because this is a necessary element or ingredient of the
P.J.G. 18
When any of the objectives of rebellion is pursued but b. Any person who leads, directs or
there is no public uprising in the legal sense, the crime is commands others to undertake a coup d'
direct assault of the first form. But if there is rebellion, etat;
with public uprising, direct assault cannot be committed.
2. The participants –
Article 134-A. Coup d' etat a. Any person who participates or executes
the commands of others in rebellion,
Elements insurrection or coup d' etat;
1. Offender is a person or persons belonging to the b. Any person not in the government
military or police or holding any public office or service who participates, supports,
employment; finances, abets or aids in undertaking a
coup d' etat.
2. It is committed by means of a swift attack
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, Article 136. Conspiracy and Proposal to Commit Coup d'
strategy or stealth; etat, Rebellion or Insurrection
3. The attack is directed against the duly constituted Conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion are two
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or different crimes, namely:
any military camp or installation, communication 1. Conspiracy to commit rebellion; and
networks, public utilities or other facilities needed
for the exercise and continued possession of 2. Proposal to commit rebellion.
power;
There is conspiracy to commit rebellion when two or more
4. The purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take
state power. arms against government for any of the purposes of
rebellion and decide to commit it.
The essence of the crime is a swift attack upon the facilities There is proposal to commit rebellion when the person
of the Philippine government, military camps and who has decided to rise publicly and take arms against the
installations, communication networks, public utilities and government for any of the purposes of rebellion proposes
facilities essential to the continued possession of its execution to some other person or persons.
governmental powers. It may be committed singly or
collectively and does not require a multitude of people.
The objective may not be to overthrow the government but Article 137. Disloyalty of Public Officers or Employees
only to destabilize or paralyze the government through the
seizure of facilities and utilities essential to the continued Acts punished
possession and exercise of governmental powers. It
requires as principal offender a member of the AFP or of 1. By failing to resist a rebellion by all the means in
the PNP organization or a public officer with or without their power;
civilian support. Finally, it may be carried out not only by
force or violence but also through stealth, threat or 2. By continuing to discharge the duties of their
strategy. offices under the control of the rebels; or
3. By accepting appointment to office under them.

Persons liable for rebellion, insurrection or coup d' etat
under Article 135 Offender must be a public officer or employee.
1. The leaders –
Article 138. Inciting to Rebellion or Insurrection
a. Any person who promotes, maintains or
heads a rebellion or insurrection; or Elements
P.J.G. 19
1. Offender does not take arms or is not in open d. To commit, for any political or social end,
hostility against the government; any act of hate or revenge against
private persons or any social classes;
2. He incites others to the execution of any of the
acts of rebellion; e. To despoil for any political or social end,
any person, municipality or province, or
3. The inciting is done by means of speeches, the national government of all its
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or property or any part thereof.
other representations tending to the same end.
The crime of sedition does not contemplate the taking up

Distinction between inciting to rebellion and proposal to of arms against the government because the purpose of
commit rebellion this crime is not the overthrow of the government. Notice
from the purpose of the crime of sedition that the
1. In both crimes, offender induces another to offenders rise publicly and create commotion ad
commit rebellion. disturbance by way of protest to express their dissent and
obedience to the government or to the authorities
2. In proposal, the person who proposes has concerned. This is like the so-called civil disobedience
decided to commit rebellion; in inciting to except that the means employed, which is violence, is
rebellion, it is not required that the offender has illegal.
decided to commit rebellion.
3. In proposal, the person who proposes the Persons liable for sedition under Article 140
execution of the crime uses secret means; in
inciting to rebellion, the act of inciting is done 1. The leader of the sedition; and
publicly.
2. Other person participating in the sedition.
Article 139. Sedition

Article 141. Conspiracy to Commit Sedition
Elements
In this crime, there must be an agreement and a decision
1. Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously; to rise publicly and tumultuously to attain any of the
objects of sedition.
2. Offenders employ force, intimidation, or other
means outside of legal methods; There is no proposal to commit sedition.
3. Purpose is to attain any of the following objects:

Article 142. Inciting to Sedition
a. To prevent the promulgation or
Acts punished
execution of any law or the holding of
any popular election;
1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of
the acts which constitute sedition by means of
b. To prevent the national government or
speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, etc.;
any provincial or municipal government,
or any public officer from exercising its
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend
or his functions or prevent the execution
to disturb the public peace;
of an administrative order;
3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels
c. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon
against the government or any of the duly
the person or property of any public
constituted authorities thereof, which tend to
officer or employee;
disturb the public peace.
P.J.G. 20
or of any provincial board or city or municipal

Elements council or board;
1. Offender does not take direct part in the crime of 2. Offender does any of the following acts:
sedition;
a. He disturbs any of such meetings;
2. He incites others to the accomplishment of any of
the acts which constitute sedition; and b. He behaves while in the presence of any
such bodies in such a manner as to
3. Inciting is done by means of speeches, interrupt its proceedings or to impair the
proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons, respect due it.
banners, or other representations tending
towards the same end.
Only non-participant in sedition may be liable.

Article 145. Violation of Parliamentary Immunity
Considering that the objective of sedition is to express
protest against the government and in the process creating Acts punished
hate against public officers, any act that will generate
hatred against the government or a public officer 1. Using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to
concerned or a social class may amount to Inciting to prevent any member of Congress from attending
sedition. Article 142 is, therefore, quite broad. the meetings of Congress or of any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional
The mere meeting for the purpose of discussing hatred commissions or committees or divisions thereof,
against the government is inciting to sedition. Lambasting or from expressing his opinion or casting his vote;
government officials to discredit the government is Inciting
to sedition. But if the objective of such preparatory actions Elements
is the overthrow of the government, the crime is inciting to
rebellion. 1. Offender uses force, intimidation,
threats or fraud;
Article 143. Acts Tending to Prevent the Meeting of the 2. The purpose of the offender is to
Congress of the Philippines and Similar Bodies prevent any member of Congress from –
Elements a. attending the meetings of the

Congress or of any of its
1. There is a projected or actual meeting of Congress committees or constitutional
or any of its committees or subcommittees, commissions, etc.;
constitutional committees or divisions thereof, or
of any provincial board or city or municipal b. expressing his opinion; or
council or board;
c. casting his vote.
2. Offender, who may be any person, prevents such
meetings by force or fraud. 2. Arresting or searching any member thereof while
Congress is in regular or special session, except in
case such member has committed a crime
Article 144. Disturbance of Proceedings punishable under the Code by a penalty higher
than prision mayor.
Elements
Elements
1. There is a meeting of Congress or any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional 1. Offender is a public officer of employee;
commissions or committees or divisions thereof,
P.J.G. 21
2. He arrests or searches any member of 2. The audience, whether armed or not, is

Congress; incited to the commission of the crime of
treason, rebellion or insurrection,
3. Congress, at the time of arrest or search, sedition or direct assault.
is in regular or special session;
4. The member arrested or searched has Persons liable for illegal assembly
not committed a crime punishable under
the Code by a penalty higher than prision 1. The organizer or leaders of the meeting;
mayor.
2. Persons merely present at the meeting, who must
Under Section 11, Article VI of the Constitution, a public have a common intent to commit the felony of
officer who arrests a member of Congress who has illegal assembly.
committed a crime punishable by prision mayor (six years
and one day, to 12 years) is not liable Article 145. If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed
firearm, it is presumed that the purpose of the meeting
According to Reyes, to be consistent with the Constitution, insofar as he is concerned is to commit acts punishable
the phrase "by a penalty higher than prision mayor" in under the Revised Penal Code, and he is considered a
Article 145 should be amended to read: "by the penalty of leader or organizer of the meeting.
prision mayor or higher."
The gravamen of the offense is mere assembly of or

Article 146. Illegal Assemblies gathering of people for illegal purpose punishable by the
Revised Penal Code. Without gathering, there is no illegal
Acts punished assembly. If unlawful purpose is a crime under a special
law, there is no illegal assembly. For example, the
1. Any meeting attended by armed persons for the gathering of drug pushers to facilitate drug trafficking is
purpose of committing any of the crimes not illegal assembly because the purpose is not violative of
punishable under the Code; the Revised Penal Code but of The Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972, as amended, which is a special law.
Elements
Two forms of illegal assembly
1. There is a meeting, a gathering or group
of persons, whether in fixed place or (1) No attendance of armed men, but persons in the
moving; meeting are incited to commit treason, rebellion
or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person
2. The meeting is attended by armed in authority. When the illegal purpose of the
persons; gathering is to incite people to commit the crimes
mentioned above, the presence of armed men is
3. The purpose of the meeting is to commit unnecessary. The mere gathering for the purpose
any of the crimes punishable under the is sufficient to bring about the crime already.
Code.
(2) Armed men attending the gathering – If the illegal
2. Any meeting in which the audience, whether purpose is other than those mentioned above, the
armed or not, is incited to the commission of the presence of armed men during the gathering
crime of treason, rebellion or insurrection, brings about the crime of illegal assembly.
sedition, or assault upon person in authority or
his agents. Example: Persons conspiring to rob a bank were
arrested. Some were with firearms. Liable for
1. There is a meeting, a gathering or group illegal assembly, not for conspiracy, but for
of persons, whether in a fixed place or gathering with armed men.
moving;
Distinction between illegal assembly and illegal association
P.J.G. 22
In illegal assembly, the basis of liability is the gathering for 3. In illegal association, the persons liable are (1) the
an illegal purpose which constitutes a crime under the founders, directors and president; and (2) the
Revised Penal Code. members.
In illegal association, the basis is the formation of or In illegal assembly, the persons liable are (1) the
organization of an association to engage in an unlawful organizers or leaders of the meeting and (2) the
purpose which is not limited to a violation of the Revised persons present at meeting.
Penal Code. It includes a violation of a special law or
those against public morals. Meaning of public morals:
inimical to public welfare; it has nothing to do with Article 148. Direct Assault
decency., not acts of obscenity.
Acts punished
Article 147. Illegal Associations 1. Without public uprising, by employing force or

intimidation for the attainment of any of the
Illegal associations purposes enumerated in defining the crimes of
rebellion and sedition;
1. Associations totally or partially organized for the
purpose of committing any of the crimes Elements
punishable under the Code;
1. Offender employs force or intimidation;
2. Associations totally or partially organized for
some purpose contrary to public morals. 2. The aim of the offender is to attain any
of the purposes of the crime of rebellion
or any of the objects of the crime of
Persons liable sedition;
1. Founders, directors and president of the 3. There is no public uprising.

association;
2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by
2. Mere members of the association. employing force or by seriously intimidating or by
seriously resisting any person in authority or any
of his agents, while engaged in the performance
Distinction between illegal association and illegal assembly of official duties, or on occasion of such
performance.
1. In illegal association, it is not necessary that there
be an actual meeting. Elements
In illegal assembly, it is necessary that there is an 1. Offender makes an attack, employs

actual meeting or assembly or armed persons for force, makes a serious intimidation, or
the purpose of committing any of the crimes makes a serious resistance;
punishable under the Code, or of individuals who,
although not armed, are incited to the 2. The person assaulted is a person in
commission of treason, rebellion, sedition, or authority or his agent;
assault upon a person in authority or his agent.
3. At the time of the assault, the person in
2. In illegal association, it is the act of forming or authority or his agent is engaged in the
organizing and membership in the association actual performance of official duties, or
that are punished. that he is assaulted by reason of the past
performance of official duties;
In illegal assembly, it is the meeting and
attendance at such meeting that are punished. 4. Offender knows that the one he is
assaulting is a person in authority or his
agent in the exercise of his duties.
P.J.G. 23
Agent of a person in authority is any person who by direct

5. There is no public uprising. provision of law or by election or by appointment by
competent authority, is charged with the maintenance of
public order and the protection and security of life and
The crime is not based on the material consequence of the property, such as a barangay councilman, barrio
unlawful act. The crime of direct assault punishes the spirit policeman, barangay leader and any person who comes to
of lawlessness and the contempt or hatred for the the aid of a person in authority.
authority or the rule of law.
In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151,
To be specific, if a judge was killed while he was holding a teachers, professors, and persons charged with the
session, the killing is not the direct assault, but murder. supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
There could be direct assault if the offender killed the judge colleges and universities and lawyers in the actual
simply because the judge is so strict in the fulfillment of his performance of their duties or on the occasion of such
duty. It is the spirit of hate which is the essence of direct performance, shall be deemed a person in authority.
assault.
In direct assault of the first form, the stature of the
So, where the spirit is present, it is always complexed with offended person is immaterial. The crime is manifested by
the material consequence of the unlawful act. If the the spirit of lawlessness.
unlawful act was murder or homicide committed under
circumstance of lawlessness or contempt of authority, the In the second form, you have to distinguish a situation
crime would be direct assault with murder or homicide, as where a person in authority or his agent was attacked
the case may be. In the example of the judge who was while performing official functions, from a situation when
killed, the crime is direct assault with murder or homicide. he is not performing such functions. If attack was done
during the exercise of official functions, the crime is always
The only time when it is not complexed is when material direct assault. It is enough that the offender knew that the
consequence is a light felony, that is, slight physical injury. person in authority was performing an official function
Direct assault absorbs the lighter felony; the crime of direct whatever may be the reason for the attack, although what
assault can not be separated from the material result of may have happened was a purely private affair.
the act. So, if an offender who is charged with direct
assault and in another court for the slight physical Injury On the other hand, if the person in authority or the agent
which is part of the act, acquittal or conviction in one is a was killed when no longer performing official functions, the
bar to the prosecution in the other. crime may simply be the material consequence of he
unlawful act: murder or homicide. For the crime to be
Example of the first form of direct assault: direct assault, the attack must be by reason of his official
function in the past. Motive becomes important in this
Three men broke into a National Food Authority respect. Example, if a judge was killed while resisting the
warehouse and lamented sufferings of the people. They taking of his watch, there is no direct assault.
called on people to help themselves to all the rice. They did
not even help themselves to a single grain. In the second form of direct assault, it is also important
that the offended party knew that the person he is
The crime committed was direct assault. There was no attacking is a person in authority or an agent of a person in
robbery for there was no intent to gain. The crime is direct authority, performing his official functions. No knowledge,
assault by committing acts of sedition under Article 139 no lawlessness or contempt.
(5), that is, spoiling of the property, for any political or For example, if two persons were quarreling and a
social end, of any person municipality or province or the policeman in civilian clothes comes and stops them, but
national government of all or any its property, but there is one of the protagonists stabs the policeman, there would
no public uprising. be no direct assault unless the offender knew that he is a
policeman.
Person in authority is any person directly vested with
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of In this respect it is enough that the offender should know
some court or government corporation, board, or that the offended party was exercising some form of
commission. A barangay chairman is deemed a person in authority. It is not necessary that the offender knows what
authority. is meant by person in authority or an agent of one because
ignorantia legis non excusat.
P.J.G. 24
2. By refusing to be sworn or placed under

Article 149. Indirect Assault affirmation while being before such legislative or
constitutional body or official;
Elements
3. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to
1. A person in authority or his agent is the victim of produce any books, papers, documents, or
any of the forms of direct assault defined in records in his possession, when required by them
Article 148; to do so in the exercise of their functions;
2. A person comes to the aid of such authority or his 4. By restraining another from attending as a
agent; witness in such legislative or constitutional body;
3. Offender makes use of force or intimidation upon 5. By inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal
such person coming to the aid of the authority or to be sworn by any such body or official.
his agent.
Article 151. Resistance and Disobedience to A Person in

The victim in indirect assault should be a private person Authority or the Agents of Such Person
who comes in aid of an agent of a person in authority. The
assault is upon a person who comes in aid of the person in Elements of resistance and serious disobedience under the
authority. The victim cannot be the person in authority or first paragraph
his agent.
1. A person in authority or his agent is engaged in
There is no indirect assault when there is no direct assault. the performance of official duty or gives a lawful
order to the offender;
Take note that under Article 152, as amended, when any
person comes in aid of a person in authority, said person at 2. Offender resists or seriously disobeys such person
that moment is no longer a civilian – he is constituted as an in authority or his agent;
agent of the person in authority. If such person were the
one attacked, the crime would be direct assault. 3. The act of the offender is not included in the
provision of Articles 148, 149 and 150.
Due to the amendment of Article 152, without the
corresponding amendment in Article 150, the crime of
indirect assault can only be committed when assault is Elements of simple disobedience under the second
upon a civilian giving aid to an agent of the person in paragraph
authority. He does not become another agent of the
person in authority. 1. An agent of a person in authority is engaged in
the performance of official duty or gives a lawful
order to the offender;
Article 150. Disobedience to Summons Issued by
Congress, Its Committees or Subcommittees, by the 2. Offender disobeys such agent of a person in
Constitutional Commissions, Its Committees, authority;
Subcommittees or Divisions
3. Such disobedience is not of a serious nature.
Acts punished
1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey Distinction between resistance or serious disobedience
summons of Congress, its special or standing and direct assault
committees and subcommittees, the
Constitutional Commissions and its committees, 1. In resistance, the person in authority or his agent
subcommittees or divisions, or by any must be in actual performance of his duties.
commission or committee chairman or member
authorized to summon witnesses;
P.J.G. 25
In direct assault, the person in authority or his

agent must be engaged in the performance of Examples of persons in authority
official duties or that he is assaulted by reason
thereof. 1. Municipal mayor;
2. Resistance or serious disobedience is committed 2. Division superintendent of schools;

only by resisting or seriously disobeying a person
in authority or his agent. 3. Public and private school teachers;
Direct assault (the second form) is committed in 4. Teacher-nurse;

four ways, that is, (1) by attacking, (2) by
employing force, (3) by seriously intimidating, and 5. President of sanitary division;
(4) by seriously resisting a persons in authority or
his agent. 6. Provincial fiscal;
3. In both resistance against an agent of a person in 7. Justice of the Peace;

authority and direct assault by resisting an agent
of a person in authority, there is force employed, 8. Municipal councilor;
but the use of force in resistance is not so serious,
as there is no manifest intention to defy the law 9. Barrio captain and barangay chairman.
and the officers enforcing it.
The attack or employment of force which gives Article 153. Tumults and Other Disturbances of Public
rise to the crime of direct assault must be serious Order
and deliberate; otherwise, even a case of simple
resistance to an arrest, which always requires the Acts punished
use of force of some kind, would constitute direct
assault and the lesser offense of resistance or 1. Causing any serious disturbance in a public place,
disobedience in Article 151 would entirely office or establishment;
disappear.
2. Interrupting or disturbing performances,
But when the one resisted is a person I authority, functions or gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if
the use of any kind or degree of force will give the act is not included in Articles 131 and 132;
rise to direct assault.
3. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or
If no force is employed by the offender in sedition in any meeting, association or public
resisting or disobeying a person in authority, the place;
crime committed is resistance or serious
disobedience under the first paragraph of Article 4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a
151. disturbance of public order in such place;
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has

been legally executed.
Who are deemed persons in authority and agents of
persons in authority under Article 152
The essence is creating public disorder. This crime is
A person in authority is one directly vested with brought about by creating serious disturbances in public
jurisdiction, that is, the power and authority to govern and places, public buildings, and even in private places where
execute the laws. public functions or performances are being held.
An agent of a person in authority is one charged with (1) For a crime to be under this article, it must not fall under
the maintenance of public order and (2) the protection Articles 131 (prohibition, interruption, and dissolution of
and security of life and property. peaceful meetings) and 132 (interruption of religious
worship).
P.J.G. 26
In the act of making outcry during speech tending to incite

rebellion or sedition, the situation must be distinguished Article 155. Alarms and Scandals
from inciting to sedition or rebellion. If the speaker, even
before he delivered his speech, already had the criminal Acts punished
intent to incite the listeners to rise to sedition, the crime
would be inciting to sedition. However, if the offender had 1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or
no such criminal intent, but in the course of his speech, other explosive within any town or public place,
tempers went high and so the speaker started inciting the calculated to cause (which produces) alarm of
audience to rise in sedition against the government, the danger;
crime is disturbance of the public order.
2. Instigating or taking an active part in any charivari
The disturbance of the pubic order is tumultuous and the or other disorderly meeting offensive to another
penalty is increased if it is brought about by armed men. or prejudicial to public tranquility;
The term “armed” does not refer to firearms but includes
even big stones capable of causing grave injury. 3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering
about at night or while engaged in any other
It is also disturbance of the public order if a convict legally nocturnal amusements;
put to death is buried with pomp. He should not be made
out as a martyr; it might incite others to hatred. 4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public
places while intoxicated or otherwise, provided
Article 153 in not applicable.
Article 154. Unlawful Use of Means of Publication and
Unlawful Utterances
When a person discharges a firearm in public, the act may
Acts punished constitute any of the possible crimes under the Revised
Penal Code:
1. Publishing or causing to be published, by means
of printing, lithography or any other means of (1) Alarms and scandals if the firearm when
publication, as news any false news which may discharged was not directed to any particular
endanger the public order; or cause damage to person;
the interest or credit of the State;
(2) Illegal discharge of firearm under Article 254 if the
2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the firearm is directed or pointed to a particular
constituted authorities or praising, justifying or person when discharged but intent to kill is
extolling any act punished by law, by the same absent;
means or by words, utterances or speeches;
(3) Attempted homicide, murder, or parricide if the
3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published firearm when discharged is directed against a
any official resolution or document without person and intent to kill is present.
proper authority, or before they have been
published officially; In this connection, understand that it is not necessary that
the offended party be wounded or hit. Mere discharge of
4. Printing, publishing or distributing (or causing the firearm towards another with intent to kill already
same) books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets amounts to attempted homicide or attempted murder or
which do not bear the real printer’s name, or attempted parricide. It can not be frustrated because the
which are classified as anonymous. offended party is not mortally wounded.
Actual public disorder or actual damage to the credit of In Araneta v. Court of Appeals, it was held that if a person
the State is not necessary. is shot at and is wounded, the crime is automatically
attempted homicide. Intent to kill is inherent in the use of
Republic Act No. 248 prohibits the reprinting, the deadly weapon.
reproduction or republication of government publications
and official documents without previous authority.
P.J.G. 27
The crime alarms and scandal is only one crime. Do not jail can only be committed by private person. Both crimes
think that alarms and scandals are two crimes. may be committed by public officers as well as private
persons.
Scandal here does not refer to moral scandal; that one is
grave scandal in Article 200. The essence of the crime is In both crimes, the person involved may be a convict or a
disturbance of public tranquility and public peace. So, any mere detention prisoner.
kind of disturbance of public order where the circumstance
at the time renders the act offensive to the tranquility The only point of distinction between the two crimes lies on
prevailing, the crime is committed. whether the offender is the custodian of the prisoner or not
at the time the prisoner was made to escape. If the
Charivari is a mock serenade wherein the supposed offender is the custodian at that time, the crime is infidelity
serenaders use broken cans, broken pots, bottles or other in the custody of prisoners. But if the offender is not the
utensils thereby creating discordant notes. Actually, it is custodian of the prisoner at that time, even though he is a
producing noise, not music and so it also disturbs public public officer, the crime he committed is delivering
tranquility. Understand the nature of the crime of alarms prisoners from jail.
and scandals as one that disturbs public tranquility or
public peace. If the annoyance is intended for a particular Liability of the prisoner or detainee who escaped – When
person, the crime is unjust vexation. these crimes are committed, whether infidelity in the
custody of prisoners or delivering prisoners from jail, the
Even if the persons involved are engaged in nocturnal prisoner so escaping may also have criminal liability and
activity like those playing patintero at night, or selling this is so if the prisoner is a convict serving sentence by
balut, if they conduct their activity in such a way that final judgment. The crime of evasion of service of sentence
disturbs public peace, they may commit the crime of is committed by the prisoner who escapes if such prisoner
alarms and scandals. is a convict serving sentence by final judgment.
If the prisoner who escapes is only a detention prisoner, he

Article 156. Delivering Prisoners from Jail does not incur liability from escaping if he does not know
of the plan to remove him from jail. But if such prisoner
Elements knows of the plot to remove him from jail and cooperates
therein by escaping, he himself becomes liable for
1. There is a person confined in a jail or penal delivering prisoners from jail as a principal by
establishment; indispensable cooperation.
2. Offender removes therefrom such person, or If three persons are involved – a stranger, the custodian
helps the escape of such person. and the prisoner – three crimes are committed:
Penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision (1) Infidelity in the custody of prisoners;
correccional in its minimum period is imposed if violence,
intimidation or bribery is used. (2) Delivery of the prisoner from jail; and
Penalty of arresto mayor if other means are used. (3) Evasion of service of sentence.
Penalty decreased to the minimum period if the escape of

the prisoner shall take place outside of said establishments Article 157. Evasion of Service of Sentence
by taking the guards by surprise.
Elements
In relation to infidelity in the custody of prisoners, correlate 1. Offender is a convict by final judgment;
the crime of delivering person from jail with infidelity in the
custody of prisoners punished under Articles 223, 224 and 2. He is serving sentence which consists in the
225 of the Revised Penal Code. In both acts, the offender deprivation of liberty;
may be a public officer or a private citizen. Do not think
that infidelity in the custody of prisoners can only be
3. He evades service of his sentence by escaping
committed by a public officer and delivering persons from
during the term of his imprisonment.
P.J.G. 28
b. earthquake;
Qualifying circumstances as to penalty imposed c. explosion; or
If such evasion or escape takes place – d. similar catastrophe; or
1. By means of unlawful entry (this should be “by e. mutiny in which he has not participated;
scaling” - Reyes);
3. He evades the service of his sentence by leaving
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or the penal institution where he is confined, on the
floors; occasion of such disorder or during the mutiny;
3. By using picklock, false keys, disguise, deceit, 4. He fails to give himself up to the authorities
violence or intimidation; or within 48 hours following the issuance of a
proclamation by the Chief Executive announcing
4. Through connivance with other convicts or the passing away of such calamity.
employees of the penal institution.
The leaving from the penal establishment is not the basis

Evasion of service of sentence has three forms: of criminal liability. It is the failure to return within 48
hours after the passing of the calamity, conflagration or
(1) By simply leaving or escaping from the penal mutiny had been announced. Under Article 158, those who
establishment under Article 157; return within 48 hours are given credit or deduction from
the remaining period of their sentence equivalent to 1/5 of
(2) Failure to return within 48 hours after having left the original term of the sentence. But if the prisoner fails
the penal establishment because of a calamity, to return within said 48 hours, an added penalty, also 1/5,
conflagration or mutiny and such calamity, shall be imposed but the 1/5 penalty is based on the
conflagration or mutiny has been announced as remaining period of the sentence, not on the original
already passed under Article 158; sentence. In no case shall that penalty exceed six months.
(3) Violating the condition of conditional pardon Those who did not leave the penal establishment are not
under Article 159. entitled to the 1/5 credit. Only those who left and returned
within the 48-hour period.
In leaving or escaping from jail or prison, that the prisoner
immediately returned is immaterial. It is enough that he The mutiny referred to in the second form of evasion of
left the penal establishment by escaping therefrom. His service of sentence does not include riot. The mutiny
voluntary return may only be mitigating, being analogous referred to here involves subordinate personnel rising
to voluntary surrender. But the same will not absolve his against the supervisor within the penal establishment.
criminal liability. One who escapes during a riot will be subject to Article
157, that is, simply leaving or escaping the penal
establishment.
Article 158. Evasion of Service of Sentence on the
Occasion of Disorders, Conflagrations, Earthquakes, or Mutiny is one of the causes which may authorize a convict
Other Calamities serving sentence in the penitentiary to leave the jail
provided he has not taken part in the mutiny.
Elements
The crime of evasion of service of sentence may be
1. Offender is a convict by final judgment, who is committed even if the sentence is destierro, and this is
confined in a penal institution; committed if the convict sentenced to destierro will enter
the prohibited places or come within the prohibited radius
2. There is disorder, resulting from – of 25 kilometers to such places as stated in the judgment.
a. conflagration; If the sentence violated is destierro, the penalty upon the

convict is to be served by way of destierro also, not
P.J.G. 29
imprisonment. This is so because the penalty for the

Question & Answer
evasion can not be more severe than the penalty evaded.
Is the violation of conditional pardon a

Article 159. Other Cases of Evasion of Service of substantive offense?
Sentence
Under Article 159, there are two situations
Elements of violation of conditional pardon provided:
1. Offender was a convict; (1) There is a penalty of prision correccional minimum

for the violation of the conditional pardon;
2. He was granted pardon by the Chief Executive;
(2) There is no new penalty imposed for the violation
3. He violated any of the conditions of such pardon. of the conditional pardon. Instead, the convict
will be required to serve the unserved portion of
the sentence.
In violation of conditional pardon, as a rule, the violation
will amount to this crime only if the condition is violated If the remitted portion of the sentence is less than
during the remaining period of the sentence. As a rule, if six years or up to six years, there is an added penalty of
the condition of the pardon is violated when the remaining prision correccional minimum for the violation of the
unserved portion of the sentence has already lapsed, there conditional pardon; hence, the violation is a substantive
will be no more criminal liability for the violation. offense if the remitted portion of the sentence does not
However, the convict maybe required to serve the unserved exceed six years because in this case a new penalty is
portion of the sentence, that is, continue serving original imposed for the violation of the conditional pardon.
penalty.
But if the remitted portion of the sentence
The administrative liability of the convict under the exceeds six years, the violation of the conditional pardon is
conditional pardon is different and has nothing to do with not a substantive offense because no new penalty is
his criminal liability for the evasion of service of sentence in imposed for the violation.
the event that the condition of the pardon has been
violated. Exception: where the violation of the condition of In other words, you have to qualify your answer.
the pardon will constitute evasion of service of sentence,
even though committed beyond the remaining period of The Supreme Court, however, has ruled in the
the sentence. This is when the conditional pardon case of Angeles v. Jose that this is not a substantive
expressly so provides or the language of the conditional offense. This has been highly criticized.
pardon clearly shows the intention to make the condition
perpetual even beyond the unserved portion of the
sentence. In such case, the convict may be required to Article 160. Commission of Another Crime During Service
serve the unserved portion of the sentence even though of Penalty Imposed for Another Previous Offense
the violation has taken place when the sentence has
already lapsed. Elements
In order that the conditional pardon may be violated, it is 1. Offender was already convicted by final judgment
conditional that the pardonee received the conditional of one offense;
pardon. If he is released without conformity to the
conditional pardon, he will not be liable for the crime of 2. He committed a new felony before beginning to
evasion of service of sentence. serve such sentence or while serving the same.
TITLE IV. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
Crimes against public interest

P.J.G. 30
1. Counterfeiting the great seal of the Government

of the Philippines (Art. 161); 19. False testimony against a defendant (Art. 180);
2. Using forged signature or counterfeiting seal or 20. False testimony favorable to the defendant (Art.
stamp (Art. 162); 181);
3. Making and importing and uttering false coins 21. False testimony in civil cases (Art. 182);
(Art. 163);
22. False testimony in other cases and perjury (Art.
4. Mutilation of coins, importation and uttering of 183);
mutilated coins (Art. 164);
23. Offering false testimony in evidence (Art. 184);
5. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without
connivance (Art. 165); 24. Machinations in public auction (Art. 185);
6. Forging treasury or bank notes or other 25. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of
documents payable to bearer, importing and trade (Art. 186);
uttering of such false or forged notes and
documents (Art. 166); 26. Importation and disposition of falsely marked
articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, or
7. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering other precious metals or their alloys (Art. 187);
instruments not payable to bearer (Art. 167);
27. Substituting and altering trade marks and trade
8. Illegal possession and use of forged treasury or names or service marks (Art. 188);
bank notes and other instruments of credit (Art.
168); 28. Unfair competition and fraudulent registration of
trade mark or trade name, or service mark;
9. Falsification of legislative documents (Art. 170); fraudulent designation of origin, and false
description (Art. 189).
10. Falsification by public officer, employee or notary
(Art. 171);
The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or falsity
11. Falsification by private individuals and use of to the public. The essence of the crime under this title is
falsified documents (Art. 172); that which defraud the public in general. There is deceit
perpetrated upon the public. This is the act that is being
12. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and punished under this title.
telephone messages and use of said falsified
messages (Art. 173);
Article 161. Counterfeiting the Great Seal of the
13. False medical certificates, false certificates of Government of the Philippine Islands, Forging the
merit or service (Art. 174); Signature or Stamp of the Chief Executive
14. Using false certificates (Art. 175); Acts punished
15. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or 1. Forging the great seal of the Government of the
implements for falsification (Art. 176); Philippines;
16. Usurpation of authority or official functions (Art. 2. Forging the signature of the President;
177);
3. Forging the stamp of the President.
17. Using fictitious name and concealing true name
(Art. 178);
Article 162. Using Forged Signature or Counterfeit Seal or
18. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia (Art. 179); Stamp
P.J.G. 31
Elements The first acts of falsification or falsity are –
1. The great seal of the Republic was counterfeited (1) Counterfeiting – refers to money or currency;
or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive
was forged by another person; (2) Forgery – refers to instruments of credit and
obligations and securities issued by the Philippine
2. Offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery; government or any banking institution authorized
by the Philippine government to issue the same;
3. He used the counterfeit seal or forged signature
or stamp. (3) Falsification – can only be committed in respect of
documents.
Offender under this article should not be the forger.
In so far as coins in circulation are concerned, there are

Article 163. Making and Importing and Uttering False two crimes that may be committed:
Coins
(1) Counterfeiting coins -- This is the crime of
Elements remaking or manufacturing without any authority
to do so.
1. There be false or counterfeited coins;
In the crime of counterfeiting, the law is not concerned
2. Offender either made, imported or uttered such with the fraud upon the public such that even though the
coins; coin is no longer legal tender, the act of imitating or
manufacturing the coin of the government is penalized. In
3. In case of uttering such false or counterfeited punishing the crime of counterfeiting, the law wants to
coins, he connived with the counterfeiters or prevent people from trying their ingenuity in their imitation
importers. of the manufacture of money.
It is not necessary that the coin counterfeited be legal

Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished tender. So that even if the coin counterfeited is of vintage,
the crime of counterfeiting is committed. The reason is to
1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the bar the counterfeiter from perfecting his craft of
Central Bank of the Philippines; counterfeiting. The law punishes the act in order to
discourage people from ever attempting to gain expertise
2. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of in gaining money. This is because if people could
the Central Bank of the Philippines; counterfeit money with impunity just because it is no
longer legal tender, people would try to counterfeit non-
3. Coin of the currency of a foreign country. legal tender coins. Soon, if they develop the expertise to
make the counterfeiting more or less no longer discernible
or no longer noticeable, they could make use of their
Article 164. Mutilation of Coins ingenuity to counterfeit coins of legal tender. From that
time on, the government shall have difficulty determining
Acts punished which coins are counterfeited and those which are not. It
may happen that the counterfeited coins may look better
1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the than the real ones. So, counterfeiting is penalized right at
further requirements that there be intent to the very start whether the coin is legal tender or otherwise.
damage or to defraud another;
2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with

Question & Answer
the further requirement that there must be
connivances with the mutilator or importer in
case of uttering. X has in his possession a coin which was legal
tender at the time of Magellan and is considered a
P.J.G. 32
collector’s item. He manufactured several pieces of that In the example, if the offender has collected 1/10 of the P
coin. Is the crime committed? 2.00 coin, the coin is actually worth only P 1.80. He is
paying only P1.80 in effect defrauding the seller of P .20.
Yes. It is not necessary that the coin be of legal Punishment for mutilation is brought about by the fact that
tender. The provision punishing counterfeiting does not the intrinsic value of the coin is reduced.
require that the money be of legal tender and the law
punishes this even if the coin concerned is not of legal The offender must deliberately reduce the precious metal
tender in order to discourage people from practicing their in the coin. Deliberate intent arises only when the offender
ingenuity of imitating money. If it were otherwise, people collects the precious metal dust from the mutilated coin. If
may at the beginning try their ingenuity in imitating money the offender does not collect such dust, intent to mutilate
not of legal tender and once they acquire expertise, they is absent, but Presidential Decree No. 247 will apply.
may then counterfeit money of legal tender.
Presidential Decree No. 247 (Defacement, Mutilation,

(2) Mutilation of coins -- This refers to the deliberate Tearing, Burning or Destroying Central Bank Notes and
act of diminishing the proper metal contents of Coins)
the coin either by scraping, scratching or filling
the edges of the coin and the offender gathers the It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully deface,
metal dust that has been scraped from the coin. mutilate, tear, burn, or destroy in any manner whatsoever,
currency notes and coins issued by the Central Bank.
Requisites of mutilation under the Revised Penal Code
(1) (1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender; Mutilation under the Revised Penal Code is true only to
coins. It cannot be a crime under the Revised Penal Code
(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust to mutilate paper bills because the idea of mutilation
abstracted from the coin; and under the code is collecting the precious metal dust.
However, under Presidential Decree No. 247, mutilation is
(3) It has to be a coin. not limited to coins.
Mutilation is being regarded as a crime because the coin,

being of legal tender, it is still in circulation and which
Questions & Answers
would necessarily prejudice other people who may come
across the coin. For example, X mutilated a P 2.00 coin,
the octagonal one, by converting it into a round one and 1. The people playing cara y cruz, before
extracting 1/10 of the precious metal dust from it. The they throw the coin in the air would rub the money to the
coin here is no longer P2.00 but only P 1.80, therefore, sidewalk thereby diminishing the intrinsic value of the
prejudice to the public has resulted. coin. Is the crime of mutilation committed?
There is no expertise involved here. In mutilation of coins Mutilation, under the Revised Penal Code, is not
under the Revised Penal Code, the offender does nothing committed because they do not collect the precious metal
but to scrape, pile or cut the coin and collect the dust and, content that is being scraped from the coin. However, this
thus, diminishing the intrinsic value of the coin. will amount to violation of Presidential Decree No. 247.
Mutilation of coins is a crime only if the coin mutilated is 2. When the image of Jose Rizal on a five-
legal tender. If the coin whose metal content has been peso bill is transformed into that of Randy Santiago, is
depreciated through scraping, scratching, or filing the coin there a violation of Presidential Decree No. 247?
and the offender collecting the precious metal dust, even if
he would use the coin after its intrinsic value had been Yes. Presidential Decree No. 247 is violated by
reduced, nobody will accept the same. If it is not legal such act.
tender anymore, no one will accept it, so nobody will be
defrauded. But if the coin is of legal tender, and the 3. Sometime before martial law was
offender minimizes or decreases the precious metal dust imposed, the people lost confidence in banks that they
content of the coin, the crime of mutilation is committed. preferred hoarding their money than depositing it in
banks. Former President Ferdinand Marcos declared upon
P.J.G. 33
declaration of martial law that all bills without the Bagong sidewalk, he also defaces and destroys the coin and that is
Lipunan sign on them will no longer be recognized. punishable under Presidential Decree No. 247.
Because of this, the people had no choice but to surrender
their money to banks and exchange them with those with
the Bagong Lipunan sign on them. However, people who Article 165. Selling of False or Mutilated Coin, without
came up with a lot of money were also being charged with Connivance
hoarding for which reason certain printing presses did the
stamping of the Bagong Lipunan sign themselves to avoid Acts punished
prosecution. Was there a violation of Presidential Decree
No. 247? 1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by
another person, with intent to utter the same,
Yes. This act of the printing presses is a violation knowing that it is false or mutilated;
of Presidential Decree No. 247.
Elements
4. An old woman who was a cigarette
vendor in Quiapo refused to accept one-centavo coins for 1. Possession;
payment of the vendee of cigarettes he purchased. Then
came the police who advised her that she has no right to 2. With intent to utter; and
refuse since the coins are of legal tender. On this, the old
woman accepted in her hands the one-centavo coins and
3. Knowledge.
then threw it to the face of the vendee and the police.
Was the old woman guilty of violating Presidential Decree
2. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin,
No. 247?
knowing the same to be false or mutilated.
She was guilty of violating Presidential Decree No.
Elements
247 because if no one ever picks up the coins, her act
would result in the diminution of the coin in circulation.
1. Actually uttering; and
5. A certain customer in a restaurant
wanted to show off and used a P 20.00 bill to light his 2. Knowledge.
cigarette. Was he guilty of violating Presidential Decree
No. 247?
Article 166. Forging Treasury or Bank Notes or Other
He was guilty of arrested for violating of Documents Payable to Bearer; Importing and Uttering
Presidential Decree No. 247. Anyone who is in possession Such False or Forged Notes and Documents
of defaced money is the one who is the violator of
Presidential Decree No. 247. The intention of Presidential Acts punished
Decree No. 247 is not to punish the act of defrauding the
public but what is being punished is the act of destruction 1. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes
of money issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines. or other documents payable to bearer;
2. Importation of such false or forged obligations or

Note that persons making bracelets out of some coins notes;
violate Presidential Decree No. 247.
3. Uttering of such false or forged obligations or
The primary purpose of Presidential Decree No. 247 at the notes in connivance with the forgers or importers.
time it was ordained was to stop the practice of people
writing at the back or on the edges of the paper bills, such
as "wanted: pen pal". Article 167. Counterfeiting, Importing, and Uttering
Instruments Not Payable to Bearer
So, if the act of mutilating coins does not involve gathering
dust like playing cara y cruz, that is not mutilation under Elements
the Revised Penal Code because the offender does not
collect the metal dust. But by rubbing the coins on the
P.J.G. 34
1. There is an instrument payable to order or other to this crime. The essence of forgery is giving a document
documents of credit not payable to bearer; the appearance of a true and genuine document. Not any
alteration of a letter, number, figure or design would
2. Offender either forged, imported or uttered such amount to forgery. At most, it would only be frustrated
instrument; forgery.
When what is being counterfeited is obligation or

3. In case of uttering, he connived with the forger or
securities, which under the Revised Penal Code is given a
importer.
status of money or legal tender, the crime committed is
forgery.
Article 168. Illegal Possession and Use of False Treasury
or Bank Notes and Other Instruments of Credit
Elements Questions & Answers
1. Any treasury or bank note or certificate or other

1. Instead of the peso sign (P), somebody
obligation and security payable to bearer, or any
replaced it with a dollar sign ($). Was the crime of forgery
instrument payable to order or other document
committed?
of credit not payable to bearer is forged or
falsified by another person;
No. Forgery was not committed. The forged
instrument and currency note must be given the
2. Offender knows that any of those instruments is
appearance of a true and genuine document. The crime
forged or falsified;
committed is a violation of Presidential Decree No. 247.
Where the currency note, obligation or security has been
3. He either –
changed to make it appear as one which it purports to be
as genuine, the crime is forgery. In checks or commercial
a. uses any of such forged or falsified
documents, this crime is committed when the figures or
instruments; or
words are changed which materially alters the document.
b. possesses with intent to use any of such
2. An old man, in his desire to earn
forged or falsified instruments.
something, scraped a digit in a losing sweepstakes ticket,
cut out a digit from another ticket and pasted it there to
match the series of digits corresponding to the winning
How forgery is committed under Article 169
sweepstakes ticket. He presented this ticket to the
Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. But the alteration
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any is so crude that even a child can notice that the supposed
instrument payable to bearer or to order digit is merely superimposed on the digit that was scraped.
mentioned therein, the appearance of a true and Was the old man guilty of forgery?
genuine document;
Because of the impossibility of deceiving whoever
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering would be the person to whom that ticket is presented, the
by any means the figures, letters, words, or sign Supreme Court ruled that what was committed was an
contained therein. impossible crime. Note, however, that the decision has
been criticized. In a case like this, the Supreme Court of
Spain ruled that the crime is frustrated. Where the
Forgery under the Revised Penal Code applies to papers, alteration is such that nobody would be deceived, one
which are in the form of obligations and securities issued could easily see that it is a forgery, the crime is frustrated
by the Philippine government as its own obligations, which because he has done all the acts of execution which would
is given the same status as legal tender. Generally, the bring about the felonious consequence but nevertheless
word “counterfeiting” is not used when it comes to notes; did not result in a consummation for reasons independent
what is used is “forgery.” Counterfeiting refers to money, of his will.
whether coins or bills.
3. A person has a twenty-peso bill. He
The Revised Penal Code defines forgery under Article 169. applied toothache drops on one side of the bill. He has a
Notice that mere change on a document does not amount
P.J.G. 35
mimeograph paper similar in texture to that of the Five classes of falsification:

currency note and placed it on top of the twenty-peso bill
and put some weight on top of the paper. After (1) Falsification of legislative documents;
sometime, he removed it and the printing on the twenty-
peso bill was reproduced on the mimeo paper. He took (2) Falsification of a document by a public officer,
the reverse side of the P20 bill, applied toothache drops employee or notary public;
and reversed the mimeo paper and pressed it to the
paper. After sometime, he removed it and it was (3) Falsification of a public or official, or commercial
reproduced. He cut it out, scraped it a little and went to a documents by a private individual;
sari-sari store trying to buy a cigarette with that bill. What
he overlooked was that, when he placed the bill, the (4) Falsification of a private document by any person;
printing was inverted. He was apprehended and was
prosecuted and convicted of forgery. Was the crime of (5) Falsification of wireless, telegraph and telephone
forgery committed? messages.
The Supreme Court ruled that it was only Distinction between falsification and forgery:
frustrated forgery because although the offender has
performed all the acts of execution, it is not possible Falsification is the commission of any of the eight acts
because by simply looking at the forged document, it could mentioned in Article 171 on legislative (only the act of
be seen that it is not genuine. It can only be a making alteration), public or official, commercial, or
consummated forgery if the document which purports to private documents, or wireless, or telegraph messages.
be genuine is given the appearance of a true and genuine
document. Otherwise, it is at most frustrated. The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers to the
falsification and counterfeiting of treasury or bank notes or
Article 170. Falsification of Legislative Documents any instruments payable to bearer or to order.
Elements Note that forging and falsification are crimes under

Forgeries.
1. There is a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or
approved or pending approval by either House of
the Legislature or any provincial board or Article 171. Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or
municipal council; Notary or Ecclesiastical Minister
2. Offender alters the same; Elements
3. He has no proper authority therefor; 1. Offender is a public officer, employee, or notary

public;
4. The alteration has changed the meaning of the
documents. 2. He takes advantage of his official position;
3. He falsifies a document by committing any of the

The words "municipal council" should include the city following acts:
council or municipal board – Reyes.
a. Counterfeiting or imitating any
handwriting, signature or rubric;
The crime of falsification must involve a writing that is a
document in the legal sense. The writing must be complete b. Causing it to appear that persons have
in itself and capable of extinguishing an obligation or participated in any act or proceeding
creating rights or capable of becoming evidence of the when they did not in fact so participate;
facts stated therein. Until and unless the writing has
attained this quality, it will not be considered as document c. Attributing to persons who have
in the legal sense and, therefore, the crime of falsification participated in an act or proceeding
cannot be committed in respect thereto. statements other than those in fact
made by them;
P.J.G. 36
1. A is one of those selling residence

d. Making untruthful statements in a certificates in Quiapo. He was brought to the police
narration of facts; precincts on suspicion that the certificates he was selling
to the public proceed from spurious sources and not from
e. Altering true dates; the Bureau of Treasury. Upon verification, it was found
out that the certificates were indeed printed with a
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in booklet of supposed residence certificates. What crime
a genuine document which changes its was committed?
meaning;
Crime committed is violation of Article 176
g. Issuing in an authenticated form a (manufacturing and possession of instruments or
document purporting to be a copy of implements for falsification). A cannot be charged of
an original document when no such falsification because the booklet of residence certificates
original exists, or including in such a copy found in his possession is not in the nature of “document”
a statement contrary to, or different in the legal sense. They are mere forms which are not to
from, that of the genuine original; or be completed to be a document in the legal sense. This is
illegal possession with intent to use materials or apparatus
h. Intercalating any instrument or note which may be used in counterfeiting/forgery or
relative to the issuance thereof in a falsification.
protocol, registry, or official book.
2. Public officers found a traffic violation
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister receipts from a certain person. The receipts were not
who shall commit any of the offenses issued by the Motor Vehicle Office. For what crime should
enumerated, with respect to any record or he be prosecuted for?
document of such character that its falsification
may affect the civil status of persons. It cannot be a crime of usurpation of official
functions. It may be the intention but no overt act was yet
performed by him. He was not arrested while performing
For example, a customer in a hotel did not write his name such overt act. He was apprehended only while he was
on the registry book, which was intended to be a memorial standing on the street suspiciously. Neither can he be
of those who got in and out of that hotel. There is no prosecuted for falsification because the document is not
complete document to speak of. The document may not completed yet, there being no name of any erring driver.
extinguish or create rights but it can be an evidence of the The document remains to be a mere form. It not being
facts stated therein. completed yet, the document does not qualify as a
document in the legal sense.
Note that a check is not yet a document when it is not
completed yet. If somebody writes on it, he makes a 4. Can the writing on the wall be
document out of it. considered a document?
The document where a crime was committed or the Yes. It is capable of speaking of the facts stated
document subject of the prosecution may be totally false in therein. Writing may be on anything as long as it is a
the sense that it is entirely spurious. This notwithstanding, product of the handwriting, it is considered a document.
the crime of falsification is committed.
5. In a case where a lawyer tried to extract
It does not require that the writing be genuine. Even if the money from a spinster by typing on a bond paper a
writing was through and through false, if it appears to be subpoena for estafa. The spinster agreed to pay. The
genuine, the crime of falsification is nevertheless spinster went to the prosecutor’s office to verify the exact
committed. amount and found out that there was no charge against
her. The lawyer was prosecuted for falsification. He
contended that only a genuine document could be
falsified. Rule.
Questions & Answers
As long as any of the acts of falsification is
committed, whether the document is genuine or not, the
P.J.G. 37
crime of falsification may be committed. Even totally false 3. The falsification was committed in a public,
documents may be falsified. official, or commercial document or letter of
exchange.
There are four kinds of documents:

Elements under paragraph 2
(1) Public document in the execution of which, a
person in authority or notary public has taken
part; 1. Offender committed any of the acts of
falsification except Article 171(7), that is, issuing
(2) Official document in the execution of which a in an authenticated form a document purporting
public official takes part; to be a copy of an original document when no
such original exists, or including in such a copy a
(3) Commercial document or any document statement contrary to, or different from, that of
recognized by the Code of Commerce or any the genuine original;
commercial law; and
2. Falsification was committed in any private
(4) Private document in the execution of which only document;
private individuals take part.
3. Falsification causes damage to a third party or at
Public document is broader than the term official least the falsification was committed with intent
document. Before a document may be considered official, to cause such damage.
it must first be a public document. But not all public
documents are official documents. To become an official
document, there must be a law which requires a public Elements under the last paragraph
officer to issue or to render such document. Example: A
cashier is required to issue an official receipt for the In introducing in a judicial proceeding –
amount he receives. The official receipt is a public
document which is an official document. 1. Offender knew that the document was falsified by
another person;
Article 172. Falsification by Private Individual and Use of 2. The false document is in Articles 171 or 172 (1 or
Falsified Documents 2);
Acts punished
3. He introduced said document in evidence in any
judicial proceeding.
1. Falsification of public, official or commercial
document by a private individual;
In use in any other transaction –
2. Falsification of private document by any person;
1. Offender knew that a document was falsified by
another person;
3. Use of falsified document.
2. The false document is embraced in Articles 171 or

Elements under paragraph 1 172 (1 or 2);
1. Offender is a private individual or public officer or 3. He used such document;

employee who did not take advantage of his
official position; 4. The use caused damage to another or at least
used with intent to cause damage.
2. He committed any act of falsification;
P.J.G. 38
Article 173. Falsification of Wireless, Cable, Telegraph Article 174. False Medical Certificates, False
and Telephone Messages, and Use of Said Falsified Certificates of Merits or Service, Etc.
Messages
Persons liable
Acts punished
1. Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the
1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or practice of his profession, issues a false certificate
telephone message; (it must refer to the illness or injury of a person);
Elements [The crime here is false medical certificate by a

physician.]
1, Offender is an officer or employee of the
government or an officer or employee of 2. Public officer who issues a false certificate of
a private corporation, engaged in the merit of service, good conduct or similar
service of sending or receiving wireless, circumstances;
cable or telephone message;
[The crime here is false certificate of merit or
2. He utters fictitious wireless, cable, service by a public officer.]
telegraph or telephone message.
3. Private person who falsifies a certificate falling
2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone
within the classes mentioned in the two
message;
preceding subdivisions.
Elements
Article 175. Using False Certificates
1, Offender is an officer or employee of the
government or an officer or employee of
Elements
a private corporation, engaged in the
service of sending or receiving wireless,
1. The following issues a false certificate:
a. Physician or surgeon, in connection with
2. He falsifies wireless, cable, telegraph or
the practice of his profession, issues a
telephone message.
false certificate;
3. Using such falsified message.
b. Public officer issues a false
certificate of merit of service,
Elements
good conduct or similar
circumstances;
1. Offender knew that wireless, cable,
telegraph, or telephone message was
c. Private person falsifies a
falsified by an officer or employee of the
certificate falling within the
government or an officer or employee of
classes mentioned in the two
a private corporation, engaged in the
preceding subdivisions.
service of sending or receiving wireless,
2. Offender knows that the certificate was
false;
2. He used such falsified dispatch;
3. He uses the same.
3. The use resulted in the prejudice of a
third party or at least there was intent to
cause such prejudice.
Article 176. Manufacturing and Possession of Instruments
or Implements for Falsification
Acts punished
P.J.G. 39
1. Making or introducing into the Philippines any 2. He uses the fictitious name publicly;
stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification; 3. Purpose of use is to conceal a crime, to
evade the execution of a judgment or to
2. Possession with intent to use the instruments or cause damage [to public interest –
implements for counterfeiting or falsification Reyes].
made in or introduced into the Philippines by
another person. 2. Concealing true name
Elements
Article 177. Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions
1. Offender conceals his true name and
Acts punished other personal circumstances;
1. Usurpation of authority; 2. Purpose is only to conceal his identity.
Elements
Commonwealth Act No. 142 (Regulating the Use of
1. Offender knowingly and falsely Aliases)
represents himself;
No person shall use any name different from the one with
2. As an officer, agent or representative of which he was registered at birth in the office of the local
any department or agency of the civil registry, or with which he was registered in the bureau
Philippine government or of any foreign of immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as
government. may have been authorized by a competent court.
2. Usurpation of official functions. Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary, cinema,

television, radio, or other entertainment and in athletic
Elements events where the use of pseudonym is a normally
accepted practice.
1. Offender performs any act;
2. Pertaining to any person in authority or Article 179. Illegal Use of Uniforms or Insignia
public officer of the Philippine
government or any foreign government, Elements
or any agency thereof;
1. Offender makes use of insignia, uniforms or dress;
3. Under pretense of official position;
2. The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains to an
4. Without being lawfully entitled to do so. office not held by such person or a class of
persons of which he is not a member;
Article 178. Using Fictitious Name and Concealing True 3. Said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and
Name improperly.
Acts punished
Wearing the uniform of an imaginary office is not
1. Using fictitious name punishable.
Elements So also, an exact imitation of a uniform or dress is

unnecessary; a colorable resemblance calculated to
1. Offender uses a name other than his real deceive the common run of people is sufficient.
name;
P.J.G. 40
Article 180. False Testimony against A Defendant

Article 183. False Testimony in Other Cases and Perjury in
Elements Solemn Affirmation
1. There is a criminal proceeding; Acts punished
2. Offender testifies falsely under oath against the 1. By falsely testifying under oath;
defendant therein;
2. By making a false affidavit.
3. Offender who gives false testimony knows that it
is false.
Elements of perjury
4. Defendant against whom the false testimony is
given is either acquitted or convicted in a final 1. Offender makes a statement under oath or
judgment. executes an affidavit upon a material matter;
2. The statement or affidavit is made before a

Three forms of false testimony competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oaths;
1. False testimony in criminal cases under Article
180 and 181; 3. Offender makes a willful and deliberate assertion
of a falsehood in the statement or affidavit;
2. False testimony in civil case under Article 182;
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the
3. False testimony in other cases under Article 183. falsity is required by law, that is, it is made for a
legal purpose.
Article 181. False Testimony Favorable to the Defendant

Article 184. Offering False Testimony in Evidence
Elements
Elements
1. A person gives false testimony;
1. Offender offers in evidence a false witness or
2. In favor of the defendant; testimony;
3. In a criminal case. 2 He knows that the witness or the testimony was

false;
Article 182. False Testimony in Civil Cases 3. The offer is made in any judicial or official
proceeding.
Elements
1. Testimony given in a civil case; Article 185. Machinations in Public Auctions
2. Testimony relates to the issues presented in said Acts punished

case;
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration
3. Testimony is false; for refraining from taking part in any public
auction;
4. Offender knows that testimony is false;
Elements
5. Testimony is malicious and given with an intent to
affect the issues presented in said case. 1. There is a public auction;
P.J.G. 41
2. Offender solicits any gift or a promise 1. By monopolizing any merchandise or

from any of the bidders; object of trade or commerce, or by
combining with any other person or
3. Such gift or promise is the consideration persons to monopolize said merchandise
for his refraining from taking part in that or object;
public auction;
2. In order to alter the prices thereof by
4. Offender has the intent to cause the spreading false rumors or making use of
reduction of the price of the thing any other artifice;
auctioned.
3. To restrain free competition in the
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away from an market
auction by threats, gifts, promises or any other
artifice. 3. Manufacturer, producer, or processor or importer
combining, conspiring or agreeing with any
Elements person to make transactions prejudicial to lawful
commerce or to increase the market price of
1. There is a public auction; merchandise.
2. Offender attempts to cause the bidders Elements

to stay away from that public auction;
1. Manufacturer, producer, processor or
3. It is done by threats, gifts, promises or importer of any merchandise or object of
any other artifice; commerce;
4. Offender has the intent to cause the 2. Combines, conspires or agrees with any
reduction of the price of the thing person;
auctioned.
3. Purpose is to make transactions
prejudicial to lawful commerce or to
Article 186. Monopolies and Combinations in Restraint increase the market price of any
of Trade merchandise or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed,
Acts punished assembled or imported into the
Philippines.
1. Combination to prevent free competition in the
market;
Article 187. Importation and Disposition of Falsely
Elements Marked Articles or Merchandise Made of Gold, Silver, or
Other Precious Metals of Their Alloys
1. Entering into any contract or agreement
or taking part in any conspiracy or Elements
combination in the form of a trust or
otherwise; 1. Offender imports, sells or disposes articles made
of gold, silver, or other precious metals or their
2. In restraint of trade or commerce or to alloys;
prevent by artificial means free
competition in the market. 2. The stamps, brands, or marks of those articles of
merchandise fail to indicate the actual fineness or
2. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the quality of said metals or alloys;
market;
3. Offender knows that the stamps, brands, or
Elements marks fail to indicate the actual fineness or
quality of the metals or alloys.
P.J.G. 42
2. Fraudulent designation of origin; false

description:
Article 188. Substituting and Altering Trademarks, Trade
names, or Service Marks Elements
Acts punished 1. By affixing to his goods or using in

connection with his services a false
1. Substituting the trade name or trademark of designation of origin, or any false
some other manufacturer or dealer, or a description or representation; and
colorable imitation thereof for the trade name or
trademark of the real manufacturer or dealer 2. Selling such goods or services.
upon any article of commerce and selling the
same; 3. Fraudulent registration
2. Selling or offering for sale such articles of Elements

commerce knowing that the trade name or
trademark has been fraudulently used; 1. By procuring fraudulently from the
patent office;
3. Using or substituting the service mark of some
other person, or a colorable imitation of such 2. The registration of trade name,
mark n the sale or advertising of his services; trademark or service mark
4. Printing, lithographing or reproducing trade

name, trademark, or service mark of one person Republic Act No. 8293 (An Act Prescribing the Intellectual
or a colorable imitation thereof to enable another Property Code and Establishing the Intellectual Property
person to fraudulently use the same knowing the Office, Providing for Its Power and Functions, and for
fraudulent purpose for which it is to be used. Other Purposes)
Section 170. Penalties. – Independent of the civil

Article 189. Unfair Competition, Fraudulent Registration and administrative sanctions imposed by law, a criminal
of Trade Name, Trademark, or Service Mark, Fraudulent penalty of imprisonment from two (2) years to five (5)
Designation of Origin, and False Description years and a fine ranging from Fifty thousand pesos (P
50,000.00) to Two hundred thousand pesos (P
Acts punished 200,000.00), shall be imposed on any person who is found
guilty of committing any of the acts mentioned in Section
1. Unfair competition; 155, Section 168 and Subsection 169.1.
Elements Section 155. Remedies; Infringement. – Any

person who shall, without the consent of the owner of the
1. By selling his goods; registered mark:
2. Giving them the general appearance of 155.1. Use in commerce any reproduction,
the goods of another manufacturer or counterfeit, copy, or colorable imitation of a registered
dealer; mark or the same container or a dominant feature thereof
in connection with the sale, offering for sale, distribution,
3. The general appearance is shown in the advertising of any goods or services including other
goods themselves, or in the wrapping of preparatory steps necessary to carry out the sale of any
their packages, or in the device or words goods or services on or in connection with which such use
therein, or in any feature of their is likely to course confusion, or to cause mistake, or to
appearance; deceive; or
4. There is actual intent to deceive the 155.2. Reproduce, counterfeit, copy or colorably
public or defraud a competitor. imitate a registered mark or a dominant feature thereof
and apply such reproduction, counterfeit, copy or
P.J.G. 43
colorable imitation to labels, signs, prints, packages, induce the false belief that such person is offering the
wrappers, receptacles or advertisement intended to be services of another who ahs identified such services in the
used in commerce upon or in connection with the sale, mind of the public; or
offering for sale, distribution, or advertising of goods or
services on or in connection with which such use is likely (c) Any person who shall make any false
to cause confusion, or to cause mistake, or to deceive shall statement in the course of trade or who shall commit any
be liable in a civil action for infringement by the registrant other act contrary to good faith of a nature calculated to
for the remedies hereinafter set forth: Provided, that the discredit the goods, business or services of another.
infringement takes place at the moment any of the acts
stated in Subsection 155.1 or this subsection are 168.4. The remedies provided by Section 156,
committed regardless of whether there is actual sale of 157 and 161 shall apply mutatis mutandis.
goods or services using the infringing material.
Section 169. False Designation or Origin; False
Section 168. Unfair Competition, Rights, Description or Representation.
Regulation and Remedies.
169.1. Any person who, on or in connection with
168.1. Any person who has identified in the mind any goods or services, or any container for goods, uses in
of the public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his commerce any word, term, name, symbol, or device, or
business or services from those of others, whether or not a any combination thereof, or any false designation of
registered mark is employed, has a property right in the origin, false or misleading description of fact, or false or
goodwill of the said goods, business or service so misleading representation of fact, which:
identified, which will be protected in the same manner as
other property rights. (a) Is likely to cause confusion, or to cause
mistake, or to deceive as to the affiliation, connection, or
168.2. Any person who shall employ deception or association of such person with another person, or as to
any other means contrary to good faith by which he shall the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods,
pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he services, or commercial activities by another person; or
deals, or his business, or services for those of the one
having established such goodwill, or who shall commit any (b) In commercial advertising or promotion,
acts calculated to produce said result, shall be guilty of misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities, or
unfair competition, and shall be subject to an action geographic origin of his or her or another person's goods,
therefor. services or commercial activities, shall be liable to a civil
action for damages and injunction provided in Section 156
168.3. In particular, and without in any way and 157 of this Act by any person who believes that he or
limiting the scope of protection against unfair competition, she is or likely to be damaged by such act.
the following shall be deemed guilty of unfair competition:
(a) Any person, who is selling his goods and TITLE V. CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM AND OTHER
gives them the general appearance of goods of another PROHIBITED DRUGS
manufacturer or dealer, either as to the goods themselves
or in the wrapping of the packages in which they are
contained, or the devices or words thereon, on in any Articles 190, 191, 192, 193 and194 of the Revised Penal
other feature or their appearance, which would be likely Code have been repealed by Republic Act No. 6425 (The
to influence purchasers to believe that the goods offered Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as amended by Presidential
are those of a manufacturer or dealer, other than the Decree No. 1683 and further amended by Republic Act No.
actual manufacturer or dealer, or who otherwise clothes 7659.
the goods with such appearance as shall deceive the public
and defraud another of his legitimate trade, or any
subsequent vendor of such goods or any agent of any Acts punished by the Republic Act No. 6425
vendor engaged in selling such goods with a like purpose;
or 1. Importation of prohibited drugs;
(b) Any person who by any artifice, or 2. Sale, administration, delivery, distribution and
device, or who employs any other means calculated to transportation of prohibited drugs;
P.J.G. 44
5. Illegal cockfighting (Art. 199);

3. Maintenance of a den, dive or resort for
prohibited drug users; 6. Grave scandal (Art. 200);
4. Being employees and visitors of prohibited drug 7. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and
den; exhibitions (Art. 201); and
5. Manufacture of prohibited drugs; 8. Vagrancy and prostitution (Art. 202).
6. Possession or use of prohibited drugs;

Article 195. What Acts Are Punishable in Gambling
7. Cultivation of plants which are sources of
prohibited drugs; Acts punished
8. Failure to comply with the provisions of the Act 1. Taking part directly or indirectly in –
relative to the keeping of records of prescriptions,
sales, purchases, acquisitions and/or deliveries of a. any game of monte, jueteng, or any
prohibited drugs; other form of lottery, policy, banking, or
percentage game, dog races, or any
other game or scheme the results of
9. Unlawful prescription of prohibited drugs;
which depend wholly or chiefly upon
chance or hazard; or wherein wagers
10. Unnecessary prescription of prohibited drugs;
consisting of money, articles of value, or
representative of value are made; or
11. Possession of opium pipe and other paraphernalia
for prohibited drugs; b. the exploitation or use of any other
mechanical invention or contrivance to
12. Unauthorized importation, manufacture, sale determine by chance the loser or winner
administration, dispensation, delivery, of money or any object or representative
transportation, distribution, possession or use of of value;
regulated drugs, failure to comply with the
provisions of the Act relative to the keeping of 2. Knowingly permitting any form of gambling to be
records of prescriptions, sales, purchases, carried on in any place owned or controlled by
acquisitions and/or deliveries, unlawful the offender;
prescription, unnecessary prescription of
regulated drugs, and maintenance of a den, dive 3. Being maintainer, conductor, or banker in a game
or resort for regulated drug users. of jueteng or similar game;
4. Knowingly and without lawful purpose possessing

TITLE VI. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS lottery list, paper, or other matter containing
letters, figures, signs or symbol which pertain to
or are in any manner used in the game of jueteng
Crimes against public morals or any similar game.
1. Gambling (Art. 195);

Article 196. Importation, Sale and Possession of Lottery
2. Importation, sale and possession of lottery tickets Tickets or Advertisements
or advertisements (Art. 196);
Acts punished
3. Betting in sport contests (Art. 197);
1. Importing into the Philippines from any foreign
4. Illegal betting on horse races (Art. 198); place or port any lottery ticket or advertisement;
or
P.J.G. 45
2. Selling or distributing the same in connivance 4. Holy Thursday and Good Friday (Republic Act No.
with the importer; 946).
3. Possessing, knowingly and with intent to use

them, lottery tickets or advertisements; or Article 199. Illegal Cockfighting
4. Selling or distributing the same without This article has been modified or repealed by Presidential
connivance with the importer of the same. Decree No. 449 (The Cockfighting Law of 1974):
 Only allows one cockpit per municipality, unless

Note that possession of any lottery ticket or advertisement the population exceeds 100,000 in which case
is prima facie evidence of an intent to sell, distribute or two cockpits may be established;
use the same in the Philippines.
 Cockfights can only be held in licensed cockpits on
Sundays and legal holidays and local fiestas for
Article 197. Betting in Sport Contests not more than three days;
This article has been repealed by Presidential Decree No.  Also allowed during provincial, municipal, city,
483 (Betting, Game-fixing or Point-shaving and industrial, agricultural fairs, carnivals, or
Machinations in Sport Contests): exposition not more than three days;
Section 2. Betting, game-fixing, point-shaving or  Cockfighting not allowed on December 30, June
game machination unlawful. – Game-fixing, point-shaving, 12, November 30, Holy Thursday, Good Friday,
game machination, as defined in the preceding section, in Election or Referendum Day, and registration
connection with the games of basketball, volleyball, days for referendums and elections;
softball, baseball; chess, boxing bouts, jai-alia, sipa, pelota
and all other sports contests, games or races; as well as  Only municipal and city mayors are allowed to
betting therein except as may be authorized by law, is issue licenses for such.
hereby declared unlawful.
Presidential Decree No. 1602 (Simplifying and Providing

Article 198. Illegal Betting on Horse Race Stiffer Penalties for Violations of Philippine Gambling
Laws)
Acts punished
Section 1. Violations and Penalties. -- The penalty
1. Betting on horse races during periods not allowed of prision mayor in its medium degree or a fine ranging
by law; from Five Hundred Pesos to Two Thousand Pesos and in
case of recidivism the penalty of prision correccional in its
2. Maintaining or employing a totalizer or other medium degree or a fine of ranging from One Thousand
device or scheme for betting on races or realizing Pesos to Six Thousand Pesos shall be imposed upon:
profit therefrom during the periods not allowed
by law. (a) Any person other than those referred to
in the succeeding subsection who in any manner, shall
directly or indirectly take part in any game of cockfighting,
When horse races not allowed jueteng, bookies (jai- alai or horse racing to include game
fixing) and other lotteries, cara y cruz or pompiang and the
like, black jack, lucky nine, “pusoy” or Russian Poker,
1. July 4 (Republic Act No. 137);
monte, baccarat and other card games, palk que, domino,
mahjong, high and low, slot machines, roulette, pinball
2. December 30 (Republic Act No. 229); and other mechanical inventories or devices, dog racing,
boat racing, car raising and other races, basketball,
3. Any registration or voting days (Republic Act No. volleyball, boxing, seven-eleven dice games and the like
180, Revised Election Code); and and other contests to include game fixing, point shaving
and other machinations banking or percentage game, or
P.J.G. 46
any other game or scheme, whether upon chance or skill, But under the new gambling law, the skill of the players is
which do not have a franchise from the national immaterial.
government, wherein wagers consisting of money, articles
of value of representative of value are made; Any game is considered gambling where there are bets or
wagers placed with the hope to win a prize therefrom.
(b) Any person who shall knowingly permit
any form of gambling referred to in the preceding Under this law, even sports contents like boxing, would be
subdivision to be carried on in inhabited or uninhabited gambling insofar as those who are betting therein are
places or any building, vessel or other means of concerned. Under the old penal code, if the skill of the
transportation owned or controlled by him. If the place player outweighs the chance or hazard involved in winning
where gambling is carried on has a reputation of a the game, the game is not considered gambling but a
gambling place or that prohibited gambling is frequently sport. It was because of this that betting in boxing and
carried on therein or the place is a public or government basketball games proliferated.
building or barangay hall, the culprit shall be punished by
the penalty provided for in its maximum period and a fine “Unless authorized by a franchise, any form of gambling is
of Six Thousand Pesos. illegal.” So said the court in the recent resolution of the
case against the operation of jai-alai.
The penalty of prision correccional in its
maximum degree and a fine of Six Thousand Pesos shall be There are so-called parlor games which have been
imposed upon the maintainer, conductor of the above exempted from the operation of the decree like when the
gambling schemes. games are played during a wake to keep the mourners
awake at night. Pursuant to a memorandum circular
The penalty of prision mayor in its medium issued by the Executive Branch, the offshoot of the
degree and temporary absolute disqualification and a fine exemption is the intentional prolonging of the wake of the
of Six Thousand Pesos shall be imposed if the maintainer, dead by gambling lords.
conductor or banker is a government official, or if a player,
promoter, referee, umpire, judge or coach in cases of As a general rule, betting or wagering determines whether
game-fixing, point-shaving and other game machination. a game is gambling or not. Exceptions: These are games
which are expressly prohibited even without bets. Monte,
The penalty of prision correccional in its medium jueteng or any form of lottery; dog races; slot machines;
degree and a fine ranging from Five Hundred pesos to Two these are habit-forming and addictive to players, bringing
Thousand Pesos shall be imposed upon any person who about the pernicious effects to the family and economic life
shall knowingly and without lawful purpose in any hour of of the players.
any day shall have in his possession any lottery list, paper,
or other matter containing letter, figures, signs or symbols Mere possession of lottery tickets or lottery lists is a crime
which pertain to or in any manner used in the game of punished also as part of gambling. However, it is
jueteng, jai-alai or horse racing bookies and similar game necessary to make a distinction whether a ticket or list
or lottery which has taken place or about to take place. refers to a past date or to a future date.
Section 2. Barangay Official. – Any Illustration:

barangay official in whose jurisdiction such gambling
house is found and which house has the reputation of a X was accused one night and found in his possession was a
gambling place shall suffer the penalty of prision list of jueteng. If the date therein refers to the past, X
correccional in its medium period and a fine ranging from cannot be convicted of gambling or illegal possession of
Five Hundred to Two Thousand Pesos and temporary lottery list without proving that such game was indeed
absolute disqualifications. played on the date stated. Mere possession is not enough.
If the date refers to the future, X can be convicted by the
mere possession with intent to use. This will already bring
While the acts under the Revised Penal Code are still about criminal liability and there is no need to prove that
punished under the new law, yet the concept of gambling the game was played on the date stated. If the possessor
under it has been changed by the new gambling law. was caught, chances are he will not go on with it anymore.
Before, the Revised Penal Code considered the skill of the

player in classifying whether a game is gambling or not.
P.J.G. 47
There are two criteria as to when the lottery is in fact If the increase in the price is due particularly to
becomes a gambling game: the lottery, then the lottery is a gambling game.
And the sponsors thereof may be prosecuted for
1. If the public is made to pay not only for the illegal gambling under Presidential Decree No.
merchandise that he is buying, but also for the 1602.
chance to win a prize out of the lottery, lottery
becomes a gambling game. Public is made to pay (2) The merchandise is not really saleable because of
a higher price. its inferior quality. A certain manufacturer, Bhey
Company, manufacture cigarettes which is not
2. If the merchandise is not saleable because of its saleable because the same is irritating to the
inferior quality, so that the public actually does throat, sponsored a lottery and a coupon is
not buy them, but with the lottery the public inserted in every pack of cigarette so that one
starts patronizing such merchandise. In effect, who buys it shall have a chance to participate.
the public is paying for the lottery and not for the Due to the coupons, the public started buying the
merchandise, and therefore the lottery is a cigarette. Although there was no price increase in
gambling game. Public is not made to pay a the cigarettes, the lottery can be considered a
higher price. gambling game because the buyers were really
after the coupons not the low quality cigarettes.
Illustrations:
If without the lottery or raffle, the public does not
(1) A certain supermarket wanted to increase its sales patronize the product and starts to patronize
and sponsored a lottery where valuable prices are them only after the lottery or raffle, in effect the
offered at stake. To defray the cost of the prices public is paying for the price not the product.
offered in the lottery, the management increased
their prices of the merchandise by 10 cents each.
Whenever someone buys from that supermarket, Under this decree, a barangay captain who is responsible
he pays 10 cents more for each merchandise and for the existence of gambling dens in their own locality will
for his purchase, he gets a coupon which is to be be held liable and disqualified from office if he fails to
dropped at designated drop boxes to be raffled on prosecute these gamblers. But this is not being
a certain period. implemented.
The increase of the price is to answer for the cost Gambling, of course, is legal when authorized by law.
of the valuable prices that will be covered at
stake. The increase in the price is the Fund-raising campaigns are not gambling. They are for
consideration for the chance to win in the lottery charitable purposes but they have to obtain a permit from
and that makes the lottery a gambling game. Department of Social Welfare and Development. This
includes concerts for causes, Christmas caroling, and the
But if the increase in prices of the articles or like.
commodities was not general, but only on certain
items and the increase in prices is not the same,
the fact that a lottery is sponsored does not Article 200. Grave Scandal
appear to be tied up with the increase in prices,
therefore not illegal. Elements
Also, in case of manufacturers, you have to 1. Offender performs an act or acts;

determine whether the increase in the price was
due to the lottery or brought about by the normal 2. Such act or acts be highly scandalous as offending
price increase. If the increase in price is brought against decency or good customs;
about by the normal price increase [economic
factor] that even without the lottery the price
3. The highly scandalous conduct is not expressly
would be like that, there is no consideration in
falling within any other article of this Code; and
favor of the lottery and the lottery would not
amount to a gambling game.
P.J.G. 48
4. The act or acts complained of be committed in a

public place or within the public knowledge or This is grave scandal.
view.
(3) In a certain apartment, a lady tenant had the
habit of undressing in her room without shutting
In grave scandal, the scandal involved refers to moral the blinds. She does this every night at about
scandal offensive to decency, although it does not disturb eight in the evening. So that at this hour of the
public peace. But such conduct or act must be open to the night, you can expect people outside gathered in
public view. front of her window looking at her silhouette. She
was charged of grave scandal. Her defense was
In alarms and scandals, the scandal involved refers to that she was doing it in her own house.
disturbances of the public tranquility and not to acts
offensive to decency. It is no defense that she is doing it in her private
home. It is still open to the public view.
Any act which is notoriously offensive to decency may
bring about criminal liability for the crime of grave scandal (4) In a particular building in Makati which stands
provided such act does not constitute some other crime right next to the house of a young lady who goes
under the Revised Penal Code. Grave scandal is a crime of sunbathing in her poolside. Every morning several
last resort. men in the upper floors would stick their heads
out to get a full view of said lady while in her two-
Distinction should be made as to the place where the piece swimsuit. The lady was then charged with
offensive act was committed, whether in the public place grave scandal. Her defense was that it is her own
or in a private place: private pool and it is those men looking down at
her who are malicious.
(1) In public place, the criminal liability arises
irrespective of whether the immoral act is open to This is an act which even though done in a private
the public view. In short public view is not place is nonetheless open to public view.
required.
(2) When act offensive to decency is done in a private Article 201. Immoral Doctrines, Obscene Publications and
place, public view or public knowledge is required. Exhibitions and Indecent Shows
Public view does not require numerous persons. Even if Acts punished
there was only one person who witnessed the offensive act
for as long as the third person was not an intruder, grave 1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim
scandal is committed provided the act does not fall under doctrines openly contrary to public morals;
any other crime in the Revised Penal Code.
2. a. The authors of obscene literature,
Illustrations: published with their knowledge in any form, the
editors publishing such literature; and the
(1) A man and a woman enters a movie house which owners/operators of the establishment selling the
is a public place and then goes to the darkest part same;
of the balcony and while there the man started
performing acts of lasciviousness on the woman. b. Those who, in theaters, fairs,
cinematographs, or any other place, exhibit
If it is against the will of the woman, the crime indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts, or shows,
would be acts of lasciviousness. But if there is it being understood that the obscene literature or
mutuality, this constitutes grave scandal. Public indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows,
view is not necessary so long as it is performed in whether live or in film, which are proscribed by
a public place. virtue hereof, shall include those which: (1)
glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no
(2) A man and a woman went to Luneta and slept other purpose but to satisfy the market for
there. They covered themselves their blanket and violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any
made the grass their conjugal bed. race, or religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use
P.J.G. 49
of prohibited drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, If the material has the tendency to deprave and corrupt the
public order, morals, good customs, established mind of the viewer then the same is obscene and where
policies, lawful orders, decrees and edicts; and such obscenity is made publicly, criminal liability arises.
3. Those who shall sell, give away, or exhibit films, Because there is a government body which deliberates
prints, engravings, sculptures, or literature which whether a certain exhibition, movies and plays is
are offensive to morals. pornographic or not, if such body approves the work the
same should not be charged under this title. Because of
this, the test of obscenity may be obsolete already. If
Article 202. Vagrants and Prostitutes; Penalty allowed by the Movies and Television Review and
Classification Board (MTRCB), the question is moot and
Vagrants academic.
1. Any person having no apparent means of The law is not concerned with the moral of one person. As
subsistence, who has the physical ability to work long as the pornographic matter or exhibition is made
and who neglects to apply himself or herself to privately, there is no crime committed under the Revised
some lawful calling; Penal Code because what is protected is the morality of the
public in general. Third party is there. Performance of one
2. Any person found loitering about public or semi- to another is not.
public buildings or places or trampling or
wandering about the country or the streets Illustration:
without visible means of support;
A sexy dancing performed for a 90 year old is not obscene
anymore even if the dancer strips naked. But if performed
3. Any idle or dissolute person who ledges in houses
for a 15 year old kid, then it will corrupt the kid’s mind.
of ill fame;
(Apply Kottinger Rule here.)
4. Ruffians or pimps and those who habitually
In some instances though, the Supreme Court did not stick
associate with prostitutes;
to this test. It also considered the intention of the
performer.
5. Any person who, not being included in the
provisions of other articles of this Code, shall be In People v. Aparici, the accused was a performer in the
found loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited defunct Pacific Theatre, a movie house which opens only at
place belonging to another without any lawful or midnight. She was arrested because she was dancing in a
justifiable purpose; “different kind of way.” She was not really nude. She was
wearing some sort of an abbreviated bikini with a flimsy
6. Prostitutes, who are women who, for money or cloth over it. However, on her waist hung a string with a
profit, habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or ball reaching down to her private part so that every time
lascivious conduct. she gyrates, it arouses the audience when the ball would
actually touch her private part. The defense set up by
Aparici was that she should not be criminally liable for as a
Prostitutes are women who, for money or profit, habitually matter of fact, she is better dressed than the other
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are dancers. The Supreme Court ruled that it is not only the
deemed to be prostitutes. display of the body that gives it a depraved meaning but
rather the movement of the body coupled with the “tom-
Test of Obscenity: Whether or not the material charged as tom drums” as background. Nudity alone is not the real
obscene has the tendency to deprave and corrupt the scale. (Reaction Test)
minds of those open to the influence thereof, or into whose
hands such material may come to (Kottinger Rule). Illustration:
The test is objective. It is more on the effect upon the A sidewalk vendor was arrested and prosecuted for
viewer and not alone on the conduct of the performer. violation of Article 201. It appears that the fellow was
selling a ballpen where one who buys the ballpen can peep
into the top of the pen and see a girl dancing in it. He put
P.J.G. 50
up the defense that he is not the manufacturer and that he therein or to gather any farm products therein
was merely selling it to earn a living. The fact of selling the without the consent of the owner or overseer
ballpen was being done at the expense of public morals. thereof;
One does not have to be the manufacturer to be criminally
liable. This holds true for those printing or selling Playboy (3) Vagrancy under Article 202 if the estate is not
Magazines. fenced or there is no clear prohibition against
entering.
The common concept of a vagrant is a person who loiters n
public places without any visible means of livelihood and
without any lawful purpose. Prostitution and vagrancy are both punished by the same
article, but prostitution can only be committed by a
While this may be the most common form of vagrancy, yet woman.
even millionaires or one who has more that enough for his
livelihood can commit vagrancy by habitually associating The term prostitution is applicable to a woman who for
with prostitutes, pimps, ruffians, or by habitually lodging in profit or money habitually engages in sexual or lascivious
houses of ill-repute. conduct. A man if he engages in the same conduct – sex
for money – is not a prostitute, but a vagrant.
Vagrancy is not only a crime of the privileged or the poor.
The law punishes the act involved here as a stepping stone In law the mere indulging in lascivious conduct habitually
to the commission of other crimes. Without this article, because of money or gain would amount to prostitution,
law enforcers would have no way of checking a person even if there is no sexual intercourse. Virginity is not a
loitering in the wrong place in the wrong time. The defense. Habituality is the controlling factor; is has to be
purpose of the law is not simply to punish a person more than one time.
because he has no means of livelihood; it is to prevent
further criminality. Use this when someone loiters in front There cannot be prostitution by conspiracy. One who
of your house every night. conspires with a woman in the prostitution business like
pimps, taxi drivers or solicitors of clients are guilty of the
Any person found wandering in an estate belonging to crime under Article 341 for white slavery.
another whether public or private without any lawful
purpose also commits vagrancy, unless his acts constitutes
some other crime in the Revised Penal Code.
TITLE VII. CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Crimes committed by public officers

Question & Answer
1. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment (Art. 204);
If a person is found wandering in an estate
belonging to another, whether public or private, without 2. Judgment rendered through negligence (Art.
any lawful purpose, what other crimes may be committed? 205);
When a person is apprehended loitering inside an 3. Unjust interlocutory order (Art. 206);
estate belonging to another, the following crimes may be
committed: 4. Malicious delay in the administration of justice
(Art. 207);
(1) Trespass to property under Article 281 if the
estate is fenced and there is a clear prohibition 5. Prosecution of offenses; negligence and tolerance
against entering, but the offender entered (Art. 208);
without the consent of the owner or overseer
thereof. What is referred to here is estate, not 6. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor –
dwelling. Revelation of secrets (Art. 209);
(2) Attempted theft under Article 308, paragraph 3, if 7. Direct bribery (Art. 210);
the estate is fenced and the offender entered the
same to hunt therein or fish from any waters 8. Indirect bribery (Art. 211);
P.J.G. 51
9. Qualified bribery (Art. 211-A); 30. Refusal of assistance (Art. 233);
10. Corruption of public officials (Art. 212); 31. Refusal to discharge elective office (Art. 234);
11. Frauds against the public treasury and similar 32. Maltreatment of prisoners (Art. 235);
offenses (Art. 213);
33. Anticipation of duties of a public office (Art. 236);
12. Other frauds (Art. 214);
34. Prolonging performance of duties and powers
13. Prohibited transactions (Art. 215); (Art. 237);
14. Possession of prohibited interest by a public 35. Abandonment of office or position (Art. 238);
officer (Art. 216);
36. Usurpation of legislative powers (Art. 239);
15. Malversation of public funds or property –
Presumption of malversation (Art. 217) 37. Usurpation of executive functions (Art. 240);
16. Failure of accountable officer to render accounts 38. Usurpation of judicial functions (Art. 241);
(Art. 218);
39. Disobeying request for disqualification (Art. 242);
17. Failure of a responsible public officer to render
accounts before leaving the country (Art. 219); 40. Orders or requests by executive officers to any
judicial authority (Art. 243);
18. Illegal use of public funds or property (Art. 220);
41. Unlawful appointments (Art. 244); and
19. Failure to make delivery of public funds or
property (Art. 221); 42. Abuses against chastity (Art. 245).
20. Conniving with or consenting to evasion (Art.

223); The designation of the title is misleading. Crimes under
this title can be committed by public officers or a non-
21. Evasion through negligence (Art. 224); public officer, when the latter become a conspirator with a
public officer, or an accomplice, or accessory to the crime.
22. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person The public officer has to be the principal.
not a public officer (Art. 225);
In some cases, it can even be committed by a private
23. Removal, concealment or destruction of citizen alone such as in Article 275 (infidelity in the custody
documents (Art. 226); of a prisoner where the offender is not a public officer) or
in Article 222 (malversation).
24. Officer breaking seal (Art. 227);
25. Opening of closed documents (Art. 228); Requsites to be a public officer under Article 203
26. Revelation of secrets by an officer (Art. 229); 1. Taking part in the performance of public functions
in the government;
27. Public officer revealing secrets of private
individual (Art. 230); or
28. Open disobedience (Art. 231); Performing in said government or in any of its
branches public duties as an employee, agent or
29. Disobedience to order of superior officer when subordinate official, or any rank or class;
said order was suspended by inferior officer (Art.
232);
P.J.G. 52
2. His authority to take part in the performance of

public functions or to perform public duties must Article 205. Judgment Rendered through Negligence
be –
1. Offender is a judge;
a. By direct provision of the law; 2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him

for decision;
b. By popular election; or
3. The judgment is manifestly unjust;
c. By appointment by competent authority.
4. It is due to his inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
Originally, Title VII used the phrase “public officer or
employee” but the latter word has been held meaningless
and useless because in criminal law, “public officer” covers
Article 206. Unjust Interlocutory Order
all public servants, whether an official or an employee,
from the highest to the lowest position regardless of rank
or class; whether appointed by competent authority or by 1. Offender is a judge;
popular election or by direct provision of law.
2. He performs any of the following acts:
Under Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act), the term public officer is broader and more a. Knowingly rendering an unjust
comprehensive because it includes all persons whether an interlocutory order or decree; or
official or an employee, temporary or not, classified or not,
contractual or otherwise. Any person who receives b. Rendering a manifestly unjust
compensation for services rendered is a public officer. interlocutory order or decree through
inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
Breach of oath of office partakes of three forms:
(1) Malfeasance - when a public officer performs in The crime of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, or
his public office an act prohibited by law. knowingly issuing an unjust interlocutory order, may be
committed only by a judge of a trial court and never of an
Example: bribery. appellate court. The reason for this is that in appellate
court, not only one magistrate renders or issues the
(2) Misfeasance - when a public officer performs interlocutory order. An appellate court functions as a
official acts in the manner not in accordance with division and the resolutions thereof are handed down only
what the law prescribes. after deliberations among the members of a division so
that it cannot be said that there is malice or inexcusable
(3) Nonfeasance - when a public officer willfully negligence or ignorance in the rendering of a judgment or
refrains or refuses to perform an official duty order that is supposedly unjust as held by the Supreme
which his office requires him to perform. Court in one administrative case.
There is more injustice done in cases of judgment than

Article 204. Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment mere interlocutory order that is why the penalty is higher
in the first case.
Article 207. Malicious Delay in the Administration of

2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him
Justice
for decision;
3. Judgment is unjust;
4. The judge knows that his judgment is unjust .

2. There is a proceeding in his court;
P.J.G. 53
1. He delays in the administration of justice; peace officer cannot be prosecuted for this crime but they
can be prosecuted as:
2. The delay is malicious, that is, with deliberate
intent to inflict damage on either party in the (1) An accessory to the crime committed by the
case. principal in accordance with Article 19, paragraph
3; or
Malice must be proven. Malice is present where the delay (2) He may become a fence if the crime committed is
is sought to favor one party to the prejudice of the other. robbery or theft, in which case he violates the
Anti-Fencing Law; or
These have been interpreted by the Supreme Court to refer
only to judges of the trial court. (3) He may be held liable for violating the Anti-Graft
and Corrupt Practices Act.
Article 208. Prosecution of Offenses; Negligence and However, in distant provinces or municipalities where there
Tolerance are no municipal attorneys, the local chief of police is the
prosecuting officer. If he is the one who tolerates the
Acts Punished violations of laws or otherwise allows offenders to escape,
he can be prosecuted under this article.
1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution
against violators of the law; This is also true in the case of a barangay chairman. They
are supposed to prosecute violators of laws within their
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses. jurisdiction. If they do not do so, they can be prosecuted
for this crime.
Elements of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of Prevaricacion

offenses
This used to be a crime under the Spanish Codigo Penal,
wherein a public officer regardless of his duty violates the
1. Offender is a public officer or officer of the law
oath of his office by not carrying out the duties of his office
who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to
for which he was sworn to office, thus, amounting to
prosecute, offenses;
dereliction of duty.
2. There is a dereliction of the duties of his office,
But the term prevaricacion is not limited to dereliction of
that is, knowing the commission of the crime, he
duty in the prosecution of offenders. It covers any
does not cause the prosecution of the criminal, or
dereliction of duty whereby the public officer involved
knowing that a crime is about to be committed,
violates his oath of office. The thrust of prevaricacion is
he tolerates its commission;
the breach of the oath of office by the public officer who
does an act in relation to his official duties.
3. Offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to
favor the violator of the law. While in Article 208, dereliction of duty refers only to
prosecuting officers, the term prevaricacion applies to
public officers in general who is remiss or who is
A public officer engaged in the prosecution of offenders maliciously refraining from exercising the duties of his
shall maliciously tolerate the commission of crimes or office.
refrain from prosecuting offenders or violators of the law.
Illustration:
This crime can only be committed by a public officer whose
official duty is to prosecute offenders, that is, state The offender was caught for white slavery. The policeman
prosecutors. Hence, those officers who are not duty bound allowed the offender to go free for some consideration.
to perform these obligations cannot commit this crime in The policeman does not violate Article 208 but he becomes
the strict sense. an accessory to the crime of white slavery.
When a policeman tolerates the commission of a crime or

otherwise refrains from apprehending the offender, such
P.J.G. 54
But in the crime of theft or robbery, where the policeman

shared in the loot and allowed the offender to go free, he On the other hand, if the crime was direct bribery under
becomes a fence. Therefore, he is considered an offender Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code, the public officer
under the Anti-Fencing Law. involved should be prosecuted also for the dereliction of
duty, which is a crime under Article 208 of the Revised
Relative to this crime under Article 208, consider the crime Penal Code, because the latter is not absorbed by the crime
of qualified bribery. Among the amendments made by of direct bribery. This is because in direct bribery, where
Republic Act No. 7659 on the Revised Penal Code is a new the public officer agreed to perform an act constituting a
provision which reads as follows: crime in connection with the performance of his official
duties, Article 210 expressly provides that the liabilty
Article. 211-A. Qualified Bribery thereunder shall be “in addition to the penalty
– If any public officer is entrusted with corresponding to the crime agreed upon, if the crime shall
law enforcement and he refrains from have been committed.
arresting or prosecuting an offender who
has committed a crime punishable by Illustration:
Reclusion Perpetua and/or death in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift, A fiscal, for a sum of money, refrains from prosecuting a
or present, he shall suffer the penalty for person charged before him. If the penalty for the crime
the offense which was not prosecuted. involved is reclusion perpetua, the fiscal commits qualified
bribery. If the crime is punishable by a penalty lower than
If it is the public officer who asks reclusion perpetua, the crime is direct bribery.
or demands such gift or present, he shall
suffer the penalty of death. In the latter situation, three crimes are committed: direct
bribery and dereliction of duty on the part of the fiscal; and
corruption of a public officer by the giver.
Actually the crime is a kind of direct bribery where the
bribe, offer, promise, gift or present has a consideration on
the part of the public officer, that is refraining from Article 209. Betrayal of Trust by An Attorney or Solicitor
arresting or prosecuting the offender in consideration for – Revelation of Secrets
such offer, promise, gift or present. In a way, this new
provision modifies Article 210 of the Revised Penal Code on Acts punished
direct bribery.
1. Causing damage to his client, either—
However, the crime of qualified bribery may be committed
only by public officers “entrusted with enforcement” whose a. By any malicious breach of professional
official duties authorize then to arrest or prosecute duty;
offenders. Apparently, they are peace officers and public
prosecutors since the nonfeasance refers to “arresting or b. By inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
prosecuting.” But this crime arises only when the offender
whom such public officer refrains from arresting or Note: When the attorney acts with malicious
prosecuting, has committed a crime punishable by abuse of his employment or inexcusable
reclusion perpetua and/or death. If the crime were negligence or ignorance, there must be damage
punishable by a lower penalty, then such nonfeasance by to his client.
the public officer would amount to direct bribery, not
qualified bribery. 2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned
by him in his professional capacity;
If the crime was qualified bribery, the dereliction of the
duty punished under Article 208 of the Revised Penal Code 3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in
should be absorbed because said article punishes the the same case, without the consent of his first
public officer who “maliciously refrains from instituting client, after having undertaken the defense of
prosecution for the punishment of violators of the law or said first client of after having received
shall tolerate the commission of offenses”. The dereliction confidential information from said client.
of duty referred to is necessarily included in the crime of
qualified bribery.
P.J.G. 55
Under the rules on evidence, communications made with (1) Maliciously causing damage to his client through
prospective clients to a lawyer with a view to engaging his a breach of his professional duty. The breach of
professional services are already privileged even though professional duty must be malicious. If it is just
the client-lawyer relationship did not eventually incidental, it would not give rise to criminal
materialize because the client cannot afford the fee being liability, although it may be the subject of
asked by the lawyer. The lawyer and his secretary or clerk administrative discipline;
cannot be examined thereon.
(2) Through gross ignorance, causing damage to the
That this communication with a prospective client is client;
considered privileged, implies that the same is confidential.
Therefore, if the lawyer would reveal the same or (3) Inexcusable negligence;
otherwise accept a case from the adverse party, he would
already be violating Article 209. Mere malicious breach (4) Revelation of secrets learned in his professional
without damage is not violative of Article 209; at most he capacity;
will be liable administratively as a lawyer, e.g., suspension
or disbarment under the Code of Professional (5) Undertaking the defense of the opposite party in a
Responsibility. case without the consent of the first client whose
defense has already been undertaken.
Illustration:
Note that only numbers 1, 2 and 3 must approximate
B, who is involved in the crime of seduction wanted A, an malice.
attorney at law, to handle his case. A received confidential
information from B. However, B cannot pay the A lawyer who had already undertaken the case of a client
professional fee of A. C, the offended party, came to A also cannot later on shift to the opposing party. This cannot be
and the same was accepted. done.
A did not commit the crime under Article 209, although the Under the circumstances, it is necessary that the
lawyer’s act may be considered unethical. The client- confidential matters or information was confided to the
lawyer relationship between A and B was not yet lawyer in the latter’s professional capacity.
established. Therefore, there is no trust to violate because
B has not yet actually engaged the services of the lawyer A. It is not the duty of the lawyer to give advice on the
A is not bound to B. However, if A would reveal the commission of a future crime. It is, therefore, not
confidential matter learned by him from B, then Article 209 privileged in character. The lawyer is not bound by the
is violated because it is enough that such confidential mandate of privilege if he reports such commission of a
matters were communicated to him in his professional future crime. It is only confidential information relating to
capacity, or it was made to him with a view to engaging crimes already committed that are covered by the crime of
his professional services. betrayal of trust if the lawyer should undertake the case of
opposing party or otherwise divulge confidential
Here, matters that are considered confidential must have information of a client.
been said to the lawyer with the view of engaging his
services. Otherwise, the communication shall not be Under the law on evidence on privileged communication, it
considered privileged and no trust is violated. is not only the lawyer who is protected by the matter of
privilege but also the office staff like the secretary.
Illustration:
The nominal liability under this article may be constituted
A went to B, a lawyer/notary public, to have a document either from breach of professional duties in the handling of
notarized. A narrated to B the detail of the criminal case. the case or it may arise out of the confidential relation
If B will disclose what was narrated to him there is no between the lawyer and the client.
betrayal of trust since B is acting as a notary public and not
as a counsel. The lawyer must have learned the Breach of professional duty
confidential matter in his professional capacity.
Tardiness in the prosecution of the case for which reason
Several acts which would make a lawyer criminally liable: the case was dismissed for being non-prosecuted; or
P.J.G. 56
tardiness on the part of the defense counsel leading to

declaration of default and adverse judgment. Elements
Professional duties – Lawyer must appear on time. But the 1. Offender is a public officer within the scope of
client must have suffered damage due to the breach of Article 203;
professional duty. Otherwise, the lawyer cannot be held
liable. 2. Offender accepts an offer or a promise or
receives a gift or present by himself or through
If the prosecutor was tardy and the case was dismissed as another;
non-prosecuted, but he filed a motion for consideration
which was granted, and the case was continued, the 3. Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or
lawyer is not liable, because the client did not suffer present received by the public officer –
damage.
a. With a view to committing some crime;
If lawyer was neglectful in filing an answer, and his client or
declared in default, and there was an adverse judgment,
the client suffered damages. The lawyer is liable.
b. In consideration of the execution of an
Breach of confidential relation act which does not constitute a crime,
but the act must be unjust; or
Revealing information obtained or taking advantage
thereof by accepting the engagement with the adverse c. To refrain from doing something which it
party. There is no need to prove that the client suffered is his official duty to do.
damages. The mere breach of confidential relation is
punishable. 4. The act which offender agrees to perform or
which he executes be connected with the
In a conjugal case, if the lawyer disclosed the confidential performance of his official duties.
information to other people, he would be criminally liable
even though the client did not suffer any damage.
It is a common notion that when you talk of bribery, you
The client who was suing his wife disclosed that he also refer to the one corrupting the public officer. Invariably,
committed acts of unfaithfulness. The lawyer talked about the act refers to the giver, but this is wrong. Bribery refers
this to a friend. He is, thus, liable. to the act of the receiver and the act of the giver is
corruption of public official.
Article 210. Direct Bribery Distinction between direct bribery and indirect bribery
Acts punished Bribery is direct when a public officer is called upon to

perform or refrain from performing an official act in
1. Agreeing to perform, or performing, in exchange for the gift, present or consideration given to
consideration of any offer, promise, gift or him.
present – an act constituting a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official If he simply accepts a gift or present given to him by reason
duties; of his public position, the crime is indirect bribery. Bear in
mind that the gift is given "by reason of his office", not "in
2. Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution consideration" thereof. So never use the term
of an act which does not constitute a crime, in “consideration.” The public officer in Indirect bribery is not
connection with the performance of his official to perform any official act.
duty;
Note however that what may begin as an indirect bribery
3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing may actually ripen into direct bribery.
something which it is his official duty to do, in
consideration of gift or promise. Illustration:
P.J.G. 57
Without any understanding with the public officer, a taxi Unknown to them, there were law enforcers who
operator gave an expensive suiting material to a BLT already had a tip that the court stenographer had
registrar. Upon receipt by the BLT registrar of his valuable been doing this before. So they were waiting for
suiting material, he asked who the giver was. He found out the chance to entrap him. They were apprehended
that he is a taxi operator. As far as the giver is concerned, and they said they have not done anything yet.
he is giving this by reason of the office or position of the
public officer involved. It is just indirect bribery Under Article 210, the mere agreement to commit
. the act, which amounts to a crime, is already
If the BLT registrar calls up his subordinates and said to bribery. That stenographer becomes liable
take care of the taxis of the taxi operator so much so that already for consummated crime of bribery and the
the registration of the taxis is facilitated ahead of the party who agreed to give that money is already
others, what originally would have been indirect bribery liable for consummated corruption, even though
becomes direct bribery. not a single centavo is delivered yet and even
though the stenographer had not yet made the
In direct bribery, consider whether the official act, which alterations.
the public officer agreed to do, is a crime or not.
If he changed the transcript, another crime is
If it will amount to a crime, it is not necessary that the committed: falsification.
corruptor should deliver the consideration or the doing of
the act. The moment there is a meeting of the minds, even
without the delivery of the consideration, even without the The same criterion will apply with respect to a public
public officer performing the act amounting to a crime, officer who agrees to refrain from performing his official
bribery is already committed on the part of the public duties. If the refraining would give rise to a crime, such as
officer. Corruption is already committed on the part of the refraining to prosecute an offender, the mere agreement
supposed giver. The reason is that the agreement is a to do so will consummate the bribery and the corruption,
conspiracy involving the duty of a public officer. The mere even if no money was delivered to him. If the refraining is
agreement is a felony already. not a crime, it would only amount to bribery if the
consideration be delivered to him.
If the public officer commits the act which constitutes the
crime, he, as well as the corruptor shall be liable also for If it is not a crime, the consideration must be delivered by
that other crime. the corruptor before a public officer can be prosecuted for
bribery. Mere agreement, is not enough to constitute the
Illustrations: crime because the act to be done in the first place is
legitimate or in the performance of the official duties of
(1) If the corruptor offers a consideration to a the public official.
custodian of a public record to remove certain
files, the mere agreement, without delivery of the Unless the public officer receives the consideration for
consideration, brings about the crime of direct doing his official duty, there is no bribery. It is necessary
bribery and corruption of public official. that there must be delivery of monetary consideration.
This is so because in the second situation, the public officer
If the records were actually removed, both the actually performed what he is supposed to perform. It is
public officer and the corruptor will in addition to just that he would not perform what he is required by law
the two felonies above, will also be liable for the to perform without an added consideration from the public
crime committed, which is infidelity in the custody which gives rise to the crime.
of the public records for which they shall be liable
as principals; one as principal by inducement, the The idea of the law is that he is being paid salary for being
other as principal by direct participation. there. He is not supposed to demand additional
compensation from the public before performing his public
(2) A party litigant approached the court’s service. The prohibition will apply only when the money is
stenographer and proposed the idea of altering delivered to him, or if he performs what he is supposed to
the transcript of stenographic notes. The court perform in anticipation of being paid the money.
stenographer agreed and he demanded P
2,000.00. Here, the bribery will only arise when there is already the
acceptance of the consideration because the act to be
P.J.G. 58
done is not a crime. So, without the acceptance, the crime

is not committed.
Article 211. Indirect Bribery
Direct bribery may be committed only in the attempted
and consummated stages because, in frustrated felony, the Elements
offender must have performed all the acts of execution
which would produce the felony as a consequence. In 1. Offender is a public officer;
direct bribery, it is possible only if the corruptor concurs
with the offender. Once there is concurrence, the direct 2. He accepts gifts;
bribery is already consummated. In short, the offender
could not have performed all the acts of execution to
3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of his
produce the felony without consummating the same.
office.
Actually, you cannot have a giver unless there is one who is
willing to receive and there cannot be a receiver unless
The public official does not undertake to perform an act or
there is one willing to give. So this crime requires two to
abstain from doing an official duty from what he received.
commit. It cannot be said, therefore, that one has
Instead, the official simply receives or accepts gifts or
performed all the acts of execution which would produce
presents delivered to him with no other reason except his
the felony as a consequence but for reasons independent
office or public position. This is always in the
of the will, the crime was not committed.
consummated stage. There is no attempted much less
frustrated stage in indirect bribery.
It is now settled, therefore, that the crime of bribery and
corruption of public officials cannot be committed in the
The Supreme Court has laid down the rule that for indirect
frustrated stage because this requires two to commit and
bribery to be committed, the public officer must have
that means a meeting of the minds.
performed an act of appropriating of the gift for himself,
his family or employees. It is the act of appropriating that
Illustrations:
signifies acceptance. Merely delivering the gift to the
public officer does not bring about the crime. Otherwise it
(1) If the public official accepted the corrupt
would be very easy to remove a public officer: just deliver a
consideration and turned it over to his superior as
gift to him.
evidence of the corruption, the offense is
attempted corruption only and not frustrated.
The official did not agree to be corrupted.
Article 211-A. Qualified Bribery
If the public officer did not report the same to his
Elements
superior and actually accepted it, he allowed
himself to be corrupted. The corruptor becomes
liable for consummated corruption of public
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with law
enforcement;
official. The public officer also becomes equally
liable for consummated bribery.
2. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an
(2) If a public official demanded something from a offender who has committed a crime;
taxpayer who pretended to agree and use marked
money with the knowledge of the police, the 3. Offender has committed a crime punishable by
crime of the public official is attempted bribery. reclusion perpetua and/or death;
The reason is that because the giver has no
intention to corrupt her and therefore, he could 4. Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting in
not perform all the acts of execution. consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or
present.
Be sure that what is involved is a crime of bribery,
not extortion. If it were extortion, the crime is not
bribery, but robbery. The one who yielded to the Note that the penalty is qualified if the public officer is the
demand does not commit corruption of a public one who asks or demands such present.
officer because it was involuntary.
P.J.G. 59
Presidential Decree No. 46 (5) That the information has not been convicted
previously for any crime involving moral
Presidential Decree No. 46 prohibits giving and acceptance turpitude.
of gifts by a public officer or to a public officer, even during
anniversary, or when there is an occasion like Christmas, These conditions are analogous to the conditions under
New Year, or any gift-giving anniversary. The Presidential the State Witness Rule under Criminal Procedure.
Decree punishes both receiver and giver.
The immunity granted the bribe-giver is limited only to the
The prohibition giving and receiving gifts given by reason illegal transaction where the informant gave voluntarily
of official position, regardless of whether or not the same the testimony. If there were other transactions where the
is for past or future favors. informant also participated, he is not immune from
prosecution. The immunity in one transaction does not
The giving of parties by reason of the promotion of a extend to other transactions.
public official is considered a crime even though it may call
for a celebration. The giving of a party is not limited to the The immunity attaches only if the information given turns
public officer only but also to any member of his family. out to be true and correct. If the same is false, the public
officer may even file criminal and civil actions against the
informant for perjury and the immunity under the decree
Presidential Decree No. 749 will not protect him.
The decree grants immunity from prosecution to a private

person or public officer who shall voluntarily give Republic Act No. 7080 (Plunder)
information and testify in a case of bribery or in a case
involving a violation of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Plunder is a crime defined and penalized under Republic
Act. Act No. 7080, which became effective in 1991. This crime
somehow modified certain crimes in the Revised Penal
It provides immunity to the bribe-giver provided he does Code insofar as the overt acts by which a public officer
two things: amasses, acquires, or accumulates ill-gotten wealth are
felonies under the Revised Penal Code like bribery (Articles
(1) He voluntarily discloses the transaction he had 210, 211, 211-A), fraud against the public treasury [Article
with the public officer constituting direct or 213], other frauds (Article 214), malversation (Article 217),
indirect bribery, or any other corrupt transaction; when the ill-gotten wealth amounts to a total value of
P50,000,000.00. The amount was reduced from
(2) He must willingly testify against the public officer P75,000,000.00 by Republic Act No. 7659 and the penalty
involved in the case to be filed against the latter. was changed from life imprisonment to reclusion perpetua
to death.
Before the bribe-giver may be dropped from the
information, he has to be charged first with the receiver. Short of the amount, plunder does not arise. Any amount
Before trial, prosecutor may move for dropping bribe-giver less than P50,000,000.00 is a violation of the Revised Penal
from information and be granted immunity. But first, five Code or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
conditions have to be met:
Under the law on plunder, the prescriptive period is 20
(1) Information must refer to consummated bribery; years commencing from the time of the last overt act.
(2) Information is necessary for the proper conviction Plunder is committed through a combination or series of
of the public officer involved; overt acts:
(3) That the information or testimony to be given is (1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
not yet in the possession of the government or malversation of public funds or raids on the public
known to the government; treasury;
(4) That the information can be corroborated in its (2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
material points; commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or
P.J.G. 60
any other form of pecuniary benefit from any If the secretary persuaded the judge to make a favorable
person and/or entity in connection with any resolution, even if the judge did not do so, this constitutes
government contract or project by reason of the a violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, Sub-
office or position of the public officer; Section A.
(3) By illegal or fraudulent conveyance or disposition Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, particularly
of asset belonging to the national government or Section 3, there are several acts defined as corrupt
any of its subdivisions, agencies or practices. Some of them are mere repetitions of the act
instrumentalities or government-owned or already penalized under the Revised Penal Code, like
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries; prohibited transactions under Article 215 and 216. In such
a case, the act or omission remains to be mala in se.
(4) By obtaining, receiving, or accepting directly or
indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other But there are acts penalized under the Anti-Graft and
form of interest or participation including the Corrupt Practices Act which are not penalized under the
promise of future employment in any business or Revised Penal Code. Those acts may be considered as mala
undertaking; prohibita. Therefore, good faith is not a defense.
(5) By establishing agricultural, industrial, or Illustration:

commercial monopolies or other combinations
and/or implementations of decrees and orders Section 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act –
intended to benefit particular persons or special causing undue injury to the government or a private party
interests; or by giving unwarranted benefit to the party whom does not
deserve the same.
(6) By taking undue advantage of official position,
authority, relationship, connection or influence to In this case, good faith is not a defense because it is in the
unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the nature of a malum prohibitum. Criminal intent on the part
expense and to the damage and prejudice of the of the offender is not required. It is enough that he
Filipino people, and the Republic of the performed the prohibited act voluntarily. Even though the
Philippines. prohibited act may have benefited the government. The
crime is still committed because the law is not after the
effect of the act as long as the act is prohibited.
While the crime appears to be malum prohibitum, Republic
Act No. 7080 provides that “in the imposition of penalties, Section 3 (g) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act –
the degree of participation and the attendance of where a public officer entered into a contract for the
mitigating and aggravating circumstances shall be government which is manifestly disadvantageous to the
considered by the court”. government even if he did not profit from the transaction,
a violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act is
committed.
Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
Act) If a public officer, with his office and a private enterprise
had a transaction and he allows a relative or member of
The mere act of a public officer demanding an amount his family to accept employment in that enterprise, good
from a taxpayer to whom he is to render public service faith is not a defense because it is a malum prohibitum. It
does not amount to bribery, but will amount to a violation is enough that that the act was performed.
of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act.
Where the public officer is a member of the board, panel or
Illustration: group who is to act on an application of a contract and the
act involved one of discretion, any public officer who is a
A court secretary received P500 .00 from a litigant to set a member of that board, panel or group, even though he
motion for an early hearing. This is direct bribery even if voted against the approval of the application, as long as he
the act to be performed is within his official duty so long as has an interest in that business enterprise whose
he received a consideration therefor. application is pending before that board, panel or group,
the public officer concerned shall be liable for violation of
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. His only course of
P.J.G. 61
action to avoid prosecution under the Anti-graft and

Corrupt Practices Act is to sell his interest in the enterprise The policeman could not be said as having assisted the
which has filed an application before that board, panel or escape of the offender because as the problem says, he is
group where he is a member. Or otherwise, he should assigned to direct traffic in a busy corner street. So he
resign from his public position. cannot be considered as falling under the third 3rd
paragraph of Article 19 that would constitute his as an
Illustration: accessory.
Sen. Dominador Aytono had an interest in the Iligan Steel The same is true with the civilian because the crime
Mills, which at that time was being subject of an committed by the offender, which is snatching or a kind of
investigation by the Senate Committee of which he was a robbery or theft as the case may be, is not one of those
chairman. He was threatened with prosecution under crimes mentioned under the third paragraph of Article 19
Republic Act No. 3019 so he was compelled to sell all his of the Revised Penal Code.
interest in that steel mill; there is no defense. Because the
law says so, even if he voted against it, he commits a Where the public officer is still incumbent, the prosecution
violation thereof. shall be with the Ombudsman.
These cases are filed with the Ombudsman and not with Where the respondent is separated from service and the
the regular prosecutor’s office. Jurisdiction is exclusively period has not yet prescribed, the information shall be filed
with the Sandiganbayan. The accused public officer must in any prosecution’s office in the city where the respondent
be suspended when the case is already filed with the resides. The prosecution shall file the case in the Regional
Sandiganbayan. Trial Court unless the violation carries a penalty higher
than prision correccional, in which case the Sandiganbayan
Under the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the public has jurisdiction.
officer who is accused should not be automatically
suspended upon the filing of the information in court. It is The fact that the government benefited out of the
the court which will order the suspension of the public prohibited act is no defense at all, the violation being mala
officer and not the superior of that public officer. As long prohibita.
as the court has not ordered the suspension of the public
officer involved, the superior of that public officer is not Section 3 (f) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act –
authorized to order the suspension simply because of the where the public officer neglects or refuses to act on a
violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The matter pending before him for the purpose of obtaining
court will not order the suspension of the public officer any pecuniary or material benefit or advantage in favor of
without first passing upon the validity of the information or discriminating against another interested party.
filed in court. Without a hearing, the suspension would be
null and void for being violative of due process. The law itself additionally requires that the accused’s
dereliction, besides being without justification, must be for
Illustration: the purpose of obtaining from any person interested in the
matter some pecuniary or material benefit or for the
A public officer was assigned to direct traffic in a very busy purpose of favoring any interested party, or discriminating
corner. While there, he caught a thief in the act of lifting against another interested party. This element is
the wallet of a pedestrian. As he could not leave his post, indispensable.
he summoned a civilian to deliver the thief to the precinct.
The civilian agreed so he left with the thief. When they In other words, the neglect or refusal to act must
were beyond the view of the policeman, the civilian motivated by gain or benefit, or purposely to favor the
allowed the thief to go home. What would be the liability other interested party as held in Coronado v. SB, decided
of the public officer? on August 18, 1993.
The liability of the traffic policeman would be merely Republic Act No. 1379 (Forfeiture of Ill-gotten Wealth)
administrative. The civilian has no liability at all.
Firstly, the offender is not yet a prisoner so there is no Correlate with RA 1379 -- properly under Remedial Law.
accountability yet. The term “prisoner” refers to one who is This provides the procedure for forfeiture of the ill-gotten
already booked and incarcerated no matter how short the wealth in violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices
time may be. Act. The proceedings are civil and not criminal in nature.
P.J.G. 62
authorized by law, in collection of taxes, licenses,

Any taxpayer having knowledge that a public officer has fees, and other imposts;
amassed wealth out of proportion to this legitimate
income may file a complaint with the prosecutor’s office of 3. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided
the place where the public officer resides or holds office. by law, for any sum of money collected by him
The prosecutor conducts a preliminary investigation just officially, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees,
like in a criminal case and he will forward his findings to and other imposts;
the office of the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General
will determine whether there is reasonable ground to 4. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by
believe that the respondent has accumulated an way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of
unexplained wealth. a nature different from that provided by law, in
the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other
If the Solicitor General finds probable cause, he would file imposts.
a petition requesting the court to issue a writ commanding
the respondent to show cause why the ill-gotten wealth
described in the petition should not be forfeited in favor of Elements of frauds against public treasury under
the government. This is covered by the Rules on Civil paragraph 1
Procedure. The respondent is given 15 days to answer the
petition. Thereafter trial would proceed. Judgment is 1. Offender is a public officer;
rendered and appeal is just like in a civil case. Remember
that this is not a criminal proceeding. The basic difference 2. He has taken advantage of his office, that is, he
is that the preliminary investigation is conducted by the intervened in the transaction in his official
prosecutor. capacity;
3. He entered into an agreement with any

Article 212. Corruption of Public Officials interested party or speculator or made use of any
other scheme with regard to furnishing supplies,
Elements the making of contracts, or the adjustment or
settlement of accounts relating to public property
1. Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or funds;
or presents to a public officer;
4. He had intent to defraud the government.
2. The offers or promises are made or the gifts or
presents given to a public officer, under
circumstances that will make the public officer The essence of this crime is making the government pay for
liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery. something not received or making it pay more than what is
due. It is also committed by refunding more than the
amount which should properly be refunded. This occurs
Article 213. Frauds against the Public Treasury and usually in cases where a public officer whose official duty is
Similar Offenses to procure supplies for the government or enter into
contract for government transactions, connives with the
Acts punished said supplier with the intention to defraud the government.
Also when certain supplies for the government are
1. Entering into an agreement with any interested purchased for the high price but its quantity or quality is
party or speculator or making use of any other low.
scheme, to defraud the government, in dealing
with any person with regard to furnishing Illustrations:
supplies, the making of contracts, or the
adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to (1) A public official who is in charge of procuring
public property or funds; supplies for the government obtained funds for
the first class materials and buys inferior quality
2. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of products and pockets the excess of the funds. This
sums different from or larger than those is usually committed by the officials of the
Department of Public Works and Highways.
P.J.G. 63
(2) Poorest quality of ink paid as if it were of superior b. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as
quality. provided by law, for any sum of money
collected by him officially; or
(3) One thousand pieces of blanket for certain unit of
the Armed Forces of the Philippines were paid for c. Collecting or receiving, directly or
but actually, only 100 pieces were bought. indirectly, by way of payment or
otherwise, things or objects of a nature
(4) The Quezon City government ordered 10,000 but different from that provided by law.
what was delivered was only 1,000 T-shirts, the
public treasury is defrauded because the
government is made to pay that which is not due This can only be committed principally by a public officer
or for a higher price. whose official duty is to collect taxes, license fees, import
duties and other dues payable to the government.
Not all frauds will constitute this crime. There must be no
fixed allocation or amount on the matter acted upon by Not any public officer can commit this crime. Otherwise, it
the public officer. is estafa. Fixers cannot commit this crime unless he
conspires with the public officer authorized to make the
The allocation or outlay was made the basis of fraudulent collection.
quotations made by the public officer involved.
Also, public officers with such functions but are in the
For example, there was a need to put some additional service of the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Bureau
lighting along the a street and no one knows how much it of Customs are not to be prosecuted under the Revised
will cost. An officer was asked to canvass the cost but he Penal Code but under the Revised Administrative Code.
connived with the seller of light bulbs, pricing each light These officers are authorized to make impositions and to
bulb at P550.00 instead of the actual price of P500.00. enter into compromises. Because of this discretion, their
This is a case of fraud against public treasury. demanding or collecting different from what is necessary is
legal.
If there is a fixed outlay of P20,000.00 for the lighting
apparatus needed and the public officer connived with the This provision of the Revised Penal Code was provided
seller so that although allocation was made a lesser before the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Tariff and
number was asked to be delivered, or of an inferior quality, Customs Code. Now, we have specific Code which will
or secondhand. In this case there is no fraud against the apply to them. In the absence of any provision applicable,
public treasury because there is a fixed allocation. The the Revised Administrative Code will apply.
fraud is in the implementation of procurement. That
would constitute the crime of “other fraud” in Article 214, The essence of the crime is not misappropriation of any of
which is in the nature of swindling or estafa. the amounts but the improper making of the collection
which would prejudice the accounting of collected amounts
Be sure to determine whether fraud is against public by the government.
treasury or one under Article 214.
On the first form of illegal exaction
Elements of illegal exactions under paragraph 2 In this form, mere demand will consummate the crime,
even if the taxpayer shall refuse to come across with the
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with the amount being demanded. That will not affect the
collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other consummation of the crime.
imposts;
In the demand, it is not necessary that the amount being
2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or demanded is bigger than what is payable to the
omissions: government. The amount being demanded maybe less
than the amount due the government.
a. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the
payment of sums different from or larger Note that this is often committed with malversation or
than those authorized by law; or estafa because when a public officer shall demand an
P.J.G. 64
amount different from what the law provides, it can be

expected that such public officer will not turn over his In this case, the entire P500.00 was covered by an
collection to the government. official receipt. That act of covering the whole
amount received from the taxpayer in an official
Illustrations: receipt will have the characteristics of becoming a
part of the public funds. The crimes committed,
(1) A taxpayer goes to the local municipal treasurer therefore, are the following:
to pay real estate taxes on his land. Actually,
what is due the government is P400.00 only but (a) Illegal exaction – for collecting more than
the municipal treasurer demanded P500.00. By he is authorized to collect. The mere act
that demand alone, the crime of illegal exaction is of demanding is enough to constitute this
already committed even though the taxpayer crime.
does not pay the P500.00.
(b) Falsification – because there was an
(2) Suppose the taxpayer came across with P500.00. alteration of official document which is
But the municipal treasurer, thinking that he the duplicate of the official receipt to
would abstract the P100.00, issued a receipt for show an amount less than the actual
only P400.00. The taxpayer would naturally ask amount collected.
the municipal treasurer why the receipt was only
for P400.00. The treasurer answered that the (c) Malversation – because of his act of
P100.00 is supposed to be for documentary misappropriating the P100.00 excess
stamps. The taxpayer left. which was covered by an official receipt
already, even though not payable to the
He has a receipt for P400.00. The municipal government. The entire P500.00 was
treasurer turned over to the government coffers covered by the receipt, therefore, the
P400.00 because that is due the government and whole amount became public funds. So
pocketed the P100.00. when he appropriated the P100 for his
own benefit, he was not extracting
The mere fact that there was a demand for an private funds anymore but public funds.
amount different from what is due the
government, the public officer already committed Should the falsification be complexed with the
the crime of illegal exaction. malversation?
On the P100.00 which the public officer pocketed, As far as the crime of illegal exaction is concerned,
will it be malversation or estafa? it will be the subject of separate accusation
because there, the mere demand regardless of
In the example given, the public officer did not whether the taxpayer will pay or not, will already
include in the official receipt the P100.00 and, consummate the crime of illegal exaction. It is the
therefore, it did not become part of the public breach of trust by a public officer entrusted to
funds. It remained to be private. It is the make the collection which is penalized under such
taxpayer who has been defrauded of his P100.00 article. The falsification or alteration made on the
because he can never claim a refund from the duplicate can not be said as a means to commit
government for excess payment since the receipt malversation. At most, the duplicate was altered
issued to him was only P400.00 which is due the in order to conceal the malversation. So it cannot
government. As far as the P100.00 is concerned, be complexed with the malversation.
the crime committed is estafa.
It cannot also be said that the falsification is a
(3) A taxpayer pays his taxes. What is due the necessary means to commit the malversation
government is P400.00 and the public officer because the public officer can misappropriate the
issues a receipt for P500.00 upon payment of the P100.00 without any falsification. All that he has
taxpayer of said amount demanded by the public to do is to get the excess of P100.00 and
officer involved. But he altered the duplicate to misappropriate it. So the falsification is a
reflect only P400.00 and he extracted the separate accusation.
difference of P100.00.
P.J.G. 65
However, illegal exaction may be complexed with In cases where the payor decides to let the official to “keep
malversation because illegal exaction is a the change”, if the latter should pocket the excess, he shall
necessary means to be able to collect the P100.00 be liable for malversation. The official has no right but the
excess which was malversed. government, under the principle of accretion, as the owner
of the bigger amount becomes the owner of the whole.
In this crime, pay attention to whether the
offender is the one charged with the collection of On the second form of illegal exaction
the tax, license or impost subject of the
misappropriation. If he is not the one authorized The act of receiving payment due the government without
by disposition to do the collection, the crime of issuing a receipt will give rise to illegal exaction even
illegal exaction is not committed. though a provisional receipt has been issued. What the
law requires is a receipt in the form prescribed by law,
If it did not give rise to the crime of illegal which means official receipt.
exaction, the funds collected may not have
become part of the public funds. If it had not Illustration:
become part of the public funds, or had not
become impressed with being part of the public If a government cashier or officer to whom payment is
funds, it cannot be the subject of malversation. It made issued a receipt in his own private form, which he
will give rise to estafa or theft as the case may be. calls provisional, even though he has no intention of
misappropriating the amount received by him, the mere
(3) The Municipal Treasurer demanded P500.00 when fact that he issued a receipt not in the form prescribed by
only P400.00 was due. He issued the receipt at law, the crime of illegal exaction is committed. There must
P400.00 and explained to taxpayer that the P100 be voluntary failure to issue the Official Receipt.
was for documentary stamps. The Municipal
Treasurer placed the entire P500.00 in the vault of On the third form of illegal exaction
the office. When he needed money, he took the
P100.00 and spent it. Under the rules and regulations of the government,
payment of checks not belonging to the taxpayer, but that
The following crimes were committed: of checks of other persons, should not be accepted to settle
the obligation of that person.
(a) Illegal exaction – for demanding a
different amount; Illustration:
(b) Estafa – for deceiving the taxpayer; and A taxpayer pays his obligation with a check not his own but
pertaining to another. Because of that, the check bounced
(c) Malversation – for getting the P100.00 later on.
from the vault.
The crime committed is illegal exaction because the
Although the excess P100.00 was not covered by payment by check is not allowed if the check does not
the Official Receipt, it was commingled with the pertain to the taxpayer himself, unless the check is a
other public funds in the vault; hence, it became manager’s check or a certified check, amended already as
part of public funds and subsequent extraction of 1990. (See the case of Roman Catholic.)
thereof constitutes malversation.
Under Article 213, if any of these acts penalized as illegal
exaction is committed by those employed in the Bureau of
Note that numbers 1 and 2 are complexed as illegal Customs or Bureau of Internal Revenue, the law that will
exaction with estafa, while in number 3, malversation is a apply to them will be the Revised Administrative Code or
distinct offense. the Tariff and Customs Code or National Revenue Code.
The issuance of the Official Receipt is the operative fact to This crime does not require damage to the government.
convert the payment into public funds. The payor may
demand a refund by virtue of the Official Receipt.
Article 214. Other Frauds
P.J.G. 66
Elements instrumentality thereof, including any government-owned

or controlled corporation or its subsidiary, during his term
1. Offender is a public officer; of office. He shall not intervene in any matter before any
office of the government for his pecuniary benefit or
2. He takes advantage of his official position; where he may be called upon to act on account of his
office.
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits
enumerated in Article 315 to 318.
Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution
Article 215. Prohibited Transactions The President, Vice-President, the Members of

the Cabinet and their deputies or assistant shall not, unless
Elements otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other
office or employment during their tenure. They shall not,
1. Offender is an appointive public officer; during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other
profession, participate in any business, or be financially
2. He becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in interested in any contract with, or in any franchise, or
any transaction of exchange or speculation; special privilege granted by the Government or any
subdivision, agency or instrumentality thereof, including
3. The transaction takes place within the territory government-owned or controlled corporations or their
subject to his jurisdiction; subsidiaries. They shall strictly avoid conflict of interest in
the conduct of their office.
4. He becomes interested in the transaction during
his incumbency.
Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution
Article 216. Possession of Prohibited Interest By A Public No member of a Constitutional Commission shall,
Officer during his tenure, hold any office or employment. Neither
shall he engage in the practice of any profession or in the
Persons liable active management or control of any business which in
any way may be affected by the functions of his office, nor
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became shall he be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in
interested in any contracts or business in which it any contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted
was his official duty to intervene; by the government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or
2. Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
in like manner, took part in any contract or
transaction connected with the estate or property
in the appraisal, distribution or adjudication of Article 217. Malversation of Public Funds or Property –
which they had acted; Presumption of Malversation
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the Acts punished

property belonging to their wards or the estate.
1. Appropriating public funds or property;
Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution 2. Taking or misappropriating the same;
No Senator or Member of the House of 3. Consenting, or through abandonment or

Representatives may personally appear as counsel before negligence, permitting any other person to take
any court of justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or such public funds or property; and
quasi-judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither
shall he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in 4. Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or
any contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege malversation of such funds or property.
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or
P.J.G. 67
Elements common to all acts of malversation under Article

217 The crime of malversation can be committed only by an
officer accountable for the funds or property which is
1. Offender is a public officer; appropriated. This crime, therefore, bears a relation
between the offender and the funds or property involved.
2. He had the custody or control of funds or
property by reason of the duties of his office; The offender, to commit malversation, must be
accountable for the funds or property misappropriated by
3. Those funds or property were public funds or him. If he is not the one accountable but somebody else,
property for which he was accountable; the crime committed is theft. It will be qualified theft if
there is abuse of confidence.
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or
consented or, through abandonment or Accountable officer does not refer only to cashier,
negligence, permitted another person to take disbursing officers or property custodian. Any public
them. officer having custody of public funds or property for which
he is accountable can commit the crime of malversation if
he would misappropriate such fund or property or allow
This crime is predicated on the relationship of the offender others to do so.
to the property or funds involved. The offender must be
accountable for the property misappropriated. If the fund
or property, though public in character is the responsibility
Questions & Answers
of another officer, malversation is not committed unless
there is conspiracy.
1. An unlicensed firearm was confiscated
It is not necessary that the offender profited because by a policeman. Instead of turning over the firearm to the
somebody else may have misappropriated the funds in property custodian for the prosecution of the offender,
question for as long as the accountable officer was remiss the policeman sold the firearm. What crime was
in his duty of safekeeping public funds or property. He is committed?
liable for malversation if such funds were lost or otherwise
misappropriated by another. The crime committed is malversation because
that firearm is subject to his accountability. Having taken
There is no malversation through simple negligence or custody of the firearm, he is supposed to account for it as
reckless imprudence, whether deliberately or negligently. evidence for the prosecution of the offender.
This is one crime in the Revised Penal Code where the
penalty is the same whether committed with dolo or culpa. 2. Can the buyer be liable under the Anti-
fencing law?
No. The crime is neither theft nor robbery, but

malversation.
Question & Answer
3. A member of the Philippine National
What crime under the Revised Penal Code carries Police went on absence without leave. He was charged
the same penalty whether committed intentionally or with malversation of the firearm issued to him. After two
through negligence? years, he came out of hiding and surrendered the firearm.
What crime was committed?
Malversation under Article 217. There is no crime
of malversation through negligence. The crime is The crime committed was malversation. Payment
malversation, plain and simple, whether committed of the amount misappropriated or restitution of property
through dolo or culpa. There is no crime of malversation misappropriated does not erase criminal liability but only
under Article 365 – on criminal negligence – because in civil liability.
malversation under Article 217, the same penalty is
imposed whether the malversation results from negligence
or was the product of deliberate act.
P.J.G. 68
When private property is attached or seized by public (1) Conspiracy with a public officer in committing
authority and the public officer accountable therefor malversation;
misappropriates the same, malversation is committed also.
(2) When he has become an accomplice or accessory
Illustration: to a public officer who commits malversation;
If a sheriff levied the property of the defendants and (3) When the private person is made the custodian in
absconded with it, he is not liable of qualified theft but of whatever capacity of public funds or property,
malversation even though the property belonged to a whether belonging to national or local
private person. The seizure of the property or fund government, and he misappropriates the same;
impressed it with the character of being part of the public
funds it being in custodia legis. For as long as the public (4) When he is constituted as the depositary or
officer is the one accountable for the fund or property that administrator of funds or property seized or
was misappropriated, he can be liable for the crime of attached by public authority even though said
malversation. Absent such relation, the crime could be funds or property belong to a private individual.
theft, simple or qualified.
Illustration:
Municipal treasurer connives with outsiders to make it

Question & Answer
appear that the office of the treasurer was robbed. He
worked overtime and the co-conspirators barged in, hog-
There was a long line of payors on the last day of tied the treasurer and made it appear that there was a
payment for residence certificates. Employee A of the robbery. Crime committed is malversation because the
municipality placed all his collections inside his table and municipal treasurer was an accountable officer.
requested his employee B to watch over his table while he
goes to the restroom. B took advantage of A’s absence Note that damage on the part of the government is not
and took P50.00 out of the collections. A returned and considered an essential element. It is enough that the
found his money short. What crimes have been proprietary rights of the government over the funds have
committed? been disturbed through breach of trust.
A is guilty of malversation through negligence It is not necessary that the accountable public officer
because he did not exercise due diligence in the should actually misappropriate the fund or property
safekeeping of the funds when he did not lock the drawer involved. It is enough that he has violated the trust
of his table. Insofar as B is concerned, the crime is reposed on him in connection with the property.
qualified theft.
Illustration:
Under jurisprudence, when the public officer leaves his post (1) It is a common practice of government cashiers to
without locking his drawer, there is negligence. Thus, he is change the checks of their friends with cash in
liable for the loss. their custody, sometimes at a discount. The
public officer knows that the check is good
Illustration: because the issuer thereof is a man of name. So
he changed the same with cash. The check turned
A government cashier did not bother to put the public fund out to be good.
in the public safe/vault but just left it in the drawer of his
table which has no lock. The next morning when he came With that act of changing the cash of the
back, the money was already gone. He was held liable for government with the check of a private person,
malversation through negligence because in effect, he has even though the check is good, malversation is
abandoned the fund or property without any safety. committed. The reason is that a check is cleared
only after three days. During that period of three
A private person may also commit malversation under the days, the government is being denied the use of
following situations: the public fund. With more reason if that check
bounce because the government suffers.
P.J.G. 69
(2) An accountable public officer, out of laziness, unaccounted for exists. Audit should be made to
declares that the payment was made to him after determine if there was shortage. Audit must be complete
he had cleaned his table and locked his safe for and trustworthy. If there is doubt, presumption does not
the collection of the day. A taxpayer came and he arise.
insisted that he pay the amount so that he will not
return the next day. So he accepted the payment Presumption arises only if at the time the demand to
but is too lazy to open the combination of the produce the public funds was made, the accountability of
public safe. He just pocketed the money. When the accused is already determined and liquidated. A
he came home, the money was still in his pocket. demand upon the accused to produce the funds in his
The next day, when he went back to the office, he possession and a failure on his part to produce the same
changed clothes and he claims that he forgot to will not bring about this presumption unless and until the
put the money in the new funds that he would amount of his accountability is already known.
collect the next day. Government auditors came
and subjected him to inspection. He was found In Dumagat v. Sandiganbayan, 160 SCRA 483, it was held
short of that amount. He claimed that it is in his that the prima facie presumption under the Revised Penal
house -- with that alone, he was charged with Code arises only if there is no issue as to the accuracy,
malversation and was convicted. correctness and regularity of the audit findings and if the
fact that public funds are missing is indubitably
Any overage or excess in the collection of an accountable established. The audit must be thorough and complete
public officer should not be extracted by him once it is down to the last detail, establishing with absolute certainty
commingled with the public funds. the fact that the funds are indeed missing.
Illustration: In De Guzman v. People, 119 SCRA 337, it was held that in

malversation, all that is necessary to prove is that the
When taxpayers pay their accountabilities to the defendant received in his possession the public funds and
government by way of taxes or licenses like registration of that he could not account for them and that he could not
motor vehicles, the taxpayer does not bother to collect give a reasonable excuse for their disappearance. An
loose change. So the government cashier accumulates the accountable public officer may be convicted of
loose change until this amounts to a sizable sum. In order malversation even if there is no direct evidence of
to avoid malversation, the cashier did not separate what is misappropriation and the only evidence is the shortage in
due the government which was left to her by way of loose the accounts which he has not been able to explain
change. Instead, he gets all of these and keeps it in the satisfactorily.
public vault/safe. After the payment of the taxes and
licenses is through, he gets all the official receipts and In Cabello v. Sandiganbaya, 197 SCRA 94, it was held it
takes the sum total of the payment. He then opens the was held that malversation may be committed
public vault and counts the cash. Whatever will be the intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or culpa bringing
excess or the overage, he gets. In this case, malversation is about the offences is only a modality in the perpetration of
committed. the offense. The same offense of malversation is involved,
whether the mode charged differs from the mode
Note that the moment any money is commingled with the established in the commission of the crime. An accused
public fund even if not due the government, it becomes charged with willful malversation may be convicted of
impressed with the characteristic of being part of public Malversation through her negligee.
funds. Once they are commingled, you do not know
anymore which belong to the government and which In Quizo v. Sandiganbayan, the accused incurred shortage
belong to the private persons. So that a public vault or (P1.74) mainly because the auditor disallowed certain cash
safe should not be used to hold any fund other that what is advances the accused granted to employees. But on the
due to the government. same date that the audit was made, he partly reimbursed
the amount and paid it in full three days later. The
When does presumption of misappropriation arise? Supreme Court considered the circumstances as negative
of criminal intent. The cash advances were made in good
When a demand is made upon an accountable officer and faith and out of good will to co-employees which was a
he cannot produce the fund or property involved, there is a practice tolerated in the office. The actual cash shortage
prima facie presumption that he had converted the same was only P1.74 and together with the disallowed advances
to his own use. There must be indubitable proof that thing
P.J.G. 70
were fully reimbursed within a reasonable time. There was 1. Offender is a public officer;
no negligence, malice, nor intent to defraud.
2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or
In Ciamfranca Jr. v. Sandiganbayan, where the accused in property;
malversation could not give reasonable and satisfactory
explanation or excuse for the missing funds or property
3. He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the
accountable by him, it was held that the return of the
Philippine Islands without securing a certificate
funds or property is not a defense and does not extinguish
from the Commission on Audit showing that his
criminal liability.
accounts have been finally settled.
In Parungao v. Sandiganbayan, 197 SCRA 173, it was held
that a public officer charged with malversation cannot be
When an accountable officer leaves the country without
convicted of technical malversation (illegal use of public
first settling his accountability or otherwise securing a
funds under Article 220). To do so would violate accused’s
clearance from the Commission on Audit regarding such
right to be informed of nature of accusation against him.
accountability, the implication is that he left the country
because he has misappropriated the funds under his
Technical malversation is not included in the crime of
accountability.
malversation. In malversation, the offender
misappropriates public funds or property for his own
Who can commit this crime? A responsible public officer,
personal use, or allows any other person to take such funds
not necessarily an accountable one, who leaves the
or property for the latter’s own personal use. In technical
country without first securing clearance from the
malversation, the public officer applies the public funds or
Commission on Audit.
property under his administration to another public use
different from that for which the public fund was
The purpose of the law is to discourage responsible or
appropriated by law or ordinance. Recourse: File the
accountable officers from leaving without first liquidating
proper information.
their accountability.
Mere leaving without securing clearance constitutes

Article 218. Failure of Accountable Officer to Render
violation of the Revised Penal Code. It is not necessary that
Accounts
they really misappropriated public funds.
Elements
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property
1. Offender is public officer, whether in the service
or separated therefrom by resignation or any Elements
other cause;
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or
property;
2. There are public funds or property under his
administration;
3. He is required by law or regulation to render

3. Such fund or property were appropriated by law
account to the Commission on Audit, or to a
or ordinance;
provincial auditor;
4. He fails to do so for a period of two months after

4. He applies such public fund or property to any
public use other than for which it was
such accounts should be rendered.
appropriated for.
Article 219. Failure of A Responsible Public Officer to

Illegal use of public funds or property is also known as
Render Accounts before Leaving the Country
technical malversation. The term technical malversation is
used because in this crime, the fund or property involved is
Elements
P.J.G. 71
already appropriated or earmarked for a certain public property, and he misappropriates the same, the crime of
purpose. malversation is also committed. See Article 222.
The offender is entrusted with such fund or property only Illustration:

to administer or apply the same to the public purpose for
which it was appropriated by law or ordinance. Instead of The payroll money for a government infrastructure project
applying it to the public purpose to which the fund or on the way to the site of the project, the officers bringing
property was already appropriated by law, the public the money were ambushed. They were all wounded. One
officer applied it to another purpose. of them, however, was able to get away from the scene of
the ambush until he reached a certain house. He told the
Since damage is not an element of malversation, even occupant of the house to safeguard the amount because it
though the application made proved to be more beneficial is the payroll money of the government laborers of a
to public interest than the original purpose for which the particular project. The occupant of the house accepted the
amount or property was appropriated by law, the public money for his own use. The crime is not theft but
officer involved is still liable for technical malversation. malversation as long as he knew that what was entrusted
in his custody is public fund or property.
If public funds were not yet appropriated by law or
ordinance, and this was applied to a public purpose by the
custodian thereof, the crime is plain and simple
malversation, not technical malversation. If the funds had
Question & Answer
been appropriated for a particular public purpose, but the
same was applied to private purpose, the crime committed
is simple malversation only. The sheriff, after having levied on the property
subject of a judgment, conducted a public auction sale. He
Illustration: received the proceeds of the public auction. Actually, the
proceeds are to be delivered to the plaintiff. The sheriff,
The office lacked bond papers. What the government after deducting the sheriff’s fees due to the office, spent
cashier did was to send the janitor, get some money from part of that amount. He gave the balance to the plaintiff
his collection, told the janitor to buy bond paper so that and executed a promissory note to pay the plaintiff the
the office will have something to use. The amount involved amount spent by him. Is there a crime committed?
maybe immaterial but the cashier commits malversation
pure and simple. The Supreme Court ruled that the sheriff
committed the crime of malversation because the proceeds
This crime can also be committed by a private person. of the auction sale was turned over to the plaintiff, such
proceeds is impressed with the characteristic of being part
Illustration: of public funds. The sheriff is accountable therefore
because he is not supposed to use any part of such
A certain road is to be cemented. Bags of cement were proceeds.
already being unloaded at the side. But then, rain began
to fall so the supervisor of the road building went to a
certain house with a garage, asked the owner if he could Article 221. Failure to Make Delivery of Public Funds of
possibly deposit the bags of cement in his garage to Property
prevent the same from being wet. The owner of the house,
Olive, agreed. So the bags of cement were transferred to Acts punished
the garage of the private person. After the public officer
had left, and the workers had left because it is not possible 1. Failing to make payment by a public officer who is
to do the cementing, the owner of the garage started using under obligation to make such payment from
some of the cement in paving his own garage. The crime government funds in his possession;
of technical malversation is also committed.
2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who
has been ordered by competent authority to
Note that when a private person is constituted as the deliver any property in his custody or under his
custodian in whatever capacity, of public funds or administration.
P.J.G. 72
2. The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or

Elements of failure to make payment person under arrest is confided to him;
1. Public officer has government funds in his 3. The prisoner or person under arrest escapes;
possession;
4. Offender consents to the escape, or that the
2. He is under obligation to make payment from escape takes place through his negligence.
such funds;
3. He fails to make the payment maliciously. The crime is infidelity in the custody of prisoners if the
offender involved is the custodian of the prisoner.
Article 223. Conniving with or Consenting to Evasion If the offender who aided or consented to the prisoner’s
escaping from confinement, whether the prisoner is a
1. Offender is a public officer; convict or a detention prisoner, is not the custodian, the
crime is delivering prisoners from jail under Article156.
2. He had in his custody or charge a prisoner, either
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; The crime of infidelity in the custody of prisoners can be
committed only by the custodian of a prisoner.
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody;
If the jail guard who allowed the prisoner to escape is
4. He was in connivance with the prisoner in the already off-duty at that time and he is no longer the
latter’s escape. custodian of the prisoner, the crime committed by him is
delivering prisoners from jail.
Classes of prisoners involved Note that you do not apply here the principle of conspiracy
that the act of one is the act of all. The party who is not
1. If the fugitive has been sentenced by final the custodian who conspired with the custodian in allowing
judgment to any penalty; the prisoner to escape does not commit infidelity in the
custody of the prisoner. He commits the crime of
2. If the fugitive is held only as detention prisoner delivering prisoners from jail.
for any crime or violation of law or municipal
ordinance.
Question & Answer
Article 224. Evasion through Negligence
If a private person approached the custodian of
Elements the prisoner and for a certain consideration, told the
custodian to leave the door of the cell unlocked for the
1. Offender is a public officer; prisoner to escape. What crime had been committed?
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a It is not infidelity in the custody of prisoners
prisoner or prisoner by final judgment; because as far as the private person is concerned, this
crime is delivering prisoners from jail. The infidelity is only
3. Such prisoner escapes through negligence. committed by the custodian.
This crime can be committed also by a private person if the

Article 225. Escape of Prisoner under the Custody of a custody of the prisoner has been confided to a private
Person not a Public Officer person.
Elements Illustration:
1. Offender is a private person; A policeman escorted a prisoner to court. After the court
hearing, this policeman was shot at with a view to liberate
P.J.G. 73
the prisoner from his custody. The policeman fought the room is a case of negligence and therefore the custodian is
attacker but he was fatally wounded. When he could no liable for infidelity in the custody of prisoner.
longer control the prisoner, he went to a nearby house,
talked to the head of the family of that house and asked Prison guard should not go to any other place not officially
him if he could give the custody of the prisoner to him. He called for. This is a case of infidelity in the custody of
said yes. After the prisoner was handcuffed in his hands, prisoner through negligence under Article 224.
the policeman expired. Thereafter, the head of the family
of that private house asked the prisoner if he could afford
to give something so that he would allow him to go. The Article 226. Removal, Concealment, or Destruction of
prisoner said, “Yes, if you would allow me to leave, you can Documents
come with me and I will give the money to you.” This
private persons went with the prisoner and when the Elements
money was given, he allowed him to go. What crime/s had
been committed? 1. Offender is a public officer;
Under Article 225, the crime can be committed by a private 2. He abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or
person to whom the custody of a prisoner has been papers;
confided.
3. Said document or papers should have been
Where such private person, while performing a private entrusted to such public officer by reason of his
function by virtue of a provision of law, shall accept any office;
consideration or gift for the non-performance of a duty
confided to him, Bribery is also committed. So the crime 4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party
committed by him is infidelity in the custody of prisoners or to the public interest has been caused.
and bribery.
Crimes falling under the section on infidelity in the custody
If the crime is delivering prisoners from jail, bribery is just a of public documents can only be committed by the public
means, under Article 156, that would call for the officer who is made the custodian of the document in his
imposition of a heavier penalty, but not a separate charge official capacity. If the officer was placed in possession of
of bribery under Article 156. the document but it is not his duty to be the custodian
thereof, this crime is not committed.
But under Article 225 in infidelity, what is basically
punished is the breach of trust because the offender is the Illustration:
custodian. For that, the crime is infidelity. If he violates
the trust because of some consideration, bribery is also A letter is entrusted to a postmaster for transmission of a
committed. registered letter to another. The postmaster opened the
letter and finding the money, extracted the same. The
A higher degree of vigilance is required. Failure to do so crime committed is infidelity in the custody of the public
will render the custodian liable. The prevailing ruling is document because under Article 226, the law refers also to
against laxity in the handling of prisoners. papers entrusted to public officer involved and currency
note is considered to be within the term paper although it
Illustration: is not a document.
A prison guard accompanied the prisoner in the toilet. With respect to official documents, infidelity is committed
While answering the call of nature, police officer waiting by destroying the document, or removing the document or
there, until the prisoner escaped. Police officer was concealing the document.
accused of infidelity.
Damage to public interest is necessary. However, material
There is no criminal liability because it does not constitute damage is not necessary.
negligence. Negligence contemplated here refers to
deliberate abandonment of duty. Illustration:
Note, however, that according to a recent Supreme Court If any citizen goes to a public office, desiring to go over
ruling, failure to accompany lady prisoner in the comfort public records and the custodian of the records had
P.J.G. 74
concealed the same so that this citizen is required to go 3. These papers or property are sealed by proper
back for the record to be taken out, the crime of infidelity is authority;
already committed by the custodian who removed the
records and kept it in a place where it is not supposed to be 4. He breaks the seal or permits them to be broken.
kept. Here, it is again the breach of public trust which is
punished.
If the official document is sealed or otherwise placed in an
Although there is no material damage caused, mere delay official envelope, the element of damage is not required.
in rendering public service is considered damage. The mere breaking of the seal or the mere opening of the
document would already bring about infidelity even
Removal of public records by the custodian does not though no damage has been suffered by anyone or by the
require that the record be brought out of the premises public at large. The offender does not have to
where it is kept. It is enough that the record be removed misappropriate the same. Just trying to discover or look
from the place where it should be and transferred to what is inside is infidelity already.
another place where it is not supposed to be kept. If
damage is caused to the public service, the public officer is The act is punished because if a document is entrusted to
criminally liable for infidelity in the custody of official the custody of a public officer in a sealed or closed
documents. envelope, such public officer is supposed not to know what
is inside the same. If he would break the seal or open the
Distinction between infidelity in the custody of public closed envelop, indications would be that he tried to find
document, estafa and malicious mischief out the contents of the document. For that act, he violates
the confidence or trust reposed on him.
 In infidelity in the custody of public document, the
offender is the custodian of the official document A crime is already committed regardless of whether the
removed or concealed. contents of the document are secret or private. It is
enough that it is entrusted to him in a sealed form or in a
 In estafa, the offender is not the custodian of the closed envelope and he broke the seal or opened the
document removed or concealed. envelop. Public trust is already violated if he managed to
look into the contents of the document.
 In malicious mischief, the offender purposely
destroyed and damaged the property/document. Distinction between infidelity and theft
Where in case for bribery or corruption, the monetary  There is infidelity if the offender opened the letter
considerations was marked as exhibits, such considerations but did not take the same.
acquires the nature of a document such that if the same
would be spent by the custodian the crime is not  There is theft if there is intent to gain when the
malversation but Infidelity in the custody of public records, offender took the money.
because the money adduced as exhibits partake the nature
of a document and not as money. Although such monetary Note that he document must be complete in legal sense. If
consideration acquires the nature of a document, the best the writings are mere form, there is no crime.
evidence rule does not apply here. Example, photocopies
may be presented in evidence. Illustration:
As regard the payroll, which has not been signed by the

Article 227. Officer Breaking Seal Mayor, no infidelity is committed because the document is
not yet a payroll in the legal sense since the document has
Elements not been signed yet.
1. Offender is a public officer; In "breaking of seal", the word "breaking" should not be
given a literal meaning. Even if actually, the seal was not
2. He is charged with the custody of papers or broken, because the custodian managed to open the parcel
property; without breaking the seal.
P.J.G. 75
Article 228. Opening of Closed Documents

Article 230. Public Officer Revealing Secrets of Private
Elements individual
1. Offender is a public officer; Elements
2. Any closed papers, documents, or object are 1. Offender is a public officer;

entrusted to his custody;
2. He knows of the secrets of a private individual by
3. He opens or permits to be opened said closed reason of his office;
papers, documents or objects;
3. He reveals such secrets without authority or
4. He does not have proper authority. justifiable reason.
Article 229. Revelation of Secrets by An Officer Article 231. Open Disobedience
Acts punished Elements
1. Revealing any secrets known to the offending 1. Officer is a judicial or executive officer;
public officer by reason of his official capacity;
2. There is a judgment, decision or order of a
Elements superior authority;
1. Offender is a public officer; 3. Such judgment, decision or order was made

within the scope of the jurisdiction of the superior
2. He knows of a secret by reason of his authority and issued with all the legal formalities;
official capacity;
4. He, without any legal justification, openly refuses
3. He reveals such secret without authority to execute the said judgment, decision or order,
or justifiable reasons; which he is duty bound to obey.
4. Damage, great or small, is caused to the

public interest. Article 232. Disobedience to Order of Superior Officer
When Said Order Was Suspended by Inferior Officer
2. Delivering wrongfully papers or copies of papers
of which he may have charge and which should Elements
not be published.
Elements
2. An order is issued by his superior for execution;
3. He has for any reason suspended the execution of
2. He has charge of papers; such order;
3. Those papers should not be published; 4. His superior disapproves the suspension of the
execution of the order;
4. He delivers those papers or copies
thereof to a third person; 5. Offender disobeys his superior despite the
disapproval of the suspension.
5. The delivery is wrongful;
6. Damage is caused to public interest. Article 233. Refusal of Assistance

P.J.G. 76
1. Offender is a public officer; It was held that the crime is not refusal of assistance
because the request did not come from a public authority.
2. A competent authority demands from the But if the fireman was ordered by the authority to put out
offender that he lend his cooperation towards the the fire and he refused, the crime is refusal of assistance.
administration of justice or other public service;
If he receives consideration therefore, bribery is
3. Offender fails to do so maliciously. committed. But mere demand will fall under the
prohibition under the provision of Republic Act No. 3019
(Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
Any public officer who, upon being requested to render
public assistance within his official duty to render and he
refuses to render the same when it is necessary in the Article 234. Refusal to Discharge Elective Office
administration of justice or for public service, may be
prosecuted for refusal of assistance. Elements
This is a crime, which a policeman may commit when, 1. Offender is elected by popular election to a public
being subpoenaed to appear in court in connection with a office;
crime investigated by him but because of some
arrangement with the offenders, the policeman does not 2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the
appear in court anymore to testify against the offenders. duties of said office;
He tried to assail the subpoena so that ultimately the case
would be dismissed. It was already held that the 3. There is no legal motive for such refusal to be
policeman could be prosecuted under this crime of refusal sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office.
of assistance and not that of dereliction of duty.
Illustration: Article 235. Maltreatment of Prisoners
A government physician, who had been subpoenaed to Elements

appear in court to testify in connection with physical injury
cases or cases involving human lives, does not want to 1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
appear in court to testify. He may be charged for refusal of
assistance. As long as they have been properly notified by 2. He has under his charge a prisoner or detention
subpoena and they disobeyed the subpoena, they can be prisoner;
charged always if it can be shown that they are
deliberately refusing to appear in court. 3. He maltreats such prisoner in either of the
following manners:
It is not always a case or in connection with the
appearance in court that this crime may be committed. a. By overdoing himself in the correction or
Any refusal by the public officer to render assistance when handling of a prisoner or detention
demanded by competent public authority, as long as the prisoner under his charge either –
assistance requested from them is within their duty to
render and that assistance is needed for public service, the (1) By the imposition of
public officers who are refusing deliberately may be punishment not authorized by
charged with refusal of assistance. the regulations; or
Note that the request must come from one public officer to (2) By inflicting such punishments
another. (those authorized) in a cruel and
humiliating manner; or
Illustration:
b. By maltreating such prisoners to extort a
A fireman was asked by a private person for services but confession or to obtain some
was refused by the former for lack of “consideration”. information from the prisoner.
P.J.G. 77
This is committed only by such public officer charged with

direct custody of the prisoner. Not all public officer can If a prisoner who had already been booked was make to
commit this offense. strip his clothes before he was put in the detention cell so
that when he was placed inside the detention cell, he was
If the public officer is not the custodian of the prisoner, and already naked and he used both of his hands to cover his
he manhandles the latter, the crime is physical injuries. private part, the crime of maltreatment of prisoner had
already been committed.
The maltreatment does not really require physical injuries.
Any kind of punishment not authorized or though After having been booked, the prisoner was made to show
authorized if executed in excess of the prescribed degree. any sign on his arm, hand or his neck; “Do not follow my
footsteps, I am a thief.” That is maltreatment of prisoner if
Illustration: the offended party had already been booked and
incarcerated no matter how short, as a prisoner.
Make him drink dirty water, sit on ice, eat on a can, make
him strip, hang a sign on his neck saying “snatcher”. Before this point in time, when he is not yet a prisoner, the
act of hanging a sign on his neck will only amount to
But if as a result of the maltreatment, physical injuries slander because the idea is to cast dishonor. Any injury
were caused to the prisoner, a separate crime for the inflicted upon him will only give rise to the crime of
physical injuries shall be filed. You do not complex the physical injuries.
crime of physical injuries with the maltreatment because
the way Article 235 is worded, it prohibits the complexing
of the crime. Article 236. Anticipation of Duties of A Public Office
If the maltreatment was done in order to extort confession, Elements

therefore, the constitutional right of the prisoner is further
violated. The penalty is qualified to the next higher 1. Offender is entitled to hold a public office or
degree. employment, either by election or appointment;
The offended party here must be a prisoner in the legal 2. The law requires that he should first be sworn in
sense. The mere fact that a private citizen had been and/or should first give a bond;
apprehended or arrested by a law enforcer does not
constitute him a prisoner. To be a prisoner, he must have 3. He assumes the performance of the duties and
been booked and incarcerated no matter how short it is. powers of such office;
Illustration: 4. He has not taken his oath of office and/or given

the bond required by law.
A certain snatcher was arrested by a law enforcer, brought
to the police precinct, turned over to the custodian of that
police precinct. Every time a policeman entered the police Article 237. Prolonging Performance of Duties and
precinct, he would ask, “What is this fellow doing here? Powers
What crime has he committed?”. The other policeman
would then tell, “This fellow is a snatcher.” So every time a Elements
policeman would come in, he would inflict injury to him.
This is not maltreatment of prisoner because the offender 1. Offender is holding a public office;
is not the custodian. The crime is only physical injuries.
2. The period provided by law, regulations or special
But if the custodian is present there and he allowed it, then provision for holding such office, has already
he will be liable also for the physical injuries inflicted, but expired;
not for maltreatment because it was not the custodian
who inflicted the injury. 3. He continues to exercise the duties and powers of
such office.
But if it is the custodian who effected the maltreatment,
the crime will be maltreatment of prisoners plus a separate
charge for physical injuries. Article 238. Abandonment of Office or Position
P.J.G. 78
Elements 2. A proceeding is pending before such public

officer;
3. There is a question brought before the proper
2. He formally resigns from his position; authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is not
yet decided;
3. His resignation has not yet been accepted;
4. He has been lawfully required to refrain form
4. He abandons his office to the detriment of the continuing the proceeding;
public service.
5. He continues the proceeding.
Article 239. Usurpation of Legislative Powers

Article 243. Orders or Request by Executive Officers to
Elements Any Judicial Authority
1. Offender is an executive or judicial officer; Elements
2. He (a) makes general rules or regulations beyond 1. Offender is an executive officer;

the scope of his authority or (b) attempts to
repeal a law or (c) suspends the execution 2. He addresses any order or suggestion to any
thereof. judicial authority;
3. The order or suggestion relates to any case or

Article 240. Usurpation of Executive Functions business coming within the exclusive jurisdiction
of the courts of justice.
Elements
1. Offender is a judge; Article 244. Unlawful Appointments
2. He (a) assumes a power pertaining to the Elements

executive authorities, or (b) obstructs the
executive authorities in the lawful exercise of 1. Offender is a public officer;
their powers.
2. He nominates or appoints a person to a public
office;
Article 241. Usurpation of Judicial Functions
3. Such person lacks the legal qualifications
Elements therefore;
1. Offender is an officer of the executive branch of 4. Offender knows that his nominee or appointee
the government; lacks the qualification at the time he made the
nomination or appointment.
2. He (a) assumes judicial powers, or (b) obstructs
the execution of any order or decision rendered
by any judge within his jurisdiction. Article 245. Abuses against Chastity
Acts punished
Article 242. Disobeying Request for Disqualification
1. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
Elements advances to a woman interested in matters
pending before the offending officer for decision,
P.J.G. 79
or with respect to which he is required to submit immoral solicitations upon the wife, sister, daughter, or
a report to or consult with a superior officer; relative by affinity within the same degree of the prisoner
involved.
2. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent
advances to a woman under the offender’s Three instances when this crime may arise:
custody;
(1) The woman, who is the offended party, is the
3. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent party in interest in a case where the offended is
advances to the wife, daughter, sister or relative the investigator or he is required to render a
within the same degree by affinity of any person report or he is required to consult with a superior
in the custody of the offending warden or officer. officer.
Elements: This does not include any casual or incidental

interest. This refers to interest in the subject of
1. Offender is a public officer; the case under investigation.
2. He solicits or makes immoral or indecent If the public officer charged with the investigation
advances to a woman; or with the rendering of the report or with the
giving of advice by way of consultation with a
3. Such woman is – superior, made some immoral or indecent
solicitation upon such woman, he is taking
a. interested in matters pending before the advantage of his position over the case. For that
offender for decision, or with respect to immoral or indecent solicitation, a crime is
which he is required to submit a report already committed even if the woman did not
to or consult with a superior officer; or accede to the solicitation.
b. under the custody of the offender who is Even if the woman may have lied with the hearing
a warden or other public officer directly officer or to the public officer and acceded to him,
charged with the care and custody of that does not change the crime because the crime
prisoners or persons under arrest; or seeks to penalize the taking advantage of official
duties.
c. the wife, daughter, sister or relative
within the same degree by affinity of the It is immaterial whether the woman did not agree
person in the custody of the offender. or agreed to the solicitation. If the woman did not
agree and the public officer involved pushed
through with the advances, attempted rape may
The name of the crime is misleading. It implies that the have been committed.
chastity of the offended party is abused but this is not
really the essence of the crime because the essence of the (2) The woman who is the offended party in the crime
crime is mere making of immoral or indecent solicitation or is a prisoner under the custody of a warden or the
advances. jailer who is the offender.
Illustration: If the warden or jailer of the woman should make

immoral or indecent advances to such prisoner,
Mere indecent solicitation or advances of a woman over this crime is committed.
whom the public officer exercises a certain influence
because the woman is involved in a case where the This crime cannot be committed if the warden is a
offender is to make a report of result with superiors or woman and the prisoner is a man. Men have no
otherwise a case which the offender was investigating. chastity.
This crime is also committed if the woman is a prisoner and If the warden is also a woman but is a lesbian, it is
the offender is her jail warden or custodian, or even if the submitted that this crime could be committed, as
prisoner may be a man if the jail warden would make the
P.J.G. 80
the law does not require that the custodian be a prisoner under the custody of the offender who
man but requires that the offended be a woman. made the indecent or immoral solicitation.
Immoral or indecent advances contemplated here The mother is not included so that any immoral or
must be persistent. It must be determined. A indecent solicitation upon the mother of the
mere joke would not suffice. prisoner does not give rise to this crime, but the
offender may be prosecuted under the Section 28
Illustrations: of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-graft and Corrupt
Practices Act).
(1) An investigating prosecutor where the
woman is charged with estafa as the Why is the mother left out? Because it is the
respondent, made a remark to the mother who easily succumbs to protect her child.
woman, thus: “You know, the way of
deciding this case depends on me. I can If the offender were not the custodian, then crime
just say this is civil in character. I want to would fall under Republic Act No. 3019 (The Anti-
see a movie tonight and I want a Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).
companion.” Such a remark, which is not
discerned if not persistent will not give Republic Act No. 7877 (Anti-Sexual Harassment Act)
rise to this crime. However, if the
prosecutor kept on calling the woman Committed by any person having authority, influence or
and inviting her, that makes the act moral ascendancy over another in a work, training or
determined and the crime is committed. education environment when he or she demands,
requests, or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the
(2) A jailer was prosecuted for abuse against other regardless of whether the demand, request or
chastity. The jailer said, “It was mutual requirement for submission is accepted by the object of
on their part. I did not really force my the said act (for a passing grade, or granting of scholarship
way upon the woman. The woman fell in or honors, or payment of a stipend, allowances, benefits,
love with me, I fell in love with the considerations; favorable compensation terms, conditions,
woman.” The woman became pregnant. promotions or when the refusal to do so results in a
The woman admitted that she was not detrimental consequence for the victim).
forced. Just the same, the jailer was
convicted of abuse against chastity. Also holds liable any person who directs or induces
another to commit any act of sexual harassment, or who
Legally, a prisoner is an accountability of the cooperates in the commission, the head of the office,
government. So the custodian is not supposed to educational or training institution solidarily.
interfere. Even if the prisoner may like it, he is not
supposed to do that. Otherwise, abuse against Complaints to be handled by a committee on decorum,
chastity is committed. which shall be determined by rules and regulations on
Being responsible for the pregnancy is itself taking such.
advantage the prisoner.
Administrative sanctions shall not be a bar to prosecution
If he forced himself against the will of the woman, in the proper courts for unlawful acts of sexual
another crime is committed, that is, rape aside harassment.
from abuse against chastity.
You cannot consider the abuse against chastity as TITLE VIII. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
absorbed in the rape because the basis of
penalizing the acts is different from each other. Crimes against persons
(3) The crime is committed upon a female relative of 1. Parricide (Art. 246);
a prisoner under the custody of the offender,
where the woman is the daughter, sister or 2. Murder (Art. 248);
relative by affinity in the same line as of the
3. Homicide (Art. 249);
P.J.G. 81
(5) Giving assistance to suicide.

4. Death caused in a tumultuous affray (Art. 251);
Note that parricide is premised on the relationship
5. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray between the offender and the offended. The victim is three
(Art. 252); days old or older. A stranger who conspires with the
parent is guilty of murder.
6. Giving assistance to suicide (Art. 253);
In infanticide, the victim is younger than three days or 72
7. Discharge of firearms (Art. 254); hours old; can be committed by a stranger. If a stranger
who conspires with parent, both commit the crime of
8. Infanticide (Art. 255); infanticide.
9. Intentional abortion (Art. 256);

Article 246. Parricide
10. Unintentional abortion (Art. 257);
Elements
11. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by
her parents (Art. 258); 1. A person is killed;
12. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and 2. The deceased is killed by the accused;
dispensing of abortives (Art. 259);
3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child,
13. Duel (Art. 260); whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
other ascendant or other descendant, or the
14. Challenging to a duel (Art. 261); legitimate spouse, of the accused.
15. Mutilation (Art. 262);

This is a crime committed between people who are related
16. Serious physical injuries (Art. 263); by blood. Between spouses, even though they are not
related by blood, it is also parricide.
17. Administering injurious substances or beverages
(Art. 264); The relationship must be in the direct line and not in the
collateral line.
18. Less serious physical injuries (Art. 265);
The relationship between the offender and the offended
19. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment (Art. party must be legitimate, except when the offender and
266); and the offended party are related as parent and child.
20. Rape (Art. 266-A). If the offender and the offended party, although related by
blood and in the direct line, are separated by an
intervening illegitimate relationship, parricide can no
The essence of crime here involves the taking of human longer be committed. The illegitimate relationship
life, destruction of the fetus or inflicting injuries. between the child and the parent renders all relatives after
the child in the direct line to be illegitimate too.
As to the taking of human life, you have:
The only illegitimate relationship that can bring about
(1) Parricide; parricide is that between parents and illegitimate children
as the offender and the offended parties.
(2) Murder;
Illustration:
(3) Homicide;
A is the parent of B, the illegitimate daughter. B married C
(4) Infanticide; and and they begot a legitimate child D. If D, daughter of B
and C, would kill A, the grandmother, the crime cannot be
P.J.G. 82
parricide anymore because of the intervening illegitimacy. of parricide, unlike in the case of infanticide. If the child is
The relationship between A and D is no longer legitimate. less than three days old when killed, the crime is infanticide
Hence, the crime committed is homicide or murder. and intent to conceal her dishonor is considered
mitigating.
Since parricide is a crime of relationship, if a stranger
conspired in the commission of the crime, he cannot be
held liable for parricide. His participation would make him Article 247. Death or Physical Injuries Inflicted under
liable for murder or for homicide, as the case may be. The Exceptional Circumstances
rule of conspiracy that the act of one is the act of all does
not apply here because of the personal relationship of the Elements
offender to the offended party.
1. A legally married person, or a parent, surprises his
Illustration: spouse or his daughter, the latter under 18 years
of age and living with him, in the act of
A spouse of B conspires with C to kill B. C is the stranger in committing sexual intercourse with another
the relationship. C killed B with treachery. The means person;
employed is made known to A and A agreed that the killing
will be done by poisoning. 2. He or she kills any or both of them, or inflicts
upon any or both of them any serious physical
As far as A is concerned, the crime is based on his injury in the act or immediately thereafter;
relationship with B. It is therefore parricide. The treachery
that was employed in killing Bong will only be generic 3. He has not promoted or facilitated the
aggravating circumstance in the crime of parricide because prostitution of his wife or daughter, or that he or
this is not one crime that requires a qualifying she has not consented to the infidelity of the
circumstance. other spouse.
But that same treachery, insofar as C is concerned, as a

stranger who cooperated in the killing, makes the crime Two stages contemplated before the article will apply:
murder; treachery becomes a qualifying circumstance.
(1) When the offender surprised the other spouse
In killing a spouse, there must be a valid subsisting with a paramour or mistress. The attack must
marriage at the time of the killing. Also, the information take place while the sexual intercourse is going
should allege the fact of such valid marriage between the on. If the surprise was before or after the
accused and the victim. intercourse, no matter how immediate it may be,
Article 247 does not apply. The offender in this
In a ruling by the Supreme Court, it was held that if the situation only gets the benefit of a mitigating
information did not allege that the accused was legally circumstance, that is, sufficient provocation
married to the victim, he could not be convicted of immediately preceding the act.
parricide even if the marriage was established during the
trial. In such cases, relationship shall be appreciated as (2) When the offender kills or inflicts serious physical
generic aggravating circumstance. injury upon the other spouse and/or paramour
while in the act of intercourse, or immediately
The Supreme Court has also ruled that Muslim husbands thereafter, that is, after surprising.
with several wives can be convicted of parricide only in
case the first wife is killed. There is no parricide if the other You have to divide the stages because as far as the first
wives are killed although their marriage is recognized as stage is concerned, it does not admit of any situation less
valid. This is so because a Catholic man can commit the than sexual intercourse.
crime only once. If a Muslim husband could commit this
crime more than once, in effect, he is being punished for So if the surprising took place before any actual sexual
the marriage which the law itself authorized him to intercourse could be done because the parties are only in
contract. their preliminaries, the article cannot be invoked anymore.
That the mother killed her child in order to conceal her If the surprising took place after the actual sexual
dishonor is not mitigating. This is immaterial to the crime intercourse was finished, even if the act being performed
P.J.G. 83
indicates no other conclusion but that sexual intercourse

was had, the article does not apply. Illustration:
As long as the surprising took place while the sexual A upon coming home, surprised his wife, B, together with
intercourse was going on, the second stage becomes C. The paramour was fast enough to jump out of the
immaterial. window. A got the bolo and chased C but he disappeared
among the neighborhood. So A started looking around for
It is either killing or inflicting physical injuries while in that about an hour but he could not find the paramour. A gave
act or immediately thereafter. If the killing was done while up and was on his way home. Unfortunately, the
in that act, no problem. If the killing was done when paramour, thinking that A was no longer around, came out
sexual intercourse is finished, a problem arises. First, were of hiding and at that moment, A saw him and hacked him
they surprised in actual sexual intercourse? Second, were to death. There was a break of time and Article 247 does
they killed immediately thereafter? not apply anymore because when he gave up the search, it
is a circumstance showing that his anger had already died
The phrase “immediately thereafter” has been interpreted down.
to mean that between the surprising and the killing of the
inflicting of the physical injury, there should be no break of Article 247, far from defining a felony merely grants a
time. In other words, it must be a continuous process. privilege or benefit, more of an exempting circumstance as
the penalty is intended more for the protection of the
The article presumes that a legally married person who accused than a punishment. Death under exceptional
surprises his or her better half in actual sexual intercourse character can not be qualified by either aggravating or
would be overcome by the obfuscation he felt when he saw mitigating circumstances.
them in the act that he lost his head. The law, thus,
affords protection to a spouse who is considered to have In the case of People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735, two
acted in a justified outburst of passion or a state of mental persons suffered physical injuries as they were caught in
disequilibrium. The offended spouse has no time to regain the crossfire when the accused shot the victim. A complex
his self-control. crime of double frustrated murder was not committed as
the accused did not have the intent to kill the two victims.
If there was already a break of time between the sexual act Here, the accused did not commit murder when he fired at
and the killing or inflicting of the injury, the law the paramour of his wife. Inflicting death under
presupposes that the offender regained his reason and exceptional circumstances is not murder. The accused was
therefore, the article will not apply anymore. held liable for negligence under the first part, second
paragraph of Article 365, that is, less serious physical
As long as the act is continuous, the article still applies. injuries through simple negligence. No aberratio ictus
because he was acting lawfully.
Where the accused surprised his wife and his paramour in
the act of illicit intercourse, as a result of which he went A person who acts under Article 247 is not committing a
out to kill the paramour in a fit of passionate outburst. crime. Since this is merely an exempting circumstance, the
Although about one hour had passed between the time the accused must first be charged with:
accused discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with
the victim and the time the latter was actually killed, it was (1) Parricide – if the spouse is killed;
held in People v. Abarca, 153 SCRA 735, that Article 247
was applicable, as the shooting was a continuation of the (2) Murder or homicide – depending on how the
pursuit of the victim by the accused. Here, the accused, killing was done insofar as the paramour or the
after the discovery of the act of infidelity of his wife, looked mistress is concerned;
for a firearm in Tacloban City.
(3) Homicide – through simple negligence, if a third
Article 247 does not provide that the victim is to be killed party is killed;
instantly by the accused after surprising his spouse in the
act of intercourse. What is required is that the killing is the (4) Physical injuries – through reckless imprudence, if
proximate result of the outrage overwhelming the accused a third party is injured.
upon the discovery of the infidelity of his spouse. The
killing should have been actually motivated by the same If death results or the physical injuries are serious, there is
blind impulse. criminal liability although the penalty is only destierro. The
P.J.G. 84
banishment is intended more for the protection of the

offender rather than a penalty. Article 248. Murder
If the crime committed is less serious physical injuries or Elements

slight physical injuries, there is no criminal liability.
1. A person was killed;
The article does not apply where the wife was not
surprised in flagrant adultery but was being abused by a 2. Accused killed him;
man as in this case there will be defense of relation.
3. The killing was attended by any of the following
If the offender surprised a couple in sexual intercourse, and qualifying circumstances –
believing the woman to be his wife, killed them, this article
may be applied if the mistake of facts is proved. a. With treachery, taking advantage of
superior strength, with the aid or armed
The benefits of this article do not apply to the person who men, or employing means to waken the
consented to the infidelity of his spouse or who facilitated defense, or of means or persons to
the prostitution of his wife. insure or afford impunity;
The article is also made available to parents who shall b. In consideration of a price, reward or
surprise their daughter below 18 years of age in actual promise;
sexual intercourse while “living with them.” The act should
have been committed by the daughter with a seducer. The c. By means of inundation, fire, poison,
two stages also apply. The parents cannot invoke this explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a
provision if, in a way, they have encouraged the vessel, derailment or assault upon a
prostitution of the daughter. railroad, fall of an airship, by means of
motor vehicles, or with the use of any
The phrase “living with them” is understood to be in their other means involving great waste and
own dwelling, because of the embarrassment and ruin;
humiliation done not only to the parent but also to the
parental abode. d. On occasion of any of the calamities
enumerated in the preceding paragraph,
If it was done in a motel, the article does not apply. or of an earthquake, eruption of a
volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic,
Illustration: or any other public calamity;
A abandoned his wife B for two years. To support their e. With evident premeditation;
children, A had to accept a relationship with another man.
A learned of this, and surprised them in the act of sexual f. With cruelty, by deliberately and
intercourse and killed B. A is not entitled to Article 248. inhumanly augmenting the suffering of
Having abandoned his family for two years, it was natural the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his
for her to feel some affection for others, more so of a man person or corpse.
who could help her.
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
Homicide committed under exceptional circumstances,
although punished with destierro, is within the jurisdiction
of the Regional Trial Court and not the MTC because the Homicide is qualified to murder if any of the qualifying
crime charged is homicide or murder. The exceptional circumstances under Article 248 is present. It is the
circumstances, not being elements of the crime but a unlawful killing of a person not constituting murder,
matter of defense, are not pleaded. It practically grants a parricide or infanticide.
privilege amounting to an exemption for adequate
punishment. In murder, any of the following qualifying circumstances is
present:
P.J.G. 85
more treachery but the use of superior strength

(1) Treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, can be alleged and it also qualifies the killing to
aid or armed men, or employing means to waken murder.
the defense, or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity; One attendant qualifying circumstance is enough.
If there are more than one qualifying
There is treachery when the offender commits any circumstance alleged in the information for
of the crimes against the person employing murder, only one circumstance will qualify the
means, methods or forms in the execution thereof killing to murder and the other circumstances will
that tend directly and especially to insure its be taken as generic.
execution without risk to himself arising from the
defense which the offended party might make. To be considered qualifying, the particular
circumstance must be alleged in the information.
This circumstance involves means, methods, form If what was alleged was not proven and instead
in the execution of the killing which may actually another circumstance, not alleged, was
be an aggravating circumstance also, in which established during the trial, even if the latter
case, the treachery absorbs the same. constitutes a qualifying circumstance under
Article 248, the same can not qualify the killing to
Illustration: murder. The accused can only be convicted of
homicide.
A person who is determined to kill resorted to the
cover of darkness at nighttime to insure the Generally, murder cannot be committed if at the
killing. Nocturnity becomes a means that beginning, the offended had no intent to kill
constitutes treachery and the killing would be because the qualifying circumstances must be
murder. But if the aggravating circumstance of resorted to with a view of killing the offended
nocturnity is considered by itself, it is not one of party. So if the killing were at the “spur of the
those which qualify a homicide to murder. One moment”, even though the victim was denied the
might think the killing is homicide unless chance to defend himself because of the
nocturnity is considered as constituting treachery, suddenness of the attack, the crime would only be
in which case the crime is murder. homicide. Treachery contemplates that the
means, methods and form in the execution were
The essence of treachery is that the offended consciously adopted and deliberately resorted to
party was denied the chance to defend himself by the offender, and were not merely incidental to
because of the means, methods, form in executing the killing.
the crime deliberately adopted by the offender. It
is a matter of whether or not the offended party If the offender may have not intended to kill the
was denied the chance of defending himself. victim but he only wanted to commit a crime
against him in the beginning, he will still be liable
If the offended was denied the chance to defend for murder if in the manner of committing the
himself, treachery qualifies the killing to murder. felony there was treachery and as a consequence
If despite the means resorted to by the offender, thereof the victim died. This is based on the rule
the offended was able to put up a defense, that a person committing a felony shall be liable
although unsuccessful, treachery is not available. for the consequences thereof although different
Instead, some other circumstance may be present. from that which he intended.
Consider now whether such other circumstance
qualifies the killing or not. Illustration:
Illustration: The accused, three young men, resented the fact

that the victim continued to visit a girl in their
If the offender used superior strength and the neighborhood despite the warning they gave him.
victim was denied the chance to defend himself, So one evening, after the victim had visited the
there is treachery. The treachery must be alleged girl, they seized and tied him to a tree, with both
in the information. But if the victim was able to arms and legs around the tree. They thought they
put up an unsuccessful resistance, there is no would give him a lesson by whipping him with
P.J.G. 86
branches of gumamela until the victim fell the mind of the offender. He intended only to
unconscious. The accused left not knowing that destroy property. However, a higher penalty will
the victim died. be applied.
The crime committed was murder. The accused In People v. Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439,
deprived the victim of the chance to defend there was a town fiesta and the two accused were
himself when the latter was tied to a tree. at the town plaza with their companions. All were
Treachery is a circumstance referring to the uproariously happy, apparently drenched with
manner of committing the crime. There was no drink. Then, the group saw the victim, a 25 year
risk to the accused arising from the defense by the old retard walking nearby and they made him
victim. dance by tickling his sides with a piece of wood.
The victim and the accused Pugay were friends
Although what was initially intended was physical and, at times, slept in the same place together.
injury, the manner adopted by the accused was Having gotten bored with their form of
treacherous and since the victim died as a entertainment, accused Pugay went and got a can
consequence thereof, the crime is murder -- of gasoline and poured it all over the retard.
although originally, there was no intent to kill. Then, the accused Samson lit him up, making him
a frenzied, shrieking human torch. The retard
When the victim is already dead, intent to kill died.
becomes irrelevant. It is important only if the
victim did not die to determine if the felony is It was held that Pugay was guilty of homicide
physical injury or attempted or frustrated through reckless imprudence. Samson only guilty
homicide. of homicide, with the mitigating circumstance of
no intention to commit so grave a wrong. There
So long as the means, methods and form in the was no animosity between the two accused and
execution is deliberately adopted, even if there the victim such that it cannot be said that they
was no intent to kill, there is treachery. resort to fire to kill him. It was merely a part of
their fun making but because their acts were
(2) In consideration of price, reward or promises; felonious, they are criminally liable.
(3) Inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, (4) On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated
stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a in the preceding paragraph c, or an earthquake,
street car or locomotive, fall of an airship, by eruption of volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic
means of a motor vehicle, or with the use of other or any other public calamity;
means involving great waste and ruin;
(5) Evident premeditation; and
The only problem insofar as the killing by fire is
concerned is whether it would be arson with (6) Cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
homicide, or murder. augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
When a person is killed by fire, the primordial
criminal intent of the offender is considered. If Cruelty includes the situation where the victim is
the primordial criminal intent of the offender is to already dead and yet, acts were committed which
kill and fire was only used as a means to do so, would decry or scoff the corpse of the victim. The
the crime is only murder. If the primordial crime becomes murder.
criminal intent of the offender is to destroy
property with the use of pyrotechnics and Hence, this is not actually limited to cruelty. It
incidentally, somebody within the premises is goes beyond that because even if the victim is
killed, the crime is arson with homicide. But this is already a corpse when the acts deliberately
not a complex crime under Article 48. This is single augmenting the wrong done to him were
indivisible crime penalized under Article 326, committed, the killing is still qualified to murder
which is death as a consequence of arson. That although the acts done no longer amount to
somebody died during such fire would not bring cruelty.
about murder because there is no intent to kill in
P.J.G. 87
Under Article 14, the generic aggravating placed him in a box with head down and legs
circumstance of cruelty requires that the victim be upward and covered the box with some sacks and
alive, when the cruel wounds were inflicted and, other boxes, and the child instantly died because
therefore, must be evidence to that effect. Yet, in of suffocation, and then the accused demanded
murder, aside from cruelty, any act that would ransom from the parents, such did not convert the
amount to scoffing or decrying the corpse of the offense into kidnapping with murder. The
victim will qualify the killing to murder. accused was well aware that the child could be
suffocated to death in a few minutes after she
Illustration: left. Ransom was only a part of the diabolical
scheme to murder the child, to conceal his body
Two people engaged in a quarrel and they hacked and then demand money before discovery of the
each other, one killing the other. Up to that point, body.
the crime is homicide. However, if the killer tried
to dismember the different parts of the body of The essence of kidnapping or serious illegal detention is the
the victim, indicative of an intention to scoff at or actual confinement or restraint of the victim or deprivation
decry or humiliate the corpse of the victim, then of his liberty. If there is no showing that the accused
what would have murder because this intended to deprive their victims of their liberty for some
circumstance is recognized under Article 248, even time and there being no appreciable interval between their
though it was inflicted or was committed when being taken and their being shot, murder and not
the victim was already dead. kidnapping with murder is committed.
The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with

respect to the crime of murder:
Article 249. Homicide
(1) Killing of a child of tender age is murder qualified
by treachery because the weakness of the child Elements
due to his tender age results in the absence of any
danger to the aggressor. 1. A person was killed;
(2) Evident premeditation is absorbed in price, 2. Offender killed him without any justifying
reward or promise, if without the premeditation circumstances;
the inductor would not have induced the other to
commit the act but not as regards the one 3. Offender had the intention to kill, which is
induced. presumed;
(3 Abuse of superior strength is inherent in and 4. The killing was not attended by any of the
comprehended by the circumstance of treachery qualifying circumstances of murder, or by that of
or forms part of treachery. parricide or infanticide.
(4) Treachery is inherent in poison.

Homicide is the unlawful killing of a person not constituting
(5) Where one of the accused, who were charged murder, parricide or infanticide.
with murder, was the wife of the deceased but
here relationship to the deceased was not alleged Distinction between homicide and physical injuries:
in the information, she also should be convicted of
murder but the relationship should be appreciated In attempted or frustrated homicide, there is intent to kill.
as aggravating.
In physical injuries, there is none. However, if as a result of
(6) Killing of the victims hit by hand grenade thrown the physical injuries inflicted, the victim died, the crime will
at them is murder qualified by explosion not by be homicide because the law punishes the result, and not
treachery. the intent of the act.
(7) Where the accused housemaid gagged a three The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with
year old boy, son of her master, with stockings, respect to the crime of homicide:
P.J.G. 88
(1) Physical injuries are included as one of the

essential elements of frustrated homicide. Tumultuous affray simply means a commotion in a
tumultuous and confused manner, to such an extent that it
(2) If the deceased received two wounds from two would not be possible to identify who the killer is if death
persons acting independently of each other and results, or who inflicted the serious physical injury, but the
the wound inflicted by either could have caused person or persons who used violence are known.
death, both of them are liable for the death of the
victim and each of them is guilty of homicide. It is not a tumultuous affray which brings about the crime;
it is the inability to ascertain actual perpetrator. It is
(3) If the injuries were mortal but were only due to necessary that the very person who caused the death can
negligence, the crime committed will be serious not be known, not that he can not be identified. Because if
physical injuries through reckless imprudence as he is known but only his identity is not known, then he will
the element of intent to kill in frustrated homicide be charged for the crime of homicide or murder under a
is incompatible with negligence or imprudence. fictitious name and not death in a tumultuous affray. If
there is a conspiracy, this crime is not committed.
(4) Where the intent to kill is not manifest, the crime
committed has been generally considered as To be considered death in a tumultuous affray, there must
physical injuries and not attempted or frustrated be:
murder or homicide.
(1) a quarrel, a free-for-all, which should not involve
(5) When several assailants not acting in conspiracy organized group; and
inflicted wounds on a victim but it cannot be
determined who inflicted which would which (2) someone who is injured or killed because of the
caused the death of the victim, all are liable for fight.
the victim’s death.
As long as it cannot be determined who killed the victim,
Note that while it is possible to have a crime of homicide all of those persons who inflicted serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence, it is not possible to have a will be collectively answerable for the death of that fellow.
crime of frustrated homicide through reckless imprudence.
The Revised Penal Code sets priorities as to who may be
liable for the death or physical injury in tumultuous affray:
Article 251. Death Caused in A Tumultuous Affray
(1) The persons who inflicted serious physical injury
Elements upon the victim;
1. There are several persons; (2) If they could not be known, then anyone who may
have employed violence on that person will
2. They do not compose groups organized for the answer for his death.
common purpose of assaulting and attacking each
other reciprocally; (3) If nobody could still be traced to have employed
violence upon the victim, nobody will answer. The
3. These several persons quarreled and assaulted crimes committed might be disturbance of public
one another in a confused and tumultuous order, or if participants are armed, it could be
manner; tumultuous disturbance, or if property was
destroyed, it could be malicious mischief.
4. Someone was killed in the course of the affray;
The fight must be tumultuous. The participants must not
5. It can not be ascertained who actually killed the be members of an organized group. This is different from a
deceased; rumble which involves organized groups composed of
persons who are to attack others. If the fight is between
6. The person or persons who inflicted serious such groups, even if you cannot identify who, in particular,
physical injuries or who used violence can be committed the killing, the adverse party composing the
identified.
P.J.G. 89
organized group will be collectively charged for the death 1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the
of that person. suicide is consummated or not;
Illustration: 2. Lending his assistance to another to commit

suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself.
If a fight ensued between 20 Sigue-Sigue Gang men and 20
Bahala-Na- Gang men, and in the course thereof, one from
each group was killed, the crime would be homicide or Giving assistance to suicide means giving means (arms,
murder; there will be collective responsibility on both sides. poison, etc.) or whatever manner of positive and direct
Note that the person killed need not be a participant in the cooperation (intellectual aid, suggestions regarding the
fight. mode of committing suicide, etc.).
In this crime, the intention must be for the person who is

Article 252. Physical Injuries Inflicted in A Tumultuous asking the assistance of another to commit suicide.
Affray
If the intention is not to commit suicide, as when he just
Elements wanted to have a picture taken of him to impress upon the
world that he is committing suicide because he is not
1. There is a tumultuous affray; satisfied with the government, the crime is held to be
inciting to sedition.
2. A participant or some participants thereof
suffered serious physical injuries or physical He becomes a co-conspirator in the crime of inciting to
injuries of a less serious nature only; sedition, but not of giving assistance to suicide because the
assistance must be given to one who is really determined
3. The person responsible thereof can not be to commit suicide.
identified;
If the person does the killing himself, the penalty is similar
4. All those who appear to have used violence upon to that of homicide, which is reclusion temporal. There can
the person of the offended party are known. be no qualifying circumstance because the determination
to die must come from the victim. This does not
contemplate euthanasia or mercy killing where the crime is
If in the course of the tumultuous affray, only serious or homicide (if without consent; with consent, covered by
less serious physical injuries are inflicted upon a Article 253).
participant, those who used violence upon the person of
the offended party shall be held liable.
The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with
In physical injuries caused in a tumultuous affray, the respect to this crime:
conditions are also the same. But you do not have a crime
of physical injuries resulting from a tumultuous affray if the (1) The crime is frustrated if the offender gives the
physical injury is only slight. The physical injury should be assistance by doing the killing himself as firing
serious or less serious and resulting from a tumultuous upon the head of the victim but who did not die
affray. So anyone who may have employed violence will due to medical assistance.
answer for such serious or less serious physical injury.
(2) The person attempting to commit suicide is not
If the physical injury sustained is only slight, this is liable if he survives. The accused is liable if he kills
considered as inherent in a tumultuous affray. The the victim, his sweetheart, because of a suicide
offended party cannot complain if he cannot identify who pact.
inflicted the slight physical injuries on him.
In other penal codes, if the person who wanted to die did
not die, there is liability on his part because there is public
Article 253. Giving Assistance to Suicide disturbance committed by him. Our Revised Penal Code is
silent but there is no bar against accusing the person of
Acts punished disturbance of public order if indeed serious disturbance of
public peace occurred due to his attempt to commit
P.J.G. 90
suicide. If he is not prosecuted, this is out of pity and not

because he has not violated the Revised Penal Code. 2. The deceased child was less than 72 hours
old.
In mercy killing, the victim is not in a position to commit
suicide. Whoever would heed his advice is not really giving
assistance to suicide but doing the killing himself. In giving This is a crime based on the age of the victim. The victim
assistance to suicide, the principal actor is the person should be less than three days old.
committing the suicide.
The offender may actually be the parent of the child. But
Both in euthanasia and suicide, the intention to the end life you call the crime infanticide, not parricide, if the age of
comes from the victim himself; otherwise the article does the victim is less than three days old. If the victim is three
not apply. The victim must persistently induce the offender days old or above, the crime is parricide.
to end his life. If there is only slight persuasion to end his
life, and the offender readily assented thereto. Illustration:
An unmarried woman, A, gave birth to a child, B. To

Article 254. Discharge of Firearms conceal her dishonor, A conspired with C to dispose of the
child. C agreed and killed the child B by burying the child
1. Offender discharges a firearm against or at somewhere.
another person;
If the child was killed when the age of the child was three
2. Offender had no intention to kill that person. days old and above already, the crime of A is parricide.
The fact that the killing was done to conceal her dishonor
will not mitigate the criminal liability anymore because
This crime cannot be committed through imprudence concealment of dishonor in killing the child is not
because it requires that the discharge must be directed at mitigating in parricide.
another.
If the crime committed by A is parricide because the age of
If the firearm is directed at a person and the trigger was the child is three days old or above, the crime of the co-
pressed but did not fire, the crime is frustrated discharge of conspirator C is murder. It is not parricide because he is
firearm. not related to the victim.
If the discharge is not directed at a person, the crime may If the child is less than three days old when killed, both the
constitute alarm and scandal. mother and the stranger commits infanticide because
infanticide is not predicated on the relation of the offender
The following are holdings of the Supreme Court with to the offended party but on the age of the child. In such a
respect to this crime: case, concealment of dishonor as a motive for the mother
to have the child killed is mitigating.
(1) If serious physical injuries resulted from discharge,
the crime committed is the complex crime of Concealment of dishonor is not an element of infanticide. It
serious physical injury with illegal discharge of merely lowers the penalty. If the child is abandoned
firearm, or if less serious physical injury, the without any intent to kill and death results as a
complex crime of less serious physical injury with consequence, the crime committed is not infanticide but
illegal discharge of firearm will apply. abandonment under Article 276.
(2) Firing a gun at a person even if merely to frighten If the purpose of the mother is to conceal her dishonor,
him constitutes illegal discharge of firearm. infanticide through imprudence is not committed because
the purpose of concealing the dishonor is incompatible
with the absence of malice in culpable felonies.
Article 255. Infanticide
If the child is born dead, or if the child is already dead,
Elements infanticide is not committed.
1. A child was killed by the accused;

P.J.G. 91
Article 256. Intentional Abortion In intentional abortion, the offender must know of the
pregnancy because the particular criminal intention is to
Acts punished cause an abortion. Therefore, the offender must have
known of the pregnancy for otherwise, he would not try an
1. Using any violence upon the person of the abortion.
pregnant woman;
If the woman turns out not to be pregnant and someone
2. Acting, but without using violence, without the performs an abortion upon her, he is liable for an
consent of the woman. (By administering drugs impossible crime if the woman suffers no physical injury. If
or beverages upon such pregnant woman without she does, the crime will be homicide, serious physical
her consent.) injuries, etc.
3. Acting (by administering drugs or beverages), Under the Article 40 of the Civil Code, birth determines
with the consent of the pregnant woman. personality. A person is considered born at the time when
the umbilical cord is cut. He then acquires a personality
separate from the mother.
Elements
But even though the umbilical cord has been cut, Article 41
1. There is a pregnant woman; of the Civil Code provides that if the fetus had an intra-
uterine life of less than seven months, it must survive at
2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages least 24 hours after the umbilical cord is cut for it to be
administered, or that the accused otherwise acts considered born.
upon such pregnant woman;
Illustration:
3. As a result of the use of violence or drugs or
beverages upon her, or any other act of the A mother delivered an offspring which had an intra-uterine
accused, the fetus dies, either in the womb or life of seven months. Before the umbilical cord is cut, the
after having been expelled therefrom; child was killed.
4. The abortion is intended. If it could be shown that had the umbilical cord been cut,
that child, if not killed, would have survived beyond 24
hours, the crime is infanticide because that conceived child
Abortion is the violent expulsion of a fetus from the is already considered born.
maternal womb. If the fetus has been delivered but it
could not subsist by itself, it is still a fetus and not a person. If it could be shown that the child, if not killed, would not
Thus, if it is killed, the crime committed is abortion not have survived beyond 24 hours, the crime is abortion
infanticide. because what was killed was a fetus only.
Distinction between infanticide and abortion In abortion, the concealment of dishonor as a motive of the
mother to commit the abortion upon herself is mitigating.
It is infanticide if the victim is already a person less that It will also mitigate the liability of the maternal
three days old or 72 hours and is viable or capable of living grandparent of the victim – the mother of the pregnant
separately from the mother’s womb. woman – if the abortion was done with the consent of the
pregnant woman.
It is abortion if the victim is not viable but remains to be a
fetus. If the abortion was done by the mother of the pregnant
woman without the consent of the woman herself, even if
it was done to conceal dishonor, that circumstance will not
Abortion is not a crime against the woman but against the mitigate her criminal liability.
fetus. If mother as a consequence of abortion suffers
death or physical injuries, you have a complex crime of But if those who performed the abortion are the parents of
murder or physical injuries and abortion. the pregnant woman, or either of them, and the pregnant
woman consented for the purpose of concealing her
P.J.G. 92
dishonor, the penalty is the same as that imposed upon the with a soft drink bottle on the hip. Abortion resulted and B
woman who practiced the abortion upon herself . died.
Frustrated abortion is committed if the fetus that is In US v. Jeffry, 15 Phil. 391, the Supreme Court said that
expelled is viable and, therefore, not dead as abortion did knowledge of pregnancy of the offended party is not
not result despite the employment of adequate and necessary. In People v. Carnaso, decided on April 7, 1964,
sufficient means to make the pregnant woman abort. If however, the Supreme Court held that knowledge of
the means are not sufficient or adequate, the crime would pregnancy is required in unintentional abortion.
be an impossible crime of abortion. In consummated
abortion, the fetus must be dead. Criticism:
One who persuades her sister to abort is a co-principal, Under Article 4, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code,
and one who looks for a physician to make his sweetheart any person committing a felony is criminally liable for all
abort is an accomplice. The physician will be punished the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his
under Article 259 of the Revised Penal Code. felonious acts although it may be different from that which
is intended. The act of employing violence or physical force
upon the woman is already a felony. It is not material if
Article 257. Unintentional Abortion offender knew about the woman being pregnant or not.
1. There is a pregnant woman; If the act of violence is not felonious, that is, act of self-
defense, and there is no knowledge of the woman’s
2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman pregnancy, there is no liability. If the act of violence is not
without intending an abortion; felonious, but there is knowledge of the woman’s
pregnancy, the offender is liable for unintentional abortion.
3. The violence is intentionally exerted;
Illustration:
4. As a result of the violence, the fetus dies, either in
the womb or after having been expelled The act of pushing another causing her to fall is a felonious
therefrom. act and could result in physical injuries. Correspondingly, if
not only physical injuries were sustained but abortion also
resulted, the felonious act of pushing is the proximate
Unintentional abortion requires physical violence inflicted cause of the unintentional abortion.
deliberately and voluntarily by a third person upon the
person of the pregnant woman. Mere intimidation is not
enough unless the degree of intimidation already Questions & Answers
approximates violence.
If the pregnant woman aborted because of intimidation, 1. A pregnant woman decided to commit
the crime committed is not unintentional abortion because suicide. She jumped out of a window of a building but she
there is no violence; the crime committed is light threats. landed on a passerby. She did not die but an abortion
followed. Is she liable for unintentional abortion?
If the pregnant woman was killed by violence by her
husband, the crime committed is the complex crime of No. What is contemplated in unintentional
parricide with unlawful abortion. abortion is that the force or violence must come from
another. If it was the woman doing the violence upon
Unintentional abortion may be committed through herself, it must be to bring about an abortion, and
negligence as it is enough that the use of violence be therefore, the crime will be intentional abortion. In this
voluntary. case, where the woman tried to commit suicide, the act of
trying to commit suicide is not a felony under the Revised
Illustration: Penal Code. The one penalized in suicide is the one giving
assistance and not the person trying to commit suicide.
A quarrel ensued between A, husband, and B, wife. A
became so angry that he struck B, who was then pregnant, 2. If the abortive drug used in abortion is a
prohibited drug or regulated drug under Presidential
P.J.G. 93
Decree No. 6425 (The Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972), as A woman who is pregnant got sick. The doctor
amended, what are the crimes committed? administered a medicine which resulted in Abortion. The
crime committed was unintentional abortion through
The crimes committed are (1) intentional negligence or imprudence.
abortion; and (2) violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972.
Question & Answer
Article 258. Abortion Practiced by the Woman Herself or
by Her Parents What is the liability of a physician who aborts the
fetus to save the life of the mother?
Elements
None. This is a case of therapeutic abortion which
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an is done out of a state of necessity. Therefore, the requisites
abortion; under Article 11, paragraph 4, of the Revised Penal Code
must be present. There must be no other practical or less
2. The abortion is intended; harmful means of saving the life of the mother to make the
killing justified.
3. Abortion is caused by –
a. The pregnant woman herself; Article 260. Responsibility of Participants in A Duel
b. Any other person, with her consent; or Acts punished
c. Any of her parents, with her consent for 1. Killing one’s adversary in a duel;
the purpose of concealing her dishonor.
2. Inflicting upon such adversary physical injuries;
Article 259. Abortion Practiced by A Physician or Midwife 3. Making a combat although no physical injuries
and Dispensing of Abortives have been inflicted.
Elements
Persons liable
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an
abortion; 1. The person who killed or inflicted physical injuries
upon his adversary, or both combatants in any
2. The abortion is intended; other case, as principals.
3. Offender, who must be a physician or midwife, 2. The seconds, as accomplices.

caused or assisted in causing the abortion;
4. Said physician or midwife took advantage of his or There is no such crime nowadays because people hit each
her scientific knowledge or skill. other even without entering into any pre-conceived
agreement. This is an obsolete provision.
If the abortion is produced by a physician to save the life of A duel may be defined as a formal or regular combat
the mother, there is no liability. This is known as a previously consented to by two parties in the presence of
therapeutic abortion. But abortion without medical two or more seconds of lawful age on each side, who make
necessity to warrant it is punishable even with the consent the selection of arms and fix all the other conditions of the
of the woman or her husband. fight to settle some antecedent quarrel.
Illustration: If these are not the conditions of the fight, it is not a duel in
the sense contemplated in the Revised Penal Code. It will
P.J.G. 94
be a quarrel and anyone who killed the other will be liable

for homicide or murder, as the case may be. Mutilation is the lopping or clipping off of some part of the
body.
The concept of duel under the Revised Penal Code is a
classical one. The intent to deliberately cut off the particular part of the
body that was removed from the offended party must be
established. If there is no intent to deprive victim of
Article 261. Challenging to A Duel particular part of body, the crime is only serious physical
injury.
Acts punished
The common mistake is to associate this with the
1. Challenging another to a duel; reproductive organs only. Mutilation includes any part of
the human body that is not susceptible to grow again.
2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a
duel; If what was cut off was a reproductive organ, the penalty is
much higher than that for homicide.
3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having
refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel. This cannot be committed through criminal negligence.
Illustration:
Article 263. Serious Physical Injuries
If one challenges another to a duel by shouting “Come
down, Olympia, let us measure your prowess. We will see How committed
whose intestines will come out. You are a coward if you do
not come down”, the crime of challenging to a duel is not 1. By wounding;
committed. What is committed is the crime of light threats
under Article 285, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code. 2. By beating;
3. By assaulting; or
Article 262. Mutilation
4. By administering injurious substance.
Acts punished
1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, In one case, the accused, while conversing with the
either totally or partially, of some essential organ offended party, drew the latter’s bolo from its scabbard.
for reproduction; The offended party caught hold of the edge of the blade of
his bolo and wounded himself. It was held that since the
Elements accused did not wound, beat or assault the offended party,
he can not be guilty of serious physical injuries.
1. There be a castration, that is, mutilation
of organs necessary for generation, such
as the penis or ovarium; Serious physical injuries
2. The mutilation is caused purposely and 1. When the injured person becomes insane,
deliberately, that is, to deprive the imbecile, impotent or blind in consequence of the
offended party of some essential organ physical injuries inflicted;
for reproduction
2. When the injured person –
2. Intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by
lopping or clipping off any part of the body of the a. Loses the use of speech or the power to
offended party, other than the essential organ for hear or to smell, or loses an eye, a hand,
reproduction, to deprive him of that part of his afoot, an arm, or a leg;
body.
b. Loses the use of any such member; or
P.J.G. 95
consider not only the healing duration of the

c. Becomes incapacitated for the work in injury but also the medical attendance required to
which he was theretofore habitually treat the injury. So the healing duration may be
engaged, in consequence of the physical one to nine days, but if the medical treatment
injuries inflicted; continues beyond nine days, the physical injuries
would already qualify as less serious physical
3. When the person injured – injuries. The medical treatment may have lasted
for nine days, but if the offended party is still
a. Becomes deformed; or incapacitated for labor beyond nine days, the
physical injuries are already considered less
b. Loses any other member of his body; or serious physical injuries.
c. Loses the use thereof; or (2) Between less serious physical injuries and serious
physical injuries, you do not consider the period of
d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the medical treatment. You only consider the period
performance of the work in which he when the offended party is rendered
was habitually engaged for more than 90 incapacitated for labor.
days in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted; If the offended party is incapacitated to work for
less than 30 days, even though the treatment
4. When the injured person becomes ill or continued beyond 30 days, the physical injuries
incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days (but are only considered less serious because for
must not be more than 90 days), as a result of the purposes of classifying the physical injuries as
physical injuries inflicted. serious, you do not consider the period of medical
treatment. You only consider the period of
incapacity from work.
The crime of physical injuries is a crime of result because
under our laws the crime of physical injuries is based on (3) When the injury created a deformity upon the
the gravity of the injury sustained. So this crime is always offended party, you disregard the healing
consummated, notwithstanding the opinion of Spanish duration or the period of medical treatment
commentators like Cuello Calon, Viada, etc., that it can be involved. At once, it is considered serious physical
committed in the attempted or frustrated stage. injuries.
If the act does not give rise to injuries, you will not be able So even though the deformity may not have
to say whether it is attempted slight physical injuries, incapacitated the offended party from work, or
attempted less serious physical injuries, or attempted even though the medical treatment did not go
serious physical injuries unless the result is there. beyond nine days, that deformity will bring about
the crime of serious physical injuries.
The reason why there is no attempted or frustrated
physical injuries is because the crime of physical injuries is Deformity requires the concurrence of the
determined on the gravity of the injury. As long as the following conditions:
injury is not there, there can be no attempted or frustrated
stage thereof. (1) The injury must produce ugliness;
Classification of physical injuries: (2) It must be visible;
(1) Between slight physical injuries and less serious (3) The ugliness will not disappear through
physical injuries, you have a duration of one to natural healing process.
nine days if slight physical injuries; or 10 days to
20 days if less serious physical injuries. Consider Illustration:
the duration of healing and treatment.
Loss of molar tooth – This is not deformity as it is
The significant part here is between slight physical not visible.
injuries and less serious physical injuries. You will
P.J.G. 96
Loss of permanent front tooth – This is deformity situations or otherwise subjecting him to physical or
as it is visible and permanent. psychological suffering of injury. These do not include any
physical, mental, psychological testing and training
Loss of milk front tooth – This is not deformity as procedure and practice to determine and enhance the
it is visible but will be naturally replaced. physical and psychological fitness of the prospective
regular members of the below.
Organizations include any club or AFP, PNP, PMA or officer

Question & Answer
or cadet corps of the CMT or CAT.
The offender threw acid on the face of the Section 2 requires a written notice to school authorities
offended party. Were it not for timely medical attention, a from the head of the organization seven days prior to the
deformity would have been produced on the face of the rites and should not exceed three days in duration.
victim. After the plastic surgery, the offended party was
more handsome than before the injury. What crime was Section 3 requires supervision by head of the school or the
committed? In what stage was it committed? organization of the rites.
The crime is serious physical injuries because the Section 4 qualifies the crime if rape, sodomy or mutilation
problem itself states that the injury would have produced a results therefrom, if the person becomes insane, an
deformity. The fact that the plastic surgery removed the imbecile, or impotent or blind because of such, if the
deformity is immaterial because in law what is considered person loses the use of speech or the power to hear or
is not the artificial treatment but the natural healing smell or an eye, a foot, an arm or a leg, or the use of any
process. such member or any of the serious physical injuries or the
less serious physical injuries. Also if the victim is below 12,
In a case decided by the Supreme Court, accused was or becomes incapacitated for the work he habitually
charged with serious physical injuries because the injuries engages in for 30, 10, 1-9 days.
produced a scar. He was convicted under Article 263 (4).
He appealed because, in the course of the trial, the scar It holds the parents, school authorities who consented or
disappeared. It was held that accused can not be who had actual knowledge if they did nothing to prevent
convicted of serious physical injuries. He is liable only for it, officers and members who planned, knowingly
slight physical injuries because the victim was not cooperated or were present, present alumni of the
incapacitated, and there was no evidence that the medical organization, owner of the place where such occurred
treatment lasted for more than nine days. liable.
Serious physical injuries is punished with higher penalties Makes presence a prima facie presumption of guilt for
in the following cases: such.
(1) If it is committed against any of the persons

referred to in the crime of parricide under Article Article 264. Administering Injurious Substances or
246; Beverages
(2) If any of the circumstances qualifying murder Elements

attended its commission.
1. Offender inflicted upon another any serious
Thus, a father who inflicts serious physical injuries upon his physical injury;
son will be liable for qualified serious physical injuries.
2. It was done by knowingly administering to him
any injurious substance or beverages or by taking
Republic Act No. 8049 (The Anti-Hazing Law) advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity;
Hazing -- This is any initiation rite or practice which is a 3. He had no intent to kill.
prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity
or sorority or any organization which places the neophyte
or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating Article 265. Less Serious Physical Injuries
P.J.G. 97
Acts punished
Matters to be noted in this crime
1. Physical injuries incapacitated the offended party
1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 for labor from one to nine days, or required
days or more (but not more than 30 days), or medical attendance during the same period;
needs medical attendance for the same period of
time; 2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the
offended party from engaging in his habitual work
2. The physical injuries must not be those described or which did not require medical attendance;
in the preceding articles.
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing
any injury.
Qualified as to penalty
This involves even ill-treatment where there is no sign of
1. A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition to injury requiring medical treatment.
arresto mayor, shall be imposed for less serious
physical injuries when – Slapping the offended party is a form of ill-treatment
which is a form of slight physical injuries.
a. There is a manifest intent to insult or
offend the injured person; or But if the slapping is done to cast dishonor upon the person
slapped, the crime is slander by deed. If the slapping was
b. There are circumstances adding done without the intention of casting dishonor, or to
ignominy to the offense. humiliate or embarrass the offended party out of a quarrel
or anger, the crime is still ill-treatment or slight physical
2. A higher penalty is imposed when the victim is injuries.
either –
Illustration:
a. The offender’s parents, ascendants,
guardians, curators or teachers; or If Hillary slaps Monica and told her “You choose your
seconds . Let us meet behind the Quirino Grandstand and
b. Persons of rank or person in authority, see who is the better and more beautiful between the two
provided the crime is not direct assault. of us”, the crime is not ill-treatment, slight physical injuries
or slander by deed; it is a form of challenging to a duel. The
criminal intent is to challenge a person to a duel.
If the physical injuries do not incapacitate the offended
party nor necessitate medical attendance, slight physical The crime is slight physical injury if there is no proof as to
injuries is committed. But if the physical injuries heal after the period of the offended party’s incapacity for labor or of
30 days, serious physical injuries is committed under Article the required medical attendance.
263, paragraph 4.
Article 265 is an exception to Article 48 in relation to Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of Children
complex crimes as the latter only takes place in cases against Child Abuse, Exploitation and Discrimination Act),
where the Revised Penal Code has no specific provision in relation to murder, mutilation or injuries to a child
penalizing the same with a definite, specific penalty.
Hence, there is no complex crime of slander by deed with The last paragraph of Article VI of Republic Act No. 7610,
less serious physical injuries but only less serious physical provides:
injuries if the act which was committed produced the less
serious physical injuries with the manifest intent to insult “For purposes of this Act, the penalty for the commission
or offend the offended party, or under circumstances of acts punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262 (2) and 263
adding ignominy to the offense. (1) of Act No 3815, as amended of the Revised Penal Code
for the crimes of murder, homicide, other intentional
mutilation, and serious physical injuries, respectively, shall
Article 266. Slight Physical Injuries and Maltreatment be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve
years of age.”
P.J.G. 98
2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of

The provisions of Republic Act No. 7160 modified the the following means:
provisions of the Revised Penal Code in so far as the victim
of the felonies referred to is under 12 years of age. The a. By inserting his penis into another
clear intention is to punish the said crimes with a higher person's mouth or anal orifice; or
penalty when the victim is a child of tender age.
Incidentally, the reference to Article 249 of the Code which b. By inserting any instrument or object
defines and penalizes the crime of homicide were the into the genital or anal orifice of another
victim is under 12 years old is an error. Killing a child person;
under 12 is murder, not homicide, because the victim is
under no position to defend himself as held in the case of 3. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under
People v. Ganohon, 196 SCRA 431. any of the following circumstances:
For murder, the penalty provided by the Code, as a. By using force or intimidation; or
amended by Republic Act No. 7659, is reclusion perpetua
to death – higher than what Republic Act no. 7610 b. When the woman is deprived of reason
provides. Accordingly, insofar as the crime is murder, or otherwise unconscious; or
Article 248 of the Code, as amended, shall govern even if
the victim was under 12 years of age. It is only in respect c. By means of fraudulent machination or
of the crimes of intentional mutilation in paragraph 2 of grave abuse of authority; or
Article 262 and of serious physical injuries in paragraph 1
of Article 263 of the Code that the quoted provision of d. When the woman is under 12 years of
Republic Act No. 7160 may be applied for the higher age or demented.
penalty when the victim is under 12 years old.
Republic Act No. 8353 (An Act Expanding the Definition of

Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed the Crime of Rape, Reclassifying the Same as A Crime
against Persons, Amending for the Purpose the Revised
Elements under paragraph 1 Penal Code) repealed Article335 on rape and added a
chapter on Rape under Title 8.
1. Offender is a man;
Classification of rape
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman;
(1) Traditional concept under Article 335 – carnal
3. Such act is accomplished under any of the knowledge with a woman against her will. The
following circumstances: offended party is always a woman and the
offender is always a man.
a. By using force or intimidation;
(2) Sexual assault - committed with an instrument or
b. When the woman is deprived of reason an object or use of the penis with penetration of
or otherwise unconscious; mouth or anal orifice. The offended party or the
offender can either be man or woman, that is, if a
c. By means of fraudulent machination or woman or a man uses an instrument on anal
grave abuse of authority; or orifice of male, she or he can be liable for rape.
d. When the woman is under 12 years of Rape is committed when a man has carnal knowledge of a
age or demented. woman under the following circumstances:
(1) Where intimidation or violence is employed with

Elements under paragraph 2 a view to have carnal knowledge of a woman;
1. Offender commits an act of sexual assault; (2) Where the victim is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
P.J.G. 99
(3) Where the rape was made possible because of (b) Where the victim was under the custody
fraudulent machination or abuse of authority; or of the police or military authorities, or
other law enforcement agency;
(4) Where the victim is under 12 years of age, or
demented, even though no intimidation nor (c) Where the rape is committed in full view
violence is employed. of the victim’s husband, the parents, any
of the children or relatives by
Sexual assault is committed under the following consanguinity within the 3rd civil degree;
circumstances:
(d) Where the victim is a religious, that is, a
(1) Where the penis is inserted into the anal or oral member of a legitimate religious
orifice; or vocation and the offender knows the
victim as such before or at the time of
(2) Where an instrument or object is inserted into the commission of the offense;
the genital or oral orifice.
(e) Where the victim is a child under 7 yrs of
If the crime of rape / sexual assault is committed with the age;
following circumstances, the following penalties are
imposed: (f) Where the offender is a member of the
AFP, its paramilitary arm, the PNP, or any
(1) Reclusion perpetua to death/ prision mayor to law enforcement agency and the
reclusion temporal -- offender took advantage of his position;
(a) Where rape is perpetrated by the (g) Where the offender is afflicted with AIDS
accused with a deadly weapon; or or other sexually transmissible diseases,
and he is aware thereof when he
(b) Where it is committed by two or more committed the rape, and the disease was
persons. transmitted;
(2) Reclusion perpetua to death/ reclusion temporal - (h) Where the victim has suffered
- permanent physical mutilation;
(a) Where the victim of the rape has (i) Where the pregnancy of the offended
become insane; or party is known to the rapist at the time
of the rape; or
(b) Where the rape is attempted but a killing
was committed by the offender on the (j) Where the rapist is aware of the victim’s
occasion or by reason of the rape. mental disability, emotional disturbance
or physical handicap.
(3) Death / reclusion perpetua --
Where homicide is committed by reason or on Prior to the amendment of the law on rape, a complaint
occasion of a consummated rape. must be filed by the offended woman. The persons who
may file the same in behalf of the offended woman if she is
(4) Death/reclusion temporal -- a minor or if she was incapacitated to file, were as follows:
a parent; in default of parents, a grandparent; in default or
(a) Where the victim is under 18 years of grandparent, the judicial guardian.
age and the offender is her ascendant,
stepfather, guardian, or relative by Since rape is not a private crime anymore, it can be
affinity or consanguinity within the 3rd prosecuted even if the woman does not file a complaint.
civil degree, or the common law husband
of the victim’s mother; or If carnal knowledge was made possible because of
fraudulent machinations and grave abuse of authority, the
crime is rape. This absorbs the crime of qualified and
P.J.G. 100
simple seduction when no force or violence was used, but Note that it has been held that in the crime of rape,
the offender abused his authority to rape the victim. conviction does not require medico-legal finding of any
penetration on the part of the woman. A medico-legal
Under Article 266-C, the offended woman may pardon the certificate is not necessary or indispensable to convict the
offender through a subsequent valid marriage, the effect accused of the crime of rape.
of which would be the extinction of the offender’s liability.
Similarly, the legal husband may be pardoned by It has also been held that although the offended woman
forgiveness of the wife provided that the marriage is not who is the victim of the rape failed to adduce evidence
void ab initio. Obviously, under the new law, the husband regarding the damages to her by reason of the rape, the
may be liable for rape if his wife does not want to have sex court may take judicial notice that there is such damage in
with him. It is enough that there is indication of any crimes against chastity. The standard amount given now is
amount of resistance as to make it rape. P 30,000.00, with or without evidence of any moral
damage. But there are some cases where the court
Incestuous rape was coined in Supreme Court decisions. It awarded only P 20,000.00.
refers to rape committed by an ascendant of the offended
woman. In such cases, the force and intimidation need not An accused may be convicted of rape on the sole testimony
be of such nature as would be required in rape cases had of the offended woman. It does not require that testimony
the accused been a stranger. Conversely, the Supreme be corroborated before a conviction may stand. This is
Court expected that if the offender is not known to woman, particularly true if the commission of the rape is such that
it is necessary that there be evidence of affirmative the narration of the offended woman would lead to no
resistance put up by the offended woman. Mere “no, no” other conclusion except that the rape was committed.
is not enough if the offender is a stranger, although if the
rape is incestuous, this is enough. Illustration:
The new rape law also requires that there be a physical Daughter accuses her own father of having raped her.
overt act manifesting resistance, if the offended party was
in a situation where he or she is incapable of giving valid Allegation of several accused that the woman consented to
consent, this is admissible in evidence to show that carnal their sexual intercourse with her is a proposition which is
knowledge was against his or her will. revolting to reason that a woman would allow more than
one man to have sexual intercourse with her in the
When the victim is below 12 years old, mere sexual presence of the others.
intercourse with her is already rape. Even if it was she who
wanted the sexual intercourse, the crime will be rape. This It has also been ruled that rape can be committed in a
is referred to as statutory rape. standing position because complete penetration is not
necessary. The slightest penetration – contact with the
In other cases, there must be force, intimidation, or labia – will consummate the rape.
violence proven to have been exerted to bring about carnal
knowledge or the woman must have been deprived of On the other hand, as long as there is an intent to effect
reason or otherwise unconscious. sexual cohesion, although unsuccessful, the crime becomes
attempted rape. However, if that intention is not proven,
Where the victim is over 12 years old, it must be shown the offender can only be convicted of acts of lasciviousness.
that the carnal knowledge with her was obtained against
her will. It is necessary that there be evidence of some The main distinction between the crime of attempted rape
resistance put up by the offended woman. It is not, and acts of lasciviousness is the intent to lie with the
however, necessary that the offended party should exert offended woman.
all her efforts to prevent the carnal intercourse. It is
enough that from her resistance, it would appear that the In a case where the accused jumped upon a woman and
carnal intercourse is against her will. threw her to the ground, although the accused raised her
skirts, the accused did not make any effort to remove her
Mere initial resistance, which does not indicate refusal on underwear. Instead, he removed his own underwear and
the part of the offended party to the sexual intercourse, placed himself on top of the woman and started
will not be enough to bring about the crime of rape. performing sexual movements. Thereafter, when he was
finished, he stood up and left. The crime committed is only
acts of lasciviousness and not attempted rape. The fact
P.J.G. 101
that he did not remove the underwear of the victim

indicates that he does not have a real intention to effect a 10. Grave coercions (Art. 286);
penetration. It was only to satisfy a lewd design.
11. Light coercions (Art. 287);
Is there a complex crime under Article 48 of kidnapping
with rape? Read kidnapping. 12. Other similar coercions (Art. 288);
13. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of

TITLE IX. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND combination of capital or labor through violence
SECURITY or threats (Art. 289);
Crimes against liberty 14. Discovering secrets through seizure of

correspondence (Art. 290);
1. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention (Art.
267); 15. Revealing secrets with abus of office (Art. 291);
2. Slight illegal detention (Art. 268); 16. Revealing of industrial secrets (Art. 292).
3. Unlawful arrest (Art. 269);

Article 267. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
4. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor (Art.
270); Elements
5. Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art. 271); 1. Offender is a private individual;
6. Slavery (Art. 272); 2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other

manner deprives the latter of his liberty;
7. Exploitation of child labor (Art. 273);
3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be
8. Services rendered under compulsion in payment illegal;
of debts (Art. 274).
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the
following circumstances is present:
Crimes against security
a. The kidnapping lasts for more than 3
1. Abandonment of persons in danger and days;
abandonment of one's own victim (Art. 275);
b. It is committed simulating public
2. Abandoning a minor (Art. 276); authority;
3. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with c. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted
his custody; indifference of parents (Art. 277); upon the person kidnapped or detained
or threats to kill him are made; or
4. Exploitation of minors (Art. 278);
d. The person kidnapped or detained is a
5. Trespass to dwelling (Art. 280); minor, female, or a public officer.
6. Other forms of trespass (Art. 281);

If there is any crime under Title IX which has no
7. Grave threats (Art. 282); corresponding provision with crimes under Title II, then,
the offender may be a public officer or a private person. If
8. Light threats (Art. 283); there is a corresponding crime under Title II, the offender
under Title IX for such similar crime is a private person.
9. Other light threats (Art. 285);
P.J.G. 102
When a public officer conspires with a private person in the agree to the marriage, such cannot be characterized as
commission of any of the crimes under Title IX, the crime is lewd design. It is considered merely as the “passion of a
also one committed under this title and not under Title II. lover”. But if the man is already married, you cannot
consider that as legitimate but immoral and definitely
Illustration: amounts to lewd design.
If a private person commits the crime of kidnapping or If a woman is carried against her will but without lewd
serious illegal detention, even though a public officer design on the part of the offender, the crime is grave
conspires therein, the crime cannot be arbitrary detention. coercion.
As far as that public officer is concerned, the crime is also
illegal detention.
Illustration:
In the actual essence of the crime, when one says
kidnapping, this connotes the idea of transporting the Tom Cruz invited Nicole Chizmacks for a snack. They drove
offended party from one place to another. When you think along Roxas Boulevard, along the Coastal Road and to
illegal detention, it connotes the idea that one is restrained Cavite. The woman was already crying and wanted to be
of his liberty without necessarily transporting him from one brought home. Tom imposed the condition that Nicole
place to another. should first marry him. Nicole found this as, simply, a
mission impossible. The crime committed in this case is
The crime of kidnapping is committed if the purpose of the grave coercion. But if after they drove to Cavite, the suitor
offender is to extort ransom either from the victim or from placed the woman in a house and would not let her out
any other person. But if a person is transported not for until she agrees to marry him, the crime would be serious
ransom, the crime can be illegal detention. Usually, the illegal detention.
offended party is brought to a place other than his own, to
detain him there. If the victim is a woman or a public officer, the detention is
always serious – no matter how short the period of
When one thinks of kidnapping, it is not only that of detention is.
transporting one person from one place to another. One
also has to think of the criminal intent. Circumstances which make illegal detention serious
Forcible abduction -- If a woman is transported from one (1) When the illegal detention lasted for three days,
place to another by virtue of restraining her of her liberty, regardless of who the offended party is;
and that act is coupled with lewd designs.
(2) When the offended party is a female, even if the
Serious illegal detention – If a woman is transported just to detention lasted only for minutes;
restrain her of her liberty. There is no lewd design or lewd
intent. (3) If the offended party is a minor or a public officer,
no matter how long or how short the detention
Grave coercion – If a woman is carried away just to break is;
her will, to compel her to agree to the demand or request
by the offender. (4) When threats to kill are made or serious physical
injuries have been inflicted; and
In a decided case, a suitor, who cannot get a favorable
reply from a woman, invited the woman to ride with him, (5) If it shall have been committed simulating public
purportedly to take home the woman from class. But while authority.
the woman is in his car, he drove the woman to a far place
and told the woman to marry him. On the way, the Distinction between illegal detention and arbitrary
offender had repeatedly touched the private parts of the detention
woman. It was held that the act of the offender of touching
the private parts of the woman could not be considered as Illegal detention is committed by a private person who
lewd designs because he was willing to marry the offended kidnaps, detains, or otherwise deprives another of his
party. The Supreme Court ruled that when it is a suitor liberty.
who could possibly marry the woman, merely kissing the
woman or touching her private parts to “compel” her to
P.J.G. 103
Arbitrary detention is committed by a public officer who covers all forms of killing whether in the nature of murder
detains a person without legal grounds. or otherwise. It does not matter whether the purpose of
the kidnapping was to kill the victim or not, as long as the
The penalty for kidnapping is higher than for forcible victim was killed, or died as a consequence of the
abduction. This is wrong because if the offender knew kidnapping or detention. There is no more separate crime
about this, he would perform lascivious acts upon the of kidnapping and murder if the victim was kidnapped not
woman and be charged only for forcible abduction instead for the purpose of killing her.
of kidnapping or illegal detention. He thereby benefits
from this absurdity, which arose when Congress amended If the victim was raped, this brings about the composite
Article 267, increasing the penalty thereof, without crime of kidnapping with rape. Being a composite crime,
amending Article 342 on forcible abduction. not a complex crime, the same is regarded as a single
indivisible offense as in fact the law punishes such acts
Article 267 has been modified by Republic Act No. 7659 in with only a single penalty. In a way, the amendment
the following respects: depreciated the seriousness of the rape because no matter
how many times the victim was raped, there will only be
(1) Illegal detention becomes serious when it shall one kidnapping with rape. This would not be the
have lasted for more than three days, instead of consequence if rape were a separate crime from
five days as originally provided; kidnapping because each act of rape would be a distinct
count.
(2) In paragraph 4, if the person kidnapped or
detained was a minor and the offender was However for the crime to be kidnapping with rape, the
anyone of the parents, the latter has been offender should not have taken the victim with lewd
expressly excluded from the provision. The designs as otherwise the crime would be forcible
liability of the parent is provided for in the last abduction; and if the victim was raped, the complex crime
paragraph of Article 271; of forcible abduction with rape would be committed. If the
taking was forcible abduction, and the woman was raped
(3) A paragraph was added to Article 267, which several times, there would only be one crime of forcible
states: abduction with rape, and each of the other rapes would
constitute distinct counts of rape. This was the ruling in the
When the victim is killed or dies case of People v. Bacalso.
as a consequence of the
detention or is raped, or is In People v. Lactao, decided on October 29, 1993, the
subjected to torture, or Supreme Court stressed that the crime is serious illegal
dehumanizing acts, the detention if the purpose was to deprive the offended party
maximum penalty shall be of her liberty. And if in the course of the illegal detention,
imposed. the offended party was raped, a separate crime of rape
would be committed. This is so because there is no
This amendment brings about a composite crime complex crime of serious illegal detention with rape since
of kidnapping with homicide when it is the victim the illegal detention was not a necessary means to the
of the kidnapping who was killed, or dies as a commission of rape.
consequence of the detention and, thus, only one
penalty is imposed which is death. In People v. Bernal, 131 SCRA 1, the appellants were held
guilty of separate crimes of serious illegal detention and of
multiple rapes. With the amendment by Republic Act No.
Article 48, on complex crimes, does not govern in this case. 7659 making rape a qualifying circumstance in the crime of
But Article 48 will govern if any other person is killed aside, kidnapping and serious illegal detention, the jurisprudence
because the provision specifically refers to “victim”. is superseded to the effect that the rape should be a
Accordingly, the rulings in cases of People v. Parulan, distinct crime. Article 48 on complex crimes may not apply
People v. Ging Sam, and other similar cases where the when serious illegal detention and rape are committed by
accused were convicted for the complex crimes of the same offender. The offender will be charged for the
kidnapping with murder have become academic. composite crime of serious illegal detention with rape as a
single indivisible offense, regardless of the number of times
In the composite crime of kidnapping with homicide, the that the victim was raped.
term “homicide” is used in the generic sense and, thus,
P.J.G. 104
Also, when the victim of the kidnapping and serious illegal is no criminal prosecution yet, such voluntary release will
detention was subjected to torture and sustained physical not mitigate the criminal liability of the offender.
injuries, a composite crime of kidnapping with physical
injuries is committed. One who furnishes the place where the offended party is
being held generally acts as an accomplice. But the
criminal liability in connection with the kidnapping and
Article 268. Slight Illegal Detention serious illegal detention, as well as the slight illegal
detention, is that of the principal and not of the
Elements accomplice.
1. Offender is a private individual; Before, in People v. Saliente, if the offended party

subjected to serious illegal detention was voluntarily
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other released by the accused in accordance with the provisions
manner deprives him of his liberty. of Article 268 (3), the crime, which would have been
serious illegal detention, became slight illegal detention
3. The act of kidnapping or detention is illegal; only.
4. The crime is committed without the attendance The prevailing rule now is Asistio v. Judge, which provides
of any of the circumstances enumerated in Article that voluntary release will only mitigate criminal liability if
267. crime was slight illegal detention. If serious, it has no
effect.
This felony is committed if any of the five circumstances in In kidnapping for ransom, voluntary release will not
the commission of kidnapping or detention enumerated in mitigate the crime. This is because, with the reimposition
Article 267 is not present. of the death penalty, this crime is penalized with the
extreme penalty of death.
The penalty is lowered if –
What is ransom? It is the money, price or consideration
(1) The offended party is voluntarily released within paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person or
three days from the start of illegal detention; persons, a payment that releases a person from captivity.
(2) Without attaining the purpose; The definition of ransom under the Lindberg law of the U.S.
has been adopted in our jurisprudence in People v. Akiran,
(3) Before the institution of the criminal action. 18 SCRA 239, 242, such that when a creditor detains a
debtor and releases the latter only upon the payment of
One should know the nature of the illegal detention to the debt, such payment of the debt, which was made a
know whether the voluntary release of the offended party condition for the release is ransom, under this article.
will affect the criminal liability of the offender.
In the case of People v. Roluna, decided March 29, 1994,
When the offender voluntarily releases the offended party witnesses saw a person being taken away with hands tied
from detention within three days from the time the behind his back and was not heard from for six years.
restraint of liberty began, as long as the offender has not Supreme Court reversed the trial court ruling that the men
accomplished his purposes, and the release was made accused were guilty of kidnapping with murder. The crime
before the criminal prosecution was commenced, this is only slight illegal detention under Article 268,
would serve to mitigate the criminal liability of the aggravated by a band, since none of the circumstances in
offender, provided that the kidnapping or illegal detention Article 267 has been proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
is not serious. The fact that the victim has been missing for six years
raises a presumption of death, but from this disputable
If the illegal detention is serious, however, even if the presumption of death, it should not be further presumed
offender voluntarily released the offended party, and such that the persons who were last seen with the absentee is
release was within three days from the time the detention responsible for his disappearance.
began, even if the offender has not accomplished his
purpose in detaining the offended party, and even if there
Article 269. Unlawful Arrest
P.J.G. 105
Elements 2. He deliberately fails to restore the said minor to

his parents or guardians.
1. Offender arrests or detains another person;
2. The purpose of the offender is to deliver him to If any of the foregoing elements is absent, the kidnapping
the proper authorities; of the minor will then fall under Article 267.
3. The arrest or detention is not authorized by law If the accused is any of the parents, Article 267 does not
or there is no reasonable ground therefor. apply; Articles 270 and 271 apply.
If the taking is with the consent of the parents, the crime in

This felony consists in making an arrest or detention Article 270 is committed.
without legal or reasonable ground for the purpose of
delivering the offended party to the proper authorities. In People v. Generosa, it was held that deliberate failure to
return a minor under one’s custody constitutes deprivation
The offended party may also be detained but the crime is of liberty. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is
not illegal detention because the purpose is to prosecute necessarily included in kidnapping and serious illegal
the person arrested. The detention is only incidental; the detention of a minor under Article 267(4).
primary criminal intention of the offender is to charge the
offended party for a crime he did not actually commit. In People v. Mendoza, where a minor child was taken by
the accused without the knowledge and consent of his
Generally, this crime is committed by incriminating parents, it was held that the crime is kidnapping and
innocent persons by the offender’s planting evidence to serious illegal detention under Article 267, not kidnapping
justify the arrest – a complex crime results, that is, and failure to return a minor under Article 270.
unlawful arrest through incriminatory machinations under
Article 363.
Article 271. Inducing A Minor to Abandon His Home
If the arrest is made without a warrant and under
circumstances not allowing a warrantless arrest, the crime Elements
would be unlawful arrest.
1. A minor (whether over or under seven years of
If the person arrested is not delivered to the authorities, age) is living in the home of his parents or
the private individual making the arrest incurs criminal guardians or the person entrusted with his
liability for illegal detention under Article 267 or 268. custody;
If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary 2. Offender induces said minor to abandon such
detention under Article 124. home.
If the detention or arrest is for a legal ground, but the

public officer delays delivery of the person arrested to the Article 272. Slavery
proper judicial authorities, then Article 125 will apply.
Elements
Note that this felony may also be committed by public
officers. 1. Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a
human being;
Article 270. Kidnapping and Failure to Return A Minor 2. The purpose of the offender is to enslave such
human being.
Elements
1. Offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor This is committed if anyone shall purchase, kidnap, or
person (whether over or under seven years but detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him.
less than 21 years of age);
P.J.G. 106
The penalty is increased if the purpose of the offender is to Elements

assign the offended party to some immoral traffic.
1. The place is not inhabited;
This is distinguished from illegal detention by the purpose.
If the purpose of the kidnapping or detention is to enslave 2. Accused found there a person wounded
the offended party, slavery is committed. or in danger of dying;
The crime is slavery if the offender is not engaged in the 3. Accused can render assistance without
business of prostitution. If he is, the crime is white slave detriment to himself;
trade under Article 341.
4. Accused fails to render assistance.
Article 273. Exploitation of Child Labor 2. Failing to help or render assistance to another
whom the offender has accidentally wounded or
Elements injured;
1. Offender retains a minor in his services; 3. By failing to deliver a child, under seven years of
age, whom the offender has found abandoned, to
2. It is against the will of the minor; the authorities or to his family, or by failing to
take him to a safe place.
3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a
debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or
person entrusted with the custody of such minor. Under the first act, the offender is liable only when he can
render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless
such omission shall constitute a more serious offense.
Article 274. Services Rendered under Compulsion in Where the person is already wounded and already in
Payment of Debt danger of dying, there is an obligation to render assistance
only if he is found in an uninhabited place. If the mortally
Elements wounded, dying person is found in a place not uninhabited
in legal contemplation, abandonment will not bring about
1. Offender compel a debtor to work for him, either this crime. An uninhabited place is determined by
as household servant or farm laborer; possibility of person receiving assistance from another.
Even if there are many houses around, the place may still
2. It is against the debtor’s will; be uninhabited if possibility of receiving assistance is
remote.
3. The purpose is to require or enforce the payment
of a debt. If what happened was an accident at first, there would be
no liability pursuant to Article 12 (4) of the Civil Code –
damnum absque injuria. But if you abandon your victim,
Article 275. Abandonment of Persons in Danger and you will be liable under Article 275. Here, the character of
Abandonment of One’s Own Victim the place is immaterial. As long as the victim was injured
because of the accident caused by the offender, the
Acts punished offender would be liable for abandonment if he would not
render assistance to the victim.
Article 276. Abandoning A Minor

1. Failing to render assistance to any person whom
the offender finds in an uninhabited place Elements
wounded or in danger of dying when he can
render such assistance without detriment to 1. Offender has the custody of a child;
himself, unless such omission shall constitute a
more serious offense. 2. The child is under seven years of age;
P.J.G. 107
3. He abandons such child;

Article 278. Exploitation of Minors
4. He has no intent to kill the child when the latter is
abandoned. Acts punished
1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 years of age to

Circumstances qualifying the offense perform any dangerous feat of balancing, physical
strength or contortion, the offender being any
1. When the death of the minor resulted from such person;
abandonment; or
2. Employing children under 16 years of age who are
2. If the life of the minor was in danger because of not the children or descendants of the offender in
the abandonment. exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker,
diver, or wild-animal tamer, the offender being an
acrobat, etc., or circus manager or engaged in a
Article 277. Abandonment of Minor by Person Entrusted similar calling;
with His Custody; Indifference of Parents
3. Employing any descendant under 12 years of age
Acts punished in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in the next
preceding paragraph, the offender being engaged
1. Delivering a minor to a public institution or other in any of the said callings;
persons without the consent of the one who
entrusted such minor to the care of the offender 4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age
or, in the absence of that one, without the gratuitously to any person following any of the
consent of the proper authorities; callings enumerated in paragraph 2, or to any
habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender being an
Elements ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted
in any capacity with the care of such child; and
1. Offender has charge of the rearing or
education of a minor; 5. Inducing any child under 16 years of age to
abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians,
2. He delivers said minor to a public curators or teachers to follow any person
institution or other persons; engaged in any of the callings mentioned in
paragraph 2 or to accompany any habitual
3. The one who entrusted such child to the vagrant or beggar, the offender being any person.
offender has not consented to such act;
or if the one who entrusted such child to
the offender is absent, the proper
authorities have not consented to it. The offender is engaged in a kind of business that would
place the life or limb of the minor in danger, even though
2. Neglecting his (offender’s) children by not giving working for him is not against the will of the minor.
them the education which their station in life
requires and financial condition permits. Nature of the Business – This involves circuses which
generally attract children so they themselves may enjoy
Elements: working there unaware of the danger to their own lives
and limbs.
1. Offender is a parent;
Age – Must be below 16 years. At this age, the minor is
2. He neglects his children by not giving still growing.
them education;
If the employer is an ascendant, the crime is not
3. His station in life requires such education committed, unless the minor is less than 12 years old.
and his financial condition permits it. Because if the employer is an ascendant, the law regards
that he would look after the welfare and protection of the
P.J.G. 108
child; hence, the age is lowered to 12 years. Below that 2. Trespass to property - Offender enters the closed
age, the crime is committed. premises or fenced estate of another; such close
premises or fenced estate is uninhabited; there is
But remember Republic Act No. 7610 (Special Protection of a manifest prohibition against entering such
Children against Child Abuse, Exploitation and closed premises or fenced estate; and offender
Discrimination Act). It applies to minors below 18 years has not secured the permission of the owner or
old, not 16 years old as in the Revised Penal Code. As long caretaker thereof (Article 281).
as the employment is inimical – even though there is no
physical risk – and detrimental to the child’s interest – (See also Presidential Decree No. 1227 regarding unlawful
against moral, intellectual, physical, and mental entry into any military base in the Philippines.)
development of the minor – the establishment will be
closed.
Dwelling – This is the place that a person inhabits. It
Article 278 has no application if minor is 16 years old and includes the dependencies which have interior
above. But the exploitation will be dealt with by Republic communication with the house. It is not necessary that it
Act No. 7610. be the permanent dwelling of the person. So, a person’s
room in a hotel may be considered a dwelling. It also
If the minor so employed would suffer some injuries as a includes a room where one resides as a boarder.
result of a violation of Article 278, Article 279 provides that
there would be additional criminal liability for the resulting If the purpose in entering the dwelling is not shown,
felony. trespass is committed. If the purpose is shown, it may be
absorbed in the crime as in robbery with force upon things,
Illustration: the trespass yielding to the more serious crime. But if the
purpose is not shown and while inside the dwelling he was
The owner of a circus employed a child under 16 years of found by the occupants, one of whom was injured by him,
age to do a balancing act on the tightrope. The crime the crime committed will be trespass to dwelling and
committed is exploitation of minors (unless the employer is frustrated homicide, physical injuries, or if there was no
the ascendant of the minor who is not below 12 years of injury, unjust vexation.
age). If the child fell and suffered physical injuries while
working, the employer shall be liable for said physical If the entry is made by a way not intended for entry, that is
injuries in addition to his liability for exploitation of minors. presumed to be against the will of the occupant (example,
entry through a window). It is not necessary that there be
a breaking.
Article 280. Qualified Trespass to Dwelling
“Against the will” -- This means that the entrance is,
Elements either expressly or impliedly, prohibited or the prohibition
is presumed. Fraudulent entrance may constitute trespass.
1. Offender is a private person; The prohibition to enter may be made at any time and not
necessarily at the time of the entrance.
2. He enters the dwelling of another;
To prove that an entry is against the will of the occupant, it
3. Such entrance is against the latter’s will. is not necessary that the entry should be preceded by an
express prohibition, provided that the opposition of the
occupant is clearly established by the circumstances under
Two forms of trespass which the entry is made, such as the existence of enmity or
strained relations between the accused and the occupant.
1. Qualified trespass to dwelling – This may be
committed by any private person who shall enter On violence, Cuello Calon opines that violence may be
the dwelling of another against the latter’s will. committed not only against persons but also against
The house must be inhabited at the time of the things. So, breaking the door or glass of a window or door
trespass although the occupants are out. Or constitutes acts of violence. Our Supreme Court followed
offender breaks in with force and violence (Article this view in People v. Tayag. Violence or intimidation
280). must, however, be anterior or coetaneous with the
entrance and must not be posterior. But if the violence is
P.J.G. 109
employed immediately after the entrance without the Acts punished:

consent of the owner of the house, trespass is committed.
If there is also violence or intimidation, proof of prohibition 1. Threatening another with the infliction upon his
to enter is no longer necessary. person, honor or property or that of this family of
any wrong amounting to a crime and demanding
Distinction between qualified trespass to dwelling and money or imposing any other condition, even
violation of domicile though not unlawful, and the offender attained
his purpose;
Unlike qualified trespass to dwelling, violation of domicile
may be committed only by a public officer or employee and 2. Making such threat without the offender
the violation may consist of any of the three acts attaining his purpose;
mentioned in Article 128 – (1) entering the dwelling
against the will of the owner without judicial order; (2) 3. Threatening another with the infliction upon his
searching papers or other effects found in such dwelling person, honor or property or that of his family of
without the previous consent of the owner thereof; and (3) any wrong amounting to a crime, the threat not
refusing to leave the dwelling when so requested by the being subject to a condition.
owner thereof, after having surreptitiously entered such
dwelling.
Threat is a declaration of an intention or determination to
Cases when Article 280 does not apply: injure another by the commission upon his person, honor
or property or upon that of his family of some wrong which
(1) When the purpose of the entrance is to prevent may or may not amount to a crime:
serious harm to himself, the occupant or third
persons; (1) Grave threats – when the wrong threatened to be
inflicted amounts to a crime. The case falls under
(2) When the purpose of the offender in entering is to Article 282.
render some service to humanity or justice;
(2) Light threats – if it does not amount to a crime.
(3) Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and The case falls under Article 283.
other public houses while they are open .
But even if the harm intended is in the nature of a crime, if
Pursuant to Section 6, Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, a made orally and in the heat of anger and after the oral
person who believes that a crime has been committed threat, the issuer of the threat did not pursue the act, the
against him has every right to go after the culprit and crime is only other light threats under Article 285.
arrest him without any warrant even if in the process he
enters the house of another against the latter’s will. To constitute grave threats, the threats must refer to a
future wrong and is committed by acts or through words of
Article 281. Other forms of trespass such efficiency to inspire terror or fear upon another. It is,
therefore, characterized by moral pressure that produces
Elements disquietude or alarm.
1. Offender enters the closed premises or the The greater perversity of the offender is manifested when
fenced estate of another; the threats are made demanding money or imposing any
condition, whether lawful or not, and the offender shall
2. The entrance is made while either of them is have attained his purpose. So the law imposes upon him
uninhabited; the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed for
the crime threatened to be committed. But if the purpose
3. The prohibition to enter is manifest; is not attained, the penalty lower by two degrees is
imposed. The maximum period of the penalty is imposed if
4. The trespasser has not secured the permission of the threats are made in writing or through a middleman as
the owner or the caretaker thereof. they manifest evident premeditation.
Article 282. Grave Threats Distinction between threat and coercion:

P.J.G. 110
The essence of coercion is violence or intimidation. There

is no condition involved; hence, there is no futurity in the
Question & Answer
harm or wrong done.
In threat, the wrong or harm done is future and Blackmailing constitutes what crime?
conditional. In coercion, it is direct and personal.
It is a crime of light threat under Article 283 if
Distinction between threat and robbery: there is no threat to publish any libelous or slanderous
matter against the offended party. If there is such a threat
(1) As to intimidation – In robbery, the intimidation is to make a slanderous or libelous publication against the
actual and immediate; in threat, the intimidation offended party, the crime will be one of libel, which is
is future and conditional. penalized under Article 356. For example, a person
threatens to expose the affairs of married man if the latter
(2) As to nature of intimidation – In robbery, the does not give him money. There is intimidation done under
intimidation is personal; in threats, it may be a demand.
through an intermediary.
The law imposes the penalty of bond for good behavior
(3) As to subject matter – Robbery refers to personal only in case of grave and light threats. If the offender can
property; threat may refer to the person, honor or not post the bond, he will be banished by way of destierro
property. to prevent him from carrying out his threat.
(4) As to intent to gain – In robbery, there is intent to

gain; in threats, intent to gain is not an essential Article 285. Other Light Threats
element.
Acts punished
(5) In robbery, the robber makes the danger involved
in his threats directly imminent to the victim and 1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by
the obtainment of his gain immediate, thereby drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in
also taking rights to his person by the opposition lawful self-defense;
or resistance which the victim might offer; in
threat, the danger to the victim is not instantly 2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of anger,
imminent nor the gain of the culprit immediate. with some harm constituting a crime, without
persisting in the idea involved in his threat;
Article 283. Light Threats 3. Orally threatening to do another any harm not
constituting a felony.
Elements
1. Offender makes a threat to commit a wrong; Article 286. Grave Coercions
2. The wrong does not constitute a crime; Acts punished
3. There is a demand for money or that other 1. Preventing another, by means of violence, threats
condition is imposed, even though not unlawful; or intimidation, from doing something not
prohibited by law;
4. Offender has attained his purpose or, that he has
not attained his purpose. 2. Compelling another, by means of violence,
threats or intimidation, to do something against
his will, whether it be right or wrong.
In order to convict a person of the crime of light threats,
the harm threatened must not be in the nature of crime Elements
and there is a demand for money or any other condition is
imposed, even though lawful. 1. A person prevented another from doing
something not prohibited by law, or that he
P.J.G. 111
compelled him to do something against his will; real properties because it is the means of committing the
be it right or wrong; crime.
2. The prevention or compulsion be effected by Exception to the rule that physical violence must be
violence, threats or intimidation; and exerted: where intimidation is so serious that it is not a
threat anymore – it approximates violence.
3. The person that restrained the will and liberty of
another had not the authority of law or the right In Lee v. CA, 201 SCAR 405, it was held that neither the
to do so, or in other words, that the restraint shall crime of threats nor coercion is committed although the
not be made under authority of law or in the accused, a branch manager of a bank made the
exercise of any lawful right. complainant sign a withdrawal slip for the amount needed
to pay the spurious dollar check she had encashed, and
also made her execute an affidavit regarding the return of
Grave coercion arises only if the act which the offender the amount against her better sense and judgment.
prevented another to do is not prohibited by law or According to the court, the complainant may have acted
ordinance. If the act prohibited was illegal, he is not liable reluctantly and with hesitation, but still, it was voluntary.
for grave coercion. It is different when a complainant refuses absolutely to act
such an extent that she becomes a mere automaton and
If a person prohibits another to do an act because the act is acts mechanically only, not of her own will. In this
a crime, even though some sort of violence or intimidation situation, the complainant ceases to exits as an
is employed, it would not give rise to grave coercion. It independent personality and the person who employs force
may only give rise to threat or physical injuries, if some or intimidation is, in the eyes of the law, the one acting;
injuries are inflicted. However, in case of grave coercion while the hand of the complainant sign, the will that moves
where the offended party is being compelled to do it is the hand of the offender.
something against his will, whether it be wrong or not, the
crime of grave coercion is committed if violence or
intimidation is employed in order to compel him to do the Article 287. Light Coercions
act. No person shall take the law into his own hands.
Elements
Illustration:
1. Offender must be a creditor;
Compelling the debtor to deliver some of his properties to
pay a creditor will amount to coercion although the 2. He seizes anything belonging to his debtor:
creditor may have a right to collect payment from the
debtor, even if the obligation is long over due. 3. The seizure of the thing be accomplished by
means of violence or a display of material force
The violence employed in grave coercion must be producing intimidation;
immediate, actual, or imminent. In the absence of actual
or imminent force or violence, coercion is not committed. 4. The purpose of the offender is to apply the same
The essence of coercion is an attack on individual liberty. to the payment of the debt.
The physical violence is exerted to (1) prevent a person

from doing something he wants to do; or (2) compel him to The first paragraph deals with light coercions wherein
do something he does not want to do. violence is employed by the offender who is a creditor in
seizing anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of
Illustration: applying the same to the payment of the debt.
If a man compels another to show the contents of the In the other light coercions or unjust vexation embraced in
latter’s pockets, and takes the wallet, this is robbery and the second paragraph, violence is absent.
not grave coercion. The intimidation is a means of
committing robbery with violence or intimidation of In unjust vexation, any act committed without violence, but
persons. Violence is inherent in the crime of robbery with which unjustifiably annoys or vexes an innocent person
violence or intimidation upon persons and in usurpation of amounts to light coercion.
P.J.G. 112
As a punishable act, unjust vexation should include any 1. Offender pays the wages due a laborer
human conduct which, although not productive of some or employee employed by him by means
physical or material harm would, however, unjustifiably of tokens or object;
annoy or vex an innocent person.
1. Those tokens or objects are other than
It is distinguished from grave coercion under the first the legal tender currency of the
paragraph by the absence of violence. Philippines;
Illustration: 3. Such employee or laborer does not

expressly request that he be paid by
Persons stoning someone else’s house. So long as stoning means of tokens or objects.
is not serious and it is intended to annoy, it is unjust
vexation. It disturbs the peace of mind.
Article 289. Formation, Maintenance, and Prohibition of
The main purpose of the statute penalizing coercion and Combination of Capital or Labor through Violence or
unjust vexation is precisely to enforce the principle that no Threats
person may take the law into his hands and that our
government is one of laws, not of men. The essence of the Elements
crimes is the attack on individual liberty.
1. Offender employs violence or threats, in such a
degree as to compel or force the laborers or
Article 288. Other Similar Coercions employers in the free and legal exercise of their
industry or work;
Acts punished:
2. The purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent
1. Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or coalitions of capital or labor, strike of laborers or
knowingly permitting the forcing or compelling of lockout of employers.
the laborer or employee of the offender to
purchase merchandise of commodities of any
kind from him; Article 290. Discovering Secrets through Seizure of
Correspondence
Elements:
Elements
1. Offender is any person, agent or officer
of any association or corporation; 1. Offender is a private individual or even a public
officer not in the exercise of his official function;
2. He or such firm or corporation has
employed laborers or employees; 2. He seizes the papers or letters of another;
3. He forces or compels, directly or 3. The purpose is to discover the secrets of such

indirectly, or knowingly permits to be another person;
forced or compelled, any of his or its
laborers or employees to purchase 4. Offender is informed of the contents of the
merchandise or commodities of any kind papers or letters seized.
from him or from said firm or
corporation.
This is a crime against the security of one’s papers and
2. Paying the wages due his laborer or employee by effects. The purpose must be to discover its effects. The
means of tokens or object other than the legal act violates the privacy of communication.
tender currency of the Philippines, unless
expressly requested by such laborer or employee.
According to Ortega, it is not necessary that the offender
Elements: should actually discover the contents of the letter. Reyes,
P.J.G. 113
citing People v. Singh, CA, 40 OG, Suppl. 5, 35, believes reveals the same shall also be liable regardless of whether
otherwise. or not the principal or master suffered damages.
The essence of this crime is that the offender learned of the

The last paragraph of Article 290 expressly makes the secret in the course of his employment. He is enjoying a
provision of the first and second paragraph thereof confidential relation with the employer or master so he
inapplicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted should respect the privacy of matters personal to the
with the custody of minors placed under their care or latter.
custody, and to the spouses with respect to the papers or
letters of either of them. The teachers or other persons If the matter pertains to the business of the employer or
entrusted with the care and education of minors are master, damage is necessary and the agent, employee or
included in the exceptions. servant shall always be liable. Reason: no one has a right
to the personal privacy of another.
In a case decided by the Supreme Court, a spouse who
rummaged and found love letters of husband to mistress
does not commit this crime, but the letters are inadmissible Article 292. Revelation of Industrial Secrets
in evidence because of unreasonable search and seizure.
The ruling held that the wife should have applied for a Elements
search warrant.
1. Offender is a person in charge, employee or
Distinction from estafa, damage to property, and unjust workman of a manufacturing or industrial
vexation: establishment;
If the act had been executed with intent of gain, it would 2. The manufacturing or industrial establishment
be estafa; has a secret of the industry which the offender
has learned;
If, on the other hand, the purpose was not to defraud, but
only to cause damage to another’s, it would merit the 3. Offender reveals such secrets;
qualification of damage to property;
4. Prejudice is caused to the owner.
If the intention was merely to cause vexation preventing
another to do something which the law does not prohibit
or compel him to execute what he does not want, the act A business secret must not be known to other business
should be considered as unjust vexation. entities or persons. It is a matter to be discovered, known
and used by and must belong to one person or entity
Revelation of secrets discovered not an element of the exclusively. One who merely copies their machines from
crime but only increases the penalty. those already existing and functioning cannot claim to
have a business secret, much less, a discovery within the
contemplation of Article 292.
Article 291. Revealing Secrets with Abuse of Office
Elements TITLE X. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
1. Offender is a manager, employee or servant; Crimes against property
2. He learns the secrets of his principal or master in 1. Robbery with violence against or intimidation of
such capacity; persons (Art. 294);
3. He reveals such secrets. 2. Attempted and frustrated robbery committed

under certain circumstances (Art. 297);
An employee, manager, or servant who came to know of 3. Execution of deeds by means of violence or
the secret of his master or principal in such capacity and intimidation (Art. 298);
P.J.G. 114
4. Robbery in an inhabited house or public building

or edifice devoted to worship (Art. 299); 28. Damage and obstruction to means of
communication (Art. 330);
5. Robbery in an inhabited place or in a private
building (Art. 302); 29. Destroying or damaging statues, public
monuments or paintings (Art. 331).
6. Possession of picklocks or similar tools (Art. 304);
7. Brigandage (Art. 306); Article 293. Who Are Guilty of Robbery
8. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands (Art. 307); Robbery – This is the taking or personal property
belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of
9. Theft (Art. 308); violence against, or intimidation of any person, or using
force upon anything.
10. Qualified theft (Art. 310);
Elements of robbery in general
11. Theft of the property of the National Library and
National Museum (Art. 311); 1. There is personal property belonging to another;
12. Occupation of real property or usurpation of real 2. There is unlawful taking of that property;
rights in property (Art. 312);
3. The taking must be with intent to gain; and
13. Altering boundaries or landmarks (Art. 313);
4. There is violence against or intimidation of any
14. Fraudulent insolvency (Art. 314); person, or force upon anything.
15. Swindling (Art. 315);

Article 294. Robbery with Violence against or
16. Other forms of swindling (Art. 316); Intimidation of Persons
17. Swindling a minor (Art. 317); Acts punished
18. Other deceits (Art. 318); 1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery
(taking of personal property belonging to another
19. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged property with intent to gain), the crime of homicide is
(Art. 319); committed;
20. Destructive arson (Art. 320); 2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson;
21. Other forms of arson (Art. 321);
3. When by reason of on occasion of such robbery,
22. Arson of property of small value (Art. 323); any of the physical injuries resulting in insanity,
imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted;
23. Crimes involving destruction (Art. 324);
4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of
24. Burning one’s own property as means to commit the physical injuries resulting in the loss of the
arson (Art. 325); use of speech or the power to hear or to smell, or
the loss of an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg
25. Setting fire to property exclusively owned by the or the loss of the use of any such member or
offender (Art. 326); incapacity for the work in which the injured
person is theretofore habitually engaged is
26. Malicious mischief (Art. 327); inflicted;
27. Special case of malicious mischief (Art. 328);

P.J.G. 115
5. If the violence or intimidation employed in the

commission of the robbery is carried to a degree In robbery with violence of intimidation, the taking is
unnecessary for the commission of the crime; complete when the offender has already the possession of
the thing even if he has no opportunity to dispose of it.
6. When in the course of its execution, the offender
shall have inflicted upon any person not In robbery with force upon things, the things must be
responsible for the commission of the robbery brought outside the building for consummated robbery to
any of the physical injuries in consequence of be committed.
which the person injured becomes deformed or
loses any other member of his body or loses the
sue thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for the On robbery with homicide
performance of the work in which he is habitually
engaged for more than 90 days or the person The term “homicide” is used in the generic sense, and the
injured becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for complex crime therein contemplated comprehends not
more than 30 days; only robbery with homicide in its restricted sense, but also
with robbery with murder. So, any kind of killing by reason
7. If the violence employed by the offender does not of or on the occasion of a robbery will bring about the
cause any of the serious physical injuries defined crime of robbery with homicide even if the person killed is
in Article 263, or if the offender employs less than three days old, or even if the person killed is the
intimidation only. mother or father of the killer, or even if on such robbery
the person killed was done by treachery or any of the
qualifying circumstances. In short, there is no crime of
Violence or intimidation upon persons may result in death robbery with parricide, robbery with murder, robbery with
or mutilation or rape or serious physical injuries. infanticide – any and all forms of killing is referred to as
homicide.
If death results or even accompanies a robbery, the crime
will be robbery with homicide provided that the robbery is Illustration:
consummated.
The robbers enter the house. In entering through the
This is a crime against property, and therefore, you window, one of the robbers stepped on a child less than
contend not with the killing but with the robbery. three days old. The crime is not robbery with infanticide
because there is no such crime. The word homicide as used
As long as there is only one (1) robbery, regardless of the in defining robbery with homicide is used in the generic
persons killed, the crime will only be one (1) count of sense. It refers to any kind of death.
robbery with homicide. The fact that there are multiple
killings committed in the course of the robbery will be Although it is a crime against property and treachery is an
considered only as aggravating so as to call for the aggravating circumstance that applies only to crimes
imposition of the maximum penalty prescribed by law. against persons, if the killing in a robbery is committed
with treachery, the treachery will be considered a generic
If, on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, somebody aggravating circumstance because of the homicide.
is killed, and there are also physical injuries inflicted by
reason or on the occasion of the robbery, don’t think that When two or more persons are killed during the robbery,
those who sustained physical injuries may separately such should be appreciated as an aggravating
prosecute the offender for physical injuries. Those physical circumstance.
injuries are only considered aggravating circumstances in
the crime of robbery with homicide. As long as there is only one robbery, regardless of the
persons killed, you only have one crime of robbery with
This is not a complex crime as understood under Article 48, homicide. Note, however, that “one robbery” does not
but a single indivisible crime. This is a special complex mean there is only one taking.
crime because the specific penalty is provided in the law.
Illustration:
In Napolis v. CA, it was held that when violence or
intimidation and force upon things are both present in the Robbers decided to commit robbery in a house, which
robbery, the crime is complex under Article 48. turned out to be a boarding house. Thus, there were
P.J.G. 116
different boarders who were offended parties in the the robbery or not. He need not also be in the place of the
robbery. There is only one count of robbery. If there were robbery.
killings done to different boarders during the robbery being
committed in a boarder’s quarter, do not consider that as In one case, in the course of the struggle in a house where
separate counts of robbery with homicide because when the robbery was being committed, the owner of the place
robbers decide to commit robbery in a certain house, they tried to wrest the arm of the robber. A person several
are only impelled by one criminal intent to rob and there meters away was the one who got killed. The crime was
will only be one case of robbery. If there were homicide or held to be robbery with homicide.
death committed, that would only be part of a single
robbery. That there were several killings done would only Note that the person killed need not be one who is
aggravate the commission of the crime of robbery with identified with the owner of the place where the robbery is
homicide. committed or one who is a stranger to the robbers. It is
enough that the homicide was committed by reason of the
In People v. Quiñones, 183 SCRA 747, it was held that robbery or on the occasion thereof.
there is no crime of robbery with multiple homicides. The
charge should be for robbery with homicide only because Illustration:
the number of persons killed is immaterial and does not
increase the penalty prescribed in Article 294. All the There are two robbers who broke into a house and carried
killings are merged in the composite integrated whole that away some valuables. After they left such house these two
is robbery with homicide so long as the killings were by robbers decided to cut or divide the loot already so that
reason or on occasion of the robbery. they can go of them. So while they are dividing the loot
the other robber noticed that the one doing the division is
In another case, a band of robbers entered a compound, trying to cheat him and so he immediately boxed him.
which is actually a sugar mill. Within the compound, there Now this robber who was boxed then pulled out his gun
were quarters of the laborers. They robbed each of the and fired at the other one killing the latter. Would that
quarters. The Supreme Court held that there was only one bring about the crime of robbery with homicide? Yes.
count of robbery because when they decided and Even if the robbery was already consummated, the killing
determined to rob the compound, they were only impelled was still by reason of the robbery because they quarreled
by one criminal intent to rob. in dividing the loot that is the subject of the robbery.
With more reason, therefore, if in a robbery, the offender In People v. Domingo, 184 SCRA 409, on the occasion of
took away property belonging to different owners, as long the robbery, the storeowner, a septuagenarian, suffered a
as the taking was done at one time, and in one place, stroke due to the extreme fear which directly caused his
impelled by the same criminal intent to gain, there would death when the robbers pointed their guns at him. It was
only be one count of robbery. held that the crime committed was robbery with homicide.
It is immaterial that death supervened as a mere accident
In robbery with homicide as a single indivisible offense, it is as long as the homicide was produced by reason or on the
immaterial who gets killed. Even though the killing may occasion of the robbery, because it is only the result which
have resulted from negligence, you will still designate the matters, without reference to the circumstances or causes
crime as robbery with homicide. or persons intervening in the commission of the crime
which must be considered.
Illustration:
Remember also that intent to rob must be proved. But
On the occasion of a robbery, one of the offenders placed there must be an allegation as to the robbery not only as
his firearm on the table. While they were ransacking the to the intention to rob.
place, one of the robbers bumped the table. As a result,
the firearm fell on the floor and discharged. One of the If the motive is to kill and the taking is committed
robbers was the one killed. Even though the placing of the thereafter, the crimes committed are homicide and theft.
firearm on the table where there is no safety precaution If the primordial intent of the offender is to kill and not to
taken may be considered as one of negligence or rob but after the killing of the victims a robbery was
imprudence, you do not separate the homicide as one of committed, then there are will be two separate crimes.
the product of criminal negligence. It will still be robbery
with homicide, whether the person killed is connected with Illustration:
P.J.G. 117
If a person had an enemy and killed him and after killing which is a crime against property. So, even though the
him, saw that he had a beautiful ring and took this, the robber may have married the woman raped, the crime
crime would be not robbery with homicide because the remains robbery with rape. The rape is not erased. This is
primary criminal intent is to kill. So, there will be two because the crime is against property which is a single
crimes: one for the killing and one for the taking of the indivisible offense.
property after the victim was killed. Now this would bring
about the crime of theft and it could not be robbery If the woman, who was raped on the occasion of the
anymore because the person is already dead. robbery, pardoned the rapist who is one of the robbers,
that would not erase the crime of rape. The offender
For robbery with homicide to exist, homicide must be would still be prosecuted for the crime of robbery with
committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery, rape, as long as the rape is consummated.
that is, the homicide must be committed “in the course or
because of the robbery.” Robbery and homicide are If the rape is attempted, since it will be a separate charge
separate offenses when the homicide is not committed “on and the offended woman pardoned the offender, that
the occasion” or “by reason” of the robbery. would bring about a bar to the prosecution of the
attempted rape. If the offender married the offended
Where the victims were killed, not for the purpose of woman, that would extinguish the criminal liability
committing robbery, and the idea of taking the money and because the rape is the subject of a separate prosecution.
other personal property of the victims was conceived by
the culprits only after the killing, it was held in People v. The intention must be to commit robbery and even if the
Domingo, 184 SCRA 409, that the culprits committed two rape is committed before the robbery, robbery with rape is
separate crimes of homicide or murder (qualified by abuse committed. But if the accused tried to rape the offended
of superior strength) and theft. party and because of resistance, he failed to consummate
the act, and then he snatched the vanity case from her
The victims were killed first then their money was taken hands when she ran away, two crimes are committed:
the money from their dead bodies. This is robbery with attempted rape and theft.
homicide. It is important here that the intent to commit
robbery must precede the taking of human life in robbery There is no complex crime under Article 48 because a single
with homicide. The offender must have the intent to take act is not committed and attempted rape is not a means
personal property before the killing. necessary to commit theft and vice-versa.
It must be conclusively shown that the homicide was The Revised Penal Code does not differentiate whether
committed for the purpose of robbing the victim. In People rape was committed before, during or after the robbery. It
v. Hernandez, appellants had not thought of robbery prior is enough that the robbery accompanied the rape.
to the killing. The thought of taking the victim’s Robbery must not be a mere accident or afterthought.
wristwatch was conceived only after the killing and
throwing of the victim in the canal. Appellants were In People v. Flores, 195 SCRA 295, although the offenders
convicted of two separate crimes of homicide and theft as plan was to get the victim’s money, rape her and kill her,
there is absent direct relation and intimate connection but in the actual execution of the crime, the thoughts of
between the robbery and the killing. depriving the victim of her valuables was relegated to the
background and the offender’s prurient desires surfaced.
They persisted in satisfying their lust. They would have
On robbery with rape forgotten about their intent to rob if not for the accidental
touching of the victim’s ring and wristwatch. The taking of
This is another form of violence or intimidation upon the victim’s valuables turned out to be an afterthought. It
person. The rape accompanies the robbery. In this case was held that two distinct crimes were committed: rape
where rape and not homicide is committed, there is only a with homicide and theft.
crime of robbery with rape if both the robbery and the rape
are consummated. If during the robbery, attempted rape In People v. Dinola, 183 SCRA 493, it was held that if the
were committed, the crimes would be separate, that is, original criminal design of the accused was to commit rape
one for robbery and one for the attempted rape. and after committing the rape, the accused committed
robbery because the opportunity presented itself, two
The rape committed on the occasion of the robbery is not distinct crimes – rape and robbery were committed – not
considered a private crime because the crime is robbery,
P.J.G. 118
robbery with rape. In the latter, the criminal intent to gain

must precede the intent to rape. Illustration:
After the robbers fled from the place where the robbery
On robbery with physical injuries was committed, they decided to divide the spoils and in the
course of the division of the spoils or the loot, they
To be considered as such, the physical injuries must always quarreled. They shot it out and one of the robbers was
be serious. If the physical injuries are only less serious or killed. The crime is still robbery with homicide even though
slight, they are absorbed in the robbery. The crime one of the robbers was the one killed by one of them. If
becomes merely robbery. But if the less serious physical they quarreled and serious physical injuries rendered one
injuries were committed after the robbery was already of the robbers impotent, blind in both eyes, or got insane,
consummated, there would be a separate charge for the or he lost the use of any of his senses, lost the use of any
less serious physical injuries. It will only be absorbed in the part of his body, the crime will still be robbery with serious
robbery if it was inflicted in the course of the execution of physical injuries.
the robbery. The same is true in the case of slight physical
injuries. If the robbers quarreled over the loot and one of the
robbers hacked the other robber causing a deformity in his
Illustration: face, the crime will only be robbery and a separate charge
for the serious physical injuries because when it is a
After the robbery had been committed and the robbers deformity that is caused, the law requires that the
were already fleeing from the house where the robbery deformity must have been inflicted upon one who is not a
was committed, the owner of the house chased them and participant in the robbery. Moreover, the physical injuries
the robbers fought back. If only less serious physical which gave rise to the deformity or which incapacitated
injuries were inflicted, there will be separate crimes: one the offended party from labor for more than 30 days, must
for robbery and one for less serious physical injuries. have been inflicted in the course of the execution of the
robbery or while the robbery was taking place.
But if after the robbery was committed and the robbers
were already fleeing from the house where the robbery If it was inflicted when the thieves/robbers are already
was committed, the owner or members of the family of the dividing the spoils, it cannot be considered as inflicted in
owner chased them, and they fought back and somebody the course of execution of the robbery and hence, it will
was killed, the crime would still be robbery with homicide. not give rise to the crime of robbery with serious physical
But if serious physical injuries were inflicted and the serious injuries. You only have one count of robbery and another
physical injuries rendered the victim impotent or insane or count for the serious physical injuries inflicted.
the victim lost the use of any of his senses or lost a part of
his body, the crime would still be robbery with serious If, during or on the occasion or by reason of the robbery, a
physical injuries. The physical injuries (serious) should not killing, rape or serious physical injuries took place, there
be separated regardless of whether they retorted in the will only be one crime of robbery with homicide because all
course of the commission of the robbery or even after the of these – killing, rape, serious physical injuries -- are
robbery was consummated. contemplated by law as the violence or intimidation which
characterizes the taking as on of robbery. You charge the
In Article 299, it is only when the physical injuries resulted offenders of robbery with homicide. The rape or physical
in the deformity or incapacitated the offended party from injuries will only be appreciated as aggravating
labor for more than 30 days that the law requires such circumstance and is not the subject of a separate
physical injuries to have been inflicted in the course of the prosecution. They will only call for the imposition of the
execution of the robbery, and only upon persons who are penalty in the maximum period.
not responsible in the commission of the robbery.
If on the occasion of the robbery with homicide, robbery
But if the physical injuries inflicted are those falling under with force upon things was also committed, you will not
subdivision 1 and 2 of Article 263, even though the physical have only one robbery but you will have a complex crime of
injuries were inflicted upon one of the robbers themselves, robbery with homicide and robbery with force upon things
and even though it had been inflicted after the robbery (see Napolis v. CA). This is because robbery with violence
was already consummated, the crime will still be robbery or intimidation upon persons is a separate crime from
with serious physical injuries. There will only be one count robbery with force upon things.
of accusation.
P.J.G. 119
Robbery with homicide, robbery with intentional mutilation Article 295. Robbery with Physical Injuries, Committed in
and robbery with rape are not qualified by band or An Uninhabited Place and by A Band
uninhabited place. These aggravating circumstances only
qualify robbery with physical injuries under subdivision 2, Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person
3, and 4 of Article 299. qualified is qualified if it is committed
When it is robbery with homicide, the band or uninhabited 1. In an uninhabited place;

place is only a generic aggravating circumstance. It will
not qualify the crime to a higher degree of penalty. 2. By a band;
In People v. Salvilla, it was held that if in a robbery with 3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor
serious physical injuries, the offenders herded the women vehicle, or airship;
and children into an office and detained them to compel
the offended party to come out with the money, the crime 4. By entering the passengers’ compartments in a
of serious illegal detention was a necessary means to train, or in any manner taking the passengers
facilitate the robbery; thus, the complex crimes of robbery thereof by surprise in the respective conveyances;
with serious physical injuries and serious illegal detention. or
But if the victims were detained because of the timely 5. On a street, road, highway or alley, and the
arrival of the police, such that the offenders had no choice intimidation is made with the use of firearms, the
but to detain the victims as hostages in exchange for their offender shall be punished by the maximum
safe passage, the detention is absorbed by the crime of periods of the proper penalties prescribed in
robbery and is not a separate crime. This was the ruling in Article 294.
People v. Astor.
Article 296 defines a robbery by a band as follows: when

On robbery with arson at least four armed malefactors take part in the
commission of a robbery.
Another innovation of Republic Act No. 7659 is the
composite crime of robbery with arson if arson is
committed by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. The Requisites for liability for the acts of the other members of
composite crime would only be committed if the primordial the band
intent of the offender is to commit robber and there is no
killing, rape, or intentional mutilation committed by the 1. He was a member of the band;
offender during the robbery. Otherwise, the crime would
be robbery with homicide, or robbery with rape, or robbery 2. He was present at the commission of a robbery by
with intentional mutilation, in that order, and the arson that band;
would only be an aggravating circumstance. It is essential
that robbery precedes the arson, as in the case of rape and 3. The other members of the band committed an
intentional mutilation, because the amendment included assault;
arson among the rape and intentional mutilation which
have accompanied the robbery. 4. He did not attempt to prevent the assault.
Moreover, it should be noted that arson has been made a

component only of robbery with violence against or Article 298. Execution of Deeds by Means of Violence or
intimidation of persons in said Article 294, but not of intimidation
robbery by the use of force upon things in Articles 299 and
302. Elements
So, if the robbery was by the use of force upon things and 1. Offender has intent to defraud another;
therewith arson was committed, two distinct crimes are
committed. 2. Offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver
any public instrument or document.
P.J.G. 120
3. The compulsion is by means of violence or as one of robbery. The force upon things contemplated
intimidation. requires some element of trespass into the establishment
where the robbery was committed. In other words, the
offender must have entered the premises where the
Article 299. Robbery in An Inhabited House or Public robbery was committed. If no entry was effected, even
Building or Edifice Devoted to Worship though force may have been employed actually in the
taking of the property from within the premises, the crime
Elements under subdivision (a) will only be theft.
1. Offender entered an inhabited house, public Two predicates that will give rise to the crime as robbery:
building
1. By mere entering alone, a robbery will be
2. The entrance was effected by any of the following committed if any personal property is taken from
means: within;
a. Through an opening not intended for 2. The entering will not give rise to robbery even if
entrance or egress; something is taken inside. It is the breaking of the
receptacle or closet or cabinet where the personal
b. By breaking any wall, roof or floor, or property is kept that will give rise to robbery, or
breaking any door or window; the taking of a sealed, locked receptacle to be
broken outside the premises.
c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar
tools; or If by the mere entering, that would already qualify the
taking of any personal property inside as robbery, it is
d. By using any fictitious name or immaterial whether the offender stays inside the premises.
pretending the exercise of public The breaking of things inside the premises will only be
authority. important to consider if the entering by itself will not
characterize the crime as robbery with force upon things.
3. Once inside the building, offender took personal
property belonging to another with intent to gain. Modes of entering that would give rise to the crime of
robbery with force upon things if something is taken inside
the premises: entering into an opening not intended for
Elements under subdivision (b): entrance or egress, under Article 299 (a).
1. Offender is inside a dwelling house, public Illustration:

building, or edifice devoted to religious worship,
regardless of the circumstances under which he The entry was made through a fire escape. The fire escape
entered it; was intended for egress. The entry will not characterize
the taking as one of robbery because it is an opening
2. Offender takes personal property belonging to intended for egress, although it may not be intended for
another, with intent to gain, under any of the entrance. If the entering were done through the window,
following circumstances: even if the window was not broken, that would
characterize the taking of personal property inside as
a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, robbery because the window is not an opening intended
chests, or any other kind of locked or for entrance.
sealed furniture or receptacle; or
Illustration:
b. By taking such furniture or objects away
to be broken or forced open outside the On a sari-sari store, a vehicle bumped the wall. The wall
place of the robbery. collapsed. There was a small opening there. At night, a
man entered through that opening without breaking the
same. The crime will already be robbery if he takes
"Force upon things" has a technical meaning in law. Not property from within because that is not an opening
any kind of force upon things will characterize the taking intended for the purpose.
P.J.G. 121
(2) public buildings;

Even of there is a breaking of wall, roof, floor or window,
but the offender did not enter, it would not give rise to (3) a place devoted to religious worship.
robbery with force upon things.
The law also considers robbery committed not in an
Breaking of the door under Article299 (b) – Originally, the inhabited house or in a private building.
interpretation was that in order that there be a breaking of
the door in contemplation of law, there must be some Note that the manner of committing the robbery with force
damage to the door. upon things is not the same.
Before, if the door was not damaged but only the lock When the robbery is committed in a house which is
attached to the door was broken, the taking from within is inhabited, or in a public building or in a place devoted to
only theft. But the ruling is now abandoned because the religious worship, the use of fictitious name or pretension
door is considered useless without the lock. Even if it is not to possess authority in order to gain entrance will
the door that was broken but only the lock, the breaking of characterize the taking inside as robbery with force upon
the lock renders the door useless and it is therefore things.
tantamount to the breaking of the door. Hence, the taking
inside is considered robbery with force upon things.
Question & Answer
If the entering does not characterize the taking inside as
one of robbery with force upon things, it is the conduct
inside that would give rise to the robbery if there would be Certain men pretended to be from the Price
a breaking of sealed, locked or closed receptacles or Control Commission and went to a warehouse owned by a
cabinet in order to get the personal belongings from within private person. They told the guard to open the
such receptacles, cabinet or place where it is kept. warehouse purportedly to see if the private person is
hoarding essential commodities there. The guard obliged.
If in the course of committing the robbery within the They went inside and broke in . They loaded some of the
premises some interior doors are broken, the taking from merchandise inside claiming that it is the product of
inside the room where the door leads to will only give rise hoarding and then drove away. What crime was
to theft. The breaking of doors contemplated in the law committed?
refers to the main door of the house and not the interior
door. It is only theft because the premises where the
simulation of public authority was committed is not an
But if it is the door of a cabinet that is broken and the inhabited house, not a public building, and not a place
valuable inside the cabinet was taken, the breaking of the devoted to religious worship. Where the house is a private
cabinet door would characterize the taking as robbery. building or is uninhabited, even though there is simulation
Although that particular door is not included as part of the of public authority in committing the taking or even if he
house, the cabinet keeps the contents thereof safe. used a fictitious name, the crime is only theft.
Use of picklocks or false keys refers to the entering into the Note that in the crime of robbery with force upon things,
premises – If the picklock or false key was used not to enter what should be considered is the means of entrance and
the premises because the offender had already entered but means of taking the personal property from within. If
was used to unlock an interior door or even a receptacle those means do not come within the definition under the
where the valuable or personal belonging was taken, the Revised Penal Code, the taking will only give rise to theft.
use of false key or picklock will not give rise to the robbery
with force upon things because these are considered by Those means must be employed in entering. If the
law as only a means to gain entrance, and not to extract offender had already entered when these means were
personal belongings from the place where it is being kept. employed, anything taken inside, without breaking of any
sealed or closed receptacle, will not give rise to robbery.
The law classifies robbery with force upon things as those
committed in: Illustration:
(1) an inhabited place; A found B inside his (A’s) house. He asked B what the
latter was doping there. B claimed he is an inspector from
P.J.G. 122
the local city government to look after the electrical c. The entrance was effected through the
installations. At the time B was chanced upon by A, he has use of false keys, picklocks or other
already entered. So anything he took inside without similar tools;
breaking of any sealed or closed receptacle will not give
rise to robbery because the simulation of public authority d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or
was made not in order to enter but when he has already closed furniture or receptacle was
entered. broken; or
Article 301 defines an inhabited house, public building, or e. A closed or sealed receptacle was
building dedicated to religious worship and their removed, even if the same be broken
dependencies, thus: open elsewhere.
Inhabited house – Any shelter, ship, or vessel constituting 3. Offender took therefrom personal property
the dwelling of one or more persons, even though the belonging to another with intent to gain.
inhabitants thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom
when the robbery is committed.
Under Article 303, if the robbery under Article 299 and
Public building – Includes every building owned by the 302 consists in the taking of cereals, fruits, or firewood,
government or belonging to a private person but used or the penalty imposable is lower.
rented by the government, although temporarily
unoccupied by the same.
Article 304. Possession of Picklock or Similar Tools
Dependencies of an inhabited house, public building, or
building dedicated to religious worship – All interior Elements
courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries, barns,
coachhouses, stables, or other departments, or enclosed 1. Offender has in his possession picklocks or similar
interior entrance connected therewith and which form tools;
part of the whole. Orchards and other lands used for
cultivation or production are not included, even if closed, 2. Such picklock or similar tools are especially
contiguous to the building, and having direct connection adopted to the commission of robbery;
therewith.
3. Offender does not have lawful cause for such
possession.
Article 302. Robbery in An Uninhabited Place or in A
Private Building
Article 305 defines false keys to include the following:
Elements
1. Tools mentioned in Article 304;
1. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a
building which was not a dwelling house, not a 2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner;
public building, or not an edifice devoted to
religious worship; 3. Any key other than those intended by the owner
for use in the lock forcibly opened by the
2. Any of the following circumstances was present: offender.
a. The entrance was effected through an

opening not intended for entrance or Brigandage – This is a crime committed by more than
egress; three armed persons who form a band of robbers for the
purpose of committing robbery in the highway or
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to
window was broken; obtain ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained by
means of force and violence.
Article 306. Who Are Brigands

P.J.G. 123
(2) Highway robbery/brigandage under Presidential

Elements of brigandage Decree No. 532 is the seizure of any person for
ransom, extortion or for any other lawful
1. There are least four armed persons; purposes, or the taking away of the property of
another by means of violence against or
2. They formed a band of robbers; intimidation of persons or force upon things or
other unlawful means committed by any person
2. The purpose is any of the following: on any Philippine highway.
a. To commit robbery in the highway; Brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532 refers to the
actual commission of the robbery on the highway and can
b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of be committed by one person alone. It is this brigandage
extortion or to obtain ransom; or which deserves some attention because not any robbery in
a highway is brigandage or highway robbery. A distinction
c. To attain by means of force and violence should be made between highway robbery/brigandage
any other purpose. under the decree and ordinary robbery committed on a
highway under the Revised Penal Code.
Article 307. Aiding and Abetting A Band of Brigands In People v. Puno, decided February 17, 1993, the trial
court convicted the accused of highway robbery/
Elements brigandage under Presidential Decree No. 532 and
sentenced them to reclusion perpetua. On appeal, the
1. There is a band of brigands; Supreme Court set aside the judgment and found the
accused guilty of simple robbery as punished in Article 294
2. Offender knows the band to be of brigands; (5), in relation to Article 295, and sentenced them
accordingly. The Supreme Court pointed out that the
3. Offender does any of the following acts: purpose of brigandage “is, inter alia, indiscriminate
highway robbery. And that PD 532 punishes as highway
a. He in any manner aids, abets or protects robbery or Brigandage only acts of robbery perpetrated by
such band of brigands; outlaws indiscriminately against any person or persons on
a Philippine highway as defined therein, not acts
b. He gives them information of the committed against a predetermined or particular victim”.
movements of the police or other peace A single act of robbery against a particular person chosen
officers of the government; or by the offender as his specific victim, even if committed on
a highway, is not highway robbery or brigandage.
c. He acquires or receives the property
taken by such brigands. In US v. Feliciano, 3 Phil. 422, it was pointed out that
highway robbery or brigandage is more than ordinary
robbery committed on a highway. The purpose of
Distinction between brigandage under the Revised Penal brigandage is indiscriminate robbery in highways. If the
Code and highway robbery/brigandage under Presidential purpose is only a particular robbery, the crime is only
Decree No. 532: robbery or robbery in band, if there are at least four armed
participants.
(1) Brigandage as a crime under the Revised Penal
Code refers to the formation of a band of robbers Presidential Decree No. 532 introduced amendments to
by more than three armed persons for the Article 306 and 307 by increasing the penalties. It does not
purpose of committing robbery in the highway, require at least four armed persons forming a band of
kidnapping for purposes of extortion or ransom, robbers. It does not create a presumption that the
or for any other purpose to be attained by force offender is a brigand when he an unlicensed firearm is
and violence. The mere forming of a band, which used unlike the Revised Penal Code. But the essence of
requires at least four armed persons, if for any of brigandage under the Revised Penal Code is the same as
the criminal purposes stated in Article 306, gives that in the Presidential Decree, that is, crime of
rise to brigandage. depredation wherein the unlawful acts are directed not
only against specific, intended or preconceived victims, but
P.J.G. 124
against any and all prospective victims anywhere on the robbery or theft was possessed, bought, kept, or dealt
highway and whoever they may potentially be. with. The place where the theft or robbery was committed
was inconsequential.
Article 308. Who Are Liable for Theft Since Section 5 of Presidential Decree No. 1612 expressly
provides that mere possession of anything of value which
Persons liable has been subject of theft or robbery shall be prima facie
evidence of fencing, it follows that a possessor of stolen
1. Those who with intent to gain, but without goods is presumed to have knowledge that the goods
violence against or intimidation of persons nor found in his possession after the fact of theft or robbery
force upon things, take personal property of has been established. The presumption does not offend
another without the latter’s consent; the presumption of innocence in the fundamental law. This
was the ruling in Pamintuan v. People, decided on July 11,
2. Those who having found lost property, fails to 1994.
deliver the same to the local authorities or to its
owner; Burden of proof is upon fence to overcome presumption; if
explanation insufficient or unsatisfactory, court will
3. Those who, after having maliciously damaged the convict. This is a malum prohibitum so intent is not
property of another, remove or make use of the material. But if prosecution is under the Revised Penal
fruits or objects of the damage caused by them; Code, as an accessory, the criminal intent is controlling.
4. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field When there is notice to person buying, there may be
where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to fencing such as when the price is way below ordinary
another and, without the consent of its owner, prices; this may serve as notice. He may be liable for
hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits, fencing even if he paid the price because of the
cereals or other forest or farm products. presumption.
Cattle Rustling and Qualified Theft of Large Cattle – The

Elements crime of cattle-rustling is defined and punished under
Presidential Decree No. 533, the Anti-Cattle Rustling law
1. There is taking of personal property; of 1974, as the taking by any means, method or scheme, of
any large cattle, with or without intent to gain and
2. The property taken belongs to another; whether committed with or without violence against or
intimidation of person or force upon things, so long as the
3. The taking was done with intent to gain; taking is without the consent of the owner/breed thereof.
The crime includes the killing or taking the meat or hide of
4. The taking was done without the consent of the large cattle without the consent of the owner.
owner;
Since the intent to gain is not essential, the killing or
5. The taking is accomplished without the use of destruction of large cattle, even without taking any part
violence against or intimidation of persons of thereof, is not a crime of malicious mischief but cattle-
force upon things. rustling.
The Presidential Decree, however, does not supersede the

Fencing under Presidential Decree No. 1612 is a distinct crime of qualified theft of large cattle under Article 310 of
crime from theft and robbery. If the participant who the Revised Penal Code, but merely modified the penalties
profited is being prosecuted with person who robbed, the provided for theft of large cattle and, to that extent,
person is prosecuted as an accessory. If he is being amended Articles 309 and 310. Note that the overt act
prosecuted separately, the person who partook of the that gives rise to the crime of cattle-rustling is the taking or
proceeds is liable for fencing. killing of large cattle. Where the large cattle was not
taken, but received by the offender from the
In People v. Judge de Guzman, it was held that fencing is owner/overseer thereof, the crime is not cattle-rustling; it
not a continuing offense. Jurisdiction is with the court of is qualified theft of large cattle.
the place where the personal property subject of the
P.J.G. 125
Where the large cattle was received by the offender who Article 312. Occupation of Real Property or Usurpation of
thereafter misappropriated it, the crime is qualified theft Real Rights in Property
under Article 310 if only physical or material possession
thereof was yielded to him. If both material and juridical Acts punished:
possession thereof was yielded to him who
misappropriated the large cattle, the crime would be 1. Taking possession of any real property belonging
estafa under Article 315 (1b). to another by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons;
Presidential Decree No. 533 is not a special law in the
context of Article 10 of the Revised Penal Code. It merely 2. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to
modified the penalties provided for theft of large cattle another by means of violence against or
under the Revised Penal Code and amended Article 309 intimidation of persons.
and 310. This is explicit from Section 10 of the Presidential
Decree. Consequently, the trial court should not have
convicted the accused of frustrated murder separately Elements
from cattle-rustling, since the former should have been
absorbed by cattle-rustling as killing was a result of or on 1. Offender takes possession of any real property or
the occasion of cattle-rustling. It should only be an usurps any real rights in property;
aggravating circumstance. But because the information
did not allege the injury, the same can no longer be 2. The real property or real rights belong to another;
appreciated; the crime should, therefore be only, simple
cattle-rustling. (People v. Martinada, February 13, 1991) 3. Violence against or intimidation of persons is
used by the offender in occupying real property
or usurping real rights in property;
Article 310. Qualified Theft
4. There is intent to gain.
Theft is qualified if
1. Committed by a domestic servant; Use the degree of intimidation to determine the degree of
the penalty to be applied for the usurpation.
2. Committed with grave abuse of confidence;
Usurpation under Article 312 is committed in the same way
3. The property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail as robbery with violence or intimidation of persons. The
matter, or large cattle; main difference is that in robbery, personal property is
involved; while in usurpation of real rights, it is real
4. The property stolen consists of coconuts taken property. (People v. Judge Alfeche, July 23, 1992)
from the premises of a plantation;
Usurpation of real rights and property should not be
5. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond complexed using Article 48 when violence or intimidation is
or fishery; or committed. There is only a single crime, but a two-tiered
penalty is prescribed to be determined on whether the acts
6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, of violence used is akin to that in robbery in Article 294,
earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any grave threats or grave coercion and an incremental
other calamity, vehicular accident, or civil penalty of fine based on the value of the gain obtained by
disturbance. the offender.
Therefore, it is not correct to state that the threat

Article 311. Theft of the Property of the National Library employed in usurping real property is absorbed in the
or National Museum crime; otherwise, the additional penalty would be
meaningless.
If the property stolen is any property of the National
Library or of the National Museum The complainant must be the person upon whom violence
was employed. If a tenant was occupying the property and
he was threatened by the offender, but it was the owner
P.J.G. 126
who was not in possession of the property who was named Article 314. Fraudulent Insolvency
as the offended party, the same may be quashed as it does
not charge an offense. The owner would, at most, be Elements
entitled to civil recourse only.
1. Offender is a debtor, that is, he has obligations
due and payable;
On carnapping and theft of motor vehicle
2. He absconds with his property;
The taking with intent to gain of a motor vehicle belonging
to another, without the latter’s consent, or by means of 3. There is prejudice to his creditors.
violence or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
things is penalized as carnapping under Republic Act No.
6539 (An Act Preventing and Penalizing Carnapping), as Article 315. Swindling (Estafa)
amended. The overt act which is being punished under this
law as carnapping is also the taking of a motor vehicle Elements in general
under circumstances of theft or robbery. If the motor
vehicle was not taken by the offender but was delivered by 1. Accused defrauded another by abuse of
the owner or the possessor to the offender, who thereafter confidence or by means of deceit; and
misappropriated the same, the crime is either qualified
theft under Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code or estafa This covers the three different ways of
under Article 315 (b) of the Revised Penal Code. Qualified committing estafa under Article 315; thus, estafa
theft of a motor vehicle is the crime if only the material or is committed –
physical possession was yielded to the offender; otherwise,
if juridical possession was also yielded, the crime is estafa. a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of
confidence;
On squatting b. By means of false pretenses or

fraudulents acts; or
According to the Urban Development and Housing Act,
the following are squatters: c. Through fraudulent means.
1. Those who have the capacity or means to pay (The first form under subdivision 1 is known as
rent or for legitimate housing but are squatting estafa with abuse of confidence; and the second
anyway; and third forms under subdivisions 2 and 3 cover
cover estafa by means of deceit.)
2. Also the persons who were awarded lots but sold
or lease them out; 2. Damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to the offended party or
3. Intruders of lands reserved for socialized housing, third person.
pre-empting possession by occupying the same.
Elements of estafa with unfaithfulness of abuse of

Article 313. Altering Boundaries or Landmarks confidence under Article 315 (1)
Elements Under paragraph (a)
1. There are boundary marks or monuments of 1. Offender has an onerous obligation to deliver
towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks something of value;
intended to designate the boundaries of the
same; 2. He alters its substance, quantity, or quality;
2. Offender alters said boundary marks. 3. Damage or prejudice is caused to another.
Under paragraph (b)

P.J.G. 127
1. Using fictitious name;

1. Money, goods, or other personal property is
received by the offender is trust, or on 2. Falsely pretending to possess power, influence,
commission, or for administration, or under any qualifications, property, credit, agency, business
other obligation involving the duty to make or imaginary transactions; or
delivery of, or to return, the same;
3. By means of other similar deceits.
2. There is misappropriation or conversion of such
money or property by the offender, or denial on
his part of such receipt; Under paragraph (b)
3. Such misappropriation or conversion or denial is Altering the quality, fineness, or weight of anything
to the prejudice of another; and pertaining to his art or business.
4. There is a demand made by the offended party to

the offender. Under paragraph (c)
(The fourth element is not necessary when there Pretending to have bribed any government employee,
is evidence of misappropriation of the goods by without prejudice to the action for calumny which the
the defendant. [Tubb v. People, et al., 101 Phil. offended party may deem proper to bring against the
114] ). offender.
Under Presidential Decree No. 115, the failure of the Under paragraph (d)
entrustee to turn over the proceeds of the sale of the
goods, documents, or instruments covered by a trust 1. Offender postdated a check, or issued a check in
receipt, to the extent of the amount owing to the payment of an obligation;
entruster, or as appearing in the trust receipt; or the failure
to return said goods, documents, or instruments if they 2. Such postdating or issuing a check was done
were not sold or disposed of in accordance with the terms when the offender had no funds in the bank, or
of the trust receipt constitute estafa. his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to
cover the amount of the check.
Under paragraph (c)

Note that this only applies if –
1. The paper with the signature of the offended
party is in blank; (1) The obligation is not pre-existing;
2. Offended party delivered it to the offender; (2) The check is drawn to enter into an obligation;
3. Above the signature of the offended party, a (Remember that it is the check that is supposed to
document is written by the offender without be the sole consideration for the other party to
authority to do so; have entered into the obligation. For example,
Rose wants to purchase a bracelet and draws a
4. The document so written creates a liability of, or check without insufficient funds. The jeweler sells
causes damage to, the offended party or any third her the bracelet solely because of the
person. consideration in the check.)
(3) It does not cover checks where the purpose of

Elements of estafa by means of false pretenses or drawing the check is to guarantee a loan as this is
fraudulent acts under Article 315 (2) not an obligation contemplated in this paragraph
Acts punished under paragraph (a)

P.J.G. 128
The check must be genuine. If the check is falsified and is B. 1. A person has sufficient funds in or credit
cashed with the bank or exchanged for cash, the crime is with the drawee bank when he makes or
estafa thru falsification of a commercial document. draws and issues a check;
The general rule is that the accused must be able to obtain 2. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to
something from the offended party by means of the check maintain a credit to cover the full
he issued and delivered. Exception: when the check is amount of the check if presented within
issued not in payment of an obligation. 90 days from the date appearing;
It must not be promissory notes, or guaranties. 3. The check is dishonored by the drawee
bank.
Good faith is a defense.
If the checks were issued by the defendant and he received Distinction between estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) of the
money for them, then stopped payment and did not return Revised Penal Code and violation of Batas Pambansa Blg.
the money, and he had an intention to stop payment 22:
when he issued the check, there is estafa.
(1) Under both Article 315 (2) (d) and Batas
Deceit is presumed if the drawer fails to deposit the Pambansa Blg. 22, there is criminal liability if the
amount necessary to cover the check within three days check is drawn for non-pre-existing obligation.
from receipt of notice of dishonor or insufficiency of funds
in the bank. If the check is drawn for a pre-existing obligation,
there is criminal liability only under Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22.
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22
(2) Estafa under Article 315 (2) (d) is a crime against
How violated property while Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is a crime
against public interest. The gravamen for the
A. 1. A person makes or draws and issues any former is the deceit employed, while in the latter,
check; it is the issuance of the check. Hence, there is no
double jeopardy.
2. The check is made or drawn and issued
to apply on account or for value; (3) In the estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), deceit and
damage are material, while in Batas Pambansa
Thus, it can apply to pre-existing Blg. 22, they are immaterial.
obligations, too.
(4) In estafa under Article 315 (2) (d), knowledge by
3. The person who makes or draws and the drawer of insufficient funds is not required,
issued the check knows at the time of while in Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, knowledge by
issue that he does not have sufficient the drawer of insufficient funds is required.
funds in or credit with the drawee bank
for the payment of such check in full
upon its presentment; When is there prima facie evidence of knowledge of
insufficient funds?
3. The check is subsequently dishonored by
the drawee bank for insufficiency of There is a prima facie evidence of knowledge of
funds or credit, or would have been insufficient funds when the check was presented within 90
dishonored for the same reason had not days from the date appearing on the check and was
the drawer, without any valid reason, dishonored.
ordered the bank to stop payment.
Exceptions
1. When the check was presented after 90 days

from date;
P.J.G. 129
Estafa through any of the following fraudulent means

2. When the maker or drawer -- under Article 315 (3)
a. Pays the holder of the check the amount Under paragraph (a)
due within five banking days after
receiving notice that such check has not 1. Offender induced the offended party to sign a
been paid by the drawee; document;
b. Makes arrangements for payment in full 2. Deceit was employed to make him sign the
by the drawee of such check within five document;
banking days after notice of non-
payment 3. Offended party personally signed the document;
The drawee must cause to be written or stamped in plain 4. Prejudice was caused.
language the reason for the dishonor.
If the drawee bank received an order of stop-payment Under paragraph (b)

from the drawer with no reason, it must be stated that the
funds are insufficient to be prosecuted here. Resorting to some fraudulent practice to insure success in
a gambling game;
The unpaid or dishonored check with the stamped
information re: refusal to pay is prima facie evidence of (1)
the making or issuance of the check; (2) the due Under paragraph (c)
presentment to the drawee for payment & the dishonor
thereof; and (3) the fact that the check was properly 1. Offender removed, concealed or destroyed;
dishonored for the reason stamped on the check.
2. Any court record, office files, documents or any
other papers;
Acts punished under paragraph (e)
3. With intent to defraud another.
1. a. Obtaining food, refreshment, or
accommodation at a hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house, lodging In Kim v. People, 193 SCRA 344, it was held that if an
house, or apartment house; employee receives cash advance from his employer to
defray his travel expenses, his failure to return unspent
b. Without paying therefor; amount is not estafa through misappropriation or
conversion because ownership of the money was
c. With intent to defraud the proprietor or transferred to employee and no fiduciary relation was
manager. created in respect to such advance. The money is a loan.
The employee has no legal obligation to return the same
2. a. Obtaining credit at money, that is, the same bills and coins received.
any of the establishments;
In Saddul Jr. v. CA, 192 SCRA 277, it was held that the act
b. Using false pretense; of using or disposing of another’s property as if it were
one’s own, or of devoting it to a purpose or use different
3. a. Abandoning or from that agreed upon, is a misappropriation and
surreptitiously removing any part of his conversion to the prejudice of the owner. Conversion is
baggage in the establishment; unauthorized assumption an exercise of the right of
ownership over goods and chattels belonging to another,
b. After obtaining credit, food, resulting in the alteration of their condition or exclusion of
refreshment, accommodation; the owner’s rights.
c. Without paying. In Allied Bank Corporation v. Secretary Ordonez, 192

SCRA 246, it was held that under Section 13 of Presidential
P.J.G. 130
Decree No. 115, the failure of an entrustee to turn over the

proceeds of sale of the goods covered by the Trust Receipt, In De Villa v. CA, decided April 18, 1991, it was held that
or to return said goods if they are not sold, is punishable as under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, there is no distinction as to
estafa Article 315 (1) (b). the kind of check issued. As long as it is delivered within
Philippine territory, the Philippine courts have jurisdiction.
Even if the check is only presented to and dishonored in a
On issuance of a bouncing check Philippine bank, Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 applies. This is
true in the case of dollar or foreign currency checks. Where
The issuance of check with insufficient funds may be held the law makes no distinction, none should be made.
liable for estafa and Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. Batas
Pambansa Blg. 22 expressly provides that prosecution In People v. Nitafan, it was held that as long as instrument
under said law is without prejudice to any liability for is a check under the negotiable instrument law, it is
violation of any provision in the Revised Penal Code. covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. A memorandum
Double Jeopardy may not be invoked because a violation of check is not a promissory note, it is a check which have the
Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 is a malum prohibitum and is word “memo,” “mem”, “memorandum” written across the
being punished as a crime against the public interest for face of the check which signifies that if the holder upon
undermining the banking system of the country, while maturity of the check presents the same to the drawer, it
under the RevisedPenal Code, the crime is malum in se will be paid absolutely. But there is no prohibition against
which requires criminal intent and damage to the payee drawer from depositing memorandum check in a bank.
and is a crime against property. Whatever be the agreement of the parties in respect of the
issuance of a check is inconsequential to a violation to
In estafa, the check must have been issued as a reciprocal Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 where the check bounces.
consideration for parting of goods (kaliwaan). There must
be concomitance. The deceit must be prior to or But overdraft or credit arrangement may be allowed by
simultaneous with damage done, that is, seller relied on banks as to their preferred clients and Batas Pambansa
check to part with goods. If it is issued after parting with Blg. 22 does not apply. If check bounces, it is because bank
goods as in credit accommodation only, there is no estafa. has been remiss in honoring agreement.
If the check is issued for a pre-existing obligation, there is
no estafa as damage had already been done. The drawer The check must be presented for payment within a 90-day
is liable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. period. If presented for payment beyond the 90 day period
and the drawer’s funds are insufficient to cover it, there is
For criminal liability to attach under Batas Pambansa Blg. no Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 violation.
22, it is enough that the check was issued to "apply on
account or for value" and upon its presentment it was Where check was issued prior to August 8, 1984, when
dishonored by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds, Circular No. 12 of the Department of the Justice took
provided that the drawer had been notified of the dishonor effect, and the drawer relied on the then prevailing Circular
and inspite of such notice fails to pay the holder of the No. 4 of the Ministry of Justice to the effect that checks
check the full amount due thereon within five days from issued as part of an arrangement/agreement of the parties
notice. to guarantee or secure fulfillment of an obligation are not
covered by Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, no criminal liability
Under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22, a drawer must be given should be incurred by the drawer. Circular should not be
notice of dishonor and given five banking days from notice given retroactive effect. (Lazaro v. CA, November 11,
within which to deposit or pay the amount stated in the 1993, citing People v. Alberto, October 28, 1993)
check to negate the presumtion that drawer knew of the
insufficiency. After this period, it is conclusive that drawer
knew of the insufficiency, thus there is no more defense to Article 316. Other Forms of Swindling
the prosecution under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22.
Under paragraph 1 – By conveying, selling, encumbering,
The mere issuance of any kind of check regardless of the or mortgaging any real property, pretending to be the
intent of the parties, whether the check is intended to owner of the same
serve merely as a guarantee or as a deposit, makes the
drawer liable under Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 if the check Elements
bounces. As a matter of public policy, the issuance of a
worthless check is a public nuisance and must be abated.
P.J.G. 131
1. There is an immovable, such as a parcel of land or

a building; Under paragraph 5 – by accepting any compensation for
services not rendered or for labor not performed
2. Offender who is not the owner represents himself
as the owner thereof;
Under paragraph 6 – by selling, mortgaging or
3. Offender executes an act of ownership such as encumbering real property or properties with which the
selling, leasing, encumbering or mortgaging the offender guaranteed the fulfillment of his obligation as
real property; surety
4. The act is made to the prejudice to the owner or a Elements

third person.
1. Offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal
or civil action;
Under paragraph 2 – by disposing of real property as free
from encumbrance, although such encumbrance be not 2. He guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation
recorded with his real property or properties;
Elements 3. He sells, mortgages, or in any manner encumbers

said real property;
1. The thing disposed is a real property:
4. Such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is without
2. Offender knew that the real property was express authority from the court, or made before
encumbered, whether the encumbrance is the cancellation of his bond, or before being
recorded or not; relieved from the obligation contracted by him.
3. There must be express representation by

offender that the real property is free from Article 317. Swindling A Minor
encumbrance;
Elements
4. The act of disposing of the real property is made
to the damage of another. 1. Offender takes advantage of the inexperience or
emotions or feelings of a minor;
Under paragraph 3 – by wrongfully taking by the owner of 2. He induces such minor to assume an obligation or
his personal property from its lawful possessor to give release or to execute a transfer of any
property right;
Elements
3. The consideration is some loan of money, credit
1. Offender is the owner of personal property; or other personal property;
2. Said personal property is in the lawful possession 4. The transaction is to the detriment of such minor.
of another;
3. Offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful Article 318. Other deceits
possessor;
Acts punished
4. Prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or
third person. 1. Defrauding or damaging another by any other
deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles;
Under paragraph 4 – by executing any fictitious contract to 2. Interpreting dreams, by making forecasts, by
the prejudice of another telling fortunes, or by taking advantage or the
P.J.G. 132
credulity of the public in any other similar 2. Offender, who is the mortgagor of such
manner, for profit or gain. property, sells or pledges the same or
any part thereof;
Article 319. Removal, Sale or Pledge of Mortgaged 3. There is no consent of the mortgagee
Property written on the back of the mortgage and
noted on the record thereof in the office
Acts punished of the register of deeds.
1. Knowingly removing any personal property

mortgaged under the Chattel Mortgage law to Arson
any province or city other than the one in which it
was located at the time of execution of the Kinds of arson
mortgage, without the written consent of the
mortgagee or his executors, administrators or 1. Arson, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No.
assigns; 1613;
Elements: 2. Destructive arson, under Article 320 of the

Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act
1. Personal property is mortgaged under No. 7659;
the Chattel Mortgage Law;
3. Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of
2. Offender knows that such property is so Presidential Decree No. 1613.
mortgaged;
3. Offender removes such mortgaged Article 327. Who Are Liable for Malicious Mischief
personal property to any province or city
other than the one in which it was Elements
located at the time of the execution of
the mortgage; 1. Offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another;
4. The removal is permanent;
2. Such act does not constitute arson or other
5. There is no written consent of the crimes involving destruction;
mortgagee or his executors,
administrators or assigns to such 3. The act of damaging another’s property was
removal. committed merely for the sake of damaging it;
2. Selling or pledging personal property already

pledged, or any part thereof, under the terms of There is destruction of the property of another but there is
the Chattel Mortgage Law, without the consent of no misappropriation. Otherwise, it would be theft if he
the mortgagee written on the back of the gathers the effects of destruction.
mortgage and noted on the record thereof in the
office of the register of deeds of the province
where such property is located.
Elements:
1. Personal property is already pledged

under the terms of the Chattel Mortgage
Law;
P.J.G. 133
2. Widowed spouse with respect to the property

Article 328. Special Case of Malicious Mischief which belonged to the deceased spouse before
the same passed into the possession of another
Acts punished
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law and
1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of sisters-in-law, if living together.
public functions;
2. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance; Only the relatives enumerated incur no liability if the crime
relates to theft (not robbery), swindling, and malicious
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among mischief. Third parties who participate are not exempt.
cattle; The relationship between the spouses is not limited to
legally married couples; the provision applies to live-in
4. Causing damage to the property of the National partners.
Museum or National Library, or to any archive or
registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any Estafa should not be complexed with any other crime in
other thing used is common by the pubic. order for exemption to operate.
Article 329. Other Mischiefs TITLE XI. CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
All other mischiefs not included in the next preceding Crimes against chastity
article
1. Adultery (Art. 333);
Article 330. Damage and Obstruction to Means of 2. Concubinage (Art. 334);

Communication
3. Acts of lasciviousness (Art. 336);
This is committed by damaging any railway, telegraph or
telephone lines. 4. Qualified seduction (Art. 337);
5. Simple seduction (Art. 338);

Article 331. Destroying or Damaging Statues, Public
Monuments, or Paintings 6. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of the
offended party (Art. 339);
Article 332. Persons Exempt from Criminal Liability 7. Corruption of minors (Art. 340);
Crimes involved in the exemption 8. White slave trade (Art. 34);
1. Theft; 9. Forcible abduction (Art. 342);
2. Estafa; and 10. Consented abduction (Art. 343).
3. Malicious mischief.
The crimes of adultery, concubinage, seduction, abduction
and acts of lasciviousness are the so-called private crimes.
Persons exempted from criminal liability They cannot be prosecuted except upon the complaint
initiated by the offended party. The law regards the
1. Spouse, ascendants and descendants, or relatives privacy of the offended party here as more important than
by affinity in the same line; the disturbance to the order of society. For the law gives
the offended party the preference whether to sue or not to
sue. But the moment the offended party has initiated the
criminal complaint, the public prosecutor will take over and
P.J.G. 134
continue with prosecution of the offender. That is why There is no frustrated adultery because of the nature of the
under Article 344, if the offended party pardons the offense.
offender, that pardon will only be valid if it comes before
the prosecution starts. The moment the prosecution starts, For adultery to exist, there must be a marriage although it
the crime has already become public and it is beyond the be subsequently annulled. There is no adultery, if the
offended party to pardon the offender. marriage is void from the beginning.
Article 333. Who Are Guilty of Adultery Adultery is an instantaneous crime which is consummated
and completed at the moment of the carnal union. Each
Elements sexual intercourse constitutes a crime of adultery.
Adultery is not a continuing crime unlike concubinage.
1. The woman is married;
Illustration:
2. She has sexual intercourse with a man not her
husband; Madamme X is a married woman residing in Pasay City.
He met a man, Y, at Roxas Boulevard. She agreed to go
3. As regards the man with whom she has sexual with to Baguio City, supposedly to come back the next day.
intercourse, he must know her to be married. When they were in Bulacan, they stayed in a motel, having
sexual intercourse there. After that, they proceeded again
and stopped at Dagupan City, where they went to a motel
Adultery is a crime not only of the married woman but also and had sexual intercourse.
of the man who had intercourse with a married woman
knowing her to be married. Even if the man proves later There are two counts of adultery committed in this
on that he does not know the woman to be married, at the instance: one adultery in Bulacan, and another adultery in
beginning, he must still be included in the complaint or Dagupan City. Even if it involves the same man, each
information. This is so because whether he knows the intercourse is a separate crime of adultery.
woman to be married or not is a matter of defense and its
up to him to ventilate that in formal investigations or a
formal trial. Article 334. Concubinage
If after preliminary investigation, the public prosecutor is
convinced that the man did not know that the woman is Acts punished
married, then he could simply file the case against the
woman. 1. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
The acquittal of the woman does not necessarily result in 2. Having sexual intercourse, under scandalous
the acquittal of her co-accused. circumstances;
In order to constitute adultery, there must be a joint 3. Cohabiting with her in any other place.
physical act. Joint criminal intent is not necessary.
Although the criminal intent may exist in the mind of one
of the parties to the physical act, there may be no such Elements
intent in the mind of the other party. One may be guilty of
the criminal intent, the other innocent, and yet the joint 1. The man is married;
physical act necessary to constitute the adultery may be
complete. So, if the man had no knowledge that the 2. He is either –
woman was married, he would be innocent insofar as the
crime of adultery is concerned but the woman would still a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal
be guilty; the former would have to be acquitted and the dwelling;
latter found guilty, although they were tried together.
b. Having sexual intercourse under
A husband committing concubinage may be required to scandalous circumstances with a woman
support his wife committing adultery under the rule in pari who is not his wife; or
delicto.
P.J.G. 135
c. Cohabiting with a woman who is not his Note that there are two kinds of acts of lasciviousness
wife in any other place; under the Revised Penal Code: (1) under Article 336, and
(2) under Article 339.
3. As regards the woman, she knows that the man is
married. 1. Article 336. Acts of Lasciviousness
Under this article, the offended party may be a

With respect to concubinage the same principle applies: man or a woman. The crime committed, when
only the offended spouse can bring the prosecution. This is the act performed with lewd design was
a crime committed by the married man, the husband. perpetrated under circumstances which would
Similarly, it includes the woman who had a relationship have brought about the crime of rape if sexual
with the married man. intercourse was effected, is acts of lasciviousness
under this article. This means that the offended
It has been asked why the penalty for adultery is higher party is either –
than concubinage when both crimes are infidelities to the
marital vows. The reason given for this is that when the (1) under 12 years of age; or
wife commits adultery, there is a probability that she will
bring a stranger into the family. If the husband commits (2) being over 12 years of age, the lascivious
concubinage, this probability does not arise because the acts were committed on him or her
mother of the child will always carry the child with her. So through violence or intimidation, or
even if the husband brings with him the child, it is clearly while the offender party was deprived of
known that the child is a stranger. Not in the case of a reason, or otherwise unconscious.
married woman who may bring a child to the family under
the guise of a legitimate child. This is the reason why in 2. Article 339. Acts of Lasciviousness with the
the former crime the penalty is higher than the latter. Consent of the Offended Party:
Unlike adultery, concubinage is a continuing crime. Under this article, the victim is limited only to a
woman. The circumstances under which the
lascivious acts were committed must be that of
Article 335. Rape qualified seduction or simple seduction, that is,
the offender took advantage of his position of
This has been repealed by Republic Act No. 8353 or the ascendancy over the offender woman either
Anti-Rape Law of 1997. See Article 266-A. because he is a person in authority, a domestic, a
househelp, a priest, a teacher or a guardian, or
there was a deceitful promise of marriage which
Article 336. Acts of Lasciviousness never would really be fulfilled.
Elements See Article 339.
1. Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or Always remember that there can be no frustration of acts
lewdness; of lasciviousness, rape or adultery because no matter how
far the offender may have gone towards the realization of
2. It is done under any of the following his purpose, if his participation amounts to performing all
circumstances: the acts of execution, the felony is necessarily produced as
a consequence thereof.
a. By using force or intimidation;
Intent to rape is not a necessary element of the crime of
b. When the offended party is deprived or acts of lasciviousness. Otherwise, there would be no crime
reason of otherwise unconscious; or of attempted rape.
c. When the offended party is another

person of either sex. Article 337. Qualified Seduction
Acts punished
P.J.G. 136
This crime also involves sexual intercourse. The offended

1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18 woman must be over 12 but below 18 years.
years of age by certain persons, such as a person
in authority, priest, teacher; and The distinction between qualified seduction and simple
seduction lies in the fact, among others, that the woman is
Elements a virgin in qualified seduction, while in simple seduction, it
is not necessary that the woman be a virgin. It is enough
1. Offended party is a virgin, which is that she is of good repute.
presumed if she is unmarried and of
good reputation; For purposes of qualified seduction, virginity does not
mean physical virginity. It means that the offended party
2. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age; has not had any experience before.
3. Offender has sexual intercourse with Although in qualified seduction, the age of the offended
her; woman is considered, if the offended party is a descendant
or a sister of the offender – no matter how old she is or
4. There is abuse of authority, confidence whether she is a prostitute – the crime of qualified
or relationship on the part of the seduction is committed.
offender.
Illustration:
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or
descendant by her ascendant, regardless of her If a person goes to a sauna parlor and finds there a
age or reputation. descendant and despite that, had sexual intercourse with
her, regardless of her reputation or age, the crime of
qualified seduction is committed.
Person liable
In the case of a teacher, it is not necessary that the
1. Those who abused their authority – offended woman be his student. It is enough that she is
enrolled in the same school.
a. Person in public authority;
Deceit is not necessary in qualified seduction. Qualified
b. Guardian; seduction is committed even though no deceit intervened
or even when such carnal knowledge was voluntary on the
c. Teacher; part of the virgin. This is because in such a case, the law
takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral
d. Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted element of the crime and punishes it with greater severity
with the education or custody of the than it does the simple seduction, taking into account the
woman seduced; abuse of confidence on the part of the agent. Abuse of
confidence here implies fraud.
2. Those who abused confidence reposed in them –
a. Priest; Article 338. Simple Seduction
b. House servant; Elements
c. Domestic; 1. Offender party is over 12 and under 18 years of

age;
3. Those who abused their relationship –
2. She is of good reputation, single or widow;
a. Brother who seduced his sister;
3. Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
b. Ascendant who seduced his descendant.
4. It is committed by means of deceit.
P.J.G. 137
Acts punished
This crime is committed if the offended woman is single or
a widow of good reputation, over 12 and under 18 years of 1. Engaging in the business of prostitution;
age, the offender has carnal knowledge of her, and the
offender resorted to deceit to be able to consummate the 2. Profiting by prostitution;
sexual intercourse with her.
3. Enlisting the services of women for the purpose
The offended woman must be under 18 but not less than of prostitution.
12 years old; otherwise, the crime is statutory rape.
Unlike in qualified seduction, virginity is not essential in Article 342. Forcible Abduction
this crime. What is required is that the woman be
unmarried and of good reputation. Simple seduction is not Elements
synonymous with loss of virginity. If the woman is married,
the crime will be adultery. 1. The person abducted is any woman, regardless or
her age, civil status, or reputation;
The failure to comply with the promise of marriage
constitutes the deceit mentioned in the law. 2. The abduction is against her will;
3. The abduction is with lewd designs.

Article 339. Acts of Lasciviousness with the Consent of
the Offender Party
A woman is carried against her will or brought from one
Elements place to another against her will with lewd design.
1. Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or If the element of lewd design is present, the carrying of the
lewdness; woman would qualify as abduction; otherwise, it would
amount to kidnapping. If the woman was only brought to
2. The acts are committed upon a woman who is a a certain place in order to break her will and make her
virgin or single or widow of good reputation, agree to marry the offender, the crime is only grave
under 18 years of age but over 12 years, or a coercion because the criminal intent of the offender is to
sister or descendant, regardless of her reputation force his will upon the woman and not really to restrain the
or age; woman of her liberty.
3. Offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of If the offended woman is under 12 years old, even if she
authority, confidence, relationship, or deceit. consented to the abduction, the crime is forcible abduction
and not consented abduction.
Article 340. Corruption of Minors
Where the offended woman is below the age of consent,
This punishes any person who shall promote or facilitate even though she had gone with the offender through some
the prostitution or corruption of persons under age to deceitful promises revealed upon her to go with him and
satisfy the lust of another. they live together as husband and wife without the benefit
of marriage, the ruling is that forcible abduction is
It is not required that the offender be the guardian or committed by the mere carrying of the woman as long as
custodian of the minor. that intent is already shown. In other words, where the
man cannot possibly give the woman the benefit of an
It is not necessary that the minor be prostituted or honorable life, all that man promised are just machinations
corrupted as the law merely punishes the act of promoting of a lewd design and, therefore, the carrying of the
or facilitating the prostitution or corruption of said minor woman is characterized with lewd design and would bring
and that he acted in order to satisfy the lust of another. about the crime of abduction and not kidnapping. This is
also true if the woman is deprived of reason and if the
woman is mentally retardate. Forcible abduction is
Article 341. White Slave Trade committed and not consented abduction.
P.J.G. 138
Lewd designs may be demonstrated by the lascivious acts rape and then each of them will answer for his own rape
performed by the offender on her. Since this crime does and the rape of the others minus the first rape which was
not involve sexual intercourse, if the victim is subjected to complexed with the forcible abduction. This ruling is no
this, then a crime of rape is further committed and a longer the prevailing rule. The view adopted in cases of
complex crime of forcible abduction with rape is similar nature is to the effect that where more than one
committed. person has effected the forcible abduction with rape, all
the rapes are just the consummation of the lewd design
The taking away of the woman may be accomplished by which characterizes the forcible abduction and, therefore,
means of deceit at the beginning and then by means of there should only be one forcible abduction with rape.
violence and intimidation later.
In the crimes involving rape, abduction, seduction, and acts
The virginity of the complaining witness is not a of lasciviousness, the marriage by the offender with the
determining factor in forcible abduction. offended woman generally extinguishes criminal liability,
not only of the principal but also of the accomplice and
In order to demonstrate the presence of the lewd design, accessory. However, the mere fact of marriage is not
illicit criminal relations with the person abducted need not enough because it is already decided that if the offender
be shown. The intent to seduce a girl is sufficient. marries the offended woman without any intention to
perform the duties of a husband as shown by the fact that
If there is a separation in fact, the taking by the husband of after the marriage, he already left her, the marriage would
his wife against her will constitutes grave coercion. appear as having been contracted only to avoid the
punishment. Even with that marriage, the offended
Distinction between forcible abduction and illegal woman could still prosecute the offender and that
detention: marriage will not have the effect of extinguishing the
criminal liability.
When a woman is kidnapped with lewd or unchaste
designs, the crime committed is forcible abduction. Pardon by the offended woman of the offender is not a
manner of extinguishing criminal liability but only a bar to
When the kidnapping is without lewd designs, the crime the prosecution of the offender. Therefore, that pardon
committed is illegal detention. must come before the prosecution is commenced. While
the prosecution is already commenced or initiated, pardon
But where the offended party was forcibly taken to the by the offended woman will no longer be effective because
house of the defendant to coerce her to marry him, it was pardon may preclude prosecution but not prevent the
held that only grave coercion was committed and not same.
illegal detention.
All these private crimes – except rape – cannot be
prosecuted de officio. If any slander or written defamation
Article 343. Consented Abduction is made out of any of these crimes, the complaint of the
offended party is till necessary before such case for libel or
Elements oral defamation may proceed. It will not prosper because
the court cannot acquire jurisdiction over these crimes
1. Offended party is a virgin; unless there is a complaint from the offended party. The
paramount decision of whether he or she wanted the crime
2. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age; committed on him or her to be made public is his or hers
alone, because the indignity or dishonor brought about by
3. Offender takes her away with her consent, after these crimes affects more the offended party than social
solicitation or cajolery; order. The offended party may prefer to suffer the outrage
in silence rather than to vindicate his honor in public.
4. The taking away is with lewd designs.
In the crimes of rape, abduction and seduction, if the
offended woman had given birth to the child, among the
Where several persons participated in the forcible liabilities of the offender is to support the child. This
abduction and these persons also raped the offended obligation to support the child may be true even if there
woman, the original ruling in the case of People v. Jose is are several offenders. As to whether all of them will
that there would be one count of forcible abduction with acknowledge the child, that is a different question because
P.J.G. 139
the obligation to support here is not founded on civil law If the child is being kidnapped and they knew that the
but is the result of a criminal act or a form of punishment. kidnappers are not the real parents of their child, then
simulation of birth is committed. If the parents are parties
It has been held that where the woman was the victim of to the simulation by making it appear in the birth
the said crime could not possibly conceive anymore, the certificate that the parents who bought the child are the
trial court should not provide in its sentence that the real parents, the crime is not falsification on the part of the
accused, in case a child is born, should support the child. parents and the real parents but simulation of birth.
This should only be proper when there is a probability that
the offended woman could give birth to an offspring.
Questions & Answers
TITLE XII. CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF
PERSONS 1. A woman who has given birth to a child
abandons the child in a certain place to free herself of the
Crimes against the civil status of persons obligation and duty of rearing and caring for the child.
What crime is committed by the woman?
1. Simulation of births, substitution of one child for
another and concealment or abandonment of a The crime committed is abandoning a minor
legitimate child (art. 347); under Article 276.
2. Usurpation of civil status (Art. 348); 2. Suppose that the purpose of the woman
is abandoning the child is to preserve the inheritance of
3. Bigamy (Art. 349); her child by a former marriage, what then is the crime
committed?
4. Marriage contracted against provisions of law
(Art. 350); The crime would fall under the second paragraph
of Article 347. The purpose of the woman is to cause the
5. Premature marriages (Art. 351); child to lose its civil status so that it may not be able to
share in the inheritance.
6. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony (Art.
352). 3. Suppose a child, one day after his birth,
was taken to and left in the midst of a lonely forest, and he
was found by a hunter who took him home. What crime
Article 347. Simulation of Births, Substitution of One was committed by the person who left it in the forest?
Child for Another, and Concealment of Abandonment of
A Legitimate Child It is attempted infanticide, as the act of the
offender is an attempt against the life of the child. See US
Acts punished v. Capillo, et al., 30 Phil. 349.
1. Simulation of births;
Article 349. Usurpation of Civil Status
2. Substitution of one child for another;
This crime is committed when a person represents himself
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child to be another and assumes the filiation or the parental or
with intent to cause such child to lose its civil conjugal rights of such another person.
status.
Thus, where a person impersonates another and assumes

Illustration: the latter's right as the son of wealthy parents, the former
commits a violation of this article.
People who have no child and who buy and adopt the child
without going through legal adoption. The term "civil status" includes one's public station, or the
rights, duties, capacities and incapacities which determine
P.J.G. 140
a person to a given class. It seems that the term "civil

status" includes one's profession. Bigamy is a form of illegal marriage. The offender must
have a valid and subsisting marriage. Despite the fact that
the marriage is still subsisting, he contracts a subsequent
Article 349. Bigamy marriage.
Elements Illegal marriage includes also such other marriages which

are performed without complying with the requirements of
1. Offender has been legally married; law, or such premature marriages, or such marriage which
was solemnized by one who is not authorized to solemnize
2. The marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in the same.
case his or her spouse is absent, the absent
spouse could not yet be presumed dead For bigamy to be committed, the second marriage must
according to the Civil Code; have all the attributes of a valid marriage.
3. He contracts a second or subsequent marriage;

Article 350. Illegal Marriage
4. The second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity. Elements
1. Offender contracted marriage;

The crime of bigamy does not fall within the category of
private crimes that can be prosecuted only at the instance 2. He knew at the time that –
of the offended party. The offense is committed not only
against the first and second wife but also against the state. a. The requirements of the law were not
complied with; or
Good faith is a defense in bigamy.
b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal
Failure to exercise due diligence to ascertain the impediment.
whereabouts of the first wife is bigamy through reckless
imprudence.
Marriages contracted against the provisions of laws
The second marriage must have all the essential requisites
for validity were it not for the existence of the first 1. The marriage does not constitute bigamy.
marriage.
2. The marriage is contracted knowing that the
A judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage, that is, requirements of the law have not been complied
that the marriage was void ab initio, is now required. with or in disregard of legal impediments.
One convicted of bigamy may also be prosecuted for 3. One where the consent of the other was obtained
concubinage as both are distinct offenses. The first is an by means of violence, intimidation or fraud.
offense against civil status, which may be prosecuted at
the instance of the state; the second is an offense against 4. If the second marriage is void because the
chastity, and may be prosecuted only at the instance of the accused knowingly contracted it without
offended party. The test is not whether the defendant has complying with legal requirements as the
already been tried for the same act, but whether he has marriage license, although he was previously
been put in jeopardy for the same offense. married.
One who, although not yet married before, knowingly 5. Marriage solemnized by a minister or priest who
consents to be married to one who is already married is does not have the required authority to
guilty of bigamy knowing that the latter’s marriage is still solemnize marriages.
valid and subsisting.
Distinction between bigamy and illegal marriage: Article 351. Premature Marriage
P.J.G. 141
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical

Persons liable person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
1. A widow who is married within 301 days from the Elements:

date of the death of her husband, or before
having delivered if she is pregnant at the time of 1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a
his death; vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
2. A woman who, her marriage having been
annulled or dissolved, married before her delivery 2. The imputation must be made publicly;
or before the expiration of the period of 301 days
after the date of the legal separation. 3. It must be malicious;
4. The imputation must be directed at a natural or

The Supreme Court has already taken into account the juridical person, or one who is dead;
reason why such marriage within 301 days is made
criminal, that is, because of the probability that there 5. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor,
might be a confusion regarding the paternity of the child discredit or contempt of the person defamed.
who would be born. If this reason does not exist because
the former husband is impotent, or was shown to be sterile Distinction between malice in fact and malice in law
such that the woman has had no child with him, that belief
of the woman that after all there could be no confusion Malice in fact is the malice which the law presumes from
even if she would marry within 301 days may be taken as every statement whose tenor is defamatory. It does not
evidence of good faith and that would negate criminal need proof. The mere fact that the utterance or statement
intent. is defamatory negates a legal presumption of malice.
In the crime of libel, which includes oral defamation, there

TITLE XIII. CRIMES AGAINST HONOR is no need for the prosecution to present evidence of
malice. It is enough that the alleged defamatory or
Crimes against honor libelous statement be presented to the court verbatim. It is
the court which will prove whether it is defamatory or not.
1. Libel by means of writings or similar means (Art. If the tenor of the utterance or statement is defamatory,
355); the legal presumption of malice arises even without proof.
2. Threatening to publish and offer to prevent such Malice in fact becomes necessary only if the malice in law
publication for a compensation (Art. 356); has been rebutted. Otherwise, there is no need to adduce
evidence of malice in fact. So, while malice in law does not
3. Prohibited publication of acts referred to in the require evidence, malice in fact requires evidence.
course of official proceedings (Art. 357);
Malice in law can be negated by evidence that, in fact, the
4. Slander (Art. 358); alleged libelous or defamatory utterance was made with
good motives and justifiable ends or by the fact that the
5. Slander by deed (Art. 359); utterance was privileged in character.
6. Incriminating innocent person (Art. 363); In law, however, the privileged character of a defamatory
statement may be absolute or qualified.
7. Intriguing against honor (Art. 364).
When the privileged character is said to be absolute, the
statement will not be actionable whether criminal or civil
Article 353. Definition of Libel because that means the law does not allow prosecution on
an action based thereon.
A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of
a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, Illustration:
condition, status, or circumstances tending to cause the
P.J.G. 142
As regards the statements made by Congressmen while justifiable end. Poof of truth of a defamatory imputation is
they are deliberating or discussing in Congress, when the not even admissible in evidence, unless what was imputed
privileged character is qualified, proof of malice in fact will pertains to an act which constitutes a crime and when the
be admitted to take the place of malice in law. When the person to whom the imputation was made is a public
defamatory statement or utterance is qualifiedly officer and the imputation pertains to the performance of
privileged, the malice in law is negated. The utterance or official duty. Other than these, the imputation is not
statement would not be actionable because malice in law admissible.
does not exist. Therefore, for the complainant to prosecute
the accused for libel, oral defamation or slander, he has to
prove that the accused was actuated with malice (malice in When proof of truth is admissible
fact) in making the statement.
1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a
When a libel is addressed to several persons, unless they crime regardless of whether the offended party is
are identified in the same libel, even if there are several a private individual or a public officer;
persons offended by the libelous utterance or statement,
there will only be one count of libel. 2. When the offended party is a government
employee, even if the act or omission imputed
If the offended parties in the libel were distinctly identified, does not constitute a crime, provided if its related
even though the libel was committed at one and the same to the discharged of his official duties.
time, there will be as many libels as there are persons
dishonored.
Requisites of defense in defamation
Illustration:
1. If it appears that the matter charged as libelous is
If a person uttered that “All the Marcoses are thieves," true;
there will only be one libel because these particular
Marcoses regarded as thieves are not specifically 2. It was published with good motives;
identified.
3. It was for justifiable ends.
If the offender said, “All the Marcoses – the father, mother
and daughter are thieves.” There will be three counts of
libel because each person libeled is distinctly dishonored. If a crime is a private crime, it cannot be prosecuted de
officio. A complaint from the offended party is necessary.
If you do not know the particular persons libeled, you
cannot consider one libel as giving rise to several counts of
libel. In order that one defamatory utterance or Article 355. Libel by Means of Writings or Similar Means
imputation may be considered as having dishonored more
than one person, those persons dishonored must be A libel may be committed by means of –
identified. Otherwise, there will only be one count of libel.
1. Writing;
Note that in libel, the person defamed need not be
expressly identified. It is enough that he could possibly be 2. Printing;
identified because “innuendos may also be a basis for
prosecution for libel. As a matter of fact, even a 3. Lithography;
compliment which is undeserved, has been held to be
libelous. 4. Engraving;
The crime is libel is the defamation is in writing or printed 5. Radio;

media.
6. Photograph;
The crime is slander or oral defamation if it is not printed.
7. Painting;
Even if what was imputed is true, the crime of libel is
committed unless one acted with good motives or 8. Theatrical exhibition;
P.J.G. 143
(2) Grave slander, when it is of a serious and insulting

9. Cinematographic exhibition; or nature.
10. Any similar means.

Article 359. Slander by Deed
Article 356. Threatening to Publish and Offer to Prevent Elements

Such Publication for A Compensation
1. Offender performs any act not included in any
Acts punished other crime against honor;
1. Threatening another to publish a libel concerning 2. Such act is performed in the presence of other
him, or his parents, spouse, child, or other person or persons;
members of his family;
3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt
2. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel upon the offended party.
for compensation or money consideration.
Slander by deed refers to performance of an act, not use

Blackmail – In its metaphorical sense, blackmail may be of words.
defined as any unlawful extortion of money by threats of
accusation or exposure. Two words are expressive of the Two kinds of slander by deed
crime – hush money. (US v. Eguia, et al., 38 Phil. 857)
Blackmail is possible in (1) light threats under Article 283; 1. Simple slander by deed; and
and (2) threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the
publication of, a libel for compensation, under Article 356. 2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of a
serious nature.
Article 357. Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred to in

the Course of Official Proceedings Whether a certain slanderous act constitutes slander by
deed of a serious nature or not, depends on the social
Elements standing of the offended party, the circumstances under
which the act was committed, the occasion, etc.
1. Offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a
newspaper, daily or magazine;
Article 363. Incriminating Innocent Persons
2. He publishes facts connected with the private life
of another; Elements
3. Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and 1. Offender performs an act;
reputation of said person.
2. By such an act, he incriminates or imputes to an
innocent person the commission of a crime;
The provisions of Article 357 constitute the so-called "Gag
Law." 3. Such act does not constitute perjury.
Article 358. Slander This crime cannot be committed through verbal

incriminatory statements. It is defined as an act and,
Slander is oral defamation. There are tow kinds of oral therefore, to commit this crime, more than a mere
defamation: utterance is required.
(1) Simple slander; and If the incriminating machination is made orally, the crime
may be slander or oral defamation.
P.J.G. 144
If the incriminatory machination was made in writing and Article 365. Imprudence and Negligence
under oath, the crime may be perjury if there is a willful
falsity of the statements made. Quasi-offenses punished
If the statement in writing is not under oath, the crime may 1. Committing through reckless imprudence any act
be falsification if the crime is a material matter made in a which, had it been intentional, would constitute a
written statement which is required by law to have been grave or less grave felony or light felony;
rendered.
2. Committing through simple imprudence or
As far as this crime is concerned, this has been interpreted negligence an act which would otherwise
to be possible only in the so-called planting of evidence. constitute a grave or a less serious felony;
3. Causing damage to the property of another

Article 364. Intriguing against Honor through reckless imprudence or simple
imprudence or negligence;
This crime is committed by any person who shall make any
intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the 4. Causing through simple imprudence or negligence
honor or reputation of another person. some wrong which, if done maliciously, would
have constituted a light felony.
Intriguing against honor is referred to as gossiping. The

offender, without ascertaining the truth of a defamatory Distinction between reckless imprudence and negligence:
utterance, repeats the same and pass it on to another, to
the damage of the offended party. Who started the The two are distinguished only as to whether the danger
defamatory news is unknown. that would be impending is easily perceivable or not. If the
danger that may result from the criminal negligence is
Distinction between intriguing against honor and slander: clearly perceivable, the imprudence is reckless. If it could
hardly be perceived, the criminal negligence would only be
When the source of the defamatory utterance is unknown simple.
and the offender simply repeats or passes the same, the
crime is intriguing against honor. There is no more issue on whether culpa is a crime in itself
or only a mode of incurring criminal liability. It is
If the offender made the utterance, where the source of practically settled that criminal negligence is only a
the defamatory nature of the utterance is known, and modality in incurring criminal liability. This is so because
offender makes a republication thereof, even though he under Article 3, a felony may result from dolo or culpa.
repeats the libelous statement as coming from another, as
long as the source is identified, the crime committed by Since this is the mode of incurring criminal liability, if there
that offender is slander. is only one carelessness, even if there are several results,
the accused may only be prosecuted under one count for
Distinction between intriguing against honor and the criminal negligence. So there would only be one
incriminating an innocent person: information to be filed, even if the negligence may bring
about resulting injuries which are slight.
In intriguing against honor, the offender resorts to an
intrigue for the purpose of blemishing the honor or Do not separate the accusation from the slight physical
reputation of another person. injuries from the other material result of the negligence.
In incriminating an innocent person, the offender performs If the criminal negligence resulted, for example, in
an act by which he directly incriminates or imputes to an homicide, serious physical injuries and slight physical
innocent person the commission of a crime. injuries, do not join only the homicide and serious physical
injuries in one information for the slight physical injuries.
You are not complexing slight when you join it in the same
TITLE XVI. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE information. It is just that you are not splitting the criminal
P.J.G. 145
negligence because the real basis of the criminal liability is

the negligence.
If you split the criminal negligence, that is where double

jeopardy would arise.

Ortega Lecture Notes Criminal Law II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ortega Lecture Notes Criminal Law II

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Ortega Lecture Notes Criminal Law II

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

P.J.G.

Crimes against the law of nations

2. Violation of neutrality (Art. 119); 1. Offender is a Filipino or resident alien;

4. Flight to enemy's country (Art. 121); and 3. Offender either –

failed to make the necessary report to the government

1. Offender owes allegiance to the government, and

2. He has knowledge of conspiracy to commit Acts punished

confidential nature relative to the b. exposure of Filipino citizens to reprisals

2. By disclosing to the representative of a foreign

1. Offender is a public officer; 2. There is a regulation issued by a competent

6. Harboring or concealing violators of law. 3. The correspondence is either –

a. prohibited by the government;

2. The acts provoke or give occasion for –

1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;

4. There is intent to gain.

Questions & Answers 2. Offenders may or may not be members of its

Elements of mutiny b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its

Mutiny is the unlawful resistance to a superior officer, or

On the other hand, if the aircraft is of foreign registry, the

(3) carrying or loading on board an aircraft operating

2. The hi-jackers threatened to detonate a

3. The detention is without legal grounds.

1. Arbitrary detention (Art. 124); Meaning of absence of legal grounds

4. Expulsion (Art. 127); 3. The person detained has no ailment which

The principal offender is a private person. But a

However, if the victim is under guard in his movement such

1. A janitor at the Quezon City Hall was

In arbitrary detention, the main reason for

deliver the person to the proper authority, and to

The period of detention is 12 hours for light offenses, 18

Elements When a person is arrested without a warrant, it means

Under the Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Court, the

a. the service of the notice of such order to

2. Compelling a person to change his residence.

3. Refusing to leave the premises, after having

1. Offender is a public officer or employee;

3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law.

There are three ways of committing the violation of Article

(3) Refusing to leave premises after surreptitious

a. prohibiting or by interrupting, without

(2) The officer exceeded his authority under the

There are two criteria to determine whether Article 131

In Article 131, the public officer is not a

If the public officer is a participant of the Crimes against public order

9. Disturbance of proceedings of Congress or similar

Elements 10. Violation of parliamentary immunity (Art. 145);

1. Offender is a public officer or employee; 11. Illegal assemblies (Art. 146);

2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any 12. Illegal associations (Art. 147);

Elements 16. Resistance and disobedience to a person in

19. Alarms and scandals (Art. 155);

3. By accepting appointment to office under them.

The crime of sedition does not contemplate the taking up

Article 139. Sedition

3. Purpose is to attain any of the following objects:

or of any provincial board or city or municipal

Only non-participant in sedition may be liable.

Elements a. attending the meetings of the

2. He arrests or searches any member of 2. The audience, whether armed or not, is

The gravamen of the offense is mere assembly of or