2012 Atty Amurao Crim2

CRIMINAL LAW II Page 1 of 226
Atty. Amurao Lecture Notes emquinto 2008-2009
ART. 114 Treason
Q: Who may commit treason?

Filipino citizen and Alien residing within the country
Q: Filipino citizen, where may he commit treason?

Anywhere
Q: So you mean for those who commit treason abroad they will be criminally liable under Philippine Laws?
Yes
Q: Does this not violate the principle of territoriality?

It violates
Q: What is the principle of territoriality?

Criminal laws undertake to punish crimes committed within Philippine territory.
The penal laws of a State extend only as far as its territory
Q: Is there a conflict between principle of territoriality and your former answer that a Filipino who commit
treason abroad may be liable under Phil laws?
Yes
Q: so how will you resolve the conflict? What are your legal basis?
-Under par 5, art 2 of the RPC – treason is a crime against national security, therefore it falls within the
exceptions.
-Art 114 states that any Filipino citizen who levies war against the Philippines or adheres to her enemies,
giving them aid or comfort within the Philippines or elsewhere.
Q: why is it that a Filipino citizen may commit treason even if abroad?

Definition of treason, concept of allegiance.
Q: As far alien is concerned, where may he commit treason?

Only in the Philippines
Q: What’s the principle behind the fact that a Filipino Citizen, as opposed to an alien, may be held liable
for treason even if he happens to commit it outside Philippine shores?
1. Because treason is a crime against national security and the State
2. and his CITIZENSHIP requires him to owe permanent allegiance to his State
Q: Why? Does an alien owe allegiance to the Philippines?

Yes. There is temporary allegiance only to the government of the Philippines, in return for the protection
they receive from the government.
Q: As far as the alien is concerned, where may he commit treason?
Only within the Philippines
Q: Why is that?
Because the ‘Treason’ he commits is treason against the host state, and he may only commit it during his
actual residence within that state.
Q: Doesn’t an alien residing in the Philippines owe the state his allegiance, too?
Additional Notes and Revisions from:

*em quinto (’11-12 criminal law review) |*kimiko dizon (’11-12 criminal law 2)
*ate dei and dyan catapang (’06-07 criminal law 2) |*xina acosta and tin dabu (’10-’11 criminal law review)
Yes, he does. But the allegiance he owes to the state is temporary.
Q: What do you mean by ‘temporary’?

He only owes it to the state during his actual residence there, in return for the protection he receives from
the state.
Q: How long does he (the alien) have to stay in the Philippines in order to be held liable for the
Commission of treason?
Any length of time would suffice for the liability to attach.
Q: Even if he stays for only a day and commits treason within that day?
Yes, even then.
Q: But doesn’t ‘residence’ entail a longer period of time?

Not in this case. ‘Residence’ as contemplated by the provision on treason is not synonymous to
‘residence’ contemplated by civil law. The alien may be held liable even if his ‘residence’ within the
country is only for a day.
*NB: ‘residence’ here does not connote any definite length of time. The raison de etre of the law is to
make any alien who betrays the state liable. Theoretically, even if he stays for an hour, and commits
treason within that hour, he may still be held liable. What is meant by ‘residence’ is the stay of the alien
within the country, during which stay he shares our resources, and the protection afforded to us by the
State.
Q: What if the alien was a former Japanese citizen when he committed treason, and then he becomes
Naturalized. May he still be held liable?
Yes.
Q: What if he was once a Japanese and then he becomes a naturalized citizen, may he still be liable for treason?
Yes. There is no distinction. Art 114 speaks of alien.
Q: How is treason committed?

-by levying war against the gov’t
-by adhering to the enemies and giving them aid and comfort
Q: Levying war, how committed?

Assembling of persons for purpose of delivering government to foreign country.
Q: Elements….
-assembling of persons
-purpose is treasonable design.
Q: Levying war, should there be an actual military encounter with the gov’t forces?
Not necessarily. The mere assembly of persons for the purpose of executing a treasonable design is
already made punishable.
Q: can this be committed by just one person?

No. The law speaks of MEN in element #1

Q: is it necessary that this assembly of men be armed?

No. The law does not qualify.
Q: situation: Philippines Government was at war with Japan. We were all unarmed and we were discussing ways
and means of effectively delivering the gov’t into the hands of a foreign power. Liable for treason?
Yes. Complied with the elements of levying war.
-Adherence to enemy giving aid or support; adherence must be concrete physical act.
Q: What do you mean by adhere?

Favoring the enemy either mentally, psychologically, emotionally.
Q: What is giving aid?

It is the act of strengthening or aiding to strengthen the enemy
It is the act of weakening or aiding to weaken the Phil.
Q: by adhering to the enemies and giving them aid or comfort; during the Japanese occupation, certain Filipinos
were moving around, convincing the people that the principles of the gov’t of Japan are better than that followed
by the Philippines. Is this treasonous?
No. There is only adherence in this case.
Adhering to the enemies and giving aid or comfort must concur.
Q: suppose that during the Japanese occupation, you were a merchant engaged in the selling of weapons and you
were having transactions with the Japanese. Treason?
Yes. This is adherence to the enemy, it may be implied by the nature of the act committed.
Q: suppose you were engaged in a transportation business; Japanese hired your buses to transport their troops to
another province. Liable?
Yes. It will directly strengthen the enemy’s troops.
Q: suppose you were a rice merchant supplying Japanese with rice. Liable?
No. The purpose is purely business.
Q: Why “no” will it not strengthen them?

It will not strengthen them, there is no adherence on my part.
Q: Suppose you were providing the soldiers with prostitutes, and giving them more women for their leisure?
Liable?
No. It will not aid them in war
Q: Suppose you perform an act of duty in favor of the enemy government. Liable?
It depends.
Highly-responsible or policy determining – liable
Purely government duty – not liable
Q: Conviction of treason?
Testimony
Confession
Q: Is it enough that there be 2 witness?

It depends. If the testimony points to the same act, it is enough that there are only 2 witnesses.
Q: is it enough that proof beyond reasonable doubt sufficient to convict the accused?
No.
Witnesses who should testify on the same overt act.
(treason is the only felony in the entire RPC where PBRD is not sufficient)
EXTRAJUDICIAL confession is not sufficient to convict a person of treason, confession must be made in
open court.
Q: can a tactical interrogation made by the military officers be considered a basis for conviction?
No.
Confessions must be made in open court.
Q: witness #1: saw personally the accused in the company of a Japanese major who went to the house of a guerilla
officer; saw the jeep where the guerilla officer; saw the accused point at the guerilla, and the latter was tied and
dragged. . . ; witness #2: was walking in the farm located near the brgy. hall, saw the jeep where the guerilla
officer; saw him being dragged by the Japanese, after which they shot him. Is the 2 witness rule complied with?
No.
Continuing crime – composed of several acts
Q: suppose the prosecution presented 3 witnesses but the court gave credence to only 1 witness. Acquit or
convict?
Acquit, there is no compliance with the two-witness rule.
-if the common crimes were committed not in any way connected with the objectives of treason, liability
is separate.
Q: Accused was charged with treason and 10 acts of kidnapping with ransom; purpose of ransom was to finance
their treasonous activities. Liability?
Treason
Q: Elements of treason?
a. That the offender owes allegiance to the Government of the Philippines
b. That there is a war in which the Philippines is involved
c. That the offender either –
d. Levies war against the government,
1. breach of allegiance
2. actual assembling of men
3. for the purpose of executing a reasonable design
e. Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid and comfort
1. breach of allegiance
2. adherence
3. giving aid or comfort to the enemy
Q: Ways of proving treason:

a. 2 witnesses testifying to same overt act
Example: X saw arms landed in La Union and loaded into a motor vehicle. At this stage, not sufficient to
convict yet. Y later saw the arms unloaded in a warehouse. Will X + Y be sufficient witnesses to convict?
Answer: NO. Because the law requires that 2 witnesses see the SAME OVERT ACT.
b. Confession of the accused in open court. Arraignment, pre-trial, trial – OK.

1. If he has pleaded NOT guilty already during arraignment, he can still confess in open court by stating
the particular acts constituting treason.
2. During trial, simply saying “I’m guilty” is not enough.
3. Withdrawing plea of “not guilty” during arraignment not necessary
4. If during arraignment he pleads guilty, court will ask if the accused understands is plea. Submission
of affidavit during trial, even if assisted by counsel is not enough.
*Treason: breach of allegiance to the government, committed by a person who owes allegiance to it. Allegiance:
obligation of fidelity and obedience. It is permanent or temporary depending on whether the person is a citizen or
an alien.
*Evident premeditation, superior strength and treachery are circumstances inherent in treason, and are, therefore,
not aggravating.
*Treason cannot be committed in times of peace, only in times of war – actual hostilities. But no need for
declaration of war
*Levying of war:
a) that there be an actual assembling of men;
b) for the purpose of executing a treasonable design by force (deliver the country in whole or in part to the
enemy)
*NOT TREASONOUS:
a. Acceptance of public office and discharge of official duties under the enemy does not constitute per
se the felony of treason (exception: when it is policy determining)
b. Serving in a puppet government (ministerial functions) and in order to serve the populace is NOT
treasonous.
But it is treason if:
a) there is discretion involved;
b) inflicts harm on Filipinos;
c) it is disadvantageous to them.
c. Purpose of offender: to deliver the Philippines to enemy country; if merely to change officials – not
treason
*On Citizenship
a. Filipino citizens can commit treason outside the Philippines. But that of an alien must be committed
in the Philippines.
b. Only Filipino citizens or permanent resident aliens can be held liable
c. Alien: with permanent resident status from the BID – it is neither the length of stay in the Philippines
nor the marriage with a Filipino that matters.
*Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by extra-judicial confession of the accused
*Actual hostilities may determine the date of the commencement of war
*No such thing as attempted treason; mere attempt consummates the crime
*Giving aid or comfort – material element, enhances forces of the enemy country. Acts which strengthen or tend
to strengthen the enemy in the conduct of war against the traitor’s country or that which weaken and tend to
weaken the power of the same.

Example: Financing arms procurement of enemy country. But giving of shelter is not necessarily “giving aid
and comfort.”
*Adherence and giving aid or comfort must concur together. Adherence: when a citizen intellectually or
emotionally favors the enemy and harbors convictions disloyal to his country’s policy. But membership in the
police force during the occupation is NOT treason.
Example: Giving information to, or commandeering foodstuffs for the enemy.
*Adherence may be proved by:

(1) one witness;
(2) from the nature of the act itself;
(3) from the circumstances surrounding the act.
*Treason is a CONTINUING CRIME. Even after the war, offender can be prosecuted.
*If you convict a person for treason by reason of irresistible force or uncontrollable fear, you may use Art.12. No
treason through negligence
*When killings and other common crimes are charged as overt act of treason, they cannot be regarded as (1)
separate crimes or (2) as complex with treason.
Q: In the prosecution for treason, what is necessary to secure a conviction?

1. The testimony of AT LEAST TWO witnesses to the SAME overt act or
2. The confession of the accused of his guilt in the commission of the crime
Q: How is compliance with the with the 2-witness rule achieved?

1. By the presentation of at least 2 witnesses who testify to the same overt act AND
2. These 2 witnesses’ testimonies must be lent credence by the court
*NB: If you present 2 witnesses, but only one is believed, there is no compliance. The two requirements
must concur.
Q: Is it necessary that those 2 witnesses testify to the same overt act?

Yes
Q: Why? (Ah, the killer question. 3 rounds of shotgun recits for us here, mates. Be careful)
Because…
1. The law requires it
2. The seriousness of the offense of treason and its corresponding afflictive penalties need to be proven
by evidence greater than proof beyond reasonable doubt.
3. The crime of treason is a continuing crime composed of many acts
4. Treason is committed in time of war and under abnormal circumstances
5. To prevent to miscarriage of justice
Q: You mean to say ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ is not enough?

Yes, it isn’t enough. There must be compliance with the 2-witness rule.
*NB: Treason is the only crime where proof beyond reasonable is not sufficient.
Q: Is a plea of ‘guilty’ mitigating in treason?

Yes, it is.

Q: When should this plea be made?

During Arraignment, for it to be mitigating under Article 13, par.7
*NB: During arraignment, the contents of the information are read to the accused in a language
Or dialect known to him. He is asked whether or not he understands the charges levied against
Him, then he is asked how he pleads: guilty or not guilty. THIS is the ‘confession of guilt’ contempla ted
by Art.13, par.7
Q: What is the legal effect of a plea of guilty?

It serves as an admission by the accused of the veracity of ALL the facts and charges alleged in
the information
Q: If the accused pleads guilty, does the prosecution still need to present evidence against him to prove
his culpability?
Not anymore
Q: What about the defence? What proof may it present, assuming the accused pleads guilty?
The defence may present evidence to mitigate or justify the act.
*NB: this is known as a reverse trial. Defence presents evidence of mitigation, Prosecution
refutes the evidence of the defence.
Q: If during arraignment, the accused is asked if he understands the charges read to him and he says no, what
should the court do?
Exert effort to make him understand (think: translators, sign language experts etc.)
Q: And if after those efforts, he still does not understand, may the court proceed with trial?
No.
*NB: to proceed at this stage would violate the accused’s constitutional right to be informed of
the nature and cause of the accusations against him. (Btw this may sound ridiculous, but there you have
it.)
Q: If the accused pleads guilty at another time, will it still be considered mitigating?
Not anymore. The plea of guilty must be done in open court before the prosecution presents its
Evidence
Q: Does the two-witness rule apply in proving adherence?

No. Adherence may be proved by the testimony of only one witness.
NOTES:
*Treason, definition: a breach of allegiance to the government, committed by a person who owes allegiance to it.
*Allegiance: the obligation of fidelity and obedience owed by a citizen to his state, and the alien to the host state.
It may be permanent or temporary.
*The following circumstances are inherent in treason and are therefore not aggravating: evident premeditation,
abuse of superior strength and treachery.

*Treason is a war crime. It cannot be committed during times of peace. It is, however, not necessary that there be
a formal declaration of war.
*Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by extra-judicial confessions
*There is no such thing as ‘attempted treason’. The mere attempt to commit it is punishable.
*Treason absorbs other common crimes committed in furtherance of its goals. It may not be complexed with
them.
Art. 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to commit treason
Q: What are the ELEMENTS:

a. In time of war
b. 2 or more persons come to an agreement to
1. levy war against the government, or
2. adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort,
c. They decide to commit it
Q: Elements of Proposal To Commit Treason

a. In time of war
b. A person who has decided to levy war against the government, or to adhere to the enemies and to give
them aid or comfort, proposes its execution to some other person/s.
*Mere agreement and decisions to commit treason is punishable

*Mere proposal even without acceptance is punishable too. If the other accepts, it is already conspiracy.
Art 116. Misprision of Treason
Q: Is conspiracy to commit crime punishable?

Generally, no.
Q: Is there any exception?

Yes. When the law specifically provides.
Q: Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason, how is this committed?

In time of war
When two or more persons come to an agreement to levy war against the government or to adhere to the
enemies and to give them aid or comfort, and decide to commit it.
Q: Why do you think it is punishable?

The very existence of state is endangered.
Q: Will the two witness rule apply?

No. This is a distinct offense from that of treason.
Q: supposing ABC conspired to commit treason and commit the same, what will be their liability?
Treason.

Q: Who may commit misprision of treason?

Any person
Q: Can this be committed by a resident alien?

No. The offender must be a Filipino citizen owing full and permanent allegiance to the Republic.
Q: Does this violate the principle of generality?

Yes. However, there are exceptions
1. treaty
2. law of nations
3. expressed in our own law
Q: What is the principle of generality?

All persons within a state’s criminal jurisdiction are equally liable for acts committed against
That state’s laws.
Q: What is concealed in misprision of treason?

Knowledge of the conspiracy to commit treason
Q: Who are the authorities should be disclosed?

Mayor, judge, City Fiscals/Prosecutors
Q: Supposing you have knowledge. You did not say it to the authorities instead you disclose the information to
the Chief of Staff. Will you be liable?
No. Because there is no intention to keep the secret, no criminal intent
Q: how soon should the disclosure be made?

Within a reasonable period, it will depend on the judgment of the judge.
Q: Accused is prosecuted for MT, alleged in the info that being a Filipino citizen, he owed permanent allegiance
and having knowledge of persons who were armed and who performed acts with the view of overthrowing the
gov’t he should have disclosed the same. Liable?
No. The knowledge was already about treason and not mere conspiracy
Q: Accused a resident of a city, has knowledge of conspiracy, refused to disclose the matter to the mayor/fiscal
because they are among the most corrupt, disclosed the same to AFP. Liable?
No. There was no intent not to disclose the information.
*Art 116 does not apply when the crime of treason is already committed because art 116 speaks of
“knowledge of any conspiracy against”
*The offender punished as an accessory – penalty 2 degrees lower than treason ; but the offender is a
principal in misprision of treason
*Art 20, RPC will not apply them and
*Art 116 is an exemption to the general rule that mere silence does not make any person criminally liable.
November 19, 2008
Art. 117. Espionage

Q: Espionage, how is this committed?

-by entering without authority therefore, a warship, fort or naval or military establishment or reservation
to obtain any information, plans, photographs or other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense
of the Philippines.
-by disclosing to the representatives of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or information
referred to in paragraph No. 1 Art 117, which he had in his possession by reason of the public office he
holds.
Q: In the first manner, who may commit espionage?

Any person.
Q: You mean to say that in this first manner of commission, liability is not conditioned by citizenship?
Yes
Q: What consummates the crime?

By mere entering. {ata}
When the offender has entered any of the enumerated places in par.1, art.117 and has taken the articles,
data or information with intent to gain the same
Q: Is it necessary that the offender possess intent to gain?

Yes, intent is necessary. Refer to the phrasing: ‘for the purpose of… xxx’.
Q: Is it necessary that he succeeds?

No, it isn’t. Mere entrance with purpose to obtain classified information is enough for liability to attach
Q: Is it necessary for him to gather information?

No.
Q: Suppose his purpose was to obtain information about the officers. Liable?
Oo {ata}
Q: Suppose the US donated armaments, etc to the Phil. gov’t to be used for its war against Malaysia; arms were
stored in a warehouse in Nieva Ecija; newspaper reporter without authority went inside the warship to take photos
of the arms, and while he was leaving about 50 meters away from the warehouse, he was arrested. Is he liable?
Yes. The elements of first manner were already present
Q: What if he chartered a private helicopter to fly only outside the premises. Liable?
Yes. Under CA 616
Q: Under the RPC?

No, the law that governs in this case is CA 616
Q: What if he climbed a tree, to be able to get a better view of the arms. Liable?
Yes. Under CA 616
Q: suppose a newspaper man who was accosted told the military officers that he wanted to take photos of the
modern warfare that he read in Manila Bulletin. Liable?
No. The information he intends to obtain is no longer confidential.
The matter has ceased to be confidential because of its publication.

Q: Second manner of committing espionage?

-by disclosing to the representatives of a foreign nation the contents of the articles, data or information
referred to in paragraph No. 1 Art 117, which he had in his possession by reason of the public office he
holds.
Q: May this be committed by a private individual?

No. Only public officer
Q: A high ranking official has possession of information. In order to impress a beauty candidate, he told her about
this. May he be criminally liable under the second manner?
Yes. The law speaks of representative. No distinction. A beauty pageant candidate (Ms. Australia) is a
representative of her country.
Art. 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for reprisals
Q: how committed?
That the offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts.
That such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or liable to involve the Philippines or expose
Filipino citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.
Q: US is involved in war, suppose the Phils trained a battalion of soldiers to be deployed in Iraq; if the person
training has no authority to do so, will he be liable?
No.
If the person has authority, he will be liable.
Q: Can you give an example

Burning another country’s flag, if the act results in a war that involves or is liable to involve the
Philippines
Art. 119. Violation of neutrality
Q: how committed?
That there is a war in which the Ph is not involved
That there is a regulation issued by competent authority for the purpose of enforcing neutrality
That the offender violates such regulation
Q: can you give an example…
Q: What is neutrality?
A nation or power which takes no part in a contest of arms going on between others is referred to as
neutral. A condition of abstinence from armed hostilities.
Q: Is it necessary that there be a regulation?

Yes
Q: So you mean that without a regulation, a person will not be liable under this provision?
Yes.

Q: Whose neutrality is violated when a person commits this crime?

The Philippines’ neutrality.
Q: Who declares our neutrality?

Congress.
*Gov’t must have declared the neutrality of the Phil in a war between 2 other countries
*It is neutrality of the Phil that is violated
*Congress has the right to declare neutrality
Art. 120. Correspondence with hostile country
Q: how committed?
-That it is in time of war in which the Philippines is involved
-That the offender makes correspondence with an enemy country or territory occupied by enemy troops;
-That the correspondence is either –
a. prohibited by the Government, or
b. carried on in ciphers or conventional signs
c. containing notice or information which might be useful to the enemy.
Q: Supposing the Philippines is at war with Malaysia. Mindanao is under control of Malaysia. You left your
boyfriend in Davao, you wrote a letter to him. Supposing it is prohibited by the government. Will you be liable?
Yes.
Q: Supposing you wrote a letter with a heart and an arrow on it Will be liable?
Yes. Ciphers and conventional signs
Q: Is intent material here?

No.
Q: May a person be held liable even if the correspondence contains innocent matters?
Even if the matters are innocent, so long as it is prohibited by the government and you send it or commit
the prohibited act, you are liable.
Q: Why is intent immaterial when the government has expressly prohibited correspondence?
Because of the possibility that some information that might prove useful to the enemy might be
unwittingly revealed.
Q: So it is the possibility of revealing that information that is sought to be pre-empted?

Yes.
NOTE:
*If ciphers were used, there is no need for prohibition
*Circumstances qualifying the offense:

a. notice or information might be useful to the enemy

b. offender intended to aid the enemy
*Hostile country exist only during hostilities or after the declaration of war
*Correspondence to enemy country – correspondence to officials of enemy country – even if related to you.
*It is not correspondence with private individual in enemy country
*If ciphers were used, no need for prohibition

*If ciphers were not used, there is a need for prohibition
*In any case, it must be correspondence with the enemy country
*Doesn’t matter if correspondence contains innocent matters – if prohibited, punishable
Art. 121. Flight to enemy’s country
Q: how is this committed?

That there is war in which the Philippines is involved;
That the offender must be owing allegiance to the Government;
That the offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country;
That going to enemy country is prohibited by competent authority
Q: can you give an example. . .
Q: May this be committed by mere attempt?

Yes.
Q: What consummates the crime?

Mere attempt to flee or go to enemy country
Q: Who may commit this?
Any person owing allegiance to the government
Q: May this be committed by an alien resident?

Yes. Law does not say “not being a foreigner” Law speaks of allegiance, may be temporary or natural.
Q: Supposing you fly to an enemy country. The same is not prohibited by the government. May you be liable?
No. There must be prohibition by competent authority.
Q: So you mean it is the prohibition that defines the crime?

Yes.
Art. 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high seas or in Ph water.
Q: How is this committed?

By attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in Ph waters
By seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in Philippine waters the whole or part of its cargo, its
equivalent or personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
Q: What is piracy?

It is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, without lawful authority and done with animo
furandi and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility.
Q: Where may piracy be committed?

High seas or in Philippine waters
Q: What are the two kinds of piracy?

piracy under rpc (art 122)
piracy under PD 532
Q: Under RPC, may piracy be committed by a stranger?

Yes
Q: Under RPC, may piracy be committed by a crew member or passenger?

Yes, if such crew member or passenger is a principal by inducement
Q: What is a high sea?

Any waters on the sea coast which are without the boundaries of lo-water mark although waters may be in
the jurisdictional limits of a foreign government.
Q: What is Philippine waters?

All bodies of water, such as but not limited to seas, gulfs, bays, around between and connecting each of
the Islands of the PH archipelago irrespective of depth, breadth over which the PH has sovereignty or
jurisdiction.
Q: What is a vessel?
Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers and cargo from one place to another through
Philippine waters, it shall include all kinds and types of vessels or boats used in fishing.
Q: May piracy be committed in pasig river?

Yes
Q: suppose you were on board a banca in burnham lake; you got your phone and suddenly a person seized from
you your cellphone. What crime?
Piracy under RPC
Q: is the banca considered a vessel?

Yes.
Q: Burnham lake a body of water?

Yes
Q: Phone a personal property?

Yes
Q: Person who got your phone a complement, passenger or stranger?

Stranger
Q: May piracy be committed in the estero under the Mendiola bridge?

Yes

Q: suppose it is full of garbage, may piracy still be committed?

No. the waters must at least be navigable
Q: Supposing a banca from Mandaluyong to Makati; one of the passengers was a hold upper, in the middle of the
river, he announced a hold up and demanded that you give your belongings to him. What crime?
Piracy under PD 532
Piracy under RPC Piracy under PD 532

High seas or Philippine Philippine waters
waters
Stranger Co-passenger or member
of the crew or stranger
Q: a ship from Manila to Cebu; while waiting for the departure of the ship; a person suddenly boarded the ship,
pointed a knife at you, demanded that you give your belongings, after which he got off. Crime committed?
Piracy under RPC.
Q: what if it was also a passenger of the ship who took your belongings?
Piracy under PD532
Q: Even if the ship was not sailing then?

Yes
Q: supposing you are in a floating casino in manila bay, while you were there, a person pointed a revolver at you
and demanded that you give your winnings. Crime?
Robbery. Floating casino is not within the definition of a vessel.
Q: supposing on board a motorboat going to the floating casino, a stranger boarded the motorboat and seized your
personal property. What crime?
Piracy under RPC
Q: Passenger ship bound to Cebu. While waiting for departure time and passengers, it is anchored accused
boarded and hold up 5 passengers. What crime?
Piracy under RPC
Q: Supposing you are on a ship going to Boracay. A stranger boarded your ship and seized your personal
property. What crime?
Piracy under RPC and PD 532
It is up to the court to decide which crime to apply, but as far as the elements are concerned, both are
present.
Q: Who decides which crime is to be alleged in the information sheet?

The prosecutor / fiscal
Q: So you file both and let the fiscal decide?

Yes
Q: Supposing an Indonesian committed piracy un Indonesian waters. They fled. They remain there because of
engine trouble. They were brought by Philippine Coast Guard to Manila. May they be prosecuted in Manila RTC?

Q: when is piracy qualified?

-whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same;
-whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves; or
-whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries or rape
Q: example….
Q: Is there a complex crime of piracy with rape?

None
RA 6235 – Anti Hi-jacking Law
Q: Acts punishable, in so far as an aircraft of Philippine registry is concerned:

-compel a change in the course of destination of an aircraft
-seize or usurp control of aircraft while it is in flight
Q: when is it in flight?
From the moment all its external doors are closed following embarkation until any of such doors is
opened for disembarkation.
Q: PAL from Manila to Davao; accused compelled the pilot to veer the plane a little to the right for a couple of
minutes. Violation?
Yes. – refer to a change in course
Q: accused bribed the pilot to veer the plane in exchange for money. Liable?
No – there is no compulsion.
-what is punished is the element of compulsion
Q: May a plane be considered in flight when the doors are already closed but it is still on the ground because there
is a problem in the engine?
Yes.
Q: Doors were already closed, passengers were already on board but the pilot was still waiting for the instructions
from the control tower, accused seized control of the plane. Liable?
Yes
Q: Supposing the doors have already been opened but the passengers have not come out, accused seized control of
the plane. Liable?
No. The plane has ceased to be in flight
Q: Supposing a group of skydivers on board a Philippine plane; about to stage a skydiving execution in Luneta; at
a latitude of abut 15,000 ft door of the plane opened and the skydivers jumped out, last person instead of jumping,
seized control of the plane. Liable for Anti-Hijacking?
No. Legally speaking, the plane was no longer in flight, notwithstanding the fact that it is actually flying.
Q: how about a plane of foreign registry?

-landing
-seize or usurp the control thereof

Q: Is it necessary that the seizing or usurping the control of the plane be done while it is in flight?
No. The law is silent
Q: Japan Airlines, after it has landed, external doors were already opened; accused barged into the pilot’s cockpit
and seized control of the plane. Liable?
Yes.
Q: (same facts) but the airplane is PAL. Liable?

No.
Q: what are the other acts…

-shipping, loading, carrying in any passenger aircraft operating as a public utility within the Philippines
any explosive, flammable, corrosive or poisonous substance or material.
Q: suppose you and your classmates chartered a PAL passenger plane for your exclusive use from Manila to
Zamboanga; on board, some brought out bottles of cyanide and several sacks of dynamite. Liable?
Yes. (other acts)
Q: Let us say… (same facts) but the plane was owned by one of the students. Liable?
No. Plane is not within the contemplation of “public utility”
Q: What are the circumstances qualifying RA 6235?

-When the offender has fired upon the pilot, members of passengers
-When the crime was accompanied by murder, homicide, serious physical injuries or rape
Art 123. Qualified Piracy
Q: Circumstances:
a. Whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or firing upon the same
b. Whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims without means of saving themselves
c. Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder, homicide, physical injuries, or rape. (the above may
result to qualified mutiny)
*Parricide/infanticide should be included (Judge Pimentel)

*Note the new rape law. Death is imposed in certain types of rape
*There is a conflict between this provision and the provision on rape.
Ex. If rape is committed on someone below 7 – death under the new rape law. But if rape committed on someone
below 7 during the time of piracy – RP to death. Irreconcilable.
*Murder/rape/homicide/physical injuries must have been committed on the passengers or complement
PEOPLE v. CATANTAN
278 SCRA 761
Bellosillo, J.
FACTS:
Emiliano Catantan was found guilty of piracy for having attacked Eugene and Juan Pilapil, Jr.,
who were then fishing. He allegedly boarded the Pilapils’ pump boat, levelled his gun at Eugene,
struck the latter on the cheek and ordered Juan, Jr. to lie down. When they were far out into sea,
the engine stalled and the brothers were directed to row the boat. They saw another boat and
Catantan ordered them to approach it. He boarded the new boat, along with his co-accused, Ursal.

The outrigger of the new boat caught the front part of the Pilapils’ boat and Catantan kicked it
hard, causing the prow to break. The Pilapil brothers ended in the sea, where they swam together,
clinging to their boat. Catantan argues that his actions merely constituted Grave Coercion and not
Piracy; and that in order for Piracy to be committed, it is essential that there is an attack and
seizure of a vessel. He claims that he and Ursal merely boarded the Pilapils’ boat and when
aboard, used force to compel the brothers to take them to some other place. Catantan insists that
he and Ursal had no intention of permanently taking possession or depriving the Pilapils of their
boat.
ISSUE:
Did the actions of Catantan constituted Piracy as defined by Section 2, par.(d) of Presidential
Decree No. 532?
HELD:
YES. Sec.2, par.(d) of PD 532 defines piracy as ‘any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the
taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal belongings of the
complement or passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons, including a passenger or member of the complement of said vessel in
Philippine waters.’ The compulsion on the Pilapils was obviously part of the act of seizing the
boat. Catantan and Ursal abandoned the Pilapils only because their pump boat broke down and it
was necessary to transfer to another boat.
Digest by: Hiryu Kimiko Okubo, 1k – 2011-2012
- oOo -
PEOPLE v. TULIN
364 SCRA 10
Melo, J.
FACTS:
‘M/T Tabangao’ was sailing of the coast of Mindoro, carrying a total value of Php 40.4 Million in
petroleum products. It was suddenly boarded by seven fully armed pirates led by Emilio
Changco. The pirates detained the crew and took complete control of the vessel. The crew was
ordered to paint over the name ‘M/T Tabangao’ on the front and rear portions of the vessel as
well as the logo on its chimney. They were then ordered to paint the name ‘Galilee’. The crew
was forced to sail to Singapore where, following a failed attempt to anchor, it returned to
Batangas. A few days later, it sailed again to Singapore and anchored a few miles from the
shoreline where another vessel named ‘Navi Pride’ anchored beside it, to which the captive crew
was ordered by Changco to transfer the petroleum products. ‘M/T Tabangao’ returned to
Batangas, but remained at sea. 2 days later, the members of the crew were released in 3 batches,
the 1st and 2nd batches were fetched from the shoreline by Cecilio Changco, Emilio Changco’s
brother. The crew called their employer and reported the incident. A series of arrests were made
and accused-appellants Tulin, Loyola, Changco, Infante and Hiong were apprehended and
charged with Qualified P iracy, to which they pleaded not guilty. Tulin, Infante and Loyola
claimed that they were standing by the beach, conversing, when ‘M/T Tabangao’s Captain and
2nd Mate approached them and asked if they wanted to work on the vessel, to which they
allegedly agreed even if they had no sea-going experience. The trial court found them guilty
beyond reasonable doubt and convicted them to Reclusion Perpetua.
ISSUES:

1. Did Republic Act 7659, amending Art.122 of the Revised Penal Code, obliterate the crime of
Piracy under PD 532?
2. Can Accused-Appellant Cheong be convicted as an accomplice despite the fact that the actions he
allegedly committed were executed outside Philippine waters and territory?
HELD:
1. NO. Art.122 of the RPC, before its amendment, provided that piracy must be committed on the
high seas by any person not a member of a ship’s complement nor a passenger. Upon its
amendment by RA 7659, the coverage of the pertinent provision was widened to include offenses
committed ‘in Philippine waters’. On the other hand, under PD 532, the coverage of the law on
piracy embraces any person, ‘including a passenger or member of the complement.’ RA 7659
neither superseded not amended the provisions on piracy under PD 532. Art.122, as amended;
and PD 532 exist harmoniously as separate laws.
2. YES. Although PD 532 requires that the attack and seizure of the vessel and its cargo be
committed in Philippine waters, the disposition by the pirates of the vessel and its cargo is still
deemed part of the act of piracy, hence the same need not be committed in Philippine waters.
Piracy falls under Title One, Book Two of the Revised Penal Code. As such, it is an exception to
the rule on territoriality in criminal law.
Digest by: Hiryu Kimiko Okubo, 1k – 2011-2012
TITLE II
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
November 20, 2008
Art. 124. Arbitrary Detention
Q: What are the Classes of Arbitrary Detention?

a. By detaining a person without legal ground
b. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
c. Delaying release
Q: how committed?
The offender is a public officer or employee
That he detains a person
That the detention is without legal grounds
Q: can this be committed by ANY public officer?

No – only those vested with authority
Q: Public officer guilty of arbitrary detention?

-has duty to make an arrest or to detain
-may recommend an arrest or detain
-may order an arrest or detain
Q: Private individual may be guilty of arbitrary detention?

Yes.
As an accomplice, accessory, principal by inducement, principal by indispensable cooperation

Q: may this be committed by an officer who arrested and detained a person by virtue of a warrant of arrest issued
by the court?
No. The moment there is a warrant of arrest, no arbitrary detention can ever be committed
Q: Instances when warrantless arrests are lawful:

1. has committed, is actually committing or is attempting to commit an offense in his presence
2. personal knowledge of the facts that the person to be arrested actually committed the offense
3. arrest of a prisoner who escaped.
Q: under the first manner, can you give an example. . .
Q: may a crime be committed in the presence of a public officer who is blind? Deaf? Both?
Yes
Q: under arbitrary is it necessary that the arrest is without legal ground?

Yes.
Q: supposing the arrest is with legal ground?

It will not constitute arbitrary detention
Q: What are examples of legal ground?

1. committed a crime
2. compulsory confinement
3. violent insanity
NB: violent insanity. Not plain insanity. The law specifies the degree of insanity required.
Q: under the first manner, supposing while you were walking home you saw ABC robbers entered the house of
your neighbor and transpired their plan to rob the house. May you as a private individual arrest ABC robbers?
Yes. The crime is being committed in my presence
Q: Supposing one night while you were on your way home, you saw Pedro tickling in the padlock of your gate.
May you arrest Pedro without a warrant of arrest? And
Yes. Attempting to commit a crime
Q: Are you sure that Pedro will commit a crime? Pedro said I am just looking at your padlock because it is made
of metal and I just love looking at it. May you arrest him?
Yes. I must link the overt act of Pedro into the commission of the crime of robbery or trespass to
dwelling. It is illogical for him to look and wonder about our padlock at that time of the night.
Q: under the first manner, has committed, can you give an example?
Q: supposing on your way to San Beda, you saw a commotion, you saw that A was stabbed by B at about 5
meters away from you, when B was running towards your direction, you stopped and arrest him. May you legally
do so?
Yes. A crime has in fact just committed in my presence.
Q: supposing one day you saw Juanito stabbed Pedro. You failed to arrest Juanito. After one month you saw
Juanito walking near your house. May you arrest him?
Yes. The crime was committed in my presence

Q: Remember the crime was committed one month ago, is your arrest still valid?
Yes. (lapse of time is immaterial)
Q: the second manner…

-when an offense has in fact just been committed and officer has probable cause to believe that the person
was the one who committed the crime and he has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person
to be arrested has committed it.
Q: Supposing there is a commotion in front of UE. While going there, you saw people running towards your
direction. You asked one man, “Ano ba ang nangyare?”, the man replied “May sinaksak po doon sa tapat ng UE”.
When you reached UE, you saw the victim and said, “Mamang Pulis, andun po ung sumaksak sa akin, tumakbo
na” You run after the suspect, and when you reached morayta, you saw a man wearing a shirt with blood stains,
may you arrest this man?
Yes. There is probable cause to believe that the man was the one who committed the crime, and on seeing
the man, I have personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it.
Q: {same facts} Supposing you saw a man with a clean shirt but holding a knife, such man is cleaning his knife.
May you arrest him?
Yes. (ata- using the same argument)
Q: {same facts} supposing the victim told you that the man you stabbed him is “maputi, matang kad, mahaba ang
baba, naka putting tshirt”. When you reached Morayta, true enough you saw a man who fits the description of the
victim. May you arrest him?
No. There is no personal knowledge of facts indicating that he has committed the crime.
Q: Supposing Ms. Palay is a victim of rape. She together with her parents proceeded to NBI to report the incident.
Due to the influence of media, the case was published. A task force group was organized. TF learned that the
rapist was in Bacolod. The went to Bacolod, and found him, may he be arrested without a warrant of arrest?
No.
The Task force has no personal knowledge they only have hearsay knowledge.
Q: (same facts) Supposing in Bacolod airport you saw a man wearing a jacket with name “mabelle palay”
embroidered on it, may you arrest the man?
No. I have no personal knowledge of the facts.
*NB: the jacket alone is not a sufficient basis for probable cause.
Q: Supposing 10 cars were carnapped from the Toyota showroom. It was reported in your office. The following
morning, the police office district of Manila received a call from a secret informant, the informant said that the
carnappers are on their way to Binondo, and will have a dinner at one of the Chinese restaurants in Binondo. After
receiving the call, 5 policemen went to Binondo, true enough at around 8pm, they saw the carnappers went out of
the restaurant. May they arrest the carnappers?
No.
Only hearsay knowledge
Q: What is probable cause?
Q: can a person be arrested by mere suspicion?

No. Suspicion is not equivalent to personal knowledge

Q: suppose that the accused stabbed X, there was a commotion, after which the accused fled; he was holding a
knife and he was already stained with blood; he was being chases by the people, and from the opposite direction a
police officer was coming seeing what was happening , he arrested the accused. Liable?
No.
Q: suppose your house was robbed. You personally saw the robbers. You were able to give a description of the
robber to the police officers, after 3 days the officer saw a person who fitted the description given so he arrested
him. Is the arrest without warrant lawful?
No. The officers had enough time to secure a warrant.
Q: can arbitrary detention be committed through imprudence?

Yes.
Q: when is the period of detention being penalized?

Not exceeded 3 days
Continued more than 3 days but not more than 15 days
Continued more than 15 days but not more than 6 months
Exceed 6 months
Q: arrest of a prisoner who escaped

(self explanatory na daw ito sbe ni sir)
*Detention: when a person is placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person.

*Though the elements specify that the offender be a public officer or employee, private individuals who conspire
with public officers can also be liable.
Q: What are the Legal grounds for the detention of any person?
a. commission of a crime
b. violent insanity or other ailment requiring compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital
Q: Without legal grounds:

a. he has not committed any crime or no reasonable ground of suspicion that he has committed a crime
b. not suffering from violent insanity or any other ailment requiring compulsory confinement in a
hospital
Q: Know grounds for warrantless arrest:

a. Crime is about to be, is being, has been committed
b. Officer must have reasonable knowledge that the person probably committed the crime
For escaped prisoner – no need for warrant
*Example: Y was killed by unknown assailant. Officers got a tip and arrested X. X voluntarily admitted to the
officers that he did it although he was not asked. X was detained immediately. According to the SC, there was NO
arbitrary detention.
Why? Because once X made a confession, the officers had a right to arrest him.
Q: Continuing crime is different from a continuous crime

Ramos v. Enrile: Rebels later on retire. According to the SC, once you have committed rebellion and have
not been punished or amnestied, then the rebels continue to engage in rebellion, unless the rebels
renounce his affiliation. Arrest can be made without a warrant because this is a continuing crime.

Additional notes from Tin Dabu and Xina Acosta (criminal law review 2010-2011)
Q: If arrest or detention is with warrant, may there be a crime of arbitrary detention?

No, there is already a preliminary finding of a court that a crime was committed.
Q: Does this mean arrest cannot be without a warrant?

No, warrantless arrests
1st ground for warrantless arrests
1)in his presence committing, has committed or attempting to commit

Meaning of in his presence- could see or hear even at a distance
Example: of committing
Attempting to commit
Q: A police officer on his way home from duty saw a stranger tinkering with the padlock of the gate of a
residence in a village arrested the stranger who turned out to be a member of Akyat- Bahay gang, arrest lawful?
No, not even an attempt.
Q: When is there an attempt?
Q: Is tinkering of the padlock an overt act of robbery?

No, indeterminate stage if intent is established. (n.b. intent is to rob)
Q: Liable for arbitrary detention yung police officer, after arrest found out that if a series of robberies had been
committed in the neighborhood?
Still unlawfull
Q: Accused justified that person arrested was acting suspiciously which was later on confirmed by findings? Still
unlawful, mere suspicion
If suspicion based on reasonable grounds?
No, at the time of the arrest it is unlawful.
Q: The person was arrested by police officer while placing a ladder against the wall of another residence, arrest
lawful?
No. ( n.b. no intent yet) still in the indeterminate stage
Then asked by police officer for purpose, answered for other members of akyat bahay, lawful arrest?
Yes
Q: 2nd manner has committed

Give example-snatching a bag
2nd ground
Example
Personal knowledge
If shirt not stained with blood, no weapon, stranger pointed? – not lawful
If blood stained stranger pointed? Not lawful
**It is not necessary for the police officer to have personal knowledge of the crime being committed.

Q: Supposing robbery with homicide committed in a house. The members of family reported to police who
organized a task force to run after the robbers. Two days later, they found persons vividly described by witness
playing billiards, arrest lawful?
No.
Q: Members of household told that they were in Cavite?

Unlawful
Q: Jacket with name of victims?

Yes, lawful.
Q: 3rd manner… give example

Ampatuan, while being treated in a hospital, escaped. He was caught in Quezon City, arrest lawful? Yes.
Q: A child in conflict with law escaped from the rehabilitation center where he is confined. A barangay tanod
arrested him for loitering in another province. Arrest lawful?
Yes.
Q: A drug dependent committed to rehabilitation has escaped. After several weeks he was found by a barangay
tanod loitering in a plaza and arrested him, arrest lawful?
Yes
December 3, 2008
Art. 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities
ELEMENTS:
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
b. That he has detained a person for some legal grounds
c. That he fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial authority within:
1. 12 hours, if detained for crimes/offenses punishable by light penalties, or their equivalent
2. 18 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by correctional penalties, or their equivalent or
3. 36 hours, for crimes/offenses punishable by capital punishment or afflictive penalties, or their
equivalent
*Really means delay in filing necessary information or charging of person detained in court. May be waived if a
preliminary investigation is asked for.
*Does not contemplate actual physical delivery but at least there must be a complaint filed. Duty complied with
upon the filing of the complaint with the judicial authority (courts, prosecutors – though technically not a judicial
authority, for purposes of this article, he’s considered as one.)
*The filing of the information in court does not cure illegality of detention. Neither does it affect the legality of
the confinement under process issued by the court.
*To escape from this, officers usually ask accused to execute a waiver which should be under oath and with
assistance of counsel. Such waiver is not violative of the accused constitutional right.
*What is length of waiver?

Light offense – 5 days.

Serious and less serious offenses – 7 to 10 days.
*Article does not apply when arrest is via a warrant of arrest
*If offender is a private person, crime is illegal detention
Q: distinguish this from arbitrary detention. . .
Q: May a PO who arrested by a virtue of a warrant can commit art 125?

No.
Q: who may issue a WA?

CJ
Preliminary investigation, there is already a complaint
Period is determined by crime committed
Q: when does detention in delay become illegal?

Upon expiration of the periods specified.
Q: what is the period?

12 hours – light penalties
18 hours – correctional penalties
36 hours – afflictive or capital penalties
Q: supposing the offender is a private person, may he be liable?

No. The crime is illegal detention
Q: supposing the arrest is without legal ground? What crime?

Arbitrary detention if public officer
Art 125 applies only when the arrest is made without warrant of arrest but it is lawful
Q: How should delivery be done?

By filing of complaint
Q: Is it necessary that the detained prisoner be psychically delivered to the judge?

No.
Q: What is the reason behind this law?

To prevent abuse on the part of the officer, and so that the accused can avail of his legal right.
The moment there is a complaint filed in court, court will provide for bail
Judicial Protection
Q: To whom should the accused be delivered?

Courts of justice
Q: supposing you deliver the accused to the fiscal, is it sufficient?

No. Fiscal not part of judicial authority
Q: is a turnover to the PNP sufficient compliance with the law?

No
Q: ombudsman?
No. not part of judiciary
Q: Public Prosecutor?
No. not part of judiciary
Q: Provincial Governor?
No. Not part of judiciary
Q: supposing you arrest a robber with a warrant of arrest, but due to weather conditions you failed to deliver him
to proper authorities, may you be liable?
No. There is a WA, you can detain as long as you want.
^During Martial law Art 124 and Art 125 were suspended. Ang utak ni Marcos… (comment ni sir)
Q: Supposing you killed your neighbor in the course of your town fiesta. There was a police officer. The police
arrested you because he saw the killing, within what number of hours should you be delivered?
36 hours
Q: Supposing you were delivered after 48 hours, what crime did the PO committed?
Art 125
Q: supposing the PO can not deliver you within 36 hours, what should he do?
Release me.
(ang hirap hirap humili ng criminal, tapos papalayain lang)
Q: Assuming that the detention is already illegal, does this affect the validity of your arrest?
Yes. The detention becomes illegal
Q: Supposing you are a police officer and legally arrested a murderer. You proposed to him, I will no longer
deliver you to the courts of justice, you just have to serve and be my servant in my house. The murde rer agreed.
So for a year, the murderer served as your driver and houseboy. What crime may you be liable with?
Art 125. (meron pa atang iba)
Q: Article 125, how committed?
Q: Distinguish article 124 from article 125.
Article 124
>Illegal from the beginning
>Consummated by detention
Article 125
> lawful, illegal after the expiration of period
> by failure to deliver

Q: In article 125, legal status of arrest and detention?

Valid, because with legal ground.
Q: At what point does arrest becomes illegal?

Expiration of period.
Q: Reason behind the law in fixing periods for delivery to judicial authorities?
Prevent abuse (di ko maintindihan ang sulat sowee, pero yan yata un)
Q: In what way may abuse be prevented?

By filing the information right away. It will entitle him to be under judicial protection and he can exercise
his legal rights. Example: bail
Q: Supposing accused arrested with warrant, police officer failed to deliver him to court (delivered him only after
the lapse of five days) Is the police officer liable?
No, because the arrest is with a warrant. There is already a judicial protection since it presupposes that
information has already been filed.
Q: Police officer arrested a person who killed another in a barangay fiesta. On the 35th hour he delivered the
person arrested to the prosecutor who filed the information after three days. Is the police officer liable for article
125?
Yes, he did not deliver the person arrested to the court. A prosecutor is not an embodiment of the court.
Q: Who shall be liable?

Police officer
Q: How about the prosecutor, will he be liable?

No.
Q: You arrested a person in flagrante delicto after committing a grave felony, you delivered him on the 35th hour
because it is physically impossible to deliver him considering the distance. What should you do?
Release the accused.
(but will not free you from any administrative liability)
Art. 126. Delaying Release
*Wardens and jailers are the persons most likely to violate this provision
*Provision does not include legislation
Q: when is there a release in the delay?
Q: Is there a period described?

Yes. same as with art 124.
3-15 days
15 days-6 months
6 months – up
Q: ways committed?
Delay in the performance

Delay in the service

Delay in the petition of proceeding in court
Q: can you give an example
Q: Who may likely commit delay in the performance of release?

Jailers
Q: 3rd manner; delay in proceeding, give an example…

Petition for habeas corpus
Q: Delaying release how committed?
Q: When is there delay?

Period provided in Article 124 shall expire
Q: What are the periods in ARTICLE 124?

3days
Exceeding 3 days but not 15 days
Exceeding 15 days but not 6 months
Exceeding 6 months
Q: Example:1st mode-after
Q: 2nd mode- service of notice
Q: Upon whom notice is served?

Jailer or warden so that they will release the person
Q: Bailiff of SC after review, SC rendered a judgement of acquittal reversing RTC and CA’s ruling ordering the
immediate release of accused in Iwahig Colony in Palawan, bailiff proceeded first to Cebu for a fiesta then to
Iloilo to visit his sweetheart then proceeded to Palawan to serve notice, liable for Article 126?
Yes
Q: 3rd manner
Example of judicial proceeding? Habeas corpus
Example of third mode-> did not act upon
Art 127. Expulsion
Q: May a Filipino citizen be expelled from the Ph?

No
Q: Who can be expelled?

Aliens only
Q: Who can order the expulsion?

President as recommended by the Bureau of Immigration and Deportation

Before BID can recommend there must be due process
Q: Convict who has already served the minimum term of his sentence and ready to be released for parole;
condition in the parole fixing his residence even against his own will. Is the condition valid?
Yes. it is lawful
Q: Accused was placed on probation; court fixed his residence and said that he could not change the same. Valid?
Yes, as long as there is a court order to that effect.
Q: Mayor Lim ordered the arrest of prostitutes in order to stop prostitution and clean Manila. He expelled them
and asked them to go to Basilan. Is he liable?
Yes.
Q: May alien be deported by BI without violating Art 127?

Yes. Because they have authority to do so
Q: May court order convict to change residence by virtue of probation law?

Yes. There is authority by law, court by its final judgment
Q: supposing by virtue of a dangerous drugs law?

Yes.
*Does not include undesirable aliens; destierro; or when sent to prison
*If X (Filipino) after he voluntarily left, is refused re-entry – is considered forcing him to change his address here
*Threat to national security is not a ground to expel or change his address.
Q: Article 127, Expulsion, how committed?
Q: May a Filipino citizen be expelled from the Philippines?

No. it is his legal, natural and birth right to live and die in the Philippines. **only aliens thru deportation
proceedings
Q: By whom?
Bureau of immigration and deportation recommends which is later approved by the President
Case of Villavicencio v Lukban

Liable for expulsion? Yes
Q: Are there instances when a person may be lawfully compelled to change residence?
Yes. By judicial order, expropriation, ejectment, destierro, and as a condition in parole, probation and
pardon
Art 128. Violation of Domicile

Q: how committed?
By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof; or
By searching papers or other effect found therein without the previous consent of such owner; or
By refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having been
required to leave the same.
Q: who may commit?

Public officer and employee who are vested with authority to conduct a search
Q: under the first manner, the entry must be against the will of the owner?
Yes.
Q: suppose there is a judicial order, liable?

No.
Q: what is a judicial order?

Search Warrant
Q: what is a search warrant?

It is an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the Philippines, signed by the Judge and
directed to a peace officer, commanding him to search for personal property described therein and to
bring it before the court
Q: When is this issued?

Upon probable cause
Q: what does dwelling mean?

Satisfies the domestic life of a person.
Place of rest and comfort
Q: comfort room, dwelling?

No
Q: is it necessary that the dwelling be a concrete house?
Q: supposing it is a cardboard? Liable?
Q: What are the requisites of a search warrant?

Probable cause for one offense
To be determined personally by the judge
Particular description of the place, persons or place, things to be seied
Q: supposing one of the requisites are missing, what is the legal effect?
SW is null and void
Q: what is probable cause?
Q: who may determine probable cause?

Judge
Q: May he delegate?
No.
It is personal duty, cannot be delegated even if higher position
Q: suppose the SW was not legally obtained and issued, effect?

Things seized inadmissible as evidence
Q: supposing the NBI agents conducted surveillance operations for 2 weeks, after which there were convinced
that there is a shabu lab in a certain compound, the agents applied for the issuance of a SW for violation of DDA
and for Illegal Possession of Firearms, Is the SW issued by the court valid?
No. – the warrant was issued for 2 offenses, to be valid it must refer to only one offense.
Q: warrant was issued for violation of DDA, when the agents entered the compound, they saw a warehouse whose
door was open, through which they can see high-powered firearms which they seized. May these firearms be
admissible as evidence?
No. not included in SW
Q: suppose the court issued a SW: seizure of equipment, etc, for the production of shabu; location of the shabu lab
is in a compound: white house, blue gate, Valid?
No. Place was not particularly described
Q: Suppose the SW was issued for IPF, ordering the officers to seize high-powered firearms in the condo unit of
the accused located in the 5th floor, agents saw that there were several other units in said floor so they inquired,
raided the condo unit after inquiry. Valid?
No. there is intervention of third person
Q: suppose the court issued a SW against all the accused for violation of internal revenue law, orderin the seizure
of all documents contained inside the 2 cabinets in the office of the accused; agents implemented the warrant; or
all the documents; prosecutor only presented those material and relevant to the offense? Valid?
No. things seized were not described with particularity.
Q: NBI agents applied for a SW against the house said to be a shabu lab, almost 5pm when they arrived at the
office of the judge, judge was in a hurry, so he instructed the clerk to receive whatever evidence the agents may
present in support of their application, to draft the order and bring it to the judge; everything was done by the
clerk, left a space for the signature of the judge, brought the order to the judge who signed it, agents implemented
warrant. Valid?
No. – probable cause was not determined personally by the judge
Q: Supposing the judge was not in his office, you asked his wife to sign the SW, his wife is a justice of the SC. Is
the SW valid?
No. – this is personal, cannot be delegated even to a higher position
Q: Supposing in the course of the search, NBI found that the owner of the house has high powered firearms. SW
applied for CDDA. May the high powered firearm be seized?
No {ata}

Q: supposing SW was issued by the court. Directing the PO to seize high-powered firearms at the 3rd floor of
ABC Condominium. When they went at the 3rd floor, they found several rooms, they went on room 1 up to r oom
10, true enough they found high-powered firearms and seized the same. Valid?
No. – place was not particularly described.
Q: suppose you own the whole 3rd floor. Valid?

Yes. It will be admissible
Q: supposing SW was issued, place was a 2-storey blue house at XYZ compound, when the PO arrived at XYZ
compound, they found out that there are 3 2-storey blue houses inside the compound, the PO entered each houses
and served the warrant. Valid?
No. There was no particular description
Q: (same facts) suppose when the PO arrived at XYZ compound, there’s no 2 storey blue house, the PO asked the
security guard, the guard said, “hindi po dito ung hinahanap ninyo, dun po iyon sa kabilang kanto”. The PO went
on as instructed by the security guard, when they reached XYZ building (kabilang kanto), they saw the 2-storey
blue house, they served the warrant. Valid?
No
Q: suppose the SW said a rainbow painted house at XYZ compound, when the PO arrived, the saw the rainbow
painted house. They served the warrant. Valid?
Yes. There was proper description
>NBI should not ask any help to pinpoint the location of the place to be searched<
Q: may vessels be searched even without a SW?

Yes
Q: aircrafts?
Yes
December 4, 2008
Q: violation of domicile how committed?

By entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof; or
By searching papers or other effect found therein without the previous consent of such owner; or
required to leave the same.
Q: who may commit?

PO
Q: suppose offender is a private individual?

Trespass to dwelling
Q: (by entering) is it enough that there is no consent?

No- entry must be against the will of the owner
Q: when do you say that the entry is against the will of the owner?

Q: police major who is your neighbor saw the door of your house slightly opened, he entered your house. Is this a
violation?
No
Q: there was a sign “DO NOT ENTER AT ALL TIMES” but the door was slightly opened. Violation?
Yes. Sign constitutes express prohibition
Q: can you give an example of express prohibition…
Q: can you give an example of implied prohibition…
Q: suppose the door was locked, which the police major opened and he entered the house. Liable?
Yes. Locked door – implied prohibition
Q: Sign says “NO TRESPASSING” police entered. Liable?

Yes
Q: sign says “ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK” police entered. Liable?

No
Q: sign says “BEWARE OF DOGS” police entered. Liable?

No
Q: One Sunday morning, PO saw your younger brother entered your house with an unlicensed firearm, the door
was half-open but there is a sign “strangers keep out” PO entered. Liable?
Yes. Express prohibition.
Q: no sign. Liable?
No
Q: suppose PO entered sit down in your sofa. The door was closed. Liable?
Yes. Implied Prohibition.
Crime already consummated
Q: second manner?
By searching papers or other effect found therein without the previous consent of such owner
Q: is it necessary that the entry be done against the will of the owner?
No. Sufficient that the entry is without the consent of the owner
Q: what consummates the crime in the second manner?

Search without consent
Q: what do you mean by search?
Q: suppose the PO entered your house, and said, “Mrs. Nakita ko ata ang kapatid ninyo na may dalang baril”, and
then the PO went on searching, it was without your consent. Liable?
Yes. Under the 2nd manner
Q: search in room with consent? Liable?

No (ata)
Q: suppose the PO entered your house with your consent, while waiting for you in the sala, he saw an unlicensed
firearm above the television. He seized the same. Valid?
Yes
Q: suppose while waiting for you he opened several cabinets and drawers in your house, he was able to seize an
unlicensed firearm and shabu. Is the search valid?
No. – not plain view
It will be inadmissible as evidence
Q: third manner?
required to leave the same
Q: what consummates the crime under the 3rd manner?

Refusing to leave the premises
Q: What do you mean by surreptitiously enter?

Secret entry
Q: Article 128, Violation of domicile, how committed?
Q: Who may commit?

Police officer, PE
Q: If private person?
Trespass to dwelling
Q: What is dwelling?
Q: When against the will of owner?

Express or implied prohibition
Q: Lack of consent enough?

No, there must be a prohibition to be against the will
Q: Example of express prohibition?

NO ENTRY sign
Q: Example of implied prohibition?

locked door
Q: Your Police officer neighbor entered by simply turning the knob. It turned out that the door was only closed
but was not locked.
Still liable

Q: Door slightly open

not liable
Q: Door open but with a sign “DO NOT ENTER”

Liable
Q: Door open with a sign “BEWARE OF DOGS”

not liable
Q: Door open with the sketch of two revolvers “ENTER AT YOUR OWN RISK”
not liable
Q: 2nd manner, Searching…
Q: Necessary to enter against the will of the owner?

NO, absence of consent suffice
Q: You allowed your neighbor who is a police officer to enter your house one morning. While you were preparing
coffee, he started searching your sala for shabu (under the sala set) liable?
Yes no consent to search.
**The essence is searching without consent even if entry be with or without permission.
Q: Supposing when you returned he is still searching

What are you doing
` trying to look for shabu
No we do not have shabu here. If you want you can search all the rooms of the house.
Q: He started searching again; did not find anything. Is he liable under Article 128? Yes, no previous consent.
(N.B. to be liable, there must first be a search before consent was given)
Q: So liable for search in the sala but not liable for the other rooms?
Not liable
Q: Last manner, Surreptitiously entered?

Secretly entering
Q: What consummates? Refusal to leave after being told (hence to be liable it is not mere entry)
Q: Example of the last manner?

Half opened then you entered
Q: If entry was made through the main door which is closed but was not locked and you left after being told to do
so, liable?
Yes, on the first instance
Q: Police officer saw that the door of your house was half opened. He got inside to search for unlicensed firearms
brought by your brother. In his search he saw instead nude pictures. He looked at those pictures incessantly. A
member asked him to leave to leave which he din-not liable

If you refused to leave; with personal knowledge of unlicensed firearm brough inside? Still liable
Art 129. SW Maliciously obtained and abuse in the service of those legally obtained
Q: how committed?
1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause; or
2. Exceeding authority by using unnecessary severity in executing a search warrant legally obtained
Q: who may commit?

Public officers/employees vested with authority to procure or execute a search warrant
Q: when is a SW said to be without just cause?
Q: what is just cause?

Test of Lack cause
No just cause – perjury can be imputed on the person who executed or applied for it
Q: what is perjury?
False affidavit, false statement under oath
Q: is perjury a necessary crime for maliciously obtained SW?

Yes
Q: Is it a complex crime under Art 48?

No. Separate
Q: why do you say so? What’s your legal basis?

Art 129.
Q: first manner…
Maliciously obtaining
Q: suppose you have a persistent suitor whom you don’t like so you rejected him, he turned out be an NBI officer
and he caused an application for SW against your father for keeping firearms in your house, which is not true, the
warrant was issued. What crimes may he be liable for?
Malicioulsy obtained SW and Perjury.
Separate
Q: suppose he came to you and told you that unless you answer him, he will implement the warrant, in order to
save your father, you answered him. Is he still liable for procuring a SW without just cause?
Yes. Crime is already consummated, completed and committed by the mere act of issuing and obtaining
the SW, it need not to be implemented.
Q: suppose when he applied for SW, he has no legal cause, but when the SW was served, an unlicensed firearm
was found below the pillow of you father. May he still be liable for procuring a SW without just cause?
No.
Q: Second manner?

Abuse in the service
Q: suppose in the implementation of a SW lawfully obtained, an officer with his riffle hit an occupant who did not
even resist. The occupant died What crime or crimes?
Art 129 2nd manner and homicide
Separate
Q: suppose one the agents destroyed one your things during the implementation of a SW lawfully obtained.
Liable?
Yes.
Abuse in the service and malicious mischief
Q: Does the law requires that for abuse to be committed, the SW must be lawfully obtained?
Yes. The warrant enjoys the presumption of validity since it was issued by the court.
Q: Suppose the in the service of the warrant, certain furnitures were destroyed. The SW was legally obtained.
What liability?
Art 129 first manner, (maliciously obtained)
Q: Violation of domicile is committed without judicial order, what is the judicial order?
Search warrant.
Q: What is a search warrant?
Q: Probable cause?
Q: Who determines probable cause?

Judge
Q: How does the judge determines probable cause?

Personally determines probable cause by examining
Q: Legal requisites for the validity of a search warrant?

For probable cause?
>One offense
> Personal determination by the judge
>particularity of the description of place to be searched and things to be seized
Q: Supposing the NBI officer applied for the issuance of a search warrant. The application was rushed to the
RTC. It reached the RTC at almost 5pm and the judge was in a hurry to leave so he gave instructions to the clerk
of court. It turned out that the clerk of court made a personal determination leaving the warrant to be signed by the
judge. The clerk of court met the judge at 9pm in Shangri-La for the judge’s signature. Judge then simply
signed.NBI officer got the search warrant and implemented the search warrant. They seized several kilos of
manufactures shabu. Information for violation of the comprehensive dangerous drugs act was filed based on the
seized shabu. Are the shabu admissible in evidence in the prosecution for violation of CDDA?
No since the search warrant was not validly issued.
Q: Why not?

Not personally determined by the judge
Q: Even if the clerk of court is better and more competent that the judge?
Yes, the law says that the judge must personally determine
Q: Supposing… (same facts as above), 5pm his wife was in the office who is a SC justice. He told his wife to
prepare the search warrant and make the evaluation, which the wife did. Admissible?
still not admissible…
Q: even if issued by the justice of SC?

Still inadmissible. the law states that the judge must personally determine
N.B. search warrant was signed by judge but the evaluation was made by the wife who is a SC justice.
Q: Supposing there was a report that a certain house is being used as a shabu lab. NBI agents conducted
surveillance and submitted report that indeed the house was used for the manufacture of shabu and additionally as
a storage of unlicensed high-powered guns. Report attached to application for search warrant for both offenses.
After personal determination, judge issued the search warrant. The NBI raided the shabu lab and was able to seize
shabu paraphernalia and 50 unlicensed high powered firearms. It was deposited in the custody of the NBI. The
things were used as an evidence in a prosecution for violation of CDDA and illegal possession of firearms.
Are the evidence admissible?
NO
Q: Even if the evidence is vital to the prosecution?

Yes. It is immaterial
2nd offense
N.B. Both the firearms and the shabu paraphernalia are INADMISSIBLE
Rule on validity of search warrants strictly construed, regardless of their materiality or relevancy to the case
RATIO: search warrant is an intrusion into the privacy of citizens
Q: Supposing a search warrant was issued by the RTC for the search of a house suspected to be a shabu lab. The
things to be seized were particularly described and thereafter the NBI conducted the search. While searching, one
NBI saw a high powered firearm which was not mentioned in the search warrant. The NBI seized the unlicensed
firearm. A corresponding criminal case for illegal possession of firearm was filed.
Are the evidence admissible?
Yes as the crime was being committed in the presence of the officers, therefore, seizure is incidental to
the lawful arrest. (Changed theory)
Q: Search warrant issued for the seizure of unlicensed firearm. NBI agents saw shabu in the kitchen and other
essential chemicals for the manufacture of shabu. May the shabu be seized and admitted in evidence?
Yes under the same principle. And it is within the ambit of plain view doctrine.
Q: Search warrant for shabu and other paraphernalia. After digging from the back of the house, they found
unlicensed firearms. Admissible?
No, no longer within the plain view.
Q: Search warrant in connection with violtion of customs law in the 14th floor of a certain building to seize “all
papers, documents, invoices, receipts and other records of transactions kept in the filing cabinets”. NBI seized all
the documents in the cabinet thereafter, sorted it out segregated relevant documents from the irrelevant ones. They
used the relevant documents in the prosecution. Admissible?

NO, no particularity of description of the things to be seized.
Q: SW issued for seizure of unlicensed firearms in a house #921 Matalino St. QC. NBI proceeded to address
which is a compound. They saw 5 houses in the compound and asked the people which is the house to be seized.
They found items and seized them. It was used as evidence. Admissible?
NO. no particularity of description of place to be searched ( here there was the need to rely on the
information from third persons)
Q: Search warrant, place to be searched was “a house with a green roof and white walls in 921 Matalino St. QC” .
however, there are two houses in the compound fitting the description. Admissible?
No.
Q: Search warrant the place was described, “multi-colored, tangerine walls, orange roof, blue windows” which
they found in the compound, admissible?
Yes there is particularity of description.
Q: Instances where warrantless search is allowed

>Consented
>Incidental to lawful arrest
>Plain view
>Stop-and frisk
>Moving vehicles
> Search pursuant to building, sanitary, fire regulation
Q: Search warrant for the manufactured shabu stored in unit 500 ABC Bldg. NBI proceeded to the place. There
was no unit 500. Inquires was made from the janitor who pointed to a room at the end of the building. They raided
the room. The evidences were presented in a prosecution for CDDA. Are the pieces of evidence admissible?
No
Q: Search warrant states that the items to be seized are to be found in a unit in the 9th floor, will the evidence be
admissible?
No
Q: If the entire floor is owned entirely by the subject which was specified in the warrant, admissible?
Yes, they may search each and every unit in the floor specified.
** what is requires is the particularity of description as circumstances will allow
Q: Why malicious?
Procured without just cause
Q: Just cause?
Cannot be held liable for perjury
Q: What is the test?

Perjury can me imputed to the affiant
Q: When is there perjury?

False affidavit; false statement under oath. Simply stated: it is malicious if based on false facts (Amurao)
Q: Is perjury a necessary means for committing Art 129 (1st instance)?

Yes
Q: Then is it complex under Article 48?

No
Q: What are the two kinds of complex crimes in Article 48?
Q: Does it not fall under the second (necessary means)?

No, it is express in Article 129 ( in addition to the liability attaching for any other offense committed)
Q: You mean to say accused may be prosecuted separately for Article 129 and perjury?
Yes
Q: What are the others:

Article 210. Direct Bribery
Article 235. Maltreatment of Prisoners
Article 315. Usurpation
Q: What is the other crime in Article 129? A

buse in the service of search warrant
Q: Supposing an NBI agent through a false affidavit procured a search warrant. During the search they destroyed
several furniture, committed acts of lasciviousness against the daughter of the owner and inflicted physical
injuries on the son of the owner. What is/are the crimes?
Maliciously obtaining of the search warrant and perjury.
Q: How about the physical injuries? Destruction of property (malicious mischief)? Acts of lasciviousness?
They are liable for all those separate crimes committed.
PEOPLE v. SINOC
275 SCRA 357
Narvasa, C. J.
FACTS:
Isidoro Viacrusis was motoring on a company Pajero, driven by Tarsisio Guijapon. As they
approached the public cemetery of Claver, several armed men stopped them. Claiming to be New
People’s Army members, the men boarded the vehicle and ordered Guijapon to proceed. Once in
Barobo, Surigao del Norte, the armed men ordered Viacrusis and Guijapon to alight, led them
with their hands bound behind their backs to a coconut grove, and shot them. Viacrusis survived.
Witness Marlyn Legaspi saw the victims, and the Pajero, which left the scene. The police, acting
on a tip-off by a secret informant, went to the Bliss Housing Project where they found Danilo
Sinoc approaching the stolen Pajero, and found on his person the keys to the vehicle. Sinoc was
arrested. 4 months after the arrest, Sinoc was brought to the Public Attorney’s Office where
police asked Atty. Alfredo Jalad for permission to take Sinoc’s statement in writing. Sinoc
confessed to the occurrences leading up to his arrest after he was informed of his rights by Atty.
Jalad. The former was then brought to the City Prosecutor that he might take oath on his
statement. After having ascertained the voluntariness of the affidavit, the Prosecutor affixed his
signature. During trial, Sinoc proferred an alibi and alleged further that he was not informed of
his constitutional rights during custodial interrogation and that he was made to sign the affidavit

of confession under duress.
ISSUE:
Was there a valid warrantless arrest?
HELD:
YES. An arrest without a warrant may be liawfully effected by a peace officer when an offense
has just been committed and he has personal knowledge of the facts indicating that the person to
be arrested has committed it. There is no question that the police were aware that an offense had
just been committed, that an informant saw the Pajero and that Sinoc had the key to the vehicle.
Sinoc’s link to the stolen vehicle was palpable and the officers had no alternative save to arrest
him. It was their clear duty to do so, the omission of which would have been inexcusable.
- oOo –
PEOPLE v. SALVATIERRA
276 SCRA 55
Kapunan, J.
FACTS:
Charlie Fernandez was walking towards the direction of Quiapo, along M. de la Fuente Street
when he was met by 4 persons, one of whom was David Salvatierra. Salvatierra lunged at
Fernandez with a bladed instrument, hitting him in the chest. Charlie Fernandez died of his
wound. The incident was witnessed by Milagros Martinez, who at the time, was afraid and told
no one save for her daughter. Meanwhile, Marciano Fernandez, Charlie’s father, reported the
death of his son to the Western Police District (WPD) where an advance information was
prepared, indicating that 4 unidentified persons perpetrated the crime. 3 months after the stabbing,
David Salvatierra was apprehended for causing a commotion along Miguelin Street, Sampaloc,
Manila. The arresting officers found out that he was a suspect in the killing of Charlie Fernandez
and turned him over to the WPD. Salvatierra was charged with murder and he pleaded not guilty.
The prosecution presented Milagros Martinez, who had been persuaded to testify by Marciano
Fernandez, and the trial court found Salvatierra guilty as charged. On appeal, Salvatierra assigns
as error the trial court’s failure to find that the warrantless arrest for the offense of malicious
mischief – which led to his detention for the alleged murder of Charlie Fernandez – was
unconstitutional.
ISSUE:
Were the irregularities in the warrantless arrest of David Salvatierra for the crime of murder
deemed waived by his failure to raise them before entering his plea?
HELD:
YES. Accused-appellant Salvatierra is estopped from questioning his arrest considering that he
never raised it before entering his plea. Any objection involving a warrant of arrest or in the
procedure in the acquisition of jurisdiction over the person of an accused must be made before he
enters his plea. Otherwise, the objection is deemed waived. Consequently, any irregularity
attendant to his arrest, if any, had been cured by his voluntary submission to the jurisdiction of
the trial court when he entered his plea and participated during trial.
- oOo –

PEOPLE v. FLORES
358 SCRA 319
Ynares-Santiago, J.
FACTS:
Samson Sayam was last seen drinking beer in the company of Sgt. Winnie Tampioc, and Citizens
Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU) members Aaron Flores, Sulpecio Silpao and Edgar
Villeran. They left the store where they were drinking and walked towards the direction of the
military detachment headquarters, after which, witnesses heard gunshots. Despite diligent efforts
by Sayam’s mother and relatives to locate him, he has not been found. The prosecution contends
that Sayam was kidnapped and illegally detained pursuant to a conspiracy among the accused.
The trial court rendered a decision acquitting Sgt. Tampioc on the grounds of reasonable doubt,
and convicting Flores, Villeran and Silpao of the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal
detention.
ISSUES:
1. Did the trial court err in ruling that the accused-appellants committed kidnapping and serious
illegal detention?
2. Are the accused guilty of arbitrary detention under Art.124?
HELD:
1. YES. The crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention has the following elements: (a) the
offender is a private individual; (b) he kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives
the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and (d) in the
commission of the offense, the following circumstances are present: (i) the kidnapping or
detention lasts for more than 3 days; (ii) it is committed simulating public authority; (iii) any
serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him
are made; or (iv) the person kidnapped is a minor, female, or public officer. Accused-appellants,
being members of the local Citizen Armed Force Geographical Unit (CAFGU), are not private
individuals but public officers. As such, they can only be held liable for the crime of arbitrary
detention.
2. NO. Detention is defined as the actual confinement of a person in an enclosure or in any manner
depriving him of his liberty. The records show no evidence sufficient to prove that Samson
Sayam was detained arbitrarily by accused-appellants. While the prosecution witness testified that
they were seen walking with Sayam toward the direction of the detachment headquarters, there is
no evidence that he was actually confined there or anywhere else. The fact that Sayam has not
been seen or heard from since he was last seen with the accused-appellants does not prove that he
was detained and deprived of his liberty. The fact of detention, whether illegal or arbitrary, was
not clearly established by credible evidence. Likewise, there was no proof that there was actual
intent on the part of the accused-appellants to deprive Sayam of his liberty. That Sayam is
missing up to this date cannot be a basis for the trial court to render conviction. Mere suspicion is
insufficient to convict the accused-appellants.
Digest by: Hiryu Kimiku Okubo
NOTES
*On warrants. A question was once asked in Constitutional Law II (under the coverage of ‘Search and Seizure’)
whether or not a warrant could in fact contain more than one offense. The class suffered a shotgun round, and was

made to say ‘yes’ despite deep instincts to the contrary. It was said that a warrant could in fact contain more than
one offense IF it was issued for (1) complex crimes; or (2) special complex crimes. We asked Atty. A for
clarification and he spent 30 whole minutes drilling it into us: a warrant CANNOT – EVER – contain more than
A SINGLE offense.
*Notwithstanding the presence of art.48, RPC on complex crimes, a warrant may still NOT contain two or more
offenses. The complexing is done by the PROSECUTOR, NOT the arresting officers; and it’s done AFTER a
warrant has been served because the Prosecutor looks at the evidence obtained through that very warrant and
determines the degree of perversion – and hence, culpability – of the accused following the formula: did one
offense result in two or more grave or less grave offenses? Was one a necessary means to commit the other?
Beyond that, complexing cannot be assumed. Besides, what is the basis of the arresting officers to apply for a
warrant in connection with a complex or special complex crime? And what basis would the issuing Judge have to
find probable cause for a complex or special complex crime? ‘If I were counsel for the defence, I would move for
the nullification of your warrant. The best remedy is to apply for TWO separate warrants’ –Atty. A
Art. 130. Searching Domicile without witness
Q: how committed?
a. That the offender is a public officer or employee
b. That he is armed with a search warrant legally procured
c. That he searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any person
d. That the owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same locality a re not
present
Q: Order of those who must witness the search:

a. Homeowner
b. Members of the family of sufficient age and discretion
c. Responsible members of the community (can’t be influenced by the searching party)
Q: who may commit?

Public officer or employee
Q: who should be present?

owner, or any member of his family, or two witnesses residing in the same locality
Q: owner of the house?

Yes
Q: family members?
Yes
Q: 2 housemaids?
Yes
Q: 2 brgy Tanod?
Yes
Q: 2 members of police team?

No
Q: Article 130, how committed?
Q: Can search be done in the presence of:

>12 years old daughter? No
**must possess or be of sufficient age or discretion
Q: two neighbors who were your worst enemies?

Yes, the law does not require that you be in good terms with the owner
Art. 130. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings
Q: how committed?
*By prohibiting or by interrupting without legal ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting or by
dissolving the same
*by hindering any person from joining any lawful association or from attending any of its meetings
*by prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition
to the authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances
Q: first manner, what consti right is safeguarded?

Peaceful assembly
Q: is this absolute?
No. subject to police power
>it may be regulated in order that it may not be injurious to the equal enjoyment of having equal rights,
non injurious to the right of the community or society<
 prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing, either alone or together with others, any petition to the
authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of grievances
 If the offender is a private individual, the crime is disturbance of public order (Art 153)
 Meeting must be peaceful and there is no legal ground for prohibiting, dissolving or interrupting that meeting
 Meeting is subject to regulation
 Offender must be a stranger, not a participant, in the peaceful meeting; otherwise, it’s unjust vexation
 Interrupting and dissolving a meeting of the municipal counc il by a public officer is a crime against the
legislative body, not punishable under this article
 The person talking on a prohibited subject at a public meeting contrary to agreement that no speaker should
touch on politics may be stopped
 But stopping the speaker who was attacking certain churches in public meeting is a violation of this article
 Prohibition must be without lawful cause or without lawful authority

 Those holding peaceful meetings must comply with local ordinances. Example: Ordinance requires permits
for meetings in public places. But if police stops a meeting in a private place because there’s no permit,
officer is liable for stopping the meeting.
December 10, 2008
Art. 131. Prohibition, Interruption and Dissolution of peaceful meetings
Q: P,I, and D of peaceful meeting how committed?
Q: may be committed by any public officer?

Yes
Q: May this be committed by a private individual?

No.
Crime will be disturbance of public order
Q: what kind of meeting?

Peaceful meeting
Q: Is the right to peaceful assembly absolute?
No. It can be regulated
Q: In what way it is regulated?

BP 880
By requiring to secure a permit
Q: Who issues the permit?
Q: What is a freedom park?
>right to peaceful assembly as long as it is peaceful, the right is absolute, while hold in a freedom park,
the moment unlawful acts are committed it can be dissolved.<
Q: Is the right to join associations lawful?

Yes.
Q: NPA, MILF, BJE

Unlawful associations
Engage in crime of rebellion
Q: during a rally and while certain people were speaking somebody threw an explosive in the middle of the
crowd, May the police lawfully disperse the meeting?
Yes. It has ceased to be peaceful
Q: suppose “A” wants to join a meeting of NPA. May the PO prohibit him?
Yes
Q: what consti right 2nd manner?

Freedom of association

Q: 3rd manner, what consti right is violated?

Right of the people to redress grievances
Q: Article 131? Three manners?
Q: What freedom is protected by the 1st?

Peaceably assemble
Q: Is this right absolute?

No, it may be regulated
Q: Is it regulated?
Yes it is regulated by BP 880
Q: In what way is it regulated?

By requiring permits
Q: Are permits required in all cases?

No
Q: What are the exceptions?

Freedom parks, private property and government school campus.
Freedom parks? Established by law as such; where one can peaceably assemble at any time
Q: Supposing you and your classmates are flunking Criminal Law Review, you assembled in front of San Beda,
without permit demanding the removal of Atty. Amurao, are you liable?
Yes, for violation of BP 880
Q: Why?
There was a public assembly where permit is required (n.b. outside of school)
Q: What if the rally is conducted in Plaza Lawton?

Not liable
Q: If conducted in front of San Beda gate? May you be arrested without a warrant?
Yes for committing a crime
Q: If you decided to start the rally from Espana to Mendiola. It was an on the spot decision. May you be
intercepted anywhere and arrested by the police?
Yes
Q: What is the reason for requiring permit?

Exercise of police power for the maintenance of public order and public safety
Q: If you conducted it in the freedom park, will a permit be necessary?

No
Q: If in the course of the rally you uttered libelous speeches, may the peace assemble be dispersed?

Yes since it is no longer peaceful
Q: So the right to a peaceably assemble in the freedom park is not absolute?

No, since it must be peaceful. It is also regulated
Q: 2nd manner Art. 131, how committed?
Q: What Constitutional Right is protected?

Right to Association
Q: What are the 2 acts constituting the crime?

Hindering joining lawful association and attending any of its meetings.
Q: Give an example of the 1st .
Q: Your distant relative, who is also a police officer, prevented you from joining an unrecognized fraternity in
San Beda liable?
Yes. Frat is not unlawful though unrecognized.
Q: Some facts, joining Abu Sayyaf, liable?

No.
Q: Some facts, joining NDF-NPA movement, liable?

No.
Q: Give an example of the 2nd .
Q: 3rd Manner in Art. 131.

Give and example.
Q: What Constitutional right is safeguard?

Right to petition the government for redress of grievances.
Art. 132. Interruption of religious worship
Q: how committed?
1. The offender = public official/employee
2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religion are about to take place or are going on
3. The offender prevents or disturbs the same
Q: who may commit?

Only by public officers or employees
Q: is it necessary that the act be committed always inside a place of religious worship?
No, the manifestations or ceremonies may be taking place outside a religious structure

Q: What are the circumstances qualifying the crime?

The presence of violence or threats in the commission of the crime
Q: Suppose there was a mass going on in Luneta. A public officer fired shots in the air and the people scattered. Is
he liable?
Yes
Q: Suppose the mass was over and a politician was giving a speech
He is no longer liable under Art.132
Q: Same facts. You learned of the mass in Luneta and you wanted to join. You were not allowed to join by a
police officer guarding the entrance. Is he liable?
Yes, but under Art.131, not 132
Q: What constitutional right is safeguarded here?

The Right to Freedom of Religion
Q: Is a mere disturbance sufficient?

No, the disturbance has to be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful
*Circumstance qualifying the offense: if committed with violence or threats
*Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a public plaza is not a ceremony or manifestation of
religion, but only a meeting of a religious sect. But if done in a private home, it’s a religious service
*Religious Worship: people in the act of performing religious rites for a religious ceremony; a manifestation of
religion. Ex. Mass, baptism, marriage
*X, a private person, boxed a priest while the priest was giving homily and while the latter was maligning a
relative of X. Is X liable? X may be liable under Art 133 because X is a private person.
*When priest is solemnizing marriage, he is a person in authority, although in other cases, he’s not.
Q: Art. 132, how committed?
Q: Supposing, mass on-going in Lunetaby Cardinal Rosales PO fired gunshots in the air resulting in dispersal,
liable?
Yes.
Q: If mass is over, politician is giving speech?

Not liable under Art. 132.
Q; In Luneta, then mass, then politician will speak, you want to attend this program but you were refrained from
doing so by the PO. Liability of the PO?
Art. 131, not Art 132.

Q: Constitutional right protected?

Freedom of religion.
Q: Necessary to be done in a place devoted to religious worship?

No.
Q: Can mere disturbance be sufficient?

No. Must be notoriously offensive.
Notoriously offensive? Book p 76
Q: Who may commit this crime?

Any person.
______ from Art. 132? Any public officer or employee
Q: Procession in honor of Virgin Mary, someone fired a shot in the air. The procession was dispersed. What is the
liability?
Art. 153 Tumults and Disturbance of Public Order. (private person committing Art 131 or 132)
Q: ________ how committed?
Q: + rebellion distinguish
Q: Constituting crime: manner of committing?

_______ : national security/public order
________ of proof for conviction
Q: time of commission
Art 133. Offending the religious feelings
Q: how committed?
Q: who may commit?

PO and PI
Q: When is it notoriously offensive to the feelings?
Q: example
Q: from who’s viewpoint should we determine the notoriously offensive?

Offended party
Q: Accused placed the statute of virgin mary in the altar and chopped it in parts. He consider the statute as a
wood. May he be liable for Art 133?
Yes (ata)
Q: is such act, notoriously offensive?

Yes

CRIME Nature of Crime Who are Liable If Element Missing

Prohibition, Crime against the Public officers, If not by public officer =
Interruption and fundamental law of Outsiders tumults
Dissolution of the state
Peaceful Meeting
(131)
Interruption of Crime against the Public officers, If by insider = unjust
Religious Worship fundamental law of Outsiders vexation
(132) the state If not religious = tumult or
alarms
If not notoriously offensive
= unjust vexation
Offending the Crime against public Public officers, If not tumults = alarms and
Religious Feeling order private persons, scandal
(133) outsiders If meeting illegal at onset =
inciting to sedition or
rebellion
*If in a place devoted to religious purpose, there is no need for an ongoing religious ceremony
*Example of religious ceremony (acts performed outside the church). Processions and special prayers for burying
dead persons but NOT prayer rallies
*Acts must be directed against religious practice or dogma or ritual for the purpose of ridicule, as mocking or
scoffing or attempting to damage an object of religious veneration
*There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the faithful, mere arrogance or rudeness is not enough
Art 134. Rebellion or insurrection

{fast track na dito}
Q: how committed?
a. That there be –
1. public uprising and
2. taking arms against the government (force/violence)
b. That the purpose of the uprising or movement is either
1. to remove from the allegiance to said government or its laws –
i. the territory of the Philippines or any part thereof, or
ii. any body of land, naval or other armed forces, or
2 To deprive the chief executive or congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives
Q: difference from treason?
Treason Rebellion
2 witness rule No 2 witness rule
Time of war Peace time
Q: example of rebellion in the PH?
Q: can it be committed by one person?

No. it is a crime of mases

Q: who may be liable for rebellion?

Leaders and participants
Q: supposing an NPA officer asked you to encash some of their checks and to deliver it to them. Liable?
No
Mere adherence to the enemy by giving them aid or comfort is not punishable in rebellion
Q: members of the NPA kidnapped a Chinese merchant and demanded a ransom; upon payment, the Chinese was
released and the ransom was given to the officers of the NPA for its finances. Crime or crimes committed?
Rebellion only
Rebellion absorbs common crimes
Q: suppose the kidnappers distributed the ransom among themselves. Crime?

Kidnapping
>if the common crime was committed in furtherance of the objective of rebellion, the common crime os
absorbed in the crime of rebellion.<
Q: supposing NPA commander had an encounter in Mindoro. They ambush a military. What crimes?
Rebellion
Q: May they be prosecuted for murder?

No. already absorbed in rebellion
Q suppose they raped the daughter of the brgy captain. What crime?
Rape.
Not absorbed, not committed for political purpose
Q: NPA commander ambushed the governor for being corrupt. What crime?
Rebellion
Q: Factory employees organized themselves as union and became so powerful when they have a strike they
dispensed and killed 10 several persons. What crime?
>Rebellion is a continuing crime<
Q: suppose leader is unkown, who may be liable?
Q: Is conspiracy to commit rebellion will make you liable?
Q: how about proposal?
Q: Disloyalty of Public officer, how committed?
Q: example…
*Success is immaterial, purpose is always political
*Rebellion used where the object of the movement is completely to overthrow and supersede the existing
government

*Insurrection refers to a movement which seeks merely to effect some change of minor importance to prevent the
exercise of gov’t authority w/ respect to particular matters or subjects
*Actual clash of arms w/ the forces of the gov’t, not necessary to convict the accused who is in conspiracy w/
others actually taking arms against the gov’t
*Purpose of the uprising must be shown but it is not necessary that it be accomplished
*A change of government w/o external participation
*RISING PUBLICLY and TAKING ARMS AGAINST GOVERNMENT – actual participation. If there is no
public uprising, the crime is of direct assault.
*Mere giving of aid or comfort is not criminal in the case of rebellion. Merely sympathizing is not participation,
there must be ACTUAL participation
*Not necessary that there is killing, mere threat of removing Phil is sufficient
*Rebellion cannot be complexed with any other crime. However, illegal possession of firearms in furtherance of
rebellion is distinct from the crime of rebellion. Furthermore, it is a continuing crime such along with the crime of
conspiracy or proposal to commit such
*A private crime may be committed during rebellion. Examples: killing, possessions of firearms, illegal
association are absorbed. Rape, even if not in furtherance of rebellion cannot be complexed
*If killing, robbing were done for private purposes or for profit, without any political motivation, the crime would
be separately be punished and would not be embraced by rebellion (People v. Fernando)
*Read People v. Hernandez and Enrile v. Salazar
*Person deemed leader of rebellion in case he is unknown:

Any person who in fact:
a. directed the others
b. spoke for them
c. signed receipts and other documents issued in their name
d. performed similar acts on behalf of the rebels
Art 134-A Coup d’ etat
>Offender: military, police or public officer or employee<

>Difference between rebellion:
persons liable:
R-public and private
C-public, military, or po
Manner of commission:
R- rising publicly and taking arms against the govt
C swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth
Purpose
R-Art 134

C-Art 134-A
Target of attack:
R-gov’t
C-authorities of the Phi, military camp, installation, communications network, public utilities or
other facilities
December 11, 2008
Q: What is coup d’etat?
Q: May coup d’ etat be committed by one person?

Yes
Q: Is it the same as rebellion?

No, but it overlaps
Q what are the technical differences?

R-public and private
C-public, military, or po
Manner of commission:
R- rising publicly and taking arms against the govt
C swift attack accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth
Purpose
R-Art 134
C-Art 134-A
Target of attack:
R-gov’t
C-authorities of the Phi, military camp, installation, communications network, public utilities or other
facilities
Q: May this be committed secretly?

Yes. Because of stealth or strategy
Q: may a private individual be held liable for coup d’ etat?

No
Treason (114) Rebellion (134) Coup d’etat Sedition (139)

(134-A)
Crime against Crime against Crime against Crime against Public
Nature of National Security Public Order Public Order Order
Crime
levying war against Public uprising See article. Rising publicly or
Overt Acts the gov’t; AND tumultuously (caused
OR Taking up arms by more than 3 armed
adherence and against the gov’t men or provided with
giving aid or means of violence)
comfort to enemies
Purpose of Deliver the gov’t to See article. Seizing or See enumeration in

objective enemy during war diminishing article.

state power.
Q: who may be liable for rebellion?
Q: What if leader is unknown?
Q: Accused is an errand boy of NPA Commander. He is the one depositing and withdrawing funds from the bank
for the use of the NPA, buy needs of NPA units. What crime if any is he liable for?
NONE. Mere adherence and giving aid are not punishable in Rebellion.
Q: Give example of rebellion.

NPA (overthrow), MILF and MNLF (separatist – to remove Mindanao).
Abu Sayyaf is NOT(engaged in pure banditry or criminality)
Q: Conspiracy to commit rebellion, how committed?
Q: Proposal to commit rebellion, how committed?
Q: 5 members of NPA ambushed a manager of a certain company because he was responsible for dismissal from
company of union members, responsible for union busting. What crime is committed? Why?
NPA – guilty of rebellion. No separate crime of murder or homicide – absorbed.
N.B. Crime is committed for act of union-busting.
Q: Prof. Amurao flunked ½ of the class. Following day, he was ambushed by NPA for not agreeing in reason of
grades. Liability?
Rebellion and murder. Separate
Q: Provincial Governor, known drug lord, gambling lord, one day, he issued an order intensifying police
operation in the province. NPA commander organized a team to liquidate the governor on the way to meeting to
Manila. The governor was ambushed by NPA. Liability?
Rebellion
Q: 2 buses of Victory Liner were burned by NPA. Purpose: management of Victory refusing to pay revolutionary
tax to NPA. 2 passengers died. Crime?
Rebellion.
Q: Assassinated a military commander/JUSMAG officer/brgy captain/ or anyone helping military by giving

advice on location of NPA, while having dinner?
Rebellion.
Q: Sister of NPA was raped by military commander. The prosecution for raped was dismissed. To avenge
injustice, NPA assassinated military commander.
Separate rebellion + murder (personal motive in murder)

PONCE-ENRILE v. SALAZAR
Narvasa, J.
FACTS:
Senate Minority floor leader Juan Ponce Enrile was arrested on the strength of a warrant issued on
an information charging him and the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio, and Gregorio Honasan
for the crime of ‘rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated murder’ which they allegedly
committed during the period of the failed coup attempt from November 29 to December 10, 1990.
Enrile was taken and held overnight at the NBI Headquarters in Taft Avenue without bail, none
having been recommended by the Prosecutor. The following morning he was brought to Camp
Tomas Karingal in Quezon City, and given over to the custody of the Superintendent of the
Northern Police District. Enrile filed for Habeas Corpus, alleging that he was being held to answer
for a criminal offense not contained in the statute books, that he was charged in an information for
which no complaint was initially filed or preliminary investigation conducted, that he was denied
his right to bail and arrested and detained on the strength of a warrant issued without the judge
having first personally determined the existence of probable cause.
ISSUES:
1. Can Senator Enrile be held liable for the complex crime of ‘Rebellion with murder and
multiple frustrated murder’?
2. Was the arrest warrant issued without the judge’s personal determination of probable
cause?
HELD:
1. NO. As held in the Hernandez case, rebellion cannot be complexed with any other offense
committed on the occasion thereof, either as a means necessary to its commission or as an
unintended effect of an activity that constitutes rebellion. The information filed against him
does in fact charge an offense. Read in the context of Hernandez, the information charges
Enrile with a crime defined and punished by the Revised Penal Code: simple rebellion.
2. NO. It is sufficient that the Judge follows established procedure by personally evaluating
the report and supporting documents submitted by the Prosecutor. Merely because
respondent Judge Salazar had what some might consider a relatively brief period (1 hour
and 20mins) within which to comply with the duty gives no reason to assume that he had
not, or could not have so complied; nor does that single circumstance suffice to overcome
the legal presumption that official duty has been regularly performed.
- oOo –
PONCE-ENRILE v. AMIN
Gutierrez, Jr., J.
FACTS:
Together with the filing of an information charging Sen. Enrile with ‘Rebellion complexed
with Murder and Multiple Frustrated Murder’ in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City,
Government Prosecutors filed another information charging him with a violation of
Presidential Decree 1829. The information alleged that Enrile, who had reasonable ground
to believe or suspect that ex-Colonel Gregorio Honasan had committed a crime, voluntarily
concealed the ex-Colonel in his own residence in Dasmariñas Village, Makati. Enrile filed
an omnibus motion to quash or dismiss on the ground, among others, that the pending
charge of rebellion complexed with murder and frustrated murder precluded the

prosecution of a violation of PD 1829. His motion was denied. The respondent Judge upheld
the prosecution’s contention that simultaneous proceedings are permissible because
Rebellion is based on the Revised Penal Code; where the instant case is based on a special
law. Enrile appealed to the Supreme Court, and the High Court issued a Temporary
Restraining order enjoining proceedings in the instant case.
ISSUE:
Can Senator Enrile be simultaneously charged with obstruction of justice, a violation of
Presidential Decree 1829; and the Revised Penal Code, with regards to Rebellion?
HELD:
NO. If a person cannot be charged with the complex crime of rebellion for the greater
penalty to be applied, neither can he be charged separately for two different offenses where
one is a constitutive or component element of, or committed in furtherance of rebellion.
Being in conspiracy with Honasan, Enrile’s alleged act of harbouring/concealing was for no
other purpose but to further the crime of rebellion, thus constituting a component thereof.
The crime of rebellion consists of many acts. The acts committed in furtherance of it,
though crimes in themselves are deemed absorbed in the one single crime of rebellion. They
cannot, therefore, be made the basis of separate charges. The rationale remains the same:
all crimes, whether punishable under a special law or general law, which are components or
ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become absorbed in rebellion and cannot
be isolated and charged as separate crimes. The theory of absorption in rebellion cases must
not confine itself to common crimes but also to offenses under special laws which are
perpetrated in furtherance of the political offense.
- oOo –
UMIL v. RAMOS
Per Curiam
FACTS:
Consolidated cases for Habeas Corpus.
RE: ROLANDO DURAL

Ronnie Javellon was arrested without a warrant while he was confined at the Saint Agnes
Hospital and receiving treatment for gunshot wounds. The doctors alerted the military to
his presence there. He was identified the day before as being one of the people who shot 2
CAPCOM policemen in their patrol car. Javellon later turned out to be Rolando Dural, a
known NPA member.
RE: AMELIA ROQUE, WILFREDO BUENAOBRA, DOMINGO ANONUEVO,

RAMON CASIPLE, AND VICKY OCAYA
The accused were arrested after military agents received information from a former NPA
member that two houses – one occupied by Renato Constantine and located in Molave
Street, Marikina Heights, Marikina; and one occupied by Benito Tiamzon – were being
used as an NPA safehouses. The houses were put under military surveillance. Pursuant to a
search warrant, Renato Constantine was confronted. He could not produce any permit for
the firearms in his house, as well as the ammunitions, radio and other equipment in the

residence. He also admitted that he was a ranking member of the NPA. Wilfredo
Buenaobra arrived at the safehouse and had letters for Constantine and other rebels. He
also admitted to being an NPA courier. Amelia Roque was arrested in consequence to
Buenaobra’s arrest because he had in his possession papers leading to her whereabouts.
Subversive documents and live ammunition were found in her possession and she admitted
to belonging to the group. Domingo Anonuevo and Ramon Casiple arrived at the safehouse
and agents frisked them, finding subversive documents, and loaded guns witho ut permits.
Vicky Ocaya was arrested without a warrant when she arrived at the house of Benito
Tiamzon. Tiamzon’s house was the subject of a search warrant. Ammunition and
subversive documents were thereafter found in Ocaya’s car.
RE: DEOGRACIAS ESPIRITU

The accused was arrested without a warrant on the basis of the attestation of certain
witnesses that at 5:00pm, at the corner of Magsaysay Boulevard and Velencia Street, Sta.
Mesa, Manila, and on November 22, 1988, Espiritu spoke at a gathering of drivers and
sympathizers, saying ‘Bukas tuloy ang welga natin, hanggang sa magkagulo na.’
RE: NARCISO NAZARENO

Romulo Bunye II was killed by a group of men in Alabang, Muntinlupa. 14 days later,
Ramil Regala, one of the suspects, was arrested and he pointed out Narciso Nazareno as one
of his companions during the killing. That same morning, Nazareno was arrested without a
warrant.
ISSUE:
Were the arrests validly effected?
HELD:
RE: ROLANDO DURAL
YES, the warrantless arrest was valid. He was committing an offense when he was arrested
– being an NPA member. The NPA is an outlawed organization and membership therein is
a continuing crime. He did not cease to be a subversive for purposes of arrest simply
because he was confined at St. Agnes Hospital. Military agents were dispatched on
confidential information to verify if an NPA member had indeed been admitted for a
gunshot wound. The information was based on actual facts, supported by circumstances
sufficient to engender a belief that an NPA member truly was in that hospital.
RE: AMELIA ROQUE, WILFREDO BUENAOBRA, DOMINGO ANONUEVO,

RAMON CASIPLE, AND VICKY OCAYA
YES, their arrests were all valid. They were searched pursuant to search warrants and were
found with unlicensed firearms, explosives and ammunition. They were caught in flagrante
delicto. The reason for all their arrests was that military authorities received information
about 2 safehouses being used by the NPA, with exact locations and the names of Renato
Constantine and Benito Tiamzon. At the time of their arrests, they had ownership of
unlicensed firearms, ammunition, subversive documents. They also admitted to
membership in the NPA. There was probable cause to support their warrantless arrests.
RE: DEOGRACIAS ESPIRITU

YES, the warrantless arrest was valid. He was arrested not for subversion but for uttering
words which the arresting officers believed to constitute Inciting to Sedition. The case was
mooted anyhow, considering the failure of the investigating officers to appear at the re -

investigation.
RE: NARCISO NAZARENO

YES, the warrantless arrest was valid. Although Nazareno’s arrest was effected 14 days
later, the arrest falls under Sec.5(b), Rule 113 of the Rules of Court since it was only then
that the police came to know that Nazareno was probably one of those guilty in the killing of
Bunye II. The arrest had to be made promptly, even without a warrant, to prevent possible
flight.
Digest by: Hiryu Kimiko Okubo
Art 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup d’ etat
Q: Who are liable?

a. Any person who:
1. Promotes
2. Maintains
3. heads a rebellion or insurrection
b. Any person who, while holding any public office or employment, takes part therein
1. engaging in war against the forces of the gov’t
2. destroying property or committing serious violence
3. exacting contributions or diverting public funds from the lawful purpose for which they have been
appropriated
c. Any person merely participating or executing the command of other in a rebellion
In Government Service Not in Government Service

Anyone who leads, directs, commands others to Anyone who participates or in an manner, supports,
undertake a coup. finances, abets, aids in a coup.
*Serious violence is that inflicted upon civilians, which may result in homicide. It is not limited to hostilities
against the armed force.
*Diverting public funds is malversation absorbed in rebellion

a. Public officer must take active part because mere silence or omission not punishable in rebellion
b. It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took the oath of allegiance to, or that they never
recognized the government
c. Rebellion cannot be complexed with murder and other common crimes committed in pursuance of the
movement to overthrow the government
d. Killing, robbing etc for private persons or for profit, without any political motivation, would be separately
punished and would not be absorbed in the rebellion.
Art 136. Conspiracy and Proposal to commit coup d’ etat, rebellion or insurrection
Q: suppose military officers met outside the Phils and they agreed and decided to seize the power from the GMA
administration, upon arrival, they were arrested and prosecuted for committing conspiracy to commit coup?
Liable?
No.
Committed outside the Phil, cannot be prosecuted here because it was not among the exceptions under Art
2, rpc
Art 137. Disloyalty of public officer or employees

Q: how committed?
a. Failing to resist rebellion by all the means in their power
b. Continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under the control of rebels
c. Accepting appointment to office under rebels
Q: example..
*Presupposes existence of rebellion

*Must not be in conspiracy with rebels or coup plotters
*If there are means to prevent the rebellion but did not resist it, then there’s disloyalty. If there are no means, no
fault
*If position is accepted in order to protect the people, not covered by this
*The collaborator must not have tried to impose the wishes of the rebels of the people.
Art 138. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection
Q: how committed?
a. That the offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility against the government
b. That he incites others to the execution of any of the acts of rebellion
c. That the inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other
representations tending to the same end
Q: suppose a member of the NPA was going around recruiting members by inciting them. Crime?
Rebellion
Q: suppose an ordinary brgy leader who is fed up with arroyo admin, through speeches, persuaded and convinced
people to join him in the fight against the gov’t. What crime?
Inciting to rebellion
Q: suppose the audience before whom he speak were finally induced and persuaded by him to join the movement
and overthrow the government. Crime?
Rebellion
-persons induced will be principal by direct participation
-person who induced will be principal by inducement
Q: suppose the audience were not convinced and did not join, what is the liability of the speaker, and audience?
Speaker – inciting
Audience – none
Q: suppose one day along Makati, you are walking naked, with a placard, stating “Ibagsak ang Arroyo
Administration” and you are distributing flyers which has pictures of the corrupt government, inviting the reader
to join you overthrow the government. What is your liability?
Inciting
Q: Distinguish Art 136 and Art 138?
Proposal to Commit Rebellion (136) Inciting to Rebellion (138)

The person who proposes has decided to Not required that the offender has decided to
commit rebellion. commit rebellion.

The person who proposes the execution of the The inciting is done publicly.
crime uses secret means.
Q: Art 138. Inciting to Rebellion, how committed? Give an example.
Q: Supposing in an assembly, person rendered rebellious speech?, If people were actually incited and committed,
liability of those inciting?
Rebellion by inducement
Q: Those incited, they actually committed rebellion by direct participation
NB Listeners/audience must not commit rebellion. In this case, those inciting liable to rebellion but audience are
not liable.
Q: 3 militant students, in charge of recruiting NPA, went to villagers and invited them to rise against government.
Villagers were not incited, liability?
Not inciting to rebellion but rebellion already. (N.B. they were already NPA members) Req’d: not to be
in open hostility with the government but in this, they are already in open hostility.
Q: Art 134-A Coup d’etat. How committed?
Q: Who may be principals by direct participation in coup d’etat in general?

Police, military, public officers.
Q: May this be committed silently?

Yes. May be committed by strategy or stealth
Q: Object of attack?
Duly constituted authorities
Q: Military camp or reservation – give examples

Army reservation in Fort Bonifacio
Villamor Air Base
Camp Aguinaldo
Camp Crame
Navy headquarters
Q: Communication networks – even private companies like PLDT, Smart, Globe, ABS-CBN, GMA
Q: Public Utilities – MERALCO, MAYNILAD, Manila Water
Other facilities needed for the continued exercise and possession of power
Q: Trillanes and group attacked Manila Peninsula, is Manila Peninsula an object of attack of coup d’etat?
No. it is not a facility needed for continuous exercise and possession of power.
Q: Rebellion distinguished from coup d’etat.

Means of commission,
purpose,
whom directed,
persons primarily liable
Q: Who may be liable for coup d’ etat?

police, military, public officer, private individual who abets, aids, finances, supports, promotes
Q: Death occurring during coup d’etat?

Absorbed. Why? Violence is an element of coup d’etat.
Q: When may civilians be liable for coup d’etat?

Participates, supports, finances, aids and abets.
Art. 139 Sedition

a. That the offenders rise –
1. Publicly (if no public uprising = tumult and other disturbance of public order)
2. Tumultuously (vis-à-vis rebellion where there must be a taking of arms)
b. That they employ force, intimidation, or other means outside of legal methods
c. That the offenders employ any of those means to attain any of the following objects:
1. to prevent the promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election
2. to prevent the national government, or any provincial or municipal government, or any public thereof
from freely exercising its or his functions, or prevent the execution of any administrative order
3. to inflict any act or hate or revenge upon the person or property of any public officer or employee
4. to commit for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private persons or any
social class (hence, even private persons may be offended parties)
5. to despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province, or the national
government of all its property or any part thereof
Q: when is public uprising deemed to be tumultuous?

All 4 must be armed
Armed means provided with means of violence
Q: 10 persons who are armed, purpose is to prevent the holding of a referendum through force, etc.. liable?
No.
Referendum is different from election
Q: several members in the brgy during the elections, armed themselves and proceeded to theprecints and
prevented the election officers in performing their duty. What crime?
Sedition, 1st manner
Q: the city engineer of makati has issued an order for the demolition of the shanties in a certain area; when
demolition was about to take place, the residents of the area blocked the road leading to the site, the purpose of
doing so is to prevent the city engineer and his men to push through with the demolition. What crime?
Sedition, 2nd manner

Q: supposing Bayani Fernando in his project Metro Gwapo, relocated all the squatters in Baclaran. One
Wednesday morning, while he was inside the baclaran church, the residents put his car to fire, what crime or
crimes?
Sedition, 3rd manner
Arson
Q: suppose you have a grudge against your municipal mayor and burned his house. What crime?
Sedition, 3rd manner
Arson
Q: Suppose you shoot him

Sedition
Murder or Homicide
Separate offense
Q: can you give an example of the 4th objective…
Q: can you give an example of the 5th objective…
Q: conspiracy to commit sedition, how committed?
Q: inciting, how committed?
Q: example of inciting in the 1st manner?

Q: what are the two rules?
Clear and present – what?
Dangerous Tendency – what?
Q: what do we use now?

Both
Depends on attending circumstances
Q: how about proposal?

There is no such crime
Q: suppose you incited others to commit sedition and they committed it. What crime is committed?
Sedition.
Q: what do you mean by scurrilous libels?

Writings that are low, vulgar and mean
Q: give an example…
Q: May inciting to sedition be committed by mere silence?

Yes
Q: What is Sedition?
raising of commotion or disturbances in the State. Its ultimate object is a violation of the public peace or
at least such measures that evidently engenders it.

*Sedition – purpose may be either political or social. In rebellion – always political
*Tumultuous – caused by more than 3 persons who are armed or provided with means of violence
*Preventing public officers from freely exercising their functions
*In sedition – offender may be a private or public person (Ex. Soldier)
*Public uprising and the object of sedition must concur
*Q: Are common crimes absorbed in sedition? In P v. Umali, SC held that NO. Crimes committed in that case
were independent of each other.
*Preventing election through legal means – NOT sedition
*But when sugar farmers demonstrated and destroyed the properties of sugar barons – sedition
*Persons liable for sedition:

a. leader of the sedition, and
b. other persons participating in the sedition
Q: Art 139. Sedition. How committed?
Q: May sedition be committed by 3 persons? No.

Tumultously – more than 3 persons armed or provided with means of violence
Q: If 50 persons, not armed?

No
Q: 20 persons, with only one carrying 45 caliber revolver?

NO
Q: if no one was carrying firearm but 5 are carrying knives?

Yes.
Q: If 6 were carrying World War 1 vintage firearm that would not even fire?
Yes. They may be used for violence (hitting).
Q: If stones? Yes. Scissors? Yes. Needles? Yes.
Q: 1st object of sedition? Give an example of 1st purpose?

Prevents holding of popular election
Q: If they were not able to achieve purpose because they were dispensed?
Still liable. Consummated, no need to actually achieve purpose. By rising publicly and tumultuously for
any of the purpose of sedition.

Q: Is it necessary that election be actually be prevented?

No.
Q: Promulgation be actually be prevented?

No.
Q: 2nd purpose? Give an example
Q: MMDA to demolish _____. Occupants were armed, blocked the entry of MMDA. Due to timely arrival of
police, no one was injured. Liable for sedition?
Yes. Always consummated.
Q: Some facts, occupants held pieces of wood only?

Still liable
Q: One of the informal settlers carrying firearm fired at a truck, hit and killed a member of demolition team,
liability?
Not sedition.
Q: Others with pieces of wood, one with firearm, some facts? Liable for sedition and murder or homicide of team
member, separate. Why?
Common crimes will not be absorbed in sedition
Q: 3rd purpose of sedition? Give an example
Q: how many were involved?
Q: Reason for revenge?
Q: 4th purpose?
Q: Who is OP? private person or social class.
Q:Give example
Q: Last objective? Example?

N.B. must be for practical or social end
Q: Legal effect of common crimes in sedition?

Not absorbed
Q:Maybe complexed?
No. separate
Q: Give an example of sedition where common crimes are committed?

Sedition and Arson
Art 143. Acts Tending to prevent the meeting of Assembly and similar Bodies

Q: how committed?
a. That there be a projected or actual meeting of Congress or any of its committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees or division thereof, or of any provincial board or city or
municipal council or board
b. That the offender who may be any persons prevents such meeting by force or fraud
Q: example…
Q: what are the legislative body?
Q: may this be committed by a participant in the meeting?
Q: Art. 141 – Conspiracy to commit Sedition?

Q:Is there Proposal to Commit Sedition?
None
Art. 142 – Inciting to Sedition
Q: 1st manner? Example
Q: 2nd manner?
Q: What are the 2 rules as to 2nd manner?

Clear and present danger – define
Dangerous tendency – define
Q: Which is followed in this jurisdiction?

Both applied, depending on circumstances.
Q: 3rd manner?
Q: When is libel scurrilous? Give example.
Q: May inciting to sedition be committed by omission?

YES.
Q: 4th manner. Example.
Q: Art. 143. how committed?
Q: Who may commit?

Any person
Q: What are the legislative bodies?

HR, Senate
Q: Give an example.

Q: May the accused be a participant in the meeting?

Yes. Stranger? Yes.
Q: Meeting of municipal council, chief of police was invited. He was interpellated which resulted in an
altercation. He fired his revolver which resulted in the dispersal of the meeting. What crime is committed?
Art 143
Art 144. Disturbance of proceeding
Q: how committed?
a. That there be a meeting of Congress or any of its committees, constitutional commissions or committees
or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or municipal council or board
b. That the offender does any of the following acts
1. he disturbs any of such meetings
2. he behaves while in the presence of any such bodies in such a manner as to interrupt its proceedings
or to impair the respect due it
Q: example
Q: Meeting of committee created by Senate, resource person was being interpellated. Audience shouted and
booed the senator interpellating. Liable?
Yes.
Q: May the Senate also cite for contempt?

Yes
Q: May Senate also order the incarceration of the accused?

Yes.
Art 145. violation of parliamentary immunity
Q: how committed?
a. By using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to prevent any member of Congress from –
1. attending the meeting of the assembly or any of its committees, constitutional commissions or
committees or divisions thereof, or from
2. expressing his opinions or
3. casting his vote
b. By arresting or searching any member thereof while Congress is in a regular or special session, except in
case such member has committed a crime punishable under the code by a penalty higher than prision
mayor
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer or employee
2. That he arrests or searches any member of Congress
3. That Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is in a regular or special session
4. That the member searched has not committed a crime punishable under the code by a penalty higher
than prision mayor (1987 constitution: privilege from arrest while congress in session in all offenses
punishable by not more than 6 years imprisonment).

Q: example
Q: 1st manner, how committed
Q: Is it necessary that member be actually prevented?

No.
Q: May be done outside the halls of Congress?

Yes.
Q: Supposing the committee on public order of HR scheduled a meeting in Basilan in connection with the
hostages of Abu Sayyaf Group. Because the airport was waylaid by some elements, they were not able to attend
meeting. Criminally liable?
Yes. Art. 145
Q: Example of expressing his opinion
Q: Where should the opinion be expressed?

During the Congress meeting. “halls of Congress”
Q: What if invited to be guest speaker in a graduation ceremony?

Not liable. But liable for grave coercion
Q: Example of casting his vote?

impeachment proceeding vote
Q: Supposing that despite threat, she still proceeded to cast her vote. Is there criminal liability?
Yes for Art 145.
Q: What consummates?
Employing of force, intimidation, threat
Not necessary that member of the Congress be actually prevented.
Q: 2nd manner. How committed?
Q: duration of PM: 6 years and 1 day – 12 years
Q: if penalty is higher than 12 years, only time that he can be arrested? No.
Q: when can he be arrested?

Penalty is prision mayor or higher. Reconcile that with Consti
Consti says – exempt from arrest if penalty is 6 years or lower
Q: When member of Congress commits a crime, penalty is 6 years, may he be arrested?

No
Q: If Congress is no longer in session?

Yes.
Q: Penalty is higher than 6 years?

Yes
Q: Even if Congress is in session?

Yes
Q: If not in session, regardless of penalty?

Yes
Q: Physical injuries committed long before he was elected, a warrant of arrest issued, punished by Prision
Correccional, Congress is in session. May he be arrested?
No
Q: Lower house in session from July 1 to Oct 31. September 15, the warrant was issued. He was arrested in his
house. PNP liable under Art. 145?
Yes. Congress is in Session. 24/7, Congress is deemed session from July 1 to Oct 31
Q: Meaning of session?
see mem aid.
Q: Supposing penalty is 8 years, same facts, PNP liable?
No. Penalty is higher than 6 years
Remember: fundamental law is the Consti. It prevails over RPC in case of conflict.
Q: Arrested for a crime long before he became a member of Congress. Only when he was elected, the warrant of
arrest was issued for a crime with a penalty of less than 6 years. He was arrested. Liable?
Yes.
Q: Congresswoman, long before, committed plunder. Corresponding information was filed in Sandiganbayan.
May she be arrested?
Yes. Penalty higher than 6 years.
Q: Crime: Grave Slander less than 6 years. You are the subject. Can you file a case against him?
Yes. Immunity from arrest and search only. (note: the words were uttered outside Halls of Congress)
Art 145 prohibits only arrest and search. Not the filing of the complaint with the prosecutor nor filing of info in
the court.
Q: Court prepared warrant of arrest but did not implement? Is court liable for Art 145?
No. Actual arrest is penalized.
January 7, 2009
ART. 146. Illegal Assemblies

Q: what are the 2 kinds of illegal assemblies?
(i) any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under this code/under the RPC

(ii) any meeting in which the audience, whether armed or not is incited to the commission of the
crime of treason, rebellion, or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority or his
agent.
Q: who may be criminally liable?

Leaders and organizers of the meeting
Persons merely present at the meeting
Q: what is the presumption of the law, if a person at the meeting carries an unlicensed firearm?
(i) it is presumed that the purpose of the meeting insofar as he is concerned, is to commit acts
punishable under the RPC
(ii) he is considered a leader or organizer of the meeting
Q: in the first form how many persons must be armed?

A: at least two. Since the law speaks of ARMED PERSONS. “persons” is used in the plural form, so, it is
sufficient if at least two are armed.
Q: suppose there are 10 members, only 1 is armed, but he is carrying 10 hand grenades. Will you consider it as an
illegal assembly?
A: NO. because, only 1 is armed.
Q: suppose there are 10 members, 5 of them are armed and the purpose of the meeting is to sell shabu, marijuana
and cocaine. Will they be liable for illegal assembly in the first manner?
A: NO. because the crime is not punishable under RPC, it is a violation of the dangerous drug act;
violation of a special law.
Q: suppose there are 10 members, 5 of them are armed in order to finance an activity, they propose to each other
to issue checks without funds. Will they be liable for illegal assembly?
A: NO. because BP 22 is not punishable under RPC.
Q: (same facts) the purpose is to commit carnapping. Liable?

A: NO. because not punishable under RPC. Punishable under Anti-Carnapping Law
Q: (same facts) the purpose is to commit bank robbery. Liable?

A: YES. Robbery is a crime punishable under RPC.
Q: again, what is the 2nd form of illegal assembly?

A: any meeting in which the audience, whether armed or not is incited to the commission of the crime of
treason, rebellion, or insurrection, sedition or assault upon a person in authority or his agent
Q: is it necessary that the persons attending the meeting be armed?

A: NO.
Q: Suppose you and your classmates gathered together, since the mid term examination is fast approaching and
you knew for a fact that all of you will fail, you planned to remove the face of your criminal law teacher in the
world. Will you be liable for illegal assembly?
A: YES. Illegal assembly in the 2nd manner.
Q: Why?
A: because, the members are incited to commit the crime of direct assault upon a person in authority.

Q: Suppose you and 10 of your classmates instead of having a class, gathered together and you as the leader of the
meeting incited your classmates to join the NPA. What will be your liability as the leader of the meeting?
A: YOUR LIABILITY – inciting to rebellion; illegal assemblies
Q: what will be the liability of your classmates if they join the NPA?
A: rebellion by direct participation
Q: what will be your liability of your classmates join the NPA?
A: rebellion by principal inducement
Q: what will be the liability of your classmates if they did not join the NPA?
A: illegal assembly
**(note: it is an important element of illegal assembly in the 2nd form if the audience commits the crime of
treason, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, assault or if they are merely incited)
Q: 1st manner. Purpose?

Commission of crimes under RPC
Q: members are all armed?

No. at least 2
Q: 30 mins before class in Crim Rev, you gathered to assault Prof. Amurao for flunking you. Liable? Yes.
2nd manner. Crime is assault
If crime is TRISA, not necessary that audience be armed.
Q: Supposing 4C meet 30 minutes before the class, discussing means to raise funds for school project. They
agreed to sell marijuana. Liable?
No. 1st manner must be RPC. Not armed.
Q: Same facts, discussing how to take cars of professors to raise funds. Liable?
No. Special law- carnapping.
Q: BP 22?
Same – not liable
Q: Smuggling –
same. Not liable because it is a special law.
Q: Illegal recruitment?
Liable. You are planning to commit estafa.
Remember, you may be liable for Estafa due to illegal recruitment
Q: Direct assault, only one carrying an unlicensed revolver?

Q: What are the legal implications?
As to him, purpose is to commit any of the crimes under RPC. Organizer of assembly.
ART. 147. Illegal Associations

Q: what is an illegal association?

i. associations totally or partially organized for the purpose of committing any of the crimes
punishable under the code/RPC
ii. associations totally or partially organized for some purposes contrary to public morals.
Q: what are the difference between illegal assembly and illegal associations?
a. as to acts punishable:
-illegal assembly – it is the meeting and attendance at such meeting that are punished;
-illegal associations – it is the act of forming or organizing and membership in the associations
that are punished.
b. as to meeting:
-illegal assembly – there should be an actual meeting
-illegal associations – no need for an actual meeting
c. as to persons liable
-illegal assembly – leaders, organizers, and persons merely present at the meeting
-illegal associations – founders, directors, presidents and members of the associations
d. as to the purpose
-illegal assembly – 1. purpose of the meeting is to commit crime punishable under RPC 2. to
incite audience in committing the crime of treason, rebellion, insurrection, sedition, assault
-illegal associations – purpose is to organize an association for the purpose of committing any
crimes punishable under RPC or against public morals
Q: give an example of illegal associations.

(icip ka na lang ng example mo)
Q: you and your classmates form an association and the purpose is to commit the crime of estafa. Is the
association illegal?
YES. Estafa is punishable under RPC
Q: you and your friends in order to pass criminal law II form an association, strategize cheating and called your
association “cheats inc.” Will you be liable for illegal associations?
YES. Contrary to public morals.
Q: An organization was form purpose was to cohabitation between male and female without the benefit of
marriage. Liable?
YES. Contrary to public morals.
Q: Supposing you joined an association propagating relationship without the benefit of marriage. The Philosophy
of association is that marriage is just a piece of paper, no longer honored by the society. Liable?
Yes. This is contrary to public morals
Q: Association composed of married men and women. The purpose if to foster “love” among them. Liable?
No. Provided they are not committing adultery or concubinage.
Illegal Assembly (146) Illegal Association (147)

Must be an actual meeting of armed persons to No need for such
commit any of the crimes punishable under the
RPC, or of individuals who, although not
armed, are incited to the commission of treason,
rebellion, sedition or assault upon a person in

authority of his agent.

It is the meeting and the attendance at such that Act of forming or organizing and
are punished membership in the association
Persons liable: leaders and those present Founders, directors, president and members
Art. 148. Direct Assaults
Q: How committed?
i. without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation for the attainment of any of the
purpose enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition.
ii. Without public uprising, by attacking, by employing force, or by seriously intimidating or
seriously resisting any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance
of official duties, or on the occasion of such performance.
Q: may direct assault be committed against private individuals?
A: Yes.
Q: give an example of direct assault in the first manner

A: (give your own example)
**(review: purpose of rebellion: (i) to remove from the allegiance to said Govt or its laws the territory of the Ph or
any part thereof; or any body of land, naval or other armed forces; or (ii) to deprive the Chief Executive or
Congress, wholly or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives. Objects of sedition: (i) prevent the
promulgation or execution of any law or the holding of any popular election, (ii) to prevent the Nat Gov, or any
provincial or municipal govt or any public officer thereof from freely exercising its or his functions or prevent the
execution of any administrative order; (iii) to inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property of any
officer or employee (iv) to commit for any political or social end, any act of hate or revenge against private
persons or any social class; and (v) to despoil, for any political or social end, any person, municipality or province
or the Nat Gov of all its property or any part thereof.
Q: There are 3 armed persons, who went to Binondo, employed force and intimidation upon the Chinese retailers,
because these Chinese retailers are dominating the retail business in the area. What will be the liability?
A: Direct Assault in the first manner. 4th object of sedition.
Q: direct assault in the 2nd manner

A: Without public uprising, by attacking, by employing force, or by seriously intimidating or seriously
resisting any person in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the performance of official duties,
or on the occasion of such performance.
Q: what do you mean of “on the occasion of such performance”

A: means that the impelling motive of the attack is the performance of official duty
Q: who is a person in authority?

A: any person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of some court or
gov’t corporation, board or commission.
Q: can you give an example.

A. barangay captain, barangay chairman, mayor, governor, president of sanitary divisions, municipal
councilor
Q: senator? PA, Pres. Arroyo? PA, Mike Arroyo? Not PA, Why? not vested with jurisdiction

Q: who is an agent of a person in authority?

A: any person, who by direct provision or law, by election or appointment of a competent authority is
charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property.
Q: example. . .
A: barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader
Q: is there a difference in the degree of force?

A. YES.
If person in authority – not serious
If agent – serious
Q: when do you say that the force is serious?

A: if the force is to indicate determination to defy the law and its representatives at all hazards.

A: A barangay tanod in the performance of his official duty saw “A” and “B” who is quarrelling with
each other and as the barangay tanod tried to stop “A” and “B”, “A” said to the tanod “do not come near, or else I
will kill you”. The brgy. tanod in his effort to come closer and stop the fight, A stub the tanod with his knife and
inflicted serious physical injuries. (..isip ka pa ng example mo)
Q: suppose while you are being arrested by a policeman, you inflicted fist blows to the policeman. Will you be
liable for direct assault?
A: No. fist blows is not serious
Q: because you flunked in criminal law I, you pushed me (atty. Amurao) in which, I loss my balance but i was not
harmed. What is the crime?
A: Direct Assault.
Q: Why? Are the requisites of direct assault present?

A: Yes. If it is a person in authority, it is not necessary that the force is serious, and it is by reason of the
past performance of his duty
Q: suppose you did not study your lesson in criminal law II and instead of bringing you book you have with you a
firearm pointed at Atty. Amurao with the note “do not call me for recitation”, will you be liable?
A: Yes. It is serious intimidation.
Q: for example, a mayor while in his office and signing official papers was assaulted by his number 2. The reason
of the assault is that the number 2 is asking the mayor to support her. Liable?
A: Yes.
Q: Why? notwithstanding the fact that the reason of the assault is to give support to her
A: Yes, because if the person in authority is in the actual performance of his official duty, motive is
immaterial.
**(note: motive is only material, if PA and APA is NOT in the actual performance of his duty)
Q: for example, we are having our class in criminal law II, suddenly there is a person who comes in and fired his
gun at me, inflicted wounds and eventually I die. What Crime?
A: Direct Assault Complex with Murder or Homicide, as the case may be. Because you are in the actual
performance of your official duty

Q: for example, after our class in criminal law II, while I was walking along mendiola, sudde nly there is a person
fired his gun at me, inflicted wounds and eventually I die, the reason is that I have an obligation to pay her the
amount of P100,000 and I do not want to pay her What Crime?
A: murder or homicide, as the case may be.
Q: why?
A: because you are not in the actual performance of your official duty and the motive will be essential,
and in the facts the motive is not by reason of past performance of your official duty.
Q: for example, you failed in Criminal Law I, and as I was walking the corridor you hit me with your revolver
which inflicted several wounds. What crime?
A: direct assault in the 2nd manner.
Q: for example, I (atty. Amurao) is a criminal lawyer and in the course of the direct examination, I made
arguments that strengthen the stand of my client, the complainant saw me eating in the restaurant, fired his gun
which caused a serious wound? What crime?
A: Direct Assault 2nd manner. By reason of past performance of his duty.
Q: suppose you are a governor, and you recommended your niece to the mayor for a position, however the
position is already filled up. When you saw the mayor you shot him but he did not die instead inflicted a wound.
What crime?
A: Direct Assault
**(noted: in direct assault, position is immaterial)
Q: for example you are senator, and you are in a hurry, so you violated the traffic rules and regulation by beating
the red light. The traffic enforcer asked you present your license but instead of giving your license, you pointed
your gun and fired at him, inflicting a wound. Liable?
A: YES.
*Always complexed with the material consequence of the act (e.g. direct assault with murder) except if resulting
in a light felony, in which case, the consequence is absorbed
*Hitting the policeman on the chest with fist is not direct assault because if done against an agent of a person in
authority, the force employed must be of serious character
*The force employed need not be serious when the offended party is a person in authority (ex. Laying of hands)
*The intimidation or resistance must be serious whether the offended party is an agent only or a person in
authority (ex. Pointing a gun)
Force Employed Intimidation/Resistance

Person in Authority Need not be serious Serious
Agent Must be of serious character Serious
*Person in authority: any person directly vested with jurisdiction (power or authority to govern and execute the
laws) whether as an individual or as a member of some court or governmental corporation, board or commission
*A barangay captain is a person in authority, so is a Division Superintendent of schools, President of Sanitary

Division and a teacher

*Agent: is one who, by direct provision of law or by election or by appointment by competent authority, is
charged with the maintenance of public order and the protection and security of life and property. (Example.
Barrio councilman and any person who comes to the aid of the person in authority, policeman, municipal
treasurer, postmaster, sheriff, agents of the BIR, Malacañang confidential agent)
*Even when the person in authority or the agent agrees to fight, still direct assault.
*When the person in authority or the agent provoked/attacked first, innocent party is entitled to defend himself
and cannot be held liable for assault or resistance nor for physical injuries, because he acts in legitimate self-
defense
*There can be no assault upon or disobedience to one authority by another when they both contend that they were
in the exercise of their respective duties.
*When assault is made by reason of the performance of his duty there is no need for actual performance of his
official duty when attacked
*Complex crime of direct assault with homicide or murder, or with serious physical injuries.
*Direct assault cannot be committed during rebellion.
Q: Art 148. Direct Assault – how committed?
Q:May a private individual be an offended party?

Yes.
Q: When?
First method, purpose of sedition.
Q: Example of first mode, purpose of rebellion/sedition
Q: Supposing warrant of arrest is issued against you. PNP implementing, members of your family numbering 3
blocked them. Liable?
Yes. Prevent PO from exercising functions (1st mode, objects of sedition).
Q: Supposing your brother was apprehended by police while drinking in a bar. He was incarcerated. You want to
ask for his release. The police refused. You organized your friends and went to police HQ and then fired at the PO
there. Liable for DA?
Yes. 1st or 2nd mode? 1st inflicting out of hate or revenge
Q: 2 of your brothers hated presence of Chinese businessmen. Chinaman established business in your community.
You and your brothers threw stones at their store. Liable?
1st assault under 1st mode. Act of hate against social class.
Q: Who is a person in authority?
Q: Give examples. Art 152. lawyers

January 8, 2009
Art. 149. Indirect Assault
Q: How is IA committed?
A: (i) that a PA or APA is the victim of any of the form of direct assault defined in Art 148
(ii)that a person comes to the aid of such authority or his agent
(iii)that the offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such persons coming to the aid of authority
or his agent
Q: does the person coming to the aid of PA or APA have to be a public officer?
A: NO. the offender may be a private individual
Q: may IA be committed without the crime of DA?

A: NO. because DA is an essential element of IA; they are called twin crimes.
Q: will the acquittal in DA carry with it the acquittal in IA?

A: it depends upon the acquittal.
-if the acquittal in DA is by reason that the offender did not commit the act
-there will be acquittal in IA
-if the acquittal in DA is by reason of an exempting circumstances or acts personal of the accused
(minority, insanity)
-there will be NO acquittal in IA
-if the acquittal in DA is by reason that the evidence does not prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of
the offender.
-there will be NO acquittal in IA
Q: suppose you are judge who convicted “A” and made him suffer 10 years imprisonment. “A” served the
sentence, and the judge already retired. One Sunday morning, “A” saw the judge going out of the church with his
wife. “A” attacked the judge, the mayor in coming to the aid of the judge was stopped by a third person.
What will be the liability of “A”? What will be the liability of the third person who stopped the mayor?
A: The liability of “A” – DA; the liability of the third person will also be DA, because a mayor is a person
in authority
Q: (same facts) the person who comes to the rescue of the judge is a neighbor. What will be the liability of the 3rd
person?
A: IA.
Art. 151. Resistance and disobedience to PA or APA
Q: How committed?
A: (i) that a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the performance of official duty or gives a
lawful order to the offender.
(ii)that the offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in authority or his agent
(iii) that the act of the offender is not included in the provisions of Art 148, 149, 150

A: for example, while being arrested by a policeman, you sat down in the middle of the street and resist,
making it difficult for the policeman to arrest you. –(example ni van)
Q: suppose you are arrested for jaywalking and instead for giving in yourself to the policeman you lie down on
the street. Liable.
A: YES
Q: what is the difference between disobedience and resistance and direct assault?
A: DA-
Art.150. Disobedience to summons

Q: how committed?
A: (i) by refusing, without legal excuse, to obey summons of the National Assembly, its special or
standing committees and subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its committees,
subcommittees or divisions, or by any commission or committee chairman or member authorized to
summon witnesses.
(ii) by refusing to be sworn, or placed under affirmation while being before such legislative or
constitutional body or official
(iii) by refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any books, papers, documents or records in his
possession, when required by them to do so in the exercise of their functions.
(iv) by restraining another from attending as a witness in such legislative or constitutional body.
(v) by inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be sworn by any such body or official.
Q: give an example in any manner

A: for example, you are summoned by the National Assembly and without any legal excuse you refused
to obey the summon -(example ni van)
Q: famous witness Jocjoc Bolante was being questioned by the Senate. He refused to answer the questions and
invoked his right to self incrimination. Will he be liable?
A: NO. There is a legal excuse
Q: Jocjoc Bolante deposited 500M pesos in a several banks. The Senate requires the banks to produce the papers,
books and records of the allege account of Bolante. The banks refused to produce the same and invoked secrecy
provided in the Banking Law. Will the banks be liable?
A: NO. There is a legal excuse.
Q: JocJoc Bolante answered all the questions of the Senate, however the Senate were not satisfied with the
answers for it is not what they expected. Will JocJoc Bolante may be held criminally liable?
A: NO. Because JocJoc Bolante still answered the questions.
Q: JocJoc Bolante failed to produce books, papers and documents, the Senate ordered his imprisonment unless he
produces the same. May the Senate order his imprisonment?
A: NO.
Q: What is the difference between Contempt and Disobedience

A: Contempt – administrative in nature
Disobedience – criminal in nature
Direct Assault (148) Resistant and Disobedience to a Person in

Authority or Agents of such Person (151)
PIA or his agent must be engaged in the PIA or his agent must be in the actual

performance of official duties or that he is performance of his duties.

assaulted
Direct assault is committed in 4 ways – by Committed by resisting or seriously disobeying a
attacking, employing force, and seriously PIA or his agent.
resisting a PIA or his agent.
Use of force against an agent of PIA must Use of force against an agent of a PIA is not so
be serious and deliberate. serious; no manifest intention to defy the law and
the officers enforcing it.
Art. 153 Tumults and other disturbances of public order
Q: How committed?
A: (i) causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office or establishment
(ii) interrupting or disturbing public performance, functions, or gatherings or peaceful meetings if the act
is not included in Art. 131 and 132
(iii) making an outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in any meeting, association or public place
(iv) displaying placards or emblems which provoke a disturbance of public order in such place
(v) burying with pomp the body of a person who has been legally executed.
Q: can you give an example of the first manner

A: inside a mall, a person shouted “fire! Fire!” which caused a public disturbance, in which case the
people panic. –(example ni ayla)
Q: can you give an example of the second manner

A: there is a peaceful rally on going and a passerby interrupted, dissolved such rally.
Q: for example the person who interrupted and dissolved the rally is a public officer, will he be liable under this
article?
A: NO. He will be liable under Art. 131
Q: what is Article 131 and 132?

A: 131 – prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings
132 – interruption of religious worships
Q: for example the person who interrupted and dissolved the rally is a public officer who is a participant of the
rally, what will be his liability?
A: Liable under Art. 153. because in Art 131, the public officer must not be a participant of the meeting.
Q: when is it tumultuous?
A: when it is caused by more than three persons (at least 4) who are armed or provided with means of
violence.
Q: when may an outcry be a crime of inciting to rebellion and when may it be a disturbance of public order?
A: incite to rebellion – outcry must be serious and deliberate, the offender should have done the act with
the idea aforethought of inciting his hearers or readers to commit the crime of rebellion and seditio n
Disturbance – not serious and unconscious outburst which although rebellious or seditious in nature is not
intentionally calculated to induce others to commit rebellion.

A: (isip ka na lang)
Q: Anti Cha Cha rally is ongoing, and suddenly a passerby shouted “rebolusyon ang sagot sa cha cha” What
crime?
A: Art 153. disturbance. The person who shouted has no intention to induce others
Q: In the Anti Cha cha rally, you delivered a speech in which you are persuading your listeners to over throw the
government. What crime?
A: inciting to rebellion
Q: After your powerful speech, a person shouted “ibagsak ang arroyo government”. What crime?
A: Art 153. There is no intention, and it not serious.
Art.154.unlawful use of means of publication
Q: what is the first manner?

A: by publishing as news any false news which may endanger public order or cause damages to the
interest or credit of the state.

A: As a writer, I published that “the president died yesterday” Of course, it is not true.
Q: may this crime be committed by any person?

A: YES
Q: what is the second manner?

A: by encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or praise, justify, extol any act
punished by law by means of publishing, utterance or speeches.

A: as a newscaster, I praise, justify and extol the unlawful acts of the “alabang boys” in pushing and
selling prohibited drugs.
Q: as a scriptwriter, you portrayed Commander Datu in one of your films, as a hero of the Muslim community.
However, in the eyes of the law, he is a criminal. Will you be liable?
A: YES.
Q: as a columnist, you write an article which praises, justifies the acts of JocJoc Bolante. You mentioned that he is
a person who is honest, truthful and must be followed by everyone. Will you be liable?
A: YES.
Q: what is the third manner?

A: by maliciously publishing or cause to be published any official resolution or document without proper
authority, or before they have been published officially.

A: before the senate passes a resolution, I published it without their authority.
Q: suppose the CA will release its resolution regarding the GSIS-MERALCO controversy, but before releasing
the same, you went to the CA get a copy and gave it to GSIS and MERALCO. Will you be held liable?

A: YES.
Q: what is the last manner?

A: by printing, publishing or distributing books, pamphlets, periodicals or leaflets which do not bear the
real printers name or which are classified as anonymous
Q: is there any instances wherein a writer can not write his name in his article
A: YES. If it will endanger his life
Q: in literary, are the writers required to write their real name?

A: NO.
Q: in movies and televisions, are the actors allowed to use names other than their real names?
A: YES.
Art. 155. Alarms and Scandals
Q: what is the first manner?

A: by discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker or other explosives within any town or public place
calculated to cause alarm or danger.
Q: will a person be liable if he discharged a firecracker during new year’s eve?

A: NO. Because the law exempts the celebration of new year’s eve and fiestas. As a tradition, we are
celebrating those events with firecrackers and it will not cause any alarm or danger.
Q: suppose at 12 midnight in your residential subdivision, you explode a firecracker, will you be liable?
A: YES. Because it will cause an alarm or danger since the residential subdivision is a public place

A: instigating or taking an active part in any charivari or other disorderly meeting offensive to another or
prejudicial to public tranquility.
Q: what is a charivari?
A: charivari – includes a medley of discordant voice, a mock serenade of discordant noises made on
kettles, tins, horns designed to annoy or insult.
Q: what is the third manner?

A: disturbing the public place while wandering about at night or while engaged in any other nocturnal
amusements.
Q: in this manner is it necessary that the offender be intoxicated?

A: NO
Q: give an example in which a person will be liable while engaged in a nocturnal amusements
A: while inside Star City at 10pm, you run naked all over the park while catching and kissing each girl
you meet.
Q: what is the last manner?

A: causing disturbance or scandal in public places while intoxicated or otherwise provided Art 153 is not
applicable

Q: in this manner does it have to be committed at night time?

A: NO. It may be committed on daytime

A: a person so drunk while walking along Mendiola Street kicks and throws each garbage can he sees,
and dares each man he meets to have a fight.
January 14, 2009

(walang recit)
Art. 156. Delivery of prisoners from jail
*prisoner can be convicted by final judgment or a detention prisoner

*detention prisoner – while his case is being tried in court
*may be committed by an outsider or public officer who is not in custody or charge of the prisoner.
Liability of prisoner who escaped if prisoner is convicted by final judgment
(Art 157 – Art 171 ) –hnde na kame nagrecit
Art.157
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

1. The offender is a convict by final judgment
2. He is serving his sentence which consists of deprivation of liberty
3. He evades the service of sentence by escaping during the term of his sentence
Q: If the prisoner is merely a detention prisoner and not one by final judgment, may he be held liable for this
crime?
No
Q: What if the person does happen to be convicted by final judgment but is a minor?
He is not liable
*NB: Recall the provisions of RA 9344 (Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act) – minors are NOT considered
‘convicts by final judgment’ because their sentence is suspended
Q: And if the accused escaped while his conviction is on appeal?

He is not liable, either. Judgment in this case is not yet final.
Q: Does that hold true even if the appeal was dismissed because he escaped?
Yes
Q: Is Art.157 applicable to the penalty of Destierro?

Yes, destierro is a deprivation of liberty, albeit partial.
*NB: the Spanish text is controlling: ‘sufriendo privacion de libertad’. Destierro was meant to deprive one
of his liberty

Q: What circumstances qualify the offense?

If the evasion of escape takes place –
1. By means of unlawful entry (i.e.: by ‘scaling’ a wall)
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors
3. By using picklocks, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence, intimidation
4. Through connivance with other convicts of employees of the penal institution
ART. 158
EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE ON THE OCCASION
OF DISORDERS, CONFLAGRATIONS, EARTHQUAKES
OR OTHER CALAMITIES

1. The offender is a convict by final judgment, who is confined in a penal institution
2. There is disorder resulting from conflagration, earthquakes, explosions, similar catastrophes or a
mutiny in which he has NOT participated
3. He evades the service of sentence by leaving the penal institution where he is confined on the
occasion of such disorder or during a mutiny
4. He fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48hrs following the issuance of a proclamation by
the Chief Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity
Q: What is being punished by this provision: the leaving of the penal institution or the failure to give oneself up
within 48 hrs?
The failure to give oneself up to the authorities within 48hrs after the proclamation announcing the end of
the calamity
*NB: Because this provision carries with it a sort of ‘loyalty award’, a special incentive for the
conscientious prisoner
Q: What is the legal effect on the accused’s liability if he fails to give himself up after the specified time?
An additional 1/5 of the unexpired jail time for his original offense will be added to his sentence
*NB: The added jail time is not to exceed 6 months, of course
Q: And if the accused does turn himself in, what is the legal effect on his liability?
1/5 of his original sentence will be deducted from his remaining jail time
Q: Which is longer – the deduction or the added time?

The deduction (1/5 of the original sentence, vs. the additional penalty of 1/5 of the unexpired sentence. As
always, penal laws should be construed liberally in favour of the accused)
Q: What is a mutiny?
An organized, unlawful resistance to a superior officer; a revolt
Q: Is there a ‘mutiny’ as contemplated by the law if the accused disarmed the guards and escaped and the guards
do not happen to be his superior officers?
None in this event, neither will there be a reduction of sentence upon surrender

ART.159
OTHER CASES OF EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

1. The offender was a convict by final judgment
2. He was granted a conditional pardon by the Chief Executive
3. He violated any of the conditions of such pardon
Q: Give an example of a condition appended to a pardon

i.e.: ‘the accused shall not violate any of the penal laws of the Philippines’ (the usual condition fixed to a
pardon granted by the President)
Q: What kind of pardon is contemplated by this provision?

Conditional Pardon
Q: And what is the nature of a Conditional Pardon?

It is in the nature of a contract between the accused and the Chief Executive
Q: May the court require the convict to serve the unexpired term of his original sentence if that sentence does
NOT exceed 6 years?
No, it may not
Q: Does the condition extend to special laws?

Yes
Q: In the event that the convict violates any condition appended to the pardon, may he be arrested and
incarcerated without trial?
Yes
Q: May the time the convict spent out of prison be deducted from the unexecuted portion of his sentence, in the
event that he is re-arrested?
No
Q: What is the time frame for the duration of the conditions of the pardon?
The conditions of the pardon are limited only to the remaining period of the sentence
Q: Differentiate the legal effects of a violation of conditional pardon and evasion of service of sentence by
escaping
VIOLATION OF A CONDITIONAL PARDON EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE BY

ESCAPING
Does not cause any injury to the right of It is an attempt, at least, to evade the penalty
another person nor does it disturb the public inflicted by the courts upon criminals and thus
order defeat the purpose of the law of either reforming or
punishing the criminals for having disturbed the
Merely an infringement of the terms stipulated in a public order
contract between the President and the criminal
ART.160

COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME DURING

SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER
PREVIOUS OFFENSE

1. The offender was already convicted by final judgment of one offense
2. He committed a new FELONY before beginning to serve such sentence OR while serving the same
(*NB: ‘new felony’ – keep in mind the reserved meaning for the term felony – acts or omissions
punishable by the Revised Penal Code)
Q: Does the second crime have to be a felony?

Yes
Q: What about the first crime?

It does not have to be a felony
Q: Is this the same as recidivism?

No, Art.160 refers to Quasi-Recidivism
Q: Differentiate the two
RECIDIVISM QUASI-RECIDIVISM
BOTH the first and second offenses must be Does not require that the 2 offenses are embraced
embraced under the SAME TITLE of the Revised under the same title of the Code
Penal Code
(see: Art.160)
(see: Art.14, par.9)
Q: Differentiate Quasi-Recidivism from Reiteracion
QUASI-RECIDIVISM REITERACION
May be committed while sentence is being served Requires that the offender shall have served out the
for the first offense, or before serving it sentence for the prior offenses (plural)
Contemplates more than one prior offense
Q: What is the nature of Quasi-Recidivism?

It is a SPECIAL AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE where a person, AFTER having been convicted
by final judgment of one offense, shall commit a NEW FELONY before beginning to serve the sentence
for the 1st offense OR while serving the same.
Q: Is it a crime?
No
Q: What are the legal effects of it?

1. The offender shall be punished by the maximum period of the penalty prescribed by the law for the
new felony
2. It cannot be off-set by an ordinary mitigating circumstance

Q: Is there a time-frame when a Quasi-Recidivist may be pardoned?

Yes, when he turns 70 yrs. old and has already served out his sentence after reaching the said age
Q: And if he happens to be a habitual criminal?

He may not be pardoned
CHAPTER ONE
FORGERIES
SECTION ONE – FORGING THE SEAL OF GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS,

THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
ART.161
COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE GOVERNMENT OF
THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, FORGING THE SIGNATURE
OR STAMP OF THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Q: What are the punishable acts under this provision?

1. Forging the Great Seal of the Government of the Philippine Islands
2. Forging the Signature of the President of the Philippines
3. Forging the Stamp of the President of the Philippines
Q: Who has custody of the Great Seal?

The Chief Executive
Q: Is this the same as Falsification of Public Documents?

No, it is an entirely distinct and separate crime
Q: If the accused simply wrote down the initials ‘BA-III’ to stand for ‘Benigno Aquino III’, will he be liable?
No, the signature must be fully formed
ART.162
USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP

1. The Great Seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature or stamp of the Chief Executive
was forged by another person (*NB: the offender must not be the person who committed the forgery)
2. The offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery
3. He used the counterfeit seal/signature/stamp
Q: If the offender committed the forgery himself, what is his liability?

He is a principal under art.161
Q: Does not the act of using an item forged by somebody else constitute liability as an accessory?
Generally, it does

Q: What is the difference in this case?

The act committed under art.162 is that of an accessory, but the law imposes a penalty that is only ONE
DEGREE LOWER, although an accessory is generally punished with a penalty two degrees lower than
that of a principal
Q: Is this an exception to the general rule on the particeps criminis?

Yes
SECTION TWO – COUNTERFEITING COINS
Art.163
MAKING AND IMPORTING AND UTTERING
FALSE COINS

1. There are false/counterfeited coins
2. The offender either made, imported or uttered such coins
3. In case of uttering such false coins, the offender connived with the counterfeiters or importers
Q: When is a coin considered to be ‘false’?

When it is forged or is not authorized by the Government as legal tender
Q: What if the coin happened to contain 24 karats of gold?

The intrinsic value of the coin is immaterial
Q: What is meant by ‘uttering’ false coins?

The circulation or delivery or the act of giving the coins away
Q: When is a coin considered to be ‘uttered’?

When it is paid, or when the offender is caught committing any preparatory act prior to its delivery, even
though he may not have obtained his intended gain
Q: If the offender was caught merely counting the coins before paying them, is he liable?
Yes, the counting is a preparatory act and is considered to fall within the concept of ‘uttering’ false coins
Q: May coins that are no longer in circulation be considered ‘false coins’ if the offender chose to counterfeit
them?
Yes
*NB: Even former coins withdrawn from circulation may be counterfeited. The provision does not qualify
the word ‘coin’ with the adjective ‘current’ (ps: God I hated statcon so much)
Q: What are the kinds of counterfeited coins under this provision?

1. Silver coin of the PH/ coin of the Central Bank of the Philippines (oh alright, Bangko Sentral if you
insist on the nationalistic term)
2. Coin of minor coinage (i.e.: 1 centavo, 5 centavos etc)
3. Coin of the currency of a Foreign Country

Q: When foreign coins are counterfeited, must they be in circulation?

Yes, the law says ‘currency of a foreign country’
*NB: more statcon. Demonetized coins are no longer considered ‘currency’ – root word is obvious, the
coins must be in circulation. I.e.: if you counterfeited a Franc, you are not liable because the legal
tender/currency of France is now the Euro
Art.164
MUTILATION OF COINS – IMPORTATION
AND UTTERANCE OF MUTILATED COINS
Q: What are the punishable acts?

1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further requirement that there be intent to damage or
defraud another
2. Importing or Uttering such mutilated coins, with the further requirement that there must be
connivance with the mutilator or importer in the case of utterance
Q: What is meant by ‘mutilation’?

To diminish by ingenious means the metal in the coin
*NB: this is punishable because the coin diminishes in intrinsic value, one who utters it receives its legal
value in return for a lesser intrinsic value
Q: Does the mutilated coin have to be of legal tender?

Yes, the law uses the words ‘legal currency’
Q: Is mutilation of foreign coins punishable?

No, merely the counterfeiting (see: art.163) of foreign coins is punishable under the RPC
Art.165
SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN
WITHOUT CONNIVANCE
*Trust me, I’m as bored as you are at this point, I have trouble imagining a court docket actually listing hearings
for cases of violations under these provisions

1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another person, with intent to utter the same,
knowing that it is false or mutilated
**ELEMENTS:
a. Possesion
b. Intent to Utter
c. Knowledge of Falsity
2. Actually uttering such false of mutilated coin, knowing the same to be false or mutilated
**ELEMENTS
a. Actual Utterance
b. Knowledge of Falsity

NOTES:
*Possession of, or uttering false coins does NOT require that the counterfeited coin is legal tender
*BUT if the coin being possessed is accompanied by an intent to utter the same, or it is being uttered, or it is a
mutilated coin, it must be of legal tender
*Possession here includes constructive possession
*Possession of false/mutilated coins by the counterfeiters of mutilators themselves does NOT constitute a separate
offense
*Actually uttering false/mutilated coins, knowing them to be so, is a crime under art.165 EVEN IF there isn’t
connivance (see: elements of the 2nd punishable act, note the absence of connivance as an essential element of the
crime)
SECTION THREE – FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES,

OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES; IMPORTING AND UTTERING FALSE OR
FORGED NOTES, OBLIGATIONS AND SECURITIES
Art.166
FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR
OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER;
IMPORTING SUCH FALSE/FORGED NOTES
AND DOCUMENTS

1. Forging or Falsifying Treasury of Bank Notes or other documents payable to bearer
2. Importation of such false/forged obligations or notes
3. Uttering such false/forged obligations or notes in connivance with the forgers or importers
Q: Differentiate Forgery from Falsification
FORGERY FALSIFICATION
Giving the appearance of a true or genuine Erasing, Substituting, Counterfeiting or Altering by
document any means, the figures, letters, words or signs
To make a false instrument intended to be passed

for a genuine one
Q: What is meant by ‘payable to bearable’?

Ownership is transferred to the bearer by mere delivery –
1. When it is expressed to be so payable
2. When it is payable to a person named therein or to bearer

3. When it is payable to the order of a fictitious or non-existing person, and such fact was known to the
person making it so payable
4. When the name of the payee does not purport to be the name of any person
5. When the only or last indorsement is an indorsement in blank
(See: Sec.9, The Negotiable Instruments Law)
Q: Give examples of ‘obligations and securities’

-bonds
-certificates of indebtedness
-coupons
-treasury notes
-fractional notes
-certificates of deposit
-bills
-checks
-drafts for money
-other representatives of value issued under any act of Congress
*NB: Philippine National Bank (PNB) checks are commercial documents not covered by art.166
NOTES:
*Penalties depend on the kind of forged treasury/bank notes or other documents
*The penalty for forging or falsifying notes and obligations is more severe than that for counterfeiting coins
Art.167
COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING AND UTTERING
INSTRUMENTS NOT PAYABLE TO BEARER

1. There is an instrument payable to order or other document of credit NOT payable to bearer
2. The offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument
3. In case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer
Q: What is meant by ‘payable to order’?

-Drawn payable to the order of a specified person or to him or his order
-Negotiated by indorsement or delivery
(See: Sec.8, The Negotiable Instruments Law)
Q: Does the article cover instruments or other documents issued by a foreign government or bank?
Yes, art.167 has no specification of the country or government issuing the instruments or documents
Q: What is the reason behind this law?

To maintain the integrity of the currency and insure the credit standing of the government; to prevent the
imposition on the public and the government of worthless notes or obligations; to protect the banking
system and the economy

Art.168
ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE TREASURY
OR BANK NOTES OR OTHER INSTRUMENTS
OF CREDIT

1. Any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation and security payable to bearer, or any
instrument payable to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by
any person
2. The offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or falsified
3. He –
a. Uses any of such forged/falsified instruments
b. Is in possession with intent to use any of such forged/falsified instruments
Q: Is intent to possess punishable under this article?

No, intent to possess is not synonymous with ‘intent to use’ and is therefore not an offense punishable by
art.168
Q: What is the presumption of the law with regard to the person in possession of a falsified document?
A person in possession of a falsified document and who makes use of it is presumed to be the material
author of the falsification
NOTES:
*Intent to use is sufficient to consummate the crime when the offender is IN POSSESSION of false/falsified
obligations or notes
*BUT mere possession WITHOUT intent to use it to the damage of another is not a crime
Art.169
HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED
Q: How is forgery committed?

1. By giving to a treasury/bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order mentioned therein,
the appearance of a true and genuine document
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting or altering by any means the figures, letters, words or signs
contained therein
Q: Does forgery include falsification and counterfeiting?

Yes
Q: What are the acts punished under Presidential Decree (PD) 247?
Defacing, mutilating, tearing, burning or destroying, in any manner whatsoever, currency notes and coins
issued by the Central Bank of the Philippines
SECTION FOUR – FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE, PUBLIC, COMMERCIAL

AND PRIVATE DOCUMENTS AND WIRELESS,

TELEGRAPH AND TELEPHONE MESSAGES
Art.170
FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS

1. There is a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved or pending approval by either House of
the Legislature or any provincia l board or municipal council
2. The offender alters the same
3. He has no proper authority therefor
4. The alteration has changed the meaning of the document

Any person who alters a document without the proper authority therefor
Q: What type of document is contemplated under this article?

Legislative documents
Q: May this crime be committed by a public officer who does NOT take advantage of his official position?
Yes
Q: Suppose the City Council passed an Ordinance and when it was transmitted to the Mayor for his approval, the
Mayor changed one of the WHEREAS clauses. Is he liable?
Yes, the Mayor has no authority to unilaterally change any of the parts of an ordinance
Q: Did the Mayor in the foregoing example take advantage of his official position? How?
Yes he did, he took advantage of the fact that the ordinance must first be signed by him and changed one
of the WHEREAS clauses
Q: Supposing the Mayor did not take advantage of his position and acted in a private capacity, will he still be
liable?
Yes
Art.171
FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC OFFICER, EMPLOYEE,
OR NOTARY OR ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER

1. The offender is a public officer, employee or notary public
2. He takes advantage of his official position
3. He falsifies a document by committing any of the following acts:
a. Counterfeiting or Imitating any handwriting, signature or rubric;
b. Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any act or proceeding when they did NOT
in fact so participate;
c. Attributing to person who have participated in any act or proceeding statements OTHER than
those in fact made by them;
d. Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
e. Altering true dates;

f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine document which changes its meaning;
g. Issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an original document when
no such original exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or different from, that
of the genuine original;
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or
official book
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister, the act of falsification is committed with respect to
any record or document of such character that its falsification may affect the civil status of persons
Q: Differentiate art.170 from art.171
FALSIFICATION OF FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC

LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENT OFFICER, EMPLOYEE,
(ART.170) NOTARY OR
ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER
(ART.171)
RE: Type of Document Legislative Documents Public/Official/All other
documents NOT legislative in
nature
RE: Persons Liable Any unauthorized person Public Officer, Employee or

Notary Public
Ecclesiastical Minister, with

respect to falsification of records
or documents which affect the
status of persons
RE: Manner of Commission Offender need not take advantage Offender must take advantage of
of his official position his public position
Q: When may a public officer be said to ‘take advantage’ of his position?

1. When he has the duty to make or to prepare or otherwise to intervene in the preparation of the
document
2. When he has official custody of the document which he falsifies
Q: What is a ‘document’?
-Any written statement by which a right is established or an obligation, extinguished
-A writing or instrument by which a fact may be proven and affirmed
Q: What are the punishable acts which require the use of a GENUINE document?
1. Making an alteration/Intercalation
2. Including in a copy a different statement
3. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the issuance thereof in any protocol, registry or official
book
*NB: Other acts of falsification may be committed by SIMULATING or FABRICATING a document

and hence do not require the presence of a genuine one

Q: Is the simulation of public, official or mercantile documents also contemplated by the article?
Yes – the provision says … ‘shall falsify a document’ (type of document is not specified)
Q: Under the first mode (counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting etc), what are the two ways of committing
the crime?
1. Counterfeiting or Imitating any handwriting, signature of rubric
2. Feigning or Simulating any signature, handwriting or rubric which does NOT in fact exist
Q: What are the requisites of counterfeiting?

1. Intent or Attempt to Imitate
2. There must be at least 2 signatures/handwritings/rubrics – the genuine one and the forged one; and
they must bear a resemblance to each other
Q: And if the 2 do not appear the same?

The offender may be liable under Art.171, par.2 (causing it to appear that person/s have participated in an
act they did not in fact so participate in)
Q: Under the second mode of commission (causing it to appear that persons have participated etc), what are the
requisites?
1. The offender caused it to appear in a document that a person or number of persons participated in an
act or proceeding
2. Such person/s did NOT in fact so participate
Q: May the 2nd manner be committed by a private person?

Yes, but the act – if committed by a private individual – is punishable under art.172, not art.171
Q: Under the 3rd mode of commission (attributing false statements to persons who have participated in an act or
proceeding), what are the requisites?
1. A person or group of persons participated in an act or proceeding
2. He/they made statements in such act/proceeding
3. The offender, in making the document, attributed to him/them statements other than those actually
made by them
Q: Under the 4th mode of commission, (making untruthful statements), what are the requisites?
1. The offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts
2. He has the legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by him
3. The facts narrated by him are absolutely false
4. The perversion of truth in the narration of facts was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third
person
Q: What is meant by ‘legal obligation’ under this article?

There is a law requiring the disclosure of the truth of the facts narrated
Q: Does the person making the narration have to be aware of the falsity of the facts narrated by him?
Yes
Q: Suppose a Mayoral candidate wrote ‘eligible’ on the certificate of candidacy because he believed he was of
sufficient age when he filled up the form, although he actually was not. Is he liable?
No

Q: Why not?
Because the false narration must be one of FACTS not of a CONCLUSION OF LAW
*NB: This is an actual case (see: People v. Yanza, GR. No. 12089, 29 April 1960) – A woman wrote
‘eligible’ because she believed that turning 23 yrs old upon assuming the councillorship was tantamount
to being eligible for running for that position. Notice that she had no intent to make an untruthful
narration of facts and she did not actually write a false fact, she made a conclusion of law regarding her
eligibility. Had she written ‘I was born on <insert false date>’, she would have been liable.
Q: Must the narration of fact be completely false?

Yes, because if there is some colourable truth in the statements, the crime of falsification is not deemed to
have been committed
Q: Is wrongful intent necessary when the document falsified is a public one?

No
Q: May falsification be committed by omission?

Yes
Q: Under the 5th manner of commission, (altering true dates), what is the controlling requisite?
The date/s altered must be material to the document
Q: Under the 6th manner of commission (making an alteration/intercalation in a genuine document etc), what are
the requisites?
1. There is an alteration (a change) or intercalation (an insertion)
2. It was made on a genuine document
3. The alteration/intercalation has changed the meaning of the document and
4. The change made the document speak something else
Q: Suppose a document was made on 27 April 2012. The document actually bore ’25 April 2012’. The Secretary
noticed this and changed the date to the 27th . Is she liable?
No, alteration which speaks the truth is not falsification. What she did was not a falsification, it was a
correction
*NB: to be liable, the alteration must affect the integrity or change the effects of the document. If it was
made to safeguard the integrity of the same, there is no criminal responsibility for the act
Q: Under the 7th manner of commission, (issuing in authenticated form a document purporting to be a copy of an
actually non-existent original), must the offender act in his official capacity?
Yes, the crime cannot be committed without taking advantage of official positions since these acts can be
made only by the custodian/the one who prepared and retained a copy of the original document
NOTES:
*It is the OFFICIAL CHARACTER of the offender which is mainly taken into consideration by art.171 – which
is why intent to cause damage or intent to gain is NOT necessary to consummate the offense
*Be that as it may, a PRIVATE INDIVIDUAL who cooperates with a public officer in the falsification of a public
document is guilty of falsification by public officer (art.171) and incurs the same liability and penalty as the
public officer (recall: particieps criminis – principal by indispensible cooperation)

*If a false official or public document was used in a CRIMINAL PROCEEDING to adversely affect the trial or
the admissibility of evidence (i.e.: to prevent or prohibit the investigation in a criminal case), the act is punished
under Presidential Decree 1829 as an act constituting obstruction of justice. Note that this only applies if the
falsification of the document is done in relation to a criminal proceeding
Midterm Exam (2008-2009)
1.” Grave Coercion or Threat”

RA 6235 or the Anti Hijacking law will not apply. As far as PH registry plane is concerned RA 6235 is
committed by compelling the pilot to change the course or destinations, and/or by usurping or seizing any part of
it while it is in flight.
A plane is in flight as soon as the doors are closed for embarkation and opened for disembarkation. In the
case at bar, the Philippine Airlines plane ceased to be in flight. The passengers are already disembarking, and with
that and fact the doors are already open.
Applying the analysis, RA 6235 is not the proper crime to be charged. Hadji and Abdul may be liable for
grave coercion or threat. (10pts)
2. Piracy under the Revised Penal Code and Piracy under PD 532
Piracy under the RPC is committed by a person, not being a passenger or a complement of the vessel
while the ship is on Philippine seas or high seas. It is committed by seizing or attacking the vessel and by seizing
totally or wholly any part thereof, or any personal belongings of the passengers.
Baldo, not being a passenger of MV Queenies and at the same time MV Queenie is within Philippine sea,
Baldo seized personal to belongings and of the passengers is.
In view of the facts as related to the elements of committing piracy under RPC. The crime to be charge is
piracy under RPC or piracy under PD 532 since the facts also constitute a commission of the crime of piracy
under pD 532. (10pts)
3. “Unlawful arrest”
The arrest of the 2 suspected robbers does not fall within any of the exemptions of law in which
warrantless arrest is valid and legal. Under Rule 113 of the Rules of Court, an arrest is legal even without a
warrant of arrest if an act/offense has just been committed and that there is personal knowledge of facts and
circumstances that the person to be arrested has actually committed the offense.
The SWAT operatives do not have any personal knowledge since what they have is merely “hearsay”.
Therefore, the arrest is unlawful and they can be charged with unlawful arrest. (mali ung sagot ko dito—pero eto
ang tamang sagot)
4. a. violation of domicile
Violation of domicile is committed by a public officer or employee by entering any dwelling against the
will of the owner; by searching papers and other effects without previous consent of the owner; and by refusing to
leave the same after having surreptitiously enter or being required to leave the same.
Police Inspector Cruz is a public officer and he indeed entered the dwelling of Roger without the consent
or against the will of the owner. The doors are closed, and even if it is not locked, is an implied prohibition of Mr.
Roger to anyone.
Applying the provisions of law in the given facts, Police Inspector Cruz is liable for violation of domicile
b. No.
The shabu seized and found in the jacket is inadmissible as evidence in any proceeding. Sec 2, par 3 of
the 1987 Constitution states that: “all instruments seized in violation of preceding articles will be inadmissible as

evidence.” Moreover, the shabu was illegally seized. (10pts)
5. Search Warrants maliciously obtained, perjury, physical injuries, malicious mischief or “destruction of
property”
SW maliciously obtained is committed by a public officer or employee who procures a SW without just
cause; or by exceeding his authority and using unnecessary severity in the execution of a SW legally procured.
In the case at bar, Ogie is liable under the first manner of SW maliciously obtained because the affidavit
is false, an additional crime of perjury will be added since perjury is an essential element of the crime. The
unnecessary severity used in the implementation of the SW will not fall under the second manner because the SW
is illegally or maliciously obtained.
Therefore, Ogie is liable for SW maliciously obtained, perjury, malicious mischief, physical injuries.
(10pts)
6. Rebellion Only
Rebellion is committed by rising publicly and taking up of arms against the government for the purpose
of removing from the allegiance of the said government or any of its laws, the territory of the Ph or any of its part
or by depriving the Chief Executive or Congress of any of its powers or prerogatives.
The act of maintaining a marijuana plantation and a laboratory to manufacture shabu as well as the
kidnapping of two wealthy businessman in the province are preparatory acts to support their armed struggle.
Moreover, it is settled that rebellion is a continuous crime and it absorbs common crimes committed in
furtherance thereof, such as the crime of kidnapping.
Therefore, the crime is simple rebellion only. (10pts)
7. Sedition and Arson

Sedition is committed by rising publicly and tumultuously and by using violence and intimidation in
performing any of its objects. One object of sedition is inflicting an act of hate or revenge upon the person or
property of a person in authority.
BF is a person in authority, the 10 men inflicted an act of hate and revenge upon the property (car) of BF.
There was public uprising and it is deemed tumultuous because at least 4 men are armed. The 10 men burned the
car of BF while he was inside Baclaran church, therefore they can also be liable for arson or destruction of
property.
The crime committed is sedition and arson. It shall be charged separately. (10pts)
8. Bugoy may be charged with Direct Assault complexed with frustrated murder or homicide as the case
may be
Direct assault is committed by employing force, making an attack, seriously resisting or seriously
intimidating a person in authority while such person is in the occasion of the performance of his official duties.
Bugoy’s motive was by reason of past performance of official duty of Judge Bitay. The DA will be
complexed with frustrated murder or homicide since the intent to kill can be seen from the facts given. Therefore
the crime is direct assault.
Bokbok may be charged with DA complexed with murder or homicide as the case may be
PO1 Bitay is also a person in authority and it is his duty to secure and maintain public order. Therefor the
elements of DA are also present (8pts)
9. 5 village residents – delivery of prisoners from jail

10 prisoners – no liability
Delivery of prisoners from jail may be committed by any person who removes from jail any prisoner, or
helps in the escape thereof.
The 5 village residents helped the 10 prisoners by drugging the portion of the tunnel outside which made
the prisoners escape.

The prisoners are not liable because they are only detained prisoners. To be liable the prisoners must be
convicted by final judgment (10pts)
10. Notary public X is liable for falsification by a public officer, notary public or ecclesiastical minister
The deed of Absolute Sale dated July 23, 2008 is indeed a false document containing forged signatures of
H and W. Since the notary public X has the occasion of preparing, making and executing the same, the notary
public will be liable. Moreover, there is an abuse on the position of the Notary public. Likewise, the document
contained false statements. (5pts – How about A? –comment ni sir.)
FINALS
Date: January 29, 2009
Art. 172. Falsification by a Private Individuals and Use of Falsified Documents

1. Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual
2. Falsification of private documents by any person
3. Use of falsified documents
a. Introducing falsified documents in a judicial proceeding
**ELEMENTS:
i. The offender knew that a document was falsified by another person
ii. The false document is embraced in art.171 or in any subdivisions, nos. 1 or 2 of art.172
iii. He introduced said document in evidence in any judicial proceeding
b. Use of falsified documents in any other transaction
**ELEMENTS:
i. The offender knew that a document was falsified by another person
ii. The false document is embraced in art.171/ subdivisions nos.1 and 2 or art.172
iii. He used such document in transactions, but NOT in judicial proceedings
iv. The use of the falsified documents caused damage to another or at least it was used with intent
to cause such damage
Q: What are the 4 kinds of documents that may be the subject of falsification?
1. Public Documents (i.e.: health sanitation forms, etc)
2. Official Documents (i.e.: letters to government department heads)
*NB: here’s the difference: Public Documents are general in character and have for their
Scope the public safety. Official documents are those issued in official capacity or by virtue of the
duties or functions of office, they do not necessary target the public in general. DO NOT confuse
‘public’ or ‘official’ documents with ‘legislative’ documents – they have different natures and their
respective falsifications are punished distinctly and separately.
3. Commercial Documents (i.e.: receipts and vouchers)

4. Private Documents (you don’t need an example for this)

-Private Individuals
-Public officials who do NOT take advantage of their positions

Q: Differentiate this from art.171
FALSIFICATION BY PUBLIC FALSIFICATION BY

OFFICER, EMPLOYEE, PRIVATE INDIVIDUALS AND
NOTARY OR USE OF FALSIFIED
ECCLESIASTICAL MINISTER DOCUMENTS
(ART.171) (ART.172)
RE: Type of Document -public -public
-official -official
-commercial -commercial
-private
RE: Persons Liable Public Officer, Employee or Private Individuals

Notary Public
Public Officers who do not take
Ecclesiastical Minister, with advantage of their public
respect to falsification of records positions
or documents which affect the
status of persons
RE: Manner of Commission Offender must take advantage of Offender must act in a private
his public position capacity
RE: Damage or Injury Caused Damage is not a necessary Prejudice to a third party is
element for consummation; primarily taken into account
Prejudice to a 3rd party is
immaterial *nb: damage need not be
material, damage to one’s honour
is included
*nb: damage is NOT necessary

when the crime involves
introducing falsified documents
in judicial proceedings
Q: Suppose you prepared a solicitation letter and signed Atty. Amurao’s name. What crime did you commit?
Falsification of a private document
Q: And if you followed it up with a real solicitation and appropriated the amount to yourself?
Estafa
Q: Through a falsified Pawnshop ticket you were able to redeem certain pieces of jewelry. What crime did you
commit?
Theft through falsification of a commercial document
Q: Suppose a public officer falsified a document, but he did not take advantage of his public position. What crime
did he commit?
Falsification under art.172

Q: Define the four kinds of documents
PUBLIC OFFICIAL PRIVATE COMMERCIAL

Created, executed or Issued by a public Deeds or instruments Any document defined
issued by a public official in the exercise executed by a private or regulated by the Code
official in response to of the functions of his person without the of Commerce or any
the exigencies of public office intervention of a notary other commercial law
service or one wherein public or other person
the execution of which, While it may be legally authorized, by Used by merchants or
a public official considered a type of which document some businessmen to promote
intervened ‘public document’, the disposition or agreement or facilitate trade
scope is not as general is proved, or evidence
Any instrument set forth
authorized by a notary Required by a bureau to
public or a competent be filled by its officers
public official, with the for purposes of its
solemnities required by record and information,
law for example
Q: May private documents be considered ‘public’?

Yes, i.e.: deeds acknowledged before a notary public, even if falsification was committed before it was
presented to the notary; or when they become parts of an official record and are certified by a public
officer duly authorized to do so by law
Q: May Estafa be committed through Falsification of Private Documents?

No – the effect or consequence of estafa (i.e.: damage to third persons) is the same as that of falsifying a
private document
Q: How do you then determine which crime must be alleged in the complaint?
By the order of commission – If estafa was committed first, then the crime is estafa. If the falsification
came first, then the crime is falsification of a private document (*NB: ‘find out which crime was
committed first –Atty.A)
Q: Is damage to the public necessary under this crime?

No
Q: What about damage to a third party?

Yes, there must be damage caused to a 3rd party or at least that the act was committed with intent to cause
such damage
Q: Suppose you committed the crime of falsification in Makati. You brought the document to Manila and were
arrested here. Which court has jurisdiction?
The court in Makati
Q: Where may use of a falsified document be done?

1. In judicial proceedings
2. In other transactions
Q: Suppose you falsified a document in an administrative case. Will you be liable?

Yes, ‘other transactions’
Q: When is the user of the falsified document deemed to be the author of the falsification?
1. If the use was so closely connected in time with the falsification, AND
2. The user had the capacity for falsifying the document
Q. In Art 172, what may be the subject of falsification?

public, official, commercial and private document
Q. who may commit?

Private individual
Public official who does not take advantage of position
Q: distinguish Art 171 from Art 172
Q: what are the acts punishable?

*falsification of public, official or commercial document by a private individual
*falsification of private document by any person
*use of falsified document
Q: suppose you prepared a letter of solicitation and signed Atty Amurao’s name, you were able to collect P50,000
and appropriate the amount to yourself. What crime?
Falsification of private document
Q: What if you followed it up with a real solicitation. What then is the crime?
Estafa
Q: Through a falsified pawnshop ticket, you were able to redeem certain pieces of jewelry. Crime?
Theft through falsification of commercial document
Q: suppose a public officer falsified a document, such public officer did not take advantage of his official office.
Crime?
Falsification under Art 172
Q: what is a public document?

*document created, executed or issued by a public official in response to the exigencies of the public
service, or in the execution of which a public official intervened.
*it is any instrument authorized by a notary public or a competent public official, with the solemnities
required by law
Q: what is a commercial document?

Any document defined and regulated by the Code of Commerce
Document used by merchants or business man to promote or facilitate trade.
Q: Give an example….
*Letter of exchange, letters of credit, drafts, trade acceptances, checks, notes, or pagares issued in the
course of a business transactions, quedans, bonds
*quedans or warehouse receipts
*cash files, deposit slips and bank statements
*surety account, journal books, ledgers

*air way bills
Q: may estafa be committed through falsification of private document?]

No (the same element)
Q: if estafa was the first to be committed. What crime?

Estafa
Q: Is damage necessary to public document?

No
Q: Is damage necessary to private document?

Yes
Q: suppose you committed the crime of falsification in Makati, you brought the document in Manila, and you
were arrested in Manila, which court has the jurisdiction?
Makati. The crime was committed in Makati
Q: use of falsified document, where?

Judicial proceeding
Other transactions
Q: suppose you use a falsified document in an administrative case. Will you be liable?
Yes. Refers to other transactions
Q: suppose you apply for a loan in a bank, and you used a false document. Liable?
Yes. Other transactions
Art 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and telephone messages, and use of said falsified
messages
Q: who may commit?

Any officer or employee of the Government
Any officer of employee of any private corporation engaged in the service of sending or receiving
Q: what are the acts punishable?

Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone messages
Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message
Using such falsified messages
Q: can you give an example of falsifying wireless, telegraph

(hndi ko na maalala ung example na binigay)
Q: for example, an RCPI worker accounting clerk falsif ied a telephone message. Liable?
Yes
Q: example of uttering
Q: example of use

Q: does this have to be done with knowledge?

Yes
Art 174. Falsification of medical certificates, certificates of merit or service and the like

*Physicial or surgeon who, in connection with the practice of his profession, issued a falsified certificate
*Any public officer who issued a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct or similar
circumstances
*private individual who falsified a certificate falling in the classed mentioned in Nos. 1 and 2.
Q: give an example of false certificate of merit
Q: example of false certificate of service
Q: supposing you asked your father who is a doctor to give you a medical certificate so that you will be excused
from your criminal law class today. Who may be liable?
Father
Q: Suppose it was your classmate who forged the signature of your father?
Classmate will be liable
Q: Suppose it was your mother?

Mother will be liable
Q: what then will be your liability if you presented it?

Use of falsified certificate under Art 175
Art 176. Manufacturing and possession of instruments or implements of falsification

*by making or introducing into the PH any stamps, dies, marks, or other instruments or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification
*possessing with intent to use the instruments or implements for counterfeiting or falsification made in or
introduced into the PH by another person
Q: supposing there was a raid in your house, the police officers saw equipment used for falsification or making
Philippine money. May you be held liable?
No. Mere possession will not make me liable
Q: supposing you grandmother gave you instruments or implements for falsification, you hide it inside your
treasure box as a souvenir of your grandmother. Will be you be liable?
No
Q: supposing you have the intent to use the same when the need arises. You may use it tomorrow, next week next
year or you may not use it at all. Will you be liable?
Yes, in this case there is an intent to use
Art 177. Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions


*by knowingly and falsely representing oneself to be an officer, agent or representative of any department
or agency of the PH Government or any foreign government
*by performing any act pertaining to any person in authority or public officer of the PH government or of
a foreign government or any agency therefore, under pretense of official position, and without being
lawfully entitled to do so.
Q: you were at a party, a visitor likes you, and in his effort to impress you, he introduced himself as Mayor
Amurao when in fact he is not. Liable?
Yes
Q: what if he introduced himself as the VP of Globe. Liable?

No. VP of globe is not an officer, agent or representative of any department or agency of PH or foreign
govt
Q: what is the difference between usurpation of authority from official functions?
Q: what if you presented yourself as a . . .

PNP officer, liable? Yes
Barack Obama, liable? Yes
President of Meralco, liable? No. Meralco is a private corporation
Q: usurpation of official function, can you give an example. . .
Q: you violated a traffic regulation, the MMDA confiscated your license, but the MMDA was already dismissed
from service. Liable?
Yes
Q: a person introduced himself to a Chineses merchant as an agent of BIR, examined books, records, etc. Chinese
reported to PNP who called the BIR, the BIR said that they don’t have an employee with such name. What crime?
Usurpation of official functions
Art 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true name

That the offender uses a name other than his real name
That he uses that fictitious name publicly
That the purpose of the offender is
To conceal a crime
To evade the execution of a judgment
To cause damage to public interest
Q: what is a fictitious name?

Any other name which a person uses publicly applied to himself without authority of law
Q: Will use of a false name in public will make you liable in all cases?
No
Public use of fictitious name must be used for C,E,C

Q: your boyfriend told you that he is single, after sometime you discovered he is married. Liable?
Yes
Art 179. Illegal use of uniforms and insignia
Q: how committed?
The offender makes use of insignia, uniform or dress
That the insignia, uniform or dress pertains to an office not held by the offender or to a class of persons of
which he is not a member
That said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and improperly
Q: supposing a PNP officer is dismissed from service but he still wear the uniform as he went to a public function.
Liable?
Yes. Already dismissed from office
Q: supposing a person wears a ecclesiastical habit of a priest. Liable?

Yes
Q: supposing you saw some prostitutes wearing different uniforms of assumption, holy spirit and ceu. Liable?
Yes
Art 180. False testimony against a defendant
Q: how committed?
That there be a criminal proceeding
That the offender testifies falsely under oath the against the defendant therein
That the offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false
That the defendant against whom the false testimony is given either acquitted or convicted by final
judgment
Q: suppose you testified falsely against a battalion of soldiers in a court martial proceedings. Liable?
No. not a criminal proceeding
Q: suppose in a homicide case, the offender testified falsely but the testimony was never believed by the court.
Liable?
Yes
Q: why?
Because the law punishes the mere giving of a false testimony, it is not important that the court believed
in such testimony
Q: you testified falsely in a civil case. Liable?

No
Q: testified in a petition for adoption? Not liable

Testified in an election case? Not liable
Testified in a land registration? Not liable

Q: what is a civil action?

Protection or enforcement of a right
Redress a wrong
Q: you testified in a criminal case against your neighbor. You testified falsely, your testimony was not given
credence. Liable?
Yes
Q: Suppose you testified in court in your favor. This was false. May you be prosecuted for false testimony in your
favor?
Yes (ata)
While he has a right to testify in his behalf, his right does not carry with it the right to testify falsely.
Art. 182. False Testimony in civil cases

That the testimony must be given in a civil case
That the testimony must relate to the issues presented in said case
That the testimony must be false
That the false testimony must be given by the defendant knowing the same to be false
That the testimony must be malicious and given with an intent to affect the issues presented in said case
Q: suppose a person died, the heirs cannot agree extrajudicially. In the course of the judicial settlement, one of the
heirs testified falsely. Is he liable?
No
Judicial settlement is not a civil case, it is a special proceeding
He may be liable for perjury
Q: supposing a guardianship proceeding is pending in court. In order that this be approved, you testified falsely in
your favor. What crime may he be liable if any?
Perjury
Not false testimony in civil cases
Guardianship is a special proceeding
Q: in an election protest, the defeated candidate testified falsely. Is he liable?

No. election case is a special proceeding
>>good faith and honest mistake of fact is a valid defense<<
Art 183. False Testimony in other cases and perjury in solemn affirmation
Q: ways of committing?
By falsely testifying under oath;
By making a false affidavit

That the accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter
That the statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer
oath
That in that statement or affidavit, the accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood; and

That the sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law.
Q: what is the difference between an oath and affirmation?

*Oath – any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an
act faithfully and truthfully. It involves the idea of calling on God to witness what is averred as truth, and
it is supposed to be accompanied with an invocation of His vengeance, or a renunciation of His favor, in
the event of a falsehood.
*Affirmation – to ratify or to confirm; does not call on God to be a witness.
Q: employee filed a labor case against an employer before the NLRC, the employee testified falsely. What Crime?
Perjury
Q: supposing you and your boyfriend are applying for a marriage license, your boyfriend placed that he is single,
when in fact he is married and has a wife in Zamboanga. What crime?
Perjury. Status is a material matter
Q: supposing you and your boyfriend are applying for a marriage license, your boyfriend placed that he is a
resident of Manila, when in fact he is a resident of Cavite. What crime?
None. Residence is not a material matter
Q: supposing your boyfriend placed in the application for marriage license, that he is a Chinese citizen, when in
fact he is a Filipino citizen. What crime?
None. Citizenship is not a material matter
Q: supposing your boyfriend placed that he is single, when in fact he is a widow. What crime?
None. It is not a material matter. Even though he placed widow, the marriage license will still be issued
Q: supposing you placed in the application of marriage license that you are 23 years old, when in fact you are
only 16 years old. Liable?
Yes. Material matter
Q: what is a material matter?

It is the main fact which is the subject of the inquiry or any circumstances which tends to prove that fact,
or any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborates or strengthen the testimony re lative to the subject
if inquiry, or which legitimately affects the credit of any witness who testifies.
Q: supposing you want to run as a congressman, in the certificate of candidacy you placed 40years old, when in
fact you are only 20 years old. What crime?
Perjury; age is a material matter
(minimum age for congressman is 25yo – sec 6, art VI, 1987 Consti)
Q: supposing you want to be a mayor in your town, in the certificate of candidacy you placed 35 years old, when
in fact you are only 20 years old. What crime?
Perjury
Q: supposing you are running for senator, you placed 45 years old, when in fact you are already 50 years old.
Liable?
No. even though he is 50 or 40, still qualified to run for senator

Q: Supposing after you finished law here in San Beda, you applied to take the bar examinations before the SC, in
your application you placed not convicted for any crime, when in fact you are convicted for several crimes.
Liable?
Yes. Material matter
>>any false testimony or affidavit executed in connection with the crime of RA ___ (human security act)
will not be liable for perjury, but will be liable under the said act<<
Q: may perjury be committed thru negligence or imprudence?

No. One of the requisites of perjury is willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood
Q: is good faith a valid defense?

Yes. Because assertion must be intentional
Q: supposing you lost your driver’s license. You executed a false affidavit of lost. You stated that your license
was lost when your wallet was snatched, when in fact it was confiscated. What crime?
Perjury
Q: (same facts) you have it notarized at the back of the city hall, but the notary public has already expired. May
you be liable for perjury?
*No. Element of competent authority is lacking
You may be liable for falsification of private documents
February 4, 2009
Q: who is a competent person?

Authorized to administer oath; means a person who has a right to inquire into the questions presented to
him upon matters under his jurisdiction
Q: supposing you and your boyfriend falsely executed your application for marriage license, you have it notarized
at the back of the city hall, you discovered that the notary public is just a cigarette vendor. Will you be liable?
No. Lack of competent person
Q: supposing you are placed under oath before the secretary of civil registry in your municipality, Will you be
liable for perjury?
No. Secretary not competent person
Q: what are the 2 ways of committing perjury?

By falsely testifying under oath;
By making a false affidavit
Q: supposing the Senate invited Joc Joc Bolante in one of the senate hearings to testify regarding the anomalies,
and before the senate Joc Joc Bolante made a willful assertion of falsehood. What crime?
Perjury
Q: supposing you are a journalist, in your column, you write that Joc Joc Bolante is a person of honesty and
integrity, you praised him so much and said in your column that he should be followed by every Filipino. What
crime?
(Hnde ko alam…hindi ko na matandaan)

Q: supposing in a homicide case, you testified as a witness. You said that you were actually present during the
crime, when in fact you are sleeping in your house. What crime?
Perjury
Q: supposing in an application for marriage license you placed single, when in fact only a degree of legal
separation was granted for you and your former spouse. Will you be liable for perjury?
Yes. Because legal separation will not give you the power to marry again
Q: supposing you are applying for a civil service examination, and in the application you placed that you are a
person of good moral character, when in fact you know for yourself that you have been convicted of rape,
homicide, physical injuries for the last 10 years. What crime?
None. Good moral character – opinion
Q: supposing Miss Philippines submitted an affidavit that she is pretty, however it is false. Liable?
No
Q: supposing your friend wanted to join the Bb. Pilipinas, your friend executed an affidavit that she is “qualified
to join” and stayed that she has a fair-skin, very beautiful face, she possessed the height, when in fact, her beauty
is one that only her mother can love. Will she be liable for perjury?
No
>>perjury is false statement of fact; if it is an opinion, not liable<<

>>false statement given in connection with RA 9372, Human Security Act and Terrorism Law will be
prosecuted for RA 9372 not perjury<<
Art.183
FALSE TESTIMONY IN OTHER CASES AND
PERJURY IN SOLEMN AFFIRMATION
Q: What are the ways of committing perjury?

1. By falsely testifying under oath; or
2. By making a false affidavit
*NB: Falsely testifying under oath should NOT be done in a judicial proceeding, else
arts.180/181/182 apply
Q: How is perjury committed?

1. The accused made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon a material matter
2. The statement or affidavit was made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and administer
oaths
3. In that statement/affidavit, the accused made a wilful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is required by law
Q: What is an oath?
Any form of attestation by which a person signifies that he is bound in conscience to perform an act
faithfully and truthfully. It involves the idea of calling upon God to witness what is averred as truth, and it
is supposed to be accompanied by an invocation of His vengeance or a renunciation of his favour in the
event of a falsehood
*NB: think: for people who believe in the existence of God. If you don’t, you undertake an affirmation

Q: How is it different from an affirmation?

An affirmation does not involve the idea of belief in God and in His vengeance
Q: Why is an oath/affirmation necessary, to begin with?

An oath or affirmation exposes the witness/affiant to the peril of perjury should a falsehood be committed
*NB: This is why you’re required to take an oath on things like filling in forms – giving testimony, etc.,
should you chose to lie notwithstanding your oath/affirmation, criminal liability for perjury attaches.
That’s why unverified complaints are prone to dismissal – legally speaking; nobody is willing to believe a
statement of facts unless the person making the statement puts his own neck on the chopping block by
swearing – under pain of criminal liability – that he is speaking the truth
Q: An employee in a labour case testified falsely. What crime did he commit?

Perjury, labour cases are quasi-judicial in nature
Q: Supposing you and your fiancé are applying for a marriage license. Your fiancé wrote his civil status to be
‘single’ when in fact his previous marriage is still valid. What crime did he commit?
Perjury – Civil status is a material matter in an application for marriage license
Q: Suppose he wrote ‘Chinese’ as his citizenship, instead of ‘Filipino’ as should be the case. What crime did he
commit?
He did not commit any crime – Citizenship is NOT a material matter in an application for marriage
license
*NB: note how the concept of materiality is a relative one, depending on the circumstances and facts
Q: Suppose your fiancé is a widower and he wrote ‘single’ as his civil status?
He did not commit any crime, the loss of his previous wife extinguished the marriage, the license will still
be issued and he is in fact single
*NB: ah, persons. It helps to reason with other branches of law – as long as you’re sure of what you’re
saying
Q: Suppose you wrote ’23 years old’ as your age in that same application for a marriage license. You are in fact
16. What crime did you commit?
Perjury – Age is a material matter in an application for marriage license. Only persons who have attained
legal age are allowed to apply for one
Q: Define a ‘material matter’

A material matter is –
1. The main fact which is the subject of the inquiry or any circumstance which tends to prove that fact;
or
2. Any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the
subject of inquiry; or
3. One which legitimately affects the credibility of any witness who testifies
*NB: the test of materiality is whether a false statement can influence the tribunal, not whether it actually
does or could probably influence the result of trial
(People v. Banzil, CA-GR No. 22964-R, 56 OG 4929)

Q: Suppose you want to run as Congressman. In the Certificate of Candidacy, you wrote ’40 years old’ when in
fact you are only 20. What crime did you commit?
Perjury – Age is a material matter, sec.6, art.VI of the 1987 Constitution fixes the minimum age for a
Congressman at 25 years
Q: Suppose you wanted to be Mayor of your town. You wrote your age as ’35 years old’, when you are only 20.
What crime did you commit?
Perjury
Q: You wanted to run for Senator. You wrote your age as ’45 years old’ when you really are 50. Are you liable?
No, Either way, I am still qualified to run
Q: Supposing you finished Law here at San Beda and applied to take the Bar Examinations. You were previously
convicted of a crime, but you declared in your application that you do not have a criminal record. Are you liable?
Yes, previous conviction is a material matter in an application for taking the bar exams
Q: If you gave a false testimony relating to an act of terrorism, what crime did you commit?
A violation of Republic Act 9372 – the Human Security Act and Terrorism Law
*NB: Under the said law, any false testimony given in relation to the crime of Terrorism, as defined under
the statute, are punishable thereby
Q: May perjury be committed through negligence or imprudence?

No, one of the requisites of perjury is wilful and deliberate assertion of falsehood
*Here’s a trick: when the elements of a crime require criminal intent, think: wilful and
deliberate/intentional/I-really-mean-to-do-this-and-screw-the-consequences kind of assertion of will,
good faith is a defence. Obviously, if you DIDN’T mean to do it, or you did it without any malice, you’ve
negated the element of criminal intent – in which case, you knock out one essential requisite of the crime
charged (Kimiko, paraphrasing Atty. A – yeah, I’m bad at sounding serious)
Q: Is good faith a defence?

Yes, because the false assertion must be intentional
Q: Suppose you executed a false Affidavit of Loss. You stated that your driver’s license was lost when your
wallet was snatched, when in fact the license had been confiscated. What crime did you commit?
Perjury
Q: Same facts, except that you had the affidavit notarized by someone whose license for the job was already
expired. May you be liable for perjury?
No, the element of competent authority is lacking
I may, however, be liable for Falsification of Private Documents
Q: Who is a ‘competent’ person, in the contemplation of this article?

Someone authorized to administer oaths – A person who has the right to inquire into the questions
presented to him upon matters under his jurisdiction
Q: Is it necessary that there be a specific provision of law requiring the affidavit/sworn statement to be made?
Not really. HOWEVER, the 4th element may be read to say ‘that the sworn statement containing the
falsity is authorized by law’ (i.e.: as long as it was made for a legal purpose)

(People v. Angangco, unpublished – GR No. L-47693, October 12, 1943)
Q: Supposing you and your fiancé executed an application for marriage license. You had it notarized by someone
who, by all appearances, was a notary public. He turned out to be a cigarette vendor. Will you be liable?
No, there is a lack of a competent person
Q: Suppose you are placed under oath before the Secretary of the Civil Registry of your municipality. Will you be
liable for perjury if you assert a falsehood?
No, the secretary is not a competent person within the contemplation of the provision
Q: Suppose the Senate invited Jocjoc Bolante to one of the Senate hearings regarding the Fertilizer Scam. Bolante
made a wilful assertion of falsehood. What crime did he commit?
Perjury
Q: Suppose you are a journalist. In your column you glorified Bolante as a person of genuine honesty and
integrity, one to be emulated by all Filipinos. What crime did you commit?
Unlawful Use of Means of Publication (art.154, 2nd manner of commission)
*NB: ‘By encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted authorities or by praising, justifying,
or extolling any act punished by law, by the same means or by words, utterances, or speeches’ (art.154,
par.2)
Q: Supposing in a homicide case, you testified as a witness and stated that you were actually present during the
crime when in fact, you were sleeping in your own residence. The accused was found guilty as charged. What
crime did you commit?
False Testimony against a Defendant (art.180); (see: elements of art.180)
Q: Supposing in an application for marriage license, you placed ‘single’ as your civil status. A family court
previously promulgated a Decree of Legal Separation with regards to your marriage. Will you be liable for
perjury?
Yes, a Decree of Legal Separation does not extinguish the matrimonial ties. It does not grant the right to
re-marry, because it is merely separation ‘a mensa et thoro’ (in bed and board). My civil status does not
revert back to ‘single’ by virtue of the decree
Q: Suppose you are applying for the Civil Service Examination. In the application, you declared that you believe
you are a person of good moral character. You were previously convicted of rape, homicide and physical injuries.
Are you liable?
No
Q: Why not?
My declaration was one in the nature of an opinion, not a statement of fact
Q: Suppose Miss Philippines submitted an affidavit stating that she is beautiful. The statement is false. Is she
liable?
No, she made a statement of opinion
*NB: notice here that there’s a key difference between making a false statement of FACT and a false
OPINION. Perjury pertains to false statements of facts. You’re not allowed to lie under oath, you are
however entitled to false opinions, think: delusions of grandeur :D

Q: Is perjury a crime other than false testimony in criminal/civil cases?

Yes, It pertains to perversions of truth in non-judicial proceedings
Q: What if you made false statements to the Public Prosecutor during the preliminary investigation; or to the
Presiding Judge during pre-trial?
I may still be liable for perjury
Q: Why?
Because False Testimony in judicial proceedings contemplates an actual trial where a judgment of
conviction or acquittal is rendered
Q: Are 2 contradictory sworn statements sufficient to convict someone of perjury?

No, the prosecution must prove which of the 2 is false and show by OTHER EVIDENCE (not the
contradictory statements) that it is indeed false and was made knowingly
NOTES
*Under the Revised Penal Code, there is no longer a separate crime of ‘SUBORNATION OF PERJURY’. This
crime used to be penalized by the Old Code but was deleted upon revision. For purposes of definition,
subornation of perjury is committed by a person who knowingly and wilfully procures another to swear falsely;
and the witness suborned actually does testify under circumstances rendering him guilty of perjury.
*The direct induction of a person by another to commit perjury may be punished under art.183 in relation to art.17
(hello, particeps criminis) – The person who commits subornation of perjury is a principal by inducement in plain
perjury, and the person suborned is a principal by direct participation, both being liable for plain perjury.
Art. 184. Offering false testimony in evidence

That the offender offered in evidence a false witness or false testimony
That he knew he witness or the testimony was false
That the offer was made in a judicial or official proceeding
Art 185. Machinations, monopolies and combinations in public auctions
Q: how committed?
By soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration for refraining from taking part in any public auction
By attempting to cause bidders to stay away from an auction by threats, gifts, promises or any other
artifice.
Q: solicitation?
Q: attempting?
Q: what is the reason of the law?

To have a free access in the public auction
Q: what is the purpose?

To get the highest bid

Q: what consummates the crime?

Mere solicitation and mere attempt
Q: supposing you offered a gift as a consideration for the bid, however your offer was not accepted, Will you be
liable?
Yes. Mere attempt will consummate the crime
Q: give an example. . .
Art. 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of trade

*combination to prevent free competition in the market
By entering into any contract or agreement or taking part in any conspiracy or combination in the
form of a trust or otherwise, in restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by artificial means
competition in the market.
*monopoly to restraint free competition in the market

By monopolizing any merchandise or object of trade or commerce or by combining with any
other person or persons to monopolize said merchandise or object to alter the prices thereof by spreading
false rumors, or making use of any other artifice to restraint free competition in the market.
*manufacturer, producer or processor or importer combining, conspiring or agreeing with any person to
make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase the market price of merchandise.
Q: may his be committed by one person?

No
Q: will you consider this as conspiracy?

Yes
Q: monopoly… give an example

>there are many monopolies in the country like, oil, lpg, power supply, but they are not being punished<
Art 187. Importation and Disposition of Falsely marked articles made of gold, etc..
Q: how committed?
{gold – less than ½ karat}

{silver-less than 4 1/1000}
{others like watches – 3 1/1000}
Art 188-189 – no longer applicable
CDDA – lecture lang
February 12, 2009
Q: what is gambling?
Any game of chance or skill, the result of which game depends wholly or chiefly upon chance or hazard,
or the use of any other mechanical

Q: may a spectator be criminally liable?

No
Q: in any game of the games specified, is it necessary that there be bets involving money or other object?
No
Q: in cases of sports, like basketball, is the mere act of playing them, punishable?
No
Q: who is a conductor?
A person who manages or carries on the gambling game or scheme.
Q: who is maintainer?
Any person who sets up and furnishes the means with which to carry on the gambling game or scheme
Q: who is a banker?
Q: suppose you are the owner of a boat, and there is gambling going on, are you liable?
Depends.
If you can prove that you have NO knowledge of such gambling taking place, - not liable; otherwise you
will be liable.
Q: what is lottery?
Scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance among persons who have paid, or agreed to pay, a
valuable consideration for the chance to obtain a prize.
Q: does consideration have to have a relation to the prize to be obtained?

Yes
Q: is lottery a form of gambling?

Yes
Q: then, why do we have lottery now?

It is allowed by law
Q: suppose in a certain mall, for every purchase worth P100; you will be entitled to a ticket for a raffle prize of
which is MB. Is this lottery?
Yes
Q: do you get the full value of your money?

Yes
Prize is merely incidental
Q: what is point shaving?

Any such arrangement, combination, scheme or agreement by which the skill or ability of any player or
participant in a game, races or sports contests to make points or scores shall be limited deliberately in
order to influence the result thereof in favor of one or the other team, player or participant therein.

Q: what is game fixing?

Any arrangement, combination, scheme or agreement by which the result of any game, races or sports
contests shall be predicated and/or knows other than on the basis of the honest playing skill or ability of
the players or participants.
Q: what is betting?
Betting money or any object or article of value or representative of value upon the result of any game,
races, and other sports contests.
Art 200. Grave Scandal
Q: how committed?
That the offender performs an act or acts
That such act or acts be highly scandalous as offending against decency or good customs
That the highly scandalous conduct is not expressly falling within any other article of this Code
That the act or acts complained of be committed in a public place or within the public knowledge
Q: suppose the act was committed in the privacy of one’s room, is it grave scandal?
No. (element no 4 is missing)
Q: What do you mean by ‘decency’?

Propriety of conduct, modesty, or good taste
Q: What are customs?

Established usage, social conventions carried on by tradition and enforced by social disapproval of any
violation thereof
Q: What is a grave scandal?

A scandal that consists of acts which are offensive to decency and good customs which, having been
committed publicly, have given rise to public scandal to persons who have accidentally witnessed the
same
Q: Suppose the scandal was committed in the privacy of one’s room, is it a grave one?
No, the element of publicity is missing
Art 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications and exhibitions
Q: how committed?
*those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines openly contrary to public morals
*the authors of obscene literatures, published with their knowledge in any form, the editors publishing
such literature; and the owner/operators of the establishment selling the same;
*those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs or any other place, exhibit indecent or immoral plays,
scenes, acts or shows, it being understood that the obscene literature or indecent or immoral plays,
scenes, acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are proscribed by virtue hereof, shall include those
which:

a. glorify criminals or condone crimes

b. serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence, lust, or pornography
c. offend any race, or religion
d. tend to abet traffic in any use of prohibited drugs;
e. contrary to law, public order, morals, good customs, established policies, lawful orders,
decrees and edicts;
*those who shall sell, give away, or exhibit films, prints, engravings, sculptures, or literature which was
offensive to morals.
Q: who are liable?
Q: what is the test of obscenity?

*whether the tendency of the matter charged as obscene is to deprave or corrupt those whose minds are
open to such immoral influence, and into whose hands such a publication may fall, and whether or not
such publication or act shocks the ordinary of men as an indecency
Q: how about the test of obscenity of nude pictures?

*whether more the motive of the pictures as indicated by it, is pure or impure; or whether it is naturally
calculated to excite impure imaginations.
--mere nudity in pictures or paintings is not an obscenity
Q: supposing the cause is lawful, but a nude picture of a woman, was engraved in a keychain. Is there a crime
committed?
*None (ata)
Q: how about the men’s magazine?
Art 202. Vagrants and Prostitutes
Q: who are vagrants?

i. any person having no apparent means of subsistence who has the physical ability to work and who
neglects to apply him/herself to some lawful calling. (“batugan”)
ii. any person found loitering about public or semi-public building or places, or tramping or wandering
about the country or the streets without visible means of support
iii. any idle or dissolute person who lodges in houses of ill-fame; ruffians or pimps and those who
habitually associate with prostitutes.
iv. any person who, not being included in the provisions of other articles of this Code, shall be found
loitering in any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another without any lawful or justifiable
purpose;
v. prostitutes
Q: suppose X is an able-bodied man, almost always seen in public place, means of support is through his mother
who is a laundryman, is he a vagrant?
Yes.
Q: suppose the mother is employed in a _____ but can provide for the support of his son. Still vagrant?
Yes.
Q: may a woman who has been in the prostitution business for the last 20 years still remain a virgin?
Yes. (paano&kelan—comment ni sir)

Q: who is a prostitute?
Woman who for money or profit, habitually indulge to sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct
Q: from the legal point of view, can a man be a prostitute?
No
Q: A woman having sexual intercourse for 2 weeks, but she does not ask her customers for money. Prosti?
No
Q: but suppose, she does it only once a year, but she asks for money. Prosti?
No. – there is no element of habitually
Q: but suppose she do it with only one man, but regularly? Prosti?
Yes
Q: suppose she had sex with a man for 6 months, during those acts the man did not pay her although the man kept
on promising to give her money. Is she a prosti?
Yes
Q: is it necessary that the money is actually received?

No
Q: suppose every sexual act she was given jewelry. Prosti?

Yes—still done for profit
Q: the police squad conducted a raid in a house in binondo known to be a prostitution house, raiders opened a
cubicle, inside of which was a bed with a woman completely naked having sex with a customer. Is the woman
liable?
No—there is no element of habitually
Q: suppose there was proof that the woman has been engaged in sexual intercourse with different men for money
or profit. Already liable?
Yes.
Q: will the man be liable….

Yes. – principal by indispensable cooperation
Q: who is a pimp?
One who provides gratification for the lust of others
Q: who is a ruffian?
Brutal, violent, lawless persons
<RA 9344, minors are exempt from criminal liability>
Art 203. Who are public officers
Q: who is a public officer?

1. taking part in the performance of public functions in the government, or

performing in said government or in any of its branches public duties as an employee, agent or
subordinate official, of any rank or class; and
2. that his authority to take part in the performance of public functions or to perform public duties must
be –
a. by direct provision of the law, or
b. by popular election, or
c. by appointment by competent authority
Q: the employees of GOCC, public officer?
Yes
Q: suppose the city govt of manila entered into a contract with XYZ corp to maintain the cleanliness of the city
hall. The contract provided that the corp would deploy its men to clean the city hall. Are these people who are
deployed by XYZ corp considered public officers?
No
Q: is their work a public function?

Yes
Q: are they appointed by the city govt itself?

No. – which means that they do not fall under any of the 3 ways by which a person can be considered a
public officer.
Art 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
Q: ways of committing unjust judgment?

That the offender is a judge
That he renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
That the judgment is unjust
That the judge knows that his judgment is unjust
Q: what is a judgment?
Final consideration and determination of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the matters submitted to
it, in an action or proceeding
Q: when is judgment unjust?

When it is contrary to law, or is not supported by the evidence or both

1. The offender is a judge
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
3. The judgment is unjust
4. He knows that the judgment is unjust
Q: What is a ‘judgment’?
The final consideration and determination of a court competent jurisdiction upon the matters submitted to
it, in an action or proceeding
Q: When does a judgment become ‘unjust’?

When it is –
1. Contrary to law

2. Not supported by evidence; or

3. Both
Q: What may be the sources of an unjust judgment?

1. Error
2. Ill-will or Revenge
3. Bribery
Q: What is the ground for liability here?

Bad faith
Q: Suppose an appellant was unhappy with a decision handed down by the Court of Appeals. May he file for
Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment?
No
Q: Why not?
Art.204 does not apply to members of a collegiate court
Q: Give examples of collegiate courts in our justice system

-The Supreme Court
-The Court of Appeals
-The Sandiganbayan
<it must be maliciously and deliberately>
Art 205. Rendering judgment through negligence

Art. 206. Rendering unjust interlocutory order
Art 207. Malicious delay in the administration of justice
Art 208. Dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses
<puro how committed and example lang>
Q: will any degree of negligence make the judge liable?

No. it must be inexcusable
Q: suppose a smuggler, knowing that an illegal shipment will be unloaded, talked to a police officer and told him
not to assign any men in the area where the shipment would be unloaded and where it would pass while being
transported, to which the police agreed. Liable?
Yes
Art.205
JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE

1. The offender is a Judge
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for decision
3. The judgment is manifestly unjust
4. The judgment is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance

Q: What is the standard for measuring a decision that is ‘manifestly unjust’?

When the decision is so patently contrary to law that even a person possessing a meager knowledge of the
law cannot doubt the injustice
Q: Is this synonymous with abuse of discretion or error of judgment?

No, abuse of discretion and error of judgment are not punishable
Q: Is good faith a defence here?

No
Q: Will any degree of negligence make the Judge liable?

No, the negligence must be inexcusable
Art.206
UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER

2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order or decree; or
b. Rendering a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or decree through negligence or ignorance
Q: What is an interlocutory order?

One issued by the court between the commencement and the end of a suit or action and which decides
some point or matter. It is NOT, however, a final decision of the matter in issue
*NB: Test for determining whether an issuance by the court is interlocutory or not: Does it leave
something to be done in the trial court with respect to the merits of the case? If it does, it is
interlocutory. If not, it is a final decision.
Q: Must an interlocutory order be related to the main issue of the case?

No
Q: Give examples of interlocutory orders

i.e.: Orders granting preliminary injunction; or appointer a receiver; Temporary Restraining Orders
Art.207
MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE ADMINISTRATION
OF JUSTICE

2. There is a proceeding in his court
3. He delays the administration of justice
4. The delay is malicious/caused by the Judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in
the case
Q: Is mere delay punishable?

No
Art.208
PROSECUTION OF OFFENSES;
NEGLIGENCE AND TOLERANCE

1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against violators of the law (Dereliction of duty in
the prosecution of offenses)
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is a public officer or officer of the law who has the duty to cause the prosecution of,
or to prosecute offenses
b. There is dereliction of the duties of his office, i.e.: Having knowledge of the commission of a
crime, he does not cause its prosecution
c. He acts with malice and deliberate intent to favour the violator of the law
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses
Q: Suppose a smuggler, knowing that an illegal shipment will be unloaded, talked to a police officer and told him
not to assign any men in the area where the shipment was to be unloaded and along the route to be used for its
transportation. The police officer agreed. Is he liable?
Yes
Q: May he also be held liable for violating RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act)?
Yes
Q: Suppose a public prosecutor caused the dismissal of a complaint for estafa because it was filed against his
mother-in-law. Is he liable?
Yes
Q: May the prosecutor be held liable for a violation of PD 1829?

Yes
Q: Simultaneously?
No, he may either be held liable and prosecuted for art.208 OR PD 1829 – whichever metes out the higher
penalty
*NB: this is an interesting twist to the doctrinal line of ‘penal laws should be construed in favour of the
accused’. Here, if an act is punishable both under the RPC and under PD 1829, the accused will be
prosecuted for the crime bearing the heavier penalty. I suppose it would help to think of it in the light of
another doctrinal phrase – that public office is a public trust. Among the many tables of crimes throughout
Book Two of the RPC, you’ll notice that if the offender happens to be a public official, the penalty is
higher – under art.14 (aggravating circumstances) as well, taking advantage of public position is an
aggravating circumstance.
Q: Does the offender in Dereliction of Duty have to act with malice?

Yes
Q: Are you saying that dereliction of duty caused by poor judgment or an honest mistake is not punishable?
Yes, it is not punishable

Art 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or solicitor – revelation of secrets
Q: how committed?
1. by causing damage to his client, either (1) by any malicious breach of professional duty (2) by
inexcusable negligence or ignorance
2. by revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in his personal capacity
3. by undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same case, without the consent of his first
client, after having undertaken the defense of said first client or after having received confidential
information from said client.
Q: can you give an example of each…
Q: supposing in the second manner, it is with consent, will you be liable?

Yes
February 18, 2009
Art 210. Direct Bribery
Q: how committed?
1. By agreeing to perform, or by performing in consideration of any offer, promise, gift or present, an
act constituting a crime, in connection with the performance of his official duties.

Mere agreement
Q: is it necessary that the officer actually receives the gift?

No
Q: is it necessary that the act constituting the crime to be committed be actually committed by the officer?
No
Q: suppose the bribe-giver promised the officer a gift, but after he got what he wanted he did not give the gift
anymore. May he be liable for DB?
Yes
Q: suppose in one case, there was an extensive cross-exam done by the opposing counsel; the testimony of the
witness for the prosecution came to a point that it was damaging the theory of his own case and unless corrected,
prosecution would lose the case; the lawyer for the prosec asked the stenographer to change certain portions of the
transcript and he would give him P50,000; agreed that the changed transcript must be ready within a week.
Transcript was already available but before it could be given to the lawyer, he was arrested by NBI agents.
Liable?
Yes. Mere agreement is enough to constitute the crime of DB
Q: suppose the stenographer actually changed the transcript and handed it to the lawyer but the latter had no
enough cash and just said that he will be back. May the stenographer be liable for any crime?
Yes. Direct Bribery and Falsification under Art 171 and RA 3019
Q: suppose the lawyer did not come back anymore, may the steno be liable?

Yes
Q: is DB a necessary means to commit falsification?

Yes
Q: is DB complexed with falsification?

No. (no complex crime of DB with any other crime, agreed to be committed {refer to the provision: in
addition to other liability})
Q:suppose you approached a judge and told him that if he could render a decision favorable to you, you will give
him for 2 nights a sexbomb dancer of his choice; decision was rendered in your favor but you were not able to
produce the dancer. May the judge be liable?
It depends.
If there is insufficient evidence on your part and the decision was still in your favor, judge may be liable
for Art 204 and DB
But… if there is sufficient evidence on your favor, then judge will not be liable

2. By accepting s gift in consideration of the execution of an act which does not constitute a crime, in
connection with the performance of his official duty

Acceptance
Q: how about mere agreement to accept the bribe?

No. It does not constitute the crime. Only acceptance
Q: who may be liable?
Q: can you give an example . . . .
Q: suppose the LTO officer accepted the amount but just the same you were not allowed to get ahead of the
others. Liable?
Yes. Bribe was already accepted
Q: License was already given, bribe-giver does not have the money; LTO officer was told that he would return
but he never did. LTO officer liable?
No
Q: 3rd manner. . . .
By agreeing to refrain or by refraining from doing something which it is his official duty to do, in
consideration of a gift or promise.

Mere agreement
Q: suppose you’re applying for a driver’s license and you’re supposed to have a written exam; you put money in
the drawer of the examiner, and he said that he will take the exam for you. Liable?
Yes

Q: suppose you passed the written exams but you have to wait for the results before undergoing the practical
exams; dropped P1000 in his drawer and he immediately told you to come with him for the practical exams.
Liable?
Yes
Q: suppose a smuggler talked to the chief of police—at the time that the boat will be unloading the illegal goods,
the police will not deploy his men in the pier and you gave him money. Liable?
Yes. Under the 1st manner – refraining from deploying his men is in itself a crime (Art 208)
Q: who may be liable for direct bribery?

-private persons who conspire with the officers
-accessories and accomplices
-principals by indispensable cooperation
*NO principal by inducement because they will fall under Art 212-corruption of public official
New Notes from Kimiko
Q: Under the 1st punishable act (agreeing to perform a crime in exchange for any officer, promise or gift), what
consummates the crime?
Mere agreement to perform an act which constitutes a crime
Q: Is it necessary that the act constituting a crime is actually committed?

No
Q: Does the officer have to actually receive the gifts?

No
Q: Suppose the bribe-giver promised the officer a gift, but after he’d gotten what he needed, he no longer
delivered the gift. Is he liable?
Yes
Q: Suppose there was an extensive cross-examination during a trial. The opposing counsel did his job well, and
the cross-examination damaged the theory of the prosecution. The counsel for the prosecution asked the
stenographer to change certain portions of the transcript in return for Php 50,000. The stenographer agreed and
promised that the altered transcript would be ready in a week. Before he could even work on his promise,
however, the lawyer was arrested by the NBI. Is the stenographer liable?
Yes, his mere agreement already consummated the crime. Whether or not he was able to deliver the
transcript to the lawyer is immaterial insofar as his liability is concerned
Q: Suppose the stenographer actually changed the transcript and handed it to the lawyer but the latter did not have
enough cash and said that he would be back to pay the balance. What crime/s may the stenographer be held liable
for?
1. Direct Bribery (art.210)
2. Falsification of Public Document (art.171)
3. Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)
*separate crimes
Q: Was direct bribery a necessary means for the stenographer to commit falsification?
Yes

Q: May it be complexed with falsification, then?

Yes, it MAY (*NB: pay attention to the fact that the word ‘may’ is only used to convey possibility, not
actuality) be complexed under art.48
Q: What do you mean by saying it ‘may’ be complexed?

Direct Bribery may be complexed following the formula in art.48 HOWEVER, it contains the phrase ‘in
addition to the penalty’… which means, in actuality, it CANNOT be complexed with any other crime,
because the law itself makes the liability for it stand independently of other crimes
Q: If that is the case, then what crimes may the officer be held liable for, with regards to direct bribery and your
so-called ‘independent’ liabilities?
The officer who commits direct bribery under this manner is liable for –
1. Direct Bribery
2. The crime agreed upon; and
3. A violation of RA 3019
*NB: Very notable, the three-tiered liability for public officers. Always, as the good professor drilled into
us, a public officer has 3 liabilities under direct bribery
Q: Suppose the lawyer no longer returned, is the stenographer still liable?

Yes
Q: Suppose you approached a Judge and told him that if he could render a favourable decision for you, you would
give him a sexbomb dancer of his choice for 2 nights – absolutely free. The decision was rendered in your favour
but you were not able to produce the dancer. Is the Judge liable?
It depends:
-If there was sufficient evidence to prove my innocence in the case which the Judge decided, he will not
be liable
-If the evidence was enough to prove my guilt, however, and the decision rendered by the Judge was in
my favour, then the Judge is liable
Q: Under the 2nd punishable act or manner of commission (accepting a gift in consideration of an act which does
not constitute a crime), what consummates the crime?
Actual acceptance of a bribe
Q: What about a promise to accept the bribe? (*trolling moment: a promise to accept is not the same as
acceptance, mind you)
No, the acceptance must actually be made, not simply promised
Q: Illustrate this manner of commission
Q: Suppose a Land Transportation Officer accepted the amount you offered him but all the same did not allow
you to get ahead of others in your application for a license. Is he liable?
Yes, he already accepted the bribe
Q: Suppose the license was already handed to you but you had no money to pay him for his special effort. The
officer told you he would return to collect the sum but failed to do so. Is he liable?
No
Q: Under the 3rd manner (agreeing to refrain from performing official duty), what consummates the crime?

Mere agreement to shirk performance of official duties for a bribe
Q: Suppose you apply for a driver’s license and instead of taking the written exam, you placed money in the
examiner’s desk drawer. He said he would take the exam for you. Is he liable?
Yes
Q: Suppose you passed the written exam but had to wait for the results before undergoing the practical exams.
You placed another Php 1,000 in the examiner’s drawer and he immediately told you to report to him the next day
for the practical exams. Is he liable?
Yes
Q: Who may be liable for direct bribery?

-Private persons who conspire with public officers to commit the crime
-Accessories and Accomplices
-Principals by indispensable cooperation
*NB: Regarding principals by inducement, they cannot be held liable under this crime because there is a
separate crime altogether which penalizes the act of inducing or attempting to induce a public officer to
commit a crime: art.212 (corruption of public official)
Q: Is direct bribery a crime involving moral turpitude?

Yes
Q: Explain
Moral Turpitude in direct bribery can be inferred from the 3rd element: ‘Accepting a promise or gift and
deliberately committing an unjust act/crime/refraining from performing an official duty in exchange for
favours. There is malicious intent to renege on the duties the public officer owes to society and he also
takes advantage of his office/position to do betray the public trust (Magno v. COMELEC et. al. GR No.
147904; October 4, 2002)
Art 211. Indirect Bribery
Q: how committed?
That the offender is a public officer
That he accepts gifts
That the said gifts are offered to him by reason of his office
Q: distinguish form direct bribery . . .

Mere acceptance
Q: what is the purpose of the bribe?

Anticipation of a future favor from him
Q: suppose you are the owner of a taxi cab company and you gave a car to the chairman of the LTFRB. Liable?

Yes
Q: when a public officer is prosecuted for either DB or IB, may he likewise be prosecutes for violation of RA
3019?
Yes. RA 3019 says “in addition to”
Art. 211-A Qualified Bribery
Q: witness may be immune?

Yes
Q: what are the legal requirements?
Q: What are the crimes?

Art 210, 211, 212 RA 3019 secs 3, 4, 5
International revenue code, traffic and customs code
Other laws penalizing dishonesty and abuse on the part of the officer
Q: what are the grounds for revocation…
Fraud : public officer may be liable:

1.furnishing supplies
2. the making of contracts
3. the adjustment or settlement
What other crimes:

Malversation of public funds
RA 3019
*PD 749 (grant of immunity)

Conditions:
1. Consummated violations
2. Necessary for conviction’
3. Not yet in the possession of the state
4. Can be corroborated in its material points
5. Not convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude
Q: suppose a witness testified against a public officer; availed of his immunity, after availing he refused to testify.
What is the legal effect?
Immunity will no longer attach.
Q: may he now be included in the information and be prosecuted?

Yes
Q: suppose he testified but the testimony was false in that it favored the officer. Legal effect?
Immunity will not attach. He may be prosecuted

Q: suppose he testified but the court acquitted the officer, disregarded his testimony. Still immune?
No.
Testimony must be necessary for conviction
Q: suppose he testified but his testimony was already part of the evidence of the prosecution? May he be immune?
No
Testimony must not be in possession of the state
Q: What are the crimes covered by PD 749?

-Direct Bribery (art.210)
-Indirect Bribery (art.211)
-Corruption of Public Official (art.212)
-Violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (RA 3019)
-Violation of Sec.345 of the Internal Revenue Code
-Violation of Sec.3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code
-Other provisions penalizing abuse or dishonesty on the part of a public official
Q: Suppose a witness testified against a public official, availed of immunity and after doing so, refused to take the
stand. What is the legal effect of his refusal?
The immunity will no longer cover him
Q: May he now be included in the information and prosecuted?

Yes
Q: Suppose he testified but the testimony was incredible and tended to favour the official. Is he still immune from
prosecution?
No, the testimony must be necessary for the conviction of the offic ial
Q: Suppose he testified but his testimony was already part of the evidence for the prosecution before he did. Is he
still immune?
No, his testimony must not be in the possession of the State prior to its offering
Art 213. Frauds against the public treasury and similar offenses
Q: how committed?
1.by entering into an agreement with any interested party or speculator or making use of any other scheme
to defraud the Government, in dealing with any person with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of
contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public property or funds.
2. by demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums different from or larger than those
authorized by law, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts.
3. by failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for any sum of money collected by him
officially, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts.
4. by collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly by way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of a
nature different from that provided by law, in the collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts.
Q: illegal exactions… give an example . . .
Q: suppose DOH appropriated P100M for medicine to be distributed; instead of the medicine specified, in
connivance with the officers, the manufacturer distributed only medicine of inferior quality. Liable?

Yes
Q: suppose there is a contract between DPWH and private contractor; DPWH purchases 100 trucks of gravel, 200
trucks of sand and 500 bags of cement; DPWH paid the contractor for that much in connivance with the officer,
the contractor delivered only 10 trucks of gravel, 10 trucks of sand and 50 trucks of bags of cement. Liable?
Yes
Q: what crime/s?
Art 213 and RA 3019
Q: (illegal exaction) an official asked a Chinese merchant to pay for P700 thousand for delinquency taxes when in
fact only P500 thousand is to be paid. Liable?
Yes (demanded a larger sum)
Q: what if he only asked for P200 thousand. Liable?

Yes (demanded payment different from)
Q: what if the taxpayer was not in the position to give you the payment as you demanded. Liable?
Yes
Mere demand will consummate the crime
<the 3rd manner is self explanatory>
Q: last manner… how is it consummated?
Q: suppose there is an agreement, but it does not materialized? Liable?

No
Art 214. Other Frauds

1. The offender is a public officer
2. He takes advantage of his official position
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in art.315 - art.318 (estafa, other forms of
swindling, swindling a minor, other deceits)
Art 215. Prohibited Transactions
Q: How committed?
*that the offender is a public officer
*that he becomes interested, directly, or indirectly, in any transaction of exchange or speculation
*that the transaction takes place within the territory subject to his jurisdiction
*that he becomes interested in the transaction during his incumbency.
Q: suppose an RTC judge whose jurisdiction is NCR purchased stocks in ortigas. Liable?
Yes. Ortigas is part of NCR

Q: suppose an RTC judge in Laguna purchased stocks in Makati. Liable?

No
Q: suppose a senator, purchased stocks in Makati, in relation to his business. Liable?

Yes (ata)
Art 216. Prohibited Interest
Q: how committed?
Q: who are the persons liable?

Public officer
Experts, arbitrators, private accountants
Guardians and executors
Q: suppose a guardian over the estate of a minor. The minor was hospitalized and the guardian has to sell some of
the properties; with the approval of the court, guardian sold property to a company where he is a major
stockholder. Liable?
Yes
Q: what if there was a pre-agreement, may he still be liable?

Not anymore
Q: what if there was a decree of complete separation, still liable?

Not anymore
Art 217. Malversation
Q: who may commit?

Public officers
Q: you mean, any public officer?

No.
Q: is it enough that he has the physical charge to be liable?

No. He must be an accountable public officer
Q: who is accountable public officer?

One vested by law to have the custody and charge or control of the public funds by reason of the duties of
his office.
Q: how is this committed? What are the ways?

*by appropriating public funds or property
*by taking or misappropriating the same
*by consenting or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take such public
funds or property
*by being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property.
Q: Director of manila zoo has a zoo caretaker who works for him; the latter sold the animals in the zoo. Is the
caretaker liable for malversation?

No. He only has qualified charged over the animals. (it is the director who is the accountable public
officer)
Q: suppose MB was ordered confiscated for having been used in the commission of a certain crime; however, the
custodian sold the car. Liable for malversation?
Yes. Because the car has become a public property already
Q: suppose the car was used in transporting shabu; upon conviction of the accused, the car was forfeited; PDEA
chair however sold the car. What crime?
Violation of CDDA
Q: suppose it was heroin which was confiscated, PDEA sold the heroin to others. What crime, if any?
Violation of CDDA
Q: SWAT member was given a modern assault riffle to be used in the performance of his job he committed
irregularities for which he was dismissed; he was ordered to return the riffle but he refused; instead he sold it.
Crime?
Malversation – even though he has bee dismissed he is still considered an accountable officer
Q: property custodian of DPWH for the construction of roads; let the equipments idle; as a consequence of which
the residents got hold of said properties. Crime?
Malversation through negligence or abandonment
Q: COA conducted a surprise audit in a certain municipality; found that there was a shortage of P100 thousand
from the custody of the municipal treasurer; treasurer was informed and he immediately borrowed money to fill
the shortage. Liable?
No. because presumption of misappropriation does not apply.
*to have duly forthcoming” – maihanda at maibigay
Q: suppose there was a demand to pay within 10 days; 10 days has lapsed but he still failed to account for the
shortage. Liable?
Yes. Presumption applies
Q: suppose there has been a criminal case filed against the officer, thereafter, he returned the amount he
misappropriated. Still liable?
Yes. But the return mitigates the liability
Criminal liability attached the moment all the elements are present and cannot be extinguished by the
return of the malversed money – it does not belong to any of the grounds of extinguishment provided for in art 89
Q: suppose it was the municipal cashier who got the money from the drawer. Is he liable?
No. He is not an accountable public officer
Q: What crime did he commit, if any?

Theft
Q: what is the legal effect upon demand?
Q: may he be liable under presumption?

Yes

Q: legal effect of payment?

Mitigating
Q: what kind of mitigating?

Ordinary mitigating under Art 13
Q: what is the effect to the civil liability?
Q: Who are liable?

Public officers who are accountable for public funds or property
Q: Who is an accountable public officer?

One vested by law with custody and charge or control of public funds by reason of the duties of his office
Q: What are the ways of committing malversation?

1. By appropriating public funds or property
2. By taking or misappropriating the same
3. By consenting, or through abandonment or negligence, permitting any other person to take such funds
or property
4. By being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds or property
Q: What are the common elements to all acts of malversation?

2. He has custody or control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his office
3. Those funds or property are public funds or public property for which he is accountable
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented; or through abandonment or negligence,
permitted another person to take them
Q: The Director of the Manila Zoo has a caretaker who works for him. The caretaker sold the animals during the
Director’s absence. Is the latter liable?
No, he only had a qualified charge over the animals and was not an accountable public officer
Q: Who would be liable then?

The Director of the Zoo
Q: What would be the liability of the person who has a qualified charge over the missing property?
Theft or Qualified Theft, if it was done with abuse of confidence
*NB: If the officer had no authority to receive or to party with the funds or property, or had only a
qualified charge over them, the crime is theft, not malversation
Q: Suppose a Mercedes Benz was ordered confiscated for having been used in the commission of a c ertain crime.
The custodian sold the car. Is he liable for malversation?
Yes, the car became public property the moment it was seized by public authority and the custodian was
an accountable officer as far as it was concerned
Q: Suppose the car was used to transport shabu prior to its confiscation. A Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency
(PDEA) officer sold it. What crime is the agent liable for?
Violation of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act (CCDA)

Q: Suppose a kilo of heroine was confiscated and PDEA officers sold it. What crime was committed?
Violation of the CDDA
Q: a SWAT member was given a modern assault rifle to be used in relation to his job. He committed irregularities
in office and was dismissed from the service. He was ordered to surrender the rifle to his superiors but he refused
and sold it instead. What crime did he commit?
Malversation of public funds or property
Q: But he was already dismissed from service

Even so, he is still an accountable officer within the contemplation of the law
Q: Suppose a property custodian of the DPWH left certain construction equipment by the side of the road that was
being constructed. The residents noticed the equipment and sold it. What crime is the custodian liable for?
Malversation through negligence or abandonment
Q: The Commission of Audit (COA) conducted a surprise audit in a certain municipality. The COA officers found
that there was a shortage of Php 100,000 from funds that were in the custody of the municipal treasurer. The
treasurer was informed of the shortage and he immediately borrowed money from his friend to fill in the shortage.
Is he liable?
No because the presumption of misappropriation does not apply
Q: Suppose there was a demand from competent authority for the treasurer to account for the missing sum of
money within 10 days and the treasurer failed to comply. Is he liable?
Yes, the presumption then attaches
Q: What is the presumption?

Failure of an accountable public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or property wit h which
he is chargeable upon demand by any duly authorized officer shall be prima facie evidence that he has put
such missing funds or property to personal use
Q: Suppose a criminal case was filed against the treasurer and upon knowing of the filing, he returned the missing
amount. Is he still liable?
Yes
Q: What is the legal effect of his act of returning the missing funds?
The return mitigates his criminal liability
Q: It does not extinguish it?

No it does not. Return of malversed property is not one of the modes for extinguishing liability under
art.89 of the RPC
Q: Suppose it was the municipal cashier who took the money, is he liable for malversation?
No, the cashier is not an accountable public officer
Q: What crime did the cashier commit?

Theft or Qualified Theft
Q: As far as the presumption of malversation goes, what is the legal effect of a demand from a duly authorized
officer?

The demand allows the presumption of malversation to attach
Q: Is the demand a necessary element of proving malversation?

No
Q: What is the legal effect again of payment of the missing funds?

Mitigation
Q: What kind of mitigating circumstance is it?

An ordinary mitigating circumstance as per art.13, par.10 in relation to art.13 par.7 – the return is
analogous to a voluntary surrender or confession of guilt
Q: What is the effect of the return of the malversed funds to the civil liability of the offender?
The return has no effect whatsoever on his civil liability
Q: May private persons be held liable for malversation? How?

Yes, if they conspired with the accountable public officer in committing malversation
Q: May private property be the object of malversation?

Yes, if the private property in question was –
a. Seized
b. Attached; or
c. Deposited by public authority
Q: Is actual damage to the government necessary to prove liability?

No
February 19, 2009
Atty Amurao Lecture

In relation to Art 217
CDDA – if the equipment was confiscated and malversed -------- the crime is CDDA
Relate to art 45, rpc
--subject matter, proceeds, any weapon used in the commission of the crime shall be forfeited in favor of the State
--they acquire the character of public property
--officer will not be liable for missapp; but for CDDA
also. . .
when property is appropriated, delivered, dissipated or misused or misappropriated is a bank deposit, bank
placement, trust accounts or other bank assets attached, seized, confiscated or frozen under the provision of RA
9372 – Human Security act of 2007; the crime is RA 9372 for actual prosecution.
Art 218. Failure of Accountable Officer to render accounts
Q: how committed?
Q: is demand necessary?
No. As long as there is a law requiring the officer to render accounts
Q: what is the date when the accountable public officer should render accounts?

Art 219. Failure of a responsible public officer to render accounts before leaving the country
Q: how committed?
Q: give an example . . .
Q: suppose the municipal treasurer goes to Tokyo, Japan to attend a convention. Liable?
No
Q: suppose he goes to Disneyland with his family with intention of returning; but without leaving securing form
the COA a certificate showing that his accounts have been settled. Liable?
Yes. Crime already consummated
Art 220. Illegal Use of public funds or property
Q: how committed?
Q: distinguish from malversation under Art 217?
Q: give an example . . .
Q: what constitutes the crime of technical malversation?

The fact that the officer applies the public funds or property to a public use other than that for which such
fund or property has been appropriated by law or ordinance
Art 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or property
Q: how committed?
Q: example . . .
Q: supplier of materials of AFP; check was issued to such supplier but the disbursing off icer refused to deliver the
check. Liable?
Yes
Under act #1
Art 222. Officers included in the preceding provisions
Q: Who are the persons liable under Arts.217 – 221?

1. Private individuals who, in any capacity whatsoever, have charge of any national, provincial, or
municipal funds, revenues or property
2. Administrators or depositories of funds or property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority
even if such property belongs to private individuals
Art 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion
Q: how committed?
That the offender is a public officer

That he had in his custody or charge, a prisoner, either detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment
That such prisoner escaped from his custody
That he was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s escape.
Q: can you give an example . .
Q: suppose there is a prisoner who requested if he could go home since his house is just near the jail; officer
consented. Liable?
Yes. Laxity or relaxation
Q: suppose there is a prisoner who requested that he serves his sentence being a servant of the jail guard. Liable?
Yes
Q: Police officers allowed the detained prisoner to go home and take his bath at home. Liable?
Yes
Art 224. Evasion through negligence
Q: how committed?
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner, either a prisoner by detention or one by
final judgment
3. The prisoner escapes through his negligence
Q: give an example
Q: Suppose a prisoner escaped through an officer’s negligence. The officer hunted him down and captured him. Is
the officer still liable?
Yes
Q: What is the legal effect of his effort to recapture the escaped prisoner?
It may mitigate his liability but it does not afford him complete exculpation
Q: What is the liability of the escapee, if he happens to be a prisoner by final judgment?

He is liable for a violation of art.157 (evasion of service of sentence)
Q: And if the escapee is a detention prisoner, what is his liability?

He incurs no criminal liability for escaping
Under RA 9372 --- if escapes, it constitutes infidelity
Art 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a person not a public officer

1. The offender is a private person
2. The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under arrest is confided to him
3. The prisoner or person under arrest escapes
4. The offender consents to the escape of the prisoner/person under arrest, or the escape takes place
through his negligence

Q: What is the character of the offender in this article?

The offender is a private person to whom the custody of a prisoner/person under arrest is confided
Art. 226. Removal, concealment of destruction of documents

2. He abstracts, destroys or conceals documents or papers
3. The said documents or papers should have been entrusted to him by reason of his office
4. Damage, whether serious or not, was caused to a 3rd party or to the public interest

1. Removing;
2. Destroying; or
3. Concealing documents or papers officially entrusted to the offending public officer
Q: Give an example
Q: Would any manner of removal make the public officer liable?

No, the removal has to be made for an illicit purpose, and damage must result from the act of removal
Q: Suppose the building where an RTC was situated began leaking during a storm and the stenographer removed
several documents from the filing cabinets in order to save them. Will the stenographer be liable?
No, the removal was not done with an illicit purpose in mind
Q: As far as removal goes, is illicit purpose necessary?

Yes
Q: What about concealment or destruction, is illicit purpose necessary as well?

No, in concealment and destruction, the mere acts are punishable; an illicit purpose is not necessary
*NB: think about it. Removing a document could still be done for a legal and lawful purpose, but what
legal or lawful purpose does concealing or destroying the document serve? I suppose the inherent nature
of the acts – hiding the documents (concealment) and destroying them speak of a perversity behind the act
that is in itself reprehensible and doesn’t have to be coupled by actual ill-will -kimi
Q: Suppose a clerk of court saw a newspaper lying on the desk. She burned it. Is she liable?
No, the newspaper is not a document within the contemplation of the law
Q: Suppose it was an unsigned document which she burned. Is she liable?

No, the document was not complete nor duly accomplished
*NB: the document here must be complete and one by which a right could be established or an obligation
could be extinguished, i.e.: it must carry with it a binding legal effect, if it doesn’t, then the offender isn’t
liable
Q: When is removal consummated?

Upon the secreting away of the document from its usual place

Q: In removal, is it required that the offender actually achieves his illicit purpose?
No, it is sufficient that he has removed the documents for an unlawful purpose; whether or not that
purpose was actually achieved is immaterial
Q: Suppose an officer delivered a document to someone who is not the proper recipient for it, and he did so with
an illicit purpose in mind. Is he liable?
Yes
Q: Is damage a necessary element for all the punishable acts?

Yes
Q: example . . .
(removal should be for an illicit purpose)
Q: suppose the building where the RTC is, is leaking; the stenographer removes the paper/documents to save
them. Liable?
No
(in concealment and destruction, the mere act of it is punishable; lack of illicit purpose or illegal motive is not a
valid defense)
Q: suppose there are several forms in DPWH; one day, the personnel put it in fire. Liable?
No. forms are not documents
Q: suppose there is a judge, prosecution presented P100 thou which were used in an entrapment operation; one
day the clerk ran out of cash so he got P20thousand from the exhibit. Crime?
Infidelity of documents
(money bills partake the nature of a document, which were used to prove the fact of entrapment and
bribery not to be used for disbursing)
Art 227. Officer Breaking Seal

2. He is charged with the custody of papers or property
3. These papers or property are sealed by proper authority
4. He breaks the seals or permits them to be broken
Q: Must there be damage for liability to attach?

No, damage is not a necessary element of the offense
Art 228. Opening of Closed Documents

2. Closed papers, documents or objects are entrusted to his custody

3. He opens or permits to be opened the said papers, documents or objects

4. He does not have the proper authority to do so
Q: Must there be damage?

No
Art 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer

1. Revealing any secrets known by the offending public officer by reason of his official capacity
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is a public officer
b. He knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity
c. He reveals such secret without authority or justifiable means
d. Damage, great or small, is caused to the public interest
2. Wrongfully delivering papers or copies of papers of which he may have charge and which should not
be published
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is a public officer
b. He has charge of papers
c. The papers should not be published
d. He delivers the papers of copies thereof to a 3rd person
e. The delivery is wrongful
f. Damage is caused to public interest
NOTES:
*If the papers contain secrets and shouldn’t be published, and they are removed and delivered to the wrong
person, art.229 applies
*If there aren’t any secrets, the crime is infidelity in the custody of documents or papers
*Damage is a necessary element, but it must be to the public interest
Art 230. Public Officer revealing secrets of private individuals
Q: Does the revelation have to be public?

No
Q: Suppose the offender is an attorney; is he liable under this article?

No, he would be liable under art.209 (betrayal of trust by an attorney)
Q: Is damage to private individuals necessary?

No, the damage required is to the people’s faith and trust in public service
Q: suppose an employee of BIR disclosed your income to his co-employee. Liable?

Yes. –a person’s income is his own secret
Art. 231. Open disobedience

(not: Judgment should have been rendered in a hearing and issued within proper jurisdiction with all legal
solemnities required)
Art 232. Disobedience to order of superior officer, when said order was suspended by inferior officer
Q: how committed?
a. That the offender is a public officer.
b. That an order is issued by his superior for execution.
c. That he has for any reason suspended the execution of such order.
d. That his superior disapproves the suspension of the execution of the order.
e. That the offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of the suspension.
Q: example . . .
(note: A public officer is not liable if the order of the superior is illegal)
Art. 233. Refusal of assistance
Q: how committed?
b. That a competent authority demands from the offender that he lend his cooperation towards the
administration of justice or other public service.
c. That the offender fails to do so maliciously.
Q: suppose there was no demand, may the officer to whom assistance was expected be liable for refusal?
No – demand must be made; it is necessary because without demand, there can be no refusal
Art 234. Refusal to discharge elective office

1. The offender is elected by popular election to a public office
2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said office
3. There is no legal motive for his refusal to be sworn in or to discharge his official duties
Q: Suppose you refused to discharge the duties of a barangay secretary, may you be held liable?
No, art.234 does not cover appointive officials
Art 235. Maltreatment of prisoners
Q: how committed?
a. That he has under charge a prisoner or detention prisoner (otherwise the crime is physical injuries)
b. That he maltreats such prisoner in either of the following manners:
1. by overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his
charge either –
 by the imposition of punishments not authorized by the regulations, or
 by inflicting such punishments (those authorized) in a cruel and humiliating manner, or
2. by maltreating such prisoner to extort a confession or to obtain some information from the
prisoner.

Q: who are the prisoners contemplated?

Prisoners by final judgment and detention prisoner
Q: may it be committed by any public officer?

No. only those who have direct charge of the prisoners or detention prisoner
Q: suppose a DP who was being suspected of having been involved in kidnapping; one of the policemen inflicted
injuries and the DP suffer mortal wounds which might have caused his death were it not for timely medical
assistance. What crime?
Maltreatment and frustrated homicide
Q: is it complex, one absorb in the other or separate?

Separate
Q: why?
-because under the provision “in addition to any other liability for physical injuries or damage caused
Q: suppose a DP was under the custody of a jail guard, and the jail guard orders the DP to wash his clothes and
one day, when the DP refused to follow the order, the jail guard punches the DP. What crime?
Maltreatment and physical injuries
Q: 2nd manner
Q; what is the legal effect?

Penalty would be higher (aggravating)
Art 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office

1. The offender is entitled to hold a public office or employment either by election or appointment
2. The law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or give a bond
3. He assumes the performance of the duties and powers of such office
4. He has not taken his oath of office and/or given the bond required by law
Q: What kinds of public offices require bonds?

Those involving trust and confidence
Q: What is the purpose of the bond?

To assure the government of indemnity in case of any irregularities
Q: What form may the bond take?

It may either be in cash or in the form of a security bond
Q: What happens to the bond after the end of an official’s term?

The bond is returned at the end of service
Art. 237. Prolonging performance of duties and powers

1. The offender is holding a public office

2. The period provided by law, regulations or special provisions for holding such office has already
expired
3. He continues to exercise the duties and powers of such office
Q: Suppose an officer is about to retire, but his term is extended. As a result thereof, he continues to discharge the
duties of his office. Is he liable?
No, his term was extended
Art 238. Abandonment of office or position

2. He formally resigns from his position
3. His resignation has not yet been accepted
4. He abandons his office to the detriment of the public service
Q: What qualifies the offence?

When the abandonment has for its purpose to evade the discharge of the duties of preventing, prosecuting
or punishing any of the crimes under Title 1, Chapter 1 or Title 3, Book 3 of the RPC
Q: How is this different from Dereliction of Duty under art.208?

-In Abandonment of Office, there is real and actual abandonment
-In Dereliction of Duty, the public officer does not abandon his office but rather fails to prosecute a
violation of law
Q: should the resignation be in writing?

Yes
Note: The offense is qualified if the purpose behind the abandonment is to evade the discharge of duties
consisting of preventing, prosecuting or punishing any of the crimes against national security. The penalty is
higher. This involves the following crimes:
a. treason
b. conspiracy and proposal to commit conspiracy
c. misprision of treason
d. espionage
e. inciting to war or giving motives to reprisals
f. violation of neutrality
g. correspondence with hostile country
h. flight to enemy country
i. piracy and mutiny on the high seas
j. rebellion
k. conspiracy and proposal to commit rebellion
l. disloyalty to public officers
m. inciting to rebellion
n. sedition
o. conspiracy to commit sedition
p. inciting to sedition
Abandonment of Office or Position (238) Dereliction of Duty (208)

There is actual abandonment through Public officer does not abandon his office but
resignation to evade the discharge of duties. merely fails to prosecute a violation of the law.
Art. 239. Usurpation of legislative powers
Q: who may commit?
Q: example
Art. 240. Usurpation of executive powers
Q: who may commit?
Q: example
Art. 241. Usurpation of judicial powers
Q: who may commit?
Q: example
Art . 242. Disobeying request for disqualification

2. A proceeding is pending before him
3. There is a question brought before the proper authority regarding his jurisdiction, which is not yet
decided
4. He has been lawfully required to refrain from continuing the proceeding
5. He still continues with the proceeding
Q: Suppose the jurisdictional issue is resolved in the officer’s favour. Is he still liable?
Yes
Q: Why so?
Because the offence has already been consummated when the issue was not yet decided; whether or not
the decision would be in the officer’s favour is not material to his liability under art.242
Q: What is the purpose of the law?
Art 243. Orders or requests by executive officer to any judicial authority
Q: what is the purpose of this provision?

To prevent executive officers from influencing judicial authorities
Q: suppose the Deputy Executive Secretary prepared a letter addressed to the judge which states that any legal
assistance given to the strong political leader who has a pending case before the judge will be appreciated. Liable?
No. there was no order

Art. 244. Unlawful appointments
Q: how committed?
b. That he nominates or appoints a person to a public office.
c. That such person lacks the legal qualification therefor.
d. That the offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the qualification at the time he made the
nomination or appointment.
Note:
-Recommending, knowing that the person recommended is not qualified is not a crime
-There must be a law providing for the qualifications of a person to be nominated or appointed to a public
office
Art. 245. Abuses against chastity
Q: how committed?
b. That he solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a woman.
c. That such woman must be –
1. interested in matters pending before the offender for decision, or with respect to which he is required
to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer, or
2. under the custody of the offender who is a warden or other public officer directly charged with care
and custody of prisoners or person under arrest, or
3. the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by affinity of the person in the custody
of the offender
Q: against whom is it committed?

Woman only
Q: suppose a female public made advances to a male prisoner. Liable?

Under the RPC, NO.. but she may be held liable for violation of anti-graft and corrupt practices act
Q: suppose the judge said that he will render a decision in her favor provided that the girl would be his
“sweetheart”. Liable?
No. – proposal was neither indecent nor immoral (even if the judge be married?)
Note:
 The mother of the person in the custody of the public officer is not included
 Solicit: means to propose earnestly and persistently something unchaste and immoral to a woman
 The advances must be immoral or indecent
 The crime is consummated by mere proposal
 Proof of solicitation is not necessary when there is sexual intercourse
TITLE EIGHT - CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Art. 246. Parricide
Q: how committed?
1. That a person is killed.

2. That the deceased is killed by the accused.

3. That the deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other
ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.
Q: who is the victim?

legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of
the accused
Q: suppose you killed your brother. What crime?

Homicide or murder
Q: why?
Brother is not included in the enumeration and the law says ascendant or other descendant
Q: illegitimate grandson killed his illegitimate grandpa. Crime?

Homicide or murder
Q: H&W were married, at the time of their marriage, the W was a minor whose consent was obtained through
force; after 3 years, W killed H. Crime?
Parricide
Q: Why?
There is presumption of marriage
Q: H&W were married in hongkong without a marriage license; went back to the phils; W killed H. crime?
Parricide
Q: suppose there was already a decree of legal separation, and then W killed H. crime?
Parricide (legal separation does not annul the marriage)
Q: suppose the judgment has already become final when W killed H crime?
Homicide or murder
Q: a prostitute gave birth to a baby boy, when the boy was 1 year old, she killed him, after which she burned him.
Crime?
Parricide
Note:
*The relationship of the offender with the victim is the essential element of the felony
*Parents and children are not included in the term “ascendants” or “descendants”
*The other ascendant or descendant must be legitimate. On the other hand, the father, mother or child
may be legitimate or illegitimate
*The child should not be less than 3 days old. Otherwise, the offense is infanticide
*Relationship must be alleged
*A stranger who cooperates in committing parricide is liable for murder or homicide
*Even if the offender did not know that the person he had killed is his son, he is still liable for parricide
because the law does not require knowledge of the relationship
Art. 247. Death or Physical Injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

Q: who may avail?
Q: H surprised W in the act of intercourse with another man; H fired his gun at the two W was hit but accdg to the
doctor, the injuries that W sustained were only less serious. Liable?
No. (see provision)
Q: when should the killing or the infliction of injuries take place?

In the act or immediately thereafter
Q: what do you mean by immediately thereafter?

The discovery, the escape and the pursuit and the killing should all form part of a single act. There should
be no interruption.
Q: suppose when H came home one night, he saw a man who was wearing only his undies jump out of the
window of his room. He followed the man, and was able to overtake him, after which he killed him. Can he avail
of the benefits of Art 243?
No.
The killing was not done immediately thereafter
Q: suppose H saw W and paramour both naked; H shot them. Can he avail of the benefits?
No. He did not see them in the act
Q: suppose H saw W naked together with P, both were committing lascivious acts preparatory to the intercourse;
H shot them. Can he avail benefits?
No.
Q: H already has suspicion of W’s infidelity; told her that he would go to the province; did not proceed there but
just waited for an hour, after which he returned home; saw W and P in the act of intercourse; went down to the
kitchen to look for a knife but he couldn’t find any; remembered that he has a revolver in the neighbor’s house so
he went there; when he got his gun, P was already playing billiards; H still killed him Is he entitled to the
benefits?
Yes. Death of P is till the proximate result of the outrage of H
Q: what is the purpose of destierro?

Intended for the protection of the spouse
Q: Is it a penalty?
Yes
Q: suppose H surprised W in the act with P; H shot P and the bullet also hit the houseboy who was peeping; can H
be liable for the death/injuries sustained by the houseboy.
Yes. H is liable for the direct, natural and logical consequences of his act pursuant to Art 4 of RPC
Q: suppose one night, H saw his W and P sleeping in the same bed. Immediately, H fired his gun at P, may he be
excused?
No.
Q: suppose one night, H upon entering their bedroom, saw that it was locked, when he peeps through the hole, H
saw W rising up after the act while P was buttoning his drawers. H immediately opened the door and fired his gun
at both of them. May he be excused?

No. not in the act itself
Q: suppose one night, H went home, he saw his W having sexual intercourse with P, while doing the act, W is
shouting for help. H went down the kitchen to get a knife. When he returned in the bedroom, he immediately stab
P. May he invoke Art 247?
No. This will fall under Art 112, par 2 Defense of a relative
Q: suppose when he got back, P was no longer there. After two days, he saw P in the sari sari store nearby, he
immediately fired his gun. May he be excused?
No. there was interruption
Q: suppose H consented to the infidelity of W, and one day he saw W and P having sexual intercourse. H stabbed
P to death, may he be excused?
No, since he consented
Q: what are the grounds for disqualification of the spouse from availing the benefits of Art 247?
*if he promoted the prostitution
*if he/she consented to the infidelity of the other spouse
Notes:
1. Not necessary that the parent be legitimate
2. Article applies only when the daughter is single
3. Surprise: means to come upon suddenly or unexpectedly
4. Art 247 is applicable when the accused did not see his spouse in the act sexual intercourse with another
person. However, it is enough that circumstances reasonably show that the carnal act is being committed
or has been committed
5. Sexual intercourse does not include preparatory acts
6. Immediately thereafter: means that the discovery, escape, pursuit and the killing must all form parts of
one continuous act
7. The killing must be the direct by-product of the rage of the accused
8. No criminal liability is incurred when less serious or slight physical injuries are inflicted. Moreover, in
case third persons caught in the crossfire suffer physical injuries, the accused is not liable. The principle
that one is liable for the consequences of his felonious act is not applicable because he is not committing a
felony
Notes from Kimiko

1. A legally married person or parent surprises his (or her) spouse or daughter, the latter being under 18
and living with him (or her), in the act of sexual intercourse with another person
2. He/she kills any or both of them or inflicts any serious physical injuries during the act or immediately
thereafter
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter; or he or she has not
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse
Q: Who may avail of the benefits of art.247?

1. A legally married spouse
2. The parent of a daughter under 18 and who is living with him/her
Q: What benefits are granted by the law?

1. The accused incurs no criminal liability (or is exempted from the liability) for less serious or slight
physical injuries
2. The punishment for the killing or infliction of physical injuries is Destierro
Q: What is Destierro?
It is a penalty consisting of deprivation of liberty whereby an accused is ordered by the court to stay
within the limits provided by the court and to not come within a 25 – 250 kilometre radius of the area
where the victim or victim’s family resides
Q: A husband surprised his wife in the sexual act with another man. He fired his gun at the two. The wife was hit
but according to the doctor, her injurious were only of a less serious character. Is he liable for her injuries?
No
Q: When should the killing or infliction of injuries take place?

During the act itself or immediately thereafter
Q: What do you mean by ‘immediately thereafter’?

The discovery, the escape and the pursuit of the victim by the accused should all form part of one single
act; there should be no unreasonable interval of time in between
Q: Suppose that when the husband came home one night, he saw a man in his smallclothes jump out of the
bedroom window. He followed the man, overtook him, and killed him. May he avail of the benefits of art.247?
No
Q: Why not?
The provision presupposes that the accused actually witnessed the act and committed the killing or
infliction of injuries during the act or immediately thereafter; neither of these conditions were present
*NB: the time element is essential to the offence. 2 things have to be present: (1) observation of the act
(i.e.: actually seeing it happen) and (2) acting within that time frame (i.e.: right then and there or just
after). This is because the killing must be the direct by-product of the accused’s uncontrollable rage; it
should have been motivated by blind impulse and must not have been influenced by external factors (i.e.:
the accused should not have had time to seriously think about what he was doing). In essence, it’s vital
that the accused did not have time for cold calculations, else that can only mean he purposefully
considered the act of killing, and the full liability for parricide (if the victim is the spouse or daughter) or
murder/homicide (if the victim is a stranger) attaches –kimi
Q: Suppose the husband saw his wife and her paramour both naked in their bedroom. He shot them and they died.
May he avail of art.247?
No, he did not surprise them in the act
Q: Suppose the husband saw the wife naked with her paramour. They were committing lascivious acts
preliminary to the sexual act. He shot them. May he avail of art.247?
No
Q: A husband had suspicions of his wife’s infidelity. He told her that he would go home to the province. He did
not proceed there but simply waited for an hour, after which he returned home and caught the wife and her
paramour in the act of intercourse. He went down to the kitchen, but couldn’t find a suitable knife. He
remembered that he had lent the neighbour his revolver a day before. He went to the neighbour, recovered his gun
and returned to his house. He found the paramour playing billiards and the wife in the kitchen. He shot and killed

the paramour. May he avail of art.247?

No, everything the husband did was premeditated. The liability for murder attaches.
Q: Same facts, except that the husband had no suspicions and did not say he would go to the province or wait for
an hour. He simply walked in, saw them, and commenced the earlier narrated actions. May he avail of art.247?
Yes, all his actions in this case formed one fluid and spontaneous act and the killing happened
immediately after his observation of the sexual act; the killing was still the proximate cause of his
obfuscation
Q: What is the penalty for art.247?

Destierro
Q: What is the purpose of destierro?

The protection of the accused from retributory acts which could be committed by the victim or the
victim’s family
Q: Suppose the husband surprised his wife in the act with her paramour. He shot the paramour and the bullet also
hit the houseboy, who happened to be standing behind the bedroom wall. Is the husband liable for the death or
injuries of the houseboy?
Yes
Q: Suppose one night, the husband arrived home early and found his wife and her paramour sleeping in the same
bed. He took his gun from the nightstand and shot the paramour. Is he liable?
Yes (*trolling moment: do NOT interpret ‘sleeping in the same bed’ as the sexual act)
Q: Suppose he arrived home, heard a stranger’s voice from inside and before opening the door, peaked through a
crack in the door. He saw his wife and her paramour rising from the bed, the paramour was buttoning up his
drawers. He opened the door and fired at both of them. Is he liable?
Yes, he did not see the sexual act
Q: A husband saw his wife and a stranger in the sexual act. The wife was screaming for help. He ran down to the
kitchen, grabbed a knife and stabbed the stranger. May he invoke art.247?
No, but he may invoke art.11, par.2 (defence of relative)
Q: A husband saw the sexual act between his wife and her paramour. The act appeared to be voluntary. He went
down to the kitchen to get a knife but when he returned, the paramour was no longer there. The next day, the
husband saw the paramour by a convenience store and shot the latter. Will he be liable for murder?
Yes
Q: Suppose the husband and his wife agreed that on certain days, they could both have sex with other partners.
One night, a night scheduled to be the husband’s turn, he caught the wife with another partner in the sexual act.
He stabbed the partner to death. Will the husband be liable?
Yes, he consented to his wife’s infidelity
NOTES:
*Whatever the book says, this article IS a felony. It defines the manner of commission of a criminal act and
attaches a penalty for it –Atty. A

*Obviously, the sexual act contemplated by the article must be voluntary
Art. 248. Murder
Q: How is murder committed?

1. A person was killed
2. The accused killed him
3. The killing was attended by any of the (6) qualifying circumstances under art.248
4. The killing was NOT parricide or infanticide
Q: What are the six classes of qualifying aggravating circumstances?

1. Treachery; taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defence or of means or person to insure or afford impunity
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or
assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other
means involving great waste or ruin
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity
5. Evident premeditation
6. Cruelty; deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the victim’s suffering; or outraging or scoffing at the
person or corpse
*NB: That’s pretty hairy memory work, so here’s my own aide-mémoire. I’ve found that it becomes
easier to associate whole classes with a few key words so that when you recall the word, the whole
class comes to mind: -kimi
a. Treachery
b. Incentives
c. Flood, Fire, Poison and Vehicles
d. Public Calamities
e. Premeditation
f. Cruelty
Q: Distinguish Murder from Homicide
MURDER HOMICIDE
ART.248 ART.249
*let’s make this easier –kimi
Somebody was killed, the killing was attended by Somebody was killed and while there might have
qualifying aggravating circumstances been other kinds of aggravating circumstances,
there were no qualifying aggravating circumstances
Q: in the absence of those QAC; how would you classify the killing of a person?
Homicide

Q: suppose only a generic aggravating circumstance is present, how would you classify the killing of the person?
Homicide
Q: if a QAC is not alleged but the prosecution introduced a witness or presented an evidence proving the
existence of such QAC, to which the defense counsel did not object, and such QAC was actually proven. What is
the effect?
This does not change the nature of the crime but only increases the penalty
Q: suppose a person was killed and the accused was under the influence of liquor. What crime?
Homicide. (liquor is an alternative circumstances – it can be aggravating or mitigating)
Q: but suppose the accused was under the influence of drugs?

Murder. (influence of drugs is considered a QAC under sec 25 of CDDA
Q: but suppose the accused used an unlicensed firearm in killing the accused, what crime?
Murder aggravated by the use of unlicensed firearm.
Accused will no longer be liable for illegal possession of firearms
Notes:
*The victim must be killed in order to consummate the offense. Otherwise, it would be attempted or
frustrated murder
*Murder will exist with only one of the circumstances. The other circumstances are absorbed or included
in one qualifying circumstance. They cannot be considered as generic aggravating circumstances
*Any of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information. Otherwise, they will only be
considered as generic aggravating circumstances
*Treachery and premeditation are inherent in murder with the use of poison
Q: What are the kinds of aggravating circumstances?

1. Generic
2. Inherent
3. Specific
4. Qualifying
5. Special*
GENERIC INHERENT SPECIFIC QUALIFYING SPECIAL*

Attend the Are essential to the Specifically attend Change the nature Specifically
commission of any commission of the commission of of a crime provided by law
crime certain crimes particular crimes
May not be offset Attend only the
May be offset by May be offset by May be offset by by an ordinary commission of
ordinary ordinary ordinary mitigating certain crimes, the
mitigating mitigating mitigating circumstance application thereto
circumstances circumstances circumstances dictated by direct
Requires a provision, usually
i.e.: dwelling, i.e.: trespass to i.e.: ignominy in privileged not applied in
night time dwelling in the the crime of rape mitigating analogy to other
crime of robbery circumstance in similar crimes
order to be offset unless provided so
by the law
i.e.: treachery,

evident i.e.: when murder

premeditation, is attended by the
cruelty commission of any
of the acts of
torture, the penalty
for murder shall be
imposed in its
maximum (see:
Sec.22, Anti-
Torture Law)
Q: Suppose that in a trial, a qualifying aggravating circumstance is not alleged but the prosecution introduced a
witness and presented evidence proving the existence of such a qualified aggravating circumstance. The defence
did not object, and the qualified aggravating circumstance was actually proven. What is the effect of the presence
of that QAC?
The crime is homicide – the QAC will only serve to increase the penalty
Q: Suppose a person was killed and the accused was under the influence of alcohol. What crime was committed?
Homicide
*NB: Intoxication is not a Qualified Aggravating Circumstance. As per article 15, RPC, intoxication is an
alternative circumstance which, depending on the conditions attending the crime, may either be
aggravating or mitigating
Q: Suppose the accused was under the influence of drugs?

The crime is murder
*NB: Influence of drugs is considered a qualifying aggravating circumstance, as per sec.25 of the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
Q: Suppose the accused used an unlicensed firearm to kill the deceased?

The crime is murder, due to the use of an unlicensed firearm
Q: Will the accused be simultaneously liable for illegal possession of firearm?

No
NOTES:
*Because of the nature of murder, the obvious consummation of the crime is when the victim is actually killed.
Else, the crime is frustrated/attempted murder only
*When there are more than one qualifying aggravating circumstances attending the killing, only one will serve to
qualify the offense to murder. The other qualifying circumstances will operate as generic aggravating
circumstances (apparently this means, you can’t browbeat the accused by stacking the qualifying circumstances)
*The qualifying circumstance(s) should be alleged in the information. Else, the crime will not become murder and
those circumstances will be considered generic aggravating circumstances

*There must be INTENT TO KILL if the crime was committed by means of the methods enumerated under par.3,
art.248 (i.e.: inundation, fire, poison etc), but killing a person with TREACHERY is murder, even if there was no
intent to kill, because of the voluntary nature of treachery
RULES FOR THE APPLICATION OF QUALIFIED AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES

TO THE CRIME OF MURDER
1. When more than one circumstance are present, the others must be considered as generic
aggravating circumstances
2. When the other circumstances are absorbed in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot be
considered as separate generic aggravating circumstances
3. Any of the qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the information
*To constitute treachery, the means, methods, or forms of attack must be consciously adopted
*The killing a child of tender years constitutes treachery
*The crime is murder if superior strength was taken advantage of
*Re: armed men, the men must take part in the commission of the crime, directly or indirectly, and the accused
must avail himself of their aid or rely upon them
*TREACHERY and PREMEDITATION are inherent in murder by poison and CANNOT be considered as
aggravating circumstances for the purpose of further increasing the penalty
*Proving Premeditation:
1. Prove time when the determination to kill was made
2. Overt act manifestly indicating that the offender clung to his determination
3. Sufficient lapse of time between the determination and the execution of the killing
(We will no longer discuss the 6 QAC, because it was discussed during your Criminal Law 1, and I hold you
responsible for that. More over you have to remember that what distinguishes homicide from murde r is the
presence and absence of QAC—atty. Amurao)
Art 249. Homicide
Notes:
1. Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted. Hence, evidence of intent to kill is required
only in attempted or frustrated homicide
2. There is no crime of frustrated homicide through negligence
3. When the wounds that caused death were inflicted by 2 different persons, even if they were not in
conspiracy, each one of them is guilty of homicide
4. In all crimes against persons in which the death of the victim is an element, there must be satisfactory
evidence of (1) the fact of death and (2) the identity of the victim
Art. 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide
*application of this provision is limited only to the three crimes mentioned

Art 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray
Q: how committed?
*That there be several persons.
*That they did not compose groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each
other reciprocally.
*That these several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and tumultuous manner.
*That someone was killed in the course of the affray.
*That it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased.
*That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used violence c an be
identified.
Q: give an example
Q: will Art 251 apply if the person who killed can be identified?
No. Crime is already murder or homicide
Q: who are the persons liable?

*person or persons who inflicted the serious physical injuries are liable
*if it is not known who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased, all the persons who used
violence upon the person of the victim, but with lesser liability.
Q: what do you mean by tumultuous affray?

When at least 4 persons take part in it
Q: suppose when there are 2 identified groups of men who assaulted, can this article be invoked?
No.
Art. 252. Physical Injuries inflicted in a Tumultuous Affray
Q: how committed?
*that there is a tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding article.
*That a participant or some participants thereof suffer serious physical injuries or physical injuries of a
less serious nature only.
*that the person responsible therefor cannot be identified.
*That all those who appear to have used violence upon the person of the offended party are known.
Q: suppose the person who inflicted physical injuries can be identified, what crime?
Physical Injuries
Art. 253. Giving assistance to suicide
Q: how committed?
*Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is consummated or not
*Lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself
Q: can you give an example . . .
Q: what do you mean by suicide?

It is self destruction
Q: suppose an abortion results because of the suicidal act of the pregnant woman, is the woman liable for
abortion?
No. Since the party committing suicide is not criminally liable, she is not also liable for abortion
Q: suppose you feel that you will fail criminal law 2, which is more likely to happen. You asked your classmate to
push you, while you will stand on top of this building, but instead of dying, you were able to recover. May you be
liable?
No. Party committing suicide is not liable.
Q: how about your classmate?

Yes. He is liable under Art 253
Q: suppose you saw your grandmother suffering from a disease, and you decided to perform some acts of
euthanasia. May you be liable?
No.
Art. 254. Discharge of Firearms
Q: how committed?
that the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person.
That the offender has no intention to kill that person.
Q: distinguish from alarms and scandals
Q: distinguish from attempted murder

in Art 254, there is no intent to kill
Q: then what is the purpose of the offender?

To intimidate or to frighten the offended party
Q: how would you know if the crime is only illegal discharge or already grave threats?
Q: aimed at the house of your neighbor, considered illegal discharge?

No. only alarms and scandals
Q: gun was already aimed at A, but at that time that it was discharged, it was no longer aimed at A. Crime?
Illegal discharge

1. The offender discharges a firearm at another person
2. He has no intention to kill that person
Q: How is this different from alarms and scandals?

Here, the person actually aims a gun – and fires – at another human being
Q: Distinguish this from attempted murder

Under art.254, there is no intent to kill – whether actual or presumed by law

Q: What is the purpose of the offender in art.254?

To intimidate or frighten the offended party
Q: How would you know if the crime is illegal discharge of firearm or grave threats?
Grave threats involve a condition; Illegal Discharge of firearm (while it is committed in a threatening
manner) does not involve a condition
Q: A gun was aimed at the house of your neighbour. Is this punishable under art.254?
No, the crime is alarms and scandals
Q: A gun was aimed at A, but when it was discharged, the shooter shifted and as a result, the bullet was fired a
few inches to A’s right. What crime did the shooter commit?
Illegal Discharge of Firearm
NOTES
*Actual discharge of the gun is controlling, and the gun must be aimed at somebody – not something
*A person can be held liable for discharge even if the gun was not pointed at the offended party when it fired, as
long as it was initially aimed at the offended party
*There must be no intention to kill
*Intent to kill is negated by the distance between the offender and the victim (I honestly think this is ridiculous,
considering that a crack sniper – say, a member of the US Marine Sniper Company – can take you out with a
headshot from a kilometre away – that’s 1,000 metres, worrrd. And yes, I know more about guns and shooting
than most girls do, I like stuff that have to do with the military – not the Philippine military, of course – because
we’ve no such thing to speak of lol) –kimi
*’This provisions is already irrelevant, considering the nature of guns we have now. Is not the nature of the
weapon indication enough of intent to kill? You FIRED A GUN at somebody’ –Atty.A
1. The offender must shoot at another with any firearm without intention of killing him. If the firearm is not
discharged at a person, the act is not punished under this article
2. A discharge towards the house of the victim is not discharge of firearm. On the other hand, firing a gun
against the house of the offended party at random, not knowing in what part of the house the people were,
it is only alarm under art 155.
3. Usually, the purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or frighten the offended party
4. Intent to kill is negated by the fact that the distance between the victim and the offender is 200 yards
5. A person can be held liable for discharge even if the gun was not pointed at the offended party when it
fired for as long as it was initially aimed at or against the offended party
Art. 255 Infanticide
Q: how committed?
*That a child was killed.
*That the deceased child was less than three days (72 hours) of age.
*That the accused killed the said child.

Q: distinguish from abortion?
Q: suppose a stranger killed a 2 day old child with the use of poison. Crime?
Infanticide
Q: suppose the mother killed a 2 day old child. Crime?

Infanticide
Q: can the penalty be mitigated?

Yes.
Only insofar as the mother and the maternal grandparents are concerned, provided that they are of good
character
Q: suppose the child was born dead or although born alive, but could not sustain an independent life, is there
infanticide?
No
(the child cannot maintain separate life)
Notes:
1. When the offender is the father, mother or legitimate ascendant, he shall suffer the penalty prescribed for
parricide. If the offender is any other person, the penalty is that for murder. In either case, the proper
qualification for the offense is infanticide
2. When infanticide is committed by the mother or maternal grandmother in order to conceal the dishonor,
such fact is only mitigating
3. The delinquent mother who claims that she committed the offense to conceal the dishonor must be of
good reputation. Hence, if she is a prostitute, she is not entitled to a lesser penalty because she has no
honor to conceal
4. There is no infanticide when the child was born dead, or although born alive it could not sustain an
independent life when it was killed
Art. 256. Intentional Abortion
Q: how committed?
*That there is a pregnant woman.
*That violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the accused otherwise acts upon
such pregnant woman.
*That as a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages upon her, or any other act of the accused, the
fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
*That the abortion is intended
Q: who may commit?

Any person
Q: can you give an example . . .
Art. 257. Unintentional Abortion
Q: how committed?
Q: may there be a crime of unintentional abortion through reckless imprudence?

No
Q: suppose a jeepney driver who was driving recklessly hit a pregnant woman who was thrown several meters
away, as a result of which she suffered abortion. Crime?
Physical Injuries
The violence was exerted was not intended. Element #3 is not present
Q: suppose a pregnant woman had an argument with his husband, during the heat of the argument, the husband
slapped the face of his wife causing the wife to fall and lost the baby. May the H be liable under Art 257?
Yes (ata) – kase the violence exerted was intended
Q: suppose the husband did not slapped the face of his wife, but instead, just because of the heat of argument, it
caused the bleeding of the wife. May the husband be liable?
No
Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents
Q: how committed?
*That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion.
*That the abortion is intended.
*That the abortion is caused by –
a. the pregnant woman herself
b. any other person, with her consent, or any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of
concealing her dishonor.
Q: can this be a mitigating circumstance?

Yes. If the purpose was to conceal dishonor
Q: who is entitled to invoke it?

Only the pregnant woman
Notes:
1. Liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if the purpose is to conceal her dishonor. However, there is
no litigation for the parents of the pregnant women even if their purpose is to conceal their daughter’s
dishonor
2. In infanticide, parents can avail of the mitigating circumstance of concealing the dishonor of their
daughter. This is not so for art 258
Art. 259 Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortive

1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion
2. The abortion is intended
3. The offender, who must be a physician/midwife, causes the abortion or assists in causing it
4. The physician/midwife takes advantage of his/her scientific knowledge or skill
**NB: elements of the offense, as far as pharmacists are concerned:

a. The offender is a pharmacist
b. There is no proper prescription from a physician
c. He dispenses any abortive

Q: May this be committed through reckless imprudence?

No, the offender must knowingly take advantage of his/her scientific knowledge or skill
Art 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel
Q: what is a duel?
It is a formal or regular combat previously concerted between two parties in the presence of two or more
seconds of lawful age on each side, who make the selection of arms and fix all the other conditions of the fight.
Q: who are the parties liable?

Person who killed or inflicted injuries
the seconds are liable as accomplices
Q: suppose in the course of a duel, no one was injured or harmed, can the combatants still be laible?
Yes. Under third manner
Q: one of the combatants was seriously injured but survived, can he still be liable for duel?
Yes
Art 261. Challenging to a duel
Q: how committed?
Q: who are seconds?
Art. 262. Mutilation
Q: What is mutilation?
The loping off, or clipping off, of some part of the body
*NB: putting out an eye is not mutilation
Q: What are the 2 kinds of mutilation?

1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either totally or partially of some essential organ
for reproduction
2. Intentionally making other mutilations – lopping off, or clipping off, any part of the body other than
the essential organs for reproduction, to deprive someone of that part of his body
Q: Distinguish mutilation from physical injuries

-In Mutilation, the offender acts with the deliberate intent to deprive someone of the use of a part of the
body;
-In Physical Injuries, the offender’s purpose is merely to inflict bodily injury
Q: How would you know if the injuries inflicted constitute the crime of mutilation or attempted/frustrated
homicide?
By ascertaining the presence or absence of intent to kill
Art 263. Serious Physical Injuries

Q: how committed?
*wounding
*beating
*assaulting
*administering injurious substance
Q: what are the injuries contemplated?

1.when such injury resulted to insanity, imbecility, impotency or blindness
2.injury deprived the offended party or any part of his body
3.injury deprived the offended party of the use of that part of his body
4.loss of any of his senses
5.injury w/c required him from labor for a period of at least 30 days
Q: how would you know if the crime committed is only SPI or already frustrated P, I, M, H?
There is intent to kill
if there was no intent to kill crime is SPI
Q: suppose during the application of a neophyte in a fraternity, the neophyte suffered injuries which lasted for
more than 30 days. What are the liabilities of the fraternity members?
Anti Hazing Law
Q: what is hazing?
Q: how is it committed?
Q: what are the organizations covered/not covered?
Q: persons liable and their liability?
Q: legal requirements?
Notes:
1. Serious physical injuries may be committed through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence
2. There must be no intent to kill
3. Impotent should include inability to copulate and sterility
4. Blindness requires lost of vision in both eyes. Mere weakness in vision is not contemplated
5. Loss of power to hear must involve both ears. Otherwise, it will be considered as serious physical injuries
under par 3
6. Loss of use of hand or incapacity of usual work in par 2 must be permanent
7. Par 2 refers to principal members of the body. Par 3 on the other hand, covers any other member which is
not a principal part of the body. In this respect, a front tooth is considered as a member of the body, other
than a principal member
8. Deformity: means physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality. Not curable by natural means or
by nature. It must be conspicuous and visible. Thus, if the scar is usually covered by a dress, it would not
be conspicuous and visible
9. The loss of 3 incisors is a visible deformity. Loss of one incisor is not. However, loss of one tooth which
impaired appearance is a deformity
10. Deformity by loss of teeth refers to injury which cannot be impaired by the action of the nature

11. Loss of both outer ears constitutes deformity and also loss of the power to hear. Meanwhile, loss of the
lobule of the ear is only a deformity
12. Loss of the index and middle fingers is either a deformity or loss of a member, not a principal one of his
body or use of the same
13. Loss of the power to hear in the right ear is considered as merely loss of use of some other part of the
body
14. If the injury would require medical attendance for more than 30 days, the illness of the offended party
may be considered as lasting more than 30 days. The fact that there was medical attendance for that
period of time shows that the injuries were not cured for that length of time
15. Under par 4, all that is required is illness or incapacity, not medical attendance
16. In determining incapacity, the injured party must have an avocation at the time of the injury. Work:
includes studies or preparation for a profession
17. When the category of the offense of serious physical injuries depends on the period of the illness or
incapacity for labor, there must be evidence of the length of that period. Otherwise, the offense will only
be considered as slight physical injuries
18. There is no incapacity if the injured party could still engage in his work although less effectively than
before
19. Serious physical injuries is qualified when the crime is committed against the same persons enumerated in
the article on parricide or when it is attended by any of the circumstances defining the crime of murder.
However, serious physical injuries resulting from excessive chastisement by parents is not qualified
serious physical injuries
Art 264. Administering Injurious Substances or Beverages

1. The offender inflicted any serious physical injuries on another
2. It was done by knowingly administering any substances or beverages or taking advantage of the
victim’s weakness of mind or credulity
3. The offender had no intent to kill
Q: What are the penalties for this crime?

Those established by the article on serious physical injuries
Q: Suppose the resulting injury was not of a serious nature

Art.264 is not applicable
Q: What crime was committed if the offender possessed intent to kill?

Frustrated Murder
Art 265. Less serious Physical Injuries
Q: distinguish from attempted/frustrated?

Intent to kill
Q: may it be committed through negligence?

Yes
Art 266. Slight Physical Injuries and maltreatment
Q: when is it considered slight?

Q: What is hazing?
Q: how is it committed?
*NB: see sec.1
Q: What are the organizations covered and those that are not?
*NB: see sec.1
Q: Who are liable?

1. PRINCIPALS:
a. The members or officers of the organization who participated in the infliction of harm, if the
person subjected to hazing suffers any physical injury or dies as a result thereof
b. Parents of a member of the organization, when the hazing has been carried out in that
member’s home and the parents had actual knowledge of the hazing, and failed to prevent it
c. Officers, former officers, alumni of the organization who planned the hazing, although they
were not actually present during the event
d. Persons actually present during the initiation who fail to prove that they acted to prevent the
same
2. ACCOMPLICES:
a. The owner of the place where hazing took place, if he had actual knowledge of the hazing
and failed to prevent it
b. School authorities and faculty members who had actual knowledge of the hazing and failed to
prevent it
Q: What are the legal requirements regarding the conduct of initiation rites?
-Prior written notice to the school authorities/organization head containing the names of the members who
will be participating, and submitted 7 days before the event.
-The notice must also contain an undertaking that no physical violence shall be emp loyed by any person
during the rites
-2 school/organization authorities must be present during the initiation rites to insure that no physical
harm shall be inflicted
Q: What is the legal effect on the mitigation of liability, as far as being charged with a violation of this special law
is concerned?
The accused is not entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to commit so grave a
wrong
Q: What is the presumption of the law, with regards to persons actually present during the hazing?
Persons who are present during the hazing are presumed to have participated therein as principals unless
they can prove that they prevented the commission of the hazing
NOTES:
*Serious physical injuries may be committed through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence

*Impotency and sterility are not synonymous
*Blindness requires loss of vision in both eyes or one, it does not include mere weakness of vision
*Re: physical injuries, a tooth is considered a member of the body
*’Deformity’ involves physical ugliness, permanent and definite abnormality. It includes scars or bodily
impairments that are (a) not curable by natural means or by nature; as well as (b) conspicuous and visible (i.e.: if
it’s covered by clothing, even if it does happen to be a horrible scar, it isn’t deformity, as far as the law is
concerned)
*Loss of hearing must be in both ears; else the injury is merely considered a loss of the use of one part of the
body, not deafness as in loss of the power to hear
*’Labour’ includes work, studies or preparation for a profession
*When the category of the offense of serious physical injuries depends on the period of the illness/incapacity for
labour, there must be evidence of the length of that period, else the offense will be conside red merely as slight
physical injuries
*There is no ‘incapacity for labour’ if the injured party could still engage in his work albeit less effectively than
before
*Serious physical injuries is qualified when the crime is committed against the same persons enumerated under
parricide; or when it is attended by any of the circumstances defining the crime of murder HOWEVER, serious
physical injuries resulting from excessive chastisement by parents is not qualified
Art 266-A to 266-D Rape

RA 9262
Q: how is rape classified?

Public crime
Q: what is a public crime?

Any crime which may be prosecuted ex officio
Q: how committed?
1. By a man who have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the following circumstances:
a. through force, threat or intimidation
b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious
c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
d. when the offended party is under 12 years of age or is demented, even though none of the
circumstances mentioned above be present
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in par 1 hereof, shall commit an ac of
sexual assault by inserting
a. his penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice, or
any instrument or object, into the genital or anal orifice of another person
Q: may a woman be criminally liable for rape under the 1st manner
- as principal by inducement? YES

-as principal by indispensable cooperation? YES

-as principal by direct participation? YES, only if there is conspiracy
-as an accomplice or accessory? YES
Q: can a woman commit rape?

Under RA 8353, Yes, because the victim may be a man
Q: under the first manner, must there be sexual intercourse?

Yes, because if there is no sexual intercourse only acts of lewdness are being performed then the crime is
not rape but acts of lasciviousness
Q: what is meant by carnal knowledge?

-the act of a man having sexual intercourse or sexual bodily connections with a man
Q: A: through force, threat or intimidation : is it necessary that there be full penetration?

No. Partial Penetration is sufficient
Q: in the event of force is used, what degree of resistance must be put by the offended party?
Same as if she was defending her life
Q: suppose the woman did not offer any resistance; she was simply reluctant is the man liable?
No
Q: suppose some form of medicine was put in the woman’s glass; because of that her sexual instinct was aroused;
man grabbed her and she did not resist anymore. Liable?
No
Q: suppose a man had intercourse with a deaf-mute woman without her consent, may it be considered rape?
No, in the absence that she is an imbecile
Q: suppose a man is cohabiting with a feeble-minded woman and such idiotic woman was raped. However she
was not completely deprived of reason. May the man be liable?
Yes. Deprivation of reason contemplated by law does not be complete. Mental abnormality or deficiency
is sufficient.
Q: B: when the offended party is deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious ; suppose she was sleeping; when
she woke up she saw a man on top of her and she just let it be. May the man be liable?
Depends. If there was already penetration before she woke up, the man would be liable
(girl’s resistance is unnecessary because the crime had been consummated)
If there was NO penetration yet and the girl did not resist, there is no rape.
Q: suppose a man knocked the woman unconscious by being boxed causing the woman to fall asleep; after which
the man has sexual intercourse with her. Liable?
Q: Suppose the man administered narcotic to the woman. Liable?

Q: C, by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority; is it necessary that there be force, threat or
intimidation?

No
Q: may the woman consent to the crime of rape under this manner?
Yes
Q: suppose your boyfriend fetched you for dinner; instead of driving to the restaurant where you agreed to eat, he
drove to another direction, after which he committed the act against you Liable?
Yes. Fraudulent machination
Q: suppose through a promise, you agreed to have sexual intercourse with your boyfriend; but when you got
pregnant, he disappeared. Crime?
Rape through fraudulent machination
Q: D: when the offended party is under 12 years old or is demented; suppose a girl was 11 years, 11 months, 29
days old at the time of the commission of the offense but the accused paid for the her services, rape?
Yes.
Q: SEXUAL ASSAULT ; how committed?

By inserting one’s penis into another person’s mouth or anal orifice OR inserting any instrument or object
into the genital or anal orifice of another person both must be attended by the circumstances mentioned in the first
manner
Q: can a wife be raped by her husband?

Yes. Art 266-C, Ra 8535
Q: Who is the offender?

The legal husband
Q: suppose the wife subsequently had sexual intercourse with his husband out of love. What is the effect?
It shall extinguish the criminal action, it constitutes forgiveness
Q: what is the effect of marriage in rape cases?

It shall extinguish the criminal action and the penalty imposed
Random Notes: (kse hndi nagparecit si Atty. Amurao samen sa Rape
RA 9262 : relationship between the woman and man is important

(wife, former wife, common law, dating or had sexual intercourse, common child)
-prosti after sexual intercourse relationship; may the man be liable ? YES
-supposing you only had a dating relationship; may the man be liable? YES
-suppose through friendster you were sharing your love for each other. Liable? NO (there must be
dating or sexual intercourse)
-Stalking : following a woman whenever she may go and whatever she may do
LEGAL EFFECT : BWS – justifying under Art 11

- exempt from criminal liability
- exempt from civil liability
- not necessary that there be unlawful aggression
- not necessary that the elements of defense are present
RA 8353 – new Rape Law ; rape is non bailable

-reclassified from chastity to crime against persons

-before: private crime – only offended party may institute
-now: public crime – can be initiated even without the signature of the victim
-generally, pardon cannot be considered to extinguish the crime
Par 1
resistance is necessary
if no resistance; no force, threat or intimidation – no crime of rape
degree of resistance : as if she will defend her life
2nd manner – deprived of reason

woman sleeping? Yes (woman is unconscious)
w awakened, woman allowed? Yes (if at the time of penetration, woman is sleeping)
bf dropped a tablet caused the woman to fall asleep. Liable? Yes
bf dropped a tablet caused the woman to be sexually active. Liable? No
3rd manner
woman may give consent? YES (but such consent must be obtained through fraud, grave abuse... etc)
marriage? Yes.. fraudulent machination
buy a diamond ring? Yes
“iiwanan kita drama”? Yes
“ipakita mo na mahal mo ko”? Yes (pa din ata – grave abuse)
-grave abuse of authority === there may still be consent
-comman law husband of mother, 9 yo daughter, rape? Yes

-guardian, either there be mutual consent? Yes
-adopting father? Yes
-teacher? Yes
(sweetheart theory is not a valid defense)
(what is important is grave abuse)
if victim is a minor – RA 7610 “Anti Child Abuse Law”

-- separate liability
-- since RA is a special penal law
Sexual Assault
-insert finger – read people v bon ; people v soriano

-qualified: ????
Effect of marriage – extinguish the penalty and crime, even of judgment is final
how about the other principal : Yes, because the criminal action is extinguished
RA 8353 – there is marital rape
-- pardon of wife extinguishes criminal liability and penalty
12 yo or demented person – consent is immaterial; not a defense

even if 12 yo is a prosti – still rape
(hindi na ito pina recit samen-nagjump kame agad sa robbery; notes copied from old amurao notes)

Art 267. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
Q: how committed?
Q: when is a person detained?
Q: is it necessary that there be physical deprivation?

No
Q: a person was detained at San Beda, he was free to roam around but he cannot get out of the school’s premises.
Detention?
Yes
Q: suppose he can get out but he chose to stay inside for security reasons. Detention?
No
*circumstances:
Q: a)if the detention lasts for more than 3 days; only one day but the person detained was a minor. Kidnapping?
Yes – would fall under the 4th circumstance
Q: person detained was 25 y/o woman, only for 2 days. Liable?

Yes. Under 4th circumstance
Q: person detained was 45 y/o for 2 days, brgy tanod. Liable

Yes. Under 4th circumstance
Q: b) when the detention is committed simulating public authority; give example . . .
Q: c) when serious physical injuries are inflicted or threats to kill are made; suppose the infliction of PI was only
incidental, liable?
Yes. The law does not make any distinction as to whether the injuries were inflicted intentionally or
accidentally
Q: d) when the victim is a minor, female or public officer; example . . .
Q: distinguish from slight illegal detention and arbitrary detention
Kidnapping for ransom
Q: what does ransom mean?

Ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person or
persons; a payment that releases from captivity
Q: suppose you were courting a female friend but she neglected your proposals; what you did was to kidnap her
sister; the condition for her release was for the elder sister to answer you; the sister said “yes” to you and you
released her sister. Crime?
Kidnapping for ransom (it was for a consideration)
Q: is grave threats absorbed in kidnapping?

Yes
Q: suppose A owes X P50thou; A cannot pay so X kidnapped her mother and wold only release her if A pays his
debt. What crime?
Kidnapping for ransom (notwithstanding the fact that the money was legally due to X)
Q: A borrowed a car but refused to return it to X; X kidnapped A’s brother; car was returned, brother was
released. Crime?
Kidnapping for ransom (car was the consideration)
Q: suppose ABC kidnapped X, brought him to Cavite; same night, he was killed. Crime?
Murder – there was no indication of ABC’s intent to detain X; kidnapping was only incidental to commit
murder
Q: suppose X was kidnapped, brought to Laguna; ransom was demanded but not forthcoming; X was killed.
Crime?
Special Complex crime of Kidnapping with homicide

1. The offender is a private individual
2. He kidnaps/detains another person, or in any other manner deprives the latter of his liberty
3. The act of detention/kidnapping must be illegal
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
a. The kidnapping/detention lasts more than 3 days
b. It is committed simulating public authority
c. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained; or threats to
kill him are made
d. The person kidnapped/detained is a minor, a female or a public officer
Q: When is a person ‘detained’?

When he is illegally deprived of his liberty
Q: Is it necessary that there be physical deprivation of liberty?

No
*NB: ‘liberty’ as contemplated by this provision is not restricted to physical locomotion; moral
compulsion may also be considered a form of deprivation of liberty (think: threatening a person)
Q: Suppose the victim could get out but he chose to stay within the detention area for security reasons. Is this
illegal detention?
No
Q: What are the circumstances that must attend the detention, for it to be considered illegal?
*see: element #4
Q: Suppose the detention lasted for only 24hrs but the detainee was a minor. Is the accused liable?
Yes – The circumstances need not concur (see: wording, ‘any of the following instances… xxx’)
Q: The person detained was a 25-year-old woman, and she was detained for only 2 days. Is the accused liable?

Yes
Q: Same facts as the previous question, except that the victim was a barangay tanod. Is the accused liable?
Yes
Q: Give an example of illegal detention committed by simulating public authority
Q: Suppose that the infliction of physical injuries was merely incidental, is the accused liable?
Yes – the law makes no distinction as to the manner of infliction of the injuries
Q: What does ‘ransom’ mean?

Money or price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a captured person/s; payment made
toward the view of releasing a person from captivity
Q: Suppose you were courting a woman but she neglected your proposal. You kidnapped her sister, and informed
her that her sister would only be released if she accepted your courtship. Is this a crime?
Yes, the acts constitute kidnapping, and were committed for a consideration
*NB: apparently then, ‘consideration’ is not limited to pecuniary or material benefit
Q: Suppose A owes X Php 50,000. A could not pay his debt, so he kidnapped his own mother instead and said
that he would only release her if she would give him the money to pay off his debt to X. Is this kidnapping for
ransom?
Yes, notwithstanding that the money was legally due to X
Q: A borrowed a car but refused to return it to X. X kidnapped A’s brother with the condition that the brother
would only be released if the car was returned. A complied, and X released the brother. What crime was
committed?
Kidnapping for ransom (with the car as the consideration)
Q: Suppose A, B and C kidnapped X and brought him to the next town. That same night, they killed him. What
crime was committed?
Murder – there was no indication of A, B and C’s intention to detain X; Kidnapping was merely
incidental to murder
Q: Suppose X was kidnapped, brought to the neighbouring town and a ransom for his release was demanded. The
ransom was not offered so X was killed. What crime was committed?
The special complex crime of Kidnapping with Homicide
Q: How do you know whether the crime was kidnapping or murder or the special complex crime of kidnapping
with homicide/murder?
By ascertaining specific intent
Q: What circumstance qualifies the offense?

Demand for ransom
*NB: note that the provision imposes reclusion perpetua (formerly death) where the kidnapping/ detention
was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom; even if none of the 4 circumstances enumerated in
par.1 were present during the commission of the offense

Q: Is there any special aggravating circumstance? What is it?

Yes – when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention; or is raped or subjected to
torture or dehumanizing acts
NOTES:
*If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary detention; provided that the officer had a duty to detain a
person
*As long as the crime was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, actual demand for ransom is not
necessary
*The accused is not liable when there is a lack of motive to resort to kidnapping
*Two things make up ‘deprivation of liberty’: (a) actual or physical confinement; or (b) restrictions (not
necessarily physical) place upon the detainee
*The restraint need not be permanent in order for criminal liability to attach
*Purpose or motive is NOT material when any of the circumstances in par.1 is present
*See last paragraph of art.267 for the definition of the special complex crime of kidnapping with murder
*Where the victim is taken from one place to another for the purpose of killing him, the crime is murder
*Specific intent is determinative of the crime (think: to kidnap or to kill?)
*The penalty for the crime is not reduced by the circumstance of voluntary release by the captors as a result of
non-attainment of their purposes
*Conspiracy to extort ransom makes all the conspirators liable under par.2, art.267, including those who did not
take any part of the money
*There is NO complex crime of ‘illegal detention with rape’ – what the law provides for is the special complex
crime of ‘serious illegal detention/kidnapping with rape’ – there’s a difference between the two, because the law
(art.48) does not allow for ‘rape with illegal detention’ – there is no single act resulting in 2 or more grave/less
grave felonies; nor is illegal detention a necessary means for committing rape
ILLEGAL DETENTION ARBITRARY DETENTION

RE: Purpose of Commission To deprive a person of his liberty To detain a person without any
– whether physically or legal ground
otherwise
Re: Character of Offender The offender is a private The offender is a public officer
individual (or a public officer not with a duty to detain persons
vested with authority to detain a
person)
Re: Classification of the Crime Crime against personal liberty Crime against the fundamental
law of the State

ART.268
SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION

1. The offender is a private individual
2. He kidnaps or detains another or in any manner deprives him of his liberty
3. The act of kidnapping/detention is illegal
4. The crime is committed without any of the circumstances under art.267
Q: How is this different from serious illegal detention?

1. Slight illegal detention is committed without the circumstances involved in serious illegal detention
2. Slight illegal detention may be MITIGATED by –
a. Voluntary release within 3 days from the commencement of detention; without having attained
the captors’ intended purpose; AND
b. Before the institution of criminal proceedings
*NB: When this privileged mitigating circumstance is present, the liability of the captors is mitigated, and
the penalty is lowered by 1 degree; BUT in order for this to operate, it must be shown that the offender
was in the position to prolong the detention and ALL the requisites must concur, FURTHERMORE, this
circumstance is NOT mitigating if the victim is a woman
Art. 269. Unlawful Arrest
Q: distinguish from arbitrary detention . . .
Q: distinguish from serious/slight illegal detention . . .
Q: suppose you saw somebody in the act of committing theft; you arrested him, kept him for 2-3 hours, after
which your brought him to the proper authorities. Liable?
No. -- arrest falls under lawful arrest
Q: suppose a police officer has been suspecting that his houseboy has been stealing the jewelry of his wife; took
him in his custody, after which he brought him to the municipal hall for proper action. Liable?
Yes. Arbitrary Detention – since the offender was a public officer
Q: suppose there was already an order for the suspension of the police officer at the time he arrested his houseboy.
Still liable?
Yes. This time for unlawful arrest
Q: suppose you suspected that your maid has been taking the jewelry for your mother; you took her to the police.
Liable?
Yes (despite the fact that you have reasonable ground to believe that she is the only probable suspect)
Q: suppose your younger brother and a neighbor were fighting; you took custody of the neighbor and brought him
to the proper authorities. Liable?
Yes
Art 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor

--age of minor : 18 and below
Q: may the parents be criminally liable for this crime?

Yes, if they are separated and one of them fails to return the child to the other’s custody
Q: suppose H and W were legally separated; custody of the child from M-F is with W and during weekend with
H; one weekend, H brought the child to the province, and after 5 days they were still there. Liable?
Yes
Q: suppose in a judicial proceedings, the mother was deprived of the custody of her children and gave the custody
to the DSWD; mother took her children, did not give it to the DSWD. Liable?
Yes
Art 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home
Q: how committed?
Q: example . . .
Q: suppose the accused assembled some minors in the province; told them about manila; minors were
mesmerized; that evening, when the accused was about to leave, he saw 3 of the minors who wanted to go with
him; he then brought them to manila. Liable?
No
Q: suppose the accused persuaded the minors to go with him to manila for the reason that he would give them a
lucrative job; minors went with the accused. Liable?
Yes
Art 272. Slavery
1. hat the offender purchases. Sells, kidnaps or detains a human being.

2. That the purpose of the offender is to enslave such human being.
Note: Qualifying circumstance – if the purpose of the offender is to assign the offended party to some immoral
traffic (prostitution), the penalty is higher
Art 273. Exploitation of Child Labor

That the offender retains a minor in his service.
That it is against the will of the minor.
That 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.
Art 274. Services Rendered Under Compulsion in payment of Debt
1. That the offender compels a debtor to work for him, either as household servant or farm laborer.
2. That it is against the debtor’s will.
3. That the purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a debt.
Art 275. Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of one’s own victim

Q: how committed?
Q: suppose the person he found did not have a wound but just fainted and lost consciousness; did not give
assistance? Liable
Yes
Q: already unconscious because he was starving; did not help. Liable?

Yes
Q: suppose you intentionally injured somebody in an isolated place and left him there. Liable?
No
Q: is it necessary that the minor is wounded?

No. minor must be found in an unsafe place
Art 276. Abandoning a minor
*purpose of the abandonment is to avoid the obligation of taking care of such minor
Art 277. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents
*under indifference of parents; may the parents be liable also for violation of RA 7610? Yes
Art. 278. Exploitation of Minors

Acts punished:
1. By causing any boy or girl under 16 to perform any dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength or
contortion, the offender being any person
2. By employing children under 16 who are not the children or descendants of the offender in exhibitions of
acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, or wild-animal tamer or circus manager or engaged in a similar calling
3. By employing any descendant under 12 in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in the next preceding paragraph,
the offender being engaged in any of said callings
4. By delivering a child under 16 gratuitously to any person following any of the callings enumerated in par 2 or
to any habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender being an ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in
any capacity with the care of such child
5. By inducing any child under 16 to abandon the home of its ascendants; guardians, curators or teachers to
follow any person engaged in any of the callings mentioned in par 2 or to accompany any habitual vagrant or
beggar, the offender being any person
Note: Qualifying Circumstance – if the delivery of the child to any person following any of the callings of
acrobat, rope -walker, diver or wild-animal trainer or circus manager or to any habitual vagrant of beggar
is made in consideration of any price, compensation or promise, the penalty is higher.
Art. 279. Additional penalties to other offenses
Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling
Q: how committed?
That the offender is a private person.
That he enters the dwelling of another.
That such entrance is against the latter’s will.

Q: suppose the offender was a public officer? Crime

Violation of domicile
Q: distinguish from violation of domicile. . .
Q: suppose the back door was open, accused entered said door; owner saw him, told him to leave but he did not.
Liable?
No. Entry was not against the will of the owner
**possible defenses in trespass to dwelling***

-purpose is to prevent harm on the accused; the owner of the dwelling or third person
-purpose is to render some service to humanity or justice
-place is a cafe
Notes:
1. Qualifying circumstance: if the offense is committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty is
higher
2. There must be an opposition to the entry of the accused
3. Implied prohibition is present considering the situation – late at night and everyone’s asleep or entrance was
made through the window
4. Prohibition is not necessary when violence or intimidation is employed by the offender
5. When there is no overt act of the crime intended to be committed, this is the crime
6. May be committed even by the owner (as against the actual occupant)
7. Not applicable to:
a. entrance is for the purpose of preventing harm to himself, the occupants or a third person
b. purpose is to render some service to humanity or justice
c. place is a café, tavern etc while open
8. Medina case: when the accused entered the dwelling through the window, he had no intent to kill any person
inside, but the intention to kill came to his mind when he was being arrested by the occupants thereof, the crime
of trespass to dwelling is a separate and distinct offense from frustrated homicide
Art. 281. other forms of trespass
1. That the offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of another.
2. That the entrance is made while either of them is uninhabited.
3. That the prohibition to enter be manifest.
4. That the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
Art. 282. Grave Threats
Q: acts punishable?
Q: suppose the threat was made and it was relayed to the person after 3 hours. Liable?
Yes
*if threat is used as a means for the commission of another crime, the threat is absorbed in that crime
Art. 283. Light Threats

Q: distinguish from grave threats
Q: “if you do not lend me your book, I will be forced to cheat. Crime?
Light Threats
Q: “if you do not allow me to cheat, I will sell you book. Crime?
Grave Threats
Q: “if you do not allow me to borrow your book, I will not pay you my debt. Crime?
Light Threats
Art. 284. Bond for Good Behavior
*In Articles 282 and 283, the person making the threats shall be required to secure a bond for good behaviour in
order not to molest the threatened person
*Failure to furnish a bond for good behaviour shall be punished with destierro
Q: Differentiate this from Bond to Keep the Peace
BOND FOR GOOD BOND TO KEEP THE PEACE

BEHAVIOR
Re: APPLICATION TO Applies only to light/grave General Application
CRIMES threats
Re: EFFECT OF FAILURE TO Destierro Detention for not more than 6

FURNISH THE BOND months for grave offenses; not
more than 30 days for light
offenses
Re: PURPOSE Localized – To prevent further General – To prevent

molestation of the offended party disturbances of public tranquillity
Art. 285. Other Light Threats
Q: What are the other light threats?

1. Threatening another with a weapon or by drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-
defence (see: art.11 for the requisites of lawful self-defence)
2. Orally threatening another in the heat of anger with some harm constituting a crime without persisting on
the idea involved in the threat
3. Orally threatening to do another any harm not constituting a felony
NOTES
*Threats which ordinarily are grave threats, if made in the heat of anger, may be considered light threats
Art. 286. Grave Coercions

Q: acts punishable?
Q: a policeman thru violence prevented X from joining the NPA. Liable?

No. policeman was justified
Q: several armed men surrounded the farm in a certain area; for fear, the farmers did not go out of their houses to
harvest the palay. Crime?
Grave Threats
Q: boarded a taxi; taxi brought you somewhere despite your efforts to stop the driver. Crime?
None
Q: How is this different from grave threats?
-In grave threats, there is mere employment of fear; and the act was not intended to commit the 2 modes
of coercion (i.e.: forcing a person to do something he doesn’t want to do; preventing him from doing
something lawful); the violence here is not actual, merely futuristic
-In grave coercion, the intimidation employed goes hand in hand with compulsion or prevention of an
individual’s will; the violence here is actually employed
Q: If the essence of grave threats is intimidation, what is the essence of grave coercion?
Violent compulsion (i.e.: using force to compel someone to do/not do something)
Q: A policeman, through violence, prevented X from joining the NPA. Is he liable?

No, he was justified
Q: Several armed men surrounded the farm in a certain area. The farmers did not leave their houses for fear of
danger. What crime did the armed men commit?
Grave threats
Q: You rode a taxi, but instead of taking you to your desired destination, the driver brought you somewhere else
despite your efforts to stop him. What crime did he commit?
He did not commit any crime
Q: What circumstances qualify the offense?

1. If the coercion is committed in violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage
2. If the coercion is committed to compel another to perform any religious act
3. If the coercion is committed to prevent another from performing any religious act
NOTES:
*The act of preventing another by force should be made at the time the offended party was doing or was about to
do the act to be prevented; if the act was already done when the violence was exerted, the crime is unjust vexation
*Compelling another to do something includes the offender’s act of doing it himself while subjecting another to
his will
*When the complainant is in actual possession of a thing, even if he has no right to that possession, compelling
him by means of violence to give it up – even if done by the owner of the thing himself – is grave coercion

*the force or violence must be immediate, actual or imminent
*Even if the offended party did not accede to the purpose of the coercion, the offender is still liable
Art 287. Light Threats
Q: suppose the purpose of the seizure was to sell the properties seized and not to apply to the debt. Crime?
Robbery. -- there was intent to gain
Q: distinguish from services rendered under compulsion of debt
Q: suppose X is indebted to A but he cannot pay; A asked X to work as a janitor in his office as payment for his
debt. Liable?
No. -- kase dapat household servant or farm laborer lang
Q: distinguish from exploitation of minors

-in exploitation, there is an element of coercion.
March 3, 2009
Art 288 and 289 – now covered by the labor code
Art 294: last par – special complex crime? No – in the absence of any other crime committed apart from robber,
there can be no SCC ( special complex crime must involve at least 2 crimes)
Robbery – taking with intent to gain ; there must be violence or intimidation from the starting point of the act up
to the asportation; otherwise
application of robbery would depend on what point the violence was exerted ("by reason of or on the occasion
thereof")
Art 294: violence or intimidation could come before or after, depending on whether such has a connection or
relation with robbery
Q: ABC decided to rob X's house; saw X in front of a store near his place; ABC shot him there, after which they
proceeded to his house to commit the crime of robbery. Crime?
Robbery with homicide (homicide by reason of the robbery)
Q: suppose the robbery was already committed; was reported, in pursuit of the robbers, shootout took place in
another province, 2 police, 3 robbers were killed. Crime?
Robbery with homicide
Q: in the course of the robbery, a robber stepped on a 2 day old child; the child died. Crime?
Robbery with homicide (because homicide was used as a general term)
Q: liability of persons when there is conspiracy: suppose ABC conspired to rob the house of X; C however took a
woman out of the house and raped her. Liability?
AB - robbery only
C - robbery with rape (AB were not present when C raped the woman; they were not in a position to

prevent C from doing so)
*Rule in theft: the moment there is pyhsical possession, however momentary, the crime is consummated
--people v espiritu: consummated theft, discovery was incidental
--people v dino: frustrated tehft; discovery was necessary because the truck had to pass thru a checkpoint
*difference between locked sa robbery with force in an inhabited place and closed sa robbery with force in an
uninhabited place
Q: may robbery be committed even without the use of force upon things?
Yes. when the entrance is effected through means that are not intended for suchl using fictitious name or
pretending teh exercise of public authority; when things need not be broken or forced open
-Robbery in an inhabited place -- the mere act of taking the locked receptacle and bringing it out of the place for
the purpose of opening it is already consummated robbery because he has the purpose of opening said receptacle
*concept of dependecies: suppose there is a house; adjacent to it is a grocery; there is a door connecting the two;
offender destroys the door of the grocery and went thru the connecting door; robber the house. Liable?
Yes. -- the law does not limit itself to dwelling only
Q: ABC used a false key to open the door of their neighbor's housel when they opened the door, they saw a
motorcycle in the sala; they took the motorcycle. Crime?
Carnapping
Q: what if yung car na kinuha ay merong mga jewelry or money sa loob. crime?
Carnapping
Q: what if the accused broke the window of the car, and took the valuables inside. Crime?
Theft -- this is not robbery, because there must be entry into the house
Q: what if the intention was really to get the valuables and he had to take teh car to get them. Crime?
Carnapping
Q: what if the accused pushed the car to another street, opened the door and took the valuables. Crime?
Carnapping and Theft
Q: cellphone was snatched from you. Crime?

Theft
Q: what if the accused pointed a gun at you to stop you from catching him. Crime?
Theft and grave threats (Separate)
*Brigandage -- what is punished is not kidnapping but the mere formation of the band
*distinction between highway robbery and robbery in highway robbery, there must be on the part of the accuded
the indiscriminate intention to commit tobbery on the highway against anyone
Q: after robbery was committed, the bus was set on fire. Crime?
Robbery with arson
*intent to gain -- refers to the satisfaction you get out of the thing

*Art 299 -- Robbery with force in an inhabited place, etc
Q: suppose in a public building, the accused entered thru the entrance door, got something from inside the
building, went out of the window. Crime?
Theft (kasi wala siyang sinira)
Q: suppose he reached for the valuables. Crime?

Thefy (kasi wlang entry)
Q: suppose entire body. Crime?

Robbery na!
*meralco inspector and PLDT lineman are not considered public authorities so if may magpanggap na ganyan to
gain entry sa bahay, not liable for robbery under 4th circumstance
*element #2 (a) ung "doors" dun, "internal doors"

*locked or sealed furniture or receptacle" -- if not sealed -- liable for estafa or theft
*without breaking anything, offender went inside the bedroom of X; offender has a key to X's jewelry box; he
opened it, took the jewelry. Crime? Theft
*maid, while cleaning saw her master's locked jewelry box; got it with the intention of breaking it at the back of
the house; on her way there, she was caught. Crime? Robbery -- crime consummated
*in highway robbery - what control is the situs of the crime
--necessary that robbery is committed in the highway and that there is a free determined act to commit a series of
robbery in the highway
*hold up in a bus by a robber -- not a series, only an isolated act, only simple robbery
*violation of Anti-Fencing Law -- the accused can be prosecuted as an accessory for theft and for violation of
AFL
*personal property - sufficient that the victim has right; it may include illegal property
*accused shall have material possession
*momentary posession
Violence & Intimidation
UFT
*sliced the bag -- theft

*violence, intimidation must be to the person
*violence in the things must be only in the house (use such means to enter a building)
*in robbery. . . it is consummated as long as there is material possession - no matter how momentary
*robbery v direct bribery: amount of P50K consideration -- db; P50k fear; because of intimidation without any
legal ground -- robbery
*if car, motor vehicle -- carnapping with or without violence; same is true with cattle law
TITLE TEN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
CHAPTER ONE
ROBBERY IN GENERAL

ART.293
WHO ARE GUILTY OF ROBBERY
Q: What is robbery?
The taking of personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain, by means of violence against, or
intimidation of any person or using force upon anything
Q: What are the classifications of robbery?

1. Robbery with violence against, or intimidation of persons
2. Robbery by the use of force upon things
Q: How is robbery in general committed?

There is –
1. Personal property belonging to another
2. Unlawful taking of that property
3. The taking is with intent to gain
4. Violence or Intimidation of any person; or force upon anything
Q: Suppose you saw X hide a kilo of shabu; he placed the article in his closet and locked the same. You thought
that the shabu would fetch a lucrative price on the streets so you broke the latch on his closet and took it. Did you
commit Robbery?
Yes – prohibited articles may also the subject matter of robbery
Q: What kind of robbery did you commit?

Robbery with force upon things
Q: When must the violence/force/intimidation be present for the crime to be robbery?

The violence/force/intimidation must be present from the start of the act up to the asportation or taking;
the violence or intimidation must be present before the taking of the personal property is complete
*NB: the application of robbery depends on what point the violence/force was exerted, note ‘by reason of
or on the occasion thereof… xxx’
Q: When is the crime of robbery consummated?
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST/ ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS

INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS
From the moment the offender gains possession of The thing must be taken out of the building to
the thing, even if the culprit has had no opportunity consummate the crime
to dispose of the same
Q: What is meant by ‘taking’?

Depriving the offended party of ownership of the thing taken with the character of permanency
Q: Is intent to gain presumed?

Yes
Q: Suppose intent to gain is disproved; what crime was committed?

Grave coercion, provided that violence was employed
Q: Does the intimidation have to refer to the threat of bodily harm?

No, it may take other forms
Q: Give an example
SECTION ONE – ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST

OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS
ART.294
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST OR
INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS – PENALTIES
Q: When is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons committed?

1. When, by reason or on occasion of the robbery, the crime of Homicide is committed
2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or intentional mutilation or arson
3. When by reason or on occasion of such robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting in sanity,
imbecility, impotency or blindness is inflicted
4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the physical injuries resulting in the loss of the use of
speech or the power to hear/smell; or the loss of an eye, hand, foot, arm or leg; or the use of any such
member; or incapacity for work in which the injured person is theretofore habitually engaged is inflicted
5. If the violence/intimidation employed in the commission of the robbery is carried to a degree clearly
unnecessary for the commission of the offense
6. When in the course of its execution, the offense shall have inflicted upon any person not responsible for
the commission of the robbery any of the physical injuries in consequence of which the injured person
becomes deformed or loses any other member of his body; or loses the use thereof; or becomes
ill/incapacitated for work for more than 90 days or the injured person becomes ill/incapacitated for labour
for more than 30 days
7. If the violence employed by the offender does not cause any of the serious physical injuries defined in
art.263; or if the offender employs intimidation only
Q: Are the crimes here considered complex crimes under art.48?

No, they are special complex crimes – specifically provided for by art.294
*NB: these are special complex crimes because the common crimes here must be committed in the
course, or because of the robbery; they aren’t normal complex crimes under art.48
Q: Under art.294, when is robbery complexed; and what crimes may it be complexed with?
When the violence results in –
1. Homicide
2. Rape
3. Intentional mutilation; or
4. Any of the serious physical injuries in paragraphs 1 and 2 of art.263
*The taking of personal property is robbery complexed with any of these crimes, even if the taking was
already complete when the violence was employed by the offender

*Here’s the trick: when the original plan was robbery, and these crimes are committed because of, or
during that robbery – it’s a special complex crime
Q: A, B, and C decided to rob X’s house; they say X in front of a nearby store. A, B, and C shot him there, after
which, they proceeded to X’s house to commit robbery; what crime did they commit?
Robbery with Homicide (homicide by reason of the robbery – complexed)
Q: Suppose a robbery had already been committed. It was reported to the police; and while the police were in
pursuit of the robbers, a shootout took place in the nearby province. 2 policemen and 3 robbers were killed. What
Robbery with Homicide
Q: In the course of the robbery, one offender stepped on a 48-hour child. What crime did he commit?
Robbery with Homicide
*NB: ‘Homicide’ here is used in its general sense
Q: With regards to the liability of persons when there is a conspiracy; suppose A, B, and C conspired to rob X’s
house. C took X’s wife outside of the house and raped her. What are the individual liabilities of the offenders?
-A and B are liable for simple robbery
-C is liable for the special complex crime of robbery with rape (because A and B were not present when
he raped the woman, and were not in a position to prevent him from doing so – he acted independently of
their conspiracy for robbery
NOTES
*Table for ya :)
ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE AGAINST, OR INTIMIDATION OF PERSONS

ART.294
Table of Special Complex Crimes
Par.1 ‘Homicide’ here includes parricide and murder
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
‘Homicide’ is NOT limited to a singular death,
multiple deaths are merged in the composite
offense of robbery with homicide so long as all the
killings were perpetrated by reason or on occasion
of the robbery
When committed in a dwelling, robbery with

homicide does NOT require that robbery with force
upon things is first committed
This need not be committed in a building, either
Intent to take personal property belonging to

another with intent to gain must precede the killing
Killing a person to escape after the commission of

robbery is robbery with homicide
The crime is still robbery with homicide, even if

the person killed was NOT the person who was
robbed
All who participated in the robbery as principals

are principals in robbery with homicide, unless it
clearly appears that they endeavoured to prevent
the same
Par.2 Intent to gain must precede rape

ROBBERY WITH RAPE
When the taking of personal property of a woman
is an independent act following defendant’s failure
to consummate the rape, there are 2 distinct crimes
Additional rapes committed on the same occasion

of robbery will NOT increase the penalty
When the taking of the property after the rape is

NOT with intent to gain (i.e.: mementos or tokens),
there is neither theft nor robbery, just plain rape
and unjust vexation
When rape and homicide coexist with robbery in

the commission of the crime, the liability of the
accused is for the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide, rape being merely aggravating
Par.3 Applies when the serious physical injuries are

ROBBERY WITH SERIOUS PHYSICAL committed ‘upon any person not responsible for its
INJURIES UNDER ART.263, PAR.2 commission’ (people who aren’t themselves the
robbers)
If the serious physical injuries were inflicted on a

fellow robber, there are 2 distinct offenses: robbery
and serious physical injuries
Par.4 The violence here need not result in serious

ROBBERY WITH UNNECESSARY VIOLENCE physical injuries
AND INTIMIDATION
Violence employed must be unnecessary to the
commission of robbery
*REQUISITES OF ROBBERY UNDER THE 2ND

CASE OF PAR.4, ART.294
1. Any of the physical injuries defined in

paragraphs 3 and 4, art.263 was inflicted in

the course of the robbery

2. Any of them was inflicted upon any person
not responsible for the commission of the
robbery
Par.5 Simple robbery – the use of violence against any

ROBBERY WITH THE USE OF VIOLENCE person does NOT result in homicide, rape,
AGAINST/ intentional mutilation or any of the serious physical
INTIMIDATION OF ANY PERSON injuries which may give rise to a special complex
crime; when it does result in those crimes, a special
*this is not a special complex crime, this is simple complex crime is committed
robbery
The violence or intimidation need NOT be present
before or at the exact moment when the object is
taken, it may enter any time before the owner is
finally deprived of his personal property
Intimidation exists when the acts executed/ words

uttered by the offender are capable of producing
fear in the person threatened
ART.295
ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES,
COMMITTED IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE AND
BY A BAND, OR WITH THE USE OF FIREARM,
ON A STREET, ROAD OR ALLEY
Q: When is robbery with violence against or intimidation of persons qualified?

When robbery is committed –
1. In an uninhabited place
2. By a band
3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle, or airship
4. By entering the passengers’ compartments in a train, or in any manner taking the passengers by surprise
in the respective conveyance
5. On a street, road, highway, or alley, and the intimidation is made with the use of firearms
Q: May these circumstances be offset by ordinary mitigating circumstances?

No
Q: What is the legal effect of the presence of more than one of these circumstances?
Only one will qualify the offense, the rest will serve to aggravate the penalty
Q: Do they apply to homicide/rape or serious physical injuries committed with robbery?

No
ART.296
DEFINITION OF A BAND AND

PENALTY INCURRED BY MEMBERS THEREOF
Q: When is there a band?

When more than 3 armed malefactors take part in the commission of a robbery
Q: Suppose A, B, C and D committed robbery with the use of an unlicensed firearm. What is the legal effect of
the firearm on their liabilities?
The penalty shall be imposed in the maximum
*NB: whenever any of the arms used in the commission of the offense is an unlicensed firearm, the
penalty imposed on all malefactors shall be the maximum period of the corresponding penalty provided
by law
Q: May A, B, C and D also be prosecuted for illegal possession of unlicensed firearm?

Yes
Q: What is the presumption of the law with respect to robbery committed by a band?
Any member of a band who is present at the commission of robbery shall be punished as a principal of
any of the assaults committed by the band, unless it can be shown that he attempted to prevent the same
*NB: Requisites for liability for the acts of other members of the band –
1. The person is a member of the band
2. The band committed robbery
3. Other members of the band committed an assault (or assaults, plural)
4. He did not attempt to prevent the assault
NOTES
*When the robbery was not committed by a band, the robber who did not take part in the assault by another isn’t
liable for that assault
*When the robbery was not by a band and homicide was not determined by the accused when they plotted the
crime, the non-participant in the killing is liable only for robbery
*When there is conspiracy to commit homicide and robbery, all the conspirators, even if there are less than 4
armed men, are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
*Art.296 is not applicable to principals by induction who were NOT present at the robbery, if the agreement was
to commit robbery (and yet homicide happened to be committed)
*Proof of conspiracy is not necessary when 4 or more armed persons committed robbery
*Members of the band must be present at the time of the robbery, although not necessarily during the assault
*Republic Act 8249 considers the use of an unlicensed firearm in murder or homicide merely a special
aggravating circumstance, NOT a separate crime
*The special aggravating circumstance of the use of unlicensed firearm is NOT applicable to robbery with
homicide committed by a band (art.295 does not apply to subdivisions 1 and 2 of art.294)

*The use of a firearm – whether licensed or not – in making the intimidation is a qualifying circumstance when
the robbery defined in any of paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 of art.294 is committed on a street, road, highway or alley
ART.297
ATTEMPTED AND FRUSTRATED ROBBERY
COMMITTED UNDER CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES
*When by reason or on occasion of an attempted/frustrated robbery, a homicide is committed, the person guilty of
such offenses shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua, unless the
homicide committed shall deserve a higher penalty under the provisions of this Code
ART.298
EXECUTION OF DEEDS BY MEANS OF
VIOLENCE OR INTIMIDATION

1. The offender has intent to defraud another
2. He compels that person to sign, execute or deliver any public instrument or document
3. The compulsion is made by means of violence or intimidation
Q: Does the instrument have to be public?

Yes
Q: What about the document?

The document may be private or commercial
Q: Suppose the document is void

Art.298 does not apply
SECTION TWO – ROBBERY BY THE USE OF FORCE UPON THINGS
Q: How is robbery by the use of force upon things committed?

When the offender –
1. Entered a house or building by any of the means specified in art.299 or 302; or
2. Even if there was no entrance by any of those means, he broke a wardrobe, chest or any other kind of
locked/closed/sealed furniture or receptacle in the house or building; or he took the same away to be
broken or forced open outside the building
Q: Suppose no entry at all was effected by the accused; and he simply used a long pole to take the article, what
Theft
*For this kind of robbery, entry is essential – if there is no entry, there is no robbery with force upon
things
Q: May robbery be committed without the actual use of force on things?

Yes, when the entrance is effected through means not intended for egress; by using a fictitious name; or
pretending the exercise of public authority; when things need not be broken or forced open
Q: A, B, and C used a false key to open the door of their neighbour’s house. When they did so, they saw a
motorcycle in the living room. They took it. What crime did they commit?
Carnapping
Q: Suppose the car contained jewelry and a safe box?

The crime is still carnapping
Q: Suppose the accused broke the window of the car, and took the valuables inside. What crime did he commit?
Theft
Q: What if the accused pushed the car all the way to the other street before opening a door and taking the
valuables inside?
1. Carnapping
2. Theft
*separate crimes
Q: Your cell phone was taken from your bag when you were walking through the street and didn’t notice. What
Theft
Q: Suppose you turned around at the moment you felt something being taken from your bag; and the accused
pointed a gun at you to stop you from running after him. What crimes did he commit?
1. Theft
2. Grave Threats
*separate crimes
Q: After robbery was committed, the building was set on fire. What crimes were committed?
Robbery with arson, complexed
ART.299
ROBBERY IN AN INHABITED HOUSE OR
PUBLIC BUILDING OR EDIFICE DEVOTED
TO WORSHIP
SUBDIVISION A, ART.299 SUBDIVISION B, ART.299

ELEMENTS ELEMENTS
1. The offender entered – 1. The offender is inside a dwelling house,
a. An inhabited place; or public building or edifice devoted to
b. A public building; or religious worship, REGARDLESS of the
c. An edifice devoted to religious worship circumstances under which he entered it
2. The entrance was effected by any of the 2. He takes personal property belonging to
following means: another; does so with intent to gain; and
a. Through an opening not intended for under any of the following circumstances:
entrance or egress a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes,
b. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor; or chests or any other kind of locked or

by breaking any door or window sealed furniture or receptacle; or

c. By using false keys, picklocks or b. By taking such furniture or objects
similar tools away to be broken or forced open
d. By using any fictitious name or outside the place of robbery
pretending he exercise of public
authority
3. Once inside the building, the offender took
personal property belonging to another and
did so with intent to gain
NOTES:
Subdivision A Subdivision B
The law focuses on the manner of gaining entry The law focuses on the manner of obtaining the
here (i.e.: breaking any wall, roof… etc.); entry is article (breaking anything INSIDE the building,
controlling here i.e.: chests, wardrobes, furniture… or taking the
same OUTSIDE to force them open)
The ‘door’ contemplated here is an EXTERNAL ‘Doors’ contemplated here are internal ones, found
one within the building
Entry by any of the means under subdivision A is

The crime is theft if the offender did not enter the not required for robbery under subdivision B
building
When a thing is taken outside to be broken open, it
Any of the 4 means must be resorted to for isn’t necessary that it is actually forced open
ENTRANCE, not for getting out
The crime is estafa or theft if the thing is not forced
The whole body of the culprit must be inside the open INSIDE the building where it was being kept;
building to constitute entry or when it is taken therefrom to be broken outside
The wall must be an outside wall, not a party wall The penalty for robbery with force upon things in
or one in between rooms in a house/building an inhabited house, etc. depends on the VALUE of
the property taken and on whether or not the
The outside door must be ‘broken’, not merely offender carries arms
‘forced open’ (roflmao)
The arms carried by the offender must NOT be
‘False keys’ are genuine keys stolen from the used to intimidate, else art.294 applies
owner or any keys other than those intended by the
owner for use on the lock Note the adjectives used by the law: the furniture or
receptacle must be ‘locked or sealed’, if it isn’t
‘Picklocks’ are tools specially adopted for the locked or sealed, there is no robbery –Atty. A
commission of robbery
When the object is taken away (see: 2nd manner of
Mere possession of picklocks is punishable; even commission, under subdivision B above), there
the locksmith who made them may be held liable mere act of removing it consummates the crime
Re: false keys, the genuine key must be stolen, not

taken by force or intimidation of the owner

The false key or picklock must be used to ENTER

the building, NOT to open trunks/chests/etc. inside,
else the crime is theft
If the breaking of windows was committed on a car

(like, the dude broke the car windows), the crime is
theft, not robbery with force upon things
ART.300
ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE
AND BY A BAND
*The robbery mentioned in the next preceding article, if committed in an uninhabited place and by a band shall be
punished by the maximum period of the penalty therefor
Q: What are the 2 qualifications?

Robbery under art.299 must be committed
1. By a band, AND
2. In an uninhabited place
Q: Do these 2 have to concur?

Yes
Q: Suppose the robbery committed was by means of violence and intimidation against persons. What is the legal
effect of the presence of a band?
The presence of a band qualifies the offense
*NB: Robbery with violence or intimidation of persons must be committed either in an uninhabited place
OR by a band, in order to be qualified. Band and uninhabited place do not have to concur
ART.301
WHAT IS AN INHABITED HOUSE, PUBLIC BUILDING,
BUILDING DEDICATED TO RELIGIOUS WORSHIP
AND THEIR DEPENDENCIES
Q: What is an inhabited house?

Any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the dwelling of one or more persons, even though the inhabitants
thereof shall temporarily be absent therefrom when the robbery is committed
Q: What are dependencies?

All interior courts, corrals, warehouses, granaries, barns, coach-houses, stables or other departments or
enclosed spaces contiguous to the building or edifice, having an interior entrance connected therewith and
which form part of the whole
*NB: Requisites for dependencies –

1. Must be contiguous to the building
2. Must have an interior entrance connected therewith; and

3. Must form part of the whole
Q: What is a public building?

The term ‘public building’ includes every building owned by the government or belonging to a private
person bit used or rented by the government, although temporarily unoccupied by the same
Q: Suppose there is a house. Adjacent to it is a grocery. There is a door connecting one to the other and the
offender destroys the external grocery door and went through the connecting door into the house. Is he liable?
Yes
Q: Suppose in a public building, the accused entered through the external door, took something from inside the
building and left through the window. What crime did he commit?
Theft – he destroyed nothing, did not force entrance, used no false keys, etc.
Q: Suppose he merely reached for the valuables nearest to the open window. What crime did he commit?
Theft
Q: Suppose his entire body went through the window

Robbery
ART.302
ROBBERY IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE
OR IN A PRIVATE BUILDING

1. The offender entered an uninhabited place or building which was NOT a dwelling house or public
building or edifice devoted to worship
2. Any of the following circumstances was present:
a. Entrance was effected through an opening not intended for entrance of egress
b. A wall, roof, floor or outside door or window was broken
c. Entrance was effected through the use of false keys, picklocks or other similar tools
d. A door, wardrobe, chest or receptacle was broken
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the same is broken elsewhere
3. The offender took therefrom personal property belonging to another, with intent to gain
ART.303
ROBBERY OF CEREALS, FRUITS OR FIREWOOD
IN AN UNINHABITED PLACE OR PRIVATE BUILDING
*In the cases enumerated in arts.299 and 302, when the robbery consists in the taking of cereals, fruits or
firewood, the culprit shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed in the said articles
Q: What are cereals?

Seedlings which are immediate products of the soil
ART.304

POSSESSION OF PICKLOCKS OR
SIMILAR TOOLS

1. The offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools
2. Such picklocks or similar tools are specially adapted to the commission of robbery
3. The offender does not have lawful cause for such possession
Q: What about the person making such tools?

The same penalty applies to the maker of the tools
Q: Suppose the offender is a locksmith?

The penalty is higher (prision correccional in its medium – maximum periods)
Q: Is actual use necessary?

No
ART.305
FALSE KEYS
Q: What are included in the term ‘false keys’?

1. Picklocks or similar tools
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner
3. Any keys other than those intended by the owner for use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender
CHAPTER TWO
BRIGANDAGE
Q: What is brigandage?
Brigandage is a crime committed by more than 3 armed persons who form a band of robbers for the
purpose of committing robbery in the highways; or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or to
obtain ransom for any other purpose to be attained by means of force or violence
Q: What is punishable here?

The act of forming a band for the purpose of robbery or kidnapping for ransom, or for any other purpose
to be attained through force or violence
ART.306
WHO ARE BRIGANDS – PENALTY
Q: When is there brigandage?

When –
1. There are at least 4 armed persons
2. They formed a band of robbers
3. For any of the following purposes:
a. To commit robbery in the highways
b. To kidnap persons for ransom or extortion

c. To attain any other purpose through force or violence
Q: What is the presumption of the law as to brigandage?

All persons in the band are presumed highway robbers of brigands if any of them carries an unlicensed
firearm
NOTES:
*The law does not qualify the ‘arms’ necessary, except when the presumption as to unlicensed firearms is applied
*’Highway’ includes city streets
ART.307
AIDING AND ABETTING
A BAND OF BRIGANDS

1. There is a band of brigands
2. The offender knows the band to be of brigands
3. He does any of the following acts:
a. He in any manner aids, abets, or protects such band of brigands
b. He gives them information of the movements of the police or other peace officer of the
government
c. He acquires or receives the property taken by the brigands
Q: What is the presumption of the law as to knowledge?

The person performing the acts has done so knowingly unless the contrary is proven
HIGHWAY ROBBERY OR BRIGANDAGE

UNDER PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 532
*Highway Robbery and Brigandage:

The seizure of any person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the taking away of the
property of another by means of violence against or intimidation of persons; or force upon things, or other
unlawful means, committed by any person on any Philippine highway
*Philippine highway:
Any road, street, passage, highway and bridges, or other parts thereof, or railway/railroad within the
Philippines used by persons or vehicles or locomotives or trains for the movement or circulation of
persons or transportation of goods, articles, or property or both
*Any person who aids or protects highway robbers, or abets the commission of highway robbery/brigandage shall
be considered as an accomplice
*The same presumption applies as to knowledge, under art.307 of the RPC
CHAPTER THREE

THEFT
Q: How is theft committed?

Theft is committed by any person who, with intent to gain, but without violence against or intimidation of
persons nor force upon things, shall take personal property of another without the latter’s consent
ART.308
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR THEFT
Q: Who may be held liable for theft?

1. Those who –
a. With intent to gain
b. But without violence against persons nor force upon things
c. Take personal property belonging to another
d. Without the latter’s consent
2. Those who –
a. Having found lost property
b. Fail to deliver the same to local authorities or to its owner
3. Those who –
a. After having maliciously damaged the property of another
b. Remove or make use of the fruits or object of the damage caused by them
4. Those who –
a. Enter and enclosed state or field
b. Where trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another without the consent of its owner
c. To hunt or fish upon the same or gather fruits, cereals or other forest/farm products
Q: How is theft committed?

1. Taking of personal property
2. The personal property belongs to another
3. The taking is done with intent to gain AND without the consent of the owner
4. The taking is accomplished without the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things
Q: What does the law presume, when a person is found in possession of property not belong to him?
The law presumes theft, provided that the property must have been recently stolen
NOTES
*There is ‘taking’ even If the offender received the thing from the offended party because taking is defined with
respect to the transfer of physical possession
*’Personal property’ includes electricity and gas, promissory notes, checks and invoices
*Selling the share of a partner or joint owner is NOT theft because, before the dissolution of the partnership, the
property is owned in common, no part of that property truly belongs to a co-owner or partner
*In the sale of goods, there is theft if the goods are taken after payment but BEFORE measuring or weighing
without consent of the vendor

*Actual or REAL gain is not necessary, the law looks at anumo lucrandi (intent to gain)
*Lack of opposition is NOT consent, even if the offended party knew of the taking but did not consent to it, the
crime is still theft
*There is no robbery, (but theft instead) when violence is employed for a reason entirely foreign to the act of
taking
*Unless the force upon things is employed to ENTER the building, there is theft
*Delay in the delivery of lost property to the local authorities is immaterial when the finder surrendered it
voluntarily to the owner when the latter came to retrieve it
*Par.1, art.308 is not only limited to the actual finder, the finder in law as well (i.e.: a policeman) to whom the
actual finder surrendered the lost property is also within the scope of the provision
*The law does not require knowledge of the owner of the lost property (that his property was indeed missing), as
long as the accused knew of had reason to know that the property was lost, it was his duty to return it
*Intent to gain is inferred from deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper person
*The unlawful fishing should NOT be done in an actual fishpond, else the crime is qualified theft
*Theft is not a continuing offense
ART.309
PENALTIES
Q: What are the bases for penalties in theft?

1. The value of the thing stolen
2. The value and nature of the property taken or
3. The circumstances or causes that impelled the culprit to commit the crime
ART.310
QUALIFIED THEFT
Q: When is theft qualified?

1. If the act is committed by a domestic servant
2. If it was committed with grave abuse of confidence
3. If the property stolen is –
a. A motor vehicle
b. Mail matter
c. Large cattle
4. If the property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the plantation
5. If the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery
6. If the property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon, volcanic eruption or any other
calamity, vehicular accident or civil disturbance

NOTES
*The penalty here is 2 degrees higher
*Theft by a housemate is not always qualified
*Theft by a labour3er is not qualified theft, only simple theft
*Theft by one who had access to the place where the property is kept is qualified theft
*The confidence gravely abused must be that existing between the offended party and the offender
*Theft by an industrial partner is not qualified theft
*IMPORTANT! RE: The NOVATION THEORY (of extinguishing criminal liability in theft), according to
People v. Tanjuatco, GR. No. L-23924, April 29, 1968, the acceptance of payment by the complainant converts
the liability of the accused into a civil obligation or estops the complainant from proceeding with criminal
prosecution and this is applicable when there are contractual relations between the accused and complainant. Atty
A disagrees. ‘Does it extinguish criminal liability? No. Never. The grounds for extinguishment of criminal
liability are enumerated under Art.89, Novation is not one of them. Criminal liability inures to the act the moment
all elements are there, whether you like it or not; and the moment this happens, criminal liability may ONLY be
extinguished through the modes under art.89. Does it extinguish criminal liability before the crime is committed
or before all elements set in? No. Legally speaking, there is no crime yet, and there is nothing to be extinguished.’
– Atty. A
ANTI-CARNAPPING ACT OF 1992

RE: THEFT OF MOTOR VEHICLES
*Carnapping:
The taking with intent to gain, or a motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter’s consent, or by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons; or by use of force upon things
*Qualified Carnapping:
When in the course of the commission or on the occasion of carnapping, the owner, driver, or occupant of
the vehicle is killed or raped
ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974

RE: THEFT OF LARGE CATTLE
*Cattle rustling:
Taking away by any means, method or scheme, without the consent of the owner or raiser, of any of the
animals classified as large cattle whether or not for profit or gain or whether committed with or without
violence against or intimidation of any person or force upon things
Includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without the consent of the owner or raiser

*Presumption of cattle rustling:

Failure to exhibit required documents = prima facie evidence that the large cattle in one’s possession,
control or custody are the fruits of cattle rustling
*Large cattle:
Includes the cow, carabao, horse, mule, ass or other domesticated member of the bovine family
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE 330

RE: QUALIFIED THEFT
*Qualified Theft also includes timber smuggling from, and illegal cutting of logs in, public forest and forest
reserves

ANTI-FENCING LAW
*Fencing:
The act of any person who, with intent to fain for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in any manner deal in any article, item or
object or anything of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have been derived from the
proceeds or robbery or theft
*Presumption of Fencing:
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object or anything of value which has been the subject of
robbery or thievery = prima facie evidence of fencing
*ELEMENTS of Fencing:
1. Robbery or theft has been committed
2. The accused, who is not a principal or accomplice in the robbery/theft, buys, receives, possesses… any
article … or anything of value which has been derived from the proceeds of the said crime
3. The accused knows or should have known that the said article/thing of value has been delivered from the
proceeds of the crime of robbery/theft
4. There is, on the part of the accused, intent to gain for himself or another
ART.311
THEFT OF THE PROPERTY OF THE
NATIONAL LIBRARY AND NATIONAL MUSEUM
*If the property stolen be any property of the national library/national museum, the penalty shall be arresto
mayor/fine ranging from Php 200 – 500, or both, unless a higher penalty should be provided under other
provisions of this Code, in which case, the offender shall be punished by such higher penalty
CHAPTER FOUR
USURPATION
ART.312

OCCUPATION OF REAL PROPERTY OR

USURPATION OF REAL RIGHTS IN PROPERTY

1. Taking possession of any real property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons
2. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to another by means of violence against or intimidation of
persons
*ELEMENTS:
1. The offender takes possession of any real property or usurps any real rights in property
2. The real property/real rights belong to another
3. Violence against or intimidation of persons is used by the offender in occupying real property or usurping
real rights in property
4. There is intent to gain on the part of the offender
ART.313
ALTERING BOUNDARIES OR LANDMARKS
*ELEMENTS:
1. There are boundary marks or monuments of towns, provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to
designate the boundaries of the same
2. The offender alters the said boundary marks
CHAPTER FIVE
CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
ART.314
FRAUDULENT INSOLVENCY
*ELEMENTS:
1. The offender is a debtor, and has obligations due and payable

2. He absconds with his property
3. There is prejudice to his creditors
CHAPTER SIX
SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
ART.315
SWINDLING – ESTAFA
*This part is immensely trying – so here’s a table for ya :)
ESTAFA UNDER ART. 315

Elements of Estafa IN GENERAL:

1. The accused defrauded another
a. By abuse of confidence or
b. By means of deceit (fraudulent acts/fraudulent means)
2. Damage or Prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation is
caused to the offended party or to a third person
ESTAFA ESTAFA ESTAFA

WITH UNFAITHFULNESS OR BY MEANS OF FALSE THROUGH FRAUDULENT
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE PRETENSES OR MEANS
(Art.315, No.1) FRAUDULENT ACTS (Art.315, No.3)
(Art.315, No.2)
a) By altering the substance, a) By using fictitious name, a) By inducing another, by
quantity or quality of or falsely pretending to means of deceit, to sign any
anything of value possess power, influence, document
qualifications, property,
ELEMENTS: credit, agency, business or ELEMENTS:
1. The offender has an onerous imaginary transactions; or 1. The offender induced the
obligation to deliver by other similar deceits offended party to sign a
something of value document
2. He alters its substance, 2. Deceit is employed to make
quantity or quality him sign the document
3. Damage or prejudice is 3. The offended party signed
caused to another the document
4. Prejudice is caused
b) By misappropriating or b) By altering the quality, b) By resorting to some

converting money, goods or fineness, or weight of fraudulent practice to
any other personal property anything pertaining to his insure success in a
received in trust, or on art or business gambling game
commission or for
administration, or under any
obligation involving the duty
to make delivery of, or to
return the same; or by
denying having received
such goods/money
ELEMENTS:
1. The money goods, or other
personal property must be
received by the offender in
trust/ on commission/ for
administration/ under any
obligation involving delivery
or return of the same
2. There is misappropriation or
conversion of such money/
property by the offender; or
denial on his part of such

receipt
c) By taking undue advantage c) By pretending to have c) By removing, concealing, or

of the signature of the bribed any Government destroying any court
offended party in blank, and employee record, office files,
by writing any document document or any othe r
above such signature in blank papers
ELEMENTS: ELEMENTS:
1. The paper with the signature 1. There are court records,
of the offended party is in office files, documents or
blank any other papers
2. The offended party should 2. The offender removed,
have delivered it to the concealed or destroyed any
offender of them
3. Above the signature of the 3. The offender had intent to
offended party, a document defraud another
is written by the offender
without authority to do so
4. The document so written
creates a liability of, or
causes damage to, the
offended party or any 3rd
person
d) By postdating a check or
issuing a check in payment
of an obligation when the
offender had no funds in
the bank, or his funds
deposited therein were not
sufficient to cover the
amount of the check
ELEMENTS:
1. The offender post-dated a
check, or issued a check in
payment of an obligation
2. Such postdating or issuing a
check was done when the
offender had no funds in the
bank, or his funds deposited
therein were not sufficient to
cover the amount of the
check
e) By obtaining any food,

refreshment, or
accommodation at a hotel,
inn, restaurant, boarding

house, lodging house, or

apartment house and the
like without paying
therefor; or by obtaining
credit at the said places by
the use of false pretense; or
by abandoning or
surreptitiously removing
any part of his baggage
from the same without
paying for his food,
refreshment or
accommodation
Q: How is Damage or Prejudice inflicted?

1. The offender was deprived of his money or property as a result of fraud
2. There is a disturbance in property rights or
3. Temporary prejudice to the offended party or to a 3rd person
FORMULAE FOR DETERMINING THE COMMISSION OF ESTAFA, THEFT OR CIVIL

LIABILITY
(The Amurao Formulae)
ESTAFA Juridical Possession +
Material Possession +
Misappropriation of the property
THEFT Material Possession ONLY + Misappropriation
NO CRIME, ONLY CIVIL LIABILITY OWNERSHIP of the personal property +

Juridical Possession +
Material Possession +
Misappropriation
**NOTES:
*Understand the difference between JURIDICAL and MATERIAL possession:
1. JURIDICAL POSSESSION is the kind of possession based on, or coming from a judicial act or
transaction (this is what gives you the right to possess), i.e.: an agreement/ a contract, express or

implied, oral or written; a provision of law (like a lease, commodatum, or deposit). This is the
kind of possession that can be set up even against the actual owner of the property, a ‘better’ right
than the owner because it emanates from the law or an agreement
2. MATERIAL POSSESSION is possession that does NOT originate from a judicial act; it is an
extension of the personality of the owner (i.e.: the owner gives you instructions, commands,
orders or requests). This may not be set up against the owner of the property
*What is controlling here is the SOURCE of possession
*RE: ESTAFA, the obligation involves the ‘return of the SAME thing’. When the obligation is
facultative, therefore, there is no obligation to return that exact same thing
*Transfer of ownership is a transfer or all rights over the thing, therefore, misappropriation of the thing
carries no criminal liability, only civil liability (i.e.: co-ownership)
*When the agent acts within the scope and purpose of the agency when he sells/disposes of the thing,
there is no crime committed. If, however, there was an express prohibition NOT to employ a sub-agent,
for example, and the agent did, estafa is committed (because the agent acted beyond his scope, acted as if
he were the owner of the property, he CONVERTED the property and disregarded the terms and
conditions of the agency and the sale and acted in violation of what was agreed upon)
*RE: COMMISSON OF FRAUD VIA POSTDATING A CHECK: if this happened simultaneously with
contracting the obligation, estafa has been committed. If, however, there was already an existing
obligation when the check was issued, there is no estafa.
*RE, BATAS PAMBANSA 22 (BP 22): This is a catch-all provision, providing for criminal liability
whether or not there is a pre-existing obligation. The liability under BP 22 is SEPARATE from that under
Art.315 of the RPC.
Q: Suppose Amurao’s criminal law 2 book was borrowed by a student. Amurao allowed the student to use the
book for a week. Can he take back the book tomorrow?
No
Q: Suppose the week has passed, and you were not able to return the book. What crime did you commit?
Estafa
Q: Suppose Atty. Amurao asked you to bring his book to the dean’s office. After 2 minutes, you were called back
because Amurao decided he does not trust you. Can you refuse to return the book?
No, Atty. Amurao has a better right to possession than I do
Q: Suppose that instead of going to the dean’s office, you went to Recto and sold the book. What crime did you
commit?
Theft – I only had material possession of the thing when I misappropriated it
Q: X borrowed the book. Already anticipating that it could be lost, he asked Atty. Amurao ‘what if I can’t return
it?’, to which Amurao answered ‘As long as you give me the same book, latest edition.’ The student was not able
to return the original book. What crime did X commit?
X did not commit any crime and is liable only for civil liability, he was not under the obligation to return
the exact same book, and ownership of the original book was transferred to him

*NB: the thing that has to be returned has to be the SAME thing. If, as in this case, only a similar object is
asked in the event that the original one is lost, ownership was transferred. X practically owned the
original book and could opt to replace it with the latest edition
Q: Atty. Amurao lent you his lucky Php 1,000 bill. He has kept the same in his wallet for 15 yea rs because it has
brought him a lot of luck. Atty. Amurao told you to return the same bill and made a receipt for it, on which he
wrote down the bill’s serial number. He also made it clear that the bill was to be returned on or before Monday.
On Monday, you failed to return the bill. What crime was committed?
Estafa
Q: X asked Amurao if he could borrow the lucky bill. Amurao agreed, and told X that it would be okay if he lost
the original one and replaced it with another Php 1,000 bill. X failed to return the original bill. What crime was
committed?
None – X is only civilly liable
Q: Suppose Amurao has a driver. He handed the driver the keys to the car so he could gas up. The driver did not
return. What crime was committed?
Carnapping
*When the object of the misappropriation is a car or a motor vehicle, and the offender only had
MATERIAL possession of the thing, the crime is carnapping
Q: X borrowed Amurao’s car over the weekend to be used as a private car for X’s cousin’s wedding. The car was
not returned. What crime was committed?
Estafa – Both material and juridical possession were transferred, this is not carnapping
Q: Suppose A asked B to pay A’s business taxes, for which A gave B Php 50,000. Instead of paying for the taxes,
B spent the money for personal uses. What crime was committed?
Estafa
Q: A guardian was appointed by the court over the property of the ward. The property amounted to Php 500,000.
The guardian misappropriated Php 200,000. What crime was committed?
Estafa
Q: A sales representative of an appliance company approached B, a prospective customer. The sales

representative explained the benefits, and when B was not convinced, he allowed a one-week trial period. After
the 7 days, B failed to return the product. Was there misappropriation?
Yes
Q: Could B be liable for estafa?

No
Q: A student deposited Php 200,000 for the alleged destruction of laboratory materials in school. After the
hearing, the court found him not guilty. The school was asked to return the bills, but it returned Php 200,000 in
bills with different serial numbers. What crime was committed?
None, the school was not under the obligation to return the exact same bills, only the same amount
Q: Suppose A is the owner of several pieces of jewelry worth Php 2,000. He gave the jewelry to X to be sold on a
cash basis. Within 5 days, X was supposed to account for the proceeds of the sale. If it was not sold, he would

return the jewelry to A. X sold the jewelry on a credit basis and the buyer failed to pay on the agreed date. X
therefore failed to account for the sale. What crime was committed?
Estafa by conversion
Q: Suppose that when the jewelry was given to X, he was merely told to sell the same within 30 days and if it was
not sold, to return the same. X sold it on credit. Was the sale on credit within the scope of the authority given to
X?
Yes
Q: May X therefore be held liable for estafa?

No
Q: Suppose that instead of selling the jewelry, X gave it to a sub-agent who sold the jewelry to Y. Y could not pay
for the same on the agreed date. Is X liable for estafa?
No, there was no express prohibition against employing a sub-agent (if there was, X could be liable for
estafa)
Q: May a co-owner of a property be liable for estafa?

No
Q: What is the legal effect of Novation on criminal liability?

None, novation does not affect criminal liability (see: earlier notes on the novation theory vis-à-vis
criminal liability)
Q: ABC Corporation’s head of office is in Manila. X was assigned to Cebu to collect ABC’s accounts there. All
collectors shall have a period of 30 days to remit the collected accounts. On the 10th day, X played in a casino and
lost the entire amount. Was there misappropriation?
Yes
Q: Is X liable for estafa?

No, he still has 20 days to remit the amount
Q: Suppose that on the 20th day, X went to Manila, talked to the President of the company, and confessed. He
entered into an agreement with the President and signed a promissory note where he acknowledged his obligation
to pay, and that the amount would be deducted from his salary. After 5 days, X resigned. Was there novation?
Yes – novation arose from the agreement entered into with the President
Q: Did it extinguish the criminal liability?

No, because at the time it was entered into, all the elements of estafa were not yet present; AND even if
they were, novation is not one of the modes of extinguishing criminal liability
Q: Suppose that on December 18, the president said that the collectors have only under December 24 to remit
their collection; X did not want to leave Cebu since it was Christmas. He ended up spending the money. On
December 26, X went to Manila and talked to the president. They had an agreement, but X resigned the next day.
Is X liable for estafa?
Yes, the promissory note did not extinguis h the criminal liability and all the elements of estafa were
complete
Q: Suppose one Saturday afternoon, you went to a grocery store, purchased groceries worth Php 10,000. You did
not have enough cash with you and you also did not have enough funds in the bank but you decided to issue a

check anyway. The owner accepted the check. On Monday, the grocery store owner deposited the check and it
bounced. A demand to pay was made, and you failed to comply. What crime was committed?
Estafa – the check was issued simultaneously with the obligation
Violation of BP 22 (provided you received sufficient notice)
*separate crimes
Q: Suppose you asked the owner if you could just pay on Monday and you would be allowed to bring home the
items you sought to buy. The owner agreed. On Monday, you issued a check which bounced. A demand for
payment was made and you failed to comply. Was estafa committed?
No, at the time the check was issued, there was already a pre-existing obligation
Q: On a Saturday afternoon, you purchased groceries worth Php 10.000. You issued a check in favour of the
owner, but before the check was deposited by the latter on Monday, you went to him and told him that the check
you issued will be replaced by a new one. The owner accepted the new check, but it bounced. Is this estafa?
No, the issuance of the new check was already for a pre-existing obligation, but I could be liable for a
violation of BP 22
BATAS PAMBANSA 22
RE: BOUNCING CHECKS
Q: Who are liable?

Persons who –
1. Issue
2. Make; or
3. Draw
A bouncing check
Q: Are endorsers liable?

No
Q: Suppose a check was issued not as payment of an account but as a guaranty for an obligation. The check
bounced. Is the person who issued it liable?
Yes, mere issuance constitutes a violation of BP 22
1. Making or Drawing and Issuing any check 2. Having sufficient funds in, or credit with
to apply on account tor for value, knowing the drawee bank when the offender
at the time of issue that the makes/draws or issues a check, by failing
(maker/drawer/issuer) does not have to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
sufficient funds in or credit with the credit to cover the full amount of the check
drawee bank for the payment of such check if presented within a period of 90 days
in full upon its presentment, which check is from the date appearing thereon, for which
subsequently dishonoured for insufficiency reason it is dishonoured by the drawee
of funds/credit; or would have been bank
dishonoured for the same reason, had not
the person drawer, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment
ELEMENTS: ELEMENTS:

1. A person makes/draws of issues any check 1. A person has sufficient funds/credit when
2. The check is made/drawn/issued to apply he makes/issues/draws a check
on account or for value 2. He fails to keep sufficient funds or to
3. The person who makes/draws/issues the maintain a credit to cover the full amount
check knows at the time of issue that he of the check if presented within a period of
does not have sufficient funds/credit for the 90 days from the date appearing thereon
payment of the check upon its presentment 3. The check is dishonoured by the drawee
4. The check is subsequently dishonoured for bank
insufficiency of funds/credit; or would
have been dishonoured for the same reason
if the drawer had not, without any valid
reason, ordered the bank to stop payment
NOTES:
*The making, drawing and issuing of a check, payment of which is refused by the drawee bank because
of insufficiency of funds in or credit, is prima facie evidence of knowledge of insufficiency of
funds/credit when the check is presented within 90 days from the date on the check
*Failure to make good the payment within 5 banking days gives rise to prima facie evidence of
knowledge of the lack and insufficiency of funds
*If the check that was issued without funds is presented AFTER 90 days, the drawer/maker/issuer is not
liable
*The maker/issuer/drawer is also not liable when the he pays the holder of the check the amount due
thereon or makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee of such check within 5 banking days
after receiving notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee bank
*Prima facie evidence does not arise where notice of non-payment is not sent to the maker/drawer of the
check
*Conviction of acquittal under the Revised Penal Code is NOT a bar to prosecution under BP 22 (re:
estafa) because of the different requisites – BP 22 requires the additional fact of the drawee’s knowledge
of lack/insufficiency of funds, the RPC does not.
*Estafa by issuing a bad check is a continuing crime
Q: Suppose at the time you issued a check, you had sufficient funds. After 2 days, you sent a notice to the bank to
stop payment because the payee failed to comply with his obligation. The bank refused to honour the check. Are
you liable?
No
Q: Same facts, but this time, you did not have sufficient funds when you ordered the bank to stop payment. Are
you liable?
Yes
ART.316

OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING
*The other forms of swindling are:

1. Conveying, selling, encumbering or mortgaging any real property, and pretending to be the owner of the
same
**ELEMENTS:
a. The thing is immovable
b. The offender, who is not the owner of the property, represents that he is the owner
c. He executes an act of ownership
d. The act is made to the prejudice of the owner or a 3rd person (actual damage is necessary)
2. Disposing of real property as free from encumbrance, although such encumbrance is not recorded
**ELEMENTS:
a. The thing disposed of is real property
b. The offender knew that the real property was encumbered, whether the encumbrance is recorded or
not
c. There is express representation by the offender that the real property is free from encumbrance
d. The act of disposing of the real property is made to the damage of another
3. Wrongful taking by the owner of his property from its rightful possessor
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is the owner of personal property
b. The property is in the lawful possession of another
c. The offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful possessor
d. Prejudice is thereby caused to the possessor or to a 3rd person
4. Executing any fictitious contract to the prejudice of another

*NB: If the conveyance is real and not simulated, the crime is fraudulent insolvency under art.314
5. Accepting any compensation for services not rendered or for labour not performed
*NB: Fraud here is required, else, the arrangement is solution indebiti, and carries with it only the civil
duty to return undue payment
6. Selling, mortgaging or encumbering real property or properties with which the offender guaranteed the
fulfillment of his obligation as surety
**ELEMENTS:
a. The offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal or civil action
b. He guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with his real properties
c. He sells, mortgages, or in any other manner encumbers said real property
d. Such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is –
i. Without express authority from the court
ii. Made before the cancellation of his bond; or
i. Made before being relieved from the obligation contracted by him
ART.317
SWINDLING A MINOR
*ELEMENTS:
1. The offender takes advantage of the inexperience or emotions/ feelings of a minor

2. He induces the minor to –

a. Assume an obligation
b. Give release or
c. Execute transfer of any property right
3. The consideration is some loan of money or credit or other personal property
4. The transaction is to the detriment of the minor
ART.318
OTHER DECEITS
*Punishable Acts:
1. Defrauding or damaging another by any other deceit not mentioned in the preceding articles
2. Interpreting dreams, making forecasts, telling fortunes or taking advantage of the credulity of the public
in any other similar manner for profit or gain

RE: ARSON
ART.320
ARSON
**NB: Presidential Decree 1613 expressly repealed or amended Articles 320-326 of the Revised Penal Code, but
Presidential Decree 1744 revived Article 320
*Kinds of Arson:
1. Simple Arson (Sec.1, PD 1613)
2. Destruction Arson (Art.320, as amended by RA No.7659)
3. Other cases of arson (Sec.3, PD 1613)
PD 1613
AMENDING THE LAW ON ARSON
*Summary of Important Definitions and Salient Provisions
Arson:
-Any person who burns or sets fire to the property of another
-The same penalty shall be imposed when the person sets fire to his own property under circumstances
which expose to danger the life or property of another
-Definition: the malicious destruction of property by fire
-Conspiracy to commit arson is also punishable
Destructive Arson:
-When the property burned is –
1. Ammunitions factories or establishments where explosives/combustible materials are stored
2. Archive/museum whether public or private; any edifice devoted to culture, education and social

services
3. Any church/place of worship/ building where people usually assemble
4. Train, airplane, vessel, watercraft or conveyance for transportation of persons or property
5. Building where evidence is kept for use in any legislative, judicial or administrative or other
official proceeding
6. Hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing tenement, shopping centre, public or private
market, theatre/movie house
7. Building, whether used as a dwelling or not, situated in a populated or congested area
Other cases of arson:

-Burning any of the following –
1. Building used as offices of the government or
2. Inhabited house/ dwelling
3. Industrial establishment
4. Plantation, farm, pastureland, etc.
5. Rice/sugar or cane mill, mill central
6. Railway/ bus station, airport, wharf, warehouse
Special Aggravating Circumstances:

1. If committed with intent to gain
2. If committed for the benefit of another
3. The offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards the owner or occupant of the property
burned
4. Committed by a syndicate (planned or carried out by a group of 3 or more persons)
Prima Facie Evidence of Arson

1. The fire started simultaneously in more than one part of the building
2. A substantial amount of flammable materials are stored in the building
3. Gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or combustible substances or materials soaked
therewith, or containers thereof, or any electronic contrivance designed to start a fire or ashes or
traces of any of the foregoing are found in the ruins
4. The building or property is insured for substantially more than its actual value at the time of the
issuance of the policy
5. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance policy, more than 2 fires have occurred
in the same premises owner or under the control of the offender and/or insured
6. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the effects insured and stored in a building or
property had been withdrawn from the premises except in the ordinary course of business
7. Demand for money or other valuable consideration was made before the fire in exchange for the
desistance of the offender or for the safety of the person or property of the victim
Q: How is Arson committed, under the RPC?
ARSON OF CRIMES INVOLVING BURNING ONE’S ARSON

PROPERTY OF DESTRUCTION PROPERTY AS A
SMALL VALUE MEANS TO COMMIT
ARSON
Elements: Elements: Elements: Elements:
1. An uninhabited hut, 1. The offender causes 1. The offender set fire 1. The property

storehouse, barn, destruction of the to, or destroyed his burned is the

shed, or any other property own property exclusive property
property is burned 2. The destruction was 2. The purpose of the of the offender
2. The value of the done by means of – offender in doing so 2. The purpose of the
property burned a. Explosion was to commit arson offender in burning
does not exceed b. Discharge of or to cause great it is to defraud or
Php25.00 electric current destruction cause damage to
3. The burning was c. Inundation 3. The property another or prejudice
done at a time or d. Sinking or belonging to another is actually caused,
under circumstances stranding of a was burned or or the thing burned
which clearly vessel destroyed is a building in an
exclude all danger e. Damaging the 1.inhabited place
of the fire spreading engine of the
vessel
f. Taking up rails
from railway
track
g. Destroying
telegraph wires
and posts or
those of any
other system
h. Other similar
effective means
of destruction
NOTES
*There is no complex crime of Arson with Homicide. If by reason or on occasion of arson, death results,
the crime of Homicide is absorbed in arson
*Under RA 9372 (Human Security Act of 2007), a person who commits an act punishable under PD 1613
thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the
populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of terrorism
(sec.3, RA 9372)
CHAPTER NINE
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
ART.327
WHO ARE LIABLE FOR MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF
*Any person who deliberately causes damage to another’s property and who does not fall within the provisions of
the next preceding chapter (arson, other crimes involving destruction)
*Elements of Malicious Mischief:

1. The offender deliberately caused damage to the property of another

2. Such act does not constitute arson or other crimes involving destruction
3. The act of damaging another’s property is committed merely for the sake of damaging it
NOTES:
*Malicious mischief is the wilful damaging of another’s property for the sake of causing damage due to hate,
revenge or other evil motives
*It cannot be committed through negligence
*If no malice was involved, there is only civil liability
*If after damaging the thing, the offender used it, the crime is theft
*Damage is not an incident of the crime (as compared to, for example, breaking windows in robbery) – the act of
causing damage itself is punishable
ART.328
SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS
MISCHIEF
*Qualified Malicious Mischief:

1. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public functions
2. Using poisonous or corrosive substances
3. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle
4. Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or Library or to any archive, registry,
waterworks, road, promenade, or any other thing used in common by the public
ART.329
OTHER MISCHIEFS
*Mischiefs not included in Art.328, punished according to the value of the damage caused
ART.330
DAMAGE AND OBSTRUCTION TO
MEANS OF COMMUNICATION
*Damaging any railway, telegraph, or telephone lines
*Qualified if the damage results in any derailment of cars, collision or other accidents
ART.331
DESTROYING OR DAMAGING
STATUES, PUBLIC MONUMENTS
OR PAINTINGS

*Self-explanatory, this
CHAPTER TEN
EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABILITY IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
ART.332
PERSONS EXEMPT FROM
CRIMINAL LIABILITY
*Crimes involved:
1. Theft
2. Swindling/Estafa
3. Malicious Mischief
*Persons Exempted:
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, relatives by affinity in the same line
2. Widowed spouse who commits any of the 3 crimes above with respect to the property which belonged to
the deceased spouse before the same passed into the possession of another
3. Brothers and sisters, and brothers-in-law, sisters-in-law, if living together
NOTES
*Exemption is based on family relations
*Parties to the crime who are not related to the offended party still remain criminally liable
*Exempted persons include: stepparents, adopted children, concubine/paramour
TITLE ELEVEN
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
CHAPTER ONE
ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE
ART.333
WHO ARE GUILTY OF ADULTERY
*Persons Liable:
1. Married woman who has sexual relations with a man not her husband
2. The man who has carnal knowledge of her, knowing her to be married, even if the marriage be
subsequently declared void
*Elements:

1. The woman is married

2. She has sexual relations with a man not her husband
3. With respect to the man, he knew her to be married
NOTES
*The acquittal of one party does not operate as acquittal for the other
ART.334
CONCUBINAGE
*Modes of Commission:
1. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling
2. Having sexual relations, under scandalous circumstances, with a woman who is not the man’s wife
3. Cohabiting with her in any other place
*Elements:
1. The man is married
2. He committed any of the 3 punishable acts
3. With respect to the woman, she must know him to be married
CHAPTER TWO
RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
*NB: Art.335 on Rape was repealed by Republic Act 8353
ART.336
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
*Elements:
1. The offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness
2. The act is committed against a person of either sex
3. The act is committed under any of the following circumstances:
a. Using force or intimidation
b. The offended party is deprived of reason or is unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
d. The offended party is under 12 years old or demented
CHAPTER THREE
SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF MINORS, AND
WHITE SLAVE TRADE
*Seduction: Enticing a woman to unlawful sexual intercourse by promise of marriage or other means of
persuasion without the use of force
ART.337
QUALIFIED SEDUCTION

*2 classes:
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 and under 18 by certain persons (i.e.: person in authority, etc.)
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her ascendant regardless or her age or reputation
*Elements of seduction of virgin

1. The offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is unmarried and of good reputation
2. She is over 12, but under 18
3. The offender has sexual intercourse with her
4. The offender employs abuse of authority, confidence or relationship
*Persons Liable:
1. Those who abused their authority
a. Person in public authority
b. Guardian
c. Teacher
d. Person entrusted with the education or custody of the seduced girl
2. Those who abused confidence
a. Priest
b. House servant
c. Domestic
3. Those who abused relationship
a. Brother who seduced his sister
b. Ascendant who seduced his descendant
ART.338
SIMPLE SEDUCTION
*Elements:
1. The offender party is over 12 years old, but under 18
2. She is of good reputation, single or a widow
3. The offender has sexual intercourse with her
4. The act is done by means of deceit
ART.339
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS WITH
THE CONSENT OF THE OFFENDED PARTY
*Elements:
1. The offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness

2. The acts are committed upon a woman who is a virgin, single or widow of good reputation, under 18 but
over 12 years old; or a sister or descendant
3. The offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority, confidence, relationship or deceit
ART.340
CORRUPTION OF MINORS

*The promotion or facilitation of prostitution or corruption of persons under age to satisfy the lust of another
ART.341
WHITE SLAVE TRADE
*Punishable Acts:
1. Engaging in the business of prostitution
2. Profiting by prostitution
3. Enlisting the services of women for the purpose of prostitution
CHAPTER FOUR
ABDUCTION
*Abduction: The taking away of a woman from her house or place where she may be for the purpose of carrying
her to another place with intent to marry or corrupt her
ART.342
FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
*Elements:
1. The person abducted is any woman, regardless of age, civil status, or reputation
2. The abduction is against her will
3. The abduction is carried out with lewd designs
ART.343
CONSENTED ABDUCTION
*Elements:
1. The offended party must be a virgin
2. She must be over 12 years old, but under 18
3. The taking away must be with her consent, after solicitation or cajolery from the offender
4. The taking away must be with lewd designs
ART.344
PROSECUTION OF THE CRIMES OF ADULTERY,
CONCUBINAGE, SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION AND
ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
*Art.344 no longer covers the prosecution of Rape, as per RA 8353. Rape may now be prosecuted ex officio
*Order of preference for filing the complaint in the above mentioned crimes:
1. The offended party
2. Parents
3. Grandparents
4. Guardians

*parents, grandparents and guardians may file if the party is a minor or is incapacitated
*RE: ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE – Prosecution shall be upon a complaint filed by the offended spouse.
The offended party cannot institute criminal prosecution without including both the guilty parties, if they are both
alive, or in any case, if he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders
*RE: SEDUCTION AND ABDUCTION – Prosecution shall be upon a complaint filed by the offended party or
her parents, grandparents, or guardian. No prosecution if the offender has been expressly pardoned by the above -
named person
*RE: SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION, ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS – The marriage of the offender with the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or remit the penalty already imposed upon him
*The complaint must be –

1. Subscribed to by the offended party and
2. Filed in court, not with the fiscal
*Silence or acquiescence of the offended party does not cure the defect of lack of subscription nor operate to
confer jurisdiction of the court
*Pardon must come BEFORE the institution of criminal action and BOTH offenders must be pardoned
*Prior consent bars the institution of criminal proceedings, subsequent consent bars it too
*Condonation is NOT synonymous with pardon; Condonation does not bar subsequent complaints
*Only the offended party may pardon, except in cases where the offended minor is dead or incapacitated
*Marriage of the parties guilty of adultery/concubinage does not extinguish criminal liability because both parties
are offenders
ART.345
CIVIL LIABILITY OF PERSONS GUILTY OF CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
1. To indemnify the offended woman

2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law should prevent him from doing so
3. In every case, to support the offspring
*The adulterer and the concubine can be sentenced to indemnify the offended spouse for damages
*There is no civil liability for acts of lasciviousness
*In multiple rape, all the accused must support the offspring
ART.346
LIABILITY OF ASCENDANTS, GUARDIANS,
TEACHERS OR OTHER PERSONS
ENTRUSTED WITH THE CUSTODY OF THE

OFFENDED PARTY
*Accomplices punished as principals in private crimes:

1. Ascendants
2. Guardians
3. Curators
4. Teachers
5. Any other person who cooperates as an accomplice with abuse of authority or confidential relationship
TITLE TWELVE
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
CHAPTER ONE
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
ART.347
SIMULATION OF BIRTHS, SUBSTITUTION
OF ONE CHILD FOR ANOTHER AND
CONCEALMENT OR ABANDONMENT OF
A LEGITIMATE CHILD
*Punishable Acts:
1. Simulation of birth
2. Substitution of one child for another
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent to cause such child to lose its civil status
*The fact that the child will be benefited by the simulation of its birth is not a defence
*Requisites for concealing or abandoning a legitimate child:

1. The child must be legitimate
2. The offender conceals or abandons such child
3. The offender has the intent to cause such child to lose its civil status
ART.348
USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
*Committed by assuming the filiation or parental or conjugal rights of another for the purpose of defrauding the
offended party of his heirs
*’Civil Status’ includes one’s public station, profession, the rights, duties, capacities and incapacities which
determine a person to a given class
*There must be intent to enjoy the rights arising from the civil status of another, else the crime is assuming or
using a fictitious name under art.178 or estafa under art.315
*The purpose of defrauding the offended party of his heirs qualifies the crime

CHAPTER TWO
ILLEGAL MARRIAGES
Art.349
BIGAMY
*Elements:
1. The offender has been legally married
2. The marriage has not been legally dissolved or in case of an absentee spouse, that spouse could not yet be
presumed dead according to the civil code
3. He contracts a 2nd or subsequent marriage
4. The subsequent marriage has all the essential requisites for validity
*The 2nd spouse is not necessarily liable for bigamy
*Bigamy is not a private crime
*A person convicted of bigamy may still be prosecuted for concubinage
ART.350
MARRIAGE CONTRACTED AGAINST
PROVISIONS OF LAWS
*Elements:
1. The offender contracted marriage
2. He knew at the time that –
a. The requirements of the law were not complied with; or
b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment
*Qualifying: If either of the contracting parties obtains the consent of the other by means of violence,
intimidation, or fraud
*The offender must not be guilty of bigamy
ART.351
PREMATURE MARRIAGES
*Persons Liable:
1. Any widow who married within 301 days from the death of her husband, or before having delivered if she
is pregnant at the time of his death
2. A woman who, her marriage having been annulled or dissolved, married before her delivery or before the
expiration of the period of 301 days after the date of the legal separation
*Ratio: Preventing confusion in connection with filiation and paternity
*The period may be disregarded if the first husband was sterile or impotent

*The period applies only to women who are not pregnant. If they are, the prohibition is good only until delivery
ART.352
PERFORMANCE OF ILLEGAL MARRIAGE CEREMONY
*Persons Liable: Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect or civil authorities who shall perform
or authorize any illegal marriage ceremony
*The offender must be authorized to solemnize marriage else, the liability is for Art.177 (usurpation of authority
or official functions)
TITLE THIRTEEN
CRIMES AGAINST HONOUR
CHAPTER ONE
LIBEL
SECTION ONE – DEFINITION, FORMS AND PUNISHMENT OF THE CRIME
ART.353
DEFINITION OF LIBEL
*A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonour, discredit or contempt of a natural or
juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead
*Defamation: includes liber and slander, means the offense of injuring a person’s character, fame, or reputation
through false and malicious statements
*Libel: Defamation committed by means of writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph, painting
or theatrical or cinematographic exhibition or any similar means
*Oral defamation = slander
*Seditious libel is punished under art.142
*Elements of Defamation
1. Imputation of –
a. A crime
b. A vice or defect – real or imaginary
c. Any act or omission, status of circumstance
2. The imputation is made publicly
3. It must be malicious
4. It is directed at a natural or juridical person or one who is dead
5. It tends to cause the dishonour, discredit or contempt of the person defamed

*The meaning of the writer is immaterial, it is the meaning CONVEYED to the minds of persons of reasonable
understanding that the law looks at, taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances
*Even if intended for humour, it could still be libellous
*Imputation of criminal intent is NOT libellous
*There is no crime if the imputation is not published; publication being communication of the defamatory matter
to some 3rd persons
*MALICE IN FACT: may be shown by proof of ill-will, or purpose to injure; express malice
*MALICE IN LAW: presumed from a defamatory imputation; proof of malice is not required because it is
presumed to exist by the law
*Where the communication is privileged, malice is not presumed from the defamatory words; the prosecution
must prove malice whenever the imputation appears in a privileged communication
*Even if the publication is injurious, the presumption of malice in law disappears upon proof of good intention
and justifiable motive
*But where malice in fact is present, justifiable motive cannot exist and the imputations become actionable
*Identification of the offended party is required; it isn’t sufficient that the offended party recognized himself as
the attacked or defamed; it must be shown that at least a 3rd person could identify him as the object of the libelous
publication
*Where the article is impersonal on its face and interpretation of its language does not single out individuals, the
requisite of identification is missing and defamation does not exist
*BUT the publication need not refer to the offended party by name; it is sufficient that the offended party is the
person meant or alluded to therein
*Defamatory remarks directed at a group of persons is not actionable unless the statements are all-embracing or
are sufficiently specific for the victims to be identifiable
*Liber published in different parts may be taken together to establish the identity of the offended party
*INNUENDO: a clause in the indictment or other pleading containing an averment which is explanatory of some
preceding word or statement; defines the defamatory meaning which the plaintiff set on the words, to show how
they came to have that meaning and also to show how they relate to the plaintiff
*In libel, there are as many offenses as there are persons defamed
ART.354
REQUIREMENT FOR PUBLICITY
*Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even if it be true, if no good intention and justifiable
motive for making it is shown, except in the following cases:

1. A private communication made by any person to another in the performance of any legal, moral, or social
duty; and
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any comments or remarks of any judicial, legislative,
or other official proceeding which are not of confidential nature, or of any statement, report or speech
delivered in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by public officers in the exercise of their
functions
*IS TRUTH A DEFENCE IN LIBEL?

NO. Generally speaking, truth is NOT a defence in libel. An offender may NOT invoke ‘truth’ as a
defence in libel, because libel is a punishable act wherein the law looks at the EFFECT TO THE MINDS
OF THE PUBLIC (i.e.: whether the publication has stigmatized the offended party in the eyes of the
public), and NOT at the intrinsic value of the publication (i.e.: whether it was truthful or otherwise)
NOTE however, that the law enumerates specific instances when truth may be invoked as a defence
(SEE: ART.361)
*Malice in law is presumed from every defamatory imputation, EVEN IF it were true, the presumption still exists
if no good intention and justifiable motive for making it is shown
*Rebutting the Presumption of Malice:

Defendant must show that –
1. The defamatory imputation is true, in case the allows proof of the truth of the imputation (see: No.2,
art.354 re: ‘fair and true report’)
2. It is published with good intention; and
3. There is justifiable motive for making it
*RE: PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION:
ABSOLUTE PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION CONDITIONAL OR QUALIFIED PRIVILEGED

COMMUNICATION
NOT actionable, EVEN IF its author has acted in Those which, although containing defamatory
bad faith imputations, would not be actionable UNLESS
made with malice or bad faith
i.e.: statements by members of Congress in the
discharge of their functions; answers given by There is malice when the defamer has been
witnesses in reply to questions propounded to prompted by ill-will or spite and speaks not in
them; allegations or statements made by the parties response to duty, but merely to injure the reputation
or their counsels in their pleadings of the person defamed
Scope: narrow and practically limited to legislative If the case is not covered by absolute privilege, it
and judicial proceedings and other acts of state, may be tested in the light of the qualified privilege
including communications made in the discharge of extended to a private communication made by
duty under express authority of law, by or to heads person to another in the performance of any legal,
of executive departments and matters involving moral or social duty
military affairs
Lost by proof of malice
*Communication in par.1, art.354 need not be in a private document

*The privileged communication covers also complaints against individuals who are not public officers, like
priests
*REQUISITES OF PRIVILEGED COMMUNICATION (Par.1, Art.354)

1. The person who made the communication had a legal, moral or social duty to make the communication,
or at least, had an interest to be upheld
2. The communication is addressed to an officer or board or superior having some interest or duty in the
matter
3. The statements in the communication are made in good faith and without malice
*RE: privileged communication in the performance of a legal duty, presupposes a provision of law conferring
upon the accused the duty to communicate; if there is no provision of law, there is no duty to communicate, and
the communication is therefore not privileged
*RE: moral duty, the existence of a moral duty depends upon the relationship between the giver and receiver of
the communication and whether the said communication is voluntarily given or not; i.e.: complaints against
priests to their superiors
*RE: social duty, this also depends upon the relationship between the sender and recipient
*Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith
*That the statement is privileged is a matter of defence that must be established by the accused
*Overcoming the defence of privileged communication:

Prosecution must prove that –
1. The defendant acted with malice in fact
2. There is no reasonable ground for believing the charge to be true
*Even when the statements are found to be false, if there is probable cause for belief in their truthfulness and the
charge is made in good faith, the mantle of privilege may still cover the individual’s mistake
*REQUISITES OF A FAIR AND TRUE REPORT (Par.2, Art.354)

1. It is a fair and true report of a judicial, legislative or other official proceeding which are NOT of a
confidential nature; or a statement/speech/report delivered in said proceeding, or of any other act
performed by a public official in the exercise of his functions
2. It is made in good faith
3. It is without any comments or remarks
*The communication made in the report must be pertinent and material to the subject matter in which the author
claims an interest to uphold
*The protection of the privilege may be lost by the MANNER of its exercise
*Only matters which are NOT of confidential nature may be published
*Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct of public officers which are related to the discharge of their
official duties will not constitute libel if the defendant proves the truth of the imputation; this concerns matters of
PUBLIC INTEREST, where the imputation is based on this, the presumption of criminal intent does NOT arise

from the mere publication of defamatory matter; in order that a discreditable imputation to a public official may
be actionable, it must either be a false allegation of fact or a comment based on false supposition
*Retaliation or vindictiveness cannot be a basis of self-defence in defamation
*The defamatory statements made by the accused must be a fair answer to the libel made by the supposed
offended party and must be related to the imputation made the answer should be unnecessary libelous
ART.355
LIBEL BY MEANS OF WRITING OR SIMILAR MEANS
*Libel may be committed by means of –

1. Writing
2. Printing
3. Lithography
4. Engraving
5. Radio
6. Phonograph
7. Painting
8. Theatrical exhibition
9. Cinematographic exhibition
10. Any similar means
*Defamation made through an amplifier is not libel but oral defamation
ART.356
THREATENING TO PUBLISH AND OFFER TO PREVENT SUCH PUBLICATION
FOR A COMPENSATION
*Punishable Acts:
1. Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his parents, spouse, child or other members of
his family
2. Offering to prevent the publication for compensation or monetary consideration
*Blackmail: any unlawful extortion of money by threats of accusation or exposure
*Felonies where blackmail is possible:

1. Light threats (art.288)
2. Threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the publication of a libel for compensation (art.356)
ART.357
PROHIBITED PUBLICATION OF ACTS REFERRED TO IN THE COURSE OF
OFFICIAL PROCEEDINGS
*Elements:
1. The offender is a reporter, editor, or manager of a newspaper daily or magazine
2. He publishes facts connected with the private life of another

3. Such facts are offensive to the honour, virtue and reputation of said person
*The prohibition applies even if the facts are involved in official proceedings
*GAG LAW (art.357): newspaper reports on cases pertaining to adultery, divorce, issues about the legitimacy of
children will necessarily be barred from publication
*The reporter, etc. may NOT, however, be compelled to reveal the source of the news report unless the Court/
House Committee of Congress finds it to be demanded by the security of the State
ART.358
SLANDER
*Slander: oral defamation; libel committed by oral or spoken means instead of in writing
*Factors that determine the gravity of Oral Defamation:

1. Expressions used
2. Personal relation of the accused and the offended party
3. Circumstances surrounding the case
4. Social standing or position of the offended party
*The slander need not be personally heard by the offended party
ART.359
SLANDER BY DEED
*Elements:
1. The offender performs any act not included in any other crime against honour
2. Such act is performed in the presence of other persons
3. Such act casts dishonour, discredit or contempt upon the offended party
*Slander by deed refers to slander BY PERFORMANCE, not by the use of words – written or spoken
SECTION TWO – GENERAL PROVISIONS
ART.360
PERSONS RESPONSIBLE
*Persons liable for crimes against honour:

1. Person who publishes, exhibits or causes the publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing or
similar means
2. Author or editor of a book or pamphlet
3. Editor or business manager of a daily newspaper, magazine or serial publication
4. The owner of the printing plant which publishes a libelous article with his consent and all other persons
who in any way participated in, or have connection with its publication

*If the crime imputed is one that cannot be prosecuted publicly (i.e.: adultery), offended party must file the
complaint; the information filed by the fiscal is not sufficient to clothe the court with jurisdiction
ART.361
PROOF OF THE TRUTH
*When proof of truth is admissible:

1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime regardless of whether the offended party is a
private or public individual
2. When the offended party is a government employee, even if the act or omission imputed does not
constitute a crime, provided it is related to the discharge of his official duties
*RE: public officers, when the imputation involves the private life of a government employee, which is NOT
related to the discharge of his official duties, the offender is not allowed to prove the truth of it as a matter of
defence
*Proof of truth must rest upon POSITIVE, DIRECT evidence, upon which a definite finding may be made by the
court; but PROBABLE CAUSE for belief in the truth of the statement is sufficient
*Retraction may mitigate the damages
*That the publication was made as an honest mistake only serves to mitigate the damages and is not a complete
defence
ART.362
LIBELOUS REMARKS
*Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter privileged under the provisions of art.354, if made
with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof, nor the editor of a newspaper from criminal liability
CHAPTER TWO
INCRIMINATORY MACHINATIONS
ART.363
INCRIMINATING INNOCENT PERSON
*Elements:
1. The offender performs an act
2. By such act he directly incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime
3. The act does not constitute perjury
*Art.363 is limited to ‘planting’ evidence and the like, which do not in themselves constitute false prosecutions
but tend to directly cause false prosecutions
ART.364

INTRIGUING AGAINST HONOUR
*Committed by fomenting any intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honour or reputation of
a person
*Includes in its scope any scheme or plot which consists of some trickery for the above-defined purpose
*Gossiping, which is done by availing directly of spoken words = Defamation, NOT intriguing against honour
*Where the source of the information given can be pinpointed and definitely determined, and it passes from one
to another for the purpose of causing dishonour, the crime is Slander
*But where the source or the author of the derogatory information cannot be determined and the defendant
borrows that information and without subscribing to the truth thereof, passes it to others, the crime is intr iguing
against honour
ART.365
IMPRUDENCE AND NEGLIGENCE
*Four ways of commission:

1. By committing through reckless imprudence any act which, had it been intentional, would constitute a
grave or less grave or light felony
2. By committing through simple imprudence or negligence an at which would otherwise constitute a grave
or a less serious felony
3. By causing damage to the property of another through reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or
negligence
4. By causing through simple imprudence or negligence some wrong, which if done maliciously, would
have constituted a light felony
*RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE: voluntarily, but WITHOUT malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the person performing or failing
to perform such act, taking into consideration his employment or occupation, degree of intelligence, physical
condition and other circumstances regarding persons, time and place
*SIMPLE IMPRUDENCE: consists in the lack of precaution displayed in those cases wherein the damage
impending to be caused is not immediate nor the danger clearly manifest
*If the act performed would NOT constitute a felony (grave/less grave/light) under any other provision of the
Code which defines intentional felony, art.365 is not applicable. There is no crime committed.
*Imprudence or negligence is NOT a crime in itself, but rather a way of committing one; it merely determines a
lower degree of criminal liability and becomes punishable ONLY when it results in a felony
*Criminal negligence is a quasi-offense, dealt with separately from wilful offenses; what is principally penalized
is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the dangerous recklessness, the lack of care or foresight
*Imprudence: deficiency of ACTION; failure in PRECAUTION
*Negligence: deficiency of PERCEPTION; failure in ADVERTENCE

*Elements of Reckless Imprudence :

1. The offender does or fails to do an act
2. The doing of/failure to do that act is voluntary
3. It is without malice
4. Material damage results
5. There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part of the offender, taking into consideration –
a. His employment or occupation;
b. Degree of intelligence, physical condition;
c. Other circumstances regarding persons, time and place
*Criminal Negligence presupposes lack of intention to commit the wrong done, but that it came about due to
imprudence on the part of the offender
*Elements of Simple Imprudence :

1. There is a lack of precaution on the part of the offender
2. The damage impending to be caused is not immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest
*Art.64 relative to mitigating and aggravating circumstances is NOT applicable to crimes committed through
negligence; courts shall exercise sound discretion by judging on a case-by-case basis
*Contributory Negligence is NOT a complete defence, it merely mitigates criminal liability
*Doctrine of Last Clear Chance : In accordance with this, the contributory negligence of the injured party will
not the defeat the action if it is shown that the accused might have avoided the consequences of the negligence of
the injured party by the exercise of reasonable care and prudence
*Emergency Rule: An accused who, by the negligence of another and not by his own negligence, is suddenly
placed in an emergency and compelled to act instantly to avoid injury is not guilty of negligence if he makes such
a choice which a person of ordinary prudence placed in such a position might make, even though he did not make
the wisest choice
*Failure to lend help is a qualifying circumstance
We all had our shares of 1 and 65

We all had our bokyas but we survived
Hope that this lecture notes helped you a bit
Good luck with the grade that you will receive
Pass or fail, continue with your dreams
and do not quit!!
-ate em -
Please share, and you may revise but don’t forget to give credits to the ff:
*ate dei and dyan catapang – 2006 criminal law II amurao notes
*josh villena – 2007 criminal law I amurao notes
*em quinto – 2008 criminal law II amurao notes
*xina acosta and tin dabu – 2010 amurao criminal law review
*em quinto – 2011 amurao criminal law review
*kimiko dizon – 2011 amurao criminal law II


2012 Atty Amurao Crim2

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

2012 Atty Amurao Crim2

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW II Page 1 of 226

Atty. Amurao Lecture Notes emquinto 2008-2009

ART. 114 Treason

Q: Who may commit treason?

Q: Filipino citizen, where may he commit treason?

Q: Does this not violate the principle of territoriality?

Q: What is the principle of territoriality?

Q: why is it that a Filipino citizen may commit treason even if abroad?

Q: As far alien is concerned, where may he commit treason?

Q: Why? Does an alien owe allegiance to the Philippines?

Additional Notes and Revisions from:

Yes, he does. But the allegiance he owes to the state is temporary.

Q: What do you mean by ‘temporary’?

Q: But doesn’t ‘residence’ entail a longer period of time?

Q: How is treason committed?

Q: Levying war, how committed?

Q: can this be committed by just one person?

Additional Notes and Revisions from:

Q: is it necessary that this assembly of men be armed?

Q: What do you mean by adhere?

Q: What is giving aid?

Q: Why “no” will it not strengthen them?

Q: Is it enough that there be 2 witness?

Additional Notes and Revisions from:

Q: Ways of proving treason:

b. Confession of the accused in open court. Arraignment, pre-trial, trial – OK.

Additional Notes and Revisions from:

*Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by extra-judicial confession of the accused

*Actual hostilities may determine the date of the commencement of war

Additional Notes and Revisions from:

*Adherence may be proved by:

Q: In the prosecution for treason, what is necessary to secure a conviction?

Q: How is compliance with the with the 2-witness rule achieved?

Q: Is it necessary that those 2 witnesses testify to the same overt act?

Q: You mean to say ‘proof beyond reasonable doubt’ is not enough?

Q: Is a plea of ‘guilty’ mitigating in treason?

Additional Notes and Revisions from:

Q: When should this plea be made?

Q: What is the legal effect of a plea of guilty?

Q: Does the two-witness rule apply in proving adherence?

Additional Notes and Revisions from:

*Treason cannot be proved by circumstantial evidence or by extra-judicial confessions

Art. 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to commit treason

Q: What are the ELEMENTS:

Q: Elements of Proposal To Commit Treason

*Mere agreement and decisions to commit treason is punishable

Art 116. Misprision of Treason

Q: Is conspiracy to commit crime punishable?

Q: Is there any exception?

Q: Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason, how is this committed?

Q: Why do you think it is punishable?

Q: Will the two witness rule apply?

Additional Notes and Revisions from:

Q: Who may commit misprision of treason?

Q: Can this be committed by a resident alien?

Q: Does this violate the principle of generality?

Q: What is the principle of generality?

Q: What is concealed in misprision of treason?

Q: Who are the authorities should be disclosed?

Q: how soon should the disclosure be made?

November 19, 2008

Art. 117. Espionage