Callejo

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW LECTURE NOTES Page 1 of 60
Justice Callejo | 4A | I-2009 CG Meneses
Specific Intent – lewd design, i.e., intent to gain, intent to kill;

DISCLAIMER: READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. Case titles and/or citations may be wrong. Other presumed from crimes which require specific intent as an element of
information may be also be wrong or incomplete. For corrections and additions, inform me
ASAP.
the crime
Requirement for Crimes by Omission

5 July 2009 Positive duty under the law which mandates offender to do
something, and he deliberately refuses to do such duty
BOOK I
Felony by omission may be committed by culpa Art. 365 applies
Art. 3 i.e., misprision of treason, failure to render accounts, failure to issue
FELONY BY DOLO receipts, prevaricacion
Mens rea – physical act / overt act MISTAKE OF FACT

Mens reum – mental act voluntariness, intelligence People v. Ah Chong
Crime committed BUT no criminal liability
Without mental act, Art. 11 comes in Absolutory cause
Available only in felony by DOLO because act was deliberate
Overt act punishable by RPC – in Lizada ruling preparatory acts
There is no such defense as MISTAKE OF LAW
DELIBERATE INTENT
Intent – state of the mind; a determination to do an act or omission; People v. Oanis
purpose of the mind, including knowledge Crime cannot exist when the will does not concur
Negligence no mistake of fact
Deliberate – with malice; with knowledge that act or omission is a
crime MOTIVE
Not an element of the felony
Presumption of Criminal Intent – rebuttable Important in cases when the identity of the perpetrator is NOT clear
Also IMPORTANT WHEN THE CRIME IS POLITICAL IN NATURE
Accidental – without intervention of human free will
FELONY BY CULPA
People v. Ojeda, 430 S 436
Concurrence of intelligence, voluntariness, and intent Must be voluntary
Act which is malicious continues up to the consummation of the crime Mind is free to act
Difference act is incident to imprudence, negligence, lack of
General or Specific Intent foresight, or lack of skill
General Intent – presumed on acts which fall under dolo
Quizon v. Justice, 97 P 342
Reckless imprudence is a distinct felony by itself
Malum prohibitum, as element of estafa (Art. 315)

People v. Delos Santos
Culpa – by Art. 3 and Art. 48 Bouncing Checks Law (BP Blg. 22)
Article 365 DOES NOT ALWAYS APPLY Large –Scale Illegal Recruitment – two offenses for same delictual act
i.e., Art. 217, infidelity in the custody of prisoners; frustrated felonies
People v. Patalinghug, 318 S 116 Art. 4

Also, NO CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT NEGLIGENCE Liability exists even if crime committed be different that that which
was intended THE LAW IS AFTER THE RESULT
ERROR IN PERSONAE
People v. Nepomuceno, 298 S 450 Liability FOR WHAT WAS COMMITTED, NOT WHAT WAS
Intentional felony NOT culpable felony – deliberate intent or act is INTENDED
inconsistent with reckless imprudence
Error in personae
MALA IN SE Aberratio ictus
Generally, all felonies in the RPC Praeter intentionem
Criminal intent is required
Article 4(1) presupposes an intentional act; thus, INCONSISTENT
MALA PROHIBITA WITH CULPA
Punished by special penal laws
EXCEPT when act is patently immoral, or when intended otherwise Proximate Cause
by Congress, i.e., plunder under RA No. 7080 Presumption of knowing all natural and logical consequences of an
(Estrada v. Sandiganbayan) act
The cause of the cause of the evil caused
What if law requires special intent?
See RA No. 8294, possession of illegal firearms – lack of intent to Implied conspiracy
possess Instantaneous acts
Anti-Fencing Law – lack of knowledge that item was stolen; lack of Lack of specific intent
intent to gain
Death – presumption of INTENT TO KILL; automatic liability for
People v. Comadre homicide
RA no. 8294 amended Art. 14 of the RPC
In the crime of homicide or murder, use of unlicensed firearms an
aggravating circumstance
Trust Receipts Law (PD No. 115)

Art. 5 People v. Apolinar, 38 OG 2___
Administrative Circular on Bouncing Checks Law by the SC for People v. Narvaez

alternative penalties – imprisonment OR fine depending on gravity of Property right in relation to Art. 249 of the Civil Code, also in relation
circumstances to Art. 11 of the RPC
Libel – AM No. 08-2008 Justice Callejo: one may only be justified in killing another when in
defense of property, assault is committed on the person
Brillante v. CA, 474 S 480
People v. Veneracion DEFENSE OF RELATIVES
People v. Parazo People v. Bates, 403 S 95
If relative being defended provoked the offended party, person
defending may invoke self-defense if he did not know of such fact
Art. 6
What rights are covered?
In crimes against persons – TO BE FRUSTRATED, WOUND MUST People v. Rebutado, 417 S 393
BE MORTAL (FATAL) to produce all acts of execution Right to life, right to honor, right to property
When is the wound mortal? STATE OF NECESSITY

Depends on the doctor medical opinion Ty v. People, 439 S 420
State of necessity must not be brought about by the overt acts or
Lazaro v. People negligence of the offender, otherwise, Art. 365 comes into play
Depends on the circumstances – DO NOT RELY ON THE INITIAL
WOUND FULFILLMENT OF DUTY
With self-defense – see Cabanlig v. Sandiganbayan
13 July 2009 OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR ORDER

Nassif v. People, 73 P 69
Art. 11 Private individuals CAN INVOKE obedience to superior order
State v. Green, 110 SE 145

Simpson v. State, 59 Ala 1 Art. 12
DEFENSE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS EXEMPTIONS

According to Supreme Court of Spain, allowed only when there is an
assault to the person entrusted with the care or custody of the Ortega v. People, 20 Aug 2008
property, i.e., the lawful owner or possessor
Complete absence of intelligence, no intent, no negligence, no free If, however, THERE IS CONSPIRACY, NO MITIGATION under this
will circumstance
RA No. 9344 – minority is presumed Treachery – mode or manner of execution

Praeter Intentionem – status of the mind of the author
Art. 266-A the fact that victim is a minor may be proved by means
without RA No. 9344 People v. Galacgac
People v. Flores
ACCIDENT
No fault attributable to offender SUFFICIENT PROVOCATION
No negligence, no intent OTHERWISE, EXEMPTION WILL NOT Oriente v. People
APPLY Provocation must be SUFFICIENT and IMMEDIATELY PRECEDED
the act
IRRESISTIBLE FORCE
People v. Tami, 234 S 1 People v. Labeo, 424 P 484
UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR Gotis v. People, 533 S 431

Asehas III v. People, 493 S 292 While an act may not constitute unlawful aggression, the same act
With respect to entrapment/instigation may be considered as sufficient provocation
People v. Oyanib, 406 P 651 Passion and Obfuscation AND Immediate Vindication
Art. 247 is an absolutory cause, not merely mitigating People v. Diokno
If arising from the same act, ONLY ONE may be appreciated
People v. Austria, 27 June 2000
Pelonia v. People, 521 S 207
Art. 13 IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

Provocation
MITIGATION People v. Alquiza, 62 P 611
Need not be in words, but also in actions
PRAETER INTENTIONEM
People v. Espejo, 36 S 400 Grave Offense
If two or more persons conspire, but one of the accused DID NOT People v. Ruiz
INTEND to do some of the acts done, the latter accused is entitled to No relation to classification of offenses MAY NOT EVEN BE A
this circumstance AS LONG AS HE DID NOT KNOW OF THE CRIME
COMMISSION OF THE GRAVE WRONG Depends on:
1. Social standing of the offended
2. Place, time, occasion
3. Insult of the accused ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES
Bacabac v. People, 532 S 557 People v. Tabamo, Jr.

Act of hitting with a bamboo stick IS NOT a grave offense Extreme poverty is NOT among the mitigating circumstances
Immediate People v. Doca

In the Spanish Penal Code – proxima, or proximate Lack of education or instruction is NOT MITIGATING IF THERE IS
DISCERNMENT OR INTELLIGENCE
People v. Ignas, 412 S 311
No immediate vindication if accused has time to recover serenity People v. Lasparda, 93 S 698
Lack of education or instruction CANNOT BE APPRECIATED in
People v. Matbagun, 60 P 887 murder or homicide since killing is always wrong
PASSION AND OBFUSCATION People v. Belaro, 307 S 611

People v. Bello, 10 S 298
Must arise from legitimate or lawful sentiments
20 July 2009
VOLUNTARY SURRENDER
Appreciation is not depended on where accused surrenders Art. 14
People v. Quimpo TREACHERY

Tabalos v. People People v. Antonio, 390 P 989
Applies to malversation No treachery if decision to attack was arrived at at the spur of the
If public officer returned money malversed or misappropriated by him moment
BEFORE being charged or before the institution of the criminal action
People v. Guzman, 423 P 600
VOLUNTARY PLEA OF GUILTY Mere suddenness of the attack does not by itself suffice to appreciate
People v. Calpito, 416 S 491 treachery, even if there was intent to kill, and the helpless position of
May be appreciated even if accused offers in evidence other the victim was merely accidental
mitigating circumstances
CRUELTY
People v. Noble, 77 P 93 People v. Sitchon, 428 P 82
People v. Magallanes, 275 S 222 Nature of cruelty lies in the fact that the culprit enjoys and delights in
making the victim suffer, which is unnecessary to the commission of
PHYSICAL DEFECTS/ILLNESS the crime
People v. Antonio, Jr., 431 S 425
Psychosis is mitigating
People v. Valdez, 350 S 189 People v. Gonzales, 117 P 166

There is cruelty when accused enjoyed and delighted in the Where accused falsified several documents/vouchers THERE ARE
commission of the offense AS MANY CRIMES AS VOUCHERS FALSIFIED
UNLICENSED FIREARMS – RA NO. 8294 Lastrilla v. Granda, 421 S 324***

People v. Mendoza, 18 Jan 1999 Where accused falsified 3 deeds of absolute dale for different parcels
SC applied RA No. 8294 homicide and murder as generic of land on the same day and same occasion, and forged signatures of
the alleged vendor/grantor AS MANY CRIMES AS DOCUMENTS
BUT NOTE People v. Ladjaalam FALSIFIED
Attempted homicide NOT included in “homicide” in RA No. 8294
In crimes other than homicide or murder, use of unlicensed firearms Falsification in two modes:
is NOT AGGRAVATING 1. Falsified signature (forged)
2. Antedated deeds to time when vendor was alive
30 July 2009 People v. Abalos, 389 S __

There are as many crimes as documents falsified, BUT ONLY ONE
Art. 48 CRIME FOR EACH MODE COMMITTED
COMPLEX CRIMES Gamboa v. CA***

Gamboa was an employee, a purchaser, of an optical company, who
One location, one occasion single intent/impulse collected purchases. He then deposits his collections in his own
Different locations, different occasions single act FOR EACH name.
How many crimes of estafa?
BUT NOTE People v. Bacungay, 428 P 798 THERE ARE AS MANY CRIMES OF ESTAFA AS WITHDRAWALS
Kidnapping is moved by a specific intent, SO THAT THERE ARE AS AND USE IN ONE’S NAME since deposits and withdrawals occurred
MANY CRIMES AS PERSONS KIDNAPPED on different dates, thus, separate and independent crimes of estafa.
THE WITHDRAWAL IS A COMPLETE FELONY BY ITSELF. This is
not a case of delito continuado BECAUSE IT IS NOT A PART OF A
3 August 2009 SERIES OF ACTS.
People v. Peñas, 66 P 682 Ilagan v. CA, 239 S 575

Where accused falsified 3 postal money orders with different payess Ilagan was an employee of a real estate company given authority to
and encashed all on the same day ONLY ONE CRIME – SINGLE sell, BUT NOT THE AUTHORITY TO COLLECT. He then devotes to
PURPOSE his own use the collections.
Justice Callejo: note the abuse of confidence
How many crimes of estafa?
AS TO HOME/LOT OWNERS – as many crimes of estafa, with 1. It is not possible to determine who among them killed the
deceit, as collections made victim (see Pineda, Lawas)
AS TO EMPLOYER – one count of estafa, since he is supposed to 2. The accused showed a SINGLE criminal impulse (but see Art.
account for ALL collections at any one time when demanded; this is 48, which is clear)
estafa with abuse of confidence 3. There was conspiracy
Justice Callejo: note that in Gamboa and Ilagan, the SC did not apply Justice Callejo: the reason of conspiracy is enough
the single resolution test
People v. Dalmacio, 426 P 563, citing People v. Pineda
People v. Lawas Where accused used armalites, grenades, and explosives
Where 50 Maranaos were gunned down Ruling: Art. 48 is not applicable because:
Ruling: Art. 48 applies since IT IS IMPOSSIBLE TO ASCERTAIN 1. The injuries were the result of successive volleys of gunshots
THE INDIVIDUAL DEATHS CAUSED BY THE ACCUSED 2. Deaths of the victims were from several shots
Justice Callejo (also in Boado): why not conspiracy? People v. Maghoy, 180 S 111
Art. 48 applied SINGLE ACT
People v. Pinkalin, 102 S 136
Where Art. 48 applies single criminal purpose test – attainment People v. Peralta, 193 S 9
of single purpose 1 crime There are as many crimes as victims IF THERE WAS NO EVIDENCE
THAT VICTIMS DIED BY SINGLE DISCHARGE OR BULLET
Dissenting (Makasiar): Art. 48 DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY
CONSIDERATION OF SINGLE IMPULSE People v. Mision
People v. Obillo
People v. Pineda, cited in Gamboa v. CA
Art. 48 is clear, no impulse, purpose, or resolution is mentioned People v. Tabako, 270 S 32
Ruling in Lawas is irrelevant since in Lawas, there was conspiracy Evidence must be presented that victim/s died of a SINGLE ACT or
BULLET or DISCHARGE OF FIREARM
A delito compuesto is when an accused fired a gun ONCE, but
killed TWO OR MORE persons DELITO COMPLEJO
(2nd portion of Art. 48)
Is it the single act of PULLING THE TRIGGER? DOES NOT APPLY IF:
Or is it the result of a SINGLE BULLET? 1. Felony is INDISPENSABLE to another felony
2. Felony is an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT of, or MODE of, or is
When what is used is a sub-machine gun Art. 48 applies since ABSORBED, by another felony
there are SEVERAL BULLETS fired at once 3. Felony is USED TO CONCEAL another felony
People v. Sanidad, 403 S 381***

Accused is guilty of a complex crime since:
2. Punishing the robber for COERCION or TRESPASS TO

Batulanon v. People, 502 S 35 DWELLING in a prosecution for ROBBERY
Can there be a complex felony of estafa by falsification of a
private document? NO, because the fraudulent gain obtained in In these cases, the acts sought to be punished separately are
estafa IS THE SAME HARM caused to the private complainant in INHERENT in the commission of the crime already being prosecuted
falsification of private document.
This would NOT PREVENT the punishment of the foregoing acts
BUT if the document is PUBLIC, intent to harm is NOT an element, so which are crimes in themselves as such if the government should
there may be 2 crimes or a complex crime elect to prosecute the culprit specifically for those crimes and not as
elements of another
NOTE:
Art. 48 does not apply to the following: Hernandez v. People, 99 P __
Art. 267 (kidnapping) Doctrine of Absorption for political crimes, i.e., rebellion, treason
Art. 312 (occupation of real property or usurpation of real rights in
property) How about terrorism in RA No. 9372?
Art. 129 (search warrants maliciously obtained) in relation to perjury Terrorism as a crime ABSORBS crimes, Art. 48 will NOT APPLY
People v. Abedosa, 53 P 791 People v. Sendaydiego

No crime of trespass to dwelling with murder if the purpose is only
to kill, the crime is MURDER ONLY, aggravated by trespass to Samson v. CA, 103 P 277
dwelling, OTHERWISE it is possible for 2 separate crimes to be Will Art. 48 apply if one of the constituent felonies is a felony by
committed – murder AND trespass to dwelling culpa? YES
Falsification by culpa when one does not check the identity of
People v. Medina, 59 P 134 payees
People v. Prieto, 80 P 138*** Dissenting (JBL Reyes): Art. 48 contemplates intentional felonies
Murder and physical injuries, although in themselves separate and
distinct criminal offenses, are absorbed by treason when they are People v. Rodis, 105 P 1284
charged as elements or constitutive ingredients of the latter. In this Estafa through falsification by culpa
case they become identified with treason AND CANNOT BE THE
SUBJECT OF A SEPARATE PUNISHMENT, OR USED IN DELITO CONTINUADO
COMBINATION WITH TREASON TO INCREASE THE PENALTY AS
ART. 48 OF THE RPC PROVIDES. Abduction is a continuing crime
In forcible abduction with rape, the additional rapes are absorbed, the
Similar to: FIRST RAPE consummates the complex crime of forcible abduction
1. Punishing one for POSSESSING OPIUM in a prosecution for with rape
SMOKING OPIUM
HOWEVER, the prevailing rule is still that ADDITIONAL RAPES ARE The moment the convict serves the MINIMUM OF THE IS, convict
SEPARATE OFFENSES may be considered for PAROLE
PRIMORDIAL CONSIDERATION PURPOSE of the offender PAROLE – provide period and conditions for release
If the taking was done with lewd design, forcible abduction If the period lapses without any violation MAXIMUM IS DEEMED
If the woman was raped after, forcible abduction with rape SERVED AND CONVICT RELEASED PERMANENTLY
If the purpose was to abduct TO RAPE, RAPE only, and the taking is APPLICATION OF IS LAW
absorbed as a means to carry out the intent
Consider Homicide
Penalty: Reclusion temporal
24 Aug 2009 No mitigating or aggravating circumstances
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW Minimum

Reduce by 1 degree the penalty – this is the MINIMUM of the IS
Without IS Law, penalties are FIXED, and the specific penalty will be Reclusion temporal lowered by 1 degree, PRISION MAYOR
a straight penalty within the range provided by law
NOTE that the minimum is WITHIN THE WHOLE RANGE and may
People v. Asturias be set by the Court in its discretion, IT NEED NOT BE IN THE SAME
People v. Lampara PERIOD as the maximum the discretion is unqualified
People v. Enriquez
Maximum
De Joya v. Jail Warden, 417 S 636 If there are mitigating or aggravating circumstances, apply
modification to the MAXIMUM of the IS
What about special penal laws, does IS Law apply? YES
People v. Martin Simon, 234 S 555 When with Privileged Mitigating Circumstances
Also consider privileged mitigating circumstances, as many as there
BUT NOTE that if the law does not follow the nomenclature of the are if these exist, REDUCE BY 1 DEGREE AS WELL
RPC, then aggravating and mitigating circumstances of RPC DO
NOT APPLY, ALTHOUGH JUDGES ARE NOT PROSCRIBED FROM Thus:
CONSIDERING THEM (this is because the IS Law considers the Reclusion temporal, with privileged mitigating circumstances
penalty IMPOSED, NOT the penalty IMPOSABLE) Lower by 1 degree PRISION MAYOR
Lower by 1 degree following IS Law PRISION CORRECCIONAL
Court must take into account:
1. Circumstances of the crime When Penalty Does Not Exceed 1 Year
2. Circumstances of the offender If penalty DOES NOT EXCEED 1 year, STRAIGHT PENALTY, DO
NOT APPLY IS Law
In Relation to Art. 48 In robbery with homicide, all other homicides after the first are
Maximum of IS follows Art. 48, BUT FOR MINIMUM, REDUCE FIRST absorbed. How many sets of civil liability? AS MANY HOMICIDES
THE ORIGINAL PENALTY COMMITTED
People v. Rillorta, 15 Dec 1989*** In Art. 48, there are as many civil liabilities AS INJURED PERSONS
The penalty for the complex crime of homicide with assault upon a
person in authority is the maximum period of the penalty for the more Aznar v. Citibank, 519 S 287
serious crime – homicide. That penalty is the maximum period of Damage – loss, hurt, or harm from injury
reclusion temporal. Under the IS Law, each of the accused shall Injury – legal invasion of right
suffer an IS, the maximum term of which shall be within the Damages
prescribed penalty of reclusion temporal, maximum.
People v. Catubig
People v. Cesar, 23/22 S 1024 If aggravating circumstances not pleaded in Information not
considered in criminal liability, BUT ALWAYS CONSIDERED IN
When Crime is Complex with Aggravating Circumstance CIVIL LIABILITY, if proven during trial
IS Maximum is MAXIMUM OF THE MAXIMUM period
i.e., reclusion temporal 3 periods (minimum, medium, maximum) The non-consideration is procedural in nature, while provision for civil
RT MAX divided to 3 periods as well – maximum of RT max liability is substantive
What if there is a mitigating circumstance together with the

CIVIL LIABILITIES aggravating circumstance, what is the effect on exemplary
damages? NONE
Art. 100 DOES NOT APPLY when no private injury or damage
arises from the crime, i.e., political crimes BUT Justice Callejo: still considered for civil liability, since the civil law
on damages do not provide for offsetting
Juridical person is NOT ENTITLED TO MORAL DAMAGES, except in
LIBEL cases People v. Marcelo
The word aggravating in the Civil Code is GENERIC, it includes ALL
Banal v. Tadeo, 11 Dec 1987 kinds of aggravating circumstances
Occena v. Icamina, 181 S 328
People v. Ranid, 555 S 297
People v. Hernandez If there are 2 qualifying circumstances, 1 QUALIFIES THE CRIME,
Since a political crime absorbs common crimes, are the heirs of THE OTHER IS GENERIC but exemplary damages still
the deceased entitled to civil liability? YES PROPERLY IMPOSABLE
People v. Agarin, 109 P 430

People v. Avila, 11 Mar 1992
People v. Guillen, 420 S 326 27 Aug 2009

In murder qualified by treachery, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES MAY BE
AWARDED IN VIEW OF THE GRUESOME MUTILATION OF THE BOOK II
VICTIM’S CORPSE
ART. 114 – TREASON
People v. Gonzales, Jr.
In arson, EXEMPLARY DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED FOR Haupt v. US, 47 Supp. 836, 330 US 631
CORRECTIVE PURPOSES
RA No. 106
People v. Dizon Filipinos may not divest citizenship while Philippines is at war
When a victim is raped multiple times, MORAL AND EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES ARE PROPER FOR EACH COUNT EVEN IF THERE IS Kawakita v. US, 96 L Ed 1249
ONLY 1 AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCE May a person holding dual citizenship be guilty of treason? YES
People v. Morales D’Aquino v. US, 192 Fed 2d __

In kidnapping without any aggravating circumstances, EXEMPLARY
DAMAGES MAY BE AWARDED FOR THE DETERRENT EFFECT In relation to Art. 2
Filipino committing treason in another country is liable person
People v. Ayuman, 471 P 167 cannot take refuge in another country to perpetrate treasonous acts
In this case for parricide, the SC awarded exemplary damages
because of the qualifying circumstance of relationship Gillars v. US, 182 Fed 2d 962
Adherence to the enemy and treasonable intent, when they exist,
BUT NOTE, according to Justice Callejo: in parricide, attach to the act and to its perpetrator wherever he is
RELATIONSHIP IS INHERENT, so no exemplary damages should Obedience to the law of the country of domicile or residence – local
have been awarded allegiance – is permissible, but this kind of allegiance does not call for
adherence to the enemy and the giving of aid and comfort to it with
NO NEED TO PROVE the amount of exemplary damages disloyal intent
Treason is committed with specific intent
Requisites of Treason (87 CJS 914)
Modes of Commission
1. Levying war
2. By adhering to enemies by giving them aid or comfort
Treason MUST BE INTENTIONAL

People v. Martin
Adherence to enemy – intent or mental act
Giving aid – overt act People v. Perez, 83 P 314
Supplying comfort women is NOT giving aid or comfort sexual or
Both must be proved social relations with Japanese did not affect war effort; if there is
Adherence to enemy may be proved by circumstantial evidence effect, effect is merely trivial
Giving aid must be proved by direct evidence – 2 witnesses for
EACH OVERT ACT, and which must be credible Gillars v. US
Overt act shown by means of speech treasonous speech – intent
NOTE that even if 2 witnesses are needed, ONLY ONE OVERT ACT shown as integral part of treason
is needed to be proven
People v. Prieto
Kawakita Treason is a POLITICAL CRIME absorbs common crimes if
What is important is the nature of the act of the accused committed in furtherance of treason
People v. Perez, 83 P 314 People v. Hernandez, 99 P 515

How extensive must giving aid or comfort be? Art. 48 does not apply to treason
Depends on:
1. Nature of the act NOTE that IS Law does not apply
2. Degree of the act
3. Purpose of the act
ART. 116 – MISPRISION OF TREASON
Cramer v. US, 325 US 1 Felony by omission
Adherence to the enemy may be proved by circumstantial evidence
ONLY FILIPINOS may be guilty of Art. 116, not even dual citizens
People v. Adriano, 78 P 571
Witness must testify TO THE ENTIRETY OF THE OVERT ACT
ART. 122, 123 – PIRACY; QUALIFIED PIRACY
Extrajudicial confession CANNOT CURE the fatal omission of the 2- ALSO, PD NO. 532, RA NO. 7659
witness rule only corroborating evidence
People v. Tulin
Proof of Citizenship RA No. 7659 did not amend PD 532 RPC and RA No. 7659 CAN
1. Oral or written EXIST with PD No. 532
2. Records of prisoner
3. Birth certificate PIRACY ON THE HIGH SEAS
Crime against the law of nations
Judicial Admission
People v. Flavier
Complement of vessel – in Art. 648 of the Code of Commerce, from

captain to the lowest-ranked member of the crew ART. 124 – ARBITRARY DETENTION
Astorga v. People, 412 S 512
Physical injuries in Art. 123 is used in its generic sense – INCLUDES Elements:
FRUSTRATED OR ATTEMPTED MURDER; connotes any kind of 1. Public officer or employee
bodily harm 2. Detains another
3. Without legal ground for detention
Piracy is a single, indivisible offense
Is the use of an unlicensed firearm aggravating? NO Relate to Art. 267 (kidnapping) and Art. 269 (unlawful arrest)
Is it a separate crime? NO (why?) In Art. 267 offender is a private individual, and purpose is to
deprive liberty
If a MEMBER OF THE complement or passenger takes the property In Art. 269 person is arrested without lawful cause to deliver to
of another member of the complement or PASSENGER, THIS IS judicial authorities
NOT PIRACY, BUT ROBBERY under Art. 293
Arrest in Art. 124 merely INCIDENTAL
Art. 86 of the UNCLOS
High Seas – not included in the EEZ, or territorial waters, or Public Officer or Employee
archipelagic waters of archipelagic state Those authorized to arrest or detain another
RA No. 9372 Nilo v. Salanga, 152 S 113 (judges)

Piracy is a constituent crime of terrorism
Sec. 388 of LGC
People v. Puno, 219 S 285 Art. 152 of RPC
Filoteo v. Sandiganbayan, 263 S 222
PD No. 532 applies where piracy is directed not only at preconceived Sec. 80, PD No. 705 (Forestry Code)
victims, but against any or all prospective victims District Forester given power to arrest
Piracy involves not only the locus of the crime, IT IS ESSENTIAL Sec. 44, RA No. 9165
FOR PD NO. 532 TO APPLY THAT THE PERPETRATORS ARE To enforce law, all school heads, supervisors, and teachers may
ORGANIZED TO COMMIT THE CRIME previous attempts or arrest or detain another
similar acts must be shown
NOTE that private individuals may be liable for arbitrary detention IF
Piracy in the RPC may be qualified by ACCOMPANYING ACTS THERE IS CONSPIRACY
Piracy in PD No. 532 is qualified ON OCCASION of acts People v. Flores, 410 P 578
How about CAFGU?
CAFGU may arrest/detain and may be liable for arbitrary detention,
under EO No. 264
2. For delivery to judicial authorities

DETENTION
US v. Cabañag, 8 P 64 Gravamen of the offense failure to deliver within the period
Actual confinement or any manner or deprivation of liberty prescribed
People v. Baldago, 396 S 31 Delivery to Judicial Authorities

Astorga v. People, 412 S 512 The filing of a criminal complaint or Information with the proper court
Curtailment of liberty NEED NOT INVOLVE PHYSICAL RESTRAINT;
liberty may be restricted by PSYCHOLOGICAL RESTRAINT Basis of Period
The offense/crime as that seen by the arresting officer, NOT THE
NOTE Rule 113, Sec. 5, which allows arrests without warrants CRIME FOUND AFTER PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATION
People v. Tudtud, 458 P 752 (Sec. 5[a])
David v. Arroyo Soria v. People
Ylagan v. Enrile (Sec. 5[b]) Exclusions to Period
Sundays, holidays, election days
RELATE to Sec. 18 of RA No. 9372
RELATE to Sec. 7 (now 6), Rule 112, on inquest
Crime of arbitrary detention MAY BE COMMITTED BY CULPA
good faith is a defense in dolo Alvior v. Anguis, 425 S __
When is the crime committed by dolo? What if the court has no jurisdiction?
When there is evidence that the officer was aware of the illegality Arresting police officer is not liable for the mistake of the prosecutor
People v. Misa RELATE to RA No. 9344

People v. Mabong
People v. Oliva If Information is filed (by the prosecutor?) beyond the periods in Art.
Arbitrary detention with physical injuries complex crime 125, arresting officer is STILL LIABLE and arrestee STILL LIABLE
FOR THE CRIME in the Information
Periods imposed in Art. 124 NOT ELEMENTS of the crime
RELATE to RA Nos. 7438 or 9372
SEE Sec. 8 of the IS Law Alejano v. Cabuay, 468 S 188
If the purpose of regulation is not to deprive or curtail right to consult
lawyer, regulation of visits are valid
ART. 125 – DELAY IN DELIVERY
RELATE to inquest and preliminary investigation rules
ART. 126 – DELAYING RELEASE
Elements: Felony by omission
1. There is legal basis to detain or arrest
Art. 126 applies to RA No. 9372

ART. 129 – SEARCH WARRANT MALICIOUSLY OBTAINED
No distinction between a detention prisoner and a person detained by
final judgment RELATE to perjury
Insuperable clause may be invoked RELATE to Rule 126
Person who makes a valid, warrantless arrest may be liable under Modes:
Art. 126 1. Procured search warrant without just cause felony by dolo,
must be malicious
2. Exceeds authority in executing the same – uses unnecessary
ART. 127 – EXPULSION severity OR seizing property not included in the warrant,
When person is unlawfully expelled from the Philippines or compelled EXCEPT those in plain view
to change residence
Good faith a defense
RELATE to Art. 247 of the RPC, which imposes penalty of destierro
People v. dela Peña
RELATE to PD No. 968, the Probation Law and Sec. 27 of RA No. Determination of maliciousness
9372 An attempt to extort money, even if effected after the issuance of the
search warrant, but prior to the release of the complainant, is relevant
to the question whether or not the warrant was illegally procured,
ART. 128 – VIOLATION OF DOMICILE owing to the obvious tendency of the aforementioned circumstance, if
Only those authorized to arrest or detain another or seize property id proven, to establish that the accused was prompted by the desire to
another or search get money from the complainant. Evidence of the intent of party who
obtained said warrant or warrants is not only relevant, but very
Arevalo v. Quilatan, 16 S __ material, where the accused are charged with having willfully,
unlawfully and feloniously procured said process, pursuant to a
Against the will of the owner, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED common intent, as alleged in the Informations
US v. Arceo, 3 P 381 UNILAB v. Isip, 28 June 2005
People v. delos Reyes, 20 P 267 People v. Hua, 439 S 350

Art. 128 DOES NOT APPLY TO POLICE OFFICERS WHEN IN HOT Breaking of door cannot be done without announcement
PURSUIT
If warrant is served beyond the period for service Art. 129
RELATE to Sec. 11, Rule 113 APPLIES
If warrant is served and a crime was committed in the process DO

NOT APPLY Art. 48, the crime committed is a SEPARATE OFFENSE
State of Michigan v. Summers, 452 US 692 ART. 134, 134-A – REBELLION/INSURRECTION, COUP D’ETAT
Both private individuals and public employees may be liable for
Art. 129 DOES NOT APPLY TO SEARCHES OF AGENTS OF rebellion or insurrection
BUREAU OF CUSTOMS
Rebellion – objective is to overthrow the government and supersede
People v. Mago, 22 S 857 with a new one
Tariff and Customs Code gives right to search to officers of BOC
Insurrection – objective is to effect minor change with respect to
particular matters or subjects
ART. 130 – SEARCHING DOMICILE
Inciting to Rebellion crime of a multitude
Quintero v. NBI, 162 S 470
People v. Gesmundo, 219 S 743 REBELLION
Delito continuado by nature
Witnesses’ presence is MANDATORY A political crime crime against a political order; objective is a
political purpose
3 Sept 2009 There must be concurrence of:

1. Intent to achieve political objective mental act
ART. 131 – PROHIBITION, INTERRUPTION, AND DISSOLUTION 2. Overt acts of public uprising and taking up arms
OF PEACEFUL MEETINGS
_____, 40 OG 2576 Is there FRUSTRATED rebellion? NONE, it is NOT NECESSARY
Participant which interrupts the peaceful meeting IS NOT LIABLE THAT THE OBJECTIVE IS OBTAINED, crime is still consummated
UNDER ART. 131, BUT MAY BE LIABLE FOR UNJUST VEXATION
US v. Vergara, 3 P 432
What if the policeman was undercover? LIABLE under Art. 131, Mere membership in the Communist Party of the Philippines is NOT
following People v. Cantena REBELLION
RELATE to David v. Arroyo _____, 46 OG 4412

BUT, a person openly becoming a member of the NPA, EVEN
WITHOUT ANY PARTICIPATION IN ANY OVERT ACT, is LIABLE
ART. 132 – INTERRUPTION OF RELIGIOUS WORSHIP FOR REBELLION, since the NPA is engaged in CONTINUING
COMBAT with the government of the Philippines
What is religion in Art. 132?
According to Justice Isagani Cruz – a system of belief, matters of faith Rebellion necessarily connotes violence ABSORBS COMMON
or dogma CRIMES WHEN COMMITTED TO ATTAIN PURPOSE – Art. 48
inapplicable
ART. 137 – DISLOYALTY

Enrile v. Omar Amin A person NOT sympathetic to the rebels, BUT CONTINUES TO
Crimes defined by SPL are also absorbed OCCUPY THE OFFICE UNDER THE CONTROL OF THE REBELS,
is liable under Art. 137
Is use of unlicensed firearms absorbed by rebellion? YES, by
express provision of RA No. 8294, when in furtherance or incident to OBJECTIVE is IMMATERIAL
rebellion and attempted coup d’etat
What if the person additionally commits malversation, in
Why attempted coup d’etat only? furtherance of the rebellion?
If coup d’etat is consummated, government is overthrown power is He is liable for 2 crimes – rebellion AND disloyalty
seized by offenders, they will not penalize themselves
Can the public officer plead Art. 11 or 12? YES, i.e., insuperable
What if the common crime committed by the rebel is for a cause
personal purpose, or for personal motives, or for profit, is this
absorbed? NO Disloyalty is an OFFENSE BY OMISSION
People v. Geronimo, 100 P 90
If the commission of the common crime is NOT for the political
purpose, it is a separate and independent offense ART. 139 – SEDITION
In relation to COUP D’ETAT People v. Kamlon Hadji, 9 S 252

1. In coup d’etat, the primary movers are the military or police
2. Concurrence of objective and swift attack In relation to REBELLION
3. In coup d’etat, purpose is to diminish state power 1. Purpose of the commission
4. NO FRUSTRATED COUP D’ETAT 2. Manner of commission
3. Sedition DOES NOT absorb common crimes
ART. 136 – CONSPIRACY/PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION, PAR. 1

INSURRECTION, AND COUP D’ETAT Includes laws political in nature, laws in general, and civil and penal
laws
RELATE to Art. 8 on conspiracy and proposal Includes ordinances
The conspiracy to commit rebellion and insurrection IS ALSO A PAR. 2

CONTINUING CRIME Includes judges and the judiciary
Includes the Constitutional Commissions (Art. IX of Constitution)
Mere membership in the CPP IS NOT CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT
REBELLION PAR. 3
(and by implication, NOT INCLUDED in Par. 2)
Barangay public officers
Barangay public employees NOT PROTECTED BY THE GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH OF

THE CONSTITUTION
Nature of Sedition:
1. Crime against public order Inciting to sedition is a misprision felony
2. There is a public uprising to attain objectives
Tumultuously – riotously, disorderly, or violent movement ART. 143 – PREVENTING MEETINGS

Meeting of BARANGAY COUNCIL IS NOT INCLUDED liability if
People v. Mendoza, 8 May 1950, GR No. 2971 [wrong citation] this is done will be for GRAVE COERCION
Tumultuous – at least 3 armed persons
Is there a complex crime of sedition and serious disturbance? ART. 144 – DISTURBANCE
YES May be by word or by deed
If the offender stages a tumultuous uprising AND AT THE SAME
TIME commits serious disturbance against members of a council Crimes of violence are complexed with Art. 144 pursuant to Art. 48
one crime as a means to commit the other WHEN USED AS A MEANS TO COMMIT IT OR WHEN
COMMITTED ON THE OCCASION OF THE OTHER
Sedition is CONSUMMATED WHETHER OR NOT OBJECTIVES
ARE ATTAINED
ART. 145 – PARLIAMENTARY IMMUNITY
Espuelas v. People, 90 P 524
Sedition statutes ARE NOT VIOLATIVE OF THE FREEDOM OF Art. VI, Sec. 11 of the Constitution is inconsistent with Art. 145.
SPEECH Is Art. 145 rendered ineffective or simply amended by the 1987
Seditious libel its essence is its immediate tendency to stir up Constitution? AMENDED PRO TANTO
general discontent to the pitch of illegal courses; it induces people to Constitution “shall, in all offenses punishable by NOT MORE
resort to illegal methods other than those provided by the Constitution THAN 6 years imprisonment (up to prision correccional), be privileged
in order to repress the evils which press upon their minds from arrest”
The words used directly tend to foment riot or rebellion or otherwise Art. 145 “except in case such a member has committed a crime
disturb the peace punishable under this Code by a penalty HIGHER than prision mayor
(6 years and 1 day to 12 years)”
ART. 142 – INCITING TO SEDITION

Philippine Journalists, Inc. v. Thoenen, 477 S __ [not Lee] ART. 146 – ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES
Freedom of speech should not be used as a basis to commit inciting Two Modes:
to sedition; the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the 1. Meeting of armed men to commit a crime under the RPC
insulting or fighting words, or those which by their very utterance 2. Meeting in which the audience is incited to commit treason,
inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace, IS rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or assault upon a person in
authority
It does not matter if firearm used is licensed or not, AS LONG AS First Mode
THE PERSON IS ARMED People v. Recto, 419 P 674
The first mode is tantamount to rebellion or sedition WITHOUT THE
If a person used an UNLICENSED firearm under the first mode HE ELEMENT OF A PUBLIC UPRISING
IS PRESUMED THE LEADER
Second Mode
Is this latter instance a violation of RA No. 8294? NO Who may be victims?
Art. 152 of the RPC – persons of authority AND agents of persons in
Identities of organizers through speeches, publications, banners, authority
leaflets
Justo v. CA, 99 P 452
First Mode While engaged in the performance of duties even if at the time
When crimes of violence are committed, illegal assemblies under the of the assault the officer IS NOT PERFORMING HIS DUTIES, AS
first mode LOSES ITS JURIDICAL PERSONALITY it is NOT A LONG AS THE ATTACK WAS BY REASON OF HIS OFFICIAL
SEPARATE FELONY, but considered a PREPARATORY ACT DUTIES, or of past official duties
Second Mode The OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE of the accused is IMMATERIAL

The organizers are those guilty of Art. 146, BUT THE INCITEMENT
IS AN ELEMENT ONLY IF THE AUDIENCE IS IN FACT INCITED OFFENDER MUST BE AWARE THAT OFFICIAL DUTY IS
Francisco PERFORMED
Charge for illegal assembly OR proposal to commit rebellion, etc. or Sarcepudes v. People, 90 P 228
rebellion, etc. the state has its options, but it cannot charge for If the assault or attack occurs when the officer is NOT in the
both performance of his duties, MOTIVE OF THE ACCUSED BECOMES
DETERMINATIVE of his liability for direct assault
THERE MUST BE SOMEONE WHO INCITES ANOTHER, BUT
AUDIENCE IS NOT INCITED, the inciting had no effect No liability under Art. 148:
1. If the public officer or officer in authority is a mere
NOTE that RA No. 1700 already repealed by RA No. 7636 BYSTANDER
2. If the accused DID NOT KNOW that victim was a person in
BUT see RA No. 9372, Sec. 17 authority
People v. Velasco, 72 OG 2045

ART. 148 – DIRECT ASSAULT When the contending parties are BOTH persons in authority who are
acting in GOOD FAITH NO LIABILITY
A formal crime – NO FRUSTRATED STAGE BOTH must be IN GOOD FAITH
People v. Fook, 42 P 230

When there is excess of authority no liability under Art. 148 or 151 Is Art. 48 applicable? YES
Direct assault with homicide
When there is TOTAL LACK OF AUTHORITY no liability Direct assault with frustrated or attempted homicide
BUT if SLIGHT physical injuries DO NOT COMPLEX, Art. 48
NOTE that the damage or injury must be coextensive with the inapplicable, as this is absorbed
excessive authority, otherwise, liable under Art. 148
People v. Ladjaalam
Justo v. People
When a district supervisor of public schools assaulted another district Villanueva v. Ortiz, 148 P 493
supervisor BEFORE ARRIVING AT AGREED PLACE where they Where the accused assaulted a person in authority, an election
would fight DIRECT ASSAULT, since one in bad faith inspector, while votes are being counted, he is liable for the complex
crime of DIRECT ASSAULT WITH SERIOUS DISTURBANCE
People v. Garcia, 79 OG 4586
To lay a hand inflict physical injuries; to strike; to shove; cause 5 Sept 2009
damage or injury
What if in the course of robbery, a person in authority was
People v. Tabiana, 37 P 515 killed? ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE – direct assault already
Force must be serious, and must be of such character as to show absorbed
contempt for authority
RELATE to Art. 265 (less serious physical injuries) where the
People v. Gumban victim is a person in authority, penalty becomes prision correccional
SLAPPING is included NOTE, however, that Art. 265 is applied only when the person in
authority IS NOT IN THE PERFORMANCE OF HIS DUTIES OR
Crime is QUALIFIED when a weapon is used to assault firearm, SUFFERS LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES BY REASON OF
knives HIS OFFICE
_____, 45 OG 838 RELATE to Art. 153 direct assault with serious disturbance
It is NOT ENOUGH that a weapon was carried by the offender,
WEAPON MUST BE ACTUALLY USED TO ASSAULT
ART. 149 – INDIRECT ASSAULT
Qualifying circumstances: RELATE to RA No. 1978
1. Use of a weapon
2. When offender is himself a public officer or employee Person in Authority
3. When offender lays hands upon a person in authority Include AGENTS of persons in authority
RELATE to RA No. 75, Sec. 6 – assault on ambassador or foreign

public minister
What about private individuals COMING TO THE AID of persons

in authority? THEY BECOME AGENTS, thus, crime is DIRECT, ART. 150 – DISOBEDIENCE TO SUMMONS
NOT INDIRECT, ASSAULT
SEE Senate v. Ermita, 488 S 1
Art. 149 operates only when private individuals COME TO THE AID RELATE to RA No. 4200, Sec. 4, and RA No. 9372, Sec. 25
OF AN AGENT OF A PERSON IN AUTHORITY
People v. Mendoza, 59 P 163 ART. 151 – RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE

Persons in authority are those vested with jurisdiction to govern and Uytiaco v. CA, 126 P 48
execute laws; or persons who perform some functions of the Art. 151 is violated only when the person in authority or his agent is in
government the ACTUAL PERFORMANCE of their duties
RELATE to the LGC, Sec. 388(?) When is resistance or disobedience serious?

Persons in authority include BARANGAY CAPTAINS/CHAIRMEN People v. Ramayrat, 122 P 188
(PUNONG BARANGAY), and/or persons charged with supervision of Depends upon the circumstances of the act, the motives of the
public and duly recognized private SCUs offender, and the transgression, which may or may not indicate intent
to violate the law
Remember however that these are persons in authority ONLY FOR
THE PURPOSE OF ART. 148 and 151 People v. Reyes, 40 OG 24 (11 Supp)
RELATE to Art. 14 US v. Tabiana

People v. Tac-an, 182 S 602
A teacher is a person in authority ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF When person in authority EXCEEDS AUTHORITY, resistance is
ART. 148 and 151 lawful if done in good faith any resistance must be that which is
REASONABLE and NECESSARY
Agents in LGC
1. Barangay policemen Gallego v. People
2. Barangay councilmen When person in authority exceeds his authority, or abuses his
authority, any reaction MUST BE COEXTENSIVE to the excess or
People v. Bonotan, 105 P 1349 abuse
Members of municipal and provincial boards are PERSONS IN
AUTHORITY If the resistance or disobedience is SERIOUS, then this is DIRECT
ASSAULT NOTE that in Art. 151, par. 2, the disobedience is to the
RELATE to RA No. 9165 AGENT
Teachers as persons in authority in the enforcement of RA No. 9165
ART. 153 – TUMULTS AND OTHER DISTURBANCES NOTE that in inciting to rebellion or sedition, the act was
DELIBERATE – in Art. 153, the act was SPONTANEOUS
First Mode
1. Offender commits acts which causes serious disturbance Art. 153 is a felony by dolo, and NOT culpa
2. In a public place, office, or establishment – LOCUS CRIMINIS
3. Offender intended to commit public disorder – INTENT TO People v. Bacolod, 89 P 621
CAUSE DISTURBANCE No double jeopardy in charging accused of serious physical injuries
through reckless imprudence and causing disturbance under Art. 153
When is it serious? even if both resulted from the defendant’s act of having fired a sub-
Consider the PLACE where the acts were committed, and the machine gun
occasion or circumstances surrounding the incident
Villanueva v. Ortiza
RELATE to Art. 131 (prohibiting, interrupting, and dissolving peaceful Art. 153 may be a constituent crime of a complex crime may be
meetings) if the public officer is a participant, Art. 153 applies, NOT complexed with DIRECT ASSAULT
Art. 131
There is also TUMULTUOUS DISTURBANCE with HOMICIDE
What is a public place?
People v. Gamay, 40 OG 171 People v. Mangorio, 51 OG 4619
One that is open to the public and not exclusive, even if presided by
private individuals NOTE also that PD No. 1829, Sec. 1(i) may be violated separately
from Art. 153
Second Mode
1. Public performance or public functions
2. Interruption ART. 155 – ALARMS AND SCANDALS
3. NOT under either Art. 131 or 132
4. Disturbance is NOT SERIOUS PAR. 1 – Calculated to cause alarm or danger
Erroneous translation should be calculated to PRODUCE alarm or
Offender may be a participant, or a stranger danger
There must be cause and effect, for IF THERE WAS NO EFFECT,
Presumption under Par. 3 applies ONLY WHEN MADE BY A BAND THERE WAS NO CRIME COMMITTED
Band – more than three armed persons, or more than three persons
with means of violence RELATE to Art. 254 (discharge of firearms)
PAR. 4 What if the firearm used was unlicensed?

1. Meeting is LAWFUL NOT aggravating
2. Offender makes a SPONTANEOUS OUTCRY of rebellion or NOT separate crime(?)
sedition
PAR. 3 and PAR. 4 How is the crime committed?

RELATE to Art. 153 (tumults) 1. By violence
2. By intimidation
Specifically, PAR. 4 – disturbance NOT serious and NOT in a public 3. By bribery
place 4. By other means
1-3 higher penalty

ART. 156 – DELIVERY OF PRISONERS FROM JAIL
Is bribery in Art. 156 the same as that in Art. 212 (corruption of
First Mode public officers)? NO
Does Art. 156 include detention prisoners? YES, it is Art. 157 The bribery in Art. 156 is COMMITTED BY THE PERSON HELPING
which refers specifically to convicts THE PRISONER ESCAPE, AND THE BRIBE IS TO A THIRD
PERSON OTHER THAN THE ONE ASSISTING AND THE
A prisoner who escapes, whether detention prisoner or convict, but PRISONER
specially a detention prisoner, IS NOT ENTITLED TO BENEFITS OF
IS LAW What if the prisoner DIRECTLY BRIBES the officer?
Then the prisoner is liable for 2 crimes – CORRUPTION OF PUBLIC
NOTE that a HOSPITAL IS AN EXTENSION OF A JAIL if a person is OFFICIALS under Art. 212 and DELIVERY OF PERSONS FROM
ORDERED CONFINED THERE by a Court JAIL under Art. 156, by express provision of Art. 212
What if the accused was convicted? What are “other means”?

This is IMMATERIAL, since the crime is already consummated 1. Use of false key or picklocks
whether or not prisoner surrenders or is apprehended 2. Disguise
3. Craft
Is there an attempted stage for this felony? YES 4. Taking guards by surprise
When a prisoner leaves his cell, but discovered BEFORE LEAVING 5. Deceit
THE PENAL ESTABLISHMENT, is a case of an attempt of this felony
Does the phrase include crimes in the RPC? [no answer]
What if the custodian helped the prisoner escape?
The custodian is NOT LIABLE under Art. 156, but for INFIDELITY IN Does Art. 156 absorb common crimes? NO, separate offenses;
THE CUSTODY OF PRISONERS under Art. 223 or 224, as the case Art. 48 applies since this is may constitute an act to commit another
may be crime
NOTE that penal establishments INCLUDE PENAL COLONIES RELATE to PD No. 1829, Sec. 1(c)
RELATE to RA No. 9372, Sec. 44

RELATE to Art. 18 ART. 157 – EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Convict must be serving his sentence; during the term
What about destierro? RELATE to Art. 88, since arresto menor can be served in the house
Art. 157 is APPLICABLE “during the term of imprisonment” is NOT of the defendant himself under the surveillance of an officer of the law
ACCURATE translation, it should be “DURING THE TERM OF
SENTENCE WHICH CONSISTS IN THE DEPRIVATION OF RELATE to Art. 8, since in Art. 157, connivance is a QUALIFYING
LIBERTY” circumstance
Del Castillo v. Torrecampo, 394 S 221***

ESCAPE in legal parlance, and for purposes of Art. 93 and 157, 10 Sept 2009
means the unlawful departure of the prisoner from the limits of his
custody, and ONE WHO HAS NOT BEEN COMMITTED TO PRISON ART. 160 – QUASI-RECIDIVISM
CANNOT BE SAID TO HAVE ESCAPED THEREFROM thus, People v. Aling y Majuri, 96 S 472
petitioner, who was never brought to prisoner, and in fact was already Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating circumstance, and cannot
in hiding even before the execution of the judgment for his conviction, be offset by generic mitigating circumstances
is not entitled to the benefit of prescription of penalty under Art. 93
Offended party is entitled to exemplary damages when accused is
Tanega v. Masakayan, 19 S 567 found to be a quasi-recidivist
For prescription of penalty imposed by final sentence to run, the
culprit should escape DURING THE TERM OF SUCH It does not matter that the felony is a crime defined by an SPL, what
IMPRISONMENT Art. 93 of the RPC provides that the prescription matters is WHEN THE 2ND CRIME IS PUNISHED BY AN SPL
of penalties shall commence to run FROM THE DATE THE FELON WHICH DOES NOT APPLY THE NOMENCLATURE OF THE RPC
EVADES THE SERVICE OF HIS SENTENCE, and if the convict was in this latter instance, NO quasi-recidivism, otherwise, Art. 160 may
NEVER PLACED IN CONFINEMENT, prescription does not run in his apply
favor
Also, IF THE 2ND CRIME IS PUNISHABLE BY RECLUSION
Elements: PERPETUA, Art. 160 DOES NOT APPLY since the latter is a single
1. Convict by final judgment indivisible penalty
2. Serving sentence
3. Escapes during term of sentence Art. 62, par. 1 provides that aggravating circumstances which are
punished by law AS AN ELEMENT OF THE OFFENSE CHARGED
Art. 157 APPLIES TO EVASION OF SENTENCE FOR VIOLATION SHOULD NOT BE TAKEN INTO ACCOUNT in imposing the penalty
OF SPLs i.e., evasion of sentence included in quasi-recidivism
Who is not liable under Art. 157? What about destierro? [no answer]
1. Detention prisoner
2. Person who violates departure order What if the offender is a recidivist and a quasi-recidivist?
3. Youthful offenders whose declaration or promulgation of Impose MAXIMUM OF THE MAXIMUM PENALTY
sentence is SUSPENDED
What if a complex crime was committed? Liability is under Art. 171 if the falsification was committed by any
Maximum penalty for the most serious offense if a quasi-recidivist, other mode or means than that provided in Art. 170
impose MAXIMUM OF THE MAXIMUM OF THE PENALTY FOR THE
MOST SERIOUS OFFENSE
ART. 171 – FALSIFICATION
ART. 161, 162 – COUNTERFEITING SEAL, USING FORGED A document INCAPABLE OF PRODUCING LEGAL EFFECTS
SIGNATURE CANNOT BE THE SUBJECT OF FALSIFICATION
Camido v. CA, 8 Dec 1995
If accused forged the signature of the President, THERE ARE AS Official Document – one in which a public official intervenes in
MANY CRIMES OF FORGERIES AS THERE ARE DOCUMENTS preparation or accomplishment
FORGED
Commercial Document – used by merchants to facilitate trade and
Caubang v. People, 210 S 377 commercial transactions
Crime is only by dolo, NOT BY CULPA the provision requires
“knowingly or maliciously” forging Private Document – no intervention of public notary or public official
legally authorized to do so, by which some disposition or agreement
is proved
ART. 166, 169 – FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES
PAYABLE TO BEARER Monteverde v. People, 435 P 906
People v. Balmores, 85 P 493 If the document is intended to be part of a public record, and the
Philippine charity sweepstakes ticket is a government obligation document is falsified BEFORE it becomes part of the public record,
however, forgery of this document makes one liable for ESTAFA Art. 171 is still violated
THROUGH FALSIFICATION OF PUBLIC DOCUMENT, not forgery
under Art. 166 in relation to Art. 169 People v. Bon Ping
CSC Booklet forms part of the official records of the government, so
when it is falsified, liable under Art. 171
ART. 170 – FALSIFICATION OF LEGISLATIVE DOCUMENTS
Elements: Bermejo v. Barrios
1. What is authored is a genuine bill, or ordinance Pleadings of parties and papers in action in custody of the clerk of
2. Alteration must be the substance court are PUBLIC documents
3. Alteration is with deliberate intent
Layug v. Sandiganbayan
BUT, if the offender is a PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE IN Petitioner, a public school teacher, indicated in her DAILY TIME
CUSTODY OF THE DOCUMENT liable for FALSIFICATION in Art. RECORD that she attended classes, when in fact she did not AS
171, and not under this provision MANY CRIMES AS DTRs FALSIFIED
A government employee’s DAILY TIME RECORD IS A PUBLIC

DOCUMENT _____, 16 CAR 2s 1393
The translation “IMITATING” is erroneous, since the word used in the
When is falsification consummated? Spanish Penal Code is FINDIENDO, which is properly translated as
The moment the false document is EXECUTED, or the moment the “FEIGNING” FEIGNING a signature DOES NOT REQUIRE
document is ALTERED IMITATION, BUT IS A FORGERY OF A SIGNATURE THAT DOES
NOT IN FACT EXIST
There is no ATTEMPTED of FRUSTRATED FALSIFICATION, except
may be when the falsification is imperfect COUNTERFEITING is the IMITATION of an original or genuine
signature
Sarep v. Sandiganbayan
Falsification of public document THROUGH RECKLESS US v. Paraiso, 5 P 149 (see also, Paraiso v. US, 207 US 368 – same
IMPRUDENCE case, on writ of error to the Supreme Court of the United States)
For one to be guilty of counterfeiting a signature THERE MUST BE
Is there falsification by OMISSION? YES, see People v. Dizon AN ATTEMPT TO IMITATE THE SIGNATURE OF ANOTHER
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN ART. 171 AND ART. 172 US v. Rampas

Art. 171 It is NOT NECESSARY FOR THE IMITATION TO BE PERFECT – it
1. Offender is a public officer, employee, or religious minister is sufficient is there is a resemblance
2. Document falsified is ANY KIND
3. Damage NOT AN ELEMENT, but the erosion of public faith in People v. Isla, 42 P 485 [Justice Callejo: does not follow previous
the documents rulings]
There must be an attempt to imitate IF THERE IS NO
Art. 172 RESEMBLANCE, not under par. 1 of Art. 171
1. Offender INCLUDES private individuals
2. Document falsified is classified into public, official, and PAR. 2
commercial on one hand, and private on the other Bernardino v. People
3. DAMAGE is an element in falsification of PRIVATE document The act or proceeding must in fact exist in par. 2 of Art. 171
AND in the USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS not in judicial
proceedings
12 Sept 2009
THUS, a public official not included in Art. 171 may be liable under
Art. 172 because he may not have taken advantage of his official PAR. 2 [continued]
position in so doing Bernardino v. People, 546 S 237
Elements:
ALSO, Art. 171 presupposes that the officer or notary public IS THE 1. Offender is a public officer or employee or notary public
CUSTODIAN OF THE DOCUMENT if he issues an authenticated 2. Takes advantage of official position
copy, he is liable under Art. 171, not Art. 172 3. Falsifies a document
4. By causing it to appear that the person participated in any act Samson v. CA

or proceeding when in fact he did not Par. 2, Art. 171
Indispensable that the offender make it appear that the person Mallari v. People, 168 S 432
participated in the act or proceeding – THE PERSON SHOULD IN When it was made to appear that real owner mortgaged property –
FACT EXIST Cuello Callon falsification
Accused borrowed money from 2 lenders on same occasion – ONE
If the person is ALREADY DEAD, is offender liable? YES CRIME OF ESTAFA, delito continuado
Lastrilla v. Granda, 481 S 324***
Accused is guilty under paragraph 1, 2, and 5 – antedated document People v. Stella Romualdez, 57 P 148
(par. 5); forged signature of dead father (par. 1)
PAR. 4
Andaya v. People, 493 S 531 Siquian v. People
Falsification under par. 2, Art. 171 in relation to Art. 172 Elements:
1. Offender a public officer or employee, or a notary public
People v. Abubakar, 93 S 294 2. Made untruthful statements in a narration of facts
Accused made it appear that he was a registered voter, and was able 3. Had a legal obligation to disclose the truth
to vote
Ruling: accused guilty of falsification under par. 2, criminal liability in People v. Yanza(?)
RPC apart from liability in OEC Must be a narration of facts, NOT CONCLUSION OF LAW
People v. Asa, 2 CAR 16 Amora, Jr. v. SB

Guilty of violation of par. 2 when accused affixed thumb mark in list of Conviction shall not be sustained WHEN OFFENDER ACTED IN
voters that did not actually vote GOOD FAITH
People v. Villanueva, 58 P 671 If document is altered TO CONTAIN/SPEAK OF THE TRUTH, NO

Where public officer misappropriated public funds, and concealed the FALSIFICATION
misappropriation by imitating signatures of payees
Ruling: two crimes, falsification under par. 1, Art. 171 and Lumangcas v. Quinta, 400 P 785
malversation Manalo v. People, 12 September 2007
Legal obligation must stem from a law, rule, or regulation issued by a
But what if accused DID NOT imitate signatures of payee? YES, government agency
still a violation of par. 2, Art. 171
If applicant falsifies data in personal information sheet, liable?
What if person impersonated examinee in civil service exam? YES, because PIS can be a source of obligation and is required by
People v. Leonidas, 40 OG Supp 101 the CSC
When accused impersonated examinee, falsification under par. 2
People v. Po Giok To People v. Reodica, 62 P 567

Is there legal obligation to disclose truth in residence Alteration must be such as to speak a different language or import
certificate? YES, in CA No. 465(?) than that which it is supposed to convey
Concerned Employee v. Generoso, 467 S 614 [3 CJS 905]

If a taxpayer made a false narration of facts in is ITR, and filed The alteration speaks a different language where:
the same with the BIR, to avoid paying taxes, liable? YES, under 1. Affects legal identity of parties
par. 4 2. Affects rights, duties, and obligations
3. Changes scope of document
PAR. 5
The date altered MUST BE ESSENTIAL TO THE DOCUMENT Pacana v. People, 47 P 48
The alteration MUST BE INTENTIONAL Ignorance or mistake as to particular facts WILL, GENERALLY,
EXEMPT from liability GOOD FAITH IS A DEFENSE
What dates?
Dates of birth, date of marriage, date of death, date of payment of PAR. 7
obligations Two Modes:
1. Issuance in an authenticated form purporting to be a copy of
US v. Mateo, 25 P 324 the original when no such original exists (ORIGINAL DOES
Alteration must be one which causes the document to speak a NOT EXIST)
language different 2. Including a statement contrary to or different from original
(ORIGINAL EXISTS)
PAR. 6
Garcia v. CA, citing RP v. CA, 116 S 505 Second mode
Elements: By DOLO
1. Person alters or changes or intercalates an entry or statement Alteration must be material which changes the document
in a document Usually committed by persons in custody of the document, including
2. Document is genuine notary public
3. Alterations or intercalations speak something false
A private individual who conspires with a public officer or notary
May be committed by any person, BUT if private individual in a public is also liable under par. 7
private document – Art. 172 applies, AND if Art. 172 applies, then
there must be damage caused or intent to cause damage Flores v. Layosa
Consuelo v. Mallari
Alterations – erasures, interlineations, addition, substitution of Falsification of a public, official, or commercial document may be a
material matter constituent felony under Art. 48 as a means to commit another crime
If falsification is committed to CONCEAL the malversation – TWO

CRIMES (Art. 48 – as a means to COMMIT, NOT TO CONCEAL) Judicial proceedings – all-embracing: criminal, civil, special
proceedings
If document falsified under ALL modes in Art. 171, ONLY ONE
CRIME OF FALSIFICATION, because the offender moved by only People v. Prudente, 1 CAR 759
one criminal intent note Lastrilla, only one offense of INTENT TO CAUSE DAMAGE OR DAMAGE CAUSED, NOT AN
FALSIFICATION even if committed under three modes ELEMENT WHAT IS PUNISHED IS THE USE
People v. Madrigal
Abalos v. People ART. 177 – USURPATION OF AUTHORITY
BUT there as many crimes as falsification as DOCUMENTS
FALSIFIED Is there a complex crime of usurpation of authority with
falsification? YES
People v. Segovia People v. Cortez, 73 OG 10056
People v. Ponferrada When individual introduced himself as BIR agent, with falsified BIR ID
RELATE to RA No. 75 – liability for pretending to be a consul,

ART. 172 – USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENTS diplomatic officer, etc., Art. 177 will NOT apply
Samson v. CA Liability for BOTH usurpation and RA No. 75? YES [Justice
Batulanon v. People Callejo]
PAR. 2 Simulation of public authority is a MODE of committing crime of

Dava v. People kidnapping
The offender is a person other than the author of the falsification, and
uses the document as evidence in any judicial proceeding Robbery may be committed by pretending to have public authority –
NOT complex crime, because it is a MODE of committing robbery, do
If the author himself uses the document, liability is for not apply Art. 48
FALSIFICATION, NOT USE OF FALSIFIED DOCUMENT
CSC v. Sta. Ana, 435 P 1 ART. 178 – USING FICTITIOUS NAME

Accused is guilty of the crime of falsification of public document and
the use of public document if he falsified the certification in addition to Public use of fictitious name to:
the personal data sheet 1. Conceal crime
2. Evade execution of judgment
US v. Gomez, 3 P 436 3. Cause damage
Under par. 2, the offender MUST BE AWARE of the falsity of the
document
4. complex crime delivery of prisoner from jail with use of

Law requires PUBLIC USE – how? fictitious name (Justice Callejo)
One uses a fictitious name publicly IF HE USES THE NAME IN A
PUBLIC OR OFFICIAL DOCUMENT If a person was able to conceal the escape of a convict by use of a
fictitious name – 2 CRIMES
US v. Piu, 35 P 4
Fictitious name in a passport, liable? YES
ART. 180, 181 – FALSE TESTIMONY IN CRIMINAL CASES
What is the damage contemplated? Art. 180 – against a defendant
NOT TO A PRIVATE PERSON, BUT TO PUBLIC INTEREST Art. 181 – in favor of a defendant
What does public interest mean? Judgments for violations of RPC?

Damage to the community in general Include SPL using nomenclature of RPC
Fictitious name to defraud another – NOT ART. 178, but ESTAFA Art. 180 and 181 are crimes mala in se
(relate to Art. 315)
Bachrach Motor v. CIR
Fictitious name to enter house to rob – NOT ART. 178, but Necessary that testimony is COMPLETE when witness has
ROBBERY (relate to Art. 299) already been cross-examined, and discharged as a witness
Where one uses a fictitious name to commit falsification Cuello Villanueva v. Sec. of Justice, 475 S 495
Callon: INTEGRATED in the crime of falsification Law requires that OFFENDER BE AWARE OF FALSITY OF
TESTIMONY
EVADING JUDGMENT
Law does not distinguish between criminal or civil cases People v. Reyes, 48 OG 1837
Supposing offender takes place of convict, so convict can People v. Maneja, 72 P 256
escape, what crime? There must be a FINAL JUDGMENT; the mere testimony IS NOT
CONVICT WHO ESCAPED – evasion of service of sentence ENOUGH; final judgment a condition sine qua non
PERSON WHO TOOK PLACE –
1. Using fictitious name under Art. 178 (Albert – with whom Under Art. 180, the testimony of a witness may refer not only to the
Justice Callejo does NOT agree); guilt, but also to aggravating or qualifying circumstances
2. Use of fictitious name AND delivery of prisoner from jail under
Art. 156 (Reyes – with whom Justice Callejo does not agree Whether the accused is convicted or not is immaterial
insofar as use of fictitious name is concerned);
3. Delivery of prisoner from jail, AND the use by a fictitious name BUT Art. 180 WILL NOT APPLY if penalty less than correctional
ABSORBED (Regalado – with whom Justice Callejo does penalty, but WITNESS may be charged with perjury
NOT agree);
If accused himself testifies falsely in his behalf, liable? NOT People v. Gutierrez
LIABLE
Serrano v. Asturias, 476 S __
If accused falsely testifies by attributing the crime to another Provision does not apply to false testimony in SPECIAL
person, liable? YES, People v. Soliman, 36 P 5 PROCEEDINGS, or petition for naturalization
What applies? Art. 183, perjury
The retraction of the witness of his testimony DOES NOT
EXTINGUISH CRIME since it is already consummated, UNLESS
retraction is SPONTANEOUS ART. 183 - PERJURY
Perjury is the willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath
No attempted or frustrated stage of crime (Cuello Callon – Justice or affirmation administered by authority of law on a material matter
Callejo agrees there is no frustrated stage)
Villanueva v. Sec. of Justice, 475 S 495
RA No. 6981, Sec. 13, Witness Protection Act Requirements:
Witness who testifies falsely or evasively loses immunity and 1. Accused made a statement under oath or executed an
becomes liable for perjury, NOT under Art. 180 or 182 affidavit upon a material matter
2. Statement or affidavit made before a competent officer,
RA No. 9372, Sec. 47 authorized to receive and administer oath
False testimony a crime under the law 3. Statement or affidavit contained a willful and deliberate
assertion of a falsehood
RPC and HSA at the same time? NO. Under RA 9372, one 4. The statement or affidavit was required by law, or for a legal
convicted of crime in RPC cannot be prosecuted under HSA purpose
What is material matter?

ART. 182 – FALSE TESTIMONY IN CIVIL CASES Villanueva v. Sec. of Justice
The main fact subject of the inquiry, or any circumstance which tends
Ark Travel Express, Inc. v. Presiding Judge to prove that fact, or any fact or circumstance which tends to
Party litigants and witnesses may be guilty of this crime corroborate or strengthen the testimony related to the subject of the
1. Testimony in civil case inquiry, or which legitimately affects the credence of any witness who
2. Testimony must relate to an issue testified
3. Testimony is false
4. Person knew testimony is false
5. With criminal intent 14 Sept 2009
Civil Case – not confined to ordinary civil actions, includes ART. 203 – PUBLIC OFFICERS
supplemental proceedings, i.e., execution, arbitration, preliminary
attachment, relief from judgment Agencies of the government include:
1. GOCCs
2. Subsidiaries of GOCCs, whether with original charter or May be committed by dolo or by culpa
created under the Corporation Code
3. Whether stock or non-stock AS LONG AS FUNCTIONS ARE
GOVERNMENTAL IN NATURE ART. 207 – DELAY IN ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Magdamo v. Judge Pahimulin, 73 S 110
Agbayani v. Sayo May be committed ONLY BY DOLO because of the use of the word
People v. Sandiganbayan, 451 S 413 MALICIOUS to inflict damage or injury
ART. 204 – RENDERING UNJUST JUDGMENT ART. 208 – PREVARICACION
Cortez v. Nazario, 422 S 541 US v. Mendoza, 23 P 194

DOES NOT APPLY TO APPELLATE JUDGES/JUSTICES, covers
only judges in MTC/RTC What crime/offense?
RPC or SPL
In Re: Borromeo, 241 S 410
There must first be a judgment in an appropriate proceeding Abuse of public position is an ELEMENT OF THE CRIMES UNDER
condition sine qua non CHAPTER 2, SECTION 1 Arts. 204-209
In what proceeding? What about private individuals?

De Vera v. Pelayo, 390 P 596 Liable under PD No. 1829 and Art. 19 of the RPC, NOT UNDER ART.
1. Certiorari or prohibition under Rule 65 impugning the validity 208
of the judgment
2. Administrative proceeding in the Supreme Court against the Merencillo v. People, 521 S 31
judge precisely for promulgating an unjust judgment or order A public officer or employee liable under Art. 208 or under Art. 209
(bribery) may also be made liable under RA No. 3019 Sec. 3
Zuño v. Cabebe, 444 S 382 provides “IN ADDITION to acts or omissions of public officers already
Felony in Art. 204 is MALUM IN SE, judge must act with malice penalized by existing law”
NOTE that prevaricacion is a constituent element of QUALIFIED

ART. 205 – JUDGMENT RENDERED THROUGH NEGLIGENCE BRIBERY
Committed by culpa
ART. 210, 211 – DIRECT/INDIRECT BRIBERY

ART. 206 – UNJUST INTERLOCUTORY ORDER
Garcia v. Sandiganbayan, 507 S 208
Loyola v. Gabo, 380 P 318
De los Angeles v. People, 103 P 295

Merencillo v. People***
A comparison of the elements of the crime of bribery defined and US v. Te Tong, 26 P 453
punished under Art. 210 and those of violation of Sec. 3(b) of RA No. General rule – always consummated
3019 shows that there is neither identity nor necessary inclusion
between the two offenses Liabilities of the Parties
RECEIVER – bribery
Tad-y v. People, 466 S 474*** GIVER – corruption of public officer
Elements:
1. The offender is a public officer Justice Callejo: for the giver, if bribery is attempted, offense is
2. The offender accepts an offer or promise or receives a gift or ATTEMPTED CORRUPTION
present by himself or through another
3. Acceptance is with a view to commit some crime, to do an act First Mode
which is not a crime but is unjust, or refrain from doing US v. Gimena, 24 P 464
something which is his official duty to do It is NOT NECESSARY that the GIFT WAS RECEIVED, IT IS
4. The act is in connection with the performance of his official ENOUGH IF THERE WAS A PROMISE from which the public official
duties bases his performance, or the refraining of the act, or as
consideration
Official duties include any action authorized – it is sufficient if the
officer has the official power, ability, or apparent ability to bring about What about a judge who receives a bribe to render an unjust
or to contribute to the desired end judgment?
TWO SEPARATE OFFENSES bribery AND knowingly rendering
It is also sufficient if the action of the officer is part of any established unjust judgment
procedure consistent with the authority of the government agency
BUT where the act is ENTIRELY OUTSIDE OF THE OFFICIAL Soriano v. Sandiganbayan, 31 July 1984
FUNCTIONS OF THE OFFICER TO WHOM THE MONEY IS Prevaricacion AND bribery are SEPARATE offenses do not apply
OFFERED, THE OFFENSE IS NOT BRIBERY Art. 48
Use public officers definition in Art. 203 It is enough that the act is CONNECTED TO THE PERFORMANCE
OF DUTIES it is NOT A DEFENSE that the offender EXCEEDED
What are “official duties”? HIS AUTHORITY
Such duties with official power who can contribute to the end sought
to be achieved by bribery Valderama v. Nagal
Receiving money on different occasions in consideration of one act
Can bribery be attempted or frustrated? AS MANY CRIMES AS BRIBES GIVEN AND RECEIVED
ATTEMPTED – yes
FRUSTRATED – no
May a private individual be liable for bribery? YES, as held in

Acejas III v. People, 493 S 292 – BUT according to Justice Callejo, NOTE the decision of the SC in Liban v. Gordon, 15 July 2009, which
there was CONSPIRANCY, and the crime was robbery or extortion overturned Camporedondo v. NLRC and declared the Philippine
National Red Cross as a private corporation as it is not owned nor
NOTE that BRIBERY IS CONSENSUAL it DOES NOT MATTER if controlled by the government
the offense was committed, AS LONG AS THERE WAS AN
AGREEMENT Mariano Ocampo v. People, 4 Feb 2008
Ocampo, a governor of Tarlac, entered into an agreement with NGO
Mamba v. Judge Garcia, 412 S 1 Lingkod Tarlac for livelihood projects, and spent the amount for other
A judge is an accomplice in the commission of bribery if he purposes.
cooperated in the commission of the crime BY PREVIOUS OR Are loans given by the province to a foundation in the nature of
SIMULTANEOUS ACTS public funds? NO, money given as a loan LOSES ITS CHARACTER
AS PUBLIC FUND OR PROPERTY even if prior to the loan is a
Formilleza v. Sandiganbayan, 129 S 91 public fund
There must be an indication that the public officer received the money
IN CONSIDERATION How is malversation committed?
Pontevida v. People, 467 S 219
1. Misappropriation
ART. 211-A – QUALIFIED BRIBERY 2. Taking for personal use
Read in connection with prevaricacion 3. Allowing another
What about SPL punishing the offense with life imprisonment? Concept of “taking” in malversation, same as that in theft
Note that Art. 211-A uses reclusion perpetua ORDINARY COMPLETE
BRIBERY ONLY, not under Art. 211-A
Malversation may be committed by dolo or by culpa
Justice Callejo: but look at intent of the law
ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER
NOTE that the person MUST BE CONVICTED OF THE CRIME Quenejero v. People, 397 S 465
Consider duties of the officer:
1. Custody of funds PART OF DUTY
ART. 217 – MALVERSATION 2. Duty-bound to ACCOUNT
Salamera v. Sandiganbayan, 303 S 307 Bariga v. Sandiganbayan, 457 S 301

Public Funds / Public Property – funds or property owned by the TITLE of the office is IMMATERIAL, it is the NATURE OF THE JOB
government, including LGUs and GOCCs; funds impressed with WHICH IS DECISIVE OR CONTROLLING
public character
Frias v. People, 4 Oct 2007
Baluyot v. Organza, 325 S 222 Local government officials become accountable public officers either:
1. Because of the nature of their functions Giving of vale or loan from public funds prohibited by Sec. 105 of the
2. On account of their participation in the use or application of Government Auditing Code
public funds
Enriquez v. People, 331 S 538
PUBLIC FUNDS/PROPERTY The law creates a prima facie presumption of malversation WHEN AN
Is object evidence in the nature of public property? YES ACCOUNTABLE OFFICER FAILS TO ACCOUNT WHEN
Castillo v. Buencillo, 427 S 356 DEMANDED nevertheless, THERE MUST STILL BE EVIDENCE
Solesta v. Mision, 457 S 519 OF THE SHORTAGE
Even if an object is merely offered as exhibits is pending litigation,
they are public property since they are in custodial egis THERE ARE AS MANY CRIMES AS OCCASIONS WHEN MONEY
TAKEN malversation may be complexed with other crimes, BUT
Hence, a CASH BAIL BOND, and MONEY CONSIGNED with the NOT when the other is used TO CONCEAL the crime
court, are also in the nature of public funds as they are in custodial
egis public funds include money in custody by provision of law or San Jose v. Camorongan, 488 S 102
the Rules of Court or by any other order or legal process issued by a When the officer is not an accountable officer, NO MALVERSATION
court There may be liability for MALVERSATION BY CULPA
People v. Enfermo, 476 S 513 Gaviola v. Navarete, 341 S 68

Payroll money of employees of the government are public funds Restitution DOES NOT extinguish criminal liability MITIGATED
BEFORE they are given to the employees only
Diego v. Sandiganbayan, 339 S 592 Pontevida v. Sandiganbayan

Use of dangerous drugs seized by government malversation Quimpo v. Sandiganbayan
Magsino v. People, 57 OG __ Arias v. Sandiganbayan, 19 Dec 1989

Includes objects seized by virtue of a search warrant Negligence MUST BE RECKLESS, SINCE GOOD FAITH IS A
DEFENSE
Arriola v. Sandiganbayan, 494 S 344
Logs seized pursuant to the Forestry Code, also public property Magsuci v. Sandiganbayan
LIABILITIES NOTE that abuse of public position is INHERENT in malversation

People v. Sendaydiego, 81 S 12
Private individuals who conspire with public officers may also be
guilty of malversation ART. 218 – FAILURE TO RENDER ACCOUNT
Campomanes v. People, 511 S 285
Meneses v. Sandiganbayan, 232 S 441 Requisites:
Chan v. Sandiganbayan, 466 S 190 1. Required by law to render account
2. Did not render account
Suppose a person arrested without a warrant who, while

Manlangit v. Sandiganbayan undergoing preliminary investigation executed an affidavit
NO NEED for demand to render account basis is the OBLIGATION waiving Art. 125, and then escapes, is the officer liable? YES
OR DUTY IMPOSED BY LAW
Rodillas v. Sandiganbayan, 244 P 266
Gravamen of the offense the FAILURE to render account as Petitioner acted negligently and beyond the scope of his authority
required by law when he permitted his charge to create the situation which led to her
escape it is the duty of any police officer having custody of a
prisoner to take the necessary precautions to assure the absence of
ART. 220 – TECHNICAL MALVERSATION any means to escape, and a failure in this will make his act one of
definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate non-performance
Abdullah v. People, 455 S 78 of duty
No misappropriation, or not for personal use public officer uses the
fund or property for ANOTHER GOVERNMENTAL PURPOSE People v. Bandino, 29 P 249
Connivance – tolerance of infraction
RA NO. 7080 – PLUNDER CONNIVING OR CONSENTING TO EVASION is penalized under

Art. 223; EVASION THROUGH NEGLIGENCE is under Art. 224
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan, 421 S 280
Plunder is malum in se What if the officer, without conniving, ALLOWED a DETENTION
PRISONER to escape? NO LIABILITY – Art. 223 requires
RELATE to Art. 8 is the Plunder Law a conspiracy statute? connivance; Art. 224 covers only prisoners by final judgment
[BUT – Art. 223 also uses the word “CONSENTING,” and “to allow” is
similar to “to consent;” also, Art. 224 mentions “prisoner” merely
ART. 223, 224 – INFIDELITY IN CUSTODY OF PRISONERS which is not as expressly qualified as in Art. 223 which provides that it
be “by final judgment”]
Who are included?
Prisoners by final judgment (Art. 223, par. 1) and detention prisoners The OFFENDER MUST BE THE ONE IN CUSTODY OF THE
(Art. 223, par. 2) PRISONER
RELATE to Art. 88, for unless the manner of service of sentence is

allowed by this provision, there is liability 17 Sept 2009
NOTE that a person serving DESTIERRO is NOT DETAINED ART. 246 – PARRICIDE
How may it be committed? Spouse – legitimately married

By dolo or by culpa Relatives by blood in the direct line
Children may be legitimate or illegitimate (include children from

adulterous or incestuous relationships) BUT, IF THERE WAS NO INTENT TO KILL physical injuries
People v. Paycana, 16 Apr 2008 RELATE to Art. 263, par. 2 relationship is a special aggravating
circumstances
What if the child is less than 3 days old? INFANTICIDE, NOT
PARRICIDE
NOTE that in infanticide, RELATIONSHIP is NOT AN ELEMENT; but ART. 247 – DEATH UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
if either of the parents kills the child, impose PENALTY FOR
PARRICIDE, except as provided in par. 2 of Art. 255 People v. Araquel, 106 P 677
Art. 247 does not define a felony it merely grants a privilege or
NOTE that the law DOES NOT REQUIRE OFFENDER’S benefit amounting to an exemption
AWARENESS OF HIS RELATIONSHIP WITH THE VICTIM, what
matters is the FACT, not the knowledge, of the relationship Destierro in this instance is NOT A PENALTY, but TO PROTECT
THE ACCUSED FROM REVENGE
Parricide is ABSORBED in ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE since the
use of term homicide is generic People v. Coricor, 79 P 627
The rationale for imposing destierro is a product of twisted logic
HOWEVER, EVEN IF THERE IS CONSPIRACY, ONLY THE [Justice Perfecto]
PERSON RELATED to the victim will be liable for parricide
May court consider Art. 13 or 14?
RELATE to Art. 8, 17, and 48 Weight of authority does not and as held in People v. Oyanib, 406
Complex crime of parricide and infanticide P 621, Art. 247 is in itself already an absolutory and exempting cause
People v. Laureano, 71 P 530 PROBLEM: the law speaks of serious physical injuries, but what
In parricide, treachery is a GENERIC, NOT A QUALIFYING, if the crime/killing was merely attempted or frustrated, is
CIRCUMSTANCE destierro still applicable?
Is there parricide by culpa? YES – reckless imprudence resulting in People v. Wagas, 8 Mar 1989
parricide There must be a concurrence of:
1. Offended spouse killing his or her spouse and the other
People v. Paycana person
Court applied Art. 48 – parricide with unintentional abortion 2. Killing must be AT THE TIME of flagrant unfaithfulness
People v. Rubinos, 432 P __ BUT what if the killing occurs AFTER? POSSIBLE
People v. Abarca
Parricide is POSSIBLE in the ATTEMPTED and FRUSTRATED If killing is a DIRECT BY-PRODUCT length of time must be judged
stages on a case to case basis
People v. Galura
People v. Rabandan Treachery inherent in use of POISON, if there is intent to kill, and the
victim dies IF THERE IS NO INTENT TO KILL, treachery is
OPTIONS – defense of honor, and thus justified, under Art. 11; OR qualifying if victim dies
under the circumstances in Art. 247, penalty is destierro
MISTAKE OF FACT is applicable ART. 249 – HOMICIDE
People v. Vergara, 15 S 1121 General Rule

ATTEMPTED – injuries are NOT life-threatening
Defense of honor in Art. 11 may justify FRUSTRATED – injuries life-threatening
NOTE that Art. 247 uses the term SEXUAL INTERCOURSE, so if Lazaro v. People, 26 June 2007
what was committed was SEXUAL ASSAULT, accused cannot invoke It is not the gravity of the wounds alone which determines whether a
Art. 247 since this provision was not amended by RA No. 8353 felony is attempted or frustrated, but whether the assailant had
passed the subjective phase in the commission of the offense
ART. 248 – MURDER People v. Falorina, 424 S 655

NO FRUSTRATED homicide through reckless imprudence
RELATE to RA No. 8294 homicide presupposes INTENT TO KILL, which is INCOMPATIBLE
with imprudence or negligence
People v. Comadre
Use of explosives BUT there is reckless imprudence resulting to physical injuries or
serious physical injuries
People v. Malngan
Use of fire Euthanasia is MURDER, although not defined specifically in the RPC,
if initiative comes from the offender
Outrage – gross insult
Scoff – contempt by derisive acts or language RELATE to Sec. 6 of RA No. 9262
People v. Olivo, 402 P 531

People v. Guerrero, 238 P 118 ART. 251, 252 – TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
Art. 251 – results in DEATH
For FIRE to be qualifying, its USE MUST BE PURPOSELY SOUGHT Art. 252 – results in PHYSICAL INJURIES
NO complex crime of arson with homicide either ARSON, or Arts. 251 and 252 DO NOT DEFINE A CRIME, they merely
HOMICIDE IDENTIFY WHO MAY BE LIABLE
People v. Onlagada, 339 S 224 People v. Arquiza, 62 P 611

Tumultuous affray takes placed when a quarrel occurs between Complex crime of ILLEGAL DISCHARGE OF FIREARM WITH
people in a confused and tumultuous manner SERIOUS or LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
People v. Abiog, 37 P 137 Offense cannot be committed by culpa, since SPECIFIC INTENT is
SEVERAL means more than two FOR EACH group present, although not intent to kill
People v. Sion, 277 S 127 US v. Andrada, 5 P 464

Arts. 251 and 252 WILL NOT APPLY IF ASSAILANT OR OFFENDER
CAN BE IDENTIFIED
ART. 255 – INFANTICIDE
Other instances when Arts. 251, 252 WILL NOT APPLY:
1. If there was ONLY ONE INDIVIDUAL ATTACKED Relationship is NOT AN ELEMENT of this crime as long as victim
2. If there was a DELIBERATE ATTACK on the other group is LESS THAN THREE DAYS OLD
People v. Paycana
ART. 253 – ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE The child must be born ALIVE viable, or capable of independent
life
People v. Marasigan, 70 P 588
The PERSON ATTEMPTING TO COMMIT SUICIDE is NOT LIABLE If the victim is a FETUS with INTRAUTERINE LIFE of 6 MONTHS
IF HE SURVIVES abortion
CONCEALING OF MOTHER OF DISHONOR

ART. 254 – DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS Mitigating circumstance
RELATE to Arts. 153, 154, 155, and 248 People v. Oro, 90 P 548
Treachery is INHERENT in infanticide
Dado v. People, 449 P 521
Elements: People v. Morales, 121 S 426
1. Offender discharges firearm RELATE to Art. 276 (abandoning a minor)
2. Against another person – aimed at another TO SCARE, NOT When a mother abandons a 2-day old child, and the child dies
TO KILL OR INFLICT INJURY INFANTICIDE
But if there was no intent to kill, and the child dies
What if the discharge was made in a public place? ART. 153 MAY ABANDONMENT
APPLY
Although abuse of superior strength is NOT aggravating, SC has
ruled that it may apply
ART. 263 – SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES

ART. 256, 257, 258, 259 – ABORTION
Blindness – must be COMPLETE
People v. Paycana Impotence – does not mean inability to copulate
People v. Lopez, 398 P 707
HAND is a PRINCIPAL PART, BUT a FINGER is NOT, EXCEPT
People v. Eng, 64 P 1057 THAT, LOSS OF A THUMB is SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURY
Unintentional abortion may be committed by CULPA
People v. Contemplacion, 40 OG __
Is there frustrated abortion? Loss of 4 fingers is SERIOUS physical injuries
No decision yet, but Justice Regalado believes there is
Loss of Hearing – must be COMPLETE and TOTAL
ART. 260 – DUEL People v. Balubar, 60 P 698
Can accused invoke the pari delicto doctrine? NO, doctrine is

inapplicable in criminal cases ART. 264 – ADMINISTERING INJURIOUS SUBSTANCES
Can there be self-defense? NO, there was an agreement to fight Must be WITHOUT INTENT TO KILL
RELATE to Justo v. CA, where Justo hit the victim before reaching Must be made KNOWINGLY the accused must be aware that the
the venue even if there was agreement to fight substance or the beverage is INJURIOUS to the health of the victim
If made WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE serious physical injuries through

ART. 262 – MUTILATION reckless imprudence
Of what?
1. Essential organ of reproduction, i.e., castration What is meant by “taking advantage”?
2. Other organs Trickery, or pretending to possess supernatural power
Offense MUST BE PURPOSELY DONE, it must be intentional May there be an impossible crime in this instance? NO
there is a deliberate intent, with a desired result THERE MUST BE NO OTHER CRIME, in this case there may be
physical injuries
US v. Bogel, 7 P 286
Mutilation is understood to be the lopping off or clipping off some part
of the body the putting out of an eye does not come under this
definition
ART. 265 – LESS SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES Second Form

By a man OR a woman – SEXUAL ASSAULT
People v. Remo, 132 S 166
If medically attended to for 2 days, and incapacitated for work for 24 People v. Abello, 25 Mar 2009
days LESS SERIOUS physical injuries Elements of Sexual Assault:
1. Offender commits act of sexual assault
People v. Andaya, 34 P 69 2. By means of inserting penis in another’s mouth or anal orifice,
Rape with less serious physical injuries OR any instrument or object into another’s genital or anal
orifice
3. Under the circumstances enumerated in Art. 266-A, par. 1
ART. 266 – SLIGHT PHYSICAL INJURIES
There is NO FRUSTRATED RAPE, nor FRUSTRATED SEXUAL
People v. Penesa, 81 P 398 ASSAULT
If THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF INCAPACITY, crime is SLIGHT
PHYSICAL INJURIES People v. Mahinay, 302 S 455
STATUTORY RAPE when victim is BELOW 12 years old (actual
What if the offender SLAPS the victim’s face? age, not mental age)
1. No physical injuries and no incapacity SLIGHT PHYSICAL
INJURIES People v. Edonino, 222 S 489
2. If PURPOSE is to humiliate in presence of other people Force may be actual or constructive
SLANDER BY DEED under Art. 359
3. If WITH INTENT TO KILL homicide(?) People v. Correa, 269 S 76
4. If WITHOUT INTENT TO KILL Art. 365; SERIOUS People v. Antonio, 233 S 283
PHYSICAL INJURIES or CULPA if without negligence(?) Different people react differently in given situations
People v. Remudo, 416 S 432

24 Sept 2009 People v. Abulao, 530 S 675
ART. 266-A, B, C, D – RAPE DEPRIVED OF REASON

People v. Andaya, 306 S 202
People v. Nequia People v. Nicolas, 436 S 462
People v. Ritter Means mental retardation, intellectual weakness, or mental
incapacity, OR mental deficiency or abnormality which
First Form INCAPACITATES THE VICTIM TO GIVE CONSENT
By a man includes husbands
What if the crime was committed with the use of a weapon, and
People v. Abuel, 261 S 339 committed by two persons? BOTH QUALIFY THE CRIME, no legal
People v. Palma, 144 S 236 basis to use the other as generic since either is not in Art. 14
BUT deprivation NEED NOT BE COMPLETE BUT this can be a basis for imposition of exemplary damages,
following People v. Catubig
People v. Guillermo, 521 S 597
Where victim was raped when she was ASLEEP likewise People v. Almanzor, 433 P 667
incapable of giving consent If LICENSED FIREARM is used QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCE
If UNLICENSED FIREARM is used NOT AGGRAVATING,
People v. Salarsa, 18 Aug 1997 NEITHER IS IT A SEPARATE CRIME
It does not matter whether the victim was only half-asleep, or was
only drowsy, WHAT IS DETERMINATIVE IS WHETHER THE VICTIM RAPE WITH HOMICIDE/ATTEMPTED RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
COULD HAVE GIVEN CONSENT OR NOT Special complex crime, DO NOT APPLY Art. 48
Homicide MUST BE CONSUMMATED
People v. Conde, 252 S 681 Must be committed BY REASON of the rape
A person who is asleep is similar to an unconscious person
People v. Ramos, 94 S 842
People v. Dela Cruz, 235 S 297 “BY REASON” – with a logical connection
People v. Lintal LIABILITIES

Use of drugs for rape If the accused TRANSMITS STD TO THE VICTIM AND VICTIM DIES
RAPE WITH HOMICIDE
FRAUDULENT MACHINATION
i.e., accused is a twin brother who pretended to be the husband People v. Honra, Jr., 295 P 299
Misrepresentation If homicide is NOT consummated, there are TWO CRIMES (what
Accused hoodwinked the victim through deceit or machination about attempted homicide with rape?)
DEADLY WEAPON (in Art. 266-B) What if the victim suffers serious or less serious physical
Does this include an unlicensed firearm? injuries?
People v. Apiado, 53 P 325
People v. Alfeche, 294 S 353 Apply Art. 48 – SINGLE ACT
Deadly weapon – any weapon or instrument calculated to produce
fear of death or serious bodily harm People v. Lizada
PREPARATORY ACTS may be ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS IF
People v. Cula, 385 P 742 THERE IS NO INTENT TO LIE WITH THE VICTIM
Mere possession of weapon IS NOT ENOUGH, IT MUST BE USED
TO PERPETRATE THE RAPE People v. Cordonio, 319 P 169
If the PURPOSE is TO RAPE RAPE
If the PURPOSE is to ABDUCT rape is incidental, so FORCIBLE If the court looks at the victim to determine age, THIS IS NOT
ABDUCTION WITH RAPE (note that forcible abduction requires JUDICIAL NOTICE, but a VIEW OF OBJECT EVIDENCE
specific intent lewd designs)
INTENT OF THE ACCUSED IN THIS INSTANCE IS PRIMORDIAL to What is the probative weight of this view by the judge?
determine whether it is forcible abduction with rape, or separate Depends on each case; this is but an approximation of age, NOT
crimes of forcible abduction and rape ACTUAL PROOF
If KILLING is merely an AFTERTHOUGHT still, rape with homicide People v. Garcia, 346 P 475
People v. Delantar, 514 S 115
People v. Obrique, 420 S 304 Guardian – legal or judicial guardian
People v. Intong, 5 Feb 2004 People v. Watiwat, 410 S 324

When rape and sexual assault is committed in the same occasion
2 SEPARATE CRIMES People v. Morillo, 434 P 743
Under custody of police or military CONVICT OR DETENTION
People v. Soriano, 436 P 719 PRISONER
People v. Aaron, 438 P 296
PARDON
DO NOT APPLY Art. 15 if the relationship WILL REQUIRE THE Pardon of one of the principals, by marriage, affects the
IMPOSITION OF DEATH, but note that in RA No. 8353, relationship ACCOMPLICES and/or ACCESSORIES, BUT NOT THE OTHER
is QUALIFYING, NOT mitigating PRINCIPALS – the only benefit the other principals will derive is with
respect to a lesser count of the commission of the offense
What if a pregnant woman is raped, and abortion is caused?
RAPE WITH UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION (on the assumption that
offender did not knew victim was pregnant – see wording of Arts. 256 ART. 267 – KIDNAPPING
and 257)
Committed by a PRIVATE individual, otherwise, crime is ARBITRARY
People v. Diño, 160 S 197 DETENTION
2 rapists, but only one killed victim BOTH ARE LIABLE FOR RAPE
WITH HOMICIDE People v. Pickerell, 414 S 19
Although the victim may have consented initially, but subsequently
QUALIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES wanted to return or go back KIDNAPPING
May the age of the victim be stipulated in the pre-trial order? NO, Serious Illegal Detention – deprivation of liberty in whatever form
People v. Balbarona
People v. Astorga, 283 S 420
Can the court take judicial notice of the victim’s age? People v. Mercy Santos, 283 S 543
People v. Rullepa, 398 S 567 Length of detention is IRRELEVANT
respect to murder WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED GENERIC

There is NO COMPLEX CRIME of KIDNAPPING WITH AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
USURPATION OR SIMULATION OF PUBLIC AUTHORITY this is
a mode of committing the offense Kidnapping is moved by a SPECIFIC INTENT intent TO DEPRIVE
LIBERTY
KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE WITH RAPE(?)
KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM WITH HOMICIDE If the detention is merely INCIDENTAL to the killing MURDER,
NOT KIDNAPPING (same rule applies to rape – if detention is merely
People v. Muit, 8 Oct 2008 (decided by 2nd Division) incidental, crime is rape)
Kidnap for ransom victim was killed, accused convicted of
KIDNAPPING FOR RANSOM only kidnapping for ransom already KIDNAPPING WITH RANSOM
penalized by death, so homicide is now a generic aggravating Mere INTENT TO DEMAND is enough, no need for actual demand
circumstance (homicide QUALIFIED the kidnapping) in fact, NO NEED FOR ACTUAL MONEY DEMAND, ANY OTHER
BENEFIT IS SUFFICIENT
Justice Callejo: decision in Muit, is not correct. Follow ruling in
People v. Deang, decided by the SC en banc offense in Muit People v. Mesina, 142 S 761/671
should have been kidnapping for ransom with homicide The victim is already dead but offender still asked for ransom
MURDER, not kidnapping with murder or kidnapping with ransom
People v. Regala
People v. Reynes, 423 P 363, cited in Muit People v. Salvilla
People v. Larrañaga People v. Astorga

Dehumanization – deprivation of qualities of humanity, i.e., If victim is NOT YET LOCKED UP, GRAVE COERCION, not
compassion to victim kidnapping
“SEIZURE OF A PERSON FOR RANSOM” UNDER PD NO. 532

5 Oct 2009 People v. Isabelo Puno, 219 S 55
If the kidnapping is NOT ISOLATED, and the victim is NOT A
[continued] SPECIFIC VICTIM/PERSON PD No. 532 will apply
If KILLING is merely an AFTERTHOUGHT kidnapping with rape If the VICTIM WAS PRECONCEIVED Art. 267 will apply
OR kidnapping with homicide BUT, THERE MUST BE EVIDENCE OF PRIOR ATTEMPTS for PD
No. 532 to apply
In kidnapping with homicide or rape, the homicide or rape MUST BE
CONSUMMATED if merely ATTEMPTED or FRUSTRATED either People v. Pagalansan
TWO SEPARATE CRIMES, or Art. 48 will apply THERE ARE AS MANY CRIMES COMMITTED AS THE NUMBER
OF PERSONS KIDNAPPED
Is there a complex crime of kidnapping WITH MURDER? YES,
People v. Mercado, 346 S 256, but the qualifying circumstances with
People v. Bacungay, 228 P 798 Fortuno v. People, 426 S __

As many crimes as persons kidnapped EVEN IF KIDNAPPING WAS
DONE AT THE SAME TIME, PLACE, AND OCCASION
ART. 286 – GRAVE COERCIONS
ART. 270 – KIDNAPPING OF MINORS Sarabia v. People, 414 P 189

Where petitioner, a policeman, intimidated two lovers, forced them to
People v. Ty, 263 S 645 perform sexual acts on each other against their will, and extorted 100
Elements: pesos from them, and thereafter forced the woman to masturbate him
1. Offender entrusted with custody 2 counts of grave coercion for compelling first, the two lovers, and
2. Offender deliberately refuses to return minor second, the woman to perform sexual acts on him (petitioner), both
against their and her will
Committed only BY DOLO
People v. Pastrana, 436 P 127 ART. 293 – ROBBERY

De Guzman v. People, 17 Oct 2008
Either of the parents may be liable under Arts. 270 or 271 Elements:
1. Personal property (bienes muebles)
2. Unlawful taking (asportacion), BUT NOT NECESSARY that it
ART. 280 – QUALIFIED TRESPASS TO DWELLING be ACTUALLY CARRIED AWAY
3. Intent to gain (animus lucrandi)
People v. Avedosa 4. By means of violence against or intimidation of persons (VIP)
People v. Medina, 59 P 124 OR use of force upon things (FUT)
No such crime as TRESPASS TO DWELLING WITH HOMICIDE or TAKING

MURDER in these instances, trespass to dwelling is either generic People v. Tan, 320 S 30
aggravating or qualifying, or for 2 separate crimes Taking – felonious taking is the act of depriving another of his
personal property with animus non-revertendi
NOTE that trespass to dwelling is ABSORBED BY THE GREATER
OFFENSE especially when the original intent is to kill Gravamen of the offense taking with intent to gain
People v. Bustinera, 8 June 2004

ART. 282 – GRAVE THREATS Taking NEED NOT BE PERMANENT, may be temporary
What is the difference between robbery and extortion? NOTE decision in Laurel v. Judge Abrogar, 13 Jan 2009, which
Robbery takes place when the property is taken in possession right recognized theft of services is it now possible to commit robbery of
then and there, or at the moment of the robber services?
To TAKE INCLUDES ANY ACT INTENDED TO TRANSFER US v. Albao

POSSESSION Theft of DANGEROUS DRUGS possible, or robbery, if with VIP or
FUT
People v. Bukalan, 410 S 470
Taking is COMPLETE and robbery is consummated even if What if AFTER the taking, VIP committed? THEFT, NOT
possession was only for a brief period of time ROBBERY, except when it comes within the special complex crimes
or robbery with homicide or rape as the case may be
Valenzuela v. People
NO FRUSTRATED ROBBERY/THEFT What is intimidation?
Sazon v. Sandiganbayan, 10 Feb 2009
MERALCO v. Peng, 492 S __*** Intimidation is unlawful coercion, extortion, duress, or putting in fear.
In robbery with VIP, the intimidation consists in causing or creating
INTENT TO GAIN fear in the mind of a person or bringing in a sense of mental distress
The intent to gain is enough, ACTUAL GAIN IS IRRELEVANT IN in view of a risk or evil that may be impending, real or imagined
ROBBERY OR THEFT also, NOT LIMITED TO PECUNIARY
BENEFIT, other benefits may also be considered What about SNATCHING?
Liability depends – if NO INJURY committed THEFT
There is a PRESUMPTION OF INTENT TO GAIN in the taking of If with VIP ROBBERY
property
Mabunga v. People, 421 S 510
Gaviola v. People One in possession of RECENTLY stolen property is PRESUMED
In all cases where one takes property UNDER CLAIM, IN GOOD THE PRINCIPAL OR THE ACTOR presumption is rebuttable, BUT
FAITH, OF TITLE NO ROBBERY or THEFT, BUT liable for possession may be actual or constructive
COERCION, EVEN IF IT EVENTUALLY APPEARS THAT
PROPERTY WAS NOT ACTUALLY OWNED BY HIM – good faith is
important ART. 294 – ROBBERY WITH VIP
People v. Reyes ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE

The owner of a property who STEALS HIS OWN PROPERTY WHEN
UNDER THE CUSTODY OR IN THE POSSESSION OF A BAILEE Homicide – generic, includes parricide, infanticide, and murder
liable for either robbery or theft as the case may be Homicide MUST BE CONSUMMATED
PERSONAL PROPERTY People v. De Jesus, 224 S __

Any property no defined as “real property” by the Civil Code, AND There is no crime as robbery with homicide through reckless
capable of APPROPRIATION imprudence still, robbery with homicide
What if the homicide is attempted or frustrated?

Either separate crimes, or Art. 48 applies What if victim was killed first, and his property was taken?
HOMICIDE AND THEFT, theft merely an afterthought
There is no robbery with murder qualifying circumstances become
generic aggravating NOTE that INTENT to rob IS NOT THE ONLY GAUGE OF
LIABILITY(?)
“On the Occasion”
Means CONTEMPORANEOUSLY with the robbery People v. Tidong, 225 S 324
Intent TO GAIN is enough, even if there is no intent to rob
“By Reason”
Not necessarily contemporaneously, but WITH LEGAL, LOGICAL What about multiple deaths? INCLUDED, no crime of robbery with
CONNECTION between the robbery and the homicide MULTIPLE homicide
Intimate Relation/Logical Connection People v. Caroso

1. To facilitate commission of robbery People v. Quejada, 425 S __
2. To facilitate escape
3. To preserve possession of loot ROBBERY WITH RAPE
4. To eliminate witnesses Rape ACCOMPANIED the robbery
Thus, original intent is to ROB
What if the victim is caught in the crossfire between police and Rape MUST BE CONSUMMATED
robbers, is this robbery with homicide? YES
What if robbery is a mere afterthought after rape and killing?
What if the person killed is a bystander, is this robbery with RAPE WITH HOMICIDE AND THEFT
homicide? YES
What about multiple rapes? INCLUDED, and irrespective of
IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO THE VICTIM OF THE ROBBERY OR number of times
HOMICIDE IS, HE NEED NOT EVEN BE INVOLVED IN THE
ROBBERY, ONLY A RATIONAL CONNECTION BETWEEN THE People v. Suyu
ROBBERY AND THE DEATH IS NEEDED thus, even when it is SEXUAL ASSAULT IS ABSORBED by robbery with rape there is
one of the robbers who died, this is still robbery with homicide no such crime as robbery with sexual assault
However homicide is committed can either be negligent/accidental People v. Angeles, 224 S 251
or intentional, AS LONG AS THE ORIGINAL INTENT IS TO ROB Rape is not to be complexed IF IT DID NOT ACCOMPANY THE
ROBBERY, meaning, the RAPE IS NOT DONE AT THE SITUS OF
People v. Gardon, 104 P 171 THE ROBBERY
Even if it was the policeman who shot and killed the bystander
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE
What about robbery with mutilation, or arson? 7 Oct 2009

FOLLOW RULE AS IN RAPE – MUST BE CONTEMPORANEOUS,
not merely by reason of the robbery, since Art. 294, par. 1 uses the ART. 306 – BRIGANDAGE
word “accompanied”
RELATE Arts. 306 and 307 to PD No. 532
RELATE to Art. 262 Highway robbery may be committed by only one person, provided
that there is evidence that on prior occasions the accused have been
engaged in similar robberies attempts or prior consummation
ART. 296 – DEFINITION OF “BAND”
If the offender commits a particular robbery with a particular victim
Did RA No. 8294 AMEND Art. 296? YES ROBBERY only, not robbery on a highway
NOTE that use of unlicensed firearm is a special aggravating This is an exception to Rule on Evidence of similar acts
circumstance
ART. 308 – THEFT
RELATE to PD No. 532 – there must be evidence of indiscriminate Gaviola v. People, 480 S 436
activity Elements:
1. Personal property is taken
2. Property belongs to another
ART. 297 – HOMICIDE COMMITTED ON OCCASION OF 3. Intent to gain
ATTEMPTED/FRUSTRATED ROBBERY 4. Taking done without consent
5. Without VIP, FUT
NOTE that there is no FRUSTRATED robbery or theft
May one be liable for theft even if there is VIP? YES, if the VIP is
perpetrated AFTER the taking of property
ART. 299 – ROBBERY WITH FUT
People v. Cruz, 429 P 511
Napolis v. People Offender killed the victim, and as an afterthought, stole personal
People v. Araraw, 110 S 410 property of victim TWO CRIMES – murder or homicide, AND theft,
since there is no violence or intimidation in connection with the taking
ART. 302 – ROBBERY IN UNINHABITED PLACE If taking merely an afterthought THEFT
The SC has ruled that “uninhabited place” in Art. 302 actually means People v. Moreno, 425 P 526
“uninhabited HOUSE” (in contrast to Art. 299) The accused raped victim, while victim unconscious, accused took
necklace and watch of victim TWO CRIMES – rape AND theft,
even if there is violence in connection with rape, but taking was

without VIP Laurel v. Judge Abrogar, 13 Jan 2009
What is personal property that may be the object of theft? Any
NO frustrated theft property, tangible or intangible, corporeal or incorporeal, capable of
appropriation
Presumption – one found in possession of recently stolen property
presumed the author of the taking Is “business” capable of appropriation? YES, under Sec. 2 of the
Bulk Sales Law
If accused found in possession of part of stolen property –
presumption for entire property? YES Is there such a thing as theft of services? YES, the petitioner’s use
of Laurel’s communications facilities without PLDT’s permission is
People v. Lopez, 25 P 529 theft a voice call is transmitted as electricity, and electricity, from
Refers to either actual or constructive possession the Civil Code, is personal property, and thus, international or
domestic telephone service may be the subject of theft
People v. Sellano(?)
Gain – not necessarily pecuniary gain What are covered as personal properties?
1. Intangibles
US v. Vera, 43 P 1000 2. Electrical energy
If a person receives property for a particular purpose or intention, but 3. Gas
does not apply property for specific purpose CRIME – THEFT, 4. Commercial documents
NOT ESTAFA 5. Checks
6. Promissory notes
Borse(?) v. CA, 387 P 15 7. Invoices
Material Possession – possession in robbery and theft by offender; 8. Evidence in credit, even if credit is valueless
possession which the offender cannot set up against the owner of the
property; DE FACTO POSSESSION THUS, appropriation of forces of nature under the control of man by
means of tampering, may now be penalized as theft
Juridical Possession – possession which gives to the transferee a
right over the property which the transferee may set up against the San Jose v. Kamurungan, 488 S 102
transferor; DE JURE POSSESSION
People v. De Leon, 49 P 437
Galang v. People, 444 S 98 If theft of several property is committed in one occasion, even if
Possession of a teller of a bank, mere material possession; bank owned by different people, ONE THEFT single criminal intent
acquires juridical possession
Lauro Santos v. People, 29 Jan 1990
When no repairs made on a car delivered by owner, and shop owner
sold the same to another person THEFT
PAR. 2(1)
THEFT OF LOST PROPERTY People v. Sison, 322 S 345
Elements: Accused, branch manager of a bank, took money from vault of bank –
1. Offender finds lost property QUALIFIED THEFT
2. No delivery to proper authority
3. Intent to gain People v. Lucson, 57 P 325
How about bank teller? QUALIFIED THEFT, not merely theft
People v. Rodrigo, 16 S 475
Local Authority – municipal mayor People v. Bago, 330 S 115
Person in-charge of materials and head of the department
US v. Serna, 21 P __ QUALIFIED THEFT
Law does not fix a timeline, depends on the circumstances
Rebucan v. People, 507 S 332
People v. Avila, 44 P 720 Cashier of a company or a bank QUALIFIED THEFT
Lost – generic term, may include loss by someone stealing it, or any
act by any person other than owner, or owner losing the property People v. Mercado, 397 S 746
Manager of a jewelry store QUALIFIED THEFT
People v. Rodrigo
NO theft of lost property by CULPA – law requires intent; crime is People v. Seranilla, 244 P 295
malum in se intent to gain is presumed from deliberate refusal of Trusted employee connives with a non-employee? ONLY
finder to deliver EMPLOYEE LIABLE FOR QUALIFIED THEFT, person who
connives, with no relation to company, SIMPLE THEFT (even if there
What if property is given to policeman (not to mayor)? LIABLE is conspiracy)
FOR THEFT
MAIL MATTER
Avecilla v. People, 11 June 1992
ART. 310 – QUALIFIED THEFT Mail matter subject of qualified theft – RA No. 7354 – all matters
authorized by the government to be delivered through the postal
ABUSE OF CONFIDENCE service; includes letters, parcels, printed materials, money orders
People v. Song, 63 P 369 Does not matter if registered mail matter or not
There must be, between the offender and the offended, a relation of
dependence, guardianship, or vigilance of the property Marcelo v. Sandiganbayan, 302 S 102
Whether employee or not qualified theft; private individual who
Grave abuse must originate from special relation of intimacy and steals mail matter
confidence between offender and offended party
CARNAPPING
Art. 310 amended by RA No. 6539
Theft of motor vehicle, now CARNAPPING 2. Vehicles which run only on trains or tracks
1. Intent to gain 3. Tractors, trailers, and traction engines of all kinds USED
2. Taking of motor vehicle EXCLUSIVELY FOR AGRICULTURAL PURPOSES
3. Belonging to another A TRAILER, when propelled or intended to be propelled BY
4. Without consent of owner ATTACHMENT TO A MOTOR VEHICLE, shall be classified as a
5. By VIP or FUT, or EVEN WITHOUT VIP/FUT separate motor vehicle
People v. Tan, 323 S 30*** People v. Bustinera, 431 S 284***

Robbery and Theft, different from carnapping – anti-carnapping law Although driver had lawful possession, act of not returning car
deals EXCLUSIVELY with theft or robbery of motor vehicle so that contrary to agreement to return at the time fixed, transformed
without the law, this is either theft or robbery character of possession into an unlawful one presumption is taking
with intent to gain (note that car was later found in an abandoned lot)
Intent to gain is enough – actual gain not necessary
Mere use of the car constitutes GAIN in contemplation of the law
SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF CARNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE,
MURDER, OR RAPE People v. Calabroso, 340 S 332***
People v. Mejia, 275 S 127 For crime of carnapping with homicide to be committed, THE
If the driver or occupant of motor vehicle is killed or raped, single ORIGINAL INTENTION OF THE OFFENDER MUST BE TO
indivisible offense, special complex crime CARNAP THE CAR, and on the occasion or by reason of the
carnapping, a person is killed
For the special complex crime to be committed, constituent offenses
MUST BE CONSUMMATED The killing or raping may take place BEFORE or AFTER carnapping,
AS LONG AS THERE IS INTIMATE CONNECTION with the
Supposing, in the course of the carnapping, person is injured, carnapping
not killed, or there was attempt to rape, not raped? included in
commission with VIP – penalty is for carnapping with VIP People v. Garcia, 400 S 229***
Even if at the inception of the incident, offenders are in lawful
What if two persons died/raped? possession of the car by receiving it from the owner of the
Other homicide/murder/rape ABSORBED, BUT ONLY TO OWNER, establishment, but later on killed the driver and took the car
DRIVER, OR OCCUPANT of motor vehicle CARNAPPING with homicide/murder
Other than these persons, SEPARATE CRIME
It is not required that the car be taken from the owner, it may also be
MOTOR VEHICLE taken from an employee in-charge of the car
Any vehicle propelled by any power OTHER THAN MUSCULAR
POWER using the public highways, EXCEPT: Izon v. People, 117 S __
1. Road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers, sprinklers, lawn Motorized tricycle is a motorized vehicle
mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork lifts, amphibian trucks, and
cranes IF NOT USED ON PUBLIC HIGHWAYS
Is abandonment of car an exempting circumstance? NO, the fact Castrodes v. Ponelo, 83 S 670
is that he still took and used the car If accused usurps real rights of another, and commits violence by
killing another TWO CRIMES – usurpation, and homicide
Supposing the offender carnapped a vehicle which he knew was NO crime of usurpation with homicide
stolen? NOT AN ACCESSORY, since under anti-carnapping law, no
penalty for accessory, BUT criminally liable for anti-fencing law
ART. 315 – ESTAFA
Presumption that one in possession, the principal applies to
carnapping MISAPPROPRIATION/CONVERSION
People v. Tunday Salazar v. People, 437 S 41

What if car contains cargo, and cargo also stolen? TWO CRIMES Elements:
carnapping AND theft – do not apply Art. 48, since Art. 48 applies 1. Money, goods, or other personalty received by offender in
to felonies trust or on commission or for administration, with duty to
return the SAME (not a substitute)
People v. Prado, 254 S 531 2. Misappropriation or conversion OR denial of having received
property
CATTLE RUSTLING 3. To the prejudice of another
PD No. 532 4. There is demand by the other party
People v. Villacanta, 420 P 394 US v. Pascual, 10 P __

PD No. 533 is an amendment of Arts. 309 and 310 of the RPC Goods or property – anything which, owing to its value, may be an
article of trade; includes documents, deeds of sale, PNs, checks,
People v. Macatanda, 109 S 95 receipts
Encanta v. People, 405 P 726
For one to be liable for cattle rustling, TAKING not essential; KILLING Murao v. People, 462 S 366
CATTLE IS ENOUGH Phrase “with obligation to return the same thing” – contracts of
bailment, i.e., lease, personal property, lease, commodatum, deposit
Even if cattle is taken from caretaker
Goods or merchandise deposited or kept for the depositor until such
QUALIFIED CATTLE RUSTLING time as demanded by the depositor
People v. Martinada, 519 1991
When on the occasion of cattle rustling, person is killed ESTAFA – transfer of juridical possession to offender by offended
THEFT – material possession
ART. 312 – USURPATION THERE IS FIDUCIARY RELATIONSHIP – transfer originates from

consent of the offended party, express or implied, as in the sense
People v. Alfeche, 211 S 770 used in Civil Law essential element of estafa under this provision
Estafa is malum in se
Galvez v. CA, 42 S 278
Without fiduciary relationship, NO ESTAFA Sesbreno v. CA, 240 S 606
Money market transactions
Manahan v. CA, 255 S 202
Pari delicto doctrine – not applicable in criminal cases
People v. Trinidad, 53 OG 731
Conversion (destraer) – use or disposal of property entrusted as if it Tanso v. Drilon, 329 S __
were one’s own
Libuit v. CA, 469 S 310, [compare to Santos v. CA]
Ong v. People, 25 Apr 1989 Petitioner sold cylinder and engine – charged with estafa
Misappropriation – to own, or take property of another for one’s own CORRECT, since car was held in trust by petitioner, because it was
benefit or advantage; includes any attempt to dispose of the property delivered for repairs, and there is obligation to return the same thing
of another without any legal right
US v. Lim, 36 P 692
Lee v. People, 455 S 256 If fraud and deceit concurs with abuse of confidence estafa with
Salazar v. People, 391 S __ abuse of confidence
Even temporary disturbance of property rights constitute
misappropriation Ilagan v. CA, 239 S 575
As many crimes of estafa as number of persons from whom collection
Batulanon v. People, 502 S 35 is made on different dates
Misappropriation need not be permanent If without authority to collect in the first place – without juridical
possession so according to Justice Callejo: THEFT, not estafa
Tan v. People, 513 S 194
Salazar v. People, 336 S 531 Vallarta v. CA, 150 S 337***
Prejudicial to another – need not be the owner of the property If the accused and complainant entered into sale or return of jewelry
entrusted to another; prejudice or damage falls on someone other transaction ownership is transferred to the offender-vendee with a
than the owner/perpetrator of the crime right to return
People v. Soriano, 7 S 498 Gonzales v. Fiscal

No need for demand – not an essential element of crime even if Guingona v. Fiscal
there is no demand AS LONG AS THERE IS DIRECT OR
CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE OF MISAPPROPRIATION – crime is Quinto v. People, 305 S 708
committed NOVATION may extinguish criminal liability / prevent party from filing
the case
GOOD FAITH a defense under this provision – if there is justification If novation happens during pendency of case, NO
for failure to return, accused may be acquitted EXTINGUISHMENT of criminal liability
8 Oct 2009 TAKING UNDUE ADVANTAGE OF SIGNATURE

Prejudice – same prejudice as in par. 1(b)
TRUST RECEIPTS LAW Crime is committed with abuse of confidence
PD No. 115
Ang v. Lucero, 449 S 157
Trust Receipt Transaction
FICTITIOUS NAME/FALSE PRETENSE
Obligations of Trustee (Sec. 9) RCL Feeders Ltd. v. Perez, 445 S 696
1. Deliver to entrustor the goods acquired by the entrustee Elements:
2. Remit the proceeds of the sale of such goods 1. False pretense, fraudulent act or means committed prior to or
3. Failure of the entrustee, constitutes a crime under PD No. 115 simultaneous with commission of fraud to cause damage to
injured party
Not simply a loan transaction between debtor and creditor 2. Offended party relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or
transaction has a security feature embedded means
Metrobank v. Tonda, 392 S 797 Preferred HomeSpecialties, Inc. v. CA, 16 December 2005 ***
Acts in PD No. 115 constitute estafa False pretense – any trick or device whereby the property of another
is obtained
People v. Nitafan, 207 S 726 Fraudulent act/representations – those acts proceeding from or
Metrobank v. Tonda, 338 S 254 characterized by fraud, the purpose of which is to deceive
Crime is malum prohibitum intent to defraud or criminal intent not Fraudulent means – representations of one inducing another to act
required to its own injury
Representation – anything which proceeds from the action or
Metrobank v. Go, 23 Nov 2007 conduct of the party charged and which is sufficient to create upon
Goods which were imported were in fact in the warehouse, and the the mind a distinct impression of fact conducive to action
proceeds not misappropriated by the company, and there was no
intent to defraud the offended party People v. Menil, 340 S 125 ***
Ponzi scheme – the fact that early investors were paid the returns on
Ong v. CA, 449 P 691 their investments induced more people to participate in the illegal
Under PD No. 115, OFFICERS, NOT THE CORPORATION, ARE scheme with the hope of realizing the same extravagant rate of return
LIABLE since these officers are those that acted for the Ruling: DECEIT IS A SPECIES OF FRAUD
corporation Fraud – anything calculated to deceive, including all acts, omissions,
and concealment involving a breach of legal or equitable duty, trust,
Gonzales v. HSBC, 19 October 2007 or confidence justly reposed, resulting in damage to another, or by
Law on Agency DOES NOT APPLY TO CRIMINAL CASES which an undue advantage is taken of another; it is a generic term
When a person participates in a crime, he cannot plead having acted embracing all multifarious means which human ingenuity can devise,
only as an agent and which are resorted to by one individual to secure an advantage
over another by false suggestions or by suppression of truth and

includes all surprise, trick, cunning, dissembling and any unfair way Lopez v. People, 555 S 523***
by which another is cheated It is criminal fraud or deceit in the issuance of a check which is made
Deceit – the false representation of a matter of fact, whether by punishable under the Revised Penal Code, and not the nonpayment
words or conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by of a debt
concealment of that which should have been disclosed which Deceit – the false representation of a matter of fact whether by words
deceives or is intended to deceive another so that he shall act upon it or conduct by false or misleading allegations or by concealment of
to his legal injury that which should have been disclosed which deceives or is intended
to deceive another so that he shall act upon it to his legal injury
Sim v. CA, 428 S 459 Fraudulent concealment – implies a purpose or design to hide facts
Fraud in its general sense which the other party ought to have
The postdating or issuing of a check in payment of an obligation when
People v. Olermo the offender had no funds in the bank or his funds deposited therein
are not sufficient to cover the amount of the check is a false pretense
Ilagan v. People or a fraudulent act
If the fraudulent means or deceit occurred AFTER offender has taken
possession of the money of the offended, NO ESTAFA People v. Ojeda, 430 S 436
For the drawer of the check to be liable, prosecution must prove that
Vasquez v. People, 22 January 2008 the deceit or fraudulent means existed AT THE TIME OF THE
Ancheta v. People ISSUANCE OF THE CHECK
Pablo v. People, 442 S 146
Serrano v. CA, 404 S 639 People v. Panganiban, 390 P 673
Prosecution must prove that offender obtained goods or money BY
Illegal Recruitment in Labor Code MAY CONCUR with violation of this REASON OF THE CHECK, whether the check postdated or not
prohibition
People v. Cuyugan, 390 S 140
POSTDATING CHECK Offended party WOULD NOT HAVE PARTED WITH HIS MONEY
People v. Gullion, 452 S __ WERE IT NOT FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE CHECK
Elements:
1. Postdating a check in payment of an obligation Nagrampa v. People, 445 P 440
2. Obligation contracted at the time check was issued Check should have been issued AS AN INDUCEMENT, NOT IN
3. Lack or insufficiency of funds PAYMENT OF A PRE-EXISTING OBLIGATION
4. Knowledge of lack or insufficiency
5. Damage Check issued in payment of a pre-existing obligation DOES NOT
CONSTITUTE ESTAFA even if at the time the check was issued, no
Vallarta v. CA, 150 S 336 funds in account against which check was drawn in the issuance of
The drawer commits fraud and deceit if he issues a check against a a check in payment of a pre-existing obligation, THE OFFENDER
closed account – deceit DOES NOT DERIVE ANY BENEFIT OR CONSIDERATION AT THE
TIME OF THE ISSUANCE OF THE CHECK, so no deceit or fraud –

thus, issuance of check was not a means to obtain valuable People v. Cuyugan
consideration People v. Pacheco
If check issued, without funds, is a guarantee in payment of obligation
People v. Sabio, Sr., 176 P 212 of another person – DRAWER OF CHECK NOT LIABLE FOR
Deceit or fraud MUST BE THE EFFICIENT CAUSE ESTAFA because it is only an evidence of the loan
How about the date of the obligation? People v. Gullion

People v. Dinglasan, 437 P __ Recuerdo v. People, 493 S 547
The date of the obligation entered into being the very date of the Criminal intent and intent to defraud ARE ESSENTIAL ELEMENTS
check was issued or postdated is a material ingredient of the crime OF THE CRIME GOOD FAITH IS A DEFENSE
How about if the check is not negotiable? If accused drew a check in payment of his capital in a business
Gutierrez v. Palattao, 292 S 26 and check was dishonored, is this estafa?
Negotiability of check IS NOT THE GRAVAMEN, but the fraud or Chang v. IAC, 29 Dec 1986
deceit employed by the offender is knowingly issuing a worthless The issuance is in payment of a pre-existing obligation, therefore, NO
check ESTAFA
If at the time of the issuance of the check, no funds, but at the time Tugbang v. CA, 29 June 1996
amount was due, there are funds, NO ESTAFA If check issued in exchange for cash from payee, with assurance from
accused that check will be sufficiently funded, but check dishonored
People v. Tongko, 290 S 595 ESTAFA, this is not in payment of a pre-existing obligation, as
Postdating of a check means that at the date of the check, it would be check was issued for the purpose of the exchange
properly and sufficiently funded
Lopez v. People, 555 S 525
People v. Pacheco, 319 S 595 Prosecution must prove that offender HAD KNOWLEDGE of the lack
People v. Reyes, 454 S 635 or insufficiency of funds by direct or circumstantial evidence, OR
People v. Holzer, 391 P 396 BY ADMISSION OF DRAWER
If at the time of the issuance of the check, offended party knew that
check had no funds NEGATES ELEMENT OF DECEIT which How else is knowledge proved?
constitutes a defense in the charge of estafa Presentation of notice of dishonor of check FROM DRAWEE BANK
People v. Mario Tan, 382 P 877 Prosecution must also prove RECEIPT OF NOTICE OF DISHONOR
If check issued in payment of a NON-EXISTING OBLIGATION, NO
ESTAFA even if no funds – NO DAMAGE People v. Ojeda, 234 S 436
Failure of the drawer to make the deposit in the time provided by law
3 DAYS TO PAY THE AMOUNT OF THE CHECK
What if last day falls on holiday?

Jose v. CA, 177 S 594 Dumagsang v. CA, 5 Dec. 2000
If the last day falls on a holiday or a non-banking day, drawer has Notice of dishonor MUST BE IN WRITING
until next working day to effect payment or deposit amount of check
May person other than drawer be liable for estafa on account of
If accused does not pay or deposit amount in 3 days, the dishonored check?
PRESUMPTION OF KNOWLEDGE that account lacks funds or is Andan v. People, 484 S 611
closed, or funds insufficient Person other than drawer of a check IS LIABLE FOR ESTAFA IF HE
CONSPIRES WITH THE DRAWER OF THE CHECK TO DECEIVE
Bautista v. CA, 413 P 159 OR DEFRAUD the offended party
Since knowledge of lack or insufficiency of funds is hard to prove, law
creates the presumption of knowledge Sagado v. CA, 170 S 146
People v. Sagado
Marigomen v. People, 459 S 169
It must be emphasized that since an officer of a corporation is the one ONE MAY BE LIABLE FOR BOTH ESTAFA AND BP 22
who draws and issues a check on behalf of the corporation, the notice
of dishonor must be served on the officer issuing the check, not on People v. Nitafan, 215 S __
the corporation In BP 22, mere issuance of the check a violation, EVEN IF PAYMENT
OF PRE-EXISTING OBLIGATION
Sec. 114(d) of the NIL provides that there is no need to give
notice of dishonor. Is this controlling? NO FRAUDULENT MEANS
People v. Ojeda***
Lopez v. People*** Inducing another to sign a document
RPC – there must be notice of dishonor (Justice Callejo: DO NOT
APPLY NIL IF ISSUE IS ESTAFA) RELATE to Art. 298 – violence or intimidation
This provision deceit
RELATE to BP Blg. 22 Under BOTH the victim who signs and delivers the document
Navarro v. CA, 229 S __ assumes a legal obligation so that offender gains
The prima facie presumption had knowledge, is rebutted by payment
regardless of evidence of prosecution The document MUST BE A COMPLETE DOCUMENT
Drawer of check must be served a copy of dishonor, otherwise, Evangelista v. People, 277 S __***
no criminal prosecution for estafa or BP 22 Where the victim was deceived by the petitioner to part with his
money in exchange for winning a game ESTAFA
Timeline – 5 days; also with prima facie presumption of knowledge
This crime is COMMITTED WHEN A DEBTOR DESTROYS A PN TO
Verbal notice of dishonor allowed? NO PREVENT CREDITOR FROM COLLECTING
[In Lopez – verbal notice allowed]
ART. 316 – OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING People v. Regalado, 1 P 125

Relate to Art. 2125 of the Civil Code, which requires recording
Mallari v. People, 13 Dec 1988
Requirements of 2nd paragraph ART. 318 – OTHER DECEITS

Naya v. People, 398 S 364
1. Thing disposed of is real property Ginhawa v. People, 468 S 278***
2. Offender knew real property encumbered RULE essential that such false pretense is the only cause or
3. Recorded or not reason why complainant parted with his money
4. Express (not implied) representation that real property FREE
from encumbrance RELATE to Art. 315, par. 2 (a)
5. Act of offender to the prejudice of owner (?) Petitioner contended that there is no deceit by concealment, and that
in the law on sales, principle of caveat emptor
Gravamen of offense DISPOSITION OF LEGALLY
ENCUMBERED PROPERTY UNDER EXPRESS Deceit – by words, conduct, by misleading allegations, or by
REPRESENTATION THAT THERE IS NO ENCUMBRANCE concealment; when concealment is intended to deceive
If no representation NOT LIABLE UNDER THIS PROVISION Suppression of a material fact is DECEIT
What if encumbrance not recorded?

People v. Supnad ART. 319 – CHATTEL MORTGAGE
MAY STILL BE LIABLE, since the offender is already aware of the
encumbrance even if not recorded For the law to apply, chattel mortgage MUST BE VALID and DULY
REGISTERED
How about a vendee of a property who knew of the
encumbrance? If mortgage void, and not registered, mortgagor NOT LIABLE under
Antazo v. People, 28 August 1985 this provision
Vendee may be liable if he connived with the vendor to deprive
mortgagor Does not apply to cars or taxicabs, unless car or motor vehicle is
brought to another place permanently
Even if encumbrance is recorded, gravamen of the crime is the
representation of the offender There must be intent to deceive or defraud mortgagee or offended
party GOOD FAITH A DEFENSE
PRINCIPLE OF CONSTRUCTIVE NOTICE NOT APPLICABLE
UNDER THIS PROVISION People v. Kilayko, 32 P 619
False declaration in deed that there is no encumbrance ESTAFA
Pledge – not correct translation – must be MORTGAGE ART. 349 – BIGAMY
Manuel v. People, 470 S 461

ART. 320 – ARSON Elements:
1. He has been legally married
People v. Malngan, 503 S 294*** 2. He contracts a subsequent marriage without the former
marriage having been lawfully dissolved
SIMPLE ARSON/DESTRUCTIVE ARSON
The felony is consummated on the celebration of the second
People v. Soriano, 407 S 367 marriage or subsequent marriage the judicial declaration of nullity
Arson is the malicious burning of property of a previous marriage is a defense
Whether under PD 1613 or under RPC THERE IS ONLY ONE In a case where a spouse is absent for the requisite period, the
CRIME OF ARSON IRRESPECTIVE OF THE NUMBER OF present spouse may contract a subsequent marriage only after
HOUSES OR BUILDINGS BURNED ON ONE OCCASION securing a judgment by instituting summary proceedings declaring
the presumptive death of the absent spouse to avoid being charged
Is one liable for arson for burning his own property? and convicted of bigamy
LAW DOES NOT PENALIZE, BUT MAY BE LIABLE WHEN IT
EXPOSES LIFE, OR OTHER PROPERTY, TO DANGER The judgment is proof of the good faith of the present spouse who
Liable also if he burns his house WHEN OCCUPIED BY A LESSEE contracted a subsequent marriage even if the present spouse is
later charged with bigamy if the absentee spouse reappears, he
Is there frustrated arson? cannot be convicted of the crime
People v. Hernandez, 54 P 102
Partially burned house, even if fire later on extinguished ARSON Carino v. Carino, 351 S 127
CONSUMMATED
Liability IS NOT DETERMINED BY EXTENT OF BURNING Mercado v. Tan, 391 P 809
Petitioner contracted a second marriage although there was yet no
People v. Valdez, 39 P 340 judicial declaration of nullity of his first marriage, and instituted the
petition for nullity only after complainant had filed a letter-complaint
6-A CJS charging him with bigamy by contracting a second marriage while
Arson is consummated however slight the burning may be the first was still subsisting, he committed the acts punishable under
Art. 349 – THAT HE SUBSEQUENTLY OBTAINED A JUDICIAL
But BURNING OF PERSONAL PROPERTY INSIDE A HOUSE, NOT DECLARATION OF THE NULLITY OF THE FIRST MARRIAGE WAS
ARSON IMMATERIAL
Is there arson by culpa? YES Nicdao v. Carino, 403 P 861

People v. Bueno, 103 P 183 Abunado v. People, 326 S 562
Morigo v. People, 422 S 376
Tenebro v. CA, 423 S 272***

Although the judicial declaration of the nullity of a marriage on the
ground of psychological incapacity retroacts to the date of the
celebration of the marriage insofar as the vinculum between the
spouses is concerned, A DECLARATION OF THE NULLITY OF THE
SECOND MARRIAGE ON THE GROUND OF PSYCHOLOGICAL
INCAPACITY IS OF ABSOLUTELY NO MOMENT INSOFAR AS THE
STATE’S PENAL LAWS ARE CONCERNED as soon as the
second marriage was celebrated, during the subsistence of the valid
first marriage, the crime of bigamy had already been consummated
There is no cogent reason for distinguishing between a subsequent

marriage that is null and void purely because it is a second or
subsequent marriage, and a subsequent marriage that is null and
void on the ground of psychological incapacity, at least insofar as
criminal liability for bigamy is concerned

Callejo

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Callejo

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW LECTURE NOTES Page 1 of 60

Justice Callejo | 4A | I-2009 CG Meneses

Specific Intent – lewd design, i.e., intent to gain, intent to kill;

Requirement for Crimes by Omission

Mens rea – physical act / overt act MISTAKE OF FACT

Malum prohibitum, as element of estafa (Art. 315)

People v. Patalinghug, 318 S 116 Art. 4

Trust Receipts Law (PD No. 115)

Art. 5 People v. Apolinar, 38 OG 2___

Administrative Circular on Bouncing Checks Law by the SC for People v. Narvaez

When is the wound mortal? STATE OF NECESSITY

13 July 2009 OBEDIENCE TO SUPERIOR ORDER

State v. Green, 110 SE 145

DEFENSE OF PROPERTY RIGHTS EXEMPTIONS

RA No. 9344 – minority is presumed Treachery – mode or manner of execution

UNCONTROLLABLE FEAR Gotis v. People, 533 S 431

Art. 13 IMMEDIATE VINDICATION OF A GRAVE OFFENSE

3. Insult of the accused ANALOGOUS CIRCUMSTANCES

Bacabac v. People, 532 S 557 People v. Tabamo, Jr.

Immediate People v. Doca

PASSION AND OBFUSCATION People v. Belaro, 307 S 611

People v. Quimpo TREACHERY

People v. Valdez, 350 S 189 People v. Gonzales, 117 P 166

UNLICENSED FIREARMS – RA NO. 8294 Lastrilla v. Granda, 421 S 324***

30 July 2009 People v. Abalos, 389 S __

COMPLEX CRIMES Gamboa v. CA***

People v. Peñas, 66 P 682 Ilagan v. CA, 239 S 575

People v. Sanidad, 403 S 381***

2. Punishing the robber for COERCION or TRESPASS TO

People v. Abedosa, 53 P 791 People v. Sendaydiego

INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW Minimum

What if there is a mitigating circumstance together with the

People v. Agarin, 109 P 430

People v. Guillen, 420 S 326 27 Aug 2009

People v. Morales D’Aquino v. US, 192 Fed 2d __

Treason is committed with specific intent

Requisites of Treason (87 CJS 914)

Treason MUST BE INTENTIONAL

People v. Perez, 83 P 314 People v. Hernandez, 99 P 515

Complement of vessel – in Art. 648 of the Code of Commerce, from

RA No. 9372 Nilo v. Salanga, 152 S 113 (judges)

2. For delivery to judicial authorities

People v. Baldago, 396 S 31 Delivery to Judicial Authorities

People v. Misa RELATE to RA No. 9344

Art. 126 applies to RA No. 9372

US v. Arceo, 3 P 381 UNILAB v. Isip, 28 June 2005

People v. delos Reyes, 20 P 267 People v. Hua, 439 S 350

If warrant is served and a crime was committed in the process DO

3 Sept 2009 There must be concurrence of:

RELATE to David v. Arroyo _____, 46 OG 4412

ART. 137 – DISLOYALTY

In relation to COUP D’ETAT People v. Kamlon Hadji, 9 S 252

ART. 136 – CONSPIRACY/PROPOSAL TO COMMIT REBELLION, PAR. 1

The conspiracy to commit rebellion and insurrection IS ALSO A PAR. 2

Barangay public employees NOT PROTECTED BY THE GUARANTEE OF FREE SPEECH OF

Tumultuously – riotously, disorderly, or violent movement ART. 143 – PREVENTING MEETINGS

ART. 142 – INCITING TO SEDITION

Second Mode The OBJECTIVE OR PURPOSE of the accused is IMMATERIAL

People v. Velasco, 72 OG 2045

People v. Fook, 42 P 230

RELATE to RA No. 75, Sec. 6 – assault on ambassador or foreign

What about private individuals COMING TO THE AID of persons

People v. Mendoza, 59 P 163 ART. 151 – RESISTANCE AND DISOBEDIENCE