CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

6. The killing of the child is considered parricide even if, at the time of the commission of the crime, the offender is not knowledgeable that the victim is his or

PARRICIDE (ART. 246)

her child. In a court decision: IF WITHOUT KNOWLEDGE OF THEIR RELATIONSHIP STILL GUILTY

3 instances: Killing between husband and wife -must be married -best proof of the relationship: marriage certificate. In the absence thereof, oral evidence may be considered especially if it is not objected to. Between father/mother son/daughter (whether legitimate or illegitimate) Ascendants/Descendants (only legitimate) (grandfather grandson; great grandfather, etc.) when it is committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime of Illegal Possession of firearm is deemed absorbed.

OF PARRICIDE 7. A, an illegitimate son of B, who killed the legitimate father of the latter, is not guilty of Parricide because in case of other ascendants (grandparents, great grandparents) the relationship with the killer must be legitimate; the same applies with other descendants 8. A who legally adopted X killed the adopted, NO PARRICIDE even if the adoption vests in him all the rights and privileges of a legitimate child since in the said crime, the relationship of the offender with the victim is the paramount element.

DEATH UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES (ART. 247) Examples: 1. If wife killed her husband with the help of the paramour or her nephew the wife will be guilty of parricide while the lover/nephew will be guilty of murder or homicide as the case may be and not Parricide since only relatives by blood in the direct line are involved in this crime. 2. If A killed his brother, there is no parricide (killing of Matter of defense that needs to be proved -Murder or parricide needs to be filed first then Article 247 should be used as defense Article 247 DOES NOT DEFINE ANY CRIME, it cannot be alleged. Otherwise, the decision is null and void. does not apply to a person who promotes or facilitates the prostitution of his wife or daughter or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other spouse. Penalty of Destierro (if inflicted upon them any serious physical injury. If inflicted upon them physical injuries of any other kind, exempted from punishment. ) As it does not define and provide for a specific crime but grants a privilege or benefit to the accused for the killing of another or the infliction of Serious Physical Injuries. Failure to establish the circumstances called for in Art. 247, he/she will be guilty of Parricide and Murder or Homicide if the victims were killed.

ascendants/descendants) 3. in killing the spouse, they should be married. if they were only in live in status then there is no parricide and the crime would be Homicide or Murder. 4. in killing the wife/husband, if legally married, then there is parricide. This is personal. Thus, if the killing was in conspiracy with the paramour, say for example, a nephew, then the latter committed the crime of murder or homicide as the case may be and not parricide. 5. The killing of the son/daughter even if legitimate or illegitimate is parricide.

Cannot be held guilty of killing his neighbour (aure's notes) Examples: 1. Wife and Paramour were only sleeping together, 247 cannot be used as a defense, the SC ruled that there is no surprise. 2. PEOPLE VS GONZALES, the husband saw that his wife and another man were kissing, entitled to 247, the husband need not to wait that a sexual intercourse to happen, the SC ruled that the husband in this case, is not acting on reason but based on instincts. -it is not necessary that the spouse actually saw the sexual intercourse being committed. It is enough that he/she surprised them under such circumstances that no other reasonable conclusion can be inferred but that a carnal act was being performed or has just been committed. 3. A saw his wife and the paramour doing the act, he ran after the latter but was not able to cope up, when he returned to their house, he saw his wife begging for his forgiveness but he still killed her, the SC ruled that the attack is continuous and the husband is entitled to the benefit of art. 247. penalty = Destierro 4. PEOPLE VS ABARCA, Saw his wife and the paramour doing the act, he was supposed to shoot them when the latter, who is armed with a rifle, saw him. After an hour, he retreated with an armalite and saw the paramour while playing majong. The SC ruled that it is a continuous attack and that he is entitled to the benefits of Art. 247, penalty is destierro. According to the SC, it is not necessary that the defense occurred instantly, what is required is that the proximate cause of the attack is the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon his spouse in the basest act of marital infidelity. Attempt in killing his wife and paramour but hit his neighbour/ hit an 11-yr old girl with a stray bullet - arresto mayor/ slight physical injuries (nichelle's notes) Aggravating and Exempting circumstances must be taken into consideration. Section 9 of Rule 110 of the Rules of Court there is a need to specify the Qualifying and Aggravating Circumstances which must be stated in ordinary and concise language and not necessarily in the language used in the statute but in terms sufficient to enable a person of common understanding to know what offense is being charged as well as its qualifying and aggravating circumstances and for the court to pronounce judgment. killing of another w/c is not Parricide, not Infanticide and provided that the ff circumstances are attendant: a. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or means to insure or afford impunity; b. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise; MURDER (ART. 248) and if the if the wife and the paramour was killed, the penalty is destierro neighbor was killed then A is liable for the ensuing consequence. injuries only consequences. two is no 5. PEOPLE VS CULYANEM, even if the husband and the wife is living separately, Art. 247 is still applicable. 6. A saw his wife and the paramour in the act of sexual intercourse but the were able to run away. A hit his neigbor and was killed, is he liable? there decision yet. Justice Sandoval's opinion: if the wife and the paramour were inflicted of light physical then there is no penalty, no crime and A is not liable for the

c. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment of or assault upon a street car or locomotion, fall of an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving great waste and ruin; d. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone, epidemic or any other public calamity; e. With evident premeditation; f. With cruelty, be deliberately and inhumanely augmenting the suffering of the victim or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse. *this circumstances must be alleged in the information. Otherwise, the crime would only be Homicide. By a band, though not included in those enumerated, as it was one of those qualifying circumstances that will make the crime as Murder.

**** what is important is the intent, if the intent was to kill then the crime would be murder. If the intent was not to kill, then the crime is not murder. **** the same rule applies to poison, it would be murder if the poison was employed as a means to kill the victim. 2. Maid Law student case the law student gave the maid "canteras" which if given in high dosage is poisonous. As a result, the maid died. Initially, the lower court ruled that it murder by means of poison but on appeal, since there is no intent to kill as intent was to arouse the sexual appetite then it is not murder. NOT GUILTY OF MURDER BY MEANS OF POISONING BUT GUILTY OF RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE

was the

Murder with cruelty (People vs. Pea)

3. When victims are children of tender age (5, 6, 7), killing is always Murder qualified by Treachery or abuse of superior strength.

Examples: HOMICIDE (ART. 249) if the fire was employed in order to kill, the crime is Murder with Arson (???). 1. in a party, A poured gasoline in the dress of a mental retarded to add up in the merriment, as a result, the latter was killed. Since the fire is not to kill then there is no murder, the crime would be Reckless Resulting to Homicide. Examples: 1. If a boxer killed his opponent in a boxing bout duly licensed by the Government without any violation of the governing rules and regulations, NO HOMICIDE. If the boxing is NOT AUTHORIZED, there is HOMICIDE. 2. In a duly licensed boxing bout, if he hit his opponent below the belt without any intention to do so, it is HOMICIDE THROUGH RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE/ RECKLESS IMPRUDENCE RESULTING TO HOMICIDE if the the killing of a person in the absence of those circumstances for Murder or even if those were present but were not alleged in the information; killer is not the relative mentioned in Parricide and the victim is not less than 3 days old; the killing must not be justified under any of the circumstances in Article 11.

employed Imprudence

**** the killing which was accomplished by means of fire alleged in the information does not qualify killing to Murder unless the use of fire was employed to kill the victim.

latter died as a result. If he intentionally hit his opponent on that part of his body causing the death, the crime is Homicide. 3. The accused hurled a challenge to the deceased who readily accepted but who was thereafter killed, the accused is guilty only of HOMICIDE as treachery can not exist under that scenario; agreement to fight will always be categorized as HOMICIDE. 4. PEOPLE VS PORRAS, the shooting of a peace officer who was fully aware of the risks in pursuing the malefactors when done in a spur of the moment is only HOMICIDE.

1.

A boyfriend, knowing that his girlfriend is pregnant, gives her drug to alleviate her stomach pain, NOT GUILTY OF INTENTIONAL ABORTION if the drug caused the death of the fetus since the intention of the boyfriend is not to cause abortion. Is there an UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION? Nitchs answer = there is no unintentional abortion as there is no violence.

2.

A husband mauls his pregnant wife and in the course of a heated argument, abortion became a consequence. As there was no intention on the part of the husband to cause the abortion, NO INTENTIONAL ABORTION. However, he is GUILTY OF UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION.

INFANTICIDE (ART.255) the killing of a child less than 3 days old; the age referred to here is broad and general. The SC in a number of cases ruled that it is ABORTION even if the child is 8 months if he was NOT CAPABLE of independent existence, it is INFANTICIDE if the child is CAPABLE of independent existence. If the killer is the mother/father/legitimate grandparents, the crime is still Infanticide and not Parricide. However, the penalty is that for Parricide. If the killer is not related within the purview of Art. 246, the crime is also Infanticide but the penalty would be that for Murder.

UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION while no intention to cause abortion is present, it nonetheless occurred by means of violence willfully exerted on a pregnant woman.

Example: 1. A pointed a gun at a pregnant lady who became so frightened, causing her abortion, NOT LIABLE FOR UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION as there was no violence exerted. If he intended the abortion however, his crime would be INTENTIONAL ABORTION.

ABORTION (ART. 256) it is an expulsion of a non-viable fetus. However, as long as the fetus dies as a result of the violence used or the drugs administered, it is abortion even if the fetus is full term.

DEATH IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY (ART. 251) when several persons not composing groups organized for the purpose of assaulting each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and somebody died in the course of the affray, and it cannot be ascertained who killed the deceased, those who inflicted serious physical injuries

INTENTIONAL ABORTION when the offender shall intentionally cause the abortion and the intention to abort is paramount

shall be the ones liable. if those who inflicted the serious physical injuries can not be ascertained too, then those who shall have used violence upon the deceased shall be the ones punished. known in local dialect as labo labo; no particular group against another group

Example:

the participants must be more than 3

 the person killed could be a participant or anybody caught in the melee

COERCION = you compel or prevent a person from doing an act which is not unlawful but is against his will.

Examples: 1. A, B, C, D, and E had a tumultuous affray, E died and it cannot be ascertained who among A, B, C, D killed him. Even if one of them only kicked the victim, he would be held liable for the death of the victim as those who inflicted the 2. ones serious physical injuries are undeterminable. If those who actually killed the victim can be determined, they will be the to be held liable, and those who inflicted serious or less serious or slight physical injuries shall be punished for said corresponding offenses provided no conspiracy is established with the killers. DUEL (ART. 260) shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill his adversary in a duel a duel involves a formal agreement in writing to fight between two opposing parties under determined conditions and with the participation and intention of seconds (witnesses), who fix such conditions. If it is not in writing, the crime would be Homicide. ART. 261 = challenging another to a duel is also punishable. It is imposed upon any person who shall challenge another, or incite another to give or accept a challenge to a duel, or shall scoff at or decry another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel.

3. riots in city jails and/or Muntinlupa brigades do not fall under this because the participants are members of different gangs.

GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE (ART.253) committed by any person who assists another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing himself, penalty is the same as that for Homicide. even if the suicide did not materialize, the person givi ng assistance to suicide is also liable but the penalty shall be one or two degrees lower depending on whether it is frustrated or attempted suicide. committed by person who acted upon the principle of mercy killing

Example: 1. A and B, after an argument in a bar, left the place at the same time and pursuant to their agreement, went to the plaza to fight each other to death with knives which they bought on the way, the facts do not constitute the crime of dueling since there were no seconds who fixed the conditions of the fight in a more or less formal manner. If one was killed, the crime committed would be Homicide.

Example: 1. One who, upon a plea of his friend to pull the trigger of the gun which he himself poked on his temple as he could no longer bear the pain due to a brain cancer, squeezed the said trigger causing the death of his longsuffering friend, is liable under this article. 2. A saw B who was about to jump the building, A to prevent B from jumping, pointed a gun at the latter threatening to fire upon him if he jumps, pointed a gun on B while compelling him to go nearer him GRAVE