Title One
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
LAW OF NATIONS
Section One. Treason and espionage
Article 114. Treason
Article 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
Article 116. Misprision of treason
Article 117. Espionage
Section Two. Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
Article 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals
Article 119. Violation of neutrality
Article 120. Correspondence with hostile country
Article 121. Flight to enemy’s country
Section Three. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas in
Philippine waters
Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high
seas or in Philippine waters
Article 123. Qualified piracy
Article 114. Treason
Elements:
1. Offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in the
Philippines;
2. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
3. The offender either –
a. Levies war against the Government; or
b. Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid or comfort.
 Treason cannot be committed in time of peace.
1st mode: “Levying war against the Government”
There must be an actual assembling of men. Thus, the actual
enlistment of men to serve against the government doesn’t
amount to levying war.
Under this mode, it is not necessary that there be a formal
declaration of the existence of a state of war. Actual hostilities
may determine the date of the commencement of war.
The war must be directed against the government, not merely
to resist a particular statute or to repel a particular officer.
However, it is NOT necessary that those attempting to
overthrow the gov’t succeed in their designs.
Q: Is it necessary under this mode that the purpose of levying
war is to deliver the country in whole or in part to the enemy?
A: Yes, if the uprising is committed without enemy collaboration,
the crime would be rebellion not treason.
2nd mode: “Adhering to the enemies, giving them aid or
comfort”
“Adherence to the enemy” means intent to betray. There is
“adherence to the enemy” when a citizen intellectually or
emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or
convictions disloyal to his country’s policy or interest.
“Aid or comfort” means an act which strengthens or tends to
strengthen the enemy in the conduct of war against the traitor’s
country and an act which weakens or tends to weaken the
power of the traitor’s country to resist or to attack the enemy.
Adherence alone, without giving aid or comfort, does NOT
constitute treason.
The aid and comfort must be a deed or physical activity. To be
treasonous, the extent of aid and comfort must be to render
assistance to them as enemies and not merely as individuals,
and be directly in furtherance of the enemies’ hostile designs.
However, the act need not actually strengthen the enemy.
The aid or comfort under this mode must be after the
declaration of war. The enemies must be subject of a foreign
power.
When killings and other common crimes are charged as overt
acts of treason, they cannot be regarded as separate crimes or
complexed with treason.
Example: Where the accused served as secret agent
for the Japanese, and in the performance of such
service, he participated in the Japanese expeditions
against guerillas and committed mass murders, arson
and robberies, and those deeds were charged an
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
1
 element of treason, they become identified with the
crime of treason and cannot be the subject of a
separate punishment.
But this rule will not preclude the punishment of common crimes
as such, IF the prosecution should elect to prosecute the culprit
specifically for those crimes, instead of relying on them as an
element of treason.
Ways of proving treason
A person may be convicted of treason on the following evidence
ONLY:
1. [Two-witness rule] Testimony of two witnesses, at
least, to the same overt act; or
2. Confession of the accused in open court.
The two-witness rule
The testimony of two witnesses is required to prove the overt
act of giving aid or comfort. It is not necessary to prove
adherence.
Q: A testified that he saw X on guard duty in the Japanese
garrison on Monday. B testified that he also saw X on guard duty
in the garrison on Wednesday. Can X be convicted of treason on
the basis of A & B’s testimony?
A: No. Both overt acts, although of the same nature and
character, are two distinct acts. Either one, to serve as a ground
for conviction, must be proved by two witnesses. That one
witness should testify as to one, and another as to the other,
was held not enough.
Laurel v. Misa
Petition for habeas corpus by Laurel based on the theory that a Filipino
citizen who adhered to the enemy giving the latter aid and comfort
during the Japanese occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of
treason because (1) of the suspension of the sovereignty of the
legitimate government in the Philippines resulting in the suspension of
the correlative allegiance of Filipinos thereto, and (2) of the changes
of sovereignty upon the proclamation of the Philippine Republic.
HELD: Citizen owes absolute/permanent allegiance to his
government/sovereign, which should not be confused with the
qualified/temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to the
government of his current residence. This absolute allegiance is not
abrogated by enemy occupation because the sovereignty of the
government de jure is not transferred thereby to the occupier,
remaining vested in the legitimate government. What may be
suspended is the exercise of the rights of sovereignty passing
temporarily to the occupant, and not the allegiance which subsists
with the subsistence of the sovereignty of the legitimate government.
The change in government from commonwealth does not affect the
crime of treason. It holds applicable to the present government being
an offense against the same government and sovereign people.
People vs. Perez
Perez was convicted of treason and sentenced to death where 5 of the
7 counts against him alleged his abduction of girls for the purpose of
using them to satisfy the sexual desires of Japanese officials.
HELD: For an act to be treasonous, it should be one that renders
assistance to the occupants to further their hostile designs. Sexual
relations between the women and the Japanese officials cannot be said
to aid in the furtherance of the objectives of the enemies.
Dissent by Pablo: Entertainment tones up the nerves of the soldiers.
Services or favors that should have been performed by Japanese
women were done by Filipino women. This helped improve the phases
of their military activities.
People vs. Prieto
Prieto, a Makapili who aided the Japanese in apprehending Filipino
guerillas (who were tortured and executed after being apprehended)
was convicted of 4 counts of treason.
HELD: Murder and physical injuries are identified as an element of
treason and they cannot be the subject of a separate punishment, or
make a complex crime with treason. They are averred as a constitutive
ingredient of treason. But where the State prosecutes them for such
acts not as an overt act for treason, then the accused can be punished
for such acts if found guilty.
People vs. Manayao
Manayao et al were charged and found guilty of treason with multiple
murders. They were sentenced to death and to pay the fine with
indemnity to heirs of the victims of the town they massacred with the
Japanese troops. The massacre was witnessed by the two children
spared from the killing.
HELD: The Makapili is not part of the Japanese Army in the Philippines
being an organization of ‘traitors, pure and simple.’ This doesn’t divest
the People’s Court of jurisdiction. They have not lost their citizenship
when no evidence that he has subscribed to an oath of allegiance to
support the laws of Japan and that he showed his acceptance of a
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
2
commission in the Armed Forces of Japan were presented. They are Article 116. Misprision of treason
still subject of the law on treason in the Philippines.

Elements:

People vs. Adriano

Adriano was found guilty of treason by virtue of his being a Makapili.
The prosecution however did not introduce any other evidence except
for his membership. Furthermore, the alleged acts committed by the
accused were not established or concurred by testimonies from 2
witnesses.
1. Offender must be owing allegiance to the Government, and
not a foreigner
2. He has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit treason)
against the Government
3. He conceals or doesn’t disclose and make known the same
as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of the province
or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which he resides.

HELD: The two-witness requirement in the crime of treason should be
applied restrictively – the lawmakers having intended for it to be
applied with the same rigidity and inflexibility due to the seriousness
of the crime and the abnormality of the times from American origin.
 A116 will not apply when the crime of treason has already
been committed by someone and the accused doesn’t report its
commission to the proper authority. The law says “knowledge
of any conspiracy against” not knowledge of treason actually
committed.

Hilado dissenting: Being a Makapili was one single continuous and  The offender in misprision is punished “as an accessory to
indivisible overt act of giving aid to the Japanese invaders. There is no the crime of treason”. Hence, the penalty for misprision is two
need for at least 2 witnesses to have testified on one same act.
degrees lower than that provided for treason.

Article 117. Espionage

Two ways of committing espionage

Article 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
(Mode 1) Elements:
Elements (Conspiracy):

1. Offender enters a warship, fort or naval or military

establishment or reservation
1. In time of war
2. He has no authority therefore
2. Two or more persons come to an agreement to levy war
3. His purpose is to obtain information, plans, photographs or
against the gov’t or to adhere to the enemies and to give
other data of a confidential nature relative to the defense
them aid or comfort; and
of the Philippines
3. They decide to commit it.

 It is not necessary that information be actually obtained.

Elements (Proposal):

(Mode 2) Elements:
1. In time of war
2. A person who has decided to levy war against the gov’t or
to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or comfort,
3. Proposes its execution to some other person or persons. 1. Offender is a public officer
2. He has in his possession (by reason of the public office he
holds) any information, plans, photographs or other data of
 The two-witness rule does not apply to conspiracy or proposal a confidential nature relative to the defense of the
to commit treason. Philippines
3. He discloses their contents to a representative of a foreign
nation

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

3
 Espionage Treason

Both not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender  Even if the correspondence contains innocent matters, if the
correspondence has been prohibited by the Government, it is
May be committed in time of Committed only in time of
peace or war war
punishable.

Many ways of committing Only two ways of committing  Prohibition by the Government is not essential in paragraphs
espionage, taking RPC117 treason 2 & 3 of Article 120.
and CA616 together

 Circumstances qualifying the offense:

1. Notice or information might be useful to the enemy;

Article 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for AND
reprisals. 2. Offender intended to aid to enemy
 These acts amount to treason. Hence, the penalty is the same
as that for treason.

Elements:

1. Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts Article 121. Flight to Enemy's Country
2. Such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving or
liable to involve the Philippines or expose Filipino citizens to
reprisals on their persons or property Elements:

Illustration: The public destruction of the flag or seal of a foreign

state or the public manifestations of hostility to the head or 1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
ambassador of another state. 2. Offender must be owing allegiance to the government;
3. Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country;
4. Going to the enemy country is prohibited by competent
authority.

Article 119. Violation of neutrality

 Mere attempt to flee or go to enemy country consummates
the crime.
Elements:

1. There is a war in which the Philippines is no involved

2. There is a regulation issued by competent authority for the Article 122. Piracy in general and Mutiny on the High
purpose of enforcing neutrality Seas or in Philippine Waters
3. The offender violates such regulation

Article 120. Correspondence with hostile country Acts punished as piracy

Elements:
1. Attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in
Philippine waters;
2. Seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in Philippine
1. In time of war in which the Philippines is involved waters the whole or part of its cargo, its equipment or
2. The offender makes correspondence with an enemy personal belongings of its complement or passengers.
country or territory occupied by enemy troops
3. The correspondence is either –
a. Prohibited by the Government, or Elements of piracy
b. Carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or
c. Containing notice or information which might be useful
to the enemy. 1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters;
2. Offenders are neither members of its complement nor
passengers of the vessel;
 “Correspondence” means communications by means of letters.
3. Offenders either -
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
4
 a. attack or seize a vessel on the high seas or in Philippine circulation of persons or transportation of goods, articles, or
waters; or property or both.

b. seize in the vessel while on the high seas or in d. Piracy. Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel, or the
Philippine waters the whole or part of its cargo, its taking away of the whole or part thereof or its cargo,
equipment or personal belongings of its complement or equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or
passengers; passengers, irrespective of the value thereof, by means of
4. There is intent to gain. violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things, committed by any person, including a passenger or
member of the complement of said vessel, in Philippine
 “Piracy” is robbery or forcible depredation on the high seas, waters, shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall be
without lawful authority and done with animo furandi and in the considered as pirates and punished as hereinafter provided.
spirit and intention of universal hostility.
e. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. The seizure of any person
for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes, or the
taking away of the property of another by means of violence
Piracy Robbery on the high seas
against or intimidation of person or force upon things of
Offender is an outsider The offender is a member of other unlawful means, committed by any person on any
the complement or a Philippine Highway.
passenger of the vessel
Punishable Acts under the Crime of Piracy
Manner of committing the crime is the same
1. Any attack upon or seizure of any vessel
There is intent to gain
2. The taking of the whole or part thereof or its cargo,
equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or
passengers, irrespective of the value therefore
Piracy Mutiny
3. That the above acts were done by means of violence
Persons who attack a vessel Offenders are members of against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
or seize its cargo are the crew of passengers
strangers to said vessels

Intent to gain essential Intent to gain not essential, Punishable Acts under the Crime of Highway
offenders may only intend to Robbery/Brigandage
ignore the ship’s officer’s
1. Any attack upon or seizure on any highway

2. The taking of the whole or part thereof or its cargo,

PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 532 equipment, or the personal belongings of its complement or
passengers, irrespective of the value therefore
ANTI-PIRACY AND ANTI-HIGHWAY ROBBERY LAW
OF 1974 3. That the above acts were done by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things.
Definition of Terms

a. Philippine Waters. It shall refer to all bodies of water, Acts Punishable:

such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around, between
and connecting each of the Islands of the Philippine AIDING OR ABETTING PIRACY REQUISITES:
Archipelago, irrespective of its depth, breadth, length or
1. Knowingly aids or protects pirates;
dimension, and all other waters belonging to the Philippines
by historic or legal title, including territorial sea, the sea-bed, 2. Acquires or receives property taken by such pirates, or in
the insular shelves, and other submarine areas over which any manner derives any benefit;
the Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
3. Directly or indirectly abets the commission of piracy
b. Vessel. Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of
passengers and cargo from one place to another through
Philippine Waters. It shall include all kinds and types of
BAR QUESTIONS
vessels or boats used in fishing.
Piracy in the High Seas & Qualified Piracy
c. Philippine Highway. It shall refer to any road, street,
passage, highway and bridges or other parts thereof, or Nagoya Maru was negotiating the sea route from Hongkong
railway or railroad within the Philippines used by persons, or towards Manila, and while still 300 miles from Aparri,
vehicles, or locomotives or trains for the movement or Cagayan, its engines malfunctioned. The Captain ordered
the ship to stop for emergency repairs lasting for almost 15
hours. Due to exhaustion, the officers and crew fell asleep.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

5
While the ship was anchored, a motorboat manned by
renegade Ybanags from Claveria, Cagayan, passed by and
took advantage of the situation. They cut the ship's engines
and took away several heavy crates of electrical equipment
and loaded them in their motorboat. Then they left hurriedly
towards Aparri. At daybreak, the crew found that a robbery
took place. They radioed the Aparri Port Authorities resulting
in the apprehension of the culprits.
What crime was committed? Explain. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Piracy in the high seas was committed by the renegade
Ybanags. The culprits, who are neither members of the
complement nor passengers of the ship, seized part of the
equipment of the vessel while it was three hundred miles
away from Aparri, Cagayan (Art. 122, Revised Penal Code).
Supposing that while the robbery was taking place,
the culprits stabbed a member of the crew while
sleeping. What crime was committed? Explain.
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is qualified piracy, because it was
accompanied by physical injuries/homicide. The culprits
stabbed a member of the crew while sleeping (Art. 123,
Revised Penal Code).
Highway Robbery (2001)
Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and
Robbery Division of the Western Police District and assigned
to the South Harbor, Manila, was privy to and more or less
familiar with the schedules, routes and hours of the
movements of container vans, as well as the mobile police
patrols, from the pier area to the different export processing
zones outside Metro Manila. From time to time, he gave
valuable and detailed information on these matters to a
group interested in those shipments in said container vans.
On several instances, using the said information as their
basis, the gang hijacked and pilfered the contents of the
vans. Prior to their sale to "fences" in Banawe, Quezon City
and Bangkal, Makati City, the gang Informs Sgt, Chan who
then inspects the pilfered goods, makes his choice of the
valuable items and disposes of them through his own
sources or "fences". When the highjackers were traced on
one occasion and arrested,
upon custodial investigation, they implicated Sgt. Chan and
the fiscal charged them all, including Sgt. Chan as co-
principals. Sgt. Chan, in his defense, claimed that he should
not be charged as a principal but only as an accessory after
the fact under P.D. 532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy
and Anti-Highway Robbery Act of 1972. Is the contention of
Sgt. Chan valid and tenable? Explain, (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable
because by express provision of P.D. 532, Section 4, a
person who knowingly and in any manner, aids or protects
highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information
about the movement of police officers or acquires or
receives property taken by brigands, or who directly or
indirectly abets the commission of highway
robbery/brigandage, shall be considered as accomplice of
the principal offenders and punished in accordance with the
rules in the Revised Penal Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan that he should be charged
only as accessory after the fact is not tenable because he
was a principal participant in the commission of the crime
and in pursuing the criminal design. An accessory after the
fact involves himself in the commission of a crime only after
the crime had already been consummated, not before, For
his criminal participation in the execution of the highjacking
of the container vans, Sgt. Chan is a co-principal by
indispensable cooperation.
People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw
Boat carrying men, women and children on its way between two islands
in the Dutch East Indies were waylaid by six vintas manned by 24 armed
Moros. At first, they asked for good but one on the Dutch boat, they
took all of the cargo, attacked some of the men and brutally violated
two of the women. All the people were placed back into the boat
except the two men, and holes were made with the idea of submerging
the boat. They took the women and repeatedly violated them. Two of
the raiders were Lol-lo and Saraw, the former participating in the rape.
The women eventually escaped while Saraw and Lol-lo returned to
TawiTawi where they were apprehended and tried. They were found
guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.
HELD: Pirates are in the law hostes humani generis. Piracy is a crime
not against any particular state but against all mankind. It may be
punished in the competent tribunal of any country where the offender
may be found or into which he may be carried. The jurisdiction in the
crime of piracy unlike other crimes has no territorial limits, nor does
it matter that a crime was committed within the jurisdictional 3-mile
limit of a foreign state, “for those limits, through neutral to war, are
not neutral to crimes.”
People vs. Rodriguez
Rodriguez et al (crew members of M/V Noria 767) were charged with
the crime of piracy, found guilty and sentenced to death. They were
able to obtain 3M as total amount and escaped through the use of
pump-boats. Ten dead bodies were seen at the wharf as victims of the
sea-jacking
HELD: Where rape, murder or homicide is committed in the crime of
piracy, the penalty imposable is mandatory death penalty according to
PD532 amending RPA 134.
People vs. Siyoh
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
6
Siyoh et al were accused of qualified piracy with triple murder and
frustrated murder, found guilty and sentenced to death. With the use
of pump-boats, they were able to divest money and goods from de
Guzman and his companions on the way to Mataja island. The
companions were killed while de Guzman was able to escape wounded.
HELD: Although the body of de Guzman was still missing, the number
of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not material. PD532
considers qualified piracy (when rape, murder, or homicide is
committed as a result or on the occasion of piracy) as a special
complex crime punishable by death regardless of the number of
victims.
Article 123. Qualified Piracy
Elements:
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters:
2. Offenders may or may not be members of its complement,
or passengers of the vessel;
3. Offenders either -
a. attack or seize the vessel; or
b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its equipment., or
personal belongings of the crew or passengers;
4. The preceding were committed under any of the following
circumstances:
a. whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding or
firing upon the same;
b. whenever the pirates have abandoned their victims
without means of saving themselves; or
c. whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, physical injuries or rape.
R.A. 6235
An Act Prohibiting Certain Acts Inimical to Civil
Aviation
Who are punishable?
1. Any person who shall compel a change in the course or
destination of an aircraft of Philippine registry, or to seize
or usurp the control thereof, while it is in flight.
An aircraft is in flight from the moment all its external
doors are closed following embarkation until any of such
doors is opened for disembarkation. (§1)
2. Any person who shall compel an aircraft of foreign
registry to land in Philippine territory or to seize or usurp
the control thereof while it is within the said territory.
(§1)
The penalty shall be increased whenever the violations above
were committed under any of the following circumstances:
 Whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member of
the crew or passenger of the aircraft;
 Whenever he has exploded or attempted to
explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the
aircraft; or
 Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, serious physical injuries or rape. (§2)
3. Any person, natural or juridical, who shall ship, load or
carry in any passenger aircraft operating as a public
utility within the Philippines, any explosive, flammable,
corrosive or poisonous substance or material. (§3)
“Explosive” - any substance, either solid or liquid,
mixture or single compound, which by chemical reaction
liberates heat and gas at high speed and causes
tremendous pressure resulting in explosion. The term
shall include but not limited to dynamites, firecrackers,
blasting caps, black powders, bursters, percussions,
cartridges and other explosive materials, except bullets
for firearm.
"Flammable" – any substance or material that is highly
combustible and self-igniting by chemical reaction and
shall include but not limited to acrolein, allene, aluminum
dyethyl monochloride, and other aluminum compounds,
ammonium chlorate and other ammonium mixtures and
other similar substances or materials.
"Corrosive" – any substance or material, either liquid,
solid or gaseous, which through chemical reaction wears
away, impairs or consumes any object. It shall include
but not limited to alkaline battery fluid packed with
empty storage battery, allyl chloroformate,
allytrichlorosilane, ammonium dinitro-orthocresolate and
other similar materials and substances.
"Poisonous" – any substance or materials, except
medicinal drug, either liquid, solid or gaseous, which
through chemical reactions kills, injures or impairs a
living organism or person, and shall include but not
limited to allyl isothiocyanate, ammunition (chemical,
non-explosive but containing Class A, B or poison),
aniline oil, arsine, bromobenzyle cyanide, bromoacetone
and other similar substances or materials.
For any death or injury to persons or damage to property
resulting from a violation of §3 above, the person responsible
therefor may be held liable in accordance with the applicable
provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
7

Authority of airline companies to inspect cargo etc.
Aircraft companies which operate as public utilities
or operators of aircraft which are for hire are authorized to
open and investigate suspicious packages and cargoes in the
presence of the owner or shipper, or his authorized
representatives if present; in order to help the authorities in
the enforcement of the provisions of this law
If the owner, shipper or his representative refuses
to have the same opened and inspected, the airline or air
carrier is authorized to refuse the loading thereof. (§8)
Disclaimer on airline ticket
Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or
air carrier concerned shall contain among others the following
condition printed thereon: "Holder hereof and his hand-
carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and seizure of,
prohibited materials or substances. Holder refusing to be
searched shall not be allowed to board the aircraft," which
shall constitute a part of the contract between the passenger
and the air carrier. (§9)
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372
AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR
PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM
Defines the crime of terrorism to be the commission of “any
of the crimes of :
A. Under the Revised Penal Code.
i. Piracy in general and Mutiny in the High Seas or in
the Philippine Waters
ii. rebellion
iii. Coup d’etat
iv. Murder
v. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
B. Under Special Laws
i. Arson under P.D. 1613
ii. Violation of R.A. 6969 ( Toxic Substance ad Nuclear
Waste Control)
iii. R.A. 5207 ( Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability
Act of 1968)
iv. Hijacking
v. Piracy in Phil. Waters and Highway Robbery
vi. P.D. 1866 ( Possession and Manufacture of
Firearms/explosives)
thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to
coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand”
Requirements for Terrorism
A. The accused ( maybe a single individual or a group)
must commit any of the enumerated crimes
B. There results a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace
i. The extent and degree of fear and panic,
including the number of people affected in order
to meet the term “populace”, are questions of
facts to be determined by the courts and on a
case to case basis.
ii. Is the term “populace’ to be interpreted as
referring to the local inhabitants where the acts
were committed, or does it refer to the national
population?
C. The purpose of the accused must be to coerce the
government to give into an unlawful demand
i. The word “demand” is too broad as to cover not
only political, criminal or monetarial demands but
also those which maybe categorized as social or
economic. This however is qualified by the word
“ unlawful”.
Title Two
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE
STATE
Arbitrary detention or expulsion, violation of dwelling,
prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings
and crimes against religious worship
Section One. Arbitrary detention and expulsion
Article 124. Arbitrary detention
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
8
 Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to
the proper judicial authorities
Article 126. Delaying release
Article 127. Expulsion
Section Two. Violation of domicile
Article 128. Violation of domicile
Article 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and
abuse in the service of those legally obtained
Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses
Section Three. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of
peaceful meetings
Article 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of
peaceful meetings
Section Four. Crimes against religious worship
Article 132. Interruption of religious worship
Article 133. Offending the religious feelings
Article 124. Arbitrary Detention
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He detains a person;
3. The detention is without legal grounds.
Meaning of absence of legal grounds
1. No crime was committed by the detained;
2. There is no violent insanity of the detained person; and
3. The person detained has no ailment which requires
compulsory confinement in a hospital.
 When is there detention? A person is detained when he is
placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person.
 The crime of arbitrary detention can be committed through
imprudence.
Illustration: The chief of police rearrested a woman who had
been released by means of a verbal order of the justice of the
peace. The accused acted without malice, but he should have
verified the order of release before proceeding to make the re-
arrest.
 The law doesn’t fix a min period of detention. In US vs.
Braganza, the detention was for less than half an hour; and in
US vs. Agravante, the detention was only for one hour.
Rule 112 Sec. 6
When warrant of arrest may issue -
(a) By the RTC – Within 10 days from the filing of the
complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate
the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.
He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on the
record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds
probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest or a
commitment order if the accused has already been arrested
pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted the
PI or when the complaint or information is filed pursuant to
Sec. 7 of this Rule. In case of doubt on the existence of
probable cause, the judge may order the prosecutor to
present additional evidence within 5 days from notice and the
issue must be resolved by the court within 30 days from the
filing of the complaint or information.
(b) By the MTC – When required pursuant to par.2 Sec. 1 of
this Rule, the PI of cases falling under the orig jurisdxn of the
MTCs may be conducted by either the judge or the
prosecutor. When conducted by the prosecutor, the
procedure for the issuance of a warrant of arrest by the judge
shall be governed by par. (a) of this section. When the
investigation is conducted by the judge himself, he shall
follow the procedure provided in sec. 3 of this Rule. If his
findings and recommendations are affirmed by the provincial
or city prosecutor, or by the Ombudsman or his deputy, and
the corresponding information is filed, he shall issue a warrant
of arrest. However, without waiting for the conclusion of the
investigation, the judge may issue a warrant of arrest if he
finds after an examination in writing and under oath of the
complainant and his witnesses in the form of searching
questions and answers, that a probable cause exists and that
there is a necessity of placing the respondent under
immediate custody so as not to frustrate the ends of justice.
(c) Where warrant of arrest not necessary – A warrant of
arrest shall not issue if the accused is already under detention
pursuant to a warrant issued by the MTC in accordance with
par. (b) of this section, or if the complaint or information was
filed pursuant to Sec. 7 of this rule or is for an offense
penalized by fine only. The court shall then proceed in the
exercise of its original jurisdiction.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
9
 Rule 113 Sec. 5
Arrest without warrant; when lawful
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit
an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
service final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from
one confinement to another.
In cases falling under pars. (a) and (b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to the
nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded against
in accordance with Sec. 7 of Rule 112.
Umil vs. Ramos
These are eight (8) petitions praying for the issuance of the writ of
habeas corpus, ordering the respective respondents to produce the
bodies of the persons named and to explain why they should not be set
at liberty without further delay. In their Returns, the respondents
uniformly assert that the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus is not
available to the petitioners as they have been legally arrested and are
detained by virtue of valid informations filed in court against them.
HELD: No compelling reason exists to abandon the pronouncement in
Ilagan vs. Enrile, that a writ of habeas corpus is no longer available
after an information is filed against the person detained and a warrant
of arrest or an order of commitment is issued by the court where said
information has been filed. However, the answer and the better
practice would be, not to limit the function of habeas corpus to a mere
inquiry as to whether or not the court which issued the process,
judgment or order of commitment or before whom the detained person
is charged, had jurisdiction or not to issue the process, judgment or
order or to take cognizance of the case, but rather, in all petitions for
habeas corpus the court must inquire into every phase and aspect of
petitioner's detention — from the moment petitioner was taken into
custody up to the moment the court passes upon the merits of the
petition;" and "only after such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself
that the due process clause of our Constitution has in fact been
satisfied."
People v. Burgos
Burgos was arrested by PC Officers while he was plowing his field for
being a member of the NPA as alleged by Masamlok whom Burgos
forcibly recruited. According to the prosecution, he admitted
possession of a firearm and subversive documents which were found in
his house. Burgos denied the allegations.
HELD: Arrest and search by the PC officers were not lawful where
personal knowledge of the fact of the crime is essential. Knowledge
came from Masamlok’s information. Burgos was not committing any
criminal or subversive act at the time of the arrest. Evidence adduced
against him are inadmissible, having been obtained in violation of his
constitutional rights.
Milo vs. Salonga
Barrio Captain Tuvera Sr., with some private persons, maltreated
Valdez by hitting him, and immediately thereafter, without legal
grounds and with deliberate intent to deprive Valdez of his liberty,
accused Tuvera with Cpt. Mendoza and Pat. Mangsat lodged and locked
Valdez in side he municipal jail for about 11 hours. Judge Salonga
quashed the information.
HELD: Barrio captains are recognized persons in authority long before
PD299. Therefore, Tuvera had authority to detain Valdez but such
detainment for 11 hours was without legal cause. The crime committed
is arbitrary detention.
Article 125. Delay in the Delivery of Detained Persons
to the Proper Judicial Authorities
Elements (as amended by E.O. 272)
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He detains a person for some legal ground;
3. He fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities within –
a. 12 hours for light penalties;
b. 18 hours for correctional penalties; and
c. 36 hours for afflictive or capital penalties.
 If the offender is a private person, the crime is Illegal
Detention.
 Under Art. 125, the public officer has detained the offended
party for some legal ground. The detention is legal in the
beginning because the person detained was arrested under any
of the circumstances where arrest without warrant is authorized
by law. However, his detention becomes illegal after a certain
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
10
period of time because he is not delivered to the proper judicial
authority. If the detention is NOT for some legal ground, the
crime is Arbitrary Detention under Art. 124.
 Art. 125 does NOT apply when the arrest is by virtue of a
warrant of arrest, in which case, the person arrested can be
detained indefinitely until his case is decided by the court or he
posts bail for his temporary release. Why? Because there is
already a case filed against him in court  it is not necessary to
deliver the person to that court.
 “Delivery to the proper judicial authorities” doesn’t consist in
a physical delivery, but in making an accusation or charge or
filing of an information against the person arrested with the
corresponding court or judge.
 “Proper judicial authorities” means the courts of justice or
judges of said courts vested with judicial power to order the
temporary detention or confinement of a person charged with
having committed a public offense.
 Circumstances considered in determining liability of officer
detaining a person beyond legal period:
- means of communication
- hour of arrest
- other circumstances such as time of surrender
and the material possibility for the fiscal to
make the investigation and file in time the
necessary information
Illustration: When A was arrested for direct assault, punishable
by a correctional penalty, on the evening of June 17, the
complaint could not normally be filed earlier than 8 a.m. of June
18 because gov’t offices open for business usually at 8:00 and
close at 5:00 p.m.
 The illegality of detention is not cured by the filing of the
information in court because a violation of this article had
already been committed before the information was filed.
Rule 112 Sec. 7
When accused lawfully arrested without a warrant
… Before the complaint or information is filed, the person
arrested [without a warrant] may ask for a preliminary
investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign a
waiver of the provisions of Art. 125 of the RPC, in the
presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may
apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated within
15 days from its inception.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438
An Act Defining Certain Rights Of Person Arrested,
Detained Or Under Custodial Investigation As Well As
The Duties Of The Arresting, Detaining And
Investigating Officers, And Providing Penalties For
Violations Thereof.
Who are punishable?
1. Any arresting public officer of employee, or any
investigating officer, who fails to inform any person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his right
to remain silent and to have competent and independent
counsel preferably of his own choice
2. An officer or employee or anyone acting upon orders of
such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to
provide a competent and independent counsel to a person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the
commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the
services of his own counsel.
3. Any person who obstruct, persons or prohibits any
lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any
medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him
or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel,
from visiting and conferring privately with him, of from
examining and treating him, or from ministering to his
spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of
the night
Alberto vs. De la Cruz
 Case where the accused was summoned at the house
of the governor to fix the fence.
 In order to be guilty under 223 (connivance) and 224
(negligence), it is necessary that the public officer had
consented to, or connived in, the escape of a prisoner
on the part of the person in charge is an essential
condition in the commission of the crime of
faithfulness in the custody of the prisoner. If the public
officer charged with the duty of guarding him does not
connive with the fugitive, then he has not violated the
law and is not guilty of the crime.
 Negligence in the custody of a prisoner under 224 of
the RPC punishable if it is definitely and deliberately
committed.
Article 126. Delaying Release
Acts punished
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
11
1. Delaying the performance of a judicial or executive order Acts punished
for the release of a prisoner;
2. Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order to
said prisoner;
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for the 1. Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner thereof;
liberation of such person. 2. Searching papers or other effects found therein without the
previous consent of such owner; or
3. Refusing to leave the premises, after having surreptitiously
Elements entered said dwelling and after having been required to
leave the same

1. Offender is a public officer or employee; Common elements

2. There is a judicial or executive order for the release of a
prisoner or detention prisoner, or that there is a proceeding
upon a petition for the liberation of such person;
3. Offender without good reason delays - 1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
a. the service of the notice of such order to the prisoner; 2. He is not authorized by judicial order to enter the dwelling
b. the performance of such judicial or executive order for or to make a search therein for papers or other effects.
the release of the prisoner; or
c. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of such
Circumstances qualifying the offense
person.
1. If committed at nighttime; or
2. If any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a crime
 Wardens and jailers are the public officers most likely to
are not returned immediately after the search made by
violate Art. 126. offender.

 A public officer is “authorized by judicial order” when he is

armed with a search warrant duly issued by the court.
Article 127. Expulsion
 To constitute a violation of domicile, the entrance by the
public officer must be against the will of the owner, which
Acts punished
presupposes opposition or prohibition of the owner, whether
express or implied. If the entrance is only without the consent
of the owner, the crime is not committed. Besides, silence of the
1. Expelling a person from the Philippines; owner of the dwelling before and during the search, may show
2. Compelling a person to change his residence. implied waiver.

Elements
 If the public officer searches a person outside his dwelling
without a search warrant, the crime committed is grave
1. Offender is a public officer or employee; coercion, if violence or intimidation is used, or unjust
2. S/he either - vexation, if there is no violence or intimidation.
a. expels any person from the Philippines; or
b. compels a person to change residence;
3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law.

 RE: “Not being authorized by law” – Only the court by a final
judgment can order a person to change his residence. This is
illustrated in ejectment proceedings, expropriation proceedings
and in the penalty of destierro.
 In Villavicencio vs. Lukban, the Court held that the Mayor
cannot force prostitutes residing in Manila to live in Davao
against their will, there being no law that authorizes them to do
so.
Article 128. Violation of Domicile
Bar Question
Violation of Domicile vs. Trespass to Dwelling (2002)
What is the difference between violation of domicile and
trespass to dwelling? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The differences between violation of domicile and trespass
to dwelling are; 1) The offender in violation of domicile is a
public officer acting under color of authority; in trespass to
dwelling, the offender is a private person or public officer
acting in a private capacity.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

12
 2) Violation of domicile is committed in 3 different
ways: (1) by entering the dwelling of another against the
will of the latter; (2) searching papers and other effects
inside the dwelling without the previous consent of the
owner; or (3) refusing to leave the premises which he
entered surreptitiously, after being required to leave the
premises.
3) Trespass to dwelling is committed only in one
way; that is, by entering the dwelling of another against the
express or implied will of the latter.
Article 129. Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained, and
Abuse in the Service of Those Legally Obtained
Acts punished
1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause;
Elements
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
(2) He procures a search warrant;
(3) There is no just cause.
2. Exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary severity in
executing a search warrant legally procured.
Elements
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
(2) He has legally procured a search warrant;
(3) He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary severity
in executing the same.
 Review requisites for issuing a search warrant, manner of
executing the warrant, definition of probable cause in the Rules
of Court.
Q: When is a search warrant said to have been procured without
just cause?
A1: When it appears on the face of the affidavits filed in support
of the application, or through other evidence, that the applicant
had every reason to believe that the search warrant sought for
was unjustified.
A2: The true test of lack of just cause is whether the affidavit
filed in support of the application for search warrant has been
drawn in such a manner that perjury could be charged thereon
and affiant held liable for damages caused.
Illustration: Pulis wanted to verify a report that some corpse was
unlawfully buried in a monastery. Instead of stating to that
effect, he alleges in his affidavit that opium was hidden in the
premises.
 The offender in this article may also be held liable for perjury.
In view of the phrase “in addition to the liability attaching to the
offender for the commission of any other offense”, even if the
crime of perjury was a necessary means of committing Art. 129,
they cannot form a complex crime.
Rule 126
Searches and Seizures
(Tignan na lang sa rules, mahaba saka alam na natin to! )
Stonehill vs. Diokno
Upon application of some officers of the government, several judges
issued 42 search warrants against the petitioners and the corporations
of which they were officers.
HELD: The legality of the seizure can be contested only by the party
whose rights have been impaired thereby. The objection to an unlawful
search and seizure is purely personal and cannot be availed of by 3 rd
parties. Consequently, the petitioners may not validly object to the
use in evidence against them of the things seized, since the right to
object to the admission of said papers in evidence belongs exclusively
to the corporations, to whom they belong, and may not be invoked by
the corporate officers in proceedings against them in their individual
capacity.
The warrants issued in this case state that the persons named therein
committed a “violation of Central Bank Laws, Tariff and Customs Laws,
Internal Revenue Laws and the Revised Penal Code. As such, no specific
offense has been alleged in said application. It was impossible for the
judges who issued the warrants to have found the existence of
probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction of
competent proof that the party against whom it is sought has
performed particular acts or omission, violating a given provision of
criminal laws.
Finally, the warrants issued here were general warrants that
authorized the search and seizure of records pertaining to all business
transactions of petitioners, regardless of whether the transactions
were legal or illegal.
Burgos Sr., vs. Chief of Staff
The validity of two search warrants is assailed by the petitioners in this
case. Under these warrants, a house in Project 6, QC and 2 units of the
RMC building in Q.Ave., QC were searched. Office and printing
machines, equipment, paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other
articles used in the printing, publication and distribution of the said
newspapers, as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other
written literature alleged to be in the possession and control of
petitioner Burgos.
HELD: The search warrants in this case were also in the nature of
general warrants, hence invalid.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
13
  The right to peaceably assemble is not absolute and may be
regulated (i.e., with respect to the streets or public places to be
used etc.)
Article 130. Searching Domicile without Witnesses

Article 132. Interruption of Religious Worship

Elements

Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He is armed with search warrant legally procured;
3. He searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of any 1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
person; 2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religious are
4. The owner, or any members of his family, or two witnesses about to take place or are going on;
residing in the same locality are not present. 3. Offender prevents or disturbs the same.

Qualified if committed by violence or threat.

Violation of Domicile Searching Domicile
without witnesses
 Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a
Public officer has no Public officer has a search
public plaza is not a ceremony or manifestation of religion, but
authority to make a search warrant
only a meeting of a religious sect. In which case, the crime
committed is violation of Art. 131

 Art. 130 does NOT apply to searches of vehicles or other

means of transportation, because the searches are not made in
a dwelling.
Article 131. Prohibition, Interruption, and Dissolution of
Peaceful Meetings
 But the reading of some verses our of the Bible in a private
house by a group of 10 to 20 persons, is a religious service.
There is no provisions of law which requires religious service to
be conducted in approved orthodox style in order to merit
protection against interference.

Elements
Article 133. Offending the Religious Feelings

1. Offender is a public officer or employee; Elements

2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. prohibiting or by interrupting, without legal ground, the
holding of a peaceful meeting, or by dissolving the
1. Acts complained of were performed in a place devoted to
same;
religious worship, OR during the celebration of any religious
b. hindering any person from joining any lawful
ceremony;
association, or attending any of its meetings;
2. The acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings of the
c. prohibiting or hindering any person from addressing,
faithful.
either alone or together with others, any petition to the
authorities for the correction of abuses or redress of
grievances. There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the
faithful.
 Only a public officer or employee can commit this crime. If
the offender is a private individual, the crime is Disturbance
of Public Order under Art. 153.

People vs. Mandoriao

 But the offender must be astranger, not a participant, in the
peaceful meeting. Where the offender is a participant, the crime
committed is unjust vexation.
The Iglesia ni Cristo held a religious rally at a public place in Baguio.
About 200 people attended the meeting, about 50 of whom were
members of the INC but the rest were outsiders and curious listeners.
While Salvio, a minister of INC, was expounding on his topic to the

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

14
effect that Christ is not God, but only man, the crowd became unruly.
Some people urged Mandoriao to go up the stage and have a debate
with Salvio. Mandoriao however, was not able to speak before the
microphone because the wire connecting it was abruptly disconnected.
HELD: The meeting here was not a religious ceremony. A religious
meeting is an “assemblage of people met for the purpose of performing
acts of adoration to the Supreme Being, or to perform religious services
in recognition of God as an object of worship…” The meeting here was
not limited to the members of the INC. The supposed prayers and
singing of hymns were merely incidental because the principal object
of the rally was to persuade new converts to their religion.
Assuming that the rally was a religious ceremony, the appellant cannot
be said to have performed acts or uttered words offensive to the
feelings of the faithful. The act complained of must be directed against
a dogma or ritual, or upon an object of veneration. There was no
object of veneration at the meeting.
People vs. Baes
A complaint was filed against certain individuals, who while holding a
funeral of a person in accordance with the rites of the Church of Christ,
caused the funeral to pass throughout the churchyard of a Roman
Catholic Church. The fiscal moved for dismissal of the case, which the
court granted.
HELD: In his MTD, the fiscal denies that the unlawful act committed by
the accused had offended the religious feelings of the Catholics of the
municipality in which the act took place. Such ground of the motion is
indefensible. Whether or not the act complained of is offensive to the
religious feelings of the Catholics, is a question of fact which must be
judged only according to the feelings of the Catholics and not those of
other faithful ones, for it is possible that certain acts may offend the
feelings of those who profess a certain religion, while not otherwise
offensive to the feelings of those profession another faith.
People vs. Tengson
HELD: The act of performing burial rites inside a Roman Catholic
cemetery, in accordance with the rules of practices of the sect called
“Christ is the Answer”, by reading passages from the Bible, chanting
the “Alleluia”, singing religious hymns and praying for the repose of
the soul of the dead, is not notoriously offensive to the feelings of
religious persons, provided there was no intent to mock, scoff, or to
desecrate any religious sect or object venerated by people of a
particular religion. Such act may have offended the Roman Catholic
priest of the municipality and some Catholic adherents, but since there
was a permit for the burial in question in the Roman Catholic Cemetery
of that municipality, the religious rights of that sect, to which the
members of the family of the deceased belong, and performed upon
request of the bereaved husband, are not offensive to the feelings of
everybody who professes the Christian religion.
People vs. Nanoy
While the congregation of the Assembly of God was having its
afternoon services in its chapel, the accused who was allegedly drunk
entered with uplifted hands and attempted to grab the song leader
who ran away from him. The other members of the sect also ran out
of the church and the religious services were discontinued.
HELD: The accused is only guilty of unjust vexation .
Republic Act 9372
Human Security Act of 2007
Procedure when a suspected terrorist is arrested
A. A suspected terrorist maybe arrested by any law
enforcement personnel provided:
1. The law enforcement agent was duly authorized in
writing by the Anti Terrorism Council
2. The arrest was the result of a surveillance or
examination of bank deposits
B. Upon arrest and prior to actual detention, the law
enforcement agent must present the suspected terrorist
before any judge at the latter’s residence or office nearest
the place of arrest, at any time of the day or night. The
judge shall, within three days, submit a written report of
the presentation to the court where the suspect shall have
been charged.
C. Immediately after taking custody of a person charged
or suspected as a terrorist, the police or law enforcement
personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the nearest
place of apprehension or arrest, but if the arrest is made
during non-office days or after office hours, the written
notice shall be served at the nearest residence of the
judge nearest the place of arrest
D. Failure to notify in writing is punished by 10 years and
one day to12 years of imprisonment
Period of Detention has been extended to three days
A. The three day period is counted from the moment the
person charged or suspected as terrorist has been
apprehended or arrested, detained and taken into
custody
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
15
 B. In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack,
suspects may not be detained for more than three days
without the written approval of the Human Rights
Commission, or judge of the MTC RTC, Sandiganbayan or
Court of Appeals nearest the place of arrest
C. If arrest was on a nonworking day or hour, the person
arrested shall be brought to the residence of any of the
above named officials nearest the place of arrest.
D. Failure to deliver the person charged or suspected as
terrorists to the proper judicial; authority within three days is
punished by 10 years and one day to 12 years.
Republic Act 9745
Anti-Torture Act of 2009
Punishable Acts:
1.] Torture
2.] Other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment
Sec 4: Acts of Torture. - For purposes of this Act, torture
shall include, but not be limited to, the following:
(a) Physical torture is a form of treatment or punishment
inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority upon another in his/her custody that causes severe
pain, exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or more
parts of the body, such as:
(1) Systematic beating, headbanging, punching, kicking,
striking with truncheon or rifle butt or other similar objects,
and jumping on the stomach;
(2) Food deprivation or forcible feeding with spoiled food,
animal or human excreta and other stuff or substances not
normally eaten;
(3) Electric shock;
(4) Cigarette burning; burning by electrically heated rods,
hot oil, acid; by the rubbing of pepper or other chemical
substances on mucous membranes, or acids or spices
directly on the wound(s);
(5) The submersion of the head in water or water polluted
with excrement, urine, vomit and/or blood until the brink of
suffocation;
(6) Being tied or forced to assume fixed and stressful bodily
position;
(7) Rape and sexual abuse, including the insertion of foreign
objects into the sex organ or rectum, or electrical torture of
the genitals;
(8) Mutilation or amputation of the essential parts of the
body such as the genitalia, ear, tongue, etc.;
(9) Dental torture or the forced extraction of the teeth;
(10) Pulling out of fingernails;
(11) Harmful exposure to the elements such as sunlight and
extreme cold;
(12) The use of plastic bag and other materials placed over
the head to the point of asphyxiation;
(13) The use of psychoactive drugs to change the
perception, memory. alertness or will of a person, such as:
(i) The administration or drugs to induce confession and/or
reduce mental competency; or
(ii) The use of drugs to induce extreme pain or certain
symptoms of a disease; and
(14) Other analogous acts of physical torture; and
(b) "Mental/Psychological Torture" refers to acts committed
by a person in authority or agent of a person in authority
which are calculated to affect or confuse the mind and/or
undermine a person's dignity and morale, such as:
(1) Blindfolding;
(2) Threatening a person(s) or his/fher relative(s) with
bodily harm, execution or other wrongful acts;
(3) Confinement in solitary cells or secret detention places;
(4) Prolonged interrogation;
(5) Preparing a prisoner for a "show trial", public display or
public humiliation of a detainee or prisoner;
(6) Causing unscheduled transfer of a person deprived of
liberty from one place to another, creating the belief that
he/she shall be summarily executed;
(7) Maltreating a member/s of a person's family;
(8) Causing the torture sessions to be witnessed by the
person's family, relatives or any third party;
(9) Denial of sleep/rest;
(10) Shame infliction such as stripping the person naked,
parading him/her in public places, shaving the victim's head
or putting marks on his/her body against his/her will;
(11) Deliberately prohibiting the victim to communicate with
any member of his/her family; and
(12) Other analogous acts of mental/psychological torture.
Sec. 5: Other Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or
Punishment. - Other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment
or punishment refers to a deliberate and aggravated
treatment or punishment not enumerated under Section 4 of
this Act, inflicted by a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority against another person in custody, which
attains a level of severity sufficient to cause suffering, gross
humiliation or debasement to the latter. The assessment of
the level of severity shall depend on all the circumstances of
the case, including the duration of the treatment or
punishment, its physical and mental effects and, in some
cases, the sex, religion, age and state of health of the
victim.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
16
 Chapter Four. ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND
DISOBEDIENCE TO, PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR
AGENTS

Title Three
Article 148. Direct assaults
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Article 149. Indirect assaults

Article 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the

Chapter One. REBELLION, COUP D’ ETAT, SEDITION AND
DISLOYALTY National Assembly, its committees or

subcommittees, by the Constitutional

Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection – how committed Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or
divisions
Article 134-A. Coup d’ etat – how committed
Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person
Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup
d’ etat in authority or he agents of such person

Article 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’ Article 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons
etat, rebellion or insurrection
in authority – who shall be deemed as such
Article 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees

Article 138. Inciting to rebellion or sedition

Chapter Five. PUBLIC DISORDERS
Article 139. Sedition – how committed

Article 140. Penalty for sedition

Article 153. Tumults and other disturbances of public
Article 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition
order – tumultuous disturbance or interruption
Article 142. Inciting to sedition liable to cause disturbance

Article 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and

Chapter Two. CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR unlawful utterances

REPRESENTATION Article 155. Alarms and scandals

Article 156. Delivering prisoners from jail

Section One – Crimes against legislative bodies and

similar bodies Chapter Six. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE

Article 143. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of the

Assembly and similar bodies Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence

Article 144. Disturbance of proceedings Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the

occasion of disorders, conflagrations, earthquakes

or other calamities
Section Two – Violation of parliamentary immunity
Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service of
Article 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity
Sentence

Chapter Three. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS

Chapter Seven. COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME

DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER

Article 146. Illegal assemblies PREVIOUS OFFENSE
Article 147. Illegal associations

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

17
 Article 160. Quasi- recidivism
Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection – how committed
Elements:
1. There is a public uprising and taking arms against the
government;
2. The purpose of the uprising or movement is -
a. to remove from the allegiance to the government or its
laws Philippine territory or any part thereof, or any
body of land, naval, or other armed forces;
OR
b. to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly or
partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
 Rebellion is more frequently used where the object of the
movement is completely to overthrow and supersede the
existing government.
 Insurrection is more commonly employed in reference to a
movement which seeks merely to effect some change of
minor importance, or to prevent the exercise of
governmental authority with respect to particular matters
or subjects.
 The crime of rebellion or of inciting is by nature a crime of
masses, of a multitude.
 Actual clash of arms with the government, not necessary to
convict the accused who is in conspiracy with others
actually taking arms with the government.
 It is not necessary that the purpose of the rebellion be
accomplished.
 Giving aid and comfort is not criminal in rebellion.
Republic Act. No. 6968
An Act Punishing the Crime of Coup d’état by Amending Articles
134, 135, and 136 of Chapter One, Title Three of Act Numbered
Thirty-Eight Hundred and Fifteen, Otherwise Known as the
Revised Penal Code, and For Other Purposes
Definition of Terms
Rebellion or insurrection - the crime of rebellion or
insurrection is committed by rising and taking arms against
the Government for the purpose of removing from the
allegiance to said Government or its laws, the territory of the
Republic of the Philippines or any part thereof, of any body
of land, naval or other armed forces, or depriving the Chief
Executive or the Legislature, wholly or partially, of any of
their powers or prerogatives.
Coup D′ÉTAT – The crime of coup D′ÉTAT is a swift attack
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth, directed against duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communications networks, public utilities or
other facilities needed for the exercise and continued
possession of power, singly or simultaneously carried out
anywhere in the Philippines by any person or persons,
belonging to the military or police or holding any public
office or employment, with or without civilian support or
participation, for the purpose of seizing or diminishing state
power."
Rebellion Treason
Levying of war against the Levying of war against the
government during peace government, when
time for any of the purposes performed to aid the enemy;
in Article 134 adherence to enemy
Always involves taking up May be committed by mere
arms vs. the government adherence to the enemy,
giving him aid or comfort
Enrile vs. Salazar
A warrant was issued on an information filed by a panel of prosecutors,
charging Senator Enrile, the spouses Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio and
Gregorio Honasan with the crime of rebellion with murder and multiple
frustrated murder allegedly committed during the failed coup attempt
which took place from Nov. 29 to Dec. 10.
HELD: The written and oral pleas for the defendants (Enrile et al.)
presented the SC with three options: First, abandon Hernandez and
adopt the minority view expressed in the dissent that rebellion cannot
absorb more serious crimes, and that under Article 48, rebellion may
be complexed with common offenses. Second, hold Hernandez
applicable only to offenses committed in furtherance or as a necessary
means for the commission of rebellion, but not to acts committed in
the course of a rebellion which also constitute common crimes of grave
or less grave character. Third, maintain Hernandez as applying to
make rebellion absorb all other offenses committed in its course,
whether or not necessary to its commission or furtherance thereof.
11 members of the SC voted against abandoning Hernandez, while 2
felt the doctrine should be re-examined. Because of this, the ruling
remains good law, as no new challenges are presented in this case
persuasive enough to warrant a complete reversal.
This view is reinforced by the fact that President Aquino, exercising
her powers under the 1986 Freedom Constitution, repealed P.D. No.
942 of the former regime which sought to nullify Hernandez by
enacting a new provision in the RPC to the effect that “when by
reason, or on the occasion, of any of the crimes penalized in this
Chapter, acts which constitute offenses upon which graver penalties
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
18
are imposed by the law are committed, the penalty for the more
serious offense in its maximum period shall be imposed upon the
offender.” The president has then in effect reinstated Hernandez as
binding doctrine with the effect of law by legislative fiat.
The court unanimously voted to reject the second option. The
consensus was that the arguments were not sufficient to overcome the
thrust of Hernandez to rule out the complexing of rebellion with any
other offense committed in its course under either of the aforecited
clauses of Article 48.
If Art. 48 were applied, and murder were not complexed with rebellion
and the 2 crimes were punished separately, the extreme penalty could
be imposed upon him, even in the absence of a single aggravating
circumstance. Thus, said provision, if construed this way, would be
unfavorable to the accused.
Thus, Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to prohibit the
complexing of rebellion with any other crime. The SC ruled by a vote
of 11 to 3 that the information filed against the petitioner does in fact
charge an offense. That indictment is to be read as charging simple
rebellion.
Ponce Enrile vs. Amin
Together with the information charging Enrile with rebellion
complexed with murder in the RTC of QC, prosecutors filed another
information charging him for violation of P.D. No. 1829 in the RTC of
Makati. It is alleged that on Dec. 1, 1989 at Dasma Village, Enrile,
having reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Ex-Col. Gringo
Honasan has committed a crime, obstructed, impeded, frustrated or
delayed the apprehension of Honasan by harboring or concealing him
in his house. Enrile apparently gave Gringo food and comfort in the
Dasma house, despite knowing that Gringo is a fugitive from justice.
Is the alleged harboring or concealing by Enrile of Honasan absorbed
in the complexed rebellion charge against Enrile (in Enrile vs. Salazar)?
HELD: YES
The rebellion charges filed against Enrile in Q.C. were based on
affidavits executed by 2 employees of a hotel who stated that Gringo
and some 100 rebel soldiers attended the mass and birthday party held
at the Enrile residence in Dec 1, 1989. Based on this testimony, the
prosecution concluded that Enrile’s talking with the rebel leader
Gringo in his house in the presence of 100 armed soldiers, it can be
inferred that they were co-conspirators in the December coup
attempt. Thus, the factual allegations supporting the rebellion charge
include the very incident which gave rise to the charge of the violation
under P.D. 1829.
Necessarily, being in conspiracy with Gringo, Enrile’s alleged act of
harboring or concealing was for no other purpose but in furtherance of
the crime of rebellion thus constituting a part thereof. It was
motivated by the single intent or resolution to commit the crime of
rebellion. The decisive factor in political crimes is the intent or
motive. If Enrile is not charged with rebellion and he harbored or
concealed Gringo simply because the latter is a friend and former
associate, the motive for the act is completely different. But if the
act is committed with political motives, then it should be deemed to
form part of the crime of rebellion instead of being punished
separately.
Inthis case, the act or harboring or concealing Gringo is clearly a mere
component of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of rebellion. It
cannot therefore be made basis of a separate charge. All crimes,
whether punishable under special law or general law, which are mere
components or ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof,
become absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated and
charged as separate crimes themselves.
People vs. Dasig
One afternoon, Pfc. Manatad, Pfc. Tizon and Pfc. Catamora were
tasked by their commanding officer to man the traffic at 2 streets of
Mandaue City. While on duty, Catamora saw 8 persons, including
accused Nunez, acting suspiciously. He noticed one of them giving
instructions to two of the men to approach Manatad. Catamora
followed the two men, but sensing that they were being followed, the
men went to the middle of the road and engage Catamora to a gun
battle. Catamora then heard a series of shots from the other group
and afterwards, he saw Manatad sprawled on the ground. Catamora
sought refuge at a nearby building from where he saw 2 persons take
Manatad’s gun and fired at him to make sure he was dead. The group
then fled the scene.
Later on, 2 teams of police officers were tasked to conduct
surveillance on a suspected safehouse of members of the NPA sparrow
unit in Cebu City. When they reached the place, the group saw Rodrigo
Dasig and Nunez trying to escape. The two men were apprehended,
and their firearms were confiscated. Dasig confessed in the hospital
that he and the group of Nunez killed Manatad and that he and Nunez
were members of the Sparrow unit. He was found guilty of murder
with direct assault.
HELD: Dasig should be prosecuted for rebellion. Appellant not only
confessed voluntarily his membership with the Sparrow unit, but also
his participation and that of his group in the killing of Manatad. The
Sparrow unit is the liquidation squad of the NPA with the objective of
overthrowing the duly constituted government. It is therefore not hard
to comprehend that the killing of Manatad was committed as a means
to or in furtherance of the subversive ends of the NPA. As such,
appellant is liable for rebellion and not murder with direct assault
upon a person in authority.
Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though crimes in
themselves are deemed absorbed in one single crime of rebellion. The
act of killing a police officer, knowing too well that the victim is a
person in authority, is a mere component of rebellion or an act done
in furtherance of rebellion. It cannot be made the basis of a separate
charge.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
19

People vs. Lovedioro
Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking along a street when
a man suddenly walked beside him, pulled a gun from his waist, aimed
the gun at the policeman’s right ear and fired. The man who shot Lucilo
had 3 other companions with him, one of whom shot the fallen
policeman four times as he lay on the ground. After taking the Lucilo’s
gun, the man and his companions boarded a tricycle and fled. The
accused-appellant was charged and was convicted of the crime of
murder.
HELD: In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not murder, it
becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain whether or not the act
was done in furtherance of a political end. The political motive of the
act should be conclusively demonstrated. If no political motive is
established and proved, the accused should be convicted of the
common crime and not of rebellion. In cases of rebellion, motive
relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization dedicated
to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and of itself, suffice.
Appellant’s contentions regarding the reason for the killing of Lucilo
are couched in terms so general and non-specific that they offer no
explanation as to what contribution the killing would have made
towards the achievement of the NPA’s subversive aims. Thus, in the
absence of clear and satisfactory evidence pointing to a political
motive for the killing of SPO3 Lucilo, the trial court correctly convicted
appellant of the crime of murder.
Article 134-A. Coup d’ etat – how committed
Elements:
1. Offender is a person or persons belonging to the military or
police or holding any public office or employment;
2. It is committed by means of a swift attack accompanied by
violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth;
3. The attack is directed against the duly constituted
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any military
camp or installation, communication networks, public
utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise and
continued possession of power;
4. The purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish state
power.
 The crime of coup d’ etat may be committed with or without
civilian participation.
Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup
d’ etat
Persons liable for rebellion, insurrection or coup d' etat:
1. The leaders –
a. Any person who promotes, maintains or heads a
rebellion or insurrection; or
b. Any person who leads, directs or commands others to
undertake a coup d' etat;
2. The participants -
a. Any person who participates or executes the
commands of others in rebellion or insurrection;
b. Any person in the government service who
participates, or executes directions or commands of
others in undertaking a coup d’ etat;
c. Any person not in the government service who
participates, supports, finances, abets or aids in
undertaking a coup d' etat.
 Public officer must take active part, to be liable; mere
silence or omission is not punishable in rebellion.
 When the rebellion, insurrection or coup d’ etat shall be
under the command of unknown leaders, any person who
in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed receipts
and other documents issued in their name, or performed
similar acts, on behalf of the rebels, shall be deemed a
leader of such rebellion, insurrection or couo d’ etat.
 It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never took
the oath of allegiance to, or that they never recognized the
government.
 Those who killed persons in pursuance of the movement to
overthrow the government are liable for rebellion only.
 Is there a complex crime of rebellion with murder and other
common crimes? NO. Engaging in war against the
government necessarily imply everything that war
connotes: resort to arms, requisition of property, collection
of taxes, restraint of liberty, damage to property, physical
injuries and loss of life.
 When any of the acts above are committed as means to or
in furtherance of subversive ends, they become absorbed
in the crime of rebellion and cannot be regarded or
penalized as distinct crimes in themselves. (This is the
Hernandez ruling, later reiterated in Enrile vs. Salazar)
 Killing, robbing etc. for private purposes or profit, without
any political motivation, would be separately punished and
would not be absorbed in rebellion
 Political crimes are those directly aimed against the political
order, as well as such common crimes as may be committed
to achieve a political purpose. The decisive factor is intent
or motive. A crime usually regarded as common (e.g.
homicide) may be stripped of its common character if
perpetrated for any of the purposes of rebellion.
Article 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’
etat
 There is conspiracy to commit rebellion when two or more
persons come to an agreement to rise publicly and take
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
20
 arms against government for any of the purposes of
rebellion and decide to commit it.
 There is proposal to commit rebellion when the person who
has decided to rise publicly and take arms against the
government for any of the purposes of rebellion proposes
its execution to some other person or persons.
Bar Questions
Art 134; Rebellion; Politically Motivated; Committed
by
NPA Members (1998)
On May 5, 1992, at about 6:00 a.m., while Governor Alegre
of Laguna was on board his car traveling along the National
Highway of Laguna, Joselito and Vicente shot him on the head
resulting in his instant death. At that time, Joselito and Vicente
were members of the liquidation squad of the New People's
Army and they killed the governor upon orders of their senior
officer. Commander Tiago. According to Joselito and Vicente,
they were ordered to kill Governor Alegre because of his
corrupt practices. If you were the prosecutor, what crime will
you charge Joselito and Vicente? [5%J
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and
Vicente with the crime of rebellion, considering that the killers
were members of the liquidation squad of the New People's
Army and the killing was upon orders of their commander;
hence, politically-motivated. This was the ruling in People vs.
Avila, 207 SCRA 1568 involving identical facts which is a
movement taken judicial notice of as engaged in rebellion
against the Government.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
If I were the prosecutor, I would charge Joselito and
Vicente for the crime of murder as the purpose of the killing
was because of his "corrupt practices ", which does not
appear to be politically motivated. There is no indication as to
how the killing would promote or further the objective of the
New Peoples Army. The killing is murder because it was
committed with treachery.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime should be rebellion with murder considering that
Art. 135 of the Revised Penal Code has already been amended
by Rep. Act No. 6968, deleting from said Article, common
crimes which used to be punished as part and parcel of the
crime of rebellion. The ruling in People vs. Hernandez, 99 Phil.
515 (1994), that rebellion may not be completed with
common crimes committed in furtherance thereof, was
because the common crimes were then penalized in Art. 135
together with the rebellion, with one penalty and Art. 48 of
the Rev. Penal Code cannot be applied. Art. 135 of said Code
remained exactly the same when the case of Enrile vs,
Salazar, 186 SCRA 217 (1990) was resolved. Precisely for the
reason that Art. 48 cannot apply because the common crimes
were punished as part of rebellion in Art. 135, that this Article
was amended, deleting the common crimes therefrom. That
the common crimes were deleted from said Article,
demonstrates a clear legislative intention to treat the common
crimes as distinct from rebellion and remove the legal
impediment to the application of Art.
48. It is noteworthy that in Enrile vs. Salazar (supra) the
Supreme Court said these:
"There is an apparent need to restructure the law on
rebellion, either to raise the penalty therefor or to clearly
define and delimit the other offenses to be considered as
absorbed thereby, so that if it cannot be conveniently utilized
as the umbrella for every sort of illegal activity undertaken in
its name. The Court has no power to effect such change, for
it can only interpret the law as it stands at any given time,
and what is needed lies beyond interpretation. Hopefully,
Congress will perceive the need for promptly seizing
the initiative in this matter, which is purely with in its
province,"
And significantly the said amendment to Art. 135 of
the Rev. Penal Code was made at around the time the
ruling in Salazar was handled down, obviously to neutralize
the Hernandez and the Salazar rulings. The
amendment was sort of a rider to the coup d'etat law,
Rep. Act No 6968.
Art 134-A: Coup d’ etat & Rape; Frustrated (2005)
Taking into account the nature and elements of the felonies
of coup d’ etat and rape, may one be criminally liable for
frustrated coup d’ etat or frustrated rape? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, one cannot be criminally liable for frustrated coup d’etat
or frustrated rape because in coup d’ etat the mere attack
directed against the duly constituted authorities of the
Republic of the Philippines, or any military camp or
installation, communication networks, public utilities or other
facilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of
power would consummate the crime. The objective may not
be to overthrow the government but only to destabilize or
paralyze the government through the seizure of facilities and
utilities essential to the continued possession and exercise of
governmental powers.
On the other hand, in the crime of rape there is no frustrated
rape it is either attempted or consummated rape. If the
accused who placed himself on top of a woman, raising her
skirt and unbuttoning his pants, the endeavor to have sex with
her very apparent, is guilty of Attempted rape. On the other
hand, entry on the labia or lips of the female organ by the
penis, even without rupture of the hymen or laceration of the
vagina, consummates the crime of rape. More so, it has long
abandoned its ―stray‖ decision in People vs. Erina 50 Phil 998
where the accused was found
guilty of Frustrated rape.
Art 134-A; Coup d’etat (2002)
If a group of persons belonging to the armed forces makes a
swift attack, accompanied by violence, intimidation and threat
against a vital military installation for the purpose of seizing
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
21
power and taking over such installation, what crime or crimes
are they guilty of? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The perpetrators, being persons belonging to the Armed
Forces, would be guilty of the crime of coup d'etat, under
Article 134-A of the Revised Penal Code, as amended, because
their attack was against vital military installations which are
essential to the continued possession and exercise of
governmental powers, and their purpose is to seize power by
taking over such installations.
B. If the attack is quelled but the leader is unknown,
who shall be deemed the leader thereof? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The leader being unknown, any person who in fact directed
the others, spoke for them, signed receipts and other
documents issued in their name, or performed similar acts, on
behalf of the group shall be deemed the leader of said coup
d'etat (Art 135, R.P.C.)
Art 134-A; Coup d’etat; New Firearms Law (1998)
1. How is the crime of coup d'etat committed? [3%]
2. Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup
d'etat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did
he commit? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. The crime of coup d'etat is committed by a swift attack,
accompanied by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or
stealth against the duly constituted authorities of the Republic
of the Philippines, military camps and installations,
communication networks, public utilities and facilities needed
for the exercise and continued possession of power, carried
out singly or simultaneously anywhere in the Philippines by
persons belonging to the military or police or holding public
office, with or without civilian support or participation, for the
purpose of seizing or diminishing state power. (Art 134-A,
RPC).
2. The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for
his participation therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is
absorbed in the coup d'etat under the new firearms law (Rep.
Act No. 8294).
Art 136; Conspiracy to Commit Rebellion (1994)
VC, JG. GG and JG conspired to overthrow the Philippine
Government. VG was recognized as the titular head of the
conspiracy. Several meetings were held and the plan was
finalized. JJ, bothered by his conscience, confessed to Father
Abraham that he, VG, JG and GG have conspired to overthrow
the government. Father Abraham did not report this
information to the proper authorities. Did Father Abraham
commit a crime? If so, what crime was committed? What is
his criminal liability?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Father Abraham did not commit a crime because the
conspiracy involved is one to commit rebellion, not a
conspiracy to commit treason which makes a person criminally
liable under Art 116, RFC. And even assuming that it will fall
as misprision of treason, Father Abraham is exempted from
criminal liability under Art. 12, par. 7, as his failure to report
can be considered as due to "insuperable cause", as this
involves the sanctity and inviolability of a confession.
Conspiracy to commit rebellion results in criminal liability to
the co-conspirators, but not to a person who learned of such
and did not report to the proper authorities (US vs. Vergara,
3 Phil. 432; People vs. Atienza. 56 Phil. 353).
Art. 134; Rebellion vs. Coup d'etat
Distinguish clearly but briefly: Between rebellion and
coupd'etat, based on their constitutive elements as criminal
offenses.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
REBELLION is committed when a multitude of persons rise
publicly in arms for the purpose of overthrowing the duly
constituted government, to be replaced by a government of
the rebels. It is carried out by force and violence, but need
not be participated in by any member of the military,
national police or any public officer. COUP D'ETAT is
committed when members of the military, Philippine National
Police, or public officer, acting as principal offenders,
launched a swift attack thru strategy, stealth, threat,
violence or intimidation against duly constituted authorities
of the Republic of the Philippines, military camp or
installation, communication networks, public facilities or
utilities needed for the exercise and continued possession of
governmental powers, for the purpose of seizing or
diminishing state powers.
Unlike rebellion which requires a public uprising, coup
d'etat may be carried out singly or simultaneously and the
principal offenders must be members of the military,
national police or public officer, with or without civilian
support. The criminal objective need not be to overthrow the
existing government but only to destabilize or paralyze the
existing government.
Article 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees
Acts punishable:
1. By failing to resist a rebellion by all the means in their
power;
2. By continuing to discharge the duties of their offices under
the control of the rebels; or
3. By accepting appointment to office under them.
 Offender must be a public officer or employee
 The crime of disloyalty of public officers presupposes the
existence of rebellion by other persons.
 If the public officer who commits any of the acts in this
article is in conspiracy with the rebels, he will be guilty of
rebellion.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
22
Article 138. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection. municipality or province, or the national government of
all its property or any part thereof.

Elements:  Sedition, in its general sense, is the raising of commotions

or disturbances in the State. The ultimate object is violation
of public peace.
 Sedition may not be committed by one person only,
1. Offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility
because the word ‘tumultuous’ means that it is caused by
against the government;
more than three persons who are armed or provided with
2. He incites others to the execution of any of the acts of
means of violence.
rebellion;
 Are common crimes absorbed in sedition? NO, according
3. The inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations,
to jurisprudence.
writings, emblems, banners or other representations
tending to the same end.
Sedition Rebellion

 In proposal and inciting to rebellion, the crime of rebellion The purpose may be political The purpose is always
should not actually be committed by the persons to whom or social political
it is proposed or who are incited. If they commit the
rebellion, the proponent of the one inciting becomes a It is sufficient that the public There must be taking up of
principal by inducement in the crime of rebellion. uprising must be tumultuous arms against the
government

Inciting to rebellion Proposal to commit

rebellion

In both crimes, the offender induces another to commit

rebellion People vs. Cabrera

It is not required that the The person who proposes

offender has decided to
commit the rebellion
The act of inciting is done
publicly
A constabulary soldier died as a result of an encounter with a
has decided to commit
policeman. His death engendered a desire for revenge against the
rebellion
police force on the part of the constabulary soldiers. The next day,
constabulary soldiers escaped from their barracks with rifles and
The person who proposes
ammunitions and divided into groups for an attack upon the city police
uses secret means
force. They fired indiscriminately along the streets of Calle Real,
killing a policeman and wounding civilians, including several
passengers of a passing streetcar. They attacked the Luneta Police
Station and the office of the secret service.

Article 139. Sedition – how committed

HELD: The crime committed was sedition. Sedition, in its more general
sense, is the raising of commotions or disturbances in the State. The
Philippine law on the subject makes all persons guilty of sedition who
Elements: rise publicly and tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of
legal methods any one of five objects, including that of inflicting any
act of hate or revenge upon the person or property or any official or
agent of the Insular Government or of a Provincial or Municipal
1. Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously; Government. It is not necessary that the offender be a private citizen
2. Offenders employ force, intimidation, or other means and the offended party a public functionary. The law makes no
distinction between the persons to which it applies.
outside of legal methods;
3. Purpose is to attain any of the following objects:

a. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any law Article 140. Penalty for sedition
or the holding of any popular election;
b. To prevent the national government or any provincial
or municipal government, or any public officer from
exercising its or his functions or prevent the execution Persons liable for sedition:
of an administrative order;
c. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the person
or property of any public officer or employee;
d. To commit, for any political or social end, any act of 1. The leader of the sedition; and
hate or revenge against private persons or any social 2. Other person participating in the sedition.
classes;
e. To despoil for any political or social end, any person,
Article 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
23

 There must be an agreement and a decision to rise publicly
and tumultuously to attain any of the objects of sedition.
 There is no crime of proposal to commit sedition.
Article 142. Inciting to sedition
Acts punishable:
1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the acts
which constitute sedition by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, etc.;
Elements:
a. Offender does not take direct part in the crime of
sedition;
b. He incites others to the accomplishment of any of the
acts which constitute sedition; and
c. Inciting is done by means of speeches, proclamations,
writings, emblems, cartoons, banners, or other
representations tending towards the same end.
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to disturb
the public peace;
3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels against
the government or any of the duly constituted authorities
thereof, which tend to disturb the public peace.
Uttering seditious words, publishing and circulation scurrilous
libels are punishable (second and third type of inciting to
sedition), when:
1. They tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in
executing the functions of his office; or
2. They tend to instigate others to cabal and meet together
for unlawful purposes; or
3. They suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots; or
4. They lead or tend to stir up the people against the lawful
authorities or disturb the peace of the community, the
safety and order of the government.
 “knowingly concealing such evil practices’ is another way of
violating this article. This is ordinarily an act of an accessory
after the fact, but under this article, the act is treated and
punished as that of a principal.
 It is not necessary that the words used should in fact result
in a rising of the people against the constituted authorities.
 Rules relative to seditious words:
o Clear and present danger – words must be of such a
nature that by uttering them there is a danger of a
public uprising and that such danger should be both
clear and imminent
o Dangerous tendency – if the words used tend to create
a danger of public uprising
 Seditious utterances are prohibited because the State
should not be compelled to wait until the apprehended
danger became certain, before it can protect itself.
Unlawful rumor mongering: Committed by any person who shall
offer, publish, distribute, circulate and spread rumors, false
news and information and gossip, or cause the publication,
distribution, circulation or spreading of the same, which cause
or tend to cause panic, divisive effects among the people,
discredit or distrust for the duly constituted authorities,
undermine the stability of the Government and the objectives of
the New Society, endanger the public order, or cause damage
to the interest or credit of the state. (P.D. No. 90)
US vs. Tolentino
A theatrical work entitled ‘Kahapon Ngayon at Bukas’, written by
Aurelio Tolentino, was presented by him and others on May 14, 1903
at the Teatro Libertad in Manila.
HELD: The crime committed is inciting to sedition. The publication and
presentation of the drama directly and necessarily tended to instigate
others to cabal and meet together for unlawful purposes, and to
suggest and incite rebellious conspiracies and riots and to stir up the
people against the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of the
community and the safety and order of the Government. The manifest,
unmistakable tendency of the play, in view of the time, place, and
manner of its presentation, was to inculcate a spirit of hatred and
enmity against the American people and the Government of the United
States in the Philippines.
Espuelas vs. People
Petitioner Oscar Espuelas had his picture taken, making it appear as if
he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of rope suspended from
the limb of a tree, when in truth and in fact, he was merely standing
on a barrel. After securing copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent
copies of same to several newspapers and weeklies of general
circulation for their publication with a suicide not, wherein he made
to appear that it was written by a fictitious suicidal, Alberto Reveniera
and addressed to the latter’s supposed wife and children. The letter
narrated that the reason why he committed suicide was because he
was not pleased with the administration of Pres. Roxas. It also
contained a request to his wife to write to President Truman and
Churchill, and to tell them that the Philippine government is “infested
with many Hitlers and Mussolinis.” As if out of desperation, he ended
the letter by saying that he sacrificed his life because he has no power
“to put under Juez de Cuchillo all the Roxas people who are in power.”
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
24
HELD: The essence of seditious libel is its immediate tendency to stir
up general discontent to the pitch of illegal courses or to induce people
to resort to illegal methods in order to redress the evils which press
upon their minds. A published writing which calls our government one
of crooks and dishonest persons infested with Nazis and Fascists, and
which reveals a tendency to produce dissatisfaction or a feeling
incompatible with the disposition to remain loyal to the government,
is a scurrilous libel against the Government.
Umil vs. Ramos
FACTS: CAPCOM got a tip that a member of the NPA Sparrow Unit
(liquidation squad) was being treated for a gunshot wound at the St.
Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt Avenue, Q.C. Upon verification, it was found
that the wounded person was Rolando Dural, a member of the NPA
liquidation squad, responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers.
Dural was positively identified by eyewitnesses as the gunman who
went on top of the hood of the CAPCOM mobile patrol car, and fired
at the CAPCOM soldiers seated inside. Dural was then transferred to
another facility, under CAPCOM supervision (basically, he was
arrested). Dural questions the legality of his arrest, having been made
without a warrant.
HELD: Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA, an outlawed
subversive organization. Subversion being a continuing offense, his
arrest without warrant is justified as it can be said that he was
committing an offense when arrested. The crimes of rebellion,
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes
or offenses committed in furtherance thereof or in connection
therewith constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the
nature of continuing crimes. As stated by the SC in an earlier case:
“The crimes of insurrection or rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or
proposal to commit such crimes, and other crimes and offenses
committed in the furtherance, on the occasion thereof, or incident
thereto, are all in the nature of continuing offenses which set them
apart from the common offenses, aside from their essentially involving
a massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude.
The arrest of persons involved in the rebellion whether as its fighting
armed elements, or for committing non-violent acts but in furtherance
of the rebellion, is more an act of capturing them in the course of an
armed conflict, to quell the rebellion, than for the purpose of
immediately prosecuting them in court for a statutory offense. The
arrest, therefore, need not follow the usual procedure in the
prosecution of offenses which requires the determination by a judge
of the existence of probable cause before the issuance of a judicial
warrant of arrest and the granting of bail if the offense is bailable.
Obviously, the absence of a judicial warrant is no legal impediment to
arresting or capturing persons committing overt acts of violence
against government forces, or any other milder acts but equally in
pursuance of the rebellious movement. If killing and other acts of
violence against the rebels find justification in the exigencies of armed
hostilities which is of the essence of waging a rebellion or insurrection,
most assuredly so in case of invasion, merely seizing their persons and
detaining them while any of these contingencies continues cannot be
less justified”
Republic Act 8294
Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal / Unlawful
Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or
Disposition of Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives
(P.D. 1866, as amended by R.A. 8294) as an element
of the crimes of rebellion, insurrection, sedition, or
attempted coup d’etat
Punishable acts
1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
Disposition or Possession of Firearms or
Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to
be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or
Ammunition – any person who shall unlawfully
manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any
low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380
or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of
firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument
used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any
firearm or ammunition. Provided that no other crime
was committed.
Higher penalty shall be imposed if the firearm is classified
as high powered firearm which includes those with
bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber and 9
millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and also
lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful such
as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire magnum and
other firearms with firing capability of full automatic and
by burst of two or three. Provided, however, that no
other crime was committed by the person arrested.
If homicide or murder is committed with the use of an
unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed firearm
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion
or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup d'état, such
violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crime of
rebellion, or insurrection, sedition, or attempted coup
d'état.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner,
president, manager, director or other responsible officer
of any public or private firm, company, corporation or
entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the
firearms owned by such firm, company, corporation or
entity to be used by any person or persons found guilty
of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs
or willfully or knowingly allow any of them to use
unlicensed firearms or firearms without any legal
authority to be carried outside of their residence in the
course of their employment. (§1)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
25

2. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
Disposition or Possession of Explosives — any
person who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble,
deal in, acquire, dispose or possess hand grenade(s),
rifle grenade(s), and other explosives, including but not
limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov cocktail bombs,' 'fire bombs,'
or other incendiary devices capable of producing
destructive effect on contiguous objects or causing injury
or death to any person.
When a person commits any of the crimes defined in the
RPC or special laws with the use of the aforementioned
explosives, detonation agents or incendiary devices,
which results in the death of any person or persons, the
use of such explosives, detonation agents or incendiary
devices shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion,
insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'état, such
violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crimes
of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup
d'état.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner,
president, manager, director or other responsible officer
of any public or private firm, company, corporation or
entity, who shall willfully or knowingly allow any of the
explosives owned by such firm, company, corporation or
entity, to be used by any person or persons found guilty
of violating the provisions of the preceding paragraphs.
(§3)
3. Carrying licensed firearm outside one’s residence
without legal authority therefor (§1)
4. Tampering of Firearm's Serial Number — any
person who shall unlawfully tamper, change, deface or
erase the serial number of any firearm. (§5)
5. Repacking or Altering the Composition of
Lawfully Manufactured Explosives —any person
who shall unlawfully repack, alter or modify the
composition of any lawfully manufactured explosives.
(§6)
Coverage of Unlicensed Firearm
The term unlicensed firearm shall include:
1) firearms with expired license; or
2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission
of the crime
Bar Questions
Illegal Possession of Firearms – RA 8294 (1998)
Supposing a public school teacher participated in a coup
d'etat using an unlicensed firearm. What crime or crimes did
he commit? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The public school teacher committed only coup d'etat for his
participation therein. His use of an unlicensed firearm is
absorbed in the coup d'etat under the new firearms law
(Rep. Act No. 8294). A prosecution for illegal possession of
firearm under the new law is allowed only if the unlicensed
firearm was not used in the commission of another crime.
Illegal Possession of Firearms & Ammunitions (2000)
A has long been wanted by the police authorities for various
crimes committed by him. Acting on an information by a
tipster, the police proceeded to an apartment where A was
often seen. The tipster also warned the policemen that A
was always armed. At the given address, a lady who
introduced herself as the elder sister of A, opened the door
and let the policemen in inside, the team found A sleeping
on the floor. Immediately beside him was a clutch bag
which, when opened, contained a .38 caliber paltik revolver
and a hand grenade. After verification, the authorities
discovered that A was not a licensed holder of the .38
caliber paltik revolver. As for the hand grenade, it was
established that only military personnel are authorized to
carry hand grenades. Subsequently, A was charged with the
crime of Illegal Possession of Firearms and Ammunition.
During trial, A maintained that the bag containing the
unlicensed firearm and hand grenade belonged to A, his
friend, and that he was not in actual possession thereof at
the time he was arrested. Are the allegations meritorious?
Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A's allegations are not meritorious. Ownership is not an
essential element of the crime of illegal possession of
firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is merely
possession, which includes not only actual physical
possession but also constructive possession where the
firearm and explosive are subject to one's control and
management. (People us. De Grecia, 233 SCRA)
RA 9372
Human Security Act of 2007
Defines the crime of terrorism to be the commission of “any
of the crimes of :
A. Under the Revised Penal Code.
i. Piracy in general and Mutiny in the High Seas or in
the Philippine Waters
ii. rebellion
iii. Coup d’etat
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
26
 iv. Murder
v. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention
B. Under Special Laws
i. Arson under P.D. 1613
ii. Violation of R.A. 6969 ( Toxic Substance ad Nuclear
Waste Control)
iii. R.A. 5207 ( Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability
Act of 1968)
iv. Hijacking
v. Piracy in Phil. Waters and Highway Robbery
vi. P.D. 1866 ( Possession and Manufacture of
Firearms/explosives)
thereby sowing and creating a condition of
widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among
the populace, in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand”
Requirements for Terrorism
A. The accused ( maybe a single individual or a group)
must commit any of the enumerated crimes
B. There results a condition of widespread and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace
i. The extent and degree of fear and panic,
including the number of people affected in order
to meet the term “populace”, are questions of
facts to be determined by the courts and on a
case to case basis.
ii. Is the term “populace’ to be interpreted as
referring to the local inhabitants where the acts
were committed, or does it refer to the national
population?
C. The purpose of the accused must be to coerce the
government to give into an unlawful demand
i. The word “demand” is too broad as to cover not
only political, criminal or monetarial demands but
also those which maybe categorized as social or
economic. This however is qualified by the word
“ unlawful”.
Other Acts/Persons Liable
A. Conspiracy to commit terrorism. The penalty is the
same as terrorism itself ( i.e. 40 years of imprisonment)
B. Accomplices- he cooperates in the execution of either
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous
or simultaneous acts (Penalty is 17 yrs. 4 months and one
day to 20 years)
C. Accessory-The acts punished are the same as that
under Article 19 of the RPC. The penalty is 10 yrs. And
one day to 12 years
1. The law however adopts the absolutory cause of
exemption of accessories from liability with respect to
their relatives
People vs. Quijada
 Case where a dance was held in a basketball court and
Quijada kept on pestering Iroy’s sister and Quijada killed the
brother.
 He was convicted of two separate offenses of murder and
illegal use of firearm aggravated with illegal use of firearm.
 The unequivocal intent of the second par of section 1. of PD
1866 is to respect and preserve homicide or murder as a
distinct offense penalized under the RPC and to increasae the
penalty for illegal possession of firearm where such a firearm
is used in killing a person.
 Its clear language yields no intention of the lawmaker to
repeal or modify, pro tanto, Articles 248 and 249 of the RPC
in such a way that if an unlicensed fiream is used in the
commission of homicide or murder, either of these crimes, as
the case may be, would only serve to aggravate the offense
of illegal possession of firearm and would not anymore be
separately punished.
 The words of the subject provision are palpably clear to
exclude any suggestion that either of the crimes of homicide
and murder, as crimes mala in se under the RPC is obliterated
as such and reduced as a mere aggravating circumstance in
illegal possession of firearm whenever the unlicensed firearm
is used in killing a person.
 The only purpose of the provision is to increase the penalty
prescribed in 1st par of sec 1—reclusion temporal in its max to
reclusion perpetua to death.
People v Feloteo
Facts: Wilfredo Feloteo was found guilty by the trial court of murder
under Article 248 of the RPC and Illegal Possession of Firearm, a
violation of Section 1 of PD 1866 and sentenced to reclusion perpetua
and 20 years respectively.
In the evening of May 6, 1993, the victim, Sonny Sotto, and
his two friends were walking along the highway after a few drinks earlier
that day and were on their way home, having a lively mood. At one
point, the accused appeared at the opposite side of the road and walked
past the victim’s two friends. The two recognized accused under the
bright moon as he was a barriomate.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
27
 The three friends did not pay much attention to accused as
they were playing “habulan” and without a uttering a word, the accused
aimed the armalite at Sotto and pulled the trigger. Sotto, was hit above
the chest and fell to the ground, face down. The two friends scampered
away to find help while the accused fled. Sotto was later found dead.
The armalite belong to SPO2 Roman Adion said accused stole
the gun from him. Accused obviously denied, saying his purpose for
carrying the gun was to bring it to SPO2 Adion as the latter went
somewhere (to check his borrowed tricycle whose engine broke down)
after leaving the gun at the house where accused was.
Accused then walked past the victim’s group at around 7PM.
The group zigzagged as they walked. In jest, accused said to victim,
“Boots, don’t get near me, I’ll shoot you”. He pointed the gun and pulled
the trigger, allegedly unaware that it was loaded. It fired and hit Sotto.
The accused was apprehended the next day by SPO2 Adion.
On appeal, accused denies that the qualifying circumstance of
treachery for murder was present.
Ratio: Illegal possession of firearms should only be an aggravating
circumstance in light of the amendments to PD 1866 by RA 8294:
a. In the old Section 1 of PD 1866, if homicide or murder is
committed with an unlicensed firearm, the penalty of
death shall be imposed;
b. RA 8294 amended this, deleting the penalty of death and
considered the carrying of unlicensed firearm only as an
aggravating circumstance;
c. It was approved in 1997 but is retroactively applied since
it favours the accused; court cites People v Molina;
d. Intent of Congress: two cases from Supreme Court were
presented in a senate session – People v Barros (1996)
and People v Evangelista (1996);
i. Former case ruled that illegal possession of firearm
(when killing of another person is committed) should
only be an aggravating circumstance; while in the
latter case, it is possible to file two separate
informations – one for murder and one for illegal
possession of firearms;
ii. So the senate chose between integrating the crimes
(taking illegal possession in its aggravated form) and
treating the two as separate crimes; Senate chose the
former;
e. However, the penalty of reclusion perpetua of appellant
is not affected since RA 7659 or the Death Penalty Law
was enacted only on December 31, 1993, after the crime
was committed in May 1993;
Advincula vs. CA (2000)
The Court of Appeals ruled that no charges for Illegal Possession of
Firearms could be filed against Amando and Isagani Ocampo for two
(2) reasons: First, as to Amando Ocampo, he had the requisite
license to possess the firearm (from the Chief of the Firearms and
Explosives Office, which was established by sufficient evidence on
record. Second, as to Isagani Ocampo, there was no convincing
evidence that he was in possession of a gun during the incident
involving him, his father and petitioner, except for the eyewitness
account of petitioner and one Federico San Miguel.
HELD: The rule is well settled that in cases of Illegal Possession of
Firearms, two (2) things must be shown to exist: (a) the existence of
the firearm, and (b) the fact that it is not licensed. However, it should
be noted that in People v. Ramos, citing People v. Gy Gesiong, this
Court ruled: " . . . Even if he has the license, he cannot carry the
firearm outside his residence without legal authority therefor."
The Secretary of Justice, in his contested Resolution, thus made the
following findings: Even if Amando had the requisite license, there was
no proof that he had the necessary permit to carry it outside his
residence; and Isagani's plain denial could not overcome his positive
identification by petitioner that he carried a firearm in assaulting him.
These are findings of fact supported by evidence, which cannot be
disturbed by this Court.
People vs. Tac-an (1990)
Tac-an and the deceased Escaño were high school classmates [and gang
mates in Bronx gang]. The relationship between Tac-an and Escaño
turned sour as the quarrel between them escalated from September
up to December 1984. While the class was still going on, Tac-an slipped
out of the classroom and went home to get a gun. Tac-an suddenly
burst into the room, and upon sighting Escaño Tac-an fired at
scampering Escaño, hitting Escaño. Escaño remained sprawled on the
floor bleeding profusely. Tac-an was charged with qualified illegal
possession of a firearm and ammunition and of murder. After trial the
RTC imposed upon him the penalty of death in both cases.
HELD: P.D. 1866 is applicable. There is nothing in P.D. No. 1866
(which was promulgated on 29 June 1983) which suggests that it was
intended to remain in effect only for the duration of the martial law
imposed upon the country by former President Marcos. Neither does
the statute contain any provision that so prescribes its lapsing into non-
enforceability upon the termination of the state or period of martial
law. On the contrary, P.D. No. 1866 by its own terms purported to
"consolidate, codify and integrate" all prior laws and decrees
penalizing illegal possession and manufacture of firearms, ammunition
and explosives in order "to harmonize their provisions," as well as to
update and revise certain provisions and prior statutes "in order to
more effectively deter violators of the law on firearms, ammunitions
and explosives."
Misolas vs. Panga (1990)
Philippine Constabulary (PC) raided a suspected NPA "underground
house" in Foster Village, Del Carmen, Pili the early morning. The house
was searched and in a red bag under a pillow allegedly used by Misolas
a .20 gauge Remington shotgun and four live rounds of ammunition
were found. Misolas was charged with the crime of illegal possession
of firearms and ammunition under PD 1866 with allegation that it was
in furtherance of subversion so as to qualify the offense.
HELD: Illegal possession of firearms is not absorbed in rebellion or
subversion. Hernandez ruling cannot find application in this case
because Misolas is being charged specifically for the qualified offense
of illegal possession of firearms and ammunition under PD 1866.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
28
He is not being charged with the complex crime of subversion
with illegal possession of firearms. Neither is he being
separately charged for subversion and for illegal possession of
firearms.
SC considered the fact that the Legislature had deemed it fit to provide
for two distinct offenses:
(1) illegal possession of firearms qualified by subversion (P.D.
No. 1866) and
(2) subversion qualified by the taking up of arms against the
Government (R.A. No. 1700).
Baylosis vs. Chavez (1991)
Baylosis, de Vera and Marco Palo, all known high ranking officers of
the CPP-NPA, were charged with a illegal possession of firearms in
furtherance of, or incident to, or in connection with the crimes of
rebellion or subversion.
HELD: Charging the qualified offense of Illegal possession of firearms
under PD 1866 does not charge the complex crime of subversion with
illegal possession of firearms, and hence does not run counter to
Hernandez, et al., is good and correct rule and is applicable in CAB.
People vs. Tiozon (1991)
 Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 imposes the penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to reclusion perpetua "upon any
person who shall unlawfully manufacture, deal in, acquire,
dispose or possess any firearm, part of firearm, ammunition or
machinery, tool or instrument used or intended to be used in the
manufacture of any firearm or ammunition." It goes further by
providing that "if homicide or murder is committed with the use
of an unlicensed firearm, the penalty of death shall be imposed."
 It may be loosely said that homicide or murder qualifies the
offense penalized in said Section 1 because it is a circumstance
which increases the penalty. It does not, however, follow that
the homicide or murder is absorbed in the offense; otherwise,
an anomalous absurdity results whereby a more serious crime
defined and penalized in the Revised Penal Code is absorbed by a
statutory offense, which is just a malum prohibitum. The
rationale for the qualification, as implied from the exordium of
the decree, is to effectively deter violations of the laws on
firearms and to stop the "upsurge of crimes vitally affecting public
order and safety due to the proliferation of illegally possessed
and manufactured firearms, . . . " In fine then, the killing of a
person with the use of an unlicensed firearm may give rise to
separate prosecutions for (a) violation of Section 1 of P.D. No.
1866 and (b) violation of either Article 248 (Murder) or Article 249
(Homicide) of the Revised Penal Code. The accused cannot plead
one as a bar to the other; or, stated otherwise, the rule against
double jeopardy cannot be invoked because the first is
punished by a special law while the second, homicide or
murder, is punished by the Revised Penal Code.
 However, to justify the imposition of the increased penalty under
Section 1 of P.D. No. 1866 because of the resulting crime of
homicide or murder, the prosecution must allege in the
information and prove by the quantum of evidence required for
conviction violation of said section and, more specifically, the use
of an unlicensed firearm and the commission of homicide or
murder.
 Undoubtedly, there is unlawful possession under the foregoing
section if one does not have the license to possess the firearm.
Even if he has the license, he cannot carry the firearm outside his
residence without legal authority therefor. It follows then that
the lack or absence of a license is an essential ingredient of the
offense which the prosecution must allege and prove. Every
element of the crime must be alleged and proved.
 There being no proof that accused-appellant had no license to
possess the firearm in question, he could not be convicted for
illegal possession of a firearm. Therefore, the trial court then
committed an error in holding the accused-appellant guilty
thereof.
People vs. De Gracia (1994)
 The rule is that ownership is not an essential element of illegal
possession of firearms and ammunition. What the law requires is
merely possession which includes not only actual physical
possession but also constructive possession or the subjection
of the thing to one's control and management. This has to be so
if the manifest intent of the law is to be effective. The same evils,
the same perils to public security, which the law penalizes exist
whether the unlicensed holder of a prohibited weapon be its
owner or a borrower. To accomplish the object of this law the
proprietary concept of the possession can have no bearing
whatsoever.
 But is the mere fact of physical or constructive possession
sufficient to convict a person for unlawful possession of firearms
or must there be an intent to possess to constitute a violation of
the law? This query assumes significance since the offense of
illegal possession of firearms is a malum prohibitum punished by
a special law, in which case good faith and absence of criminal
intent are not valid defenses.
 When the crime is punished by a special law, as a rule, intent to
commit the crime is not necessary. It is sufficient that the
offender has the intent to perpetrate the act prohibited by the
special law. Intent to commit the crime and intent to perpetrate
the act must be distinguished. A person may not have consciously
intended to commit a crime; but he did intend to commit an act,
and that act is, by the very nature of things, the crime itself. In
the first (intent to commit the crime), there must be criminal
intent; in the second (intent to perpetrate the act) it is enough
that the prohibited act is done freely and consciously.
 A distinction should be made between criminal intent and intent
to possess. While mere possession, without criminal intent, is
sufficient to convict a person for illegal possession of a firearm,
it must still be shown that there was animus possidendi or an
intent to possess on the part of the accused. Such intent to
possess is, however, without regard to any other criminal or
felonious intent which the accused may have harbored in
possessing the firearm. Criminal intent here refers to the
intention of the accused to commit an offense with the use of an
unlicensed firearm. This is not important in convicting a person
under Presidential Decree No. 1866. Hence, in order that one may
be found guilty of a violation of the decree, it is sufficient that
the accused had no authority or license to possess a firearm,
and that he intended to possess the same, even if such
possession was made in good faith and without criminal intent.
 Concomitantly, a temporary, incidental, casual, or harmless
possession or control of a firearm cannot be considered a
violation of a statute prohibiting the possession of this kind of
weapon, such as Presidential Decree No. 1866. Thus, although
there is physical or constructive possession, for as long as the
animus possidendi is absent, there is no offense committed.
People vs. Garcia (2002)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
29
Tioleco was kidnapped while he was jogging alone in the morning. His
abductors took him to a house in Fairview, where the accused Rogel
and Lariba were assigned to watch over him. When the police
discovered the hideout, Rogel and Lariba immediately ran to a room in
the house where several unlicensed firearms were stored. Both were
convicted of Kidnapping for Ransom AND Illegal Possession of Firearms.
HELD: Rogel and Lariba cannot be held liable for illegal possession of
firearms and ammunitions there being another crime - kidnapping for
ransom - which they were perpetrating at the same time.
Under R.A. 8294, if an unlicensed firearm is used in the commission of
any crime, there can be no separate offense of simple illegal
possession of firearms. The language of the new law demonstrates the
legislative intent to favor the accused. The law is clear: the accused
can be convicted of simple illegal possession of firearms, provided that
"no other crime was committed by the person arrested." If the
intention of the law in the second paragraph were to refer only to
homicide and murder, it should have expressly said so, as it did in the
third paragraph. Where the law does not distinguish, neither should
we.
People vs. Castillo (2000)
Wilhelmina was kidnapped by persons pretending to be interested
buyers of real estate. She was brought to a safehouse in Quezon City,
where the accused Gonzales was assigned to watch over her at all
times. Gonzales carried an unlicensed firearm while watching over
Wilhelmina. When the police discovered the safehouse, Gonzales
immediately threw his firearm away from him. The police found more
unlicensed firearms in another room in the house. Gonzales was
convicted of Illegal Possession of Firearms, with penalty derived from
P.D. 1866.
HELD: The penalty imposed on him by the trial court exceeded that
prescribed by law. Under Republic Act No. 8294, amending P. D. No.
1866, the penalty for illegal possession of firearm classified as high
powered is prision mayor minimum or six (6) years and one (1) day to
eight (8) years and a fine of thirty thousand (P30,000.00) pesos. Here,
the offense was committed on November 27, 1992. Since the
amendatory law is favorable to the accused, it shall be given
retroactive application.
People vs. Nepomuceno (1999)
Accused here was charged with parricide that was committed with the
use of an unlicensed firearm. The 2 charges were separately charged
and tried.
RA8294 was passed which said that if a homicide or murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, the latter cannot be
tried separately but will just be treated as an aggravating
circumstance.
HELD: Accused can no longer be separately charged with parricide and
illegal possession of firearms. The amendment says that the latter is
only to be treated as an aggravating circumstance. Being clearly
favorable to the accused, the amendatory law RA8294 can be applied
retroactively to this case.
People vs. Evangelista (1996)
Accused here was charged with murder and simple illegal possession
of firearms. Accused here killed someone with a homemade gun.
However the court found the accused guilty of murder and aggravated
illegal possession of firearms (weapon used for murder) and sentenced
him to death.
Held:
1) Accused cannot be found guilty of aggravated illegal possession
as the information simply charged simple illegal possession. That
an unlicensed firearm was used in the commission of murder or
homicide is a qualifying circumstance. Consequently, it must be
specifically alleged in the information, otherwise the accused
cannot be sentenced to death without violating his right to be
informed of the charge against him.
2) He cannot even be convicted of simple illegal possession as there
was no proof that the gun was unlicensed. The fact that the gun
used was homemade does not mean that it cannot be licensed and
therefore it is right for the court to automatically assume that it
is unlicensed. Even if a homemade gun is used, it does not
dispense with the required proof that the gun was indeed
unlicensed.
Note: In this case, the amendatory law AR8294 had not yet been
passed, therefore it was still allowed to separately charge murder and
illegal possession of firearms.
Article 143. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of the
Assembly and similar bodies
Elements:
1. There is a projected or actual meeting of Congress or any
of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of any
provincial board or city or municipal council or board;
2. Offender, who may be any person, prevents such meetings
by force or fraud.
Article 144. Disturbance of proceedings
Elements:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
30

1. There is a meeting of Congress or any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or committees
or divisions thereof, or of any provincial board or city or
municipal council or board;
2. Offender does any of the following acts:
a. He disturbs any of such meetings;
b. He behaves while in the presence of any such bodies
in such a manner as to interrupt its proceedings or to
impair the respect due it.
 The complaint for disturbance of proceedings may be filed
by a member of a legislative body.
 One who disturbs the proceedings of Congress may also be
punished for contempt by such Congress.
Article 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity
Acts punishable:
1. Using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to prevent any
member of Congress from attending the meetings of
Congress or of any of its committees or subcommittees,
constitutional commissions or committees or divisions
thereof, or from expressing his opinion or casting his vote;
Elements:
a. Offender uses force, intimidation, threats or fraud;
b. The purpose of the offender is to prevent any member
of Congress from -
o attending the meetings of the Congress or of any
of its committees or constitutional commissions,
etc.;
o expressing his opinion; or
o casting his vote.
2. Arresting or searching any member thereof while Congress
is in regular or special session, except in case such member
has committed a crime punishable under the Code by a
penalty higher than prision mayor.
Elements:
a. Offender is a public officer of employee;
b. He arrests or searches any member of Congress;
c. Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is in regular
or special session;
d. The member arrested or searched has not committed
a crime punishable under the Code by a penalty higher
than prision mayor.
 It is not necessary that the member of Congress is actually
prevented from attending.
 Parliamentary immunity does not protect members of
Congress from responsibility before Congress itself.
 Under the 1987 Constitution, members of Congress are
exempted from arrest, while Congress is in session, for all
offenses punishable by a penalty LESS THAN PRISION
MAYOR.
 Thus, under the Constitution, a public officer who arrests a
member of Congress who has committed a crime
punishable by prision mayor (six years and one day, to 12
years) is not liable Article 145.
 To be consistent with the Constitution, the phrase "by a
penalty higher than prision mayor" in Article 145 should be
amended to read: "by the penalty of prision mayor or
higher."
Article 146. Illegal assemblies
Acts punishable:
1. Any meeting attended by armed persons for the purpose of
committing any of the crimes punishable under the Code;
Elements:
a. There is a meeting, a gathering or group of persons,
whether in fixed place or moving;
b. The meeting is attended by armed persons;
c. The purpose of the meeting is to commit any of the
crimes punishable under the Code.
2. Any meeting in which the audience, whether armed or not,
is incited to the commission of the crime of treason,
rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault upon person in
authority or his agents.
a. There is a meeting, a gathering or group of persons,
whether in a fixed place or moving;
b. The audience, whether armed or not, is incited to the
commission of the crime of treason, rebellion or
insurrection, sedition or direct assault.
Persons liable:
1. The organizer or leaders of the meeting;
3. Persons merely present at the meeting, who must have a
common intent to commit the felony of illegal assembly.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
31
 Meeting – includes a gathering or group, whether in a fixed
place or moving.
 Under the first type of illegal assembly, not all persons
present at the meeting must be armed to be liable under
this article.
 The unarmed person merely present at the meeting of the
first type is liable, but armed persons are punished more
severely under this article. Article 148. Direct assaults
 Note however that the person merely present must have an
intent to commit the felony of illegal assembly. If he was a
curious bystander, he is not liable.
 If any person present at the meeting carries an unlicensed Acts punishable:
firearm,
o it is presumed that the purpose of the meeting insofar
as he is concerned is to commit acts punishable under
1. Without public uprising, by employing force or intimidation
the Revised Penal Code,
for the attainment of any of the purposes enumerated in
o He is considered a leader or organizer of the meeting.
defining the crimes of rebellion and sedition;
 Under the first type, the audience must be “actually incited”
to the commission of any of the crimes enumerated. If the
meeting was dispersed before there was actual inciting, Elements:
there is no illegal assembly.

a. Offender employs force or intimidation;

b. The aim of the offender is to attain any of the purposes
Article 147. Illegal associations of the crime of rebellion or any of the objects of the
crime of sedition;
c. There is no public uprising.
What are illegal associations?
2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by employing force or
1. Associations totally or partially organized for the purpose of by seriously intimidating or by seriously resisting any person
committing any of the crimes punishable under the Code; in authority or any of his agents, while engaged in the
2. Associations totally or partially organized for some purpose performance of official duties, or on occasion of such
contrary to public morals. performance.

Persons liable: Elements:

1. Founders, directors and president of the association;
2. Mere members of the association.
Illegal associations
It is not necessary that there
be an actual meeting
The act of forming or
organizing and membership
in the association is
punished
Persons liable are the
founders, directors and
president, and the members
Illegal assemblies
It is necessary that there is
an actual meeting or
assembly for the purposes
stated in Article 146
The meeting and attendance
at such meeting is punished
Persons liable are the
organizers or leaders of the
meeting and the persons
present at such meeting
a. Offender makes an attack, employs force, makes a
serious intimidation, or makes a serious resistance;
b. The person assaulted is a person in authority or his
agent;
c. At the time of the assault, the person in authority or
his agent is engaged in the actual performance of
official duties, or that he is assaulted by reason of the
past performance of official duties;
d. Offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a
person in authority or his agent in the exercise of his
duties.
e. There is no public uprising.
 Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds or in any other
manner offers violence to the person of an ambassador or
a public minister, shall be subject to an additional penalty
under R.A. 75.
 In the first type of direct assault, it is not necessary that the
offended party is a person in authority or his agent.
 If the offended party is only an agent of a person in
authority, the force must be of a serious character as to
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
32
 indicate a determination to defy the law and its
representative.
 The force employed need not be serious when the offended
party is a person in authority (reason: penalty is even
higher when the offender lays hands upon a person in
authority)
 The intimidation or resistance must be serious whether the
offended party is an agent only or he is a person in
authority.
 To determine whether a certain public officer is a person in
authority, look at his powers and duties vested by law.
 When persons in authority or their agents descended to
matters of private nature, an attack made by one against
the other is not direct assault, because they are not
considered in “performance of official duties.”
 If the person in authority or his agent provokes the
offender, there is no direct assault if accused is acting in
lawful self-defense.
 Direct assault of the second type may be committed by a
public officer, because the law considers it an aggravating
circumstance when the offender “is a public officer or
employee’.
 Knowledge of the accused that the victim is a person in
authority or his agent is essential. The information must
allege such knowledge.
 It is not necessary that the person in authority or his agent
be in the actual performance of official duty when attacked
or seriously intimidated.
 Attack may be done ‘by reason of the performance of duty’
– means by reason of the past performance of official duty,
even if at the time of the assault no official duty was being
discharged.
 Evidence of motive is important when the person in
authority or his agent is not in the actual performance of
duty when attacked.
 Direct assault of the second form is qualified when:
o The assault is committed with a weapon, or
o The offender is a public officer of employee, or
o The offender lays hands upon a person in authority.
 The crime of slight physical injuries is absorbed in direct
assault, because it is the necessary consequence of the
force or violence used. Serious physical injuries, murder or
homicide may be complexed with direct assault.
People vs. Beltran
Mayor Quirolgico and patrolman Tolentino went to the Puzon
compound to talk to Beltran and his companions to surrender in
connection with an incident where Beltran shouted “vulva of your
mother” to Alvarado and Urbi. Mayor and patrolman suffered gunshot
wounds and the mayor’s son died due to a simultaneous discharge of
gunfire by the accused.
HELD: The accused are guilty of murder and double attempted murder
with direct assault (under the 2nd form of direct assault). The accused
attacked and employed force against the mayor and police while the
latter were engaged in the actual performance of duty and the accused
knew that they were assaulting persons in authority.
People vs. Dollantes
Barangay Captain was delivering a speech to start a dance when
Dollantes went to the middle of the dancing floor making a dance
movement, brandishing a knife and challenging everyone. The
Barangay Captain approached him and told him to stop and keep quiet.
Dollantes and his companions stabbed and eventually killed the
Barangay Captain.
HELD: The accused were guilty of Assault upon a person in authority,
resulting in Murder. The Barangay captain was in the act of trying to
pacify Dollantes who was making trouble in the dance hall when he
was stabbed to death. Hence, he was killed while in the performance
of duties. A Barangay Captain is a person in authority.
Bar Questions
Art. 148Direct Assault vs. Resistance & Disobedience
(2001)
A, a teacher at Mapa High School, having gotten mad at X,
one of his pupils, because of the latter's throwing paper clips
at his classmates, twisted his right ear. X went out of the
classroom crying and proceeded home located at the back of
the school. He reported to his parents Y and Z what A had
done to him. Y and Z immediately proceeded to the school
building and because they were running and talking in loud
voices, they were seen by the barangay chairman, B, who
followed them as he suspected that an untoward incident
might happen. Upon seeing A inside the classroom, X
pointed him out to his father, Y, who administered a fist
blow on A, causing him to fall down. When Y was about to
kick A, B rushed towards Y and pinned both of the latter's
arms. Seeing his father being held by B, X went near and
punched B on the face, which caused him to lose his grip on
Y. Throughout this incident, Z shouted words of
encouragement at Y, her husband, and also threatened to
slap A. Some security guards of the school arrived,
intervened and surrounded X, Y and Z so that they could be
investigated in the principal's office.
Before leaving, Z passed near A and threw a small flower pot
at him but it was deflected by B. a) What, if any, are the
respective criminal liability of X Y and Z? (6%) b) Would
your answer be the same if B were a barangay tanod only?
(4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) X is liable for Direct Assault only, assuming the physical
injuries inflicted on B, the Barangay Chairman, to be only
slight and hence, would be absorbed in the direct assault. A
Barangay Chairman is a person in authority (Art. 152, RPC)
and in this case, was performing his duty of maintaining
peace and order when attacked.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
33
Y is liable for the complex crimes of Direct Assault With Less
Serious Physical Injuries for the fist blow on A, the teacher,
which caused the latter to fall down. For purposes of the
crimes in Arts. 148 and 151 of the Revised Penal Code, a
teacher is considered a person in authority, and having been
attacked by Y by reason of his performance of official duty,
direct assault is committed with the resulting less serious
physical injuries completed. Z, the mother of X and wife of Y
may only be liable as an accomplice to the complex crimes
of direct assault with less serious physical injuries committed
by Y. Her participation should not be considered as that of a
coprincipal, since her reactions were only incited by her
relationship to X and Y. as the mother of X and the wife of
Y.
b) If B were a Barangay Tanod only, the act of X of
laying hand on him, being an agent of a person in authority
only, would constitute the crime of Resistance and
Disobedience under Article 151, since X, a high school pupil,
could not be considered as having acted out of contempt for
authority but more of helping his father get free from the
grip of B. Laying hand on an agent of a person in authority
is not ipso facto direct assault, while it would always be
direct assault if done to a person in authority in defiance to
the latter is exercise of authority.
Art 148; Direct Assault; Teachers & Professors (2002)
A, a lady professor, was giving an examination. She noticed
B, one of the students, cheating. She called the student's
attention and confiscated his examination booklet, causing
embarrassment to him. The following day, while the class
was going on, the student, B, approached A and, without
any warning, slapped her. B
would have inflicted further injuries on A had not C,
another student, come to A's rescue and prevented B from
continuing his attack. B turned his ire on C and punched the
latter. What crime or crimes, if any, did B commit?
Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed two (2) counts of direct assault: one for
slapping the professor, A, who was then conducting
classes and thus exercising authority; and another one for
the violence on the student C, who came to the aid of the
said professor.
By express provision of Article 152, in relation to Article 148
of the Revised Penal Code, teachers and professors of public
or duly recognized private schools, colleges and universities
in the actual performance of their professional duties or on
the occasion of such performance are deemed persons in
authority for purposes of the crimes of direct assault and of
resistance and disobedience in Articles 148 and 151 of said
Code. And any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority shall be deemed an agent of a person in authority.
Accordingly, the attack on C is, in the eyes of the law, an
attack on an agent of a person in authority, not just an
attack on a student.
Art 148; Persons in Authority/Agents of Persons in
Authority (2000)
Who are deemed to be persons in authority and agents of
persons in authority? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Persons in authority are persons directly vested with
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of
some court or government corporation, board, or
commission. Barrio captains and barangay chairmen are also
deemed persons in authority. (Article 152, RPC)
Agents of persons in authority are persons who by direct
provision of law or by election or by appointment by
competent authority, are charged with maintenance of public
order, the protection and security of life and property, such
as barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay leader and
any person who comes to the aid of persons in authority
(Art. 152, RPC), In applying the provisions of Articles 148
and 151 of the Rev. Penal Code, teachers, professors and
persons charged with the supervision of public or duly
recognized private schools, colleges and universities, and
lawyers in the actual performance of their professional
duties or on the occasion of such performance, shall be
deemed persons in authority.
(P.D. No. 299, and Batas Pambansa Blg. 873).
Complex Crime; Direct Assault with murder (2000)
Because of the approaching town fiesta in San Miguel,
Bulacan, a dance was held in Barangay Camias. A, the
Barangay Captain, was invited to deliver a speech to start
the dance. While A was delivering his speech. B, one of the
guests, went to the middle of the dance floor making
obscene dance movements, brandishing a knife and
challenging everyone present to a fight. A approached B and
admonished him to keep quiet and not to disturb the dance
and peace of the occasion. B, instead of heeding the advice
of A, stabbed the latter at his back twice when A turned his
back to proceed to the microphone to continue his speech. A
fell to the ground and died. At the time of the incident A was
not armed. What crime was committed? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER: The complex crime of direct
assault with murder was committed. A, as a Barangay
Captain, is a person in authority and was acting in an official
capacity when he tried to maintain peace and order during
the public dance in the Barangay, by admonishing B to keep
quiet and not to disturb the dance and peace of the
occasion. When B, instead of heeding A's advice, attacked
the latter, B acted in contempt and lawless defiance of
authority constituting the crime of direct assault, which
characterized the stabbing of A. And since A was stabbed at
the back when he was not in a position to defend himself
nor retaliate, there was treachery in the stabbing. Hence,
the death caused by such stabbing was murder and having
been committed with direct assault, a complex crime of
direct assault with murder was committed by B.
Art 148; Direct Assault with murder (1995)
Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where
he resided. Renato, a resident of the neighboring Barangay
Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he
often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
34
 farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual, one
afternoon Pascual, and his two sons confronted Renato and
his men who were operating their mobile rice thresher along
a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A
barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascual's men
tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent
confrontation. However, Pascual resented the intervention of
the barangay captain and hacked him to death. What crime
was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with
assault upon a person in authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in
relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law
(Art. 152), a person in authority and if he is attacked while
in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion
thereof the felony of direct assault is committed. Art. 48,
RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single act
produces two or more grave or less grave felonies, a
complex crime is committed. Here, the single act of the
offender in hacking the victim to death resulted in two
felonies, homicide which is grave and direct assault which is
less grave.
Article 149. Indirect assaults
Elements:
1. A person in authority or his agent is the victim of any of the
forms of direct assault defined in Article 148;
2. A person comes to the aid of such authority or his agent;
3. Offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such
person coming to the aid of the authority or his agent.
 Indirect assault can be committed only when direct assault
is committed.
Article 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the
National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees,
by the Constitutional Commission, its committees,
subcommittees or divisions
Acts punishable:
1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey summons of
Congress, its special or standing committees and
subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its
committees, subcommittees or divisions, or by any
commission or committee chairman or member authorized
to summon witnesses;
2. By refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation while
being before such legislative or constitutional body or
official;
3. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce any
books, papers, documents, or records in his possession,
when required by them to do so in the exercise of their
functions;
4. By restraining another from attending as a witness in such
legislative or constitutional body;
5. By inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to be
sworn by any such body or official.
 Reason for this article: to give strength to the legislature’s
power of inquiry, which is essential to legislative functions.
 This article will not apply if the papers may be used in
evidence against the owner, because it would be compelling
him to be a witness against himself. Self-incrimination is a
valid excuse.
 The testimony of the person summoned must be upon
matters into which Congress has jurisdiction to inquire.
 Acts punished under this article may also be punished for
contempt of the Congress.
Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person in
authority or the agents of such person
Elements of resistance and serious disobedience:
1. A person in authority or his agent is engaged in the
performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the
offender;
2. Offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in
authority or his agent;
3. The act of the offender is not included in the provision of
Articles 148, 149 and 150.
Elements of simple disobedience:
1. An agent of a person in authority is engaged in the
performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the
offender;
2. Offender disobeys such agent of a person in authority;
3. Such disobedience is not of a serious nature.
 The disobedience contemplated consists in the failure or
refusal to obey DIRECT ORDER from the person in authority
or his agent.
 Under simple disobedience, the offended party must be
only an agent of a person in authority.
 If no force is employed by the offender against a person in
authority, the crime is resistance or serious disobedience
under the first type.
Resistance or serious Direct assault
disobedience
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
35
 Person in authority or his Person in authority or his 1. Acts punishable: Causing any serious disturbance in a public
agent must be in actual agent must be engaged in place, office or establishment;
performance of his duties the performance of official 2. Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions or
duties or that he is assaulted gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not included
by reason thereof in Articles 131 and 132
3. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition in
Committed only by (2nd type) committed by
any meeting, association or public place;
resisting or seriously attacking, employing force,
4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a
disobeying seriously intimidating or
seriously resisting
disturbance of public order in such place;
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been
Force employed is not so Attack or employment of legally executed.
serious, as there is no force must be serious and
manifest intention to defy deliberate. But if the one
the law and the officers resisted is a person in  If the act of disturbing or interrupting a meeting or religious
authority, any degree of ceremony is not committed by public officers, or if
force is direct assault. committed by public officers they are participants therein,
this article should be applied.
 Outcry – to shout subversive or provocative words tending
to stir up the people to obtain by means of force or violence
any of the objects of rebellion or sedition.
 If the outcry is an unconscious outburst which is not
Article 152. Persons in authority and Agents of persons intentionally calculated to induce others to commit rebellion
in authority or sedition, it should be punished under this article. If the
offender made the outcry with the thought of inducing his
hearers to commit rebellion or sedition, then it is punished
 A person in authority is one directly vested with jurisdiction, as inciting to rebellion/sedition.
whether as an individual or as a member of some court or  Persons causing disturbance of a tumultuous character shall
government corporation, board or commission. be imposed a penalty next higher in degree
 Vested with jurisdiction – the power and authority to govern  Tumultuous – If caused by more than three persons who
and execute the laws. are armed or provided with means of violence
 Examples of person in authority: division superintendent of
schools, president of sanitary division (in a municipality),
teachers, mayor, justice of peace, barangay captain and
barangay chairman

Article 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and

 An agent of a person in authority is one who, by direct
provision of law or by appointment by competent authority,
is charged with (1) the maintenance of public order and (2)
the protection and security of life and property.
 Examples: barrio councilman, barrio policeman, barangay
leader, any person who comes to the aid of persons in
authority, sheriff, postmaster, agents of BIR, municipal
treasurer, policemen
 Teachers, professors and persons charged with the
supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual
performance of their professional duties or on the occasion
of such performance, shall be deemed persons in authority
for purposes of Articles 148 (direct assault) and 151
(disobedience). By implication, Article 149 (indirect assault)
is also included.
Article 153. Tumults and other disturbances of public
order – tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable to
cause disturbance
unlawful utterances
Acts punishable:
1. Publishing or causing to be published, by means of printing,
lithography or any other means of publication, as news any
false news which may endanger the public order; or cause
damage to the interest or credit of the State;
2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the constituted
authorities or praising, justifying or extolling any act
punished by law, by the same means or by words,
utterances or speeches;
3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any official
resolution or document without proper authority, or before
they have been published officially
4. Printing, publishing or distributing (or causing the same)
books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which do not bear
the real printer’s name, or which are classified as
anonymous.

 ‘may endanger’ – means that actual public disorder or

actual damage to the credit of the State is not necessary.
 The offender must know that the news is false, to be liable
under this article.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
36
 R.A. 248 prohibits the reprinting, reproduction or
republication of government publications and official
documents without official authority.
Article 155. Alarms and scandals
Acts punishable:
1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other
explosive within any town or public place, calculated to
cause (which produces) alarm of danger;
2. Instigating or taking an active part in any charivari or other
disorderly meeting offensive to another or prejudicial to
public tranquility;
3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at night
or while engaged in any other nocturnal amusements;
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places while
intoxicated or otherwise, provided Article 153 in not
applicable.
 The discharge of firearm should not be aimed at any
person, otherwise the offense is discharge of firearm under
Article 254.
 The act in the first paragraph must produce alarm or danger
as a consequence.
 Discharge of firecrackers or rockets during fiestas not
covered by this article.
 Charivari – a medley of discordant voices, a mock serenade
of discordant noises made on kettles, tins, horns, etc.
designed to annoy and insult.
 If the disturbance is of serious nature, the case falls under
Article 153.
Article 156. Delivering prisoners from jail
Elements:
1. There is a person confined in a jail or penal establishment;
2. Offender removes therefrom such person, or helps the
escape of such person.
 Applies to any kind of prisoner, whether detention prisoner
or prisoner by final judgment.
 Violence, intimidation or bribery increases the applicable
penalty.
 If the escape of the prisoner takes place outside of said
establishments by taking the guards by surprise, the
penalty is the minimum period of that prescribed.
 What is the liability of the prisoner who escapes?
o If he is a detention prisoner, such person is not
criminally liable. A prisoner is criminally liable for
leaving the penal institution only when there is evasion
of service of sentence, which can be committed only
by a convict by final judgment.
Alberto vs. Dela Cruz
Denaque escaped while working on the governor’s fence. Petition to
include as defendants Governor Cledera and assistant provincial
warden Esmeralda due to the belief that they had a hand in the escape
of Pablo Denaque. Allegedly, the governor sent a note to Esmeralda
asking for five men to work on his fence.
HELD: The Governor and Esmeralda cannot be prosecuted for the
offense. It is necessary that the public officer consented to or
connived in the escape of the prisoner under his custody. If the public
officer charged with the duty of guarding him does not connive with
the fugitive, then he has not violated the law and is not guilty of the
crime. Article 156 is usually committed by an outsider. If the offender
is a public officer, then Article 223 applies.
Bar Question
Art 156; Delivery of Prisoners from Jail (2002)
A, a detention prisoner, was taken to a hospital for
emergency medical treatment. His followers, all of whom
were armed, went to the hospital to take him away or help
him escape. The prison guards, seeing that they were
outnumbered and that resistance would endanger the lives
of other patients, deckled to allow the prisoner to be taken
by his followers. What crime, if any, was committed by A's
followers? Why? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A's followers shall be liable as principals in the crime of
delivery of prisoner from Jail (Art. 156, Revised Penal
Code). The felony is committed not only by removing from
any jail or penal establishment any person confined therein
but also by helping in the escape of such person outside of
said establishments by means of violence, intimidation,
bribery, or any other means.
Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence
Elements:
1. Offender is a convict by final judgment;
2. He is serving sentence which consists in the deprivation of
liberty;
3. He evades service of his sentence by escaping during the
term of his imprisonment.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
37
Qualifying circumstances as to penalty imposed:
If such evasion or escape takes place -
1. By means of unlawful entry (this should be “by scaling” if
correct Spanish translation is used);
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or floors;
3. By using picklock, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence or
intimidation; or
4. Through connivance with other convicts or employees of
the penal institution.
 ‘Escape’ – flee from, to avoid, to get out of the way, as to
flee to avoid arrest. Prisoners seen loitering a few meters
away from the city jail are not considered to have escaped.
 This article is applicable to a sentence of destierro.
Tanega vs. Masakayan
Tanega was found guilty of slander. He failed to show up on the day
of the execution of the sentence imposed.
HELD: Under Article 157, escape should take place while serving the
sentence. For prescription of penalty of imprisonment imposed by
final judgment to commence to run, the culprit should escape during
the term of such imprisonment. Never placed in confinement,
prescription of penalty does not run in Tanega’s favor.
People vs. Abilong
Abilong was sentenced to destierro by virtue of final judgment for
attempted robbery. He violated this judgment by going beyond the
limits made against him, and committed vagrancy.
HELD: Abilong is guilty of evasion of service of sentence for having
violated the judgment of destierro against him. Destierro is a
deprivation of liberty (though partial) and he may escape from the
restrictions of the penalty.
Bar Questions
Art 157; Evasion of Service of Sentence (1998)
Manny killed his wife under exceptional circumstances and
was sentenced by the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan City
to suffer the penalty of destierro during which he was not to
enter the city.
While serving sentence, Manny went to Dagupan City to visit
his mother. Later, he was arrested in Manila.
1. Did Manny commit any crime? [3%]
2. If so, where should he be prosecuted? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. Yes. Manny committed the crime of evasion of service of
sentence when he went to Dagupan City, which he was
prohibited from entering under his sentence of destierro. A
sentence imposing the penalty of destierro is evaded when
the convict enters any of the place/places he is prohibited
from entering under the sentence or come within the
prohibited radius. Although destierro does not involve
imprisonment, it is nonetheless a deprivation of liberty.
(People vs. Abilong. 82 Phil. 172).
2. Manny may be prosecuted in Dagupan City or in Manila
where he was arrested. This is so because evasion of service
of sentence is a continuing offense, as the convict is a
fugitive from justice in such case. (Parulan vs. Dir. of
Prisons, L-28519, 17 Feb. 1968)
Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the
occasion of disorders, conflagrations, earthquakes, or
other calamities
Elements:
1. Offender is a convict by final judgment, who is confined in
a penal institution;
2. There is disorder, resulting from –
a. conflagration;
b. earthquake;
c. explosion; or
d. similar catastrophe; or
e. mutiny in which he has not participated;
3. He evades the service of his sentence by leaving the penal
institution where he is confined, on the occasion of such
disorder or during the mutiny;
4. He fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48 hours
following the issuance of a proclamation by the Chief
Executive announcing the passing away of such calamity.
 The offender must be a convict by final judgment.
 What is punished is not the leaving of the penal institution,
but the failure of the convict to give himself up to the
authorities within 48 hours after the proclamation
announcing the passing away of the calamity.
 If convict fails to give himself up, he shall suffer and
increase of 1/5 of the time still remaining to be served
under the original sentence, not to exceed six months.
 If he gives himself up within 48 hours, he shall be entitled
to 1/5 deduction of the period of his sentence.
 Mutiny – organized unlawful resistance to a superior officer,
a sedition, a revolt
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
38
Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service of Article 160. Commission of another crime during
sentence (Violation of conditional pardon) service of the penalty imposed for another previous
offense

Elements:
Elements:

1. Offender was a convict;

1. Offender was already convicted by final judgment of one
2. He was granted pardon by the Chief Executive; offense;
2. He committed a new felony before beginning to serve such
3. He violated any of the conditions of such pardon. sentence or while serving the same.

 The second crime must be a felony, that is, punishable

 A conditional pardon is a contract between the Chief
under the Revised Penal Code.
Executive and the convict. Since it is a contract, the
 But the first crime for which the offender is serving
pardoned convict is bound to fulfill its conditions and accept
sentence need not be a felony.
all its consequences, not as he chooses, but according to
 The new offense need not be of different character from
its strict terms.
that of the old offense.
 If the penalty remitted does not exceed six years, penalty
 Quasi-recidivism does not require that the two offenses are
for violation of this article is prision correccional minimum.
embraced in the same title in the RPC, unlike in recidivism.
If the penalty remitted exceeds six years, the penalty under
 Reiteracion requires that the offender has served out his
this article is the unexpired portion of the original sentence.
sentences for the prior offense. In quasi recidivism, the
 Condition that pardoned convict should not commit another
offender is beginning to serve the sentence or is already
crime extends to offenses punishable under special laws.
serving the sentence.
 If there is a condition that convict shall not commit another
 Quasi-recidivism cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating
crime, offender must be found guilty of a subsequent
circumstance, because the article provides that the offender
offense before he can be prosecuted under this article.
shall be punished by the maximum period of the new
 The duration of the conditions in a pardon would be limited
felony.
to the remaining period of the prisoner’s sentence, UNLESS
 A quasi-recidivist shall be pardoned when he has reached
an intention to extend it beyond that time was manifest
70 and has already served out his original sentence, or
from the nature of the condition or the language in which it
when he shall complete it after reaching 70, unless by
was imposed.
reason of his conduct or other circumstances, he shall not
 Violation of conditional pardon does not cause harm or
be worthy of such clemency.
injury to the right of other person nor does it disturb public
 A quasi-recidivist may NOT be pardoned even if he has
order, it is merely an infringement of the terms stipulated
reached 70 and has already served out his original
in the contact between the Chief Executive and the convict.
sentence, if he is a habitual criminal.

Torres vs. Gonzales

Take Note: Human Security Act of 2007 (RA 9372);

Torres was convicted of estafa. He was granted a conditional pardon

and was released. Subsequent to his release, he was charged with 20  Define “Terrorism”;
counts of estafa (cases pending), was convicted of sedition (appeal
pending) and had a long list of crimes charged against him (grave
threats, grave coercion, swindling etc.)  Attempt/Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism;

HELD: Article 159 defines a distinct and substantive felony. Under

this article, the convict must be charged, prosecuted and convicted by
FINAL JUDGMENT before he can be made to suffer the penalty in said
article. In proceeding against a convict who violated the conditions of
his pardon, the Executive Department may: 1) proceed against him
under Section 64 (1) of the Revised Administrative Code or 2) proceed
against him under this article of the RPC.
 How principals, accomplices and accessories are
punished;
 Surveillance and Interception of suspected
terrorist communication/ said communication
considered “classified information”;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

39
 Amount of damages paid to those detained
wrongfully (P500k/day), taken from the budget of
the government agency who caused his detention.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

40
 Title Four
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST

Chapter One. Forgeries

Section One – Forging the seal of the Government of the

Philippine Islands, the signature or stamp of the

Chief Executive

Article 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the

Government of the Philippines

Article 162. Using forged signature or counterfeiting

seal or stamp

Section Two – Counterfeiting coins

Article 163. Making and importing and uttering false

coins

Article 164. Mutilation of coins, importation and

uttering of mutilated coins

Article 165. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without

connivance

Section Three – Forging treasury or bank notes, obligations

and securities; importing and uttering false or
forged notes, obligations and securities

Article 166. Forging treasury or bank notes or other

documents payable to bearer, importing and
uttering of such false or forged notes and
documents

Article 167. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering

instruments not payable to bearer

Article 168. Illegal possession and use of forged treasury

or bank notes and other instruments of credit

Article 169. How Forgery is committed.

Section Four – Falsification of legislative, public, commercial

and private documents, and wireless, telegraph
and telephone messages

Article 170. Falsification of legislative documents

Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or

notary

Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use

of falsified documents

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

41
 Article 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph and
telephone messages and use of said falsified
messages
Section Five – Falsification of medical certificates,
certificates of merit or service, and the like
Article 174. False medical certificates, false certificates
of merit or service
Article 175. Using false certificates
Section Six – Manufacturing, importing and possession of
instruments or implements intended for the
commission of falsification
Article 176. Manufacturing and possession of instruments
or implements for falsification
Chapter Two. Other Falsities
Section One – Usurpation of authority, rank, title and
improper use of names, uniforms and insignia
Article 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions
Article 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true
name
Article 179. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia
Section Two – False testimony
Article 180. False testimony against a defendant
Article 181. False testimony favorable to the defendant
Article 182. False testimony in civil cases
Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury
Article 184. Offering false testimony in evidence
Chapter Three. Frauds
Section One – Machinations, monopolies, and combinations
Article 185. Machinations in public auction
Article 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of
trade
Section Two – Frauds in commerce and industry
Article 187. Importation and disposition of falsely marked
articles or merchandise made of gold, silver, or
other precious metals or their alloys
Article 188. Substituting and altering trade marks and
trade names or service marks
Article 189. Unfair competition and fraudulent registration
of trade mark or trade name, or service mark;
fraudulent designation of origin, and false
description
The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or falsity to the
public. The essence of the crime under this title is that which
defraud the public in general. There is deceit perpetrated upon
the public. This is the act that is being punished under this title.
Article 161. Counterfeiting the Great Seal of the
Government of the Philippine Islands, Forging the
Signature or Stamp of the Chief Executive
Acts punished
1. Forging the great seal of the Government of the Philippines;
2. Forging the signature of the President;
3. Forging the stamp of the President.
When in a State document, the signature of the
President is forged, the crime is not falsification of
public document. It is forging the signature of the
Chief executive.
The Signature of the Chief executive must be forged. If
Chief Executive left with his secretary a signature in
blank and a document is written above it, the crime
is not under Art. 161 but Falsification by public
officer or private individual under Art. 171 or 172.
Article 162. Using Forged Signature or Counterfeit Seal
or Stamp
Elements
1. The great seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the signature
or stamp of the Chief Executive was forged by another person;
2. Offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery;
3. He used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or stamp.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
42

Offender under this article should not be the forger. Otherwise, it
would fall under Art 161.
Article 163. Making and Importing and Uttering False
Coins
Elements
1. There be false or counterfeited coins;
2. Offender either made, imported or uttered such coins;
3. In case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he
connived with the counterfeiters or importers.
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished
1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the Central Bank
of the Philippines;
2. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the
Central Bank of the Philippines;
3. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
When is a coin false or counterfeited?
if it is forged
if it is not authorized by government as legal tender
if it is a spurious copy (imitation of the design of a genuine
coin)
Importation means bringing into port. Importation is complete before
entry at the Customs House.
Uttering is passing counterfeited coins. It includes their delivery
or the act of giving them away.
Former coins withdrawn from circulation may be counterfeited
under this article.
People vs. Kong Leon
Kong Leon, a goldsmith, was selling illegally fabricated US dollar coins
which are already withdrawn from circulation. Several unfinished coins
were found by the police in his shop and pockets.
HELD: When RPC was enacted, the Spanish text was the one approved.
Thus it controls the interpretation of provisions. Therefore, under
Spanish Penal Code, fabrication of coin withdrawn from circulation is
punishable because of (1) the harm it caused to the public when it goes
into circulation again, (2) the danger of a counterfeiter staying within
the country (he may counterfeit coins in actual circulation and (3)
collectors will be defrauded.
Article 164. Mutilation of Coins
Acts punished
1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further
requirements that there be intent to damage or to defraud
another;
2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with the further
requirement that there must be connivances with the
mutilator or importer in case of uttering.
Mutilation means to take off part of the metal either by filing it
or substituting it for another metal of inferior quality.
The coin must be of legal tender in mutilation.
Coins of foreign country not included.
Requisites of mutilation under the RPC
(1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;
(2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust abstracted
from the coin; and
(3) It has to be a coin.
Presidential Decree No. 247
Prohibiting and Penalizing Defacement, Mutilation,
Tearing, Burning or Destroying Central Bank Notes
and Coins
It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully deface, mutilate,
tear, burn, or destroy in any manner whatsoever, currency
notes and coins issued by the Central Bank.
Any person who shall violate this Decree shall, upon
conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty
thousand pesos and/or by imprisonment of not more than five
years.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
43
Mutilation under the RPC is true only to coins. It cannot be a Acts punished
crime under the RPC to mutilate paper bills because the idea
of mutilation under the code is collecting the precious metal
dust. However, under PD 247, mutilation is not limited to 1. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or other
coins. documents payable to bearer;

2. Importation of such false or forged obligations or notes;

3. Uttering of such false or forged obligations or notes in

Article 165. Selling of False or Mutilated Coin, without connivance with the forgers or importers.
Connivance

Importation means to bring them into the Phils which

Acts punished presupposes that the obligations or notes are forged or falsified
in a foreign country.

1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by another

person, with intent to utter the same, knowing that it is Uttering meand offering obligations or notes knowing them to
false or mutilated; be false or forged WON such offer is accepted with a
representation by words or action that’s that they are genuine
and with an intent to defraud.

Elements
Uttering forged bills must be with connivance to constitute a
Possession; violation of Art. 166.

With intent to utter; and

Knowledge. Notes and other obligations and securities that may be forged
or falsified under Art 166 are:

treasury or bank notes

2. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing the
same to be false or mutilated. certificates, and

other obligations and securities payable to bearer

Elements

Actually uttering; and Penalties depend on the kind of forged treasury or bank notes
or other documents
Knowledge.
obligation/security issued by RP

circulating note issued by any banking institution duly

Possession of or uttering false coin does not require that the authorized by law to issue the same
counterfeited coin is legal tender.
document issued by foreign gov’t

circulating note or bill issued a foreign bank duly

Possession, ether actual or constructive, of the counterfeiter or authorized to issue the same.
importer is not punished as a separate offense.

PNB checks are commercial documents not covered by Art 166.

Article 166. Forging Treasury or Bank Notes or Other

Documents Payable to Bearer; Importing and Uttering
Such False or Forged Notes and Documents

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

44
Article 167. Counterfeiting, Importing, and Uttering
Instruments Not Payable to Bearer
Elements
There is an instrument payable to order or other documents of
credit not payable to bearer;
Offender either forged, imported or uttered such instrument;
In case of uttering, he connived with the forger or importer.
Application of Art 167 is limited to instruments payable to order.
But it covers instruments or other documents of credit issued
by a foreign government or bank.
Connivance is not required in uttering if the utterer is the forger,
Article 168. Illegal Possession and Use of False Treasury
or Bank Notes and Other Instruments of Credit
Elements
1. Any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation
and security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable
to order or other document of credit not payable to bearer
is forged or falsified by another person;
2. Offender knows that any of those instruments is forged or
falsified;
3. He either -
a. uses any of such forged or falsified instruments; or
b. possesses with intent to use any of such forged or
falsified instruments.
Intent to possess is not intent to use. Mere possession alone is
not a criminal offense. It must be with intent to use.
The conduct of the accused is considered to establish knowledge
of forgery.
A person in possession of falsified document and who makes
use of the same is presumed to be the material author of
falsification.
Accused has the burden to give satisfactory explanation of his
possession of forged bills.
When an act performed would have been a crime of illegal
possession of false treasury note, it cannot be an impossible
crime because forging or falsification of treasury notes is
neither an offense against persons nor an offense against
property under Art 4(2) but one case held otherwise.
Bar Questions
False Notes; Illegal Possession (1999)
1 Is mere possession of false money bills punishable under
Article 168 of the Revised Penal Code? Explain. (3%)
2 The accused was caught in possession of 100 counterfeit
P20 bills. He could not explain how and why he possessed
the said bills. Neither could he explain what he intended to
do with the fake bills. Can he be held criminally liable for
such possession? Decide. (3%}
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1 No. Possession of false treasury or bank note alone
without an intent to use it, is not punishable. But the
circumstances of such possession may indicate intent to
utter, sufficient to consummate the crime of illegal
possession of false notes.
2 Yes. Knowledge that the note is counterfeit and intent to
use it may be shown by the conduct of the accused. So,
possession of 100 false bills reveal: (a) knowledge that the
bills are fake; and (b) intent to utter the same.
Article 169. How forgery is committed
By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument payable
to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the appearance of
a true and genuine document;
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any
means the figures, letters, words, or sign contained therein.
Forgery includes falsification and counterfeiting.
Giving checks the appearance of true and genuine document is
forgery.
Mere change on a document does not amount to this crime. The
essence of forgery is giving a document the appearance of a
true and genuine document.
Del Rosario vs. People
Del Rosario was shown by the accused a P1 bill and a P2 bill inducing
him to believe that the bills were counterfeited when they were in
fact genuine treasury notes. One of the digits of each bill was altered
to make it appear counterfeited.
Held: The possession of genuine treasury notes of the Phils, where any
of the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein had been
erased and/or altered, with knowledge of such erasure/alteration, and
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
45
with intent to use such notes in enticing another to advance funds for
the purpose of financing the manufacture of counterfeit notes is
punishable by Art. 168 in relation to Art 169 (1).
People vs. Galano
Galano bought 4 balut eggs with a P1 bill with the word “victory”
written on it. The P1 bill had been withdrawn from circulation. It is
however redeemable at face its face value if presented to the Central
Bank.
Held: The forgery committed falls under Art 169(1) where the treasury
note by the addition of the word “victory” was given the appearance
of a true and genuine document. This provision also covers the
situation where originally true and genuine documents have been
withdrawn or demonetized were made to appear a true legal tender.
Article 170. Falsification of Legislative Documents
Elements
1. There is a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or approved
or pending approval by either House of the Legislature or
any provincial board or municipal council;
2. Offender alters the same;
3. He has no proper authority therefor;
4. The alteration has changed the meaning of the documents.
The words "municipal council" should include the city council or
municipal board.
The bill, resolution or ordinance must be genuine.
The offender is any person, private individual or public officer,
who has no authority to make the alteration.
The act of falsification in legislative document is limited to
altering it which changes its meaning.
Distinction between falsification and forgery:
Falsification is the commission of any of the eight acts
mentioned in Article 171 on legislative (only the act of making
alteration), public or official, commercial, or private
documents, or wireless, or telegraph messages.
The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers to the falsification
and counterfeiting of treasury or bank notes or any
instruments payable to bearer or to order.
Note that forging and falsification are crimes under Forgeries.
Article 171. Falsification by Public Officer, Employee or
Notary or Ecclesiastical Minister
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;
2. He takes advantage of his official position;
3. He falsifies a document by committing any of the following
acts:
a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric;
b. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when they
did not in fact so participate;
c. Attributing to persons who have participated in an
act or proceeding statements other than those in
fact made by them;
d. Making untruthful statements in a narration of
facts;
e. Altering true dates;
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning;
g. Issuing in an authenticated form a document
purporting to be a copy of an original
document when no such original exists, or
including in such a copy a statement contrary
to, or different from, that of the genuine
original; or
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the
issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official
book.
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister who shall
commit any of the offenses enumerated, with respect to
any record or document of such character that its
falsification may affect the civil status of persons.
Even if the offender is a public officer but the falsification
committed by him is upon a document which does not pertain
to his office, it was committed without abuse of his office.
Thus it will not fall under Art 171 but Art 172.
A private person who cooperates with a public officer in the
falsification of public documents is guilty under Art 171 and
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
46
 incurs the same liability and penalty as the public officer as
there is conspiracy.
Must there be a genuine document in falsification?
 In Par. 6, 7 in its 2nd part and 8 of Art 171, the law requires
that there be a genuine document where the intercalation or
alteration is made changing its meaning.
 in other paragraphs, of Art 171, falsification may be
committed by simulating or fabrication a document.
Counterfeiting and Feigning
In Counterfeiting, there must be (1) an intent or attempt to
imitate and (2) that the two signatures/handwritings, the
genuine and the forged, bear some resemblance to each
other.
In feigning, there is no original signature, handwriting, or rubric
but a forgery of a signature, handwriting or rubric that does
not exist.
Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts
There must be a narration of facts not of conclusion of law and
there must be a legal obligation on the part of the accused to
disclose the truth of the facts narrated.
The narration of facts must be absolutely false and the person
making such narration must be aware of the falsity of the facts
narrated by him.
The perversion of truth in the narration of facts must be made
with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person. If the
document falsified is a public document, wrongful intent is not
essential.
There is no falsification by one who acted in good faith.
The fact that one’s consent to a contract was obtained by means
of violence does not make the facts narrated therein false.
Legal obligation to disclose the truth is inherent in residence
certificate.
There can be a falsification by omission (P v Dizon).
Altering True Dates
Date must be essential.
Altering dates in official receipts to prevent the discovery of
malversation is falsification.
Making alteration or intercalation
Alteration which speaks the truth is not falsification.
The alteration must affect the integrity or change the effects of
the documents.
Altering the grades in examination papers involves several acts
of falsification. (see P v Romualdez)
Article 172. Falsification by Private Individual and Use
of Falsified Documents
Acts punished
1. Falsification of public, official or commercial document by a
private individual;
2. Falsification of private document by any person;
3. Use of falsified document.
Elements under paragraph 1
1. Offender is a private individual or public officer or employee
who did not take advantage of his official position;
He committed any act of falsification under Art 171;
3. The falsification was committed in a public, official, or
commercial document or letter of exchange.
There are four kinds of documents:
(1) Public document in the execution of which, a person in
authority or notary public has taken part;
(2) Official document in the execution of which a public
official takes part;
(3) Commercial document or any document recognized by
the Code of Commerce or any commercial law; and
(4) Private document in the execution of which only private
individuals take part.
NOTE: Private document may acquire the character of a public
document when it becomes part of an official record and is
certified by a public officer duly authorized by law.
 Public document is broader than the term official document.
Before a document may be considered official, it must first be
a public document. But not all public documents are official
documents. To become an official document, there must be
a law which requires a public officer to issue or to render such
document. Example: A cashier is required to issue an official
receipt for the amount he receives. The official receipt is a
public document which is an official document.
 Cash disbursement vouchers are not commercial documents.
 Mere blank forms of an official document is not itself a
document. It is necessary that the blank spaces be filled and
the signature of the party authorized to issue it be written by
another in the counterfeited instrument.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
47
 The possessor of a falsified document is presumed to be the
author of the falsification. But this presumption is not applied
where the evidence is extremely doubtful.
 Damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary as the
principal thing punished is the violation of public faith and
destruction of truth.
 Lack of malice or criminal intent is a defense in falsification of
public document.
 The crime is falsification of a public document, even if the
falsification took place before the private document becomes
part of the public records, if the document is intended by law
ro be part of the public or official record.
 Generally, falsification has no attempted or frustrated stage.
But there may be a frustrated falsification if the falsification is
imperfect. (Reyes)

Falsification of a Public Falsification of a Private

Elements under paragraph 2 document document

Offender committed any of the acts of falsification except Article Mere falsification is enough Prejudice to 3rd person or
171(7), that is, issuing in an authenticated form a document intent to cause it is enough
purporting to be a copy of an original document when no Committed by any of the 8 Cannot be committed by the
such original exists, or including in such a copy a statement means under Art 171 ways in par 7 & 8 of Art 171
contrary to, or different from, that of the genuine original;
Principal thing punished is
Falsification was committed in any private document; violation of public faith and
destruction of truth as
Falsification causes damage to a third party or at least the therein solemnly proclaimed
falsification was committed with intent to cause such
damage.

Elements under the last paragraph

 Mere falsification of public document is not enough as it is

necessary that it must cause damage to a third person or must
be committed with intent to cause such damage. In introducing in a judicial proceeding -
 It is also not necessary that the offender profited or hoped to
1 Offender knew that the document was falsified by another
profit by the falsification.
person;
 When the falsification is a necessary means to commit another
2 The false document is in Articles 171 or 172 (1 or 2);
crime, the two crimes form a complex crime under Art. 48.
He introduced said document in evidence in any judicial
Note that the document falsified as a necessary means must
proceeding.
be public, official or commercial.

a. Malversation through falsification of public documents In use in any other transaction -

b. Estafa through falsification of a public document.
c. Estafa through falsification of a commercial document
by reckless imprudence
d. Theft through falsification of official document.
e. Attempted estafa through falsification of public or
official documents.
 There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification of a
private document because the immediate effect of falsification
of a private document is the same as that of estafa.
 If a private document is falsified to obtain from the offended
party the money or other personal property which the
offender later misappropriated, the crime committed is
falsification of private document only.
 If a private document is falsified to conceal the
misappropriation of the money or other personal property
which has been in the possession of the offender, the crime
committed is estafa with abuse of confidence only.
 If estafa was already consummated at the time of the
falsification of a private document or if the falsification was
committed to for the purpose of concealing estafa, the
falsification is not punishable as because as regards the
falsification, there was no damage or intent to cause damage.
 There is no falsification through reckless imprudence if the
document is private and no actual damage is caused.
1 Offender knew that a document was falsified by another
person;
2 The false document is embraced in Articles 171 or 172 (1
or 2);
3 He used such document;
The use caused damage to another or at least used with intent
to cause damage.
 Damage is not necessary in the crime of introducing in judicial
proceeding a false document.
 Use of falsified document in a proceeding which is not judicial
is requires at least intent to cause damage.
 If the one who used the falsified document is the same person
who falsified it, the crime is only falsification and the use of
the same is not a separate crime.
 Use of false document is not necessarily included in the crime
of falsification.
 The user of the falsified document is deemed the author of
the falsification if
o the use was so closely connected in time with the
falsification, and
o the user had the capacity of falsifying the document.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

48

Caubang vs. People 1992
Accused was organizing the merger of two stevedoring companies.
Among the documents presented and filed with the SEC for the
registration of the company was a Statement of Assets and Liabilities
(SAL) of the company. This had the signature of the treasurer; but this
signature was forged.
HELD: Accused guilty of falsification of public documents. In the
absence of contrary proof, the accused who filed all the documents
with the SEC, is presumed to have also filed the forged SAL. And thus
since his possession of the forged instrument is presumed, it is also
presumed from this fact that he is the forger of the document.
It is immaterial that the entries in the SAL were true, the important
thing is that the signature of the treasurer was forged. What is
punished in this crime is the violation of the faith in public documents
and the destruction of the truth in making it appear that a person did
something when in fact he did not; damage is not essential.
People vs. Romualdez
Romualdez, the secretary of Justice Romualdez, changed the grade of
bar examinee, Mabunay, to enable him to reach the required average
to pass the bar. She claimed she had been given the authority to do
so.
HELD: The acts of falsification are: (1) making alterations on genuine
documents (2) making it appear that the correctors had participated
in blotting out the grades and writing out new and increased grades
opposite their initials and (3) attributing to the correctors statements
other than those in fact made by them.
Beradio vs. CA
Beradio is the lawyer and election registrar accused of falsifying her
daily time record, a public document. Her daily time record shows she
was at the office 8am-5pm when in fact she went to court.
HELD: Beradio belongs to a class of officers who are exempt from
keeping and submitting daily time records. No criminal intent to
commit falsification can be imputed to her when she submits her time
record not as a legal obligation but as a matter of practice. The entries
she made contain a color of truth and no damage was caused to the
gov’t or a third party.
Luague vs. CA
Luague, a widow, signed her husband’s name on the salary checks with
the knowledge of her deceased husband’s supervisor. She encashed the
same and use it to pay debts incurred for the illness and death of her
husband.
HELD: There was no estafa thru falsification of a commercial
document. No damage was incurred against the government as the
deceased employee deserved the salary his wife availed of. Even if
there was falsification when she signed for her husband, this was done
with the knowledge of her deceased husband’s supervisor that the
husband was indeed dead. (Reeza’s dad in the RTC ruled otherwise )
Cabigas vs. People
Cabigas, a securities custodian of Landbank, was convicted of
falsification when he changed the entry of the figure of treasury bills
from 1539 to 1533 pieces in the Daily Report of Securities/Documents
under Custody (DR SDUC) for the purpose of hiding the loss of 6
treasury bills in his custody.
HELD: SC acquitted him since the elements of Art 171(4) were not
present. The correction of the figure from 1539 to 1533 pieces to
conform to the actual pieces of treasury notes in custody is not
falsification since it was made to speak the truth. Also, the DR/SDUC
is a form purely devised and adopted by Cabigas and was never
required thus he was not legally obligated to disclose or reveal the
truth in that document. In the absence of legal obligation, there can
be no falsification.
People vs. Sendaydiego
Sendaydiego, a provincial treasurer, used 6 forged provincial vouchers
to embezzle from the road and bridge fund. TC convicted them of
malversation thru falsification of public document.
HELD: SC held that the crimes committed are separate crimes of
malversation and falsification because in the 6 vouchers, the
falsification was used to conceal the malversation. Each falsification
and malversation constituted independent offenses which must be
punished separately.
Siquian vs. People
Siquian, a municipal mayor, appointed a clerk and signed the latter’s
appointment papers which stated that there was such a position
available and that funds for this position was available. However, no
such position and funds were in existence. The mayor knew that the
Municipal Council failed to enact a new budget and has adopted the
previous year’s budget.
HELD: SC held Mayor liable under Art 171(4), when he made an
untruthful statement in a narration of facts contained in the
certification which he issued in connection with the appointment of
the clerk. The existence of a wrongful intent to injure a third person
is not necessary when the falsified document is a public document. It
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
49
is because the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith
and the destruction of truth proclaimed therein.
People vs. Villalon
Carrera brothers were co-owners of a parcel of land. A power of
attorney was executed authorizing de Guzman to mortgage one
brother’s half. De Guzman used the power of attorney to obtain a loan
from the mortgagee bank. Loan was unpaid, bank foreclosed the
mortgage and sold land to Serafia who filed ejectment suit against the
brothers.
HELD: The crime committed was estafa thru falsification of public
document. The falsification of public document may be a means to
commit estafa because before the falsified document is actually used
to defraud another, the crime of falsification is already consummated
and damage or intent to cause damage is not an element of
falsification. The damage to another is caused by the commission of
estafa.
Santos v. Sandiganbayan (2000)
Valentino occupies a public position as bookkeeper at the Clearing
Office of the Central Bank. He intercepted and pilfered BPI-Laoag
checks with the assistance of petitioner Estacio, a janitor-messenger
at the Central Bank. In the comfort room of the bank, Valentino and/or
one Villasanta tampered with the clearing statements and clearing
manifests. Valentino then brought the altered clearing statements
back to the clearing center and prepared a Clearing Bank Manifests
where he changed the figure in the original copy to tally with those in
the altered clearing statement. The tampered documents, along with
the pilfered demand envelopes, were then sent to the Central Bank
Regional Clearing Center in Laoag. In utilizing this scheme from
October to December of 1981, the syndicate netted P9 Million.
Lumancas v. Intas (2000)
Lumancas and Uriarte were regular employees of the Philippine Postal
Corporation in Tandag, Surigao del Sur. They made false entries in
their respective Personal Data Sheets (PDS, [CSC Form 212]) regarding
their educational attainment, resulting in their promotion to higher
positions. Uriarte asserted that he finished his Bachelor of Science in
Commerce, Major in Management, at the IHU in 1968. In fllling up her
PDS, Lumancas on the other hand indicated that she is a graduate of
Bachelor of Science in Commerce Major in Management at the IHU.
She also claimed that she is a graduate of Pharmacy from the CEU.
Both are not college gradutes.
HELD: All the elements of falsification through the making of
untruthful statements in a narration of facts are present: (a) That the
offender makes in a document statements in a narration of facts; (b)
That he has a legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated
by him; (c) That the facts narrated by the offender are absolutely
false; and, (d) That the perversion of truth in the narration of facts
was made with the wrongful intent of injuring a third person. In People
v. Po Giok To, the Court held that "in the falsification of public or
official documents, whether by public officials or by private persons,
it is unnecessary that there be present the idea of gain or the intent
to injure a third person, for the reason that, in contradistinction to
private documents, the principal thing punished is the violation of the
public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein solemnly
proclaimed." Hence, the last requisite need not be present. Also,
petitioners themselves have affirmed in their petition that their
Personal Data Sheets were not sworn to before any administering
officer thereby taking their case away from the confines of perjury.
Nonetheless, they argue that they have no legal obligation to disclose
the truth in their PDS since these are not official documents. The Court
disagrees and cited the case of Inting v. Tanodbayan, where it was
held that "the accomplishment of the Personal Data Sheet being a
requirement under the Civil Service Rules and Regulations in
connection with employment in the government, the making of an
untruthful statement therein was, therefore, intimately connected
with such employment….” The filing of a Personal Data Sheet is
required in connection with the promotion to a higher position and
contenders for promotion have the legal obligation to disclose the
truth. Otherwise, enhancing their qualifications by means of false
statements will prejudice other qualified aspirants to the same
position.
Article 173. Falsification of Wireless, Cable, Telegraph
and Telephone Messages, and Use of Said Falsified
Messages
Acts punished
1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone
message;
Elements
1. Offender is an officer or employee of the
government or an officer or employee of a private
corporation, engaged in the service of sending or
receiving wireless, cable or telephone message;
2. He utters fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph or
telephone message.
2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message;
Elements
1. Offender is an officer or employee of the
government or an officer or employee of a private
corporation, engaged in the service of sending or
receiving wireless, cable or telephone message;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
50
 2. He falsifies wireless, cable, telegraph or telephone 3 Private person who falsifies a certificate falling within the
message. classes mentioned in the two preceding subdivisions.

[The crime is false medical certificate by private person or

3. Using such falsified message. false certificate of merit or service by a private person]

Elements
 The falsification of the certificate of large cattle is not covered
1. Offender knew that wireless, cable, telegraph, or by Art 174 but by Art 171 or 172.
telephone message was falsified by an officer or  Certificate of residence for voting purposes is certificate of
employee of the government or an officer or “similar circumstances”.
employee of a private corporation, engaged in the
service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or
telephone message;

2. He used such falsified dispatch; Article 175. Using False Certificates

3. The use resulted in the prejudice of a third party

or at least there was intent to cause such Elements
prejudice.
1. The following issues a false certificate:
a. Physician or surgeon, in connection with the
practice of his profession, issues a false certificate;
 The public officer, to be liable, must be engaged in the service
of sending or receiving wireless, cable or telephone message. b. Public officer issues a false certificate of merit of
 Private individual cannot be a principal by direct participation
service, good conduct or similar circumstances;
in falsification of telegraphic dispatches under Art. 173 unless
he is an employee of a corporation engaged in the business c. Private person falsifies a certificate falling within
of sending or receiving wireless, telegraph or telephone the classes mentioned in the two preceding
message. subdivisions.
 Private individual can be criminally liable as principal by
inducement in falsification of telegraphic dispatches.
 Act. No. 1851, Sec $, punishes private individuals who forge
or alter telegram by an fine of not more than P100. 2. Offender knows that the certificate was false;

He uses the same.

Article 174. False Medical Certificates, False
Certificates of Merit or Service, Etc.
 When any of the false certificates mentioned in Art. 174 is
used in the judicial proceedings, Art 172 does not apply
Persons liable because the use of false document in judicial proceeding
under Art 172 is limited to those false documents embraced
1 Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the practice in Arts 171 and 172.
of his profession, issues a false certificate (it must refer to
the illness or injury of a person);

[The crime here is false medical certificate by a physician.] Article 176. Manufacturing and Possession of
Instruments or Implements for Falsification

2 Public officer who issues a false certificate of merit of

service, good conduct or similar circumstances; Acts punished

[The crime here is false certificate of merit or service by a

public officer.] 1. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps, dies,
marks, or other instruments or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

51
2. Possessing with intent to use the instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification made in or
introduced into the Philippines by another person.
 It is not necessary that the implements confiscated form a
complete set for counterfeiting. It is enough that they may be
employed by themselves or together with other implements
to commit the crime of counterfeiting or falsification.
 Possession punished here may be actual or constructive
possession.
Article 177. Usurpation of Authority or Official Functions
Acts punished
1. Usurpation of authority;
Elements
1. Offender knowingly and falsely represents himself;
2. As an officer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the Philippine
government or of any foreign government.
2. Usurpation of official functions.
Elements
1. Offender performs any act;
2. Pertaining to any person in authority or public
officer of the Philippine government or any foreign
government, or any agency thereof;
3. Under pretense of official position;
4. Without being lawfully entitled to do so.
 In usurpation of authority, it is not necessary that he performs
an act pertaining to public office. However in usurpation of
official functions, it is essential that the offender should have
performed an act pertaining to a person authority or public
officer.
 There must be positive, express and explicit representation.
Such false representation may be shown by acts.
 This article applies to “any person” and thus covers even a
public officer. (ex. Councilor usurping mayor’s office)
 This article does not apply to occupant under color of title.
 This article also punishes usurpation of authority or official
functions of any officer of any foreign government.
 RA 75 provides additional penalties for usurping the authority
of diplomatic or consular or any other official of foreign
government if offender has intent to defraud.
 RA 10 applies only to members of seditious organization
engaged in subversive activities who performed any act
pertaining to the government, to any person in authority or to
any public officer.
People vs. Cortez
Accused introduced himself to a proprietress of a meatshop presenting
an id card bearing another name. He claimed to be authorized to waive
inspection of books for P400. Upon learning that the accused was not
a real BIR agent, the owner and authorities set up a string operation.
Accused was apprehended after taking the money.
HELD: Crime committed was usurpation of authority thru falsification
of a public document by a private individual. It is not robbery because
there was no force or intimidation.
Gigantoni v People
Gigantoni, working on an investigation for another company,
represented himself to PAL legal officer as a PC-CIS agent. He
requested that he be shown the PAL records which was granted
and he xeroxed them.
HELD: He cannot be held liable for usurpation of authority because he
did not knowingly represented himself to be an agent. AT the time he
went to PAL office, he was still an agent though he knew he was
suspended. The conveyance to him of the notice of dismissal was not
proven. He should have been charged with usurpation of official
functions where dismissal or suspension would make no difference
because both imply the absence of the power to represent himself as
vested with authority to perform acts pertaining to an office which he
knowingly was deprived of.
Article 178. Using Fictitious Name and Concealing True
Name
Acts punished
1. Using fictitious name
Elements
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
52
 1. Offender uses a name other than his real name; R.A. 6085

2. He uses the fictitious name publicly; AN ACT AMENDING COMMONWEALTH ACT

NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO
3. Purpose of use is to conceal a crime, to evade the REGULATING THE USE OF ALIASES
execution of a judgment or to cause damage [to
public interest - Reyes].
What is prohibited?

1. No person shall use any name different from the one with
2. Concealing true name
which he was registered at birth in the office of the local civil
registry, or with which he was registered in the bureau of
immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may have
Elements been authorized by a competent court.

1. Offender conceals his true name and other

personal circumstances; Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary, cinema, television,
radio, or other entertainment and in athletic events where the
2. Purpose is only to conceal his identity. use of pseudonym is a normally accepted practice. (Sec. 1)

2. No person having been baptized with a name different

 A fictitious name is any other name which a person publicly
applies to himself without authority of law.
 Causing damage must be to public interest. If it is damage to
private interest, the crime will be estafa under Art
315,subdivision 2 paragraph (a).
 Signing fictitious name in an application for passport is
publicly using such fictitious name.
 Where a person takes the place of another who has been
convicted by final judgment, he is guilty of using a fictitious
name under Art 178 and not evasion of service of sentence
because the real convict alone is guilty thereof.
from that with which he was registered at birth in the local
civil registry, or in case of an alien, registered in the bureau
of immigration upon entry, or any person who obtained
judicial authority to use an alias, or who uses a pseudonym,
shall represent himself in any public or private
transaction or shall sign or execute any public or
private document without stating or affixing his real
or original name and all names or aliases or
pseudonym he is or may have been authorized to use.
(Sec. 3)

What is the process?

Use of Fictitious name Concealing true name
Any person desiring to use an alias shall apply for authority
Element of publicity must be Element of publicity is not
therefor in proceedings like those legally provided to obtain
present necessary
judicial authority for a change of name, and no person shall
Purpose is to conceal a crime, Purpose is merely to conceal be allowed to secure such judicial authority for more than one
to evade the execution of a identity alias. The petition for an alias shall set forth the person's
judgment or to cause baptismal and family name and the name recorded in the civil
damage registry, if different, his immigrant's name, if an alien, and his
pseudonym, if he has such names other than his original or
real name, specifying the reason or reasons for the use of the
desired alias. The judicial authority for the use of alias the
christian name and the alien immigrant's name shall be
recorded in the proper local civil registry, and no person shall
Legamia v IAC
use any name or names other, than his original or real name
unless the same is or are duly recorded in the proper local
Corazon Legamia lived with Emilio Reyes for 19 years and gave him a civil registry. (Sec. 2)
son. She was known and introduced to others as Mrs. Reyes. Upon
Emilio’s death, Corazon filed for death benefits on behalf of their son.
The real Mrs. Reyes, Felicisima, filed a complaint against Corazon for
using fictitious name. Penalties imposed
Any violation of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment
of from one year to five years and a fine of P5,000 to P10,000.
(Sec. 5)
HELD: Corazon was acquitted. It is not uncommon for a woman to
represent herself as the wife of the person she is living with. Corazon
assumed the role of a wife not for any personal material gain but for
her son. Ours is a tolerant and understanding society…

Article 179. Illegal Use of Uniforms or Insignia

Use of unregistered aliases

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

53
Elements
1 Offender makes use of insignia, uniforms or dress;
2 The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains to an office not held
by such person or a class of persons of which he is not a
member;
3. Said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and
improperly.
 Wearing the uniform of an imaginary office is not punishable.
 An exact imitation of a uniform or dress is unnecessary; a
colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the common run
of people is sufficient.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 75
(Immunity of Diplomats and Consuls)
An Act to Penalize Acts which would Impair the Proper
Observance by the Republic and Inhabitants of the
Philippines of the Immunities, Rights, And Privileges Of Duly
Accredited Foreign Diplomatic And Consular Agents In The
Philippines
When applicable
The provisions of the Act are applicable only in cases where
the country of the diplomatic or consular representative
adversely affected has provided for similar protection to
duly accredited diplomatic or consular representatives of the
Republic of the Philippines by prescribing like or similar
penalties for like or similar offenses herein contained.
Who are punishable?
1. Any person who shall falsely assume and take upon himself
to act as a diplomatic, consular, or any other official of a
foreign government duly accredited as such to the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines with intent to
defraud such foreign government or the Government of the
Philippines;
2. Any person who, in such pretended character shall demand
or obtain, or attempt to obtain from any person or from said
foreign government or the Government of the Philippines, or
from any officer thereof, any money, paper, document, or
other thing of value;
3. Any person, other than a diplomatic or consular officer or
attache, who shall act in the Republic of the Philippines as an
agent of a foreign government without prior notification to,
and registration with, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs;
Constabulary, to Regulate the Wearing, Use, Manufacture and
4. Any person who, with intent to deceive or mislead, within
the jurisdiction of the Republic, shall wear any naval, military,
police, or other official uniform, decoration, or regalia of any
foreign State, nation or government with which the Republic
of the Philippines is at peace, or any uniform, decoration or
regalia so nearly resembling the same as to be calculated to
deceive, UNLESS such wearing thereof be authorized by such
State, nation, or government;
5. Any person by whom any writ or process is obtained,
whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister of
any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the
President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such
ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his
goods or chattels are distrained, seized, or attached, whether
as party or as attorney;
6. Every officer concerned in executing the writs or process in
(5) above.
 (5) and (6) above are NOT APPLICABLE where:
 the person against whom the process is issued
is a (1) citizen or inhabitant of the Republic of
the Philippines, (2) in the service of an
ambassador or a public minister, and (3) the
process is founded upon a debt contracted
before he entered upon such service; or
 the person against whom the process is issued
is a domestic servant of an ambassador or a
public minister, UNLESS the name of the
servant has, before the issuing thereof, been
registered in the Department of Foreign
Affairs, and transmitted by the Secretary of
Foreign Affairs to the Chief of Police of the City
of Manila, who shall upon receipt thereof post
the same in some public place in his office.
7. Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons or in
any other manner offers violence to the person of an
ambassador or a public minister, in violation of the law of
nations.
Penalties
The penalties provided in the act shall be imposed in addition
to the penalties that may be imposed under the Revised Penal
Code
RA 493
An Act to Prohibit the Use or Conferring of Military or Naval
Grades or Titles By or Upon Persons Not in the Service of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines or the Philippine
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
54
 Sale of Insignias, Decorations and Medals, Badges, Patches at a hearing before a competent authority shall deny the truth
and Identification Cards Prescribed for the Said Armed Forces or say something contrary to it.
or Constabulary, and for Other Purposes

Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person NOT in the service of the
AFP or the PNP to use, or confer upon himself or another who is not in
the service, any military or naval grade or title. Three forms of false testimony

Exceptions:
1. False testimony in criminal cases (Arts 180, 181)
(a) All veterans of any war when recognized by the Philippine and
only for the ranks for which they are recognized; 2. False testimony in civil case (Art 182)

(b) Commissioned officers and personnel, retired or in active 3. False testimony in other cases (Art 183)
duty, of the Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey, of the quarantine
service, and of the customs service;

(c) Commissioned and enlisted reservists including recognized

guerrilla officers on inactive status when using their authorized grades
for a purely military purposes; Article 180. False Testimony against A Defendant

(d) Trainees in the Armed Forces while undergoing any period of

trainee instruction pursuant to law.
Elements

1. There is a criminal proceeding;

2. Offender testifies falsely under oath against the defendant

Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person not in the service (EXCEPT therein;
those excluded from the prohibition in Section 1), to use or wear the
duly prescribed insignia, badge or emblem or rank or any colorable 3. Offender who gives false testimony knows that it is false.
imitation thereof, of the members of the AFP or PNP,
4. Defendant against whom the false testimony is given is
either acquitted or convicted in a final judgment.
Exception: use or the wearing of any insignia, badge or emblem of
rank:

a. in any play-house or theater or
b. in moving-picture films while actually engaged in representing
therein a military or naval character
not tending to bring discredit or reproach upon the AFP and PNP
Sec. 3. The use, wearing, manufacture and sale of any medal or
decoration, badge, insignia, patch, or identification card,
authorized by Congress or prescribed or awarded by the President of
the Philippines or the Secretary of National Defense for the members of
the AFP, or any colorable imitation thereof, is prohibited
 Penalty for false testimony depends upon the sentence of the
defendant against whom false testimony was given.
 The defendant in the principal case must be sentenced at least
a correctional penalty, a fine or shall have been acquitted in
order that the witness who falsely testified can be held liable.
 The witness who gave false testimony is liable even if his
testimony was not considered by the court as the law intends
to punish the mere giving of false testimony.
Article 181. False Testimony Favorable to the Defendant

Exception: when so authorized by the Secretary of National Defense. Elements

1. A person gives false testimony;

2. In favor of the defendant;

3. In a criminal case.
FALSE TESTIMONY

 False testimony is committed by a person who, being under  Conviction or acquittal of defendant in principal case, not
oath and required to testify as to the truth of a certain matter necessary as it is sufficient that the defendant is prosecuted

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

55
 for a felony punishable by afflictive penalty or by other
penalty.
 False testimony favorable to the defendant is equally
repugnant to the orderly administration of justice.
 False testimony is punished because of its tendency to favor
or to prejudice the defendant.
 False testimony by negative statement is in favor of
defendant.
 False testimony in favor of defendant need not directly
influence the decision of acquittal nor benefit the defendant
as it is sufficient that it was given to favor the accused.
 A statement by a witness that he is an expert in handwriting
is a statement of mere opinion, the falsity of which is not
sufficient to convict him.
 The defendant who falsely testified in his own behalf in a
criminal case is guilty of false testimony favorable to the
defendant. The right to testify in his own behalf is secured to
him, not that he may be enabled to introduced false testimony
into the record, but to enable him to spread upon the record
the truth as to any matter within his knowledge (US v
Soliman)
 Rectification made spontaneously after realizing the mistake
is not false testimony.
Bar Questions
False Testimony (1994)
Paolo was charged with homicide before the Regional Trial
Court of Manila. Andrew, a prosecution witness, testified
that he saw Paolo shoot Abby during their heated argument.
While the case is still pending, the City Hall of Manila burned
down and the entire records of the case were destroyed.
Later, the records were reconstituted. Andrew was again
called to the witness stand. This time he testified that his
first testimony was false and the truth was he was abroad
when the crime took place. The judge immediately ordered
the prosecution of Andrew for giving a false testimony
favorable to the defendant in a criminal case. 1.] Will the
case against Andrew prosper? 2.] Paolo was acquitted. The
decision became final on
January 10, 1987. On June 18, 1994 a case of giving false
testimony was filed against Andrew. As his lawyer, what
legal step will you take?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Yes. For one to be criminally liable under Art. 181, RFC, it
is not necessary that the criminal case where Andrew
testified is terminated first. It is not even required of the
prosecution to prove which of the two statements of the
witness is false and to prove the statement to be false by
evidence other than the contradictory statements (People vs.
Arazola, 13 Court of Appeals Report, 2nd series, p. 808).
2) As lawyer of Andrew, I will file a motion to quash the
Information on the ground of prescription. The crime of false
testimony under Art. 180 has prescribed because Paolo, the
accused in the principal case, was acquitted on January 10,
1987 and therefore the penalty prescribed for such crime is
arresto mayor under Art. 180, par. 4, RPC. Crimes
punishable by arresto mayor prescribes in five (5) years (Art.
90, par. 3, RPC). But the case against Andrew was filed only
on June 18, 1994, whereas the principal criminal case was
decided with finality on January 10, 1987 and, thence the
prescriptive period of the crime commenced to run. From
January 10, 1987 to June 18, 1994 is more than five (5)
years.
Article 182. False Testimony in Civil Cases
Elements
1. Testimony given in a civil case;
2. Testimony relates to the issues presented in said case;
3. Testimony is false;
4. Offender knows that testimony is false;
5. Testimony is malicious and given with an intent to affect
the issues presented in said case.
 The testimony given in the civil case must be false.
 Art. 182 is not applicable when the false testimony is given in
special proceeding as it applies only to ordinary civil cases.
 Penalty depends on the amount of the controversy.
Article 183. False Testimony in Other Cases and Perjury
in Solemn Affirmation
Acts punished
1. By falsely testifying under oath;
2. By making a false affidavit.
Elements of perjury
1. Offender makes a statement under oath or executes an
affidavit upon a material matter;
2. The statement or affidavit is made before a competent
officer, authorized to receive and administer oaths;
3. Offender makes a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood in the statement or affidavit;
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity is
required by law, that is, it is made for a legal purpose.
 Oath is any form of attestation by which a person signifies
that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully and
truthfully.
 An affidavit is a sworn statement in writing; a declaration in
writing made upon oath or before an authorized magistrate
or officer.
 Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other than
those taken in the course of judicial proceedings.
 A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may give rise to
perjury.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
56
 Material matter is the main fact which is the subject matter of
the inquiry or any circumstance which tends to prove that
fact, or any fact or circumstance which tends to corroborate
or strengthen the testimony relative to the subject of inquiry
or which legitimately affects the credit of any witness who
testifies.
 There must be competent proof of materiality. The matter is
material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue.
 There is no perjury if sworn statement is not material to the
principal matter under investigation.
 There is no perjury if defendant subscribed and swore before
a clerk in treasurer’s office as a competent person authorized
to administer oath is a person who has a right to inquire into
the questions presented to him upon matters under his
jurisdiction.
 The assertion of falsehood must be willful and deliberate.
Good faith or lack of malice is a defense in perjury.
 The phrase “when the law so requires” does not mean that
the sworn statement or affidavit must be required by law. It
has been interpreted to mean “in cases in which the law so
authorizes”. Hence, even if there is no law requiring the
statement to be made under oath, as long as it is made for a
legal purpose, it is sufficient (P v Angcangco)
 Two contradictory sworn statements are not sufficient to
convict for perjury because the prosecution must prove which
of the two statements is false by other evidence than the
contradictory statement.
 The direct induction of a person by another to commit perjury
is treated as plain perjury. The one inducing another is
principal by induction and the latter as principal by direct
participation.
False testimony Perjury
Perversions of truth
Given in the course of judicial Not given in judicial
proceeding proceeding
Contemplates an actual trial May be committed during
preliminary investigation and
in making false affidavits
Diaz vs. People
Diaz was charged with falsification of official document. He allegedly
executed and filed in CSC a personal data sheet, an official document,
where he stated he was a 4th yr AB student at Cosmopolitan and
Harvardian Colleges w/c led to his reappointment. The accused was
never enrolled in said schools. He presented a transcript of record with
no imprint of college seal nor signature of school president.
HELD: The crime committed was perjury. This offense is the willful and
corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or affirmation
administered by authority of law on a material matter.
Acuna v. Deputy Ombudsman (2005)
FACTS: Petitioner Acuña is a former teacher of the Angeles City
National Trade School ("ACNTS") in Pampanga. Pascua was ACNTS'
Officer-In-Charge while Turla was a member of the faculty. Yabut,
another ACNTS teacher, together with other school personnel,
requested a dialogue with Pascua on some unspecified matter. Turla
attended the meeting upon Pascua's directive. Acuña, upon Yabut’s
invitation also attended the meeting. As an offshoot to an incident
during the meeting which was held on July 16, 1998, Acuña charged
Pascua with misconduct ("OMB-ADM-1-99-0387") and with violation of
Article 131 of the RPC ("OMB 1-99-903") before the Office of the
Ombudsman. In his sworn counter-affidavit in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387,
Pascua alleged, among others, that: (1) OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 is a
"rehash and a duplication with a slight deviation of fact" of an
administrative case pending with DECS which Acuña and Yabut earlier
filed against him and (2) Yabut had no authority to invite in the
meeting a non-employee of ACNTS like Acuña considering that Pascua
was the one who called the meeting. Pascua also submitted a sworn
statement of Turla confirming that respondent Pascua and not Yabut
called the said meeting. The Ombudsman dismissed OMB-ADM-1-99-
0387 and OMB 1-99-0903. Contending that Pacua and Turla perjured
themselves in their sworn statements in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387,
petitioner charged the former with perjury before the office of the
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon. Acuña alleged that Pascua and Turla
were liable for perjury because: (1) the complaint she and Yabut filed
against Pascua before the CSC, later endorsed to the DECS, was not
"the same" as her complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 and (2) it was Yabut
and not respondent Pascua who called the meeting. The Deputy
Ombudsman for Luzon dismissed the complaint.
HELD: In prosecutions for perjury, a matter is material if it
is the "main fact which was the subject of the inquiry, or any
circumstance which tends to prove that fact . . ." 24 To hold private
respondents liable, there must be evidence that their assailed
statements in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 were the subject of inquiry in that
case. Petitioner has presented no such evidence. The records are
hardly helpful, as petitioner did not furnish the Court a copy of her
complaint in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387.
What is before the Court is a portion of Pascua's counter-
affidavit in that case as quoted by public respondent in his 4 April 2000
Resolution. Admittedly, some inference is possible from this quoted
material, namely, that the basis of petitioner's complaint in OMB-ADM-
1-99-0387 is that Pascua prevented her from taking part in the July
1998 meeting. However, it would be improper for the Court to rely on
such inference because the element of materiality must be established
by evidence and not left to inference.
At any rate, petitioner's complaint for perjury will still not prosper
because Pascua's statement — that OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 is significantly
the same as petitioner's and Yabut's administrative complaint against
respondent Pascua before the DECS — is immaterial to the inferred
issue.
The third element of perjury requires that the accused willfully and
deliberately assert a falsehood. Good faith or lack of malice is a valid
defense. Here, the Court finds that respondent Pascua's statement in
his counter-affidavit in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that he called the 16 July
1998 meeting does not constitute a deliberate assertion of falsehood.
While it was Yabut and some unidentified ACNTS personnel who
requested a dialogue with respondent Pascua, it was Pascua's consent
to their request which led to the holding of the meeting. Thus, Pascua's
statement in question is not false much less malicious. It is a good faith
interpretation of events leading to the holding of the meeting.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
57
Regarding Pascua's allegation in his counter-affidavit in OMB-ADM-1-
99-0387 that petitioner’s complaint was a mere "rehash and
duplication with a slight deviation of fact" of the DECS administrative
case petitioner and Yabut filed against Pascua, it was not shown by
petitioner why this is false. Petitioner again did not furnish the Court
a copy of her and Yabut's complaint with the DECS.
Turla's statement in OMB-ADM-1-99-0387 that respondent Pascua
called the 16 July 1998 meeting was a mere reiteration of what
respondent Pascua told him. Consequently, it was correct for the
Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon to hold that since respondent Turla
merely repeated what he heard from respondent Pascua, he could not
be held liable for making a false and malicious statement. The
dismissal is affirmed.
People v. Choa (2003)
FACTS: Alfonso Chan Choa, petitioner, a Chinese national, filed with
the RTC a verified petition for naturalization. During the initial hearing
of the case, Choa testified on direct examination but he was not able
to finish the same. He subsequently filed a motion to withdraw his
petition for naturalization for which the trial court granted.
Meanwhile, State Prosecutor Delfin, acting upon the complaint of
petitioner's wife, Leni, filed an Information with the MTCC, charging
petitioner with perjury under Article 183 of the RPC with respect to
alleged false statements he made in his Petition for Naturalization.
Petitioner alleged that there is no basis to convict him of perjury
because almost 2 years prior to the filing of the Information, his motion
to withdraw the petition for naturalization containing the alleged false
statements was granted, hence, the alleged false statements were no
longer existing or had become functus officio. The lower courts found
Choa’s allegation devoid of merit and convicted him guilty of perjury.
In his petition, Choa and the Solicitor General contend that (a) not all
the elements of the crime of perjury are present; and (b) the
withdawal of the petition for naturalization which contains the alleged
untruthful statements bars the prosecution of petitioner for perjury.
HELD: Fully cognizant of the truth surrounding his moral character and
residence, petitioner instead declared falsely in his verified petition
for naturalization that "he has all the qualifications and none of the
disqualification under C.A. No. 473." Clearly, he willfully asserted
falsehood under oath on material matters required by law.
It is not necessary that the proceeding in which the perjury is alleged
to have been committed be first terminated before a prosecution for
the said crime is commenced. At the time he filed his petition for
naturalization, he had committed perjury. All the elements of the
crime were already present then. He knew all along that he wilfully
stated material falsities in his verified petition. Surprisingly, he
withdrew his petition without even stating any reason therefor. But
such withdrawal only terminated the proceedings for naturalization. It
did not extinguish his culpability for perjury he already committed.
Indeed, the fact of withdrawal alone cannot bar the State from
prosecuting petitioner, an alien, who made a mockery not only of the
Philippine naturalization law but the judicial proceedings as well. And
the petition for naturalization tainted with material falsities can be
used as evidence of his unlawful act.
Petitioner then claims that since the petition for naturalization is a
pleading, the allegations therein are absolutely privileged and cannot
be used for any criminal prosecution against him, citing Sison vs.
David, People vs. Aquino and Flordelis vs. Himalaloan.
The argument is unavailing. Sison and Aquino both involve libel cases.
In Sison, this Court categorically stressed that the term "absolute
privilege" (or "qualified privilege") has an "established technical
meaning, in connection with civil actions for libel and slander." The
purpose of the privilege is to ensure that "members of the legislature,
judges of courts, jurors, lawyers, and witnesses may speak their minds
freely and exercise their respective functions without incurring the risk
of a criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery of damages. It
is granted in aid and for the advantage of the administration of
justice." Certainly, in the present case, petitioner cannot seek refuge
under the absolutely privileged communication rule since the false
statements he made in his petition for naturalization has instead made
a mockery of the administration of justice.
The Flordelis case is likewise not in point. There, Flordelis was charged
with perjury for having alleged false statements in his verified answer.
This Court held that no perjury could be committed by Flordelis
because "an answer to a complaint in an ordinary civil action need not
be under oath," thus, "it is at once apparent that one element of the
crime of perjury is absent . . ., namely, that the sworn statement
complained of must be required by law.”
Perjury (1996)
Sisenando purchased the share of the stockholders of
Estrella Corporation in two installments, making him the
majority stockholder thereof and eventually, its president.
Because the stockholders who sold their stocks failed to
comply with their warranties attendant to the sale,
Sisenando withheld payment of the second installment due
on the shares and deposited the money in escrow instead,
subject to release once said stockholders comply with their
warranties.
The stockholders concerned, in turn, rescinded the sale in
question and removed Sisenando from the Presidency of the
Estrella Corporation, Sisenando then filed a verified
complaint for damages against said stockholders in his
capacity as president and principal stockholder of Estrella
Corporation. In retaliation, the stockholders concerned, after
petitioning the Securities and Exchange Commission to
declare the rescission valid, further filed a criminal case for
perjury against Sisenando, claiming that the latter perjured
himself when he stated under oath in the verification of his
complaint for damages that he is the President of the
Estrella Corporation when in fact he had already been
removed as such. Under the facts of the case, could
Sisenando be held liable for perjury? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Sisenando may not be held liable for perjury because It
cannot be reasonably maintained that he willfully and
deliberately made an assertion of a falsehood when he
alleged in the complaint that he is the President of the
Corporation, obviously, he made the allegation on the
premise that his removal from the presidency is not valid
and that is precisely the issue brought about by his
complaint to the SEC. It is a fact that Sisenando has been
the President of the corporation and it is from that position
that the stockholders concerned purportedly removed him,
whereupon he filed the complaint questioning his removal.
There is no willful and deliberate assertion of a falsehood
which is a requisite of perjury.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
58
 Perjury (1997)
A, a government employee, was administratively charged
with immorality for having an affair with B, a coemployee in
the same office who believed him to be single. To exculpate
himself, A testified that he was single and was willing to
marry B, He induced C to testify and C did testify that B was
single. The truth, however, was that A had earlier married D,
now a neighbor of C. Is A guilty of perjury? Are A and C
guilty of subordination of perjury?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A is not guilty of perjury because the willful falsehood
asserted by him is not material to the charge of immorality.
Whether A is single or married, the charge of immorality
against him as a government employee could proceed or
prosper. In other words, A's civil status is not a defense to
the charge of immorality, hence, not a material matter that
could influence the charge. There is no crime of subornation
of perjury. The crime is now treated as plain perjury with the
one inducing another as the principal inducement, and the
latter, as principal by direct participation (People vs. Podol
66 Phil. 365). Since in this case A cannot be held liable for
perjury, the matter that he testified to being immaterial, he
cannot therefore be held responsible as a principal by
inducement when he induced C to testify on his status.
Consequently, C is not liable as principal by direct
participation in perjury, having testified on matters not
material to an administrative case.
Perjury (2005)
Al Chua, a Chinese national, filed a petition under oath for
naturalization, with the Regional Trial Court of Manila. In his
petition, he stated that he is married to Leni Chua; that he is
living with her in Sampaloc, Manila; that he is of good moral
character; and that he has conducted himself in an
irreproachable manner during his stay in the Philippines.
However, at the time of the filing of the petition, Leni Chua
was already living in Cebu, while Al was living with Babes
Toh in Manila, with whom he has an amorous relationship.
After his direct testimony, Al Chua withdrew his petition for
naturalization. What crime or crimes, if any, did Al Chua
commit? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Al Chua committed perjury. His declaration under oath for
naturalization that he is of good moral character and
residing at Sampaloc, Manila are false. This information is
material to his petition for naturalization. He committed
perjury for this willful and deliberate assertion of falsehood
which is contained in a verified petition made for a legal
purpose. (Choa v. People, G.R. No. 142011, March 14, 2003)
Article 184. Offering False Testimony in Evidence
Elements
1. Offender offers in evidence a false witness or testimony;
2 He knows that the witness or the testimony was false;
3. The offer is made in any judicial or official proceeding.
 To consummate the offense, the witness or testimony must
be offered in evidence. Offer of evidence begins the moment
the witness is called to the witness stand and interrogated by
counsel.
 Art. 184 applies when the offender without inducing another,
but knowing him to be a false witness, presented him as a
witness and he testified falsely.
 The penalty shall be that for false testimony if committed in a
judicial proceeding or that for perjury if committed in another
proceeding.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
(PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.1829)
Prohibited Acts
 Preventing witnesses from testifying in any
criminal proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity of any
offender/s by means of bribery, misrepresentation,
deceit, intimidation, force or threats;
 Faltering, destroying, suppressing or concealing
any paper, record, document, or object, with
intent to impair its verity, authenticity,
legibility, availability, or admissibility as
evidence in any investigation of or official proceedings
in, criminal cases, or to be used in the investigation of,
or official proceedings in, criminal cases;
 Publicly using a fictitious name for the purpose of
concealing a crime, evading prosecution or the
execution of a judgment, or concealing his true name
and other personal circumstances for the same
purpose or purposes;
 Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by
obstructing the service of process or court
orders or disturbing proceedings in the fiscal's
offices, in Ombudsman, or in the courts;
 Making, presenting or using any record,
document, paper or object with knowledge of its
falsity and with intent to affect the course or
outcome of the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases;
 Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept any
benefit in consideration of abstaining from,
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
59
 discounting, or impeding the prosecution of a
criminal offender;
 Threatening directly or indirectly another with
the infliction of any wrong upon his person,
honor or property or that of any immediate
member or members of his family in order to
prevent such person from appearing in the
investigation of, or official proceedings in, criminal
cases, or imposing a condition, whether lawful or
unlawful, in order to prevent a person from appearing
in the investigation of or in official proceedings in,
criminal cases;
 Giving of false or fabricated information to
mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or from
protecting the life or property of the victim; or
 Fabricating information from the data gathered
in confidence by investigating authorities for
purposes of background information and not for
publication and publishing or disseminating the same
to mislead the investigator or the court.
Bar Questions
Falsification; Presumption of Falsification (1999)
A falsified official or public document was found in the
possession of the accused. No evidence was introduced to
show that the accused was the author of the falsification. As
a matter of fact, the trial court convicted the accused of
falsification of official or public document mainly on the
proposition that "the only person who could have made the
erasures and the superimposition mentioned is the one who
will be benefited by the alterations thus made" and that "he
alone could have the motive for making such alterations".
Was the conviction of the accused proper although the
conviction was premised merely on the aforesaid
ratiocination? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the conviction is proper because there is a
presumption in law that the possessor and user of a falsified
document is the one who falsified the same.
Forgery & Falsification (1999)
How are "forging" and "falsification" committed? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
FORGING or forgery is committed by giving to a treasury or
bank note or any instrument payable to bearer or to order
the appearance of a true and genuine document; or by
erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by any
means the figures, letters, words or signs contained therein.
FALSIFICATION, on the other hand, is committed by:
1 Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting, signature or
rubric;
2 Causing it to appear that persons have participated in any
act or proceeding when they did not in fact so participate;
3 Attributing to persons who have participated in an act
or proceeding statements other than those in fact made by
them;
4 4 Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts;
5 Altering true dates;
6 Making any alteration or intercalation in a genuine
document which changes its meaning;
7 Issuing in an authenticated form a document purporting to
be a copy of an original document when no such original
exists, or including in such copy a statement contrary to, or
different from, that of the genuine original; or
8 Intercalating any instrument or note relative to the
issuance thereof in a protocol, registry, or official book.
Article 185. Machinations in Public Auctions
Acts punished
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration for
refraining from taking part in any public auction;
Elements
1. There is a public auction;
2. Offender solicits any gift or a promise from any of
the bidders;
3. Such gift or promise is the consideration for his
refraining from taking part in that public auction;
4. Offender has the intent to cause the reduction of
the price of the thing auctioned.
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away from an auction
by threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice.
Elements
1. There is a public auction;
2. Offender attempts to cause the bidders to stay
away from that public auction;
3. It is done by threats, gifts, promises or any other
artifice;
4. Offender has the intent to cause the reduction of
the price of the thing auctioned.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
60

 This crime is consummated by mere solicitation of gift or
promise as a consideration for not bidding. Likewise, mere
attempt to cause prospective bidders to stay away from an
auction by means of threats, gifts, promises or any other
artifice consummates the crime.
 Reason: so execution should be opened to free and full
competition to secure the maximum benefit for the debtor.
People vs. Ouano
Echavez and Ouano had an oral agreement that only the former would
make a bid for a parcel of land in a public bidding, and if accepted,
they would divide the property in proportion to their adjoining
properties. To ensure the success of their plans, they induced the only
other party interested by paying her P2000 to desist from bidding.
HELD: The acts constituted a crime under Art 185. They caused another
bidder to stay away from the auction in order to cause the reduction
of the price of the property auctioned. The parties have no cause of
action against each other to and are both liable for the crime.
Article 186. Monopolies and Combinations in Restraint
of Trade
Acts punished
1. Combination to prevent free competition in the market;
Elements
1. Entering into any contract or agreement or taking
part in any conspiracy or combination in the form
of a trust or otherwise;
2. In restraint of trade or commerce or to prevent by
artificial means free competition in the market.
2. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the market;
Elements
1. By monopolizing any merchandise or object of
trade or commerce, or by combining with any
other person or persons to monopolize said
merchandise or object;
2. In order to alter the prices thereof by spreading
false rumors or making use of any other artifice;
3. To restrain free competition in the market
3. Manufacturer, producer, or processor or importer
combining, conspiring or agreeing with any person to make
transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to increase
the market price of merchandise.
Elements
1. Manufacturer, producer, processor or importer of
any merchandise or object of commerce;
2. Combines, conspires or agrees with any person;
3. Purpose is to make transactions prejudicial to
lawful commerce or to increase the market price
of any merchandize or object of commerce
manufactured, produced, processed, assembled
or imported into the Philippines.
 Mere conspiracy or combination is punished.
 If the offense affects any food substance or other article of
prime necessity, it is sufficient that initial steps are taken
toward carrying out the purposes of combination.
 When offense is committed by a corporation or association,
the president and directors or managers are liable. But they
are liable only when they (1) knowingly permitted or (2) failed
to prevent the commission of such offense.
Article 187. Importation and Disposition of Falsely
Marked Articles or Merchandise Made of Gold, Silver, or
Other Precious Metals of Their Alloys
Elements
1. Offender imports, sells or disposes articles made of gold,
silver, or other precious metals or their alloys;
2. The stamps, brands, or marks of those articles of
merchandise fail to indicate the actual fineness or quality of
said metals or alloys;
3. Offender knows that the stamps, brands, or marks fail to
indicate the actual fineness or quality of the metals or
alloys.
 Articles involved are those made of gold, silver, other precious
metals or their alloys.
 Selling the misbranded articles is not necessary but there
must be evidence showing that the articles were imported.
 Art 187 does not apply to manufacturer of misbranded articles
made of gold, silver, other precious metals or their alloys.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
61

Article 188. Substituting and Altering Trademarks,
Trade names, or Service Marks
Acts punished
1. Substituting the trade name or trademark of some other
manufacturer or dealer, or a colorable imitation thereof for
the trade name or trademark of the real manufacturer or
dealer upon any article of commerce and selling the same;
2. Selling or offering for sale such articles of commerce
knowing that the trade name or trademark has been
fraudulently used;
3. Using or substituting the service mark of some other
person, or a colorable imitation of such mark n the sale or
advertising of his services;
4. Printing, lithographing or reproducing trade name,
trademark, or service mark of one person or a colorable
imitation thereof to enable another person to fraudulently
use the same knowing the fraudulent purpose for which it
is to be used.
 The tradename, trademark or service mark used by the
offender need not be identical with the infringed tradename,
trademark or service mark. A colorable imitation is sufficient.
But there must not be differences which are glaring and
striking to the eye.
 They function of a trademark is to indicate the origin or
ownership of the goods to which it is fixed.
 It is not necessary that the goods of the prior user and the
late user of the trademark are of the same categories.
 The trademark or tradename must be registered. It must not
be merely descriptive or generic.
 The exclusive right to an originally valid trademark or
tradename is lost, if for any reason it loses its distinctiveness
or has become publici juris.
Article 189. Unfair Competition, Fraudulent
Registration of Trade Name, Trademark, or Service
Mark, Fraudulent Designation of Origin, and False
Description
Acts punished
1. Unfair competition;
Elements
1. By selling his goods;
2. Giving them the general appearance of the goods
of another manufacturer or dealer;
3. The general appearance is shown in the goods
themselves, or in the wrapping of their packages,
or in the device or words therein, or in any feature
of their appearance;
4. There is actual intent to deceive the public or
defraud a competitor.
2. Fraudulent designation of origin; false description:
Elements
1. By affixing to his goods or using in connection with
his services a false designation of origin, or any
false description or representation; and
2. Selling such goods or services.
3. Fraudulent registration
Elements
1. By procuring fraudulently from the patent office;
2. The registration of trade name, trademark or
service mark
 Unfair competition consists in employing deception or any
other means contrary to good faith by which any person shall
pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which he deals,
or his business, or his services for those of the one having
established goodwill, or committing any acts calculated to
produce such result.
 Mere offer for sale completes the commission of the crime.
Evidence of actual fraudulent intent is not necessary.
 The true test of unfair competition is WON certain goods have
been clothed with an appearance which is likely to deceive the
ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary.
 The master is criminally responsible for acts of his servants
and employees in violation of the penal provisions touching
trademarks, tradenames; and unfair competition if he causes
the illegal act to be done, or requests, command or permits it
or in any manner authorizes it, or aids or abets the servant in
its commission of , whether he is present at the time the
unlawful act is committed or not.
La Chemise Lacoste v Fernandez
In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a domestic firm was issued registration for
the trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE & CROCODILE DEVICE" by the
Philippine Patent Office for use on T-shirts, sportswear and other
garment products of the company.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
62
La Chemise Lacoste, S.A.,the actual owner of the TM’s "LACOSTE",
"CHEMISE LACOSTE", "CROCODILE DEVICE" used on clothings and
sporting apparels sold worldwide filed a Petition for Cancellation of
Hamandas registration as it is claiming prior registration of the TM’s.
HELD: The records show that the goodwill and reputation of La
Chemise products bearing the TM LACOSTE date back even before 1964
when LACOSTE clothing apparels were first marketed in the
Philippines. To allow Hemandas to continue using the trademark
Lacoste for the simple reason that he was the first registrant of a
trademark used in international commerce and not belonging to him is
to render nugatory the very essence of the law on trademarks and
tradenames.
(a) gives goods the general appearance of goods of another
or such appearance as is likely to deceive the public or
defraud another of his legitimate trade + to influence
purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of
another + sells the goods (includes subsequent vendor and
agent of any vendor)
(b) induces the false belief that he is offering the services of
another who has established goodwill + by any artifice or
device

(c) makes any false statement in the course of trade or any

The purpose of the law is to point out distinctly the origin or ownership other act contrary to good faith + act or statement calculated
of the article to which it is affixed, to secure to him, who has been to discredit the business of another
instrumental in bringing into a market a superior article of
merchandise, the fruit of his industry and skill, and to prevent fraud
and imposition. It is based on the principle of business integrity and
common justice. 3. False Designation of Origin / False Description of
Fact

Elements:
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293
The Intellectual Property Code of the 1. Uses in commerce any false designation of origin, false
Philippines description or representation of fact which:
TRADEMARKS, TRADENAMES, SERVICEMARKS
is likely to deceive as to sponsorship or approval of
goods by another person
What acts are punishable? misrepresents nature, characteristics, qualities and
geographic origin of goods in commercial
advertising or promotion
1. Infringement

Elements: PATENTS

1. Registration of TN, TM or SM
What act are punishable?
2. Use in commerce by another (inc. reproduction and
application of reproduction)
3. Use is without owner’s consent
Repetition of Infringement
4. Use is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake or deceive
 regardless of whether or not there is actual
sale
Elements:
2. Unfair Competition 1. Existence of a final judgment against the offender
in a civil action for infringement of patent
2. Infringer or anyone in connivance with him repeats
the infringement after the finality of the judgment
Elements:

1. Person has established goodwill (has identified in

By the way, what is infringement with respect to patents?
the mind of the public his goods, business or
services), whether or not a registered mark is
employed
2. Another person passes of the goods he deals in for It is the making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing
those of the person who has established goodwill
of a (1) patented product or a product obtained directly or
3. By means contrary to good faith (malice and intent
indirectly from a patented process, or the use of a patented
to deceive essential)l
process (2) without authorization of the patentee.

The ff. are DEEMED to have committed unfair competition:

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

63
Prescription: The criminal action for repetition of infringement
of patent prescribes in three (3) years from date of the
SECTION 25. Actions Related to Contracts of Carriage
commission of the crime.
of Goods. — Without derogating from the provisions of Part
Two of this Act, this Chapter applies to any action in
connection with, or in pursuance of, a contract of carriage
of goods, including but not limited to:
COPYRIGHT
(a) (i) furnishing the marks, number, quantity
or weight of goods;
Who are punishable? (ii) stating or declaring the nature or value of
goods;

1. Any person infringing any right secured by the provisions (iii) issuing a receipt for goods;
of the law on copyright (like copy or economic rights, moral
(iv) confirming that goods have been loaded;
rights etc.) or of aiding or abetting such infringement;

(b) (i) notifying a person of terms and

2. Any person who at the time when copyright subsists in a conditions of the contract;
work has in his possession an article which he knows, or
(ii) giving instructions to a carrier;
ought to know, to be an infringing copy of the work for the
purpose of:

(a) Selling, letting for hire, or by way of (c) (i) claiming delivery of goods;
trade, offering or exposing for sale, or
hire, the article; (ii) authorizing release of goods;
(b) Distributing the article for purposes of
trade, or for any other purpose to an (iii) giving notice of loss of, or damage to
extent that will prejudice the rights of the goods;
copyright owner in the work; or
(c) Trade (?) exhibit of the articles in public.

(d) giving any other notice or statement in connection

with the performance of the contract;

(e) undertaking to deliver goods to a named person or

a person authorized to claim delivery;
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 455
(f) granting, acquiring, renouncing, surrendering,
AN ACT TO AMEND SECTION TWO THOUSAND SEVEN transferring or negotiating rights in goods;
HUNDRED AND TWO, AND TWO THOUSAND SEVEN
HUNDRED AND THREE OF THE REVISED (g) acquiring or transferring rights and obligations
ADMINISTRATIVE CODE under the contract.

Sec. 2703. Various fraudulent practices against customs

revenues. — Any person who makes or attempts to make
any entry of imported or dutiably exported merchandise by
means of any false or fraudulent invoice, declaration,
affidavit, letter, paper, or by means of any false statement,
written or verbal, or by means of any false or fraudulent
practice whatsoever, or shall be guilty of any willful act or
omission by means whereof the Government of the Republic
of the Philippines might be deprived of the lawful duties, or
any portion thereof, accruing from the merchandise or any
portion thereof, embraced or referred to in such invoice,
declaration, affidavit, letter, paper, or statement, or affected
by such act or omission, shall, for each offense, be punished
by a fine of not less than six hundred pesos but not more
than five thousand pesos and by imprisonment for not less
than six months nor more than two years and, if the
offender is an alien, he may be subject to deportation.
RA 8792
E-Commerce Act
SECTION 26. Transport Documents. — (1) Subject to
paragraph (3), where the law requires that any action
referred to in Section 25 be carried out in writing or by using
a paper document, that requirement is met if the action is
carried out by using one or more electronic data messages or
electronic documents.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement
therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law
simply provides consequences for failing either to carry out
the action in writing or to use a paper document.
(3) If a right is to be granted to, or an obligation is to
be acquired by, one person and no other person, and if the
law requires that, in order to effect this, the right or obligation
must be conveyed to that person by the transfer, or use of, a
paper document, that requirement is met if the right or
obligation is conveyed by using one or more electronic data
messages or electronic documents: Provided, That a reliable
method is used to render such electronic data messages or
electronic documents unique.
(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3), the standard of
reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the purpose

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

64
for which the right or obligation was conveyed and in the light
of all the circumstances, including any relevant agreement.
(5) Where one or more electronic data messages or
electronic documents are used to effect any action in
subparagraphs (f) and (g) of Section 25, no paper document
used to effect any such action is valid unless the use of
electronic data message or electronic document has been
terminated and replaced by the use of paper documents. A
paper document issued in these circumstances shall contain
a statement of such termination. The replacement of
electronic data messages or electronic documents by paper
documents shall not affect the rights or obligations of the
parties involved.
(6) If a rule of law is compulsorily applicable to a
contract of carriage of goods which is in, or is evidenced by,
a paper document, that rule shall not be inapplicable to such
a contract of carriage of goods which is evidenced by one or
more electronic data messages or electronic documents by
reason of the fact that the contract is evidenced by such
electronic data message or electronic documents instead of
by a paper document.
b)The obligation of a service provider as such under
a licensing or other regulatory regime established under
written law; or
c)Any obligation imposed under any written law;
d)The civil liability of any party to the extent that
such liability forms the basis for injunctive relief issued by a
court under any law requiring that the service provider take
or refrain from actions necessary to remove, block or deny
access to any material, or to preserve evidence of a violation
of law.
SECTION 31. Lawful Access. — Access to an electronic
file, or an electronic signature of an electronic data message
or electronic document shall only be authorized and enforced
in favor of the individual or entity having a legal right to the
possession or the use of the plaintext, electronic signature or
file and solely for the authorized purposes. The electronic key
for identity or integrity shall not be made available to any
person or party without the consent of the individual or entity
in lawful possession of that electronic key.

SECTION 30. Extent of Liability of a Service Provider.

SECTION 32. Obligation of Confidentiality. — Except
— Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no person or
for the purposes authorized under this Act, any person who
party shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in respect
obtained access to any electronic key, electronic data
of the electronic data message or electronic document for
message or electronic document, book, register,
which the person or party acting as a service provider as
correspondence, information, or other material pursuant to
defined in Section 5, merely provides access if such liability is
any powers conferred under this Act, shall not convey to or
founded on —
share the same with any other person.

a.) The obligations and liabilities of the parties under the

SECTION 33.
electronic data message or electronic document;
penalized by fine and/or imprisonment, as follows:
b.) The making, publication, dissemination or distribution of
such material or any statement made in such material,
including possible infringement of any right subsisting in or in
relation to such material: Provided, That
i.The service provider does not have actual
knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or circumstances from
which it is apparent, that the making, publication,
dissemination or distribution of such material is unlawful or
infringes any rights subsisting in or in relation to such
material;
ii.The service provider does not knowingly receive
a financial benefit directly attributable to the unlawful or
infringing activity; and
iii.The service provider does not directly commit
any infringement or other unlawful act and does not induce
or cause another person or party to commit any infringement
or other unlawful act and/or does not benefit financially from
the infringing activity or unlawful act of another person or
party: Provided, further, That nothing in this Section shall
affect —
a)Any obligation founded on contract;
Penalties. — The following Acts shall be
a) Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized
access into or interference in a computer
system/server or information and communication
system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter,
steal, or destroy using a computer or other similar
information and communication devices, without
the knowledge and consent of the owner of the
computer or information and communication
system, including the introduction of computer
viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption,
destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic
data messages or electronic documents shall be
punished by a minimum fine of One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and a maximum
commensurate to the damage incurred and a
mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to three
(3) years;
b) Piracy or the unauthorized copying, reproduction,
dissemination, distribution, importation, use,
removal, alteration, substitution, modification,
storage, uploading, downloading, communication,
making available to the public, or broadcasting of
protected material, electronic signature or
copyrighted works including legally protected
sound recordings or phonograms or information
material on protected works, through the use of
telecommunication networks, such as, but not
limited to, the internet, in a manner that infringes
intellectual property rights shall be punished by a
minimum fine of One hundred thousand pesos

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

65
 (P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to
the damage incurred and a mandatory
imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years;
c) Violations of the Consumer Act or Republic Act No.
7394 and other relevant or pertinent laws through
transactions covered by or using electronic data
messages or electronic documents, shall be
penalized with the same penalties as provided in
those laws;
d) Other violations of the provisions of this Act, shall
be penalized with a maximum penalty of One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or six (6) years
imprisonment.
RA 9160
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001, AS
AMENDED BY RA 9194
SECTION 3. Definitions. — For purposes of this Act,
the following terms are hereby defined as follows:
(a) “Covered Institution” refers to:
(1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities,
and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and
affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
(2) insurance companies and all other institutions
supervised or regulated by the Insurance
Commission; and
(3) (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen,
investment houses and other similar
entities managing securities or rendering
services as investment agent, advisor, or
consultant,
(ii) mutual funds, close-end investment
companies, common trust funds, pre-
need companies and other similar
entities,
(iii) foreign exchange corporations,
money changers, money payment,
remittance, and transfer companies and
other similar entities, and
(iv) other entities administering or
otherwise dealing in currency,
commodities or financial derivatives
based thereon, valuable objects, cash
substitutes and other similar monetary
instruments or property supervised or
regulated by Securities and Exchange
Commission.
(b) ‘Covered transaction’ is a transaction in cash or
other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total
amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) within one (1) banking day. (as amended by
RA 9194)
(b-1) ‘Suspicious transactions’ are transactions with
covered institutions, regardless of the amounts involved,
where any of the following circumstances exist:
(1) there is no underlying legal or trade obligation,
purpose or economic justification;
(2) the client is not properly identified;
(3) the amount involved is not commensurate with
the business or financial capacity of the client;
(4) taking into account all known circumstances, it
may be perceived that the client's transaction is
structured in order to avoid being the subject of
reporting requirements under the Act;
(5) any circumstance relating to the transaction
which is observed to deviate from the profile of the
client and/or the client's past transactions with the
covered institution;
(6) the transaction is in any way related to an
unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is
about to be, is being or has been committed; or
(7) any transaction that is similar or analogous to
any of the foregoing.
(c) “Monetary instrument” refers to:
(1) coins or currency of legal tender of the
Philippines, or of any other country;
(2) drafts. checks and notes;
(3) securities or negotiable instruments,
bonds, commercial papers, deposit certificates,
trust certificates, custodial receipts or deposit
substitute instruments, trading orders, transaction
tickets and confirmations of sale or investments
and money marked instruments; and
(4) other similar instruments where title
thereto passes to another by endorsement,
assignment or delivery.
(d) "Offender" refers to any person who commits a
money laundering offense.
(e) "Person" refers to any natural or juridical person.
(f) "Proceeds" refers to an amount derived or realized
from an unlawful activity.
(g) “Supervising Authority” refers to the appropriate
supervisory or regulatory agency, department or office
supervising or regulating the covered institutions enumerated
in Section 3(a).
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
66
(h) “Transaction” refers to any act establishing any
right or obligation or giving rise to any contractual or legal
relationship between the parties thereto. It also includes any
movement of funds by any means with a covered institution.
(i) “Unlawful activity” refers to any act or omission or
series or combination thereof involving or having direct
relation to the following:
(1) Kidnapping for ransom under Art. 267 of
Act 3815, otherwise known as the RPC, as
amended;
(2) Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14, 15,
and 16 of RA 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;
(3) Sect. 3 pars. B, C, E, G, H and I of RA
3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
(4) Plunder under RA 7080, as amended;
(5) Robbery and extortion under Arts. 294,
295, 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the RPC, as
amended;
(6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal
gambling under PD 1602;
(7) Piracy on the high seas under the RPC,
as amended, and PD 532;
(8) Qualified theft under Art 310 of the RPC,
as amended;
(9) Swindling under Art 315 of the RPC, as
amended;
(10) Smuggling under RAs 455 and 1937;
(11) Violations under RA 8792, otherwise
known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000;
(12) Hijacking and other violations under RA
6235; destructive arson and murder, as defined
under the RPC, as amended, including those
perpetrated by terrorists against non-combatant
persons and similar targets;
(13) Fraudulent practices and other violations
under RA 8799, otherwise known as the Securities
Regulation Code of 2000;
(14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature
that are punishable under the penal laws of other
countries.
SECTION 4. Money Laundering Offense. — Money
laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful
activity as herein defined are transacted, thereby making
them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It is
committed by the following:
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument
or property represents, involves, or relates to, the proceeds
of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts to transact said
monetary instrument or property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument
or property involves the proceeds of any unlawful activity,
performs or fails to perform any act as a result of which he
facilitates the offense of money laundering referred to in
paragraph (a) above.
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary instrument
or property is required under this Act to be disclosed and filed
with the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC), fails to do
so.
SECTION 9. (c) Reporting of Covered and Suspicious
Transactions. — Covered institutions shall report to the AMLC
all covered transactions and suspicious transactions within 5
working days from occurrence thereof, unless the Supervising
Authority prescribes a longer period not exceeding 10 working
days.
Should a transaction be determined to be both a covered
transaction and a suspicious transaction, the covered
institution shall be required to report the same as a suspicious
transaction.
When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the
AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and employees
shall not be deemed to have violated RA 1405, as amended;
RA 6426, as amended, RA 8791 and other similar laws, but
are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in
any manner or by any means, to any person, the fact that a
covered or suspicious transaction report was made, the
contents thereof, or any other information in relation thereto.
In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer and
employee of the covered institution shall be criminally liable.
However, no administrative, criminal or civil proceedings,
shall lie against any person for having made a covered or
suspicious transaction report in the regular performance of
his duties in good faith, whether or not such reporting results
in any criminal prosecution under this Act or any other law.
When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the
AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and employees
are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly, in
any manner or by any means, to any person or entity, the
media, the fact that a covered or suspicious transaction report
was made, the contents thereof, or any other information in
relation thereto. Neither may such reporting be published or
aired in any manner or form by the mass media, electronic
mail, or other similar devices. In case of violation thereof, the
concerned officer and employee of the covered institution and
media shall be held criminally liable.
SECTION 14. Penal Provisions. —
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
67
(a) Penalties for the Crime of Money Laundering. The penalty
of imprisonment ranging from 7 to 14 years and a fine of not
less than P3,000,000 but not more than twice the value of the
monetary instrument or property involved in the offense, shall
be imposed upon a person convicted under Section 4(a) of
this Act.
The penalty of imprisonment from 4 to 7 years and a fine of
not less than P1,500,000 but not more than P3,000,000, shall
be imposed upon a person convicted under Section 4(b) of
this Act.
The penalty of imprisonment from 6 months to 4 years or a
fine of not less than P100,000 but not more than P500,000,
or both, shall be imposed on a person convicted under Section
4(c) of this Act.
(b) Penalties for Failure to Keep Records. The penalty
of imprisonment from 6 months to one 1 year or a fine of not
less than P100,000 but not more than P500,000, or both, shall
be imposed on a person convicted under Section 9(b) of this
Act.
(c) Malicious Reporting. Any person who, with malice,
or in bad faith, reports or files a completely unwarranted or
false information relative to money laundering transaction
against any person shall be subject to a penalty of 6 months
to 4 years imprisonment and a fine of not less than P100,000
but not more than P500,000, at the discretion of the court:
Provided, That the offender is not entitled to avail the benefits
of the Probation Law.
If the offender is a corporation, association, partnership or
any juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the
responsible officers, as the case may be, who participated in,
or allowed by their gross negligence, the commission of the
crime. If the offender is a juridical person, the court may
suspend or revoke its license. If the offender is an alien, he
shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be
deported without further proceedings after serving the
penalties herein prescribed. If the offender is a public official
or employee, he shall, in addition to the penalties prescribed
herein, suffer perpetual or temporary absolute disqualification
from office, as the case may be.
Any public official or employee who is called upon to testify
and refuses to do the same or purposely fails to testify shall
suffer the same penalties prescribed herein.
(d) Breach of Confidentiality. The punishment of
imprisonment ranging from 3 to 8 years and a fine of not less
than P500,000 but not more than P1,000,000 shall be
imposed on a person convicted for a violation under Section
9(c).
In the case of a breach of confidentiality that is published or
reported by media, the responsible reporter, writer,
president, publisher, manager and editor-in-chief shall be
liable under this Act.
Bar Questions
R.A. No. 9160 Anti-Money Laundering Act (2005)
Don Gabito, a philanthropist, offered to fund several projects
of the Mayor. He opened an account in the
Mayor’s name and regularly deposited various amounts
ranging from P500,000.00 to P1 Million. From this account,
the Mayor withdrew and used the money for constructing
feeder roads, barangay clinics, repairing schools and for all
other municipal projects. It was subsequently discovered
that Don Gabito was actually a jueteng operator and the
amounts he deposited were proceeds from his jueteng
operations. What crime/s were committed? Who are
criminally liable? Explain. (6%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Don Gabito violated the Anti-Money Laundering Act (Sec. 4,
R.A. No. 9160) for knowingly transacting money as property
which involves or relates to the proceeds of an unlawful
activity such as jueteng. In addition, he may be prosecuted
for liability as ajueteng operator. (R.A. No. 9287) The mayor
who allowed the opening of an account in his name is
likewise guilty for violation of the AMLA. He, knowing that
the money instrument or property involves the proceeds of
an unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act
which results in the facilitation of money laundering.
R.A. 8203
Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs
What are counterfeit drugs?
Counterfeit drug/medicine refers to medicinal
products:
 with the correct ingredients but not in the amounts as
provided hereunder,
 wrong ingredients,
 without active ingredients,
 with insufficient quantity of active ingredient,
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
68
 which results in the reduction of the drug's safety,
efficacy, quality, strength or purity. It is a drug which is
deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with respect to
identity and/or source or with fake packaging, and can apply
to both branded and generic products. It shall also refer to:
the drug itself, or the container or labeling thereof or any part
of such drug, container or labeling bearing without
authorization the trademark, trade name or other
identification mark or imprint or any likeness to that
which is owned or registered in the Bureau of Patent,
Trademark and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) in the
name of another natural or juridical person;
a drug product refilled in containers by unauthorized persons
if the legitimate labels or marks are used;
an unregistered imported drug product, except drugs
brought in the country for personal use as confirmed and
justified by accompanying medical records; and
a drug which contains no amount of, or a different active
ingredient, or less than eighty percent (80%) of the
active ingredient it purports to possess, as distinguished
from an adulterated drug including reduction or loss of
efficacy due to expiration.
What are the prohibited acts under the law?
1. The manufacture, sale, offering for sale, donation,
distribution, trafficking, brokering, exportation,
or importation or possession of counterfeit drugs.
The presence or availability of such counterfeit drugs
within the premises of any entity engaged in the sale,
manufacture or distribution of drugs and/or
pharmaceutical products or in a private residence, or in
public or private vehicle, or in the premises not covered
by a valid license to operate from the Bureau, shall
constitute a prima facie evidence of violation of this
Act.
This presumption shall not apply to the legitimate
owners of trademarks, trade names or other identifying
marks, or the legitimate or authorized representatives or
agents of such owners, who have in their possession
counterfeit drugs which bear the trademarks, trade
names or marks if they can show the sales invoices or
official receipts evidencing their purchase from a
drugstore, manufacturer or distributor suspected by
them of dealing in counterfeit drugs involving the
trademarks, trade names and other similar identifying
marks registered in their names. Such counterfeit
products shall be reported and immediately turned over
to the Bureau.
Compliance with the preceding proviso shall be made
within a reasonable period from the date of purchase of
such counterfeit drugs as indicated in the sales invoice,
official receipt, or other similar documents
abovementioned to the time the counterfeit drugs are
reported and turned over to the Bureau.
2. Possession of any such counterfeit drugs.
However, any person found in possession of counterfeit
drugs in violation of this subsection, shall be excepted
from liability under the provisions of this Act after:
presentation of sales invoices, official receipts, or other
legally acceptable documents evidencing his
purchase thereof from a drugstore, distributor,
manufacture, hospital pharmacy or dispensary, or
any other person or place duly licensed to sell
and/or dispense drugs or medicines, and indicating
therein the batch and lot numbers, as well as the
expiry dates such drugs; or
presentation of certificates and other documents
evidencing the importation or exportation of the
counterfeit drugs found in his possession as
required by existing laws including those
documents required in the preceding paragraph
covering the commercial transactions involving
counterfeit drugs.
In both cases, the subject counterfeit must not on
their face, appear to be as such, or do not bear any
marking or any patently unusual characteristic
sufficient to arouse the suspicion of a reasonable
and prudent person that such drugs are counterfeit.
Furthermore, the amount or volume of counterfeit
drugs held is such that it does not negate or is
inconsistent with the averment that the same are
for personal use, notwithstanding the presentation
by the possession of medical records and other
similar documents accompanying and justifying the
use of such drugs.
3. Forging, counterfeiting, simulating or falsely
representing, or without proper authority, using
any mark, stamp, tag, label or other identification mark
or device authorized or required by Republic Act No.
3720, as amended, and/or the regulations promulgated
under this Act.
4. Photocopying, duplicating, altering, printing,
transferring, obliterating or removing the
approved label or any part thereof, lawfully
belonging to another person, for the purpose of using
such label or a part thereof on any counterfeit drug.
That if the person who committed any of the acts
enumerated in this paragraph and the person who used
the labels produced thereby are not one and the same
person and the former had knowledge of the purpose for
which the labels are intended, the former shall also be
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
69
 liable under this Act notwithstanding the failure of the
latter to achieve the intended purpose; and
5. Making, selling, or concealing any punch, dye,
plate or any other equipment or instrument
designed to print, imprint or reproduce the
trademark, trade name or other identifying mark
of another registered producer or any likeness thereof,
upon any drug product or device or its container or label
without authority from the legitimate owners of the
trademark or trade name.
Who are liable?
a) the manufacturer, exporter or importer of the counterfeit
drugs and their agents. The agents shall be liable only
upon proof of actual or constructive knowledge that the
drugs are counterfeit;
b) the seller, distributor, trafficker, broker or donor and
their agents, upon proof of actual or constructive
knowledge that the drugs sold, distributed, offered or
donated are counterfeit drugs;
c) the possessor of counterfeit drugs as provided in Section
4 (b) hereof;
d) the manager, operator or lessee of the laboratory
facilities used in the manufacture of counterfeit drugs;
e) the owner, proprietor, administrator or manager of the
drugstore, hospital pharmacy or dispensary, laboratory
or other outlets or premises where the counterfeit drug
is found who induces, causes or allows the commission
of any act herein prohibited;
f) the registered pharmacist of the outlet where the
counterfeit drug is sold or found who, sells or dispenses
such drug to a third party and who has actual or
constructive knowledge that said drug is counterfeit; and
g) should the offense be committed by a juridical person,
the president, general manager, the managing partner,
chief operating officer or the person who directly
induces, causes or knowingly allows the commission of
the offense shall be penalized.
Title Five
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM
& OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
RA 9165
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002
Acts Punished:
1. Importation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals
 Maximum penalty for any person who commits this act
through the use of
a. diplomatic passport / facilities
b. official status intended to facilitate unlawful entry
2. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and / or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals
 Even brokers held criminally liable
 12 years and 1 day to 20 years to protector or "coddlers"
 Maximum penalty if :
a. done within 100 meters from the school
b. use of minors or mentally incapacitated persons as
runners, couriers, and messengers
c. victim of the offense is a minor or mentally
incapacitated individual
d. drug was proximate cause of the death
e. person who organizes, manages, or finances such
activities
3. Maintenance of den, dive or resort where dangerous drugs
and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals are
used or sold.
4. Being employees of the den, dive or resort:
a. Any employee of a den, dive, or resort who is aware of
the nature of the place as such
b. Any person who, not being included in the provisions
of the next preceding paragraph, is aware of the nature
of the place as such and shall knowingly visit the same
5. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals
 Prima facie proof of manufacturing: presence of any
controlled precursor and essential chemical or laboratory
equipment in the clandestine laboratory
 Aggravating circumstance:
a. any phase of the manufacturing process was
conducted in the presence or with the help of minors
b. any phase of the manufacturing process was
established or undertaken within 100 meters of a
residential, business, church or school premises
c. any clandestine laboratory was secured or protected
with booby traps
d. any clandestine laboratory was concealed with
legitimate business operations
e. any employment of a practitioner, chemical engineer,
public official or foreigner
6. Illegal diversion of any controlled precursor and essential
chemical
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
70
7. Manufacture or delivery of equipment, instrument,
apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs
and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals
 Includes instruments that will be used to inject, ingest,
inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a
dangerous drug
8. Possession of dangerous drug
9. Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and other
paraphernalia for dangerous drugs
 Possession of such equipment shall be prima facie evidence
that the possessor has used the dangerous drug (violation
of Section 15 of the Act.
10. Possession of dangerous drugs during parties, social
gatherings or meetings will merit maximum penalty
regardless of quantity and purity
 Test: In the proximate company of at least two persons
11. Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus for
dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings, or
meetings merit maximum penalty
12. Use of dangerous drugs
Penalties:
1st offense: minimum of 6 months rehabilitation in a
government center
2nd offense: 6 yrs and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment
 This section will not apply where the person tested positive
is also found to have in his possession dangerous drugs
(section on "possession of dangerous drugs" will apply)
13. Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous drugs
14. Maintenance and keeping of original records of transactions
on dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors and
essential chemicals
15. Unnecessary prescription of dangerous drugs
16. Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs
Other pertinent provisions:
 A person charged under this act shall not be allowed to avail
of the provision on plea-bargaining
 A person convicted of drug trafficking or pushing cannot
avail of the privilege granted by the Probation Law
 Planting of evidence: Planting of any dangerous drugs and
/ or controlled precursors and essential chemicals shall
suffer the penalty of death
 A positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall be a
qualifying aggravating circumstance in the commission of
a crime by an offender
 Attempt or Conspiracy: any attempt or conspiracy to
commit the following shall be punishable:
1. Importation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals
2. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and
/ or controlled precursors and essential chemicals
3. Maintenance of den, dive or resort where dangerous
drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals are used or sold
4. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals
5. Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous
drugs
Suson v. People (2006)
The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record will not
necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of the prohibited
drug is adequately proven. In the case at bar, SPO2 Patiño, the
poseur-buyer, testified on the circumstances regarding the sale of the
shabu for which petitioners were charged and convicted. Settled is
the rule that in the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the
absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the evidence for
the prosecution as long as the sale of dangerous drugs is adequately
proven and the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the
court.
People v. Nicolas (2007)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
71
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or test-buy
does not affect the legality of the buy-bust operation. There is no
textbook method of conducting buy-bust operations. The Court has
left to the discretion of police authorities the selection of effective
means to apprehend drug dealers. A prior surveillance, much less a
lengthy one, is not necessary especially where the police operatives
are accompanied by their informant during the
entrapment. Flexibility is a trait of good police work. In the case at
bar, the buy-bust operation was conducted without need of any prior
surveillance for the reason that the informant accompanied the
policemen to the person who is peddling the dangerous drugs.
Bar Questions
Dangerous Drug Act: Plea-Bargaining (2005)
Obie Juan is suspected to have in his possession an
unspecified amount of methamphetamine hydrochloride
or―shabu‖. An entrapment operation was conducted by
police officers, resulting in his arrest following the discovery
of 100 grams of the said dangerous drug in his possession.
He was subjected to a drug test and was found positive for
the use of marijuana, another dangerous drug. He was
subsequently charged with two crimes: Violation of
Section 11, Article II of RA 9165 for the possession of
―shabu‖ and violation of Section 15, Article II of RA 9165
for the use of marijuana. (5%)
a) Are the charges proper? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. The use of dangerous drugs is not committed when Obie
Juan was also found to have in his possession such quantity
of any dangerous drug. (See s. 11 and 16, RA. No. 9165)
b) So as not to be sentenced to death, Obie Juan
offers to plead guilty to a lesser offense. Can he do
so? Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. Obie Juan cannot plead guilty to a lower offense as it is
prohibited under the law. (Section 23, RA. No. 9165) Any
person charged under any provision of this Act regardless of
the imposable penalty shall not be allowed to avail of the
provision on plea-bargaining.
Dangerous Drugs Act (1998)
Superintendent Al Santiago, Chief of the Narcotics
Division, Western Police District, received information that a
certain Lee Lay of-No. 8 Tindalo Street, Tondo,
Manila is a member of the 14K Gang selling shabu and
marijuana. SPOl Lorenzo and SPO3 Peralta were instructed
to conduct surveillance and buy-bust operations against Lay.
Their informant contacted Lay and a meeting was arranged
at T. Pinpin Restaurant at
2:00 in the afternoon on February 14, 1993. SPO1 Lorenzo
and SPO3 Peralta, acting as poseur-buyers, purchased from
Lay 10 sticks of marijuana and paid P500. Later, Lay agreed
to sell to them one kilo of dried marijuana fruiting tops
which he gave them at his residence. The policemen
arrested Lay and a search was conducted. Found were 356
grams of marijuana seeds, 932 grams of marijuana fruiting
tops and 50 sticks of marijuana cigarettes. What offense or
offenses did Lay commit? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Lay committed the offenses of illegal selling of dangerous
drugs and illegal possession of dangerous drugs which
should be made subject of separate informations. The crime
of illegal selling of dangerous drugs is committed as regards
the 10 sticks of marijuana and as regards the one (1) kilo of
dried marijuana fruiting tops, which should be subject of two
(2) separate informations because the acts were committed
at different times and in different places. The crime of Illegal
possession of dangerous drugs is committed as regards the
marijuana seeds, marijuana fruiting tops and marijuana
cigarettes which are not the subject of the sale. Another
information shall be filed for this.
Dangerous Drugs Act (2006)
After receiving reliable information that Dante Ong, a
notorious drug smuggler, was arriving on PAL Flight NO. PR
181, PNP Chief Inspector Samuel Gamboa formed a group of
anti-drug agents. When Ong arrived at the airport, the group
arrested him and seized his attache case. Upon inspection
inside the Immigration holding area, the attaché case
yielded 5 plastic bags of heroin weighing 500 grams. Chief
Inspector Gamboa took the attache case and boarded him in
an unmarked car driven by PO3 Pepito Lorbes. On the way
to Camp Crame and upon nearing White Plains corner EDSA,
Chief Inspector Gamboa ordered PO3 Lorbes to stop the car.
They brought out the drugs from the case in the trunk and
got 3 plastic sacks of heroin. They then told Ong to alight
from the car. Ong left with the 2 remaining plastic sacks of
heroin. Chief Inspector Gamboa advised him to keep silent
and go home which the latter did. Unknown to them, an NBI
team of agents had been following them and witnessed the
transaction. They arrested Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3
Lorbes. Meanwhile, another NBI team followed Ong and
likewise arrested him. All of them were later charged. What
are their respective criminal liabilities? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Chief Inspector Gamboa and PO3 Pepito Lorbes who
conspired in taking the attache case are liable for the
following crimes defined under RA. 9165: a) Sec. 27 for
misappropriation or failure to account for the confiscated or
seized dangerous drugs. b) Sec. 4 in relation to Sec. 3(ee)
for their acts as protector/coddler of Dante Ong who
imported drugs
In addition, by allowing Ong to escape prosecution for illegal
importation or illegal transportation of dangerous drugs,
where the penalty is life imprisonment to death, they are
also liable for qualified bribery under Art. 211-A of the
Revised Penal Code.
With respect to Dante Ong, he is guilty of illegal importation
of dangerous drugs under Sec. 4, R.A. 9165, if PR 181 is an
international flight. If PR 181 is a domestic flight, he is liable
for violation of Sec. 5, RA. 9165 for illegal transportation of
dangerous drugs.
Dangerous Drugs Act (6425); Marked Money (2000)
At about 9 o'clock in the morning, a Narcom Group laid a
plan to entrap and apprehend A, a long suspected drug
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
72
dealer, through a "buy-bust" operation. At the appointed
time, the poseur-buyer approached A who was then with B.
A marked P100 bill was handed over to A who in turn, gave
the poseur-buyer one (1) tea bag of marijuana leaves. The
members of the team, who were then positioned behind
thick leaves, closed in but evidently were not swift enough
since A and B were able to run away. Two days later, A was
arrested in connection with another incident. It appears that
during the operations, the police officers were not able to
seize the marked money but were able to get possession of
the marijuana tea bag. A was subsequently prosecuted for
violation of Section 4, Article II of Republic Act No. 6425,
otherwise known as the Dangerous Drugs Act, During the
trial, the marked money was not presented. Can A be held
liable? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. A can be held liable. The absence of the marked money
will not create a hiatus in the prosecution's evidence as long
as the sale of the dangerous drugs is adequately proven and
the drug subject of the transaction is presented before the
court. There was a perfected contract of sale of the drug
(People vs. Ong Co, 245 SCRA 733; People vs. Zervoulakos,
241 SCRA 625).
Dangerous Drugs Act (6425); Plea Bargaining (1998)
Edgardo was charged with importation of prohibited drugs in
an information filed with the Regional Trial Court of
Kalookan City on June 4, 1994. The offense is punishable by
reclusion perpetua to death. Can Edgardo avail of plea-
bargaining? [2%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Edgardo cannot avail of plea-bargaining because the
imposable penalty for his violation of the Dangerous Drugs
Act (R.A. No. 6425. as amended) is reclusion perpetua to
death. Section 20-A expressly provides that plea-bargaining
shall not be allowed where the imposable penalty for the
violation of said law is reclusion perpetua to death. (Sec. 20-
A, R.A. No. 6425, as amended).
Dangerous Drugs Act; Criminal Intent to Posses
(2002)
A and his fiancee B were walking in the plaza when they met
a group of policemen who had earlier been tipped off that A
was in possession of prohibited drugs. Upon seeing the
policemen and sensing that they were after him, A handed a
sachet containing shabu to his fiancee B, telling her to hide
it in her handbag. The policemen saw B placing the sachet
inside her handbag. If B was unaware that A was a drug
user or pusher or that what was inside the sachet given to
her was shabu, is she nonetheless liable under the
Dangerous Drugs Act? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, B will not be criminally liable because she is unaware
that A was a drug user or pusher or of the content of the
sachet handed to her by A, and therefore the criminal intent
to possess the drug in violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act
is absent. There would be no basis to impute criminal
liability to her in the absence of animus possidendi.
Dangerous Drugs Act; Plea-Bargaining (2004)
MNO, who is 30 years old, was charged as a drug pusher
under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002.
During pre-trial, he offered to plead guilty to the lesser
offense concerning use of dangerous drugs. Should the
Judge allow MNO's plea to the lesser offense? Explain
briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the Judge should not allow MNO's plea to a lesser
offense, because plea-bargaining in prosecutions of drug-
related cases is no longer allowed by Rep. Act No.
9165, the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002,
regardless of the imposable penalty.

Dangerous Drugs Act; Consummation of Sale (1996)

Pat. Buensuceso, posing as a buyer, approached Ronnie, a

Title Six
suspected drug pusher, and offered to buy P300 worth of
shabu. Ronnie then left, came back five minutes later and CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
handed Pat, Buensuceso an aluminum foil containing the
shabu. However, before Pat, Buensuceso was able to deliver
the marked money to Ronnie, the latter spotted a policeman
at a distance, whom Ronnie knew to be connected with the Chapter One. Gambling and Betting
Narcotics Command of the Police. Upon seeing the latter,
Ronnie ran away but was arrested thirty minutes later by
other policemen who pursued him. Under the circumstances, Article 195. Gambling
would you consider the crime of sale of a prohibited drug
already consummated? Explain. Article 196. Importation, sale and possession of lottery

SUGGESTED ANSWER: tickets or advertisements

Yes, the sale of prohibited drug is already consummated Article 197. Betting in sport contests (REPEALED)
although the marked money was not yet delivered. When
Ronnie handed the aluminum foil containing the shabu to Article 198. Illegal betting on horse races
Pat. Buensuceso pursuant to their agreed sale, the crime
Article 199. Illegal cockfighting
was consummated. Payment of the consideration is not an
element of requisite of the crime. If ever, the marked money
is only evidentiary to strengthen the case of the prosecution.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

73
 Chapter Two. Offenses against Decency and Good Custom
Article 200. Grave scandal
Article 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications
and exhibitions
Article 202. Vagrancy and prostitution
Article 195. Gambling
Acts punishable:
1. Taking part directly or indirectly in –
a. any game of monte, jueteng, or any other form of
lottery, policy, banking, or percentage game, dog
races, or any other game or scheme the results of
which depend wholly or chiefly upon chance or hazard;
or wherein wagers consisting of money, articles of
value, or representative of value are made; or
b. the exploitation or use of any other mechanical
invention or contrivance to determine by chance the
loser or winner of money or any object or
representative of value;
2. Knowingly permitting any form of gambling to be carried on
in any place owned or controlled by the offender;
3. Being maintainer, conductor, or banker in a game of jueteng
or similar game;
4. Knowingly and without lawful purpose possessing lottery list,
paper, or other matter containing letters, figures, signs or
symbol which pertain to or are in any manner used in the
game of jueteng or any similar game.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1602
Prescribing Stiffer Penalties On Illegal Gambling
Who are punishable?
1. Any person other than those referred to in the succeeding
sub-sections who in any manner, shall directly or indirectly
take part in any illegal or unauthorized activities or games
What are illegal or unauthorized activities or games?
- cockfighting, jueteng, lotteries, games using dice,
card games, games using plastic tiles (mahjong),
mechanical contraptions and devices (slot
machines), races, individual or team contests
where game fixing, point shaving and other
machinations are present, banking or percentage
game
- IN GENERAL: or any other game scheme, whether
upon chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting of
money, articles of value or representative of value
are at stake or made
2. Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of
gambling referred to in the preceding subparagraph to be
carried on in inhabited or uninhabited place or in any building,
vessel or other means of transportation owned or controlled
by him.
3. The maintainer or conductor of the above gambling
schemes.
4. Any person who shall, knowingly and without lawful
purpose in any hour of any day, possess any lottery list,
paper or other matter containing letters, figures, signs or
symbols pertaining to or in any manner used in the games of
jueteng, jai-alai or horse racing bookies, and similar games
of lotteries and numbers which have taken place or about to
take place.
5. Any barangay official who, with knowledge of the
existence of a gambling house or place in his jurisdiction fails
to abate the same or take action in connection therewith.
6. Any security officer, security guard, watchman, private or
house detective of hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures and
the like which have the reputation of a gambling place or
where gambling activities are being held.
Penalty is higher:
1. If the place where gambling is carried on has a
reputation of a gambling place or that prohibited
gambling is frequently carried on therein;
2. If the place is a public or government building or
barangay hall;
3. If the maintainer, conductor or banker of said
gambling schemes is a government official, or
where such government official is the player,
promoter, referee, umpire, judge or coach in case
of game fixing, point shaving and machination.
Very important!!! Informer's reward!!!  Any person
who shall disclose information that will lead to the
arrest and final conviction of the malefactor shall be
rewarded twenty percent (!!!) of the cash money or
articles of value confiscated or forfeited in favor of the
government.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
74
 LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS NO. 816

 Gambling is any game or scheme, whether upon chance or

skill, wherein wagers consisting of money, articles or value What is exempted from the coverage of P.D. 1602?
or representative of value are at stake or made.
 Reason for prohibiting/punishing gambling: to repress and
evil that undermines the social, moral and economic growth The games of domino, bingo, poker when not played with five
of the nation. cards stud, cuajo, pangguingue and mahjong, provided that
 Under P.D. No. 1602, it seems that when the law names they are played as parlor games or for home entertainment;
the games, punishing any person who take part therein, its and Provided Further, That they are not played in places
purpose is to prohibit absolutely those games. habitually used for gambling and the betting is not disguised
 Spectators are not liable in gambling, because they do not to defeat the intent of P.D.No. 1602
take part directly or indirectly.
 Lottery – a scheme for the distribution of prizes by chance
among persons who have paid, or agreed to pay, a valuable
consideration for the chance to obtain a prize.
 Elements of lottery: consideration, chance and prize or
some advantage or inequality in amount or value which is Article 196. Importation, sale and possession of lottery
in the nature of a prize. tickets or advertisements
 There is no lottery when the person gets full value for his
money. Example: a package of cigarette sold at P0.30
each includes a coupon which may allow the buyer to win
a gold watch. This is not lottery, because the player got Acts punishable:
full for his money. The winning of the watch is just a bonus.
 The operation, possession, use and importation of pinball
and slot machines and other similar devices or 1. Importing into the Philippines from any foreign place or port
paraphernalia used for their operation is declared unlawful any lottery ticket or advertisement; or
under P.D. No. 519 which took effect on July 23, 1974. 2. Selling or distributing the same in connivance with the
importer;
3. Possessing, knowingly and with intent to use them, lottery
Knowingly permitting gambling to be carried on in a place owned
tickets or advertisements; or
or controlled by the offender (2nd mode of violating this article)
4. Selling or distributing the same without connivance with the
importer of the same.

Elements:
1. That a gambling game was carried on in an inhabited or
uninhabited place or in any building, vessel, or other means
of transportation.
2. That the place, building, vessel or other means of
transportation is owned or controlled by the offender
3. That the offender permitted the carrying on of such game,
knowing that it is a gambling game.
 The possession of any lottery ticket or advertisement is
prima facie evidence of an intent to sell, distribute or use
the same in the Philippines.
 Must lottery tickets be genuine? There are two views:
o YES. It is not necessary that the tickets be genuine,
as it is enough that they be given the appearance of
lottery tickets
o NO. If lottery tickets are counterfeit, they cannot give
rise to the evil sought to be eradicated.

 The maintainer or conductor in a gambling game are

likewise punished. A maintainer is the person who sets up Article 197. Betting in sports contests – REPEALED BY
and furnishes the means with which to carry on the PD 483
gambling game or scheme. A conductor is the person who
manages or carries on the gambling game or scheme.
 To be prosecuted for possessing a jueteng list, proof that
the game took place or is about to take place is not PD 483
necessary. Such a list naturally pertains to the game of
Penalizing Betting, Game-fixing or Point Shaving in
jueteng and the accused would not keep it in his possession
Sports Contests
but for its connection with such game of jueteng.
 But proof to the contrary is necessary when the jueteng lists
pertain to games played on other dates.
SECTION 1. Definitions. — For purposes of this Decree, the
following terms shall mean and be understood to be as
hereunder indicated:

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

75
 a. Betting — betting money or any object or article of value 1. Betting on horse races during periods not allowed by law;
or representative of value upon the result of any game, 2. Maintaining or employing a totalizer or other device or
races and other sports contest. scheme for betting on races or realizing profit therefrom
b. Game-fixing — any arrangement, combination, scheme during the periods not allowed by law.
or agreement by which the result of any game, races or
sports contests shall be predicted and/or known other
than on the basis of the honest playing skill or ability of When horse races not allowed
the players or participants.
c. Point-shaving — any such arrangement, combination,
scheme or agreement by which the skill or ability of any
player or participant in a game, races or sports contests 1. July 4 (Republic Act No. 137);
to make points or scores shall be limited deliberately in 2. December 30 (Republic Act No. 229);
order to influence the result thereof in favor of one or
other team, player or participant therein.
3. Any registration or voting days (Republic Act No. 180,
d. Game-machinations — any other fraudulent, deceitful, Revised Election Code); and
unfair or dishonest means, method, manner or practice 4. Holy Thursday and Good Friday (Republic Act No. 946).
employed for the purpose of influencing the result of any
game, races or sport contest.
 A totalizer is a machine for registering and indicating the
number and nature of bets made on horse races. The
SECTION 2. Betting, game-fixing, point-shaving or game penalty is higher when this devise is employed.
machination unlawful. — Game-fixing, point-shaving,  Any race held on the same day and at the same place shall
machination, as defined in the preceding section, in be held punishable as a separate offense.
connection with the games of basketball, volleyball, softball,
 If the violation is committed by any partnership,
baseball; chess, boxing bouts, "jai-alai", "sipa", "pelota" and
corporation, or association, the president and the directors
all other sports contests, games or races; as well as betting
or managers shall be deemed to be principals in the offense
therein except as may be authorized by law, is hereby
if they have consented to or knowingly tolerated its
declared unlawful.
commission.
 Horse races may be carried on at any time or place, and
prizes or gifts may be offered, given or paid, to the winner
SECTION 3. Penalty. — Any violation of this Decree, or of in said races, provided it is not accompanied by any betting,
the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance or the use of totalizer or other devices for betting money
herewith, shall be punished in the manner following: on horse races.
a. When the offender is an official, such as promoter,
referee, umpire, judge, or coach in the game, race or
sports contests, or the manager or sponsor of any
participating team, individual or player therein, or
participants or players in such games, races or other Article 199. Illegal cockfighting
sports contests, he shall, upon conviction, be punished
by prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine
of 2,000 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in case of
insolvency, at the discretion of the court. This penalty Acts punishable:
shall also be imposed when the offenders compose a
syndicate of five or more persons.
b. In case of any offender, he shall, upon conviction, be
punished by prision correccional in its medium period 1. Directly or indirectly participating in cockfights, by betting
and a fine of 1,000 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment money or other valuable things, or organizing cockfights at
in case of insolvency at the discretion of the court. which bets are made, on a day other than those permitted
c. When the offender is an official or employee of any by law;
government office or agency concerned with the 2. Directly or indirectly participating in cockfights, by betting
enforcement or administration of laws and regulations money or other valuable things, or organizing such
on sports the penalty provided for in the preceding
cockfights, at a place other than a licensed cockpit.
Section 3 a small be imposed. In addition, he shall be
disqualified from holding any public office or
employment for life. If he is an alien, he may be
deported. P.D. 449

Cockfighting Law of 1974

Article 198. Illegal Betting on horse races SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. —

(b) Cockfighting — shall embrace and mean the commonly

known game or term "cockfighting derby, pintakasi or
Acts punishable: tupada", or its equivalent terms in different Philippine
localities.
(c) Zoning Law or Ordinance — Either both national or local
city or municipal legislation which logically arranges,
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
76
 prescribes, defines and apportions a given political
subdivision into specific land uses as present and future
projection of needs warrant.
(d) Bet Taker or Promoter — A person who calls and takes
care of bets from owners of both gamecocks and those
of other bettors before he orders commencement of the
cockfight and thereafter distributes won bets to the
winners after deducting a certain commission.
(e) Gaffer (Taga Tari) — A person knowledgeable in the art
of arming fighting cocks with gaff or gaffs on either or
both legs.
(f) Referee (Sentenciador) — A person who watches and
oversees the proper gaffing of fighting cocks,
determines the physical condition of fighting cocks while
cockfighting is in progress, the injuries sustained by the
cocks and their capability to continue fighting and
decides and make known his decision by work or
gestures and result of the cockfight by announcing the
winner or declaring a tie or no contest game.
(g) Bettor — A person who participates in cockfights and
with the use of money or other things of value, bets with
other bettors or through the bet taker or promoter and
wins or loses his bet depending upon the result of the
cockfight as announced by the Referee or Sentenciador.
He may be the owner of fighting cock.
SECTION 5. Cockpits and Cockfighting: In General. —
(a) Ownership, Operation and Management of Cockpits. —
Only Filipino citizens not otherwise inhibited by existing
laws shall be allowed to own, manage and operate
cockpits. Cooperative capitalization is encouraged.
(b) Establishment of Cockpits. — Only one cockpit shall be
allowed in each city or municipality, except that in cities
or municipalities with a population of over one hundred
thousand, two cockpits may be established, maintained
and operated.
(c) Cockpits Site and Construction. — Cockpits shall be
constructed and operated within the appropriate areas
as prescribed in Zoning Law or Ordinance. In the
absence of such law or ordinance, the local executives
shall see to it that no cockpits are constructed within or
near existing residential or commercial areas, hospitals,
school buildings, churches or other public buildings.
Owners, lessees, or operators of cockpits which are now
in existence and do not conform to this requirement are
given three years from the date of effectivity of this
Decree to comply herewith. xxx
(d) Holding of Cockfights. — Except as provided in this
Decree, cockfighting shall be allowed only in licensed
cockpits during Sundays and legal holidays and during
local fiestas for not more than three days. It may also
be held during provincial, city or municipal, agricultural,
commercial or industrial fair, carnival or exposition for a
similar period of three days upon resolution of the
province, city or municipality where such fair, carnival or
exposition is to be held, subject to the approval of the
Chief of Constabulary or his authorized representative:
Provided, that, no cockfighting on the occasion of such
fair, carnival or exposition shall be allowed within the
month of a local fiesta or for more than two occasions a
year in the same city or municipality: Provided, further,
that no cockfighting shall be held on December 30 (Rizal
Day), June 12 (Philippine Independence Day),
November 30 (National Heroes Day), Holy Thursday,
Good Friday, Election or Referendum Day and during
Registration Days for such election or referendum.
(e) Cockfighting for Entertainment of Tourists or for
Charitable Purposes. — Subject to the preceding
subsection hereof, the Chief Constabulary or his
authorized representative may also allow the holding of
cockfighting for the entertainment of foreign dignitaries
or for tourists, or for returning Filipinos, commonly
known as "Balikbayan", or for the support of national
fund-raising campaigns for charitable purposes as may
be authorized by the Office of the President, upon
resolution of a provincial board, city or municipal council,
in licensed cockpits or in playgrounds or parks: Provided,
that this privilege shall be extended for only one time,
for a period not exceeding three days, within a year to a
province, city, or municipality.
(f) Other games during cockfights prescribed. — No
gambling of any kind shall be permitted on the premises
of the cockpit or place of cockfighting during cockfights.
The owner, manager or lessee of such cockpit and the
violators of this injunction shall be criminally liable under
Section 8 hereof.
SECTION 7. Cockfighting Officials. — Gaffers, referees or
bet takers or promoters shall not act as such in any cockfight
herein authorized, without first securing a license renewable
every year on their birth month from the city or municipality
where such cockfighting is held. Cities and municipalities may
charge a tax of not more than P20. Only licensed gaffers,
referees, bet takers or promoters shall officiate in all kinds of
cockfighting authorized in this Decree.
SECTION 8. Penal Provisions. — Any violation of the
provisions of this Decree and of the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Chief of Constabulary pursuant thereto
shall be punished as follows:
a. By prision correccional in its maximum period and a fine
of two thousand pesos, with subsidiary imprisonment in
case of insolvency, when the offender is the financier,
owner, manger or operator of a cockpit, or the gaffer,
referee or bet taker in cockfights; or the offender is
guilty of allowing, promoting or participating in any other
kind of gambling in the premises of cockpits during
cockfights.
b. By prision correccional or a fine of not less than P600
nor more than P2,000 or both, such imprisonment and
fine at the discretion of the court, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, in case of any other
offender.
 Permitting gambling of any kind in cockpit is punished
under PD 449.
 The decree does not punish a person attending as a
spectator in a cockfight. To be liable, he must participate
in the cockfight as a bettor.
Article 200. Grave Scandal
Elements:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
77
1. Offender performs an act or acts;
2. Such act or acts be highly scandalous as offending against
decency or good customs;
3. The highly scandalous conduct is not expressly falling within
any other article of this Code; and
4. The act or acts complained of be committed in a public place
or within the public knowledge or view.
 Grave scandal consists of acts which are offensive to
decency and good customs which, having been committed
publicly, have given rise to public scandal to persons who
have accidentally witnessed the same.
 Decency means propriety of conduct; proper observance of
the requirements of modesty, good taste etc.
 Customs means established usage, social conventions
carried on by tradition and enforced by social disapproval
of any violation thereof.
 The acts must be those that can cause public scandal
among the persons witnessing them.
 If the act or acts of the offender are punished under article
of the RPC, this article is not applicable.
 The acts must be performed in a public place or within the
public knowledge or view.
 When the acts were performed in a private house and seen
by one person, the crime was not committed.
Bar Questions
Grave Scandal (1996)
Pia, a bold actress living on top floor of a plush
condominium in Makati City sunbathed naked at its
penthouse every Sunday morning. She was unaware that
the business executives holding office at the adjoining tall
buildings reported to office every Sunday morning and, with
the use of powerful binoculars, kept on gazing at her while
she sunbathed. Eventually, her sunbathing became the talk
of the town. 1) What crime, if any, did Pia commit? Explain,
2) What crime, if any, did the business executives commit?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Pia did not commit a crime, the felony closest to making
Pia criminally liable is Grave Scandal, but then such act is
not to be considered as highly scandalous and offensive
against decency and good customs. In the first place, it was
not done in a public place and within public knowledge or
view. As a matter of fact it was discovered by the executives
accidentally and they have to use binoculars to have public
and full view of Pia sunbathing in the nude.
2) The business executives did not commit any crime. Their
acts could not be acts of lasciviousness [as there was no
overt lustful act), or slander, as the eventual talk of the
town, resulting from her sunbathing, is not directly imputed
to the business executives, and besides such topic is not
intended to defame or put Pia to ridicule.
Article 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications
and exhibitions, and indecent shows
Acts punishable:
1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines
openly contrary to public morals;
2. (a) The authors of obscene literature, published with their
knowledge in any form, the editors publishing such
literature; and the owners/operators of the establishment
selling the same;
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs, or any
other place, exhibit indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts,
or shows, it being understood that the obscene literature or
indecent or immoral plays, scenes, acts or shows, whether
live or in film, which are proscribed by virtue hereof, shall
include those which: (1) glorify criminals or condone
crimes; (2) serve no other purpose but to satisfy the market
for violence, lust or pornography; (3) offend any race, or
religion; (4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited
drugs; and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals,
good customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees
and edicts; and
3. Those who shall sell, give away, or exhibit films, prints,
engravings, sculptures, or literature which are offensive to
morals.
 Purpose of the law: to protect the morals of the public..
 This offense in any of the forms mentioned in the article is
committed only when there is publicity.
 ‘openly contrary to public morals’ – the word moral implies
conformity with the generally accepted standards of
goodness or rightness in conduct or character, sometimes
specifically, to sexual conduct.
 The author of obscene literature is liable only when it is
publish with his knowledge. Obscene means offensive to
chastity, decency or delicacy.
 Test of obscenity: whether the tendency of the matter
charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those whose
minds are open to such immoral influences, and into whose
hands such a publication may fall and also whether or not
such publication or act shocks the ordinary and common
sense of men as an indecency.
 Mere nudity in pictures or paintings, not an obscenity. As
regards nude pictures, the proper test is the motive of the
picture, as indicated by it, is pure or impure; or whether it
is naturally calculated to excite impure imaginations.
 The term ‘give away’ necessarily include the act of
exhibiting obscene pictures or literature, because when one
gives away obscene pictures or literature, he has the
intention and purpose of exhibiting or showing the same to
the recipient.
 Pictures with slight degree of obscenity, not used for art’s
sake but for commercial purposes, fall under this article.
 Disposition of prohibited articles:
o Upon conviction of the offender – forfeited in favour of
the government, to be destroyed
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
78
 o When offender is acquitted – forfeited in favour of the
government to be destroyed, after forfeiture
proceedings are conducted by Chief of Constabulary
(PNP)
o Person aggrieved may appeal the forfeiture action to
the Secretary of National Defense for review.
 In case the offender is a government official or employee
who allows the violations, the penalty is imposed in the
maximum period and the accessory penalties shall likewise
be imposed.
 Obscene publications and indecent shows under RA 7610
(please refer to exploitation of minors, Title Nine)
People vs. Kottinger
Postcards of non-Christians inhabitants of the Philippines in their
native dress were questioned to be obscene.
HELD: The SC said that the postcards were not obscene because the
aggregate judgment of the community, and the moral sense of the
people were not shocked by those pictures. They were not offensive
to chastity but merely depicted persons as they actually lived.
People vs. Aparici
A case about a girl dancing hula-hula in the theater making the
audience of males shout “sige muna, sige, nakakalibog!’
HELD: The SC decided that the dance was immoral and indecent using
the reaction of the public as the gauge in the determination of
indecency.
People vs. Padan
This is a case about a “live show” done in Tondo.
HELD: SC said that an actual exhibition of sexual act can have no
redeeming feature- no room for art. Therefore, it is a clear and
unmitigated obscenity. The exhibition was an offense to public morals.
Article 202. Vagrants and prostitutes
Who are vagrants:
1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence, who
has the physical ability to work and who neglects to apply
himself or herself to some lawful calling;
2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public
buildings or places or trampling or wandering about the
country or the streets without visible means of support;
3. Any idle or dissolute person who ledges in houses of ill
fame;
4. Ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate with
prostitutes;
5. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of
other articles of this Code, shall be found loitering in any
inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to another without
any lawful or justifiable purpose;
6. Prostitutes, who are women who, for money or profit,
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct.
 Absence of visible means of support is an essential element
of vagrancy only under the first and second types.
 Loitering around saloons and gambling houses is vagrancy
only when there is evidence of absence of visible means of
support.
 Vagrants under the third and fourth type:
o Dissolute means lax, unrestrained or immoral.
o Maintainer of prostitution house may be punished
under this article.
o Ruffians are brutal, violent lawless persons.
o A pimp is one who provides gratification for the lust of
others.
 Prostitutes are women who HABITUALLY indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, for money or profit.
P.D. 1563
Mendicancy Law of 1978
What is a mendicant?
A mendicant refers to any person (except
those enumerated in section 4 of the law) who has no
visible and legal means of support, or lawful
employment and who is physically able to work but
neglects to apply himself to some lawful calling and
instead uses begging as a means of living.
Those enumerated in section 4, who are not
considered mendicants, are the following:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
79

1. Any infant or child 8 years old and below who is
found begging or is being utilized by a mendicant
for purposes of begging
2. Any minor over 9 years of age under 15 found
begging or is being utilized for purposes of
begging, and who acted with or without
discernment
3. Any person who is found begging and who is
physically or mentally incapable of gainful
occupation
Who are punishable?
1. A mendicant shall, upon conviction, be punished
by a fine not exceeding P500.00 or by
imprisonment for a period not exceeding 2 years
or both at the discretion of the court.
2. A habitual mendicant (one who has been
convicted of mendicancy under this law two or
more times) shall be punished by a fine not
exceeding P1,000.00 or by imprisonment for a
period not exceeding 4 years or both at the
discretion of the court.
3. Parents of exploited infants or minors (those
enumerated under section 4) are punishable
under P.D. 603, unless they are themselves
mendicants.
4. Any person who abets mendicancy by giving
alms directly to mendicants, exploited infants and
minors on public roads, sidewalks, parks and
bridges shall be punished by a fine nor exceeding
P20.00.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10158
AN ACT DECRIMINALIZING VAGRANCY, AMENDING
FOR THIS PURPOSE ARTICLE 202 OF ACT NO. 3815,
AS AMENDED, OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE REVISED
PENAL CODE
SECTION 1. Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby,
amended to read as follows:
“Article 202. Prostitutes; Penalty. – For the purposes of this
article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
prostitutes.
“Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by
this article shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of recidivism, by arresto
mayor in its medium period to prision correctional in its
minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos,
or both, in the discretion of the court.”
Republic Act No. 92808
AN ACT TO INSTITUTE POLICIES TO ELIMINATE
TRAFFICKING IN PERSONS ESPECIALLY WOMEN
AND CHILDREN, ESTABLISHING THE NECESSARY
INSTITUTIONAL MECHANISMS FOR THE
PROTECTION AND SUPPORT OF TRAFFICKED
PERSONS, PROVIDING PENALTIES FOR ITS
VIOLATIONS, AND FOR OTHER
Trafficking In Persons means:
A. the recruitment, transportation, transfer or harboring, or
receipt of persons with or without the victim’s consent or
knowledge, within or across national borders by means of
threat or use of force, or other forms of coercion, abduction,
fraud, deception, abuse of power or of position, taking
advantage of the vulnerability of the person, or, the giving
or receiving of payments or benefits to achieve the consent
of a person having control over another person for the
purpose of exploitation which includes at a minimum, the
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of
sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
servitude or the removal or sale of organs. It is any form of
unlawful activity the subject of which is the
(a) any form of sexual exploitation of a person
(b) forced labor or services or slavery
(c) servitude
(d) removal or sale of human organs
B. The recruitment, transportation, transfer, or harboring or
receipt of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be
considered as “trafficking in persons” even if it does not
involve any of the means set forth in the preceding
paragraph
The following are the acts punished:
A. To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide, or receive
a person by any means for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage
*Debt bondage- the act of pledging of personal services or
labor by the debtor or of any person under his control as
security or payment of a debt when the length and nature of
services is not clearly defined or when the value of the
services as reasonable assessed is not applied toward the
liquidation of the debt
B. To introduce or match for money or profit or any other
consideration, any person or Filipina woman to a foreign
national for the same purposes or exploitation.
C. To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for said
purposes
D. To undertake or organize sex tours and travel plans
E. To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or
pornography
F. To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for said
purposes
G. To recruit, hire, adopt or abduct, by any unlawful means,
for the purposes of removal or sale of organs of a person
H. To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed
activities
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
80
 Article 217. Malversation of public funds

Title Seven Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to render

accounts
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Article 219. Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts before leaving the country

Chapter One. Preliminary Provisions Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property

Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or

property
Article 203. Who are public officers
Article 222. Officers included in the preceding
provisions

Chapter Two. Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office

Chapter Five. Infidelity of Public Officers

Section One – Dereliction of duty

Section One – Infidelity in the custody of prisoners
Article 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion
Article 205. Judgment rendered through negligence
Article 224. Evasion through negligence
Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order
Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the
Article 207. Malicious Delay in the administration of
custody of a person not a
justice
public officer
Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence &
tolerance Section Two – Infidelity in the custody of documents
Article 209. Betrayal of trust by attorney – revelation Article 226. Removal, concealment, or destruction of
of secrets documents

Article 227. Officer breaking seal

Section Two – Bribery Article 228. Opening of closed documents
Article 210. Bribery

Article 211. Indirect bribery

Section Three – Revelation of secrets
Article 211-A. Qualified bribery Article 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer
Article 212. Corruption of public officials Article 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private
individual

Chapter Three. Frauds and Illegal Exactions and

Transactions Chapter Six. Other Offenses or Irregularities by Public
Officers

Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and

similar offenses. Section One – Disobedience, refusal of assistance and
Article 214. Other Frauds maltreatment of prisoners

Article 231. Open disobedience

Article 215. Prohibited Transactions
Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior officer,
Article 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a
public officer when said order was suspended by inferior officer

Article 233. Refusal of assistance

Chapter Four. Malversation of Public Funds or Property Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

81
 Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners
Section Two – Anticipation, prolongation and
abandonment of the duties and powers by public office
Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office
Article 237. Prolonging the performance of duties and
Powers
Article 238. Abandonment of office or position
Section Three – Usurpation of powers and unlawful
appointments
Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers
Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions
Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions
Article 242. Disobeying request for disqualification
Article 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to
any judicial authority
Article 244. Unlawful appointments
Section Four – Abuses against chastity
Article 245. Abuses against chastity - Penalties
Article 203. Who are public officers
Requisites to be a public officer:
1. Taking part in the performance of public functions in the
government;
or
Performing in said government or in any of its branches
public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate official,
or any rank or class;
2. His authority to take part in the performance of public
functions or to perform public duties must be -
a. By direct provision of the law;
b. By popular election; or
c. By appointment by competent authority.
 Embraces every public servant from highest to lowest.
 Laborer, unless temporarily performs functions of a public
officer, is not a public officer.
Bar Questions
Public Officers; definition (1999)
Who are public officers? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Public Officers are persons who, by direct provision of
the law, popular election or appointment by competent
authority, takes part in the performance of public
functions in the Government of the Philippines, or
performs in said Government or in any of its branches
public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate
official, of any rank or class (Art. 203, RPC)
Malfeasance and Misfeasance in office
 Misfeasance is the improper performance of some act
which might be lawfully done
 Arts. 204-207 are misfeasances on office that a judge
can commit
 Malfesance is the performance of an act which ought not
to be done
 Arts. 210-211 are malfeasances in office that a public
officer can commit
 Nonfeasance is the ommission of some act which ought
to be performed
 Art. 208 is a nonfeasance
 Arts. 204-209 are crimes under dereliction of duty
Article 204. Knowingly render unjust judgment
1. Offender is a judge;
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for
decision;
3. Judgment is unjust;
4. The judge knows that his judgment is unjust.
 Unjust judgment is the final determination and
consideration of a court of competent jurisdiction upon the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
82
 matters submitted to it which is contrary to law or is not
supported by evidence or both.
 When rendered knowingly – An unjust judgment must be
made deliberately and maliciously (from error, ill-will,
revenge or bribery); thus no liability incurs for a mere error
in good faith.
 There must be evidence that the judge knew that his
judgment is unjust
Article 205. Judgment rendered through negligence
1. Offender is a judge;
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for
decision;
3. The judgment is manifestly unjust;
4. It is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
 Manifestly unjust judgment is one so manifestly contrary
to law that even a person having a meager knowledge of
the law cannot doubt the injustice
 Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment without
proof of bad faith, or ill motive or improper consideration
is not punishable.
Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order
1. Offender is a judge;
2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order or
decree; or
b. Rendering a manifestly unjust interlocutory order or
decree through inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
 Interlocutory order is a court order between the
commencement and the end of a suit or action and which
decides some point or matter but which however is not a
final decision of the matter in issue.
Article 207. Malicious Delay in the administration of
justice
1. Offender is a judge;
2. There is a proceeding in his court;
3. He delays in the administration of justice;
4. The delay is malicious, that is, with deliberate intent to
inflict damage on either party in the case. (malice must be
proven)
Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence &
tolerance (PREVARICACION)
Acts Punishable:
1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution against
violators of the law;
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses.
Elements of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses
1. Offender is a public officer or officer of the law who
has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to prosecute,
offenses;
2. There is a dereliction of the duties of his office, that is,
knowing the commission of the crime, he does not cause
the prosecution of the criminal, or knowing that a crime is
about to be committed, he tolerates its commission;
3. Offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor the
violator of the law.
 Negligence here means the neglect of the duties of his
office by maliciously failing to move the prosecution and
punishment of the delinquent. Malice is an important
element.
 Officer of the law includes all those who by reason of the
position held by them are duty bound to cause the
prosecution and punishment of the offenders; Public
officer extends to those officers of the prosecution
department whose duty is to institute criminal proceedings
for felonies upon being informed of their perpetration.
 Fiscal who knows that there is sufficient evidence to secure
the conviction of the accused but drops the case is liable
and punishable under Art. 206. But the fiscal is under no
compulsion to file the corresponding complaint where he
is not convinced that the evidence gathered would warrant
the filing of an action in court.
 Crime committed by the law violator must be first proved
before conviction for dereliction.
 Liability of public officer who, having the duty of
prosecuting the offender, harbored, concealed or assisted
the escape of the latter is that of the principal in the crime
defined and penalized under Art 208
 Not applicable to revenue officers
Article 209. Betrayal of trust by attorney -revelation of
secrets
Acts punishable:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
83

1. Causing damage to his client, either-
a. By any malicious breach of professional duty;
b. By inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
Note: When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of his
employment or inexcusable negligence or ignorance, there
must be damage to his client.
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him in
his professional capacity;
Note: Damage is not necessary
3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the same
case, without the consent of his first client, after having
undertaken the defense of said first client of after having
received confidential information from said client.
Note: If the client consents to the attorney’s taking the
defense of the other party, there is no crime.
 There is no solicitor or procurador judicial under the Rules
of Court. (procurador judicial – a person who had some
practical knowledge of law and procedure, but not a
lawyer, and was permitted to represent a party in a case
before the inferior courts)
Article 210. Direct Bribery
Acts punishable:
1. Agreeing to perform, or performing, in consideration of any
offer, promise, gift or present - an act constituting a crime,
in connection with the performance of his official duties;
2. Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an act
which does not constitute a crime, in connection with the
performance of his official duty;
3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing something
which it is his official duty to do, in consideration of gift or
promise.
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer within the scope of Article 203;
2. Offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a gift or
present by himself or through another;
3. Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present
received by the public officer -
a. With a view to committing some crime; or
b. In consideration of the execution of an act which does
not constitute a crime, but the act must be unjust; or
c. To refrain from doing something which it is his official
duty to do.
4. The act which offender agrees to perform or which he
executes be connected with the performance of his official
duties.
 For the purpose of punishing bribery, the temporary
performance of public functions is sufficient to constitute a
person a public officer.
 The provisions of this article are made applicable to
assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim commissioners,
experts or any other persons performing public duties.
 Gift is either voluntarily offered by a private person or
solicited by the public officer, it may be received personally
or thru intermediary.
 Gift or present need not actually be received by the public
officer, as an accepted offer or promise of gift is sufficient.
 If there is only an offer of gift or promise to give something,
the offer or promise must be accepted by the public officer
to be liable under this article. If not accepted, only the
person offering is liable under Article 212.
 It must be of some value or capable of pecuniary
estimation.
 A promise to give gift to, and a promise to commit an
unlawful act by, a public officer will be sufficient under Art.
210 [1]
 Direct bribery under Art.210 [2] has the same elements as
Art 210 [1] but act intended by public officer does not
amount to a crime.
 Direct bribery under Art 210 [2] acceptance of the gift and
the accomplishment of act is necessary.
 The commission of Art 210 [3] is by refraining from doing
something which pertains to a public officer’s official duty.
Prevaricacion (Art 208) is committed the same way. But
they differ in that in ART. 210 [3] the offender refrained
from doing his official duty in consideration of a gift
received or promised. This is not necessary in Art. 208.
Manipon vs. Sandiganbayan
Manipon, a deputy sheriff assigned to execute the decision of the labor
arbiter ordering Harry Dominguez, a building contractor to pay the
balance of their work contract. He sent a notice to the Comtrust Bank
in Baguio City garnishing the bank accounts of Dominguez. The bank
agreed to hold the accounts. Later on Dominguez sought Manipon's help
in the withdrawal of the garnished account. Manipon told Dominguez
that he "can remedy the withdrawal so they will have something for
the New Year." Dominguez interpreted this to mean that Manipon
would withdraw the garnished amount for a consideration. Manipon
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
84
contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting him of direct
bribery, in not giving credence to the defense theory that there was
novation of the money judgment.
HELD: It is very strange indeed that for such an important agreement
that would be a final judgment, no one took the bother of putting it
down or paper. Of course Manipon would have us believe that there
was no need for it because he trusted Dominguez and Tabek.
And yet did he not also claim that Dominguez had framed him up
because of a grudge? And if there was really an agreement to alter the
judgment, why did he not inform the labor arbiter about it considering
that it was the labor arbiter who had issued the order of execution?
Manipon could not give satisfactory explanations because there was no
such agreement in the first place.
Dacumos vs. Sandiganbayan
Dacumos was a BIR revenue examiner when he offered to settle the
tax liability of R. Revilla Interiors by pulling out its assessments papers
from the office of the BIR Commissioner and procuring a tax clearance.
For such service, he would require a fee of P35,000.00. Samia, the
manager of the firm, pretended to go along with him but reported the
matter to the National Bureau of Investigation, which arranged an
entrapment. Dacumos was caught and convicted of direct bribery. He
argues that he could not have promised to remove the assessment
papers from the Commissioner's office as he had no access to that
place.
HELD: The implausibility of his promises does not mean they were not
made or that they did not appear to be credible, coming as they did
from one with his long experience in the BIR and appeared to know his
way around. The Court finds it especially remarkable that he met
Samia at a private place instead of his office at the BIR, considering
that they were supposed to be discussing official business and it was
Samia who he says was requesting his assistance. The Court is not
inclined to believe that Samia would be so vindictive as to falsely
incriminate the petitioner with the serious charge of bribery simply
because the petitioner refused to reduce the tax assessment of R.
Revilla Interiors. Samia was not even directly involved in the
assessment.
Article 211. Indirect Bribery
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He accepts gifts;
3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
 Gift is usually given to the public officer in anticipation of
future favor from the public officer
 Essential to Art. 211 is that the public officer must have
accepted the gift or material consideration; that is, the
public officer took the gift offered and considered it as his
personal property.
 There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery
 Indirect bribery is different from direct bribery under Art
210 [2] in that the former the act executed was not unjust
while the former requires that the act be unjust
 Criminal penalty of imprisonment is distinct from the
administrative penalty of separation from judicial service.
Direct bribery Indirect bribery
The public officer receives a gift
There is an agreement There is no such agreement
between the officer and the
gift-giver
The offender agrees to It is unnecessary that the
perform an act or refrains offender should do or
from doing something promise any act as it is
because of the gift or enough that he accepted the
promise gift by reason of his office
Bar Questions
Bribery & Corruption of Public Official (2001)
Deputy Sheriff Ben Rivas received from the RTC Clerk of
Court a Writ of Execution in the case of Ejectment filed by
Mrs. Maria Estrada vs. Luis Ablan. The judgment being in
favor of Estrada, Rivas went to her lawyer's office where he
was given the necessary amounts constituting the sheriffs
fees and expenses for execution in the total amount of
P550.00, aside from P2,000.00 in consideration of prompt
enforcement of the writ from Estrada and her lawyer. The
writ was successfully enforced. a) What crime, if any, did the
sheriff commit? (3%) b) Was there any crime
committed by Estrada and her lawyer and if so, what crime?
(2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) The sheriff committed the crime of Direct Bribery under
the second paragraph of Article 210, Revised Penal Code,
since the P2,000 was received by him "in consideration" of
the prompt enforcement of the writ of execution which is an
official duty of the sheriff to do.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
a) On the premise that even without the P2,000, Sheriff
Ben Rivas had to carry out the writ of execution and not that
he would be implementing the writ only because of the
P2,000.00, the receipt of the amount by said sheriff may be
regarded as a gift received by reason of his office and not as
a "consideration" for the performance of an official duty;
hence, only indirect Bribery would be committed by said
sheriff.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
85
b) On the part of the plaintiff and her lawyer as giver penalized by another law which imposes a higher penalty.
(Sec. 1, P.I). No. 1829)
of the bribe-money, the crime is Corruption of Public

Officials under Article 212, Revised Penal Code.

Article 211-A. Qualified Bribery
Direct Bribery: Infidelity in the Custody of
Documents (2005)

During a PNP buy-bust operation, Cao Shih was arrested for

Elements:
selling 20 grams of methamphetamine hydrochloride (shabu)
to a poseur-buyer. Cao Shih, through an intermediary, paid
Patrick, the Evidence Custodian of the PNP Forensic
Chemistry Section, the amount of P500,000.00 in 1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with law enforcement;
consideration for the destruction by Patrick of the drug. 2. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender who
Patrick managed to destroy the drug. State with reasons has committed a crime;
whether Patrick committed the following crimes: (7%)
3. Offender has committed a crime punishable by reclusion
1.] Direct Bribery; perpetua and/or death;
4. Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting in
SUGGESTED ANSWER: consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present.

Patrick committed the crimes of Direct Bribery and

 Penalty is increased if the public officer asks or demands
Infidelity in the Custody of Documents. When a public
such gift or present.
officer is called upon to perform or refrain from

performing an official act in exchange for a gift, present or

consideration given to him (Art. 210, Revised Penal Code),
the crime committed is direct bribery. Secondly, he Article 212. Corruption by public officials
destroyed the shabu which is an evidence in his official
custody, thus, constituting infidelity in the custody of
documents under Art. 226 of the Revised Penal Code.
Elements:
2.] Indirect bribery;

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Indirect bribery was not committed because he did not
receive the bribe because of his office but in consideration of
a crime in connection with his official duty.
3.] Section 3(e) of RA 3019 (Anti-Graft and
1. Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or presents
to a public officer;
2. The offers or promises are made or the gifts or presents
given to a public officer, under circumstances that will make
the public officer liable for direct bribery or indirect bribery.

Corrupt Practices Act);

 The offender in Art. 212 is the gift-giver or offeror of
SUGGESTED ANSWER: promise, even if the gift was demanded by the public officer
and the offer was not made voluntarily prior to said
See. 3(e), R.A. No. 8019 was not committed because there demand; public officer is not liable unless he accepts the
was no actual injury to the government. When there is no gift or consents to the promise
specific quantified injury, violation is not committed. (Garcia-
Rueda vs Amor, et al., G.R. No. 116938, September 20,
2001)

4.] Obstruction of Justice under PD 1829;

SUGGESTED ANSWER: PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 749

Patrick committed the crime of obstruction of justice
although the feigner penalty imposable on direct bribery or
infidelity in the custody of documents shall be imposed. Sec. Granting Immunity From Prosecution To Givers Of
1 of P.D. No. 1829 refers merely to the imposition of the Bribes And Other Gifts And To Their Accomplices In
higher penalty and does not preclude prosecution for Bribery And Other Graft Cases Against Public Officers
obstruction of justice, even if the same not constitute
another offense. Who may be granted immunity under the Act?

ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
1. Any person who voluntarily gives information about any
Obstruction of Justice is not committed in this case, because violation of:
the act of destroying the evidence in his custody is already

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

86
 - RPC 210 (Direct Bribery), 211 (Indirect Bribery),
and 212 (Corruption of public officials);
- RA 3019
- Sec 345 of the NIRC
- Sec 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code
- other provisions of the said Codes penalizing abuse
or dishonesty on the part of the public officials
concerned; and other laws, rules and regulations
punishing acts of graft, corruption and other forms
of official abuse;
2. AND who willingly testifies against any public official or
employee for such violation
…shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for the
offense with reference to which his information and testimony
were given, and may plead or prove the giving of such
information and testimony in bar of such prosecution.
EVEN IF –
- the case where the information and testimony are
given is against a person who is not a public official
but who is a principal, or accomplice, or accessory
in the commission of any of the above-mentioned
violations; or
- it is the informant who offered or gave the bribe or
gift to the public official or his accomplice for such
gift or bribe-giving.
harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing
the public officer denounced
Presidential Decree No. 46
MAKING IT PUNISHABLE FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
AND EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE, AND FOR PRIVATE
PERSONS TO GIVE, GIFTS ON ANY OCCASION,
INCLUDING CHRISTMAS
 any public official or employee,
 whether of the national or local governments,
 to receive, directly or indirectly,
 and for private persons
 to give, or offer to give, any gift, present or other
valuable thing to any occasion, including Christmas,
 when such gift, present or other valuable thing is given
by reason of his official position,
 regardless of whether or not the same is for past favor
or favors or the giver hopes or expects to receive a
favor or better treatment in the future from the public
official or employee concerned in the discharge of his
official functions.
 Included within the prohibition is the throwing of parties
or entertainments in honor of the official or employees
or his immediate relatives.

What are the conditions for immunity?

1. The information must refer to consummated violations of

any of the above-mentioned provisions of law, rules and
regulations;

2. The information and testimony are necessary for the

conviction of the accused public officer;

3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the

possession of the State;

4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated on its

material points; and

5. The informant or witness has not been previously convicted

of a crime involving moral turpitude.

When will immunity NOT attach?

- If it should turn out subsequently that the

information and/or testimony (1) is false and
malicious or (2) made only for the purpose of

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

87
Republic Act No. 3019
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act

Sec. 2. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, that term

(b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials

and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in the
classified or unclassified or exempt service receiving
compensation, even nominal, from the government as
defined in the preceding subparagraph.

(c) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting directly

or indirectly a gift from a person other than a member
of the public officer's immediate family, in behalf of
himself or of any member of his family or relative within
the fourth civil degree, either by consanguinity or
affinity, even on the occasion of a family celebration or
national festivity like Christmas, if the value of the gift is
under the circumstances manifestly excessive.

(d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons, unless

the context indicates otherwise.

Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In

addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby declared
to be unlawful:

(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public

officer to perform an act constituting a violation of rules
and regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority or an offense in connection with the official
duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be persuaded,
induced, or influenced to commit such violation or
offense.

(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,

present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or for
any other person, in connection with any contract or
transaction between the Government and any other
part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity has
to intervene under the law.

(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,

present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for
himself or for another, from any person for whom the
public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured or
obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government
permit or license, in consideration for the help given or
to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of this
Act.

(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept

employment in a private enterprise which has pending
official business with him during the pendency thereof
or within one year after its termination.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

88
 (e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
apply to officers and employees of offices or government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or
permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request,
without sufficient justification, to act within a reasonable
time on any matter pending before him for the purpose
of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from any person
interested in the matter some pecuniary or material
benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of favoring his
own interest or giving undue advantage in favor of or
discriminating against any other interested party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any contract
or transaction manifestly and grossly disadvantageous
to the same, whether or not the public officer profited or
will profit thereby.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his
official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the
Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal
gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or
act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of
which he is a member, and which exercises discretion in
such approval, even if he votes against the same or does
not participate in the action of the board, committee,
panel or group.
1. Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against
those public officers responsible for the approval of
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to
which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit,
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified
for or not legally entitled to such license, permit,
privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or
dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential
character, acquired by his office or by him on account of
his official position to unauthorized persons, or releasing
such information in advance of its authorized release
date.
The person giving the gift, present, share, percentage
or benefit referred to in subparagraphs (b) and
(c); or offering or giving to the public officer the
employment mentioned in subparagraph (d); or
urging the divulging or untimely release of the
confidential information referred to in
subparagraph (k) of this section shall, together
with the offending public officer, be punished
under Section nine of this Act and shall be
permanently or temporarily disqualified in the
discretion of the Court, from transacting business
in any form with the Government.
Sec. 4. Prohibition on private individuals. –
a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or close
personal relation with any public official to capitalize or
exploit or take advantage of such family or close
personal relation by directly or indirectly requesting or
receiving any present, gift or material or pecuniary
advantage from any other person having some business,
transaction, application, request or contract with the
government, in which such public official has to
intervene. Family relation shall include the spouse or
relatives by consanguinity or affinity in the third civil
degree. The word "close personal relation" shall include
close personal friendship, social and fraternal
connections, and professional employment all giving rise
to intimacy which assures free access to such public
officer.
b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce
or cause any public official to commit any of the offenses
defined in Section 3 hereof.
Sec. 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. - It shall be
unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity
or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of the
Philippines, the Vice-President of the Philippines, the
President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any
business, transaction, contract or application with the
Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to any
person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of the
above officials to whom he is related, has been already
dealing with the Government along the same line of business,
nor to any transaction, contract or application already existing
or pending at the time of such assumption of public office,
nor to any application filed by him the approval of which is
not discretionary on the part of the official or officials
concerned but depends upon compliance with requisites
provided by law, or rules or regulations issued pursuant to
law, nor to any act lawfully performed in an official capacity
or in the exercise of a profession.
Sec. 7. Statement of Assets and liabilities – Every public
officer within 30 days after assuming office, and thereafter,
on or before the 15th day of April following the close of every
calendar year, as well as upon resignation or separation from
office, shall prepare and file with the office of the
corresponding department head, or in the case of a Head of
Department or a Chief of an independent office, with the
Office of the President, a true, detailed and sworn statement
of assets and liabilities, including a statement of the amounts
and sources of his income taxes paid for the next preceding
calendar year. Provided, that public officers assuming office
less than two months before the end of the calendar year,
may file their first statement on or before the 15th day of April
following the close of the said calendar year.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
89

Sec. 11. Prescription of offenses. – All offenses
punishable under this act shall prescribe in 15 years.
Sec. 14. Exception. - Unsolicited gifts or presents of small or
insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary token
of gratitude or friendship according to local customs or usage,
shall be excepted from the provisions of this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice or
prohibit the practice of any profession, lawful trade or
occupation by any private person or by any public officer
who under the law may legitimately practice his
profession, trade or occupation, during his incumbency,
except where the practice of such profession, trade or
occupation involves conspiracy with any other person or
public official to commit any of the violations penalized
in this Act.
Bar Questions
Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices - RA 3019 (1997)
A is charged with the crime defined in Section 3(e) of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act in an Information that
reads: That from 01 to 30 January 1995, in the City of Pasig
and within the jurisdiction of this Honorable Court, the
accused, being then employed in the Office of the District
Engineer, Department of Public Works and Highways and in
the discharge of his official administrative functions, did then
and there willfully and unlawfully work for and facilitate the
approval of B's claim for the payment of the price of his land
which the government had expropriated, and after the claim
was approved, the accused gave B only P1,000.00 of the
approved claim of P5,000 and willfully and unlawfully
appropriated for himself the balance of P4,000, thus causing
undue injury to B and the Government." A has filed a motion
to quash the information, contending that it does not charge
an offense. Is he correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, the contention of A is correct. The information failed to
allege that the undue injury to B and the government was
caused by the accused's manifest partiality, evident bad
faith, or gross Inexcusable negligence, which are necessary
elements of the offense charged, ie., violation of Section
3(e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The accused
is employed in the Office of the District Engineer of the
DPWH which has nothing to do with the determination and
fixing of the price of the land expropriated, and for which
expropriated land the Government is legally obligated to
pay. There is no allegation in the information that the land
was overpriced or that the payment of the amount was
disadvantageous to the Government. It appears that the
charge was solely based on the accused having followed up
the payment for B's land which the Government has already
appropriated, and that the accused eventually withheld for
himself from the price of the said land, the amount of
P4,000 for his services. No violation of Section 3(e) of the
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Act appears. At most, the accused
should be merely charged administratively
ALTERNATIVE ANSWERS:
1. Yes, A is correct in filing a motion to quash the
information because Section 3(e) of Republic Act 3019
applies only to officers and employees of government
corporations charged with the grant of licenses or permits or
other concessions, and not to DPWH, which is not a
government corporation.
2. A is not correct. In the case of Meforda vs.
Sandiganbayan. 151 SCRA 399, which involves a
substantially identical information as the Information quoted
in the question, the Supreme Court held that the
Information was valid. While it is true that the information
quoted In the question, failed to allege evident bad faith,
gross inexcusable negligence or manifest partiality, said
Information Is nevertheless adequate because it averred the
three (3) elements for the violation of Section 3(c) of RA.
3012 when it stated (1) that the accused is a public officer
at the time of the commission of the crime, being employed
in the Office of the District Engineer, DPWH; (2) that the
accused caused undue Injury to B and the Government, with
the statement that BT the owner of the land, received only
P1,000.00 instead of the full value of P5,000.00; and
(3)that in the discharge of A's official administrative
functions, he "did then and there willfully and unlawfully
work for and facilitate the approval of his claim xxx and
"willfully and unlawfully appropriate for himself the balance
of P4,000.00 x x x". An information need not employ or use
the very words or language of the statute. It may also use
words or language of similar import.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 3047
AN ACT TO AMEND Sec. SEVEN OF REPUBLIC ACT
NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED AND NINETEEN,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE "THE ANTIGRAFT AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT" SO AS TO EXEMPT
CLASSROOM TEACHERS, LABORERS, CASUAL AND
TEMPORARY EMPLOYEES, AND BARRIO OFFICIAL
FROM THE REQUIREMENTS THEREOF
Section 1. Section seven of Republic Act Numbered Thirty
hundred and nineteen is hereby amended to read as
follows:
"Sec. 7. Statement of assets and liabilities. — Every public
officer, within thirty days after approval of this Act or after
assuming office, and within the month of January of every
other year thereafter, as well as upon the expiration of his
term of office, or upon his resignation separation from office,
shall prepare and file with the office of the corresponding
Department Head, or in the case of a Head of Department or
chief of an independent office, with the Office of the
President, or in the case of members of the Congress and
the officials and employees thereof, with the Office of the
Secretary of the corresponding House, a true detailed and
sworn statement of assets and liabilities, including a
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
90
statement of the amounts and sources of his income, the
amounts of his personal and family expenses, and the
amount of income taxes paid for the next preceding calendar
year: Provided, That public officer assuming office less than
two months before the end of the calendar year, may file
their first statements in the following months of January:
Provided, further, That the requirements of this section shall
not apply to classroom teachers, laborers, casual and
temporary employees, and barrio officials."
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 77
AMENDING SECTION 1 OF REPUBLIC ACT NO. 5180
PRESCRIBING A UNIFORM SYSTEM OF PRELIMINARY
INVESTIGATION BY PROVINCIAL AND CITY FISCALS
AND THEIR ASSISTANTS, AND BY STATE ATTORNEYS
OR THEIR ASSISTANTS
Section 1 of Republic Act No. 5180 is hereby amended to
read as follows:
"Sec. 1. Notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary
and except when an investigation has been conducted by a
judge of first instance, city or municipal judge or other
officer in accordance with law and the Rules of Court of the
Philippines, no information for an offense cognizable by the
Court of First Instance shall be filed by the provincial or city
fiscal or any of his assistants, or by the Chief State
Prosecutor or his assistants, without first conducting a
preliminary investigation in the following manner:
a) All complaints shall be accompanied by
statements of the complainant and his witnesses
as well as other supporting documents. The
statements of the complainant and his witnesses
shall be sworn to before the investigating fiscal or
state prosecutor. He shall examine them and
satisfy himself that their statements were
voluntarily executed and understood by them.
b) If on the basis of the complainant's sworn
statements and documents submitted there does
not appear to be prima facie case, the
investigating fiscal or state prosecutor shall
dismiss the case; if a prima facie case is
established by complainant's evidence, he shall
notify the respondent by issuing a subpoena
requiring him to submit at an indicated date which
shall not be more than ten (10) days from receipt
of the subpoena, counter-affidavits and other
supporting documents. To the subpoena shall be
attached a copy of the complaint, the sworn
statements and other documents submitted. Other
evidence submitted shall be made available for
examination of the respondent or his counsel. The
statements of the respondent and his witnesses
shall also be sworn to before the investigating
fiscal.
c) Whenever necessary, the fiscal or state
prosecutor may subpoena either or both parties or
their witnesses and propound clarificatory
question, during which both complainant and
respondent shall be afforded an opportunity to be
present but without right to examine or cross-
examine.
"The investigating fiscal or state prosecutor shall help both
the complaint and the respondent and their witnesses in the
preparation and execution of their affidavits if so requested
to do so.
"The fiscal or state prosecutor shall certify under oath in the
information to be filed by him that he has examined the
complainant and his witnesses, that on the basis of the
sworn statements and other evidence submitted before him
that there is reasonable ground to believe that a crime has
been committed and that the accused is probably guilty
thereof, that the accused was informed of the complaint and
of the evidence submitted against him and that he was given
an opportunity to submit controverting evidence: Provided,
That no assistant fiscal or state prosecutor may file an
information except with the prior authority or approval of the
city or provincial fiscal or chief state prosecutor and only in a
case in which he himself conducted the preliminary
investigation."
BATAS PAMBANSA BILANG 195
AN ACT AMENDING SECTIONS EIGHT, NINE, TEN,
ELEVEN, AND THIRTEEN OF REPUBLIC ACT
NUMBERED THIRTY HUNDRED AND NINETEEN,
OTHERWISE KNOWN AS THE ANTI-GRAFT AND
CORRUPT PRACTICES ACT.
Section 1. Section 8 of Republic Act No. 3019 is
hereby amended to read as follows:
“Section 8. Prima facie evidence of and dismissal due to
unexplained wealth. — If in accordance with the provisions
of Republic Act Numbered One thousand three hundred
seventy-nine, a public official has been found to have
acquired during his incumbency, whether in his name or in
the name of other persons, an amount of property and/or
money manifestly out of proportion to his salary and to his
other lawful income, that fact shall be a ground for dismissal
or removal. Properties in the name of the spouse and
dependents of such public official may be taken into
consideration, when their acquisition through legitimate
means cannot be satisfactorily shown. Bank deposits in the
name of or manifestly excessive expenditures incurred by
the public official, his spouse or any of their dependents
including but not limited to activities in any club or
association or any ostentatious display of wealth including
frequent travel abroad of a non-official character by any
public official when such activities entail expenses evidently
our of proportion to legitimate income, shall likewise be
taken into consideration in the enforcement of this section,
notwithstanding any provision of law to the contrary. The
circumstances hereinabove mentioned shall constitute valid
ground for the administrative suspension of the public
official concerned for an indefinite period until the
investigation of the unexplained wealth is completed.”
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
91
Sec. 2. Section 9 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Section 9. Penalties for violations. — (a) any public officer
or private person committing any of the unlawful acts or
omissions enumerated in Sections 3, 4, 5 and 6 of this Act
shall be punished with imprisonment for not less than six
years and one month nor more than fifteen years, perpetual
disqualification from public office, and confiscation or
forfeiture in favor of the Government of any prohibited
interest and unexplained wealth manifestly out of proportion
to his salary and other lawful income.
“Any complaining party at whose complaint the criminal
prosecution was initiated shall, in case of conviction of the
accused, be entitled to recover in the criminal action with
priority over the forfeiture in favor of the Government, the
amount of money or the thing he may have given to the
accused, or the fair value of such thing.
‘(b) Any public officer violating any of the provisions of
Section 7 of this Act shall be punished by a fine of not less
than one thousand pesos nor more than five thousand
pesos, or by imprisonment not exceeding one year six
months, or by both such fine and imprisonment, at the
discretion of the Court.
“The violation of said section proven in a proper
administrative proceeding shall be sufficient cause for
removal or dismissal of a public officer, even if no criminal
prosecution is instituted against him.”
Sec. 3. Section 10 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Section 10. Competent Court. — Until otherwise provided
by law, all prosecutions under this Act shall be within the
original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.”
Sec. 4. Section 11 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Section 11. Prescription of offenses. — All offenses
punishable under this Act shall prescribe in fifteen years.”
Sec. 5. Section 13 of Republic Act No. 3019 is hereby
amended to read as follows:
“Section 13. Suspension and loss of benefits. — Any
incumbent public officer against whom any criminal
prosecution under a valid information under this Act or
under Title 7, Book II of the Revised Penal Code or for any
offense involving fraud upon government or public funds or
property whether as a simple or as complex offense and in
whether stage of execution and mode of participation, is
pending in court, shall be suspended from office. Should he
be convicted by final judgment, he shall lose all retirement
or gratuity benefits under any law, but if he is acquitted, he
shall be entitled to reinstatement and to the salaries and
benefits which he failed to receive during suspension, unless
in the meantime administrative proceedings have been filed
against him.
“In the event that such convicted officer, who may have
already been separated from the service, has already
received such benefits he shall be liable to restitute the
same to the Government.”
RA 1379
FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF ANY PROPERTY
FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY ANY
PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE (1955)
SECTION 1. Definitions.
(a) For the purposes of this Act, a "public officer or
employee" means any person holding any public office
or employment by virtue of an appointment, election or
contract, and any person holding any office or
employment, by appointment or contract, in any State
owned or controlled corporation or enterprise.
(b) "Other legitimately acquired property" means any real or
personal property, money or securities which the
respondent has at any time acquired by inheritance and
the income thereof, or by gift inter vivos before his
becoming a public officer or employee, or any property
(or income thereof) already pertaining to him when he
qualified for public office or employment, or the fruits
and income of the exclusive property of the respondent's
spouse. It shall not include:
1. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent,
but its ownership is concealed by its being recorded in the
name of, or held by, the respondent's spouse, ascendants,
descendants, relatives, or any other person.
2. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent,
but transferred by him to another person or persons on or
after the effectivity of this Act.
3. Property donated to the respondent during his
incumbency, unless he can prove to the satisfaction of the
court that the donation is lawful.
SECTION 2. Filing of petition. — Whenever any public officer
or employee has acquired during his incumbency an amount
of property which is manifestly out of proportion to his salary
as such public officer or employee and to his other lawful
income and the income from legitimately acquired property,
said property shall be presumed prima facie to have been
unlawfully acquired.
SECTION 11. Laws on prescription. - The laws concerning
acquisitive prescription and limitation of actions cannot be
invoked by, nor shall they benefit the respondent, in respect
of any property unlawfully acquired by him.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
92
SECTION 12. Penalties. — Any public officer or employee
who shall, after the effective date of this Act, transfer or
convey any unlawfully acquired property shall be repressed
with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or a fine
not exceeding P10,000, or both such imprisonment and fine.
The same repression shall be imposed upon any person who
shall knowingly accept such transfer or conveyance.
R.A. 6713
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees
What are Prohibited Acts and Transactions?
In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and
employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing
laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and
transactions of any public official and employee and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
(a) Financial and material interest in any transaction
requiring the approval of their office.
(b) Public officials and employees during their incumbency
shall not:
a. Own, control, manage or accept employment as
officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent,
trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated,
supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly
allowed by law;
b. Engage in the private practice of their profession
unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided,
that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict with
their official functions; or
c. Recommend any person to any position in a private
enterprise which has a regular or pending official
transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one
(1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from
public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2)
above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his
profession in connection with any matter before the office he
used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition shall
likewise apply.
(c) Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge,
confidential or classified information officially known to
them by reason of their office and not made available to
the public, either (1)To further their private interests, or
give undue advantage to anyone; or (2)To prejudice the
public interest.
(d) Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept,
directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value from
any person in the course of their official duties or in
connection with any operation being regulated by, or
any transaction which may be affected by the functions
of their office.
As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the Congress
consents to:
(i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or
employee of a gift of nominal value tendered and
received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;
(ii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a gift
in the nature of a scholarship or fellowship grant or
medical treatment; or
(iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of travel
grants or expenses for travel taking place entirely
outside the Philippine (such as allowances,
transportation, food, and lodging) of more than nominal
value if such acceptance is appropriate or consistent with
the interests of the Philippines, and permitted by the
head of office, branch or agency to which he belongs.
The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purpose of this subsection,
including pertinent reporting and disclosure requirements.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict or prohibit
any educational, scientific or cultural exchange programs
subject to national security requirements.
Penalties imposed
(a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether or
not he holds office or employment in a casual,
temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity,
committing any violation of this Act shall be punished
with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six (6)
months' salary or suspension not exceeding one
(1) year, or removal depending on the gravity of
the offense after due notice and hearing by the
appropriate body or agency. If the violation is
punishable by a heavier penalty under another law, he
shall be prosecuted under the latter statute. Violations
of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall be punishable with
imprisonment not exceeding five (5) years, or a
fine not exceeding five thousand pesos (P5,000),
or both, and, in the discretion of the court of competent
jurisdiction, disqualification to hold public office.
(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper
administrative proceeding shall be
sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a
public official or employee, even if no
criminal prosecution is instituted against
him.
(c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co-
principals, accomplices or accessories, with public
officials or employees, in violation of this Act, shall be
subject to the same penal liabilities as the public officials
or employees and shall be tried jointly with them.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
93

(d) The official or employee concerned may bring an action
against any person who obtains or uses a report for any
purpose prohibited by Section 8 (D) of this Act. The
Court in which such action is brought may assess against
such person a penalty in any amount not to exceed
twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000). If another
sanction hereunder or under any other law is heavier,
the latter shall apply.
Who has jurisdiction? -- all prosecutions under this Act shall
be within the original jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.
How proved? -- For purposes of establishing the crime of
plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every
criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the scheme
or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-gotten
wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond reasonable
doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts indicative of
the overall unlawful scheme or conspiracy.

Prescription -- The crime punishable under this Act shall

prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the right of the
Plunder
State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public
officers from them or from their nominees or transferees
shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or
estoppel.
REPUBLIC ACT No. 7080
AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING
THE CRIME OF PLUNDER

“Ill-gotten wealth” -- means any asset, property, business

enterprise or material possession of any person within the
purview of Section 2 acquired by him directly or indirectly
through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates and/or
business associates by any combination or series of the
following means or similar schemes:
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
malversation of public funds or raids on the public
treasury;
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any commission,
gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or any other form
of pecuniary benefit from any person and/or entity
in connection with any government contract or
project or by reason of the office or position of the
public officer concerned;
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of assets belonging to the National
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
instrumentalities or government-owned or -
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or
indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other
form of interest or participation including promise
of future employment in any business enterprise or
undertaking;
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or
commercial monopolies or other combinations
and/or implementation of decrees and orders
intended to benefit particular persons or special
interests; or
6) By taking undue advantage of official position,
authority, relationship, connection or influence to
unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the
expense and to the damage and prejudice of the
Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.

Who are guilty of plunder?

a) any public officer who, by himself or in connivance
with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates or
other persons, amasses, accumulates or
acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt or criminal
acts, in the aggregate amount or total value of at
least Seventy-five million pesos (P75,000,000.00)
b) any person who participated with said public officer
in the commission of plunder shall be punished by
life imprisonment with perpetual absolute
disqualification from holding any public office.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

94
R.A. 9372.
AN ACT TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR
PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM

1. It created the crime known as terrorism and declared it to

be “ a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and
against the law of nations”.

II. Defines the crime of terrorism to be the commission of

“any of the crimes of :

A. Under the Revised Penal Code.

i. Piracy in general and Mutiny in the High Seas or in

the Philippine Waters

ii. rebellion

iii. Coup d’etat

iv. Murder

v. Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention

B. Under Special Laws

i. Arson under P.D. 1613

ii. Violation of R.A. 6969 ( Toxic Substance ad Nuclear

Waste Control)

iii. R.A. 5207 ( Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability

Act of 1968)

iv. Hijacking

v. Piracy in Phil. Waters and Highway Robbery

vi. P.D. 1866 ( Possession and Manufacture of

Firearms/explosives)

thereby sowing and creating a condition of

widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among
the populace, in order to coerce the government to
give in to an unlawful demand”

III. Requirements for Terrorism

A. The accused ( maybe a single individual or a group)

must commit any of the enumerated crimes

B. There results a condition of widespread and

extraordinary fear and panic among the populace

i. The extent and degree of fear and panic,

including the number of people affected in order
to meet the term “populace”, are questions of

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

95
 facts to be determined by the courts and on a
case to case basis.
ii. Is the term “populace’ to be interpreted as
referring to the local inhabitants where the acts
were committed, or does it refer to the national
population?
C. The purpose of the accused must be to coerce the
government to give into an unlawful demand
i. The word “demand” is too broad as to cover not
only political, criminal or monetarial demands but
also those which maybe categorized as social or
economic. This however is qualified by the word
“ unlawful”.
IV. Other Acts/Persons Liable
A. Conspiracy to commit terrorism. The penalty is the
same as terrorism itself ( i.e. 40 years of imprisonment)
B. Accomplices- he cooperates in the execution of either
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous
or simultaneous acts (Penalty is 17 yrs. 4 months and one
day to 20 years)
C. Accessory-The acts punished are the same as that
under Article 19 of the RPC. The penalty is 10 yrs. And
one day to 12 years
1. The law however adopts the absolutory cause of
exemption of accessories from liability with respect to
their relatives
V. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of
Communications
A. Authorizes the grant of Judicial Authorization to listen,
intercept, and record, any communication, message,
conversation, discussion, or of spoken or written words
between members of (i) a judicially declared and
outlawed terrorist organization or association or group, or
(ii) of any person charged with or suspected of the crime
of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism
1. The Judicial Authorization can only be issued by the
Court of Appeals (a) upon a written application filed
by a police or law enforcement official or members of
his team and (b). after an ex parte hearing
establishing (c). probable cause that
terrorism/conspiracy to commit terrorism has been
committed, or is being committed, or is about to be
committed ( note that the wording is not
attempted)
2. The applicant must have been authorized in writing
to file the application by the Anti Terrorism Council (
The Body created to implement the law and assume
responsibility for the effective implementation of the
anti-terrorism[policy of the country)
3. The Judicial Authority is effective for a maximum
period not to exceed 30 days from date of receipt of
the written order and may be extended for another
similar period
B. Punishes the act of failure to notify the person subject
of the surveillance, monitoring or interception, if no case
was filed within the 30 day period/life time of the Order
of Court authorizing the surveillance
C. Punishes any person who conducts any unauthorized
or malicious interceptions and or recording of any form of
communications, messages, conversations, discussions or
spoken or written words
VI. Provides for a Judicial Declaration of Terrorists and
Outlawed organization, association, or group of persons, by
any RTC upon application by the DOJ and upon prior notice
to the group affected.
VII. Procedure when a suspected terrorist is arrested
A. A suspected terrorist maybe arrested by any law
enforcement personnel provided:
1. The law enforcement agent was duly authorized in
writing by the Anti Terrorism Council
2. The arrest was the result of a surveillance or
examination of bank deposits
B. Upon arrest and prior to actual detention, the law
enforcement agent must present the suspected terrorist
before any judge at the latter’s residence or office nearest
the place of arrest, at any time of the day or night. The
judge shall, within three days, submit a written report of
the presentation to the court where the suspect shall have
been charged.
C. Immediately after taking custody of a person charged
or suspected as a terrorist, the police or law enforcement
personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the nearest
place of apprehension or arrest, but if the arrest is made
during non-office days or after office hours, the written
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
96
 notice shall be served at the nearest residence of the
judge nearest the place of arrest
D. Failure to notify in writing is punished by 10 years and
one day to12 years of imprisonment
VIII. Period of Detention has been extended to three days
A. The three day period is counted from the moment the
person charged or suspected as terrorist has been
apprehended or arrested, detained and taken into
custody
B. In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack,
suspects may not be detained for more than three days
without the written approval of the Human Rights
Commission, or judge of the MTC RTC, Sandiganbayan or
Court of Appeals nearest the place of arrest
C. If arrest was on a nonworking day or hour, the person
arrested shall be brought to the residence of any of the
above named officials nearest the place of arrest.
D. Failure to deliver the person charged or suspected as
terrorists to the proper judicial; authority within three
days is punished by 10 years and one day to 12 years.
IX. Other Acts Punished As Offenses (punished by
imprisonment of 10 years and one day to 12 years) which acts
are related to the arrest/detention of suspected terrorists
A. Violation of the rights of a person detained
1. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the arrest; to remain silent; to counsel
2. To communicate and confer with counsel at any
time without restriction
3. To communicate at any time and without
restrictions with members of family or relatives and
be visited by them
4. To avail of the services of a physician of choice
B. Offenses relating to an official log book:
1. Failure to keep official logbook detailing the name
of the person arrested the date and time of initial
admission for custody and arrest; state of his health;
date and time of removal from his cell, and his return
thereto; date and time of visits and by whom; all
other important data bearing on his treatment while
under arrest and custody
2. Failure to promptly issue a certified true copy of
the entries of the log book
C. Using threat, intimidation, coercion, inflicting physical
pain, or torment or mental emotional, moral or
psychological pressure which shall vitiate the free will
D. Punishes Infidelity in the Custody of Detained Persons
1. The penalty is 12 years and one day to 20 years if
the person detained is a prisoner by final judgment
2. The penalty is 6 years and one day to 12 years if
the prisoner is a detention prisoner
E. Punishes the act of knowingly furnishing False
Testimony, forged document or spurious evidence in any
investigation or hearing under the law ( 12 yrs and one
day to 20 years)
X. Prosecution under the Law is a bar to another prosecution
under the Revised Penal code or any other special law for any
offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense
charged under the law
XI. If the suspect is acquitted he is entitled to P500,000.00
for every day of detention without a warrant of arrest.
A. Any person who delays the release or refuses to release
the amount shall be punished by imprisonment of 6 months
XII. Provisions on the Identity of the Informant
A. The officer to whom the name of the suspect was first
reveled shall record the real name and specific address of
the informant and shall report the same to his superior
officer who shall in turn transmit the information to the
Congressional Oversight Committee within 5 days after
the suspect was placed under arrest, or his properties
sequestered seized or frozen.
B. The data shall be considered confidential and shall not
be unnecessarily revealed until after the proceedings
against the suspect shall have been terminated.
( NOTE: It would seem that the confidentiality of the
informant’s identity is not permanent but may be
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
97
 revealed, not like the provisions of the Rules of Evidence
which considers the confidentiality as permanent)
XIII. Territorial Application of the law:
The law applies to any person who commits an act
covered by the law if committed:
A. Within the terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime
zone and airspace of the Philippines
B. Inside the territorial limits of the Philippines
C. On board a Philippine ship or airship
D. Within any embassy, consulate, diplomatic premises
belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in
an official capacity
E. Against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine
descent where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor
in the commission of the crime
F. Directly against the Philippine government.
XIV. The provisions of the law shall be automatically
suspended one month before and two months after the
holding of any election.
Morfe vs. Mutuc
Issue: Whether RA 3019 sec 7 was unconstitutional
HELD: No. The Anti- Graft Act of 1960 was aimed at curtailing and
minimizing the opportunities for official corruption and maintaining a
standard of honesty in the public service. It is intended to further
promote morality in public administration. A public office must indeed
be a public trust. Nobody can cavil at its objective; the goal to be
pursued commands the assent of all. The conditions then prevailing
called for norms of such character. The times demanded such a
remedial device. By the provisions of the challenged section, it
becomes much more difficult by those disposed to take advantage of
their position to commit acts of graft and corruption. While in the
attainment of such public good, no infringement of constitutional
rights is permissible, there must be a showing, clear, categorical, and
undeniable, that what the Constitution condemns, the statute allows.
It would be to dwell in the realm of abstractions and to
ignore the harsh and compelling realities of public service with its
ever-present temptation to heed the call of greed and avarice to
condemn as arbitrary and oppressive a requirement as that imposed on
public officials and employees to file such sworn statement of assets
and liabilities every two years after having done so upon assuming
office. The due process clause is not susceptible to such a reproach.
There was therefore no unconstitutional exercise of police power.
Jaravata vs. Sandiganbayan
Jaravata was an asst. principal when he informed the classroom
teachers of the approval of the release of their salary differentials and
to facilitate its payment accused and the classroom teachers agreed
that accused follow-up the papers in Manila with the obligation on the
part of the classroom teachers to reimburse the accused of his
expenses. He did incur expenses in the amount of P36 for each of the
6 teachers. The teachers actually received their salary differentials
and pursuant to said agreement, they, with the exception of 2
teachers, gave the accused varying amounts but as the administrator
did not approve it, he ordered the Jaravata to return the money given
to him which he complied. Jaravata was charged and convicted under
RA 3019 SEC 3(b)
HELD: Jaravata was not in violation of RA 3019 Sec 3(b). Sec. 3(b) of
R.A. No. 3019, refers to a public officer whose official intervention is
required by law in a contract or transaction.
There is no law which invests the petitioner with the power
to intervene in the payment of the salary differentials of the
complainants or anyone for that matter. Far from exercising any
power, the petitioner played the humble role of a supplicant whose
mission was to expedite payment of the salary differentials. In his
official capacity as assistant principal, he is not required by law to
intervene in the payment of the salary differentials. Accordingly, he
cannot be said to have violated the law afore-cited although he
exerted efforts to facilitate the payment of the salary differentials.
Trieste vs. Sandiganbayan
Mayor Trieste had been charged and convicted for 12 violations of RA
3019 Sec 3 (h) for the purchases of construction materials by his
municipality from a company of which he is allegedly the
president.
HELD: No violation. Petitioner has divested his interest with the
company. Petitioner established that before he assumed office as
mayor he had already sold his shares of the company to his sister. The
sale was made by corresponding indorsements to her stock certificate
which was duly recorded in the stock and transfer book of the
corporation.
In as much as Treasurer Vega signed and paid the vouchers
after the materials were delivered, petitioner's signature on the
vouchers after payment is not, we submit, the kind of intervention
contemplated under Section 3(h) of the anti-graft law is the actual
intervention in the transaction in which one has financial or pecuniary
interest in order that liability may attach. The official need not dispose
his shares in the corporation as long as he does not do anything for the
firm in its contract with the office. For the law aims to prevent the
dominant use of influence, authority and power.
There is absolutely no evidence that petitioner had, in his capacity as
Mayor, used his influence, power, and authority in having the
transactions given to Trigen.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
98

Mejorada vs. Sandiganbayan
Mejorada was a right-of-way agent with DPWH. Petitioner contacted
the persons affected by the widening of the road and informed them
that he could work out their claims for payment of the values of their
lots and/or improvements affected by the widening of said highway.
They were paid more than what was the value of their property. Right
after the claimants had received the proceeds of their checks, accused
accompanied them to his car where they were divested of the amounts
paid to them. All the claimants were helpless to complaint because
they were afraid of the accused and his armed companion.
Petitioner contends that the eight informations filed against
him before the Sandiganbayan are fatally defective in that it failed to
allege the essential ingredients or elements constituting the offense
penalized by Section 3(e) of Rep. Act No. 3019.
HELD: Section 3’s reference to "any public officer" is without
distinction or qualification and it specifies the acts declared unlawful.
The last sentence of paragraph (e) is intended to make clear the
inclusion of officers and employees of officers or government
corporations, which, under the ordinary concept of "public officers"
may not come within the term. It is a strained construction of the
provision to read it as applying exclusively to public officers charged
with the duty of granting licenses or permits or other concessions.
The government suffered undue injury as a result of his inflating the
true claims of complainants which eventually became the basis of
payment. His contention that he had no participation is belied by the
fact that as a right-of-way-agent, his duty was precisely to negotiate
with property owners who are affected by highway constructions for
the purpose of compensating them.
On the part of the complainants, the injury caused to them
consists in their being divested of a large proportion of their claims
and receiving payment in an amount even lower than the actual
damage they incurred. They were deprived of the just compensation
to which they are entitled.
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury
Acts punishable:
1. Entering into an agreement with any interested party or
speculator or making use of any other scheme, to defraud
the government, in dealing with any person with regard to
furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the
adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public
property or funds;
2. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums
different from or larger than those authorized by law, in
collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts;
3. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law, for
any sum of money collected by him officially, in the
collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts;
4. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of
payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law, in the collection of
taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts.
Elements of frauds against public treasury under paragraph 1
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has taken advantage of his office, that is, he intervened
in the transaction in his official capacity;
3. He entered into an agreement with any interested party or
speculator or made use of any other scheme with regard to
furnishing supplies, the making of contracts, or the
adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to public
property or funds;
4. He had intent to defraud the government.
 Public officer must act in his official capacity
 Crime of frauds against public treasury is consummated by
merely entering into an agreement with any interested
party or speculator or by merely making use of any other
scheme to defraud Government.
Elements of illegal exactions under paragraph 2
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection of
taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts;
2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:
b. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums
different from or larger than those authorized by law;
or
c. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by
law, for any sum of money collected by him officially;
or
d. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of
payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
99

 Crime of illegal exactions is consummated by mere demand
for larger or different amount from that fixed by law.
 Collecting officer must issue official receipt otherwise held
liable under this article.
 When there is deceit in demanding greater fees than those
prescribed by law, the crime is estafa not illegal exaction.
 Tax collector who collected a sum larger than that
authorized by law and spent all of them is guilty of 2 crimes,
namely: illegal exaction, for demanding a greater amount;
and malversation for misappropriating the amount
collected.
 BIR or Customs officers and employees not covered by Art
213. NIRC or Admin Code applies to them.
Article 214. Other Frauds
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He takes advantage of his official position;
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in
Article 315 to 318 (Estafa, other forms of swindling,
swindling a minor and other deceits)
 RTC has jurisdiction when Art 214 is involved as MTCs do
not have jurisdiction to impose the principal penalty in Art.
214 of disqualification
Article 215. Prohibited Transactions
Elements
1. Offender is an appointive public officer;
2. He becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in any
transaction of exchange or speculation;
3. The transaction takes place within the territory subject to
his jurisdiction;
4. He becomes interested in the transaction during his
incumbency.
 Transaction must be one of exchange or speculation such
as buying regularly securities for resale.
 Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is simply an
investment and not a violation of Art. 215.
 Examples of appointive public officer who may not engage
in the commercial profession either in person or by proxy:
justices, judges or fiscals, employees engaged in the
collection and administration of public funds.
Article 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a public
officer
Persons liable:
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became interested
in any contracts or business in which it was his official duty
to intervene;
2. Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, in like
manner, took part in any contract or transaction connected
with the estate or property in the appraisal, distribution or
adjudication of which they had acted;
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the property
belonging to their wards or the estate.
 This provision is applicable to experts, arbitrators and
private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part in
any contract or transaction connected with the estate or
property in appraisal distribution or adjudication of which
they shall have acted, and to the guardians and executors
with respect tom the property belonging to their wards or
estate.
 Actual fraud is not necessary
Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives may
personally appear as counsel before any court of justice or
before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-judicial and other
administrative bodies. Neither shall he, directly or
indirectly, be interested financially in any contract with, or
in any franchise or special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency or instrumentality
thereof, including any government-owned or controlled
corporation or its subsidiary, during his term of office. He
shall not intervene in any matter before any office of the
government for his pecuniary benefit or where he may be
called upon to act on account of his office.
Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
100
 The President, Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet
and their deputies or assistant shall not, unless otherwise
provided in this Constitution, hold any other office or
employment during their tenure. They shall not, during said
tenure, directly or indirectly, practice any other profession,
participate in any business, or be financially interested in
any contract with, or in any franchise, or special privilege
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their
office.
Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution
No member of a Constitutional Commission shall, during his
tenure, hold any office or employment. Neither shall he
engage in the practice of any profession or in the active
management or control of any business which in any way
may be affected by the functions of his office, nor shall he
be financially interested, directly or indirectly, in any
contract with, or in any franchise or privilege granted by the
government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
Article 217. Malversation of public funds
Acts punishable:
1. Appropriating public funds or property;
2. Taking or misappropriating the same;
3. Consenting, or through abandonment or negligence,
permitting any other person to take such public funds or
property; and
4. Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property.
Elements common to all acts of malversation under Article 217
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He had the custody or control of funds or property by
reason of the duties of his office;
3. Those funds or property were public funds or property for
which he was accountable;
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or,
through abandonment or negligence, permitted another
person to take them.
 Also known as embezzlement
 Nature of duties, not name of office is controlling
 Funds or property must be received in official capacity
 A public officer having only a qualified charge of
government property without authority to part with physical
possession of it unless upon order from his immediate
superior, cannot be held liable for malversation. This rule
does not apply when the accused had authority to receive
money pertaining to the Government.
 A private person conspiring with an accountable public
officer in committing malversation is also guilty of
malversation. Under Art. 222 private individuals may also
guilty of malversation.
 Private property may be involved malversation. This article
applies to administrators or depositories of funds or
property attached, seized, or deposited by public authority,
even if such property belongs to a private individual.
 In malversation not committed through negligence, lack of
criminal intent or good faith is a defense.
 Presumption from failure to have duly forthcoming public
funds or property upon demand is prima facie evidence that
the said funds have been put to personal use. This may be
rebutted.
 Return of the funds malversed is only a mitigating
circumstance.
 When at the very moment the shortage is discovered, the
shortage is paid by public officer from his pocket, he is not
liable for malversation.
 When the accountable officer is obliged to go out of his
office and borrow the sum alleged to be the shortage and
later the missing amount is found in some unaccustomed
place in his office, he is not liable for malversation.
 Demand not necessary in malversation in spite of the last
paragraph in Art. 217 as the latter provides only for a rule
of procedural law, a rule of evidence and no more.
 A person whose negligence made possible the commission
of malversation may be held liable as principal by
indispensable cooperation in the complex crime of
malversation through falsification of a public document by
reckless negligence.
 Damage to Government not necessary. Penalty is based on
the amount involved, not on the amount of damage to the
government.
Labatagos vs. Sandiganbayan
Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of the Mindanao State
University. She filed a leave of absence and did not discharge her
duties for the said period. When COA conducted the examination, the
petitioner did not have any cash in her possession, so she was asked to
produce all her records, books of collection, copies of official receipts
and remittance advices and her monthly reports of collections.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
101
Petitioner incurred shortages. Petitioner was charged and convicted of
malversation of public funds.
HELD: Conviction upheld. Her claim that she signed the audit report
and statement of collections and deposits prepared by the audit team
of Francisco Rivera on the understanding that her shortage was only
P2,000.00 is belied by the figures clearly reflected on the said
documents. Mrs. Ester Guanzon, the prosecution’s rebuttal witness,
confirmed that the accused filed application for maternity leave in
March 1978 but continued reporting for work during that month and
that she (Guanzon) was the one assigned to collect the fees in her
stead. When the accused was physically absent from office, she also
turned over her collections to the accused in the latter’s house with
the duplicate copies of the receipts she issued which the accused
signed after satisfying herself that the amounts turned over tallied
with the receipts.
All the other sums allegedly taken from the accused by Director Osop,
Alikhan Marohombsar and Auditor Casan supported as they are by mere
pieces of paper, despite the admission by Director Osop of having
signed some of them were not valid disbursements. Granting that the
amounts reflected in the chits were really secured by the persons who
signed them, the responsibility to account for them still rests in the
accused accountable officer. Malversation consists not only in
misappropriation or converting public funds or property to one’s
personal use but also by knowingly allowing others to make use of or
misappropriate them.
Estepa vs. Sandiganbayan
Estepa, then a senior paymaster lost P50,000 government money.
Petitioner’s contention is that the facts alleged in the information did
not constitute an offense since there can be no crime of malversation
of public funds through mere failure to count the money.
HELD: In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction
is proof that the accountable officer had received the public funds and
that he did not have them in his possession when demand therefore
was made and he could not satisfactorily explain his failure so to
account. An accountable public officer may be convicted for
malversation even if there is no direct evidence of personal
misappropriation, where he has not been able to explain satisfactorily
the absence of the public funds involved.
Ilogon vs. Sandiganbayan
Ilogon was the acting Postmaster when the examination showed that
the petitioner incurred a shortage in his accounts. He was charged and
convicted of malversation of public funds.
HELD: In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for conviction
is proof that the accountable officer had received public funds and
that he did not have them in his possession when demand 102herefore
was made. There is even no need of direct evidence of personal
misappropriation as long as there is a shortage in his account and
petitioner cannot satisfactorily explain the same.
The fact that petitioner did not personally use the missing funds is not
a valid defense and will not exculpate him from his criminal liability.
And as aptly found by respondent Sandiganbayan, “the fact that (the)
immediate superiors of the accused (petitioner herein) have
acquiesced to the practice of giving out cash advances for convenience
did not legalize the disbursements”.
The fact also that petitioner fully settled the amount of P118,003.10
later is of no moment. The return of funds malversed is not a defense.
It is neither an exempting circumstance nor a ground for extinguishing
the accused’s criminal liability. At best, it is a mitigating
circumstance.
Azarcon vs. Sandiganbayan
Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business, hauling.
Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub-contractors like Jaime
Ancla whose trucks were left at the former’s premises. A Warrant
of Distraint of Personal Property was issued by the BIR to the
personal property of Jaime Ancla, a delinquent taxpayer. Later on,
Azarcon wrote the BIR stating Ancla surreptitiously withdrew his
equipment from hiss custody. Because of this, Azarcon was charged
and convicted of malversation of public property. The issue here is
whether petitioner’s designation by the BIR as a custodian of
distrained property qualifies as appointment by direct provision of
law, or by competent authority
HELD: Not a public officer. The case of U.S. vs. Rastrollo is not
applicable to the case before us simply because the facts therein
are not identical, similar or analogous to those obtaining here.
While the cited case involved a judicial deposit of the proceeds of
the sale of attached property in the hands of the debtor, the case
at bench dealt with the BIR’s administrative act of effecting
constructive distraint over alleged property of taxpayer Ancla in
relation to his back taxes, property which was received by
Petitioner Azarcon. In the cited case, it was clearly within the scope
of that court’s jurisdiction and judicial power to constitute the
judicial deposit and give “the depositary a character equivalent to
that of a public official.” However, in the instant case, while the
BIR had authority to require Petitioner Azarcon to sign a receipt for
the distrained truck, the NIRC did not grant it power to appoint
Azarcon a public officer.
People v. Wa-Acon (2006)
Article 217 no longer requires proof by the State that the accused
actually appropriated, took, or misappropriated public funds or
property. Instead, a presumption, though disputable and rebuttable,
was installed that upon demand by any duly authorized officer, the
failure of a public officer to have duly forthcoming any public funds or
property— with which said officer is accountable—should be prima
facie evidence that he had put such missing funds or properties to
personal use. When these circumstances are present, a “presumption
of law” arises that there was malversation of public funds or properties
as decreed by Article 217.
Bar Questions
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
102
Malversation (1994)
Randy, an NBI agent, was issued by the NBI an armalite rifle
(Ml6) and a Smith and Wesson Revolver. Cal. 38. After a
year, the NBI Director made an inspection of all the firearms
issued. Randy, who reported for work that morning, did not
show up during the inspection. He went on absence without
leave (AWOL). After two years, he surrendered to the NBI
the two firearms issued to him. He was charged with
malversation of government property before the
Sandiganbayan. Randy put up the defense that he did not
appropriate the armalite rifle and the revolver for his own
use, that the delay in accounting for them does not
constitute conversion and that actually the firearms were
stolen by his friend, Chiting. Decide the case.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Randy is guilty as charged under Art. 217, RPC. He is
accountable for the firearms they issued to him in his official
capacity. The failure of Randy to submit the firearms upon
demand created the presumption that he converted them for
his own use. Even if there is no direct evidence of
misappropriation, his failure to account for the government
property is enough factual basis for a finding of
malversation. Indeed, even his explanation that the guns
were stolen is incredible. For if the firearms were actually
stolen, he should have reported the matter immediately to
the authorities. (People vs. Baguiran , 20 SCRA 453; Felicilda
us. Grospe, GR No. 10294, July 3, 1992)
Malversation (1999)
What constitutes the crime of malversation of public funds or
property? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Malversation of public funds or property is committed by any
public officer who, by reason of the duties of his office, is
accountable for public funds or property, shall take or
misappropriate or shall consent, or through abandonment or
negligence, shall permit any other person to take such public
funds or property, wholly or partially, or shall otherwise be
guilty of the misappropriation or malversation of such funds
or property, (Art, 217, RPC)
Malversation (1999)
A Municipal Treasurer, accountable for public funds or
property, encashed with public funds private checks drawn
in favor of his wife. The checks bounced, the drawer not
having enough cash in the drawee bank. The Municipal
Treasurer, in encashing private checks from public funds,
violated regulations of his office. Notwithstanding restitution
of the amount of the checks, can the Municipal Treasurer
nevertheless be criminally liable? What crime did he commit?
Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, notwithstanding the restitution of the amount of the
check, the Municipal Treasurer will be criminally liable as
restitution does not negate criminal liability although it may
be considered as a mitigating circumstance similar or
analogous to voluntary surrender. (People vs. Velasquez, 73
Phil 98), He will be criminally liable for malversation.
However, if the restitution was made immediately, under
vehement protest against an imputation of malversation and
without leaving the office, he may not be criminally liable.
Malversation (2001)
Alex Reyes, together with Jose Santos, were former
warehousemen of the Rustan Department Store. In 1986,
the PCGG sequestered the assets, fund and properties of the
owners-incorporators of the store, alleging that they
constitute "Ill-gotten wealth" of the Marcos family. Upon
their application, Reyes and Santos were appointed as fiscal
agents of the sequestered firm and they were given custody
and possession of the sequestered building and its contents,
including various vehicles used in the firm's operations.
After a few months, an inventory was conducted and it was
discovered that two (2) delivery vans were missing. After
demand was made upon them, Reyes and Santos failed to
give any satisfactory explanation why the vans were missing
or to turn them over to the PCGG; hence, they were charged
with Malversation of Public Property. During the trial, the
two accused claimed that they are not public accountable
officers and, if any crime was committed, it should only be
Estafa under Art. 315, par. l(b) of the Revised Penal Code.
What is the proper offense committed? State the reason(s)
for your answer. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The proper offense committed was Malversation of Public
Property, not estafa, considering that Reyes and Santos,
upon their application, were constituted as "fiscal agents" of
the sequestered firm and were "given custody and
possession" of the sequestered properties, including the
delivery vans which later they could not account for. They
were thus made the depositary and administrator of
properties deposited by public authority and hence, by the
duties of their office/position, they are accountable for such
properties. Such properties, having been sequestered
by the Government through the PCGG, are in custodia
legis and therefore impressed with the character of public
property, even though the properties belong to a private
individual (Art. 222, RPC).
The failure of Reyes and Santos to give any satisfactory
explanation why the vans were missing, is prima facie
evidence that they had put the same to their personal use.
Malversation (2006)
1. In 1982, the Philippine National Bank (PNB), then a
government banking institution, hired Henry dela Renta, a
CPA, as Regional Bank Auditor. In 1992, he resigned and
was employed by the Philippine Deposit Insurance
Corporation (PDIC), another government-owned and
controlled corporation. In 1995, after the PNB management
unearthed many irregularities and violations of the bank's
rules and regulations, dela Renta was found to have
manipulated certain accounts involving trust funds and time
deposits of depositors. After investigation, he was charged
with malversation of public funds before the Sandiganbayan.
He filed a motion to dismiss contending he was no longer an
employee of the PNB but of the PDIC. Is dela Renta's
contention tenable? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
103
The contention of Henry dela Renta is not tenable. Dela
Renta may be prosecuted for malversation even if he had
ceased to be an employee of the PNB. At the time of the
commission of the offense, PNB was a government owned
and controlled corporation and therefore, any crime
committed by the Regional Bank Auditor, who is a public
officer, is subject to the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan
(See R.A. 7975 as amended by RA. 8249).
2. After his arraignment, the prosecution filed a motion for
his suspension pendente lite, to which he filed an opposition
claiming that he can no longer be suspended as he is no
longer an employee of the PNB but that of the PDIC. Explain
whether he may or may not be suspended. (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dela Renta may still be suspended pendente lite despite
holding a different public office, the PDIC, when he was
charged. The term "office" in Sec. 13 of R.A. 3019 applies to
any office which the officer might currently be holding and
not necessarily the office or position in relation to which he
is charged (Segovia v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 122740,
March 30,1998).
Malversation vs. Estafa (1999)
How is malversation distinguished from estafa?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Malversation differs from estafa in that malversation is
committed by an accountable public officer involving public
funds or property under his custody and accountability;
while estafa is committed by non-accountable public officer
or private individual involving funds or property for which he
is not accountable to the government.
Malversation: Anti-Fencing: Carnapping (2005)
Allan, the Municipal Treasurer of the Municipality of Gerona,
was in a hurry to return to his office after a day-long official
conference. He alighted from the government car which was
officially assigned to him, leaving the ignition key and the
car unlocked, and rushed to his office. Jules, a bystander,
drove off with the car and later sold the same to his brother,
Danny for P20,000.00, although the car was worth
P800,000.00.
What are the respective crimes, if any, committed by
Allan, Danny and Jules? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Allan, the municipal treasurer is liable for malversation
committed through negligence or culpa. The government car
which was assigned to him is public property under his
accountability by reason of his duties. By his act of
negligence, he permitted the taking of the car by another
person, resulting in malversation, consistent with the
language of Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code. Danny
violated the Anti-Fencing Law. He is in possession of an item
which is the subject of thievery. P.D. No. 1612 (Anti-Fencing
Law) under Section 5 provides that mere possession of any
good, article, item, object or any thing of value which has
been the subject of robbery or thievery shall be prima facie,
evidence of fencing. Jules is guilty of carnapping. He took
the motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's
consent. (R.A. No. 6539)
What, if any, are their respective civil liabilities?
Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Allan is under obligation to restitute the vehicle or make
reparation if not possible. Jules must pay the amount he
gained from the sale of the car which is P20,000.00. Danny
must make reparation corresponding to the value of the car
which is P800,000.00.
Malversation; Properties; Custodia Legis (2001)
Accused Juan Santos, a deputy sheriff in a Regional Trial
Court, levied on the personal properties of a defendant in a
civil case before said court, pursuant to a writ of execution
duly issued by the court. Among the properties levied upon
and deposited inside the "evidence room" of the Clerk of
Court for Multiple RTC Salas were a refrigerator, a stock of
cassette tapes, a dining table set of chairs and several
lampshades. Upon the defendant's paying off the judgment
creditor, he tried to claim his properties but found out that
several items were missing, such as the cassette tapes,
chairs and lampshades. After due and diligent sleuthing by
the police detectives assigned to the case, these missing
items were found in the house of accused Santos, who
reasoned out that he only borrowed them temporarily. If you
were the fiscal /prosecutor, what would be the nature of the
information to be filed against the accused? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
If I were the fiscal/prosecutor, I would file an information for
Malversation against Juan Santos for the cassette tapes,
chain and lampshades which he, as deputy sheriff, levied
upon and thus under his accountability as a public officer.
Said properties being under levy, are in custodia legis and
thus impressed with the character of public property,
misappropriation of which constitutes the crime of
malversation although said properties belonged to a private
individual (Art. 222, RPC). Juan Santos misappropriated such
properties when, in breach of trust, he applied them to his
own private use and benefit. His allegation that he only
borrowed such properties is a lame excuse, devoid of merit
as there is no one from whom he borrowed the same. The
fact that it was only "after due and diligent sleuthing by the
police detectives assigned to the case", that the missing
items were found in the house of Santos, negates his
pretension.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
An information for Theft may be filed, considering that the
sheriff had already deposited the properties levied upon in
the "evidence room" of the Clerk of Court and may have
already been relieved of his accountability therefor. If Juan
Santos was no longer the public officer who should be
accountable for the properties levied upon and found in his
house, his taking of such properties would no longer
constitute Malversation but Theft, as there was taking with
intent to gain, of personal property of another without the
consent of the latter.
Malversation; Technical Malversation (1996)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
104
 Elizabeth is the municipal treasurer of Masinloc, Zambales.  Demand for accounting not necessary, it is sufficient that
On January 10, 1994, she received, as municipal treasurer, there is a law or regulation requiring him to render account.
from the Department of Public  The reason for this law is the enforcement by penal
provision the performance of the duty incumbent upon
Works and Highways, the amount of P100,000.00 known as
every public employee who handles government funds to
the fund for construction, rehabilitation, betterment, and
render an account of all he receives of has in his charge by
Improvement (CRBI) for the concreting of Barangay Phanix
reason of his employment.
Road located in Masinloc, Zambales, a project undertaken on
proposal of the Barangay Captain. Informed that the fund
 Misappropriation not necessary.
was already exhausted while the concreting of Barangay
Phanix Road remained unfinished, a representative of the
Commission on Audit conducted a spot audit of Elizabeth
who failed to account for the Pl00,000 CRBI fund. Elizabeth,
Article 219. Failure of accountable officer to render
who was charged with malversation of public funds, was
accounts before leaving the country
acquitted by the Sandiganbayan of that charge but was
nevertheless convicted, in the same criminal case, for illegal
use of public funds. On appeal, Elizabeth argued that her
conviction was erroneous as she applied the amount of Elements:
P50,000.00 for a public purpose without violating any law or
ordinance appropriating the said amount for any specific
purpose. The absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact,
established. Is the contention of Elizabeth legally tenable? 1. Offender is a public officer;
Explain. 2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or property;
3. He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Islands without securing a certificate from the Commission
Elizabeth's contention that her conviction for illegal use of on Audit showing that his accounts have been finally
public funds (technical malversation) was erroneous, is settled.
legally tenable because she was charged for malversation of
public funds under Art. 217 of the Revised Penal Code but
was convicted for Illegal use of public funds which is defined
and punished under Art. 220 of said Code. A public officer
charged with malversation may not be validly convicted of Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property
illegal use of public funds (technical malversation) because (TECHNICAL MALVERSATION)
the latter crime is not necessarily included nor does it
necessarily include the crime of malversation. The
Sandiganbayan should have followed the procedure provided
Elements:
in Sec. 11, Rule 119 of the Rules of Court and order the
filing of the proper Information. (Parungao us.
Sandiganbayan. 197 SCRA 173.) From the
1. Offender is a public officer;
facts, there is no showing that there is a law or ordinance
appropriating the amount to a specific public purpose. As a
2. There are public funds or property under his administration;
matter of fact, the problem categorically states that the 3. Such fund or property were appropriated by law or
absence of such law or ordinance was, in fact, established." ordinance;
So, procedurally and substantially , the Sandiganbayan's 4. He applies such public fund or property to any public use
decision suffers from serious Infirmity. other than for which it was appropriated for.

Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to render  Also known as technical malversation
accounts  Illegal use of public funds or property distinguished from
malversation:
1. Offenders in both crimes are public officers
2. In Illegal use, the public officer does not derive
Elements: personal gain of profit,; In malversation, the offender
in certain cases profits
3. In Illegal use, the public fund or property is applied to
another public use; In malversation, the public fund or
1. Offender is public officer, whether in the service or
property is applied to personal use.
separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause;
2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or property;
3. He is required by law or regulation to render account to the
Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor;
4. He fails to do so for a period of two months after such Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or
accounts should be rendered. property

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

105
Acts punishable:
1. Failing to make payment by a public officer who is under
obligation to make such payment from government funds
in his possession;
2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has been
ordered by competent authority to deliver any property in
his custody or under his administration.
Elements of failure to make payment:
1. Public officer has government funds in his possession;
2. He is under obligation to make payment from such funds;
3. He fails to make the payment maliciously.
 Refusal to make delivery of property must be malicious
Article 222. Officers included in the preceding
provisions
1. private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have
charge of any national, provincial or municipal funds,
revenues, or property
2. any administrator or depository of funds or property
attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even if
such property belongs to a private individual.
 Judicial administrator (of estate of deceased) not covered,
conversion of effects makes him liable for estafa.
 Private property is included provided it is attached, seized
or deposited by public authority.
Campomanes v. People (2006)
As gleaned from the parties’ stipulation of facts, the PSC and the FIDE
entered here into a contract requiring the PSC to provide the FIDE the
funds for the latter to organize the Chess Olympiad and Congress in
Manila. The PSC delivered the funds to the FIDE, which apparently
successfully organized the Chess Olympiad and Congress since the PSC
does not claim that the FIDE failed to organize the two events. In
short, the FIDE complied with its undertaking under the contract.
There is no claim by the PSC or the COA that the FIDE, a foreign non-
governmental entity, is obligated under the contract to render an
accounting.
There is also no showing that the PSC’s charter or any law or regulation
requires the FIDE to render an accounting to the PSC or the COA as a
condition for the receipt of funds. Clearly, this situation cannot give
rise to criminal liability on the part of the FIDE’s officers under Article
222 of the Revised Penal Code which admittedly requires that there
must be a “law or regulation” requiring the rendering of accounts by
private individuals.
Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He had in his custody or charge a prisoner, either detention
prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody;
4. He was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s
escape.
Classes of prisoners involved:
1. If the fugitive has been sentenced by final judgment to any
penalty;
2. If the fugitive is held only as detention prisoner for any
crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.
 Release of detention prisoner who could not be delivered to
the judicial authority within the time fixed by law is not
infidelity in the custody of the prisoner
 Leniency or laxity is not infidelity.
 Relaxation of imprisonment is considered infidelity.
Article 224. Evasion through negligence
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a prisoner
or prisoner by final judgment;
3. Such prisoner escapes through negligence.
 Detention prisoners included
 Only the positive carelessness that is short of deliberate
non-performance of his duties as guard that is the
gravamen of the crime under Art 224.
 The fact that the public officer recaptured the escaped
prisoner does not afford complete exculpation.
 Liability of escaping prisoner:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
106
 1. If serving sentence by reason of final judgment-
evasion of service under Art 157
2. If detention prisoner, no criminal liability.
Rodillas vs. Sandiganbayan
Rodillas was a Patrolman when he was directed by his superior, to escort
prisoners to face trial. While waiting for the arrival of the judge, Pat.
Andres, a relative of the husband of detention prisoner Zenaida,
approached the accused and requested the latter if he could permit
Zenaida to talk to her husband. The accused consented and Zenaida
had a short talk with her husband. He consented to the request that
they eat at the canteen. While eating, the husband of Zenaida asked
accused if he could accompany his wife to the comfort room as she was
not feeling well and felt like defecating. The accused accompanied
Zenaida and a lady companion to the ladies' comfort room. Zenaida and
her lady companion entered the comfort room, while he stood guard
near the ladies' comfort room facing the door. Not long after, the lady
companion of Zenaida came out of the comfort room and told him that
she was going to buy sanitary napkins for Zenaida. After ten minutes
elapsed without the lady companion of Zenaida coming back, the
accused became suspicious and entered the comfort room. To his
surprise, he found Zenaida no longer inside the comfort room. He
immediately went out to look for the escapee inside the building but
they were not able to see her. Accused was unable to recapture Zenaida.
Was the Sandiganbayan correct in holding the petitioner guilty of
infidelity in the custody of a prisoner through negligence penalized under
Art. 224?
HELD: Yes. The only disputed issue is the petitioner's negligence
resulting in the escape of detention prisoner Zenaida Andres. The
negligence referred to in the Revised Penal Code is such definite laxity
as all but amounts to a deliberate non-performance of duty on the part
of the guard. It is evident from the records that the petitioner acted
negligently and beyond the scope of his authority when he permitted his
charge to create the situation which led to her escape. The petitioner
contends that human considerations compelled him to grant Zenaida
Andres' requests to take lunch and to go to the comfort room to relieve
herself. As a police officer who was charged with the duty to return the
prisoner directly to jail, the deviation from his duty was clearly a violation
of the regulations. It is the duty of any police officer having custody of
a prisoner to take necessary precautions to assure the absence of any
means of escape. A failure to undertake these precautions will make his
act one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate non-
performance of duty. His tolerance of arrangements whereby the
prisoner and her companions could plan and make good her escape
should have aroused the suspicion of a person of ordinary prudence.
Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of a
person not a public officer
Elements:
1. Offender is a private person;
2. The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person under
arrest is confided to him;
3. The prisoner or person under arrest escapes;
4. Offender consents to the escape, or that the escape takes
place through his negligence.
 Inapplicable if the private person is the one who made the
arrest and he consented to the escape of the person he
arrested
Bar Questions
Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners
(1996)
A chief of police of a municipality, believing in good faith
that a prisoner serving a ten-day sentence in the municipal
jail, would not escape, allowed said prisoner to sleep at the
latter's house because the municipal Jail was so congested
and there was no bed space available. Accordingly, the
prisoner went home to sleep every night but returned to jail
early each morning, until the ten-day sentence had been
fully served. Did the Chief of Police commit any crime?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The Chief of Police is guilty of violation of Art. 223, RPC,
consenting or conniving to evasion, the elements of which
are (a) he is a public officer, (b) he is in charge or custody
of a prisoner, detention or prisoner by final judgment, (c)
that the prisoner escaped, and (d) there must be
connivance. Relaxation of a prisoner is considered infidelity,
thus making the penalty ineffectual; although the convict
may not have fled (US vs. Bandino, 9 Phil. 459) it is still
violative of the provision. It also includes a case when the
guard allowed the prisoner, who is serving a six-day
sentence in the municipal Jail, to sleep in his house and eat
there (People vs. Revilla).
Public Officers; Infidelity in Custody of Prisoners
(1997)
During a town fiesta. A, the chief of police, permitted B, a
detention prisoner and his compadre, to leave the municipal
jail and entertain visitors in his house from 10:00 a.m. to
8:00 p.m. B returned to the municipal jail at 8:30 p.m. Was
there any crime committed by A?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, A committed the crime of infidelity in the custody of a
prisoner. Since B is a detention prisoner. As Chief of Police,
A has custody over B. Even if B returned to the municipal
Jail at 8:30 p.m. A, as custodian of the prisoner, has
maliciously failed to perform the duties of his office, and
when he permits said prisoner to obtain a relaxation of his
imprisonment, he consents to the prisoner escaping the
punishment of being deprived of his liberty which can be
considered real and actual evasion of service under Article
223 of the Revised Penal Code (People vs. Leon Bandino 29
Phil 459).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
107
 No crime was committed by the Chief of Police. It was only
an act of leniency or laxity in the performance of his duty
and not in excess of his duty (People vs. Evangelista (CA) 38 Article 227. Officer breaking seal
O.G. 158).

Elements:

Article 226. Removal, concealment, or destruction of

documents 1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is charged with the custody of papers or property;
3. These papers or property are sealed by proper authority;
4. He breaks the seal or permits them to be broken.
Elements:

 It is the breaking of the seals, not opening of closed

envelope that is punishable under the Article.
1. Offender is a public officer;  Damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary.
2. He abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or papers;  Distinction between infidelity and theft
3. Said document or papers should have been entrusted to 1. There is infidelity if the offender opened the letter
such public officer by reason of his office; but did not take the same.
4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to the 2. There is theft if there is intent to gain when the
public interest has been caused. offender took the money.

 Public officer must be officially entrusted with the Note that he document must be complete in legal sense. If
documents or papers the writings are mere form, there is no crime.
 Documents must be complete and one by which a right
could be established or an obligation could be extinguished
 Books, periodicals and pamphlets not documents
 Papers include checks, promissory notes and paper money
 Infidelity in the custody of the document distinguished from
malversation and falsification: When the postmaster Article 228. Opening of closed documents
received money orders, signed the signatures of the
payees, collected and appropriated the respective amounts
thereof, the postmaster is guilty of malversation and Elements:
falsification, the latter crime having been committed the
malversation. But when the postmaster receives letters or
envelopes containing money orders for transmission and
the money orders are not sent to the addressees, the 1. Offender is a public officer;
postmaster cashing the same for his own benefit, he is 2. Any closed papers, documents, or object are entrusted to
guilty of infidelity in the custody of papers. his custody;
 Money bills received as court exhibits are papers. 3. He opens or permits to be opened said closed papers,
 Acts punishable: removing, destroying, concealing, documents or objects;
documents or papers officially entrusted to the offending 4. He does not have proper authority.
public officer.
 It is not necessary that the act of removal must be coupled
with proof of intention to conceal. Accordingly, removal,  Custody means a guarding or keeping safe
destruction and concealment are distinct modes of  Closed documents must be entrusted to the custody of the
committing the offense. accused by reason of his office
 The removal is for a illicit purpose when offender intends to  Damage or intent to cause damage not an element
(1) tamper with it or (2) profit with it of (3) commit an act  If public officer broke a seal in opening closed papers, what
constituting a breach of trust in the official care thereof. is the offense? Breaking the seal, because Article 228
 The crime of removal of public documents in breach of requires that the officer must “not be included in the
official trust is consummated upon its removal from its usual provisions of the next preceding article”.
place in the office.
 Infidelity in the custody of document by destroying or
concealing it does not require proof of illicit purpose.
 Delivering document to the wrong party is infidelity in the
Article 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer
custody thereof.
 There must be damage, great or small, which may consist
in mere alarm to the public or alienation of its confidence in
any branch of government service. Acts punishable:

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

108
 2. He knows of the secrets of a private individual by reason of
his office;
1. Revealing any secrets known to the offending public officer
by reason of his official capacity; 3. He reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable
reason.

Elements
 Revelation to one person is sufficient, public revelation not
1. Offender is a public officer; required
2. He knows of a secret by reason of his official capacity;  When the offender is an attorney at law or solicitor Art 230
3. He reveals such secret without authority or justifiable is not applicable but Art 209.
reasons;  Damage to private person not necessary since the reason
4. Damage, great or small, is caused to the public of the provision is to uphold faith and trust in the public
interest. service

 Secret must affect public interest

 Espionage not contemplated here as this article punishes
minor official betrayals, infidelities of little consequence, Article 231. Open disobedience
affecting usually the administration of justice, executive or
official duties, or the general interest of the public order
 Secrets of private persons not included
1. Officer is a judicial or executive officer;
2. There is a judgment, decision or order of a superior
2. Delivering wrongfully papers or copies of papers of which authority;
he may have charge and which should not be published. 3. Such judgment, decision or order was made within the
scope of the jurisdiction of the superior authority and issued
with all the legal formalities;
4. He, without any legal justification, openly refuses to
Elements: execute the said judgment, decision or order, which he is
duty bound to obey.
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has charge of papers;
3. Those papers should not be published;
4. He delivers those papers or copies thereof to a third
person; Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior officer,
5. The delivery is wrongful; when said order was suspended by inferior officer
6. Damage is caused to public interest.

 Offender must have charge of papers or its copies 1.
 Distinguish from infidelity in the custody of documents or 2.
papers by removing the same: If the papers contain secrets 3.
and therefore should not be published, and the public
officer having charge removes it and delivers them 4.
wrongfully to a third person the crime is revelation of
secrets by a public officer. If papers do not contain secrets, 5.
the removal for an illicit purpose is infidelity in the custody
of documents.
Offender is a public officer;
An order is issued by his superior for execution;
He has for any reason suspended the execution of such
order;
His superior disapproves the suspension of the execution of
the order;
Offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval of
the suspension.

 This article does not apply if the order of the superior is

illegal.

Article 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private

individual
Article 233. Refusal of assistance

Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. A competent authority demands from the offender that he
1. Offender is a public officer; lend his cooperation towards the administration of justice
or other public service;
3. Offender fails to do so maliciously.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
109

 Damage to public interest or to a third party is essential.
Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office
1. Offender is elected by popular election to a public office;
2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of said
office;
3. There is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn in or
to discharge the duties of said office.
 The reason is that once an individual is elected to an office
by the will of the people, the discharge of the duties of said
office becomes a matter of duty.
 Not applicable to appointive officers
Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He has under his charge a prisoner or detention prisoner;
3. He maltreats such prisoner in either of the following
manners:
a. By overdoing himself in the correction or handling of a
prisoner or detention prisoner under his charge either
-
(1) By the imposition of punishment not
authorized by the regulations; or
(2) By inflicting such punishments (those
authorized) in a cruel and humiliating
manner; or
b. By maltreating such prisoners to extort a confession or
to obtain some information from the prisoner.
 Public officer must have actual charge of the prisoner
 Offended party must be convict or detention prisoner
 To be a detention prisoner, the arrested person must be in
jail even for a short while.
 The maltreatment must (1) relate to the correction or
handling of the prisoner or (2) be for the purpose of
extorting a confession or of obtaining some information
from the prisoner.
 Offender may also be liable for physical injuries or damage
caused
Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office
1. Offender is entitled to hold a public office or employment,
either by election or appointment;
2. The law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or
should first give a bond;
3. He assumes the performance of the duties and powers of
such office;
4. He has not taken his oath of office and/or given the bond
required by law.
Article 237. Prolonging performance of duties and
powers
1. Offender is holding a public office;
2. The period provided by law, regulations or special provision
for holding such office, has already expired;
3. He continues to exercise the duties and powers of such
office.
1. A public officer who has been suspended, separated,
declared overaged or dismissed cannot continue to
perform the duties of his office.
Article 238. Abandonment of office or position
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He formally resigns from his position;
3. His resignation has not yet been accepted;
4. He abandons his office to the detriment of the public
service.
 There must be a written or formal resignation, verbal
statement is not allowed
 The offense is qualified when the abandonment was for the
purpose to evade the discharge of duties of preventing,
prosecuting, or punishing any of the crimes of (1) treason,
(2) conspiracy and proposal to commit treason, (3)
misprision of treason, (4) espionage, (5) inciting to war or
giving motives for reprisal, (6) violation of neutrality, (7)
correspondence with hostile country, (8) flight to enemy
country, (9) piracy and mutiny, (10) rebellion, (11) coup d’
etat, (12) conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’ etat
or rebellion, (13) disloyalty of public officers, (14) inciting
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
110
 to rebellion, (15) sedition, (16) conspiracy to commit
sedition and (17) inciting to sedition.
 Art 238 distinguished from Art. 208:
1. Art. 238 is committed by any public officer while in Art
208 is committed by public officers who have the duty
to institute prosecution for the punishment and
violation of the law
2. Art. 238 , public officer abandons office to evade the
discharge of duty, in Art 208, the public officer does
not abandon his office but fails to prosecute an offense
by dereliction of duty or malicious tolerance of the
commission of the offense.
Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers
1. Offender is an executive or judicial officer;
2. He (a) makes general rules or regulations beyond the scope
of his authority or (b) attempts to repeal a law or (c)
suspends the execution thereof.
Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions
1. Offender is a judge;
2. He (a) assumes a power pertaining to the executive
authorities, or (b) obstructs the executive authorities in the
lawful exercise of their powers.
1. Legislative officers not liable
Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions
1. Offender is an officer of the executive branch of the
government;
2. He (a) assumes judicial powers, or (b) obstructs the
execution of any order or decision rendered by any judge
within his jurisdiction.
2. Arts 239-241 punish interference by the officers of one of
the three branches of government with functions of officers
in another department. The purpose is to maintain the
separation and independence of the three departments.
Article 242. Disobeying request for disqualification
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. A proceeding is pending before such public officer;
3. There is a question brought before the proper authority
regarding his jurisdiction, which is not yet decided;
4. He has been lawfully required to refrain form continuing the
proceeding;
5. He continues the proceeding.
Article 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to
any judicial authority
1. Offender is an executive officer;
2. He addresses any order or suggestion to any judicial
authority;
3. The order or suggestion relates to any case or business
coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of
justice.
 Purpose is to maintain independence of the judiciary
 Legislative or judicial officers not liable
Article 244. Unlawful appointments (Art. 244)
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He nominates or appoints a person to a public office;
3. Such person lacks the legal qualifications therefore;
4. Offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the
qualification at the time he made the nomination or
appointment.
 Nominate is different from recommend. Recommending,
knowing that the person recommended has no qualification,
is not a crime.
Article 245. Abuses against chastity
Acts punishable:
1. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a
woman interested in matters pending before the offending
officer for decision, or with respect to which he is required
to submit a report to or consult with a superior officer;
2. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a
woman under the offender’s custody;
3. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to the
wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same degree by
affinity of any person in the custody of the offending
warden or officer.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
111
 Article 254. Discharge of firearms

Elements:

Section Two – Infanticide and Abortion

1. Offender is a public officer; Article 255. Infanticide

2. He solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a
Article 256. Intentional Abortion
woman;
3. Such woman is - Article 257. Unintentional Abortion
a. interested in matters pending before the offender
for decision, or with respect to which he is Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself
required to submit a report to or consult with a or by her parents
superior officer; or
b. under the custody of the offender who is a warden Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or
midwife and dispensing of abortives
or other public officer directly charged with the
care and custody of prisoners or persons under
arrest; or
c. the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the Section Three – Duel
same degree by affinity of the person in the
custody of the offender. Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel

Article 261. Challenging to a duel

 Solicit is to propose earnestly and persistently something
unchaste and immoral to a woman.
 Advances must be immoral or indecent Chapter Two – PHYSICAL INJURIES
 Consummated by mere proposal
 Proof of solicitation not necessary when there is sexual
intercourse Article 262. Mutilation
 Mother of the person in the custody of the offender not
included. Article 263. Serious physical injuries

Article 264. Administering injurious substances or

beverages

Article 265. Less serious physical injuries

Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment

Title Eight

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS

Chapter Three – RAPE

Chapter One. DESTRUCTION OF LIFE

Article 266-A. Rape, When and How committed

Article 266-B. Penalties

Section One – Parricide, murder, homicide
Article 266-C. Effect of pardon
Article 246. Parricide
Article 266-D. Presumptions
Article 247. Death or physical injuries under
exceptional circumstances

Article 248. Murder

Article 249. Homicide

Article 246. Parricide
Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder
or homicide

Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray Elements:

Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a
tumultuous affray
1. A person is killed;
Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide
2. The deceased is killed by the accused;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

112
3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate; or a legitimate other ascendant or
other descendant, or the legitimate spouse, of the accused.
 Relationship of the offender with the victim is an essential
element of this crime.
 GENERAL RULE: only relatives by blood and in the direct
line are considered in parricide. EXCEPTION: spouse
 The father, mother or child may be legitimate or
illegitimate. However, the other ascendants or descendants
must be legitimate.
 The spouse must be legitimate. The best proof of the
relationship is the marriage certificate.
 Relationship must be alleged in order that the accused may
be convicted of parricide. If not alleged, relationship must
be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
 If a person wanted to kill a stranger but killed his own father
by mistake, is this parricide? YES, but Art. 49 applies as
regards the proper penalty to be imposed.
 If a person killed another, not knowing that the latter was
his son, will he be guilty of parricide? YES, because the law
does not require knowledge of relationship between them.
 A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the
commission of the crime of parricide is not guilty of
parricide, but only homicide or murder, as the case may be.
People vs. Jumawan
Presentacion Jumawan, her father and two brothers conspired to kill
Presentacion’s husband Rodolfo in a store near the public market. The
fiscal filed an information for murder against the four accused and they
were subsequently convicted for such crime.
HELD: Since Presentacion’s relationship to the victim is not alleged in
the information, she can be convicted of murder only. Relationship
can be appreciated as generic aggravating circumstance only.
People vs. Tomotorgo
Julian Tomotorgo hit his wife with a piece of wood, after the latter
tried to leave their conjugal home. Although Julian stopped the
beating when his wife complained of chest pains, the wife succumbed
to the serious injuries. Julian was convicted of parricide but he claims
that he should be sentenced to the penalty corresponding to serious
physical injuires only, the offense which he intended to commit.
HELD: The fact that the accused intended to maltreat the victim or
inflict physical injuries DOES NOT exempt him from liability for the
resulting and more serious crime committed. He is only entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of lack of intent to commit so grave a wrong.
People vs. Malabago (1996)
After an argument, Pedro Malabago fatally hacked and struck his wife
with a bolo. He was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of PARRICIDE.
HELD: Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the
deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the father,
mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or a legitimate
other ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the
accused.
The key element in parricide is the relationship of the offender with
the victim. In the case of parricide of a spouse, the best proof of the
relationship between the accused and the deceased is the marriage
certificate. In the absence thereof, oral evidence of the fact of
marriage may be considered by the trial court if such proof is not
objected to.
People vs. Ignacio (1997)
Accused wife here was accused of parricide for the killing of her
husband by hitting the latter on the nape with a piece of wood.
Accused was convicted of parricide. She however appeals saying that
the crime she committed is not parricide but only homicide since there
was no proof of marriage between her and the victim.
HELD: Guilty of parricide. The phrase “whether legitimate or
illegitimate” in the law just refers to children and not to spouses who
must therefore be legitimate.
In CAB, accused declared in open court that they were husband and
wife. And even without this, there is a presumption in law that persons
deporting themselves as husband and wife have entered into a lawful
marriage without proof to the contrary.
People vs. Genosa
Accused wife here was convicted parricide for the killing her husband
and was sentenced to death. Accused asks for a reopening of the case
in order to prove her state of mind during the killing in as she says that
she is a battered wife (battered wife syndrome).
HELD: Case should be remanded for the psychological examination. If
accused can prove that she indeed was a battered wife, this may be
raised as a valid defense as a species of self-defense. Having been
proven to be a victim of domestic violence of the husband. This can be
self defense because since the wife already always assumes, and
correctly that the husband will beat her up again, she may be justified
in taking steps to protect herself. And since there is the fear of an
impending beating again in the mind of the wife, she would have no
opportunity beforehand to choose means to protect herself other than
to injure and/ or kill the husband.
The psychological examination can prove how the accused perceived
danger and how, in her honest belief, she believed that danger to
herself was imminent (as one of the elements of self-defense).
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
113

Bar Questions
Complex Crime; Parricide w/ unintentional abortion
(1994)
Aldrich was dismissed from his Job by his employer. Upon
reaching home, his pregnant wife, Carmi, nagged him about
money for her medicines. Depressed by his dismissal and
angered by the nagging of his wife, Aldrich struck Carmi with
his fist. She fell to the ground. As a result, she and her
unborn baby died. What crime was committed by Aldrich?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Aldrich committed the crime of parricide with unintentional
abortion. When Aldrich struck his wife, Carmi, with his fist,
he committed the crime of maltreatment under Art, 266,
par. 3 of the Revised Penal Code, Since Carmi died because
of the felonious act of Aldrich, he is criminally liable of
parricide under Art. 246, RPC in relation to Art. 4, par. 1 of
the same Code. Since the unborn baby of Carmi died in the
process, but Aldrich had no intention to cause the abortion
of his wife, Aldrich committed unintentional abortion as
defined in Art. 257, RPC. Inasmuch as the single act of
Aldrich produced two grave or less grave felonies, he falls
under Art, 48,
Parricide (1999)
Who may be guilty of the crime of parricide? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Any person who kills his father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or his ascendants or
descendants, or spouse, shall be guilty of parricide.
(Art. 246, RPC)
Parricide (1999)
In 1975, Pedro, then a resident of Manila, abandoned
his wife and their son, Ricky, who was then only three
years old. Twenty years later, an affray took place in a
bar in Olongapo City between Pedro and his
companions, on one hand, and Ricky and his friends,
upon the other, without the father and son knowing
each other. Ricky stabbed and killed Pedro in the fight,
only to find out, a week later, when his mother arrived
from Manila to visit him in jail, that the man whom he
killed was his own father. 1) What crime did Ricky
commit? Explain. 2) Suppose Ricky knew before the
killing that Pedro is his father, but he nevertheless
killed him out of bitterness for having abandoned him
and his mother, what crime did Ricky commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Ricky committed parricide because the person killed
was his own father, and the law punishing the crime
(Art. 246, RPC) does not require that the crime be
"knowingly" committed. Should Ricky be prosecuted
and found guilty of parricide, the penalty to be imposed
is Art. 49 of the Revised Penal Code for Homicide (the
crime he intended to commit) but in its maximum
period.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Ricky should be held criminally liable only for homicide
not parricide because the relationship which qualified
the killing to parricide is virtually absent for a period of
twenty years already, such that Ricky could not possibly
be aware that his adversary was his father. In other
words, the moral basis for imposing the higher penalty
for parricide is absent.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
2) The crime committed should be parricide if Ricky
knew before the killing that Pedro is his father, because
the moral basis for punishing the crime already exists.
His having acted out of bitterness for having been
abandoned by his father may be considered mitigating.
Parricide; Multiple Parricide; Homicide (1997)
A, a young housewife, and B, her paramour, conspired
to kill C. her husband, to whom she was lawfully
married, A and B bought pancit and mixed it with
poison. A gave the food with poison to C, but before C
could eat it. D, her illegitimate father, and E, her
legitimate son, arrived. C. D and E shared the food in
the presence of A who merely watched them eating. C,
D and E died because of having partaken of the
poisoned food. What crime or crimes did A and B
commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of multiple parricide for the
killing of C, her lawful husband, D, her illegitimate
father, and E, her legitimate son. All these killings
constitute parricide under Article 246 of the Revised
Penal Code because of her relationship with the
victims. B committed the crime of murder as a co-
conspirator of A in the killing of C because the killing
was carried out by means of poison (Art. 248. par. 3,
Revised Penal Code). But for feloniously causing the
death of D and E, B committed two counts of
homicide. The plan was only to kill C.
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances
Requisites for application:
1. That a legally married person or a parent surprises his
spouse or his daughter, the latter under 18 years of age
and living with him, in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
114
2. That he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon any
or both of them any serious physical injury, in the act or
immediately thereafter.
3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of
his wife or daughter, or that he or she has not consented
to the infidelity of the other spouse.
 Justification for this article: The law considers the spouse
or parent as acting in a justified burst of passion.
 In the case of an accused killing his spouse or his spouse’s
paramour, the accused must be a legally married person.
 However, in the case of a parent killing his/her daughter
and/or the man with whom she is having sexual
intercourse, the parents need not be legitimate.
 Does this article apply even if the daughter is married?
Although the article does not use the word ‘unmarried’, this
article applies only when the daughter is single because
while under 18 and single, she is still under parental
authority. If she is married, her husband alone can claim
the benefits of this article.
 “Surprise” – to come upon suddenly and unexpectedly
 The accused must have seen his spouse or daughter in the
acts of sexual intercourse with another. (not before, or
after sexual intercourse)
 The killing or inflicting of serious physical injuries must be
in the act of sexual intercourse, or immediately thereafter.
 The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused’s
rage.
 The article does not apply where the wife was not surprised
in flagrant adultery but was being abused (raped) by a man.
An attack upon the man by the husband will be considered
a defense of relative under Article 11 par. 2.
 When less serious or slight physical injuries are committed,
there is no criminal liability. It is an absolutory cause.
 The penalty of destierro is really not intended as a penalty
but to remove the killer spouse from the vicinity and to
protect him/her from acts of reprisal principally by relatives
of the deceased spouse.
 Cases where a person who committed parricide is not
punished with reclusion perpetua to death:
o When parricide is committed through negligence (Art.
365)
o When parricide is committed by mistake (Art. 249)
o When parricide is committed under exceptional
circumstances (Art. 247)
People vs. Abarca
Abarca caught his wife in the act of sexual intercourse with Koh. An
hour later, Abarca fired several shots at Koh during a mahjongg
session. Koh was killed and two others were seriously wounded.
Abarca was convicted of Murder and Double Frustrated Murder.
HELD: Though quite a length of time, about an hour, had passed
between the time Abarca caught his wife in sexual intercourse with
Koh and the time the latter was actually shot, the shooting must be
understood to be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim by
Abarca. The RPC, in requiring that the accused “shall kill any of them
or both of them…immediately” after surprising his spouse in the act of
intercourse, does not say that he should commit the killing instantly
thereafter. It only requires that the death caused be the proximate
result of the outrage overwhelming the accused after chancing upon
the spouse in the basest act of infidelity.
Bar Question
Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2001)
A and B are husband and wife. A is employed as a security
guard at Landmark, his shift being from 11:00 p.m. to 7:00
a.m. One night, he felt sick and cold, hence, he decided to
go home around midnight after getting permission from his
duty officer. Upon reaching the front yard of his home, he
noticed that the light in the master bedroom was on and
that the bedroom window was open. Approaching the front
door, he was surprised to hear sighs and giggles inside the
bedroom. He opened the door very carefully and peeped
inside where he saw his wife B having sexual intercourse
with their neighbor C. A rushed inside and grabbed C but the
latter managed to wrest himself free and jumped out of the
window, A followed suit and managed to catch C again and
after a furious struggle, managed also to strangle him to
death. A then rushed back to his bedroom where his wife B
was cowering under the bed covers. Still enraged, A hit B
with fist blows and rendered her unconscious. The police
arrived after being summoned by their neighbors and
arrested A who was detained, inquested and charged for the
death of C and serious physical Injuries of B. a) Is A liable
for C's death? Why? (5%) b) Is A liable for B's injuries?
Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) Yes, A is liable for C's death but under the exceptional
circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code,
where only destierro is prescribed. Article 247 governs since
A surprised his wife B in the act of having sexual intercourse
with C, and the killing of C was "Immediately thereafter" as
the discovery, escape, pursuit and killing of C form one
continuous act. (U.S. vs. Vargas, 2 Phil. 194)
b) Likewise, A is liable for the serious physical injuries he
inflicted on his wife B but under the same exceptional
circumstances in Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, for
the same reasons.
Death under Exceptional Circumstances (2005)
Pete, a security guard, arrived home late one night after
rendering overtime. He was shocked to see Flor, his wife,
and Benjie, his best friend, completely naked having sexual
intercourse. Pete pulled out his service gun and shot and
killed Benjie. Pete was charged with murder for the death of
Benjie. Pete contended that he acted in defense of his honor
and that, therefore, he should be acquitted of the crime. The
court found that Benjie died under exceptional
circumstances and exonerated Pete of the crime, but
sentenced him to destierro, conformably with Article 247 of
the Revised Penal Code. The court also ordered Pete to pay
indemnity to the heirs of the victim in the amount of
P50,000.00. (5%)
Is the defense of Pete meritorious? Explain.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
115
 SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. A person who commits acts penalized under Article 247
of the Revised Penal Code for death or serious physical
injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances is still
criminally liable. However, this is merely an exempting
circumstance when the victim suffers any other kind of
physical injury. In the case at bar, Pete will suffer the
penalty of destierro for the death of Benjie.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No. Pete did not act in defense of his honor. For this defense
to apply under Art. 11, there must be an unlawful
aggression which is defined as an attack or material
aggression that poses a danger to his life or personal safely.
It must be a real aggression characterized by a physical
force or with a weapon to cause injury or damage to one's
life. (People v. Nahayra, G.R. Nos. 96368-69, October 17,
1991; People v. Housing, G.R. No. 64965, July 18, 1991)
Under Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code, is
destierro a penalty? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
In the case of People v. Abarca, G.R. No. 74433, September
14, 1987, the Court ruled that Article 247 does not define a
felony. However, it went on to state that the penalty is
merely banishment of the accused, intended for his
protection. Punishment, therefore, is not inflicted on the
accused.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes. Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code 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. Destierro is a
punishment whereby a convict is banished to a certain place
and is prohibited from entering or coming near that place
designated in the sentence, not less than 25 kms. (People v.
Araquel, G.R. No. L-12629, December 9, 1959)
Did the court correctly order Pete to pay indemnity
despite his exoneration under Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, because the privilege defined under this Article exempts
the offender from criminal liability but not from civil liability.
(People v. Abarca, G.R, No. L-74483, September 14, 1987;
Art. 12, Revised Penal Code)
Article 248. Murder
Elements:
1. A person was killed;
2. The accused killed him;
3. The killing was attended by any of the following qualifying
circumstances –
a. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength,
with the aid or armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense, or of means or persons to insure
or afford impunity;
b. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
c. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or assault
upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by means of motor
vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin;
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, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or outraging
or scoffing at his person or corpse.
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
 Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is not
parricide or infanticide, provided any of the qualifying
circumstances are present.
 Murder will exist with only one of the circumstances
described in this article. When more than one of the
circumstances is present, the others must be considered as
generic aggravating.
 However, when the other circumstances are absorbed or
included in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot be
considered as generic aggravating. (example: abuse of
superior strength is absorbed by treachery)
 The qualifying circumstance must be alleged, in order to
qualify the killing to murder. If not alleged, it is only a
generic aggravating circumstance.
 The offender must have intent to kill to be liable for murder
committed by means of fire, poison, explosion etc.
 Cruelty – when other injuries or wounds are inflicted
deliberately by he offender, which are not necessary for the
killing of the victim. The victim must be alive when the
other injuries or wounds are inflicted.
 ‘Outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse’ – the only
qualifying circumstance which is not mentioned in Article 14
as an aggravating circumstance.
 outraging – to commit an extremely vicious or deeply
insulting act
 scoffing – to jeer, and implies a showing of irreverence
People v. Mallari, 404 SCRA 170
FACTS: Joseph admonished Rufino and his brothers Ino and
Felix Mallari not to drive fast while passing by Joseph's house. Rufino
and his brothers, who were then hot-tempered, challenged Joseph to
a fight. The latter just ignored the challenge; and, instead he and his
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
116
own brothers Radi and Manny asked apology from Rufino. Later that
afternoon, while Joseph and Liza were watching a basketball game at
the barangay basketball court, Rufino and his brothers, who were then
carrying bladed weapons, arrived and attempted to stab Joseph; but
Joseph was able to run away. When they were not able to catch up
with him, Rufino boarded and drove the truck parked near the
basketball court and continued chasing Joseph until the truck ran over
the latter, which caused his instantaneous death. The trial court found
Rufino guilty of murder. It ruled that the crime was committed by
means of a motor vehicle as a qualifying circumstance.
HELD: The Court affirmed the trial court's finding that Rufino
deliberately bumped Joseph with the truck he was driving. The
evidence shows that Rufino deliberately used his truck in pursuing
Joseph. Upon catching up with him, Rufino hit him with the truck, as
a result of which Joseph died instantly. It is therefore clear that the
truck was the means used by Rufino to perpetrate the killing of Joseph.
The case of People v. Muñoz cited by Rufino finds no
application to the present case. In the said case, the police patrol jeep
was merely used by the accused therein in looking for the victim and
in carrying the body of the victim to the place where it was dumped.
The accused therein shot the victim, which caused the latter's death.
In the present case, the truck itself was used to kill the victim by
running over him.
Under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, a person who
kills another "by means of a motor vehicle" is guilty of murder. Thus,
the use of motor vehicle qualifies the killing to murder.
People v. Pascual (2006)
At any rate, the doctrinal rule is that where the wound inflicted on the
victim is not life threatening, the accused not having performed all the
acts of execution that would have brought about death, the crime
committed is only attempted murder.
People v. Whisenhunt, 386 SCRA 586
FACTS: Whisenhunt and the deceased, Elsa Santos-
Castillo, were lovers. They met at the Apex Motor Corporation where
accused was the Manager while Elsa was the Assistant Personnel
Manager. Both accused and Elsa were married, but they were
estranged from their respective spouses. Inside his condominium unit,
accused Whisenhunt killed Elsa by stabbing her with a knife. He then
beheaded her and mutilated her body parts. Thereafter, with the help
of Ravelo, the dismembered parts of Elsa’s body were wrapped in three
separate black garbage bags. Whisenhunt and Ravelo packed all the
garbage bags in another bag with zipper and rollers. The two then
drove in Whisenhunt’s car and the garbage bags were eventually
thrown on the roadside; and into a river. The trial court found
Whisenhun guilty of murder qualified by outraging and scoffing at the
victim's person or corpse.
HELD: The mere decapitation of the victim's head constitute
outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim, thus qualifying the
killing to murder. In this case, accused-appellant not only beheaded
Elsa. He further cut up her body like pieces of meat. Then, he strewed
dismembered parts of her body in a deserted road in the countryside,
leaving them to rot on the ground. The sight of Elsa's severed body
parts on the ground, vividly depicted in the photographs offered in
evidence, is both revolting and horrifying. At the same time, the
viewer cannot help but feel utter pity for the sub-human manner of
disposing of her remains. Hence, the trial court was correct in
convicting accused-appellant of the crime of murder, qualified by
outraging and scoffing at the victim's person or corpse.
Sabang v. People (2007)
The distance from which a shot is fired affects the nature and extent
of the injury caused on the victim. In close range fire, the injury is not
only due to the missile but also due to the pressure of the expanded
gases, flame and other solid products of combustion. In contrast,
distant fire usually produces the characteristic effect of the bullet
alone. A shot fired from a distance of more than 60 cm or about two
(2) feet does not produce the burning, smudging or tattooing typically
present in loose contact or near fire, short range fire and medium
range fire.
Powder burns is a term commonly used by physicians whenever there
is blackening of the margin at the entrance of the gunshot
wound. The blackening is due to smoke smudging, gunpowder
tattooing and, to a certain extent, burning of the wound margin.
The fact that there were no powder burns on Butad’s body indicates
that the shots were fired at a distance of more than two (2) feet
and not at close range as the defense suggests. Moreover, Butad
sustained four (4) gunshot wounds, three (3) of which were in the chest
area, circumstances which are inconsistent with the defense’s theory
of accidental firing
Murder & Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165 (2005)
Candido stabbed an innocent bystander who accidentally
bumped him. The innocent bystander died as a result of the
stabbing. Candido was arrested and was tested to be
positive for the use of ―shabu‖ at the time he committed
the stabbing. What should be the proper charge against
Candido? Explain. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances enumerated under Article 248 of the Revised
Penal Code. The killing, however, constitutes murder
because the commission of a crime under the influence of
prohibited drugs is a qualifying, aggravating circumstance.
(Sec. 25, R.A. No. 9165)
Murder (1999)
The accused, not intending to kill the victim, treacherously
shot the victim while the victim was turning his back to him.
He aimed at and hit the victim only on the leg. The victim,
however, died because of loss of blood. Can the accused be
liable for homicide or murder, considering that treachery was
clearly involved but there was no attempt to kill? Explain
your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The accused is liable for the death of the victim even though
he merely aimed and fired at the latter's leg, "not intending
to kill the victim", considering that the gunshot was felonious
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
117
and was the proximate cause of death. An offender is liable
for all the direct, natural, and logical consequences of his
felonious act although different from what he intended.
However, since specific intent to kill is absent, the crime for
said death is only homicide and not murder (People vs.
Pugay and Samson, 167 SCRA 439)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The accused is liable for the death of the victim in as much
as his act of shooting the victim at the leg is felonious and is
the proximate cause of death. A person performing a
felonious act is criminally liable for all the direct, natural, and
logical consequences of such act although different from
what he intended. And since such death was attended by
treachery, the same will constitute murder but the accused
should be given the benefit of the mitigating circumstance
that he did not intend to commit so grave a wrong as that
which was committed (Art. 13(3), RPC)
Murder; Definition & Elements (1999)
Define murder. What are the elements of the crime? [3%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Murder is the unlawful killing of a person which
otherwise would constitute only homicide, had it not been
attended by any of the following circumstances:
1. With treachery or taking advantage of superior strength,
or with the aid of armed men, or employing means to
weaken the defense or of means or persons to insure or
afford impunity;
2. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
3. By means or on the occasion of inundation, fire, poison,
explosion, shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or
assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, or by means of
motor vehicles, or with the use of any other means involving
great waste and ruin;
4. On occasion of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano,
destructive cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity;
5. With evident premeditation;
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting
the suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his
person or corpse.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(b) The elements of murder are: (1) that a person was
unlawfully killed; (2) that such a killing was attended by any
of the above-mentioned circumstances; (3) that the killing is
not parricide nor infanticide; and (4) that the accused killed
the victim.
Murder; Evident Premeditation (1996)
Fidel and Fred harbored a long standing grudge against
Jorge who refused to marry their sister Lorna, after the
latter got pregnant by Jorge. After weeks of surveillance,
they finally cornered Jorge in Ermita, Manila, when the latter
was walking home late at night. Fidel and Fred forcibly
brought Jorge to Zambales where they kept him hog-tied in
a small nipa house located in the middle of a rice field. Two
days later, they killed Jorge and dumped his body into the
river. What crime or crimes did Fidel and Fred commit?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Fidel and Fred committed the crime of Murder under Art
248, RPC, the killing being qualified by evident
premeditation. This is due to the long standing grudge
entertained by the two accused occasioned by the victim's
refusal to marry their sister after impregnating her. In
People vs. Alfeche. 219 SCRA 85, the intention of the
accused is determinative of the crime committed. Where the
intention is to kill the victim and the latter is forcibly taken to
another place and later killed, it is murder. There is no
indication that the offenders intended to deprive the victim
of his liberty. Whereas, if the victim is kidnapped, and taken
to another situs and killed as an afterthought, it is
kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RPC.
Murder; Homicide; Infanticide; Parricide (1999)
A killed: (1) a woman with whom he lived without benefit of
clergy, (2) their child who was only two days old, (3) their
daughter, and (4) their adopted son. What crime or crimes
did A commit? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the following crimes:
1.] HOMICIDE or murder as the case may be, for the killing
of his common-law wife who is not legally considered a
"spouse"
2.] INFANTICIDE for the killing of the child as said child is
less than three (3) days old. (Art. 255, RPC)
However, the penalty corresponding to parricide shall be
imposed since A is related to the child within the degree
defined in the crime of parricide.
3.] PARRICIDE for the killing of their daughter, whether
legitimate or illegitimate, as long as she is not less than
three (3) days old at the time of the killing.
4.] MURDER for the killing of their adopted son as the
relationship between A and the said son must be by blood in
order for parricide to arise.
Murder; Reckles Imprudence (2001)
Mang Jose, a septuagenarian, was walking with his ten year
old grandson along Paseo de Roxas and decided to cross at
the intersection of Makati Avenue but both were hit by a
speeding CRV Honda van and were sent sprawling on the
pavement a meter apart. The driver, a Chinese mestizo,
stopped his car after hitting the two victims but then
reversed his gears and ran over Mang Jose's prostrate body
anew and third time by advancing his car forward. The
grandson suffered broken legs only and survived but Mang
Jose suffered multiple fractures and broken ribs, causing his
instant death. The driver was arrested and charged with
Murder for the death of Mang Jose and Serious Physical
Injuries through Reckless Imprudence with respect to the
grandson. Are the charges correct? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
118
Yes, the charges are correct. For deliberately running over
Mang Jose's prostrate body after having bumped him and his
grandson, the driver indeed committed Murder, qualified by Article 249. Homicide
treachery. Said driver's deliberate intent to kill Mang Jose
was demonstrated by his running over the latter's body
twice, by backing up the van and driving it forward, whereas
the victim was helpless and not in a position to defend Elements:
himself or to retaliate. As to the serious physical injuries
sustained by Mang Jose's 10-year old grandson, as a result
of having been hit by the speeding vehicle of said driver, the
1. A person was killed;
same were the result of reckless imprudence which is
2. The accused killed him without any justifying circumstance;
punishable as a quasi-offense in Article 365 of the Revised
Penal Code. The charge of Reckless Imprudence Resulting to
3. The accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed;
Serious Physical Injuries is correct. The penalty next higher 4. The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
in degree to what ordinarily should be imposed is called for, circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or
since the driver did not lend help on the spot, which help he infanticide.
could have given to the victims.

Murder; Treachery (1995)
On his way to buy a lotto ticket, a policeman suddenly found
himself surrounded by four men. One of them wrestled the
police officer to the ground and disarmed him while the
other three companions who were armed with a hunting
knife, an ice pick, and a balisong, repeatedly stabbed him.
The policeman died as a result of the multiple stab wounds
inflicted by his assailants. What crime or crimes were
committed? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All the assailants are liable for the crime of murder, qualified
by treachery, (which absorbed abuse of superior strength)
as the attack was sudden and unexpected and the victim
was totally defenseless. Conspiracy is obvious from the
concerted acts of the assailants. Direct assault would not
complex the crime, as there is no showing that the
assailants knew that the victim was a policeman; even if
there was knowledge, the fact is that he was not in the
performance of his official duties, and therefore there is no
direct assault.
Murder; Use of Illegal Firearms (2004)
 Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death resulted.
(crime is consummated)
 Evidence of intent to kill is important only in attempted or
frustrated homicide (to differentiate it from physical
injuries). In such cases, intent to kill must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
 There is no offense of frustrated homicide through
imprudence because the element of intent to kill in
frustrated homicide is incompatible with negligence or
imprudence.
 Accidental homicide – the death of a person brought about
by a lawful act performed with proper care and skill, and
without homicidal intent. (example: the death of a boxer
following a serious blow in a boxing bout, provided that the
rules of boxing had been followed)
 Corpus delicti – the actual commission of the crime charged,
means that the crime was actually committed. In crimes
against persons in which death of the victim is an element
of the offense, there must be satisfactory proof of the fact
of death, and the identity of the victim.
 When the victim is under 12 years of age, penalty for
homicide shall be one degree higher than that imposed by
law.

PH killed OJ, his political rival in the election campaign for

Mayor of their town. The Information against PH alleged that
he used an unlicensed firearm in the killing of the victim,
and this was proved beyond reasonable doubt by the People vs. Buensuceso
prosecution. The trial court convicted PH of two crimes:
murder and illegal possession of firearms. Is the conviction
correct? Reason briefly. (5%) Several police officers fired shots at a knife-wielding guy, who later
died from the gunshot wounds. The investigation showed that all the
SUGGESTED ANSWER: four officers actually fired their service pistols but it was not
established as to which wound was inflicted by each policeman.
No, the conviction of PH for two crimes, murder and illegal
possession of firearm is not correct. Under the new law on
illegal possession of firearms and explosives, Rep. Act No.
8294, a person may only be criminally liable for illegal HELD: Where several personas acting independently of each other
possession of firearm if no other crime is committed inflicted wounds on a victim but it cannot be determined which wound
therewith; if a homicide or murder is committed with the use was inflicted by each person, all the assailants are liable for the
of an unlicensed firearm, such use shall be considered as an victim’s death.
aggravating circumstance. PH therefore may only be
convicted of murder and the use of an unlicensed firearm in
its commission may only be appreciated as a special
aggravating circumstance, provided that such use is alleged
specifically in the information for Murder. People vs. Pugay

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

119
Pugay poured gasoline on a 25-year old mental retardate while Samson
set the poor guy on fire, killing him in the process. They were both
convicted of murder.
HELD: Pugay can only be convicted of Homicide thru reckless
imprudence because of his failure to exercise all the diligence
necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence arising from any act
committed by his companions. Samson is guilty of Homicide although
it was not his intention to kill the guy, but he shall be credited with
the mitigating circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a
wrong.
People vs. Basay (1993)
The two accused here were charged with Multiple Murder and
Frustrated Murder with Arson in one information. They were charged
with having stabbed people, and to conceal the crime, they burned
down the house. The burning of the house then led to the death of
another and 3rd degree burns on the lone survivor.
HELD: It was not proper to have consolidated all the charges against
the accused in one single complaint. It was proven that 3 victims were
hacked and stabbed before the house was burned down. And then
when the house was burned down, this led to the death of another
person and serious burns on another.
Several separate informations must be filed where the victims were
killed by separate acts. 4 crimes were committed here, 3 separate
murders under the RPC and arson as punished under sec5 PD1613 (if by
reason/ on occasion of the arson, death results, penalty of reclusion
perpetua to death imposed). Therefore the information was vulnerable
to a motion to quash for being duplicitous.
People vs. Rivera (2006)
An essential element of murder and homicide, whether in their
consummated, frustrated or attempted stage, is intent of the
offenders to kill the victim immediately before or simultaneously with
the infliction of injuries. Intent to kill is a specific intent which the
prosecution must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence, while
general criminal intent is presumed from the commission of a felony
by dolo.
Bar questions
Complex Crime; Homicide w/ Assault Authority
(1995)
Pascual operated a rice thresher in Barangay Napnud where
he resided. Renato, a resident of the neighboring Barangay
Guihaman, also operated a mobile rice thresher which he
often brought to Barangay Napnud to thresh the palay of the
farmers there. This was bitterly resented by Pascual, One
afternoon Pascual, and his two sons confronted Renato and
his men who were operating their mobile rice thresher along
a feeder road in Napnud. A heated argument ensued. A
barangay captain who was fetched by one of Pascual's men
tried to appease Pascual and Renato to prevent a violent
confrontation. However, Pascual resented the intervention of
the barangay captain and hacked him to death. What crime
was committed by Pascual? Discuss fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Pascual committed the complex crime of homicide with
assault upon a person in authority (Arts. 148 and 249 in
relation to Art, 48, RPC). A barangay chairman, is in law
(Art. 152), a person in authority and if he is attacked while
in the performance of his official duties or on the occasion
thereof the felony of direct assault is committed. Art. 48,
RPC, on the other hand, provides that if a single act
produces two or more grave or less grave felonies, a
complex crime is committed. Here, the single act of the
offender in hacking the victim to death resulted in two
felonies, homicide which is grave and direct assault which is
less grave.
Homicide; Fraustrated; Physical Injuries (1994)
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside
the house of Mamerto. Jay, Mamerto's son, saw Dante and
accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his
abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of
his room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted
Mamerto. Jay suffered injuries which, were it not for the
timely medical attendance, would have caused his death.
Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25
days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated
homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical
injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be
complexed with frustrated homicide ... Dante committed
frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay because he had
already performed all the acts of execution which would
have produced the intended felony of homicide were it not
for causes independent of the act of Dante. Dante had the
intent to kill judging from the weapon used, the manner of
committing the crime and the part of the body stabbed.
Dante is guilty of less serious physical injuries for the
wounds sustained by Mamerto. There appears to be no
intent to kill because Dante merely assaulted Mamerto
without using the knife.
Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or
homicide
 For frustrated parricide, homicide or murder, the courts, in
view of the facts of the case, may impose a penalty lower
by one degree than that imposed under Article 50.
 Article 50 provides that the penalty next lower in degree
than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
120
 shall be imposed upon the principal in a frustrated felony.
Thus, under Article 250, the court can impose a penalty of
TWO DEGREES LOWER for frustrated parricide, murder or
homicide.
 For attempted parricide, homicide or murder, the courts, in
view of the facts of the case, may impose a penalty lower
by one degree than that imposed under Article 51.
 Article 51 provides that the penalty lower by two degrees
than that prescribed by law for the consummated felony
shall be imposed upon the principal in a attempted felony.
Thus, under Article 250, the court can impose a penalty of
THREE DEGREES LOWER for attempted parricide, murder
or homicide.
 Note however that any attempt on, or conspire against, the
life of the Chief Executive of the Philippines or that of any
member of his family, or against the life of any member of
his cabinet or that of any member of the latter’s family, shall
suffer the penalty of DEATH.
Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray
Elements:
1. There are several persons;
2. They do not compose groups organized for the common
purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally;
3. These several persons quarreled and assaulted one another
in a confused and tumultuous manner;
4. Someone was killed in the course of the affray;
5. It can not be ascertained who actually killed the deceased;
6. The person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries
or who used violence can be identified.
 Tumultuous affray exists when at least four persons take
part. The word ‘tumultuous’ as used in Article 153 means
that the disturbance is caused by more than three persons
who are armed or are provided with means of violence.
 When there are two identified groups of men who assaulted
each other, then there is no tumultuous affray.
 The person killed in the course of the affray need not be
one of the participants in the affray.
 Who are liable?
a. the person or persons who inflicted the serious physical
injuries
b. if it is not known who inflicted the serious physical
injuries on the deceased, all the persons who used
violence upon the person of the victim are liable, but
with lesser liability.
People v. Unlagada, 389 SCRA 224
FACTS: At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening Laurel left his
house together with his visitor, Selda, to attend a public dance. Two
hours later, Danilo asked Edwin to take a short break from dancing to
attend to their personal necessities outside the dance hall. Once
outside, they decided to have a drink and bought 2 bottles of beer at
a nearby store. Not long after, Daniloleft to look for a place to relieve
himself. While Danilo was relieving himself, Unlagada approached
Danilo and stabbed him at the side. Danilo retaliated by striking his
assailant with a half-filled bottle of beer. Almost simultaneously, a
group of men numbering about seven 7, ganged up on Danilo and hit
him with assorted weapons, i.e., bamboo poles, stones and pieces of
wood. Danilo died before he could be given any medical assistance.
Unlagada was convicted by the RTC. He claims the trial court erred in
convicting him of murder and not "death in a tumultuous affray." under
Art. 251 of The Revised Penal Code.
HELD: A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel
occurs between several persons who engage in a confused and
tumultuous manner, in the course of which a person is killed or
wounded and the author thereof cannot be ascertained. The quarrel
in the instant case is between a distinct group of individuals, one of
whom was sufficiently identified as the principal author of the killing,
as against a common, particular victim. It is not, as the defense
suggests, a "tumultuous affray" within the meaning of Art. 251 of The
RPC, that is, a melee or free-for-all, where several persons not
comprising definite or identifiable groups attack one another in a
confused and disorganized manner, resulting in the death or injury of
one or some of them.
Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous
affray
Elements:
1. There is a tumultuous affray;
2. A participant or some participants thereof suffered serious
physical injuries or physical injuries of a less serious nature
ONLY;
3. The person responsible thereof cannot be identified;
4. All those who appear to have used violence upon the person
of the offended party are known.
 Unlike in Article 251, the injured party in this article must
be one or some of the participants in the affray.
 All those who appear to have used violence shall suffer the
penalty next lower in degree than that provided for the
serious physical injuries inflicted. For less serious physical
injuries, the penalty is arresto mayor from five to fifteen
days.
 This article does not include slight physical injuries inflicted
in a tumultuous affray.
Bar Questions
Criminal Liability; Tumultous Affray (1997)
During a town fiesta, a free-for-all fight erupted in the public
plaza. As a result of the tumultuous affray, A sustained one
fatal and three superficial stab wounds. He died a day after.
B, C, D and E were proven to be participants in the
"rumble", each using a knife against A, but it could not be
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
121
 ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury.
Who shall be held criminally liable for the death of A and for
what?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B, C, D, and E being participants in the tumultuous affray
and having been proven to have inflicted serious physical
injuries, or at least, employed violence upon A, are criminally
liable for the latter's death. And because it cannot be
ascertained who among them inflicted the mortal injury on
A, there being a free-for-all fight or tumultuous affray. B, C,
D, and E are all liable for the crime of death caused in a
tumultuous affray under Article 251 of the Revised Penal
Code.
Criminal Liability; Tumultuous Affray (2003)
In a free-for-all brawl that ensued after some customers
inside a night club became unruly, guns were fired by a
group, among them A and B, that finally put the customers
back to their senses. Unfortunately, one customer died.
Subsequent investigation revealed that A's gunshot had
inflicted on the victim a slight wound that did not cause the
deceased's death nor materially contribute to it. It was B's
gunshot that inflicted a fatal wound on the deceased. A
contended that his liability should, if at all, be limited to
slight physical injury. Would you agree? Why? 6%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I beg to disagree with A's contention that his liability
should be limited to slight physical injury only. He should be
held liable for attempted homicide because he inflicted said
injury with the use of a firearm which is a lethal weapon.
Intent to kill is inherent in the use of a firearm. (Araneta, Jr.
v. Court of Appeals, 187 SCRA 123 [1990])
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Yes, I would agree to A's contention that his criminal liability
should be for slight physical injury only, because he fired his
gun only to pacify the unruly customers of the night club
and therefore, without intent to kill. B's gunshot that inflicted
a fatal wound on the deceased may not be imputed to A
because conspiracy cannot exist when there is a free-for-all
brawl or tumultuous affray. A and B are liable only for their
respective act
Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide
Acts punishable:
1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is
consummated or not;
2. Lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the
extent of doing the killing himself.
 The relation of the offender to the person committing
suicide is not material, the law does not distinguish. Hence,
penalty would be the same if the offender is the father,
mother or child.
 A person who attempts to commit suicide is not criminally
liable because society considers such person to be an
unfortunate being, a wretched person more deserving of
pity rather than of penalty.
 If a pregnant woman tries to commit suicide but instead
kills the baby in her womb, is she liable for abortion? NO.
In order to incur criminal liability for a result not intended,
one must be committing a felony. An attempt to commit
suicide is not an act punishable by law.
 Euthanasia (mercy killing) – practice of painlessly putting to
death a person suffering from some incurable disease.
This is not lending assistance to suicide because in
euthanasia, the person killed does not want to die. A doctor
who resorts to mercy killing may be liable for murder.
Article 254. Discharge of firearms
Elements:
1. The offender discharges a firearm against or at another
person;
2. The offender had no intention to kill that person.
 If the firearm is not discharged AT A PERSON, there is no
crime of discharge of firearms. For example, firing a gun at
a house at random, not knowing where the people inside
were, is not discharge of firearms. The crime may be
alarms and scandals under Article 155.
 There must be no intention to kill, otherwise the crime is
attempted or frustrated murder/homicide/parricide, as the
case may be.
 The purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or frighten
the offended party.
 If physical injuries resulted from discharge, the crime
committed is the complex crime of discharge of firearm with
physical injuries, when the physical injuries are serious or
less serious.
 The crime is discharge of firearm, even if the gun was not
pointed at the offended party when it fired, as long as it
was initially aimed by the accused at or against the
offended party.
Dado v. People, 392 SCRA 46
FACTS: The Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat Police Station formed
3 teams to intercept cattle rustlers. The team, composed of petitioner
SPO4 Dado and CAFGU members Eraso, Balinas, and Alga, waited
behind a large dike. Balinas and Alga, who were both armed with M14
armalite rifles, positioned themselves between Dado, who was armed
with a caliber .45 pistol, and accused Eraso, who was carrying an M16
armalite rifle. They were all facing southwards in a half-kneeling
position and were about 2 arms length away from each other.
Thereafter, the team saw somebody approaching at a distance of 50
meters. Though it was a moonless night, they noticed that he was half-
naked. When he was about 5 meters away from the team, Balinas
noticed that Eraso, who was on his right side, was making some
movements. Balinas told Eraso to wait, but before Balinas could beam
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
122
his flash light, Eraso fired his M16 armalite rifle at the approaching
man. Immediately thereafter, Dado, fired a single shot from his .45
caliber pistol. The victim shouted, "Tay Dolfo, ako ini," ("Tay Dolfo,
[this is] me") as he fell on the ground. The victim turned out to be
Silvestre "Butsoy" Balinas, the nephew of Balinas and not the cattle
rustler the team were ordered to intercept. Silvestre Balinas died as
a result of the gunshot wounds he sustained. The RTC convicted Dado
of the crime of Homicide.
HELD: Dado is guilty of the crime of illegal discharge of
firearm. Absent an intent to kill in firing the gun towards the victim,
petitioner should be held liable for the crime of illegal discharge of
firearm under Article 254 of the RPC. The elements of this crime are:
(1) that the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person;
and (2) that the offender has no intention to kill that person. Though
the information charged the petitioner with murder, he could be
validly convicted of illegal discharge of firearm, an offense which is
necessarily included in the crime of unlawful killing of a person. Under
Rule 120, Section 4, of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure, when
there is a variance between the offense charged in the complaint or
information and that proved, and the offense as charged is included in
or necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the offense
charged, or the offense charged which is included in the offense
proved.
Article 255. Infanticide
Elements:
1. A child was killed
2. The accused killed the said child;
3. The deceased child was less than three days (72
hours) of age.
 The penalty prescribed is the same for parricide or murder,
as the case may be.
 Concealment of dishonor is not an element of infanticide.
If the crime is committed by the mother of the child to
conceal her dishonor, or by the maternal grandparents for
the same purpose, the penalty for infanticide is mitigated.
 Delinquent mother must be of good reputation and good
morals, in order that concealing dishonor may mitigate her
liability.
 No crime of infanticide is committed when the child was
born dead, or although born alive, it could not sustain an
independent life when it was killed.
Article 256. Intentional Abortion
Ways of committing intentional abortion:
1. Using any violence upon the person of the pregnant
woman;
2. Acting, but without using violence, without the consent of
the woman. (By administering drugs or beverages upon
such pregnant woman without her consent.)
3. Acting (by administering drugs or beverages), with the
consent of the pregnant woman.
Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or
that the accused otherwise acts upon such pregnant
woman;
3. As a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages
upon her, or any other act of the accused, the fetus dies,
either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom;
4. The abortion is intended.
 Abortion is the willful killing of the fetus in the uterus, or
the violent expulsion of the fetus from the maternal womb
which results in the death of the fetus.
 The person who intentionally caused the abortion is liable
under this article. The pregnant woman, if she consented
to the abortion, shall be liable under Article 258. If she did
not consent, she is not criminally liable.
 Abortion distinguished from infanticide: if the fetus could
sustain an independent life after its separation from the
maternal womb; and it is killed, the crime is infanticide.
Article 257. Unintentional abortion
Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman without
intending an abortion;
3. The violence is intentionally exerted;
4. As a result of the violence, the fetus dies, either in the
womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
 Unintentional abortion is committed only by violence, which
must be intentionally exerted.
 Unintentional abortion may be committed through
imprudence (example: negligent driver gets into a car
crash, causing pregnant passenger to get thrown off the
car, killing fetus inside her)
 Is the accused liable for abortion even if he did not know
that the woman was pregnant? NO. For the crime of
abortion, even if unintentional, to be held committed, the
accused must have known of the pregnancy.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
123
 People vs. Salufrania 4. Said physician or midwife took advantage of his or her
scientific knowledge or skill.

After quarrelling with his pregnant wife, Salufrania boxed her on the
stomach and strangled her to death. He was convicted of the complex  The penalties provided for intentional abortion shall be
crime of parricide with INTENTIONAL ABORTION. imposed in the maximum period for physicians and
midwives violating this article.
 Reason: heavier guilt in making use of their knowledge for
the destruction of human life, when it should be used only
Held: There is no evidence to show that the accused had the intention
for its preservation.
to commit an abortion. Mere boxing on the stomach, taken together
with the immediate strangling of the victim is not sufficient to show
an intent to cause an abortion. Thus, Salufrania should be convicted
of the crime of parricide with UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION. Elements (for pharmacists):

1. The offender is a pharmacist;

2. There is no proper prescription from a physician;
Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or 3. The offender dispenses any abortive.
by her parents
 It is not necessary that the pharmacist knows that the
abortive would be used to cause an abortion. What is
Elements: punished is the dispensing of the abortive without the
proper prescription.
 Not necessary that the abortive be actually used either.
 If the pharmacist knew that the drug would be used to
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion; cause an abortion, he may be liable as an accomplice in the
2. The abortion is intended; crime of abortion.
3. Abortion is caused by -

a. The pregnant woman herself;

b. Any other person, with her consent; or Article 260. Responsibility of the participants in a duel
c. Any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose
of concealing her dishonor.

Acts punishable:
 The pregnant woman is liable under this article, if she does
the abortion herself or she consents to another person
doing the abortion.
1. Killing one’s adversary in a duel;
 Liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if purpose is to
2. Inflicting upon such adversary physical injuries;
conceal dishonor.
3. Making a combat although no physical injuries have been
 No mitigation for parents of pregnant woman even if the
inflicted.
purpose is to conceal dishonor. The penalty for the parents
in this case is the same as the penalty for a pregnant
woman committing abortion, without the purpose of Persons liable:
concealing dishonor.

1. The person who killed or inflicted physical injuries upon his

adversary, or both combatants in any other case, as
Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or principals.
midwife and dispensing of abortives 2. The seconds, as accomplices.

 Duel is a formal or regular combat previously concerted

Elements (for physicians and midwives):
between two parties in the presence of two or more
seconds of lawful age on each side, who make the selection
of arms and fix all the other conditions of the fight.
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion;  If death results, the penalty is the same as that for
2. The abortion is intended; homicide.
3. Offender, who must be a physician or midwife, caused or
assisted in causing the abortion;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

124
Article 261. Challenging to a duel
Acts punishable:
1. Challenging another to a duel;
2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a duel;
3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refused
to accept a challenge to fight a duel.
 A challenge to a fight, without contemplating a duel, is not
challenging to a duel. The person making the challenge
must have in mind a formal combat to be concerted
between him and the one challenged in the presence of two
or more seconds.
Article 262. Mutilation
Acts punishable:
1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either
totally or partially, of some essential organ for reproduction;
(castration)
Elements:
a. There be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs
necessary for generation, such as the penis or ovarium;
b. The mutilation is caused purposely and deliberately,
that is, to deprive the offended party of some essential
organ for reproduction.
2. Intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by lopping or
clipping off any part of the body of the offended party, other
than the essential organ for reproduction, to deprive him of
that part of his body. (other intentional mutilation)
 Mutilation is the lopping or clipping off of some part of the
body.
 The second type of mutilation is also called ‘mayhem’.
 For other intentional mutilation, if the victim is under 12
years of age, the penalty shall be one degree higher than
that imposed by law.
 The offender must have the intention to deprive the
offended party of a part of his body. If there is no such
intention, the crime will be serious physical injuries.
Article 263. Serious physical injuries
How committed:
1. By wounding;
2. By beating;
3. By assaulting; or
4. By administering injurious substance.
Types of serious physical injuries:
1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile,
impotent or blind in consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted;
2. When the injured person –
a. Loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to
smell, or loses an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg;
b. Loses the use of any such member; or
c. Becomes incapacitated for the work in which he was
theretofore habitually engaged, in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted;
3. When the person injured –
a. Becomes deformed; or
b. Loses any other member of his body; or
c. Loses the use thereof; or
d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance of the
work in which he was habitually engaged for more than
90 days in consequence of the physical injuries
inflicted;
4. When the injured person becomes ill or incapacitated for
labor for more than 30 days (but must not be more than 90
days), as a result of the physical injuries inflicted.
 In physical injuries, there must not be intent to kill,
otherwise the crime is frustrated/attempted murder or
homicide as the case may be.
 Impotence under first type means an inability to copulate.
It is used synonymously with ‘sterility’.
 Penalty under the first type is one degree higher when the
victim is under 12 years of age.
 Blindness under the second type must be of two eyes. If
there is loss of one eye only, the serious physical injuries is
of the second type.
 Loss of power to hear under the second type must be of
both ears. If hearing in only one ear is lost, it falls under
the third type.
 Loss of the use of hand, or incapacity for work under the
second type, must be permanent.
 All the body parts mentioned in the second type are
principal members of the body (eye, hand, foot etc.)
 The third type covers any other part of the body which is
not a principal member of the body.
 Deformity – physical ugliness, permanent and definite
abnormality. It must be conspicuous and visible.
 Elements of deformity: (a) physical ugliness, (b)
permanent and definite abnormality, and (c) it must be
conspicuous and visible. All these elements must concur.
 Deformity by loss of teeth refers to injury which cannot be
repaired by the action of nature.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
125
 Loss of both outer ears is a deformity.  Taking advantage of weakness of mind or credulity: for
 Loss of the lobule of the ear is a deformity. example, using witchcraft, magnetism, philters etc.
 Loss of index and middle fingers only is either deformity or
loss of a member, not a principal one, of his body or use of
the same.
 Loss of power to hear of right ear only is loss of use of other
part of body. Article 265. Less serious physical injuries
 Illness – when the wound inflicted did not heal with a
certain period of time.
 Note that under serious physical injuries of the fourth type, Matters to be noted in this crime:
illness or incapacity is required, NOT medical attendance.
 Paragraphs 2 and 3 refers to the “work in which he was
theretofore habitually engaged”…must the injured party
have an avocation at the time at the time of the injury? 1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or
YES, insofar as these two paragraphs are concerned. more (but not more than 30 days), or needs medical
Incapacity therefore must related to a certain kind of work attendance for the same period of time;
only. However, in paragraph 4, incapacity for any kind of 2. The physical injuries must not be those described in the
work is acceptable, because the phrase “incapacity for preceding articles.
labor” is used.
 Injury requiring hospitalization for more than thirty days is
serious physical injuries under paragraph 4. Qualified as to penalty:
 When the category of the offense of serious physical
injuries depends on the period of illness or incapacity for
labor, there must be evidence of the length of that period; 1. A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition to arresto mayor,
otherwise, the offense is only slight physical injuries. shall be imposed for less serious physical injuries when –
 Lessening of efficiency due to injury is NOT incapacity.
 Distinguished from mutilation: In mutilation, the body parts
should have been purposely and deliberately lopped or a. There is a manifest intent to insult or offend the injured
clipped off. This intention is not present in serious physical person; or
injuries. b. There are circumstances adding ignominy to the
 Qualified serious physical injuries – if the offense is offense.
committed against any of the persons enumerated in the
crime of parricide, or with the attendance of any of the
circumstance in murder, the law provides for higher 2. A higher penalty is imposed when the victim is either -
penalties.

a. The offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians,

curators or teachers; or
b. Persons of rank or person in authority, provided the
Article 264. Administering injurious substances or crime is not direct assault.
beverages

 Medical attendance OR incapacity for labor is required in

less serious physical injuries.
Elements:  It is only slight physical injury when there is no medical
attendance or incapacity for labor.
 The phrase “shall require medical attendance” refers to
1. Offender inflicted upon another any serious physical injury; ACTUAL medical attendance, not to the nature of the
2. It was done by knowingly administering to him any injurious wound or injury inflicted.
substance or beverages or by taking advantage of his
weakness of mind or credulity;
3. He had no intent to kill.
Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment
 It is frustrated murder when there is intent to kill, the
injurious substance to be considered as poison.
 If the accused did not know of the injurious nature of the Acts punished:
substances administered, he is not liable under this article.
 Administering injurious substance means introducing into
the body the substance. Thus, throwing mordant
chemicals or poisons on the face is not contemplated in this 1. Physical injuries incapacitated the offended party for labor
article. from one to nine days, or required medical attendance
 This article does not apply if the physical injuries that result during the same period;
are less serious or slight.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
126
2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended party
from engaging in his habitual work or which did not require
medical attendance;
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any injury.
 When there is no evidence of actual injury, it is only slight
physical injuries.
 Supervening event converting the crime into serious
physical injuries after the filing of the information for slight
physical injuries can still be the subject of a new charge.
Information may be amended.
Li v. People, 427 SCRA 217
Facts: Because of an altercation between Arugay and Li, the
latter armed himself with a baseball bat and used the same to hit
Arugay on the arm. Arugay armed with a bolo, retaliated by hacking Li
on the head causing the bat to fall from his hand and leaving him
unconscious or semi-unconsious. At this point in time, Sangalang, who
was also present stabbed Arugay several times which resulted to the
latter’s death. The RTC found Li guilty on the tenuous determination
that a conspiracy between Li and Sangalang existed.
Held: The only injury attributable to Li is the contusion on the victim’s
right arm that resulted from Li striking Arugay with a baseball bat. In
view of the victim’s supervening death from injuries which cannot be
attributed to Li beyond reasonable doubt, the effects of the contusion
caused by Li are not mortal or at least lie entirely in the realm of
speculation. When there is no evidence of actual incapacity of the
offended party for labor or of the required medical attendance, the
offense is only slight
R.A. 8049
An Act Regulating Hazing
and Other Forms of Initiation Rites
in Fraternities, Sororities and other Organizations
What is Hazing?
Hazing is an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity,
sorority or organization by placing the recruit neophyte or
applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations such
as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar tasks or
activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or
psychological suffering or injury. (§1)
The term “organization” shall include any club or
the Armed Forces of the Philippines, Philippine
National Police, Philippine Military Academy, or officer
and cadet corp of the Citizen's Military Training, or
Citizen's Army Training. But the physical, mental and
psychological testing and training procedure and practices to
determine and enhance the physical, mental and
psychological fitness of prospective regular members of the
Armed Forces of the Philippines and the Philippine National
Police as approved by the Secretary of National Defense and
the National Police Commission duly recommended by the
Chief of Staff, Armed Forces of the Philippines and the
Director General of the Philippine National Police shall not be
considered as hazing for the purpose of this Act. (§1)
Requirements before hazing may be conducted
1. No hazing or initiation rites in any form or manner by a
fraternity, sorority or organization shall be allowed
without prior written notice to the school authorities
or head of organization seven (7) days before the
conduct of such initiation. The written notice shall
indicate the ff:
 period of the initiation activities which shall not
exceed three (3) days,
 the names of those to be subjected to such
activities
 an undertaking that no physical violence be
employed by anybody during such initiation
rites. (§2)
2. The head of the school or organization or their
representatives must assign at least two (2)
representatives of the school or organization as
the case may be, to be present during the initiation. It
is the duty of such representative to see to it that no
physical harm of any kind shall be inflicted upon a
recruit, neophyte or applicant. (§3)
Who are punishable?
If the person subjected to hazing or other forms of initiation
rites suffers any physical injury or dies as a result
thereof, the following are punished under the law:
AS PRINCIPALS:
1. The officer and members of the fraternity, sorority or
organization who actually participated in the
infliction of physical harm
2. If the hazing is held in the home of one of the officers
or members of the fraternity, group, or organization, the
parents shall be held liable as principals when they
have actual knowledge of the hazing conducted therein
but failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
127

3. The officers, former officers, or alumni of the
organization, group, fraternity, or sorority who
actually planned the hazing although not present
when the acts constituting the hazing were committed
4. Officers or members of an organization, group,
fraternity, or sorority who knowingly cooperated in
carrying out the hazing by inducing the victim to be
present thereat
5. A fraternity or sorority's adviser who is present
when the acts constituting the hazing were committed
and failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring
AS ACCOMPLICES:
6. The owner of the place where hazing is conducted
shall be liable as an accomplice, when he has actual
knowledge of the hazing conducted therein but failed to
take any action to prevent the same from occurring.
7. The school authorities including faculty members who
consent to the hazing or who have actual knowledge
thereof but failed to take any action to prevent the same
from occurring shall be punished as accomplices for
the acts of hazing committed by the perpetrators.
The presence of any person during the hazing is prime facie
evidence of participation therein as a principal unless he
prevented the commission of the acts punishable herein.
Any person charged under this provision shall not be
entitled to the mitigating circumstance that there was no
intention to commit so grave a wrong.
This section shall apply to the president, manager, director or
other responsible officer of a corporation engaged in hazing
as a requirement for employment in the manner provided
herein. (§4)
Penalties imposed
The penalties imposed shall vary depending on the
injury suffered by the victim. If the victim dies, is raped,
sodomized or mutilated, the penalty is reclusion perpetua to
death.
The maximum penalty shall be imposed in any of the following
instances:
a) when the recruitment is accompanied by force,
violence, threat, intimidation or deceit on the
person of the recruit who refuses to join;
b) when the recruit, neophyte or applicant initially consents
to join but upon learning that hazing will be committed
on his person, is prevented from quitting.
c) when the recruit neophyte or applicant having
undergone hazing is prevented from reporting the
unlawful act to his parents or guardians, to the proper
school authorities, or to the police authorities through
force, violence , threat or intimidation;
d) when the hazing is committed outside of the school
or institution: or
e) when the victim is below twelve (12) years of age at
the time of the hazing.
The responsible officials of the school or of the
police, military or citizen's army training organization, may
impose the appropriate administrative sanctions on
the person or persons charged under this law even before
their conviction.
Bar Questions
Anti-Hazing law – RA 8049 (2002)
What is hazing as defined by law? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Hazing, as defined by law, is an initiation rite or practice as a
prerequisite for admission into membership in a fraternity,
sorority or organization by placing the recruit, neophyte or
applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating situations
such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish and similar
tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to physical or
psychological suffering or injury.
What does the law require before initiation rites may
be performed? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Section 2 of Rep. Act No. 8049 (Anti-Hazing Law) requires
that before hazing or initiation rites may be performed,
notice to the school authorities or head of organizations shall
be given seven (7) days before the conduct of such rites.
The written notice shall indicate (a) the period of the
initiation activities, not exceeding three (3) days; (b) the
names of those to be subjected to such activities, and (c) an
undertaking that no physical violence shall be employed by
anybody during such initiation rites.
Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed
Elements under paragraph 1:
1. Offender is a man;
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
128
3. Such act is accomplished under any of the following
circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation;
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or
demented.
Elements under paragraph 2:
1. Offender commits an act of sexual assault;
2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the
following means:
a. By inserting his penis into another person's mouth or
anal orifice; or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the genital
or anal orifice of another person;
3. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of the
following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or otherwise
unconscious; or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or
demented.
 Rape can now be committed by a male or a female.
 Only one of the four circumstances mentioned is sufficient.
 Force employed against the victim of the rape need not be
of such character as could be resisted. It is enough that
the force used is sufficient to consummate the purpose of
copulating with the offended woman.
 When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or influence
over the girl, it is not necessary that she put up a
determined resistance.
 Rape may be proved by the uncorroborated testimony of
the offended woman.
 There is no crime of frustrated rape (see Orita case).
 Character of the offended woman is immaterial in rape.
 When several persons conspired to rape a single victim,
each shall be liable for the rape committed personally by
him, as well as those committed by the others
Article 266-B. Penalties
When rape is punished by death:
1. Where the victim is under 18 years of age and the offender
is her ascendant, stepfather, guardian, or relative by affinity
or consanguinity within the 3rd civil degree, or the common
law husband of the victim’s mother; or
2. Where the victim was under the custody of the police
or military authorities, or other law enforcement
agency;
3. Where the rape is committed in full view of the victim’s
husband, the parents, any of the children or relatives by
consanguinity within the 3rd civil degree;
4. Where the victim is a religious, that is, a member of a
legitimate religious vocation and the offender knows the
victim as such before or at the time of the commission of
the offense;
5. Where the victim is a child under 7 yrs of age;
6. Where the offender is a member of the AFP, its
paramilitary arm, the PNP, or any law enforcement agency
and the offender took advantage of his position;
7. Where the offender is afflicted with AIDS or other
sexually transmissible diseases, and he is aware thereof
when he committed the rape, and the disease was
transmitted;
8. Where the victim has suffered permanent physical
mutilation;
9. Where the pregnancy of the offended party is known
to the rapist at the time of the rape; or
10. Where the rapist is aware of the victim’s mental
disability, emotional disturbance or physical handicap.
 Rape under the first type is punished by reclusion perpetua.
Rape under the second type is punished by reclusion
temporal. Penalties are increased in these instances:
o When it is committed with the use of a deadly weapon
or by two or more persons
o When the victim becomes insane
o When there is attempted rape and homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion thereof
o When homicide is committed by reason or on the
occasion of rape
o When rape is committed with any of the enumerated
qualifying or aggravating circumstances (death penalty
is imposed)
 Rape with homicide is now a special complex crime,
punishable by death (first type) or reclusion perpetua
(second type).
266-C. Effect of pardon
 Subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty imposed.
 In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended party
shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty, provided
that their marriage is not void ab initio.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
129
 able to completely do so, because of the little girl’s undeveloped
genitalia (only 1 cm. in diameter).
266-D. Presumptions

HELD: Rape was committed even though the penetration could only
go as deep as the labia. The court has consistently held that for rape
Evidence which may be accepted in the prosecution of rape:
to be committed, full penetration is not required. Even the slightest
penetration is sufficient to consummate the crime of rape.

1. any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the

act of rape in any degree from the offended party.
2. where the offended party is so situated as to render him/her
incapable of giving consent. People vs. Balbuena

Old rape law
Crime against chastity
May be committed by a man
against a woman ONLY
PRIVATE CRIME –
Complaint must be filed by
the woman or her parents,
grandparents or guardian if
the woman was a minor or
incapacitated
New rape law
Crime against persons
Under the second type,
sexual assault may be
committed by ANY PERSON
May be prosecuted even if
the woman does not file a
complaint
A tomboy went on a drinking spree with her male friends. Two of her
companions raped her on top of a billiard table. While one guy was
raping her, the other pinned her arms down.
HELD: In the crime of rape, when a woman testifies that she had been
raped, she says all that need to be said to signify that this crime has
been committed. Note that each accused was sentenced to two counts
of rape - one for actually raping the girl and another for helping the
other rape the girl.

Marriage of the victim with Marriage extinguishes the

one of the offenders benefits
not only the principal but
also the accomplices and
accessories
Marital rape NOT recognized
People vs. Castro
penal action only as to the
principal (the person who
married the victim)
Castro brought a 6-year old girl inside the bathroom. He made the girl
stand on the toilet bowl and tried to insert his penis into her vagina.
Marital rape recognized Medical findings showed that the victim’s hymen was not lacerated.

HELD: Perfect penetration, rupture of the hymen or laceration of the

vagina are not essential for the offense of consummated rape. Entry
People vs. Orita to the extent of the labia or lips of the female organ is sufficient. The
victim’s remaining a virgin does not negate rape.

A PC soldier raped a 19-year old student while poking a knife on her

neck. However, only a portion of his penis entered her vagina because
the victim kept on struggling until she was finally able to escape. The
soldier was convicted of FRUSTRATED RAPE. People vs. Atento

HELD: There is NO crime of frustrated rape because – In rape, from
the moment the offender has carnal knowledge of the victim, he
actually attains his purpose, from that moment also all the essential
elements of the offense have been accomplished. Nothing more is left
to be done by the offender because he has performed the last act
necessary to produce the crime.
People vs. Mangalino
A 16-year old mental retardate was repeatedly raped by her neighbor,
and she later on gave birth to their child. She described the sexual
experience as pleasurable (Masarap!)
HELD: Even though force and intimidation has not been established,
rape was still committed because the victim is deprived of reason.
Under paragraph 2 of Article 335, it is not necessary that the culprit
actually deprives the victim of reason prior to the rape, as by
administration of drugs or some other method. This provision also
applies to cases where the woman has been earlier deprived of reason
by other causes, as when she is congenitally retarded.

A 55-year old man lured a 6-year old to his bedroom by giving her two
pesos. He then tried to force his penis in to her vagina but he was not
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
130
 People vs. Dela Cuesta
The RTC of Makati found De La Cuesta guilty of 6 counts of rape against
9-year-old Merma Binasbas. At the time of the alleged incidents of
rape, De La Cuesta, then 64 years old, was boarding with Merma and
her mom. De La Cuesta threatened the girl and gave her P20 after each
encounter. De La Cuesta claims it was error for the lower court to find
that he was Merma’s guardian, and that he could have committed the
rape in view of his age (he claims his last erection was 3 years ago).
HELD: The trial court erred in imposing the supreme penalty of death.
R.A. 7659 provides that the death penalty shall be imposed when the
victim is under 18 years old and the offender is a guardian. In People
v. Garcia (281 SCRA 463), we held that the restrictive definition of a
guardian, that of a legal or judicial guardian, should be used in
construing the term “guardian” for the purpose of imposing the death
penalty under R.A. 7659.
The mere fact that the mother asked De La Cuesta to look after her
child while she was away did not constitute the relationship of
guardian-ward as contemplated by the law. He watched over the girl
as a favor to mother for letting him stay while his place was being
renovated.
De La Cuesta’s contention that he was incapable of committing rape
due to his age, physical condition and lack of earthly desires is self-
serving. There is no evidence presented to substantiate his alleged
dysfunction. In one case, we rejected the defense even after a doctor
had examined the accused by stimulating his organ with a wisp of
cotton for three minutes and there was no erection. (People v. Palma,
144 SCRA 236). At any rate, advanced age does not mean that sexual
intercourse is no longer possible, as age is not a criterion taken alone
in determining sexual interest and capability of middle-aged and older
people. (People v. Bahuyan, 238 SCRA 330).
People vs. Sabredo (2000)
Jimmy Sabredo, uncle of victim Judeliza, lived with their family in
Cebu for more than a year. He forcibly dragged her at knife's point,
and brought her to Masbate. Armed with a blade, he sexually assaulted
Judeliza. After satisfying his lust, Jimmy inserted three fingers into her
vaginal orifice and cruelly pinched it. Later, Jimmy struck Judeliza
with a piece of wood, rendering her unconscious. TC sentenced him to
death for the complex crime of abduction with rape.
HELD: When a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC is charged,
such as forcible abduction with rape, it is axiomatic that the
prosecution must allege and prove the presence of all the elements of
forcible abduction, as well as all the elements of the crime of rape.
Prosecution failed to allege the 3rd element of forcible abduction which
is that the abduction is with lewd designs. Thus, when Jimmy, using a
blade, forcibly took away complainant for the purpose of sexually
assaulting her, as in fact he did rape her, the rape may then absorb
forcible abduction. Hence, the crime committed by appellant is simple
rape only.
Where the rape is committed with the use of deadly weapon or by two
or more persons, the imposable penalty ranges from RP to death. The
use of the bladed weapon already qualified the rape. Since there is no
aggravating circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
Section 11 (1) of R.A. No. 7659 imposes the death penalty when the
rape victim is under 18 years of age and the offender is a parent,
ascendant, step-parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity
within the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent
of the victim. However, R.A. No. 7659 cannot apply IN CAB because (1)
at the time the rape was committed, victim was already more than 18
years old and (2) the information did not allege that offender and
offended party were relatives within the third degree of consanguinity.
Sentence should only be reclusion perpetua.
People vs. Arillas (2000)
Amor O. Arillas accused her father, Romeo Arillas of raping her on two
occasions when she was barely 16 years old. The trial court found her
father guilty beyond reasonable doubt and imposed the death penalty
for the reason that the victim was under 18 years old at the time of
the commission of the offense and the offender was her father.
HELD: The informations in these cases alleged that the victim is the
daughter of the appellant but it did not allege that the victim is under
18 years old. It is a denial of the right of an accused not to be informed
of the nature of the accusation against him, and consequently, a denial
of due process if he is convicted of a crime in its qualified form
notwithstanding the fact that the information, on which he was
arraigned, charges him only of the crime in its simple form by not
specifying the circumstance that qualifies the crime. Hence, the
appellant was only charged with simple rape and its penalty is
reclusion perpetua.
People vs. Mahinay
Accused here was a houseboy who raped and killed the 12-year-old
daughter of their neighbor. Accused was convicted of Rape with
Homicide and sentenced to death.
HELD: Since the victim here was 12 years old already, must prove
sexual congress by force and violence and lack of consent. Since in this
case the victim was unconscious, the conclusion is that there was lack
of consent.
The crime here is Rape with Homicide, which is a special complex
crime with an indivisible penalty of death. This is treated in the same
way as qualified rape, rape with any of the 10 attendant circumstances
properly alleged in the information and proven at trial. However if any
of the circumstances are not alleged but proven, the penalty cannot
be death except if the circumstance can be made to fall under
Art.14/15 RPC. In CAB, the court has no choice but to impose death as
this is what is given in the law as the penalty for the special complex
crime.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
131

People vs. Quiñanola (1999)
There were 2 accused here who took turns in raping a 15-year-old girl.
They were convicted of frustrated rape based on People vs. Erina
despite the fact that the subsequent case of People vs. Orita saying
that there can never be a crime of frustrated rape. The ruling was
based on the testimony of the victim that she only felt the penis
touching her.
HELD: The 2 accused should be convicted each of two counts of
consummated rape. Frustrated rape can never be committed because
no matter how slight the penetration, as long the penis touches the
external genitalia of the woman, the rape is consummated as the
person has done all the necessary acts to complete the crime.
Even if Art335 RPC as amended still uses frustrated rape, the Court will
ignore it and just treat it as a mere lapse in language.
People vs. Campuhan
Campuhan had his pants down and was on top of the 4-year old child
when the child’s mother arrived. A medical examination showed that
there were no signs of genital injury and that the victim’s hymen was
intact.
HELD: For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or scrape of the
penis on the external layer of the vagina (mons pubis) will not suffice.
There must be sufficient and convincing proof that the penis indeed
touched the labias or slid into the female organ, and NOT merely
stroked the external surface thereof. AT LEAST THE LABIA MAJORA
MUST BE ENTERED FOR RAPE TO BE CONSUMMATED.
People v. Oga, 431 SCRA 354 (2004)
FACTS: At around 10:00 p.m., Oga summoned 14-year-old
Irene to his barracks. Inside his barracks, Oga, however, suddenly
pulled her and laid her on the wooden bed. The appellant then took
off her pants and panty, as well as his clothes. Irene allegedly resisted
the sexual assault, but her efforts proved in vain because the Oga was
strong and drunk. He pinned her down with his body, while his right
hand pinned her hands above her shoulders and his left hand separated
her legs. Then he inserted his penis into her vagina. It was only at
around 2:00 a.m. when her parents caught Oga naked atop Irene’s
naked body. Irene denied that the appellant was her boyfriend. For his
part, Oga interposed as a defense the “sweetheart theory.”
HELD: In reviewing rape cases, the Court has established the
following principles as guides: (1) an accusation of rape can be made
with facility, difficult to prove but more difficult for the person
accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) by reason of the intrinsic
nature of rape, the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized
with extreme caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution must
stand or fall on its merits and cannot draw strength from the weakness
of the evidence for the defense. In the present case, the Cout ruled
that no physical force was used to quell Irene’s alleged resistance.
Irene claimed that she resisted the sexual molestation, but a careful
reading of her testimony failed to reveal the kind of resistance she did
under the circumstances. While it is true that a rape victim is not
expected to resist until death, it is contrary to human experience that
Irene did not even make an outcry or use her hands which must have
been free most of the time to ward off the lustful advances of
appellant. Further, the findings of Dr. Villena, who examined Irene
only several hours after the alleged rape, showed no sign of
extragenital injuries on her body. Not a piece of Irene’s apparel was
torn or damaged as would evince a struggle on her part. These
circumstances additionally belie Irene’s claim that the appellant had
sexual intercourse with her without her consent.
People v. Buates, 408 SCRA 278 (2003)
FACTS: On July 28, 1990, at around 5:00 p.m., Jennifer
Buates was on her way home when the appellant, who is his uncle,
called her, allegedly to give her something. As Jennifer approached
the appellant, the latter pointed a knife at her and told her to undress.
Fearful for her life, Jennifer undressed, followed by the appellant.
Thereafter, he ordered her to lie down on the grassy portion of the
area. He spread her legs and inserted his penis into her vagina while
she cried and felt severe pain. The appellant appeared to have
shivered before finally pulling out his penis. He instructed Jennifer to
dress up and warned her not to tell her family about the incident,
otherwise they would all be killed. After the incident appellant
succeeded in molesting her several times more on different dates. In
December 1994, Jennifer went to live with her grandmother one month
after her own father allegedly molested her. Subsequently, she stayed
with an aunt a before transferring to another aunt, a certain Enrica
Provido, to whom she finally revealed her harrowing experience in the
hands of the appellant and her own father. Consequently, Enrica called
Jennifer’s mother, Gliceria in Bicol and related her daughter’s ordeal.
The RTC convicted Oga of two counts of rape. Appellant principally
assails the credibility of Jennifer, claiming that her actuations after
the alleged commission of each act of rape were not typical of a rape
victim. Specifically, appellant points out that Jennifer continued to
take a bath alone and fetch water from the river near where the
appellant allegedly raped. She also took the same path on her way to
school where the second sexual assault allegedly took place. Moreover,
Jennifer remained respectful of the appellant. In addition, she did not
inform any member of her family about the alleged sexual assaults in
1990 and 1993 but only after several years, in 1998.
HELD: The appellant cannot successfully impugn the
credibility of the private complainant on account of her alleged
"normal" behavior after both sexual assaults. It must be borne in mind
that different people respond differently to a given stimulus or type of
situation and there is no standard form of behavioral response when
one undergoes a shocking or startling experience. The demeanor of the
private complainant was understandable in the light of the
circumstances in both incidents of rape. She did not immediately
disclose her misfortune to anybody because of the death threats from
the appellant. Being in her early teens, she was obviously cowed into
silence as the appellant warned her not to divulge the incident to
anybody, otherwise she and her family would be killed. Such threat
from the appellant, for sure, generated much fear in her mind. Further
the victim’s lowly station in life simply offered no other option for the
private complainant but to continue doing those things. i.e. taking a
bath alone; fetching water…
The Court also held that it was extremely ludicrous for
the appellant to claim the continued respect and affection of the
private complainant solely from the latter's customary act of obtaining
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
132
his blessing (pagmamano). The private complainant herself clarified
that the practice was an involuntary gesture to keep the public from
getting wind of her sorry episode of defloration and to maintain her
honor.
Anonimity of Victim
People v. Cabalquinto (2006)
Pursuant to Republic Act No. 9262, otherwise known as the “Anti-
Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004” and its
implementing rules, the real name of the victim, together with the
real names of her immediate family members, is withheld and
fictitious initials instead are used to represent her, both to protect
her privacy.
Statutory Rape
People v. Jalosjos, 369 SCRA 179 (2001)
FACTS: The victim 11 year-old, Maria Rosilyn Delantar, grew
up under the care of Simplicio Delantar, whom she treated as her own
father. Simplicio was a 56 year-old homosexual whose ostensible
source of income was selling longganiza and tocino and accepting
boarders at his house. On the side, he was also engaged in the skin
trade as a pimp. At a very young age of 5, Rosilyn was exposed by
Simplicio to his illicit activities. She and her brother would tag along
with Simplicio whenever he delivered prostitutes to his clients. When
she turned 9, Rosilyn was offered by Simplicio as a prostitute to an
Arabian national known as Mr. Hammond. Thus begun her ordeal as one
of the girls sold by Simplicio for sexual favors. Simplicio brought
Rosilyn to Congressman Jalosjos condominium unit at Ritz Towers on
several occassions. There, Cong. Jalosjos would kiss, caress and fondle
said Rosilyn's face, lips, neck, breasts, vagina; suck her nipples and
insert his finger and then his tongue into her vagina, and other similar
lascivious conduct. On two occasions, Jalosjos placed himself on top
of Rosilyn and inserted his sexual organ into her vagina. On said
occassions, Cong. Jalosjos would thereafter give her money which she
in turn gives to Simplicio. After trial, the RTC convicted Cong. Jalosjos
of two (2) counts of statutory rape, and six (6) counts of acts of
lasciviousness defined and penalized under Article 336 of the RPC, in
relation to Section 5(b) of Republic Act No. 7610, also known as the
Child Abuse Law.
HELD: In statutory rape, mere sexual congress with a woman
below twelve years of age consummates the crime of statutory rape
regardless of her consent to the act or lack of it. The law presumes
that a woman of tender age does not possess discernment and is
incapable of giving intelligent consent to the sexual act. Thus, it was
held that carnal knowledge of a child below twelve years old even if
she is engaged in prostitution is still considered statutory rape. The
application of force and intimidation or the deprivation of reason of
the victim becomes irrelevant. The absence of struggle or outcry of
the victim or even her passive submission to the sexual act will not
mitigate nor absolve the accused from liability.
In the case at bar, the prosecution established beyond
reasonable doubt that accused-appellant had carnal knowledge of
Rosilyn. Moreover, the prosecution successfully proved that Rosilyn
was only eleven years of age at the time she was sexually abused. As
such, the absence of proof of any struggle, or for that matter of
consent or passive submission to the sexual advances of accused-
appellant, was of no moment. The fact that accused-appellant had
sexual congress with eleven year-old Rosilyn is sufficient to hold him
liable for statutory rape, and sentenced to suffer the penalty of
reclusion perpetua.
Note: Republic Act No. 8353, the Anti-Rape law of 1997
was enacted after 1996-the year the above acts were committed,
hence, it does not apply in this case.
People v. Basquez, 366 SCRA 154 (2001)
FACTS: Around 4:00 pm, Jiggle Jilt dela Cerna, six (6) years
old, was on her way home from school, where she was a Grade 1
student. While casually walking, Basquez, who was drinking outside a
store along her way blocked her way and pulled her by the belt of her
dress. She was then dragged towards the direction of the houses at the
back of the school and was brought inside an unoccupied dilapidated
house. Upon reaching the said house, her hands, feet and body were
tied with a tieback. Jiggle struggled and cry. At this point, her attacker
undressed himself, untied Jiggle, had her lie down and put himself on
top of her. Basquez’ hands then started groping all over her young and
fragile body and forced himself inside her. Jiggle, despite the
excruciating pain, kicked appellant repeatedly in an effort to free
herself from him. Basquez, however, continued forcing his penis inside
her vagina. An hour after when the Basquez left Jiggle with her body
still tied. With her school bag just beside her, Jiggle mustered enough
courage and strength to take a pair of scissors from it and cut the
remaining tiebacks tied at her body. The following day, Jiggle,
traumatized by the assault and rape committed by the appellant,
refused to go to school for fear of seeing the Basquez again. She later
narrated her horrifying experience to her grandmother Segundina dela
Cerna with whom she was living.
HELD: Although there had been no complete penetration of
the victim's vagina by appellant's penis, contact between them was not
ruled out by the doctor who testified in this case. In fact, he found the
victim's vagina positive for spermatozoa. Existing rulings on rape do
not require complete or full penetration of the victim's private organ.
Neither is the rupture of the hymen necessary. The mere introduction
of the penis into the labia majora of the victim's genitalia engenders
the crime of rape. 40 Hence, it is the "touching" or "entry" of the penis
into the labia majora or the labia minora of the pudendum of the
victim's genitalia that consummates rape. 41 Penile invasion
necessarily entails contact with the labia. Even the briefest of
contacts, without laceration of the hymen, is deemed to be rape.
People v. Dalisay, 408 SCRA 375 (2003)
FACTS: Lanie was lying in bed when her father, the
appellant arrived from work. Suddenly appellant removed Lanie’s
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
133
pants and underwear. Lanie resisted but appellant boxed her on her
thigh. Appellant touched her daughters vagina and licked it.
Thereafter, while in a kneeling position, he placed his penis at the
entrance of Lanie's vagina and inserted his private organ into hers. He
then proceeded to make push and pull movements. Lanie felt pain but
she did not complain because she was afraid. The following day, Lanie
went to school and pretended as if nothing happened. However, her
Grade V teacher noticed that Lanie looked depressed that day. When
she inquired, Lanie answered that she was raped by her father.
Appellant had sexually abused Lanie since she was in grade III. She
estimated that her father had raped her seventeen (17) times,
although she could no longer remember the exact dates when they
took place. Incidentally, Lanie's sister, Luz, also filed a complaint for
acts of lasciviousness against appellant. Appellant contends that since
Lanie's hymen is intact and that there was no spermatozoa in her
genitalia, he could not have committed the crime.
HELD: The appellant is guilty of statury rape. The presence
of either hymenal laceration or spermatozoa on Lanie's private part is
not an essential element of rape. The court cited the cases of; People
vs. Parcia, where it was held that the absence of sperm does not
disprove the charge of rape; People vs. Regala, where was ruled that
an intact hymen does not necessarily prove absence of sexual
intercourse; and People vs. Rafales, where it was declared that, ". . ..
For rape to be committed, entrance of the male organ within the labia
or pudendum of the female organ is sufficient. Rupture of the hymen
or laceration of the vagina are not essential. Entry to the least extent
of the labia or the lips of the female organ is sufficient, the victim
remaining virgin does not negate rape."
As testified to by Lanie, "the tip" of appellant's penis was
inserted into her vagina, as a result of which she felt pain. In other
words, there was no full penetration, and this explains why her hymen
remained intact. Nonetheless, carnal knowledge was consummated by
the entry of "the tip" of appellant's private organ into the labia or
pudendum of Lanie's genitalia. It is well-settled that full penetration
is not required to consummate carnal knowledge, as proof of entrance
showing the slightest penetration of the male organ within the labia or
pudendum of the female organ is sufficient.
Liability of Several Accused in Multiple Rape
People v. Plurad, 393 SCRA 306 (2002)
FACTS: An hour and a half past midnight, after Norielene
consumed half a glass of gin handed to her by accused Bernadas, she
began to feel dizzy. Norielene fell asleep on the lap of her friend,
Ibañez. At around 3:00 in the morning, Norielene woke up and found
that she was being carried by the three (3) accused towards the
bedroom of accused Bernadas. Since she still felt dizzy, Norielene fell
fast asleep in the room. She later woke up when accused Bernadas was
removing her shorts and panties. Norielene tried to shout for help but
her mouth was covered by Bernadas. When she was already naked,
accused Bernadas placed himself on top of her, inserted his sex organ
into her private parts and performed pumping motions. Both hands of
the victim were held by the accused Plurad and Cañedo. After
Bernadas finished raping her, Plurad took his turn and had sexual
intercourse with Norielene while fondling her breasts. Norielene
struggled to free herself but Bernadas held her hands while Plurad
covered her mouth with a handkerchief When Plurad was through,
Cañedo also had sexual intercourse with her while Bernadas and Plurad
held her hands.
HELD: In cases of multiple rape, each of the defendants is
responsible not only for the rape committed by him but also for those
committed by the others. Plurad, therefore, is responsible not only for
the rape committed personally by him but also for the two other counts
of rape committed by his co-accused.
Rape may be commited by a woman
People v. dela Torre, 419 SCRA 18 (2004)
FACTS: Appellant-spouses Butchoy and Fe de la Torre were
convicted by the RTC of 9 counts of rape committed against their maid
Baby Jane Dagot, who was then only 16 years old.
Baby Jane and the appellant-spouses were asleep on the floor of
the same bedroom when appellant Fe de la Torre woke Baby Jane and
her husband Butchoy. Baby Jane was surprised to see that Fe was
holding a lighted kerosene lamp and a scythe. Fe ordered her husband
to transfer and lie beside Baby Jane. As appellant Butchoy did not
comply, Fe herself transferred so that Baby Jane was between her and
Butchoy. Fe put down the scythe and the lamp and proceeded to take
Butchoy's clothes off and then Baby Jane's. Butchoy offered no
resistance but Baby Jane objected and cried to no avail. Fe then
ordered Butchoy to have sex with Baby Jane. Baby Jane, fearful of the
spouses and the dawning realization of what would happen to her,
could not ward off his advances. Butchoy placed himself on top of Baby
Jane, inserted his penis into her vagina and did a push and pull motion.
Baby Jane felt pain. All the while, Fe was standing beside them,
holding the lamp and the scythe. After the sexual intercourse, Butchoy
kissed her on the neck and fondled her breasts. Baby Jane found it
revolting but could not do much to refuse him, as she was afraid of Fe.
When Butchoy was finished, he threw her clothes to her and got
dressed. Baby Jane immediately put on her clothes. She wanted to
leave the room but Fe prevented her from doing so. The following
morning, Baby Jane saw that there was blood on her panty. The rape
was repeated once a week from the second week of September 1992
on to the fourth week of October 1992. Baby Jane had her menarche
in the month of November 1992 and was spared from the appellants'
abuse that month. However she was again raped in the second week
of December. This was to be the last. Baby Jane testified that the
subsequent rape incidents were carried out in the same manner as the
first. She felt pain during the first and second rapes, but did not feel
pain anymore in the succeeding rape incidents.
HELD: An accused may be considered a principal by direct
participation, by inducement, or by indispensable cooperation. This is
true in a charge of rape against a woman, provided of course a man is
charged together with her. In two cases the Court convicted the
woman as a principal by direct participation since it was proven that
she held down the complainant in order to help her co-accused spouse
consummate the offense. In People v. Villamala, the Court found the
husband and wife guilty for raping their neighbor and "kumare" in this
factual setting, viz: the wife visited the victim at her home on the
pretext of inquiring as to the whereabouts of her husband. Once inside,
she whistled for her husband and he immediately appeared at the
doorstep. The wife then suddenly pinned her "kumare" to the floor.
The husband forcefully removed the victim's skirt and panties,
removed his shorts, placed himself on top of the victim and
consummated the rape. In the more recent People v. Saba, the
accused married couple victimized a fourteen (14) year-old epileptic
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
134
who stayed at their home for treatment by the wife who was a reputed
healer. On the pretext of conducting a healing session, the wife
ordered the victim to lie down on the floor then pinned the victim's People v. Fetalino (2007)
hands to the floor and covered her mouth while her husband removed
his pants and briefs and the victim's panties and raped the young girl.
These two cases show not only the possibility but the reality of rape
committed by a woman together with a man. The Court affirmed the The insertion of one’s finger into the genital or anal orifice of another
decision of the RTC. person constitutes rape by sexual assault and not merely an act of
lasciviousness

Rape through sexual assault

Delay in Reporting Rape

Ordinario v. People, 428 SCRA 773 (2004)

People v. Arnaiz (2006)

FACTS: Jayson Ramos and accused Geronimo Ordinario were

student and teacher, respectively, at Nicanor Garcia Elementary Neither does AAA’s failure to tell her mother about the incident nor
School during the time the crime was perpetrated. Jayson was then in her long delay in reporting the matter to the authorities negate
Grade 4 and accused was his teacher in Boy Scout. After being rape. As correctly observed by the OSG, the delay in reporting the
summoned by accused at the Boy Scout headquarters, Jayson was rape incident does not weaken the case for the prosecution. It is not
ordered to strip off which the latter complied unwary of the perverse uncommon for a young girl to conceal assaults on her virtue, especially
intentions of accused. Accused then approached Jayson and started when the rapist is living with her. In fact, we have previously ruled in
kissing him all over his body including his male organ. Thereafter, People v. Coloma, that even a delay of 8 years is not a sign of
accused inserted his private part into the mouth of Jayson but the fabrication.
latter could not hold on for long as he felt vomiting prompting accused
to remove his penis and ordered Jayson to dress up. Before they parted
ways, accused told Jayson 'pag nagsumbong ka sa mga magulang mo,
may masamang mangyayari sa iyo.' Interpreting the same to mean an
immediate bodily harm, Jayson kept mum on the incident for fear of
accused reprisal. The same sexual molestation recurred, and several Absence of Medical Findings
more thereafter until Jayson had mustered enough courtage to inform
his parents about the incident.

People v. Teodoro (2006)

HELD: The definition of the crime of rape has been expanded
with the enactment of Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise also known as
the Anti-Rape Law of 1997, to include not only "rape by sexual Thus, the contention of appellant that there were no lacerations in the
intercourse" but now likewise "rape by sexual assault. "An act of sexual vagina does not merit any consideration. In that regard, it has been
assault under the second paragraph of Article 266-A of the RPC can be held that the medical examination of the victim is merely
committed by any person who, under the circumstances mentioned in corroborative in character and is not an element of rape. Likewise, a
the first paragraph of the law, inserts his penis into the mouth or anal freshly broken hymen is not an essential element of rape and healed
orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal orifice, of lacerations do not negate rape.
another person. The law, unlike rape under the first paragraph of said
Article 266-A of the Code, has not made any distinction on the sex of
either the offender or the victim. The court found Ordinario guilty of
rape by sexual assault on twelve (12) counts.

Sweetheart defense
People v. Soriano, 388 SCRA 140 (2002)

FACTS: On four occasions, the Camilo Soriano forced his People v. Bautista, 430 SCRA 469 (2004)
penis into her daughter Maricel’s vagina, On twelve other occasions,
the accused inserted his finger into her daughters private organ. The
victim was then 11 years old.
FACTS: On the pretext that he had been sent by
his wife to fetch the victim, a 15-year-old girl for an field trip,
Baustista, brought the latter to a motel, where he had sexual
HELD: The Court found Camilo guilty of 4 counts of rape by intercourse with her against her will. Contending that he and the
sexual intercourse and 12 counts of rape through sexual assault. victim were lovers, appellant claims that what transpired was
Inserting a finger inside the genital of a woman is rape through sexual consensual, though illicit, sexual intercourse.
assault within the context of paragraph 2 of Article 266-A of the RPC.
(Emphasis supplied)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

135
 HELD: Bautista’s sweetheart defense was
rejected by the court for lack of corroboration. As an affirmative
defense, it must be established with convincing evidence — by some
documentary and/or other evidence like mementos, love letters,
notes, pictures and the like. In this case, the only thing he proffered
to prove that he and the victim were lovers was his self-serving
statement, which she and her mother categorically denied. Even if he
and the victim were really sweethearts, such a fact would not
necessarily establish consent. It has been consistently ruled that "a
love affair does not justify rape, for the beloved cannot be sexually
violated against her will." The fact that a woman voluntarily goes out
on a date with her lover does not give him unbridled license to have
sex with her against her will. The court cited the case of People v.
Dreu, where it was held that "A sweetheart cannot be forced to have
sex against her will. Definitely, a man cannot demand sexual
gratification from a fiancee and, worse, employ violence upon her on
the pretext of love. Love is not a license for lust."
Moral Character of Victim
People v. Agsaoay, 430 SCRA 450 (2004)
FACTS: Josephine and her sister were sleeping on the second
floor of their house, while the other members of the family were at
the ground floor. Their mother left their house early and went to the
field to uproot palay seedlings. Josephine was awakened when her
father suddenly kissed her lips. Instinctively, she pushed him away but
to no avail. He threatened to kill her and her entire family should she
report the matter to her mother. Josephine was so terrified and was
not able to shout and resist. Her father then undressed her, spread her
legs, held her hands, and inserted his penis into her vagina and made
a push and pull movement. Josephine felt pain. Josephine did not tell
her mother, about the incident because of her father's threat. It was
only the following day that she revealed to her mother what had
happened. Her mother was shocked but scared to report the matter
immediately to the authorities because in the past, accused killed her
brother. Accused ravished Josephine for the second time. At first, her
mother again refused to report the incident to the police. Later,
however, her mother finally went to the PNP to report the incident.
Now, the defense endeavors to prove that Josephine is an unchaste
young woman who habitually goes out with different men.
HELD: The debasement of Josephine’s character does not
necessarily cast doubt on her credibility, nor does it negate the
existence of rape. It is a well-established rule that in the prosecution
and conviction of an accused for rape, the victim's moral character is
immaterial, there being absolutely no nexus between it and the odious
deed committed. Even a prostitute or a woman of loose morals can be
the victim of rape, for she can still refuse a man's lustful advances.
Forcible abduction absorbed in rape
People v. Lining, 384 SCRA 427 (2002)
FACTS: Emelina, then fifteen (15) years old, requested
permission from her parents to visit her aunt where she was supposed
to spend the night. While in her aunt josephine’s house, Emelina was
invited to a dance party. Emelina accepted the invitation and she went
to the party, accompanied by her aunt. Josephine then left Emelina at
the party, telling her that she had to go home but she would return
later to fetch her. When the party ended Josephine still had not
returned. Emelina decided to go home alone. On her way to her aunt’s
house, Emelina was accosted by Gerry Lining and Lian Salvacion, both
of whom were known to her since they were her former neighbors.
Lining poked a kitchen knife at Emelina’s breast and the two held her
hands. Emelina was dragged towards the ricefield and was forcibly
carried to an unoccupied house. Inside the house, Lining removed
Emelina’s t-shirt, pants and undergarments. She was pushed to the
floor and while Salvacion was holding her hands and kissing her, Lining
inserted his penis inside her vagina. Emelina shouted and tried to ward
off her attackers, but to no avail. After Lining had satisfied his lust, he
held Emelina’s hands and kissed her while Salvacion in turn inserted
his penis inside her vagina. Thereafter, the two directed Emelina to
put on her clothes. Emelina saw an opportunity to escape, and she
returned to her aunt’s house. i However, because of fear, as the
accused threatened her that she would be killed if she would reveal
what they did to her, she did not tell her aunt what transpired. She
next went to the house of her friend Evelyn Saguid where he told Gerry
Selda, a friend of her father, who saw her crying about the rape
incident. Accused Salvacion remained at large while Lining was
convicted by the trial as principal of the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape.
HELD: Lining could only be convicted for the crime of rape,
instead of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. Indeed,
it would appear from the records that the main objective of the
accused when the victim was taken to the house of Mila Salvacion was
to rape her. Hence, forcible abduction is absorbed in the crime of
rape.
Bar Questions
Criminal Liabilities; Rape; Homicide & Theft (1998)
King went to the house of Laura who was alone. Laura
offered him a drink and after consuming three bottles of
beer. King made advances to her and with force and
violence, ravished her. Then King killed Laura and took her
jewelry. Doming, King's adopted brother, learned about the
incident. He went to Laura's house, hid her body, cleaned
everything and washed the bloodstains inside the room.
Later, King gave Jose, his legitimate brother, one piece of
jewelry belonging to Laura. Jose knew that the jewelry was
taken from Laura but nonetheless he sold it for P2,000.
What crime or crimes did King, Doming and Jose commit?
Discuss their criminal liabilities. [10%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
King committed the composite crime of Rape with homicide
as a single indivisible offense, not a complex crime, and
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
136
Theft. The taking of Laura's jewelry when she is already
dead is only theft.
Rape (1995)
Gavino boxed his wife Alma for refusing to sleep with him.
He then violently threw her on the floor and forced her to
have sexual intercourse with him. As a result Alma suffered
serious physical injuries.
(a) Can Gavino be charged with rape? Explain.
(b) Can Gavino be charged with serious physical injuries?
Explain
(c) Will your answers to (a) and (b) be the same if before
the incident Gavino and Alma were legally separated?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) No. A husband cannot be charged with the rape of his
wife because of the matrimonial consent which she gave
when she assumed the marriage relation, and the law will
not permit her to retract in order to charge her husband with
the offense (Sate vs. Haines, 11 La. Ann. 731 So. 372; 441
RA 837).
(b) Yes, he may be guilty of serious physical injuries. This
offense is specially mentioned in Art. 263 [4], paragraph 2
which imposes a higher penalty for the crime of physical
injuries in cases where the offense shall have been
committed against any of the persons enumerated in Art 246
(the crime of parricide).
(c) No, my answer will not be the same. If Gavino, and
Alma were legally separated at the time of the incident, then
Gavino could be held liable for rape. A legal separation is a
separation of the spouses from bed and board (U.S. vs.
Johnson, 27 Phil. 477, cited in II Reyes, RFC, p. 853. 1981
edition),
In the crime of rape, any crime resulting from the infliction
of physical injuries suffered by the victim on the occasion of
the rape, is absorbed by the crime of rape. The injuries
suffered by the victim may, however, be considered in
determining the proper penalty which shall be imposed on
the offender. Serious physical injuries cannot be absorbed in
rape; it can be so if the injury is slight.
Rape; Absence of Force & Intimidation (1995)
Three policemen conducting routine surveillance of a
cogonal area in Antipole chanced upon Ruben, a 15-year old
tricycle driver, on top of Rowena who was known to be a
child prostitute. Both were naked from the waist down and
appeared to be enjoying the sexual activity. Ruben was
arrested by the policemen despite his protestations that
Rowena enticed him to have sex with her in advance
celebration of her twelfth birthday. The town physician
found no semen nor any bleeding on Rowena's hymen but
for a healed scar. Her hymenal opening easily admitted two
fingers showing that no external force had been employed
on her. Is Ruben liable for any offense? Discuss fully.
Answer;
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Ruben is liable for rape, even if force or intimidation is not
present. The gravamen of the offense is the carnal
knowledge of a woman below twelve years of age (People
vs. Dela Cruz, 56 SCRA 84) since the law doesn't consider
the consent voluntary and presumes that a girl below twelve
years old does not and cannot have a will of her own. In
People us. Perez, CA 37 OG 1762, it was held that sexual
intercourse with a prostitute below twelve years old is rape.
Similarly, the absence of spermatozoa does not disprove the
consummation as the important consideration is not the
emission but the penetration of the female body by the male
organ (People vs. Jose 37 SCRA 450; People vs. Carandang.
52 SCRA 259).
Rape; Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (2002)
What other acts are considered rape under the Anti-Rape
Law of 1997, amending the Revised Penal Code? (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The other acts considered rape under the Anti-Rape Law of
1997 are: 1.] having carnal knowledge of a woman by a
man by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
authority, 2.] having carnal knowledge of a demented
woman by a man even if none of the circumstances required
in rape be present; and 3.] committing an act of sexual
assault by inserting a person's penis into the victim's mouth
or anal orifice, or by inserting any instrument or object, into
the genital or anal orifice of another person.
Rape; Anti-Rape Law of 1997 (2002)
The Anti-Rape Law of 1997 reclassified rape from a crime
against honor, a private offense, to that of a crime against
persons. Will the subsequent marriage of the offender and
the offended party extinguish the criminal action or the
penalty imposed? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. By express provision of Article 266-C of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, the subsequent valid marriage
between the offender and offended party shall extinguish
the criminal action or the penalty imposed, although rape
has been reclassified from a crime against chastity, to that
of a crime against persons.
Rape; Consented Abduction (2002)
A with lewd designs, took a 13-year old girl to a nipa hut in
his farm and there had sexual intercourse with her. The girl
did not offer any resistance because she was infatuated with
the man, who was good-looking and belonged to a rich and
prominent family in the town. What crime, if any, was
committed by A? Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of consented abduction under
Article 343 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. The said
Article punishes the abduction of a virgin over 12 and under
18 years of age, carried out with her consent and with lewd
designs. Although the problem did not indicate the victim to
be virgin, virginity should not be understood in its material
sense, as to exclude a virtuous woman of good reputation,
since the essence of the crime is not the injury to the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
137
woman but the outrage and alarm to her family (Valdepenas
vs. People,16 SCRA 871 [1966]).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
A committed "Child Abuse" under Rep. Act No. 7610. As
defined in said law, "child abuse" includes sexual abuse or
any act which debases, degrades or demeans the intrinsic
worth and dignity of a child as a human being, whose age is
below eighteen (18) years.
Rape; Effect; Affidavit of Desistance (1993)
1 Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo
into having sexual Intercourse with him. Rachel's mother
immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn
statement, before the City Prosecutor's Office. After the
necessary preliminary investigation, an information was
signed by the prosecutor but did not contain the signature of
Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC
(prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the
dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.
2 After the prosecution had rested its case, Ariel presented a
sworn affidavit of desistance executed by Rachel and her
mother stating that they are no longer interested in
prosecuting the case and that they have pardoned Ariel.
What effect would this affidavit of desistance have on the
criminal and civil aspects of the case? Explain fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) The case should not be dismissed. ... 2) The affidavit of
desistance will only amount to the condonation of civil
liability but not criminal liability hence the case should still
proceed.
Rape; Male Victim (2002)
A, a male, takes B, another male, to a motel and there,
through threat and intimidation, succeeds in inserting his
penis into the anus of B. What, if any, is A’s criminal liability?
Why?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A shall be criminally liable for rape by committing an act of
sexual assault against B, by inserting his penis into the anus
of the latter. Even a man may be a victim of rape by sexual
assault under par. 2 of Article 266-A of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended, "when the offender's penis is inserted
into his mouth or anal orifice."
Rape; Multiple Rapes; Forcible Abduction (2000)
Flordeluna boarded a taxi on her way home to Quezon City
which was driven by Roger, Flordeluna noticed that Roger
was always placing his car freshener in front of the car
aircon ventilation but did not bother asking Roger why.
Suddenly, Flordeluna felt dizzy and became unconscious.
Instead of bringing her to Quezon City, Roger brought
Flordeluna to his house in Cavite where she was detained for
two (2) weeks. She was raped for the entire duration of her
detention. May Roger be charged and convicted of the crime
of rape with serious illegal detention? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of
rape with serious illegal detention. Roger may be charged
and convicted of multiple rapes. Each rape is a distinct
offense and should be punished separately. Evidently, his
principal intention was to abuse Flordeluna; the detention
was only incidental to the rape.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, Roger may not be charged and convicted of the crime of
rape with serious illegal detention, since the detention was
incurred in raping the victim during the days she was held.
At most, Roger may be prosecuted for forcible abduction for
taking Flordeluna to Cavite against the latter's will and with
lewd designs. The forcible abduction should be complexed
with one of the multiple rapes committed, and the other
rapes should be prosecuted and punished separately, in as
many rapes were charged and proved.
Rape; Proper Party (1993)
Ariel intimidated Rachel, a mental retardate, with a bolo into
having sexual Intercourse with him. Rachel's mother
immediately filed a complaint, supported by her sworn
statement, before the City Prosecutor's Office. After the
necessary preliminary investigation, an information was
signed by the prosecutor but did not contain the signature of
Rachel nor of her mother. Citing Art. 344 of the RPC
(prosecution of the crimes of rape, etc.), Ariel moves for the
dismissal of the case. Resolve with reasons.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The case should not be dismissed. This is allowed by law
(People us. Ilarde, 125 SCRA 11). It is enough that a
Criminal Law Bar Examination Q & A (1994-2006) complaint
was filed by the offended party or the parents in the Fiscal's
Office.
Rape; Statutory Rape; Mental Retardate Victim
(1996)
The complainant, an eighteen-year old mental retardate with
an intellectual capacity between the ages of nine and twelve
years, when asked during the trial how she felt when she
was raped by the accused, replied "Masarap, it gave me
much pleasure." With the claim of the accused that the
complainant consented for a fee to the sexual intercourse,
and with the foregoing answer of the complainant, would
you convict the accused of rape if you were the judge trying
the case?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, I would convict the accused of rape. Since the victim is
a mental retardate with an intellectual capacity of a child
less than 12 years old, she is legally incapable of giving a
valid consent to the sexual Intercourse. The sexual
intercourse is tantamount to a statutory rape because the
level of intelligence is that of a child less than twelve years
of age. Where the victim of rape is a mental retardate,
violence or Intimidation is not essential to constitute rape.
(People us. Trimor, G,R. 106541-42, 31 Mar 95) As a matter
of fact, RA No. 7659, the Heinous Crimes Law, amended Art.
335, RPC, by adding the phrase "or is demented."
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
138
 Title Nine
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND
SECURITY
Chapter One. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
Section One – Illegal Detention
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
Article 268. Slight illegal Detention
Article 269. Unlawful arrest
Section Two – Kidnapping of Minors
Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home
Section Three – Slavery and servitude
Article 272. Slavery
Article 273. Exploitation of Child Labor
Article 274. Service rendered under compulsion in
payment of debt
Chapter Two – CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
Section One – Abandonment of helpless persons and
exploitation of minors
Article 275. Abandonment of persons in danger and
abandonment of one’s own victim
Article 276. Abandoning a minor
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by person
entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents
Article 278. Exploitation of minors
Article 279. Additional penalties for other offenses
Section Two – Trespass to dwelling
Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling
Article 281. Other forms of trespass
Section Three – Threats and Coercion
Article 282. Grave threats
Article 283. Light threats
Article 284. Bond for good behavior
Article 285. Other light threats
Article 286. Grave coercions
Article 287. Light coercions
Article 288. Other similar coercions (compulsory
purchase of merchandise and payment of wages
by means of tokens)
Article 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of
combination of capital or labor through violence or
threats
Chapter Three – DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF
SECRETS
Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of
correspondence
Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office
Article 292. Revelation of industrial secrets
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
Elements:
1. Offender is a private individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner
deprives the latter of his liberty;
3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following
circumstances is present:
a. The kidnapping lasts for more than 3 days;
b. It is committed simulating public authority;
c. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the
person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him are
made; or
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
139
 d. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, A Japanese national named Tomio was arrested after being implicated
or a public officer. for possessing marijuana. Two other Japanese claimed that they paid
money for Tomio’s release and so they held Tomio under their custody,
asking for the amount they allegedly advance to the police.
 If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary
detention. The public officer must have a duty under the
law to detain a person to be liable for arbitrary detention. HELD: Even if the two accused only wanted to recover the money they
If he has no such duty, and he detains a person, he is liable allegedly advanced to the police, the crime is still kidnapping because
under this article. of the essential element of deprivation of liberty.
 When the victim is a minor and the accused is one of the
parents, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not
exceeding 300 pesos or both (Article 271, par. 2)
 The essential element of kidnapping is the deprivation of
the offended party’s liberty under any of the four People vs. Mercado
instances enumerated. But when the kidnapping was
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, it is not
necessary that one or any of circumstances enumerated be The accused held a knife against his girlfriend’s sister for nearly five
present. hours. The victim’s ordeal ended only after the barangay captain was
 When the kidnapping is done for the purpose of extorting able to subdue the accused.
ransom from the victim or any other person, actual demand
for ransom is not necessary, as long as it can be proven
that the kidnapping was done for the purpose of extorting HELD: The crime is kidnapping because the victim was actually
ransom. restrained or deprived of her liberty, notwithstanding the fact that the
 It is essential in the crime of illegal detention that there be accused only wanted the victim to produce her.
actual confinement or restriction of the person of the
offended party.
 Not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure, as
long as he is deprived, in any manner, of his liberty.
 Detention is illegal when not ordered by competent People vs. Del Socorro
authority or not permitted by law.
 Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping with murder – when
the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the
Del Socorro grabbed a little girl and brought the child to a doctor,
detention, the maximum penalty (death) shall be imposed.
asking for 700 pesos in return. The doctor gave the child to her
 Where the victim is taken from one place to another solely spinster aunt.
for the purpose of killing him, the crime committed is
murder.
 Maximum penalty is imposed in the ff. cases:
o If the purpose of detention is to extort ransom HELD: The defense that the child voluntarily went with the accused is
o When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of belied by the fact that the child openly resisted the abduction and
even had to be carried to the jeep.
the detention
o When the victim is raped
o When the victim is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts.
 Conspiracy to extort ransom makes all the conspirators
People vs. Lim
liable under this article, including those who did not take
part in the money.

Illegal detention
Committed by a private
individual, who unlawfully
deprives a person of his
liberty
Crime against personal
liberty
Arbitrary detention
Committed by a public
officer or employee, who
detains a person without
legal ground
Crime against the
fundamental laws of the
state
Lim took in two young girls who were loitering in front of her sari-sari
store. Lim sent the younger girl to Cebu while the older girl stayed in
the store. Days later, the girls’ father arrived to bring the two girls
back with him.
HELD: There is no kidnapping in this case because the two minors
voluntarily entered Lim’s residence and there was no showing that
there was actual confinement or restriction of the person of the
offended party. Both girls were free to go in and out of the store.

People vs. Padica

People vs. Tomio

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

140
A 14-year old boy was brought to a sugarcane plantation, where he was
shot and killed immediately. The accused demanded ransom soon
after.
HELD: Where the evident purpose of taking the victim was to kill him,
and from the acts of the accused it cannot be inferred that the latter’s
purpose was to actually detain or deprive the victim of his liberty, the
subsequent killing of the victim did not constitute the crime of murder.
The demand for ransom did not convert the crime into kidnapping since
no deprivation of liberty was involved.
People vs. Luartes
Luartes kidnapped a 3-yr old girl outside Isettan Recto. The girl was in
the mall with her mother, who lost her. Luartes’ defense was that he
was merely helping the lost girl find her mother. He says he had no
intention of kidnapping Junichi and that the prosecution witnesses
(police officers) merely misconstrued his actuations.
HELD: If indeed accused-appellant was trying to help the lost child,
why then did he misrepresent himself as her uncle? And, if his intention
was only to help the child look for her mother, why did he have to
board a passenger jeepney taking the child with him?
The essence of kidnapping under Art. 267 is the actual deprivation of
the victim's liberty coupled with the intent of the accused to effect it.
The crime in this case clearly comes under par. 4 of Art. 267 of the
Penal Code. The detention was committed by Luartes who was a
private individual and the person kidnapped was a three (3)-year old
minor.
People vs. Pavillare
Pavillare was convicted of kidnapping an Indian national and sentenced
to death. He argues that he should have been convicted of simple
robbery only and not kidnapping with ransom because the evidence
proves that their prime motive was to obtain money and that the
complainant was detained only for two hours.
HELD: The pretense that the money was supposedly in exchange for
the dropping of the charges for rape is not supported by the evidence.
The accused released the complainant when the money was handed
over to him and after counting the money, he and his companions
immediately left the scene. This clearly indicated that the payment of
the ransom money is in exchange for the liberty of the private
complainant.
The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours does not
alter the nature of the crime committed. The crime of kidnapping is
committed by depriving the victim of liberty whether he is placed in
an enclosure or simply restrained from going home. As squarely
expressed in Article 267, above-quoted the penalty of death is
imposable where the detention is committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom, and the duration of the detention is not material.
People vs. Ballenas
Accused Ballenas pointed a short firearm to Wilma and Consorcia inside
their home. Accused told Wilma to accompany him to Maria his
girlfriend. Wilma refused, as they were about to eat supper. Consorcia
also told her daughter, Wilma not to go out because it was already
dark. Accused Ballenas forced Wilma to go out with him. Because of
the abduction, Consorcia sought the help of a neighbor, Andres but to
no avail, as Andres shut the door on her for fear of Ballenas as the
latter is known as a member of the dreaded Sparrow Unit of the NPA.
The following morning, Consorcia reported the abduction of Wilma to
her son-in-law who is a member of the Integrated National Police. She
learned from Aurelio that Wilma was already dead. The police then
proceeded to the scene of the incident. Ballenas was found guilty of
forcible abduction with rape and sentenced to Reclusion perpetua.
HELD: BALLENAS committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape
on March 20, 1987, before the passage of Republic Act 7659 or the
Heinous Crimes Law that took effect on December 31, 1993. At the
time that BALLENAS committed the crime of forcible abduction with
rape, the penalty then applicable was reclusion perpetua to death.
The use by BALLENAS of a firearm in committing the crime, a fact duly
alleged in the information and proven in court, should have warranted
the imposition of the death penalty. However, since the crime took
place prior to the implementation of RA 7659, the trial court correctly
ruled that the penalty that can be imposed on BALLENAS is reclusion
perpetua. Hence, despite the presence of the aggravating
circumstance of dwelling, the penalty herein of reclusion perpetua
would not be affected. Under Article 63 of the Revised Penal Code,
the penalty of reclusion perpetua should be applied regardless of any
mitigating or aggravating circumstance that may have attended the
commission of a crime.
People v. Silongan, 401 SCRA 459 (2003)
FACTS: Businessman Alexander Saldaña went to Isulan,
Sultan Kudarat with Rejuso, Tormis, and Cinco to meet with Macapagal
Silongan alias Commander Lambada concerning the gold nuggets that
were purportedly being sold by the latter. During the meeting
Macapagal told them that someone in his family has just died and that
he has to pick up an elder brother in hence, they had better transact
business in the afternoon. In the afternoon, Alexander’s group and
Macapagal, with Teddy and Oteng both surnamed Silongan, traveled to
fetch Macapagal’s brother. Afterwards, the group returned to Isulan
on Macapagal’s orders. At Isulan, Macapagal gave additional
instructions to wait until dark allegedly because the funeral
arrangements for his relative were not yet finished. When the group
finally got on their way, Macapagal who was earlier busy talking over
his hand-held radio with someone in the Maguindanaoan dialect
ordered the driver to drive slowly towards the highway. Oteng and his
bodyguards alighted somewhere long the way. As they neared the
highway, Macapagal ordered the driver to stop. Suddenly, 15 armed
men appeared. Alexander and his 3 companions were ordered to go
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
141
out of the vehicle, tied up, and blindfolded. Macapagal and Teddy
were also tied up and blindfolded, but nothing more was done to them.
The 4 were taken to a mountain hideout. After much haggling twelve
million pesos was demanded from Alexander for his release, They
made Alexander write a letter to his wife to pay the ransom which was
hand-carried by a certain Jafar, alias Dante, and two of the victims,
Tormis and Cinco, who both later managed to escape. No ransom was
obtained so other persons were sent and one of the victims, Rejuso to
renegotiate with Alexander’s wife. No agreement was likewise
reached. Seven days later, Alexander and Rejuso were transferred to
the town proper and was guarded them by several men. When the
kidnappers learned that the military was looking for Alexander, they
returned to the mountain hideout and stayed there for two weeks.
At one time, Alexander Saldaña was made to stay at a river
hideout where a certain Commander Kugta held him and sheltered his
abductors for at least a week. There, Alexander saw Macapagal with
Manap and other armed men. These men brought Alexander to
different places and was made to write more letters to his family. All
in all appellant was detained for a total of 6 months. Saldaña was later
released to the military in exchange for a relative of one of the
abductors who was caught delivering a ransom note to Alexander’s
family.
HELD: The essence of the crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention as defined and penalized in Article 267 of the Revised
Penal Code is the actual deprivation of the victim’s liberty coupled
with proof beyond reasonable doubt of an intent of the accused to
effect the same. It is thus essential that the following be established
by the prosecution: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) he
kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner deprives the latter
of his liberty; (3) the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
and (4) in the commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances
enumerated in Article 267 be present. But if the kidnapping was done
for the purpose of extorting ransom, the fourth element is no longer
necessary.
There is no mistaking the clear, overwhelming evidence that
the appellants abducted Alexander Saldaña and his companions at
gunpoint and deprived them of their freedom. That the appellants took
shifts guarding the victims until only Alexander was left to be guarded
and in transferring Alexander from one hideout to another to prevent
him from being rescued by the military establish that they acted in
concert in executing their common criminal design.
People v. Cortez, 324 SCRA 335 (2000)
FACTS: Mendoza was in her house when accused Cortez,
Callos and Betonio, all armed with bolos, arrived. They were looking
for Lolita's cousin, Esminda, and were threatening to kill him on sight.
Unable to find Santos, they decided to abduct Lolita to prevent her
from reporting the incident to the police. Accompanied by the other
two, accused Callos pointed his bolo at Lolita's back and dragged her
to the mountain. They brought her to the house of Torral, an uncle of
accused Cortez, where Cortez bound her hand with a belts and
thereafter continued their search for Santos. Hours later, PO2 Santos
and barangay captain Colarina rescued found Lolita outside the nipa
hut of the Torrals, conversing with Pablo Torral. Lolita told them that
the Torrals did not prevent her from leaving their house. However, she
did not attempt to escape for fear that the accused would make good
their threat to kill her. Appellants allege failure to establish one of the
essential elements of the crime, i.e., deprivation of the victim's
liberty. They point out that at the time of the rescue, Lolita was not
physically confined inside the house as they found her standing
outside, conversing with Pablo Torral. They stress that Lolita herself
declared that she was not prevented by the Torrals from leaving the
house.
HELD: For the crime of kidnapping to prosper, the intent of
the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty, in any manner, has to
be established by indubitable proof. However, it is not necessary that
the offended party be kept within an enclosure to restrict her freedom
of locomotion. In the case at bar, the deprivation of Lolita's liberty was
amply established by evidence. When the appellants failed to find
Lolita's cousin, they forcibly dragged her to the mountains and kept
her in the house of the Torrals. Cortez even bound her hands with a
belt. Although at the time of the rescue, she was found outside the
house talking to Pablo Torral, she explained that she did not attempt
to leave the premises for fear that the appellants would make good
their threats to kill her should she do so. Her fear is not baseless as
the appellants knew where she resided and they had earlier announced
that their intention in looking for Lolita's cousin was to kill him on
sight. Certainly, fear has been known to render people immobile.
Indeed, appeals to the fears of an individual, such as by threats to kill
or similar threats, are equivalent to the use of actual force or violence
which is one of the elements of the crime of kidnapping under Article
267 (3) of the Revised Penal Code.
People v. Suriaga, 381 SCRA 159 (2002)
FACTS: Edwin Ramos was cleaning the car of his older
brother, Johnny who was taking care of his 2-year old daughter, Nicole,
playing inside the car. Suriaga, a cousin of the Ramos brothers,
arrived. He was accompanied by his live-in-partner Rosita. Suriaga
requested Edwin if he could drive the car, but the latter declined,
saying he did not have the keys. Meanwhile, Johnny returned to his
house because a visitor arrived. At this instance, Rosita held Nicole
and cajoled her. Rosita asked Edwin if she could take Nicole with her
to buy barbeque. Having been acquainted with Rosita for a long time
and because he trusted her, Edwin acceded. When Rosita and the child
left, Suriaga joined them. More than an one hour has passed but the
two failed to return with Nicole. Edwin, Johnny and his wife,
Mercedita, then began searching but they could not find their daughter
and Rosita. Nicole’s grandfather then receive a call from Suriaga asking
for ransom in the amount of P100,000.00. Johnny immediately
reported the call to the PACC Task Force. The next day, Suriaga called
Mercedita, introduced himself and asked her if she and her husband
would give the amount to which the latter responded in the positive.
Suriaga instructed Mercidita as to the how the money should be
delivered to him with a warning that if she will not deliver the money,
her daughter would be placed in a plastic bag or thrown in a garbage
can. Thereafter, with the cash money, and while being tailed by PACC
agents, Mercida proceeded to deliver the money to Suriaga. The PACC
agents arrested Suriaga and his companion Isidera after Mercida gave
the money to them. Prior thereto, Nicole was rescued in a shanty
where Rosita’s sister lived.
HELD: The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the actual
deprivation of the victim’s liberty, coupled with indubitable proof of
the accused’s intent to effect the same. And if the person detained is
a child, the question that needs to be addressed is whether there is
evidence to show that in taking the child, there was deprivation of the
child’s liberty and that it was the intention of the accused to deprive
the mother of the child’s custody.
Undoubtedly, the elements of kidnapping for ransom have been
sufficiently established by the prosecution considering the following
circumstances: 1) appellant, a private individual, took the young
Nicole without personally seeking permission from her father; 2)
appellant took the girl and brought her to a shanty where Rosita’s
sister lived, without informing her parents of their whereabouts; 3) he
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
142
detained the child and deprived her of her liberty by failing to return
her to her parents overnight and the following day; and 4) he
demanded a ransom of P100,000.00 through telephone calls and gave
instructions where and how it should be delivered.
People v. Acbangin, 337 SCRA 454 (2000)
FACTS: Jocelyn brought four-year old Sweet to
Niu’s house without the consent of the child’s father Danilo Acbangin.
When Danilo asked Jocelyn about her daughter who he last saw playing
in the latters house, Jocelyn denied knowing of the child's
whereabouts. After 2 days, Jocelyn acompanied Danilo, Sweet's
grandfather and police officers to Niu's house. The latter voluntarily
turned Sweet over to her father and the policemen. Sweet was well-
dressed and smiling. She ran to her father and embraced him.
HELD: In cases of kidnapping, if the person detained is a
child, the question is whether there was actual deprivation of the
child's liberty, and whether it was the intention of the accused to
deprive the parents of the custody of the child.
Sweet was deprived of her liberty. True, she was treated
well. However, there is still kidnapping. For there to be kidnapping,
it is not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure. It is
enough that the victim is restrained from going home. Given Sweet's
tender age, when Jocelyn left her in Niu's house, at a distant place in
Tondo, Manila, unknown to her, she deprived Sweet of the freedom to
leave the house at will. It is not necessary that the detention be
prolonged.
The intention to deprive Sweet's parents of her custody is
indicated by Jocelyn's hesitation for two days to disclose Sweet's
whereabouts and more so by her actual taking of the child. Jocelyn's
motive at this point is not relevant. It is not an element of the crime.
People v. Pavillare, 329 SCRA 684 (2000)
FACTS: Sukhjinder Singh, an Indian national was on his way back
to his parked motorcycle when three men blocked his way. Pavillare,
who was one of them, accused Singh of having raped the woman inside
a Kia taxi cab parked nearby. Singh denied the accusation, the three
men nevertheless forced him inside the cab and brought him in Quezon
City. One of the abductors took the key to his motorcycle and drove it
alongside the cab. Singh was beaten up and P100,000.00 was
demanded for his release. Singh told them that he only had P5,000.00
with him. Pavillare then forced him to give the phone numbers of his
relatives so they can make their demand from them. Singh gave the
phone number of his cousin Lakhvir Singh and then Pavillare made the
call. The amount of 25,000.00 was agreed upon. An uncle and his
cousin Lakhvir arrived in a motorcycle and together with the
kidnappers they entered a mini-grocery. Later the kidnappers brought
the complainant to the mini-grocery where he met his relatives. The
ransom money was handed to the appellant. He counted the money
and then, together with his cohorts, immediately left the scene.
Pavillare argues that he should have been convicted of simple robbery
and not kidnapping with ransom because the evidence proves that the
prime motive of the Pavillare and his companions is to obtain money
and that the complainant was detained only for two hours:
HELD: The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours
does not alter the nature of the crime committed. The crime of
kidnapping is committed by depriving the victim of liberty whether he
is placed in an enclosure or simply restrained from going home. As
squarely expressed in Article 267 of the RPC the penalty of death is
imposable where the detention is committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom, and the duration of the detention is not material.
Ransom
People v. Castro, 385 SCRA 24
FACTS: Saez was informed by his siblings that Castro called
up to say that the latter wanted to speak with Saez. After taking a
quick shower, Saez repaired to Castro’s residence. Just as Castro
opened the gate for Saez, Castro pointed and fired his 9 mm. handgun
at Saez, its bullet whizzing by his right ear. Saez was thrown against
the concrete wall of the house. He was then taken inside the house.
Reyes and Jde los Angeles, joined Castro in mauling Saez. Castro hit
Saez with an iron club. At around nine o’clock in the evening, Castro
handed over to him a phone and ordered him to tell his family to raise
twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos. Fifteen minutes later, Castro
gave back the phone to Saez and told him to instruct the person on the
other line to bring the money to a place near a hospital. About half
an hour later, another call was placed to follow-up the demand.
Turning to de los Angeles and Reyes, Castro instructed the two to go
to the “drop-off point.” Nobody showed up. After an hour, Saez was
ordered to call again, this time to designate another place where the
money was to be delivered. Castro told Saez to have his relatives bring
the money to the vicinity of the Aglipay Church in Caridad. Again, no
meeting materialized. Around midnight, Castro, de los Angeles and
Reyes left the house and stayed by the gate conversing with one
another. The victim took the opportunity to flee. He was able to untie
his legs and tackle the stairs towards the second storey. He jumped
out through the window but the noise he created caught the attention
of Castro. The latter fired his gun, hitting the fleeing victim and
planting a bullet in his buttocks. His plea for help alarmed some
barangay officials who immediately came to his rescue and brought
him to the nearest hospital
HELD: The corpus delicti in the crime of kidnapping for
ransom is the fact that an individual has been in any manner deprived
of his liberty for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or
any other person. Whether or not the ransom is actually paid to or
received by the perpetrators is of no moment. In People vs. Salimbago,
the Court stressed:
“x x x No specific form of ransom is required to
consummate the felony of kidnapping for ransom so long
as it was intended as a bargaining chip in exchange for the
victim’s freedom. In municipal criminal law, ransom
refers to the money, price or consideration paid or
demanded for redemption of a captured person or persons,
a payment that releases from captivity. Neither actual
demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for
the crime to be committed.”
People v. Ejandra, 429 SCRA 364
FACTS: While Ed Henderson, the 9-year old son of spouses
Eddie and Marileen Tan was on his way back to the house of his tutor
in Chinese language to wait for his father, accused Tampos, armed
with a revolver, chased and overtook the boy. Tampos then ordered
the boy to proceed to a motorcycle parked nearby where appellants
Ejandra and Revilla were waiting. Ejandra covered Ed Henderson's
mouth with his hand, pointed his gun at the boy and warned the latter
not to shout. Thereafter, Tampos ordered Ed Henderson to board the
motorcycle, or else, he would be shot. Ed was brought to a house
where one Huera, and Calunod was. Ed Henderson was ordered to write
down his father's telephone number, as well as that of their house and
their store. Eddie then received a call through his home phone,
informing him that his son had been kidnapped. Several calls were
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
143
made and a reduced ransom of P548,000 for the safe release of Ed
Henderson was eventually agreed upon. Eddie was then instructed to
place the money in a newspaper and to bring the money to the parking
lot in front of a Church. Eddie did as he was told. He proceeded to the
designated place. When Calunod approached and called Eddie, the
latter handed over the plastic bag which contained the money. Eddie
asked Calunod how his son was. Calunod told Eddie not to worry
because the latter would bring the boy home. Calunod then walked to
the gate of the church and went home to wait for his son's return. Ed
Henderson returned on board a taxi and was soon reunited with his
waiting family. Ejandra, Calunod, Tampos and Revilla were convicted
of kidnapping for ransom and were sentenced to suffer the death
penalty.
HELD: Since all the foregoing facts indubitably show that
the appellants conspired to kidnap the victim for ransom, the Court
affirmed the conviction of Ejandra, Calunod, Tampos and Revilla of
kidnapping for ransom.
To warrant an imposition of the death penalty for the crime
of kidnapping and serious illegal detention for ransom, the prosecution
must prove the following beyond reasonable doubt: (a) intent on the
part of the accused to deprive the victim of his liberty; (b) actual
deprivation of the victim of his liberty; and, (c) motive of the accused,
which is ransom for the victim or other person for the release of the
victim. The purpose of the offender in extorting ransom is a qualifying
circumstance which may be proven by his words and overt acts before,
during and after the kidnapping and detention of the victim. Neither
actual demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for the
crime to be committed. Ransom, as employed in the law, is so used in
its common or ordinary sense; meaning, a sum of money or other thing
of value, price, or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of
a kidnapped or detained person, a payment that releases from
captivity. It may include benefits not necessarily pecuniary which may
accrue to the kidnapper as a condition for the victim's release. n this
case, the appellants not only demanded but also received ransom for
the release of the victim. The trial court correctly sentenced the
appellants to death.
Mandatory Imposition of Death Penalty
People v. Morales, 427 SCRA 765
FACTS: Jefferson Tan was with his siblings, Jessie Anthony
and Joanna Tan, his cousin, Malou and their driver, Cesar on board the
family L-300 van. Along the highway, the vehicle slowed down to steer
clear of a damaged portion of the road when Malit suddenly poked a
gun at Cesar. Simultaneously, Morales, Esguerra, and Saldaña entered
the van. Esguerra took the driver's seat and the other two blindfolded
the five victims. Jefferson was eventually sent home to get the 2M
ransom which was later reduced to 1.5M, from his father, Feliciano.
Jefferson was instructed to bring the ransom to a snack center.
Feliciano did not allow his son to bring the ransom and explained to
the kidnappers that Jefferson was in shock and could not go. When
asked about the ransom money, he told the caller that he could only
give P92,000. The caller agreed. Later, at the place where the
kidnappers instructed Feliciano to go, the latter gave the money and
he was handed the keys to the L-300 van where his children are.
HELD: The elements of the crime of kidnapping and serious
illegal detention are the following: (a) the accused is a private
individual; (b) the accused kidnaps or detains another, or in any
manner deprives the latter of his liberty; (c) the act of detention or
kidnapping is illegal; and (d) in the commission of the offense, any of
the four circumstances mentioned in Article 267 of the Revised Penal
Code are present. The imposition of the death penalty is mandatory if
the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom. In
the instant case, appellants cannot escape the penalty of death,
inasmuch as it was sufficiently alleged and indubitably proven that the
kidnapping had been committed for the purpose of extorting ransom.
Article 268. Slight illegal detention
Elements:
1. Offender is a private individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner
deprives him of his liberty.
3. The act of kidnapping or detention is illegal;
4. The crime is committed without the attendance of any of
the circumstances enumerated in Article 267.
 The same penalty for slight illegal detention shall be
incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the
perpetration of the crime. (normally, this is an accomplice
but under this article he is treated as co-principal)
 Privileged mitigating circumstance (penalty lower by one
degree) – if the offender:
o Voluntarily releases the person so kidnapped or
detained within three days from the commencement of
the detention;
o Without having attained the purpose intended; and
o Before the institution of criminal proceedings against
him.
 Voluntary release is not a privileged mitigating
circumstance if the victim is woman, because the detention
would then be punished under Article 267. Voluntary
release is not mitigating under that article.
Article 269. Unlawful arrest
Elements:
1. Offender arrests or detains another person;
2. The purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper
authorities;
3. The arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is
no reasonable ground therefor.
 Unlawful arrests by public officers should be punished
under Article 124, if the public officer has the legal authority
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
144
 to arrest and detain a person, but the arrest is without legal
ground. If the public officer has no authority to arrest and
detain a person, or if he did not act in his official capacity,
he should be punished for unlawful arrest under this article.
Compare with art. 267
 The motive of the person arresting is controlling. If his
purpose is to deliver to proper authorities, this
article applies. Absence of this motive may be shown by
the length of time the victim is detained.
 If the purpose of delivering to proper authorities is not
shown, the person may be liable for other illegal detention
(under 267 or 268, depending on the circumstances of the
case)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other
ailment requiring the compulsory confinement of the patient
in a hospital shall be considered legal grounds for the
detention of any person (Art. 124[2], Revised Penal Code).
3. When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private
person considered lawful? Explain. (5%)
1. When the arrest by a peace officer is made pursuant to a
valid warrant.
2. A peace officer or a private person may, without a
warrant, arrest a person:

i. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has

Unlawful arrest
The detention is not
authorized by law
Crime is committed by
making an arrest not
authorized by law
Bar Questions
Delay of delivery of
detained persons
The detention is for some
legal ground
Crime is committed by
failing to deliver such
persons to the proper
judicial authority within a
certain period of time
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense,
ii. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he
has personal knowledge of facts indicating that the person
to be arrested has committed it, and
iii. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from penal establishment or place where he is
serving final judgment or temporarily confined while his case
is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one
confinement to another (Sec. 5, Rule 113,1985 Rules on
Criminal Procedure).

Arbitrary Detention; Elements; Grounds (2006)

Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
1. What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary
detention? Explain each. (2.5.%)

SUGGESTED ANSWER: Elements:

The 3 ways of arbitrary detention are:

a) Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without legal 1. Offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person
ground committed by any public officer or employee who, (whether over or under seven years but less than 21 years
without legal grounds, detains a person (Art. 124, Revised of age);
Penal Code). 2. He deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents
or guardians.
b) Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper
judicial authorities which is committed by a public officer or
employee who shall detain any person for some legal ground
 What is punished is the deliberate failure of the custodian
and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial
of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or
authorities within the period of: twelve (12) hours, for
guardians.
crimes or offense punishable by light penalties, or their
 When the crime is committed by the father or mother of the
equivalent; eighteen hours (18), for crimes or offenses
punishable by correctional facilities, or their equivalent; and
minor, the penalty is arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding
thirty-six (36) hours for crimes or offenses punishable by 300 pesos or both.
afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent (Art. 125,
Revised Penal Code).
Article 270 Article 267
c) Delaying release is committed by any public officer or
Offender is entrusted with The offender is not
employee who delays the release for the period of time
the custody of the minor entrusted with the custody
specified therein the performance of any judicial or executive
of the minor
order for the release of the prisoner, or unduly delays the
service of the notice of such order to said prisoner or the
proceedings upon any petition for

the liberation of such person (Art. 126, Revised Penal Code).

People vs. Ty
2. What are the legal grounds for detention? (2.5%)

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

145
A mother left her sick child in a clinic and only came back to claim the
child five years later. Unfortunately, the doctors had already
entrusted the child to a guardian.
HELD: Two elements must concur in the crime of kidnapping of a
minor: (a) the offender had been entrusted with the custody of the
minor; and (b) the offender DELIBERATELY fails to restore said minor
to his parents or legal guardian. In the case at bar, it is evident that
there was no deliberate refusal or failure to return the minor as it was
proven that the doctors tried their best to locate the child, even
seeking NBI’s assistance along the way.
People vs. Gutierrez (1991)
Lilia Gutierrez was convicted by the RTC of Manila of the crime of
kidnapping and failure to return a minor and sentenced to reclusion
perpetua. The minor was Hazel Elpedes, her 2 and a half-year-old
nephew (yup, Hazel’s a guy in this story), whom Gutierrez allegedly
sold to the spouses Felipe for P250 (Lilia claims she did it to spite her
husband, brother of Hazel’s mom, who had abandoned her).
HELD: The offense of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under
Art. 270 of the RPC consists of 2 elements:
 the offender has been entrusted with the custody of a minor
person, and
 the offender deliberately fails to restore said minor to his parents
or guardians.
It is clear that Gutierrez admitted the existence of the first element
(she asked her in-laws for permission to take the boy out).
The second element has likewise been established. In the first place,
Gutierrez's own conduct in leading the boy’s father and police to the
Felipe residence in Intramuros indicated her awareness of the probable
whereabouts of the child. The logical conclusion is that she must have
been the person responsible for originally leaving the child with the
Felipe spouses. In the second place, the precise motive that Gutierrez
might have had for bringing Hazel Elpedes to the Felipe spouses and
leaving him with them, apparently for an indefinite period, is not an
indispensable element of the offense charged. All that was necessary
for the prosecution to prove was that she had deliberately failed to
return the minor to his parents.
People vs. Reyes (1996)
Delia Reyes, maid of the Mohamad spouses, was convicted of
kidnapping one of their daughters, Asnia. After spending 300-grand on
a manhunt, Asnia was recovered a couple of months later. Reyes claims
that, while out with Asnia, she ran into her sister who informed her of
their mom’s death; Reyes then allegedly had a friend take Asnia home
while she (Reyes) and her sister went to La Union for their mom’s wake
(basically, she’s blaming somebody else).
HELD: Reyes's negligence is wanton and gross as to amount to a
deliberate and willful scheme to take the child away from her parents.
This willfulness is sufficiently established by the following
circumstances: (1) appellant lured Asnia and her sister into leaving
their house; (2) she instructed the two elder sisters to go home but
kept the youngest with her; (3) she and Asnia could not be located
despite extensive search by the authorities and the widespread
publicity generated through the television, radio and print media; (4)
the child was found two months later and only after the arrest of
appellant; and (5) appellant harbored ill-feelings against the
Mohamads family (she admitted that, at one point, the Mohamads did
not pay her salary for 5 months when she worked for them in 1989).
People vs. Borromeo (2000)
Borromeo alias "Sonny", a bakery helper of Rowena who had been
discharged by her due to negative attitude problems, kidnapped her 1-
year and 7-months old son. The next day, Sonny demanded a P300,000
ransom. He was convicted of kidnapping a minor for ransom and was
sentenced to death.
HELD: There is no question that the elements of kidnapping for ransom
were sufficiently established: (a) the accused is a private individual;
(b) the accused kidnapped or detained the victim and deprived him of
his liberty; and, (c) the deprivation of the victim's liberty was illegal.
As provided for in Art. 267 of the RPC as amended, the imposition of
the death penalty is mandatory if the victim is a minor and also, if the
kidnapping was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom from
the victim or any other person.
IN CAB, the minority of Kenneth was never disputed. The minority and
the demand for the payment of ransom, both specifically described in
the Information, were clearly established by the State, free of any
scintilla of doubt.
People v. Borromeo (2000)
FACTS: Borromeo alias "Sonny", a bakery helper of Rowena
who had been discharged by her due to negative attitude problems,
kidnapped her 1-year and 7-months old son. The next day, Sonny
demanded a P300,000 ransom. He was convicted of kidnapping a minor
for ransom and was sentenced to death.
HELD: There is no question that the elements of kidnapping
for ransom were sufficiently established: (a) the accused is a private
individual; (b) the accused kidnapped or detained the victim and
deprived him of his liberty; and, (c) the deprivation of the victim's
liberty was illegal. As provided for in Art. 267 of the RPC as amended,
the imposition of the death penalty is mandatory if the victim is a
minor and also, if the kidnapping was committed for the purpose of
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person.
IN CAB, the minority of Kenneth was never disputed. The
minority and the demand for the payment of ransom, both specifically
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
146
described in the Information, were clearly established by the State,
free of any scintilla of doubt.
People v. Pastrana, 387 SCRA 342
FACTS: Postejo, working as a domestic helper in Canada, has
four children namely, Jenny, Doroteo, Aresola, and 9-year old Willy.
Erma was introduced by her sister to spouses Frias who informed her
that their daughter, Pastrana can help process Willy's travel documents
to Canada. Erma agreed to hand the processing of her son's papers. In
one of the telephone conversations of Erma and Pastrana, the latter
informed Erma that Willy was suffering from acute bronchitis. Erna
sent money for the medical treatment of his son. Pastrana then
fetched Willy and Aresola from their residence in Caloocan and brought
them to her apartment. Thought she never brought Willy to a hospital
for treatment, Pastrana kept on demanding money from Erma which
include the amount of P60,000.00 for the installation of a water
purifier in her apartment allegedly for Willy's safety, and for additional
money for her job application in Singapore. Erna, however, refused to
transmit the amounts demanded by Pastrana and ordered the return
of Willy to their residence in Caloocan. Pastrana deliberately failed to
return Willy for 7 days until the latter disappeared while allegedly
playing in front of Pastrana’s apartment.
HELD: Kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article
270 of the Revised Penal Code has two essential elements, namely: (1)
the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person; and (2)
the offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents
or guardians. What is actually being punished is not the kidnapping of
the minor but rather the deliberate failure of the custodian of the
minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians. The word
deliberate as used in Article 270 must imply something more than mere
negligence — it must be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or
intentionally and maliciously wrong. In the case at bar, there is no
question that accused-appellant was entrusted with the custody of 9-
year old Willy. Erma and her children trusted accused-appellant that
they sent her money for the processing of Willy's travel documents,
and more importantly, they allowed Willy to stay in her apartment. As
to the second element, It was this deliberate failure of accused-
appellant to return custody of Willy to his relatives that gave rise to
her culpability under Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code. The
disappearance of Willy and accused-appellant's inability to return him
to Caloocan by reason thereof has no bearing on the crime charged as
it was her willful disobedience to Erma's order that consummated the
crime.
People v. Bernardo, 378 SCRA 708
FACTS: While Rosita was undergoing medical
check up inside a hospital, her two daughters waited at the lobby.
Roselle was seating on a bench with her 15-day old sister on her lap.
Bernardo befriended Roselle and later gave her P3.00 and asked her to
buy ice water. Thereafter, Bernardo took the baby from Roselle.
Roselle was not able to find ice water for sale and on her way back to
the hospital, she saw Bernardo running away with her baby sister.
Roselle pulled and pulled Bernardo's skirt to prevent the latter from
getting away. Torres saw Bernardo carrying a child and struggling with
Roselle. Roselle begged Torres to help her because her mother was at
the hospital and the accused was getting her baby sister. Torres took
the baby from the Bernardo and entrusted the baby to his wife. Then
he led Bernardo and Roselle to the hospital to look for Rosita who
confirmed that she was the mother of the baby. The RTC convicted
Bernardo of the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor
under Article 270 of the RPC.
HELD: The essential element of the crime of kidnapping and
failure to return a minor is that the offender is entrusted with the
custody of the minor, but what is actually being punished is not the
kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure of the
custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.
Indeed, the word deliberate as used in Article 270 of the Revised Penal
Code must imply something more than mere negligence — it must be
premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or intentionally and
maliciously wrong. When Roselle entrusted Roselyn to appellant
before setting out on an errand for appellant to look for ice water, the
first element was accomplished and when appellant refused to return
the baby to Roselle despite her continuous pleas, the crime was
effectively accomplished. In fine, we agree with the trial court's
finding that appellant is guilty of the crime of kidnapping and failure
to return a minor.
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as
follows: in coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the
employment of violence or serious intimidation
approximating violence, without authority of law, to prevent
a person from doing something not prohibited by law or to
compel him to do something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability
is the actual restraint or locking up of a person, thereby
depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there
was no intent to lock up or detain the offended party
unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not committed.
Kidnapping (2002)
A and B were legally separated. Their child C, a minor, was
placed in the custody of A the mother, subject to monthly
visitations by B, his father. On one occasion, when B had C
in his company, B decided not to return C to his mother.
Instead, B took C with him to the United States where he
intended for them to reside permanently. What crime, if any,
did B commit? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a
minor under Article 271, in relation to Article 270, of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended. Article 271 expressly
penalizes any parent who shall take from and deliberately
fail to restore his or her minor child to the parent or
guardian to whom custody of the minor has been placed.
Since the custody of C, the minor, has been given to the
mother and B has only the right of monthly visitation, the
latter's act of taking C to the United Slates, to reside there
permanently, constitutes a violation of said provisions of law.
Kidnapping (2006)
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles factory of
Luke Tan, agreed to kill him due to his arrogance and
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
147
miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him and loaded him
in a taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they will only teach
Luke a lesson in Christian humility. Mario drove them to a
fishpond in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil and
Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in
their shack because he was running from the NBI. The trio
then left in Mario's car for Manila where they called up
Luke's family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they
give a ransom within 24 hours. Unknown to them, because
of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio and
TV. Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked,
especially when the announcer stated that there is a shoot-
to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie took Luke to
the seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they smashed his
head with a shovel and buried him in the sand. However,
they were seen by a barangay kagawad who arrested them
and brought them to the police station. Upon interrogation,
they confessed and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and
Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping. Later, the 4
were arrested and charged. What crime or crimes did the 6
suspects commit? (5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with
homicide. The original intention was to demand ransom from
the family with the threat of killing. As a consequence of the
kidnapping, however, Luke was killed. Thus, the victim was
deprived of his freedom and the subsequent killing, though
committed by another person, was a consequence of the
detention. Hence, this properly qualified the crime as the
special complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with
homicide (People v. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554, October 1,
2003; Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and
buried the latter in the sand committed murder qualified by
treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable
for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they
aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were
informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal
Code).
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the
criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act
of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian
humility" does not constitute a crime.
Alternative Answer:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with
ransom. After kidnapping Luke, they demanded ransom with
the threat of killing him. However, the killing of Luke is
separate from the kidnapping having been committed by
other persons, who had nothing to do with the kidnapping,
and who will be liable for a different crime (Penultimate par.
of Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and
buried the latter in the sand committed murder qualified by
treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not liable
for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they
aware of the intention to detain Luke whom they were
informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal
Code).
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the
criminal intent and design of Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act
of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian
humility" does not constitute a crime.
Kidnapping w/ Homicide (2005)
Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-
week old son of the spouses Martin and Pops Kuripot. When
Paz learned that her 70 year-old mother was seriously ill,
she asked Martin for a cash advance of P1,000.00 but Martin
refused. One morning, Paz gagged the mouth of Martin’s
son with stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with
masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in the
afternoon, she demanded P5,000.00 as ransom for the
release of his son. Martin did not pay the ransom.
Subsequently, Paz disappeared. After a couple of days,
Martin discovered the box in the attic with his child already
dead. According to the autopsy report, the child died of
asphyxiation barely three minutes after the box was sealed.
What crime or crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Paz committed the composite crime of kidnapping with
homicide under Art. 267, RFC as amended by R.A. No. 7659.
Under the law, any person who shall detain another or in
any manner deprive him of liberty and the victim dies as a
consequence is liable for kidnapping with homicide and shall
be penalized with the maximum penalty. In this case,
notwithstanding the fact that the one-week old child was
merely kept in the attic of his house, gagged with stockings
and placed in a box sealed with tape, the deprivation of
liberty and the intention to kill becomes apparent. Though it
may appear that the means employed by Paz was attended
by treachery (killing of an infant), nevertheless, a separate
charge of murder will not be proper in view of the
amendment. Here, the term "homicide" is used in its generic
sense and covers all forms of killing whether in the nature of
murder or otherwise. It is of no moment that the evidence
shows the death of the child took place three minutes after
the box was sealed and the demand for the ransom took
place in the afternoon. The intention is controlling here, that
is, ransom was demanded.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Murder qualified by treachery because the victim was only
one week old. The offense was attended with the
aggravating circumstance of lack of respect due to the age
of the victim, cruelty and abuse of confidence. In People v.
Lora (G.R. No, L-49430, March 30, 1982), the Court found
that a child subjected to similar treatment as the infant in
this case would have died instantly, negating any intent to
kidnap or detain when ransom was sought. Demand for
ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping with
murder because the demand was merely a scheme by the
offender (Paz) to conceal the body of her victim.
Kidnapping; Effects; Voluntary Release (2004)
DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the
second day, DAN released CHU even before any criminal
information was filed against him. At the trial of his case,
DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal
liability since he released the child before the lapse of the 3-
day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping
were instituted. Will DAN's defense prosper? Reason briefly.
(5%)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
148
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the
offender of the offended party in kidnapping is not
absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and immaterial
in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime
committed is kidnapping and serious illegal detention under
Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such circumstance
does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only
in the crime of Slight Illegal Detention in Art. 268 (Asistio v.
San Diego, 10 SCRA 673 [1964])
Kidnapping; Illegal Detention; Minority (2006)
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich
classmate, was so enamored with her that he persistently
wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another
man, rejected him. This angered Job, Sometime in
September 2003, while Dang and her sister Lyn were on
their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed
them and pushed them inside a white van. They brought
them to an abandoned warehouse where they forced them
to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a
nearby barangay where they took turns raping them. After
satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push Dang down
a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and
Nonoy chased her and pushed her inside the van. Then the
duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.
1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and
Nonoy? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 1) kidnapping and serious illegal
detention with homicide and rape for the subsequent death
of Dang, and 2) kidnapping with rape against her sister, Lyn.
The victims, who were kidnapped and detained, were
subsequently raped and killed (as regards Dang) in the
course of their detention. The composite crime is committed
regardless of whether the subsequent crimes were purposely
sought or merely an afterthought (People v. Larranaga, G.R.
Nos. 138874-5, Februarys, 2004).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 2 counts of the complex crime of
forcible abduction with rape (Art. 342, Revised Penal Code)
and the separate offense of murder against Dang. The crime
committed is abduction because there was lewd design
when they took the victims away and subsequently raped
them. The killing thereafter, constitutes the separate offense
of murder qualified by treachery.
2. What penalties should be imposed on them?
(2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the death penalty has already been prohibited,
reclusion perpetua is the appropriate penalty (RA. 9346). In
the case of the minor Nonoy, his penalty shall be one degree
lower (Art. 68, Revised Penal Code).
3. Will Nonoy's minority exculpate him? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act, which
retroacts to the date that the crime was committed, Nonoy
will be exculpated if he was 15 years old or below. However,
if he was above 15 years old but below 18 years of age, he
will be liable if he acted with discernment. As the problem
shows that Nonoy acted with discernment, he will be entitled
to a suspension of sentence.(NOTABENE: R.A. 9344 is
outside the coverage of the examination)
4. Is the non-recovery of Lyn's body material to the
criminal liability of Job and Nonoy? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the
criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because the corpus delicti
of the crime which is kidnapping with rape of Lyn has been
duly proven.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the
criminal liability of Job and Nonoy, because the corpus delicti
of the crime which is forcible abduction with rape of Lyn has
been duly proven.
Kidnapping; Proposal to Kidnap (1996)
Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of
money, to kidnap a girl he is courting so that he may
succeed to raping her and eventually making her accede to
marry him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo
failed to put up. Angered because Edgardo did not put up
the money he required, he reported Edgardo to the police.
May Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping?
Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping
inasmuch as no overt act to kidnap or restrain the liberty of
the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has
done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap
the girl, which is only a preparatory act and not an overt act.
The attempt to commit a felony commences with the
commission of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to
commit kidnapping is not a crime.
Kidnapping; Serious Illegal Detention (1997)
A and B conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and
detained him. The duo then called up C's wife informing her
that they had her husband and would release him only if she
paid a ransom in the amount of P10,000,000 and that, if she
were to fail, they would kill him. The next day, C, who had
just recovered from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he
might die if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B
released C during the early morning of the third day of
detention. Charged with kidnapping and serious illegal
detention provided in Article 267, RPC, A and B filed a
petition for bail. They contended that since they had
voluntarily released C within three days from
commencement of the detention, without having been paid
any amount of the ransom demanded and before the
institution of criminal proceedings against them, the crime
committed was only slight illegal detention prescribed in
Article 268, RPC. After hearing, the trial court found the
evidence of guilt to be strong and therefore denied the
petition for bail. On appeal, the only issue was: Was the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
149
 crime committed kidnapping and serious detention or slight
Illegal detention? Decide.
Article 273. Exploitation of child labor
SUGGESTED ANSWER:

The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and serious

illegal detention because they made a demand for ransom
and threatened to kill C if the latter's wife did not pay the
same. Without the demand for ransom, the crime could have
been slight illegal detention only. The contention of A and B
that they had voluntary released C within three days from
the commencement of the detention is immaterial as they
are charged with a crime where the penalty prescribed is
death (Asistio vs. San Diego. 10SCRA673). They were
properly denied bail because the trial court found that the
evidence of guilt in the information for kidnapping and
serious Illegal detention is strong.
Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home
Elements:
1. Offender retains a minor in his services;
2. It is against the will of the minor;
3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt
incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted
with the custody of such minor.
 The existence of an indebtedness constitutes no legal
justification for holding a person and depriving him of his
freedom to live where he wills.

Article 274. Services rendered under compulsion in

Elements: payment of debt

1. A minor (whether over or under seven years of age) is living Elements:

in the home of his parents or guardians or the person
entrusted with his custody;
2. Offender induces said minor to abandon such home. 1. Offender compels a debtor to work for him, either as
household servant or farm laborer;
2. It is against the debtor’s will;
 The inducement must be actual, committed with criminal
3. The purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a debt.
intent, and determined by a will to cause damage.
 It is not necessary that the minor actually abandons his
home, as long as there is inducement.
Service under Exploitation of child
 The minor should not leave his home of his own free will.
compulsion labor
 Father or mother may commit this crime (as well as Article
270), if the parents are living separately and custody has Does not distinguish Victim must be a minor
been given to one of them. whether the victim is a
minor or not

The debtor himself is the The minor is compelled to

one compelled to work for render services for the
Article 272. Slavery the offender supposed debt of his parent
or guardian

Limited to household work Service is not limited

Elements: or farm labor

1. Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a human

being;
2. The purpose of the offender is to enslave such human Article 275. Abandonment of persons in danger and
being. abandonment of one’s own victim

 If the purpose of the offender is to assign the offended

party to some immoral traffic (prostitution), the penalty is Acts punishable:
higher.
 Differentiated from kidnapping: If the purpose is to enslave
the victim, the crime is slavery; otherwise the crime is
1. Failing to render assistance to any person whom the
kidnapping or illegal detention.
offender finds in an uninhabited place wounded or in
danger of dying when he can render such assistance
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
150
 without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall
constitute a more serious offense.
Circumstances qualifying the offense:

Elements:
1. When the death of the minor resulted from such
abandonment; or
a. The place is not inhabited; 2. If the life of the minor was in danger because of the
b. Accused found there a person wounded or in danger of abandonment.
dying;
c. Accused can render assistance without detriment to
himself;  When there is intent to kill, this article does not apply. The
d. Accused fails to render assistance. purpose in abandoning the minor must be to avoid the
obligation of taking care of said minor.
 The ruling that intent to kill is presumed from the death of
2. Failing to help or render assistance to another whom the the victim is applicable only to crimes against persons, and
offender has accidentally wounded or injured; not to crimes against security, particularly the crime in this
3. By failing to deliver a child, under seven years of age, whom article.
the offender has found abandoned, to the authorities or to  A permanent, conscious and deliberate abandonment is
his family, or by failing to take him to a safe place. required in this article. There must be an interruption of
the care and protection the minor needs by reason of his
age.
 If a person intentionally wounds another and leaves him in  Parents guilty of abandonment shall be deprived of their
an uninhabited place, he shall not be liable under this article parental authority.
because be did not FIND him wounded or in danger of
dying.
 It is immaterial that the offender did not know that the child
is under seven years.
 The child under seven must be found by the accused in an Article 277. Abandonment of minor by the person
unsafe place. entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents

Acts punishable:
Lamera vs. CA

1. Delivering a minor to a public institution or other persons

An owner-type jeep driven by Lamera hit and bumped a tricycle,
without the consent of the one who entrusted such minor
damaging the said tricycle and injuring the driver and passenger in the
to the care of the offender or, in the absence of that one,
process. Two separate informations were filed, one for reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property and multiple physical
without the consent of the proper authorities;
injuries and another one for abandonment of one’s victim.

Elements:

HELD: The rule on double jeopardy cannot be applied in this case

because the two informations were for separate offenses— the first
falls under quasi-offenses while the second is a crime against security. a. Offender has charge of the rearing or education of a
minor;
b. He delivers said minor to a public institution or other
persons;
c. The one who entrusted such child to the offender has
not consented to such act; or if the one who entrusted
Article 276. Abandoning a minor
such child to the offender is absent, the proper
authorities have not consented to it.

Elements:

2. Neglecting his (offender’s) children by not giving them the

1. Offender has the custody of a child; education which their station in life requires and financial
2. The child is under seven years of age; condition permits.
3. He abandons such child;
4. He has no intent to kill the child when the latter is
abandoned. Elements:

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

151
 a. Offender is a parent; Exploitation of minors Inducing a minor to
b. He neglects his children by not giving them education; (par. 5) abandon his home
c. His station in life requires such education and his
financial condition permits it. Purpose of inducing minor is No such purpose
to abandon home is to
follow any person engaged
Article 276 Article 277 in any of the callings of
being an acrobat, gymnast,
The custody of the offender The custody of the offender etc.
is stated in general is specific, that is, the
custody for the rearing or Minor under 16 years of age Minor under 21 years of age
education of the minor

The minor is under 7 years The minor is under 21 years

of age
Minor is abandoned in such
as way as to deprive him of
the care and protection that
his tender years need
of age  If the delivery of the child to any person following any of
the callings enumerated, is made in consideration of any
The minor is delivered to a price, compensation or promise, the penalty is higher.
public institution or other  The offender shall be deprived of parental authority or
person guardianship.
 Exploitation of minors refers to acts endangering the life or
safety of the minor.

 Obligation to educate children terminates, if the mother and

R.A. 7610
children refuse without good reason to live with the
accused. Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
 Failure to give education must be due to deliberate desire Exploitation and Discrimination Act
to evade such obligation. If the parents cannot give
education because they had no means to do so, then they
will not be liable under this article.
A. CHILD PROSTITUTION

Who are “children exploited in prostitution and other

Article 278. Exploitation of minors sexual abuse”?

Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit,

Acts punishable:
1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 years of age to perform
any dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength or
contortion, the offender being any person;
2. Employing children under 16 years of age who are not the
children or descendants of the offender in exhibitions of
acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, or wild-animal tamer,
the offender being an acrobat, etc., or circus manager or
engaged in a similar calling;
3. Employing any descendant under 12 years of age in
dangerous exhibitions enumerated in the next preceding
paragraph, the offender being engaged in any of the said
callings;
4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age gratuitously to any
person following any of the callings enumerated in
paragraph 2, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar, the
offender being an ascendant, guardian, teacher or person
entrusted in any capacity with the care of such child; and
5. Inducing any child under 16 years of age to abandon the
home of its ascendants, guardians, curators or teachers to
follow any person engaged in any of the callings mentioned
in paragraph 2 or to accompany any habitual vagrant or
beggar, the offender being any person.
or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
Who are punishable?
1. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce
child prostitution, which include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
b. Inducing a person to be a client of a child prostitute
by means of written or oral advertisements or other
similar means;
c. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to
procure a child as prostitute;
d. Threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or
e. Giving monetary consideration, goods or other
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage
such child in prostitution.
2. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
subject to other sexual abuse;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

152
 - If the victim is under 12, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted for rape and or lascivious conduct
under the RPC as the case may be
- However, the penalty for lascivious conduct when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall
be higher (reclusion temporal in its medium period)
3. Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom,
whether as manager or owner of the establishment where the
prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort,
place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or
which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for
which the license has been issued to said establishment.
When is there attempt to commit child prostitution?
A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals of
an attempt to commit the crime of child prostitution,
committed as follows:
1. Attempt of (1) above  When any person who, not being
a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside
the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension
house, apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel,
vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution
and other sexual abuse; or
2. Attempt of (2) above  When any person is receiving
services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage
clinic, health club and other similar establishments.
B. CHILD TRAFFICKING
What is child trafficking?
Child trafficking is committed by a person trading and
dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of
buying and selling of a child for money, or for any other
consideration, or barter.
When is there attempt to commit child trafficking?
(An attempt is punishable by a penalty two degrees lower
than the penalty for the consummated offense)
There is an attempt to commit child trafficking:
1. When a child travels alone to a foreign country without
valid reason therefor and without clearance issued by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development or written
permit or justification from the child's parents or legal
guardian;
2. When a person, agency, establishment or child-caring
institution recruits women or couples to bear a children for
the purpose of child trafficking;
3. When doctor, hospital or clinic official or employee, nurse,
midwife, local civil registrar or any other person simulates
birth for the purpose of child trafficking;
4. When a person engages in the act of finding children
among low-income families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-
care centers, or other child-during institutions who can be
offered for the purpose of child trafficking.
C. OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND INDECENT
SHOWS
Who are punishable?
Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or
coerce a child to perform in obscene exhibitions and indecent
shows, whether live or in video, or model in obscene
publications or pornographic materials or to sell or distribute
the said materials.
D. OTHER PERSONS PUNISHABLE UNDER THE
ACT
1. Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for
other conditions prejudicial to the child's development
including those covered by Article 59 of PD 603 (criminal
liability of parents due to abandonment, neglect etc.), but not
covered by the RPC;
2. Any person who shall keep or have in his company a
minor, twelve (12) years or under or who is ten (10) years or
more his junior in any public or private place, hotel, motel,
beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house, sauna or
massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort or similar
places UNLESS s/he is related to the minor within the fourth
degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond recognized by
law, local custom and tradition or acts in the performance of
a social, moral or legal duty.
3. Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor to
any one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his company
a minor as provided in the preceding paragraph;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
153

4. Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the
operation of any public or private place of accommodation,
whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including
residential places, who allows any person to take along
with him to such place or places any minor herein described;
5. Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate
a street child or any other child to;
- Beg or use begging as a means of living;
- Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or
pushing;
- Conduct any illegal activities
E. WORKING CHILDREN
Who are punishable?
Any person who shall violate any of the provision of the Act
with respect to working children (conditions for the
employment of children under 15, prohibitions on the
employment of children for certain advertisements etc.)
F. CHILDREN OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES
Who are punishable?
Any person who discriminates against children of indigenous
cultural communities
COMMON PENAL PROVISIONS
1. The penalty provided under this Act shall be imposed in its
maximum period if the offender has been previously
convicted under this Act;
2. When the offender is a corporation, partnership or
association, the officer or employee thereof who is
responsible for the violation of this Act shall suffer the penalty
imposed in its maximum period;
3. The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its
maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant,
parent guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the
second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or
owner of an establishment which has no license to operate or
its license has expired or has been revoked;
4. When the offender is a foreigner, he shall be deported
immediately after service of sentence and forever barred from
entry to the country;
5. The penalty provided for in this Act shall be imposed in its
maximum period if the offender is a public officer or
employee, together with the penalty of disqualification or
suspension depending on the penalty imposed;
6. A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and
administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development and disbursed for the rehabilitation
of each child victim, or any immediate member of his family
if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.
People v. Delantar (2007)
Appellant’s violation of Sec. 5, Art. III of R.A. No. 7610 is as clear as
day. The provision penalizes anyone who engages in or promotes,
facilitates or induces child prostitution either by: (1) acting as a
procurer of a child prostitute; or (2) inducing a person to be a
client of a child prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means; or (3) by taking advantage
of influence or relationship to procure a child as a prostitute; or
(4) threatening or using violence towards a child to engage him as
a prostitute; or (5) giving monetary consideration, goods or other
pecuniary benefits to the child with the intent to engage such child
in prostitution.
The purpose of the law is to provide special protection to children from
all forms of abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation and discrimination,
and other conditions prejudicial to their development. A child
exploited in prostitution may seem to “consent” to what is being done
to her or him and may appear not to complain. However, we have held
that a child who is “a person below eighteen years of age or those
unable to fully take care of themselves or protect themselves from
abuse, neglect, cruelty, exploitation or discrimination because of their
age or mental disability or condition” is incapable of giving rational
consent to any lascivious act or sexual intercourse. In fact, the absence
of free consent is conclusively presumed when the woman is below the
age of twelve
Navarrete v. People (2007)
The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5 (b) of RA 7610 that must
be proven in addition to the elements of acts of
lasciviousness are as follows:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
154
1. The accused commits the act of sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct.
2. The said act is performed with a child exploited in prostitution or
subjected to other sexual abuse.
3. The child, whether male or female, is below 18 years of age.
“Lascivious conduct” is defined under Section 2 (h) of the rules and
regulations of RA 7610 as:
[T]he intentional touching, either directly or through
clothing, of the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of any object
into the genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
whether of the same or opposite sex, with an intent
to abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or arouse or
gratify the sexual desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
pubic area of a person.
Bar Questions
RA 7610 – Child Exploitation (2006)
Aling Maria received an urgent telephone call from Junior,
her eldest son, asking for P2,000.00 to complete his
semestral tuition fees preparatory to his final exams in
Commerce. Distressed and disturbed, she borrowed
money from her compadre Mang Juan with the assurance to
pay him within 2 months. Two months lapsed but Aling
Maria failed to settle her obligation. Mang Juan told Aling
Maria that she does not have to pay the loan if she will allow
her youngest 10-year old daughter Annie to work as a
housemaid in his house for 2 months at Pl,000.00 a month.
Despite Aling Maria's objection, Mang Juan insisted and
brought Annie to his house to work as a maid. 1. Was a
crime committed by Mang Juan when he brought Annie to
his house as maid for the purpose of repaying her mother's
loan? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of exploitation of
child labor which is committed by any persons who under
the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an
ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of
a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his
service (Art. 273, Revised Penal Code). He can also be liable
as an employer for the employment of a minor below 15 yrs.
old, under Sec. 12, Art. 8 of RA. 7610.
2. If Aling Maria herself was made to work as a housemaid
in Mang Juan's household to pay her loan, did he commit a
crime? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes. Mang Juan committed the crime of involuntary
servitude for rendering services under compulsion and
payment of debts. This is committed by any person who, in
order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall
compel the debtor to work for him, against his will, as
household servant or farm laborer (Art. 274, Revised Penal
Code)
Article 279. Additional penalties for other offenses
 The imposition of the penalties prescribed in the preceding
articles shall not prevent the imposition upon the same
person of the penalty provided for any other felonies
defined and punished by the RPC.
Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling
Elements:
1. Offender is a private person;
2. He enters the dwelling of another;
3. Such entrance is against the latter’s will.
Cases to which the provisions of this article is not applicable:
1. When the purpose of the entrance is to prevent serious
harm to himself, the occupant or third persons;
2. When the purpose of the offender in entering is to render
some service to humanity or justice;
3. Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and other public
houses while they are open.
Marzalado v. People, 441 SCRA 595 (2004)
FACTS: The petitioner, Marzalado, argues that the Court of
Appeals committed a reversible error in sustaining the lower court,
since in the proceedings below, there was a grave misapprehension of
facts by both the MeTC and RTC in finding that he committed trespass
to dwelling despite the glaring proof that his entry was justifiable
under paragraph 4, Article 11 of the Revised Penal Code— to prevent
an imminent danger to property. He stresses that while he did enter
the unit, he did so with the aid of barangay officers and for the sole
purpose of turning off the faucet that was causing the flooding of the
unit.
HELD: In the prosecution for trespass, the material fact or
circumstance to be considered is the occurrence of the trespass. The
gravamen of the crime is violation of possession or the fact of having
caused injury to the right of the possession.
As certified by Barangay Lupon Secretary Ragaya, the unit
rented by Albano was "forcibly opened by the owner (Marzalado)
because of the strong water pressure coming out of the faucet. . . ."
As Albano herself admitted, she and her children already left the unit
when the electricity supply was cut off in the month of September.
Hence, nobody was left to attend to the unit, except during some
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
155
nights when Albano's maid slept in the unit. Clearly, Marzalado, acted
for the justified purpose of avoiding further flooding and damage to
his mother's property caused by the open faucet. No criminal intent
could be clearly imputed to petitioner for the remedial action he had
taken. There was an exigency that had to be addressed to avoid
damage to the leased unit. There is nothing culpable concerning
Marzalado’s, judgment call to enter the unit and turn off the faucet
instead of closing the inlet valve as suggested by the OSG.
 Purpose of the law: to protect and preserve the privacy of
one’s dwelling
 If the offender is a public officer or employee, the entrance
into the dwelling against the will of the occupant is violation
of domicile.
 Dwelling – place devoted for rest and comfort, as
distinguished from places devoted to business, office etc.
 Dwelling includes a room when occupied by another person
(example: room at a boarding house)
 Against the will – should be against the presumed or
express prohibition of the occupant, not mere lack of
consent. There must be opposition on the part of the owner
of the house to the entry of the accused.
 However, presumed or implied prohibition is sufficient (e.g.
entrance during the late hour of the night)
 Prohibition must be existent prior to or at the time of
entrance.
 QUALIFIED TRESPASS: If the offense is committed by
means of violence or intimidation, the penalty is higher.
 Violence may be against persons or property, but there are
conflicting views as to this statement.
 The violence or intimidation may take place immediately
after the entrance.
 Proof of express prohibition to enter is not necessary when
violence or intimidation is employed by the offender.
 If there is no overt act of the crime intended to be
committed, the crime is only trespass to dwelling.
Article 281. Other forms of trespass
Elements:
1. Offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of
another;
2. The entrance is made while either of them is uninhabited;
3. The prohibition to enter is manifest;
4. The trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner
or the caretaker thereof.
 Premises signifies a distinct and definite locality. This may
include a room, shop, building or definite area.
Trespass to dwelling Other forms of trespass
The offender is a private The offender is any person
person
The offender enters a The offender enters a closed
dwelling house premises or a fenced estate
The place entered is The place entered is
inhabited uninhabited
The act constituting the The act constituting the
crime is entering against the crime is entering without
will of the owner securing the permission of
the owner or caretaker
Prohibition to enter is Prohibition to enter must be
express or implied manifest
Bar Questions
Trespass to Dwelling; Private Persons (2006)
Under what situations may a private person enter any
dwelling, residence, or other establishments without being
liable for trespass to dwelling? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Trespass to dwelling is not applicable to any person who
shall enter another's dwelling for the purpose of: a)
Preventing some serious harm to himself, its occupants, or a
third person; and b) Rendering service to humanity or
justice; Any person who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns, and
other public houses, while the same are open will likewise
not be liable (Art. 280, Revised Penal Code).
Tresspass to Dwelling; Rule of Absorption (1994)
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside
the house of Mamerto. Jay. Mamerto's son, saw Dante and
accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his
abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of
his room. Dante, who was about to escape, assaulted
Mamerto. Jay suffered Injuries which, were it not for the
timely medical attendance, would have caused his death.
Mamerto sustained Injuries that incapacitated him for 25
days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated
homicide for the stabbing of Jay, and less serious physical
injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be
complexed with frustrated homicide because when the
trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious
offense, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater
crime, and the former constitutes an aggravating
circumstance of dwelling (People vs. Abedoza, 53 Phil.788).
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of
Jay.... Dante is guilty of less serious physical injuries for the
wounds sustained by Mamerto...
Article 282. Grave threats
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
156
Acts punishable:  If the condition is not proved, it is grave threats of the third
type.

1. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person,

honor or property or that of this family of any wrong
amounting to a crime and demanding money or imposing
any other condition, even though not unlawful, and the
offender attained his purpose;
Elements:
People vs. Timbol
The accused made several advances towards the offended party. He
threatened to kill the woman’s husband if she did not accede to his
advances. He was convicted of acts of lasciviousness and grave
threats.

a. The offender threatens another person with the HELD: The accused should not be convicted of grave threats because
infliction upon the latter’s person, honor or property, such threats formed part of the intimidation that he employed to
or upon that of the latter’s family, of any wrong; succeed in his lewd designs.
b. Such wrong amounts to a crime;
c. There is a demand for money or that any other
condition is imposed, even though not unlawful;
d. The offender attains his purpose.
Reyes vs. People

2. Making such threat without the offender attaining his

purpose;
3. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person,
honor or property or that of his family of any wrong
amounting to a crime, the threat not being subject to
a condition.
A disgruntled employee staged a demonstration in front of the house
of the guy who dismissed him from work. Phrases of this nature were
spoken out loud: “Agustin, putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka.
Agustin, lumabas ka, papatayin kita!”

 The essence of the crime of threats is intimidation; i.e. the HELD: All the elements of the crime of grave threats as defined in
Article 282 paragraph 2 are present: (1) the offender threatened
promise of some future harm or injury.
another person with the infliction upon his person of a wrong; (2) the
 Not necessary that the wrong threatened to be inflicted
wrong amounted to a crime and (3) the threat was not subject to a
must amount to any of the crimes against persons, honor condition.
or property. Law requires that the wrong must be UPON
the person, honor or property.
 As the crime consists in threatening another with some
future harm, it is not necessary that the offended party was
present at the time the threats were made. It is sufficient
that the threats, came to the knowledge of the offended Article 283. Light threats
party.
 The crime of grave threats is consummated as soon as the
threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened.
Elements:
 Threats made in connection with the commission of other
crimes are absorbed by the latter.
 The offender in grave threats does not demand the delivery
on the spot of the money or other personal property 1. Offender makes a threat to commit a wrong;
demanded by him. When threats are made and money is 2. The wrong does not constitute a crime;
taken on the spot, the crime may be robbery with 3. There is a demand for money or that other condition is
intimidation. imposed, even though not unlawful;
 The penalties for the first two types of grave threats depend 4. Offender has attained his purpose or, that he has not
upon the penalties for the crimes threatened to be attained his purpose.
committed. One degree lower if the purpose is attained,
and two degrees lower if the purpose is not attained.
 If the threat is not subject to a condition, the penalty is  Light threats are committed in the same manner as grave
fixed at arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos. threats, except that the act threatened to be committed
 In the first two types, if the threat is made in writing or should not be a crime.
thorough a middleman, the penalty is to be imposed in its  Blackmailing may be punished under this article.
maximum period.
 The third type of grave threats must be serious and
deliberate; the offender must persist in the idea involved in
his threats. The threat should not be made in the heat of
Article 284. Bond for good behavior
anger, because such is punished under Article 285.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
157
 Other light threats Light threats

In what cases may a person be required to give bail not to (third type)
molest another?
Harm threatened to be committed is not a crime

There is NO demand for There is demand for money,

money, or other condition or other condition imposed
1. When he threatens another under Article 282.
imposed
2. When he threatens another under Article 283.

Bond for good behavior Bond to keep the peace

Applicable only to grave Not made applicable to any

Article 286. Grave coercions
threats and light threats particular case

If offender fails to give bail, If the offender fails to give

he shall be sentenced to
destierro
NOT a distinct penalty
bond, he shall be detained
Acts punishable:
for a period not exceeding 6
months (if prosecuted for
grave/less grave felony) or
not exceeding 30 days (light 1. Preventing another, by means of violence, threats or
felony) intimidation, from doing something not prohibited by law;
2. Compelling another, by means of violence, threats or
A distinct penalty
intimidation, to do something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong.

Elements
Article 285. Other light threats

1. A person prevented another from doing something not

Acts punishable: prohibited by law, or that he compelled him to do
something against his will; be it right or wrong;
2. The prevention or compulsion be effected by violence,
threats or intimidation; and
1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by drawing such 3. The person that restrained the will and liberty of another
weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense; had not the authority of law or the right to do so, or in other
2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with some words, that the restraint shall not be made under authority
harm constituting a crime, without persisting in the idea of law or in the exercise of any lawful right.
involved in his threat;
3. Orally threatening to do another any harm not constituting
a felony.  The purpose of the law in penalizing coercion and unjust
vexation is to enforce the principle that no person may take
the law into his hands, and that our government is one of
 Under the first type, the subsequent acts of the offender law, not of men.
must show that he did not persist in the idea involved in his  In grave coercion, the act of preventing by force must be
threat. made at the time the offended party was doing or about to
 Threats which are ordinarily grave threats, if made in the do the act to be prevented. If the act was already done
heat of anger, may be other light threats. when violence is exerted, the crime is unjust vexation.
 If the threats are directed to a person who is absent and  Instances when the act of preventing another is classified
uttered in a temporary fit of anger, the offense is only other as another crime:
light threats. o A public officer preventing by means of violence or
threats the ceremonies or manifestations of any
religion is guilty of interruption of religious worship
Other light threats Grave threats
(Art. 132)
(second type) (third type) o Any person who, by force, prevents the meeting of a
legislative body (Art. 143)
Harm threatened to be committed is a crime o Any person who shall use force or intimidation to
prevent any member of Congress from attending the
Threat is not deliberate Threat is deliberate meetings thereof, expressing his opinions, or casting
(made in the heat of anger) his vote (Art. 145)
 Compelling another to do something includes the offender’s
act of doing it himself while subjecting another to his will.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

158
 A person who is in actual possession of a thing, even if he
has no right to that possession, cannot be compelled by
means of violence to give up the possession, even by the
owner himself. This will amount to grave coercion.
 Note however that an owner and actual possessor a
property has a right to use such force was may be
reasonably necessary to prevent another from
dispossessing him of his property.
 Instances when the act of compelling is another offense:
o A public officer not authorized by law who compels a
person to change his residence (Art. 127)
o Kidnapping a debtor to compel him to pay his debt
(kidnapping for ransom under Art. 267)
 The crime is not grave coercion when the violence is
employed to seize anything not belonging to the debtor of
the offender. This is light coercion under Article 287.
 Surrounding the victim in a notoriously threatening attitude
is sufficient to constitute intimidation.
 The force or violence must be immediate, actual or
imminent.
 The owner of a thing has no right to prevent interference
with it when interference is necessary to avert greater
damage.
 There is no grave coercion when the accused acts in good
faith in the performance of duty.
 Coercion is consummated even if the offended party did not
accede to the purpose of the coercion. (MEL – this is
doubtful, please check)
 A higher penalty (prision mayor) is imposed if the coercion
is committed:
o In violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage;
o To compel another to perform any religious act.
Grave coercion Illegal Detention
There is no clear deprivation There must be actual
of liberty confinement or restraint on
the person of the victim
Grave coercion Maltreatment of prisoner
(compelling a person to
confess/give info)
The offended party is NOT a The offended party is a
prisoner prisoner
Timoner vs. People (1983)
Jose Timoner, the mayor of Daet, ordered the fencing off of stalls
which protruded into the sidewalks of Maharlika highway. The stalls
were recommended for closure by the Municipal Health Officer.
HELD: There is no grave coercion when the restraint was made under
authority of law or in the lawful exercise of a right. Mayor Timoner
had the authority under the Civil Code to abate public nuisances. Also,
he was merely implementing the orders of the municipal health officer
and was acting under the authority of a previous decision which
declared one of the stalls as a public nuisance.
Lee vs. CA (1991)
Francis Lee, the branch manager of Pacific Banking Corporation,
threatened to file charges against complainant de Chin, unless she
returned all the money equivalent to a forged Midland National Bank
cheque which de Chin deposited in an account in the Pacific Bank.
HELD: To determine the degree of the intimidation, the age, sex and
condition of the person shall be borne in mind. De Chin was pregnant,
but she was also educated and familiar with banking procedures. She
could not have been easily intimidated by Lee. Besides, a threat to
enforce one’s claim through competent authority, if the claim is just
or legal, does not vitiate consent. Lee’s threat is not improper because
there is nothing unlawful about the threat to sue. Finally, there is a
difference between performing an act reluctantly, even against one’s
good sense and judgment versus performing an act with no consent at
all, such as when a person acts against her will or under a pressure
cannot resist. In this case, de Chin consented to signing the withdrawal
slips. She did so voluntarily, although reluctantly. Hence, there is no
coercion.
People vs. Alfeche, Jr. (1992)
Complaint for Usurpation of Real Rights in Property (Art312) in relation
to Grave Coercion (Art286) was filed against accused where it was
alleged that he usurped the possession of the tenants from the land by
threatening to kill them if the latter resisted. This was filed in the RTC.
RTC dismissed saying that the penalty under Art312 was below the
jurisdictional amount of the RTC therefore it had no jurisdiction on the
assumption that the grave coercion was absorbed with the usurpation.
HELD: RTC had jurisdiction. Art312 defines a single, special and
indivisible crime with a 2-tiered penalty. The principal one for the
usurpation with violence/ intimidation and an incremental penalty
based on the value obtained in addition to the penalty incurred for the
acts of violence and intimidation.
When the usurpation is done with violence or intimidation (in the CAB,
grave coercion), the accused must be prosecuted under Art312 for
usurpation and not for the acts of violence or intimidation under
Art286 for grave coercion. But whenever appropriate, accused may be
held liable for the separate acts of violence or intimidation (e.g. grave
coercion). This separate penalty is in addition to the fine based on the
gain obtained by him.
People v. Santos, 378 SCRA 157 (2002)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
159
 FACTS: Josephine gave a 1-year loan to Leonida but the
latter was unable to timely pay the debt. For the next 4 years,
Josephine was unsuccessful in securing payment from Leonida as the
latter stubbornly maintained her having already settled the account.
Josephine, Manny et. al., with the assistance of CIS agents, then
brought Leonida to Baguio City from her house in Pangasinan, in order
to surrender her to the custody of Baguio City authorities where
Josephine thought she could rightly seek redress. She was advised,
however, that it was in the province of Pangasinan, not Baguio City,
where a case could be lodged. The trial court convicted Josephine on
the ground that the deprivation of Leonida of her liberty, regardless
of its purpose and although lasting for less than twenty-four hours, was
sufficient to support the charge of kidnapping.
HELD: The circumstances that have surfaced warrant a
conviction for grave coercion. Grave coercion is committed when a
person prevents another from doing something not prohibited by law
or compelling him to do something against his will, whether it be right
or wrong, and without any authority of law, by means of violence,
threats or intimidation. Its elements are — First, that the offender has
prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law, or that
he has compelled him to do something against his will, be it right or
wrong; second, that the prevention or compulsion is effected by
violence, either by material force or such display of force as would
produce intimidation and control over the will of the offended party;
and, third, that the offender who has restrained the will and liberty of
another did so without any right or authority of law. Where there is a
variance between the offense charged in the complaint or information
and that proved and the offense charged necessarily includes the lesser
offense established in evidence, the accused can be convicted of the
offense proved.
Article 287. Light coercions
Elements:
1. Offender must be a creditor;
2. He seizes anything belonging to his debtor:
3. The seizure of the thing be accomplished by means of
violence or a display of material force producing
intimidation;
4. The purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the
payment of the debt.
 The seized property must be applied to the PAYMENT of the
debt, not merely as SECURITY for the debt.
 Taking possession of the thing belonging to the debtor,
through deceit and misrepresentation, for the purpose of
applying the same to the payment of the debt, is unjust
vexation under the second paragraph of this article.
 Actual physical violence not necessary, grave intimidation is
sufficient.
Unjust vexation (other light coercion, second
paragraph)
 Includes any human conduct which, although not
productive of some physical or material harm, would,
however, unjustly annoy or vex an innocent person. The
act must cause annoyance, irritation, vexation, torment,
distress or disturbance.
 There is no violence or intimidation in unjust vexation.
 Examples: kissing a girl (despite her objections, of course!)
 When the first and third elements of grave coercion are
present, but the second element (violence, threats or
intimidation) is absent, the crime is unjust vexation.
People vs. Reyes (1934)
During a pabasa, the appellants started to construct a barbed wire
fence in front of the chapel. The noise disrupted the ceremonies and
some of the participants even fled, fearing trouble. The appellants
were convicted of Offending Religious Feelings under Art. 133.
HELD: The construction of a fence even though irritating and vexatious
under the circumstances to those present is not such an act as can be
designated as “notoriously offensive to the feelings of the faithful.”
The appellants’ act was innocent and was simply to protect private
property rights. The circumstances under which the fence was
constructed – late at night, vexing and annoying those who had
gathered – indicate that the crime committed was only unjust
vexation.
People vs. Anonuevo (1937)
Teodulo Anonuevo embraced and kissed Rosita Tabia and held her
breasts while in church. He was convicted of abuse against chastity.
HELD: It is error to ascribe the conduct of appellant to lustful designs
or purposes in the absence of clear proof as to his motive. The
religious atmosphere and the presence of many people belie the fact
that he acted with lewd designs. He either performed a bravado (in
defiance of alleged threats of Rosita’s boyfriend) or wished merely to
force Rosita to accept him as a lover. He is only guilty of unjust
vexation.
Ong Chiu Kwan v. CA, 345 SCRA 586 (2000)
Ong Chiu Kwan admitted having ordered the cutting of the
electric, water and telephone lines of complainant's business
establishment because these lines crossed his property line. He failed,
however, to show evidence that he had the necessary permits or
authorization to relocate the lines. Also, he timed the interruption of
electric, water and telephone services during peak hours of the
operation of business of the complainant. Thus, petitioner's act
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
160
unjustly annoyed or vexed the complainant. Consequently, petitioner
Ong Chiu Kwan is liable for unjust vexation.
Baleros v. People (2007)
The court wishes to stress that malice, compulsion or restraint need
not be alleged in an Information for unjust vexation. Unjust vexation
exists even without the element of restraint or compulsion for the
reason that the term is broad enough to include any human conduct
which, although not productive of some physical or material harm,
would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person.
Article 288. Other similar coercions (compulsory
purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by
means of tokens)
Acts punishable:
1. Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or knowingly
permitting the forcing or compelling of the laborer or
employee of the offender to purchase merchandise of
commodities of any kind from him;
Elements:
a. Offender is any person, agent or officer of any
association or corporation;
b. He or such firm or corporation has employed laborers
or employees;
c. He forces or compels, directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permits to be forced or compelled, any of
his or its laborers or employees to purchase
merchandise or commodities of any kind from him or
from said firm or corporation.
2. Paying the wages due his laborer or employee by means of
tokens or object other than the legal tender currency of the
Philippines, unless expressly requested by such laborer or
employee.
Elements:
a. Offender pays the wages due a laborer or employee
employed by him by means of tokens or object;
b. Those tokens or objects are other than the legal tender
currency of the Philippines;
c. Such employee or laborer does not expressly request
that he be paid by means of tokens or objects.
 As a general rule, laborers and employees have the right to
receive just wages in legal tender.
 Inducing an employee to give up part of his wages by force,
stealth, intimidation, threat or by any other means is not
punished under the RPC, but under Article 116 of the Labor
Code.
Bar Questions
Grave Coercion (1998)
Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy
wearing the said necklace. Isagani asked Roy to return to
him the necklace as it belongs to him, but Roy refused.
Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, "If you will not give
back the necklace to me, I will kill you!" Out of fear for his
life and against his will, Roy gave the necklace to Isagani,
What offense did Isagani commit? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286,
RPC) for compelling Roy, by means of serious threats or
intimidation, to do something against the latter's will,
whether it be right or wrong. Serious threats or intimidation
approximating violence constitute grave coercion, not grave
threats. Such is the nature of the threat in this case because
it was committed with a gun, is a deadly weapon.
The crime is not robbery because intent to gain, which is an
essential element of robbery, is absent since the necklace
belongs to Isagani.
Grave Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner (1999)
Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person was
tortured and maltreated by agents of the law in order to
compel him to confess a crime imputed to him. The agents
failed, however, to draw from him a confession which was
their intention to obtain through the employment of such
means. What crime was committed by the agents of the
law? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the agents
of the law is a suspect and may have been detained by
them. If so and he had already been booked and put in jail,
the crime is maltreatment of prisoner and the fact that the
suspect was subjected to torture to extort a confession
would bring about a higher penalty. In addition to the
offender's liability for the physical injuries inflicted. But if the
suspect was forcibly brought to the police headquarters to
make him admit the crime and tortured/ maltreated to make
him confess to such crime, but later released because the
agents failed to draw such confession, the crime is grave
coercion because of the violence employed to compel such
confession without the offended party being confined in jail.
(US vs. Cusi, 10 Phil 143)
It is noted that the offended party was merely "brought" to
the police headquarters and is thus not a detention prisoner.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
161
 Had he been validly arrested, the crime committed would be 2. He seizes the papers or letters of another;
maltreatment of prisoners. 3. The purpose is to discover the secrets of such another
person;
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)
4. Offender is informed of the contents of the papers or letters
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%) seized.

SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as
follows: in coercion, the basis of criminal liability is the
employment of violence or serious intimidation
approximating violence, without authority of law, to prevent
a person from doing something not prohibited by law or to
compel him to do something against his will, whether it be
right or wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability
is the actual restraint or locking up of a person, thereby
depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there
was no intent to lock up or detain the offended party
unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention is not committed.
Article 289. Formation, maintenance, and prohibition of
combination of capital or labor through violence or
threats
 To seize means to place in the control of someone a thing
or to give him the possession thereof. It is not necessary
that there be force or violence.
 Prejudice is not an element of the offense.
 When the offender reveals the contents of such paper or
letters of another to a third person, the penalty is higher.
Thus, revealing the secret is not an element of the offense,
it only qualifies the offense.
 This article is not applicable to:
o parents, guardians or persons entrusted with the
custody of minors with respect to papers or letters of
the children or minors placed under their care or
custody;
o spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either
of them.
 Unlawful opening of mail matter by an officer or employee
of the Bureau of Posts is punished under the Administrative
Code.

Elements: Discovering secrets Revealing secrets

(Art. 290) (Art. 230)

1. Offender employs violence or threats, in such a degree as Offender is a private Offender is a public officer
individual, or public officer
to compel or force the laborers or employers in the free and
not in exercise of official
legal exercise of their industry or work;
function
2. The purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent coalitions
of capital or labor, strike of laborers or lockout of The offender SEIZES the The offender COMES TO
employers. papers or letters KNOW of the secrets of the
private individual by reason
of his office. Not necessary
 The act should not be a more serious offense under the that the secrets are
RPC. For example, if death or other serious physical injuries contained in papers/letters
are caused, the act should be punished as such and not
under this Article. The purpose of the offender The offender reveals such
 Peaceful picketing is not prohibited, it is a valid exercise of is to discover the secrets of secrets without justifiable
freedom of speech. another, revelation to reason.
 Employing violence or making threat by picketers may make another is not an element of
them liable for coercion. the crime
 Preventing employees from joining any registered labor
organization is punished under the Labor Code, not under
the RPC.

Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office

Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of

correspondence Elements:

Elements: 1. Offender is a manager, employee or servant;

2. He learns the secrets of his principal or master in such
capacity;
1. Offender is a private individual or even a public officer not 3. He reveals such secrets.
in the exercise of his official function;

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

162
 Secrets must be learned by reason of their employment. Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a
 The secrets must be revealed by the offender. band
 Prejudice/damage is not necessary under this Article.
Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public

Article 292. Revealing of industrial secrets building, or building dedicated to religious worship
and their dependencies

Article 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a

Elements: private building

Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in

an uninhabited place or private building
1. Offender is a person in charge, employee or workman of a
Article 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools
manufacturing or industrial establishment;
2. The manufacturing or industrial establishment has a secret Article 305. False keys
of the industry which the offender has learned;
3. Offender reveals such secrets;
4. Prejudice is caused to the owner.
Chapter Two – BRIGANDAGE

 Secrets must relate to manufacturing processes.

 The act constituting the crime is revealing the secret of the Article 306. Who are brigands
industry of employer.
 The revelation of the secret might be made after the Article 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands
employee or workman had ceased to be connected with the
establishment.
 Prejudice is an element of the offense. Chapter Three – THEFT

Title Ten
Article 308. Who are liable for theft
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Article 309. Penalties

Article 310. Qualified theft

Chapter One. ROBBERY IN GENERAL
Article 311. Theft of the property of the National

Library and National Museum

Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery

Chapter Four – USURPATION

Section One – Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or Article 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation
intimidation of persons
Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed of real rights in property
in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the
use of firearm on a street, road or alley Article 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks

Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred

by the members thereof
Chapter Five – CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery
committed under certain circumstances

Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence Article 314. Fraudulent insolvency
or intimidation

Chapter Six – SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS

Section Two – Robbery by the use of force upon things

Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public

Article 315. Swindling (Estafa)
building or edifice devoted to worship
Article 316. Other forms of swindling

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

163
 Article 317. Swindling a minor
Article 318. Other deceits
Chapter Seven – CHATTEL MORTGAGE
Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged
Property
Chapter Eight – ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING
DESTRUCTION (REPEALED BY PD 1613 and RA 7659)
Article 320. Destructive arson
Article 321. Other forms of arson
Article 322. Cases of arson not included in the
preceding articles
Article 323. Arson of property of small value
Article 324. Crimes involving destruction
Article 325. Burning one’s own property as means to
commit arson
Article 326. Setting fire to property exclusively owned
by the offender
Article 326-A. In cases where death resulted as a
consequence of arson
Article 326-B. Prima facie evidence of arson
Chapter Nine – MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Article 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief
Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief
Article 329. Other mischiefs
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means of
communication
Article 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public
monuments or paintings
Chapter Ten – EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABLITY IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Article 333. Persons exempt from criminal liability
Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery
Elements of robbery in general:
4. There is personal property belonging to another;
5. There is unlawful taking of that property;
6. The taking must be with intent to gain; and
7. There is violence against or intimidation of any person, or
force upon anything.
The property taken must be personal property, for if real
property is occupied or real right is usurped by means of
violence against or intimidation of person, the crime is
USURPATION.
The phrase “belonging to another” means that the property
taken does not belong to the offender. The person from
whom the property is taken need not be the owner.
Possession of the property is sufficient.
The unlawful taking of personal property is an essential part
of the crime of robbery. Where the taking was lawful and
the unlawful misappropriation was subsequent to such
taking, the crime is ESTAFA or MALVERSATION.
UNLAWFUL TAKING – when complete?
a. as to robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons
i. from the moment the offender gains possession of
the thing, even if the culprit has had no
opportunity to dispose of the same
b. as to robbery with force upon things
i. the thing must be taken out of the building, or the
place broken into, to consummate the crime (note:
this is purely based on reyes’s opinion)
“Taking” as an element of robbery, means depriving the
offended party of ownership of the thing taken with the
character of permanency.
Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of
personal property.
Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of personal
property GRAVE COERCION if there is violence used.
The element of “personal property belonging to another” and
that of “intent to gain” must concur.
The violence, as an element of robbery, must be against the
person of the offended party, not upon the thing taken.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
164
As for intimidation, it need not be threat of bodily harm. It could
be a threat of paying a fine or closing the offended party’s
shop.
GENERAL RULE: The violence or intimidation must be present
before the taking of personal property is complete. It is
not necessary that violence of intimidation should be
present from the very beginning.
EXCEPTION: When the violence results in – (1) homicide,
(2) rape, (3) intentional mutilation, or (4) any of the serious
physical injuries under par 1 & 2 of Art 263 – the taking of
personal property is robbery complexed with any of those
crimes under Art 294, even if the taking was already
complete when the violence was used by the offender.
Distinctions between effects of employment of violence
against or intimidation of person and those of use of
force upon things:
Whenever violence against or intimidation of any person is
used, the taking of personal property belonging to
another is always robbery. If only force upon things,
the taking is robbery only if the force is used either to
enter the building or to break doors, wardrobes, chests
or any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle inside the building or to force them open
outside after taking the same from the building.
In robbery with violence against or intimidation of any
person, the value of the personal property taken is
immaterial. The penalty depends (a) on the result of
the violence used ie homicide, rape, intentional
mutilation etc, and (b) on the existence of intimidation
only. In robbery with force upon things, committed in
an inhabited house, public building, or edifice devoted
to religious worship, the penalty is based (a) on the
value of the property taken, and (b) on whether or not
the offenders carry arms. If committed in an
uninhabited building, the penalty is based only on the
value of the property taken.
Napolis vs. CA
Facts: Nicanor Napolis, with several co-accused, entered the house of
the Penaflor spouses by breaking a wall of a store, and forcing the door
of the house adjacent to the store open. Once inside, the accused
used violence against the husband and initimidation against the wife,
enabling them to get away with P2557 in cash and goods. They were
convicted of robbery by armed men in an inhabited place.
Held: The crime is considered a complex one under Art 48, where the
penalty for the most serious offence in its max period should be
imposed. Otherwise, there will exist an absurd situation where the
concurrence of a graver offence results in the reduction of the penalty.
People vs. Biruar
There is no law or jurisprudence which requires the presentation of
the thing stolen in order to prove that it had been taken away.
People vs. Salas
Salas was last seen with the victim at 3:00am. At 6:00, the victim’s
body was found in a canal. Her purse, alleged to contain P2,000 and
jewelry were missing. No one witnessed the robbery, much less the
killing. Is the crime committed homicide or robbery with homicide?
HELD: Robbery with Homicide. In this special complex crime against
property, Homicide is incidental to the robbery, which is the main
purpose of the
criminal. The onus probandi is to establish: "(a) the taking of personal
property with the use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b)
the property belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized with
animus lucrandi; and (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason
thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, was
committed."
While there is indeed no direct proof that Virginia Talens was robbed
at the time she was killed, we may conclude from four circumstances
that the robbery occasioned her killing: (1) Both appellant and victim
gambled at the wake. (2) The appellant knew that victim was winning.
(3) The victim was last seen alive with appellant. (4) The victim's purse
containing her money and earrings were missing from her body when
found.
These circumstances logically lead to the inescapable conclusion that
appellant should be liable not just of simple homicide, but robbery
with homicide
People v. Del Rosario, 359 SCRA 166 (2001)
FACTS: Del Rosario stole six pieces of jewelry
belonging to Paragua. He then pawned and sold the same. Also, on
the occasion of the said robbery, Del Rosario hit Paraguas niece,
Racquel, with a hard object, strangled her and and tied the the
latter’s neck of with a Cat-V wire which resulted to her death shortly
thereafter. Del Rsoario admitted in court that he needed money to
marry his common-law wife. The RTC convicted del Rosario of the
crime of robbery with homicide. Del Rosario contends that it is
essential to prove the intent to rob and that the intent to rob must
come first before the killing transpired.
HELD: Animus lucrandi or intent to gain, is an internal act
which can be established through the overt acts of the offender.
Although proof as to motive for the crime is essential when the
evidence of the theft is circumstantial, the intent to gain or animus
lucrandi is the usual motive to be presumed from all furtive taking of
useful property appertaining to another, unless special circumstances
reveal a different intent on the part of the perpetrator. ". . . (T)he
intent to gain may be presumed from the proven unlawful taking."
Intent to gain (animus lucrandi) is presumed to be alleged in an
information where it is charged that there was unlawful taking
(apoderamiento) and appropriation by the offender of the things
subject of the robbery.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
165
 In this case, it was apparent that the reason why Del Rosario
stole the jewelry of Paragua was because he intended to gain by them.
He had already admitted that he needed money to marry his common-
law wife. The court also stated that “if gaining through unlawful means
was farthest from the mind of the accused, why then did he pawn and
sell the jewelry he had taken from Paragua…
It is immaterial whether the killing transpired before or after
the robbery. In the crime of robbery with homicide, the homicide may
precede robbery or may occur after robbery. What is essential is that
there is a nexus, an intimate connection between robbery and the
killing whether the latter be prior or subsequent to the former, or
whether both crimes be committed at the same time.
People v. Reyes, 399 SCRA 528 (2003)
FACTS: Cergontes forcibly took the wristwatch of Solis while
Reyes stabbed the latter at the back resulting to his death. The
victim’s gold necklace, one gold ring, all of an undetermined value,
and a wallet containing unspecified amount of cash were also taken
from him. Reyes was found guilty of Robbery with Homicide. Appellant
now contends that the animus lucrandi was not sufficiently established
as the taking of the watch could have been a mere afterthought and
the real intent of the malefactors was to inflict injuries upon the
victim. Moreover, there was no evidence of ownership of the
wristwatch, as it may have belonged to the two persons who attacked
the victim
HELD: The court held that appellants contention is devoid of
merit. Animus lucrandi or intent to gain is an internal act which can
be established through the overt acts of the offender. Although proof
of motive for the crime is essential when the evidence of the robbery
is circumstantial, intent to gain or animus lucrandi may be presumed
from the furtive taking of useful property pertaining to another, unless
special circumstances reveal a different intent on the part of the
perpetrator. The intent to gain may be presumed from the proven
unlawful taking. In the case at bar, the act of taking the victim's
wristwatch by one of the accused Cergontes while accused-appellant
Reyes poked a knife behind him sufficiently gave rise to the
presumption.
The detailed narration of how the victim was forcibly
divested of the wristwatch by accused Cergontes and stabbed at the
back by accused-appellant cannot be taken lightly on the argument
that the attackers owned the wristwatch and they attacked the victim
solely on their desire to retrieve it. In any event, in robbery by the
taking of property through intimidation or violence, it is not necessary
that the person unlawfully divested of the personal property be the
owner thereof. Article 293 of the Revised Penal Code employs the
phrase "belonging to another" and this has been interpreted to merely
require that the property taken does not belong to the offender. Actual
possession of the property by the person dispossessed thereof suffices.
In fact, it has been held that robbery may be committed against a
bailee or a person who himself has stolen it. So long as there is
apoderamiento of personal property from another against the latter's
will through violence or intimidation, with animo de lucro, robbery is
the offense imputable to the offender. If the victim is killed on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery, the offense is converted into the
composite crime of robbery with homicide.
People v. Suela, 373 SCRA 163 (2002)
FACTS: Brothers Edgar and Nerio Suela, and Edgardo Batocan
sporting ski masks, bonnests and gloves, brandishing handguns and
knife barged into the room of Director Rosas who was watching
television together with his adopted son, Norman and his friend
Gabilo. They threatened Rosas, Norman and Gabilo to give the location
of their money and valuables, which they eventually took. They
dragged Gabilo downstairs with them. Upon Nerio’s instructions,
Batocan stabbed Gabilo 5 times which caused the latter’s death. After
the incident, Edgar Suela demanded P20,000.00 from Rosas for an
information regarding the robbery. The RTC found Edgar Suela guilty
of robbery for demanding P200,000 as payment for information on the
robbery-slay case.
HELD: With respect to the charge of robbery for demanding
P200,000 as payment for information on the robbery-slay case, the
Court held that Edgar Suela should be acquitted. The OSG explained:
"Simple robbery is committed by means of violence against or
intimidation of persons as distinguished from the use of force upon
things, but the extent of the violence or intimidation does not fall
under pars. 1 to 4 of Article 294 (Revised Penal Code) "Unfortunately,
in the case at bar, the prosecution failed to prove that appellant,
Edgar Suela employed force or intimidation on private complainant
Rosas by instilling fear in his mind so as to compel the latter to cough
out the amount of P200,000.00. Instead, what was established was that
he had agreed to give the P200,000.00 in exchange for information
regarding the identity and whereabouts of those who robbed him and
killed his friend. There was no showing that appellant Edgar Suela had
exerted intimidation on him so as to leave him no choice but to give
the money. Instead, what is clear was that the giving of the money was
done not out of fear but because it was a choice private complainant
opted because he wanted to get the information being offered to him
for the consideration of P200,000.00. In fact, the money was delivered
not due to fear but for the purpose of possibly having a lead in solving
the case and to possibly bring the culprit to justice (ibid.). As such,
the elements of simple robbery have not been established in the
instant case, hence, appellant Edgar Suela should be acquitted of that
charge." However, Edgar is still guilty as principal of the complex
crime of robber with homicide for robbing the house of Rosas and for
Gabil’o death.
Bar Questions
Robbery (1996)
Five robbers robbed, one after the other five houses
occupied by different families located inside a compound
enclosed by a six-feet high hollow block fence. How many
robberies did the five commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The offenders committed only one robbery in the eyes of the
law because when they entered the compound, they were
impelled only by a single indivisible criminal
resolution to commit a robbery as they were not aware that
there were five families inside said compound, considering
that the same was enclosed by a six-feet high hollow-block
fence. The series of robbery committed in the same
compound at about the same time constitutes one continued
crime, motivated by one criminal impulse.
Robbery under RPC (2000)
A, B, C, D and B were in a beerhouse along MacArthur
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
166
Highway having a drinking spree. At about 1 o'clock in the
morning, they decided to leave and so asked for the bill.
They pooled their money together but they were still short
of P2,000.00. E then orchestrated a plan whereby A, B, C
and D would go out, flag a taxicab and rob the taxi driver of
all his money while E would wait for them in the beerhouse.
A. B, C and D agreed. All armed with balisongs, A, B, C and
D hailed the first taxicab they encountered. After robbing X,
the driver, of his earnings, which amounted to P1,000.00
only, they needed P1,000.00 more to meet their bill. So,
they decided to hail another taxicab and they again robbed
driver T of his hard-earned money amounting to P1,000. On
their way back to the beerhouse, they were apprehended by
a police team upon the complaint of X, the driver of the first
cab. They pointed to E as the mastermind. What crime or
crimes, if any, did A, B, C, D and B commit? Explain fully.
(3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A. B, C, D and E are liable for two (2) counts of robbery
under Article 294 of the Rev. Penal Code; not for highway
Robbery under PD 532. The offenders are not brigands but
only committed the robbery to raise money to pay their bill
because it happened that they were short of money to pay
the same.
Robbery under RPC (2001)
A and B are neighbors in Barangay Nuevo I, Silang, Cavite. A
is a barangay Kagawad and known to be a bully, while B is
reputed to be gay but noted for his industry and economic
savvy which allowed him to amass wealth in leaps and
bounds, including registered and unregistered lands in
several barangays. Resenting B's riches and relying on his
political influence, A decided to harass and intimidate B into
sharing with him some of his lands, considering that the
latter was single and living alone. One night, A broke into B's
house, forced him to bring out some titles and after picking
out a title covering 200 square meters in their barangay,
compelled B to type out a Deed of Sale conveying the said
lot to him for P1.00 and other valuable considerations. All
the while, A carried a paltik caliber .45 in full view of B, who
signed the deed out of fear. When A later on tried to register
the deed, B summoned enough courage and had A arrested
and charged in court after preliminary investigation. What
charge or charges should be filed against A? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The charge for Robbery under Article 298 of the Revised
Penal Code should be filed against A. Said Article provides
that any person who, with intent to defraud another, by
means of violence or intimidation, shall compel him to sign,
execute and deliver any public instrument or document shall
be held guilty of robbery.
The paltik caliber .45 firearm carried by A was obviously
intended to intimidate B and thus, used in the commission of
the robbery. If it could be established that A had no license
or permit to possess and carry such firearm, it should be
taken only as special aggravating circumstance to the crime
of robbery, not subject of a separate prosecution.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
On the premise that the Deed of Sale which A compelled B
to sign, had not attained the character of a "public"
instrument or document, A should be charged for the crime
of Qualified Trespass to Dwelling under Article 280 of the
Revised Penal Code for having intruded into B’s house, and
for the crime of Grave Coercion under Article 286 of same
Code, for compelling B to sign such deed of sale against his
will.
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
Acts punished:
1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery (taking of
personal property belonging to another with intent to gain),
the crime of homicide is committed;
2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or intentional
mutilation or arson;
3. When by reason of on occasion of such robbery, any of the
physical injuries resulting in insanity, imbecility, impotency
or blindness is inflicted;
4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the
physical injuries resulting in the loss of the use of speech or
the power to hear or to smell, or the loss of an eye, a hand,
a foot, an arm, or a leg or the loss of the use of any such
member or incapacity for the work in which the injured
person is theretofore habitually engaged is inflicted;
5. If the violence or intimidation employed in the
commission of the robbery is carried to a
degree unnecessary for the commission of the
crime;
6. When in the course of its execution, the offender shall have
inflicted upon any person not responsible for the
commission of the robbery any of the physical injuries in
consequence of which the person injured becomes
deformed or loses any other member of his body or loses
the sue thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he is habitually engaged
for more than 90 days or the person injured becomes ill or
incapacitated for labor for more than 30 days;
7. If the violence employed by the offender does not cause
any of the serious physical injuries defined in Article 263, or
if the offender employs intimidation only.
The crime defined in this article is a special complex crime.
Thus, Art 48 no longer applies.
“on the occasion” = “in the course of”
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
167
“by reason” = “because of”
Robbery with homicide
Robbery and homicide are separate offences, when the
homicide was not committed “on the occasion” or “by
reason” of the robbery.
Where the original design comprehends robbery, and
homicide is perpetrated by reason or on the occasion of the
consummation of the former, the crime committed is
robbery with homicide.
There is no such crime as robbery with murder. The
treachery which attended the commission of the crime must
be considered not qualifying but merely as a generic
aggravating circumstance.
An intent to take personal property belonging to another with
intent to gain must precede the killing.
The crime is robbery with homicide, even if the motive of the
offenders was that of robbery as well as vengeance.
Homicide may precede robbery or may occur after robbery.
It is immaterial that the death of a person supervened by mere
accident, provided that the homicide be produced by reason
or on the occasion of the robbery.
Killing a person to escape after the commission of robbery is
robbery with homicide.
There is still robbery with homicide even if the person
killed is another robber or an innocent bystander.
Thus, the person killed need not be the person
robbed.
An accessory to robbery with homicide must have knowledge
and complicity as to the homicide as well in order to be
charged with the same offence. Otherwise, if the accessory
had no knowledge of the homicide, he may only be charged
with robbery.
People vs. Mangulabnan
Facts: During the robbery, one of the accused climbed on a table and
fired at the ceiling, where the victim was hiding. The shots caused the
victim’s death.
Held: It is immaterial that death supervened by mere accident. “By
reason or on occasion of” means it is only the result obtained, without
reference to or distinction as to circumstances, causes, modes or
persons intervening in the commission of the crime, that has to be
taken into consideration.
People vs. Calixtro
When death results, the crime is still robbery with homicide,
regardless of the circumstances, modes or persons intervening in the
commission of the crime.
People vs. Pecato
Whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence of or on
the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part as principals in the
commission of the crime are also guilty as principals in the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide although they did not actually
take part in the homicide unless it clearly appeared that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.
People vs. Tapales
When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, should
rape be considered an aggravating circumstance? YES. Rapes, wanton
robbery for personal gain and other forms of cruelties are condemned
and their perpetration will be regarded as aggravating circumstances
of ignominy and deliberately augmenting unnecessary wrongs.
Poeple vs. Quinones
There is no such crime as robbery with multiple homicide. There is
only the special complex crime of robbery with homicide, regardless
of the fact that 3 persons were killed in the commission of the crime.
In robbery, all homicides and murders are merged in the composite.
As such, the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed only once even if multiple killings accompanied the robbery.
People vs. Faigano
Nely was suddenly roused from her sleep by Carmelo Faigano, a worker
at a nearby construction project. He was in black T-shirt but was no
longer wearing pants or underwear. He poked a 29-inch balisong at her
neck and threatened to kill her and the children beside her. Then
forcibly tore her nightie, raised her pair of brassieres above her breasts
and pulled her to the edge of the king-size wooden bed. He spread her
thighs apart against her will and inserted his organ into hers. He had
sexual intercourse with her. After satisfying his lust, Faigano then put
on his short pants and ordered Nely to bring out her money. He took
Nely's money, her husband's wristwatch and two rings. TC found him
guilty of the special complex crime of robbery with rape
HELD: SC found him guilty of the separate crimes of robbery and rape.
If the intention of the accused was to rob but rape was also committed
even before the asportation the crime is robbery with rape. But if the
original plan was to rape but the accused after committing the rape
also committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the
offenses should be viewed as separate and distinct. To be liable for
the special complex crime of robbery with rape the intent to take
personal property of another must precede the rape. Under the
circumstances, SC is convinced that when Faigano entered the victim's
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
168
house he only had in mind sexual gratification. The taking of the cash
and pieces of jewelry against Nely's will appears to be an afterthought.
People v. Reyes, 427 SCRA 28 (2004)
FACTS: Dr. Aurora Lagrada, a spinster of about 70 years old,
lived alone in her 2-storey house. Reyes’ house was about 4-5 meters
away from the doctor's house. Reyes was able to gain entry into the
house of Lagrada without the latter knowing. Armed with a bolo, Reyes
stole one Rolex wristwatch, 1 gold bracelet, 1 gold ring with
birthstone of Jade, 1 Pass Book from Lagrada. On the occasion of the
said robbery, Reyes stabbed Lagrada several times in the different
parts of her body directly causing her death. The trial court convicted
Reyes of robbery with homicide.
HELD: To sustain a conviction of the accused for robbery
with homicide, the prosecution is burdened to prove the essential
elements of the crime. The accused must be shown to have the
principal purpose of committing robbery, the homicide being
committed either by reason of or on occasion of the robbery. The
homicide may precede robbery or may occur thereafter. What is
essential is that there is a nexus, an intrinsic connection between the
robbery and the killing. The latter may be done prior to or subsequent
to the former. However, the intent to commit robbery must precede
the taking of the victim's life. Furthermore, the constituted crimes of
robbery and homicide must be consummated.
A homicide is considered as having been committed on the
occasion or by reason of the robbery when the motive of the offender
in killing the victim is to deprive the latter of his property, to eliminate
an obstacle to the crime, to protect his possession of the loot, to
eliminate witnesses, to prevent his being apprehended or to insure his
escape from the scene of the crime.
Appellant stated that he barged into the house of the victim
to rob her, and that he stabbed the victim when she was about to shout
and because he was drunk. The appellant then took the victim's money
and personal belongings and fled from the scene of the crime. The trial
court correctly convicted the appellant of robbery with homicide.
People v. Hernandez, 432 SCRA 104 (2004)
FACTS: Catapang and Hernandez dragged 72 year-old
Natividad Mendoza, in the direction of a forested area where there
were also mango and coconut trees. The two took the money and
jewelry of Natividad while she was lying on the ground. Thereafter,
Catapang and Hernandez strangled Natividad to death with the use of
a white rope made of buri/vine string.
HELD: The Court held that appellant is guilty of robbery with
homicide under Article 294, paragraph 1 of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended by Republic Act No. 7659.
The court further held that, in robbery with homicide, the
original criminal design of the malefactor is to commit robbery, with
homicide perpetrated on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. The
intent to commit robbery must precede the taking of human life. The
homicide may take place before, during or after the robbery. It is only
the result obtained, without reference or distinction as to the
circumstances, causes, modes or persons intervening in the
commission of the crime that has to be taken into consideration. There
is no such felony of robbery with homicide through reckless
imprudence or simple negligence. The constitutive elements of the
crime, namely, robbery and homicide, must be consummated.
People v. Milliam, 324 SCRA 155 (2000)
FACTS: Demarayo, a member of the 15th Infantry Battalion,
Philippine Army, was leisurely pacing along Quezon Street, Iloilo City,
when Roberto and Ricky both surnamed Martin blocked his path.
Without any provocation coming from the soldier, Ricky drew his
firearm and fired at Demarayo, hitting the latter’s left hand. A brief
struggle among the three (3) men ensued which caused the victim to
fall down. As Roberto pulled away he warded off Demarayo by kicking
him on the waist. While the victim was sprawled on the ground Roberto
aimed his rifle at Demarayo's chest and pulled the trigger. Roberto
fired another shot hitting Demarayo on the same spot. After the brutal
slaying, the assailants nonchalantly walked away with Demarayo's M-
16. The lower court ruled that the crime committed was Robbery with
Homicide.
HELD: In People v. Salazar, accused-appellants stabbed a
security guard and thereafter took away his gun. It was ruled that since
the prosecution failed to establish that the homicide was committed
by reason or on the occasion of stealing the security guard's firearm,
both of them could only be convicted of the separate crimes of
Homicide and Theft.
The records are bereft of any evidence to prove that the
asportation of Demarayo's service firearm was the prime motive of
accused-appellants. Although it may be true that they were seen
grabbing the gun from the victim as the latter was lying prone on the
ground, it could be possible that it was done to prevent him from
retaliating as he was still conscious after sustaining the first gunshot
wound. The taking of the gun might have been an afterthought and not
the real purpose of the crime. It can therefore be seen that the
prosecution failed to establish convincingly that the homicide was
committed for the purpose or on the occasion of robbing the victim.
As such, accused-appellants should properly be convicted of the
separate offenses of Homicide and Theft, which were both duly
proved.
People v. Ranis, 389 SCRA 45 (2002)
FACTS: While Marivic and Ben with their baby were watching
television in their bedroom, Murphy and Sabiyon, both armed with
bladed weapons, suddenly entered their unlocked bedroom. Murphy
poked a knife at her neck while Ernesto straddled on top of Ben who
was then lying in bed. Murphy asked for the proceeds of the land Ben
sold and some jewelry but Marivic told him that they only had P2,000
in their possession. Murphy then took the P2,000 and several pieces of
luxury watches and jewelry. After taking the money and jewelry, both
accused tied her hands and those of Ben with electric cord and then
they went out of the house, taking Ben with them. The body of Ben
was later found lying about five to ten meters from the house with a
cloth in the mouth, blood stains on the body, and hack wounds on his
right nape and mouth. Ben was brought to the hospital but he was
proclaimed dead on arrival.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
169
 HELD: In charging robbery with homicide, the onus towards the mountainside with the victims bag containing
probandi is to establish: (a) the taking of personal property with the P500,000.00, the victims necklace, ring and his wristwatch.
use of violence or intimidation against a person; (b) the property
belongs to another; (c) the taking is characterized by animus
lucrandi; (d) on the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the
HELD: Robbery with homicide is a special complex crime
crime of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, has been
against property. Homicide is incidental to the robbery which is the
committed. In this case, Marivic Rodelas positively identified
main purpose of the criminal. In charging robbery with homicide, the
appellants Ernesto Sabiyon and Cesario Murphy as the two persons
onus probandi is to establish: xxx… xxx… (d) on the occasion of the
who entered her bedroom. Using sharp, bladed weapons, appellants
robbery or by reason thereof, the crime of homicide, which is used in
demanded and took money, watches, and jewelry belonging to the
the generic sense, was committed. The phrase "by reason" covers
victim, Ben Hernandez. Thereafter, Hernandez was found stabbed to
homicide committed before or after the taking of personal property of
death. The Court ruled that appellants are guilty of robbery with
another, as long as the motive of the offender in killing a person before
homicide.
the robbery is to deprive the victim of his personal property which is
sought to be accomplished by eliminating an obstacle or opposition or
in killing a person after the robbery to do away with a witness or to
defend the possession of the stolen property. Thus, it matters not that
the victim was killed prior to the taking of the personal properties of
People v. Gonzales, 382 SCRA 694 (2002) the victim. What is essential in robbery with homicide is that there be
a direct relation and intimate connection between robbery and killing,
FACTS: Nicanor Suralta was having drinks with his visitors in whether both crimes be committed at the same time. The Court ruled
their house when two armed men, one carrying a gun and the other a that all elements of robbery with homicide are present in this case.
knife, suddenly entered the house through the kitchen door. The one
carrying a gun had a bonnet over his face, with only his eyes exposed,
while the other one carrying a knife had the lower half of his face
covered with a handkerchief. The knife-wielder held Chona, the third People v. Maxion, 361 SCRA 414 (2001)
child of the Suralta spouses, and announced a holdup. All persons in
the house were ordered to go inside the bedroom, about 2 meters away
from the sala. There, the man with a gun demanded a gun and money
FACTS: Himor, a teller at the United Coconut Planters
from Nicanor. Nicanor answered that he had no gun, but asked his
Bank (UCPB), walked across the street towards the Hi-Top
wife, Carolita, to give money to the holduppers. Carolita gave
Supermarket, to pick up the cash deposit of the supermarket
P2,100.00, which was intended to be deposited in the bank, to the
amounting to P1,464,644.75. After issuing the deposit slip, he placed
knife-wielder, who placed it in his pocket. Then the knife-wielder
the money inside a duffle bag and padlocked the bag. Thereafter, he
ransacked the cabinet and took the remaining amount of P325.00,
called the bank to send his security escort. UCPB sent security escort
which was intended for the school expenses of the Suralta children. In
Gargaceran. While Himor and Gargaceran were about to cross the
addition, he took the family's Sanyo cassette recorder and some
street going back to the bank. Maxion and another man suddenly
clothes. The holduppers also divested one of the guests of his Seiko
emerged and walked towards them. Maxion was in front of Gargaceran
diver's wristwatch and then left. As the holduppers were leaving, two
while the second stayed behind him. Both of them aimed their guns at
gunshots rang out. Nicanor was heard moaning. Nicanor eventually
Gargaceran. The man behind Gargaceran immediately took
died.
Gargaceran's handgun, and shortly thereafter, Maxion shot Gargaceran
at close range hitting him on the chest eventually causing his death.
Himor attempted to run with the bag towards the bank but he was
HELD: After reviewing the records of this case, the court stopped by the armed men who ordered him to release the bag. With
ruled that the prosecution evidence establishes the guilt of accused- their guns pointed at him, Himor tossed the bag containing the money
appellants beyond reasonable doubt. A conviction for robbery with to them and ran back to the supermarket.
homicide requires proof of the following elements: (a) the taking of
personal property with violence or intimidation against persons or with
force upon things; (b) the property taken belongs to another; (c) the
HELD: There is no question that the original and principal
taking be done with animus lucrandi (intent to gain); and (d) on the
intention of the two armed men was to get the money of Hi-Top
occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, homicide in its generic
Supermarket. This is evident from the testimony of teller Himor that
sense is committed. The offense becomes the special complex crime
as soon as the two men stopped him from running towards the bank,
of robbery with homicide under Art. 294 (1) of Revised Penal Code if
they shouted to release the bag containing the money. As the robbery
the victim is killed on the occasion or by reason of the robbery. All
resulted in the killing of the security guard Gargaceran, the offense
elements are present in the case at bar.
committed by the malefactors is indubitably the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide. In robbery with homicide, what is essential
is that there be "a direct relation, an intimate connection between
People v. Torres, 359 SCRA 761 (2001) robbery and the killing, whether the latter be prior or subsequent to
the former or whether both crime be committed at the same time.

FACTS: Vicente Galanao, his sons Julian and Macky and

Jose all surnamed Bulanao went with their employer, Boloy , to buy People v. Consejero, 352 SCRA 276 (2001)
copra and abaca. They were on board a truck driven by Boloy. On the
way, they were stopped by Torres who stood at the left side of the
road. Torres approached the left side of the truck, went up the truck,
and shot Boloy once. After shooting, two persons armed with guns FACTS: While they were fishing, Accused Consajero, a CAFGU
member and Malapit, armed with an M-14, asked Castillo and Usigan if
appeared from nowhere and approached the back of the truck and told
they were the ones exacting quota from the Barangay captain. The two
them to lie face downward. The two persons came from the portion
replied in the negative. Consajero then asked Castillo and Usigan to
where bamboos grew by the side of the road. Afterwards the men ran
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
170
accompany them to a nearby store. They then killed Castillo and
Usigan. Thereafter, they took the Briggs and Straton engine of the
motorized banca ridden by Castillo and Usigan which is owned by
Israel. Castillo was found lying on the ground, face down, drenched in
his own blood with hands tied at the back. Twenty meters away lay
the dead body of Usigan, who sustained thirty-one stab and hack
wounds on the different parts of his body.
HELD: The criminal acts of accused-appellant constitute not
a complex crime of robbery with homicide, but three separate
offenses: 1. Murder, for the killing of Modesto Castillo, 2. Homicide,
for the death of Dionisio Usigan; and 3. Theft, for the unlawful taking
of the Briggs and Straton engine of the motorized banca.
In People v. Amania, the Court had occasion to rule that in
robbery with homicide, the killing must have been directly connected
with the robbery. It is necessary that there must have been an intent
on the part of the offenders to commit robbery from the outset and,
on occasion or by reason thereof a killing takes place. The original
design must have been robbery, and the homicide, even if it
precedes or is subsequent to the robbery, must have a direct relation
to, or must be perpetrated with a view to consummate the robbery.
The taking of the property should not be merely an afterthought
which arose subsequent to the killing.
In the present case, it does not appear that the primary
purpose of accused-appellant in accosting the two deceased was to rob
the engine of the motorized banca. From all indications, accused-
appellant, a CAFGU member, was primarily interested in taking the
life of the two deceased whom he suspected of exacting quota from
the Barangay captain, and the taking of the subject engine was merely
an afterthought that arouse subsequent to the killing of the victims.
People v. Legaspi, 331 SCRA 95
FACTS: Carlos Deveza, erstwhile member of the PNP arrived
at the Cartimar Plaza Market to fetch his wife, Estella, who was then
closing the family chain of stalls for the day. Upon arrival, Carlos
parked his Toyota Tamaraw vehicle in front of the stall. Immediately
thereafter, Estella approached Carlos, who was still at the driver's
seat, and handed him a black leather bag which contained P300,000.00
cash, pieces of jewelry and checks. As Estella left to make a phone
call, Carlos alighted from the Tamaraw and stood on the left side of
the vehicle with both arms resting on the vehicle's window. Legaspi,
coming from the front of the vehicle position himself 2½ meters away
from Deveza, level and poke a gun wrapped in a piece of cloth or towel
at the latter’s nape and eventually pull the trigger. Deveza fell on the
pavement. The gunman then picked up Deveza's black shoulder bag
and casually walked away from the scene of the crime.
While conversing with other tricycle drivers, Wilfredo Dazo
heard the gunshot prompting him to dart his eyes toward the direction
of the gunfire where he saw Deveza stooping and about to fall. Pitying
the victim, Dazo hid behind a post and waited in ambush for Legaspi
and the latter’s companion, Franco. In so doing, Dazo intended to seize
and stop Legaspi who was then holding a gun, but in the process
mistakenly grabbed the unarmed Franco by the waist. Thereafter,
Dazo and Franco wrestled causing Dazo to fall on his knees and allowing
Legaspi to take an aim and shoot at Dazo twice. At the height of the
struggle between Dazo and Franco, shots were fired by Legaspi, one
bullet hitting Dazo on the right jaw.
HELD: Obviously, the killing of Carlos Deveza and the
shooting of Wilfredo Dazo were perpetrated by reason of or on the
occasion of the robbery. Thus, the physical injuries sustained by Dazo
are deemed absorbed in the crime of robbery with homicide. Taken in
its entirety, the overt acts of accused-appellant Legaspi prove that the
lone motive for the killing of Deveza and the shooting of Dazo was for
the purpose of consummating and ensuring the success of the robbery.
In the final analysis, the shooting of Dazo was done in order
to defend the possession of the stolen property. It was therefore an
act which tended to insure the successful termination of the robbery
and secure to the robber the possession and enjoyment of the goods
taken. Accused-appellant's argument that the element of "taking" was
not proved is thus unavailing in the face of Tulod's testimony.
People v. Temanel, 341 SCRA 319 (2000)
FACTS: Renato Sucilan, his wife Adelina, daughter Liezl, and
brother Romeo were eating dinner in Renato's house. After dinner,
Adelina prepared for bed while Renato played with Liezl. Romeo went
home to his own hut situated five meters away. Suddenly, a stone was
hurled into Renato's house hitting the petromax lamp. Immediately,
brothers Jose and Eddie Temanel entered the house. Jose poked
Renato with a bladed weapon while Eddie ordered Adelina to take out
their money and valuables. Later, cohorts of the Temanels entered the
hut. Osis grabbed Liezl, and held a knife against her. Terrified, Adelina
put the valuables in an empty milk can and placed the same outside
the door. Efren Temanel, who was outside the hut, took the can. The
intruders tied the couple. When Renato and Adelina were able to free
themselves, the former stepped out of the house and was shocked to
find his brother, Romeo, dead with several stab wounds in the neck
and his intestines exposed. The pieces of jewelry he usually wore,
were no longer on his body.
HELD: All the elements of robbery with homicide concur in
this case. The properties taken consisted of pieces of jewelry, a radio,
rice, money and other valuables, all of which clearly belonged to the
Sucilans. The properties were violently taken and intent to gain can be
presumed from the unlawful taking. In addition, Romeo Sucilan was
killed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery.
Where homicide is perpetrated with a view to rob, the
offense is robbery with homicide. But if robbery was an afterthought
and a minor incident in the homicide, there are two distinct offenses.
Here, the killing was committed in the course of the robbery. The fact
that it was Efren Temanel and not accused-appellants, Eddie and Jose
Temanel, who stabbed Romeo is of no moment. In People v. Mendoza,
if all accused take part in a robbery resulting in death, all of them shall
be held liable for robbery with homicide in the absence of proof that
they prevented the killing.
People v. Cruz, 380 SCRA 13 (2002)
FACTS: Donato Cruz, who was high on drugs, entered the
house of the Robleses, and sat on a sofa near the kitchen. While seated
on the sofa, Laura saw respondent and she became hysterical and
started shouting. Thinking that he will be assaulted by Laura, Cruz
went inside the house, got hold of a pointed object and stabbed to
death Laura Robles and her 5-year old daughter, Lara. Thereafter, he
ransacked the cabinet of the Robleses taking away a Minolta camera,
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
171
a wedding ring and P8,000.00 in cash, as well as an undetermined
amount of US dollars. The RTC convicted Cruz of two (2) counts of
murder and one (1) count of theft. Appellant argues that he should
have been charged with the crime of robbery with homicide.
HELD: The Court held that the argument of the Appellant is
without merit. The special complex crime of robbery with homicide is
primarily a crime against property, and not against persons, homicide
being a mere incident of the robbery with the latter being the main
purpose and object of the criminal (People vs. Navales, 266 SCRA 569
[1997]). In the case at bar, the evidence on record shows that
appellant stole the camera and cash only as an afterthought. His
primary purpose was to kill Laura and her 5-year old daughter, Lara,
after he panicked. Hence, the prosecution was correct when it did not
charge appellant with the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
People v. Zuela, 323 SCRA 589 (2000)
FACTS: Maria Abendaño was engaged in business. She had a
store, operated a passenger jeepney and engaged in the buy and sale
of palay. Her sister Romualda also had a store. Accused Nelson was
Maria's store helper. Accused Tito Zuela alias "Anting" helped Romualda
in her store during palay season. The other accused Maximo Velarde
was known to Romualda because she met him at a birthday party held
at Maria's house. The three accused were friends. Maximo, Tito and
Nelson conceived the plan to hold-up Maria while drinking in front of
Romualda's store because Maximo needed money for his fare to Manila.
Maximo, Tito and Nelson boarded the palay-laden jeepney of Maria and
upon reaching an uninhabited place. Maximo poked a gun at the driver
and shot him. He also shot Maria at the neck when the latter shouted.
Nelson and Tito alighted from the jeepney. Nelson went to the left
front side of the jeepney, while Tito approached the right front side
of the jeepney, in the process stepping on the sleeping John-John who
was then awakened. The boy stood up and said, "You will see I will tell
my father that you killed my mother." To avoid being identified by the
boy, Tito told Maximo to kill the boy. Maximo then took hold of the
boy's hair and slashed his neck. Tito took Maria's money and divided it,
each accused receiving about seven thousand (P7,000.00) pesos from
the loot.
HELD: The crime committed is the special complex crime of
robbery with homicide defined and penalized in Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code. The trial court correctly considered the crime as
robbery with homicide and not "robbery with triple homicide" as
charged in the information. The term "homicide" in Article 294(1) is
used in its generic sense, embracing not only the act which results in
death but also all other acts producing anything short of death.
Neither is the nature of the offense altered by the number of killings
in connection with the robbery. The multiplicity of victims slain on the
occasion of the robbery is only appreciated as an aggravating
circumstance. This would preclude an anomalous situation where,
from the standpoint of the gravity of the offense, robbery with one
killing would be treated in the same way that robbery with multiple
killings would be.
People v. Dinamling, 379 SCRA 107 (2002)
FACTS: Marilyn Pajarillo was in their house lying down in
bed with her 2-year old daughter. Seated beside her was 11-year old
Rosemarie Malalay, who was waiting for her father Rogelio. Rogelio
was then in the patio, outside the house, drinking gin with Marilyn's
husband Charlie Pajarillo and Deogracias Acosta. Suddenly, Orlando
Dinamling entered their house and poked a long gun at Marilyn's
forehead, ordered her to lie prone on the ground. Marilyn merely sat
down. Dinamman, with a short firearm, entered their sari-sari store,
searched their belongings and took more or less P1,500.00 in cash
representing her sales, two (rims of Champion cigarettes, one dozen
cans of sardines and one pack of Juicy Fruit chewing gum. Outside,
Fernando Dinamling and Linnam poked guns at the heads of Rogelio
and Deogracias, who were then lying prostrate on the ground.. After a
while, Rogelio and Deogaracias were shot to death. The trial court's
ruled that Orlando and Fenando Dinamling, Diinamman and Linnam are
guilty of "robbery with double homicide"
HELD: Accused-appellants' crime is robbery with homicide.
The trial court's denomination of the offense as "robbery with double
homicide" is erroneous. It is settled that regardless of the number of
homicides committed, the crime should still be denominated as
robbery with homicide. The number of persons killed is immaterial and
does not increase the penalty prescribed by Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code. Stated differently, the homicides or murders and physical
injuries, irrespective of their numbers, committed on the occasion or
by reason of the robbery are merged in the composite crime of robbery
with homicide.
People v. Daniela, 401 SCRA 519 (2002)
FACTS: Manuel Daniela and Jose Baylosis came to the house
of Ronito and his common-law wife, Maria Fe to borrow money.
Manuel, Jose, and Ronito then had a drinking spree. Later, Manuel
armed with a .38 caliber gun, entered the bedroom of Ronito and Maria
Fe and poked the said gun on Maria Fe. Jose, armed with a knife
followed Manuel to the bedroom. Upon Manuel’s order Jose tied the
hands of Maria Fe behind her back and put a tape on her mouth. Jose
also tied the hands of Marife’s cousin, Leo. Jose and Manuel then
divested Maria Fe of her necklace, rings and earrings. Manuel
demanded that she give them her money but Maria Fe told them that
she had used her money to pay her partners in the fish vending
business. Manuel and Jose did not believe Maria Fe and ransacked the
room but failed to find money. Manuel then threatened to explode the
grenade tucked under his shirt and kill Maria Fe, her family and their
househelps if she refused to surrender her money. Petrified, Maria Fe
took the money from her waist pouch and gave the same to Manuel
and Jose. Manuel took a blanket and ordered Jose to kill Ronito with
it. Jose went to the kitchen, got a knife, covered Ronito with the
blanket and sat on top of him then stabbed the latter several times.
Manuel also stabbed Ronito on different parts of his body. Manuel hit
Ronito with the butt of his gun. Jose slit the throat of Ronito and took
the latter's wristwatch and ring. Manuel then raped Julifer, a
househelp of Marife.
HELD: The law does not require that the sole motive of the
malefactor is robbery and commits homicide by reason or on the
occasion thereof. In People vs. Tidula, et al., this Court ruled that even
if the malefactor intends to kill and rob another, it does not preclude
his conviction for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide.
In People v. Damaso, the Court held that the fact that the intent of
the felons was tempered with a desire also to avenge grievances
against the victim killed, does not negate the conviction of the accused
and punishment for robbery with homicide.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
172
 A conviction for robbery with homicide is proper even if the
homicide is committed before, during or after the commission of the
robbery. The homicide may be committed by the actor at the spur of
the moment or by mere accident. Even if two or more persons are
killed and a woman is raped and physical injuries are inflicted on
another, on the occasion or by reason of robbery, there is only one
special complex crime of robbery with homicide. What is primordial is
the result obtained without reference or distinction as to the
circumstances, cause, modes or persons intervening in the commission
of the crime.
Robbery with homicide is committed even if the victim of
the robbery is different from the victim of homicide, as long as the
homicide is committed by reason or on the occasion of the robbery. It
is not even necessary that the victim of the robbery is the very person
the malefactor intended to rob. For the conviction of the special
complex crime, the robbery itself must be proved as conclusively as
any other element of the crime. It may be true that the original intent
of appellant Manuel was to borrow again money from Ronito and Maria
Fe but later on conspired with Jose and robbed the couple of their
money and pieces of jewelry, and on the occasion thereof, killed
Ronito. Nonetheless, the appellants are guilty of robbery with
homicide.
People v. Napalit, 396 SCRA 687 (2003)
FACTS:A group of more than six armed men including Napalit
barged into the Tondo General Hospital. One of the armed men pointed
a gun at the security guard and announced a hold-up. Simultaneously,
Napalit pointed a gun at, and grabbed the firearm of, another security
guard. Four members of the group then entered the cashier's office of
the hospital and ordered the employees to lie down on the floor. One
of them pointed a gun at the cashier, Alonzo, and ordered him to open
the vault. Before Alonzo could do as instructed, he was searched for
weapons in the course of which his wallet containing P450.00 in cash
was taken. Alonzo then opened the vault which the four emptied of
P1,010,274.90 in cash. While the four malefactors were at the cashier's
office, another security guard, Gomez, who was manning the hospital
gate was disarmed of his service pistol, pushed outside the hospital
premises, and shot twice by one of the armed men. The four armed
men who emptied the vault then rushed out of the hospital and one of
them also shot Gomez who had by then collapsed on the ground. Two
of them headed toward a Toyota Tamaraw vehicle driven by Castor
which was on a stop position, due to heavy traffic, in front of the
hospital. One of the duo ordered the passenger at the front seat to get
off the vehicle. The other, after forcing Castor to alight from the
vehicle, drove it and fled with his companion. The RTC found Napalit
guilty of robbery with homicide and violation of R. A. 6539 (the Anti-
Carnapping Act), respectively. Napalit argues that assuming that he
had indeed participated in the incident, he should only be held liable
for robbery and not for the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
HELD: In a long line of cases, the Court has ruled that
whenever homicide is committed as a consequence or on the occasion
of the robbery, all those who took part as principals in the robbery will
also be held guilty as principals in the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide although they did not take part in the homicide, unless
it is clearly shown that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
(People v. Lago, 358 SCRA 550 (2001), People v. Liad, 355 SCRA 11
(2001), People v. Pedroso, 336 SCRA 163)
People v. Lara (2006)
The Court disagrees with the Court of Appeals that appellant
committed the crime of robbery with homicide in Criminal Case No.
97-13706. There is nothing in the records that would show that the
principal purpose of appellant was to rob the victim of his shotgun
(Serial No. 9600942). It must be emphasized that when the victim and
appellant met and had a heated argument, the absence of the intent
to rob on the part of the appellant was apparent. Appellant was not
trying to rob the victim. Appellant’s act of taking the shotgun was not
for the purpose of robbing the victim, but to protect himself from the
victim. No one would in one’s right mind just leave a firearm lying
around after being in a heated argument with another person. Having
failed to establish that appellant’s original criminal design was
robbery, appellant could only be convicted of the separate crimes of
either murder or homicide, as the case may be, and theft.
Bar Questions
Robbery w/ force upon things (2000)
A, brother of B, with the intention of having a night out with
his friends, took the coconut shell which is being used by B
as a bank for coins from inside their locked cabinet using
their common key. Forthwith, A broke the coconut shell
outside of their home in the presence of his friends. What is
the criminal liability of A, if any? Explain. (3%) Is A
exempted from criminal liability under Article 332 of the
Revised Penal Code for being a brother of B? Explain. (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
a) A is criminally liable for Robbery with force upon things,
because the coconut shell with the coins inside, was taken
with intent to gain and broken outside of their home, (Art.
299 (b) (2). RPC).
b) No, A is not exempt from criminal liability under Art. 332
because said Article applies only to theft, swindling or
malicious mischief. Here, the crime committed is robbery.
Robbery w/ Homicide - R.A. No. 7659 (2005)
Jose employed Mario as gardener and Henry as cook. They
learned that Jose won P500,000.00 in the lotto, and decided
to rob him. Mario positioned himself about 30 meters away
from Jose’s house and acted as lookout. For his part, Henry
surreptitiously gained entry into the house and killed Jose
who was then having his dinner. Henry found the
P500,000.00 and took it. Henry then took a can of gasoline
from the garage and burned the house to conceal the acts.
Mario and Henry fled, but were arrested around 200 meters
away from the house by alert barangay tanods. The tanods
recovered the P500,000.00. Mario and Henry were charged
with and convicted of robbery with homicide, with the
aggravating circumstances of arson, dwelling, and nighttime.
Mario moved to reconsider the decision maintaining that he
was not at the scene of the crime and was not aware that
Henry killed the victim; hence, he was guilty only of robbery,
as an accomplice. Mario also claimed that he conspired with
Henry to commit robbery but not to kill Jose. Henry,
likewise, moved to reconsider the decision, asserting that he
is liable only for attempted robbery with homicide with no
aggravating circumstance, considering that he and Mario did
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
173
not benefit from the P500,000.00. He further alleged that
arson is a felony and not an aggravating circumstance;
dwelling is not aggravating in attempted robbery with
homicide; and nighttime is not aggravating because the
house of Jose was lighted at the time he was killed. Resolve
with reasons the respective motions of Mario and Henry.
(7%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Mario is not correct. Mario conspired and acted in concert
with Henry to commit robbery. Hence, the act of one is the
act of all and the extent of the specific participation of each
individual conspirator becomes secondary, each being held
liable for the criminal deed(s) executed by another or others.
As a conspirator, Mario casts his lot with his fellow
conspirators and becomes liable to any third person who
may get killed in the course of implementing the criminal
design. (People v. Punzalan, et al.. G.R. No. 78853,
November 8, 1991) Henry is incorrect, since he acquired
possession of the money. The crime of robbery with force
and intimidation is consummated when the robber acquires
possession of the property, even if for a short time. It is no
defense that they had no opportunity to dispose of or
benefit from the money taken. (People v. Salvilia, et al., G.R.
No. 88163, April 26, 1990) Since the crime in robbery with
force and intimidation against persons (robbery with
homicide), dwelling is aggravating. Arson, which
accompanied the crime of robbery with homicide is absorbed
(Art. 294, RFC as amended by R.A. No. 7659) and is not
aggravating because the RPC does not provide that such
crime is an aggravating circumstance. (People v. Regala,
G.R. No. 130508, April 5, 2000) Nighttime, likewise, is not
aggravating. There is no showing that the same was
purposely sought by the offenders to facilitate the
commission of the crime or impunity.
Robbery w/ Homicide (1996)
Jose, Domingo, Manolo, and Fernando, armed with bolos, at
about one o'clock in the morning, robbed a house at a
desolate place where Danilo, his wife, and three daughters
were living. While the four were in the process of ransacking
Danilo's house, Fernando, noticing that one of Danilo's
daughters was trying to get away, ran after her and finally
caught up with her in a thicket somewhat distant from the
house. Fernando, before bringing back the daughter to the
house, raped her first. Thereafter, the four carted away the
belongings of Danilo and his family. a) What crime did Jose,
Domingo, Manolo and Fernando commit? Explain. b)
Suppose, after the robbery, the four took turns in raping the
three daughters of Danilo inside
the latter's house, but before they left, they killed the whole
family to prevent identification, what crime did the four
commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
(a) Jose, Domingo, and Manolo committed Robbery, while
Fernando committed complex crime of Robbery with Rape.
Conspiracy can be inferred from the manner the offenders
committed the robbery but the rape was committed by
Fernando at a place "distant from the house" where the
robbery was committed, not in the presence of the other
conspirators. Hence, Fernando alone should answer for the
rape, rendering him liable for the special complex crime.
(People vs. Canturia et. al, G.R. 108490, 22 June 1995}
b) The crime would be Robbery with Homicide because the
killings were by reason (to prevent identification) and on the
occasion of the robbery. The multiple rapes committed and
the fact that several persons were killed [homicide), would
be considered as aggravating circumstances. The rapes are
synonymous with Ignominy and the additional killing
synonymous with cruelty, (People vs. Solis, 182 SCRA;
People vs.
Plaga, 202 SCRA 531)
Robbery w/ Homicide (1998)
A, B, C and D all armed, robbed a bank, and when they were
about to get out of the bank, policemen came and ordered
them to surrender but they fired on the police officers who
fired back and shot it out with them.
1. Suppose a bank employee was killed and the bullet which
killed him came from the firearm of the police officers, with
what crime shall you charge A, B. C and D? [3%]
2. Suppose it was robber D who was killed by the policemen
and the prosecutor charged A, B and C with
Robbery and Homicide. They demurred arguing that they (A,
B and C) were not the ones who killed robber D, hence, the
charge should only be Robbery. How would you resolve their
argument? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1. A, B, C and D should be charged with the crime of
robbery with homicide because the death of the bank
employee was brought about by the acts of said offenders
on the occasion of the robbery. They shot it out with the
policeman, thereby causing such death by reason or on the
occasion of a robbery; hence, the composite crime of
robbery with homicide.
2. The argument is valid, considering that a separate charge
for Homicide was filed. It would be different if the charge
filed was for the composite crime of robbery with homicide
which is a single, indivisible offense.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
2. The argument raised by A, B and C is not correct because
their liability is not only for Robbery but for the special
complex crime of Robbery with homicide. But the facts
stated impresses that separate crimes of Robbery "and"
Homicide were charged, which is not correct. What was
committed was a single indivisible offense of Robbery with
homicide, not two crimes.
Robbery w/ Homicide (2003)
A learned two days ago that B had received dollar bills
amounting to $10,000 from his daughter working in the
United States. With the intention of robbing B of those
dollars, A entered B's house at midnight, armed with a knife
which he used to gain entry, and began quietly searching
the drawers, shelves, and other likely receptacles of the
cash. While doing that, B awoke, rushed out from the
bedroom, and grappled with A for the possession of the
knife which A was then holding. After stabbing B to death, A
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
174
turned over B's pillow and found the latter's wallet
underneath the pillow, which was bulging with the dollar
bills he was looking for. A took the bills and left the house.
What crime or crimes were committed? 8%
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed is robbery with homicide, a composite
crime. This is so because A's primordial criminal intent is to
commit a robbery and in the course of the robbery, the
killing of B took place. Both the robbery and the killing were
consummated, thus giving rise to the special complex crime
of robbery with homicide. The primary criminal intent being
to commit a robbery, any killing on the "occasion" of the
robbery, though not by reason thereof, is considered a
component of the crime of robbery with homicide as a single
indivisible offense.
Robbery w/ Homicide; Special Complex Crime (1995)
Victor, Ricky, Rod and Ronnie went to the store of Mang
Pandoy. Victor and Ricky entered the store while Rod and
Ronnie posted themselves at the door. After ordering beer
Ricky complained that he was shortchanged although Mang
Pandoy vehemently denied it. Suddenly Ricky whipped out a
knife as he announced "Hold-up ito!" and stabbed Mang
Pandoy to death. Rod boxed the store's salesgirl Lucy to
prevent her from helping Mang Pandoy. When Lucy ran out
of the store to seek help from people next door she was
chased by Ronnie. As soon as Ricky had stabbed Mang
Pandoy, Victor scooped up the money from the cash box.
Then Victor and Ricky dashed to the street and shouted,
"Tumakbo na kayo!" Rod was 14 and Ronnie was 17. The
money and other articles looted from the store of Mang
Pandoy were later found in the houses of Victor and Ricky.
Discuss fully the criminal liability of Victor, Ricky, Rod and
Ronnie.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
All are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide. The acts of Ricky in stabbing Mang Pandoy to
death, of Rod in boxing the salesgirl to prevent her from
helping Mang Pandoy, of Ronnie in chasing the salesgirl to
prevent her in seeking help, of Victor in scooping up money
from the cash box, and of Ricky and Victor in dashing to the
street and announcing the escape, are all indicative of
conspiracy.
The rule is settled that when homicide takes place as a
consequence or on the occasion of a robbery, all those
who took part in the robbery are guilty as principals of the
crime of robbery with homicide, unless the accused tried to
prevent the killing (People vs. Baello, 224 SCRA 218).
Further, the aggravating circumstance of craft could be
assessed against the accused for pretending to be customers
of Mang Pandoy.
Robbery; Homicide; Arson (1995)
Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi
Arabia with considerable savings. Knowing him to be
"loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to
poker session at a rented beach cottage. When he was
losing almost all his money which to him was his savings of
a lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by his
friends. Angered by the betrayal he decided to take revenge
on the three cheats. Harry ordered several bottles of
Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to drink,
as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his
companions already sound asleep he hacked all of them to
death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through
the pockets of his victims and got back all the money he
lost. He then ran away but not before burning the cottage to
hide his misdeed. The following day police investigators
found among the debris the charred bodies of Jason,
Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the resort. After
preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged
Harry with the complex crime of arson with quadruple
homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss
fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Harry was net properly charged. Harry should have been
charged with three (3) separate crimes, namely: murder,
theft and arson. Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with
evident premeditation, as there was considerable lapse of
time before he decided to commit the crime and the actual
commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed means
which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave.
Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were drunk
and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out
his plan of murder with impunity.
The taking of the money from the victims was a mere
afterthought of the killings. Hence, Harry committed the
separate crime of theft and not the complex crime of
robbery with homicide. Although theft was committed
against dead persons, it is still legally possible as the
offended party are the estates of the victims. In burning the
cottage to hide his misdeed. Harry became liable for another
separate crime, arson. This act of burning was not necessary
for the consummation of the two (2) previous offenses he
committed. The fact that the caretaker died from the blaze
did not qualify Harry's crime into a complex crime of arson
with homicide for there is no such crime. Hence, Harry was
improperly charged with the complex crime of arson with
quadruple homicide and robbery. Harry should have been
charged with three (3) separate crimes, murder, theft and
arson.
Robbery with rape
Like in robbery with homicide, the offender must have the intent
to take the personal property belonging to another with
intent to gain, and such intent must precede the rape.
There is no such crime as robbery with attempted rape.
It must be consummated. Otherwise, they are separate
offences.
When the taking of personal property of a woman is an
independent act following defendant’s failure to
consummate the rape, there are two distinct crimes
committed: attempted rape and theft.
Additional rapes committed on the same occasion of robbery will
not increase the penalty. All acts of rape on that occasion
being integrated in one composite crime.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
175
When the taking of property after the rape is not with intent to
gain, there is neither theft nor robbery committed.
The civil liability for rape in robbery with rape has been set at
P50,000.
When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery,
the crime is robbery with homicide and rape under par 1 of
Art 294, the rape to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance only. (note: this is in the cases of Pp vs Ganal,
Pp vs Basca, and Pp vs Villa. but i disagree with this ruling
based on moral grounds and lack of legal basis. how could
rape be merely an aggravating circumstance?)
People vs. Patola
Robbery committed with rape is punished under RPC Art 294 par 2, not
under RPC 335 on qualified rape.
People vs. Dinola
Facts: Dinola saw victim Marilyn’s watch after he had raped her. She
refused to give him the watch so he took if forcibly from her and left.
Dinola was convicted of robbery with rape.
Held: The crime of robbery and rape should be punished as 2 separate
offences. If the original design was to commit rape but the accused
after committing rape also committed robbery (more of an
afterthought, even accidental) because the opportunity presented
itself, the criminal act should be viewed as 2 distinct offences. If the
intention of the accused was to commit robbery but rape was also
committed even before the robbery, the crime of robbery with rape
was committed.
People vs Moreno
Facts: Accused Moreno, Deloria and Maniquez robbed the Mohnani
spouses. Deloria raped househelp Narcisa while Maniquez raped
househelp Mary Ann. Moreno was convicted of robbery while Deloria
and Maniquez, robbery with rape.
Held: Moreno who took no part in the rape is guilty of robbery only.
Ruling was correct.
People v. Fabon, 328 SCRA 302 (2000)
FACTS: Locsin Fabon, alias "Loklok," entered the home of
64 year-old, Bonifacia Lasquite and forcibly took the victim’s money
amounting to P25,000.00. On the occasion of the robbery, Fabon raped
Lasquite. Thereafter, Fabon strangled and stabbed Lasquite with a
knife resulting to her death. The RTC convicted Fabon of Robbery with
Homicide and Rape, penalized under Article 294, number 1 of the RPC,
as amended by R.A. 7659.
HELD: The trial court inaccurately designated the crime
committed as "robbery with homicide and rape." When the special
complex crime of robbery with homicide is accompanied by another
offense like rape or intentional mutilation, such additional offense is
treated as an aggravating circumstance which would result in the
imposition of the maximum penalty of death. The Court cited the case
of People vs. Lascuna, where it was held that “We agree with the
Solicitor General's observation that the crime committed was
erroneously designated as robbery with homicide, rape and physical
injuries. The proper designation is robbery with homicide aggravated
by rape. When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of
robbery, it is the first paragraph of Article 294 of the Revised Penal
Code which applies, the rape to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. . . .
People v. Domingo, 383 SCRA 43 (2002)
FACTS: Appellant Domingo Temporal, Pedro, Valdez, and
Rivera went to the house of Spouses Valentin and Clara Gabertan,
armed with a piece of bamboo, 2x2 piece of wood, ipil-ipil posts and
bolo, They assaulted and clubbed Valentin with their weapons,
weakening and injuring him. Eventually they stole from the Gabertan
spouses cash in the amount of P5,350.00, 1 ladies gold Seiko watch, 9
turkeys, and 2 chickens. Thereafter, while Rivera guarded Valentin,
the four accused took turns in raping Carla outside the house where
she was forcibly laid on the cogon grass. RTC found appellant guilty of
robbery with multiple rape.
HELD: The RTC should have convicted appellant of robbery
with rape instead of robbery with multiple rape. In the special complex
crime of robbery with rape, the true intent of the accused must first
be determined, because their intent determines the offense they
committed. To sustain a conviction for robbery with rape, it is
imperative that the robbery itself must be conclusively established. To
support a conviction therefor, proof of the rape alone is not sufficient.
Robbery with rape occurs when the following elements are present:
(1) personal property is taken with violence or intimidation against
persons, (2) the property taken belongs to another, (3) the taking is
done with animo lucrandi, and (4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.
In the case at bar, all the foregoing elements are present.
The contemporaneous acts of appellant and his co-accused stress the
fact that they were initially motivated by animus lucrandi. They first
demanded guns, moneys and animals from Valentin Gabertan.
Apparently, it was only when they entered the house and saw his wife
when they thought of raping her.The prosecution likewise established
that appellant and his co-accused took chickens, a watch and money
from complainants through violence.
People v. Verceles, 388 SCRA 515 (2002)
FACTS: Accused Verceles alias "Baldog", Corpuz, Soriano
alias "Merto", Ramos and Soriano entered the house of Mrs. Rosita
Quilates by forcibly destroying the grills of the window. Once inside,
they took away 1 colored T.V., 1 VHS, assorted jewelries, 1 alarm clock
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
176
and 1 radio cassettes. In the course of the robbery, Soriano,
succumbed to lustful desires and raped Maribeth Bolito while the
others just stood outside the door and did nothing to prevent Soriano.
HELD: Once conspiracy is established between two accused
in the commission of the crime of robbery, they would be both equally
culpable for the rape committed by one of them on the occasion of the
robbery, unless any of them proves that he endeavored to prevent the
other from committing the rape. The rule in this jurisdiction is that
whenever a rape is committed as a consequence, or on the occasion of
a robbery, all those who took part therein are liable as principals of
the crime of robbery with rape, although not all of them took part in
the rape. Appellants are guilty beyond reasonable doubt of the crime
of Robbery with Rape punished under Article 294 (1) of the Revised
Penal Code.
People v. Moreno, 374 SCRA 667 (2002)
The special complex crime of robbery with rape defined in
Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 294 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended, employs the clause "when the robbery shall
have been accompanied with rape." In other words, to be liable for
such crime, the offender must have the intent to take the personal
property of another under circumstances that makes the taking one of
robbery, and such intent must precede the rape. If the original plan
was to commit rape, but the accused after committing the rape also
committed robbery when the opportunity presented itself, the robbery
should be viewed as a separate and distinct crime.
A painstaking assessment of the evidence in this case
convinces us that ROGELIO committed two separate offenses of rape
and theft, and not the special complex crime of robbery with rape.
Immediately after ROGELIO put his arms around MARITES and directed
the knife at her neck, he dragged Marites to the vacant space in ABC
Commercial Complex and removed her clothes. These acts clearly
showed that ROGELIO had in mind sexual gratification. This intent was
further established by the fact that when MARITES offered to give her
ring to ROGELIO, the latter did not take it and instead replied,
"Mamaya na iyan"; "That will come later on because I will give it back
to you but you have to follow me first." Again, when ROGELIO removed
his pants, MARITES told him to get her bag if he needed money; but
ROGELIO replied "I do not need money." After giving vent to his lustful
desire, he snatched the victim's shoulder bag, which was then on her
right foot, and then he ran away. Clearly then, the taking of personal
property was not the original evil plan of ROGELIO. It was an
afterthought following the rape.
Significantly, the constitutive element of violence or
intimidation against persons in robbery was not present at the time of
the snatching of the shoulder bag of MARITES. The force or intimidation
exerted by ROGELIO against the victim was for a reason foreign to the
fact of the taking of the bag. It was for the purpose of accomplishing
his lustful desire. Hence, it cannot be considered for the purpose of
classifying the crime as robbery. Accused-appellant may thus be held
liable for simple theft only, in addition to the crime of rape.
People v. Seguis, 349 SCRA 547 (2001)
FACTS: Seguis a.k.a. Junior, Estebe a.k.a. Dodong, Doquila
a.k.a. Lolong, r Canico, Gibertas, dela Cruz, and a certain John Doe
took turns in raping Juliet Magamayo at the house of his friend where
she stayed for the night. One of the said accused took her gold ring,
bracelet and cash though Juliet can not pinpoint who specifically did
it among the many accused. The RTC finds each of the accused,
Adriano guilty beyond reasonable doubt as principal of the crime of
simple rape under Article 335 of the Revised Penal Code
HELD: It is to be noted that the accused in this case were
originally indicted for the felony of robbery with multiple rape, a
special complex crime punishable under Art. 294, par. 1 of the Revised
Penal Code and which is committed "when the robbery shall have been
accompanied by rape." The said provision, needless to say, covers
cases of multiple rapes. This is primarily due to the fact that the
juridical concept of this crime does not limit the consummation of rape
against one single victim or to one single act, making other rapes in
excess of that number as separate, independent offense or offenses.
All the rapes are merged in the composite, integrated whole that is
robbery with rape, so long as the rapes accompanied the robbery. It
does not matter too whether the rape occurred before, during, or after
the robbery.
Still and all, this does not change the nature of the felony.
It is essentially a crime against property. To sustain a conviction, it is
imperative that the robbery itself must be conclusively established;
just as the fact that it was the accused who committed it be proved
beyond reasonable doubt. The prosecution must be able to
demonstrate the level of their participation with legal and moral
certainty, including the existence of a conspiracy, if any. Otherwise,
those who were charged should be acquitted, at least for the robbery.
Proof of the rape alone is not sufficient to support a conviction for the
crime of robbery with rape.
The lower court's finding of the accused’non-participation in
the robbery does not mean that they are totally guiltless. They will
still be held accountable for whatever unlawful acts they may have
committed, and for which acts they were charged. In a criminal action
for robbery with rape, where the prosecution failed to prove the robo
or the participation of the accused in it, the latter may still be
convicted for the rape. The trial court’s ruling that the appellants had
carnal knowledge of the private complainant by using force and
intimidation, convicting them of one count of rape each because there
was no showing that they conspired or assisted each other in
committing those rapes is affirmed.
People v. Gano, 353 SCRA 126 (2001)
Accused Castanito Gano killed three (3) persons by reason or
on the occasion of the robbery. The question that needs to be resolved
is whether the “multiplicity of homicides” could be appreciated as an
aggravating circumstance. For sometime, this ticklish issue has been
the subject of conflicting views by this Court when it held in some
cases that the additional rapes/homicides committed on the occasion
of robbery would not increase the penalty, while in other cases it ruled
that the “multiplicity of rapes/homicides” committed could be
appreciated as an aggravating circumstance. But in People v. Regala
this Court spoke with finality on the matter —
It should be noted that there is no law providing that the
additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as aggravating
circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating circumstances under
Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive as opposed to the
enumeration in Article 13 of the same Code regarding mitigating
circumstances where there is specific paragraph (paragraph 10)
providing for analogous circumstances.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
177
 It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in the case of
multiple homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would result in an
"anomalous situation" where from the standpoint of the gravity of the
offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery
with multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A
penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person
should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the
statute.
This case is singular in its barbarity and nauseating in the
manner with which the accused, bolo in hand, butchered his preys.
Notwithstanding the viciousness with which he perpetrated the
offense, we are constrained to apply the principle laid down in People
v. Regala, and accordingly, the two (2) other killings contrary to the
ruling of the trial court, should not be appreciated as aggravating
circumstances. Gano is guilty of Robbery with Homicide.
People v. Regala, 329 SCRA 707 (2000)
FACTS: Sixteen-year old, Nerissa Tagala, and her
grandmother Consuelo Arevalo were sleeping, when appellant
Armando Regala and his two other companions entered the former's
house. Regala and his companions entered the house through the
kitchen by removing the pieces of wood under the stove. Regala went
to the room of Nerissa and her grandmother and poked an 8-inch gun
on them, one after the other. Nerissa and her grandmother were
hogtied by appellant and his companions. Thereafter, Nerissa was
raped by twice by Regala in bed and in the kitchen. After the rape,
appellant and his two companions counted the money which they took
from the "aparador. Appellant and his companions then ran away with
P3,000 in cash, 2 pieces of ring and two wrist watches.
HELD: It should be noted that there is no law providing that
the additional rape/s or homicide/s should be considered as
aggravating circumstance. The enumeration of aggravating
circumstances under Article 14 of the Revised Penal Code is exclusive
as opposed to the enumeration in Article 13 of the same code regarding
mitigating circumstances where there is a specific paragraph
(paragraph 10) providing for analogous circumstances.
It is true that the additional rapes (or killings in. the case of
multiple homicide on the occasion of the robbery) would result in an
"anomalous situation" where from the standpoint of the gravity of the
offense, robbery with one rape would be on the same level as robbery
with multiple rapes. However, the remedy lies with the legislature. A
penal law is liberally construed in favor of the offender and no person
should be brought within its terms if he is not clearly made so by the
statute.
Requisites of robbery under 2nd case of par 4 Art 294:
1. that any of the physical injuries defined in par 3 & 4
Art 263 was inflicted in the course of the robbery,
and
2. that any of them was inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery.
Bar Questions
Robbery w/ Rape (1999)
Two young men, A and B, conspired to rob a residential
house of things of value. They succeeded in the commission
of their original plan to simply rob. A, however, was sexually
aroused when he saw the lady owner of the house and so,
raped her. The lady victim testified that B did not in any way
participate in the rape but B watched the happening from a
window and did nothing to stop the rape. Is B as criminally
liable as A for robbery with rape? Explain. (4%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Yes, B is as criminally liable as A for the composite crime of
robbery with rape under Art. 294 (1). Although the
conspiracy of A and B was only to rob, B was present when
the rape was being committed which gave rise to a
composite crime, a single indivisible offense of robbery with
rape. B would not have been liable had he endeavored to
prevent the commission of the rape. But since he did not
when he could have done so, he in effect acquiesced with
the rape as a component of the robbery and so he is also
liable for robbery with rape.
Robbery w/ Rape; Conspiracy (2004)
Together XA, YB and ZC planned to rob Miss OD. They
entered her house by breaking one of the windows in her
house. After taking her personal properties and as they were
about to leave, XA decided on impulse to rape OD. As XA
was molesting her, YB and ZC stood outside the door of her
bedroom and did nothing to prevent XA from raping OD.
What crime or crimes did XA, YB and ZC commit, and what
is the criminal liability of each? Explain briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by XA, YB and ZC is the composite
crime of Robbery with Rape, a single, indivisible offense
under Art. 294(1) of the Revised Penal Code. Although the
conspiracy among the offenders was only to commit robbery
and only XA raped CD, the other robbers, YB and ZC, were
present and aware of the rape being committed by their co-
conspirator. Having done nothing to stop XA from
committing the rape, YB and ZC thereby concurred in the
commission of the rape by their co-conspirator XA.
The criminal liability of all, XA, YZ and ZC, shall be the same,
as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with
rape which is a single, indivisible offense where the rape
accompanying the robbery is just a component.
Robbery; Rape (1997)
After raping the complainant in her house, the accused
struck a match to smoke a cigarette before departing from
the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to
notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand
over the watch. When she refused, he forcibly grabbed it
from her. The accused was charged with and convicted of
the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the
court correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the court erred in convicting the accused of the special
complex crime of robbery with rape. The accused should
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
178
 instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes of robbery no moment because robbery is committed not only by
and rape, since the primary intent or objective of the accused employing force upon things but also by employing violence
was only to rape the complainant, and his commission of the against or intimidation of persons.
robbery was merely an afterthought. The robbery must
precede the rape. In order to give rise to the special complex
crime for which the court convicted the accused.
Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed
in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the use
of firearm on a street, road or alley
Robbery with violence or intimidation

 Violence or intimidation need not be present before or at Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person is
the exact moment when the object is taken. It may enter qualified if it is committed:
at any time before the owner is finally deprived of
his property.
 Intimidation exists when the acts executed or words uttered
by the ofender are capable of producing fear in the person 1. In an uninhabited place;
threatened.
 In robbery with intimidation, there must be acts done by 2. By a band;
the accused which, either by their own nature or by reason
3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle, or
of the circumstances under which they are executed, inspire
airship;
fear in the person against whom they are directed.
 Difference between threats to extort money and 4. By entering the passengers’ compartments in
robbery thru intimidation: a train, or in any manner taking the
o In robbery, the intimidation is actual and immediate; in passengers thereof by surprise in the
threats, the intimidation is conditional or future. respective conveyances; or
o In robbery, the intimidation is personal; in threats, it 5. On a street, road, highway or alley, and the intimidation is
may be thru an intermediary.
made with the use of firearms, the offender shall be
o In threats, the intimidation may refer to the person,
punished by the maximum periods of the proper penalties
honor or property of the offended party or that of his
family; in robbery, the intimidation is directed only to prescribed in Article 294.
the person of the victim.
o In robbery, the gain of the culprit is immediate; in
threats, the gain is not immediate. Any of these qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the
 Difference between robbery with violence and grave information and proved during the trial.
coercion:
o In both crimes, there is violence used by the offender. The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only robbery
o In robbery, there is intent to gain; no such requirement on a street, road, highway or alley.
in grave coercion. In grave coercion, the intent is to
compel another to do something against his will. Art 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide, or robbery with
 Difference between robbery and bribery: rape, or robbery with serious physical injuries under par 1
o It is robbery when the victim did not commit a crime; of Art 263. (note: the circumstances and applicability of
it is bribery when the victim has committed a crime and Art 295 are very specific so please note them.)
gives money or gift to avoid arrest or prosecution.
o In robbery, the victim is deprived of his money or
property by force or intimidation; in bribery, he parts
with his money or property voluntarily.
People vs. Sevilla
Robbery w/ Intimidation vs. Theft (2002)
Facts: The accused detained several persons as hostages in a store
A entered the house of another without employing force or they robbed. The police launched an offensive. In the ensuing
violence upon things. He was seen by a maid who wanted to gunfight, the hostages suffered physical injuries. One of the hostages
eventually had to have her leg amputated. The accused were convicted
scream but was prevented from doing so because A
of the complex crime of robbery with serious physical injuries and
threatened her with a gun. A then took money and other serious illegal detention. Should the crime of serious illegal detention
valuables and left. Is A guilty of theft or of robbery? Explain. be prosecuted as a separate offence?
(3%)
Held: NO. The detention of the victims was a necessary means to
SUGGESTED ANSWER: facilitate and carry out the crime of robbery. The victims were not
held as a security to facilitate their escape or to insure their security
A is liable for robbery because of the intimidation he
against the police, but deliberately, as a means of extortion of the
employed on the maid before the taking of the money and amount asked.
other valuables. It is the intimidation of person relative to
the taking that qualifies the crime as robbery, instead of
simply theft. The non-employment of force upon things is of
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
179

Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the
members thereof
Requisites for liability for the acts of the other members of the
band:
1. He was a member of the band;
2. He was present at the commission of a robbery by that
band;
3. The other members of the band committed an assault;
4. He did not attempt to prevent the assault.
 When the robbery was not committed by a band, the robber
who did not take part in the assault by another is not liable
for that assault.
 When the robbery was not by a band and homicide was not
determined by the accused when they plotted the crime,
the one who did not participate in the killing is liable for
robbery only. It is only when the robbery is in band
that all those present in the commission of the
robbery may be punished for any of the assaults
which any of its members might commit.
 But when there is conspiracy to commit homicide and
robbery, all the conspirators, even if less than 4 armed men,
are liable for the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide.
 Art 296 is not applicable to principal by inducement, who
was not present at the commission of the robbery, if the
agreement was only to commit robbery. The article speaks
of more than 3 armed malefactors who “takes part in the
commission of the robbery” and member of a band “who is
present at the commission of a robbery by a band.” Thus,
a principal by inducement, who did not go with the band at
the place of the commission of the robbery, is not liable for
robbery with homicide, but only for robbery in band, there
being no evidence that he gave instructions to kill the victim
or intended that this should be done.
 When there was conspiracy for robbery only but homicide
was also committed on the occasion thereof, all members
of the band are liable for robbery with homicide.
 Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence of or
on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part in the
commission of the robbery are also guilty as principals in
the crime of homicide unless it appears that they
endeavored to prevent the homicide.
 Proof of conspiracy is not essential to hold a member of the
band liable for robbery with homicide actually committed by
the other members of the band.
 There is no crime as “robbery with homicide in
band.” The circumstance of band becomes an
ordinary aggravating circumstance to robbery with
homicide.
 In robbery by a band, all are liable for any assault
committed by the band, unless the others attempted to
prevent the assault.
 The members of the band liable for the assault must be
present at the commission of the robbery, not necessarily
at the commission of the assault.
People vs. Apduhan
Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide and was sentenced
to death because the court considered the use of unlicensed firearm
as a special aggravating circumstance under Art 296. SC rejected this.
SC believes that: (1) Art 296 is exclusively linked and singularly
applicable to Art 295 on robbery in band, (2) RPC 295 is explicitly
limited to scope to pars. 3, 4, 5 of Art 294, and (3) par 3, 4, 5 of Art
294 does not include cases where homicide, rape, intentional
mutilation, impotence, imbecility, blindness and insanity occurred by
reason or on the occasion of accompanying robbery. Thus, since
Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide under par 1 Art 294,
Art 296 in relation to par 3, 4, 5 of Art 295 is inapplicable. Hence, the
use of an unlicensed firearm should not have been considered as a
special aggravating circumstance.
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery
committed under certain circumstances
 “Homicide” here is used in a generic sense. It includes
multiple homicides, murder, parricide, infanticide, etc.
 The penalty is the same, whether the robbery is attempted
or frustrated.
 “Unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher
penalty under the Code” may be illustrated as follows: In
an attempted or frustrated robbery, the killing of the victim
is qualified by treachery or relationship. The proper penalty
for murder or parricide shall be imposed because it is more
severe.
 This is also a special complex crime, thus, not governed by
Art 48.
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence or
intimidation
Elements:
1. Offender has intent to defraud another;
2. Offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any public
instrument or document.
3. The compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
180

 If the violence used resulted in the death of the person to
be defrauded, the crime is robbery with homicide.
 If the execution of deeds by means of violence is only in
the attempted or frustrated stage and the violence used
resulted in the death of the person to be defrauded, the
penalty imposed shall be those under Art 297.
 This article applies even if the document signed, executed
or delivered is a private or commercial document.
 Art 298 is not applicable if the document is void.
 When the offended party is under obligation to sign,
execute or deliver the document under the law, there is no
robbery. But there will be COERCION if violence is used in
compelling the offended party to sign or deliver the
document.
Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public
building or edifice devoted to worship
Elements under subdivision (a):
1. Offender entered an inhabited house, public building or
edifice devoted to religious worship;
2. The entrance was effected by any of the following means:
a. Through an opening not intended for entrance or
egress;
b. By breaking any wall, roof or floor, or breaking any
door or window;
c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools; or
d. By using any fictitious name or pretending the exercise
of public authority.
3. Once inside the building, offender took personal property
belonging to another with intent to gain.
Elements under subdivision (b):
1. Offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or
edifice devoted to religious worship, regardless of the
circumstances under which he entered it;
2. Offender takes personal property belonging to another,
with intent to gain, under any of the following
circumstances:
a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or any
other kind of locked or sealed furniture or receptacle;
or
b. By taking such furniture or objects away to be broken
or forced open outside the place of the robbery.
Subdivision (a)
There must be evidence or the facts must show that the accused
entered the dwelling house or building by any of the means
enumerated in subdiv (a).
In entering the building, the offender must have an intention to
take personal property.
The place entered must be a house or building; thus, entering
an automobile does not fall under this article.
“Inhabited house” = any shelter, ship or vessel constituting the
dwelling of one or more persons even though the
inhabitants thereof are temporarily absent therefrom when
the robbery is committed.
“Public building” = every building owned by the govt or
belonging to a private person but used or rented by the
govt, although temporarily unoccupied by the same.
Any of the 4 means described in subdiv (a) must be resorted to
by the offender to enter a house or building, not to get out.
The whole body of the culprit must be inside the building to
constitute entering.
The genuine key must be stolen, not taken by force or with
intimidation from the owner. In the latter case, it becomes
robbery with intimidation of person.
It is only THEFT when the false key is used to open wardrobe
or locked receptacle or drawer or inside door.
The use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to exercise
authority must be to enter the building.
Subdivision (b)
Entrance into the building by any of the means in subdiv (a) is
not required in robbery under subdiv (b).
The term “door” in par 1 subdiv (b) refers only to “doors, lids or
opening sheets” of furniture or other portable receptacles;
not to inside doors of house or building.
A person who carries away a sealed box or receptacle for the
purpose of breaking the same and taking out its contents
outside the place of robbery is guilty of consummated
robbery even though he does not succeed in opening the
box.
A person who opens by force a certain locked or sealed
receptacle which has been confided in his custody and takes
the money contained therein is guilty of ESTAFA, not
robbery.
The weapon carried by the offender must not have been used
to intimidate a person, for the reason that once the
circumstance of intimidation enters in the commission of
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
181
 the crime, it is sufficient to remove the offence from Art 299
and place it within the purview of Art 294.
The liability for carrying arms while robbing an inhabited house
is extended to each of the offenders who take part in the
robbery, even if some of them do not carry arms.
People vs. Jaranilla
Facts: Accused took 6 fighting cocks from a coop located in Babylon’s
backyard. The door of the coop was broken. They were intercepted
by a police officer who was shot by one of the accused. They were
convicted by robbery with homicide.
Held: The killing of the police officer was not by reason or on the
occasion of the robbery, hence only the person who shot such officer
should be liable for the killing.
Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a
band
Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or edifice devoted
to religious worship is qualified when committed by a band
AND in an uninhabited place. The 2 qualifications must
concur.
The inhabited house, public building, or edifice devoted to
religious worship must be located in an uninhabited place.
Robbery with force upon things, in order to be qualified, must
be committed in an uninhabited place AND by a band;
while robbery with violence against or intimidation of
persons must be committed in an uninhabited place OR by
a band.
Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public building,
or building dedicated to religious worship and their
dependencies
3 requisites for “dependencies”: (1) must be contiguous to the
building, (2) must have an interior entrance connected
therewith, and (3) must form part of the whole.
Orchards or other lands used for cultivation or production are
not included in the term “dependencies”.
Article 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a
private building
Elements:
1. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a building which
was not a dwelling house, not a public building, or not an
edifice devoted to religious worship;
2. Any of the following circumstances was present:
a. The entrance was effected through an opening not
intended for entrance or egress;
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window was
broken;
c. The entrance was effected through the use of false
keys, picklocks or other similar tools;
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed
furniture or receptacle was broken; or
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even if the
same be broken open elsewhere.
3. Offender took therefrom personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain.
 “uninhabited place” = uninhabited building
 The information must allege that the store was used and
occupied as a dwelling; otherwise, the robbery should be
considered as having been perpetrated in an uninhabited
place under Art 302.
 “building” = includes any kind of structure used for storage
or safekeeping of personal property, such as freight car and
warehouse.
 The use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of
public authority is not a means of entering the building
under this article, because the place is uninhabited.
 The receptacle must be “closed” or “sealed”. Thus, if a
person opened without breaking a closed but not locked
chest and took personal property therefrom, it is only
THEFT.
 Penalty is based only on value of property taken.
 If the store is used as a dwelling of 1 or more persons, the
robbery committed therein would be considered as
committed in an inhabited house under Art 299.
 If the store was not actually occupied at the time the
robbery took place and was not used as a dwelling, since
the owner lived in a separate house, the robbery committed
therein is punished under Art 302.
 If the store is located on the ground floor of the house
belonging to the owner of the store, having an interior
entrance connected therewith, it is a dependency of an
inhabited house and the robbery committed therein is
punished under the last par of Art 299.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
182
 by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by
using force upon things.
Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in an
uninhabited place or private building

"Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other

Penalty is one degree lower if cereals, fruits or firewood are
taken in robbery with force upon things.
“cereal” = palay or other seedlings
The palay must be kept by the owner as “seedling” or taken for
that purpose by the robbers.
than muscular power using the public highways, but
excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers,
sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts,
amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public highways,
vehicles, which run only on rails or tracks, and tractors,
trailers and traction engines of all kinds used exclusively for
agricultural purposes. Trailers having any number of wheels,
when propelled or intended to be propelled by attachment to
a motor vehicle, shall be classified as separate motor vehicle
with no power rating.

Article 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools

"Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is the erasing,

scratching, altering or changing of the original factory-
Elements: inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle engine, engine
block or chassis of any motor vehicle. Whenever any motor
vehicle is found to have a serial number on its motor engine,
engine block or chassis which is different from that which is
1. Offender has in his possession picklocks or similar tools; listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor
vehicles imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle shall
2. Such picklock or similar tools are especially adopted to the be considered to have a defaced or tampered with serial
commission of robbery; number.

3. Offender does not have lawful cause for such possession.

"Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicle by

means of painting. There is repainting whenever the new
Article 305. False keys color of a motor vehicle is different from its color as registered
in the Land Transportation Commission.

False keys include the following:

"Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in
order to replace its entire body with a new body.

1. Tools mentioned in Article 304;

"Remodelling" is the introduction of some changes in the
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner;
shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle.
3. Any key other than those intended by the owner for use in
the lock forcibly opened by the offender.
"Dismantling" is the tearing apart, piece by piece or part by
part, of a motor vehicle.

Carnapping

"Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of the whole engine

of a motor vehicle by separating the motor engine and its
R.A. 6539 parts from the body of the motor vehicle.

Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972

SECTION 3. Registration of Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine

SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. —
"Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or
Block and Chassis. — Within one year after the approval of
this Act, every owner or possessor of unregistered motor
vehicle or parts thereof in knock down condition shall register
with the Land Transportation Commission the motor vehicle
engine, engine block and chassis in his name or in the name
of the real owner who shall be readily available to answer any
claim over the registered motor vehicle engine, engine block
or chassis. Thereafter, all motor vehicle engines, engine

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

183
blocks and chassis not registered with the Land
Transportation Commission shall be considered as untaxed
importation or coming from an illegal source or carnapped,
and shall be confiscated in favor of the Government.
All owners of motor vehicles in all cities and municipalities are
required to register their cars with the local police without
paying any charges.
SECTION 4. Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle Engines,
Engine Blocks and Chassis. — The Land Transportation
Commission shall keep a permanent registry of motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis of all motor vehicles,
specifying therein their type, make and serial numbers and
stating therein the names and addresses of their present and
previous owners. Copies of the registry and of all entries
made thereon shall be furnished the Philippine Constabulary
and all Land Transportation Commission regional, provincial
and city branch offices: Provided, That all Land
Transportation Commission regional, provincial and city
branch offices are likewise obliged to furnish copies of all
registration of motor vehicles to the main office and to the
Philippine Constabulary.
SECTION 5. Registration of Sale, Transfer, Conveyance,
Substitution or Replacement of a Motor Vehicle Engine,
Engine Block or Chassis. — Every sale, transfer, conveyance,
substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine, engine
block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered with
the Land Transportation Commission. Motor vehicles
assembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacement with motor
vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not registered with
the Land Transportation Commission shall not be issued
certificates of registration and shall be considered as untaxed
imported motor vehicles or motor vehicles carnapped or
proceeding from illegal sources.
SECTION 6. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. — Any
person seeking the original registration of a motor vehicle,
whether that motor vehicle is newly assembled or rebuilt or
acquired from a registered owner, shall within one week after
the completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the
acquisition thereof from the registered owner, apply to the
Philippine Constabulary for clearance of the motor vehicle for
registration with the Land Transportation Commission. The
Philippine Constabulary shall, upon receipt of the application,
verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered parts are in the list
of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor vehicle parts. If
the motor vehicle or any of its numbered parts is not in that
list, the Philippine Constabulary shall forthwith issue a
certificate of clearance. Upon presentation of the certificate
of clearance from the Philippine Constabulary and after
verification of the registration of the motor vehicle engine,
engine block and chassis in the permanent registry of motor
vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis, the Land
Transportation Commission shall register the motor vehicle in
accordance with existing laws, rules and regulations.
SECTION 14. Penalty for Carnapping. — Any person who is
found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in Section
two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of motor vehicle
taken, be punished by imprisonment for not less than
fourteen years and eight months and not more than
seventeen years and four months, when the carnapping is
committed without violence or intimidation of persons, or
force upon things; and by imprisonment for not less than
seventeen years and four months and not more than thirty
years, when the carnapping is committed by means of
violence against or intimidation of any person, or force upon
things; and the penalty of life imprisonment to death shall be
imposed when the owner, driver or occupant of the
carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the commission of the
carnapping.
SECTION 15. Aliens. — Aliens convicted under the
provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately after
service of sentence without further proceedings by the
Deportation Board.
People vs. Dela Cruz
The crime of carnapping with homicide is committed when there is
taking, with intent to gain of a motor vehicle which belonged to
another, without the latter’s consent or by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon things.
Izon vs. People
A motorised tricycle is a motor vehicle, which is defined as any vehicle
propelled by any power other than muscular power using public
highways. Public highways are those free for the use of every person,
thus not limited to a national road connecting various towns.
Anti-Carnapping Act; Carnapping w/ Homicide
(1998)
Samuel, a tricycle driver, plied his usual route using a
Honda motorcycle with a sidecar. One evening, Raul rode on
the sidecar, poked a knife at Samuel and instructed himto go
near the bridge. Upon reaching the bridge, Raul alighted
from the motorcycle and suddenly stabbed Samuel several
times until he was dead. Raul fled from the scene taking the
motorcycle with him. What crime or crimes did Raul commit?
|5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Raul committed the composite crime of Carnapping with
homicide under Sec. 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539, as amended,
considering that the killing "in the course or "on the occasion
of a carnapping (People vs. De la Cruz, et al. 183 SCRA
763). A motorcycle is included in the definition of a "motor
vehicle" in said Rep. Act, also known as the 'Anti-Carnapping
Act of 1972'. There is no apparent motive for the killing of
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
184
 the tricycle driver but for Raul to be able to take the
motorcycle. The fact that the tricycle driver was killed brings
about the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The crime committed by Raul is carnapping, punished by
Section 14 of Rep. Act No. 6539. The killing of Samuel is not
a separate crime but only an aggravating circumstance.
Highway Robbery
P.D. 532
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — The following terms
shall mean and be understood, as follows:
1. Philippine Waters. — It shall refer to all bodies of water,
such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays around,
between and connecting each of the Islands of the
Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth, breadth,
length or dimension, and all other waters belonging to
the Philippines by historic or legal title, including
territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular shelves, and
other submarine areas over which the Philippines has
sovereignty or jurisdiction.
2. Vessel. — Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of
passengers and cargo from one place to another through
Philippine Waters. It shall include all kinds and types of
vessels or boats used in fishing.
3. Philippine Highway. — It shall refer to any road, street,
passage, highway and bridges or other parts thereof, or
railway or railroad within the Philippines used by
persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains for the
movement or circulation of persons or transportation of
goods, articles, or property or both.
4. Piracy. — Any attack upon or seizure of any
vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part
thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal
belongings of its complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things, committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters,
shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall
be considered as pirates and punished as
hereinafter provided.
5. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. — The seizure of any
person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful purposes,
or the taking away of the property of another by means
of violence against or intimidation of person or force
upon things of other unlawful means, committed by any
person on any Philippine Highway.
SECTION 3. Penalties. — Any person who commits piracy
or highway robbery/brigandage as herein defined, shall, upon
conviction by competent court be punished by:
Piracy. — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium and
maximum periods shall be imposed. If physical injuries
or other crimes are committed as a result or on the
occasion thereof, the penalty of reclusion perpetua shall
be imposed. If rape, murder or homicide is committed
as a result or on the occasion of piracy, or when the
offenders abandoned the victims without means of
saving themselves, or when the seizure is accomplished
by firing upon or boarding a vessel, the mandatory
penalty of death shall be imposed.
Highway Robbery/Brigandage. — The penalty of reclusion
temporal in its minimum period shall be imposed. If
physical injuries or other crimes are committed during or
on the occasion of the commission of robbery or
brigandage, the penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed. If
kidnapping for ransom or extortion, or murder or
homicide, or rape is committed as a result or on the
occasion thereof, the penalty of death shall be imposed.
SECTION 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or
abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. — Any
person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects
pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them
information about the movement of police or other peace
officers of the government, or acquires or receives property
taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives
any benefit therefrom; or any person who directly or indirectly
abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery or
brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the
principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the
Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the
acts provided in this Section has performed them knowingly,
unless the contrary is proven.
People vs. Puno
Accused held up Mrs Sarmiento in her car at gunpoint. They were able
to extort P7000 in cash and P100,000 in check. Was highway robbery
committed? NO. We should not adopt the literal interpretation that
all types of taking of property as long as committed in a highway would
be covered by PD 532.
People vs. Pulusan
Facts: Accused held up a passenger jeep along the McArthur highway.
Of the 6 passengers, the only woman, Marilyn was successively raped
by the accused at a talahiban and 4 male passengers were clubbed and
stabbed on after the other. They were convicted of robbery with
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
185
homicide although they were charged with highway robbery. What was
the crime committed?
Held: Robbery with homicide, not highway robbery. Conviction under
PD 532 requires proof that the accused were organised for the purpose
of committing robbery indiscriminately. In this case, there was no
proof that the 4 accused previously attempted to commit armed
robberies.
Bar Questions
Robbery vs. Highway Robbery (2000)
Distinguish Highway Robbery under Presidential Decree No.
532 from Robbery committed on a highway. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Highway Robbery under Pres. Decree 532 differs from
ordinary Robbery committed on a highway in these
respects:
1 In Highway Robbery under PD 532, the robbery is
committed indiscriminately against persons who commute in
such highways, regardless of the potentiality they offer;
while in ordinary Robbery committed on a highway, the
robbery is committed only against predetermined victims;
2 It is Highway Robbery under PD 532, when the offender is
a brigand or one who roams in public highways and carries
out his robbery in public highways as venue, whenever the
opportunity to do so arises. It is ordinary Robbery under the
Revised Penal Code when the commission thereof in a public
highway is only incidental and the offender is not a brigand:
and
3. In Highway Robbery under PD 532, there is frequency in
the commission of the robbery in public highways and
against persons travelling thereat; whereas ordinary Robbery
in public highways is only occasional against a
predetermined victim, without frequency in public highways.
Highway Robbery (2001)
Police Sgt. Diego Chan, being a member of the Theft and
Robbery Division of the Western Police District and assigned
to the South Harbor, Manila, was privy to and more or less
familiar with the schedules, routes and hours of the
movements of container vans, as well as the mobile police
patrols, from the pier area to the different export processing
zones outside Metro Manila. From time to time, he gave
valuable and detailed information on these matters to a
group interested in those shipments in said container vans.
On several instances, using the said information as their
basis, the gang hijacked and pilfered the contents of the
vans. Prior to their sale to "fences" in Banawe, Quezon City
and Bangkal, Makati City, the gang Informs Sgt, Chan who
then inspects the pilfered goods, makes his choice of the
valuable items and disposes of them through his own
sources or "fences". When the highjackers were traced on
one occasion and arrested, upon custodial investigation,
they implicated Sgt. Chan and the fiscal charged them all,
including Sgt. Chan as co-principals. Sgt. Chan, in his
defense, claimed that he should not be charged as a
principal but only as an accessory after the fact under P.D.
532, otherwise known as the Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway
Robbery Act of 1972. Is the contention of
Sgt. Chan valid and tenable? Explain, (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan is not valid or tenable
because by express provision of P.D. 532, Section 4, a
person who knowingly and in any manner, aids or protects
highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them information
about the movement of police officers or acquires or
receives property taken by brigands, or who directly or
indirectly abets the commission of highway
robbery/brigandage, shall be considered as accomplice of
the principal offenders and punished in accordance with the
rules in the Revised Penal Code.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
No, the contention of Sgt. Chan that he should be charged
only as accessory after the fact is not tenable because he
was a principal participant in the commission of the crime
and in pursuing the criminal design. An accessory after the
fact involves himself in the commission of a crime only after
the crime had already been consummated, not before, For
his criminal participation in the execution of the highjacking
of the container vans, Sgt. Chan is a co-principal by
indispensable cooperation.
Cattle Rustling
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 533
THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974
What is cattle rustling?
Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or
scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any of
the above-mentioned animals whether or not for profit or
gain, or whether committed with or without violence against
or intimidation of any person or force upon things. It includes
the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or hide without
the consent of the owner/raiser.
Large cattle - as herein used shall include the cow, carabao,
horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated member of the
bovine family.
Owner/raiser- shall include the herdsman, caretaker,
employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged in the
raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful possession of
such large cattle.
Duty of the owner/raiser
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
186
 before the large cattle belonging to him shall attain the age
of six months, register the same with the office of the
city/municipal treasurer where such large cattle are raised. When the offender is a government official or employee, he
shall, in addition to the foregoing penalty, be disqualified from
voting or being voted upon in any election/referendum and
from holding any public office or employment.
Permit to Buy and Sell Large Cattle.

No person, partnership, association, corporation or entity

shall engage in the business of buy and sell of large cattle When the offender is an alien, he shall be deported
without first securing a permit for the said purpose from the immediately upon the completion of the service of his
Provincial Commander of the province where it shall conduct sentence without further proceedings.
such business and the city/municipal treasurer of the place of
residence of such person, partnership, association,
corporation or entity. The permit shall only be valid in such
province.

Taer vs. CA

Clearance for Shipment of Large Cattle. Facts: Co-accused Manocatcat, arrived at the Taer’s hourse at 2am
with 2 male carabaos. Manocatcat asked Taer to tend the carabaos
Any person, partnership, association, corporation or entity for him. 10 days later, the owners of the carabaos, arrived at Taer’s
desiring to ship or transport large cattle, its hides, or meat, house to retrieve the carabaos. What was Taer’s participation in the
from one province to another shall secure a permit for such crime?
purpose from the Provincial Commander of the province
where the large cattle is registered. Before issuance of the
Held: Taer was an accessory because he employed the carabaos in his
permit herein prescribed, the Provincial Commander shall
farm. An accessory is someone who, having knowledge of the
require the submission of the certificate of ownership as
commission of the crime, without having participated as a principal or
prescribed in Section 3 hereof, a certification from the
an accomplice, takes part subsequent to its commission by profiting
Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that such large cattle, himself by the effects of the crime.
hides or meat are free from any disease; and such other
documents or records as may be necessary. Shipment of large
cattle, its hides or meat from one city/municipality to another
within the same province may be done upon securing permit
from the city/municipal treasurer of the place of origin.
Ordonio vs. CA

Presumption of Cattle Rustling. — Every person having

Facts: Ordonio stole the calf of Pajunar. When Pajunar inquired abt
in his possession, control or custody of large cattle shall, upon
his cow, Ordonio denied seeing it. The cow was eventually found in
demand by competent authorities, exhibit the documents
Ordonio’s possession, but Ordonio claimed persistently that the cow
prescribed in the preceding sections. Failure to exhibit the was entrusted to him by his brother Agustin, such that Pajunar had to
required documents shall be prima facie evidence that the enlist the aid of the brgy captain and PC soldiers to retrieve his cow.
large cattle in his possession, control or custody are the fruits
of the crime of cattle rustling.

Held: The law reads “taking away by any means, methods or

Penalties Imposed
Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined shall,
irrespective of the value of the large cattle involved, be
punished by prision mayor in its maximum period to reclusion
temporal in its medium period if the offense is committed
without violence against or intimidation of persons or force
upon things.
schemes.” Ordonio’s stubborn insistence that the calf belonged to his
brother, when he knew fully well that it belonged to Pajunar, is the
essence cattle rustling. The perpetrator’s intent to gain is then
inferred from his deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the
proper person, knowing that the property does not belong to him.

BRIGANDAGE
If the offense is committed with violence against or
intimidation of persons or force upon things, the penalty of a crime committed by more than 3 armed persons who form a
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in the
perpetua shall be imposed.
highway or kidnapping persons for the purpose of extortion or
to obtain ransom, or for any other purpose to be attained by
means of force and violence.
If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the
occasion of the commission of cattle rustling, the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

187
Article 306. Who are brigands
Elements of brigandage:
1. There are least four armed persons;
2. They formed a band of robbers;
3. The purpose is any of the following:
a. To commit robbery in the highway;
b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or to
obtain ransom; or
c. To attain by means of force and violence any other
purpose.
It must be a band of robbers. Thus, a band of dissidents or
oppositionists will not qualify.
The purpose of the band must be (1) to commit robbery in the
highway, (2) to kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion
or obtaining ransom, or (3) any other purpose to be
attained by means of force and violence. To contrast, In
case of robbery by a band, the purpose of the offenders is
only to commit robbery, not necessarily in the highway.
If any of the arms carried by any of a group of persons be an
unlicensed firearm, is shall be presumed that said persons
are highway robbers or brigands, and in case of conviction,
the penalty shall be imposed in the max period.
The arms carried by the members of the band of robbers may
be any deadly weapon.
The only things to prove are:
ii. that there is an organisation of more than 3 armed
persons forming a band of robbers
iii. that the purpose of the band is any of those
enumerated in Art 306
iv. that they went upon the highway or roamed upon the
country for that purpose
v. that the accused is a member of such band.
“highway” = includes city streets as well as roads outside the
cities.
If the agreement among more than 3 armed men was to commit
only a particular robbery, the offence is not brigandage, but
only robbery in band.
In brigandage, the mere formation of a band for any of the
purposes mentioned in the law is sufficient; in robbery in
band, it is necessary to prove that the band actually
committed robbery, as a mere conspiracy to commit
robbery is not punishable.
Article 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands
Elements:
1. There is a band of brigands;
2. Offender knows the band to be of brigands;
3. Offender does any of the following acts:
a. He in any manner aids, abets or protects such band of
brigands;
b. He gives them information of the movements of the
police or other peace officers of the government; or
c. He acquires or receives the property taken by such
brigands.
 It shall be presumed that the person performing any of the
acts provided in this article has performed them knowingly,
unless contrary is proven.
THEFT
committed by any person who, with intent to gain but without
violence against or intimidation of persons nor force upon
things, shall take personal property of another without the
latter’s consent.
Article 308. Who are liable for theft
Persons liable:
1. Those who with intent to gain, but without violence against
or intimidation of persons nor force upon things, take
personal property of another without the latter’s consent;
2. Those who having found lost property, fails to deliver the
same to the local authorities or to its owner;
3. Those who, after having maliciously damaged the property
of another, remove or make use of the fruits or objects of
the damage caused by them;
4. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field where
trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and,
without the consent of its owner, hunt or fish upon the
same or gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm
products.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
188

Elements:
1. There is taking of personal property;
2. The property taken belongs to another;
3. The taking was done with intent to gain;
4. The taking was done without the consent of the owner;
5. The taking is accomplished without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons of force upon things.
 “taking”  taking away or carrying away; thus, theft is
consummated when the culprits were able to take
possession of the thing taken by them. It is not an
indispensable element of theft that the thief carry, more or
less far away, the thing taken by him from its owner.
 As of 2007, the Court held that asportation is complete
from the moment the offender had full possession of
the thing, even if he did not have an opportunity to
dispose of the same..
 animus lucandi = intent to gain
 The taking in theft must have the character of permanency.
Thus, the offender must have the intention of making
himself the owner of the thing taken.
 The unlawful taking may occur at or soon after the
transfer of physical possession (not juridical
possession) of the thing to the offender. The actual
transfer of possession may not always and by itself
constitute the unlawful taking, but an act done soon
thereafter by the offender which may result in unlawful
taking or asportation. In such case, the article is deemed
to have been taken also, although in the beginning, it was
in fact given to, and received by, the offender.
Illustration: Tina gave Rey her rolex watch for the purpose
of having it examined since Rey has a pawnshop. Rey
subsequently appropriated it rolex watch with intent to gain
and without consent of Tina. – This is THEFT.
 But if the accused received the thing from another person
in trust or on commission, or for administration, or under a
quasi-contract or a contract of bailment, and later
misappropriated or converted the thing to the prejudice of
another, the crime is ESTAFA, because under those
transactions, the juridical possession of the thing is
transferred to the offender. (note: thus, the distinction
between juridical and mere physical possession is
important.)
 Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of
personal property belonging to another.
 There is theft even if accused did not take them for his own
use.
 It is not necessary that there was real or actual gain on the
part of the offender. It is enough that on taking them, he
was then actuated by the desire or intent to gain.
 For robbery to exist, it is necessary that there should be a
taking against the will of the owner; for theft, it suffices
that consent on the part of the owner is lacking.
 It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely
foreign to the fact of taking.
 When goods were lost at the same time, in the same place,
and on the same occasion, the person in possession of part
of the missing property is presumed to be the thief of the
entire property.
 The presumption regarding possession of stolen property
does not exclusively refer to actual physical possession
thereof but may include prior unexplained possession. In
any case, for the presumption to work, the property must
be recently stolen. Thus, if it was stolen a long time ago,
the presumption will not lie.
 Intent to gain is inferred from deliberate failure to deliver
the lost property to the proper person.
 Finder of hidden treasure who misappropriated the share
pertaining to the owner of the property is guilty of theft as
regards that share.
People vs. Gulinao
Gulinao shot Dr Chua then left. Gulinao went back to get Dr Chua’s
diamond ring. He was convicted of illegal possession and robbery. SC
ruled that he is guilty of THEFT, not robbery. The taking of the ring
was just an afterthought. Violence used in killing Dr Chua had no
bearing on the taking of the ring.
Santos vs. People
Penalosa gave car to Santos to be repaired. Owner wanted to claim it
back but Santos could not be found. Convicted of estafa in RTC then
CA convicted him of qualified theft. SC rule that he is guilty of THEFT,
not estafa as the latter requires that the offender has juridical
possession of the thing and then it is converted for his own personal
use. Not qualified theft as the fact that the car was taken was not
alleged in the information therefore it can only be seen as an
aggravating circumstance.
Lucas v. CA, 389 SCRA 749 (2002)
FACTS: Lucas was convicted by the RTC together with
Wilfredo Navarro for stealing one stereo component, a 14-inch colored
TV, an electric fan, twenty-three (23) pieces of cassette tapes, one (1)
box of car toys, four (4) pieces of Pyrex crystal bowls, cash of
P20,000.00 and jewelry worth P10,000.00, valued at P100,000.00 all
belonging to Luisito Tuazon. The said robbery took place when Luisito
was at work. After the robbery, Lucas, Navarro and one Lovena
escaped on board a tricycle.
HELD: To sustain a conviction for theft, the following
elements must be present: (1) personal property of another person
must be taken without the latter's consent; (2) the act of taking the
personal property of another must be done without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon things; and, (3) there
must be an intention to gain from the taking of another person's
personal property. Appellant are guilty of theft.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
189

Gan v. People (2007)
The Petitioner contends that he cannot be held liable for the charges
on the ground that he was not caught in possession of the missing
funds. This is clutching at straws. To be caught in possession of the
stolen property is not an element of the corpus delicti in theft. Corpus
delicti means the “body or substance of the crime, and, in its primary
sense, refers to the fact that the crime has been actually
committed.” In theft, corpus delicti has two elements, namely: (1)
that the property was lost by the owner, and (2) that it was lost by
felonious taking. In the case before us, these two elements were
established. The amounts involved were lost by WUP because
petitioner took them without authority to do so
Valenzuela v. People (2007)
The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been designed in
such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao, Dino and Empelis rulings.
Again, there is no language in Article 308 that expressly or impliedly
allows that the “free disposition of the items stolen” is in any way
determinative of whether the crime of theft has been produced. The
Court thus concludes that under the Revised Penal Code, there is no
crime of frustrated theft.
Bar Questions
Robbery; Homicide; Arson (1995)
Harry, an overseas contract worker, arrived from Saudi
Arabia with considerable savings. Knowing him to be
"loaded", his friends Jason, Manuel and Dave invited him to
poker session at a rented beach cottage. When he was
losing almost all his money which to him was his savings of
a lifetime, he discovered that he was being cheated by his
friends. Angered by the betrayal he decided to take revenge
on the three cheats. Harry ordered several bottles of
Tanduay Rhum and gave them to his companions to drink,
as they did, until they all fell asleep. When Harry saw his
companions already sound asleep he hacked all of them to
death. Then he remembered his losses. He rifled through
the pockets of his victims and got back all the money he
lost. He then ran away but not before burning the cottage to
hide his misdeed. The following day police investigators
found among the debris the charred bodies of Jason,
Manuel, Dave and the caretaker of the resort. After
preliminary investigation, the Provincial Prosecutor charged
Harry with the complex crime of arson with quadruple
homicide and robbery. Was Harry properly charged? Discuss
fully.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Harry was net properly charged. Harry should have been
charged with three (3) separate crimes, namely: murder,
theft and arson. Harry killed Jason, Manuel and Dave with
evident premeditation, as there was considerable lapse of
time before he decided to commit the crime and the actual
commission of the crime. In addition, Harry employed means
which weakened the defense of Jason, Manuel and Dave.
Harry gave them the liquor to drink until they were drunk
and fell asleep. This gave Harry the opportunity to carry out
his plan of murder with impunity.The taking of the money
from the victims was a mere afterthought of the killings.
Hence, Harry committed the separate crime of theft and not
the complex crime of robbery with homicide. Although theft
was committed against dead persons, it is still legally
possible as the offended party are the estates of the victims.
In burning the cottage to hide his misdeed. Harry became
liable for another separate crime, arson. This act of burning
was not necessary for the consummation of the two (2)
previous offenses he committed. The fact that the caretaker
died from the blaze did not qualify Harry's crime into a
complex crime of arson with homicide for there is no such
crime. Hence, Harry was improperly charged with the
complex crime of arson with quadruple homicide and
robbery. Harry should have been charged with three (3)
separate crimes, murder, theft and arson.
Robbery; Rape (1997)
After raping the complainant in her house, the accused
struck a match to smoke a cigarette before departing from
the scene. The brief light from the match allowed him to
notice a watch in her wrist. He demanded that she hand
over the watch. When she refused, he forcibly grabbed it
from her. The accused was charged with and convicted of
the special complex crime of robbery with rape. Was the
court correct?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. the court erred in convicting the accused of the special
complex crime of robbery with rape. The accused should
instead be held liable for two (2) separate crimes of robbery
and rape, since the primary intent or objective of the
accused was only to rape the complainant, and his
commission of the robbery was merely an afterthought. The
robbery must precede the rape. In order to give rise to the
special complex crime for which the court convicted the
accused.
Theft (1998)
Mario found a watch in a jeep he was riding, and since it did
not belong to him, he approached policeman P and delivered
the watch with instruction to return the same to whoever
may be found to be the owner. P failed to return the watch
to the owner and, instead, sold it and appropriated for
himself the proceeds of the sale. Charged with theft, P
reasoned out that he cannot be found guilty because it was
not he who found the watch and, moreover, the watch
turned out to be stolen property. Is P's defense valid? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, P's defense is not valid. In a charge for theft, it is
enough that the personal property subject thereof belongs
to another and not to the offender (P). It is irrelevant
whether the person deprived of the possession of the watch
has or has no right to the watch. Theft is committed by one
who, with intent to gain, appropriates property of another
without the consent of its owner. And the crime is
committed even when the offender receives property of
another but acquires only physical possession to hold the
same.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
190
 Theft (2001)
Francis Garcia, a Jollibee waiter, found a gold bracelet in
front of his working place in Makati and, upon inspecting it,
saw the name and address of the owner engraved on the
inside. Remembering his parents' admonition that he should
not take anything which does not belong to him, he
delivered the bracelet to PO1 Jesus Reyes of the Makati
Quad precinct with the instruction to locate the owner and
return it to him. PO1 Reyes, instead, sold the bracelet and
misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent events brought
out the fact that the bracelet was dropped by a snatcher
who had grabbed it from the owner a block away from
where Francis had found it and further investigation traced
the last possessor as PO1 Reyes. Charged with theft, PO1
Reyes reasoned out that he had not committed any crime
because it was not he who had found the bracelet and,
moreover, it turned out to have been stolen. Resolve the
case with reasons. (10%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes is criminally liable. His
contention that he has not committed any crime because he
was not the one who found the bracelet and it turned out to
be stolen also, is devoid of merit. It is enough that the
bracelet belonged to another and the failure to restore the
same to its owner is characterized by intent to gain. The act
of PO1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does not belong
to him and which he only held to be delivered to its owner,
is furtive misappropriation with intent to gain. Where a
finder of lost or mislaid property entrusts it to another for
delivery to the owner, the person to whom such property is
entrusted and who accepts the same, assumes the relation
of the finder to the owner as if he was the actual finder: if
he would misappropriate it, he is guilty of theft (People vs.
Avila, 44 Phil. 720).
Article 309. Penalties
The basis of the penalty in theft is (1) the value of the thing
stolen and in some cases (2) the value and also the nature
of the property taken, or (3) the circumstances or causes
that impelled the culprit to commit the crime.
If there is no available evidence to prove the value of the stolen
property or that the prosecution failed to prove it, the court
should impose the minimum penalty corresponding to theft.
Theft of Electricity, Illegal Water, Electric or Telephone
Connections
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 401 March 1, 1974
PENALIZING THE UNAUTHORIZED INSTALLATION OF
WATER, ELECTRICAL OR TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS,
THE USE OF TAMPERED WATER OR ELECTRICAL
METERS, AND OTHER ACTS
Who are punishable? -- any person who:
installs any water, electrical or telephone connection
without previous authority from the Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System, the Manila
Electric Company or the Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company, as the case may be;
tampers and/or uses tampered water or electrical meters
or jumpers or other devices whereby water or
electricity is stolen; steals or pilfers water and/or
electric meters or water, electric and/or telephone
wires;
knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered water and/or
electrical meters as well as stolen or pilfered water,
electrical and/or telephone wires.
R.A. 7832
Anti Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/
Materials Pilferage Act of 1994
Acts punishable
Illegal Use of Electricity (§2)
(a) Tap, make or cause to be made any connection
with overhead lines, service drops, or other electric
service wires, without previous authority or consent
of the private electric utility or rural electric
cooperative concerned;
(b) Tap, make or cause to be made any connection to
the existing electric service facilities of any duly
registered consumer without the latter's or the
electric utility's consent or authority;
(c) Tamper, install or use a tampered electrical meter,
jumper, current reversing transformer, shorting or
shunting wire, loop connection or any other device
which interferes with the proper or accurate
registry or metering of electric current or otherwise
results in its diversion in a manner whereby
electricity is stolen or wasted;
(d) Damage or destroy an electric meter, equipment,
wire or conduit or allow any of them to be so
damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the
proper or accurate metering of electric current; and
(e) Knowingly use or receive the direct benefit of
electric service obtained through any of the acts
mentioned in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d)
above.
Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines and Materials (§3)
Cut, saw, slice, separate, split, severe, smelt, or remove
any electric power transmission line/material or
meter from a tower, pole, or any other installation
or place of installation or any other place or site
where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored,
deposited, kept, stocked, inventoried, situated or
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
191
 located, without the consent of the owner, whether
or not the act is done for profit or gain;
Take, carry away or remove or transfer, with or without
the use of a motor vehicle or other means of
conveyance, any electric power transmission
line/material or meter from a tower, pole, any other
installation or place of installation, or any place or
site where it may be rightfully or lawfully stored,
deposited, kept, stocked, inventoried, situated or
located without the consent of the owner, whether
or not the act is done for profit or gain;
Store, possess or otherwise keep in his premises,
custody or control, any electric power transmission
line/material or meter without the consent of the
owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or
gain; and
Load, carry, ship or move from one place to another,
whether by land, air or sea, any electrical power
transmission line/material, whether or not the act
is done for profit or gain, without first securing a
clearance/permit for the said purpose from its
owner or the National Power Corporation (NPC) or
its regional office concerned, as the case may be.
Presumptions
For illegal use of electricity:
The presence of any of the following circumstances shall
constitute prima facie evidence of illegal use of
electricity by the person benefited thereby, and shall be
the basis for:
the immediate disconnection by the electric utility to
such person after due notice,
the holding of a preliminary investigation by the
prosecutor and the subsequent filing in court of the
pertinent information, and
the lifting of any temporary restraining order or
injunction which may have been issued against a
private electric utility or rural electric cooperative
Circumstances:
The presence of a bored hole on the glass cover of the electric
meter, or at the back or any other part of said meter;
The presence inside the electric meter of salt, sugar and other
elements that could result in the inaccurate registration
of the meter's internal parts to prevent its accurate
registration of consumption of electricity;
The existence of any wiring connection which affects the
normal operation or registration of the electric meter;
The presence of a tampered, broken, or fake seal on the
meter, or mutilated, altered or tampered meter
recording chart or graph, or computerized chart, graph,
or log;
The presence in any part of the building or its premises which
is subject to the control of the consumer or on the
electric meter, of a current reversing transformer,
jumper, shorting and/or shunting wire, and/or loop
connection or any other similar device;
The mutilation, alteration, reconnection, disconnection,
bypassing or tampering of instruments, transformers,
and accessories;
The destruction of, or attempt to destroy, any integral
accessory of the metering device box which encases an
electric meter, or its metering accessories; and
The acceptance of money and/or other valuable consideration
by any officer of employee of the electric utility
concerned or the making of such an offer to any such
officer or employee for not reporting the presence of any
of the circumstances enumerated above. The discovery
of any of the foregoing circumstances, in order to
constitute prima facie evidence, must be personally
witnessed and attested to by an officer of the law
or a duly authorized representative of the Energy
Regulatory Board (ERB).
For theft of electric power transmission lines and materials
The possession or custody of electric power
transmission line/material by any person, natural or juridical,
not engaged in the transformation, transmission or
distribution of electric power, or in the manufacture of such
electric power transmission line/material shall be prima facie
evidence that such line/material is the fruit of the offense of
theft of electric power transmission lines and materials, and
therefore such line/material may be confiscated from the
person in possession, control or custody thereof.
RA 8041
An Act to Address the National Water Crisis and For
Other Purposes
Sec. 8. Anti-Pilferage. - It is hereby declared unlawful for
any person to:
Destroy, damage or interfere with any canal, raceway, ditch,
lock, pier, inlet, crib, bulkhead, dam, gate, service,
reservoir, aqueduct, water mains, water distribution
pipes, conduit, pipes, wire benchmark, monument, or
other works, appliance, machinery buildings, or property
of any water utility entity, whether public or private;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
192
 Do any malicious act which shall injuriously affect the quantity
or quality of the water or sewage flow of any waterworks
and/or sewerage system, or the supply, conveyance,
measurement, or regulation thereof, including the
prevention of, or interference with any authorized
person engaged in the discharge of duties connected
therewith;
Prevent, obstruct, and interfere with the survey, works, and
construction of access road and water mains and
distribution network and any related works of the utility
entity.
Tap, make, or cause to be made any connection with water
lines without prior authority or consent from the water
utility concerned;
Tamper, install or use tampered water meters, sticks,
magnets, reversing water meters, shortening of vane
wheels and other devices to steal water or interfere with
accurate registry or metering of water usage, or
otherwise result in its diversion in a manner whereby
water is stolen or wasted;
Use or receive the direct benefit of water service with
knowledge that diversion, tampering, or illegal
connection existed at the time of that use, or that the
use or receipt was otherwise without the authorization
of the water utility;
Steal or pilfer water meters, main lines, pipes and related or
ancillary facilities;
Steal water for profit or resale;
Knowingly possess stolen or tampered water meters; and
Knowingly or willfully allow the occurrence of any of the
above.
Penalties:
imprisonment of six (6) months to two (2) years and a fine
not exceeding double the amount of the value of the
water stolen or the value of the damaged facilities
If the offender is assisted in the commission of the crime by
a plumber, officer or employee of the water utility
concerned, the said employee, officer or plumber shall
be punished by imprisonment of two (2) years to six (6)
years
 If the water is stolen for profit or resale, the offender
shall be punished imprisonment from six (6) to twelve
(12) years.
Illegal Fishing
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8550
An Act Providing For The Development,
Management And Conservation Of The Fisheries
And Aquatic Resources, Integrating All Laws
Pertinent Thereto, And For Other Purposes
What acts are punishable?
1. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in Other
Unauthorized Fisheries Activities
(a) exploiting, breeding fish in Philippine
waters without a license
 Discovery of any person in an area where he
has no permit or registration papers for a
fishing vessel shall constitute a prima facie
presumption that the person and/or vessel is
engaged in unauthorized fishing: BUT, fishing
for daily food sustenance or for leisure which
is not for commercial, occupation or
livelihood purposes may be allowed.
(b) fishing by commercial fishing vessels in
fishery management areas declared as over
exploited
(c) engaging in any commercial fishing
activity in municipal waters when not listed
in the registry of municipal fisherfolk
2. Poaching in Philippine Waters
(a) foreign person fishing or operating a
fishing vessel in Philippine waters
 The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in
Philippine waters shall constitute a prima
facie evidence that the vessel is engaged in
fishing in Philippine waters.
3. Fishing Through Explosives, Noxious or
Poisonous Substance, and/or Electricity
(a) fishing in Philippine waters with the use
of electricity, explosives, noxious or
poisonous substance such as sodium cyanide in
the Philippine fishery areas, which will kill,
stupefy, disable or render unconscious fish or
fishery species
 The Department, subject to safeguards and
conditions deemed necessary and endorsement
from the concerned LGUs, may allow, for
research, educational or scientific purposes
only, the use of electricity, poisonous or
noxious substances to catch, take or gather
fish or fishery species:
 The use of poisonous or noxious substances
to eradicate predators in fishponds in
accordance with accepted scientific practices
and without causing adverse environmental
impact in neighboring waters and grounds shall
not be construed as illegal fishing.
(b) dealing in fish illegally caught
 The discovery of explosives or equipment for
electro-fishing in any fishing vessel or in
the possession of any fishworker shall
constitute prima facie evidence, that the same
was used for fishing in violation of this Code.
 The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish
caught or killed with the use of explosive,
noxious or poisonous substances or by
electricity shall constitute prima facie
evidence that the fisherfolk, operator, boat
official or fishworker is fishing with the use
thereof.
(c) Mere possession of explosive, noxious or
poisonous substances or electrofishing devices
for illegal fishing
(d) Actual use of explosives, noxious or
poisonous substances or electrofishing devices
for illegal fishing
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
193
 Penalty is without prejudice to the filing  However, catching of sabalo and other
of separate criminal cases when the use of the breeders/spawners for local breeding purposes
same result to physical injury or loss of human or scientific or research purposes may be
life. allowed subject to guidelines to be
promulgated by the Department.
4. Use of Fine Mesh Net
(a) fishing using nets with mesh smaller than 14. Exportation of Breeders, Spawners, Eggs or
that which may be fixed by the Department Fry
 Prohibition shall not apply to the gathering
of fry and such species which by their nature 15. Importation or Exportation of Fish or
are small but already mature to be identified Fishery Species
in the implementing rules and regulations by
the Department. 16. Violation of Catch Ceilings

5. Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters 17. Aquatic Pollution

and Bays and Other Fishery Management Areas
(a) fishing in municipal waters and in all 18. Other violations
bays as well as other fishery management areas Failure to Comply with Minimum Safety
using active fishing gears Standards
Failure to Conduct a Yearly Report on all
Fishponds, Fish Pens and Fish Cages
6. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation Gathering and Marketing of Shell Fish
which is sexually mature or below the
(a) selling or exporting ordinary precious and minimum size or above the maximum
semi-precious corals, whether raw or in quantities prescribed for the
processed form, except for scientific or particular species
research purposes. Obstruction to Navigation or Flow and Ebb
of Tide in any Stream, River, Lake or
 The confiscated corals shall either be Bay
returned to the sea or donated to schools and Construction and Operation of Fish
museums for educational or scientific purposes Corrals/Traps, Fish Pens and Fish
or disposed through other means. Cages without a license/permit

19. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators

Employing Unlicensed Fisherfolk or Fishworker
7. Ban on Muro-Ami, Other Methods and Gear or Crew
Destructive to Coral Reefs and Other Marine
20. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths of
Habitat
anadromous, catadromous and other migratory
(a) fishing with gear method that destroy species, in areas including, but not limited
coral reefs, seagrass beds, and other fishery to river mouths and estuaries within a
marine life habitat as may be determined by distance determined by the concerned FARMCs
the Department
(b) using "Muro-Ami" and any of its variation,
21. Obstruction to Fishery Law Enforcement
and such similar gear and methods that require
diving, other physical or mechanical acts to Officer
pound the coral reefs and other habitat to
entrap, gather or catch fish and other fishery
species
(c) gathering, selling or exporting white
sand, silica, pebbles and other substances
which make up any marine habitat
Hizon vs. CA
8. Illegal Use of Superlights
Some fish were taken from a fishing boat that tested positive for
(a) fishing with the use of superlights in
sodium cyanide. The accused were convicted for illegal fishing using
municipal waters or in violation of the rules
poisonous substances under PD 703, which creates a prima facie
and regulations which may be promulgated by
the Department on the use of superlights presumption of guilt when any fish taken is positive for poisonous
outside municipal waters substances. Petitioners question the legality of the presumption. SC
held that the presumption is only prima facie hence, rebuttable by
9. Conversion of Mangroves competent evidence.
(a) converting mangroves into fishponds or for
any other purposes Illegal Fishing - PD 704 (1996)

10. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Upon a laboratory examination of the fish seized by the
Closed Season police and agents of the Fisheries Commission, it was
indubitably determined that the fish they were selling were
11. Fishing in Fishery Reserves, Refuge and caught with the use of explosives. Accordingly, the three
Sanctuaries
vendors were criminally charged with the violation of Section
12. Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or 33 of P.D. 704 which makes it unlawful for any person to
Endangered Species knowingly possess, deal in, or sell for profit any fish which
have been illegally caught. During the trial, the three
13. Capture of Sabalo and Other vendors claimed that they bought the fish from a fishing
Breeders/Spawners boat which they duly identified. The prosecution however
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
194
 claimed that the three vendors should nevertheless be held
liable for the offense as they were the ones caught in
possession of the fish illegally caught. On the basis of the
above facts, if you were the judge, would you convict the
three fish vendors? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, I would not convict the three fish vendors if I were the
judge. Mere possession of such fish without knowledge of
the fact that the same were caught with the use of
explosives does not by itself render the seller-possessor
criminally liable under P.D. 704. Although the act penalized
in said Decree may be a malum prohibitum, the law
punishes the possession, dealing in or selling of such fish
only when "knowingly" done that the fish were caught with
the use of explosives; hence criminal intent is essential. The
claim by the fish vendors that they only bought the fish
from fishing boats which they "duly identified", renders
their possession of such fish innocent unless the
prosecution could prove that they have knowledge that
explosives were used in catching such fish, and the accused
had knowledge thereof.
Article 310. Qualified theft
Theft is qualified if:
1. Committed by a domestic servant;
2. Committed with grave abuse of confidence;
3. The property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or large
cattle;
4. The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the
premises of a plantation;
5. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery;
or
6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular
accident, or civil disturbance.
Penalties for qualified theft are now next HIGHER BY 2
DEGREES.
Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. it is not necessary
to prove grave abuse of confidence.
The abuse of confidence must be grave. There must be
allegation in the information and proof of a relation, by
reason of dependence, guardianship or vigilance, between
the accused and the offended party, that has created a high
degree of confidence between them, which the accused
abused.
The grave abuse of confidence need not be premeditated. Its
presence in the commission of theft is sufficient.
The confidence gravely abused must be that existing between
offended party and the offender.
Empelis vs. IAC
4 accused were seen carrying away 50 coconuts from a plantation.
They dropped the coconuts after being seen by the owner. They were
convicted of qualified theft. SC held that they are guilty only of
FRUSTRATED QUALIFIED THEFT as they were not able to carry away the
coconuts from the plantation that is the gravamen of the offence under
Art 310.
People vs. Cañales
Facts: Accused are employees of First Base Corp. They stole a truck
and 700 cartons of frozen prawn from the company. They were tasked
to deliver the prawns to the pier using the truck. The truck, however,
was subsequently recovered. Was there qualified theft as to the
recovered truck?
Held: The recovery of the stolen motor vehicle does not mean that
the crime of qualified theft was not consummated. Neither will it
diminish the criminal responsibility of appellant. In People v. Carpio:
The gist of the offense of larceny consists in the furtive taking and
asportation of property, animo lucrandi, and with intent to deprive
the true owner of the possession thereof. The act of asportation in
this case was undoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the
thief to profit by the act, and since he effectively deprived the true
owner of the possession of the entire automobile, the offense of
larceny comprised the whole car. The fact that the accused stripped
the car of its tires and abandoned the machine in a distant part of the
city did not make the appellant any less liable for the larceny of the
automobile. The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his
right of possession were complete as to the entire car; and the fact
that the thieves thought it wise promptly to abandon the machine in
no wise limits their criminal responsibility to the particular parts of
the car that were appropriate and subsequently used by the appellant
upon his own car.
People v. Reynaldo Bago (2000)
FACTS: Reynaldo Bago was an employee of Azkcon Metal
Industries from 1988-1992. From 1991 to 1992, he served as team
leader at the cutting department under the supervision of the Material
Comptroller who kept track of all the materials coming in and going
out of the company’s plant in Kalookan City. Azkcon has a business
arrangement with Power Construction Supply Company (Power
Construction) whereby Azkcon buys cold rolled sheets from the latter.
These cold rolled sheets are also cut by Power Construction for a fee
and Azkcon converts them into drums or containers. Bago’s job was to
go to Power Construction’s establishment in Quezon City to oversee
the cutting of the cold rolled sheets and ensure their delivery to
Azkcon using the trucks sent by Hilo. Bago was discovered to have
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
195
participated in the theft of materials worth P192,000.00. The trial
court found him guilty of qualified theft.
HELD: The trial court correctly found that appellant was a
trusted employee of Azkcon. He was in-charge of overseeing the
cutting of the materials at Power Construction and ensuring their
delivery to Azkcon. Due to this trust, he succeeded in withdrawing
from the said supplier the cold rolled sheets. The materials he took
from the supplier on March 23, 1992 could not be found in the premises
of Azkcon and there was no evidence that he delivered them on said
date or on any other day thereafter. Inexplicably, appellant presented
the third receipt (Invoice No. 51111) dated March 23, 1992 for
stamping only on April 21, 1992. The reasonable conclusion is that he
asported the materials.
Clearly, all the elements of theft were established, to wit:
(1) there was a taking of personal property; (2) the property belongs
to another; (3) the taking was without the consent of the owner; (4)
the taking was done with intent to gain; and (5) the taking was
accomplished without violence or intimidation against the person or
force upon things. As the theft was committed with grave abuse of
confidence, appellant is guilty of qualified theft.
People v. Luisito Bustinera (2004)
FACTS: ESC Transport hired Luisito Bustinera as a taxi driver.
It was agreed that appellant would drive the taxi from 6:00 a.m. to
11:00 p.m., after which he would return it to ESC Transport's garage
and remit the boundary fee in the amount of P780.00 per day. On
December 25, 1996, appellant admittedly reported for work and drove
the taxi, but he did not return it on the same day as he was supposed
to. The owner of ESC reported the taxi stolen. On January 9, 1997,
Bustinera's wife went to ESC Transport and revealed that the taxi had
been abandoned. ESC was able to recovered. The trial court found him
guilty beyond reasonable doubt of qualified theft.
HELD: Bustinera was convicted of qualified theft under
Article 310 of the Revised Penal Code, as amended for the unlawful
taking of a motor vehicle. However, Article 310 has been modified,
with respect to certain vehicles, by Republic Act No. 6539, as
amended, otherwise known as "AN ACT PREVENTING AND PENALIZING
CARNAPPING."
When statutes are in pari materia or when they relate to the
same person or thing, or to the same class of persons or things, or
cover the same specific or particular subject matter, or have the same
purpose or object, the rule dictates that they should be construed
together
The elements of the crime of theft as provided for in Article
308 of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) that there be taking of personal
property; (2) that said property belongs to another; (3) that the taking
be done with intent to gain; (4) that the taking be done without the
consent of the owner; and (5) that the taking be accomplished without
the use of violence against or intimidation of persons or force upon
things.
Theft is qualified when any of the following circumstances is
present: (1) the theft is committed by a domestic servant; (2) the theft
is committed with grave abuse of confidence; (3) the property stolen
is either a motor vehicle, mail matter or large cattle; (4) the property
stolen consists of coconuts taken from the premises of a plantation;
(5) the property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or fishery; and (6)
the property was taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake, typhoon,
volcanic eruption, or any other calamity, vehicular accident or civil
disturbance.
On the other hand, Section 2 of Republic Act No. 6539, as
amended defines "carnapping" as "the taking, with intent to gain, of a
motor vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or by
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by using force
upon things." The elements of carnapping are thus: (1) the taking of a
motor vehicle which belongs to another; (2) the taking is without the
consent of the owner or by means of violence against or intimidation
of persons or by using force upon things; and (3) the taking is done
with intent to gain.
Carnapping is essentially the robbery or theft of a motorized
vehicle, the concept of unlawful taking in theft, robbery and
carnapping being the same. From the foregoing, since appellant is
being accused of the unlawful taking of a Daewoo sedan, it is the anti-
carnapping law and not the provisions of qualified theft which would
apply.
Jonathan D. Cariaga v. Court of Appeals (2001)
FACTS: "Luis Miguel Aboitiz was the Systems Analyst of the
Davao Light & Power Company, Inc. (DLPC), whose duty was to devise
means to prevent losses due to waste, pilferage or theft of company
property. He received reports that some private electricians were
engaged in the clandestine sale of DLPC materials and supplies. He
initiated a covert operation to discover the method and to capture one
of the culprits. Using an undercover agent, the group was brought
down and Jonathan Cariaga was charged and found guilty of qualified
by grave abuse of confidence
HELD: The defense, verily, anchors itself on the bare denial
of petitioner of the specific acts imputed by the prosecution against
him. Certainly, this negative assertion cannot prevail over the
unimpeached testimony of the prosecution witness describing in
sufficient detail the active participation of petitioner in the
commission of the crime charged. We note that the information
alleged that petitioner was an employee of DLPC; that he had access
to the electrical supplies of said company; and that with grave abuse
of confidence, he stole electrical materials belonging to DLPC. The
prosecution established that petitioner who was permanently assigned
as driver of Truck "S-143" had charge of all the DLPC equipment and
supplies kept in his vehicle, including lightning arresters, cut-out and
wires, which were generally used for the installation of transformers
and power lines; and specifically stored therein for emergency
operations at night when the stockroom is closed. While the mere
circumstance that the petitioner is an employee or laborer of DLPC
does not suffice to create the relation of confidence and intimacy that
the law requires to designate the crime as qualified theft, it has been
held that access to the place where the taking took place or access to
the stolen items changes the complexion of the crime committed to
that of qualified theft.
People v Ruben Sison (2000)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
196
 FACTS: Ruben Sison first joined the Auditing Department of Astudillo v. People (2006)
the Philippine Commercial International Bank (PCIB) in December
1977. He rose from the ranks and was promoted to the position of
Assistant Manager and concurrently held the position of Branch
Mere circumstance that petitioners were employees of Western does
Operation Officer. As such, he was assigned to different branches until
not suffice to create the relation of confidence and intimacy that the
his last detail at the PCIB Luneta Branch in February 1991. He was the
law requires. The element of grave abuse of confidence requires
primary control officer directly responsible for the day to day
that there be a relation of independence, guardianship or vigilance
operations of the branch, including custody of the cash vault. Sison
between the petitioners and Western. Petitioners were not tasked
facilitated the crediting of two (2) fictitious remittances in the
to collect or receive payments. They had no hand in the safekeeping,
amounts of P3,250,000.00 and P4,755,000.00 in favor of Solid Realty
preparation and issuance of invoices. They merely assisted customers
Development Corporation, an equally fictitious account, and then later
in making a purchase and in demonstrating the merchandise to
the withdrawal of P6,000,000.00 from the PCIB Luneta Branch. He was
prospective buyers. While they had access to the merchandise, they
charged and found guilty of qualified theft.
had no access to the cashier’s booth or to the cash payments subject
of the offense.

HELD: The appeal has no merit. The trial court correctly

convicted appellant of Qualified Theft on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. Ultimately, the combination of all the incriminating facts front of his working place in Makati and, upon inspecting
proven by the prosecution and the logical inferences derived
it, saw the name and address of the owner engraved on the
therefrom leave no doubt in Our mind that appellant, with grave abuse
of confidence, conceived and accomplished the theft of P6,000,000.00 inside. Remembering his parents' admonition that he
from the PCIB Luneta Branch.
should not take anything which does not belong to him, he
The crime perpetuated by appellant against his employer,
the Philippine Commercial and Industrial Bank (PCIB), is qualified delivered the bracelet to PO1 Jesus Reyes of the Makati
theft. Appellant could not have committed the crime had he not been
holding the position of Luneta Branch Operation Officer which gave Quad precinct with the instruction to locate the owner and
him not only sole access to the bank vault but also control of the access
of all bank employees in that branch, except the Branch Manager, to return it to him. PO1 Reyes, instead, sold the bracelet and
confidential and highly delicate computerized security systems
designed to safeguard, among others, the integrity of telegraphic fund misappropriated the proceeds. Subsequent events brought
transfers and account names of bank clients. The management of the
PCIB reposed its trust and confidence in the appellant as its Luneta out the fact that the bracelet was dropped by a snatcher
Branch Operation Officer, and it was this trust and confidence which
who had grabbed it from the owner a block away from
he exploited to enrich himself to the damage and prejudice of PCIB in
the amount of P6,000,000.00. where Francis had found it and further investigation traced

the last possessor as PO1 Reyes. Charged with theft, PO1

Reyes reasoned out that he had not committed any crime

Asuncion Roque v People (2004)
because it was not he who had found the bracelet and,

moreover, it turned out to have been stolen. Resolve the

FACTS: Asuncion Roque was a teller of the Basa Air Base
case with reasons. (10%)
Savings and Loan Association Inc. (BABSLA). She was found to have
taken money from several of the depositors. Unable to return the SUGGESTED ANSWER:
money, she was charged with qualified theft and covicted. Roque
argued that since the money was lawfully received by her and later Charged with theft, PO1 Reyes is criminally liable. His
misappropriated she was guilty only of estafa.
contention that he has not committed any crime because

he was not the one who found the bracelet and it turned
HELD: In the present case, what is involved is the possession
of money in the capacity of a bank teller. In People v. Locson this Court out to be stolen also, is devoid of merit. It is enough that
considered deposits received by a teller in behalf of a bank as being
only in the material possession of the teller. This interpretation applies the bracelet belonged to another and the failure to restore
with equal force to money received by a bank teller at the beginning
of a business day for the purpose of servicing withdrawals. Such is only the same to its owner is characterized by intent to gain.
material possession. Juridical possession remains with the bank. In line
with the reasoning of the Court in several cases, beginning with People The act of PO1 Reyes of selling the bracelet which does
v. De Vera, if the teller appropriates the money for personal gain then
not belong to him and which he only held to be delivered
the felony committed is theft and not estafa. Further, since the teller
occupies a position of confidence, and the bank places money in the to its owner, is furtive misappropriation with intent to
teller's possession due to the confidence reposed on the teller, the
felony of qualified theft would be committed. gain.

Where a finder of lost or mislaid property entrusts it to

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

197
another for delivery to the owner, the person to whom
such property is entrusted and who accepts the same,
assumes the relation of the finder to the owner as if he
was the actual finder: if he would misappropriate it, he is
guilty of theft (People vs. Avila, 44 Phil. 720).
Theft; Qualified Theft (2002)
A fire broke out in a department store, A, taking advantage
of the confusion, entered the store and carried away goods
which he later sold. What crime, if any, did he commit?
Why? (2%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
A committed the crime of qualified theft because he took
the goods on the occasion of and taking advantage of the
fire which broke out in the department store. The occasion
of a calamity such as fire, when the theft was committed,
qualifies the crime under Article 310 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended.
Theft; Qualified Theft (2002)
73 of 86
A vehicular accident occurred on the national highway in
Bulacan. Among the first to arrive at the scene of the
Bar Questions
Theft; Qualified Theft (2006)
1. Forest Ranger Jay Velasco was patrolling the Balara
Watershed and Reservoir when he noticed a big pile of cut
logs outside the gate of the watershed. Curious, he scouted
around and after a few minutes, he saw Rene and Dante
coming out of the gate with some more newly-cut logs. He
apprehended and charged them with the proper offense.
What is that offense? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The offense is Qualified Theft under Sec. 68 of P.D. 705,
amending P.D. No. 330, which penalizes any person who
directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or smuggles
timber, or other forest products from any of the public
forest. The Balara Watershed is protected by the cited laws.
2. During the preliminary investigation and up to the trial
proper, Rene and Dante contended that if they were to be
held liable, their liability should be limited only to the newly-
cut logs found in their possession but not to those found
outside the gate. If you were the judge, what will be your
ruling? (2.5%)
Illegal Logging
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The contention is untenable, the presence of the newly cut
logs outside the gate is circumstantial evidence, which, if
unrebutted, establishes that they are the offenders who
gathered the same.
Theft; Stages of Execution (1998)
In the jewelry section of a big department store, Julia
snatched a couple of bracelets and put these in her purse. At
the store's exit, however, she was arrested by the guard
after being radioed by the store personnel who caught the
act in the store's moving camera. Is the crime
consummated, frustrated, or attempted? [5%]
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime is consummated theft because the taking of the
bracelets was complete after Julia succeeded in putting them
in her purse. Julia acquired complete control of the bracelets
after putting them in her purse; hence, the taking with
intent to gain is complete and thus the crime is
consummated.
Theft; Stages of Execution (2000)
Sunshine, a beauteous "colegiala" but a shoplifter, went to
the Ever Department Store and proceeded to the women's
wear section. The saleslady was of the impression that she
brought to the fitting room three (3) pieces of swimsuits of
different colors. When she came out of the fitting room, she
returned only two (2] pieces to the clothes rack. The
saleslady became suspicious and alerted the store detective.
Sunshine was stopped by the detective before she could
leave the store and brought to the office of the store
manager. The detective and the manager searched her and
found her wearing the third swimsuit under her blouse and
pants. Was the theft of the swimsuit consummated,
frustrated or attempted? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The theft was consummated because the taking or
asportation was complete. The asportation is complete when
the offender acquired exclusive control of the personal
property being taken: in this case, when Sunshine wore the
swimsuit under her blouse and pants and was on her way
out of the store. With evident intent to gain, the taking
constitutes theft and being complete, it is consummated. It
is not necessary that the offender is in a position to dispose
of the property,
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER;
The crime of theft was only frustrated because Sunshine has
not yet left the store when the offense was opportunely
discovered and the article seized from her. She does not
have yet the freedom to dispose of the swimsuit she was
taking (People vs. Dino, CA 45 O.G. 3446). Moreover, in
case of doubt as to whether it is consummated or frustrated,
the doubt must be resolved in favor of the milder criminal
responsibility.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
198

P.D. 330
PenalizingTimber Smuggling or
Illegal Cutting of Logs
SECTION 1. Any person, whether natural or juridical, who
directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or smuggles
timber, or other forest products, either from any of the public
forest, forest reserves and other kinds of public forests,
whether under license or lease, or from any privately owned
forest lands in violation of existing laws, rules and regulation
shall be guilty of the crime of qualified theft as defined and
penalized under Articles 308, 309 and 310 of the Revised
Penal Code; Provided, That if the offender is a corporation,
firm, partnership or association, the penalty shall be imposed
upon the guilty officer or officers, as the case may be, of the
corporation, firm, partnership or association, and if such guilty
officer or officers are aliens, in addition to the penalty herein
prescribed, he or they shall be deported without further
proceedings on the part of the Commissioned of Immigration
and Deportation.
P.D. 705
The Forestry Reform Code (as amended)
SECTION 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber or
other products without license. — Any person who shall cut,
gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest products
from any forest land, or timber from alienable and disposable
public lands, or from private lands, without any authority
under a license agreement, lease, license or permit, shall be
guilty of qualified theft as defined and punished under Articles
309 and 310 of the RPC; Provided, That in the case of
partnership, association or corporation, the officers who
ordered the cutting, gathering or collecting shall be liable, and
if such officers are aliens, they shall, in addition to the penalty,
be deported without further proceedings on the part of the
Commission on Immigration and Deportation.
The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the
government of the timber or forest products to cut, gathered,
collected or removed, and the machinery, equipment,
implements and tools used therein, and the forfeiture of his
improvements in the area.
The same penalty plus cancellation of his license agreement,
lease, license or permit and perpetual disqualification from
acquiring any such privilege shall be imposed upon any
licensee, lessee, or permittee who cuts timber from the
licensed or leased area of another, without prejudice to
whatever civil action the latter may bring against the offender.
Mustang Lumber Inc vs. CA
Whether lumber is different from timber? Lumber is actually
processed forest raw materials or just processed timber. Therefore,
lumber is necessarily included in timber as the law makes no
distinction.
Fencing
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979
What is fencing?
“Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain for
himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or in
any other manner deal in any article, item, object or anything
of value which he knows, or should be known to him, to have
been derived from the proceeds of the crime of robbery or
theft.
"Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or
partnership or other organization who/which commits the act
of fencing.
Presumption of Fencing.
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or anything
of value which has been the subject of robbery or thievery
shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles
is required
All stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and
sell of any good, article, item, object of anything of value
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall
before offering the same for sale to the public, secure the
necessary clearance or permit from the station commander of
the Integrated National Police in the town or city where such
store, establishment or entity is located.
Penalties imposed
Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder
indicated:
a. The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the property
involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not exceeding
22,000 pesos; if the value of such property exceeds the
latter sum, the penalty provided in this paragraph shall
be imposed in its maximum period, adding one year for
each additional 10,000 pesos; but the total penalty
which may be imposed shall not exceed twenty years. In
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
199
 such cases, the penalty shall be termed reclusion 2. That the real property or real right belongs to another
temporal and the accessory penalty pertaining thereto 3. That violence against or intimidation of persons is used by
provided in the Revised Penal Code shall also be the offender in occupying real property or usurping real
imposed. rights in property
4. That there is intent to gain.
b. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed or
stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding
12,000 pesos.
The real property or real right must belong to another

c. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and

medium periods, if the value of the property involved is
more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos. If defendant who took possession of the land using violence
or intimidation has shown he is owner of the land in question
and complainant was a mere possessor, Art 312 DOES NOT
d. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to apply.
prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value
of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not
If at all, the crime is: grave coercion
exceeding 200 pesos.

e. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period, if

such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50 Usurpation of Real Right, example:
pesos.

f. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period, if Accused, who had lost a case in a cadastral proceeding, took
such value does not exceed 5 pesos. possession of the land adjudicated in favor of the offended party
and harvested the palay, by means of threats and intimidation.

If no violence or intimidation (ex: mere use of strategy or

stealth) , only CIVIL LIABILITY exists
Article 311. Theft of the property of the National Library
and National Museum
Violence or intimidation must be DURING the occupation or
usurpation.
 Theft of the property on National Library and Museum has
a fixed penalty regardless of its value.
Art 312 DOES NOT apply when the violence or intimidation
only took place SUBSEQUENT to the entry into property

Article 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation of

real rights in property
Example: if accused ALREADY OCCUPPIED the land, and
when the administrator of such land told him to leave, but
accused threatened administrator he would "kill anyone who
Acts punishable: would drive me away" or chased administrator away with bolo.

1. Taking possession of any real property belonging to another Article 312 does NOT apply in case of open defiance of a writ of
by means of violence against or intimidation of persons; execution issued in a forcible entry case
2. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to another
by means of violence against or intimidation of persons.

Reason: Accused did not secure the possession of the land

Elements: by means of violence or intimidation. The refusal (violent or not)
of the accused to comply with writ of execution is a DISTINCT
OFFENSE: contempt of court under the Rules of Court.
1. That the offender
a. takes possession of any real property or
b. usurps any real rights in property
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
200
Criminal Action for occupation of real property NOT A BAR for
civil action for forcible entry
Reason: Causes of action are different!
Article 312 does NOT provide for a penalty, it only provides for
a fine.
 IN ADDITION TO the penalty for physical injuries inflicted as
a result of the acts of violence.
Distinguished from theft or robbery:
Usurpation Theft/robbery
There is intent to gain
Occupation or usurpation There is taking or
asportation
Real property or real right Personal property taken
Conchita Quinao v People (2000)
FACTS: Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao, together with
their other close relatives appeared on the property of Francisco and
Bienvenido Del Monte. While there, with the use of force, violence and
intimidation, usurped and took possession of the landholding, claiming
that the same is their inheritance from their ascendants further they
gathered coconuts and made them into copra. Thus, Bienvenido Del
Monte was forcibly driven out by the accused from their landholding
and was threatened that he should not return lest harm befall him. He
was thus forced to seek assistance from the Lapinig Philippine National
Police. In the trial court, defendants asserted a calim over the land
despite the fact that a prior judicial decision declared the Del Montes
as the rightful owners. Resultantly, defendants were found guilty of
usurpation of real property.
HELD: Contrary to petitioner's allegation, the decision
rendered by the trial court convicting her of the crime of usurpation
of real property was not based on "speculations, surmises and
conjectures" but clearly on the evidence on record and in accordance
with the applicable law. The requisites of usurpation are that the
accused took possession of another's real property or usurped real
rights in another's property; that the possession or usurpation was
committed with violence or intimidation and that the accused had
animo lucrandi. In order to sustain a conviction for "usurpacion de
derecho reales," the proof must show that the real property occupied
or usurped belongs, not to the occupant or usurper, but to some third
person, and that the possession of the usurper was obtained by means
of intimidation or violence done to the person ousted of possession of
the property.
More explicitly, in Castrodes vs. Cubelo, the Court stated
that the elements of the offense are (1) occupation of another's real
properly or usurpation of a real right belonging to another person; (2)
violence or intimidation should be employed in possessing the real
property or in usurping the real right, and (3) the accused should be
animated by the intent to gain.
Bar Questions
Usurpation of Real Rights (1996)
Teresita is the owner of a two-hectare land in Bulacan
which she planted to rice and corn. Upon her arrival
from a three-month vacation in the United States, she
was surprised to discover that her land had been taken
over by Manuel and Teofilo who forcibly evicted her
tenant-caretaker Juliana, after threatening to kill the
latter if she would resist their taking of the land.
Thereafter, Manuel and Teofilo plowed, cultivated and
appropriated the harvest for themselves to the
exclusion of Teresita. 1) What crime or crimes did
Manuel and Teofilo commit? Explain. 2) Suppose
Manuel and Teofilo killed Juliana when the latter
refused to surrender possession of the land, what crime
or crimes did the two commit? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
1) Manuel and Teofilo committed the crime of
usurpation of real rights under Art. 312 of the Revised
Penal Code for employing violence against or
intimidation of persons. The threats to kill employed by
them in forcibly entering the land is the means of
committing the crime and therefore absorbed in felony,
unless the intimidation resulted in a more serious
felony.
2} The crime would still be usurpation of real rights
under Art. 312, RPC, even if the said offenders killed
the caretaker because the killing is the Violence against
persons" which is the means for committing the crime
and as such, determinative only. However, this gives
way to the proviso that the penalty provided for therein
is "in addition to the penalty incurred in the acts of
violence (murder or homicide] executed by them. The
crime is similar to a robbery where a killing is
committed by reason thereof, giving rise only to one
indivisible offense (People vs. Judge Alfeche, plus the
fine mentioned therein.)
Article 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks
Elements:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
201
1. That there be boundary marks or monuments of towns, Real property may be involved
provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to
designate the boundaries of the same
2. The offender alters said boundary marks
"Absond"- does not require that the debtor should depart
and physically conceal his property. Hence, real property may
Intent to gain NOT necessary. be the subject of fraudulent insolvency.

The mere alteration of the boundary marks or monuments

intended to designate the boundaries of towns, provinces, or Person prejudiced: MUST be the creditor of the offender
estate is punishable.

Example: Wife of accused helped prepare documents to

"Alter": General and indefinite meaning. abscond with his property. Such participation does NOT prove
her complicity in the fraud, since it was the creditors of her
Includes: husband (not HER creditors) who were defrauded.

a. destruction of stone monument

b. taking it to another place or
c. removing a fence Distinguished from Insolvency Law:

Insolvency Law: requires that the criminal act be committed

AFTER the institution of insolvency proceedings

Article 314. Fraudulent Insolvency Fraudulent insolvency: no need for defendant to be

adjudged bankrupt or insolvent.

Elements:

1. That the offender is a debtor

2. Obligation is due and payable
3. He absconds with his property
4. There is prejudice to his creditors

Illustration of Fraudulent Insolvency:

Defendant became indebted to several merchants in Cebu.

Judgment was rendered against him and execution issued. He
owned several parcels of real property which he transferred to Article 315. Swindling (Estafa)
another to place them beyond the reach of his creditors. The
considerations in the deed of sale were all fictitious.

P.D. 2018

Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required Making Illegal Recruitment a Crime of Economic
Sabotage

Concealment of property not sufficient if the debtor-accused

has some other property with which to satisfy his obligation. Acts punishable

1. Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited

Being a merchant is not an element of this offense. It only
makes the penalty higher
practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor
Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-
holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and
punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code. The
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
202
 Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law a. the offended party or
enforcement officers may initiate complaints under this b. third person
Article.

* As seen above, DECEIT is NOT an essential requisite of estafa

2. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or with abuse of confidence
in large scale shall be considered an offense
involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized
in accordance with Article 39 of the Labor Code
* As to second general element of DAMAGE, it should be capable
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a of pecuniary estimation, since amount of the damage is the
syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or more basis of the penalty.
persons conspiring and/or confederating with one
another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal
transaction, enterprise or scheme.
* intent of defrauding another is always an element

Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large

scale if committed against three (3) or more persons * no estafa through negligence
individually or as a group.

-Estafa through Abuse of Confidence-

Powers of Minister of Labor and Employment (now
Secretary of DOLE)

I. Article 315, Paragraph 1 (a): Estafa with

unfaithfulness by altering the substance,
The Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly
authorized representatives shall have the power to cause
quantity, or quality of anything of value
the arrest and detention of such non-license or non-holder
of authority if after investigation it is determined that his
Elements:
activities constitute a danger to national security and public
order or will lead to further exploitation of job-seekers. 1. That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver
something of value
2. That he alters its substance, quantity, or quality
The Minister shall order the search of the office 3. That damage or prejudice is caused by another
or premises and seizure of documents paraphernalia,
properties and other implements used in illegal recruitment
activities and the closure of companies, establishment and  There must be an onerous obligation
entities found to be engaged in the recruitment of workers for
overseas employment, without having been licensed or
authorized to do so. If the thing delivered had not yet been fully paid or just partially
paid, NO ESTAFA even if there was alteration  Ratio: there
was no damage to talk about

Three general ways of committing Estafa:  When there is no agreement as to the quality of the thing
to be delivered, delivery of a thing unacceptable to the
1. with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence complainant is NOT estafa.
2. by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts
3. through fraudulent means
 Even though such obligation be based on an immoral or
illegal consideration. Estafa may arise even if the thing to
Elements of Estafa IN GENERAL: be delivered is not subject of lawful commerce (ex. opium)

1. That the accused defrauded another by

a. abuse of confidence or
b. by means of deceit
II. Article 315, Paragraph 1 (b): misappropriating
or converting money, goods, or other personal
2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary estimation property OR denying having received such
is caused to money, goods, or other personal property
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
203
 NOTE: The sale of goods, documents or instruments by a
person in the business of selling goods, documents or
Elements: instruments for profit who, at the outset of the transaction,
has, as against the buyer, general property rights in such
1. That money, goods, or other personal property be received goods, documents or instruments, or who sells the same to
by the offender in the buyer on credit, retaining title or other interest as security
a. trust (Trust Receipts Law) for the payment of the purchase price, does not constitute a
b. on commission trust receipt transaction.
c. for administration
d. under any obligation involving duty to return the very
same thing
2. There is (a) misappropriation or conversion of such
property by the offender OR (b) denial of such receipt Allied Banking v. Ordonez
3. There is prejudice to another
4. Demand was made by the offended to the offender
PBM got equipment from bank and executed trust receipt agreement
(TRA) -- acknowledged bank's ownership of equipment and PBM's
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 115 January 29, 1973 obligation to turn over the proceeds of the sale of said equipments.
PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TRUST Sec. Of Justice said that since PBM would not be selling the equipment
RECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS but would just be using them, there was no violation of PD 115.

"Trust Receipt" -- shall refer to the written or printed

document signed by the entrustee in favor of the entruster
HELD: PD 115 applies to ALL trust receipt transactions. Therefore, the
containing terms and conditions substantially complying with
fact that the goods were just to be used by PBM and not to be sold is
the provisions of this Decree. No further formality of
execution or authentication shall be necessary to the validity of no importance. Any violation of the TRA is punished (Geof's notes in
of a trust receipt. Comm: wrong SC decision!  )

What constitutes a trust receipt transaction?

A trust receipt transaction is any transaction by and between
a person referred to as the entruster, and another person
referred to as entrustee, whereby the entruster, who owns Lee vs. Rodil
or holds absolute title or security interests over certain
specified goods, documents or instruments, releases the
same to the possession of the entrustee upon the latter's
execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed document Lee executed TRA for the purchase of materials but misappropriated
called a "trust receipt" wherein the entrustee binds himself to the value of the goods for personal use. Charged with estafa under PD
hold the designated goods, documents or instruments in trust 115. Challenged the validity of the law saying that a violation of PD
for the entruster and to sell or otherwise dispose of the goods, 115 is NOT estafa and that the law violates non-imprisonment for debts
documents or instruments with the obligation to turn over to clause of the Constitution.
the entruster the proceeds thereof to the extent of the
amount owing to the entruster or as appears in the trust
receipt or the goods, documents or instruments themselves if
they are unsold or not otherwise disposed of, in accordance HELD: Sec 13 of PD 115 explicitly states that the failure to give back
with the terms and conditions specified in the trust receipt, or the proceeds or return the goods of estafa is punishable. No violation
for other purposes substantially equivalent to any of the of the Constitution as the loan is separate from the trust receipt. What
following: is punished is the violation of the trust receipt and not the non-
payment of the loan.
1. In the case of goods or documents,
b) to sell the goods or procure their sale; or
c) to manufacture or process the goods with the
purpose of ultimate sale: Provided, That, in the
case of goods delivered under trust receipt for the
purpose of manufacturing or processing before its  The 4th element is not necessary where there is evidence of
ultimate sale, the entruster shall retain its title over misappropriation of goods by the defendant
the goods whether in its original or processed form  Check is included in the word "money"
until the entrustee has complied fully with his
obligation under the trust receipt; or
 Money/goods must be received by the offender.
d) to load, unload, ship or tranship or otherwise deal Otherwise, crime is THEFT (taking without consent of
with them in a manner preliminary or necessary to owner)
their sale; or  hence, offender must have material AND juridical possession
2. In the case of instruments, of the thing
a) to sell or procure their sale or exchange; or
b) to deliver them to a principal; or  JURIDICAL POSSESSION: means a possession which gives
c) to effect the consummation of some transactions
the transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may
involving delivery to a depository or register; or
d) to effect their presentation, collection or renewal set up even against the owner.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

204
 "involving the duty to return the same" includes  The gravity of the crime of Estafa is determined on the basis
a. quasi-contracts and of the amount not returned before the institution of criminal
b. contract of bailment: deposit, lease, commodatum, pledge action.
 but NOT contract of loan! Loan of money is mutuum.
Ownership was transferred.
 Contract of sale (ownership is transferred at the time Estafa with abuse of Theft
of delivery): confidence
a) if thing sold not delivered and advance payment
Offender acquires the Offender acquires only
not returned, only CIVIL LIABILITY
juridical possession of the material possession of the
b) if buyer did not pay the price to owner, only CIVIL property property
LIABILITY also
Offender receives the thing Offender takes the thing
from the offended party from the offended party
Key: if no obligation to return the very same thing, only Civil
liability

 Additional test: In theft, upon delivery of the thing to the

offender, the owner expects an immediate return of the
 No estafa when the money or other personal property thing to him
received is NOT to be used for a particular purpose.
 Novation of contract from one of agency to one of sale or
to one of loan relieves defendant from the incipient criminal Estafa with abuse of Malversation
liability under the first contract confidence
 But granting extension of time is not novation, nor is
acceptance of a PN for money misappropriated The offenders are entrusted with funds or property
 Also, the novation theory may perhaps apply prior to
Both are continuing offenses
the filing of the criminal information in court by the
State prosecutors, because up to that time, the original The funds or property are Involves public funds or
trust relation may be converted by the parties into an always private property
ordinary creditor-debtor relation.
The offender is a private Offender is usually a public
individual or a public officer officer who is accountable
 "conversion" – thing was devoted for a purpose different who is not accountable for for public funds or property
from that agreed upon, as if the thing were the accused's public funds or property
own (ex. depositary pledged the thing deposited)
 "misappropriation" - using an amount for personal purposes The crime is committed by The crime is committed by
misappropriating, converting appropriating, taking or
 Right of agent to deduct commission from amounts
or denying having received misappropriating or
collected: IF AUTHORIZED to retain commission, no estafa.
money, goods or other consenting, or through
personal property abandonment or negligence,
permitting any other person
 "to the prejudice of another"- not necessarily the owner of
to take the public funds or
the property
property
 Partnerships:
 Where a partner sold partnership property and
misappropriates the selling price only gives rise to
civil obligation only (it is a debt due to a partner as part  Private individual allegedly in conspiracy with public officer
of partnership funds) in a prosecution of the latter for malversation, may still be
 Partner given money to be used for a specific purpose held liable for Estafa even if the public officer was acquitted.
then misappropriated it  estafa  Misappropriation of firearms received by a policeman is
 A co-owner is not liable for estafa during the subsistence of Estafa, if it is not involved in the commission of a crime. It
the co-ownership is malversation, if it is involved in the commission of a
crime.
 Art 314 par 1 (b) is the ONLY kind of estafa where demand
is necessary. Although it is not required by law, it is
necessary because failure to account upon demand, is
circumstantial evidence of misappropriation. Saddul v. CA

 ‘Even though such obligation be totally or partially Saddul was authorized to sell some car parts. 20% of the proceeds from
guaranteed by a bond’ – a security executed by the agent sale would go to AMPI.
to answer for damages etc. does not relieve him from
criminal liability, for this undertaking refers only to his civil
liability.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

205
HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. Saddul did not receive the parts from AMPI Three ways of committing estafa under this provision:
in trust (received it from another party which was the owner of the
parts). Saddul did not convert it for personal use. Failure to deliver 1. using fictitious name
the proceeds did not cause damage to AMPI, as it was not the owner 2. falsely pretending to possess
of the parts. Also, AMPI did not demand return of the parts. a. power
b. influence
c. qualifications
d. property
e. credit
f. agency
g. business or imaginary transactions
3. other similar deceits

 fictitious name: when a person found a pawnshop ticket in

the name of another and, using the name of that person,
redeemed the jewelry
III. Article 315, par 1, (c): estafa by taking undue
advantage of the signature of the offended
party in blank  Pretending to possess power: "pretend to be a magician
who can find gold, but pay me to find the gold under your
house" trick.
Elements:

1. That the paper with the signature of the offended party be

 Pretending to possess influence: I have connections in
in blank Malacañang so pay me if you wanna get your documents
2. That the offended party should have delivered it to the approved" trick
offender
3. That above the signature, a document is written by offender
without authority to do so  Estafa by means of deceit vs. theft: juridical/ legal
4. That the document so written creates a liability of, or causes possession is still transferred to offender in case of estafa.
damage to the offended party or any third person But it is transferred through deceit.

 The paper with the signature in blank MUST BE DELIVERED

by the offended party to the offender (otherwise, crime is
falsification of instrument)

V. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (b): by altering quality,

fineness, or weight of anything pertaining to his
art or business
-Estafa by Deceit-

 Example: A gives B, a jeweler, a diamond to be made into

a ring. B changed the stone with one of lower quality.
Elements of Estafa by means of deceit:  Manipulation of Scale: violation of Revised Administrative
Code

1. There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent

means;
2. Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means VI. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (c): pretending to have
must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously with
bribed any Government employee
the commission of the fraud;
3. The offended party must have relied on the false pretense,
fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he was induced  Person would ask money from another for the alleged
to part with his money or property because of the false purpose of bribing a government employee but just
pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means; pocketed the money after
4. As a result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.

 "without prejudice to an action for calumny" : the offender

may also be charged with defamation which the
government employee allegedly bribed may deem proper
IV. Article 315, par 2, (a) to bring against the offender

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

206

VII. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (d): postdating a check
in payment of an obligation when the offender
had no funds in the bank, or his funds were not
sufficient to cover the amount
Elements:
1. That the offender postdated a check, or issued a check in
payment of an obligation
2. That such postdating or issuing was done when:
a. offender had no funds or
b. funds deposited were not sufficient
 check must be genuine and not falsified, otherwise, it is
estafa under paragraph 2(a), not 2(d) (example: signing a
check with a fictitious name and falsely pretending said
check could be encashed)
 the issuance of a check is NOT for a pre existing obligation.
It MUST be for an obligation contracted at the time of the
issuance or delivery of the check.
 When check is issued in substitution of a promissory
note, it is in payment of a pre existing obligation
 When the check is issued by a guarantor, there is no
Estafa because it is not in payment of an obligation.
 Prima facie evidence of deceit: failure of the drawer of the
check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his check
within three days from receipt of notice from the bank
and/or the payee or holder that said check has been
dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds
 otherwise, if drawer is able to fund within 3 days from
notice of dishonoring, not liable for estafa
VIII. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (e): Estafa by obtaining
food or accommodation at a hotel, etc
Three ways of committing estafa under the this provision:
1. By obtaining food, refreshment, or accommodation at a
hotel, etc. without paying therefor, with intent to defraud
the proprietor or manager thereof.
2. By obtaining credit at any of said establishments by the use
of false pretenses
3. By abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of his
baggage from any of said establishments after obtaining
credit, food, refreshment, or accommodation therein,
without paying therefor.
IX. Article 315, Paragraph 3 (a): Estafa by inducing
another to sign any document
Elements:
1. That the offender induced the offended party to sign a
document.
2. That deceit be employed to make him sign the document
3. That the offended party personally signed the document
4. That prejudice be caused
 There must be inducement:
 if the offended party was willing to sign although there
was deceit as to the character or contents of the
document (because the contents are different from
those which the offended party told the accused to
state in the document) crime is falsification
 accused should make statements tending to mislead the
complainant as to the character of the document executed
by him.
X. Article 315, Paragraph 3 (b): Estafa by resorting
to some fraudulent practice to insure success in
gambling
XI. Article 315, Paragraph 3 (c): Estafa by
removing, concealing, or destroying documents
Elements:
1. That there be court record, office files, documents or any
other papers
2. That the offender removed, concealed or destroyed any of
them
3. That the offender had intent to defraud another
 If no intent to defraud, the act of destroying court record
will be malicious mischief
 Examples:
1. Concealing document: A person who concealed a document
evidencing a deposit of P2,600 which came into his
possession when he offered to collect the deposit is guilty
of estafa.
2. Destroying documents: Destruction of a PN given back to
the maker to be replaced with a new one to renew the loan,
without making a new promissory note is estafa because by
destroying the old one, the offended party was
dispossessed of the evidence of a debt.
 In a very old case, it was ruled that the act of destroying a
PN, given to cover losses in gambling, by the maker thereof,
is Estafa. However, there was a dissenting opinion which
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
207
 stated that such PN is void and of no value, hence it cannot
be the subject of estafa.
HELD: GUILTY of estafa by false pretense, having pretended to have
special powers and fooled the extremely stupid victim.
Estafa under par. 3 (c) Infidelity in the custody
of documents

Manner of committing offenses is the same

The offender is a private
individual or even a public
officer who is not officially
entrusted with the
documents
There is intent to defraud
The offender is a public
officer who is officially
entrusted with the document
Intent to defraud not an
element in this crime
Abujuela vs. People
Balo offered financial assistance to Abujuela by virtue of some
insurance proceeds that Balo would receive from his father. Balo
borrowed Abujuela's passbook and made it appear that certain deposits
were made. When the account was closed, discrepancies were found
between the ledger and the account. Abujuela charged as accomplice
to estafa through falsification of commercial documents

HELD: NOT guilty. Abujuela NOT aware of the fraudulent plans of Balo.
Knowledge of criminal intent is essential to be an accomplice in
Final Notes on Estafa: estafa.

 The accused CANNOT be convicted of estafa with abuse of

confidence under an information alleging estafa by means
of deceit.
 If there is no deceit and no abuse of confidence, there is no
Koh Tieng Heng vs. People
estafa, even if there is damage. There is only civil liability.
 There CAN be a complex crime of theft and estafa, when
the former is a necessary means to commit the latter. C,
with intent to gain, took the pawnshop tickets without the Heng deposited two checks worth P18,060 each issued by a certain
consent of A (Theft). By redeeming the jewels by means of Dyaico. Then he withdrew several times from the account. Diayco
questioned the withdrawals. Heng was finally caught trying to
the tickets, C also committed estafa, using a fictitious name.
withdraw again.
 The basis of the penalty for estafa is the amount or value
of the property misappropriated BEFORE the institution of
the criminal action. Hence, partial payment made
subsequent to the commission of estafa does not reduce HELD: Possession and utterance of a falsified check gives rise to the
the amount misappropriated which is the basis of the presumption that the possessor is the forger of the check. Attempted
penalty. estafa correct as he was caught trying to withdraw.
 A private person who procures a loan by means of deceit
through a falsified public document of mortgage, but who
effects full settlement of the loan within the period agreed
upon, does not commit the crime of Estafa, there being no
disturbance of proprietary rights and no person defrauded People vs. Ong
thereby. The crime committed is only falsification of public
document.
Ong deposits checks then withdraws from the deposited accounts on
the same day without waiting for the required 5-day clearance period
 "Prejudice" consists in: for checks. The drawee banks subsequently dishonored deposited
1. The offended party being deprived of his money or property checks.
as a result of the fraud
2. Disturbance in property rights
3. Temporary prejudice HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. Ong had no knowledge of lack of funds,
checks not issued in payment of an obligation as required by the RPC.
Lastly, Ong did not employ deceit in withdrawing the money as the
bank waived the 5-day clearance period for its preferred customers
where Ong was one of those.
Celino vs. CA

Accused were pretending to be possessed by the spirit of a dwarf. They

were able to make the victim allow them to dig in the victim's backyard Llamado vs. CA
and extort some funds from him with the promise that it would grow
into a big amount.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

208
Gaw delivered to accused the amount of P180,000.00, with the
assurance of Aida Tan, the secretary of the accused in the corporation,
that it will be repaid plus interests and a share in the profits of the
corporation, if any. Upon delivery of the money, accused Ricardo
Llamado and Jacinto Pascual signed a postdated Philippine Trust
Company Check in the presence of Gaw. Gaw deposited the check in
his current account, which the drawee bank dishonored later informed
Gaw that said check because payment was stopped, and that the check
was drawn against insufficient funds. Gaw was also notified by the
bank that his current account was debited because of the dishonor of
the said check. After trial on the merits, the trial court rendered
judgment convicting the accused of violation of Batas Pambansa No.
22.
HELD: Llamado denies knowledge of the issuance of the check without
sufficient funds and involvement in the transaction with Gaw.
However, knowledge involves a state of mind difficult to establish.
Thus, the statute itself creates a prima facie presumption, i.e., that
the drawer had knowledge of the insufficiency of his funds in or credit
with the bank at the time of the issuance and on the check's
presentment for payment. Llamado failed to rebut the presumption by
paying the amount of the check within five (5) banking days from
notice of the dishonor. His claim that he signed the check in blank
which allegedly is common business practice, is hardly a defense. If as
he claims, he signed the check in blank, he made himself prone to
being charged with violation of BP 22. It became incumbent upon him
to prove his defenses. As Treasurer of the corporation who signed the
check in his capacity as an officer of the corporation, lack of
involvement in the negotiation for the transaction is not a defense.
The check was issued for an actual valuable consideration, which Gaw
handed to Aida Tan, a secretary in petitioner's office. In fact, Llamado
admits that Gaw made an investment in said amount with Pan-Asia
Finance Corporation. Llamado contends that the money which Gaw
gave the corporation was intended for investment which they agreed
will be returned to Gaw with interests, only if the project became
successful. But then, if this were true, the check need not have been
issued because a receipt and their written agreement would have
sufficed.
True, it is common practice in commercial transactions to require
debtors to issue checks on which creditors must rely as guarantee of
payment, or as evidence of indebtedness, if not a mode of payment.
But to determine the reason for which checks are issued, or the terms
and conditions for their issuance, will greatly erode the faith the public
reposes in the stability and commercial value of checks as currency
substitutes, and bring about havoc in trade and in banking
communities. So, what the law punishes is the issuance of a
bouncing check and not the purpose for which it was issued nor the
terms and conditions relating to its issuance. The mere act of issuing
a worthless check is malum prohibitum.
Lu Hayco vs. CA
Lu Hayco had a special power of attorney from Lu Chiong Sun to
manage the Units Optical Supply Company. The SPOA also authorized
Lu Hayco “To deposit and withdraw funds in the name of the
company.”
Lu Hayco deposited P139,000 paid by customers of the Units Optical,
not in the company's banks but in his own personal accounts. After 2
demand letters were ignored, a criminal complaint for estafa thru
falsification of a public document was filed against Lu Hayco.
To make a very long story short, the first case of estafa was dismissed
but many more ensued (as many as 75 counts, I think). Eventually, he
was convicted. Lu Hayco argues, among others, that there is no estafa
since the element of misappropriation or conversion was not proven.
HELD: The disturbance in property rights caused by misappropriation,
though only temporary, is itself sufficient to constitute injury within
the meaning of Art. 315(l -b) of the RPC. In U.S. v. Goyenechea (8 Phil.
117), the defendant pledged a typewriter belonging to McCullough &
Co. to the American Loan Company. Because of said act, the
typewriter was seized by the police, and taken into court. Throughout
the trial, McCullough & Co. was placed in a doubtful position as to its
right over the typewriter. [The SC] held that: “McCullough & Co. at
least suffered disturbance in its property rights in the said typewriter
and in the possession thereof. This fact, by itself, and without it being
necessary to deal with any other considerations of material fact
herein, always constitutes real and actual damage, and is positive
enough under rule of law to produce one of the elements constituting
the offense, the crime of estafa.”
In the case at bar, there was a disturbance in the property rights of Lu
Chiong Sun. While the funds received by Lu Hayco were deposited in
his personal bank accounts, Lu Chiong Sun and Units Optical could not
dispose of the said amounts. At least, this could be considered as a
temporary prejudice suffered by Lu Chiong Sun, which is sufficient to
constitute conversion in the context of Art. 315 (1-b) of the RPC.
Salcedo vs. CA
Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan Guaranty
Company, Inc. at Iligan City, which was engaged in the business of
property insurance. Said company had been suspended from operating
and eventually closed by the Insurance Commissioner since February
21, 1968. Salcedo was aware of the suspension and closure order but
he deliberately concealed the same from complainant Ponce when he
issued on March 18, 1968 a P50,000 fire insurance policy unto the
complainant, and collected Pl,095.80 as premium. Eventually, the City
Court of Iligan City convicted Salcedo of estafa.
HELD: Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan Guarantee.
When he signed and issued the policy and collected the premium
thereof, he had knowledge that his company was no longer authorized
to conduct insurance business. This knowledge makes him liable under
paragraph 2(a) of Art. 315 of the RPC which provides that:
“2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or fraudulent acts
executed prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
209
(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions; or by means of other similar deceits.”
To secure a conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315 of the
RPC, the following requisites must concur:
 that the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent
representations as to his power, influence, qualifications,
property, credit, agency, business or imaginary
 that such false premises or fraudulent representations constitute
the very cause which induced the offended party to part with his
money or property, and that as result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.
All these requisites are present in this case. The deliberate
concealment by Salcedo of the fact that his company was no longer
authorized to engage in the business of insurance when he signed and
issued the fire insurance policy and collected the premium payment
constitutes false representations or false pretenses, upon which the
complainant relied when he paid the premium.
People v. Remullo, 383 SCRA 93 (2002)
FACTS: Quinsaat, Cadacio, and Mejia went to appellant's
house sometime in March 1993, where Remullo told them she was
recruiting factory workers for Malaysia. Remullo told them to fill up
application forms and to go to the office of Jamila and Co., the
recruitment agency where Remullo allegedly worked. Remullo also
required each applicant to submit a passport, pictures, and clearance
from the NBI; and then to undergo a medical examination ‘The three
were then asked by Remullo to pay a placement fee of P15,000 for each
applicant, which they did. No receipts were issued for said payments. At
the time of their supposed departure, an immigration officer at the
airport told the victims they lacked a requirement imposed by the POEA.
Their passports were cancelled and their boarding passes marked
"offloaded". Evelyn Landrito, vice president and general manager of
Jamila later certified that appellant was not authorized to receive
payments on behalf of Jamila.
HELD: In this case, appellant clearly defrauded private
complainants by deceiving them into believing that she had the
power and authority to send them on jobs abroad. By virtue of
appellant's false representations, private complainants each parted
with their hard-earned money. Each complainant paid P15,000 as
recruitment fee to appellant, who then appropriated the money for
her own use and benefit, but failed utterly to provide overseas job
placements to the complainants. In a classic rigmarole, complainants
were provided defective visas, brought to the airport with their
passports and tickets, only to be offloaded that day, but with
promises to be booked in a plane flight on another day. The recruits
wait in vain for weeks, months, even years, only to realize they were
gypped, as no jobs await them abroad. No clearer cases of estafa
could be imagined than those for which appellant should be held
criminally responsible.
Through conversion or misappropriation
Crisanto Lee v. People (2005)
FACTS: Atoz Trading Corporation engaged in the trading of
animal feeds. Robert Crisanto Lee was the corporation's sales manager
from early 90's to 1994. In the course of Lee's employment therewith,
he was able to bring in Ocean Feed Mills as a client. Having "personally
found" Ocean Feed Mills, he handled said account. Transactions
between the two companies were then coursed through Lee, so that it
was upon the latter's instructions that Ocean Feed Mills addressed its
payments through telegraphic transfers to either "Atoz Trading and/or
Robert Lee" or "Robert Lee".
When [petitioner] ceased reporting for work in 1994, Atoz
audited some of the accounts handled by him. It was then that Atoz
discovered Ocean Feed Mills' unpaid account in the amount of
P318,672.00. Atoz thus notified Ocean Feed Mills that [petitioner] was
no longer connected with the corporation, and advised it to verify its
accounts. Promptly preparing a certification and summary of
payments, Ocean Feed Mills informed Atoz that they have already fully
settled their accounts and even made overpayments. Atoz filed several
cases of estafa against Lee, and the trial court found him guilty.
HELD: The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are as follows:
a) that money, goods or other personal property is received by the
offender in trust, or on commission, or for administration, or under
any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of, or to return
the same; b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of such
money or property by the offender; or denial on his part of such
receipt; c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another.
The words "convert" and "misappropriate" as used in the
aforequoted law connote an act of using or disposing of another's
property as if it were one's own or of devoting it to a purpose or use
different from that agreed upon. To "misappropriate" a thing of value
for one's own use or benefit, not only the conversion to one's personal
advantage but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another
without a right. Misappropriation or conversion may be proved by the
prosecution by direct evidence or by circumstantial evidence.
Demand is not an element of the felony or a condition
precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint for estafa. Indeed, the
accused may be convicted of the felony under Article 315, paragraph
1(b) of the Revised Penal Code if the prosecution proved
misappropriation or conversion by the accused of the money or
property subject of the Information. In a prosecution for estafa,
demand is not necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation
or conversion. However, failure to account upon demand, for funds or
property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
Jorge Salazar v. People (2004)
FACTS: Skiva International, Inc. is a New York-based
corporation which imports clothes from the Philippines through its
buying agent, Olivier (Philippines) Inc. Aurora Manufacturing &
Development Corporation (“Aurora”) and Uni-Group Inc. (“Uni-
Group”) are domestic corporations which supply finished clothes to
Skiva. Mr. Werner Lettmayr is the President of both Aurora and Uni-
Group while the petitioner, Jorge Salazar, is the Vice-President and
Treasurer of Uni-Group and a consultant of Aurora.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
210
 In December 1985, Skiva informed Olivier that it needs ladies
jeans to be delivered sometime in January 1986. Olivier, in turn,
contacted Aurora and Uni-Group to supply the jeans. Thus, a Purchase
Contract was issued by Olivier to Uni-Group wherein Uni-Group was to
supply 700 dozens of Ladies Jeans payable by means of a letter of
credit at sight.
On January 7, 1986, the parties agreed that Skiva will
advance to Aurora/Uni-Group the amount of US$41,300.00 (then
equivalent to P850,370.00 at the exchange rate of P20.59 to US$1.00)
as Aurora/Uni-Group did not have sufficient funds to secure raw
materials to manufacture the jeans. It was also agreed that the amount
advanced by Skiva represents advance payment of its order of 700
dozens of ladies jeans. Skiva remitted the funds by way of telegraphic
transfer from its bank in New York, the Israel Discount Bank, to the
joint account of Mr. and Mrs. Jorge Salazar and Mr. and Mrs. Werner
Lettmayr at Citibank N.A.
Mr. Jorge Salazar withdrew money from the dollar account
converted it into pesos and purchased cloth for the manufacture of 300
dozens of ladies jeans. The balance was allegedly returned by him.
However, the balance was later found missing. Resultantly Aurora/Uni-
Group failed to produce the 700 dozens of ladies jeans resulting in a
suit against them. Salazar was charged and convicted. His conviction
was upheld even by the Supreme Court. However in this Motion for
Reconsideration, the SC reversed and held he was innocent.
HELD: We find merit in the new motion. The elements of
estafa under Article 315, par. 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code are the
following: (a) that money, goods or other personal property is received
by the offender in trust or on commission, or for administration, or
under any other obligation involving the duty to make delivery of or to
return the same; (b) that there be misappropriation or conversion of
such money or property by the offender, or denial on his part of such
receipt; (c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and (d) there is demand by the offended party
to the offender.
We reiterate that the contract between Skiva and Aurora
was one of sale. After the perfection of the contract of sale, Mr.
Werner Lettmayr, representing Aurora/Uni-Group, requested Skiva for
advance payment in order to procure the raw materials needed for the
700-dozen ladies’ jeans. It was also Mr. Lettmayr who suggested that
the advance payment be made to the joint account of himself and his
wife, together with petitioner and his wife. As requested, $41,300.00
was transmitted by Skiva as advance payment. Despite the payment,
there was delay in the performance of contract on the part of
Aurora/Uni-Group. Petitioner and the OSG contend that under these
facts, Skiva has no cause to complain that petitioner committed
estafa. We agree. In Abeto vs. People, we held that “an advance
payment is subject to the disposal of the vendee. If the transaction
fails, the obligation to return the advance payment ensues but this
obligation is civil and not of criminal nature.” In fine, the remedy
of Skiva against Aurora/Uni-Group for breaching its contract is a civil,
not a criminal suit.
Virgie Serona v Court of Appeals (2002)
FACTS: Leonida Quilatan delivered pieces of jewelry to
Virgie Serona to be sold on commission basis. By oral agreement of the
parties, petitioner shall remit payment or return the pieces of jewelry
if not sold to Quilatan, both within 30 days from receipt of the items.
Upon petitioner's failure to pay, Quilatan required her to execute an
acknowledgment receipt indicating their agreement and the total
amount due. Unknown to Quilatan, Serona had earlier entrusted the
jewelry to one Marichu Labrador for the latter to sell on commission
basis. Serona was not able to collect payment from Labrador, which
caused her to likewise fail to pay her obligation to Quilatan. After
demand, Quilatan filed a complaint with the prosecutor and Serona
was charged with estafa. The trial court found her guilty.
HELD: Serona did not ipso facto commit the crime of estafa
through conversion or misappropriation by delivering the jewelry to a
sub-agent for sale on commission basis. We are unable to agree with
the lower courts' conclusion that this fact alone is sufficient ground for
holding that petitioner disposed of the jewelry "as if it were hers,
thereby committing conversion and a clear breach of trust." It must be
pointed out that the law on agency in our jurisdiction allows the
appointment by an agent of a substitute or sub-agent in the absence
of an express agreement to the contrary between the agent and the
principal. In the case at bar, the appointment of Labrador as
petitioner's sub-agent was not expressly prohibited by Quilatan in the
acknowledgement receipt. Neither does it appear that Serona was
verbally forbidden by Quilatan from passing on the jewelry to another
person before the acknowledgment receipt was executed or at any
other time. Thus, it cannot be said that Serona 's act of entrusting the
jewelry to Labrador is characterized by abuse of confidence because
such an act was not proscribed and is, in fact, legally sanctioned.
Cristeta Chua Burce v Court of Appeals (2000)
FACTS: After finding a shortage of P150,000.00 in the vault
of Metrobank, Calapan Branch, several investigations were carried out,
all of them concluded that the person primarily responsible was the
bank’s Cash Custodian, Cristeta Chua-Burce. She was found guilty of
estafa by the trial court.
HELD: Petitioner herein being a mere cash custodian had no
juridical possession over the missing funds. Hence, the element of
juridical possession being absent, petitioner cannot be convicted of
the crime of estafa under Article 315, No. 1 (b) of the Revised Penal
Code.
When the money, goods, or any other personal property is
received by the offender from the offended party (1) in trust or (2) on
commission or (3) for administration, the offender acquires both
material or physical possession and juridical possession of the thing
received. Juridical possession means a possession which gives the
transferee a right over the thing which the transferee may set up even
against the owner. In this case, petitioner was a cash custodian who
was primarily responsible for the cash-in-vault. Her possession of the
cash belonging to the bank is akin to that of a bank teller, both being
mere bank employees.
In People v. Locson, the receiving teller of a bank
misappropriated the money received by him for the bank. He was
found liable for qualified theft on the theory that the possession of the
teller is the possession of the bank. We explained in Locson that —
"The money was in the possession of the defendant as
receiving teller of the bank, and the possession of the defendant was
the possession of the bank. When the defendant, with grave abuse of
confidence, removed the money and appropriated it to his own use
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
211
without the consent of the bank, there was the taking or
apoderamiento contemplated in the definition of the crime of theft."
In the subsequent case of Guzman v. Court of Appeals, 28 a
travelling sales agent misappropriated or failed to return to his
principal the proceeds of things or goods he was commissioned or
authorized to sell. He was, however, found liable for estafa under
Article 315 (1) (b) of the Revised Penal Code, and not qualified theft.
In the Guzman case, we explained the distinction between possession
of a bank teller and an agent for purposes of determining criminal
liability —
"The case cited by the Court of Appeals (People vs. Locson,
57 Phil. 325), in support of its theory that appellant only had the
material possession of the merchandise he was selling for his principal,
or their proceeds, is not in point. In said case, the receiving teller of
a bank who misappropriated money received by him for the bank, was
held guilty of qualified theft on the theory that the possession of the
teller is the possession of the bank. There is an essential distinction
between the possession by a receiving teller of funds received from
third persons paid to the bank, and an agent who receives the proceeds
of sales of merchandise delivered to him in agency by his principal. In
the former case, payment by third persons to the teller is payment to
the bank itself; the teller is a mere custodian or keeper of the funds
received, and has no independent right or title to retain or possess the
same as against the bank. An agent, on the other hand, can even
assert, as against his own principal, an independent, autonomous,
right to retain money or goods received in consequence of the agency;
as when the principal fails to reimburse him for advances he has made,
and indemnify him for damages suffered without his fault (Article
1915, [N]ew Civil Code; Article 1730, old)."
Through false pretenses, fraudulent acts
or means
People v Francisco Hernandez (2002)
FACTS: Eight (8) informations for syndicated and large
scale illegal recruitment and eight (8) informations for estafa were
filed against accused-appellants, spouses Karl and Yolanda Reichl.
The evidence for the prosecution consisted of the
testimonies of private complainants; a certification from the
Philippine Overseas Employment Administration (POEA) that Karl
Reichl and Yolanda Gutierrez Reichl in their personal capacities
were neither licensed nor authorized by the POEA to recruit
workers for overseas employment; the receipts for the payment
made by private complainants; and two documents signed by the
Reichl spouses where they admitted that they promised to secure
Austrian tourist visas for private complainants and that they would
return all the expenses incurred by them if they are not able to
leave by March 24, 1993, 3 and where Karl Reichl pledged to refund
to private complainants the total sum of P1,388,924.00
representing the amounts they paid for the processing of their
papers. The defense interposed denial and alibi. The trial court
convicted accused-appellants of one (1) count of illegal
recruitment in large scale and six (6) counts of estafa.
HELD: SC upheld the trial court stating that, the
prosecution also proved the guilt of accused-appellants for the
crime of estafa. A person who is convicted of illegal recruitment
may, in addition, be convicted of estafa under Art. 315 (2) of the
Revised Penal Code provided the elements of estafa are present.
Estafa under Article 315, paragraph 2 of the Revised
Penal Code is committed by any person who defrauds another by
using a fictitious name, or falsely pretends to possess power,
influence, qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary transactions, or by means of similar deceits executed
prior to or simultaneously with the commission of the fraud. The
offended party must have relied on the false pretense, fraudulent
act or fraudulent means of the accused-appellant and as a result
thereof, the offended party suffered damages.
It has been proved in this case that accused-appellants
represented themselves to private complainants to have the
capacity to send domestic helpers to Italy, although they did not
have any authority or license. It is by this representation that they
induced private complainants to pay a placement fee of
P150,000.00. Such act clearly constitutes estafa under Article 315
(2) of the Revised Penal Code.
Roberto Erquiaga vs Court of Appeals ( 2001)
FACTS: Honesta Bal is a businesswoman who owned a
bookstore. Sometime in May 1989, she was contacted by Manuel
Dayandante @ Manny Cruz who offered to buy her land in Pili,
Camarines Sur. He told Honesta that the company he represented
was interested in purchasing her property. Her daughter and she
met Dayandante and a certain Lawas (Rodolfo Sevilla) at the
Aristocrat Hotel. They said they worked as field purchasing
representative and field purchasing head, respectively, of the
Taiwanese Marine Products. They persuaded Honesta to purchase
cans of a marine preservative which, could be bought for P1,500
each from a certain peddler. In turn, they would buy these cans
from her at P2,000 each.
The following day, May 20, 1989 Glenn Orosco, appeared
at Honesta's store and introduced himself as an agent, a.k.a. "Rey,"
who sold said marine preservative. Honesta purchased a can which
she sold to Dayandante for P1,900. The following day, May 21,
Orosco brought five more cans which Honesta bought and
eventually sold to Lawas. It was during this transaction that
petitioner Roberto Erquiaga, a.k.a. "Mr. Guerrerro," was
introduced to Honesta to ascertain whether the cans of marine
preservative were genuine or not.
On May 24, Orosco delivered 215 cans to Honesta.
Encouraged by the huge profits from her previous transactions, she
purchased all 215 cans for P322,500. She borrowed the money from
a Jose Bichara at 10% interest on the advice of Erquiaga who lent
her P5,000.00 as deposit or earnest money and who promised to
shoulder the 10% interest of her loan. Soon after the payment,
Lawas, Dayandante, Erquiaga, and Orosco vanished. Realizing that
she was conned, Honesta reported the incident to the National
Bureau of Investigation (NBI) which, upon examination of the
contents of the cans, discovered that these were nothing more
than starch.
On December 4, 1989, an Information for Estafa under
Article 315, paragraph 2 (a) of the Revised Penal Code, was filed
against Roberto Erquiaga, Glenn Orosco, Pastor Lawas and Manuel
Dayandante.
HELD: That petitioners had conspired with each other
must be viewed not in isolation from but in relation to an alleged
plot, a sting, or "con operation" known as "negosyo" of their group.
Further, whether such a well-planned confidence operation
resulted in the consummated crime of estafa, however, must be
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt.
The elements of estafa or swindling under paragraph 2
(a) of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code 18 are the following:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
212
 1. That there must be a false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means.
2. That such false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means must be made or executed prior to or
simultaneously with the commission of the fraud.
3. That the offended party must have relied on the
false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is, he
was induced to part with his money or property because of the
false pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means.
4. That as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.
Erquiaga misrepresented himself as a "verifier" of the
contents of the cans. He encouraged Honesta to borrow money.
Petitioner Orosco misrepresented himself as a seller of marine
preservative. They used aliases, Erquiaga as "Mr. Guerrero"; and
Orosco as "Rey". Honesta fell for these misrepresentations and the
lure of profits offered by petitioners made her borrow money upon
their inducement, and then petitioners disappeared from the
scene after taking the money from her.
Elsa Jose v People [G.R. No. 148371. August 12, 2004.]
FACTS: 24 November 1994, Regie Ramos del Rosario
went with her aunt Yolanda B. Bautista to the office of Elsa Ramos.
They asked Ramos whether she was a travel agent. Ramos told del
Rosario that she was a ‘professional travel agent’ and would assist
her in going to Japan, as the former had ‘several connection(s) at
the Japanese Embassy.’ Ramos stated she could help in the
processing of passport, visa and round trip ticket.
Del Rosario gave P30,000.00 ‘as initial payment and
another P17,000.00 at a later date. Ramos assured them that the
visa would be obtained soon and the P17,000.00 was in payment
of the round trip ticket. Further, Ramos asked for another
P57,000.00 stating that part of the money would be used to
expedite the release of the visa. They were assured that she would
be able to leave for Japan with her mother. All these payments
were accompanied by a written receipt. Thereafter, Del Rosario
kept following up her papers with Ramos who insisted on her prior
assurances that the visa would soon be released. Del Rosario
thereafter filed a case for estafa against Ramos, the RTC found her
guilty as did the Court of Appeals.
HELD: Deceit refers to a “false representation of a
matter of fact (whether by words or conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of 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.”
On record are, on the one hand, the pieces of evidence
submitted by the People of the Philippines establishing how
petitioner held herself out as a professional travel agent who could
process and obtain for private respondent a passport, as well as a
round-trip ticket to and a visa for Japan. This charade convinced
the latter and her family to part with their P104,000. On the other
hand is the testimony of petitioner denying she ever made such
misrepresentation.
The prosecution has proven beyond reasonable doubt that the
accused made false pretenses as to her qualifications and the
transactions she had purportedly entered into as a professional
travel agent, who could assist in processing private respondent’s
travel papers. Undisputedly, she was not a travel agent. Neither
was she licensed to engage in the business of travel agency.
I ndeed, private respondent has shown her gullibility and
perhaps even foolishness in believing petitioner and in
consequently parting with her P104,000; Others more sensible
might not have done so in a similar situation. But such naivete
cannot absolve petitioner of criminal liability. It has been
established with moral certainty that she intentionally committed
a crime in violation of the law enacted precisely to protect not
only the wary and the wily, but more so the gullible and the
guileless.
Eliza Pablo v People (2004]
FACTS: The complainant Evangeline Bates was
approached by Eliza Pablo and Felomina Jacobe and Victoria
Roberto Bates. Eliza introduced Victoria and Felomina to her. The
three convinced her to contribute P330,000.00 as her share in the
payment of the back taxes due on a parcel of land owned by the
late Pulmano Molintas in Baguio City, and once the title is
validated she will be assigned a 2,500-square meter portion of the
land. Because Eliza is her townmate and since Victoria assured her
that her son is married to a daughter of Pulmano, she agreed.
Evangeline gave more than P330,000.00, or the total
amount of P332,000.00, because the three accused represented to
her that they needed expenses in following up the papers of the
land.
Subsequently, Evangeline found out that instead of paying for the
back taxes and validation of the property, the three accused
divided the money among themselves. Evangeline demanded the
return of her money and the three accused executed their
respective promissory notes. Failing to pay, Evangeline filed a
criminal complaint against them.
HELD: Deceit is defined as the false representation of a
matter of fact, whether by words or conduct, by false or
misleading allegations, or by concealment of 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. False
pretense is any deceitful practice or device by which another is
led to part with the property in the thing taken.
The deceit or false pretense employed by petitioners is
the fact that they assured complainant that the amount of
P330,000.00 delivered to them and accused Victoria by Evangeline
was to pay the back taxes of a certain parcel of land so that a title
may be secured and complainant will be given 2,500 square meters
of the subject land.
The failure of petitioners and accused Roberto in not paying the back
taxes and in misappropriating the money to their own personal use,
constitute the crime of Estafa. Even if the land exists, the crime of
Estafa is committed when petitioners and accused Roberto convinced
complainant to part with her money on the basis of their assurance
that they will pay the back taxes due on the land so as to secure a
title over the land and a portion thereof titled in the name of
complainant.
Bouncing Checks
BP 22
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
213
 People v Grace Flores (2002)
FACTS: Grace Flores issued a check in payment of one
(1) man's ring with a 5.8 ct. diamond from Pacita Del Rosario. The
check was dishonored and payment thereof refused for the reason
"ACCOUNT CLOSED", notwithstanding due notice to her of such
dishonor of said check, failed and refused to deposit the necessary
amount of said check. Cases for Estafa and violation of B.P 22 were
filed. The RTC found Flores guilty.
HELD: The elements of estafa, as defined under Art. 315,
par. 2(d) of the Revised Penal Code and amended by Republic Act
No. 4885, are: (1) that the offender postdated or issued a check in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time of the postdating
or issuance; (2) that at the time of the issuance of the check, the
offender had no funds in the bank or the funds deposited were
insufficient to cover the amount of the check; and (3) that the
payee has been defrauded. 10
These elements are present in this case. Accused-
appellant admitted that she issued PCIB Check No. 558574, dated
October 20, 1992, for P662,250.00 to Pacita G. Del Rosario. 11 The
check was issued as payment for a ring and the P250.00
transportation fare which accused-appellant received from
complainant.
The fraudulent intent of accused-appellant had been
proven to exist at the time of the issuance of the check. She
misrepresented to complainant that she was financially stable and
that her business was flourishing. In reality, however, accused-
appellant had no funds sufficient to cover the check she issued to
complainant. It is thus clear that she obtained the amounts of
P662,000.00 and P250.00 through deceit. As already stated, the
account was closed on the very date of the postdated check issued
to complainant.
People v Alexander Dinglasan (2002)
FACTS: Alexander Dinglasan was the owner and operator
of Alexander Transport, while private complainant Charles Q. Sia
is the owner of Schanika Enterprises engaged in retailing nylon
tires. Dinglasan issued three checks as payment for tire purchases.
When the checks fell due, Sia deposited them, but the drawee
bank, Banco de Oro, dishonored these for insufficiency of funds.
He then tried to call Dinglasan several times, but his calls were
unanswered. Sia, with the assistance of a lawyer, then sent
appellant a demand letter. All he got were promises that appellant
would pay the amounts due, 13 finally prompting him to hale
appellant to court. Dinglasan vigorously denied any intent to
deceive or defraud Sia. He vehemently insisted that his refusal to
pay Sia was primarily due to the poor quality of the tires sold him
by the latter. The trial court convicted Dinglasan.
HELD: Dinglasan was charged and convicted of estafa
under Article 315 (2) (d) of the Revised Penal Code. 22 The
elements of the offense are: (1) postdating or issuing a check in
payment of an obligation contracted at the time the check was
issued; (2) lack of sufficient funds to cover the check; (3)
knowledge on the part of the offender of such circumstances; and
(4) damage to the complainant. The first element of the offense
requires that the dishonored check must have been postdated or
issued at the time the obligation was contracted. In other words,
the date the obligation was entered into, being the very date the
check was issued or postdated, is a material ingredient of the
offense. Hence, not only must said date be specifically and
particularly alleged in the information, it must be proved as
alleged.
In the present case, the prosecution's evidence clearly
and categorically shows that there was no transaction between the
parties on July 30, 1994, for which Check No. 029014 was issued.
In other words, no obligation was contracted on July 30, 1994, for
which Check No. 029014 was allegedly postdated by appellant. The
situation obtains similarly regarding Check No. 029020. Again,
there was no obligation contracted by the parties on July 24, 1994
for which appellant allegedly postdated another check. Evidently,
the first element of the offense was neither correctly alleged nor
proven by the prosecution. Hence, appellant cannot be charged
much less found guilty of estafa with respect to Checks Nos.
029014 and 029020.
People v Aloma Reyes (2005)
FACTS: Aloma Reyes, together with her daughter, issued
Jules Alabastro a check for rediscounting. He was allegedly lured
to part with his money due to their seeming honest representations
that the check was good and would never bounce. However, when
the check was presented to the drawee bank for encashment, the
same was dishonored for the reason "ACCOUNT CLOSED" and after
having been notified by such dishonor said accused failed and
refused to redeem said check despite repeated demands.
HELD: Appellant avers that the subject check does not
fall within the meaning of Section 185 of the Negotiable
Instruments Law which defines a "check" as a "bill of exchange
drawn on a bank payable on demand." First, the NOW check is
drawn against the savings, not the current account, of appellant.
Second, it is payable only to a specific person or the "payee" and
is not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to "CASH." Appellant
quotes the restriction written on the face of a NOW check:
"NOW" shall be payable only to a specific person, natural
or juridical. It is not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or to
"CASH" or when [i]ndorsed by the payee to another person. Only
the payee can encash this "NOW" with the drawee bank or deposit
it in his account with the drawee bank or with any other bank.
Appellant posits that this condition strips the subject
check the character of negotiability. Hence, it is not a negotiable
instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Law, and not the
"check" contemplated in Criminal Law.
We disagree.
Section X223 of the Manual of Regulations for Banks
defines Negotiable Order of Withdrawal (NOW) Accounts as
interest-bearing deposit accounts that combine the payable on
demand feature of checks and the investment feature of savings
accounts.
The fact that a NOW check shall be payable only to a
specific person, and not valid when made payable to "BEARER" or
to "CASH" or when indorsed by the payee to another person, is
inconsequential. The same restriction is produced when a check is
crossed: only the payee named in the check may deposit it in his
bank account. If a third person accepts a cross check and pays cash
for its value despite the warning of the crossing, he cannot be
considered in good faith and thus not a holder in due course. The
purpose of the crossing is to ensure that the check will be encashed
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
214
by the rightful payee only. Yet, despite the restriction on the
negotiability of cross checks, we held that they are negotiable
instruments.
To be sure, negotiability is not the gravamen of the
crime of estafa through bouncing checks. It is the fraud or deceit
employed by the accused in issuing a worthless check that is
penalized.
Deceit, to constitute estafa, should be the efficient
cause of defraudation. It must have been committed either prior
or simultaneous with the defraudation complained of. There must
be concomitance: the issuance of a check should be the means to
obtain money or property from the payee. Hence, a check issued
in payment of a pre-existing obligation does not constitute estafa
even if there is no fund in the bank to cover the amount of the
check.
Manuel Nagrampa v People (2002)
FACTS: Nagrampa issued 2 checks (Php75,000 each) to
Fedcor Trading Corp represented by Federico Santander on August
31, 1989 and September 30, 1989 drawn against the Security Bank
. When said checks were presented to the bank for payment, the
same were dishonored for the reason that the drawer did not have
any funds therein. Despite notice of dishonor thereof, Nagrampa
failed and refused to redeem or make good said checks, 2 cases
were filed against him. The trial court found Nagrampa guilty of
two counts of violation of the Bouncing Checks Law and sentencing
him to suffer imprisonment for two years and pay FEDCOR
P150,000.
Petitioner appealed the decision to the Court of Appeals.
The appeal was docketed as CA-G.R. CR. No. 18082. Upon noticing
that the 30 September 1993 Decision of the trial court did not
resolve the issue of petitioner's liability for estafa, the Court of
Appeals issued on 19 May 1998 a resolution 18 ordering the return
of the entire records of the case to the trial court for the latter to
decide the estafa case against petitioner.
HELD: We l sustain the conviction for the crime of
estafa. Settled is the rule that, to constitute estafa, the act of
postdating or issuing a check in payment of an obligation must be
the efficient cause of defraudation and, as such, it should be
either prior to, or simultaneous with, the act of fraud. The
offender must be able to obtain money or property from the
offended party because of the issuance of the check, or the
person to whom the check was delivered would not have parted
with his money or property had there been no check issued to
him. Stated otherwise, the check should have been issued as an
inducement for the surrender by the party deceived of his money
or property, and not in payment of a pre-existing obligation.
People v. Rica Cuyugan (2002)
FACTS: Rica G. Cuyugan issued to Norma Abagat several
checks in payment of supplies she wanted to buy for the Philippine
Armed Forces. When the checks were presented for payment, they
were all dishonored either on account of DAIF (drawn against
insufficient funds) or for reason of ACCOUNT CLOSED. Despite
repeated demands, appellant failed to make good the checks,
which constrained the Abagat spouses to file a complaint for estafa
against Cuyugan. Cuygan claimed that the Abagat spousesand she
were partners in obtaining construction projects with the
Philippine Army. She issued postdated checks as proof that the
Abagat spouses had invested their money with her. She claimed
that she was the industrial partner as she did all the legwork in
getting the projects. They then shared in the profits after
deducting all the miscellaneous expenses.
The trial court found appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of estafa committed by means of false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud, that is by postdating a check or issuing a
check in payment of an obligation when the offender had no funds
in the bank, or his funds deposited therein were not sufficient to
cover the amount of the check.
HELD: We find the appeal meritorious. The transaction
between appellant and the Abagat spouses, in our view, was one
for a loan of money to be used by appellant in her business and she
issued checks to guarantee the payment of the loan. As such, she
has the obligation to make good the payment of the money
borrowed by her. But such obligation is civil in character and in
the absence of fraud, no criminal liability under the Revised Penal
Code arises from the mere issuance of postdated checks as a
guarantee of repayment.
Pio TImbal v Court of Appeals (2001)
FACTS: A husband was held by the court a quo
accountable for estafa through false pretense on account of a
check issued by his wife. Judy I. Bigornia delivered hog meat to
the spouses Timbal at their stall located at the Farmer's Market. In
payment, Maritess Timbal issued in favor of Bigornia a check for
P80,716.00. The husband- Pio Timbal was present when the check
was issued and handed over by his wife Maritess to Bigornia. When
the latter presented the check to the bank for encashment, it was
dishonored on the ground that the account was closed. Pio Timbal
contended that he had no active participation in the business of
his wife and claimed that when the check was issued by his wife
he was manning his own restaurant.
HELD: The petition has merit. The decision of the trial
court, as well as that of the appellate court, would reveal that the
main basis used in convicting petitioner was the fact of his
presence at the time of the issuance of the check by his wife.
Nothing else was shown nor reflected in the appealed decision that
could indicate any overt act on the part of petitioner that would
even remotely suggest that he had a hand in dealing with Bigornia.
Timbal’s mere presence at the scene of a crime would not by itself
establish conspiracy, absent any evidence that he, by an act or
series of acts, participated in the commission of fraud to the
damage of the complainant.
People v. Ernst Holzer (2000)
FACTS: Ernst Holzer et al were the owners of MGF
ELECTRONICS SATELLITE SUPPLY, a business engaged in selling and
installing satellite antenna system. They installed a system in the
house of Bernhard Forster. Forster was not satisfied with the
satellite antenna installed and the equipment which came with it
which he thought were second-hand. Moreover, he wanted a bigger
antenna. He was assured by accused-appellant Holzer that should
new equipment arrive from abroad, the used equipment would be
replaced and another antenna would be given.
Holzer informed complainant that new equipment had
arrived in Manila. His money, however, was not enough to secure
the release of the equipment from the Bureau of Customs. For this
reason, he asked complainant to lend him P100,000.00.
Complainant agreed and issued a check for P100,000.00 to
accused-appellant Holzer. In exchange, the latter issued a post
dated check. Before the due date, accused-appellant Holzer asked
the complainant not to deposit the check on August 1, 1995. Four
days later, accused-appellant again asked the latter not to deposit
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
215
the check because the money from Switzerland to cover the check
had not yet arrived.
Despite the request, however, complainant deposited
the check on August 9, 1995. As to be expected, the check was
dishonored for having been drawn against insufficient funds. On
the same day, complainant filed a complaint for estafa
HELD: In view of the amendment of Art. 315(2)(d) by
R.A. No. 4885, the following are no longer elements of estafa:
1. knowledge of the drawer that he has no funds in the
bank or that the funds deposited by him are not
sufficient.
2. failure to inform the payee of such circumstance 18
The drawer of the dishonored check is given three days
from receipt of the notice of dishonor to deposit the amount
necessary to cover the check. Otherwise, a prima facie
presumption of deceit will arise which must then be overcome by
the accused.
People v. Ojeda (2004)
FACTS: Cora Abella Ojeda used to buy fabrics (telas)
from complainant Ruby Chua. For the three years approximately
she transacted business with Chua, appellant used postdated
checks to pay for the fabrics she bought. On November 5, 1983,
appellant purchased from Chua various fabrics and textile
materials worth P228,306 for which she issued 22 postdated checks
bearing different dates and amounts.
The 22 checks were all dishonored. Demands were
allegedly made to make good the dishonored checks, to no avail.
Estafa and BP 22 charges were thereafter filed against Ojeda. The
trial court convicted appellant of the crime of estafa as defined
and penalized under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code (RPC), and sentenced her to reclusion perpetua. The
trial court also convicted appellant of violation of BP 22 for issuing
bouncing checks. However, the court a quo held her guilty of only
14 counts out of the 22 bouncing checks issued.
HELD: Under paragraph 2(d) of Article 315 of the RPC, as
amended by RA 4885, 20 the elements of estafa are: (1) a check is
postdated or issued in payment of an obligation contracted at the
time it is issued; (2) lack or insufficiency of funds to cover the
check; (3) damage to the payee thereof. Deceit and damage are
essential elements of the offense and must be established by
satisfactory proof to warrant conviction. Thus, the drawer of the
dishonored check is given three days from receipt of the notice of
dishonor to cover the amount of the check. Otherwise a prima
facie presumption of deceit arises.
The prosecution failed to prove deceit in this case. The
prima facie presumption of deceit was successfully rebutted by
appellant's evidence of good faith, a defense in estafa by
postdating a check. Good faith may be demonstrated, for instance,
by a debtor's offer to arrange a payment scheme with his creditor.
In this case, the debtor not only made arrangements for payment;
as complainant herself categorically stated, the debtor-appellant
fully paid the entire amount of the dishonored checks.
It must be noted that our Revised Penal Code was
enacted to penalize unlawful acts accompanied by evil intent
denominated as crimes mala in se. The principal consideration is
the existence of malicious intent. There is a concurrence of
freedom, intelligence and intent which together make up the
"criminal mind" behind the "criminal act." Thus, to constitute a
crime, the act must, generally and in most cases, be accompanied
by a criminal intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea. No
crime is committed if the mind of the person performing the act
complained of is innocent. As we held in Tabuena vs.
Sandiganbayan: XXX
The rule was reiterated in People v. Pacana, although
this case involved falsification of public documents and estafa:
"Ordinarily, evil intent must unite with an unlawful act
for there to be a crime. Actus non facit reum, nisi mens sit rea.
There can be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting."
American jurisprudence echoes the same principle. It
adheres to the view that criminal intent in embezzlement is not
based on technical mistakes as to the legal effect of a transaction
honestly entered into, and there can be no embezzlement if the
mind of the person doing the act is innocent or if there is no
wrongful purpose.
The accused may thus prove that he acted in good faith
and that he had no intention to convert the money or goods for his
personal benefit. We are convinced that appellant was able to
prove the absence of criminal intent in her transactions with Chua.
Had her intention been tainted with malice and deceit, appellant
would not have exerted extraordinary effort to pay the
complainant, given her own business and financial reverses.
People v. Dimalanta (2004)
FACTS: Josefina Dimalanta who was then employed at
the Caloocan City Engineer's Office, called up complainant Elvira
D. Abarca on the telephone to express her desire to purchase
jewelry. Complainant went to Dimalanta’s house where the latter
purchased twelve pairs of jewelry. In payment thereof, appellant
issued twelve postdated checks with the representation that the
same will be sufficiently funded on their respective maturity
dates.
The first check issued by Dimalanta was honored and
paid by the drawee bank. However, the remaining eleven checks
were all returned unpaid since the account was closed. On demand
Dimalanta failed to make good on the checks. The trial court
convicted Dimalanta of Estafa.
HELD: Damage and deceit are essential elements of the
offense and must be established with satisfactory proof to warrant
conviction. The false pretense or fraudulent act must be
committed prior to or simultaneously with the issuance of the bad
check. In the case at bar, the prosecution failed to establish
beyond a shadow of a doubt that appellant employed deceit. Its
evidence was overcome by the defense's proof that the pieces of
jewelry were not purchased by appellant for her own use; rather
the same were merely given to her for resale.
We find that appellant acted in good faith during the
transaction. After the first check was dishonored, she exerted best
efforts to make good the value of the check, albeit only to the
extent of P25,000.00. Good faith is a defense to a charge of Estafa
by postdating a check. This may be manifested by appellant's act
of offering to make arrangements with complainant as to the
manner of payment.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
216
 BP 22
An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and
Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or
Credit and For Other Purposes
Section 1
BP 22 may be violated in TWO ways
Elements of the offense defined in the first paragraph of
Section 1:
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check
2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply on
account or for value
3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the
check knows at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for the
payment of such check in full upon its presentment
4. That the check
a. is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit, or
b. would have been dishonored for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment
Elements of the offense defined in the second paragraph of
Section 1:
1. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the
drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a
check
2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
credit to cover the full amount of the check if presented
within a period of 90 days from the date appearing
thereon
3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank
 Gravamen of BP 22: issuance of the check, not the
payment of the obligation. The law has made the mere
act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum
 BP 22 vs. Estafa under Article 315 par 2 (d):
1. Unlike estafa, element of DAMAGE is NOT
REQUIRED in BP 22
2. Article 315 par 2 (d) of estafa has DECEIT as an
element. BP 22 does NOT require such element.
3. Also, the mere fact of postdating or issuing a check
when the drawer had no or insufficient funds in the
bank makes someone liable under Article 315 par
2(d) of estafa. BP 22, 1st paragraph requires
knowledge of insufficient funds.
 The check may be drawn and issued to "apply on
account of for value": BP 22 does not make a distinction
as to whether the bad check is issued in payment of an
obligation or to merely guarantee an obligation
 Illustration for Section 1, par 1, element 4:
There was a mistake in naming the payee of the check; so
the drawer ordered the bank to stop payment; and it
appeared that the drawer knew at the time that the check
was issued that he had no sufficient funds in the bank. In this
case, NO VIOLATION OF BP 22!
Even if the check would have been dishonored for
insufficiency of funds had he not ordered the bank to stop
payment, there was a VALID reason (wrong payee) for
ordering the bank to stop payment.
 BP 22: person liable when the check is drawn by a
corporation, company, or entity: the person/s who
ACTUALLY SIGNED the check in behalf of such drawer
Section 2
Section establishes a prima facie evidence of "knowledge of
insufficiency ": when payment of the check is refused by the
drawee because of insufficient funds / credit when the check
is presented within 90 days from the date of such check
Exception:
a. when the maker or drawer pays the holder thereof of
the amount due thereon or
b. makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee
of such check within 5 banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by the drawee
Section 3
Section 3 requires the drawee
1. in case where drawee refuses to pay the check to the
holder:
 Write, print, or stamp on the check or to be attached
thereto the reason for dishonoring.
2. in case drawee bank received an order to stop payment,
it should state in the notice that there were no sufficient
funds in or credit with it for the payment in full of the
check, if such be the fact.
Introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored check
with the drawer's refusal to pay indicated thereon or attached
thereto is prima facie evidence of:
1. the making or issuance of the check
2. the due presentment to the drawee for payment and the
dishonor thereof; and
3. the fact that the check was properly dishonored for the
reason indicated thereto
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
217
 Nievas vs. Dacuycuy
Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all dishonored. He was charged
with 9 counts of estafa under the RPC. 1 count of violation of BP 22.
Nievas invokes double jeopardy.
HELD: No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses. Estafa needs
deceit and damage, not for pre-existing obligations, crime against
poperty and is mala in se. BP 22: deceit and damage not required
because mere issuance gives presumption of guilt, can be for a pre-
existing debt, crime against public order and is mala prohibitum.
People vs. Gorospe
Parulan paid check in Bulacan. Check was forwarded in BPI Pampanga,
then dishonored. Case was filed in Pampanga but was dismissed, as the
court had no jurisdiction on the case.
HELD: Pampanga court also has jurisdiction! Violation of BP 22 AND
estafa are transitory crimes. Deceit happened in Pampanga where it
was uttered/delivered while the damage was done in Bulacan where it
was issued.
Que vs. People
Que issued checks in Quezon City. Checks were used to pay for the
purchase made in Sta. Mesa. Checks were issued NOT to pay for an
obligation but just to guarantee payment. Checks later dishonored.
HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction.
Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NOT important as law
does not distinguish-- included as long as it was an issued check that
subsequently bounced.
People vs. Nitafan
Lim issued a memorandum check that was subsequently dishonored.
HELD: Memorandum Check (one used as evidence for a debt) falls
within coverage of BP 22. Memorandum check is NOT a PN.
Lim Lao vs. CA
Lim was an officer in a company where she signed checks, while it was
her superior who filled the blanks. Check which she signed as issuer
was dishonored. Convicted for violating BP 22 as law creates a
presumption of knowledge of the insufficiency of funds when check is
issued.
HELD: NOT guilty. Lim lacked actual knowledge of the insufficiency of
funds. Presumption in law is rebuttable by contrary evidence. Also, no
notice of the dishonor was given to her; notice only given to the
employer which is not sufficient as law requires personal notice.
Idos vs. CA
Idos and Alarilla had a partnership that was terminated with each
entitled to P1.8M each. Idos issued 4 postdated checks - 1 was
dishonored.
HELD: Not guilty as the check was NOT issued for a debt but as a
collateral or evidence of the other partners share.
Sycip vs. CA
Accused here bought a townhouse unit from FRC. Accused issued 48
postdated checks for the balance. However, due to the defects and
incomplete features of the unit, accused suspended payments. FRC
however continued to present the checks for payment thus always
forcing him to issue stop order payments. The bank then advised
accused to just close the account in order to save on hefty bank
charges upon every stop order. It is here that 6 checks were presented
by FRC but were dishonored. Accused convicted under BP22.
HELD: Accused not guilty. 2nd element of BP22 (knowledge by the
issuer of the check that he does not have sufficient funds) not proven.
Proven that there was sufficient funds in the account and that it was
closed not for insufficiency but upon the banks advice to save on
charges.
Other statutes can be used as a valid defense under BP22. CAB, PD957
that governs sales of townhouses allows the buyer to suspend payments
until the developer has complied with its obligations to properly
furnish the unit. BP22 and PD957 must be construed together in order
to harmonize their application.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
218

Article 316. Other forms of swindling
I. Paragraph 1: By conveying, selling,
encumbering, or mortgaging any real property,
pretending to be the owner of the same.
Elements:
1. That the thing be real property, such as a parcel of land or
a building
2. That the offender who is not the owner of said property
should represent that he is the owner thereof
3. That the offender should have executed acts of ownership
(selling, leasing, encumbering, or mortgaging the real
property)
4. That the act be made to the prejudice of
a. the owner or
b. a third person
Example:
A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold the same parcel
of land to C, representing to the latter that he (A) was the owner
thereof. At the time he sold the land to C, A was no longer the
owner of the property.
The thing disposed of must be real property
If property is chattel: ESTAFA!
There must be EXISTING real property
If accused sold non-existent land, he is guilty of estafa by
means of false pretenses.
Deceit consisting in false pretense
Article 316 only penalizes only those who PRETEND to be the
owner of property. Where the accused CLAIMS to be the owner,
especially if he has a Certificate of Title, there was no
pretension even if his ownership is defective and later
compelled to return the property to the person found to be the
true owner of the property.
Even if the deceit is practiced against the second purchaser and
the damage is incurred by the first purchaser, there is violation
of Art 316 par 1.
A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold the same parcel of
land to C, representing to the latter that he (A) was still the
owner thereof. C registered the sale in his favor. Consequence:
B lost the property due to non-registration in his favor.
Hence, damage fell on B, the first purchaser, while deceit
was practiced against C, second purchaser. A will still be liable
under Art 316 par 1 if B files a crim case.
Mere intent to cause damage NOT sufficient. There must be
actual damage. In fact, fine prescribed is based on the damage
caused
Art 316 par 1 vs. Art 315 par 2(a)
Art 316 par 1: the offender exercises acts of ownership over
the property as part of the false representation. On the other
hand, Art 315 par 2(a) does not need this circumstance.
II. Paragraph 2: By disposing of real property as
free from encumbrance, although such
encumbrance be not recorded.
Elements:
1. That the thing disposed be real property
2. That the offender knew that the real property was
encumbered, whether the encumbrance be recorded or not.
3. That there must be express representation by the offender
that the real property is free from encumbrance
4. That the act of disposing real property be made to the
damage of another
Example:
A mortgaged his property to B. Later, A, misrepresenting
that the property is free from encumbrance, mortgaged it again,
this time to C.
But if C knew that the property had already been mortgaged
to B, C cannot complain, as there is neither deceit nor fraud.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
219

"Shall dispose of the same"
The act constituting the offense is the DISPOSING of the real
property FALSELY REPRESENTING that it is free from
encumbrance.
"Shall dispose": includes encumbering or mortgaging.
"Encumbrance": every right or interest in the land existing in
favor of third persons
 Mortgage
 Ordinary lease
 Attachment
 Lien of a judgment
 Execution sale
The offended party must have been deceived, that is, he would
not have granted the loan had he known that the property was
already encumbered.
When the loan HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED when
defendant later offered the property as security for the payment
of the loan, Article 316, par 2 is NOT applicable
Conflicting jurisprudence: "Although such encumbrance be not
recorded"
Notwithstanding this phrase, some cases held that the
encumbrance must be legally constituted! In these cases, since
the encumbrances were NOT registered, accused were
acquitted.
Thing disposed must be REAL property
If the thing encumbered and disposed is personal property,
Article 319 applies (punishing one who sells or pledges personal
property already subject to encumbrance.)
Real property may be registered under any system of
registration
This paragraph applies whether the property is registered
under the Spanish system or under the Land Registration Act.
III. Paragraph 3: By wrongful taking by the owner
of his personal property from its lawful
possessor
Elements:
1. That the offender is owner of personal property
2. That the personal property is in the lawful possession of
another
3. That the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful
possessor.
4. That prejudice is caused to the possessor or third person
Example:
Accused pawned his watch to complainant. Later, pretending
to redeem watch, accused asked offended party to give him the
watch. Once getting hold of his watch, he ran away without
paying the loan.
Note: not theft an owner cannot be held guilty of theft of
his own property.
Offender owner of personal property
If third person and his purpose in taking it is to return it to
the owner, the crime is THEFT.
In lawful possession of another
Finder of a lost thing is NOT a lawful possessor, it being the
obligation of a finder to give the thing to the owner or to the
authorities.
"Wrongful taking"
If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1)
VIOLENCE, and (2) WITH INTENT TO GAIN/ CHARGE THE
BAILEE WITH ITS VALUE the crime is ROBBERY.
If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1) VIOLENCE
and (2) WITHOUT INTENT TO GAIN, crime is GRAVE COERCION
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
220
 If owner took the thing (1) without consent and knowledge Elements:
of possessor and (2) later charged possessor of the value of the
property, crime is ESTAFA. 1. Compensation wrongfully received (accepting
compensation for service not rendered nor performed)
2. Malicious failure to return the compensation wrongfully
received (fraud)
"To the prejudice of possessor or third person"

There must be fraud in this crime, otherwise, it will only be a

case of solutio indebiti under the Civil Code.
Example: A pledged his watch to B, his dorm mate to secure
a loan of P3000. One night, A took the watch from the drawer
of B without B's consent and knowledge and used it for the
night. A returned later and was about to put back the watch in
the drawer when B surprised A (Bulaga!!!) VI. Paragraph 6: By selling, mortgaging, or
encumbering real property or properties with
which the offender guaranteed the fulfillment of
Is A liable under 316, par 3? NO. THERE WAS NO DAMAGE his obligation as surety
CAUSED TO B.
Elements:

1. That the offender is a surety in a bond given in a criminal

or civil action.
IV. By executing any fictitious contract to the 2. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation with
prejudice of another his real property/properties
3. That he sells, mortgages, or, in any other manner
encumbers said real property
Elements: 4. That such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is
a. without express authority from the court
1. Fictitious contract b. made before the cancellation of his bond, or
2. Damage to another c. made before being relieved from the obligation
contracted by him
Example:
 There must be damage caused under this article.
A person who simulates (consideration is fictitious) a
conveyance to another for the purpose of defrauding a creditor.

Article 317. Swindling a minor

Note: The example above may become a crime of fraudulent
insolvency (Art 314) if the conveyance is real and made for a
consideration.
Elements:

1. That the offender takes advantage of the inexperience or

emotions or feelings of a minor.
2. That he induces such minor to:
a. assume an obligation
b. to give release, or
c. to execute a transfer of any property right
3. That the consideration is
a. some loan of money
b. credit, or
c. other personal property
4. That the transaction is to the detriment of such minor.

Note: Only personal property, since a minor can not convey real
property
V. By accepting any compensation for services not
rendered or for labor not performed
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
221
 PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1689

Increasing The Penalty For Certain Forms Of

Swindling Or Estafa
Article 318. Other deceits

Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other forms

of swindling as defined RPC 315 and 316 shall be punished
Elements: by life imprisonment to death if the swindling (estafa) is
committed by a syndicate consisting of five or more persons
A. formed with the intention of carrying out the unlawful or
illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme, and the
1. By defrauding or damaging another defraudation results in the misappropriation of money
2. by any other deceit not mentioned in the proceeding articles contributed by stockholders, or members of rural banks,
cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or farmers association, or
of funds solicited by corporations/associations from the
B. general public.

1. By interpreting dreams, making forecasts, telling fortunes,

or by taking advantage of the credulity of the public in any
other similar manner When not committed by a syndicate as above defined, the
2. For profit or gain penalty imposable shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion
3. Damage to others perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos.

Note: As in other cases of estafa, DAMAGE should always be

present.
Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged
property

Villaflor vs. CA
Elements:

2 Acts punishable:
Villaflor borrowed P1,000, in turn he offered his car as collateral
(Chattel mortgage instituted). Villaflor failed to pay the debt but the
A.
car could not be foreclosed as the car was already repossessed.
Villaflor was convicted of Estafa.
1. That personal property is validly mortgaged under the
Chattel Mortgage Law
2. That the offender knows that such property is so mortgaged
HELD: Gulty of Estafa as there was deceit – he represented self as the 3. That he removes such mortgaged personal property to any
owner of the car and failed to reveal that the car was already province or city other than the one in which it was located
mortgaged. at the time of the execution of the mortgage
4. That the removal is permanent
5. That there is no written consent of the mortgage or his
executors, administrators or assigns to such removal

Veloso vs. CA
B.

1. That personal property is already pledged under the Chattel

District Auditor Veloso approved 24 vouchers that led to the
disbursement of 23 checks for a project that was anomalous. He was Mortgage Law
convicted of Estafa.

2. That the offender, who is the mortgagor of such property,

sells or pledges the same or any part thereof
HELD: Guilty of Estafa as he was duty bound to ensure the veracity of 3. Such sale/pledge is without the consent of the mortgagee
the documents. He was negligent as he approved the vouchers that which is
had mistakes which were detectable by just using the basic skills of an
i. written
auditor.
ii. at the back of the mortgage and
iii. noted on the record thereof in the office of the register
of deeds

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

222
Chattel mortgage must be valid and subsisting
It is essential that the chattel mortgage be valid and
subsisting. If the chattel mortgage does not contain an
affidavit of good faith and/or is not registered, it is VOID
and CANNOT be a basis for criminal prosecution under Art 319.
Persons Liable
Even third persons who removed the property to another
province or city are liable because the offender is "ANY PERSON
who shall knowingly remove…"
The removal of the mortgaged property must be coupled with
INTENT TO DEFRAUD.
No violation of Article 319 if the removal was justified.
Filing a civil action for collection, not for foreclosure of chattel
mortgage, relieves the accused of criminal responsibility.
(based on a CA case)
If the mortgagee elected to file a suit for collection (not
foreclosure), there can be no violation of Article 319 anymore
since the mortgage as a basis of relief has already been
abandoned by the suit for collection.
House (generally considered as immovable) may be a subject of
chattel mortgage by agreement of the parties
Article 319 par 2 also contemplates a second mortgage.
Damage to the mortgagee is not essential.
Estafa (316, disposing Removal, sale or pledge
encumbered property) of mortgaged property
Mortgaged property is sold in disposed of in both cases
Real property Personal property
Property must be sold as Property sold without
free and unencumbered consent of the mortgagee in
writing, even if buyer is
informed that property is
mortgaged
Purpose of law: to protect Purpose of law: to protect
the purchaser the mortgagee
Articles 320 to 326-B. Arson (repealed or amended by
PD 1613 and PD 1744)
Kinds of arson;
1. Arson, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No. 1613;
2. Destructive arson, under Article 320 of the Revised Penal
Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659;
3. Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of Presidential
Decree No. 1613.
P.D. 1613
Amending the Law on Arson
SECTION 1. Arson. — Any person who burns or sets fire to
the property of another shall be punished by Prision Mayor.
The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire
to his own property under circumstances which expose to
danger the life or property of another.
SECTION 2. Destructive Arson. — The penalty of Reclusion
Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion Perpetua shall
be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:
1. Any ammunition factory and other establishment where
explosives, inflammable or combustible materials are
stored.
2. Any archive, museum, whether public or private, or any
edifice devoted to culture, education or social services.
3. Any church or place of worship or other building where
people usually assemble.
4. Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or watercraft,
or conveyance for transportation of persons or property.
5. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any
legislative, judicial, administrative or other official
proceedings.
6. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing
tenement, shopping center, public or private market,
theater or movie house or any similar place or building.
7. Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not, situated
in a populated or congested area.
(NOTE: SECTION 2 IS REPEALED BY R.A. 7659 AMENDING
ART. 320)
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
223
SECTION 3. Other Cases of Arson. — The penalty of
Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed if
the property burned is any of the following:
1. Any building used as offices of the government or any of
its agencies;
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine
shaft, platform or tunnel;
4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain
field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and
6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or warehouse.
SECTION 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson. —
The penalty in any case of arson shall be imposed in its
maximum period;
1. If committed with intent to gain;
2. If committed for the benefit of another;
3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards
the owner or occupant of the property burned;
4. If committed by a syndicate.
The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is planned or
carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons.
SECTION 5. Where Death Results from Arson. — If by
reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results, the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed.
SECTION 6. Prima Facie Evidence of Arson. — Any of
the following circumstances shall constitute prima facie
evidence of arson:
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part
of the building or establishment.
2. If substantial amount of flammable substances or
materials are stored within the building not necessary in
the business of the offender nor for household use.
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or
combustible substances or materials soaked therewith or
containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical,
chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start a
fire, or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are found
in the ruins or premises of the burned building or
property.
4. If the building or property is insured for substantially
more than its actual value at the time of the issuance of
the policy.
5. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire insurance
policy more than two fires have occurred in the same or
other premises owned or under the control of the
offender and/or insured.
6. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the
effects insured and stored in a building or property had
been withdrawn from the premises except in the
ordinary course of business.
7. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration
was made before the fire in exchange for the desistance
of the offender or for the safety of the person or property
of the victim.
SECTION 7. Conspiracy to Commit Arson. — Conspiracy to
commit arson shall be punished by Prision Mayor in its
minimum period.
SECTION 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. - The building
which is the object of arson including the land on which it is
situated shall be confiscated and escheated to the State,
unless the owner thereof can prove that he has no
participation in nor knowledge of such arson despite the
exercise of due on his part.
Article 320 as amended by R.A. 7659
Article 320. Destructive Arson. — The penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death shall be imposed
upon any person who shall burn:
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to one
single act of burning, or as result of simultaneous
burnings, or committed on several or different
occasions.
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to
the use of the public in general, or where people usually
gather or congregate for a definite purpose such as but
not limited to official governmental function or business,
private transaction, commerce, trade, worship, meetings
and conferences, or merely incidental to a definite
purpose such as but not limited to hotels, motels,
transient dwellings, public conveyance or stops or
terminals, regardless of whether the offender had
knowledge that there are persons in said building or
edifice at the time it is set on fire, and regardless also of
whether the building is actually inhabited or not.
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or
airplane, devoted to transportation or convenience, or
public use, entertainment or leisure.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any
appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the service
of public utilities.
5. Any building, the burning of which is for the purpose of
concealing or destroying evidence of another violation of
law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or
defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated
qualifying circumstances, the penalty of death shall
likewise be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or
committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of
persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely
to burn or destroy the building or the edifice, or the
burning merely constitutes an overt act in the
commission or another violation of law.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall burn:
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or
fireworks factory, ordnance storehouse, archives or
general museum of the government.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
224
 2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of
inflammable or explosive materials.
If the property burned is an inhabited house or dwelling, it
is not required that the house be occupied and that the offender
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts knew it when the house was burned.
penalized under this Article, death or injury results, or any
valuable documents, equipment, machineries, apparatus, or
other valuable properties were burned or destroyed, the
mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed. No complex crime of arson with homicide

NOTE: The laws on arson in force today are P.D. 1613 and PD 1613: if by reason or on occasion or arson, death results,
Article 320 as amended by R.A. 7659. The provisions of P.D. homicide is absorbed and the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
1613 that are inconsistent with R.A. 7659 (such as Section 2 on Death is imposed.
destructive arson) are DEEMED REPEALED)

Sec 6, PD 1613, 7 Circumstances constituting prima facie

Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Arson evidence of arson

A person, intending to burn a building, collects some rags, soaks Standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, any of those
them in gasoline and places them beside the wooden wall. When circumstance is sufficient to establish the fact of arson.
he is about to light a match to set fire to the rags, he is
discovered by another who chases him away.

Article 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief

1. Attempted arson: the crime committed in the above
scenario is attempted arson, because the offender
commences the commission of the crime directly by overt
acts but does not perform all the acts of execution (the Elements:
setting of fire to the rags) due to timely intervention.
1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another
2. Frustrated arson: if the person is able to set fire to the 2. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes
rags but the fire was put out before any part of the building involving destruction
was burned. 3. That the act of damaging another's property be committed
mere for the sake of damaging it

3. Consummated arson:
a. any charring (CHARING! Whiz na lang, 'day!) of the * 3rd element presupposes that offender acted due to hate,
wood of the building. Not necessary that the wood revenge, or other evil motive. Sometimes, offender also inspired
should be ablaze, sufficient that the fiber of the wood by the mere pleasure of destroying things.
is destroyed
b. mere scorching or discoloration by heat NOT
consummated
c. Setting fire to the contents of the building is already "Shall deliberately cause to the property of another any
consummated arson (setting fire to a building) even if damage"
no part of the building was burned.
d. However small a portion of the building is BURNED,
there is consummated arson.
This means that the offender should act under this impulse
of specific desire to inflict injury to another. HENCE, malicious
In attempted arson, it is not necessary that there be a fire mischief CANNOT be committed through NEGLIGENCE.
Malice and negligence are essentially incompatible.

Look at the facts if there was intent to burn.

"Damage" covers both loss and diminution.

Sec 3, par 2, PD 1613

If no malice, only civil liability for damages.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
225

Damaging of property must not result from crime.
Example: damage done as a result of another crime- accused
chased opponent around the house to kill him and along the way
broke various objects.
If after damaging the property, offender removes/ uses objects
of the damage, crime is THEFT
Caballen vs. DAR
Albeit Abajon’s previous arrangement with the former owner of the
property, Caballes, the new owner, asked Abajon to vacate the
premises where his house was and where he had planted corn,
bananas, and camote. They had a confrontation over this issue, but
reached no agreement. Abajon then harvested the bananas and
jackfruit. As the harvesting was done without her consent, Caballes
charged him for malicious mischief.
HELD: The essential element of the crime of malicious mischief which
is “damage deliberately caused to the property of another” is absent
because Abajon merely cut his own plantings. Case was dismissed.
People v. Acosta (2000)
FACTS: Raul Acosta y Laygo was a 38-year old mason. He
used to be a good friend of Almanzor "Elmer" Montesclaros, the
grandson of private complainant, Filomena M. Marigomen. On
February 27, 1996, Montesclaros, in the belief that Acosta and his
wife were the ones hiding his live-in partner from him, stormed
the house of Acosta and burned their clothes, furniture, and
appliances. Thereafter Acosta attempted to burn down the house
of Marigomen. He was charged with arson and found guilty.
HELD: Acosta was proved by testimony to have tried to
burn the house of Marigomen. In prosecutions for arson, proof of
the crime charged is complete where the evidence establishes (1)
the corpus delicti, that is, a fire because of criminal agency; and
(2) the identity of the defendants as the one responsible for the
crime. Corpus delicti means the substance of the crime, it is the
fact that a crime has actually been committed. In arson, the corpus
delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof of the bare occurrence
of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused. Even the
uncorroborated testimony of a single witness, if credible, may be
enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.
People v. Oliva (2000)
FACTS: Avelino Manguba and his family were sleeping in
their house. Avelino went out of the house to urinate. He saw
Ferigel Oliva set the roof of their house on fire with a lighted
match. While the fire razed Avelino's house, Ferigel and three
others, Dominador Oliva, Marcos Paderan and Arnel Domingo
watched at a distance of about five (5) meters. One of the
neighbors, Benjamin Estrellon went to the nearby river and
fetched water with a pail. As Benjamin was helping put out the
fire, he was shot by Ferigel at close range. The gunshot wound
caused Benjamin's death. The cases for arson and murder were
tried jointly. Only Oliva was found guilty.
HELD: We find no reversible error and affirm the
conviction. When Ferigel burned Avelino's house, the law
applicable was P.D. No. 1613. 35 Under Section 3 (2) of the law,
the penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion perpetua shall be
imposed if the property burned is "any inhabited house or
dwelling." Under the amendment, it is the fact that the house
burned is inhabited that qualifies the crime. There is no need to
prove that the accused had actual knowledge that the house was
inhabited. Under Section 3 (2) of Presidential Decree No. 1613, the
elements of arson are: (1) that there is intentional burning; and
(2) that what is intentionally burned is an inhabited house or
dwelling. The records show that when Ferigel willfully set fire to
the roof of Avelino's house, Avelino's wife and children were asleep
therein.
Proof of corpus delicti is indispensable in prosecutions
for felonies and offenses. Corpus delicti is the body or substance
of the crime. It refers to the fact that a crime has been actually
committed. Corpus delicti is the fact of the commission of the
crime that may be proved by the testimonies of witnesses. In
arson, the corpus delicti rule is satisfied by proof of the bare
occurrence of the fire and of its having been intentionally caused.
The uncorroborated testimony of a single eyewitness, if credible,
may be enough to prove the corpus delicti and to warrant
conviction. Here, corpus delicti of the arson was duly proven
beyond reasonable doubt.
Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief
Special cases of malicious mischief/"Qualified Malicious
Mischief" are:
a. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public
functions
- distinguished from sedition: the element of public and
tumultuous uprising is not present in Art 328
- but, BOTH have intent to obstruct the performance or
public function
b. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance
c. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle
d. Causing damage to the property of the National Museum or
National Library, or to any archive or registry, waterworks,
road, promenade, or any other thing used IN COMMON by
the public.
Article 329. Other mischiefs
Poignant Example:
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
226
People v. Dumlao where accused scattered around the municipal 1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by
building coconut husks containing human excrements. affinity in the same line

2. Widowed spouse with respect to the property which

belonged to the deceased spouse before the same passed
into the possession of another
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means of
communication
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers and sister-in-law IF
LIVING TOGETHER
Example: damaging railways, telegraph or telephone lines
 Article 332 only applies when BOTH the offender and
offended party are relatives as enumerated in the provision.
 Does not apply to strangers who participated in the crime.
The telegraph and telephone lines must pertain to a railway
 Stepfather, adopted child, paramours, common-law
system!
spouses INCLUDED

If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision or

other accident, a higher penalty shall be imposed

Question: What crime is committed IF as a result of the damage

caused to the railway, certain passengers of the train are killed?

Answer: It depends

A. If no intent to kill: crime is damages to means of

communication with homicide
B. If with intent to kill: murder (cf. Article 248, par 3)

Article 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public

monuments, or paintings

Title Eleven
No notes, 
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY

Chapter One. ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE

Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability

Article 333. Who are guilty of adultery

Crimes involved in the exemption: Article 334. Concubinage

1. Theft
2. Swindling (estafa)
3. Malicious mischief Chapter Two – RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS

 does not include robbery or estafa through falsification

Article 335. REPLEALED (Old rape law)
 reason for exemption: presumed co-ownership
Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness

Persons exempted from criminal liability only liablefor CIVIL

liabilities):
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
227
 Chapter Three – SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF MINORS, and
WHITE SLAVE TRADE
Article 337. Qualified seduction
Article 338. Simple seduction
Article 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of
the offended party
Article 340. Corruption of minors
Article 341. White slave trade
Chapter Four – ABDUCTION
Article 342. Forcible abduction
Article 343. Consented abduction
Chapter Five – PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE PRECEDING
CHAPTERS OF TITLE ELEVEN
Article 344. Prosecution of crimes of adultery,
concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts
of lasciviousness
Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes
against chastity
Article 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians,
teachers, or other persons entrusted with the
custody of the offended party
Article 333. Who are guilty of adultery
Elements:
1. The woman is married;
2. She has sexual intercourse with a man not her husband;
3. As regards the man with whom she has sexual intercourse,
he must know her to be married.
 The essence of adultery is the violation of the marital vow.
 The gist of the crime is the danger of introducing spurious
heirs into the family.
 The offended party must be legally married to the offender
at the time of the criminal case.
 It is not necessary that there be a valid marriage between
the offended husband and the guilty wife. There is adultery
even if the marriage of the guilty wife is subsequently
declared void.
 Carnal knowledge may be proved by circumstantial
evidence. Direct proof of carnal knowledge is not necessary
to sustain a conviction.
 Each sexual intercourse constitutes a separate crime of
adultery. Adultery is NOT a continuing offense.
 Abandonment of the wife without justification is not an
exempting circumstance, but only mitigates the penalty.
Both defendants are entitled to this mitigating
circumstance.
 A married man who is not liable for adultery because he did
not know that the woman was married, may be held liable
for concubinage. If the woman knew that the man was
married, she may be held liable for concubinage as well.
 The acquittal of one of the defendants does not operate as
a cause for acquittal of the other.
 If the paramour dies, the offended wife may still be
prosecuted because the requirement that both offenders
should be included in the complaint applies only when both
offenders are alive.
 If the offended party dies, the proceedings must continue.
This article seeks to protect the honor and reputation not
only of the living but of dead persons as well.
 Pardon of the offended parties must come BEFORE the
institution of the criminal prosecution, and both offenders
must be pardoned by the offended party.
 Act of intercourse with the offending spouse subsequent to
the adulterous conduct is an implied pardon.
 An agreement to separate, while void under the law, may
be used as evidence to show consent by the husband to the
infidelity of his wife.
Article 334. Concubinage
Acts punishable:
1. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
2. Having sexual intercourse, under scandalous
circumstances;
3. Cohabiting with her in any other place.
Elements:
1. The man is married;
2. He is either –
a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances with a woman who is not his wife; or
c. Cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in any
other place;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
228
3. As regards the woman, she knows that the man is married. Article 335. REPEALED BY R.A. 8353, ANTI-RAPE LAW
OF 1997

 Concubinage is a violation of the marital vow.

 A married man is NOT liable for concubinage for mere
sexual relations with a woman not his wife.
 ‘Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling’ – no positive
proof of actual intercourse necessary. Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness
 Conjugal dwelling – the home of the husband and wife even
if the wife happens to be temporarily absent on any
account. Elements:
 ‘Scandalous circumstances’ – any reprehensible word or
deed that offends public conscience, redounds to the
detriment of the feelings of honest persons, and gives
occasion to the neighbors’ spiritual damage or ruin. (this is 1. Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness;
essential only in concubinage of the second type) 2. The act is committed against a person of either sex;
 The people in the vicinity are the best witnesses to prove 3. It is done under any of the following circumstances:
scandalous circumstances.
 When spies are employed, there is no evidence of
scandalous circumstances. a. By using force or intimidation;
 ‘cohabit’ – to dwell together, in the manner of husband and b. When the offended party is deprived or reason of
wife. otherwise unconscious; or
 Adultery is punished more severely than concubinage c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of
because of the possible introduction of another man’s blood authority;
into the family, so that the offended husband may have d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age or is
another man’s son bearing his name and receiving support demented.
from him.
 Motive of lascivious acts is not important because the
Beltran vs People (2000) essence of lewdness is in the very act itself.
 Embracing, kissing and holding a girl’s breast is an act of
lasciviousness, if the act was done with lewd designs.
FACTS: Petitioner Meynardo Beltran and wife Charmaine E.  Example: if the kissing etc. was done inside church,
Felix were married on June 16, 1973 at the Immaculate Concepcion absence of lewd designs may be proven, and the crime is
Parish Church in Cubao, Quezon City. On February 7, 1997, after unjust vexation only. But if the kissing was done in the
twenty-four years of marriage and four children, petitioner filed a house of a woman when she was alone, the circumstances
petition for nullity of marriage on the ground of psychological may prove the accused’s lewd designs.
incapacity under Article 36 of the Family Code before Branch 87 of the  Lover’s embraces and kisses are not acts of lasciviousness.
Regional Trial Court of Quezon City. The case was docketed as Civil  The act of lasciviousness must be committed under any of
Case No. Q-97-30192. In her Answer to the said petition, petitioner's the circumstances mentioned in the definition of the crime
wife Charmaine Felix alleged that it was petitioner who abandoned the of rape.
conjugal home and lived with a certain woman named Milagros Salting.  There is no frustrated crime of acts of lasciviousness.
Charmaine subsequently filed a criminal complaint for concubinage
under Article 334 of the Revised Penal Code against petitioner and his
paramour. Petitioner contends that there is a possibility that two Offenses against chastity Abuses against chastity
conflicting decisions might result from the civil case for annulment of
marriage and the criminal case for concubinage. In the civil case, the Committed by a private Committed by a public
trial court might declare the marriage as valid by dismissing individual, in most cases officer only
petitioner's complaint but in the criminal case, the trial court might
acquit petitioner because the evidence shows that his marriage is void Some actual act of Mere immoral or indecent
on the ground of psychological incapacity. lasciviousness should have proposal made earnestly and
been executed by the persistently is sufficient
offender
HELD: Parties to the marriage should not be permitted to
judge for themselves its nullity, for the same must be submitted to the
judgment of the competent courts and only when the nullity of the
marriage is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is Acts of lasciviousness Attempted Rape
no such declaration the presumption is that the marriage exists for all
Means of committing the crime are the same
intents and purposes. Therefore, he who cohabits with a woman not
his wife before the judicial declaration of nullity of the marriage The offended party in both crimes is a person of either sex
assumes the risk of being prosecuted for concubinage.
The performance of acts of lascivious character is common
to both crimes

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

229
 Acts performed do not
indicate that the accused
was to lie with the offended
party
Lascivious acts are
themselves the final
objective sought by the
offender
Acts performed clearly The elements of this crime are that: (a) the offender
indicate that the accused’s commits any act of lasciviousness or lewdness; (b) by using ford or
purpose was to lie wit the intimidation, or when the offended party is deprived of reason or
offended woman otherwise unconscious, or the offended party is under 12 years of
age. In acts of lasciviousness, the acts complained of are prompted
Lascivious acts are by lust or lewd design where the victim has not encouraged such
preparatory to the acts. In cases of acts of lasciviousness, the offender is deemed to
commission of rape have accomplished all the elements necessary for the existence of
the felony once he has been able, by his overt acts, to actually
achieve or attain his purpose.

Acts of lasciviousness Unjust vexation

The element of lewd designs There is no motive of lewd

exists designs

People vs. Famularcano

Famularcano, a driver at the Camp John Hay, followed Dionisia after

she alighted from the truck. She took her by the waist, held her to his
breast and private parts. She resisted and was able to extricate
herself. She then walked towards the house of her friend, instead of
going home.

When a complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed against him,

Famularcano claimed that he had no intention of having sexual
intercourse with her. He did the acts a s a revenge for what Dionisia’s
father did to his wife.

HELD: The accused cannot be convicted of frustrated acts of

lasciviousness for under the very terms of the law such frustration can
never take place. In cases of acts of lasciviousness, as in all cases of
crimes against chastity like adultery and rape, from the moment the
offender performs all the elements necessary for the existence of the
felony, he actually attains his purpose, and from that moment, all the
essential elements of the offense have also been accomplished. Motive
of revenge is of no consequence since the essence of lewdness is in the
very act itself. He was convicted of consummated acts of
lasciviousness.

People v. Sailito Perez (2002)

FACTS: Sailito Perez y Gazo was charged with five counts

of statutory rape against Jobelyn Ramos his 11 year old niece. The
accused interposed the defense of denial and imputed ill-motive
on the part of Jobelyn's mother which had led to the filing of the
criminal charges. The accused testified that during all the time
that the incidents were allegedly taking place, he was plying a
tricycle to earn his living. The trial court rendered judgment
finding the accused guilty of the crime of Statutory Rape and guilty
of the offense of Acts of Lasciviousness.

HELD: The trial court correctly found appellant guilty of

acts of lasciviousness. Appellant was shrouded with lust in trying,
although unsuccessfully, to get the young girl to suck his penis.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

230
 RA 7877
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT OF 1995
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18 years of
age by certain persons, such as a person in authority,
SECTION 3. Work, Education or Training-related priest, teacher; and
Sexual Harassment Defined. — Work, education or
training-related sexual harassment is committed by an
employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the Elements:
employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or
any other person who, having authority, influence or moral
ascendancy over another in a work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any a. Offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if she is
sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the unmarried and of good reputation;
demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted b. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
by the object of said act. c. Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
d. There is abuse of authority, confidence or relationship
on the part of the offender.
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual
harassment is committed when: 2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by her
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the hiring ascendant, regardless of her age or reputation.
or in the employment, re-employment or continued
employment of said individual, or in granting said
individual favorable compensation, terms, Person liable:
conditions, promotions, or privileges; or the refusal
to grant the sexual favor results in limiting,
segregating or classifying the employee which in
any way would discriminate, deprive or diminish 1. Those who abused their authority –
employment opportunities or otherwise adversely
affect said employee;
(2) The above acts would impair the employee's rights a. Person in public authority;
or privileges under existing labor laws; or b. Guardian;
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating, c. Teacher;
hostile, or offensive environment for the employee.
d. Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the
education or custody of the woman seduced;
(b) In an education or training environment, sexual
harassment is committed:
2. Those who abused confidence reposed in them -
(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or
supervision of the offender;
(2) Against one whose education, training, a. Priest;
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the b. House servant;
offender; c. Domestic;
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the
giving of a passing grade, or the granting of honors
and scholarships or the payment of a stipend, 3. Those who abused their relationship -
allowance or other benefits, privileges, or
considerations; or
(4) When the sexual advances result in an intimidating,
hostile or offensive environment for the student, a. Brother who seduced his sister;
trainee or apprentice. b. Ascendant who seduced his descendant.

Any person who directs or induces another to commit any act
of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who cooperates in
the commission thereof by another without which it would not
have been committed, shall also be held liable under this Act.
Article 337. Qualified seduction
Acts punishable:
 Deceit is not an element of qualified seduction. Abuse of
confidence is the necessary element.
 The fact that the girl gave her consent to the sexual
intercourse is not a defense, because lack of consent is not
an element of the offense.
 ‘domestic’ – a person usually living under the same roof,
pertaining to the same house
 Distinguished from rape: if any of the circumstances in the
crime of rape is present, the crime is not to be punished
under this article
 In case of a teacher, it is not necessary that he be the
teacher of the offended party, as long as he is a teacher in
the same school.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

231
 Qualified seduction of a sister or descendant is punished by
a penalty next higher in degree. The age or reputation of
the sister or descendant is irrelevant.
 An accused charged with rape cannot be convicted of
qualified seduction under the same information.
People vs. Fontanilla
Fe Castro, a fifteen-year old virgin, was brought by her mother to the
house of the appellant and his second wife to serve as a helper. Fe
Castro testified that during her stay in the house of Fontanilla for about
three months the accused succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her
repeatedly, the total number of times she could not recall. She was
certain, however, that the accused consummated the first sexual
intercourse with her one night in September. She also declared that
prior to this incident, the accused had made amorous overtures and
advances toward her. Aside from giving her money, the accused
repeatedly promised to abandon his wife to live with her. Fe Castro
repeatedly yielded to the carnal desires of the accused, as she was
induced by his promises of marriage and frightened by his acts of
intimidation. Their intimacies lasted for almost three months until her
aunt, the wife of the accused, caught them in flagrante on the kitchen
floor. The following day she returned to her parents, and revealed
everything to her mother two days later. Fontanilla denies everything.
HELD: It was qualified seduction. Anent the said marital promise,
Fontanilla also claims that there is no evidence on record supporting
its veracity. Granting this to be correct, it is nevertheless settled that
deceit, although an essential element of ordinary or simple seduction,
does not need to be proved or established in a charge of qualified
seduction. It is replaced by abuse of confidence. When the offender is
a public officer, a priest or minister, a servant, domestic, tutor,
teacher, or under any title is in charge of the education or keeping of
the offended woman, as in the present case, the act is punishable
although fraud or deceit may not have been used or, if employed, has
not been proved. The seduction of a virgin over twelve and under
eighteen years of age, committed by any of the persons enumerated
in Art. 337 "is constitutive of the crime of qualified seduction . . . even
though no deceit intervenes or even when such carnal knowledge were
voluntary on the part of the virgin, because in such a case, the law
takes for granted the existence of the deceit as an integral element of
the said crime and punishes it with greater severity than it does the
simple seduction . . . taking into account the abuse of confidence on
the part of the agent (culprit), an abuse of confidence which implies
deceit or fraud."
Babanto vs. Zosa
Babanto, a policeman, brought Dagohoy, 13 years old and with low
mentality, to the ABC Hall where he succeeded in having sexual
intercourse with her. Babanto was charged with rape but convicted of
qualified seduction.
HELD: The complaint filed alleged that the accused abused his position
as policeman by having carnal knowledge of a 13 year old girl.
However, there is no allegation that the complainant was a virgin.
Though it is true that virginity is presumed if the girl is over 12 but
under 18, unmarried and of good reputation, virginity is still an
essential element of the crime of qualified seduction and must be
alleged in the complaint. A conviction of the crime of qualified
seduction without the allegation of virginity would violate the
petitioner’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of the
accusation against him. Petitioner is guilty of rape, consider the
victim’s age, mental abnormality and deficiency. There was also
sufficient intimidation with the accused wearing his uniform.
Perez vs. CA
Perez was able to have sexual intercourse with Mendoza twice after
he promised marriage to her. As he did not make good on said
promises, Mendoza filed a complaint for Consented Abduction. The
trial court found that the acts constituted seduction, and so it
acquitted him on the charge of consented abduction. Mendoza then
filed a complaint for qualified seduction. Perez moved to quash on
the grounds of double jeopardy.
HELD: There are similar elements between Consented Abduction and
Qualified Seduction, namely: (1) the offended party is a virgin, and (2)
over 12 but under 18 years of age. However, there are other elements
which differentiate the two crimes. For example, consented
abduction requires the taking away of the victim without her consent,
while qualified seduction requires that there be abuse of authority,
confidence or relationship. Thus, an acquittal for Consented
Abduction will not preclude the filing of a charge for Qualified
Seduction, because the elements of the two crimes are different.
Article 338. Simple seduction
Elements:
1. Offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
2. She is of good reputation, single or widow;
3. Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
4. It is committed by means of deceit.
 Purpose of the law: To punish the seducer who by means
of promise of marriage, destroys the chastity of an
unmarried female of previous chaste character
 Virginity of the offended party is not required, good
reputation is sufficient.
 Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise of
marriage.
 What about unfulfilled promise of material things, i.e. the
woman agrees to intercourse with a man who promised to
give her jewelry? This is not seduction, because she is a
woman of loose morals. (she is a high-class prostitute!)
 Promise of marriage by a married man is not a deceit, if the
woman knew him to be married.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
232

People vs Pascua (2003)
FACTS: Liza and Anna Paragas, 12 year old twins, were sexually
molested by a neighbor Hipolito Pascua. Upon learning what the
Pascua had done to her daughters, Leticia, their mother, confronted
them. Liza and Anna revealed that Pascua had sexually abused them.
Leticia wasted no time in reporting the matter to their barangay
chairman and to the police before whom she filed criminal complaints.
On appeal, Pascua argued that he should only be liable for simple
seduction.
HELD: Under Article 338 of the Revised Penal Code, to constitute
seduction, there must in all cases be some deceitful promise or
inducement. The woman should have yielded because of this promise
or inducement. In this case, the appellant claims that the acts of
sexual intercourse with the private complainants were in exchange for
money. He declared that, prior to every sexual intercourse with Liza
and Anna, he would promise them P20. However, aside from his bare
testimony, the appellant presented no proof that private complainants'
consent was secured by means of such promise. As aptly opined by the
trial court, the money given by the appellant to private complainants
was not intended to lure them to have sex with him. Rather, it was for
the purpose of buying their silence to ensure that nobody discovered
his dastardly acts. The evidence for the prosecution was more than
enough to show that the element of voluntariness on the part of
private complainants was totally absent. Liza and Anna's respective
testimonies established that the appellant had sexual intercourse with
them without their consent and against their will.
Article 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of
the offended party
Elements:
1. Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. The acts are committed upon a woman who is a virgin or
single or widow of good reputation, under 18 years of age
but over 12 years, or a sister or descendant, regardless of
her reputation or age;
3. Offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority,
confidence, relationship, or deceit.
 A male cannot be the offended party in this crime.
 Even if the offended party consented, the offender is still
liable because the consent is obtained by abuse of
confidence or relationship, or by means of deceit.
 When the victim is under 12 years, the penalty shall be one
degree higher that that imposed by law.
Acts of lasciviousness Acts of lasciviousness
(Art. 336)
(Art. 339)
Committed under the Committed under
circumstances which, had circumstances which, had
there been carnal there been carnal
knowledge, would amount knowledge, would amount
to rape to either qualified or simple
seduction
Article 340. Corruption of minors
Act punishable: The promotion or facilitation of the prostitution
or corruption of persons under age (minors), to satisfy the lust
of ANOTHER
Who are liable: Any person. If the culprit is a public officer or
employee, including those in GOCCs, there is an additional
penalty of temporary absolute disqualification
 It is not necessary that the unchaste acts shall have been
done on the minor. What the law punishes is the act of a
pimp who facilitates the corruption of minors, NOT the
performance of unchaste acts upon the minor.
 A mere proposal will consummate the offense.
 When the victim is under 12 years, the penalty is one
degree higher
RA 7610
Special protection of Children Against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act
ARTICLE III
Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse
SECTION 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual
Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for money,
profit, or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in sexual
intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be children
exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
induce child prostitution which include, but are not limited to,
the following:
1. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
2. Inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
233
 3. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to
procure a child as prostitute; NPcBCo
4. Threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or
5. Giving monetary consideration goods or other
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage
such child in prostitution.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape
and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised
Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may
be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be reclusion
temporal in its medium period; and
(c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom,
whether as manager or owner of the establishment where the
prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar, resort,
place of entertainment or establishment serving as a cover or
which engages in prostitution in addition to the activity for
which the license has been issued to said establishment.
SECTION 6. Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution.
There is an attempt to commit child prostitution under Section
5, paragraph (a) hereof when any person who, not being a
relative of a child, is found alone with the said child inside the
room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension
house, apartelle or other similar establishments, vessel,
vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution
and other sexual abuse.
There is also an attempt to commit child prostitution, under
paragraph (b) of Section 5 hereof when any person is
receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath,
massage clinic, health club and other similar establishments.
A penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for
the consummated felony under Section 5 hereof shall be
imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit the
crime of child prostitution under this Act, or, in the proper
case, under the Revised Penal Code.
Article 341. White slave trade
Acts punishable:
In any manner or under any pretext,
1. Engaging in the business of prostitution;
2. Profiting by prostitution;
3. Enlisting the services of women for the purpose of
prostitution.
 Habituality is not a necessary element of white slave trade.
It is sufficient that the accused has committed any of the
acts in this article.
 ‘Under any pretext’ – one who engaged the services of a
woman ostensibly as a maid, but it reality for prostitution,
is guilty under this article.
 When the victim is under 12 years, the penalty shall be one
degree higher.
Article 342. Forcible abduction
Elements:
1. The person abducted is any woman, regardless of her age,
civil status, or reputation;
2. The abduction is against her will;
3. The abduction is with lewd designs.
 Abduction – the taking away of a woman from her house or
the place where she may be for the purpose of carrying her
to another place with intent to marry or corrupt her
 Crimes against chastity where age and reputation are
immaterial:
o Rape
o Acts of lasciviousness against the will or without the
consent of the offended party
o Qualified seduction of a sister/descendant
o Forcible abduction
 The taking away of the woman may be accomplished by
means of deceit first and then by means of violence and
intimidation.
 If the female abducted is under 12 years of age, the crime
is forcible abduction, even if she voluntarily goes with her
abducter.
 Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible abduction
 Where there are several defendants, it is enough that one
of them had lewd designs
 Husband cannot be found guilty of forcible abduction, as
lewd design is wanting. ???
 When there is deprivation of liberty and no lewd designs,
the crime is kidnapping and serious illegal detention.
 Attempt to rape is absorbed in the crime of forcible
abduction, thus there is no complex crime of forcible
abduction with attempted rape (the attempt is evidence of
the lewd designs)
 Consummated rape may absorb forcible abduction if the
main objective was to rape the victim.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
234
 three succeeding crimes of the same nature cannot legally be
considered as still connected with the abduction. In other words, they
should be detached from, and considered independently of, that of
forcible abduction, and therefore, the former can no longer be
complexed with the latter.

Forcible abduction Corruption of minors

Purpose is to effect his lewd
designs on the victim
Forcible abduction with
rape
Purpose is to lend the victim
to illicit intercourse with
others
Kidnapping (with rape)
As regards therefore, the complex crime of forcible abduction with
rape, the first of the crimes committed, the latter is definitely the
more serious crime. Hence, pursuant to Article 48, the penalty
prescribed shall be imposed in the maximum period. Consequently,
the accused should suffer the extreme penalty of death. No need to
consider aggravating circumstances for the same would not alter the
nature of the penalty imposed.

The violent taking of the Not so motivated

woman is motivated by lewd
designs People vs. Alburo

Crime against chastity Crime against liberty

Alburo and 2 other men raped Evelyn Cantina. She was a jeepney
passenger when she was prevented from leaving the jeepney, taken to
a remote place and was raped there.

People vs. Sunpongco
Angeles was abducted from the jeepney by Silvestre Sunpongco with
the aid of 3 men and was brought to Hilltop Hotel where Silvestre
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her.
HELD. Article 344 of the RPC and the Rules on Criminal Procedure
require that the offenses of abduction and rape and other offenses
which cannot be prosecuted de oficio shall not be prosecuted except
upon complaint filed by the offended party. In the CAB, it is admitted
that the sworn complaint of the victim was not formally offered in
evidence by the prosecution. This failure to adhere to the rules
however is not fatal and did not oust the court of its jurisdiction to
hear and decide the case.
Jurisprudence reveals that if the complaint in a case which cannot be
prosecuted de oficio is forwarded to the trial court as part of the
records of the preliminary investigation of the case, the court can take
judicial notice of the same without the necessity of its formal
introduction as evidence for the prosecution. The records of the case
forwarded to the CFI include the complaint filed by Juanita in the
municipal court of Guiguinto which conducted the preliminary
investigation. Subject complaint was also marked as an exhibit.
HELD: They are guilty of the complex crime of FORCIBLE ABDUCTION
WITH RAPE. In reviewing the evidence adduced by the prosecution for
this crime of Rape, we have likewise been guided by three well-known
principles, namely, (1) that an accusation of rape can be made with
facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult for the person
accused, though innocent, to disprove; (2) that in view of the
intrinsic nature of the crime of rape where only two persons are
usually involved, the testimony of the complainant must be
scrutinized with extreme caution; and (3) that the evidence for the
prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits, and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weaknesses of the evidence for
the defense.
The factual milieu of this criminal charge before us gives us no reason
to depart from these established rules. On the contrary, we find that
Appellant had taken Evelyn away against her will, with lewd designs,
subsequently forced her to submit to his lust and rendering her
unconscious in the process, thereby justifying his conviction for the
complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape under Article 48 in
relation to Articles 335 and 342 of the Revised Penal Code, with which
he has herein been charged.
People vs. Godines
Ancajas witnessed the killing of Vilaksi by the 2 accused. The accused,
upon seeing her with her baby, dragged her to a vacant lot where they
took turns in raping her. Trial court convicted them of the crime of
rape.

People vs. Jose

HELD: TC correctly held that forcible abduction is absorbed in the

crime of rape if the main objective of the accused is to rape the victim.
This is the Maggie DeLa Riva story (wherein Maggie was abducted and
brought to the Swanky Hotel, where the four accused each took turns
in raping her)
Forcible Abduction with rape

HELD: While the first act of rape was being performed, the crime of
forcible abduction had already been consummated, so that each of the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
235
 People v. Ablaneda (2001) with rape. Indeed, it would appear from the records that the main
objective of the accused when the victim was taken to the house
FACTS: On February 18, 1993, at around 7:00 o'clock in of Mila Salvacion was to rape her. Hence, forcible abduction is
the morning, six-year old Magdalena Salas was walking to school. absorbed in the crime of rape.
Along the way, Jaime Ablaneda approached her and asked if he
could share her umbrella, since it was raining. He then boarded a
trimobile with Magdalena and brought her to a small hut. While
inside, Ablaneda removed his underwear and the child's panties. Article 343. Consented abduction
He applied cooking oil, which he had bought earlier, on his organ
and on Magdalena's. Then, he proceeded to have sexual
intercourse with the little girl.
Elements:
When Magdalena arrived at their house, Ailene
Villaflores, her uncle's sister-in-law, noticed that she looked pale
and weak, and found traces of blood on her dress. Magdalena
confessed that she was raped by a man who had a scar on the 1. Offended party is a virgin;
stomach. Dr. Nilda Baylon, the Medico-Legal Officer who examined 2. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
Magdalena, found that the latter's hymen was completely 3. Offender takes her away with her consent, after solicitation
lacerated, thus confirming that she had indeed been raped. or cajolery;
Ablaneda was charged before the RTC, with the complex
4. The taking away is with lewd designs.
crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape. He was found guilty.

 Purpose of the law: to prescribe punishment for the

HELD: All the elements of forcible abduction are present
in this case. The victim, who is a woman, was taken against her
will, as shown by the fact that she was intentionally directed by
accused-appellant to a vacant hut. At her tender age, Magdalena
could not be expected to physically resist considering that the
lewd designs of accused-appellant could not have been apparent
to her at that time. The employment of deception suffices to
constitute the forcible taking, especially since the victim is an
unsuspecting young girl. Considering that it was raining, going to
the hut was not unusual to Magdalena, as probably the purpose
was to seek shelter. Barrio girls are particularly prone to
deception. It is the taking advantage of their innocence that makes
them easy culprits of deceiving minds. Finally, the evidence shows
that the taking of the young victim against her will was effected
in furtherance of lewd and unchaste designs. Such lewd designs in
forcible abduction is established by the actual rape of the victim.
People v Gerry Lining (2002)
FACTS: On October 4, 1997, Emelina Ornos, then fifteen
(15) years old visited her aunt Josephine to spend the night. While
in her aunt's house, Emelina was invited by one Sajer to a dance
party to be held at the barangay basketball court. Emelina
accepted the invitation and at around seven o'clock in the evening
of the same day, she went to the party, accompanied by her aunt.
Josephine then left Emelina at the party, telling her that she had
to go home but she would return later to fetch her.
Emelina decided to go home alone. On her way to her
aunt's house, Emelina was accosted by Gerry Lining and Lian
Salvacion. Lining poked a kitchen knife at Emelina's breast and the
two held her hands. Emelina was dragged towards the ricefield and
was forcibly carried to an unoccupied house where she was raped
by both men.
The next day, Gerry Selda, a friend of her father, saw
her crying. She told him about the rape incident and Selda
accompanied her to the police. The Chief of Police immediately
ordered the arrest of Lining but Salvacion was able to escape. After
trial, the court found Gerry Lining guilty beyond reasonable doubt
for the crime of forcible abduction with rape, and for another
count of rape.
HELD: Accused-appellant could only be convicted for the
crime of rape, instead of the complex crime of forcible abduction
disgrace to her family and the alarm caused therein by the
disappearance of one who is, by her age and sex,
susceptible to cajolery and deceit.
 If the virgin is under 12, the crime is forcible abduction.
(because law assumes that a person of such age cannot
give consent, so this also applies to those deprived of
reason)
 The taking away of the girl need not be with some character
of permanence.
 When there was no solicitation or cajolery and no deceit
and the girl voluntarily went with the man, there is no crime
committed even if they had sexual intercourse.
Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery,
concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness.
Who may file complaint:
1. For adultery and concubinage – must be prosecuted upon
complaint signed by the offended person
2. For seduction, abduction or acts of lasciviousness – must
be prosecuted upon complaint signed by
a. the offended party
b. her parents
c. her grandparents or
d. guardians, in the order in which they are named above.
 Reason why the crimes against chastity cannot be
prosecuted de oficio – offended woman might prefer to
suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through with
the scandal of a public trial
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
236
 Geiling, a German, was able to obtain a decree of divorce in Germany
against his wife Pilapil, a Filipina. Five months after the issuance of
Adultery and concubinage the divorce decree, Geiling filed 2 complaints for adultery against
Pilapil.

 Offended party cannot institute criminal proceedings

She challenged the complaint on the ground that the complainant, her
without including BOTH guilty parties, if they are both alive. husband, does not qualify as an offended spouse having obtained a
 Offended party cannot institute criminal proceedings if he final divorce decree under his national law prior to his filing the
shall have consented or pardoned the offenders. criminal complaint.
 Pardon in adultery and concubinage must come before the
institution of the criminal action and both offenders must
be pardoned by the offended party if said pardon is to be
HELD: The crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes against
effective.
chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn written complaint
 Consent – given before the adultery or concubinage was filed by the offended spouse. It has long since been established, with
committed. Example: agreement to live separately. unwavering consistency, that compliance with this rule is a
 Delay in the filing of the complaint does not indicate pardon. jurisdictional, and not merely a formal, requirement. Now, the law
specifically provides that in prosecutions for adultery and concubinage
the person who can legally file the complaint should be the offended
Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness spouse, and nobody else. Unlike the offenses of seduction, abduction,
rape and acts of lasciviousness, no provision is made for the
prosecution of the crimes of adultery and concubinage by the parents,
grandparents or guardian of the offended party. The so-called
 Offended party cannot institute criminal proceedings if the exclusive and successive rule in the prosecution of the first four
offender has been EXPRESSLY pardoned by the offended offenses do not apply to adultery and concubinage.
party, or her parents, grandparents or guardian.
 Pardon by the parent, grandparent or guardian must be
accompanied by the express pardon of the offended woman
It necessarily follows that such initiator must have the status, capacity
herself.
or legal representation to do so at the time of the filing of the criminal
 The right to file action of the parents, grandparents and action. Lack of legal capacity to sue, as a ground for a motion to
guardian shall be exclusive of other persons and shall be dismiss in civil cases, is determined as of the filing of the complaint or
exercised successively in the order provided. petition.
 When the offended party is a minor, her parents may file
the complaint.
 When the offended party is of age and is in complete
Hence, with reference to adultery cases, the status of the complainant
possession of her mental or physical faculties, she alone can
vis-à-vis the accused must be determined as of the time the complaint
file the complaint. was filed. The person who initiates the adultery case must be an
 The guardian must be legally appointed by the court. offended spouse, and by this is meant that HE IS STILL MARRIED to the
 Rape complexed with another crime against chastity need accused spouse, at the time of the filing of the complaint.
not be signed by the offended woman, since rape is a public
crime.
 When the evidence fails to prove a complex crime of rape
The divorce obtained by Geiling and its legal effects may be recognized
with another crime, and there is no complaint signed by the
in the Phils. In view of the nationality principle in our civil law on the
offended woman, the accused cannot be convicted of rape. matter of status of persons. (Aliens of Filipino spouses may obtain
 Marriage of the offender with the offended party in divorces abroad, which may be recognized in the Phils. if they are
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape, valid according to their national law._
extinguishes criminal action or remits the penalty already
imposed.
 The marriage extinguishes the criminal action even as to
Being no longer the husband of Pilapil, Geiling had no legal standing to
co-principals, accomplices and accessories of the crime.
commence the adultery case under the imposture that he was the
 Marriage must be entered into in good faith and with the offended spouse at the time he filed the suit.
intent of fulfilling the marital duties and obligations.
 Pardon must be given before the institution of criminal
proceedings (bar to prosecution). Marriage may take place
after criminal proceedings have commenced, or even after
conviction (extinguishes criminal action and remits
penalty). Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes
against chastity

Pilapil vs. Ibay-Somera Civil liabilities of persons guilty of rape, seduction, or abduction:

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

237
 1. To indemnify the offended woman;
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law shall prevent
him from so doing; Article 347. Simulation of births, substitution of one
3. In every case to support the offspring child for another, and concealment or
abandonment of a legitimate child

 The adulterer and concubine can be sentenced only to Article 348. Usurpation of civil status
indemnify for damages caused to the offended spouse.
 No civil liability of acts of lasciviousness under this article.
 Only indemnity is possible in adultery and concubinage
Chapter Two – ILLEGAL MARRIAGES
because only children born of parents who could marry at
the time of conception may not be acknowledged. Support
is also not possible because the person who gives birth is
one of the offenders. Article 349. Bigamy
 Moral damages may be recovered in seduction, abduction,
rape or other lascivious acts, as well as adultery and Article 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of
concubinage (Art. 2219, Civil Code). The parents of the laws
female seduced, raped or abused may also recover moral
damages. Article 351. Premature marriages
 All offenders in multiple rape must support the offspring, as
any one of them may be the father. Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony
 Under the Civil Code, judgment to recognize the offspring
may only be given if there is pregnancy within the period of
conception, which is within 120 days from the commission
of the offense (Article 283)
 In rape of a married woman, only indemnity is allowed. Article 347. Simulation of births, substitution of one
Defendant cannot be sentenced to acknowledge the child for another, and concealment or abandonment of a
offspring, because the woman is married. Support cannot legitimate child.
also be given, because the offender cannot enter
periodically the house of the married woman to give such
support. This will cause disturbance to the family rights of
the married couple. Acts punishable:

1. Simulation of births;
Article 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians, teacher 2. Substitution of one child for another;
or other persons entrusted with the custody of the 3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with intent
offended party to cause such child to lose its civil status.

Elements:
Persons who cooperate as accomplices but are punished as
principals in rape, seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
etc (chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this title):
a. the child must be legitimate;
b. the offender conceals or abandons such child; and
c. the offender has the intent to cause such child to lose
1. ascendants its civil status.
2. guardians
3. curators
4. teachers  The object of the crime is the creation of false, or the
5. any other person, who cooperates as accomplice with abuse causing of the loss of, civil status.
of confidence or confidential relationship  Example of simulation of birth: a woman pretends to
be pregnant when in fact she is not, and on the day of the
supposed delivery, takes the child of another as her own.
Title Twelve  The fact that the child will be benefited by the simulation of
birth is not a defense
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS  Example of substituting one child for another: A and
B both gave birth on the same day. The nurse in the
hospital exchanges the children of A and B in the nursery.
 Abandon – leaving a child in a place where other people
Chapter One. SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND USURPATION OF
CIVIL STATUS
may find it, causing the child to lose its status.
 Example of concealing or abandoning: A mother who
leaves her child at the door of an orphanage.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
238
 A physician or surgeon or public officer, who cooperates in
the execution of these crimes, is also liable if he acts in
violation of the duties of his profession or office.
People vs. Sangalang
The Sangalang spouses together with Gloria and Bienvenido were
charged of the crime of simulation of birth. The information alleged
that a child was furnished by Gloria to the Sangalangs. Accused
Bienvenido registered the birth of said child in the local civil registrar
by supplying to said office the necessary information required so that
a birth certificate would be issued. He named the Sangalangs as the
child’s parents. A birth certificate was hence issued. Information did
not contain any specific allegation as to what the spouses did, except
that they had conspired with Gloria and Bienvenido.
HELD: In the crime of simulation of births, it must be shown that the
“pretending parents” have registered or caused in the registration of
the child as their own with the Registry of Births, or that in doing so
they were motivated by a desire to cause the loss of any trace as to
the child’s true filiation to his prejudice.
In the instant case, SC found no evidence to sport the finding of TC
that the registration was effected by the Sangalangs. As the evidence
would show, it was their daughter Alicia (not Bienvenido, but still not
the spouses) who had a hand in the registration of the child).
Article 348. Usurpation of civil status
 Committed when a person usurps the civil status of
another, by assuming the filiation, or the parental or
conjugal rights of another.
 The term ‘civil status’ includes one’s public station, or the
rights, duties, capacities and incapacities which determine
a person to a given classs.
 Usurpation of profession may be punished under this
article.
 There must be intent to enjoy the rights arising from the
civil status of another, otherwise the case will be considered
only as using a fictitious name, or as estafa, depending on
the facts of the case.
 The purpose of defrauding the offended party or his heirs
qualifies the crime.
Article 349. Bigamy
Elements:
1. Offender has been legally married;
2. The marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case his
or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could not yet be
presumed dead by means of a judgment rendered in a
proper proceedings, according to the Civil Code;
3. He contracts a second or subsequent marriage;
4. The second or subsequent marriage has all the essential
requisites for validity.
 Nullity of the first marriage is not a defense in a bigamy
charge. There must be a judicial declaration of the nullity
of a previous marriage before contracting the second
marriage.
 Causes which may produce the legal dissolution of the first
marriage:
o Death of one of the contracting parties
o Judicial declaration annulling a void marriage
o Judicial declaration annulling a voidable marriage
 Defense has the burden of proof of dissolution of first
marriage.
 For the present spouse to contract a subsequent marriage,
an absent spouse is presumed dead if he has been absent
for four consecutive years and the spouse present had a
well-founded belief that he is already dead. In case of
disappearance where there is danger of death, an absence
of only two years will be sufficient. However, a declaration
of presumptive death should first be obtained from the
courts.
 The second marriage must have all the requisites for validity
were it not for the existence of the first marriage.
 The second spouse is not necessarily liable for the bigamy.
If the second husband or wife knew of the first marriage,
he/she is an accomplice in the crime of bigamy.
 The witness who falsely vouched for the capacity of either
of the contracting parties is also an accomplice.
 Bigamy is not a private crime. It is an offense against the
State, not against the second wife.
 A person convicted of bigamy may still be prosecuted for
concubinage.
People vs. Aragon
Aragon contracted a 2nd marriage while the first marriage was still
subsisting. Eventually the first wife died. He contracted a third
marriage. Aragon was charged of bigamy.
HELD: A subsequent marriage contracted by any person during the
lifetime of his first spouse is illegal and void from its performance, and
no judicial decree is necessary to establish its invalidity as
distinguished from mere annullable marriages. The second marriage is
void, hence the third marriage is valid.
Article 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of
laws
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
239

Elements:
1. Offender contracted marriage;
2. He knew at the time that -
a. The requirements of the law were not complied with;
or
b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal impediment.
 If either of the contracting parties obtains the consent of
the other by means of violence, intimidation or fraud, the
maximum period of the penalty shall be imposed.
 The offender must not be guilty of bigamy, to be punishable
under this article.
Lucio Morigo v People (2002)
FACTS: Lucio Morigo and Lucia Barrete were
boardmates. After school year 1977-78 they lost contact with each
other. In 1984, Lucio Morigo was surprised to receive a card from
Lucia Barrete from Singapore. The former replied and after an
exchange of letters, they became sweethearts. In 1986, Lucia
returned to the Philippines but left again for Canada to work there.
While in Canada, they maintained constant communication. In
1990, Lucia came back to the Philippines and proposed to Lucio to
join her in Canada. Both agreed to get married. On September 8,
1990, Lucia reported back to her work in Canada leaving appellant
Lucio behind. On August 19, 1991, Lucia filed with the Ontario
Court for divorce which was granted on January 17, 1992. On
October 4, 1992, appellant Lucio Morigo married Maria Jececha
Lumbago. On September 21, 1993, accused filed a complaint for
judicial declaration of nullity of marriage in the RTC. On October
19, 1993, Lucio was charged with Bigamy and found guilty thereon.
HELD: The primordial issue should be whether or not
petitioner committed bigamy and if so, whether his defense of
good faith is valid. In Marbella-Bobis v. Bobis, we laid down the
elements of bigamy thus:
(1) the offender has been legally married;
(2) the first marriage has not been legally
dissolved, or in case his or her spouse is absent, the
absent spouse has not been judicially
declared presumptively dead;
(3) he contracts a subsequent marriage; and
(4) the subsequent marriage would have been
valid had it not been for the existence of the first. aDcTHE
Applying the foregoing test to the instant case, we note
that the trial court found that there was no actual marriage
ceremony performed between Lucio and Lucia by a solemnizing
officer. Instead, what transpired was a mere signing of the
marriage contract by the two, without the presence of a
solemnizing officer.
The first element of bigamy as a crime requires that the
accused must have been legally married. But in this case, legally
speaking, the petitioner was never married to Lucia Barrete. Thus,
there is no first marriage to speak of. Under the principle of
retroactivity of a marriage being declared void ab initio, the two
were never married “from the beginning.” The contract of
marriage is null; it bears no legal effect. Taking this argument to
its logical conclusion, for legal purposes, petitioner was not
married to Lucia at the time he contracted the marriage with Maria
Jececha. The existence and the validity of the first marriage being
an essential element of the crime of bigamy, it is but logical that
a conviction for said offense cannot be sustained where there is no
first marriage to speak of. The petitioner, must, perforce be
acquitted of the instant charge.
Abunado v. People (2004)
FACTS: September 18, 1967 Salvador married Narcisa
Arceño at the Manila City Hall before Rev. Pedro Tiangco. In 1988
Narcisa left for Japan to work but returned to the Philippines in
1992, Narcisa found Salvador in Quezon City cohabiting with Fe
Corazon Plato. She also discovered that on January 10, 1989,
Salvador contracted a second marriage with a certain Zenaida
Biñas. An annulment case was filed by Salvador against Narcisa. A
case for bigamy was filed by Narcisa against Salvador and Zenaida.
Salvador admitted that he first married Zenaida on
December 24, 1955 before a municipal trial court judge in
Concepcion, Iloilo and has four children with her prior to their
separation in 1966. It appeared however that there was no
evidence of their 1955 marriage so he and Zenaida remarried on
January 10, 1989, upon the request of their son for the purpose of
complying with the requirements for his commission in the
military. The trial court convicted petitioner Salvador Abunado of
bigamy.
HELD: Abunado claims that his petition for
annulment/declaration of nullity of marriage was a prejudicial
question, hence, the proceedings in the bigamy case should have
been suspended during the pendency of the annulment case.
Petitioner, in fact, eventually obtained a judicial declaration of
nullity of his marriage to Narcisa on October 29, 1999. 15
The subsequent judicial declaration of the nullity of the
first marriage was immaterial because prior to the declaration of
nullity, the crime had already been consummated. Moreover,
petitioner's assertion would only delay the prosecution of bigamy
cases considering that an accused could simply file a petition to
declare his previous marriage void and invoke the pendency of that
action as a prejudicial question in the criminal case. We cannot
allow that. 17
The outcome of the civil case for annulment of
petitioner's marriage to Narcisa had no bearing upon the
determination of petitioner's innocence or guilt in the criminal
case for bigamy, because all that is required for the charge of
bigamy to prosper is that the first marriage be subsisting at the
time the second marriage is contracted.
Thus, under the law, a marriage, even one which is void
or voidable, shall be deemed valid until declared otherwise in a
judicial proceeding. In this case, even if petitioner eventually
obtained a declaration that his first marriage was void ab initio,
the point is, both the first and the second marriage were subsisting
before the first marriage was annulled.
Diego v. Castillo (2004)
FACTS: On January 9, 1965, Lucena Escoto contracted
marriage with Jorge de Perio, Jr. The couple were both Filipinos.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
240
In the marriage contract, the accused used and adopted the name  Reason behind the law: to prevent doubtful paternity,
Crescencia Escoto, with a civil status of single. In a document because the woman might have conceived and become
dated February 15, 1978, denominated as a “Decree of Divorce” pregnant by her previous husband.
purportedly issued by an American court, Crescencia de Perio was
 The period of 301 days may be disregarded if the first
granted a Divorce from Jorge. Subsequently, Crescencia Escoto
husband was impotent or sterile.
contracted marriage with Manuel P. Diego. The marriage contract
shows that this time, the accused used and adopted the name
Lucena Escoto, again, with a civil status of single. Later, a case for
bigamy was filed against her by her brother in law.

After trial of the criminal case for bigamy, Judge Castillo Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony
promulgated a decision stating that the main basis for the
acquittal was good faith on the part of the accused. Judge Castillo
gave credence to the defense of the accused that she acted
without any malicious intent. The evidence he averred gave  Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or sect,
accused Lucena Escoto sufficient grounds to believe that her or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize any illegal
previous marriage had been validly dissolved by the divorce decree marriage ceremony
and that she was legally free to contract the second marriage with  The offender must be authorized to solemnize marriages.
Manuel P. Diego. If the accused is not authorized, he is liable under article
177 (usurpation of authority or official functions)
 Offender is punished under the marriage law (there is such
1. HELD: A careful study of the disputed decision a law?!?).
reveals that respondent Judge had been less than circumspect
in his study of the law and jurisprudence applicable to the
bigamy case. In his comment, respondent Judge stated: “That
the accused married Manuel P. Diego in the honest belief that
she was free to do so by virtue of the decree of divorce is a
mistake of fact.”
This Court, in People v. Bitdu, carefully distinguished
between a mistake of fact, which could be a basis for the defense
of good faith in a bigamy case, from a mistake of law, which does
not excuse a person, even a lay person, from liability. Bitdu held Title Thirteen
that even if the accused, who had obtained a divorce under the
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
Mohammedan custom, honestly believed that in contracting her
second marriage she was not committing any violation of the law,
and that she had no criminal intent, the same does not justify her
act. This Court further stated therein that with respect to the Chapter One. Libel
contention that the accused acted in good faith in contracting the
second marriage, believing that she had been validly divorced from
her first husband, it is sufficient to say that everyone is presumed Section One. Definition, forms and punishment of this
to know the law, and the fact that one does not know that his act crime
constitutes a violation of the law does not exempt him from the Article 353. Libel
consequences thereof.
Article 354. Requirement for publicity
Moreover, squarely applicable to the criminal case for
bigamy, is People v. Schneckenburger, where it was held that the Article 355. Libel by means of writings or similar
accused who secured a foreign divorce, and later remarried in the means
Philippines, in the belief that the foreign divorce was valid, is
liable for bigamy. Article356. Threatening to publish and offer to
present such publication for a compensation

Article 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred

to in the course of official proceedings
Article 351. Premature marriages
Article 358. Slander

Article 359. Slander by deed

Persons liable:

Section Two. General Provisions

1. A widow who is married within 301 days from the date of
the death of her husband, or before having delivered if she Article 360. Persons responsible
is pregnant at the time of his death; Article 361. Proof of the truth
2. A woman who, her marriage having been annulled or
dissolved, married before her delivery or before the Article 362. Libelous remarks
expiration of the period of 301 days after the date of the
legal separation.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

241
 Chapter Two. Incriminatory Machinations
Article 363. Incriminating innocent persons
Article 364. Intriguing against honor
Article 353. Definition of Libel
A libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition,
status, or circumstances tending to cause the dishonor,
discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to
blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Elements:
1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a vice or
defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstance;
2. The imputation must be made publicly;
3. It must be malicious;
4. The imputation must be directed at a natural or
juridical person, or one who is dead;
5. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor,
discredit or contempt of the person defamed.
There must be a defamatory imputation. The imputation may
cover:
a. crime allegedly committed by the offended
party;
b. vice or defect, real or imaginary, of the
offended party; or
c. any act or omission, condition, status of, or
circumstance relating to the offended party.
 “Defamation” is the proper term for libel as used in Art. 353.
 “Libel” strictly is a defamation committed by means of writing,
printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph …. or any
similar means.
 When the defamation is oral, it is called “slander”.
 Seditious libel is punished not in this chapter but in Art. 142
(Inciting to sedition).
 Test of defamatory character of words used: A charged is
sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the hearers to
suppose and understand that the person against whom they
were uttered was guilty of certain offenses, or are sufficient to
impeach his honesty, virtue or reputation, or to hold him up to
public ridicule.
 The meaning of the writer is immaterial. It is not the
intention of the writer or speaker, or the understanding of
the plaintiff or of any hearer or reader by which the
actionable quality of the words is to be determined, but the
meaning that the words in fact conveyed on the minds of
persons of reasonable understanding, discretion and
candor, taking into consideration the surrounding
circumstances which were known to the hearer or reader.
 ELEMENT 1: IMPUTATION
Examples:
* Imputation of a vice  imputing upon a person lascivious and
immoral habits in an article
* Imputation of an act or omission  “X borrows money without
intention to pay, she had her breasts augmented without paying
the doctor”
* Imputation of condition, status or circumstance  calling
another a bastard or mangkukulam
 ELEMENT 2: PUBLICATION
 Publication is the communication of the defamatory matter
to some third person or persons.
 Hence, sending a latter in a sealed envelope through a
messenger is not publication. But sending to the wife, a letter
defamatory of her husband, is sufficient publication. (The
person defamed is the husband and the wife is already
considered a 3rd person)
If the defamatory imputation is not published there is NO
crime. The law permits us to think as badly as we please of our
neighbors so long as we keep our uncharitable thought to
ourselves.
 ELEMENT 3: MALICE
 Malice is used to indicate that the offender is prompted by
personal ill-will or spite and speaks merely to injure the
reputation of the person defamed.
 Malice may be in-fact or in-law.
 Malice in fact
- must be proved by a showing of ill-will, hatred or purpose to
injure
 Malice in law
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
242
- is presumed from a defamatory imputation  proof of malice
is not required
 (The distinction exists for purposes of determining WON
there is defamation where privileged communication is involved
thus:) As a general rule, malice in law is presumed from a
defamatory imputation. But where privileged communication is
involved, malice (in law) is NOT presumed  the plaintiff must
prove malice in fact. In either case, where malice in fact is
present, justifiable motives cannot exist and the imputations
become actionable.
ELEMENT 4: IDENTIFICATION
 It must be shown that at least a 3rd person could identify the
offended party as the object of the libelous publication.
 But libel published in different parts may be taken together
to establish the identification of the offended party.
ELEMENT 5: DISHONOR, DISCREDIT, CONTEMPT
 Dishonor – disgrace, shame, ignominy
Discredit – loss of credit or reputation; disesteem
Contempt – state of being despised
There are as many offenses as there were persons defamed (PP
vs. Del Rosario). When the alleged slanderous utterances were
committed on the same date and at the same place, but against
two different persons, the situation has given rise to two
separate and individual causes for prosecution, with respect to
each of the persons defamed.
Mercado vs. CFI
Petitioner was charged with libel for imputing to Mrs. Virginia Mercado
acts constituting enrichment thru corrupt practices. The offensive
telegram which contained the allegations was addressed to the
Secretary of the, Department of Public Works and Communications
purportedly in line with President Marcos' appeal to the public to give
information on undesirable employees in the government service to
achieve the objectives of the New Society. He filed an MTD on the
ground of the telegram being privileged communication. After the
same was denied, a MTQ, alleging that the facts charged do not
constitute an offense, was filed but when the same again met with a
denial, the present action was instituted to annul the aforesaid orders.
Respondents, in their Comment, stressed there was absence of any
privilege, there being malice and bad faith, petitioner having been
motivated by vengeance and ill-will in making the said communication
as established by his previous conduct viz a viz the private respondent:
the filing of several complaints, both administrative and criminal
aimed to malign her good character and reputation which were
subsequently dismissed or closed for lack of merit and/or insufficiency
of evidence.
HELD: Petition dismissed. Qualified privilege communication may be
lost by proof of malice. The prosecution should be given the
opportunity of proving malice in view of petitioner's conduct towards
private respondent which casts doubt on his good faith.
Agbayani vs. Sayo
Mahinan, manager of the Cagayan Valley Branch of the GSIS at
Cauayan, Isabela, file at Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya a complaint for
written defamation against 4 subordinates. The 4 accused filed a MTQ,
contending that the CFI Nueva Vizcaya has no jurisdiction over the
case.
HELD: The proper venue of Mahinan’s criminal action against the
petitioners is the CFI Isabela, since as GSIS branch manager, he was a
public officer stationed at Cauayan, Isabela and that alleged libel was
committed when he was in the public service.
Newsweek vs. IAC
An article entitled “An Island of Fear” was published in Newsweek. The
author wrote that that the island province of Negros Occidental is a
place dominated by big landowners who not only exploited the
impoverished and underpaid sugarcane laborers, but also brutalized
and killed them with impunity. The sugarcane planters instituted a
class action for libel.
HELD: To maintain a libel suit, a victim must be identifiable.
Defamatory matter which does not reveal the identity of the person
upon whom the imputation is cast affords no ground of action unless it
can be shown that the readers of the libel could have identified the
personality of the individual defamed. Defamatory remarks directed
at a group of persons is not actionable unless the statements are all-
embracing or sufficiently specific for the victim to be identifiable.
Lacsa vs. IAC
Lacsa and Marquez were officers of the Philippine Columbian
Association. Lacsa uncovered a glitch in the qualification of Marquez
to be president. He addressed a letter to Marquez in the ff. tenor: that
Marquez should step down from the presidency, because the position
is open only for proprietary members and Marquez has failed to show
any proof of his proprietary membership, that in view of these, he has
been holding the position in a de facto capacity. This letter was
published in the publication of the association.
HELD: The test of libelous meanings is not the analysis of a sentence
into component phrases with the meticulous care of the grammarian
or stylist, but the import conveyed by the entirety of the language to
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
243
the ordinary reader. The SolGen is correct in holding that the
imputation of being called a de facto president is tantamount to being
acknowledged as a pretender or impostor.
Soriano vs. IAC
Soriano’s criminal liability was based on an article published in “The
Guardian”, of which he is the editor. The basis of the article was a
press release prepared in Tacloban and delivered to various
newspapers. The intended circulation of “The Guardian” is
nationwide. The libel case was docked at the RTC Letye. Soriano filed
n MTQ on the basis of improper venue. He argues that the Leyte court
had no jurisdiction because the publication house of “The Guardian”
was located in Quezon City and that Tantuico also holds office in QC.
HELD: Local jurisprudence follow the “multiple publication” rule – that
each and every publication of the same libel suit constitutes a separate
offense, and warrants a separate cause of action for filing a libel suit.
However, the publication requirement set forth by RPC360 refers to
the “publication” (the official circulating organ) and not the “press
release”. In harmonizing RPC360 with the “multiple publication” rule,
the “press release” is not the document to be examined. Since the
official publication is produced in QC and was not proven to have been
produced/copied in Leyte or elsewhere, the trial should have been
handled by a QC court.
Bulletin vs. Noel
The article contained statements to the effect that American influence
was a significant driver of the political ascendancy of the Mindalanos
of Lanao. Complainants claimed this was an insulting statement that
damaged the social standing of the clan.
HELD: The published work alleged to contain the libelous excerpt must
be examined and viewed as a whole. Titles of royalty and nobility are
not generally recognized or acknowledged socially in the national
community. Personal hurt or embarrassment, even if real, is not
automatically equivalent to defamation. The law against defamation
protects the interest of a person in acquiring, retaining, and enjoying
a reputation as good as one’s character and conduct warrant in the
community. It is the community standards, not personal or family
standards, that a court must refer in evaluation a publication claimed
to be defamatory.
Santos vs. CA
The article published was a verbatim copy of a complained filed by
Sandejas with the SEC against the brokerage firm of Carlos Sison.
HELD: The public article is but a faithful reproduction of a pleading
filed before a quasi-judicial body. There are no embellishments, wild
imputations etc. calculated to damage the reputation of the offended
parties and expose them to public contempt. No valid cause of action
to institute an action for libel exists.
Sazon vs. CA
HELD: When the imputation is already held defamatory, malice on the
part of the defendant (malice-in-fact) need not be proved because the
law already presumes that the imputation is malicious (malice-in-law).
Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts of public
officers which are related to the discharge of their duties will not
constitute libel if the defendant proves that truth of the imputation
(thus a form of privileged communication), but any attack on the
private capacities of a public officer clearly beyond the scope of his
official duties may constitute libel.
Even if the article falls under the cloak of privileged communications,
it will not discount the fact that he wrote the same with malice, due
to grudges an ill-will attendant in the circumstances surrounding the
facts.
Vasquez vs. CA
HELD: If the defamatory statement is made against a public official
with respect to the discharge of his official duties and functions and
the truth of the allegation is shown, the accused will be entitled to an
acquittal even though he doesn’t prove that the imputation was
published with good motives and for justifiable ends. (Because, upon
proof of truth, the burden of proving that the offender acted with
malice would be on the public officer)
Actual Malice Rule – Even if the defamatory statement is false, no
liability can attach if it relates to official conduct, unless the public
official concerned proves that the statement was made with
knowledge that it was false or with reckless disregard of whether it
was false or not.
Navarette vs. CA
Petitioner claims that private respondent alluded to him when she said
the words "stupid", "bastards", "swindlers", and "plunderers" while
testifying on the Deed of Sale with Right of Repurchase subject of a
civil case. In her Answer, private respondent cited decisions of the
Supreme Court to the effect that no action for libel or for damages
may be founded on utterances made in the course of judicial
proceedings.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
244
HELD: It is a settled principle in this jurisdiction that statements
made in the course of judicial proceedings are absolutely
privileged. This absolute privilege remains regardless of the
defamatory tenor and the presence of malice if the same are relevant,
pertinent or material to the cause in hand or subject of the inquiry.
Thus, the person making these statements such as a judge, lawyer or
witness does not thereby incur the risk of being found liable thereon
in a criminal prosecution or an action for the recovery of damages.
The statements made during the course of judicial proceedings enjoy
the shield of absolute privilege. The privilege is not intended so much
for the protection of those engaged in the public service and in the
enactment and administration of law, as for the promotion of public
welfare, the purpose being that members of the legislature, judges of
courts, jurors, lawyers and witnesses may speak their minds freely and
exercise their respective functions without incurring the risk of a
criminal prosecution or an action for damages. In determining the
issue of relevancy of statements made in judicial proceedings, courts
have adopted a liberal attitude by resolving all doubts in favor of
relevancy.
Without question, the use of blatantly defamatory language like
"stupid", "bastards", "swindlers", and "plunderers" in describing the
adverse parties detract from the honor and dignity that befits a court
proceeding and should have been stricken out of the records.
The foregoing notwithstanding, the Court finds that the terms used by
the private respondent in her pleading and in her testimony cannot be
the basis for an award of moral damages and attorney's fees in favor
of petitioner.
Jalandoni vs. Drilon
Respondents here were accused of printing libelous matter in
newspapers. The matter pertained to actions by Jalandoni as member
of the PCGG alleged to be illegal and unauthorized (sold certain shares
of a company at undervalued prices to RCBC thereby defrauding the
government). Justice secretary reversed the findings of prosecutors
and dismissed the complaints.
HELD: Articles are not libelous. Articles merely stated insinuations on
the deal between RCBC and Jalandoni as part of the PCGG. It just
served to inform the public of irregularities in the transaction. In libels
against public officers, to be liable, libel must relate to official
conduct, even if the statement is false, unless officer proves that it
was made with actual malice (with knowledge that it was false or not).
Borjal vs. CA
Borjal wrote a series of articles in his column about a certain “Edsa
hero who is organizing conferences and seminars and soliciting money
in the name of the President and DOTC secretary without the latter’s
consent and authority. Wenceslao filed a case for libel saying that he
felt alluded to in the articles as the organizer and that he was almost
certain that it was him.
HELD: No libel. In libel, it is essential that the victim be identifiable
even if not actually named. It is not sufficient that the victim himself
made the identification, but it is necessary that at least the victim be
identifiable by a 3rd person.
CAB, no sufficient identification. Victim was not named, there were
many Edsa heroes and many organizers of the seminars. And even the
victim was not absolutely sure that it was him being alluded to.
Fortich vs. Galleron
Fortich is a salesman of San Miguel. His supervisor Galleron suspected
him of misappropriating the collections he received retailers and
buyers, so an investigation was conducted on the matter. Galleron
submitted an inter-office memorandum containing the results of his
investigation. The memo was addressed to the Regional Sales Manager
and contained this paragraph:
“In addition, I would like to further inform management that S/M
Stanley Fortich is an avid mahjong player and a cockfighting
enthusiast. In spite of several advices, there seems to be no change in
his lifestyle. Also, respondent had a similar case last September 11,
1978.”
HELD: The controversial paragraph is not libelous. First, the memo
was part and parcel of the investigation on Fortich’s non-remittance
of collections. Secondly, the memo was notcirculated or publicized,
much less read by officers of the corporation other than those involved
in the investigation or those directly supervising the petitioner's work.
More importantly, Fortich was unable to prove that the issuance of the
memo was motivated by malice.
While malice is presumed in every defamatory imputation, there are
certain exceptions to this rule. The memo falls under the privileged
communication rule. A privileged communication is one made bona
fide upon any subject matter in which the party communicating has an
interest, or in reference to which he has a duty. In the case at bar,
Galleron, being Fortich’s supervisor, was charged with the duty to
carry out and enforce company rules and policies, including the duty
to undertake initial investigation of possible irregularities in customer
accounts. The memo was an official act done in good faith, an honest
innocent statement arising from a moral and legal obligation which the
private respondent certainly owed to the company in the performance
of his duties.
Salcedo-Ortanez vs. CA
Rafael filed an action for annulment of his marriage to Teresita.
Among the evidence presented by Rafael in the trial court were several
tape recordings of telephone conversations between Teresita and
unidentified persons. The recordings were obtained when Rafael
allowed his friends from the military to wire tap his home telephone.
HELD: Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled "An Act to Prohibit and Penalize Wire
Tapping and Other Related Violations of the Privacy of Communication,
and for other purposes" expressly makes such tape recordings
inadmissible in evidence. Absent a clear showing that both parties to
the telephone conversations allowed to recording of the same, the
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
245
inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep. Act No.
4200.
People v. Ogie Diaz (2007)
The last element of libel is that the victim is identified or identifiable
from the contents of the libelous article. In order to maintain a libel
suit, it is essential that the victim be identifiable, although it is not
necessary that the person be named. It is enough if by intrinsic
reference the allusion is apparent or if the publication contains
matters of description or reference to facts and circumstances from
which others reading the article may know the person alluded to, or
if the latter is pointed out by extraneous circumstances so that those
knowing such person could and did understand that he was the person
referred to. Kunkle v. Cablenews-American and Lyons laid the rule
that this requirement is complied with where a third person
recognized or could identify the party vilified in the article.
Article 354. Requirement for Publicity
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious, even
if it be true, if no good intention and justiable motice for making
it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to
another in the performance of any legal, moral, or
social duty;
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without any
comments or remarks, of any judicial, legislative, or
other official proceedings which are not of confidential
nature, or of any statement, report or speech delivered
in said proceedings, or of any other act performed by
public officers in the exercise of their functions.
 The two exceptions in Art. 354 are the so-called privileged
communications. When privileged communication is involved,
malice in fact must be proved to convict the accused.
Illustration of Art. 354: A tells C that B is a thief. The fact is B is
really is a thief, because he was previously convicted of theft.
Can it be presumed that the imputation by B is malicious? Yes,
because Art. 354 says that “every defeamatory imputation is
presumed to be malicious even if it be true.”
But the presumption of malice is rebutted if A can show (1) good
intention and (2) justifiable motive for making the imputation.
Thus, if B is applying for a position of security guard in the store
of C, brother of A, and the purpose of A is to protect his brother
from undesirable employees, then malice cannot be presumed.
 Two kinds of privileged communication:
(1) Absolute
- not actionable, EVEN IF its author acted in bad faith
- this class includes statements made by members of Congress
in the discharge of their functions as such, allegations in
pleadings made by parties or their counsel, answers given
by witnesses in reply to questions propounded to them
(provided the answers are responsive and the allegations
are relevant)
- usually limited to legislative and judicial proceedings and
other acts of state
(2) Conditional or qualified
- not actionable UNLESS made with malice or bad faith
- this class includes those communications mentioned as
exceptions in Art. 354
 RE: Par. 1 (Private communication made by any person to
another…)
Illustration: X files a complaint in good faith against a priest to
his ecclesiastical superior allegedly for taking indecent liberties
of women  private communication in the performance of a
moral duty  privileged!
 Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith. So for example, if
a copy of the complaint above is sent to a newspaper for
publication, the privilege is destroyed.
 That the statement is a privileged communication is a matter
of defense and, like all other matters of defense, must be
established by the accused.
 Tapos, if the accused sets up privileged communication as a
defense, to overcome it, the prosecutions must prove that (1)
the defendant acted with malice in fact (because the privileged
only negates the presumption of malice in law), or (2) there is
no reasonable ground for believing the charge to be true.
Illustration of “no reasonable ground for believing the charge to
be true”: X admitted that he had personally made no
investigation with reference to the truth of many of the
statements made in the communication to the Secretary of
Justice, especially with reference to the statements based on
rumors that a judge received a bribe for dismissing a murder
case.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
246
 RE: Par. 2 (Fair and true report of official proceedings…)
 Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts
of public officers which are related to the discharge of their
official duties will not constitute libel if the defendant proves the
truth of the imputation. The conduct of public officers which are
related to the discharge of their official duties are matters of
public interest, and it is a defense to an action for libel or slander
that the words complained of are a fair comment on a matter of
public interest.
What is a fair comment? If the comment is an expression of an
opinion, based upon proven facts, then it is no matter that the
opinion happens to be mistaken so long as it might be
reasonably inferred from the facts. Comment may be fair,
although wrong.
 But any attack upon the private character of the public officer
on matters which are not related to the discharge of their official
functions, may constitute libel. No one has the right to invade
another’s privacy.
 Rule on self-defense – A person libeled is justified to hit back
with another libel. But the defamatory statements made by the
accused must be a fair answer to the libel made by the offended
party and must be related to the imputation made. The answer
should not be unnecessarily libelous.
Illustration: A to B, C & D: “You pimp, women of ill repute,
thieves, paramours of my husband”. B to A: “You are a woman
of the street, you smell bad, and your money was stolen from
the PCAU” + C to A “You are shameless, blackmailer, murderer”
+ D to A “You have a thick face, you are not legally married,
you are the paramour of Father Baluyut.”
Held: To repel attack, the defendant may make an explanation
of the imputation, and it is only where, if by explaining, he must
of necessity have to use scurrilous and slanderous remarks, that
he may legally be allowed to do so without placing himself under
criminal prosecution. Here, B, C, D’s remarks were unnecessarily
scurrilous.
Article 355. Libel by Means of Writings or Similar Means
A libel may be committed by means of -
1. Writing;
2. Printing;
3. Lithography;
4. Engraving;
5. Radio;
6. Photograph;
7. Painting;
8. Theatrical exhibition;
9. Cinematographic exhibition; or
10. Any similar means.
 Defamation through amplifier is not libel, but oral
defamation. The word ‘radio’ should be considered in relation
to the terms with which it is associated – all of which have a
common characteristic, namely, their permanent nature as a
means of publication.
 But defamation made in a TV program is libel. It easily
qualifies under the general provision “or any similar means”.
Magno v. People (2006)
Sending an unsealed libelous letter to the offended party constitutes
publication.
Buatis v. People (2006)
Facts: One lawyer sent another an insulting letter, in closing saying,
“Yours in Satan’s name”.
Held: There is publication in this case. In libel, publication means
making the defamatory matter, after it is written, known to someone
other than the person against whom it has been written. Petitioner’s
subject letter-reply itself states that the same was copy furnished
to all concerned. Also, petitioner had dictated the letter to his
secretary. It is enough that the author of the libel complained of
has communicated it to a third person. Furthermore, the letter,
when found in the mailbox, was open, not contained in an envelope
thus, open to public.
While Vaca case is for violation of B.P. 22, we find the reasons behind
the imposition of fine instead of imprisonment applicable to
petitioner’s case of libel. We note that this is petitioner’s first offense
of this nature. He never knew respondent prior to the demand letter
sent by the latter to Mrs. Quingco who then sought his assistance
thereto. He appealed from the decision of the RTC and the CA in his
belief that he was merely exercising a civil or moral duty in writing the
letter to private complainant. In fact, petitioner could have applied
for probation to evade prison term but he did not do so believing that
he did not commit a crime thus, he appealed his case. We believe that
the State is concerned not only in the imperative necessity of
protecting the social organization against the criminal acts of
destructive individuals but also in redeeming the individual for
economic usefulness and other social ends. Consequently, we delete
the prison sentence imposed on petitioner and instead impose a fine
of six thousand pesos.
This is not the first time that we removed the penalty of imprisonment
and imposed a fine instead in the crime of libel. In Sazon v. Court of
Appeals, petitioner was convicted of libel and was meted a penalty of
imprisonment and fine; and upon a petition filed with us, we affirmed
the findings of libel but changed the penalty imposed to a mere fine.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
247

Article 356. Threatening to Publish and Offer to Prevent
Such Publication for A Compensation
Acts punished
1.Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or his
parents, spouse, child, or other members of his family;
2. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for
compensation or money consideration.
 Blackmail - In its metaphorical sense, blackmail may be
defined as any unlawful extortion of money by threats of
accusation or exposure. Two words are expressive of the crime
- hush money.
 In what felonies is blackmail possible? Blackmail is possible
in (1) light threats under Article 283; and (2) threatening to
publish, or offering to prevent the publication of, a libel for
compensation, under Article 356.
Article 357. Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred to
in the Course of Official Proceedings
Elements
1. Offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a
newspaper, daily or magazine;
2. He publishes facts connected with the private life of
another;
3. Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and
reputation of said person.
 The provisions of Art. 357 constitute the so-called “Gag
Law”. Newspaper reports on cases pertaining to adultery,
divorce, issues about the legitimacy of children etc., will
necessarily be barred from publication.
 The prohibition applies even though said publication be made
in connection with or under the pretext that it is necessary in
the narration of any judicial or administrative proceedings
wherein such facts have been mentioned.
Illustration: A uttered defamatory remarks calling a priest a
savage and that he had a concubine. While the case was
pending trial, a newspaper published the complaint verbatim
including the defamatory expressions of A.
 RA1477 – The publisher, editor, columnist or reporter of any
periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to reveal
the source of any news report or information appearing in said
publication which was related in confidence to such publisher
etc. unless the court or a House or committee of Congress finds
that such revelation is demanded by the security of the State,
without prejudice to the publisher’s etc. liability under civil and
criminal laws.
Article 358. Slander
Slander is oral defamation. There are tow kinds of oral
defamation:
(1) Simple slander; and
(2) Grave slander, when it is of a serious and
insulting nature.
 Factors that determine the gravity of oral defamation:
1. expressions used
2. personal relations of the accused and the offended
party
3. circumstances surrounding the case
Illustration of grave slander: “You sold the union. You swindled
the money of the members and received bribe money in the
amount of P10K…”
Illustration of simple slander: An accusation that the offended
party has been living successively and with several men uttered
before several persons, when intended to correct an improper
conduct of the offended party, a kin of the accused, is only
simple slander.
 The slander need not be heard by the offended party,
because a man’s reputation is the estimate in which other hold
him, not the good opinion which he has of himself.
People vs. Pelayo
Pelayo told Clapano (councilor), within the hearing of three people,
that in one of his investigations on illegal gambling, an operator, Lim
Peng, told him Almendras (governor) received P500 from said operator
as protection money. The following day, Pelayo delivered a privileged
speech in the City Council’s session where it could be inferred that he
was referring to Almendras as a “tong collector”.
HELD: Facts of the case do NOT constitute intriguing against honor
where the source of the derogatory information cannot be determined
and defendant borrows the same without subscribing to the truth
thereof, passes it to others. The information allegedly came from a
definite source (Lim Peng) which he adopted as his, passed it to
another for the purpose of causing dishonor to the other’s reputation.
The act is slander (light oral defamation).
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
248
 Victorio vs. CA
Father and son Victorio were overheard by people to have uttered
defamatory words against Atty. Ruiz after a hearing where Atty. Ruiz
moved for contempt of the counsel of Victorio. They were found guilty
of Grave Oral Defamation.
HELD: Oral defamation or slander has been defined as the speaking of
base and defamatory words which tend to prejudice another in his
reputation, office, trade, business or means of livelihood. The special
circumstances of the case, antecedents or relationship between
offended and offender, which might tend to prove intention of
offender at the time, aside from the sense and grammatical meaning
of the defamatory words are considered as guidelines in determining
whether the offense is serious or slight.
Attributing to a prominent lawyer a crime (estafa) is a serious and
insulting imputation that strikes deep into the character of the victim.
No special circumstance need be shown for defamatory words to be
considered grave oral defamation.
That defamatory words were uttered in the heat of anger cannot lie
where there was no reason or lawful cause to be angry against Ruiz
who was merely performing his duties aw a lawyer in defense of client,
and no provocation.
People vs. Orcullo
Judge Orcullo dismissed the case for oral defamation against Peralta
(she imputed adultery and prostitution against Flores) on the ground
that it was a private crime to be instituted by the offended party. SC
reinstated case for trial.
HELD: The words said by Peralta are indubitably imputation of the
crime of prostitution, which can be prosecuted de oficio and not
adultery. Connotation of hostess is notoriously referred to prostitutes.
Only when derogatory remarks clearly and categorically reflect the
elements constituting adultery would the complainant for libel by the
offended party be necessary to commence prosecution
Villanueva v. People (2006)
The Court does not condone the vilification or use of scurrilous
language on the part of petitioner, but following the rule that all
possible circumstances favorable to the accused must be taken in his
favor, it is our considered view that the slander committed by
petitioner can be characterized as slight slander following the doctrine
that uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with some
provocation on the part of the offended party, constitutes only a
light felony.
Figeroa v. People (2006)
While it is true that a publication's libelous nature depends on its
scope, spirit and motive taken in their entirety, the article in question
as a whole explicitly makes mention of private complainant Rivera all
throughout. It cannot be said that the article was a mere general
commentary on the alleged existing state of affairs at the
aforementioned public market because Rivera was not only specifically
pointed out several times therein but was even tagged with derogatory
names. Indubitably, this name-calling was, as correctly found by the
two courts below, directed at the very person of Rivera himself.
Article 359. Slander by Deed
Elements
1. Offender performs any act not included in any other
crime against honor;
2. Such act is performed in the presence of other person
or persons;
3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt upon
the offended party.
Slander by deed refers to performance of an act, not use of
words.
Two kinds of slander by deed
1. Simple slander by deed; and
2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of a serious
nature.
 What is slander by deed? It is a crime against honor which is
committed by performing an act which casts dishonor, discredit,
or contempt upon another person.
Illustrations: slapping the face of another if the intention is to
cause shame and humiliation, fighting another with intention to
humiliate him
 vs. Acts of lasciviousness
Kissing a girl in public and touching her breasts without lewd
designs, committed by a rejected suitor to cast dishonor on the
girl is slander by deed NOT acts of lasciviousness.
 vs. Maltreatment
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
249
The nature and effects of the maltreatment determine the crime Venue of criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of
committed. If the offended party suffered from shame or written defamations (In case one of the offended parties is a
humiliation caused by the maltreatment, it is slander by deed. private individual)

Unjust vexation Slander by deed Acts of 1. Where the libelous article is printed and first published;
lasciviousness or
2. Where any of the offended parties actually resides at
Irritation or annoyance the time of the commission of the offense.
+ With publicity + presence of the
and dishonor or circumstances
 Where one of the offended parties is a public officer, the
contempt provided for in
RPC 335 on rape action shall be filed in the CFI (1) of the province or city where
(force or he held office at the time of the commission of the offense OR
intimidation, (2) where the libelous article is printed and first published.
unconscious etc.)
together with
lewd designs
 The civil action shall be filed in the same cdourt where the
criminal action is filed and vice versa.

People vs. Motita  The court where the criminal action or civil action for
damages is 1st filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion of
Motita used a mirror to view reflection of private parts of Letada. other courts.
Crowd nearby were laughing with their eyes directed towards her.

 If the defamation consists in the imputation of a crime which

HELD: Crime committed was slander by deed.
Unjust vexation is committed when the offender’s act caused
annoyance, irritation, vexation, torment, distress or disturbance to
the mind of the person to whom it is directed. If there was attendant
publicity and dishonor or contempt in addition to the irrigation or
annoyance, offense would be slander by deed as in this case. If any of
the circumstances provided for rape together with lewd designs were
present in addition to the annoyance, the offense would be act of
lasciviousness.
cannot be prosecuted de oficio (adultery, concubinage,
seduction, abduction and acts of lasciviousness), then the
offended party must a complaint.
 RE: DAMAGES recoverable
 Actual damages need not be proved, at least (1) where the
publication is libelous per se or (2) when the amount of the
award is more or less nominal, because libel, by its nature,
causes injury to the reputation of the offended party.

 There is no remedy for damages for slander or libel in case

of absolutely privileged communication.
Article 360. Persons responsible

The persons responsible for libel are:

Article 361. Proof of the truth

1. The person who publishes, exhibits or causes the

publication or exhibition of any defamation in writing
or similar means;
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet;
3. The editor or business manager of a daily newspaper
magazine or serial publication;
4. The owner of a printing plant which publishes a libelous
article with his consent and all other persons who in
any way participate in or have connection with its
publication.
In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be given in
evidence to the court and if it appears that the matter charged
as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it was published with
good motives and for justifiable ends, the defendant shall be
acquitted.
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not
constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the imputation

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

250
shall have been made against the Government employees with malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the editor or
respect to facts related to the discharge of their duties. managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability.

In such cases, if the defendant proves the truth of the
imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.
Proof of truth is admissible in any of the following:
 Thus, the author of a publication who distorts or discolors
official proceedings reported by him, or adds comments thereon
to cast aspersion on the character of the parties concerned, is
guilty of libel, notwithstanding that the defamatory matter is
published in connection with a privileged matter.

1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a crime

regardless of whether the offended party is a private
Article 363. Incriminating Innocent Persons
individual or a public officer;
2. When the offended party is a Government employee,
even if the act or omission imputed doesn’t constitute Elements
a crime, provided, it is related to the discharge of his
official duties. 1. Offender performs an act;
2. By such an act, he incriminates or imputes to an
innocent person the commission of a crime;
Illustration: A said that B, a gov’t official, was in the habit of 3. Such act does not constitute perjury.
drinking during office hours and that he was always in a
boisterous condition. Is proof of truth allowed in case B should
file a complaint against A for defamation? Yes. Both public  This article is limited to “planting” evidence and the like,
interest and the good of the service demand that a drunkard be which do not in themselves constitute false prosecutions but
barred from the service. But when the imputation involves the tend directly to cause false prosecution.
private life of B which is not related to the discharge of his official
duties, the offender cannot prove the truth thereof.
Incriminating an Perjury by making false
innocent person accusation
Another illustration: A made several imputations against C, a Committed by performing an The gravamen is the
private individual, some of which insinuated the commission of act by which the offender imputation itself, falsely
crimes and some did not. Is proof of truth allowed? It depends. directly incriminates another made before an officer
The defendant will be allowed to prove the truth of the
imputations constituting crimes but he will not be allowed to Limited to the act of planting Giving of false statement
evidence under oath or making a false
prove the truth of the imputations not constituting crimes.
affidavit, imputing to another
the commission of a crime

 DEFENSE in defamation, requisities:

Incriminatory Defamation
1. Truth
machinations
2. Matter was published with good motives
3. For justifiable ends Offender doesn’t avail Words, written or spoken,
himself of written or spoken are availed of
words in besmirching the
 Retraction may mitigate damages. But in order to have the victim’s reputation
desired effect, the retraction should contain an admission of the
falsity of the libelous publication and evince a strong desire to Not required Imputation must be public
repair the wrong occasioned thereby. and malicious & must be
calculated to cause the
dishonor, discredit or
contempt of the aggrieved
party

Article 362. Libelous remarks

Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter

privileged under the provisions of Article 354, if made with People vs. Alagao

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

251
Is there a complex crime of incriminating an innocent person through Done by availing directly of
unlawful arrest? spoken words
ex., gossiping
HELD: Yes. The two acts imputed to the accused closely followed each
other, the unlawful arrest being a necessary means to plant the
incriminatory evidence. Under the circumstances of the case, the
accused had to arrest M because it was the only way that they could Slander
with facility detain him, search his person or effects and, commingle
therewith the marked peso bill. A complex crime was committed. The source of the info can
be pinpointed and the
defendant, adopting as his
own the information he has
obtained, passes the same to
another for the purpose of
Huggland vs. Lantin causing dishonor to
complainant’s reputation
Committed by means which
consists of some tricky and
secret plot
Intriguing against Honor
The source or the author of
the derogatory info cannot
be determined and the
defendant borrows the same,
and without subscribing to
the truth thereof, passes it to
others

Judge Lantin was arrested for bribery for allegedly having received
marked money amounting to P5,000 from one Magdalena Huggland who
was implicated in a criminal case. The P5,000 was allegedly part of the
P25,000 being asked by Judge Lantin for the cancellation of the hold
departure order issued against Ms. Huggland. The issue is whether this
is case of entrapment or planting of evidence.
HELD: This is a case of entrapment. Let us distinguish entrapment
from planting of evidence. In entrapment, the criminal intent or
design to commit the offense charged originates in the mind of the
accused and the law enforcement officials merely facilitate the
commission of the offense, the accused cannot justify his conduct.
Planting of evidence or incriminating innocent person is committed
by performing an act by which the offender directly incriminates or
imputes to an innocent person the commission of a crime.
From the testimonial and documentary evidence submitted by the
parties, there is reason to believe that indeed, this is a case of
entrapment not planting of evidence. The conclusion is based on the
following:
(1) The subpoena was illegally issued;
(2) The Motion to Quash Hold Departure Order and the Order of
Cancellation of the Hold Departure Order were prepared and
typewritten by the respondent; and
(3) The Money used in the entrapment operation was recovered from
one of the left drawers of the respondent's table.
Article 364. Intriguing against Honor
This crime is committed by any person who shall make any
intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the honor
or reputation of another person.
Incriminating an Intriguing against Honor
innocent person
Offender performs an act by Offender resorts to an
which he directly incriminates intrigue for the purpose of
or imputes to an innocent blemishing the honor or
person the commission of a reputation of another person
crime
Defamation Intriguing against Honor
REPUBLIC ACT No. 4200
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING
AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY
OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
It shall be unlawful:
e) for any person, not being authorized by all the
parties to any private communication or spoken
word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any
other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
intercept, or record such communication or spoken
word by using a device commonly known as a
dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or walkie-
talkie or tape recorder, or however otherwise
described;
f) for any person, be he a participant or not in the act
or acts penalized in the next preceding sentence,
(1) to knowingly possess any tape record, wire
record, disc record, or any other such record, or
copies thereof, of any communication or spoken
word secured either before or after the effective
date of this Act in the manner prohibited by this
law; or (2) to replay the same for any other person
or persons; or (3) to communicate the contents
thereof, either verbally or in writing, or (4) to
furnish transcriptions thereof, whether complete or
partial, to any other person. Provided, That the
use of such record or any copies thereof as
evidence in any civil, criminal investigation
or trial of offenses, shall not be covered by this
prohibition;
g) for any person who willfully or knowingly does or
who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of
the acts declared to be unlawful or who violates the
provisions of the following section or of any order
issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or causes such
violation.
It is not unlawful:
a) for any peace officer, who is authorized by a written
order of the Court, to execute any of the acts
declared to be unlawful in cases involving the
crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and
disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the high
seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition, conspiracy
to commit sedition, inciting to sedition, kidnapping

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

252
 as defined by the Revised Penal Code, and
violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616, punishing HELD: The phrase “any other device or arrangement” in the Ant-
espionage and other offenses against national Wiretapping Law doesn’t cover an extension line. The law refers to a
security: Provided, That such written order
tap of a wire or cable or the use of a device or arrangement for the
shall only be issued or granted upon written
purpose of secretly overhearing, intercepting or recording the
application and the examination under oath
communication. There must be the physical interruption through a
or affirmation of the applicant and the
wiretap or the deliberate installation of a device or arrangement in
witnesses he may produce and a showing: (1)
order to overhear, intercept or record the spoken words. The extension
that there are reasonable grounds to believe that
any of the crimes enumerated hereinabove has here was not installed for the purpose but for ordinary office use. Also,
been committed or is being committed or is about an extension phone is an instrument which is very common, not what
to be committed: Provided, however, That in the law refers to in which the presence of such devices cannot be
cases involving the offenses of rebellion, conspiracy presumed by the party being overheard.
and proposal to commit rebellion, inciting to
rebellion, sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition,
and inciting to sedition, such authority shall be
granted only upon prior proof that a rebellion or
acts of sedition, as the case may be, have actually Ramirez vs. CA
been or are being committed; (2) that there are
reasonable grounds to believe that evidence will be
obtained essential to the conviction of any person Ramirez field a civil case for damages against Garcia. IN support of her
for, or to the solution of, or to the prevention of, claim, she produced a verbatim transcript of the confrontation with
any of such crimes; and (3) that there are no other Garcia where the latter allegedly vexed, insulted and humiliated her.
means readily available for obtaining such The transcription on which the civil case was based was culled from a
evidence. tape recording of the confrontation made by petitioner. As a result of
the recording, Garcia filed a criminal case against Ramirez for violation
Effect of violation of the law: Any communication or spoken of RA 4200.
word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect,
or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
information therein contained obtained or secured by any
person in violation of this Act shall not be admissible in HELD: The law makes no distinction as to whether the party sought to
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or be penalized by the statute ought to be a party other than or different
administrative hearing or investigation. from those involved in the private communication. The statute’s intent
to penalize all persons unauthorized to make such recording is
underscored by the use of the qualifier “any”. Consequently, as
respondent CA correctly concluded, even a person privy to a
communication who records his private conversation with another
without the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator under
Gaanan vs. IAC
the provisions of RA4200. The lawmakers contemplated to make illegal
unauthorized taped recording of private conversation or
communication taken by either of the parties themselves of by third
Atty. Pinto filed a complaint for direct assault against Atty. Laconico.
persons. The nature of the conversation is immaterial for conviction of
Pintor, through phone, offered to withdraw the complaint for
the crime and communication as used includes conversation.
consideration. Atty. Gaanan was able to overhear this conversation
through a telephone extension. Pinto was arrested for extortion. But
Gaanan and Laconico were charged with violation of RA4200 and found
guilty by the lower court.

C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer

253