Title 9 - Liberty and Security 2007

Title Nine
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND

SECURITY
Chapter One. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
Section One Illegal Detention
Article 2!. "i#napping an# $erio%$ illegal
#etention
Article 2&. Slight illegal Detention
Article 2'. (nla)*%l arre$t
Section T)o "i#napping o* Minor$
Article 2!+. "i#napping an# *ail%re to ret%rn a
,inor
Article 2!-. In#%cing a ,inor to a.an#on hi$
ho,e
Section Three Sla/er0 an# $er/it%#e
Article 2!2. Sla/er0
Article 2!1. E2ploitation o* Chil# La.or
Article 2!3. Ser/ice ren#ere# %n#er co,p%l$ion
in
pa0,ent o* #e.t
Chapter T)o CRIMES AGAINST SEC(RITY
Section One A.an#on,ent o* helple$$ per$on$
an#
e2ploitation o* ,inor$
Article 2!4. A.an#on,ent o* per$on$ in #anger
an#
a.an#on,ent o* one5$ o)n /icti,
Article 2!. A.an#oning a ,inor
Article 2!!. A.an#on,ent o* ,inor .0 per$on
entr%$te# )ith hi$ c%$to#06 in#i7erence o*
parent$
Article 2!&. E2ploitation o* ,inor$
Article 2!'. A##itional penaltie$ *or other
o7en$e$
Section T)o Tre$pa$$ to #)elling
Article 2&+. 8%ali9e# tre$pa$$ to #)elling
Article 2&-. Other *or,$ o* tre$pa$$
Section Three Threat$ an# Coercion
Article 2&2. Gra/e threat$
Article 2&1. Light threat$
Article 2&3. Bon# *or goo# .eha/ior
Article 2&4. Other light threat$
Article 2&. Gra/e coercion$
Article 2&!. Light coercion$
Article 2&&. Other $i,ilar coercion$ :co,p%l$or0
p%rcha$e o* ,erchan#i$e an# pa0,ent o*
)age$ .0 ,ean$ o* to;en$<
Article 2&'. =or,ation> ,aintenance an#
prohi.ition o* co,.ination o*
capital or la.or thro%gh /iolence or
threat$
Chapter Three DISCO?ERY AND RE?ELATION O=
SECRETS
Article 2'+. Di$co/ering $ecret$ thro%gh $ei@%re
o*
corre$pon#ence
Article 2'-. Re/ealing $ecret$ )ith a.%$e o*
oAce
Article 2'2. Re/elation o* in#%$trial $ecret$
Article 267. Kidn!!in" nd #eri$%#
ille"l detenti$n
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er i$ a pri/ate in#i/i#%al6
2. Ce ;i#nap$ or #etain$ another> or in an0
other ,anner #epri/e$ the latter o* hi$
li.ert06
1. The act o* #etention or ;i#napping ,%$t .e
illegal6
3. In the co,,i$$ion o* the o7en$e> an0 o*
the *ollo)ing circ%,$tance$ i$ pre$entB
a. The ;i#napping la$t$ *or ,ore
than 1 #a0$6
.. It i$ co,,itte# $i,%lating
p%.lic a%thorit06
c. An0 $erio%$ ph0$ical inD%rie$
are inEicte# %pon the per$on
;i#nappe# or #etaine# or threat$ to ;ill
hi, are ,a#e6 or
#. The per$on ;i#nappe# or
#etaine# i$ a ,inor> *e,ale> or a p%.lic
oAcer.
I* the o7en#er i$ a p%.lic
oAcer> the cri,e i$ ar.itrar0 #etention.
The p%.lic oAcer ,%$t ha/e a #%t0 %n#er
the la) to #etain a per$on to .e lia.le *or
ar.itrar0 #etention. I* he ha$ no $%ch #%t0>
an# he #etain$ a per$on> he i$ lia.le %n#er
thi$ article.
Fhen the /icti, i$ a ,inor an#
the acc%$e# i$ one o* the parent$> the
penalt0 $hall .e arre$to ,a0or or a 9ne not
e2cee#ing 1++ pe$o$ or .oth :Article 2!->
par. 2<
The e$$ential ele,ent o*
;i#napping i$ the de!ri&ti$n $' t(e
$)ended !rt*+# li,ert* %n#er an0 o*
the *o%r in$tance$ en%,erate#. B%t )hen
the ;i#napping )a$ co,,itte# *or the
p%rpo$e o* e2torting ran$o,> it i$ not
nece$$ar0 that one or an0 o* circ%,$tance$
en%,erate# .e pre$ent.
Fhen the ;i#napping i$ #one
*or the p%rpo$e o* e2torting ran$o, *ro,
the /icti, or an0 other per$on> act%al
#e,an# *or ran$o, i$ not nece$$ar0> a$
long a$ it can .e pro/en that the
;i#napping )a$ #one *or the p%rpo$e o*
e2torting ran$o,.
C2005 Criminal Law 2 Reviewer
94
It i$ e$$ential in the cri,e o*
illegal #etention that there .e act%al
con9ne,ent or re$triction o* the per$on o*
the o7en#e# part0.
Not nece$$ar0 that the /icti,
.e place# in an enclo$%re> a$ long a$ he i$
#epri/e#> in n* -nner> o* hi$ li.ert0.
Detention i$ illegal )hen not
or#ere# .0 co,petent a%thorit0 or not
per,itte# .0 la).
Special Co,ple2 Cri,e o*
"i#napping )ith ,%r#er )hen the /icti,
i$ ;ille# or #ie$ a$ a con$eG%ence o* the
#etention> the ,a2i,%, penalt0 :#eath<
$hall .e i,po$e#.
Fhere the /icti, i$ ta;en *ro,
one place to another $olel0 *or the p%rpo$e
o* ;illing hi,> the cri,e co,,itte# i$
,%r#er.
Ma2i,%, penalt0 i$ i,po$e# in
the 7. ca$e$B
o I* the p%rpo$e o* #etention i$ to
e2tort ran$o,
o Fhen the /icti, i$ ;ille# or
#ie$ a$ a con$eG%ence o* the #etention
o Fhen the /icti, i$ rape#
o Fhen the /icti, i$ $%.Decte# to
tort%re or #eh%,ani@ing act$.
Con$pirac0 to e2tort ran$o,
,a;e$ all the con$pirator$ lia.le %n#er thi$
article> incl%#ing tho$e )ho #i# not ta;e
part in the ,one0.
Ille"l detenti$n Ar,itrr* detenti$n
Co,,itte# .0 a pri/ate
in#i/i#%al> )ho
%nla)*%ll0 #epri/e$ a
per$on o* hi$ li.ert0
Co,,itte# .0 a p%.lic
oAcer or e,plo0ee> )ho
#etain$ a per$on )itho%t
legal gro%n#
Cri,e again$t per$onal
li.ert0
Cri,e again$t the
*%n#a,ental la)$ o* the
$tate
People vs. Tomio
A Japanese national named Tomio was arrested after being
implicated for possessing marijuana. Two other Japanese
claimed that they paid money for Tomios release and so
they held Tomio under their custody, asking for the amount
they allegedly advance to the police.
H!"# ven if the two accused only wanted to recover the
money they allegedly advanced to the police, the crime is
still kidnapping because of the essential element of
deprivation of liberty.
People vs. Mercado
The accused held a knife against his girlfriends sister for
nearly five hours. The victims ordeal ended only after the
barangay captain was able to subdue the accused.
H!"# The crime is kidnapping because the victim was
actually restrained or deprived of her liberty,
notwithstanding the fact that the accused only wanted the
victim to produce her.
People vs. Del Socorro
"el $ocorro grabbed a little girl and brought the child to a
doctor, asking for %&& pesos in return. The doctor gave the
child to her spinster aunt.
H!"# The defense that the child voluntarily went with the
accused is belied by the fact that the child openly resisted
the abduction and even had to be carried to the jeep.
People vs. Lim
!im took in two young girls who were loitering in front of
her sari'sari store. !im sent the younger girl to (ebu while
the older girl stayed in the store. "ays later, the girls
father arrived to bring the two girls back with him.
H!"# There is no kidnapping in this case because the two
minors voluntarily entered !ims residence and there was
no showing that there was actual confinement or
restriction of the person of the offended party. )oth girls
were free to go in and out of the store.
People vs. Padica
A *+'year old boy was brought to a sugarcane plantation,
where he was shot and killed immediately. The accused
demanded ransom soon after.
H!"# ,here the evident purpose of taking the victim was
to kill him, and from the acts of the accused it cannot be
inferred that the latters purpose was to actually detain or
deprive the victim of his liberty, the subse-uent 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
!uartes kidnapped a .'yr old girl outside /settan 0ecto. The
girl was in the mall with her mother, who lost her. !uartes
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 1police officers2
merely misconstrued his actuations.
H!"# /f indeed accused'appellant was trying to help the
lost child, why then did he misrepresent himself as her
uncle3 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 him3
The essence of kidnapping under Art. 45% is the actual
deprivation of the victim6s liberty coupled with the intent
of the accused to effect it. The crime in this case clearly
comes under par. + of Art. 45% of the 7enal (ode. The
detention was committed by !uartes who was a private
individual and the person kidnapped was a three 1.2'year
old minor.
95
People vs. Pavillare
7avillare was convicted of kidnapping an /ndian 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.
H!"# The pretense that the money was supposedly in
e8change 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 e8change 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 s-uarely e8pressed in
Article 45%, above'-uoted the penalty of death is
imposable where the detention is committed for the
purpose of e8torting ransom, and the duration of the
detention is not material.
People vs. allenas
Accused )allenas pointed a short firearm to ,ilma and
(onsorcia inside their home. Accused told ,ilma to
accompany him to 9aria his girlfriend. ,ilma refused, as
they were about to eat supper. (onsorcia also told her
daughter, ,ilma not to go out because it was already dark.
Accused )allenas forced ,ilma to go out with him. )ecause
of the abduction, (onsorcia sought the help of a neighbor,
Andres but to no avail, as Andres shut the door on her for
fear of )allenas as the latter is known as a member of the
dreaded $parrow :nit of the ;7A.
The following morning, (onsorcia reported the abduction of
,ilma to her son'in'law who is a member of the /ntegrated
;ational 7olice. $he learned from Aurelio that ,ilma was
already dead. The police then proceeded to the scene of
the incident. )allenas was found guilty of forcible
abduction with rape and sentenced to 0eclusion perpetua.
H!"# )A!!;A$ committed the crime of forcible
abduction with rape on 9arch 4&, *<=%, before the passage
of 0epublic Act %5>< or the Heinous (rimes !aw that took
effect on "ecember .*, *<<.. At the time that )A!!;A$
committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape, the
penalty then applicable was reclusion perpetua to death.
The use by )A!!;A$ 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 0A %5><, the trial court correctly ruled
that the penalty that can be imposed on )A!!;A$ is
reclusion perpetua. Hence, despite the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty herein of
reclusion perpetua would not be affected. :nder Article 5.
of the 0evised 7enal (ode, 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. Silon!an" 40# SCR$ 459 %200&'
?A(T$# )usinessman Ale8ander $alda@a went to
/sulan, $ultan Audarat with 0ejuso, Tormis, and (inco to
meet with 9acapagal $ilongan alias (ommander !ambada
concerning the gold nuggets that were purportedly being
sold by the latter. "uring the meeting 9acapagal 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. /n the afternoon, Ale8anders
group and 9acapagal, with Teddy and Bteng both surnamed
$ilongan, traveled to fetch 9acapagals brother.
Afterwards, the group returned to /sulan on 9acapagals
orders. At /sulan, 9acapagal gave additional instructions to
wait until dark allegedly because the funeral arrangements
for his relative were not yet finished. ,hen the group
finally got on their way, 9acapagal who was earlier busy
talking over his hand'held radio with someone in the
9aguindanaoan dialect ordered the driver to drive slowly
towards the highway. Bteng and his bodyguards alighted
somewhere long the way. As they neared the highway,
9acapagal ordered the driver to stop. $uddenly, *> armed
men appeared. Ale8ander and his . companions were
ordered to go out of the vehicle, tied up, and blindfolded.
9acapagal and Teddy were also tied up and blindfolded,
but nothing more was done to them. The + were taken to a
mountain hideout. After much haggling twelve million
pesos was demanded from Ale8ander for his release, They
made Ale8ander write a letter to his wife to pay the
ransom which was hand'carried by a certain Jafar, alias
"ante, and two of the victims, Tormis and (inco, who both
later managed to escape. ;o ransom was obtained so other
persons were sent and one of the victims, 0ejuso to
renegotiate with Ale8anders wife. ;o agreement was
likewise reached. $even days later, Ale8ander and 0ejuso
were transferred to the town proper and was guarded them
by several men. ,hen the kidnappers learned that the
military was looking for Ale8ander, they returned to the
mountain hideout and stayed there for two weeks.
At one time, Ale8ander $alda@a was made to stay
at a river hideout where a certain (ommander Augta held
him and sheltered his abductors for at least a week. There,
Ale8ander saw 9acapagal with 9anap and other armed
men. These men brought Ale8ander to different places and
was made to write more letters to his family. All in all
appellant was detained for a total of 5 months. $alda@a
was later released to the military in e8change for a relative
of one of the abductors who was caught delivering a
ransom note to Ale8anders family.
H!"# The essence of the crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention as defined and penaliCed in
Article 45% of the 0evised 7enal (ode is the actual
deprivation of the victims liberty coupled with proof
beyond reasonable doubt of an intent of the accused to
effect the same. /t is thus essential that the following be
established by the prosecution# 1*2 the offender is a private
individualD 142 he kidnaps or detains another, or in any
other manner deprives the latter of his libertyD 1.2 the act
of detention or kidnapping must be illegalD and 1+2 in the
commission of the offense, any of the four circumstances
enumerated in Article 45% be present. )ut if the kidnapping
was done for the purpose of e8torting ransom, the fourth
element is no longer necessary.
There is no mistaking the clear, overwhelming
evidence that the appellants abducted Ale8ander $alda@a
and his companions at gunpoint and deprived them of their
freedom. That the appellants took shifts guarding the
9(
victims until only Ale8ander was left to be guarded and in
transferring Ale8ander from one hideout to another to
prevent him from being rescued by the military establish
that they acted in concert in e8ecuting their common
criminal design.
People v. Corte)" &24 SCR$ &&5 %2000'
?A(T$# 9endoCa was in her house when accused
(orteC, (allos and )etonio, all armed with bolos, arrived.
They were looking for !olita6s cousin, sminda, and were
threatening to kill him on sight. :nable to find $antos, they
decided to abduct !olita to prevent her from reporting the
incident to the police. Accompanied by the other two,
accused (allos pointed his bolo at !olita6s back and dragged
her to the mountain. They brought her to the house of
Torral, an uncle of accused (orteC, where (orteC bound her
hand with a belts and thereafter continued their search for
$antos. Hours later, 7B4 $antos and barangay captain
(olarina rescued found !olita outside the nipa hut of the
Torrals, conversing with 7ablo Torral. !olita 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 victim6s
liberty. They point out that at the time of the rescue,
!olita was not physically confined inside the house as they
found her standing outside, conversing with 7ablo Torral.
They stress that !olita herself declared that she was not
prevented by the Torrals from leaving the house.
H!"# ?or 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. /n the case at bar, the deprivation of !olita6s
liberty was amply established by evidence. ,hen the
appellants failed to find !olita6s cousin, they forcibly
dragged her to the mountains and kept her in the house of
the Torrals. (orteC even bound her hands with a belt.
Although at the time of the rescue, she was found outside
the house talking to 7ablo Torral, she e8plained 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 !olita6s cousin was to kill him
on sight. (ertainly, fear has been known to render people
immobile. /ndeed, appeals to the fears of an individual,
such as by threats to kill or similar threats, are e-uivalent
to the use of actual force or violence which is one of the
elements of the crime of kidnapping under Article 45% 1.2
of the 0evised 7enal (ode.
People v. Suria!a" &*# SCR$ #59 %2002'
?A(T$# dwin 0amos was cleaning the car of his
older brother, Johnny who was taking care of his 4'year old
daughter, ;icole, playing inside the car. $uriaga, a cousin
of the 0amos brothers, arrived. He was accompanied by his
live'in'partner 0osita. $uriaga re-uested dwin if he could
drive the car, but the latter declined, saying he did not
have the keys. 9eanwhile, Johnny returned to his house
because a visitor arrived. At this instance, 0osita held
;icole and cajoled her. 0osita asked dwin if she could
take ;icole with her to buy barbe-ue. Having been
ac-uainted with 0osita for a long time and because he
trusted her, dwin acceded. ,hen 0osita and the child
left, $uriaga joined them. 9ore than an one hour has
passed but the two failed to return with ;icole. dwin,
Johnny and his wife, 9ercedita, then began searching but
they could not find their daughter and 0osita. ;icoles
grandfather then receive a call from $uriaga asking for
ransom in the amount of 7*&&,&&&.&&. Johnny immediately
reported the call to the 7A(( Task ?orce. The ne8t day,
$uriaga called 9ercedita, introduced himself and asked her
if she and her husband would give the amount to which the
latter responded in the positive. $uriaga instructed
9ercidita 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 7A(( agents, 9ercida proceeded to deliver
the money to $uriaga. The 7A(( agents arrested $uriaga
and his companion /sidera after 9ercida gave the money to
them. 7rior thereto, ;icole was rescued in a shanty where
0ositas sister lived.
H!"# The essence of the crime of kidnapping is the
actual deprivation of the victims liberty, coupled with
indubitable proof of the accuseds intent to effect the
same. And if the person detained is a child, the -uestion
that needs to be addressed is whether there is evidence to
show that in taking the child, there was deprivation of the
childs liberty and that it was the intention of the accused
to deprive the mother of the childs custody.
:ndoubtedly, the elements of kidnapping for ransom
have been sufficiently established by the prosecution
considering the following circumstances# #' appellant, a
private individual, took the young ;icole without personally
seeking permission from her fatherD 2' appellant took the
girl and brought her to a shanty where 0ositas sister lived,
without informing her parents of their whereaboutsD &' he
detained the child and deprived her of her liberty by failing
to return her to her parents overnight and the following
dayD and 4' he demanded a ransom of 7*&&,&&&.&& through
telephone calls and gave instructions where and how it
should be delivered.
People v. $c+an!in" &&, SCR$ 454 %2000'
?A(T$# Jocelyn brought four'year old
$weet to ;ius house without the consent of the childs
father "anilo Acbangin. ,hen "anilo asked Jocelyn about
her daughter who he last saw playing in the latters house,
Jocelyn denied knowing of the child6s whereabouts. After 4
days, Jocelyn acompanied "anilo, $weet6s grandfather and
police officers to ;iu6s house. The latter voluntarily turned
$weet over to her father and the policemen. $weet was
well'dressed and smiling. $he ran to her father and
embraced him.
H!"# /n cases of kidnapping, if the person
detained is a child, the -uestion is whether there was
actual deprivation of the child6s liberty, and whether it was
the intention of the accused to deprive the parents of the
custody of the child.
$weet was deprived of her liberty. True, she was
treated well. However, there is still kidnapping. ?or there
to be kidnapping, it is not necessary that the victim be
placed in an enclosure. /t is enough that the victim is
restrained from going home. Eiven $weet6s tender age,
when Jocelyn left her in ;iu6s house, at a distant place in
Tondo, 9anila, unknown to her, she deprived $weet of the
freedom to leave the house at will. /t is not necessary that
the detention be prolonged.
9,
The intention to deprive $weet6s parents of her
custody is indicated by Jocelyn6s hesitation for two days to
disclose $weet6s whereabouts and more so by her actual
taking of the child. Jocelyn6s motive at this point is not
relevant. /t is not an element of the crime.
People v. Pavillare" &29 SCR$ (*4 %2000'
?A(T$# $ukhjinder $ingh, an /ndian national was on
his way back to his parked motorcycle when three men
blocked his way. 7avillare, who was one of them, accused
$ingh of having raped the woman inside a Aia ta8i cab
parked nearby. $ingh denied the accusation, the three men
nevertheless forced him inside the cab and brought him in
FueCon (ity. Bne of the abductors took the key to his
motorcycle and drove it alongside the cab. $ingh was
beaten up and 7*&&,&&&.&& was demanded for his release.
$ingh told them that he only had 7>,&&&.&& with him.
7avillare then forced him to give the phone numbers of his
relatives so they can make their demand from them. $ingh
gave the phone number of his cousin !akhvir $ingh and then
7avillare made the call. The amount of 4>,&&&.&& was
agreed upon. An uncle and his cousin !akhvir arrived in a
motorcycle and together with the kidnappers they entered
a mini'grocery. !ater the kidnappers brought the
complainant to the mini'grocery where he met his
relatives. The ransom money was handed to the appellant.
He counted the money and then, together with his cohorts,
immediately left the scene. 7avillare argues that he should
have been convicted of simple robbery and not kidnapping
with ransom because the evidence proves that the prime
motive of the 7avillare and his companions is to obtain
money and that the complainant was detained only for two
hours#
H!"# The duration of the detention even if only for
a few hours does not alter the nature of the crime
committed. The crime of kidnapping is committed by
depriving the victim of liberty whether he is placed in an
enclosure or simply restrained from going home. As
s-uarely e8pressed in Article 45% of the 07( the penalty of
death is imposable where the detention is committed for
the purpose of e8torting ransom, and the duration of the
detention is not material.
Rn#$-
People v. Castro" &*5 SCR$ 24
?A(T$# $aeC was informed by his siblings that
(astro called up to say that the latter wanted to speak with
$aeC. After taking a -uick shower, $aeC repaired to
(astros residence. Just as (astro opened the gate for
$aeC, (astro pointed and fired his < mm. handgun at $aeC,
its bullet whiCCing by his right ear. $aeC was thrown
against the concrete wall of the house. He was then taken
inside the house. 0eyes and Jde los Angeles, joined (astro
in mauling $aeC. (astro hit $aeC with an iron club. At
around nine oclock in the evening, (astro handed over to
him a phone and ordered him to tell his family to raise
twenty thousand 174&,&&&.&&2 pesos. ?ifteen minutes later,
(astro gave back the phone to $aeC 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 0eyes, (astro instructed the two to go to the Gdrop'off
point.H ;obody showed up. After an hour, $aeC was
ordered to call again, this time to designate another place
where the money was to be delivered. (astro told $aeC to
have his relatives bring the money to the vicinity of the
Aglipay (hurch in (aridad. Again, no meeting materialiCed.
Around midnight, (astro, de los Angeles and 0eyes 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 (astro. 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
H!"# 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 e8torting ransom from the victim or any other person.
,hether or not the ransom is actually paid to or received
by the perpetrators is of no moment. /n 7eople vs.
$alimbago" the (ourt stressed#
G8 8 8 ;o specific form of ransom is
re-uired to consummate the felony of
kidnapping for ransom so long as it was
intended as a bargaining chip in e8change for
the victims freedom. /n municipal criminal
law, ransom refers to the money, price or
consideration paid or demanded for redemption
of a captured person or persons, a payment
that releases from captivity. ;either actual
demand for nor actual payment of ransom is
necessary for the crime to be committed.H
People v. -.andra" 429 SCR$ &(4
?A(T$# ,hile d Henderson, the <'year old son of
spouses ddie and 9arileen Tan was on his way back to the
house of his tutor in (hinese 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 jandra
and 0evilla were waiting. jandra covered d Henderson6s
mouth with his hand, pointed his gun at the boy and
warned the latter not to shout. Thereafter, Tampos ordered
d Henderson to board the motorcycle, or else, he would
be shot. d was brought to a house where one Huera, and
(alunod was. d Henderson was ordered to write down his
father6s telephone number, as well as that of their house
and their store. ddie then received a call through his
home phone, informing him that his son had been
kidnapped. $everal calls were made and a reduced ransom
of 7>+=,&&& for the safe release of d Henderson was
eventually agreed upon. ddie was then instructed to place
the money in a newspaper and to bring the money to the
parking lot in front of a (hurch. ddie did as he was told.
He proceeded to the designated place. ,hen (alunod
approached and called ddie, the latter handed over the
plastic bag which contained the money. ddie asked
(alunod how his son was. (alunod told ddie not to worry
because the latter would bring the boy home. (alunod then
walked to the gate of the church and went home to wait
for his son6s return. d Henderson returned on board a ta8i
and was soon reunited with his waiting family. jandra,
(alunod, Tampos and 0evilla were convicted of kidnapping
for ransom and were sentenced to suffer the death penalty.
H!"# $ince all the foregoing facts indubitably
show that the appellants conspired to kidnap the victim for
ransom, the (ourt affirmed the conviction of jandra,
(alunod, Tampos and 0evilla of kidnapping for ransom.
9*
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# 1a2 intent on the part of the accused to
deprive the victim of his libertyD 1b2 actual deprivation of
the victim of his libertyD and, 1c2 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
e8torting ransom is a -ualifying circumstance which may be
proven by his words and overt acts before, during and after
the kidnapping and detention of the victim. ;either actual
demand for nor actual payment of ransom is necessary for
the crime to be committed. 0ansom, as employed in the
law, is so used in its common or ordinary senseD 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. /t may include benefits not necessarily
pecuniary which may accrue to the kidnapper as a
condition for the victim6s 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.

Mndt$r* I-!$#iti$n $' Det(
Penlt*
People v. Morales" 42, SCR$ ,(5
?A(T$# Jefferson Tan was with his siblings, Jessie
Anthony and Joanna Tan, his cousin, 9alou and their driver,
(esar on board the family !'.&& van. Along the highway,
the vehicle slowed down to steer clear of a damaged
portion of the road when 9alit suddenly poked a gun at
(esar. $imultaneously, 9orales, sguerra, and $alda@a
entered the van. sguerra took the driver6s seat and the
other two blindfolded the five victims. Jefferson was
eventually sent home to get the 49 ransom which was later
reduced to *.>9, from his father, ?eliciano. Jefferson was
instructed to bring the ransom to a snack center. ?eliciano
did not allow his son to bring the ransom and e8plained to
the kidnappers that Jefferson was in shock and could not
go. ,hen asked about the ransom money, he told the
caller that he could only give 7<4,&&&. The caller agreed.
!ater, at the place where the kidnappers instructed
?eliciano to go, the latter gave the money and he was
handed the keys to the !'.&& van where his children are.

H!"# The elements of the crime of kidnapping
and serious illegal detention are the following# 1a2 the
accused is a private individualD 1b2 the accused kidnaps or
detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his
libertyD 1c2 the act of detention or kidnapping is illegalD and
1d2 in the commission of the offense, any of the four
circumstances mentioned in Article 45% of the 0evised
7enal (ode are present. The imposition of the death
penalty is mandatory if the kidnapping was committed for
the purpose of e8torting ransom. /n 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
e8torting ransom.
Article 26.. Sli"(t ille"l detenti$n
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er i$ a pri/ate in#i/i#%al6
2. Ce ;i#nap$ or #etain$ another> or
in an0 other ,anner #epri/e$ hi, o* hi$
li.ert0.
1. The act o* ;i#napping or #etention
i$ illegal6
3. The cri,e i$ co,,itte# )itho%t the
atten#ance o* an0 o* the circ%,$tance$
en%,erate# in Article 2!.
The $a,e penalt0 *or $light
illegal #etention $hall .e inc%rre# .0
an0one )ho $hall *%rni$h the place *or the
perpetration o* the cri,e. :nor,all0> thi$ i$
an acco,plice .%t %n#er thi$ article he i$
treate# a$ coHprincipal<
Iri/ilege# ,itigating
circ%,$tance :penalt0 lo)er .0 one
#egree< i* the o7en#erB
o ?ol%ntaril0 relea$e$
the per$on $o ;i#nappe# or #etaine#
)ithin three #a0$ *ro, the
co,,ence,ent o* the #etention6
o Fitho%t ha/ing
attaine# the p%rpo$e inten#e#6 an#
o Be*ore the in$tit%tion
o* cri,inal procee#ing$ again$t hi,.
?ol%ntar0 relea$e i$ not a
pri/ilege# ,itigating circ%,$tance i* the
/icti, i$ )o,an> .eca%$e the #etention
)o%l# then .e p%ni$he# %n#er Article 2!.
?ol%ntar0 relea$e i$ not ,itigating %n#er
that article.
Article 26/. Unl0'%l rre#t
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er arre$t$ or #etain$ another
per$on6
2. The p%rpo$e o* the o7en#er i$ to
#eli/er hi, to the proper a%thoritie$6
1. The arre$t or #etention i$ not
a%thori@e# .0 la) or there i$ no rea$ona.le
gro%n# there*or.
(nla)*%l arre$t$ .0 p%.lic
oAcer$ $ho%l# .e p%ni$he# %n#er Article
-23> i* the p%.lic oAcer ha$ the legal
a%thorit0 to arre$t an# #etain a per$on> .%t
the arre$t i$ )itho%t legal gro%n#. I* the
p%.lic oAcer ha$ no a%thorit0 to arre$t an#
#etain a per$on> or i* he #i# not act in hi$
oAcial capacit0> he $ho%l# .e p%ni$he# *or
%nla)*%l arre$t %n#er thi$ article. Co,pare
)ith art. 2!
The ,oti/e o* the per$on
arre$ting i$ controlling. I' (i# !%r!$#e i#
t$ deli&er t$ !r$!er %t($ritie#1 t(i#
rticle !!lie#. A.$ence o* thi$ ,oti/e
99
,a0 .e $ho)n .0 the length o* ti,e the
/icti, i$ #etaine#.
I* the p%rpo$e o* #eli/ering to
proper a%thoritie$ i$ not $ho)n> the per$on
,a0 .e lia.le *or other illegal #etention
:%n#er 2! or 2&> #epen#ing on the
circ%,$tance$ o* the ca$e<
Unl0'%l rre#t Del* $' deli&er* $'
detined !er#$n#
The #etention i$ not
a%thori@e# .0 la)
The #etention i$ *or $o,e
legal gro%n#
Cri,e i$ co,,itte# .0
,a;ing an arre$t not
a%thori@e# .0 la)
Cri,e i$ co,,itte# .0
*ailing to #eli/er $%ch
per$on$ to the proper
D%#icial a%thorit0 )ithin a
certain perio# o* ti,e
Article 272. Kidn!!in" nd 'il%re t$
ret%rn -in$r
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er i$ entr%$te# )ith the c%$to#0
o* a ,inor per$on :)hether o/er or %n#er
$e/en 0ear$ .%t le$$ than 2- 0ear$ o* age<6
2. Ce #eli.eratel0 *ail$ to re$tore the $ai#
,inor to hi$ parent$ or g%ar#ian$.
Fhat i$ p%ni$he# i$ the
#eli.erate *ail%re o* the c%$to#ian o* the
,inor to re$tore the latter to hi$ parent$ or
g%ar#ian$.
Fhen the cri,e i$ co,,itte#
.0 the *ather or ,other o* the ,inor> the
penalt0 i$ arre$to ,a0or or a 9ne not
e2cee#ing 1++ pe$o$ or .oth.
Article 272 Article 267
O7en#er i$ entr%$te#
)ith the c%$to#0 o* the
,inor
The o7en#er i$ not
entr%$te# )ith the
c%$to#0 o* the ,inor
People vs. T/
A mother left her sick child in a clinic and only came back
to claim the child five years later. :nfortunately, the
doctors had already entrusted the child to a guardian.
H!"# Two elements must concur in the crime of
kidnapping of a minor# 1a2 the offender had been entrusted
with the custody of the minorD and 1b2 the offender
"!/)0AT!I fails to restore said minor to his parents or
legal guardian. /n 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 ;)/s assistance along the way.
People vs. 0utierre) %#99#'
!ilia EutierreC was convicted by the 0T( of 9anila of the
crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor and
sentenced to reclusion perpetua. The minor was HaCel
lpedes, her 4 and a half'year'old nephew 1yup, HaCels a
guy in this story2, whom EutierreC allegedly sold to the
spouses ?elipe for 74>& 1!ilia claims she did it to spite her
husband, brother of HaCels mom, who had abandoned
her2.
H!"# The offense of kidnapping and failure to return a
minor under Art. 4%& of the 07( consists of 4 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.
/t is clear that EutierreC admitted the e8istence of the first
element 1she asked her in'laws for permission to take the
boy out2.
The second element has likewise been established. /n the
first place, EutierreC6s own conduct in leading the boys
father and police to the ?elipe residence in /ntramuros
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 ?elipe spouses. /n the second place, the precise motive
that EutierreC might have had for bringing HaCel lpedes to
the ?elipe 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. Re/es %#99('
"elia 0eyes, maid of the 9ohamad spouses, was convicted
of kidnapping one of their daughters, Asnia. After spending
.&&'grand on a manhunt, Asnia was recovered a couple of
months later. 0eyes claims that, while out with Asnia, she
ran into her sister who informed her of their moms deathD
0eyes then allegedly had a friend take Asnia home while
she 10eyes2 and her sister went to !a :nion for their moms
wake 1basically, shes blaming somebody else2.
H!"# 0eyes6s 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*2 appellant lured Asnia
and her sister into leaving their houseD 142 she instructed
the two elder sisters to go home but kept the youngest
with herD 1.2 she and Asnia could not be located despite
e8tensive search by the authorities and the widespread
publicity generated through the television, radio and print
mediaD 1+2 the child was found two months later and only
after the arrest of appellantD and 1>2 appellant harbored
ill'feelings against the 9ohamads family 1she admitted
that, at one point, the 9ohamads did not pay her salary for
> months when she worked for them in *<=<2.
People vs. orromeo %2000'
#00
)orromeo alias J$onnyJ, a bakery helper of 0owena who had
been discharged by her due to negative attitude problems,
kidnapped her *'year and %'months old son. The ne8t day,
$onny demanded a 7.&&,&&& ransom. He was convicted of
kidnapping a minor for ransom and was sentenced to death.
H!"# There is no -uestion that the elements of kidnapping
for ransom were sufficiently established# 1a2 the accused is
a private individualD 1b2 the accused kidnapped or detained
the victim and deprived him of his libertyD and, 1c2 the
deprivation of the victim6s liberty was illegal. As provided
for in Art. 45% of the 07( 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
e8torting ransom from the victim or any other person.
/; (A), the minority of Aenneth was never disputed. The
minority and the demand for the payment of ransom, both
specifically described in the /nformation, were clearly
established by the $tate, free of any scintilla of doubt.
People v. orromeo %2000'
?A(T$# )orromeo alias J$onnyJ, a bakery helper of
0owena who had been discharged by her due to negative
attitude problems, kidnapped her *'year and %'months old
son. The ne8t day, $onny demanded a 7.&&,&&& ransom. He
was convicted of kidnapping a minor for ransom and was
sentenced to death.
H!"# There is no -uestion that the elements of
kidnapping for ransom were sufficiently established# 1a2 the
accused is a private individualD 1b2 the accused kidnapped
or detained the victim and deprived him of his libertyD and,
1c2 the deprivation of the victim6s liberty was illegal. As
provided for in Art. 45% of the 07( 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 e8torting ransom from the victim or any
other person.
/; (A), the minority of Aenneth was never
disputed. The minority and the demand for the payment of
ransom, both specifically described in the /nformation,
were clearly established by the $tate, free of any scintilla
of doubt.
People v. Pastrana" &*, SCR$ &42
?A(T$# 7ostejo, working as a domestic helper in
(anada, has four children namely, Jenny, "oroteo, Aresola,
and <'year old ,illy. rma was introduced by her sister to
spouses ?rias who informed her that their daughter,
7astrana can help process ,illy6s travel documents to
(anada. rma agreed to hand the processing of her son6s
papers. /n one of the telephone conversations of rma and
7astrana, the latter informed rma that ,illy was suffering
from acute bronchitis. rna sent money for the medical
treatment of his son. 7astrana then fetched ,illy and
Aresola from their residence in (aloocan and brought them
to her apartment. Thought she never brought ,illy to a
hospital for treatment, 7astrana kept on demanding money
from rma which include the amount of 75&,&&&.&& for the
installation of a water purifier in her apartment allegedly
for ,illy6s safety, and for additional money for her job
application in $ingapore. rna, however, refused to
transmit the amounts demanded by 7astrana and ordered
the return of ,illy to their residence in (aloocan. 7astrana
deliberately failed to return ,illy for % days until the latter
disappeared while allegedly playing in front of 7astranas
apartment.
H!"# Aidnapping and failure to return a minor
under Article 4%& of the 0evised 7enal (ode has two
essential elements, namely# 1*2 the offender is entrusted
with the custody of a minor personD and 142 the offender
deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or
guardians. ,hat 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
4%& must imply something more than mere negligence K it
must be premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or
intentionally and maliciously wrong. /n the case at bar,
there is no -uestion that accused'appellant was entrusted
with the custody of <'year old ,illy. rma and her children
trusted accused'appellant that they sent her money for the
processing of ,illy6s travel documents, and more
importantly, they allowed ,illy to stay in her apartment.
As to the second element, /t was this deliberate failure of
accused'appellant to return custody of ,illy to his relatives
that gave rise to her culpability under Article 4%& of the
0evised 7enal (ode. The disappearance of ,illy and
accused'appellant6s inability to return him to (aloocan by
reason thereof has no bearing on the crime charged as it
was her willful disobedience to rma6s order that
consummated the crime.
People v. ernardo" &,* SCR$ ,0*
?A(T$# ,hile 0osita was undergoing
medical check up inside a hospital, her two daughters
waited at the lobby. 0oselle was seating on a bench with
her *>'day old sister on her lap. )ernardo befriended
0oselle and later gave her 7..&& and asked her to buy ice
water. Thereafter, )ernardo took the baby from 0oselle.
0oselle was not able to find ice water for sale and on her
way back to the hospital, she saw )ernardo running away
with her baby sister. 0oselle pulled and pulled )ernardo6s
skirt to prevent the latter from getting away. Torres saw
)ernardo carrying a child and struggling with 0oselle.
0oselle 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 )ernardo and entrusted the
baby to his wife. Then he led )ernardo and 0oselle to the
hospital to look for 0osita who confirmed that she was the
mother of the baby. The 0T( convicted )ernardo of the
crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under
Article 4%& of the 07(.
H!"# 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.
/ndeed, the word deliberate as used in Article 4%& of the
0evised 7enal (ode must imply something more than mere
negligence K it must be premeditated, headstrong,
foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong.
,hen 0oselle entrusted 0oselyn 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 0oselle despite her
continuous pleas, the crime was effectively accomplished.
/n fine, we agree with the trial court6s finding that
appellant is guilty of the crime of kidnapping and failure to
return a minor.
#0#
Article 273. Ind%cin" -in$r t$ ,nd$n
(i# ($-e
Ele,ent$B
-. A ,inor :)hether o/er or %n#er $e/en
0ear$ o* age< i$ li/ing in the ho,e o* hi$
parent$ or g%ar#ian$ or the per$on
entr%$te# )ith hi$ c%$to#06
2. O7en#er in#%ce$ $ai# ,inor to
a.an#on $%ch ho,e.
The in#%ce,ent ,%$t .e
act%al> co,,itte# )ith cri,inal intent> an#
#eter,ine# .0 a )ill to ca%$e #a,age.
It i$ not nece$$ar0 that the
,inor act%all0 a.an#on$ hi$ ho,e> a$ long
a$ there i$ in#%ce,ent.
The ,inor $ho%l# not lea/e hi$
ho,e o* hi$ o)n *ree )ill.
=ather or ,other ,a0 co,,it
thi$ cri,e :a$ )ell a$ Article 2!+<> i* the
parent$ are li/ing $eparatel0 an# c%$to#0
ha$ .een gi/en to one o* the,.
Article 272. Sl&er*
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er p%rcha$e$> $ell$> ;i#nap$ or
#etain$ a h%,an .eing6
en$la/e $%ch h%,an .eing.
I* the p%rpo$e o* the o7en#er i$
to a$$ign the o7en#e# part0 to $o,e
i,,oral traAc :pro$tit%tion<> the penalt0 i$
higher.
Di7erentiate# *ro, ;i#nappingB
I* the p%rpo$e i$ to en$la/e the /icti,> the
cri,e i$ $la/er06 other)i$e the cri,e i$
;i#napping or illegal #etention.
Article 274. E5!l$itti$n $' c(ild l,$r
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er retain$ a ,inor in hi$
$er/ice$6
2. It i$ again$t the )ill o* the ,inor6
1. It i$ %n#er the prete2t o*
rei,.%r$ing hi,$el* o* a #e.t inc%rre# .0
an a$cen#ant> g%ar#ian or per$on
entr%$te# )ith the c%$to#0 o* $%ch ,inor.
The e2i$tence o* an
in#e.te#ne$$ con$tit%te$ no legal
D%$ti9cation *or hol#ing a per$on an#
#epri/ing hi, o* hi$ *ree#o, to li/e )here
he )ill$.
Article 276. Ser&ice# rendered %nder
c$-!%l#i$n in !*-ent $' de,t
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er co,pel$ a #e.tor to )or; *or
hi,> either a$ ho%$ehol# $er/ant or *ar,
la.orer6
2. It i$ again$t the #e.tor5$ )ill6
1. The p%rpo$e i$ to reG%ire or en*orce the
pa0,ent o* a #e.t.
Ser&ice %nder
c$-!%l#i$n
E5!l$itti$n $' c(ild
l,$r
Doe$ not #i$ting%i$h
)hether the /icti, i$ a
,inor or not
?icti, ,%$t .e a ,inor
The #e.tor hi,$el* i$ the
one co,pelle# to )or;
*or the o7en#er
The ,inor i$ co,pelle#
to ren#er $er/ice$ *or the
$%ppo$e# #e.t o* hi$
parent or g%ar#ian
Li,ite# to ho%$ehol#
)or; or *ar, la.or
Ser/ice i$ not li,ite#
Article 277. A,nd$n-ent $' !er#$n# in
dn"er nd ,nd$n-ent $' $ne+# $0n
&icti-
Act$ p%ni$ha.leB
-. =ailing to ren#er a$$i$tance to an0
per$on )ho, the o7en#er 9n#$ in an
%ninha.ite# place )o%n#e# or in #anger o*
#0ing )hen he can ren#er $%ch a$$i$tance
)itho%t #etri,ent to hi,$el*> %nle$$ $%ch
o,i$$ion $hall con$tit%te a ,ore $erio%$
o7en$e.
Ele,ent$B
a. The place i$ not inha.ite#6
.. Acc%$e# *o%n# there a per$on
)o%n#e# or in #anger o* #0ing6
c. Acc%$e# can ren#er a$$i$tance
)itho%t #etri,ent to hi,$el*6
#. Acc%$e# *ail$ to ren#er
a$$i$tance.
2. =ailing to help or ren#er a$$i$tance to
another )ho, the o7en#er ha$
acci#entall0 )o%n#e# or inD%re#6
1. B0 *ailing to #eli/er a chil#> %n#er
$e/en 0ear$ o* age> )ho, the o7en#er ha$
*o%n# a.an#one#> to the a%thoritie$ or to
hi$ *a,il0> or .0 *ailing to ta;e hi, to a
$a*e place.
#02
I* a per$on intentionall0
)o%n#$ another an# lea/e$ hi, in an
%ninha.ite# place> he $hall not .e lia.le
%n#er thi$ article .eca%$e .e #i# not =IND
hi, )o%n#e# or in #anger o* #0ing.
It i$ i,,aterial that the
o7en#er #i# not ;no) that the chil# i$
%n#er $e/en 0ear$.
The chil# %n#er $e/en ,%$t .e
*o%n# .0 the acc%$e# in an %n$a*e place.
Lamera vs. C$
An owner'type jeep driven by !amera hit and bumped a
tricycle, damaging the said tricycle and injuring the driver
and passenger in the process. Two separate informations
were filed, one for reckless imprudence resulting in
damage to property and multiple physical injuries and
another one for abandonment of ones victim.
H!"# The rule on double jeopardy cannot be applied in
this case because the two informations were for separate
offensesK the first falls under -uasi'offenses while the
second is a crime against security.

Article 276. A,nd$nin" -in$r
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er ha$ the c%$to#0 o* a chil#6
2. The chil# i$ %n#er $e/en 0ear$ o*
age6
1. Ce a.an#on$ $%ch chil#6
3. Ce ha$ no intent to ;ill the chil#
)hen the latter i$ a.an#one#.
Circ%,$tance$ G%ali*0ing the o7en$eB
-. Fhen the #eath o* the ,inor re$%lte#
*ro, $%ch a.an#on,ent6 or
2. I* the li*e o* the ,inor )a$ in #anger
.eca%$e o* the a.an#on,ent.
Fhen there i$ intent to ;ill> thi$
article #oe$ not appl0. The p%rpo$e in
a.an#oning the ,inor ,%$t .e to a/oi# the
o.ligation o* ta;ing care o* $ai# ,inor.
The r%ling that intent to ;ill i$
pre$%,e# *ro, the #eath o* the /icti, i$
applica.le onl0 to cri,e$ again$t per$on$>
an# not to cri,e$ again$t $ec%rit0>
partic%larl0 the cri,e in thi$ article.
A per,anent> con$cio%$ an#
#eli.erate a.an#on,ent i$ reG%ire# in thi$
article. There ,%$t .e an interr%ption o*
the care an# protection the ,inor nee#$ .0
rea$on o* hi$ age.
Iarent$ g%ilt0 o* a.an#on,ent
$hall .e #epri/e# o* their parental
a%thorit0.
Article 277. A,nd$n-ent $' -in$r ,*
t(e !er#$n entr%#ted 0it( (i# c%#t$d*8
indi)erence $' !rent#
Act$ p%ni$ha.leB
-. Deli/ering a ,inor to a p%.lic
in$tit%tion or other per$on$ )itho%t the
con$ent o* the one )ho entr%$te# $%ch
,inor to the care o* the o7en#er or> in the
a.$ence o* that one> )itho%t the con$ent o*
the proper a%thoritie$6
Ele,ent$B
a. O7en#er ha$ charge o* the
rearing or e#%cation o* a ,inor6
.. Ce #eli/er$ $ai# ,inor to a
p%.lic in$tit%tion or other per$on$6
c. The one )ho entr%$te# $%ch
chil# to the o7en#er ha$ not con$ente#
to $%ch act6 or i* the one )ho entr%$te#
$%ch chil# to the o7en#er i$ a.$ent> the
proper a%thoritie$ ha/e not con$ente#
to it.
2. Neglecting hi$ :o7en#er5$< chil#ren .0
not gi/ing the, the e#%cation )hich their
$tation in li*e reG%ire$ an# 9nancial
con#ition per,it$.
Ele,ent$B
a. O7en#er i$ a parent6
.. Ce neglect$ hi$ chil#ren .0 not gi/ing
the, e#%cation6
c. Ci$ $tation in li*e reG%ire$ $%ch
e#%cation an# hi$ 9nancial con#ition
per,it$ it.
Article 276 Article 277
The c%$to#0 o* the
o7en#er i$ $tate# in
general
The c%$to#0 o* the
o7en#er i$ $peci9c> that
i$> the c%$to#0 *or the
rearing or e#%cation o*
the ,inor
The ,inor i$ %n#er !
0ear$ o* age
The ,inor i$ %n#er 2-
0ear$ o* age
Minor i$ a.an#one# in
$%ch a$ )a0 a$ to
#epri/e hi, o* the care
an# protection that hi$
ten#er 0ear$ nee#
The ,inor i$ #eli/ere# to
a p%.lic in$tit%tion or
other per$on
O.ligation to e#%cate chil#ren
ter,inate$> i* the ,other an# chil#ren
re*%$e )itho%t goo# rea$on to li/e )ith the
acc%$e#.
#0&
=ail%re to gi/e e#%cation ,%$t
.e #%e to #eli.erate #e$ire to e/a#e $%ch
o.ligation. I* the parent$ cannot gi/e
e#%cation .eca%$e the0 ha# no ,ean$ to
#o $o> then the0 )ill not .e lia.le %n#er
thi$ article.
Article 27.. E5!l$itti$n $' -in$r#
Act$ p%ni$ha.leB
-. Ca%$ing an0 .o0 or girl %n#er - 0ear$
o* age to per*or, an0 #angero%$ *eat o*
.alancing> ph0$ical $trength or contortion>
the o7en#er .eing an0 per$on6
2. E,plo0ing chil#ren %n#er - 0ear$ o*
age )ho are not the chil#ren or
#e$cen#ant$ o* the o7en#er in e2hi.ition$
o* acro.at> g0,na$t> ropeH)al;er> #i/er> or
)il#Hani,al ta,er> the o7en#er .eing an
acro.at> etc.> or circ%$ ,anager or
engage# in a $i,ilar calling6
1. E,plo0ing an0 #e$cen#ant %n#er -2
0ear$ o* age in #angero%$ e2hi.ition$
en%,erate# in the ne2t prece#ing
paragraph> the o7en#er .eing engage# in
an0 o* the $ai# calling$6
3. Deli/ering a chil# %n#er - 0ear$ o*
age grat%ito%$l0 to an0 per$on *ollo)ing
an0 o* the calling$ en%,erate# in
paragraph 2> or to an0 ha.it%al /agrant or
.eggar> the o7en#er .eing an a$cen#ant>
g%ar#ian> teacher or per$on entr%$te# in
an0 capacit0 )ith the care o* $%ch chil#6
an#
4. In#%cing an0 chil# %n#er - 0ear$ o*
age to a.an#on the ho,e o* it$
a$cen#ant$> g%ar#ian$> c%rator$ or
teacher$ to *ollo) an0 per$on engage# in
an0 o* the calling$ ,entione# in paragraph
2 or to acco,pan0 an0 ha.it%al /agrant or
.eggar> the o7en#er .eing an0 per$on.
E5!l$itti$n $' -in$r#
9!r. 7:
Ind%cin" -in$r t$
,nd$n (i# ($-e
I%rpo$e o* in#%cing
,inor i$ to a.an#on
ho,e i$ to *ollo) an0
per$on engage# in an0 o*
the calling$ o* .eing an
acro.at> g0,na$t> etc.
No $%ch p%rpo$e
Minor %n#er - 0ear$ o*
age
Minor %n#er 2- 0ear$ o*
age
I* the #eli/er0 o* the chil# to
an0 per$on *ollo)ing an0 o* the calling$
en%,erate#> i$ ,a#e in con$i#eration o*
an0 price> co,pen$ation or pro,i$e> the
penalt0 i$ higher.
The o7en#er $hall .e #epri/e#
o* parental a%thorit0 or g%ar#ian$hip.
E2ploitation o* ,inor$ re*er$ to
act$ en#angering the li*e or $a*et0 o* the
,inor.
R.A. 7632
S!ecil Pr$tecti$n $' C(ildren "in#t C(ild
A,%#e1 E5!l$itti$n nd Di#cri-inti$n Act
A. C;ILD PROSTITUTION
<($ re =c(ildren e5!l$ited in !r$#tit%ti$n nd
$t(er #e5%l ,%#e>?
Chil#ren> )hether ,ale or *e,ale> )ho *or ,one0>
pro9t> or an0 other con$i#eration or #%e to the
coercion or inE%ence o* an0 a#%lt> $0n#icate
or gro%p> in#%lge in $e2%al interco%r$e or
la$ci/io%$ con#%ct> are #ee,e# to .e chil#ren
e2ploite# in pro$tit%tion an# other $e2%al
a.%$e.
<($ re !%ni#(,le?
-. Tho$e )ho en""e in or !r$-$te> 'cilitte or
ind%ce chil# pro$tit%tion> )hich incl%#e> .%t are not
li,ite# to> the *ollo)ingB
a. Acting a$ a proc%rer o* a chil# pro$tit%te6
.. In#%cing a per$on to .e a client o* a chil#
pro$tit%te .0 ,ean$ o* )ritten or oral
a#/erti$e,ent$ or other $i,ilar ,ean$6
c. Ta;ing a#/antage o* inE%ence or
relation$hip to proc%re a chil# a$ pro$tit%te6
#. Threatening or %$ing /iolence to)ar#$ a
chil# to engage hi, a$ a pro$tit%te6 or
e. Gi/ing ,onetar0 con$i#eration> goo#$ or
other pec%niar0 .ene9t to a chil# )ith intent
to engage $%ch chil# in pro$tit%tion.
2. Tho$e )ho c$--it t(e ct $' #e5%l
interc$%r#e $r l#ci&i$%# c$nd%ct )ith a chil#
e2ploite# in pro$tit%tion or $%.Dect to other $e2%al
a.%$e6
- I* the /icti, i$ %n#er -2> the perpetrator$
$hall .e pro$ec%te# *or rape an# or
la$ci/io%$ con#%ct %n#er the RIC a$ the
ca$e ,a0 .e
- Co)e/er> the penalt0 *or la$ci/io%$ con#%ct
)hen the /icti, i$ %n#er t)el/e :-2< 0ear$
o* age $hall .e higher :recl%$ion te,poral in
it$ ,e#i%, perio#<
1. Tho$e )ho deri&e !r$@t $r d&nt"e
there*ro,> )hether a$ ,anager or o)ner o* the
e$ta.li$h,ent )here the pro$tit%tion ta;e$ place> or
o* the $a%na> #i$co> .ar> re$ort> place o*
entertain,ent or e$ta.li$h,ent $er/ing a$ a co/er or
)hich engage$ in pro$tit%tion in a##ition to the
acti/it0 *or )hich the licen$e ha$ .een i$$%e# to $ai#
e$ta.li$h,ent.
<(en i# t(ere tte-!t t$ c$--it c(ild
!r$#tit%ti$n?
A penalt0 lo)er .0 t)o #egree$ than that pre$cri.e#
*or the con$%,,ate# *elon0 $hall .e i,po$e# %pon
#04
the principal$ o* an atte,pt to co,,it the cri,e o*
chil# pro$tit%tion> co,,itte# a$ *ollo)$B
-. Atte,pt o* :-< a.o/e Fhen an0 per$on )ho> not
.eing a relati/e o* a chil#> i$ '$%nd l$ne )ith the
$ai# chil# in$i#e the roo, or c%.icle o* a ho%$e> an
inn> hotel> ,otel> pen$ion ho%$e> apartelle or other
$i,ilar e$ta.li$h,ent$> /e$$el> /ehicle or an0 other
hi##en or $ecl%#e# area %n#er circ%,$tance$ )hich
)o%l# lea# a rea$ona.le per$on to .elie/e that the
chil# i$ a.o%t to .e e2ploite# in pro$tit%tion an#
other $e2%al a.%$e6 or
2. Atte,pt o* :2< a.o/e Fhen an0 per$on i#
recei&in" #er&ice# *ro, a chil# in a $a%na parlor or
.ath> ,a$$age clinic> health cl%. an# other $i,ilar
e$ta.li$h,ent$.
B. C;ILD TRAAAICKING
<(t i# c(ild trBcCin"?
Chil# traAc;ing i$ co,,itte# .0 a per$on trdin"
an# #ealing )ith chil#ren incl%#ing> .%t not li,ite#
to> the act o* ,%*in" nd #ellin" o* a chil# *or
,one0> or *or an0 other con$i#eration> or .arter.
<(en i# t(ere tte-!t t$ c$--it c(ild
trBcCin"?
:An atte,pt i$ p%ni$ha.le .0 a penalt0 t)o #egree$
lo)er than the penalt0 *or the con$%,,ate# o7en$e<
There i$ an atte,pt to co,,it chil# traAc;ingB
-. Fhen a chil# tr&el# l$ne to a *oreign co%ntr0
)itho%t /ali# rea$on there*or an# )itho%t clearance
i$$%e# .0 the Depart,ent o* Social Fel*are an#
De/elop,ent or )ritten per,it or D%$ti9cation *ro,
the chil#J$ parent$ or legal g%ar#ian6
2. Fhen a per$on> agenc0> e$ta.li$h,ent or chil#H
caring in$tit%tion recr%it# )o,en or co%ple$ to .ear
a chil#ren *or the p%rpo$e o* chil# traAc;ing6
1. Fhen #octor> ho$pital or clinic oAcial or
e,plo0ee> n%r$e> ,i#)i*e> local ci/il regi$trar or an0
other per$on #i-%lte# ,irt( *or the p%rpo$e o*
chil# traAc;ing6
3. Fhen a per$on engage$ in the act o* @ndin"
c(ildren a,ong lo)Hinco,e *a,ilie$> ho$pital$>
clinic$> n%r$erie$> #a0Hcare center$> or other chil#H
#%ring in$tit%tion$ 0($ cn ,e $)ered *or the
p%rpo$e o* chil# traAc;ing.
C. OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND INDECENT
S;O<S
<($ re !%ni#(,le?
An0 per$on )ho $hall (ire> e,plo0> %$e> per$%a#e>
in#%ce or coerce a chil# to per*or, in o.$cene
e2hi.ition$ an# in#ecent $ho)$> )hether li/e or in
/i#eo> or ,o#el in o.$cene p%.lication$ or
pornographic ,aterial$ or to #ell or #i$tri.%te the
$ai# ,aterial$.
D. OT;ER PERSONS PUNIS;ABLE UNDER T;E
ACT
-. An0 per$on )ho $hall co,,it n* $t(er ct# $'
c(ild ,%#e1 cr%elt* $r e5!l$itti$n or to .e
re$pon$i.le *or other con#ition$ preD%#icial to the
chil#J$ #e/elop,ent incl%#ing tho$e co/ere# .0
Article 4' o* ID +1 :cri,inal lia.ilit0 o* parent$ #%e
to a.an#on,ent> neglect etc.<> .%t not co/ere# .0
the RIC6
2. An0 per$on )ho $hall ;eep or ha/e in hi$
c$-!n* a ,inor> t)el/e :-2< 0ear$ or %n#er or )ho
i$ ten :-+< 0ear$ or ,ore hi$ D%nior in an0 p%.lic or
pri/ate place> hotel> ,otel> .eer Doint> #i$cotheG%e>
ca.aret> pen$ion ho%$e> $a%na or ,a$$age parlor>
.each an#Kor other to%ri$t re$ort or $i,ilar place$
(NLESS $Khe i$ relate# to the ,inor )ithin the *o%rth
#egree o* con$ang%init0 or aAnit0 or an0 .on#
recogni@e# .0 la)> local c%$to, an# tra#ition or act$
in the per*or,ance o* a $ocial> ,oral or legal #%t0.
1. An0 per$on )ho $hall ind%ce1 deli&er $r $)er a
,inor to an0 one prohi.ite# .0 thi$ Act to ;eep or
ha/e in hi$ co,pan0 a ,inor a$ pro/i#e# in the
prece#ing paragraph6
3. An0 per$on> o)ner> ,anager or one entr%$te# )ith
the operation o* an0 p%.lic or pri/ate place o*
acco,,o#ation> )hether *or occ%panc0> *oo#> #rin;
or other)i$e> incl%#ing re$i#ential place$> )ho
ll$0# n* !er#$n t$ tCe l$n" )ith hi, to $%ch
place or place$ an0 ,inor herein #e$cri.e#6
4. An0 per$on )ho $hall %#e1 c$erce1 '$rce $r
inti-idte #treet c(ild or an0 other chil# to6
- Beg or %$e .egging a$ a ,ean$ o* li/ing6
- Act a$ con#%it or ,i##le,en in #r%g
traAc;ing or p%$hing6
- Con#%ct an0 illegal acti/itie$
E. <ORKING C;ILDREN
<($ re !%ni#(,le?
An0 per$on )ho $hall /iolate an0 o* the pro/i$ion o*
the Act )ith re$pect to )or;ing chil#ren :con#ition$
*or the e,plo0,ent o* chil#ren %n#er -4> prohi.ition$
on the e,plo0,ent o* chil#ren *or certain
a#/erti$e,ent$ etc.<
A. C;ILDREN OA INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES
<($ re !%ni#(,le?
An0 per$on )ho #i$cri,inate$ again$t chil#ren o*
in#igeno%$ c%lt%ral co,,%nitie$
COMMON PENAL PRODISIONS
-. The penalt0 pro/i#e# %n#er thi$ Act $hall .e
i,po$e# in it$ ,a2i,%, perio# i* the o7en#er ha$
.een pre/io%$l0 con/icte# %n#er thi$ Act6
2. Fhen the o7en#er i$ a corporation> partner$hip or
a$$ociation> the oAcer or e,plo0ee thereo* )ho i$
re$pon$i.le *or the /iolation o* thi$ Act $hall $%7er
#05
the penalt0 i,po$e# in it$ ,a2i,%, perio#6
1. The penalt0 pro/i#e# herein $hall .e i,po$e# in it$
,a2i,%, perio# )hen the perpetrator i$ an
a$cen#ant> parent g%ar#ian> $tepparent or collateral
relati/e )ithin the $econ# #egree o* con$ang%init0 or
aAnit0> or a ,anager or o)ner o* an e$ta.li$h,ent
)hich ha$ no licen$e to operate or it$ licen$e ha$
e2pire# or ha$ .een re/o;e#6
3. Fhen the o7en#er i$ a *oreigner> he $hall .e
#eporte# i,,e#iatel0 a*ter $er/ice o* $entence an#
*ore/er .arre# *ro, entr0 to the co%ntr06
4. The penalt0 pro/i#e# *or in thi$ Act $hall .e
i,po$e# in it$ ,a2i,%, perio# i* the o7en#er i$ a
p%.lic oAcer or e,plo0ee> together )ith the penalt0
o* #i$G%ali9cation or $%$pen$ion #epen#ing on the
penalt0 i,po$e#6
. A 9ne to .e #eter,ine# .0 the co%rt $hall .e
i,po$e# an# a#,ini$tere# a$ a ca$h *%n# .0 the
Depart,ent o* Social Fel*are an# De/elop,ent an#
#i$.%r$e# *or the reha.ilitation o* each chil# /icti,>
or an0 i,,e#iate ,e,.er o* hi$ *a,il0 i* the latter i$
the perpetrator o* the o7en$e.
People v. Delantar %200,'
Appellants violation of $ec. >, Art. /// of 0.A. ;o. %5*& is as
clear as day. The provision penaliCes 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,
e8ploitation and discrimination, and other conditions
prejudicial to their development. A child e8ploited in
prostitution may seem to GconsentH to what is being done
to her or him and may appear not to complain. However,
we have held that a child who is Ga person below eighteen
years of age or those unable to fully take care of
themselves or protect themselves from abuse, neglect,
cruelty, e8ploitation or discrimination because of their age
or mental disability or conditionH is incapable of giving
rational consent to any lascivious act or se8ual intercourse.
/n fact, the absence of free consent is conclusively
presumed when the woman is below the age of twelve
1avarrete v. People %200,'
The elements of se8ual abuse under $ection > 1b2 of 0A
%5*& that must be proven in addition to the
elements of acts of lasciviousness are as follows#
*. The accused commits the act of se8ual intercourse or
lascivious conduct.
4. The said act is performed with a child e8ploited in
prostitution or subjected to other se8ual abuse.
.. The child, whether male or female, is below *= years of
age.
G"ascivious conductH is defined under $ection 4 1h2 of the
rules and regulations of 0A %5*& as#
LTMhe intentional touching, either directly or
through clothing, of the genitalia, anus,
groin, breast, inner thigh, or buttocks, or
the introduction of any object into the
genitalia, anus or mouth, of any person,
whether of the same or opposite se8, with
an intent to abuse, humiliate, harass,
degrade, or arouse or gratify the se8ual
desire of any person, bestiality,
masturbation, lascivious e8hibition of the
genitals or pubic area of a person.
Article 27/. Additi$nl !enltie# '$r $t(er
$)en#e#
The i,po$ition o* the penaltie$
pre$cri.e# in the prece#ing article$ $hall
not pre/ent the i,po$ition %pon the $a,e
per$on o* the penalt0 pro/i#e# *or an0
other *elonie$ #e9ne# an# p%ni$he# .0 the
RIC.
Article 2.2. E%li@ed tre#!## t$
d0ellin"
E le,ent$B
-. O7en#er i$ a pri/ate per$on6
2. Ce enter$ the #)elling o* another6
1. S%ch entrance i$ again$t the latter5$ )ill.
Ca$e$ to )hich the pro/i$ion$ o* thi$ article i$
not applica.leB
-. Fhen the p%rpo$e o* the entrance i$ to
pre/ent $erio%$ har, to hi,$el*> the
occ%pant or thir# per$on$6
2. Fhen the p%rpo$e o* the o7en#er in
entering i$ to ren#er $o,e $er/ice to
h%,anit0 or D%$tice6
1. An0one )ho $hall enter ca*e$> ta/ern$>
inn$ an# other p%.lic ho%$e$ )hile the0 are
open.
Mar)alado v. People" 44# SCR$ 595 %2004'
?A(T$# The petitioner, 9arCalado, argues that the
(ourt 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 9eT( and 0T(
in finding that he committed trespass to dwelling despite
the glaring proof that his entry was justifiable under
paragraph +, Article ** of the 0evised 7enal (odeK to
#0(
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.
H!"# /n 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 )arangay !upon $ecretary 0agaya,
the unit rented by Albano was Jforcibly opened by the
owner 19arCalado2 because of the strong water pressure
coming out of the faucet. . . .J As Albano herself admitted,
she and her children already left the unit when the
electricity supply was cut off in the month of $eptember.
Hence, nobody was left to attend to the unit, e8cept
during some nights when Albano6s maid slept in the unit.
(learly, 9arCalado, acted for the justified purpose of
avoiding further flooding and damage to his mother6s
property caused by the open faucet. ;o criminal intent
could be clearly imputed to petitioner for the remedial
action he had taken. There was an e8igency that had to be
addressed to avoid damage to the leased unit. There is
nothing culpable concerning 9arCalados, judgment call to
enter the unit and turn off the faucet instead of closing the
inlet valve as suggested by the B$E.
I%rpo$e o* the la)B to protect an#
pre$er/e the pri/ac0 o* one5$ #)elling
I* the o7en#er i$ a p%.lic oAcer or
e,plo0ee> the entrance into the #)elling
again$t the )ill o* the occ%pant i$ /iolation
o* #o,icile.
D)elling place #e/ote# *or re$t an#
co,*ort> a$ #i$ting%i$he# *ro, place$
#e/ote# to .%$ine$$> oAce etc.
D)elling incl%#e$ a roo, )hen occ%pie# .0
another per$on :e2a,pleB roo, at a
.oar#ing ho%$e<
Again$t the )ill $ho%l# .e again$t the
pre$%,e# or e2pre$$ prohi.ition o* the
occ%pant> not ,ere lac; o* con$ent. There
,%$t .e oppo$ition on the part o* the
o)ner o* the ho%$e to the entr0 o* the
acc%$e#.
Co)e/er> pre$%,e# or i,plie# prohi.ition
i$ $%Acient :e.g. entrance #%ring the late
ho%r o* the night<
Irohi.ition ,%$t .e e2i$tent prior to or at
the ti,e o* entrance.
8(ALI=IED TRESIASSB I* the o7en$e i$
co,,itte# .0 ,ean$ o* /iolence or
inti,i#ation> the penalt0 i$ higher.
?iolence ,a0 .e again$t per$on$ or
propert0> .%t there are conEicting /ie)$ a$
to thi$ $tate,ent.
The /iolence or inti,i#ation ,a0 ta;e place
i,,e#iatel0 a*ter the entrance.
Iroo* o* e2pre$$ prohi.ition to enter i$ not
nece$$ar0 )hen /iolence or inti,i#ation i$
e,plo0e# .0 the o7en#er.
I* there i$ no o/ert act o* the cri,e
inten#e# to .e co,,itte#> the cri,e i$
onl0 tre$pa$$ to #)elling.
Article 2.3. Ot(er '$r-# $' tre#!##
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er enter$ the clo$e# pre,i$e$ or
the *ence# e$tate o* another6
2. The entrance i$ ,a#e )hile either o*
the, i$ %ninha.ite#6
1. The prohi.ition to enter i$ ,ani*e$t6
3. The tre$pa$$er ha$ not $ec%re# the
per,i$$ion o* the o)ner or the careta;er
thereo*.
Ire,i$e$ $igni9e$ a #i$tinct
an# #e9nite localit0. Thi$ ,a0 incl%#e a
roo,> $hop> .%il#ing or #e9nite area.
Tre#!## t$ d0ellin" Ot(er '$r-# $'
tre#!##
The o7en#er i$ a pri/ate
per$on
The o7en#er i$ an0
per$on
#0,
The o7en#er enter$ a
#)elling ho%$e
The o7en#er enter$ a
clo$e# pre,i$e$ or a
*ence# e$tate
The place entere# i$
inha.ite#
The place entere# i$
%ninha.ite#
The act con$tit%ting the
cri,e i$ entering again$t
the )ill o* the o)ner
The act con$tit%ting the
cri,e i$ entering )itho%t
$ec%ring the per,i$$ion
o* the o)ner or careta;er
Irohi.ition to enter i$
e2pre$$ or i,plie#
Irohi.ition to enter ,%$t
.e ,ani*e$t
Article 2.2. Gr&e t(ret#
Act$ p%ni$ha.leB
-. Threatening another )ith the inEiction
%pon hi$ per$on> honor or propert0 or that
o* thi$ *a,il0 o* an0 )rong a,o%nting to a
cri,e an# #e,an#ing ,one0 or i,po$ing
an0 other con#ition> e/en tho%gh not
%nla)*%l> an# the o7en#er attaine# hi$
p%rpo$e6
Ele,ent$B
a. The o7en#er
threaten$ another per$on )ith the
inEiction %pon the latter5$ per$on>
honor or propert0> or %pon that o* the
latter5$ *a,il0> o* an0 )rong6
.. S%ch )rong a,o%nt$
to a cri,e6
c. There i$ a #e,an#
*or ,one0 or that an0 other con#ition
i$ i,po$e#> e/en tho%gh not %nla)*%l6
#. The o7en#er attain$
hi$ p%rpo$e.
2. Ma;ing $%ch threat )itho%t the
o7en#er attaining hi$ p%rpo$e6
1. Threatening another )ith the inEiction
%pon hi$ per$on> honor or propert0 or that
o* hi$ *a,il0 o* an0 )rong a,o%nting to a
cri,e> t(e t(ret n$t ,ein" #%,Fect t$
c$nditi$n.
The e$$ence o* the cri,e o*
threat$ i$ inti,i#ation6 i.e. the pro,i$e o*
$o,e *%t%re har, or inD%r0.
Not nece$$ar0 that the )rong
threatene# to .e inEicte# ,%$t a,o%nt to
an0 o* the cri,e$ again$t per$on$> honor or
propert0. La) reG%ire$ that the )rong
,%$t .e (ION the per$on> honor or
propert0.
A$ the cri,e con$i$t$ in
threatening another )ith $o,e *%t%re
har,> it i$ not nece$$ar0 that the o7en#e#
part0 )a$ pre$ent at the ti,e the threat$
)ere ,a#e. It i$ $%Acient that the threat$>
ca,e to the ;no)le#ge o* the o7en#e#
part0.
The cri,e o* gra/e threat$ i$
con$%,,ate# a$ $oon a$ the threat$ co,e
to the ;no)le#ge o* the per$on threatene#.
Threat$ ,a#e in connection
)ith the co,,i$$ion o* other cri,e$ are
a.$or.e# .0 the latter.
The o7en#er in gra/e threat$
#oe$ not #e,an# the #eli/er0 on the $pot
o* the ,one0 or other per$onal propert0
#e,an#e# .0 hi,. Fhen threat$ are ,a#e
an# ,one0 i$ ta;en on the $pot> the cri,e
,a0 .e ro..er0 )ith inti,i#ation.
The penaltie$ *or the 9r$t t)o
t0pe$ o* gra/e threat$ #epen# %pon the
penaltie$ *or the cri,e$ threatene# to .e
co,,itte#. One #egree lo)er i* the
p%rpo$e i$ attaine#> an# t)o #egree$ lo)er
i* the p%rpo$e i$ not attaine#.
I* the threat i$ not $%.Dect to a
con#ition> the penalt0 i$ 92e# at arre$to
,a0or an# a 9ne not e2cee#ing 4++ pe$o$.
In the 9r$t t)o t0pe$> i* the
threat i$ ,a#e in )riting or thoro%gh a
,i##le,an> the penalt0 i$ to .e i,po$e# in
it$ ,a2i,%, perio#.
The thir# t0pe o* gra/e threat$
,%$t .e $erio%$ an# #eli.erate6 the
o7en#er ,%$t per$i$t in the i#ea in/ol/e#
in hi$ threat$. The threat $ho%l# not .e
,a#e in the heat o* anger> .eca%$e $%ch i$
p%ni$he# %n#er Article 2&4.
I* the con#ition i$ not pro/e#> it
i$ gra/e threat$ o* the thir# t0pe.
People vs. Tim+ol
The accused made several advances towards the offended
party. He threatened to kill the womans husband if she
did not accede to his advances. He was convicted of acts
of lasciviousness and grave threats.
H!"# The accused should not be convicted of grave
threats because such threats formed part of the
intimidation that he employed to succeed in his lewd
designs.
Re/es vs. People
A disgruntled employee staged a demonstration in front of
the house of the guy who dismissed him from work.
7hrases of this nature were spoken out loud# Agustin,
putang ina mo. Agustin, mawawala ka. Agustin, lumabas
ka, papatayin kita!
H!"# All the elements of the crime of grave threats as
defined in Article 4=4 paragraph 4 are present# 1*2 the
offender threatened another person with the infliction
upon his person of a wrongD 142 the wrong amounted to a
crime and 1.2 the threat was not subject to a condition.
#0*
Article 2.4. Li"(t t(ret#
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er ,a;e$ a threat to co,,it
a )rong6
2. The )rong #oe$ not con$tit%te a
cri,e6
1. There i$ a #e,an# *or ,one0 or
that other con#ition i$ i,po$e#> e/en
tho%gh not %nla)*%l6
3. O7en#er ha$ attaine# hi$ p%rpo$e
or> that he ha$ not attaine# hi$ p%rpo$e.
Light threat$ are co,,itte# in
the $a,e ,anner a$ gra/e threat$> e2cept
that the act threatene# to .e co,,itte#
$ho%l# not .e a cri,e.
Blac;,ailing ,a0 .e p%ni$he#
%n#er thi$ article.
Article 2.6. B$nd '$r "$$d ,e(&i$r
In )hat ca$e$ ,a0 a per$on .e reG%ire# to gi/e
.ail not to ,ole$t anotherL
-. Fhen he threaten$ another %n#er
Article 2&2.
2. Fhen he threaten$ another %n#er
Article 2&1.
B$nd '$r "$$d
,e(&i$r
B$nd t$ Cee! t(e
!ece
Applica.le onl0 to gra/e
threat$ an# light threat$
Not ,a#e applica.le to
an0 partic%lar ca$e
I* o7en#er *ail$ to gi/e
.ail> he $hall .e
$entence# to #e$tierro
I* the o7en#er *ail$ to
gi/e .on#> he $hall .e
#etaine# *or a perio# not
e2cee#ing ,onth$ :i*
pro$ec%te# *or gra/eKle$$
gra/e *elon0< or not
e2cee#ing 1+ #a0$ :light
*elon0<
NOT a #i$tinct penalt0 A #i$tinct penalt0
Article 2.7. Ot(er li"(t t(ret#
Act$ p%ni$ha.leB
-. Threatening another )ith a )eapon> or
.0 #ra)ing $%ch )eapon in a G%arrel>
%nle$$ it .e in la)*%l $el*H#e*en$e6
2. Orall0 threatening another> in the heat
o* anger> )ith $o,e har, con$tit%ting a
cri,e> )itho%t per$i$ting in the i#ea
in/ol/e# in hi$ threat6
1. Orall0 threatening to #o another an0
har, not con$tit%ting a *elon0.
(n#er the 9r$t t0pe> the
$%.$eG%ent act$ o* the o7en#er ,%$t $ho)
that he #i# not per$i$t in the i#ea in/ol/e#
in hi$ threat.
Threat$ )hich are or#inaril0
gra/e threat$> i* ,a#e in the heat o* anger>
,a0 .e other light threat$.
I* the threat$ are #irecte# to a
per$on )ho i$ a.$ent an# %ttere# in a
te,porar0 9t o* anger> the o7en$e i$ onl0
other light threat$.
Ot(er li"(t t(ret#
9#ec$nd t*!e:
Gr&e t(ret#
9t(ird t*!e:
Car, threatene# to .e co,,itte# i$ a cri,e
Threat i$ not #eli.erate
:,a#e in the heat o*
anger<
Threat i$ #eli.erate
Ot(er li"(t t(ret#
9t(ird t*!e:
Li"(t t(ret#
Car, threatene# to .e co,,itte# i$ not a cri,e
There i$ NO #e,an# *or
,one0> or other
con#ition i,po$e#
There i$ #e,an# *or
,one0> or other
con#ition i,po$e#
Article 2.6. Gr&e c$erci$n#
Act$ p%ni$ha.leB
-. Ire/enting another> .0 ,ean$ o*
/iolence> threat$ or inti,i#ation> *ro,
#oing $o,ething not prohi.ite# .0 la)6
2. Co,pelling another> .0 ,ean$ o*
/iolence> threat$ or inti,i#ation> to #o
$o,ething again$t hi$ )ill> )hether it .e
right or )rong.
Ele,ent$
-. A per$on pre/ente# another *ro, #oing
$o,ething not prohi.ite# .0 la)> or that he
co,pelle# hi, to #o $o,ething again$t hi$
)ill6 .e it right or )rong6
2. The pre/ention or co,p%l$ion .e
e7ecte# .0 /iolence> threat$ or
inti,i#ation6 an#
1. The per$on that re$traine# the )ill an#
li.ert0 o* another ha# not the a%thorit0 o*
la) or the right to #o $o> or in other )or#$>
that the re$traint $hall not .e ,a#e %n#er
a%thorit0 o* la) or in the e2erci$e o* an0
la)*%l right.
The p%rpo$e o* the la) in
penali@ing coercion an# %nD%$t /e2ation i$
to en*orce the principle that no per$on ,a0
ta;e the la) into hi$ han#$> an# that o%r
go/ern,ent i$ one o* la)> not o* ,en.
In gra/e coercion> the act o*
pre/enting .0 *orce ,%$t .e ,a#e at the
#09
ti,e the o7en#e# part0 )a$ #oing or a.o%t
to #o the act to .e pre/ente#. I* the act
)a$ alrea#0 #one )hen /iolence i$ e2erte#>
the cri,e i$ %nD%$t /e2ation.
In$tance$ )hen the act o*
pre/enting another i$ cla$$i9e# a$ another
cri,eB
o A p%.lic oAcer
pre/enting .0 ,ean$ o* /iolence or
threat$ the cere,onie$ or
,ani*e$tation$ o* an0 religion i$ g%ilt0
o* interr%ption o* religio%$ )or$hip :Art.
-12<
o An0 per$on )ho> .0
*orce> pre/ent$ the ,eeting o* a
legi$lati/e .o#0 :Art. -31<
o An0 per$on )ho $hall
%$e *orce or inti,i#ation to pre/ent an0
,e,.er o* Congre$$ *ro, atten#ing
the ,eeting$ thereo*> e2pre$$ing hi$
opinion$> or ca$ting hi$ /ote :Art. -34<
Co,pelling another to #o
$o,ething incl%#e$ the o7en#er5$ act o*
#oing it hi,$el* )hile $%.Decting another to
hi$ )ill.
A per$on )ho i$ in act%al
po$$e$$ion o* a thing> e/en i* he ha$ no
right to that po$$e$$ion> cannot .e
co,pelle# .0 ,ean$ o* /iolence to gi/e %p
the po$$e$$ion> e/en .0 the o)ner hi,$el*.
Thi$ )ill a,o%nt to gra/e coercion.
Note ho)e/er that an o)ner
an# act%al po$$e$$or a propert0 ha$ a right
to %$e $%ch *orce )a$ ,a0 .e rea$ona.l0
nece$$ar0 to pre/ent another *ro,
#i$po$$e$$ing hi, o* hi$ propert0.
In$tance$ )hen the act o*
co,pelling i$ another o7en$eB
o A p%.lic oAcer not
a%thori@e# .0 la) )ho co,pel$ a
per$on to change hi$ re$i#ence :Art.
-2!<
o "i#napping a #e.tor
to co,pel hi, to pa0 hi$ #e.t
:;i#napping *or ran$o, %n#er Art. 2!<
The cri,e i$ not gra/e coercion
)hen the /iolence i$ e,plo0e# to $ei@e
an0thing not .elonging to the #e.tor o* the
o7en#er. Thi$ i$ light coercion %n#er
Article 2&!.
S%rro%n#ing the /icti, in a
notorio%$l0 threatening attit%#e i$
$%Acient to con$tit%te inti,i#ation.
The *orce or /iolence ,%$t .e
i,,e#iate> act%al or i,,inent.
The o)ner o* a thing ha$ no
right to pre/ent inter*erence )ith it )hen
inter*erence i$ nece$$ar0 to a/ert greater
#a,age.
There i$ no gra/e coercion
)hen the acc%$e# act$ in goo# *aith in the
per*or,ance o* #%t0.
Coercion i$ con$%,,ate# e/en
i* the o7en#e# part0 #i# not acce#e to the
p%rpo$e o* the coercion. (MEL this is
doubtful, please check)
A higher penalt0 :pri$ion
,a0or< i$ i,po$e# i* the coercion i$
co,,itte#B
o In /iolation o* the
e2erci$e o* the right o* $%7rage6
o To co,pel another to
per*or, an0 religio%$ act.
Gr&e c$erci$n Ille"l Detenti$n
There i$ no clear
#epri/ation o* li.ert0
There ,%$t .e act%al
con9ne,ent or re$traint
on the per$on o* the
/icti,
Gr&e c$erci$n
9c$-!ellin" !er#$n
t$ c$n'e##G"i&e in'$:
Mltret-ent $'
!ri#$ner
The o7en#e# part0 i$
NOT a pri$oner
The o7en#e# part0 i$ a
pri$oner
Timoner vs. People %#9*&'
Jose Timoner, the mayor of "aet, ordered the fencing off of
stalls which protruded into the sidewalks of 9aharlika
highway. The stalls were recommended for closure by the
9unicipal Health Bfficer.
H!"# There is no grave coercion when the restraint was
made under authority of law or in the lawful e8ercise of a
right. 9ayor Timoner had the authority under the (ivil
(ode to abate public nuisances. Also, he was merely
implementing the orders of the municipal health officer
and was acting under the authority of a previous decision
which declared one of the stalls as a public nuisance.
Lee vs. C$ %#99#'
?rancis !ee, the branch manager of 7acific )anking
(orporation, threatened to file charges against
complainant de (hin, unless she returned all the money
e-uivalent to a forged 9idland ;ational )ank che-ue which
de (hin deposited in an account in the 7acific )ank.
H!"# To determine the degree of the intimidation, the
age, se8 and condition of the person shall be borne in
mind. "e (hin was pregnant, but she was also educated
and familiar with banking procedures. $he could not have
been easily intimidated by !ee. )esides, a threat to
enforce ones claim through competent authority, if the
claim is just or legal, does not vitiate consent. !ees threat
is not improper because there is nothing unlawful about the
threat to sue. ?inally, there is a difference between
performing an act reluctantly, even against ones 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. /n this case, de (hin
##0
consented to signing the withdrawal slips. $he did so
voluntarily, although reluctantly. Hence, there is no
coercion.
People vs. $l2ec3e" 4r. %#992'
(omplaint for :surpation of 0eal 0ights in 7roperty 1Art.*42
in relation to Erave (oercion 1Art4=52 was filed against
accused where it was alleged that he usurped the
possession of the tenants from the land by threatening to
kill them if the latter resisted. This was filed in the 0T(.
0T( dismissed saying that the penalty under Art.*4 was
below the jurisdictional amount of the 0T( therefore it had
no jurisdiction on the assumption that the grave coercion
was absorbed with the usurpation.
H!"# 0T( had jurisdiction. Art.*4 defines a single, special
and indivisible crime with a 4'tiered penalty. The principal
one for the usurpation with violenceN intimidation and an
incremental penalty based on the value obtained in
addition to the penalty incurred for the acts of violence
and intimidation.
,hen the usurpation is done with violence or intimidation
1in the (A), grave coercion2, the accused must be
prosecuted under Art.*4 for usurpation and not for the acts
of violence or intimidation under Art4=5 for grave coercion.
)ut whenever appropriate, accused may be held liable for
the separate acts of violence or intimidation 1e.g. grave
coercion2. This separate penalty is in addition to the fine
based on the gain obtained by him.
People v. Santos" &,* SCR$ #5, %2002'
?A(T$# Josephine gave a *'year loan to !eonida
but the latter was unable to timely pay the debt. ?or the
ne8t + years, Josephine was unsuccessful in securing
payment from !eonida as the latter stubbornly maintained
her having already settled the account. Josephine, 9anny
et. al., with the assistance of (/$ agents, then brought
!eonida to )aguio (ity from her house in 7angasinan, in
order to surrender her to the custody of )aguio (ity
authorities where Josephine thought she could rightly seek
redress. $he was advised, however, that it was in the
province of 7angasinan, not )aguio (ity, where a case could
be lodged. The trial court convicted Josephine on the
ground that the deprivation of !eonida of her liberty,
regardless of its purpose and although lasting for less than
twenty'four hours, was sufficient to support the charge of
kidnapping.
H!"# The circumstances that have surfaced
warrant a conviction for grave coercion. Erave coercion is
committed when a person prevents another from doing
something not prohibited by law or compelling him to do
something against his will, whether it be right or wrong,
and without any authority of law, by means of violence,
threats or intimidation. /ts elements are K ?irst, that the
offender has prevented another from doing something not
prohibited by law, or that he has compelled him to do
something against his will, be it right or wrongD second,
that the prevention or compulsion is effected by violence,
either by material force or such display of force as would
produce intimidation and control over the will of the
offended partyD and, third, that the offender who has
restrained the will and liberty of another did so without
any right or authority of law. ,here there is a variance
between the offense charged in the complaint or
information and that proved and the offense charged
necessarily includes the lesser offense established in
evidence, the accused can be convicted of the offense
proved.
Article 2.7. Li"(t c$erci$n#
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er ,%$t .e a cre#itor6
2. Ce $ei@e$ an0thing .elonging to hi$
#e.torB
1. The $ei@%re o* the thing .e
acco,pli$he# .0 ,ean$ o* /iolence or a
#i$pla0 o* ,aterial *orce pro#%cing
inti,i#ation6
appl0 the $a,e to the pa0,ent o* the #e.t.
The $ei@e# propert0 ,%$t .e
applie# to the IAYMENT o* the #e.t> not
,erel0 a$ SEC(RITY *or the #e.t.
Ta;ing po$$e$$ion o* the thing
.elonging to the #e.tor> thro%gh #eceit
an# ,i$repre$entation> *or the p%rpo$e o*
appl0ing the $a,e to the pa0,ent o* the
#e.t> i$ %nD%$t /e2ation %n#er the $econ#
paragraph o* thi$ article.
Act%al ph0$ical /iolence not
nece$$ar0> gra/e inti,i#ation i$ $%Acient.
UnF%#t &e5ti$n 9$t(er li"(t c$erci$n1
#ec$nd !r"r!(:
Incl%#e$ an0 h%,an con#%ct
)hich> altho%gh not pro#%cti/e o* $o,e
ph0$ical or ,aterial har,> )o%l#> ho)e/er>
%nD%$tl0 anno0 or /e2 an innocent per$on.
The act ,%$t ca%$e anno0ance> irritation>
/e2ation> tor,ent> #i$tre$$ or #i$t%r.ance.
There i$ no /iolence or
inti,i#ation in %nD%$t /e2ation.
E2a,ple$B ;i$$ing a girl
:#e$pite her o.Dection$> o* co%r$eM<
Fhen the 9r$t an# thir#
ele,ent$ o* gra/e coercion are pre$ent>
.%t the $econ# ele,ent :/iolence> threat$
or inti,i#ation< i$ a.$ent> the cri,e i$
%nD%$t /e2ation.
People vs. Re/es %#9&4'
"uring 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 Bffending 0eligious ?eelings under Art. *...
H!"# The construction of a fence even though irritating
and ve8atious under the circumstances to those present is
###
not such an act as can be designated as Gnotoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful.H The appellants
act was innocent and was simply to protect private
property rights. The circumstances under which the fence
was constructed O late at night, ve8ing and annoying those
who had gathered O indicate that the crime committed was
only unjust ve8ation.

People vs. $nonuevo %#9&,'
Teodulo Anonuevo embraced and kissed 0osita Tabia and
held her breasts while in church. He was convicted of
abuse against chastity.
H!"# /t is error to ascribe the conduct of appellant to
lustful designs or purposes in the absence of clear proof as
to his motive. The religious atmosphere and the presence
of many people belie the fact that he acted with lewd
designs. He either performed a bravado 1in defiance of
alleged threats of 0ositas boyfriend2 or wished merely to
force 0osita to accept him as a lover. He is only guilty of
unjust ve8ation.
5n! C3iu 6wan v. C$" &45 SCR$ 5*( %2000'
Bng (hiu Awan admitted having ordered the
cutting of the electric, water and telephone lines of
complainant6s business establishment because these lines
crossed his property line. He failed, however, to show
evidence that he had the necessary permits or
authoriCation 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, petitioner6s act unjustly annoyed or
ve8ed the complainant. (onse-uently, petitioner Bng (hiu
Awan is liable for unjust ve8ation.
aleros v. People %200,'
The court wishes to stress that malice, compulsion or
restraint need not be alleged in an /nformation for unjust
ve8ation. :njust ve8ation e8ists even without the element
of restraint or compulsion for the reason that the term is
broad enough to include an/ 3uman conduct w3ic3"
alt3ou!3 not productive o2 some p3/sical or material
3arm" would un.ustl/ anno/ or irritate an innocent
person.
Article 2... Ot(er #i-ilr c$erci$n#
9c$-!%l#$r* !%rc(#e $' -erc(ndi#e
nd !*-ent $' 0"e# ,* -en# $'
t$Cen#:
Act$ p%ni$ha.leB
-. =orcing or co,pelling> #irectl0 or
in#irectl0> or ;no)ingl0 per,itting the
*orcing or co,pelling o* the la.orer or
e,plo0ee o* the o7en#er to p%rcha$e
,erchan#i$e o* co,,o#itie$ o* an0 ;in#
*ro, hi,6
Ele,ent$B
a. O7en#er i$ an0 per$on> agent
or oAcer o* an0 a$$ociation or
corporation6
.. Ce or $%ch 9r, or corporation
ha$ e,plo0e# la.orer$ or e,plo0ee$6
c. Ce *orce$ or co,pel$> #irectl0
or in#irectl0> or ;no)ingl0 per,it$ to
.e *orce# or co,pelle#> an0 o* hi$ or it$
la.orer$ or e,plo0ee$ to p%rcha$e
,erchan#i$e or co,,o#itie$ o* an0
;in# *ro, hi, or *ro, $ai# 9r, or
corporation.
2. Ia0ing the )age$ #%e hi$ la.orer or
e,plo0ee .0 ,ean$ o* to;en$ or o.Dect
other than the legal ten#er c%rrenc0 o* the
Ihilippine$> %nle$$ e2pre$$l0 reG%e$te# .0
$%ch la.orer or e,plo0ee.
Ele,ent$B
a. O7en#er pa0$ the )age$ #%e a
la.orer or e,plo0ee e,plo0e# .0 hi,
.0 ,ean$ o* to;en$ or o.Dect6
.. Tho$e to;en$ or o.Dect$ are
other than the legal ten#er c%rrenc0 o*
the Ihilippine$6
c. S%ch e,plo0ee or la.orer #oe$
not e2pre$$l0 reG%e$t that he .e pai#
.0 ,ean$ o* to;en$ or o.Dect$.
A$ a general r%le>
la.orer$ an# e,plo0ee$ ha/e the right to
recei/e D%$t )age$ in legal ten#er.
In#%cing an
e,plo0ee to gi/e %p part o* hi$ )age$ .0
*orce> $tealth> inti,i#ation> threat or .0 an0
other ,ean$ i$ not p%ni$he# %n#er the
RIC> .%t %n#er Article -- o* the La.or
Co#e.
Article 2./. A$r-ti$n1 -intennce1 nd
!r$(i,iti$n $' c$-,inti$n $' c!itl $r
l,$r t(r$%"( &i$lence $r t(ret#
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er e,plo0$ /iolence or threat$>
in $%ch a #egree a$ to co,pel or *orce the
la.orer$ or e,plo0er$ in the *ree an# legal
e2erci$e o* their in#%$tr0 or )or;6
2. The p%rpo$e i$ to organi@e> ,aintain or
pre/ent coalition$ o* capital or la.or> $tri;e
o* la.orer$ or loc;o%t o* e,plo0er$.
The act $ho%l# not .e a ,ore
$erio%$ o7en$e %n#er the RIC. =or
e2a,ple> i* #eath or other $erio%$ ph0$ical
inD%rie$ are ca%$e#> the act $ho%l# .e
##2
p%ni$he# a$ $%ch an# not %n#er thi$
Article.
Ieace*%l pic;eting i$ not
prohi.ite#> it i$ a /ali# e2erci$e o* *ree#o,
o* $peech.
E,plo0ing /iolence or ,a;ing
threat .0 pic;eter$ ,a0 ,a;e the, lia.le
*or coercion.
Ire/enting e,plo0ee$ *ro,
Doining an0 regi$tere# la.or organi@ation i$
p%ni$he# %n#er the La.or Co#e> not %n#er
the RIC.
Article 2/2. Di#c$&erin" #ecret# t(r$%"(
#eiH%re $' c$rre#!$ndence
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er i$ a pri/ate in#i/i#%al or e/en
a p%.lic oAcer not in the e2erci$e o* hi$
oAcial *%nction6
2. Ce $ei@e$ the paper$ or letter$ o*
another6
1. The p%rpo$e i$ to #i$co/er the $ecret$
o* $%ch another per$on6
3. O7en#er i$ in*or,e# o* the content$ o*
the paper$ or letter$ $ei@e#.
To $ei@e ,ean$ to place in the
control o* $o,eone a thing or to gi/e hi,
the po$$e$$ion thereo*. It i$ not nece$$ar0
that there .e *orce or /iolence.
IreD%#ice i$ not an ele,ent o*
the o7en$e.
Fhen the o7en#er re/eal$ the
content$ o* $%ch paper or letter$ o* another
to a thir# per$on> the penalt0 i$ higher.
Th%$> re/ealing the $ecret i$ not an
ele,ent o* the o7en$e> it onl0 G%ali9e$ the
o7en$e.
Thi$ article i$ not applica.le toB
o parent$> g%ar#ian$ or
per$on$ entr%$te# )ith the c%$to#0 o*
,inor$ )ith re$pect to paper$ or letter$
o* the chil#ren or ,inor$ place# %n#er
their care or c%$to#06
o $po%$e$ )ith re$pect
to the paper$ or letter$ o* either o*
the,.
(nla)*%l opening o* ,ail
,atter .0 an oAcer or e,plo0ee o* the
B%rea% o* Io$t$ i$ p%ni$he# %n#er the
A#,ini$trati/e Co#e.
Di#c$&erin" #ecret#
9Art. 2/2:
Re&elin" #ecret#
9Art. 242:
O7en#er i$ a pri/ate
in#i/i#%al> or p%.lic
oAcer not in e2erci$e o*
oAcial *%nction
O7en#er i$ a p%.lic
oAcer
The o7en#er SEINES the
paper$ or letter$
The o7en#er COMES TO
"NOF o* the $ecret$ o*
the pri/ate in#i/i#%al .0
rea$on o* hi$ oAce. Not
nece$$ar0 that the
$ecret$ are containe# in
paper$Kletter$
The p%rpo$e o* the
o7en#er i$ to #i$co/er
the $ecret$ o* another>
re/elation to another i$
not an ele,ent o* the
cri,e
The o7en#er re/eal$
$%ch $ecret$ )itho%t
D%$ti9a.le rea$on.
Article 2/3. Re&elin" #ecret# 0it( ,%#e
$' $Bce
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er i$ a ,anager> e,plo0ee
or $er/ant6
2. Ce learn$ the $ecret$ o* hi$
principal or ,a$ter in $%ch capacit06
1. Ce re/eal$ $%ch $ecret$.
Secret$ ,%$t .e learne# .0
rea$on o* their e,plo0,ent.
The $ecret$ ,%$t .e re/eale#
.0 the o7en#er.
IreD%#iceK#a,age i$ not
nece$$ar0 %n#er thi$ Article.
Article 2/2. Re&elin" $' ind%#tril
#ecret#
Ele,ent$B
-. O7en#er i$ a per$on in charge>
e,plo0ee or )or;,an o* a ,an%*act%ring
or in#%$trial e$ta.li$h,ent6
2. The ,an%*act%ring or in#%$trial
e$ta.li$h,ent ha$ a $ecret o* the in#%$tr0
)hich the o7en#er ha$ learne#6
1. O7en#er re/eal$ $%ch $ecret$6
3. IreD%#ice i$ ca%$e# to the o)ner.
Secret$ ,%$t relate to
,an%*act%ring proce$$e$.
The act con$tit%ting the cri,e
i$ re/ealing the $ecret o* the in#%$tr0 o*
e,plo0er.
The re/elation o* the $ecret
,ight .e ,a#e a*ter the e,plo0ee or
)or;,an ha# cea$e# to .e connecte# )ith
the e$ta.li$h,ent.
IreD%#ice i$ an ele,ent o* the
o7en$e.
##&

Title 9 - Liberty and Security 2007

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 9 - Liberty and Security 2007

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title Nine

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND

You might also like