CRIMINAL LAW REVIEW Confession must be made before the judge

FINALS and in open court. Pleading guilty is normally

Justice Villa-Ignacio done during arraignment.
Transcribed Lecture Notes
*In treason, the rule is very strict, here the law
GRADING SYSTEM: must lmit the mode of proving the guilt of the
15% Recitation accused:
35% Midterm Examination 1) two witness rule
55% Final Examination 2) confession must be made in OPEN COURT

Article 114. Treason What is the difference between admission

Formal declaration of war is not necessary.
Hostilities are enough.
There are 2 ways of committing treason
1) Levy War
2) Adhere to enemies
In levying war, must there be an actual
assembly?
What if he merely enlisted?
Mere enlistment is NOT covered.
*Adhering would be giving them aid and
comfort
“Two witness rule”- should witness the SAME
OVERT ACT which must be an overt act of
giving aid or comfort. And if this is proven it
is not necessary to prove adherence
What do you mean by “confession”?
and confession?
-Even if there is admission, the same is NOT
sufficient to hold the accused guilty of
treason.
-Admissions are merely admission of fact
- Confession is an admission of guilt.
Art. 115. Conspiracy and Proposal to commit
treason
When treason is committed, then conspiracy
and proposal shall be considered absorbed in
treason as preparatory acts.
Art 116. Misprison of treason – Take note that
is misprision of CONSPIRACY to commit
treason. Treason should not have actually
been committed.
A is a fiscal in a particular locality, he came to
know of treasonous acts. He did not report
such, what is his criminal liability?
Dereliction of Duty
*A public officer who has the duty to
prosecute a law violated may be prosecuted
under Article 208 if he maliciously tolerates
the crime which is going to be committed or
maliciously failed to prosecute.
How is the offender punished under Art. 116?
He is the principal of misprision of treason but
his penalty is that of an accessory of treason.
Art 19 (par 3)- “Guilty of treason”
Is it necessary that the accessory be found
guilty of treason?
It is NOT REQUIRED that there be a conviction
(People v. Bellos) *Regalado and Reyes say
however, that 19 is the exception.
ART 117. Espionage
A entered a military establishment for
purposes of stealing confidential information.
After obtaining the documents, he turned it
over to a foreign agent who took it. But after
examination, they called him and told him
that the information on the document was
public information which you could find on
google. Was espionage committed?
Yes. Mere act of entering with purpose of
obtaining confidential information is
punishable
Can espionage be committed by acts other
than those enumerated under the article?
Yes. G.A. 616. Take note of Section 6. He may
be considered as a principal under 616.
Art. 118. Inciting to War.
In front of the U.S. Embassy the group of A,
B, C and D burned the U.S. Flag, and spilled
red paint over it. Can they be held liable
under 118?
Yes intent is immaterial
Art. 119. Violation of Neutrality
*in this article it is the OTHER COUNTRIES
which are at war and take note that a
“REGULATION” must first be issued.
Art. 120. Correspondence.
*Paragraphs 1 and 2 are MALA PROHIBITA.
Art. 121
*even an alien is encompassed.
What if the alien would want to go home to
his mother country, may the Philippines
charge him under 121?
Yes. 121 is Mallum Prohibitum. State interest
prevails over the interest of the alien. But, take
note, there must first be a prohibition.
A broke into a vessel in isla putting bato, with
violence he was able to get the laptop of the
person inside. What is his criminal liability?
If the nature of the vessel is that of a dwelling,
it is ROBBERY! If the nature of the vessel as a
mode of transportation, or a fishing vessel,
then it is PIRACY.
Human Security Act
Prosecution could not establish all elements
for terrorism, but they can only establish
piracy. Court dismisses the action for
terrorism. Can the DOJ now file a case for
piracy?
Yes. What is prohibited is another charge, but
the court may, in the same proceeding, find
the accused guilty of an offense necessarily
included in the charge filed in court.
Look at Rule 120, Sec 4 of the Rules of Court.
When the offense charged is necessarily
included, accused will be convicted.
*READ R.A. 9372 HUMAN SECURITY ACT
ART. 124, 125, 126,
*These are committed by Public Officers.
What if any of these crimes are committed by
public officers with the assistance of a private
individual? What is the liability of the public
officer? Of the Private individual?
If the private individual acted in conspiracy
with the public officer, he will likewise be
liable under these articles.
What if the public officer acted in Good Faith?
If he acted in good faith, and without culpable
negligence, there can be a defense of mistake
of fact.
*Elements of 124:
1. Public officer
2. Detains without legal grounds
What are the instances where warrantless
arrests are valid:
1. When the person is insane in a manner that
he causes violence
2. in flagrante delicto
3. Ailment requiring compulsory confinement
(ex. SARS)
Valid warrantless arrests
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 in fact just been
committed, and he has probable cause to
believe based on personal knowledge of facts
and 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 serving
final judgement or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while
being transferred from one confinement to
another.
Under Article 125, there is a duty of the officer
to deliver the detained person within what
periods?
12-18-36-72 (in cases of terrorism. Sec 18 of
the Human Security Act)
After the lapse of these hours, he will be liable
under 125.
When may a person arrested without warrant
be detained for a longer period than that
provided?
If during inquest proceedings, the person
requested for preliminary investigation, and
he would sign a waiver of 125. After that the
person may be detained as long as the case
is pending, but the person may put Bail.
(Document is called a WAIVER OF ART. 125)
*The conduct of Preliminary Investigation
must be completed within 15 days (this is only
true for Preliminary Investigation WITH
waiver)
Can the arrested ask for extension of the 15
day period?
It may be granted if the accused needed
more time to produce evidence, then YES.
The detained person can apply for bail. But
where? What court?
You can file it with the court along with the
police report.
What if the crime committed by the detained
person is nonbailable? You can still apply for
bail because you still need to thresh out
probable cause.
Art. 127. Expulsion
Consists of deporting or change of residence
without lawful ground.
X, a Filipino citizen is declared #1 enemy of
the country for serious crimes, he went out of
the country for vacation and upon return he
was denied entry into the Philippines. Is this
valid?
No, every Filipino has a right to stay in the
Philippines, only aliens may be deported.
*Rule: A person cannot be compelled to
change his residence. EXCEPT:
1) Destierro
2) Ejectment
3) Expropriation for a public purpose and with
just compensation
4) When leasing property and the lessee
cannot pay
Art. 128.
*3 Ways to commit:
1. The public officer enters any dwelling
against the will of the owner thereof
2. He searches papers or other effects
found therein without the previous
consent of the owner.
3. Having surreptitiously entered said
dwelling, and being required to leave
the premises, he refuses to do so.
If A entered the home of B without his
consent is this a violation of domicile?
No. It must be over his objection. It will be
noted that to constitute a violation of
domicile, the entrance by the public officer or
employee must be against the will of the
owner of the dwelling, which presupposes
opposition or prohibition by said owner,
whether express or implied. If the entrance by
the public officer or employee is only without
the consent of the owner of the dwelling, the
crime is not committed. Neither is the crime
committed if the owner of the dwelling
consented to such entrance.
How about search of papers or other effects
found?
If the search was conducted without the
previous consent of the owner of the home
there is a violation. No objection needed.
If you find someone in your house and when
asked to leave, he leaves. What is the possible
crime committed?
Unjust Vexation
If the owner is absent, is 128 being violated?
Entry in a domicile is “against the will” when
the offender ignores the prohibition of the
owner which may be express or implied as
when the door is closed even though not
locked.
What if at 2am the intruder, entered the
house and the door was not locked did he
violate 128?
Implied that it is against the consent of the
owner because the door is closed and also it’s
was made during an unholy hour.
*If a private person along with a public person
enter, holding hands, the private person
bears the same liability as the public person
Art. 129.
Note: “In addition to the liability”
*If a private person made a false affidavit to
obtain the warrant, the offenders will be liable
for perjury IN ADDITION to Art. 129.
Art. 132. Interruption of Religious Worship
Art. 133. Offending the Religious Feelings
The only punishable act that can be
committed by a private person under this
title.
TITLE III. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
JVI: Will you be able to name all of them?
You’ll never know, the examiner would be out
of his mind to ask you this.
Why must coup’ de tat be classified under
134-A? Because they cannot assign it to 135
without changing all the other numbers.
POLITICAL OFFENSE DOCTRINE- look at the
case of Satur-Ocampo v. Judge “something”.
It is an en banc resolution rendered in 2013
where the court compiled all jurisprudence
on rebellion.
Art. 134. Rebellion or insurrection.
Elements:
1) Public Uprising
2) Taking arms for purposes of…
It is consummated at the time the take up
arms. It is not necessary that they accomplish
it.
What is the penalty for the leaders? Reclusion
Perpetua
*There is NO crime of MISPRISON of
REBELLION or SEDITION. ONLY MISPRISON
OF TREASON!!!
When is a person liable under rebellion or
under R.A. 9372 (Terrorism)
Rebellion/ Insurrection, when considered
Terrorism: RA 9372 Human Security Act of
2007 provides that when a person who
commits an act punishable as rebellion/
insurrection, 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… is guilty
of the crime of terrorism.
 The penalty here is 40 years
imprisonment without the benefit of
parole under the ISL.
NOTE: terrorism is not the most severely
punished crime.
NOTE: Prosecution under R.A. 9372 shall be
bar to another prosecution under the RPC or
any SPL.
*If the charge is necessarily included in the
charge, then the person can be convicted of
the crime necessarily included if acquitted of
the more serious crime.
Look at Art. 324. Do we still have crimes
involving destruction of property? What is the
status of 324? May the accused be held under
324 because the prosecution failed to prove
him guilty under the human security act?
Look at 7659. It did not reinstate art 324! It
only reinstated Art 320. Therefore, in answer
to the above, No, he cannot be charged for a
crime which was repealed and never restored.
Art 202. Amended to exclude vagrancy. It left
prostitution, BUT it was also repealed under
the expanded anti-trafficking act, what then
is the status of prostitution under 202?
RA 10364 Sec 32. The repeal of 202 would
only refer to the subject of prostitution under
the expanded trafficking act.
In RA 10362 she is considered a VICTIM, if as
a result of trafficking, she is forced and this
results to prostitution, this is not a violation of
202 because she is merely a victim.
*NOTE: PD 1613 the New Arson Law.
Art 147 in relation to RA 7392 Sec 17- illegal
associations “shall upon application with the
DOJ, be declared as an outlawed
association”- should this requirement apply
under the RPC?
Under the human Security Act?
1) there must be an application
2) and a hearing to declare as a terrorist
group/ out lawed organization.
Art 148 and 149- (DVI: In the past this has
been a source of a lot of tricky questions.)
- Look at 203 (who are public officers)
after that, define who are agents of
persons in authority.
May be committed in 2 ways:
Focus more on the 2 ! Sir cannot think of any
nd
jurisprudence on the 1st
The second refers to any person, who without
public uprising, shall seriously intimidate or
resist any person in authority or any of his
agents, while engaged in the performance of
official duties, or on occasion of such
performance.
X mayor, going thru papers, A barges in and
demanded payment of debt, X says “balik ka
na lang. wala pa akong pera”, A boxed X
inflicting serious physical injuries. What is the
crime?
It has to be “By reason of his office” or when
the mayor is in actual performance of his
duty, since the mayor was in his office it is
Direct Assault.
What if a judge is in McDo and X attacked
him because the judge previously cited him
in contempt.
This is still Direct Assault because it was
committed ON OCCASION of the judge’s
duty.
So what is the rule on when it is DA or when
it is some other crime?
A. if in performance of an official duty OR on
occasion thereof.
What if the judge already retired?
The answer can either be:
No because private person na siya or Yes,
because lawyer pa rin siya.
Requisites of the second more of DA:
Elements
1) There must be an attack, use of force or
serious intimidation or resistance upon a PA
or his agent;
2) The assault was made when the PA or APA
was performing his duties or on the occasion
of such performance; and
3) the accused knew that the victim is a PA or
APA, that is that the accused must have the
intention to offend, injure or assault the
offended party as a PA or an APA.
4) NO public uprising
NOTE: if offended party is a person in
authority, the force employed need NOT be
serious BUT with respect to intimidation/
resistance, the same must be serious.
Read U.S. v. Gumban (?)
What are the rules?
If a person in authority is attacked and he was
in the performance of his duty, motive of the
offender is immaterial.
If he was not in the performance of his duties
then motive is essential BUT if the motive be
because of past performance of duty of the
person in authority is it Direct Assault.
If it is NOT in performance and motive was
not because of past performance = NOT
Direct Assault but some other felony
Evidence of motive is important when the PA
is NOT in actual performance of his duty.
May DA be committed against a private
individual?
Yes. How and When? When such private
person is a person in authority (ex. Teacher)
Including persons such as:
1) private individual coming to aid of person
in authority
2) teachers, professors and lawyers are
private individuals but if attacked
performance in of their duties= DA
3) if DA is committed in the 1st way, it is not
necessary that the victim be a public officer.
Would you know why teachers, lawyers and
heads of schools are considered DA?
Teachers- out of respect
Lawyers- they are officers of the court.
What if attack on a lawyer be made outside
of the court room in a karaoke bar singing
“my way”? Depends.
“In actual performance OR on occasion of
such performance” – if the assault was
committed on occasion of such, then DA. If it
was not committed on occasion of such, then
not DA.
RULES:
1) if the offense was committed ON
OCCASION of duties- Motive immaterial
2) If NOT on the occasion of such
performance, attack or assault must be by
reason of his duties.
First check if the PA is in the performance of
his duties. If, NOT then check the motive.
 If the motive was in relation to the
performance of his duties, then the
crime is DA.
 If not, then it may be another crime
in How about teachers?
If they were attacked in the classroom while
teaching, then the crime is DA. If however, the
attack was not related to her being a teacher
then it is not DA
How about if the attack was made in the
ladies room?
Again, look at the reason behind the attack
If the teacher was dancing in a barrio fiesta
Check the motive, if not by reason ho her
work then it is not DA.
What if the accused kissed the teacher while
at the barrio fiesta? What is the possible
criminal liability?
Unjust Vexation
*Second rule: if the cause was the past
performance of the PA, the accused is guilty
of DA.
NOTE: DA is committed even if several days
have conspired between the performance of
duty and the assault.
*If the motive cannot be established, the
crime was only PI and not DA.
*If there is DA and the crime consists of
Serious PI or less serious PI, the crime shall be
a COMPLEX CRIME OF DA and PI.
- But if it was only slight PI, and the victim is
a PA, they will be separate crimes, but if the
victim is an Agent of a PA, the Slight PI will be
ABSORBED.
What if the PA was acting with abuse of
official functions when he was attacked will
that be DA?
No because he exceeded his authority. His is
deemed to be acting in Private Capacity.
INDIRECT ASSAULT.
1. Person in authority or his agent is Directly
Assaulted
2. Person comes to aid the PA or his agent
3. Makes use of force on the person who
comes to aid.
NOTE: Indirect Assault can only be
committed when there is Direct Assault (as a
general rule)
A person who comes to the aid of a police
man?
It is mere physical injuries. A police man is a
mere agent of a person in authority by direct
provision of law.
If police man was in official duty of making
arrest and a private individual comes to help.
Not IP because the policeman is not being
attacked. He is in the performance of a duty.
Prior to the amendment to 153 it was then
required that the person in authority made a
request to a private individual to aid. Such is
no longer required.
*Don’t directly assume that DA is being
committed
A Judge was being attacked by X, B, seeing
this came to aid of the judge, what is the
criminal liability of X.
I will qualify, if judge was in the performance
of his duty, it is 1 count of Physical Injuries
complexed with DA and for the assault on B-
Indirect Assault.
What if the person who came to aid the judge
was a policemen and he introduced himself
as such, what are the crimes committed?
Point is, there are so many possible situation.
You have to remember the rules, I ask you to
master these rules.
(PREPARE A MATRIX OF DI, IA, RESISTANCE
and DISOBEDIENCE)
A with a legitimate purpose, went to the
public office and tried to get the attention of
the workers. They did not notice him and thus
he got enraged and he took a chair and
started shouting at them. Is he liable under
Art. 153 (tumults and other acts of
disobedience)
NO. What A did was not serious. The crime
may be alarms and scandals.
Distinguish Public Disorder from inciting to
sedition
The disturbance is either of public order or
inciting to rebellion or sedition. If the person
who makes statement tending to incite the
listeners to rise to rebellion or sedition had
that original criminal intent, it is inciting to
rebellion or sedition; otherwise, it is simply
disturbance of public order.
*Sec. 154, if the publication is also, obscene,
they cannot be complex, because they are
punished under different acts/
What are these alarms and scandals?
1. Discharge of firearms, firecrackers and
other explosives in a public place;
2. Charivari
3. Engaging in nocturnal amusement
disturbing the public peace; or
4. Any disturbance or scandal in public places
not amounting to tumults.
What crimes can arise from the discharge of
a?
1. Alarms and Scandals0 offender discharges
a firearm in a public place but the firearm is
not pointed to a particular person when
discharged.
2. Illegal discharge of firearm- the firearm was
directed to a particular person who was not
hit if intent to kill is not proved.
3. Attempted or frustrated homicide or
murder- the offended was hit with intent to
kill, automatically, the crime is at least
attempted homicide or murder; frustrated if
the wound is mortal.
4. Physical Injuries- if the person was injured
but there was no intent to kill.
5. Threat- If the weapon is not discharged but
aimed at another.
6. Other light threat- If drawn in a quarrel but
not in self defense.
7. Grave coercion- if the threat was direct,
immediate and serious and the person is
compelled or prevented to do something
against his will.
8. Illegal possession of firearm. If the firearm
is unlicensed provided no other crime is
committed by means of such firearm.
What is charivari?
A mock serenade where the offender actually
disturbs the peace by using cans, pans,
utensils, etc. This brings about the crime of
alarms and scandals. This is equivalent to
breach of the peace in municipal ordinances.
Why is intent to kill presumed?
The element is provided by law.
Isn’t it against due process?
Because, Intent is hard to prove, and also
because of convenience! If the person is
dead, you cannot charge physical Injuries and
also, you have Art 4. You have to prove that
you did not intend to commit such a wrong.
Art. 156. Delivery of Prisoner from Jail.
- Removing
- Helping to escape
Qualified if committed by intimidation
violence or bribery
Art. 157. “Unlawful entry” is the result of a
wrong translation. The Spanish version was
“escalamiente” meaning “scaling the walls”
Detentions prisoners, minors, deportees.
1. Detention prisoners “cannot evade
sentence” because they have no sentence yet.
BUT he may be disqualified from applying for
the ISL
Would there be evasion of service if the
penalty imposed was destierro. Yes, you can
still evade this if you violate the distance
restriction.
Art. 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the
occasion of disorders, conflagration
R.A. 10592. Good time allowance act gives a
deduction of 1/5th. But what if they did not
leave? Before, there was no incentive
provided. Now congress has corrected it.
Art. 156. “Other means”- example: DECIET.
X would like to help a friend, he falsified the
signature of a judge on the release order.
This would be a complex crime of delivery of
prisoners from jail thru falsification.
In this case, what would be the penalty?
That of Falsification because it is the higher
penalty and it shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
*Art. 172 penalty is higher and therefore
cannot be absorbed by 156 BUT 172 can
absorb 156.
A is a detention prisoner, B is a friend of A
who asked C to deliver a steel pipe with intent
to help A escape. A escaped, what are the
respective liabilities?
A who is a detention prisoner is NOT liable
for anything. He is not entitled to ISL and not
entitled to Parole (As provided for by special
laws)
B is liable for delivering prisoners from jail.
C, since he had no knowledge of the purpose
of the tool as there were no facts that he
knew will not be liable. If he knew then
CONSPIRACY and therefore the act of one
will be the act of all.
*Sir does not agree that the conspiracy
applies to the prisoner who escaped because
he is the very object of the crime.
Par. 3 of Art. 19- if the prisoner detained for
the crime of murder, treason, parricide,
attempt on the life of the president, it
rendered the person delivering the person is
liable as an accessory of the crime of treason,
murder….
Evasion of service of sentence.
On the occasion of a Mutiny, B a prisoner
took advantage of an emergency then he
returned. Will he be entitled to a deduction?
Crime committed? Evasion of service.
Art 158 if he did NOT participate
Art. 157 if he participated.
Art. 158 take NOTE. “Chief Executive
announcing the passing away of the calamity.
Does this apply to Mutiny? YES. It is agreed
the reckoning point is counted from the
Proclamation of the president also.
Take note of People v. Padilla. The accused
was forced by the detainees to leave, but he
returned, is he entitled to the deduction? Is
he liable for evasion of service? The answer is
no. In this case, the accused was not held
liable for evasion of service of sentence under
Art. 157, because he acted under the
influence of uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury, the escapists having
threatened to shoot at whoever remained in
the jail.
Art. 159 Violation of conditional pardon. May
the violator be made to serve the balance of
his prison term? What would be the authority
of the president if he violated the conditional
pardon?
The Revised Administrative Code
What if the accused was ruled by the court
that he did NOT commit the crime? This is of
no moment because the president granted
the pardon and it partakes of the nature of a
contract.
What about the presumption of innocence?
Also of no moment because the president’s
will shall prosper.
*If the penalty is higher than 6 years the
violator may serve the unserved period.
*if the penalty was less than 6 years= prison
correctional in its minimum (?) period.
Note: Sales v. Director of Prisons (w/o
prejudice to his being recommitted for the
unexpired term)
Art. 160. “Quasi-recidivism” (this was asked
several times in the bar)
1. Offender already convicted of the offense
2. Offender committed another offense either
a) before service or b) while serving the first
3. Punished with the MAXIMUM period of the
new felony
The first offense can be the RPC or any
SPECIAL LAW
BUT the second offense must be a felony
under the RPC.
*Quasi-recidivism is a special aggravating
circumstance- It cannot be offset by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance
*What if we are dealing with a privileged
mitigating circumstance?
Privileged mitigating circumstances CANNOT
be offset! Even by special aggravating
circumstances.

Title 4.
NOTE: ART 171 and 172- They deal with the
same punishable acts and the only difference
is the capacity of the individual.
TAKE NOTE: of “Official functions”
ART 183/184- Elements of Perjury:
a. The accused made statement under oath
or executed an affidavit upon a material
matter;
b. the statement or affidavit was made before
competent officer authorized to receive and
administer oath.
c. In that statement of affidavit, the accused
made a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood; and
d. The sworn statement or affidavit containing
the falsity is required by law or made for a
legal purpose.
What is the rule if the author of the
falsification cannot be identified? The person
who used it is the falsifier.
Falsification can be the means of committing
another offense or felony. (Ex. Art. 129 if the
accused committed this also)
When would falsification and the other crime
be taken against the accused?
1. Estafa thru falsification of public document.
(The general rules is to apply Art. 48-
however, you do not apply it if the crime is
absorbed or if the law provides that “in
addition to” clause)
3 types of false testimony:
1. False testimony in criminal cases. –
against/in favor of the accused
2. False testimony in civil cases
2. False testimony in other cases (perjury)
*Note the penalty of false testimony in a case
is dependent upon the sentence of the
accused.
TAKE NOTE: even if the accused acquitted the
witness shall still be punished.
*In Art. 180, the accused must have been
charged under the RPC and NOT under the
special law.
* False testimony does not need to be the
direct cause of the conviction.
In every case, there will be the version of the
defense. Prosecution will procure witnesses
against the defense. Also the defense will
have to bring witnesses. If the court rules in
favor of the prosecution, is this sufficient to
convict the witnesses of the defense? How
come there are very few cases wherein one
party files a case of false testimony against
the witnesses of another?
Because, there would be no end to cases and
because it would discourage the witnesses to
appear before the courts. Because of public
policy, there is a reluctance to charge
witnesses. BUT if the testimony is with malice
per se, sir does NOT see why you can’t charge
the witness.
X forges the signature of the president: What
is the crime committed?
It depends if he signs it in his official capacity
or in his private capacity. Look at the nature
of the document falsified. If it was an official
document, Art. 161. Otherwise, it is
falsification under Art. 171 of public officer or
172 if private individual.
X after forging the signature of the president
used it, is he liable under 162? No he is not
liable. Under 162, the document must be
forged by another person. He is still liable
however, under Art. 161.
Differentiate public, official, private and
commercial documents
- Public documents- a document
created, executed or issued by a
public official in response to the
exigencies of the public service, or in
the execution of which a public official
intervened
- Official document- A document
which is issued by a public official in
the exercise of the functions of his
office. An official document is also a
public document. It falls within the
larger class called public documents.
- Private document- A deed or
instrument executed by a private
person without the intervention of a
notary public or other person legally
authorized, by which document some
disposition or agreement is proved,
evidenced or set forth.
- Commercial document- Any
document defined and regulated by
the code of Commerce.
NOTE: BUT under the ROC- only Public and
Private Documents.
Art. 170 the offender is any person and the
subject is 170 a minute resolution, or
ordinance enacted by the legislative or
pending approval of congress enacted by the
provincial board or municipal council.
What are these local legislative bodies? The
City Council, Municipal Board.
*The offender in 170, alters such. The term
alter means? Alteration should have changed
the meaning of the document, what if the
alteration, was altered to reflect the TRUE
meaning of the document? Is he still liable?
Yes because he still had no authority… but if
he did have authority, then not liable.
*If Art. 171, the public official did not act in
official capacity, liable under Art. 172.
How many punishable acts under Art. 171? 8.
Same as in Art. 172.
Would there be a difference, except for the
status of the offender?
IN Art. 172. –there is a provision on USE. But
there is none in A 171. What then would that
imply?
What is the difference under 171 (4) and 183?
1. in F, there is absolutely false narration of
facts in a document. IN P, the offender falsely
testifies under oath in a proceeding other
than judicial.
2. in F, the false narration of facts can be
made in any instrument. IN P, the document
involved is limited to an affidavit w/ … must
refer to a material fact
3. In F, the untruthful statement is made with
the intention of injuring a third person, in P
the same is not an element of the crime.
4. In F, there is a legal obligation to declare
the truth of the facts in the offender. IN P, the
sworn statement containing the falsity must
be required by law.
If he said that he/she was qualified candidate
in his/her COC. Is he/she liable?
No. It is a conclusion of law. It is a mere
opinion and not a narration of facts. An
expression of an honest opinion done in
good faith is a valid defense to avoid liability
of falsification.
What if it was made with Malice?
NO LIABILITY. It has to be in GOOD FAITH.
NOTE: Falsification can be committed by
imprudence.
When not liable under 174 (4)
1. no law requiring the making of such
statement or the disclosure of certain facts
2. There is colorable truth in the statements
made in the narration of facts.
3. When the perversion of truth in narration
of facts was not made with the wrongful
intent of injuring a 3rd person.
*there is no crime of Estafa thru falsification
of a private document.
*Falsification may be a necessary means to
commit other crimes. But they must be
public, official or commercial documents.
If the private document is used to conceal the
misappropriation of private property=
crime= estafa with abuse of confidence NOT
Falsification. Because estafa was already
committed already before falsification.
The damage cause by Estafa
When is the user of a falsified document
presumed to be the author?
1. Possession. But before this may be applied.
2 requisites:
a) Closely connected in time
b) Has capacity to falsify.
2 ways of committing perjury
-false affidavit
- false testimony
Elements:
- Under oath
- Before competent officer
- Upon a material matter
- Statement it required by
(Villanueva v. Sec. of Justice)- Perjury
being committed by Dolo there must
be malice INTENTIONALLY
malice with the intent that it be taken
as true in fact.
Perjury cannot be willful if there is bona fide
belief that the statement is true
- Also if HONEST mistake= not perjury
- Also, it cannot be based merely on
contradicting statements
-
*SUBORNATION no longer punished- instead
will be a PRINCIPAL by inducement in perjury.
NOTE: 9165 Is a regular topic in the bar.
5 topics as far as RA9165 is concerned:
1. conspiracy
2. who are liable
3. attempt
4. immunity
5. custody- Sec 21. 9165- Chain of custody
rule -> this has been asked twice in the bar
*Latest amendment to Sec 21 by R.A. 10640-
> non-compliance with these requirement s
under justifiable grounds so long as the
integrity is preserved, it shall not render
invalid these pieces of evidence.
law
R.A. 9165- Dangerous Drugs and or
precursors
legal
*Take note that the doctrines in the old title 5
are still valid in 9165.
Examples: rule on possession (constructive
possession is included)
Possession is part of illegal use because the
latter necessarily requires the former and the
law is compassionate with users; he is
presumed to be a used than a possessor; one
information only will be made. But if the
quantity is such as to show that it is not only
for use prosecution will be for illegal
possession.
NOTE: possession of instruments for
administering drugs is punished separately.
But if possession of pipe when he is smoking
the same, possession of pipe is absorbed. If
he is found possessing the pipe and opium
and he is NOT smoking. Two crimes are
committed: Illegal possession of opium and
illegal possession of opium pipe.
6425- regulated and prohibited drugs
9165-dangerous drugs in general; controlled
precursors and essential chemicals.
What presumptions arise from the mere
possession of equipment, instrument,
apparatus and other paraphernalia?
Prima Facie evidence that:
a. The possessor has smoked, consumed,
administered to himself, injected ingested or
used a dangerous drug. And
b. He has violated Sec. 15 of RA 9165.
-diplomats, punishable- MAXIMUM
PENALTY. And confiscation of diplomatic
passport.
*When the seller is apprehended, the
quantity he is possessing must be equal to
that sold by him. If so, it will be illegal sale
only, possession absorbed by the sale. But if
the quantity possessed by him is greater than
the quantity negotiated, he is still liable for
illegal possession equal to the excess amount.
* In order to sustain conviction for selling
prohibited drugs, the element of sale must be
unequivocally established. Also what the law
proscribes is not only the act of selling but
also the act of delivering. The commission of
the offense of illegal sale required merely the
consummation of the selling transaction.
What is important is that the poseur-buyer
received the drug from the accused.
SEC 15 and 11. Delineate.
11 refers to POSSESSION – penalties depend
on quantity
While 15 refers to USE.
*TAKE NOTE: Last paragraph of Sec. 15:
“Provided, that this section shall not be
applicable where the person tested is also
found to have in his/her possession such
quantity of any dangerous drug provided for
under Sec. 11 of this Act, in which case the
provisions stated therein shall apply.
*Sec. 15= “a person apprehended
arrested= Violations of the DDA NOT OTHER
FELONIES”
NOTE: new punishable crimes under the
dangerous drugs act:
1. Illegal chemical diversion of controlled
precursors and essential chemicals
2. Failure to maintain and keep the original
records of the transactions on dangerous
drugs and/or CPEC.
3. Attempt or conspiracy which carries the
same penalty as the consummated offense of
a) Importation of any dangerous drugs
and controlled precursors
essential chemicals.
b) Sale, trading, administration,
dispensation, delivery, distribution
and transportation of any dangerous
drug and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical
c) Maintenance of a den, dive or resort
where any dangerous drug is used in
any form;
d) Manufacture of any dangerous drug
and/or controlled precursor and
essential chemical;
e) Cultivation or culture of plants which
are sources of dangerous drugs,
controlled precursors and essential
chemicals
or 4. Misappropriation, misapplication or failure
by a public officer or employee to account for
the confiscated, seized and/ or surrendered
dangerous drugs… (sec 37)
5. “planting” as evidence any dangerous drug
and/or CPEC regardless of the quantity and
purity.
PD1829- Comprehensive Law of Police
Firearm
6. Violation of any regulation issued by the
Dangerous Drugs Board. (sec 32)
7. Issuance of false or fraudulent drug test
results. (art 37)
8. Violation of confidentiality of records
and 9. Refusal of members of law enforcement
agencies or any government official or
employee to testify as prosecution witness in
dangerous drugs cases.
10. Delay and bungling in the prosecution of
drug cases by any government official or
employees tasked with their prosecution
through patent laxity , inexcusable
negligence, and unreasonable delay or
deliberately cases the unsuccessful
prosecution and//or dismissal of the drug What is the rule regarding corpus delicti?
cases. The corpus delicti in cases involving
dangerous drugs is the presentation of the
*Conspiracy is punishable, also attempt dangerous drug itself.
punishable as the CONSUMMATED felony.
Note: Immunity for those who give testimony R.A. 9165. Sec 21- Amended by RA 10643.
Chain of custody rule.
Despite malum prohibitum is delivery it is Important to note:
incumbent of prosecution to prove all the 1. Punishable acts
elements-> knowingly that it is dangerous 2. Who are liable
drugs. Offender must be aware of such 3. Attempt and conspiracy
possession. Regardless of intent. 4. Immunity
KNOWLEDGE IS IMPT.
SEC. 4- Importation
Attempt to commit 4, 5, 6, 16, -> same The term “Controlled precursors was added”
penalty for the same consummated offenses Correlate importation with Sec. 9- illegal
chemical diversion- this is a new offense.
Protector and coddlers are any persons who
knowingly and willfully consents to the How are Sec. 4 and Sec. 9 distinguished?
unlawful acts provided for in the Act and uses Under Sec. 4- the same is illegal
his influence, power or position in shielding, Under Sec. 9- legitimate importation
harboring, screening or facilitating the escape Added elements: controlled precursors-
of any person he knows, or has reasonable legitimately imported and sold to any person
grounds to believe on or suspects, has in the manufacture of dangerous drugs.
violated the provisions of the act in order to
prevent the arrest, prosecution and Sec. 5. “Sale… delivery of dangerous drugs”
conviction of the violator.  Can be committed regardless of
quantity of the drugs.
Correlate to accessories. But in this case, he is
a principal. The offender may be convicted instead,
under SEC11 if the quantity is NOT in large
quantity- may be charged as merely a USER
and not a PUSHER.
Despite the malum prohibitum of sale, it must
be proven that all elements are present.
Knowledge is essential.
ELEMENTS: (1) identity of the buyer and the
seller, the object and the consideration; and
(2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor.
11- Possession of dangerous drugs, Correlate
11 with sec. 15 use of dangerous drugs,
possession is a punishable act.
If a person is asserted and subject to drug test
and the result is POSITIVE and at the time of
his arrest, he was forced with 5 sachets of
drugs, Should he be liable for both 11 and 15?
Only be charged under article 11 because of
the last sentence of Section 15. “ Provided,
That this section shall not be applicable where
the person tested is also found to have in
his/her possession such quantity of any
dangerous drug provided under Sec. 11 of this
Act, in which case the provisions stated
therein shall apply.”
A was arrested for extortion and the officer
ordered a drug test. A refuse- result positive.
May the court now file a charge for extortion?
Should the fiscal file a case for also SEC 15?
NO! March 2014 case SC explained this is the
case of the de la cruz. SC said- Sec 15 cannot
be charged for any crime for which he
committed. It has to be RELATED. If he
OBJECTS, he cannot be prosecuted because
The basis for the drug test must be in relation
to a violation of 9165.
*An attempt to commit a felony. If only in
attempted stage warrants a reduction in
degree. BUT if there is a voluntary desistance.
Then he shall be absolved of any criminal
liability.
CONSPIRACY- mode of in committing
criminal liability and crime in 9165.
Under Sec. 6- Note that an attempt/
conspiracy to commit Sec. 4 (to import or
maintenance of den under 6)
Manufacture under Sec 16- shall have the
same penalty as the same consummated
offense.
Refusal of government witnesses to testify,
covered by SEC 91. Also, under Sec 92 is also
a punishable act in RPC this is dereliction of
duty.

If this is used to stop the government from
prosecuting the offender then the crime will
be OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE. The crime
may involve ANY of these crimes.
Under which, should the offender be
punished?
- Sec 91. Last sentence “without
prejudice” – violation of any existing
law.
- Sec. 92. “Without prejudice”-
Prosecution of RPC
Plea Bargaining – Sec 23- allowed under
ROC, but convicted DRUG TRAFFICERS and
PUSHERS cannot avail of probation.
Immunity from prosecution under SEC 33.—
exempt from prosecution. Conditions:
1) The information and testimony are
necessary for the conviction of the persons
described above;
2) Such information and testimony are not yet
in the possession of the State;
3) Such information and testimony can be
corroborated on its material points;
4) The informant or witness has not been
previously convicted of a crime involving
moral turpitude, except when there is no
other direct evidence available for the State
other than the information and testimony of
said informant or witness; and
(5) the informant or witness shall strictly and
faithfully comply without delay, any condition
or undertaking, reduced into writing, lawfully
imposed by the State as further consideration
for the grant of immunity from prosecution
and punishment.
Provided, further, That this immunity may be
enjoyed by such informant or witness who
does not appear to be most guilty for the
offense with reference to which his/her
information or testimony were given:
Provided, finally, that there is no direct
evidence available for the State except for the
information and testimony of the said
informant or witness.
ART. 21 Chain of custody rules. – Strict
procedure to be followed.
BUT! RA10640- under amendment, the court
said that non compliance, under justifiable
grounds as long as the integrity is preserved,
shall not render invalid custody and seizure
of said drugs.
R.A. 9208 – Anti-trafficking of persons act.
RA 10364- Anti-Trafficking of persons act-
Art. 195 and Art. 199- repealed this 1602- and
by 9287 law on illegal numbers game.
Illegal gambling activity. Here, the State
protector and coddler are also liable in the
same manner as 9165 protector/ gambler.
If the Protector/ coddler is also a public
official the penalty is higher.
Prostitution- Woman Habitually engaged in
sexual intercourse.
What if the person involved is a transgender?
Will not be liable because birth determines
whether or not a woman.
Look at 266- A -> Rape thru sexual
intercourse after rape occurred it was
discovered that she was transgender. What is
the criminal liability?
*Prosecutor filed under Par. 1, believing the
victim was a woman. The prosecutor must
amend the charge. To comply and charge
under Par. 2
NOTE: Under Persons, Gender is determined
at the time of birth.
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
Chapter 2- Malfeasance and Misfeasance.
Does it involve NON-FEASANCE? Although
the title is limited to Mal and Mis, take note
that NON-FEASANCE is included. Look at Art.
208.
Chapter 4. MALVERSATION Be very familiar
with this.
Art. 208 is an example of NON-feasance- Acts
with malice. Prosecution of offenses.
NOTE: that the same act may be covered by
a special penal law: Obstruction of Justice.
9165 is there a similar punishable act?
Gambling and failure to testify as
prosecution.
ART 208, see PD 1829. Obstruction of Justice.
If all elements are present, it will not prevent
the government in giving separate offenses
DVI: If the problem involves the violation of
a special law, include it!
Art. 208 Republic v. Mendoza- crime W/N
committed is a prejudicial question before
the public officer may be prosecuted.
Officers of the BIR who having knowledge or
information of violation of the internal
revenue code shall fail to report shall be
punished under such law and not under the
RPC.
For malfeasance, the most important are 210
and 211. 3 ways to commit:
1. Direct Bribery- The public officer will do an
act which may or may not constitute a crime,
or refrain from doing what he should do in
consideration of what he will receive. The
kinds of direct bribery in Art. 210 are:
a) 1st paragraph- the act constitutes a
crime wherein mere agreement
consummates direct bribery
b) 2nd paragraph- the act agreed upon
does not constitute a crime; here the
officer must accept the gift, mere
agreement will not suffice (“gift was
accepted by the officer”) under this
paragraph:
a. If the act is executed- penalty
is the same as in the 1st
paragraph
b. If the act is not accomplished-
penalty is lower.
c) 3rd paragraph- nonfeasance; the
officer refrains from doing what he is
obliged to perform
2. Indirect bribery- the public officer does not
have to do anything in consideration of what
he receives. The gift is given to him by reason
of his office without more.
3. Qualified bribery- a law enforcement
officer refrains from arresting or prosecuting
an offender who commits an offense
penalized with reclusion perpetua and/or
death.
NOTE: “an act constituting a crime.” Also
must be related to official duties. If NOT
related, it must be another crime.
* All must have the element of “in
consideration”
“Not constituting a crime”, give an example.
(from Reyes):
- The treasurer who in consideration of
money or present, awards certain stalls in the
public market to a Chinaman, in spite of the
fact that there are Filipinos who have better
rights. This act of the treasurer is not a crime
but it is unjust.
- in the case of U.S. v. Gacutan, the bribery
committed by the justice of the peace falls
under this form of bribery, because when he
decided the case in favor of the party who
gave him a female carabao worth P80,
without regard to the evidence, he executed
an act which is not criminal, for there was no
evidence that the decision was unjust and
that he knew it to be unjust. The act he
executed was unjust, for it certainly was an act
of injustice to convict a person charged with
a crime without regard to what the evidence
in the case may be.
Example: If a lawyer approaches the clerk of in consideration of
court and asks her to place his case file on top the gift.
of the pile. She does so and is called ahead. Mere agreement The public officer
consummates the must accept the gift

NOTE: the elements of bribery: crime of direct to consummate the

bribery if the act crime of indirect
- Public officer within the scope of 203
agreed upon bribery.
- Officer accepts the offer (by himself or
amounts to a crime
thru another. Not necessary that he
They both receive a gift
receive it personally).
- Be received with a view of committing
Qualified bribery- if he refrains from
a crime, or to do an act that does not
punishing an offender who committed (Art.
constitute a crime or to refrain from
211-A) take note of the penalty.
doing a duty.
- Must be related to his official duties.
Art. 204-205, 206, 207- Misfeasance in office
that judges can commit.
What is the liability if he refuses to accept the
bribe?
In 204. Sta. Maria v. Ubay (87 SCRA 179) The
The offeror will be liable for corruption of
judge must be aware that the judgement is
public officer. The public official will not be
unjust, meaning he made it deliberately and
punished.
maliciously. If there was no malice, it could be
* Another principle of bribery- cannot be
more of negligence.
complexed with other crimes because of the
Judgment (final) v Interlocutory Order
“in addition to” phrase.
(pending MR)

Indirect bribery
In which case, it may fall under 205.
Principal distinction with direct bribery
INEXCUSABLE negligence or ignorance
Direct Indirect
present. Will not apply if simple negligence.
The public officer There is no such
What will be the degree of ignorance?
must do or omit the requirement
doing of something
In 206, X an employee charged and collected here was merely an act of hiding/ covering up
from A an amount, and misappropriated the the crime.
entire of what offense?
Malversation requires:
What crime did X commit when he collected 1. accountable public officers
an amount greater than due from the 2. he has custody or control of funds or
taxpayer and misappropriated it? property by reason of the duties of his office;
- Illegal exaction for collecting an 3. The funds or property involved are public
amount more than due funds or property for which he is accountable;
- as to the amount representing, the and
true amount: Malversation is 4. He has appropriated, taken or
committed misappropriated, or has consented to, or
- as to the excess, the crime is estafa. through abandonment or negligence,
permitted the taking another person of such
X charged and collected an amount more funds or property.
than what is allowed by law. Only 10K, but the
employee demanded 20K, the taxpayer paid May a private individual commit malversation
20K. The employee on the tax receipt to the (People v. Sendaydiego) YES. Where it was
taxpayer placed 20K, but in the duplicate he held that a private person conspiring with an
indicated the amount of 10K. What accountable public officer in committing
offense/offenses did X commit? malversation is also guilty of malversation
Illegal exaction for collecting an amount more
than due. May private funds be the subject of
As to the amount representing the true malversation?
amount, malversation. The provisions of Art. 217 apply to
2 acts of falsification administrator or depository of funds or
And Estafa for the excess of 10k which is property attached, seized, or deposited by
private funds. public authority, “even if such property
belongs to a private individual”
*Not complexed when the charged higher, it Such phrase denotes the express intention of
was already punishable act. The falsification the Penal Code to make accountable public
officers guilty of malversation not only of
national, provisional or municipal funds,
revenues or property, but also of other funds
or property, even if they belong to private
individuals, as long as such funds or property
are placed in their custody.
The rule: only public funds may be the subject
of Malversation BUT private property as
impressed with public character as declared
by law (COCOLEVY funds is a fund impressed
with public character.)
How about the funds of the boy scouts of the
Philippines (Please check the status of W/N
GOCC)
When a public officer had no authority to
receive the funds, he shall be liable for estafa!
The defendant, marked in evidence 10K peso
bills, the court marked them accordingly,
exhibits 1-10, thereafter, the clerk of court,
pulled out from the records these bills and
misappropriated them. What crime was
committed?
(People v. Abraham) Infidelity in the custody
of public documents since at the time, the
money is considered documentary exhibits.
Not money. If the case was terminated
already, it would now be funds in custodia
legis and its misappropriation would
constitute malversation.
*Note: There is prima facie evidence of
malversation if the PO has duly forthcoming
any public funds or property with which he is
chargeable, upon demand by any duly
authorized officer. BUT this may be rebutted
if it is shown that he did not misappropriate.
Under 218. Actual misappropriation is NOT
required.
U.S. v. Saberon. The reason for this is that the
law does not contemplate the possibility of
malversation as the need of enforcing by
penal provision the performance of the duty
incumbent upon every public employee who
handles government funds to render an
account of all he receives or has in charge by
reason of his employment.
Art. 219-> Departure must be against the law/
unauthorized.
Art. 220-> Technical malversation applying
public funds for another purpose… If diverted
for personal use the crime is malversation
under 217.
*Elements under ART. 221:
a. That the public officer has Government
funds in his possession
b. That he is under obligation to make
payment from such funds.
c. That he fails to make the payment
maliciously.
Infidelity of public officers. What are their
classifications?
1. Infidelity in the custody of prisoners
2. Infidelity in the custody of documents
3. revelation of secrets
1. Infidelity of custody of prisoners (may be
committed by Public or private persons) -> if
a private person, liable the same way as
public officers.
What is the liability of a public officer who
shall reveal secrets to the public, such as
when a person enters military establishments
and effects information and gives it to an
enemy country?
If the secret revealed foes not affect public
interest, the revelation would constitute no
crime at all. Espionage is not contemplated in
this article. This article does not include the
revelation of secrets of the State to a
belligerent nation because such acts are
already defined and punished as espionage
in Art. 117 or CA 616.
This article punishes minor official betrayals,
infidelities of little consequence, affecting
usually the administration of justice, executive
or official duties, or the general interest of the
public order.
Art. 231 only by judicial/executive are
punished. Legislative officers are exempt
from liability (9745)
Compare maltreatment of prisoners and anti-
torture act.
Maltreatment may be committed:
1. by an officer overdoing himself in the
correction or handling of a prisoner or
detention prisoner under his charge.
2. By imposing punishments not authorized
by the regulations; or
3. By inflicting punishments in a cruel and
humiliating manner.
If the purpose of the maltreatment is to extort
a confession, or to obtain some information
from the prisoner, the penalty is higher.
NOTE: the penalty for maltreatment shall be
“in addition to” the physical injuries or the
damage caused.
*If the victim was NOT detained but
maltreated to extort a confession= penalty is
extortion.
If he was under the custody, it will be
maltreatment.
If the custodian allowed a third party to
maltreat a prisoner? The custodian will be
liable for prevarication under 208 OR
tolerating the commission of the offenses of
“Maliciously tolerating the commission of a
crime”
If a PO shall submit his resignation to the
appointing authority and the following day
he refused to report for work and later on his
application was refused. What is his liability?
Art. 238 Abandonment.
The purpose of acceptance is to deter any
stoppage of work.
But what is the reason was because of health?
Would it still require acceptance? Yes!
QUALIFIED ABANDONMENT: Par. 2 Art. 238
X was arrested brought to the police station,
his mother found out and went to the police
station and pleaded to the police officer. The
PO says, let’s talk about it in a motel tonight.
Would she fall under 245?
NO. The mother is NOT included here.
Therefore the public officer cannot be held
liable here.
245 is consummated by mere solicitation.
TITLE 8!!!
A killed his wife with evident premeditation
and cruelty. What crime is committed?
Parricide
247 was repeated several times in the bar.
In 246, relationship is the essential element of
the crime. If relationship is ABSENT it is NOT
parricide.
1st rule: If father, mother of child, it does NOT
matter if legitimate or illegitimate.
2nd Rule: If ascendant/ descendant, they must
be legitimate.
3rd Rule: Consanguinity and Direct Line.
P committed parricide thru reckless
imprudence, The husband, who, while
struggling for the possession of the gun with
his children, without intent to kill anyone,
pulled the trigger of the gun which exploded
and hit his wife who was approaching them,
is guilty of parricide through reckless
imprudence.
What if an unmarried, 15 year old mother
killed her new born child. The crime
committed is infanticide (255)
What about the age of the girl? 15 years old.
This case shall be covered by the Justice and
Juvenile act 10630
To be absolutely exempted the crime should
have been committed BEFORE the 15th
birthday. If 15 and 1 day, you cannot invoke
the exception anymore.
The child victim must not be more than 3
days old in order for the crime to be
INFANTICIDE.
*247 is NOT a felony/crime it is a special
mitigating circumstance.
*247 is an absolutory cause only for
circumstances obtaining in 247.
NOTE: the spouse should be properly
charged under parricide, murder or PI. IT IS
THE COURT which will determine W/N the
case falls under 247.
X found spouse and paramour in an empty
house, all circumstances indicate that they
just had sexual intercourse. He killed the
paramour and his wife. Is he liable? Yes!
Parricide but what about the case of
Gonzales. IN this case the majority of the
Justices of the SC believ4ed that there must
be ACTUAL sexual intercourse.
What about the case of Abarca?
In this case, though quite a length of time,
about an hour, had passed between the time
the accused-appellant discovered his wife
having sexual intercourse with the victim and
the time the latter was actually shot, the
shooting must be understood to be the
continuation of the pursuit of the victim by
the accused appellant. 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.
But the killing should have been actually
motivated by the same blind impulse, and
must not have been influenced by external
factors. The killing must be the direct by-
product of the accused’s rage.
JVI: Sir thinks it is a bit of a stretch of the
interpretation but if this question appears in
the bar, just use the case of Acarca. Rule the
same way the SC ruled.
What if the wife knew about the adulterous
relationship?
She cannot avail of 247.
Problem of vacant room- did not have ALL
INDICATIONS THAT SEXUAL ACTIVITY
happened
When is the killer not liable for murder even
if premeditated to the killing?
1. Parricide
2. Infanticide
3. Not alleged in the information
4. When means employed is by means
(???)
5. When the person killed is different
from intended victim.
Circumstance of night time and uninhabited
place is not a qualifying aggravating
circumstances.
Wife knew that the husband is having an illicit
relationship to the servant.. Serious physical
injuries- must the wife be sentenced to
penalty of destierro or serious physical
injuries or 247?
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES not destierro of
247 because she knew but did not do
anything about the relationship of thr
husband and the serves. Thus, it appears that
she consented to such relationship.
What is the liability of A and B, who without
conspiracy dealt blows on the victim resulting
to his death? The victim had 2 wounds, one
slight, one mortal, there is no evidence as to
who dealt which blow. What is the criminal
liability?
Absent conspiracy, court must establish
independently. Here the court must
determine the liability independently because
the prosecution failed to establish the
accused on proof beyond reasonable doubt.
= must be acquitted.
X married A in China, X came to the Phil. And
married B. X killed B! What is the crime?
HOMICIDE because the RPC requires a
legitimate marriage in order to be parricide.
A and B fought each other, with intent to kill,
A struck B, cutting off his private part. What is
his liability? FRUSTRATED HOMICIDE because
there I s intent to kill (cutting off the private
part was only incidental.)
In crimes against persons, corpus delicti will
not prefer to the body.
Prosecution of drugs- corpus delicti is
physically in the body of the person who
committed the crime
Infanticide- treachery is inherent. Not
qualified.
COMPLEX CRIME OF HOMICIDE WITH
UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
A shot his fun to B, who suffered only slight
physical injuries. What is his liability?
1. Slight physical injuries and another crime
for illegal discharge. It is NOT complexed
because slight physical injury is a light felony.
A, committed suicide in a manner suggested
by B. Is B liable for giving assistance to
suicide?
According to Reyes: Giving suggestions to
manner of suicide= assistance.
A suffered abortion thru natural cause, the
expelled fetus already had a human form (5
months old) while the fetus was still alive, it
was buried by the servant girl in the backyard.
What is the crime committed?
Nothing. Abortion was thru natural cause;
there is no infanticide because there is no
showing that the fetus can survive on its own.
A, a stranger poisoned a pregnant woman to
kill her. As a consequence, she and the fetus
inside her died. What is the crime?
Murder. There is no intentional abortion
because the abortion was only incidental to
the death of the mother; there is neither
unintentional abortion because there is no
violence employed.
Wife suffered an abortion due to an injurious
drug administered by her husband by
mistake?
No liability. No intentional abortion: no
abortive intent. No unintentional abortion: no
physical violence. Not 264 coz this requires
“knowingly” administering the injurious
substance, in this case, the substance was
given by mistake.
The wife was informed by the doctor that the
poison administered rendered the wife
impotent, what is the recourse of the wife?
(Declaration of nullity under 36-
Psychological incapacity)
Rape was used to be clarified as CRIMES
AGAINST CHASTITY
How is rape committed?
Thru sexual intercourse by a man against a
woman. OR thru sexual assault where the
victim is any person and any person can
commit the crime.
What is the effect of reclassification of rape
into a crime against persons?
It is now a public offense
1. The procedural requirement of consent of
the offended to file the case is no longer
needed. This is now a public crime unlike
when it was a crime against charity. Thus, the
case can be filed by the State motu proprio.
2. The impossible crime of rape can now be
committed.
3. Rape can now be committed against males
since it is no longer a crime against chastity
where the victims are females only
4. The aggravating circumstances relevant to
crimes against persons shall apply.
What is rape under Art. 266-A.
1. Carnal knowledge of a woman under …
2. By any person, who under any of, (Par. 1.
Carnal knowledge by a man against a
woman.
NOTE: Par. (c) is NEW
What is a new mode of committing rape?
(c) Fraudulent machination
Examples:
- Promises to marry- scheme that he
will marry but did not. No actual
intimidation, no violence, BUT he is
liable under fraudulent machinations.
- Guy picks up a prostitute and offers
10K. The prostitute accepts and they
have sex! But AFTER, the guy says, I
FORGOT money!- this may be
convicted under (c)
How should the second paragraph be
described?
DVI: There might have been an oversight in
placing par. 2.
NOTE: Rape is always committed through (…
shet nawala notes ko ditto pero mga 3
paragraphs lang yun.)
1. Subsequent marriage shall extinguish
criminal liability
2. In multiple rape, insofar as the other
accused in the other act of rape,
-for the one who marries the
offended party, his participation is
extinguished and the liability of the
other, based on their participation by
the one who marries the victim is also
extinguished. But not the other
liability of rape committed by them or
the other co-accused.
Art. 267. Kidnapping with Serious Illegal
detention.
Would it mean then that BOTH kidnapping
and serious illegal detention must be present
in this situation?
As a general rule, they must be jointly tried.
While kidnapping involves taking one person
to another place, illegal detention can occur
even before or without kidnapping. No need
to move from one place to another so long
as the detention was against the will of the
person detained.
4 circumstances in 267:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have
lasted more than 3 days
2. If it shall have been committed simulating
public authority.
3. If any serious physical injuries shall have
been inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained, or if threats to kill him shall have
been made.
4 If the person kidnapped or detained shall
be a minor, except when the accused is any
of the parents, female or a public officer.
*If in consequence of the kidnapping, death,
rape, torture occurred, the penalty will be
death.
FELONY- Act or Omission punishable by law.
Abandonment.
PD 603 – Paragraph 4
150- specific subject
282- general act
RA 7610- sec 10 e- amended the penalties in
the RPC in art 248, 249, 260.
Whenever a victim is a minor, the penalty
shall be one degree higher.
If the victim was suffering from an ailment
and because of such kidnapping or illegal
detention he died because he did not take his
medication, does he fall under the last
paragraph of 267?
YES it will. It is kidnapping with homicide.
Kidnapping with serious illegal detention is
committed by a private individual. IF
committed by a public officer then it will be
arbitrary detention, BUT if the Public Officer is
acting without authority or outside the scope
of his duties, he will be liable under Art. 267.
*The last paragraph of 267 created a special
complex crime.
What is the liability of the person who
furnished the place where the victim was
detained?
If the crime is serious illegal detention= mere
accessory
If slight= co-principal
BUT if he conspired with the kidnappers then
the act of one is the act of all.
Slight illegal detention.
X kidnapped A, a female but he released her
2 days later. What is the liability of X?
When the victim is a female, the detention is
punished under Article 267. Voluntary release
is NOT mitigating under this article!
 There used to be 2 paragraphs here before.
A and B forcibly took B, a woman to marry BUT is has been repealed!) While kidnapping
her! But she refused and was released the appears in the title it only really refers to the
next day! The crime is serious illegal failure to return a minor.
detention because the victim was a female.
If there was lewd designs the crime will be Republic v. Pastrami- It is not kidnapping
forcible abduction which is punished but the DELIBERATE failure
The difference between kidnapping and of the custodian to deliver.
forcible abduction is the presence or absence *“Deliberate” must be more than mere
of lewd designs. If the original intent is to negligence. It must be intentionally and
detain or deprive her of liberty, it is maliciously wrong.
kidnapping.
Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his
SEC 7 RA 9745 ANTI TORTURE ACT home. But look at 347.
SEC 13 In 276- the offender is in custody of the child
ART 208 In 347- the offender is any person
In 276- the offender avoids the obligation of
Illegal detention v. Arbitrary detention. rearing and caring.
Illegal detention Arbitrary Detention In 347- the offender caused the child to lose
Committed by a Committed by a its civil status.
private individual public officer or
who unlawfully employee who X induced A, a minor to abandon the home
kidnaps, detains, or detains a person of his parents. The minor refused. What is the
otherwise deprives without legal
liability, if any?
a person of liberty ground
The mere act of inducing a minor
Crime against Crime against the
consummates the crime in 271.
personal liberty and fundamental law of
security the State.
Art. 272. Slavery.
Acts punishable are: Purchasing, selling,
In 270, there is NO KIDNAPPING. So how do
detaining a human being for the purpose of
you explain the title 270?
enslaving him.
*You may now delete the term kidnapping- it
is an oversight on the part of the legislature.
If the purpose is to enslave this falls under
Paragraph 1.
If it is to assign to an immoral calling then it
falls under Par. 2.
If none present: either 267 or 268.
Art. 273 and 274 refers to forms of
involuntary servitude in payment of a debt.
In 274 as a household servant or a farm
laborer! If it is OTHER FORMS OF WORK the
crime will be COERCION.
Art. 273 Note that: Indebtedness is not a
ground of detention.
Art. 274, the debtor- creditor relationship
must exist- if this does not exist the crime is
coercion.
Art. 275- Abandonment of person in danger
Paragraph 2- Abandonment of one’s own
victim.
Take note of UNINHABITED
- If the place is uninhabited, you are
directed by law to render assistance.
What is your liability, if the person who you
abandoned, later on died?
You will be liable for homicide. Under Art. 275
“unless the omission shall constitute a more
serious offense” You may also use Article 4 as
your authority.
Article 276- Abandoning a minor of 7 years
old.
NOTE: Paragraph 3: “Not prevent the
imposition of a penalty provided for the act
committed” -> the more serious offense shall
be punished.
NOTE: there are additional penalties for other
crimes in the code.
RA 1074 amended the penalties: If the victim
was under 12 years old, the penalty is 1 degree
higher.
In regard to trespass to dwelling- compare
with Art. 128.
128 deals with public officers.
GRAVE THREATS
- If the act threatened is a crime, it will
always be grave threats
- If the act threatened is NOT a crime it
will be light threats
Threats v. Coercion
Threat Coercion
The threatened The threatened
harm or wrong is harm or wrong is
 future and immediate, X boxed him several times. What is the
conditional personal and direct liability of the offender?
It may be done It cannot be done Liability is only physical injuries because for
through an by means of an grave coercion/threat it must be BEFORE the
intermediary or in intermediary or in act sought to be prevented be done.
writing writing.
Generally, it is It is generally
ART. 286 GRAVE COERCION
committed by committed by
means of violence, although it
Grave coercion is committed in 2 ways:
intimidation which is may also be by
1) Preventive- the offender uses violence or
future and intimidation if it is
conditional serious enough, intimidation to prevent the victim from doing

direct, immediate what he wants to do, and

and personal, as for 2) Compulsive- the offender uses violence or

example intimidation to compel the offended to do
intimidation with what he does not want to do.
firearm.

ART. 287 LIGHT COERCION

A threatened a woman that he will kill her
husband if she would not have sexual
intercourse with him, the next day, the
woman agreed to the condition imposed by
A to save her husband, A had sexual
intercourse with him.
Not rape because the woman agreed to it,
there was no actual intimidation before the
sexual intercourse.
FIRST paragraph covers light coercions: it
must be applied to the debt of the debtor,
otherwise the crime will be robbery
Par. 2- UNJUST VEXATION
There is no attempted/frustrated UNJUST
VEXATION. Being a light felony. Also, it is not
a crime against persons or property, it is only
punished when consummated.

X warned A not to report for work because Art. 288 and 289- Impliedly repealed by the
there was a strike. A, despite this, went to labor code BUT the acts of violence are still
work. On his way home, A encountered X and covered by the RPC.
What are the other crimes in which the act
constitutes coercion?
- Art. 131. A public officer who shall
prevent by means of violence or
threats the ceremonies or
manifestations of any religion is guilty
of interruption of religious worship.
- Any person who, by force, prevents
the meeting of a religious body will be
liable under Art. 143
- Any person who shall use
force/intimidation to prevent any
member of congress from attending
the meetings thereof is liable under
Art. 145.
- taken and held by the offender in a manner
TITLE 10- FOCUS ON THIS! It is always a
regular question in the bar.
ROBBERY- there are 29 articles in title 10
ROBBERY can be classified into 2:
-use of violence or intimidation
- use of force upon things
*common elements:
1. Taking with intent to gain
2. Unlawful taking
3. Personal property taken
*ROBBERY v. THEFT- in robbery there is
violence and intimidation. In theft, there is
mere stealth.
* intent to gain is something in the person’s
mind.
People v. Reyes (26 March 2003) The court
reiterated the principle that in robber intent
to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking
of property belonging to another person.
The person divested of the personal property
need not be the owner therefor.
*defense of good faith of the offender,
destroyed the presumption of intent to gain.
Here, animus lucrandi will not exist. BUT if
there is bad faith, animus lucrandi is present.
SECOND ELEMENT: unlawful taking.
* Prevailing rule: sufficient that the object
sufficient to dispose of it as he intended even
if his possession only be temporary or
transitory.
As to the SUBJECT MATTER- any personal
property may be taken as long as it does not
belong to the offender. It does not matter if
stolen from owner or possessor or even a
thief.
LAST ELEMENT: mode of commission of
robbery:
1. Violence/ intimidation against persons
2. Force upon things.
RULE: as long as there is
Violence/intimidation against persons it is
ROBBERY. Such violence and intimidation
should be present upon
COMMENCEMENT of the offense.
It will be force upon things if the robbery is
committed under 299:
- Entering a house or building or
- Breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests,
or any other kind of locked or sealed
furniture or receptacle;
- By taking such furniture or objects
away to be broken or forced open
outside the place of the robbery.
If robbery with force upon things, entering a
building thru an opening not intended for
entrance, there is no ACTUAL force here.
ALSO, using fictitious name, or pretending to
be a person of authority, there is also no force
here.
WHERE IS THE FORCE?!?!
Well, the law has considered BOTH actual and
constructive force
What if BOTH violence/intimation and force
upon things are present? It will
categorized and punished under the FIRST
MODE.
What is the liability of the owner if he forcibly
the takes HIS OWN property from the possession
of the lawful possessor?
Since he cannot rob something which he
already owns the crime is ESTAFA
Robbery with homicide- Another favorite in
the bar.
If a robber fires a gun up to the ceiling and
kills a person on the 2nd floor, is he liable for
robbery with homicide?
The court ruled that the homicide resulted by
reason of the robbery, therefore, YES, he is
liable. If on the occasion of the robbery a
homicide is committed, there is no distinction
of the circumstances surrounding the death.
The crime will always be robbery with
homicide.
A and B riding in tandem, A as the driver and
B as the passenger, stole the shoulder bag of
a person walking. There was no violence. It
was a very swift act. Unfortunately, the driver
crashed into a taxi and died. What is the crime
committed?
be The court ruled that the crime committed is
only theft. And there is NO THEFT with
homicide!
What will be the crime then?
Since the passenger did not do anything to
cause the death of his friend there will be no
liability.
*The presence of violence is an important
difference between theft and robbery.
If in the robbery, the policeman killed a
robber. What is the crime?
Still robbery with homicide.
If a bystander is killed in a crossfire? STILL
ROBBERY WITH HOMICIDE!
BASTA PAG MAY NAMATAY ON THE
OCCASION OR IN THE COURSE OF THE
ROBBERY IT IS HOMICIDE!!!!
People v. Magaluban – If homicide on the
occasion or in the course of robbery, then it
is robbery with homicide.
If after the robbery has already been
consummated, the killing occurred (take
note: AFTER the robbery) is it still robbery
with homicide?
Depends! IF the killing took place after the
robbery and the intention of the robber was
to retain the possession or to do away with a
witness or to make good their escape, the
crime is robbery with homicide!
What is the rule if there are multiple
homicides/ rape on the occasion of robbery?
PEOPLE v. SULTAN- these additional “Other
rapes” or other homicides can neither
increase the penalty nor be prosecuted
separately. They are to be disregarded as if
such crimes were never committed and their
victims never existed.
Why? Parang unfair? BUT look at the list of
aggravating circumstances, RAPE is not
enumerated and therefore the court has no
authority to consider the other homicides/
rapes as aggravating.
The enumeration under article 14 is exclusive!
People v. Carriaga- Robbery with attempted
rape does NOT fall under Article 48 or 294.
They are distinct crimes.
In robbery with rape, the offender before
committing the rape must have the intention
to take the personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain and the robbery is
accompanied with rape
Robbery with Mutilation
*Slight physical injuries are absorbed in
robbery.
What are the different forms of robber with
force upon things?
There are 2:
1) in an inhabited house, public building,
edifice devoted to religious worship
2) in an uninhabited place or private building.
If in an uninhabited place= this is a special
aggravating circumstance
*Take note that using a false name of
impersonating a person of authority cannot
be punished in an UNIHABITED place
because there is no person there to deceive!
Also, the use of firearms is irrelevant because
there is no one there to threaten.
UNINHABITED PLACE should be uninhabited
BUILDING.
If a person possess false keys what is his
liability?
Art. 305 merely defines FALSE KEYS without
any penalty provided for the same. Nullem
crimen nullum poena sine legis.
Distinguish robbery and highway robbery
under PD. 532 and also car napping.
Title 10 is a regular subject in the bar. The
most common: Robbery, Theft and Estafa
*Robbery and Theft have 3 common
elements:
1. intent to gain- this is difficult to prove
because it is only in the state of mind of the
accused
2. Unlawful taking- it has to be owned by
another
3. Personal property- if it is NOT personal
property then it may be another crime.
NOTE: claim of ownership over the property
made in good faith is a VALID defense
The acts of unlawfully taking the property of
another presupposed intent to gain.
They only differ in the MANNER they take the
property.
In robbery: there is violence/intimidation or
force upon things
In theft: there is absent violence or
intimidation or force upon things BUT here it
is made thru stealth and strategy.
DVI: immediately determine the elements of
robbery/theft
Accused entered thru an open door, took
valuable things and left, but after leaving, he
realized he left his baf with his ID inside. He
returned and saw the victim in his home with
the bag next to him. He took a club and killed
the victim. What is his crime?
It can be argued either way. Theft w/
homicide. DVI thinks this is better.
OR
Robbery w/ homicide
Case of Conception (2014- no complex crime
of thedt with homicide.
Note that robbery is committed by breaking
of doors to gain entry. What if the accused
broke a portion of a wall, reached inside and
grabbed valuable items iniside?
Crime is theft! Because in Robbery, you have
to enter the building.
But what if the robber breaks the glass
window of a car or forced open the car door
and when inside took everything? Still theft.
Because entry refers to a building!
BUT if it is a watercraft used exclusively as a
dwelling place? Robbery is possible.
BUT! If the watercraft is used as a means of
transportation then the crime is PIRACY.
The rule when both violence and intimidation
and Force upon things is present-> the
prosecutor should prosecute under violence
because it is more serious.
Robbery with homicide the victim can be any
person as long as on occasion or in the
course of the robbery
The homicide is used in its generic sense.
ROBBERY WITH RAPE
Rape must also be consummated in order to
be punished under 294 and 297 to apply.
People v. Sultan, Apr. 27, 2000: Robbery with
multiple homicide and multiple rape - The
court said that it will be only 1 robbery with
homicide. The other homicides and acts of
rape committed are to be considered as if not
committed and the victims as if they have not
existed. Because article 14 of book 1— there
is nothing in article 14 would increase
aggravating circumstance, due to increase in
multiple homicides/ multiple rape
Note: applicable only when robbery with
homicide—by reason of robbery
Robbery and its stages of execution:
- Force upon things
Consummated when – able to leave the
building
Frustrated – not able to take the ting outside
the building
Attempted – caught with the indications of
unplugging the tv set, etc
- Intimidation
Consummated:
Frustrated: A intimidated B, to get hold of A’s
backpack, A, frightened, agreed and was
ready to part with his bag, when B was trying
to get the backpack, one of the buttons won’t
unlock and was stuck, then a policeman
arrived.
Attempted
Look at the definition of attempted,
consummated, and frustrated
Note: There is no frustrated theft.
For robbery—refer to the title of art. 297, it
means that there is attempted and frustrated
robbery.
Modes of committing robbery
1. Violence
a. Full possession of the property, robber is
deemed consummated
2. Force upon things – there is a need to enter
the building, his full body must be inside the
building
a. Breaking open a window, for the purpose
of reaching the window for the purpose of
reaching a personal property: THEFT
b. Attempted stage: when the item was not
able to get the property outside of the
building
c. Frustrated: when he was able to get the
property and was apprehended inside,
d. Consummated: arrested even if he was just
able to take two steps out of the building
What would be the rule when rape is
committed in the course of the robbery?
People v. Cariaga: The court ruled that
robbery with attempted rape does not fall
under art. 48 or art. 249—as they are distinct
crimes
In robbery with rape, the offender before
committing rape must have the intention to
take the personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain and the robbery is
accompanied with rape
Attempted and frustrated robbery with
homicide
art 297 is also a special complex crime with
only 1 penalty whether it was in its attempted
or frustrated stage
When physical injuries was inflicted, with
intent to kill, the victim was not killed, the
injuries are absorbed in attempted or
frustrated robbery robbery under certain
circumstances.
[When article 48 will be applied: when a single
act producing 2 or more felonies, or when the
other felony is a necessary means of
committing another…]
Question: X removed the radio of A from the
car of the latter and on the way, A recognized
X and
asked where he had gathered it and A looked
out and opened when X got his fan knife and
threatened to kill A. What crimes were
committed?
- Two crimes committed
o Theft – at the point where the offended
party was intimidated, theft has already
been consummated
o Grave threats - not robbery because the
radio was taken from a car, and not from
a building
IF there are PI with intent to kill and the victim
did not die- they are absorbed.
NOTE: Motor vehicile= qualified theft ->
unlawful taking of a motor vehicle is now
subject to anti-carnapping law.
ART. 315. SWINDLING/ESTAFA
2 basic and indispensable elements:
1. Abuse of confidence, as a means of
committing the crime
2. Damage or intent to cause damage
culpable of pecuniary estimation
2 general classification of estafa
1. Estafa by abuse of confidence
a. Money, goods, or other personal property
b. Received by the offender for any purpose
which will give rise to an obligation to make
delivery or to return the same
c. Misappropriation or conversion of such
personal property
d. Such misappropriation caused injury
e. There be a demand made by the offended
party
i. Not an indispensable element; not
necessary when there is evidence of
misappropriation or conversion of money,
goods, or personal property received by the
offender or when the offender cannot be
located anymore
ii. Just show evidence to the court that there
was a demand to avoid this issue
2. Estafa by means of deceit
a. False deceit
b. Other fraudulent means
How do you distinguish this estafa under art,
315 from art. 226?
- In estafa there must be a specific intent to
defraud those who are concerned in or
affected by those papers, if there is absent
any specific intent to defraud and the act is
committed by a public officer who is officially
entrusted with those documents or papers, it
will not be estafa, but infidelity in the custody
of documents. In 226, the offender is having
custody of this official documents

Estafa has features similar to theft.
- US v. Vera: In theft, there is taking; estafa,
there is receiving—not absolutely correct—
even if the personal property was received by
the offender but only the physical possession
of the object was transferred,
appropriation thereof would still be the crime
of theft. There is need to qualify this
distinction.
Prevailing doctrine: In estafa with abuse of
confidence, juridical possession of the object
is transferred to the accused who shall
convert the same to his own use or purpose,
while in theft, there is only physical
possession transferred.
What then would constitute juridical
possession?
When the transfer of the property is made by
virtue of an obligation created by a valid
contract or by law which grants the transferee
a right to possession which can be set up as
against the transferor, then this set up is a
juridical possession.
If material possession is transferred juridical
possession and ownership is also transferred.
The default of the offender may consist of an
obligation to do so or will one which arises
from a contract will only give rise to a civil
liability, there will be no criminal liability
PAR. 1(A). ALTERING SUBSTANCES
A is supposed to deliver high-grade meth to
B; but instead he delivered a low-grade meth.
his People v. Manansala: This paragraph applies
even if the ting to be delivered is illegal such
as opium or illegal, such as obscene literature
or items.
- Will the offended party be sane enough to
file a case of estafa because the quality of the
meth of which the other party promised to
deliver is not in accordance with the
agreement? – I doubt it. (DVI)
PAR. 1(B). FAILURE TO DELIVER OR RETURN
MUST BE THE VERY OBJECT HE RECEIVED.
- There must be a formal demand of the
offender to comply with his obligation before
he can be charged with estafa. However 2
exceptions are provided for in the cases of
People v. Pendon. People v. Librea, and,
People v. Villegas:
1. When the offenders obligation to comply is
subject to a period and;
2, The accused cannot be located despite due
diligence
- The offender also commits this form of
estafa by denying having received such
money, goods, or other property.
If he does not deny his receipt thereof but
denies that he holds them in trust, on
commission, for administration, and so forth,
that would also be estafa as it amounts to the
false blanket denial punished by this
provision.
If he does not deny having received such
goods under any of the obligations requiring
him to deliver or return the same, but he
denies their value or quality, that would only
hold him civilly liable.
- Failure of the entrustee of a trust receipt to
account for the proceeds of the sale
constitutes estafa even if the money involved
did not come from the entrustor.
The former conflicting views on this matter
have been laid to rest by P.D. 115, the Trust
Receipts Decree, which specifically declares
such act as estafa under Art. 315. (People v.
Cuevo)
What is the nature of the money paid by the
parents of the students to a school requiring
them to deposit of a sum of money to answer
for the damages of material, and at the end
of the course, the student did not cause any
damage or consume any material.
The transaction is not a contract of deposit.
Notwithstanding the fact that the parents are
required to make a deposit. Here, the school
acquired to ownership subject to
reimbursement—civil liability only.
The thing that the offender must return must
be the very object he received, and there
must be abuse of confidence
PARS. 2 AND 3. ESTAFA BY MEANS OF
DECEIT
The accused may be convicted for both illegal
recruitment and estafa. Illegal recruitment is
malum prohibitum while estafa is malum in
se, hence the criminal intent of the accused is
not necessary for conviction in the former but
is required in the latter pursuant to art. 315,
par.2. of the RPC.
Sale of jewelry by an agent on commission
basis and the agent disappears after selling
the jewelry
If sold on credit, while the original agreement
is on cash basis: liability of the agent—estafa.
If sold at prices much lower than agreed upon
by the owner:
No estafa.
But if the agent misappropriated the reduced
sale price, it is estafa.
Agent was asked to sell a diamond ring, with
a commission to be deducted to the sale, but
instead, agent pledged the ring, and failed to
account for the thing— estafa
When the owner gave the diamond ring to a
friend with instruction that the same be
pledged, but the agent instead, sold them.
The crime is only theft.
What kind of possession of the agent?
Material possession. And not juridical
possession
The owner asked the agent to sell a diamond
ring. The agent after receiving the jewelry
engaged the services of another agent to
dispose of the jewelry without the knowledge
and consent of the principal. But the
proceeds was never recovered.
Liability of the agent is estafa.
If the arrangement was with the principals
knowledge, the agent incurs no criminal
liability, absent any condition with the sub-
agent.
What is the rule on the sale of appliance on
trial basis for a fixed period and the buyer did
not give his objection, and at the end of the
trial period he disposes the same?
- Ownership of property goes to him
- Not liable under par. 1(b)—exercised
ownership
- But if the transfer specifically says that there
is a reservation of property/title, the
ownership of the appliance remains with the
seller, and its disposition will make the buyer
liable for estafa.
PAR. 2(D) ESTAFA THROUGH BOUNCING
CHECKS
- Par. 2(d) governs the crime of estafa
through postdating a check, or issuing a
check in payment of an obligation when the
offender has no funds/has insufficient funds
(Estafa through bouncing checks)
Distinguish estafa from B.P. 22
- Similarities: delivery of check,
subsequent dishonor due to
insufficient funds
- B.P. 22 is malum prohibitum, while
Par. 2(d) is malum in se;
- The element of deceit and damage in
estafa are not required in B.P. 22
- B.P. 22 is classified as a crime against
public interest while estafa is crime
against property
- In B.P. 22, the drawer is liable even if
the check is issued is in payment of a
 pre-existing obligation; in estafa, such
will absolve the liability under par. 2(d)
i. The issuance by the offender must be prior
to or simultaneous with the transaction
otherwise, if the check is issued of a pre-
existing obligation, no estafa obligation but
may render the offender liable for B.P. 22
Recuerdo v. People: The reimbursement and
restitution made by the drawer or maker
would not extinguish criminal liability,
criminal liability or estafa is not affected by a
compromise between the complainant and
the accused
PAR. 2(E): BY ACCOMMODATIONS FROM
RESTAURANTS, HOTELS OR LODGING
In a Lodging or hotel by obtaining credit with
the use of force and by abandoning or
surreptitiously leaving the place without
paying. What would be the basis of holding
that?
The offender never announced that he had all
the money, so no representation. Where
would the deceit or intent to defraud come
in?
There is an implied representation by the
customer that he is capable of paying the
food that the management is offering
PAR. 3 (C). REMOVAL, CONCEALMENT OR
DESTRUCTION OF COURT RECORDS, OFFICE
FILES, DOCUMENTS AND OTHER PAPERS.
- Done by the accused with the specific intent
to defraud those who are concerned in or
affected by those papers.
- If there was no intent to defraud anybody, it
could be malicious mischief,
- If committed by the public officer, it can be
infidelity of public defined and punished
under art. 226.
What is the liability of the drawer or maker
with instruction that this is only for security
purposes and that the check should not be
deposited?
- The check is a guarantee or security check
or memorandum check.
- No criminal liability.
- Liability under BP 22: liable. “even if he
indicated that the check is only a guarantee”
Special law where malice or criminal intent is
not a principal consideration
o Read People v. Recuerdo. The court
realized that there is something law
- If there is fraud, and if it is designed by a
person not particularly punished or covered
by 315 or estafa or swindling, you apply article
318—a catch-all provision
What is a NOW CHECK? (Negotiable Bill of
Withdrawal)
If the endorsee knew of the lack of funds (Par.
2 (A) if drawer was in collution.
Usually only the drawer/maker is liable BUT if
there was collution, the payee may be liable
(Issier, maker drawer???)
Estafa by removing, concealing documents 
W/ specific intent to defraud those who are
concerned w/ these documents
-If there was no intent to defraud= malicious
mischief
- But if public officer= Liable under Art. 226.
Art. 318 is a catch all provision
ARSON
P.D. 1613, Mar 7, 1979
Three kinds of arson under the Revised Penal
code
1. Destructive
2. Qualified
3. Simple
Current rule: A burned the house, B was
inside and died. What is the liability of A?
1. If by reason or on occasion of arson, there
result the death or the homicide is absorbed,
together the liability is only arson
a. Court reiterated this principle in People v.
Malngan, Sept. 26, 2006 and laid down its
guidelines
i. If the object is to burn the building, but
death results on the occasion or reason –
crime is only arson
ii. If the main objective is to kill a particular
person and he resulted to arson or fire as a
means of accomplishing the desired death of
the victim – only murder. Go back to article
248—it is a qualifying circumstance, that the
fire is used to kill another
iii. If the objective is to kill a particular person,
and in fact, the offender had killed the victim,
and fire is resulted to as a means to cover the
killing, there are 2 separate crimes
committed—murder and arson.
1. Murder: the real objective is to kill and has
accomplished such
2. Resulted to arson to hide or covered the
murder he has earlier committed
iv. If homicide, murder, arson is committed
for the purpose of obtaining widespread
panic for the purpose of giving in to an
unlawful demand etc. (Human Securities Act)
1. Arson murder homicide are considered
only as predicate crimes
2. If the state cannot establish by evidence
terrorism, may the state file a case for murder
or arson against the offenders?
a. No. Look at article 49 of the Human
Security Act, there, it is very specific, that it will
bar the subsequent prosecution of the
offender for the predicate crime used as basis
for filing the crime of terrorism. It will be
violative against the right of the accused
against double jeopardy
b. But if it is the same proceeding:
i. RoC allows that he can be convicted of a
crime which is necessarily included in the
offense and charged during pre-trial for
which he is being tried for
X during a drinking spree, said, I want to burn
the house of C, B warned C of such. X, the
next day was caught throwing gas on the
house of C.
When is it attempted, frustrated,
consummated?
A person intended to burn a wooden
structure, places the flammable material
(rags) and places it next to the wooden
structure= attempted
If he lights up the rags= frustrated.
If part of the thing was burned=
consummated
Art. 320- 326- expressly repealed but 320 was
restored and amended
Malicious Mischief
- Committed out of hate/revenge or
other ill motive for specific purpose of
destrying the property of another-
- if no intent= cannot be committed
thru reckless imprudence. TITLE PA
LANG! MALICE is an element
There is simple malicious mischief and
qualified malicious mischief.
NOTE: that the offender in addition shall be
liable for the other consequences of his
criminal act.
What will be the liability of the offender by
or maliciously damaging the property of
another and shall later secure the same?
Theft under Art. 308, par. 2.
Note: Persons exempt from criminal liability
by relationship (absolutory cause) - Theft,
swindling, estafa, and malicious mischief.
Committed by:
- Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or
relatives by affinity in the same line
- The widowed spouse with respect to the
property which belonged to the deceased
spouse before the same shall have passed
into the possession of another; and
- Brothers and sisters and brothers-in-law
and sisters-in-law, if living together
Are common law relationships included in
“spouses”?
Yes, principle of co-ownership. They are
considered co-owners of the property they
were able to establish or put up in the course
of the common law relationship (p.899, Reyes
2012)
Take note that the offender in addition shall
be liable for the other consequences of his
criminal act.
“Maliciously damage the property of another
Persons Except- the enumeration shall
operate as an absolutory cause.
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
also referred to by private crimes
What are the felonies covered?
1. Adultery
2. Concubinage
3. Acts of lasciviousness
4. Seduction
5. Abduction
What is the nature of crimes against chastity?
- They are private crimes. Prosecution is
based on the written complaint of the injured
party, which is a condition sine qua non.
But there are 2 crimes which can be
prosecuted by the state notwithstanding
reluctance, or failure of the victims to do so
- Violation of article 340 (corruption of
minors) and
- Violation of article 341 (white slave trade)
These two crime against chastity may be
prosecuted by the state de officio
Take note also in libel, the same cannot be
prosecuted de officio, it must at least be upon
the written complaint of the offended party
(last paragraph or article 360)
- Libel by defamation (last paragraph of 360)
- Note that libel is crime against honor
Adultery- committed by a women who shall
have sexual relations with another man who
is not her husband.
Essence: Violation of marital promise
A single intercourse consummates the crime
of adultery.
Given the text of 333, must there be absolute
proof of sexual intercourse?
NO. It is not essential to consider, provided
the circumstances proves in the case can lead
to no other conclusion.
- Consent applies to future acts
- Pardon refers to past acts.
Consent of valid will exculpate the offending
spouse.
Concubinage is harder to prove!
Husband told wife, his cousin would stay in
their come because she needs help. Every
time the wife left, he would have sexual
relations with her. Is the husband liable? NO
By keeping a mistress= a concubine must be
taken in by the husband as a concubine.
There must be an information given to the
wife “my mistress is coming over.

Consent applies to future acts while pardon OR if the husband keeps her in a
refers to past acts. The importance of the condominium in Rockwell- NO VIOLATION
distinction lies in the fact that consent is valid because NOT under scandalous
and will exculpate the liability even if granted circumstances.
only to one offending spouse, but pardon Proof of actual sexual intercourse is not
must be granted to both offenders. required, as long as it may be inferred from
Death of offended spouse before filing of the circumstances. Here, Element of
complaint= bar to filing. habituality not needed (required only in the
1st and 3rd)
Death after complaint filed- the complaint
may continue. “Cohabiting”- transient visits do not fall under
this. They must cohabit. Elements of
Last Par. 333- special mitigating habituality required only under the 1sr and 3rd
circumstances mode of the crime.

U.S. v. Mata. Can there be separate crimes of Occasional visits or transient interviews
bigamy and adultery? between the accused will not constitute
Yes. They are separate crimes. cohabitation which is expressly required by
the code.

Art. 336. Acts of lasciviousness without
consent of the victim.
Art. 339- Acts of lasciviousness with consent
of victim.
Acts of lasciviousness:
- Under the circumstances
- Consent? (may be committed with the
consent of the victim)
- But without intercourse
- Essence: lewd design
- Always consummated.
- May be committed against a person of
either sex but note that with respect to article
339, only a woman can be a victim and only
a man can be an offender. If the victim is a
virgin, single and 12 years or older but below
18 years old.
- RA 7610: the law provides that when the
victim is under 12 years of age, the
perpetrator shall be prosecuted under Art.
336 of the RPC for lascivious conduct,
provided that the
Here the consent of the victim but without
intercourse
-essence: Lewd design
- always consummated
Art. 336. Consummated against a person of
either sec.
But in 339- only woman is the victim and the
man the offender.
Note special protection of children punished
by reclusion temporal in its medium period if
the child is 12years old.
Qualified seduction – there is abuse of
authority, confidence or relationship as the
means of committing the crime
Simple seduction – there is deceit.
Note that the doctrine of mutual desire, as a
defense that the woman yielded not because
of deceit but because of her own desire is
only applicable to simple seduction, not
applicable to qualified seduction.
- Essence of crime: abuse of confidence,
confidence, relationship
CORRUPTION OF MINORS AND WHITE
SLAVE TRADE
Corruption of minors (art. 340) v. white slave
trade (art. 341)
- CM: it is essential that minors be used; WST:
minority need not be involved
- CM: victims may be of either sex; WST:
limited to females
- CM: may not necessarily be for profit; WST:
generally for profit
- CM: may be committed by a single act; WST:
generally committed habitually
Note that WST may be with or without the
consent of the woman while slavery for the
purpose of assigning the woman to immoral
traffic is committed against her will.
ABDUCTION
2 kinds
- Forcible (art. 343)
- Consented abduction (art. 344)
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 the
intent to marry or corrupt her.
Abduction and consented abduction
- Victim may be a married woman
- Civil status and reputation, are immaterial
for the purposes of forcible abduction
- In both forms of abduction, there must be
lewd design
- There must be the taking of the woman, not
necessarily with some degree of permanence,
but for some appreciable period of time.
- Note: if the girl victim taken away is less than
12 years old and a virgin, and the offender
had sexual intercourse with her.
- Complex crime of forcible abduction
with rape
- The “under 12 years old” could not
have validly given her consent.
Abduction can be 1) forcible or 2) consented
Art. 344. PROSECUTION OF THE CRIME OF
ADULTERY, CONCUBINAGE, ABDUCTION,
SEDUCTION, ABDUCTION, RAPE AND ACTS
OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
They are all falling as private crimes/crimes
against chastity. But rape is still included. But
we all know that under the anti-rape law, the
classification of rape against crimes against
chastity has been transformed into a crime
against person and that the original article
335 has been changed to 266-A and 266-B
- Delete rape in the enumeration.
- Rule in concubinage and adultery: can only
be prosecuted by the offended spouse
- Seduction, abduction, and acts of
lasciviousness: they can be prosecuted
exclusively and successively by the following
parties:
1. Offender party even if she is a minor (US v.
Balboso)
a. If she is of legal age and not otherwise
incapacitated, she alone may file the
complaint
b. If she is a minor or is otherwise
incapacitated and refuses to do so: parents or
grandparents or guardian may file the claim
(successively)
i. Parents grandparents or guardian in their
successive order may also file the complaint
ii. Either of the parents
iii. Either of the grandparents whether in the
paternal or maternal may file
iv. If none, the state under its parens patriae
*U.S. v. LUNA the offended party must also
pardon
- Pardon and consent in adultery and
concubinage: only the offended spouse even
if the minor can validly extend pardon or
consent
- The pardon in seduction, abduction, and
acts of lasciviousness must be express, but in
adultery and concubinage the pardon may be
expressed or implied
Will bar criminal prosecution (People v. Dela
Cerna)
What if there is marriage between the
offended party and the accused (assuming,
that they are legally capacitated)
Marriage between the offended party and the
accused
- Subsequent marriage shall extinguish
the crime and remit the penalty
already imposed together with the
principal, accused
- Except: adultery and concubinage
where marriage is invalid or
contracted in bad faith
- Liability of the co-conspirator or
accused: It will also benefit them, as
well as the accessories
- Except in:
o adultery and concubinage,
o Marriage was contracted in
bad faith
o Private libel
o Multiple rape in so far as the
other accused are concerned,
consequently if there are 3
offenders and all the 3 raped
the victim and then one of the
offenders married the victim,
the liability can be
extinguished, while the liability
of the other 2, will also be
extinguished but not the rape
committed by B and C (People
v. Bernardo)
Only rape committed by the husband
For the one who married the offended party,
his liability as a principal in the rape he
committed and his participation in other
rapes is extinguished and the liability of the
other accused based on or with respect to his
participation in the rape committed by the
one who marries the victim is also
extinguished.
But the liability of the other accused in their
own rapes are not extinguished, only their
participation with the rape of the offender
who married the victim
BUT if the offended spouse already filed a
divorce in another country? (Pilapil v. Ibay-
somera) There is no longer an offended
spouse
- Seduction, abduction and acts of
lasciviousness may be prosecuted
exclusively
CRIMES AGAINST CIVIL STATUS
Art. 347.
Distinguish abandonment of a legitimate
child under 347 and abandoning a minor
under 276
- 347, offender is any person; in 276, the
offender has custody of the child
- 347, the purpose is to cause the civil status
of the child; 276, the purpose is to avoid the
obligation of rearing and caring for the child
Simulation of birth and Substitution:
Note: simulation of birth and substitution of
children: It is not required that the child is
legitimate, in concealment or abandonment,
the child must be legitimate.
- US v. Castillo: The court ruled that for the
sale of the child by its father was not
punishable or covered by the RPC, but sale is
now punishable under P.D. 603 and if it will
constitute the crime of child trafficking, it is
also punishable under sec. 7 of R.A.
7610.
ART. 348. USURPATION OF CIVIL STATUS
If the purpose is to defraud the offended
party, it is punishable as such, but where the
intent of such usurpation is merely to enjoy
or use the usurped civil rights by using
another’s license or getting a cedula in
another’s name or to avoid military service or
to secure a passport it would be violation of
article 173—using fictitious names. Or estafa,
if there was intent to defraud a third person
art 325 OR it may even constitute perjury or
falsification.
Art. 349. Illegal marriages
Contracting a second or subsequent
marriage before the former marriage has
been legally dissolved, or before the absent
spouse has been declared presumptively
dead
Three kinds of illegal marriages:
 Art. 349: Bigamy
 Art. 350: Marriage contrary to the
marriage law
 Art. 351: Premature marriage, now
subject of a pending bill in the senate
for total repeal
- In, bigamy it is essential that the first
marriage is valid and existing and the second
marriage would have been valid were it not
to the existence of the first marriage
The ruling in People v. Dumpo, People v.
Mendoza, etc. have all been put to rest by the
Family Code adopting the doctrine in Gomez,
Vda. De Consuegra and Wiegel.
Prior to the effectivity of the family code court
issued conflicting rulings.
Current holding: There is a need of a judicial
declaration of the fact that the marriage of
the person is void before the person can
marry again, otherwise, the second marriage
will be void and this pronouncement finds
application to both void and voidable
marriages
But in one case if there is no marriage to
speak of, the parties merely signed a
marriage contract. There was no ceremony.
There is no marriage to speak of
Art. 351. Amended by 10655. (should be
removed)
Purpose: to avoid doubtful paternity
Note: it will not apply if the widow was not
pregnant by the first spouse since he was
permanently sterile or completely impotent
What is the liability of the new husband for
the marriage entered under art. 351?
There is none. Since this offense is intended
only for the woman who contracts a
premature marriage
Performance of illegal marriage ceremony if
a pastor of a sect. with authority to solemnize
in fact solemnized a marriage without the
requisite marriage license. When charged, he
claimed it was merely a blessing. NO it was a
marriage because if you ask the “do you take
this man/woman…” it is already a ceremony
LIBEL
What is the doctrine of privileged
communication?

- An offense of defamatory imputation of a
discreditable act made publicly with malice or
lawful intent
- Test of a defamatory utterance
- Rules:
1. If in its face, the article is defamatory, even
if it is true: it is presumed that the offender
acted in malice – it is malice in law
2. If the article is not defamatory in its face, or
it is ambiguous it can be considered libelous
in light of surrounding circumstances which
gave rise to its existence, then actual malice
on the part of the offender or malice in fact
must be established or proved
Generally, whether defamation is directed to
or in connection with the private life of the
victim, there is malice in law. But when it is
connection to his public life or his conduct as
a public officer or a public figure, malice in
law does not arise since the public has the
right to comment thereon.
(public figures are not necessarily pubic
officials)
- It is considered as a derogatory utterances,
even if what you said was that the person was
convicted of an offense
Malice is an element which can be malice in
law which is presumed malice and malice in
fact, which is actual malice
- Every publication in a libelous article is a
separate crime, but it is required that the
victim be identified, from the contents of the
libelous article, otherwise the case must be
dismissed
Art. 353- television broadcast is not included.
Wala pang tv noon but they are included
under “any similar means”
Art. 354. Requirement for Publicity.
- Doctrine of privileged communication
(which can be qualified or absolute)
Absolute: When it is not actionable, even if
the author has acted in bad faith. (Statements
made by members of congress sin the
discharge of their official duties or Allegations
or pleadings during judicial proceedings)
Qualified privileged communication: would
not be actionable unless made with malice or
bad faith
- Prescription of libel is one year for which the
crime is discovered by the offended party
Art. 356. - A special form of threat but is not
to be classified as grave threats under art. 282
and this offense is always consummated as a
mere threat to publish or offer to prevent is
constituting the crime itself
Art. 358 Slander
- Grave; or Simple
- The word, “Puta” is not an implication of
prostitution but an expression of distrust or
displeasure
o Not oral defamation or slander
Art. 359- Slander by deed
- Simple or grave
- The intent is to humiliate the offended
party
- But if such intent cannot be proven,
the offense may still be maltreatment
by deed under art. 266
People v. Perez: act of the accused by holding
the school teacher by her hair and shaved is
ill-treatment by deed
But now, after the amendment in art. 152 B.P.
873, it would be direct assault under art. 148
since a teacher is considered as a person in
authority and actual performance of duty
Note: the publisher, columnist, or reporter
cannot be compelled to reveal the source of
his information which was given to him in
confidence (RA 4077)
- Except: when such info is demanded by the
security of the state
Art. 363 and 364. Incriminatory Machinations
Limited to acts not constituting perjury but
directly intended to cause prosecution by
planting evidence against the victim
- There is no crime of malicious prosecution
under our law or RPC as it is a civil law
concept more particularly covered by article
2028 par. 3 of the civil code.- take note of the
officer concerned
Tanim bala – a violation of 10591 law on lose
firearm
May that person be charged under the RPC.
No jurisprudence yet but since the elements
are different yes.
DVI: you file under both.
Art. 365- IMPRUDENCE
Rules :
What is imprudence? Depicts the Deficiency
of action and Failure to take precaution
What is negligence? Depicts the Deficiency of
perception and Failure in advertence
Note: there are crimes in the code particularly
constituting criminal negligence or culpa, and
for this reason you don’t apply art 365. What
are these crimes?
- Malversation through negligence
covered by art. 217
- Violation of article 224, evasion
through negligence
- Article 218: Failure to render accounts
through negligence
If the act of negligence is particularly
punished in the code, then the person must
not be charged under article 365, if only,
there is not specific article punishing it will
you charge under 365 and if there is
imprudence and negligence. i.e. reckless
imprudence resulting in damage to property
Reckless imprudence resulting in homicide
Where several crimes result to criminal
negligence, and they are grave or less grave,
article 48 may apply and in this regard, read
the case of Jason Ivler Aguilar:
365: is a felony in itself, it should be studied
in relation to article 48. You cannot apply 48
if the other felony is slight physical injuries
In a vehicular accident and the other party is
claiming as a defense, contributory
negligence, may the other party raise it as a
defense?
• Contributory negligence is not applicable in
criminal aspects.
• Applicable only or mitigating on the civil
liability of the offender
- Art. 365 does not absorb crimes under
special penal laws because they are crimes
mala prohibita.
- Rules of graduating penalties under art. 64
is not applicable to offenses committed
through criminal negligence
- Contributory negligence is not applicable in
cases under this article or its criminal aspects,
it is only mitigating for the civil aspect, or civil
liability of the offender
- See also the case of Aguilar v. People:
o Vehicular accident resulting to death, PI,
and damage to property
o Prosecutor correctly reserved that the light
felony may not be complexed under art. 48
and filed a separate charge sheet for it and
another charge sheet for reckless imprudence
and damage to property
o There is more than one crime committed,
consequently, if the offender has been
charged tried and convicted under 365, he
cannot be charged anymore to the same
violation under 365.