Title 9 With BQ

Reyes 2001 Book II Outline - Title Nine Kiddy and Mondy
Title Nine
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
What are the crimes against liberty?

5. Inducing a minor to abandon his
1. Kidnapping and serious illegal
home
detention
6. Slavery
2. Slight illegal detention
7. Exploitation of child labor
3. Unlawful arrest
4. Kidnapping and failure to return a
minor
8. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt
What are the crimes against security?

10. Grave coercion
1. Abandonment of persons in danger
and abandonment of one's own 11. Light coercion
victim 12. Other similar coercions
2. Abandoning a minor (Compulsory purchase of
3. Abandonment of minor by person merchandise and payment of wages
by means of tokens)
entrusted with his custody;
indifference of parents 13. Formation, maintenance and
4. Exploitation of minors prohibition of combination of
capital or labor through violence or
5. Trespass to dwelling threats
6. Other forms of trespass 14. Discovering secrets through seizure
7. Grave threats of correspondence
15. Revealing secrets with abuse of
8. Light threats
office
9. Other light threats
16. Revealing of industrial secrets
Chapter One
CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
Section One. - Illegal detention
What are the crimes classified as illegal detention?

1. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
2. Slight illegal detention
3. Unlawful arrest
Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

Constitutes as a waiver of the authors from any liability whatsoever
1
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual who shall kidnap or detain
another, or in any other manner deprive him of his liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to
death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than five 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, female or a public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting
ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were
present in the commission of the offense.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual;
2. That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprive the latter of his liberty;
3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;
4. That in the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is present:
a. That the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days;
b. That it is committed simulating public authority
c. That any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or detained or threats
to kill him are made; or
d. That the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public officer.
If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary detention.

• But the public officer must have the duty under the law to detain a person, such as a policeman or a
Constabulary soldier. If he has no such duty, like a sanitary inspector or a clerk in a government office,
and he detains a person, he is liable under this article.
When the victim is a minor and accused is any of the parents, the penalty is that provided for in Article 271 par. 2
(arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding P300 or both)
Intention to deprive the victim of his liberty for the purpose of extorting ransom on the part of the accused is
essential in the crime of kidnapping.
As long as the kidnapping or detention was committed "for the purpose of extorting ransom," actual demand for
ransom is not necessary.
The accused is not liable when there is lack of motive to resort to kidnapping.

2
• Where agents of the Constabulary took the supposed victim from his house to make him answer for the
murder of certain persons, there was lack of motive to resort to kidnapping.
Detention or locking up of victim is essential

• There must be actual confinement or restriction of the person of the offended party.
• If the alleged victim had freedom to leave the premises where she was allegedly confined, the crime of
illegal detention cannot rise because she was not deprived of her liberty.
• But, a husband who locks up in a room, his lawful wife for more than 20 days, during which time the
victim is not allowed to leave the room nor even to peep out of the window, is guilty of illegal detention
because there is actual confinement.
It is not necessary that the victim be placed in an enclosure because illegal detention may be consist not only in
placing a person in an enclosure but also in detaining or depriving him in any manner of his liberty.
Where a boy was allowed to play in the house where he was kept, but the fact remains that he was under the
control of accused B who left him there, as he could not leave the house until B shall have returned for him.
Because of the tender age and the fact that he did not know the way back home, he was then and there in a
way deprived of his liberty as if putting him in prison or in an asylum where he may have freedom of
locomotion but not the freedom to leave it at will.
Restraint need not be permanent

• In a case where X, two years old was held and tied to a wooden pillar until his brother, Y, a servant of the
two accused should appear and return to their service because Y ran away, there is illegal detention.
The detention must be illegal

• The owners who locked up a boy who stole some sugar canes from their plantation from 9:00am to 5:00
pm without giving him anything to eat is not illegal detention because 1) no injury or disturbance of a
right was intended by or resulted from, the act of the accused, and 2) that the act of the accused was to a
certain extent justified.
• The detention here is legal to a certain extent, because even a private person can arrest one who commits
a crime in his presence.
Detention is illegal when not ordered by competent authority or not permitted by law.
Essential element of kidnapping or act, which makes the offense of kidnapping, is the deprivation of an offended
party's liberty under any of the four instances enumerated in par. 1 of Article 267.
But when the kidnapping or detention was committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, it is not necessary
that one or any of such circumstances enumerated in par. 1 be present.
A barrio captain is a public officer; his kidnapping is covered under par. 4 of Art 267.
When robbers compelled their victims to leave their house and follow then up to a certain distance, for no other
purpose than to prevent their reporting the matter to the authorities while the robbers were still near the place,
is not illegal detention. The purpose of the robbers was to delay or prevent assistance being rendered by
authorities.
The purpose is immaterial when any of the circumstances in the 1 st par is present.
3
Special complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder

• Prior to the effectivity of RA 7659 (31 Dec 1993), the rule was that where the abductor subsequently
killed the kidnapped victim, the crime committed would either be a complex crime of kidnapping with
murder under Art. 48 OR two separate crimes or kidnapping and murder.
• Thus where the accused kidnapped the victim for the purpose of killing him and he was in fact killed, the
crime was the complex crime of kidnapping with murder, the kidnapping of the victim was a necessary
means of committing the murder.
• But where the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of killing him but was subsequently slain as an
afterthought, two separate crimes were committed.
• HOWEVER, RA 7659 added a last paragraph to Art. 267:
"When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped or is

subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum penalty shall be imposed."
• This amendment introduced the concept of "SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME" of kidnapping with
murder or homicide. It effectively eliminated the distinction illustrated above.
• Thus the rule now is that where the person kidnapped is killed in the course of the detention, regardless
whether it was purposely sought or as an afterthought, kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer
be complexed under Article 48 nor be treated separately.
Where the victim is taken from one place to another solely for the purpose of killing him, the crime committed s
murder.
Circumstances qualifying the offense:

• Purpose is to extort ransom from the victim or any other person, even if none of the circumstances under
par. 1 is present Æ death! (but there is a new law abolishing death penalty, darn it!)
• Death is imposed as a single penalty, regardless of the presence and number of ordinary mitigating
circumstances.
• Death penalty is not reduced by the circumstances of voluntary release by the captors and non-attainment
of the purpose
• However, if the offender is over 15, but under 16 years of age, it being a privileged mitigating
circumstance, the penalty may be lowered by one degree. (***Take note of the new law on Children in
Conflict with the Law)
The accused raised the defense that their intention was at most, merely to compel the victim to fulfill his promise
of defraying the hospital expense of a certain person, the court found them liable for kidnapping for ransom
even if the purpose is to compel the alleged payment.
• Under American ruling, ransom is money, price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a
captured person or persons, a payment that releases from captivity.
• Since in this case, the accused demanded and received money as a requisite for releasing a person from
captivity, whatever the motive may have impelled them to do so, the money is still ransom under the law.

4
Conspiracy to extort ransom makes all the conspirators liable under the 2 nd par. of Art 267, including those who
did not take any part of the money.
When maximum penalty of death is imposed (take note that Death Penalty has been abolished):
• If the purpose for kidnapping or detaining is to extort ransom;
• When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention;
• When the victim is raped;
• When the victim is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts.
Illegal detention distinguished from arbitrary detention:
Illegal detention Arbitrary Detention

Committed by a private individual Committed by a public officer or employee
By unlawfully kidnapping, detaining or By detaining a person without legal ground
otherwise depriving a person of liberty
It is a crime against personal liberty It is a crime against the fundamental laws of the State
Art. 268. Slight illegal detention. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon any private
individual who shall commit the crimes described in the next preceding article without the attendance of
any of circumstances enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the perpetration of the crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the
commencement of the detention, without having attained the purpose intended, and before the institution
of criminal proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual;
2. That he kidnaps or detains another or in any other manner, deprives him of his liberty;
3. That the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal;
4. That the crime is committed without the attendance of any of the circumstances enumerated in Art 267.
Liability of accomplice in slight illegal detention

• The same penalty is incurred by anyone who furnished the place for the perpetration of the crime.
• Liability of an accomplice in his participation is raised to that of a real co-principal.

5
• But if the cooperation of the accomplice is by an act or acts other than furnishing the place for the
perpetration of the crime, the penalty should be one degree lower than that provided for the crime of
slight illegal detention
Privileged mitigating circumstance in slight illegal detention

• If the offender (a) voluntarily releases the person so kidnapped or detained within three days from the
commencement of detention, and (b) without having attended the purpose intended, and (c) before the
institution of criminal proceedings against him, his liability is mitigated.
• But to impose the lesser penalty, it must be shown by the offender that he was in a position to prolong
the detention for more than three days and yet he released the person detained within that time
• No mitigation when the proceedings have already been instituted, for the simple reason that in this case,
the accused acted through fear rather than through repentance
• All the requisites in (a), (b), and (c) must concur.
Is voluntary release a privileged mitigating circumstance if the victim is a woman?

• In a case where the accused, through threats and intimidation, were able to compel a woman to go with
them to a certain house where she was kept there for two nights and one day. The purpose was to enable
her to marry one of the accused. The woman was able to persuade the accused to take her to the house of
her brother where she was then and there released. The court held that the crime was slight illegal
detention.
• NOTE: when the victim is female, the detention is punished under Art 267. Voluntary release is not
mitigating. (It seems weird, this is the note found in Reyes, the case above said it is slight illegal detention
but this note from Reyes says that when the victim is female it is serious illegal detention. Looking at the
notes under that article, the mere fact that it is a woman, already makes it serious illegal detention,
regardless of the fact that the detention was for more than three days…so its up to you.)
• The last paragraph of Art 268 applies to slight illegal detention only, not to Art. 267.
Art. 269. Unlawful arrest. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, in any case other than those authorized by law, or without reasonable
ground therefor, shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper authorities.
Elements:
1. That the offender arrests or detains another person;
2. That the purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the proper authorities;
3. That the arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground therefore.
The offender is any person, whether public officer or a private individual.

• Under §6 Rule 113 of RoC a private person may arrest an individual without a warrant under the
circumstances when public officers can make arrest.

6
• If the private person makes an arrest without reasonable ground therefore, because it is not in
accordance with §6, Rule 113 and the purpose is to deliver the person arrested to the proper
authorities, he is liable under this article
• If the public officer has no authority to arrest and detain a person or if he did not act in his official
capacity, he should be punished for unlawful arrest
There is no unlawful arrest when the arrest is authorized by a warrant issued by the court
• The accused was charged with illegal arrest through false testimony. In an earlier case, an Information for
falsification of official and commercial document was filed against Emilio Jugo, Jr. and a John Doe and a
corresponding warrant of arrest (Exhibit B) was issued. The accused and his counsel presented Exhibit B
and the affidavit of the accused attesting that John Doe was a certain Leon Co Santos. With this, the court
issued a warrant of arrest.
• In that case, it was held that the crime was not committed. The arrest of Santos, as the John Doe in the
information was authorized by Exhibit B issued by a judge in CFI Manila. The proper issuance of this
valid warrant presupposed a reasonable ground to arrest him. It can't be said that the accused
accomplished or contributed to Santos' arrest through false testimony, for the accused has not as yet
testified in any hearing regarding John Doe's identity but merely executed an affidavit pointing out
Santos as the John Doe. At most, the accused could only have perjured.
Unlawful arrest distinguished from other illegal detention:

Unlawful arrest Other illegal detention
The purpose of locking up or detaining the victim is to Any other case, detention will be liable under "Other
deliver him to the proper authorities illegal detention"
It then develops that the detention is unlawful
Distinguish from Art 125

Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the
Unlawful arrest
proper judicial authority
The detention is for some legal ground The detention is not authorized by law
Committed by failing to deliver such person to the It is committed by making an arrest not authorized by
proper judicial authority within a certain period of time law
No period of detention is fixed by law, but the motive of the offender is controlling.
Section Two. — Kidnapping of minors
What are the crimes called kidnapping of minors?

1. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
2. Inducing a minor to abandon his home

7
Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. — The penalty of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed
upon any person who, being entrusted with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore
the latter to his parents or guardians.
Elements:
1. That the offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person (whether over or under 7 years but less
than 21 years of age);
2. That he deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or guardians.
The amendment is silent as to the age of the minor. We are inclined to believe that the legal provision cover all
minors, whether under or over 7 years of age but less than 21.
What is punished is the deliberate failure of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or
guardian.
• This article punishes the deliberate failure of the custodian of such minor to restore the latter to his
parents or guardian and NOT the kidnapping of a minor.
When the father or mother of the minor commits the crime, the penalty is arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding
P300 or both and not reclusion perpetua
Art 267 (kidnapping) distinguished from Art 270 (failure to return a minor)
Art 270 Art 267
Punishes the deliberate failure by the person having the This article also punishes the kidnapping of a minor
custody of the minor to restore such minor to his
parents or guardian
Offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor Offender is not entrusted with the custody of the minor
Kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Art 270 is necessarily included in Kidnapping and Serious Illegal
Detention of Minor under par. 4 of Art 267, inasmuch as the essential ingredient of the offense charged
constitute or form a part of those constituting the offense proved.
• A deliberate failure to restore a minor under one's custody AND kidnapping a minor who is not in
custody BOTH constitute deprivation of liberty.
The essential element which qualifies the crime of kidnapping a minor is that the offender is entrusted with the
custody of the minor.
• What is punished under Art 270 is the deliberate failure of the offender having custody of the minor to
restore him to his parents or guardian.
• It is not necessary that the purpose of the offender is to separate permanently the minor from his parents
or guardian.
Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. — The penalty of prision correccional and a fine not
exceeding seven hundred pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the
home of his parent or guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody.
If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding articles shall be the father or the
mother of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding three hundred pesos, or
both.

8
Elements:
1. That a minor (whether over or under seven years of age) is living in the home of his parents or guardian
or the person entrusted with his custody;
2. That the offender induces said minor to abandon such home.
The term minor was inserted by RA 18, §5 in lieu of "person under age but over seven years" before the
amendment.
The inducement must be actual, committed with criminal intent and determined by a will to cause damage.
What constitutes the crime is the act of inducing a minor to abandon his home or the home of hs guardian, and it
is not necessary that the minor actually abandons the home.
The minor should not leave his home on his own free will.
Where the father and mother are living separately, and the custody of their minor child has been given to one of
them, the other parent who kidnaps such minor child from the one having the lawful custody or induces such
minor to leave his home is liable.
The second paragraph of Art 271 should read, "If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the
preceding article and the first paragraph of this article shall be the father or the mother . . ." Art 269 (Unlawful
arrest) is not contemplated under the 2 nd par.
Section Three. - Slavery and Servitude
What are the crimes called slavery and servitude?

1. Slavery
2. Exploitation of child labor
3. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt
Art. 272. Slavery. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding 10,000 pesos shall be imposed
upon anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap or detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him.
If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party to some immoral traffic, the
penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Elements:
1. That the offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a human being;
2. That the purpose of the offender is to enslave such human being.
If the purpose of the offender is to assign the offended party to some immoral traffic (prostitution) the penalty is
higher.
Kidnapping distinguished from Illegal detention

9
Kidnapping or Illegal detention Slavery

Purpose is to enslave
The employment or custody of a minor with the consent of the parent or guardian although against the child's
own will cannot be considered involuntary servitude.
• But where it is proven that the defendant was obliged to render service in plaintiff's house as a servant
without remuneration whatever and to remain there so long as she has not paid her debt, there is slavery
Art. 273. Exploitation of child labor. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, under the pretext of
reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of
a minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service.
Elements:
1. That the offender retains a minor in his service;
2. That it is against the will of the minor;
3. That it is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt incurred by an ascendant, guardian, or person
entrusted with the custody of such minor.
The service of the minor must be against his will.
The existence of indebtedness constitutes no legal justification for holding a person and depriving him of his
freedom to live where he wills.
Art. 274. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt. — The penalty of arresto mayor in its
maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in
order to require or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him, against his will,
as household servant or farm laborer.
Elements:
1. That the offender compels a debtor to work for him, either as a household servant or farm laborer;
2. That it is against the debtor's will;
3. That the purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a debt.
If a person is compelled to work for him as office janitor to enforce payment of a debt, it will not be a violation of
this article because this article specifically provides that the debtor is compelled to work as household servant
or farm laborer.
This article punishes a form of slavery. This article does not distinguish whether the victim is a minor or not.
The debtor himself is the one compelled to work for the offender. Under Art 273, it is the minor who is compelled
to render service which is not limited to household or farm labor.
Chapter Two
10
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
Section One. — Abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors.
What are the crimes called abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors?
1. Abandonment of persons in danger and abandonment of one's victim
2. Abandoning a minor
3. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents
4. Exploitation of minors
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own victim. — The penalty of arresto
mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he shall find in an uninhabited
place wounded or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to
himself, unless such omission shall constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom he has accidentally wounded
or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of age, shall fail to deliver said
child to the authorities or to his family, or shall fail to take him to a safe place.
Acts punishable:
1. By failing to render assistance to any person whom the offender finds in an uninhabited place, wounded
or in danger of dying, when he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such
omission shall constitute a more serious offense.
• Elements:
a. The place is not inhabited;
b. The accused found there a person wounded or in danger of dying;
c. The accused can render assistance to another whom the offender has found abandoned, to the
authority
2. By failing to help or render assistance to another whom the offender has accidentally
3. By failing to deliver a child, under seven years of age, whom the offender has found abandoned, to the
author.
If a person intentionally wounded another in an uninhabited place, Art 175 par. 1 is not controlling, hinder §1
of Art 275 is NOT applicable, because he did not find him wounded or in danger of dying in that place.
If the omission constitutes a more serious offences:

11
• If the offender, who failed to render assistance had custody of such person who is a minor and the minor
died as a consequence, the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum shall be imposed,
which is the graver penalty.
Par. 2 applies only when someone is accidentally injured by the accused.

• Hence, if a person intentionally stabs or shoots another and he does not render him assistance, that person
is not liable under this article. Such person is liable only for the crime resulting from the stabbing or
shooting.
Under the 3 rd way of committing the crime, it is immaterial that the offender did not know that the child is under
seven years.
Par. 3 applies to one who found a lost child as it would seem that such child also needs same protection that the
law intends to extend to an abandoned child.
The child under seven years of age must be found by the accused in an unsafe place.
Art. 276. Abandoning a minor. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any one who shall abandon a child under seven years of age, the custody of which is
incumbent upon him.
When the death of the minor shall result from such abandonment, the culprit shall be punished by prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods; but if the life of the minor shall have been in danger
only, the penalty shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions contained in the two preceding paragraphs shall not prevent the imposition of the penalty
provided for the act committed, when the same shall constitute a more serious offense.
Elements:
1. That the offender has the custody of a child;
2. That the child is under seven years of age;
3. That he abandons such child;
4. That he has no intent to kill the childe when the latter is abandoned.
When there is intent to kill, this article does not apply.
Intent to kill cannot be presumed from the death of the child.

• Presumption of intent to kill from the death of the victim is applicable only to crimes against persons and
not to crimes against security.
Under the 1 st par. of Art 276, the law penalizes the mere abandonment of a child even when his life is not
endangered, so long as there is an interruption of the care and protection he needs by reason of his tender age.
• Abandonment referred to in this article is not the momentary leaving of the child, but the abandonment
which deprives him of the care and protection from danger to his person.
• The act must be conscious and deliberate.

12
Circumstances qualifying the offense:

• When the death of the minor resulted from such abandonment; or
• If the life of the minor was in danger because of the abandonment.
Parents guilty of abandoning their children shall be deprived of parental authority.
Art. 277. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents. — The penalty
of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, having charge of
the rearing or education of a minor, shall deliver said minor to a public institution or other persons,
without the consent of the one who entrusted such child to his care or in the absence of the latter, without
the consent of the proper authorities.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the parents who shall neglect their children by not giving them the
education which their station in life require and financial conditions permit.
Acts punished:
1. By delivering a minor to a public institution or other person without the consent of the one who entrusted
such minor to the care of the offender or, in the absence of that one, without consent of the proper
authorities.
2. By neglecting his (offender's) children by not giving them the education which their station in life
requires and financial condition permits.
Elements of abandonment of minor by one charged with the rearing and education of said minor:
1. That the offender has charge of the rearing or education of a minor;
2. That he delivers said minor or a public institution or other person;
3. That the one who entrusted such child to the offender has not consented to such act; OR if the one who
entrusted such child to the offender is absent, the proper authorities have not consented.
Only the person charged with the rearing or education of the minor is liable.
• "Rear" means to bring to maturity by educating, nourishing, etc . . .
Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with custody distinguished from abandonment of a minor under Art
276
Abandonment of Minor under Art 276 Abandonment of minor under Art 277
The custody of the offender is stated in general The custody of the offender is specific, the custody is
for the rearing or education of the minor
Minor is under 7 years of age Minor is under 21 years of age
Minor is abandoned in such a way as to deprive him of The minor is delivered to a public institution or other
care and protection that his tender years need person
Elements of indifference of parents:

1. That the offender is a parent;
2. That he neglects his children by not giving them education;
3. That his station in life requires such education and his financial condition permits it
13
Obligation to educate children terminates, if mother and children refuse without good reason to live with accused.
• Thus, in a case where, the accused had to go to another province where he was able to earn a living and
his wife and children refused to go, said accused is not liable for abandoning his family and for neglecting
his children.
Failure to give education must be due to deliberate desire to evade such obligation.
• Thus, where the father lost his employment and had no other means of income, his failure to give money
for the support and education of his children is not a violation of this article.
Art. 278. Exploitation of minors. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen years of age to perform any dangerous
feat of balancing, physical strength, or contortion.
2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-animal tamer or circus
manager or engaged in a similar calling, shall employ in exhibitions of these kinds children under
sixteen years of age who are not his children or descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated in the next paragraph preceding who shall
employ any descendant of his under twelve years of age in such dangerous exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of a child
under sixteen years of age, who shall deliver such child gratuitously to any person following any of
the callings enumerated in paragraph 2 hereof, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar.
If the delivery shall have been made in consideration of any price, compensation, or promise, the
penalty shall in every case be imposed in its maximum period.
In either case, the guardian or curator convicted shall also be removed from office as guardian or
curator; and in the case of the parents of the child, they may be deprived, temporarily or
perpetually, in the discretion of the court, of their parental authority.
5. Any person who shall induce any child under sixteen years of age to abandon the home of its
ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the callings
mentioned in paragraph 2 hereof, or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar.
Acts punished:
1. Any person causing any boy or girl under 16 years of age to perform any dangerous feat of balancing,
physical strength or contortion
2. By employing children under 16 who are not the children or descendant of the offender in exhibitions of
acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver or wild-animal tamer, the offender being an acrobat, etc, or circus
manager or a person engaged in a similar calling
3. By employing any descendant under 12 year old in dangerous exhibitions enumerated in the next
preceding paragraph, the offender being engaged in any of the said calling

14
4. By delivering a child under 16 years of age gratuitously to any person following any of the calling
enumerated in par. 2 or to any habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender being an ascendant, guardian,
teacher or person entrusted in any capacity with the care of such child
5. By inducing any child under 16 years of age to abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians, curators or
teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the callings mentioned in par. 2 or to accompany any
habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender being any person
Exploitation of minors (par. 5, Art 278) distinguished from Inducing a minor to abandon his home (Art 271)
Exploitation of minors Inducing a minor to abandon his home
If the purpose of inducing the minor to abandon the If there is no such purpose.
home is to follow any person engaged in any of the
callings of being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker,
diver, wild-animal tamer or circus manager or to
accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar.
The victim is under 16 years of age. The victim is a minor under 21 years of age.
Circumstances qualifying the offense

• Made in consideration of any price, compensation or promise.
• Offenders shall be deprived of parental authority or guardianship in the discretion of the court
• Exploitation of minor must refer to act endangering the life or safety of the minor in order to constitute
the offense.
Art. 279. Additional penalties for other offenses. — The imposition of the penalties prescribed in the
preceding articles, shall not prevent the imposition upon the same person of the penalty provided for any
other felonies defined and punished by this Code.
(No annotation)
Section Two. — Trespass to dwelling
Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. — Any private person who shall enter the dwelling of another
against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty shall be prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling for
the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person,
nor shall it be applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of rendering some
service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses,
while the same are open.
Elements of trespass to dwelling

1. That the offender is a private person
2. That he enters the dwelling of another
3. That such entrance is against the latter's will

15
The offense is qualified if committed by means of violence or intimidation
If the offender is a public officer or employee, the entrance into the dwelling against the will of the occupant is
violation of domicile
Dwelling place means any building or structure exclusively devoted for rest and comfort, as distinguished from
places devoted to business, offices, etc.
• Whether a building is a dwelling house or not depends upon the use to which it is put. A barn may be
converted into a dwelling house or a dwelling house into a barn, by a change of use.
Dwelling includes a room occupied by another person

• Neither the nature of the crime nor the responsibility of its perpetrators is altered by the fact that the
accused was living, as a boarder, in the same house of which the room of the offended occupant he
entered was part.
Entrance into dwelling must be against the will of owner or occupant which is distinguished from a mere lack of
consent of the dweller, because mere absence of his consent is not enough to constitute the crime of trespass
to dwelling.
• To commit trespass, the entrance by the accused should be against the presumed or express prohibition of
the occupant and the lack of permission should not be confused with prohibition
Lack of permission does not amount to prohibition.

• It is not necessary in the ordinary life of men, in order to call at the door of a house or to enter it, to obtain
the previous permission from the owner who lives in it. With utmost good faith, a person, to whom
entrance has not been denied beforehand, may suppose that the owner of the house has no objection to
receiving him in it.1
In general, all members of a household must be presumed to have authority to extend an invitation to enter the
house
There must be opposition on the part of the owner of the house to the entry of the accused
Implied prohibition
• In a case where the accused, early in the morning, went up to the house of the offended party, entered the
room of the latter's daughter who was then sleeping, though the room had no lock to prevent entrance was
found to be guilty of trespass to dwelling because express prohibition is not necessary. The prohibition in
this case is presumed, considering the time, the fact that the door was closed, the daughter was sleeping
and while the offended party was in the market.
• It is well-settled rule that whoever enters the dwelling of another at late hour of the night after the inmates
have retired and closed their doors does so against their will. Under these circumstances an express
prohibition is not necessary, as it is presumed.
• The fact that the door of the room was only fastened by a string too weak and inadequate to hold it does
not alter the fact that the offended party wished it to be understood that she did not desire anyone to enter
without her consent.
• There was implied prohibition to enter the dwelling in a case where the owner had told the defendants to
wait in the open porch and then closed the door behind him as he entered.
1
People v Peralta, 42 Phil 69.
16
Prohibition is implied in entrance through the window
Prohibition must be in existence prior to or at the time of entrance

• In no event can facts arising after entry was done with the express or implied consent of the occupant
change the character of the entry from one with consent to one without.
What is intended to be protected and preserved by the law is the privacy of one's dwelling
There is no question that intimidation refers to person. But there is a conflict of opinion as to whether violence
refers to persons or to things only.
• People v Tayag: considered the act of loosening one of the bars of the door by means of a bolo and screw
driver as trespass committed by violence
• A Court of Appeals case in People v Coronel did not hold the same view and that violence does not refer
to force upon things
Trespass by means of violence:

• Pushing the door violently and maltreating the occupants after entering
• Cutting of the ribbon or string with which the door latch of a closed room was fastened. The cutting of the
fastening of the door was an act of violence. (AHA! Another case of trespass to dwelling by force upon
things which was held to be violence…ahhh…)
• Wounding by means of a bolo, the owner of the house immediately after entrance
Trespass by means of intimidation:

• Firing a revolver in the air by persons attempting to force their way into a house
• The flourishing of a bolo against the inmates of the house upon gaining entrance
The violence or intimidation may take place immediately after the entrance.
Prohibition is not necessary when violence or intimidation is employed by the offender
Trespass may be committed by the owner of the dwelling

• Even though supposing that the house belonged to the accused, that fact alone did not authorize him to do
anything with or enter the house against the will of the ACTUAL OCCUPANT. He could have invoked
the aid of the court for the exercise or protection of his proprietary right.
All trespassers ordinarily have intention to commit another crime but if there is no overt act of the crime intended
to be committed, the crime is only trespass to dwelling\
Trespass to dwelling when separate from other offense committed in the dwelling:
• Where the accused gained entry to a house through the window and when found inside by the occupants,
tried to arrest him, the accused resisted and in the process, stabbed the son of the owner and assaulted the
owner, the wife and his daughter. He was found guilty of trespass to dwelling through violence, frustrated
homicide and less serious physical injuries.

17
• Two crimes were committed, NOT a complex crime under Art. 48. If the purpose of the accused was to
kill the person injured, it would be frustrated homicide only, but dwelling or that the crime was
committed after an unlawful entry would be an aggravating circumstance.
• Since in the case mentioned above, the accused, when he entered the dwelling had no intent to kill any
person but that the intent to kill came to his mind only when he was being arrested. Thus two crimes and
not a complex crime.
Cases to which the provisions of this article ARE NOT APPLICABLE:

• If the entrance to another's dwelling is made for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to himself,
the occupants of the dwelling or a third person
• If the purpose is to render some service to humanity or justice
• If the place where the entrance is made is a café, tavern, inn and other public houses, while the same are
open
Thus, where MERALCO line inspectors, suspecting that the owner of the house was hiding a transformer used by
him in stealing electricity in his house had no right to enter the house against the will of the owner. It cannot
be said that the inspectors "rendered service to justice."
Art. 281. Other forms of trespass. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos, or
both, shall be imposed upon any person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of another,
while either or them are uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser has not
secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
Elements:
1. That the offender enters the closed premises or the fenced estate of another;
2. That the entrance is made while either of them is uninhabited;
3. That the prohibition to enter be manifest;
4. That the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
"Premises" signifies distinct and definite locality. It may mean a room, a shop, a building or definite area, but in
either case, locality is fixed.
Distinguished from trespass to dwelling:

Trespass to dwelling Other trespass
The offender is a private person The offender is any person
The offender enters a dwelling house The offender enters closed presmises or fenced estate
The place entered is inhabited The place entered is not inhabited
The act constituting the crime is entering the dwelling The act constituting the offense is entering the closed
against the will of the owner premises or fenced estate without securing the
permission of the owner or caretaker
The prohibition to enter is express or implied The prohibition must be manifest
Section Three. — Threats and coercion

18
Acts punishable as grave threats:
1. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime and demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though not
unlawful and the offender attained his purpose
2. By making such threat without the offender attaining his purpose
3. By threatening another with the infliction upon his person, honor or property or that of his family of any
wrong amounting to a crime, the threat not being subject to a condition
Art. 282. Grave threats. — Any person who shall threaten another with the infliction upon the person,
honor or property of the latter or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the crime be threatened to
commit, if the offender shall have made the threat demanding money or imposing any other
condition, even though not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the
offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two degrees shall be imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty shall be imposed in its
maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos, if the threat shall not have been
made subject to a condition.
The threat must be to inflict a wrong amounting to a crime upon the person, honor or property of the offended
party or that of his family
Elements of grave threats where the offender attained his purpose:

1. That the offender threatens another with the infliction upon the latter's person, honor or property or upon
that of the latter's family, OF ANY WRONG;
2. That such wrong amounts to a crime;
3. That there is a demand for money or that any other condition is imposed, even though not unlawful;
4. That the offender attains his purpose.
There must be demand for money

• In a case where the accused sent a letter to an old woman, threatening her with death or the burning of her
house unless she gives him P500, which she must deposit in the place indicated and upon his arrest, the
accused had in his pocketbook an envelope on which was written the name of the offended part was liable
for grave threats.
A threat against a person with death unless he would marry the accused's daughter is liable for grave threats, the
threat of committing a crime (homicide) against him and the imposition of a condition (marry my daughter)
were both present.
• Though the condition was lawful, there was nevertheless a threat to inflict a wrong amounting to a crime.
19
Penalty:
• If the offender attained his purpose, the penalty one degree lower of the penalty for the crime threatened
to be committed shall be imposed.
• If the offender does not attain his purpose, the penalty is two degrees lower than that provided by law for
the crime threatened to be committed
If the threat is not subject to a condition, the penalty is fixed at arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding P500.
If the threat is made in writing or through a middleman, the offense is qualified; the penalty to be imposed will be
in its maximum period
Elements of grave threats not subject to a condition:

1. That the offender threatens another person with the infliction upon the latter's person, honor or property
or upon the latter's family, of ANY WRONG;
2. That such wrong amounts to a crime;
3. That the threat is not subject to a condition.
Third form of grave threats must be serious and deliberate in the sense that it is deliberate and that the offender
persists in the idea involved in the threats
• The threats of the third form are those made with the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the
person threatened the belief that the threats will be carried into effect
• The threat should NOT be made IN THE HEAT OF ANGER because such threat is punished under Art
285 par. 2
In the third form, there is no condition imposed nor a demand for money
rd
If the condition is not proved, it is grave threats under sub-par. 2 of Art 282 (grave threat in the 3 form)
Essence of the crime of threats is intimidation and in intimidation, there is a promise of some future harm or
injury either to the person, honor or property of the offended party or his family
The act threatened to be committed must be wrong.

• A threat to file a complaint is not the kind of wrong envisioned in this article
Grave threats may be committed by indirect challenge to a gun fight, even if the complainant was absent when the
challenge was made
• As the crime consists in threatening another with some future harm, it is not necessary that the offended
party was present at the time the threats were made. It is sufficient that the threats, after they had been
made in his absence, came to the knowledge of the offended party
The crime of grave threats is consummated as soon as the threats come to the knowledge of the person threatened.
• Whether or not the offender attained his purpose, the crime of grave threats is consummated because if he
did not attain his purpose, it is grave threats of the 2 nd form
Threats made in connection with the commission of other crimes are absorbed by the latter

20
• If there is another crime actually committed or the objective of the offender is another crime and the
threat is only a means to commit it or a mere incident in its commission, the threat is absorbed by the
other crime
• But if the threat was made with the deliberate purpose of creating in the mind of the person threatened,
the belief that the threat would be carried into effect, the crime committed is grave threats and the minor
crime which accompanied it should be disregarded
The offender in grave threats does not demand the delivery on the spot of the money or other personal property he
asked because it will change the nature of the penal act to one of robbery with intimidation
Art. 283. Light threats. — Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, made in the manner
expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding article, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Elements:
1. That the offender makes a threat to commit a wrong;
2. That the wrong does not constitute a crime;
3. That there is a demand for money or that other condition is imposed even though not unlawful;
4. That the offender has attained his purpose or that he has not attained his purpose
Light threats are committed in the same manner as grave threats, except that the act threatened to be committed
should not be a crime
Light threats does not include a threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, which is subject to a condition.
Blackmailing may be punished under this article
Art. 284. Bond for good behavior. — In all cases falling within the two next preceding articles, the person
making the threats may also be required to give bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail
to give such bail, he shall be sentenced to destierro.
In what cases may a person be required to give bail not to molest another?
1. When he threatens under the circumstances mentioned in Art 282
2. When he threatens under the circumstances mentioned in Art 283
Compared with Art 35

Art 35 Art 284
Bond to keep the peace Bond for good behavior
Not made applicable to any particular case Applicable only to cases of grave threats and light
threats
If the offender fails to give bond, he shall be detained If he shall fail to give bail, he shall be sentenced to
for a period not exceeding 6 months (if for grave or destierro
less grave felony or not exceeding 30 days (if for light
felony)
This is a distinct penalty
21
The giving of bail is an additional penalty
Art 35 provides for "bond to keep the peace." This article provides for "bond for good behavior.
Art. 285. Other light threats. — The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding
200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next preceding article, shall
threaten another with a weapon or draw such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-
defense.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with some harm not
constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts show that he did not persist in the idea involved in
his threat, provided that the circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the provisions of
Article 282 of this Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not constituting a felony.
Acts punished as "Other light threats":

1. By threatening another with a weapon or by drawing such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-
defense
2. By orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with some harm NOT constituting a crime, without
persisting in the idea involved in his threat
3. By orally threatening to do another any harm not constituting a felony
There must be no demand for money or that there is no condition imposed when the offender threatens another
with a weapon and that the case does not fall in subdivision no. 2 of Art 282
Two acts are punished in par. 1

1. Threatening another with a weapon, even if there is no quarrel, and
2. Drawing a weapon in a quarrel, which is not in lawful self-defense
"Orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with some harm constituting a crime" is totally at odds with its
Spanish counterpart. There is a mistake in the English translation of the law. The word "not" should therefore
be eliminated from the statute in English. Hence, a person who, in the heat of anger, threatened to kill
another without persisting in the idea involved in his threat is liable under par. 2 of Art. 285.2
In a case where the accused took part in a quarrel between the wife of the accused and the offended party, the
accused threatened to kill the offended party and in fact went to his house, got his revolver and returned to the
place looking for the offended party who in the meantime concealed himself in his house.
2
Art 285 par. 2 - Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another with some harm not constituting a crime,
and who by subsequent acts shows that he did not persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided that the circumstances of
the offense shall not bring it within the provisions of Art 282 of this Code.
22
• The accused was convicted of light threats only because later, the accused called at the house of the
brother of the offended party and implored pardon, alleging that the threat was without premeditation.
Art. 285 compared with Art 282 and Art 283
Art 285 Art 282 Art 283

There is no demand for money or Threats under par. 2 of Art 285 is
that there is no condition imposed similar to the third form of Art 282
because the harm threatened to be
committed is a crime
The threat is not deliberate Threats under par. 3 of Art 285 is
similar to light threats (art 283)
because the harm threatened to be
committed is not a crime
Threats which ordinarily are grave threats, if made in the heat of anger, may be OTHER LIGHT THREATS
• The accused who threatens another with the infliction upon the latter's person of a wrong amounting to a
crime (I will shoot you), imposing a condition (If you will not leave the place) is ordinarily guilty of grave
threats.
• Where, however, the accused had flung the threat in a sudden flare of anger following the offended
party's initial disregard of his command to "leave the place" which the offended party had mistaken for a
joke, the crime committed is only OTHER LIGHT THREATS.
Light threats may be committed where the person to whom it is directed is absent
Art. 286. Grave coercions. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon any person who, without authority of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from
doing something not prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right
or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to perform any religious act or to
prevent him from so doing, the penalty next higher in degree shall be imposed.
Two ways of committing grave coercion:

1. By preventing another, by means of violence, threats, or intimidation from doing something not
prohibited by law
2. By compelling another, by means of violence, threats, or intimidation to do something against his will,
whether it be right or wrong
Elements:
1. That a person prevented another from doing something not prohibited by law OR that he compelled him
to do something against his will, be it right or wrong;
2. That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, threats or intimidation; and

23
3. That the person that restrained the will and liberty of another had not the authority of law or the right to
do so or in other words, that the restraint shall not be made under authority of law or in the exercise of
any lawful right
The thing prevented from execution must not be prohibited by law, otherwise, there will be no coercion.
In grave coercion, the act of preventing by force must be made at the time the offended party was doing or about
to do the act to be prevented. If the act was already done when violence is exerted the crime is UNJUST
VEXATION
When the act of preventing another constitutes another crime:

• 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 is liable under Art 132
• Any person who by force, prevents the meeting of a legislative body is liable under Art 143
• Any person who shall use force or intimidation to prevent any member of Congress from attending the
meetings thereof, expressing his opinions or casting his vote is liable under Art 145.
Coercion by compelling
• Where the accused took a 60 year old woman to a grove of "kamatsile", slapped and maltreated her,
bound her hands and feet and fired a shot at the ground to compel her to admit to stealing the clothes of
one of the accused are guilty of grave coercion despite the fact that they testified that they intended to
bring the woman to the teniente del barrio for investigation. Their purpose does not excuse their
compelling her to go with them it she was not willing to and admittedly they had no warrant for her arrest
or any lawful authorization to force her to go with them.
• Coercion is committed by the unauthorized compelling of another person against his will to do
something, whether just or unjust; its essence being an attack on the individual liberty
Compelling another to do something includes the offender's act of doing it himself while subjecting another to his
will.
• In a case where a sergeant of the police and the municipal president wanting to cross a private bridge but
was refused passage by the caretaker because they were on a heavy truck opened the bridge, grabbed and
pushed the caretaker who fell to the ground and one of them pulled out a revolver ready to shoot were
both guilty of grave coercion.
When the complainant is in the actual possession of a thing, even if he has no right to that possession, compelling
him by means of violence to give up the possession, even by the owner himself, is grave coercion.
• It is a maxim of the law that no man is authorized to take the law into his hands and enforce his rights
with threats or violence except in certain well-defined cases where one acts in the necessary defense of
one's life, liberty or property.
A public officer who, not being authorized by law, compels a person to change his residence is liable for
expulsion under Art 127, not coercion
Kidnapping the debtor to compel him to pay his debt is not only coercion but kidnapping for ransom, because in
effect, there is a demand for payment that releases from captivity.

24
Before Art 286 was amended by RA 7659, violence was mentioned as the only means to prevent or to compel an
offended party although it was held that to constitute coercion, intimidation is sufficient without the necessity
of actually laying hands on the person coerced.
• As amended, violence, threats or intimidation may be used to prevent or to compel the offended party
The taxi driver who threatened to bump his car to kill himself and his female passenger if she would not go with
him to a night club is guilty of grave coercion
• In this case, the accused did not succeed because the offended party jumped out of the taxicab.
HOWEVER, the crime of grave coercion is consummated even if the offender failed to accomplish his
purpose. The intimidation takes the place of or is equivalent to the element of violence. The intimidation
was intended to control the will of the offended party
The crime is not grave coercion when the violence is employed to seize anything belonging to the debtor of the
offender. The crime committed falls squarely with LIGHT COERCION under Art 287
It is not intimidation when there is only a display of force, if the arms were not used.
Surrounding the complainant in a notoriously threatening attitude is sufficient.
The force or violence must be immediate, actual or imminent.
The third element "without authority of law to prevent or to compel" means that the person who restrains the will
and liberty of another has not the right to do so as a private person OR does not act in the exercise of a duty in
the case of a person with a duty to perform or with authority as a public functionary.
The owner of a thing has no right to prevent interference with it when interference is necessary to avert greater
danger (Art 432, New Civil Code)
No coercion is committed by a father who, with violence, prevents his unemancipated son from leaving his home
just to loiter around in the streets because under the law, a father has the right to punish his unemancipated
child
A doctor, who was requested by the wife of his patient, compelled by force and threatened to shoot with a
revolver to prevent an insane who was attempting to enter the house of the patient to compel him to leave is
not liable for grave coercion because he merely acted in accordance with the exercise of his profession
There is no grave coercion when the accused acts in good faith in the performance of his duty
The main purpose of the law in penalizing coercion and unjust vexation is precisely to enforce the principle that
no person may take the law into his hands and that our government is one of law and not of men.
A person who takes the law into his hands with violence, is guilty of grave coercion.
Coercion is consummated even if the offended party did not accede to the purpose of the coercion.
Coercion distinguished from illegal detention:

• When the offended party, who was in the house of the accused for three days as servant, had freedom of
the house and left it at times to visit her mother, but it was shown that she was compelled against her will
to leave her mother's house and go with the accused is coercion, not illegal detention.
Grave coercion distinguished from frustrated illegal detention:

25
• The essential element of illegal detention is that there be actual confinement or restraint of the person.
Where the accused, by means of violence, merely dragged and carried the complainant to a distance of
three meters from where she was first grabbed is not frustrated illegal detention but consummated grave
coercion.
Coercion is distinguished from illegal detention when there is no clear deprivation of liberty, by the purpose of the
offender.
When the purpose is to prevent the inmates from leaving the premises such as constructing a fence around the
house of the offended party, as high as a man's shoulder and without an opening and watched the house and
warned the inmates not to leave under threat of death, it was held that the crime was grave coercion and not
illegal detention
Coercion distinguished from maltreatment of prisoner

Coercion Extorting a confession or in obtaining an
information from the prisoner by means of violence
(Art 235)
If he was not a prisoner, it would be grave coercion Act is similar to grave coercion but the offended party
is a prisoner
Grave coercion distinguished from unlawful arrest

• Where a policeman seized a woman standing at the door of her and dragged her to the street for about 40-
50 feet and with the assistance of a third person, placed her in a public carromata because her servants
placed two step ladders in the street to clean the side of her house (not a violation of the ordinance
relating to obstruction of streets) was held to be guilty of grave coercion.
When there is prevention of the meeting of a legislative body or provincial board or city or municipal council or
board, the offenders are NOT LIABLE for grave coercion through arbitrary detention even if there is
compulsion and detention but simply a violation of Art 143 (Acts tending to prevent the meeting of the
Assembly and similar bodies)
When prision mayor shall be imposed:

1. If the coercion is committed in violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage;
2. If the coercion is committed to compel another to perform any religious act;
3. If the coercion is committed to prevent another from performing any religious act.
An essential element of the crime punished under the 2 nd par of Art 286 is the intent to coercively control the
religious beliefs of another
Art. 287. Light coercions. — Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize anything belonging to his
debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto
mayor in its minimum period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less than 75
pesos.
Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine ranging from 5 pesos
to 200 pesos, or both.

26
Elements:
1. That the offender must be a CREDITOR;
2. That he seizes anything belonging to his debtor;
3. That the seizure of the thing be accomplished by means of violence or a display of material force
producing intimidation;
4. That the purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the payment of the debt
Par.1 of Art 287 is limited to a case where the offender seized anything belonging to his debtor by means of
violence to apply the same to the payment of the debt
The offender must be a creditor of the offended party
Taking possession of the thing belonging to the debtor, through deceit and misrepresentation, for the purpose of
applying the same to the payment of the debt is UNJUST VEXATION under the 2 nd par of Art 287.
Actual physical violence need not be employed. It is sufficient that the attitude of the offender in seizing the
property is NOTORIOUSLY MENACING as to amount to a grave intimidation or create such a situation that
would necessarily intimidate the victim
UNJUST VEXATION - other light coercion (Art 287, par 2)

• Unjust vexation includes any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material
harm would, however, unjustly annoy or vex and innocent person
• The paramount question in determining unjust vexation is whether the offender's act caused annoyance,
irritation, vexation, torment, distress or disturbance to the mind of ther person to whom it is directed
Kissing a girl without performing acts of lasciviousness is unjust vexation
There is no violence or intimidation in unjust vexation
Grave coercion distinguished from unjust vexation:

Grave coercion Unjust vexation
The first and third element of Art 286 are present The second element is missing (violence upon the
offended party in preventing or compelling him to do
so against his will)
When the acts of the accused has no connection with his previous acts of violence, it is only unjust vexation.
Art. 288. Other similar coercions. - (Compulsory purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by means
of tokens) - The penalty of arresto mayor or a fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall be imposed
upon any person, agent, or officer of any association or corporation who shall force or compel, directly or
indirectly or shall knowingly permit any laborer or employee employed by him or by such firm or
corporation to be forced or compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the wages due a laborer or employee
employed by him, by means of tokens or objects other than the legal tender currency of the Philippine
Islands, unless expressly requested by the laborer or employee.
27
Acts punished as other similar coercions:

1. By forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or knowingly permitting the forcing or compelling of the
laborer or employee of the offender to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind from him
2. By paying wages due to his laborer or employee, by means of tokens or objects other than the legal tender
currency of the Philippines, unless expressly requested by such laborer or employee
Elements of No.1:
1. That the offender is any person, agent or officer of any association or corporation;
2. That he or such firm or corporation has employed laborers or employees;
3. That he forces or compels, directly or indirectly, or knowingly permits to be forced or compelled, any of
his or its laborers or employees to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind from him or from
said firm or corporation
Elements of No. 2:
1. That the offender pays the wages due a laborer or employee by him by means of tokens or objects;
2. That those tokens or objects are other than the legal tender currency o the Philippines;
3. That such employee or laborer does not expressly request that he be paid by mean s of tokens or objects.
As a general rule, wages shall be paid in legal tender and the use of tokens, promissory notes, vouchers, coupons,
or any other form alleged to represent legal tender is absolutely prohibited even when expressly requested by
the employee.
• No employer shall limit or otherwise interfere with the freedom of any employee to dispose of his wages.
• He shall not in any manner force, compel, oblige his employees to purchase merchandise, commodities or
other property from the employer or from any other person3
Inducing an employee to give up any part of his wages by force, stealth, intimidation, threat or by any other
means is unlawful under Art. 116 of the Labor Code, NOT under RPC.
Art. 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or labor through violence or
threats. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon any
person who, for the purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing coalitions or capital or labor, strike
of laborers or lock-out of employees, shall employ violence or threats in such a degree as to compel or force
the laborers or employers in the free and legal exercise of their industry or work, if the act shall not
constitute a more serious offense in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Elements:
1. That the offender employs violence or threats, in such a degree as to compel or force the laborers or
employers in the free and legal exercise of their industry or work
2. That the purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent coalitions of capital or labor, strike of laborers or
lockout of employers
3
Art. 112, Labor Code
28
The act should not be a more serious offense. Otherwise, the act should be punished in accordance with the other
provisions of the RPC.
Peaceful picketing is not prohibited. It is part of freedom of speech.
Employing violence or making threat by picketers may make them liable for coercion
Preventing employee from joining any registered labor organization is punished under the Labor Code, not under
the RPC.
Chapter Three
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS
Three kinds of discovery and revelation of secrets

1. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence
2. Revealing secrets with abuse of office
3. Revealing industrial secrets
Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. — The penalty of prision correccional in its
minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any private
individual who in order to discover the secrets of another, shall seize his papers or letters and reveal the
contents thereof.
If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos.
The provision shall not be applicable to parents, guardians, or persons entrusted with the custody of
minors with respect to the papers or letters of the children or minors placed under their care or study, nor
to spouses with respect to the papers or letters of either of them.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a private individual or even a public officer not in the exercise of his official function;
2. That he seizes the papers or letters of another;
3. That the purpose is to discover the secrets of such other person;
4. That offender is informed of the contents of the papers or letters seized.
"Seize" means to place in the control of someone a thing or to give him the possession thereof and accordingly, it
is not necessary that in the act, there should be force or violence
• There must be taking possession of papers or letters of another, even for a short time only. If the accused
accepted from a messenger a radiogram addressed to another person, he did not seize the radiogram
because it was voluntarily delivered to him.
The purpose of the offender must be to discover the secrets of another

29
The offender must be informed of the contents of the papers or letters.
Prejudice is not an element of the offense
When the offender reveals the contents of such papers or letters of another to a third person, the offense is
qualified, thus calling for a higher penalty.
This article is not applicable to parents, guardians or persons entrusted with the custody of minors with respect to
papers or letters of the children or minors placed under their care or custody, or to spouses with respect to the
papers or letter of either of them.
Distinguished from public officer revealing secrets of private individuals

Art 230 Art 290
The public officer comes to know the secrets of any The offender is a private individual who seizes the
private individual by reason of his office papers or letters of another to discover the secrets of
the latter
It is not necessary that the secrets are contained in Not necessary that there be a secret
papers or letters
The public officer reveals such secrets without If there is a secret discovered, it is not necessary that it
justifiable reason be revealed
§2756 of the Administrative Code punishes the unlawful opening of mail matter.
Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
500 pesos shall be imposed upon any manager, employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the
secrets of his principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.
Elements:
1. That the offender is a manager, employee or servant;
2. That he learns of the secrets of his principal or master in such capacity;
3. That he reveals such secrets.
The secrets must have come to their knowledge by reason of their office or position and it makes no difference
that a secret was communicated by the principal or master to the employee or servant
The secret must be revealed by the offender
Damage is not necessary!
Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. — The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium
periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge, employee or
workman of any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the owner thereof,
shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.
Elements:

30
1. That the offender is a person in charge, employee, or workman of amanufacturing or industrial

establishment
2. That the manufacturing or industrial establishment has a secret of the industry which the offender has
learned
3. That the offender reveals such secret
4. That prejudice is caused to the owner
Secrets must relate to manufacturing processes invented by or for a manufacturer and used only in his factory or
in a limited number of htem. Otherwise, when such processes are generally used, they will not be secret.
The act constituting the crime is revealing the secret of the industry of employer. If the person used the secret for
his own benefit, without revealing it to others, he is not liable under this article.
The revelation of the secret might be made after the employee or workman had ceased to be connected with the
establishment
Prejudice is an essential element of the offense

31
Crimes against Personal Liberty and Security
Arbitrary Detention; Elements; Grounds (2006)
1. What are the 3 ways of committing arbitrary detention? Explain each. (2.5.%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The 3 ways of arbitrary detention are:
a) Arbitrary detention by detaining a person without legal ground committed by any
public officer or employee who, without legal grounds, detains a person (Art. 124,
Revised Penal Code).
b) Delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities which
is committed by a public officer or employee who shall detain any person for some legal
ground and shall fail to deliver such person to the proper judicial authorities within the
period of: twelve (12) hours, for crimes or offense punishable by light penalties, or their
equivalent; eighteen hours (18), for crimes or offenses punishable by correctional
facilities, or their equivalent; and thirty-six (36) hours for crimes or offenses punishable
by afflictive or capital penalties, or their equivalent (Art. 125, Revised Penal Code).
c) Delaying release is committed by any public officer or employee who delays the
release for the period of time specified therein the performance of any judicial or
executive order for the release of the prisoner, or unduly delays the service of the notice
of such order to said prisoner or the proceedings upon any petition for the liberation of
such person (Art. 126, Revised Penal Code).
2. What are the legal grounds for detention? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The commission of a crime, or violent insanity or any other ailment requiring the
compulsory confinement of the patient in a hospital shall be considered legal grounds for
the detention of any person (Art. 124[2], Revised Penal Code).
3. When is an arrest by a peace officer or by a private person considered lawful? Explain.
(5%)
1. When the arrest by a peace officer is made pursuant to a valid warrant.
2. A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant, arrest a person:
i. When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has committed, is actually

committing, or is attempting to commit an offense,
ii. When an offense has in fact just been committed, and he has personal knowledge
of facts indicating that the person to be arrested has committed it, and
iii. When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has escaped from penal
establishment or place where he is serving final judgment or temporarily confined while
his case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred from one confinement to
another (Sec. 5, Rule 113,1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure).
Grave Coercion (1998)
Isagani lost his gold necklace bearing his initials. He saw Roy wearing the said necklace.
Isagani asked Roy to return to him the necklace as it belongs to him, but Roy refused.
Isagani then drew his gun and told Roy, "If you will not give back the necklace to me, I
will kill you!" Out of fear for his life and against his will, Roy gave the necklace to
Isagani, What offense did Isagani commit? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Isagani committed the crime of grave coercion (Art. 286, RPC) for compelling Roy, by
means of serious threats or intimidation, to do something against the latter's will, whether
it be right or wrong. Serious threats or intimidation approximating violence constitute
grave coercion, not grave threats. Such is the nature of the threat in this case because it
was committed with a gun, is a deadly weapon.
The crime is not robbery because intent to gain, which is an essential element of robbery,
is absent since the necklace belongs to Isagani.
Grave Coercion vs. Maltreatment of Prisoner (1999)
Forcibly brought to the police headquarters, a person was tortured and maltreated by
agents of the law in order to compel him to confess a crime imputed to him. The agents
failed, however, to draw from him a confession which was their intention to obtain
through the employment of such means. What crime was committed by the agents of the
law? Explain your answer. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Evidently, the person tortured and maltreated by the agents of the law is a suspect and
may have been detained by them. If so and he had already been booked and put in jail,
the crime is maltreatment of prisoner and the fact that the suspect was subjected to torture
to extort a confession would bring about a higher penalty. In addition to the offender's
liability for the physical injuries inflicted.
But if the suspect was forcibly brought to the police headquarters to make him admit the
crime and tortured/ maltreated to make him confess to such crime, but later released
because the agents failed to draw such confession, the crime is grave coercion because of
the violence employed to compel such confession without the offended party being
confined in jail. (US vs. Cusi, 10 Phil 143)
It is noted that the offended party was merely "brought" to the police headquarters and is
thus not a detention prisoner. Had he been validly arrested, the crime committed would
be maltreatment of prisoners.
Illegal Detention vs. Grave Coercion (1999)
Distinguish coercion from illegal detention. (3%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Coercion may be distinguished from illegal detention as follows: in coercion, the basis of
criminal liability is the employment of violence or serious intimidation approximating
violence, without authority of law, to prevent a person from doing something not
prohibited by law or to compel him to do something against his will, whether it be right
or wrong; while in Illegal detention, the basis of liability is the actual restraint or locking
up of a person, thereby depriving him of his liberty without authority of law. If there was
no intent to lock up or detain the offended party unlawfully, the crime of illegal detention
is not committed.
Kidnapping (2002)
A and B were legally separated. Their child C, a minor, was placed in the custody of A
the mother, subject to monthly visitations by B, his father. On one occasion, when B had
C in his company, B decided not to return C to his mother. Instead, B took C with him to
the United States where he intended for them to reside permanently. What crime, if any,
did B commit? Why? (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
B committed the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor under Article 271, in
relation to Article 270, of the Revised Penal Code, as amended. Article 271 expressly
penalizes any parent who shall take from and deliberately fail to restore his or her minor
child to the parent or guardian to whom custody of the minor has been placed. Since the
custody of C, the minor, has been given to the mother and B has only the right of monthly
visitation, the latter's act of taking C to the United Slates, to reside there permanently,
constitutes a violation of said provisions of law.
Kidnapping (2006)
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy, laborers in the noodles factory of Luke Tan, agreed to kill him
due to his arrogance and miserliness. One afternoon, they seized him and loaded him in a
taxi driven by Mario. They told Mario they will only teach Luke a lesson in Christian
humility. Mario drove them to a fishpond in Navotas where Luke was entrusted to Emil
and Louie, the fishpond caretakers, asking them to hide Luke in their shack because he
was running from the NBI. The trio then left in Mario's car for Manila where they called
up Luke's family and threatened them to kill Luke unless they give a ransom within 24
hours. Unknown to them, because of a leak, the kidnapping was announced over the radio
and TV. Emil and Louie heard the broadcast and panicked, especially when the
announcer stated that there is a shoot-to-kill order for the kidnappers. Emil and Louie
took Luke to the seashore of Dagat-dagatan where they smashed his head with a shovel
and buried him in the sand. However, they were seen by a barangay kagawad who
arrested them and brought them to the police station. Upon interrogation, they confessed
and pointed to Jaime, Andy, Jimmy and Mario as those responsible for the kidnapping.
Later, the 4 were arrested and charged. What crime or crimes did the 6 suspects commit?
(5%)
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with homicide. The original
intention was to demand ransom from the family with the threat of killing. As a
consequence of the kidnapping, however, Luke was killed. Thus, the victim was deprived
of his freedom and the subsequent killing, though committed by another person, was a
consequence of the detention. Hence, this properly qualified the crime as the special
complex crime of kidnapping for ransom with homicide
(People v. Mamarion, G.R. No. 137554, October 1, 2003; Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the
sand committed murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not
liable for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the intention to
detain Luke whom they were informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal
Code).
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian
humility" does not constitute a crime.
Alternative Answer:
a) Jaime, Andy and Jimmy committed kidnapping with ransom. After kidnapping
Luke, they demanded ransom with the threat of killing him. However, the killing of Luke
is separate from the kidnapping having been committed by other persons, who had
nothing to do with the kidnapping, and who will be liable for a different crime
(Penultimate par. of Art. 267, Revised Penal Code).
b) Emil and Louie who smashed the head of the victim and buried the latter in the
sand committed murder qualified by treachery or abuse of superior strength. They are not
liable for kidnapping because they did not conspire, nor are they aware of the intention to
detain Luke whom they were informed was hiding from the NBI (Art. 248, Revised Penal
Code).
c) Mario has no liability since he was not aware of the criminal intent and design of
Jaime, Andy and Jimmy. His act of bringing Luke to Navotas for "a lesson in Christian
humility" does not constitute a crime.
Kidnapping w/ Homicide (2005)
Paz Masipag worked as a housemaid and yaya of the one-week old son of the spouses
Martin and Pops Kuripot. When Paz learned that her 70 year-old mother was seriously ill,
she asked Martin for a cash advance of P1,000.00 but Martin refused. One morning, Paz
gagged the mouth of Martin’s son with stockings; placed the child in a box; sealed it with
masking tape and placed the box in the attic. Later in the afternoon, she demanded
P5,000.00 as ransom for the release of his son. Martin did not pay the ransom.
Subsequently, Paz disappeared.
After a couple of days, Martin discovered the box in the attic with his child already dead.
According to the autopsy report, the child died of asphyxiation barely three minutes after
the box was sealed. What crime or crimes did Paz commit? Explain. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Paz committed the composite crime of kidnapping with homicide under Art. 267, RFC as
amended by R.A. No. 7659. Under the law, any person who shall detain another or in any
manner deprive him of liberty and the victim dies as a consequence is liable for
kidnapping with homicide and shall be penalized with the maximum penalty.
In this case, notwithstanding the fact that the one-week old child was merely kept in the
attic of his house, gagged with stockings and placed in a box sealed with tape, the
deprivation of liberty and the intention to kill becomes apparent. Though it may appear
that the means employed by Paz was attended by treachery (killing of an infant),
nevertheless, a separate charge of murder will not be proper in view of the amendment.
Here, the term "homicide" is used in its generic sense and covers all forms of killing
whether in the nature of murder or otherwise. It is of no moment that the evidence shows
the death of the child took place three minutes after the box was sealed and the demand
for the ransom took place in the afternoon. The intention is controlling here, that is,
ransom was demanded.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Murder qualified by treachery because the victim was only one week old. The offense
was attended with the aggravating circumstance of lack of respect due to the age of the
victim, cruelty and abuse of confidence. In People v. Lora (G.R. No, L-49430, March 30,
1982), the Court found that a child subjected to similar treatment as the infant in this case
would have died instantly, negating any intent to kidnap or detain when ransom was
sought. Demand for ransom did not convert the offense into kidnapping with murder
because the demand was merely a scheme by the offender (Paz) to conceal the body of
her victim.
Kidnapping; Effects; Voluntary Release (2004)
DAN, a private individual, kidnapped CHU, a minor. On the second day, DAN released
CHU even before any criminal information was filed against him. At the trial of his case,
DAN raised the defense that he did not incur any criminal liability since he released the
child before the lapse of the 3-day period and before criminal proceedings for kidnapping
were instituted. Will DAN's defense prosper? Reason briefly. (5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No. DAN's defense will not prosper. Voluntary release by the offender of the offended
party in kidnapping is not absolutory. Besides, such release is irrelevant and immaterial
in this case because the victim being a minor, the crime committed is kidnapping and
serious illegal detention under Art. 267, Revised Penal Code, to which such circumstance
does not apply. The circumstance may be appreciated only in the crime of Slight Illegal
Detention in Art. 268 (Asistio v. San Diego, 10 SCRA 673 [1964])
Kidnapping; Illegal Detention; Minority (2006)
Dang was a beauty queen in a university. Job, a rich classmate, was so enamored with her
that he persistently wooed and pursued her. Dang, being in love with another man,
rejected him. This angered Job, Sometime in September 2003, while Dang and her sister
Lyn were on their way home, Job and his minor friend Nonoy grabbed them and pushed
them inside a white van. They brought them to an abandoned warehouse where they
forced them to dance naked. Thereafter, they brought them to a hill in a nearby barangay
where they took turns raping them. After satisfying their lust, Job ordered Nonoy to push
Dang down a ravine, resulting in her death. Lyn ran away but Job and Nonoy chased her
and pushed her inside the van. Then the duo drove away. Lyn was never seen again.
1. What crime or crimes were committed by Job and Nonoy? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 1) kidnapping and serious illegal detention with homicide and
rape for the subsequent death of Dang, and 2) kidnapping with rape against her sister,
Lyn. The victims, who were kidnapped and detained, were subsequently raped and killed
(as regards Dang) in the course of their detention. The composite crime is committed
regardless of whether the subsequent crimes were purposely sought or merely an
afterthought (People v. Larranaga, G.R. Nos. 138874-5, Februarys, 2004).
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
Job and Nonoy committed 2 counts of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape
(Art. 342, Revised Penal Code) and the separate offense of murder against Dang. The
crime committed is abduction because there was lewd design when they took the victims
away and subsequently raped them. The killing thereafter, constitutes the separate offense
of murder qualified by treachery.
2. What penalties should be imposed on them? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Since the death penalty has already been prohibited, reclusion perpetua is the appropriate
penalty (RA. 9346). In the case of the minor Nonoy, his penalty shall be one degree
lower (Art. 68, Revised Penal Code).
3. Will Nonoy's minority exculpate him? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Under RA. 9344, the Juvenile Justice and Reform Act, which retroacts to the date that the
crime was committed, Nonoy will be exculpated if he was 15 years old or below.
However, if he was above 15 years old but below 18 years of age, he will be liable if he
acted with discernment. As the problem shows that Nonoy acted with discernment, he
will be entitled to a suspension of sentence.(NOTABENE: R.A. 9344 is outside the
coverage of the examination)
4. Is the non-recovery of Lyn's body material to the criminal liability of Job and
Nonoy? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy,
because the corpus delicti of the crime which is kidnapping with rape of Lyn has been
duly proven.
ALTERNATIVE ANSWER:
The non-recovery of Lyn's body is not material to the criminal liability of Job and Nonoy,
because the corpus delicti of the crime which is forcible abduction with rape of Lyn has
been duly proven.
Kidnapping; Proposal to Kidnap (1996)
Edgardo induced his friend Vicente, in consideration of money, to kidnap a girl he is
courting so that he may succeed to raping her and eventually making her accede to marry
him. Vicente asked for more money which Edgardo failed to put up. Angered because
Edgardo did not put up the money he required, he reported Edgardo to the police. May
Edgardo be charged with attempted kidnapping? Explain.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
No, Edgardo may not be charged with attempted kidnapping inasmuch as no overt act to
kidnap or restrain the liberty of the girl had been commenced. At most, what Edgardo has
done in the premises was a proposal to Vicente to kidnap the girl, which is only a
preparatory act and not an overt act. The attempt to commit a felony commences with the
commission of overt act, not preparatory act. Proposal to commit kidnapping is not a
crime.
Kidnapping; Serious Illegal Detention (1997)
A and B conspiring with each other, kidnapped C and detained him. The duo then called
up C's wife informing her that they had her husband and would release him only if she
paid a ransom in the amount of P10,000,000 and that, if she were to fail, they would kill
him. The next day, C, who had just recovered from an illness had a relapse. Fearing he
might die if not treated at once by a doctor, A and B released C during the early morning
of the third day of detention.
Charged with kidnapping and serious illegal detention provided in Article 267, RPC, A
and B filed a petition for bail. They contended that since they had voluntarily released C
within three days from commencement of the detention, without having been paid any
amount of the ransom demanded and before the institution of criminal proceedings
against them, the crime committed was only slight illegal detention prescribed in Article
268, RPC.
After hearing, the trial court found the evidence of guilt to be strong and therefore denied
the petition for bail. On appeal, the only issue was: Was the crime committed kidnapping
and serious detention or slight Illegal detention? Decide.
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The crime committed by A and B is kidnapping and serious illegal detention because they
made a demand for ransom and threatened to kill C if the latter's wife did not pay the
same. Without the demand for ransom, the crime could have been slight illegal detention
only.
The contention of A and B that they had voluntary released C within three days from the
commencement of the detention is immaterial as they are charged with a crime where the
penalty prescribed is death (Asistio vs. San Diego. 10SCRA673).
They were properly denied bail because the trial court found that the evidence of guilt in
the information for kidnapping and serious Illegal detention is strong.
Trespass to Dwelling; Private Persons (2006)
Under what situations may a private person enter any dwelling, residence, or other
establishments without being liable for trespass to dwelling? (2.5%)
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Trespass to dwelling is not applicable to any person who shall enter another's dwelling
for the purpose of: a) Preventing some serious harm to himself, its occupants, or a third
person; and b) Rendering service to humanity or justice;
Any person who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns, and other public houses, while the same
are open will likewise not be liable (Art. 280, Revised Penal Code).
Tresspass to Dwelling; Rule of Absorption (1994)
At about 11:00 in the evening, Dante forced his way inside the house of Mamerto. Jay.
Mamerto's son, saw Dante and accosted him, Dante pulled a knife and stabbed Jay on his
abdomen. Mamerto heard the commotion and went out of his room. Dante, who was
about to escape, assaulted Mamerto. Jay suffered Injuries which, were it not for the
timely medical attendance, would have caused his death. Mamerto sustained Injuries that
incapacitated him for 25 days. What crime or crimes did Dante commit?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
Dante committed qualified trespass to dwelling, frustrated homicide for the stabbing of
Jay, and less serious physical injuries for the assault on Mamerto.
The crime of qualified trespass to dwelling should not be complexed with frustrated
homicide because when the trespass is committed as a means to commit a more serious
offense, trespass to dwelling is absorbed by the greater crime, and the former constitutes
an aggravating circumstance of dwelling (People vs. Abedoza, 53 Phil.788).
Dante committed frustrated homicide for the stabbing of Jay.... Dante is guilty of less
serious physical injuries for the wounds sustained by Mamerto...
Unjust Vexation vs Acts of Lasciviousness (1994)
When is embracing, kissing and touching a girl's breast considered only unjust vexation
instead of acts of lasciviousness?
SUGGESTED ANSWER:
The acts of embracing, kissing of a woman arising either out of passion or other motive
and the touching of her breast as a mere incident of the embrace without lewd design
constitutes merely unjust vexation (People vs, Ignacio. CA GRNo. 5119-R, September
30, 1950). However, where the kissing, embracing and the touching of the breast of a
woman are done with lewd design, the same constitute acts of lasciviousness (People vs.
Percival Gilo, 10 SCRA 753).

Title 9 With BQ

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Title 9 With BQ

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Reyes 2001 Book II Outline - Title Nine Kiddy and Mondy

CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY

What are the crimes against liberty?

What are the crimes against security?

Section One. - Illegal detention

What are the crimes classified as illegal detention?

2. Slight illegal detention

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.

4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a public officer.

3. That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal;

a. That the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days;

b. That it is committed simulating public authority

d. That the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female or a public officer.

If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary detention.

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

Detention or locking up of victim is essential

Restraint need not be permanent

The detention must be illegal

Special complex crime of Kidnapping with Murder

• HOWEVER, RA 7659 added a last paragraph to Art. 267:

"When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention or is raped or is

Circumstances qualifying the offense:

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

• When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention;

• When the victim is raped;

• When the victim is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts.

Illegal detention distinguished from arbitrary detention:

Illegal detention Arbitrary Detention

3. That the act of kidnapping or detention is illegal;

Liability of accomplice in slight illegal detention

• Liability of an accomplice in his participation is raised to that of a real co-principal.

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

Privileged mitigating circumstance in slight illegal detention

• All the requisites in (a), (b), and (c) must concur.

Is voluntary release a privileged mitigating circumstance if the victim is a woman?

The offender is any person, whether public officer or a private individual.

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

Unlawful arrest distinguished from other illegal detention:

Distinguish from Art 125

Section Two. — Kidnapping of minors

What are the crimes called kidnapping of minors?

2. Inducing a minor to abandon his home

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

2. That the offender induces said minor to abandon such home.

Section Three. - Slavery and Servitude

What are the crimes called slavery and servitude?

2. Exploitation of child labor

3. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt

2. That the purpose of the offender is to enslave such human being.

Kidnapping distinguished from Illegal detention

Cavaet: this is not free from errors. Possession of this document

Kidnapping or Illegal detention Slavery

2. That it is against the will of the minor;

The service of the minor must be against his will.

2. That it is against the debtor's will;

3. That the purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a debt.

CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY

Section One. — Abandonment of helpless persons and exploitation of minors.

3. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents

b. The accused found there a person wounded or in danger of dying;

If the omission constitutes a more serious offences: