Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Art 346. Art 347.: To Manila For The Check-Up
Art 346. Art 347.: To Manila For The Check-Up
Art 347.
Concealment to lose the civil status of the child is explained by the favorite
story re: Senator Poe
o If an abandonment will result to conceal the illegitimacy of Poe, it will
be a violation of Art 347.
Simulation of Births
Usual example: Most of men are married couples without any children
Middle 40s and a woman who cant have a child have their own way of
simulating the birth of a child
o H &W married for 14 years and still possible for a wife to conceive
o If in the province, the wife in order to stimulate the birth will tell the
chismis gang Mare I’m delayed by 2 months, My husband and I will go
to Manila for the check-up.
o The child is given inside a box with all pertinent papers in exchange
for the money
o Although the wife didn’t get pregnant, the wife is shown to have been
given birth (through documents)
o Then introduce to everybody the child as their own
Substitution of one child
Exchange your child for another
Amended by Trafficking persons – RA 9208
Life imprisonment for SIMULATION of Birth
Art 348.
When carrying young people by the sea and lose one of the child. Then after
10 yrs, here come a man presenting a picture of their son and says I am your
son.
But in reality he is not the son but he is trying to usurp the child’s status.
MAGPANGGAP KA NA ANAK PERO HINDI TALAGA
Defraud the parents of the child/the heirs
Art 349.
Atty. Bede Tabalincos Case (AC6622)
http://phlawnotes.blogspot.com/2013/09/manuel-g-villatuya-v-atty-bede-
s.html
In order to be convicted, the second and third marriage must be VALID.
o If there is assemblance of void marriage, it can’t be.
Simulated marriage / marriage by an unauthorized officiator is not allowed
Second spouse need not be liable since she might not know that his or her
future spouse is already married
Prosecutor must see to it that tere is PROBABLE CAUSE and there is proof
that the pther person knows that the person is married
o If he doesn’t know then it’s a matter of offense
Both parties contracting the marriage must be both impleaded in the case
since it’s a PUBLIC OFFENSE
o Each bigamous marriage is a separate offense filed under this article
o So if 2 bigamous marriages, then 2 separate cases of bigamy
Exemption: Sharia Law
o Max of 4 wives as long as he can support them and with the consent of
the 1st wife
o Not criminally liable
Art 350.
Contracted and he knew that he is suffering from impediments
Must have been officiated by someone who has authority to conduct such
marriage
Violation of Art 350 if same-sex marries here
Art 351
Not in effect/repealed already since scientific way of tracing one’s DNA
composition
Any person may be identified through his DNA. So no more problems with a
woman having her husband die.
Art 352.
Those who officiate marriage without AUTHORITY
Art 355
“Any similar means”
By means of publication
*Sec. Obial: Issue with 9208”
Duque issued another IRR
ISSUE ON WHY IRRs ARENT BINDING
Justice Peralta book on CRIMINAL LAW
We basically consulted sir for the legal technique problem hahaha
Art 356.
Envelopmental journalism – blackmail
Art 357.
Reporter, editor, or manager is liable
If it’s simply a publication that has happened in official proceeding and
quoting it – no libel
The remarks or comments is what makes it a libelous one
o Impute something that is wrong
Here no comments or remarks but is not allowed to be published
Art 358-359
Take note of DIFFERENT KINDS OF SLANDER
Oral defamation
o Said in oral
o Unlike libel wherein it is in writing
But (Theatrical) EXHIBITIONS even if not in writing is still libel
o Uttered orally
o But if said in the radio it’s libel already
Serious slander
Slander by deed
o Slapping the face of another person
o Spitting on his face
o
Last ¶, Art 359: Is not of serious nature is called SLIGHT SLANDER BY
DEED (Art 359-B)
o Made a sign (like fuck you sign/dirty finger sign)
o Put your finger in your nose in front of someone
Slander by deed and oral defamation has the same purpose BUT different
means
Art 360.
Any person who shall publish or cause the publication
As long as it is in writing
People
Only the city and provincial prosector can Preliminary Investigate in case of
libel (no assistant)
If the person conducted that conducted the PI is only an assistant prosecutor,
you can ask for the dismissal of the case since it’s a violation of 360.
Jurisidiction
Private individual
o Prosecutor must file the libel case before the place of residence, RTC
that has jurisdiction
Published
o Libelous was printed and first published in any publication it is
different when a person is a public officer or employee (3 venue
choices):
RTC of Place of residence
File it before the place it was printed and first published
Place where he is performing his duties as public officer
Petition of change of venue is allowed
Other notes on Libel
Libel is imbued with moral turpitude even if penalty is correctional in nature,
person is disqualified from all of public office.
o Brillantes (an opponent of Binay) case
For Cyber libel (Pierre’s case)
Place of residence who was the subject of the publication
Or the imputation was printed and first published
IRR is oly supposed to promulgate interim rules and regulations – they
cannot add anything more.
o No provision on penalties
Proof of truth
Codal
If true, good intention/motive, for justifiable ends, and not motivated by
malice (even if with intention that is good) = acquitted
It is different if the person to whom the person is being alluded is a gov’t
employee/public officer
o The proof of truth is not admissible
o It can’t be admitted UNLESS it is facts related to the discharge of
their office
o Otherwise, proof of truth is NOT a defense.
Art 362.
Privileged matters:
o Two kinds of communication:
ABSOLUTELY privileged
Libel may not be actionable even if it is in bad faith
Ex: Priest-confessant; lawyer-client
So if the communication is violated then it is not
actionable
For sir: He thinks this is wrong cos it violates
confidentiality
QUALIFIEDLY privileged
Not actionable unless made with malice or bad faith
o When a lawyer and client revealed to each certain matters, lawyer is
bound by the lawyer-client relationship.
The moment he reveals, he violates this relationship
Court may punish him for violating his oath
Same with a doctor-patient
Limitation to the defense of privileged communication
o One can still be liable
o If there is malice = liable
Additional notes:
o Malice is presumed
But there must be positive identification
How to overcome:
Showing that the accused published it with good
intentions/justifiable motive exists/communication
made is privileged (especially absolutely privilege), and
it must prove the truth (when cases allow truth as a
defense)
There must be positive identification of the offended
o if not identified, no conviction
o UNLESS it’s a group
o 27 SCRA 52
Comments like describing him with qualities which the plaintiff
do not deserve because of social and political status in life
publication is libelous
o Two types of Malice
Malice in law v malice in fact (Beda memaid)
In law: Presumed
In fact:
Better to defend if it’s defamatory without bad motive
o Art 353
If addressed to the group IT is NOT LIBEL
Sir: if the group is known to the genral public, it could
be libelous
o If the communication is privileged, is it a matter of course
Not a good ground for a dismissal for a complaint of libel
It’s only a matter of defense
Privileged communication doesn’t mean it’s not actionable
It just brushes away the presumption of malice
Source: Jurisprudence
Art 363.
What if in a civil or criminal proceeding a defendant and told the court that it
wasn’t me who committed it and it’s in fact Juan Dela Cruz. The defendant’s
statement is false, am I guilty of Art 363 or false testimony?
o Rules of false testimony:
o If it’s against the accused there is a need of finality of the judgment not
liable yet
o If it’s acquittal and against the accused it’s final and executory liable
already unless a petition for certiorari was filed
o The person who gave false testimony is the accused itself it’s false
testimony not Art 363.
Art 9165
o Planting of evidence is punishable by life imprisonment
Art 364.
If defamation source is identifiable = oral defamation
o Slight oral defamation is similar to other light threats
If oral defamation was committed during times when feelings
are running high and there is a quarrel crime committed even
if serious in character is only slight oral defamation.
Putang ina mo: Not oral defamation; it’s just an expression BUT
if there is emphasis, that will be different.
If defamation source is not identifiable but the one spreading it can be
identified – intriguing against honor
Art 365.
Penalty is different
CODAL
Important to distinguish whether IMPRUDENCE or NEGLIGENCE
o Imprudence: Penalty is higher (p. correc medium)
o Negligence: Penalty up to Arresto Mayor only (med and max if grave
felony; if less grave, minimum)
The court is given the widest discretion in the imposition of this article
Simple imprudence: lack of precaution
Reckless imprudence cases:
o By simple negligence a person may be held criminally liable and the
employer is civilly liable by vicarious liability
o How to determine if negligent:
defendant in doing the alleged negligent act use that
reasonable care and caution which an ordinarily prudent
person would have used in the same situation (Picart v Smith)
Art 365 not applicable:
o Art 64: Modifying circumstance w/c may not be applicable (confused)
o Reckless imprudence no mitigating and aggravating
Only aggravating: when you abandon
o Contributory is not a defense only mitigating
Automobile laws
o Contributory negligence will not defeat the action
o Doctrine of last clear chance
When a person crossed while the pedestrian stoplight is on red
but you still have ample time to step on the breaks
People v Carillo
o Tranquiolizer which triggered a heart attack and brain damage
o Simple negligence resulting to homicide
o MALPRACTICE IN MEDICINE
Ivler Case Doctrine
o US marine who shoots
o Person who is acquitted who is in the other case. Other case may still
be acquitted
Force Majeure
o Inevitable Extraordinary circumstance independent of the will fo the
actor the immediate personal act or damage is (..)
Driving within a speed limit does not guarantee exemption
o Not acceptable example of due care
SPL important:
RA 7610
Anti Torture Act
Anti Hazing Law
RA 7438
These are the laws rel. to physical injuries, homicide, and other laws we’ve
discussed.