49:55

Example:

I. Mark and Lesley were sweethearts. Their parents did not approve of it because they were cousins. In
order to prove their love for each other, Mark and Lesley committed suicide. They did it simultaneously.
Lesley died while Mar survived. What crime did Mark commit? (2009 Bar Question)

A: Giving assistance to suicide

II. Bruno was a government employee, he malversed funds amounting to 15 million so he decided to
commit suicide. He asked his friend, Mars, to assist him. Mars agreed by squeezing the trigger of the
gun which Bruno pointed to his head. Bruno survived. What was the offense committed? The charge
was frustrated giving assistance to suicide. Is the charge correct?

A: No. The crime is already consummated the time you gave your assistance. In fact in this case it is
on the second form. Siya pa mismo ang ni commit sa offense. Siya mismo nag pull sa trigger.

Now let’s go to discharge of firearms. Remember discharge of firearms? Asa gani ni siya? Unsa iyang kalaban?
Alarms and scandals. Diba if dili alarms and scandals, tanawon nato kay basig discharge of firearms. Let’s look at
discharge of firearms. That’s the beauty of Crime 2, wag masiyado excited.

Article 254. Discharge of firearms. - Any person who shall shoot at another with any firearm shall suffer the penalty
of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods, unless the facts of the case are such that the act can be
held to constitute frustrated or attempted parricide, murder, homicide or any other crime for which a higher penalty is
prescribed by any of the articles of this Code.

Elements:
1. That the offender discharges a firearm against or at another person.
2. That the offender has no intent to kill the person

Alarms and Scandals: If pag discharge sa firearm nag samok samok ra siya
Discharge of firearms: If it is directed to a person without intent to kill that is Article 254
Frustrated Homicide or Frustrated Murder: If there is intent to kill and the blow is fatal
Attempted homicide or Attempted Murder: If there is intent to kill
Grave Threats: If gitutok ang baril pero wala gi-discharge or pinakain ang baril.

Let’s look at “shall shoot another”. The act constituting the offense is shooting at another with any firearm without
intent to kill. If the firearm us nit discharged at a person, there is no crime of discharge of firearm. Pwede siya
GRAVE THREATS, tutukan ug baril pero wala gi-discharge.

Discharge towards the house of a victim is not illegal discharge of firearm. The mere assertion of the offended party
that the shot was directed at the place in his house where he was, is not sufficient proof that the shot was aimed or
fired at him. It is essential for the prosecution to prove in a positive way that the discharge of firearm was directed
precisely against the offended party. Kinsa gani tong last nga namatay na Stark? Rickon Stark. Let’s say wala siya
naigo. Kung gipabuthan buthan ra siya, it is clearly discharge of firearm because it was directed at him. In this case
ingon siya na ”Gitira man among balay, discharge of firearm to.” No, there must be proof that it was directed on the
victim without intent to kill. Katong discharge sa Game of Thrones naa man dyud to intent to kill pirmi.
In the discharge of firearm usually the intention here is to engage play. There is really a thin line between grave
threats and discharge of firearms. Ang sa discharge of firearm is nakapaputok but pag hindi nakapaputok but with
intimidation it can fall under grave threats. Dicharge kay nagpabuto.We are talking about the firearm ha.

The gun used here must be licensed or the person carrying the firearm must be authorized to do the same.
Otherwise let’s go back to RA 10591 of Unlicensed Firearm.

Now, can we convict even if the firearm is not presented in court? Yes pwede pa rin because the corpus delicti is not
the firearm, it is the discharge of the firearms that needs to be proved. We have eye witnesses, positive testimonies
and identification that clearly the accused discharged the firearm on the person of the victim. That is your Article 254.

Now let’s go to Section Two.

Section Two. - Infanticide and abortion.

Article 255. Infanticide. - The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and for murder in Article 248 shall be
imposed upon any person who shall kill any child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her
dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be
committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of them, the penalty shall be prision mayor.

Elements:
1. That a child was killed.
2. That the deceased child was less than three days (72 hours) of age.
3. That the accused killed the said child.

What is the definition of Infanticide?

 May be defined as the killing of any child less than three days of age (72 hours), whether the killer is a
parent or grandparent, any other relative of the child, or a stranger.

Kung 71.59 hours that is infanticide because again less than three days of age. Ngano niingon ta ganina na whether
the killer is parent or grandparent or etc? Because mauna man ni siya. Infanticide before Parricide. So whether the
killer is the parent na mahulog dyud siya’g Parricide but the fact stays that the child is less than 72 hours, the correct
charge is Infanticide but the same gihapon ang effect.

The penalty is of that Parricide or Murder but the name of the crime is always Infanticide. The penalty may change
but the correct nomenclature is Infanticide. Father or mother or legitimate other ascedats who kills a child less than 3
days old, to suffer penalty of Parricide.

What if other person siya Ma’am, what is the penalty? MURDER. So more or less the same gihapon ang mahitabo.
Reclusion Perpetua to Death but of course use the correct nomenclature.

Remember we talked about why in our RPC we give importance to honor? Because the importance in the family
before is the honor. Diba pag mabuntisan ka kay dapat mapakasalan ka. That is why in your infanticide provision if
the killing was to conceal dishonour what is the effect? It is a mitigating circumstance. The penalty is lowered down.
The penalty is in Prision Mayor in its Medium or Maximum period and not the penalty for Parricide. Nabuntis hindi
pinakasalan tapos dishonour siya so piñata niya ang bata, the penalty would be mitigated but you have to prove that
the intent is to conceal dishonour.

When we talk about children or a child that is killed, we have to go back to the first 40 Articles of Persons. What
determines personality? Birth. Let’s review this, if the child’s intrauterine life is less than 7 months, when is it
considered born? It is considered born if it survives 24 hours after the umbilical cord is cut and the child is separated
from the mother. If the child which is less than 7 months or a premature baby is killed within the 24 hours period, we
must determine if the child would have survived or it would have died nonetheless had it not been killed. The legal
problem here is if there is difficulty of whether the crime committed is Infanticide or Abortion. Because ang infant buhi
na siya. You have to determine that. In such situation the court may avail expert testimony to aid in arriving at a
conclusion. So if it shown that the fetus cannot survive within the 24 hour, the crime there is abortion because we are
talking about the fetus pa. But if you can prove na maka survive ang premature within the 24 hour then gipatay nimo
siya within 72 hours therefore it is infanticide.

Example:
A, an unmarried woman, gave birth to B. To conceal her dishonor, A conspired with C to dispose of the child. C
agreed and killed the child by burying it somewhere. If the child killed here was 3 days old and above, the crime of A
would be? Parricide. How about C? Murder.

Now let’s talk about the motive of the mother. Why? Because if ma conceal dishonour, it is necessary to mitigate the
penalty. If less than 3 days old, klaro na Infanticide but the penalty is Parricide. However if proven the baby was killed
to conceal dishonor pwede mamitigate iyang penalty.

How about 4 days old gipatay niya to conceal dishonour? Dili na pwede. The crime there is Parricide because to
conceal dishonour is only a mitigating circumstance in Infanticide.

Is concealment of dihonor? An element? No, it is only mitigating.

Example:

Without intent to conceal dishonour killed her 2 day old baby. Dili siya ma acquit beause it is not element. It is only a
mitigating circumstance.

If the child here is abandoned without intent to kill but death results as a consequence. What is the crime? Go to
Article 276. The crime there is Abandonment.

What if Ma’am pag anak patay na dyud siya? Stillborn baby. What is the offense? Wala. Maski imo pa ng itadtad dira,
you cannot be held liable under this Article. Pwede ka sa other provisions but here you cannot kill the dead in normal
circumstances you cannot do that.

What if si Maternal Grandparent or si Uncle ang nipatay? Can they still avail of the mitigating circumstance? Yes, ang
opion ana, as long as it is to conceal dishonour. Because our Penal Code was made mga 1930s at that time grabe
dyud ang honor sa pamilya so that is why we have doctrines such as these.

Example:

Rona gave birth to a baby boy out of unwanted pregnancy. 2 days after giving birth, she abandoned the child by
leaving it at the supermarket. So it is in abandonment. There is a specific offense if ang iyang gibuhat kay
Abandonment- Article 276. Dili siya automatic na Infanticide.

Article 256. Intentional abortion. - Any person who shall intentionally cause an abortion shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act without the consent of the woman.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods, if the woman shall have
consented.
Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman;

: So what if H mole lang na siya Maam? Unsa ng H Mole? Kana gud tong una na muingon nga nanganak
siya’s nukus. Actually H Mole lang siya, wala siya na form into fetus but something else. Mura gihapon
buntis ang babae kay nangala. Naglilihi siya kasi mataas ang hormones niya. Paglabas para siyang grape
like structure. Sabi nila na malign but that is H mole. We are talking about a pregnant woman, may bata sa
loob. H mole meaning hydatidiform mole. Ang iya man gud proma unsahay grape or unsahay monster. Mao
ng ma-Magandang Gabi Bayan na sila sa una, pinaglihi daw sa pugita.

2. That violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the accused otherwise acts upon such
pregnant woman;

: So what is this? Yung pills. Cortal an anti-inflammatory drug. Mura siyag aspirin.

3. That as a result of the use of violence or drugs or beverages upon her, or any other act of the accused, the
fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom;

:Going back to our discussion a while ago that is why we have to know if the fetus would have survived
because intentional abortion happens even if the fetus dies outside as long as expulsion is caused by the
beverages induced.

4. That the abortion is intended.

We are talking about Intentional Abortion. Imong gituyo pag abort sa baby. So if you intentionally used violence or
force on the woman, your penalty is Reclusion Temporal. If, without using violence, he shall act without the consent
of the woman the penalty is Prision Mayor. Prision Correctional in its medium and maximum periods if the woman
have consented.

What is Abortion?
 Willful killing of the fetus in the uterus, or the violent expulsion of the fetus from the maternal womb which
results in the death of the fetus.

3 Ways of Committing Abortion:

1. USE OF VOLENCE: By using violence upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. NO VIOLENCE BUT WITHOUT CONSENT: By acting, but without using violence, without the consent of
the woman. (By administering drugs or beverages upon such pregnant woman without her consent.)
3. NO VIOLENCE BUT WITH CONSENT OF THE WOMAN: By acting (by administering drugs or beverages),
with the consent of the pregnant woman.

Now, let’s differentiate Infanticide and Abortion.

Infanticide Abortion
Child is already capable after its separation from the Child is incapable of sustaining an independent life
maternal womb. outside the maternal womb.

:Capable to be alive. There is already personality. :Usally kaning mga capable of sustaining kay kani na
Remember birth determines personality. Ihapon nato to tong mga full term babies.
kung maka survive ba siya because usually ang ma
abort nabata kay mga premature.
Abortion is not a crime against the woman but a crime against the fetus. If the mother suffers death or physical
in injury as a consequence of abortion, you can have a complex crime of abortion plus the death or physical injury.
Iba ang penalty ng sa fetus and sa woman specially in the first form.

Example:
1. Binugbog mo ang wife to intentionally abort and because of that na-abort. Patay. Klaro intentional abortion. Now
because of that your wife suffered serious physical injury, you will be liable also for serious physical injury because
again abortion is a crime against the fetus.

2. Kim Chiu and Xian are sweethearts. They engage in premarital relation so Kim Chiu became pregnant but Xian
was not ready to get married. Xian punched Kim’s abdomen several times as a result Kim Chiu suffered an abortion.
So Xian is liable for intentional abortion because he used violence against the pregnant woman. As to the injuries of
Kim Chiu, Xian is also liable.

Who are the persons liable? The one who inflicted injury. Second, if the woman consented, Article no. 3 provides for
the least penalty “if the woman shall have consented” to the act causing abortion. Is that provision applicable if the
act which caused the abortion was by using violence and the woman consented to the abortion? No, the provision
must be construed in relation to that in No. 2 of Article 256, because the absence of consent of the woman is
mentioned in connection with a case where the offender acted “without using violence”. Again dapat walay violence.
If si woman nag consent siya, liable siya under Article 258 that is Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her
parents. Nadamay na pud si parents. Again this is because of honor. Remember honor is important for the Filipino.
Why? Mas lisod pa mahimong Filipino citizen compared sa other countries kay grabe dyud atong honor.

Let’s say A and Ba re college students. They engaged in premarital relations. A thought she was pregnant. She
wanted B to abort the child and it turned out that she was not really pregnant. Unya nabuhat na nila ang tanan para
ma abort ang child, are they liable for an impossible crime? Ana si A i-abort nato ni muinom ko ug poison or i-abort
nato ni and punch my abdomen. So are they liable for an impossible crime of abortion? What is an impossible crime?
An Impossible Crime is committed by any person performing an act which would be an offense against persons or
property, were it not for the inherent impossibility of its accomplishment or an account of the employment of
inadequate or ineffectual means. What is important is in impossible crime is wala’y laing offenses in the RPC and in
this case naay physical injury. So ngano pa ka mag impossible crime if naa tay laing offense in the RPC. So didto ta
sa physical injuries.

Article 257. Unintentional abortion. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium period shall
be imposed upon any person who shall cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.

Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman
2. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion.
3. That the violence is intentionally exerted.
4. That as a result of the violence the fetus dies, either in the womb or after having been expelled therefrom.

It is committed only with violence because in intentional abortion naa tay without violence, the second and third form
with consent or without consent. But in your unintentional abortion, it is only done through violence and the violence
must be intended so dili pwede reckless imprudence resulting to unintentional abortion because there must be intent
to inflict the violence.

Example:
Naglagot dyud ka sa imon girlfriend kasi may ka-chat siyang iba. So binugbog mo without knowing that she is
pregnant but the injury was intended so therefore the man can be liable for unintentional abortion.
What if masuko sa imong girlfriend unya gilabayan nimo siya ug electric guitar? So naigo iyang tummy and na abort.
Is he liable? Yes because intentional iyang paglabay. What if nasikuhan niya unknowingly? It is not intentional.

Just remember, was there intent to abort? Pag wala di na pwede si Article 256. Is there violence? If yes, look at the
facts whether the violence is intended because if it is not its not Article 257.

Example:
1. Loloy had an argument with Rose. In the course of altercation, Loloy pointed his gun at Rose. Loloy did not
know Rose was pregnant and because nahadlok siya, na-abort. Can Loloy be held liable for unintentional
abortion? No, because there was no physical violence. Grave threats lang siya.

2. X and Y are husband and wife and in a heated argument, Y was hurt by a bottle of San Miguel. The bottle
was hit on her hip and she was pregnant then. Y had an abortion. Here, X is liable for unintentional abortion.

3. Erwan went home drunk, his wife Anne refused to let Erwan enter the room. When Erwan got inside the
house, he struck Anne with a chair as a result Anne died and suffered an abortion. What is the crime
committed? Unintentional Abortion complexed with Parricide. Complex Crime -under the law, when the acts
constitutes two or more grave or less grave felonies.

4. A pregnant woman decided to commit suicide. She just out of the building and killed a passerby and an
abortion happened thereafter. Si buntis ni ambak or let’s say ako buntis ko unya niambak ko diri kay gamay
kaayo’ scores akong class and I’m not an effective teacher. So niambak ko and si Ms. Cuartero naa siya
didto. Pagambak nako napisat siya, she died and I had an abortion. What is my liability? Am I liable for
abortion? No, the force or another must come from another. If the woman herself is the one inflicting the
abortion, what happens? The crime is not unintentional but it falls under article 258. In this case I attempted
suicide but suicide is not a felony. My only liability is to Ms. Cuartero which is Reckless Imprudence resulting
to Homicide.

Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. - The penalty of prision correccional in
its medium and maximum periods shall be imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or shall
consent that any other person should do so.

Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor, shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in
its minimum and medium periods.

If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of them, and they act with the consent of
said woman for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional
in its medium and maximum periods.

Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion.
2. The abortion is intended.
3. That the abortion is caused by-
a. The pregnant woman herself;
b. Any other person, with her consent; or
c. Any of her parents, with her consent for the purpose of concealing her dishonour.

The woman is liable is she shall consent that any other person should do so. Remember the person na nagtabanag
pag abort didto sa siy sa Intentional Abortion but si woman na nag consent dito siya sa Woman practicing abortion in
herself Article 258.
Who are liable? Only the woman or any of her parents is liable under Article 258 if the purpose of the latter is to
conceal dishonor.

Article 258 covers three cases:

1. Abortion committed by the woman herself or by any other person with her consent. (par 1)
2. Abortion by the woman upon herself to conceal dishonour. (par 2)
3. Abortion by any of the parents of the woman with the latter’s consent to conceal her dishonor. (par 3)

Again we have a mitigation if there is concealment of dishonor. Kaluoy ba sa bata.

Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives. - The penalties provided
in Article 256 shall be imposed in its maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking
advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause an abortion or assist in causing the same.
Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, shall dispense any abortive shall suffer arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.

We just have to know who is the accused we are talking about.

a. If si accused nag assist or nag render sa violence with intent to abort, didto ta sa intentional abortion.
b. If we are talking about the woman who consented: Article 258.
c. If the accused, apart from the woman or the parent, and violence was inflicted intentionally but no intent to
abort, dun tayo sa unintentional abortion.

Elements:
1. That there is a pregnant woman who has suffered an abortion.
2. That the abortion is intended.
3. That the offender, who must be a physician or midwife causes or assists in causing, the abortion.
4. That said physician or midwife takes advantage of his or her scientific knowledge or skill.

Is it necessary that the pharmacist knew that the abortive would be used to cause the abortion? Let’s go back to the
provision: Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, shall dispense any abortive. So
meaning even if the pharmacist does not know that the medication dispensed would be used for abortion, as long as
she dispensed the abortive drug without prescription of the physician, the pharmacist is liable under this Article.

Example:
The pharmacist knew that the Cortal is an abortive agent. Kabalo siya and there’s a rule already now that it must be
wtih prescription and she dispensed it without prescription kasi kilala niya or for any other reason. So na abort and it
was traced kung san nabili, sino ang nag dispense? The lack of knowledge or intention to abort is not a defense
because the act of dispensing an abortive medication without prescription is penalized under the second paragraph
of Article 259. If nurse? Pwede siya sa Article 256- Intentional Abortion. This provision states physician or midwife
and dispensing of abortive. Statutory Construction: it is not included in the enumeration so it is excluded.

Question: What if the pharmacist was negligent kasi yung prescription was spurious?

Ma’am: What is penalized in the law is without prescription, so in case spurious siya.Tanga siya, wala niya gi-clarify I
think it could be Reckless Imprudence resulting to Article 259 because she will be penalized for her Reckless
Imprudence. I think lang ha pero wala pa may case ana. Good Question because we are talking about the knowledge
of the pharmacist. So what if? Basta sure ko ma-penalize siya under the pharmaceutical law. Naaa siya’y
administrative and criminal liability under the Pharmaceutical Law but as to Article 259, I have yet to find case.
Without proper prescription because it is her responsibility to check.
Let’s say maklaro dyud nimo ang negligence, pwede siya Article 259 but naa man dyud mga hawod maka detect na
spurious siya but if in the naked eye, it is a valid prescription I think the pharmacist there won’t have any liability. But
if ma prove na naa siya’y negligence she can be liable under Article 259.

Section Three. - Duel

Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel. - The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be imposed upon
any person who shall kill his adversary in a duel.
If he shall inflict upon the latter physical injuries only, he shall suffer the penalty provided therefor, according to their
nature.
In any other case, the combatants shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor, although no physical injuries have been
inflicted.
The seconds shall in all events be punished as accomplices.

Article 261. Challenging to a duel. - The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be imposed
upon any person who shall challenge another, or incite another to give or accept a challenge to a duel, or shall scoff
at or decry another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel.

Section 3 is not necessary kay wala na man ning duel karon. So just read that.