CRIM II MIDTERM Par 3

ART 185 Machination in public auctions 1. Manufacturer;

2. Producer; or
Acts punished: 3. Processor
1. The offender solicits as a consideration -of any merchandise or object of
from refraining from taking part; commerce; or
2. The offender attempts to cause bidders to
stay away from the auction 4. Importer of any merchandise or object of
commerce from any foreign country
Mere solicitation/attempt consummates the crime
Either as:
Intention- reduction of the price and auctioned.
a. Principal or agent;
This protects the integrity of the public auction b. Wholesaler;
that it is open to everybody. c. Retailer
ART 186 Monopolies and combinations in Who:
restraint of trade. (walay pulos mani, so himuon  combine
nto memoriza nlng ni para sayon)  conspire, or
 agree in any manner
Acts punished:
… with any person for the purpose of:
Par 1
1. Making transactions prejudicial to lawful
1. Enter into a contract commerce, or
2. Enter into an agreement 2. Increasing the market price of the
3. Take part in any conspiracy merchandise or any at… the manufacturer
4. Take part in any combination of which the said merchandise is used.

-all acts must be: Qualifying circumstance for all 3 acts:

 In restraint of trade or commerce, or Offense affects:

 Prevent by artificial means free
competition in market  food substance;
 motor fuel or lubricants;
Par 2  other article of prime necessity.

1. Monopolize any merchandise, or object of If committed by corporation or association:

trade or commerce;
2. Combine with any person to monopolize  president;
said merchandise or object;  directors;
 managers
In order to alter the price thereof by;
-who knowingly permitted or failed to
a. Spreading false rumors
prevent the commission of the offense is/are
b. Making use of any artifice to restrain
liable.
free competition in the market
1
PART 2
ART 187 Importation and Disposition of Falsely
Marked Articles or Merchandise Made of Gold,
Silver and other precious metals or alloys
Elements:
1. The offender imports, sells or dispose of
articles or merchandise made of Gold,
Silver or other precious metals or alloys.
2. The merchandise or articles fails to
indicate actual fineness or quality.
3. The offender knows that the article or
merchandise fails to indicate such fineness
or quality.
What is punished here is that you do not indicate
the true quality. So those who deals or sells these
merchandise must indicate the actual quality of the
precious metal.
RA 8293 Intellectual Property Code
 The three more common/relevant criminal
offenses under the IPC are:
o Infringement (Sec 155)
o Unfair competition (Sec 168); and
o False designation/description or
Representation (Sec. 169).
Infringement.
Mark may refer to trademark (goods) or Service
mark (services).
Marks PURPOSE – IS TO distinguish the goods or
services of one person from that of another and to
indicate the origin or ownership.
Elements of infringement
1. Validity of plaintiffs mark;
2. Plaintiffs ownership of the mark;
3. Use of the mark or its colorable imitation
by the offender likely to cause confusion.
a. FOR COLOURABLE IMITATION TO
BE PRESENT IT MUST LIKELY TO
CAUSE CONFUSION.
IF YOU CAN ESTABLISH THAT A MARK HAS BEEN
REGISTERED IN THE IPO, THEN IT ESTABLISHES
THE FOLLWING DISPUTABLE PRESUMPTIONS:
Registration with the IPO
Certificate of Registration prima facie evidence of:
1. Validity of registration;
2. Ownership of mark;
3. Exclusive right to use mark.
Cannot be registered.
1. Generic,
2. Common descriptive names,
3. Genus of which a product is a species,
EX. FLOWERS, BREAD, LECHON
4. Commonly used description of a kind of
goods.
3rd element: Colorable Imitation
MOST IMPORTANT FACTOR.
This term has been defined as “such a close or
ingenious imitation as to be calculated to deceive
ordinary purchasers, or such resemblance of the
infringing mark to the original as to deceive an
ordinary purchaser giving such attention as a
purchaser usually gives, and to cause him to
purchase the one supposing it to be the other.”
(EMERALD vs CA)
COLORABLE IMITATION IS NOT IDENTITY
 Colorable imitation does not mean such
similitude as amounts to identity. Nor does
it require that all the dtails be literally
copied. Colorable imitation refers to such
similarity in form, content, words, sound,
2
 meaning, special arrangement, or general
appearance of the trademark or tadename
with that of the other mark or tradename
in their over-all presentation or in their
essential, substantive and distinctive parts
as would likely mislead or confuse persons
in the ordinary course of purchasing the
genuine article. (emerald)
IN THE SAME CASE A QUESTION WAS ASKED IF CAN
AN ORDINARY PURCHASER BE DECIEVED INTO
BUYING A PAIR OF FANTASTIC MR. LEE JEANS
SUPPOSING IT TO BE LEE JEANS?
SC SAID NO. FILIPINOS ARE DISCRIMINATING
PURCHASERS. JEANS ARE NOT INEXPENSIVE.
BECAUSE OF THIS YOU GIVE IT A LOT OF
ATTENTION WHEN BUYING. FILIPINOS BUY THEIR
JEANS BY THE BRAND. WHEN YOU SPEAK OF AN
ORDINARY PURCHASER ESPECIALLY IN THE CASE OF
JEANS YOU DON’T TALK OF A TOTALLY UNAWARE
BUYER. YOU TALK OF A PERSON WHO IS WELL
INFORMED OF WHAT HE IS ABOUT TO BUY, HOW
MUCH IT COSTS AND ITS DISTINGUISHING
FEATURES. THE WORDS FANTASTIC MR. LEE ARE
TOO IMMINENT TO CONFUSE A PURCHASER OF
SUCH JEANS.
Unfair competition
Any person who has identified in the mind of the
public the goods he manufactures or deals in, his
business or service from those of others, whether
or not a registered mark is employed, has
property right in the goodwill of the said goods,
business or service so identified. (SEC 168.1, IPC)
Elements of unfair competition
1. Confusing similarity in the general
appearance of the goods
2. Intent to deceive.
The essence of unfair competition is the passing off
of ones goods, business or services for that of
another who established goodwill of said goods,
business or services.
- What is important here is that somebody has
generated something through his goodwill. Unlike
infringement that it needs to be registered,
goodwill doesn’t need to be.
So you need to prove to court that goodwill has
been established by the plantiff of the particular
product.
Unfair competition has a broader coverage
because infirngement only refers to marks. Here
you pass of your goods so it is not necessary you
use the marks but anything to pass off your goods
as that of somebody who has greated goodwill of
the same goods.
You do not need to imitate or give it the
appearance the goods but what you need is to
decieve the public that your goods are the same as
the one who created the goodwill.
False designation
Any person who, in connection with any goods or
services or any container for goods, uses in
commerce, any word, term, name symbol, or
device, or any false designation of origin, false or
misleading description of fact, or false or
misleading representation of fact.
…likely to cause confusion, or deceive as to the
affiliation, connection or association of such person
with another person as to the origin, sponsorship
or approval of his or her goods, services or
commercial activities or:
…in commercial advertising, or promotion,
misrepresents the nature, characteristics, qualities,
or geographic origin of his goods, services or
commercial activities.
PART 3
PD 1602 Gambling, acts punished:
3
 1. Taking part (directly or indirectly) in any
illegal or unauthorized activities or games.
2. Illegal gambling includes activities that
depend upon skill where betting is
conducted.
a. Any person who shall permit illegal
gambling to be carried on.
b. Maintainer or conductor.
3. Maintainer is the person who sets up and
furnishes the means with which to carry on
gambling game or scheme.
4. Conductor is the person who manages or
carries on the gambling game or scheme.
a. Any person who knowingly,
without any lawful purpose,
possess lottery lists, papers
containing letters, numbers or
symbols pertaining to jueteng, jai-
alai, etc.
b. A barangay official who, with
knowledge of the existence of a
gambling house or place in his
jurisdiction fails to abate the same
or take action in connection
therewith.
5. Security guard/officer, watchman, etc., of
hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures which
have the reputation of a gambling place or
where gambling activities are being held.
*RA 9287 increased the penalties for
numbers games, eg jueteng, jai-alai.
PD 449, Cock Fighting Law of 1974
Cockfighting allowed only in a licensed cockpit
during:
 Sundays and legal holidays
 Local fiestas (not more than 3 days)
 Provincial, city, municipal, agricultural,
commercial or industrial fairs, carnival or
exposition upon resolution of local leg
upon approval of Chief of Constabulary or
rep.
 To entertain foreign dignitaries or tourists,
“balikbayans”, fund-raising campaigns for
charitable purposes.
ART 200. Grave Scandal
Elements:
1. Ordinary performs an act;
2. Act is highly scandalous;
3. Act is not any other felony;
4. Public/public knowledge
SAMANIEGO (16 Phil 663), Publicity
FACTS: a married woman was seen…
Evidence:
 Seen walking together at the botanical
gardens,
 Looking for a house to rent they spent a
few hours in the house and came out, and
 Talking at the sidewalk
*only the cochero and one daughter saw the
accused Samniego at the lower level of the house
wearing only his drawers.
So are these enough to convict them of grave
scandal?
SC said no. of the 4 incidents there was nothing
scandalous. The element of publicity is missing.
Publicity requires the public to scandalized. Here
only two seen the accused, it is not enough.
ART 201. Immoral Doctrines, Obscene
publications and exhibitions, and indecent shows.
Elements:
a. The materials, publication, picture or
literature are obscene; and
b. The offender sold, exhibited, published or
gave away such materials.
4
What do we mean by obscene? VAGRANCY DECRIMINALIZED

PP vs KOTTINGER, GR NO 20569, Oct. 29, 1923 R.A No. 10158 (April 2012) decriminalized
vagrancy.
FACTS: accused was selling postcards with naked
women on the post cards. Was it obscene? -all penmding cases dismissed, all serving sentence
released.
SC said no. these are pictures of naked women as
they would appear in their villages. They did not ART 202. Vagrants and prostitutes. (has been
make any unsual poses or exgerated sexually decriminialized)
message in the postcards. It is obscene because
what is obscene is… Offenders:

a. One who neglects to apply himself to some

The word “obscene” and the term “obscenity” may
be defined as meaning something offensive to
chastity, decency, or delicacy. “indecency” is an
act against good behaviour and a just delicacy.
… deprave of corrupt those whose minds are open
to such immoral influences and into whose hands
a publication or other article charged as being
obscene may fall.
Another test of obscenity is that which shocks the
ordinary and common sense of men as an
indecency.
lawful calling, if physically able to (w/o
visible means of support);
b. One who loiters around public or semi-
public bldgs. Or places tramping or
wandering around (w/o visible means of
support);
c. Idle or dissolute persons who lodges in
houses of ill-repute and ruffians or pimps
who habitually associate with prostitutes;
d. One who loiters in inhabited or
uninhabited places w/o any lawful or
justifiable purpose; and

Prostitutes
FERNANDO vs CA, GR 159751, Dec 6, 2006 (READ Elements:
TO UNDERSTAND MORE WHAT IS DECENT or NOT)
1. Women
Test of Obscenity 2. Engage in sexual intercourse or lascivious
Latest guidelines: conduct,
3. Habitual – kung panalagsa ra, pang load,
a. Whether to the average person, applying pang tuition - not prostitution must be
contemporary standards would find the done habitually, and
work, taken as a whole, appeals to the 4. For money or profit.
prurient interest;
b. Whether the work depicts or describes, in *RA 9208
patently offensive way, sexual conduct ART 203 Public Officers
specifically defined by the applicable state
law; and “…every public servant from the highest to the
c. Whether the work, taken as a whole. Lacks lowest.” (MANIEGO vs PP, 88 Phil 494)
serious literary, artistic, political, or
Examples:
scientific value.
5
-swimming instructor at UP Los Banos – PP vs ART 205. Judgement rendered through
LARIN, Oct 7, 1998 negligence.

Swimming instructor liable for malesting a student Elements:

who said no, im just a private life guard at UP not
public officer. 1. Judge;
2. Renders a judgement;
SC said no. you are receiving something from UP it 3. Judgement is manifestly unjust;
means you are a public officeras well as a pervert. 4. Due to inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
-fiscal analyst for the city of Zamboanga – PP vs
KULAIS, July 16, 1998 204 – intentional, unjust

Malfeasance and Misfeasance 205 – manifestly unjust, negligence

Misfeasance- improper performance of some act
which might lawfully be done.
Malfeasance- performance of some act which
ought not to be done.
ART 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgement.
Elements:
1. Judge;
2. Renders a judgement;
3. Judgement is unjust;
4. Judge knows.
Are we saying that a judge cannot make a mistake?
- no, a judge may make a mistake as long as
he does not know that he is making a
mistake and despite knowing it is a wrong
judgement he will insist in promulgating
that judgement.
- Pero kung sayop lang jud sya, wa sya
kabalo sa balaod, I don’t know why he
became a judge, he may be liable for some
administrative penalty but not this article.
Because again, there must be criminal
intent.
ART 206. Unjust interlocutory order.
Elements:
1. Judge;
2. He: a) knowingly renders unjust
interlocutory order or decree or b) renders
manifestly unjust interlocutory order or
decree through inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.
Interlocutory order
Issued by the court between commencement and
the end of a suit or action and which decides some
point or matter, but which, however, is not a final
decision of the matter in issue.
“does it leave something to be done in the trial
court with respect to the merits of the case main
issue?”
Yes – interlocutory order.
JUDGEMENT – disposes an issue of a cases
INTERLOCUTORY ORDER – an order that does not
dispose of the main issue of the case, a preliminary
injuction, a writ attachment and other else.

- can be done in between the beginning and end of

case.

6
ART 207. Malicious delay in the administration of
justice.
Elements:
1. Judge;
2. There is a proceeding in his court;
3. Delays the administration of justice;
4. Malice; inflict damage on either party to
the case.
ART 208. Negligence and tolerance in the
prosecution of offenses.
Acts punished:
1. Negligence- not lack of foresight or skill,
neglects to file a case that should be filed.
2. Tolerance- allowing an offense to be
committed without prosecuting the same.
- usually prosecutor is charged in here.
ART 209. Betrayal of trust by an attorney or
solicitor, revelation of secrets.
Acts punished:
1. Causing damage to a client by malicious
breach of professional duty or inexcusable
negligence or ignorance.
2. Revealing secrets learned by him in his
professional capacity (damage is not
necessary.)
3. Undertaking the defense of an opposing
party in the same case w/o consent of the
first client, when the offender has
undertaken the defense of the first party
or has received confidential information
from the said first party.
PART 3
ART 210. Direct Bribery.
1. Agree to perform an act constituting a
crime, in connection with the performance
of his official duties, in consideration of any
offer, promise, gift or present.
2. Accepting a gift, in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not
constitute a crime.
3. Agreeing to refrain or refraining from
doing something which was his official duty
to do in consideration of a gift or promise
of a gift.
Elements
1. Public officer (Art 203)
2. Accepts an offer or a promise or receives a
gift or present (himself/another);
3. Offer, promise, gift, present is
received/accepted:
a. Commit some crime;
b. In consideration of some act not a
crime;
c. Refrain from doing his official duty
4. Act is connected with his official duties
1st paragraph “..in consideration of any offer
promise, gift or present received by such officer…”
It is not necessary that the offender recieves a gift
or present.
It is sufficient that the offender accepts an offer of
a gift or present.
If the public officer does not accept the offer, only
the person making the offer is criminally liable
(Art 212 Corruption of Public Officer)
“…shall agree to perform an act constituting a
crime,”
Mere promise to perform the act is
sufficient to consummate the felony.
If the offender actually commits the crime,
he shall suffer the corresponding penalty thereto in
addition to the penalty for direct bribery.
7
What if the public officer actually commits the act
that constitutes a crime? Lets say a court
stenographer agrees to commit falsification okay
ra atty alisodon nko ang yes og no. The mere act of
agreeing to commit the crime constitute direct
bribery. So both falsification and direct bribery.
2nd paragraph “..in consideration of the
execution of an act which does not constitute a
crime,”
The act does not constitute a crime
- a policeman accepting a gift in consideration for
making an arrest.
- a government employee processing documents in
consideration of a gift.
Gift must be accepted. If not all you end up with is
a public officer doing his duty.
“if the gift was accepted.. if said act shall not have
been accomplished,”
The public officer must accept the gift.
The implication is that an acceptance of an offer or
promise is not sufficient.
Mere agreement to execute the act is not
sufficient. Either the offender accomplishes the act
or at least commences the same by overt acts.
So mere saying na “o ako bahala ana” without
accepting the gift or commencing the act by overt
acts then there is no bribery. Must ACCEPT.
What if you just accept the gift and not do any
overt act yet? Yah gi dawat ang kwarta but does
not do anything. Unsa man?
Estafa- if really no intention to do the act
Indirect Bribery – no intent to decieve but wala
lang jud gi buhat. Nearest would be
3rd paragraph “..refrain from doing something
which it was his official duty to do,”
If the failure to perform the official duty shall also
constitute a crime, the offender shall be liable
under paragraph 1.
Example:
A prosecutor who shall not prosecute a case in
consideration of a gift or promise of a gift. (Art 208)
So why was in TAD-Y vs PP, why was he
acquitted?
You have the building official and city engineer.
They were acquiitted because apparently because
the document to be issued was not supposedly to
be issued by another office and not their office.
Naka lusot.
Must relate to the official functions of the public
officer.
“however, where the act is entirely outside of the
official functions of the officer to whom the
money is offered, the offense is not bribery.”
(TAD-Y vs PP, GR NO 148862, August 11, 2005)
ART 211 Indirect Bribery
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Accepts gifts;
3. Gifts were offered by reason of his office.
“..accepts gifts…”
The offender must accept a gift.
In this case, they were planning to entrap anf
officer however the officer was not taking tha bait.
“there must be a clear intention on the part of the
public officer to take the gift so offered and
consider the same as his own property from then
on, such as putting away the gift for safekeeping or
8
pocketing the same.” (FORMILLEZA vs
SANDIGANBAYAN, 159 SCRA 1)
ART 211-A Qualified Bribery
Elements:
1. Public officer entrusted with law
enforcement;
2. Refrains from arresting/prosecuting an
offender who has committed a crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua and/or
death;
3. In consideration of any promise, gift or
reward.
ART 212 Corruption of public official
Elements:
1. Offer/ promise/ gives gifts to present to a
public officer;
2. Offer/promise is made or gift/present is
given under circumstances that would
make the public officer liable for
direct/indirect bribery.
- if public officer does not accept the gift. If
accepted. Bribery on the public officer and
corruption on the part of the private party.
ART 213 Frauds against the public treasury and
similar offenses.
A public officer who in his official capacity with
regard to furnishing supplies, the making of
contracts, or adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds shall enter into
an agreement with any interested party or
speculator or make use of any other scheme to
defraud the government.
-entering an agreement to defraud the
government.
A public officer entrusted with the collection of
taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts, shall:
-demand payment of sums different from or larger
than those authorized by law;
-voluntarily fail to issue a receipt, as provided by
law, for any sum collected by him officially;
-collecting or receiving by payment or otherwise,
things or objects of a nature different from that
provided by law.
Par 1. “in his official capacity.. to defraud the
government;”
The offender must take advantage of his public
office and must act in his official capacity.
There must be intent to defraud the government.
ART 214 Other Frauds
Additional penalties in case a public officer who
takes advantage of his official position violates any
of the felonies under ART 315 (Estafa), 316 (Other
forms of swindling), 317 (Swindling a minor), and
318 (Other Delicts).
Elements:
1. That the offender is a public officer;
2. That he takes advantage of his official
position.
3. That he commits any of the frauds or
deceits enumerated in Articles 315 to 318.
ART 215 Prohibited Transactions
The officer must be an appointive public officer.
The transaction involving exchange or speculation
must take place within the territory subject to the
offender’s jurisdiction.
The offender becomes interested therein during
his incumbency.
ART 216 Possession of prohibited interest by a
public officer.
9
The article does not distinguish between elective,
appointive or whether the public officer is such by
provision of law.
The felony consists in becoming interested in any
contract or business in which it was his official duty
to intervene.
The article also punishes private individuals like
experts, arbitrators, private accountants, guardians
and executors as long as it was their duty to
intervene in the contract or business that he takes
interest in. – even though they are not public
officers.
What is punished here possible conflict of interest.
Public official ka then you intervene because of
your official duties and yet you are interested, and
tend to give the interpretation most favorable to
you.
ART 217 Malversation.
The acts punished are:
1. Appropriating;
2. Taking or misappropriating;
3. Consenting, or thru abandonment or
negligence, permitting other persons
totake public funds or property;
4. o/w guilty of misappropriation or
Malversation.
Penalty for Malversation:
Penalty for Malversation is the same whether
committed with malice or through negligence.
Elements:
1. public officer;
2. custody or control of funds/property by
reason of his public office – by reason of
public office;
3. offender is accountable for the
funds/property;
4. offender commits any of the four acts
previously enumerated.
Custody or control of funds
It is the nature of the duties and not the title
thereof that is controlling.
“if he is an employee of, or in some way connected
with the govt and that, in the course of his
employment, he receives money or prop belonging
to the govt for which he is bound to account.” (US
vs VELASQUEZ, 32 Phil 157)
Qualified Charge
He had no authority of his own volition to
withdraw funds from the safe upon any pretext
whatsoever. The funds were placed in the safe and
could only be taken from it by his superior officer
or by his order. Defendants possession of the key
and the combination of the safe gave him control
over the contents (US vs F. WICKER SHAM, GR No
6781, 1911 Nov 6, 1911)
Since he was not fully in control of the funds that
were taken from the safe he could not be liable for
malversation but may be liable for either theft or
estafa but not malversation.
When you do not have full control of the money
and you took it then it may be theft.
Accountable officer
The vital fact is not so much the manner in which
appellant could lawfully perform his duties in
relation to said funds as the fact that he received
money belonging to the Govt for which he was
bound to account (VELASQUEZ)
As long as money was handed to you and you had
to account for it. And control comes hand in hand
with account.
Private individuals are also liable
10
ART 222 The provision of this chapter shall apply to It over to the person demanding to account, is
private individuals who in any capacity considered to have failed to account because he
whatsoever, have charge of public funds, had to get out of the office and borrow money
revenues, or property… from other people.

“…even if such property belongs to a private PART 4

individual.”
ART 218 Failure to render accounts
Examples:
In this felony, the offender who is required to
-property in custodia legis render an account to the COA or auditor fails to
do so.
-property seized by law enforcement agents
This felony may be committed by a public officer:
Presumption of personal use.
-still in service;
The failure of a public officer to have duly
forthcoming any public funds or property with -separated from service by resignation; or
which he is chargeable, upon demand by any duly
-separated from service for any other cause
authorized officer, shall be prima facie evidence
that he has put such missing funds or property to ART 219 Failure of a responsible officer to render
personal uses. (last paragraph, ART 217) account before leaving the country
PP vs JOSE TING LAN UY, JR, Nov 17, 2005, GR No The felony is the act of unlawfully leaving the
157399 country or an attempt thereof without securing a
Even on the putative assumption that evidence certificate from COA.
against petitioner yielded a case of Malversation ART 220 Illegal use of public funds or property.
by negligence but the information was for (TECHNICAL MALVERSATION)
intentional Malversation, under the
circumstances of this case his conviction under Elements:
the first mode of misappropriation would still be
1. public officer;
in order. Malversation is committed either
2. public funds/property under his
intentionally or by negligence. The dolo or the
administration;
culpa present in the offense is only a modality in
3. funds/property has been appropriated by
the perpetration of the felony. Even if the mode
law or ordinance;
charged differs from mode proved, the same
4. offender applies the same to a public use
offense of Malversation is involved and conviction
other than for which it was appropriated.
thereof is proper.
In malversation the officer uses the funds for
Naay caso na gi pangita-an sya ug sinsiyo, he was
personal purposes. Here its not, its still for public
able to produce the change from his pocket. Ingun
purpose but for a different purpose for which it
SC that is not malversation because he was able to
was supposed to be used for.
account for it.

But in another case where he had to go out of the

room, borrow some money form some friends turn
11
Ex. Funds for a road were used instead to build a
road. Intention does not matter. Bahalag for a good
cause.
ART 221 Failure to make delivery of public funds
or property
Acts punished:
1. Failure to make payment. Ex dka
musweldo sa employees kay laban ka sa
suspended governor.
2. Refusing to make delivery.
INFIDELITY IN DEALING with THE CUSTODY OF
PRISONERS.
ART 223 Conniving with or consenting to evasion
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Custody/charge of a prisoner;
3. Prisoner escapes;
4. Connivance
- must have custody or charge like warden
or jail guard for a specific prisoner when
goes to court.
- Must be intentional
ART 224 Evasion thru negligence
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Charged with conveyance or custody of a
prisoner;
3. Escapes through negligence.
- version of 223 but with negligence.
WERE A JAILGUARD ALLOWED A PRISONER TO GO
TO THE RESTROOM BUT INSPECTED THE
RESTROOM FIRST BEFORE THE PRISONER WENT IN.
THEN HE STAYED OUTSIDE WHILE THE PRISONER
DID HIS BUSINESS BUT EVENTUALLY ESCAPED.
SC SAID THAT IS NOT NEGLIGENCE. COMPARED TO
GUARD GUARDING AT THE FRONT YARD TALKING
TO SOMEBODY ELSE WHILE SMOKING. KANA
KLARO NAJUD NA NEGLIGENCE.
Negligence
“it is only that positive carelessness that is short of
deliberate non-performance of his duties as guard
that is the gravamen of the crime of infidelity.”
Liability of escaping prisoner
Convict - evasion of service of sentence ART 157.
Detention prisoner –no liability
WILL THE GUARD STILL BE LIABLE IF THE PRISONER
IS A DETENTION PRISONER UNDER 224?
YES.
ART 225 Escape of prisoner under the custody of a
person not a public officer.
Elements:
1. Private person;
2. Conveyance of a prisoner is confided to
him;
3. Escape;
4. Consent/negligence
ART 226 Removal, Concealment or Destruction of
Documents.
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Abstracts, destroys, or conceals,
documents or papers;
3. Documents/papers entrusted by reason of
office;
4. Damage to a 3rd party or public interest.
12
Removal, concealment or destruction.
If the act is removing, there must be an illicit
purpose, which, however, need not be
accomplished.
If the act is by concealing or destroying, the same
does not require proof of an illicit purpose. – here
presumption is that you have intention and you
need to rebut this presumption.
ART 227 Officer breaking seal. – pag ka way
hinumdan
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Charged with custody of papers/property;
3. Sealed with proper authority;
4. Breaks the seals or permits them to be
broken.
Breaking seal.
The offender is charged with the sealed paper or
property.
The envelope or parcel need not be opened, what
is required is that the seal is broken by the
offender or he permits another to break the said
seal.
No damage is required.
ART 228 Opening of closed documents.
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Closed papers, documents or objects are
entrusted to his custody;
3. Opens/permits them to be opened;
4. No authority.
What if the document was not intrusted to him.
Yang gi kawat nyah iyang gi abri. Masuod sya ani na
article?
YES
ART 229 Revelation of secrets by an officer.
Acts punishable:
1. Revealing any secrets known by public
officer by reason of official capacity;
2. Delivering wrongful papers or copies of
papers of which he may have charge and
which should not be published.
ART 230 Public officer revealing secrets of private
individual.
Elements:
1. Public officer;
2. Secrets of a private individual by reason of
his office
3. Reveals secrets without authority or
justifiable reason.
ART 231 Open disobedience
The offender is a judicial or executive officer.
You will notice walay legislative. I don’t know why.
Probably because they made the law. Nganu apil2x
man nto ato kaugalingon na kita man ga himo.
The offender, without legal justification, openly
refuses to execute a judgement, decision or order
issued by a superior authority.
ART 232 Disobedience to a superior officer, when
said order was suspended by inferior officer.
The offender is a public officer.
The offender receives an order from his superior
for execution.
The offender suspends its execution and
the superior officer disapproves the suspension.
13
Nagbalik2x ni sya pero of course kinsa mu daog ang
superior jud.
The felony consists in disobeying the superior
despite the disapproval of the suspension.
ART 233 Refusal of assistance.
Offender is a public officer.
Competent authority demands that he lends his
cooperation in the administration of justice or
other public service.
Offender maliciously fails to do so.
Serious damage to a third party or public interest
is qualifying.
ART 234 Refusal to discharge elective office.
Offender is elected by popular election.
The felony is committed when the offender,
without legal motive, refuses to:
a. Be sworn in; or
b. Discharge the duties of his office.
ART 235 Maltreatment of prisoners
Offender is a public officer who has under his
charge a prisoner.
Maltreatment consists in:
1. Overdoing the correction or handling of
prisoners:
a. Punishments not authorized
b. Authorized punishments in a
humiliating manner
2. Extort a confession or obtain information.
*Anti-torture Act RA 9745
ART 236 Anticipation of duties of a public office.
Offender is entitled to hold public
office/employment by election or appointment.
The offender assumes the performance of duties
without taking his oath of office or give the bond
required by law.
ART 237 Prolonging performance of duties and
powers.
The public officer’s period to hold public office has
expired as provided by law, regulation or special
provision.
The felony consists in the public officer continuing
to exercise his duties and powers of such office
despite the expiration of the period.
So how about this issue about our suspended
governor, is she liable under this article?
No because her term has not expired.
ART 238 Abandonment of office or position.
The public officer formally resigns from his
position.
Without his resignation being accepted, the public
officer abandon his office to the detriment of
public service.
ART 239 Usurpation of legislative powers.
The offender is an executive or judicial officer.
The offender:
a. Makes general rules or regulations beyond
scope of his authority; or
b. Attempts to repeal a law; or
c. Suspends the execution thereof.
How about the SC in their rules of court, are they
liable under this article?
No, because the consitution allows it.
14

ART 240 Usurpation of executive functions
The offender is a judge who:
a. Assumes powers pertaining to the
executive; or
b. Obstructs the executive in the lawful
exercise of their powers.
ART 241 Usurpation of judicial functions.
The offender is a member of the executive branch
who:
a. Assumes judicial powers; or
b. Obstructs the execution of any order or
decision rendered by an judge w/in his
jurisdiction.
ART 242 Disobeying request for disqualification
The offense is the disobedience of a public officer
who has been lawfully refrained, due to questions
of jurisdiction, from continuing with proceedings in
his office.
Ex. Quoaranto proceedings – questioning
qualification of a particular person.
ART 243 Orders or requests by executive officers
to any judicial authority
The offender is a member of the executive branch.
He issues an order or suggestion addressed to any
judicial authority which order or suggestion relates
to any case or business w/in the exclusive
jurisdiction of the courts of justice.
- judicial independence
ART 244 Unlawful appointments.
The offender appoints or nominates another to a
public office knowing that the appointee or person
nominated lacks the qualifications at the time of
the appointment or nomination.
Appointment of non-eligibles - must not exceed
three months (Rev Adm Code)
ART 245 Abuses against chastity – na sa-ag na
article
Offenders:
1. Any public officer before whom matters for
decision are pending or with respect to
which he is required to submit a report to,
or consult with a superior officer.
2. A warden or public officer charged with
care and custody of prisoners or persons
under arrest.
Abuses against chastity
The felony consists in soliciting or making immoral
or indecent advances to a woman.
It can also be done to the wife, daughter, sister or
relative within the same degree of affinity of the
person in custody. (Mother is not included)
nganu man wala sila kadungog ug MILF?!! 
man diay?? That’s the law.
ART 246 Parricide
In this felony, the person killed must be:
a. Father ]\
b. Mother ] > whether
legitimate or illegitimate
c. Child ]/
d. Or:
a. Other ascendants or descendants,
not the father/mother or child of
the offender who must be
legitimate.
15
 OR
b. Spouse, who must be legitimate of
the offender
Di pwede nang live-in
Relationship by blood.
What distinguishes parricide from other felonies
involving destruction of life is the element of
relationship by blood. Even in the case of legal
adoption, the killing of an adopted child is not
parricide as the relationship is not by blood.
Knowledge of such relationship by the offender is
not required.
How about an adopted child?
FMC says that adopted child for all intesive
purposes what? Adopted child angay daug-daugon.
Aw. Di diay legitimate diay.
Reyes book is not updated may not have
considered the FMC.
In keeping with the times, killing an adopted child
should be considered as parricide.
IN A CASE WHERE A WIFE AND A LOVER
CONSPIRING TO KILL THE HUSBAND BY PLACING A
BOMB IN HIS CAR THE WIFE WAS CONVICTED OF
PARRICIDE while the LOVER MURDER. Why?
Because....
Art 62, par 3 RPC Book I.
“circumstances that arise from the private relations
with the offended party serve to aggravate or
mitigate the liability of those as to whom such
circumstances are attendant.”
ART 247 Death or physical injuries under
exceptional circumstances.
Preliminary requisites:
a. Legally married person with respect to
his/her spouse.
b. Parents with respect to daughters
a. Legitimate or illegitimate.
b. Under 18 years of age, and
c. Living with them
Common requisites.
The married person or parent surprises the
spouse/daughter in the act of sexual intercourse;
The spouse/daughter and their paramour or
seducer are killed or serious physical injuries are
inflicted upon them by the married person or
parent.
Why Not a felony, no penalty.
The act is a justified burst of passion.
In book 1, where a husband caught his wife and the
lover in their house and then he attacked the lover
and the lover defended himself, the lover was able
to kill the husband and then interposed self
defense.
SC said no aggression was lawful. In fact if he
would have killed you or the wife, it would have
been a justified burst of passion.
- must be caught in the act or inflicts the injury or
kills in the act or immediately there after. As long
as it can be established that they had sexual
intercourse right then and there before they were
caught.
Destierro is a measure to protect the
spouse/parent from possible retaliation from the
relatives of the deceased or injured.
“…in the act or immediately thereafter,”
The killing/serious physical injuries must be
committed while the wife/daughter is in the act of
sexual intercourse or immediately thereafter (right
after the sexual intercourse)
“…in the act of committing sexual intercourse…”
16
Where there is no clear showing that sexual
intercourse has occurred, the article is not
applicable. BITUANAN (man and wife were seen
sleeping on the same bed), GONZALES (Wife was
rising up while a man was buttoning his drawers) in
these cases it cannot be.
It is not necessary that he see the carnal act. It is
enough that the circumstances reasonably show
thet the carnal act is being committed or has just
been committed.
It is therefore, necessary that sexual intercourse is
established.
Where sexual intercourse is not clearly established
or if only preparatory acts are committed, Art 247
is not applicable. Also in premeditated plans to
avail of the circumstance it cannot be justified. So
it must be strictly construed. Only during the act or
immediately after.
PP vs abarca
The husband just came home from taking the bar
exam. Uli sya sa ila, want to go to another town so
went to the bus terminal early. Only to find out
that all the buses were full. So balik sya ilang
bahay. So naa man ni puli sa iyang place sa bed. So
pag lili nya sa vents around the room. True enough
his wife and the lover was having sexual
intercourse but he made a noise wherein nakakit
nuon ang lover sa iya. Ma pa nasuko gi tiunan sya
ug pusil, dagan sya ngita sya sa iyang amigo na
sundalo huwam syag pusil when he went to the
place of the lover iyang gi rakrakan naa na-apil lain.
SC said as far as shooting the lover no liabilty. But
to the other people reckless imprudence. Why?
The act was lawful it was a justified burst of
passion.

Highly unlikely ART 248 Murder

Farmer in the morning when he went back to his The unlawful killing of another which is not
house catches the wife and the lover and the parricide or infanticide, with the presence of any of
lover ran away. So the husband warned the wife the six circumstances enumerated:
not to do it again. In the afternoon husband found
1. Treachery…
them again in the toilet. Farmer found his wife
rise from the ground and the lover buttoning his 2. Price…
3. Inundation…
drawers. It is then he attacked both of them.
4. Calamities…
SC did not believe him. said: 5. Evident premeditation…
6. Cruelty…
Neither ii it likely that a woman thirty years of age,
like Sixta Quilason, and twenty-five-year old
Isabelo EVangelio, both of sound judgment as is to
be supposed, had dared to have carnal intercourse Par 3 vs Par 1,2, 4, 5 and 6
near the toilet of the offended party’s house, a Par 3. “by means of inundation, fire, poison…” –
place which is naturally frequented by some must be consciously adopted
persons. (PP vs GONZALES, 69 Phil 66)
Par’s 1, 5 and 6. “with…”
- it may be that it was only an afterthought
of gonzales of not killing them in the Par 2 “in consideration…”
morning.
Par 4 “on the occasion..”

17
By means of fire
The rule in these decisions is that: there is a need
to establish intent to kill, by means of fire, on the
part of the offender to qualify the killing to murder.
-PP vs GALURA, 16 CA Rep 70
girl was given a chocolate. The intent was
not to kill but to sexually arouse the girlfriend.
Nyah ang girlfriend inhan kaayo ug chocolate gi
kaon ang whole box namatay. – not murder but
homicide because it was not conciously adopted.
-PP vs PUGNAY, GR No 74324, Nov 17, 1988.
By means of fire. Playing a simple prank on
a retarded child. Ang usa gi bubu-an ug gasolina.
Another accused put fire on the soaked victim so
victim burned.
SC said its not murder because there was no
evidence that it was intentionally done. All the
evidence will show that it was just a prank taken to
extreme but still a prank. Fire and gasoline were
not intentionally adopted here in the crime.
In arson, where you burn a house not knowing that
there are persons inside that is still arson not
murder because there was no intention. But if you
burned the house knowing the victim is inside.
Then that is murder. Depends upon the intent
when we talk about par. 2.
PP vs CAGOCO, GR No. 38511, October 6, 1933.
“considering that there is no moral or legal
incompatibility between treachery and the
mitigating circumstance No. 3 of Art 9 of the Penal
Code, because the former depends upon the
manner of execution of the crime and the latter
upon the tendency of the will towards a definite
purpose,”
here he punched the person because he thought
he was being cheated in cards. Victim fell down
and died as a reuslt of the injuries. SC said. Yes you
are liable for treachery because you hit him from
behind in a sudden and treatcherous manner.
Killing a child of tender years.
“..the killing of a child in tender age, defenceless
and unprotected, must always be classified as
murder. Even though the deceased children had
been awake they could not have defended
themselves or have fled or escaped from the attack
of their assailants.” (US vs ANTOBIO, GR No 10562,
August 3, 1915)
Intent to kill: so if you hit somebody with an iron
bar. That person does not die. Intent to kill is
important to distinguish or dertermine the exact
felony.
When intent to kill is present so it may be
attempted or frustrated murder/homicide.
If no intent it may be a case of physical injuries.
But if the person dies, intent to kill is conclusively
presumed di nata mag hisgot kung naa bay intent
or wa. Kung namantay intent to kill is conclusively
presumed wana malalis ana.
So like in cagoco, no intent to kill on his part but he
died so no need to argue if there was intent to kill
because death of the victime is a conclusive
presumption of intent to kill. The most we can do
is give the mitigating circumstance of no intent to
commit a grave so wrong.
So if the victim dies pili-on ra ana kay murder,
homicide or reckless imprudence resulting to
homicide. Mao ra na ang la-lison sa court dili na
mahimo physical injuries kung namatay na.
Treachery
As long as treachery was present, the killing is
murder even though intent to kill is not
established.* Cagoco
18
The essence of treachery is a deliberate and
sudden attack that renders the victim unable and
unprepared to defend himself by reason of the
suddenness and severity of the attack. (PP vs
LOPEZ, GR No. 177302, April 16, 2009)
Must be consciously adopted so there would not
be any risk from the victim to defend himself.
Killing was preceded by a fight.
There may still be treachery even if, before the
assault, the assailant and the victim had an
altercation and a fisticuffs and, after the lapse of
some time from the said altercation, the assailant
attacks the unsuspecting victim without affording
the latter any real chance to defend himself. (PP
vs LACADEN, GR No. 187682, Nov 25, 2009)
What if all qualifying circumstance gi gamit nimu? I
want an express ticket to hell, unsa man mahitabo
sa imo? Only one as a qualifying and the rest as an
aggravatign circumastance.
Several qualifying circumstances.
“the trial court ruled that the crime committed was
murder after finding that the killings were attended
by treachery, evident premeditation, dwelling and
price or reward. Only one aggravating
circumstance is enough to qualify the killing to
murder, the rest constitute generic aggravating
circumstances.” (PANA vs JUDGE BUYSER, GR No
130144, May 24, 2001)
Taking advantage of superior strength.
To take advantage of superior strength is to use
force out of proportion to the means available to
the person attacked to defend himself. In order to
be appreciated, it must be clearly shown that
there was deliberate intent on the part of the
malefactors to take advantage thereof. (PP vs
REGALRIO, GR No. 174483, Mar 31, 2009)
To appreciate the attendant circumstance of abuse
of superior strength, what should be considered is
whether the aggressors took advantage of their
combined strength in order to consummate the
offense. Mere superiority in number is not enough
to constitute superior strength. There must be
clear proof that the assailants purposely used
excessive force out of proportion to the defense
available to the person attacked. (PP vs AMODIA,
GR No. 177356 Nov 20, 2008)- here the offenders
took turns in punching the victim. SC said so if u
took turns then its homicide because they did not
use of their numerical superiority.
Qualifying circumstances must be proved.
It is an ancient but revered doctrine that qualifying
and aggravating circumstances before being taken
into consideration, for the purpose of increasing
the penalty to be imposed, must be proved with
equal certainty as those which establish the
commission of the criminal offense. (PP vs
ABDULAH, GR No. 182518, Jan 20, 2009)
- victim was found near garbage dumpster, there
was evidence that her hands were tied behind her
back. Murder ang gi kiha. There was evidence
though that she was killed in such a position. SC
said then that is not enough to prove treachery in
crime with just circumstancial evidence.
Sec 8 and 9, Rule 110, RROC
Sec. 8 Designation of the offense – “..specify its
qualifying and aggravating circumstances.
Sec. 9 Cause of the accusation – “..the qualifying
and aggravating circumstances must be stated in
ordinary and concise language…”
Must be specifically mentioned in the information.
ART 249 Homicide.
The elements of homicide are as follows:
1. A person was killed;
19
 2. The accused killed him without any
justifying circumstance;
3. The accused had the intention to kill, which
is presumed; and
4. The killing was not attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances of murder, or by
that of parricide or infanticide. (VILLAMOR
vs PP, GR No. 182156, Nov 25, 2009)
Intent to kill
Intent to kill – specific intent which the prosecution
must prove by direct or circumstantial evidence,
General criminal intent – presumed from the
commission of a felony by dolo.
Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when the
victim dies.
What if victim does not die how Establishing
intent to kill.
“..the means used by the malefactors, the nature,
location and number of wounds sustained by the
victim, the conduct of the malefactors before, the
time, or immediately after the killing of the victim,
the circumstances under which the crime was
committed and the motives of the accused.”
(RIVERA vs PP, GR No. 166326, Jan 25, 2006)
Inconsistent with negligence.
No such felony as Reckless imprudence resulting in
attempted homicide. Only reckless imprudence
resulting in physical injuries.
If there is intent (dolo) it follows that there can be
no culpa.
ART 250 Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder,
or homicide.
Courts may impose a penalty two degrees lower
in cases of frustrated parricide, murder or
homicide and a penalty three degrees lower on
cases of an attempted felony.
ART 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray.
Several individuals involved that do not constitute
organized groups.
They fight or quarrel in a confused and
tumultuous manner.
Someone is killed in the fight and the one
responsible cannot be ascertained.
Offender
1. One who inflicted serious physical injuries
on the victim, or
2. One who used violence on the victim.
- injuries must not have caused the death
because if it is then you are liable instead
for murder or homicide.
The victim need not be a participant in the fight.
ART 252 Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous
affray.
The victim must be a participant in the fight.
The offender is the one who used violence upon
the person of the victim.
Slight physical injuries are not included.
ART 253 Giving assistance to suicide.
The person commititng suicide is not liable. No
felony of suicide.
The scenarios are:
1. A person assists another to commit suicide
and the suicide is consummated (prision
mayor);
2. A person assists another to commit suicide
and the suicide is not consummated
(arresto mayor med-max);
3. A person assist another to commit suicide
by doing the killing himself and the suicide
is consummated (reclusion temporal);
20
 4. A person assist another to commit suicide
by doing the killing himself and the suicide
is not consummated (one or two degrees
lower than reclusion temporal,)
ART 254 Discharge of firearms.
Elements:
1. The offender discharges a firearm against
or at another person; must aim at the
victim but…
2. That the offender has no intention to kill
that person. Intent is to intimidate.
“…who shall shoot at another with any firearm..”
It is not necessary that the firearm was pointed at
the victim at the actual time of discharge. It is
sufficient that the firearm was pointed at the
victim prior to the actual discharge.
There must be no intent to kill. The purpose is to
intimidate or frighten the victim.
You must discharge. Recent jurisprudence states
that before the discharge it may not be pointed at
a person it is sufficient that the discharge was for
the purpose of intimidating or frightening the
victim.
ART 255. Infanticide
Elements:
1. A child is killed;
2. The child is less than 3 days (72hours) of
age;
3. The offender killed the child.
Infanticide
When the mother or grandparents of the victim
commits the crime to conceal the mother’s
dishonour – Mitigating.
If the child is born dead or could not sustain
independent life outside the womb, infanticide is
not committed.
ART 256 Intentional Abortion
Abortion is the killing of a fetus in the womb or its
expulsion from the womb causing its death.
2 ways of committing intentional abortion.
1. Using violence upon the pregnant woman;
2. Without using violence (drugs/beverages)
a. With consent of the pregnant
woman,
b. Without consent of the pregnant
woman.
Elements of intentional abortion
1. Pregnant woman;
2. Violence exerted or drugs or beverages are
administered, or offender acts upon such
pregnant woman;
3. The fetus dies as a result;
4. Intentional.
ART 257 Unintentional Abortion
Elements:
1. Pregnant woman;
2. Violence is used without intending an
abortion;
3. The violence is intentional;
4. Fetus dies as a result of the violence.
Violence is intentional but the abortion is
unintentional.
Knowledge of pregnancy (BASAHA NING DUHA KA
CASO)
JEFFREY - the offender need not know that the
woman was pregnant.
CARNASO – accused must have known of the
pregnancy.
21
Chocking the pregnant wife – attempted parricide
with unintentional abortion (without intention to
abort the child)
ART 258 Abortion practiced by the woman herself
or by her parents.
The woman who consents to the abortion is liable
under this article. The penalty is mitigated if the
purpose is to conceal her dishonour.
The parents of the pregnant woman with her
consent for the purpose of concealing her
dishonour are also liable.
ART 259 Abortion practiced by a physician or
midwife and dispensing abortives.
Applicable only in intentional abortion.
Physician or midwife who causes the abortion and
takes advantage of scientific knowledge or skill is
imposed the maximum penalty.
ART 260 Duel
It must refer to a formal or regular combat
previously concerted between two parties in the
presence of 2 or more seconds of lawful age on
each side, who make selection of arms and fix all
the other conditions of the fight.
Persons liable.
1. Person who killed his adversary (Reclusion
temporal)
2. Person who inflicted physical injuries on his
adversary (According to the nature of the
injury)
3. Combatants where no physical injuries are
inflicted (Arresto Mayor)
ART 261 Challenging to a duel – human jud oh.
With plenty of time to spare. Maayo jud ko na
maestro oi.
Acts punished:
1. Challenging to a duel;
2. Inciting another to give or accept a
challenge to a duel;
3. Scoffing or decrying another publicly for
having to refused to accept a challenge to
fight a duel.
ART 262 Mutilation
Two kinds:
 Intentionally mutilating another’s organ
(totally or partially) for reproduction.
o – most serious type
o take note it must be intentional, it
cannot be by accident, nag away nya
nag tinigbasay na-igo… so no. the
purpose of the accused must be to lock
off the organ of reproduction.
 Any other mutilation (lopping off or clipping off
some part of the body.)
Intent of Mutilation - intentionally deprive another
of:
a. Organ of reproduction, or
b. Any part of the body
“intentional” - the purpose is cutting or lopping off
must be for a definite or specific purpose
otherwise the crime might be serious physical
injuries.
 so if 2 people are fighting trying to kill each
other and then somebody said self defense
because I was attacked by this old man, whose
right hand has already been severed by the
accused
o SC said that its quite difficult that the
accused was attacked by the old man
whose right hand has already been cut
off by the accused nya ni padayon pa
ug attaki. So can you charge for
mutilation?
22
  NO, because there is no
evidence hat the particular
intention of the offender was
to lopp off or cliff off the any
other part of the body of the
accused
ART 263 Serious Physical Injuries
Par 1. The victim becomes insane, an imbecile,
impotent or blind. – most serious type
Par 2. The victim:
 Loses the use of speech, power to her or smell
 Loses an eye, hand, foot, arm leg, or the use of
any such member of the body.
o What if the victim has one eye, kay
pirate, then loses an eye the other eye
so aha naman na? so BLIND nah na sya
sa sa 1st paragraph.
 Becomes incapacitated for work in which he
was habitually engaged.
o Must prove that he was ACTUALLY
engaged in some kind of work before
the injury
Par 3. The victim:
 Becomes deformed. (Physical ugliness,
permanent, conspicuous and visible);
 Loses any other part or use of the body;
 If the becomes ill or incapacitated for the
performance of the work in which he was
habitually engaged for a period of 90 days.
o So in a case katung ga ilog ang mga
dance instructor sa usa ka client, then
client got annoyed by the two DI so
bodyguard stopped the dance
instructors and in the process broke
the front tooth of one of the DI. Ana
ang DI bati naman ko tanaawon nya
wala na makig sayaw nko kay kada
musayaw ko nya mu smile there is a
huge gap there and unappealing to
clients.
 So gi filan ang bodyguard under this article, so
1st line of defense, how can that be a case of
serious physical injuries?
o Well naa jud, mao ni, it was visible and
conspicuous and permanent nya of
age na bya di bya na baby tooth dina
bya mutubo and yeah physical
ugliness.
 So what if you have prostetics or false teeth
placed there?
o It doesn’t take away the fact na there
was permanent injury because there
was an artificial intervention to speak
of there. Because when it can heal BY
ITSELF then that is when it is NOT
permanent.
o So kung bag-ang, di ma klaro, so NO
kay it is not VISIBLE.
o So if you are an out of school youth
then you cannot be charge under this
par. You must be habitually engaged, if
not then use par. 4.
Par 4. If the injuries causes illness or incapacity for
labor for more than 30 days.
Period of medical attendance/illness or incapacity
for labor that is material.
“Work” includes studies.
 Qualified (Parricide or Murder)
 except in the case of a parent (excessive
chastisement)
o does this mean that the parent kay
pwede ra bunalan ra ang anak ug
maayo? NO, just means that it is not
qualifying when inflicting serious
physical injuries
 others run the risk of being
charged with the child abuse
law.
23
ART 264 Administering injurious substances or
beverages.
Two ways of committing:
1. Administering injurious substances or
beverages;
2. Taking advantage of weakness of mind or
cruelty of victim.
Must result in Serious Physical Injuries.
 you might be under the impression that dri
tung gi bu-buan ang naong ug acido muna na
disfigured. NO, that is under 263.
 Here, you administer, like inject.
ART 265 Less Serious Physical Injuries.
The offender party is incapacitated for labor (any
kind of work) or requires medical attendance for a
period of 10 days or more but not more than 30
days.
ART 266 Slight Physical Injuries
The offended party is incapacitated for labor or
require medical attendance for a period of one to
nine days.
Also committed:
 physical injuries do not incapacitate the victim
for labor nor require medical attendance.
o Take note when slapping is done not to
injure but humiliate that falls under
another crime called slander by deed.
So mura nag libel but instead of the
written word is by action.
 maltreatment is when the act of the offender
does not cause any injury.
ART 266-A Rape
OH kani! Tuon mo ani kay daghan mu gawas sa
exam ani… well not because im a pervert but
because more than half of the jurisprudence is
rape.
Par 1. Committed by a man having sexual
intercourse with a woman:
 through force or intimidation;
 woman is deprived of reason/unconscious;
 by means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority;
 offended party is under 12 years old or
demented (statutory rape)
Par 2. Sexual Assault.
(RA 8353, Oct. 22, 1997) (PP vs REMARIO PALMA,
GR No. 148869-74, Dec 11, 2003)
Committed by any person (may be a man or a
woman) who:
 inserts penis into the mouth or anal orifice;
 inserts instrument or object into genital or anal
orifice of another (does not include the mouth)
o DOJ released an order that finger gani,
acts of lasciviousness dili sexual
assault- why because a finger is not a
instrument or an object . HOWEVER in
a recent CA case:
o SC said if you are gonna use an
instrument or an object like let say a
bottle or a ballpen, insert it to the
genitals of another, what is the
difference in a moral perspective if you
insert your finger with all the
circumstance of rape. So sc said there
is no difference there. So eventually
ingun sila a FINGER CAN BE
CONSIDERED AS SEXUAL ASSAULT
under 266-A.
Offender – any person
Offended party – any person
Gravamen of the offense, rape.
24
The gravamen of the offense of rape is sexual
intercourse without consent. In the instant case,
accused-appelant obtained carnal knowledge of
private complainant by the use of force, threat,
and intimidation. (PP vs NOGPO, GR No 184791,
Apr 16, 2009)
Carnal Knowledge
“Carnal Knowledge” = Sexual Intercourse
Requires penetration. (but not full penetration)
Penetration
As we have said in unnumbered cases, full or deep
penetration is not necessary to consummate sexual
intercourse; it is enough that there is the slightest
penetration of the male organ into the female sex
organ. The mere touching by the male organ of
the labia of the pudendum of the woman’s private
part is sufficient to consummate rape. (PP vs
CASTRO, GR No 172874, Jan 17, 2008)
 there is this one case, where he was charged
with rape and then he said no penetration.
Prosecution said no!, slightest penetration is
enough. In this case the accused was fully
naked the victim was fully naked he was
already on top of the victim and he just
RUBBED his pennis in the VAGINAL MOUNT
layo ra sa labia. Iya ra gi Bag-id2x. pagkuman ni
lakaw.
o SC said, that he had all the opportunity
to have sexual intercourse, pero mao
raman ni iyang gusto sa acts of
lasciviousness. Pag kahuman ug rub og
bag-id2x, oh happy nko lakaw nko. So
acts of lasciviousness. Cause even
though there is this slightest
penetration it still has to be
penetration.
o that’s why some accused mu ingun ug
im already 70 yrs old I cannot achieve
an erection how could I rape
somebody, well you don’t need an
erection, all you need is that your
organ no matter how flacid it may be,
as long as it will touch the labia that’s
consumated rape.
Force, threat or intimidation.
Force need not be irresistible.
That degree of force necessary to bring about the
desired result.
 ah! Wala mana siya ni shagit. She did not push
me with all her might, so no means yes, this
was a consesual act between to consenting
adults who were inlove with each other. So
ngano gi kiha man ka kung inlove with each
other mung duha.
 As long as there was force and the force
brought about the desired result.
 So what if you achieve sexual intercourse but
not through any of the means stated, sc said
that this may be a case of a woman being
decieved, some other crime like seduction of
you cannot prove the force, the threat, or
intimidation was used to have sexual
intercourse with the victim.
Degree of force
What is essential here is that the offender
employed sufficient force to enable him to have
sexual intercourse with the victim. Force should
not be equated with lack or absence of resistance
on the part of the victim. “Besides, physical
resistance is not an essential element of rape.”
(PP vs ARRAZ, Oct 24, 2008, GR No 183696)
- she did not struggle with all her might, she did
not kick, she did not bang on the walls, so that the
neighbors would know that there was some kind of
commotion. So its not required because this is not
an element of the crime. What is an element is that
there was force used but the DEGREE OF
25
RESISTANCE IS NOT AN ELEMENT as far as rape is
concerned.
Moral Ascendancy
Moral ascendancy can take place the place of force
and intimidation in certain cases like in incestuous
rape.
“…the father’s moral ascendancy and influence
over his daughter substitutes for violence and
intimidation in rape cases…” (PP vs JIMENEZ, GR
No 170235, Apr 24 2009)
- no need for force, moral ascendancy will suffice.
Deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious.
Deprived of reason:
 Insane;
 Feebleminded;
Otherwise unconscious:
 Asleep;
o What if natuog, nya pag mata ay
penetrate na? nya pag mata, oi hot.
Unsa mani? Kinsa man mu kiha waman
sya nasuko? Can there be ratification?
 Parents, technically the
parents can still file, pero ang
biktima possibly mutapad sa
akusado ga dala pa ug jobi para
paniudto – chillin’ with my
rapist!
 Administered a drug that deprives her of will
power.
Statutory Rape
When the victim is under 12 years of age or is
demented, sexual intercourse with her, regardless
of the presence or absence of consent or the other
three circumstances, is rape.
 what if 13 or 14? Di makiha ug statutory rape?
Kung naay consent? What is the option?
o Child abuse law, section 5.
o The jurisprudence is,
 if the child is below 12 use
the RPC, statutory rape
 if above 12 below 18  use
the child abuse law, either
sexual intercourse with a
minor/ sexual abuse with a
minor
PP vs Remario Palma ( READ and REMEMBER)
 this is a very good case because this involve
about four or five counts, some of the
incidents happened before Oct 22, 1997 and
others after. A good case illustrating the effects
of RA 8353. Similar acts were commited before
and after.
o Those committed BEFORE – SC said
acts of lasciviousness
o AFTER – SC said sexual assaults.
Finger
Under the present law on rape, ART 266-A of the
RPC, as amended by RA 8385 (or “The Anti-Rape
Law of 1997)xxx insertion of one’s finger into the
genitalia of another constitutes “rape through
sexual assault” (PP vs BON, GR No. 149199, Jan 28,
2003) considered as an instrument or an object.
ART 266-B Qualified Rape
 With the use of deadly weapon, or by two
or more persons;
 By reason or on the occasion victim
becomes insane;
 By reason or on the occasion homicide is
committed (includes attempted rape)
 10 aggravating/qualifying circumstances.
Military, religious imo rapon.
Rape with homicide – special complex crime
26
Rape with homicide is committed when “by reason
or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is
committed.” The main intention of the offender
must be rape and homicide was committed by
reason of the rape or on the occasion of the rape.
 Here as long as rape or homicide was
committed on the occasion
 So when do you know that it is rape with
homicide not homicide with rape?
o The MAIN intention of the offender
must be discerned.
 in one case the offender dragged the woman
to an empty lot, girl said no don’t bring me to
that lot, ma luoy ka nako ill give you money.
Wala tagda. Gi usab niya ill give you money my
jewelry my bag. Pero wa japon gi rape japon.
And after she was raped, the man stood up kita
sa bag ni lakaw gi dala. So later on gi kiha syag
robbery with rape kay tuyo jud adto kay
robbery.
o Sc said no. kay you can see rape was
the main intention kay no matter
unsaon pag offer wala man sya gi
tagad. Gi ignan pa ang babae
“MAMAYA NALANG YAN” whatever
that means. Clearly the intention was
rape ang taking the bag was an
afterthought. So Robbery and Rape.
Sweetheart theory.
Common defense, “uyab man mi, nasudlan lang mi
nasakpan sa mama mao na ang mama nag pugos
ana na ipa kiha ko ug rape”
-again even though you are lovers it is not material,
what you have to prove is that time of this
particular sexual intercourse there was consent.
Mski uyab mo nya wala diay ni sugot imung uyab
anang higayuna then that is rape.
“interposing the sweetheart theory,” he claims
that he and private complainant were lovers who
engaged in consensual sex at dawn on March 9,
2001. From the foregoing arguments, the burden
of evidence has shifted to accused-appellant. He
should prove with clear and convincing evidence
his affirmative defense that it was a consensual
sexual intercourse. (NOGPO)
Sweetheart theory is a weak defense (NOGPO)
 Not credible on the bare testimony of the
accused
 Not self-serving
 Deserves scant consideration, considering that
such defense needs strong corroboration,
 A sweetheart cannot be forced to have sex
against her will - love is not a license for lust
Time and date of commission
The date or time the rape was committed is not an
essential ingredient as it is the carnal knowledge
through force and intimidation that is the
gravamen of the offense. It is, thus, sufficient that
the date of the commission alleged is as near as
possible to the actual date. (PP vs ABOGANDA, GR
No 183565, Apr 8, 2009)
Place of commission
Either way, this court has observed in numerous
cases that lust does not respect either time or
place. The evil in man has no conscience – the
beast in him bears no respect for time and place,
driving him to commit rape anywhere, even in
places where people congregate such as parks, and
inside a house where there are other occupants.
(PP vs MAHINAY, GR 179190, Jan 20, 2009)
Physical injuries not an element
We have ruled in a number of cases that the lack of
lacerated wounds does not negate sexual
intercourse. A freshly broken hymen is not an
essential element of rape. Even the fact that the
hymen of the victim was still intact does not rule
out the possibility of rape. Research in medicine
even points out that negative findings are of no
27
significance, since the hymen may not be torn
despite repeated coitus. (PP vs GARCIA, GR No.
177740 Apr 5, 2010)
Guiding Principles. (on how to commit rape daw)
(1)An accusation of rape can be made with facility
and while the accusation is difficult to prove, it is
even more difficult for the accused; though
innocent, to disprove; (2) considering that in the
nature of things, only two persons are usually
involved in the crime of rape, the testimony of the
complainant should be scrutinized with great
caution; and (3) the evidence for the prosecution
must stand or fail on its merits and cannot be
allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the
evidence for the defense. As a result of these
guiding principles, credibility becomes the single
most important issue. (PP vs PELAGIO GR No
172052, Dec 16, 2008; PP vs LAGARDE, GR No
182549, Jan 20, 2009)
Rape and RA 7610
Charging the accused with two different offenses
for the same act committed on the same date
against the said victim is erroneous as it is illegal,
except where law itself allows. Section 5 (b) RA
7610, however, does not allow. The said law in fact
provides that if the child is below 12 years old, the
accused must be prosecuted under ART 335 of the
RPC. Conversely, if the child is above 12 years old
but below 18 years old, then the accused must be
prosecuted under RA 7610 for the so called “child
abuse.” (PP vs OPTANA, GR No. 133922, 2001 Feb
12)
 RA 7610 limits itself with sexual intercourse
with a child above 12 below 18 section 5 b of
the SPL.
 Below 12  RPC
 How about exactly 12? Hmmm… above 12
wakay labot, kung below 12 wala pud kay
labot… ambot asa ka I butang. Seriously, 7610
sec. 5 b kay this is the more serious offense.
ART 266-C Pardon
A subsequent valid marriage between the
offender and the offended party.
 includes those who have already been
convicted
Extinguishes the criminal action or penalty
imposed.
No longer extends to accomplices and accessories.
Does not extinguish all liability in case of multiple
rape.
what if it’s a case of multiple rape?
Most authority say that let say there were 5 who
conspired on raping. The liabilty of one is the
liability of the others. So let say mr. A he rapes the
victime while the 4 helps him do it. Pag si b napud
ang uban napud gunit. So each is facing a case of
each count of sexual intercourse. So kang A one
count, kang B another count so 5 counts in all. So
the theory is… if you pardon A kay sya imung gi pa
kaslan kay sya ang pinka HOT sa tanan ang katu
upat A is still facing 4 other counts for the rape of
b,c,d and e.
Husband can now commit rape
Marriage must be legal.
Forgiveness by the wife extinguishes criminal
action or penalty imposed. (2nd Par. ART 266-C)
Question: kay naa namay sexual assault, what it is
the wife who sexually assaults her husband iyang
insertan ang anal orifice sa iya bana? Can that be a
subject to pardon? – by analogy a husband can
forgive the wife. (Ang kuyaw nimu kung diha nimu
ma discover na mu enjoy diay imu husband)
ART 266-D Presumptions
Evidence that may be accepted in prosecution of rape:
1. Any physical overt act manifesting resistance.
28
2. Situations that render the victim in capable of giving
consent.

29