Criminal Law II Review Notes
emotionally favors the enemy and harbors sympathies or
Title One
CRIMES AGAINST NATIONAL SECURITY AND THE
LAW OF NATIONS
Section One. Treason and Espionage
Article 114. Treason
Article 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit treason
Article 116. Misprision of treason
Article 117. Espionage
Section Two. Provoking war and disloyalty in case of war
Article 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals
Article 119. Violation of neutrality
Article 120. Correspondence with hostile country
Article 121. Flight to enemy’s country
Section Three. Piracy and mutiny on the high seas in
Philippine waters
Article 122. Piracy in general and mutiny on the high
seas or in Philippine waters
Article 123. Qualified piracy
Article 114. Treason
Elements:
1. Offender is a Filipino citizen or an alien residing in the
Philippines;
2. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved;
3. The offender either –
a. Levies war against the Government; or
b. Adheres to the enemies, giving them aid or
comfort.
§ Treason cannot be committed in time of peace.
1st mode: “Levying war against the Government”
There must be an actual assembling of men. Thus, the
actual enlistment of men to serve against the government
doesn’t amount to levying war.
Under this mode, it is not necessary that there be a formal
declaration of the existence of a state of war. Actual
hostilities may determine the date of the commencement of
war.
The war must be directed against the government, not
merely to resist a particular statute or to repel a particular
officer. However, it is NOT necessary that those attempting
to overthrow the gov’t succeed in their designs.
Q: Is it necessary under this mode that the purpose of
levying war is to deliver the country in whole or in part to
the enemy?
A: Yes, if the uprising is committed without enemy
collaboration, the crime would be rebellion not treason.
2nd mode: “Adhering to the enemies, giving them aid
or comfort”
“Adherence to the enemy” means intent to betray. There is
“adherence to the enemy” when a citizen intellectually or
convictions disloyal to his country’s policy or interest.
“Aid or comfort” means an act which strengthens or tends to
strengthen the enemy in the conduct of war against the
traitor’s country and an act which weakens or tends to
weaken the power of the traitor’s country to resist or to
attack the enemy.
Adherence alone, without giving aid or comfort, does NOT
constitute treason.
The aid and comfort must be a deed or physical activity. To
be treasonous, the extent of aid and comfort must be to
render assistance to them as enemies and not merely as
individuals, and be directly in furtherance of the enemies’
hostile designs. However, the act need not actually
strengthen the enemy.
The aid or comfort under this mode must be after the
declaration of war. The enemies must be subject of a foreign
power.
When killings and other common crimes are charged as
overt acts of treason, they cannot be regarded as separate
crimes or complexed with treason.
Example: Where the accused served as secret
agent for the Japanese, and in the performance of
such service, he participated in the Japanese
expeditions against guerillas and committed mass
murders, arson and robberies, and those deeds
were charged an element of treason, they become
identified with the crime of treason and cannot be
the subject of a separate punishment.
But this rule will not preclude the punishment of common
crimes as such, IF the prosecution should elect to prosecute
the culprit specifically for those crimes, instead of relying on
them as an element of treason.
Ways of proving treason
A person may be convicted of treason on the following
evidence ONLY:
1. [Two-witness rule] Testimony of two witnesses, at
least, to the same overt act; or
2. Confession of the accused in open court.
The two-witness rule
The testimony of two witnesses is required to prove the
overt act of giving aid or comfort. It is not necessary to
prove adherence.
Q: A testified that he saw X on guard duty in the Japanese
garrison on Monday. B testified that he also saw X on guard
duty in the garrison on Wednesday. Can X be convicted of
treason on the basis of A & B’s testimony?
A: No. Both overt acts, although of the same nature and
character, are two distinct acts. Either one, to serve as a
ground for conviction, must be proved by two witnesses.
That one witness should testify as to one, and another as to
the other, was held not enough.
1
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

Laurel v. Misa
G.R. NO. L-409, 30 January 1947

FACTS: Petition for habeas corpus by Laurel based on the

People v. Manayao
theory that a Filipino citizen who adhered to the enemy
G.R. No. L-322, 28 July 1947
giving the latter aid and comfort during the Japanese
occupation cannot be prosecuted for the crime of treason
FACTS: Manayao et al were charged and found guilty of
because (1) of the suspension of the sovereignty of the
treason with multiple murders. They were sentenced to
legitimate government in the Philippines resulting in the
death and to pay the fine with indemnity to heirs of the
suspension of the correlative allegiance of Filipinos thereto,
victims of the town they massacred with the Japanese
and (2) of the changes of sovereignty upon the proclamation
troops. The massacre was witnessed by the two children
of the Philippine Republic.
spared from the killing.
HELD: Citizen owes absolute/permanent allegiance to his
HELD: The Makapili is not part of the Japanese Army in the
government/sovereign, which should not be confused with
Philippines being an organization of ‘traitors, pure and
the qualified/temporary allegiance which a foreigner owes to
simple.’ This doesn’t divest the People’s Court of jurisdiction.
the government of his current residence. This absolute
They have not lost their citizenship when no evidence that
allegiance is not abrogated by enemy occupation because
he has subscribed to an oath of allegiance to support the
the sovereignty of the government de jure is not transferred
laws of Japan and that he showed his acceptance of a
thereby to the occupier, remaining vested in the legitimate
commission in the Armed Forces of Japan were presented.
government. What may be suspended is the exercise of the
They are still subject of the law on treason in the Philippines.
rights of sovereignty passing temporarily to the occupant,
and not the allegiance which subsists with the subsistence of
the sovereignty of the legitimate government.
People v. Adriano
G.R. No. L-477, 30 JUNE 1947
The change in government from commonwealth does not
affect the crime of treason. It holds applicable to the present
FACTS: Adriano was found guilty of treason by virtue of his
government being an offense against the same government
being a Makapili. The prosecution however did not introduce
and sovereign people.
any other evidence except for his membership. Furthermore,
the alleged acts committed by the accused were not
established or concurred by testimonies from 2 witnesses.
People v. Perez
G.R. No. L-856, 18 April 1949
HELD: The two-witness requirement in the crime of treason
should be applied restrictively – the lawmakers having
FACTS: Perez was convicted of treason and sentenced to
intended for it to be applied with the same rigidity and
death where 5 of the 7 counts against him alleged his
inflexibility due to the seriousness of the crime and the
abduction of girls for the purpose of using them to satisfy
abnormality of the times from American origin.
the sexual desires of Japanese officials.
Hilado dissenting: Being a Makapili was one single
HELD: For an act to be treasonous, it should be one that
continuous and indivisible overt act of giving aid to the
renders assistance to the occupants to further their hostile
Japanese invaders. There is no need for at least 2 witnesses
designs. Sexual relations between the women and the
to have testified on one same act.
Japanese officials cannot be said to aid in the furtherance of
the objectives of the enemies.
Article 115. Conspiracy and proposal to commit
Dissent by Pablo: Entertainment tones up the nerves of the
treason
soldiers. Services or favors that should have been performed
by Japanese women were done by Filipino women. This
Elements (Conspiracy):
helped improve the phases of their military activities.
1. In time of war;
2. Two or more persons come to an agreement to levy
People v. Prieto
war against the gov’t or to adhere to the enemies and
G.R. No. L-399, 29 January 1948
to give them aid or comfort; and
3. They decide to commit it.
FACTS: Prieto, a Makapili who aided the Japanese in
apprehending Filipino guerillas (who were tortured and
Elements (Proposal):
executed after being apprehended) was convicted of 4
counts of treason.
1. In time of war;
2. A person who has decided to levy war against the gov’t
HELD: Murder and physical injuries are identified as an
or to adhere to the enemies and to give them aid or
element of treason and they cannot be the subject of a
comfort; and
separate punishment, or make a complex crime with
3. Proposes its execution to some other person or
treason. They are averred as a constitutive ingredient of
persons.
treason. But where the State prosecutes them for such acts
not as an overt act for treason, then the accused can be
à The two-witness rule does not apply to conspiracy or
punished for such acts if found guilty.
proposal to commit treason.

2

Article 116. Misprision of treason
Elements:
1. Offender must be owing allegiance to the Government,
and not a foreigner
2. He has knowledge of any conspiracy (to commit
treason) against the Government
3. He conceals or doesn’t disclose and make known the
same as soon as possible to the governor or fiscal of
the province or the mayor or fiscal of the city in which
he resides.
à Art. 116 will not apply when the crime of treason has
already been committed by someone and the accused
doesn’t report its commission to the proper authority. The
law says “knowledge of any conspiracy against” not
knowledge of treason actually committed.
à The offender in misprision is punished “as an accessory to
the crime of treason”. Hence, the penalty for misprision is
two degrees lower than that provided for treason.
Article 117. Espionage
Two ways of committing espionage
(Mode 1) Elements:
1. Offender enters a warship, fort or naval or military
establishment or reservation;
2. He has no authority therefore; and
3. His purpose is to obtain information, plans,
photographs or other data of a confidential nature
relative to the defense of the Philippines
à It is not necessary that information be actually obtained.
2)
(Mode 2) Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has in his possession (by reason of the public office
he holds) any information, plans, photographs or other
data of a confidential nature relative to the defense of
the Philippines; and
3. He discloses their contents to a representative of a
foreign nation
COMMONWEALTH ACT No 616
An Act to Punish Espionage and Other Offences
Against National Security
Acts punished:
1) Unlawfully obtaining or permitting to be
obtained information affecting national
defense
o by going upon, entering, flying over or
otherwise by obtaining information
concerning any vessel, aircraft, work of
defense or other place connected with the
national defense, or any other place where
ay vessels, aircraft, arms, munitions or other
Criminal Law II Review Notes
materials for the use in time of war are being
made, or stored, for the purpose of obtaining
information respecting national defence, with
intent to use it to the injury of the Phil or to
the advantage of any foreign nation. (this is
the 1st par)
o by copying, taking, making or attempting or
inducing or aiding another to copy, take,
make or obtain any sketch, photograph,
photographic negative, blue print, plan, map
instrument, appliance, document, writing, or
note of anything connected with the national
defence, for the same purpose and with like
intent as in 1st par. (this is the 2nd par)
o by receiving or obtaining or agreeing or
attempting or inducing or aiding another to
receive or obtain from any sources any of
those data mentioned in 2nd par, code book
or signal book, knowing that it will be
obtained or disposed of by any person
contrary to the provisions of the Act.
o by communicating or transmitting, or
attempting to communicate or transmit to
any person not entitled to receive it, by
wilfully retaining and failing to deliver it on
demand to any officer or employee entitled
to receive it, the offender being in possession
of, having access to, control over, or being
entrusted with any of the date mentioned in
2nd par, or code book or signal book.
o by permitting, through gross negligence, to
be removed from its proper place or custody
or delivered to anyone in violation of his
trust, or to be lost, stolen, abstracted or
destroyed any of the data mentioned in 2nd
par, code book or signal book, the offender
being entrusted with or having lawful
possession or control of the same.
Unlawful disclosing of information affecting
national defense
o by communicating, delivering or transmitting
or attempting or aiding or inducing another
to do it, to any foreign govt or any faction or
party or military or naval force within a
foreign country, whether recognised or
unrecognised by the Phil, or to any
representative, officer, employee, subject or
citizen thereof, any of the date mentioned in
2nd par above, code book or signal book. If
committed in times of war, the penalty is
death or imprisonment for not more than 30
years.
o in times of war, by collecting, recording,
publishing or communicating or attempting
to elicit any information with respect to the
movement, number, description, condition or
disposition of any of the armed forces, ships,
aircraft, or war materials of the Phil, or with
respect to the plans or conduct of any
military, naval or air operations or with
respect to any works or measures
undertaken for the fortification or defense of
any place, or any other information relating
to the public defense, which might be useful
to the enemy. The penalty is death or
3

imprisonment for not more than 30 years.
3) Disloyal acts or words in time of peace
o by advising, counselling, urging or in any
other manner by causing insubordination,
disloyalty, mutiny or refusal of duty of any
member of the military, naval or air forces of
the Phil
o by distributing any written or printed matter
which advises, counsels, or urges such
insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny, or refusal
or duty.
4) Disloyal acts or words in time of war
o by willfully making or conveying false reports
or false statements with intent to interfere
with the operation or success of the Armed
Forces of the Phil
o to promote the success of its enemies, by
willfully causing or attempting to cause
insubordination, disloyalty, mutiny or refusal
of duty in the Armed Forces
o by willfully obstructing the recruiting or
enlistment service.
5) Conspiracy to violate preceding sections
o 2 or more persons conspire to violate the
provisions of Sections 2, 3 or 4
o one or more of such persons do any act to
effect the object of the conspiracy
6) Harboring or concealing violators of the law
o the offender knows that a person has
committed or is about to commit an offence
o the offender harbors or conceals such person
Other acts punished:
o using or permitting or procuring the use of
an aircraft for the purpose of making
photograph, sketch, etc of vital installations
or equipment of the Armed Forces;
o reproducing, publishing, selling etc
uncensored copies of photograph, sketch etc
of the vital military, naval or air post, camp
or station, without permission of the
commanding officer;
o injuring or destroying or attempting to injure
or destroy war materials, premises or war
utilities when the Philippines is at war;
o making or causing was materials to be made
in a defective manner when the Philippines is
at war;
o injuring or destroying national defense
material, premises or utilities; and
o making or causing to be made in a defective
manner, or attempting to make or cause to
be made in a defective manner, national
defense material.
Espionage Treason
Both not conditioned by the citizenship of the offender
May be committed in time of May be committed only in
peace or war time of war
There are many ways of There are only two ways of
Criminal Law II Review Notes
committing espionage, committing treason
taking Art. 117 of the RPC
and CA No. 616 together
Article 118. Inciting to war or giving motives for
reprisals.
Elements:
1. Offender performs unlawful or unauthorized acts; and
2. Such acts provoke or give occasion for a war involving
or liable to involve the Philippines or expose Filipino
citizens to reprisals on their persons or property.
Illustration: The public destruction of the flag or seal of a
foreign state or the public manifestations of hostility to the
head or ambassador of another state.
Article 119. Violation of neutrality
Elements:
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is no involved;
2. There is a regulation issued by competent authority for
the purpose of enforcing neutrality; and
3. The offender violates such regulation.
Article 120. Correspondence with hostile country
Elements:
1. In time of war in which the Philippines is involved;
2. The offender makes correspondence with an enemy
country or territory occupied by enemy troops;
3. The correspondence is either –
a. Prohibited by the Government, or
b. Carried on in ciphers or conventional signs, or
c. Containing notice or information which might be
useful to the enemy.
§ “Correspondence” means communications by means of
letters.
à Even if the correspondence contains innocent matters, if
the correspondence has been prohibited by the Government,
it is punishable.
à Prohibition by the Government is not essential in
paragraphs 2 & 3 of Article 120.
§ Circumstances qualifying the offense:
1. Notice or information might be useful to the
enemy; AND
2. Offender intended to aid to enemy
à These acts amount to treason. Hence, the penalty is the
same as that for treason.
4
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

Article 121. Flight to Enemy's Country

Piracy under the RPC and Piracy under P.D. No. 532
Elements: Piracy under RPC Piracy under P.D. No.
532
1. There is a war in which the Philippines is involved; As to the manner of commission
2. Offender must be owing allegiance to the government; May be committed by May be committed by
3. Offender attempts to flee or go to enemy country; and attacking or seizing a vessel attacking or seizing a vessel
4. Going to the enemy country is prohibited by competent or seizing the whole or part or by taking away the whole
authority. of the cargo of said vessel, or part of its cargo,
the equipment or personal equipment or personal
à Mere attempt to flee or go to enemy country belongings of its belongings of the vessel’s
consummates the crime. complement or passengers complement or passengers
by means of violence against
or intimidation of persons or
force upon things.
Article 122. Piracy in general and Mutiny on the High As to the persons committing the crime
Seas or in Philippine Waters May be committed only by a May be committed by any
stranger to the vessel (i.e. person including a
Acts punished as piracy one who is neither a passenger or complement of
passenger nor a member of the vessel
1. Attacking or seizing a vessel on the high seas or in the complement of the
Philippine waters; and vessel)
2. Seizing in the vessel while on the high seas or in As to the place of the commission of the crime
Philippine waters the whole or part of its cargo, its Philippine waters or on the Only in Philippine waters
equipment or personal belongings of its complement or high seas
passengers.
As to when piracy becomes qualified
Elements of piracy It becomes qualified when it It becomes qualified, among
is accompanied, among others, when physical
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters; others, by murder, homicide, injuries or other crimes are
2. Offenders are neither members of its complement nor physical injuries or rape committed as a result of or
passengers of the vessel; on occasion thereof or when
3. Offenders either - murder, homicide or rape is
a. attack or seize a vessel on the high seas or in committed by reason or on
Philippine waters; or occasion thereof.
b. seize in the vessel while on the high seas or in
Philippine waters the whole or part of its cargo, its
equipment or personal belongings of its
complement or passengers; Piracy Mutiny
4. There is intent to gain. Persons who attack a vessel Offenders are members of
or seize its cargo are the crew of passengers
§ “Piracy” is robbery or forcible depredation on the high strangers to said vessels
seas, without lawful authority and done with animo furandi Intent to gain essential Intent to gain not essential,
and in the spirit and intention of universal hostility. offenders may only intend to
ignore the ship’s officer’s
Note: Article 2, RPC- Except as provided in the treaties and
laws of preferential application, the provisions of this Code
shall be enforced not only within the Philippine Archipelago,
including its atmosphere, its interior waters and maritime
zone, but also outside of its jurisdiction against those who: People vs. Lol-lo and Saraw
G.R. No. 17958, 27 February 1922
xxx xxx xxx
FACTS: Boat carrying men, women and children on its way
1. Should commit an offense while on between two islands in the Dutch East Indies were waylaid
a Philippine ship or airship; by six vintas manned by 24 armed Moros. At first, they
asked for good but one on the Dutch boat, they took all of
xxx xxx xxx the cargo, attacked some of the men and brutally violated
two of the women. All the people were placed back into the
5. Should commit any of the crimes boat except the two men, and holes were made with the
against national security and the law of nations, idea of submerging the boat. They took the women and
defined in Title One of Book Two of this Code. repeatedly violated them. Two of the raiders were Lol-lo and
Saraw, the former participating in the rape. The women
eventually escaped while Saraw and Lol-lo returned to
TawiTawi where they were apprehended and tried. They
were found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment.

5
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

HELD: Pirates are in the law hostes humani generis. Piracy is

R.A. No. 6235
a crime not against any particular state but against all
An Act Prohibiting Certain Acts Inimical to Civil
mankind. It may be punished in the competent tribunal of
Aviation
any country where the offender may be found or into which
he may be carried. The jurisdiction in the crime of piracy
Who are punishable?
unlike other crimes has no territorial limits, nor does it
matter that a crime was committed within the jurisdictional
1. Any person who shall compel a change in the course or
3-mile limit of a foreign state, “for those limits, through
destination of an aircraft of Philippine registry, or to
neutral to war, are not neutral to crimes.”
seize or usurp the control thereof, while it is in flight.

An aircraft is in flight from the moment all its external

People v. Rodriguez
doors are closed following embarkation until any of
G.R. No. L-60100, 20 May 1985
such doors is opened for disembarkation. (Sec. 1.)

2. Any person who shall compel an aircraft of foreign

FACTS: Rodriguez et al (crew members of M/V Noria 767)
registry to land in Philippine territory or to seize or
were charged with the crime of piracy, found guilty and
usurp the control thereof while it is within the said
sentenced to death. They were able to obtain 3M as total
territory. (Sec. 1.)
amount and escaped through the use of pump-boats. Ten
dead bodies were seen at the wharf as victims of the sea-
The penalty shall be increased whenever the violations
jacking
above were committed under any of the following
circumstances:
HELD: Where rape, murder or homicide is committed in the
crime of piracy, the penalty imposable is mandatory death
§ Whenever he has fired upon the pilot, member of
penalty P.D. No. 532, amending R.A. 134.
the crew or passenger of the aircraft;
§ Whenever he has exploded or attempted to
explode any bomb or explosive to destroy the
People v. Siyoh
aircraft; or
G.R. No. L-57292, 18 February 1986
§ Whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
homicide, serious physical injuries or rape. (Sec.
FACTS: Siyoh et al were accused of qualified piracy with
2.)
triple murder and frustrated murder, found guilty and
sentenced to death. With the use of pump-boats, they were
3. Any person, natural or juridical, who shall ship, load or
able to divest money and goods from de Guzman and his
carry in any passenger aircraft operating as a public
companions on the way to Mataja island. The companions
utility within the Philippines, any explosive, flammable,
were killed while de Guzman was able to escape wounded.
corrosive or poisonous substance or material. (Sec. 3.)
HELD: Although the body of de Guzman was still missing,
“Explosive” - any substance, either solid or liquid,
the number of persons killed on the occasion of piracy is not
mixture or single compound, which by chemical
material. P.D. 532 considers qualified piracy (when rape,
reaction liberates heat and gas at high speed and
murder, or homicide is committed as a result or on the
causes tremendous pressure resulting in explosion. The
occasion of piracy) as a special complex crime punishable by
term shall include but not limited to dynamites,
death regardless of the number of victims.
firecrackers, blasting caps, black powders, bursters,
percussions, cartridges and other explosive materials,
except bullets for firearm.
Article 123. Qualified Piracy
"Flammable" – any substance or material that is
Elements:
highly combustible and self-igniting by chemical
reaction and shall include but not limited to acrolein,
1. The vessel is on the high seas or Philippine waters:
allene, aluminum dyethyl monochloride, and other
2. Offenders may or may not be members of its
aluminum compounds, ammonium chlorate and other
complement, or passengers of the vessel;
ammonium mixtures and other similar substances or
3. Offenders either -
materials.
a. attack or seize the vessel; or
b. seize the whole or part of the cargo, its
"Corrosive" – any substance or material, either liquid,
equipment., or personal belongings of the crew or
solid or gaseous, which through chemical reaction
passengers;
wears away, impairs or consumes any object. It shall
4. The preceding were committed under any of the
include but not limited to alkaline battery fluid packed
following circumstances:
with empty storage battery, allyl chloroformate,
a. whenever they have seized a vessel by boarding
allytrichlorosilane, ammonium dinitro-orthocresolate
or firing upon the same;
and other similar materials and substances.
b. whenever the pirates have abandoned their
victims without means of saving themselves; or
"Poisonous" – any substance or materials, except
c. whenever the crime is accompanied by murder,
medicinal drug, either liquid, solid or gaseous, which
homicide, physical injuries or rape.
through chemical reactions kills, injures or impairs a
living organism or person, and shall include but not

6

limited to allyl isothiocyanate, ammunition (chemical,
non-explosive but containing Class A, B or poison),
aniline oil, arsine, bromobenzyle cyanide,
bromoacetone and other similar substances or
materials.
For any death or injury to persons or damage to property
resulting from a violation of §3 above, the person
responsible therefor may be held liable in accordance with
the applicable provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
Authority of airline companies to inspect cargo etc.
Aircraft companies which operate as public utilities
or operators of aircraft which are for hire are authorized to
open and investigate suspicious packages and cargoes in the
presence of the owner or shipper, or his authorized
representatives if present; in order to help the authorities in
the enforcement of the provisions of this law
If the owner, shipper or his representative refuses
to have the same opened and inspected, the airline or air
carrier is authorized to refuse the loading thereof. (Sec. 8.)
Disclaimer on airline ticket
Every ticket issued to a passenger by the airline or
air carrier concerned shall contain among others the
following condition printed thereon: "Holder hereof and his
hand-carried luggage(s) are subject to search for, and
seizure of, prohibited materials or substances. Holder
refusing to be searched shall not be allowed to board the
aircraft," which shall constitute a part of the contract
between the passenger and the air carrier. (Sec. 9.)
Presidential Decree No. 532
Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974
Vessel
Any vessel or watercraft used for transport of passengers
and cargo from one place to another through Philippine
Waters. It shall include all kinds and types of vessels or
boats used in fishing.
Piracy
It is an attack upon or seizure of any vessel or the taking
away of the whole or part thereof of its cargo, equipment or
the personal belongings of its complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of violence
against or intimidation of persons or force upon things,
committed by any person, including a passenger or member
of the complement of said vessel, in, Philippine Waters.
Punishable Acts:
1. Piracy
2. Highway robbery/brigandage
3. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or abetting
piracy or highway robbery/brigandage
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Republic Act No. 9372
Human Security Act of 2007
Crime of Terrorism
It is committed by any person who engages in any of the
following acts punishable under RPC and special laws:
A. Under the RPC
• Piracy in general and mutiny in the high seas or in
the Philippine waters (Art. 122)
• Rebellion or Insurrection (Art. 134)
• Coup d’etat including acts committed by private
persons (Art. 134-A)
• Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention (Art.
267)
• Murder (Art. 248)
• Crimes involving Destruction (Art. 324)
B. Under Special Laws
• Decree codifying the laws on illegal and unlawful
possession, manufacture, dealing in, acquisition or
disposition of firearms, ammunitions or explosives
(P.D. No. 1866).
• Law on Arson (P.D. No. 1613)
• Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery of Law of
1974 (P.D. No. 532)
• Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968
(R.A. No. 5207)
• Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Waste
Control Act of 1990 (R.A. No. 6969)
• Anti-Hijacking Law (R.A. No. 6735)
Elements of the crime of terrorism:
• Offender commits an act punishable under any of
the cited provisions of the Revised Penal Code, or
under any of the enumerated special penal laws;
• Commission of the predicate crime sows and
creates a condition of widespread; and
extraordinary fear and panic among the populace;
• Offender is actuated by the desire to coerce the
government to give in to an unlawful demand.
Before a change for terrorism may be filed under R.A. No.
9372, there must first be a predicate crime actually
committed to trigger the operation of the key
qualifying phrases in the other elements of the crime,
including the coercion of the government to accede to an
unlawful demand.
• Note: The benefit of Parole under the
Indeterminate Sentence Law is not applicable to
persons convicted under this Act.
Who may be liable:
1. Conspirator
Two or more persons come to an agreement concerning
the commission of the crime of terrorism and decide to
commit the same
Penalty: Forty years imprisonment
7

2. Accomplice
Any person who, not being a principal or conspirator,
cooperates in the execution of either the crime of terrorism
or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or
simultaneous acts.
Penalty: 17 years, 4 months, 1 day to 20 years
imprisonment.
3. Accessory
Any person who having knowledge of the commission of
the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism,
and without having participated therein, takes part
subsequent to its commission in any of the following
manner:
a. Profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by
the effects of the crime;
b. Concealing or destroying the body of the crime or the
effects or instruments thereof in order to prevent its
discovery; or
c. Harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape of the
principal or conspirator.
Exception (Not Liable): Those who are such with respect
to their: (i) spouses, (ii) ascendants, (iii) descendants, (iv)
legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or (v)
relatives by affinity within the same degrees.
Exception to the exception (Liable): Accessories falling
within the provisions of subparagraph (a).
Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and
Recording of Communication
General Rule: Notwithstanding R.A. No. 4020 (The Anti-Wire
Tapping Law), a police or law enforcement official and
members of his team may, upon written order of the Court
of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record any
communication between members of a judicially declared
and outlawed terrorist organization or group of persons or of
any person charged with or suspected of the crime of
terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.
Exception: Communications between:
1. Lawyers and clients;
2. Doctors and patients;
3. Journalists and their sources; and
4. Confidential business correspondence.
Requisites for Formal Application for Judicial
Authorization to Intercept and Record
Communication
1. There must be an ex parte application by the police or
law enforcement official;
2. The applicant must have been duly authorized in
writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council; and
3. Examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant
and the witnesses he may produce to establish that:
a. There is probable cause to believe based on
Criminal Law II Review Notes
personal knowledge of facts that the said crime of terrorism
or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed, is
being committed or is about to be committed;
b. There is probable cause to believe based on
personal knowledge of facts that evidence which is essential
to the conviction of any charged or suspected person, will be
obtained; and
c. There is no other effective means for acquiring such
evidence.
Republic Act No. 9851
Philippine Act on Crimes against International
Humanitarian Law, Genocide and Other Crimes
against Humanity
Acts Punishable:
A. War Crimes
Sec 4. War Crimes- For the purpose of this Act,
"war crimes" or "crimes against International Human
Humanitarian Law" means:
(a) In case of an international armed conflict ,
grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions of 12 August
1949, namely, any of the following acts against persons or
property protected under provisions of the relevant Geneva
Convention:
(1) Willful killing;
(2) Torture or inhuman treatment, including
biological experiments;
(3) Willfully causing great suffering, or
serious injury to body or health;
(4) Extensive destruction and appropriation
of property not justified by military necessity and
carried out unlawfully and wantonly;
(5) Willfully depriving a prisoner of war or
other protected person of the rights of fair and
regular trial;
(6) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer
of population or unlawful confinement;
(7) Taking of hostages;
(8) Compelling a prisoner a prisoner of war
or other protected person to serve in the forces
of a hostile power; and
(9) Unjustifiable delay in the repatriation of
prisoners of war or other protected persons.
(b) In case of a non-international armed conflict,
serious violations of common Article 3 to the four (4) Geneva
Conventions of 12 August 1949, namely , any of the
following acts committed against persons taking no active
part in the hostilities, including member of the armed forces
who have laid down their arms and those placed hors de
combat by sickness, wounds, detention or any other cause;
(1) Violence to life and person, in particular,
8

willful killings, mutilation, cruel treatment and
torture;
(2) Committing outrages upon personal
dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading
treatment;
(3) Taking of hostages; and
(4) The passing of sentences and the
carrying out of executions without previous
judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted
court, affording all judicial guarantees which are
generally recognized as indispensable.
(c) Other serious violations of the laws and customs
applicable in armed conflict, within the established
framework of international law, namely:
(1) Internationally directing attacks against
the civilian population as such or against individual
civilians not taking direct part in hostilities;
(2) Intentionally directing attacks against
civilian objects, that is, object which are not
military objectives;
(3) Intentionally directing attacks against
buildings, material, medical units and transport,
and personnel using the distinctive emblems of
the Geneva Conventions or Additional Protocol III
in conformity with intentional law;
(4) Intentionally directing attacks against
personnel, installations, material, units or vehicles
involved in a humanitarian assistance or
peacekeeping mission in accordance with the
Charter of the United Nations, as ling as they are
entitled to the protection given to civilians or
civilian objects under the international law of
armed conflict;
(5) Launching an attack in the knowledge
that such attack will cause incidental loss of life or
injury to civilians or damage to civilian objects or
widespread, long-term and severe damage to the
natural environment which would be excessive in
relation to the concrete and direct military
advantage anticipated;
(6) Launching an attack against works or
installations containing dangerous forces in the
knowledge that such attack will cause excessive
loss of life, injury to civilians or damage to civilian
objects, and causing death or serious injury to
body or health.
(7) Attacking or bombarding, by whatever
means, towns, villages, dwellings or buildings
which are undefended and which are not military
objectives, or making non-defended localities or
demilitarized zones the object of attack;
(8) Killing or wounding a person in the
knowledge that he/she is hors de combat,
including a combatant who, having laid down
his/her arms or no longer having means of
Criminal Law II Review Notes
defense, has surrendered at discretion;
(9) Making improper use of a flag of truce, of
the flag or the military insignia and uniform of the
enemy or of the United Nations, as well as of the
distinctive emblems of the Geneva Conventions or
other protective signs under International
Humanitarian Law, resulting in death, serious
personal injury or capture;
(10) Intentionally directing attacks against
buildings dedicated to religion, education, art,
science or charitable purposes, historic
monuments, hospitals and places where the sick
and wounded are collected, provided they are not
military objectives. In case of doubt whether such
building or place has been used to make an
effective contribution to military action, it shall be
presumed not to be so used;
(11) Subjecting persons who are in the
power of an adverse party to physical mutilation
or to medical or scientific experiments of any kind,
or to removal of tissue or organs for
transplantation, which are neither justified by the
medical, dental or hospital treatment of the
person concerned nor carried out in his/her
interest, and which cause death to or seriously
endanger the health of such person or persons;
(12) Killing, wounding or capturing an
adversary by resort to perfidy;
(13) Declaring that no quarter will be given;
(14) Destroying or seizing the enemy's
property unless such destruction or seizure is
imperatively demanded by the necessities of war;
(15) Pillaging a town or place, even when
taken by assault;
(16) Ordering the displacements of the
civilian population for reasons related to the
conflict, unless the security of the civilians
involved or imperative military reasons so
demand;
(17) Transferring, directly or indirectly, by
the occupying power of parts of its own civilian
population into the territory it occupies, or the
deportation or transfer of all or parts of the
population of the occupied territory within or
outside this territory;
(18) Committing outrages upon personal
dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading
treatments;
(19) Committing rape, sexual slavery,
enforced prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence
also constituting a grave breach of the Geneva
Conventions or a serious violation of common
Article 3 to the Geneva Conventions;
(20) Utilizing the presence of a civilian or
9

other protected person to render certain points,
areas or military forces immune from military
operations;
(21) Intentionally using starvation of civilians
as a method of warfare by depriving them of
objects indispensable to their survival, including
willfully impeding relief supplies as provided for
under the Geneva Conventions and their
Additional Protocols;
(22) In an international armed conflict,
compelling the nationals of the hostile party to
take part in the operations of war directed against
their own country, even if they were in the
belligerent's service before the commencement of
the war;
(23) In an international armed conflict,
declaring abolished, suspended or inadmissible in
a court of law the rights and actions of the
nationals of the hostile party;
(24) Committing any of the following acts:
(i) Conscripting, enlisting or
recruiting children under the age of
fifteen (15) years into the national
armed forces;
(ii) Conscripting, enlisting or
recruiting children under the age of
eighteen (18) years into an armed force
or group other than the national armed
forces; and
(iii) Using children under the age of
eighteen (18) years to participate
actively in hostilities; and
(25) Employing means of warfare which are
prohibited under international law, such as:
(i) Poison or poisoned weapons;
(ii) Asphyxiating, poisonous or
other gases, and all analogous liquids,
materials or devices;
(iii) Bullets which expand or flatten
easily in the human body, such as
bullets with hard envelopes which do
not entirely cover the core or are
pierced with incisions; and
(iv) Weapons, projectiles and
material and methods of warfare which
are of the nature to cause superfluous
injury or unnecessary suffering or which
are inherently indiscriminate in violation
of the international law of armed
conflict.
Any person found guilty of committing any of the
acts specified herein shall suffer the penalty provided under
Section 7 of this Act.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
2. Genocide
(a) For the purpose of this Act, "genocide" means any of
the following acts with intent to destroy, in whole or in part,
a national, ethnic, racial, religious, social or any other similar
stable and permanent group as such:
(1) Killing members of the group;
(2) Causing serious bodily or mental harm to
members of the group;
(3) Deliberately inflicting on the group
conditions of life calculated to bring about its
physical destruction in whole or in part;
(4) Imposing measures intended to prevent
births within the group; and
(5) Forcibly transferring children of the group
to another group.
(b) It shall be unlawful for any person to directly and
publicly incite others to commit genocide.
Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts
specified in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this section shall suffer
the penalty provided under Section 7 of this Act.
3. Other crimes against Humanity
For the purpose of this act, "other crimes against
humanity" means any of the following acts when committed
as part of a widespread or systematic attack directed against
any civilian population, with knowledge of the attack:
(a) Willful killing;
(b) Extermination;
(c) Enslavement;
(d) Arbitrary deportation or forcible transfer
of population;
(e) Imprisonment or other severe deprivation
of physical liberty in violation of fundamental rules
of international law;
(f) Torture;
(g) Rape, sexual slavery, enforced
prostitution, forced pregnancy, enforced
sterilization, or any other form of sexual violence
of comparable gravity;
(h) Persecution against any identifiable group
or collectivity on political, racial, national, ethnic,
cultural, religious, gender, sexual orientation or
other grounds that are universally recognized as
impermissible under international law, in
connection with any act referred to in this
paragraph or any crime defined in this Act;
(i) Enforced or involuntary disappearance of
persons;
10

(j) Apartheid; and
(k) Other inhumane acts of a similar
character intentionally causing great suffering, or
serious injury to body or to mental or physical
health.
Any person found guilty of committing any of the acts
specified herein shall suffer the penalty provided under
Section 7 of this Act.
Title Two
CRIMES AGAINST THE FUNDAMENTAL LAWS OF THE
STATE
Arbitrary detention or expulsion, violation of dwelling,
prohibition, interruption and dissolution of peaceful meetings
and crimes against religious worship
Section One. Arbitrary detention and expulsion
Article 124. Arbitrary detention
Article 125. Delay in the delivery of detained persons to
the proper judicial authorities
Article 126. Delaying release
Article 127. Expulsion
Section Two. Violation of domicile
Article 128. Violation of domicile
Article 129. Search warrants maliciously obtained and
abuse in the service of those legally obtained
Article 130. Searching domicile without witnesses
Section Three. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of
peaceful meetings
Article 131. Prohibition, interruption and dissolution of
peaceful meetings
Section Four. Crimes against religious worship
Article 132. Interruption of religious worship
Article 133. Offending the religious feelings
Article 124. Arbitrary Detention
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He detains a person; and
3. The detention is without legal grounds.
Meaning of absence of legal grounds
1. No crime was committed by the detained;
2. There is no violent insanity of the detained person; and
3. The person detained has no ailment which requires
compulsory confinement in a hospital.
§ When is there detention? A person is detained when he is
placed in confinement or there is a restraint on his person.
à The crime of arbitrary detention can be committed
through imprudence.
Illustration: The chief of police rearrested a
woman who had been released by means of a
verbal order of the justice of the peace. The
Criminal Law II Review Notes
accused acted without malice, but he should have
verified the order of release before proceeding to
make the re-arrest.
à The law does not fix a minimum period of
detention. In US vs. Braganza (G.R. No. L-3971, 3
February 1908), the detention was for less than
half an hour; and in US vs. Agravante (G.R. No. L-
3947, 28 January 1908), the detention was only
for one hour.
Rule 112, Sec. 6
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
When warrant of arrest may issue -
(a) By the RTC – Within 10 days from the filing of the
complaint or information, the judge shall personally evaluate
the resolution of the prosecutor and its supporting evidence.
He may immediately dismiss the case if the evidence on the
record clearly fails to establish probable cause. If he finds
probable cause, he shall issue a warrant of arrest or a
commitment order if the accused has already been arrested
pursuant to a warrant issued by the judge who conducted
the Preliminary Investigation or when the complaint or
information is filed pursuant to Sec. 7 of this Rule. In case of
doubt on the existence of probable cause, the judge may
order the prosecutor to present additional evidence within 5
days from notice and the issue must be resolved by the
court within 30 days from the filing of the complaint or
information.
(b) By the MTC – When required pursuant to par.2 Sec. 1 of
this Rule, the Preliminary Investigation of cases falling under
the original jurisdiction of the MTCs may be conducted by
either the judge or the prosecutor. When conducted by the
prosecutor, the procedure for the issuance of a warrant of
arrest by the judge shall be governed by par. (a) of this
section. When the investigation is conducted by the judge
himself, he shall follow the procedure provided in sec. 3 of
this Rule. If his findings and recommendations are affirmed
by the provincial or city prosecutor, or by the Ombudsman
or his deputy, and the corresponding information is filed, he
shall issue a warrant of arrest. However, without waiting for
the conclusion of the investigation, the judge may issue a
warrant of arrest if he finds after an examination in writing
and under oath of the complainant and his witnesses in the
form of searching questions and answers, that a probable
cause exists and that there is a necessity of placing the
respondent under immediate custody so as not to frustrate
the ends of justice.
(c) Where warrant of arrest not necessary – A warrant of
arrest shall not issue if the accused is already under
detention pursuant to a warrant issued by the MTC in
accordance with par. (b) of this section, or if the complaint
or information was filed pursuant to Sec. 7 of this rule or is
for an offense penalized by fine only. The court shall then
proceed in the exercise of its original jurisdiction.
11

Rule 113, Sec. 5
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
Arrest without warrant; when lawful
A peace officer or a private person may, without a warrant,
arrest a person:
(a) When, in his presence, the person to be arrested has
committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to
commit an offense;
(b) When an offense has just been committed and he has
probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of
facts or circumstances that the person to be arrested has
committed it; and
(c) When the person to be arrested is a prisoner who has
escaped from a penal establishment or place where he is
service final judgment or is temporarily confined while his
case is pending, or has escaped while being transferred
from one confinement to another.
In cases falling under pars. (a) and (b) above, the person
arrested without a warrant shall be forthwith delivered to
the nearest police station or jail and shall be proceeded
against in accordance with Sec. 7 of Rule 112.
Umil v. Ramos
G.R. NO. 81567, 3 October 1991
FACTS: These are eight (8) petitions praying for the
issuance of the writ of habeas corpus, ordering the
respective respondents to produce the bodies of the persons
named and to explain why they should not be set at liberty
without further delay. In their Returns, the respondents
uniformly assert that the privilege of the writ of habeas
corpus is not available to the petitioners as they have been
legally arrested and are detained by virtue of valid
informations filed in court against them.
HELD: No compelling reason exists to abandon the
pronouncement in Ilagan vs. Enrile, that a writ of habeas
corpus is no longer available after an information is filed
against the person detained and a warrant of arrest or an
order of commitment is issued by the court where said
information has been filed. However, the answer and the
better practice would be, not to limit the function of habeas
corpus to a mere inquiry as to whether or not the court
which issued the process, judgment or order of commitment
or before whom the detained person is charged, had
jurisdiction or not to issue the process, judgment or order or
to take cognizance of the case, but rather, in all petitions for
habeas corpus the court must inquire into every phase and
aspect of petitioner's detention — from the moment
petitioner was taken into custody up to the moment the
court passes upon the merits of the petition;" and "only after
such a scrutiny can the court satisfy itself that the due
process clause of our Constitution has in fact been satisfied."
Criminal Law II Review Notes
People v. Burgos
G.R. NO. L-68955, 4 September 1986
FACTS: Burgos was arrested by PC Officers while he was
plowing his field for being a member of the NPA as alleged
by Masamlok whom Burgos forcibly recruited. According to
the prosecution, he admitted possession of a firearm and
subversive documents which were found in his house.
Burgos denied the allegations.
HELD: Arrest and search by the PC officers were not lawful
where personal knowledge of the fact of the crime is
essential. Knowledge came from Masamlok’s information.
Burgos was not committing any criminal or subversive act at
the time of the arrest. Evidence adduced against him are
inadmissible, having been obtained in violation of his
constitutional rights.
Milo v. Salonga
G.R. No. L-37007, 20 July 1987
FACTS: Barrio Captain Tuvera Sr., with some private
persons, maltreated Valdez by hitting him, and immediately
thereafter, without legal grounds and with deliberate intent
to deprive Valdez of his liberty, accused Tuvera with Cpt.
Mendoza and Pat. Mangsat lodged and locked Valdez in side
he municipal jail for about 11 hours. Judge Salonga quashed
the information.
HELD: Barrio captains are recognized persons in authority
long before PD299. Therefore, Tuvera had authority to
detain Valdez but such detainment for 11 hours was without
legal cause. The crime committed is arbitrary detention.
Article 125. Delay in the Delivery of Detained
Persons to the Proper Judicial Authorities
Elements (as amended by E.O. 272)
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He detains a person for some legal ground;
3. He fails to deliver such person to the proper judicial
authorities within –
a. 12 hours for light penalties;
b. 18 hours for correctional penalties; and
c. 36 hours for afflictive or capital penalties.
à If the offender is a private person, the crime is Illegal
Detention.
à Under Art. 125, the public officer has detained the
offended party for some legal ground. The detention is legal
in the beginning because the person detained was arrested
under any of the circumstances where arrest without
warrant is authorized by law. However, his detention
becomes illegal after a certain period of time because he is
not delivered to the proper judicial authority. If the
detention is NOT for some legal ground, the crime is
Arbitrary Detention under Art. 124.
à Art. 125 does NOT apply when the arrest is by virtue of a
warrant of arrest, in which case, the person arrested can be
detained indefinitely until his case is decided by the court or
he posts bail for his temporary release. Why? Because there
12

is already a case filed against him in court \ it is not
necessary to deliver the person to that court.
à “Delivery to the proper judicial authorities” doesn’t consist
in a physical delivery, but in making an accusation or charge
or filing of an information against the person arrested with
the corresponding court or judge.
à “Proper judicial authorities” means the courts of justice or
judges of said courts vested with judicial power to order the
temporary detention or confinement of a person charged
with having committed a public offense.
à Circumstances considered in determining liability of officer
detaining a person beyond legal period:
- means of communication
- hour of arrest
- other circumstances such as time of
surrender and the material possibility for
the fiscal to make the investigation and
file in time the necessary information
Illustration: When A was arrested for direct
assault, punishable by a correctional penalty, on
the evening of 17 June, the complaint could not
normally be filed earlier than 8 a.m. of 18 June
because gov’t offices open for business usually at
8:00 and close at 5:00 p.m.
à The illegality of detention is not cured by the filing of the
information in court because a violation of this article had
already been committed before the information was filed.
Rule 112, Sec. 7
Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
When accused lawfully arrested without a warrant
… Before the complaint or information is filed, the person
arrested [without a warrant] may ask for a preliminary
investigation in accordance with this Rule, but he must sign
a waiver of the provisions of Art. 125 of the RPC, in the
presence of his counsel. Notwithstanding the waiver, he may
apply for bail and the investigation must be terminated
within 15 days from its inception.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7438
An Act Defining Certain Rights Of Person Arrested,
Detained Or Under Custodial Investigation as well as
the duties of the Arresting, Detaining and
Investigating Officers, and Providing Penalties for
Violations Thereof.
Who are punishable?
1. Any arresting public officer of employee, or any
investigating officer, who fails to inform any person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation of his
right to remain silent and to have competent and
independent counsel preferably of his own choice;
2. An officer or employee or anyone acting upon orders of
Criminal Law II Review Notes
such investigating officer or in his place, who fails to
provide a competent and independent counsel to a person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation for the
commission of an offense if the latter cannot afford the
services of his own counsel;
3. Any person who obstruct, persons or prohibits any
lawyer, any member of the immediate family of a person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation, or any
medical doctor or priest or religious minister chosen by him
or by any member of his immediate family or by his counsel,
from visiting and conferring privately with him, of from
examining and treating him, or from ministering to his
spiritual needs, at any hour of the day or, in urgent cases, of
the night
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372
Human Security Act
Note: Exception to Article 125 under RA 9372
Sec 19. In the event of actual or imminent terrorist attack,
suspects may be detained for more than three (3) days upon
written approval of:
1. Municipal, city, provincial or regional official of Human
Rights Commission
2. Judge of MTC, RTC or Sandiganbayan, or
3. Justice of CA nearest the place of arrest
à The written approval must be procured within five (5)
days after the date of detention; Provided that within
three (3) days after detention, suspects whose connection
with the terror attack or threat is not established shall be
released immediately.
If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, Holidays or
after office hours, the police or law enforcement personnel
shall bring the arrested person to the residence of any of the
officials mentioned that is nearest the place where the
accused was arrested.
Article 126. Delaying Release
Acts punished
1. Delaying the performance of a judicial or executive
order for the release of a prisoner;
2. Unduly delaying the service of the notice of such order
to said prisoner; and
3. Unduly delaying the proceedings upon any petition for
the liberation of such person.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. There is a judicial or executive order for the release of
a prisoner or detention prisoner, or that there is a
proceeding upon a petition for the liberation of such
person; and
3. Offender without good reason delays -
a. the service of the notice of such order to the
prisoner;
13

b. the performance of such judicial or executive
order for the release of the prisoner; or
c. the proceedings upon a petition for the release of
such person.
à Wardens and jailers are the public officers most likely to
violate Art. 126.
Article 127. Expulsion
Acts punished
1. Expelling a person from the Philippines;
2. Compelling a person to change his residence.
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. S/he either -
a. expels any person from the Philippines; or
b. compels a person to change residence;
3. Offender is not authorized to do so by law.
à RE: “Not being authorized by law” – Only the court, by a
final judgment, can order a person to change his residence.
This is illustrated in ejectment proceedings, expropriation
proceedings and in the penalty of destierro.
à In Villavicencio vs. Lukban (G.R. No. L-1439, 25 March
1919), the Court held that the Mayor cannot force
prostitutes residing in Manila to live in Davao against their
will, there being no law that authorizes them to do so.
Article 128. Violation of Domicile
Acts punished
1. Entering any dwelling against the will of the owner
thereof;
2. Searching papers or other effects found therein without
the previous consent of such owner; or
3. Refusing to leave the premises, after having
surreptitiously entered said dwelling and after having
been required to leave the same
Common elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He is not authorized by judicial order to enter the
dwelling or to make a search therein for papers or
other effects.
Circumstances qualifying the offense
1. If committed at nighttime; or
2. If any papers or effects not constituting evidence of a
crime are not returned immediately after the search
made by offender.
à A public officer is “authorized by judicial order” when he
is armed with a search warrant duly issued by the court.
à To constitute a violation of domicile, the entrance by the
public officer must be against the will of the owner, which
presupposes opposition or prohibition of the owner, whether
Criminal Law II Review Notes
express or implied. If the entrance is only without the
consent of the owner, the crime is not committed. Besides,
silence of the owner of the dwelling before and during the
search, may show implied waiver.
à If the public officer searches a person outside his dwelling
without a search warrant, the crime committed is grave
coercion, if violence or intimidation is used, or unjust
vexation, if there is no violence or intimidation.
Violation of Domicile (Art. 128) v. Trespass to
Dwelling (Art. 280) of the Revised Penal Code
Violation of Domicile Qualified Trespass to
Art. 128 Dwelling
Art. 280
Offender is a public officer Offender is a private person
There are three ways of There is only one way of
committing violation of committing qualified
domicile trespass to dwelling
Article 129. Search Warrants Maliciously Obtained,
and Abuse in the Service of Those Legally Obtained
Acts punished
1. Procuring a search warrant without just cause;
Elements
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
(2) He procures a search warrant;
(3) There is no just cause.
2. Exceeding his authority or by using unnecessary
severity in executing a search warrant legally procured.
Elements
(1) Offender is a public officer or employee;
(2) He has legally procured a search warrant;
(3) He exceeds his authority or uses unnecessary
severity in executing the same.
Illustration: Pulis wanted to verify a report that some
corpse was unlawfully buried in a monastery. Instead of
stating to that effect, he alleges in his affidavit that
opium was hidden in the premises.
à The offender in this article may also be held liable for
perjury. In view of the phrase “in addition to the liability
attaching to the offender for the commission of any other
offense”, even if the crime of perjury was a necessary
means of committing Art. 129, they cannot form a complex
crime.
Rule 126
Searches and seizures
Section 1. Search warrant defined. — A search warrant is
an order in writing issued in the name of the People of the
Philippines, signed by a judge and directed to a peace
officer, commanding him to search for personal property
described therein and bring it before the court.
Section 2. Court where application for search warrant shall
be filed. — An application for search warrant shall be filed
14

with the following:
(a) Any court within whose territorial jurisdiction a crime
was committed.
(b) For compelling reasons stated in the application, any
court within the judicial region where the crime was
committed if the place of the commission of the crime is
known, or any court within the judicial region where the
warrant shall be enforced.
However, if the criminal action has already been filed,
the application shall only be made in the court where the
criminal action is pending.
Section 3. Personal property to be seized. — A search
warrant may be issued for the search and seizure of
personal property:
(a) Subject of the offense;
(b) Stolen or embezzled and other proceeds, or fruits of
the offense; or
(c) Used or intended to be used as the means of
committing an offense.
Section 4. Requisites for issuing search warrant. — A
search warrant shall not issue except upon probable cause in
connection with one specific offense to be determined
personally by the judge after examination under oath or
affirmation of the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce, and particularly describing the place to be searched
and the things to be seized which may be anywhere in the
Philippines.
Section 5. Examination of complainant; record. — The
judge must, before issuing the warrant, personally examine
in the form of searching questions and answers, in writing
and under oath, the complainant and the witnesses he may
produce on facts personally known to them and attach to
the record their sworn statements, together with the
affidavits submitted.
Section 6. Issuance and form of search warrant. — If the
judge is satisfied of the existence of facts upon which the
application is based or that there is probable cause to
believe that they exist, he shall issue the warrant, which
must be substantially in the form prescribed by these Rules.
Section 7. Right to break door or window to effect search.
— The officer, if refused admittance to the place of directed
search after giving notice of his purpose and authority, may
break open any outer or inner door or window of a house or
any part of a house or anything therein to execute the
warrant or liberate himself or any person lawfully aiding him
when unlawfully detained therein.
Section 8. Search of house, room, or premise to be made
in presence of two witnesses. — No search of a house,
room, or any other premise shall be made except in the
presence of the lawful occupant thereof or any member of
his family or in the absence of the latter, two witnesses of
sufficient age and discretion residing in the same locality.
Section 9. Time of making search. — The warrant must
direct that it be served in the day time, unless the affidavit
Criminal Law II Review Notes
asserts that the property is on the person or in the place
ordered to be searched, in which case a direction may be
inserted that it be served at any time of the day or night.
Section 10. Validity of search warrant. — A search warrant
shall be valid for ten (10) days from its date. Thereafter it
shall be void.
Section 11. Receipt for the property seized. — The officer
seizing property under the warrant must give a detailed
receipt for the same to the lawful occupant of the premises
in whose presence the search and seizure were made, or in
the absence of such occupant, must, in the presence of at
least two witnesses of sufficient age and discretion residing
in the same locality, leave a receipt in the place in which he
found the seized property.
Section 12. Delivery of property and inventory thereof to
court; return and proceedings thereon:
(a) The officer must forthwith deliver the property seized
to the judge who issued the warrant, together with a true
inventory thereof duly verified under oath.
(b) Ten (10) days after issuance of the search warrant,
the issuing judge shall ascertain if the return has been
made, and if none, shall summon the person to whom the
warrant was issued and require him to explain why no return
was made. If the return has been made, the judge shall
ascertain whether section 11 of this Rule has been
complained with and shall require that the property seized
be delivered to him. The judge shall see to it that subsection
(a) hereof has been complied with.
(c) The return on the search warrant shall be filed and
kept by the custodian of the log book on search warrants
who shall enter therein the date of the return, the result,
and other actions of the judge.
A violation of this section shall constitute contempt of court.
Section 13. Search incident to lawful arrest. — A person
lawfully arrested may be searched for dangerous weapons or
anything which may have been used or constitute proof in
the commission of an offense without a search warrant.
Section 14. Motion to quash a search warrant or to
suppress evidence; where to file. — A motion to quash a
search warrant and/or to suppress evidence obtained
thereby may be filed in and acted upon only by the court
where the action has been instituted. If no criminal action
has been instituted, the motion may be filed in and resolved
by the court that issued the search warrant. However, if
such court failed to resolve the motion and a criminal case is
subsequent filed in another court, the motion shall be
resolved by the latter court.
Stonehill v. Diokno
G.R. No. L-19550, 19 June 1967
FACTS: Upon application of some officers of the
government, several judges issued 42 search warrants
against the petitioners and the corporations of which they
were officers.
HELD: The legality of the seizure can be contested only by
the party whose rights have been impaired thereby. The
15

objection to an unlawful search and seizure is purely
personal and cannot be availed of by 3rd parties.
Consequently, the petitioners may not validly object to the
use in evidence against them of the things seized, since the
right to object to the admission of said papers in evidence
belongs exclusively to the corporations, to whom they
belong, and may not be invoked by the corporate officers in
proceedings against them in their individual capacity.
The warrants issued in this case state that the persons
named therein committed a “violation of Central Bank Laws,
Tariff and Customs Laws, Internal Revenue Laws and the
Revised Penal Code. As such, no specific offense has been
alleged in said application. It was impossible for the judges
who issued the warrants to have found the existence of
probable cause, for the same presupposes the introduction
of competent proof that the party against whom it is sought
has performed particular acts or omission, violating a given
provision of criminal laws.
Finally, the warrants issued here were general warrants that
authorized the search and seizure of records pertaining to all
business transactions of petitioners, regardless of whether
the transactions were legal or illegal.
Burgos Sr. v. Chief of Staff
G.R. No. L-64261, 26 December 1984
FACTS: The validity of two search warrants is assailed by the
petitioners in this case. Under these warrants, a house in
Project 6, QC and 2 units of the RMC building in Q.Ave., QC
were searched. Office and printing machines, equipment,
paraphernalia, motor vehicles and other articles used in the
printing, publication and distribution of the said newspapers,
as well as numerous papers, documents, books and other
written literature alleged to be in the possession and control
of petitioner Burgos.
HELD: The search warrants in this case were also in the
nature of general warrants, hence invalid.
Article 130. Searching Domicile without Witnesses
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He is armed with search warrant legally procured;
3. He searches the domicile, papers or other belongings of
any person; and
4. The owner, or any members of his family, or two
witnesses residing in the same locality are not present.
Violation of Domicile Searching Domicile
(Art. 128) without witnesses
(Art. 130)
Public officer has no Public officer has a search
authority to make a search warrant
à Art. 130 does NOT apply to searches of vehicles or other
means of transportation, because the searches therein are
not made in a dwelling.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Article 131. Prohibition, Interruption, and
Dissolution of Peaceful Meetings
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. prohibiting or by interrupting, without legal
ground, the holding of a peaceful meeting, or by
dissolving the same;
b. hindering any person from joining any lawful
association, or attending any of its meetings;
c. prohibiting or hindering any person from
addressing, either alone or together with others,
any petition to the authorities for the correction of
abuses or redress of grievances.
à Only a public officer or employee can commit this crime.
If the offender is a private individual, the crime is
Disturbance of Public Order under Art. 153.
à But the offender must be a stranger, not a participant, in
the peaceful meeting. Where the offender is a participant,
the crime committed is unjust vexation.
à The right to peaceably assemble is not absolute and may
be regulated (i.e., with respect to the streets or public places
to be used etc.)
Article 132. Interruption of Religious Worship
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer or employee;
2. Religious ceremonies or manifestations of any religious
are about to take place or are going on;
3. Offender prevents or disturbs the same.
The offense is ualified if committed by violence or threat.
à Reading of Bible and then attacking certain churches in a
public plaza is not a ceremony or manifestation of religion,
but only a meeting of a religious sect. In which case, the
crime committed is violation of Art. 131.
à But the reading of some verses our of the Bible in a
private house by a group of 10 to 20 persons, is a religious
service. There is no provisions of law which requires
religious service to be conducted in approved orthodox style
in order to merit protection against interference.
Article 133. Offending the Religious Feelings
Elements
1. Acts complained of were performed in a place devoted
to religious worship, OR during the celebration of any
religious ceremony; and
2. The acts must be notoriously offensive to the feelings
of the faithful.
There must be deliberate intent to hurt the feelings of the
faithful.
16

People v. Mandoriao
50 O.G. 4619
FACTS: The Iglesia ni Cristo held a religious rally at a public
place in Baguio. About 200 people attended the meeting,
about 50 of whom were members of the INC but the rest
were outsiders and curious listeners. While Salvio, a minister
of INC, was expounding on his topic to the effect that Christ
is not God, but only man, the crowd became unruly. Some
people urged Mandoriao to go up the stage and have a
debate with Salvio. Mandoriao however, was not able to
speak before the microphone because the wire connecting it
was abruptly disconnected.
HELD: The meeting here was not a religious ceremony. A
religious meeting is an “assemblage of people met for the
purpose of performing acts of adoration to the Supreme
Being, or to perform religious services in recognition of God
as an object of worship…” The meeting here was not limited
to the members of the INC. The supposed prayers and
singing of hymns were merely incidental because the
principal object of the rally was to persuade new converts to
their religion.
Assuming that the rally was a religious ceremony, the
appellant cannot be said to have performed acts or uttered
words offensive to the feelings of the faithful. The act
complained of must be directed against a dogma or ritual, or
upon an object of veneration. There was no object of
veneration at the meeting.
People v. Tengson
67 O.G. 1552
The act of performing burial rites inside a Roman Catholic
cemetery, in accordance with the rules of practices of the
sect called “Christ is the Answer”, by reading passages from
the Bible, chanting the “Alleluia”, singing religious hymns
and praying for the repose of the soul of the dead, is not
notoriously offensive to the feelings of religious persons,
provided there was no intent to mock, scoff, or to desecrate
any religious sect or object venerated by people of a
particular religion. Such act may have offended the Roman
Catholic priest of the municipality and some Catholic
adherents, but since there was a permit for the burial in
question in the Roman Catholic Cemetery of that
municipality, the religious rights of that sect, to which the
members of the family of the deceased belong, and
performed upon request of the bereaved husband, are not
offensive to the feelings of everybody who professes the
Christian religion.
People v. Nanoy
69 O.G. 8053
While the congregation of the Assembly of God was having
its afternoon services in its chapel, the accused who was
allegedly drunk entered with uplifted hands and attempted
to grab the song leader who ran away from him. The other
members of the sect also ran out of the church and the
religious services were discontinued.
HELD: The accused is only guilty of unjust vexation.
Republic Act No. 10353
Criminal Law II Review Notes
An Act Defining and Penalizing Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearance
SEC. 4. Nonderogability of the Right Against Enforced or
Involuntary Disappearance. –The right against enforced or
involuntary disappearance and the fundamental safeguards
for its prevention shall not be suspended under any
circumstance including political instability, threat of war,
state of war or other public emergencies.
SEC. 5. “Order of Battle” or Any Order of Similar Nature, Not
Legal Ground, for Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance. –
An “Order of Battle” or any order of similar nature, official
or otherwise, from a superior officer or a public authority
causing the commission of enforced or involuntary
disappearance is unlawful and cannot be invoked as a
justifying or exempting circumstance. Any person receiving
such an order shall have the right to disobey it.
SEC. 6. Right of Access to Communication. – It shall be the
absolute right of any person deprived of liberty to have
immediate access to any form of communication available in
order for him or her to inform his or her family, relative,
friend, lawyer or any human rights organization on his or her
whereabouts and condition.
SEC. 7. Duty to Report Victims of Enforced or Involuntary
Disappearance. – Any person, not being a principal,
accomplice or accessory, who has an information of a case
of enforced or involuntary disappearance or who shall learn
of such information or that a person is a victim of enforced
or involuntary disappearance, shall immediately report in
writing the circumstances and whereabouts of the victim to
any office, detachment or division of the Department of the
Interior and Local Government (DILG), the Department of
National Defense (DND), the Philippine National Police
(PNP), the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), the
National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), the City or Provincial
Prosecutor, the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) or any
human rights organization and, if known, the victim’s family,
relative, or lawyer.
SEC. 8. Duty to Certify in Writing on the Results of Inquiry
into a Reported Disappeared Person’s Whereabouts. –In
case a family member, relative, lawyer, representative of a
human rights organization or a member of the media
inquires with a member or official of any police or military
detention center, the PNP or any of its agencies, the AFP or
any of its agencies, the NBI or any other agency or
instrumentality of the government, as well as any hospital or
morgue, public or private, on the presence or whereabouts
of a reported victim of enforced or involuntary
disappearance, such member or official shall immediately
issue a certification in writing to the inquiring person or
entity on the presence or absence and/or information on the
whereabouts of such disappeared person, stating, among
others, in clear and unequivocal manner the date and time
of inquiry, details of the inquiry and the response to the
inquiry.
SEC. 9. Duty of Inquest/Investigating Public Prosecutor or
any Judicial or Quasi-Judicial Official or Employee. –Any
inquest or investigating public prosecutor, or any judicial or
quasi-judicial official or employee who learns that the person
delivered for inquest or preliminary investigation or for any
other judicial process is a victim of enforced or involuntary
disappearance shall have the duty to immediately disclose
17

the victim’s whereabouts to his or her immediate family,
relatives, lawyer/s or to a human rights organization by the
most expedient means.
SEC. 10. Official Up-to-Date Register of All Persons Detained
or Confined. – All persons detained or confined shall be
placed solely in officially recognized and controlled places of
detention or confinement where an official up-to-date
register of such persons shall be maintained. Relatives,
lawyers, judges, official bodies and all persons who have
legitimate interest in the whereabouts and condition of the
persons deprived of liberty shall have free access to the
register.
SEC. 12. Immediate Issuance and Compliance of the Writs of
Habeas Corpus, Amparo and Habeas Data. – All proceedings
pertaining to the issuance of the writs of habeas corpus,
amparo and habeas data shall be dispensed with
expeditiously. As such, all courts and other concerned
agencies of government shall give priority to such
proceedings.
Moreover, any order issued or promulgated pursuant to such
writs or their respective proceedings shall be executed and
complied with immediately.
SEC. 14. Liability of Commanding Officer or Superior. – The
immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of the
AFP or the immediate senior official of the PNP and other
law enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a principal
to the crime of enforced or involuntary disappearance for
acts committed by him or her that shall have led, assisted,
abetted or allowed, whether directly or indirectly, the
commission thereof by his or her subordinates. If such
commanding officer has knowledge of or, owing to the
circumstances at the time, should have known that an
enforced or involuntary disappearance is being committed,
or has been committed by subordinates or by others within
the officer’s area of responsibility and, despite such
knowledge, did not take preventive or coercive action either
before, during or immediately after its commission, when he
or she has the authority to prevent or investigate allegations
of enforced or involuntary disappearance but failed to
prevent or investigate such allegations, whether deliberately
or due to negligence, shall also be held liable as principal.
SEC. 15. Penal Provisions. –
(a) The penalty of reclusion perpetua and its accessory
penalties shall be imposed upon the following persons:
(1) Those who directly committed the act of enforced
or involuntary disappearance;
(2) Those who directly forced, instigated, encouraged
or induced others to commit the act of enforced or
involuntary disappearance;
(3) Those who cooperated in the act of enforced or
involuntary disappearance by committing another act
without which the act of enforced or involuntary
disappearance would not have been consummated;
(4) Those officials who allowed the act or abetted in the
consummation of enforced or involuntary disappearance
when it is within their power to stop or uncover the
commission thereof; and
(5) Those who cooperated in the execution of the act of
enforced or involuntary disappearance by previous or
simultaneous acts.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
(b) The penalty of reclusion temporal and its accessory
penalties shall be imposed upon those who shall commit the
act of enforced or involuntary disappearance in the
attempted stage as provided for and defined under Article
6 of the Revised Penal Code.
(c) The penalty of reclusion temporal and its accessory
penalties shall also be imposed upon persons who, having
knowledge of the act of enforced or involuntary
disappearance and without having participated therein,
either as principals or accomplices, took part subsequent to
its commission in any of the following manner:
(1) By themselves profiting from or assisting the
offender to profit from the effects of the act of enforced or
involuntary disappearance;
(2) By concealing the act of enforced or involuntary
disappearance and/or destroying the effects or instruments
thereof in order to prevent its discovery; or
(3) By harboring, concealing or assisting in the escape
of the principal/s in the act of enforced or involuntary
disappearance, provided such accessory acts are done with
the abuse of official functions.
(d) The penalty of prision correctional and its accessory
penalties shall be imposed against persons who defy, ignore
or unduly delay compliance with any order duly issued or
promulgated pursuant to the writs of habeas corpus,
amparo and habeas data or their respective proceedings.
(e) The penalty of arresto mayor and its accessory penalties
shall be imposed against any person who shall violate the
provisions of Sections 6, 7, 8, 9 and 10 of this Act.
SEC. 17. Civil Liability. –The act of enforced or involuntary
disappearance shall render its perpetrators and the State
agencies which organized, acquiesced in or tolerated such
disappearance liable under civil law.
SEC. 18. Independent Liability. –The criminal liability of the
offender under this Act shall be independent of or
without prejudice to the prosecution and conviction
of the said offender for any violation of Republic Act No.
7438, otherwise known as “An Act Defining Certain Rights
of Person Arrested, Detained or Under Custodial
Investigation as well as the Duties of the Arresting,
Detaining, and Investigating Officers, and Providing
Penalties for Violations Thereof’; Republic Act No. 9745,
otherwise known as “An Act Penalizing Torture and Other
Cruel, Inhuman and Degrading Treatment or Punishment,
and Prescribing Penalties Therefor”; and applicable
provisions of the Revised Penal Code.
SEC. 19. Nonexclusivity or Double Jeopardy Under
International Law. – Any investigation, trial and decision in
any Philippines court, or body for any violation of this Act
shall; be without prejudice to any investigation, trial,
decision or any other legal or administrative process
before any appropriate international court or agency under
applicable international human rights and
humanitarian law.
SEC. 20. Exemption from Prosecution. – Any offender who
volunteers information that leads to the discovery of the
victim of enforced or involuntary disappearance or the
prosecution of the offenders without the victim being found
shall be exempt from any criminal and/or civil liability under
this Act: Provided, That said offender does not appear to be
18
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

the most guilty. consanguinity or affinity shall be without prejudice to other

SEC. 21. Continuing Offense. – An act constituting enforced
or involuntary disappearance shall be considered a
continuing offense as long as the perpetrators continue to
conceal the fate and whereabouts of the disappeared person
and such circumstances have not been determined with
certainty.
SEC. 22. Statute of Limitations Exemption. – The prosecution
of persons responsible for enforced or involuntary
disappearance shall not prescribe unless the victim surfaces
alive. In which case, the prescriptive period shall be twenty-
five (25) years from the date of such reappearance.
SEC. 23. Special Amnesty Law Exclusion. – Persons who are
changed with and/or guilty of the act of enforced or
involuntary disappearance shall not benefit from any special
amnesty law or other similar executive measures that shall
exempt them from any penal proceedings or sanctions.
legal remedies that may be available to them.
SEC. 27. Rehabilitation of Victims and/or Their Immediate
Relatives, and Offenders. – In order that the victims of
enforced or involuntary disappearance who surfaced alive
and/or their immediate relatives within the fourth civil
degree of consanguinity or affinity, may be effectively
reintegrated into the mainstream of society and in the
process of development, the State, through the CHR, in
coordination with the Department of Health, the Department
of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) and the
concerned nongovernment organization/s, shall provide
them with appropriate medical care and rehabilitation free of
charge.
Toward the attainment of restorative justice, a parallel
rehabilitation program for persons who have committed
enforced or involuntary disappearance shall likewise be
implemented without cost to such offenders.

SEC. 24. State Protection – The State, through its

appropriate agencies, shall ensure the safety of all persons
involved in the search, investigation and prosecution of
enforced or involuntary disappearance including, but not
limited to, the victims, their families, complainants,
witnesses, legal counsel and representatives of human rights
organizations and media. They shall likewise be protected
from any intimidation or reprisal.

SEC. 25. Applicability of Refouler. –No person shall be

expelled, returned or extradited to another State where
there are substantial grounds to believe that such person
shall be in danger of being subjected to enforced or
involuntary disappearance. For purposes of determining
whether such grounds exist, the Secretary of the
Department, of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and the Secretary of
the Department of Justice (DOJ) in coordination with the
Chairperson of the CHR, shall take into account all relevant
considerations including where applicable and not limited to,
the existence in the requesting State of a consistent pattern
of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.

SEC. 26. Restitution and Compensation to Victims of

Enforced or Involuntary Disappearance and/or Their
Immediate Relatives. –The victims of enforced or involuntary
disappearance who surface alive shall be entitled to
monetary compensation, rehabilitation and restitution of
honor and reputation. Such restitution of honor and
reputation shall include immediate expunging or rectification
of any derogatory record, information or public
declaration/statement on his or her person, personal
circumstances, status, and/or organizational affiliation by the
appropriate government or private agency or agencies
concerned.

The immediate relatives of a victim of enforced or

involuntary disappearance, within the fourth civil degree of
consanguinity or affinity, may also claim for compensation as
provided for under Republic Act No. 7309, entitled “An Act
Creating a Board of Claims under the Department of Justice
for Victims of Unjust Imprisonment or Detention and Victims
of Violent Crimes and For Other Purposes”, and other relief
programs of the government.

The package of indemnification for both the victims and the

immediate relatives within the fourth civil degree of

19

Republic Act No. 9995
An Act Defining and Penalizing the Crime of Photo
and Video Voyeurism, Prescribing Penalties Therefor
and for Other Purposes
Section 3. Definition of Terms.
xxx xxx xxx
(d) “Photo or video voyeurism” – means the act of taking
photo or video coverage of a person or group of persons
performing sexual act or any similar activity or of capturing
an image of the private area of a person or persons without
the latter’s consent, under circumstances in which such
person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy, or
the act of selling, copying, reproducing, broadcasting,
sharing, showing or exhibiting the photo or video coverage
or recordings of such sexual act or similar activity through
VCD/DVD, internet, cellular phones and similar means or
device without the written consent of the person/s involved,
notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or
video coverage of same was given by such persons.
xxx xxx xxx
(f) “Under circumstances in which a person has a reasonable
expectation of privacy” means belief that he/she could
disrobe in privacy, without being concerned that an image or
a private area of the person was being captured; or
circumstances in which a reasonable person would believe
that a private area of the person would not be visible to the
public, regardless of whether that person is in a public or
private place.
Section 4. Prohibited Acts. - It is hereby prohibited and
declared unlawful for any person:
(a) To take photo or video coverage of a person or group of
persons performing sexual act or any similar activity or to
capture an image of the private area of a person/s such as
the naked or undergarment clad genitals, public area,
buttocks or female breast without the consent of the
person/s involved and under circumstances in which the
person/s has/have a reasonable expectation of privacy;
(b) To copy or reproduce, or to cause to be copied or
reproduced, such photo or video or recording of sexual act
or any similar activity with or without consideration;
(c) To sell or distribute, or cause to be sold or distributed,
such photo or video or recording of sexual act, whether it be
the original copy or reproduction thereof; or
(d) To publish or broadcast, or cause to be published or
broadcast, whether in print or broadcast media, or show or
exhibit the photo or video coverage or recordings of such
sexual act or any similar activity through VCD/DVD, internet,
cellular phones and other similar means or device.
The prohibition under paragraphs (b), (c) and (d) shall apply
notwithstanding that consent to record or take photo or
video coverage of the same was given by such person/s.
Any person who violates this provision shall be liable for
photo or video voyeurism as defined herein.
Section 5. Penalties. - The penalty of imprisonment of not
less than three (3) years but not more than seven (7) years
Criminal Law II Review Notes
and a fine of not less than One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) but not more than Five hundred thousand
pesos (P500,000.00), or both, at the discretion of the court
shall be imposed upon any person found guilty of violating
Section 4 of this Act.
If the violator is a juridical person, its license or franchise
shall be automatically be deemed revoked and the persons
liable shall be the officers thereof including the editor and
reporter in the case of print media, and the station manager,
editor and broadcaster in the case of a broadcast media.
If the offender is a public officer or employee, or a
professional, he/she shall be administratively liable.
If the offender is an alien, he/she shall be subject to
deportation proceedings after serving his/her sentence and
payment of fines.
Section 6. Exemption. - Nothing contained in this Act,
however, shall render it unlawful or punishable for any
peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of the
court, to use the record or any copy thereof as evidence in
any civil, criminal investigation or trial of the crime of photo
or video voyeurism: Provided, That such written order shall
only be issued or granted upon written application and the
examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and
the witnesses he/she may produce, and upon showing that
there are reasonable grounds to believe that photo or video
voyeurism has been committed or is about to be committed,
and that the evidence to be obtained is essential to the
conviction of any person for, or to the solution or prevention
of such, crime.
Section 7. Inadmissibility of Evidence. - Any record, photo
or video, or copy thereof, obtained or secured by any person
in violation of the preceding sections shall not be admissible
in evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation.
Title Three
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC ORDER
Chapter One. REBELLION, COUP D’ ETAT, SEDITION AND
DISLOYALTY
Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection – how committed
Article 134-A. Coup d’ etat – how committed
Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or coup
d’ etat
Article 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’
etat, rebellion or insurrection
Article 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees
Article 138. Inciting to rebellion or sedition
Article 139. Sedition – how committed
Article 140. Penalty for sedition
Article 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition
20

Article 142. Inciting to sedition
Chapter Two. CRIMES AGAINST POPULAR
REPRESENTATION
Section One – Crimes against legislative bodies and
similar bodies
Article 143. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of the
Assembly and similar bodies
Article 144. Disturbance of proceedings
Section Two – Violation of parliamentary immunity
Article 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity
Chapter Three. ILLEGAL ASSEMBLIES AND ASSOCIATIONS
Article 146. Illegal assemblies
Article 147. Illegal associations
Chapter Four. ASSAULT UPON, AND RESISTANCE AND
DISOBEDIENCE TO, PERSONS IN AUTHORITY AND THEIR
AGENTS
Article 148. Direct assaults
Article 149. Indirect assaults
Article 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the
National Assembly, its committees or
subcommittees, by the Constitutional
Commissions, its committees, subcommittees or
divisions
Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person
in authority or he agents of such person
Article 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons
in authority – who shall be deemed as such
Chapter Five. PUBLIC DISORDERS
Article 153. Tumults and other disturbances of public
order – tumultuous disturbance or interruption
liable to cause disturbance
Article 154. Unlawful use of means of publication and
unlawful utterances
Article 155. Alarms and scandals
Article 156. Delivering prisoners from jail
Chapter Six. EVASION OF SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence
Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the
occasion of disorders, conflagrations, earthquakes
or other calamities
Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service of
Sentence
Chapter Seven. COMMISSION OF ANOTHER CRIME
DURING SERVICE OF PENALTY IMPOSED FOR ANOTHER
PREVIOUS OFFENSE
Article 160. Quasi- recidivism
Article 134. Rebellion or insurrection – how
committed
Elements:
Criminal Law II Review Notes
1. There is a public uprising and taking arms against the
government; and
2. The purpose of the uprising or movement is -
a. to remove from the allegiance to the government
or its laws Philippine territory or any part thereof,
or any body of land, naval, or other armed forces;
OR
b. to deprive the Chief Executive or Congress, wholly
or partially, of any of their powers or prerogatives.
§ Rebellion is more frequently used where the object of
the movement is completely to overthrow and
supersede the existing government.
§ Insurrection is more commonly employed in
reference to a movement which seeks merely to effect
some change of minor importance, or to prevent the
exercise of governmental authority with respect to
particular matters or subjects.
§ The crime of rebellion or of inciting is by nature a crime
of masses, of a multitude.
§ Actual clash of arms with the government, not
necessary to convict the accused who is in conspiracy
with others actually taking arms with the government.
§ It is not necessary that the purpose of the rebellion be
accomplished.
§ Giving aid and comfort is not criminal in rebellion.
Rebellion Treason
Levying of war against the Levying of war against the
government during peace government, when
time for any of the purposes performed to aid the enemy;
in Article 134 adherence to enemy
Always involves taking up May be committed by mere
arms against the adherence to the enemy,
government giving him aid or comfort
Note: Rebellion cannot be complexed with other crimes,
such as murder and arson. Rebellion in itself would include
and absorb the said crimes, thus granting the accused his
right to bail. Murder and arson are crimes inherent and
concomitant when rebellion is taking place. Rebellion in
the Revised Penal Code constitutes one signle crime
and that there is no reason to complex it with other
crimes (People v. Hernandez, G.R. No. L-6025, 30 May
1964).
Enrile v. Salazar
G.R. No. 92163, 5 June 1990
FACTS: A warrant was issued on an information filed by a
panel of prosecutors, charging Senator Enrile, the spouses
Rebecco and Erlinda Panlilio and Gregorio Honasan with the
crime of rebellion with murder and multiple frustrated
murder allegedly committed during the failed coup attempt
which took place from Nov. 29 to Dec. 10.
HELD: The written and oral pleas for the defendants (Enrile
et al.) presented the SC with three options: First, abandon
Hernandez doctrine and adopt the minority view expressed
in the dissent that rebellion cannot absorb more serious
crimes, and that under Article 48, rebellion may be
complexed with common offenses. Second, hold Hernandez
applicable only to offenses committed in furtherance or as a
21

necessary means for the commission of rebellion, but not to
acts committed in the course of a rebellion which also
constitute common crimes of grave or less grave character.
Third, maintain Hernandez as applying to make rebellion
absorb all other offenses committed in its course, whether or
not necessary to its commission or furtherance thereof.
11 members of the SC voted against abandoning Hernandez,
while 2 felt the doctrine should be re-examined. Because of
this, the ruling remains good law, as no new challenges are
presented in this case persuasive enough to warrant a
complete reversal.
This view is reinforced by the fact that President Aquino,
exercising her powers under the 1986 Freedom Constitution,
repealed P.D. No. 942 of the former regime which sought to
nullify Hernandez by enacting a new provision in the RPC to
the effect that “when by reason, or on the occasion, of any
of the crimes penalized in this Chapter, acts which constitute
offenses upon which graver penalties are imposed by the
law are committed, the penalty for the more serious offense
in its maximum period shall be imposed upon the offender.”
The president has then in effect reinstated Hernandez as
binding doctrine with the effect of law by legislative fiat.
The court unanimously voted to reject the second option.
The consensus was that the arguments were not sufficient
to overcome the thrust of Hernandez to rule out the
complexing of rebellion with any other offense committed in
its course under either of the aforecited clauses of Article 48.
If Art. 48 were applied, and murder were not complexed
with rebellion and the 2 crimes were punished separately,
the extreme penalty could be imposed upon him, even in the
absence of a single aggravating circumstance. Thus, said
provision, if construed this way, would be unfavorable to the
accused.
Thus, Hernandez remains binding doctrine operating to
prohibit the complexing of rebellion with any other crime.
The SC ruled by a vote of 11 to 3 that the information filed
against the petitioner does in fact charge an offense. That
indictment is to be read as charging simple rebellion.
Enrile v. Amin
G.R. No. 93335, 13 September 1990
FACTS: Together with the information charging Enrile with
rebellion complexed with murder in the RTC of QC,
prosecutors filed another information charging him for
violation of P.D. No. 1829 in the RTC of Makati. It is alleged
that on Dec. 1, 1989 at Dasma Village, Enrile, having
reasonable grounds to believe or suspect that Ex-Col. Gringo
Honasan has committed a crime, obstructed, impeded,
frustrated or delayed the apprehension of Honasan by
harboring or concealing him in his house. Enrile apparently
gave Gringo food and comfort in the Dasma house, despite
knowing that Gringo is a fugitive from justice.
HELD: The alleged harboring or concealing by Enrile of
Honasan is absorbed in the complexed rebellion charge
against Enrile.
The rebellion charges filed against Enrile in Q.C. were based
on affidavits executed by 2 employees of a hotel who stated
that Gringo and some 100 rebel soldiers attended the mass
Criminal Law II Review Notes
and birthday party held at the Enrile residence in 1
December 1989. Based on this testimony, the prosecution
concluded that Enrile’s talking with the rebel leader, Gringo,
in his house in the presence of 100 armed soldiers, it can be
inferred that they were co-conspirators in the December
coup attempt. Thus, the factual allegations supporting the
rebellion charge include the very incident which gave rise to
the charge of the violation under P.D. 1829.
Necessarily, being in conspiracy with Gringo, Enrile’s alleged
act of harboring or concealing was for no other purpose but
in furtherance of the crime of rebellion thus constituting a
part thereof. It was motivated by the single intent or
resolution to commit the crime of rebellion. The decisive
factor in political crimes is the intent or motive. If Enrile is
not charged with rebellion and he harbored or concealed
Gringo simply because the latter is a friend and former
associate, the motive for the act is completely different. But
if the act is committed with political motives, then it should
be deemed to form part of the crime of rebellion instead of
being punished separately.
In this case, the act or harboring or concealing Gringo is
clearly a mere component of rebellion or an act done in
furtherance of rebellion. It cannot therefore be made basis
of a separate charge. All crimes, whether punishable under
special law or general law, which are mere components or
ingredients, or committed in furtherance thereof, become
absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be isolated
and charged as separate crimes themselves.
People v. Dasig
G.R. No. 100231, 28 April 1993
FACTS: One afternoon, Pfc. Manatad, Pfc. Tizon and Pfc.
Catamora were tasked by their commanding officer to man
the traffic at 2 streets of Mandaue City. While on duty,
Catamora saw 8 persons, including accused Nunez, acting
suspiciously. He noticed one of them giving instructions to
two of the men to approach Manatad. Catamora followed
the two men, but sensing that they were being followed, the
men went to the middle of the road and engage Catamora
to a gun battle. Catamora then heard a series of shots from
the other group and afterwards, he saw Manatad sprawled
on the ground. Catamora sought refuge at a nearby
building from where he saw 2 persons take Manatad’s gun
and fired at him to make sure he was dead. The group then
fled the scene.
Later on, 2 teams of police officers were tasked to conduct
surveillance on a suspected safehouse of members of the
NPA sparrow unit in Cebu City. When they reached the
place, the group saw Rodrigo Dasig and Nunez trying to
escape. The two men were apprehended, and their firearms
were confiscated. Dasig confessed in the hospital that he
and the group of Nunez killed Manatad and that he and
Nunez were members of the Sparrow unit. He was found
guilty of murder with direct assault.
HELD: Dasig should be prosecuted for rebellion. Appellant
not only confessed voluntarily his membership with the
Sparrow unit, but also his participation and that of his group
in the killing of Manatad. The Sparrow unit is the liquidation
squad of the NPA with the objective of overthrowing the
duly constituted government. It is therefore not hard to
comprehend that the killing of Manatad was committed as a
22

means to or in furtherance of the subversive ends of the
NPA. As such, appellant is liable for rebellion and not
murder with direct assault upon a person in authority.
Acts committed in furtherance of rebellion though crimes in
themselves are deemed absorbed in one single crime of
rebellion. The act of killing a police officer, knowing too well
that the victim is a person in authority, is a mere component
of rebellion or an act done in furtherance of rebellion. It
cannot be made the basis of a separate charge.
People v. Lovedioro
G.R. No. 112235, 29 November 1995
FACTS: Off-duty policeman SPO3 Jesus Lucilo was walking
along a street when a man suddenly walked beside him,
pulled a gun from his waist, aimed the gun at the
policeman’s right ear and fired. The man who shot Lucilo
had 3 other companions with him, one of whom shot the
fallen policeman four times as he lay on the ground. After
taking Lucilo’s gun, the man and his companions boarded a
tricycle and fled. The accused-appellant was charged and
was convicted of the crime of murder.
HELD: In deciding if the crime committed is rebellion, not
murder, it becomes imperative for our courts to ascertain
whether or not the act was done in furtherance of a political
end. The political motive of the act should be conclusively
demonstrated. If no political motive is established and
proved, the accused should be convicted of the common
crime and not of rebellion. In cases of rebellion, motive
relates to the act, and mere membership in an organization
dedicated to the furtherance of rebellion would not, by and
of itself, suffice.
Appellant’s contentions regarding the reason for the killing of
Lucilo are couched in terms so general and non-specific that
they offer no explanation as to what contribution the killing
would have made towards the achievement of the NPA’s
subversive aims. Thus, in the absence of clear and
satisfactory evidence pointing to a political motive for the
killing of SPO3 Lucilo, the trial court correctly convicted
appellant of the crime of murder.
Article 134-A. Coup d’ etat – how committed
Elements:
1. Offender is a person or persons belonging to the
military or police or holding any public office or
employment;
2. It is committed by means of a swift attack accompanied
by violence, intimidation, threat, strategy or stealth;
3. The attack is directed against the duly constituted
authorities of the Republic of the Philippines, or any
military camp or installation, communication networks,
public utilities or other facilities needed for the exercise
and continued possession of power; and
4. The purpose of the attack is to seize or diminish state
power.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
§ The crime of coup d’ etat may be committed with or
without civilian participation.
Article 135. Penalty for rebellion, insurrection or
coup d’ etat
Persons liable for rebellion, insurrection or coup d' etat:
1. The leaders –
a. Any person who promotes, maintains or heads a
rebellion or insurrection; or
b. Any person who leads, directs or commands
others to undertake a coup d' etat;
2. The participants -
a. Any person who participates or executes the
commands of others in rebellion or insurrection;
b. Any person in the government service who
participates, or executes directions or commands
of others in undertaking a coup d’ etat; or
c. Any person not in the government service who
participates, supports, finances, abets or aids in
undertaking a coup d' etat.
§ Public officer must take active part, to be liable; mere
silence or omission is not punishable in rebellion.
§ When the rebellion, insurrection or coup d’ etat shall be
under the command of unknown leaders, any person
who in fact directed the others, spoke for them, signed
receipts and other documents issued in their name, or
performed similar acts, on behalf of the rebels, shall be
deemed a leader of such rebellion, insurrection or coup
d’ etat.
§ It is not a defense in rebellion that the accused never
took the oath of allegiance to, or that they never
recognized the government.
§ Those who killed persons in pursuance of the
movement to overthrow the government are liable for
rebellion only.
§ Is there a complex crime of rebellion with murder and
other common crimes? NO. Engaging in war against
the government necessarily imply everything that war
connotes: resort to arms, requisition of property,
collection of taxes, restraint of liberty, damage to
property, physical injuries and loss of life.
§ When any of the acts above are committed as means
to or in furtherance of subversive ends, they become
absorbed in the crime of rebellion and cannot be
regarded or penalized as distinct crimes in themselves.
(This is the Hernandez ruling, later reiterated in Enrile
v. Salazar)
§ Killing, robbing etc. for private purposes or profit,
without any political motivation, would be separately
punished and would not be absorbed in rebellion
§ Political crimes are those directly aimed against the
political order, as well as such common crimes as may
be committed to achieve a political purpose. The
decisive factor is intent or motive. A crime usually
regarded as common (e.g. homicide) may be stripped
of its common character if perpetrated for any of the
purposes of rebellion.
23
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

Article 136. Conspiracy and proposal to commit coup Elements:

d’ etat
1. Offenders rise publicly and tumultuously;
§ There is conspiracy to commit rebellion when two or 2. Offenders employ force, intimidation, or other means
more persons come to an agreement to rise publicly outside of legal methods; or
and take arms against government for any of the 3. Purpose is to attain any of the following objects:
purposes of rebellion and decide to commit it.
§ There is proposal to commit rebellion when the person a. To prevent the promulgation or execution of any
who has decided to rise publicly and take arms against law or the holding of any popular election;
the government for any of the purposes of rebellion b. To prevent the national government or any
proposes its execution to some other person or provincial or municipal government, or any public
persons. officer from exercising its or his functions or
prevent the execution of an administrative order;
c. To inflict any act of hate or revenge upon the
Article 137. Disloyalty of public officers or employees person or property of any public officer or
employee;
Acts punishable: d. To commit, for any political or social end, any act
of hate or revenge against private persons or any
1. By failing to resist a rebellion by all the means in their social classes;
power; e. To despoil for any political or social end, any
2. By continuing to discharge the duties of their offices person, municipality or province, or the national
under the control of the rebels; or government of all its property or any part thereof.
3. By accepting appointment to office under them.
§ Sedition, in its general sense, is the raising of
§ Offender must be a public officer or employee commotions or disturbances in the State. The ultimate
§ The crime of disloyalty of public officers presupposes object is violation of public peace.
the existence of rebellion by other persons. § Sedition may not be committed by one person only,
§ If the public officer who commits any of the acts in this because the word ‘tumultuous’ means that it is caused
article is in conspiracy with the rebels, he will be guilty by more than three persons who are armed or provided
of rebellion. with means of violence.
§ Are common crimes absorbed in sedition? NO,
according to jurisprudence.
Article 138. Inciting to rebellion or insurrection.
Sedition Rebellion
Elements: The purpose may be political The purpose is always
or social political
1. Offender does not take arms or is not in open hostility It is sufficient that the public There must be taking up of
against the government; uprising must be tumultuous arms against the
2. He incites others to the execution of any of the acts of government
rebellion; and
3. The inciting is done by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, banners or other People v. Cabrera
representations tending to the same end. G.R. No. L-17748, 4 March 1922

§ In proposal and inciting to rebellion, the crime of FACTS: A constabulary soldier died as a result of an
rebellion should not actually be committed by the encounter with a policeman. His death engendered a desire
persons to whom it is proposed or who are incited. If for revenge against the police force on the part of the
they commit the rebellion, the proponent of the one constabulary soldiers. The next day, constabulary soldiers
inciting becomes a principal by inducement in the crime escaped from their barracks with rifles and ammunitions and
of rebellion. divided into groups for an attack upon the city police force.
They fired indiscriminately along the streets of Calle Real,
Inciting to rebellion Proposal to commit killing a policeman and wounding civilians, including several
rebellion passengers of a passing streetcar. They attacked the Luneta
In both crimes, the offender induces another to commit Police Station and the office of the secret service.
rebellion
It is not required that the The person who proposes HELD: The crime committed was sedition. Sedition, in its
offender has decided to has decided to commit more general sense, is the raising of commotions or
commit the rebellion rebellion disturbances in the State. The Philippine law on the subject
The act of inciting is done The person who proposes makes all persons guilty of sedition who rise publicly and
publicly uses secret means tumultuously in order to obtain by force or outside of legal
methods any one of five objects, including that of inflicting
any act of hate or revenge upon the person or property or
any official or agent of the Insular Government or of a
Provincial or Municipal Government. It is not necessary that
Article 139. Sedition – how committed the offender be a private citizen and the offended party a

24

public functionary. The law makes no distinction between
the persons to which it applies.
Article 140. Penalty for sedition
Persons liable for sedition:
1. The leader of the sedition; and
2. Other person participating in the sedition.
Article 141. Conspiracy to commit sedition
§ There must be an agreement and a decision to rise
publicly and tumultuously to attain any of the objects of
sedition.
§ There is no crime of proposal to commit sedition.
Article 142. Inciting to sedition
Acts punishable:
1. Inciting others to the accomplishment of any of the
acts which constitute sedition by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, etc.;
Elements:
a. Offender does not take direct part in the crime of
sedition;
b. He incites others to the accomplishment of any of
the acts which constitute sedition; and
c. Inciting is done by means of speeches,
proclamations, writings, emblems, cartoons,
banners, or other representations tending towards
the same end.
2. Uttering seditious words or speeches which tend to
disturb the public peace; or
3. Writing, publishing, or circulating scurrilous libels
against the government or any of the duly constituted
authorities thereof, which tend to disturb the public
peace.
Uttering seditious words, publishing and circulation
scurrilous libels are punishable (second and third type of
inciting to sedition), when:
1. They tend to disturb or obstruct any lawful officer in
executing the functions of his office; or
2. They tend to instigate others to cabal and meet
together for unlawful purposes; or
3. They suggest or incite rebellious conspiracies or riots;
or
4. They lead or tend to stir up the people against the
lawful authorities or disturb the peace of the
community, the safety and order of the government.
§ “knowingly concealing such evil practices’ is another
way of violating this article. This is ordinarily an act of
an accessory after the fact, but under this article, the
act is treated and punished as that of a principal.
§ It is not necessary that the words used should in fact
result in a rising of the people against the constituted
authorities.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
§ Rules relative to seditious words:
o Clear and present danger – words must be of such
a nature that by uttering them there is a danger of
a public uprising and that such danger should be
both clear and imminent
o Dangerous tendency – if the words used tend to
create a danger of public uprising
§ Seditious utterances are prohibited because the State
should not be compelled to wait until the apprehended
danger became certain, before it can protect itself.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 90
DECLARING UNLAWFUL RUMOR-MONGERING AND
SPREADING
Unlawful rumor mongering: Committed by any person
who shall offer, publish, distribute, circulate and spread
rumors, false news and information and gossip, or cause the
publication, distribution, circulation or spreading of the
same, which cause or tend to cause panic, divisive effects
among the people, discredit or distrust for the duly
constituted authorities, undermine the stability of the
Government and the objectives of the New Society,
endanger the public order, or cause damage to the interest
or credit of the state.
US v. Tolentino
G.R. No. L-1451, 6 March 1906
FACTS: A theatrical work entitled ‘Kahapon Ngayon at
Bukas’, written by Aurelio Tolentino, was presented by him
and others on 14 May 1903 at the Teatro Libertad in Manila.
HELD: The crime committed is inciting to sedition. The
publication and presentation of the drama directly and
necessarily tended to instigate others to cabal and meet
together for unlawful purposes, and to suggest and incite
rebellious conspiracies and riots and to stir up the people
against the lawful authorities and to disturb the peace of the
community and the safety and order of the Government.
The manifest, unmistakable tendency of the play, in view
of the time, place, and manner of its presentation,
was to inculcate a spirit of hatred and enmity against the
American people and the Government of the United States in
the Philippines.
Espuelas v. People
G.R. No. L-2990, 17 December 1951
Petitioner Oscar Espuelas had his picture taken, making it
appear as if he were hanging lifeless at the end of a piece of
rope suspended from the limb of a tree, when in truth and in
fact, he was merely standing on a barrel. After securing
copies of his photograph, Espuelas sent copies of same to
several newspapers and weeklies of general circulation for
their publication with a suicide not, wherein he made to
appear that it was written by a fictitious suicidal, Alberto
Reveniera and addressed to the latter’s supposed wife and
children. The letter narrated that the reason why he
committed suicide was because he was not pleased with the
administration of Pres. Roxas. It also contained a request to
his wife to write to President Truman and Churchill, and to
tell them that the Philippine government is “infested with
many Hitlers and Mussolinis.” As if out of desperation, he
ended the letter by saying that he sacrificed his life because
25

he has no power “to put under Juez de Cuchillo all the Roxas
people who are in power.”
HELD: The essence of seditious libel is its immediate
tendency to stir up general discontent to the pitch of illegal
courses or to induce people to resort to illegal methods in
order to redress the evils which press upon their minds. A
published writing which calls our government one of crooks
and dishonest persons infested with Nazis and Fascists, and
which reveals a tendency to produce dissatisfaction or a
feeling incompatible with the disposition to remain loyal to
the government, is a scurrilous libel against the Government.
Umil v. Ramos
G.R. No. 81567, 9 July 1990
FACTS: CAPCOM got a tip that a member of the NPA
Sparrow Unit (liquidation squad) was being treated for a
gunshot wound at the St. Agnes Hospital, Roosevelt Avenue,
Q.C. Upon verification, it was found that the wounded
person was Rolando Dural, a member of the NPA liquidation
squad, responsible for the killing of 2 CAPCOM soldiers.
Dural was positively identified by eyewitnesses as the
gunman who went on top of the hood of the CAPCOM
mobile patrol car, and fired at the CAPCOM soldiers seated
inside. Dural was then transferred to another facility, under
CAPCOM supervision (basically, he was arrested). Dural
questions the legality of his arrest, having been made
without a warrant.
HELD: Dural was arrested for being a member of the NPA,
an outlawed subversive organization. Subversion being a
continuing offense, his arrest without warrant is justified as
it can be said that he was committing an offense when
arrested. The crimes of rebellion, subversion, conspiracy or
proposal to commit such crimes, and crimes or offenses
committed in furtherance thereof or in connection therewith
constitute direct assaults against the State and are in the
nature of continuing crimes. As stated by the SC in an earlier
case:
The crimes of insurrection or rebellion,
subversion, conspiracy or proposal to commit such
crimes, and other crimes and offenses committed
in the furtherance, on the occasion thereof, or
incident thereto, are all in the nature of continuing
offenses which set them apart from the common
offenses, aside from their essentially involving a
massive conspiracy of nationwide magnitude.
The arrest of persons involved in the
rebellion whether as its fighting armed elements,
or for committing non-violent acts but in
furtherance of the rebellion, is more an act of
capturing them in the course of an armed conflict,
to quell the rebellion, than for the purpose of
immediately prosecuting them in court for a
statutory offense. The arrest, therefore, need not
follow the usual procedure in the prosecution of
offenses which requires the determination by a
judge of the existence of probable cause before
the issuance of a judicial warrant of arrest and the
granting of bail if the offense is bailable.
Obviously, the absence of a judicial warrant is no
legal impediment to arresting or capturing persons
committing overt acts of violence against
Criminal Law II Review Notes
government forces, or any other milder acts but
equally in pursuance of the rebellious movement.
If killing and other acts of violence against the
rebels find justification in the exigencies of armed
hostilities which is of the essence of waging a
rebellion or insurrection, most assuredly so in case
of invasion, merely seizing their persons and
detaining them while any of these contingencies
continues cannot be less justified.
Article 143. Acts tending to prevent the meeting of
the Assembly and similar bodies
Elements:
1. There is a projected or actual meeting of Congress or
any of its committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of
any provincial board or city or municipal council or
board; and
2. Offender, who may be any person, prevents such
meetings by force or fraud.
Article 144. Disturbance of proceedings
Elements:
1. There is a meeting of Congress or any of its
committees or subcommittees, constitutional
commissions or committees or divisions thereof, or of
any provincial board or city or municipal council or
board; and
2. Offender does any of the following acts:
a. He disturbs any of such meetings; and
b. He behaves while in the presence of any such
bodies in such a manner as to interrupt its
proceedings or to impair the respect due it.
§ The complaint for disturbance of proceedings may be
filed by a member of a legislative body.
§ One who disturbs the proceedings of Congress may
also be punished for contempt by such Congress.
Article 145. Violation of parliamentary immunity
Acts punishable:
1. Using force, intimidation, threats, or frauds to prevent
any member of Congress from attending the meetings
of Congress or of any of its committees or
subcommittees, constitutional commissions or
committees or divisions thereof, or from expressing his
opinion or casting his vote;
Elements:
a. Offender uses force, intimidation, threats or fraud;
b. The purpose of the offender is to prevent any
member of Congress from -
o attending the meetings of the Congress or of
any of its committees or constitutional
commissions, etc.;
26
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

o expressing his opinion; or

o casting his vote.
R.A. No. 8294
An Act Amending the Provisions of Presidential
2. Arresting or searching any member thereof while
Decree No. 1866, As Amended, Entitled “Codifying
Congress is in regular or special session, except in case
the Laws on Illegal/Unlawful Possession,
such member has committed a crime punishable under
Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of
the Code by a penalty higher than prision mayor.
Firearms, Ammunition or Explosives or Instruments
used in the Manufacture of Firearms, Ammunition or
Elements:
Explosives, and Imposing Stiffer Penalties for Certain
Violations Thereof, and for Relevant Purposes
a. Offender is a public officer or employee;
b. He arrests or searches any member of Congress;
Punishable acts
c. Congress, at the time of arrest or search, is in
regular or special session; and
1. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
d. The member arrested or searched has not
Disposition or Possession of Firearms or
committed a crime punishable under the Code by
Ammunition or Instruments Used or Intended to
a penalty higher than prision mayor.
be Used in the Manufacture of Firearms or
Ammunition – any person who shall unlawfully
§ It is not necessary that the member of Congress is
manufacture, deal in, acquire, dispose, or possess any
actually prevented from attending.
low powered firearm, such as rimfire handgun, .380
§ Parliamentary immunity does not protect members of
or .32 and other firearm of similar firepower, part of
Congress from responsibility before Congress itself.
firearm, ammunition, or machinery, tool or instrument
§ Under the 1987 Constitution, members of Congress are
used or intended to be used in the manufacture of any
exempted from arrest, while Congress is in session, for
firearm or ammunition. Provided that no other crime
all offenses punishable by a penalty LESS THAN
was committed.
PRISION MAYOR.
§ Thus, under the Constitution, a public officer who
Higher penalty shall be imposed if the firearm is
arrests a member of Congress who has committed a
classified as high powered firearm which includes
crime punishable by prision mayor (six years and one
those with bores bigger in diameter than .38 caliber
day, to 12 years) is not liable Article 145.
and 9 millimeter such as caliber .40, .41, .44, .45 and
§ To be consistent with the Constitution, the phrase "by a
also lesser calibered firearms but considered powerful
penalty higher than prision mayor" in Article 145 should
such as caliber .357 and caliber .22 center-fire
be amended to read: "by the penalty of prision mayor
magnum and other firearms with firing capability of full
or higher."
automatic and by burst of two or three. Provided,
however, that no other crime was committed by the
Martinez v. Morfe
person arrested.
G.R. No. L-34022, 24 March 1972
If homicide or murder is committed with the use
FACTS: Manuel Martinez and Fernando Bautista, Sr. were
of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an unlicensed
delegates to the 1972 Constitutional Convention. Both were
firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
facing criminal prosecutions. Martinez was charged for
circumstance.
falsification of a public document before the sala of Judge
Jesus Morfe while Bautista was charged for violation of the
If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of or
Revised Election Code. The two were later arrested, while
incident to, or in connection with the crime of
the Constitutional Convention was still in session. Martinez
rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or attempted
and Bautista are now assailing the validity of their arrest.
coup d'état, such violation shall be absorbed as an
According to the two, they are immune from arrest under
element of the crime of rebellion, or insurrection,
the 1935 Constitution.
sedition, or attempted coup d'état.
ISSUE: Whether or not Martinez and Bautista are immune
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner,
from arrest.
president, manager, director or other responsible
officer of any public or private firm, company,
HELD: No. There is to be sure, a full recognition of the
corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly
necessity to have members of Congress, and likewise
allow any of the firearms owned by such firm,
delegates to the Constitutional Convention. They are
company, corporation or entity to be used by any
accorded the constitutional immunity of senators and
person or persons found guilty of violating the
representatives from arrest during their attendance at the
provisions of the preceding paragraphs or willfully or
sessions of Congress and in going to and returning from the
knowingly allow any of them to use unlicensed firearms
same except in cases of treason, felony and breach of
or firearms without any legal authority to be carried
peace. In the case at bar, the crimes for which Martinez outside of their residence in the course of their
and Bautista were arrested fall under the category of
employment. (§1)
“breach of peace.” Breach of peace covers any offense
whether defined by the Revised Penal Code or any special
2. Unlawful Manufacture, Sale, Acquisition,
statute. Therefore, Martinez and Bautista cannot invoke the
Disposition or Possession of Explosives — any
privilege from arrest provision of the Constitution.
person who shall unlawfully manufacture, assemble,
deal in, acquire, dispose or possess hand grenade(s),

27

rifle grenade(s), and other explosives, including but not
limited to 'pillbox,' 'molotov cocktail bombs,' 'fire
bombs,' or other incendiary devices capable of
producing destructive effect on contiguous objects or
causing injury or death to any person.
When a person commits any of the crimes defined
in the RPC or special laws with the use of the
aforementioned explosives, detonation agents or
incendiary devices, which results in the death of
any person or persons, the use of such explosives,
detonation agents or incendiary devices shall be
considered as an aggravating circumstance.
If the violation of this Section is in furtherance of, or
incident to, or in connection with the crime of rebellion,
insurrection, sedition or attempted coup d'état, such
violation shall be absorbed as an element of the crimes
of rebellion, insurrection, sedition or attempted coup
d'état.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the owner,
president, manager, director or other responsible
officer of any public or private firm, company,
corporation or entity, who shall willfully or knowingly
allow any of the explosives owned by such firm,
company, corporation or entity, to be used by any
person or persons found guilty of violating the
provisions of the preceding paragraphs. (§3)
3. Carrying licensed firearm outside one’s
residence without legal authority therefor (§1)
4. Tampering of Firearm's Serial Number — any
person who shall unlawfully tamper, change, deface or
erase the serial number of any firearm. (§5)
5. Repacking or Altering the Composition of
Lawfully Manufactured Explosives —any person
who shall unlawfully repack, alter or modify the
composition of any lawfully manufactured explosives.
(§6)
Coverage of Unlicensed Firearm
The term unlicensed firearm shall include:
1) firearms with expired license; or
2) unauthorized use of licensed firearm in the commission
of the crime
R.A. No. 10591
Comprehensive Firearms and Ammunition Regulation
Act (Amending P.D. No. 1866 and R.A. No. 8294)
Punishable Acts:
1. Unlawful acquisition possession of firearms and
ammunition
Aggravating Circumstances:
a. Loaded with ammunition or inserted with a loaded
magazine;
b. Fitted or mounted with laser or any gadget used to
guide the shooter to hit the target such as thermal weapon
sight and the like;
c. Fitted or mounted with sniper scopes, firearm
muffler or firearm silencer;
Criminal Law II Review Notes
d. Accompanied with an extra barrel;
e. Converted to be capable of firing full automatic
bursts.
2. Use of Loose of Firearm in the commission of a crime –
considered as an aggravating circumstance
3. Carriage of registered firearm outside of residence by a
license person without any legal authority therefor
4. Unlawful Manufacture, sale, importation, acquisition,
disposition or possession of firearms or ammunition or
instruments
5. Unlawful taking, sale or disposition by any laborer, worker
or employee of a licensed firearms dealer of parts of
firearms or ammunition which the company manufactures
and sells, and other materials used by the company in the
manufacture or sale of firearms or ammunition
6. Arms smuggling
7. Unlawful tampering, obliteration or alteration of firearm’s
identification
8. Planting evidence or the willful and malicious insertion,
placing and/or attachment or parts thereof in the person,
house, effects or in the immediate vicinity of an innocent
individual for the purpose of implicating or incriminating the
person, or imputing the commission of any violation of the
provisions of this Act to said individual
9. Failure to notify lost or stolen firearm or light weapon to
the Firearms and Explosives Office (FEO) of the Philippine
National Police (PNP) within 30 days from discovery
10. Failure to notify the FEO of the PNP of a licensed
person’s change of residence or office address, other than
that indicated in the license card, within 30 days from
transfer
Illegal transfer or registration of firearms to any person who
has not yet be obtained or secured the necessary license or
permit thereof.
People v. Ladjaalam
G.R. No. 136149-51, 19 September 2000
FACTS: Four informations were filed against appellant
Walpan Ladjaalam in the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga
City, three of which he was found guilty, to wit: (1)
maintaining a drug den in violation of Section 15-A, Article
III, of Republic Act No. 6425 (Dangerous Drugs Act of
1972); (2) illegal possession of firearm and ammunition in
violation in violation of Presidential Decree No. 1866 as
amended by Republic Act No. 8294; and (3) Direct Assault
with multiple attempted homicide. The following information
was provided by the prosecution:
1) In the afternoon of 24 September 1997, more
than thirty (30) policemen proceeded to the house of
appellant and his wife to serve the search warrant when
they were met by a volley of gunfire coming from the
second floor of the said house. They saw that it was the
appellant who fired the M14 rifle towards them.
2) After gaining entrance, two of the police
officers proceeded to the second floor where they earlier
saw appellant firing the rifle. As he noticed their presence,
the appellant jumped from the window to the roof of a
neighboring house. He was subsequently arrested at the
back of his house after a brief chase.
3) Several firearms and ammunitions were
recovered from appellant’s house. Also found was a pencil
28

case with fifty(50) folded aluminum foils inside, each
containing methamphetamine hydrochloride.
4) A paraffin test was conducted and the casts
taken both hands of the appellant yielded positive for
gunpowder nitrates.
5) Records show that appellant had not filed any
application for license to possess firearm and ammunition,
nor has he been given authority to carry firearms.
ISSUE: Whether or not such use of an unlicensed firearm
shall be considered as an aggravating circumstance.
HELD: No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that
any person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or
ammunition shall be penalized, unless no other crime was
committed. Furthermore, if homicide or murder is committed
with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. Since the crime committed was direct assault
and not homicide or murder, illegal possession of firearm
cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance.
Evangelista v. People
G.R. No. 163267, 5 May 2010
FACTS: Evangelista was arrested in Dubai for Illegal
Possession of Firearms. In order to secure his release, the
firearms as well as the person of Evangelista was
surrendered to Capt. Nadurata, the PAL pilot of Flight No. PR
657 from Dubai to Manila on January 30, 1996. Upon arrival
in the Philippines, he was arrested and charged with
violation of PD 1866, Sec. 1, or illegal possession of
firearms. Evangelista, in his petition for certiorari, contends
that he is not guilty of illegal possession of firearms
considering that from Brunei to Manila, he was never in
physical possession of the guns.
HELD: In affirming the conviction, the High Court held that
to be guilty of the crime of illegal possession of firearms and
ammunition, one does not have to be in actual physical
possession thereof. The law does not punish physical
possession alone but possession in general, which includes
constructive possession or the subjection of the thing to the
owner’s control. In this case, Evangelista’s ownership and
possession of the unlicensed firearms are undisputed. For
one, he already admitted that he bought the same in
Angola, and that these were taken onboard the flight to
Manila. That the firearms were in the custody of airplane
captain is of no moment because Evangelista never
relinquished ownership and control over the same. In fact,
he even signed the Customs Declaration Form indicating that
he was bringing in firearms into the country. Clearly, there
was constructive possession.
Agote v. Lorenzo
G.R. No. 142675, 22 July 2005
FACTS: Petitioner Vicente Agote was charged to have
violated Presidential Decree No. 1866 (Illegal Possession of
Firearms) and COMELEC Resolution No. 2826 (Gun Ban) for
having in possession one (1) .38 cal. Rev. with four (4) live
bullets in a public place during the election period without
having secured the necessary license and authority from the
COMELEC. During the pendency of the case, Republic Act
Criminal Law II Review Notes
No. 8294 was approved into law. Eventually, the trial court
rendered judgment of conviction in both cases wherein
separate penalties were imposed respectively. Petitioner
moved for reconsideration, claiming that the penalty for
illegal possession of firearms under P.D. No. 1866 had
already been reduced by the subsequent enactment of
Republic Act No. 8294, which the trial court subsequently
denied. He then filed a petition before the Court of Appeals
which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 2991-UDK, but was
likewise dismissed.
ISSUES:
1) Whether or not Republic Act No. 8294 should be applied
retroactively.
2) Whether or not such use of an unlicensed firearm shall be
considered as a special aggravating circumstance.
HELD:
1) Yes. The rule is that penal laws shall have a retroactive
effect in so far as they favor the person guilty of a felony.
Republic Act No. 8294 lowers the penalty for illegal
possession of firearms depending on the class of firearm
possessed. The lighter penalty may be imposed to a person
who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or ammunition,
“unless no other crime was committed”. Moreover, the Court
has already ruled in Gonzales v. Court of Appeals that said
law must be given retroactive effect in favor of those
accused under P.D. No. 1866. But as violation of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2826 or the Gun Ban was also committed by
the petitioner at the same time, the Court cannot but set
aside petitioner’s conviction for illegal possession of firearm.
2) No. Section 1 of RA 8294 substantially provides that any
person who shall unlawfully possess any firearm or
ammunition shall be penalized, “unless no other crime was
committed”. It further provides that such use of an
unlicensed firearm shall be considered only as an
aggravating circumstance in cases of homicide or murder.
Since the crime committed was in violation of COMELEC
Resolution No. 2826 or the Gun Ban, illegal possession of
firearms cannot be deemed an aggravating circumstance.
Article 146. Illegal assemblies
Acts punishable:
1. Any meeting attended by armed persons for the
purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable
under the Code;
Elements:
a. There is a meeting, a gathering or group of
persons, whether in fixed place or moving;
b. The meeting is attended by armed persons; and
c. The purpose of the meeting is to commit any of
the crimes punishable under the Code.
2. Any meeting in which the audience, whether armed or
not, is incited to the commission of the crime of
treason, rebellion or insurrection, sedition, or assault
upon person in authority or his agents.
29
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

a. There is a meeting, a gathering or group of present at such meeting

persons, whether in a fixed place or moving; and
b. The audience, whether armed or not, is incited to
the commission of the crime of treason, rebellion
or insurrection, sedition or direct assault. R.A. No. 8049
Anti-Hazing Law
Persons liable:
Sec. 1. Definition of Hazing – An initiation right or
1. The organizer or leaders of the meeting; and practice as a prerequisite for admission into membership in a
3. Persons merely present at the meeting, who must have fraternity, sorority or organization by placing the recruit,
a common intent to commit the felony of illegal neophyte, or applicant in some embarrassing or humiliating
assembly. situations such as forcing him to do menial, silly, foolish, and
similar tasks or activities or otherwise subjecting him to
§ Meeting – includes a gathering or group, whether in a physical or psychological suffering or injury.
fixed place or moving.
§ Under the first type of illegal assembly, not all persons Sec. 2. Allowed Initiation Rights- These are those that
present at the meeting must be armed to be liable have prior written notice to the school authorities or head of
under this article. organization 7 days before the conduct of such initiation.
§ The unarmed person merely present at the meeting of The written notice shall contain the following:
the first type is liable, but armed persons are punished
more severely under this article. a. Period of the initiation activities which shall not
§ Note however that the person merely present must exceed three (3) days.
have an intent to commit the felony of illegal assembly. b. Names of those to be subjected to such activities;
If he was a curious bystander, he is not liable. and
§ If any person present at the meeting carries an c. Undertaking that no physical violence be employed
unlicensed firearm, by anybody.
o it is presumed that the purpose of the meeting
insofar as he is concerned is to commit acts SeC. 4. Persons Liable and Punishable Acts
punishable under the Revised Penal Code,
o He is considered a leader or organizer of the a. Officers and members of the fraternity, sorority, or
meeting. organization who actually participtead in the
§ Under the first type, the audience must be “actually infliction of physical harm shall be liable as
incited” to the commission of any of the crimes principals if the person subjected to hazing suffers
enumerated. If the meeting was dispersed before any physical injury or dies as a result thereof;
there was actual inciting, there is no illegal assembly. b. Owner of the place where the hazing is conducted
shall be liable as an accomplice when he has
knowledge of the haxing conducted therein but
Article 147. Illegal associations failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring;
What are illegal associations? c. Parents shall be liable as principals when they
have actual knowledge of the haixng conducted in
1. Associations totally or partially organized for the the home of one of the officers or members of the
purpose of committing any of the crimes punishable fraternity, sorority or organization, but failed to
under the Code; prevent the same;
2. Associations totally or partially organized for some d. School authorities and faculty members shall be
purpose contrary to public morals. laible as accomplices when they consent to the
hazing or have actual knowledge thereof, but
failed to take any action to prevent the same from
occurring;
Persons liable: e. Officers or members of the organization, group,
fraternity or sorority shall be liable as principals if
1. Founders, directors and president of the association; they actually planned the hazing or have actual
2. Mere members of the association. knowledge thereof, but failed to take any action to
prevent the same from occurring;
Illegal associations Illegal assemblies f. Officers, former officers or alumni of the
It is not necessary that there It is necessary that there is organization, group, fraternity or sorority shall be
be an actual meeting an actual meeting or liable as principals if they knowingly cooperated in
assembly for the purposes carrying out the haxing by inducing the victim to
stated in Article 146 be present thereat;
The act of forming or The meeting and attendance g. The fraternity or sorority’s adviser shall be liable
organizing and membership at such meeting is punished as principal if he was present when the acts
in the association is constituting the hazing were committed and failed
punished to take any action to prevent the same.
Persons liable are the Persons liable are the
founders, directors and organizers or leaders of the The presence of any person (whether or not a member of
president, and the members meeting and the persons the fraternity/sorority) durig the hazing is prima facie

30

evidence of participation therein as a principal unless he
prevented the commission of prohibited acts.
The mitigating circumstance that there was no intention to
commit so grave a wrong shall not apply.
Note: Violations of the Anti-Hazing Law are mala in se.
Article 148. Direct assaults
Acts punishable:
1. Without public uprising, by employing force or
intimidation for the attainment of any of the purposes
enumerated in defining the crimes of rebellion and
sedition;
Elements:
a. Offender employs force or intimidation;
b. The aim of the offender is to attain any of the
purposes of the crime of rebellion or any of the
objects of the crime of sedition; and
c. There is no public uprising.
2. Without public uprising, by attacking, by employing
force or by seriously intimidating or by seriously
resisting any person in authority or any of his agents,
while engaged in the performance of official duties, or
on occasion of such performance.
Elements:
a. Offender makes an attack, employs force, makes a
serious intimidation, or makes a serious
resistance;
b. The person assaulted is a person in authority or
his agent;
c. At the time of the assault, the person in authority
or his agent is engaged in the actual performance
of official duties, or that he is assaulted by reason
of the past performance of official duties;
d. Offender knows that the one he is assaulting is a
person in authority or his agent in the exercise of
his duties; and
e. There is no public uprising.
§ Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds or in any
other manner offers violence to the person of an
ambassador or a public minister, shall be subject to an
additional penalty under R.A. No. 75.
§ In the first type of direct assault, it is not necessary
that the offended party is a person in authority or his
agent.
§ If the offended party is only an agent of a person in
authority, the force must be of a serious character as to
indicate a determination to defy the law and its
representative.
§ The force employed need not be serious when the
offended party is a person in authority (reason:
penalty is even higher when the offender lays hands
upon a person in authority)
§ The intimidation or resistance must be serious whether
the offended party is an agent only or he is a person in
authority.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
§ To determine whether a certain public officer is a
person in authority, look at his powers and duties
vested by law.
§ When persons in authority or their agents descended to
matters of private nature, an attack made by one
against the other is not direct assault, because they are
not considered in “performance of official duties.”
§ If the person in authority or his agent provokes the
offender, there is no direct assault if accused is acting
in lawful self-defense.
§ Direct assault of the second type may be committed by
a public officer, because the law considers it an
aggravating circumstance when the offender “is a
public officer or employee’.
§ Knowledge of the accused that the victim is a person in
authority or his agent is essential. The information
must allege such knowledge.
§ It is not necessary that the person in authority or his
agent be in the actual performance of official duty
when attacked or seriously intimidated.
§ Attack may be done ‘by reason of the performance of
duty’ – means by reason of the past performance of
official duty, even if at the time of the assault no official
duty was being discharged.
§ Evidence of motive is important when the person in
authority or his agent is not in the actual performance
of duty when attacked.
§ Direct assault of the second form is qualified when:
o The assault is committed with a weapon, or
o The offender is a public officer of employee, or
o The offender lays hands upon a person in
authority.
§ The crime of slight physical injuries is absorbed in
direct assault, because it is the necessary consequence
of the force or violence used. Serious physical injuries,
murder or homicide may be complexed with direct
assault.
People v. Beltran
G.R. No. L-37168-69, 13 September 1985
FACTS: Mayor Quirolgico and patrolman Tolentino went to
the Puzon compound to talk to Beltran and his companions
to surrender in connection with an incident where Beltran
shouted “vulva of your mother” to Alvarado and Urbi. Mayor
and patrolman suffered gunshot wounds and the mayor’s
son died due to a simultaneous discharge of gunfire by the
accused.
HELD: The accused are guilty of murder and double
attempted murder with direct assault (under the 2nd form of
direct assault). The accused attacked and employed force
against the mayor and police while the latter were engaged
in the actual performance of duty and the accused knew that
they were assaulting persons in authority.
People v. Dollantes
G.R. No. 70639, 30 June 1987
FACTS: Barangay Captain was delivering a speech to start a
dance when Dollantes went to the middle of the dancing
floor making a dance movement, brandishing a knife and
challenging everyone. The Barangay Captain approached
him and told him to stop and keep quiet. Dollantes and his
31
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

companions stabbed and eventually killed the Barangay
Captain.
HELD: The accused were guilty of Assault upon a person in
authority, resulting in Murder. The Barangay captain was in
the act of trying to pacify Dollantes who was making trouble
in the dance hall when he was stabbed to death. Hence, he
was killed while in the performance of duties. A Barangay
Captain is a person in authority.
Gelig v. People
G.R. No. 173150, 28 July 2010
§ Reason for this article: to give strength to the
legislature’s power of inquiry, which is essential to
legislative functions.
§ This article will not apply if the papers may be used in
evidence against the owner, because it would be
compelling him to be a witness against himself. Self-
incrimination is a valid excuse.
§ The testimony of the person summoned must be upon
matters into which Congress has jurisdiction to inquire.
§ Acts punished under this article may also be punished
for contempt of the Congress.

FACTS: Accused and complainant were both public school Article 151. Resistance and disobedience to a person
teachers. During class hours, accused confronted in authority or the agents of such person
complainant after the former’s son said that the latter called
him a “sissy.” During the altercation, accused struck Elements of resistance and serious disobedience:
complainant in the face, and the impact caused the latter to
fall to the ground. Complainant was treated for concussions, 1. A person in authority or his agent is engaged in the
and accused was later convicted of slight physical injuries. performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to
the offender;
HELD: The Supreme Court held that the offense committed 2. Offender resists or seriously disobeys such person in
is direct assault. Since complainant is a public school authority or his agent;
teacher, she is deemed a person in authority under Art. 152 3. The act of the offender is not included in the provision
of the RPC. Moreover, the attack happened during class of Articles 148, 149 and 150.
hours, and while the victim was exercising her official duties.
Elements of simple disobedience:
Article 149. Indirect assaults
1. An agent of a person in authority is engaged in the
Elements: performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to
the offender;
1. A person in authority or his agent is the victim of any of 2. Offender disobeys such agent of a person in authority;
the forms of direct assault defined in Article 148; 3. Such disobedience is not of a serious nature.
2. A person comes to the aid of such authority or his
agent; and § The disobedience contemplated consists in the failure
3. Offender makes use of force or intimidation upon such or refusal to obey DIRECT ORDER from the person in
person coming to the aid of the authority or his agent. authority or his agent.
§ Under simple disobedience, the offended party must be
§ Indirect assault can be committed only when direct only an agent of a person in authority.
assault is committed. § If no force is employed by the offender against a
person in authority, the crime is resistance or serious
disobedience under the first type.
Article 150. Disobedience to summons issued by the
National Assembly, its committees or subcommittees, Resistance or serious Direct assault
by the Constitutional Commission, its committees, disobedience
subcommittees or divisions The person in authority or The person in authority or
his agent must be in actual his agent must be engaged
Acts punishable: performance of his duties in the performance of official
duties or that he is assaulted
1. By refusing, without legal excuse, to obey summons of by reason thereof
Congress, its special or standing committees and May be committed only by (2nd type) may be committed
subcommittees, the Constitutional Commissions and its resisting or seriously by attacking, employing
committees, subcommittees or divisions, or by any disobeying force, seriously intimidating
commission or committee chairman or member or seriously resisting
authorized to summon witnesses; The force employed is not so The attack or employment of
2. By refusing to be sworn or placed under affirmation serious, as there is no force must be serious and
while being before such legislative or constitutional manifest intention to defy deliberate. But if the one
body or official; the law and the officers resisted is a person in
3. By refusing to answer any legal inquiry or to produce authority, any degree of
any books, papers, documents, or records in his force is direct assault.
possession, when required by them to do so in the
exercise of their functions;
4. By restraining another from attending as a witness in Edmund Sydeco v. People
such legislative or constitutional body; G.R. No. 202692, 12 November 2014
5. By inducing disobedience to a summons or refusal to
be sworn by any such body or official.

32
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

The two key elements of resistance and serious or if committed by public officers they are participants
disobedience punished under Art. 151 of the RPC are: (1) therein, this article should be applied.
That a person in authority or his agent is engaged in the § Outcry – to shout subversive or provocative words
performance of official duty or gives a lawful order to the tending to stir up the people to obtain by means of
offender; and (2) That the offender resists or seriously force or violence any of the objects of rebellion or
disobeys such person or his agent. sedition.
§ If the outcry is an unconscious outburst which is not
intentionally calculated to induce others to commit
Article 152. Persons in authority and Agents of rebellion or sedition, it should be punished under this
persons in authority article. If the offender made the outcry with the
thought of inducing his hearers to commit rebellion or
§ A person in authority is one directly vested with sedition, then it is punished as inciting to
jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a member of rebellion/sedition.
some court or government corporation, board or § Persons causing disturbance of a tumultuous character
commission. shall be imposed a penalty next higher in degree
§ Vested with jurisdiction – the power and authority to § Tumultuous – If caused by more than three persons
govern and execute the laws. who are armed or provided with means of violence
§ Examples of person in authority: division
superintendent of schools, president of sanitary division Inciting to Sedition or Public Disorder
(in a municipality), teachers, mayor, justice of peace, Rebellion
barangay captain and barangay chairman The outcry or displaying of The outcry is more or less
emblems or placards should unconscious outburst which,
§ An agent of a person in authority is one who, by have been done with the although rebellious or
direct provision of law or by appointment by competent idea aforethought of seditious in nature is not
authority, is charged with (1) the maintenance of public inducing his hearers or intentionally calculated to
order and (2) the protection and security of life and readers to commit the crime induce others to commit
property. of rebellion or sedition rebellion or sedition
§ Examples: barrio councilman, barrio policeman, At the outset, the meeting is At the outset, the meeting is
barangay leader, any person who comes to the aid of unlawful lawful but becomes unlawful
persons in authority, sheriff, postmaster, agents of BIR, after the outburst described
municipal treasurer, policemen above

§ Teachers, professors and persons charged with the

supervision of public or duly recognized private schools,
colleges and universities, and lawyers in the actual
performance of their professional duties or on the
occasion of such performance, shall be deemed persons
in authority for purposes of Articles 148 (direct assault)
and 151 (disobedience). By implication, Article 149
(indirect assault) is also included.
Article 153. Tumults and other disturbances of public
order – tumultuous disturbance or interruption liable
to cause disturbance
Acts punishable:
1. Causing any serious disturbance in a public place, office
or establishment;
2. Interrupting or disturbing performances, functions or
gatherings, or peaceful meetings, if the act is not
included in Articles 131 and 132;
3. Making any outcry tending to incite rebellion or sedition
in any meeting, association or public place;
4. Displaying placards or emblems which provoke a
disturbance of public order in such place; and
5. Burying with pomp the body of a person who has been
legally executed.
Article 154. Unlawful use of means of publication
and unlawful utterances
Acts punishable:
1. Publishing or causing to be published, by means of
printing, lithography or any other means of publication,
as news any false news which may endanger the public
order; or cause damage to the interest or credit of the
State;
2. Encouraging disobedience to the law or to the
constituted authorities or praising, justifying or extolling
any act punished by law, by the same means or by
words, utterances or speeches;
3. Maliciously publishing or causing to be published any
official resolution or document without proper
authority, or before they have been published officially
4. Printing, publishing or distributing (or causing the
same) books, pamphlets, periodicals, or leaflets which
do not bear the real printer’s name, or which are
classified as anonymous.
§ ‘may endanger’ – means that actual public disorder or
actual damage to the credit of the State is not
necessary.
§ The offender must know that the news is false, to be
liable under this article.
§ R.A. 248 prohibits the reprinting, reproduction or
republication of government publications and official
documents without official authority.

§ If the act of disturbing or interrupting a meeting or Article 155. Alarms and scandals
religious ceremony is not committed by public officers,

33

Acts punishable:
1. Discharging any firearm, rocket, firecracker, or other
explosive within any town or public place, calculated to
cause (which produces) alarm of danger;
2. Instigating or taking an active part in any charivari or
other disorderly meeting offensive to another or
prejudicial to public tranquility;
3. Disturbing the public peace while wandering about at
night or while engaged in any other nocturnal
amusements; and
4. Causing any disturbance or scandal in public places
while intoxicated or otherwise, provided Article 153 in
not applicable.
§ The discharge of firearm should not be aimed at any
person, otherwise the offense is Discharge of
Firearm under Article 254.
§ The act in the first paragraph must produce alarm or
danger as a consequence.
§ Discharge of firecrackers or rockets during fiestas not
covered by this article.
§ Charivari – a medley of discordant voices, a mock
serenade of discordant noises made on kettles, tins,
horns, etc. designed to annoy and insult.
§ If the disturbance is of serious nature, the case falls
under Article 153.
Alarms and Scandals Discharge of Firearm
Crime against public Crime against persons
order
As to essence
Calculated to cause Shooting another
alarm or danger to the without intent to kill
public
As to gravity
Light felony Less grave felony
Place of Commission
Town or public place Anywhere
Article 156. Delivering prisoners from jail
Elements:
1. There is a person confined in a jail or penal
establishment; and
2. Offender removes therefrom such person, or helps the
escape of such person.
§ Applies to any kind of prisoner, whether detention
prisoner or prisoner by final judgment.
§ Violence, intimidation or bribery increases the
applicable penalty.
§ If the escape of the prisoner takes place outside of said
establishments by taking the guards by surprise, the
penalty is the minimum period of that prescribed.
§ What is the liability of the prisoner who escapes?
o If he is a detention prisoner, such person is not
criminally liable. A prisoner is criminally liable for
leaving the penal institution only when there is
Criminal Law II Review Notes
evasion of service of sentence, which can be
committed only by a convict by final judgment.
Alberto v. Dela Cruz
G.R. No. L-31839, 30 June 1980
FACTS: Denaque escaped while working on the governor’s
fence. A petition was filed to include as defendants
Governor Cledera and assistant provincial warden Esmeralda
due to the belief that they had a hand in the escape of Pablo
Denaque. Allegedly, the governor sent a note to Esmeralda
asking for five men to work on his fence.
HELD: The Governor and Esmeralda cannot be prosecuted
for the offense. It is necessary that the public officer
consented to or connived in the escape of the prisoner under
his custody. If the public officer charged with the duty of
guarding him does not connive with the fugitive, then he has
not violated the law and is not guilty of the crime. Article
156 is usually committed by an outsider. If the offender is a
public officer, then Article 223 applies.
Article 157. Evasion of service of sentence
Elements:
1. Offender is a convict by final judgment;
2. He is serving sentence which consists in the deprivation
of liberty; and
3. He evades service of his sentence by escaping during
the term of his imprisonment.
Qualifying circumstances as to penalty imposed:
If such evasion or escape takes place -
1. By means of unlawful entry (this should be “by scaling”
if correct Spanish translation is used);
2. By breaking doors, windows, gates, walls, roofs or
floors;
3. By using picklock, false keys, disguise, deceit, violence
or intimidation; or
4. Through connivance with other convicts or employees
of the penal institution.
§ ‘Escape’ – flee from, to avoid, to get out of the way, as
to flee to avoid arrest. Prisoners seen loitering a few
meters away from the city jail are not considered to
have escaped.
§ This article is applicable to a sentence of destierro.
Tanega v. Masakayan
Tanega was found guilty of slander. He failed to show up on
the day of the execution of the sentence imposed.
HELD: Under Article 157, escape should take place while
serving the sentence. For prescription of penalty of
imprisonment imposed by final judgment to commence to
run, the culprit should escape during the term of such
imprisonment. Never placed in confinement, prescription of
penalty does not run in Tanega’s favor.
34

People v. Abilong
G.R. No. L-1960, 26 November 1948
FACTS: Abilong was sentenced to destierro by virtue of final
judgment for attempted robbery. He violated this judgment
by going beyond the limits made against him, and
committed vagrancy.
HELD: Abilong is guilty of evasion of service of sentence for
having violated the judgment of destierro against him.
Destierro is a deprivation of liberty (though partial) and he
may escape from the restrictions of the penalty.
Article 158. Evasion of service of sentence on the
occasion of disorders, conflagrations, earthquakes, or
other calamities
Elements:
1. Offender is a convict by final judgment, who is confined
in a penal institution;
2. There is disorder, resulting from –
a. conflagration;
b. earthquake;
c. explosion; or
d. similar catastrophe; or
e. mutiny in which he has not participated;
3. He evades the service of his sentence by leaving the
penal institution where he is confined, on the occasion
of such disorder or during the mutiny;
4. He fails to give himself up to the authorities within 48
hours following the issuance of a proclamation by the
Chief Executive announcing the passing away of such
calamity.
§ The offender must be a convict by final judgment.
§ What is punished is not the leaving of the penal
institution, but the failure of the convict to give himself
up to the authorities within 48 hours after the
proclamation announcing the passing away of the
calamity.
§ If convict fails to give himself up, he shall suffer and
increase of 1/5 of the time still remaining to be served
under the original sentence, not to exceed six months.
§ If he gives himself up within 48 hours, he shall be
entitled to 1/5 deduction of the period of his sentence.
§ Mutiny – organized unlawful resistance to a superior
officer, a sedition, a revolt
Article 159. Other cases of evasion of service of
sentence (Violation of conditional pardon)
Elements:
1. Offender was a convict;
2. He was granted pardon by the Chief Executive; and
3. He violated any of the conditions of such pardon.
§ A conditional pardon is a contract between the Chief
Executive and the convict. Since it is a contract, the
pardoned convict is bound to fulfill its conditions and
accept all its consequences, not as he chooses, but
according to its strict terms.
§ If the penalty remitted does not exceed six years,
penalty for violation of this article is prision correccional
Criminal Law II Review Notes
minimum. If the penalty remitted exceeds six years,
the penalty under this article is the unexpired portion of
the original sentence.
§ The condition that pardoned convict should not commit
another crime extends to offenses punishable under
special laws.
§ If there is a condition that convict shall not commit
another crime, offender must be found guilty of a
subsequent offense before he can be prosecuted under
this article.
§ The duration of the conditions in a pardon would be
limited to the remaining period of the prisoner’s
sentence, UNLESS an intention to extend it beyond that
time was manifest from the nature of the condition or
the language in which it was imposed.
§ Violation of conditional pardon does not cause harm or
injury to the right of other person nor does it disturb
public order, it is merely an infringement of the terms
stipulated in the contact between the Chief Executive
and the convict.
Torres v. Gonzales
G.R. No. 76872, 23 July 1987
FACTS: Torres was convicted of estafa. He was granted a
conditional pardon and was released. Subsequent to his
release, he was charged with 20 counts of estafa (cases
pending), was convicted of sedition (appeal pending) and
had a long list of crimes charged against him (grave threats,
grave coercion, swindling etc.)
HELD: Article 159 defines a distinct and substantive felony.
Under this article, the convict must be charged, prosecuted
and convicted by FINAL JUDGMENT before he can be made
to suffer the penalty in said article. In proceeding against a
convict who violated the conditions of his pardon, the
Executive Department may: 1) proceed against him under
Section 64 (1) of the Revised Administrative Code or 2)
proceed against him under this article of the RPC.
Article 160. Commission of another crime during
service of the penalty imposed for another previous
offense
Elements:
1. Offender was already convicted by final judgment of
one offense; and
2. He committed a new felony before beginning to serve
such sentence or while serving the same.
§ The second crime must be a felony, that is, punishable
under the Revised Penal Code.
§ But the first crime for which the offender is serving
sentence need not be a felony.
§ The new offense need not be of different character
from that of the old offense.
§ Quasi-recidivism does not require that the two offenses
are embraced in the same title in the RPC, unlike in
recidivism.
35

§ Reiteracion requires that the offender has served out
his sentences for the prior offense. In quasi recidivism,
the offender is beginning to serve the sentence or is
already serving the sentence.
§ Quasi-recidivism cannot be offset by ordinary mitigating
circumstance, because the article provides that the
offender shall be punished by the maximum period of
the new felony.
§ A quasi-recidivist shall be pardoned when he has
reached 70 and has already served out his original
sentence, or when he shall complete it after reaching
70, unless by reason of his conduct or other
circumstances, he shall not be worthy of such
clemency.
§ A quasi-recidivist may NOT be pardoned even if he has
reached 70 and has already served out his original
sentence, if he is a habitual criminal.
People v. Dioso
G.R. No. L-38346-47, 23 October 1964
When the accused is a Quasi-recidivist, having committed
the maximum penalty prescribed by law for murder is death,
regardless of the presence or absence of mitigating or
aggravating circumstance such as voluntary surrender and
plea of guilty or the complete absence thereof.
R.A. No. 9745
Anti-Torture Act of 2009
Section 1. Definition of Terms
Torture- An act by which severe pain or suffering, whether
physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for
such purposes as obtaining from him/her or a third person
information or a confession; punishing him/her for an act
he/she or a third person has committed or is suspected of
having committed; or intimidating or coercing him/her or a
third person; or for any reason based on discrimination of
any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the
instigation of a person in authority or agent of a person in
authority. It does not include pain or suffering arising only
from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.
Acts Punishable:
Acts of Torture which shall include, but not limited to the
following (Sec. 4):
1. Physical Torture- a form of treatment or
punishment inflicted by a person in authority or
agent of a person in authority upon another in
his/her custody that causes severe pain,
exhaustion, disability or dysfunction of one or
more parts of the body; and
2. Mental or Psychological Torture- Acts
committed by a person in authority or agent of a
person in authority which are calculated to affect
or confuse the mind and/or undermine a person’s
dignity and morale.
Sec 6. Applicability- Freedom from torture and other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment is an
absolute right.
Torture and other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment
or punishment as criminal acts shall apply to all
Criminal Law II Review Notes
circumstances.
A state of war or threat of war, internal political instability,
or any other public emergency, or a document or any
determination comprising an order of battle shall not and
can never be invoked as a justification for torture and other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment.
Sec 7. Prohibited Detention - Secret detention places,
solitary confinement, incommunicado or other similar forms
of detention, where torture may be carried out with
impunity. Are hereby prohibited.
Sec 8. Applicability of the Exclusionary Rule;
Exception- Any confession, admission or statement
obtained as a result of torture shall be inadmissible in
evidence in any proceedings, except if the same is used as
evidence against a person or persons accused of committing
torture.
Sec 9. Rights of a Victim of Torture in the Institution
of a Criminal Complaint for Torture
1. To have a prompt and an impartial investigation
by the CHR and by agencies of government
concerned such as the Department of Justice
(DOJ), the Public Attorney's Office (PAO), the PNP,
the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) and the
AFP. A prompt investigation shall mean a
maximum period of sixty (60) working days from
the time a complaint for torture is filed within
which an investigation report and/or resolution
shall be completed and made available. An appeal
whenever available shall be resolved within the
same period prescribed herein;
2. To have sufficient government protection against
all forms of harassment; threat and/or intimidation
as a consequence of the filing of said complaint or
the presentation of evidence therefor. In which
case, the State through its appropriate agencies
shall afford security in order to ensure his/her
safety and all other persons involved in the
investigation and prosecution such as, but not
limited to, his/her lawyer, witnesses and relatives;
and
3. To be accorded sufficient protection in the manner
by which he/she testifies and presents evidence in
any fora in order to avoid further trauma.
Sec 10. Disposition of Writs of Habeas Corpus,
Amparo and Habeas Data Proceedings and
Compliance with a Judicial Order- A writ of habeas
corpus or writ of amparo or writ of habeas data proceeding,
if any, filed on behalf of the victim of torture or other cruel,
degrading and inhuman treatment or punishment shall be
disposed of expeditiously and any order of release by virtue
thereof, or other appropriate order of a court relative
thereto, shall be executed or complied with immediately.
Sec 12. Right to Physical, Medical and Psychological
Examination- Before and after interrogation, every person
arrested, detained or under custodial investigation shall have
the right to he informed of his/her right to demand physical
examination by an independent and competent doctor of
his/her own choice. If such person cannot afford the
services of his/her own doctor, he/she shall he provided by
the State with a competent and independent doctor to
36

conduct physical examination. The State shall endeavor to
provide the victim with psychological evaluation if available
under the circumstances. If the person arrested is a female,
she shall be attended to preferably by a female doctor.
Furthermore, any person arrested, detained or under
custodial investigation, including his/her immediate family,
shall have the right to immediate access to proper and
adequate medical treatment. The physical examination
and/or psychological evaluation of the victim shall be
contained in a medical report, duly signed by the attending
physician, which shall include in detail his/her medical
history and findings, and which shall he attached to the
custodial investigation report. Such report shall be
considered a public document.
Sec 13. Who are Criminally Liable- Any person who
actually participated or induced another in the commission of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment or who cooperated in the execution of the act of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment by previous or simultaneous acts shall be liable
as principal.
Any superior military, police or law enforcement officer or
senior government official who issued an order to any lower
ranking personnel to commit torture for whatever purpose
shall be held equally liable as principals.
The immediate commanding officer of the unit concerned of
the AFP or the immediate senior public official of the PNP
and other law enforcement agencies shall be held liable as a
principal to the crime of torture or other cruel or inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment for any act or
omission, or negligence committed by him/her that shall
have led, assisted, abetted or allowed, whether directly or
indirectly, the commission thereof by his/her subordinates. If
he/she has knowledge of or, owing to the circumstances at
the time, should have known that acts of torture or other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment shall
be committed, is being committed, or has been committed
by his/her subordinates or by others within his/her area of
responsibility and, despite such knowledge, did not take
preventive or corrective action either before, during or
immediately after its commission, when he/she has the
authority to prevent or investigate allegations of torture or
other cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment but failed to prevent or investigate allegations of
such act, whether deliberately or due to negligence shall
also be liable as principals.
Any public officer or employee shall be liable as an accessory
if he/she has knowledge that torture or other cruel, inhuman
and degrading treatment or punishment is being committed
and without having participated therein, either as principal
or accomplice, takes part subsequent to its commission in
any of the following manner:
1. By themselves profiting from or assisting the
offender to profit from the effects of the act of
torture or other cruel, inhuman and degrading
treatment or punishment;
2. By concealing the act of torture or other cruel,
inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment
and/or destroying the effects or instruments
thereof in order to prevent its discovery; or
3. By harboring, concealing or assisting m the escape
of the principal/s in the act of torture or other
Criminal Law II Review Notes
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or
punishment: Provided, That the accessory acts are
done with the abuse of the official's public
functions.
Sec 15. Torture as a Separate and Independent Crime
- Torture as a crime shall not absorb or shall not be
absorbed by any other crime or felony committed as a
consequence, or as a means in the conduct or commission
thereof. In which case, torture shall be treated as a
separate and independent criminal act whose
penalties shall be imposable without prejudice to any
other criminal liability provided for by domestic and
international laws.
Sec 16. Exclusion from the Coverage of Special
Amnesty Law - In order not to depreciate the crime of
torture, persons who have committed any act of torture shall
not benefit from any special amnesty law or similar
measures that will have the effect of exempting them from
any criminal proceedings and sanctions.
Sec 17. Applicability of Refouler- No person shall be
expelled, returned or extradited to another State where
there are substantial grounds to believe that such person
shall be in danger of being subjected to torture. For the
purposes of determining whether such grounds exist, the
Secretary of the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) and
the Secretary of the DOJ, in coordination with the
Chairperson of the CHR, shall take into account all relevant
considerations including, where applicable and not limited
to, the existence in the requesting State of a consistent
pattern of gross, flagrant or mass violations of human rights.
Sec 22. Applicability of the Revised Penal Code- The
provisions of the Revised Penal Code insofar as they are
applicable shall be suppletory to this Act. Moreover, if the
commission of any crime punishable under Title Eight
(Crimes Against Persons) and Title Nine (Crimes Against
Personal Liberty and Security) of the Revised Penal Code is
attended by any of the acts constituting torture and other
cruel, inhuman and degrading treatment or punishment as
defined herein, the penalty to be imposed shall be in its
maximum period.
37

Title Four
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST
Chapter One. Forgeries
Section One – Forging the seal of the Government of the
Philippine Islands, the signature or stamp of the
Chief Executive
Article 161. Counterfeiting the great seal of the
Government of the Philippines
Article 162. Using forged signature or counterfeiting
seal or stamp
Section Two – Counterfeiting coins
Article 163. Making and importing and uttering false
coins
Article 164. Mutilation of coins, importation and
uttering of mutilated coins
Article 165. Selling of false or mutilated coins, without
connivance
Section Three – Forging treasury or bank notes,
obligations and securities; importing and uttering
false or forged notes, obligations and securities
Article 166. Forging treasury or bank notes or other
documents payable to bearer, importing and
uttering of such false or forged notes and
documents
Article 167. Counterfeiting, importing and uttering
instruments not payable to bearer
Article 168. Illegal possession and use of forged
treasury or bank notes and other instruments of
credit
Article 169. How Forgery is committed.
Section Four – Falsification of legislative, public,
commercial and private documents, and wireless,
telegraph and telephone messages
Article 170. Falsification of legislative documents
Article 171. Falsification by public officer, employee or
notary
Article 172. Falsification by private individuals and use
of falsified documents
Article 173. Falsification of wireless, cable, telegraph
and telephone messages and use of said falsified
messages
Section Five – Falsification of medical certificates,
certificates of merit or service, and the like
Article 174. False medical certificates, false certificates
of merit or service
Article 175. Using false certificates
Section Six – Manufacturing, importing and possession of
instruments or implements intended for the
commission of falsification
Article 176. Manufacturing and possession of
instruments or implements for falsification
Chapter Two. Other Falsities
Section One – Usurpation of authority, rank, title and
improper use of names, uniforms and insignia
Article 177. Usurpation of authority or official functions
Article 178. Using fictitious name and concealing true
name
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Article 179. Illegal use of uniforms or insignia
Section Two – False testimony
Article 180. False testimony against a defendant
Article 181. False testimony favorable to the defendant
Article 182. False testimony in civil cases
Article 183. False testimony in other cases and perjury
Article 184. Offering false testimony in evidence
Chapter Three. Frauds
Section One – Machinations, monopolies, and combinations
Article 185. Machinations in public auction
Article 186. Monopolies and combinations in restraint of
trade
Section Two – Frauds in commerce and industry
Article 187. Importation and disposition of falsely
marked articles or merchandise made of gold,
silver, or other precious metals or their alloys
Article 188. Substituting and altering trade marks and
trade names or service marks
Article 189. Unfair competition and fraudulent
registration of trade mark or trade name, or
service mark; fraudulent designation of origin, and
false description
The crimes in this title are in the nature of fraud or falsity to
the public. The essence of the crime under this title is that
which defraud the public in general. There is deceit
perpetrated upon the public. This is the act that is being
punished under this title.
Article 161. Counterfeiting the Great Seal of the
Government of the Philippine Islands, Forging the
Signature or Stamp of the Chief Executive
Acts punished
1. Forging the great seal of the Government of the
Philippines;
2. Forging the signature of the President; and
3. Forging the stamp of the President.
• When in a State document, the signature of
the President is forged, the crime is not
falsification of public document. It is forging
the signature of the Chief executive.
• The Signature of the Chief executive must
be forged. If Chief Executive left with his
secretary a signature in blank and a
document is written above it, the crime is
not under Art. 161 but Falsification by public
officer or private individual under Art. 171
or 172.
Article 162. Using Forged Signature or Counterfeit
Seal or Stamp
Elements
1. The great seal of the Republic was counterfeited or the
signature or stamp of the Chief Executive was forged
by another person; and
38
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

2. Offender knew of the counterfeiting or forgery; 2. Importing or uttering such mutilated coins, with the
3. He used the counterfeit seal or forged signature or further requirement that there must be connivances
stamp. with the mutilator or importer in case of uttering.

Offender under this article should not be the forger.
Otherwise, it would fall under Art 161.
Article 163. Making and Importing and Uttering
False Coins
“Mutilation” means to take off part of the metal either by
filing it or substituting it for another metal of inferior quality.
The coin must be of legal tender in mutilation.
Coins of foreign country not included.
Requisites of mutilation under the RPC

Elements (1) Coin mutilated is of legal tender;

1. There be false or counterfeited coins; (2) Offender gains from the precious metal dust
2. Offender either made, imported or uttered such coins; abstracted from the coin; and
and (3) It has to be a coin.
3. In case of uttering such false or counterfeited coins, he
connived with the counterfeiters or importers.
Presidential Decree No. 247
Prohibiting and Penalizing Defacement, Mutilation,
Kinds of coins the counterfeiting of which is punished
Tearing, Burning or Destroying Central Bank Notes
and Coins
1. Silver coins of the Philippines or coins of the Central
Bank of the Philippines;
It shall be unlawful for any person to willfully deface,
2. Coins of the minor coinage of the Philippines or of the
mutilate, tear, burn, or destroy in any manner whatsoever,
Central Bank of the Philippines;
currency notes and coins issued by the Central Bank.
3. Coin of the currency of a foreign country.
Any person who shall violate this Decree shall, upon
When is a coin false or counterfeited?
conviction, be punished by a fine of not more than twenty
if it is forged
thousand pesos and/or by imprisonment of not more than
if it is not authorized by government as legal tender
five years.
if it is a spurious copy (imitation of the design of a
genuine coin)

• “Importation” means bringing into port. Article 165. Selling of False or Mutilated Coin,
Importation is complete before entry at the without Connivance
Customs House.
• “Uttering” is passing counterfeited coins. It
includes their delivery or the act of giving them Acts punished
away.
• Former coins withdrawn from circulation may be
1. Possession of coin, counterfeited or mutilated by
counterfeited under this article.
another person, with intent to utter the same, knowing
that it is false or mutilated;
People v. Kong Leon
Elements
G.R. No. 3906-R, 17 January 1959
Possession;
With intent to utter; and
FACTS: Kong Leon, a goldsmith, was selling illegally
Knowledge.
fabricated US dollar coins which are already withdrawn from
circulation. Several unfinished coins were found by the police
2. Actually uttering such false or mutilated coin, knowing
in his shop and pockets.
the same to be false or mutilated.
HELD: When RPC was enacted, the Spanish text was the one
Elements
approved. Thus it controls the interpretation of provisions.
Actually uttering; and
Therefore, under Spanish Penal Code, fabrication of coin
Knowledge.
withdrawn from circulation is punishable because of (1) the
harm it caused to the public when it goes into circulation
• Possession of or uttering false coin does not
again; (2) the danger of a counterfeiter staying within the
country (he may counterfeit coins in actual circulation; and require that the counterfeited coin is legal tender.
(3) collectors will be defrauded.
• Possession, either actual or constructive, of the
counterfeiter or importer is not punished as a
Article 164. Mutilation of Coins separate offense.

Acts punished

1. Mutilating coins of the legal currency, with the further

requirements that there be intent to damage or to
defraud another; and

39

Article 166. Forging Treasury or Bank Notes or Other
Documents Payable to Bearer; Importing and
Uttering Such False or Forged Notes and Documents
Acts punished
1. Forging or falsification of treasury or bank notes or
other documents payable to bearer;
2. Importation of such false or forged obligations or
notes;
3. Uttering of such false or forged obligations or notes in
connivance with the forgers or importers.
• Importation means to bring them into the Phils
which presupposes that the obligations or notes
are forged or falsified in a foreign country.
• Uttering means offering obligations or notes
knowing them to be false or forged WON such
offer is accepted with a representation by words
or action that they are genuine and with an intent
to defraud.
• Uttering forged bills must be with connivance to
constitute a violation of Art. 166.
• Notes and other obligations and securities that
may be forged or falsified under Art 166 are: (a)
treasury or bank notes, (b) certificates, and (c)
other obligations and securities payable to bearer.
• Penalties depend on the kind of forged treasury or
bank notes or other documents: (a)
obligation/security issued by the Republic of the
Philippines, (b) circulating note issued by any
banking institution duly authorized by law to issue
the same, (c) document issued by foreign gov’t,
and (d) circulating note or bill issued a foreign
bank duly authorized to issue the same.
Article 167. Counterfeiting, Importing, and Uttering
Instruments Not Payable to Bearer
Elements
1. There is an instrument payable to order or other
documents of credit not payable to bearer;
2. Offender either forged, imported or uttered such
instrument; and
3. In case of uttering, he connived with the forger or
importer.
• Application of Art 167 is limited to instruments
payable to order. But it covers instruments or
other documents of credit issued by a foreign
government or bank.
• Connivance is not required in uttering if the
utterer is the forger.
Article 168. Illegal Possession and Use of False
Treasury or Bank Notes and Other Instruments of
Credit
Elements any means the figures, letters, words, or sign contained
Criminal Law II Review Notes
1. Any treasury or bank note or certificate or other
obligation and security payable to bearer, or any
instrument payable to order or other document of
credit not payable to bearer is forged or falsified by
another person;
2. Offender knows that any of those instruments is forged
or falsified;
3. He either -
a. uses any of such forged or falsified instruments;
or
b. possesses with intent to use any of such forged or
falsified instruments.
• Intent to possess is not intent to use. Mere
possession is not a criminal offense. There must
be intent to use.
• The conduct of the accused is considered to
establish knowledge of forgery.
• A person in possession of falsified document and
who makes use of the same is presumed to be the
material author of falsification.
• Accused has the burden to give satisfactory
explanation of his possession of forged bills.
• When an act performed would have been a crime
of illegal possession of false treasury note, it
cannot be an impossible crime because forging or
falsification of treasury notes is neither an offense
against persons nor an offense against property
under Art 4(2) but one case held otherwise.
Clemente v. People
G.R. No. 194367, 15 June 2011
FACTS: Accused was charged with violation of Art. 168 of
the RPC for having in his possession and under his custody
and control twenty-four (24) pcs. of P500.00 bill.
HELD: The elements of the crime committed under Article
168 of the Revised Penal Code are the following: (a) that
any treasury or bank note or certificate or other obligation
and security payable to bearer, or any instrument payable to
order or other document of credit not payable to bearer is
forged or falsified by another person; (2) that the offender
knows that any of the said instruments is forged or falsified;
and (3) that he either used or possessed with intent to use
any of such forged or falsified instruments.
In this case, the prosecution failed to show that petitioner
used the counterfeit money or that he intended to use the
counterfeit bills. Francis dela Cruz, to whom petitioner
supposedly gave the fake P500.00 bill to buy soft drinks,
was not presented in court. According to the jail officers,
they were only informed by Francis dela Cruz that petitioner
asked the latter to buy soft drinks at the Manila City jail
bakery using a fake P500.00 bill. In short, the jail officers did
not have personal knowledge that petitioner asked Francis
dela Cruz use the P500.00 bill. Their account, however, is
hearsay and not based on the personal knowledge.
Article 169. How forgery is committed
1. By giving to a treasury or bank note or any instrument
payable to bearer or to order mentioned therein, the
appearance of a true and genuine document; and
2. By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting, or altering by
therein.
40

• Forgery includes falsification and counterfeiting.
• Giving checks the appearance of true and genuine
document is forgery.
• Mere change on a document does not amount to
this crime. The essence of forgery is giving a
document the appearance of a true and genuine
document.
Del Rosario v. People
G.R. No. L-16806, 22 December 1961
FACTS: Del Rosario was shown by the accused a P1 bill and
a P2 bill inducing him to believe that the bills were
counterfeited when they were in fact genuine treasury
notes. One of the digits of each bill was altered to make it
appear counterfeited.
HELD: The possession of genuine treasury notes of the
Phils, where any of the figures, letters, words or signs
contained therein had been erased and/or altered, with
knowledge of such erasure/alteration, and with intent to use
such notes in enticing another to advance funds for the
purpose of financing the manufacture of counterfeit notes is
punishable by Art. 168 in relation to Art 169 (1).
People vs. Galano
G.R. No. L-42925, 31 January 1977
FACTS: Galano bought 4 balut eggs with a P1 bill with the
word “victory” written on it. The P1 bill had been withdrawn
from circulation. It is however redeemable at its face value if
presented to the Central Bank.
HELD: The forgery committed falls under Art 169(1) where
the treasury note by the addition of the word “victory” was
given the appearance of a true and genuine document. This
provision also covers the situation where originally true and
genuine documents have been withdrawn or demonetized
were made to appear a true legal tender.
Article 170. Falsification of Legislative Documents
Elements
1. There is a bill, resolution or ordinance enacted or
approved or pending approval by either House of the
Legislature or any provincial board or municipal council;
2. Offender alters the same;
3. He has no proper authority therefor; and
4. The alteration has changed the meaning of the
documents.
• The words "municipal council" should include the
city council or municipal board.
• The bill, resolution or ordinance must be genuine.
• The offender is any person, private individual or
public officer, who has no authority to make the
alteration.
• The act of falsification in legislative document is
limited to altering it which changes its meaning.
Distinction between falsification and forgery:
Criminal Law II Review Notes
• Falsification is the commission of any of the eight
acts mentioned in Article 171 on legislative (only
the act of making alteration), public or official,
commercial, or private documents, or wireless, or
telegraph messages.
• The term forgery as used in Article 169 refers to
the falsification and counterfeiting of treasury or
bank notes or any instruments payable to bearer
or to order.
• Note that forging and falsification are crimes
under Forgeries.
Article 171. Falsification by Public Officer, Employee
or Notary or Ecclesiastical Minister
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer, employee, or notary public;
2. He takes advantage of his official position;
3. He falsifies a document by committing any of the
following acts:
a. Counterfeiting or imitating any handwriting,
signature or rubric;
b. Causing it to appear that persons have
participated in any act or proceeding when
they did not in fact so participate;
c. Attributing to persons who have participated
in an act or proceeding statements other
than those in fact made by them;
d. Making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts;
e. Altering true dates;
f. Making any alteration or intercalation in a
genuine document which changes its
meaning;
g. Issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no such original
exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original; or
h. Intercalating any instrument or note relative
to the issuance thereof in a protocol, registry,
or official book.
4. In case the offender is an ecclesiastical minister who
shall commit any of the offenses enumerated, with
respect to any record or document of such character
that its falsification may affect the civil status of
persons.
• Even if the offender is a public officer but the
falsification committed by him is upon a document
which does not pertain to his office, it was
committed without abuse of his office. Thus it will
not fall under Art 171 but Art 172.
• A private person who cooperates with a public
officer in the falsification of public documents is
guilty under Art 171 and incurs the same liability
and penalty as the public officer as there is
conspiracy.
Must there be a genuine document in falsification?
à In Par. 6, 7 in its 2nd part and 8 of Art 171, the law
requires that there be a genuine document where the
intercalation or alteration is made changing its meaning.
41

à in other paragraphs, of Art 171, falsification may be
committed by simulating or fabrication a document.
Counterfeiting and Feigning
• In “counterfeiting,” there must be (1) an intent or
attempt to imitate and (2) that the two
signatures/handwritings, the genuine and the
forged, bear some resemblance to each other.
• In “feigning,” there is no original signature,
handwriting, or rubric but a forgery of a signature,
handwriting or rubric that does not exist.
Making untruthful statements in a narration of facts availed of. Even if there was falsification when she signed
• There must be a narration of facts not of
conclusion of law and there must be a legal
obligation on the part of the accused to disclose
the truth of the facts narrated.
• The narration of facts must be absolutely false and
the person making such narration must be aware
of the falsity of the facts narrated by him.
• The perversion of truth in the narration of facts
must be made with the wrongful intent of injuring
a third person. If the document falsified is a public
document, wrongful intent is not essential.
• There is no falsification by one who acted in good
faith.
• The fact that one’s consent to a contract was
obtained by means of violence does not make the
facts narrated therein false.
• Legal obligation to disclose the truth is inherent in
residence certificate.
Altering True Dates - Date must be essential. and adopted by Cabigas and was never required thus he
• Altering dates in official receipts to prevent the
discovery of malversation is falsification.
Making alteration or intercalation
• Alteration which speaks the truth is not
falsification.
• The alteration must affect the integrity or change
the effects of the documents.
People v. Romualdez
G.R. No. 31012, 10 September
1932
FACTS: Romualdez, the secretary of Justice Romualdez,
changed the grade of bar examinee, Mabunay, to enable
him to reach the required average to pass the bar. She
claimed she had been given the authority to do so.
HELD: The acts of falsification are: (1) making alterations on
genuine documents (2) making it appear that the correctors
had participated in blotting out the grades and writing out
new and increased grades opposite their initials and (3)
attributing to the correctors statements other than those in
fact made by them.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Luague v. CA
G.R. No. L-55683, 22 February 1982
FACTS: Luague, a widow, signed her husband’s name on the
salary checks with the knowledge of her deceased husband’s
supervisor. She encashed the same and use it to pay debts
incurred for the illness and death of her husband.
HELD: There was no estafa thru falsification of a commercial
document. No damage was incurred against the government
as the deceased employee deserved the salary his wife
for her husband, this was done with the knowledge of her
deceased husband’s supervisor that the husband was indeed
dead.
Cabigas vs. People
G.R. No. L-67472, 3 June 1987
FACTS: Cabigas, a securities custodian of Landbank, was
convicted of falsification when he changed the entry of the
figure of treasury bills from 1539 to 1533 pieces in the Daily
Report of Securities/Documents under Custody (DR SDUC)
for the purpose of hiding the loss of 6 treasury bills in his
custody.
HELD: SC acquitted him since the elements of Art 171(4)
were not present. The correction of the figure from 1539 to
1533 pieces to conform to the actual pieces of treasury
notes in custody is not falsification since it was made to
speak the truth. Also, the DR/SDUC is a form purely devised
was not legally obligated to disclose or reveal the truth in
that document. In the absence of legal obligation, there can
be no falsification.
Siquian v. People
G.R. No. L-67472, 3 July 1987
FACTS: Siquian, a municipal mayor, appointed a clerk and
signed the latter’s appointment papers which stated that
there was such a position available and that funds for this
position was available. However, no such position and funds
were in existence. The mayor knew that the Municipal
Council failed to enact a new budget and has adopted the
previous year’s budget.
HELD: SC held Mayor liable under Art 171(4), when he made
an untruthful statement in a narration of facts contained in
the certification which he issued in connection with the
appointment of the clerk. The existence of a wrongful intent
to injure a third person is not necessary when the falsified
document is a public document. It is because the principal
thing punished is the violation of public faith and the
destruction of truth proclaimed therein.
People v. Villalon
G.R. No. 43659, 21 December 1990
42

FACTS: Carrera brothers were co-owners of a parcel of land.
A power of attorney was executed authorizing de Guzman to
mortgage one brother’s half. De Guzman used the power of
attorney to obtain a loan from the mortgagee bank. Loan
was unpaid, bank foreclosed the mortgage and sold land to
Serafia who filed ejectment suit against the brothers.
HELD: The crime committed was estafa thru falsification of
public document. The falsification of public document may
be a means to commit estafa because before the falsified
document is actually used to defraud another, the crime of
falsification is already consummated and damage or intent to
cause damage is not an element of falsification. The damage
to another is caused by the commission of estafa.
Anonymous v. Curamen
A.M. No. P-08-2549, 18 June 2010
FACTS: Respondent, a court employee, was discovered to
have falsified the birth certificate of a child she claimed to be
hers, after an anonymous letter sent to the OCA reported
the matter. While respondent registered the child as her
biological offspring, records indicated that the child was born
to respondent’s relatives, whom she was supporting.
HELD: The High Court found that respondent should be held
liable for falsification since she tampered with the child’s
birth certificate. A birth certificate, being a public document,
serves as prima facie evidence of filiation. The making of a
false statement therein constitutes dishonesty and
falsification of a public document. Respondent cannot
escape liability by claiming that she did not have any
intention to conceal the identity of the child nor cause the
loss of any trace as to the child’s true filiation to the child’s
prejudice, but only wanted to ensure that the child would
get the same benefits granted by the Government to her
other children. When public documents are falsified, the
intent to injure a third person need not be present because
the principal act punished is the violation of the public faith
and the destruction of the truth the document proclaims.
Ansaldo v. Ramirez
G.R. No. 159381, 26 March 2010
FACTS: Niña Ramirez wanted to subdivide her property. In
1993, her niece introduced petitioner and his wife to
Ramirez as people who could help with her problem.
Petitioner and his wife represented themselves as having
direct connections with the LRA, and assured Ramirez that
they could have her property subdivided. Ramirez thus
entrusted to them her owner’s duplicate copy of Transfer
Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 188686, which covered said lot,
on condition that it would be returned after a month. The
one-month period agreed upon elapsed with petitioner and
his wife failing to inform Ramirez of the status of the
anticipated subdivision. Ramirez repeatedly demanded them
to return her owner’s duplicate title of the land to no avail.
Ramirez was later surprised to find out that the land covered
by her TCT was the subject of a document in which it
appeared that she mortgaged the same to a certain Nora
Herrera. This deed was even annotated at the back of the
TCT. However, Ramirez claimed that she did not execute
the deed, and that her signature in the document was a
forgery. At the time of the mortgage, there were no other
persons other than the petitioner and his wife to whom she
entrusted her TCT. The spouses were convicted of estafa
through falsification of a public document.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
HELD: The High Court held that for a complex crime of
estafa through falsification of a public document to prosper,
all the elements of both the crimes of estafa and falsification
of a public document must exist. In this case, not all the
elements of the crime of falsification of a public document
are present. There is simply no evidence on record that
petitioner had any participation in the execution of the
mortgage contract. The denial of Ramirez that she affixed
her signature on the deed of mortgage does not prove that
it was petitioner and his wife who signed on her behalf.
Consequently, petitioner and his wife are liable only for
estafa.
Galeos v. People/Ong v. People
G.R. Nos. 174730-37 and 174845-52, 9 February 2011
Mayor Ong extended appointments to public office including
that of Galeos nd Rivera’s. Both appointees submitted their
SALNs with Ong’s signature appearing in all the foregoing
documents as the person who administered the oath when
Galeos and Rivera executed the foregoing documents. Ong
submitted a letter-certification certifying observance of
requirements/restrictions in accordance with the
requirements of Civil Service Commission.
The elements of falsification of public documents under
Article 171, par. 4 of the Revised Penal Code (“RPC”) are as
follows: (a) the offender makes in a public document
untruthful statements in a narration of facts; (b) he has a
legal obligation to disclose the truth of the facts narrated by
him; and (c) the facts narrated by him are absolutely false.
In addition to the afore-cited elements, it must also be
proven that the public officer or employee had taken
advantage of his official position in making the falsification.
In falsification of public document, the offender is
considered to have taken advantage of his official position
when (1) he has the duty to make or prepare or otherwise
to intervene in the preparation of a document; or (2) he has
the official custody of the document which he falsifies.
Likewise, in falsification of public or official documents, it is
not necessary that there be present the idea of gain or the
intent to injure a third person because in the falsification of
a public document, what is punished is the violation of the
public faith and the destruction of the truth as therein
solemnly proclaimed.
When a government employee is required to disclose his
relatives in the government service, such information elicited
therefore qualifies as a narration of facts contemplated
under Article 171 (4) of the Revised Penal Code, as
amended. Further, it bears to stress that the untruthful
statements on relationship have no relevance to the
employee’s eligibility for the position but pertains rather to
prohibition or restriction imposed by law on the appointing
power.
Article 172. Falsification by Private Individual and
Use of Falsified Documents
Acts punished
1. Falsification of public, official or commercial document
by a private individual;
2. Falsification of private document by any person;
3. Use of falsified document.
43

Elements under paragraph 1
1. Offender is a private individual or public officer or
employee who did not take advantage of his official
position;
2. He committed any act of falsification under Art 171;
and
3. The falsification was committed in a public, official, or
commercial document or letter of exchange.
There are four kinds of documents:
(1) Public document in the execution of which, a
person in authority or notary public has taken
part;
(2) Official document in the execution of which a
public official takes part;
(3) Commercial document or any document
recognized by the Code of Commerce or any
commercial law; and
(4) Private document in the execution of which only
private individuals take part.
NOTE: Private document may acquire the character of a
public document when it becomes part of an official record
and is certified by a public officer duly authorized by law.
§ Public document is broader than the term official
document. Before a document may be considered official,
it must first be a public document. But not all public
documents are official documents. To become an official
document, there must be a law which requires a public
officer to issue or to render such document. Example: A
cashier is required to issue an official receipt for the
amount he receives. The official receipt is a public
document which is an official document.
§ Cash disbursement vouchers are not commercial
documents.
§ Mere blank forms of an official document is not itself a
document. It is necessary that the blank spaces be filled
and the signature of the party authorized to issue it be
written by another in the counterfeited instrument.
§ The possessor of a falsified document is presumed to be
the author of the falsification. But this presumption is not
applied where the evidence is extremely doubtful.
§ Damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary as
the principal thing punished is the violation of public faith
and destruction of truth.
§ Lack of malice or criminal intent is a defense in
falsification of public document.
Elements under paragraph 2
1. Offender committed any of the acts of falsification
except Article 171(7), that is, issuing in an
authenticated form a document purporting to be a
copy of an original document when no such
original exists, or including in such a copy a
statement contrary to, or different from, that of
the genuine original;
2. Falsification was committed in any private
document; and
3. Falsification causes damage to a third party or at
least the falsification was committed with intent to
cause such damage.
§ Mere falsification of public document is not enough as it is
necessary that it must cause damage to a third person or
must be committed with intent to cause such damage.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
§ It is also not necessary that the offender profited or
hoped to profit by the falsification.
§ When the falsification is a necessary means to commit another
crime, the two crimes form a complex crime under Art. 48. Note
that the document falsified as a necessary means must be
public, official or commercial.
a. Malversation through falsification of public
documents
b. Estafa through falsification of a public document.
c. Estafa through falsification of a commercial
document by reckless imprudence
d. Theft through falsification of official document.
e. Attempted estafa through falsification of public or
official documents.
§ There is no complex crime of estafa through falsification
of a private document because the immediate effect of
falsification of a private document is the same as that of
estafa.
§ If a private document is falsified to obtain from the
offended party the money or other personal property
which the offender later misappropriated, the crime
committed is falsification of private document only.
§ If a private document is falsified to conceal the
misappropriation of the money or other personal property
which has been in the possession of the offender, the
crime committed is estafa with abuse of confidence only.
§ If estafa was already consummated at the time of the
falsification of a private document or if the falsification
was committed for the purpose of concealing estafa, the
falsification is not punishable because as regards the
falsification, there was no damage or intent to cause
damage.
§ There is no falsification through reckless imprudence if the
document is private and no actual damage is caused.
§ The crime is falsification of a public document, even if the
falsification took place before the private document
becomes part of the public records, if the document is
intended by law to be part of the public or official record.
§ Generally, falsification has no attempted or frustrated
stage. But there may be a frustrated falsification if the
falsification is imperfect. (Reyes)
Falsification of a Public Falsification of a Private
document document
Mere falsification is enough Prejudice to 3rd person or
intent to cause it is enough
Committed by any of the 8 Cannot be committed by the
means under Art 171 ways in par 7 & 8 of Art 171
Principal thing punished is
violation of public faith and
destruction of truth as
therein solemnly proclaimed
Elements under the last paragraph
In introducing in a judicial proceeding -
1. Offender knew that the document was falsified by
another person; and
2. The false document is in Articles 171 or 172 (1 or
2);
3. He introduced said document in evidence in any
judicial proceeding.
In use in any other transaction -
44

1. Offender knew that a document was falsified by
another person;
2. The false document is embraced in Articles 171 or
172 (1 or 2);
3. He used such document; and
4. The use caused damage to another or at least
used with intent to cause damage.
§ Damage is not necessary in the crime of introducing in
judicial proceeding a false document.
§ Use of falsified document in a proceeding which is not
judicial is requires at least intent to cause damage.
§ If the one who used the falsified document is the same
person who falsified it, the crime is only falsification and
the use of the same is not a separate crime.
§ Use of false document is not necessarily included in the
crime of falsification.
§ The user of the falsified document is deemed the author
of the falsification if
o the use was so closely connected in time with the
falsification, and
o the user had the capacity of falsifying the
document.
People v. Dava
G.R. No. 73905, 30 September 1991
FACTS: Dava, while driving his car, bumped pedestrians
Bernadette and Dolores that caused the death of the former
and physical injuries to the latter. As a result, Dava’s license
was confiscated and presented as evidence in the criminal
case for homicide and serious physical injuries filed against
him. Thereafter, Antonio, the brother of Bernadette and
father of Dolores, saw Dava driving a car. Knowing that
Dava ’s license was confiscated, Antonio sought the help of
the Minister of Defense in the apprehension of Dava for
driving without license. When Michael was apprehended, he
showed a non-professional license. The investigating officer
compared the license of Dava to the attached license of the
pending criminal case against him. He then found out that
Dava’s license was fake because the signatures and the
dates of birth indicated in the two licenses are not the same.
Furthermore, although the form used for the license was
genuine, the signature of the issuing official was fake.
Accordingly, a case for falsification of public document was
filed against him.
HELD: While there is no doubt that Dava’s driver's license
was a spurious one, the evidence do not pinpoint the
petition as the actual falsifier. Unfortunately, however, there
are pieces of evidence which prove beyond reasonable doubt
that he caused the falsification and knowingly used the
falsified driver's license.
The elements of the crime of using a falsified document in
transaction (other than as evidence in a judicial proceeding)
penalized under the last paragraph of Article 172 are the
following: (a) the offender knew that a document was
falsified by another person; (b) the false document is
embraced in Article 171 or in any of subdivisions Nos. 1 and
2 of Article 172; (c )he used such document (not in judicial
proceedings), and (d) the use of the false document caused
damage to another or at last it was used with intent to
cause such damage. Except for the last element, all of these
elements have been proven beyond reason doubt. It is not
disputed that it was Dava himself who requested Manalili to
get him a license. He misrepresented to Manalili that he has
Criminal Law II Review Notes
not at any time been issued a driver's license. As it was
Dava who induced and left Manalili with no choice but to
seek the aid of fixers, the fact that it was Manalili and not
Dava who dealt directly with said fixers cannot exculpate
him from the charge of falsification. Thus, he is a principal
by inducement in the commission of said crime.
Tanengge v. People
G.R. No. 179448, 26 June 2013
FACTS: On different occasions, accused Tanenggee affixed,
forged, or caused to be signed the signature of Tan as
endorser and payee of the proceeds of the checks at the
back of the same to show that the latter had indeed
endorsed the same for payment. He handed the checks to
the loans clerk for encashment. Once said documents were
forged and falsified, Tanenggee released and obtained from
the bank.
HELD: All the elements of the crime of estafa through
falsification of commercial documents were established in
this case.
First, Tanenggee is a private individual. Second, the acts of
falsification consisted in Tanenggee’s (1) counterfeiting or
imitating the victim’s handwriting or signature and causing it
to appear that the same is true and genuine in all respects;
and (2) causing it to appear that victim has participated in
an act or proceeding when he did not in fact so participate.
Third, the falsification was committed in promissory notes
and checks which are commercial documents.
Chua v. People
G.R. No. 183132, 8 February 2012
FACTS: The accused was a General Clerk in the Allied
Banking Corporation. As such, he was tasked to process
trust receipts, accept trust receipt payments, and issue the
corresponding receipts for these payments. There were
excess payments from two clients of the bank. Chua used
fictitious “inward foreign remittance advice of credit” to
cause the transfer of the two bank clients’ payments into his
own accounts. The RTC convicted him of the crime of estafa
through falsification of commercial documents. However, on
appeal, the CA modified his conviction to falsification of
commercial documents only. According to the CA, the
accused being a General Clerk of the bank, did not acquire
material and juridical possession of the amounts. In
addition, the Court has ruled that the lack of criminal liability
for estafa, however, will not necessarily absolve petitioner
from criminal liability arising from the charge of falsification
of public document under the same Information charging
the complex crime of estafa through falsification of public
document.
The accused claims that there was no direct proof that he
was the author of the falsification. However, this contention
is of no moment considering that the presumption is that
whenever someone has in his possession falsified documents
and “uttered” or used the same for his advantage and
benefit, the presumption that he authored it arises. The
transfer of the excess payments to his account, his
withdrawal of such amounts, and his unexplained flight at
the height of the bank’s inquiry is more than sufficient to
establish his involvement in the falsification.
45

HELD: The elements of the crime of falsification of
commercial documents are (a) the offender is a private
individual or a public officer or employee who did not take
advantage of his official position; (b) the offender committed
any of the acts of falsification enumerated in Art. 171 of the
RPC; and (c) the falsification was committed in a public or
official or commercial documents. All three elements were
present in this case: (a) Chua is a private individual; (b) he
used fictitious “inward foreign remittance advice of credit” to
cause the transfer of the two named bank clients’ payments
into his own account; and (c) falsification was committed in
two commercial documents, namely, “inward foreign
remittance advice of credit” and the “debit tickets.”
Article 173. Falsification of Wireless, Cable,
Telegraph and Telephone Messages, and Use of Said
Falsified Messages
Acts punished
1. Uttering fictitious wireless, telegraph or telephone
message;
Elements
1. Offender is an officer or employee of the
government or an officer or employee of a
private corporation, engaged in the service of
sending or receiving wireless, cable or
telephone message; and
2. He utters fictitious wireless, cable, telegraph
or telephone message.
2. Falsifying wireless, telegraph or telephone message;
Elements
1. Offender is an officer or employee of the
government or an officer or employee of a
private corporation, engaged in the service of
sending or receiving wireless, cable or
telephone message; and
2. He falsifies wireless, cable, telegraph or
telephone message.
3. Using such falsified message.
Elements
1. Offender knew that wireless, cable,
telegraph, or telephone message was falsified
by an officer or employee of the government
or an officer or employee of a private
corporation, engaged in the service of
sending or receiving wireless, cable or
telephone message;
2. He used such falsified dispatch; and
3. The use resulted in the prejudice of a third
party or at least there was intent to cause
such prejudice.
§ The public officer, to be liable, must be engaged in the
service of sending or receiving wireless, cable or
telephone message.
§ Private individual cannot be a principal by direct
participation in falsification of telegraphic dispatches
under Art. 173 unless he is an employee of a corporation
engaged in the business of sending or receiving wireless,
telegraph or telephone message.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
§ Private individual can be criminally liable as principal by
inducement in falsification of telegraphic dispatches.
§ Act. No. 1851, Sec 4, punishes private individuals who
forge or alter telegram by an fine of not more than P100.
Article 174. False Medical Certificates, False
Certificates of Merit or Service, Etc.
Persons liable
1 Physician or surgeon who, in connection with the
practice of his profession, issues a false certificate (it
must refer to the illness or injury of a person);
[The crime here is false medical certificate by a
physician.]
2 Public officer who issues a false certificate of merit of
service, good conduct or similar circumstances;
[The crime here is false certificate of merit or service by
a public officer.]
3 Private person who falsifies a certificate falling within
the classes mentioned in the two preceding
subdivisions.
[The crime is false medical certificate by private person
or false certificate of merit or service by a private
person]
§ The falsification of the certificate of large cattle is not
covered by Art 174 but by Art 171 or 172.
§ Certificate of residence for voting purposes is certificate of
“similar circumstances”.
Article 175. Using False Certificates
Elements
1. The following issues a false certificate:
a. Physician or surgeon, in connection with the
practice of his profession, issues a false
certificate;
b. Public officer issues a false certificate of merit
of service, good conduct or similar
circumstances;
c. Private person falsifies a certificate falling
within the classes mentioned in the two
preceding subdivisions.
2. Offender knows that the certificate was false;
He uses the same.
§ When any of the false certificates mentioned in Art. 174 is
used in the judicial proceedings, Art 172 does not apply
because the use of false document in judicial proceeding
under Art 172 is limited to those false documents
embraced in Arts 171 and 172.
46

Article 176. Manufacturing and Possession of
Instruments or Implements for Falsification
Acts punished
1. Making or introducing into the Philippines any stamps,
dies, marks, or other instruments or implements for
counterfeiting or falsification; and
2. Possessing with intent to use the instruments or
implements for counterfeiting or falsification made in or
introduced into the Philippines by another person.
§ It is not necessary that the implements confiscated form a
complete set for counterfeiting. It is enough that they
may be employed by themselves or together with other
implements to commit the crime of counterfeiting or
falsification.
§ Possession punished here may be actual or constructive
possession.
Article 177. Usurpation of Authority or Official
Functions
Acts punished
1. Usurpation of authority;
Elements
1. Offender knowingly and falsely represents
himself; and
2. As an officer, agent or representative of any
department or agency of the Philippine
government or of any foreign government.
2. Usurpation of official functions.
Elements
1. Offender performs any act;
2. Pertaining to any person in authority or
public officer of the Philippine government or
any foreign government, or any agency
thereof; and
3. Under pretense of official position;
4. Without being lawfully entitled to do so.
§ In usurpation of authority, it is not necessary that he
performs an act pertaining to public office. However in
usurpation of official functions, it is essential that the
offender should have performed an act pertaining to a
person authority or public officer.
§ There must be positive, express and explicit
representation. Such false representation may be shown
by acts.
§ This article applies to “any person” and thus covers even
a public officer. (ex. Councilor usurping mayor’s office)
§ This article does not apply to occupant under color of title.
§ This article also punishes usurpation of authority or official
functions of any officer of any foreign government.
§ RA 75 provides additional penalties for usurping the
authority of diplomatic or consular or any other official of
foreign government if offender has intent to defraud.
§ RA 10 applies only to members of seditious organization
engaged in subversive activities who performed any act
pertaining to the government, to any person in authority
or to any public officer.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
People v. Cortez
G.R. No. 82197, 13 March 1989
FACTS: Accused introduced himself to a proprietress of a
meatshop presenting an ID card bearing another name. He
claimed to be authorized to waive inspection of books for
P400. Upon learning that the accused was not a real BIR
agent, the owner and authorities set up a string operation.
Accused was apprehended after taking the money.
HELD: Crime committed was usurpation of authority thru
falsification of a public document by a private individual. It is
not robbery because there was no force or intimidation.
Gigantoni v. People
G.R. No. 74727, 16 June 1988
Gigantoni, working on an investigation for another
company, represented himself to PAL legal officer as
a PC-CIS agent. He requested that he be shown the
PAL records which was granted and he xeroxed them.
HELD: He cannot be held liable for usurpation of authority
because he did not knowingly represented himself to be an
agent. At the time he went to PAL office, he was still an
agent though he knew he was suspended. The conveyance
to him of the notice of dismissal was not proven. He should
have been charged with usurpation of official functions
where dismissal or suspension would make no difference
because both imply the absence of the power to represent
himself as vested with authority to perform acts pertaining
to an office which he knowingly was deprived of.
Ruzol v. Sandiganbayan and People
G.R. Nos. 186739-960, 17 April 2013
FACTS: As mayor, accused Ruzol issued permits to transport
salvaged forest products to various recipients. An
information for usurpation of authority or official functions
was filed against him on the ground that he was not lawfully
entitled to issue said permits, such authority properly
belonging to the Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (DENR).
HELD: The Supreme Court acquitted Ruzol. Good faith is a
defense in criminal prosecutions for usurpation of official
functions. The term “good faith” is ordinarily used to
describe that state of mind denoting honesty of intention
and freedom from knowledge of circumstances which ought
to put the holder upon inquiry. It is actually a question of
intent and although something internal, it can be ascertained
by relying not on one’s self-serving protestations of good
faith but on evidence of his conduct and outward acts.
In this case, Ruzol should be acquitted because he acted in
good faith. Contrary to the conclusions made by the
Sandiganbayan, Ruzol’s act of consulting with the public
through an organizational meeting was not a badge of bad
faith. Rather, it was a sign supporting Ruzol’s good
intentions to regulate and monitor the movement of
salvaged forest products to prevent abuse and occurrence of
untoward illegal logging.
47
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

charged and convicted for violating Section 1 of C.A. No.142

Article 178. Using Fictitious Name and Concealing as amended by R.A. No. 6085. The Court of Appeals
True Name affirmed the decision of the trial court.

Acts punished HELD: It is not disputed that Ursua introduced himself in the
Office of the Ombudsman as "Oscar Perez," which was the
1. Using fictitious name name of the messenger of his lawyer who should have
brought the letter to that office in the first place instead of
Elements Ursua He did so while merely serving the request of his
1. Offender uses a name other than his real lawyer to obtain a copy of the complaint where Ursua was a
name; respondent. There is no question then that "Oscar Perez" is
2. He uses the fictitious name publicly; and not an alias name of petitioner. There is no evidence
3. Purpose of use is to conceal a crime, to showing that he had used or was intending to use that name
evade the execution of a judgment or to as his second name in addition to his real name.
cause damage [to public interest - Reyes].
The act of Ursua does not constitute an offense within the
2. Concealing true name concept of C.A. No. 142 as amended under which he is
prosecuted. The confusion and fraud in business
Elements transactions which the anti-alias law and its related statutes
1. Offender conceals his true name and other seek to prevent are not present here as the circumstances
personal circumstances; and are peculiar and distinct from those contemplated by the
2. Purpose is only to conceal his identity. legislature in enacting C.A. No. 142 as amended.

§ A fictitious name is any other name which a person People v. Estrada

publicly applies to himself without authority of law.
§ Causing damage must be to public interest. If it is G.R. Nos. 164368-69,2 April 2009
damage to private interest, the crime will be estafa under
Art 315,subdivision 2 paragraph (a).
FACTS: An information for plunder was filed against Estrada.
§ Signing fictitious name in an application for passport is
The information stated that on or about 04 February 2000,
publicly using such fictitious name.
Estrada misrepresented himself as “Jose Velarde,” which is
§ Where a person takes the place of another who has been
neither his registered name at birth nor baptismal name, in
convicted by final judgment, he is guilty of using a
order to conceal his identity as the President of the Republic
fictitious name under Art 178 and not evasion of service
of the Philippines, and the ill- gotten wealth that he acquired
of sentence because the real convict alone is guilty
during his tenure, in signing documents with Equitable PCI
thereof.
Bank and/or other corporate entities.
Use of Fictitious name Concealing true name
HELD: The conclusion that the Supreme Court arrived at,
Element of publicity must be Element of publicity is not
necessarily impacts on the People’s case, as it deals a fatal
present necessary
blow on the People’s claim that Estrada habitually used the
Purpose is to conceal a Purpose is merely to conceal
“Jose Velarde” alias. The repeated use of an alias within a
crime, to evade the identity single day cannot be deemed "habitual," as it does not
execution of a judgment or amount to a customary practice or use. This reason alone
to cause damage
dictates the dismissal of the petition under CA No. 142 and
the terms of Ursua case.
Legamia v. IAC
G.R. No. L-63817, 28 August 1984

FACTS: Corazon Legamia lived with Emilio Reyes for 19
years and gave him a son. She was known and introduced to
others as Mrs. Reyes. Upon Emilio’s death, Corazon filed for Use of unregistered aliases
death benefits on behalf of their son. The real Mrs. Reyes,
Felicisima, filed a complaint against Corazon for using
R.A. No. 6085
fictitious name.
AN ACT AMENDING COMMONWEALTH ACT
NUMBERED ONE HUNDRED FORTY-TWO
HELD: Corazon was acquitted. It is not uncommon for a
REGULATING THE USE OF ALIASES
woman to represent herself as the wife of the person she is
living with. Corazon assumed the role of a wife not for any
What is prohibited?
personal material gain but for her son. Ours is a tolerant and
understanding society.
1. No person shall use any name different from the one with
which he was registered at birth in the office of the local
Ursua v. CA civil registry, or with which he was registered in the bureau
G.R. No. 112170, 10 April 1996 of immigration upon entry; or such substitute name as may
have been authorized by a competent court.
FACTS: Ursua used the name “Oscar Perez’’ upon
acknowledgment of receipt of the documents he requested Exception: Pseudonym solely for literary, cinema,
from the Office of the Ombudsman in Davao City. He was

48

television, radio, or other entertainment and in athletic
events where the use of pseudonym is a normally accepted
practice. (Sec. 1)
2. No person having been baptized with a name different
from that with which he was registered at birth in the local
civil registry, or in case of an alien, registered in the bureau
of immigration upon entry, or any person who obtained
judicial authority to use an alias, or who uses a pseudonym,
shall represent himself in any public or private
transaction or shall sign or execute any public or
private document without stating or affixing his real
or original name and all names or aliases or
pseudonym he is or may have been authorized to
use. (Sec. 3)
What is the process?
Any person desiring to use an alias shall apply for
authority therefor in proceedings like those legally
provided to obtain judicial authority for a change of name,
and no person shall be allowed to secure such judicial
authority for more than one alias. The petition for an alias
shall set forth the person's baptismal and family name and
the name recorded in the civil registry, if different, his
immigrant's name, if an alien, and his pseudonym, if he has
such names other than his original or real name, specifying
the reason or reasons for the use of the desired alias. The
judicial authority for the use of alias the christian name and
the alien immigrant's name shall be recorded in the proper
local civil registry, and no person shall use any name or
names other, than his original or real name unless the same
is or are duly recorded in the proper local civil registry. (Sec.
2)
Penalties imposed
Any violation of this Act shall be punished with imprisonment
of from one year to five years and a fine of P5,000 to
P10,000. (Sec. 5)
Article 179. Illegal Use of Uniforms or Insignia
Elements
1 Offender makes use of insignia, uniforms or dress;
2 The insignia, uniforms or dress pertains to an office not
held by such person or a class of persons of which he is
not a member; and
3. Said insignia, uniform or dress is used publicly and
improperly.
§ Wearing the uniform of an imaginary office is not
punishable.
§ An exact imitation of a uniform or dress is unnecessary; a
colorable resemblance calculated to deceive the common
run of people is sufficient.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 75
(Immunity of Diplomats and Consuls)
An Act to Penalize Acts which would Impair the Proper
Observance by the Republic and Inhabitants of the
Philippines of the Immunities, Rights, And Privileges Of
Duly Accredited Foreign Diplomatic And Consular Agents In
The Philippines
Criminal Law II Review Notes
When applicable
The provisions of the Act are applicable only in cases where
the country of the diplomatic or consular representative
adversely affected has provided for similar protection to
duly accredited diplomatic or consular representatives of the
Republic of the Philippines by prescribing like or similar
penalties for like or similar offenses herein contained.
Who are punishable?
1. Any person who shall falsely assume and take upon
himself to act as a diplomatic, consular, or any other official
of a foreign government duly accredited as such to the
Government of the Republic of the Philippines with intent to
defraud such foreign government or the Government of the
Philippines;
2. Any person who, in such pretended character shall
demand or obtain, or attempt to obtain from any person or
from said foreign government or the Government of the
Philippines, or from any officer thereof, any money, paper,
document, or other thing of value;
3. Any person, other than a diplomatic or consular officer or
attache, who shall act in the Republic of the Philippines as
an agent of a foreign government without prior notification
to, and registration with, the Secretary of Foreign Affairs;
4. Any person who, with intent to deceive or mislead, within
the jurisdiction of the Republic, shall wear any naval,
military, police, or other official uniform, decoration, or
regalia of any foreign State, nation or government with
which the Republic of the Philippines is at peace, or any
uniform, decoration or regalia so nearly resembling the
same as to be calculated to deceive, UNLESS such wearing
thereof be authorized by such State, nation, or government;
5. Any person by whom any writ or process is obtained,
whereby the person of any ambassador or public minister of
any foreign State, authorized and received as such by the
President, or any domestic or domestic servant of any such
ambassador or minister is arrested or imprisoned, or his
goods or chattels are distrained, seized, or attached,
whether as party or as attorney;
6. Every officer concerned in executing the writs or process
in (5) above.
® (5) and (6) above are NOT APPLICABLE where:
§ the person against whom the process is
issued is a (1) citizen or inhabitant of the
Republic of the Philippines, (2) in the service
of an ambassador or a public minister, and
(3) the process is founded upon a debt
contracted before he entered upon such
service; or
§ the person against whom the process is
issued is a domestic servant of an
ambassador or a public minister, UNLESS the
name of the servant has, before the issuing
thereof, been registered in the Department
of Foreign Affairs, and transmitted by the
Secretary of Foreign Affairs to the Chief of
Police of the City of Manila, who shall upon
49

receipt thereof post the same in some public
place in his office.
7. Any person who assaults, strikes, wounds, imprisons or in
any other manner offers violence to the person of an
ambassador or a public minister, in violation of the law of
nations.
Penalties
The penalties provided in the act shall be imposed in
addition to the penalties that may be imposed under the
Revised Penal Code
R.A. No. 493
An Act to Prohibit the Use or Conferring of Military or
Naval Grades or Titles By or Upon Persons Not in the
Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines or the
Philippine Constabulary, to Regulate the Wearing,
Use, Manufacture and Sale of Insignias, Decorations
and Medals, Badges, Patches and Identification Cards
Prescribed for the Said Armed Forces or
Constabulary, and for Other Purposes
Sec. 1. It shall be unlawful for any person NOT in the
service of the AFP or the PNP to use, or confer upon himself
or another who is not in the service, any military or naval
grade or title.
Exceptions:
(a) All veterans of any war when recognized by the
Philippine and only for the ranks for which they are
recognized;
(b) Commissioned officers and personnel, retired or in
active duty, of the Bureau of Coast and Geodetic Survey, of
the quarantine service, and of the customs service;
(c) Commissioned and enlisted reservists including
recognized guerrilla officers on inactive status when using
their authorized grades for a purely military purposes;
(d) Trainees in the Armed Forces while undergoing
any period of trainee instruction pursuant to law.
Sec. 2. It shall be unlawful for any person not in the
service (EXCEPT those excluded from the prohibition in
Section 1), to use or wear the duly prescribed insignia,
badge or emblem or rank or any colorable imitation
thereof, of the members of the AFP or PNP,
Exception: use or the wearing of any insignia, badge or
emblem of rank:
a. in any play-house or theater or
b. in moving-picture films while actually engaged in
representing therein a military or naval character
not tending to bring discredit or reproach upon the
AFP and PNP
Sec. 3. The use, wearing, manufacture and sale of any
medal or decoration, badge, insignia, patch, or
Criminal Law II Review Notes
identification card, authorized by Congress or prescribed
or awarded by the President of the Philippines or the
Secretary of National Defense for the members of the AFP,
or any colorable imitation thereof, is prohibited
Exception: when so authorized by the Secretary of
National Defense.
FALSE TESTIMONY
§ False testimony is committed by a person who, being
under oath and required to testify as to the truth of a
certain matter at a hearing before a competent authority
shall deny the truth or say something contrary to it.
Three forms of false testimony
1. False testimony in criminal cases (Arts 180, 181)
2. False testimony in civil case (Art 182)
3. False testimony in other cases (Art 183)
Article 180. False Testimony against A Defendant
Elements
1. There is a criminal proceeding;
2. Offender testifies falsely under oath against the
defendant therein;
3. Offender who gives false testimony knows that it is
false; and
4. Defendant against whom the false testimony is given is
either acquitted or convicted in a final judgment.
§ Penalty for false testimony depends upon the sentence of
the defendant against whom false testimony was given.
§ The defendant in the principal case must be sentenced at
least a correctional penalty, a fine or shall have been
acquitted in order that the witness who falsely testified
can be held liable.
§ The witness who gave false testimony is liable even if his
testimony was not considered by the court as the law
intends to punish the mere giving of false testimony.
Article 181. False Testimony Favorable to the
Defendant
Elements
1. A person gives false testimony;
2. In favor of the defendant;
3. In a criminal case.
§ Conviction or acquittal of defendant in principal case, not
necessary as it is sufficient that the defendant is
prosecuted for a felony punishable by afflictive penalty
or by other penalty.
§ False testimony favorable to the defendant is equally
repugnant to the orderly administration of justice.
§ False testimony is punished because of its tendency to
favor or to prejudice the defendant.
§ False testimony by negative statement is in favor of
defendant.
§ False testimony in favor of defendant need not directly
influence the decision of acquittal nor benefit the
50

defendant as it is sufficient that it was given to favor the
accused.
§ A statement by a witness that he is an expert in
handwriting is a statement of mere opinion, the falsity of
which is not sufficient to convict him.
§ Rectification made spontaneously after realizing the
mistake is not false testimony.
Article 182. False Testimony in Civil Cases
Elements
1. Testimony given in a civil case;
2. Testimony relates to the issues presented in said case;
3. Testimony is false;
4. Offender knows that testimony is false; and
5. Testimony is malicious and given with an intent to
affect the issues presented in said case.
§ The testimony given in the civil case must be false.
§ Art. 182 is not applicable when the false testimony is
given in special proceeding as it applies only to ordinary
civil cases.
§ Penalty depends on the amount of the controversy.
Article 183. False Testimony in Other Cases and
Perjury in Solemn Affirmation
Acts punished
1. Falsely testifying under oath; and
2. Making a false affidavit.
Elements of perjury
1. Offender makes a statement under oath or executes an
affidavit upon a material matter;
2. The statement or affidavit is made before a competent
officer, authorized to receive and administer oaths;
3. Offender makes a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood in the statement or affidavit; and
4. The sworn statement or affidavit containing the falsity
is required by law, that is, it is made for a legal
purpose.
§ Oath is any form of attestation by which a person signifies
that he is bound in conscience to perform an act faithfully
and truthfully.
§ An affidavit is a sworn statement in writing; a declaration
in writing made upon oath or before an authorized
magistrate or officer.
§ Perjury is an offense which covers false oaths other than
those taken in the course of judicial proceedings.
§ A false affidavit to a criminal complaint may give rise to
perjury.
§ Material matter is the main fact which is the subject
matter of the inquiry or any circumstance which tends to
prove that fact, or any fact or circumstance which tends
to corroborate or strengthen the testimony relative to the
subject of inquiry or which legitimately affects the credit
of any witness who testifies.
§ There must be competent proof of materiality. The matter
is material when it is directed to prove a fact in issue.
§ There is no perjury if sworn statement is not material to
the principal matter under investigation.
§ There is no perjury if defendant subscribed and swore
before a clerk in treasurer’s office as a competent person
Criminal Law II Review Notes
authorized to administer oath is a person who has a right
to inquire into the questions presented to him upon
matters under his jurisdiction.
§ The assertion of falsehood must be willful and deliberate.
Good faith or lack of malice is a defense in perjury.
§ The phrase “when the law so requires” does not mean
that the sworn statement or affidavit must be required by
law. It has been interpreted to mean “in cases in which
the law so authorizes”. Hence, even if there is no law
requiring the statement to be made under oath, as long
as it is made for a legal purpose, it is sufficient (P v
Angcangco)
§ Two contradictory sworn statements are not sufficient to
convict for perjury because the prosecution must prove
which of the two statements is false by other evidence
than the contradictory statement.
§ The direct induction of a person by another to commit
perjury is treated as plain perjury. The one inducing
another is principal by induction and the latter as principal
by direct participation.
False testimony Perjury
Perversions of truth
Given in the course of Not given in judicial
judicial proceeding proceeding
Contemplates an actual trial May be committed during
preliminary investigation and
in making false affidavits
Diaz v. People
G.R. No. L-65006, 31 October 1990
FACTS: Diaz was charged with falsification of official
document. He allegedly executed and filed in CSC a personal
data sheet, an official document, where he stated he was a
4th yr AB student at Cosmopolitan and Harvardian Colleges
w/c led to his reappointment. The accused was never
enrolled in said schools. He presented a transcript of record
with no imprint of college seal nor signature of school
president.
HELD: The crime committed was perjury. This offense is the
willful and corrupt assertion of a falsehood under oath or
affirmation administered by authority of law on a material
matter.
Masangkay v. People
G.R. No. 164443, 18 June 2010
FACTS: Eriberto Masangkay filed a petition to involuntarily
dissolve Megatel Factors, Inc. (MFI) with the SEC. In his
verified petition, Eriberto alleged that: (a) no meeting was
actually held by MFI Directors on December 5, 1992; and (b)
a Deed executed by an adverse shareholder and MFI, which
was approved during the purported meeting, does not really
exist because it is simulated and fictitious. The husband of
the adverse shareholder filed a perjury complaint against
Eriberto because: (a) the existence of the Minutes proves
that the meeting took place; and (b) copies of the Deed
refute claims of its non-existence.
HELD: The Supreme Court acquitted Eriberto. The element
of deliberate falsehood was not duly proven. First, the
existence of the Minutes does not necessarily mean that the
meeting contested by Eriberto took place. Said Minutes
51

could have been tampered with or falsified. Eriberto’s
statements in paragraph 5 of the petition for involuntary
dissolution about the nature of the Deed are conclusions of
law, and not factual statements which are susceptible of
truth or falsity. They are simply his opinion regarding the
legal character of the Deed.
Union Bank v. People
G.R. No. 192565, 28 February 2012
FACTS: The accused was charged with perjury for allegedly
executing and signing two certifications against forum
shopping. The first was for a civil case in Pasay City against
Sps. Tamondong and a John Doe, while the second was a
civil case in Pasay City against the same parties. She was
charged for deliberately violating Art. 183 of the RPC by
falsely declaring under oath in the Certificate Against Forum
Shopping in the second complaint that she did not
commence any other action or proceeding involving the
same issue in another tribunal or agency.
The accused took the oath at Makati City but the affidavits
were filed in Pasay City. The issue now is where is the
proper venue? The perjury case was filed in Makati City. The
accused claims that the proper venue should be at Pasay
City.
HELD: The elements of perjury are: (a) that the accused
made a statement under oath or executed an affidavit upon
a material matter; (b) that the statement or affidavit was
made before a competent officer, authorized to receive and
administer oath; (c) that in the statement or affidavit, the
accused made a willful and deliberate assertion of a
falsehood; and (d) that the sworn statement or affidavit
containing the falsity is required by law or made for a legal
purpose.
According to the Court, the first, second, and fourth
elements were made when the accused was taking her oath
in Makati. Thus, the case was properly filed with the MeTC-
Makati City.
In addition, the Court clarified that Art. 183 – shown below,
Art. 183. False testimony in other cases and
perjury in solemn affirmation. — The penalty of
arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision
correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any person, who knowingly makes
untruthful statements and not being included in
the provisions of the next preceding articles, shall
testify under oath, OR make an affidavit, upon any
material matter before a competent person
authorized to administer an oath in cases in which
the law so requires.
Any person who, in case of a solemn
affirmation made in lieu of an oath, shall commit
any of the falsehoods mentioned in this and the
three preceding articles of this section, shall suffer
the respective penalties provided therein.
– speaks of two punishable acts: (a) falsely testifying under
oath in a proceeding other than a criminal or civil case; and
(b) making a false affidavit before a person authorized to
administer an oath on any material matter where the law
requires an oath.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Article 184. Offering False Testimony in Evidence
Elements
1. Offender offers in evidence a false witness or
testimony;
2 He knows that the witness or the testimony was false;
AND
3. The offer is made in any judicial or official proceeding.
§ To consummate the offense, the witness or testimony
must be offered in evidence. Offer of evidence begins the
moment the witness is called to the witness stand and
interrogated by counsel.
§ Art. 184 applies when the offender without inducing
another, but knowing him to be a false witness, presented
him as a witness and he testified falsely.
§ The penalty shall be that for false testimony if committed
in a judicial proceeding or that for perjury if committed in
another proceeding.
OBSTRUCTION OF JUSTICE
(PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO.1829)
Prohibited Acts
• Preventing witnesses from testifying in any
criminal proceeding or from reporting the
commission of any offense or the identity of
any offender/s by means of bribery,
misrepresentation, deceit, intimidation, force or
threats;
• Faltering, destroying, suppressing or
concealing any paper, record, document, or
object, with intent to impair its verity,
authenticity, legibility, availability, or
admissibility as evidence in any investigation
of or official proceedings in, criminal cases, or to
be used in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases;
• Publicly using a fictitious name for the
purpose of concealing a crime, evading
prosecution or the execution of a judgment, or
concealing his true name and other personal
circumstances for the same purpose or purposes;
• Delaying the prosecution of criminal cases by
obstructing the service of process or court
orders or disturbing proceedings in the
fiscal's offices, in Ombudsman, or in the
courts;
• Making, presenting or using any record,
document, paper or object with knowledge
of its falsity and with intent to affect the
course or outcome of the investigation of, or
official proceedings in, criminal cases;
• Soliciting, accepting, or agreeing to accept
any benefit in consideration of abstaining
from, discounting, or impeding the
52

prosecution of a criminal offender;
• Threatening directly or indirectly another
with the infliction of any wrong upon his
person, honor or property or that of any
immediate member or members of his
family in order to prevent such person from
appearing in the investigation of, or official
proceedings in, criminal cases, or imposing a
condition, whether lawful or unlawful, in order to
prevent a person from appearing in the
investigation of or in official proceedings in,
criminal cases;
• Giving of false or fabricated information to
mislead or prevent the law enforcement
agencies from apprehending the offender or from
protecting the life or property of the victim; and
• Fabricating information from the data
gathered in confidence by investigating
authorities for purposes of background
information and not for publication and
publishing or disseminating the same to mislead
the investigator or the court.
Article 185. Machinations in Public Auctions
Acts punished
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a consideration for
refraining from taking part in any public auction;
Elements
1. There is a public auction;
2. Offender solicits any gift or a promise from
any of the bidders;
3. Such gift or promise is the consideration for
his refraining from taking part in that public
auction; and
4. Offender has the intent to cause the
reduction of the price of the thing auctioned.
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay away from an
auction by threats, gifts, promises or any other artifice.
Elements
1. There is a public auction;
2. Offender attempts to cause the bidders to stay
away from that public auction;
3. It is done by threats, gifts, promises or any
other artifice; and
4. Offender has the intent to cause the reduction
of the price of the thing auctioned.
§ This crime is consummated by mere solicitation of gift or
promise as a consideration for not bidding. Likewise, mere
attempt to cause prospective bidders to stay away from
an auction by means of threats, gifts, promises or any
other artifice consummates the crime.
§ Reason: Execution should be opened to free and full
competition to secure the maximum benefit for the
debtor.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
People v. Ouano
G.R. No. 129279, 4 March 2003
FACTS: Echavez and Ouano had an oral agreement that only
the former would make a bid for a parcel of land in a public
bidding, and if accepted, they would divide the property in
proportion to their adjoining properties. To ensure the
success of their plans, they induced the only other party
interested by paying her P2000 to desist from bidding.
HELD: The acts constituted a crime under Art 185. They
caused another bidder to stay away from the auction in
order to cause the reduction of the price of the property
auctioned. The parties have no cause of action against each
other to and are both liable for the crime.
Article 186. Monopolies and Combinations in
Restraint of Trade
Acts punished
1. Combination to prevent free competition in the market;
Elements
1. Entering into any contract or agreement or
taking part in any conspiracy or combination
in the form of a trust or otherwise; and
2. In restraint of trade or commerce or to
prevent by artificial means free competition
in the market.
2. Monopoly to restrain free competition in the
market;
Elements
1. By monopolizing any merchandise or object
of trade or commerce, or by combining with
any other person or persons to monopolize
said merchandise or object;
2. In order to alter the prices thereof by
spreading false rumors or making use of any
other artifice; and
3. To restrain free competition in the market
3. Manufacturer, producer, or processor or importer
combining, conspiring or agreeing with any person to
make transactions prejudicial to lawful commerce or to
increase the market price of merchandise.
Elements
1. Manufacturer, producer, processor or
importer of any merchandise or object of
commerce;
2. Combines, conspires or agrees with any
person; and
3. Purpose is to make transactions prejudicial to
lawful commerce or to increase the market
price of any merchandize or object of
commerce manufactured, produced,
processed, assembled or imported into the
Philippines.
§ Mere conspiracy or combination is punished.
53

§ If the offense affects any food substance or other article
of prime necessity, it is sufficient that initial steps are
taken toward carrying out the purposes of combination.
§ When offense is committed by a corporation or
association, the president and directors or managers are
liable. But they are liable only when they (1) knowingly
permitted or (2) failed to prevent the commission of such
offense.
Article 187. Importation and Disposition of Falsely
Marked Articles or Merchandise Made of Gold, Silver,
or Other Precious Metals of Their Alloys
Elements
1. Offender imports, sells or disposes articles made of
gold, silver, or other precious metals or their alloys;
2. The stamps, brands, or marks of those articles of
merchandise fail to indicate the actual fineness or
quality of said metals or alloys; and
3. Offender knows that the stamps, brands, or marks fail
to indicate the actual fineness or quality of the metals
or alloys.
§ Articles involved are those made of gold, silver, other
precious metals or their alloys.
§ Selling the misbranded articles is not necessary but there
must be evidence showing that the articles were
imported.
§ Art 187 does not apply to manufacturer of misbranded
articles made of gold, silver, other precious metals or their
alloys.
Article 188. Substituting and Altering Trademarks,
Trade names, or Service Marks
Acts punished
1. Substituting the trade name or trademark of some
other manufacturer or dealer, or a colorable imitation
thereof for the trade name or trademark of the real
manufacturer or dealer upon any article of commerce
and selling the same;
2. Selling or offering for sale such articles of commerce
knowing that the trade name or trademark has been
fraudulently used;
3. Using or substituting the service mark of some other
person, or a colorable imitation of such mark n the sale
or advertising of his services; and
4. Printing, lithographing or reproducing trade name,
trademark, or service mark of one person or a colorable
imitation thereof to enable another person to
fraudulently use the same knowing the fraudulent
purpose for which it is to be used.
§ The tradename, trademark or service mark used by the
offender need not be identical with the infringed
tradename, trademark or service mark. A colorable
imitation is sufficient. But there must not be differences
which are glaring and striking to the eye.
§ The function of a trademark is to indicate the origin or
ownership of the goods to which it is fixed.
§ It is not necessary that the goods of the prior user and
the late user of the trademark are of the same categories.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
§ The trademark or tradename must be registered. It must
not be merely descriptive or generic.
§ The exclusive right to an originally valid trademark or
tradename is lost, if for any reason it loses its
distinctiveness or has become publici juris.
Article 189. Unfair Competition, Fraudulent
Registration of Trade Name, Trademark, or Service
Mark, Fraudulent Designation of Origin, and False
Description
Acts punished
1. Unfair competition;
Elements
1. By selling his goods;
2. Giving them the general appearance of the
goods of another manufacturer or dealer;
3. The general appearance is shown in the
goods themselves, or in the wrapping of their
packages, or in the device or words therein,
or in any feature of their appearance;
4. There is actual intent to deceive the public or
defraud a competitor.
2. Fraudulent designation of origin; false description:
Elements
1. By affixing to his goods or using in
connection with his services a false
designation of origin, or any false description
or representation; and
2. Selling such goods or services.
3. Fraudulent registration
Elements
1. By procuring fraudulently from the patent
office;
2. The registration of trade name, trademark or
service mark
§ Unfair competition consists in employing deception or any
other means contrary to good faith by which any person
shall pass off the goods manufactured by him or in which
he deals, or his business, or his services for those of the
one having established goodwill, or committing any acts
calculated to produce such result.
§ Mere offer for sale completes the commission of the
crime. Evidence of actual fraudulent intent is not
necessary.
§ The true test of unfair competition is WON certain goods
have been clothed with an appearance which is likely to
deceive the ordinary purchaser exercising ordinary.
§ The master is criminally responsible for acts of his
servants and employees in violation of the penal
provisions touching trademarks, tradenames; and unfair
competition if he causes the illegal act to be done, or
requests, command or permits it or in any manner
authorizes it, or aids or abets the servant in its
commission of , whether he is present at the time the
unlawful act is committed or not.
La Chemise Lacoste vs. Fernandez
G.R. No. L-63796-97, 2 May 1984
54

FACTS: In 1975, Hemandas & Co., a domestic firm was
issued registration for the trademark "CHEMISE LACOSTE &
CROCODILE DEVICE" by the Philippine Patent Office for use
on T-shirts, sportswear and other garment products of the
company.
La Chemise Lacoste, S.A.,the actual owner of the TM’s
"LACOSTE", "CHEMISE LACOSTE", "CROCODILE DEVICE" used
on clothings and sporting apparels sold worldwide filed a
Petition for Cancellation of Hamandas registration as it is
claiming prior registration of the TM’s.
HELD: The records show that the goodwill and reputation of
La Chemise products bearing the TM LACOSTE date back
even before 1964 when LACOSTE clothing apparels were
first marketed in the Philippines. To allow Hemandas to
continue using the trademark Lacoste for the simple reason
that he was the first registrant of a trademark used in
international commerce and not belonging to him is to
render nugatory the very essence of the law on trademarks
and tradenames.
The purpose of the law is to point out distinctly the origin or
ownership of the article to which it is affixed, to secure to
him, who has been instrumental in bringing into a market a
superior article of merchandise, the fruit of his industry and
skill, and to prevent fraud and imposition. It is based on the
principle of business integrity and common justice.
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8293
The Intellectual Property Code of the
Philippines
TRADEMARKS, TRADENAMES, SERVICEMARKS
What acts are punishable?
1. Infringement
Elements:
1. Registration of TN, TM or SM
2. Use in commerce by another (inc. reproduction and
application of reproduction)
3. Use is without owner’s consent
4. Use is likely to cause confusion, cause mistake or
deceive
§ regardless of whether or not there is actual
sale
2. Unfair Competition
Elements:
1. Person has established goodwill (has identified in
the mind of the public his goods, business or
services), whether or not a registered mark is
employed
2. Another person passes of the goods he deals in
for those of the person who has established
goodwill
3. By means contrary to good faith (malice and
intent to deceive essential)l
The ff. are DEEMED to have committed unfair competition:
Criminal Law II Review Notes
(a) gives goods the general appearance of goods of another
or such appearance as is likely to deceive the public or
defraud another of his legitimate trade + to influence
purchasers to believe that the goods offered are those of
another + sells the goods (includes subsequent vendor and
agent of any vendor)
(b) induces the false belief that he is offering the services of
another who has established goodwill + by any artifice or
device
(c) makes any false statement in the course of trade or any
other act contrary to good faith + act or statement
calculated to discredit the business of another
3. False Designation of Origin / False Description of
Fact
Elements:
1. Uses in commerce any false designation of origin, false
description or representation of fact which:
is likely to deceive as to sponsorship or approval of
goods by another person
misrepresents nature, characteristics, qualities and
geographic origin of goods in commercial
advertising or promotion
PATENTS
What act are punishable?
Repetition of Infringement
Elements:
1. Existence of a final judgment against the offender
in a civil action for infringement of patent
2. Infringer or anyone in connivance with him
repeats the infringement after the finality of the
judgment
By the way, what is infringement with respect to patents?
It is the making, using, offering for sale, selling, or importing
of a (1) patented product or a product obtained directly or
indirectly from a patented process, or the use of a patented
process (2) without authorization of the patentee.
Prescription: The criminal action for repetition of
infringement of patent prescribes in three (3) years from
date of the commission of the crime.
COPYRIGHT
Who are punishable?
1. Any person infringing any right secured by the provisions
of the law on copyright (like copy or economic rights, moral
rights etc.) or of aiding or abetting such infringement;
2. Any person who at the time when copyright subsists in a
work has in his possession an article which he knows, or
ought to know, to be an infringing copy of the work for the
purpose of:
(a) Selling, letting for hire, or by way of
trade, offering or exposing for sale, or
55

hire, the article;
(b) Distributing the article for purposes
trade, or for any other purpose to
extent that will prejudice the rights
the copyright owner in the work; or
(c) Trade (?) exhibit of the articles
public.
B.P. BLG. 33
An Act Defining and Penalizing Certain Prohibited
Acts Inimical to Public Interest and National Security
Involving Petroleum and/or Petroleum Products
Punishable Acts:
a) Illegal trading in petroleum and/or petroleum
products;
b) Hoarding of petroleum and/or petroleum products;
c) Overpricing in the sale of petroleum and/or
petroleum products;
d) Misuse of petroleum allocations;
e) Speed contests and rallies involving mainly the use
of motor vehicles, motor-driven watercraft or
aircraft utilizing petroleum-derived fuels, including
motorcycle rallies and drag racing; and
f) Sky-diving and water skiing.
Ty v. NBI
G.R. No. 182147, 15 December 2010
FACTS: Accused is a director of Omni Gas Corp (OGC). After
several LPG firms complained that OGC was allegedly
engaged in the unauthorized refilling of LPG tanks, the NBI
investigated the matter and placed OGC under surveillance.
During a buy-bust operation in which the NBI successfully
bought LPG tanks from OGC, the latter’s personnel caught in
the act of refilling LPG tanks bearing the trademarks of
Pilipinas Shell, Petron and Total. B. P. Blg. 33 penalizes,
among others, the refilling of LPG tanks if performed without
the authorization of the owners of the trademarks/brands
emblazoned thereon. As such, Ty was convicted for violating
B. P. Blg. 33.
HELD: The High Court affirmed the conviction. The fact that
OGC refilled various branded LPG cylinders, even if owned
by its customers but without authority from brand owners
Petron, Pilipinas Shell and Total, shows palpable violation of
B. P. Blg. 33, as amended. Only the duly authorized dealers
and refillers of Shellane, Petron Gasul and, by extension,
Total may refill these branded LPG cylinders. B. P. Blg. 33
seeks to deter illegal refilling and similar pernicious practices
of unscrupulous businessmen.
R.A. No. 8792
E-Commerce Act
SECTION 25. Actions Related to Contracts of
Carriage of Goods. — Without derogating from the
provisions of Part Two of this Act, this Chapter applies to
any action in connection with, or in pursuance of, a
contract of carriage of goods, including but not limited to:
(a) (i) furnishing the marks, number, quantity
Criminal Law II Review Notes
or weight of goods;
of (ii) stating or declaring the nature or value of
an goods;
of (iii) issuing a receipt for goods;
(iv) confirming that goods have been loaded;
in
(b) (i) notifying a person of terms and
conditions of the contract;
(ii) giving instructions to a carrier;
(c) (i) claiming delivery of goods;
(ii) authorizing release of goods;
(iii) giving notice of loss of, or damage to
goods;
(d) giving any other notice or statement in connection
with the performance of the contract;
(e) undertaking to deliver goods to a named person
or a person authorized to claim delivery;
(f) granting, acquiring, renouncing, surrendering,
transferring or negotiating rights in goods;
(g) acquiring or transferring rights and obligations
under the contract.
SECTION 26. Transport Documents. — (1) Subject to
paragraph (3), where the law requires that any action
referred to in Section 25 be carried out in writing or by using
a paper document, that requirement is met if the action is
carried out by using one or more electronic data messages
or electronic documents.
(2) Paragraph (1) applies whether the requirement
therein is in the form of an obligation or whether the law
simply provides consequences for failing either to carry out
the action in writing or to use a paper document.
(3) If a right is to be granted to, or an obligation is to
be acquired by, one person and no other person, and if the
law requires that, in order to effect this, the right or
obligation must be conveyed to that person by the transfer,
or use of, a paper document, that requirement is met if the
right or obligation is conveyed by using one or more
electronic data messages or electronic documents: Provided,
That a reliable method is used to render such electronic data
messages or electronic documents unique.
(4) For the purposes of paragraph (3), the standard
of reliability required shall be assessed in the light of the
purpose for which the right or obligation was conveyed and
in the light of all the circumstances, including any relevant
agreement.
(5) Where one or more electronic data messages or
electronic documents are used to effect any action in
subparagraphs (f) and (g) of Section 25, no paper document
used to effect any such action is valid unless the use of
electronic data message or electronic document has been
terminated and replaced by the use of paper documents. A
paper document issued in these circumstances shall contain
a statement of such termination. The replacement of
electronic data messages or electronic documents by paper
documents shall not affect the rights or obligations of the
parties involved.
(6) If a rule of law is compulsorily applicable to a
contract of carriage of goods which is in, or is evidenced by,
a paper document, that rule shall not be inapplicable to such
a contract of carriage of goods which is evidenced by one or
more electronic data messages or electronic documents by
reason of the fact that the contract is evidenced by such
electronic data message or electronic documents instead of
56

by a paper document.
SECTION 30. Extent of Liability of a Service Provider.
— Except as otherwise provided in this Section, no person or
party shall be subject to any civil or criminal liability in
respect of the electronic data message or electronic
document for which the person or party acting as a service
provider as defined in Section 5, merely provides access if
such liability is founded on —
a.) The obligations and liabilities of the parties under the
electronic data message or electronic document;
b.) The making, publication, dissemination or distribution of
such material or any statement made in such material,
including possible infringement of any right subsisting in or
in relation to such material: Provided, That
i.The service provider does not have actual
knowledge, or is not aware of the facts or circumstances
from which it is apparent, that the making, publication,
dissemination or distribution of such material is unlawful or
infringes any rights subsisting in or in relation to such
material;
ii.The service provider does not knowingly receive
a financial benefit directly attributable to the unlawful or
infringing activity; and
iii.The service provider does not directly commit
any infringement or other unlawful act and does not induce
or cause another person or party to commit any
infringement or other unlawful act and/or does not benefit
financially from the infringing activity or unlawful act of
another person or party: Provided, further, That nothing in
this Section shall affect —
a)Any obligation founded on contract;
b)The obligation of a service provider as such
under a licensing or other regulatory regime established
under written law; or
c)Any obligation imposed under any written law;
d)The civil liability of any party to the extent that
such liability forms the basis for injunctive relief issued by a
court under any law requiring that the service provider take
or refrain from actions necessary to remove, block or deny
access to any material, or to preserve evidence of a violation
of law.
SECTION 31. Lawful Access. — Access to an
electronic file, or an electronic signature of an electronic
data message or electronic document shall only be
authorized and enforced in favor of the individual or entity
having a legal right to the possession or the use of the
plaintext, electronic signature or file and solely for the
authorized purposes. The electronic key for identity or
integrity shall not be made available to any person or party
without the consent of the individual or entity in lawful
possession of that electronic key.
SECTION 32. Obligation of Confidentiality. — Except
for the purposes authorized under this Act, any person who
obtained access to any electronic key, electronic data
message or electronic document, book, register,
correspondence, information, or other material pursuant to
any powers conferred under this Act, shall not convey to or
share the same with any other person.
SECTION 33. Penalties. — The following Acts shall be
penalized by fine and/or imprisonment, as follows:
a) Hacking or cracking which refers to unauthorized
Criminal Law II Review Notes
access into or interference in a computer
system/server or information and communication
system; or any access in order to corrupt, alter,
steal, or destroy using a computer or other similar
information and communication devices, without
the knowledge and consent of the owner of the
computer or information and communication
system, including the introduction of computer
viruses and the like, resulting in the corruption,
destruction, alteration, theft or loss of electronic
data messages or electronic documents shall be
punished by a minimum fine of One hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) and a maximum
commensurate to the damage incurred and a
mandatory imprisonment of six (6) months to
three (3) years;
b) Piracy or the unauthorized copying, reproduction,
dissemination, distribution, importation, use,
removal, alteration, substitution, modification,
storage, uploading, downloading, communication,
making available to the public, or broadcasting of
protected material, electronic signature or
copyrighted works including legally protected
sound recordings or phonograms or information
material on protected works, through the use of
telecommunication networks, such as, but not
limited to, the internet, in a manner that infringes
intellectual property rights shall be punished by a
minimum fine of One hundred thousand pesos
(P100,000.00) and a maximum commensurate to
the damage incurred and a mandatory
imprisonment of six (6) months to three (3) years;
c) Violations of the Consumer Act or Republic Act No.
7394 and other relevant or pertinent laws through
transactions covered by or using electronic data
messages or electronic documents, shall be
penalized with the same penalties as provided in
those laws;
d) Other violations of the provisions of this Act, shall
be penalized with a maximum penalty of One
million pesos (P1,000,000.00) or six (6) years
imprisonment.
R.A. No. 9160
ANTI-MONEY LAUNDERING ACT OF 2001, AS
AMENDED BY RA 9194
SECTION 3. Definitions. — For purposes of this Act,
the following terms are hereby defined as follows:
(a) “Covered Institution” refers to:
(1) banks, non-banks, quasi-banks, trust entities,
and all other institutions and their subsidiaries and
affiliates supervised or regulated by the Bangko
Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP);
(2) insurance companies and all other institutions
supervised or regulated by the Insurance
Commission; and
(3) (i) securities dealers, brokers, salesmen,
investment houses and other similar
entities managing securities or
rendering services as investment agent,
advisor, or consultant,
(ii) mutual funds, close-end investment
companies, common trust funds, pre-
57

need companies and other similar
entities,
(iii) foreign exchange corporations,
money changers, money payment,
remittance, and transfer companies and
other similar entities, and
(iv) other entities administering or
otherwise dealing in currency,
commodities or financial derivatives
based thereon, valuable objects, cash
substitutes and other similar monetary
instruments or property supervised or
regulated by Securities and Exchange
Commission.
(b) ‘Covered transaction’ is a transaction in cash or
other equivalent monetary instrument involving a total
amount in excess of Five hundred thousand pesos
(P500,000.00) within one (1) banking day. (as amended by
RA 9194)
(b-1) ‘Suspicious transactions’ are transactions with
covered institutions, regardless of the amounts involved,
where any of the following circumstances exist:
(1) there is no underlying legal or trade obligation,
purpose or economic justification;
(2) the client is not properly identified;
(3) the amount involved is not commensurate with
the business or financial capacity of the client;
(4) taking into account all known circumstances, it
may be perceived that the client's transaction is
structured in order to avoid being the subject of
reporting requirements under the Act;
(5) any circumstance relating to the transaction
which is observed to deviate from the profile of
the client and/or the client's past transactions with
the covered institution;
(6) the transaction is in any way related to an
unlawful activity or offense under this Act that is
about to be, is being or has been committed; or
(7) any transaction that is similar or analogous to
any of the foregoing.
(c) “Monetary instrument” refers to:
(1) coins or currency of legal tender of the
Philippines, or of any other country;
(2) drafts. checks and notes;
(3) securities or negotiable instruments,
bonds, commercial papers, deposit certificates,
trust certificates, custodial receipts or deposit
substitute instruments, trading orders, transaction
tickets and confirmations of sale or investments
and money marked instruments; and
(4) other similar instruments where title
thereto passes to another by endorsement,
assignment or delivery.
(d) "Offender" refers to any person who commits a
money laundering offense.
(e) "Person" refers to any natural or juridical person.
(f) "Proceeds" refers to an amount derived or realized
from an unlawful activity.
(g) “Supervising Authority” refers to the appropriate
supervisory or regulatory agency, department or office
Criminal Law II Review Notes
supervising or regulating the covered institutions
enumerated in Section 3(a).
(h) “Transaction” refers to any act establishing any
right or obligation or giving rise to any contractual or legal
relationship between the parties thereto. It also includes any
movement of funds by any means with a covered institution.
(i) “Unlawful activity” refers to any act or omission or
series or combination thereof involving or having direct
relation to the following:
(1) Kidnapping for ransom under Art. 267
of Act 3815, otherwise known as the RPC, as
amended;
(2) Sections 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 13, 14,
15, and 16 of RA 9165, otherwise known as the
Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002;
(3) Sect. 3 pars. B, C, E, G, H and I of RA
3019, as amended, otherwise known as the Anti-
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act;
(4) Plunder under RA 7080, as amended;
(5) Robbery and extortion under Arts. 294,
295, 296, 299, 300, 301 and 302 of the RPC, as
amended;
(6) Jueteng and Masiao punished as illegal
gambling under PD 1602;
(7) Piracy on the high seas under the RPC,
as amended, and PD 532;
(8) Qualified theft under Art 310 of the
RPC, as amended;
(9) Swindling under Art 315 of the RPC, as
amended;
(10) Smuggling under RAs 455 and 1937;
(11) Violations under RA 8792, otherwise
known as the Electronic Commerce Act of 2000;
(12) Hijacking and other violations under RA
6235; destructive arson and murder, as defined
under the RPC, as amended, including those
perpetrated by terrorists against non-combatant
persons and similar targets;
(13) Fraudulent practices and other
violations under RA 8799, otherwise known as the
Securities Regulation Code of 2000;
(14) Felonies or offenses of a similar nature
that are punishable under the penal laws of other
countries.
SECTION 4. Money Laundering Offense. — Money
laundering is a crime whereby the proceeds of an unlawful
activity as herein defined are transacted, thereby making
them appear to have originated from legitimate sources. It
is committed by the following:
(a) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property represents, involves, or relates to,
the proceeds of any unlawful activity, transacts or attempts
to transact said monetary instrument or property.
(b) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property involves the proceeds of any
unlawful activity, performs or fails to perform any act as a
result of which he facilitates the offense of money
laundering referred to in paragraph (a) above.
(c) Any person knowing that any monetary
instrument or property is required under this Act to be
disclosed and filed with the Anti-Money Laundering Council
(AMLC), fails to do so.
58

SECTION 9. (c) Reporting of Covered and Suspicious
Transactions. — Covered institutions shall report to the
AMLC all covered transactions and suspicious transactions
within 5 working days from occurrence thereof, unless the
Supervising Authority prescribes a longer period not
exceeding 10 working days.
Should a transaction be determined to be both a covered
transaction and a suspicious transaction, the covered
institution shall be required to report the same as a
suspicious transaction.
When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the
AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and employees
shall not be deemed to have violated RA 1405, as amended;
RA 6426, as amended, RA 8791 and other similar laws, but
are prohibited from communicating, directly or indirectly, in
any manner or by any means, to any person, the fact that a
covered or suspicious transaction report was made, the
contents thereof, or any other information in relation
thereto. In case of violation thereof, the concerned officer
and employee of the covered institution shall be criminally
liable. However, no administrative, criminal or civil
proceedings, shall lie against any person for having made a
covered or suspicious transaction report in the regular
performance of his duties in good faith, whether or not such
reporting results in any criminal prosecution under this Act
or any other law.
When reporting covered or suspicious transactions to the
AMLC, covered institutions and their officers and employees
are prohibited from communicating directly or indirectly, in
any manner or by any means, to any person or entity, the
media, the fact that a covered or suspicious transaction
report was made, the contents thereof, or any other
information in relation thereto. Neither may such reporting
be published or aired in any manner or form by the mass
media, electronic mail, or other similar devices. In case of
violation thereof, the concerned officer and employee of the
covered institution and media shall be held criminally liable.
SECTION 14. Penal Provisions. —
(a) Penalties for the Crime of Money Laundering. The
penalty of imprisonment ranging from 7 to 14 years and a
fine of not less than P3,000,000 but not more than twice the
value of the monetary instrument or property involved in the
offense, shall be imposed upon a person convicted under
Section 4(a) of this Act.
The penalty of imprisonment from 4 to 7 years and a fine of
not less than P1,500,000 but not more than P3,000,000,
shall be imposed upon a person convicted under Section
4(b) of this Act.
The penalty of imprisonment from 6 months to 4 years or a
fine of not less than P100,000 but not more than P500,000,
or both, shall be imposed on a person convicted under
Section 4(c) of this Act.
(b) Penalties for Failure to Keep Records. The penalty
of imprisonment from 6 months to one 1 year or a fine of
not less than P100,000 but not more than P500,000, or
both, shall be imposed on a person convicted under Section
9(b) of this Act.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
(c) Malicious Reporting. Any person who, with malice,
or in bad faith, reports or files a completely unwarranted or
false information relative to money laundering transaction
against any person shall be subject to a penalty of 6 months
to 4 years imprisonment and a fine of not less than
P100,000 but not more than P500,000, at the discretion of
the court:
Provided, That the offender is not entitled to avail the
benefits of the Probation Law.
If the offender is a corporation, association, partnership or
any juridical person, the penalty shall be imposed upon the
responsible officers, as the case may be, who participated
in, or allowed by their gross negligence, the commission of
the crime. If the offender is a juridical person, the court may
suspend or revoke its license. If the offender is an alien, he
shall, in addition to the penalties herein prescribed, be
deported without further proceedings after serving the
penalties herein prescribed. If the offender is a public official
or employee, he shall, in addition to the penalties prescribed
herein, suffer perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification from office, as the case may be.
Any public official or employee who is called upon to testify
and refuses to do the same or purposely fails to testify shall
suffer the same penalties prescribed herein.
(d) Breach of Confidentiality. The punishment of
imprisonment ranging from 3 to 8 years and a fine of not
less than P500,000 but not more than P1,000,000 shall be
imposed on a person convicted for a violation under Section
9(c).
In the case of a breach of confidentiality that is published or
reported by media, the responsible reporter, writer,
president, publisher, manager and editor-in-chief shall be
liable under this Act.
R.A. No. 7394
CONSUMER ACT OF THE PHILIPPINES
Consumer Product Quality and Safety
Art 18. Prohibited Acts - It shall be unlawful for any
person to:
a. manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute in
commerce, or import into the Philippines any consumer
product which is not in conformity with an applicable
consumer product quality or safety standard promulgated in
this Act;
b. manufacture for sale, offer for sale, distribute in
commerce, or import into the Philippines any consumer
product which has been declared as banned consumer
product by a rule in this Act;
c. refuse access to or copying of pertinent records or
fail or refuse to permit entry of or inspection by authorized
officers or employees of the department;
d. fail to comply with an order issued under Article 11
relating to notifications of substantial product hazards and to
recall, repair, replacement or refund of unsafe products;
e. fail to comply with the rule prohibiting stockpiling.
59

Food, Drugs, Cosmetics and Devices
Art 40. Prohibited Acts- The following acts and the
causing thereof are hereby prohibited:
a) the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale,
offering for sale, distribution or transfer of any food, drug,
device or cosmetic that is adulterated or mislabeled;
b) the adulteration or misbranding of any food,
drug, device, or cosmetic;
c) the refusal to permit entry or inspection as
authorized by Article 36 to allow samples to be collected;
d) the giving of a guaranty or undertaking referred
to in Article 41(b) hereof which guaranty or undertaking is
false, except by a person who relied upon a guaranty or
undertaking to the same effect signed by, and containing the
name and address of, the person residing in the Philippines
from whom he received in good faith the food, drug, device,
or cosmetic or the giving of a guaranty or undertaking
referred to in Article 41(b) which guaranty or undertaking is
false;
e) forging, counterfeiting, simulating, or falsely
representing or without proper authority using any mark,
stamp, tag, label, or other identification device authorized or
required by regulations promulgated under the provisions of
this Act;
f) the using by any person to his own advantage,
or revealing, other than to the Department or to the courts
when relevant in any judicial proceeding under this Act, any
information concerning any method or process which as a
trade secret is entitled to protection;
g) the alteration, mutilation, destruction,
obliteration, or removal of the whole or any part of the
labeling of, or the doing of any other act with respect to a
food, drug, device, or cosmetic, if such act is done while
such product is held for sale (whether or not the first sale)
and results in such product being adulterated or mislabeled;
h) the use, on the labeling of any drug or in any
advertising relating to such drug, of any representation or
suggestion that an application with respect to such drug is
effective under Article 31 hereof, or that such drug complies
with the provisions of such articles;
i) the use, in labeling, advertising or other sales
promotion, of any reference to any report or analysis
furnished in compliance with Section 19 of Executive Order
175, series of 1987;
j) the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale,
offering for sale, distribution, or transfer of any drug or
device which is not registered with the Department pursuant
to this Act;
k) the manufacture, importation, exportation, sale,
offering for sale, distribution, or transfer of any drug or
device by any person without the license from the
Department required in this Act;
l) the sale or offering for sale of any drug or device
beyond its expiration or expiry date;
m) the release for sale or distribution of a batch of
drugs without batch certification when required under Article
34 hereof.
Hazardous Substance
Art. 46. Prohibited Acts- It shall be unlawful for any
person to:
a) introduce or deliver for introduction into
Criminal Law II Review Notes
commerce of any mislabeled hazardous substance or banned
hazardous substance;
b) alter, mutilate, destroy, obliterate or remove the
whole or any part of the label of a mislabeled hazardous
substance, or banned hazardous substance, if such act is
done while the substance is in commerce or while the
substance is held for sale, whether or not it is the first sale;
c) receive in commerce any mislabeled hazardous
substance or banned hazardous substance and the delivery
or preferred delivery thereof at cost or otherwise;
d) give the guaranty or undertaking referred to in
paragraph (b) of Article 93 and paragraph (b) of Article 45 if
such guaranty or undertaking if false, except by a person
who relied upon a guaranty or undertaking which he
received in good faith;
e) introduce or deliver for introduction into
commerce or receive in commerce and subsequently deliver
or preferred at cost or otherwise, or a hazardous substance
in a reused food, drug, cosmetic or device container or in a
container which, though not a reused container, is
identifiable as a food, drug, cosmetic or device container by
its labeling or by other identification. The use of a used food,
drug, cosmetic or device container for a hazardous
substance does not diminish the danger posed by the
hazardous substance involved, therefore, such substance
shall be deemed a mislabeled hazardous substance.
xxx xxx xxx
Art. 50. Prohibition against Deceptive Sales Acts or
Practices - A deceptive act or practice by a seller or
supplier in connection with a consumer transaction violates
this Act whether it occurs before, during or after the
transaction. An act or practice shall be deemed deceptive
whenever the producer, manufacturer, supplier or seller,
through concealment, false representation or fraudulent
manipulation, induces a consumer to enter into a sales or
lease transaction of any consumer product or service. cdtai
Without limiting the scope of the above paragraph, the act
or practice of a seller or supplier is deceptive when it
represents that:
a) a consumer product or service has the
sponsorship, approval, performance, characteristics,
ingredients, accessories, uses, or benefits it does not have;
b) a consumer product or service is of a particular
standard, quality, grade, style, or model when in fact it is
not;
c) a consumer product is new, original or unused,
when in fact, it is in a deteriorated, altered, reconditioned,
reclaimed or second-hand state;
d) a consumer product or service is available to the
consumer for a reason that is different from the fact;
e) a consumer product or service has been supplied
in accordance with the previous representation when in fact
it is not;
f) a consumer product or service can be supplied
in a quantity greater than the supplier intends;
g) a service, or repair of a consumer product is
needed when in fact it is not;
h) a specific price advantage of a consumer
product exists when in fact it does not;
i) the sales act or practice involves or does not
involve a warranty, a disclaimer of warranties, particular
warranty terms or other rights, remedies or obligations if the
indication is false; and
j) the seller or supplier has a sponsorship,
approval, or affiliation he does not have.
60

Art. 52. Unfair or Unconscionable Sales Act or
Practice- An unfair or unconscionable sales act or practice
by a seller or supplier in connection with a consumer
transaction violates this Chapter whether it occurs before,
during or after the consumer transaction. An act or practice
shall be deemed unfair or unconscionable whenever the
producer, manufacturer, distributor, supplier or seller, by
taking advantage of the consumer’s physical or mental
infirmity, ignorance, illiteracy, lack of time or the general
conditions of the environment or surroundings, induces the
consumer to enter into a sales or lease transaction grossly
inimical to the interests of the consumer or grossly one-
sided in favor of the producer, manufacturer, distributor,
supplier or seller.
In determining whether an act or practice is unfair and
unconscionable, the following circumstances shall be
considered:
a) that the producer, manufacturer, distributor,
supplier or seller took advantage of the inability of the
consumer to reasonably protect his interest because of his
inability to understand the language of an agreement, or
similar factors;
b) that when the consumer transaction was
entered into, the price grossly exceeded the price at which
similar products or services were readily obtainable in similar
transaction by like consumers;
c) that when the consumer transaction was entered
into, the consumer was unable to receive a substantial
benefit from the subject of the transaction;
d) that when the consumer transaction was
entered into, the seller or supplier was aware that there was
no reasonable probability or payment of the obligation in full
by the consumer; and
e) that the transaction that the seller or supplier
induced the consumer to enter into was excessively one-
sided in favor of the seller or supplier.
Regulation of Practices Relative to Weights and
Measures
Art. 64. Prohibited Acts
Fraudulent Practices Relative to Weights and
Measures. — The following acts relating to weights and
measures are prohibited:
a) for any person other than the official sealer or
his duly authorized representative to place or attach an
official tag, seal, sticker, mark, stamp, brand or other
characteristic sign used to indicate that such instrument of
weight and measure has officially been tested, calibrated,
sealed or inspected;
b) for any person to imitate any seal, sticker, mark,
stamp, brand, tag or other characteristic sign used to
indicate that such instrument of weight or measures has
been officially tested, calibrated, sealed or inspected;
c) for any person other than the official sealer or
his duly authorized representative to alter in any way the
certificate or receipt given by the official sealer or his duly
authorized representative as an acknowledgment that the
instrument for determining weight or measure has been fully
tested, calibrated, sealed or inspected;
d) for any person to make or knowingly sell or use
any false or counterfeit seal, sticker, brand, stamp, tag,
Criminal Law II Review Notes
certificate or license or any dye for printing or making the
same or any characteristic sign used to indicate that such
instrument of weight or measure has been officially tested,
calibrated, sealed or inspected;
e) for any person other than the official sealer or
his duly authorized representative to alter the written or
printed figures, letters or symbols on any official seal,
sticker, receipt, stamp, tag, certificate or license used or
issued;
f) for any person to use or reuse any restored,
altered, expired, damaged stamp, tag certificate or license
for the purpose of making it appear that the instrument of
weight of measure has been tested, calibrated, sealed or
inspected;
g) for any person engaged in the buying and selling
of consumer products or of furnishing services the value of
which is estimated by weight or measure to possess, use or
maintain with intention to use any scale, balance, weight or
measure that has not been sealed or if previously sealed,
the license therefor has expired and has not been renewed
in due time;
h) for any person to fraudulently alter any scale,
balance, weight or measure after it is officially sealed;
i) for any person to knowingly use any false scale,
balance, weight or measure, whether sealed or not;
j) for any person to fraudulently give short weight
or measure in the making of a scale;
k) for any person, assuming to determine truly the
weight or measure of any article bought or sold by weight or
measure, to fraudulently misrepresent the weight or
measure thereof; or
l) for any person to procure the commission of any
such offense abovementioned by another.
Instruments officially sealed at some previous time which
have remained unaltered and accurate and the seal or tag
officially affixed thereto remains intact and in the same
position and condition in which it was placed by the official
sealer or his duly authorized representative shall, if
presented for sealing, be sealed promptly on demand by the
official sealer or his authorized representative without
penalty except a surcharge fixed by law or regulation.
Labelling and Fair Packaging
Art 76. Prohibited Acts on Labeling and Packaging- It
shall be unlawful for any person, either as principal or agent,
engaged in the labeling or packaging of any consumer
product, to display or distribute or to cause to be displayed
or distributed in commerce any consumer product whose
package or label does not conform to the provisions of this
Chapter.
The prohibition in this Chapter shall not apply to persons
engaged in the business of wholesale or retail distributors of
consumer products except to the extent that such persons:
a) are engaged in the packaging or labeling of such
products;
b) prescribe or specify by any means the manner in
which such products are packaged or labeled; or
c) having knowledge, refuse to disclose the source
of the mislabeled or mispackaged products.
False, Deceptive and Misleading Advertisements
ARTICLE 110. False, Deceptive or Misleading
61

Advertisement. — It shall be unlawful for any person to
disseminate or to cause the dissemination of any false,
deceptive or misleading advertisement by Philippine mail or
in commerce by print, radio, television, outdoor
advertisement or other medium for the purpose of inducing
or which is likely to induce directly or indirectly the purchase
of consumer products or services.
An advertisement shall be false, deceptive or misleading if it
is not in conformity with the provisions of this Act or if it is
misleading in a material respect. In determining whether any
advertisement is false, deceptive or misleading, there shall
be taken into account, among other things, not only
representations made or any combination thereof, but also
the extent to which the advertisement fails to reveal material
facts in the light of such representations, or materials with
respect to consequences which may result from the use or
application of consumer products or services to which the
advertisement relates under the conditions prescribed in said
advertisement, or under such conditions as are customary or
usual.
R.A. No.s 8203
Special Law on Counterfeit Drugs
What are counterfeit drugs?
Counterfeit drug/medicine refers to medicinal
products:
§ with the correct ingredients but not in the amounts
as provided hereunder,
§ wrong ingredients,
§ without active ingredients,
§ with insufficient quantity of active ingredient,
which results in the reduction of the drug's safety,
efficacy, quality, strength or purity. It is a drug which is
deliberately and fraudulently mislabeled with respect to
identity and/or source or with fake packaging, and can apply
to both branded and generic products. It shall also refer to:
the drug itself, or the container or labeling thereof or any
part of such drug, container or labeling bearing without
authorization the trademark, trade name or other
identification mark or imprint or any likeness to that
which is owned or registered in the Bureau of Patent,
Trademark and Technology Transfer (BPTTT) in the
name of another natural or juridical person;
a drug product refilled in containers by unauthorized
persons if the legitimate labels or marks are used;
an unregistered imported drug product, except drugs
brought in the country for personal use as confirmed
and justified by accompanying medical records; and
a drug which contains no amount of, or a different active
ingredient, or less than eighty percent (80%) of the
active ingredient it purports to possess, as
distinguished from an adulterated drug including
reduction or loss of efficacy due to expiration.
What are the prohibited acts under the law?
1. The manufacture, sale, offering for sale,
donation, distribution, trafficking, brokering,
exportation, or importation or possession of
Criminal Law II Review Notes
counterfeit drugs.
The presence or availability of such counterfeit drugs
within the premises of any entity engaged in the sale,
manufacture or distribution of drugs and/or
pharmaceutical products or in a private residence, or in
public or private vehicle, or in the premises not covered
by a valid license to operate from the Bureau, shall
constitute a prima facie evidence of violation of this
Act.
This presumption shall not apply to the legitimate
owners of trademarks, trade names or other identifying
marks, or the legitimate or authorized representatives
or agents of such owners, who have in their possession
counterfeit drugs which bear the trademarks, trade
names or marks if they can show the sales invoices or
official receipts evidencing their purchase from a
drugstore, manufacturer or distributor suspected by
them of dealing in counterfeit drugs involving the
trademarks, trade names and other similar identifying
marks registered in their names. Such counterfeit
products shall be reported and immediately turned over
to the Bureau.
Compliance with the preceding proviso shall be made
within a reasonable period from the date of purchase
of such counterfeit drugs as indicated in the sales
invoice, official receipt, or other similar documents
abovementioned to the time the counterfeit drugs are
reported and turned over to the Bureau.
2. Possession of any such counterfeit drugs.
However, any person found in possession of counterfeit
drugs in violation of this subsection, shall be excepted
from liability under the provisions of this Act after:
presentation of sales invoices, official receipts, or other
legally acceptable documents evidencing his
purchase thereof from a drugstore, distributor,
manufacture, hospital pharmacy or dispensary, or
any other person or place duly licensed to sell
and/or dispense drugs or medicines, and
indicating therein the batch and lot numbers, as
well as the expiry dates such drugs; or
presentation of certificates and other documents
evidencing the importation or exportation of the
counterfeit drugs found in his possession as
required by existing laws including those
documents required in the preceding paragraph
covering the commercial transactions involving
counterfeit drugs.
In both cases, the subject counterfeit must not on
their face, appear to be as such, or do not bear
any marking or any patently unusual characteristic
sufficient to arouse the suspicion of a reasonable
and prudent person that such drugs are
counterfeit. Furthermore, the amount or volume
of counterfeit drugs held is such that it does not
negate or is inconsistent with the averment that
the same are for personal use, notwithstanding
the presentation by the possession of medical
records and other similar documents
accompanying and justifying the use of such
drugs.
62

3. Forging, counterfeiting, simulating or falsely
representing, or without proper authority, using
any mark, stamp, tag, label or other identification mark
or device authorized or required by Republic Act No.
3720, as amended, and/or the regulations promulgated
under this Act.
4. Photocopying, duplicating, altering, printing,
transferring, obliterating or removing the
approved label or any part thereof, lawfully
belonging to another person, for the purpose of using
such label or a part thereof on any counterfeit drug.
That if the person who committed any of the acts
enumerated in this paragraph and the person who used
the labels produced thereby are not one and the same
person and the former had knowledge of the purpose
for which the labels are intended, the former shall also
be liable under this Act notwithstanding the failure of
the latter to achieve the intended purpose; and
5. Making, selling, or concealing any punch, dye,
plate or any other equipment or instrument
designed to print, imprint or reproduce the
trademark, trade name or other identifying mark
of another registered producer or any likeness thereof,
upon any drug product or device or its container or
label without authority from the legitimate owners of
the trademark or trade name.
Who are liable?
a) the manufacturer, exporter or importer of the
counterfeit drugs and their agents. The agents shall be
liable only upon proof of actual or constructive
knowledge that the drugs are counterfeit;
b) the seller, distributor, trafficker, broker or donor and
their agents, upon proof of actual or constructive
knowledge that the drugs sold, distributed, offered or
donated are counterfeit drugs;
c) the possessor of counterfeit drugs as provided in
Section 4 (b) hereof;
d) the manager, operator or lessee of the laboratory
facilities used in the manufacture of counterfeit drugs;
e) the owner, proprietor, administrator or manager of the
drugstore, hospital pharmacy or dispensary, laboratory
or other outlets or premises where the counterfeit drug
is found who induces, causes or allows the commission
of any act herein prohibited;
f) the registered pharmacist of the outlet where the
counterfeit drug is sold or found who, sells or
dispenses such drug to a third party and who has
actual or constructive knowledge that said drug is
counterfeit; and
g) should the offense be committed by a juridical person,
the president, general manager, the managing partner,
chief operating officer or the person who directly
induces, causes or knowingly allows the commission of
the offense shall be penalized.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
P.D. NO. 957
An Act Regulating the Sale of Subdivision Lots and
Condominiums, Providing Penalties for Violations
Thereof
Section 9. Revocation of registration certificate and
license to sell. The Authority may, motu proprio or upon
verified complaint filed by a buyer of a subdivision lot or
condominium unit, revoke the registration of any subdivision
project or condominium project and the license to sell any
subdivision lot or condominium unit in said project by issuing
an order to this effect, with his findings in respect thereto, if
upon examination into the affairs of the owner or dealer
during a hearing as provided for in Section 14 hereof, if shall
appear there is satisfactory evidence that the said owner or
dealer:
(a) Is insolvent; or
(b) has violated any of the provisions of this Decree or any
applicable rule or regulation of the Authority, or any
undertaking of his/its performance bond; or
(c) Has been or is engaged or is about to engage in
fraudulent transactions; or
(d) Has made any misrepresentation in any prospectus,
brochure, circular or other literature about the subdivision
project or condominium project that has been distributed to
prospective buyers; or
(e) Is of bad business repute; or
(f) Does not conduct his business in accordance with law or
sound business principles.
Where the owner or dealer is a partnership or corporation or
an unincorporated association, it shall be sufficient cause for
cancellation of its registration certificate and its license to
sell, if any member of such partnership or any officer or
director of such corporation or association has been guilty of
any act or omission which would be cause for refusing or
revoking the registration of an individual dealer, broker or
salesman as provided in Section 11 hereof.
Section 12. Revocation of registration as dealers, brokers or
salesmen. Registration under the preceding section may be
refused or any registration granted thereunder, revoked by
the Authority if, after reasonable notice and hearing, it shall
determine that such applicant or registrant:
1. Has violated any provision of this Decree or any rule or
regulation made hereunder; or
2. Has made a material false statement in his application for
registration; or
3. Has been guilty of a fraudulent act in connection with any
sale of a subdivision lot or condominium unit; or
4. Has demonstrated his unworthiness to transact the
business of dealer, broker, or salesman, as the case may be.
In case of charges against a salesman, notice thereof shall
also be given the broker or dealer employing such salesman.
Pending hearing of the case, the Authority shall have the
power to order the suspension of the dealer's, broker's, of
salesman's registration; provided, that such order shall state
the cause for the suspension.
The suspension or revocation of the registration of a dealer
or broker shall carry with it all the suspension or revocation
of the registrations of all his salesmen.
Section 19. Advertisements. Advertisements that may be
63

made by the owner or developer through newspaper, radio,
television, leaflets, circulars or any other form about the
subdivision or the condominium or its operations or activities
must reflect the real facts and must be presented in such
manner that will not tend to mislead or deceive the public.
The owner or developer shall answerable and liable for the
facilities, improvements, infrastructures or other forms of
development represented or promised in brochures,
advertisements and other sales propaganda disseminated by
the owner or developer or his agents and the same shall
form part of the sales warranties enforceable against said
owner or developer, jointly and severally. Failure to comply
with these warranties shall also be punishable in accordance
with the penalties provided for in this Decree.
Section 22. Alteration of Plans. No owner or developer shall
change or alter the roads, open spaces, infrastructures,
facilities for public use and/or other form of subdivision
development as contained in the approved subdivision plan
and/or represented in its advertisements, without the
permission of the Authority and the written conformity or
consent of the duly organized homeowners association, or in
the absence of the latter, by the majority of the lot buyers in
the subdivision.
Cabral v. Uy
G.R. No. 174584, 15 December 2010
FACTS: Uy and other accused were officers of Moldex
Realty, Inc. (MRI). They were charged for violating P. D. No.
957 since MRI allegedly sold subdivision lots without an
HLURB license. After the case was filed, MRI was later
issued the requisite license by the HLURB. Uy and his co-
accused claimed that the subsequent issuance of the HLURB
license absolved them from criminal liability, and moved to
dismiss the charges.
HELD: Dismissal of the charges is unwarranted. P.D. No. 957
has been enacted to regulate for the public good the sale of
subdivision lots and condominiums. It prohibits such sale
without the prior issuance of an HLURB license, and
punishes those who engage in such selling. The crime is
regarded as malum prohibitum since P.D. 957 is a special
law designed to protect the welfare of society and ensure
the carrying on of the purposes of civil life. It is the
commission of that act as defined by law, not its character
or effect that determines whether or not its provision has
been violated. Malice or criminal intent is immaterial in such
crime. In crimes that are mala prohibita, the forbidden acts
might not be inherently immoral. Still they are punished
because the law says they are forbidden. With these crimes,
the sole issue is whether the law has been violated. Hence,
the subsequent issuance of the license and the invocation of
Criminal Law II Review Notes
good faith cannot reach back to erase the offense and
extinguish respondents Uy, et al.’s criminal liability.
Title Five
CRIMES RELATIVE TO OPIUM
& OTHER PROHIBITED DRUGS
R.A. No. 9165
The Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002
Acts Punished:
1. Importation of dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals
• Maximum penalty for any person who commits this act
through the use of
a. diplomatic passport / facilities
b. official status intended to facilitate unlawful entry
2. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation, delivery,
distribution and transportation of dangerous drugs and
/ or controlled precursors and essential chemicals
• Even brokers held criminally liable
• 12 years and 1 day to 20 years to protector or
"coddlers"
• Maximum penalty if :
a. done within 100 meters from the school
b. use of minors or mentally incapacitated persons as
runners, couriers, and messengers
c. victim of the offense is a minor or mentally
incapacitated individual
d. drug was proximate cause of the death
e. person who organizes, manages, or finances such
activities
3. Maintenance of den, dive or resort where dangerous
drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals are used or sold.
4. Being employees of the den, dive or resort:
a. Any employee of a den, dive, or resort who is
aware of the nature of the place as such
b. Any person who, not being included in the
provisions of the next preceding paragraph, is
aware of the nature of the place as such and shall
knowingly visit the same
5. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals
• Prima facie proof of manufacturing: presence of any
controlled precursor and essential chemical or
laboratory equipment in the clandestine laboratory
• Aggravating circumstance:
a. any phase of the manufacturing process was
conducted in the presence or with the help of
minors
b. any phase of the manufacturing process was
established or undertaken within 100 meters of a
residential, business, church or school premises
c. any clandestine laboratory was secured or
protected with booby traps
d. any clandestine laboratory was concealed with
legitimate business operations
e. any employment of a practitioner, chemical
64

engineer, public official or foreigner
6. Illegal diversion of any controlled precursor and
essential chemical
7. Manufacture or delivery of equipment, instrument,
apparatus, and other paraphernalia for dangerous
drugs and / or controlled precursors and essential
chemicals
• Includes instruments that will be used to inject, ingest,
inhale, or otherwise introduce into the human body a
dangerous drug
8. Possession of dangerous drug
9. Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus and
other paraphernalia for dangerous drugs
• Possession of such equipment shall be prima facie
evidence that the possessor has used the dangerous
drug (violation of Section 15 of the Act.
10. Possession of dangerous drugs during parties, social
gatherings or meetings will merit maximum penalty
regardless of quantity and purity
• Test: In the proximate company of at least two persons
11. Possession of equipment, instrument, apparatus for
dangerous drugs during parties, social gatherings, or
meetings merit maximum penalty
12. Use of dangerous drugs
Penalties:
1st offense: minimum of 6 months rehabilitation in a
government center
2nd offense: 6 yrs and 1 day to 12 years imprisonment
• This section will not apply where the person tested
positive is also found to have in his possession
dangerous drugs (section on "possession of dangerous
drugs" will apply)
13. Cultivation or culture of plants classified as dangerous
drugs
14. Maintenance and keeping of original records of
transactions on dangerous drugs and / or controlled
precursors and essential chemicals
15. Unnecessary prescription of dangerous drugs
16. Unlawful prescription of dangerous drugs
Other pertinent provisions:
• A person charged under this act shall not be allowed to
avail of the provision on plea-bargaining
• A person convicted of drug trafficking or pushing
cannot avail of the privilege granted by the Probation
Law
• Planting of evidence: Planting of any dangerous drugs
Criminal Law II Review Notes
and / or controlled precursors and essential chemicals
shall suffer the penalty of death
• A positive finding for the use of dangerous drugs shall
be a qualifying aggravating circumstance in the
commission of a crime by an offender
• Attempt or Conspiracy: any attempt or conspiracy to
commit the following shall be punishable:
1. Importation of dangerous drugs and / or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals
2. Sale, trading, administration, dispensation,
delivery, distribution and transportation of
dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors
and essential chemicals
3. Maintenance of den, dive or resort where
dangerous drugs and / or controlled precursors
and essential chemicals are used or sold
4. Manufacture of dangerous drugs and / or
controlled precursors and essential chemicals
5. Cultivation or culture of plants classified as
dangerous drugs
Note: Sec. 98. Limited Applicability of RPC to R.A. No.
9165- Notwithstanding any law, rule or regulation to the
contrary, the provisions of the RPC shall not apply to the
provisions of this Act, except in the case of minor
offenders. Where the offender is a minor, the penalty for
acts punishable by life imprisonment to death shall be
reclusion perpetua to death.
People v. Mariacos
G.R. No. 188611, 16 June 2010
FACTS: Accused, her companion and a policeman were
aboard a jeepney. The appearance of the women’s bags
matched those allegedly used by marijuana transporters in
the area, per an earlier police report known to the
policeman. He then became suspicious. When accused and
her companion alighted from a jeepney, a policeman also
alighted and approached them. After the policeman
introduced himself, accused’s companion ran. Accused was
brought to the precinct, where her bags were searched.
Several bricks of marijuana were discovered. Accused
claimed that these bricks did not belong to her, and she was
merely carrying them for a friend.
HELD: The Supreme Court found accused liable for illegal
possession of drugs. When a person is charged with illegal
possession or transportation of prohibited drugs, the
ownership thereof is immaterial. Consequently, proof of
ownership of the confiscated marijuana is not necessary.
Accused’s alleged lack of knowledge does not constitute a
valid defense. Lack of criminal intent and good faith are not
exempting circumstances where the crime charged is malum
prohibitum, as in this case.
People v. Noque
G.R. No. 175319, 15 January 2010
FACTS: A confidential informant went to the Western Police
District (WPD) to tip off on the drug trafficking activities of
the Joselito Noque. The buy-bust team, together with the
65
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

informant, proceeded and positioned themselves outside

Joselito Noque house. PO1 Balais and the informant
thereafter called out the appellant, who welcomed the two
and brought them to his bedroom. The informant asked the
appellant if he had P1,000.00 worth of methamphetamine
hydrochloride or shabu then pointed to PO1 Balais as the
actual buyer. When PO1 Balais handed the marked money to
the appellant, the latter brought out from under a table
a pranela bag from which he took two plastic sachets
containing white crystalline granules suspected to
be shabu. The informant slipped out of the house as the
pre-arranged signal to the buy-bust team that the sale had
been consummated.
HELD: The prosecution successfully proved that appellant
violated Section 15, Article III of RA 6425. The prosecution’s
evidence established the concurrence of the elements of an
illegal sale of a dangerous drug, to wit: (1) the identity of
the buyer and seller, object, and consideration; and (2) the
delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefor.
Illegal Sale/Possession/Use of Dangerous Drugs
Illegal Sale
In order to sustain a conviction for selling of prohibited
drugs, the element of sale must be unequivocally
established. What the law proscribes is not the only act of
selling but also the act of delivering. What is important is
that the poseur-buyer received the drugs from the accused
(People v. Ponferada, G.R. No. 101004, 17 March 1993).
Elements:
1. The identity of the buyer and the seller, the object and
the consideration of the sale; and
2. The delivery of the thing sold and the payment therefore.

In the instant case, the police officers conducted a buy-bust è Delivery necessarily involves the knowledge on the
operation after receiving confirmed surveillance reports that part of the one delivering that what he is
the appellant was engaged in the illicit sale of dangerous delivering are dangerous drugs. If there is no
drugs at No. 630 San Andres Street, Malate, Manila. PO1 evidence to show this knowledge, accused will b e
Balais, the designated poseur-buyer of the buy-bust team, acquitted.
personally identified the appellant as the person who è “Deliver” under R.A. No. 9165 is defined as
volunteered to sell to him P1,000.00 worth of white “knowingly passing a dangerous drug to another,
crystalline substance alleged to be shabu. The police officer personally or otherwise, and by any means, with
received this illegal merchandise after giving the appellant or without consideration (People v. Jumao-as, G.R.
the marked money as payment. Undoubtedly, the appellant No. 101334, 14 February 1999).
is guilty of selling a dangerous drug.
Illegal Possession of Dangerous Drugs
People v. Ditona
Elements:
G.R. No. 189841, 15 December 2010
1. The accused is in possession of an item or object, which is
In seizures covered by search warrants, the physical
identified to be prohibited or regulated drug;
inventory and photograph must be conducted in the place
2. Such possession is not authorized by law; and
where the search warrant was served. On the other hand, in
3. The accused freely and consciously possessed the drug
case of warrantless seizures such as a buy-bust operation,
the physical inventory and photograph shall be conducted at
Note: Constructive possession exists when the drug is under
the nearest police station or office of the apprehending
the dominion and control of the accused or when he has the
officer/team, whichever is practicable; however, nothing
right to exercise dominion and control over the person
prevents the apprehending officer/team from immediately
where it is found. Exclusive possession or control is not
conducting the physical inventory and photography of the
necessary (People v. Trinidad, G.R. No. 199898, 3
items at the place where they were seized, as it is more in
September 2014).
keeping with the law's intent of preserving their integrity and
evidentiary value.
Use of Dangerous Drugs
The accused was acquitted. To successfully prosecute an
Sec 15 of R.A. 9165 is not applicable if the person tested is
accused for selling illegal drugs, the prosecution has to
also found to have in his/her possession such quantity of
prove: (1) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the
any dangerous drug provided under Sec 11 (possession of
object, and the consideration; and (2) the delivery of the
dangerous drugs), in which case, the provisions stated
thing sold and the payment for it. In this case, the
therein will apply.
prosecution failed to establish the required chain of custody
of the prohibited drugs through the testimonies of the police
officers. While the RTC noted that SPO1 Flores and PO3
Ventura placed their initials, “AF” and “NV,” on the seized
drugs, they did not identify the markings as theirs during
People v. Camilo D. Nicart and Manuel Capanan
their direct testimonies, nor did they testify when and where
G.R. No. 182059, 4 July 2012
they made such markings. Moreover, they failed to show
how the seized drugs reached the laboratory technician who
FACTS: In this case, the accused were charged and
examined it and how the same were stored pending
convicted of violation of illegal sale and illegal possession of
turnover to the court.
dangerous drugs.

66

Sometime in July 2003, the authorities received information
that a certain “Milo” was engaged in drug pushing. Based
on this information, the authorities conducted a buy-bust
operation where the accused were arrested.
HELD: The Court, having found all the requisites of the
crime, affirmed the conviction of the accused and reiterated
the requisites for illegal sale of dangerous drugs which are
as follows:
(a) the identities of the buyer and the seller, the
object of the sale, and the consideration;
(b) the delivery of the thing sold and the payment for
the thing; and
(c) the presentation in court of the corpus delicti as
evidence
The Court also stated that the requisite of illegal possession
of dangerous drugs are likewise present. The Court
enumerated the requisites as follows:
(a) the accused is in possession of an item or object
that is identified to be prohibited or dangerous drug;
(b) such possession is not authorized by law; and
(c) the accused freely and consciously possessed the
drug.
People v. Catubay
G.R. No. 207517, 1 June 2016
FACTS: A team composed of the members of the
Intelligence Operatives Section of the PNP, PDEA, and NBI,
implemented a buy-bust operation against Amaro Catubay.
As planned, while the rest of the buy-bust team concealed
themselves and served as back-up, PO3 Abella approached
Catubay at the back portion of his house and negotiated for
the purchase of P200.00 worth of shabu. When Catubay
received the P200.00 marked money that PO3 Abella gave
him, he went inside the house. Going back, he handed over
to PO3 Abella a sachet of white crystalline substance. Upon
examination, PO3 Abella immediately told him that he is a
police officer and placed him under arrest. In reaction,
Catubay ran inside the house, but was chased and caught by
PO3 Abella. A body search conducted on him resulted in the
recovery of the marked bills inside his pocket.
The rest of the buy-bust team then entered Catubay's
residence to serve and implement the search warrant.
HELD: For a successful prosecution of illegal sale of
dangerous drugs under Section 5, Article II of R.A. 9165, the
following elements must be satisfied: (1) the identity of the
buyer and the seller, the object of the sale, and the
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment therefor. In the crime of illegal sale of dangerous
drugs, the delivery of the illicit drug to the poseur-buyer and
the receipt by the seller of the marked money consummate
the illegal transaction. What matters is the proof that the
transaction or sale actually took place, coupled with the
presentation in court of the prohibited drug, the corpus
delicti, as evidence.
In this case, the Court believes and so-holds that all the
requisites for the illegal sale of shabu were met. As
demonstrated by the testimonies of the prosecution
witnesses and the supporting documents they presented and
Criminal Law II Review Notes
offered, the identities of the buyer, the seller, the prohibited
drug, and the marked money, have all been proven by the
required quantum of evidence.
People v. Mendez
G.R. No. 194235, 15 June 2016
FACTS: Upon receipt of information that Mendez is engaged
in illegal drug activities, a buy-bust team was formed by
PDEA to apprehend Mendez. 5 IA3 George Cansancio was
designated as poseur buyer. The buy- bust money was
marked with "LSO." The informant and the poseur buyer
proceeded to the location while the rest of the buy-bust
team strategically positioned themselves at the target area.
Seeing the poseur buyer with the informant, Mendez asked
the former if he wanted to buy shabu. The poseur buyer
replied in the affirmative, stated the quantity when asked
how much he wanted to purchase, and immediately gave
the buy-bust money. Mendez then took out from his pocket
a silver container out of which he got the plastic sachet
containing the white crystalline substance believed to be
shabu. After the exchange, the poseur buyer executed the
pre-arranged signal to another police officer, F03 Gingoyon,
who assisted in the arrest of Mendez. A body search yielded
six (6) plastic sachets of white crystalline substance and the
buy-bust money.
HELD: : For a successful prosecution for illegal possession of
dangerous drugs, the following elements must be
established: (1) the accused is in possession of an item or
object identified to be a prohibited or a regulated drug; (2)
such possession is not authorized by law; and (3) the
accused freely and consciously possessed said drug.
Obtained through a valid search the drug operatives
conducted pursuant to Section 13, Rule 126 of the Rules of
Court, 17 the sachets recovered from appellant's person all
tested positive for Methamphetamine Hydrochloride or
shabu. Mere possession of a prohibited drug constitutes
prima facie evidence of knowledge or animus possidendi
sufficient to convict an accused in the absence of any
satisfactory explanation of such possession. The burden to
explain the absence of animus possidendi rests upon the
accused, and in the case at bar, this the appellant failed to
do.
The defenses of denial and frame-up have been viewed with
disfavor due to the ease of their concoction and the fact that
they have become common and standard defenses in
prosecutions for illegal sale and possession of dangerous
drugs. The inconsistencies, if any, in their testimonies, as
alleged by appellant, are but a few, involve minor details
and do not touch upon the material points and thus, cannot
overturn a conviction established by competent and credible
evidence.
People v. Zacaria
G.R. No. 214328, 14 September 2016
FACTS: The PDEA then formed a team of agents to conduct
a buy-bust operation to entrap Zacaria. Acting as poseur-
buyers, SP02 Montederamos, together with an informant,
went to to meet Zacaria. The informant first introduced
Zacaria to SP02 Montederamos. After SP02 Montederamos
showed the money to Zacaria, the latter handed one (I)
plastic sachet containing ·white crystalline substance to SP02
67

Montederamos, who immediately called the other police
officers. SP02 Montederamos then held Zacaria, but the
latter managed to whisk away and board a taxi. The police
officers chased Zacaria and when they were finally able to
catch up with him at the back of Victoria Plaza, the police
officers arrested Zacaria. During Zacaria's arrest, the police
officers recovered another sachet containing white
crystalline substance from him. The police officers brought
Zacaria to the PDEA Office for booking and documentation.
SP02 Montederamos turned over the seized items to Police
Officer I Janmark V. Malibiran (POI Malibiran), the Desk
Officer, for recording.
HELD: As correctly held by the lower courts, the elements of
Section 5, Article II of R.A. No. 9165 or sale of illegal drugs:
(1) the identities of the buyer and seller, object, and
consideration; and (2) the delivery of the thing sold and the
payment for it, are present. The fact that no money changed
hands is not a fatal defect. There is no requirement that in
buy-bust operations, there must be a simultaneous
exchange of the marked money and the prohibited drug
between the poseur-buyer and the pusher.
Chain of Custody Rule
People v. Relato
G.R. No. 173794, 18 January 2012
The accused was charged of violating section 5 of R.A. 9165
(sale of illegal drugs). The contention of the accused is that
the procedure laid down in Section 21 of R.A. 9165 was not
followed.
Section 21 of R.A. 9165 provides for the procedure to be
followed in the seizure and custody of prohibited drugs and
paraphernalia, or the chain of custody rule. It is the duty of
the apprehending team having initial custody and control of
the drugs, immediately after the seizure and confiscation, to
physically inventory and photograph the items in the
presence of the accused, or his representative or counsel, a
representative from the media and the DOJ, and any elected
public official who shall be required to sign the copies of the
inventory and be given a copy thereof. This procedure was
not followed by the buy-bust team. First, no photograph was
taken. Second, the team did not immediately mark the
seized items at the scene of the crime. Third, the marking
was not done in the presence of the accused or his
representative. And lastly, there was no representative from
the media and the DOJ, or any elected public official was
present during the taking of the physical inventory and to
sign the inventory.
The marking immediately after seizure is the starting point in
the custodial link, because succeeding handlers of the
prohibited drugs or related items will use the markings as
reference. It serves to segregate the marked evidence from
the corpus of all other similar and related evidence from the
time they are seized until they are disposed of at the end of
the criminal proceedings, obviating switching, “planting,” or
contamination of evidence. It is crucial in ensuring the
integrity of the chain of custody.
In a prosecution of the sale and possession of
methamphetamine hydrochloride, the State not only carries
the heavy burden of proving the elements of the offense,
but also bears the obligation to prove the corpus delicti,
Criminal Law II Review Notes
failing in which the State will not discharge its basic duty of
proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
People v. Zafra
G.R. No. 190749, 25 April 2012
The lone eyewitness for the prosecution, SPO4 Mendoza, is
a police officer. He was conducting surveillance operations,
by himself, in front of a certain sari-sari due to reported drug
trafficking in the area. There he saw all three (3) accused
standing and facing each other. He saw accused Zafra and
accused Marcelino holding shabu while accused Daluz was
holding drug paraphernalia. Thus, he single-handedly
arrested them and brought them to the Police Station where
he personally marked the seized items.
Zafra and Marcelino were charged with illegal possession of
dangerous drugs while Daluz was charged with illegal
possession of drug paraphernalia. All three were convicted of
their respective charges. However, only Zafra and Marcelino
appealed.
The Court decided to acquit the two.
In his affidavit, SPO4 Mendoza stated that he saw Zafra and
Marcelino holding shabu while Daluz was holding drug
paraphernalia. However, in court, he testified that it was
Zafra who was holding the drug paraphernalia.
Being the sole witness, the credibility of SPO4 Mendoza is
questionable and his inconsistent statements being fatal to
the prosecution’s case. Possession of drug paraphernalia vis-
à-vis shabu are two different offenses under R.A. No. 9165.
As earlier stated, SPO4 Mendoza was the lone arresting
officer, and he personally marked the seized items without
the presence of witnesses, photographs, media, and in the
absence of the accused. Worse, he was the same person
who took custody of the same evidence and brought them,
on his own, to the crime laboratory for testing. No physical
inventory was ever done, and no inventory was presented in
court.
The solo performance by SPO4 Mendoza of all the acts
necessary for the prosecution of the offense is unexplained
and puts the proof of corpus delicti, which is the illegal
object itself in serious doubt. No definite answer can be
established regarding the question as to who possessed
what at the time of the alleged apprehension. More
significantly, it is doubtful whether or not the two sachets of
shabu allegedly seized from the petitioners were the very
same objects offered in court as the corpus delicti.
Prosecutions for illegal possession of prohibited drugs
necessitates that the elemental act of possession of a
prohibited substance be established with moral certainty.
The dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus delicti
of the offense and the fact of its existence is vital to a
judgment of conviction. Essential therefore in these cases is
that the identity of the prohibited drug be established
beyond doubt. Be that as it may, the mere fact of
unauthorized possession will not suffice to create in a
reasonable mind the moral certainty required to sustain a
finding of guilt. More than just the fact of possession, the
68

fact that the substance illegally possessed in the first place is
the same substance offered in court as exhibit must also be
established with the same unwavering exactitude as that
requisite to make a finding of guilt. The chain of custody
requirement performs this function in that it ensures that
unnecessary doubts concerning the identity of the evidence
are removed.
As a method of authenticating evidence, the chain of
custody rule requires that the admission of an exhibit be
preceded by evidence sufficient to support a finding that the
matter in question is what the proponent claims it to be. It
would include testimony about every link in the chain, from
the moment the item was picked up to the time it is offered
into evidence, in such a way that every person who touched
the exhibit would describe how and from whom it was
received, where it was and what happened to it while in the
witness' possession, the condition in which it was received
and the condition in which it was delivered to the next link in
the chain. These witnesses would then describe the
precautions taken to ensure that there had been no change
in the condition of the item and no opportunity for someone
not in the chain to have possession of the same.
The records readily raise significant doubts as to the identity
of the sachets of shabu allegedly seized from Zafra and
Marcelino. SPO4 Mendoza’s claim that the two sachets of
shabu presented in court were the same ones confiscated
from the accused cannot be taken at its face value, solely on
the presumption of regularity of one’s performance of duty.
SPO4 Mendoza blatantly broke all the rules established by
law to safeguard the identity of a corpus delicti. There was
even no mention about the details of the laboratory
examination of the allegedly seized drugs. SPO4 Mendoza
cannot alone satisfy the requirements in RA No. 9165 which
is expressly anchored on the participation of several
personalities and the execution of specified documents.
Non-compliance with the prescribed procedural requirements
does not necessarily render the seizure and custody of the
items void and invalid; the seizure may still be held valid,
provided that (a) there is a justifiable ground for the non-
compliance, and (b) the integrity and evidentiary value of
the seized items are shown to have been properly
preserved. These conditions, however, were not met in this
case as the prosecution did not even attempt to offer any
justification for the failure of SPO4 Mendoza to follow the
prescribed procedures in the handling of the seized items.
Luy v. People
G.R. No. 200087, 12 October 2016
FACTS: JO3 Joaquin claimed that as she was doing her
usual duty as female guard at the gate of the Bureau of Jail
Management Bureau Olongapo City her attention was called
on the strawberry juice placed in a white container full of
cracked ice inside, brought by Luy, whose husband, Nestor,
was a detainee in the Olongapo City jail. To quell her
suspicion, JO3 Joaquin asked Luy if she could transfer it in
another container but she refused. JO3 Joaquin insisted,
nevertheless. They then went to the guardhouse and
transferred the juice into a bowl. As the ice inside scattered,
the illegal drugs were revealed. Luy pleaded for her not to
report the matter to the jail warden, but JO3 Joaquin
ignored her plea. After bringing her to the jail warden, they
brought the confiscated items to the laboratory for
Criminal Law II Review Notes
examination. The examination revealed that the confiscated
items were positive for methamphetamine hydrochloride.
HELD: Successful prosecution for the illegal possession of
dangerous drugs in violation of Section 11 of R. A. No. 9165
requires that the following essential elements of the offense
be established, namely: (1) the accused is in possession of
an item or object identified as a prohibited drug; (2) her
possession is not authorized by law; and (3) she freely and
consciously possessed the drug.
Under the circumstances, the petitioner was arrested in
flagrante delicto.
In fine, all the essential elements of illegal possession of
dangerous drugs were established. To start with, she was
caught in the voluntary possession of the shabu. And,
secondly, she presented no evidence about her being
authorized to possess the shabu. Worthy to reiterate is that
her mere possession of the shabu constituted the crime
itself. Her animus possidendi — the intent to possess
essential in crimes of mere possession like this - was
established beyond reasonable doubt in view of the absence
of a credible explanation for the possession.
Exceptions to the Chain of Custody Rule
People v. Guillergan
G.R. No. 218952,19 October 2016
FACTS: Members of the PDEA, and representatives of the
media,went to Guillergan's house to implement a search
warrant. On the way, the PDEA team passed by the house of
Brgy. Captain Jaleco and invited him to witness. Brgy.
Captain Jaleco came with Brgy. Kagawad Blam. Upon arrival
at Guillergan's house, the barangay officials knocked on
Guillergan’s main door. Someone opened the door and the
barangay officials entered the house followed by the PDEA
members tasked to be the searching party. Some members
of the PDEA team stayed outside the house and acted as
perimeter security. The search warrant was presented to
Guillergan and he signed the Consent of Conduct Search.
PDEA members then proceeded to search Guillergan's room
downstairs in the presence of the two barangay officials, the
media representatives, and Guillergan's wife. During the
room search, they recovered inside the steel tube stand or
brace of the bed four sachets of shabu wrapped in an
aluminum cigarette foil and a plastic bottle containing 39
plastic sachets of shabu. Likewise, they recovered money
amounting to P2,060 inside a cabinet. They continued the
search in other parts of the house, including the room
upstairs, but did not find anything else. The items recovered
were brought to the living room and placed on the table In
the presence of the barangay officials and the media
representatives; they listed each of the recovered items in
the Certificate of Inventory/Seized Articles. After the
inventory, the recovered items were placed under the
custody of the Exhibit Custodian of PDEA, who brought said
items to the PDEA office for safekeeping. The next day, the
seized items were retrieved and marked. The items were
then brought to the Prosecution Office where they were
inventoried in the presence of the Prosecutor, the barangay
officials, media representative, and Guillergan who all signed
the inventory document. The seized items were also
photographed in said office. After the inventory, the items
69

were returned to Judge Besana who issued the warrant.
Subsequently, after the items were presented in court, they
were returned to the custody of PDEA. The items were then
brought to the PNP Crime Laboratory, for examination.
HELD: Here, the prosecution was able to demonstrate that
the drugs seized from Guillergan were the same items
presented in evidence as part of the corpus delicti. The
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, corroborated by
the testimonies of two of the defense witnesses, established
the continuous whereabouts of the exhibits consisting of the
seized items, between the time they came into possession of
the police officers until they were tested in the laboratory up
to the time they were offered in evidence. Thus, we find no
reversible error committed by the RTC and CA in convicting
Guillergan of the offense charged.
Also, both the RTC and CA gave full faith and credence to
the prosecution witnesses, the three PDEA officers who
arrested Guillergan and recovered the illegal drugs from
Guillergan's possession and control, and found that their
testimonial accounts were consistent with the documentary
evidence submitted in court. Both the RTC and CA also
observed that no ill-motive was imputed to the PDEA team
to falsely accuse and testify against Guillergan. Thus, as
police officers, they enjoy the presumption of regularity in
the performance of their official duties unless proven
otherwise. Further, Guillergan's defenses of denial and
frame-up are inherently weak since they are self-serving and
can be easily fabricated. In sum, we find no cogent reason
to depart from the decision of the RTC and CA. In People v.
Lucio, 14 we held that failure to strictly comply with Section
21 (1), Article II of RA 9165 does not necessarily render an
accused's arrest illegal or the items seized or confiscated
from him inadmissible. What is of utmost importance is the
preservation of the integrity and the evidentiary value of the
seized items which the prosecution has fully established in
this case. Further, the penalty imposed by the RTC on
Guillergan for illegal possession of dangerous drugs, as
provided in Section 11, 15 Article II of RA 9165, is in order.
People v. Tamano
G.R. No. 208643 16 December 2016
FACTS: PO3 Gepaneca of the PDEA was informed by a
confidential agent that one alias "Susan Kana" was selling
shabu. After confirmation from the agent that that they
could purchase shabu from "Susan Kana," a buy-bust team
was formed. The team then proceeded to the target area
and after waiting for a while, Susan Kana arrived. PO3
Gepaneca was introduced by the agent to one Susan Kana
who turned out to be Susan Tamaño. Then, PO3 Gepaneca
took the P500 buy-bust money and handed it to Tamaño
who, in turn, told her agent to give a sachet of shabu to PO3
Gepaneca. After which, PO3 Gepaneca took off his cap as a
signal that the transaction was consummated. At that point,
PO1 Aguenido immediately arrested and searched the
persons of appellants. The P500.00 bill was recovered from
the right hand of Tamaño; and from her right pocket, a big
plastic sachet was recovered containing three (3) plastic
sachets of suspected shabu with markings "Susan",
"Merriam and "Kelly" with a total weight of 0.345 gram. Also,
four (4) empty plastic sachets and two (2) pieces of
disposable lighters among others were recovered from her
bag.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
HELD: In the prosecution of illegal possession of dangerous
drugs, the dangerous drug itself constitutes the very corpus
delicti of the offense and, in sustaining a conviction
therefore, the identity and integrity of the corpus
delicti must definitely be shown to have been preserved.
However, non-compliance with the stipulated procedure,
under justifiable grounds, shall not render void and invalid
such seizures of and custody over said items, for as long as
the integrity and evidentiary value of the seized items are
properly preserved by the apprehending officers. While
nowhere in the prosecution's evidence would show the
"justifiable ground" which may excuse the police operatives
involved from making an immediate physical inventory of the
drugs confiscated and/or seized, such omission shall not
render appellants' arrest illegal or the items
seized/confiscated from them as inadmissible in evidence.
Said "justifiable ground" will remain unknown in the light of
the apparent failure of appellants to specifically challenge
the custody and safekeeping or the issue of disposition and
preservation of the subject drug before the trial court. They
cannot be allowed too late in the day to question the police
officers' alleged non-compliance with Section 21 for the first
time on appeal.
In these subject cases, the facts persuasively proved that
the sachets of shabu, including the drug paraphernalia
presented in court, were the same items sold/seized from
appellants. The integrity and evidentiary value thereof were
duly preserved. The marking and the handling of the
specimens were testified to by PO1 Aguenido, SPO3 Calaor,
SPO4 Gafate and P/Sr. Inspector Agustina Ompoy. It must
be noted that appellants admitted the expertise of Police
Senior Inspector Ompoy, the chemist who conducted the
laboratory tests. Hence, the aforesaid prosecution witnesses
testified about every link in the chain, from the moment the
seized items were picked up to the time they were offered
into evidence in court
People v. Figueroa
G.R. No. 186141, 11 April 2012
The main defense of the accused was that the police officers
violated Sec. 86 of R.A. No. 9165, requiring the PNP to
maintain close coordination with the PDEA on all drug
related matters. Such defense, however, is not meritorious.
Said provision does not invalidate operations on account of
the law enforcers’ failure to maintain close coordination with
the PDEA. The law is silent as to the consequences of the
failure on the part of the law enforcers to seek the authority
of the PDEA prior to conducting a buy-bust operation. This
silence cannot be interpreted as a legislative intent to make
an arrest without the participation of PDEA illegal or
evidence obtained pursuant to such an arrest inadmissible.
Value of the Confiscated Items
People v. Bautista
G.R. No. 177320, 22 February 2012
By virtue of a tip coming from an informant, a team of police
officers conducted a buy-bust operation against the accused.
Upon the exchange of money and drugs between the
accused and the poseur-buyer, the support team moved in
and arrested the accused. A police officer then frisked the
70

accused and found six sachets of shabu in the accused
pocket. The buy-bust money was also seized by the officers.
In drug-related prosecutions, the State bears the burden not
only of proving the elements of the offenses of sale and
possession of shabu under R.A. 9165, but also of proving the
corpus delicti, the body of the crime. Corpus delicti is the
body of substance of the crime and, in its primary sense,
refers to the fact that a crime has been actually committed.
The dangerous drug is itself the very corpus delicti of the
violation of the law prohibiting the possession of dangerous
drugs. Consequently, the State does not comply with the
indispensable requirement of proving corpus delicti when the
drug is missing, and when substantial gaps occur in the
chain of custody of the seized drugs as to raise the doubts
on the authenticity of the evidence presented in court.
The rule on chain of custody demands the identification of
the persons who handle the confiscated items for the
purpose of duly monitoring the authorized movements of
illegal drugs and/or drug paraphernalia from the time they
are seized from the accused until the time they are
presented in court. Here, the buy-bust team did not mark
the sachets until after reaching the police station. Even so,
the omission did not destroy the integrity and the
evidentiary value of the confiscated items. The Court was
satisfied that the police officers brought the confiscated
sachets of shabu to the police station immediately after the
buy-bust operation, and turned them over to the investigator
on-duty for marking. It has been held that a non-compliance
with the regulations is not necessarily fatal to render an
accused’s arrest illegal or the items confiscated from him
inadmissible as evidence of his guilt, for what is of the
utmost importance is the preservation of the integrity and
the evidentiary value of the confiscated items that will be
utilized in the determination of his guilt or innocence.
Dangerous Drugs Act: Circumstance of Conspiracy
Posiquit v. People
G.R. No. 193943, 16 January 2012
In this case the police received a report that a certain group
was conducting a “pot session.” Thereafter, the police
mobilized its search team to locate the group. Upon arrival
of the search team’s vehicle in front of the house where the
session is being held, the accused and his group started to
scamper. Despite their efforts, the police were still able to
apprehend them. The accused argues that the prosecution
failed to establish that he was in conspiracy with his other
co-accused to use or possess illegal drugs.
The Supreme Court said, however, that the circumstance of
conspiracy is not appreciated in the crime of possession of
dangerous drugs under R.A. 9165. The crime of conspiracy
to commit possession of dangerous drugs does not exist.
Civil Liability
People v. Brillantes
G.R. No. 190610, 25 April 2012
In this case, the Supreme Court has the opportunity to rule
that violations of the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act
of 2002 carry no civil liability since there is no private party
involved.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
R.A. No. 10586
Anti-Drunk and Drugged Driving Act of 2013
Sec 5. Punishable Act- It shall be unlawful for any person
to drive a motor vehicle while under the influence of alcohol,
dangerous drugs and/or other similar substances.
SEC. 6. Conduct of Field Sobriety, Chemical and
Confirmatory Tests. – A law enforcement officer who has
probable cause to believe that a person is driving under the
influence of alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or other similar
substances by apparent indications and manifestations,
including overspeeding, weaving, lane straddling, sudden
stops, swerving, poor coordination or the evident smell of
alcohol in a person’s breath or signs of use of dangerous
drugs and other similar substances, shall conduct field
sobriety tests.
If the driver fails in the sobriety tests, it shall be the duty of
the law enforcement officer to implement the mandatory
determination of the driver’s blood alcohol concentration
level through the use of a breath analyzer or similar
measuring instrument.
If the law enforcement officer has probable cause to believe
that a person is driving under the influence of dangerous
drugs and/or other similar substances, it shall be the duty of
the law enforcement officer to bring the driver to the nearest
police station to be subjected to a drug screening test and, if
necessary, a drug confirmatory test as mandated under
Republic Act No. 9165.
Law enforcement officers and deputized local traffic
enforcement officers shall be responsible in implementing
this section.
SEC. 7. Mandatory Alcohol and Chemical Testing of
Drivers Involved in Motor Vehicular Accidents. – A
driver of a motor vehicle involved in a vehicular accident
resulting in the loss of human life or physical injuries shall be
subjected to chemical tests, including a drug screening test
and, if necessary, a drug confirmatory test as mandated
under Republic Act No. 9165, to determine the presence
and/or concentration of alcohol, dangerous drugs and/or
similar substances in the bloodstream or body.
SEC. 8. Refusal to Subject Oneself to Mandatory
Tests. – A driver of a motor vehicle who refuses to undergo
the mandatory field sobriety and drug tests under Sections
6, 7 and 15 of this Act shall be penalized by the confiscation
and automatic revocation of his or her driver’s license, in
addition to other penalties provided herein and/or other
pertinent laws.
Suson v. People
G.R. NO. 152848, 12 July 2006
The recording or non-recording thereof in an official record
will not necessarily lead to an acquittal as long as the sale of
the prohibited drug is adequately proven. In the case at
bar, SPO2 Patiño, the poseur-buyer, testified on the
circumstances regarding the sale of the shabu for which
71

petitioners were charged and convicted. Settled is the rule
that in the prosecution for the sale of dangerous drugs, the
absence of marked money does not create a hiatus in the
evidence for the prosecution as long as the sale of
dangerous drugs is adequately proven and the drug subject
of the transaction is presented before the court.
People v. Nicolas
G.R. No. 175783, 3 September 2007
Settled is the rule that the absence of a prior surveillance or
test-buy does not affect the legality of the buy-bust
operation. There is no textbook method of conducting buy-
bust operations. The Court has left to the discretion of
police authorities the selection of effective means to
apprehend drug
dealers.http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/juris
prudence/2007/feb2007/170234.htm
_ftn24 A prior surveillance, much less a lengthy one, is
not necessary especially where the police operatives are
accompanied by their informant during the
entrapment.http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/ju
risprudence/2007/feb2007/170234.htm - Who are punishable?
_ftn25 Flexibility is a trait of good police
work.http://www.supremecourt.gov.ph/jurispr
udence/2007/feb2007/170234.htm - _ftn26
In the case at bar, the buy-bust operation was conducted
without need of any prior surveillance for the reason that the
informant accompanied the policemen to the person who is
peddling the dangerous drugs.
Title Six
CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC MORALS
Chapter One. Gambling and Betting
Article 195. Gambling
Article 196. Importation, sale and possession of lottery
tickets or advertisements
Article 197. Betting in sport contests (REPEALED)
Article 198. Illegal betting on horse races
Article 199. Illegal cockfighting
Chapter Two. Offenses against Decency and Good Custom
Article 200. Grave scandal
Article 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications
and exhibitions
Article 202. Vagrancy and prostitution
Article 195. Gambling
Acts punishable:
1. Taking part directly or indirectly in –
Criminal Law II Review Notes
a. any game of monte, jueteng, or any other form of
lottery, policy, banking, or percentage game, dog
races, or any other game or scheme the results of
which depend wholly or chiefly upon chance or
hazard; or wherein wagers consisting of money,
articles of value, or representative of value are
made; or
b. the exploitation or use of any other mechanical
invention or contrivance to determine by chance
the loser or winner of money or any object or
representative of value;
2. Knowingly permitting any form of gambling to be carried
on in any place owned or controlled by the offender;
3. Being maintainer, conductor, or banker in a game of
jueteng or similar game;
4. Knowingly and without lawful purpose possessing lottery
list, paper, or other matter containing letters, figures,
- signs or symbol which pertain to or are in any manner
used in the game of jueteng or any similar game.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1602
Prescribing Stiffer Penalties On Illegal Gambling
1. Any person other than those referred to in the succeeding
sub-sections who in any manner, shall directly or indirectly
take part in any illegal or unauthorized activities or games
What are illegal or unauthorized activities or games?
- cockfighting, jueteng, lotteries, games using dice,
card games, games using plastic tiles (mahjong),
mechanical contraptions and devices (slot
machines), races, individual or team contests
where game fixing, point shaving and other
machinations are present, banking or percentage
game
- IN GENERAL: or any other game scheme, whether
upon chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting of
money, articles of value or representative of value
are at stake or made
2. Any person who shall knowingly permit any form of
gambling referred to in the preceding subparagraph to be
carried on in inhabited or uninhabited place or in any
building, vessel or other means of transportation owned or
controlled by him.
3. The maintainer or conductor of the above gambling
schemes.
4. Any person who shall, knowingly and without lawful
purpose in any hour of any day, possess any lottery list,
paper or other matter containing letters, figures, signs or
symbols pertaining to or in any manner used in the games
of jueteng, jai-alai or horse racing bookies, and similar
games of lotteries and numbers which have taken place or
about to take place.
5. Any 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.
72

6. Any security officer, security guard, watchman, private
or house detective of hotels, villages, buildings, enclosures
and the like which have the reputation of a gambling
place or where gambling activities are being held.
Penalty is higher:
1. If the place where gambling is carried on has a
reputation of a gambling place or that prohibited
gambling is frequently carried on therein;
2. If the place is a public or government building or
barangay hall;
3. If the maintainer, conductor or banker of said
gambling schemes is a government official, or
where such government official is the player,
promoter, referee, umpire, judge or coach in case
of game fixing, point shaving and machination.
Note: Any person who shall disclose information that
will lead to the arrest and final conviction of the
malefactor shall be rewarded twenty percent of the
cash money or articles of value confiscated or
forfeited in favor of the government.
§ Gambling is any game or scheme, whether upon
chance or skill, wherein wagers consisting of money,
articles or value or representative of value are at stake
or made.
§ Reason for prohibiting/punishing gambling: to repress
and evil that undermines the social, moral and
economic growth of the nation.
§ Under P.D. No. 1602, it seems that when the law
names the games, punishing any person who take part
therein, its purpose is to prohibit absolutely those
games.
§ Spectators are not liable in gambling, because they do
not take part directly or indirectly.
§ Lottery – a scheme for the distribution of prizes by
chance among persons who have paid, or agreed to
pay, a valuable consideration for the chance to obtain a
prize.
§ Elements of lottery: consideration, chance and prize or
some advantage or inequality in amount or value which
is in the nature of a prize.
§ There is no lottery when the person gets full value for
his money. Example: a package of cigarette sold at
P0.30 each includes a coupon which may allow the
buyer to win a gold watch. This is not lottery, because
the player got full for his money. The winning of the
watch is just a bonus.
§ The operation, possession, use and importation of
pinball and slot machines and other similar devices or
paraphernalia used for their operation is declared
unlawful under P.D. No. 519 which took effect on July
23, 1974.
Knowingly permitting gambling to be carried on in a place
owned or controlled by the offender (2nd mode of violating
this article)
Elements:
1. That a gambling game was carried on in an inhabited
or uninhabited place or in any building, vessel, or other
means of transportation;
Criminal Law II Review Notes
2. That the place, building, vessel or other means of
transportation is owned or controlled by the offender;
and
3. That the offender permitted the carrying on of such
game, knowing that it is a gambling game.
§ The maintainer or conductor in a gambling game are
likewise punished. A maintainer is the person who sets
up and furnishes the means with which to carry on the
gambling game or scheme. A conductor is the person
who manages or carries on the gambling game or
scheme.
§ To be prosecuted for possessing a jueteng list, proof
that the game took place or is about to take place is
not necessary. Such a list naturally pertains to the
game of jueteng and the accused would not keep it in
his possession but for its connection with such game of
jueteng.
§ But proof to the contrary is necessary when the jueteng
lists pertain to games played on other dates.
LETTER OF INSTRUCTIONS NO. 816
What is exempted from the coverage of P.D. 1602?
The games of domino, bingo, poker when not played with
five cards stud, cuajo, pangguingue and mahjong, provided
that they are played as parlor games or for home
entertainment; and Provided Further, That they are not
played in places habitually used for gambling and the
betting is not disguised to defeat the intent of P.D.No. 1602
Article 196. Importation, sale and possession of
lottery tickets or advertisements
Acts punishable:
1. Importing into the Philippines from any foreign place or
port any lottery ticket or advertisement; or
2. Selling or distributing the same in connivance with the
importer;
3. Possessing, knowingly and with intent to use them,
lottery tickets or advertisements; or
4. Selling or distributing the same without connivance with
the importer of the same.
§ The possession of any lottery ticket or advertisement is
prima facie evidence of an intent to sell, distribute or
use the same in the Philippines.
§ Must lottery tickets be genuine? There are two views:
o YES. It is not necessary that the tickets be
genuine, as it is enough that they be given the
appearance of lottery tickets
o NO. If lottery tickets are counterfeit, they cannot
give rise to the evil sought to be eradicated.
Article 197. Betting in sports contests – REPEALED
BY PD 483
PD No. 483
Penalizing Betting, Game-fixing or Point Shaving in
Sports Contests
73
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

2. Maintaining or employing a totalizer or other device or

SECTION 1. Definitions. — For purposes of this Decree,
scheme for betting on races or realizing profit
the following terms shall mean and be understood to be as
therefrom during the periods not allowed by law.
hereunder indicated:
a. Betting — betting money or any object or article of
When horse races not allowed
value or representative of value upon the result of any
game, races and other sports contest.
1. July 4 (Republic Act No. 137);
b. Game-fixing — any arrangement, combination, scheme
2. December 30 (Republic Act No. 229);
or agreement by which the result of any game, races or
3. Any registration or voting days (Republic Act No. 180,
sports contests shall be predicted and/or known other
Revised Election Code); and
than on the basis of the honest playing skill or ability of
4. Holy Thursday and Good Friday (Republic Act No. 946).
the players or participants.
c. Point-shaving — any such arrangement, combination,
§ A totalizer is a machine for registering and indicating
scheme or agreement by which the skill or ability of
the number and nature of bets made on horse races.
any player or participant in a game, races or sports
The penalty is higher when this devise is employed.
contests to make points or scores shall be limited
§ Any race held on the same day and at the same place
deliberately in order to influence the result thereof in
shall be held punishable as a separate offense.
favor of one or other team, player or participant
§ If the violation is committed by any partnership,
therein.
corporation, or association, the president and the
d. Game-machinations — any other fraudulent, deceitful,
directors or managers shall be deemed to be principals
unfair or dishonest means, method, manner or practice
in the offense if they have consented to or knowingly
employed for the purpose of influencing the result of
tolerated its commission.
any game, races or sport contest.
§ Horse races may be carried on at any time or place,
and prizes or gifts may be offered, given or paid, to the
SECTION 2. Betting, game-fixing, point-shaving or game
winner in said races, provided it is not accompanied by
machination unlawful. — Game-fixing, point-shaving,
any betting, or the use of totalizer or other devices for
machination, as defined in the preceding section, in
betting money on horse races.
connection with the games of basketball, volleyball, softball,
baseball; chess, boxing bouts, "jai-alai", "sipa", "pelota" and
all other sports contests, games or races; as well as betting
Article 199. Illegal cockfighting
therein except as may be authorized by law, is hereby
declared unlawful.
Acts punishable:
SECTION 3. Penalty. — Any violation of this Decree, or of
1. Directly or indirectly participating in cockfights, by
the rules and regulations promulgated in accordance
betting money or other valuable things, or organizing
herewith, shall be punished in the manner following:
cockfights at which bets are made, on a day other than
a. When the offender is an official, such as promoter,
those permitted by law;
referee, umpire, judge, or coach in the game, race or
2. Directly or indirectly participating in cockfights, by
sports contests, or the manager or sponsor of any
betting money or other valuable things, or organizing
participating team, individual or player therein, or
such cockfights, at a place other than a licensed
participants or players in such games, races or other
cockpit.
sports contests, he shall, upon conviction, be punished
by prision correccional in its maximum period and a
fine of 2,000 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment in P.D. No. 449
case of insolvency, at the discretion of the court. This Cockfighting Law of 1974
penalty shall also be imposed when the offenders
compose a syndicate of five or more persons. SECTION 4. Definition of Terms. —
b. In case of any offender, he shall, upon conviction, be (b) Cockfighting — shall embrace and mean the commonly
punished by prision correccional in its medium period known game or term "cockfighting derby, pintakasi or
and a fine of 1,000 pesos with subsidiary imprisonment tupada", or its equivalent terms in different Philippine
in case of insolvency at the discretion of the court. localities.
c. When the offender is an official or employee of any (c) Zoning Law or Ordinance — Either both national or
government office or agency concerned with the local city or municipal legislation which logically
enforcement or administration of laws and regulations arranges, prescribes, defines and apportions a given
on sports the penalty provided for in the preceding political subdivision into specific land uses as present
Section 3 a small be imposed. In addition, he shall be and future projection of needs warrant.
disqualified from holding any public office or (d) Bet Taker or Promoter — A person who calls and takes
employment for life. If he is an alien, he may be care of bets from owners of both gamecocks and those
deported. of other bettors before he orders commencement of
the cockfight and thereafter distributes won bets to the
winners after deducting a certain commission.
(e) Gaffer (Taga Tari) — A person knowledgeable in the art
Article 198. Illegal Betting on horse races
of arming fighting cocks with gaff or gaffs on either or
both legs.
Acts punishable:
(f) Referee (Sentenciador) — A person who watches and
oversees the proper gaffing of fighting cocks,
1. Betting on horse races during periods not allowed by
determines the physical condition of fighting cocks
law;

74

while cockfighting is in progress, the injuries sustained
by the cocks and their capability to continue fighting
and decides and make known his decision by work or
gestures and result of the cockfight by announcing the
winner or declaring a tie or no contest game.
(g) Bettor — A person who participates in cockfights and
with the use of money or other things of value, bets
with other bettors or through the bet taker or promoter
and wins or loses his bet depending upon the result of
the cockfight as announced by the Referee or
Sentenciador. He may be the owner of fighting cock.
SECTION 5. Cockpits and Cockfighting: In General. —
(a) Ownership, Operation and Management of Cockpits. —
Only Filipino citizens not otherwise inhibited by existing
laws shall be allowed to own, manage and operate
cockpits. Cooperative capitalization is encouraged.
(b) Establishment of Cockpits. — Only one cockpit shall be
allowed in each city or municipality, except that in cities
or municipalities with a population of over one hundred
thousand, two cockpits may be established, maintained
and operated.
(c) Cockpits Site and Construction. — Cockpits shall be
constructed and operated within the appropriate areas
as prescribed in Zoning Law or Ordinance. In the
absence of such law or ordinance, the local executives
shall see to it that no cockpits are constructed within or
near existing residential or commercial areas, hospitals,
school buildings, churches or other public buildings.
Owners, lessees, or operators of cockpits which are
now in existence and do not conform to this
requirement are given three years from the date of
effectivity of this Decree to comply herewith. xxx
(d) Holding of Cockfights. — Except as provided in this
Decree, cockfighting shall be allowed only in licensed
cockpits during Sundays and legal holidays and during
local fiestas for not more than three days. It may also
be held during provincial, city or municipal, agricultural,
commercial or industrial fair, carnival or exposition for a
similar period of three days upon resolution of the
province, city or municipality where such fair, carnival
or exposition is to be held, subject to the approval of
the Chief of Constabulary or his authorized
representative: Provided, that, no cockfighting on the
occasion of such fair, carnival or exposition shall be
allowed within the month of a local fiesta or for more
than two occasions a year in the same city or
municipality: Provided, further, that no cockfighting
1.
shall be held on December 30 (Rizal Day), June 12
2.
(Philippine Independence Day), November 30 (National
Heroes Day), Holy Thursday, Good Friday, Election or
3.
Referendum Day and during Registration Days for such
election or referendum.
4.
(e) Cockfighting for Entertainment of Tourists or for
Charitable Purposes. — Subject to the preceding
subsection hereof, the Chief Constabulary or his
authorized representative may also allow the holding of
cockfighting for the entertainment of foreign dignitaries
or for tourists, or for returning Filipinos, commonly
known as "Balikbayan", or for the support of national
fund-raising campaigns for charitable purposes as may
be authorized by the Office of the President, upon
resolution of a provincial board, city or municipal
council, in licensed cockpits or in playgrounds or parks:
Provided, that this privilege shall be extended for only
one time, for a period not exceeding three days, within
Criminal Law II Review Notes
a year to a province, city, or municipality.
(f) Other games during cockfights prescribed. — No
gambling of any kind shall be permitted on the
premises of the cockpit or place of cockfighting during
cockfights. The owner, manager or lessee of such
cockpit and the violators of this injunction shall be
criminally liable under Section 8 hereof.
SECTION 7. Cockfighting Officials. — Gaffers, referees or
bet takers or promoters shall not act as such in any
cockfight herein authorized, without first securing a license
renewable every year on their birth month from the city or
municipality where such cockfighting is held. Cities and
municipalities may charge a tax of not more than P20. Only
licensed gaffers, referees, bet takers or promoters shall
officiate in all kinds of cockfighting authorized in this Decree.
SECTION 8. Penal Provisions. — Any violation of the
provisions of this Decree and of the rules and regulations
promulgated by the Chief of Constabulary pursuant thereto
shall be punished as follows:
a. By prision correccional in its maximum period and a
fine of two thousand pesos, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, when the offender
is the financier, owner, manger or operator of a
cockpit, or the gaffer, referee or bet taker in
cockfights; or the offender is guilty of allowing,
promoting or participating in any other kind of
gambling in the premises of cockpits during cockfights.
b. By prision correccional or a fine of not less than P600
nor more than P2,000 or both, such imprisonment and
fine at the discretion of the court, with subsidiary
imprisonment in case of insolvency, in case of any
other offender.
§ Permitting gambling of any kind in cockpit is punished
under PD 449.
§ The decree does not punish a person attending as a
spectator in a cockfight. To be liable, he must
participate in the cockfight as a bettor.
Article 200. Grave Scandal
Elements:
Offender performs an act or acts;
Such act or acts be highly scandalous as offending
against decency or good customs;
The highly scandalous conduct is not expressly falling
within any other article of this Code; and
The act or acts complained of be committed in a public
place or within the public knowledge or view.
§ Grave scandal consists of acts which are offensive to
decency and good customs which, having been
committed publicly, have given rise to public scandal to
persons who have accidentally witnessed the same.
§ Decency means propriety of conduct; proper
observance of the requirements of modesty, good taste
etc.
§ Customs means established usage, social conventions
carried on by tradition and enforced by social
disapproval of any violation thereof.
§ The acts must be those that can cause public scandal
75
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

among the persons witnessing them.
§ If the act or acts of the offender are punished under
article of the RPC, this article is not applicable.
§ The acts must be performed in a public place or within
the public knowledge or view.
§ When the acts were performed in a private house and
seen by one person, the crime was not committed.
Article 201. Immoral doctrines, obscene publications
and exhibitions, and indecent shows
Acts punishable:
1. Those who shall publicly expound or proclaim doctrines
openly contrary to public morals;
2. (a) The authors of obscene literature, published with
their knowledge in any form, the editors publishing
such literature; and the owners/operators of the
establishment selling the same;
(b) Those who, in theaters, fairs, cinematographs, or
any other place, exhibit indecent or immoral plays,
scenes, acts, or shows, it being understood that the
obscene literature or indecent or immoral plays, scenes,
acts or shows, whether live or in film, which are
proscribed by virtue hereof, shall include those which:
(1) glorify criminals or condone crimes; (2) serve no
other purpose but to satisfy the market for violence,
lust or pornography; (3) offend any race, or religion;
(4) tend to abet traffic in and use of prohibited drugs;
and (5) are contrary to law, public order, morals, good
customs, established policies, lawful orders, decrees
and edicts; and
§ Pictures with slight degree of obscenity, not used for
art’s sake but for commercial purposes, fall under this
article.
§ Disposition of prohibited articles:
o Upon conviction of the offender – forfeited in
favour of the government, to be destroyed
o When offender is acquitted – forfeited in favour of
the government to be destroyed, after forfeiture
proceedings are conducted by Chief of
Constabulary (PNP)
o Person aggrieved may appeal the forfeiture action
to the Secretary of National Defense for review
(P.D. No. 969, Sec 2).
§ In case the offender is a government official or
employee who allows the violations, the penalty is
imposed in the maximum period and the accessory
penalties shall likewise be imposed.
§ Obscene publications and indecent shows under RA
7610 (please refer to exploitation of minors, Title Nine)
People v. Kottinger
G.R. No. L-20569, 29 October 1923
FACTS: Postcards of non-Christians inhabitants of the
Philippines in their native dress were questioned to be
obscene.
HELD: The SC said that the postcards were not obscene
because the aggregate judgment of the community, and the
moral sense of the people were not shocked by those
pictures. They were not offensive to chastity but merely
depicted persons as they actually lived.

3. Those who shall sell, give away, or exhibit films, prints,

engravings, sculptures, or literature which are offensive
to morals.

§ Purpose of the law: to protect the morals of the

public.. People v. Aparici
§ This offense in any of the forms mentioned in the
G.R. No. L-47757-61, 28 January 1980
article is committed only when there is publicity.
§ ‘openly contrary to public morals’ – the word moral
FACTS: A case about a girl dancing hula-hula in the theater
implies conformity with the generally accepted
making the audience of males shout “sige muna, sige,
standards of goodness or rightness in conduct or
nakakalibog!’
character, sometimes specifically, to sexual conduct.
§ The author of obscene literature is liable only when it is
HELD: The SC decided that the dance was immoral and
publish with his knowledge. Obscene means offensive
indecent using the reaction of the public as the gauge in the
to chastity, decency or delicacy.
determination of indecency.
§ Test of obscenity: whether the tendency of the matter
charged as obscene, is to deprave or corrupt those
whose minds are open to such immoral influences, and
People v. Padan
into whose hands such a publication may fall and also
G.R. No. L-7295, 28 June 1957
whether or not such publication or act shocks the
ordinary and common sense of men as an indecency.
This is a case about a “live show” done in Tondo.
§ Mere nudity in pictures or paintings, not an obscenity.
As regards nude pictures, the proper test is the motive
HELD: SC said that an actual exhibition of sexual act can
of the picture, as indicated by it, is pure or impure; or
have no redeeming feature- no room for art. Therefore, it is
whether it is naturally calculated to excite impure
a clear and unmitigated obscenity. The exhibition was an
imaginations.
offense to public morals.
§ The term ‘give away’ necessarily include the act of
exhibiting obscene pictures or literature, because when
one gives away obscene pictures or literature, he has
Article 202. Vagrants and prostitutes
the intention and purpose of exhibiting or showing the
same to the recipient.

76

Who are vagrants:
1. Any person having no apparent means of subsistence,
who has the physical ability to work and who neglects
to apply himself or herself to some lawful calling;
2. Any person found loitering about public or semi-public
buildings or places or trampling or wandering about the
country or the streets without visible means of support;
3. Any idle or dissolute person who ledges in houses of ill
fame;
4. Ruffians or pimps and those who habitually associate
with prostitutes;
5. Any person who, not being included in the provisions of
other articles of this Code, shall be found loitering in
any inhabited or uninhabited place belonging to
another without any lawful or justifiable purpose;
6. Prostitutes, who are women who, for money or profit,
habitually indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious
conduct.
§ Absence of visible means of support is an essential
element of vagrancy only under the first and second
types.
§ Loitering around saloons and gambling houses is
vagrancy only when there is evidence of absence of
visible means of support.
§ Vagrants under the third and fourth type:
o Dissolute means lax, unrestrained or immoral.
o Maintainer of prostitution house may be punished
under this article.
o Ruffians are brutal, violent lawless persons.
o A pimp is one who provides gratification for the
lust of others.
§ Prostitutes are women who HABITUALLY indulge in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, for money or
profit.
§ Note: Article 202 is NOT applicable to minors –
Persons below eighteen (18) years of age shall be
exempt from prosecution for the crimes of prostitution,
mendicancy and sniffing of rugby, such prosecution
being inconsistent with the United Nations Convention
on the Rights of the Child; provided that said persons
undergo appropriate counselling and treatment
program.
P.D. 1563
1 the prostitution of others or other forms of sexual
Mendicancy Law of 1978
What is a mendicant?
A mendicant refers to any person (except those
enumerated in section 4 of the law) who has no visible and
legal means of support, or lawful employment and who is
physically able to work but neglects to apply himself to some
lawful calling and instead uses begging as a means of
living.
1 for under R.A. No. 6955, any Filipino woman to a foreign
Only Vagrancy had been decriminalized pursuant to R.A.
No. 10158, below.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Those enumerated in section 4, who are not considered
mendicants, are the following:
1. Any infant or child 8 years old and below who is found
begging or is being utilized by a mendicant for
purposes of begging
2. Any minor over 9 years of age under 15 found begging
or is being utilized for purposes of begging, and who
acted with or without discernment
3. Any person who is found begging and who is physically
or mentally incapable of gainful occupation
Who are punishable?
1. A mendicant shall, upon conviction, be punished by a
fine not exceeding P500.00 or by imprisonment for a
period not exceeding 2 years or both at the discretion
of the court.
2. A habitual mendicant (one who has been convicted
of mendicancy under this law two or more times) shall
be punished by a fine not exceeding P1,000.00 or by
imprisonment for a period not exceeding 4 years or
both at the discretion of the court.
3. Parents of exploited infants or minors (those
enumerated under section 4) are punishable under P.D.
603, unless they are themselves mendicants.
4. Any person who abets mendicancy by giving alms
directly to mendicants, exploited infants and minors on
public roads, sidewalks, parks and bridges shall be
punished by a fine nor exceeding P20.00.
R.A. No. 9208
The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of 2003
Trafficking in Persons- It is the recruitment,
transportation, transfer or harboring, or receipt of persons
with or without the victim’s consent or knowledge, within or
across national borders by means of threat or use of force,
or other forms of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception,
abuse of power or of position, taking advantage of the
vulnerability of the person or the giving or receiving of
payments or benefits to achieve the consent of a person
having control over another person for the purpose of
exploitation which includes at a minimum, the exploitation or
exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery, servitude or
the removal or sale of organs.
Acts of Trafficking in Persons- It shall be unlawful for
any person, natural or judicial to commit any of the following
acts:
1. To recruit, transport, transfer, harbor, provide or receive a
person by any means, including those done under the
pretext of domestic or overseas employment or training or
apprenticeship, for the purpose of prostitution, pornography,
sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery;
2. To introduce or match for money, profit or material,
economic or other consideration, any person or, as provided
national, for marriage for the purpose of acquiring, buying,
77

offering, selling, or trading him/her to engage in prostitution,
pornography;
3. To offer or contract marriage, real or simulated, for the
purpose of acquiring, buying, offering selling, or trading
them to engage in prostitution, pornography, sexual
exploitation, forced labor or slavery, involuntary servitude or
debt bondage;
4. To undertake or organize tours and travel plans consisting
of tourism packages or activities for the purpose of utilizing
and offering persons for prostitution, pornography or sexual;
5. To maintain or hire a person to engage in prostitution or
pornography;
6. To adopt or facilitate the adoption of persons for the
purpose of prostitution, pornography sexual exploitation,
forced-labor, slavery, involuntary servitude or debt-bondage;
7. To recruit, hire, adopt, transport or abduct a person by
means of threat or use of force, fraud, deceit, violence,
coercion, or intimidation for the purpose of removal or sale
of organs of said person; and
8. To recruit, transport or adopt a child to engage in armed
activities in the Philippines or abroad.
Acts that Promote Trafficking in Persons- The following
acts which promote or facilitate trafficking in persons shall
be unlawful:
1. To knowingly lease or sublease, use or allow to be used
any house, building or establishment for the purpose of
promoting trafficking in persons;
2. To produce, print and issue or distribute unissued,
tampered or fake counseling certificates, registration stickers
and certificates of any government agency which issues
these certificates and stickers as proof of compliance with
government regulatory and pre-departure requirements for
the purpose of promoting trafficking in persons;
3. To advertise, publish, print, broadcast or distribute, or
cause the advertisement, publication, printing, broadcasting
or distribution by any means, including the sue of
information technology and the internet of any brochure,
flyer or any propaganda material that promotes trafficking in
persons;
4. To assist in the conduct of misrepresentation or fraud for
purposes of facilitating the acquisition of clearances and
necessary exit documents from government agencies that
are mandated to provide pre-departure registration and
services for departing persons for the purpose of promoting
trafficking in persons;
5. To facilitate, assist or help in the exist and entry of
persons from/to the country at international and local
airports, territorial boundaries and seaports who are in
possession of unissued, tampered or fraudulent travel
documents for the purpose of promoting trafficking in
persons;
6. To confiscate, conceal or destroy the passport, travel
documents, or personal documents or belongings of
trafficked persons in furtherance of trafficking or to prevent
them from leaving the country or seeking redress from the
government or appropriate agencies; and
7. To knowingly benefit from, financial or otherwise, or make
use of, the labor or services of a person held to a condition
of involuntary servitude, forced labor or slavery.
Qualified Trafficking in Persons:
1. When the trafficked person is a child;
2. When the adoption is effected through Republic Act No.
8043, otherwise known as the “Inter-country Adoption Act”
Criminal Law II Review Notes
and said adoption is for the purpose of prostitution,
pornography, sexual exploitation, forced labor, slavery,
involuntary servitude or debt bondage;
3. When the crime is committed by a syndicate or in large
scale;
4. When the offender is an ascendant, parent, sibling,
guardian or a person who exercises authority over the
trafficked persons or when the offense is committed by a
public officer or employee;
5. When the trafficked person is recruited to engage in
prostitution with any member of the military or law
enforcement agencies;
6. When the offender is a member of the military or law
enforcement agencies;
7. When by reason or on occasion of the act of trafficking in
persons, the offended party dies, becomes insane, suffers
mutiliation or is afflicted with Human Immunodeficiency
Virus (HIV) or the Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome
(AIDS).
People v. Casio
G.R. No. 211465, 2 December 2014
FACTS: Casio, by acting as a procurer for different
customers, for money, profit or any other consideration, was
accused of hiring and/or recruiting AAA, a minor, 17 years
old, and BBB for the purpose of prostitution and sexual
exploitation, in Violation of Sec. 4, Par. (a), Qualified by Sec.
6, Par. (a), of R.A. 9208 (Qualified Trafficking in Persons).
Casio denied being a pimp and asserted that she was a
laundry woman.48 In addition, AAA admitted that she
worked as a prostitute. Thus, it was her decision to display
herself to solicit customers.
HELD: As defined under Section 3(a) of Republic Act No.
9208, trafficking in persons can still be committed even if
the victim gives consent.
The recruitment transportation, transfer, harboring or receipt
of a child for the purpose of exploitation shall also be
considered as "trafficking in persons.”
Moreover, the victim’s consent is rendered meaningless due
to the coercive, abusive, or deceptive means employed by
perpetrators of human trafficking. Even without the use of
coercive, abusive, or deceptive means, a minor’s consent is
not given out of his or her own free will.
Thus, Casio performed all the elements of trafficking in
persons in the commission of the offense when she peddled
AAA and BBB and offered their services to decoys PO1
Veloso and PO1 Luardo in exchange for money. The offense
was also qualified because the trafficked persons were
minors.
People v. Villanueva
G.R. No. 210798, 14 September 2016
FACTS: AAA ran away from home after finding out that she
was adopted and after being scolded by her mother. The
friends of AAA informed her mother that AAA was staying at
the On Tap Videoke Bar, working as a Guest Relations
Officer. AAA’s mother sought assistance from the Channel 2
TV program "XXX" to regain custody over AAA. AAA’s
mother, accompanied by the TV crew, lodged a preliminary
complaint with the Southern Police District (SPD)
78
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

Headquarters of Taguig City against On Tap Videoke Bar and dismissed upon effectivity of this Act.
a task force was created for the rescue of AAA.
Sec. 3. Immediate Release of Convicted Persons- All
After the operation, AAA was taken to the SPD persons serving sentence for violation of the provisions of
headquarters, together with Villanueva and five (5) other Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code on Vagrancy prior to
videoke bar employees. its amendment by this Act shall be immediately released
upon effectivity of this Act: Provided, That they are not
HELD: The elements of trafficking in persons, derived from serving sentence or detained for any other offense or felony.
the expanded definition found in Section 3(a) of R.A. No.
9208 as amended by R.A. No. 10364, are as follows: (1) The
Title Seven
act of "recruitment, obtaining, hiring, providing, offering,
CRIMES COMMITTED BY PUBLIC OFFICERS
transportation, transfer, maintaining, harboring, or receipt of
persons with or without the victim's consent or knowledge,
Chapter One. Preliminary Provisions
within or across national borders;" (2) The means used
include "by means of threat, or use of force, or other forms
Article 203. Who are public officers
of coercion, abduction, fraud, deception, abuse of power or
of position, taking advantage of the vulnerability of the
Chapter Two. Malfeasance and Misfeasance in Office
person, or, the giving or receiving of payments or benefits to
achieve the consent of a person having control over another
Section One – Dereliction of duty
person;" and (3) The purpose of trafficking includes "the
Article 204. Knowingly rendering unjust judgment
exploitation or the prostitution of others or other forms of
Article 205. Judgment rendered through negligence
sexual exploitation, forced labor or services, slavery,
Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order
servitude or the removal or sale of organs."
Article 207. Malicious Delay in the administration of
justice
In an attempt to prove the first element, the prosecution
Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence &
stresses the fact that Villanueva is the registered owner of
tolerance
the On Tap Videoke Bar. The prosecution insists that by
Article 209. Betrayal of trust by attorney – revelation
merely being the registered owner, VIllanueva necessarily
of secrets
committed the act of recruiting, maintaining or harboring
AAA. Such contention is misplaced. Recruiting, harboring, or
Section Two – Bribery
maintaining a person for the purpose of exploitation are
Article 210. Bribery
acts performed by persons who may or may not be
Article 211. Indirect bribery
registered owners of establishments. Thus, being the
Article 211-A. Qualified bribery
registered owner per se does not make one criminally liable
Article 212. Corruption of public officials
for the acts of trafficking committed in the establishment.
Chapter Three. Frauds and Illegal Exactions and
The prosecution likewise failed to prove the third element-
Transactions
that the recruiting, maintaining or harboring of persons is for
the purpose of exploitation. Curiously, AAA was seen by the
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury and
prosecution witnesses at the videoke bar only on the day the
similar offenses.
rescue operation was conducted. That AAA was exploited
Article 214. Other Frauds
could not be proven by her mere presence at the videoke
Article 215. Prohibited Transactions
bar during the rescue operation.
Article 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a
public officer
R.A. No. 10158
Chapter Four. Malversation of Public Funds or Property
An Act Decriminalizing Vagrancy, Amending for this
Purpose Article 202 of Act No. 3815, as Amended.
Article 217. Malversation of public funds
Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to render
Sec 1. Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code is hereby,
accounts
amended to read as follows:
Article 219. Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts before leaving the country
“Article 202. Prostitutes; Penalty. – For the purposes of this
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property
article, women who, for money or profit, habitually indulge
Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds or
in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to
property
be prostitutes.
Article 222. Officers included in the preceding
provisions
“Any person found guilty of any of the offenses covered by
this article shall be punished by arresto menor or a fine not Chapter Five. Infidelity of Public Officers
exceeding 200 pesos, and in case of recidivism, by arresto
mayor in its medium period to prision correctional in its Section One – Infidelity in the custody of prisoners
minimum period or a fine ranging from 200 to 2,000 pesos, Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion
or both, in the discretion of the court.” Article 224. Evasion through negligence
Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the
Sec 2. Effect on Pending Cases- All pending cases under
the provisions of Article 202 of the Revised Penal Code on custody of a person not a
Vagrancy prior to its amendment by this Act shall be

79
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

• Embraces every public servant from highest to lowest.

public officer
• Laborer, unless temporarily performs functions of a
public officer, is not a public officer.
Section Two – Infidelity in the custody of documents
Article 226. Removal, concealment, or destruction of
documents
Malfeasance and Misfeasance in office
Article 227. Officer breaking seal
• Misfeasance is the improper performance of some act
Article 228. Opening of closed documents
which might be lawfully done
à Arts. 204-207 are misfeasances on office that
Section Three – Revelation of secrets
a judge can commit
Article 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer
• Malfesance is the performance of an act which ought
Article 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private
not to be done
individual
à Arts. 210-211 are malfeasances in office that a
public officer can commit
Chapter Six. Other Offenses or Irregularities by Public
• Nonfeasance is the ommission of some act which
Officers
ought to be performed
à Art. 208 is a nonfeasance
Section One – Disobedience, refusal of assistance and
• Arts. 204-209 are crimes under dereliction of duty
maltreatment of prisoners
Article 231. Open disobedience
Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior officer,
Article 204. Knowingly render unjust judgment
when said order was suspended by inferior officer
Article 233. Refusal of assistance
1. Offender is a judge;
Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for
Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners
decision;
3. Judgment is unjust; and
Section Two – Anticipation, prolongation and
4. The judge knows that his judgment is unjust.
abandonment of the duties and powers by public office
Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office
• Unjust judgment is the final determination and
Article 237. Prolonging the performance of duties and
consideration of a court of competent jurisdiction upon
Powers
the matters submitted to it which is contrary to law or
Article 238. Abandonment of office or position
is not supported by evidence or both.
• When rendered knowingly – An unjust judgment must
Section Three – Usurpation of powers and unlawful
be made deliberately and maliciously (from error, ill-
appointments
will, revenge or bribery); Thus, one does not incur any
Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers
liability for a mere error in good faith.
Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions
• There must be evidence that the judge knew that his
Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions
judgment is unjust
Article 242. Disobeying request for disqualification
Article 243. Orders or requests by executive officers to
any judicial authority
Article 205. Judgment rendered through negligence
Article 244. Unlawful appointments
1. Offender is a judge;
Section Four – Abuses against chastity
2. He renders a judgment in a case submitted to him for
Article 245. Abuses against chastity - Penalties
decision;
3. The judgment is manifestly unjust; and
4. It is due to his inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
Article 203. Who are public officers
• Manifestly unjust judgment refers to a judgment which
Requisites to be a public officer: is so manifestly contrary to law that even a person
having a meager knowledge of the law cannot doubt
1. Taking part in the performance of public functions in the injustice.
the government; • Abuse of discretion or mere error of judgment without
proof of bad faith, or ill motive or improper
or consideration is not punishable.

Performing in said government or in any of its branches

public duties as an employee, agent or subordinate Article 206. Unjust interlocutory order
official, or any rank or class;
1. Offender is a judge;
2. His authority to take part in the performance of public
functions or to perform public duties must be - 2. He performs any of the following acts:
a. Knowingly rendering an unjust interlocutory order
a. By direct provision of the law; or decree; or
b. By popular election; or b. Rendering a manifestly unjust interlocutory order
c. By appointment by competent authority. or decree through inexcusable negligence or
ignorance.

80

• “Interlocutory order” is a court order between the
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.
Article 207. Malicious Delay in the administration of
justice
1. Offender is a judge;
2. There is a proceeding in his court;
3. He delays in the administration of justice; and
4. The delay is malicious, that is, with deliberate intent to
inflict damage on either party in the case. (malice
must be proven)
Article 208. Prosecution of offenses; negligence &
tolerance (PREVARICACION)
Acts Punishable:
1. Maliciously refraining from instituting prosecution
against violators of the law; and
2. Maliciously tolerating the commission of offenses.
Elements of dereliction of duty in the prosecution of offenses
1. Offender is a public officer or officer of the law
who has a duty to cause the prosecution of, or to
prosecute, offenses;
2. There is a dereliction of the duties of his office, that is,
knowing the commission of the crime, he does not
cause the prosecution of the criminal, or knowing that a
crime is about to be committed, he tolerates its
commission; and
3. Offender acts with malice and deliberate intent to favor
the violator of the law.
• Negligence here means the neglect of the duties of his
office by maliciously failing to move the prosecution
and punishment of the delinquent. Malice is an
important element.
• “Officer of the law” includes all those who by reason of
the position held by them are duty bound to cause the
prosecution and punishment of the offenders; Public
officer extends to those officers of the prosecution
department whose duty is to institute criminal
proceedings for felonies upon being informed of their
perpetration.
• Fiscal who knows that there is sufficient evidence to
secure the conviction of the accused but drops the
case is liable and punishable under Art. 206. But the
fiscal is under no compulsion to file the corresponding
complaint where he is not convinced that the evidence
gathered would warrant the filing of an action in court.
• Crime committed by the law violator must be first
proved before conviction for dereliction.
• Liability of public officer who, having the duty of
prosecuting the offender, harbored, concealed or
assisted the escape of the latter is that of the principal
in the crime defined and penalized under Art 208
• Not applicable to revenue officers
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Article 209. Betrayal of trust by attorney -revelation
of secrets
Acts punishable:
1. Causing damage to his client, either-
a. By any malicious breach of professional duty;
b. By inexcusable negligence or ignorance.
Note: When the attorney acts with malicious abuse of
his employment or inexcusable negligence or
ignorance, there must be damage to his client.
2. Revealing any of the secrets of his client learned by him
in his professional capacity;
Note: Damage is not necessary
3. Undertaking the defense of the opposing party in the
same case, without the consent of his first client, after
having undertaken the defense of said first client of
after having received confidential information from said
client.
Note: If the client consents to the attorney’s taking the
defense of the other party, there is no crime.
• There is no solicitor or procurador judicial under the
Rules of Court. (procurador judicial – a person who
had some practical knowledge of law and procedure,
but not a lawyer, and was permitted to represent a
party in a case before the inferior courts)
Article 210. Direct Bribery
Acts punishable:
1. Agreeing to perform, or performing, in consideration of
any offer, promise, gift or present - an act constituting
a crime, in connection with the performance of his
official duties;
2. Accepting a gift in consideration of the execution of an
act which does not constitute a crime, in connection
with the performance of his official duty;
3. Agreeing to refrain, or by refraining, from doing
something which it is his official duty to do, in
consideration of gift or promise.
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer within the scope of Article
203;
2. Offender accepts an offer or a promise or receives a
gift or present by himself or through another;
3. Such offer or promise be accepted, or gift or present
received by the public officer -
a. With a view to committing some crime; or
b. In consideration of the execution of an act which
does not constitute a crime, but the act must be
unjust; or
c. To refrain from doing something which it is his
official duty to do.
81

4. The act which offender agrees to perform or which he
executes be connected with the performance of his
official duties.
• For the purpose of punishing bribery, the temporary
performance of public functions is sufficient to
constitute a person a public officer.
• The provisions of this article are made applicable to
assessors, arbitrators, appraisal and claim
commissioners, experts or any other persons
performing public duties.
• Gift is either voluntarily offered by a private person or
solicited by the public officer, it may be received
personally or thru intermediary.
• Gift or present need not actually be received by the
public officer, as an accepted offer or promise of gift is
sufficient.
• If there is only an offer of gift or promise to give
something, the offer or promise must be accepted by
the public officer to be liable under this article. If not
accepted, only the person offering is liable under Article
212.
• It must be of some value or capable of pecuniary
estimation.
• A promise to give gift to, and a promise to commit an
unlawful act by, a public officer will be sufficient under
Art. 210 [1]
• Direct bribery under Art.210 [2] has the same elements
as Art 210 [1] but act intended by public officer does
not amount to a crime.
• Direct bribery under Art 210 [2] acceptance of the gift
and the accomplishment of act is necessary.
• The commission of Art 210 [3] is by refraining from
doing something which pertains to a public officer’s
official duty. Prevaricacion (Art 208) is committed the
same way. But they differ in that in ART. 210 [3] the
offender refrained from doing his official duty in
consideration of a gift received or promised. This is not
necessary in Art. 208.
Manipon v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. L-58889, 31 July 1986
FACTS: Manipon, a deputy sheriff assigned to execute the
decision of the labor arbiter ordering Harry Dominguez, a
building contractor to pay the balance of their work contract.
He sent a notice to the Comtrust Bank in Baguio City
garnishing the bank accounts of Dominguez. The bank
agreed to hold the accounts. Later on Dominguez sought
Manipon's help in the withdrawal of the garnished account.
Manipon told Dominguez that he "can remedy the
withdrawal so they will have something for the New Year."
Dominguez interpreted this to mean that Manipon would
withdraw the garnished amount for a consideration. Manipon
contends that the Sandiganbayan erred in convicting him of
direct bribery, in not giving credence to the defense theory
that there was novation of the money judgment.
HELD: It is very strange indeed that for such an important
agreement that would be a final judgment, no one took the
bother of putting it down or paper. Of course Manipon would
have us believe that there was no need for it because he
trusted Dominguez and Tabek.
And yet did he not also claim that Dominguez had framed
him up because of a grudge? And if there was really an
Criminal Law II Review Notes
agreement to alter the judgment, why did he not inform the
labor arbiter about it considering that it was the labor arbiter
who had issued the order of execution? Manipon could not
give satisfactory explanations because there was no such
agreement in the first place.
Dacumos v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 95000, 16 April 1991
FACTS: Dacumos was a BIR revenue examiner when he
offered to settle the tax liability of R. Revilla Interiors by
pulling out its assessments papers from the office of the BIR
Commissioner and procuring a tax clearance. For such
service, he would require a fee of P35,000.00. Samia, the
manager of the firm, pretended to go along with him but
reported the matter to the National Bureau of Investigation,
which arranged an entrapment. Dacumos was caught and
convicted of direct bribery. He argues that he could not
have promised to remove the assessment papers from the
Commissioner's office as he had no access to that place.
HELD: The implausibility of his promises does not mean they
were not made or that they did not appear to be credible,
coming as they did from one with his long experience in the
BIR and appeared to know his way around. The Court finds
it especially remarkable that he met Samia at a private place
instead of his office at the BIR, considering that they were
supposed to be discussing official business and it was Samia
who he says was requesting his assistance. The Court is not
inclined to believe that Samia would be so vindictive as to
falsely incriminate the petitioner with the serious charge of
bribery simply because the petitioner refused to reduce the
tax assessment of R. Revilla Interiors. Samia was not even
directly involved in the assessment.
Article 211. Indirect Bribery
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He accepts gifts; and
3. The gifts are offered to him by reason of his office.
• Gift is usually given to the public officer in anticipation
of future favor from the public officer
• Essential to Art. 211 is that the public officer must have
accepted the gift or material consideration; that is, the
public officer took the gift offered and considered it as
his personal property.
• There is no attempted or frustrated indirect bribery
• Indirect bribery is different from direct bribery under
Art 210 [2] in that the former the act executed was not
unjust while the former requires that the act be unjust
• Criminal penalty of imprisonment is distinct from the
administrative penalty of separation from judicial
service.
Direct bribery Indirect bribery
The public officer receives a gift
There is an agreement There is no such agreement
82
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

between the officer and the
gift-giver
The offender agrees to
perform an act or refrains
from doing something
because of the gift or
promise
said demand; public officer is not liable unless he
accepts the gift or consents to the promise
It is unnecessary that the
offender should do or
promise any act as it is
enough that he accepted the
gift by reason of his office

Presidential Decree No. 46

MAKING IT PUNISHABLE FOR PUBLIC OFFICIALS
AND EMPLOYEES TO RECEIVE, AND FOR PRIVATE
PERSONS TO GIVE, GIFTS ON ANY OCCASION,
INCLUDING CHRISTMAS
• any public official or employee,
• whether of the national or local governments,
• to receive, directly or indirectly,
• and for private persons
• to give, or offer to give, any gift, present or other
valuable thing to any occasion, including Christmas,
• when such gift, present or other valuable thing is given
by reason of his official position,
• regardless of whether or not the same is for past favor
or favors or the giver hopes or expects to receive a
favor or better treatment in the future from the public
official or employee concerned in the discharge of his
official functions.
• Included within the prohibition is the throwing of
parties or entertainments in honor of the official or
employees or his immediate relatives.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 749
Granting Immunity From Prosecution To Givers Of
Bribes And Other Gifts And To Their Accomplices In
Bribery And Other Graft Cases Against Public Officers
Who may be granted immunity under the Act?
1. Any person who voluntarily gives information about
any violation of:
- RPC 210 (Direct Bribery), 211 (Indirect Bribery),
and 212 (Corruption of public officials);
- RA 3019
- Sec 345 of the NIRC
- Sec 3604 of the Tariff and Customs Code
- other provisions of the said Codes penalizing
abuse or dishonesty on the part of the public
officials concerned; and other laws, rules and
regulations punishing acts of graft, corruption and
other forms of official abuse;
2. AND who willingly testifies against any public official or
employee for such violation

…shall be exempt from prosecution or punishment for the

Article 211-A. Qualified Bribery
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with law
enforcement;
2. He refrains from arresting or prosecuting an offender
who has committed a crime;
3. Offender has committed a crime punishable by
reclusion perpetua and/or death; and
4. Offender refrains from arresting or prosecuting in
consideration of any offer, promise, gift, or present.
• Penalty is increased if the public officer asks or
demands such gift or present.
Article 212. Corruption by public officials
Elements:
1. Offender makes offers or promises or gives gifts or
presents to a public officer; and
2. The offers or promises are made or the gifts or
presents given to a public officer, under circumstances
that will make the public officer liable for direct bribery
or indirect bribery.
• The offender in Art. 212 is the gift-giver or offeror of
promise, even if the gift was demanded by the public
officer and the offer was not made voluntarily prior to
offense with reference to which his information and
testimony were given, and may plead or prove the giving of
such information and testimony in bar of such prosecution.
EVEN IF –
- the case where the information and testimony are
given is against a person who is not a public
official but who is a principal, or accomplice, or
accessory in the commission of any of the above-
mentioned violations; or
- it is the informant who offered or gave the bribe
or gift to the public official or his accomplice for
such gift or bribe-giving.
What are the conditions for immunity?
1. The information must refer to consummated violations of
any of the above-mentioned provisions of law, rules and
regulations;
2. The information and testimony are necessary for the
conviction of the accused public officer;
3. Such information and testimony are not yet in the
possession of the State;
4. Such information and testimony can be corroborated on
its material points; and
5. The informant or witness has not been previously
convicted of a crime involving moral turpitude.

83

When will immunity NOT attach?
- If it should turn out subsequently that the
information and/or testimony (1) is false and
malicious or (2) made only for the purpose of
harassing, molesting or in any way prejudicing
the public officer denounced
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Republic Act No. 3019
Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act
Sec. 2. Definition of terms. - As used in this Act, that term
(b) "Public officer" includes elective and appointive officials
and employees, permanent or temporary, whether in
the classified or unclassified or exempt service
receiving compensation, even nominal, from the
government as defined in the preceding subparagraph.
(c) "Receiving any gift" includes the act of accepting
directly or indirectly a gift from a person other than a
member of the public officer's immediate family, in
behalf of himself or of any member of his family or
relative within the fourth civil degree, either by
consanguinity or affinity, even on the occasion of a
family celebration or national festivity like Christmas, if
the value of the gift is under the circumstances
manifestly excessive.
(d) "Person" includes natural and juridical persons, unless
the context indicates otherwise.
Sec. 3. Corrupt practices of public officers. - In
addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby
declared to be unlawful:
(a) Persuading, inducing or influencing another public
officer to perform an act constituting a violation of
rules and regulations duly promulgated by competent
authority or an offense in connection with the official
duties of the latter, or allowing himself to be
persuaded, induced, or influenced to commit such
violation or offense.
(b) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present, share, percentage, or benefit, for himself or
for any other person, in connection with any contract
or transaction between the Government and any other
part, wherein the public officer in his official capacity
has to intervene under the law.
(c) Directly or indirectly requesting or receiving any gift,
present or other pecuniary or material benefit, for
himself or for another, from any person for whom the
public officer, in any manner or capacity, has secured
or obtained, or will secure or obtain, any Government
permit or license, in consideration for the help given or
to be given, without prejudice to Section thirteen of
this Act.
(d) Accepting or having any member of his family accept
employment in a private enterprise which has pending
official business with him during the pendency thereof
or within one year after its termination.
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any
unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in the
discharge of his official administrative or judicial
functions through manifest partiality, evident bad faith
or gross inexcusable negligence. This provision shall
apply to officers and employees of offices or
84

government corporations charged with the grant of
licenses or permits or other concessions.
(f) Neglecting or refusing, after due demand or request,
without sufficient justification, to act within a
reasonable time on any matter pending before him for
the purpose of obtaining, directly or indirectly, from
any person interested in the matter some pecuniary or
material benefit or advantage, or for the purpose of
favoring his own interest or giving undue advantage in
favor of or discriminating against any other interested
party.
(g) Entering, on behalf of the Government, into any
contract or transaction manifestly and grossly
disadvantageous to the same, whether or not the
public officer profited or will profit thereby.
(h) Director or indirectly having financing or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in
his official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the
Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
(i) Directly or indirectly becoming interested, for personal
gain, or having a material interest in any transaction or
act requiring the approval of a board, panel or group of
which he is a member, and which exercises discretion
in such approval, even if he votes against the same or
does not participate in the action of the board,
committee, panel or group.
1. Interest for personal gain shall be presumed against
those public officers responsible for the approval of
manifestly unlawful, inequitable, or irregular
transaction or acts by the board, panel or group to
which they belong.
(j) Knowingly approving or granting any license, permit,
privilege or benefit in favor of any person not qualified
for or not legally entitled to such license, permit,
privilege or advantage, or of a mere representative or
dummy of one who is not so qualified or entitled.
(k) Divulging valuable information of a confidential
character, acquired by his office or by him on account
of his official position to unauthorized persons, or
releasing such information in advance of its authorized
release date.
The person giving the gift, present, share,
percentage or benefit referred to in
subparagraphs (b) and (c); or offering or giving
to the public officer the employment mentioned
in subparagraph (d); or urging the divulging or
untimely release of the confidential information
referred to in subparagraph (k) of this section
shall, together with the offending public officer,
be punished under Section nine of this Act and
shall be permanently or temporarily disqualified
in the discretion of the Court, from transacting
business in any form with the Government.
Sec. 4. Prohibition on private individuals. –
Criminal Law II Review Notes
a) It shall be unlawful for any person having family or
close personal relation with any public official to
capitalize or exploit or take advantage of such family or
close personal relation by directly or indirectly
requesting or receiving any present, gift or material or
pecuniary advantage from any other person having
some business, transaction, application, request or
contract with the government, in which such public
official has to intervene. Family relation shall include
the spouse or relatives by consanguinity or affinity in
the third civil degree. The word "close personal
relation" shall include close personal friendship, social
and fraternal connections, and professional
employment all giving rise to intimacy which assures
free access to such public officer.
b) It shall be unlawful for any person knowingly to induce
or cause any public official to commit any of the
offenses defined in Section 3 hereof.
Sec. 5. Prohibition on certain relatives. - It shall be
unlawful for the spouse or for any relative, by consanguinity
or affinity, within the third civil degree, of the President of
the Philippines, the Vice-President of the Philippines, the
President of the Senate, or the Speaker of the House of
Representatives, to intervene, directly or indirectly, in any
business, transaction, contract or application with the
Government: Provided, That this section shall not apply to
any person who, prior to the assumption of office of any of
the above officials to whom he is related, has been already
dealing with the Government along the same line of
business, nor to any transaction, contract or application
already existing or pending at the time of such assumption
of public office, nor to any application filed by him the
approval of which is not discretionary on the part of the
official or officials concerned but depends upon compliance
with requisites provided by law, or rules or regulations
issued pursuant to law, nor to any act lawfully performed in
an official capacity or in the exercise of a profession.
Sec. 7. Statement of Assets and liabilities – Every
public officer within 30 days after assuming office, and
thereafter, on or before the 15th day of April following the
close of every calendar year, as well as upon resignation or
separation from office, shall prepare and file with the office
of the corresponding department head, or in the case of a
Head of Department or a Chief of an independent office,
with the Office of the President, a true, detailed and sworn
statement of assets and liabilities, including a statement of
the amounts and sources of his income taxes paid for the
next preceding calendar year. Provided, that public officers
assuming office less than two months before the end of the
calendar year, may file their first statement on or before the
15th day of April following the close of the said calendar
year.
Sec. 11. Prescription of offenses. – All offenses
punishable under this act shall prescribe in 15 years.
Sec. 14. Exception. - Unsolicited gifts or presents of small
or insignificant value offered or given as a mere ordinary
token of gratitude or friendship according to local customs
or usage, shall be excepted from the provisions of this Act.
Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted to prejudice or
prohibit the practice of any profession, lawful trade or
85
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

occupation by any private person or by any public officer which gave the herein accused the authority to demolish the
who under the law may legitimately practice his Spouses Bombasi’s store.
profession, trade or occupation, during his incumbency,
except where the practice of such profession, trade or
occupation involves conspiracy with any other person or Santillano v. People
public official to commit any of the violations penalized G.R. Nos. 175045-46, 3 March 2010
in this Act.
FACTS: Engr. Santillano was found guilty of three counts of
violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019 or
the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. However, Engr.
Asilo v. People Santillano argued that the decision of the Sandiganbayan
G.R. Nos. 159017-18 and G.R. No. 195059, 9 March 2011
was contrary to law since he is a private person and not a
public officer.
FACTS: Spouses Bombasi, filed a criminal complaint against
Mayor Comendador, Asilo and Angeles for violation of Sec. HELD: The fact that one of the elements of Section 3(g) of
3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 otherwise known as the "Anti-
RA 3019 is "that the accused is a public officer" does not
Graft and Corrupt Practices Act" before the Office of the
necessarily preclude its application to private persons who
Ombudsman for committing the crime herein charged in
are being charged with conspiring with public officers in the
relation to, while in the performance and taking advantage
commission of the offense thereunder.
of their official functions in causing the demolition of a public
market stall leased by the municipal government in favor of
In Engr. Santillano’s case, the finding of conspiracy is not
Visitacion Coronado-Bombasi without legal or justifiable
unfounded. In all three criminal cases, the prosecution was
ground, thus, causing undue injury to the latter.
able to establish that Ecleo, Jr. and Navarra approved of
overpayments made to Engr. Santillano.
HELD: Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 provides:
In addition to acts or omissions of public officers already
penalized by existing law, the following shall constitute
Sison v. People
corrupt practices of any public officer and are hereby G.R. No. 170339, 170398-403, 9 March 2010
declared to be unlawful:
xxxx
FACTS: Petitioner, a mayor of small provincial municipality,
(e) Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
was charged with violating Sec. 3 (e) of R.A. No. 3019 after
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
a post-audit indicated that he authorized the procurement of
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
several supplies and equipment without public bidding.
official, administrative or judicial functions through manifest
Likewise, he failed to comply with the personal canvass
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.
requirements for local government acquisitions under R.A.
This provision shall apply to officers and employees of
No. 7160. Petitioner insisted that he was innocent of the
offices or government corporations charged with the grant charges since he was merely following the acquisition
of licenses or permits or other concessions.
practices of his predecessors.
The elements of the offense are as follows: (1) that the
HELD: Petitioner’s defense was untenable. He was grossly
accused are public officers or private persons charged in negligent in all the purchases that were made under his
conspiracy with them; (2) that said public officers commit
watch, and which caused undue damage to the Municipality.
the prohibited acts during the performance of their official
Petitioner’s admission that the canvass sheets sent out by de
duties or in relation to their public positions; (3) that they
Jesus to the suppliers already contained his signatures
caused undue injury to any party, whether the Government because he pre-signed these forms only proved his utter
or a private party; (4) OR that such injury is caused by
disregard of the consequences of his actions. He also
giving unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference to the
admitted that he knew the provisions of RA 7160 on
other party; and (5) that the public officers have acted with
personal canvass but he did not follow the law because he
manifest partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable
was merely following the practice of his predecessors. This
negligence. was an admission of a mindless disregard for the law in a
tradition of illegality. This is totally unacceptable, considering
It is undisputable that the first two requisites of the criminal
that as municipal mayor, petitioner ought to implement the
offense were present at the time of the commission of the
law to the letter. Sadly, however, he was the first to break it.
complained acts and that, as to the remaining elements,
there is sufficient amount of evidence to establish that there
Presidential Ad Hoc Fact-Finding Committee on
was an undue injury suffered on the part of the Spouses
Behest Loans v. Desierto, et al.
Bombasi and that the public officials concerned acted with
G.R. No. 130817, 22 August 2001
evident bad faith when they performed the demolition of the
market stall.
FACTS: Atty. Orlando Salvador filed with the Ombudsman a
complaint against Calinog-Lambunao Sugar Mills, Inc. for
There is undue injury to Spouses Bombasi since the
violation of the provisions of Section 3 (e) and (g) of R.A.
demolition of their store was carried out without a court No. 3019. However, the Ombudsman dismissed the
order, and notwithstanding a restraining order which the
complaint on the ground of prescription since the loan
plaintiff was able to obtain. The demolition was done in the
transactions subject of said complaint occurred in the years
exercise of official duties which apparently was attended by
1968, 1978, 1979 and 1982, respectively. Hence, the fifteen
evident bad faith, manifest partiality or gross inexcusable
(15) year prescriptive period for offenses punishable under
negligence as there is nothing in the two (2) resolutions

86

R.A. 3019, as amended has already passed from the time
the alleged offenses were committed.
HELD: In resolving the issue of prescription of the offense
charged, the following shall be considered: (1) the period of
prescription for the offense charged; (2) the time the period
of prescription started to run; and (3) the time the
prescriptive period was interrupted
In cases involving violations of R.A. No. 3019 committed
prior to the February 1986 Edsa Revolution that ousted
President Ferdinand E. Marcos, the Supreme Court ruled that
the government as the aggrieved party could not have
known of the violations at the time the questioned
transactions were made. Moreover, no person would have
dared to question the legality of those transactions. Thus,
the counting of the prescriptive period commenced is from
the date of discovery of the offense in 1992 after an
exhaustive investigation by the Presidential Ad Hoc
Committee on Behest Loans.
As to when the period of prescription was interrupted, the
second paragraph of Section 2, Act No. 3326, as amended,
provides that prescription is interrupted "when proceedings
are instituted against the guilty person."
In this case, the prescriptive period was interrupted upon
the filing of the complaint with the Ombudsman on March
24, 1997, five (5) years from the time of discovery in 1992.
Domingo v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 149175, 25 October 2005
Under Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019, the person liable is any
public officer who directly or indirectly has financial or
pecuniary interest in any business, contract or transaction in
connection with which he intervenes or takes part in his
official capacity, or in which he is prohibited by the
Constitution or by any law from having any interest.
The essential elements of the violation of said provision are
as follows: 1) The accused is a public officer; 2) he has a
direct or indirect financial or pecuniary interest in any
business, contract or transaction; 3) he either: a) intervenes
or takes part in his official capacity in connection with such
interest, or b) is prohibited from having such interest by the
Constitution or by law.
In other words, there are two modes by which a public
officer who has a direct or indirect financial or pecuniary
interest in any business, contract, or transaction may violate
Section 3(h) of R.A. 3019. The first mode is when the public
officer intervenes or takes part in his official capacity in
connection with his financial or pecuniary interest in any
business, contract or transaction. The second mode is when
he is prohibited from having such an interest by the
Constitution or by law.
Bustillo v. People
G.R. No. 160718, 12 May 2010
FACTS: With the assistance of Cong. Paredes, the
municipality of Bunawan was able to purchase two brand
new cars for official use. Subsequently, the Sangguniang
Bayan passed a resolution authorizing the transfer of the
vehicles to the water district, without cost. The transfer,
Criminal Law II Review Notes
according to the resolution, was intended to help the water
district in the performance of its functions. As mandated by
the issuance, petitioner, as the Mayor, transferred the
vehicles to the water district. However, the resolution in
question was later invalidated by the Sangguniang
Panlalawigan because under the Local Government Code,
only unserviceable vehicles may be transferred without cost.
Subsequently, petitioner was charged with violation of
Section 3(e) of RA 3019, because the transferred cars were
in perfect running condition.
HELD: Petitioner was acquitted. The elements of Section
3(e) of R.A. No. 3019 are not entirely present. While
petitioner is a public officer, there is no showing that the
transfer is prohibited by law. For one, he effected the
transfer in compliance with the terms of the resolution,
which was then effective. Petitioner was merely carrying out
his duty to enforce and implement local ordinances and
resolutions. Also, there is no proof that he acted in bad faith,
or caused any undue injury to any party. The grant of
vehicles to the water district cannot qualify as an
unwarranted benefit because the same was for a public
purpose.
R.A. No. 1379
FORFEITURE IN FAVOR OF THE STATE OF ANY PROPERTY
FOUND TO HAVE BEEN UNLAWFULLY ACQUIRED BY ANY
PUBLIC OFFICER OR EMPLOYEE (1955)
SECTION 1. Definitions.
(a) For the purposes of this Act, a "public officer or
employee" means any person holding any public office
or employment by virtue of an appointment, election or
contract, and any person holding any office or
employment, by appointment or contract, in any State
owned or controlled corporation or enterprise.
(b) "Other legitimately acquired property" means any real
or personal property, money or securities which the
respondent has at any time acquired by inheritance
and the income thereof, or by gift inter vivos before his
becoming a public officer or employee, or any property
(or income thereof) already pertaining to him when he
qualified for public office or employment, or the fruits
and income of the exclusive property of the
respondent's spouse. It shall not include:
1. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent,
but its ownership is concealed by its being recorded in the
name of, or held by, the respondent's spouse, ascendants,
descendants, relatives, or any other person.
2. Property unlawfully acquired by the respondent,
but transferred by him to another person or persons on or
after the effectivity of this Act.
3. Property donated to the respondent during his
incumbency, unless he can prove to the satisfaction of the
court that the donation is lawful.
SECTION 2. Filing of petition. — Whenever any public
officer or employee has acquired during his incumbency an
amount of property which is manifestly out of proportion to
his salary as such public officer or employee and to his other
lawful income and the income from legitimately acquired
property, said property shall be presumed prima facie to
have been unlawfully acquired.
SECTION 11. Laws on prescription. - The laws concerning
87

acquisitive prescription and limitation of actions cannot be
invoked by, nor shall they benefit the respondent, in respect
of any property unlawfully acquired by him.
SECTION 12. Penalties. — Any public officer or employee
who shall, after the effective date of this Act, transfer or
convey any unlawfully acquired property shall be repressed
with imprisonment for a term not exceeding 5 years, or a
fine not exceeding P10,000, or both such imprisonment and
fine. The same repression shall be imposed upon any person
who shall knowingly accept such transfer or conveyance.
R.A. No. 9184
Government Procurement Reform Act
Sec. 65. Offenses and Penalties - Without prejudice to
the provisions of Republic Act No. 3019, otherwise known as
the “Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act” and
other penal laws, public officers who commit any of the
following acts shall suffer the
penalty of imprisonment of not less than six (6) years and
one (1) day, but not more than
fifteen (15) years:
(1) Open any sealed Bid including but not limited to Bids
that may have been submitted through the electronic system
and any and all documents required to be sealed or
divulging their contents, prior to the appointed time for the
public opening of Bids or other documents.
(2) Delaying, without justifiable cause, the screening for
eligibility, opening of bids, evaluation and post evaluation of
bids, and awarding of contracts beyond the prescribed
periods of action provided for in the IRR.
(3) Unduly influencing or exerting undue pressure on any
member of the BAC or any officer or employee of the
procuring entity to take a particular action which favors, or
tends to favor a particular bidder.
(4) Splitting of contracts which exceed procedural purchase
limits and competitive bidding.
(5) When the head of the agency abuses the exercise of his
power to reject any and all bids as mentioned under Section
41 of this Act with manifest preference to any bidder who is
closely related to him in accordance with Section 47 of this
Act.
When any of the foregoing acts is done in collusion with
private individuals, the private individuals shall likewise be
liable for the offense.
In addition, the public officer involved shall also suffer the
penalty of temporary disqualification from public office, while
the private individual shall be permanently disqualified from
transacting business with the Government.
(b) Private individuals who commit any of the following
acts, including any public officer, who conspires with them,
shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less than
six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than fifteen (15)
years:
(1) When two or more bidders agree and submit different
Bids as if they were bona fide, when they knew that one or
more of them was so much higher than the other
that it could not be honestly accepted and that the contract
will surely be awarded to the pre-arranged lowest Bid.
(2) When a bidder maliciously submits different Bids through
Criminal Law II Review Notes
two or more persons, corporations, partnerships or any
other business entity in which he has interest to create the
appearance of competition that does not in fact exist so as
to be adjudged as the winning bidder.
(3) When two or more bidders enter into an agreement
which call upon one to refrain from bidding for Procurement
contracts, or which call for withdrawal of Bids already
submitted, or which are otherwise intended to secure an
undue advantage to any one of them.
(4) When a bidder, by himself or in connivance with others,
employ schemes which tend to restrain the natural rivalry of
the parties or operates to stifle or suppress competition and
thus produce a result disadvantageous to the public.
In addition, the persons involved shall also suffer the penalty
of temporary or perpetual disqualification from public office
and be permanently disqualified from transacting business
with the Government.
(c) Private individuals who commit any of the
following acts, and any public officer conspiring with
them, shall suffer the penalty of imprisonment of not less
than six (6) years and one (1) day but not more than fifteen
(15) years:
(1) Submit eligibility requirements of whatever kind and
nature that contain false information or falsified documents
calculated to influence the outcome of the eligibility
screening process or conceal such information in the
eligibility requirements when the information will lead to a
declaration of ineligibility from participating in public bidding.
(2) Submit Bidding Documents of whatever kind and nature
that contain false information or falsified documents or
conceal such information in the Bidding Documents, in order
to influence the outcome of the public bidding.
(3) Participate in a public bidding using the name of another
or allow another to use one’s name for the purpose of
participating in a public bidding.
(4) Withdraw a Bid, after it shall have qualified as the
Lowest Calculated Bid/Highest Rated Bid, or refuse to accept
an award, without just cause or for the purpose of forcing
the Procuring Entity to award the contract to another bidder.
This shall include the non-submission within the prescribed
time, or delaying the submission of requirements such as,
but not limited to, performance security, preparatory to the
final award of the contract.
(d) When the bidder is a juridical entity, criminal liability and
the accessory penalties shall be imposed on its directors,
officers or employees who actually commit any of the
foregoing acts.
R.A. No. 6713
Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards
for Public Officials and Employees
What are Prohibited Acts and Transactions?
In addition to acts and omissions of public officials and
employees now prescribed in the Constitution and existing
laws, the following shall constitute prohibited acts and
transactions of any public official and employee and are
hereby declared to be unlawful:
(a) Financial and material interest in any transaction
requiring the approval of their office.
(b) Public officials and employees during their incumbency
shall not:
88

a. Own, control, manage or accept employment as
officer, employee, consultant, counsel, broker, agent,
trustee or nominee in any private enterprise regulated,
supervised or licensed by their office unless expressly
allowed by law;
b. Engage in the private practice of their profession
unless authorized by the Constitution or law, provided,
that such practice will not conflict or tend to conflict
with their official functions; or
c. Recommend any person to any position in a
private enterprise which has a regular or pending
official transaction with their office.
These prohibitions shall continue to apply for a period of one
(1) year after resignation, retirement, or separation from
public office, except in the case of subparagraph (b) (2)
above, but the professional concerned cannot practice his
profession in connection with any matter before the office
he used to be with, in which case the one-year prohibition
shall likewise apply.
(c) Public officials and employees shall not use or divulge,
confidential or classified information officially known to
them by reason of their office and not made available
to the public, either (1)To further their private
interests, or give undue advantage to anyone; or (2)To
prejudice the public interest.
(d) Public officials and employees shall not solicit or
accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor,
entertainment, loan or anything of monetary value
from any person in the course of their official duties or
in connection with any operation being regulated by, or
any transaction which may be affected by the functions
of their office.
As to gifts or grants from foreign governments, the
Congress consents to:
(i) The acceptance and retention by a public official or
employee of a gift of nominal value tendered and
received as a souvenir or mark of courtesy;
(ii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of a
gift in the nature of a scholarship or fellowship grant or
medical treatment; or
(iii) The acceptance by a public official or employee of
travel grants or expenses for travel taking place
entirely outside the Philippine (such as allowances,
transportation, food, and lodging) of more than
nominal value if such acceptance is appropriate or
consistent with the interests of the Philippines, and
permitted by the head of office, branch or agency to
which he belongs.
The Ombudsman shall prescribe such regulations as may be
necessary to carry out the purpose of this subsection,
including pertinent reporting and disclosure requirements.
Nothing in this Act shall be construed to restrict or prohibit
any educational, scientific or cultural exchange programs
subject to national security requirements.
Penalties imposed
(a) Any public official or employee, regardless of whether
or not he holds office or employment in a casual,
temporary, holdover, permanent or regular capacity,
committing any violation of this Act shall be punished
Criminal Law II Review Notes
with a fine not exceeding the equivalent of six
(6) months' salary or suspension not exceeding
one (1) year, or removal depending on the
gravity of the offense after due notice and
hearing by the appropriate body or agency. If the
violation is punishable by a heavier penalty under
another law, he shall be prosecuted under the latter
statute. Violations of Sections 7, 8 or 9 of this Act shall
be punishable with imprisonment not exceeding
five (5) years, or a fine not exceeding five
thousand pesos (P5,000), or both, and, in the
discretion of the court of competent jurisdiction,
disqualification to hold public office.
(b) Any violation hereof proven in a proper
administrative proceeding shall be
sufficient cause for removal or dismissal of a
public official or employee, even if no
criminal prosecution is instituted against
him.
(c) Private individuals who participate in conspiracy as co-
principals, accomplices or accessories, with public
officials or employees, in violation of this Act, shall be
subject to the same penal liabilities as the public
officials or employees and shall be tried jointly with
them.
(d) The official or employee concerned may bring an action
against any person who obtains or uses a report for
any purpose prohibited by Section 8 (D) of this Act.
The Court in which such action is brought may assess
against such person a penalty in any amount not to
exceed twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000). If
another sanction hereunder or under any other law is
heavier, the latter shall apply.
Morfe v. Mutuc
G.R. No. L-20387, 31 January 1968
ISSUE: Whether sec 7, RA 3019 is unconstitutional
HELD: No. The Anti- Graft Act of 1960 was aimed at
curtailing and minimizing the opportunities for official
corruption and maintaining a standard of honesty in the
public service. It is intended to further promote morality in
public administration. A public office must indeed be a public
trust. Nobody can cavil at its objective; the goal to be
pursued commands the assent of all. The conditions then
prevailing called for norms of such character. The times
demanded such a remedial device. By the provisions of the
challenged section, it becomes much more difficult by those
disposed to take advantage of their position to commit acts
of graft and corruption. While in the attainment of such
public good, no infringement of constitutional rights is
permissible, there must be a showing, clear, categorical, and
undeniable, that what the Constitution condemns, the
statute allows.
It would be to dwell in the realm of abstractions and to
ignore the harsh and compelling realities of public service
with its ever-present temptation to heed the call of greed
and avarice to condemn as arbitrary and oppressive a
requirement as that imposed on public officials and
89
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

employees to file such sworn statement of assets and
liabilities every two years after having done so upon
assuming office. The due process clause is not susceptible to
such a reproach. There was therefore no unconstitutional
exercise of police power.
or government corporations, which, under the ordinary
concept of "public officers" may not come within the term. It
is a strained construction of the provision to read it as
applying exclusively to public officers charged with the duty
of granting licenses or permits or other concessions.

The government suffered undue injury as a result of his

Jaravata v. Sandiganbayan inflating the true claims of complainants which eventually
G.R. No. L-56170, 31 January 1984 became the basis of payment. His contention that he had no
participation is belied by the fact that as a right-of-way-
FACTS: Jaravata was an asst. principal when he informed agent, his duty was precisely to negotiate with property
the classroom teachers of the approval of the release of owners who are affected by highway constructions for the
their salary differentials and to facilitate its payment accused purpose of compensating them.
and the classroom teachers agreed that accused follow-up
the papers in Manila with the obligation on the part of the On the part of the complainants, the injury caused to them
classroom teachers to reimburse the accused of his consists in their being divested of a large proportion of their
expenses. He did incur expenses in the amount of P36 for claims and receiving payment in an amount even lower than
each of the 6 teachers. The teachers actually received their the actual damage they incurred. They were deprived of the
salary differentials and pursuant to said agreement, they, just compensation to which they are entitled.
with the exception of 2 teachers, gave the accused varying
amounts but as the administrator did not approve it, he
REPUBLIC ACT No. 7080
ordered the Jaravata to return the money given to him
AN ACT DEFINING AND PENALIZING
which he complied. Jaravata was charged and convicted
THE CRIME OF PLUNDER
under RA 3019 SEC 3(b)
“Ill-gotten wealth” -- means any asset, property,
HELD: Jaravata was not in violation of RA 3019 Sec 3(b).
business enterprise or material possession of any person
Sec. 3(b) of R.A. No. 3019, refers to a public officer whose
within the purview of Section 2 acquired by him directly or
official intervention is required by law in a contract or
indirectly through dummies, nominees, agents, subordinates
transaction.
and/or business associates by any combination or series of
the following means or similar schemes:
There is no law which invests the petitioner with the power
1) Through misappropriation, conversion, misuse, or
to intervene in the payment of the salary differentials of the
malversation of public funds or raids on the public
complainants or anyone for that matter. Far from exercising
treasury;
any power, the petitioner played the humble role of a
2) By receiving, directly or indirectly, any
supplicant whose mission was to expedite payment of the
commission, gift, share, percentage, kickbacks or
salary differentials. In his official capacity as assistant
any other form of pecuniary benefit from any
principal, he is not required by law to intervene in the
person and/or entity in connection with any
payment of the salary differentials. Accordingly, he cannot
government contract or project or by reason of
be said to have violated the law afore-cited although he
the office or position of the public officer
exerted efforts to facilitate the payment of the salary
concerned;
differentials.
3) By the illegal or fraudulent conveyance or
disposition of assets belonging to the National
Mejorada v. Sandiganbayan
Government or any of its subdivisions, agencies or
G.R. No. L-51065-72, 30 June 1987
instrumentalities or government-owned or -
controlled corporations and their subsidiaries;
FACTS: Mejorada was a right-of-way agent with DPWH.
4) By obtaining, receiving or accepting directly or
Petitioner contacted the persons affected by the widening of
indirectly any shares of stock, equity or any other
the road and informed them that he could work out their
form of interest or participation including promise
claims for payment of the values of their lots and/or
of future employment in any business enterprise
improvements affected by the widening of said highway.
or undertaking;
They were paid more than what was the value of their
5) By establishing agricultural, industrial or
property. Right after the claimants had received the
commercial monopolies or other combinations
proceeds of their checks, accused accompanied them to his
and/or implementation of decrees and orders
car where they were divested of the amounts paid to them.
intended to benefit particular persons or special
All the claimants were helpless to complaint because they
interests; or
were afraid of the accused and his armed companion.
6) By taking undue advantage of official position,
authority, relationship, connection or influence to
Petitioner contends that the eight informations filed against
unjustly enrich himself or themselves at the
him before the Sandiganbayan are fatally defective in that it
expense and to the damage and prejudice of the
failed to allege the essential ingredients or elements
Filipino people and the Republic of the Philippines.
constituting the offense penalized by Section 3(e) of Rep.
Act No. 3019.
Who are guilty of plunder?
a) any public officer who, by himself or in connivance
HELD: Section 3’s reference to "any public officer" is without
with members of his family, relatives by affinity or
distinction or qualification and it specifies the acts declared
consanguinity, business associates, subordinates
unlawful. The last sentence of paragraph (e) is intended to
or other persons, amasses, accumulates or
make clear the inclusion of officers and employees of officers

90

acquires ill-gotten wealth through a
combination or series of overt or criminal
acts, in the aggregate amount or total value of at
least Seventy-five million pesos (P75,000,000.00)
b) any person who participated with said public
officer in the commission of plunder shall be
punished by life imprisonment with perpetual
absolute disqualification from holding any public
office.
Who has jurisdiction? -- all prosecutions under this Act shall
be within the original jurisdiction of the
Sandiganbayan.
How proved? -- For purposes of establishing the crime of
plunder, it shall not be necessary to prove each and every
criminal act done by the accused in furtherance of the
scheme or conspiracy to amass, accumulate or acquire ill-
gotten wealth, it being sufficient to establish beyond
reasonable doubt a pattern of overt or criminal acts
indicative of the overall unlawful scheme or
conspiracy.
Prescription -- The crime punishable under this Act shall
prescribe in twenty (20) years. However, the right of the
State to recover properties unlawfully acquired by public
officers from them or from their nominees or transferees
shall not be barred by prescription, laches, or
estoppel.
Estrada v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 184560, 19 November 2001
FACTS: On April 4, 2001, the Office of the Ombudsman filed
before the Sandiganbayan 8 separate Informations one of
which imputed plunder as an offense against Estrada.
On 14 June 2001, Estrada moved to quash the Information in
Crim. Case No. 26558 on the ground that the facts alleged
therein did NOT constitute an indictable offense since the
law on which it was based was unconstitutional for
vagueness and that the Amended Information for Plunder
charged more than 1 offense. The same was denied hence
this petitionfor certiorari.
HELD: We discern nothing in the foregoing that is vague or
ambiguous - as there is obviously none - that will confuse
petitioner in his defense .Although subject to proof, these
factual assertions clearly show that the elements of the
crime are easily understood and provide adequate contrast
between the innocent and the prohibited acts. Upon such
unequivocal assertions, petitioner is completely informed of
the accusations against him as to enable him to prepare for
an intelligent defense.
Petitioner, however, bewails the failure of the law to provide
for the statutory definition of the
terms "combination" and "series" in the key phrase "a
combination or series of overt or criminal acts" found in Sec.
1, par. (d), and Sec. 2, and the word "pattern" in Sec.
4. These omissions, according to petitioner, render the
Plunder Law unconstitutional for being impermissibly vague
and overbroad and deny him the right to be informed of the
nature and cause of the accusation against him, hence,
violative of his fundamental right to due process.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
The rationalization seems to us to be pure sophistry. A
statute is not rendered uncertain and void merely because
general terms are used therein, or because of the
employment of terms without defining them; much less do
we have to define every word we use. Besides, there is no
positive constitutional or statutory command requiring the
legislature to define each and every word in an
enactment. Congress is not restricted in the form of
expression of its will, and its inability to so define the words
employed in a statute will not necessarily result in the
vagueness or ambiguity of the law so long as the legislative
will is clear, or at least, can be gathered from the whole act,
which is distinctly expressed in the Plunder Law.
Moreover, it is a well-settled principle of legal
hermeneutics that words of a statute will be interpreted in
their natural, plain and ordinary acceptation and
signification, unless it is evident that the legislature intended
a technical or special legal meaning to those words.
Article 213. Frauds against the public treasury
Acts punishable:
1. Entering into an agreement with any interested party or
speculator or making use of any other scheme, to
defraud the government, in dealing with any person
with regard to furnishing supplies, the making of
contracts, or the adjustment or settlement of accounts
relating to public property or funds;
2. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of sums
different from or larger than those authorized by law, in
collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts;
3. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided by law,
for any sum of money collected by him officially, in the
collection of taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts;
and
4. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by way of
payment or otherwise, things or objects of a nature
different from that provided by law, in the collection of
taxes, licenses, fees, and other imposts.
Elements of frauds against public treasury under paragraph
1
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He has taken advantage of his office, that is, he
intervened in the transaction in his official capacity;
3. He entered into an agreement with any interested party
or speculator or made use of any other scheme with
regard to furnishing supplies, the making of contracts,
or the adjustment or settlement of accounts relating to
public property or funds; and
4. He had intent to defraud the government.
• Public officer must act in his official capacity
• Crime of frauds against public treasury is consummated
by merely entering into an agreement with any
interested party or speculator or by merely making use
of any other scheme to defraud Government.
91

Elements of illegal exactions under paragraph 2
1. Offender is a public officer entrusted with the collection
of taxes, licenses, fees and other imposts; and
2. He is guilty of any of the following acts or omissions:
b. Demanding, directly or indirectly, the payment of
sums different from or larger than those
authorized by law; or
c. Failing voluntarily to issue a receipt, as provided
by law, for any sum of money collected by him
officially; or
d. Collecting or receiving, directly or indirectly, by
way of payment or otherwise, things or objects of
a nature different from that provided by law.
• Crime of illegal exactions is consummated by mere
demand for larger or different amount from that fixed
by law.
• Collecting officer must issue official receipt otherwise
held liable under this article.
• When there is deceit in demanding greater fees than
those prescribed by law, the crime is estafa not illegal
exaction.
• Tax collector who collected a sum larger than that
authorized by law and spent all of them is guilty of 2
crimes, namely: illegal exaction, for demanding a
greater amount; and malversation for misappropriating
the amount collected.
• BIR or Customs officers and employees not covered by
Art 213. NIRC or Admin Code applies to them.
Article 214. Other Frauds
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He takes advantage of his official position; and
3. He commits any of the frauds or deceits enumerated in
Article 315 to 318 (Estafa, other forms of swindling,
swindling a minor and other deceits)
• RTC has jurisdiction when Art 214 is involved as MTCs
do not have jurisdiction to impose the principal penalty
in Art. 214 of disqualification
Article 215. Prohibited Transactions
Elements
1. Offender is an appointive public officer;
2. He becomes interested, directly or indirectly, in any
transaction of exchange or speculation;
3. The transaction takes place within the territory subject
to his jurisdiction; and
4. He becomes interested in the transaction during his
incumbency.
• Transaction must be one of exchange or speculation
such as buying regularly securities for resale.
• Purchasing of stocks or shares in a company is simply
an investment and not a violation of Art. 215.
• Examples of appointive public officer who may not
engage in the commercial profession either in person or
Criminal Law II Review Notes
by proxy: justices, judges or fiscals, employees
engaged in the collection and administration of public
funds.
Article 216. Possession of prohibited interest by a
public officer
Persons liable:
1. Public officer who, directly or indirectly, became
interested in any contracts or business in which it was
his official duty to intervene;
2. Experts, arbitrators, and private accountants who, in
like manner, took part in any contract or transaction
connected with the estate or property in the appraisal,
distribution or adjudication of which they had acted;
3. Guardians and executors with respect to the property
belonging to their wards or the estate.
• This provision is applicable to experts, arbitrators and
private accountants who, in like manner, shall take part
in any contract or transaction connected with the estate
or property in appraisal distribution or adjudication of
which they shall have acted, and to the guardians and
executors with respect tom the property belonging to
their wards or estate.
• Actual fraud is not necessary
Section 14, Article VI of the Constitution
No Senator or Member of the House of Representatives
may personally appear as counsel before any court of
justice or before the Electoral Tribunals, or quasi-
judicial and other administrative bodies. Neither shall
he, directly or indirectly, be interested financially in any
contract with, or in any franchise or special privilege
granted by the Government or any subdivision, agency
or instrumentality thereof, including any government-
owned or controlled corporation or its subsidiary,
during his term of office. He shall not intervene in any
matter before any office of the government for his
pecuniary benefit or where he may be called upon to
act on account of his office.
Section 13, Article VII of the Constitution
The President, Vice-President, the Members of the
Cabinet and their deputies or assistant shall not, unless
otherwise provided in this Constitution, hold any other
office or employment during their tenure. They shall
not, during said tenure, directly or indirectly, practice
any other profession, participate in any business, or be
financially interested in any contract with, or in any
franchise, or special privilege granted by the
Government or any subdivision, agency or
instrumentality thereof, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries. They shall
strictly avoid conflict of interest in the conduct of their
office.
92

Section 2, Article IX-A of the Constitution
No member of a Constitutional Commission shall,
during his tenure, hold any office or employment.
Neither shall he engage in the practice of any
profession or in the active management or control of
any business which in any way may be affected by the
functions of his office, nor shall he be financially
interested, directly or indirectly, in any contract with, or
in any franchise or privilege granted by the
government, or any of its subdivisions, agencies, or
instrumentalities, including government-owned or
controlled corporations or their subsidiaries.
Article 217. Malversation of public funds
Acts punishable:
1. Appropriating public funds or property;
2. Taking or misappropriating the same;
3. Consenting, or through abandonment or negligence,
permitting any other person to take such public funds
or property; and
4. Being otherwise guilty of the misappropriation or
malversation of such funds or property.
Elements common to all acts of malversation under Article
217
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He had the custody or control of funds or property by
reason of the duties of his office;
3. Those funds or property were public funds or property
for which he was accountable; and
4. He appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented
or, through abandonment or negligence, permitted
another person to take them.
• ATHis crime is also known as embezzlement
• Nature of duties, not name of office is controlling
• Funds or property must be received in official capacity
• A public officer having only a qualified charge of
government property without authority to part with
physical possession of it unless upon order from his
immediate superior, cannot be held liable for
malversation. This rule does not apply when the
accused had authority to receive money pertaining to
the Government.
• A private person conspiring with an accountable public
officer in committing malversation is also guilty of
malversation. Under Art. 222 private individuals may
also guilty of malversation.
• Private property may be involved malversation. This
article applies to administrators or depositories of funds
or property attached, seized, or deposited by public
authority, even if such property belongs to a private
individual.
• In malversation not committed through negligence, lack
of criminal intent or good faith is a defense.
• Presumption from failure to have duly forthcoming
public funds or property upon demand is prima facie
evidence that the said funds have been put to personal
use. This may be rebutted.
• Return of the funds malversed is only a mitigating
circumstance.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
• When at the very moment the shortage is discovered,
the shortage is paid by public officer from his pocket,
he is not liable for malversation.
• When the accountable officer is obliged to go out of his
office and borrow the sum alleged to be the shortage
and later the missing amount is found in some
unaccustomed place in his office, he is not liable for
malversation.
• Demand not necessary in malversation in spite of the
last paragraph in Art. 217 as the latter provides only for
a rule of procedural law, a rule of evidence and no
more.
• A person whose negligence made possible the
commission of malversation may be held liable as
principal by indispensable cooperation in the complex
crime of malversation through falsification of a public
document by reckless negligence.
• Damage to Government not necessary. Penalty is
based on the amount involved, not on the amount of
damage to the government.
Labatagos v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 71581, 21 March 1990
FACTS: Labatagos was the cashier and collecting officer of
the Mindanao State University. She filed a leave of absence
and did not discharge her duties for the said period. When
COA conducted the examination, the petitioner did not have
any cash in her possession, so she was asked to produce all
her records, books of collection, copies of official receipts
and remittance advices and her monthly reports of
collections. Petitioner incurred shortages. Petitioner was
charged and convicted of malversation of public funds.
HELD: Conviction upheld. Her claim that she signed the
audit report and statement of collections and deposits
prepared by the audit team of Francisco Rivera on the
understanding that her shortage was only P2,000.00 is
belied by the figures clearly reflected on the said documents.
Mrs. Ester Guanzon, the prosecution’s rebuttal witness,
confirmed that the accused filed application for maternity
leave in March 1978 but continued reporting for work during
that month and that she (Guanzon) was the one assigned to
collect the fees in her stead. When the accused was
physically absent from office, she also turned over her
collections to the accused in the latter’s house with the
duplicate copies of the receipts she issued which the
accused signed after satisfying herself that the amounts
turned over tallied with the receipts.
All the other sums allegedly taken from the accused by
Director Osop, Alikhan Marohombsar and Auditor Casan
supported as they are by mere pieces of paper, despite the
admission by Director Osop of having signed some of them
were not valid disbursements. Granting that the amounts
reflected in the chits were really secured by the persons who
signed them, the responsibility to account for them still rests
in the accused accountable officer. Malversation consists not
only in misappropriation or converting public funds or
property to one’s personal use but also by knowingly
allowing others to make use of or misappropriate them.
Estepa v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. L-59670, 15 February 1990
93

FACTS: Estepa, then a senior paymaster lost P50,000
government money. Petitioner’s contention is that the facts
alleged in the information did not constitute an offense since
there can be no crime of malversation of public funds
through mere failure to count the money.
HELD: In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary
for conviction is proof that the accountable officer had
received the public funds and that he did not have them in
his possession when demand therefore was made and he
could not satisfactorily explain his failure so to account. An
accountable public officer may be convicted for malversation
even if there is no direct evidence of personal
misappropriation, where he has not been able to explain
satisfactorily the absence of the public funds involved.
Torres v. People
G.R. No. 175074, 31 August 2011
FACTS: Torres was charged with Malversation under the
RPC. He was the principal of Viga Rural Development High
School (VRDHS). On April 26, 1994, he directed Edmundo
Lazado, the school’s collection and disbursing officer, to
prepare the checks representing the teachers’ and
employees’ salaries, salary differentials, additional
compensation allowance (ACA) and personal emergency
relief allowance (PERA) for the months of January to March,
1994. Lazado prepared three (3) checks in the total amount
of P196,654.54, all dated April 26, 1994, viz: PNB Check
Nos. C-983182-Q forP42,033.32; C-983183-Q for
P95,680.89; C-983184-Q for P58,940.33 Torres and Amador
Borre, Head Teacher III, signed the three (3) checks
Upon the instruction of Torres, Lazado endorsed the checks
and handed them to the accused. It was the custom in the
school for Lazado to endorse the checks representing the
teachers’ salaries and for the accused to encash them at
PNB, Virac Branch and deliver the cash to Lazado for
distribution to the teachers.
The following day, April 27, 1994, the accused encashed the
three (3) checks at PNB, Virac Branch but he never returned
to the school to deliver the money to Lazado.
Torres, for his part, claimed that hat he could not be
convicted under the allegations in the Information without
violating his constitutional right to be informed of the
accusations against him. He maintains that the Information
clearly charged him with intentional malversation and not
malversation through negligence, which was the actual
nature of malversation for which he was convicted by the
trial court.
HELD: The Court disagreed. Malversation may be committed
either through a positive act of misappropriation of public
funds or property, or passively through negligence.To
sustain a charge of malversation, there must either be
criminal intent or criminal negligence, and while the
prevailing facts of a case may not show that deceit attended
the commission of the offense, it will not preclude the
reception of evidence to prove the existence of negligence
because both are equally punishable under Article 217 of the
Revised Penal Code.
More in point, the felony involves breach of public trust, and
whether it is committed through deceit or negligence, the
law makes it punishable and prescribes a uniform penalty
Criminal Law II Review Notes
therefor. Even when the Information charges willful
malversation, conviction for malversation through negligence
may still be adjudged if the evidence ultimately proves the
mode of commission of the offense Explicitly stated, even on
the putative assumption that the evidence against petitioner
yielded a case of malversation by negligence, but the
information was for intentional malversation, under the
circumstances of this case, his conviction under the first
mode of misappropriation would still be in order.
Malversation is committed either intentionally or by
negligence. The dolo or the culpa present in the offense is
only a modality in the perpetration of the felony. Even if the
mode charged differs from mode proved, the same offense
of malversation is involved and conviction thereof is proper.
People v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 153304-05, 7 February 2012
FACTS: This case is about the malversation of public funds
during the Marcos regime, specifically, disbursements made
under the Ministry of Human Settlements headed by Imelda
Marcos.
To prove the misappropriation, the prosecution tried to
establish that there was an irregularity in the procedure of
liquidating the amounts on the basis of the testimony of a
COA auditor that the liquidation should have been made
before the COA Chairman, not to the resident auditor of the
MHS, because these funds were confidential. The
prosecution did not dispute whether a liquidation has been
made of the whole P60 million; rather, what it disputed was
the identity of the person before whom the liquidation
should have been made. Before the directive of former
President Marcos was made which declared the KSS funds to
be confidential, the liquidation of the amount must be made
before the resident auditor of the MHS. With the issuance of
the directive, liquidation should have been made to the COA
Chairman who should have the issued a credit memo to
prove proper liquidation.
HELD: To justify conviction for malversation of public funds,
the prosecution has to prove that the accused received
public funds or property that they could not account for, or
was not in their possession and which they could not give a
reasonable excuse for the disappearance of such public
funds or property. The prosecution failed in this task as the
subject funds were liquidated and were not shown to have
been converted for personal use by the accused.
Records reveal that the amounts were liquidated before the
directive of former President Marcos was issued. Hence, at
the time of liquidation, the liquidation report submitted to
the resident auditor was the proper procedure of liquidation.
Ilogon v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 102356, 9 February 1993
Ilogon was the acting Postmaster when the examination
showed that the petitioner incurred a shortage in his
accounts. He was charged and convicted of malversation of
public funds.
HELD: In the crime of malversation, all that is necessary for
conviction is proof that the accountable officer had received
public funds and that he did not have them in his possession
when demand herefore was made. There is even no need
of direct evidence of personal misappropriation as long as
94

there is a shortage in his account and petitioner cannot
satisfactorily explain the same.
The fact that petitioner did not personally use the missing
funds is not a valid defense and will not exculpate him from
his criminal liability. And as aptly found by respondent
Sandiganbayan, “the fact that (the) immediate superiors of
the accused (petitioner herein) have acquiesced to the
practice of giving out cash advances for convenience did not
legalize the disbursements”.
The fact also that petitioner fully settled the amount of
P118,003.10 later is of no moment. The return of funds
malversed is not a defense. It is neither an exempting
circumstance nor a ground for extinguishing the accused’s
criminal liability. At best, it is a mitigating circumstance.
Azarcon v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. 116033, 26 February 1997
Azarcon owned and operated an earth-moving business,
hauling. Occasionally, he engaged the services of sub-
contractors like Jaime Ancla whose trucks were left at
the former’s premises. A Warrant of Distraint of Personal
Property was issued by the BIR to the personal property
of Jaime Ancla, a delinquent taxpayer. Later on, Azarcon
wrote the BIR stating Ancla surreptitiously withdrew his
equipment from hiss custody. Because of this, Azarcon
was charged and convicted of malversation of public
property. The issue here is whether petitioner’s
designation by the BIR as a custodian of distrained
property qualifies as appointment by direct provision of
law, or by competent authority
HELD: Not a public officer. The case of U.S. vs.
Rastrollo is not applicable to the case before us simply
because the facts therein are not identical, similar or
analogous to those obtaining here. While the cited case
involved a judicial deposit of the proceeds of the sale of
attached property in the hands of the debtor, the case at
bench dealt with the BIR’s administrative act of effecting
constructive distraint over alleged property of taxpayer
Ancla in relation to his back taxes, property which was
received by Petitioner Azarcon. In the cited case, it was
clearly within the scope of that court’s jurisdiction and
judicial power to constitute the judicial deposit and give
“the depositary a character equivalent to that of a public
official.” However, in the instant case, while the BIR had
authority to require Petitioner Azarcon to sign a receipt
for the distrained truck, the NIRC did not grant it power
to appoint Azarcon a public officer.
Bahilidad v. People
G.R. No. 185195, 17 March 2010
FACTS: The Ombudsman-Mindanao conducted a special
audit to investigate the alleged scheme of giving
fictitious grants and donations to NGOs using funds of the
Sarangani provincial government. Included in the list of
alleged fictitious associations that benefited from the
financial assistance given to certain NGOs was Women in
Progress, which received a check in the amount of
P20,000.00, issued in the name of herein petitioner, as
the Treasurer thereof. Petitioner was later charged of
conspiring with erring provincial officials, and convicted
of malversation.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
HELD: The High Court acquitted petitioner. It found that
petitioner’s participation in the crime was not
adequately proven with moral certainty. There was no
showing that petitioner had a hand in the preparation of
the requirements submitted for the disbursement of the
check. There was no evidence presented that she was
instrumental to the issuance of the check, nor was there
any showing that she interceded for the approval of the
check. Also, there was no showing that petitioner had
foreknowledge of any irregularity committed in the
processing and disbursement of the check.
Gil Zafra v. People
G.R. No. 176317, 23 July 2014
Appellant was the Revenue Collection Agent of the BIR. As
such, through designated collection clerks, he collected taxes
and issued the corresponding receipts for tax payments
made by taxpayers. He was accountable for the proper and
authorized use and application of the blank RORs issued by
the BIR District Office, not the least for the tax payments
received in the performance of his duties. The unexplained
shortage in his remittances of the taxes collected as
reflected in the CARs and PNB’s receipts, even in the
absence of direct proof of misappropriation, made him liable
for malversation.
Mallare v. People
G.R. No. 161133, 8 February 2012
FACTS: Accused Mallare and Gosudan, Mayor and Treasurer,
respectively, of the Municipality of Infanta, Pangasinan, were
charged and convicted of the crime of malversation of public
funds by the Sandiganbayan when they authorized
disbursement of public funds as personal loans to their co-
employees, including herself and the Mayor.
HELD: The elements for Malversation of Public Funds are:
(a) offender is a public officer; (b) that he had custody or
control of funds or property by reason of the duties of his
office; (c) those funds or property were public funds or
property for which he was accountable; and (d) he
appropriated, took, misappropriated or consented or,
through abandonment or negligence, permitted another
person to take them.
As Mayor and Treasurer of the municipality of Infanta,
Pangasinan, they had had the duty to safely keep the funds
and disburse the same in accordance with standard
procedure because the subject funds belong to the
municipality and must only be used for the benefit of the
municipality. The funds cannot be released and disbursed
unless they bear the signatures of the Mayor and the
Treasurer thus, any unlawful disbursement or
misappropriation of funds will make them accountable.
Extending loans to municipal officials and employees,
including the accused, were unofficial and unauthorized and
are therefore anomalous as to constitute malversation of
public funds.
The Mayor is also guilty of the same. The acceptance by the
co-accused of the loan amount without any supporting
official voucher is proof that there was a conspiracy in the
illegal disbursement of the subject loan amounts.
Furthermore, the accused claims that since there was full
restitution of the public funds lent, they are exonerated from
95

the charges. However, the Court ruled otherwise and said,
full restitution of the lent public funds cannot exonerate
Mallare and Gosudan from the crime charged because
payment does not extinguish criminal liability.
Article 218. Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts
Elements:
1. Offender is public officer, whether in the service or
separated therefrom by resignation or any other cause;
2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or
property;
3. He is required by law or regulation to render account to
the Commission on Audit, or to a provincial auditor;
4. He fails to do so for a period of two months after such
accounts should be rendered.
• Demand for accounting not necessary, it is sufficient
that there is a law or regulation requiring him to render
account.
• The reason for this law is the enforcement by penal
provision the performance of the duty incumbent upon
every public employee who handles government funds
to render an account of all he receives of has in his
charge by reason of his employment.
• Misappropriation not necessary.
Lumauig v. People
G.R. No. 166680, 7 July 2014
A prior notice or demand for liquidation of cash advances is
not a condition sine qua non before an accountable public
officer may be held liable under Article 218 of the RPC.
Article 219. Failure of accountable officer to render
accounts before leaving the country
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is an accountable officer for public funds or
property;
3. He unlawfully leaves or attempts to leave the Philippine
Islands without securing a certificate from the
Commission on Audit showing that his accounts have
been finally settled.
Article 220. Illegal use of public funds or property
(TECHNICAL MALVERSATION)
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. There are public funds or property under his
administration;
3. Such fund or property were appropriated by law or
ordinance;
4. He applies such public fund or property to any public
use other than for which it was appropriated for.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
• Also known as technical malversation
• Illegal use of public funds or property distinguished
from malversation:
1. Offenders in both crimes are public officers
2. In Illegal use, the public officer does not derive
personal gain of profit,; In malversation, the
offender in certain cases profits
3. In Illegal use, the public fund or property is
applied to another public use; In malversation, the
public fund or property is applied to personal use.
Ysidoro v. People
G.R. No. 192330, 14 November 2012
The Municipal Social Welfare and Development Office
(MSWDO) of Leyte, Leyte operated a Core Shelter Assistance
Program (CSAP) that provided construction materials to
indigent calamity victims for the rebuilding of their homes.
The beneficiaries themselves provided the labor for the
project. When the construction was about 70% done, the
beneficiaries stopped reporting for work because they have
to find food for their respective families. Because of this,
the mayor decided to appropriate the resources, specifically,
sacks of rice and cans of sardines, for the municipality’s
Supplemental Feeding Program (SFP) that rationed food for
malnourished children for the benefit of the families of the
workers. A case for technical malversation was brought
against him. The mayor claims good faith and that the
resources appropriated were merely “savings” of the SFP
program.
The Supreme Court enumerated the elements of technical
malversation as such:
(1) that the offender is an
accountable public officer;
(2) that he applies funds or
property under his administration to some public
use; and
(3) that the public use for which
such funds or property were applied is different
from the purpose for which they were originally
appropriated by law or ordinance.
Criminal intent is not an element of technical malversation.
The law punishes the act of diverting public property
earmarked by law or ordinance for a particular public
purpose to another public purpose. The offense is mala
prohibita, meaning that the prohibited act is not inherently
immoral but becomes a criminal offense because positive
law forbids its commission based on considerations of public
policy, order, and convenience. It is the commission of an
act as defined by law and not the character or effect thereof
that determines whether or not the provision has been
violated. Hence, malice and criminal intent is completely
irrelevant.
Moreover, the appropriated resources could not be
considered as “savings” since the SFP program is a yearlong
program.
Article 221. Failure to make delivery of public funds
or property
Acts punishable:
96

1. Failing to make payment by a public officer who is
under obligation to make such payment from
government funds in his possession; and
2. Refusing to make delivery by a public officer who has
been ordered by competent authority to deliver any
property in his custody or under his administration.
Elements of failure to make payment:
1. Public officer has government funds in his possession;
2. He is under obligation to make payment from such
funds;
3. He fails to make the payment maliciously.
• Refusal to make delivery of property must be malicious
Article 222. Officers included in the preceding
provisions
1. private individuals who, in any capacity whatever, have
charge of any national, provincial or municipal funds,
revenues, or property
2. any administrator or depository of funds or property
attached, seized or deposited by public authority, even
if such property belongs to a private individual.
• Judicial administrator (of estate of deceased) not
covered, conversion of effects makes him liable for
estafa.
• Private property is included provided it is attached,
seized or deposited by public authority.
Article 223. Conniving with or consenting to evasion
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He had in his custody or charge a prisoner, either
detention prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
3. Such prisoner escaped from his custody;
4. He was in connivance with the prisoner in the latter’s
escape.
Classes of prisoners involved:
1. If the fugitive has been sentenced by final judgment to
any penalty;
2. If the fugitive is held only as detention prisoner for any
crime or violation of law or municipal ordinance.
• Release of detention prisoner who could not be
delivered to the judicial authority within the time fixed
by law is not infidelity in the custody of the prisoner
• Leniency or laxity is not infidelity.
• Relaxation of imprisonment is considered infidelity.
Article 224. Evasion through negligence
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is charged with the conveyance or custody of a
Criminal Law II Review Notes
prisoner or prisoner by final judgment;
3. Such prisoner escapes through negligence.
• The term “prisoner” includes detention prisoners
• Only the positive carelessness that is short of deliberate
non-performance of his duties as guard that is the
gravamen of the crime under Art 224.
• The fact that the public officer recaptured the escaped
prisoner does not afford complete exculpation.
• Liability of escaping prisoner:
1. If serving sentence by reason of final judgment-
evasion of service under Art 157
2. If detention prisoner, no criminal liability.
Rodillas v. Sandiganbayan
G.R. No. L-58652, 20 May 1988
FACTS: Rodillas was a Patrolman when he was directed by
his superior, to escort prisoners to face trial. While waiting
for the arrival of the judge, Pat. Andres, a relative of the
husband of detention prisoner Zenaida, approached the
accused and requested the latter if he could permit Zenaida
to talk to her husband. The accused consented and Zenaida
had a short talk with her husband. He consented to the
request that they eat at the canteen. While eating, the
husband of Zenaida asked accused if he could accompany
his wife to the comfort room as she was not feeling well and
felt like defecating. The accused accompanied Zenaida and a
lady companion to the ladies' comfort room. Zenaida and her
lady companion entered the comfort room, while he stood
guard near the ladies' comfort room facing the door. Not
long after, the lady companion of Zenaida came out of the
comfort room and told him that she was going to buy
sanitary napkins for Zenaida. After ten minutes elapsed
without the lady companion of Zenaida coming back, the
accused became suspicious and entered the comfort room.
To his surprise, he found Zenaida no longer inside the
comfort room. He immediately went out to look for the
escapee inside the building but they were not able to see
her. Accused was unable to recapture Zenaida. Was the
Sandiganbayan correct in holding the petitioner guilty of
infidelity in the custody of a prisoner through negligence
penalized under Art. 224?
HELD: Yes. The only disputed issue is the petitioner's
negligence resulting in the escape of detention prisoner
Zenaida Andres. The negligence referred to in the Revised
Penal Code is such definite laxity as all but amounts to a
deliberate non-performance of duty on the part of the guard.
It is evident from the records that the petitioner acted
negligently and beyond the scope of his authority when he
permitted his charge to create the situation which led to her
escape. The petitioner contends that human considerations
compelled him to grant Zenaida Andres' requests to take
lunch and to go to the comfort room to relieve herself. As a
police officer who was charged with the duty to return the
prisoner directly to jail, the deviation from his duty was
clearly a violation of the regulations. It is the duty of any
police officer having custody of a prisoner to take necessary
precautions to assure the absence of any means of escape.
A failure to undertake these precautions will make his act
one of definite laxity or negligence amounting to deliberate
non-performance of duty. His tolerance of arrangements
whereby the prisoner and her companions could plan and
make good her escape should have aroused the suspicion of
a person of ordinary prudence.
97

Article 225. Escape of prisoner under the custody of
a person not a public officer
Elements:
1. Offender is a private person;
2. The conveyance or custody of a prisoner or person
under arrest is confided to him;
3. The prisoner or person under arrest escapes; and
4. Offender consents to the escape, or that the escape
takes place through his negligence.
• Inapplicable if the private person is the one who made
the arrest and he consented to the escape of the
person he arrested
Article 226. Removal, concealment, or destruction of
documents
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He abstracts, destroys or conceals a document or
papers;
3. Said document or papers should have been entrusted
to such public officer by reason of his office;
4. Damage, whether serious or not, to a third party or to
the public interest has been caused.
• Public officer must be officially entrusted with the
documents or papers
• Documents must be complete and one by which a right
could be established or an obligation could be
extinguished
• Books, periodicals and pamphlets not documents
• Papers include checks, promissory notes and paper
money
• Infidelity in the custody of the document distinguished
from malversation and falsification: When the
postmaster received money orders, signed the
signatures of the payees, collected and appropriated
the respective amounts thereof, the postmaster is guilty
of malversation and falsification, the latter crime having
been committed the malversation. But when the
postmaster receives letters or envelopes containing
money orders for transmission and the money orders
are not sent to the addressees, the postmaster cashing
the same for his own benefit, he is guilty of infidelity in
the custody of papers.
• Money bills received as court exhibits are papers.
• Acts punishable: removing, destroying, concealing,
documents or papers officially entrusted to the
offending public officer.
• It is not necessary that the act of removal must be
coupled with proof of intention to conceal. Accordingly,
removal, destruction and concealment are distinct
modes of committing the offense.
• The removal is for a illicit purpose when offender
intends to (1) tamper with it or (2) profit with it of (3)
Criminal Law II Review Notes
commit an act constituting a breach of trust in the
official care thereof.
• The crime of removal of public documents in breach of
official trust is consummated upon its removal from its
usual place in the office.
• Infidelity in the custody of document by destroying or
concealing it does not require proof of illicit purpose.
• Delivering document to the wrong party is infidelity in
the custody thereof.
• There must be damage, great or small, which may
consist in mere alarm to the public or alienation of its
confidence in any branch of government service.
Article 227. Officer breaking seal
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He is charged with the custody of papers or property;
3. These papers or property are sealed by proper
authority; and
4. He breaks the seal or permits them to be broken.
• It is the breaking of the seals, not opening of closed
envelope that is punishable under the Article.
• Damage or intent to cause damage is not necessary.
• Distinction between infidelity and theft
1. There is infidelity if the offender opened the
letter but did not take the same.
2. There is theft if there is intent to gain when
the offender took the money.
Note that he document must be complete in legal
sense. If the writings are mere form, there is no crime.
Article 228. Opening of closed documents
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. Any closed papers, documents, or object are entrusted
to his custody;
3. He opens or permits to be opened said closed papers,
documents or objects; and
4. He does not have proper authority.
• Custody means a guarding or keeping safe
• Closed documents must be entrusted to the custody of
the accused by reason of his office
• Damage or intent to cause damage not an element
• If public officer broke a seal in opening closed papers,
what is the offense? Breaking the seal, because Article
228 requires that the officer must “not be included in
the provisions of the next preceding article”.
Article 229. Revelation of secrets by an officer
Acts punishable:
1. Revealing any secrets known to the offending public
officer by reason of his official capacity;
Elements
1. Offender is a public officer;
98
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

2. He knows of a secret by reason of his official 3. Such judgment, decision or order was made within the
capacity; scope of the jurisdiction of the superior authority and
3. He reveals such secret without authority or issued with all the legal formalities; and
justifiable reasons; 4. He, without any legal justification, openly refuses to
4. Damage, great or small, is caused to the public execute the said judgment, decision or order, which he
interest. is duty bound to obey.

• Secret must affect public interest

• Espionage not contemplated here as this article Article 232. Disobedience to order of superior officer,
punishes minor official betrayals, infidelities of little when said order was suspended by inferior officer
consequence, affecting usually the administration of
justice, executive or official duties, or the general Elements:
interest of the public order
• Secrets of private persons not included 1. Offender is a public officer;
2. An order is issued by his superior for execution;
2. Delivering wrongfully papers or copies of papers of 3. He has for any reason suspended the execution of such
which he may have charge and which should not be order;
published. 4. His superior disapproves the suspension of the
execution of the order; and
Elements: 5. Offender disobeys his superior despite the disapproval
1. Offender is a public officer; of the suspension.
2. He has charge of papers;
3. Those papers should not be published; • This article does not apply if the order of the superior is
4. He delivers those papers or copies thereof to a illegal.
third person;
5. The delivery is wrongful; and
6. Damage is caused to public interest. Article 233. Refusal of assistance

• Offender must have charge of papers or its copies Elements:

• Distinguish from infidelity in the custody of documents
or papers by removing the same: If the papers contain
secrets and therefore should not be published, and the
public officer having charge removes it and delivers
them wrongfully to a third person the crime is
revelation of secrets by a public officer. If papers do
not contain secrets, the removal for an illicit purpose is
infidelity in the custody of documents.
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. A competent authority demands from the offender that
he lend his cooperation towards the administration of
justice or other public service;
3. Offender fails to do so maliciously.
• Damage to public interest or to a third party is
essential.

Article 230. Public officer revealing secrets of private

individual Article 234. Refusal to discharge elective office

Elements: Elements:

1. Offender is a public officer; 1. Offender is elected by popular election to a public

2. He knows of the secrets of a private individual by
reason of his office; and
3. He reveals such secrets without authority or justifiable
reason.
• Revelation to one person is sufficient, public revelation
not required
• When the offender is an attorney at law or solicitor Art
230 is not applicable but Art 209.
• Damage to private person not necessary since the
reason of the provision is to uphold faith and trust in
the public service
office;
2. He refuses to be sworn in or to discharge the duties of
said office;
3. There is no legal motive for such refusal to be sworn in
or to discharge the duties of said office.
• The reason is that once an individual is elected to an
office by the will of the people, the discharge of the
duties of said office becomes a matter of duty.
• Not applicable to appointive officers
Article 235. Maltreatment of prisoners

Article 231. Open disobedience Elements:

Elements: 1. Offender is a public officer or employee;

2. He has under his charge a prisoner or detention
1. Officer is a judicial or executive officer; prisoner;
2. There is a judgment, decision or order of a superior 3. He maltreats such prisoner in either of the following
authority; manners:

99
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

a. By overdoing himself in the correction or handling • There must be a written or formal resignation, verbal
of a prisoner or detention prisoner under his statement is not allowed
charge either - • The offense is qualified when the abandonment was for
the purpose to evade the discharge of duties of
(1) By the imposition of punishment not preventing, prosecuting, or punishing any of the crimes
authorized by the regulations; or of (1) treason, (2) conspiracy and proposal to commit
(2) By inflicting such punishments (those treason, (3) misprision of treason, (4) espionage, (5)
authorized) in a cruel and humiliating inciting to war or giving motives for reprisal, (6)
manner; or violation of neutrality, (7) correspondence with hostile
country, (8) flight to enemy country, (9) piracy and
b. By maltreating such prisoners to extort a mutiny, (10) rebellion, (11) coup d’ etat, (12)
confession or to obtain some information from the conspiracy and proposal to commit coup d’ etat or
prisoner. rebellion, (13) disloyalty of public officers, (14) inciting
to rebellion, (15) sedition, (16) conspiracy to commit
• Public officer must have actual charge of the prisoner sedition and (17) inciting to sedition.
• Offended party must be convict or detention prisoner
• To be a detention prisoner, the arrested person must Art 238 distinguished from Art. 208:
be in jail even for a short while.
• The maltreatment must (1) relate to the correction or Art. 238 Art. 208
handling of the prisoner or (2) be for the purpose of Committed by any public Committed by public officers
extorting a confession or of obtaining some information officer who have the duty to
from the prisoner. institute prosecution for the
• Offender may also be liable for physical injuries or punishment and violation of
damage caused the law.
Public officer abandons The public officer does not
office to evade the discharge abandon his office but fails
Article 236. Anticipation of duties of a public office of duty to prosecute an offense by
dereliction of duty or
Elements: malicious tolerance of the
commission of the offense.
1. Offender is entitled to hold a public office or
employment, either by election or appointment;
2. The law requires that he should first be sworn in and/or Article 239. Usurpation of legislative powers
should first give a bond;
3. He assumes the performance of the duties and powers Elements:
of such office; and
4. He has not taken his oath of office and/or given the 1. Offender is an executive or judicial officer; and
bond required by law. 2. He (a) makes general rules or regulations beyond the
scope of his authority or (b) attempts to repeal a law or
(c) suspends the execution thereof.
Article 237. Prolonging performance of duties and
powers
Article 240. Usurpation of executive functions
Elements:
Elements:
1. Offender is holding a public office;
2. The period provided by law, regulations or special 1. Offender is a judge; and
provision for holding such office, has already expired; 2. He (a) assumes a power pertaining to the executive
and authorities, or (b) obstructs the executive authorities in
3. He continues to exercise the duties and powers of such the lawful exercise of their powers.
office.
• Legislative officers not liable
• A public officer who has been suspended, separated,
declared overaged or dismissed cannot continue to
perform the duties of his office. Article 241. Usurpation of judicial functions

Elements:
Article 238. Abandonment of office or position
1. Offender is an officer of the executive branch of the
Elements: government; and
2. He (a) assumes judicial powers, or (b) obstructs the
1. Offender is a public officer; execution of any order or decision rendered by any
2. He formally resigns from his position; judge within his jurisdiction.
3. His resignation has not yet been accepted; and
4. He abandons his office to the detriment of the public
service.

100
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

• Arts 239-241 punish interference by the
officers of one of the three branches of
government with functions of officers in
another department. The purpose is to
maintain the separation and independence of
the three departments.
Article 242. Disobeying request for disqualification
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. A proceeding is pending before such public officer;
3. There is a question brought before the proper authority
regarding his jurisdiction, which is not yet decided;
4. He has been lawfully required to refrain form
continuing the proceeding; and
5. He continues the proceeding.
degree by affinity of any person in the custody of the
offending warden or officer.
Elements:
1. Offender is a public officer;
2. He solicits or makes immoral or indecent advances to a
woman;
3. Such woman is -
a. interested in matters pending before the
offender for decision, or with respect to
which he is required to submit a report to or
consult with a superior officer; or
b. under the custody of the offender who is a
warden or other public officer directly
charged with the care and custody of
prisoners or persons under arrest; or
c. the wife, daughter, sister or relative within
the same degree by affinity of the person in
the custody of the offender.

Article 243. Orders or requests by executive officers • Solicit is to propose earnestly and persistently
to any judicial authority something unchaste and immoral to a woman.
• Advances must be immoral or indecent
Elements: • Consummated by mere proposal
• Proof of solicitation not necessary when there is sexual
1. Offender is an executive officer; intercourse
2. He addresses any order or suggestion to any judicial • Mother of the person in the custody of the offender not
authority; and included.
3. The order or suggestion relates to any case or business
coming within the exclusive jurisdiction of the courts of
justice.
Title Eight
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
• Purpose is to maintain independence of the judiciary
• Legislative or judicial officers not liable
Chapter One. DESTRUCTION OF LIFE

Section One – Parricide, murder, homicide

Article 244. Unlawful appointments (Art. 244)
Article 246. Parricide
Article 247. Death or physical injuries under
Elements:
exceptional circumstances
Article 248. Murder
1. Offender is a public officer;
Article 249. Homicide
2. He nominates or appoints a person to a public office;
Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder
3. Such person lacks the legal qualifications therefore; and
or homicide
4. Offender knows that his nominee or appointee lacks the
Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray
qualification at the time he made the nomination or
Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a
appointment.
tumultuous affray
Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide
• Nominate is different from recommend.
Article 254. Discharge of firearms
Recommending, knowing that the person
recommended has no qualification, is not a crime.
Section Two – Infanticide and Abortion
Article 255. Infanticide
Article 256. Intentional Abortion
Article 245. Abuses against chastity
Article 257. Unintentional Abortion
Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself
Acts punishable:
or by her parents
Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or
1. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a
midwife and dispensing of abortives
woman interested in matters pending before the
offending officer for decision, or with respect to which
Section Three – Duel
he is required to submit a report to or consult with a
Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel
superior officer;
Article 261. Challenging to a duel
2. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to a
woman under the offender’s custody; and
Chapter Two – PHYSICAL INJURIES
3. Soliciting or making immoral or indecent advances to
the wife, daughter, sister or relative within the same
Article 262. Mutilation

101

Article 263. Serious physical injuries
Article 264. Administering injurious substances or
beverages
Article 265. Less serious physical injuries
Article 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment
Chapter Three – RAPE
Article 266-A. Rape, When and How committed
Article 266-B. Penalties
Article 266-C. Effect of pardon
Article 266-D. Presumptions
Article 246. Parricide
Elements:
1. A person is killed;
2. The deceased is killed by the accused;
3. The deceased is the father, mother, or child, whether
legitimate or illegitimate; or a legitimate other
ascendant or other descendant, or the legitimate
spouse, of the accused.
§ Relationship of the offender with the victim is an
essential element of this crime.
§ GENERAL RULE: only relatives by blood and in the
direct line are considered in parricide. EXCEPTION:
spouse
§ The father, mother or child may be legitimate or
illegitimate. However, the other ascendants or
descendants must be legitimate.
§ The spouse must be legitimate. The best proof of the
relationship is the marriage certificate.
§ Relationship must be alleged in order that the accused
may be convicted of parricide. If not alleged,
relationship must be considered as an aggravating
circumstance.
§ If a person wanted to kill a stranger but killed his own
father by mistake, is this parricide? YES, but Art. 49
applies as regards the proper penalty to be imposed.
§ If a person killed another, not knowing that the latter
was his son, will he be guilty of parricide? YES,
because the law does not require knowledge of
relationship between them.
§ A stranger who cooperates and takes part in the
commission of the crime of parricide is not guilty of
parricide, but only homicide or murder, as the case may
be.
People v. Jumawan
G.R. No. L-50905, 23 September 1982
FACTS: Presentacion Jumawan, her father and two brothers
conspired to kill Presentacion’s husband Rodolfo in a store
near the public market. The fiscal filed an information for
murder against the four accused and they were
subsequently convicted for such crime.
HELD: Since Presentacion’s relationship to the victim is not
alleged in the information, she can be convicted of murder
only. Relationship can be appreciated as generic
aggravating circumstance only.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
People v. Tomotorgo
G.R. No. L-47941, 30 April 1985
FACTS: Julian Tomotorgo hit his wife with a piece of wood,
after the latter tried to leave their conjugal home. Although
Julian stopped the beating when his wife complained of
chest pains, the wife succumbed to the serious injuries.
Julian was convicted of parricide but he claims that he
should be sentenced to the penalty corresponding to serious
physical injuires only, the offense which he intended to
commit.
HELD: The fact that the accused intended to maltreat the
victim or inflict physical injuries DOES NOT exempt him from
liability for the resulting and more serious crime committed.
He is only entitled to the mitigating circumstance of lack of
intent to commit so grave a wrong.
People v. Malabago
G.R. No. 115686, 2 December 1996
After an argument, Pedro Malabago fatally hacked and
struck his wife with a bolo. He was found guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of PARRICIDE.
HELD: Parricide is committed when: (1) a person is killed;
(2) the deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased
is the father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or
illegitimate, or a legitimate other ascendant or other
descendant, or the legitimate spouse of the accused.
The key element in parricide is the relationship of the
offender with the victim. In the case of parricide of a
spouse, the best proof of the relationship between the
accused and the deceased is the marriage certificate. In the
absence thereof, oral evidence of the fact of marriage may
be considered by the trial court if such proof is not objected
to.
People v. Ignacio
G.R. No. 107801, 26 March 1997
Accused wife here was accused of parricide for the killing of
her husband by hitting the latter on the nape with a piece of
wood. Accused was convicted of parricide. She however
appeals saying that the crime she committed is not parricide
but only homicide since there was no proof of marriage
between her and the victim.
HELD: Guilty of parricide. The phrase “whether legitimate or
illegitimate” in the law just refers to children and not to
spouses who must therefore be legitimate.
In CAB, accused declared in open court that they were
husband and wife. And even without this, there is a
presumption in law that persons deporting themselves as
husband and wife have entered into a lawful marriage
without proof to the contrary.
People v. Tibon
G.R. No. 188320, 29 June 2010
FACTS: Tibon’s wife left home to work abroad, and he
stayed at home to care for their young sons. A few months
102

later, he heard rumors that his wife was having an affair
with her employer. Tibon began drinking heavily and hitting
the children. When the wife’s mother visited the family, she
was horrified to see that her grandchildren have been
stabbed to death. In another room, Tibon, still clutching a
bloody knife, was crying. He was charged and convicted of
parricide.
HELD: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction. It is
undeniable that Tibon’s killing of his two legitimate sons
constituted parricide. It also justified the penalty of reclusion
penalty handed to Tibon. According to the High Court,
parricide is differentiated from murder and homicide by the
relationship between the killer and his or her victim. Even
without the attendant circumstances qualifying homicide to
murder, the law punishes those found guilty of parricide with
reclusion perpetua to death, prior to the enactment of R.A.
No. 9346. The commission of parricide is punished more
severely than homicide since human beings are expected to
love and support those who are closest to them. The
extreme response of killing someone of one’s own flesh and
blood is indeed unnatural and tragic.
Pimentel v. People
G.R. No. 172060, 13 September 2010
FACTS: For allegedly trying to kill her, complainant filed
frustrated parricide charges against her husband, herein
accused, in 2004. In the following year, accused filed a
petition to have his marriage declared null and void due to
psychological incapacity. He also moved that the criminal
case be held in abeyance until the annulment case has been
resolved.
HELD: The Supreme Court disagreed with accused, and
opined that there was no prejudicial question in this case.
For one, the criminal case was instituted before the
annulment petition was filed. Second, at the time of the
commission of the alleged crime, complainant and accused
were married. The subsequent dissolution of their marriage,
in case the annulment petition is granted, will have no effect
on the alleged crime that was committed at the time of the
subsistence of the marriage. In short, even if the marriage
is annulled, accused could still be held criminally liable since
at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was
still married to complainant.
RA 9262
An Act Defining Violence Against Women and their
Children
Battered Woman Syndrome- scientifically defined pattern
of psychological and behavioral symptoms found in women
living in battering relationships as a result of cumulative
abuse (R.A. 9262, Sec 3[c])
Note: Four Characteristics of the Syndrome
a. The woman believes that the violence was her fault;
b. She has an inability to place the responsibility for the
violence elsewhere;
c. She fears for her life and/or her children’s life; and
d. She has an irrational belief that the abuser is
omnipresent and omniscient.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
People v. Genosa
G.R. No. 135981, 15 January 2004
FACTS: Accused wife here was convicted parricide for the
killing her husband and was sentenced to death. Accused
asks for a reopening of the case in order to prove her state
of mind during the killing in as she says that she is a
battered wife (battered wife syndrome).
HELD: Case should be remanded for the psychological
examination. If accused can prove that she indeed was a
battered wife, this may be raised as a valid defense as a
species of self-defense. Having been proven to be a victim of
domestic violence of the husband. This can be self defense
because since the wife already always assumes, and
correctly that the husband will beat her up again, she may
be justified in taking steps to protect herself. And since there
is the fear of an impending beating again in the mind of the
wife, she would have no opportunity beforehand to choose
means to protect herself other than to injure and/ or kill the
husband.
The psychological examination can prove how the accused
perceived danger and how, in her honest belief, she believed
that danger to herself was imminent (as one of the elements
of self-defense).
People v. Sales
G.R. No. 177218, 3 October 2011
The crime of Parricide under Article 246 of the Revised Penal
Code is committed when: (1) a person is killed; (2) the
deceased is killed by the accused; (3) the deceased is the
father, mother, or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or
a legitimate other ascendant or other descendant, or the
legitimate spouse of accused.
Article 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under
exceptional circumstances
Requisites for application:
1. That a legally married person or a parent surprises his
spouse or his daughter, the latter under 18 years of
age and living with him, in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person.
2. That he or she kills any or both of them or inflicts upon
any or both of them any serious physical injury, in the
act or immediately thereafter.
3. That he has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution
of his wife or daughter, or that he or she has not
consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.
§ Justification for this article: The law considers the
spouse or parent as acting in a justified burst of
passion.
§ In the case of an accused killing his spouse or his
spouse’s paramour, the accused must be a legally
married person.
§ However, in the case of a parent killing his/her
daughter and/or the man with whom she is having
sexual intercourse, the parents need not be legitimate.
§ Does this article apply even if the daughter is married?
Although the article does not use the word ‘unmarried’,
this article applies only when the daughter is single
because while under 18 and single, she is still under
103
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

parental authority. If she is married, her husband HELD: There is no double jeopardy. Article 247 of the RPC
alone can claim the benefits of this article. does not define and provide for a specific crime but grants a
§ “Surprise” – to come upon suddenly and unexpectedly privilege or benefit to the accused for the killing of another
§ The accused must have seen his spouse or daughter in or the infliction of serious physical injuries under the
the acts of sexual intercourse with another. (not circumstances mentioned therein. Since the crime of
before, or after sexual intercourse) homicide is within the jurisdiction of court of first instance,
§ The killing or inflicting of serious physical injuries must the ruling made by the municipal trial court was void.
be in the act of sexual intercourse, or immediately
thereafter.
§ The killing must be the direct by-product of the
accused’s rage. Article 248. Murder
§ The article does not apply where the wife was not
surprised in flagrant adultery but was being abused Elements:
(raped) by a man. An attack upon the man by the
husband will be considered a defense of relative under
Article 11 par. 2.
§ When less serious or slight physical injuries are
committed, there is no criminal liability. It is an
absolutory cause.
§ The penalty of destierro is really not intended as a
penalty but to remove the killer spouse from the vicinity
and to protect him/her from acts of reprisal principally
by relatives of the deceased spouse.
§ Cases where a person who committed parricide is not
punished with reclusion perpetua to death:
o When parricide is committed through negligence
(Art. 365)
o When parricide is committed by mistake (Art. 249)
o When parricide is committed under exceptional
circumstances (Art. 247)

People v. Abarca
G.R. No. 74433, 14 September 1987

FACTS: Abarca caught his wife in the act of sexual

intercourse with Koh. An hour later, Abarca fired several
shots at Koh during a mahjongg session. Koh was killed and
two others were seriously wounded. Abarca was convicted
of Murder and Double Frustrated Murder.

HELD: Though quite a length of time, about an hour, had

passed between the time Abarca caught his wife in sexual
intercourse with Koh and the time the latter was actually
shot, the shooting must be understood to be the
continuation of the pursuit of the victim by Abarca. The
RPC, in requiring that the accused “shall kill any of them or
both of them…immediately” after surprising his spouse in
the act of intercourse, does not say that he should commit
the killing instantly thereafter. It only requires that the
death caused be the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelming the accused after chancing upon the spouse
in the basest act of infidelity.

People v. Araquel
G.R. No. L-12629, 9 December 1959

FACTS: Araquel was initially charged with homicide for killing

Pagadian. However, the complaint was amended to a charge
of homicide under exceptional circumstances as defined
under Art. 247 of the RPC. The municipal trial court
sentenced him to the penalty of destierro. While serving his
sentence, the Provincial Fiscal filed a complaint for the crime
of homicide for killing Pagadian. Araquel invoked his right
against double jeopardy.

104

1. A person was killed;
2. The accused killed him;
3. The killing was attended by any of the following
qualifying circumstances –
a. With treachery, taking advantage of superior
strength, with the aid or armed men, or
employing means to weaken the defense, or of
means or persons to insure or afford impunity;
b. In consideration of a price, reward or promise;
c. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion,
shipwreck, stranding of a vessel, derailment or
assault upon a railroad, fall of an airship, by
means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any
other means involving great waste and ruin;
d. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated
in the preceding paragraph, or of an earthquake,
eruption of a volcano, destructive cyclone,
epidemic, or any other public calamity;
e. With evident premeditation;
f. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly
augmenting the suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.
§ Murder is the unlawful killing of any person which is not
parricide or infanticide, provided any of the qualifying
circumstances are present.
§ Murder will exist with only one of the circumstances
described in this article. When more than one of the
circumstances is present, the others must be
considered as generic aggravating.
§ However, when the other circumstances are absorbed
or included in one qualifying circumstance, they cannot
be considered as generic aggravating. (example:
abuse of superior strength is absorbed by treachery)
§ The qualifying circumstance must be alleged, in order
to qualify the killing to murder. If not alleged, it is only
a generic aggravating circumstance.
§ The offender must have intent to kill to be liable for
murder committed by means of fire, poison, explosion
etc.
§ Cruelty – when other injuries or wounds are inflicted
deliberately by he offender, which are not necessary for
the killing of the victim. The victim must be alive when
the other injuries or wounds are inflicted.
§ ‘Outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse’ – the
only qualifying circumstance which is not mentioned in
Article 14 as an aggravating circumstance.
§ outraging – to commit an extremely vicious or
deeply insulting act
§ scoffing – to jeer, and implies a showing of
irreverence
People v. Sanchez
G.R. No. 188610, 29 June 2010
FACTS: When his former employer was unable to lend him
money, appellant entered the latter’s house and went on a
stabbing spree. As a result thereof, Jufer, the employer’s
young son, was killed. Appellant was apprehended and
charged with murder. He claimed that he should only be
liable for homicide.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
HELD: The High Court affirmed the murder conviction. In
the case at bar, circumstances justify the finding of
treachery in the killing of Jufer. Appellant surreptitiously
entered the residence and snuck up inside Jufer’s bedroom,
while the other De Leon children were busy preparing for
school and their mother attending to their breakfast. The
family was unaware that appellant went to the second floor
and stabbed Jufer, who at that time was merely 11 years
old, and who most likely had no opportunity, but surely
without the needed heft and strength to ward off, much less
overpower, the appellant.
People v. Lucero
G.R. No. 179044, 6 December 2010
FACTS: After the victim finished loading vegetables into a
jeepney, appellant arrived and pleaded that he be allowed
by the victim to go with him as he (appellant) was allegedly
being pursued by a certain “Pandeta.” The victim acceded
to the request, and even invited appellant to sleep in his
house. However, after walking a distance of about 10
meters, appellant suddenly hacked the victim at the left side
of his head causing the victim to fall to the ground. In spite
of the fact that the victim was already lying on the ground,
appellant further stabbed him on his waist. Thereafter,
appellant left the premises. Appellant was charged and
convicted of murder because the element of treachery
attended the killing.
HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the verdict. The
appellant lulled the victim into believing that he was being
pursued by somebody. Believing that appellant was in
danger, the victim offered him the security and protection of
his house. However, appellant reciprocated the victim’s
trust and hospitality by suddenly hacking him on the head
and stabbing him on the waist. The settled rule is that
treachery can exist even if the attack is frontal, as long as
the attack is sudden and unexpected, giving the victim no
opportunity to repel it or to defend himself. What is decisive
is that the execution of the attack, without the slightest
provocation from an unarmed victim, made it impossible for
the victim to defend himself or to retaliate.
People v. Peteluna
G.R. No. 187048, 23 January 2013
FACTS: On the way home, appellants followed the victim
and his companion. The companion saw the appellants place
their arms on the victim’s shoulder, after which they struck
the latter with stones. The victim pleaded appellants to stop,
but they did not. When the victim fell to the ground, one of
the appellants smashed his head with a stone as big as the
victim’s head. Afterwards, appellants dragged him downhill
toward a farm.
Appellants claim that the crime committed is only homicide
because of the absence of the circumstances of treachery
and evident premeditation, which would have qualified the
killing to murder, and that their respective defenses of denial
and alibi were meritorious.
105

HELD: The Supreme Court upheld appellants’ conviction. As
a qualifying circumstance to the crime of murder, the
essence of treachery is a deliberate and sudden attack,
affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no
chance to resist or to escape,” and that it may still exist even
if the attack is frontal so long as the same is sudden and
unexpected.
It was clear that the victim, an elder, had no inkling of the
impending danger against him. The attack was sudden
notwithstanding the prior act of placing the assailants’ arms
on the shoulder of the victim because such was done in a
friendly manner.
People v. Mamaruncas
G.R. No. 179497, 25 January 2012
FACTS: While Batoon, the victim, was working in his auto
repair shop, the accused Palao, Mamaruncas, and Ampuan,
all with pistols and in military fatigues, entered the shop and
served a warrant of arrest against Batoon. When the victim
asked the accused to wait for a while, accused Palao
suddenly slapped the victim’s stomach and pointed a pistol
at him. The victim tried to grab the gun, and the two then
grappled for control. Each of the other two accused then
shot the victim hitting him on the right thigh and left armpit,
respectively, causing him to fall to the ground. Palao finished
the victim off by shooting him at the back. The accused
were charged with Murder.
The prosecution was able to prove the qualifying
circumstance of treachery. The attack was so swift and
unexpected, affording the hapless, unarmed and
unsuspecting victim no opportunity to resist or defend
himself.
HELD: Under Art. 248 of the RPC, murder is the unlawful
killing of a person which is not parricide or infanticide,
provided that treachery, inter alia, attended the killing. The
presence of one of the circumstances enumerated under the
same article will qualify a killing as murder. Since the
qualifying circumstance of treachery was properly alleged in
the information and proven in court, Murder is the proper
crime to be charged.
People v. Lagman
G.R. No. 197807, 16 April 2012
FACTS: While inside a tricycle, Sicor, victim of physical
injuries, was suddenly grabbed from the sidecar and stabbed
in the middle of her buttocks with a small knife by the
accused. After a few moments, the accused then went to
Santiago, victim of murder, and stabbed him four (4) times.
The accused was charged with two (2) crimes, murder and
frustrated homicide. However, the RTC convicted the
accused of murder and less serious physical injuries only.
This was affirmed by the CA.
HELD: The elements of murder are: (a) that a person was
killed; (b) that the accused killed him or her; (c) that the
killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances
mentioned in Art. 248 of the RPC; and (d) that the killing is
not parricide or infanticide.
The prosecution witness was able to establish that the
accused was the one who stabbed and killed the victim. The
killing was attended by the qualifying circumstance of
Criminal Law II Review Notes
treachery as testified to by the prosecution witnesses. And
the killing was neither parricide nor homicide.
Treachery is the direct employment of means, methods, or
forms in the execution of the crime against persons which
tend directly and especially to ensure its execution, without
risk to the offender arising from the defense which the
offended party might make.
In order for treachery to be properly appreciated, two
elements must be present: (a) at the time of the attack, the
victim was not in a position to defend himself; and (b) the
accused consciously and deliberately adopted the particular
means, methods, or forms of attack employed by him. The
essence of treachery is that the attack is deliberate and
without warning, done in a swift and unexpected way,
affording the hapless, unarmed and unsuspecting victim no
chance to resist or escape.
Treachery was properly appreciated in this case. The victim
was caught off guard when the accused, without warning,
stabbed him repeatedly leaving the latter no chance to
evade the knife thrusts and defend himself from the
onslaught.
Article 249. Homicide
Elements:
1. A person was killed;
2. The accused killed him without any justifying
circumstance;
3. The accused had the intention to kill, which is
presumed;
4. The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying
circumstances of murder, or by that of parricide or
infanticide.
§ Intent to kill is conclusively presumed when death
resulted. (crime is consummated)
§ Evidence of intent to kill is important only in attempted
or frustrated homicide (to differentiate it from physical
injuries). In such cases, intent to kill must be proved
beyond reasonable doubt.
§ There is no offense of frustrated homicide through
imprudence because the element of intent to kill in
frustrated homicide is incompatible with negligence or
imprudence.
§ Accidental homicide – the death of a person brought
about by a lawful act performed with proper care and
skill, and without homicidal intent. (example: the death
of a boxer following a serious blow in a boxing bout,
provided that the rules of boxing had been followed)
§ Corpus delicti – the actual commission of the crime
charged, means that the crime was actually committed.
In crimes against persons in which death of the victim
is an element of the offense, there must be satisfactory
proof of the fact of death, and the identity of the
victim.
§ When the victim is under 12 years of age, penalty for
homicide shall be one degree higher than that imposed
by law.
People v. Buensuceso
G.R. No. L-32103, 28 September 1984
106

FACTS: Several police officers fired shots at a knife-wielding
guy, who later died from the gunshot wounds. The
investigation showed that all the four officers actually fired
their service pistols but it was not established as to which
wound was inflicted by each policeman.
HELD: Where several personas acting independently of each
other inflicted wounds on a victim but it cannot be
determined which wound was inflicted by each person, all
the assailants are liable for the victim’s death.
People v. Pugay
G.R. No. L-74323, 17 November 1988
FACTS: Pugay poured gasoline on a 25-year old mental
retardate while Samson set the poor guy on fire, killing him
in the process. They were both convicted of murder.
HELD: Pugay can only be convicted of Homicide thru
reckless imprudence because of his failure to exercise all the
diligence necessary to avoid every undesirable consequence
arising from any act committed by his companions. Samson
is guilty of Homicide although it was not his intention to kill
the guy, but he shall be credited with the mitigating
circumstance of no intention to commit so grave a wrong.
Escamilla v. People
G.R. No. 188551, 27 February 2013
The victim was about to ride his tricycle when petitioner
Escamilla shot the former four times, hitting him once in the
upper portion of his right chest.
Escamilla was found guilty beyond reasonable doubt of
frustrated homicide, which the Supreme Court upheld on
appeal. Intent to kill, as an essential element of homicide at
whatever stage, may be before or simultaneous with the
infliction of injuries. The evidence to prove intent to kill may
consist of, among others:
1. the means used;
2. the nature, location, and number of
wounds sustained by the victim; and
3. the conduct of the malefactors before,
at the time of, or immediately after the killing of the
victim.
Escamilla’s intent to kill was simultaneous with the infliction
of injuries. Using a gun, he shot the victim in the chest.
Despite a bloodied right upper torso, the victim still
managed to run towards his house to ask for help.
Nonetheless, Escamilla continued to shoot at him three more
times, albeit unsuccessfully.
The attending physician, finding that the bullet had no point
of exit, did not attempt to extract it; its extraction would just
have caused further damage. The doctor further said that
the victim would have died if the latter were not brought
immediately to the hospital. All these facts belie the absence
of Escamilla’s intent to kill the victim.
People v. Avecilla
G.R. No. 117033, 15 February 2001
Criminal Law II Review Notes
FACTS: At about 11:00 o’clock in the evening of December
24, 1991, accused Avecilla arrived at the basketball court
located on Dapo Street, Pandacan, Manila, and, for no
apparent reason, suddenly fired a gun in the air. He then
went to a nearby alley and, minutes later, proceeded to the
closed store about four (4) meters away from the basketball
court. There, he initiated an argument with the group of Boy
Manalaysay, Jimmy Tolentino and Macario Afable, Jr. Afable
tried to pacify accused-appellant, whereupon, the latter
placed his left arm around Afables neck and shot him
pointblank on the abdomen. Afable ran toward the alley and
accused-appellant ran after him. Another shot rang out, so
one of the bystanders, Carlos Taganas, went to the alley and
there, he saw accused-appellant and Afable grappling for
possession of the gun. The Chief Barangay Tanod arrived
and was able to wrest the gun away from accused-appellant,
who immediately fled from the scene of the incident. Afable
was rushed to the Philippine General Hospital, where he
eventually expired.
HELD: Illegal possession of firearms has been amended by
Republic Act No. 8294, which took effect on July 6, 1994
which now provides that : ”If homicide or murder is
committed with the use of an unlicensed firearm, such
use of an unlicensed firearm shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.”
It is clear from the foregoing that where murder or homicide
results from the use of an unlicensed firearm, the crime is
no longer qualified illegal possession, but murder or
homicide, as the case may be. In such a case, the use of the
unlicensed firearm is not considered as a separate crime but
shall be appreciated as a mere aggravating circumstance. In
view of the amendments introduced by Republic Act No.
8294 to Presidential Decree No. 1866, separate prosecutions
for homicide and illegal possession are no longer in
order. Instead, illegal possession of firearms is merely to be
taken as an aggravating circumstance in the homicide case.
Josue v. People
G.R. No. 199579, 10 December 2012
FACTS: The accused was charged with and convicted of
homicide. The accused confronted the victim using a pistol.
Thereafter, he fired upon the latter inflicting mortal wounds
on the latter’s back and chest. However, the victim survived
the attack due to timely medical attention given to him.
HELD: The elements of frustrated homicide are: (a) the
accused intended to kill his victim, as manifested by his use
of a deadly weapon; (b) the victim sustained fatal or mortal
wounds but he did not die because of timely medical
assistance; and (c) none of the qualifying circumstance for
murder under Art. 248 of the RPC is present.
These elements were present in the case.
Evidence to prove intent to kill in crimes against persons
may consist, among other things, of the means used by the
malefactors; the conduct of the malefactors before, at the
time of, or immediately after the killing of the victim; and
the nature, location and number of wounds sustained by the
victim. In addition, one of the witnesses testified that the
accused shouted, “Papatayin kita!” In proving the second
element, the doctor who attended to the wounds of the
107
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

victim testified that the gunshot wounds sustained were fatal violence upon the person of the victim are liable,
if not given medical attention. but with lesser liability.

Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder

People v. Unlagada
or homicide
389 SCRA 224, G.R. No. 141080, 17 September 2002
§ For frustrated parricide, homicide or murder, the
FACTS: At around 9:00 o'clock in the evening Laurel left his
courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose a
house together with his visitor, Selda, to attend a public
penalty lower by one degree than that imposed under
dance. Two hours later, Danilo asked Edwin to take a short
Article 50.
break from dancing to attend to their personal necessities
§ Article 50 provides that the penalty next lower in
outside the dance hall. Once outside, they decided to have a
degree than that prescribed by law for the
drink and bought 2 bottles of beer at a nearby store. Not
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
long after, Daniloleft to look for a place to relieve himself.
principal in a frustrated felony. Thus, under Article
While Danilo was relieving himself, Unlagada approached
250, the court can impose a penalty of TWO DEGREES
Danilo and stabbed him at the side. Danilo retaliated by
LOWER for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide.
striking his assailant with a half-filled bottle of beer. Almost
§ For attempted parricide, homicide or murder, the
simultaneously, a group of men numbering about seven 7,
courts, in view of the facts of the case, may impose a
ganged up on Danilo and hit him with assorted weapons,
penalty lower by one degree than that imposed under
i.e., bamboo poles, stones and pieces of wood. Danilo died
Article 51.
before he could be given any medical assistance. Unlagada
§ Article 51 provides that the penalty lower by two
was convicted by the RTC. He claims the trial court erred in
degrees than that prescribed by law for the
convicting him of murder and not "death in a tumultuous
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the
affray." under Art. 251 of The Revised Penal Code.
principal in a attempted felony. Thus, under Article
250, the court can impose a penalty of THREE
HELD: A tumultuous affray takes place when a quarrel
DEGREES LOWER for attempted parricide, murder or
occurs between several persons who engage in a confused
homicide.
and tumultuous manner, in the course of which a person is
§ Note however that any attempt on, or conspire against,
killed or wounded and the author thereof cannot be
the life of the Chief Executive of the Philippines or that
ascertained. The quarrel in the instant case is between a
of any member of his family, or against the life of any
distinct group of individuals, one of whom was sufficiently
member of his cabinet or that of any member of the
identified as the principal author of the killing, as against a
latter’s family, shall suffer the penalty of DEATH.
common, particular victim. It is not, as the defense
suggests, a "tumultuous affray" within the meaning of Art.
251 of The RPC, that is, a melee or free-for-all, where
Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray
several persons not comprising definite or identifiable groups
attack one another in a confused and disorganized manner,
Elements:
resulting in the death or injury of one or some of them.
1. There are several persons;
2. They do not compose groups organized for the
Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a
common purpose of assaulting and attacking each
tumultuous affray
other reciprocally;
3. These several persons quarreled and assaulted one
Elements:
another in a confused and tumultuous manner;
4. Someone was killed in the course of the affray;
1. There is a tumultuous affray;
5. It can not be ascertained who actually killed the
2. A participant or some participants thereof suffered
deceased; and
serious physical injuries or physical injuries of a less
6. The person or persons who inflicted serious physical
serious nature ONLY;
injuries or who used violence can be identified.
3. The person responsible thereof cannot be identified;
and
§ Tumultuous affray exists when at least four persons
4. All those who appear to have used violence upon the
take part. The word ‘tumultuous’ as used in Article 153
person of the offended party are known.
means that the disturbance is caused by more than
three persons who are armed or are provided with
§ Unlike in Article 251, the injured party in this article
means of violence.
must be one or some of the participants in the affray.
§ When there are two identified groups of men who
§ All those who appear to have used violence shall suffer
assaulted each other, then there is no tumultuous
the penalty next lower in degree than that provided for
affray.
the serious physical injuries inflicted. For less serious
§ The person killed in the course of the affray need not
physical injuries, the penalty is arresto mayor from five
be one of the participants in the affray.
to fifteen days.
§ Who are liable?
§ This article does not include slight physical injuries
a. the person or persons who inflicted the serious
inflicted in a tumultuous affray.
physical injuries
b. if it is not known who inflicted the serious physical
injuries on the deceased, all the persons who used
Article 253. Giving assistance to suicide

108

Acts punishable:
1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the
suicide is consummated or not; and
2. Lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to
the extent of doing the killing himself.
§ The relation of the offender to the person committing
suicide is not material, the law does not distinguish.
Hence, penalty would be the same if the offender is the
father, mother or child.
§ A person who attempts to commit suicide is not
criminally liable because society considers such person
to be an unfortunate being, a wretched person more
deserving of pity rather than of penalty.
§ If a pregnant woman tries to commit suicide but
instead kills the baby in her womb, is she liable for
abortion? NO. In order to incur criminal liability for a
result not intended, one must be committing a felony.
An attempt to commit suicide is not an act punishable
by law.
§ Euthanasia (mercy killing) – practice of painlessly
putting to death a person suffering from some
incurable disease. This is not lending assistance to
suicide because in euthanasia, the person killed does
not want to die. A doctor who resorts to mercy killing
may be liable for murder.
Article 254. Discharge of firearms
Elements:
1. The offender discharges a firearm against or at another
person; and
2. The offender had no intention to kill that person.
§ If the firearm is not discharged AT A PERSON, there is
no crime of discharge of firearms. For example, firing a
gun at a house at random, not knowing where the
people inside were, is not discharge of firearms. The
crime may be alarms and scandals under Article 155.
§ There must be no intention to kill, otherwise the crime
is attempted or frustrated murder/homicide/parricide,
as the case may be.
§ The purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or
frighten the offended party.
§ If physical injuries resulted from discharge, the crime
committed is the complex crime of discharge of firearm
with physical injuries, when the physical injuries are
serious or less serious.
§ The crime is discharge of firearm, even if the gun was
not pointed at the offended party when it fired, as long
as it was initially aimed by the accused at or against
the offended party.
Dado v. People
G.R. No. 131421, 18 November 2002
FACTS: The Esperanza, Sultan Kudarat Police Station formed
3 teams to intercept cattle rustlers. The team, composed of
petitioner SPO4 Dado and CAFGU members Eraso, Balinas,
and Alga, waited behind a large dike. Balinas and Alga, who
were both armed with M14 armalite rifles, positioned
themselves between Dado, who was armed with a caliber
.45 pistol, and accused Eraso, who was carrying an M16
Criminal Law II Review Notes
armalite rifle. They were all facing southwards in a half-
kneeling position and were about 2 arms length away from
each other. Thereafter, the team saw somebody
approaching at a distance of 50 meters. Though it was a
moonless night, they noticed that he was half-naked. When
he was about 5 meters away from the team, Balinas noticed
that Eraso, who was on his right side, was making some
movements. Balinas told Eraso to wait, but before Balinas
could beam his flash light, Eraso fired his M16 armalite rifle
at the approaching man. Immediately thereafter, Dado, fired
a single shot from his .45 caliber pistol. The victim shouted,
"Tay Dolfo, ako ini," ("Tay Dolfo, [this is] me") as he fell on
the ground. The victim turned out to be Silvestre "Butsoy"
Balinas, the nephew of Balinas and not the cattle rustler the
team were ordered to intercept. Silvestre Balinas died as a
result of the gunshot wounds he sustained. The RTC
convicted Dado of the crime of Homicide.
HELD: Dado is guilty of the crime of illegal discharge of
firearm. Absent an intent to kill in firing the gun towards the
victim, petitioner should be held liable for the crime of illegal
discharge of firearm under Article 254 of the RPC. The
elements of this crime are: (1) that the offender discharges
a firearm against or at another person; and (2) that the
offender has no intention to kill that person. Though the
information charged the petitioner with murder, he could be
validly convicted of illegal discharge of firearm, an offense
which is necessarily included in the crime of unlawful killing
of a person. Under Rule 120, Section 4, of the Revised Rules
on Criminal Procedure, when there is a variance between the
offense charged in the complaint or information and that
proved, and the offense as charged is included in or
necessarily includes the offense proved, the accused shall be
convicted of the offense proved which is included in the
offense charged, or the offense charged which is included in
the offense proved.
Article 255. Infanticide
Elements:
1. A child was killed
2. The accused killed the said child; and
3. The deceased child was less than three days (72
hours) of age.
§ The penalty prescribed is the same for parricide or
murder, as the case may be.
§ Concealment of dishonor is not an element of
infanticide. If the crime is committed by the mother of
the child to conceal her dishonor, or by the maternal
grandparents for the same purpose, the penalty for
infanticide is mitigated.
§ Delinquent mother must be of good reputation and
good morals, in order that concealing dishonor may
mitigate her liability.
§ No crime of infanticide is committed when the child was
born dead, or although born alive, it could not sustain
an independent life when it was killed.
Article 256. Intentional Abortion
Ways of committing intentional abortion:
1. Using any violence upon the person of the pregnant
woman;
109

2. Acting, but without using violence, without the consent
of the woman. (By administering drugs or beverages
upon such pregnant woman without her consent.)
3. Acting (by administering drugs or beverages), with the
consent of the pregnant woman.
Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages
administered, or that the accused otherwise acts upon
such pregnant woman;
3. 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; and
4. The abortion is intended.
§ Abortion is the 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.
§ The person who intentionally caused the abortion is
liable under this article. The pregnant woman, if she
consented to the abortion, shall be liable under Article
258. If she did not consent, she is not criminally liable.
§ Abortion distinguished from infanticide: if the fetus
could sustain an independent life after its separation
from the maternal womb; and it is killed, the crime is
infanticide.
Article 257. Unintentional abortion
Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman;
2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman without
intending an abortion;
3. The violence is intentionally exerted;
4. As a result of the violence, the fetus dies, either in the
womb or after having been expelled therefrom.
§ Unintentional abortion is committed only by violence,
which must be intentionally exerted.
§ Unintentional abortion may be committed through
imprudence (example: negligent driver gets into a car
crash, causing pregnant passenger to get thrown off
the car, killing fetus inside her)
§ Is the accused liable for abortion even if he did not
know that the woman was pregnant? NO. For the
crime of abortion, even if unintentional, to be held
committed, the accused must have known of the
pregnancy.
People vs. Salufrania
G.R. No. L-50884, 30 March 1988
FACTS: After quarrelling with his pregnant wife, Salufrania
boxed her on the stomach and strangled her to death. He
was convicted of the complex crime of parricide with
INTENTIONAL ABORTION.
Held: There is no evidence to show that the accused had
the intention to commit an abortion. Mere boxing on the
stomach, taken together with the immediate strangling of
the victim is not sufficient to show an intent to cause an
Criminal Law II Review Notes
abortion. Thus, Salufrania should be convicted of the crime
of parricide with UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION.
Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself
or by her parents
Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an
abortion;
2. The abortion is intended; and
3. 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 dishonor.
§ The pregnant woman is liable under this article, if she
does the abortion herself or she consents to another
person doing the abortion.
§ Liability of the pregnant woman is mitigated if purpose
is to conceal dishonor.
§ No mitigation for parents of pregnant woman even if
the purpose is to conceal dishonor. The penalty for the
parents in this case is the same as the penalty for a
pregnant woman committing abortion, without the
purpose of concealing dishonor.
Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or
midwife and dispensing of abortives
Elements (for physicians and midwives):
1. There is a pregnant woman who has suffered an
abortion;
2. The abortion is intended;
3. Offender, who must be a physician or midwife, caused
or assisted in causing the abortion;
4. Said physician or midwife took advantage of his or her
scientific knowledge or skill.
§ The penalties provided for intentional abortion shall be
imposed in the maximum period for physicians and
midwives violating this article.
§ Reason: heavier guilt in making use of their knowledge
for the destruction of human life, when it should be
used only for its preservation.
Elements (for pharmacists):
1. The offender is a pharmacist;
2. There is no proper prescription from a physician;
3. The offender dispenses any abortive.
§ It is not necessary that the pharmacist knows that the
abortive would be used to cause an abortion. What is
punished is the dispensing of the abortive without the
proper prescription.
§ Not necessary that the abortive be actually used either.
§ If the pharmacist knew that the drug would be used to
cause an abortion, he may be liable as an accomplice in
the crime of abortion.
110

Article 260. Responsibility of the participants in a
duel
Acts punishable:
1. Killing one’s adversary in a duel;
2. Inflicting upon such adversary physical injuries; and
3. Making a combat although no physical injuries have
been inflicted.
Persons liable:
1. The person who killed or inflicted physical injuries upon
his adversary, or both combatants in any other case, as
principals.
2. The seconds, as accomplices.
§ Duel is a formal or regular combat previously concerted
between two parties in the presence of two or more
seconds of lawful age on each side, who make the
selection of arms and fix all the other conditions of the
fight.
§ If death results, the penalty is the same as that for
homicide.
Article 261. Challenging to a duel
Acts punishable:
1. Challenging another to a duel;
2. Inciting another to give or accept a challenge to a duel;
and
3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having
refused to accept a challenge to fight a duel.
§ A challenge to a fight, without contemplating a duel, is
not challenging to a duel. The person making the
challenge must have in mind a formal combat to be
concerted between him and the one challenged in the
presence of two or more seconds.
Article 262. Mutilation
Acts punishable:
1. Intentionally mutilating another by depriving him, either
totally or partially, of some essential organ for
reproduction; (castration)
Elements:
a. There be a castration, that is, mutilation of organs
necessary for generation, such as the penis or
ovarium; and
b. The mutilation is caused purposely and
deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party
of some essential organ for reproduction.
2. Intentionally making other mutilation, that is, by
lopping or clipping off any part of the body of the
offended party, other than the essential organ for
reproduction, to deprive him of that part of his body.
(other intentional mutilation)
Criminal Law II Review Notes
§ Mutilation is the lopping or clipping off of some part of
the body.
§ The second type of mutilation is also called ‘mayhem’.
§ For other intentional mutilation, if the victim is under 12
years of age, the penalty shall be one degree higher
than that imposed by law.
§ The offender must have the intention to deprive the
offended party of a part of his body. If there is no such
intention, the crime will be serious physical injuries.
Article 263. Serious physical injuries
How committed:
1. By wounding;
2. By beating;
3. By assaulting; or
4. By administering injurious substance.
Types of serious physical injuries:
1. When the injured person becomes insane, imbecile,
impotent or blind in consequence of the physical
injuries inflicted;
2. When the injured person –
a. Loses the use of speech or the power to hear or to
smell, or loses an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a
leg;
b. Loses the use of any such member; or
c. Becomes incapacitated for the work in which he
was theretofore habitually engaged, in
consequence of the physical injuries inflicted;
3. When the person injured –
a. Becomes deformed; or
b. Loses any other member of his body; or
c. Loses the use thereof; or
d. Becomes ill or incapacitated for the performance
of the work in which he was habitually engaged
for more than 90 days in consequence of the
physical injuries inflicted;
4. When the injured person becomes ill or incapacitated
for labor for more than 30 days (but must not be more
than 90 days), as a result of the physical injuries
inflicted.
§ In physical injuries, there must not be intent to kill,
otherwise the crime is frustrated/attempted murder or
homicide as the case may be.
§ Impotence under first type means an inability to
copulate. It is used synonymously with ‘sterility’.
§ Penalty under the first type is one degree higher when
the victim is under 12 years of age.
§ Blindness under the second type must be of two eyes.
If there is loss of one eye only, the serious physical
injuries is of the second type.
§ Loss of power to hear under the second type must be
of both ears. If hearing in only one ear is lost, it falls
under the third type.
§ Loss of the use of hand, or incapacity for work under
the second type, must be permanent.
§ All the body parts mentioned in the second type are
principal members of the body (eye, hand, foot etc.)
§ The third type covers any other part of the body which
is not a principal member of the body.
111

§ Deformity – physical ugliness, permanent and definite
abnormality. It must be conspicuous and visible.
§ Elements of deformity: (a) physical ugliness, (b)
permanent and definite abnormality, and (c) it must be
conspicuous and visible. All these elements must
concur.
§ Deformity by loss of teeth refers to injury which cannot
be repaired by the action of nature.
§ Loss of both outer ears is a deformity.
§ Loss of the lobule of the ear is a deformity.
§ Loss of index and middle fingers only is either
deformity or loss of a member, not a principal one, of
his body or use of the same.
§ Loss of power to hear of right ear only is loss of use of
other part of body.
§ Illness – when the wound inflicted did not heal with a
certain period of time.
§ Note that under serious physical injuries of the fourth
type, illness or incapacity is required, NOT medical
attendance.
§ Paragraphs 2 and 3 refers to the “work in which he was
theretofore habitually engaged”…must the injured party
have an avocation at the time at the time of the injury?
YES, insofar as these two paragraphs are concerned.
Incapacity therefore must related to a certain kind of
work only. However, in paragraph 4, incapacity for any
kind of work is acceptable, because the phrase
“incapacity for labor” is used.
§ Injury requiring hospitalization for more than thirty
days is serious physical injuries under paragraph 4.
§ When the category of the offense of serious physical
injuries depends on the period of illness or incapacity
for labor, there must be evidence of the length of that
period; otherwise, the offense is only slight physical
injuries.
§ Lessening of efficiency due to injury is NOT incapacity.
§ Distinguished from mutilation: In mutilation, the body
parts should have been purposely and deliberately
lopped or clipped off. This intention is not present in
serious physical injuries.
§ Qualified serious physical injuries – if the offense is
committed against any of the persons enumerated in
the crime of parricide, or with the attendance of any of
the circumstance in murder, the law provides for higher
penalties.
Article 264. Administering injurious substances or
beverages
Elements:
1. Offender inflicted upon another any serious physical
injury;
2. It was done by knowingly administering to him any
injurious substance or beverages or by taking
advantage of his weakness of mind or credulity; and
3. He had no intent to kill.
§ It is frustrated murder when there is intent to kill, the
injurious substance to be considered as poison.
§ If the accused did not know of the injurious nature of
the substances administered, he is not liable under this
article.
§ Administering injurious substance means introducing
into the body the substance. Thus, throwing mordant
Criminal Law II Review Notes
chemicals or poisons on the face is not contemplated in
this article.
§ This article does not apply if the physical injuries that
result are less serious or slight.
§ Taking advantage of weakness of mind or credulity:
for example, using witchcraft, magnetism, philters etc.
Article 265. Less serious physical injuries
Matters to be noted in this crime:
1. Offended party is incapacitated for labor for 10 days or
more (but not more than 30 days), or needs medical
attendance for the same period of time;
2. The physical injuries must not be those described in the
preceding articles.
Qualified as to penalty:
1. A fine not exceeding P 500.00, in addition to arresto
mayor, shall be imposed for less serious physical
injuries when –
a. There is a manifest intent to insult or offend the
injured person; or
b. There are circumstances adding ignominy to the
offense.
2. A higher penalty is imposed when the victim is either -
a. The offender’s parents, ascendants, guardians,
curators or teachers; or
b. Persons of rank or person in authority, provided
the crime is not direct assault.
§ Medical attendance OR incapacity for labor is required
in less serious physical injuries.
§ It is only slight physical injury when there is no medical
attendance or incapacity for labor.
§ The phrase “shall require medical attendance” refers to
ACTUAL medical attendance, not to the nature of the
wound or injury inflicted.
Article 266. Slight physical injuries and
maltreatment
Acts punished:
1. Physical injuries incapacitated the offended party for
labor from one to nine days, or required medical
attendance during the same period;
2. Physical injuries which did not prevent the offended
party from engaging in his habitual work or which did
not require medical attendance; and
3. Ill-treatment of another by deed without causing any
injury.
§ When there is no evidence of actual injury, it is only
slight physical injuries.
§ Supervening event converting the crime into serious
physical injuries after the filing of the information for
slight physical injuries can still be the subject of a new
charge. Information may be amended.
Li v. People
112

G.R. No. 160858, 28 February 2006
FACTS: Because of an altercation between Arugay and Li,
the latter armed himself with a baseball bat and used the
same to hit Arugay on the arm. Arugay armed with a bolo,
retaliated by hacking Li on the head causing the bat to fall
from his hand and leaving him unconscious or semi-
unconsious. At this point in time, Sangalang, who was also
present stabbed Arugay several times which resulted to the
latter’s death. The RTC found Li guilty on the tenuous
determination that a conspiracy between Li and Sangalang
existed.
Held: The only injury attributable to Li is the contusion on
the victim’s right arm that resulted from Li striking Arugay
with a baseball bat. In view of the victim’s supervening
death from injuries which cannot be attributed to Li beyond
reasonable doubt, the effects of the contusion caused by Li
are not mortal or at least lie entirely in the realm of
speculation. When there is no evidence of actual incapacity
of the offended party for labor or of the required medical
attendance, the offense is only slight
Note: R.A. No. 8049, supra.
Article 266-A. Rape, When and How Committed
Elements under paragraph 1:
1. Offender is a man;
2. Offender had carnal knowledge of a woman;
3. Such act is accomplished under any of the following
circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation;
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious;
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or
demented.
Elements under paragraph 2:
1. Offender commits an act of sexual assault;
2. The act of sexual assault is committed by any of the
following means:
a. By inserting his penis into another person's mouth
or anal orifice; or
b. By inserting any instrument or object into the
genital or anal orifice of another person;
3. The act of sexual assault is accomplished under any of
the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation; or
b. When the woman is deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious; or
c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave
abuse of authority; or
d. When the woman is under 12 years of age or
demented.
§ Rape can now be committed by a male or a female.
§ Only one of the four circumstances mentioned is
sufficient.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
§ Force employed against the victim of the rape need not
be of such character as could be resisted. It is enough
that the force used is sufficient to consummate the
purpose of copulating with the offended woman.
§ When the offender in rape has an ascendancy or
influence over the girl, it is not necessary that she put
up a determined resistance.
§ Rape may be proved by the uncorroborated testimony
of the offended woman.
§ There is no crime of frustrated rape (see Orita case).
§ Character of the offended woman is immaterial in rape.
§ When several persons conspired to rape a single victim,
each shall be liable for the rape committed personally
by him, as well as those committed by the others
Article 266-B. Penalties
When rape is punished by death:
1. Where the victim is under 18 years of age and the
offender is her ascendant, stepfather, guardian, or
relative by affinity or consanguinity within the 3rd civil
degree, or the common law husband of the victim’s
mother; or
2. Where the victim was under the custody of the
police or military authorities, or other law
enforcement agency;
3. Where the rape is committed in full view of the
victim’s husband, the parents, any of the children or
relatives by consanguinity within the 3rd civil degree;
4. Where the victim is a religious, that is, a member of
a legitimate religious vocation and the offender knows
the victim as such before or at the time of the
commission of the offense;
5. Where the victim is a child under 7 yrs of age;
6. Where the offender is a member of the AFP, its
paramilitary arm, the PNP, or any law enforcement
agency and the offender took advantage of his
position;
7. Where the offender is afflicted with AIDS or other
sexually transmissible diseases, and he is aware thereof
when he committed the rape, and the disease was
transmitted;
8. Where the victim has suffered permanent physical
mutilation;
9. Where the pregnancy of the offended party is
known to the rapist at the time of the rape; or
10. Where the rapist is aware of the victim’s mental
disability, emotional disturbance or physical handicap.
§ Rape under the first type is punished by reclusion
perpetua. Rape under the second type is punished by
reclusion temporal. Penalties are increased in these
instances:
o When it is committed with the use of a deadly
weapon or by two or more persons
o When the victim becomes insane
o When there is attempted rape and homicide is
committed by reason or on the occasion thereof
o When homicide is committed by reason or on the
occasion of rape
o When rape is committed with any of the
enumerated qualifying or aggravating
circumstances (death penalty is imposed)
113
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

§ Rape with homicide is now a special complex crime,
punishable by death (first type) or reclusion perpetua
(second type).
266-C. Effect of pardon
§ Subsequent valid marriage between the offender and
the offended party shall extinguish the criminal action
or the penalty imposed.
§ In case it is the legal husband who is the offender, the
subsequent forgiveness by the wife as the offended
party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty,
provided that their marriage is not void ab initio.
266-D. Presumptions
Evidence which may be accepted in the prosecution of rape:
The mere fact that the mother asked De La Cuesta to look
after her child while she was away did not constitute the
relationship of guardian-ward as contemplated by the law.
He watched over the girl as a favor to mother for letting him
stay while his place was being renovated.
De La Cuesta’s contention that he was incapable of
committing rape due to his age, physical condition and lack
of earthly desires is self-serving. There is no evidence
presented to substantiate his alleged dysfunction. In one
case, we rejected the defense even after a doctor had
examined the accused by stimulating his organ with a wisp
of cotton for three minutes and there was no erection.
(People v. Palma, 144 SCRA 236). At any rate, advanced age
does not mean that sexual intercourse is no longer possible,
as age is not a criterion taken alone in determining sexual
interest and capability of middle-aged and older people.
(People v. Bahuyan, 238 SCRA 330).

1. any physical overt act manifesting resistance against

the act of rape in any degree from the offended party. People v. Sabredo
2. where the offended party is so situated as to render G.R. No. 126114, 11 May 2000
him/her incapable of giving consent.
FACTS: Jimmy Sabredo, uncle of victim Judeliza, lived with
Old rape law New rape law their family in Cebu for more than a year. He forcibly
Crime against chastity Crime against persons dragged her at knife's point, and brought her to Masbate.
May be committed by a man Under the second type, Armed with a blade, he sexually assaulted Judeliza. After
against a woman ONLY sexual assault may be satisfying his lust, Jimmy inserted three fingers into her
committed by ANY PERSON vaginal orifice and cruelly pinched it. Later, Jimmy struck
PRIVATE CRIME – May be prosecuted even if Judeliza with a piece of wood, rendering her unconscious.
Complaint must be filed by the woman does not file a TC sentenced him to death for the complex crime of
the woman or her parents, complaint abduction with rape.
grandparents or guardian if
the woman was a minor or HELD: When a complex crime under Article 48 of the RPC is
incapacitated charged, such as forcible abduction with rape, it is axiomatic
Marriage of the victim with Marriage extinguishes the that the prosecution must allege and prove the presence of
one of the offenders benefits penal action only as to the all the elements of forcible abduction, as well as all the
not only the principal but principal (the person who elements of the crime of rape. Prosecution failed to allege
also the accomplices and married the victim) the 3rd element of forcible abduction which is that the
accessories abduction is with lewd designs. Thus, when Jimmy, using a
Marital rape NOT recognized Marital rape recognized blade, forcibly took away complainant for the purpose of
sexually assaulting her, as in fact he did rape her, the rape
may then absorb forcible abduction. Hence, the crime
People v. Dela Cuesta committed by appellant is simple rape only.
G.R. No. 126134, 2 March 1999
Where the rape is committed with the use of deadly weapon
FACTS: The RTC of Makati found De La Cuesta guilty of 6 or by two or more persons, the imposable penalty ranges
counts of rape against 9-year-old Merma Binasbas. At the from RP to death. The use of the bladed weapon already
time of the alleged incidents of rape, De La Cuesta, then 64 qualified the rape. Since there is no aggravating
years old, was boarding with Merma and her mom. De La circumstance, the lesser penalty shall be applied.
Cuesta threatened the girl and gave her P20 after each
encounter. De La Cuesta claims it was error for the lower Section 11 (1) of R.A. No. 7659 imposes the death penalty
court to find that he was Merma’s guardian, and that he when the rape victim is under 18 years of age and the
could have committed the rape in view of his age (he claims offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent, guardian,
his last erection was 3 years ago). relative by consanguinity or affinity within the third civil
degree, or the common-law spouse of the parent of the
HELD: The trial court erred in imposing the supreme penalty victim. However, R.A. No. 7659 cannot apply IN CAB
of death. R.A. 7659 provides that the death penalty shall be because (1) at the time the rape was committed, victim was
imposed when the victim is under 18 years old and the already more than 18 years old and (2) the information did
offender is a guardian. In People v. Garcia (281 SCRA 463), not allege that offender and offended party were relatives
we held that the restrictive definition of a guardian, that of a within the third degree of consanguinity. Sentence should
legal or judicial guardian, should be used in construing the only be reclusion perpetua.
term “guardian” for the purpose of imposing the death
penalty under R.A. 7659. People vs. Campuhan
G.R. No. 129433, 30 March 2000

114

FACTS: Campuhan had his pants down and was on top of
the 4-year old child when the child’s mother arrived. A
medical examination showed that there were no signs of
genital injury and that the victim’s hymen was intact.
HELD: For rape to be consummated, a slight brush or
scrape of the penis on the external layer of the vagina
(mons pubis) will not suffice. There must be sufficient and
convincing proof that the penis indeed touched the labias or
slid into the female organ, and NOT merely stroked the
external surface thereof. AT LEAST THE LABIA MAJORA
MUST BE ENTERED FOR RAPE TO BE CONSUMMATED.
People v. Dela Rosa
G.R. No. 211028
FACTS: AAA had the mental age of a nine (9) year old child.
The prosecution established that appellant Dela Rosa and his
family had been living with AAA and her mother BBB at the
latter's house when sometime in June 2004, around nine
o'clock in the evening, BBB saw appellant, whom AAA called
"daddy," came out of her daughter's room. BBB confronted
appellant about this the next day to no avail. Appellant's
wife was likewise unresponsive. In time, a neighbor
disclosed to BBB that AAA had told her in her stunted
language, "Daddy, pasok titi, sakit-sakit, dito pasok titi, hipo-
hipo dede, halik-halik dito, iyak-iyak ako, hubad-hubad damit
ko" BBB promptly asked AAA about the truth of this and the
latter replied, "Opo, gamin po ako, hubad damit Daddy, dito
taas,kiss-kiss,lamas-lamas."
AAA confirmed that indeed appellant Dela Rosa had gone to
her room, removed her clothes, kissed her breasts and
inserted his penis into her vagina.
HELD: Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental
retardate is rape under the aforesaid provisions of law. Proof
of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a mental
retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual act.
What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual congress
between the accused and the victim, and the mental
retardation of the latter.
In rape cases, primordial is the credibility of the victim's
testimony because the accused may be convicted solely on
said testimony provided it is credible, natural, convincing
and consistent with human nature and the normal course of
things.
People v. Arcillo
G.R. No. 211028, 13 July 2016
FACTS: Arcillo is AAA's uncle, he being the husband of AAA's
aunt. At around 1:00 p.m. on November 2004, CCC, her
grandfather ordered her to gather food for the pigs. AAA
went near the house of Arcillo where she filled up the sack
with leaves of a tree. Thereat, Arcillo called AAA from his
house but AAA ignored him. He then went out of his house
and approached AAA from behind, wrestled her, tied her
mouth with a cloth and threatened to kill her with a pinuti, a
long bladed weapon. Arcillo forced her to lie down and then
stripped her of her underwear. He then mounted on top of
AAA and inserted his penis into her vagina.
HELD: For a charge of rape under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code (RPC) to prosper, the prosecution must
prove that: (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a
Criminal Law II Review Notes
woman; and (2) he accomplished such act through force,
threat or intimidation, when she was deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of
age or was demented.
The prosecution in the present case positively established
the elements of rape required under Atiicle 266-A of the
RPC. First, the appellant had carnal knowledge of the victim.
AAA was positive and categorical in asserting that appellant
inserted his penis into her vagina. Her testimony was
corroborated by the medical evaluation which is suggestive
of sexual abuse. Second, appellant employed threat and
force. He used a long blade to threaten AAA to submit to his
desire.
The failure of AAA to shout for help and her delay in
reporting the rape incident do not negate rape. We have
consistently ruled that failure of the victim to shout for help
does not negate rape and the victim's lack of resistance
especially when intimidated by the offender into submission
does not signify voluntariness or consent. Moreover, delay in
reporting rape incidents, in the face of threats of physical
violence, cannot be taken against the victim because delay
in reporting an incident of rape is not an indication of a
fabricated charge and does not necessarily cast doubt on the
credibility of the complainant.
People v. Marmol
G.R. No. 217379, 23 November 2016
FACTS: AAA is the daughter of BBB and Eduardo Marmol.
AAA was twelve years (12) years old at the time of the
commission of the Crimes. After taking a bath, Marmol
dragged AAA to the room, laid her on the bed, removed her
undergarments, placed himself on top of her and had carnal
knowledge of her. AAA could not scream in protest, cowered
into silence by Marmol’s threat to kill AAA's mother if her
ordeal comes to fore. Then again, AAA had been sleeping
with her mother and siblings in the living room when woken
by the sensation of Marmol lying down next to her and
inserting his finger into her female part. When BBB herself
awoke, appellant immediately withdrew his finger and tried
to pull AAA's brother toward her to hide what he had done.
BBB removed the blanket covering and saw that appellant's
pants had been unzipped and AAA's panties had been
lowered exposing her female organ.
HELD: The trial court lent full credence to AAA's clear,
spontaneous and categorical testimony that appellant had
raped her on at least two (2) occasions. It is evident from
the extant records that appellant had carnal knowledge of
AAA, his twelve (12)1year old daughter, through force,
threat or intimidation on 09 February 2004; and sexually
assaulted her also through force, threat or intimidation on
22 February 2004.
Rape is qualified when the victim is under eighteen (18)
years of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-
parent, guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within
the third civil degree, or the common-law spouse of the
parent of the victim. The elements of qualified rape are: (1)
sexual congress; (2) with a woman; (3) done by force and
without consent; (4) the victim is under eighteen years of
age at the time of the rape; and (5) the offender is a parent
(whether legitimate, illegitimate or adopted) on the victim.
115

To this Court's mind, there can be no greater source of fear
or intimidation than your own father - one who, generally,
has exercised authority over your person since birth. This
Court has recognized the moral ascendancy and influence
the father has over his child. When a father rapes his
daughter, violence and intimidation supplant such moral
ascendancy and influence. The rapist father can easily
subjugate his daughter's will, allowing him to coerce the
child to do his every bidding.
Rape under paragraph 2 of Article 266-A was also
committed-commonly known as rape by sexual assault.
Under any of the attendant circumstances the perpetrator
commits this kind of rape by inserting his penis into another
person's mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object
into the genital or anal orifice of another person. It is also
called "instrument or object rape," also "gender-free rape.
People v. Villalon
G.R. No. 215198, 9 November 2016
FACTS: Jhun Villalon was charged with raping his cousin,
AAA. AAA testified that she was born on February 2, 1996
and that her cousin (their mothers are sisters) raped her on
April 17, 2010 when she was merely 14 years old. At 7:30
a.m. of that date, Villalon went to AAA's house in San Benito
Norte, Aringay, La Union. He invited AAA to gather mangoes
in the mountain, which was 2-3 kilometers away. AAA then
left with Villalon with her mother's knowledge. After
harvesting mangoes, Villalon asked AAA to go to the higher
part of the mountain. Thereafter, Villalon invited his cousin
to have sexual intercourse with him so she could experience
it. AAA then felt like crying because she could not
understand why her cousin would say that. She became
nervous and wanted to leave but Villalon held her hands and
removed her lower garments. She struggled to free herself,
but Villalon overpowered her. He laid her down on the
ground and started kissing her. AAA tried to avoid Villalon's
kisses and to wriggle out of his embrace, but he placed
himself on top of her and was able to fulfill his bestial
desires. He then threatened AAA not to tell anybody. AAA
tried to hide the incident but after a month, she could no
longer contain the nightmares caused by the abuse so she
told her mother, BBB. Hence, BBB accompanied her
daughter to the barangay captain to report the incident.
When confronted, Villalon became angry and refused to
cooperate, so BBB and AAA went to the police station. The
physician who examined
HELD: The Court finds that the prosecution has successfully
proved Villalon's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Even if AAA
did not shout for help, such could not and would not
diminish her credibility. It must be emphasized that there is
no standard fonn of reaction for a woman, much more a
minor, when confronted with a horrifying experience such as
sexual assault. The actions of children who have undergone
traumatic experience should not be judged by the norms of
behavior expected from adults when placed under similar
circumstances. People react differently to emotional stress
and rape victims are no different from them.
Also, Villalon’s alibi must necessarily fall. Physical
impossibility pertains to the distance between the place
where the accused was during the commission of the crime
and the place where the crime was actually committed, as
Criminal Law II Review Notes
well as the facility of access between the two places. Here,
Villalon resided some twenty (20) meters away from AAA's
house, which was about two to three (2-3) kilometers away
from the place where the incident transpired. Thus, there
was no physical impossibility for Villalon's presence at the
scene of the crime.
People v. Manson
G.R. No. 215341, 28 November 2016
FACTS: Marlon Manson was accused of raping AAA, a girl
aged eight (8). AAA testified that she was born on April 24,
1998. On the afternoon of December 10, 2006, AAA's
mother sent her on an errand in order to buy Milo at a store.
On her way back home, she met Manson near a vacant lot.
He asked AAA to help him look for eggs in the grassy place.
Once there, Manson suddenly strangled her from the back,
rendering her unconscious. When she woke up, she found
herself near the spring at the lower portion of the grassy
place. She felt pain in her genitals and in her neck. Later,
she discovered that her genitals were bleeding. Due to the
pain, AAA crawled her way home, leaving bruises on her
palms and knees. When she reached her house at around
6:00 p.m., her mother, BBB, saw that AAA's face and neck
were bluish. When asked what happened to her, AAA
answered, "Pangga (Manson's nickname) strangled me."
BBB likewise noticed that AAA' s pants were drenched. When
she checked and pulled her pants down, she was shocked to
see that her daughter's genitals were bleeding profusely.
BBB then changed AAA's clothes and they proceeded to the
Benguet General Hospital. At the hospital, the medical staff
had to stitch AAA's genitalia as she suffered a one (1)-inch
laceration. AAA likewise suffered hematoma in her neck and
was bleeding in the eye area.
HELD: From the testimony of the very young complainant,
the prosecution was able to firmly establish the elements of
the crime of statutory rape. Statutory rape is committed
when (1) the offended party is under twelve (12) years of
age and (2) the accused had carnal knowledge of her,
regardless of whether there was force, threat or
intimidation, whether the victim was deprived of reason or
consciousness, or whether it was done through fraud or
grave abuse of authority. It is termed statutory rape as it
departs from the usual modes of committing rape. The law
presumes that the victim does not and cannot have a will of
her own on account of her tender years. What the law
punishes in statutory rape is carnal knowledge of a woman
below twelve (12) years old. Thus, force, intimidation and
physical evidence of injury are not relevant considerations;
the only pertinent concern is the age of the woman and
whether carnal knowledge indeed took place.
True, she did not actually see Manson in the act of abusing
her as she was, at that time, unconscious. When asked, she
did not even know the real meaning of the word rape. In
fact, she had innocently referred to the rape incident as the
pain and wound in her genitals. The Court, however, agrees
with the courts below that AAA was able to positively
identify Manson as the man who assaulted her. It is settled
that the crime of rape is difficult to prove because it is
generally left unseen and very often, only the victim is left to
testify for herself. However, the accused may still be proven
as the culprit despite the absence of eyewitnesses. Direct
evidence is not a condition sine qua non to prove the guilt of
116

an accused beyond reasonable doubt. For in the absence of
direct evidence, the prosecution may resort to adducing
circumstantial evidence to discharge its burden.
People v. Bensurto
G.R. No. 216061, 7 December 2016
FACTS: AAA was born on July 10, 1991, and sometime in
February 1999, when she was only 9 years old, she was left
alone by her adoptive mother, BBB, in their house, together
with Bensurto, her father. While she was sleeping in her
room, Bensurto entered thereat with a rope in his hand. AAA
was awakened by the presence of her father who proceeded
to tie her feet. Bensurto then pulled AAA's underwear to her
feet and immediately laid on top of her. Thereafter, Bensurto
undressed himself and then forced his penis into AAA's
vagina. After Bensurto satisfied his carnal desires, he
threatened AAA not to tell anyone about the incident or else
he would kill her and her mother. Fearing for her life, as well
as her mother, AAA never told anyone about the incident.
The said incident, however, was repeated sometime in June
2000. After Bensurto ordered their house-helper to go home,
he instructed AAA to sleep in his room. Left alone with only
her father as companion, she was forced to accede to her
father's demand. While in the Bensurto’s room, the latter
pulled down AAA's underwear and again sexually abused her
despite her pleas not to. Bensurto again told her not to tell
anyone under the threat of death upon her and her mother.
AAA was only able to relate the incident to her mother in
November 2000. Subsequently, AAA and her mother went to
Edna Romano, the Rural Health Midwife of Cabitan,
Mandaon, Masbate to seek assistance.
HELD: Under paragraph 1 (a) of Article 266-A of the RPC,
the elements of rape are: (1) that the offender had carnal
knowledge of a woman; and (2) that such act was
accomplished through force, threat, or intimidation.
However, when the offender is the victim's father, as in this
case, there need not be actual force, threat or intimidation
because when a father commits the odious crime of rape
against his own daughter who was also a minor at the time
of the commission of the offenses, his moral ascendancy or
influence over the latter substitutes for violence and
intimidation. All the elements, therefore, are present. The
clear and straightforward testimony of AAA, as corroborated
by the medical findings show beyond reasonable doubt that
AAA was already in a non-virginal state after she was raped.
When the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical
findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to
conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal
knowledge.
Bensurto contends that the testimony of AAA is full of
inconsistencies and, hence, should not be given credence,
however, this Court has ruled that discrepancies referring
only to minor details and collateral matters do not affect the
veracity or detract from the essential credibility of a witness'
declarations, as long as these are coherent and intrinsically
believable on the whole. Furthermore, it is an accepted
doctrine in rape cases that in the absence of evidence of
improper motive on the part of the victim to falsely testify
against the accused, her testimony deserves credence.12
People v. Mayola
G.R. No. 214470, 7 December 2016
Criminal Law II Review Notes
FACTS: Appellant Mayola is the father of AAA, the private
complainant. The appellant, AAA, and her 3 siblings, CCC,
DDD and EEE, lived in an 18- square-meter single room
house in Brgy. Telbang, Alaminos City, Pangasinan. Her
mother was then working as a househelper in Manila.
According to AAA, appellant had sexual intercourse with her
every other day since 2001 when she was just 13 years old.
Her mother knew what the appellant did to her, but the
former could not help her and the latter was afraid to report
the incident to the authorities. In the evening of December
30, 2004, AAA and her brother CCC slept on a bamboo bed
beside appellant while her sisters DDD and EEE slept on the
floor. Appellant went on top of her and inserted his penis
into her vagina when her siblings were already asleep.
Appellant only stopped what he was doing when CCC woke
up. Appellant then went at the back of their house, gathered
the chairs, arranged them to form a makeshift bed, and
called for her. AAA cried as she heeded appellant's call. AAA
eventually was fed up with appellant's repeated violation of
her chastity and told him not to do it again. AAA's sister,
BBB, FFF and her uncle GGG accompanied her in reporting
the incident to the Alaminos City Police Station where she
was first investigated by the Chief of Police and later on by a
policewoman.
Appellant, on the other hand, denied that he had sexual
intercourse with AAA. He claimed that his children's hard
feelings towards him for severely punishing them when they
were at fault motivated them in filing a complaint.
HELD: In this case, all the elements of the crime charged in
the Information are present. Private complainant AAA
positively identified appellant as the perpetrator. Her clear
and straightforward testimony, corroborated by the medical
findings show beyond reasonable doubt that AAA was
already in a non-virginal state after she was raped. When
the victim's testimony is corroborated by the physical
findings of penetration, there is sufficient foundation to
conclude the existence of the essential requisite of carnal
knowledge. The delay in reporting the incident is also not a
factor in diminishing the value of private complainant AAA's
testimony.
Appellant's claim of ill motive on the part of private
complainant AAA as the prime reason the latter has accused
him of committing the crime is untenable. It is highly
unthinkable for the victim to falsely accuse her father solely
by reason of ill motives or grudge.
People v. Bangsoy
G.R. No. 204047, 13 January 2016
FACTS: AAA, a mental retardate, narrated that her uncle,
herein appellant Bangsoy, inserted his penis inside her
vagina on two occasions. AAA testified clearly despite her
mental weakness.
HELD: For a charge of rape under Article 266-A of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, the prosecution must
prove that (1) the offender had carnal knowledge of a
woman; and (2) he accomplished such act through force,
threat or intimidation, when she was deprived of reason or
otherwise unconscious, or when she was under 12 years of
age or was demented. Carnal knowledge of a woman who is
a mental retardate is rape under the aforesaid provisions of
law. Proof of force or intimidation is not necessary, as a
117

mental retardate is not capable of giving consent to a sexual
act. What needs to be proven are the facts of sexual
congress between the accused and the victim, and the
mental retardation of the latter.
People v. Umanito
G.R. No. 208648
FACTS: AAA, assisted by an interpreter, testified using a sign
language that appellant Umanito raped and impregnated
her. When asked what appellant did to her, AAA responded
by tapping her thigh with her two fingers, which was
interpreted as sexual intercourse. BBB, AAA’s mother,
testified that sometime in August 2005, she noticed that
AAA’s belly was growing. She called a hilot (midwife) who
confirmed that AAA has been pregnant for seven (7)
months. AAA gave birth to a baby boy on 10 December
2005. When BBB asked AAA who impregnated her, AAA took
BBB’s hand and brought her to the house of appellant which
was located some 50 meters away from their house. Upon
learning the identity of the culprit, BBB immediately sought
help from the barangay. AAA was made to undergo a
medical examination. Dr. Jocelyn Tadena issued a medical
certificate5 confirming that AAA is mute and suffering from
mental retardation. AAA was also diagnosed to be pregnant.
HELD: Carnal knowledge of a woman who is a mental
retardate is rape under Article 266-A, paragraph 1(b) of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended. This is because a mentally
deficient person is automatically considered incapable of
giving consent to a sexual act. Thus, what needs to be
proven are the facts of sexual intercourse between the
accused and the victim, and the victim’s mental retardation.
People v. Villamor
G.R. No. 202187, 10 February 2016
FACTS: AAA was asleep beside her sister, brothers, and
grandmother, at the second floor of their house in Barugo,
Leyte, when she was awakened by someone who was
fondling her breasts and vagina. She instantly knew the man
to be her father because of his built, smell, and voice.
Sensing that she was awake, he threatened to kill her if she
made noise or tell anybody about what he was doing to her.
For fear of her life, AAA silently tried to resist and push her
father away, but to no avail as he was much stronger than
her. She could only cry while appellant mounted her, let his
penis out of his loose short pants, took her underwear off,
and inserted his penis inside her vagina by making a push-
and-pull movement. AAA felt pain as her father penetrated
her and then ejaculated inside her. During all of this, her
siblings and grandmother were sound asleep.
The same incident happened four (4) more times in the
same year.
AAA's testimony was corroborated by the medical findings.
HELD: Time and again, the Court has held that in resolving
rape cases, primordial consideration is given to the credibility
of the victim's testimony. Settled is the rule that the trial
court's conclusions on the credibility of witnesses in rape
cases are generally accorded great weight and respect, and
at times even finality, unless there appears certain facts or
circumstances of weight and value which the lower court
overlooked or misappreciated and which, if properly
considered, would alter the result of the case.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
The Court, however, does not find any such circumstance
here. That AAA' s credibility is doubtful due to the fact that
she did not see the perpetrator's face, and only recognized
him for his built, voice, and smell, is of no moment. As we
have held before, a person may be identified by these
factors for once a person has gained familiarity with
another’s identification is quite an easy task. Even though a
witness may not have seen the accused at a particular
incident for reasons such as the darkness of the night,
hearing the sound of the voice of such accused is still an
acceptable means of identification where it is established
that the witness and the accused knew each other
personally and closely for a number of years. Here, it cannot
be denied that AAA personally knew appellant's built, voice,
and smell, having lived with him her entire life. Neither does
AAA's silence on the incident nor failure to shout or wake up
her siblings affect her credibility.
People v. Padit
G.R. No. 202987, 1 February 2016
FACTS: In the morning of May 5, 2006, the victim, AAA, a
four-year-old girl, was playing inside their house while her
mother was looking after her younger brother. After a while,
AAA went out of the house to buy bread. On her way to the
store, she was called by appellant Padit, who is their
neighbor and the uncle of her mother, and whom AAA calls
as Lolo Victor. Appellant Padit then brought AAA inside his
house and allowed her to play. He then brought her
upstairs, caused her to lie down and removed her short
pants. He also removed his short pants and proceeded to
rub his penis against AAA's vagina. AAA felt pain but was
rendered helpless and prevented from making any sound as
accused-appellant covered her mouth with his hand.
Thereafter, he threatened to hurt AAA with his knife if she
tells anybody about the incident.
Meanwhile, AAA's mother was about to serve lunch when
she noticed that AAA was not yet around. She then went out
of their house and around their neighborhood calling for
AAA. While she was in accused-appellant's yard, the latter
came out of his house and told her that AAA is inside
watching him weave baskets. Accused-appellant then went
back inside the house and, after a few minutes, brought AAA
outside.
Back at their house, her mother asked AAA why she did not
respond to her calls. AAA then told her mother about what
accused-appellant did to her. Upon hearing AAA's account of
her sexual molestation committed by accused-appellant,
AAA's mother immediately went to accused-appellant's
house to confront him. Accused-appellant, however, denied
having molested AAA. Unable to elicit an admission from
accused-appellant, AAA's mother went back to their house
and proceeded to give AAA a bath. While she was washing
AAA's vagina, the latter cried and asked her not to touch it
because it was very painful.
The following morning, AAA's parents filed a complaint with
their Barangay Chairman. They also caused AAA to undergo
physical/medical examination on May 8, 2006 wherein it was
found that the child's vulva showed a slight hymenal
abrasion.
HELD: Accused-appellant's arguments in the instant appeal
basically harp on the alleged loopholes, inconsistencies and
118

improbabilities in the testimonies of the victim and her
mother which supposedly cast doubt on their credibility as
witnesses.
Settled is the rule that testimonies of child-victims are
normally given full weight and credit, since when a girl,
particularly if she is a minor, says that she has been raped,
she says in effect all that is necessary to show that rape has,
in fact, been committed. When the offended party is of
tender age and immature, courts are inclined to give credit
to her account of what transpired, considering not only her
relative vulnerability but also the shame to which she would
be exposed if the matter to which she testified is not
true. Youth and immaturity are generally badges of truth
and sincerity. Considering that AAA was only four (4) years
old when she was raped and was only five (5) years old
when she took the witness stand, she could not have
invented a horrible story. For her to fabricate the facts of
rape and to charge the accused falsely of a crime is certainly
beyond her mental capacity.
The Court does not agree with accused-appellant's
contention that the prosecution failed to prove carnal
knowledge on the ground that AAA explicitly stated in her
testimony that accused-appellant merely rubbed his penis
against her vagina.
AAA, who was then four years old at the time of the
molestation, was not expected to be knowledgeable about
sexual intercourse and every stage thereof. The fact that she
claimed that accused-appellant rubbed his penis against her
vagina did not mean that there was no penetration. Carnal
knowledge is defined as the act of a man having sexual
bodily connections with a woman. This explains why the
slightest penetration of the female genitalia consummates
the rape. As such, a mere touching of the external genitalia
by the penis capable of consummating the sexual act
already constitutes consummated rape.
People v. Menaling
G.R. No. 208676, 13 April 2016
FACTS: AAA, who was only twelve (12) years old at the time
of the commission of the crimes, recounted that in the
evening of 21 January 2006, she was sleeping with her
sibling and BBB, her mother, on a bed in her house when
her father, appellant Menaling, woke her up by tapping her
foot and asked her transfer to the floor where he was
sleeping. AAA sat down, refused his request, and cried. But
appellant held her hands. Then he directed her to remove
her clothing. When AAA refused this, appellant himself
removed her clothing, kissed her and inserted his male
organ into her. AAA cried in pain. Appellant threatened AAA
with harm if she would tell BBB about the incident. BBB
woke up shortly and asked AAA to transfer to the bed.
In the afternoon of 26 January 2006, AAA and her four
siblings were sleeping when appellant again woke her up
and sexually assaulted her. Her brother woke up and
witnessed the incident. He ran away and told his aunt about
it until word reached BBB.
BBB cried when she learned of the incidents from her sister
on 28 February 2006. BBB immediately reported the crime to
the police resulting in the filing of charges against appellant.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
HELD: Rape is a crime that is almost always committed in
isolation or in secret, usually leaving only the victim to testify
about the commission of the crime. Thus, the accused may
be convicted of rape on the basis of the victim’s sole
testimony provided such testimony is logical, credible,
consistent and convincing. Moreover, the testimony of a
young rape victim is given full weight and credence
considering that her denunciation against him for rape would
necessarily expose herself and her family to shame and
perhaps ridicule.
Moreover, we uphold the appellate court’s declaration that
victim’s recantation is unreliable. In her testimony, AAA
intimated that she was not raped by her father, but was
actually raped by her grandfather who had already passed
away.
A retraction is looked upon with considerable disfavor by the
courts. It is exceedingly unreliable for there is always the
probability that such recantation may later on be repudiated.
It can easily be obtained from witnesses through
intimidation or monetary consideration. Like any other
testimony, it is subject to the test of credibility based on the
relevant circumstances and, especially, on the demeanor of
the witness on the stand.
Before allowing the recantation, the court must not be too
willing to accept it, but must test its value in a public trial
with sufficient opportunity given to the party adversely
affected to cross-examine the recanting witness both upon
the substance of the recantation and the motivations for it.
The recantation, like any other testimony, is subject to the
test of credibility based on the relevant circumstances,
including the demeanor of the recanting witness on the
stand. In that respect, the finding of the trial court on the
credibility of witnesses is entitled to great weight on appeal
unless cogent reasons necessitate its re-examination, the
reason being that the trial court is in a better position to
hear first-hand and observe the deportment, conduct and
attitude of the witnesses.
People v. Rodriguez
G.R. No. 208406, 29 February 2016
FACTS: Appellant Rodriguez and AAA were neighbors. AAA,
who was then 27 years old but mentally retarded, was
making rugs at their house when appellant called her to look
after his one-year-old son as his wife was doing laundry
work at an employer's house. AAA obliged and went to
appellant's house. As soon as she entered the house,
appellant closed the door, kissed her, and removed her
clothes and his pants. He then inserted his penis into her
vagina and it was painful. After satisfying his lust, appellant
wiped the "white thing" that came out of his penis. He then
dressed AAA and warned her not to tell anyone about the
incident. Appellant just left and played cards with his friends
while AAA looked after his son until appellant's wife came
back. AAA told her mother, BBB, that appellant molested
"ginalaw" her. BBB confronted appellant who just denied the
accusation.
119

HELD: The Information alleged that AAA was a 27 year old
mentally-retarded woman at the time of the commission of
the crime which was duly proved during the trial. As we
have held, carnal knowledge of a female mental retardate
with the mental age below 12 years of age is rape of a
woman deprived of reason, thus, AAA's rape fall under
paragraph (b) of Article 266-A. Considering that the
prosecution had satisfactorily proved appellant's guilt beyond
reasonable doubt, his conviction stands. The RTC as
affirmed by the CA correctly imposed on appellant the
penalty of reclusion perpetua.
People v. Lagbo
G.R. No. 207535, 10 February 2016
FACTS: AAA was washing dishes inside their house. She was
alone with her father, as her mother was at the marketplace
selling vegetables while her siblings were playing outside the
house. All of a sudden, accused-appellant grabbed her and
forcibly removed her short pants and her panty. After
removing his short pants, accused appellant pushed AAA and
made her lie down on their "papag". Thereafter, he boxed
AAA's face twice and threatened to kill her mother and
siblings. He then placed himself on top of AAA and made
pumping motions while covering her mouth and pulling her
hair. AAA felt pain and cried as accused-appellant's sex
organ penetrated hers. After gratifying himself, accused-
appellant put on his clothes, sat beside AAA and told her to
stop crying. AAA did not relate this incident to her mother
for fear that accused-appellant would make good his threat
to harm her mother and siblings.
The rape incident happened thrice on three different
occasions.
HELD: Accused is guilty of Rape. Inconsistencies on
minor details are in fact badges of truth, candidness
and the fact that the witness is unrehearsed. These
discrepancies as to minor matters, irrelevant to the
elements of the crime, cannot, thus, be considered a
ground for acquittal. In this case, the alleged
inconsistency in AAA's testimony regarding the exact
place of the commission of rape does not make her
otherwise straightforward and coherent testimony,
on material points, less worthy of belief.
People v. Sariego
G.R. No. 203322, 24 February 2016
FACTS: According to AAA, a 17 year old, she was at home
with her father and two (2) cousins washing clothes when
her father asked her to buy cigarettes from a nearby store.
When she returned, she went to the room in the second
floor of her house to give her father the cigarettes she had
bought. There, her father was already covered by a blanket
in the dark. He held her hand and told her to turn her back
and remove her short pants. When she refused, appellant
removed her pants himself He then proceeded to insert his
penis into her vagina with her back towards him. He also
told her to "stoop" on top of the table facedown. AAA kept
asking her father the reason for his actions but he did not
answer. After appellant satisfied his lust, AAA went to the
comfort room downstairs to wash her private part. The same
incident happened again while AAA's mother was selling
Criminal Law II Review Notes
goods at the Market. AAA pleaded that appellant stop what
he was doing to her because she might get pregnant, which
would make her mother discover the horrific events, but to
no avail. AAA revealed that on both occasions she refrained
from seeking help from her cousins who were in the same
house because of fear that appellant might choke her
mother, as what he would usually do in the past. She also
revealed that appellant would threaten that if she tells
anyone of the incidents, he will kill all of them in their house.
She, however, could not keep the secret from her mother
any longer because she became pregnant. When she gave
birth, she left the baby in Norfeld, a place for unwed
mothers subject to incest.
HELD: It has been established that the fact that AAA failed
to shout during the entire ordeal and that she waited until
she became pregnant to report the matter to the authorities
does not weaken her case. As to the presence of the
element of force and intimidation, the RTC firmly ruled in the
positive considering appellant's moral ascendancy over AAA,
being the father thereof, as well as his threats to kill her and
the whole family, not to mention his admitted acts of
physical abuse. In view of the prosecution's positive
evidence, the trial court refused to give credence to
appellant's bare denial and asseverations that it was AAA's
boyfriend who impregnated her. When there is no evidence
to show any improper motive on the part of the prosecution
witness to testify falsely against an accused, the testimony is
worthy of full faith and credit.
Sexual Assault, Acts of Lasciviousness and Rape
Flordeliz v. People
G.R. No. 186441, 3 March 2010
FACTS: Accused is the father of AAA and BBB. Evidence
indicated that accused has been molesting his daughter, as
follows: (a) he inserted his fingers into the private part of
AAA; and (b) he fondled the private part of BBB. He was
later convicted of: (a) rape through sexual assault; and (b)
acts of lasciviousness.
HELD: The Supreme Court agreed with the RTC that there
was rape through sexual assault against AAA. The insertion
of petitioner’s fingers into the victim’s genital orifice
constituted the crime of rape through sexual assault.
The High Court also held that petitioner’s act of touching
BBB’s vagina and playing with it is lascivious conduct.
Considering that the act was committed on a child less than
twelve years old and through intimidation, it is beyond cavil
that petitioner is guilty under R.A. No. 7610. The Supreme
Court said it was aware that the Information specifically
charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the
RPC, without stating therein that it was in relation to R.A.
No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense by
statute or to mention the specific provision penalizing the
act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does
not vitiate the information if the facts alleged therein clearly
recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The
character of the crime is not determined by the caption or
preamble of the information or by the specification of the
provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the
recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the
complaint or information.
120

Angeles v. People
G.R. No. 212562, 12 October 2016
FACTS: The first element-that accused-appellant committed
an act characterized by lewdness-was not proven beyond
reasonable doubt. Accused-appellant conceded that he
entered the purported victim's room and down beside her,
but he vehemently denies mounting her and sucking her
breasts. On the other hand, Jacqueline alleged that accused-
appellant mounted her and sucked her breasts while she
was asleep. In essence, the testimony of the purported
victim is pitted against the testimony of the accused-
appellant. Thus, the Supreme Court was faced with the
challenge of deciding which of the two opposing testimonies
should hold more weight. The “Equipoise Rule” thus comes
into play. Under the said rule, "where the evidence on an
issue of fact is in equipoise, or there is doubt on which side
the evidence preponderates, the party having the burden of
proof loses." Considering that nothing is more settled in
criminal law than the rule that the prosecution has the
burden of proof to establish the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, the Supreme Court ruled that the scales
of justice should tip in favor of accused-appellant.
Settled is the rule that "the lone uncorroborated testimony
of the offended victim, so long as the testimony is clear,
positive, and probable, may prove the crime as charged." It
should be noted however, that the establishment of such
jurisprudential rule is attributed to the fact that there are
usually only two witnesses in rape cases; thus, if courts do
not give due weight and credence to uncorroborated lone
testimonies, convictions for rape cases would be next to
impossible.
R.A. No. 9775
Anti-Child Pornography Act
Child Pornography- It is any public or private
representation, by whatever means, of a child engaged in
real or simulated explicit sexual activities or any
representation of the sexual parts of a child for primarily
sexual purposes.
Sec 4. Unlawful or Prohibited Acts – It shall be unlawful
for any person:
(a) To hire, employ, use, persuade, induce or coerce a child
to perform in the creation or production of any form of child
pornography;
(b) To produce, direct, manufacture or create any form of
child pornography;
(c) To publish offer, transmit, sell, distribute, broadcast,
advertise, promote, export or import any form of child
pornography;
(d) To possess any form of child pornography with the intent
to sell, distribute, publish, or broadcast: Provided. That
possession of three (3) or more articles of child pornography
of the same form shall be prima facie evidence of the intent
to sell, distribute, publish or broadcast;
(e) To knowingly, willfully and intentionally provide a venue
for the commission of prohibited acts as, but not limited to,
dens, private rooms, cubicles, cinemas, houses or in
Criminal Law II Review Notes
establishments purporting to be a legitimate business;
(f) For film distributors, theaters and telecommunication
companies, by themselves or in cooperation with other
entities, to distribute any form of child pornography;
(g) For a parent, legal guardian or person having custody or
control of a child to knowingly permit the child to engage,
participate or assist in any form of child pornography;
(h) To engage in the luring or grooming of a child;
(i) To engage in pandering of any form of child
pornography;
(j) To willfully access any form of child pornography;
(k) To conspire to commit any of the prohibited acts stated
in this section. Conspiracy to commit any form of child
pornography shall be committed when two (2) or more
persons come to an agreement concerning the commission
of any of the said prohibited acts and decide to commit it;
and
(l) To possess any form of child pornography.
Sec 5. Syndicated Child Pornography- The crime of
child pornography is deemed committed by a syndicate if
carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons
conspiring or confederating with one another and shall be
punished under Section 15 (a) of this Act.
R.A. No. 7610
Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
Exploitation and Discrimination Act
A. CHILD PROSTITUTION
Who are “children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse”?
Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit,
or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
Who are punishable?
1. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce
child prostitution, which include, but are not limited to, the
following:
a. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
b. Inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
c. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to
procure a child as prostitute;
d. Threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or
e. Giving monetary consideration, goods or other
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage
such child in prostitution.
2. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
subject to other sexual abuse;
121

- If the victim is under 12, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted for rape and or lascivious conduct
under the RPC as the case may be
- However, the penalty for lascivious conduct when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall
be higher (reclusion temporal in its medium
period)
3. Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom,
whether as manager or owner of the establishment where
the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar,
resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a
cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the
activity for which the license has been issued to said
establishment.
When is there attempt to commit child prostitution?
A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals of
an attempt to commit the crime of child prostitution,
committed as follows:
1. Attempt of (1) above ® When any person who, not being
a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child
inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel,
pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments,
vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution
and other sexual abuse; or
2. Attempt of (2) above ® When any person is receiving
services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage
clinic, health club and other similar establishments.
B. CHILD TRAFFICKING
What is child trafficking?
Child trafficking is committed by a person trading and
dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of
buying and selling of a child for money, or for any other
consideration, or barter.
When is there attempt to commit child trafficking?
(An attempt is punishable by a penalty two degrees lower
than the penalty for the consummated offense)
There is an attempt to commit child trafficking:
1. When a child travels alone to a foreign country without
valid reason therefor and without clearance issued by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development or written
permit or justification from the child's parents or legal
guardian;
2. When a person, agency, establishment or child-caring
institution recruits women or couples to bear a children for
the purpose of child trafficking;
3. When doctor, hospital or clinic official or employee, nurse,
midwife, local civil registrar or any other person simulates
birth for the purpose of child trafficking;
Criminal Law II Review Notes
4. When a person engages in the act of finding children
among low-income families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-
care centers, or other child-during institutions who can be
offered for the purpose of child trafficking.
C. OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND INDECENT
SHOWS
Who are punishable?
Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce
or coerce a child to perform in obscene exhibitions and
indecent shows, whether live or in video, or model in
obscene publications or pornographic materials or to sell or
distribute the said materials.
D. OTHER PERSONS PUNISHABLE UNDER THE
ACT
1. Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for
other conditions prejudicial to the child's development
including those covered by Article 59 of PD 603 (criminal
liability of parents due to abandonment, neglect etc.), but
not covered by the RPC;
2. Any person who shall keep or have in his company a
minor, twelve (12) years or under or who is ten (10) years
or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel,
motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house,
sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort
or similar places UNLESS s/he is related to the minor within
the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond
recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the
performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
3. Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor
to any one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his
company a minor as provided in the preceding paragraph;
4. Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the
operation of any public or private place of accommodation,
whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including
residential places, who allows any person to take along
with him to such place or places any minor herein described;
5. Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate
a street child or any other child to;
- Beg or use begging as a means of living;
- Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or
pushing;
- Conduct any illegal activities
E. WORKING CHILDREN
Who are punishable?
Any person who shall violate any of the provision of the Act
with respect to working children (conditions for the
employment of children under 15, prohibitions on the
employment of children for certain advertisements etc.)
F. CHILDREN OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL
COMMUNITIES
Who are punishable?
122

Any person who discriminates against children of indigenous
cultural communities
COMMON PENAL PROVISIONS
1. The penalty provided under this Act shall be imposed in
its maximum period if the offender has been previously
convicted under this Act;
2. When the offender is a corporation, partnership or
association, the officer or employee thereof who is
responsible for the violation of this Act shall suffer the
penalty imposed in its maximum period;
3. The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its
maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant,
parent guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the
second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or
owner of an establishment which has no license to operate
or its license has expired or has been revoked;
4. When the offender is a foreigner, he shall be deported
immediately after service of sentence and forever barred
from entry to the country;
5. The penalty provided for in this Act shall be imposed in its
maximum period if the offender is a public officer or
employee, together with the penalty of disqualification or
suspension depending on the penalty imposed;
6. A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and
administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social
Welfare and Development and disbursed for the
rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member
of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.
R.A. No. 9208, The Anti-Trafficking in Persons Act of
2003, supra
R.A. No. 9262
Violence against Women and their Children Act
Elements:
1. The offender has or had a sexual or dating
relationship with the offended woman;
2. The offender, by himself or through another,
commits an act or series of acts of harassment
against the woman; and
3. The harassment alarms or causes substantial
emotional or psychological distress to her (Ang v.
Sagud, G.R. No. 182835, 20 April 2010)
A single act of harassment is enough to commit an
offender
Sec. 3(a) of R.A. No. 9262 punishes “any act or series of
acts” that constitutes violence against women. This means
that a single act of harassment which translates into
violence, would be enough. The object of the law is to
protect women and children. Punishing only violence that is
Criminal Law II Review Notes
repeatedly committed would license isolated ones (Ang v.
Sagud, supra).
It is not indispensable that the act of violence be a
consequence of the dating or sexual relationship
While it is required that the offender has or had a sexual or
dating relationship with the offended woman, for R.A. 92622
to be applicable, it is not indispensable that the act of
violence be a consequence of such relationship (Dabalos v.
Quiambao, G.R. No. 193960, 7 January 2013).
Note: It is immaterial whether the relationship had ceased
for as long as there is sufficient evidence of such relationship
between the offender and the victim when the physical harm
was committed (Dabalos v. Quiambao, supra).
Abuses through Conspiracy
While Sec. 3 of R.A. No. 9262 provides that the offender be
related or connected to the victim by marriage, former
marriage, or a sexual or dating relationship, it does not
preclude the application of the principle of conspiracy under
the RPC (Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan, G.R. No. 168852, 30
September 2008).
Four Acts included under Sec 3.
1. Physical violence
It refers to acts that include bodily or physical
harm.
2. Economic abuse
It refers to acts that make or attempt to make a
woman financially dependent.
3. Psychological violence
It refers to acts or omissions causing or likely to
cause mental or emotional suffering of the victim.
4. Sexual violence
It is an act which is sexual in nature.
Battered Woman Syndrome
It is the scientifically defined pattern of psychological and
behavioral symptoms found in women living in battering
relationships as a result of cumulative abuse.
Battered woman syndrome is characterized by the so-called
cycle of violence which has three phases:
• Tension-building phase- minor battering
occurs. It could be verbal or slight physical abuse
or another form of hostile behavior
• Acute battering incident- characterized by
brutality, destructiveness and sometimes, death.
The battered woman deems this incident as
unpredictable, yet also inevitable
• Tranquil, loving (or at least nonviolent)
phase- the couple experience profound relief. The
batterer may show a tender and nurturing
behavior towards his partner. On the other hand,
the battered woman tries to convince herself that
123
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

the battery will never happen again.

(1) Stalking or following the woman or her
Punishable Acts: child in public or private places;

Sec 5. Acts of Violence against Women and their
Children- The crime of violence against women and
children is committed through any of the following acts:
(a) Causing physical harm to the woman or her
child;
(2) Peering in the window or lingering
outside the residence of the woman or her child;
(3) Entering or remaining in the dwelling or
on the property of the woman or her child against
her/his will;

(b) Threatening to cause the woman or her child (4) Destroying the property and personal
physical harm; belongings or inflicting harm to animals or pets of
the woman or her child; and
(c) Attempting to cause the woman or her child
physical harm; (5) Engaging in any form of harassment or
violence;
(d) Placing the woman or her child in fear of
imminent physical harm; (i) Causing mental or emotional anguish, public
ridicule or humiliation to the woman or her child,
(e) Attempting to compel or compelling the including, but not limited to, repeated verbal and
woman or her child to engage in conduct which the emotional abuse, and denial of financial support or
woman or her child has the right to desist from or custody of minor children of access to the woman's
desist from conduct which the woman or her child has child/children.
the right to engage in, or attempting to restrict or
restricting the woman's or her child's freedom of
movement or conduct by force or threat of force,
physical or other harm or threat of physical or other
harm, or intimidation directed against the woman or
Title Nine
child. This shall include, but not limited to, the following
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND
acts committed with the purpose or effect of controlling
SECURITY
or restricting the woman's or her child's movement or
conduct:
Chapter One. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
(1) Threatening to deprive or actually
Section One – Illegal Detention
depriving the woman or her child of custody to
Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention
her/his family;
Article 268. Slight illegal Detention
Article 269. Unlawful arrest
(2) Depriving or threatening to deprive the
woman or her children of financial support legally
Section Two – Kidnapping of Minors
due her or her family, or deliberately providing the
Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor
woman's children insufficient financial support;
Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home
(3) Depriving or threatening to deprive the
Section Three – Slavery and servitude
woman or her child of a legal right;
Article 272. Slavery
Article 273. Exploitation of Child Labor
(4) Preventing the woman in engaging in any
Article 274. Service rendered under compulsion in
legitimate profession, occupation, business or
payment of debt
activity or controlling the victim's own mon4ey or
properties, or solely controlling the conjugal or
Chapter Two – CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY
common money, or properties;
Section One – Abandonment of helpless persons and
(f) Inflicting or threatening to inflict physical harm
exploitation of minors
on oneself for the purpose of controlling her actions or
Article 275. Abandonment of persons in danger and
decisions;
abandonment of one’s own victim
Article 276. Abandoning a minor
(g) Causing or attempting to cause the woman or
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by person
her child to engage in any sexual activity which does
entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents
not constitute rape, by force or threat of force, physical
Article 278. Exploitation of minors
harm, or through intimidation directed against the
Article 279. Additional penalties for other offenses
woman or her child or her/his immediate family;
Section Two – Trespass to dwelling
(h) Engaging in purposeful, knowing, or reckless
Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling
conduct, personally or through another, that alarms or
Article 281. Other forms of trespass
causes substantial emotional or psychological distress
to the woman or her child. This shall include, but not
Section Three – Threats and Coercion
be limited to, the following acts:

124
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

it can be proven that the kidnapping was done for the

Article 282. Grave threats
purpose of extorting ransom.
Article 283. Light threats
§ It is essential in the crime of illegal detention that there
Article 284. Bond for good behavior
be actual confinement or restriction of the person of
Article 285. Other light threats
the offended party.
Article 286. Grave coercions
§ Not necessary that the victim be placed in an
Article 287. Light coercions
enclosure, as long as he is deprived, in any manner,
Article 288. Other similar coercions (compulsory
of his liberty.
purchase of merchandise and payment of wages
§ Detention is illegal when not ordered by competent
by means of tokens)
authority or not permitted by law.
Article 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of
§ Special Complex Crime of Kidnapping with murder –
combination of capital or labor through violence or
when the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of
threats
the detention, the maximum penalty (death) shall be
imposed.
Chapter Three – DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF
§ Where the victim is taken from one place to another
SECRETS
solely for the purpose of killing him, the crime
committed is murder.
Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of
§ Maximum penalty is imposed in the ff. cases:
correspondence
o If the purpose of detention is to extort ransom
Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office
o When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence
Article 292. Revelation of industrial secrets
of the detention
o When the victim is raped
o When the victim is subjected to torture or
dehumanizing acts.
§ Conspiracy to extort ransom makes all the conspirators
liable under this article, including those who did not
take part in the money.

Illegal detention Arbitrary detention

Article 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention Committed by a private Committed by a public
individual, who unlawfully officer or employee, who
Elements: deprives a person of his detains a person without
liberty legal ground
1. Offender is a private individual;
Crime against personal Crime against the
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner
liberty fundamental laws of the
deprives the latter of his liberty;
state
3. The act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
4. In the commission of the offense, any of the following
circumstances is present:
People v. Tomio
G.R. No. 74630, 30 September 1991
a. The kidnapping lasts for more than 3 days;
b. It is committed simulating public authority;
FACTS: A Japanese national named Tomio was arrested
c. Any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the
after being implicated for possessing marijuana. Two other
person kidnapped or detained or threats to kill him
Japanese claimed that they paid money for Tomio’s release
are made; or
and so they held Tomio under their custody, asking for the
d. The person kidnapped or detained is a minor,
amount they allegedly advance to the police.
female, or a public officer.
HELD: Even if the two accused only wanted to recover the
§ If the offender is a public officer, the crime is arbitrary
money they allegedly advanced to the police, the crime is
detention. The public officer must have a duty under
still kidnapping because of the essential element of
the law to detain a person to be liable for arbitrary
deprivation of liberty.
detention. If he has no such duty, and he detains a
person, he is liable under this article.
§ When the victim is a minor and the accused is one of
People v. Mercado
the parents, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a
G.R. No. 116239, 29 November 2000
fine not exceeding 300 pesos or both (Article 271, par.
2)
FACTS: The accused held a knife against his girlfriend’s
§ The essential element of kidnapping is the deprivation
sister for nearly five hours. The victim’s ordeal ended only
of the offended party’s liberty under any of the four
after the barangay captain was able to subdue the accused.
instances enumerated. But when the kidnapping was
committed for the purpose of extorting ransom, it is not
HELD: The crime is kidnapping because the victim was
necessary that one or any of circumstances
actually restrained or deprived of her liberty,
enumerated be present.
notwithstanding the fact that the accused only wanted the
§ When the kidnapping is done for the purpose of
victim to produce her.
extorting ransom from the victim or any other person,
actual demand for ransom is not necessary, as long as

125

People v. Del Socorro
G.R. No. 84048, 15 February 1990
Del Socorro grabbed a little girl and brought the child to a
doctor, asking for 700 pesos in return. The doctor gave the
child to her spinster aunt.
HELD: The defense that the child voluntarily went with the
accused is belied by the fact that the child openly resisted
the abduction and even had to be carried to the jeep.
People v. Padica
G.R. No. 102645, 7 April 1993
FACTS: A 14-year old boy was brought to a sugarcane
plantation, where he was shot and killed immediately. The
accused demanded ransom soon after.
HELD: Where the evident purpose of taking the victim was
to kill him, and from the acts of the accused it cannot be
inferred that the latter’s purpose was to actually detain or
deprive the victim of his liberty, the subsequent killing of the
victim did not constitute the crime of murder. The demand
for ransom did not convert the crime into kidnapping since
no deprivation of liberty was involved.
People v. Luartes
G.R. No. 127452, 17 June 1999
FACTS: Luartes kidnapped a 3-yr old girl outside Isettan
Recto. The girl was in the mall with her mother, who lost
her. Luartes’ defense was that he was merely helping the
lost girl find her mother. He says he had no intention of
kidnapping Junichi and that the prosecution witnesses
(police officers) merely misconstrued his actuations.
HELD: If indeed accused-appellant was trying to help the
lost child, why then did he misrepresent himself as her
uncle? And, if his intention was only to help the child look for
her mother, why did he have to board a passenger jeepney
taking the child with him?
The essence of kidnapping under Art. 267 is the actual
deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with the intent of
the accused to effect it. The crime in this case clearly comes
under par. 4 of Art. 267 of the Penal Code. The detention
was committed by Luartes who was a private individual and
the person kidnapped was a three (3)-year old minor.
People v. Pavillare
G.R. No. 129970, 5 April 2000
FACTS: Pavillare was convicted of kidnapping an Indian
national and sentenced to death. He argues that he should
have been convicted of simple robbery only and not
kidnapping with ransom because the evidence proves that
their prime motive was to obtain money and that the
complainant was detained only for two hours.
HELD: The pretense that the money was supposedly in
exchange for the dropping of the charges for rape is not
Criminal Law II Review Notes
supported by the evidence. The accused released the
complainant when the money was handed over to him and
after counting the money, he and his companions
immediately left the scene. This clearly indicated that the
payment of the ransom money is in exchange for the liberty
of the private complainant.
The duration of the detention even if only for a few hours
does not alter the nature of the crime committed. The crime
of kidnapping is committed by depriving the victim of liberty
whether he is placed in an enclosure or simply restrained
from going home. As squarely expressed in Article 267,
above-quoted the penalty of death is imposable where the
detention is committed for the purpose of extorting ransom,
and the duration of the detention is not material.
People v. Ballenas
G.R. No. 124299, 12 April 2000
FACTS: Accused Ballenas pointed a short firearm to Wilma
and Consorcia inside their home. Accused told Wilma to
accompany him to Maria his girlfriend. Wilma refused, as
they were about to eat supper. Consorcia also told her
daughter, Wilma not to go out because it was already dark.
Accused Ballenas forced Wilma to go out with him. Because
of the abduction, Consorcia sought the help of a neighbor,
Andres but to no avail, as Andres shut the door on her for
fear of Ballenas as the latter is known as a member of the
dreaded Sparrow Unit of the NPA.
The following morning, Consorcia reported the abduction of
Wilma to her son-in-law who is a member of the Integrated
National Police. She learned from Aurelio that Wilma was
already dead. The police then proceeded to the scene of the
incident. Ballenas was found guilty of forcible abduction with
rape and sentenced to Reclusion perpetua.
HELD: BALLENAS committed the crime of forcible abduction
with rape on March 20, 1987, before the passage of
Republic Act 7659 or the Heinous Crimes Law that took
effect on December 31, 1993. At the time that BALLENAS
committed the crime of forcible abduction with rape, the
penalty then applicable was reclusion perpetua to death. The
use by BALLENAS of a firearm in committing the crime, a
fact duly alleged in the information and proven in court,
should have warranted the imposition of the death penalty.
However, since the crime took place prior to the
implementation of RA 7659, the trial court correctly ruled
that the penalty that can be imposed on BALLENAS is
reclusion perpetua. Hence, despite the presence of the
aggravating circumstance of dwelling, the penalty herein of
reclusion perpetua would not be affected. Under Article 63
of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty of reclusion perpetua
should be applied regardless of any mitigating or
aggravating circumstance that may have attended the
commission of a crime.
People v. Awid
G.R. No. 185388, 16 June 2010
FACTS: Accused and his armed cohorts abducted Mrs. Lee
from her home, and held her for 20 days. After Mr. Lee paid
the kidnappers PHP1.2Million, his wife was released from
captivity. Accused and his companions were later
apprehended and prosecuted for kidnapping.
126

HELD: The conviction was affirmed, as was the penalty of
reclusion perpetua. The kidnapping in this case was qualified
because Mrs. Lee was held for ransom, which was eventually
paid by her family.
People v. Siongco
G.R. No. 186472, 5 July 2010
FACTS: Accused waylaid an 11 year-old child by promising
him a new “Gameboy.” Enticed, the child willingly got into
his car. Accused then kept the boy in his house until the
latter’s family paid the ransom demanded. After he was
caught, accused claimed that there was no kidnapping
because the child consented to go with him, and he never
forced or intimidated the boy.
HELD: The High Court found accused to be liable for
kidnapping. In kidnapping, the victim need not be taken by
the accused forcibly or against his will. What is controlling is
the act of the accused in detaining the victim against his or
her will after the offender is able to take the victim in his
custody. In short, the carrying away of the victim in the
crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention can either
be made forcibly or, as in the instant case, fraudulently.
Moreover, where the victim is a minor, lack of consent is
presumed. In this case, boy was only 11 years of age when
he was kidnapped; thus incapable of giving consent, and
incompetent to assent to his seizure and illegal detention.
Fenix v. People
G.R. No. 189878, 13 July 2016
The elements for the crime of serious illegal detention are
the following: (1) the offender is a private individual; (2) the
individual kidnaps or detains another or in any manner
deprives the latter of liberty; (3) the act of detention or
kidnapping is illegal; and (4) in the commission of the
offense, any of the following circumstances is present: (a)
the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than three days;
(b) it is committed by simulating public authority; (c) any
serious physical injury is inflicted upon the person kidnapped
or detained, or threats to kill that person are made; or (d)
the kidnapped or detained is a minor, a female, or a public
officer.
The act of holding a person for an illegal purpose necessarily
implies an unlawful physical or mental restraint against the
person's will, coupled with a willful intent to so confine the
victim. The culprit must have taken the victim away against
the latter's will, as lack of consent is a fundamental element
of the offense, and the involuntariness of the seizure and
detention is the very essence of the crime.
Distinguished: Forcible abduction
Madsali v. People
G.R. No. 179570, 4 February 2010
In the case at bar, Sajiron and Maron, who are private
individuals, forcibly took and dragged AAA, a minor, to the
forest and held her captive against her will. The crime of
serious illegal detention consists not only of placing a person
in an enclosure, but also of detaining him or depriving him in
any manner of his liberty. For there to be kidnapping, it is
enough that the victim is restrained from going home. Its
essence is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty,
Criminal Law II Review Notes
coupled with indubitable proof of the intent of the accused
to effect such deprivation. In the present case, although
AAA was not actually confined in an enclosed place, she was
clearly restrained and deprived of her liberty, because she
was tied up and her mouth stuffed with a piece of cloth,
thus, making it very easy to physically drag her to the forest
away from her home.
The crime of rape was also proven beyond reasonable doubt
in this case. Sajiron succeeded in having carnal knowledge
of AAA through the use of force and intimidation. For fear of
losing her life, AAA had no choice but to give in to Sajiron's
beastly and lustful assault.
Article 268. Slight illegal detention
Elements:
1. Offender is a private individual;
2. He kidnaps or detains another, or in any other manner
deprives him of his liberty.
3. The act of kidnapping or detention is illegal;
4. The crime is committed without the attendance of any
of the circumstances enumerated in Article 267.
§ The same penalty for slight illegal detention shall be
incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for the
perpetration of the crime. (normally, this is an
accomplice but under this article he is treated as co-
principal)
§ Privileged mitigating circumstance (penalty lower by
one degree) – if the offender:
o Voluntarily releases the person so kidnapped or
detained within three days from the
commencement of the detention;
o Without having attained the purpose intended;
and
o Before the institution of criminal proceedings
against him.
§ Voluntary release is not a privileged mitigating
circumstance if the victim is woman, because the
detention would then be punished under Article 267.
Voluntary release is not mitigating under that article.
Article 269. Unlawful arrest
Elements:
1. Offender arrests or detains another person;
2. The purpose of the offender is to deliver him to the
proper authorities;
3. The arrest or detention is not authorized by law or
there is no reasonable ground therefor.
§ Unlawful arrests by public officers should be punished
under Article 124, if the public officer has the legal
authority to arrest and detain a person, but the arrest
is without legal ground. If the public officer has no
authority to arrest and detain a person, or if he did not
act in his official capacity, he should be punished for
unlawful arrest under this article.
§ The motive of the person arresting is controlling. If
his purpose is to deliver to proper authorities,
this article applies. Absence of this motive may be
shown by the length of time the victim is detained.
127
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

§ If the purpose of delivering to proper authorities is not elaborated that what the law punishes is the deliberate
shown, the person may be liable for other illegal failure of that person to restore the minor to his parents or
detention (under 267 or 268, depending on the guardians, and the meaning of “deliberate” is that it must
circumstances of the case) imply something more than mere negligence—it must be
premeditated, headstrong, foolishly daring or intentionally
Unlawful arrest Delay of delivery of and maliciously wrong.
detained persons
The detention is not The detention is for some
authorized by law legal ground Article 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home
Crime is committed by Crime is committed by
making an arrest not failing to deliver such Elements:
authorized by law persons to the proper
judicial authority within a 1. A minor (whether over or under seven years of age) is
certain period of time living in the home of his parents or guardians or the
person entrusted with his custody;
2. Offender induces said minor to abandon such home.

Article 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor § The inducement must be actual, committed with
criminal intent, and determined by a will to cause
Elements: damage.
§ It is not necessary that the minor actually abandons his
1. Offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor home, as long as there is inducement.
person (whether over or under seven years but less § The minor should not leave his home of his own free
than 21 years of age); will.
2. He deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his § Father or mother may commit this crime (as well as
parents or guardians. Article 270), if the parents are living separately and
custody has been given to one of them.
§ What is punished is the deliberate failure of the
custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his
parents or guardians. Article 272. Slavery
§ When the crime is committed by the father or mother
of the minor, the penalty is arresto mayor or a fine not Elements:
exceeding 300 pesos or both.
1. Offender purchases, sells, kidnaps or detains a human
Article 270 Article 267 being;
2. The purpose of the offender is to enslave such human
Offender is entrusted with The offender is not
being.
the custody of the minor entrusted with the custody
of the minor
§ If the purpose of the offender is to assign the offended
party to some immoral traffic (prostitution), the penalty
People v. Marquez
is higher.
G.R. No. 181440, 13 April 2011
§ Differentiated from kidnapping: If the purpose is to
enslave the victim, the crime is slavery; otherwise the
Accused Aida Marquez was charged in RTC Makati with
crime is kidnapping or illegal detention.
Kidnapping, after “borrowing” a three-month old baby girl
named Justine Bernadette Mereno from the mother Carolina
Merero. Carolina was an employee of a beauty parlor, and
Article 273. Exploitation of child labor
accused was a regular customer. One day, accused
borrowed Justine from Carolina to buy her clothes, and
Elements:
became missing for two months. Carolina, with the help of
the authorities, found Justine in Quezon province with the
1. Offender retains a minor in his services;
Castillo family, and Castillo family alleged that accused sold
2. It is against the will of the minor;
them the baby for PhP 60,000.00. Accused was convicted
3. It is under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt
beyond reasonable doubt. Accused appealed, and the
incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted
appellate court affirmed said decision.
with the custody of such minor.
Accused contends that she is not guilty of kidnapping
§ The existence of an indebtedness constitutes no legal
because she even told Carolina the whereabouts of the baby
justification for holding a person and depriving him of
through a phone call, and that the elements of the crime of
his freedom to live where he wills.
serious illegal detention or kidnapping are not present in this
case. However, she was not charged with the crime of
Article 274. Services rendered under compulsion in
Serious Illegal Detention and Kidnapping under Art. 267. She
payment of debt
was charged with Kidnapping for Failure to Return a Minor
under Art. 270, which has the following elements: (1) The
Elements:
offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person;
and (2) The offender deliberately fails to restore the said
1. Offender compels a debtor to work for him, either as
minor to his parents or guardians. The Supreme Court
household servant or farm laborer;

128
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

2. It is against the debtor’s will;

3. The purpose is to require or enforce the payment of a Such being the case, it must be specifically alleged in the
debt. information. The information against petitioner in this case
does not so allege.
Service under Exploitation of child
compulsion labor Upon the other hand, failure to help or render assistance to
Does not distinguish Victim must be a minor another whom one has accidentally wounded or injured is an
whether the victim is a offense under paragraph 2 of Article 275 of the same code
minor or not which reads:
The debtor himself is the The minor is compelled to
one compelled to work for render services for the The penalty of arresto mayor shall
the offender supposed debt of his parent be imposed upon:
or guardian
Limited to household work Service is not limited xxx xxx xxx
or farm labor
2. Anyone who shall fail to
help or render assistance to another whom
Article 275. Abandonment of persons in danger and he has accidentally wounded or injured.
abandonment of one’s own victim

Acts punishable: Article 276. Abandoning a minor

1. Failing to render assistance to any person whom the Elements:

offender finds in an uninhabited place wounded or in
danger of dying when he can render such assistance 1. Offender has the custody of a child;
without detriment to himself, unless such omission shall 2. The child is under seven years of age;
constitute a more serious offense. 3. He abandons such child;
4. He has no intent to kill the child when the latter is
Elements: abandoned.

a. The place is not inhabited; Circumstances qualifying the offense:

b. Accused found there a person wounded or in
danger of dying; 1. When the death of the minor resulted from such
c. Accused can render assistance without detriment abandonment; or
to himself; 2. If the life of the minor was in danger because of the
d. Accused fails to render assistance. abandonment.

2. Failing to help or render assistance to another whom
the offender has accidentally wounded or injured;
3. By failing to deliver a child, under seven years of age,
whom the offender has found abandoned, to the
authorities or to his family, or by failing to take him to a
safe place.
§ If a person intentionally wounds another and leaves
him in an uninhabited place, he shall not be liable
under this article because be did not FIND him
wounded or in danger of dying.
§ It is immaterial that the offender did not know that the
child is under seven years.
§ The child under seven must be found by the accused in
an unsafe place.
Lamera v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 93475, 5 June 1991
In Article 365, failure to lend help to one's victim is neither
an offense by itself nor an element of the offense therein
penalized. Its presence merely increases the penalty by one
degree. The last paragraph of the Article specifically
provides:
The penalty next higher in degree to those provided for in
this article shall be imposed upon the offender who fails to
lend on the spot to the injured parties such help as may be
in hand to give.
§ When there is intent to kill, this article does not apply.
The purpose in abandoning the minor must be to avoid
the obligation of taking care of said minor.
§ The ruling that intent to kill is presumed from the death
of the victim is applicable only to crimes against
persons, and not to crimes against security, particularly
the crime in this article.
§ A permanent, conscious and deliberate abandonment is
required in this article. There must be an interruption
of the care and protection the minor needs by reason
of his age.
§ Parents guilty of abandonment shall be deprived of
their parental authority.
Article 277. Abandonment of minor by the person
entrusted with his custody; indifference of parents
Acts punishable:
1. Delivering a minor to a public institution or other
persons without the consent of the one who entrusted
such minor to the care of the offender or, in the
absence of that one, without the consent of the proper
authorities;
Elements:
a. Offender has charge of the rearing or education of
a minor;

129
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

b. He delivers said minor to a public institution or callings mentioned in paragraph 2 or to accompany any
other persons; and habitual vagrant or beggar, the offender being any
c. The one who entrusted such child to the offender person.
has not consented to such act; or if the one who
entrusted such child to the offender is absent, the Exploitation of minors Inducing a minor to
proper authorities have not consented to it. (par. 5) abandon his home
Purpose of inducing minor is No such purpose
to abandon home is to
2. Neglecting his (offender’s) children by not giving them follow any person engaged
the education which their station in life requires and in any of the callings of
financial condition permits. being an acrobat, gymnast,
etc.
Elements: Minor under 16 years of age Minor under 21 years of age

a. Offender is a parent; § If the delivery of the child to any person following any
b. He neglects his children by not giving them of the callings enumerated, is made in consideration of
education; and any price, compensation or promise, the penalty is
c. His station in life requires such education and his higher.
financial condition permits it. § The offender shall be deprived of parental authority or
guardianship.
Article 276 Article 277 § Exploitation of minors refers to acts endangering the
The custody of the offender The custody of the offender life or safety of the minor.
is stated in general is specific, that is, the
custody for the rearing or
education of the minor
R.A. No. 7610
The minor is under 7 years The minor is under 21 years
Special Protection of Children against Child Abuse,
of age of age
Exploitation and Discrimination Act
Minor is abandoned in such The minor is delivered to a
as way as to deprive him of public institution or other
A. CHILD PROSTITUTION
the care and protection that person
his tender years need Who are “children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse”?
§ Obligation to educate children terminates, if the mother
and children refuse without good reason to live with the Children, whether male or female, who for money, profit,
accused. or any other consideration or due to the coercion or
§ Failure to give education must be due to deliberate influence of any adult, syndicate or group, indulge in
desire to evade such obligation. If the parents cannot sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are deemed to be
give education because they had no means to do so, children exploited in prostitution and other sexual abuse.
then they will not be liable under this article.
Who are punishable?

Article 278. Exploitation of minors
Acts punishable:
1. Causing any boy or girl under 16 years of age to
perform any dangerous feat of balancing, physical
strength or contortion, the offender being any person;
2. Employing children under 16 years of age who are not
the children or descendants of the offender in
exhibitions of acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, or
wild-animal tamer, the offender being an acrobat, etc.,
or circus manager or engaged in a similar calling;
3. Employing any descendant under 12 years of age in
dangerous exhibitions enumerated in the next
preceding paragraph, the offender being engaged in
any of the said callings;
4. Delivering a child under 16 years of age gratuitously to
any person following any of the callings enumerated in
paragraph 2, or to any habitual vagrant or beggar, the
offender being an ascendant, guardian, teacher or
person entrusted in any capacity with the care of such
child; and
5. Inducing any child under 16 years of age to abandon
the home of its ascendants, guardians, curators or
teachers to follow any person engaged in any of the
1. Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or induce
child prostitution, which include, but are not limited to, the
following:
f. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
g. Inducing a person to be a client of a child
prostitute by means of written or oral
advertisements or other similar means;
h. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to
procure a child as prostitute;
i. Threatening or using violence towards a child to
engage him as a prostitute; or
j. Giving monetary consideration, goods or other
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage
such child in prostitution.
2. Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse or
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
subject to other sexual abuse;
- If the victim is under 12, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted for rape and or lascivious conduct
under the RPC as the case may be
- However, the penalty for lascivious conduct when
the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall
be higher (reclusion temporal in its medium
period)

130

3. Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom,
whether as manager or owner of the establishment where
the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar,
resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a
cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the
activity for which the license has been issued to said
establishment.
When is there attempt to commit child prostitution?
A penalty lower by two degrees than that prescribed for the
consummated felony shall be imposed upon the principals of
an attempt to commit the crime of child prostitution,
committed as follows:
1. Attempt of (1) above ® When any person who, not being
a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child
inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel,
pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments,
vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to
believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution
and other sexual abuse; or
2. Attempt of (2) above ® When any person is receiving
services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath, massage
clinic, health club and other similar establishments.
B. CHILD TRAFFICKING
What is child trafficking?
Child trafficking is committed by a person trading and
dealing with children including, but not limited to, the act of
buying and selling of a child for money, or for any other
consideration, or barter.
When is there attempt to commit child trafficking?
(An attempt is punishable by a penalty two degrees lower
than the penalty for the consummated offense)
There is an attempt to commit child trafficking:
1. When a child travels alone to a foreign country without
valid reason therefor and without clearance issued by the
Department of Social Welfare and Development or written
permit or justification from the child's parents or legal
guardian;
2. When a person, agency, establishment or child-caring
institution recruits women or couples to bear a children for
the purpose of child trafficking;
3. When doctor, hospital or clinic official or employee, nurse,
midwife, local civil registrar or any other person simulates
birth for the purpose of child trafficking;
4. When a person engages in the act of finding children
among low-income families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries, day-
care centers, or other child-during institutions who can be
offered for the purpose of child trafficking.
C. OBSCENE PUBLICATIONS AND INDECENT
Criminal Law II Review Notes
SHOWS
Who are punishable?
Any person who shall hire, employ, use, persuade, induce
or coerce a child to perform in obscene exhibitions and
indecent shows, whether live or in video, or model in
obscene publications or pornographic materials or to sell or
distribute the said materials.
D. OTHER PERSONS PUNISHABLE UNDER THE
ACT
1. Any person who shall commit any other acts of child
abuse, cruelty or exploitation or to be responsible for
other conditions prejudicial to the child's development
including those covered by Article 59 of PD 603 (criminal
liability of parents due to abandonment, neglect etc.), but
not covered by the RPC;
2. Any person who shall keep or have in his company a
minor, twelve (12) years or under or who is ten (10) years
or more his junior in any public or private place, hotel,
motel, beer joint, discotheque, cabaret, pension house,
sauna or massage parlor, beach and/or other tourist resort
or similar places UNLESS s/he is related to the minor within
the fourth degree of consanguinity or affinity or any bond
recognized by law, local custom and tradition or acts in the
performance of a social, moral or legal duty.
3. Any person who shall induce, deliver or offer a minor
to any one prohibited by this Act to keep or have in his
company a minor as provided in the preceding paragraph;
4. Any person, owner, manager or one entrusted with the
operation of any public or private place of accommodation,
whether for occupancy, food, drink or otherwise, including
residential places, who allows any person to take along
with him to such place or places any minor herein described;
5. Any person who shall use, coerce, force or intimidate
a street child or any other child to;
- Beg or use begging as a means of living;
- Act as conduit or middlemen in drug trafficking or
pushing;
- Conduct any illegal activities
E. WORKING CHILDREN
Who are punishable?
Any person who shall violate any of the provision of the Act
with respect to working children (conditions for the
employment of children under 15, prohibitions on the
employment of children for certain advertisements etc.)
F. CHILDREN OF INDIGENOUS CULTURAL COMMUNITIES
Who are punishable?
Any person who discriminates against children of indigenous
cultural communities
COMMON PENAL PROVISIONS
131
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

1. The penalty provided under this Act shall be imposed in

§ Purpose of the law: to protect and preserve the
its maximum period if the offender has been previously
privacy of one’s dwelling
convicted under this Act;
§ If the offender is a public officer or employee, the
entrance into the dwelling against the will of the
2. When the offender is a corporation, partnership or
occupant is violation of domicile.
association, the officer or employee thereof who is
§ Dwelling – place devoted for rest and comfort, as
responsible for the violation of this Act shall suffer the
distinguished from places devoted to business, office
penalty imposed in its maximum period;
etc.
§ Dwelling includes a room when occupied by another
3. The penalty provided herein shall be imposed in its
person (example: room at a boarding house)
maximum period when the perpetrator is an ascendant,
§ Against the will – should be against the presumed or
parent guardian, stepparent or collateral relative within the
express prohibition of the occupant, not mere lack of
second degree of consanguinity or affinity, or a manager or
consent. There must be opposition on the part of the
owner of an establishment which has no license to operate
owner of the house to the entry of the accused.
or its license has expired or has been revoked;
§ However, presumed or implied prohibition is sufficient
(e.g. entrance during the late hour of the night)
4. When the offender is a foreigner, he shall be deported
§ Prohibition must be existent prior to or at the time of
immediately after service of sentence and forever barred
entrance.
from entry to the country;
§ QUALIFIED TRESPASS: If the offense is committed by
means of violence or intimidation, the penalty is higher.
5. The penalty provided for in this Act shall be imposed in its
§ Violence may be against persons or property, but there
maximum period if the offender is a public officer or
are conflicting views as to this statement.
employee, together with the penalty of disqualification or
§ The violence or intimidation may take place
suspension depending on the penalty imposed;
immediately after the entrance.
§ Proof of express prohibition to enter is not necessary
6. A fine to be determined by the court shall be imposed and
when violence or intimidation is employed by the
administered as a cash fund by the Department of Social
offender.
Welfare and Development and disbursed for the
§ If there is no overt act of the crime intended to be
rehabilitation of each child victim, or any immediate member
committed, the crime is only trespass to dwelling.
of his family if the latter is the perpetrator of the offense.

Article 281. Other forms of trespass

Article 279. Additional penalties for other offenses Elements:

§ The imposition of the penalties prescribed in the 1.
preceding articles shall not prevent the imposition upon
the same person of the penalty provided for any other 2.
felonies defined and punished by the RPC.
3.
4.
Article 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling
Offender enters the closed premises or the fenced
estate of another;
The entrance is made while either of them is
uninhabited;
The prohibition to enter is manifest; and
The trespasser has not secured the permission of the
owner or the caretaker thereof.

Elements: § Premises signify a distinct and definite locality. This

may include a room, shop, building or definite area.
1. Offender is a private person;
2. He enters the dwelling of another; Trespass to dwelling Other forms of trespass
3. Such entrance is against the latter’s will. The offender is a private The offender is any person
person
Cases to which the provisions of this article is not applicable:
The offender enters a The offender enters a closed
dwelling house premises or a fenced estate
1. When the purpose of the entrance is to prevent serious
The place entered is The place entered is
harm to himself, the occupant or third persons;
inhabited uninhabited
2. When the purpose of the offender in entering is to
The act constituting the The act constituting the
render some service to humanity or justice;
crime is entering against the crime is entering without
3. Anyone who shall enter cafes, taverns, inns and other
will of the owner securing the permission of
public houses while they are open.
the owner or caretaker
Prohibition to enter is Prohibition to enter must be
express or implied manifest

Article 282. Grave threats

Acts punishable:

132

1. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person,
honor or property or that of this family of any wrong
amounting to a crime and demanding money or
imposing any other condition, even though not
unlawful, and the offender attained his purpose;
Elements:
a. The offender threatens another person with the
infliction upon the latter’s person, honor or
property, or upon that of the latter’s family, of any
wrong;
b. Such wrong amounts to a crime;
c. There is a demand for money or that any other
condition is imposed, even though not unlawful;
d. The offender attains his purpose.
2. Making such threat without the offender attaining his
purpose;
3. Threatening another with the infliction upon his person,
honor or property or that of his family of any wrong
amounting to a crime, the threat not being subject
to a condition.
§ The essence of the crime of threats is intimidation; i.e.
the promise of some future harm or injury.
§ Not necessary that the wrong threatened to be inflicted
must amount to any of the crimes against persons,
honor or property. Law requires that the wrong must
be UPON the person, honor or property.
§ As the crime consists in threatening another with some
future harm, it is not necessary that the offended party
was present at the time the threats were made. It is
sufficient that the threats, came to the knowledge of
the offended party.
§ The crime of grave threats is consummated as soon as
the threats come to the knowledge of the person
threatened.
§ Threats made in connection with the commission of
other crimes are absorbed by the latter.
§ The offender in grave threats does not demand the
delivery on the spot of the money or other personal
property demanded by him. When threats are made
and money is taken on the spot, the crime may be
robbery with intimidation.
§ The penalties for the first two types of grave threats
depend upon the penalties for the crimes threatened to
be committed. One degree lower if the purpose is
attained, and two degrees lower if the purpose is not
attained.
§ If the threat is not subject to a condition, the penalty is
fixed at arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos.
§ In the first two types, if the threat is made in writing or
thorough a middleman, the penalty is to be imposed in
its maximum period.
§ The third type of grave threats must be serious and
deliberate; the offender must persist in the idea
involved in his threats. The threat should not be made
in the heat of anger, because such is punished under
Article 285.
§ If the condition is not proved, it is grave threats of the
third type.
Timoner v. People
G.R. No. L-62050, 25 November 1983
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Grave coercion is committed when “a person who, without
authority of law, shall by means of violence, prevent another
from doing something not prohibited by law or compel to do
something against his will, either it be right or wrong.” In
the case at bar, the Mayor is not guilty of grave coercion as
the element that the restraint made by the Mayor upon
complainant, the owner of the barbershop considered as a
public nuisance, was not made under authority of law or in
the exercise of a lawful right, is absent.
Lee v. Court of Appeals
G.R. No. 90423, 6 September 1991
There is nothing unlawful when petitioner demanded that
the private respondent return the proceeds of the check
accompanied by a threat to file criminal charges. Her lengthy
stay in the bank and return of money was not due to
petitioner’s threat but to show good faith. The most telling
proof of the absence of intimidation was the fact that the
complainant refused to sign the promissory note in spite of
the alleged threats of the petitioner.
Article 283. Light threats
Elements:
1. Offender makes a threat to commit a wrong;
2. The wrong does not constitute a crime;
3. There is a demand for money or that other condition is
imposed, even though not unlawful; and
4. Offender has attained his purpose or, that he has not
attained his purpose.
§ Light threats are committed in the same manner as
grave threats, except that the act threatened to be
committed should not be a crime.
§ Blackmailing may be punished under this article.
Article 284. Bond for good behavior
In what cases may a person be required to give bail not to
molest another?
1. When he threatens another under Article 282.
2. When he threatens another under Article 283.
Bond for good behavior Bond to keep the peace
Applicable only to grave Not made applicable to any
threats and light threats particular case
If offender fails to give bail, If the offender fails to give
he shall be sentenced to bond, he shall be detained
destierro for a period not exceeding 6
months (if prosecuted for
grave/less grave felony) or
not exceeding 30 days (light
felony)
NOT a distinct penalty A distinct penalty
Article 285. Other light threats
Acts punishable:
133
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

1. Threatening another with a weapon, or by drawing already done when violence is exerted, the crime is
such weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self- unjust vexation.
defense; § Instances when the act of preventing another is
2. Orally threatening another, in the heat of anger, with classified as another crime:
some harm constituting a crime, without persisting in o A public officer preventing by means of violence or
the idea involved in his threat; threats the ceremonies or manifestations of any
3. Orally threatening to do another any harm not religion is guilty of interruption of religious worship
constituting a felony. (Art. 132)
o Any person who, by force, prevents the meeting of
§ Under the first type, the subsequent acts of the a legislative body (Art. 143)
offender must show that he did not persist in the idea o Any person who shall use force or intimidation to
involved in his threat. prevent any member of Congress from attending
§ Threats which are ordinarily grave threats, if made in the meetings thereof, expressing his opinions, or
the heat of anger, may be other light threats. casting his vote (Art. 145)
§ If the threats are directed to a person who is absent § Compelling another to do something includes the
and uttered in a temporary fit of anger, the offense is offender’s act of doing it himself while subjecting
only other light threats. another to his will.
§ A person who is in actual possession of a thing, even if
Other light threats Grave threats he has no right to that possession, cannot be compelled
(second type) (third type) by means of violence to give up the possession, even
Harm threatened to be committed is a crime by the owner himself. This will amount to grave
Threat is not deliberate Threat is deliberate coercion.
(made in the heat of anger) § Note however that an owner and actual possessor a
property has a right to use such force was may be
Other light threats Light threats reasonably necessary to prevent another from
(third type) dispossessing him of his property.
§ Instances when the act of compelling is another
Harm threatened to be committed is not a crime
offense:
There is NO demand for There is demand for money,
o A public officer not authorized by law who compels
money, or other condition or other condition imposed
a person to change his residence (Art. 127)
imposed
o Kidnapping a debtor to compel him to pay his debt
(kidnapping for ransom under Art. 267)
§ The crime is not grave coercion when the violence is
employed to seize anything not belonging to the debtor
of the offender. This is light coercion under Article 287.
Article 286. Grave coercions § Surrounding the victim in a notoriously threatening
attitude is sufficient to constitute intimidation.
Acts punishable: § The force or violence must be immediate, actual or
imminent.
1. Preventing another, by means of violence, threats or § The owner of a thing has no right to prevent
intimidation, from doing something not prohibited by interference with it when interference is necessary to
law; and avert greater damage.
2. Compelling another, by means of violence, threats or § There is no grave coercion when the accused acts in
intimidation, to do something against his will, whether good faith in the performance of duty.
it be right or wrong. § Coercion is consummated even if the offended party
did not accede to the purpose of the coercion. (MEL –
Elements this is doubtful, please check)
§ A higher penalty (prision mayor) is imposed if the
1. A person prevented another from doing something not coercion is committed:
prohibited by law, or that he compelled him to do o In violation of the exercise of the right of suffrage;
something against his will; be it right or wrong; o To compel another to perform any religious act.
2. The prevention or compulsion be effected by violence,
threats or intimidation; and
3. The person that restrained the will and liberty of
Grave coercion Illegal Detention
another had not the authority of law or the right to do
There is no clear deprivation There must be actual
so, or in other words, that the restraint shall not be
of liberty confinement or restraint on
made under authority of law or in the exercise of any
the person of the victim
lawful right.

§ The purpose of the law in penalizing coercion and Grave coercion Maltreatment of prisoner
unjust vexation is to enforce the principle that no (compelling a person to
person may take the law into his hands, and that our confess/give info)
government is one of law, not of men. The offended party is NOT a The offended party is a
§ In grave coercion, the act of preventing by force must prisoner prisoner
be made at the time the offended party was doing or
about to do the act to be prevented. If the act was

134

Article 287. Light coercions
Elements:
1. Offender must be a creditor;
2. He seizes anything belonging to his debtor:
3. The seizure of the thing be accomplished by means of
violence or a display of material force producing
intimidation;
4. The purpose of the offender is to apply the same to the
payment of the debt.
§ The seized property must be applied to the PAYMENT
of the debt, not merely as SECURITY for the debt.
§ Taking possession of the thing belonging to the debtor,
through deceit and misrepresentation, for the purpose
of applying the same to the payment of the debt, is
unjust vexation under the second paragraph of this
article.
§ Actual physical violence not necessary, grave
intimidation is sufficient.
Unjust vexation (other light coercion, second
paragraph)
§ Includes any human conduct which, although not
productive of some physical or material harm, would,
however, unjustly annoy or vex an innocent person.
The act must cause annoyance, irritation, vexation,
torment, distress or disturbance.
§ There is no violence or intimidation in unjust vexation.
§ Examples: kissing a girl (despite her objections, of
course!)
§ When the first and third elements of grave coercion are
present, but the second element (violence, threats or
intimidation) is absent, the crime is unjust vexation.
People v. Reyes
G.R. No. L-40577, 23 August 1934
FACTS: During a pabasa, the appellants started to construct
a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel. The noise
disrupted the ceremonies and some of the participants even
fled, fearing trouble. The appellants were convicted of
Offending Religious Feelings under Art. 133.
HELD: The construction of a fence even though irritating
and vexatious under the circumstances to those present is
not such an act as can be designated as “notoriously
offensive to the feelings of the faithful.” The appellants’ act
was innocent and was simply to protect private property
rights. The circumstances under which the fence was
constructed – late at night, vexing and annoying those who
had gathered – indicate that the crime committed was only
unjust vexation.
People v. Anonuevo
G.R. No. 137843, 12 October 2001
FACTS:l Teodulo Anonuevo embraced and kissed Rosita
Tabia and held her breasts while in church. He was
convicted of abuse against chastity.
HELD: It is error to ascribe the conduct of appellant to
lustful designs or purposes in the absence of clear proof as
Criminal Law II Review Notes
to his motive. The religious atmosphere and the presence of
many people belie the fact that he acted with lewd designs.
He either performed a bravado (in defiance of alleged
threats of Rosita’s boyfriend) or wished merely to force
Rosita to accept him as a lover. He is only guilty of unjust
vexation.
Article 288. Other similar coercions (compulsory
purchase of merchandise and payment of wages by
means of tokens)
Acts punishable:
1. Forcing or compelling, directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permitting the forcing or compelling of the
laborer or employee of the offender to purchase
merchandise of commodities of any kind from him;
Elements:
a. Offender is any person, agent or officer of any
association or corporation;
b. He or such firm or corporation has employed
laborers or employees;
c. He forces or compels, directly or indirectly, or
knowingly permits to be forced or compelled, any
of his or its laborers or employees to purchase
merchandise or commodities of any kind from him
or from said firm or corporation.
2. Paying the wages due his laborer or employee by
means of tokens or object other than the legal tender
currency of the Philippines, unless expressly requested
by such laborer or employee.
Elements:
a. Offender pays the wages due a laborer or
employee employed by him by means of tokens or
object;
b. Those tokens or objects are other than the legal
tender currency of the Philippines;
c. Such employee or laborer does not expressly
request that he be paid by means of tokens or
objects.
§ As a general rule, laborers and employees have the
right to receive just wages in legal tender.
§ Inducing an employee to give up part of his wages by
force, stealth, intimidation, threat or by any other
means is not punished under the RPC, but under Article
116 of the Labor Code.
Article 289. Formation, maintenance, and prohibition
of combination of capital or labor through violence or
threats
Elements:
1. Offender employs violence or threats, in such a degree
as to compel or force the laborers or employers in the
free and legal exercise of their industry or work;
2. The purpose is to organize, maintain or prevent
coalitions of capital or labor, strike of laborers or
lockout of employers.
135
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

§ The act should not be a more serious offense under the Elements:
RPC. For example, if death or other serious physical
injuries are caused, the act should be punished as such 1. Offender is a manager, employee or servant;
and not under this Article. 2. He learns the secrets of his principal or master in such
§ Peaceful picketing is not prohibited, it is a valid exercise capacity;
of freedom of speech. 3. He reveals such secrets.
§ Employing violence or making threat by picketers may
make them liable for coercion. § Secrets must be learned by reason of their
§ Preventing employees from joining any registered labor employment.
organization is punished under the Labor Code, not § The secrets must be revealed by the offender.
under the RPC. § Prejudice/damage is not necessary under this Article.

Article 292. Revealing of industrial secrets

Article 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of
correspondence Elements:

Elements: 1. Offender is a person in charge, employee or workman

of a manufacturing or industrial establishment;
1. Offender is a private individual or even a public officer 2. The manufacturing or industrial establishment has a
not in the exercise of his official function; secret of the industry which the offender has learned;
2. He seizes the papers or letters of another; 3. Offender reveals such secrets;
3. The purpose is to discover the secrets of such another 4. Prejudice is caused to the owner.
person;
4. Offender is informed of the contents of the papers or § Secrets must relate to manufacturing processes.
letters seized. § The act constituting the crime is revealing the secret of
the industry of employer.
§ To seize means to place in the control of someone a § The revelation of the secret might be made after the
thing or to give him the possession thereof. It is not employee or workman had ceased to be connected with
necessary that there be force or violence. the establishment.
§ Prejudice is not an element of the offense. § Prejudice is an element of the offense.
§ When the offender reveals the contents of such paper §
or letters of another to a third person, the penalty is
higher. Thus, revealing the secret is not an element of R.A. No. 4200
the offense, it only qualifies the offense. Anti-Wire Tapping Act
§ This article is not applicable to:
o parents, guardians or persons entrusted with the Acts Punishable:
custody of minors with respect to papers or letters
of the children or minors placed under their care It shall be unlawful for any person:
or custody;
o spouses with respect to the papers or letters of 1. Not being authorized by all the parties to any
either of them. private communication or spoken word, to tap any
§ Unlawful opening of mail matter by an officer or wire or cable, or by using any other device or
employee of the Bureau of Posts is punished under the arrangement, to secretly overhear, intercept, or
Administrative Code. record such communication or spoken word by
using a device commonly known as dictaphone or
Discovering secrets Revealing secrets dictagraph or walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or
(Art. 290) (Art. 230) however otherwise described.
Offender is a private Offender is a public officer 2. Be he a participant or not in the act or acts
individual, or public officer penalized in the next preceding sentence, to
not in exercise of official knowingly possess any tape record, wire record,
function disc record, or any other such record, or copies
The offender SEIZES the The offender COMES TO thereof, of any communication or spoken word
papers or letters KNOW of the secrets of the secured either before or after the effective date of
private individual by reason this Act in the manner prohibited by this law; or to
of his office. Not necessary replay the same for any other person or persons;
that the secrets are or to communicate the contents thereof, either
contained in papers/letters verbally or in writing, or to furnish transcriptions
The purpose of the offender The offender reveals such thereof, whether complete or partial, to any other
is to discover the secrets of secrets without justifiable person; and
another, revelation to reason. 3. Willfully or knowingly does or who shall aid,
another is not an element of permit, or cause to be done any of the acts
the crime declared to be unlawful in the preceding section or
who violates the provisions of the following
section or of any order issued thereunder, or aids,
Article 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office permits or cause such violation.

Exceptions:

136

Nothing is this Act shall render it unlawful or punishable for
any peace officer, who is authorized by a written order of
the Court, to execute any of the acts declared to be unlawful
in cases involving the crimes of:
1. Treason
2. Espionage
3. Mutiny in the high seas
4. Provoking war and disloyalty in case war
5. Piracy
6. Kidnapping
7. Rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to commit
rebellion, inciting to rebellion
8. Violations of CA 616, punishing espionage and
other offenses against national security; and
9. Sedition, conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to
sedition.
Title Ten
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Chapter One. ROBBERY IN GENERAL
Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery
Section One – Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries, committed
in an uninhabited place and by a band, or with the
use of firearm on a street, road or alley
Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred
by the members thereof
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery
committed under certain circumstances
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence
or intimidation
Section Two – Robbery by the use of force upon things
Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public
building or edifice devoted to worship
Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by a
band
Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public
building, or building dedicated to religious
worship and their dependencies
Article 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a
private building
Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in
an uninhabited place or private building
Article 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools
Article 305. False keys
Chapter Two – BRIGANDAGE
Article 306. Who are brigands
Article 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands
Chapter Three – THEFT
Article 308. Who are liable for theft
Article 309. Penalties
Article 310. Qualified theft
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Article 311. Theft of the property of the National
Library and National Museum
Chapter Four – USURPATION
Article 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation
of real rights in property
Article 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks
Chapter Five – CULPABLE INSOLVENCY
Article 314. Fraudulent insolvency
Chapter Six – SWINDLING AND OTHER DECEITS
Article 315. Swindling (Estafa)
Article 316. Other forms of swindling
Article 317. Swindling a minor
Article 318. Other deceits
Chapter Seven – CHATTEL MORTGAGE
Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged
Property
Chapter Eight – ARSON AND OTHER CRIMES INVOLVING
DESTRUCTION (REPEALED BY PD 1613 and RA 7659)
Article 320. Destructive arson
Article 321. Other forms of arson
Article 322. Cases of arson not included in the
preceding articles
Article 323. Arson of property of small value
Article 324. Crimes involving destruction
Article 325. Burning one’s own property as means to
commit arson
Article 326. Setting fire to property exclusively owned
by the offender
Article 326-A. In cases where death resulted as a
consequence of arson
Article 326-B. Prima facie evidence of arson
Chapter Nine – MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
Article 327. Who are liable for malicious mischief
Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief
Article 329. Other mischiefs
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means of
communication
Article 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public
monuments or paintings
Chapter Ten – EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINAL LIABLITY IN
CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
Article 333. Persons exempt from criminal liability
Article 293. Who are guilty of robbery
Elements of robbery in general:
4. There is personal property belonging to another;
5. There is unlawful taking of that property;
6. The taking must be with intent to gain; and
137

7. There is violence against or intimidation of any person,
or force upon anything.
• The property taken must be personal property, for
if real property is occupied or real right is usurped
by means of violence against or intimidation of
person, the crime is USURPATION.
• The phrase “belonging to another” means that the
property taken does not belong to the offender.
The person from whom the property is taken need
not be the owner. Possession of the property
is sufficient.
• The unlawful taking of personal property is an
essential part of the crime of robbery. Where the
taking was lawful and the unlawful
misappropriation was subsequent to such taking,
the crime is ESTAFA or MALVERSATION.
UNLAWFUL TAKING – when complete?
a. as to robbery with violence against or intimidation
of persons
i. from the moment the offender gains
possession of the thing, even if the culprit
has had no opportunity to dispose of the
same
b. as to robbery with force upon things
i. the thing must be taken out of the building,
or the place broken into, to consummate the
crime (note: this is purely based on reyes’s
opinion)
“Taking” as an element of robbery, means depriving the
offended party of ownership of the thing taken with the
character of permanency.
Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking
of personal property.
• Absence of intent to gain will make the taking of
personal property GRAVE COERCION if there is
violence used.
• The element of “personal property belonging to
another” and that of “intent to gain” must concur.
• The violence, as an element of robbery, must be
against the person of the offended party, not upon
the thing taken.
• As for intimidation, it need not be threat of bodily
harm. It could be a threat of paying a fine or
closing the offended party’s shop.
GENERAL RULE: The violence or intimidation must be
present before the taking of personal property is
complete. It is not necessary that violence of
intimidation should be present from the very beginning.
EXCEPTION: When the violence results in – (1)
homicide, (2) rape, (3) intentional mutilation, or (4) any
of the serious physical injuries under par 1 & 2 of Art
263 – the taking of personal property is robbery
complexed with any of those crimes under Art 294,
even if the taking was already complete when the
violence was used by the offender.
Distinctions between effects of employment of
violence against or intimidation of person and
those of use of force upon things:
• Whenever violence against or
intimidation of any person is used, the taking
Criminal Law II Review Notes
of personal property belonging to another is
always robbery. If only force upon things,
the taking is robbery only if the force is used
either to enter the building or to break doors,
wardrobes, chests or any other kind of locked
or sealed furniture or receptacle inside the
building or to force them open outside after
taking the same from the building.
• In robbery with violence against or
intimidation of any person, the value of the
personal property taken is immaterial. The
penalty depends (a) on the result of the
violence used ie homicide, rape, intentional
mutilation etc, and (b) on the existence of
intimidation only. In robbery with force upon
things, committed in an inhabited house,
public building, or edifice devoted to religious
worship, the penalty is based (a) on the
value of the property taken, and (b) on
whether or not the offenders carry arms. If
committed in an uninhabited building, the
penalty is based only on the value of the
property taken.
Napolis v. CA
G.R. No. L-28865, 28 February 1972
FACTS: Nicanor Napolis, with several co-accused, entered
the house of the Penaflor spouses by breaking a wall of a
store, and forcing the door of the house adjacent to the
store open. Once inside, the accused used violence against
the husband and initimidation against the wife, enabling
them to get away with P2557 in cash and goods. They were
convicted of robbery by armed men in an inhabited place.
HELD: The crime is considered a complex one under Art 48,
where the penalty for the most serious offence in its max
period should be imposed. Otherwise, there will exist an
absurd situation where the concurrence of a graver offence
results in the reduction of the penalty.
People v. Biruar
G.R. No. L-32202-04, 25 July 1984
There is no law or jurisprudence which requires the
presentation of the thing stolen in order to prove that it had
been taken away.
People v. Salas
G.R. No. L-66469, 29 July 1986
FACTS: Salas was last seen with the victim at 3:00am. At
6:00, the victim’s body was found in a canal. Her purse,
alleged to contain P2,000 and jewelry were missing. No one
witnessed the robbery, much less the killing. Is the crime
committed homicide or robbery with homicide?
HELD: Robbery with Homicide. In this special complex crime
against property, Homicide is incidental to the robbery,
which is the main purpose of the
criminal. The onus probandi is to establish: "(a) the taking of
personal property with the use of violence or intimidation
against a person; (b) the property belongs to another; (c)
the taking is characterized with animus lucrandi; and (d) on
the occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime
of homicide, which is used in the generic sense, was
committed."
138

While there is indeed no direct proof that Virginia Talens was
robbed at the time she was killed, we may conclude from
four circumstances that the robbery occasioned her killing:
(1) Both appellant and victim gambled at the wake. (2) The
appellant knew that victim was winning. (3) The victim was
last seen alive with appellant. (4) The victim's purse
containing her money and earrings were missing from her
body when found.
These circumstances logically lead to the inescapable
conclusion that appellant should be liable not just of simple
homicide, but robbery with homicide
People v. Roxas
G.R. No. 172604, 17 August 2010
FACTS: Accused carjacked Agnes’ car and forcibly brought
her to Batangas, where he and other persons attacked her
until she lost consciousness. After she was rescued by
passersby and brought to a nearby hospital, Agnes realized
that accused took her jewelry and other personal
belongings. Accused and his companions had long vanished
with her car. They were later caught and charged with
frustrated murder, kidnapping, carnapping and robbery. The
robbery charge arose from accused’s unlawful taking of
Agnes’ personal effects.
HELD: The High Court held that the charge should be theft,
and not robbery, with regard to the taking of complainant’s
personal belongings. Records indicate that the jewelries and
cash were taken from Agnes without the attendance of
violence or intimidation upon her person. Agnes herself
testified that when she regained consciousness, she already
found her necklace, pair of earrings, watch and cash, to be
missing. While it was proven beyond reasonable doubt that
appellant took Agnes' personal things, there was no
evidence, however, that the taking was employed with the
use of force, violation and intimidation.
Article 294. Robbery with violence against or
intimidation of persons
Acts punished:
1. When by reason or on occasion of the robbery (taking
of personal property belonging to another with intent to
gain), the crime of homicide is committed;
2. When the robbery is accompanied by rape or
intentional mutilation or arson;
3. When by reason of on occasion of such robbery, any of
the physical injuries resulting in insanity, imbecility,
impotency or blindness is inflicted;
4. When by reason or on occasion of robbery, any of the
physical injuries resulting in the loss of the use of
speech or the power to hear or to smell, or the loss of
an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or the loss of
the use of any such member or incapacity for the work
in which the injured person is theretofore habitually
engaged is inflicted;
5. If the violence or intimidation employed
in the commission of the robbery is
Criminal Law II Review Notes
carried to a degree unnecessary for the
commission of the crime;
6. When in the course of its execution, the offender shall
have inflicted upon any person not responsible for the
commission of the robbery any of the physical injuries
in consequence of which the person injured becomes
deformed or loses any other member of his body or
loses the sue thereof or becomes ill or incapacitated for
the performance of the work in which he is habitually
engaged for more than 90 days or the person injured
becomes ill or incapacitated for labor for more than 30
days;
7. If the violence employed by the offender does not
cause any of the serious physical injuries defined in
Article 263, or if the offender employs intimidation only.
• The crime defined in this article is a special
complex crime. Thus, Art 48 no longer applies.
“on the occasion” = “in the course of”
“by reason” = “because of”
Robbery with homicide
• Robbery and homicide are separate offences,
when the homicide was not committed “on the
occasion” or “by reason” of the robbery.
• Where the original design comprehends
robbery, and homicide is perpetrated by reason or
on the occasion of the consummation of the
former, the crime committed is robbery with
homicide.
• There is no such crime as robbery with
murder. The treachery which attended the
commission of the crime must be considered not
qualifying but merely as a generic aggravating
circumstance.
• An intent to take personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain must precede the
killing.
• The crime is robbery with homicide, even if the
motive of the offenders was that of robbery as
well as vengeance.
• Homicide may precede robbery or may occur after
robbery.
• It is immaterial that the death of a person
supervened by mere accident, provided that the
homicide be produced by reason or on the
occasion of the robbery.
• Killing a person to escape after the commission of
robbery is robbery with homicide.
• There is still robbery with homicide even if
the person killed is another robber or an
innocent bystander. Thus, the person killed
need not be the person robbed.
• An accessory to robbery with homicide must have
knowledge and complicity as to the homicide as
well in order to be charged with the same offence.
Otherwise, if the accessory had no knowledge of
the homicide, he may only be charged with
robbery.
• It is immaterial that aside from the homicide,
rape, is committed by reason or on the occasion of
the crime. The felony would still be robbery with
homicide. Once a homicide is committed by or on
139

the occasion of the robbery, the felony committed
is robbery with homicide. All the felonies
committed by reason of or on the occasion of the
robbery are integrated into one and indivisible
felony of robbery with homicide (People v. Diu,
G.R. No. 201449, April 3, 2013).
People v. Pecato
G.R. No. L-41008, 18 June 1987
Whenever a homicide has been committed as a consequence
of or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part
as principals in the commission of the crime are also guilty
as principals in the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide although they did not actually take part in the
homicide unless it clearly appeared that they endeavored to
prevent the homicide.
People v. Tapales
G.R. No. L-35281, 10 September 1979
When rape and homicide co-exist in the commission of
robbery, should rape be considered an aggravating
circumstance? YES. Rapes, wanton robbery for personal
gain and other forms of cruelties are condemned and their
perpetration will be regarded as aggravating circumstances
of ignominy and deliberately augmenting unnecessary
wrongs.
People v. Quinones
G.R. No. 80042, 28 March 1990
There is no such crime as robbery with multiple homicide.
There is only the special complex crime of robbery with
homicide, regardless of the fact that 3 persons were killed in
the commission of the crime. In robbery, all homicides
and murders are merged in the composite. As such,
the single indivisible penalty of reclusion perpetua should be
imposed only once even if multiple killings accompanied the
robbery.
People v. Castro
G.R. No. 187073, 14 March 2012
FACTS: Although the prosecution witness did not see who
shot the victim, she positively identified all of the accused
who went inside the store, took the victim’s beltbag, and the
ones who fled the scene of the crime thereafter. The witness
testified that she heard three (3) gunshots, and when the
accused fled, she entered the store again and found the
victim lying on the floor in his own blood.
HELD: The exact identity of the one who shot the victim and
took the bag from him is not material. All of the accused are
liable for the special complex crime of robbery with homicide
since the existence of conspiracy among them in the
commission of the robbery makes the act of one the act of
all.
Case law establishes that whenever homicide has been
committed by reason of or on the occasion of the robbery,
all those who took part as principals in the robbery will also
be held guilty as principals of robbery with homicide
although they did not take part in the homicide, unless it
appears that they sought to prevent the killing. The precise
Criminal Law II Review Notes
extent or modality of participation of each of them becomes
secondary, since all the conspirators are principals.
People v. Cachuela
G.R. No. 191752, 10 June 2013
Homicide is said to have been committed by reason or on
the occasion of robbery if, for instance, it was committed:
1. To facilitate the robbery or the escape of the
culprit;
2. To preserve the possession by the culprit of the
loot;
3. To prevent discovery of the commission of the
robbery; or
4. To eliminate witnesses in the commission of the
crime.
In this case, the victim was killed to facilitate the robbery.
The fact that the cartridge bullet shells found at the firing
range where the victim’s lifeless body was discovered
matched with one of the guns found from one of the
accused during an entrapment operation clinches the case
against accused insofar as establishing the nexus between
the robbery and the victim’s killing. Also, the gunshot
wounds suffered by the victim also came from the same
caliber of gun recovered from said accused.
People v. Espia
G.R. No. 213380, 10 August 2016
FACTS: Espia et. al, robbed the house of Spouses Ganzon
taking their cash money amounting to P300,000.00, checks
amounting to P210, 000.00 and assorted pieces of jewelries.
In the course of the robbery Spouses Ganzon was killed by
Espia through the use of a gun. The Regional Trial Court
convicted Espia of the crime of Robbery with Homicide,
which was affircmed by the Court of Appeals.
HELD: To warrant a conviction for Robbery with Homicide,
the prosecution must prove the confluence of the following
elements: (1) the taking of personal property with the use of
violence or intimidation against a person; (2) the property
taken thus belongs to another; (3) the taking is
characterized by intent to gain or animus lucrandi; and (4)
on occasion of the robbery or by reason thereof, the crime
of homicide, which is used in a generic sense, was
committed.
The Supreme Court held that homicide may precede the
robbery or may occur after the robbery, as what is essential
is that there is a direct relation, an intimate connection
between the robbery and the killing. A conviction requires
certitude that the robbery is the main purpose and objective
of the malefactor, and the killing is merely incidental to the
robbery.
Robbery with rape
• Like in robbery with homicide, the offender must
have the intent to take the personal property
140

belonging to another with intent to gain, and such
intent must precede the rape.
• There is no such crime as robbery with
attempted rape. It must be consummated.
Otherwise, they are separate offences.
• When the taking of personal property of a woman
is an independent act following defendant’s failure
to consummate the rape, there are two distinct
crimes committed: attempted rape and theft.
• Additional rapes committed on the same occasion
of robbery will not increase the penalty. All acts
of rape on that occasion being integrated in one
composite crime.
• When the taking of property after the rape is not
with intent to gain, there is neither theft nor
robbery committed.
• The civil liability for rape in robbery with rape has
been set at P50,000.
• When rape and homicide co-exist in the
commission of robbery, the crime is robbery with
homicide and rape under par 1 of Art 294, the
rape to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance only.
People v. Patola
141 SCRA 401
Robbery committed with rape is punished under RPC Art 294
par 2, not under RPC 335 on qualified rape.
People v. Dinola
183 SCRA 493
FACTS: Dinola saw victim Marilyn’s watch after he had raped
her. She refused to give him the watch so he took if forcibly
from her and left. Dinola was convicted of robbery with
rape.
HELD: The crime of robbery and rape should be punished as
2 separate offences. If the original design was to commit
rape but the accused after committing rape also committed
robbery (more of an afterthought, even accidental) because
the opportunity presented itself, the criminal act should be
viewed as 2 distinct offences. If the intention of the accused
was to commit robbery but rape was also committed even
before the robbery, the crime of robbery with rape was
committed.
People v. Moreno
220 SCRA 292
FACTS: Accused Moreno, Deloria and Maniquez robbed the
Mohnani spouses. Deloria raped househelp Narcisa while
Maniquez raped househelp Mary Ann. Moreno was
convicted of robbery while Deloria and Maniquez, robbery
with rape.
HELD: Moreno who took no part in the rape is guilty of
robbery only. Ruling was correct.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
People v. Fabon
328 SCRA 302 (2000)
FACTS: Locsin Fabon, alias "Loklok," entered the home of 64
year-old, Bonifacia Lasquite and forcibly took the victim’s
money amounting to P25,000.00. On the occasion of the
robbery, Fabon raped Lasquite. Thereafter, Fabon strangled
and stabbed Lasquite with a knife resulting to her death.
The RTC convicted Fabon of Robbery with Homicide and
Rape, penalized under Article 294, number 1 of the RPC, as
amended by R.A. 7659.
HELD: The trial court inaccurately designated the crime
committed as "robbery with homicide and rape." When the
special complex crime of robbery with homicide is
accompanied by another offense like rape or intentional
mutilation, such additional offense is treated as an
aggravating circumstance which would result in the
imposition of the maximum penalty of death. The Court cited
the case of People v. Lascuna, where it was held that “We
agree with the Solicitor General's observation that the crime
committed was erroneously designated as robbery with
homicide, rape and physical injuries. The proper designation
is robbery with homicide aggravated by rape. When rape
and homicide co-exist in the commission of robbery, it is the
first paragraph of Article 294 of the Revised Penal Code
which applies, the rape to be considered as an aggravating
circumstance. . . .
People v. Domingo
383 SCRA 43 (2002)
FACTS: Appellant Domingo Temporal, Pedro, Valdez, and
Rivera went to the house of Spouses Valentin and Clara
Gabertan, armed with a piece of bamboo, 2x2 piece of
wood, ipil-ipil posts and bolo, They assaulted and clubbed
Valentin with their weapons, weakening and injuring him.
Eventually they stole from the Gabertan spouses cash in the
amount of P5,350.00, 1 ladies gold Seiko watch, 9 turkeys,
and 2 chickens. Thereafter, while Rivera guarded Valentin,
the four accused took turns in raping Carla outside the
house where she was forcibly laid on the cogon grass. RTC
found appellant guilty of robbery with multiple rape.
HELD: The RTC should have convicted appellant of robbery
with rape instead of robbery with multiple rape. In the
special complex crime of robbery with rape, the true intent
of the accused must first be determined, because their
intent determines the offense they committed. To sustain a
conviction for robbery with rape, it is imperative that the
robbery itself must be conclusively established. To support a
conviction therefor, proof of the rape alone is not sufficient.
Robbery with rape occurs when the following elements are
present: (1) personal property is taken with violence or
intimidation against persons, (2) the property taken belongs
to another, (3) the taking is done with animo lucrandi, and
(4) the robbery is accompanied by rape.
In the case at bar, all the foregoing elements are present.
The contemporaneous acts of appellant and his co-accused
stress the fact that they were initially motivated by animus
lucrandi. They first demanded guns, moneys and animals
from Valentin Gabertan. Apparently, it was only when they
entered the house and saw his wife when they thought of
raping her.The prosecution likewise established that
appellant and his co-accused took chickens, a watch and
money from complainants through violence.
141

People v. Verceles
388 SCRA 515 (2002)
FACTS: Accused Verceles alias "Baldog", Corpuz, Soriano
alias "Merto", Ramos and Soriano entered the house of Mrs.
Rosita Quilates by forcibly destroying the grills of the
window. Once inside, they took away 1 colored T.V., 1 VHS,
assorted jewelries, 1 alarm clock and 1 radio cassettes. In
the course of the robbery, Soriano, succumbed to lustful
desires and raped Maribeth Bolito while the others just stood
outside the door and did nothing to prevent Soriano.
HELD: Once conspiracy is established between two accused
in the commission of the crime of robbery, they would be
both equally culpable for the rape committed by one of them
on the occasion of the robbery, unless any of them proves
that he endeavored to prevent the other from committing
the rape. The rule in this jurisdiction is that whenever a rape
is committed as a consequence, or on the occasion of a
robbery, all those who took part therein are liable as
principals of the crime of robbery with rape, although not all
of them took part in the rape. Appellants are guilty beyond
reasonable doubt of the crime of Robbery with Rape
punished under Article 294 (1) of the Revised Penal Code.
People v. Moreno
374 SCRA 667 (2002)
The special complex crime of robbery with rape defined in
Article 293 in relation to paragraph 2 of Article 294 of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, employs the clause "when
the robbery shall have been accompanied with rape." In
other words, to be liable for such crime, the offender must
have the intent to take the personal property of another
under circumstances that makes the taking one of robbery,
and such intent must precede the rape. If the original plan
was to commit rape, but the accused after committing the
rape also committed robbery when the opportunity
presented itself, the robbery should be viewed as a separate
and distinct crime.
A painstaking assessment of the evidence in this case
convinces us that ROGELIO committed two separate
offenses of rape and theft, and not the special complex
crime of robbery with rape. Immediately after ROGELIO put
his arms around MARITES and directed the knife at her
neck, he dragged Marites to the vacant space in ABC
Commercial Complex and removed her clothes. These acts
clearly showed that ROGELIO had in mind sexual
gratification. This intent was further established by the fact
that when MARITES offered to give her ring to ROGELIO,
the latter did not take it and instead replied, "Mamaya na
iyan"; "That will come later on because I will give it back to
you but you have to follow me first." Again, when ROGELIO
removed his pants, MARITES told him to get her bag if he
needed money; but ROGELIO replied "I do not need
money." After giving vent to his lustful desire, he snatched
the victim's shoulder bag, which was then on her right foot,
and then he ran away. Clearly then, the taking of personal
property was not the original evil plan of ROGELIO. It was
an afterthought following the rape.
Significantly, the constitutive element of violence or
intimidation against persons in robbery was not present at
the time of the snatching of the shoulder bag of MARITES.
The force or intimidation exerted by ROGELIO against the
victim was for a reason foreign to the fact of the taking of
Criminal Law II Review Notes
the bag. It was for the purpose of accomplishing his lustful
desire. Hence, it cannot be considered for the purpose of
classifying the crime as robbery. Accused-appellant may thus
be held liable for simple theft only, in addition to the crime
of rape.
Requisites of robbery under 2nd case of par 4 Art 294:
1. that any of the physical injuries defined in par 3
& 4 Art 263 was inflicted in the course of the
robbery, and
2. that any of them was inflicted upon any person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery.
Robbery with violence or intimidation
§ Violence or intimidation need not be present before or
at the exact moment when the object is taken. It may
enter at any time before the owner is finally
deprived of his property.
§ Intimidation exists when the acts executed or words
uttered by the ofender are capable of producing fear in
the person threatened.
§ In robbery with intimidation, there must be acts done
by the accused which, either by their own nature or by
reason of the circumstances under which they are
executed, inspire fear in the person against whom they
are directed.
§ Difference between threats to extort money and
robbery thru intimidation:
o In robbery, the intimidation is actual and
immediate; in threats, the intimidation is
conditional or future.
o In robbery, the intimidation is personal; in threats,
it may be thru an intermediary.
o In threats, the intimidation may refer to the
person, honor or property of the offended party or
that of his family; in robbery, the intimidation is
directed only to the person of the victim.
o In robbery, the gain of the culprit is immediate; in
threats, the gain is not immediate.
§ Difference between robbery with violence and
grave coercion:
o In both crimes, there is violence used by the
offender.
o In robbery, there is intent to gain; no such
requirement in grave coercion. In grave coercion,
the intent is to compel another to do something
against his will.
§ Difference between robbery and bribery:
o It is robbery when the victim did not commit a
crime; it is bribery when the victim has committed
a crime and gives money or gift to avoid arrest or
prosecution.
o In robbery, the victim is deprived of his money or
property by force or intimidation; in bribery, he
parts with his money or property voluntarily.
Article 295. Robbery with physical injuries,
committed in an uninhabited place and by a band, or
with the use of firearm on a street, road or alley
Robbery with violence against or intimidation of person is
qualified if it is committed:
142

1. In an uninhabited place;
2. By a band;
3. By attacking a moving train, street car, motor vehicle,
or airship;
4. By entering the passengers’
compartments in a train, or in any
manner taking the passengers thereof
by surprise in the respective
conveyances; or
5. On a street, road, highway or alley, and the
intimidation is made with the use of firearms, the
offender shall be punished by the maximum periods of
the proper penalties prescribed in Article 294.
Any of these qualifying circumstances must be alleged in the
information and proved during the trial.
The intimidation with the use of firearm qualifies only
robbery on a street, road, highway or alley.
Art 295 does not apply to robbery with homicide, or robbery
with rape, or robbery with serious physical injuries
under par 1 of Art 263. (note: the circumstances and
applicability of Art 295 are very specific so please note
them.)
People v. Salvilla
G.R. No. 86163, 26 April 1990
FACTS: The accused detained several persons as hostages
in a store they robbed. The police launched an offensive.
In the ensuing gunfight, the hostages suffered physical
injuries. One of the hostages eventually had to have her leg
amputated. The accused were convicted of the complex
crime of robbery with serious physical injuries and serious
illegal detention. Should the crime of serious illegal
detention be prosecuted as a separate offence?
HELD: NO. The detention of the victims was a necessary
means to facilitate and carry out the crime of robbery. The
victims were not held as a security to facilitate their escape
or to insure their security against the police, but deliberately,
as a means of extortion of the amount asked.
Article 296. Definition of a band and penalty incurred by the
members thereof
Requisites for liability for the acts of the other members of
the band:
1. He was a member of the band;
2. He was present at the commission of a robbery by that
band;
3. The other members of the band committed an assault;
4. He did not attempt to prevent the
assault.
§ When the robbery was not committed by a band, the
robber who did not take part in the assault by another
is not liable for that assault.
§ When the robbery was not by a band and homicide was
not determined by the accused when they plotted the
crime, the one who did not participate in the killing is
liable for robbery only. It is only when the robbery
is in band that all those present in the
commission of the robbery may be punished for
Criminal Law II Review Notes
any of the assaults which any of its members
might commit.
§ But when there is conspiracy to commit homicide and
robbery, all the conspirators, even if less than 4 armed
men, are liable for the special complex crime of robbery
with homicide.
§ Art 296 is not applicable to principal by inducement,
who was not present at the commission of the robbery,
if the agreement was only to commit robbery. The
article speaks of more than 3 armed malefactors who
“takes part in the commission of the robbery” and
member of a band “who is present at the commission
of a robbery by a band.” Thus, a principal by
inducement, who did not go with the band at the place
of the commission of the robbery, is not liable for
robbery with homicide, but only for robbery in band,
there being no evidence that he gave instructions to kill
the victim or intended that this should be done.
§ When there was conspiracy for robbery only but
homicide was also committed on the occasion thereof,
all members of the band are liable for robbery with
homicide.
§ Whenever homicide is committed as a consequence of
or on the occasion of a robbery, all those who took part
in the commission of the robbery are also guilty as
principals in the crime of homicide unless it appears
that they endeavored to prevent the homicide.
§ Proof of conspiracy is not essential to hold a member of
the band liable for robbery with homicide actually
committed by the other members of the band.
§ There is no crime as “robbery with homicide in
band.” The circumstance of band becomes an
ordinary aggravating circumstance to robbery
with homicide.
§ In robbery by a band, all are liable for any assault
committed by the band, unless the others attempted
to prevent the assault.
§ The members of the band liable for the assault must be
present at the commission of the robbery, not
necessarily at the commission of the assault.
People v. Apduhan
24 SCRA 798
Apduhan was convicted of robbery with homicide and was
sentenced to death because the court considered the use of
unlicensed firearm as a special aggravating circumstance
under Art 296. SC rejected this. SC believes that: (1) Art
296 is exclusively linked and singularly applicable to Art 295
on robbery in band, (2) RPC 295 is explicitly limited to scope
to pars. 3, 4, 5 of Art 294, and (3) par 3, 4, 5 of Art 294
does not include cases where homicide, rape, intentional
mutilation, impotence, imbecility, blindness and insanity
occurred by reason or on the occasion of accompanying
robbery. Thus, since Apduhan was convicted of robbery
with homicide under par 1 Art 294, Art 296 in relation to par
3, 4, 5 of Art 295 is inapplicable. Hence, the use of an
unlicensed firearm should not have been considered as a
special aggravating circumstance.
Article 297. Attempted and frustrated robbery
committed under certain circumstances
143

§ “Homicide” here is used in a generic sense. It includes
multiple homicides, murder, parricide, infanticide, etc.
§ The penalty is the same, whether the robbery is
attempted or frustrated.
§ “Unless the homicide committed shall deserve a higher
penalty under the Code” may be illustrated as follows:
In an attempted or frustrated robbery, the killing of the
victim is qualified by treachery or relationship. The
proper penalty for murder or parricide shall be imposed
because it is more severe.
§ This is also a special complex crime, thus, not governed
by Art 48.
Article 298. Execution of deeds by means of violence
or intimidation
Elements:
1. Offender has intent to defraud another;
2. Offender compels him to sign, execute, or deliver any
public instrument or document.
3. The compulsion is by means of violence or intimidation.
§ If the violence used resulted in the death of the person
to be defrauded, the crime is robbery with homicide.
§ If the execution of deeds by means of violence is only
in the attempted or frustrated stage and the violence
used resulted in the death of the person to be
defrauded, the penalty imposed shall be those under
Art 297.
§ This article applies even if the document signed,
executed or delivered is a private or commercial
document.
§ Art 298 is not applicable if the document is void.
§ When the offended party is under obligation to sign,
execute or deliver the document under the law, there is
no robbery. But there will be COERCION if violence is
used in compelling the offended party to sign or deliver
the document.
ABS-CBN v. Ombudsman
G.R. No. 133347, 15 October 2008
The execution and validity of the letter-agreement is
connected with respondents' culpability for the felonies
charged as these include the element of whether they had
juridical possession of the ABS-CBN properties. Essentially,
petitioners claim they did not freely give their consent to the
letter-agreement. However, on more than one occasion,
petitioners have invoked the letter-agreement's provisions,
and made claims thereunder.
As petitioners have ratified the letter-agreement, even after
the lifting of martial law and the toppling of the Marcos
government, and advanced the validity of the letter-
agreement in their claim against the estate of Benedicto,
they cannot, in the same breath, aver that respondents'
actuations in the execution of the letter-agreement were
criminal in nature, or that the letter-agreement was more
ostensible than real and to insist on the prosecution of
respondents for felonies supposedly committed in connection
with this ubiquitous letter-agreement.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Article 299. Robbery in an inhabited house or public
building or edifice devoted to worship
Elements under subdivision (a):
1. Offender entered an inhabited house, public building or
edifice devoted to religious worship;
2. The entrance was effected by any of the following
means:
a. Through an opening not intended for entrance or
egress;
b. By breaking any wall, roof or floor, or breaking
any door or window;
c. By using false keys, picklocks or similar tools; or
d. By using any fictitious name or pretending the
exercise of public authority.
3. Once inside the building, offender took personal
property belonging to another with intent to gain.
Elements under subdivision (b):
1. Offender is inside a dwelling house, public building, or
edifice devoted to religious worship, regardless of the
circumstances under which he entered it;
2. Offender takes personal property belonging to another,
with intent to gain, under any of the following
circumstances:
a. By the breaking of doors, wardrobes, chests, or
any other kind of locked or sealed furniture or
receptacle; or
b. By taking such furniture or objects away to be
broken or forced open outside the place of the
robbery.
Subdivision (a) There must be evidence or the facts must
show that the accused entered the dwelling house or
building by any of the means enumerated in subdiv (a). In
entering the building, the offender must have an intention to
take personal property.The place entered must be a house
or building; thus, entering an automobile does not fall
under this article.
“Inhabited house” = any shelter, ship or vessel constituting
the dwelling of one or more persons even though the
inhabitants thereof are temporarily absent therefrom when
the robbery is committed.
144

“Public building” = every building owned by the govt or
belonging to a private person but used or rented by the
govt, although temporarily unoccupied by the same.
Any of the 4 means described in subdiv (a) must be resorted
to by the offender to enter a house or building, not to
get out.
The whole body of the culprit must be inside the building to
constitute entering.
The genuine key must be stolen, not taken by force or with
intimidation from the owner. In the latter case, it
becomes robbery with intimidation of person.
It is only THEFT when the false key is used to open
wardrobe or locked receptacle or drawer or inside door.
The use of fictitious name or the act of pretending to
exercise authority must be to enter the building.
Subdivision (b)
Entrance into the building by any of the means in subdiv (a)
is not required in robbery under subdiv (b).
The term “door” in par 1 subdiv (b) refers only to “doors,
lids or opening sheets” of furniture or other portable
receptacles; not to inside doors of house or building.
A person who carries away a sealed box or receptacle for
the purpose of breaking the same and taking out its
contents outside the place of robbery is guilty of
consummated robbery even though he does not
succeed in opening the box.
A person who opens by force a certain locked or sealed
receptacle which has been confided in his custody and
takes the money contained therein is guilty of ESTAFA,
not robbery.
The weapon carried by the offender must not have been
used to intimidate a person, for the reason that once
the circumstance of intimidation enters in the
commission of the crime, it is sufficient to remove the
offence from Art 299 and place it within the purview of
Art 294.
The liability for carrying arms while robbing an inhabited
house is extended to each of the offenders who take
part in the robbery, even if some of them do not carry
arms.
People v. Jaranilla
55 SCRA 563
FACTS: Accused took 6 fighting cocks from a coop located in
Babylon’s backyard. The door of the coop was broken.
They were intercepted by a police officer who was shot by
one of the accused. They were convicted by robbery with
homicide.
HELD: The killing of the police officer was not by reason or
on the occasion of the robbery, hence only the person who
shot such officer should be liable for the killing.
Article 300. Robbery in an uninhabited place and by
a band
• Robbery in an inhabited house, public building or
edifice devoted to religious worship is qualified
Criminal Law II Review Notes
when committed by a band AND in an
uninhabited place. The 2 qualifications must
concur.
• The inhabited house, public building, or edifice
devoted to religious worship must be located in an
uninhabited place.
• Robbery with force upon things, in order to be
qualified, must be committed in an uninhabited
place AND by a band; while robbery with violence
against or intimidation of persons must be
committed in an uninhabited place OR by a band.
Article 301. What is an inhabited house, public
building, or building dedicated to religious worship
and their dependencies
3 requisites for “dependencies”: (1) must be contiguous to
the building, (2) must have an interior entrance
connected therewith, and (3) must form part of the
whole.
Orchards or other lands used for cultivation or production
are not included in the term “dependencies”.
Article 302. Robbery in an uninhabited place or in a
private building
Elements:
1. Offender entered an uninhabited place or a building
which was not a dwelling house, not a public building,
or not an edifice devoted to religious worship;
2. Any of the following circumstances was present:
a. The entrance was effected through an opening not
intended for entrance or egress;
b. A wall, roof, floor, or outside door or window was
broken;
c. The entrance was effected through the use of
false keys, picklocks or other similar tools;
d. A door, wardrobe, chest, or any sealed or closed
furniture or receptacle was broken; or
e. A closed or sealed receptacle was removed, even
if the same be broken open elsewhere.
3. Offender took therefrom personal property belonging to
another with intent to gain.
§ “uninhabited place” = uninhabited building
§ The information must allege that the store was used
and occupied as a dwelling; otherwise, the robbery
should be considered as having been perpetrated in an
uninhabited place under Art 302.
§ “building” = includes any kind of structure used for
storage or safekeeping of personal property, such as
freight car and warehouse.
§ The use of fictitious name or pretending the exercise of
public authority is not a means of entering the building
under this article, because the place is uninhabited.
§ The receptacle must be “closed” or “sealed”. Thus, if a
person opened without breaking a closed but not
locked chest and took personal property therefrom, it is
only THEFT.
§ Penalty is based only on value of property taken.
§ If the store is used as a dwelling of 1 or more persons,
the robbery committed therein would be considered as
committed in an inhabited house under Art 299.
145

§ If the store was not actually occupied at the time the
robbery took place and was not used as a dwelling,
since the owner lived in a separate house, the robbery
committed therein is punished under Art 302.
§ If the store is located on the ground floor of the house
belonging to the owner of the store, having an interior
entrance connected therewith, it is a dependency of an
inhabited house and the robbery committed therein is
punished under the last par of Art 299.
Article 303. Robbery of cereals, fruits, or firewood in
an uninhabited place or private building
Penalty is one degree lower if cereals, fruits or firewood are
taken in robbery with force upon things.
“cereal” = palay or other seedlings
The palay must be kept by the owner as “seedling” or taken
for that purpose by the robbers.
Article 304. Possession of picklocks or similar tools
Elements:
1. Offender has in his possession picklocks or similar
tools;
2. Such picklock or similar tools are especially adopted to
the commission of robbery;
3. Offender does not have lawful cause for such
possession.
Article 305. False keys
False keys include the following:
1. Tools mentioned in Article 304;
2. Genuine keys stolen from the owner;
3. Any key other than those intended by the owner for
use in the lock forcibly opened by the offender.
Carnapping
R.A. No. 6539
Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972
SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. —
"Carnapping" is the taking, with intent to gain, of a motor
vehicle belonging to another without the latter's consent, or
by means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or
by using force upon things.
"Motor vehicle" is any vehicle propelled by any power other
than muscular power using the public highways, but
excepting road rollers, trolley cars, street-sweepers,
sprinklers, lawn mowers, bulldozers, graders, fork-lifts,
amphibian trucks, and cranes if not used on public
highways, vehicles, which run only on rails or tracks, and
tractors, trailers and traction engines of all kinds used
exclusively for agricultural purposes. Trailers having any
number of wheels, when propelled or intended to be
propelled by attachment to a motor vehicle, shall be
classified as separate motor vehicle with no power rating.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
"Defacing or tampering with" a serial number is the erasing,
scratching, altering or changing of the original factory-
inscribed serial number on the motor vehicle engine, engine
block or chassis of any motor vehicle. Whenever any motor
vehicle is found to have a serial number on its motor engine,
engine block or chassis which is different from that which is
listed in the records of the Bureau of Customs for motor
vehicles imported into the Philippines, that motor vehicle
shall be considered to have a defaced or tampered with
serial number.
"Repainting" is changing the color of a motor vehicle by
means of painting. There is repainting whenever the new
color of a motor vehicle is different from its color as
registered in the Land Transportation Commission.
"Body-building" is a job undertaken on a motor vehicle in
order to replace its entire body with a new body.
"Remodelling" is the introduction of some changes in the
shape or form of the body of the motor vehicle.
"Dismantling" is the tearing apart, piece by piece or part by
part, of a motor vehicle.
"Overhauling" is the cleaning or repairing of the whole
engine of a motor vehicle by separating the motor engine
and its parts from the body of the motor vehicle.
SECTION 3. Registration of Motor Vehicle Engine, Engine
Block and Chassis. — Within one year after the approval of
this Act, every owner or possessor of unregistered motor
vehicle or parts thereof in knock down condition shall
register with the Land Transportation Commission the motor
vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in his name or in
the name of the real owner who shall be readily available to
answer any claim over the registered motor vehicle engine,
engine block or chassis. Thereafter, all motor vehicle
engines, engine blocks and chassis not registered with the
Land Transportation Commission shall be considered as
untaxed importation or coming from an illegal source or
carnapped, and shall be confiscated in favor of the
Government.
All owners of motor vehicles in all cities and municipalities
are required to register their cars with the local police
without paying any charges.
SECTION 4. Permanent Registry of Motor Vehicle Engines,
Engine Blocks and Chassis. — The Land Transportation
Commission shall keep a permanent registry of motor
vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis of all motor
vehicles, specifying therein their type, make and serial
numbers and stating therein the names and addresses of
their present and previous owners. Copies of the registry
and of all entries made thereon shall be furnished the
Philippine Constabulary and all Land Transportation
Commission regional, provincial and city branch offices:
Provided, That all Land Transportation Commission regional,
provincial and city branch offices are likewise obliged to
furnish copies of all registration of motor vehicles to the
main office and to the Philippine Constabulary.
SECTION 5. Registration of Sale, Transfer, Conveyance,
Substitution or Replacement of a Motor Vehicle Engine,
Engine Block or Chassis. — Every sale, transfer, conveyance,
146
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

Izon v. People
substitution or replacement of a motor vehicle engine,
107 SCRA 118
engine block or chassis of a motor vehicle shall be registered
with the Land Transportation Commission. Motor vehicles
A motorised tricycle is a motor vehicle, which is defined as
assembled and rebuilt or repaired by replacement with
any vehicle propelled by any power other than muscular
motor vehicle engines, engine blocks and chassis not
power using public highways. Public highways are those
registered with the Land Transportation Commission shall
free for the use of every person, thus not limited to a
not be issued certificates of registration and shall be
national road connecting various towns.
considered as untaxed imported motor vehicles or motor
vehicles carnapped or proceeding from illegal sources.
People v. Gawan
G.R. No. 18704, 14 September 2011
SECTION 6. Original Registration of Motor Vehicles. — Any
person seeking the original registration of a motor vehicle,
The elements of carnapping as defined and penalized under
whether that motor vehicle is newly assembled or rebuilt or
the Anti-Carnapping Act of 1972 are the following: (1) That
acquired from a registered owner, shall within one week
there is an actual taking of the vehicle; (2) That the vehicle
after the completion of the assembly or rebuilding job or the
belongs to a person other than the offender himself; (3)
acquisition thereof from the registered owner, apply to the
That the taking is without the consent of the owner thereof;
Philippine Constabulary for clearance of the motor vehicle
or that the taking was committed by means of violence
for registration with the Land Transportation Commission.
against or intimidation of persons, or by using force upon
The Philippine Constabulary shall, upon receipt of the
things; and (4) That the offender intends to gain from the
application, verify if the motor vehicle or its numbered parts
taking of the vehicle. The records of this case show that all
are in the list of carnapped motor vehicles or stolen motor
the elements of carnapping are present and were proven
vehicle parts. If the motor vehicle or any of its numbered
during trial. The tricycle, which was definitively ascertained
parts is not in that list, the Philippine Constabulary shall
to belong to Biag, as evidenced by the registration papers,
forthwith issue a certificate of clearance. Upon presentation
was found in Lagat and Palalay’s possession. Aside from
of the certificate of clearance from the Philippine
this, the prosecution was also able to establish that Lagat
Constabulary and after verification of the registration of the
and Palalay fled the scene when the Alicia PNP tried to
motor vehicle engine, engine block and chassis in the
approach them at the palay buying station. To top it all,
permanent registry of motor vehicle engines, engine blocks
Lagat and Palalay failed to give any reason why they had
and chassis, the Land Transportation Commission shall
Biag’s tricycle. Their unexplained possession raises the
register the motor vehicle in accordance with existing laws,
presumption that they were responsible for the unlawful
rules and regulations.
taking of the tricycle. Lagat and Palalay’s intent to gain from
the carnapped tricycle was also proven as they were caught
SECTION 14. Penalty for Carnapping. — Any person who
in a palay buying station, on board the stolen tricycle, which
is found guilty of carnapping, as this term is defined in
they obviously used to transport the cavans of palay they
Section two of this Act, shall, irrespective of the value of
had stolen and were going to sell at the station.
motor vehicle taken, be punished by imprisonment for not
less than fourteen years and eight months and not more
than seventeen years and four months, when the
carnapping is committed without violence or intimidation of
Highway Robbery
persons, or force upon things; and by imprisonment for not
less than seventeen years and four months and not more P.D. No. 532
than thirty years, when the carnapping is committed by Anti-Piracy and Anti-Highway Robbery Law of 1974
means of violence against or intimidation of any person, or
force upon things; and the penalty of life imprisonment to SECTION 2. Definition of Terms. — The following terms
death shall be imposed when the owner, driver or occupant shall mean and be understood, as follows:
of the carnapped motor vehicle is killed in the commission of
the carnapping. 1. Philippine Waters. — It shall refer to all bodies of
water, such as but not limited to, seas, gulfs, bays
SECTION 15. Aliens. — Aliens convicted under the around, between and connecting each of the Islands of
provisions of this Act shall be deported immediately after the Philippine Archipelago, irrespective of its depth,
service of sentence without further proceedings by the breadth, length or dimension, and all other waters
Deportation Board. belonging to the Philippines by historic or legal title,
including territorial sea, the sea-bed, the insular
shelves, and other submarine areas over which the
Philippines has sovereignty or jurisdiction.
2. Vessel. — Any vessel or watercraft used for transport
of passengers and cargo from one place to another
People v. Dela Cruz
through Philippine Waters. It shall include all kinds and
183 SCRA 763
types of vessels or boats used in fishing.
3. Philippine Highway. — It shall refer to any road, street,
The crime of carnapping with homicide is committed when
passage, highway and bridges or other parts thereof,
there is taking, with intent to gain of a motor vehicle which
or railway or railroad within the Philippines used by
belonged to another, without the latter’s consent or by
persons, or vehicles, or locomotives or trains for the
means of violence against or intimidation of persons, or by
movement or circulation of persons or transportation of
using force upon things.
goods, articles, or property or both.
4. Piracy. — Any attack upon or seizure of any

147

vessel, or the taking away of the whole or part
thereof or its cargo, equipment, or the personal
belongings of its complement or passengers,
irrespective of the value thereof, by means of
violence against or intimidation of persons or
force upon things, committed by any person,
including a passenger or member of the
complement of said vessel, in Philippine waters,
shall be considered as piracy. The offenders shall
be considered as pirates and punished as
hereinafter provided.
5. Highway Robbery/Brigandage. — The seizure of any
person for ransom, extortion or other unlawful
purposes, or the taking away of the property of
another by means of violence against or intimidation of
person or force upon things of other unlawful means,
committed by any person on any Philippine Highway.
SECTION 3. Penalties. — Any person who commits piracy
or highway robbery/brigandage as herein defined, shall,
upon conviction by competent court be punished by:
• Piracy — The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium and maximum periods shall be imposed.
If physical injuries or other crimes are committed
as a result or on the occasion thereof, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua shall be imposed. If rape,
murder or homicide is committed as a result or on
the occasion of piracy, or when the offenders
abandoned the victims without means of saving
themselves, or when the seizure is accomplished
by firing upon or boarding a vessel, the
mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.
• Highway Robbery/Brigandage. — The penalty of
reclusion temporal in its minimum period shall be
imposed. If physical injuries or other crimes are
committed during or on the occasion of the
commission of robbery or brigandage, the penalty
of reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed. If kidnapping for
ransom or extortion, or murder or homicide, or
rape is committed as a result or on the occasion
thereof, the penalty of death shall be imposed.
SECTION 4. Aiding pirates or highway robbers/brigands or
abetting piracy or highway robbery/brigandage. — Any
person who knowingly and in any manner aids or protects
pirates or highway robbers/brigands, such as giving them
information about the movement of police or other peace
officers of the government, or acquires or receives property
taken by such pirates or brigands or in any manner derives
any benefit therefrom; or any person who directly or
indirectly abets the commission of piracy or highway robbery
or brigandage, shall be considered as an accomplice of the
principal offenders and be punished in accordance with the
Rules prescribed by the Revised Penal Code.
It shall be presumed that any person who does any of the
acts provided in this Section has performed them knowingly,
unless the contrary is proven.
People v. Puno
219 SCRA 85
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Accused held up Mrs. Sarmiento in her car at gunpoint.
They were able to extort P7000 in cash and P100,000 in
check. Was highway robbery committed? NO. We should
not adopt the literal interpretation that all types of taking of
property as long as committed in a highway would be
covered by PD 532.
People v. Pulusan
290 SCRA 35
FACTS: Accused held up a passenger jeep along the
McArthur highway. Of the 6 passengers, the only woman,
Marilyn was successively raped by the accused at a talahiban
and 4 male passengers were clubbed and stabbed on after
the other. They were convicted of robbery with homicide
although they were charged with highway robbery. What
was the crime committed?
HELD: Robbery with homicide, not highway robbery.
Conviction under PD 532 requires proof that the accused
were organised for the purpose of committing robbery
indiscriminately. In this case, there was no proof that the
4 accused previously attempted to commit armed robberies.
Cattle Rustling
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 533
THE ANTI-CATTLE RUSTLING LAW OF 1974
What is cattle rustling?
Cattle rustling is the taking away by any means, method or
scheme, without the consent of the owner/raiser, of any of
the above-mentioned animals whether or not for profit or
gain, or whether committed with or without violence
against or intimidation of any person or force upon things.
It includes the killing of large cattle, or taking its meat or
hide without the consent of the owner/raiser.
Large cattle - as herein used shall include the cow, carabao,
horse, mule, ass, or other domesticated member of the
bovine family.
Owner/raiser- shall include the herdsman, caretaker,
employee or tenant of any firm or entity engaged in the
raising of large cattle or other persons in lawful possession
of such large cattle.
Duty of the owner/raiser
à before the large cattle belonging to him shall attain the
age of six months, register the same with the office of the
city/municipal treasurer where such large cattle are raised.
Permit to Buy and Sell Large Cattle.
No person, partnership, association, corporation or entity
shall engage in the business of buy and sell of large cattle
without first securing a permit for the said purpose from the
Provincial Commander of the province where it shall conduct
such business and the city/municipal treasurer of the place
of residence of such person, partnership, association,
corporation or entity. The permit shall only be valid in such
province.
Clearance for Shipment of Large Cattle.
Any person, partnership, association, corporation or entity
148
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

199 SCRA 873

desiring to ship or transport large cattle, its hides, or meat,
from one province to another shall secure a permit for such
FACTS: Ordonio stole the calf of Pajunar. When Pajunar
purpose from the Provincial Commander of the province
inquired abt his cow, Ordonio denied seeing it. The cow was
where the large cattle is registered. Before issuance of the
eventually found in Ordonio’s possession, but Ordonio
permit herein prescribed, the Provincial Commander shall
claimed persistently that the cow was entrusted to him by
require the submission of the certificate of ownership as
his brother Agustin, such that Pajunar had to enlist the aid
prescribed in Section 3 hereof, a certification from the
of the brgy captain and PC soldiers to retrieve his cow.
Provincial Veterinarian to the effect that such large cattle,
hides or meat are free from any disease; and such other
HELD: The law reads “taking away by any means,
documents or records as may be necessary. Shipment of
large cattle, its hides or meat from one city/municipality to
methods or schemes.” Ordonio’s stubborn insistence that
the calf belonged to his brother, when he knew fully well
another within the same province may be done upon
that it belonged to Pajunar, is the essence cattle rustling.
securing permit from the city/municipal treasurer of the
The perpetrator’s intent to gain is then inferred from his
place of origin.
deliberate failure to deliver the lost property to the proper
person, knowing that the property does not belong to him.
Presumption of Cattle Rustling. — Every person having
in his possession, control or custody of large cattle shall,
upon demand by competent authorities, exhibit the
BRIGANDAGE
documents prescribed in the preceding sections. Failure to
a crime committed by more than 3 armed persons who form
exhibit the required documents shall be prima facie evidence
a band of robbers for the purpose of committing robbery in
that the large cattle in his possession, control or custody
the highway or kidnapping persons for the purpose of
are the fruits of the crime of cattle rustling.
extortion or to obtain ransom, or for any other purpose to be
attained by means of force and violence.
Penalties Imposed
Any person convicted of cattle rustling as herein defined
Article 306. Who are brigands
shall, irrespective of the value of the large cattle involved,
be punished by prision mayor in its maximum period to
Elements of brigandage:
reclusion temporal in its medium period if the offense is
committed without violence against or intimidation of
1. There are least four armed persons;
persons or force upon things.
2. They formed a band of robbers;
3. The purpose is any of the following:
If the offense is committed with violence against or
a. To commit robbery in the highway;
intimidation of persons or force upon things, the penalty of
b. To kidnap persons for the purpose of extortion or
reclusion temporal in its maximum period to reclusion
to obtain ransom; or
perpetua shall be imposed.
c. To attain by means of force and violence any
other purpose.
If a person is seriously injured or killed as a result or on the
occasion of the commission of cattle rustling, the penalty of
• It must be a band of robbers. Thus, a band of
reclusion perpetua to death shall be imposed.
dissidents or oppositionists will not qualify.
When the offender is a government official or employee, he • The purpose of the band must be (1) to commit
robbery in the highway, (2) to kidnap persons for
shall, in addition to the foregoing penalty, be disqualified
the purpose of extortion or obtaining ransom, or
from voting or being voted upon in any election/referendum
(3) any other purpose to be attained by means of
and from holding any public office or employment.
force and violence. To contrast, In case of
When the offender is an alien, he shall be deported
robbery by a band, the purpose of the offenders is
only to commit robbery, not necessarily in the
immediately upon the completion of the service of his
highway.
sentence without further proceedings.
• If any of the arms carried by any of a group of
persons be an unlicensed firearm, is shall be
Taer v. CA presumed that said persons are highway robbers
186 SCRA 598 or brigands, and in case of conviction, the penalty
shall be imposed in the max period.
FACTS: Co-accused Manocatcat, arrived at the Taer’s hourse • The arms carried by the members of the band of
at 2am with 2 male carabaos. Manocatcat asked Taer to robbers may be any deadly weapon.
tend the carabaos for him. 10 days later, the owners of the
carabaos, arrived at Taer’s house to retrieve the carabaos. • The only things to prove are:
What was Taer’s participation in the crime? ii. that there is an organisation of more than 3 armed
persons forming a band of robbers
HELD: Taer was an accessory because he employed the iii. that the purpose of the band is any of those
carabaos in his farm. An accessory is someone who, enumerated in Art 306
having knowledge of the commission of the crime, without iv. that they went upon the highway or roamed upon
having participated as a principal or an accomplice, takes the country for that purpose
part subsequent to its commission by profiting himself by v. that the accused is a member of such band.
the effects of the crime.
“highway” = includes city streets as well as roads outside
Ordonio v. CA the cities.

149

• If the agreement among more than 3 armed men
was to commit only a particular robbery, the
offence is not brigandage, but only robbery in
band.
• In brigandage, the mere formation of a band for
any of the purposes mentioned in the law is
sufficient; in robbery in band, it is necessary to
prove that the band actually committed robbery,
as a mere conspiracy to commit robbery is not
punishable.
Article 307. Aiding and abetting a band of brigands
Elements:
1. There is a band of brigands;
2. Offender knows the band to be of brigands;
3. Offender does any of the following acts:
a. He in any manner aids, abets or protects such
band of brigands;
b. He gives them information of the movements of
the police or other peace officers of the
government; or
c. He acquires or receives the property taken by such
brigands.
§ It shall be presumed that the person performing any of
the acts provided in this article has performed them
knowingly, unless contrary is proven.
THEFT
committed by any person who, with intent to gain but
without violence against or intimidation of persons nor force
upon things, shall take personal property of another without
the latter’s consent.
Article 308. Who are liable for theft
Persons liable:
1. Those who with intent to gain, but without violence
against or intimidation of persons nor force upon
things, take personal property of another without the
latter’s consent;
2. Those who having found lost property, fails to deliver
the same to the local authorities or to its owner;
3. Those who, after having maliciously damaged the
property of another, remove or make use of the fruits
or objects of the damage caused by them;
4. Those who enter an enclosed estate or a field where
trespass is forbidden or which belongs to another and,
without the consent of its owner, hunt or fish upon the
same or gather fruits, cereals or other forest or farm
products.
Elements:
1. There is taking of personal property;
2. The property taken belongs to another;
3. The taking was done with intent to gain;
4. The taking was done without the consent of the owner;
5. The taking is accomplished without the use of violence
against or intimidation of persons of force upon things.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
§ “taking” ¹ taking away or carrying away; thus, theft is
consummated when the culprits were able to take
possession of the thing taken by them. It is not an
indispensable element of theft that the thief carry,
more or less far away, the thing taken by him from its
owner.
§ As of 2007, the Court held that asportation is
complete from the moment the offender had full
possession of the thing, even if he did not have
an opportunity to dispose of the same..
§ animus lucandi = intent to gain
§ The taking in theft must have the character of
permanency. Thus, the offender must have the
intention of making himself the owner of the thing
taken.
§ The unlawful taking may occur at or soon after the
transfer of physical possession (not juridical
possession) of the thing to the offender. The actual
transfer of possession may not always and by itself
constitute the unlawful taking, but an act done soon
thereafter by the offender which may result in
unlawful taking or asportation. In such case, the article
is deemed to have been taken also, although in the
beginning, it was in fact given to, and received by, the
offender.
Illustration: Tina gave Rey her rolex watch for the
purpose of having it examined since Rey has a
pawnshop. Rey subsequently appropriated it rolex
watch with intent to gain and without consent of Tina.
– This is THEFT.
§ But if the accused received the thing from another
person in trust or on commission, or for administration,
or under a quasi-contract or a contract of bailment, and
later misappropriated or converted the thing to the
prejudice of another, the crime is ESTAFA, because
under those transactions, the juridical possession of
the thing is transferred to the offender. (note: thus,
the distinction between juridical and mere physical
possession is important.)
§ Intent to gain is presumed from the unlawful taking of
personal property belonging to another.
§ There is theft even if accused did not take them for his
own use.
§ It is not necessary that there was real or actual gain on
the part of the offender. It is enough that on taking
them, he was then actuated by the desire or intent to
gain.
§ For robbery to exist, it is necessary that there should
be a taking against the will of the owner; for theft, it
suffices that consent on the part of the owner is
lacking.
§ It is not robbery when violence is for a reason entirely
foreign to the fact of taking.
§ When goods were lost at the same time, in the same
place, and on the same occasion, the person in
possession of part of the missing property is presumed
to be the thief of the entire property.
§ The presumption regarding possession of stolen
property does not exclusively refer to actual physical
possession thereof but may include prior unexplained
possession. In any case, for the presumption to work,
the property must be recently stolen. Thus, if it was
stolen a long time ago, the presumption will not lie.
§ Intent to gain is inferred from deliberate failure to
deliver the lost property to the proper person.
150

§ Finder of hidden treasure who misappropriated the
share pertaining to the owner of the property is guilty
of theft as regards that share.
People v. Gulinao
179 SCRA 774
Gulinao shot Dr Chua then left. Gulinao went back to get Dr
Chua’s diamond ring. He was convicted of illegal possession
and robbery. SC ruled that he is guilty of THEFT, not
robbery. The taking of the ring was just an afterthought.
Violence used in killing Dr Chua had no bearing on the
taking of the ring.
People v. Bago
G.R. No. 122290, 6 April 2000
FACTS: Bago, the team leader of the cutting department of
Azkcon Metal, conspired with fellow employees Caparas and
Ongseco by unlawfully stealing materials from Azkcon Metal
through fabricated receipts showing delivery of items. An
internal investigation showed that the materials were never
delivered to the intended recipient. Bago was charged with
qualified theft while Caparas and Ongseco were charged
with simple theft. The RTC convicted Bago of qualified theft
while his co-accused were acquitted for insufficiency of
evidence.
HELD: The trial court correctly found Bago was a trusted
employee of Azkcon Metal. He was in-charge of overseeing
the cutting of the materials and ensuring their delivery. Due
to this trust, he succeeded on withdrawing the materials.
Clearly, all the elements of theft were established, to wit: (1)
there was a taking of personal property; (2) the property
belongs to another; (3) the taking was without the consent
of the owner; (4) the taking was done with intent to gain;
and (5) the taking was accomplished without violence or
intimidation against the person or force upon things. As the
theft was committed with grave abuse of confidence, Bago is
guilty of qualified theft.
Lozano v. People
G.R. No. 165582, 9 July 2010
FACTS: Lozano and his co-accused Tubis et al, were charged
of theft for stealing car tires, stereo and speakers,
sunglasses and a calculator from Gonzales, the owner of the
said items inside her car. The RTC found all the accused
except Balderas guilty of theft for all the items stolen. The
Court of Appeals affirmed the RTC’s ruling. Lozano et al
question their conviction due to the prosecution’s failure to
present that all the items were stolen by them.
HELD: The Court of Appeals correctly convicted Lozano and
his co-accused. They are guilty of theft but with respect to
the two tires only. As defined, theft is committed by any
person who, with intent to gain, but without violence
against, or intimidation of persons or force upon things, shall
take the personal property of another without the latter’s
consent. There was no evidence establishing that Lozano
and his co-accused stole the missing items, not even the
missing tires. All that was established was that they were in
possession of two tires. This was later on proved by the
testimony of an eyewitness who saw the accused stealing
the tires from Gonzales’ car.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
San Miguel Corp. v. Puzon
G.R. No. 167567, 22 September 2010
FACTS: Puzon, a dealer of San Miguel’s products, had a
credit arrangement with the latter wherein the former would
purchase products on credit and as security for the orders,
Puzon would deposit postdated checks. The checks are
returned to Puzon upon his payment of his orders in full.
When Puzon went to the office of San Miguel, he requested
to see the checks he deposited. Instead of paying, he
immediately left the office with the checks in tow. San
Miguel filed a complaint for theft against Puzon with the City
Prosecutor. The City Prosecutor dismissed the case because
the non-payment of accounts cannot give rise to a criminal
prosecution for theft.
HELD: The High Court held that there is no theft in this case.
Nothing on record shows that SMC is the owner of the
checks in question. Both parties did not intend for the check
to pay for the beer products purchased by Puzon. The
evidence proves that the check was accepted, not as
payment, but in accordance with the long-standing policy of
SMC to require its dealers to issue postdated checks to cover
its receivables. The check was only meant to cover the
transaction, and in the meantime, Puzon was to pay for the
transaction by some other means other than the check. This
being so, title to the check did not transfer to SMC; it
remained with Puzon. Since Puzon did not take something
that actually belonged to SMC, then he is not liable for theft.
Valenzuela v. People
525 SCRA 306 (2007)
The Revised Penal Code provisions on theft have not been
designed in such fashion as to accommodate the Adiao, Dino
and Empelis rulings. Again, there is no language in Article
308 that expressly or impliedly allows that the “free
disposition of the items stolen” is in any way determinative
of whether the crime of theft has been produced. The Court
thus concludes that under the Revised Penal Code, there is
no crime of frustrated theft.
Article 309. Penalties
The basis of the penalty in theft is (1) the value of the thing
stolen and in some cases (2) the value and also the
nature of the property taken, or (3) the circumstances
or causes that impelled the culprit to commit the crime.
If there is no available evidence to prove the value of the
stolen property or that the prosecution failed to prove
it, the court should impose the minimum penalty
corresponding to theft.
Theft of Electricity, Illegal Water, Electric or
Telephone Connections
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 401 March 1, 1974
PENALIZING THE UNAUTHORIZED INSTALLATION OF
WATER, ELECTRICAL OR TELEPHONE CONNECTIONS,
THE USE OF TAMPERED WATER OR ELECTRICAL
METERS, AND OTHER ACTS
Who are punishable? -- any person who:
151

installs any water, electrical or telephone connection
without previous authority from the Metropolitan
Waterworks and Sewerage System, the Manila
Electric Company or the Philippine Long Distance
Telephone Company, as the case may be;
tampers and/or uses tampered water or electrical
meters or jumpers or other devices whereby water
or electricity is stolen; steals or pilfers water
and/or electric meters or water, electric and/or
telephone wires;
knowingly possesses stolen or pilfered water and/or
electrical meters as well as stolen or pilfered
water, electrical and/or telephone wires.
R.A. No. 7832
Anti Electricity and Electric Transmission Lines/
Materials Pilferage Act of 1994
Acts punishable
Illegal Use of Electricity (§2)
(a) Tap, make or cause to be made any connection
with overhead lines, service drops, or other
electric service wires, without previous authority
or consent of the private electric utility or rural
electric cooperative concerned;
(b) Tap, make or cause to be made any connection to
the existing electric service facilities of any duly
registered consumer without the latter's or the
electric utility's consent or authority;
(c) Tamper, install or use a tampered electrical meter,
jumper, current reversing transformer, shorting or
shunting wire, loop connection or any other device
which interferes with the proper or accurate
registry or metering of electric current or
otherwise results in its diversion in a manner
whereby electricity is stolen or wasted;
(d) Damage or destroy an electric meter, equipment,
wire or conduit or allow any of them to be so
damaged or destroyed as to interfere with the
proper or accurate metering of electric current;
and
(e) Knowingly use or receive the direct benefit of
electric service obtained through any of the acts
mentioned in subsections (a), (b), (c), and (d)
above.
Theft of Electric Power Transmission Lines and Materials
(§3)
Cut, saw, slice, separate, split, severe, smelt, or
remove any electric power transmission
line/material or meter from a tower, pole, or any
other installation or place of installation or any
other place or site where it may be rightfully or
lawfully stored, deposited, kept, stocked,
inventoried, situated or located, without the
consent of the owner, whether or not the act is
done for profit or gain;
Take, carry away or remove or transfer, with or without
the use of a motor vehicle or other means of
conveyance, any electric power transmission
line/material or meter from a tower, pole, any
Criminal Law II Review Notes
other installation or place of installation, or any
place or site where it may be rightfully or lawfully
stored, deposited, kept, stocked, inventoried,
situated or located without the consent of the
owner, whether or not the act is done for profit or
gain;
Store, possess or otherwise keep in his premises,
custody or control, any electric power
transmission line/material or meter without the
consent of the owner, whether or not the act is
done for profit or gain; and
Load, carry, ship or move from one place to another,
whether by land, air or sea, any electrical power
transmission line/material, whether or not the act
is done for profit or gain, without first securing a
clearance/permit for the said purpose from its
owner or the National Power Corporation (NPC) or
its regional office concerned, as the case may be.
Presumptions
For illegal use of electricity:
The presence of any of the following circumstances shall
constitute prima facie evidence of illegal use of
electricity by the person benefited thereby, and shall
be the basis for:
the immediate disconnection by the electric utility to
such person after due notice,
the holding of a preliminary investigation by the
prosecutor and the subsequent filing in court of
the pertinent information, and
the lifting of any temporary restraining order or
injunction which may have been issued against a
private electric utility or rural electric cooperative
Circumstances:
The presence of a bored hole on the glass cover of the
electric meter, or at the back or any other part of said
meter;
The presence inside the electric meter of salt, sugar and
other elements that could result in the inaccurate
registration of the meter's internal parts to prevent its
accurate registration of consumption of electricity;
The existence of any wiring connection which affects the
normal operation or registration of the electric meter;
The presence of a tampered, broken, or fake seal on the
meter, or mutilated, altered or tampered meter
recording chart or graph, or computerized chart, graph,
or log;
The presence in any part of the building or its premises
which is subject to the control of the consumer or on
the electric meter, of a current reversing transformer,
jumper, shorting and/or shunting wire, and/or loop
connection or any other similar device;
The mutilation, alteration, reconnection, disconnection,
bypassing or tampering of instruments, transformers,
and accessories;
The destruction of, or attempt to destroy, any integral
accessory of the metering device box which encases an
electric meter, or its metering accessories; and
The acceptance of money and/or other valuable
consideration by any officer of employee of the electric
utility concerned or the making of such an offer to any
such officer or employee for not reporting the presence
152

of any of the circumstances enumerated above. The
discovery of any of the foregoing circumstances, in
order to constitute prima facie evidence, must be
personally witnessed and attested to by an
officer of the law or a duly authorized
representative of the Energy Regulatory Board
(ERB).
For theft of electric power transmission lines and materials
The possession or custody of electric power
transmission line/material by any person, natural or juridical,
not engaged in the transformation, transmission or
distribution of electric power, or in the manufacture of such
electric power transmission line/material shall be prima facie
evidence that such line/material is the fruit of the offense of
theft of electric power transmission lines and materials, and
therefore such line/material may be confiscated from the
person in possession, control or custody thereof.
RA 8041
An Act to Address the National Water Crisis and For
Other Purposes
Sec. 8. Anti-Pilferage. - It is hereby declared unlawful for
any person to:
Destroy, damage or interfere with any canal, raceway, ditch,
lock, pier, inlet, crib, bulkhead, dam, gate, service,
reservoir, aqueduct, water mains, water distribution
pipes, conduit, pipes, wire benchmark, monument, or
other works, appliance, machinery buildings, or
property of any water utility entity, whether public or
private;
Do any malicious act which shall injuriously affect the
quantity or quality of the water or sewage flow of any
waterworks and/or sewerage system, or the supply,
conveyance, measurement, or regulation thereof,
including the prevention of, or interference with any
authorized person engaged in the discharge of duties
connected therewith;
Prevent, obstruct, and interfere with the survey, works, and
construction of access road and water mains and
distribution network and any related works of the utility
entity.
Tap, make, or cause to be made any connection with water
lines without prior authority or consent from the water
utility concerned;
Tamper, install or use tampered water meters, sticks,
magnets, reversing water meters, shortening of vane
wheels and other devices to steal water or interfere
with accurate registry or metering of water usage, or
otherwise result in its diversion in a manner whereby
water is stolen or wasted;
Use or receive the direct benefit of water service with
knowledge that diversion, tampering, or illegal
connection existed at the time of that use, or that the
use or receipt was otherwise without the authorization
of the water utility;
Steal or pilfer water meters, main lines, pipes and related or
ancillary facilities;
Steal water for profit or resale;
Knowingly possess stolen or tampered water meters; and
Knowingly or willfully allow the occurrence of any of the
above.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Penalties:
imprisonment of six (6) months to two (2) years and a fine
not exceeding double the amount of the value of the
water stolen or the value of the damaged facilities
If the offender is assisted in the commission of the crime by
a plumber, officer or employee of the water utility
concerned, the said employee, officer or plumber shall
be punished by imprisonment of two (2) years to six
(6) years
• If the water is stolen for profit or resale, the offender
shall be punished imprisonment from six (6) to twelve
(12) years.
Illegal Fishing
REPUBLIC ACT NO. 8550
An Act Providing For The Development,
Management And Conservation Of The
Fisheries And Aquatic Resources,
Integrating All Laws Pertinent Thereto,
And For Other Purposes
What acts are punishable?
1. Unauthorized Fishing or Engaging in Other
Unauthorized Fisheries Activities
(a) exploiting, breeding fish in Philippine waters without a
license
â Discovery of any person in an area where he has no
permit or registration papers for a fishing vessel shall
constitute a prima facie presumption that the person and/or
vessel is engaged in unauthorized fishing: BUT, fishing for
daily food sustenance or for leisure which is not for
commercial, occupation or livelihood purposes may be
allowed.
(b) fishing by commercial fishing vessels in fishery
management areas declared as over exploited
(c) engaging in any commercial fishing activity in municipal
waters when not listed in the registry of municipal fisherfolk
2. Poaching in Philippine Waters
(a) foreign person fishing or operating a fishing vessel in
Philippine waters
â The entry of any foreign fishing vessel in Philippine waters
shall constitute a prima facie evidence that the vessel is
engaged in fishing in Philippine waters.
3. Fishing Through Explosives, Noxious or Poisonous
Substance, and/or Electricity
(a) fishing in Philippine waters with the use of electricity,
explosives, noxious or poisonous substance such as sodium
cyanide in the Philippine fishery areas, which will kill,
stupefy, disable or render unconscious fish or fishery species
â The Department, subject to safeguards and conditions
deemed necessary and endorsement from the concerned
LGUs, may allow, for research, educational or scientific
purposes only, the use of electricity, poisonous or noxious
substances to catch, take or gather fish or fishery species:
â The use of poisonous or noxious substances to eradicate
predators in fishponds in accordance with accepted scientific
practices and without causing adverse environmental impact
in neighboring waters and grounds shall not be construed as
153

illegal fishing.
(b) dealing in fish illegally caught
â The discovery of explosives or equipment for electro-
fishing in any fishing vessel or in the possession of any
fishworker shall constitute prima facie evidence, that the
same was used for fishing in violation of this Code.
â The discovery in any fishing vessel of fish caught or killed
with the use of explosive, noxious or poisonous substances
or by electricity shall constitute prima facie evidence that the
fisherfolk, operator, boat official or fishworker is fishing with
the use thereof.
(c) Mere possession of explosive, noxious or poisonous
substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing
(d) Actual use of explosives, noxious or poisonous
substances or electrofishing devices for illegal fishing
â Penalty is without prejudice to the filing of separate
criminal cases when the use of the same result to physical
injury or loss of human life.
4. Use of Fine Mesh Net
(a) fishing using nets with mesh smaller than that which may
be fixed by the Department
â Prohibition shall not apply to the gathering of fry and such
species which by their nature are small but already mature
to be identified in the implementing rules and regulations by
the Department.
5. Use of Active Gear in the Municipal Waters and Bays and
Other Fishery Management Areas
(a) fishing in municipal waters and in all bays as well as
other fishery management areas using active fishing gears
6. Ban on Coral Exploitation and Exportation
(a) selling or exporting ordinary precious and semi-precious
corals, whether raw or in processed form, except for
scientific or research purposes.
â The confiscated corals shall either be returned to the sea
or donated to schools and museums for educational or
scientific purposes or disposed through other means.
7. Ban on Muro-Ami, Other Methods and Gear Destructive
to Coral Reefs and Other Marine Habitat
(a) fishing with gear method that destroy coral reefs,
seagrass beds, and other fishery marine life habitat as may
be determined by the Department
(b) using "Muro-Ami" and any of its variation, and such
similar gear and methods that require diving, other physical
or mechanical acts to pound the coral reefs and other
habitat to entrap, gather or catch fish and other fishery
species
(c) gathering, selling or exporting white sand, silica, pebbles
and other substances which make up any marine habitat
8. Illegal Use of Superlights
(a) fishing with the use of superlights in municipal waters or
in violation of the rules and regulations which may be
promulgated by the Department on the use of superlights
outside municipal waters
9. Conversion of Mangroves
(a) converting mangroves into fishponds or for any other
purposes
10. Fishing in Overfished Area and During Closed Season
11. Fishing in Fishery Reserves, Refuge and Sanctuaries
Criminal Law II Review Notes
12. Fishing or Taking of Rare, Threatened or Endangered
Species
13. Capture of Sabalo and Other Breeders/Spawners
â However, catching of sabalo and other breeders/spawners
for local breeding purposes or scientific or research purposes
may be allowed subject to guidelines to be promulgated by
the Department.
14. Exportation of Breeders, Spawners, Eggs or Fry
15. Importation or Exportation of Fish or Fishery Species
16. Violation of Catch Ceilings
17. Aquatic Pollution
18. Other violations
Failure to Comply with Minimum Safety Standards
Failure to Conduct a Yearly Report on all Fishponds,
Fish Pens and Fish Cages
Gathering and Marketing of Shell Fish which is sexually
mature or below the minimum size or above the
maximum quantities prescribed for the particular
species
Obstruction to Navigation or Flow and Ebb of Tide in
any Stream, River, Lake or Bay
Construction and Operation of Fish Corrals/Traps, Fish
Pens and Fish Cages without a license/permit
19. Commercial Fishing Vessel Operators Employing
Unlicensed Fisherfolk or Fishworker or Crew
20. Obstruction of Defined Migration Paths of
anadromous, catadromous and other migratory species, in
areas including, but not limited to river mouths and estuaries
within a distance determined by the concerned FARMCs
21. Obstruction to Fishery Law Enforcement Officer
Hizon v. CA
265 SCRA 517
Some fish were taken from a fishing boat that tested positive
for sodium cyanide. The accused were convicted for illegal
fishing using poisonous substances under PD 703, which
creates a prima facie presumption of guilt when any fish
taken is positive for poisonous substances. Petitioners
question the legality of the presumption. SC held that the
presumption is only prima facie hence, rebuttable by
competent evidence.
Article 310. Qualified theft
Theft is qualified if:
1. Committed by a domestic servant;
2. Committed with grave abuse of confidence;
3. The property stolen is a motor vehicle, mail matter, or
large cattle;
4. The property stolen consists of coconuts taken from the
premises of a plantation;
154

5. The property stolen is fish taken from a fishpond or
fishery; or
6. If property is taken on the occasion of fire, earthquake,
typhoon, volcanic eruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident, or civil disturbance.
• Penalties for qualified theft are now next HIGHER
BY 2 DEGREES.
• Theft by domestic servant is always qualified. it is
not necessary to prove grave abuse of confidence.
• The abuse of confidence must be grave. There
must be allegation in the information and proof of
a relation, by reason of dependence, guardianship
or vigilance, between the accused and the
offended party, that has created a high degree of
confidence between them, which the accused
abused.
• The grave abuse of confidence need not be
premeditated. Its presence in the commission of
theft is sufficient.
• The confidence gravely abused must be that
existing between offended party and the offender.
Empelis v. IAC
132 SCRA 398
4 accused were seen carrying away 50 coconuts from a
plantation. They dropped the coconuts after being seen by
the owner. They were convicted of qualified theft. SC held
that they are guilty only of FRUSTRATED QUALIFIED THEFT
as they were not able to carry away the coconuts from the
plantation that is the gravamen of the offence under Art
310.
People v. Cañales
297 SCRA 667
FACTS: Accused are employees of First Base Corp. They
stole a truck and 700 cartons of frozen prawn from the
company. They were tasked to deliver the prawns to the
pier using the truck. The truck, however, was subsequently
recovered. Was there qualified theft as to the recovered
truck?
HELD: The recovery of the stolen motor vehicle does not
mean that the crime of qualified theft was not
consummated. Neither will it diminish the criminal
responsibility of appellant. In People v. Carpio: The gist
of the offense of larceny consists in the furtive taking
and asportation of property, animo lucrandi, and with
intent to deprive the true owner of the possession
thereof. The act of asportation in this case was
undoubtedly committed with intent on the part of the thief
to profit by the act, and since he effectively deprived the
true owner of the possession of the entire automobile, the
offense of larceny comprised the whole car. The fact that
the accused stripped the car of its tires and abandoned the
machine in a distant part of the city did not make the
appellant any less liable for the larceny of the automobile.
The deprivation of the owner and the trespass upon his right
of possession were complete as to the entire car; and the
fact that the thieves thought it wise promptly to abandon
the machine in no wise limits their criminal responsibility to
the particular parts of the car that were appropriate and
subsequently used by the appellant upon his own car.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Illegal Logging
P.D. 330
PenalizingTimber Smuggling or
Illegal Cutting of Logs
SECTION 1. Any person, whether natural or juridical, who
directly or indirectly cuts, gathers, removes, or smuggles
timber, or other forest products, either from any of the
public forest, forest reserves and other kinds of public
forests, whether under license or lease, or from any
privately owned forest lands in violation of existing laws,
rules and regulation shall be guilty of the crime of qualified
theft as defined and penalized under Articles 308, 309 and
310 of the Revised Penal Code; Provided, That if the
offender is a corporation, firm, partnership or association,
the penalty shall be imposed upon the guilty officer or
officers, as the case may be, of the corporation, firm,
partnership or association, and if such guilty officer or
officers are aliens, in addition to the penalty herein
prescribed, he or they shall be deported without further
proceedings on the part of the Commissioned of
Immigration and Deportation.
P.D. 705
The Forestry Reform Code (as amended)
SECTION 68. Cutting, gathering and/or collecting timber
or other products without license. — Any person who shall
cut, gather, collect, or remove timber or other forest
products from any forest land, or timber from alienable and
disposable public lands, or from private lands, without any
authority under a license agreement, lease, license or
permit, shall be guilty of qualified theft as defined and
punished under Articles 309 and 310 of the RPC; Provided,
That in the case of partnership, association or corporation,
the officers who ordered the cutting, gathering or collecting
shall be liable, and if such officers are aliens, they shall, in
addition to the penalty, be deported without further
proceedings on the part of the Commission on Immigration
and Deportation.
The Court shall further order the confiscation in favor of the
government of the timber or forest products to cut,
gathered, collected or removed, and the machinery,
equipment, implements and tools used therein, and the
forfeiture of his improvements in the area.
The same penalty plus cancellation of his license agreement,
lease, license or permit and perpetual disqualification from
acquiring any such privilege shall be imposed upon any
licensee, lessee, or permittee who cuts timber from the
licensed or leased area of another, without prejudice to
whatever civil action the latter may bring against the
offender.
Mustang Lumber Inc v. CA
257 SCRA 430
Whether lumber is different from timber? Lumber is actually
processed forest raw materials or just processed timber.
Therefore, lumber is necessarily included in timber as
the law makes no distinction.
155
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

such value is over five (5) pesos but not exceeding 50

pesos.
Fencing
f. The penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum period, if
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1612 such value does not exceed 5 pesos.
ANTI-FENCING LAW OF 1979

What is fencing?
Article 311. Theft of the property of the National
Library and National Museum
“Fencing" is the act of any person who, with intent to gain
for himself or for another, shall buy, receive, possess, keep,
§ Theft of the property on National Library and Museum
acquire, conceal, sell or dispose of, or shall buy and sell, or
has a fixed penalty regardless of its value.
in any other manner deal in any article, item, object or
anything of value which he knows, or should be known to
him, to have been derived from the proceeds of the crime of
Article 312. Occupation of real property or usurpation
robbery or theft.
of real rights in property
"Fence" includes any person, firm, association corporation or
Acts punishable:
partnership or other organization who/which commits the
act of fencing.
1. Taking possession of any real property belonging to
another by means of violence against or intimidation of
Presumption of Fencing.
persons;
Mere possession of any good, article, item, object, or
2. Usurping any real rights in property belonging to
anything of value which has been the subject of robbery or
another by means of violence against or intimidation of
thievery shall be prima facie evidence of fencing.
persons.
Clearance/Permit to Sell/Used Second Hand Articles
Elements:
is required
All stores, establishments or entities dealing in the buy and
1. That the offender
sell of any good, article, item, object of anything of value
a. takes possession of any real property or
obtained from an unlicensed dealer or supplier thereof, shall
b. usurps any real rights in property
before offering the same for sale to the public, secure the
2. That the real property or real right belongs to another
necessary clearance or permit from the station commander
3. That violence against or intimidation of persons is used
of the Integrated National Police in the town or city where
by the offender in occupying real property or usurping
such store, establishment or entity is located.
real rights in property
4. That there is intent to gain.
Penalties imposed
Any person guilty of fencing shall be punished as hereunder
indicated:
The real property or real right must belong to another
a. The penalty of prision mayor, if the value of the
property involved is more than 12,000 pesos but not
If defendant who took possession of the land using
exceeding 22,000 pesos; if the value of such property
violence or intimidation has shown he is owner of the land in
exceeds the latter sum, the penalty provided in this
question and complainant was a mere possessor, Art 312
paragraph shall be imposed in its maximum period,
DOES NOT apply.
adding one year for each additional 10,000 pesos; but
If at all, the crime is: grave coercion
the total penalty which may be imposed shall not
exceed twenty years. In such cases, the penalty shall
Usurpation of Real Right, example:
be termed reclusion temporal and the accessory
penalty pertaining thereto provided in the Revised
Accused, who had lost a case in a cadastral proceeding,
Penal Code shall also be imposed.
took possession of the land adjudicated in favor of the
offended party and harvested the palay, by means of threats
b. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and
and intimidation.
maximum periods, if the value of the property robbed
or stolen is more than 6,000 pesos but not exceeding
If no violence or intimidation (ex: mere use of strategy or
12,000 pesos.
stealth) , only CIVIL LIABILITY exists
c. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and
Violence or intimidation must be DURING the occupation or
medium periods, if the value of the property involved is
usurpation.
more than 200 pesos but not exceeding 6,000 pesos.
Art 312 DOES NOT apply when the violence or
d. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period to
intimidation only took place SUBSEQUENT to the entry into
prision correccional in its minimum period, if the value
property
of the property involved is over 50 pesos but not
exceeding 200 pesos.
Example: if accused ALREADY OCCUPPIED the land, and
when the administrator of such land told him to leave, but
e. The penalty of arresto mayor in its medium period, if
accused threatened administrator he would "kill anyone who

156

would drive me away" or chased administrator away with
bolo.
Article 312 does NOT apply in case of open defiance of a
writ of execution issued in a forcible entry case
Reason: Accused did not secure the possession of the
land by means of violence or intimidation. The refusal
(violent or not) of the accused to comply with writ of
execution is a DISTINCT OFFENSE: contempt of court under
the Rules of Court.
Criminal Action for occupation of real property NOT A BAR
for civil action for forcible entry
Reason: Causes of action are different!
Article 312 does NOT provide for a penalty, it only provides
for a fine.
à IN ADDITION TO the penalty for physical injuries inflicted
as a result of the acts of violence.
Distinguished from theft or robbery:
Usurpation Theft/robbery
There is intent to gain
Occupation or usurpation There is taking or
asportation
Real property or real right Personal property taken
Quinao v People
335 SCRA 741 (2000)
FACTS: Salvador Cases and Conchita Quinao, together with
their other close relatives appeared on the property of
Francisco and Bienvenido Del Monte. While there, with the
use of force, violence and intimidation, usurped and took
possession of the landholding, claiming that the same is
their inheritance from their ascendants further they gathered
coconuts and made them into copra. Thus, Bienvenido Del
Monte was forcibly driven out by the accused from their
landholding and was threatened that he should not return
lest harm befall him. He was thus forced to seek assistance
from the Lapinig Philippine National Police. In the trial court,
defendants asserted a calim over the land despite the fact
that a prior judicial decision declared the Del Montes as the
rightful owners. Resultantly, defendants were found guilty of
usurpation of real property.
HELD: Contrary to petitioner's allegation, the decision
rendered by the trial court convicting her of the crime of
usurpation of real property was not based on "speculations,
surmises and conjectures" but clearly on the evidence on
record and in accordance with the applicable law. The
requisites of usurpation are that the accused took possession
of another's real property or usurped real rights in another's
property; that the possession or usurpation was committed
with violence or intimidation and that the accused had animo
lucrandi. In order to sustain a conviction for "usurpacion de
derecho reales," the proof must show that the real property
occupied or usurped belongs, not to the occupant or
usurper, but to some third person, and that the possession
of the usurper was obtained by means of intimidation or
Criminal Law II Review Notes
violence done to the person ousted of possession of the
property.
More explicitly, in Castrodes v. Cubelo, the Court stated that
the elements of the offense are (1) occupation of another's
real properly or usurpation of a real right belonging to
another person; (2) violence or intimidation should be
employed in possessing the real property or in usurping the
real right, and (3) the accused should be animated by the
intent to gain.
Article 313. Altering boundaries or landmarks
Elements:
1. That there be boundary marks or monuments of towns,
provinces, or estates, or any other marks intended to
designate the boundaries of the same
2. The offender alters said boundary marks
Intent to gain NOT necessary.
The mere alteration of the boundary marks or
monuments intended to designate the boundaries of towns,
provinces, or estate is punishable.
"Alter": General and indefinite meaning.
Includes:
a. destruction of stone monument
b. taking it to another place or
c. removing a fence
Article 314. Fraudulent Insolvency
Elements:
1. That the offender is a debtor
2. Obligation is due and payable
3. He absconds with his property
4. There is prejudice to his creditors
Illustration of Fraudulent Insolvency:
Defendant became indebted to several merchants in
Cebu. Judgment was rendered against him and execution
issued. He owned several parcels of real property which he
transferred to another to place them beyond the reach of his
creditors. The considerations in the deed of sale were all
fictitious.
Actual prejudice, not intention alone, is required
Concealment of property not sufficient if the debtor-
accused has some other property with which to satisfy his
obligation.
Being a merchant is not an element of this offense. It only
makes the penalty higher
Real property may be involved
"Absond"- does not require that the debtor should depart
and physically conceal his property. Hence, real property
may be the subject of fraudulent insolvency.
Person prejudiced: MUST be the creditor of the offender
Example: Wife of accused helped prepare documents to
abscond with his property. Such participation does NOT
157
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

prove her complicity in the fraud, since it was the creditors 2. by means of false pretenses or fraudulent acts
of her husband (not HER creditors) who were defrauded. 3. through fraudulent means

Distinguished from Insolvency Law: Elements of Estafa IN GENERAL:

1. That the accused defrauded another by
Insolvency Law: requires that the criminal act be a. abuse of confidence or
committed AFTER the institution of insolvency proceedings b. by means of deceit
Fraudulent insolvency: no need for defendant to be
adjudged bankrupt or insolvent. 2. That damage or prejudice capable of pecuniary
estimation is caused to
a. the offended party or
Article 315. Swindling (Estafa) b. third person

* As seen above, DECEIT is NOT an essential requisite of

P.D. No. 2018
estafa with abuse of confidence
Making Illegal Recruitment a Crime of Economic
Sabotage
* As to second general element of DAMAGE, it should be
capable of pecuniary estimation, since amount of the
Acts punishable
damage is the basis of the penalty.
1. Any recruitment activities, including the prohibited
* intent of defrauding another is always an element
practices enumerated under Article 34 of the Labor
Code, to be undertaken by non-licensees or non-
* no estafa through negligence
holders of authority shall be deemed illegal and
punishable under Article 39 of the Labor Code. The
Ministry of Labor and Employment or any law
Pamintuan v. People
enforcement officers may initiate complaints under this
G.R. No. 172820, 23 June 2010
Article.
FACTS: Petitioner received from Jeremias a diamond ring
2. Illegal recruitment when committed by a syndicate or
worth P765,000.00, on the condition that it would be sold on
in large scale shall be considered an offense
commission basis. At the time she received the ring, the
involving economic sabotage and shall be penalized
petitioner signed a document entitled “Katibayan,”
in accordance with Article 39 of the Labor Code
authorizing the sale of the ring under the following express
conditions: petitioner was to sell the ring for cash and with
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed by a
an overprice as her profit, and remit the full payment to
syndicate if carried out by a group of three (3) or
Jeremias; she would not entrust the ring to anybody; and if
more persons conspiring and/or confederating with one
unsold within three days, she must return the ring, or pay
another in carrying out any unlawful or illegal
for it in cash. Petitioner failed to remit payment for the
transaction, enterprise or scheme.
diamond ring despite the lapse of the agreed period.
Neither did she return the diamond ring. Subsequently,
Illegal recruitment is deemed committed in large
Jeremias, through his lawyer, sent two formal demand
scale if committed against three (3) or more persons
letters for the petitioner to comply with her obligations
individually or as a group.
under the Katibayan. The demand letters went unheeded. It
was later discovered that petitioner pawned the ring. Thus,
petitioner was charged and convicted of estafa through
Powers of Minister of Labor and Employment (now
conversion.
Secretary of DOLE)
HELD: The conviction was proper. The elements of estafa
The Minister of Labor and Employment or his duly
under this provision are: (1) the offender’s receipt of money,
authorized representatives shall have the power to cause
goods, or other personal property in trust, or on
the arrest and detention of such non-license or non-
commission, or for administration, or under any other
holder of authority if after investigation it is determined that
obligation involving the duty to deliver, or to return, the
his activities constitute a danger to national security and
same; (2) misappropriation or conversion by the offender of
public order or will lead to further exploitation of job-
the money or property received, or denial of receipt of the
seekers.
money or property; (3) the misappropriation, conversion or
denial is to the prejudice of another; and (4) demand by the
The Minister shall order the search of the
offended party that the offender return the money or
office or premises and seizure of documents
property received. All elements are present in this case.
paraphernalia, properties and other implements used in
Petitioner clearly received the ring in trust from Jeremias for
illegal recruitment activities and the closure of companies,
her to sell and remit the proceeds to the latter. Instead of
establishment and entities found to be engaged in the
carrying out her assigned task, she pawned the ring without
recruitment of workers for overseas employment, without
Jeremias’ permission, and refused to return the ring or remit
having been licensed or authorized to do so.
the proceeds to the latter, despite due demand.

Three general ways of committing Estafa: -Estafa through Abuse of Confidence-

1. with unfaithfulness or abuse of confidence

158

I. Article 315, Paragraph 1 (a): Estafa with
unfaithfulness by altering the substance,
quantity, or quality of anything of value
Elements:
1. That the offender has an onerous obligation to deliver
something of value
2. That he alters its substance, quantity, or quality
3. That damage or prejudice is caused by another
• There must be an onerous obligation
If the thing delivered had not yet been fully paid or just
partially paid, NO ESTAFA even if there was alteration à
Ratio: there was no damage to talk about
• When there is no agreement as to the quality of the
thing to be delivered, delivery of a thing unacceptable
to the complainant is NOT estafa.
• Even though such obligation be based on an immoral or
illegal consideration. Estafa may arise even if the thing
to be delivered is not subject of lawful commerce (ex.
opium)
II. Article 315, Paragraph 1 (b):
misappropriating or converting money,
goods, or other personal property OR
denying having received such money, goods,
or other personal property
Elements:
1. That money, goods, or other personal property be
received by the offender in
a. trust (Trust Receipts Law)
b. on commission
c. for administration
d. under any obligation involving duty to return the
very same thing
2. There is (a) misappropriation or conversion of such
property by the offender OR (b) denial of such receipt
3. There is prejudice to another
4. Demand was made by the offended to the offender
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE No. 115 January 29, 1973
PROVIDING FOR THE REGULATION OF TRUST
RECEIPTS TRANSACTIONS
"Trust Receipt" -- shall refer to the written or printed
document signed by the entrustee in favor of the entruster
containing terms and conditions substantially complying with
the provisions of this Decree. No further formality of
execution or authentication shall be necessary to the validity
of a trust receipt.
What constitutes a trust receipt transaction?
A trust receipt transaction is any transaction by and
between a person referred to as the entruster, and another
person referred to as entrustee, whereby the entruster,
who owns or holds absolute title or security interests over
certain specified goods, documents or instruments, releases
the same to the possession of the entrustee upon the
latter's execution and delivery to the entruster of a signed
document called a "trust receipt" wherein the entrustee
binds himself to hold the designated goods, documents or
Criminal Law II Review Notes
instruments in trust for the entruster and to sell or otherwise
dispose of the goods, documents or instruments with the
obligation to turn over to the entruster the proceeds thereof
to the extent of the amount owing to the entruster or as
appears in the trust receipt or the goods, documents or
instruments themselves if they are unsold or not otherwise
disposed of, in accordance with the terms and conditions
specified in the trust receipt, or for other purposes
substantially equivalent to any of the following:
1. In the case of goods or documents,
b) to sell the goods or procure their sale; or
c) to manufacture or process the goods with the
purpose of ultimate sale: Provided, That, in the
case of goods delivered under trust receipt for the
purpose of manufacturing or processing before its
ultimate sale, the entruster shall retain its title
over the goods whether in its original or
processed form until the entrustee has complied
fully with his obligation under the trust receipt; or
d) to load, unload, ship or tranship or otherwise deal
with them in a manner preliminary or necessary to
their sale; or
2. In the case of instruments,
a) to sell or procure their sale or exchange; or
b) to deliver them to a principal; or
c) to effect the consummation of some transactions
involving delivery to a depository or register; or
d) to effect their presentation, collection or renewal
NOTE: The sale of goods, documents or instruments by a
person in the business of selling goods, documents or
instruments for profit who, at the outset of the transaction,
has, as against the buyer, general property rights in such
goods, documents or instruments, or who sells the same to
the buyer on credit, retaining title or other interest as
security for the payment of the purchase price, does not
constitute a trust receipt transaction.
• The 4th element is not necessary where there is
evidence of misappropriation of goods by the defendant
• Check is included in the word "money"
• Money/goods must be received by the offender.
Otherwise, crime is THEFT (taking without consent of
owner)
à hence, offender must have material AND juridical
possession of the thing
à JURIDICAL POSSESSION: means a possession which
gives the transferee a right over the thing which the
transferee may set up even against the owner.
• "involving the duty to return the same" includes
a. quasi-contracts and
b. contract of bailment: deposit, lease, commodatum,
pledge
Ø but NOT contract of loan! Loan of money is
mutuum. Ownership was transferred.
Ø Contract of sale (ownership is transferred at the
time of delivery):
a) if thing sold not delivered and advance
payment not returned, only CIVIL LIABILITY
b) if buyer did not pay the price to owner, only
CIVIL LIABILITY also
Key: if no obligation to return the very same thing, only Civil
liability
159
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

• No estafa when the money or other personal property always private property
received is NOT to be used for a particular purpose. The offender is a private Offender is usually a public
• Novation of contract from one of agency to one of sale individual or a public officer officer who is accountable
or to one of loan relieves defendant from the incipient who is not accountable for for public funds or property
criminal liability under the first contract public funds or property
Ø But granting extension of time is not novation, nor The crime is committed by The crime is committed by
is acceptance of a PN for money misappropriated misappropriating, converting appropriating, taking or
Ø Also, the novation theory may perhaps apply prior or denying having received misappropriating or
to the filing of the criminal information in court by money, goods or other consenting, or through
the State prosecutors, because up to that time, personal property abandonment or negligence,
the original trust relation may be converted by the permitting any other person
parties into an ordinary creditor-debtor relation. to take the public funds or
property
• "conversion" – thing was devoted for a purpose
different from that agreed upon, as if the thing were • Private individual allegedly in conspiracy with public
the accused's own (ex. depositary pledged the thing officer in a prosecution of the latter for malversation,
deposited) may still be held liable for Estafa even if the public
• "misappropriation" - using an amount for personal officer was acquitted.
purposes • Misappropriation of firearms received by a policeman is
• Right of agent to deduct commission from amounts Estafa, if it is not involved in the commission of a crime.
collected: IF AUTHORIZED to retain commission, no It is malversation, if it is involved in the commission of
estafa. a crime.

• "to the prejudice of another"- not necessarily the owner

of the property III. Article 315, par 1, (c): estafa by taking
• Partnerships: undue advantage of the signature of the
Ø Where a partner sold partnership property and offended party in blank
misappropriates the selling priceà only gives rise
to civil obligation only (it is a debt due to a partner Elements:
as part of partnership funds) 1. That the paper with the signature of the offended party
Ø Partner given money to be used for a specific be in blank
purpose then misappropriated it à estafa 2. That the offended party should have delivered it to the
• A co-owner is not liable for estafa during the offender
subsistence of the co-ownership 3. That above the signature, a document is written by
offender without authority to do so
• Art 314 par 1 (b) is the ONLY kind of estafa where 4. That the document so written creates a liability of, or
demand is necessary. Although it is not required by causes damage to the offended party or any third
law, it is necessary because failure to account upon person
demand, is circumstantial evidence of misappropriation.
• The paper with the signature in blank MUST BE
• ‘Even though such obligation be totally or partially DELIVERED by the offended party to the offender
guaranteed by a bond’ – a security executed by the (otherwise, crime is falsification of instrument)
agent to answer for damages etc. does not relieve him
from criminal liability, for this undertaking refers only to
his civil liability. -Estafa by Deceit-
• The gravity of the crime of Estafa is determined on the
basis of the amount not returned before the institution Elements of Estafa by means of deceit:
of criminal action.
1. There must be a false pretense, fraudulent act or
Estafa with abuse of Theft fraudulent means;
confidence 2. Such false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means
Offender acquires the Offender acquires only must be made or executed prior to or simultaneously
juridical possession of the material possession of the with the commission of the fraud;
property property 3. The offended party must have relied on the false
Offender receives the thing Offender takes the thing pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent means, that is,
from the offended party from the offended party he was induced to part with his money or property
because of the false pretense, fraudulent act or
• Additional test: In theft, upon delivery of the thing to fraudulent means;
the offender, the owner expects an immediate return of 4. As a result thereof, the offended party suffered
the thing to him damage.

Estafa with abuse of Malversation

confidence IV. Article 315, par 2, (a)
The offenders are entrusted with funds or property
Both are continuing offenses Three ways of committing estafa under this provision:
The funds or property are Involves public funds or 1. using fictitious name

160

2. falsely pretending to possess
a. power
b. influence
c. qualifications
d. property
e. credit
f. agency
g. business or imaginary transactions
3. other similar deceits
• fictitious name: when a person found a pawnshop
ticket in the name of another and, using the name of
that person, redeemed the jewelry
• Pretending to possess power: "pretend to be a
magician who can find gold, but pay me to find the
gold under your house" trick.
• Pretending to possess influence: I have connections in
Malacañang so pay me if you wanna get your
documents approved" trick
• Estafa by means of deceit v. theft: juridical/ legal
possession is still transferred to offender in case of
estafa. But it is transferred through deceit.
V. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (b): by altering
quality, fineness, or weight of anything
pertaining to his art or business
• Example: A gives B, a jeweler, a diamond to be made
into a ring. B changed the stone with one of lower
quality.
• Manipulation of Scale: violation of Revised
Administrative Code
VI. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (c): pretending to
have bribed any Government employee
• Person would ask money from another for the alleged
purpose of bribing a government employee but just
pocketed the money after
• "without prejudice to an action for calumny" : the
offender may also be charged with defamation which
the government employee allegedly bribed may deem
proper to bring against the offender
VII. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (d): postdating a
check in payment of an obligation when the
offender had no funds in the bank, or his
funds were not sufficient to cover the
amount
Elements:
1. That the offender postdated a check, or issued a check
in payment of an obligation
2. That such postdating or issuing was done when:
a. offender had no funds or
b. funds deposited were not sufficient
• check must be genuine and not falsified, otherwise, it is
estafa under paragraph 2(a), not 2(d) (example:
signing a check with a fictitious name and falsely
pretending said check could be encashed)
Criminal Law II Review Notes
• the issuance of a check is NOT for a pre existing
obligation. It MUST be for an obligation contracted at
the time of the issuance or delivery of the check.
Ø When check is issued in substitution of a
promissory note, it is in payment of a pre existing
obligation
Ø When the check is issued by a guarantor, there is
no Estafa because it is not in payment of an
obligation.
• Prima facie evidence of deceit: failure of the drawer of
the check to deposit the amount necessary to cover his
check within three days from receipt of notice from the
bank and/or the payee or holder that said check has
been dishonored for lack or insufficiency of funds
Ø otherwise, if drawer is able to fund within 3 days
from notice of dishonoring, not liable for estafa
VIII. Article 315, Paragraph 2 (e): Estafa by
obtaining food or accommodation at a hotel,
etc
Three ways of committing estafa under the this provision:
1. By obtaining food, refreshment, or accommodation at a
hotel, etc. without paying therefor, with intent to
defraud the proprietor or manager thereof.
2. By obtaining credit at any of said establishments by the
use of false pretenses
3. By abandoning or surreptitiously removing any part of
his baggage from any of said establishments after
obtaining credit, food, refreshment, or accommodation
therein, without paying therefor.
IX. Article 315, Paragraph 3 (a): Estafa by
inducing another to sign any document
Elements:
1. That the offender induced the offended party to sign a
document.
2. That deceit be employed to make him sign the
document
3. That the offended party personally signed the
document
4. That prejudice be caused
• There must be inducement:
Ø if the offended party was willing to sign although
there was deceit as to the character or contents of
the document (because the contents are different
from those which the offended party told the
accused to state in the document)à crime is
falsification
• accused should make statements tending to mislead
the complainant as to the character of the document
executed by him.
X. Article 315, Paragraph 3 (b): Estafa by
resorting to some fraudulent practice to
insure success in gambling
161

XI. Article 315, Paragraph 3 (c): Estafa by
removing, concealing, or destroying
documents
Elements:
1. That there be court record, office files, documents or
any other papers
2. That the offender removed, concealed or destroyed any
of them
3. That the offender had intent to defraud another
• If no intent to defraud, the act of destroying court
record will be malicious mischief
• Examples:
1. Concealing document: A person who concealed a
document evidencing a deposit of P2,600 which came
into his possession when he offered to collect the
deposit is guilty of estafa.
2. Destroying documents: Destruction of a PN given back
to the maker to be replaced with a new one to renew
the loan, without making a new promissory note is
estafa because by destroying the old one, the offended
party was dispossessed of the evidence of a debt.
• In a very old case, it was ruled that the act of
destroying a PN, given to cover losses in gambling, by
the maker thereof, is Estafa. However, there was a
dissenting opinion which stated that such PN is void
and of no value, hence it cannot be the subject of
estafa.
Estafa under par. 3 (c) Infidelity in the custody
of documents
Manner of committing offenses is the same
The offender is a private The offender is a public
individual or even a public officer who is officially
officer who is not officially entrusted with the document
entrusted with the
documents
There is intent to defraud Intent to defraud not an
element in this crime
Final Notes on Estafa:
• The accused CANNOT be convicted of estafa with
abuse of confidence under an information alleging
estafa by means of deceit.
• If there is no deceit and no abuse of confidence, there
is no estafa, even if there is damage. There is only civil
liability.
• There CAN be a complex crime of theft and estafa,
when the former is a necessary means to commit the
latter. C, with intent to gain, took the pawnshop tickets
without the consent of A (Theft). By redeeming the
jewels by means of the tickets, C also committed
estafa, using a fictitious name.
• The basis of the penalty for estafa is the amount or
value of the property misappropriated BEFORE the
institution of the criminal action. Hence, partial
payment made subsequent to the commission of estafa
does not reduce the amount misappropriated which is
the basis of the penalty.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
• A private person who procures a loan by means of
deceit through a falsified public document of mortgage,
but who effects full settlement of the loan within the
period agreed upon, does not commit the crime of
Estafa, there being no disturbance of proprietary rights
and no person defrauded thereby. The crime
committed is only falsification of public document.
• "Prejudice" consists in:
1. The offended party being deprived of his money or
property as a result of the fraud
2. Disturbance in property rights
3. Temporary prejudice
Through conversion or misappropriation
Lee v. People
455 SCRA 25, 2005
FACTS: Atoz Trading Corporation engaged in the trading of
animal feeds. Robert Crisanto Lee was the corporation's
sales manager from early 90's to 1994. In the course of
Lee's employment therewith, he was able to bring in Ocean
Feed Mills as a client. Having "personally found" Ocean Feed
Mills, he handled said account. Transactions between the
two companies were then coursed through Lee, so that it
was upon the latter's instructions that Ocean Feed Mills
addressed its payments through telegraphic transfers to
either "Atoz Trading and/or Robert Lee" or "Robert Lee".
When [petitioner] ceased reporting for work in 1994, Atoz
audited some of the accounts handled by him. It was then
that Atoz discovered Ocean Feed Mills' unpaid account in the
amount of P318,672.00. Atoz thus notified Ocean Feed Mills
that [petitioner] was no longer connected with the
corporation, and advised it to verify its accounts. Promptly
preparing a certification and summary of payments, Ocean
Feed Mills informed Atoz that they have already fully settled
their accounts and even made overpayments. Atoz filed
several cases of estafa against Lee, and the trial court found
him guilty.
HELD: The elements of estafa with abuse of confidence are
as follows: a) that money, goods or other personal property
is received by the offender in trust, or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of, or to return the same; b) that
there be misappropriation or conversion of such money or
property by the offender; or denial on his part of such
receipt; c) that such misappropriation or conversion or denial
is to the prejudice of another.
The words "convert" and "misappropriate" as used in the
aforequoted law connote an act of using or disposing of
another's property as if it were one's own or of devoting it to
a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To
"misappropriate" a thing of value for one's own use or
benefit, not only the conversion to one's personal advantage
but also every attempt to dispose of the property of another
without a right. Misappropriation or conversion may be
proved by the prosecution by direct evidence or by
circumstantial evidence.
Demand is not an element of the felony or a condition
precedent to the filing of a criminal complaint for estafa.
162

Indeed, the accused may be convicted of the felony under
Article 315, paragraph 1(b) of the Revised Penal Code if the
prosecution proved misappropriation or conversion by the
accused of the money or property subject of the
Information. In a prosecution for estafa, demand is not
necessary where there is evidence of misappropriation or
conversion. However, failure to account upon demand, for
funds or property held in trust, is circumstantial evidence of
misappropriation.
Yang v. People
G.R. No. 195117, 14 August 2013
FACTS: The fact that the entruster bank, Metrobank in this
case, knew even before the execution of the alleged trust
receipt agreements that the covered construction materials
were never intended by the entrustee, accused Yang, for
resale or for the manufacture of items to be sold would take
the transaction between petitioner and Metrobank outside
the ambit of the Trust Receipts Law.
HELD: The subject transactions in the instant case are not
trust receipts transactions. Thus, the consolidated
complaints for Estafa in relation to P.D. No. 115 have no leg
to stand on. The practice of banks of making borrowers sign
trust receipts to facilitate collection of loans and place them
under the threats of criminal prosecution should they be
unable to pay it may be unjust and inequitable, if not
reprehensible. Such agreements are contracts of adhesion
which borrowers have no option but to sign lest their loan be
disapproved. The resort to this scheme leaves poor and
hapless borrowers at the mercy of banks and is prone to
misinterpretation.
Trenas v. People
G. R. No. 195002, 25 January 2012
FACTS: Alocilja wanted to buy a house and lot in Iloilo City.
Treñas, a lawyer and the accused in this case, was
recommended to Luciaja, an employee and niece of Alocilja.
Luciaja acted as an agent of the latter. Treñas informed
Luciaja of the amount of the expenses that will be incurred
in transferring the title of the land under Alocilja’s name.
Luciaja gave P150,000 to Treñas who then issued a receipt
and prepared a deed of sale. Subsequently, Treñas gave
Luciaja two Revenue Official Receipts as evidence of the
payment of transfer taxes and DST. When the latter
consulted with the BIR she found out that the Revenue
Receipts were fake, she demanded the accused to return the
money. The accused issued a check to Luciaja to settle his
accounts. However, upon deposit at PCIBank, Makati
branch, the check was dishonored for the reason that the
account was closed. Despite repeated demands, the accused
failed to pay. An Information was filed in the RTC of Makati
charging the accused with Estafa. He was convicted by the
RTC, and such was affirmed by the CA.
It is the contention of the accused Treñas that the RTC of
Makati does not have jurisdiction over case. According to
him, the prosecution did not present any evidence showing
that the money was given and received in Makati. The
receipt did not state the place; the deed of sale was signed
and notarized in Iloilo City. The accused claims that the
prosecution failed to allege that any of the acts material to
the crime of estafa had occurred in Makati. Thus, the RTC
did not acquire jurisdiction over the case.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
HELD: Under Art. 315(1)(b) of the RPC, the elements of
estafa are: (a) money, goods or other personal property is
received by the offender in trust or on commission, or for
administration, or under any other obligation involving the
duty to make delivery of or return the same; (b) there be
misappropriation or conversion of such money or property
by the offender, or denial on his part of such receipt; (c)
such misappropriation or conversion or denial is to the
prejudice of another; and (d) demand is made by the
offended party to the offender.
In ruling in favor of the accused, the SC agreed that the
prosecution failed to present any evidence that points to
where the offense, or any of its elements, was committed.
Although the prosecution alleged that the check was
dishonored in Makati, such is not an element of the offense
of estafa. It is a settled that venue in criminal cases is
jurisdictional and cannot be waived by the parties.
Brokmann v. People
G.R. No. 199150, 6 February 2012
FACTS: The criminal charge for estafa stemmed from the
failure of the accused to return or remit the proceeds of the
jewelries amounting to P1,861,000. The accused was
engaged in the buy and sell of jewelries. She admitted
receiving the jewelries on a consignment basis as evinced by
a Memorandum of Agreement between the accused and the
private complainant. It is her defense that the prosecution
failed to prove the element of deceit, ill-motive, and/or bad
faith.
HELD: The offense of estafa can be committed in two ways,
either by (a) abuse of confidence or (b) means of deceit.
Deceit is not an essential element of estafa by abuse of
confidence; the breach of confidence takes the place of
fraud or deceit. In this case, the charge against the accused
was for estafa committed by abuse of confidence. Thus, it
was not necessary for the prosecution to prove deceit as this
was not an element of the estafa that the petitioner was
charged with.
Gamboa v. People
G.R. No. 188052, 21 April 2014
It must be pointed out that the law on agency in our
jurisdiction allows the appointment by an agent of a
substitute or sub-agent in the absence of an express
agreement to the contrary between the agent and the
principal. In the case at bar, the appointment of Labrador as
petitioner’s sub-agent was not expressly prohibited by
Quilatan, as the acknowledgement receipt, Exhibit B, does
not contain any such limitation. Neither does it appear that
petitioner was verbally forbidden by Quilatan from passing
on the jewelry to another person before the
acknowledgement receipt was executed or at any other
time. Thus, it cannot be said that petitioner’s act of
entrusting the jewelry to Labrador is characterized by abuse
of confidence because such an act was not proscribed and
is, in fact, legally sanctioned.
Khitri v. People
G.R. No. 210192, 4 July 2016
163

FACTS: Rosalinda and Fernando Khitri (the “Khitris”)
allegedly received in trust the amount of P400,000.00 from
Spouses Hiroshi (Hiroshi) and Belen (Belen) Fukami to be
used in the construction of a factory building to be built on
the ½ portion of the Khitris lot located at Monte Vista Park
Subd., Sto. Nino, Cainta, Rizal but the Khitris misapplied and
converted to their own personal use and benefits said
amount,and despite repeated demands made by Hiroshi and
Belen, the Khitris failed and refused to return the amount of
P400,000.00 to their prejudice.
HELD: Not all the elements of the crime of estafa are
present. The essence of estafa committed with abuse of
confidence is the appropriation or conversion of money or
property received to the prejudice of the entity to whom a
return should be made. The words "convert" and
"misappropriate" connote the act of using or disposing of
another's property as if it were one's own, or of devoting it
to a purpose or use different from that agreed upon. To
misappropriate for one's own use includes not only
conversion to one's personal advantage, but also every
attempt to dispose of the property of another without right.
Here, Rosalinda received P400,000.000 for the purpose of
constructing a garments factory inside the Monte Vista Park
Subdivision, Cainta, Rizal. True to their agreement, she
caused the erection of a two-door studio-type apartment,
one of which would serve as the garments factory. The
Hiroshi and Belen, however posit that the structure was not
in compliance with their agreed plan. Nonetheless, the
purpose of the money had been complied with by the
petitioners, albeit modified.
Ultimately, the amount of P400,000.00 given to the Khitris
could hardly be considered as the damage sustained by the
private complainants. Damage, as an element of estafa, may
consist in: (1) the offended party being deprived of his
money or property as a result of the defraudation; (2)
disturbance in property right; or (3) temporary prejudice. In
this case, the amount was voluntarily given pursuant to a
joint venture agreement for the construction of a garments
factory, and with which the petitioners complied. Absent the
element of misappropriation, the private complainants could
not have been deprived of their money through
defraudation.
Pascual v. People
G.R. No. 204873, 27 July 2016
FACTS: Accused won over Tiongco by appearing to
have expertly facilitated transfers of title in the past while
accelerating the payment of taxes along the way. To this
end, she assured Tiongco that she knew people from the
BIR to whom they could directly pay the capital gains tax
for less. When Tiongco appealed apprehensive, she
would sound urgent (she was allegedly absent from work
for two days to accommodate Tiongco) and, at one point,
incensed (she told Tiongco that she was wasting her time
for not having the cash). To allay Tiongco's fears, the
accused consistently appeared resolute in her purpose
especially when it was time for her to pay the capital
gains tax. In this instance, she 'transacted' inside the BIR
in plain view of Tiongco and thereafter presented her with
a photocopy of the BIR receipt that later turned out to be
forged. The title of the property was not transferred as
promised, while the capital gains tax remained unpaid.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
HELD: The State was able to satisfactorily establish the
elements of estafa, to wit: "(1) that the accused
defrauded another by abuse of confidence or by means
of deceit, and (2) that damage or prejudice capable of
pecuniary estimation is caused to the offended party or
third person." Here, accused Pascual defrauded Tiongco
by pretending that she had "connections" or "contacts"
within the BIR to whom she could allegedly directly pay
the capital gains tax at a reduced amount and also with
whose help and assistance the transfer certificate of title
to the property purchased could be expedited. In fact, in
their first meeting, Pascual impressed upon Tiongco that
she is a person of some power and influence because
she was an employee of the Las Piñas City Assessor's
Office and thus had "connections" or "contacts" within the
BIR and the City Registry of Deeds.
The deceit by which the charade was accomplished is
unmistakable. Accused made certain that Tiongco would
fall prey to her artifice by presenting herself as someone
with extensive connections in the BIR and the Registry of
Deeds being herself an employee of the Assessor's
Office whose function is the appraisal and assessment of
real properties essentially for taxation purposes. She did
not relent until Tiongco prepared the amount of
P130,000.00 supposedly necessary for the payment of
taxes. The accused guaranteed that the money will go as
intended because she has done it many times before and
her transactions turned out well. This, of course, was
pure farce because the title of the property was not
transferred to the private respondent's spouse as
intended, while the capital gains tax remained unpaid.
More importantly, it was discovered later that the BIR
receipt furnished by the accused was a falsified
document per testimony of Hie assistant district revenue
officer of BIR-Las Piñas. This constitutes as the other
half of the offense.
Through false pretenses, fraudulent acts or means
People v. Ong
322 SCRA 38
FACTS: Ong deposits checks then withdraws from the
deposited accounts on the same day without waiting for the
required 5-day clearance period for checks. The drawee
banks subsequently dishonored deposited checks.
HELD: NOT guilty of estafa. Ong had no knowledge of lack
of funds, checks not issued in payment of an obligation as
required by the RPC. Lastly, Ong did not employ deceit in
withdrawing the money as the bank waived the 5-day
clearance period for its preferred customers where Ong was
one of those.
Salcedo v. CA
139 SCRA 59
FACTS: Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan
Guaranty Company, Inc. at Iligan City, which was engaged
in the business of property insurance. Said company had
been suspended from operating and eventually closed by the
Insurance Commissioner since February 21, 1968. Salcedo
was aware of the suspension and closure order but he
164

deliberately concealed the same from complainant Ponce
when he issued on March 18, 1968 a P50,000 fire insurance
policy unto the complainant, and collected Pl,095.80 as
premium. Eventually, the City Court of Iligan City convicted
Salcedo of estafa.
HELD: Salcedo was the local branch manager of Manhattan
Guarantee. When he signed and issued the policy and
collected the premium thereof, he had knowledge that his
company was no longer authorized to conduct insurance
business. This knowledge makes him liable under paragraph
2(a) of Art. 315 of the RPC which provides that:
“2. By means of any of the following false pretenses or
fraudulent acts executed prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud:
(a) By using a fictitious name, or falsely pretending to
possess power, influence, qualifications, property, credit,
agency, business or imaginary transactions; or by means of
other similar deceits.”
To secure a conviction for estafa under par. 2(a) of Art. 315
of the RPC, the following requisites must concur:
• that the accused made false pretenses or fraudulent
representations as to his power, influence,
qualifications, property, credit, agency, business or
imaginary
• that such false premises or fraudulent representations
constitute the very cause which induced the offended
party to part with his money or property, and that as
result thereof, the offended party suffered damage.
All these requisites are present in this case. The deliberate
concealment by Salcedo of the fact that his company was no
longer authorized to engage in the business of insurance
when he signed and issued the fire insurance policy and
collected the premium payment constitutes false
representations or false pretenses, upon which the
complainant relied when he paid the premium.
Metrobank v. Reynado
G.R. No. 164538, 9 August 2010
Novation not a mode of extinguishing
criminal liability for estafa; Criminal liability for estafa not
affected by compromise or novation of contract.
A compromise or settlement entered into after the
commission of the crime does not extinguish accused’s
liability for estafa. Neither will the same bar the prosecution
of said crime. Accordingly, in such a situation, as in this
case, the complaint for estafa against respondents should
not be dismissed just because petitioner entered into a Debt
Settlement Agreement with Universal.
People v. Montaner
G.R. No. 184053, 31 August 2011
FACTS: This is a case for estafa filed against Montaner who
issued bum checks in favor of Solis, in exchange for cash.
Solis demanded that accused settle her accounts. Despite
receipt of the demand letter, accused Montaner failed to pay
the value of the ten (10) checks, thus private complainant
Solis filed the instant complaint for estafa. To exculpate
herself from criminal liability, accused Virginia Baby P.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Montaner denied the allegations that she issued ten (10)
checks in private complainant’s favor claiming that the ten
(10) checks were borrowed from her by one Marlyn Galope
because the latter needed money. She gave the ten checks
to Galope, signed the same albeit the space for the date,
amount and payee were left blank so that the checks cannot
be used for any negotiation. She further told Galope that the
checks were not funded. When she learned that a case was
filed against her for estafa, she confronted Marlyn Galope
and the latter told her that money will not be given to her if
she will not issue the said checks. She has no knowledge of
the notice of dishonor sent to her by private complainant
and claimed that her husband, who supposedly received the
notice of dishonor left for abroad in July 1996 and returned
only after a year, that is, in 1997.
The Court, nonetheless, found Montaner guilty of estafa.
The elements of estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of
the Revised Penal Code are: (1) the postdating or issuance
of a check in payment of an obligation contracted at the
time the check was issued; (2) lack of sufficiency of funds to
cover the check; and (3) damage to the payee.
HELD: In the case at bar, the prosecution sufficiently
established appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt for
estafa under paragraph 2(d), Article 315 of the Revised
Penal Code. According to Solis’s clear and categorical
testimony, appellant issued to him the 10 postdated
Prudential Bank checks, each in the amount of P5,000.00 or
a total ofP50,000.00, in his house in exchange for their cash
equivalent.
Solis wrote appellant a demand letter dated
October 13, 1996 which was received by appellant’s husband
to inform appellant that her postdated checks had bounced
and that she must settle her obligation or else face legal
action from Solis. Appellant did not comply with the demand
nor did she deposit the amount necessary to cover the
checks within three days from receipt of notice. This gave
rise to a prima facie evidence of deceit, which is an element
of the crime of estafa, constituting false pretense or
fraudulent act as stated in the second sentence of paragraph
2(d), Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code.
As for appellant’s claims that she merely entrusted
to Galope the blank but signed checks imprudently, without
knowing that Galope would give them as a guarantee for a
loan, the Court views such statements with the same
incredulity as the lower courts.
Evidence, to be believed, must not only proceed
from the mouth of a credible witness, but it must be credible
in itself – such as the common experience and observation
of mankind can approve as probable under the
circumstances. The Court has no test of the truth of human
testimony, except its conformity to our knowledge,
observation and experience. Whatever is repugnant to these
belongs to the miraculous and is outside judicial
cognizance.
Franco v. People
G.R. No. 171328 & 171335, 16 February 2011
FACTS: Accused presented themselves to the victim as
persons possessing the authority and capacity to engage in
the financing of used vehicles in behalf of Final Access
165
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

Marketing. This was a clear misrepresentation considering

1. That a person has sufficient funds in or credit with the
their previous knowledge complaints as regards the failure of
drawee bank when he makes or draws and issues a
Final Access Marketing to deliver the motor vehicles bought.
check
The victim relied on their misrepresentations and parted with
2. That he fails to keep sufficient funds or to maintain a
her money. Almost a week passed by, but accused did not
credit to cover the full amount of the check if
deliver the said motor vehicle. They also did not fulfill their
presented within a period of 90 days from the date
subsequent promise to provide a replacement or to refund
appearing thereon
her payment. When the victim visited the office of Final
3. That the check is dishonored by the drawee bank
Access Marketing to demand the return of her money, it was
already closed. She could not locate any of them except for
• Gravamen of BP 22: issuance of the check, not the
Franco who denied any wrongdoing. Consequently, she
payment of the obligation. The law has made the mere
suffered damage.
act of issuing a bum check a malum prohibitum
HELD: In the prosecution for the crime of estafa committed
• BP 22 v. Estafa under Article 315 par 2 (d):
under Article 315, paragraph 2(a) of the Revised Penal Code,
1. Unlike estafa, element of DAMAGE is NOT
there must be evidence of false representation or false
REQUIRED in BP 22
pretense on the part of the accused to prove reasonable
doubt. In this case, the employee’s act of soliciting a client
2. Article 315 par 2 (d) of estafa has DECEIT as an
despite previous knowledge of several complaints against his
element. BP 22 does NOT require such element.
or her employer for failure to deliver the motor vehicle that
was the subject of the agreement, is tantamount to
3. Also, the mere fact of postdating or issuing a
misrepresentation
check when the drawer had no or insufficient
funds in the bank makes someone liable under
The elements of the crime of estafa under Article 315, par.
Article 315 par 2(d) of estafa. BP 22, 1st paragraph
2(a) of the Revised Penal Code are: (1) there must be a
requires knowledge of insufficient funds.
false pretense, fraudulent acts or fraudulent means; (2) such
false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent means must be
• The check may be drawn and issued to "apply on
made or executed prior to or simultaneously with the
account of for value": BP 22 does not make a
commission of the fraud; (3) the offended party must have
distinction as to whether the bad check is issued in
relied on the false pretense, fraudulent act or fraudulent
payment of an obligation or to merely guarantee an
means and was thus induced to part with his money or
obligation
property; and (4) as a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage.
• Illustration for Section 1, par 1, element 4:

There was a mistake in naming the payee of the check;

Bouncing Checks
so the drawer ordered the bank to stop payment; and it
BP 22
appeared that the drawer knew at the time that the check
was issued that he had no sufficient funds in the bank. In
this case, NO VIOLATION OF BP 22!
BP Blg. 22 Even if the check would have been dishonored for
An Act Penalizing the Making or Drawing and insufficiency of funds had he not ordered the bank to stop
Issuance of a Check Without Sufficient Funds or payment, there was a VALID reason (wrong payee) for
Credit and For Other Purposes ordering the bank to stop payment.

• BP 22: person liable when the check is drawn by a

Section 1 corporation, company, or entity: the person/s who
BP 22 may be violated in TWO ways ACTUALLY SIGNED the check in behalf of such drawer

Elements of the offense defined in the first paragraph of Section 2

Section 1:
1. That a person makes or draws and issues any check
2. That the check is made or drawn and issued to apply
on account or for value
3. That the person who makes or draws and issues the
check knows at the time of issue that he does not have
sufficient funds in or credit with the drawee bank for
the payment of such check in full upon its presentment
4. That the check
a. is subsequently dishonored by the drawee bank
for insufficiency of funds or credit, or
b. would have been dishonored for the same reason
had not the drawer, without any valid reason,
ordered the bank to stop payment
Elements of the offense defined in the second paragraph of
Section 1:
Section establishes a prima facie evidence of "knowledge of
insufficiency ": when payment of the check is refused by the
drawee because of insufficient funds / credit when the check
is presented within 90 days from the date of such check
Exception:
a. when the maker or drawer pays the holder thereof of
the amount due thereon or
b. makes arrangements for payment in full by the drawee
of such check within 5 banking days after receiving
notice that such check has not been paid by the
drawee
Section 3
Section 3 requires the drawee

166

1. in case where drawee refuses to pay the check to the
holder:
à Write, print, or stamp on the check or to be attached
thereto the reason for dishonoring.
2. in case drawee bank received an order to stop
payment, it should state in the notice that there were
no sufficient funds in or credit with it for the payment
in full of the check, if such be the fact.
Introduction in evidence of any unpaid and dishonored
check with the drawer's refusal to pay indicated thereon or
attached thereto is prima facie evidence of:
1. the making or issuance of the check
2. the due presentment to the drawee for payment and
the dishonor thereof; and
3. the fact that the check was properly dishonored for the
reason indicated thereto
Nievas v. Dacuycuy
181 SCRA 1
FACTS: Nievas paid 9 checks to Shell that were all
dishonored. He was charged with 9 counts of estafa under
the RPC. 1 count of violation of BP 22. Nievas invokes
double jeopardy.
HELD: No double jeopardy as they are separate offenses.
Estafa needs deceit and damage, not for pre-existing
obligations, crime against poperty and is mala in se. BP 22:
deceit and damage not required because mere issuance
gives presumption of guilt, can be for a pre-existing debt,
crime against public order and is mala prohibitum.
Que v. People
154 SCRA 160
FACTS: Que issued checks in Quezon City. Checks were used
to pay for the purchase made in Sta. Mesa. Checks were
issued NOT to pay for an obligation but just to guarantee
payment. Checks later dishonored.
HELD: QC RTC has jurisdiction.
Fact that checks was issued to guarantee a debt NOT
important as law does not distinguish-- included as long as it
was an issued check that subsequently bounced.
Lim Lao v. CA
274 SCRA 572
FACTS: Lim was an officer in a company where she signed
checks, while it was her superior who filled the blanks.
Check which she signed as issuer was dishonored. Convicted
for violating BP 22 as law creates a presumption of
knowledge of the insufficiency of funds when check is
issued.
HELD: NOT guilty. Lim lacked actual knowledge of the
insufficiency of funds. Presumption in law is rebuttable by
contrary evidence. Also, no notice of the dishonor was given
to her; notice only given to the employer which is not
sufficient as law requires personal notice.
Mitra v. People
G.R. No. 191404, 5 July 2010
Criminal Law II Review Notes
FACTS: Accused was charged with several counts of B. P.
Blg. 22 after failing to make good on checks issued by her.
She, however, consistently maintained that she never
received a notice of dishonor, and cannot thus be convicted
for the offense. During one hearing, complainant
successfully served a demand letter upon accused. The latter
still failed to comply with the demand. Accused was later
convicted.
HELD: The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction.
Accused’s claim that she had no knowledge of the dishonor
of the checks was clearly untrue. Though it is possible that
she failed to receive the initial demand letter sent by
complainant, records indicate that she received the second
demand letter while attending a hearing held before the
lower court. This notwithstanding, accused still failed to fund
the checks.
Resterio v. People
GR No. 177438, 24 September 2012
FACTS: In this case, Amada issued a China Bank Check in
the amount of P50,000.00 payable to the complainant.
When the check was presented for payment, it was
dishonored. Amada argued that the check was just issued
as collateral and it was not even hers. She claims that she
merely borrowed the check of a friend so that she could use
it as collateral for the transaction with the complainant. The
complainant also presented registry receipts to show that he
has sent notices of dishonor to Amada.
HELD: The Supreme Court said that to be made liable for
B.P. 22, the following elements must concur:
(1) The making, drawing, and issuance of any check
to apply for account or for value;
(2) The knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer
that at the time of issue there were no sufficient funds in or
credit with the drawee bank for the payment of such check
in full upon its presentment; and
(3) The dishonor of the check by the drawee bank for
insufficiency of funds or credit or the dishonor for the same
reason had not the drawer, without any valid cause, ordered
the drawee bank to stop payment.
According to the Supreme Court, the fact that the checks
were merely issued as collateral or that Amada was not the
owner of the same is immaterial. B.P. 22 punishes the mere
act of issuing a worthless check since the law is a malum
prohibitum. The law did not look either at the actual
ownership of the check or of the account against which it
was made, drawn, or issued, or at the intention of the
drawer, maker, or issuer. However, the Court also said that
the presentation of registry receipts is not enough to
establish that notice of dishonor was given to the accused.
The giving of the written notice of dishonor does not only
supply the proof for the second element arising from the
presumption of knowledge the law puts up but also affords
the offender due process. The law allows the offender to
avoid prosecution if she pays the holder of the check the
amount due thereon within five (5) banking days after
receiving the notice of dishonor.
The mere presentment of registry receipts was not sufficient
to establish the fact that written notices of dishonor had
been sent to or served on the petitioner as the issuer of the
167

check. Considering that the sending of the written notices of
dishonor had been done by registered mail, the registry
return receipts by themselves were not proof of the service
on the petitioner without being accompanied by the
authenticating affidavit of the person or persons who had
actually mailed the written notices of dishonor, or without
the testimony in court of the mailer or mailers on the fact of
mailing. The authentication by affidavit of the mailer or
mailers was necessary in order for the giving of the notices
of dishonor by registered mail to be regarded as clear proof
of the giving of the notices of dishonor to predicate the
existence of the second element of the offense. No less
would fulfill the quantum of proof beyond reasonable doubt.
Thus, Amada was acquitted.
San Mateo v. People
G.R. No. 200090, 6 March 2013
FACTS: Petitioner San Mateo issued postdated checks in
partial payment of the assorted yarns bought from ITSP
International. When Sehwani deposited one of the checks, it
was dishonored for insufficiency of funds. San Mateo failed
to settle her outstanding account, despite Sehwani’s
requests for payment.
HELD: Relating to the second element of violation of B.P. 22,
Section 2 of said law creates the presumption that the issuer
of the check has been aware of the insufficiency of funds
when he has issued a check and the bank dishonors it. This
presumption, however, arises only after it has been proved
that the issuer has received a written notice of dishonor and
that, within five days from receipt thereof, has failed to pay
the amount of the check or to make arrangements for its
payment.
In this case, there is no basis in concluding that San Mateo
knew of the insufficiency of her funds. While she may have
requested to Sehwani to defer depositing all checks, this did
not amount to an admission that, when she issued the
checks, she knew that she would have no sufficient funds in
the drawee bank to pay for them
Dela Cruz v. People
G.R. No. 163494, 3 August 2016
FACTS: Tan entered into several business transactions with
the petitioner sometime in 1984 to 1985, whereby Tan
supplied and delivered to the petitioner rolls of textile
materials worth P27,090,641.25. For every delivery made by
Tan, the petitioner issued post-dated checks made payable
to "Cash". When presented for payment, however, some of
the checks issued by the petitioner to Tan were dishonored
by the drawee-bank for being "Drawn Against Insufficient
Funds" or "Account Closed". The replacement checks later
issued by the petitioner were still dishonored upon
presentment for payment.
The fourth batch of twenty-three (23) replacement checks
issued by the petitioner to Tan became the subject of his
complaint. All checks were dated March 30, 1987 and drawn
against Family Bank & Trust Co. (FBTC), but were issued for
different amounts totaling P6,226,390.29. The 23 checks
were still later dishonored by the drawee-bank FBTC for the
reason "Account Closed." During trial, petitioner insisted that
she failed to receive any notice of dishonor on the subject
Criminal Law II Review Notes
checks, which rendered absent the element of knowledge of
insufficient funds.
HELD: Petitioner's acquittal is warranted. To be liable for
violation of B.P. [Blg.] 22, the following essential elements
must be present: (1) the making, drawing, and issuance of
any check to apply for account or for value; (2) the
knowledge of the maker, drawer, or issuer that at the time
of issue he does not have sufficient funds in or credit with
the drawee bank for the payment of the check in full upon
its presentment; and (3) the subsequent dishonor of the
check by the drawee bank for insufficiency of funds or credit
or dishonor for the same reason had not the drawer, without
any valid cause, ordered the bank to stop payment. law
Although a notice of dishonor is not an indispensable
requirement in a prosecution for violation of B.P. Blg. 22 as
it is not an element of the offense, evidence that a notice of
dishonor has been sent to and received by the accused is
actually sought as a means to prove the second element.
Jurisprudence is replete with cases that underscore the value
of a notice of dishonor in B.P. Blg. 22 cases, and how the
absence of sufficient proof of receipt thereof can be fatal in
the prosecution's case.
To support its finding that the petitioner knew of the
insufficiency of her funds with the drawee bank, the RTC
merely relied on the fact that replacement checks had been
issued, in lieu of those that were originally issued to pay for
the petitioner's obligation with Tan. The Court finds the
conclusion misplaced, considering that the last batch of
replacement checks, which eventually became the subject of
these cases, were precisely intended to address and
preclude any dishonor. Thus, the replacement checks dated
30 March 1987 were purposely drawn against a different
checking account with FBTC, different from the old checks
that were drawn against another drawee bank.
The prosecution also attempted to prove the petitioner's
receipt of a notice of dishonor by referring to a demand
letter dated 8 August 1987, along with a registry receipt
showing that the letter was sent by registered mail, and the
registry return card showing its receipt by a certain Rolando
Villanueva on August 25, 1987. Given the circumstances and
the manner by which the documents were presented during
the trial, the presumption that could lead to evidence of
knowledge of insufficient funds failed to arise. It is not
enough for the prosecution to prove that a notice of
dishonor was sent to the drawee of the check. The
prosecution must also prove actual receipt of said notice,
because the fact of service provided for in the law is
reckoned from receipt of such notice of dishonor by the
drawee of the check. The burden of proving notice rests
upon the party asserting its existence. Ordinarily,
preponderance of evidence is sufficient to prove notice. In
criminal cases, however, the quantum of proof required is
proof beyond reasonable doubt. Hence, for B.P. Blg. 22
cases, there should be clear proof of notice. Moreover, for
notice by mail, it must appear that the same was served on
the addressee or a duly authorized agent of the addressee.
From the registry receipt alone, it is possible that petitioner
or his authorized agent did receive the demand letter.
Possibilities, however, cannot replace proof beyond
reasonable doubt. The consistent rule is that penal statutes
have to be construed strictly against the State and liberally
in favor of the accused. The absence of a notice of dishonor
necessarily deprives the accused an opportunity to preclude
168

a criminal prosecution. As there is insufficient proof that
petitioner received the notice of dishonor, the presumption
that he had knowledge of insufficiency of funds cannot arise.
Meanwhile, notwithstanding the petitioner's acquittal, she
remains liable for the payment of civil damages equivalent to
the face value of the 23 subject checks, totaling
P6,226,390.29. Acquittal from a crime does not necessarily
mean absolution from civil liability. In this case, it was not
established that the petitioner had paid the amounts covered
by the checks.
Article 316. Other forms of swindling
I. Paragraph 1: By conveying, selling, encumbering,
or mortgaging any real property, pretending to be
the owner of the same.
Elements:
1. That the thing be real property, such as a parcel of land
or a building
2. That the offender who is not the owner of said property
should represent that he is the owner thereof
3. That the offender should have executed acts of
ownership (selling, leasing, encumbering, or
mortgaging the real property)
4. That the act be made to the prejudice of
a. the owner or
b. a third person
Example:
A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold the same
parcel of land to C, representing to the latter that he (A) was
the owner thereof. At the time he sold the land to C, A was
no longer the owner of the property.
The thing disposed of must be real property
If property is chattel: ESTAFA!
There must be EXISTING real property
If accused sold non-existent land, he is guilty of estafa
by means of false pretenses.
Deceit consisting in false pretense
Article 316 only penalizes only those who PRETEND to be
the owner of property. Where the accused CLAIMS to be the
owner, especially if he has a Certificate of Title, there was
no pretension even if his ownership is defective and
later compelled to return the property to the person found to
be the true owner of the property.
Even if the deceit is practiced against the second purchaser
and the damage is incurred by the first purchaser, there is
violation of Art 316 par 1.
A sold a parcel of land to B. Later, A sold the same parcel
of land to C, representing to the latter that he (A) was still
the owner thereof. C registered the sale in his favor.
Consequence: B lost the property due to non-registration in
his favor.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Hence, damage fell on B, the first purchaser, while
deceit was practiced against C, second purchaser. A will still
be liable under Art 316 par 1 if B files a crim case.
Mere intent to cause damage NOT sufficient. There must be
actual damage. In fact, fine prescribed is based on the
damage caused
Art 316 par 1 v. Art 315 par 2(a)
Art 316 par 1: the offender exercises acts of ownership
over the property as part of the false representation. On the
other hand, Art 315 par 2(a) does not need this
circumstance.
II. Paragraph 2: By disposing of real property
as free from encumbrance, although such
encumbrance be not recorded.
Elements:
1. That the thing disposed be real property
2. That the offender knew that the real property was
encumbered, whether the encumbrance be recorded or
not.
3. That there must be express representation by the
offender that the real property is free from
encumbrance
4. That the act of disposing real property be made to the
damage of another
Example:
A mortgaged his property to B. Later, A, misrepresenting
that the property is free from encumbrance, mortgaged it
again, this time to C.
But if C knew that the property had already been
mortgaged to B, C cannot complain, as there is neither
deceit nor fraud.
"Shall dispose of the same"
The act constituting the offense is the DISPOSING of the
real property FALSELY REPRESENTING that it is free from
encumbrance.
"Shall dispose": includes encumbering or mortgaging.
"Encumbrance": every right or interest in the land
existing in favor of third persons
• Mortgage
• Ordinary lease
• Attachment
• Lien of a judgment
• Execution sale
The offended party must have been deceived, that is, he
would not have granted the loan had he known that the
property was already encumbered.
When the loan HAD ALREADY BEEN GRANTED when
defendant later offered the property as security for the
payment of the loan, Article 316, par 2 is NOT applicable
Conflicting jurisprudence: "Although such encumbrance be
not recorded"
169

Notwithstanding this phrase, some cases held that the
encumbrance must be legally constituted! In these cases,
since the encumbrances were NOT registered, accused were
acquitted.
Thing disposed must be REAL property
If the thing encumbered and disposed is personal
property, Article 319 applies (punishing one who sells or
pledges personal property already subject to encumbrance.)
Real property may be registered under any system of
registration
This paragraph applies whether the property is registered
under the Spanish system or under the Land Registration
Act.
III. Paragraph 3: By wrongful taking by the
owner of his personal property from its
lawful possessor
Elements:
1. That the offender is owner of personal property
2. That the personal property is in the lawful possession
of another
3. That the offender wrongfully takes it from its lawful
possessor.
4. That prejudice is caused to the possessor or third
person
Example:
Accused pawned his watch to complainant. Later,
pretending to redeem watch, accused asked offended party
to give him the watch. Once getting hold of his watch, he
ran away without paying the loan.
Note: not theftà an owner cannot be held guilty of theft
of his own property.
Offender owner of personal property
If third person and his purpose in taking it is to return it
to the owner, the crime is THEFT.
In lawful possession of another
Finder of a lost thing is NOT a lawful possessor, it being
the obligation of a finder to give the thing to the owner or to
the authorities.
"Wrongful taking"
If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1)
VIOLENCE, and (2) WITH INTENT TO GAIN/ CHARGE THE
BAILEE WITH ITS VALUE the crime is ROBBERY.
If owner takes the thing from a bailee through (1)
VIOLENCE and (2) WITHOUT INTENT TO GAIN, crime is
GRAVE COERCION
If owner took the thing (1) without consent and
knowledge of possessor and (2) later charged possessor of
the value of the property, crime is ESTAFA.
"To the prejudice of possessor or third person"
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Example: A pledged his watch to B, his dorm mate to
secure a loan of P3000. One night, A took the watch from
the drawer of B without B's consent and knowledge and
used it for the night. A returned later and was about to put
back the watch in the drawer when B surprised A.
Is A liable under 316, par 3? NO. THERE WAS NO
DAMAGE CAUSED TO B.
IV. By executing any fictitious contract to the
prejudice of another
Elements:
1. Fictitious contract
2. Damage to another
Example:
A person who simulates (consideration is fictitious) a
conveyance to another for the purpose of defrauding a
creditor.
Note: The example above may become a crime of fraudulent
insolvency (Art 314) if the conveyance is real and made for
a consideration.
V. By accepting any compensation for services
not rendered or for labor not performed
Elements:
1. Compensation wrongfully received (accepting
compensation for service not rendered nor performed)
2. Malicious failure to return the compensation wrongfully
received (fraud)
There must be fraud in this crime, otherwise, it will only be a
case of solutio indebiti under the Civil Code.
VI. Paragraph 6: By selling, mortgaging, or
encumbering real property or properties
with which the offender guaranteed the
fulfillment of his obligation as surety
Elements:
1. That the offender is a surety in a bond given in a
criminal or civil action.
2. That he guaranteed the fulfillment of such obligation
with his real property/properties
3. That he sells, mortgages, or, in any other manner
encumbers said real property
4. That such sale, mortgage or encumbrance is
a. without express authority from the court
b. made before the cancellation of his bond, or
c. made before being relieved from the obligation
contracted by him
• There must be damage caused under this article.
Article 317. Swindling a minor
Elements:
1. That the offender takes advantage of the inexperience
or emotions or feelings of a minor.
170
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

2. That he induces such minor to:

(estafa) is committed by a syndicate consisting of five or
a. assume an obligation
more persons formed with the intention of carrying out the
b. to give release, or
unlawful or illegal act, transaction, enterprise or scheme,
c. to execute a transfer of any property right
and the defraudation results in the misappropriation of
3. That the consideration is
money contributed by stockholders, or members of rural
a. some loan of money
banks, cooperative, "samahang nayon(s)", or farmers
b. credit, or
association, or of funds solicited by
c. other personal property
corporations/associations from the general public.
4. That the transaction is to the detriment of such minor.
When not committed by a syndicate as above defined, the
Note: Only personal property, since a minor can not convey
penalty imposable shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion
real property
perpetua if the amount of the fraud exceeds 100,000 pesos.

Article 318. Other deceits

Article 319. Removal, sale or pledge of mortgaged
Elements: property
A.
1. By defrauding or damaging another Elements:
2. by any other deceit not mentioned in the proceeding 2 Acts punishable:
articles A.
1. That personal property is validly mortgaged under the
B. Chattel Mortgage Law
1. By interpreting dreams, making forecasts, telling 2. That the offender knows that such property is so
fortunes, or by taking advantage of the credulity of the mortgaged
public in any other similar manner 3. That he removes such mortgaged personal property to
2. For profit or gain any province or city other than the one in which it was
3. Damage to others located at the time of the execution of the mortgage
4. That the removal is permanent
Note: As in other cases of estafa, DAMAGE should always be 5. That there is no written consent of the mortgage or his
present. executors, administrators or assigns to such removal

B.
Villaflor v. CA 1. That personal property is already pledged under the
192 SCRA 680 Chattel Mortgage Law

FACTS: Villaflor borrowed P1,000, in turn he offered his car 2. That the offender, who is the mortgagor of such
as collateral (Chattel mortgage instituted). Villaflor failed to property, sells or pledges the same or any part thereof
pay the debt but the car could not be foreclosed as the car 3. Such sale/pledge is without the consent of the
was already repossessed. Villaflor was convicted of Estafa. mortgagee which is
i. written
HELD: Gulty of Estafa as there was deceit – he represented ii. at the back of the mortgage and
self as the owner of the car and failed to reveal that the car iii. noted on the record thereof in the office of the
was already mortgaged. register of deeds

Veloso v. CA Chattel mortgage must be valid and subsisting

187 SCRA 504
FACTS: District Auditor Veloso approved 24 vouchers that
led to the disbursement of 23 checks for a project that was
anomalous. He was convicted of Estafa.
HELD: Guilty of Estafa as he was duty bound to ensure the
veracity of the documents. He was negligent as he
approved the vouchers that had mistakes which were
detectable by just using the basic skills of an auditor.
PRESIDENTIAL DECREE NO. 1689
Increasing The Penalty For Certain Forms
Swindling Or Estafa
Any person or persons who shall commit estafa or other
forms of swindling as defined RPC 315 and 316 shall be
punished by life imprisonment to death if the swindling
It is essential that the chattel mortgage be valid and
subsisting. If the chattel mortgage does not contain an
affidavit of good faith and/or is not registered, it is
VOID and CANNOT be a basis for criminal prosecution under
Art 319.
Persons Liable
Even third persons who removed the property to another
province or city are liable because the offender is "ANY
PERSON who shall knowingly remove…"
The removal of the mortgaged property must be coupled
with INTENT TO DEFRAUD.
Of
No violation of Article 319 if the removal was justified.
Filing a civil action for collection, not for foreclosure of
chattel mortgage, relieves the accused of criminal
responsibility. (based on a CA case)

171

If the mortgagee elected to file a suit for collection (not
foreclosure), there can be no violation of Article 319
anymore since the mortgage as a basis of relief has already
been abandoned by the suit for collection.
House (generally considered as immovable) may be a
subject of chattel mortgage by agreement of the parties
Article 319 par 2 also contemplates a second mortgage.
Damage to the mortgagee is not essential.
Estafa (316, disposing Removal, sale or pledge
encumbered property) of mortgaged property
Mortgaged property is sold in disposed of in both cases
Real property Personal property
Property must be sold as Property sold without
free and unencumbered consent of the mortgagee in
writing, even if buyer is
informed that property is
mortgaged
Purpose of law: to protect Purpose of law: to protect
the purchaser the mortgagee
Articles 320 to 326-B. Arson (repealed or amended
by PD 1613 and PD 1744)
Kinds of arson;
1. Arson, under Section 1 of Presidential Decree No.
1613;
2. Destructive arson, under Article 320 of the Revised
Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659;
3. Other cases of arson, under Section 3 of
Presidential Decree No. 1613.
P.D. 1613
Amending the Law on Arson
SECTION 1. Arson. — Any person who burns or sets fire to
the property of another shall be punished by Prision Mayor.
The same penalty shall be imposed when a person sets fire
to his own property under circumstances which expose to
danger the life or property of another.
SECTION 2. Destructive Arson. — The penalty of Reclusion
Temporal in its maximum period to Reclusion Perpetua shall
be imposed if the property burned is any of the following:
1. Any ammunition factory and other establishment where
explosives, inflammable or combustible materials are
stored.
2. Any archive, museum, whether public or private, or any
edifice devoted to culture, education or social services.
3. Any church or place of worship or other building where
people usually assemble.
4. Any train, airplane or any aircraft, vessel or watercraft,
or conveyance for transportation of persons or
property.
5. Any building where evidence is kept for use in any
legislative, judicial, administrative or other official
proceedings.
6. Any hospital, hotel, dormitory, lodging house, housing
tenement, shopping center, public or private market,
Criminal Law II Review Notes
theater or movie house or any similar place or building.
7. Any building, whether used as a dwelling or not,
situated in a populated or congested area.
(NOTE: SECTION 2 IS REPEALED BY R.A. 7659 AMENDING
ART. 320)
SECTION 3. Other Cases of Arson. — The penalty of
Reclusion Temporal to Reclusion Perpetua shall be imposed
if the property burned is any of the following:
1. Any building used as offices of the government or any
of its agencies;
2. Any inhabited house or dwelling;
3. Any industrial establishment, shipyard, oil well or mine
shaft, platform or tunnel;
4. Any plantation, farm, pastureland, growing crop, grain
field, orchard, bamboo grove or forest;
5. Any rice mill, sugar mill, cane mill or mill central; and
6. Any railway or bus station, airport, wharf or
warehouse.
SECTION 4. Special Aggravating Circumstances in Arson.
— The penalty in any case of arson shall be imposed in its
maximum period;
1. If committed with intent to gain;
2. If committed for the benefit of another;
3. If the offender is motivated by spite or hatred towards
the owner or occupant of the property burned;
4. If committed by a syndicate.
The offense is committed by a syndicate if its is planned or
carried out by a group of three (3) or more persons.
SECTION 5. Where Death Results from Arson. — If by
reason of or on the occasion of the arson death results, the
penalty of Reclusion Perpetua to death shall be imposed.
SECTION 6. Prima Facie Evidence of Arson. — Any of
the following circumstances shall constitute prima facie
evidence of arson:
1. If the fire started simultaneously in more than one part
of the building or establishment.
2. If substantial amount of flammable substances or
materials are stored within the building not necessary
in the business of the offender nor for household use.
3. If gasoline, kerosene, petroleum or other flammable or
combustible substances or materials soaked therewith
or containers thereof, or any mechanical, electrical,
chemical, or electronic contrivance designed to start a
fire, or ashes or traces of any of the foregoing are
found in the ruins or premises of the burned building or
property.
4. If the building or property is insured for substantially
more than its actual value at the time of the issuance
of the policy.
5. If during the lifetime of the corresponding fire
insurance policy more than two fires have occurred in
the same or other premises owned or under the control
of the offender and/or insured.
6. If shortly before the fire, a substantial portion of the
effects insured and stored in a building or property had
been withdrawn from the premises except in the
ordinary course of business.
7. If a demand for money or other valuable consideration
was made before the fire in exchange for the
desistance of the offender or for the safety of the
person or property of the victim.
172
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

valuable documents, equipment, machineries, apparatus, or

SECTION 7. Conspiracy to Commit Arson. — Conspiracy to other valuable properties were burned or destroyed, the
commit arson shall be punished by Prision Mayor in its mandatory penalty of death shall be imposed.
minimum period.
NOTE: The laws on arson in force today are P.D. 1613 and
SECTION 8. Confiscation of Object of Arson. - The
Article 320 as amended by R.A. 7659. The provisions of P.D.
building which is the object of arson including the land on
1613 that are inconsistent with R.A. 7659 (such as Section 2
which it is situated shall be confiscated and escheated to the
on destructive arson) are DEEMED REPEALED)
State, unless the owner thereof can prove that he has no
participation in nor knowledge of such arson despite the
Attempted, Frustrated, and Consummated Arson
exercise of due on his part.
A person, intending to burn a building, collects some rags,
soaks them in gasoline and places them beside the wooden
Article 320 as amended by R.A. 7659
wall. When he is about to light a match to set fire to the
rags, he is discovered by another who chases him away.
Article 320. Destructive Arson. — The penalty of reclusion
temporal in its maximum period to death shall be imposed
1. Attempted arson: the crime committed in the above
upon any person who shall burn:
scenario is attempted arson, because the offender
1. One (1) or more buildings or edifices, consequent to
commences the commission of the crime directly by
one single act of burning, or as result of simultaneous
overt acts but does not perform all the acts of
burnings, or committed on several or different
execution (the setting of fire to the rags) due to timely
occasions.
intervention.
2. Any building of public or private ownership, devoted to
the use of the public in general, or where people
2. Frustrated arson: if the person is able to set fire to
usually gather or congregate for a definite purpose
the rags but the fire was put out before any part of the
such as but not limited to official governmental function
building was burned.
or business, private transaction, commerce, trade,
worship, meetings and conferences, or merely
3. Consummated arson:
incidental to a definite purpose such as but not limited
a. any charring (CHARING! Whiz na lang, 'day!) of
to hotels, motels, transient dwellings, public
the wood of the building. Not necessary that the
conveyance or stops or terminals, regardless of
wood should be ablaze, sufficient that the fiber of
whether the offender had knowledge that there are
the wood is destroyed
persons in said building or edifice at the time it is set
b. mere scorching or discoloration by heat NOT
on fire, and regardless also of whether the building is
consummated
actually inhabited or not.
c. Setting fire to the contents of the building is
3. Any train or locomotive, ship or vessel, airship or
already consummated arson (setting fire to a
airplane, devoted to transportation or convenience, or
building) even if no part of the building was
public use, entertainment or leisure.
burned.
4. Any building, factory, warehouse installation and any
d. However small a portion of the building is
appurtenances thereto, which are devoted to the
BURNED, there is consummated arson.
service of public utilities.
5. Any building, the burning of which is for the purpose of
In attempted arson, it is not necessary that there be a fire
concealing or destroying evidence of another violation
of law, or for the purpose of concealing bankruptcy or
Look at the facts if there was intent to burn.
defrauding creditors or to collect from insurance.
Sec 3, par 2, PD 1613
Irrespective of the application of the above enumerated
qualifying circumstances, the penalty of death shall
If the property burned is an inhabited house or dwelling,
likewise be imposed when the arson is perpetrated or
it is not required that the house be occupied and that the
committed by two (2) or more persons or by a group of
offender knew it when the house was burned.
persons, regardless of whether their purpose is merely
to burn or destroy the building or the edifice, or the
No complex crime of arson with homicide
burning merely constitutes an overt act in the
commission or another violation of law.
PD 1613: if by reason or on occasion or arson, death
results, homicide is absorbed and the penalty of reclusion
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its maximum period to
death shall also be imposed upon any person who shall
perpetua to Death is imposed.
burn:
Sec 6, PD 1613, 7 Circumstances constituting prima facie
1. Any arsenal, shipyard, storehouse or military powder or
evidence of arson
fireworks factory, ordnance storehouse, archives or
general museum of the government.
Standing alone, unexplained or uncontradicted, any of
2. In an inhabited place, any storehouse or factory of
those circumstance is sufficient to establish the fact of
inflammable or explosive materials.
arson.
If as a consequence of the commission of any of the acts
penalized under this Article, death or injury results, or any

173

People v. Acosta
326 SCRA 618 (2000)
FACTS: Raul Acosta y Laygo was a 38-year old mason.
He used to be a good friend of Almanzor "Elmer"
Montesclaros, the grandson of private complainant,
Filomena M. Marigomen. On February 27, 1996,
Montesclaros, in the belief that Acosta and his wife were
the ones hiding his live-in partner from him, stormed the
house of Acosta and burned their clothes, furniture, and
appliances. Thereafter Acosta attempted to burn down
the house of Marigomen. He was charged with arson
and found guilty.
HELD: Acosta was proved by testimony to have tried to
burn the house of Marigomen. In prosecutions for arson,
proof of the crime charged is complete where the
evidence establishes (1) the corpus delicti, that is, a fire
because of criminal agency; and (2) the identity of the
defendants as the one responsible for the crime. Corpus
delicti means the substance of the crime, it is the fact
that a crime has actually been committed. In arson, the
corpus delicti rule is generally satisfied by proof of the
bare occurrence of the fire and of its having been
intentionally caused. Even the uncorroborated testimony
of a single witness, if credible, may be enough to prove
the corpus delicti and to warrant conviction.
Bautista v. CA
G.R. No. 180448, 9 March 2010
FACTS: Appellant was convicted of arson after burning down
one house and damaging nine adjoining houses in his
neighborhood. Evidence indicated that appellant started a
fire in his room, which caused the destruction of said homes.
The RTC convicted him of destructive arson, as defined in
Art. 320 (1) of the RPC.
HELD: The Supreme Court held that the arson committed by
appellant is simple arson penalized under P. D. No. 1316,
and not under the RPC. There are actually two categories of
arson, namely: Destructive Arson under Article 320 of the
RPC and Simple Arson under P.D. No. 1316. Said
classification is based on the kind, character and location of
the property burned, regardless of the value of the damage
caused. Article 320 contemplates the malicious burning of
structures, both public and private, hotels, buildings,
edifices, trains, vessels, aircraft, factories and other military,
government or commercial establishments by any person or
group of persons. On the other hand, P.D. No. 1316 covers
houses, dwellings, government buildings, farms, mills,
plantations, railways, bus stations, airports, wharves and
other industrial establishments. A close examination of the
records, as well as description of the crime as stated in the
information, reveals that the crime committed is in fact
simple arson because the burned properties are residential
houses.
People v. Baluntong
615 SCRA 455
FACTS: Baluntong set fire to the house of Celerina. Celerina
escaped with her grandsons, Alvin and Joshua. However,
Celerina and Alvin died due to third degree burns while
Joshua suffered second degree burns. Neighbors of Celerina
saw Baluntong putting dry hay where the fire started and
the latter running away when he was seen by the neighbors.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
The RTC found Balunting guilty of Double Murder with
Frustrated Murder.
HELD: The crime is only arson. It was not shown that the
main motive was to kill the persons in the house. The
homicide was a mere consequence of the fire, hence,
absorbed by arson. Article 327. Who are liable for malicious
mischief
Elements:
1. That the offender deliberately caused damage to the
property of another
2. That such act does not constitute arson or other crimes
involving destruction
3. That the act of damaging another's property be
committed mere for the sake of damaging it
* 3rd element presupposes that offender acted due to hate,
revenge, or other evil motive. Sometimes, offender also
inspired by the mere pleasure of destroying things.
"Shall deliberately cause to the property of another any
damage"
This means that the offender should act under this
impulse of specific desire to inflict injury to another. HENCE,
malicious mischief CANNOT be committed through
NEGLIGENCE. Malice and negligence are essentially
incompatible.
"Damage" covers both loss and diminution.
If no malice, only civil liability for damages.
Damaging of property must not result from crime.
Example: damage done as a result of another crime-
accused chased opponent around the house to kill him and
along the way broke various objects.
If after damaging the property, offender removes/ uses
objects of the damage, crime is THEFT
Caballen v. DAR
168 SCRA 247
FACTS: Albeit Abajon’s previous arrangement with the
former owner of the property, Caballes, the new owner,
asked Abajon to vacate the premises where his house was
and where he had planted corn, bananas, and camote.
They had a confrontation over this issue, but reached no
agreement. Abajon then harvested the bananas and
jackfruit. As the harvesting was done without her consent,
Caballes charged him for malicious mischief.
HELD: The essential element of the crime of malicious
mischief which is “damage deliberately caused to the
property of another” is absent because Abajon merely cut
his own plantings. Case was dismissed.
Article 328. Special cases of malicious mischief
Special cases of malicious mischief/"Qualified Malicious
Mischief" are:
174

a. Causing damage to obstruct the performance of public
functions
- distinguished from sedition: the element of public
and tumultuous uprising is not present in Art 328
- but, BOTH have intent to obstruct the
performance or public function
b. Using any poisonous or corrosive substance
c. Spreading any infection or contagion among cattle
d. Causing damage to the property of the National
Museum or National Library, or to any archive or
registry, waterworks, road, promenade, or any other
thing used IN COMMON by the public.
Article 329. Other mischiefs
Poignant Example:
People v. Dumlao where accused scattered around the
municipal building coconut husks containing human
excrements.
Article 330. Damage and obstruction to means of
communication
Example: damaging railways, telegraph or telephone lines
The telegraph and telephone lines must pertain to a
railway system!
If the damage shall result in any derailment of cars, collision
or other accident, a higher penalty shall be imposed
Question: What crime is committed IF as a result of the
damage caused to the railway, certain passengers of the
train are killed?
Answer: It depends
A. If no intent to kill: crime is damages to means of
communication with homicide
B. If with intent to kill: murder (cf. Article 248, par 3)
Article 331. Destroying or damaging statues, public
monuments, or paintings
Article 332. Persons exempt from criminal liability
Crimes involved in the exemption:
1. Theft
2. Swindling (estafa)
3. Malicious mischief
• does not include robbery or estafa through falsification
• reason for exemption: presumed co-ownership
Persons exempted from criminal liability only liablefor CIVIL
liabilities):
1. Spouses, ascendants and descendants, or relatives by
affinity in the same line
2. Widowed spouse with respect to the property which
belonged to the deceased spouse before the same
passed into the possession of another
Criminal Law II Review Notes
3. Brothers and sisters and brothers and sister-in-law IF
LIVING TOGETHER
• Article 332 only applies when BOTH the offender and
offended party are relatives as enumerated in the
provision.
• Does not apply to strangers who participated in the
crime.
• Stepfather, adopted child, paramours, common-law
spouses INCLUDED
Carungcong v. People
612 SCRA 272
FACTS: Carungcong, administratrix of the estate of her
mother filed a complaint-affidavit for estafa against her
brother-in-law, Sato, for executing a fictitious SPA and
selling the properties of her mother. The RTC dismissed the
case because Sato is covered by the exemption under Art.
332 of the RPC.
HELD: Sato is covered by the exemption from criminal
liability provided under Art. 332. The death of Sato’s wife did
not dissolve the relationship by affinity between Sato and
Carungcong. However, a complex crime would negate the
exemption under Art. 332 because said provision addresses
specific crimes. Thus, all other crimes are not affected by
the absolutory cause. Thus, for falsifying a public document
and unlawfully selling properties, Sato committed a complex
crime which takes him out of the absolutory clause under
Art. 332 of the RPC.
Title Eleven
CRIMES AGAINST CHASTITY
Chapter One. ADULTERY AND CONCUBINAGE
Article 333. Who are guilty of adultery
Article 334. Concubinage
Chapter Two – RAPE AND ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
Article 335. REPLEALED (Old rape law)
Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness
Chapter Three – SEDUCTION, CORRUPTION OF MINORS,
and WHITE SLAVE TRADE
Article 337. Qualified seduction
Article 338. Simple seduction
Article 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent of
the offended party
Article 340. Corruption of minors
Article 341. White slave trade
Chapter Four – ABDUCTION
Article 342. Forcible abduction
Article 343. Consented abduction
Chapter Five – PROVISIONS RELATIVE TO THE PRECEDING
CHAPTERS OF TITLE ELEVEN
175
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

Article 344. Prosecution of crimes of adultery,

Acts punishable:
concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts
of lasciviousness
1. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;
Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes
2. Having sexual intercourse, under scandalous
against chastity
circumstances;
Article 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians,
3. Cohabiting with her in any other place.
teachers, or other persons entrusted with the
custody of the offended party
Elements:

1. The man is married;

Article 333. Who are guilty of adultery 2. He is either –

Elements: a. Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling;

1. The woman is married;
2. She has sexual intercourse with a man not her
husband;
3. As regards the man with whom she has sexual
intercourse, he must know her to be married.
§ The essence of adultery is the violation of the marital
vow.
§ The gist of the crime is the danger of introducing
spurious heirs into the family.
§ The offended party must be legally married to the
offender at the time of the criminal case.
§ It is not necessary that there be a valid marriage
between the offended husband and the guilty wife.
There is adultery even if the marriage of the guilty wife
is subsequently declared void.
§ Carnal knowledge may be proved by circumstantial
evidence. Direct proof of carnal knowledge is not
necessary to sustain a conviction.
§ Each sexual intercourse constitutes a separate crime of
adultery. Adultery is NOT a continuing offense.
§ Abandonment of the wife without justification is not an
exempting circumstance, but only mitigates the
penalty. Both defendants are entitled to this mitigating
circumstance.
§ A married man who is not liable for adultery because
he did not know that the woman was married, may be
held liable for concubinage. If the woman knew that
the man was married, she may be held liable for
concubinage as well.
§ The acquittal of one of the defendants does not
operate as a cause for acquittal of the other.
§ If the paramour dies, the offended wife may still be
prosecuted because the requirement that both
offenders should be included in the complaint applies
only when both offenders are alive.
§ If the offended party dies, the proceedings must
continue. This article seeks to protect the honor and
reputation not only of the living but of dead persons as
well.
§ Pardon of the offended parties must come BEFORE the
institution of the criminal prosecution, and both
offenders must be pardoned by the offended party.
§ Act of intercourse with the offending spouse
subsequent to the adulterous conduct is an implied
pardon.
§ An agreement to separate, while void under the law,
may be used as evidence to show consent by the
husband to the infidelity of his wife.
Article 334. Concubinage
b. Having sexual intercourse under scandalous
circumstances with a woman who is not his wife;
or
c. Cohabiting with a woman who is not his wife in
any other place;
3. As regards the woman, she knows that the man is
married.
§ Concubinage is a violation of the marital vow.
§ A married man is NOT liable for concubinage for mere
sexual relations with a woman not his wife.
§ ‘Keeping a mistress in the conjugal dwelling’ – no
positive proof of actual intercourse necessary.
§ Conjugal dwelling – the home of the husband and wife
even if the wife happens to be temporarily absent on
any account.
§ ‘Scandalous circumstances’ – any reprehensible word or
deed that offends public conscience, redounds to the
detriment of the feelings of honest persons, and gives
occasion to the neighbors’ spiritual damage or ruin.
(this is essential only in concubinage of the second
type)
§ The people in the vicinity are the best witnesses to
prove scandalous circumstances.
§ When spies are employed, there is no evidence of
scandalous circumstances.
§ ‘cohabit’ – to dwell together, in the manner of husband
and wife.
§ Adultery is punished more severely than concubinage
because of the possible introduction of another man’s
blood into the family, so that the offended husband
may have another man’s son bearing his name and
receiving support from him.
Article 335. REPEALED BY R.A. 8353, ANTI-RAPE
LAW OF 1997
Article 336. Acts of lasciviousness
Elements:
1. Offender commits any act of lasciviousness or
lewdness;
2. The act is committed against a person of either sex;
3. It is done under any of the following circumstances:
a. By using force or intimidation;
b. When the offended party is deprived or reason of
otherwise unconscious; or

176
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

c. By means of fraudulent machination or grave frustration can never take place. In cases of acts of
abuse of authority; lasciviousness, as in all cases of crimes against chastity like
d. When the offended party is under 12 years of age adultery and rape, from the moment the offender performs
or is demented. all the elements necessary for the existence of the felony, he
actually attains his purpose, and from that moment, all the
§ Motive of lascivious acts is not important because the essential elements of the offense have also been
essence of lewdness is in the very act itself. accomplished. Motive of revenge is of no consequence since
§ Embracing, kissing and holding a girl’s breast is an act the essence of lewdness is in the very act itself. He was
of lasciviousness, if the act was done with lewd convicted of consummated acts of lasciviousness.
designs.
§ Example: if the kissing etc. was done inside church, Flordeliz v. People
absence of lewd designs may be proven, and the crime G.R. No. 186441, 3 March 2010
is unjust vexation only. But if the kissing was done in
the house of a woman when she was alone, the FACTS: Accused is the father of AAA and BBB. Evidence
circumstances may prove the accused’s lewd designs. indicated that accused has been molesting his daughter, as
§ Lover’s embraces and kisses are not acts of follows: (a) he inserted his fingers into the private part of
lasciviousness. AAA; and (b) he fondled the private part of BBB. He was
§ The act of lasciviousness must be committed under any later convicted of: (a) rape through sexual assault; and (b)
of the circumstances mentioned in the definition of the acts of lasciviousness.
crime of rape.
§ There is no frustrated crime of acts of lasciviousness. HELD: The Supreme Court agreed with the RTC that there
was rape through sexual assault against AAA. The insertion
Offenses against chastity Abuses against chastity of petitioner’s fingers into the victim’s genital orifice
Committed by a private Committed by a public constituted the crime of rape through sexual assault.
individual, in most cases officer only
Some actual act of Mere immoral or indecent The High Court also held that petitioner’s act of touching
lasciviousness should have proposal made earnestly and BBB’s vagina and playing with it is lascivious conduct.
been executed by the persistently is sufficient Considering that the act was committed on a child less than
offender twelve years old and through intimidation, it is beyond cavil
that petitioner is guilty under R.A. No. 7610. The Supreme
Acts of lasciviousness Attempted Rape Court said it was aware that the Information specifically
Means of committing the crime are the same charged petitioner with Acts of Lasciviousness under the
The offended party in both crimes is a person of either sex RPC, without stating therein that it was in relation to R.A.
The performance of acts of lascivious character is common No. 7610. However, the failure to designate the offense by
statute or to mention the specific provision penalizing the
to both crimes
act, or an erroneous specification of the law violated, does
Acts performed do not Acts performed clearly
not vitiate the information if the facts alleged therein clearly
indicate that the accused indicate that the accused’s
recite the facts constituting the crime charged. The
was to lie with the offended purpose was to lie wit the
character of the crime is not determined by the caption or
party offended woman
preamble of the information or by the specification of the
Lascivious acts are Lascivious acts are
provision of law alleged to have been violated, but by the
themselves the final preparatory to the
recital of the ultimate facts and circumstances in the
objective sought by the commission of rape
complaint or information.
offender

Acts of lasciviousness Unjust vexation

The element of lewd designs There is no motive of lewd
exists designs

People v. Famularcano
G.R. No. L-17163, 28 September 1962

FACTS: Famularcano, a driver at the Camp John Hay,

followed Dionisia after she alighted from the truck. She took
her by the waist, held her to his breast and private parts.
She resisted and was able to extricate herself. She then
walked towards the house of her friend, instead of going
home.

When a complaint for acts of lasciviousness was filed against

him, Famularcano claimed that he had no intention of having
sexual intercourse with her. He did the acts a s a revenge
for what Dionisia’s father did to his wife.

HELD: The accused cannot be convicted of frustrated acts

of lasciviousness for under the very terms of the law such

177
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

R.A. No. 7877

a. Offended party is a virgin, which is presumed if
ANTI-SEXUAL HARASSMENT ACT OF 1995
she is unmarried and of good reputation;
b. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
SECTION 3. Work, Education or Training-related
c. Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
Sexual Harassment Defined. — Work, education or
d. There is abuse of authority, confidence or
training-related sexual harassment is committed by an
relationship on the part of the offender.
employer, employee, manager, supervisor, agent of the
employer, teacher, instructor, professor, coach, trainor, or
2. Seduction of a sister by her brother, or descendant by
any other person who, having authority, influence or moral
her ascendant, regardless of her age or reputation.
ascendancy over another in a work or training or education
environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any
Person liable:
sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the
demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted
1. Those who abused their authority –
by the object of said act.
a. Person in public authority;
(a) In a work-related or employment environment, sexual
b. Guardian;
harassment is committed when:
c. Teacher;
(1) The sexual favor is made as a condition in the
d. Person who, in any capacity, is entrusted with the
hiring or in the employment, re-employment or
education or custody of the woman seduced;
continued employment of said individual, or in
granting said individual favorable compensation,
2. Those who abused confidence reposed in them -
terms, conditions, promotions, or privileges; or
the refusal to grant the sexual favor results in
a. Priest;
limiting, segregating or classifying the employee
b. House servant;
which in any way would discriminate, deprive or
c. Domestic;
diminish employment opportunities or otherwise
adversely affect said employee;
3. Those who abused their relationship -
(2) The above acts would impair the employee's
rights or privileges under existing labor laws; or
a. Brother who seduced his sister;
(3) The above acts would result in an intimidating,
b. Ascendant who seduced his descendant.
hostile, or offensive environment for the
employee.
§ Deceit is not an element of qualified seduction. Abuse
of confidence is the necessary element.
(b) In an education or training environment, sexual
§ The fact that the girl gave her consent to the sexual
harassment is committed:
intercourse is not a defense, because lack of consent is
(1) Against one who is under the care, custody or
not an element of the offense.
supervision of the offender;
§ ‘domestic’ – a person usually living under the same
(2) Against one whose education, training,
roof, pertaining to the same house
apprenticeship or tutorship is entrusted to the
§ Distinguished from rape: if any of the circumstances in
offender;
the crime of rape is present, the crime is not to be
(3) When the sexual favor is made a condition to the
punished under this article
giving of a passing grade, or the granting of
§ In case of a teacher, it is not necessary that he be the
honors and scholarships or the payment of a
teacher of the offended party, as long as he is a
stipend, allowance or other benefits, privileges, or
teacher in the same school.
considerations; or
§ Qualified seduction of a sister or descendant is
(4) When the sexual advances result in an
punished by a penalty next higher in degree. The age
intimidating, hostile or offensive environment for
or reputation of the sister or descendant is irrelevant.
the student, trainee or apprentice.
§ An accused charged with rape cannot be convicted of
qualified seduction under the same information.
Any person who directs or induces another to commit any
act of sexual harassment as herein defined, or who
cooperates in the commission thereof by another without
which it would not have been committed, shall also be held
liable under this Act.

Article 337. Qualified seduction People v. Fontanilla

G.R. No. L-253543, 28 June 1968
Acts punishable:
FACTS: Fe Castro, a fifteen-year old virgin, was brought by
1. Seduction of a virgin over 12 years and under 18 years her mother to the house of the appellant and his second
of age by certain persons, such as a person in wife to serve as a helper. Fe Castro testified that during her
authority, priest, teacher; and stay in the house of Fontanilla for about three months the
accused succeeded in having carnal knowledge of her
Elements: repeatedly, the total number of times she could not recall.

178

She was certain, however, that the accused consummated
the first sexual intercourse with her one night in September.
She also declared that prior to this incident, the accused had
made amorous overtures and advances toward her. Aside
from giving her money, the accused repeatedly promised to
abandon his wife to live with her. Fe Castro repeatedly
yielded to the carnal desires of the accused, as she was
induced by his promises of marriage and frightened by his
acts of intimidation. Their intimacies lasted for almost three
months until her aunt, the wife of the accused, caught them
in flagrante on the kitchen floor. The following day she
returned to her parents, and revealed everything to her
mother two days later. Fontanilla denies everything.
HELD: It was qualified seduction. Anent the said marital
promise, Fontanilla also claims that there is no evidence on
record supporting its veracity. Granting this to be correct, it
is nevertheless settled that deceit, although an essential
element of ordinary or simple seduction, does not need to
be proved or established in a charge of qualified seduction.
It is replaced by abuse of confidence. When the offender is a
public officer, a priest or minister, a servant, domestic, tutor,
teacher, or under any title is in charge of the education or
keeping of the offended woman, as in the present case, the
act is punishable although fraud or deceit may not have
been used or, if employed, has not been proved. The
seduction of a virgin over twelve and under eighteen years
of age, committed by any of the persons enumerated in Art.
337 "is constitutive of the crime of qualified seduction . . .
even though no deceit intervenes or even when such carnal
knowledge were voluntary on the part of the virgin, because
in such a case, the law takes for granted the existence of
the deceit as an integral element of the said crime and
punishes it with greater severity than it does the simple
seduction . . . taking into account the abuse of confidence
on the part of the agent (culprit), an abuse of confidence
which implies deceit or fraud."
Babanto v. Zosa
G.R. No. L-32895, 28 February 1983
FACTS: Babanto, a policeman, brought Dagohoy, 13 years
old and with low mentality, to the ABC Hall where he
succeeded in having sexual intercourse with her. Babanto
was charged with rape but convicted of qualified seduction.
HELD: The complaint filed alleged that the accused abused
his position as policeman by having carnal knowledge of a
13 year old girl. However, there is no allegation that the
complainant was a virgin. Though it is true that virginity is
presumed if the girl is over 12 but under 18, unmarried and
of good reputation, virginity is still an essential element of
the crime of qualified seduction and must be alleged in the
complaint. A conviction of the crime of qualified seduction
without the allegation of virginity would violate the
petitioner’s right to be informed of the nature and cause of
the accusation against him. Petitioner is guilty of rape,
consider the victim’s age, mental abnormality and deficiency.
There was also sufficient intimidation with the accused
wearing his uniform.
Perez v. CA
G.R. No. 107737, 1 October 1999
Criminal Law II Review Notes
FACTS: Perez was able to have sexual intercourse with
Mendoza twice after he promised marriage to her. As he did
not make good on said promises, Mendoza filed a complaint
for Consented Abduction. The trial court found that the acts
constituted seduction, and so it acquitted him on the charge
of consented abduction. Mendoza then filed a complaint for
qualified seduction. Perez moved to quash on the grounds
of double jeopardy.
HELD: There are similar elements between Consented
Abduction and Qualified Seduction, namely: (1) the offended
party is a virgin, and (2) over 12 but under 18 years of age.
However, there are other elements which differentiate the
two crimes. For example, consented abduction requires the
taking away of the victim without her consent, while
qualified seduction requires that there be abuse of authority,
confidence or relationship. Thus, an acquittal for Consented
Abduction will not preclude the filing of a charge for
Qualified Seduction, because the elements of the two crimes
are different.
Article 338. Simple seduction
Elements:
1. Offended party is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
2. She is of good reputation, single or widow;
3. Offender has sexual intercourse with her;
4. It is committed by means of deceit.
§ Purpose of the law: To punish the seducer who by
means of promise of marriage, destroys the chastity of
an unmarried female of previous chaste character
§ Virginity of the offended party is not required, good
reputation is sufficient.
§ Deceit generally takes the form of unfulfilled promise of
marriage.
§ What about unfulfilled promise of material things, i.e.
the woman agrees to intercourse with a man who
promised to give her jewelry? This is not seduction,
because she is a woman of loose morals. (she is a
high-class prostitute!)
§ Promise of marriage by a married man is not a deceit, if
the woman knew him to be married.
Article 339. Acts of lasciviousness with the consent
of the offended party
Elements:
1. Offender commits acts of lasciviousness or lewdness;
2. The acts are committed upon a woman who is a virgin
or single or widow of good reputation, under 18 years
of age but over 12 years, or a sister or descendant,
regardless of her reputation or age;
3. Offender accomplishes the acts by abuse of authority,
confidence, relationship, or deceit.
§ A male cannot be the offended party in this crime.
§ Even if the offended party consented, the offender is
still liable because the consent is obtained by abuse of
confidence or relationship, or by means of deceit.
§ When the victim is under 12 years, the penalty shall be
one degree higher that that imposed by law.
179
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

Acts of lasciviousness Acts of lasciviousness and Article 336 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised
(Art. 336) (Art. 339) Penal Code, for rape or lascivious conduct, as the case may
Committed under the Committed under be: Provided, That the penalty for lascivious conduct when
circumstances which, had circumstances which, had the victim is under twelve (12) years of age shall be
there been carnal there been carnal reclusion temporal in its medium period; and
knowledge, would amount knowledge, would amount
to rape to either qualified or simple (c) Those who derive profit or advantage therefrom,
seduction whether as manager or owner of the establishment where
the prostitution takes place, or of the sauna, disco, bar,
resort, place of entertainment or establishment serving as a
Article 340. Corruption of minors cover or which engages in prostitution in addition to the
activity for which the license has been issued to said
Act punishable: The promotion or facilitation of the establishment.
prostitution or corruption of persons under age (minors), to
satisfy the lust of ANOTHER SECTION 6. Attempt To Commit Child Prostitution.
There is an attempt to commit child prostitution under
Who are liable: Any person. If the culprit is a public officer Section 5, paragraph (a) hereof when any person who, not
or employee, including those in GOCCs, there is an being a relative of a child, is found alone with the said child
additional penalty of temporary absolute disqualification inside the room or cubicle of a house, an inn, hotel, motel,
pension house, apartelle or other similar establishments,
§ It is not necessary that the unchaste acts shall have vessel, vehicle or any other hidden or secluded area under
been done on the minor. What the law punishes is the circumstances which would lead a reasonable person to
act of a pimp who facilitates the corruption of minors, believe that the child is about to be exploited in prostitution
NOT the performance of unchaste acts upon the minor. and other sexual abuse.
§ A mere proposal will consummate the offense.
§ When the victim is under 12 years, the penalty is one There is also an attempt to commit child prostitution, under
degree higher paragraph (b) of Section 5 hereof when any person is
receiving services from a child in a sauna parlor or bath,
R.A. No. 7610 massage clinic, health club and other similar establishments.
Special protection of Children Against Child Abuse, A penalty lower by two (2) degrees than that prescribed for
Exploitation and Discrimination Act the consummated felony under Section 5 hereof shall be
imposed upon the principals of the attempt to commit the
ARTICLE III crime of child prostitution under this Act, or, in the proper
Child Prostitution and Other Sexual Abuse case, under the Revised Penal Code.

SECTION 5. Child Prostitution and Other Sexual People v. Alhambra

Abuse. — Children, whether male or female, who for G.R. No. 207774, 30 June 2014
money, profit, or any other consideration or due to the
coercion or influence of any adult, syndicate or group,
Sexual abuse under Section 5(b), Article III of R.A. No. 7610
indulge in sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct, are
has three elements: (1) the accused commits an act of
deemed to be children exploited in prostitution and other
sexual abuse. sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct; (2) the said act is
performed with a child exploited in prostitution or subjected
to other sexual abuse; and (3) the child is below 18 years
The penalty of reclusion temporal in its medium period to
old. The law covers not only a situation in which a child is
reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon the following:
abused for profit but also one in which a child, through
coercion or intimidation, engages in any lascivious conduct.
a) Those who engage in or promote, facilitate or
A child is deemed subjected to "other sexual abuse" when
induce child prostitution which include, but are not limited
he or she indulges in lascivious conduct under the coercion
to, the following:
or influence of any adult.
1. Acting as a procurer of a child prostitute;
2. Inducing a person to be a client of a child
Garingarao v. People
prostitute by means of written or oral
G.R. No. 192760,17 September 2014
advertisements or other similar means;
3. Taking advantage of influence or relationship to
FACTS: This case involves a nurse who was accused of
procure a child as prostitute; NPcBCo
sexually abusing a child. Garingarao, a male nurse, entered
4. Threatening or using violence towards a child to
the room of the victim (“AAA”) and asked if she already
engage him as a prostitute; or
took her medicines and if she was still experiencing pains.
5. Giving monetary consideration goods or other
AAA replied that her stomach was no longer painful.
pecuniary benefit to a child with intent to engage
Garingarao then lifted AAA’s bra and touched her left breast.
such child in prostitution.
Embarrassed, AAA asked Garingarao what he was doing.
Garingarao replied that he was just examining her.
(b) Those who commit the act of sexual intercourse of
Garingarao then left the room and returned 15 to 30
lascivious conduct with a child exploited in prostitution or
minutes later with a stethoscope. Garingarao told AAA that
subject to other sexual abuse; Provided, That when the
he would examine her again. Garingarao lifted AAA’s shirt,
victims is under twelve (12) years of age, the perpetrators
pressed the stethoscope to her stomach and touched her
shall be prosecuted under Article 335, paragraph 3, for rape
two nipples. Garingarao then lifted AAA’s pajama and

180

underwear and pressed the lower part of her abdomen.
Garingarao then slid his finger inside AAA’s private part. AAA
instinctively crossed her legs and again asked Garingarao
what he was doing. She asked him to stop and informed him
she had her monthly period. Garingarao ignored AAA and
continued to insert his finger inside her private part.
Garingarao only stopped when he saw that AAA really had
her monthly period. He went inside the bathroom of the
private room, washed his hands, applied alcohol and left.
When BBB arrived at the hospital, AAA insisted on going
home. She only narrated the incident to her parents when
they got home and they went back to the hospital to report
the incident to AAA’s attending physician. Garingarao
insisted that, assuming that the testimonies of the
prosecution witnesses were true, he should not be convicted
of violation of RA 7610 because the incident happened only
once. Garingarao alleges that the single incident would not
suffice to hold him liable under RA 7610.
HELD: Garingao’s contention was incorrect. The Court has
already ruled that it is inconsequential that sexual abuse
under RA 7610 occurred only once.18Section 3(b) of RA
7610 provides that the abuse may be habitual or not. Hence,
the fact that the offense occurred only once is enough to
hold Garingarao liable for acts of lasciviousness under RA
7610 The elements of sexual abuse under Section 5, Article
III of RA 7610 are the following:
1. The accused commits the act of
sexual intercourse or lascivious conduct;
2. The said act is performed with a child
exploited in prostitution or subjected to other
sexual abuse; and
3. The child, whether male or female, is
below 18 years of age.
Under Section 32, Article XIII of the Implementing Rules and
Regulations of RA 7610, lascivious conduct is defined as
follows:
[T]he intentional touching,
either directly or through clothing, of
the genitalia, anus, groin, breast, inner
thigh, or buttocks, or the introduction of
any object into the genitalia, anus or
mouth, of any person, whether of the
same or opposite sex, with the intent to
abuse, humiliate, harass, degrade, or
arouse or gratify the sexual desire of
any person, bestiality, masturbation,
lascivious exhibition of the genitals or
pubic area of a person.
In this case, the prosecution established that Garingarao
touched AAA’s breasts and inserted his finger into her
private part for his sexual gratification. Garingarao used his
influence as a nurse by pretending that his actions were part
of the physical examination he was doing. Garingarao
persisted on what he was doing despite AAA’s objections.
AAA twice asked Garingarao what he was doing and he
answered that he was just examining her.
The Court has ruled that a child is deemed subject to other
sexual abuse when the child is the victim of lascivious
conduct under the coercion or influence of any adult. In
lascivious conduct under the coercion or influence of any
adult, there must be some form of compulsion equivalent to
intimidation which subdues the free exercise of the offended
Criminal Law II Review Notes
party’s free will. In this case, Garingarao coerced AAA into
submitting to his lascivious acts by pretending that he was
examining her.
People v. Rayon
G.R. No. 194236, 30 January 2013
Rape is qualified and the penalty is death, pursuant to
Article 266-B of the RPC, when the victim is below 18 years
of age and the offender is a parent, ascendant, step-parent,
guardian, relative by consanguinity or affinity within the
third civil degree or the common-law spouse of the parent of
the victim.
To justify the imposition of the death penalty, however, it is
required that the special qualifying circumstances of minority
of the victim and her relationship to the appellant be
properly alleged in the information and duly proved during
the trial. Needless to say, these two circumstances must
concur.
People v. Matias
G.R. No. 186469, 13 June 2012
FACTS: Under Sec. 5(b), Art. III of R.A. No. 7610 in relation
to R.A. No. 8353, if the victim of sexual abuse is below
twelve (12) years of age, the offender should not be
prosecuted for sexual abuse but for statutory rape under Art.
266-A(1)(d) of the RPC and penalized with reclusion
perpetua – on the other hand, if the victim is twelve (12)
years or older, the accused should be charged with either
sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No. 7610 or rape under
Art. 266-A of the RPC. However, the accused cannot be
accused of both crimes for the same act because his right
against double jeopardy will be violated. Likewise, rape
cannot be complexed with a violation of Sec. 5(b) of R.A.
No. 7610. Under Art. 48 of the RPC, a felony under the RPC
cannot be complexed with an offense penalized by a special
law.
HELD: At the time of the commission of the crime, the victim
was only 13 years of age. Thus, the accused should be
charged with either sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b) of R.A. No.
7610 or rape under Art. 266-A of the RPC but, not both. The
former offense is punishable by imprisonment of reclusion
temporal medium to reclusion perpetua, while the latter
felony is penalized with reclusion perpetua.
The accused was rightfully charged with and convicted of
sexual abuse under Sec. 5(b), Art. III of R.A. No. 7610.
Article 341. White slave trade
Acts punishable:
In any manner or under any pretext,
1. Engaging in the business of prostitution;
2. Profiting by prostitution;
3. Enlisting the services of women for the purpose of
prostitution.
§ Habituality is not a necessary element of white slave
trade. It is sufficient that the accused has committed
any of the acts in this article.
181
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

§ ‘Under any pretext’ – one who engaged the services of
a woman ostensibly as a maid, but it reality for
prostitution, is guilty under this article.
§ When the victim is under 12 years, the penalty shall be
one degree higher.
G.R. No. L-42665, 30 June 1988
FACTS: Angeles was abducted from the jeepney by Silvestre
Sunpongco with the aid of 3 men and was brought to Hilltop
Hotel where Silvestre succeeded in having sexual intercourse
with her.

Article 342. Forcible abduction
Elements:
1. The person abducted is any woman, regardless or her
age, civil status, or reputation;
2. The abduction is against her will;
3. The abduction is with lewd designs.
§ Abduction – the taking away of a woman from her
house or the place where she may be for the purpose
of carrying her to another place with intent to marry or
corrupt her
§ Crimes against chastity where age and reputation are
immaterial:
o Rape
o Acts of lasciviousness against the will or without
the consent of the offended party
o Qualified seduction of a sister/descendant
o Forcible abduction
§ The taking away of the woman may be accomplished
by means of deceit first and then by means of violence
and intimidation.
§ If the female abducted is under 12 years of age, the
crime is forcible abduction, even if she voluntarily goes
with her abducter.
§ Sexual intercourse is not necessary in forcible
abduction
§ Where there are several defendants, it is enough that
one of them had lewd designs
§ Husband cannot be found guilty of forcible abduction,
as lewd design is wanting. ???
§ When there is deprivation of liberty and no lewd
designs, the crime is kidnapping and serious illegal
detention.
§ Attempt to rape is absorbed in the crime of forcible
abduction, thus there is no complex crime of forcible
abduction with attempted rape (the attempt is evidence
of the lewd designs)
§ Consummated rape may absorb forcible abduction if
the main objective was to rape the victim.
Forcible abduction Corruption of minors
Purpose is to effect his lewd Purpose is to lend the victim
designs on the victim to illicit intercourse with
others
HELD. Article 344 of the RPC and the Rules on Criminal
Procedure require that the offenses of abduction and rape
and other offenses which cannot be prosecuted de oficio
shall not be prosecuted except upon complaint filed by the
offended party. In the CAB, it is admitted that the sworn
complaint of the victim was not formally offered in evidence
by the prosecution. This failure to adhere to the rules
however is not fatal and did not oust the court of its
jurisdiction to hear and decide the case.
Jurisprudence reveals that if the complaint in a case which
cannot be prosecuted de oficio is forwarded to the trial court
as part of the records of the preliminary investigation of the
case, the court can take judicial notice of the same without
the necessity of its formal introduction as evidence for the
prosecution. The records of the case forwarded to the CFI
include the complaint filed by Juanita in the municipal court
of Guiguinto which conducted the preliminary investigation.
Subject complaint was also marked as an exhibit.
People v. Jose
G.R. No. L-28232, 6 February 1971
FACTS: This is the Maggie DeLa Riva story (wherein Maggie
was abducted and brought to the Swanky Hotel, where the
four accused each took turns in raping her)
HELD: While the first act of rape was being performed, the
crime of forcible abduction had already been consummated,
so that each of the three succeeding crimes of the same
nature cannot legally be considered as still connected with
the abduction. In other words, they should be detached
from, and considered independently of, that of forcible
abduction, and therefore, the former can no longer be
complexed with the latter.
As regards therefore, the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape, the first of the crimes committed, the
latter is definitely the more serious crime. Hence, pursuant
to Article 48, the penalty prescribed shall be imposed in the
maximum period. Consequently, the accused should suffer
the extreme penalty of death. No need to consider
aggravating circumstances for the same would not alter the
nature of the penalty imposed.
People v. Alburo
G.R. No. 85822, 26 April 1990

Forcible abduction with
rape
The violent taking of the
woman is motivated by lewd
designs
Crime against chastity
People v. Sunpongco
Kidnapping (with rape)
Not so motivated
Crime against liberty
FACTS: Alburo and 2 other men raped Evelyn Cantina. She
was a jeepney passenger when she was prevented from
leaving the jeepney, taken to a remote place and was raped
there.
HELD: They are guilty of the complex crime of FORCIBLE
ABDUCTION WITH RAPE. In reviewing the evidence
adduced by the prosecution for this crime of Rape, we have
likewise been guided by three well-known principles,
namely, (1) that an accusation of rape can be made

182

with facility, is difficult to prove, but more difficult
for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove;
(2) that in view of the intrinsic nature of the crime of
rape where only two persons are usually involved,
the testimony of the complainant must be scrutinized
with extreme caution; and (3) that the evidence for
the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits,
and cannot be allowed to draw strength from the
weaknesses of the evidence for the defense.
The factual milieu of this criminal charge before us gives us
no reason to depart from these established rules. On the
contrary, we find that Appellant had taken Evelyn away
against her will, with lewd designs, subsequently forced her
to submit to his lust and rendering her unconscious in the
process, thereby justifying his conviction for the complex
crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape under Article 48 in
relation to Articles 335 and 342 of the Revised Penal Code,
with which he has herein been charged.
People v. Godines
G.R. No. 93410, 7 May 1991
FACTS: Ancajas witnessed the killing of Vilaksi by the 2
accused. The accused, upon seeing her with her baby,
dragged her to a vacant lot where they took turns in raping
her. Trial court convicted them of the crime of rape.
HELD: TC correctly held that forcible abduction is absorbed
in the crime of rape if the main objective of the accused is to
rape the victim.
Article 343. Consented abduction
Elements:
1. Offended party is a virgin;
2. She is over 12 and under 18 years of age;
3. Offender takes her away with her consent, after
solicitation or cajolery;
4. The taking away is with lewd designs.
§ Purpose of the law: to prescribe punishment for the
disgrace to her family and the alarm caused therein by
the disappearance of one who is, by her age and sex,
susceptible to cajolery and deceit.
§ If the virgin is under 12, the crime is forcible abduction.
(because law assumes that a person of such age
cannot give consent, so this also applies to those
deprived of reason)
§ The taking away of the girl need not be with some
character of permanence.
§ When there was no solicitation or cajolery and no
deceit and the girl voluntarily went with the man, there
is no crime committed even if they had sexual
intercourse.
Article 344. Prosecution of the crimes of adultery,
concubinage, seduction, abduction, rape and acts of
lasciviousness.
Who may file complaint:
1. For adultery and concubinage – must be prosecuted
upon complaint signed by the offended person
Criminal Law II Review Notes
2. For seduction, abduction or acts of lasciviousness –
must be prosecuted upon complaint signed by
a. the offended party
b. her parents
c. her grandparents or
d. guardians, in the order in which they are named
above.
§ Reason why the crimes against chastity cannot be
prosecuted de oficio – offended woman might prefer to
suffer the outrage in silence rather than go through
with the scandal of a public trial
Adultery and concubinage
§ Offended party cannot institute criminal proceedings
without including BOTH guilty parties, if they are both
alive.
§ Offended party cannot institute criminal proceedings if
he shall have consented or pardoned the offenders.
§ Pardon in adultery and concubinage must come before
the institution of the criminal action and both offenders
must be pardoned by the offended party if said pardon
is to be effective.
§ Consent – given before the adultery or concubinage
was committed. Example: agreement to live
separately.
§ Delay in the filing of the complaint does not indicate
pardon.
Seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness
§ Offended party cannot institute criminal proceedings if
the offender has been EXPRESSLY pardoned by the
offended party, or her parents, grandparents or
guardian.
§ Pardon by the parent, grandparent or guardian must be
accompanied by the express pardon of the offended
woman herself.
§ The right to file action of the parents, grandparents and
guardian shall be exclusive of other persons and shall
be exercised successively in the order provided.
§ When the offended party is a minor, her parents may
file the complaint.
§ When the offended party is of age and is in complete
possession of her mental or physical faculties, she
alone can file the complaint.
§ The guardian must be legally appointed by the court.
§ Rape complexed with another crime against chastity
need not be signed by the offended woman, since rape
is a public crime.
§ When the evidence fails to prove a complex crime of
rape with another crime, and there is no complaint
signed by the offended woman, the accused cannot be
convicted of rape.
§ Marriage of the offender with the offended party in
seduction, abduction, acts of lasciviousness and rape,
extinguishes criminal action or remits the penalty
already imposed.
§ The marriage extinguishes the criminal action even as
to co-principals, accomplices and accessories of the
crime.
§ Marriage must be entered into in good faith and with
the intent of fulfilling the marital duties and obligations.
183

§ Pardon must be given before the institution of criminal
proceedings (bar to prosecution). Marriage may take
place after criminal proceedings have commenced, or
even after conviction (extinguishes criminal action and
remits penalty).
Pilapil v. Ibay-Somera
G.R. No. 80116, 30 June 1989
FACTS: Geiling, a German, was able to obtain a decree of
divorce in Germany against his wife Pilapil, a Filipina. Five
months after the issuance of the divorce decree, Geiling filed
2 complaints for adultery against Pilapil.
She challenged the complaint on the ground that the
complainant, her husband, does not qualify as an offended
spouse having obtained a final divorce decree under his
national law prior to his filing the criminal complaint.
HELD: The crime of adultery, as well as four other crimes
against chastity, cannot be prosecuted except upon a sworn
written complaint filed by the offended spouse. It has long
since been established, with unwavering consistency, that
compliance with this rule is a jurisdictional, and not merely a
formal, requirement. Now, the law specifically provides that
in prosecutions for adultery and concubinage the person
who can legally file the complaint should be the offended
spouse, and nobody else. Unlike the offenses of seduction,
abduction, rape and acts of lasciviousness, no provision is
made for the prosecution of the crimes of adultery and
concubinage by the parents, grandparents or guardian of the
offended party. The so-called exclusive and successive rule
in the prosecution of the first four offenses do not apply to
adultery and concubinage.
It necessarily follows that such initiator must have the
status, capacity or legal representation to do so at the time
of the filing of the criminal action. Lack of legal capacity to
sue, as a ground for a motion to dismiss in civil cases, is
determined as of the filing of the complaint or petition.
Hence, with reference to adultery cases, the status of the
complainant vis-à-vis the accused must be determined as of
the time the complaint was filed. The person who initiates
the adultery case must be an offended spouse, and by this is
meant that HE IS STILL MARRIED to the accused spouse, at
the time of the filing of the complaint.
The divorce obtained by Geiling and its legal effects may be
recognized in the Phils. In view of the nationality principle in
our civil law on the matter of status of persons. (Aliens of
Filipino spouses may obtain divorces abroad, which may be
recognized in the Phils. if they are valid according to their
national law._
Being no longer the husband of Pilapil, Geiling had no legal
standing to commence the adultery case under the
imposture that he was the offended spouse at the time he
filed the suit.
Article 345. Civil liability of persons guilty of crimes
against chastity
Civil liabilities of persons guilty of rape, seduction, or
abduction:
Criminal Law II Review Notes
1. To indemnify the offended woman;
2. To acknowledge the offspring, unless the law shall
prevent him from so doing;
3. In every case to support the offspring
§ The adulterer and concubine can be sentenced only to
indemnify for damages caused to the offended spouse.
§ No civil liability of acts of lasciviousness under this
article.
§ Only indemnity is possible in adultery and concubinage
because only children born of parents who could marry
at the time of conception may not be acknowledged.
Support is also not possible because the person who
gives birth is one of the offenders.
§ Moral damages may be recovered in seduction,
abduction, rape or other lascivious acts, as well as
adultery and concubinage (Art. 2219, Civil Code). The
parents of the female seduced, raped or abused may
also recover moral damages.
§ All offenders in multiple rape must support the
offspring, as any one of them may be the father.
§ Under the Civil Code, judgment to recognize the
offspring may only be given if there is pregnancy within
the period of conception, which is within 120 days from
the commission of the offense (Article 283)
§ In rape of a married woman, only indemnity is allowed.
Defendant cannot be sentenced to acknowledge the
offspring, because the woman is married. Support
cannot also be given, because the offender cannot
enter periodically the house of the married woman to
give such support. This will cause disturbance to the
family rights of the married couple.
Article 346. Liability of ascendants, guardians,
teacher or other persons entrusted with the custody
of the offended party
Persons who cooperate as accomplices but are punished as
principals in rape, seduction, abduction, acts of
lasciviousness etc (chapters 2, 3 and 4 of this title):
1. ascendants
2. guardians
3. curators
4. teachers
5. any other person, who cooperates as accomplice with
abuse of confidence or confidential relationship
Title Twelve
CRIMES AGAINST THE CIVIL STATUS OF PERSONS
Chapter One. SIMULATION OF BIRTHS AND USURPATION
OF CIVIL STATUS
Article 347. Simulation of births, substitution of one
child for another, and concealment or
abandonment of a legitimate child
Article 348. Usurpation of civil status
Chapter Two – ILLEGAL MARRIAGES
Article 349. Bigamy
Article 350. Marriage contracted against provisions of
laws
184

Article 351. Premature marriages
Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage ceremony
Article 347. Simulation of births, substitution of one
child for another, and concealment or abandonment
of a legitimate child.
Acts punishable:
1. Simulation of births;
2. Substitution of one child for another; and
3. Concealing or abandoning any legitimate child with
intent to cause such child to lose its civil status.
Elements:
a. the child must be legitimate;
b. the offender conceals or abandons such child; and
c. the offender has the intent to cause such child to
lose its civil status.
§ The object of the crime is the creation of false, or the
causing of the loss of, civil status.
§ Example of simulation of birth: a woman pretends
to be pregnant when in fact she is not, and on the day
of the supposed delivery, takes the child of another as
her own.
§ The fact that the child will be benefited by the
simulation of birth is not a defense
§ Example of substituting one child for another: A
and B both gave birth on the same day. The nurse in
the hospital exchanges the children of A and B in the
nursery.
§ Abandon – leaving a child in a place where other
people may find it, causing the child to lose its status.
§ Example of concealing or abandoning: A mother
who leaves her child at the door of an orphanage.
§ A physician or surgeon or public officer, who
cooperates in the execution of these crimes, is also
liable if he acts in violation of the duties of his
profession or office.
People v. Sangalang
G.R. No. L-32914, 30 August 1974
FACTS: The Sangalang spouses together with Gloria and
Bienvenido were charged of the crime of simulation of birth.
The information alleged that a child was furnished by Gloria
to the Sangalangs. Accused Bienvenido registered the birth
of said child in the local civil registrar by supplying to said
office the necessary information required so that a birth
certificate would be issued. He named the Sangalangs as
the child’s parents. A birth certificate was hence issued.
Information did not contain any specific allegation as to
what the spouses did, except that they had conspired with
Gloria and Bienvenido.
HELD: In the crime of simulation of births, it must be shown
that the “pretending parents” have registered or caused in
the registration of the child as their own with the Registry of
Births, or that in doing so they were motivated by a desire to
cause the loss of any trace as to the child’s true filiation to
his prejudice.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
In the instant case, SC found no evidence to sport the
finding of TC that the registration was effected by the
Sangalangs. As the evidence would show, it was their
daughter Alicia (not Bienvenido, but still not the spouses)
who had a hand in the registration of the child).
Article 348. Usurpation of civil status
§ Committed when a person usurps the civil status of
another, by assuming the filiation, or the parental or
conjugal rights of another.
§ The term ‘civil status’ includes one’s public station, or
the rights, duties, capacities and incapacities which
determine a person to a given classs.
§ Usurpation of profession may be punished under this
article.
§ There must be intent to enjoy the rights arising from
the civil status of another, otherwise the case will be
considered only as using a fictitious name, or as estafa,
depending on the facts of the case.
§ The purpose of defrauding the offended party or his
heirs qualifies the crime.
Article 349. Bigamy
Elements:
1. Offender has been legally married;
2. The marriage has not been legally dissolved or, in case
his or her spouse is absent, the absent spouse could
not yet be presumed dead by means of a judgment
rendered in a proper proceedings, according to the Civil
Code;
3. He contracts a second or subsequent marriage; and
4. The second or subsequent marriage has all the
essential requisites for validity.
§ Nullity of the first marriage is not a defense in a bigamy
charge. There must be a judicial declaration of the
nullity of a previous marriage before contracting the
second marriage.
§ Causes which may produce the legal dissolution of the
first marriage:
o Death of one of the contracting parties
o Judicial declaration annulling a void marriage
o Judicial declaration annulling a voidable marriage
§ Defense has the burden of proof of dissolution of first
marriage.
§ For the present spouse to contract a subsequent
marriage, an absent spouse is presumed dead if he has
been absent for four consecutive years and the spouse
present had a well-founded belief that he is already
dead. In case of disappearance where there is danger
of death, an absence of only two years will be
sufficient. However, a declaration of presumptive
death should first be obtained from the courts.
§ The second marriage must have all the requisites for
validity were it not for the existence of the first
marriage.
§ The second spouse is not necessarily liable for the
bigamy. If the second husband or wife knew of the
first marriage, he/she is an accomplice in the crime of
bigamy.
§ The witness who falsely vouched for the capacity of
either of the contracting parties is also an accomplice.
185
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

§ Bigamy is not a private crime. It is an offense against fraud, the maximum period of the penalty shall be
the State, not against the second wife. imposed.
§ A person convicted of bigamy may still be prosecuted § The offender must not be guilty of bigamy, to be
for concubinage. punishable under this article.

People v. Aragon Article 351. Premature marriages

G.R. No. L-10016, 28 February 1957
FACTS: Aragon contracted a 2nd marriage while the first
marriage was still subsisting. Eventually the first wife died.
He contracted a third marriage. Aragon was charged of
bigamy.
HELD: A subsequent marriage contracted by any person
during the lifetime of his first spouse is illegal and void from
its performance, and no judicial decree is necessary to
establish its invalidity as distinguished from mere annullable
marriages. The second marriage is void, hence the third
marriage is valid.
Capili v. People
G.R. No. 183805, 3 July 2013
Persons liable:
1. A widow who is married within 301 days from the date
of the death of her husband, or before having delivered
if she is pregnant at the time of his death;
2. A woman who, her marriage having been annulled or
dissolved, married before her delivery or before the
expiration of the period of 301 days after the date of
the legal separation.
§ Reason behind the law: to prevent doubtful paternity,
because the woman might have conceived and become
pregnant by her previous husband.
§ The period of 301 days may be disregarded if the first
husband was impotent or sterile.

All the elements of the crime of bigamy were present in this

case when the Information was filed on 28 June 2004. It is Article 352. Performance of illegal marriage
undisputed that a second marriage between petitioner and ceremony
private respondent was contracted on 8 December 1999
during the subsistence of a valid first marriage between § Priests or ministers of any religious denomination or
petitioner and Karla Y. Medina-Capili contracted on 3 sect, or civil authorities who shall perform or authorize
September 1999. Notably, the RTC of Antipolo City itself any illegal marriage ceremony
declared the bigamous nature of the second marriage § The offender must be authorized to solemnize
between petitioner and private respondent. Thus, the marriages. If the accused is not authorized, he is liable
subsequent judicial declaration of the second marriage for under article 177 (usurpation of authority or official
being bigamous in nature does not bar the prosecution of functions)
petitioner for the crime of bigamy.
Fr. Rene Ronulo v. People
Capili may still be charged with the crime of bigamy, even if G.R. No. 182438, 2 July 2014
there is a subsequent declaration of the nullity of the second
marriage, so long as the first marriage was still subsisting Under Article 3(3) of the Family Code, one of the essential
when the second marriage was celebrated. requisites of marriage is the presence of a valid marriage
certificate. In the present case, the petitioner admitted that
What makes a person criminally liable for bigamy is when he he knew that the couple had no marriage license, yet he
contracts a second or subsequent marriage during the conducted the "blessing" of their relationship.
subsistence of a valid first marriage. Parties to the marriage
should not be permitted to judge for themselves its nullity,
for the same must be submitted to the judgment of
competent courts and only when the nullity of the marriage
Title Thirteen
is so declared can it be held as void, and so long as there is
CRIMES AGAINST HONOR
no such declaration the presumption that the marriage
exists.
Chapter One. Libel
Article 350. Marriage contracted against provisions
Section One. Definition, forms and punishment of this
of laws
crime
Article 353. Libel
Elements:
Article 354. Requirement for publicity
Article 355. Libel by means of writings or similar
1. Offender contracted marriage;
means
2. He knew at the time that -
Article356. Threatening to publish and offer to
present such publication for a compensation
a. The requirements of the law were not complied
Article 357. Prohibited publication of acts referred
with; or
to in the course of official proceedings
b. The marriage was in disregard of a legal
Article 358. Slander
impediment.
Article 359. Slander by deed
§ If either of the contracting parties obtains the consent
Section Two. General Provisions
of the other by means of violence, intimidation or

186

Article 360. Persons responsible
Article 361. Proof of the truth
Article 362. Libelous remarks
Chapter Two. Incriminatory Machinations
Article 363. Incriminating innocent persons
Article 364. Intriguing against honor
Article 353. Definition of Libel
Libel is a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission,
condition, status, or circumstances tending to cause the
dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical
person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead.
Elements:
1. There must be an imputation of a crime, or of a
vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act,
omission, condition, status, or circumstance;
2. The imputation must be made publicly;
3. It must be malicious;
4. The imputation must be directed at a natural or
juridical person, or one who is dead; and
5. The imputation must tend to cause the dishonor,
discredit or contempt of the person defamed.
There must be a defamatory imputation. The imputation
may cover:
a. crime allegedly committed by the
offended party;
b. vice or defect, real or imaginary, of the
offended party; or
c. any act or omission, condition, status of,
or circumstance relating to the offended
party.
à “Defamation” is the proper term for libel as used in Art.
353.
§ “Libel” strictly is a defamation committed by means of
writing, printing, lithography, engraving, radio, phonograph
…. or any similar means.
§ When the defamation is oral, it is called “slander”.
à Seditious libel is punished not in this chapter but in Art.
142 (Inciting to sedition).
à Test of defamatory character of words used: A
charged is sufficient if the words are calculated to induce the
hearers to suppose and understand that the person against
whom they were uttered was guilty of certain offenses, or
are sufficient to impeach his honesty, virtue or reputation, or
to hold him up to public ridicule.
à The meaning of the writer is immaterial. It is not the
intention of the writer or speaker, or the understanding of
the plaintiff or of any hearer or reader by which the
actionable quality of the words is to be determined, but the
meaning that the words in fact conveyed on the minds of
persons of reasonable understanding, discretion and candor,
taking into consideration the surrounding circumstances
which were known to the hearer or reader.
§ ELEMENT 1: IMPUTATION
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Examples:
* Imputation of a vice ® imputing upon a person lascivious
and immoral habits in an article
* Imputation of an act or omission ® “X borrows money
without intention to pay, she had her breasts augmented
without paying the doctor”
* Imputation of condition, status or circumstance ® calling
another a bastard or mangkukulam
§ ELEMENT 2: PUBLICATION
à Publication is the communication of the defamatory
matter to some third person or persons.
à Hence, sending a latter in a sealed envelope through a
messenger is not publication. But sending to the wife, a
letter defamatory of her husband, is sufficient publication.
(The person defamed is the husband and the wife is already
considered a 3rd person)
àIf the defamatory imputation is not published there is NO
crime. The law permits us to think as badly as we please of
our neighbors so long as we keep our uncharitable thought
to ourselves.
§ ELEMENT 3: MALICE
à Malice is used to indicate that the offender is prompted
by personal ill-will or spite and speaks merely to injure the
reputation of the person defamed.
à Malice may be in-fact or in-law.
à Malice in fact
- must be proved by a showing of ill-will, hatred or purpose
to injure
à Malice in law
- is presumed from a defamatory imputation \ proof of
malice is not required
à (The distinction exists for purposes of determining WON
there is defamation where privileged communication is
involved thus:) As a general rule, malice in law is presumed
from a defamatory imputation. But where privileged
communication is involved, malice (in law) is NOT presumed
\ the plaintiff must prove malice in fact. In either case,
where malice in fact is present, justifiable motives cannot
exist and the imputations become actionable.
ELEMENT 4: IDENTIFICATION
à It must be shown that at least a 3rd person could identify
the offended party as the object of the libelous publication.
à But libel published in different parts may be taken
together to establish the identification of the offended party.
ELEMENT 5: DISHONOR, DISCREDIT, CONTEMPT
à Dishonor – disgrace, shame, ignominy
Discredit – loss of credit or reputation; disesteem
Contempt – state of being despised
Note: There are as many offenses as there were persons
defamed
When the alleged slanderous utterances were committed on
the same date and at the same place, but against two
different persons, the situation has given rise to two
separate and individual causes for prosecution, with respect
to each of the persons defamed.
Mercado v. CFI
G.R. No. L-38753, 25 August 1982
187

FACTS: Petitioner was charged with libel for imputing to Mrs.
Virginia Mercado acts constituting enrichment thru corrupt
practices. The offensive telegram which contained the
allegations was addressed to the Secretary of the,
Department of Public Works and Communications
purportedly in line with President Marcos' appeal to the
public to give information on undesirable employees in the
government service to achieve the objectives of the New
Society. He filed an MTD on the ground of the telegram
being privileged communication. After the same was denied,
a MTQ, alleging that the facts charged do not constitute an
offense, was filed but when the same again met with a
denial, the present action was instituted to annul the
aforesaid orders. Respondents, in their Comment, stressed
there was absence of any privilege, there being malice and
bad faith, petitioner having been motivated by vengeance
and ill-will in making the said communication as established
by his previous conduct viz a viz the private respondent: the
filing of several complaints, both administrative and criminal
aimed to malign her good character and reputation which
were subsequently dismissed or closed for lack of merit
and/or insufficiency of evidence.
HELD: Petition dismissed. Qualified privilege communication
may be lost by proof of malice. The prosecution should be
given the opportunity of proving malice in view of
petitioner's conduct towards private respondent which casts
doubt on his good faith.
Newsweek v. IAC
G.R. No. L-63559, 30 May 1986
FACTS: An article entitled “An Island of Fear” was published
in Newsweek. The author wrote that that the island province
of Negros Occidental is a place dominated by big landowners
who not only exploited the impoverished and underpaid
sugarcane laborers, but also brutalized and killed them with
impunity. The sugarcane planters instituted a class action for
libel.
HELD: To maintain a libel suit, a victim must be identifiable.
Defamatory matter which does not reveal the identity of the
person upon whom the imputation is cast affords no ground
of action unless it can be shown that the readers of the libel
could have identified the personality of the individual
defamed. Defamatory remarks directed at a group of
persons is not actionable unless the statements are all-
embracing or sufficiently specific for the victim to be
identifiable.
Lacsa v. IAC
G.R. No. 74907, 23 May 1988
FACTS: Lacsa and Marquez were officers of the Philippine
Columbian Association. Lacsa uncovered a glitch in the
qualification of Marquez to be president. He addressed a
letter to Marquez in the ff. tenor: that Marquez should step
down from the presidency, because the position is open only
for proprietary members and Marquez has failed to show any
proof of his proprietary membership, that in view of these,
he has been holding the position in a de facto capacity. This
letter was published in the publication of the association.
HELD: The test of libelous meanings is not the analysis of a
sentence into component phrases with the meticulous care
Criminal Law II Review Notes
of the grammarian or stylist, but the import conveyed by the
entirety of the language to the ordinary reader. The SolGen
is correct in holding that the imputation of being called a de
facto president is tantamount to being acknowledged as a
pretender or impostor.
Soriano v. IAC
G.R. No. 72383, 9 November 1988
FACTS: Soriano’s criminal liability was based on an article
published in “The Guardian”, of which he is the editor. The
basis of the article was a press release prepared in Tacloban
and delivered to various newspapers. The intended
circulation of “The Guardian” is nationwide. The libel case
was docked at the RTC Letye. Soriano filed n MTQ on the
basis of improper venue. He argues that the Leyte court had
no jurisdiction because the publication house of “The
Guardian” was located in Quezon City and that Tantuico also
holds office in QC.
HELD: Local jurisprudence follow the “multiple publication”
rule – that each and every publication of the same libel suit
constitutes a separate offense, and warrants a separate
cause of action for filing a libel suit. However, the
publication requirement set forth by RPC360 refers to the
“publication” (the official circulating organ) and not the
“press release”. In harmonizing RPC360 with the “multiple
publication” rule, the “press release” is not the document to
be examined. Since the official publication is produced in QC
and was not proven to have been produced/copied in Leyte
or elsewhere, the trial should have been handled by a QC
court.
Bulletin v. Noel
G.R. No. 76565, 9 November 1988
FACTS: The article contained statements to the effect that
American influence was a significant driver of the political
ascendancy of the Mindalanos of Lanao. Complainants
claimed this was an insulting statement that damaged the
social standing of the clan.
HELD: The published work alleged to contain the libelous
excerpt must be examined and viewed as a whole. Titles of
royalty and nobility are not generally recognized or
acknowledged socially in the national community. Personal
hurt or embarrassment, even if real, is not automatically
equivalent to defamation. The law against defamation
protects the interest of a person in acquiring, retaining, and
enjoying a reputation as good as one’s character and
conduct warrant in the community. It is the community
standards, not personal or family standards, that a court
must refer in evaluation a publication claimed to be
defamatory.
Santos v. CA
G.R. No. L-45031, 21 October 1991
FACTS: The article published was a verbatim copy of a
complained filed by Sandejas with the SEC against the
brokerage firm of Carlos Sison.
HELD: The public article is but a faithful reproduction of a
pleading filed before a quasi-judicial body. There are no
embellishments, wild imputations etc. calculated to damage
188

the reputation of the offended parties and expose them to
public contempt. No valid cause of action to institute an
action for libel exists.
Sazon v. CA
G.R. No. 120715, 29 March 1996
When the imputation is already held defamatory, malice on
the part of the defendant (malice-in-fact) need not be
proved because the law already presumes that the
imputation is malicious (malice-in-law).
Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or acts
of public officers which are related to the discharge of their
duties will not constitute libel if the defendant proves that
truth of the imputation (thus a form of privileged
communication), but any attack on the private capacities of
a public officer clearly beyond the scope of his official duties
may constitute libel.
Even if the article falls under the cloak of privileged
communications, it will not discount the fact that he wrote
the same with malice, due to grudges an ill-will attendant in
the circumstances surrounding the facts.
Jalandoni v. Drilon
G.R. No. 115239-40, 2 March 2000
FACTS: Respondents here were accused of printing libelous
matter in newspapers. The matter pertained to actions by
Jalandoni as member of the PCGG alleged to be illegal and
unauthorized (sold certain shares of a company at
undervalued prices to RCBC thereby defrauding the
government). Justice secretary reversed the findings of
prosecutors and dismissed the complaints.
HELD: Articles are not libelous. Articles merely stated
insinuations on the deal between RCBC and Jalandoni as
part of the PCGG. It just served to inform the public of
irregularities in the transaction. In libels against public
officers, to be liable, libel must relate to official conduct,
even if the statement is false, unless officer proves that it
was made with actual malice (with knowledge that it was
false or not).
Fortich v. Galleron
G.R. No. 120769, 12 February 1997
FACTS: Fortich is a salesman of San Miguel. His supervisor
Galleron suspected him of misappropriating the collections
he received retailers and buyers, so an investigation was
conducted on the matter. Galleron submitted an inter-office
memorandum containing the results of his investigation. The
memo was addressed to the Regional Sales Manager and
contained this paragraph:
“In addition, I would like to further inform management that
S/M Stanley Fortich is an avid mahjong player and a
cockfighting enthusiast. In spite of several advices, there
seems to be no change in his lifestyle. Also, respondent had
a similar case last September 11, 1978.”
HELD: The controversial paragraph is not libelous. First,
the memo was part and parcel of the investigation on
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Fortich’s non-remittance of collections. Secondly, the
memo was notcirculated or publicized, much less read by
officers of the corporation other than those involved in the
investigation or those directly supervising the petitioner's
work. More importantly, Fortich was unable to prove that
the issuance of the memo was motivated by malice.
While malice is presumed in every defamatory imputation,
there are certain exceptions to this rule. The memo falls
under the privileged communication rule. A privileged
communication is one made bona fide upon any subject
matter in which the party communicating has an interest, or
in reference to which he has a duty. In the case at bar,
Galleron, being Fortich’s supervisor, was charged with the
duty to carry out and enforce company rules and policies,
including the duty to undertake initial investigation of
possible irregularities in customer accounts. The memo was
an official act done in good faith, an honest innocent
statement arising from a moral and legal obligation which
the private respondent certainly owed to the company in the
performance of his duties.
Salcedo-Ortanez v. CA
G.R. No. 110662, 4 August 1994
FACTS: Rafael filed an action for annulment of his marriage
to Teresita. Among the evidence presented by Rafael in the
trial court were several tape recordings of telephone
conversations between Teresita and unidentified persons.
The recordings were obtained when Rafael allowed his
friends from the military to wire tap his home telephone.
HELD: Rep. Act No. 4200 entitled "An Act to Prohibit and
Penalize Wire Tapping and Other Related Violations of the
Privacy of Communication, and for other purposes" expressly
makes such tape recordings inadmissible in evidence. Absent
a clear showing that both parties to the telephone
conversations allowed to recording of the same, the
inadmissibility of the subject tapes is mandatory under Rep.
Act No. 4200.
R.A. 10175
Cybercrime Act
1. Offenses against the confidentiality, integrity and
availability of computer data and systems:
• Illegal Access. – The access to the whole or any
part of a computer system without right.
• Illegal Interception. – The interception made by
technical means without right of any non-public
transmission of computer data to, from, or within
a computer system including electromagnetic
emissions from a computer system carrying such
computer data.
• Data Interference. — The intentional or reckless
alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of
computer data, electronic document, or electronic
data message, without right, including the
introduction or transmission of viruses.
• System Interference. — The intentional alteration
189

or reckless hindering or interference with the
functioning of a computer or computer network by
inputting, transmitting, damaging, deleting,
deteriorating, altering or suppressing computer
data or program, electronic document, or
electronic data message, without right or
authority, including the introduction or
transmission of viruses.
2. Misuse of Devices
• The use, production, sale, procurement,
importation, distribution, or otherwise making
available, without right, of: (a) A device, including
a computer program, designed or adapted
primarily for the purpose of committing any of the
offenses under this Act; or (b) A computer
password, access code, or similar data by which
the whole or any part of a computer system is
capable of being accessed with intent that it be
used for the purpose of committing any of the
offenses under this Act.
• The possession of an item referred to in
paragraphs 5(i)(aa) or (bb) above with intent to
use said devices for the purpose of committing
any of the offenses under this section.
• Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of a domain
name over the internet in bad faith to profit,
mislead, destroy reputation, and deprive others
from registering the same, if such a domain name
is:
3. Cyber-squatting. – The acquisition of a domain name over
the internet in bad faith to profit, mislead, destroy
reputation, and deprive others from registering the same, if
such a domain name is:
i. Similar, identical, or confusingly similar
to an existing trademark registered with
the appropriate government agency at
the time of the domain name
registration:
ii. Identical or in any way similar with the
name of a person other than the
registrant, in case of a personal name;
and
iii. Acquired without right or with
intellectual property interests in it
4. Computer-related Offenses:
• Computer-related Forgery. — The input,
alteration, or deletion of any computer data
without right resulting in inauthentic data with the
intent that it be considered or acted upon for legal
purposes as if it were authentic, regardless
whether or not the data is directly readable and
intelligible; or the act of knowingly using computer
data which is the product of computer-related
forgery as defined herein, for the purpose of
perpetuating a fraudulent or dishonest design.
• Computer-related Fraud. — The unauthorized
input, alteration, or deletion of computer data or
program or interference in the functioning of a
computer system, causing damage thereby with
fraudulent intent: Provided, That if no damage has
Criminal Law II Review Notes
yet been caused, the penalty imposable shall be
one (1) degree lower.
• Computer-related Identity Theft. – The intentional
acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession,
alteration or deletion of identifying information
belonging to another, whether natural or juridical,
without right: Provided, That if no damage has yet
been caused, the penalty imposable shall be one
(1) degree lower.
5. Content-Related Offenses:
• Cybersex. — The willful engagement,
maintenance, control, or operation, directly or
indirectly, of any lascivious exhibition of sexual
organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a
computer system, for favor or consideration.
• Child Pornography. — The unlawful or prohibited
acts defined and punishable by Republic Act No.
9775 or the Anti-Child Pornography Act of 2009,
committed through a computer system: Provided,
That the penalty to be imposed shall be (1) one
degree higher than that provided for in Republic
Act No. 9775.
• Unsolicited Commercial Communications. — The
transmission of commercial electronic
communication with the use of computer system
which seek to advertise, sell, or offer for sale
products and services are prohibited.
• Libel. — The unlawful or prohibited acts of libel as
defined in Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code,
as amended, committed through a computer
system or any other similar means which may be
devised in the future.
Article 354. Requirement for Publicity
Every defamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious,
even if it be true, if no good intention and justiable motice
for making it is shown, except in the following cases:
1. A private communication made by any person to
another in the performance of any legal, moral, or
social duty;
2. A fair and true report, made in good faith, without
any comments or remarks, of any judicial,
legislative, or other official proceedings which are
not of confidential nature, or of any statement,
report or speech delivered in said proceedings, or
of any other act performed by public officers in
the exercise of their functions.
à The two exceptions in Art. 354 are the so-called
privileged communications. When privileged communication
is involved, malice in fact must be proved to convict the
accused.
Illustration of Art. 354: A tells C that B is a thief. The fact is
B is really is a thief, because he was previously convicted of
theft. Can it be presumed that the imputation by B is
malicious? Yes, because Art. 354 says that “every
190

defeamatory imputation is presumed to be malicious even if
it be true.”
But the presumption of malice is rebutted if A can show (1)
good intention and (2) justifiable motive for making the
imputation.
Thus, if B is applying for a position of security guard in the
store of C, brother of A, and the purpose of A is to protect
his brother from undesirable employees, then malice cannot
be presumed.
à Two kinds of privileged communication:
(1) Absolute
- not actionable, EVEN IF its author acted in bad faith
- this class includes statements made by members of
Congress in the discharge of their functions as such,
allegations in pleadings made by parties or their
counsel, answers given by witnesses in reply to
questions propounded to them (provided the answers
are responsive and the allegations are relevant)
- usually limited to legislative and judicial proceedings
and other acts of state
(2) Conditional or qualified
- not actionable UNLESS made with malice or bad faith
- this class includes those communications mentioned
as exceptions in Art. 354
§ RE: Par. 1 (Private communication made by any person to
another…)
Illustration: X files a complaint in good faith against a priest
to his ecclesiastical superior allegedly for taking indecent
liberties of women ® private communication in the
performance of a moral duty \ privileged!
à Unnecessary publicity destroys good faith. So for
example, if a copy of the complaint above is sent to a
newspaper for publication, the privilege is destroyed.
à That the statement is a privileged communication is a
matter of defense and, like all other matters of defense,
must be established by the accused.
à If the accused sets up privileged communication as a
defense, to overcome it, the prosecutions must prove that
(1) the defendant acted with malice in fact (because the
privileged only negates the presumption of malice in law), or
(2) there is no reasonable ground for believing the charge to
be true.
Illustration of “no reasonable ground for believing the
charge to be true”: X admitted that he had personally made
no investigation with reference to the truth of many of the
statements made in the communication to the Secretary of
Justice, especially with reference to the statements based on
rumors that a judge received a bribe for dismissing a murder
case.
§ RE: Par. 2 (Fair and true report of official proceedings…)
à Defamatory remarks and comments on the conduct or
acts of public officers which are related to the discharge of
their official duties will not constitute libel if the defendant
proves the truth of the imputation. The conduct of public
officers which are related to the discharge of their official
duties are matters of public interest, and it is a defense to
Criminal Law II Review Notes
an action for libel or slander that the words complained of
are a fair comment on a matter of public interest.
What is a fair comment? If the comment is an expression of
an opinion, based upon proven facts, then it is no matter
that the opinion happens to be mistaken so long as it might
be reasonably inferred from the facts. Comment may be fair,
although wrong.
à But any attack upon the private character of the public
officer on matters which are not related to the discharge of
their official functions, may constitute libel. No one has the
right to invade another’s privacy.
§ Rule on self-defense – A person libeled is justified to hit
back with another libel. But the defamatory statements
made by the accused must be a fair answer to the libel
made by the offended party and must be related to the
imputation made. The answer should not be unnecessarily
libelous.
Illustration: A to B, C & D: “You pimp, women of ill repute,
thieves, paramours of my husband”. B to A: “You are a
woman of the street, you smell bad, and your money was
stolen from the PCAU” + C to A “You are shameless,
blackmailer, murderer” + D to A “You have a thick face, you
are not legally married, you are the paramour of Father
Baluyut.”
Held: To repel attack, the defendant may make an
explanation of the imputation, and it is only where, if by
explaining, he must of necessity have to use scurrilous and
slanderous remarks, that he may legally be allowed to do so
without placing himself under criminal prosecution. Here, B,
C, D’s remarks were unnecessarily scurrilous.
Article 355. Libel by Means of Writings or Similar
Means
A libel may be committed by means of -
1. Writing;
2. Printing;
3. Lithography;
4. Engraving;
5. Radio;
6. Photograph;
7. Painting;
8. Theatrical exhibition;
9. Cinematographic exhibition; or
10. Any similar means.
à Defamation through amplifier is not libel, but oral
defamation. The word ‘radio’ should be considered in
relation to the terms with which it is associated – all of
which have a common characteristic, namely, their
permanent nature as a means of publication.
à But defamation made in a TV program is libel. It easily
qualifies under the general provision “or any similar means”.
Article 356. Threatening to Publish and Offer to
Prevent Such Publication for A Compensation
Acts punished
1.Threatening another to publish a libel concerning him, or
his parents, spouse, child, or other members of his family;
191

2. Offering to prevent the publication of such libel for
compensation or money consideration.
à Blackmail - In its metaphorical sense, blackmail may be
defined as any unlawful extortion of money by threats of
accusation or exposure. Two words are expressive of the
crime - hush money.
à In what felonies is blackmail possible? Blackmail is
possible in (1) light threats under Article 283; and (2)
threatening to publish, or offering to prevent the publication
of, a libel for compensation, under Article 356.
Article 357. Prohibited Publication of Acts Referred
to in the Course of Official Proceedings
Elements
1. Offender is a reporter, editor or manager of a
newspaper, daily or magazine;
2. He publishes facts connected with the private life
of another;
3. Such facts are offensive to the honor, virtue and
reputation of said person.
à The provisions of Art. 357 constitute the so-called “Gag
Law”. Newspaper reports on cases pertaining to adultery,
divorce, issues about the legitimacy of children etc., will
necessarily be barred from publication.
à The prohibition applies even though said publication be
made in connection with or under the pretext that it is
necessary in the narration of any judicial or administrative
proceedings wherein such facts have been mentioned.
Illustration: A uttered defamatory remarks calling a priest a
savage and that he had a concubine. While the case was
pending trial, a newspaper published the complaint verbatim
including the defamatory expressions of A.
§ RA1477 – The publisher, editor, columnist or reporter of
any periodical of general circulation cannot be compelled to
reveal the source of any news report or information
appearing in said publication which was related in
confidence to such publisher etc. unless the court or a
House or committee of Congress finds that such revelation is
demanded by the security of the State, without prejudice to
the publisher’s etc. liability under civil and criminal laws.
Article 358. Slander
Slander is oral defamation. There are tow kinds of oral
defamation:
(1) Simple slander; and
(2) Grave slander, when it is of a serious
and insulting nature.
à Factors that determine the gravity of oral defamation:
1. expressions used
2. personal relations of the accused and the offended
party
3. circumstances surrounding the case
Illustration of grave slander: “You sold the union. You
swindled the money of the members and received bribe
money in the amount of P10K…”
Criminal Law II Review Notes
Illustration of simple slander: An accusation that the
offended party has been living successively and with several
men uttered before several persons, when intended to
correct an improper conduct of the offended party, a kin of
the accused, is only simple slander.
à The slander need not be heard by the offended party,
because a man’s reputation is the estimate in which other
hold him, not the good opinion which he has of himself.
People v. Orcullo
G.R. No. L-57103, 30 January 1982
FACTS: Judge Orcullo dismissed the case for oral defamation
against Peralta (she imputed adultery and prostitution
against Flores) on the ground that it was a private crime to
be instituted by the offended party. SC reinstated case for
trial.
HELD: The words said by Peralta are indubitably imputation
of the crime of prostitution, which can be prosecuted de
oficio and not adultery. Connotation of hostess is notoriously
referred to prostitutes. Only when derogatory remarks
clearly and categorically reflect the elements constituting
adultery would the complainant for libel by the offended
party be necessary to commence prosecution
Villanueva v. People
G.R. No. 160351, 10 April 2006
The Court does not condone the vilification or use of
scurrilous language on the part of petitioner, but following
the rule that all possible circumstances favorable to the
accused must be taken in his favor, it is our considered view
that the slander committed by petitioner can be
characterized as slight slander following the doctrine that
uttering defamatory words in the heat of anger, with
some provocation on the part of the offended party,
constitutes only a light felony.
Article 359. Slander by Deed
Elements
1. Offender performs any act not included in any
other crime against honor;
2. Such act is performed in the presence of other
person or persons;
3. Such act casts dishonor, discredit or contempt
upon the offended party.
Slander by deed refers to performance of an act, not use of
words.
Two kinds of slander by deed
1. Simple slander by deed; and
2. Grave slander by deed, that is, which is of a
serious nature.
§ What is slander by deed? It is a crime against honor which
is committed by performing an act which casts dishonor,
discredit, or contempt upon another person.
Illustrations: slapping the face of another if the intention is
to cause shame and humiliation, fighting another with
intention to humiliate him
192

à v. Acts of lasciviousness
Kissing a girl in public and touching her breasts without lewd
designs, committed by a rejected suitor to cast dishonor on
the girl is slander by deed NOT acts of lasciviousness.
à v. Maltreatment
The nature and effects of the maltreatment determine the
crime committed. If the offended party suffered from shame
or humiliation caused by the maltreatment, it is slander by
deed.
Unjust vexation Slander by deed Acts of
lasciviousness
Irritation or annoyance
+ With publicity + presence of the
and dishonor or circumstances
contempt provided for in
RPC 335 on rape
(force or
intimidation,
unconscious etc.)
together with
lewd designs
People v. Motita
G.R. No.162370, 21 April 2009
FACTS: Motita used a mirror to view reflection of private
parts of Letada. Crowd nearby were laughing with their eyes
directed towards her.
HELD: Crime committed was slander by deed.
Unjust vexation is committed when the offender’s act caused
annoyance, irritation, vexation, torment, distress or
disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed.
If there was attendant publicity and dishonor or contempt in
addition to the irrigation or annoyance, offense would be
slander by deed as in this case. If any of the circumstances
provided for rape together with lewd designs were present
in addition to the annoyance, the offense would be act of
lasciviousness.
Article 360. Persons responsible
The persons responsible for libel are:
1. The person who publishes, exhibits or causes the
publication or exhibition of any defamation in
writing or similar means;
2. The author or editor of a book or pamphlet;
3. The editor or business manager of a daily
newspaper magazine or serial publication;
4. The owner of a printing plant which publishes a
libelous article with his consent and all other
persons who in any way participate in or have
connection with its publication.
Venue of criminal and civil actions for damages in cases of
written defamations (In case one of the offended parties is a
private individual)
Criminal Law II Review Notes
1. Where the libelous article is printed and first
published; or
2. Where any of the offended parties actually resides
at the time of the commission of the offense.
à Where one of the offended parties is a public officer, the
action shall be filed in the CFI (1) of the province or city
where he held office at the time of the commission of the
offense OR (2) where the libelous article is printed and first
published.
à The civil action shall be filed in the same cdourt where
the criminal action is filed and vice versa.
à The court where the criminal action or civil action for
damages is 1st filed shall acquire jurisdiction to the exclusion
of other courts.
à If the defamation consists in the imputation of a crime
which cannot be prosecuted de oficio (adultery,
concubinage, seduction, abduction and acts of
lasciviousness), then the offended party must a complaint.
§ RE: DAMAGES recoverable
à Actual damages need not be proved, at least (1) where
the publication is libelous per se or (2) when the amount of
the award is more or less nominal, because libel, by its
nature, causes injury to the reputation of the offended party.
à There is no remedy for damages for slander or libel in
case of absolutely privileged communication.
Article 361. Proof of the truth
In every criminal prosecution for libel, the truth may be
given in evidence to the court and if it appears that the
matter charged as libelous is true, and, moreover, that it
was published with good motives and for justifiable ends,
the defendant shall be acquitted.
Proof of the truth of an imputation of an act or omission not
constituting a crime shall not be admitted, unless the
imputation shall have been made against the Government
employees with respect to facts related to the discharge of
their duties.
In such cases, if the defendant proves the truth of the
imputation made by him, he shall be acquitted.
Proof of truth is admissible in any of the following:
1. When the act or omission imputed constitutes a
crime regardless of whether the offended party is
a private individual or a public officer;
2. When the offended party is a Government
employee, even if the act or omission imputed
doesn’t constitute a crime, provided, it is related
to the discharge of his official duties.
Illustration: A said that B, a gov’t official, was in the habit of
drinking during office hours and that he was always in a
boisterous condition. Is proof of truth allowed in case B
should file a complaint against A for defamation? Yes. Both
public interest and the good of the service demand that a
drunkard be barred from the service. But when the
imputation involves the private life of B which is not related
193
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

to the discharge of his official duties, the offender cannot Not required Imputation must be public
prove the truth thereof. and malicious & must be
calculated to cause the
Another illustration: A made several imputations against C, a dishonor, discredit or
private individual, some of which insinuated the commission contempt of the aggrieved
of crimes and some did not. Is proof of truth allowed? It party
depends. The defendant will be allowed to prove the truth of
the imputations constituting crimes but he will not be
allowed to prove the truth of the imputations not People v. Alagao
constituting crimes. G.R. No. L-20721, 30 April 1966

§ DEFENSE in defamation, requisities: Is there a complex crime of incriminating an innocent person

1. Truth
2. Matter was published with good motives
3. For justifiable ends
à Retraction may mitigate damages. But in order to have
the desired effect, the retraction should contain an
admission of the falsity of the libelous publication and evince
a strong desire to repair the wrong occasioned thereby.
Article 362. Libelous remarks
through unlawful arrest?
HELD: Yes. The two acts imputed to the accused closely
followed each other, the unlawful arrest being a necessary
means to plant the incriminatory evidence. Under the
circumstances of the case, the accused had to arrest M
because it was the only way that they could with facility
detain him, search his person or effects and, commingle
therewith the marked peso bill. A complex crime was
committed.

Libelous remarks or comments connected with the matter Huggland v. Lantin

privileged under the provisions of Article 354, if made with MTJ-98-1153, 29 February 2000
malice, shall not exempt the author thereof nor the editor or
managing editor of a newspaper from criminal liability. FACTS: Judge Lantin was arrested for bribery for allegedly
having received marked money amounting to P5,000 from
à Thus, the author of a publication who distorts or discolors one Magdalena Huggland who was implicated in a criminal
official proceedings reported by him, or adds comments case. The P5,000 was allegedly part of the P25,000 being
thereon to cast aspersion on the character of the parties asked by Judge Lantin for the cancellation of the hold
concerned, is guilty of libel, notwithstanding that the departure order issued against Ms. Huggland. The issue is
defamatory matter is published in connection with a whether this is case of entrapment or planting of evidence.
privileged matter.
HELD: This is a case of entrapment. Let us distinguish
entrapment from planting of evidence. In entrapment, the
Article 363. Incriminating Innocent Persons criminal intent or design to commit the offense charged
originates in the mind of the accused and the law
Elements enforcement officials merely facilitate the commission of the
1. Offender performs an act; offense, the accused cannot justify his conduct. Planting
2. By such an act, he incriminates or imputes to an of evidence or incriminating innocent person is committed
innocent person the commission of a crime; by performing an act by which the offender directly
3. Such act does not constitute perjury. incriminates or imputes to an innocent person the
commission of a crime.
à This article is limited to “planting” evidence and the like,
which do not in themselves constitute false prosecutions but From the testimonial and documentary evidence submitted
tend directly to cause false prosecution. by the parties, there is reason to believe that indeed, this is
a case of entrapment not planting of evidence. The
Incriminating an Perjury by making false conclusion is based on the following:
innocent person accusation (1) The subpoena was illegally issued;
Committed by performing an The gravamen is the (2) The Motion to Quash Hold Departure Order and the
act by which the offender imputation itself, falsely Order of Cancellation of the Hold Departure Order were
directly incriminates another made before an officer prepared and typewritten by the respondent; and
Limited to the act of planting Giving of false statement (3) The Money used in the entrapment operation was
evidence under oath or making a false recovered from one of the left drawers of the respondent's
affidavit, imputing to table.
another the commission of a
crime
Article 364. Intriguing against Honor
Incriminatory Defamation
machinations This crime is committed by any person who shall make any
Offender doesn’t avail Words, written or spoken, intrigue which has for its principal purpose to blemish the
himself of written or spoken are availed of honor or reputation of another person.
words in besmirching the
victim’s reputation Incriminating an Intriguing against Honor

194
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

innocent person written order of the Court, to execute any of the

Offender performs an act by Offender resorts to an acts declared to be unlawful in cases involving the
which he directly intrigue for the purpose of crimes of treason, espionage, provoking war and
incriminates or imputes to blemishing the honor or disloyalty in case of war, piracy, mutiny in the
an innocent person the reputation of another person high seas, rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commission of a crime commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, inciting to sedition,
Defamation Intriguing against Honor kidnapping as defined by the Revised Penal Code,
Done by availing directly of Committed by means which and violations of Commonwealth Act No. 616,
spoken words consists of some tricky and punishing espionage and other offenses against
ex., gossiping secret plot national security: Provided, That such written
order shall only be issued or granted upon
Slander Intriguing against Honor written application and the examination
The source of the info can The source or the author of under oath or affirmation of the applicant
be pinpointed and the the derogatory info cannot and the witnesses he may produce and a
defendant, adopting as his be determined and the showing: (1) that there are reasonable grounds
own the information he has defendant borrows the to believe that any of the crimes enumerated
obtained, passes the same same, and without hereinabove has been committed or is being
to another for the purpose subscribing to the truth committed or is about to be committed:
of causing dishonor to thereof, passes it to others Provided, however, That in cases involving the
complainant’s reputation offenses of rebellion, conspiracy and proposal to
commit rebellion, inciting to rebellion, sedition,
conspiracy to commit sedition, and inciting to
REPUBLIC ACT No. 4200
sedition, such authority shall be granted only upon
prior proof that a rebellion or acts of sedition, as
AN ACT TO PROHIBIT AND PENALIZE WIRE TAPPING
the case may be, have actually been or are being
AND OTHER RELATED VIOLATIONS OF THE PRIVACY
committed; (2) that there are reasonable grounds
OF COMMUNICATION, AND FOR OTHER PURPOSES
to believe that evidence will be obtained essential
to the conviction of any person for, or to the
It shall be unlawful:
solution of, or to the prevention of, any of such
crimes; and (3) that there are no other means
e) for any person, not being authorized by all the
readily available for obtaining such evidence.
parties to any private communication or spoken
word, to tap any wire or cable, or by using any
Effect of violation of the law: Any communication or spoken
other device or arrangement, to secretly overhear,
word, or the existence, contents, substance, purport, effect,
intercept, or record such communication or
or meaning of the same or any part thereof, or any
spoken word by using a device commonly known
information therein contained obtained or secured by any
as a dictaphone or dictagraph or dictaphone or
person in violation of this Act shall not be admissible in
walkie-talkie or tape recorder, or however
evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative or
otherwise described;
administrative hearing or investigation.
f) for any person, be he a participant or not in the
act or acts penalized in the next preceding
sentence, (1) to knowingly possess any tape
record, wire record, disc record, or any other such
record, or copies thereof, of any communication
or spoken word secured either before or after the Gaanan v. IAC
effective date of this Act in the manner prohibited G.R. No. L-69809, 16 October 1986
by this law; or (2) to replay the same for any
other person or persons; or (3) to communicate FACTS: Atty. Pinto filed a complaint for direct assault against
the contents thereof, either verbally or in writing, Atty. Laconico. Pintor, through phone, offered to withdraw
or (4) to furnish transcriptions thereof, whether the complaint for consideration. Atty. Gaanan was able to
complete or partial, to any other person. overhear this conversation through a telephone extension.
Provided, That the use of such record or any Pinto was arrested for extortion. But Gaanan and Laconico
copies thereof as evidence in any civil, were charged with violation of RA4200 and found guilty by
criminal investigation or trial of offenses, the lower court.
shall not be covered by this prohibition;
g) for any person who willfully or knowingly does or HELD: The phrase “any other device or arrangement” in the
who shall aid, permit, or cause to be done any of Ant-Wiretapping Law doesn’t cover an extension line. The
the acts declared to be unlawful or who violates law refers to a tap of a wire or cable or the use of a device
the provisions of the following section or of any or arrangement for the purpose of secretly overhearing,
order issued thereunder, or aids, permits, or intercepting or recording the communication. There must be
causes such violation. the physical interruption through a wiretap or the deliberate
installation of a device or arrangement in order to overhear,
It is not unlawful: intercept or record the spoken words. The extension here
was not installed for the purpose but for ordinary office use.
a) for any peace officer, who is authorized by a Also, an extension phone is an instrument which is very
common, not what the law refers to in which the presence

195

of such devices cannot be presumed by the party being
overheard.
Ramirez v. CA
G.R. No. 93833, 28 September 1995
FACTS: Ramirez field a civil case for damages against Garcia.
IN support of her claim, she produced a verbatim transcript
of the confrontation with Garcia where the latter allegedly
vexed, insulted and humiliated her. The transcription on
which the civil case was based was culled from a tape
recording of the confrontation made by petitioner. As a
result of the recording, Garcia filed a criminal case against
Ramirez for violation of RA 4200.
HELD: The law makes no distinction as to whether the party
sought to be penalized by the statute ought to be a party
other than or different from those involved in the private
communication. The statute’s intent to penalize all persons
unauthorized to make such recording is underscored by the
use of the qualifier “any”. Consequently, as respondent CA
correctly concluded, even a person privy to a communication
who records his private conversation with another without
the knowledge of the latter (will) qualify as a violator under
the provisions of RA4200. The lawmakers contemplated to
make illegal unauthorized taped recording of private
conversation or communication taken by either of the parties
themselves of by third persons. The nature of the
conversation is immaterial for conviction of the crime and
communication as used includes conversation.
Title Fourteen
QUASI OFFENSES
Sole Chapter. CRIMINAL NEGLIGENCE
Article 365. Imprudence and negligence
Article 365. Imprudence and negligence
Quasi-offenses punished:
1. Committing through reckless imprudence any act
which, had it been intentional, would constitute a grave
or less grave felony or light felony;
2. Committing through simple imprudence or negligence
an act which would otherwise constitute a grave or a
less serious felony;
3. Causing damage to the property of another through
reckless imprudence or simple imprudence or
negligence;
4. Causing through simple imprudence or negligence
some wrong which, if done maliciously, would have
constituted a light felony.
§ Imprudence or negligence is not a crime in itself; it is
simply a way of committing a crime.
§ In intentional crimes, the act itself is punished; in
negligence or imprudence, what is principally penalised
is the mental attitude or condition behind the act, the
dangerous recklessness, lack of care, or foresight.
§ A negligent act causing damage may produce civil
liability arising from crime or create an action for quasi-
Criminal Law II Review Notes
delict under the Civil Code. The injured party may
choose which remedy to enforce. He cannot recover
damages twice for the same act or omission of
the defendant.
§ Imprudence indicates a deficiency of action; negligence
indicates a deficiency of perception.
§ Reckless imprudence = consists in voluntarily, but
without malice, doing or failing to do an act from which
material damage results by reason of inexcusable lack
of precaution on the part of the person performing or
failing to perform such act, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition and other circumstances regarding
persons, time, and place.
§ Simple imprudence = consists in the lack of
precaution displayed in those cases in which the
damage impending to be caused is not immediate nor
the danger clearly manifest.
§ Elements of reckless imprudence:
1) that the offender does or failes to do an act
2) that the doing of or the failure to do that act is
voluntary
3) that it be without malice
4) that material damage results
5) that there is inexcusable lack of precaution on the
part of the offender, taking into consideration –
a) his employment or occupation
b) degree of intelligence, physical
condition, and
c) other circumstances regarding persons,
time and place.
§ TEST OF NEGLIGENCE: would a prudent man, in
the position of the person to whom negligence is
attributed, foresee harm to the person injured as
a reasonable consequence of the course about to
be pursued? If so, the law imposes a duty on the
actor to refrain from that course or to take
precaution against its mischievous results, and
the failure to do so constitutes negligence.
Reasonable foresight of harm, followed by the ignoring
of the admonition born of this provision, is the
constitutive fact in negligence.
§ Criminal negligence presupposes lack of intention to
commit the wrong done, but that it came about due to
imprudence on the part of the offender.
§ There must be injury to person or damage to property
as a consequence of reckless or simple imprudence.
§ Elements of simple imprudence:
1) that there is lack of precaution on the part of the
offender
2) that the damage impending to be caused is not
immediate or the danger is not clearly manifest.
§ The essence of a negligent act is that it be in every
case voluntary.
§ The measure of the damage should be the difference in
value of the property immediately before the incident
and immediately after the repair.
§ Art 64 relative to mitigating and aggravating
circumstances is not applicable to crimes committed
thru negligence.
§ Contributory negligence is not a defence; it only
mitigates criminal liability.
196

§ Where the concurrent or successive negligent acts or
omission of 2 or more persons, although acting
independently of each other are, in combination, the
direct and proximate cause of a single injury to a 3rd
person, and it is impossible to determine in what
proportion each contributed to the injury, either is
responsible for the whole injury (ie SOLIDARY
LIABILITY), even though his act alone might not have
caused the entire injury.
§ “Doctrine of Last Clear Chance” – the contributory
negligence of the party injured will not defeat the
action if it be shown that the accused might, by the
exercise of reaonable care and prudence, have avoided
the consequences of the negligence of the injured
party.
§ “Emergency Doctrine” – a person who is confronted
with a sudden emergency may be left no time for
thought, must make speedy decision based largely
upon impulse or instinct, and cannot be held to the
same conduct as one who has had an opportunity to
reflect, even though it later appears that he made the
wrong decision. However, this doctrine is applicable
only where the situation which arises to confront the
actor is sudden and unexpected, and is such as to
deprive him of all opportunity for deliberation.
§ The violation of a statute which imposes a
specific requirement to omit or to do a definite
act is negligence per se.
§ The failure to render assistance constitutes a qualifying
circumstance.
People v. Cano
G.R. No. 155258, 7 October 2003
FACTS: Cano was charged of the crime of damage to
property with multiple physical injuries thru reckless
imprudence for causing to the bus driven by him to hit and
bump a Phil Rabbit Bus producing damage to the said bus
and injuries to the passengers. Prosecution appealed from
order of lower court in quashing the information based on
the theory that offence of injuries thru reckless imprudence
cannot be complexed with that of damage to property.
HELD: SC set aside the order. The information does not
purport to complex the offence of slight physical injuries
with reckless negligence with that of damage to property
and serious and less serious physical injuries thru reckless
imprudence. Negligence is a quasi-offence. What is
punished is not the effect of the negligence but the
recklessness of the accused. For convenience to the
administration of justice in general and to the accused in
particular, the prosecution should not split the action against
him in several information for it would require the
presentation of substantially the same evidence.
Ibabao v. People
G.R. No. L-36957, 28 September 1984
The proviso in Art 365 that “the provisions contained in this
article shall not be applicable” refers to the preceding
paragraphs thereof. Par 1 & 2 are exceptions to the
application of the said preceding paragraphs under the
Criminal Law II Review Notes
circumstances mentioned. The last par on failure to lend
aid on the spot necessarily applies to all situations
envisioned in the said article whenever there is an injured
party. It is a qualifying circumstance (because its presence
raises the penalty by 1 degree) that must be alleged in the
information to apprise the defendant of this charge.
Gan v. CA
G.R. No. L-44264, 19 September 1988
The test for determining whether or not a person is
negligent in doing an act whereby injury or damage results
to the person or property of another is: would a prudent
man in the position of the person to whom negligence is
attributed foresee harm to the person injured as a
reasonable consequence of the course about to e pursued?
The law imposes the duty on the doer to take precaution
against its mischievous results and the failure to do so
constitutes negligence. One who suddenly finds himself in a
place of danger, and is required to act without time to
consider the best means that may be adopted to avoid the
impending danger, is not guilty of negligence unless the
emergency is brought about by own negligence
(EMERGENCY RULE).
Carillo v. People
G.R. No. 86890, 21 January 1994
Kid dies 3 days after her operation. Doctors found
guilty of criminal negligence. SC held that doctors
should exercise a higher degree of care in view of the
vulnerable condition of the child. The gravamen of
offence of simple negligence is the failure to exercise
the diligence necessitated or called for by the
situation which is not immediately life-destructive
but resulted still in the death of the patient. It is the
mere lack of prevision in a situation where either the
threatened harm is not immediate or the danger not
openly visible.
Reodica v. CA
G.R. No. 125066, 8 July 1998
FACTS: Reodica was convicted by the RTC of the quasi
offense of reckless imprudence resulting in damage to
property with slight physical injuries. She was sentenced to
arresto mayor (6 months) and to pay the complainant P13K.
Assailed is the penalty imposed by the lower court.
HELD: According to the par. 1 of Art. 365, the penalty for
reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries, a
light felony, is arresto menor in its maximum period, with a
duration of 21 to 30 days. If the offense of slight physical
injuries is, however, committed deliberately or with malice, it
is penalized with arresto menor under Art. 266 of the
Revised Penal Code, with a duration of 1 day to 30 days.
Plainly, the penalty then under Article 266 may be either
lower than or equal to the penalty prescribed under the first
paragraph of Art. 365. This being the case, the exception in
the par. 6 of Art. 365 applies. Hence, the proper penalty for
197

reckless imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries is
public censure, this being the penalty next lower in degree
to arresto menor.
As to reckless imprudence resulting in damage to property in
the amount of P8,542.00, par. 3 of Art. 365, which provides
for the penalty of fine, does NOT apply since the reckless
imprudence in this case did not result in damage to property
only. What applies is the par. 1 of Art. 365, which provides
for arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods (1
month and 1 day to 4 months) for an act committed through
reckless imprudence which, had it been intentional, would
have constituted a less grave felony. Note that if the
damage to the extent of P8,542.00 were caused
deliberately, the crime would have been malicious mischief
under Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code, and the penalty
would then be arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods (2 months and 1 day to 6 months which is higher
than that prescribed in the first paragraph of Article 365). If
the penalty under Art. 329 were equal to or lower than that
provided for in the par. 1, then par. 6 of Art. 365 would
apply, i.e., the penalty next lower in degree, which is arresto
menor in its maximum period to arresto mayor in its
minimum period or imprisonment from 21 days to 2 months.
Accordingly, the imposable penalty for reckless imprudence
resulting in damage to property to the extent of P8,542.00
would be arresto mayor in its minimum and medium periods,
which could be anywhere from a minimum of 1 month and 1
day to a maximum of 4 months, at the discretion of the
court, since the par. 5 of Art. 365 provides that in the
imposition of the penalties therein provided "the courts shall
exercise their sound discretion without regard to the rules
prescribed in article 64."
Since public censure is classified under Art. 25 of the Code
as a light penalty, it follows that the offense of reckless
imprudence resulting in slight physical injuries is a light
felony. On the other hand, reckless imprudence also
resulting in damage to property is, as earlier discussed,
penalized with arresto mayor (a correccional penalty), thus
the quasi offense in question is a less grave felony.
Since criminal negligence may, as here, result in more than
one felony, should Article 48 of the Revised Code on
complex crimes be applied? No.
Clearly, if a reckless, imprudent or negligent act results in
two or more grave or less grave felonies, a complex crime is
committed. However, in Lontok v. Gorgonio, this Court
declared that where one of the resulting offenses in criminal
negligence constitutes a light felony, there is no complex
crime. Applying Art. 48, it follows that if one offense is light,
there is no complex crime. The resulting offenses may be
treated as separate or the light felony may be absorbed by
the grave felony.
Following Lontok, the conclusion is inescapable here, that
the quasi offense of reckless imprudence resulting in slight
physical injuries should have been charged in a separate
information because it is NOT covered by Art. 48 of the
Revised Penal Code. However, petitioner may no longer
question, at this stage, the duplicitous character of the
information. This defect was deemed waived by her failure
to raise it in a motion to quash before she pleaded to the
information.
Criminal Law II Review Notes
However, the case must be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction
on the part of the RTC Makati. At the time the information
was filed, the MTC had jurisdiction over crimes punishable
by censure (RIRI slight physical injuries) and over crimes
where the imposable penalty therefor was arresto mayor in
its minimum and medium periods — the duration of which
was from 1 month and 1 day to 4 months (RIRI damage to
property).
Ivler v. San Pedro
G.R. No. 172716, 17 November 2010
FACTS: Following a vehicular collision in August 2004,
petitioner Jason Ivler (petitioner) was charged before the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasig City (MeTC), with two
separate offenses: (1) Reckless Imprudence Resulting in
Slight Physical Injuries for injuries sustained by respondent
Evangeline L. Ponce (respondent Ponce); and (2) Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide and Damage to Property
for the death of respondent Ponce’s husband Nestor C.
Ponce and damage to the spouses Ponce’s vehicle.
On 2004, petitioner pleaded guilty to the charge on the first
delict and was meted out the penalty of public censure.
Invoking this conviction, petitioner moved to quash the
Information for the second delict for placing him in jeopardy
of second punishment for the same offense of reckless
imprudence.
HELD: The accused’s negative constitutional right not to be
"twice put in jeopardy of punishment for the same offense"
protects him from, among others, post-conviction
prosecution for the same offense, with the prior verdict
rendered by a court of competent jurisdiction upon a valid
information.
Petitioner adopts the affirmative view, submitting that the
two cases concern the same offense of reckless imprudence.
The MeTC ruled otherwise, finding that Reckless Imprudence
Resulting in Slight Physical Injuries is an entirely separate
offense from Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Homicide
and Damage to Property "as the [latter] requires proof of an
additional fact which the other does not."
The two charges against petitioner, arising from the same
facts, were prosecuted under the same provision of the
Revised Penal Code, as amended, namely, Article 365
defining and penalizing quasi-offenses.
The provisions contained in this article shall not be
applicable. Indeed, the notion that quasi-offenses, whether
reckless or simple, are distinct species of crime, separately
defined and penalized under the framework of our penal
laws, is nothing new.
The doctrine that reckless imprudence under Article 365 is a
single quasi-offense by itself and not merely a means to
commit other crimes such that conviction or acquittal of such
quasi-offense bars subsequent prosecution for the same
quasi-offense, regardless of its various resulting acts,
undergirded this Court’s unbroken chain of jurisprudence on
double jeopardy as applied to Article 365.
These cases uniformly barred the second prosecutions as
constitutionally impermissible under the Double Jeopardy
Clause.
198
 Criminal Law II Review Notes

Our ruling today secures for the accused facing an Article

365 charge a stronger and simpler protection of their
constitutional right under the Double Jeopardy Clause. True,
they are thereby denied the beneficent effect of the
favorable sentencing formula under Article 48, but any
disadvantage thus caused is more than compensated by the
certainty of non-prosecution for quasi-crime effects
qualifying as "light offenses" (or, as here, for the more
serious consequence prosecuted belatedly). If it is so
minded, Congress can re-craft Article 365 by extending to
quasi-crimes the sentencing formula of Article 48 so that
only the most severe penalty shall be imposed under a
single prosecution of all resulting acts, whether penalized as
grave, less grave or light offenses. This will still keep intact
the distinct concept of quasi-offenses. Meanwhile, the
lenient schedule of penalties under Article 365, befitting
crimes occupying a lower rung of culpability, should cushion
the effect of this ruling.

199