June 21, 2020

To: 4 SS
Criminal Law Review

Although the take home - nearly one (1) month to answer test – was
expected to have been perfected by all, the following performed satisfactorily
more than the others:

1. Cantuba – Nacin, K.
2. Dungaya, G.
3. Lopez, P.
4. Matias, C.
5. Sawac, A.
6. Veloria, R.
7. Villaruz, A.

A.

Only the following three (3) questions were asked:

1.“Can you give tips on how to pass the bar sir

especially on Criminal Law?
Thank you for imparting your learnings on us even
for a short period time. God bless po sir.”

Response:

You are welcome and thank you. ^^. Bar tips? Drink coffee.^^

When reviewing, create a realistic schedule. Follow it.

Generally, be sure to prioritize, do more readings, and exert

more effort in the subjects that you have weak foundation.

As regards criminal law, you have to have good grasp of the

Revised Penal Code. It is the main source of our criminal law. From
there, expand to special laws and landmark rulings of the Supreme
Court. It is always a smart move to look at and read previous bar
questions for the past ten (10) years if not at least five (5). Part III of
your take home test are the 2019 bar examination questions in
criminal law.

Page 1 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020

Criminal Law Review
 2.“Hi, sir. Quick question on III 6(a). I am fully
aware of the US. vs Valdes case where SC ruled
that there is Frustrated Arson, though I
positively answered otherwise. I answered
otherwise because I thought there was no
frustrated arson since mere act of burning
consummates the crime, like in crime of robbery or
rape where commission of the act alone consummates
the crime. There is no jurisprudence as to this
yet except the US vs Valdez and People vs
Hernandez, which were decided in 1918 and 1929,
respectively. Since then, no case concerning
frustrated arson has followed. I only used the
definition of frustrated felony under RPC and
related with the provided facts. I was wondering,
how you would answer the question. Thank you sir
for this semester. God bless.”

Response:

I would have answered the question by not saying upfront that

there is no frustrated arson. The question is simply asking if the charge
of frustrated arson is proper. At best, begin your answer by saying,
“The charge is not correct. Under the facts presented, the charge
should be attempted arson.” Then explain the elements, the acts
prepared directly in relation to the intention. Connect these elements
to the facts provided in the problem.

Now we go further. Is there a crime of frustrated arson? There

are law book authors, law schools, distinguished professors, not so
distinguished like the author of this word file, and review centers who
say that there is and there are those who say otherwise.

The legendary J. Luis B. Reyes has this to say:

Nature of Crime:

Arson (Arts. 320-326) – In arson, it is not necessary that

the property is totally destroyed by fire. The crime of arson is
therefore, consummated even if only a portion of the wall or
any other part of the house is burned. The consummation of
the crime of arson does not depend upon the extent of the
damage caused. (People vs. Hernandez, 54 Phil. 122) The fact
of having set fire to some rages and jute sacks, soaked in
kerosene oil, and placing them near the wooden partition of
the house, should not be qualified as consummated arson,
inasmuch as no part of the house began to burn. It is only
frustrated arson. (U.S. vs. Valdes, 39 Phil. 240)

Page 2 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020

Criminal Law Review
 When a person had poured gasoline under the house of
another and was about to strike a match to set the house on fire
when he was apprehended, he was guilty of attempted arson.
The acts performed by him are directly connected with the
crime of arson, the offense he intended to commit. The
pouring of the gasoline under the house and the striking of the
match could not be for any other purpose.

If there was blaze, but no party of the house is burned,

the crime of arson is frustrated. If any part of the house, no
matter how small, is burned, the crime of arson is
consummated. (Reyes, RPB Book 1, 15th ed, pages 110-111)

He said further:

Attempted, frustrated, and consummated arson.

1. A person, intending to burn a wooden structure, collects some

rags, soaks them in gasoline and places them beside the wooden
wall of the building. When he is about to light a match to set fire
to the rags, he is discovered by another who chases him away.

The crime committed is attempted arson, because the

offender commences the commission of the crime directly by
overt acts (placing the rages soaked in gasoline beside the
wooden wall of the building and lighting a match) but he does not
perform all the acts of execution (the setting of the fire to the
rags) due to the timely intervention of another who chases away
the offender.

2. If the person is able to light or set fire to the rags but the fire was
put out before any part of the building was burned, it is frustrated.
(U.S. vs. Valdes, 39 Phil 240)

3. But if before the fire was put out, it had burned a part of the
building, it is consummated.

Any charring of the wood of a building, whereby the fiber

of the wood is destroyed, is sufficient. It is not necessary that the
wood should be ablaze. (4 Am. Jur. 88-89)

And the mere fact that a building is scorched or discolored

by heat is not sufficient to constitute consummated arson.

Setting fire to the contents of a building constitutes the

consummated crime of setting fire to a building, even if no part of
the building was burned. (U.S. vs. Go Foo Suy, 25 Phil. 187)
(Reyes, RPC Book 2, 15th ed, pages 834 835)
Page 3 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020
Criminal Law Review
 The popular author J. M. Campanilla wrote:

2. Frustrated Arson – In US v. Valdes, G.R. No.

14128, December 10, 1918, accused soaked a jute sack and a
rag with kerosene oil, set them on fire and placed them beside
an upright of the house. However, the fire had been put out on
time. The offenses committed is not consummated arson
because no part of the building had been burned. He is liable
for frustrated arson. The accused performed all the acts to
execute his criminal design to burn the house. The house
would have been burned as a matter of consequence because
the fire without an intervening factor would have spread to the
house. But the house was not burned due to the timely
intervention of others, who put out the fire on time. (1949 and
1967 Bar Exams) [include 2019 bar exams]

Valdes case is still a controlling principle since there is

no case where Supreme Court expressly abandoned it. In fact,
in People v. Bon, G.R. No. 166401, October 30, 2006, the
Supreme Court said that it recognized the filing of frustrated
arson in the Valdes case.

However, to apply the Valdes principle, the

circumstance of a case must be similar to Valdes case. If the
house is cemented, placing burning clothes besides it will not
make the accused liable for frustrated arson since he did not
yet perform all acts necessary to execute his criminal design to
burn the house. The house would not have been burned as a
matter of consequence because the fire would not have spread
to the house the same being cemented. (Campanilla, Criminal
Law Reviewer Vol. I, 2019, p. 83)

The late Atty. Abelardo Estrada, native of Sta. Maria Pangasinan,

admitted to the bar in 1981, a longtime professor in our university,
nationwide criminal law lecturer, who taught my class in RPC 2, but
untimely passed away in 2013 at the age of 56 more or less, lightly
mentioned in his book as follows:

The slightest discoloration of a part of a building is

consummated arson. But when a person who intends to burn a
structure by collecting and placing rags soaked in gasoline and
placed them near the wall of the building but who was
discovered as he was about to set fire to the rags is liable for

Page 4 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020

Criminal Law Review
 attempted arson. (Estrada, Criminal Law Book II, 2011, p.
469)

Notice that Atty. Estrada did not discuss frustrated arson. He

only mentioned attempted and consummated arson.

The frail looking Atty. Leonor Boado, (she really looks like a kite
and when she speaks, as if she is whispering), native of Manila,
admitted to the bar in 1996, professor of law, examiner of Taxation in
the 2017 bar examination, who gave a pre-bar lecture to our neglected
review class in 2011, enumerated in her book crimes that do not admit
frustrated stage, to wit:

What crimes do not admit of frustrated stage?

1. Rape, since x x x

2. Arson, because this is punished as to its result, hence,

the moment burning of the property occurs, even if
slight, the offense is committed.

3. Corruption of public officers, x x x

4. Adultery, x x x

5. Physical Injury, x x x (Boado, Notes and Cases on the

RPC, 2004, p. 43)

Atty. Boado’s book was used by the Dean as his reference when
he taught my 2011 criminal review class. In her above enumeration,
she did not cite any reference as to why arson does not admit
frustrated stage.

From all the above, there is no problem as to consummated and

attempted arson. On Frustrated Arson, we have this 1918, 102 years
old case of Valdes. What law was then in effect? Definitely not the RPC
since it took effect in 1932. Is this significant? Probably. I cannot get
access to the exact wordings of the law then in effect.

The present laws on Arson are Article 320, on destructive arson,

and PD 1613, the New Arson Law. Under PD 1613, there is no specific
description of what property is intentionally burned. The law only
punishes the burning of the property of another. It did not describe
what property, whether real or personal, house, buildings, etc.

Now consider the following in light of the preparatory acts of

arson. Note, preparatory acts, not accidental:
Page 5 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020
Criminal Law Review
  When a part of the building is burned, no matter how
small, it is consummated. This is easy breezy. This includes
any charring of wooden roof trusses, walls, wooden
window frames, door jambs, railings, and any other
essential part of the building.

 Any example that is similar to the facts of the Valdes case

should still be frustrated arson.

 But suppose X throws a burning bottle filled with kerosene

onto a building. It lands on tiled top floor. The incendiary
device, consumed itself and just made the colors of the tile
black. In short there is discoloration of the tiles, or cement,
or steel. In other words, nothing was burned. Since the
material where the device landed will never burn. What
then is the crime committed? Attempted Arson or
Impossible Crime? I leave this to you to ponder on and
decide.

 Suppose X throws an incendiary device inside a house

through an open window and it landed on a sofa. The sofa
burned but before the fire spread on other parts of the
building, it was put off by the owner. What crime is
committed? It is arson under PD 1613. The same rule
applies if somebody intentionally burns your laptop, your
motor vehicle, your photograph, your dog or your cat. The
latter case though is without prejudice to possible
violation of RA 8485 as amended by RA 10631.

 But if X burns a mountainside owned for him to use it as

his garden, killing trees, wild shrubs, or vegetation, this is
violation of PD 705.

3.“What is the crime committed by X if suppose he is

afflicted with coronavirus, deliberately removes
his mask and coughs in front of his maskless nurse
whom he thinks to be rude, ruddy, and rowdy, and
as a result the nurse got infected?

I could not find the answer to this sir. Hehehe”

Response:

I thought I was the only one who thought about this hypothetical
problem until 3 (three) members from the class showed their
reference in their answers through this link:
Page 6 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020
Criminal Law Review
 https://m.facebook.com/notes/marlo-campanilla/deliberate-
infection-of-corona-virus-resulting-in death/3255346474484900/?
d=m.

When you follow the link, it is a problem given by the famous

author J. M. Campanilla, where a covid carrier deliberately coughed in
front of the victim he hated. The victim died as a result. As to his
answer, he said:

Deliberately infecting the victim with corona virus will

result in injuries on his lungs. Hence, such acts constitute
maltreatment or physical injuries. However, if the victim died
as a consequence of this deliberate viral infection, the offender
is responsible for his death although there is no intent to kill.
In sum, applying Article 4 of the Revised Penal Code on
praeter intentionem, the offender is liable for the wrongful act
constituting homicide done although it differs from the
wrongful act intended, and that is, the act of viral infection
constituting maltreatment or physical injuries. Because of
Article 4, intent to kill as an element of homicide is
conclusively presumed.

Going back to the problem above, it only states that the victim
got infected. At this point, the best answer is maltreatment under
Article 266 (3) of the RPC. Do not say homicide or murder. No one
died. Getting infected of covid 19 is not synonymous to death. If you
qualify though that suppose the nurse died, the above quoted opinion
is excellent.

An answer stating violation of Section 9 (e) of RA 11332 Sec 9

which states, “Non-cooperation of the person or entities identified as
having the notifiable disease, or affected by the health event of public
concern”, may be given a little credit. RA 11332 more relates on the
data gathering, unlawful release of information, and duty to inform
regarding any notifiable disease.

It is not good to say that there is no crime committed because

there is definitely a crime committed. What would you feel if someone
waits for the perfect timing and deliberately coughs right on your face
and that act was even preceded by ill will and not simply out of prank
or joke? You would feel annoyed, offended, or vexed. It may result
then to unjust vexation. Deliberate coughing in front of another will
result to annoyance on the part of the victim. Slander is also a possible
answer if the coughing was done to shame the victim in front of the
public.

Page 7 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020

Criminal Law Review
 B.

Remarks and comments to the Take Home Test

Clear understanding on your answers to Part I of the test, which

are all academic questions, is necessary as it will eliminate confusion
on the topics given. Inability to distinguish one from the other is a sign
of unpreparedness.

Consider the following as to Part II, which are questions

formulated to test your analytical skills:

1. The answer should be violation of RA 10586, Sec 12 (c), drunk driving,

where the penalty is R.T. plus a fine of P300K to P500K and a separate
charge of Reckless Imprudence resulting in Homicide.

It looks like half of the class did not read the previous notes on
updates and cases I sent. This is unfortunate and sad.

2. See above, item A (3)

3. The problem given was a real scenario. One computer shop in the
barangay where I reside was entered by some minors who are
computer game addicts through the window. They played all night long
and left in the morning leaving their trashes behind. No case was filed
as the minors were scolded in the barangay and refunds were made by
the parents as to the electricity they consumed.

But suppose the case was not settled and the perpetrator is an
adult who got so addicted to computer games. The crime committed is
Robbery through force upon things. The unlawful entry through the
window makes it robbery and not theft. There is unlawful taking by
using the computer and consuming the electricity of the personal
property of another, without permission of the owner. In the same
manner, it is also either robbery or theft depending on the
circumstances when one uses a motor vehicle without the consent of
the owner, drives it around town like crazy, and returns it.

To those who said trespass to property, you might be referring

to Article 281 which involves Other Forms of Trespass, particularly
entering the closed premises or the fenced estate of another. Other
Forms of Trespass is not similar to simple trespass. Simple trespass is
under the first paragraph of Article 280, it is qualified trespass if there
is violence or intimidation as provided in the 2nd paragraph.
Page 8 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020
Criminal Law Review
 4. The crime is not arson. The burning is not intentional. Read People vs.
Bueno, G.R. No. L-10849, April 30, 1958. The crime committed is
Reckless Imprudence resulting in damage to property. Article 365,
x x x “When the execution of the act covered by this article shall have
only resulted in damage to the property of another, the offender shall
be punished by a fine ranging from an amount equal to the value of
said damages to three times such value, but which shall in no case be
less than twenty-five pesos.”

5. The crime is not malicious mischief. The crime is theft under Article
308: Par 2: Any person who, after having maliciously damaged the
property of another, shall remove or make use of the fruits or object of
the damage caused by him;

6. The crime is Reckless Imprudence resulting in multiple homicide.

There is only one case regardless of the number of victims since it
arose from a single incident only. Read People vs. Ivler. By the way, the
mother of Jason Ivler is the biological sister of the great Philippine Folk
Singer Freddie Aguilar, whose fame has now diminished. Although
Ivler triumphed in his case regarding the death of the Ponces, he is not
so lucky in his road rage murder case for the death of Ebarle since the
CA affirmed his guilty verdict.

Do not say “Homicide through reckless imprudence”. It is

confusing.

The Supreme Court said in Pabulario vs. Hon. Palarca, G.R. No. L-
23000, November 4, 1967, x x x “much of the confusion has arisen from
the common use of such descriptive phrases as "'homicide through reckless
imprudence;'" and the like; when the strict technical offense is, more
accurately "'reckless imprudence resulting in homicide';" or "'simple
imprudence causing damages to property'."

7. The best answer is violation of RA 10883, where the penalty is life

imprisonment with aggravating circumstance of use of unlicensed
firearm under RA 10591 since the firearm facilitated the commission
of the crime.

It looks like half of the class did not read the previous notes on
updates and cases I sent since nearly half answered violation of RA
6539 which is the old carnapping law. This is very sad.

Page 9 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020

Criminal Law Review
 8. The answer is Qualified Cattle Rustling or Cattle rustling with
homicide. This is punished under PD 533. There is no more separate
charge of rape. How can a separate crime of rape be charged when the
victim is already dead? The same principle applies in robbery where
the victim after being robbed, was raped and killed. The charge will be
Robbery with homicide. Rape is absorbed.

Of course, if a woman is raped and then killed, the crime is rape

with homicide. If after she was killed or left on the verge of death, her
personal items were taken, a separate crime of theft will be filed. But
again if a woman is held up in a dark place and the primary purpose is
to take her money or personal items and then grabbing the
opportunity, the offender rapes her, the crime is Robbery with rape.
And if after raping, she was killed to prevent discovery, the crime will
now be Robbery with homicide. Rape is absorbed. But what if she was
robbed then killed, and after killing, the offender felt that the lifeless
body is still warm, he rapes the corpse. What now is the charge on the
last bestial act? I leave this room for you to ponder on. I know you
know the answer.

9. If you answered the problem in light of the 2002 Baguio case of People
vs. Garcia, where a woman from Kalinga was taken by a white van
along Bonifacio Street, (so it had always been that white vans are
dangerous even up to the present), made immediately unconscious,
and when she woke up, she was already in a room she didn’t know,
raped one after the other by the four (4) conspirators, the charge as
affirmed by the Supreme Court is one (1) count of Forcible Abduction
and three (3) counts of rape against Jeffrey Garcia, the lone conspirator
arrested and convicted. If so, your answer in the problem should be
one count of Forcible Abduction, and a separate charge of rape each
against X and Y.

Note the facts in the case. The woman is not known to the
perpetrators. She was randomly taken, brought to a place somewhere,
raped repeatedly, then released the next day. This is similar to the
1980 case of People vs. Bohos. The victim was abducted while walking
at night along a highway, raped once inside a traversing truck which
the four (4) conspirators ferried. She was brought to a house and she
was raped by the conspirators four times each or 16 times, a total of 17
rapes. The Court held the accused guilty of one (1) forcible abduction
with rape and 16 counts of rape.

In the 2017 case of People vs. Domingo, where the accused by his
arguments admitted that he knew the victim since according to him
she is his girlfriend, the accused tricked the victim into riding with him.
She was transported to another place by intimidation and then she was
Page 10 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020
Criminal Law Review
 raped. The lower courts were one in saying that the crime committed is
forcible abduction with rape. However, the Supreme Court was very
emphatic as it said that the crime is only simple rape. It said, “Although
the elements of forcible abduction obtained, the appellant should be
convicted only of rape. His forcible abduction of AAA was absorbed by
the rape considering that his real objective in abducting her was to
commit the rape. Where the main objective of the culprit for the
abduction of the victim of rape was to have carnal knowledge of her, he
could be convicted only of rape.”

In this Domingo case, the victim who is known to the offender

was immediately released after the rape.

In the 2019 case of People vs. Villanueva, the victim was taken
randomly. She was rendered unconscious while being transported. The
next day, she awoke and her whole body is in pain. She discovered
then that she was raped while unconscious. The lower courts were one
again in saying that the crime committed is Forcible Abduction with
rape but the Supreme Court motu proprio made it clear that it should
be rape only.

In this Villanueva case, the victim appears not to be personally

known to the offender, she was raped while unconscious and was
released the next day.

J.L.B. Reyes, in his book (supra p. 889) wrote, “Rape may absorb
forcible abduction if the main objective was to rape the victim.” He
cited People vs. Toled, 83, Phil. 777. In effect, the crime should only be
rape as was pronounced in the Domingo and Villanueva cases.

In another view, J M. Campanilla opined that the complex crime

of Rape through forcible abduction is committed when the victim is
raped, the forcible abduction should be treated as a necessary means
to commit rape. This is his suggested answer in a similar question in
the 2017 bar examination. The many cases he cited though were
decided 2003 and earlier.

Are the crimes committed then in the 1980 case of Bohos and
2002 case of Garcia should have been several counts of rape only and
not the special complex crime of Forcible Abduction with Rape? The
answer seems to be affirmative. In the latter jurisprudence discussed
above, and this is even when the victim is known to the offender
without regard to the time that her freedom was restricted, the crime
is rape. This is the rule when the taking is only a means to commit the
crime of rape. After all, one of the manners in committing rape is by
force, violence, or intimidation.

Page 11 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020

Criminal Law Review
 When is it Forcible Abduction with Rape then? The period of
taking or abduction or detention should be considered. Also if there
are evidence to show that the forcible taking is coupled with lewdness
like, while the victim was abducted, she was at the same time forcibly
being kissed all over her face, her body groped by the offender’s eager
fingers, or any other evidence to show lascivious conduct. This is not
so clear though in the 2014 case of People vs. Amaro, where the
accused detained the seven (7) year old victim for six (6) days, take
note 6 long days, during which he raped her. The Supreme Court in
affirming the charge of Forcible Abduction with Rape against Amaro
said, “The victim, AAA was a seven (7) year-old girl who was taken
against her will by appellant who told her that he knew her mother
and that he would bring her home. At her tender age, AAA could have
easily been deceived by appellant. The employment of deception
suffices to constitute the forcible taking, especially since the victim is
an unsuspecting young girl. It is the taking advantage of their
innocence that makes them easy culprits of deceiving minds. The
presence of lewd designs in forcible abduction is established by the
actual rape of the victim.” It continued, “Appellant was properly
charged of the complex crime of forcible abduction with rape. AAA’s
abduction was a necessary means to commit rape. Sexual intercourse
with AAA was facilitated and ensured by her abduction.”

10. Almost 90% percent got the correct answer. Nothing is ever
more defaming when a man was attacked by words in relation to the
hygiene, cleanliness, and purity of his manhood.

Part III questions, as already said are questions in Criminal Law in the
2019 Bar Exam.

1. –easy-

2. See Above, B item 9

3. The crime is unjust vexation as provided by 2 nd Paragraph of Art. 287

of the RPC. Note the absence of force or intimidation which is one of
the elements to make Acts of Lasciviousness applicable in the problem
given.

4. See above, B item 8

5. Estafa and 2 counts of violation of BP 22. It is therefore hard if a person

issues 100 checks that all bounced. He will be charged of 100 counts of
violation of BP 22 since each check that will bounce is a separate
charge. But, this is also difficult on the part of the private complainant,
since he will be assessed the filing fee of more than P2,000.00 per case.
Page 12 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020
Criminal Law Review
 So, that is P200,000.00 already as filing fee only. Your attorney’s fees
not yet included.

6. See above, A item 2. When someone dies as a result of the arson, the
charge is still Arson, the death should be alleged in the information,
duly proved, for the court to consider in the penalty.

7. The answer depends on how you crafted and defended your position.
In relation to libel, fair commentaries have the following elements:
public official; relating to public function; and no reckless disregard. It
seems that L did not verify the truthfulness of the numerous
complaints he received. If the report is factual only which is supported
by evidence duly validated, then L may not be held liable.

One degree higher as to the penalty provided by the code if the

libelous materials are in an online platform under cybercrimes.

You should read that 37 page decision released by RTC 46 of

Manila promulgated on June 15, 2020 against Rappler’s Ressa and
Santos. The female judge, Rainelda H. Estacio – Montes, admitted to the
bar in 2000, which means that she must be around 45 years of age,
knowing that it is a celebrated case highlighted by the motion of United
Nations Special Rapporteur to enter as amicus curiae, penned the
decision with so much reference that it already looked like written by
the Supreme Court en banc. There is no doubt that her decision will
propel her higher in the judiciary someday.

8. See your answer in Part I, item 1.

9. Usurpation of official functions and Falsification by public officer are

the crimes committed by U and Z respectively. This is very prevalent in
some LGUs. Some mayors simply allowed their staff to do the
solemnization then they would just sign the marriage certificate just
like that.

10.–easy-

11. You should have discussed the principle of generality first as

criminal laws apply to all persons sojourning in the Philippines
regardless of race or citizenship then next is territoriality which puts
emphasis on where the vessel is situated and if the crime affects the
peace and tranquility of that territory.

Treachery is obviously present. The use of weapon indicates

deliberateness and the location of the wound and the manner of
commission rendered the victim helpless.

12. Apply the principle of three fold liability rule.

Page 13 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020
Criminal Law Review
 13. Subsidiary Imprisonment must be specifically imposed by the
court in case of failure to pay fine. Imposition of fine is a form of
criminal liability just like incarceration.

Failure to pay the civil liability duly awarded may only result to
execution.

14. – easy –

15. Read RA 10707.

17. Attempted corruption of public officers. Bribery is a formal

crime.
Read RA 3019.

18. Techincal Malversation or Illegal Use of Public Funds. Diverting

the use of public funds already set and earmarked for a purpose
constitutes technical malversation.

19. As to the teacher who was punched in the face, there is no doubt
that the crime committed against her is Qualified Direct Assault. Why
qualified? Laying hands upon a person in authority is one of the modes
of qualifying direct assault.

What about the civilian who came to the aid of a person in

authority who became the victim of direct assault? What is the crime
committed by the offender against him?

There are different positions about this depending on the

following two (2) scenarios:

a. When the victim in the direct assault is a person in authority

and a civilian comes to his aid;

b. When the victim in the direct assault is an agent of a person

in authority and a civilian comes to his aid;

In the first case, Campanilla and Estrada in their respective

books, said that the crimes committed are Complex Crime of direct
assault with Direct assault upon an agent of a person in authority. In
short, they say that there are 2 counts of direct assault committed. The
UP law center shares this view. As to the second case, both authors are
one in saying that the crime committed as to the agent of a person in
authority is Direct Assault while indirect assault is committed against
the civilian.

Page 14 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020

Criminal Law Review
 Boado made no distinction as to the 2 scenarios above. She said,
“When the civilian comes to the aid of a PA (Person in Authority) or
APA (Agent of a Person in Authority), he himself becomes an APA.
Consequently, the assault on him constitutes Indirect Assault. x x x.
There are, thus, two crimes committed – Direct Assault for the attack
on the PA/APA and Indirect Assault for the attack on the aiding
civilian.” In short, she is saying that there in both cases, the crimes
committed are Direct Assault and Indirect Assault.

As to J.L.B. Reyes, he only mentioned the general rule that

Indirect Assault cannot be committed without Direct Assault.

There is no question about it, direct assault is an element of

indirect assault.

It appears that Article 149 does not provide any distinction as to

who the offended party in the commission of Direct Assault whether he
is a PA or APA. It provides:

“Indirect Assaults. — The penalty of prisión

correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine
not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person
who shall make use of force or intimidation upon any person
coming to the aid of the authorities or their agents on
occasion of the commission of any of the crimes defined in the
next preceding article.”

Now, the original provision of Article 152 is as follows:

ARTICLE 152. Persons in Authority — Who Shall Be

Deemed as Such. — In applying the provisions of the
preceding and other articles of this Code, any person directly
vested with jurisdiction, whether as an individual or as a
member of some court or governmental corporation, board or
commission, shall be deemed a person in authority.

Article 152 then was amended by PD 299, and BP 873 for it to

read as follows:

Art. 152. Persons in authority and agents of persons in

authority: Who shall be deemed as such. — In applying the
provisions of the preceding and other articles of this Code, any
person directly vested with jurisdiction, whether as an
individual or as a member of some court or governmental
corporation, board, or commission, shall be deemed a person
in authority. A barrio captain and a barangay chairman shall
also be deemed a person in authority.

Page 15 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020

Criminal Law Review
 A person who, by direct provision of law or by election
or by appointment by competent authority, is charged with the
maintenance of public order and the protection and security of
life and property, such as a barrio councilman, barrio
policeman and barangay leader and any person who comes to
the aid of persons in authority, shall be deemed an agent of
a person in authority.

In applying the provisions of Articles 148 and 151 of

this Code, 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.

To my mind, the effect of the amendment of Article 152 is to

expand PAs and APAs, and to provide heavier liability against those
who assault them. It is likewise to give an acknowledgement to a
civilian rescuing a PA, so when he does that by becoming a Good
Samaritan to the rescue, the civilian is protected likewise him being
classified at that moment as APA. And if he himself was assaulted, the
crime committed against him is Direct Assault.

20. Read Section 4, par. 6 of RA 10175.

So there, read again if some parts are not clear. Read your answers too. Be
extra careful in citing a law since there is no RA 533, nor RA 10668, nor
Article 4833. And you cannot complex special laws with the RPC, thus it is
improper to say “X is liable for the special complex crime of carnapping with
homicide”.

If the authors mentioned above made some updates, then update us.

Keep moving forward. Stay healthy.

Finally, this remark cannot simply go unnoticed along with the others:

“Hello, Sir. I hope all is well. I just want to extend my

heartfelt appreciation for the dedication and commitment you
have shown to our class. Our initial schedule was so messed
up but you managed to find a way. I would not be considered
as a candidate for graduation this semester had you not
accepted to handle this section. Hernan v. Sandiganbayan
would always be one of my most unforgettable cases. It speaks
a lot about your professionalism and dedication as a lawyer,
sir. I was smiling while reading that case when you gave it as
Page 16 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020
Criminal Law Review
 a reading assignment. I love how you tried to push the case by
renaming the MR as Urgent Motion to Reopen the Case with
Leave of Court and with Prayer to Stay the Execution, and
Petition for Reconsideration with Prayer for Recall of Entry of
Judgment in lieu of the Prayer for Stay of Execution of
Judgment. I somehow told myself that “this is the lawyer I
want to become”. Thank you, Sir and more power. God Bless
you.”

It is the other way around. My gratitude to all.

See you all in court in different representation

or capacity on that appointed day,

Atty. Meshack Macwes

Oh I forgot, your grades were computed based on the following:

Preliminary Examination and Class Recitation/Attendance – 50%

Take Home Test - 50%
Total =100%

Page 17 of 17 4SS FINAL NOTE/JUNE 2020

Criminal Law Review