RPC Book 2 Titles 8-9

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY DASMARIÑ AS & UNIVERSITY OF
PERPETUAL HELP LAS PIÑ AS/MOLINO USE
NOTE: Some Articles may not reflect the amendments brought about by RA 10951. Please refer to your
updated Codal Provisions. This is a raw & unedited blueprint of Revised Penal Code Book 2 to be
published commercially (Rex bookstore) in 2022 if the Almighty God permits – Atty. Makamasa A.
Gapit.
For the exclusive use of DLSU-D and UPHDS Las Pinas/Molino Criminology and Criminal Justice
Education/Bachelor of Science in Forensic Science Students.
TITLE 8
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
Chapter One
DESTRUCTION OF LIFE
Section One. — Parricide, murder, homicide

Art. 246. Parricide. — Any person who shall kill his father, mother, or child,
whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants, or descendants, or
his spouse, shall be guilty of parricide and shall be punished by the penalty of
reclusion perpetua to death.
PARRICIDE, DEFINED - A felony committed by any person who shall kill his
father, mother or child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or any of his ascendants,
or descendants, or his spouse.
PENALTY FOR PARRICIDE - Reclusion perpetua to death (Note: Death

penalty is prohibited to be imposed by RA 9346).
ELEMENTS OF PARRICIDE -
(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.1
KEY ELEMENTS OF PARRICIDE AND BEST PROOF OF HUSBAND

AND WIFE RELATIONSHIP.
1
People of the Philippines vs. Noel Sales, G.R. No. 177218, October 3, 2011.
The key element in Parricide ― other than the fact of killing ― is the relationship
of the offender to the victim. In the case of Parricide of a spouse, the best proof of
the relationship between the accused and the deceased would be the marriage
certificate.2
THE CRIME IS STILL PARRICIDE EVEN THOUGH THE ACCUSED DID

NOT INTEND TO KILL HIS FATHER
A wanted to kill N his neighbor. A waited for N in a dark street to ambush the
latter. A, thinking that the person approaching was N stabbed the latter. It turned
out that what A stabbed was F, his (A’s) very own father. F died What crime was
committed by A?
a. murder
b. homicide
c. parricide
d. no crime
Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances.

— Any legally married person who having surprised his spouse in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of them or
both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall inflict upon them
any serious physical injury, shall suffer the penalty of destierro.
If he shall inflict upon them physical injuries of any other kind, he shall be
exempt from punishment.
These rules shall be applicable, under the same circumstances, to parents with
respect to their daughters under eighteen years of age, and their seducer,
while the daughters are living with their parents.
Any person who shall promote or facilitate the prostitution of his wife or
daughter, or shall otherwise have consented to the infidelity of the other
spouse shall not be entitled to the benefits of this article.
Q: How is death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

committed?
2
People vs. Victoriano Dela Cruz, G.R. No. 187683, February 11, 2010.
A: It is committed by any legally married person who, having surprised his spouse
in the act of committing sexual intercourse with another person, shall kill any of
them or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, shall inflict upon them
any serious physical injury.3
It may also be committed by any parent who shall inflict death or serious physical
injuries to his/her minor daughter and/or her sexual partner after the two having
been caught in the act of having sexual intercourse.
Q: What is the penalty for killing one’s spouse, daughter or their sexual partner
after having surprised them in the act of sexual intercourse or immediately
thereafter?
A: Destierro.
Q: What is the nature and the intention of the law for inflicting the punishment of
destierro to the perpetrator of article 247?
A: This penalty is mere banishment and, as held in a case, is intended more for the
protection of the accused than a punishment.4
Q: Does Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code define a felony?

A: No it does not. The above-quoted article, far from defining a felony, merely,
provides or grants a privilege or benefit--amounting practically to an exemption
from an adequate punishment — to a legally marries person or parent who shall
surprise his spouse or daughter in the act of committing sexual intercourse with
another, and kill any or both of them in the act or immediately thereafter, or shall
inflict upon them any serious physical injury. Thus, in case of death or serious
physical injuries, considering the enormous provocation and his righteous
indignation, the accused — who would otherwise be criminally liable for the crime
of homicide, parricide, murder, or serious physical injury, as the case may be — is
punished only with destierro.5 We, therefore, conclude that Article 247 of the
Revised Penal Code does not define and provide for a specific crime, but grants a
privilege or benefit to the accused for the killing of another or the infliction of
serious physical injuries under the circumstances therein mentioned. Consequently,
a complaint or information charging homicide under the exceptional circumstances
3
See Article 247, RPC.
4
People vs . Coricor, 79 PHIL. 672.
5
People of the Philippines vs. Alfredo Araquel, G.R. No. L- 12629.
provided in Article 247 must fall under the jurisdiction of the Courts of First
Instance, the offense charged being actually that of homicide6
MEANING OF THE PHRASE “IMMEDIATLY THEREAFTER”- Mr.

Abarca surprised his wife, Jenny, and her paramour, Khingsley Koh in the act of
sexual intercourse. Mr Abarca ran away from the scene since he got afraid of Kho
who had a gun at that time. Abarca went to the house of a soldier borrowed an
M16 rifle and went back to his house. He was not able to find his wife and Koh
there. He proceeded to the "mahjong session" as it was the "hangout" of Kingsley
Koh. The accused found Koh playing mahjong. He fired at Kingsley Koh three
times with his rifle. Koh died. Two innocent persons nearby were also hit by stray
bullets fired by the Abarca . Kingsley Koh died. The two innocent victims suffered
injuries but lived.
Q1: Was the killing of Kho, still considered as falling under article 247,
considering that Kho was not killed on the very same time and spot where he
was caught having sex with Mr. Abarca’s wife?
A: The case still falls under article 247. Supreme Court said, “Though quite a
length of time, about one hour, had passed between the time the accused-appellant
discovered his wife having sexual intercourse with the victim and the time the
latter was actually shot, the shooting must be understood to be the continuation of
the pursuit of the victim by the accused. The Revised Penal Code, 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 his
spouse in the basest act of infidelity. But the killing should have been actually
motivated by the same blind impulse, and must not have been influenced by
external factors. The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused's rage.”7
Q2: Can violators of article 247 be affected by aggravating or mitigating

circumstances?
A: Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances, not being a punishable act,

cannot be qualified by either aggravating or mitigating or other qualifying
circumstances. 8 Treachery for example cannot be appreciated as aggravating
6
People vs. Araquel.
7
People of the Philippines vs. Francisco Abarca, G.R. No 74433, September 14, 1987.
8
Abarca case supra.
against one who commits a killing under the circumstances described in article
247.
Q3: Discuss the liability of Mr. Abarca to the innocent persons who were hit
by the stray bullets?
A: According to the Supreme Court there was negligence on Abarca’s part. He was
held liable under the first part, second paragraph, of Article 365, that is, less
serious physical injuries through simple imprudence or negligence.
A: No. Mr. Marquez did not surprise his wife in the act of sexual intercourse hence
article 247 is not applicable. He committed parricide.9
THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE ADULTERER BE KILLED

ON THE VERY SAME SPOT WHERE SHE WAS HAVING SEX
Q: A husband saw a man and his wife near a clump of thick bamboo in a position
to hold sexual intercourse, but they both hurriedly arose from the ground, startled
by the noise made by the husband. The husband drew a fan-knife and pursued the
man, but he did not succeed in overtaking him.The husband returned to the house,
where he found his wife in the act of climbing the stairs. It was at that moment
where the husband stabbed the wife several times which caused her death. Can the
husband invoke the benefits of article 247?
A: Yes. The unfaithful wife was not killed in the very place where she was caught,
for the reason that the wronged husband preferred first to attack the despoiler of his
honor and afterwards the adulterous wife who succeeded in getting away from the
place where she was caught with her paramour. The assault upon the woman must
be understood to be a continuation of the act of the wronged husband's pursuit of
her paramour, who had the good fortune to escape and immediately get away from
the place of the crime. Consequently, although the deceased did not fall dead in the
place where she was caught, but in another place nearby, logically it must be
understood that the case at bar comes within the provisions of the said articles 423
(now article 247) of the Penal Code.”10
ACCUSED DID NOT CATCH THE OTHER SPOUSE IN THE ACT OF

SEX WITH ANOTHER
9
People of the Philippines vs. Marquez, 53 PHIL 260.
10
U.S. vs. Eufrasio Alano, G.R. No. L -11021, December 1, 1915.
Q: The husband saw the wife with another man near the toilet of his house in a
place covered with underbush. The man who was standing and buttoning his
drawers, immediately took to his heels, upon seeing the husband. The husband
went after him, but unable to overtake him, he returned to where his wife was and
attacked her with a knife. Is article 247 applicable here?
A: No. The privilege there granted (in article 247) is conditioned on the
requirement that the spouse surprise the husband or the wife in the act of
committing sexual intercourse with another person; the accused did not surprise his
wife in the very act or carnal intercourse, but after the act, if any such there was,
because from the fact that she was rising up and the man was buttoning his
drawers, it does not necessarily follow that a man and a woman had committed the
carnal act.11
THE KILLER-SPOUSE MUST CATCH THE OTHER SPOUSE IN THE

ACT OF SEXUAL INTERCOURSE
Q: Mr. Marquez while walking towards his house saw a half naked man jumping
down from his house where his wife was supposed to be alone. Suspecting that the
naked man was his wife’s paramour, Mr. Marquez inquired from his wife who the
person was. Instead of making explanations, the wife dropped on her knees and
asked for forgiveness. Mr Marquez killed her wife. Charged with parricidee, Mr
Marques argued that article 247 should be applied to him. Is he correct?
A: No. Article 247 could not be applied since this artile requires the spouse that he
sees the other spouse in the act of sexual intercourse.
“Human life is valuable albeit sacred. Cain has been the object of
unrelentlesscurse for centuries and millennia and his name will always be
remembered in shame as long as there are human generation able to read the
Genesis. Twenty centuries of Christianity have not been enough to make less
imperative the admonition that Thou shall not kill," uttered by greatest pundit and
prophet of Israel. Laws constitution world charters have been written to protect
human life. Still it is imperative that all men be imbued with spirit of the Sermon
on the Mount that the words of the gospels be translated into reality and that their
meaning fill all horizon with the eternal aroma of encyclical love of mankind.”12.
11
See People of the Philippines vs. Marciano Gonzales, G.R. No. 46310, October 31, 1939.
12
People vs. Ignacio Lagata, G.R. Nos. L-1940-1942, March 24, 1949.
Art. 248. Murder. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Article 246 shall kill another, shall be guilty of murder and shall be punished
by reclusion perpetua to death, if committed with any of the following
attendant circumstances:
1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of

armed men, or employing means to weaken the defense or of means or
persons to insure or afford impunity.
2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding

of a vessel, derailment or assault upon a street car or locomotive, fall of
an airship, by means of motor vehicles, or with the use of any other
means involving great waste and ruin.
4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding

paragraph, or of an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, destructive
cyclone, epidemic or other public calamity.
5. With evident premeditation.
6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the

suffering of the victim, or outraging or scoffing at his person or corpse.
For purposes of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,

Exploitation and Discrimination), the penalty for the commission of acts
punishable under Articles 248, 249, 262, paragraph 2, and 263, paragraph 1
of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised Penal Code, for the crimes of
murder, homicide, other intentional mutilation, and serious physical injuries,
respectively, shall be reclusion perpetua when the victim is under twelve
(12) years of age. The penalty for the commission of acts punishable under
Article 337, 339, 340 and 341 of Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised
Penal Code, for the crimes of qualified seduction, acts of lasciviousness with
the consent of the offended party, corruption of minors, and white slave
trade, respectively, shall be one (1) degree higher than that imposed by law
when the victim is under twelve (12) years age (RA 7610)
Notes: Murder is defined in the Philippines as the unlawful killing of another with
the presence of any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in article 248. If the
killing is not attended by any of those circumstances, the killing may be some other
crime like homicide. It is generally conceded that the first murderer in history was
Cain and the first murder victim was his brother Abel.13
ELEMENTS OF MURDER -
1. That a person was killed.
2. That the accused killed him.
3. That the killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned
in Art. 248.
4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.14
THERE IS TREACHERY WHEN THE VICTIM WAS PLACED IN A

DEFENSELESS POSITION
Q: The accused pointed a gun against two teen agers and ordered the two to sit
down. The two complied and while they were sitting down, the accused shot them.
The first victim died in the hospital and the other one survived. What crimes were
committed by the accused?
A: Murder and frustrated murder. When the two victims were ordered to sit down
at gunpoint, they were therefore placed in a completely defenseless position. Hence
there was treachery that qualified the killing to murder.15
IF THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF THE OFFENDER IS TO KILL AND

RAPING IS JUST AN AFTERTHOUGHT, THE CRIME COMMITTED IS
ONLY MURDER
Q: The accused killed two females through the use of a knife. After stabbing one
of them, the accused suddenly developed the idea of committing rape. The accused
raped one of the victims while the latter was gasping for breath and at the threshold
of death. What crime was committed by Laurencio?
a. rape with homicide

13
Holy Bible Genesis 4:8
14
People of the Philippines vs. De La Cruz, G.R. No. 188353, February 16, 2010, 612 SCRA 738.
15
See People of the Philippines vs. Claudio Teehankee, G.R. No. 111206-08
b. rape and homicide

c. murder and rape
d. Two separate murders (with rape as aggravating circumstance to be
treated either as ignominy or cruelty)
THERE IS TREACHERY IN KILLING A SLEEPING PERSON
Q: Policemen A and B went to the house of a notorious criminal to arrest the latter.
A and B saw a man who was sleeping and believing that it was the criminal they
were looking for, riddled the sleeping person with bullets. It turned out that what
they shot was an innocent person, and not the criminal they were looking for. A
and B argued before the court that at the very least their liability is only for
reckless imprudence only, or their liability should be mitigated because of
“mistake in identity”. Are they correct?
A: They are not correct. The Supreme Court held that a deliberate intent to do an
unlawful act is essentially inconsistent with the idea of reckless imprudence and
where such unlawful act is wilfully done, a mistake in the identity of the intended
victim cannot be considered as reckless imprudence to support a plea of mitigated
liability.16 As the deceased was killed while asleep, the crime committed is murder
with the qualifying circumstance of alevosia.
IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO USE THE SPECIFIC WORD

“QUALIFYING” IN THE INFORMATION CHARGING MURDER
Q: The fiscal drafted an information for murder. It states in part:
That the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, abuse of

superior strength and craft attended the commission of the offense.
Q:: Is the information defective simply because it failed to use the word
“qualifying” instead of “aggravating”?
A: No. The information is not defective. The fact that the circumstances were
described as "aggravating" instead of "qualifying" does not take the Information
out of the purview of Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code. Article 248 does not
use the word "qualifying" or "aggravating" in enumerating the circumstances that
raise a killing to the category of murder. Article 248 merely refers to the
16
People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Oanis, G.R. No. L- 47722, July 27, 1943.
enumerated circumstances as the "attendant circumstances." In the instant case,

the Information specifically alleges that evident premeditation, treachery, and
abuse of superior strength "attended the commission of the offense." This is more
than sufficient to comply with the requirements of Article 248. Well-settled is the
rule that when evident premeditation, treachery, or abuse of superior strength is
present and alleged in the Information, it qualifies the killing and raises it to the
category of murder.17
OUTRAGING OR SCOFFING AT THE CORPSE OF A PERSON
Q: What crime is committed by one who dismembered the corpse of the victim
with the cutting off of the head and limbs and the opening up of the body to
remove the intestines, lungs and liver. The killer scoffed at the dead when the
intestines were removed and hung around the neck as a necklace, and the lungs and
liver were facetiously described as "pulutan."
A: Murder qualified by outraging or scoffing at the corpse of a person.18
DISMEMBERMENT OF A DEAD BODY IS OUTRAGING OR SCOFFING

AT THE CORPSE OF A PERSON RAISING THE CRIME COMMITTED
TO THAT OF MURDER
The victim’s corpse was sawn by the accused into seven (7) pieces. Under Art. 248
(6) of the Revised Penal Code, “outraging or scoffing at the corpse” is a
qualifying circumstance of murder. Dismemberment of a dead body is one manner
of outraging or scoffing at the corpse of the victim. 19
THE CRIME IS MURDER AND NOT KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE IF

THE INTENTION OF THE ACCUSED IN KIDNAPPING THE VICTIM IS
TO KILL THE LATTER
Where the intention is to kill the victim and the latter is forcibly taken to another
place and killed- it is murder. There is no indication that the offenders intended to
deprive the victim of his liberty. But if the victim is kidnapped and killed as an
afterthought it is kidnapping with homicide under article 267.
17
People of the Philippines vs. Wilson Lab-Eo, G.R. No. 133438, January 16, 2002.
18
People vs Carmina, 193 SCRA 429. See also People of the Philippines vs. Stephen Whisenhunt, G.R. No. 123819,
November 14, 2001.
19
People of the Philippines vs. Eric Guillermo, G.R. No. 147786, January 20, 2004.
IF THERE IS NO OVERT ACT POINTING THAT ROBBERY IS THE

INTENTION OF THE OFFENDERS IN TRYING TO STOP A BUS, THE
KILLINGS OF THE PASSENGER THEREOF SHOULD BE CONSIDERED
AS PLAIN MURDER.
A bus was travelling to Manila when a group of armed men suddenly appeared and
signaled the bus to stop. The driver of the bus thinking that the armed men were
not passengers did not stop.The armed men riddled the bus with bullets killing one
passenger. What crime was committed by the armed men?
A: Murder (not attempted robbery).20
HOW MUCH IS CIVIL INDEMNITY FOR DEATH CAUSED BY A

CRIME?
Article 2206 of the Civil Code authorizes the award of civil indemnity for death
caused by a crime. The award of said civil indemnity is mandatory, and is granted
to the heirs of the victim without need of proof other than the commission of the
crime. Current jurisprudence have already increased the award of civil indemnity
ex delicto to P75,000.00.21
Art. 249. Homicide. — Any person who, not falling within the provisions of
Article 246, shall kill another without the attendance of any of the
circumstances enumerated in the next preceding article, shall be deemed
guilty of homicide and be punished by reclusion temporal.
ELEMENTS OF HOMICIDE -
1) a person was killed; and
2) the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance;
3) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and
20
People of the Philippines vs. Eugenio Olaes, G.R. No. L-11166, April 17, 1959.
21
People of the Philippines vs. Alberto Tabarnero, G.R. No. 168169, February 2, 2010
4) the killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder,
or by that of parricide or infanticide.22
DISTINGUISH MURDER FROM HOMICIDE
Murder is the killing of another which is not parricide or infanticide and the killing
is attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in article 248, while
homicide is the killing of another person without any qualifying circumstances.
Absent then of any qualifying circumstance, the crime committed was homicide as
defined and penalized under Article 249 of the Revised Penal Code.23
MORAL TURPITUDE, DEFINED - Moral turpitude has been defined as

everything which is done contrary to justice, modesty, or good morals; an act of
baseness, vileness or depravity in the private and social duties which a man owes
his fellowmen, or to society in general, contrary to justice, honesty, modesty or
good morals.24
IS HOMICIDE A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE?
Homicide may or may not involve moral turpitude depending on the degree of the
crime. Moral turpitude is not involved in every criminal act and is not shown by
every known and intentional violation of statute, but whether any particular
conviction involves moral turpitude may be a question of fact and frequently
depends on all the surrounding circumstances. While . . . generally but not always,
crimes mala in se involve moral turpitude, while crimes mala prohibita do not, it,
cannot always be ascertained whether moral turpitude does or does not exist by
classifying a crime as malum in se or as malum prohibitum, since there are crimes
which are mala in se and yet but rarely involve moral turpitude and there are
crimes which involve moral turpitude and are mala prohibita only. 16 It follows
therefore, that moral turpitude is somewhat a vague and indefinite term, the
meaning of which must be left to the process of judicial inclusion or exclusion as
the cases are reached.25
22
Artemio Yadao vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 150917, September 27, 2006, citing Luis B. Reyes Book
Two, page 460, 2001 edition.
23
People of the Philippines vs. Felipe Sion, G.R. No. 109817, August 11, 1997.
24
International Rice Research Intitute vs. National Labor Relations Commission, G. R. No. 97239, May 12, 1993.
25
IRRI vs. NLRC, supra.
THERE IS TREACHERY IF THE KILLING WAS SUDDEN AND

UNEXPECTED
Q: A policeman was being attacked with a deadly weapon. Warning shots were
fired. When the attacker was only about two-three meters from the policeman, the
latter shot the attacker with his M-16 rifle, hitting him in various parts of his body.
As the attacker slumped to the ground, the policeman came closer and pumped
another bullet into his head killing the attacker. The court declared that the killing
of the attacker by the policeman was no longer necessary. Is the accused guilty of
murder?
ANSWER: No. Guilty only of homicide since there was no treachery. The killing
was so sudden and unexpected that the accused can hardly be said to have a mode
of attack that intended to insure the killing of the victim. On the contrary the victim
was given a fair warning by way of warning shot.26
Art. 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder or homicide. — The courts, in
view of the facts of the case, may impose upon the person guilty of the
frustrated crime of parricide, murder or homicide, defined and penalized in
the preceding articles, a penalty lower by one degree than that which should
be imposed under the provision of Article 50.
The courts, considering the facts of the case, may likewise reduce by one
degree the penalty which under Article 51 should be imposed for an attempt
to commit any of such crimes.
Art. 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray. — When, while several persons,
not composing groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting and
attacking each other reciprocally, quarrel and assault each other in a
confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of the affray someone is
killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased, but the
person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries can be identified,
such person or persons shall be punished by prision mayor.
If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the

deceased, the penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods shall be imposed upon all those who shall have used violence upon the
person of the victim.
26
People vs. SPOI Ulep, G.R. No 132547, September 20, 2000.
WHAT IS THE FELONY KNOWN AS DEATH CAUSED IN A

TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY?
A: This felony takes place when, several persons, not composing groups organized
for the common purpose of assaulting and attacking each other reciprocally quarrel
and assault each other in a confused and tumultuous manner, and in the course of
the affray someone is killed, and it cannot be ascertained who actually killed the
deceased, but the person/s who inflicted serious physical injuries or those who used
violence upon the person of the victim can be identified.27
THE CRIME IS NOT DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY IF

THE KILLER COULD BE IDENTIFIED, IN WHICH CASE THE CRIME
COMMITTED BY THE KILLER COULD BE HOMCIDE OR MURDER AS
THE CASE MAY BE
Assuming that a rumble or a free-for-all fight occurred at the benefit dance, Article
251 of the Revised Penal Code cannot apply because prosecution witnesses
positively identified accused-appellant as Miguelito Donato's killer28
Art. 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. — When in a

tumultuous affray as referred to in the preceding article, only serious physical
injuries are inflicted upon the participants thereof and the person responsible
thereof cannot be identified, all those who appear to have used violence upon
the person of the offended party shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree
than that provided for the physical injuries so inflicted.
When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious nature and the person
responsible therefor cannot be identified, all those who appear to have used
any violence upon the person of the offended party shall be punished by
arresto mayor from five to fifteen days.
PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY,

DEFINED - It takes place when in a tumultuous affray , only serious physical
injuries are inflicted upon the participants thereof and the person responsible
thereof cannot be identified, all those who appear to have used violence upon the
person of the offended party shall suffer the penalty next lower in degree than that
provided for the physical injuries so inflicted.
27
See Article 251.
28
People vs. Cresencio Maramara, G.R. No. 110994, October 22, 1999.
When the physical injuries inflicted are of a less serious nature and the person
responsible therefor cannot be identified, all those who appear to have used any
violence upon the person of the offended party shall be punished by arresto
mayor from five to fifteen days.29
Art. 253. Giving assistance to suicide. — 1. Any person who shall assist another
to commit suicide shall suffer the penalty of prision mayor; 2. if such person
leads his assistance to another to the extent of doing the killing himself, he
shall suffer the penalty of reclusion temporal. However, if the suicide is not
consummated, the penalty of arresto mayor in its medium and maximum
periods, shall be imposed.
Art. 254. Discharge of firearms. — Any person who shall shoot at another with
any firearm shall suffer the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum
and medium periods, unless the facts of the case are such that the act can be
held to constitute frustrated or attempted parricide, murder, homicide or any
other crime for which a higher penalty is prescribed by any of the articles of
this Code.
Comments: In illegal discharge of firearm the accused shoots his firearm against
another but there is no intent to kill on his part. Had there been intent to kill in
shooting the victim and for some reasons, the victim was not hit by the bullet, the
crime could be attempted homicide, murder, or parricide as the case may be.
THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SHOOTER AND THE VICTIM MAY

DETERMINE THE INTENTION OF THE ACCUSED.
Q: A discharged his shotgun at B from a distance of some two hundred meters.

The latter, in order to avoid the shot, threw himself to the ground and was not hit,
after which he got up and run. What crime was committed by A?
A: Illegal discharge of firearm. The distance from where A stood to where B was
bending was so great, that it is difficult to impute an intention on the part of A to
kill B. Nor does it appear that A really aimed his gun directly at B. It is not
improbable that the gun was discharged chiefly with a view to frightening B
away30
29
See Article 252, RPC.
30
People vs. Hipolito Agbuya, G.R. No. 36366-36368, September 23, 1932.
Art. 255. Infanticide. — The penalty provided for parricide in Article 246 and
for murder in Article 248 shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill any
child less than three days of age.
If the crime penalized in this article be committed by the mother of the child
for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she shall suffer the penalty of
prision mayor in its medium and maximum periods, and if said crime be
committed for the same purpose by the maternal grandparents or either of
them, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.
Notes: Infanticide is the killing of a child less than 3 days old. The penalty for
infanticide is the same penalty that is provided by the law for the crimes of
parricide and murder - that is reclusion perpetua. If the infanticide is committed by
the mother of the child for the purpose of concealing her dishonor, she is not
exempted from punishment but the law mitigates her liability, so that instead of the
penalty being reclusion perpetua, the penalty is reduced to prision mayor in its
medium and maximum periods. The law extends this mitigated penalty to the
maternal grandparents or either of them if their motive in committing infanticide is
to conceal the dishonor of their daughter. Notice that the father of the child or any
of the paternal grandparents are not entitled to any mitigated penalty if they kill the
child less than three days old even if the purpose of their killing is to conceal
someone’s dishonor. If the child however is now exactly three days old (72 hours)
or over, there is no more mitigated penalty for the killer even if her purpose is to
conceal her dishonor.
REASON WHY A MOTHER WHO KILLS HER CHILD LESS THAN

THREE DAYS OLD TO CONCEAL HER DISHONOR IS GIVEN LESS
PENALTY
We understand that the responsibility of the mother is mitigated when after giving
birth to a baby born out of illicit relationship, without time to reflect, excited and
obfuscated solely by the fear of her dishonor being made public, she desires to
erase the traces of her mistake. but on the day following, or on the third day when
the disgraced child has been taken by the mother on her lap, when the warmth of
maternal love from the mother’s breast has been communicated to it, when it has
been given a kiss on its innocent cheek, honor cannot overcome filial love, a love
which has no equal on earth – Salvador Viada
ABORTION DEFINED – The spontaneous or artificially induced expulsion of an

embryo or fetus.31
Notes: Abortion is generally punishable as a criminal offense. However when the

life of the mother is being endangered by the presence of the fetus, it is understood
that an abortion may be performed upon her if the purpose is to save her life. The
mother, and anyone who were instrumental in causing an abortion on her may not
be held criminally liable since they may invoke Article 12 (4) on justifying
circumstance of avoidance of greater evil or state of necessity. The punishable
abortions are: intentional abortion, unintentional abortion, abortion practiced by the
woman herself or by her parents, and abortion practiced by a physician or midwife
and dispensing of abortive.
Art. 256. Intentional abortion. — Any person who shall intentionally cause an
abortion shall suffer:
1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon

the person of the pregnant woman.
2. The penalty of prision mayor if, without using violence, he shall act
without the consent of the woman.
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum

periods, if the woman shall have consented.
Art. 257. Unintentional abortion. — The penalty of prision correccional in its

minimum and medium period shall be imposed upon any person who shall
cause an abortion by violence, but unintentionally.
ELEMENTS OF UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
1. That there is a pregnant woman.
2. That violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion.
3. That the violence is intentionally exerted.
31
Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 7.
4. That as a result of the violence the foetus dies, either in the womb or after
having been expelled therefrom.32
STABBING TO DEATH A PREGNANT WOMAN RESULTING ALSO TO

THE DEATH OF THE UNBORN CHILD IS A COMPLEX CRIME OF
MURDER WITH UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION
The accused stabbed the pregnant victim twice while she was lying on her back.
This resulted into the victim’s death and her unborn child. The prosecution charged
the accused with murder. The Supreme Court however made this observation:
Clearly, at the time of the death of the woman, she was carrying a 6 to 7-month-old
fetus which probably died because of the stabbing incident. If indeed the fetus died
at the time the woman was stabbed, then the crime of murder, defined in and
penalized under Article 248 of the Revised Penal Code, complexed with
unintentional abortion, defined in and penalized under Article 257 of the same
Code, should have been filed against the appellant.33
Art. 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself of by her parents. — The
penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods shall be
imposed upon a woman who shall practice abortion upon herself or shall
consent that any other person should do so.
Any woman who shall commit this offense to conceal her dishonor, shall suffer
the penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
If this crime be committed by the parents of the pregnant woman or either of

them, and they act with the consent of said woman for the purpose of
concealing her dishonor, the offenders shall suffer the penalty of prision
correccional in its medium and maximum periods.
Notes: A pregnant woman who aborted her own unborn child or allowed any other
person to perform an abortion upon her is liable under this provision. Take notice
however, that the penalty for this type of abortion will be reduced if the purpose of
the mother in aborting her own child is to conceal her dishonor. The maternal
grandparents are also entitled to a mitigated penalty if they were instrumental in
causing this type of abortion provided their purpose is to conceal the dishonor of
their daughter. Similar to infanticide, the father or the paternal grandparents are not
32
People of the Philippines vs. Filomeno Salufrania, G.R. No. L-50884, March 30, 1988.
33
People vs. Rodrigo Salcedo, G.R. No. 178272, March 14, 2011.
entitled to any reduced penalty if they caused an abortion upon a pregnant woman
even if their purpose is to conceal the latter’s dishonor.
Art. 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of

abortives. — The penalties provided in Article 256 shall be imposed in its
maximum period, respectively, upon any physician or midwife who, taking
advantage of their scientific knowledge or skill, shall cause an abortion or
assist in causing the same.
Any pharmacist who, without the proper prescription from a physician, shall
dispense any abortive shall suffer arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding
1,000 pesos.
Section Three - Duel
Art. 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel. — The penalty of reclusion

temporal shall be imposed upon any person who shall kill his adversary in a
duel.
If he shall inflict upon the latter physical injuries only, he shall suffer the
penalty provided therefor, according to their nature.
In any other case, the combatants shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor,
although no physical injuries have been inflicted.
The seconds shall in all events be punished as accomplices.
DUEL, DEFINED - A duel implies or means an agreement to fight under

determined conditions and with the participations and intervention of seconds, who
fix such conditions.34
Notes: There is little Philippine jurisprudence on duel as it seldom happened or

recorded especially in our present time. It appears that this article of the Revised
Penal Code is a dead or at least a dormant provision. Interestingly however, our
history books revealed that our national hero, Dr. Jose Rizal, had challenged the
following people to a duel on separate occasions namely, Mr. Juan Lardet, a
French businessman, Wenceslao Retana, a Spanish scholar and even Antonio
34
United States vs. Antonio Navarro, G.R. No. 1878, March 9, 1907.
Luna35. All challenged to a duel did not materialize. The penalty for dueling will
depend upon the result of the duel as summarized in this table:
If the adversary is killed Reclusion temporal

Physical Injuries only is inflicted Consult Article 263 -266 as the
penalty is found therein
No physical injuries whatsoever was Both combatants shall suffer arresto
inflicted mayor
Liability of seconds They are considered as accomplices
Art. 261. Challenging to a duel. — The penalty of prision correccional in its

minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who shall challenge
another, or incite another to give or accept a challenge to a duel, or shall scoff
at or decry another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to fight a
duel.

CHAPTER TWO – PHYSICAL INJURIES
Art. 262. Mutilation. — The penalty of reclusion temporal to reclusion

perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who shall intentionally mutilate
another by depriving him, either totally or partially, or some essential organ
of reproduction.
Any other intentional mutilation shall be punished by prision mayor in its

medium and maximum periods.
MUTILATION, DEFINED – In general, mutilation in criminal law is the

depriving a man of the use of any of those limbs which may be useful to him 36 It
may also be defined as the lopping or clipping off some part of the body.37
Notes: Mutilation has two types. First is mutilation castration - A type of

mutilation committed by any person who shall intentionally mutilate another by
depriving him, either totally or partially, of some essential organ of reproduction.
The word “castration” is defined as the removal of the testies or ovaries.
Mutilation castration has these requisites: 1) that there be a castration, that is,
mutilation of organs necessary for generation; and 2) that the mutilation is caused
35
Gregorio and Sonia Zaide, Jose Rizal, Life, Works and Writings, 2nd edition, pages 178-179 and 122
36
See Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th edition, page 1020.
37
U.S. vs. Bogel, 7 PHIL 286.
purposely and deliberately, that is, to deprive the offended party of some essential
organ for reproduction38 Another type of mutilation is mutilation mayhem – which
is committed by any person who shall intentionally mutilate another of any part of
his body except organ for reproduction. According to Viada: At the head of these
crimes, according to their order of gravity, is the mutilation known by the name of
"castration" which consists of the amputation of whatever organ is necessary for
generation. The law could not fail to punish with the utmost severity such a crime,
which, although not destroying life, deprives a person of the means to transmit it.
But bear in mind that according to this article in order for "castration" to exist, it
is indispensable that the "castration" be made purposely. The law does not look
only to the result but also to the intention of the act. Consequently, if by reason of
an injury or attack, a person is deprived of the organs of generation, the act,
although voluntary, not being intentional to that end, it would not come under the
provisions of this article, but under No. 2 of article 431. 39
VASECTOMY IS NOT MUTILATION CASTRATION
Does vasectomy deprive a man, totally or partially, of some essential organ of

reproduction? The Supreme Court answered in the negative. In the case of Gloria
Pilar Aguirre vs. Secretary DOJ, G.R. No. 170723, March 3, 2008, the SC
acquitted the urologists who were charged with mutilation castration for
performing vasectomy on their patient. It said:
“In the male sterilization procedure of vasectomy, the tubular passage, called the
vas deferens, through which the sperm (cells) are transported from the testicle to
the urethra where they combine with the seminal fluid to form the ejaculant, is
divided and the cut ends merely tied. That part, which is cut, that is, the vas
deferens, is merely a passageway that is part of the duct system of the male
reproductive organs. The vas deferens is not an organ, i.e., a highly organized
unit of structure, having a defined function in a multicellular organism and
consisting of a range of tissues. Be that as it may, even assuming arguendo that
the tubular passage can be considered an organ, the cutting of the vas deferens
does not divest or deny a man of any essential organ of reproduction for the simple
reason that it does not entail the taking away of a part or portion of the male
reproductive system. The cut ends, after they have been tied, are then dropped
back into the incision.Though undeniably, vasectomy denies a man his power of
38
Gloria Pilar Aguirre vs. Secretary DOJ, G.R. No. 170723, March 3, 2008
39
United States vs. Baldomero Esparcia, G.R. No. 12694, September 6, 1914.
reproduction, such procedure does not deprive him, “either totally or partially, of
some essential organ for reproduction.”
Art. 263. Serious physical injuries. — Any person who shall wound, beat, or
assault another, shall be guilty of the crime of serious physical injuries and
shall suffer:
1. The penalty of prision mayor, if in consequence of the physical

injuries inflicted, the injured person shall become insane, imbecile,
impotent, or blind;
2. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum

periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person
injured shall have lost the use of speech or the power to hear or to smell,
or shall have lost an eye, a hand, a foot, an arm, or a leg or shall have
lost the use of any such member, or shall have become incapacitated for
the work in which he was therefor habitually engaged;
3. The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum and medium

periods, if in consequence of the physical injuries inflicted, the person
injured shall have become deformed, or shall have lost any other part of
his body, or shall have lost the use thereof, or shall have been ill or
incapacitated for the performance of the work in which he as habitually
engaged for a period of more than ninety days;
4. The penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision

correccional in its minimum period, if the physical injuries inflicted
shall have caused the illness or incapacity for labor of the injured
person for more than thirty days.
If the offense shall have been committed against any of the persons
enumerated in Article 246, or with attendance of any of the circumstances
mentioned in Article 248, the case covered by subdivision number 1 of this
Article shall be punished by reclusion temporal in its medium and maximum
periods; the case covered by subdivision number 2 by prision correccional in
its maximum period to prision mayor in its minimum period; the case covered
by subdivision number 3 by prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods; and the case covered by subdivision number 4 by prision correccional
in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions of the preceding paragraph shall not be applicable to a parent

who shall inflict physical injuries upon his child by excessive chastisement.
Notes: The crime of physical injuries may be defined as the act of wounding,
beating or assaulting another without any justifiable purpose and without intent to
kill (animus interficiendi). If there is intent to kill in the act of attacking another
and the victim did not die, the crime could be attempted or frustrated felonies such
as homicide or murder. The most common physical injuries are slight physical
injuries, less serious physical injuries and serious physical injuries. Mutilation is
also a form of physical injury as well as the lesser known crime of administering
injurious substances or beverages.
Q: Distinguish mutilation from physical injury.

A: The mutilation must have been made deliberately to clip off some part of the
body to deprive the other person of such part of the body. This special intention is
not present in physical injuries.
Q: Distinguish between physical injuries from homicide/murder.

A: The assailant’s intent to kill is the main element that distinguishes the crime of
physical injuries from the crime of homicide/murder. If there is no intent to kill,
the act of assaulting another may be physical injuries as long as the victim did not
die. If there is intent to kill in attacking another and the victim did not die, the
crime could either be homicide, murder, parricide as the case may be in their
attempted or frustrated stages.
HOW TO DETERMINE IF THE ACCUSED HAD THE INTENT TO KILL
The following factors determine the presence of an intent to kill: (1) the means
used by the malefactors; (2) the nature, location, and number of wounds sustained
by the victim; (3) the conduct of the malefactors before, at the time, or
immediately after the killing of the victim; and (4) the circumstances under which
the crime was committed and the motives of the accused. We also consider motive
and the words uttered by the offender at the time he inflicted injuries on the victim
as additional determinative factors.40
IF THE VICTIM OF THE ASSAULT SUFFERED DEFORMITY OR

UGLINESS THE CRIME COMMITTED BY THE ACCUSED IS SERIOUS
PHYSICAL INJURIES
40
See Giovanin Serrano vs. People of the Philippines, G.R No. 175023, July 5, 2010.
Q: The accused struck the offended party in the mouth with an iron instrument
used for cranking the engine of a motor truck, thereby breaking four of the
offended party's front teeth and inflicting on his upper lip a wound which required
medical treatment for six days. What crime was committed by the accused?
A: Serious Physical Injuries. The offended party was conspicuously disfigured by

the loss of four front teeth. Accused is guilty of a violation of subsection 3 of
article 263 of the Revised Penal Code. A further reason for considering the offense
committed by the accused as serious physical in juries is that a front tooth is a
member of the body, other than a principal member, within the meaning of the
words, "or shall have lost any other member", as used in subsection 3 of article 263
of the Revised Penal Code. The injury contemplated by the Code is an injury that
cannot be repaired by the action of nature, and if the loss of the teeth is visible and
impairs the appearance of the offended party, it constitutes a disfigurement. The
fact that he may, if he has the necessary means and so desires, have artificial teeth
substituted for the natural teeth he has lost does not repair the injury, although it
may lessen the disfigurement. The case of a child or an old person is an exception
to the rule.41
THE LOSS OF THE POWER TO HEAR OF ONLY ONE EAR IS STILL

SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES BUT UNDER ARTICLE 263 (3) NOT
UNDER PARAGRAPH (2) OF THE SAME ARTICLE.
Q: The accused attacked the victim and as a consequence of said injuries the
offended party lost the power to hear of his right ear. What crime was committed
by the accused?
A: Serious Physical Injuries. Loss "of the power to hear" is surely a serious
physical injury. But is the loss "of the power to hear of his right ear" a loss of the
power to hear? As the offended party may still hear thru his left ear, it would seem
he has not lost the power to hear. However Article 263, paragraph 3,
prescribes prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods if the person
injured shall have lost "the use of any other part of his body." The victim was
deprived of the use of his right ear, a part of his body.42
41
People vs. Alipio Balubar, G.R. No. L- 40940, October 9, 1934.
42
People vs. Serafin Hernandez, G.R. No. L-4213, November 28, 1953
BITING THE EAR OF ANOTHER RESULTING TO PART OF THE

EARLOBE BEING DETACHED FROM THE VICTIM’S HEAD IS
SERIOUS PHYSICAL INJURIES
The accused taking the victim by the hair dragged her along the ground and bit her
in the left ear. As a result of this bite, part of the ear was removed. What crime was
committed?
A: Serious Physical Injuries43
Art. 264. Administering injurious substances or beverages. — The penalties

established by the next preceding article shall be applicable in the respective
case to any person who, without intent to kill, shall inflict upon another any
serious physical injury, by knowingly administering to him any injurious
substance or beverages or by taking advantage of his weakness of mind or
credulity.
Art. 265. Less serious physical injuries. — Any person who shall inflict upon
another physical injuries not described in the preceding articles, but which
shall incapacitate the offended party for labor for ten days or more, or shall
require medical assistance for the same period, shall be guilty of less serious
physical injuries and shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor.
Whenever less serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted with the
manifest intent to kill or offend the injured person, or under circumstances
adding ignominy to the offense in addition to the penalty of arresto mayor, a
fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed.
Any less serious physical injuries inflicted upon the offender's parents,
ascendants, guardians, curators, teachers, or persons of rank, or persons in
authority, shall be punished by prision correccional in its minimum and
medium periods, provided that, in the case of persons in authority, the deed
does not constitute the crime of assault upon such person.
Art. 266. Slight physical injuries and maltreatment. — The crime of slight
physical injuries shall be punished:
43
US vs. Maria Solis, G.R. No. 1687, January 31, 1905
1. By arresto menor when the offender has inflicted physical injuries

which shall incapacitate the offended party for labor from one to nine
days, or shall require medical attendance during the same period.
2. By arresto menor or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos and censure when
the offender has caused physical injuries which do not prevent the
offended party from engaging in his habitual work nor require medical
assistance.
3. By arresto menor in its minimum period or a fine not exceeding 50

pesos when the offender shall ill-treat another by deed without causing
any injury.
Ang isang karaniwang kasabihan ay "ang karangalan ng isang tao ay katumbas

ng kanyang buhay," lalo na at kung ang pag-uusapan ay ang karangalan, dangal o
puri ng isang babae. Kaya nga sa batas, ang pagsira ng puri ng isang babae ay
mabigat na kasalanan at kung ito ay ginawa ng sapilitan ang parusang katumbas
ay mabilanggo habang buhay. Ano pa at kung ang pag-gahasa ay ginamitan ng
sandatang nakamamatay o ginawa ng dalawa o higit pang kalalakihan, o ang
pinagsamantalahan ay namatay o nasiraan ng bait, ang pataw na parusa sa batas
ay bitay.44
HISTORY OF RAPE, RAPE LAWS AND MARITAL RAPE
The term rape originates in the Latin rapere (supine stem raptum), "to snatch, to

grab, to carry off".Since the 14th century, the term has come to mean "to seize and
take away by force" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape).
The evolution of rape laws is actually traced to two ancient English practices of
'bride capture' whereby a man conquered a woman through rape and 'stealing an
heiress' whereby a man abducted a woman and married her.
The rape laws then were intended not to redress the violation of the woman's
chastity but rather to punish the act of obtaining the heiress' property by forcible
marriage or to protect a man's valuable interest in his wife's chastity or her
daughter's virginity.
Justice Gancayco, in his unique opening statement in the case of People of the Philippines vs. Bartolome
44
Barranco, G.R. No. 58447, August 31, 1989.

If a man raped an unmarried virgin, he was guilty of stealing her father's property
and if a man raped his wife, he was merely using his property.
Women were subjugated in laws and society as objects or goods and such
treatment was justified under three ideologies.
Under the chattel theory prevalent during the 6th century, a woman was the
property of her father until she marries to become the property of her husband. If a
man abducted an unmarried woman, he had to pay the owner, and later buy her
from the owner; buying and marrying a wife were synonymous.
From the 11th century to the 16th century, a woman lost her identity upon marriage
and the law denied her political power and status under the feudal doctrine of
coverture.
A husband had the right to chastise his wife and beat her if she misbehaved,
allowing him to bring order within the family.
This was supplanted by the marital unity theory, which espoused a similar concept.
Upon marrying, the woman becomes one with her husband. She had no right to
make a contract, sue another, own personal property or write a will.
II. The marital exemption rule
In the 17th century, Sir Matthew Hale (Hale), a Chief Justice in England,
conceived the irrevocable implied consent theory that would later on emerge as the
marital exemption rule in rape. He stated that:
[T]he husband cannot be guilty of a rape committed by himself upon his lawful
wife, for by their mutual matrimonial consent and contract the wife hath given up
herself in this kind unto her husband, which she cannot retract.
The rule was observed in common law countries such as the United States of
America (USA) and England. It gives legal immunity to a man who forcibly
sexually assaults his wife, an act which would be rape if committed against a
woman not his wife. In those jurisdictions, rape is traditionally defined as "the
forcible penetration of the body of a woman who is not the wife of the perpetrator."
The first case in the USA that applied the marital exemption rule was
Commonwealth v. Fogerty promulgated in 1857. The Supreme Judicial Court of
Massachusetts pronounced that it would always be a defense in rape to show

marriage to the victim. Several other courts adhered to a similar rationale with all
of them citing Hale's theory as basis.
The rule was formally codified in the Penal Code of New York in 1909. A husband
was endowed with absolute immunity from prosecution for the rape of his
wife. The privilege was personal and pertained to him alone. He had the marital
right to rape his wife but he will be liable when he aids or abets another person in
raping her.
In the 1970s, the rule was challenged by women's movements in the USA
demanding for its abolition for being violative of married women's right to be
equally protected under rape laws.
In 1978, the rule was qualified by the Legislature in New York by proscribing the
application of the rule in cases where the husband and wife are living apart
pursuant to a court order "which by its terms or in its effects requires such living
apart," or a decree, judgment or written agreement of separation
In 1983, the marital exemption rule was abandoned in New York when the Court
of Appeals of New York declared the same unconstitutional in People v.
Liberta for lack of rational basis in distinguishing between marital rape and non-
marital rape. The decision, which also renounced Hale's irrevocable implied
consent theory, ratiocinated as follows:
We find that there is no rational basis for distinguishing between marital rape and
nonmarital rape. The various rationales which have been asserted in defense of the
exemption are either based upon archaic notions about the consent and property
rights incident to marriage or are simply unable to withstand even the slightest
scrutiny. We therefore declare the marital exemption for rape in the New York
statute to be unconstitutional.
Lord Hale's notion of an irrevocable implied consent by a married woman to sexual

intercourse has been cited most frequently in support of the marital exemption. x x
x Any argument based on a supposed consent, however, is untenable. Rape is not
simply a sexual act to which one party does not consent. Rather, it is a degrading,
violent act which violates the bodily integrity of the victim and frequently causes
severe, long-lasting physical and psychic harm x x x. To ever imply consent to
such an act is irrational and absurd. Other than in the context of rape statutes,
marriage has never been viewed as giving a husband the right to coerced
intercourse on demand x x x. Certainly, then, a marriage license should not be
viewed as a license for a husband to forcibly rape his wife with impunity. A
married woman has the same right to control her own body as does an unmarried
woman x x x. If a husband feels "aggrieved" by his wife's refusal to engage in
sexual intercourse, he should seek relief in the courts governing domestic relations,
not in "violent or forceful self-help x x x."
The other traditional justifications for the marital exemption were the common-law
doctrines that a woman was the property of her husband and that the legal
existence of the woman was "incorporated and consolidated into that of the
husband x x x." Both these doctrines, of course, have long been rejected in this
State. Indeed, "[nowhere] in the common-law world - [or] in any modem society -
is a woman regarded as chattel or demeaned by denial of a separate legal identity
and the dignity associated with recognition as a whole human being x x x."
By 1993, marital rape was a crime in all 50 states, with 17 of them, as well as the
District of Columbia, outlawing the act without exemptions. Meanwhile, the 33
other states granted some exemptions to a husband from prosecution such as when
the wife is mentally or physically impaired, unconscious, asleep, or legally unable
to consent.
III. Marital Rape in the Philippines
Interestingly, no documented case on marital rape has ever reached this Court until
now. It appears, however, that the old provisions of rape under Article 335 of the
RPC adhered to Hale's irrevocable implied consent theory, albeit in a limited form.
According to Chief Justice Ramon C. Aquino, a husband may not be guilty of rape
under Article 335 of Act No. 3815 but, in case there is legal separation, the
husband should be held guilty of rape if he forces his wife to submit to sexual
intercourse (People vs. Edgar Jumawan, April 21, 2014).
Art. 266- A. Rape is committed:
1. By any man who shall have carnal knowledge of a woman under any of the
ff. circumstances:
a. through force, theat or intimidation;
b. when the offended party is deprived of reason or is otherwise unconscious;
c. by means of fraudulent machination or grave abuse of authority
d. when the offended party is under 12 or is demented, even though none of

the above be present.
2. By any person who, under any of the circumstances mentioned in par. 1

hereof, shall commit an act of sexual assault 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 8353 22 October 1997)
RAPE, DEFINED – Unlawful sexual activity and usu. sexual intercourse carried
out forcibly or under threat of injury against the will usu. of a female or with a
person who is beneath a certain age or incapable of valid consent because of
mental illness, mental deficiency, intoxication, unconsciousness or deception.45
CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, DEFINED - Carnal knowledge has been defined as

the act of a man having sexual bodily connections with a woman; sexual
intercourse (People vs. Victor Bormeo, GR 91734, March 30, 1993)
Notes: Rape used to be a private crime and a crime against chastity. On November
22, 1997, by virtue of RA 8353 (Anti Rape Law of 1997), rape has been
reclassified from being a crime against chastity to that of a crime against persons.
Consequently, rape is no longer considered a private crime or that
which cannot be prosecuted, except upon a complaint filed by the aggrieved
party. It is now a public crime. Anyone can initiate its complaint regardless of his
relationship with the supposed rape victim. It used to be that rape can be
committed only by man and the victim has been traditionally been always a
woman. Again by virtue of RA 8353, rape is now a genderless crime. It can be
committed by both men and women. The victim likewise can either be a man or
woman. Rape under article 266-A is more of an enumeration of how rape can be
committed rather than a definition of it. Under paragraph 1, known as rape by
sexual intercourse, rape can be committed by a man against a woman, under
paragraph 2 (rape by sexual assault) rape can be committed by both men and
women and the victim could also be a man or a woman. In general rape by sexual
intercourse carries a greater penalty than rape by sexual assault.
Rape under the second paragraph of Article 266-A is also known as "instrument or
object rape," "gender-free rape," or "homosexual rape." The gravamen of rape
through sexual assault is "the insertion of the penis into another person’s mouth or
45
Merriam-Webster’s Dictionary of Law, Copyright 2011, page 400.
anal orifice, or any instrument or object, into another person’s genital or anal
orifice."
CARNAL KNOWLEDGE, DEFINED - Carnal knowledge is defined as the act

of a man in having sexual bodily connections with a woman.46
STATUTORY RAPE, DEFINED – Sexual intercourse with a woman under 12

years of age or sex with a woman who is demented.
Q: A girl eleven years of age asked you to have sexual intercourse with her.
Assuming that you agreed and you had sex with her, are you liable for statutory
rape?
A: Yes. Whether or not she consented to the sexual contact is immaterial

considering that at the time thereof, she was below twelve years of age. Sex with a
girl below twelve years, regardless of whether she consented thereto or not,
constitutes statutory rape.47
Reason: The mere act of having sexual intercourse with a minor under twelve
years of age constitutes statutory rape, whether or not force or intimidation was
used; whether or not she was deprived of reason or otherwise unconscious; and
whether or not she consented to the act, because a girl under twelve may not be
deemed to have a will of her own and is, therefore, incapable of giving rational
consent to the carnal intercourse.48
Q: A (female), is eleven years old who is infatuated with B, an adult male. A asked
B to have sex with her. The crime committed is still statutory rape even though no
force or intimidation was employed by B because:
A: In our jurisdiction, having carnal knowledge with a woman under twelve years
of age is rape without need of proof of force or deprivation of reason. Our law
presumes that a woman under twelve years of age does not have the mental
capacity for the requisite sexual judgment to consent to the sexual act.49
46
Black’s Law Dictionary, 5th edition, page 193.
47
People of the Philippines vs. Jaime Ablaneda, G.R. No. 131914, April 30, 2001.
48
People of the Philippines vs. Antonio Buyok, G.R. No. 109771, August 25, 1994.
49
People of the Philippines vs. Jose Moreno, G.R. No. 126921, August 28, 1998.
Q: A father had sex with her minor daughter. The daughter did not offer any
resistance to the sexual advances of his father. This may still be considered rape
because:
A: Even assuming that force or intimidation had not been actually employed, the
crime of rape was nevertheless committed. The absence of violence or offer of
resistance would not be significant because of the overpowering and overbearing
moral influence of the father over the daughter which takes the place of violence
and offer of resistance required in rape cases committed by an accused having no
blood relationship with the victim. In a rape committed by a father against his own
daughter, the former's moral ascendancy and influence over the latter substitutes
for violence or intimidation.50 The prosecution need not even prove the elements of
force and intimidation in this case. Settled is the rule that in rape committed by a
father or a person recognized by the victim as her father, the former’s moral
ascendancy and influence over the latter substitute for violence and intimidation.51
GUIDING PRINCIPLES IN REVIEWING RAPE CASE
(1) an accusation of rape, while easy to make, is difficult to prove and even harder
for the person accused, though innocent, to disprove;
(2) because rape, by its very nature, involves only two persons, the testimony of
the complainant should be scrutinized with the greatest caution;
(3) the evidence for the prosecution must stand or fall on its own merits and must
not be allowed to draw strength from the weakness of the evidence for the defense.
On the other hand, the complainant's credibility assumes paramount importance
because her testimony, if credible, is sufficient to support the conviction of the
accused.52
THERE MAYBE NO CONVICTION FOR RAPE IF THE ALLEGED RAPE

VICTIM ENJOYED THE ALLEGE RAPE
Q: Elena accused Joel of Rape. The Supreme Court discovered that no guns,
knives or any deadly instrument were employed by Joel in allegedly threatening
Elena into having sex with the accused. Moreover, when asked if she enjoyed what
Joel did to her, Elena answered — “yes”, with visible smile on her face. Here Joel
was acquitted of the crime of rape because of which of the following reasons?
50
People vs. Cresencio Tabugoca, G.R. No. 125344, January 28, 1988.
51
People vs. Romeo Miranda, G.R. No. 176634, April 5, 2010.
52
People of the Philippines vs. Celerino Castromero, G.R. No. 118992, October 9, 1997.
a. in the crime of rape alleged to have been committed by force, it is

imperative for the prosecution to establish that the element of
voluntariness on the part of the victim be absolutely lacking.
b. One cannot be forced to have sex and at the same time enjoy it. This is
simply unnatural and not in accord with ordinary human experience
c. Elena's conduct after the alleged rape appears contrary to the natural
reaction of a woman outraged and robbed of her honor. She never felt
anger, shame, or hurt as would a woman whose virtue has been
violated. In fact, she remained friendly with Joel and would even go
out to the fields with him after the alleged rape
d. All of the above. 53
INCESTUOUS RAPE, DEFINED – It is the rape committed by someone so

closely related by blood to the victim that they are forbidden by the law to marry.
Q: A forcibly had sex with her own niece who was only ten years old at that time.
State how the Supreme Court through the pen of Justice Isagani Cruz condemned
the crime of incestuous rape.
A: Human beings who engage in the unnatural relationship of incest descend to

lower than the level of the beast. When that situation is forced, as in the case at bar,
the miscreant sinks even below the amoral animal, which, when it mates with its
kin, breaches no law or convention. The person who forces himself upon his own
relative knows he is committing an enormous and un-human wrong that cannot
even be described as animal perversion. If knowing this, he still chooses to satisfy
his lust, he demonstrates a depravity that cannot even be imputed to the beast.54
NO RAPE IS COMMITTED IF NO FORCE, NO INTIMIDATION WAS

EMPLOYED OR THE WOMAN WAS NOT UNCONSCIOUS
Q: Zareen Smith, British, was 30, single, a television and stage actress. Sometime
in 1994 she came to the Philippines where she met Enrico de Jesus, and soon
thereafter they had sex almost every night. According to the prosecution, Zareen
woke up one night when she felt somebody take off her underwear. The room was
dark. Zareen said she did not stop the man from removing her panties as she
thought it was Enrico, her boyfriend, and she was half-asleep. The man in turn
removed his briefs and placed himself on top of her, spread her legs, penetrated her
53
See People of the Philippines vs. Joel Lamarroza, G.R. No. 126121, November 24, 1998.
54
See People of the Philippines vs. Necemio Joaquin, G.R. No. 98007-08, August 5, 1993.
and executed push-and-pull movements. Later, the man softly whispered: "Zareen,

it's not Ricky; it's Jun. I love you." According to Zareen, when she heard those
words, she pushed him aside. She cried and became hysterical. Under these facts is
Silvano guilty of rape?
A: No. The accused was acquitted. The fault lies with Zareen. She had the
opportunity to ascertain the identity of the man but she preferred to remain passive
and allow things to happen as they did. Silvino never used force on her and was
even most possibly encouraged by the fact that when he pulled down her
panties she never objected; when her legs were being parted she never objected;
and, when he finally mounted her she never objected.55 Here there was no force
involved, there was no victim who was unconscious as the alleged victim was in
fact half asleep.
AFFIDAVIT OF DESISTANCE, DEFINED - An affidavit executed by the

complainant where he states that he is no longer interested in pursuing the case
against the accused or the defendant. 56
Q: What is the effect of filing of affidavit of desistance by the alleged rape victim?
A: The mere filing of affidavit of desistance or "Salaysay ng Pag-uurong ng

Habla" by the aggrieved party herself, does not ipso facto make the criminal case
dismissible. Article 266-C does not include desistance of the offended party as a
ground for extinction of criminal liability whether total or partial. 57 By itself, an
affidavit of desistance or pardon is not a ground for the dismissal of an action, once
the action has been instituted in court.Here, the victim made the so-called pardon
of the accused after the institution of the action.Hence, the victim had already lost
the right or absolute privilege to decide whether the rape charge should proceed
because the case had already reached and must therefore continue to be heard by
the trial court.58
RA 8353 – THE ANTI RAPE LAW OF 1997
Q: What is the effect of RA 8353 regarding the right to file rape cases?
55
People of the Philippines vs. Silvino Salarza, G.R. No. 117682, August 18, 1997.
56
Alfonso Firaza vs. People, G.R. No. 154721, March 22, 2007, 518 SCRA 681.
57
OCA Report cited in Spouses Cabico vs Judge Querijero, A.M. N0. RTJ-02-1735, April 27, 2007.
58
Souses Cabico case, supra
A: Republic Act No. 8353, otherwise known as the "Anti-Rape Law of 1997," has
reclassified rape as a crime against persons. Hence, any public prosecutor, even
without the complaint of the victim or her parents, or guardian, can prosecute the
offender. 59
PARTS OF THE FEMALE ORGAN
Q: Describe the human female sex organ.
A: The pudendum or vulva is the collective term for the female genital organs that
are visible in the perineal area,e.g., mons pubis, labia majora, labia minora, the
hymen, the clitoris, the vaginal orifice, etc. The mons pubis is the rounded
eminence that becomes hairy after puberty, and is instantly visible within the
surface. The next layer is the labia majora or the outer lips of the female organ
composed of the outer convex surface and the inner surface. The skin of the outer
convex surface is covered with hair follicles and is pigmented, while the inner
surface is a thin skin which does not have any hair but has many sebaceous glands.
Directly beneath the labia majora is the labia minora.60
Q: Which part should be penetrated so that rape may be consummated?
A: Jurisprudence dictates that the labia majora must be entered for rape to be
consummated,61
RAPE BY SEXUAL ASSAULT (MALE TO MALE VERSION M2M)
Q: The accused, a male grade school teacher inserted his private part into the
mouth of Jayson, his student but the latter could not hold on for long as he felt
vomiting. What crime was committed by the accused?
A: Rape by sexual assault under Article 266. An act of sexual assault under the
second paragraph of the article can be committed by any person who, under
the circumstances mentioned in the first paragraph of the law, inserts his penis into
the mouth or anal orifice, or any instrument or object into the genital or anal
orifice, of another person. 62
59
Spouses Cabico vs Judge Querijero, supra.
60
Mischell, Stenchever Droegemueller, Herbst Comprehensive Gynecology, 3rd Edition, 1997, page 42-44, cited in
People of the Philippines vs. Primo Campuhan, G.R. No. 129433, March 30, 2000.
61
Primo Campuhan case supra.
62
Geronimo Ordinario vs. People of the Philippines, G.R No. 155415, May 20, 2004
COURT CANNOT REQUIRE THE ACCUSED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE

OFFSPRING IN CERTAIN CASES
Q: Generally if the rape produced an offspring, the rapist must acknowledge or

recognize the offspring. However, if the convicted rapist is already a married man,
can the court compel the rapist to recognize the offspring?
A: No. In Bartolome Baranco vs. People of the Philppines, the Supreme Court
said: Ang nahahabla ay may-asawa. Hindi maaari na kilalanin ang batang bunga
ng kasalanan na anak ng isang may-asawa. Subalit may katungkulan siyang
sustentuhan ang bata ayon sa batas.63
SWEETHEART DEFENSE, DESCRIBED - In a rape case, the sweetheart

defense is an allegation of the accused, that he and the female complainant were
sweethearts, and the sexual intercourse between the two of them, which is now the
subject of the rape case was consensual.
The "sweetheart theory" proffered by the accused is effectively an admission of

carnal knowledge of the victim, which consequently places on him the burden of
proving the supposed relationship by substantial evidence.The "sweetheart theory"
hardly deserves any attention when an accused does not present any evidence, such
as love letters, gifts, pictures, and the like to show that, indeed, he and the victim
were sweethearts.64
Q: Cite an example of a case wherein the accused was acquitted of the rape
charges because it was revealed that the alleged rapist and the rape complainant
were sweethearts and that the rape accusations were prodded only by the parents of
the alleged rape victim.
A: In People of the Philippines vs. Godoy, one of the bases for the acquittal of the
accused was the love letter written by the alleged rape victim and addressed to the
alleged rapist. This letter has reached the Supreme Court and it was interpreted in
favor of the accused. In part it reads: Oo aaminin ko nagkasala ako sa iyo,
pinabilanggo kita dahil nagpanig ako sa mga magulang ko nadala nila ako sa
sulsul nila. hindi ko naipaglaban ang dapat kong ipaglaban ngunit kong iniisip
mong minahal lang kita dahil sa may kailangan lang ako sa iyo nagkakamali ka.
alam ng Diyos na hindi ganon ang hangarin ko sa iyo. higit pa sa binilanggo ang
63
G.R No. 58847, August 31, 1989.
64
Egap Madsali vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179570, February 4, 2010.
kalagayan ko kong alam mo. kinukunsinsiya, nagtitiis na saktan at

pagsasakripisyo ng damdamin ko na gusto kang makita at yakapin ka pero ano
ang magagawa ko kong ang paglabas ko ng bahay ay hindi ako makalabas ng mag
isa may guardiya pa.xxx 65
Q: What are needed to be established in court so that the sweetheart defense may
prosper?
A: For the ["sweetheart"] theory to prosper, the existence of the supposed

relationship must be proven by convincing substantial evidence. Failure to adduce
such evidence renders his claim to be self-serving and of no probative value. For
the satisfaction of the Court, there should be a corroboration by their common
friends or, if none, a substantiation by tokens of such a relationship such as love
letters, gifts, pictures and the like.66
OEDIPUS COMPLEX OR ELECTRA COMPLEX IS NOT A DEFENSE IN

RAPE CASES
Rogelio is accused by his own 14 year old daughter of rape. Rogelio did not deny
that he had sex several times with his own daughter but claims that he did it
because his daughter was suffering from Oedipus complex (Electra complex) and
as such his daughter herself was asking for sex from him. Is this a valid defense in
rape cases?
A: No. Oedipus complex is the positive libidinal feelings especially of a male child
that develops usually between the ages of three (3) and six (6) toward the parent of
the opposite sex and are largely repressed because of the fear of retaliation by the
parent of the same sex who is viewed as a rival and toward whom unconscious
hostility is generated. Electra complex on the other hand is the female counterpart
of oedipus complex. The alleged presence of oedipus complex between Rogelio
and his daughter appears to be a plot drawn from thin air in the hope that he can
get away from the present accusation. Still, it would have been praiseworthy had
Rogelio veered Rochelle away from such complex, if indeed it existed. As it turned
out, he opted to descend to a level lower than beasts by taking advantage of the
situation. Here the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction of accused Rogelio
65
G.R. No. 115908-09, December 6, 1995.
66
People vs. Marcial Bayrante, G.R. No. 188978, June 13, 2012.
since it believed that the sexual intercourse was never consensual between him and
her daughter.67
LETTER OF APOLOGY WRITTEN BY THE ACCUSED IS ADDITIONAL

EVIDENCE AGAINST HIM AND MAY BE CONSIDERED AS
ADMISSION OF GUILT
Enrique was charged with six counts of rape, five on complaint of his minor
daughter AAA, and one on complaint of another minor daughter BBB. During
trial of the rape cases, the accused wrote a letter addressed to his daughters. It
reads: “Nalulungkot ako sa mga pangyayari sa ating buhay. Sana matanggap
niyo na ito sa sarili ninyo at mapatawad na ninyo ako sa aking kasalanang
nagawa. Siguro naman alam naman niyo na hindi naman ako likas na
masama. Kung nagawa ko man iyong mga bagay na iyon dala na rin ng naging
kahinaan ko. Lahat naman tayo ay nagkakamali at ang nangyari sa akin ay
kinamuhian ko rin ang aking sarili sapagkat hindi ko alam matagal akong
nabilanggo sa bisig ng diyablo na siyang tunay na may kagagawan sa pagwasak
sa buhay natin. Alam niyo lahat ng kasalanan ng nagagawa ng tao ay simbuyo ng
damdamin na inutos ng diyablo na di natin napaglalabanan sapagkat wala sa
puso natin si Cristo. Alam mo siguro na nangarap din ako sa buhay natin. Lahat
ay ginawa ko para sa inyo naging mabuti rin akong ama. Inaamin ko na ako’y
nalulong sa bawal na gamut at ito rin ang naging dahilan kaya ako nakagawa ng
di ko gusto. Patawarin niyo ako kung di ko kayang aminin sa korte ang
kasalanan ko”. What effect does this latter had in the resolution of the rape cases?
A: It was considered as additional evidence against the accused. It strongly reflects

his admission of guilt thus negating his professed innocence.68
Art. 266-B Penalties - Rape under paragraph 1 of the next preceding article
shall be punished by reclusion perpetua.
"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two
or more persons, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become
insane, the penalty shall become reclusion perpetua to death.
67
People of The Philippines vs. Rogelio Guiwan, G.R. No 117324, April 27, 2000.
68
People of the Philippines vs. Enrique Ceballos, Jr., G.R. no 169642, September 14, 2007
"When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the

occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion perpetua to death.
"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the

penalty shall be death.
"The death penalty shall also be imposed if the crime of rape is committed
with any of the following aggravating/qualifying circumstances:
"l) 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;
"2) When the victim is under the custody of the police or military authorities
or any law enforcement or penal institution;
"3) When the rape is committed in full view of the spouse, parent, any of the
children or other relatives within the third civil degree of consanguinity;
"4) When the victim is a religious engaged in legitimate religious vocation or

calling and is personally known to be such by the offender before or at the
time of the commission of the crime;
"5) When the victim is a child below seven (7) years old;
"6) When the offender knows that he is afflicted with the Human Immuno-
Deficiency Virus (HIV)/Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome (AIDS) or
any other sexually transmissible disease and the virus or disease is transmitted
to the victim;
"7) When committed by any member of the Armed Forces of the Philippines
or para-military units thereof or the Philippine National Police or any law
enforcement agency or penal institution, when the offender took advantage of
his position to facilitate the commission of the crime;
"8) When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has suffered
permanent physical mutilation or disability;
"9) When the offender knew of the pregnancy of the offended party at the
time of the commission of the crime; and
"10) When the offender knew of the mental disability, emotional disorder
and/or physical handicap of the offended party at the time of the commission
of the crime.
"Rape under paragraph 2 of the next preceding article shall be punished by

prision mayor.
"Whenever the rape is committed with the use of a deadly weapon or by two
or more persons, the penalty shall be prision mayor to reclusion temporal.
"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, the victim has become
insane, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal.
"When the rape is attempted and a homicide is committed by reason or on the

occasion thereof, the penalty shall be reclusion temporal to reclusion
perpetua.
"When by reason or on the occasion of the rape, homicide is committed, the

penalty shall be reclusion perpetua.
"Reclusion temporal shall be imposed if the rape is committed with any of the
ten aggravating/ qualifying circumstances mentioned in this article.
TO BE HELD GUILTY OF QUALIFIED RAPE BOTH MINORITY OF

THE VICTIM AND HER RELATIONSHIP WITH THE ACCUSED MUST
BE PLEADED AND PROVED
Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code, as amended by Republic Act No.
8353, minority and relationship are special qualifying circumstances in the crime
of rape that warrant the mandatory penalty of death. As such, they must both be
specifically pleaded in the Information and proven during trial. These two
circumstances, minority and relationship, must concur; otherwise, if only one is
proven during trial, even if the Information alleged both, the death penalty cannot
be imposed. 69
69
People vs. Romeo Miranda, G.R. No. 176634, April 5, 2010.
THE GUARDIAN IN QUALIFIED RAPE MUST BE A JUDICIAL OR

LEGAL GUARDIAN, NOT A MERE CUSTODIAN OR CARETAKER OF
THE RAPE VICTIM.
The law requires a legal or judicial guardian since it is the consanguineous relation
or the solemnity of judicial appointment which impresses upon the guardian the
lofty purpose of his office and normally deters him from violating its objectives.70
COMPUTATION OF PENALTY OF QUALIFIED RAPE BY SEXUAL
ASSAULT
Q: The accused committed the crime of qualified rapes by sexual assault. The
crime is qualified because the accused is the biological father of the rape vicitm
and that the latter was less than twelve (12) years old at the time of the commission
of the crimes. Under Article 266-B of the Revised Penal Code (RPC), rape by
sexual assault, if attended by any of the aggravating circumstances under
paragraph 1 of Article 266-B, would carry the penalty of reclusion temporal,
ranging from twelve (12) years and one (1) day to twenty (20) years. Compute and
explain the penalty of the accused for the crime committed.
A: Applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the maximum term of the

indeterminate penalty shall be that which could be properly imposed under the
RPC. Other than the aggravating/qualifying circumstances of minority and
relationship (which are already taken into account to raise the penalty from prision
mayor to reclusion temporal) no other aggravating circumstance was alleged and
proven. Hence, the penalty shall be imposed in its medium period, or fourteen (14)
years, eight (8) months and one (1) day to seventeen (17) years and four (4)
months.
On the other hand, the minimum term of the indeterminate sentence should be
within the range of the penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by the
Code which is prision mayor or six (6) years and one (1) day to twelve (12) years.
For each count of sexual assault, petitioner should be meted the indeterminate
sentence of ten (10) years of prision mayor as minimum, to seventeen (17) years
and four (4) months of reclusion temporal as maximum.71
70
People of the Philippines vs. David Garcia, G.R. No. 120093, November 6, 1997.
71
Salvador Flordeliz vs. People, G.R. No. 186441, March 3, 2010.
Art. 266 C- The subsequent valid marriage between the offender and the
offended party shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty imposed.
In case it is the husband who is the offender, the subsequent forgiveness by the
wife shall extinguish the criminal action or the penalty. Crime not
extinguished or penalty not abated if the marriage be void ab initio.
Article 266-D. Presumptions - Any physical overt act manifesting resistance

against the act of rape in any degree from the offended party, or where the
offended party is so situated as to render her/him incapable of giving valid
consent, may be accepted as evidence in the prosecution of the acts punished
under Article 266-A."
REQUIRED LEVEL OF RESISTANCE OF VICTIM IN RAPE CASES
Q: What level of resistance by the rape victim is required under the law so that she
may successfully plead that she was raped?
A: Any physical overt act manifesting resistance against the rape in any degree
from the victim is admissible as evidence of lack of consent. Tenacious resistance,
however, is not required. Neither is a determined and persistent physical struggle
on the part of the victim necessary.72
RAPE WITH HOMICIDE, DEFINED – A special complex crime which takes

place when by reason or on the occasion of rape, homicide is committed. The
following are the elements of rape with homicide: (1) the accused had carnal
knowledge of a woman; (2) carnal knowledge of a woman was achieved by means
of force, threat or intimidation; and (3) by reason or on the occasion of such carnal
knowledge by means of force, threat or intimidation, accused killed the woman.
Rape with homicide was committed (1) where the rapist, who was suffering from
gonorrhea infected the victim and, as a result of the infection, she died of
peritonisis (2) where the accused dragged a woman to a cane field, struck her,
rendered her unconscious, had sexual intercourse with her and then killed her
thereafter and (3) where the accused had sexual intercourse with a girl below
twelve years of age and then strangled her.73
72
People of the Philippines vs. Severino Gondaway, G.R. No. 144344-68, July 23, 2002.
73
See Laspardas case, supra.
EFFECT IF THE HYMEN OF ALLEGED RAPE VICTIM IS FOUND TO

BE STILL INTACT
The medical finding that the hymen of the victim is still intact does not negate
rape. Full penetration is not required, as proof of entrance showing the slightest
penetration of the male organ within the labia or pudendum of the female organ is
sufficient. In proving sexual intercourse, it is enough that there is the slightest
penetration of the male organ into the female sex organ. 74 An intact hymen does
not negate a finding that the victim was raped, and a freshly broken hymen is not
an essential element of rape. In People v. Gabayron, we sustained the conviction of
accused for rape even though the victim’s hymen remained intact after the
incidents because medical researches show that negative findings of lacerations are
of no significance, as the hymen may not be torn despite repeated coitus. It was
noted that many cases of pregnancy had been reported about women with
unruptured hymens, and that there could still be a finding of rape even if, despite
repeated intercourse over a period of years, the victim still retained an intact
hymen without signs of injury.75
BUT A RUPTURE HYMEN OF THE COMPLAINANT DOES NOT

AUTOMATICALLY MEAN CONVICTION FOR RAPE OF THE
ACCUSED
We cannot equate a ruptured hymen with rape. The Court expound on the
evidentiary value of a finding of hymenal lacerations, as follows:
“A medical certificate or the testimony of the physician is

presented not to prove that the victim was raped but to show that the latter had
lost her virginity. Consequently, standing alone, a physician’s finding that the
hymen of the alleged victim was lacerated does not prove rape. It is only when
this is corroborated by other evidence proving carnal knowledge that rape may be
deemed to have been established.”76
ACCUSED CAN STILL BE CONVICTED OF RAPE EVEN IF THE RAPE

VICTIM FAILED TO SUBMIT TO MEDICAL EXAMINATIONS
74
People vs. Joselito Pascua, G.R. No. 151858, November 27, 2003
75
People vs. Anacito Dimanawa, G.R. No. 184600, March 9, 2010.
76
People of the Philippines vs. Ignacio Poras, G.R. No. 177747, February 16, 2010.
A medical examination of the victim is not indispensable to a prosecution for

rape. It is merely corroborative in character and not indispensable. The accused
may be convicted even solely on the basis of her testimony if credible, natural,
convincing and consistent with human nature and the course of things77
DAMAGES THAT CAN BE RECOVERED BY THE VICTIM IN

QUALIFIED RAPE
1. Civil indemnity of Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00). Civil

indemnity, which is actually in the nature of actual or compensatory
damages, is mandatory upon the finding of the fact of rape
2. Seventy-Five Thousand Pesos (P75,000.00) as moral damages..Moral

damages are automatically granted in a rape case without need of further
proof other than the fact of its commission. For it is assumed that a rape
victim has actually suffered moral injuries entitling her to such an award.
3. Exemplary damages of P30,000.00 in order to serve as public example and

to protect the young from sexual abuse.78
77
People of the Philippine vs. Joselito Pascua, G.R. No. 151858, November 27, 2003
78
People vs. Rolando Bautista Iroy, G.R. No. 187743, March 3, 2010.
Title Nine
CRIMES AGAINST PERSONAL LIBERTY AND SECURITY
Chapter One
CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY
Art. 267. Kidnapping and serious illegal detention. — Any private individual
who shall kidnap or detain another, or in any other manner deprive him of his
liberty, shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua to death:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have lasted more than three days.
2. If it shall have been committed simulating public authority.

3. If any serious physical injuries shall have been inflicted upon the
person kidnapped or detained; or if threats to kill him shall have been
made.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained shall be a minor, female or a

public officer.
The penalty shall be death where the kidnapping or detention was committed
for the purpose of extorting ransom from the victim or any other person, even
if none of the circumstances above-mentioned were present in the commission
of the offense.
Notes: Generally if the detention of the victim in this article lasts for more than
three days, the crime is automatically kidnapping and serious illegal detention. If
the detention however did not exceed three days, the crime could be “slight illegal
detention”. But if the victim of the detention is a minor, or a female, or a public
officer, the duration of his detention is immaterial, as the crime is still kidnapping
and serious illegal detention. Also if the victim is kidnapped and illegally detained
for the purpose of extorting ransom, the duration of his detention becomes
inconsequential. The crime may be called qualified kidnapping and used to be
punishable by death.

Q: What is kidnapping and serious illegal detention?

A: A felony committed by any private individual who shall kidnap or detain
another, or in any other manner shall deprive him of his liberty.
Q: What are the elements of kidnapping and serious illegal detention?
(1) That the offender is a private individual;

(2) That he kidnaps or detains another, or in any manner deprives the latter of his
liberty;
(3) That the act of detention or kidnapping must be illegal; and
(4) In the commission of the offense, any of the following circumstances is
present:
(a) That the kidnapping or detention lasts for more than 3 days; or
(b) That it is committed simulating public authority; or
(c) That any serious physical injuries are inflicted upon the person kidnapped or
detained or threats to kill him are made; or
(d) That the person kidnapped or detained is a minor, female, or a public officer.79
Q: What is the primary element and essence of kidnapping?
A: The primary element of the crime of kidnapping is actual confinement,

detention and restraint of the victim.80. The essence of the crime of kidnapping as
defined and penalized under Art. 267 of The Revised Penal Code, as amended by
Sec. 8 of RA No. 7659 is the actual deprivation of the victim's liberty coupled with
an indubitable proof of intent on the part of the malefactor to effect such restraint
on the offended party's liberty. The term "actual deprivation of liberty" consists
not only of placing a person in an enclosure but also of detaining a person or
depriving him in any manner of his liberty 81 And liberty is not limited to mere
physical restraint but embraces one’s right to enjoy his God-given faculties subject
only to such restraints necessary for the common welfare82
Q: Distinguish kidnapping from serious illegal detention.

A: Kidnapping entailed the carrying away of a person from his own country to
another.xxx. It means the asportation of the victim without authority of the law, or
carrying away a person from his place of residence, forcibly or fraudulently.
Detention, on the other hand, does not require the taking away of a person from a
place to another, as he may be detained right in his own home.83
Q: What is ransom?
A: is any money price or consideration paid or demanded for redemption of a
captured person or persons; a payment that releases from captivity.84
THERE IS NO MORE COMPLEX CRIME OF KIDNAPPING WITH

MURDER. THERE IS ALSO NO MORE CRIMES OF KIDNAPPING AND
MURDER
79
People of the Philippines vs. Paloma, 279 SCRA 352.
80
People of the Philippines vs. Astorga, 283 SCRA 420.
81
People of the Philippines vs. Benedicto Ramos, G.R. No. 118570, October 12, 1998
82
People of the Philippines vs. Raga Sarapida Mamantak and Likad Sarapida Taurak, G.R. No. 174659, July 28,
2008.
83
Florenz D. Regalado, Criminal Law Conspectus, page 604, 3rd edition.
84
People of the Philippines vs. Akiran, September 29, 1966, 18 SCRA 246.
Prior to 31 December 1993, the date of effectivity of RA No. 7659, the rule was
that where the kidnapped victim was subsequently killed by his abductor, the crime
committed would either be a complex crime of kidnapping with murder under Art.
48 of The Revised Penal Code, or two (2) separate crimes of kidnapping and
murder. Thus, where the accused kidnapped the victim for the purpose of killing
him, and he was in fact killed by his abductor, the crime committed was the
complex crime of kidnapping with murder under Art. 48 of The Revised Penal
Code, as the kidnapping of the victim was a necessary means of committing the
murder. On the other hand, where the victim was kidnapped not for the purpose of
killing him but was subsequently slain as an afterthought, two (2) separate crimes
of kidnapping and murder were committed.
However, RA No. 7659 amended Art. 267 of The Revised Penal Code by
adding thereto a last paragraph which provides -
When the victim is killed or dies as a consequence of the detention, or is
raped, or is subjected to torture or dehumanizing acts, the maximum
penalty shall be imposed.
This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of "special
complex crime" of kidnapping with murder or homicide. It effectively eliminated
the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases where the killing of the
kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the accused, and those where the killing
of the victim was not deliberately resorted to but was merely an
afterthought. Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed
in the course of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely
sought or was merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can
no longer be complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall
be punished as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as
amended by RA No. 7659.85
GENERALLY ONLY PRIVATE PERSONS CAN COMMIT THE CRIME

OF KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION. WHEN CAN A
PUBLIC OFFFICER OR EMPLOYEE COMMIT THIS CRIME?
"This article provides that the crimes of kidnapping and serious illegal detention
are committed by private individuals obviously because if the offender is a public
officer the crime is arbitrary detention under Art. 124, but passing sub silentio on
the matter of kidnapping. It should be understood however, that the public officer
85
People of the Philippines vs. Benedicto Ramos, G.R. No. 118570, October 12, 1998, italics and underlining
supplied.
who unlawfully detains another and is punishable by Art. 124 is one who has the
duty to apprehend a person with a correlative power to detain him. If he is only an
employee with clerical or postal functions, although the Code considers him as a
public officer, his detention of the victim is illegal detention under this article since
he is acting in a private, and not an official, capacity. If a policeman kidnaps the
victim, except when legally authorized as part of police operations, he cannot also
be said to be acting in an official capacity, hence he is to be treated as a private
individual liable under this article. 86
WHEN THE VICTIM IS KILLED OR DIES AS A CONSEQUENCE OF

THE DETENTION OR IS RAPED, OR IS SUBJECTED TO TORTURE OR
DEHUMINIZING ACTS, THE MAXIMUM PENALTY SHALL BE
IMPOSED87
In People v. Ramos, the accused was found guilty of two separate heinous crimes
of kidnapping for ransom and murder committed on July 13, 1994 and sentenced to
death. On appeal, this Court modified the ruling and found the accused guilty of
the "special complex crime" of kidnapping for ransom with murder under the last
paragraph of Article 267, as amended by Republic Act No. 7659. This Court said:
x x x This amendment introduced in our criminal statutes the concept of 'special

complex crime' of kidnapping with murder or homicide. It effectively eliminated
the distinction drawn by the courts between those cases where the killing of the
kidnapped victim was purposely sought by the accused, and those where the killing
of the victim was not deliberately resorted to but was merely an afterthought.
Consequently, the rule now is: Where the person kidnapped is killed in the course
of the detention, regardless of whether the killing was purposely sought or was
merely an afterthought, the kidnapping and murder or homicide can no longer be
complexed under Art. 48, nor be treated as separate crimes, but shall be punished
as a special complex crime under the last paragraph of Art. 267, as amended by RA
No. 7659.88
THERE IS NO SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF KIDNAPPING WITH

MULTIPLE RAPES
86
People of the Philippines vs. PO1 Froilan Trestia, G.R. No. 193833, November 16, 2011, citing Justice Florenz
Regalado.
87
Article 267, last paragraph
88
People vs. Dima Montanir, G.R. No. 187534, April 4, 2011.
No matter how many rapes had been committed in the special complex crime of
kidnapping with rape, the resultant crime is only one kidnapping with rape. This is
because these composite acts are regarded as a single indivisible offense as in fact
R.A. No. 7659 punishes these acts with only one single penalty. In a way, R.A.
7659 depreciated the seriousness of rape because no matter how many times the
victim was raped, xxx there is only one crime committed – the special complex
crime of kidnapping with rape.89
DISTINGUISH BETWEEN SPECIAL COMPLEX CRIME OF

KIDNAPPING WITH RAPE FROM FORCIBLE ABDUCTION WITH
RAPE

In the special complex crime of kidnapping with rape, the act of taking the
offended party had no lewd design, while in the complex crime of forcible
abduction with rape the offender had lewd design from the very beginning of the
deprivation of her liberty. In other words, for the crime of kidnapping with rape to
exists the offender should not have taken the victim with lewd designs, otherwise,
it would be complex crime of forcible abduction with rape.
THERE IS KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL DETENTION EVEN

IF THE VICTIM WAS NOT PLACED IN AN ENCLOSURE
Q: Lolita was at her house when several accused came and abducted her. Later, the
authorities were able to locate Lolita and freed her. Accused claim that there was
no kidnapping since at the time of the rescue, Lolita was not physically confined
inside the house as the rescuers found her standing outside, conversing with
another person. Accused stressed that Lolita herself declared that she was not
prevented by anyone from leaving the house and testimony of other witness that
Lolita did not seem to be under duress. Was there kidnapping here?
A: Yes. (In the crime of kidnapping and serious illegal detention) it is not
necessary that the offended party be kept within an enclosure to restrict her
freedom of locomotion. Although at the time of the rescue, she was found outside
the house talking to another, she explained that she did not attempt to leave the
premises for fear that the appellants would make good their threats to kill her
should she do so. Fear has been known to render people immobile. Indeed, appeals
to the fears of an individual, such as by threats to kill or similar threats, are
89
People vs. Felipe Mirandilla, G.R. No. 186417, July 27, 2011.
equivalent to the use of actual force or violence which is one of the elements of the
crime of kidnapping under Article 267 (3) of the Revised Penal Code.90
STOCKHOLM SYNDROME - Stockholm syndrome is a psychological

condition that causes hostages to develop sympathetic sentiments towards their
captors, often sharing their opinions and acquiring romantic feelings for them as a
survival strategy during captivity.[1] These feelings, resulting from a bond formed
between captor and captives during intimate time spent together, are generally
considered irrational in light of the danger or risk endured by the victims.
Generally speaking, Stockholm syndrome consists of "strong emotional ties that
develop between two persons where one person intermittently harasses, beats,
threatens, abuses, or intimidates the other." Formally named in 1973 when four
hostages were taken during a bank robbery in Stockholm, Sweden, Stockholm
syndrome is also commonly known as ‘capture bonding’. The syndrome’s title was
developed when the victims of the Stockholm bank robbery defended their captors
after being released and would not agree to testify in court against them.
Stockholm syndrome’s significance arises due to the fact that it is based in a
paradox, as captives’ sentiments for their captors are the opposite of the fear and
disdain an onlooker may expect to see as a result of trauma
(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_syndrome).
Art. 268. Slight illegal detention. — The penalty of reclusion temporal shall be
imposed upon any private individual who shall commit the crimes described
in the next preceding article without the attendance of any of circumstances
enumerated therein.
The same penalty shall be incurred by anyone who shall furnish the place for
the perpetration of the crime.
If the offender shall voluntarily release the person so kidnapped or detained

within three days from the commencement of the detention, without having
attained the purpose intended, and before the institution of criminal
proceedings against him, the penalty shall be prision mayor in its minimum
and medium periods and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos.
Q: How is slight illegal detention committed?
90
People of the Philippines vs. Bernie Cortez, G.R. No. 131619-20, February 1, 2000.
A: Slight illegal detention committed by any private individual who shall commit
the crimes described in art 267 without the attendance of any of the circumstances
therein mentioned.
See RA 9439- Act Prohibiting the Detention of Patients in Hospitals and Medical
Clinics on Ground of Non Payment of Hospital Bills or Medical Expenses
Elements:
a. Offender private individual

b. Kidnaps or detains or deprives another of his liberty
c. The act of detention is illegal
d. The crime is committed without the attendance of any of the circumstances
in art. 267.
PAR. 3 ARTICLE 268, EXPLAINED
As it is clearly stated in the text, when the offender releases the person detained
within three days (there is reduced penalty). The reason why the law imposes a
lighter penalty in this case is the repentance which is shown by the culprit by this
act. (People vs Hipolito Undiana Sept 10, 1927
Art. 269. Unlawful arrest. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, in any case other
than those authorized by law, or without reasonable ground therefor, shall
arrest or detain another for the purpose of delivering him to the proper
authorities
ELEMENTS:
a. Offender arrests or detains another

b. Purpose of offender is deliver him to the proper authorities
c. Arrest or detention is not authorized by law or there is no reasonable ground
therefore
Q: How is unlawful arrest committed?

A: Unlawful arrest is committed by any person without being authorized by law or
without reasonable ground shall arrest or detain another for the purpose of
delivering him to the proper authorities.
Q: Police officers A and B arrested Marcial and while the latter was supposedly
being investigated by the said accused, the said two accused did then and there
place or commingle an illegal object say prohibited drugs to the person of Marcial.
What felony was committed by the accused?
A: Complex crime of incriminating innocent person through unlawful arrest.

Under the circumstances of the case, the accused had to arrest Marcial because it
was the only way that they could with facility detain him and, more importantly,
search his person or effects and, in the process, commingle therewith the
prohibited drugs.
Section Two. — Kidnapping of minors
Art. 270. Kidnapping and failure to return a minor. — The penalty of

reclusion perpetua shall be imposed upon any person who, being entrusted
with the custody of a minor person, shall deliberately fail to restore the latter
to his parents or guardians.
Q: How is kidnapping and failure to return a minor committed?

A: Kidnapping and failure to return a minor is committed by any person who,
being entrusted with the custody of a minor, shall deliberately fail to restore the
latter to his parents or guardians.
Q: What are the elements of kidnapping and failure to return a minor?

A: It has two essential elements, namely:
(1) The offender is entrusted with the custody of a minor person; and
(2) The offender deliberately fails to restore the said minor to his parents or
guardians.91
Q: What is the essential element of kidnapping and failure to return a minor?

A: The essential element of the crime of kidnapping and failure to return a minor is
that the offender is entrusted with the custody of the minor, but what is actually
being punished is not the kidnapping of the minor but rather the deliberate failure
of the custodian of the minor to restore the latter to his parents or guardians.
Indeed, the word deliberate as used in Article 270 of the Revised Penal Code must
91
People of the Philippines vs. Teresa Bernardo, G.R. No. 144316, March 11, 2002.
imply something more than mere negligence – it must be premeditated, headstrong,

foolishly daring or intentionally and maliciously wrong.92
Q: 12-year old Maria and her 15-day old sister, Rosalyn, were with their mother,
Rosita, at the Fabella Memorial Hospital. While Rosita was undergoing medical
check up inside the hospital, her two daughters waited at the lobby. Roselle was
seating on a bench with her 15-day old sister on her lap when the accused Teresa
sat beside her. Teresa befriended her. After a while, the accused Teresa gave P3.00
to Roselle and asked her to buy ice water. The appellant took the 15-day old baby
from Roselle and assured her that she (accused) would take care of her (Roselle’s)
sister, while she was buying ice water. Roselle was not able to find ice water for
sale and on her way back to the hospital; she saw the accused running away with
her baby sister. Roselle shouted for help, thereby attracting the tanods. What crime
was committed by Teresa?
A: Kidnapping and failure to return a minor.93
Art. 271. Inducing a minor to abandon his home. — The penalty of prision
correccional and a fine not exceeding seven hundred pesos shall be imposed
upon anyone who shall induce a minor to abandon the home of his parent or
guardians or the persons entrusted with his custody.
If the person committing any of the crimes covered by the two preceding
articles shall be the father or the mother of the minor, the penalty shall be
arresto mayor or a fine not exceeding three hundred pesos, or both.
Notes: (Authorities in criminal law agree that there appears to be a typographical

error in article 271. They commented that art. 271 could not possible refer to 269.
Hence they suggest that Article 271 should read “if the person committing any of
the crimes covered by the preceding article and the 1st par. of this article shall be
the father or mother of the minor, the penalty shall be arresto mayor or a fine not
exceeding three hundred pesos, or both.)
Art. 272. Slavery. — The penalty of prision mayor and a fine of not exceeding
10,000 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who shall purchase, sell, kidnap or
detain a human being for the purpose of enslaving him.
92
People of the Philippines vs. Ty, 263 SCRA 745.
93
See People of the Philipppines vs. Teresa Bernardo, G.R. No 144316, March 11, 2002.
If the crime be committed for the purpose of assigning the offended party to
some immoral traffic, the penalty shall be imposed in its maximum period.
Art. 273. Exploitation of child labor. — The penalty of prision correccional in

its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon anyone who, under the pretext of reimbursing himself of a debt
incurred by an ascendant, guardian or person entrusted with the custody of a
minor, shall, against the latter's will, retain him in his service.
Art. 274. Services rendered under compulsion in payment of debt. — The

penalty of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its
minimum period shall be imposed upon any person who, in order to require
or enforce the payment of a debt, shall compel the debtor to work for him,
against his will, as household servant or farm laborer.

Chapter Two
CRIMES AGAINST SECURITY

Section One. — Abandonment of helpless persons
and exploitation of minors.
Art. 275. Abandonment of person in danger and abandonment of one's own

victim. — The penalty of arresto mayor shall be imposed upon:
1. Any one who shall fail to render assistance to any person whom he
shall find in an uninhabited place wounded or in danger of dying, when
he can render such assistance without detriment to himself, unless such
omission shall constitute a more serious offense.
2. Anyone who shall fail to help or render assistance to another whom

he has accidentally wounded or injured.
3. Anyone who, having found an abandoned child under seven years of

age, shall fail to deliver said child to the authorities or to his family, or
shall fail to take him to a safe place.
Art. 276. Abandoning a minor. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any one who shall abandon a child
under seven years of age, the custody of which is incumbent upon him.
When the death of the minor shall result from such abandonment, the culprit
shall be punished by prision correccional in its medium and maximum
periods; but if the life of the minor shall have been in danger only, the penalty
shall be prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods.
The provisions contained in the two preceding paragraphs shall not prevent
the imposition of the penalty provided for the act committed, when the same
shall constitute a more serious offense.
Art. 277. Abandonment of minor by person entrusted with his custody;

indifference of parents. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon anyone who, having charge of the
rearing or education of a minor, shall deliver said minor to a public institution
or other persons, without the consent of the one who entrusted such child to
his care or in the absence of the latter, without the consent of the proper
authorities.
The same penalty shall be imposed upon the parents who shall neglect their
children by not giving them the education which their station in life require
and financial conditions permit.
Art. 278. Exploitation of minors. — The penalty of prision correccional in its

minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be
imposed upon:
1. Any person who shall cause any boy or girl under sixteen years of age
to perform any dangerous feat of balancing, physical strength, or
contortion.
2. Any person who, being an acrobat, gymnast, rope-walker, diver, wild-

animal tamer or circus manager or engaged in a similar calling, shall
employ in exhibitions of these kinds children under sixteen years of age
who are not his children or descendants.
3. Any person engaged in any of the callings enumerated in the next

paragraph preceding who shall employ any descendant of his under
twelve years of age in such dangerous exhibitions.
4. Any ascendant, guardian, teacher or person entrusted in any capacity

with the care of a child under sixteen years of age, who shall deliver
such child gratuitously to any person following any of the callings

enumerated in paragraph 2 hereof, or to any habitual vagrant or
beggar.

If the delivery shall have been made in consideration of any price,
compensation, or promise, the penalty shall in every case be imposed in
its maximum period.
In either case, the guardian or curator convicted shall also be removed

from office as guardian or curator; and in the case of the parents of the
child, they may be deprived, temporarily or perpetually, in the
discretion of the court, of their parental authority.
5. Any person who shall induce any child under sixteen years of age to
abandon the home of its ascendants, guardians, curators, or teachers to
follow any person engaged in any of the callings mentioned in
paragraph 2 hereof, or to accompany any habitual vagrant or beggar.
Art. 279. Additional penalties for other offenses. — The imposition of the
penalties prescribed in the preceding articles, shall not prevent the imposition
upon the same person of the penalty provided for any other felonies defined
and punished by this Code.

Section Two. — Trespass to dwelling

Art. 280. Qualified trespass to dwelling. — Any private person who shall enter
the dwelling of another against the latter's will shall be punished by arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
If the offense be committed by means of violence or intimidation, the penalty

shall be prision correccional in its medium and maximum periods and a fine
not exceeding 1,000 pesos.
The provisions of this article shall not be applicable to any person who shall
enter another's dwelling for the purpose of preventing some serious harm to
himself, the occupants of the dwelling or a third person, nor shall it be
applicable to any person who shall enter a dwelling for the purpose of
rendering some service to humanity or justice, nor to anyone who shall enter
cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the same are open.
Q: How is trespass to dwelling committed?

A: Trespass to dwelling is committed by private individual who shall enter the
dwelling of another against the latter’s will.
Q: What are the elements of trespass to dwelling?

A: The elements of trespass to dwelling are:
1. The offender is a private person.
2. He enters the dwelling of another; and
3. Such entrance is against the latter’s will.94
Q: What is qualified trespass to dwelling?

A: Trespass becomes qualified when committed by means of violence or
intimidation
Q: Enumerate the absolutory causes in article 280:
A: There is no penalty if the trespass is committed when the trespassers
1. entered to prevent some serious harm to himself, or to the occupants of the

dwelling or third persons
2. entered for the purpose of rendering some service to humanity or justice
3. entered cafes, taverns, inn and other public houses, while the same are open
Q: What is dwelling?
A: It is the place of abode where one resides and which satisfies the requirements
of domestic life. It is any building or structure exclusively used for rest and
comfort.
Q: Lamahang was caught in flagrante delicto (caught in the act) of detaching one
of the wooden boards of a sari-sari store owned by a Chinese. He was about to
enter the store when he was apprehended. It was the opinion of the police officer
who caught him that he wanted to commit robbery inside the store, as he was about
to enter the small opening that he himself has made when he was apprehended.
What crime was committed by Lamahang?
A: Attempted trespass to dwelling.95
94
People of the Philippines vs. Torres, 21688-CR, December 12, 1980.
95
People of the Philippines vs. Aurelio Lamahang, G.R. No. L-43530, August 3, 1935.
NO CRIMINAL INTENT NO TRESPASS TO DWELLING
Q: Albano rented a house belonging to Mrs. Marzalado, which later on culminated

to an ejectment case. Meanwhile, Meralco cut off the electric supply of Albano in
her rented house, forcing Albano and her family to vacate the house. The rented
house however was padlocked by Albano with no one inside to look after the
house for quite sometime. One day, Salvador Marzalado (son of Mrs Marzalado)
saw water in a continuous stream flowing out of Albano's unit. He then searched
for Albano but to no avail. He reported the matter to the barangay officers and
asked for two barangay tanods to accompany him to the vacated unit. They went
inside the unit where they found an open faucet, and closed it as the running waters
were flooding the floor. He accused Albano of deliberately leaving the faucet
open. For this action, Salvador Marzalado was charged in court by Albano for the
crime of qualified trespass to dwelling. Is Salvador Marzalado guilty of qualified
trespass to dwelling?
a. Yes, Salvador Marzalado’s entry cannot be justified since the flooding of

the floor was not a danger to life nor property.
b. Yes, the flooding of the unit could have been averted had the petitioner
resorted to merely turning off the inlet valve of the water source.
c. No, because as the son of the owner of the house he had the absolute
right to enter therein especially his mother had already won the
ejectment case against the lessee.
d. No, Marzalado acted for the justified purpose of avoiding further
flooding and damage to his mother's property caused by the open faucet.
No criminal intent could be clearly imputed to petitioner for the remedial
action he had taken. There was an exigency that had to be addressed to
avoid damage to the leased unit. There is nothing culpable concerning
Marzalado.'s judgment call to enter the unit and turn off the faucet
instead of closing the inlet valve.96
Art. 281. Other forms of trespass. — The penalty of arresto menor or a fine not
exceeding 200 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any person who shall
enter the closed premises or the fenced estate of another, while either or them
are uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be manifest and the trespasser has
not secured the permission of the owner or the caretaker thereof.
OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS

96
Salvador Marzaldo, Jr., vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No 152997, November 10, 2004.
Q: How is other forms of trespass committed?

A: It is committed by any person who shall enter the closed premises or the fenced
estate of another, while either of them is uninhabited, if the prohibition to enter be
manifest and the trespasser has not secured the permission of the owner or
caretaker.
Section Three. — Threats and coercion
Art. 282. Grave threats. — Any person who shall threaten another with the
infliction upon the person, honor or property of the latter or of his family of
any wrong amounting to a crime, shall suffer:
1. The penalty next lower in degree than that prescribed by law for the
crime be threatened to commit, if the offender shall have made the
threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though
not unlawful, and said offender shall have attained his purpose. If the
offender shall not have attained his purpose, the penalty lower by two
degrees shall be imposed.
If the threat be made in writing or through a middleman, the penalty

shall be imposed in its maximum period.
2. The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos,
if the threat shall not have been made subject to a condition.
GRAVE THREATS, DEFINED – A felony committed by any person who shall,

threaten another with the infliction upon the person, honor, or property of the latter
or of his family of any wrong amounting to a crime, and the offender shall have
made the threat demanding money or imposing any other condition, even though
not unlawful and the offender may or may not attained his purpose. Grave threat
may also be committed in the same manner although the threat shall not have been
made subject to a condition.
THE REQUISITES OF GRAVE THREATS NOT SUBJECT TO A

CONDITION
1) that the offender threatened another person with the infliction upon his person of
a wrong;
2) that such wrong amounted to a crime; and
3) That the threat was not subject to a condition.97
Q: What possible crime is committed by the accused in uttering the following

words?
“Putang ina mong bata ka namumuro ka na sa akin, at susunugin ko ‘yung

pamilya mo!" "Putang ina ninyo, zone leader ako papatayin ko kayong] lahat!"
A: Grave threats in relation to RA 7610 Child Abuse.98
Q: What crime is committed by the accused who uttered the following words
against the victim?
"Putang ina kang matanda ka, wala kang kadala dala, sinabihan na kita na kahit
saan kita matiempuhan, papatayin kita.Kayo mga nurses lang, anong
ipinagmamalaki niyo, mga nurses lang kayo. Kami, marami kaming mga abogado.
Hindi niyo kami maipapakulong kahit kailan!"99
A: Grave threats.
THE EXPRESSION “PUTANG INA MO” MAY SOMETIMES AMOUNT

TO GRAVE THREATS.
The accused, Rosauro Reyes shouted repeatedly, "Agustin, putang ina mo!
Agustin, mawawala ka! Agustin lumabas ka, papatayin kita.! What crime was
committed by the accused?
a. grave threats
b. attempted murder
c. oral defamation
d. all of the above
A: Grave threats (only). There is no attempted murder because no overt act of

murder was committed by the accused. In Rosauro Reyes vs. People of the
Philippines100,the Supreme Court ruled that there is no oral defamation because the
97
Rosauro Reyes vs. People of the Philippines,G.R. L. 21528, March 28, 1969.
98
See Resty Jumaquio vs. Joselito Villarosa, G.R. No. 165924, January 19, 2009.
99
See Pedro Consulta vs People of the Philippines, (in that case however, the crime committed was grave coercion
because there ware some elements that were not mentioned in the example above).
100
Rosauro Reyes vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-21528, March 28, 1969.
words, "Agustin, putang ina mo", is a common enough expression in the dialect
that is often employed, not really to slander but rather to express anger or
displeasure. It is seldom, if ever, taken in its literal sense by the hearer, that is, as a
reflection on the virtues of a mother. Hence those words, said the Supreme Court
should be viewed as part of the threats voiced by the accused against the victim
complainant to make the same more emphatic.
Q: What crime is committed by the accused who poked a gun against the forehead
of the victim and uttered the following words in tagalog, to wit: "Saan ka pupunta
gusto mo ito?
A: Grave threats under Article 282 paragraph 2. Given the surrounding

circumstances, the offense committed falls under Article 282, par. 2 (grave threats)
since: (1) killing or shooting someone amounts to a crime, and (2) the threat to kill
was not subject to a condition.101
Art. 283. Light threats. — Any threat to commit a wrong not constituting a
crime, made in the manner expressed in subdivision 1 of the next preceding
article, shall be punished by arresto mayor.
Q: What is light threats?

A: Light threats- is threat to commit a wrong not constituting a crime, a crime
made in the manner expressed in subdivision one of article 282.
DEMANDING MONEY IN EXCHANGE FOR NOT FILING A

DISBARMENT CASE IS LIGHT THREATS
The accused wrote and sent a letter to complainat which reads: “I am giving you
ten (10) days from the date of receipt hereof within which for you to pay me the
amount of P1,000.00 as damages for the fraud you deliberately, intentionally and
with bad faith committed upon me together with your apology, either in writing or
verbally, for trying to frustrate the ends of justice in order to protect your "belas;"
otherwise, if after that period had lapsed and you shall not have paid the amount
of P1,000.00 to me and offered your apology for the wrong you have perpetuated
upon me, then I shall be constrained thereafter to file disbarment proceedings
against you in the Supreme Court of the Philippines”.102
101
Ronie Caluag vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No 171511, March 4, 2009.
102
Federico Batolanon and Teodoro Nano vs. Hon. Roman A. Leorente, G.R. No. L-17994, August 31, 1963.
What possible crime was committed by the letter sender?
A: It could be light threat under article 283.
Art. 284. Bond for good behavior. — In all cases falling within the two next
preceding articles, the person making the threats may also be required to give
bail not to molest the person threatened, or if he shall fail to give such bail, he
shall be sentenced to destierro.
Art. 285. Other light threats. — The penalty of arresto menor in its minimum
period or a fine not exceeding 200 pesos shall be imposed upon:
1. Any person who, without being included in the provisions of the next
preceding article, shall threaten another with a weapon or draw such
weapon in a quarrel, unless it be in lawful self-defense.
2. Any person who, in the heat of anger, shall orally threaten another
with some harm not103 constituting a crime, and who by subsequent acts
show that he did not persist in the idea involved in his threat, provided
that the circumstances of the offense shall not bring it within the
provisions of Article 282 of this Code.
3. Any person who shall orally threaten to do another any harm not
constituting a felony.
Q: Distinguish grave threat from light threats, and other light threats from each
other.
A: Article 282 refers to a threat to commit a wrong amounting to a crime, whereas
article 283, to a wrong not amounting to a crime. 104 In grave threats, the wrong
threatened amounts to a crime which may or may not be accompanied by a
condition. In light threats, the wrong threatened does not amount to a crime but is
always accompanied by a condition. In other light threats, the wrong threatened
does not amount to a crime and there is no condition.105
103
According to Justice Florenz Regalado, the word “not” is an error and should be deleted. See Regalado,
Conspectus On Criminal Law, 3rd edition, page 626-627, citing the case of People vs. Untalan, CA, 57 O.G. No. 46,
page 8309.
104
Federico Batolanon vs. Honorable Roman Leorente, supra.
105
Ronnie Caluag vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171511, March 4, 2009.
That the threat to commit a wrong will constitute or not constitute a crime is the
distinguishing factor between grave threats on one hand, and light and other light
threats on the other.106
Art. 286. Grave coercions. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, without authority
of law, shall, by means of violence, prevent another from doing something not
prohibited by law, or compel him to do something against his will, whether it
be right or wrong.
If the coercion be committed for the purpose of compelling another to

perform any religious act or to prevent him from so doing, the penalty next
higher in degree shall be imposed.
GRAVE COERCION, DEFINED - A felony committed by any person who

without authority of law shall by means of violence, threats or intimidation,
prevent another from doing something not prohibited by law, or compels him to do
something against his will, whether it be right or wrong.
QUALIFIED GRAVE COERCION - If the coercion be committed in violation

of the exercise of the right of suffrage, or for the purpose of compelling another to
perform any religious act or to prevent him from exercising such right.107
ELEMENTS OF GRAVE COERCION
1] That any person be prevented by another from doing something not prohibited
by law, or compelled to do something against his will, be it right or wrong;
2] That the prevention or compulsion be effected by violence, either by material
force or such display of it as would produce intimidation and control the will of the
offended party, and
3] That the person who restrained the will and liberty of another had no right to do
so, or, in other words, that the restraint was not made under authority of law or in
the exercise of a lawful right. 108
WHEN IS THERE INTIMIDATION?
106
Ronnie Caluag vs. people of the Philippines, G.R. No. 171511, March 4, 2009.
107
Article 286, RPC 2nd paragraph.
108
Jose Timoner vs People of the Philippines, G.R. No. L-62050, November 25, 1983.
There is intimidation when one of the contracting parties is compelled by a

reasonable and well-grounded fear of an imminent and grave evil upon his person
or property, or upon the person or property of his spouse, descendants or
ascendants, to give his consent.109
PURPOSE OF THE LAW IN PUNISHING COERCIONS
The main purpose of the law penalizing coercion and unjust vexation is precisely
to enforce the principle that no person may take the law into his hands and that our
government is one of law, not of men. It is unlawful for any person to take into his
own hands the administration of justice.110
TAKING OF THE PROPERTY OF ANOTHER WITH NO INTENT TO

GAIN IS ONLY GRAVE COERCION.
The two accused blocked a tricycle where the victim was boarding and sent away
tby force the tricycle driver and uttered "Putang ina mong matanda ka, walanghiya
ka, kapal ng mukha mo, papatayin ka naming," to the victim female passenger.
One of them grabbed the gold necklace of the victim. It appeared that prior to this,
the two accused and the victims were exchanging court cases against each other. In
other words bad blood exists between the two families namely the family of the
accused and that of the victim. It also appeared that there was no intent to gain in
taking the necklace. What crime was committed? Is it:
a. robbery
b. grave coercion
c. unjust vexation
d. all of the above
A: Grave coercion. Supreme Court said that considering the sour relations between
the family of the accused and that of the family of the victim, the taking of the
victim’s necklace could not have been animated with animus lucrandi. Hence there
is no robbery. However, the Court finds that by the accused employment of threats,
109
Article 1335, New Civil Code.
110
People of the Philippines vs. Nebreja, 76 PHIL 119.
intimidation and violence consisting of uttering invectives, driving away of the

tricycle driver, the victim was prevented from proceeding to her destination111.
Art. 287. Light coercions. — Any person who, by means of violence, shall seize
anything belonging to his debtor for the purpose of applying the same to the
payment of the debt, shall suffer the penalty of arresto mayor in its minimum
period and a fine equivalent to the value of the thing, but in no case less than
75 pesos.
Any other coercions or unjust vexations shall be punished by arresto menor

or a fine ranging from 5 pesos to 200 pesos, or both.
LIGHT COERCION, HOW COMMITTED - Light coercion is committed by

any person who by means of violence, shall seize anything belonging to his debtor
for the purpose of applying the same to the payment of debt.
UNJUST VEXATION, DEFINED - Unjust vexation is any human conduct

which, although not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly
annoy or vex an innocent person.
UNJUSTIFIED PADLOCKING OF A STORE MAY BE UNJUST

VEXATION
Mayor Maderazo padlocked the leased premises being rented by Verutiao. The
padlocking took place while Verutiao was in her farm about 4 to 5 kilometers away
from the market stall. She considered the act of the Mayor as a political
harassment, given that her husband, was then a candidate for councilor under the
ticket of the opposition; and that she was a leader of the opposing party. What
crime was committed if there was any?
A: Unjust vexation. Although Verutiao was not at her stall when it was unlocked,
and the contents thereof taken from the stall and brought to the police station, the
crime of unjust vexation was nevertheless committed. For the crime to exist, it is
not necessary that the offended party be present when the crime was committed by
said petitioners. It is enough that the private complainant was embarrassed,
annoyed, irritated or disturbed when she learned of the overt acts of the
petitioners112
111
See Pedro Consulta vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 179462, February 12, 2009.
112
Melchor Maderazo vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 165065, September 26, 2006.
GRABBING A WOMAN’S BREASTS MAY BE UNJUST VEXATION,

SLANDER BY DEED OR ACTS OF LASCIVIOUSNESS
The common denominator between unjust vexation, slander by deed, and acts of
lasciviousness is irritation or annoyance. Without any other concurring factor the
offense would be merely unjust vexation. If in addition to annoyance, there was
attendant publicity and dishonor or contempt, the offense would be slander by
deed. If in addition to annoyance, there was present any of the circumstances in
article 355, the crime would be acts of lasciviousness (Cited in Luis B Reyes RPC).
Q: A man embraced, dragged and kissed a female in front of the female

victim’s friend. What crime was committed by the man?
A: In one case, the accused was found guilty of unjust vexation as one of the
crimes that he had to suffer for doing those acts, as the filing of the case against the
accused proved that the victim was disturbed by the acts of the accused.113
CONSTRUCTING A FENCE IN THE MIDDLE OF A PABASE COULD BE

UNJUST VEXATION
While the pabasa was going, a group of people arrived at the place, carrying bolos
and crowbars, and started to construct a barbed wire fence in front of the chapel.
The people attending the pabasa became excited and left the place hurriedly and in
such confusion that dishes and saucers were broken and benches toppled over.
The pabasa was discontinued. What crime was committed by the accused who
constructed the fence?
A: Unjust vexation. The fence was constructed, namely, late at night and in such a
way as to vex and annoy the parties who had gathered to celebrate the pabasa.114
ATTEMPTING TO INDUCE A WOMAN TO FALL TO SLEEP WAS

HELD TO BE UNJUST VEXATION AND NOT ATTEMPTED RAPE
Q: Renato one night entered the room of a beautiful nursing student. He had a
towel in his right hand which he had soaked in chloroform. Chloroform is a
chemical having the capability of putting one to sleep. He placed the chloroform
soaked towel directly against the face of the victim. Luckily, The victim fought
back by squeezing the testicles of Renato. Renato run away and failed in his
113
See People of the Philippines vs. Salvino Sumingwas, G.R. No. 183619, October 13, 2009.
114
People of the Philippines vs. Procopio Reyes et. al., G.R. No. L-40577, August 23, 1934.
attempt in putting her to sleep. Nothing else happened. What crime was committed
by Renato?115
A: Unjust vexation. xxx the offender's act causes annoyance, irritation, torment,
distress, or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed. Malou,
after the incident in question, cried while relating to her classmates what she
perceived to be a sexual attack and the fact that she filed a case for attempted rape
proved beyond cavil that she was disturbed, if not distressed, by the acts of the
petitioner.116
UNJUSTIFIABLY CUTTING OFF THE ELECTRICITY SUPPLY OF

ANOTHER IS UNJUST VEXATION
Ong ordered his men to cut of the electric, water and telephone lines of Crazy Feet,
a restaurant business establishment because these lines crossed his property line.
He failed, however, to show evidence that he had the necessary permit or
authorization to relocate the lines. Also, he timed the interruption of electric, water
and telephone services during peak hours of the operation of business of the
complainant. What crime was committed by Ong if there was any?
A: Ong’s act unjustly annoyed or vexed the complainant. Consequently, Ong is

liable for unjust vexation.117
Art. 288. Other similar coercions; (Compulsory purchase of merchandise and

payment of wages by means of tokens.) — The penalty of arresto mayor or a
fine ranging from 200 to 500 pesos, or both, shall be imposed upon any
person, agent or officer, of any association or corporation who shall force or
compel, directly or indirectly, or shall knowingly permit any laborer or
employee employed by him or by such firm or corporation to be forced or
compelled, to purchase merchandise or commodities of any kind.
The same penalties shall be imposed upon any person who shall pay the wages
due a laborer or employee employed by him, by means of tokens or objects
other than the legal tender currency of the laborer or employee.
Art. 289. Formation, maintenance and prohibition of combination of capital or

labor through violence or threats. — The penalty of arresto mayor and a fine
115
People of the Philippines vs. Renato Baleros February 22, 1996.
116
Renato Baleros vs. People of the Philippines, G.R. No. 138033, January 30, 2007.
117
Ong Chiu Kwan vs. Court of Appeals, G.R. 113006, November 23, 2000.
not exceeding 300 pesos shall be imposed upon any person who, for the
purpose of organizing, maintaining or preventing coalitions or capital or
labor, strike of laborers or lock-out of employees, shall employ 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, if the act shall not constitute
a more serious offense in accordance with the provisions of this Code.
Chapter Three
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS

Art. 290. Discovering secrets through seizure of correspondence. — The penalty
of prision correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not
exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any private individual who in
order to discover the secrets of another, shall seize his papers or letters and
reveal the contents thereof.
If the offender shall not reveal such secrets, the penalty shall be arresto mayor
and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos.
The provision shall not be applicable to parents, guardians, or persons

entrusted with the custody of minors with respect to the papers or letters of
the children or minors placed under their care or study, nor to spouses with
respect to the papers or letters of either of them.
Art. 291. Revealing secrets with abuse of office. — The penalty of arresto
mayor and a fine not exceeding 500 pesos shall be imposed upon any manager,
employee, or servant who, in such capacity, shall learn the secrets of his
principal or master and shall reveal such secrets.
Art. 292. Revelation of industrial secrets. — The penalty of prision

correccional in its minimum and medium periods and a fine not exceeding 500
pesos shall be imposed upon the person in charge, employee or workman of
any manufacturing or industrial establishment who, to the prejudice of the
owner thereof, shall reveal the secrets of the industry of the latter.


RPC Book 2 Titles 8-9

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

RPC Book 2 Titles 8-9

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

DE LA SALLE UNIVERSITY DASMARIÑ AS & UNIVERSITY OF

PERPETUAL HELP LAS PIÑ AS/MOLINO USE

Section One. — Parricide, murder, homicide

PENALTY FOR PARRICIDE - Reclusion perpetua to death (Note: Death

(1) A person is killed;

KEY ELEMENTS OF PARRICIDE AND BEST PROOF OF HUSBAND

THE CRIME IS STILL PARRICIDE EVEN THOUGH THE ACCUSED DID

Art. 247. Death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances.

Q: How is death or physical injuries inflicted under exceptional circumstances

Q: Does Article 247 of the Revised Penal Code define a felony?

MEANING OF THE PHRASE “IMMEDIATLY THEREAFTER”- Mr.

Q2: Can violators of article 247 be affected by aggravating or mitigating

A: Inflicting death under exceptional circumstances, not being a punishable act,

THERE IS NO REQUIREMENT THAT THE ADULTERER BE KILLED

ACCUSED DID NOT CATCH THE OTHER SPOUSE IN THE ACT OF

THE KILLER-SPOUSE MUST CATCH THE OTHER SPOUSE IN THE

1. With treachery, taking advantage of superior strength, with the aid of

2. In consideration of a price, reward, or promise.

3. By means of inundation, fire, poison, explosion, shipwreck, stranding

4. On occasion of any of the calamities enumerated in the preceding

5. With evident premeditation.

6. With cruelty, by deliberately and inhumanly augmenting the

For purposes of RA 7610 (Special Protection of Children Against Abuse,

1. That a person was killed.

2. That the accused killed him.

4. The killing is not parricide or infanticide.14

THERE IS TREACHERY WHEN THE VICTIM WAS PLACED IN A

IF THE ORIGINAL INTENTION OF THE OFFENDER IS TO KILL AND

a. rape with homicide

b. rape and homicide

THERE IS TREACHERY IN KILLING A SLEEPING PERSON

IT IS NOT ABSOLUTELY NECESSARY TO USE THE SPECIFIC WORD

Q: The fiscal drafted an information for murder. It states in part:

That the aggravating circumstances of evident premeditation, treachery, abuse of

enumerated circumstances as the "attendant circumstances." In the instant case,

OUTRAGING OR SCOFFING AT THE CORPSE OF A PERSON

A: Murder qualified by outraging or scoffing at the corpse of a person.18

DISMEMBERMENT OF A DEAD BODY IS OUTRAGING OR SCOFFING

THE CRIME IS MURDER AND NOT KIDNAPPING WITH HOMICIDE IF

IF THERE IS NO OVERT ACT POINTING THAT ROBBERY IS THE

A: Murder (not attempted robbery).20

HOW MUCH IS CIVIL INDEMNITY FOR DEATH CAUSED BY A

1) a person was killed; and

2) the accused killed him without any justifying circumstance;

3) the accused had the intention to kill, which is presumed; and

DISTINGUISH MURDER FROM HOMICIDE

MORAL TURPITUDE, DEFINED - Moral turpitude has been defined as

IS HOMICIDE A CRIME INVOLVING MORAL TURPITUDE?

THERE IS TREACHERY IF THE KILLING WAS SUDDEN AND

If it cannot be determined who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the

WHAT IS THE FELONY KNOWN AS DEATH CAUSED IN A

THE CRIME IS NOT DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY IF

Art. 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray. — When in a

PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY,

THE DISTANCE BETWEEN THE SHOOTER AND THE VICTIM MAY

Q: A discharged his shotgun at B from a distance of some two hundred meters.

REASON WHY A MOTHER WHO KILLS HER CHILD LESS THAN

ABORTION DEFINED – The spontaneous or artificially induced expulsion of an

Notes: Abortion is generally punishable as a criminal offense. However when the

1. The penalty of reclusion temporal, if he shall use any violence upon

3. The penalty of prision correccional in its medium and maximum

Art. 257. Unintentional abortion. — The penalty of prision correccional in its

ELEMENTS OF UNINTENTIONAL ABORTION