Title 8

Crimes Against Persons

A. Article 246. Parricide.

Elements (PDD):
1. Person is killed.
2. Deceased is killed by the accused.
3. Deceased is the father, mother, child, whether legitimate or illegitimate, or
legitimate any other ascendant or any other descendant, or the legitimate spouse, of
the accused

 Relationship is the essential element of parricide. In other words, the relationship of the
offender with the victim is the essential element of this crime.
 The other descendant or ascendant must be legitimate. Exp. Killing an illegitimate
grandfather constitutes the crime of simple homicide or murder as the case may be.
 Father, mother, child may be legitimate or illegitimate to constitute the crime of
parricide.
 If the child is less than three days old, and is killed by his parent, the crime is infanticide.
 Th best proof of relationship between the appellant and the deceased is the marriage
certificate.
 If the marriage between petitioner and respondent is annulled, petitioner could still be
held criminally liable since at the time of the commission of the alleged crime, he was
still married to respondent.
 In the case that the accused killed the woman whom he lived maritally and their
daughter. When there is no clear evidence of marriage between the accused and the
woman, he is liable for homicide or murder as the case may be, for killing the woman
and for parricide for killing his daughter.
 Marriages among Muslims or among other members of the ethnic culture communities
may be performed validly without the necessity of a marriage license provided that they
are solemnized in accordance with their customs, rites or practices. (Art. 33, Family
Code)
 If not alleged in the information, if charged only with murder, relationship must be
considered aggravating.
 Parricide through reckless imprudence is committed when all of the elements of
parricide are present but the act was committed without intent to kill anyone.
 Parricide by mistake is committed when all of the elements of parricide are present but
the person who killed another did not know the relationship between them. The law
does not require knowledge of relationship between them.
 A person who cooperates in the commission of parricide is not only guilty of parricide
but only homicide or murder, as the case may be.

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

Elements:
1. Legally married person or parent surprises his spouse or his daughter. The daughter be
under 18 years of age and living with him, in the act of committing sexual intercourse
with another person.
2. He or she kills any or both, inflicts upon any serious physical injury in the act or
immediately thereafter.
3. He has not promoted or facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter or he/she has
not consented to the infidelity of the other spouse.

 Art. 247 does not provide a crime, but grants a privilege or benefit to the accused for
the killing of another or the infliction of serious physical injuries.
 The accused must be legally married, not a common law marriage.
 The wife is entitled to the benefits of Art. 247. The phrase “any legally married person”
and the word “spouse” include the wife.
 The article does not require that the parents of the daughter be legitimate. It only
requires: (1) Daughter be under 18 years old; and (2) she is living with her parents.
 This law only applies when the daughter is single. If she is married, her husband alone
can claim the benefits of Art. 247.
 The word “surprise” means to “come upon suddenly and unexpectedly.”
 The killing of his spouse by the accused must be by reason of having surprised her in the
act of sexual intercourse with another person.
 Surprising the spouse or young daughter in the act of sexual intercourse is an
indispensable requisite to claim the benefits of Art. 247. In other words, a husband who
found his wife and a man conversing in the bedroom seated beside each other and tried
to stab the man but stabbed his wife instead, resulting her death, is guilty of parricide.
 Art. 247 is not applicable when the accused did not see his spouse in the act of sexual
intercourse with another person.
 The killing or inflicting of serious physical injuries must be: (1) In the act of sexual
intercourse, or (2) immediately thereafter.
 In the case of U.S. vs. Alano, the court held that albeit the wife was not killed in the very
place where she was caught because the wronged husband preferred first to attack the
paramour and ran after the adulterous wife who succeeded getting away, the assault
upon the woman must be understood to be a continuation of the act of the wronged
husband’s pursuit. Thus, the wronged husband can benefit from Art. 247. Note: The
discovery, the escape, the pursuit and the killing must all form part of one continuous
act according to U.S. vs. Vargas.
 In the case of People v. Coricor, the husband looked through a hole into the room and
saw Lego on top of his wife who was naked chest down and used his bolo to wound him
but was able to jump out of the window, but the accused pursued and killed him. The
court held that Art. 247 applied and the accused was sentenced to destierro only.
 The killing must be the direct by-product of the accused’s rage. In other words, if about
an hour had passed between the discovery of the wife having sexual intercourse with
the paramour and the time the paramour was shot, the shooting must be understood to
be the continuation of the pursuit of the victim. Therefore, the killing need not be
instantly thereafter, it only requires that the proximate result of the outrage
overwhelmed the accused and wronged spouse.
 Under Article 11, paragraph 2, when a husband caught a man having sexual intercourse
with the former’s wife against her will, she was then shouting for help, an attack upon
the man may be a defense relative under the aforementioned article. Thus, the case
does not fall under Art. 247.
 There is no criminal liability when less serious or slight physical injuries are inflicted. This
is an absolutory clause.
 There is liability when third persons suffer physical injuries.
 This Article does not apply when to person who consented to the infidelity of spouse, or
who facilitated the prostitution of his wife or daughter.
 Destierro is not intended as penalty but to remove the killer spouse from the vicinity to
protect him or her from acts reprisal principally by relatives of the deceased spouse. In
other words, this penalty serves as protection to the accused than as punishment.
 When is parricide not punished with reclusion perpetua?
1. Committed through negligence
2. Committed by mistake.
3. Committed under exceptional circumstances.

C. Article 248. Murder.

Elements (PATPI):

1. Person was killed.

 2. Accused killed him.
3. The killing was attended by any of the qualifying circumstances mentioned in Art.
248.
4. Killing is not parricide or infanticide.

Qualifying 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 persons to insure or afford
impunity.
2. 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 railroad, 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 any 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.

 When the person killed is less than three years old, the crime would be infanticide.
 The victim must be killed, it is either attempted or frustrated murder.
 To prove the felony of homicide or murder, there must be intent to kill. In other words,
if the victim dies because of a deliberate act of the malefactor, intent to kill is
conclusively presumed.
 Rules for the application of the circumstances which qualify the killing to murder:
1. Murder exists if at least one of the circumstances exist under Art. 248. If more than
one of said circumstances are present, the others may be considered as generic
aggravating.
2. When other circumstances are absorbed or included in one qualifying circumstance,
they cannot be generic aggravating.
3. Any of the qualifying circumstances must be enumerated in the information.

 Art. 14. Aggravating Circumstance are mentioned in paragraphs one to six of Article 248.

1st Qualifying circumstance:

 Treachery, whenever present in the information, qualifies the killing of the victim and
raises it to the category of murder. Treachery is the unexpected and sudden attack
 which renders the victim unable and unprepared to put a defense is the essence of
treachery.
 The killing of a child of tender years is murder. In other words, the killing of a child is
characterized as treachery because the tender age results in the absence of any danger
to the accused.
 Taking advantage of superior strength is abuse of superior strength whenever there is
notorious inequality of forces between the victim and the aggressors. This aggravating
circumstance is appreciated depending on the age, size, and strength of the parties.
 With the aid of armed men is defined when the accused had companions who were
armed when he committed the crime.
 Employing means to weaken the defense is defined as a person who suddenly throws a
cloak over the head of his opponent and while in this situation, he kills him. Thus,
employs mean to weaken the defense.
 Employing means or persons to insure or afford impunity is defined as one who covered
his face with handkerchief before killing his victim is liable for murder. Thus, he
employed means to insure or afford impunity.
2nd Qualifying circumstance:

 In consideration of a price, reward, or promise, it is any person who received a price,

reward, or who accepted a promise of price or reward would not have killed the victim
were it not for the price, reward, or promise. Such person is a principal by direct
participation. The one who gave the price, reward, or promise is a principal by induction.
If proven in the information by the prosecution, both are guilty of murder.

3rd Qualifying circumstance:

 By means of fire, poison, explosion, etc. is defined as any person killing the victim
through fire, if it is intended that there is an actual design to kill. If arson is resorted as a
means to cover up the killing, the offender may be convicted of separate crimes of
either homicide or murder, and arson.
 Treachery and premeditation are inherent in murder by poison.
 In the case of People v. Galura, accused gave the victim chocolate with overdose of
Cantharide to consummate his dastardly lewd desires. Consequently, the woman died.
The court held that even if the wrongful act done was different from that which accused
intended, and had no intention to kill the victim, the use of poison is inherent in murder.
4th Qualifying circumstance:

 Killing a person by taking advantage on the occasion of inundation, shipwreck, etc., of

an earthquake, eruption of a volcano, epidemic or any other public calamity by the
offender qualifies the crime of murder.
5th Qualifying circumstance:

 Evident premeditation essential elements are as follows:

1. The time when the offender has determined to commit the crime.
2. An act manifestly indicating that the culprit has clung to his determination.
3. Has sufficient interval of time between the determination and the execution of the
crime has lapsed to allow him to reflect upon the consequences of his act.
6th Qualifying circumstance:

 There is cruelty when other injuries or wounds are inflicted deliberately by the offender,
which are not necessary for the killing of the victim. The victim must be alive when the
other injuries or wounds are inflicted.
 Outraging or scoffing at the person or corpse of the victim means to commit an
extremely vicious or deeply insulting act. Exp. Anal intercourse with the woman after
killing her is an outrage at her corpse.
Note: The penalty for murder is reclusion perpetua. R.A. No. 9346 prohibits the imposition
of the death penalty.

D. Article 249. Homicide.

Elements:

1. Person was killed.

2. Accused killed him without any justifying circumstance.
3. Accused had the intent to kill, which is presumed.
4. The killing was not attended by any of the qualifying circumstances of murder, or by
parricide or infanticide.

 The victim must be killed in order to consummate the crime of murder. If the victim is
not killed, it is either attempted or frustrated.
 If the victim is under 12 years old, the penalty imposed shall be reclusion perpetua.
 When death results, even if there is no intent to kill, the crime is homicide because the
penal law particularly looks at the material results following the unlawful act and the
holds the aggressor responsible.
 Evidence of intent to kill is important only to frustrated or attempted homicide. Thus, if
there is no intent to kill, he is liable for physical injuries.
 Intent to kill must be proved beyond reasonable doubt.
 The death of the deceased was due to his refusal to be operated on, not a defense.
(Article 4, paragraph 1, Book 1, RPC)
 The killing must not be justified. In other words, the killing must not be in the act of self-
defense or under any of the other justifying circumstances of Art. 11.
 In the absence of any circumstance enumerated in murder (Art. 248), parricide (Art.
246), or infanticide (Art. 255), the guilty person should be sentenced only for homicide.
 There is no offense of frustrated homicide through imprudence. This is physical injuries
through reckless imprudence.
 If the wounds that caused the death of the deceased were inflicted by two different
persons, even if they were not in conspiracy, each one of them is guilty of homicide.
 Mortally wounding the victim before committing suicide is not a tenable defense. The
accused is guilty of homicide.
 Using of unlicensed firearm is an aggravating circumstance in homicide. The purpose of
congress is to use unlicensed firearm and the commission of murder or homicide as a
single offense. (R.A. No. 1059)
 Accidental homicide is brought about by a lawful act performed with proper skill,
without homicidal intent. Exp. In a boxing bout, rules have been violated, as a foul blow,
death resulted, the crime would homicide through negligence. If the foul blow is
intended for the purpose of killing the opponent, the crime would of intentional
homicide is committed.
 Corpus delicti in crimes against persons:
1. Criminal Act.
2. Defendant’s agency in the commission of the act.
In other words, corpus delicti means that a crime was actually perpetrated, and does
not refer to the body of the murdered person.

 In homicide or murder cases, the prosecution is burdened to prove:

1. Death of the person alleged to be dead.
2. Death was produced by a criminal act and was not a result of accident, natural
cause, or suicide.
3. Defendant is criminally liable for the act which produced the death.
E. Article 250. Penalty for frustrated parricide, murder, homicide.

 Courts may impose a penalty two degrees lower for frustrated parricide, murder or
homicide under Article 50. This is permissive, not mandatory.
 Courts may impose a penalty three degrees lower for attempted parricide, murder, or
homicide.
 Any person who shall attempt, or conspire against the life of the Chief Executive,
member of his family, life of any of the cabinet, Interim Batasang Pambansa, the
Supreme Court, Constitutional Commission, general officers of major services,
commands of the armed forces or any member of their families, or who uses any
firearms or deadly weapons against the government officials enumerated therein is
punishable by life imprisonment. This is so because the government officials
enumerated therein are given ample protection against lawless elements, to make it as
a deterrent.

F. Article 251. Death caused in a tumultuous affray.

Elements:
1. There be several persons.
2. They are not composed of groups organized for the common purpose of assaulting
and attacking each other reciprocally.
3. These several persons quarreled and assaulted one another in a confused and
tumultuous manner.
4. Someone was killed in the course of the affray.
5. It cannot be ascertained who actually killed the deceased.
6. That the person or persons who inflicted serious physical injuries or who used
violence can be identified.

 Tumultuous affray exists when four persons took part. In other words, the three persons
are armed or are provided with means of violence.
 There is no tumultuous affray when there are two identified groups of men who
assaulted each other were united in their common purpose to attack.
 When there is confusion in the fight and the person who inflicted the wounds could not
be identified, the crime is death caused in a tumultuous affray.
 The person who was killed in the course of the affray need not be a participant in the
affray.
 In Article 251, the serious physical injury inflicted by one of the participants should not
be the cause of death of the deceased.
  Who are liable for death in a tumultuous affray?
1. Person or persons who inflicted the serious physical injuries.
2. It is not known who inflicted the serious physical injuries on the deceased. Thus, all
person or persons who used violence are liable with lesser liability.

G. Article 252. Physical injuries inflicted in a tumultuous affray.

Elements:
1. There is tumultuous affray.
2. The Participants or some participants suffer serious physical injuries or physical injuries
of a less serious nature only.
3. Person responsible cannot be identified.
4. All those who used violence upon the offended party are known.

 The inflicted upon must be one or some of the participants in the affray.
 Only the one who used violence is liable. In other words, if the one who caused the
injury is known, he will be liable for physical injuries.
 Physical injuries committed through tumultuous affray is one degree lower than that for
the physical injury.

H. Article 254. Giving assistance to suicide.

Elements:
1. Assisting another to commit suicide, whether the suicide is consummated or not.
2. By lending his assistance to another to commit suicide to the extent of doing the killing
himself.

 If the lending of assistance to commit suicide is not consummated, the penalty is one or
two degrees lower than that provided for in consummated suicide.
 The penalty does not distinguish and does not make reference to the relation of the
offender with the person committing suicide. Thus, the penalty would be the same as
provided in said article.
 A person who commits suicide is not criminally liable.
  A pregnant woman who attempts to commit suicide by means of poison but instead of
dying, the fetus in her womb was expelled, is not liable of abortion because the abortion
that resulted is unintentional caused by poison. In addition, the act of committing
suicide is not an unlawful act.
 Assistance to suicide is different from mercy killing. Euthanasia or mercy killing is the
practice of painlessly putting to death a person suffering from some incurable disease. In
Euthanasia, the person killed does not want to die. Thus, a doctor who resorts to mercy
killing of his patient may be guilty of murder under article 248.

I. Article 254. Discharge of firearms.

Elements:
1. Offender discharges a firearm against or at another person.
2. Offender has no intention to kill that person.

 If the firearm is not discharged at a person, there is no crime of discharge of firearm.

 Firing a gun against the house of the offended party at random, does not constitute the
crime under Art. 254, the crime is alarm under article 155.
 If there is intent to kill, the crime should be classified as frustrated or attempted
parricide, murder or homicide, not merely illegal discharge of firearms. In other words,
under Art. 254, the purpose of the offender is only to intimidate or to frighten the
offended party.
 200 yards between the offender and victim negatives intent to kill. Thus, the crime is
only discharge of firearm. However, if the offender fired successive shots at the
offended party, having not contented, the crime committed is attempted homicide.
 If in the illegal discharge of firearm, the offended party hit and wounded the offender,
this is a complex crime of illegal discharge of firearm with serious or less serious physical
injuries. There is no complex crime with slight physical injuries because such crime
constitutes a light felony.
 Even if the gun was not pointed at the offended when the offender fired, as long as it
was initially aimed by the accused at or against the offended party, the crime
constitutes illegal discharge of firearm.
 In the case of U.S. v. Samonte, a public officer who fired his revolver in the air in order to
capture some gamblers and to prevent them from escaping was acquitted of any crime.
J. Article 255. Infanticide.

Elements:

1. Child was killed.

2. Deceased child was less than three days old (72 hours of age)
3. Accused killed the said child.

 The penalty is reclusion perpetua no matter who the killer is of a child less than three
days old.
 Infanticide to conceal dishonor is defined as an unmarried woman, gave birth to a living
child, buried the child in the hopes of killing the child in order to conceal her dishonor.
Thus, the offender is guilty of infanticide under article 255.
 Concealing dishonor is not an element of infanticide.
 Only the mother and the maternal grandparents of the child are entitled to the
mitigating circumstance of concealing dishonor.
 The delinquent mother must be of good reputation in order to benefit from a lesser
penalty.
 A stranger who cooperates with the killing of a child less than three days of age is guilty
if infanticide and shall suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua.
 If the child could not sustain an independent life or born dead, no crime of infanticide is
committed.

K. Article 256. Intentional abortion.

Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman.
2. Violence is exerted, or drugs or beverages administered, or that the accused otherwise
acts upon such pregnant woman.
3. As a result of such acts in the 2nd element, the fetus dies in the womb or after being
expelled.
4. Abortion is intended.

Modes of committing intentional abortion:

1. Using any violence upon the person of the pregnant woman.
2. Without using violence, shall act without the consent of the woman. Exp. By
administering drugs or beverages upon such pregnant woman without her consent.
3. The woman shall have consented.

 Abortion is defined as the willful killing of the fetus in the uterus, or the violent
expulsion of the fetus from the maternal womb which results in the death of the fetus.
 Fetus must die in the consummated abortion. If the fetus survives, the crime is
frustrated intentional abortion. In addition, there is no frustrated unintentional
abortion.
 In abortion, the fetus may be over or less than six months old or before the term of its
viability. However, as long as the fetus dies as a result of the violence used or the drugs
administered, the crime of abortion exists, even if the fetus is full term.
 The person who intentionally caused the abortion is liable under Article 256. The
woman is liable under Article 258 if she consented to the abortion caused on her.
 The difference between abortion and infanticide is that in infanticide, the fetus could (1)
sustain an independent life after its separation from the maternal womb, (2) is killed. In
abortion, the fetus (1) does not have its own life independently from the mother, (2) is
killed.

L. Article 257. Unintentional abortion.

Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman.
2. Violence is used upon such pregnant woman without intending an abortion.
3. The violence is intentionally exerted.
4. As a result of the violence, the fetus dies.

 Unintentional abortion is only committed by violence. In other words, actual physical

force is used upon the woman that resulted the crime of unintentional abortion.
 The violence must be intentionally exerted.
 In the case of People v. Jose, a truck driver bumped a calesa from behind which caused
the passengers to be thrown from their seats. One of the passengers was pregnant. On
the evening of the accident, blood came out of her vagina. She had an abortion. The
court held that the truck driver is guilty of unintentional abortion through reckless
imprudence.
 To be liable for the crime of unintentional abortion under Art. 257, the accused must
have known of the pregnancy according to People v. Carnaso. However, in the case of
U.S. v. Jeffrey, offender is liable for the consequences of the abortion even if the
offender did not know that the offended was pregnant.
 There is a complex crime of homicide with unintentional abortion.
 There is complex crime of parricide with abortion.
 Unintentional abortion distinguished from infanticide:
1. In unintentional abortion, there is a (1) pregnant woman, (2) violence is used upon
such woman, (3) violence is intentionally exerted, (4) as a result of the violence, the
fetus dies.
2. In infanticide, it is necessary that the child be born alive and be viable, that is
capable of independent existence.
 When there is no violence, Article 256 or Article 257 does not apply.

M. Article 258. Abortion practiced by the woman herself or by her parents.

Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman.
2. Abortion is intended.
3. Abortion is caused by: (a) pregnant woman herself, (b) any other person, with her
consent, (c) any of her parents with her consent for the purpose of concealing her
dishonor.

 In Art. 258, the woman is liable when she shall practice an abortion upon herself, or
shall consent any other person should do so.
 Only the woman or any of her parents is liable under Article 258, if the purpose of the
latter is to conceal her dishonor.
 Liability of pregnant woman is mitigated if the purpose is to conceal dishonor. In other
words, in order to erase the traces of her mistake, she commits abortion.
 No mitigation for parents or pregnant woman even if the purpose is to conceal
dishonor. However, in infanticide under Article 255, there is mitigation for parents.

N. Article 259. Abortion practiced by a physician or midwife and dispensing of abortives.

Elements:
1. There is a pregnant woman who suffered an abortion.
2. Abortion is intended.
3. Offender must be a physician or midwife, causes or assists in the abortion.
4. Physician or midwife takes advantage of her scientific knowledge and skill.

 Penalty for intentional abortion is imposed in its maximum period on physician or

midwife because their knowledge was used for the destruction of human life, where it
should be used only for its preservation.
 Pharmacist elements:
1. Offender is a pharmacist.
2. No proper prescription from a physician.
3. Offender dispenses any abortive.

 It is not necessary for the pharmacist to know that the abortive would be used to cause
an abortion. If he knew, he would be an accomplice of the crime of abortion.
 It is not necessary that the abortive be actually used.

O. Article 260. Responsibility of participants in a duel.

Elements:
1. By killing one’s adversary in a duel.
2. Inflicting such adversary physical injuries.
3. By making a combat although no physical injuries have been inflicted.

 Duel is a formal or regular combat between two parties who fixes all the other
conditions of the fight.
 The person who killed or inflicted physical injuries upon his adversary are principals in
the crime under Art. 260. The seconds, as accomplices.
 If death results, the penalty imposed will be the same for homicide.
 When only physical injuries are inflicted in the duel, the crime is Art. 260.
 Each combatant, even if only slight physical injuries are inflicted or no injuries at all, the
penalty is arresto mayor under Arti. 260.

P. Article 261. Challenging to a duel.

Elements:
1. Challenge another to a duel.
2. Inciting another to give or accept a duel.
3. Scoffing at or decrying another publicly for having refused to accept a challenge to
fight a duel.

 When the offender is rejected by the offended, this is only light threats under Art. 285,
paragraph 2.
 Persons responsible under Art. 261 are:
1. Challenger; and
2. Instigators.