CRIMINAL LAW (15

QUESTIONS)
BASED ON REVISED SYLLABUS
RELEASED JANUARY 4, 2022 A. BASIC PRINCIPLES

HOREB FELIX VILLA

CRIMINAL LAW
USC LAW
• It is a branch of public law (governs the
SOURCES: VILLA BAR REVIEW
relationship of the state with its people)
NOTES 2021, UP BOC 2020,
that:
COMPACT REVIEWER IN CRIMINAL
A. Defines crimes;
LAW BY BOADO, USC EH 403 2020 B. Treats of their nature;
NOTES, LEGAL EDGE LECTURES C. Provides for their punishment.
• It is substantive law (as opposed to
procedural law) because it creates and
affects substantive rights and
Contents obligations of individuals.
• Crime-An act committed or omitted in
A. BASIC PRINCIPLES ........................................ 1
violation of a public law forbidding or
B. JUSTIFYING, EXEMPTING, MITIGATING, commanding it. It is a generic term used
AGGRAVATING, ALTERNATE CIRCUMSTANCES to refer to a wrongdoing punished by
(CIRCUMSTANCES AFFECTING CRIMINAL either the RPC or a special law.
LIABILITY)....................................................................... 4 [ORTEGA]
• Nullum crimen nulla poena sine lege-
C. APPLICATION OF THE INDETERMINATE
There is no criminal liability if the act is
SENTENCE LAW .......................................................... 23
not punishable by a particular provision
D. SERVICE OF SENTENCE ............................ 24 in penal law or special penal law. There
is no crime when there is no law
E. EFFECT OF DEATH OF THE ACCUSED .. 25
punishing it. (Potenciano Evangelista v.
F. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS .................... 26 People, 2000)
• Crimes must be defined. If an act or
G. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY .................. 36
omission is not defined as a crime
H. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY AND punishable by law, the author thereof
PERSONAL SECURITY ............................................... 48 cannot be held criminally liable therefor.
I. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC INTEREST ........ 53
Territoriality
J. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262: ANTI-
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND THEIR • Except as provided in the treaties and
CHILDREN ACT OF 2004 .......................................... 57 laws of preferential application, the
provisions of this Code shall be enforced
K. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7610: SPECIAL not only within the Philippine
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN AGAINST ABUSE, Archipelago, including its atmosphere,
EXPLOITATION, AND DISCRIMINATION ACT its interior waters and maritime zone.
(ANTI- CHILD ABUSE LAW) .................................... 61 (Art. 2, RPC)
L. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11313: SAFE Exceptions to Territoriality
SPACES ACT ................................................................. 63
a. Extraterritorial jurisdiction - Art. 2 of
M. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10173: THE DATA
RPC (SFION)
PRIVACY ACT OF 2012 ............................................. 66

1

Article 2. Application of its provisions. -
Except as provided in the treaties and laws
of preferential application, the provisions of
this Code shall be enforced not only within
the Philippine Archipelago, including its
atmosphere, its interior waters and
maritime zone, but also outside of its
jurisdiction, against those who:
b. 1. Should commit an offense while on a
Philippine ship or airship
c. 2. Should forge or counterfeit any coin
or currency note of the Philippine
Islands or obligations and securities
issued by the Government of the
Philippine Islands;
d. 3. Should be liable for acts connected
with the introduction into these islands
of the obligations and securities
mentioned in the presiding number;
e. 4. While being public officers or
employees, should commit an offense in
the exercise of their functions; or
f. 5. Should commit any of the crimes
against national security and the law of
nations, defined in Title One of Book
Two of this Code.
(1) Ship, (2) Forgery or Counterfeiting, (3)
Introduction of the counterfeited
materials, (4) Public Officer, and (5) Falls
under the title under the Crimes under the
title Crimes against National Security or
the Law of Nations.
If the crime falls under the 5 that we mentioned,
then the RPC can extend its coverage outside
the PH territory.
g. Universal jurisdiction – (jus cogens
crimes; obligation erga omnes) All
countries have the obligation to
prosecute.
Although the crime of piracy was committed in
the domestic waters of Singapore, the Philippine
laws were applied because piracy has been
declared by the United Nations as a crime
against humanity, a crime against the law of
nations, which can be prosecuted anywhere.
(PP. vs. Tulin, 2001)
c. International jurisdiction – refers to the
jurisdiction of international courts/tribunals like
the ICC; ICTY; ICTR; etc. Courts created by
States to try international crimes.
2
d. Transnational crimes – committed across
borders; may give rise to the duty to extradite.
Examples: Cybercrime, Trafficking of Wildlife,
Human Trafficking, United Nations Convention
against Transnational Organized Crime
(UNTOC), and Child Pornography.
The provisions of the Revised Penal Code shall
also be applied outside of Philippine jurisdiction
against those who (SFION):
1. Commit an offense while on a Philippine
Ship or airship
• Philippine ship or airship - one
registered in accordance with Philippine
laws.
• Even if totally or wholly owned by a
Filipino citizen, if it is not registered in
the Philippines it cannot be considered
as a Philippine ship or airship.
• A person who commits an offense on
board a Philippine ship or airship while
the same is outside Philippine territory
can be tried by our courts. The ship or
airship must be in international waters.
• But when the Philippine vessel or
aircraft is in the territory of a foreign
country, the crime committed on the
said vessel or aircraft is subject to the
laws of that foreign country.
2. Forge or counterfeit coins, currency
notes, obligations or securities issued
by the government
3. Introduction of items no. 2 into the
Philippines
• Rationale: Introduction of those in no.2
is just as dangerous as forging the
same, to the economic interest of the
country.
•
4. Public Officers or employees
committing an offense in the exercise of
their functions
• Direct bribery (Art. 210)
• Indirect bribery (Art. 211)
• Frauds against the public treasure (Art.
213)
• Possession of prohibited interest (Art.
216)
• Malversation of public funds or property
(Art. 217)
 • Failure of accountable officer to render is a merchant vessel, not when the
accounts (Art. 218) vessel is a warship.
• Illegal use of public funds or property
(Art. 219) ELEMENTS OF A FELONY (ACTUS REUS,
• Failure to make delivery of public funds MENS REA)
or property (Art. 221)
• Falsification committed with abuse of
his official function (Art. 171) Article 3. Definitions. - Acts and omissions
punishable by law are felonies (delitos).
5. Commit crimes against the National
security and the law of nations Felonies are committed not only be means of
• Treason and conspiracy to commit deceit (dolo) but also by means of fault (culpa).
treason (Arts. 114 and 115)
There is deceit when the act is performed with
• Espionage (Art. 117)
deliberate intent and there is fault when the
• Inciting to war and giving motives for
wrongful act results from imprudence,
reprisals (Art. 118)
negligence, lack of foresight, or lack of skill.
• Violation of neutrality (Art. 119)
• Correspondence with hostile country
1. An Act or Omission
(Art. 121)
A. Act – Any kind of body movement which
• Piracy and mutiny on the high seas (Art.
tends to produce some effect in the
122)
external world; includes possession
Territoriality Issues in Merchant Vessels
B. Omission – The failure to perform a
• Foreign merchant ships are extensions positive duty which one is bound to do
of the territory of the country to which under the law. There must be a law
it belongs. requiring the performance of an act,
• What determines the nationality of a without such law, there is no liability.
vessel is not the nationality of the
owner, but its registration. 2. Committed by means of:
• If the crime was done in International A. Dolo (i.e., willfully) or
Waters – NOT triable in our courts, B. Culpa (i.e., negligently)
because it is an extension of the
territory of the country to which the ship 3. Punished by the Code
belongs.
English Rule vs. French Rule
Dolo:
• French Rule - Under the French Rule,
• 2 Requisites: For one to be criminally
crimes committed aboard foreign
liable for a felony by dolo, there must be
merchant vessels within the territorial
a confluence of both an evil act and an
waters of another country are not
evil intent. Actus non facit reum, nisi
triable in the country unless it affects
mens sit rea. (Manuel v. People, 2005)
peace and security of the territory.
(Example: smoking opium)
• Actus reus is the act or omission that
• English Rule - Under the English Rule,
comprise the physical elements of a
crimes committed aboard foreign
crime as required by statute.
merchant vessels within the territorial
• Mens Rea refers to criminal intent.
waters of another country are triable in
• Thus: Actus Reus + Mens Rea=
that country unless it merely affects
Felony/Crime.
things within the vessel or the internal
management thereof.
• Requirements of Dolo or Malice:
• The Philippines adopts the English Rule.
1. Freedom – Voluntariness on the part of
Though technically different in
the person who commits the act or
application, both the English and French
omission.
rules may bring the same result.
• The French nationality rule and English
territoriality rule apply only if the vessel

3
 2. Intelligence – Capacity to know and
understand the consequences of one’s
act.
3. Intent – Intent to commit the act with
malice is a purely mental process, and
is presumed from the proof of the
commission of an unlawful act. Intent
presupposes the exercise of freedom
and the use of intelligence.
Culpa (Negligence):
• Criminal negligence in our RPC is
treated as a mere quasi-offense, and
dealt with separately from willful
offenses. It is not merely a modality
of committing the crime, but is an
offense (quasi-offense) in itself.
(Sevilla vs. People, 2014)
• Two persons can be held liable for the
same act, one for dolo and the other for
culpa (PP v. Pugay, 1988)
• Requisites of Culpa:
1. Freedom
2. Intelligence
3. Negligence or Imprudence
Motive and Intent
• Motive is the reason or compelling force
why the accused committed the acts
complained of.
• Intent is the purpose of the accused in
using a particular means to effect such
result.
• Motive is not an element of a crime;
criminal intent may be an element (e.g.,
intent to kill, intent to gain)
When is proof of motive essential?
1. When there is doubt to the identity of
the accused.
• There are two antagonistic theories or
versions of the story.
• There are no eyewitnesses the crime,
where suspicion is likely to fall upon a
number of persons.
• If the evidence is merely circumstantial.
• Motive determines the identity of the
offender, not the nature of the crime.
2. To determine voluntariness of the act,
or whether the act was intentional or
accidental
4
3. To determine the aggressor, where the
accused invoked self-defense, or
defense of stranger.
4. To determine the specific nature of the
crime, i.e., murder in furtherance of
rebellion.
Kinds of Criminal Intent
1. General criminal intent
• Presumed from the commission of a
felony by dolo (intentional felonies).
2. Specific criminal intent
• When specific criminal intent is a
requisite in a crime, that intent must be
alleged in the Information (or charge
sheet) and proven by evidence. It
cannot be presumed. (De Guzman vs.
People)
• This must be proven by direct or
circumstantial evidence (Rivera et al vs.
People, 2006)
• The presence or absence of the requisite
specific criminal intent (e.g., intent to
kill; intent to gain) will change the
nature and gravity of the crime.
B. JUSTIFYING, EXEMPTING, MITIGATING,
AGGRAVATING, ALTERNATE
CIRCUMSTANCES (CIRCUMSTANCES
AFFECTING CRIMINAL LIABILITY)
JUSTIFYING CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 11. Justifying circumstances. - The
following do not incur any criminal liability:
1. Anyone who acts in defense of his person or
rights, provided that the following
circumstances concur;
First. Unlawful aggression.
Second. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it.
Third. Lack of sufficient provocation on the part
of the person defending himself.
2. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or
rights of his spouse, ascendants, descendants,
or legitimate, natural or adopted brothers or
sisters, or his relatives by affinity in the same
degrees and those consanguinity within the
fourth civil degree, provided that the first and
second requisites prescribed in the next
preceding circumstance are present, and the
further requisite, in case the revocation was
given by the person attacked, that the one
making defense had no part therein.
3. Anyone who acts in defense of the person or
rights of a stranger, provided that the first and
second requisites mentioned in the first
circumstance of this Article are present and that
the person defending be not induced by
revenge, resentment, or other evil motive.
4. Any person who, in order to avoid an evil or
injury, does not act which causes damage to
another, provided that the following requisites
are present;
First. That the evil sought to be avoided actually
exists;
Second. That the injury feared be greater than
that done to avoid it;
Third. That there be no other practical and less
harmful means of preventing it.
5. Any person who acts in the fulfillment of a
duty or in the lawful exercise of a right or office.
6. Any person who acts in obedience to an order
issued by a superior for some lawful purpose.
Effect of Invoking Justifying Circumstance
• Under this circumstance, there is a
crime but there would be no criminal
liability. Hence, the perpetrator will
NOT incur CIVIL nor CRIMINAL
liability because the act is justified.
• The moment the offender invokes any
of the acts amounting to justifying
circumstance, he is in effect admitting
the commission of the crime, but he
wants to evade criminal liability by
invoking justifying circumstances.
The ff. are justifying circumstances:
1. Defense of Self
2. Defense of Relatives
3. Defense of Strangers
4. Avoidance of Greater Evil
5. Fulfillment of Duty
6. Obedience to an order for a Lawful
Purpose
5
I. Self-Defense
Requisites for Self-Defense:
• This includes defense of life, chastity,
property, and honor of the accused who
must prove with clear and convincing
evidence the requisites.
Requisites of Self-Defense (URL)
1. Unlawful Aggression
• It is an actual physical assault or at least
a threat to attack or inflict physical
injury upon a person.
• Test: Whether the aggression from the
victim places in real peril the life or
personal safety of the person defending
one’s self.
• The peril must not be imagined or
imaginary threat. Aggression must be
real or at least imminent and it is
imminent if an attack is impending or at
the point of happening.
3 Elements of Unlawful Aggression (PAU)
a. Physical/Material attack or assault
b. Such is Actual/Imminent
c. It must be Unlawful
Unlawful aggression from provocation:
• The one who gave the provocation is the
VICTIM.
• However, the crime is NOT the direct
result of the provocation, but of the
aggression.
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it
• This presupposes the existence of
UNLAWFUL AGGRESSION
Requisites:
a. Reasonable necessity of the COURSE of
action taken and,
b. Reasonable necessity of the MEANS
used.
• Test: (1) Nature and quality of the
weapon used, (2) physical condition and
size of the aggressor, and (3) other
circumstances
 3. Lack of sufficient provocation on • The justifying circumstance of defense
the part of the person defending of a relative will not lie if the unlawful
himself. aggression is already non-existent. (PP
• The provocation must be sufficient, v. Lansang, 2002).
which means that it should be
proportionate to the act of aggression • Relatives that can be defended:
and adequate to stir the aggressor of its 1. Spouse,
commission (People v. Alconga, 1947) 2. Ascendants,
3. Descendants,
4. Legitimate, natural, or adopted
This requisite is present in the following brothers/sisters, or
instances: 5. His relatives by affinity in the
• No provocation at all was given to the same degrees,
aggressor; 6. Those related to him by
• Even if provocation was given, it was consanguinity within the fourth
not sufficient; civil degree;
• Even if provocation was sufficient, it was
not given by the person defending • Fiscal Petralba: Even if the person
himself; or, defending has a grudge against the
• When given by the person defending victim, the justifying circumstance will
himself, it was not proximate and still apply in defense of relatives, but not
immediate to the act of aggression. if the person defended is a stranger. In
the latter case, the person defending
Effects of presence of all or lack must not be motivated by any ill-will
of some of the against the victim.
requisites for the
defense: • Two Views Regarding the Termination of
ALL Present Justifying Relationship by Death:
circumstance
TWO Requisites Privileged 1. Terminated Affinity View –
present mitigating relationship by affinity
circumstance terminates with the dissolution
(Art 69) but of the marriage except when
UA must be there is a surviving issue
present
2. Continuing Affinity View –
ONE Requisite present Ordinary
relationship by affinity endures
– Mitigating
unlawful aggression* even after the dissolution of
Circumstance
marriage.
• In all cases, UNLAWFUL
• For purposes of Article 332(1) of the
AGGRESSION must always be present.
Revised Penal Code, we hold that the
relationship by affinity created between
II. Defense of Relatives:
the surviving spouse and the blood
relatives of the deceased spouse
Elements: survives the death of either party to the
marriage which created the affinity. The
a. Unlawful Aggression same principle applies to the justifying
b. Reasonable necessity of the means circumstance of defense of one’s
employed to prevent or repel it relatives under Article 11[2] of the
c. In case the provocation was Revised Penal Code, the mitigating
given by the person attacked, circumstance of immediate vindication
that the one making defense of grave offense committed against
had no part therein. one’s relatives under Article 13[5] of the
same Code and the absolutory cause of
relationship in favor of accessories

6
 under Article 20 also of the same Code
(Carungcong v. People, 2010).
III. Defense of Strangers:
Elements:
1. Unlawful Aggression
2. Reasonable necessity of the means
employed to prevent or repel it
3. Person defending must NOT be induced
by revenge, resentment, or other evil
motive.
• Strangers refer to those who are NOT
included in the enumeration of relatives
mentioned in Defense of Relatives.
IV. Fulfillment of Duty or Exercise
of Right or Office
Elements:
1. Offender acted in the lawful exercise of
a right or duty; and,
2. Injury or offense committed be the
necessary consequence of the due
performance of such right or office.
• Police officers who, in the performance
of their official duties, inflicted injuries
upon persons facing criminal charges
are exempt from liability. Unlike in self-
defense where unlawful aggression is an
element, in performance of duty,
unlawful aggression from the victim is
not a requisite. For police officers, it is
not necessary that they must be
attacked (Masioquina v. CA, 1989).
• It is the duty of peace officers to arrest
violators of the law not only when they
are provided with the corresponding
warrant of arrest, but also when they
are not provided with the said warrant,
IF THE VIOLATION IS COMMITTED
IN THEIR OWN PRESENCE. This is
also known as in flagrante delicto
arrests. (Rule 113, Section 5, Revised
Rules of Criminal Procedure)
• An officer is never justified in using
unnecessary force or in treating an
offender with wanton violence, or in
resorting to dangerous means WHEN
ARREST COULD BE EFFECTED.
V. Avoidance of a Greater Evil
7
1. Evil sought to be avoided actually
exists
2. Injury feared be greater than the
one done to avoid it;
3. No other practical and less harmful
means of preventing it
• This is not usually applied in crimes
against persons.
• The instinct of self-preservation will
always make one feel that his own
safety is of greater importance than that
of another.
• The greater evil should NOT be brought
about by the negligence or imprudence
of the actor and it should NOT result
from a violation of law by the actor.
• It is only this paragraph that one may
be held liable for civilly. Persons
benefited shall be liable in proportion to
the benefit which they may have
received.
VI. Obedience to Lawful Order
1. Order issued by a superior
2. It was for a lawful purpose
3. Done through lawful means by the
subordinate
• Both the person who gives the order and
the person who executes it must be
acting WITHIN the limitations
prescribed by law. (People v. Wilson and
Dolores, 1929)
• When the order is NOT for a lawful
purpose, the subordinate who obeyed is
criminally liable.
• The subordinate is not liable for carrying
out an illegal order of his superior, if he
is NOT aware of the illegality of the
order and is not negligent.
Absolutory Causes
• A circumstance which is present prior to
or simultaneously with the offense by
reason of which the accused who acts
with criminal intent, freedom, and
intelligence does not incur criminal
liability for an act which constitutes a
crime. The following are absolutory
causes:
1. Spontaneous desistance in attempted
felonies (Art. 6);
2. Accessories in light felonies (Art. 16);
3. Accessories exempt from criminal
liability by reason of relationship; (Art.
20)
4. A legal spouse or parent who inflicts
slight or less serious physical injuries
under exceptional circumstances; (Art.
247. If death or serious injuries result,
there is mitigated liability, as
“extenuating circumstance”)
5. Persons not criminally liable for theft,
estafa or malicious mischief by reason
of relationship to the offended party.
(Art. 332)
6.
EXCEMPTING CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 12. Circumstances which exempt
from criminal liability. - the following are
exempt from criminal liability:
1. An imbecile or an insane person, unless
the latter has acted during a lucid interval
When the imbecile or an insane person has
committed an act which the law defines as
a felony (delito), the court shall order his
confinement in one of the hospitals or
asylums established for persons thus
afflicted, which he shall not be permitted to
leave without first obtaining the permission
of the same court.
(The next 2 paragraphs are deemed
repealed by RA 9344)
2. Any person who, while performing a
lawful act with due care, causes an injury by
mere accident without fault or intention of
causing it.
3. Any person who act under the
compulsion of irresistible force.
4. Any person who acts under the impulse
of an uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury.
5. Any person who fails to perform an act
required by law, when prevented by some
lawful insuperable cause.
wanting in the agent of the crime
any of the conditions which makes
the act voluntary or negligent.
• In exempting circumstances, the
act does not result in criminal
liability because the act is not
voluntary or negligent
• When there is an exempting
circumstance, the accused will not
incur criminal liability although it is
possible that he may be held civilly
liable.
• In exempting circumstances, the
determining factor is the knowledge
of the offender rather than the
voluntariness.
Exempting Circumstances under RA 9344
(Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006):
1. Minor
2. Insane or Imbecile
3. Prevented by some lawful or
insuperable cause
4. Accident without fault nor intention
5. Irresistible force
6. Uncontrollable fear of an equal or
greater injury
I. Minority
1. 15 and below: Age of ABSOLUTE
EXEMPTION
2. Over 15 but below 18: Age of
CONDITIONAL LIABILITY
(Determine whether minor acted
with discernment)
3. 18 and over: Age of CRIMINAL
RESPONSIBILITY
• The prosecution has the burden to prove
that the minor acted with discernment
by evidence of physical appearance,
attitude, or deportment before, during
and after the commission of the act and
even during trial.
• Minority is presumed. If alleged,
minority must be taken into account
despite lack of proof, i.e., Birth
Certificate. Minority to be considered in
fixing bail.

• Exempting Circumstances are those II. Insanity

grounds for exemption from
punishment because there is

8
 • Insanity exists when there is a complete
After Judgment Execution of judgment is
deprivation of intelligence in committing
or while serving suspended and the
the act. Mere abnormality in the mental sentence accused is committed to
faculties will not exclude imputability.
a hospital. The period of
The accused must be so insane as to be confinement in the
incapable of entertaining a criminal hospital is counted for
intent. (PP v. Estrada cited in PP v. the purpose of the
Valledor) prescription of the
• To be an exempting circumstance, there penalty
must be a COMPLETE ABSENCE OF
KNOWLEDGE.
• When there is mere abnormality in the Two (2) Tests:
mental faculties such as schizophrenia,
there could be mitigating circumstance Test of:
(PP v. Montesclaros, 2009). 1. Cognition - Whether the accused acted
• The imbecile/insane does not incur with complete deprivation of
criminal liability but their intelligence; and
parents/guardians may be held civilly 2. Volition - Whether the accused acted in
liable. total deprivation of freedom of will.
• For insanity to become an exempting (People v. Rafanan,1991)
circumstance, it must occur at the time
of the commission of the crime, and not III. Accident
before or after the commission.
• Article 79 refers to insanity occurring 1. Accused was performing a lawful act
after the commission of the crime. with due care;
(When a convict shall become insane or 2. Injury is caused by mere accident;
an imbecile after the pronouncement of 3. There was no fault or intent to cause the
the final sentence, the execution shall injury
be suspended with regard to the
personal penalty.) • The basis of exemption for accident is
• When insanity is interposed as a the lack of criminal intent.
defense or a ground of a motion to • For an accident to be exempting, the act
quash, the burden rests upon the has to be lawful.
accused to establish that fact, for the • In case of accident, the actor must not
law presumes every man to be sane. abandon the victim or else he will be
liable for abandonment under Art. 275
Judicial Effects of Insanity: (2).

IV. Irresistible Force

When Effect on liability
Insanity is
1. The force must be physical, must come
Present
from an outside source, and the accused
At the time of Exempt from liability must act not only WITHOUT a will but
the commission also AGAINST his will.
of the crime 2. The actor must be reduced to mere
instrument, such that the element of
During Trial He is criminally liable but freedom is wanting.
the proceedings will be 3. The duress, force, fear or intimidation
suspended and the must be present, imminent, and
accused is committed to impending, and of such a nature as to
a hospital. induce a well-grounded fear of death or
serious bodily injury if the act is not
done.

9
 V. Uncontrollable Fear
1. Existence of an uncontrollable fear;
2. Fear must be real and imminent;
3. Fear of an injury is greater than or at
least equal to that committed.
• Impulse of uncontrollable fear and
irresistible force are both grounded on
duress or complete absence of freedom
of action or of the will of the actor who
has been reduced to a mere instrument
of the offender.
• Insuperable cause is an exempting
circumstance for felonies by omission. It
occurs when the law imposes a duty on
the offender to perform an act but his
failure to do so is due to a lawful cause.
MITIGATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 13. Mitigating circumstances. - The
following are mitigating circumstances;
1. Those mentioned in the preceding chapter,
when all the requisites necessary to justify or to
exempt from criminal liability in the respective
cases are not attendant.
2. That the offender is under eighteen year of
age or over seventy years. In the case of the
minor, he shall be proceeded against in
accordance with the provisions of Art. 80.
3. That the offender had no intention to commit
so grave a wrong as that committed.
4. That sufficient provocation or threat on the
part of the offended party immediately preceded
the act.
5. That the act was committed in the immediate
vindication of a grave offense to the one
committing the felony (delito), his spouse,
ascendants, or relatives by affinity within the
same degrees.
6. That of having acted upon an impulse so
powerful as naturally to have produced passion
or obfuscation.
7. That the offender had voluntarily surrendered
himself to a person in authority or his agents, or
that he had voluntarily confessed his guilt
before the court prior to the presentation of the
evidence for the prosecution;
10
8. That the offender is deaf and dumb, blind or
otherwise suffering some physical defect which
thus restricts his means of action, defense, or
communications with his fellow beings.
9. Such illness of the offender as would diminish
the exercise of the will-power of the offender
without however depriving him of the
consciousness of his acts.
10. And, finally, any other circumstances of a
similar nature and analogous to those above
mentioned.
• The circumstances in Article 13 are NOT
EXCLUSIVE as stated in the 10th
paragraph of this provision (Boado).
• Mitigating Circumstances are those
circumstances which, if present or
attendant in the commission of a felony,
would reduce the imposable penalty
because it shows lesser perversity or
criminality of the offender.
• Mitigating circumstances need not be
alleged in the information in order to be
appreciated by the court, provided that
such circumstance is shown and proven
during the trial.
• There is a lesser criminality on the part
of the offender because the offender
acted with the diminution of any of the
elements of voluntariness.
Kinds of Mitigating Circumstances:
1. Ordinary – lowers penalty by
PERIOD
2. Privileged – lowers the penalty by
DEGREE (minority and
INCOMPLETE self-defense)
• Entitles the offender to a penalty one
degree lower
• Takes precedence over other rules on
graduating penalties, including ISLaw
• The privileged mitigating of MINORITY is
taken into consideration right at the
start of the case, for the purpose of
computing bail bond, and at the end of
the case, for the purpose of probation.
3. Specific or particular (aka
Extenuating circumstances which
are not found in Art. 13)
 • Art 247, where death or serious injuries • Otherwise, Art. 13(1) shall apply, and
results the penalty shall be lowered to the
• Intent to conceal dishonor (infanticide & minimum period only.
abortion)
• Voluntary release of detained person II. Age
under Art 268 • This is always a privileged mitigating
• Abandonment in adultery circumstance where the penalty shall be
one degree lower but in the proper
4. Special period.
• Error in personae • Offender must be UNDER 18 at the
• Over 70 years old time of the commission of the crime.
• Two (2) or more Mitigating and no • Note: If one is under 15 years of age,
aggravating circumstance. s/he is absolutely exempted from
liability.
• Senility or over 70 is an Ordinary
• Only ordinary mitigating circumstances Mitigating circumstance.
may be offset by ordinary aggravating • Prior to RA 9346 and pursuant to Art 83,
circumstances. when the penalty imposed is death, it
• Privileged Mitigating circumstances shall be reduced to reclusion perpetua
cannot be offset by either special partaking the nature of a privileged
aggravating circumstance or an mitigating circumstance.
ordinary aggravating circumstance.
• There are categories to determine the III. Passion and Obfuscation
graduation of penalties. • There must be an act on the part of the
• Mitigating and Aggravating offended which is unlawful and sufficient
circumstances apply only to crimes to excite passion or obfuscation on the
punished under the RPC and not those accused and must not be far removed
under special laws, EXCEPT from the commission of the crime.
privileged/ordinary mitigating • Provocation and passion and
circumstance of minority as it is obfuscation are not two separate
applicable to all crimes. mitigating circumstances. They should
be treated together.
Mitigating Circumstances under Article 13: • Well-settled is the rule that if these two
1. Requisites of Justifying/Mitigating circumstances are based on the same
Circumstances are incomplete facts, they should be treated together
2. Age (Under 18, over 70) as one mitigating circumstance.
3. Passion or Obfuscation (Romera v. People, 2004)
4. Immediate vindication of a grave • Passion and obfuscation as a mitigating
offense circumstance need not be felt only in the
5. Deaf and dumb, and blind, or other seconds before the commission of the
physical defect crime. It may build up and strengthen
6. Voluntary plea of guilt over time until it can no longer be
7. Illness of the offender repressed and will ultimately motivate
8. Praeter Intentionem the commission of the crime. (PP v.
9. Sufficient provocation or threat Oliverio, 2015)
10. Other circumstances • Acts done in the spirit of revenge cannot
be considered acts done with passion
and obfuscation (PP v. Oliverio, 2015).
I. Incomplete Requisites
• This should be related to Article 69 IV. Immediate Vindication of Grave
which prescribes a Privileged Mitigating Offense
Circumstance reducing the penalty by • This need not be a crime. It may be any
1-2 degrees if MAJORITY of the act or event which offends the accused
requisites to exempt or justify are causing mental agony to him and moves
present. him to vindicate himself of such offense.

11
 V. Deaf, Dumb, Blind, or other
Physical Defect
• The offender’s being deaf and dumb, or
blind, or otherwise suffering from some
physical defect must be related to the
offense committed because the law
requires that the defect has the effect of
restricting his means of action, defense,
or communication to his fellow beings
VI. Voluntary Plea of Guilty
Requisites:
1. Plea was made in open court
2. It was spontaneous and unconditional
3. Made before presentation of the
evidence by the prosecution.
• To be considered mitigating, plea of
guilty must be voluntary and
unconditional, and made before the
presentation of evidence for
prosecution.
• An extrajudicial confession is NOT
mitigating because it is not made in
open court.
• Where the accused pleaded guilty but
asked that he be allowed to prove
mitigating circumstances, his plea is still
unconditional and mitigating as he did
not deny his guilt (PP v. Yturriaga, 86
Phil. 534)
VII. Voluntary Surrender
Elements of Voluntary Surrender (VAB)
1. Offender surrendered to a person in
authority or his agent;
2. Offender surrendered before arrest
is effected; and,
3. Must be voluntary
• Voluntary surrender, as a mitigating
circumstance, requires an element of
spontaneity (Bacerra v. People, 2017)
• Surrender, to be voluntary, must be
spontaneous, showing the intent of the
accused to submit himself
unconditionally to the authorities, either
because he acknowledges his guilt, or
he wishes to save them the trouble and
expense necessarily incurred in his
search and capture (PP v. Basite, 2003)
VIII. Illness of the Offender
12
• Illness must only diminish not
deprive the offender of the
consciousness of his acts or he will
be exempt from criminal liability.
IX. Praeter Intentionem
• This circumstance can be invoked
even in murder, where the killing
was unintentional but there is a
qualifying circumstance attending
the commission of the crime.
(People v. Enriquez, 58 Phil. 536)
• Now that the penalty for Murder is
single indivisible, this has no
bearing anymore for the purpose of
penalty, but may be crucial for
parole.
• Thus, if there was no intent to kill,
but the attack was treacherous or
premeditated, the crime would still
be murder if the victim dies.
• If the victim does not die, the crime
could NOT be attempted/frustrated
murder because of lack of intent to
kill. It would be physical injuries. If
the injuries are serious, it would be
qualified. If not, the treachery
would be ordinary aggravating.
X. Other Circumstances
• This is only true for mitigating. There
are no other circumstances in other
modifying circumstances.
• In malversation of public funds, the
payment, indemnification, or
reimbursement of the funds
misappropriated may be considered a
mitigating circumstance being
analogous to voluntary surrender
(Lumauig v. PP, 2014)
AGGRAVATING CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 14. Aggravating circumstances. - The
following are aggravating circumstances:
1. That advantage be taken by the offender of
his public position.
2. That the crime be committed in contempt or
with insult to the public authorities.
3. That the act be committed with insult or in
disregard of the respect due the offended party
on account of his rank, age, or sex, or that is be
committed in the dwelling of the offended party,
if the latter has not given provocation.
4. That the act be committed with abuse of
confidence or obvious ungratefulness.
5. That the crime be committed in the palace of
the Chief Executive or in his presence, or where
public authorities are engaged in the discharge
of their duties, or in a place dedicated to
religious worship.
6. That the crime be committed in the night
time, or in an uninhabited place, or by a band,
whenever such circumstances may facilitate the
commission of the offense.
Whenever more than three armed malefactors
shall have acted together in the commission of
an offense, it shall be deemed to have been
committed by a band.
7. That the crime be committed on the occasion
of a conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake
epidemic or other calamity or misfortune.
8. That the crime be committed with the aid of
armed men or persons who insure or afford
impunity.
9. That the accused is a recidivist.
A recidivist is one who, at the time of his trial
for one crime, shall have been previously
convicted by final judgment of another crime
embraced in the same title of this Code.
10. That the offender has been previously
punished by an offense to which the law
attaches an equal or greater penalty or for two
or more crimes to which it attaches a lighter
penalty.
11. That the crime be committed in
consideration of a price, reward, or promise.
12. That the crime be committed by means of
inundation, fire, poison, explosion, stranding of
a vessel or international damage thereto,
derailment of a locomotive, or by the use of any
other artifice involving great waste and ruin.
13. That the act be committed with evident
premeditation.
13
14. That the craft, fraud or disguise be
employed.
15. That advantage be taken of superior
strength, or means be employed to weaken the
defense.
16. That the act be committed with treachery
(alevosia).
There is treachery when the offender commits
any of the crimes against the person, employing
means, methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and specially to
ensure its execution, without risk to himself
arising from the defense which the offended
party might make.
17. That means be employed or circumstances
brought about which add ignominy to the
natural effects of the act.
18. That the crime be committed after an
unlawful entry.
There is an unlawful entry when an entrance of
a crime a wall, roof, floor, door, or window be
broken.
19. That the crime be committed with the aid of
persons under fifteen years of age or by means
of motor vehicles, motorized watercraft,
airships, or other similar means. (As amended
by RA 5438).
20. That the wrong done in the commission of
the crime be deliberately augmented by causing
other wrong not necessary for its commission.
Kinds of Aggravating Circumstances:
1. Generic (GA)
• This applies generally to ALL CRIMES.
• It increases the penalty to the
maximum period of the penalty
prescribed in the law provided it is
ALLEGED in the information as required
under the Revised Rules on Criminal
Procedure.
• It can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance.
Examples:
a. Dwelling
b. Recidivism
c. In consideration of price, reward, or
promise
 d. Nighttime
• There is no law providing that the
additional rape/s or homicide/s should
be considered as aggravating
circumstance. The enumeration of
aggravating circumstance under Article
14 is exclusive as opposed to Article 13
where there is a specific paragraph
(paragraph 10) providing for analogous
mitigating circumstances. (People v.
Regala, 2000)
2. Qualifying (QA)
• It cannot be offset by any mitigating
circumstance;
• It changes the nature of the crime
and the designation of the offense.
• It must be alleged in the Information,
otherwise, cannot be considered against
the offender because it will violate his
right to be informed of the nature of the
accusation against him since a b.
qualifying circumstance changes the
nature of the offense.
• It must be proven as conclusively as the
guilt of the offender because of its effect
which is to change the nature of the
offense and consequently increase the
penalty by degrees.
• It is not the qualifying circumstance
itself that increases the penalty by
degree. What the qualifying
circumstance does is to change the
nature of the crime resulting to the
increase in the penalty. Thus, homicide
becomes murder and the penalty for
murder is higher than for the homicide.
The penalty for homicide is always
reclusion temporal which can be
lowered but not increased to reclusion
perpetua. The homicide has to be
changed by a qualifying circumstance to
murder for the penalty to increase to
reclusion perpetua.
Examples:
a. Cruelty in crimes against persons
b. Treachery in crimes against persons
c. Victim is the offender’s parents,
ascendants, guardians, curators,
teachers, or persons in authority
d. Unlicensed firearms in robbery in band
14
3. Specific or Special Aggravating
Circumstance (SA)
• These apply to particular felonies and
are found elsewhere than Article 14.
• Special aggravating circumstances are
those applicable to specific crimes. They
do not change the character of the
offense charged but guides the court in
imposing the proper penalty.
• PP v. Agguihao (1994) ruled that just
like a generic aggravating the special
circumstance of spite does not change
the character of the arson charged.
• However, unlike generic aggravating
which can be offset by an ordinary
mitigating circumstance, special
aggravating cannot be offset by an
ordinary mitigating circumstance.
(People v. De Leon, 2009)
Examples
a. Quasi-recidivism
Complex Crime
c. Taking advantage of public position and
membership in an organized or
syndicated crime group
d. Use of loose firearm when inherent in
the commission of a crime
e. Organized or syndicated crime group
4. Inherent (IA)
• It is an element of the felony committed
thus no longer considered against the
offender in the determination of the
penalty. (Article 62, no. 1)
Examples:
a. Abuse of public office in Bribery
b. Breaking of a wall or unlawful entry into
a house in robber with force upon things
c. Fraud in Estafa
d. Deceit in Simple Seduction
e. Ignominy in Rape
I. TAKING ADVANTAGE OF PUBLIC
POSITION
• The public official must use the
influence, prestige, and ascendancy
which his office gives him in realizing his
purpose. There must be an intimate
connection between the offense and the
office of the accused (Sanchez v.
Demetriou, 1993)
• The test is whether or not the accused
used his position to further the crime.
II. INSULT TO PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES
• The public authority is engaged in the
discharge of his office;
• He is not the person against whom the
crime is committed. (PP vs. De Mesa,
2001)
• The circumstance of contempt of or
insult to public authorities requires that
the public authority is engaged in the
discharge of his duties and the offender
knows that he is a public authority.
• This is an aggravating circumstance
because it shows disrespect of the
offender in the commission of the crime
notwithstanding the presence of public
authority.
• This provision covers not only persons
in authority but also agents of persons
in authority and other public officers.
(PP v. Rodriguez, 19 Phil 150)
III. RANK, AGE, SEX, DWELLING
• The aggravating circumstance of
disregard of rank, age or sex is
essentially applicable only to crimes
against persons or honor.
• It is not taken into account in crimes
against property
• The mere fact that the victim is a
woman is not per se an aggravating
circumstance. There must be deliberate
intent to insult the sex of the victim or
disrespect to her womanhood (Mari v.
CA, 2000).
• The circumstance of disregard of the
respect due the offended party on
account of his rank is unavailing. There
is no showing that appellants intended
to deliberately offend or insult the rank
of the victim, which is the essence of
said aggravating circumstance. This is
so because the raiding police officers
were not even in uniform (PP v.
Verchez, 1994)
• There must be proof that offender
deliberately intended to offend or insult
the offended.
• Dwelling aggravates a felony where the
crime was committed in the dwelling of
15
the offended party if the latter has not
given provocation.
• If dwelling belongs to offender or both
parties, it is not aggravating.
• Dwelling is considered aggravating
primarily because of the sanctity of
privacy the law accords to human
abode. He who goes to another’s house
hurt him is guilty than he who offends
him elsewhere. (PP v. Perreiras, 2001)
• "Dwelling" includes dependencies,
staircase, and enclosures under the
house. It is not necessary that the
house is owned by the offended. It may
include a room in a boarding house, for
home is that which the law seeks to
protect or uphold whether the dweller is
a lessee, a boarder or a bed spacer.
• A dwelling must be a building or
structure, exclusively used for rest and
comfort. Where the crime was
committed in a store, which is about 15
meters away from the complainant's
house, dwelling cannot be considered.
The store cannot be considered a
dwelling or even a dependency of
complainant's home. (People v. Joya,
1993)
• As dwelling must exclusively be used for
rest and comfort, a combination store
and dwelling is not a "dwelling" as used
in the law.
• Dwelling is not limited to the main
house. Appurtenances and parts of the
house necessarily for the peaceful rest
of a person also constitute dwelling.
Roof is part of the house.
• If the offender fired the gun from the
outside but the victim was inside his
dwelling, there is an aggravating
circumstance of dwelling.
• Dwelling can be aggravating in Robbery
with Homicide. In robbery with
homicide, dwelling is aggravating
because it is not robbery with force
upon things. In robbery with homicide,
the controlling description there would
be robbery with violence, not anymore
force upon things.
• If the place is half-abode and half-store,
there is still dwelling if the store is
closed and not open to public at the time
of commission.
• If the store is open, there is no dwelling
even if the attack occurred in the
 dwelling part if there is only one
entrance (PP v. Tano, 2000)
• Dwelling is not aggravating if the
offended has given provocation or if
both the offended and the offender live
there or if inherent in the crime such as
those which could be committed in no
other place (trespass to dwelling,
robbery in an inhabited place). It is not
appreciated separately as it is absorbed
in treachery.
IV. ACT COMMITTED WITH ABUSE
OF CONFIDENCE OR OBVIOUS
UNGRATEFULNESS
Abuse of confidence vs. betrayal of trust
• Abuse of confidence is aggravating only
if the victim was the one who gave the
confidence. If the victim is another
person from the one who gave the trust,
it is not aggravating.
• IOW, abuse of confidence if aggravating
only if the victim is the one who gave
the trust.
• Confidence given prior to the crime,
which was already terminated at the
time of the commission of the offense,
will not anymore aggravate.
Requisites (FAT):
1. The offended had trusted the
offender;
2. The offender abused such trust; and
3. Such abuse of confidence facilitated
the commission of the crime.
• For abuse of confidence to exist, it is
essential to show that the confidence
between the parties must be immediate
and personal as would give the accused
some advantage or make it easier for
him to commit the criminal act. The
confidence must be a means of
facilitating the commission of the crime,
the culprit taking advantage of the
offended party's belief that the former
would not abuse said confidence. (PP v.
Arrojado, 350 SCRA 679)
V. CRIME COMMITTED IN THE
PALACE OF THE CHIEF
EXECUTIVE OR IN HIS
16
PRESENCE, PUBLIC
AUTHORITIES ARE ENGAGED IN
THE DISCHARGED OF DUTIES
OR IN A PLACE DEDICATED TO
PUBLIC WORSHIP
• Basis: Greater perversity of the
offender, as shown by the place of the
commission of the crime, which must be
respected.
• Is performance of public function
necessary in the appreciation of the
aggravating circumstances in paragraph
5 of Article 14?
• Only in the third circumstance (where
public authorities are engaged in the
discharge of their duties) is
performance of function necessary.
• The other three circumstances require
merely that the crime be committed in
the places specified — in the palace of
the Chief Executive, in his presence, or
in a place dedicated to religious
worship.
• Intent to commit the crime: It is
necessary though that the offender
must have sought the above places for
the commission of the crime which
shows his lack of respect for the places
enumerated.
VI. NIGHTTIME, UNINHABITED
PLACE OR BY A BAND
• By and in itself, nocturnity or nighttime
is not an aggravating circumstance.
It becomes aggravating when:
1. It is especially sought by the
offender; or
2. It is taken advantage of by him; or
3. It facilitates the commission of the
crime by ensuring the offender’s
immunity from capture.
• If there was no proof that nighttime was
deliberately sought by the accused in
committing the crime, said
circumstance should be disallowed.
(People v. Pasiliao, 1992)
• Nighttime is not a qualifying
circumstance that would qualify crime
(from homicide to murder).
• Nighttime by itself is not qualifying nor
an ordinary aggravating circumstance.
 However, nighttime can translate to
treachery if it is specifically sought in
order that the victim cannot put up a
defense.
• A killing which is specifically sought at
nighttime cannot only be an ordinary
circumstance but might also become a
qualifying circumstance. There is no
such thing as nighttime as a qualifying
circumstance. But nighttime can
become treachery. If such, it is
treachery, that can qualify the killing to
murder.
• IOW, Nighttime is generally an ordinary
aggravating circumstance but if it is
specifically sought that the victim was
not able to set up a defense, it shall be
considered as TREACHERY. Hence, a
qualifying circumstance.
• Uninhabitedness: The uninhabitedness
of a place of locus delicti is determined
not solely by the distance of the nearest
house to the scene but also whether or
not in the place of the commission of the
offense, there was reasonable
possibility of the victim receiving some
help. A place where there are no people
or any number of houses within a
perimeter of 200 meters is uninhabited.
It is not only the distance to the nearest
occupied habitation but also the
possibility of securing assistance that
should be considered. (People v.
Balisteros, 1994)
BAND consists of: (3AT)
a. MORE than three (four or more
persons);
b. Armed malefactors (bad elements, not
males; at least four must be armed);
c. Acting together in the commission of an
offense (presupposing the presence of
conspiracy.)
d. A crime is deemed committed by a band
when more than three armed
malefactors acted together in the
commission of the offense. (People v.
Robiego, 1993)
VII. CALAMITY/MISFORTUNE
• It refers to events similar in nature as
conflagration, shipwreck, earthquake or
epidemic. It cannot refer to "acts of
17
men" because they are different from
the events enumerated.
• Under the principle of "ejusdem
generis," such as "other calamity or
misfortune," follow the enumeration of
particular things, the general term will
include only those classes of things or
persons of the same class or nature as
those mentioned in the preceding
enumeration.
• These circumstances are aggravating
because these are indicative of the
greater perversity of the offender, who,
instead of lending aid to the victims,
adds to their sufferings. The offender
should particularly seek the opportunity
provided by the calamities mentioned to
perpetrate his crime.
VIII. AID OF ARMED MEN, OR
PERSONS WHO AFFORD
IMPUNITY
1. That armed men or persons took part in
the commission of the crime, directly or
indirectly; and
2. That the accused availed himself of their
aid or relied upon them when the crime
was committed.
Aid of Armed Men v. Band:
• Aid of armed men cannot be appreciated
when there is conspiracy, accused
acting under the same plan and for the
same purpose. Hence, they are all
principals in the commission of the
crime.
• In band and organized crime syndicate,
all the members are principal; in aid of
armed men, the armed men merely
aided the principal offender and are
accomplices.
• In band, there must be at least four
armed men; in aid of armed men, their
number is not specified nor required as
long as there is more than one; in
organized crime syndicate, there must
be at least two members who are not
required to be armed.
• In band and aid of armed men, the
crimes are not specified; in organized
 crime syndicate, the purpose is to
commit crimes for gain (Boado).
IX. RECIDIVISM
A recidivist is one who:
1. At the TIME of his trial for one
crime;
2. Shall have been PREVIOUSLY
CONVICTED by final judgment;
3. Of another crime embraced in the
SAME TITLE of the RPC.
• Recidivism requires at least two
convictions: the first must be by final
judgment and must take place prior to
the second conviction. Both must be
felonies embraced in the same title of
the RPC. "Final judgment" means
executory, i.e., 15 days have elapsed
from its promulgation without the
convict appealing the conviction.
• Recidivism is a generic aggravating
circumstance. There is no specific period
between the prior conviction and the
second conviction. Recidivism can be
appreciated even if the convict was
given absolute pardon, as pardon
extinguishes the penalty only but not
the effects of the offense (Boado).
X. HABITUALITY
Requisites:
1. Within a period of 10 years from his
release or last conviction;
2. Of the crimes of falsification,
robbery, estafa, theft, serious or
less serious physical injuries
(exclusive enumeration);
3. He is found guilty of said crimes a third
time or oftener.
• Habitual delinquency is a special
aggravating circumstance for which is
imposed an additional penalty which
escalates with the increase in the
number of convictions.
• The law requires THREE convictions.
The third conviction for the covered
crimes must be committed within 10
years from the second conviction. The
10-year period is counted from the date
of release if he had been released when
again convicted.
18
• This is a special aggravating
circumstance because it is not included
in Article 14. It is not an "ordinary"
special aggravating circumstance
because its effect is to impose an
incremental penalty, that is, an
additional penalty to that imposed for
the crime actually committed. Two
penalties shall therefore be imposed —
for the crime committed and for the
habitual delinquency. The penalty for
the habitual delinquency escalates with
the number of conviction.
• It is not also a qualifying circumstance
because although the increase in the
penalty is significant, it does not change
the nature of the offense committed.
• It is in effect a crime by itself because it
has its own penalty. An offender can be
a recidivist and a habitual delinquent at
the same time if he were convicted for
the third time of the crimes of estafa,
robbery and theft which are all within
Title 10 or for serious and less serious
physical injuries which are within Title 8
(Boado).
XI. IN CONSIDERATION OF A
PRICE, REWARD, OR PROMISE
• They affect principal by direct
participation who committed the crime
for consideration. The other co-
conspirators if there be any who did not
benefit from the price, promise or
reward will not have his penalty
aggravated because this circumstance
is personal to the receiver. The reward
is the primary consideration in the
commission of the crime for this
circumstance to be aggravating.
(Boado)
XII. MEANS OF FIRE OR
INTENTIONAL DAMAGE
• These circumstances by themselves
constitute a crime, hence, Article 62(1)
shall apply. Thus, "aggravating
circumstances which in themselves
constitute a crime specially punished by
law or which are included by the law in
defining a crime and prescribing the
penalty therefor shall not be taken into
 account for the purpose of increasing
the penalty." If one of these
circumstances was a means to kill, the
crime is murder, not homicide, hence,
the penalty will be for murder. The
circumstance will no longer be
considered aggravating. (Boado)
XIII. EVIDENT PREMEDITATION
Requisites:
1. The TIME when the offender
determined to commit the crime;
2. An ACT manifestly indicating that he
has clung to his determination; and
3. Sufficient LAPSE of time between such
determination and execution to allow
him to reflect upon the consequences of
his act.
• Evident premeditation indicates a
stubborn adherence to a decision to
commit a felony. It requires a showing
of:
(1) a previous decision by the accused
to commit the crime;
(2) overt act[s] manifestly indicating
that the accused clung to his
determination; and
(3) a lapse of time between the decision
to commit the crime and its actual
execution sufficient to allow the accused
to reflect upon the consequences of his
acts (Boado).
• Evident premeditation connotes
adherence to a plan to commit a crime.
Returning to the scene of an earlier fight
four hours later does not establish these
elements. Mere lapse of time is not
equivalent to evident premeditation. It
cannot be appreciated to qualify a killing
to murder in the absence of evidence,
not only of sufficient lapse of time, but
also of the planning and preparation to
kill when the plan was conceived.
(People v. Nell, 1997)
• The essence of evident premeditation is
that the execution of the criminal act
must be preceded by cool thought and
reflection upon the resolution to carry
out the criminal intent during a space of
time sufficient to arrive at a calm
judgment (PP v. Dimapilit, 2017).
XIV. CRAFT, FRAUD, DISGUISE
19
• Craft: It is the cunning or intellectual
trickery or chicanery resorted to by the
accused to carry out his evil design.
• Example: The offender assumed
position of authority to gain entry in a
house; or feigning friendship to lure a
victim to an uninhabited place.
• Fraud: It constitutes deceit and is
manifested by insidious words or
machinations.
• Disguise: It is resorted to conceal the
identity. If in spite of the disguise, the
offender was recognized, such cannot
be aggravating.
• These circumstances are not
aggravating if they did not facilitate the
commission of the crime or not taken
advantage of by the offender in the
course of the assault. If they were used
to insure the commission of the crime
against persons without risk to offender,
they are absorbed by treachery.
• What determines whether or not the
disguise should be taken into
consideration is not that it is effective,
but rather if the accused USED a
disguise. Thus in this case, even if the
mask fell and the disguise ineffective,
but because it was purposely sought by
the accused, the disguise can still be
taken into consideration.
XV. ABUSE OF SUPERIOR STRENGTH
• There is abuse of superior strength
where the offenders intentionally and
purposely employ excessive force out of
proportion to the means of defense
available to the offended party. There
must be a notorious inequality of forces
between the victim and the aggressor.
• Superiority in number does not
necessarily mean that the offenders
abused their superior strength or that
means are employed to weaken the
defense. It must be proved that the
attackers cooperated in such a way as
to secure advantage from superiority of
strength.
• There is abuse of superior strength
“whenever there is a notorious
inequality of forces between the victim
 and the aggressor/s that is plainly and
obviously advantageous to the
aggressor/s and purposely selected or
taken advantage of to facilitate the
commission of the crime.” (Marasigan v.
Fuentes, 2016)
XVI. TREACHERY
Requisites:
1. The offender must ensure that the
offended at the time of the attack
was not in a position to put up any
defense, not even token defense;
and
2. The means, manner, and form was
consciously and deliberately
chosen. (People v. Magallanes,
1997)
• Atty. Yebra: Treachery is only
applicable in crimes against
persons. It is not applicable in
crimes against property.
• There is treachery when the killing
was done in such a manner as to
ensure that the crime be
accomplished without giving any
chance or opportunity for the victim
to put up a defense.
• As a rule, if there is a suddenness of
the attack, that would be considered
as treachery but if there is no
evidence as to the lapse of time in
the commission of the crime,
treachery would be appreciated by
examining the wounds on the
victim.
• Treachery may still be appreciated
even when the victim was
forewarned of the danger to his
person. What is decisive is that the
execution of the attack made it
impossible for the victim to defend
himself or retaliate (PP v. Nasayao,
2002)
• Suddenness of the attack does not
always mean treachery, such as
when protagonists just accidentally
met. (PP v. Ilagan, 191 SCRA 643)
• To constitute treachery, the manner
of attack must be consciously
adopted.
20
• Mere fact that wound is on the back,
without proof as to how attack was
committed, will negate treachery.
• A frontal attack, when made
suddenly, leaving the victim without
any means of defense, is
treacherous (PP v. Ordona, 2017).
• Treachery exists when the offender
commits any of the crimes against
the person, employing means,
methods, or forms in the execution
thereof which tend directly and
especially to insure its execution,
without risk to himself arising from
the defense which the offended
party might make (PP v. Oloverio,
2015)
• An attack upon an unconscious
victim who could not have put up
any defense whatsoever; where the
victim is a child of tender age and
the assailant is an adult and
therefore the child is helpless to put
up any defense at all; where the
victim was hogtied and therefore in
a helpless condition before he was
killed; where the victim was totally
unconscious, dead drunk, lying on
the pavement when accused
administered strong, vicious and
killing kicks at the belly of the
victim. Totally unconscious, the
victim could not have put up any
defense whatsoever against the
sudden assault by the accused.
There was absolutely no risk to
accused from any defense that the
victim might have made (PP v.
Flores, 2010)
XVII. IGNOMINY
• This circumstance pertains to the moral
attribute, which adds disgrace to the
material injury caused by the crime. It
produces more suffering on account of
its humiliating effects. Ignominy relates
to moral suffering whereas, cruelty
refers to physical suffering. Ignominy is
exemplified by the adage 'adding insult
to the injury cruelty is compared to
'rubbing salt to the wound.
• Ignominy pertains to the moral order,
which adds disgrace and obloquy to the
material injury caused by the crime. It
 was not appreciated where the sexual
assault was not done to put the victim
to shame before the killing (PP v. Diaz,
1999).
XVIII. UNLAWFUL ENTRY/ BREAKING
OF WALL
• When an entrance is through a way not
intended for that purpose; the opening
must be used to enter, not to escape.
• It qualifies the crime of theft to robbery.
• It is inherent in the crimes of trespass
and in robbery with force upon things
thus should no longer be aggravating
per Article 62, no. 2.
• The enumeration in this paragraph is
exclusive. Other methods of entering
are not included (Boado).
XIX. IN AID OF MINORS OR BY
MEANS OF MOTOR VEHICLES
• There are two distinct circumstances
here: (1) the commission of crime with
the aid of a minor under 15 years of
age; and (2) its commission by means
of motor vehicles, airships, motorized
water craft or similar means.
• The use of a minor in the commission of
the offense shows the greater perversity
of the offender because he is educating
the innocent in committing an offense.
Especially so in view of R.A. 9346
exempting 15-year-old and below from
criminal liability.
• The use of motorized means of
conveyance to commit the crime is
penalized because they pose difficulty to
the authorities in apprehending them.
This circumstance is considered when
the motor vehicle was purposely used to
facilitate the commission of the offense
not when used to escape because the
law used the phrase "committed x x x
by means of." "Other similar means"
should refer to other means of
transportation that are similar to motor
vehicles such as motorcycles under the
principle of ejusdem generis.
XX. WRONG AUGMENTED BY
ANOTHER WRONG (CRUELTY)
21
• To be aggravating there must be
evidence to show that the cruel acts
were done while the victim was alive
and the offender delighted in the
suffering of the victim. The mere
fact that there were numerous stab
wounds on the victim will not cause
appreciation of cruelty because the
offender may be overwhelmed by
passion or obfuscation or it may be
that the victim was already dead
when the stab wounds were inflicted
and can no longer suffer pain in
excess of that necessary to commit
the crime.
• The test in appreciating cruelty is
whether the accused deliberately
and sadistically augmented the
wrong by causing another wrong
not necessary for its commission or
inhumanly increased the victim's
suffering or outraged or scoffed at
his person or corpse (PP v. Ferrer,
1972)
ALTERNATIVE CIRCUMSTANCES
Article 15. Their concept. - Alternative
circumstances are those which must be taken
into consideration as aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of the crime
and the other conditions attending its
commission. They are the relationship,
intoxication and the degree of instruction and
education of the offender.
The alternative circumstance of relationship
shall be taken into consideration when the
offended party in the spouse, ascendant,
descendant, legitimate, natural, or adopted
brother or sister, or relative by affinity in the
same degrees of the offender.
The intoxication of the offender shall be taken
into consideration as a mitigating circumstances
when the offender has committed a felony in a
state of intoxication, if the same is not habitual
or subsequent to the plan to commit said felony
but when the intoxication is habitual or
intentional, it shall be considered as an
aggravating circumstance.
Alternative Circumstances:
 • They are circumstances, which are
either aggravating or mitigating
according to the nature and effects of
the crime and other conditions
attending its commission.
• They are considered only when they
influenced the commission of the
crime. When the nature of the
circumstance has been proved, they
are no longer called alternative
circumstances but are denominated as
aggravating or mitigating
circumstances, as the case may be.
The following are the Alternative
Circumstances: (RID)
1. Relationship – either aggravating or
mitigating
• Usually mitigating (sometimes
exempting) in crimes against property.
• Usually aggravating (sometimes
qualifying) in crimes against persons
and chastity.
• The RPC is silent as to when
relationship is mitigating and when it is
aggravating. In crimes against chastity
such as acts of lasciviousness,
relationship is aggravating. (People v.
Marino, 2001)
• Note: Rape is no longer a crime against
chastity but a crime against persons
still relationship is aggravating in rape.
• Article 264 provides that if the injury is
inflicted upon the father, mother or
child, other ascendants or descendants
and spouse, the penalty shall be one or
two degrees higher, except when
committed against the offender's child
due to excessive chastisement, in
which case it is not aggravating.
2. Intoxication – usually mitigating
• Intoxication is generally aggravating
when habitual or done intentionally.
(People v. Fontillas, 2010)
• A person pleading intoxication as a
mitigating circumstance must show
that: (1) he has taken a quantity of
alcoholic beverage prior to the
commission of the crime sufficient to
produce the effect of obfuscating
reason; and (2) he is not a habitual
drinker and did not take the alcoholic
22
drink with the intention to reinforce his
resolve to commit the crime. (People v.
Pinca, 1999)
• The offender's mental faculties must be
affected by drunkenness. Mere drinking
of liquor prior to the commission of the
crime does not necessarily produce a
state of intoxication.
• It is mitigating if it is not habitual,
not intentional and self- control is
diminished as a result of the
intoxication. Otherwise, it is
aggravating. Therefore, an alcoholic
who commits a felony while intoxicated
will always suffer from this
circumstance because either habitual
or intentional intoxication will suffice as
the law used the disjunctive "or" in
"habitual or intentional.”
• To be mitigating, the accused's state of
intoxication should be proved or
established by sufficient evidence. It
should be such an intoxication that
would diminish or impair the exercise
of his willpower or the capacity to know
the injustice of his act. The accused
must then show that: (1) at the time of
the commission of the criminal act, he
has taken such quantity of alcoholic
drinks as to blur his reason and deprive
him of a certain degree of self-control;
and (2) such intoxication is not habitual
or subsequent to the plan to commit
the felony (intentional). (People v.
Rabanillo, 1999)
3. Degree of Instruction or Education-
mitigating or aggravating
depending on level of education
• Lack of instruction generally mitigating,
except in crimes against property and
chastity. (People v. Bondoc, 1980)
• Whether to be considered as
aggravating or mitigating depends upon
the nature of the crime committed. If
the crime is basically wrong, such as
parricide, robbery or rape, it is
immaterial whether the offender is
schooled or not. It is not illiteracy alone
but the lack of intelligence of the
offender that is considered. If one is not
considered literate but is highly or
exceptionally intelligent or mentally
alert or comes from a family of
 professionals, so that he realizes the
significance of his act, there is no
mitigation. The mitigating circumstance
of lack of instruction does not apply to
crimes of theft and robbery. (People v.
Macatanda, 1981)
• The high degree of learning should be
taken in relation to the crime committed
whether his education puts him in a
better position than the ordinary
offenders. For instance, falsification or
estafa committed by a lawyer. However,
the degree of instruction or education
may already have been considered in
the penalty prescribed such as abortion
practiced by physician. In that case, it is
not aggravating.
• Low degree of education or instruction
may be mitigating but is never
aggravating; conversely, high degree
may be aggravating but never
mitigating.
C. APPLICATION OF THE
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW
INDETERMINATE SENTENCE LAW (ACT NO.
4013)
• The Indeterminate Sentence Law
(ISLaw) is mandatory only for
sentences involving imprisonment
(unless the sentence constitutes an
exception).
• ISLaw applies to Special Penal Laws. If
the penalty provided is fixed, the
penalty under ISLaw shall be within
those limits. If the penalty is borrowed
from RPC, the rules for RPC shall apply.
(PP vs. Simon,1994)
• If the offense is punished by any other
law, the court shall sentence the
accused to an indeterminate sentence,
the maximum term of which shall not
exceed the maximum fixed by said law
and the minimum shall not be less than
the minimum term prescribed by the
same (Caringal v. People, 2014)
• ISLaw is important to be able to get the
minimum range of imprisonment. The
minimum range is penalty next lower to
that prescribed by the Code, anywhere
within the degree.
23
• One degree lower than the prescribed
penalty, not the imposable penalty.
• The Judge has a wide latitude of
discretion in the determination of the
minimum range.
Example: The accused was convicted for
homicide which has a penalty of Reclusion
Temporal. The Judge has to apply ISLaw to
get the minimum range of the penalty which
in this case will be Prision Mayor IN ANY
PERIOD, (max, med, min) AT THE
DISCRETION OF THE JUDGE.
Why is it important to get the minimum?
• Fiscal Petralba: For the accused to
be able to apply for parole to
shorten his prison stay. Once a
convict has served his minimum
sentence, he may be eligible to
apply for parole and if the
application is approved, he may
spend the rest of his sentence
outside prison, subject to certain
conditions.
Effect of Privileged Mitigating Circumstance on
ISLaw:
• Even if the penalty imposed is
Reclusion Perpetua, if there is a
privileged mitigating circumstance
(e.g., minority), ISLaw can only be
applied after taking into
consideration the privileged
mitigating.
• Being privileged, it always takes
precedence. Criminal laws are to be
applied in a manner that is
advantageous to the accused.
• So, if the imposable penalty is RP,
but because of minority, you go one
degree lower. So the maximum
penalty will be RT. And to get the
minimum, you apply ISLaw, which
means the minimum will be one
degree lower than RT, which is PM
in any period, at the Judge’s
discretion.
When ISLaw is inapplicable:
Sec. 2. This Act shall not apply to persons
convicted of offenses punished with death
penalty or life-imprisonment; to those convicted
of treason, conspiracy or proposal to commit
treason; to those convicted of misprision of
treason, rebellion, sedition or espionage; to
those convicted of piracy; to those who are
habitual delinquents; to those who have
escaped from confinement or evaded sentence;
to those who having been granted conditional
pardon by the Chief Executive shall have
violated the terms thereof; to those whose
maximum term of imprisonment does not
exceed one year, not to those already sentenced
by final judgment at the time of approval of this
Act, except as provided in Section 5 hereof.
ISLaw does not apply to:
1. Persons convicted of offenses punished
with death penalty or life-
imprisonment;
2. Those convicted of treason, conspiracy
or proposal to commit treason;
3. Those convicted of misprision of
treason, rebellion, sedition or
espionage;
4. Those convicted of piracy;
5. Those who are habitual delinquents;
6. Those who have escaped from
confinement or evaded sentence;
7. Those who having been granted
conditional pardon by the Chief
Executive shall have violated the terms
thereof;
8. Those whose maximum term of
imprisonment does not exceed one
year,
9. Those already sentenced by final
judgment at the time of approval of this
Act.
• Reclusion Perpetua is an indivisible
penalty. Thus, it is not covered by
ISLaw (Cajigas v. People, 2009).
• The ISLaw, under Section 2, is not
applicable to cases where the maximum
term of imprisonment does not exceed
one year. In determining “whether an
indeterminate sentence and not a
straight penalty is proper, what is
considered is the penalty actually
imposed by the trial court, after
considering the attendant
circumstances, and not the imposable
penalty (Lumauig v. People, 2014)
24
Rule on Graduation of Penalties vis-à-vis the
Incrimental Penalty Rule:
• To apply the ISLaw in crimes using the
incremental penalty rule (IPR) is
adopted, to get the maximum range, we
graduate pursuant to the RPC AFTER
adding all the incremental years.
• For example, in estafa, if, because of
the amount involved, the penalty
reached reclusion temporal even if the
penalty prescribed is only prison mayor.
For the maximum range, we graduate
from reclusion temporal, so the
maximum will really be based on the
penalty PLUS the incremental years.
BUT, for the minimum range, it will not
be based on the maximum which is
(reclusion temporal). Rather, the
minimum range should be reckoned
from the penalty prescribed by law,
which is prison mayor.
• Thus the minimum will be prision
correctional.
• When the IPR is involved, it is possible
to have a very high maximum and a
very low minimum. (Temporada v.
People, 2008; Hisoler v. People, 2019)
D. SERVICE OF SENTENCE
SUCCESSIVE SERVICE OF SENTENCE
Article 70. Successive service of sentence. -
When the culprit has to serve two or more
penalties, he shall serve them simultaneously if
the nature of the penalties will so permit
otherwise, the following rules shall be observed:
In the imposition of the penalties, the order of
their respective severity shall be followed so
that they may be executed successively or as
nearly as may be possible, should a pardon have
been granted as to the penalty or penalties first
imposed, or should they have been served out.
For the purpose of applying the provisions of the
next preceding paragraph the respective
severity of the penalties shall be determined in
accordance with the following scale:
1. Death,
2. Reclusion perpetua,
3. Reclusion temporal,
4. Prision mayor
5. Prision correccional,
6. Arresto mayor,
7. Arresto menor,
8. Destierro,
9. Perpetual absolute disqualification,
10. Temporal absolute disqualification.
11. Suspension from public office, the right to
vote and be voted for, the right to follow a
profession or calling, and
12. Public censure.
• When multiple sentences are imposed,
the service shall be simultaneous if the
penalties permit it. Otherwise, it shall be
served successively.
• The prescribed limitation on successive
service are:
1. The sum of the number of years; or
2. The 3-fold rule;
3. Cap of 40 years
(Whichever is LOWEST.)
• In the sum of the number of years, just
add the penalties together to get the
maximum period of imprisonment.
• In the three-fold rule, get the most
severe penalty, multiply it by 3.
• And, no more than 40 years.
• Under this system, you do not decide
immediately which of the rules apply.
• You apply all of these first, and
determine which one should yield the
lowest.
• Note that the above limits only apply to
penalties not yet served.
• This may also occur under single larceny
doctrine, wherein one commits several
thefts, but because these were made
under one single intent, the doctrine
applies and he will be made only to
serve one penalty. There will only be
one imprisonment. If he is convicted for
more than one crime, and there are
25
several sentences, then we will adopt
the juridical accumulation system.
Service of Penalties
GR: Penalties should be served at the jail.
XPNS:
1. Destierro – Judge will order the convict
to stay away from the place of
commission which could be from 25km
- 250km
2. Arresto menor – may not be served at
the jail; may be served even at the
police station
How Imprisonment and Other Penalties Are
Served (Arts. 86-88, RPC)
• Article 86 Provides the place or penal
establishment for execution of
sentence.
• If the convict is not eligible for
probation, he has to serve the sentence
in a detention facility. Minor offenders
may be committed to detention facility
operated by DSWD.
• Article 87 talks about Destierro. In
Destierro, entering the prohibition area
is evasion of service of the sentence. It
can be imposed by the lower court.
• It is considered lower than Arresto
Mayor, even if the duration of Destierro
is 6 months and 1 day to 6 years.
• Note that under Art. 70, Destierro can
only be served AFTER all the sentences
of imprisonment are served.
E. EFFECT OF DEATH OF THE
ACCUSED
Article 89. How criminal liability is totally
extinguished. - Criminal liability is totally
extinguished:
1. By the death of the convict, as to the personal
penalties and as to pecuniary penalties, liability
therefor is extinguished only when the death of
the offender occurs before final judgment.
2. By service of the sentence;
3. By amnesty, which completely extinguishes
the penalty and all its effects;
4. By absolute pardon;
5. By prescription of the crime;
6. By prescription of the penalty;
7. By the marriage of the offended woman, as
provided in Article 344 of this Code.
Total Extinction
Criminal liability is totally extinguished in the
following cases:
1. Prescription of Crime
2. Prescription of Penalty
3. Death of the convict
4. Service of sentence
5. Amnesty
6. Absolute pardon
7. Marriage of the offended woman as provided
by Art. 344
8. Repeal of a Penal Law (Boado)
2 kinds of extinction:
1. Total (i.e., death, service, amnesty,
absolute pardon, prescription of the
crime, prescription of the penalty,
marriage of the offended woman and th
rapist)
2. Partial
Effect of death of Accused/convict on civil action
• Before arraignment: Case dismissed,
file claim with estate.
• After arraignment during trial= Civil
liability extinguished. But independent
civil actions may continue.
• During appeal=Extinguished
• After judgment= not extinguished. File
claim with estate.
• The death of the accused after
arraignment and during the pendency of
the criminal action shall extinguish the
civil liability arising from the delict.
• However, the independent civil action
instituted under Section 3 of this Rule or
which thereafter is instituted to enforce
liability arising from other sources of
obligation may be continued against the
estate or legal representative of the
accused after proper substitution or
26
against said estate, as the case may be.
(Sec. 4, Rule 111, Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure)
• Death of the accused pending appeal of
his conviction extinguishes his criminal
liability as well as the civil liability based
solely thereon.
• The claim for civil liability survives
notwithstanding the death of the
accused, if the same may also be
predicated on some source of obligation
other than delict.
• Where civil liability survives, an action
for recovery therefor may be pursued
but only by way of filing a separate civil
action and subject to Section 1, Rule
111 This separate civil action may be
enforced against the
executor/administrator or estate of the
accused depending on the source of
obligation (People vs Bayotas,1994)
• If the accused dies before arraignment,
the case shall be dismissed without
prejudice to any civil action the offended
party may file against the estate of the
deceased (Rule 111, Sec. 4, par. 4)
F. CRIMES AGAINST PERSONS
In crimes against persons, these may either
result to death or physical injuries.
A. Victim is killed regardless of intent
1. Homicide – may be committed through
reckless or simple imprudence
2. Murder – if qualifying circumstances are
specifically sought for
3. Infanticide – victim is less than 3 days
old
4. Parricide – victim is an ascendant,
descendant, or legitimate spouse
A. Victim is NOT killed
1. WITHOUT intent to kill:
i. Physical Injuries – serious, less serious,
slight, and mutilation
ii. Slander by Deed – no physical injury but
there is public humiliation (slapping to
embarrass)
 iii. Maltreatment – no physical injury nor suffer its consequences. (People v.
public humiliation (slapping in a private Brusola, 2017).
setting)

2. WITH intent to kill DEATH OR PHYSICAL INJURIES INFLICTED

i. Fatal injury – frustrated homicide, UNDER EXCEPTIONAL CIRCUMSTANCES
murder, parricide, or infanticide (Art. 247)
ii. Non-fatal injury or no injury – Elements:
ATTEMPTED homicide, murder,
parricide, or infanticide 1. A legally married person surprises his
spouse in the act of committing sexual
intercourse with another person;
PARRICIDE (Art. 246) 2. He/She kills any of them or both in the
Elements: act or immediately thereafter; and,
3. He/She has not promoted or facilitated
1. A person is killed; the prostitution of his wife/daughter or
2. Deceased is killed by the accused; that he/she has not consented to the
3. Deceased is the: infidelity of the other spouse.
a. Legitimate/illegitimate parent
b. Legitimate/illegitimate child not less • This is a defense in parricide cases.
than 3 days old • This is deemed to be an absolutory
c. legitimate ascendants/descendants cause
d. legitimate spouse • The penalty for the spouse who inflicted
such death or injuries will only be
The relationship must be: (LBD) destierro.
• Judge Campanilla: Death or Physical
• Legitimate, EXCEPT in parent-child Injuries under exceptional
• By Blood, except for spouse circumstances can either be a justifying
• In the Direct line or between ascendants or an exempting circumstance.
and descendants

2014 Bar Question Relating to Prior

• Parricide does not count relationship by
adoption.
• Uncles and aunts, and brothers and
sisters are excluded.
• Common law spouses are not considered
as legitimate spouses.
• Killing of siblings (brother/sister) and
other collateral relatives is not parricide.
• Non-relatives or strangers who
participate in the killing will be liable for
homicide or murder, as the case may be.
• The promise of forever is not an
authority for the other to own one's
spouse. If anything, it is an obligation to
love and cherish despite his or her
imperfections. To be driven to anger,
rage, or murder due to jealousy is not a
manifestation of this sacred
understanding. One who professes love
should act better than this. The accused-
appellant was never entitled to hurt,
maim, or kill his spouse, no matter the
reasons. He committed a crime. He must
Declaration of Nullity in a Criminal Case vis
a vis Parricide:
• If at the time of the killing, the spouses
were legitimately married, the crime
would be PARRICIDE.
• If the marriage was VOIDABLE, and
the killing happened BEFORE the
ANNULMENT of the marriage, it would
still be PARRICIDE.
• If the marriage was VOID AB INITIO,
and the killing happened BEFORE THE
DECLARATION OF NULLITY, it could
NOT be parricide because there was no
part of their lives that the marriage was
ever valid.
MURDER (Art. 248)
Elements:
1. Person is killed by the accused;
2. Killing was attended by any of the
qualifying circumstances:

27
 a. With TREACHERY, taking
advantage of superior strength,
aid of armed men, or employing
means to weaken the defense
or of means or persons to insure
or afford impunity;
b. In consideration of a PRICE,
REWARD, OR PROMISE
c. By means of INUNDATION,
FIRE, POISON, EXPLOSION,
SHIPWRECK, STRANDING
OF A VESSEL, DERAILMENT
OR ASSAULT UPON A 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;
d. On the 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;
e. With EVIDENT
PREMEDITATION;
f. With CRUELTY, by deliberately
and inhumanly augmenting the
suffering of the victim, or
outraging or scoffing at his
person/corpse.
• Murder is the killing of another attended
by a qualifying circumstance.
• There are 6 groups of qualifying
circumstances. Each is not taken as an
individual qualifying circumstance.
• Hence, if all the circumstances in the
first group are present, they will be
counted as one. They will no longer be
counted as aggravating.
• To be considered qualifying, the
circumstance must be specifically
sought and should facilitate the
commission of the crime.
Treachery (alevosia)
28
• What is important in treachery, there is
a means employed by the offender in
order to facilitate the commission of the
crime and to weaken the victim, the
victim will not be able to put up a
defense.
• The suddenness of an attack (making
victim unable to put a defense) is an
indication of treachery. But it is not
always treacherous (like there was an
altercation and things happened fast,
there was a sudden attack but not
necessarily consciously adopted).
• The means used must be consciously
adopted to prevent the victim from
putting up a fight.
• In most cases, when the killing
happened as an offshoot of a fight,
wherein everything will be fast, as a
rule, it will not be murder by treachery.
Even if there is some kind of
suddenness of attack.
Use of Poison
• In order to be a qualifying circumstance,
the use of the poison must be
specifically sought in order to commit
the crime.
• If the use of poison was not used in
order to kill, the crime committed will
only be homicide.
Nighttime
• Nighttime is an ordinary aggravating;
this is not a qualifying circumstance.
You cannot find nighttime in Art. 248.
• However, if it is specifically sought in
order that the victim wouldn’t be able to
put a defense, then it will equate to
treachery
Evident Premeditation
• Evident premeditation- There was a
plan.
• Remember the requisites for evident
premeditation (Time, Act, Lapse)
In Consideration of a Price, Reward, or Promise
• The price, reward or promise to be given
or already given was the main driving
point for the killing. (e.g., When the
killers are for hire, because of the price,
 the treachery can also be an ordinary
aggravating.)
• If several circumstances are present in
the crime, only one will qualify the crime
to murder.
• If there is treachery, if there is evident
premeditation, if there is use of motor
vehicles, they are also ordinary
aggravating. We will have a crime of
murder with ordinary aggravating
circumstances. Any one of those could
already qualify the crime to murder.
Other Qualifying Circumstances
• If fire was used to burn a house, but
deaths resulted, the crime is ARSON.
• But if the house was burned down
specifically to kill the people inside, the
crime is MURDER (Gaffud v. People,
2008).
• If the motor vehicle was intentionally
used as a means to kill, murder.
• But if a motor vehicle was being driven
in a reckless manner, and as a result, a
person was run over or another vehicle
was hit and the passengers inside the
vehicles died, the crime is Reckless
Imprudence Resulting in Homicide (Art.
365)
• Fiscal Petralba: Calamities have to be
specifically sought by the offender to do
the killing so that the killings done on
occasion of such calamities may be
qualified to murder. Such as now.
COVID-19. We are in a continuing
calamity. Does it mean that ALL killings
committed now will automatically
become murder? NO! In order for the
killing to be qualified to murder, it must
be shown that the offender specifically
took advantage of this COVID-19
pandemic to do his evil act.
• Atty. Aloysius Yebra: In the crimes of
infanticide and parricide, treachery will
be treated as an ordinary aggravating
circumstance.
HOMICIDE (Art. 249)
Elements:
1. Person is killed;
2. Accused killed the victim without any
justifying circumstances;
29
3. Accused had the intention to kill, which is
presumed; and,
4. Killing was NOT attended by any qualifying
circumstances of murder, or that of
parricide or infanticide.
• If the crime is consummated, intent to
kill is not necessary because such is
presumed.
• Atty. Aloysius Yebra: When a person is
killed, intent to kill is CONCLUSIVELY
PRESUMED. Because under Article 4
of the RPC, Criminal liability shall be
incurred by any person committing a
felony although the wrongful act done
be different from that which he
intended. However, if the person does
not die, intent to kill is important
because it would determine the proper
crime. It could be attempted or
frustrated murder as the case may be,
but if there is no intent to kill, it could
just be physical injuries.
• Look at the attendant circumstances
to determine intent to kill (nature and
extent of wounds, kind of weapons
used, etc)
• Fiscal Petralba: If fatal wound,
frustrated. Non-fatal wound,
attempted (Palaganas v. People,
2006).
• Fiscal Petralba: Homicide is merely a
process of deduction. If a person is
killed (or there is intent to kill) and the
crime is not murder, infanticide or
parricide, the crime committed is
homicide.
DEATH CAUSED IN A TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY
(Art. 251)
Elements:
1. There are several persons;
2. They do not compose 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. The person or persons who inflicted
serious physical injuries or who used
violence can be identified.
• Tumultuous affray – is a commotion in
a confused manner to an extent that it
would not be possible to identify who
the killer is if death results, or who
inflicted the serious physical injury,
but the person or persons who used
violence are known. It exists when at
least four persons took part (Reyes).
• The groups must not be organized to
mutually assault or fight each other,
otherwise the hostilities would not be
considered as a tumultuous affray.
(People v. Abiog, 1920)
• Atty. Aloysius Yebra: In simple words,
death caused in a Tumultuous Affray
is RAMBOL.
• Atty. Yebra: There must be FOUR or
more participants. If only three,
charge the proper crimes as the case
may be, but not tumultuous affray.
Who are liable:
• The person or persons who inflicted the
serious physical injuries
• If it is not known who inflicted the
serious physical injuries on the
deceased, all persons who used violence
upon the person of the victim are liable.
• If there is conspiracy, this crime is not
committed. The crime would be murder
or homicide.
• The crimes committed might be
disturbance of public order, or if
participants are armed, it could be
tumultuous disturbance, or if property
was destroyed, it could be malicious
mischief.
PHYSICAL INJURIES CAUSED IN
TUMULTUOUS AFFRAY (Art. 251)
Elements:
1. There is a tumultuous affray;
2. A participant or some participants
thereof suffered serious physical
injuries or physical injuries of a less
serious nature only;
3. The person responsible thereof cannot
be identified;
30
4. All those who appear to have used
violence upon the person of the
offended party are known.
• Unlike in Article 251, the injured party
in this article must be one or some of
the participants in the affray.
• All those who appear to have used
violence shall suffer the penalty next
lower in degree than that provided for
the serious physical injuries inflicted.
For less serious physical injuries, the
penalty is arresto mayor from five to
fifteen days.
• Physical injury should be serious or less
serious.
• No crime of physical injuries resulting
from a tumultuous affray if the physical
injury is only slight because slight
physical injury is considered as inherent
in a tumultuous affray.
GIVING ASSISTANCE TO SUICIDE (Art.
253)
• Giving Assistance to Suicide is
committed by any person who assists
another to commit suicide or by any
person who lends assistance to another
to the extent of doing the killing himself.
Acts punishable:
1. By 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.
• Giving assistance to suicide means
furnishing the person to commit suicide
the means (poison, arms, etc.) with
which to kill himself.
• The initiative must come from the sick
person as in requesting from the
accused his assistance in the suicide. If
an affirmative act is done, e.g., shutting
off oxygen at the request of patient,
Article 253 applies. If the initiative
comes from the offender, the crime is
homicide or murder.
• Art. 253 does not distinguish and does
not any make any reference to the
relation of the offender and the person
 committing suicide. Hence, the penalty
is the same as that provided in Art. 253.
DISCHARGE OF FIREARMS (Art. 254)
Elements:
1. The offender discharges a firearm
against or at another person;
2. The offender has no intention to kill that
person.
• In this crime, the firearm is aimed but
there is no intent to kill. Since it must
be directed at another, it CANNOT be
committed through imprudence.
• Loose firearm refers to an unregistered
firearm.
• In discharge of firearm, the trigger was
pulled and a shot was fired (which is
intentional) but no intent to kill.
• There can be a complex crime of
discharge of firearm and serious or less
physical injuries (Justice Javier).
Discharge of Firearms vs. Alarms and Scandals
• In alarms and scandals, the objective of
the firing is to create alarms and chaos
but not necessarily directed towards
another.
• In illegal discharge, the firearm is aimed
but no evidence of intent to kill, no
injury caused (e.g., a drunk person who
fired his firearm). In some reading
materials, they say that, in illegal
discharge, you can actually complex it.
INFANTICIDE (Art. 255)
Elements:
1. An infant was killed;
2. The deceased is less than three (3) days
old.
• Victim must be less than 3 days old. If
3 days old and above, crime would
already be parricide/murder.
• In the crime of infanticide, it is
necessary that the child be born alive
(PP v. Paycana, 2008).
• If the child had an intra-uterine life of
less than 7 months, it is considered a
person if the child is still alive within 24
hours Art. 41, New Civil Code.) Thus, a
killing of a child which was alive for less
31
than 24 hours and such child had an
intra-uterine life of less than 7 months,
the crime is abortion and not infanticide
(People v. Paycana, 2008).
ABORTION (Arts. 256-259)
• Abortion is the killing of the fetus in the
uterus, or the expulsion of the fetus
from the maternal womb which results
in the death of the fetus.
• It is not a crime against the mother but
against the child.
• Intentional Abortion (Art. 256) can be
committed in three ways: It may be
committed in three (3) ways:
1. Use of any violence upon the person
of the pregnant woman
2. Without using violence, the offender
shall act without the consent of the
woman
3. If the woman shall have consented
This crime may be committed by any of the
following:
1. A third person (e.g., physician,
midwife [Art. 259])
2. Mother herself [Art. 258]
3. Mother’s relatives [Art. 258]
• The offender must know of the
pregnancy. This specific criminal intent
is required in Article 256.
• The person liable under this article is the
person who caused the abortion. The
woman is liable under Art. 258 if she
consented.
• If the purpose of the abortion is to
conceal a perceived dishonor, the crime
is still intentional abortion but the
penalty would be lesser if performed by
the mother or the relative for the same
purpose. It is considered a
mitigation/extenuating circumstance.
• If the woman turned out to be not
pregnant, it could be an impossible
crime of intentional abortion.
• Unintentional Abortion (Art. 257) is
committed either by violence and NOT
intimidation or by another person NOT
by the pregnant woman.
• Unintentional Abortion may be
committed even if the offender had no
 knowledge of the pregnancy of the seconds. The seconds will inspect what
victim. weapon to be used.
• Knowledge is no longer important as
long as the fetus died by reason of force. CRIMES INVOLVING PHYSICAL INJURIES
• This contemplates the use of force by (Arts. 262-266)
another person, not the woman herself.
• In unintentional abortion, there must be MUTILATION (Art. 262)
violence, which must be intentionally • It is the intentional chopping off of a
exerted, but there is no specific intent part of the body permanently.
to cause the abortion. • It is the lopping or the clipping off of
some part of the body which is not
Intentional Abortion Unintentional
susceptible to growth again.
Abortion
With/Without Violence Only with • It must be intentional.
violence • It is always dolo because it requires
With consent of the Committed specific intent to cut off a body part.
woman or committed by another
by the woman herself person only Kinds of Mutilation:
Offender must know Offender
of the pregnancy. may/may not 1. Intentional mutilation by depriving
know of the the victim, partially or totally, of
pregnancy. organ of reproduction- Here, it must
Done by Dolo Done by Dolo or always involve an organ of
culpa reproduction. However, the cutting
of the organ is not an essential
• Atty. Aloysius Yebra: Usually, abortion element. What is important is that
whether intentional or unintentional is the organ has been rendered
complexed with the result of the crime USELESS.
committed under Art. 48.
2. Intentional mutilation by lopping off
DUEL (Arts. 260 and 261) any part of the body other than the
reproductive organ- There must be
Elements:
a cutting off of any body part other
1. Previous agreement to engage in combat than the reproductive organ
2. Two or more seconds for each combatant
3. Choice of arms and other terms of PHYSICAL INJURIES (Arts. 263, 265, and
agreement agreed upon by the seconds. 266)

THREE KINDS OF PHYSICAL INJURIES:

• A mere fight as a result of an agreement
is NOT necessarily a duel because a duel 1. Serious Physical Injuries (SPI)
implies an agreement to fight under 2. Less Serious Physical Injuries
determined conditions and with the 3. Slight Physical Injuries
participation and intervention of
seconds who fix such conditions.
• Both combatants and seconds are Four Kinds of SPI:
punished.
1. If, by reason of the injury, the
• Seconds are punished as accomplices.
victim could not use his sense of
• It is outdated and therefore not much
sight, smell, or any of the senses.
jurisprudence on this crime. This was
2. A part of his body has been cut off
the time when ang mag away were still
or rendered useless
unruly people.
3. Deformity has been caused
• Because in a duel there is an
4. Victim was incapacitated to his
AGREEMENT which includes the time,
normal work within a period of more
place, weapons to be used and there is
than thirty (30) days.
some sort of a sidekick known as

32
 • Regardless of the number of days, if the
injury causes a deformity and it
deprives him of his daily work, it is
automatically serious.
Three factors that must concur with deformity:
a. There is Ugliness or deformity
b. Deformity or ugliness is Visible
c. Deformity will Not heal naturally
• Under Art 263, you will find that there
are four different categories of serious
physical injuries.
• The 4 categories have different
penalties. You will see that the least
category is that serious physical injuries
which requires medical attendance of
more than 30 days. This is the most
usual kind.
• If the injury causes the loss of the use
of an organ, whether it be sight, smell,
hearing, feeling, or taste, it is
automatically serious even if there was
no outward injury.
• If the injury causes the person to lose a
limb (no intent to mutilate), that could
also be SPI of the second category.
• The third kind of SPI involves deformity.
• For SERIOUS physical injuries, it can be
qualified. The crime is Qualified
Serious Physical Injuries when the
victim is any of those in parricide
except in the case of parents when
the injuries are inflicted on the child
due to excessive chastisement, or
when the crime is attended by any
of the qualifying circumstances for
murder. This is the kind of injury
defined as serious physical injury
inflicted on the spouse, ascendant, or
descendant.
LESS SERIOUS AND SLIGHT PHYSICAL
INJURIES (Arts. 265 and 266)
• In Less Serious Physical Injuries,
incapacity from labor take up to not
more than thirty (30) days.
• In Slight physical injuries, incapacity
from labor take up to nine (9) days.
• Slight physical injuries cannot be
complexed with another crime (Slight PI
is a light felony; light felonies cannot be
complexed.)
33
• If committed against a minor, it is not
automatically child abuse under RA
7610, unless it caused some degree of
psychological effect on the minor, or is
cruel. (People v. Araneta, 2008)
Number of days:
• 1 day-9 days- Slight Physical Injuries
• 10 days-30 days- Less Serious Physical
Injuries
• More than 30 days- Serious Physical
Injuries
RAPE (Art. 266 A-D [Anti-Rape Law of
1997])
• Atty. Aloysius Yebra: Rape is simply
ENGAGING IN SEXUAL
INTERCOURSE through whatever
means (right object, right whole; right
object, wrong whole) WITHOUT
CONSENT OF THE VICTIM.
• In rape, silence does not negate sexual
molestation (People v. Entrampas,
2017).
• It is settled that recantations are
frowned upon in rape cases as they can
easily be procured for monetary
consideration. (People v. ZZZ, 2019).
Two Kinds of Rape:
1. Rape by Carnal Knowledge/Sexual
Intercourse
• GR: The victim must always be a
woman. The offender must be a man.
• XPN: A woman can be an offender in
rape by carnal knowledge if she is a
conspirator, accomplice, principal by
inducement, indispensable cooperation,
or accessory.
Ways of Commission:
a. Through force or intimidation
b. Woman is deprived of
reason/unconscious
c. By means of fraudulent machination or
grave abuse of authority
d. Offended party is under 12 years old or
demented (statutory rape)
Note: Sexual intercourse without the consent
(Promise of marriage is not fraudulent
machination– only seduction).
• Carnal knowledge – sexual intercourse How to Penile Insertion of
(requires penetration) commit penetration penis into
• There is no crime of frustrated rape. of vagina mouth,
Even the slightest penetration anal orifice
consummates the crime (PP v. Aca-ac, or any
2001). instrument
or object
into
2. Rape by Sexual Assault
genital/
• In sexual assault, it is not necessary
anal orifice
that there is sexual intercourse.
of another
• There is no particular sex/gender Penalty Lower
Higher than
required. Any gender or sex may sexual than
become a victim. assault carnal
• Man to man rape; woman to woman know-
rape; even transgenders may commit or ledge
be victims of this kind of rape.
• There is no carnal knowledge. The acts
are specifically enumerated. If it is not • Rape by sexual intercourse may be
one of those enumerated, then it may committed by a woman, provided that
fall under acts of lasciviousness. she commits it together with a man. (PP
• The same is true with the offender. Even vs. dela Torre, 2004)
a woman can be an offender in this kind • A woman may be held liable for rape by
of rape (by direct participation). sexual intercourse if she is a conspirator
• Even men can become victims of rape. or a principal by inducement or
Rape under the second paragraph of indispensable cooperation, or an
Article 266-A is also known as accessory or accomplice in the rape.
"instrument or object rape,"69,"gender-
free rape," or "homosexual rape.” The Means to Commit Rape (Through Carnal
gravamen of rape through sexual Knowledge)
assault is "the insertion of the penis into
1. Through force, threat, or
another person’s mouth or anal orifice,
intimidation
or any instrument or object, into
• This can be done through Constructive
another person’s genital or anal orifice
Force where the offender is related to
(Ricalde v. People, 2015).
the victim or has moral ascendancy over
the victim, such that the mere fact alone
The offender must:
of his authority would already intimidate
a. Insert penis into the mouth or anal
the victim.
orifice
• For example, tenacious resistance is
b. Insert instrument or object into the
NOT required in INCEST because of
genital or anal orifice of another (does
constructive force.
not include the mouth)
• INCESTUOUS RAPE - physical
• Fiscal Petralba: If the offender is the one
resistance not required. Ascendancy of
who gives a blowjob, this does not fall
offender is considered constructive
under the 2nd kind of rape. But if the
force.
offender received the blowjob, this falls
• STATUTORY RAPE – consent of the
under the 2nd kind.
victim in statutory rape has no bearing
because her minority makes her
Carnal Sexual
Knowledge Assault incapable of giving consent
Offender Always a man Man/Woman
Offended Always a Man/Woman 2. Offended party/victim is deprived
woman of reason
• This does not necessarily mean that the
victim should be insane or of unsound
mind. This could also include a victim
who is drunk.

34

3. Fraudulent machination or abuse of
authority
4. Offended party is under twelve (12)
years old or demented (Statutory Rape).
• In relation to child abuse, even if there
is no rape, there could still be a violation
of the Child Abuse Law if the victim is a
minor. However, if the act constitutes
rape, the prosecution should be done
under the RPC and not under RA 7610.
• EXCEPTION: If the crime is acts of
lasciviousness and the victim is a minor,
one shall be prosecuted under RA 7610
because it imposes a higher penalty
compared to the RPC.
• There are now four kinds of committing
rape. It used to be only three.
• The new one added is “c. Fraudulent
machination or abuse of authority”
• Statutory rape means that it is always
rape even if the victim consented. Even
if there was no force, no threat.
Stages of Rape
1. Attempted Rape
• In the crime of Rape, penetration is an
essential act of execution to produce the
felony.
• For there to be attempted rape, the
accused must have commenced the act
of penetrating his sexual organ to the
vagina of the victim but for some
cause/accident other than his own
spontaneous desistance, the
penetration, however slight, was not
completed. (Perez v. CA, 2002)
2. Consummated Rape
• Full penetration is not required to
consummate carnal knowledge, as proof
of entrance showing the slightest
penetration of the male organ within the
labia or pudendum of the female organ
is sufficient. (People v. Dalisay, 2003)
• Separate Count for Every Act: In rape,
we do not count by occasion, we count
by act.
• Rape is not continuing, so therefore one
act of penetration is already one crime,
and for every act there is a crime.
35
• There is no crime of frustrated rape.
Even the slightest penetration
consummates the crime (PP v. Aca-ac,
2001).
Qualified Rape
• Rape is qualified by the presence of any
of the following circumstances:
1. With the use of a deadly weapon or by
two or more persons;
2. Victim becomes insane on the occasion
or by reason of rape;
3. Rape is attempted and a homicide is
committed by reason or on occasion
thereof;
4. When any of the 10 qualifying
circumstances attended the rape, e.g.,
incestuous, in full view of the relatives
enumerated, against the minor less
than 7 years old.
• Atty. Aloysius Yebra: When the victim is
a religious (i.e., nun) or when the victim
contracts an STD such as HIV, the crime
is qualified rape.
RAPE: SIMPLE, ORDINARY, AND SPECIAL
COMPLEX
• Taking of the victim for the purpose of
rape, the taking forms part of the crime
of rape, the crime is SIMPLY RAPE.
There will be as many counts as there
are rapes.
• Taking was with lewd designs,
thereafter rapes were committed – the
first crime is ordinary complex crime of
Forcible Abduction with Rape,
succeeding acts are Simple Rapes.
• Taking was to deprive liberty, then rape
committed, crimes is special complex
crime of Kidnapping with Rape, all
succeeding acts are absorbed.
Rape in Special Complex Crimes
• In Robbery with Rape, the primary
purpose must be to rob.
• In Rape with Homicide, the following
elements must concur:
1. The appellant 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 occasion of such carnal
G. CRIMES AGAINST PROPERTY
knowledge by means of force, threat or
intimidation, the appellant killed a
woman.
ROBBERY IN GENERAL (Arts. 293-305)
• In Kidnapping with Rape, the main • Robbery is the taking of personal
purpose must be to deprive liberty. property belonging to another, with
• If the victim was taken from one place intent to gain, by means of violence
to another so that she could be rape, the against, or intimidation of any person,
taking is part of the design of the act to or using force upon things.
rape. • Theft will become robbery depending on
• The effect is if the victim was raped by the means of commission.
several people, there will be as many • Here, we answer the question “how was
counts of simple rape as there were the taking committed?”
sexual intercourse. • Robbery and theft are analogous crimes
that involve taking with intent to gain
Intent in Rape personal property.
• In robbery there are two ways of
• Atty. Aloysius Yebra: In cases of killing,
committing it: force upon things and/or
when a person is not killed, intent to kill
violence or intimidation upon persons.
is crucial.
• In theft, these modes are not present.
• In cases of rape, intent to commit a
• Theft is necessarily included in robbery
sexual act is also crucial. In the event
(PP v. Quedes, 1956)
that there is no actual sexual
intercourse, lewd intent and lewd
Classifications of Robbery:
designs are crucial as well as the
attendant circumstances. Because if 1. ROBBERY WITH VIOLENCE
there is no sexual intercourse, it could AGAINST, OR INTIMIDATION OF
either be attempted rape or acts of PERSONS (ARTS. 294, 297 & 298)
lasciviousness. If there is intent to have
sex, the crime is attempted rape. • Robbery of the First Kind
Otherwise, acts of lasciviousness. • The taking is complete from the
moment the offender gains possession
Forcible Abduction with Rape (Ordinary of the thing taken, even if the culprit
Complex Crime) had no opportunity to dispose of the
same.
• In Forcible Abduction with Rape, the
• Example: If the offender enters the
taking must be will lewd designs but not
dwelling and he intimidated the
necessarily an element of Rape,
occupants of the house so that the latter
otherwise the crime would simply be
would give him articles, and he took
Rape. (PP v. Lining, 2002)
possession thereof, the crime is
• Rape is committed through forcible
consummated even if he was not able to
abduction. Meaning the forcible
get out of the house.
abduction was a means of committing
another crime.
2. ROBBERY BY THE USE OF FORCE
• However, if right from the start, the
UPON THINGS (ARTS. 299 & 302)
accused already intended the rape, then
the taking will be part of the rape itself
• Inhabited place
and the forcible abduction will be
• Uninhabited place
absorbed in the rape.
• Robbery of the Second Kind
• In Kidnapping with Rape, main intention
• The thing must be taken out of the
must be to deprive liberty.
building/premises to consummate
the crime.

36
What if both circumstances (violence and 1. An inhabited place/public
intimidation as well as force upon things) are building/church (Arts. 299 and 301)
present in a robbery? 2. An uninhabited place(Arts. 300 and302)

• Fiscal Petralba: Violence or intimidation In robbery of an In robbery

is graver than force upon things. But inhabited place of an
here's the thing though, before RA uninhabite
10951, the penalty for robbery with the d place
use of force upon things is higher than The mode of entrance is The breaking
robbery with violence/intimidation. necessary. If you break the of the wall,
• In Napolis v. CA (1973) A robbery was wall, door, window etc., the door, window
committed by breaking through the wall breaking must be for the etc. need not
of the store adjacent to the house and purpose of gaining be for the
subsequently inflicting violence against entrance, not exit. purpose of
the homeowners. RTC and CA applied gaining
Art. 294, as intimidation characterized entrance.
the robbery, even though it had a lighter Illegal entry for the
penalty compared to Art. 299. purpose of robbery does not
always mean you have to
• The Supreme Court held in this case
break the window. Even if
that robbery with violence against or
you did not break, but
intimidation of persons is a much graver
you passed through it
crime, with Art. 294 being the applicable for purposes of
provision. Due to the circumstances of entrance, that's already
the case, however, a much lighter force upon
penalty of PC max to PM min as things.
compared to the RT imposed by Art. 299
if robbery is committed by breaking into
an inhabited house without inflicting There is force upon things when:
violence. SC resolved then to make a
1. Entry is illegal;
complex crime (Art. 294 and Art.
2. There is breaking, even if not for the
299) when the elements of both
purpose of entry (but only of specific
crimes are present, with the
things)
resulting penalty of RT max.
• Fiscal Petralba: Because there was only
Entry is illegal if made:
1 taking, there should have been only 1
SIMPLE CRIME OF ROBBERY, but 1. Through an opening not intended for
which was not applied in the Napolis entrance or egress;
case since the SC complexed it. The 2. By breaking any wall, roof, or floor or
reason why it complexed was not breaking any door or window;
because of the formula under Art. 48, it 3. By using false keys, picklocks or similar
was complexed because the SC wanted tools;
to impose the higher penalty. That’s the 4. By using any fictitious name or
only reason there. pretending the exercise of public
• Fiscal Petralba: The Napolis ruling was authority.
also reiterated in Fransdilla v. PP (2015)
• Fiscal Petralba: I would say that the There is force upon things by breaking if:
Napolis and Fransdilla have already
been overtaken by the amendments. 1. There is breaking of doors, wardrobes,
Because of the amendment, it would chests, or any other kind of locked or
seem that there is no longer any need sealed furniture or receptacle;
to complex. 2. There is taking of such furniture or
objects away to be broken or forced
ROBBERY WITH FORCE UPON THINGS open outside the place of the robbery.
(Arts. 299-302) When is unlawful taking complete?

There is a need to distinguish robbery in:

37
 As to robbery As to
with violence Robbery Single Larceny Doctrine
or intimidation with
of persons force • Under this doctrine, we don't have a
upon complex crime, but a simple crime of
things, only 1 theft instead of several thefts.
where • Unlike the Single Impulse Rule which
receptacl would result in an ordinary complex
e is crime, under the Single Larceny Rule,
taken to there will only be 1 simple crime
be • Robberies/thefts committed upon
broken different victims on the same occasion
outside
and in the same place constitute only 1
From the moment the The thing must
crime. These are incidents to only 1
offender gains be taken out
criminal intent.
possession of the of the
thing, even if the culprit building • If committed in different houses
has had no opportunity premises to belonging to different victims, there are
to dispose of the same. consummat as many Robberies or Thefts as there
e the crime of are incidents.
Robbery, • This only applies to crimes against
otherwise property like theft and robbery. It does
could only not apply to crimes against persons.
be theft of • The trend in theft cases is to follow the
receptacle. “single larceny” doctrine, the taking of
several things, whether belonging to the
same or different owners, at the same
ROBBERY WITH PHYSICAL INJURIES,
time and place constitutes but one
COMMITTED IN AN INHABITED PLACE AND
larceny. Many courts have abandoned
BY A BAND, OR WITH THE USE OF FIREARM
the “separate larceny doctrine” under
ON A STREET, ROAD, OR ALLEY (Art. 295)
which there are distinct larcenies as to
Qualifying circumstances: the property of each victim (Defensor-
Santiago v. Hon. Garchitorena, 1993)
1. Committed in an uninhabited place
2. Committed by a band Examples:
3. Committed by attacking a moving train,
street car, motor vehicle, or airship • Robbery inside a jeepney with many
4. By entering passenger’s compartment passengers (single larceny doctrine).
in a train, or in any manner taking the • The theft of six roosters belonging to
passengers thereof by surprise in the two different owners from the same
respective conveyances coop and at the same period of time.
5. Committed on a street, road, highway, (People v. Jaranillo, 1966)
or alley, and the intimidation is made
with the use of firearms Special Complex Crimes Involving Robbery

1. Robbery with Homicide;

ROBBERY BY A BAND (ART. 296)
Band- At least four armed persons
Requisites for liability for the acts of other
members of the band:
1. He was a member of the band
2. He was present at the commission of the
robbery by that band
3. Other members committed an assault
4. He did not attempt to prevent it
2. Robbery with Rape;
3. Robbery with Mutilation;
4. Robbery with Serious Physical Injuries;
(Victim for SPI can be any person for a and b)
a. Insane, imbecile, impotent, blind
b. Lost use of speech, hear, smell; lost an eye,
hand, foot, arm, leg or use thereof, or
incapacitated for work that he was
habitually engaged in

38
 (Victim for SPI must be a person not
responsible for the commission of the robbery
for c and d)
c. Deformity
d. More than 30 days
5. Robbery with Physical Injuries by Band
6. Attempted (or frustrated) Robbery with
Homicide
7. Robbery with Arson under RA 7659
• In these cases, the main objective is to
ROB. If the objective was to kill, you can’t
call it robbery with homicide. If the objective
was to rape, then the same thing.
• If the kind of serious physical injury is either
c (deformity) or d (medical attention of
more than 30 days), the serious PI must be
committed against a person who is not a co-
robber (otherwise there are 2 separate
crimes of Robbery and SPI).
Robbery with Homicide
• In Robbery with Homicide, the generic
interpretation of homicide is used in
complex crimes of robbery.
• There is robbery with homicide even if the
killing was not premeditated. What is
determinative is the killing took place “by
reason of or on the occasion of” the robbery.
• It is not necessary that the killing be
planned. The law says the killing can be “by
reason of” or “on the occasion of.”
• If there are several victims during the
Robbery with Homicide arising from a single
criminal intent, there is 1 complex crime.
• If a robbery was committed by a band, and
a killing occurred on occasion of the
robbery, there will be no robbery in band. It
will simply be robbery with homicide.
• The band or the qualifying circumstance to
murder will only constitute an ordinary
aggravating circumstance in this special
complex crime.
Robbery w/ Rape; Robbery w/ Homicide (and
rape occurred)
• The intent must be determined – which
is to commit the Robbery. The intent
must precede the Rape or Homicide.
• If otherwise, there will be two separate
crimes of Robbery and Rape, or Theft
and Homicide or Murder.
39
• Robbery cannot anymore be committed
after the victim is killed. He cannot
anymore be “intimidated”.
• Even if the victim of Rape marries the
rapist, the crime of Robbery with Rape
will not change.
• There is no complex crime of Robbery
with Attempted Rape.
Complexing Robbery vis-à-vis Conspiracy
• Once conspiracy is established, accused
would all be equally culpable for the
rape committed by any of them on the
occasion of the robbery, unless any of
them proves that he endeavored to
prevent the other from committing
rape.
• Although 2 people committed rape by
sexual intercourse, there is only 1 single
and indivisible felony of Robbery with
Rape and any crimes committed on the
occasion and by reason of the robbery
are merged and integrated into a single
and indivisible felony of Robbery with
Rape. (PP v. Suyu, 2006)
Robbery with Physical Injuries
• In the special complex crime of Robbery
with Physical Injuries, the injuries must
always be serious.
• Less serious and slight physical injuries
are absorbed in the Robbery. But if
these injuries are committed after the
Robbery was consummated, there will
be separate crimes.
• Under Article 263, the first two kinds of
serious physical injuries, when the
victim has become (a) Insane,
imbecile, impotent, blind; or (b)
Lost use of speech, hearing, smell;
lost an eye, hand, foot, arm, leg, or
use thereof, or incapacitated for
work that he was habitually
engaged in, it does not matter whether
the victim of the injury is also the victim
of the robbery.
• If the physical injuries fall under Nos. 3
or 4, it must be committed against a
person who is not a co- robber
(otherwise there are 2 separate crimes
of Robbery and SPI)
• If the physical injuries are less serious,
they can be complexed under Art. 48 if
applicable. (Arresto mayor is a
correctional penalty, hence LSPI is less
 grave felony). Otherwise, there would
be separate crimes.
BRIGANDAGE (Arts. 306 and 307)
• Brigandage in the RPC - mere formation
of the group is punished; can only be
committed by 4 or more armed persons
• Brigandage/Highway Robbery in PD 532
– the actual robbery is punished; maybe
committed by only 1 person; robbery
must be indiscriminate
• Ordinary Robbery in the highway -
committed on the highway but not
indiscriminate; if committed by 4 or
more armed persons, the crime is
Robbery In Band, not Brigandage
whether under PD 532 or RPC.
• The main object of the Brigandage Law
is to prevent the formation of bands of
robbers. Such formation by 4 or more
armed persons is sufficient to constitute
a violation of Art. 306. It would not be
necessary to show that a member or
members of the band actually
committed robbery or kidnapping or any
other purpose attainable by violent
means (People v. Puno, 1993)
• Simply because robbery was committed
by a band of more than 3 armed
persons, it would not follow that it was
committed by a band of brigands.
• The purpose of brigandage is
indiscriminate highway robbery. If the
purpose is only a particular robbery, the
crime is only robbery, or robbery in
band if there are at least four armed
participants (PP v. Porcare, 1983)
THEFT (Arts. 308-311)
Elements:
1. There is taking of personal property;
2. Property taken belongs to another;
3. Taking was done with intent to gain;
4. Taking was done without the consent of
the owner
What is meant by “taking”:
• It is not necessary that the property be
actually carried away out of the physical
possession of the possessor or that he
should have made his escape with it.
Neither asportation nor actual manual
40
possession of the property be required.
Constructive possession of the thief of
the property is enough. (Laurel v.
Abrogar, 2006)
No Crime of Frustrated Theft
• The ability of the offender to freely
dispose of the property stolen is not an
element of the crime of theft.
• Accused committed Consummated
Theft but was convicted only for
Attempted Theft because charges were
for Frustrated Theft, and there is NO
more crime of Frustrated Theft
(Valenzuela v. People, 2007; Canceran
v. People, 2015)
• Theft is the act of taking, either you’ve
taken it (consummated) or you haven’t
(attempted). There is no frustrated theft
as there is no in- between. It is not
material that the offender benefit from
the taking, what is important in theft is
the taking with the intent to gain.
• The Supreme Court has held that
unlawful taking is deemed complete
from the moment the offender gains
possession of the things, even if he has
no opportunity to dispose of the same.
• The most fundamental notion in theft is
the taking of the thing to be
appropriated into the physical power of
the thief, which idea is qualified by other
conditions, such as that the taking must
be effected anima lucrandi and without
the consent of the owner; and it will be
here noted that the definition does not
require that the taking should be
effected against the will of the owner
but merely that it should be without his
consent (People v. Avila, 44 Phil. 420)
Crime when what is transferred is:
1. Physical or Material possession - Theft
or Qualified Theft (e.g., Bank Teller,
store clerk, PP Vs. Locson, 1932)
2. Juridical possession - where the delivery
of the goods to be sold on commission
involved a transfer of the juridical
possession thereof, the crime resulting
from the misappropriation of the goods
or the proceed thereof would be estafa
and not theft, simple or qualified.
3. Ownership - there is only civil liability.
 • What is very important is for you to
memorize the very four basic elements
of theft because these same elements
will also be present in the other crimes
of qualified theft and robbery. So, the
basic is theft. When all of the four
elements here are present, then there is
theft.
• The word “taking” here may not
necessarily be the physical act of
asportation (the detachment,
movement, or carrying away of
property) when you talk about the
difference between taking and
receiving. So, the taking here connotes
the physical taking of the property or
getting hold of the property whether the
taking was the result of the entrusting.
• Personal property does not necessarily
mean “intangible”
• Electricity may be pilfered, although
there is a special penal law (RA 7832)
that specifically covers it.
• Business interest is a personal property
capable of appropriation. (Strocheker v.
Ramirez, 1922)
• Business of providing telephone
services is likewise personal property
which can be the object of theft. (PLDT
v. HPS Software, 2012 reversing Laurel
v. Abrogar, 2006)
QUALIFIED THEFT (Art. 310)
• If theft is qualified, the penalty is two
degrees higher than that of simple theft.
• In qualified theft, we talk about “Who
committed it?” “What is the nature of
the possession?” and “What was
taken?”
• For “who committed it,” it must be:
1. Domestic
2. There is trust and confidence.
• The nature of possession by the person
who enjoys the trust and confidence of
the victim must be physical.
• If the nature of the possession is
juridical, the crime is estafa.
Elements:
a. Committed by domestic servant;
b. With grave abuse of confidence;
c. Property stolen is mail matter;
d. Coconuts taken from plantation;
41
e. Fish taken from fishpond or
fishery;
f. Property taken on occasion of
earthquake, fire, typhoon, volcanic
eruption, or any other calamity,
vehicular accident, or civil
disturbance.
g. Property stolen is motor vehicle or
large cattle (Take note though of
Anti-Carnapping Law and Cattle
Rustling Law) because of these
SPLs, may no longer be qualified
theft.
• Coconuts taken from trees of a coconut
plantation is qualified theft (Cabungco
v. IAC, 1984)
• Even if the offender is not a domestic,
but if he is somebody with whom the
offended party reposed with confidence,
that person can commit qualified theft.
• For example, a cashier. You cannot be a
cashier if there is no confidence from
the employer.
• When it is an ordinary laborer, then it is
only theft. Because we cannot readily
assume that there was confidence.
• It must be an employee to whom
confidence has been reposed by the
offended party. If a construction worker
entered the house to fix something, it
does not necessarily mean that you
imposed confidence to them just
because you allowed him to enter.
• If a mailman or postman steals
something, qualified theft.
• For fish in a fishpond, according to
Reyes, the things taken must be FISH
and the place where the taking occurred
has to be a fishpond. Otherwise, theft
only, not qualified.
• Fiscal Petralba: The looting that
occurred during Yolanda in Tacloban is
technically qualified theft because it was
done during a calamity.
Theft of a Motor Vehicle
• There are two conflicting laws where the
property taken is motor vehicle. Motor
vehicle on land because there is a law
on carnapping, which is a special penal
law. The crime used to be qualified
theft, then the law on carnapping was
 passed. All motor vehicles on land are convicted under qualified theft. Here, he
under the law on carnapping. was charged with qualified theft, but
• If you stole a car or a bus, that would was convicted under carnapping (even
fall under carnapping. But that can also if not charged with it) because the SC
fall under the RPC because that is still said that carnapping is a more specific
there. law compared to qualified theft.
• Art. 310 on qualified theft has been • Fiscal Petralba: You can charge for both
modified with respect to certain crimes (qualified theft and carnapping)
vehicles. “When statutes are in pari but there can only be one conviction
materia or when they relate to the same because both crimes have the same
person or thing or cover the same elements (double jeopardy)
specific matter, or have the same
purpose or object, the rule dictates that USURPATION OF REAL PROPERTY (Art.
they should be construed together.” 312)
Thus, the accused who was charged for
Qualified Theft was convicted for Elements:
Carnapping (PP v. Bustinera, 2004)
1. Occupation of another's real property or
• Now in Paramount Insurance v. Spouses
usurpation of a real right belonging to
Remonduelaz (2012), the Court ruled
another person;
that when the car was entrusted by the
2. Violence or intimidation should be
owner to another and then the accused
employed in possessing the real
did not return it after three days, the
property or in usurping the real right,
Court said ruled that the crime was
and
qualified theft.
3. The accused should be animated by the
• In Bustinera, the SC actually
intent to gain.
acknowledged that if the object involved
is a land motor vehicle, it is actually
• Atty. Aloysius Yebra: There must be
carnapping or qualified theft. Either.
force and violence in the taking for there
Note however, that qualified theft has
to be usurpation. If no violence or
higher penalty. Here, SC said that,
intimidation, there is only civil liability or
qualified theft with respect to motor
squatting.
vehicles was already modified because
of the new special penal law on
ESTAFA (Art. 315)
carnapping. When statutes are in pari
materia or involve the samething, they Elements:
should be construed together.
• In this case, the accused was charged 1. Defraudation by abuse of confidence or
for qualified theft because the elements by means of deceit;
are the same. But because of the new
law, the SC convicted the accused for Modes of commission:
carnapping even if the charges were for
a. With unfaithfulness or abuse of
qualified theft since they are just the
confidence;
same.
b. By means of false pretenses or
• You can say that SC took note of the fact
fraudulent acts;
that there is this special penal law, even
c. Through fraudulent means
if qualified theft under the RPC is
applicable, he can be convicted under
2. Damage or prejudice capable of
carnapping. In effect, this was landmark
pecuniary estimation is caused to the
because it now set a precedent that
victim.
even if charge is for qualified theft, but
basta motor vehicle, convict under
• Fiscal Petralba: Under Article 315,
carnapping.
Estafa number 1 because it is found in
• However, in 2012, in Remonduelaz, we
the first paragraph of the provision. This
went back to qualified theft. He was
is estafa that is committed by abuse of
charged with qualified theft, and
confidence. So, it is important here that

42
 the offender has been reposed with
some degree of confidence.
• In estafa paragraph 1 (b), the offender
must have acquired possession of
something, but together with that
possession, he is obliged to return. The
usual example would be when a person
is being the agent of jewelry. Here in
estafa 1(b), the nature of the
possession of the offender is important.
Why? Because it is possible that even if
there is misappropriation, there could
be no estafa, or it is possible that even
if there is possession and
misappropriation, the crime is not
estafa but a different crime of qualified
theft.
What’s the difference now between abuse of
confidence as a mode of committing
qualified theft and abuse of confidence as a
mode of committing estafa?
Fiscal Petralba: It is the nature of
possession that distinguishes qualified theft
and estafa.
• The elements of the crime under estafa
1(b): Under 1(b) you have personal
property, it was either received or
taken, meaning the offender gained
possession of the thing and he gained
possession of the thing because of trust.
That’s how he got hold of the thing, but
he has the duty to return. The duty to
return must be for the same thing. It
cannot be for another thing.
• And then, instead of returning the
property or remitting proceeds of the
property, the offender misappropriated
the thing/proceeds or denies having
received the property/ money.
Juridical Possession vs. Physical Possession
• Possession of a sales commission agent
is juridical in nature; hence his
conversion of the property is Estafa
(Guzman vs. CA, 99 Phil. 703)
• Where a sales agent is only authorized
to make bookings and is not authorized
to deliver or collect stocks, he will be
liable for Theft if he misappropriates
them. (PP vs. Maglaya, 1969)
• To determine the nature of possession:
Is he authorized to legally dispose of the
43
thing and convey title? Or to return the
thing if not sold? If yes, there is juridical
possession.
Qualified Theft vs. Estafa
• In qualified theft, the offender is not
authorized to sell, not authorized to do
anything. Meaning, the possession itself
is already illegal, and because he is not
authorized to do anything regarding the
conveyance of property, that’s why the
taking will already consummate the
qualified theft.
• In estafa, the taking or receiving will not
yet consummate the estafa because
there are still other elements such as
the duty to return. So, it still important
to know that the duty was not complied
with. Because you will never know if
there was already misappropriation if
there was no duty yet to return.
• But if the thing was given for the
purpose of SELLING the thing, and the
thing was indeed sold, the duty now is
to remit the proceeds. If proceeds are
not remitted, there is misappropriation
and therefore, the one who is obliged to
remit is now liable for estafa.
What if there is a sale and a down payment
was given but the rest of the amount was
not given? Is there estafa?
• Fiscal Petralba: No, there can no longer
be any liability for estafa. There is
already a perfected contract of sale in
this case, and the liability of the buyer
is now only civil in nature.
• In order to constitute estafa, the
offender must have acquired juridical
possession. If the possession is only
material or physical, there can be no
estafa.
• Fiscal Petralba: BUT, You have to
remember that the nature of the
possession will only be important for 1
(b). For other kinds of estafa, we don’t
make any distinction.
ESTAFA par. 2 (Art.315, par. 2)
Ways of commission:
1. By using fictitious name, or falsely
pretending to possess power, influence,
 qualifications, property, credit, agency,
business or imaginary transactions, or
other similar deceits
2. By altering the quality, fineness or
weight of anything pertaining to his art
or business
3. By pretending to have bribed any
Government employee
4. By post-dating a check, or issuing a
check in payment of an obligation when
the offender therein were not sufficient
to cover the amount of the check
5. By obtaining any food, refreshment or
accommodation at a hotel, inn,
restaurant, boarding house, lodging
house, or apartment house without
paying with intent to defraud
Elements of Art. 315 par.2 (a):
1. There is a false pretense, fraudulent act
or fraudulent means;
2. The false pretense, fraudulent act or
fraudulent means is made or executed
prior to or simultaneously with the
commission of the fraud;
3. The offended party relies on the false
pretense, fraudulent act, or fraudulent
means, that is, he is induced to part
with his money or property because of
the false pretense, fraudulent act, or
fraudulent means;
4. As a result thereof, the offended party
suffered damage. (Espino v. People,
2013)
• In false pretenses, there is no abuse of
confidence. It is possible you are selling
something that is, for example, passed
on as original when it is in fact fake.
• There are several ways of estafa by
false pretenses such as 2a.) using a
fictitious name or pretending to possess
property such as representing to third
persons that you own a parcel of land
and you sell it to them when in truth and
in fact, you are not the owner. Or for
example the offender represents
himself to be a lawyer, when in truth
and in fact, he is still a law student. That
would be estafa falsely pretending to
possess qualifications.
• And 2b.) altering the quality or weight
of anything. How is this different from
1(a), because when you also alter the
44
quality of something, that can be 1(a)
how does it differ 2(b)? The difference
is the mode of committing it. In 1(a),
there is an obligation to deliver and
there is trust or confidence, in 2(b), it is
in relation to his art or business.
• In 1(a), there was trust and confidence,
in 2(b), the mode of committing is
through fraud.
ESTAFA Par. 3 (Art. 315, par. 3)
Fraudulent Means, Ways of Commission:
a. By inducing another, by means of
deceit, to sign any document.
b. By resorting to some fraudulent practice
to insure success in a gambling game.
c. By removing, concealing or destroying,
in whole or in part, any court record,
office files, document or any other
papers.
• Fiscal Petralba: If you induce somebody
to sign a document, that is estafa.
• What would be the crime if you force
somebody to sign a document? That
would be robbery.
• Fraud is deemed to comprise anything
calculated to deceive, including all acts,
omissions, and concealment involving a
breach of legal or equitable duty, trust,
or confidence justly reposed, resulting
in damage to another, or by which an
undue and unconscientious advantage
is taken of another. It is a generic term
embracing all multifarious means which
human ingenuity can devise, and which
are resorted to by one individual to
secure an advantage over another by
false suggestions or by suppression of
truth and includes any unfair way by
which another is cheated.
• Deceit is the false representation of a
matter of fact, whether by words or
conduct, by false or misleading
allegations, or by concealment of that
which should have been disclosed which
deceives or is intended to deceive
another so that he shall act upon it to
his legal injury (Joson v. People, 2008)
• Estafa is committed either by abuse of
confidence or means of deceit. Deceit is
 not an essential requisite of estafa by
abuse of confidence; the breach of
confidence takes the place of fraud or
deceit, which is a usual element in the
other estafas. (Brokmann v. People,
2013)
• In instances where only intent to cause
damage and not the actual damage has
been proven, the accused must be
convicted only of Attempted Estafa
(Villegas v. PP, 2015)
Doctrine of Incipient Criminal Liability
• Once Estafa is fully committed, the
criminal liability of the accused cannot
be converted to civil liability by
agreement of parties. (Javier v. PP, 70
Phil 550; Torres v. PP, 1971)
• Where criminal liability is only incipient,
a novation by the parties may erase
criminal liability prior to filing of the
criminal case. (PP vs. Nery, 1967).
• The Nery ruling does not apply to a
Theft case since no contract existed
which can be modified. (PP vs. Tanjutco,
1968).
• This doctrine only applies to the kinds of
estafa where demand is an element.
This does not apply in estafa by deceit.
Demand in Estafa, when not needed:
• Demand in Estafa by deceit is not an
element, except in (2) (d).
No demand is necessary if:
1. The obligation to comply is subject to a
period; and
2. When the accused cannot be found with
due diligence.
• Notice of dishonor is required under
both Par. 2(d) of Art. 315 (issuing
postdated or bouncing checks) and Sec.
2 of BP 22 (PP v. Ojeda, 2004)
• In 2(d), the issuer of the check would
have to be notified.
• The demand/notice must be in writing,
specifically, it must state that the check
has bounced and dishonored by the
bank (notice of dishonor), and now, the
victim will demand for the check to
made good.
Estafa by postdating a check
45
• Demand in Estafa by postdating a check
in Art. 315, par. 2, (d) is necessary.
• In Estafa by postdating, the issuance
must be in payment of an obligation
contracted at the time the checks were
issued.
• The issuance must be the efficient cause
for the defraudation (thus, payment of
a pre-existing obligation is not Estafa)
• Failure to deposit within 3 days from
receipt of notice is prima facie evidence
of deceit
• Fiscal Petralba: You can charge both
estafa under par. 2 (d) and BP 22,
because they have separate elements.
You cannot complex them because you
cannot complex a felony (estafa) with
an SPL (BP 22).
Good Faith as a Defense
• Estafa is a felony committed by dolo
(with malice) It is also a crime mala in
se.
• For one to be criminally liable for
Esatafa under Par. 2(d) of Art. 315,
malice and specific intent to
defraud are required.
• Thus, good faith may be a defense in
estafa cases (Recuerdo v. People, 2004)
• But good faith cannot be a defense in BP
22 cases because it is a malum
prohibitum crime.
• In Art. 315 par. 2(d) (Issuing of a
check) demand is indispensable. Do not
be misled by the word postdating
because it is possible that the check is
not postdated because the law says
postdating or issuing meaning the check
is not postdated but holding.
• What's important in 2(d) is that a check
was issued regardless whether it is
postdated or not and by reason of
issuing the check for fraudulent means.
The check has become a tool for fraud.
How?
• With the issuance of the check the
victim gave something to you in
exchange, it must be the reason for the
giving of the thing upon you. If the
check is not the reason for the giving,
then there is no estafa.
Estafa vis-à-vis the Incremental Penalty
Rule (IPR)
 • The IPR is applicable to crimes such
as theft and estafa.
• The issue is the incremental penalty
for Estafa 1 B, which provides for
additional penalty of 1 year for
every P10,000, and setting the limit
at 20 years for P142 or over.
Accused argues that these amounts
are based on the prevailing prices in
1932, more than 80 years ago. (Lito
Corpuz vs. People of the Philippines,
2014)
• Justice Antonio Carpio stressed that
"a law may be constitutional when
enacted, but over the passage of
time, it may become
unconstitutional" or what Bautista
noted as "relative constitutionality."
• There seems to be a perceived
injustice brought about by the range
of penalties that the courts continue
to impose on crimes against
property committed today, based
on the amount of damage measured
by the value of money eighty years
ago in 1932. However, this Court
cannot modify the said range of
penalties because that would
constitute judicial legislation. This,
however, does not render the whole
situation without any remedy. (Lito
Corpuz vs. People, 2014)
OTHER FORMS OF SWINDLING (Art. 316)
• Committed by a person who, to the
prejudice of another, shall execute any
fictitious contract.
• When there is a document involved
there may be several crimes that could
be committed in relation to document.
• Example: If you let a person sign to
defraud but the means is violence or
intimidation the crime would be robbery
(even if you didn’t take anything).
• If made a person sign blank piece of
paper, that would be estafa. Now estafa
could be under 1c, 3a or 3c.
• If you let a person sign a blank piece of
paper by taking advantage of a paper in
blank, that would be 1c.
• If your intention was to defraud so that
the person would sign, that would be
3a,
46
• If the document will be removed from
its official file (no signing) it is not theft
but instead it is estafa 3c.
OTHER DECEITS (Art. 318)
• Catch all provision
• Any person who defrauds or damages
another by any other deceit not
mentioned in the preceding articles.
• The crime of other deceits under Article
318 of the RPC is necessarily included in
the crime of estafa by means of deceit
under Article 315(2)(a) of the RPC.
Therefore, a person charged with estafa
may be convicted of other deceits under
Article 318 of the RPC (Maria Osorio v.
People, 2018)
DESTRUCTIVE ARSON (Art. 320)
• Arson is the malicious burning of
property.
• Under Art. 320 RPC, as amended, and
PD 1613, Arson is classified into two
kinds:
• Destructive Arson (Art. 320, as
amended) and
• Simple or Other cases of arson (PD
1613).
• This classification is based on the kind,
character and location of the property
burned, the viciousness of the
commission thereof, and the peril to life,
regardless of the value of the damage
caused.
• Art. 320 RPC, as amended by RA 7659,
contemplates the malicious burning of
structures, both public and private,
hotels, buildings, edifices, trains,
vessels, aircraft, factories and other
military, government or commercial
establishments by any person or group
of persons. This is a heinous crime
punishable by reclusion perpetua to
death.
• If as a consequence of the commission
of any of the acts penalized under Art.
320, death should result, the maximum
penalty (used to be death) shall be
imposed.
Simple Arson
 • PD 1613 (which repealed Arts. 321 to
326-B RPC) is the governing law for
Simple Arson.
• This contemplates the malicious burning
of public and private structures,
regardless of size, not included in Art.
320, as amended by RA 7659, and
classified as other cases of arson. These
include houses, dwellings, government
buildings, farms, mills, plantations,
railways, bus stations, airports,
wharves and other industrial
establishments.
• Sec. 4 of PD 1613, special aggravating
circumstances in Simple Arson, the
penalty under Sec. 3 shall be imposed
in its maximum period:
• If committed with intent to gain;
• If committed for the benefit of another;
• If the offender is motivated by spite or
hatred towards the owner or occupant
of the property burned; and,
• If committed by a syndicate, or group of
3 or more persons.
• If by reason, or on the occasion of
Simple Arson death results, the penalty
of reclusion perpetua to death shall be
imposed.
• There is no complex crime of arson with
(multiple) homicide.
• If main objective is to burn but death
results, the crime is ARSON. The
homicide is absorbed.
• If objective is to kill by fire, MURDER
only (PP v. Gaffud, 2008)
• If objective is to kill, and afterwards fire
is resorted to cover up the killing,
MURDER/HOMICIDE AND ARSON.
MALICIOUS MISCHIEF (Art. 327)
Elements:
1. Offender deliberately caused damages
to the property of another;
2. Such act does not constitute arson or
other crimes involving destruction;
3. The act of damaging another’s property
was committed merely for the sake of
damaging it;
4. There is destruction of the property of
another but there is no
misappropriation. Otherwise, if the
purpose is to gain, it would be theft if he
gathers the effects of destruction.
47
• In this crime, there has to be malice
(MAO GANING MALICIOUS MISCHIEF)
• This is a crime which is intentional.
• It only caused the destruction of
property not by burning (because
burning would be arson)
• If there is no malice in the destruction
of property, it would not be malicious
mischief. Would there be a crime? The
answer is yes, but the crime would be
damage to property and this can be
caused by imprudence resulting to
damage of property.
• In malicious mischief, we are talking
about personal property destroyed just
for the sake of destroying it.
SPECIAL CASES OF MALICIOUS MISCHIEF
(Art. 331)
1. Causing damage to obstruct the
performance of public functions;
2. Using any poisonous or corrosive
substance;
3. Spreading any infection or contagion
among cattle;
4. Causing damage to the property of the
National Museum or National Library, or
to any archive or registry, waterworks,
road, promenade, or any other thing
used in common by the public.
ABSOLUTORY CAUSES (Art. 332)
Crimes covered:
1. Theft
2. Swindling
3. Malicious Mischief
Relatives:
1. Spouse, Ascendant, Descendant also by
affinity. Includes common-law spouses,
adoptive and stepchildren, parents-in-
law
2. Widowed spouse
3. Brothers and sisters including in-laws,
living
Two Views in Relation to the Termination of
Relationship by Death:
1. Terminated Affinity View – relationship
by affinity terminates with the
dissolution of the marriage except when
there is a surviving issue
 2. Continuing Affinity View – relationship
by affinity endures even after the
dissolution of marriage.
• We adopt the Continuing Affinity View.
(Carungcong v. PP, 2010)
H. CRIMES AGAINST LIBERTY AND
PERSONAL SECURITY
• In this title, we can encounter the crime
of illegal detention. This is different from
Arbitrary Detention in Art. 124
• Arbitrary detention (Art. 124) – can only
be committed by a public official who is
authorized to make an arrest, but there
is taking of custody of a person without
legal ground.
• Forcible abduction – there is a taking,
and the taking may result in deprivation
of liberty, but the deprivation is
incidental, it is not the main intention.
In forcible abduction, the main intention
is lewd design. While it may result in
deprivation of liberty, there is a specific
criminal intent – lewd design
KIDNAPPING AND SERIOUS ILLEGAL
DETENTION (Art. 267)
• Normally committed by a private
individual however, public officials can
commit it also if the objective is not
anymore in line with their public
functions (People v. Borja, 2017).
• Illegal detention carries a higher penalty
compared to arbitrary detention. If the
deprivation of liberty or
taking/asportation is done with lewd
designs, then the crime is Forcible
Abduction.
• It would seem there is a graver criminal
perversion for the taking is now not
merely to deprive the person’s liberty
but with lewd designs it would seem
that the crime will become lower.
• If the purpose is not to deprive the
person’s liberty but there is intimidation
it could be grave coercion.
Elements of Kidnapping:
1. Intent to deprive liberty of movement
2. The actual deprivation of liberty
48
• In kidnapping, it does not matter
whether there is a taking of the victim
from one place to another. Therefore,
even if the offender does not bring/take
one person to another place, it could be
kidnapping.
• Fiscal Petralba: WHAT IS IMPORTANT
IS THAT THE VICTIM WAS
DEPRIVED OF HIS LIBERTY, IT’S
NOT THE TAKING, IT’S THE
DEPRIVATION OF LIBERTY.
Two Kinds of Kidnapping:
1. Kidnapping & Serious illegal detention
2. Slight illegal detention
When Detention is Serious:
1. If the kidnapping or detention shall have
lasted more than three days. (3 days
per RA 7659)
2. If it shall have been committed
simulating public authority.
• Even if it did not last for more than 3
days, it is still considered serious if it
was committed by 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.
• Here, the penalty is also reclusion
perpetua.
4. If the person kidnapped or detained
shall be a minor, female, or a public
officer
5. If the person is kidnapped for ransom.
SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION (Art. 268)
• Atty. Aloysius Yebra: If none of
abovementioned circumstances are
present in the detention, the crime is
SLIGHT ILLEGAL DETENTION.
• Fiscal Petralba: The crime may be
called slight illegal detention, but the
penalty is not really slight. The penalty
for this crime is reclusion temporal.
Special Complex Crimes Involving Kidnapping
1. Kidnapping with DEATH
• Generic sense, so can be homicide or
murder
 • The law (RA 7659) did not specify that
the kidnapping is accompanied with
homicide. DEATH is the term used. The
"death" there, if there is a qualifying
circumstance in the commission of the
killing, we can still call it murder or
homicide, but that is still a special
complex. So, there is a "Special
Complex Crime of Kidnapping with
Murder." It's not only kidnapping with
homicide; it is kidnapping with murder.
• In special complex crimes there is only
one crime and all others will be
absorbed. The only crimes that will not
be absorbed are crimes punished under
special penal laws.
2. Kidnapping with Rape
3. Kidnapping with Torture
• Torture may be inflicted and may or
may not result in injuries
• Torture can through emotional or
cruel treatment that will not result in
injuries.
• The law says that when a kidnapping
is accompanied with torture, that is a
special complex crime where the
penalty is higher. In RA 7659, it’s the
death penalty but because we do not
have death anymore or we do not
have death yet, it’s Reclusion
Perpetua.
• 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 (PP
v. Ramos, 1998; PP v. Masdali,
2010).
RECAP (Process of Elimination in COMPLEXING
A CRIME):
1. Determine whether there is a SPECIAL
COMPLEX CRIME.
2. If it does not fall under No. 1, determine
whether it falls within ARTICLE 48
49
using its formula (1 act resulting in 2 or
more grave or less grave felonies; one
crime is committed as a means of
committing another crime.)
3. If it does not fall under no. 2, determine
whether DOCTRINE OF ABSORPTION
applies.
4. If it does not fall under No. 3, determine
whether such crime is a CONTINUING
CRIME or CONTINUED CRIME.
5. If still does not fall in any of the
foregoing, then IT IS A SEPARATE
CRIME.
Deprivation of Liberty
• The essence of the crime of kidnapping
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 of 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 (People of the Philippines
v. Benedicto Ramos, 1998)
• Kidnapping does not require the victim
to be placed in an enclosure. Kidnapping
can also be committed even if the victim
is in an open space, as long as there is
an intention by the offender to deprive
the victim of liberty.
Kidnapping for Ransom
• Ransom – is the money, price or
consideration paid or demanded for
redemption of a captured person or
persons, a payment that releases a
person from captivity.
• In Kidnapping for ransom, voluntary
release will not mitigate the crime. The
mitigating here would only be ordinary
mitigating circumstance and we have an
indivisible penalty so the release will
have no effect because the mitigating
circumstance is merely ordinary.
• When the creditor detains a debtor, and
releases him only after the payment of
the debt, there is kidnapping for
ransom.
• Atty. Aloysius Yebra: When Kidnapping
is committed in an attempt to compel
the government with some demands,
 the crime is Terrorism under the Ant-
Terrorism Act (RA 11479).
UNLAWFUL ARREST (Art. 269)
• It is the crime committed by any
person, whether a private person or
public officer, who arrest or detains a
person without reasonable ground
therefore, for the purpose of delivering
him to the proper authorities.
• The public officer is one who has no
power to arrest or order the detention
of another, else it is arbitrary detention.
• The situation is that the arrest is not a
valid warrantless arrest but the victim is
brought before the police or
prosecutor’s office or court, for the
purpose of filing charges against the
victim.
• So remember the three types of valid
warrantless arrests under Section 5,
Rule 113 of the Rules of Court (In
flagrante delicto, hot pursuit, escapee
from jail) and their requisites (overt act
of committing a crime in the presence of
a police officer, probable cause that a
crime has been committed, element of
immediacy from commission of the
crime to the arrest of the offender, that
a person has escaped jail or prison)
• If the warrantless arrest does not fall
into any of these categories, the
arresting person may be liable for
unlawful arrest.
• If the purpose is not to bring charges on
the person arrested, the crime may be
detention or coercion or abduction.
• The term is not “Illegal Arrest”.
KIDNAPPING OF MINORS
KIDNAPPING AND FAILURE TO RETURN A
MINOR (Art. 270)
• The offender here is one entrusted with
the custody of a minor and deliberately
fails to restore the minor to the parents
or the guardian.
INDUCING A MINOR TO ABANDON HIS
HOME (Art. 271)
• There must be evidence of criminal
intent or a will to cause damage.
50
• It is not necessary that the minor is
actually induced to abandon his home.
• It is sufficient that the offender commits
acts that tend to induce the minor to
abandon his home.
• In 270 & 271 it is mitigating if the
offender is the parent of the minor.
• The difference between the two is that
in 270, the offender is “entrusted with
the custody.” In 271, there is no
entrusting, but the victim was
“seduced.”
• If the victim was not entrusted but was
practically snatched from the parents,
that would not be 270, but 267 which is
kidnapping.
• If the victim is a minor, the penalty is
RP, whether the child was snatched or
taken (Art. 267), or received by the
accused to whom custody was entrusted
(Art. 270), unless the offender be the
father or mother, in which case the
penalty is Arresto Mayor.
• What is punished is NOT the kidnapping
but the deliberate failure to restore the
minor to his parents or guardians. (PP
v. Aida Marquez, 2011)
Summary (Boado):
Kidnapping compared with:
Grave The detention is not for the
coercion purpose of depriving liberty but
to compel the victim to do what
the offender wants done
against the will of the victim or
prevent the latter from doing
something not prohibited by
law. This is also true in the
case of hostage taking.
Unlawful The arrest and detention is
arrest without legal grounds but the
offender intends to deliver the
victim to the proper authority.
Arbitrary The offender is a public officer
detention who detains another without
legal grounds and there is no
intention to deliver to proper
authority.
Forcible The taking is with lewd designs
abduction
Slight None of the circumstances in
illegal kidnapping is present and/or
detention there is no demand for ransom.
 Robbery The target victim is detained
not for ransom but to take
away his property with intent
to gain, the detention being
incidental to the intent to
commit robbery.
SLAVERY (Art. 272)
• Article 272 criminalizes punishes
anyone who purchases, sells, or detains
a human being for the purpose of
slavery.
EXPLOITATION OF CHILD LABOR (Art.
273)
• Article 273 criminalizes child bonded
labor on anyone who employs a child
against their will, under the pretext of
repaying a debt incurred by an
ascendant (parent) or guardian.
SERVICES RENDERED UNDER
COMPULSION IN PAYMENT OF DEBTS (Art.
274)
• The Constitution states that no person
shall be imprisoned for debt or non-
payment of poll tax (Article III, Section
20, 1987 Constitution)
• Thus, compelling someone to render
services for the payment of debt is
against this constitutional provision and
is thus punishable.
ABANDONMENT OF PERSONS IN DANGER
AND ABANDONMENT OF ONE'S OWN
VICTIM (Art. 275)
• Uninhabited place – is determined by
the possibility of a person receiving
assistance from another. Even if there
are many buildings but the possibility of
rescue is remote, there is still
abandonment.
• In cases of imprudence, if the victim is
abandoned by the offender, Art. 275
applies, and the penalty shall be one
degree higher. Hence, it must be
alleged in the Information.
• In Art. 275, the wounding must be
accidental but not through negligence.
E.g., Illegal discharge of firearm of
firearm causing injury.
51
• Here, what is punished is that there is a
person who needs assistance and the
person who found that person abandons
the victim, BUT the victim must be in an
uninhabited place.
PUNISHABLE ACTS:
1. By failing to render assistance to any
person whom the offender finds 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.
ELEMENTS:
1. The place is not inhabited
2. The accused found there a person
wounded or in danger of dying
3. The accused can render assistance
without detriment to himself
4. The accused fails to render
assistance
2. By failing to help or render assistance
to another whom the offender has
accidentally wounded or injured.
3. By failing to deliver a child, under 7
years of age whom the offender has
found abandoned, to the authorities or
his family, or by failing to take him to a
safe place.
• In the case of a hit-and-run, the person
who hit was also the one who
abandoned. In that case, it is not the
“abandonment” mentioned above.
Either he shall be charged with serious
physical injury, homicide, etc.
TRESPASS TO DWELLING (Art 280)
• DWELLING is the place that a person
inhabits, or any building or structure
exclusively devoted for rest and
comfort. It includes the dependencies
which have interior communication with
the house. It is not necessary that it be
a permanent dwelling of a person.
• In a sense, hotels or inns are considered
dwelling.
• If the place is not exclusive for rest and
comfort, it is not a dwelling. If the space
is a store during the day and your
 sleeping place at nighttime, it is not a compulsive, it does not matter whether
dwelling because it is not exclusively the act be legal or illegal. It’s the
used for rest and comfort. coercion that is punished here.
• Dwelling NEED NOT be permanent like if b. Preventive grave coercion- this will only
you’re merely renting a room at a be a crime if the act for which he was
boarding house. As long as the structure prevented from doing is legal. If the act
is used as dwelling, whether temporary was illegal (e.g., an order not to kill or
or permanent, it is considered as to torture), there is no grave coercion.
dwelling. Here, a person is depriving another from
• “AGAINST THE WILL” means that the doing something through force or
entrance is either expressly or impliedly threat.
prohibited.
• No trespass if consent is given by an • It is important to know which category
occupant of sufficient discretion, even if since not all coercion is a crime. But
the one who allowed was not the owner. compulsive coercion is always a crime.
But if preventive grave coercion, it will
OTHER FORMS OF TRESPASS (Art. 281) only amount to a crime if he is
prevented from doing what is legal.
• Entry or squatting in a closed or fenced • Grave Coercion is committed by means
premises where prohibition to enter is of violence, threats or intimidation.
manifest maybe prosecuted under Art. • In grave coercion, there must be no
281. personal property taken, otherwise, the
crime would change and it would
THREATS (Arts. 282,283,285) become robbery.
1. Grave threats (Art. 282) – There must
COERCION THREATS
be a wrong threatened to be inflicted
and the wrong amounts to a crime. is not
Desired Act desired
2. Light threats (Art. 283) – When the act immediately
purpose is
threatened to be done does NOT consummated
achieved
amount to a crime.
3. Other light threats (Art. 285)– (the law The threatened The harm is a future
specifies) harm is harm
immediate and
a. Without being Grave or Light threats, present
threatening another with a weapon or The harm is The harm is directed
drawing weapon in a quarrel. There directed against the person,
must be no act showing that the towards the family, honor or property
offender intends to use the weapon to person of the of the victim
kill the other, otherwise, it’s now a victim
grave threat.
b. Orally threatening with harm that is not • Threats and Coercion are absorbed in
a crime, but did not persist. other crimes, e.g., Robbery, Rape,
c. Orally threatening another a harm that Trafficking, etc.
is not felony. • Coercion may be absorbed in other
crimes such as robbery, rape,
COERCIONS (Art. 286-288) trafficking, and others.
• In threats, you are not being made to
GRAVE COERCION arises only if the act which do something or prevented from doing
the offender prevented another to do is not something. It’s just scaring you of an
prohibited by law or ordinance. If the act was injury.
illegal, there is no grave coercion. • In coercion, you are forced to do
something or to not do something. In
a. Compulsive grave coercion- the threats, you are just being threatened
offender wants the victim to do (e.g., I will kill you!). In coercion, (You
something. When the coercion is do this or else…)

52

LIGHT COERCIONS AND OTHER
SIMILAR COERCIONS (Arts. 287 and
288)
1. Light Coercions - by means of violence,
seizing property belonging to a debtor
for the purpose of applying it to the
payment of debt.
2. Unjust Vexation - anything that annoys
the offended party. This is a crime by
dolo, malice is inherent and need not be
alleged in the information.
• Included in the category of coercion
is the crime of unjust vexation.
Unjust vexation is similar to grave
scandal in the sense that it is a
catch all provision. So, you see it
can be any act committed by the
offender and what makes it a crime
is how the offended party feels
about the act committed.
• For example, certain acts maybe
offensive towards certain classes of
people but not to others. Because it
is a broadly defined crime, no
specific act required but only the
result or the feeling of the offended
party. So, anything that annoys the
offended party could be unjust
vexation.
• Atty. Aloysius Yebra: If you cannot
think of any crime because it does
not fall within any of the elements,
the crime committed is unjust
vexation. It’s that simple.
DISCOVERY AND REVELATION OF SECRETS
(Arts. 290-292)
• Art. 290 - Discovering secrets through
seizure of correspondence (cannot be
committed by parents, guardians,
spouses)
• Art. 291 - Revealing secrets with abuse
of office (committed by manager,
employee or servant with respect to the
secrets of his matter learned in that
capacity)
• Art. 292 - Revelation of industrial
secrets (can be committed by
employee)
• When your secret is being divulged that
is actually a crime. But this crime cannot
53
be committed by friends, guardians, or
spouses.
• And then revealing the secret of a
person, committed by a manager or
employee or a servant. Not so many
jurisprudence there.
I. CRIMES AGAINST PUBLIC
INTEREST
• Crimes against public interest are
crimes which involve defrauding the
public, in general.
• This does not involve defrauding a
particular or single person, but more of
the public, in general.
• Disturbance of the financial and
economic affairs of the state.
COUNTERFEITING THE GREAT SEAL OF THE
GOVERNMENT OF THE PHILIPPINES,
FORGING THE SIGNATURE OR STAMP OF
THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE (Art. 161)
• Falsifying the President’s signature is
not a crime of falsification, but one that
falls under Art. 161.
• If you forge any other person's
signature it will fall under either Art. 171
or 172.
• But if it is the signature of the president
that is being forged, the crime would be
Art. 161 which carries a little bit higher
penalty.
USING FORGED SIGNATURE OR
COUNTERFEIT SEAL OR STAMP (Art. 162)
• The act punished here is the act of
KNOWINGLY USING the forged
signature of the President, or the Seal
or Stamp.
MAKING, IMPORTING, UTTERING FALSE
(FAKE) COINS (Art. 163)
• To utter is to pass counterfeited coins.
It includes their delivery or the act of
giving them away.
• The act punished here is the making,
importing of counterfeit coins is
punished by Art. 163.
• Fiscal Petralba: When the RPC was
enacted in 1932, bills were not yet in
abundance. Coins were the primary
 currency of the people because the
prices back then were in centavos and
in small pesos. But now, these crimes
are rarely being committed if at all.
Because if you were to forge money,
why not forge those in large amounts?
MUTILATION OF COINS; IMPORTATION
AND UTTERANCE OF MUTILATED COINS
(Art. 164)
• Art. 164 talks about mutilated legal
tender coins. In mutilation, importing or
distribution of mutilated coins, the coins
must be of legal tender (legal currency
or current coins of the Philippines).
• If that coin is not legal tender anymore,
there can be no crime.
SELLING OF FALSE OR MUTILATED COIN,
WITHOUT CONNIVANCE (Art. 165)
• While the title indicates only the crime
as selling, this article punishes as well
possession with intent to utter and
distribution of false or mutilated coins
without connivance of mutilators.
• PD 247 also punishes defacement or
destroying notes and coins for whatever
reason.
• Mere possession is not punishable.
• There must be knowledge.
• To be illegal, possession must be
coupled with intent to use.
FORGING TREASURY OR BANK NOTES OR
OTHER DOCUMENTS PAYABLE TO BEARER;
IMPORTING, AND UTTERING SUCH FALSE
OR FORGED NOTES AND DOCUMENTS AS
WELL AS COUNTERFEITING, IMPORTING
AND UTTERING INSTRUMENTS NOT
PAYABLE TO BEARER (Arts. 166 and 167)
• Arts. 166 and 167 punishes forging,
importing and uttering instruments
payable to bearer and not payable to
bearer.
ILLEGAL POSSESSION AND USE OF FALSE
TREASURY OR BANK NOTES AND OTHER
INSTRUMENTS OF CREDIT (Art. 168)
Elements:
1. Treasury or bank note, instrument
payable to bearer, document of credit
54
not payable to bearer is forged or
falsified;
2. Offender knows that these notes are
forged (there must be knowledge);
3. Offender:
a. Uses or
b. Possesses the notes with intent to use.
• Art. 166 and 167 is the counterfeiting
itself. The importation, uttering or the
distribution that is punished but 168
(the more popular crime which applies
until now) is the illegal possession.
However, mere illegal possession of
fake money is not a crime.
• In order to be punishable, the
possession must be coupled with the
intent to use, distribute, sell or paid.
HOW FORGERY IS COMMITTED (Art. 169)
Forgery is committed by:
• Giving to a treasury or bank note or any
instrument payable to bearer or order
the appearance of a true and genuine
document.
• By erasing, substituting, counterfeiting,
or altering, by any means the figures,
letters, words, or sign contained
therein.
FALSIFICATION OF DOCUMENTS (Arts. 170
to 172)
Art. 170. Falsification of legislative documents
• Legislative documents can mean
enrolled bills, laws, ordinances or
whatever resolutions of LGUs but not
executive orders.
Art. 171. Falsification by public officer by taking
advantage of official position
• In order that Art. 171 be committed, the
offender must be a public officer and he
must take advantage of his position.
Art. 172
1. Falsification by private individual of
public, official or commercial document
2. Falsification of private document by any
person, with damage or intent to cause
damage
 3. Use of any falsified document in judicial
proceeding or to the damage or with
intent to cause damage to another
• Art. 172. Where the offender is a private
individual, the crime would be Art. 172
which carries a lower penalty because
171 is already prision mayor whereas
172 is prision correctional. But whether
it is 171 or 172, it's the same manner of
committing falsification. The only
difference between 171 is only the
offender.
Kinds of Documents (Rules of Court):
Rule 132, Section 19. Public documents
are:
(a) The written official acts, or records of
the sovereign authority, official bodies and
tribunals, and public officers, whether of
the Philippines, or of a foreign country;
(b) Documents acknowledged before a
notary public except last wills and
testaments;
(c) Documents that are considered public
documents under treaties and conventions
which are in force between the Philippines
and the country of source; and
(d) Public records, kept in the Philippines,
of private documents required by law to be
entered therein.
All other writings are private.
• An official document is a document
which is issued by a government office
or part of the public records
• Commercial Document- Authorized and
regulated by commercial laws for use in
trade and commerce
• These are documents used in the
ordinary practice of commerce. Whether
it's commercial, official or public, it will
have the same effect. Mere falsification
without damage is already a crime.
• It is very important to know the
classification and nature of the
document because that would also
determine the elements of the case and
the penalty of the crime.
• If all of the elements of estafa are
complete, and the elements of
55
falsification of private documents, we
cannot complex them because the
document is private.
• If the document is official, public, or
commercial, then you can complex.
• Damage is not necessary in Falsification
of Public Document. But damage is
necessary in falsification of private
documents.
• Estafa and falsification of private
documents cannot be complexed
because both crimes need damage to be
committed and there is only one
damage present here, in the falsification
of the private document.
Acts of Falsification:
1. Counterfeiting or Imitating any
handwriting, signature, or rubric
2. Causing it to appear that a person
participated in any act or proceeding,
when they did not in fact participate.
3. Attributing to persons who have
participated in an act or statements
other than those in fact made by them.
4. Making untruthful statements in a
narration of facts
5. Altering true dates
6. Making any alteration or intercalation in
a genuine document which changes its
meaning
7. Issuing in an authenticated form a
document purporting to be a copy of an
original document when no original
exists, or including in such copy a
statement contrary to, or different from,
that of the genuine original
8. Intercalating any instrument or not
relative to the issuance thereof in a
protocol, registry, or official book
• It is falsification, and not a correction,
which the law punishes. (Sarep vs.
Sandiganbayan, 1989)
• Good faith is a defense in cases of
falsification (Layug v. Sandiganbayan,
2000).
• It is an established rule that when a
person has in his possession a falsified
document and makes use of the same,
the presumption or interference is
justified that such person is the forger.
(PP vs Manansala, 105 Phil. 1253; Rule
131, Section 3 (j)).
 • Falsification may be committed through
reckless imprudence (Sevilla v. PP,
2014)
• In the falsification of private documents,
it is already consummated even if there
is no damage yet. As long as the
document was written with the intent of
causing damage, and even if it was not
actually used, there is already
consummated falsification (US v.
Infante, 1917)
• Art. 173. Falsification of wireless,
telegraph, telephone message (Fiscal
Petralba: somehow not relevant
anymore considering there is no
telegraph anymore)
OTHER KINDS OF DOCUMENTS THAT CAN
BE FALSIFIED (Arts. 173 to 176)
• Art. 174. False medical certificates,
certificates of merit or service, etc. (the
usual, to be excused from absence in
class)
• Art. 175. Using false certificate
• Art.176. Manufacturing and possession
of instruments or implements for
falsification
• If you execute an affidavit that is
notarized and there is a falsity there,
the crime will not be falsification of
public document, the crime would be
perjury.
USURPATION OF AUTHORITY OR OFFICIAL
FUNCTION (Art. 177)
Art. 177 punishes the following:
• Usurpation of authority - a person
knowingly and falsely represents
himself to be an officer or
representative of the Philippines or
foreign government;
• Usurpation of official functions - a
person, under pretense of official
position, performs any act pertaining to
a person in authority or officer of the
Philippines or foreign government
(Gigantoni vs PP, 1988)
• Even public officials can commit this
crime
USING FICTITIOUS NAME AND
CONCEALING TRUE NAME (Art. 178)
• Having an alias per se is not illegal.
56
• But if its purpose must be to conceal a
crime, evade a judgment, or cause
public damage.
• RA 6085 - Anti Alias Law also penalizes
the illegal use of aliases.
ILLEGAL USE OF UNIFORM OR INSIGNIA
(Art. 179)
• The uniform or insignia must pertain to
an actual office.
• The use of the uniform or insignia must
be public and improper.
• Exact imitation is not necessary, a
colorable imitation is sufficient.
FALSE TESTIMONIES (Arts. 180-182)
• Art. 180 - False testimony against a
defendant in a criminal case (the
false testimony is given in order to
pin down the accused)
• Art. 181- False testimony favorable
to the defendant in a criminal case
(the false testimony is given to
favor the accused)
• Art. 182 - False testimony in civil
cases
• This talks about false testimonies
being given in court proceedings.
• The false testimony must be given
in open court.
• It is not necessary that the
testimony actually be considered by
the Court in its decision.
PERJURY (Art. 183)
There are two ways of committing perjury:
1. Falsely testifying under oath
2. Making a false affidavit.
• The false oath must not be given in a
judicial proceeding. It is usually given in
administrative proceedings.
Elements:
1. Accused made a statement under oath
or executed an affidavit;
2. It pertains to a material matter;
3. It was made before a competent officer;
4. There is willful and deliberate assertion
of a falsehood;
5. The statement given is required by law.
• Required by law = for a legal purpose
(Padua v. Paz, 2003)

Material Matter
Material matter is the:
1. Main fact that is the subject of inquiry,
or
2. Any circumstance that tends to prove
that fact, or
3. Any fact or circumstance that tends to
corroborate or strengthen the
testimony, or
4. Which legitimately affects the credit of
any witness who testifies. (US vs
Estrana, 16 Phil 520)
Perjurious Statements must be Knowingly Made
• Perjury being a felony by dolo, there
must be malice on the part of the
accused (Monfort v. Salvatierra, 2007)
• Good faith is a defense
• A conviction for perjury cannot be
sustained merely upon the
contradictory sworn statements of the
accused. The prosecution must prove
which of the two statements is false and
must show the statements to be false by
other evidence than the contradicting
statement. (Villanueva vs. Secretary of
Justice, 2005).
• The perjurious statements must be
made before competent officers such as
mayors, legislators, notaries public,
etc.)
OFFERING FALSE TESTIMONIES IN
EVIDENCE (Art. 184)
• Under the Rules of Evidence, the court
shall consider no evidence which has not
been formally offered (Rule 132,
Section 34, Rules of Court)
• Thus, all evidence, as a general rule,
have to be offered for the court to
consider it in its decision. This includes
testimonial evidence.
Elements:
1. Offender offered in evidence a false
witness or false testimony
2. He knew the witness or the testimony
was false
3. Offer was made in a judicial or official
proceeding
57
• Under the Judicial Affidavit Rule, as a
general rule, all testimonies are to be
given by Judicial Affidavit (JA) and such
JA will serve as the witness’ direct
testimony. (Subject to exceptions; See
Rules on Continuous Trial)
• Fiscal Petralba: If there is a falsity in the
JA, apply Arts. 180-182 (False
Testimony) and not perjury because the
JA constitutes the witnesses’ direct
testimony, even if such JA is a mere
affidavit.
MACHINATIONS IN PUBLIC AUCTIONS
(Art. 185)
There are two acts punished under this article:
1. Soliciting any gift or promise as a
consideration from refraining from
taking part; (buying out)
2. Attempting to cause bidders to stay
away
• In both instances, there must be a
public auction.
• This is no longer attuned to the
procurement law in government
because there is already a minimum of
three bidders.
J. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9262: ANTI-
VIOLENCE AGAINST WOMEN AND
THEIR CHILDREN ACT OF 2004
• Violence Against Women and Their
Children (VAWC)- Refers to any act or
a series of acts committed by any
person against a woman who is his wife,
former wife, or against a woman with
whom the person has or had a sexual or
dating relationship, or with whom he
has a common child, or against her child
whether legitimate or illegitimate,
within or without the family abode,
which result in or is likely to result in
physical, sexual, psychological harm or
suffering, or economic abuse including
threats of such acts, battery, assault,
coercion, harassment or arbitrary
deprivation of liberty.
• The “their” here refers to the
woman.
 • Thus, even if the child is not a
common child of the offender and
the woman, as long as he/she is the
child of the woman, even from
another man, then it will still be
VAWC.
• If the child of the male offender
alone, it cannot fall under VAWC.
• When Violence against Women and
Children are committed, the case is
not subject of mediation.
• But if it pertains to financial
matters, such as economic abuse, it
may be subject to mediation.
• Conspiracy is applicable in VAWC
cases (Go-Tan v. Spouses Tan,
2008)
• VAWC is applicable even to foreign
nationals not living in the Philippines
(Del Soccoro v. Van Wilsem, 2014)
Can VAWC be committed by a female?
• Yes, because it says “any person.”
• If it is a relationship between two
females, there can be VAWC.
Can VAWC be committed against a male?
• Yes, but only if the male is a child.
Who could be Victims?
a. Wife
b. Former wife
c. Woman into a sexual or dating
relationship
d. Women who has a common child with
the accused.
• The punishable acts under the VAWC Law
refer to all acts of violence against women
with whom the offender has or had a
sexual or dating relationship. It is
immaterial whether the relationship had
ceased for as long as there is sufficient
evidence showing the past or present
existence of such relationship between the
offender and the victim when the physical
harm was committed. (Debalos v. RTC,
2013)
Acts that constitute VAWC
a. "Physical violence" refers to acts that
include bodily or physical harm;
58
b. "Sexual violence" refers to an act which
is sexual in nature;
c. "Psychological violence" refers to acts or
omissions causing or likely to cause
mental or emotional suffering of the
victim;
d. "Economic abuse" refers to acts that
make or attempt to make a woman
financially dependent.
Economic Abuse Under the VAWC Law
• Economic abuse – defined as an act that
makes or attempts to make a woman
financially dependent (the law is enacted
to empower women and should not be
used as a tool by women to extort from
men).
• Under Section 5; Section 5e – purpose or
effect to control her acts or restrict her
movement.; Section 5i – must cause her
emotional anguish.
• Unlike “economic abuse” where there is
that element that it should restrict her
movement, that is not required for
“emotional anguish.”
• Judge San Gaspar-Gito: Insufficient
financial support can also be construed as
Economic Abuse
• Example: An OFW husband who is earning
P200,000/month sends her wife
P50,000/month. They don’t have children
and they have a house. There is no use for
much money, but she wants P150,000.
Failure to give such amount will not cause
her emotional anguish which will give rise
to criminal liability.
Psychological Violence Under the VAWC Law
• “Psychological violence” refers to acts or
omissions causing or likely to cause
mental or emotional suffering of the
victim such as but not limited to
intimidation, harassment, stalking,
damage to property, public ridicule or
humiliation, repeated verbal abuse and
marital infidelity.
• It includes causing or allowing the
victim to witness the physical, sexual or
psychological abuse of a member of the
family to which the victim belongs, or to
witness pornography in any form or to
witness abusive injury to pets or to
unlawful or unwanted deprivation of the
 right to custody and/or visitation of
common children.
• The law only requires emotional anguish
and mental suffering to be proven. To
establish emotional anguish or mental
suffering, jurisprudence only requires
that the testimony of the victim to be
presented in court, as such experiences
are personal to this party. Marital
infidelity, which is a form of
psychological violence, is the proximate
cause of AAA’s emotional anguish and
mental suffering, to the point that even
her health condition was adversely
affected (Jaime Araza v. People, 2020).
• The VAWC Law does not violate the
equal protection nor is it an invalid
delegation of judicial power (Garcia v.
Drilon, 2013)
Confidentiality of Records in VAWC Cases
• All records pertaining to cases of
violence against women and their
children including those in the barangay
shall be confidential and all public
officers and employees and public or
private clinics to hospitals shall respect
the right to privacy of the victim.
Whoever publishes or causes to be
published, in any format, the name,
address, telephone number, school,
business address, employer, or other
identifying information of a victim or an
immediate family member, without the
latter's consent, shall be liable to the
contempt power of the court.
• Any person who violates this provision
shall suffer the penalty of one (1) year
imprisonment and a fine of not more
than Five Hundred Thousand pesos
(P500,000.00).
• In SC decisions under this law, even if
there are no minors involved, the
parties are not named.
Extraterritoriality
• Philippine courts may exercise
jurisdiction over an offense constituting
psychological violence under RA 9262
committed through marital infidelity,
when the alleged illicit relationship
occurred or is occurring outside the
country (AAA v. BBB, 2018)
59
Kinds of Protection Orders
1. Barangay Protection Order (BPO)
• Issued by a punong barangay where the
woman is residing to the applicant on
the date of filing after ex parte
determination of the basis of the
application.
• The Punong Barangay has 24 hours to
act on it. When a woman is battered and
she fears for her life, she cannot right
away go to the court and ask for a TPO
because that will take time. It can be
enforced by the Punong Barangay by
having the man ejected from the house.
• In the absence of punong barangay, any
available barangay kagawad may act on
the application. In such case, the order
must be accompanied by an attestation
that the punong barangay was
unavailable at the time of the issuance
of the BPO.
• BPOs shall be effective for 15 days. The
parties may be accompanied by a non-
lawyer advocate in any proceeding
before the punong barangay.
2. Temporary Protection Order (TPO)
• Issued by a court of competent
jurisdiction after ex parte determination
that such should be issued. Effective for
30 days.
• The said court shall schedule a hearing
on the issuance of PPO prior to the date
of the expiration of the TPO.
3. Permanent Protection Order (PPO)
• Issued by the court after notice and
hearing.
• TPO and PPO – enforceable anywhere in
the Philippines
• BPO and TPO - The man will be ejected.
This is only true in the case of BPO and
TPO, being temporary in nature.
• PPO - When the ejectment will already
result in ownership, like in PPO, which is
permanent in nature as will deprive him
of his own property, the prevention of
the husband to come to the house will
not hold anymore. There has to be an
arrangement wherein it is the husband
who will find another place and rent it
for the wife to stay, in order that he can
come home.
Special VAWC Leave
• Victims under this Act shall be entitled
to take a paid leave of absence up to ten
(10) days in addition to other paid
leaves under the Labor Code and Civil
Service Rules and Regulations,
extendible when the necessity arises as
specified in the protection order.
• Any employer who shall prejudice the
right of the person under this section
shall be penalized in accordance with
the provisions of the Labor Code and
Civil Service Rules and Regulations.
Likewise, an employer who shall
prejudice any person for assisting a co-
employee who is a victim under this Act
shall likewise be liable for
discrimination.
Aggravating Circumstances in VAWC Cases
1. Act is committed while the woman is
pregnant
2. Act is committed in the presence of a
child.
Battered Woman Syndrome (BWS) as a Defense
• Those who are found by the courts to be
suffering from Battered Woman
Syndrome DO NOT incur any criminal
and civil liability notwithstanding the
absence of any of the elements for
justifying circumstances of self-defense
under the RPC.
• The courts shall be assisted by expert
psychiatrists/ psychologists in
determining the state of mind of the
woman suffering from Battered Woman
Syndrome at the time of the
commission of the crime.
• The doctrine in Genosa v. People (2004)
where the Supreme Court held that
BWS is merely a mitigating
circumstance is now ABANDONED.
• The battered woman syndrome is
characterized by the so-called "cycle of
violence," which has three phases: (1)
the tension-building phase; (2) the
acute battering incident; and (3) the
tranquil, loving (or, at least, nonviolent)
phase.
• To constitute BWS, there must be at
least 2 cycles.
60
BWS has 3 Phases
1. Tension-building phase, minor
battering occurs
• It could be verbal or slight physical
abuse or another form of hostile
behavior. The woman usually tries to
pacify the batterer through a show of
kind, nurturing behavior; or by simply
staying out of his way.
2. The acute battering incident is said
to be characterized by brutality,
destructiveness and, sometimes, death.
• The battered woman deems this
incident as unpredictable, yet also
inevitable. During this phase, she has
no control; only the batterer may put an
end to the violence. Its nature can be as
unpredictable as the time of its
explosion, and so are his reasons for
ending it. The battered woman usually
realizes that she cannot reason with
him, and that resistance would only
exacerbate her condition.
3. Tranquil period, the couple experience
profound relief.
• On the one hand, the batterer may show
a tender and nurturing behavior
towards his partner. He knows that he
has been viciously cruel and tries to
make up for it, begging for her
forgiveness and promising never to beat
her again. On the other hand, the
battered woman also tries to convince
herself that the battery will never
happen again; that her partner will
change for the better; and that this
"good, gentle and caring man" is the
real person whom she loves.
Requisites of BWS as a defense:
1. First, each of the phases of the cycle of
violence must be proven to have
characterized at least two battering
episodes between the appellant and her
intimate partner.
2. Second, the final acute battering
episode preceding the killing of the
batterer must have produced in the
battered person's mind an actual fear of
an imminent harm from her batterer
and an honest belief that she needed to
use force in order to save her life.
 3. Third, at the time of the killing, the
batterer must have posed probable --
not necessarily immediate and actual --
grave harm to the accused, based on
the history of violence.
Custody of Children, Given to the Woman Victim
• The woman victim of violence shall be
entitled to the custody and support of
her child/children. Children below seven
(7) years old older but with mental or
physical disabilities shall automatically
be given to the mother, with right to
support, unless the court finds
compelling reasons to order otherwise.
• A victim who is suffering from Battered
Woman Syndrome shall not be
disqualified from having custody of her
children. In no case shall custody of
minor children be given to the
perpetrator of a woman who is suffering
from Battered Woman Syndrome.
K. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 7610: SPECIAL
PROTECTION OF CHILDREN
AGAINST ABUSE, EXPLOITATION,
AND DISCRIMINATION ACT
(ANTI- CHILD ABUSE LAW)
Children
• Refers to persons below eighteen (18)
years of age; or those over but are
unable to fully take care of
themselves or protect themselves
from abuse, neglect, cruelty,
exploitation, or discrimination because
of a physical or mental disability or
condition.
Child Abuse
• Refers to the maltreatment, whether
habitual or not, of the child which
includes any of the following:
1. Psychological and physical abuse,
neglect, cruelty, sexual abuse, and
emotional maltreatment;
2. Any act by deeds or words which
debases, degrades, or demeans the
intrinsic worth and dignity of a child
as a human being;
61
3. Unreasonable deprivation of his basic
needs for survival, such as food and
shelter; or
4. Failure to immediately give medical
treatment to an injured child resulting in
serious impairment of his growth and
development or in his permanent
incapacity or death.
Physical Abuse
• Not every instance of the laying of
hands on a child constitutes the crime of
child abuse under Section 10 (a) of
Republic Act No. 7610.
• Only when the laying of hands is shown
beyond reasonable doubt to be intended
by the accused to debase, degrade or
demean the intrinsic worth and dignity
of the child as a human being should it
be punished as child abuse. Otherwise,
it is punished under the Revised Penal
Code. (Bongalon vs. PP, 2013)
• In Bongalon, although the child was
injured, that inury was not intended to
debase, degrade, or demean a child- so
that’s why the SC said that not all laying
of hands constitutes child abuse.
• BUT IF THERE IS SERIOUS INJURY
(based on the IRR) this is now always
child abuse.
Sexual Abuse
• The penalty of reclusion temporal in its
medium period to reclusion perpetua
shall be imposed upon the following:
1. Those who engage in or promote,
facilitate or induce child prostitution or
2. Those who commit the act of sexual
intercourse of lascivious conduct with a
child exploited in prostitution or subject
to other sexual abuse; Provided, That
when the victims is under twelve (12)
years of age, the perpetrators shall be
prosecuted under Article 335,
paragraph 3, for rape and Article 336 of
Act No. 3815, as amended, the Revised
Penal Code, for rape or lascivious
conduct, as the case may be: Provided,
That the penalty for lascivious conduct
when the victim is under twelve (12)
years of age shall be reclusion temporal
in its medium period.
 • In sexual abuse under RA 7610, it must
be noted that the law covers not only a
situation in which a child is abused for
profit; but also, one in which a child,
through coercion or intimidation,
engages in any lascivious conduct.
Hence, the foregoing provision
penalizes not only child prostitution, the
essence of which is profit, but also other
forms of sexual abuse of children (PP v.
Larin, 1998)
Child prostitution
• Under RA 7610, child prostitutes may be
of any gender.
• Attempted child prostitution is
committed when a person not related to
a minor is found alone with the said
child inside the room or cubicle of a
house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension
house, apartelle or other similar
establishments, vessel, vehicle or any
other hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
child is about to be exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
Attempt to Commit Child Prostitution
There is an attempt to commit child prostitution:
a. When any person who, not being a
relative of a child, is found alone with
the said child inside the room or cubicle
of a house, an inn, hotel, motel, pension
house, apartelle or other similar
establishments, vessel, vehicle or any
other hidden or secluded area under
circumstances which would lead a
reasonable person to believe that the
child is about to be exploited in
prostitution and other sexual abuse.
b. When any person is receiving services
from a child in a sauna parlor or bath,
massage clinic, health club and other
similar establishments.
Attempted Child Trafficking
a. When a child travels alone to a foreign
country without valid reason therefor
and without clearance issued by the
Department of Social Welfare and
Development or written permit or
62
justification from the child's parents or
legal guardian;
b. When a person, agency, establishment
or child- caring institution recruits
women or couples to bear children for
the purpose of child trafficking; or
c. When a doctor, hospital or clinic official
or employee, nurse, midwife, local civil
registrar or any other person simulates
birth for the purpose of child trafficking;
or
d. When a person engages in the act of
finding children among low-income
families, hospitals, clinics, nurseries,
day-care centers, or other child-during
institutions who can be offered for the
purpose of child trafficking
• Child trafficking is punished under 2
laws, either the human trafficking act or
the child abuse law
• What cases can you file? If they involve
the same act, then you have to choose.
If they are different acts, with different
elements, then you can file 2.
• An accused can be prosecuted and be
convicted under Section 10(a), Article
VI of R.A. 7610 if he commits any of the
four acts therein. The prosecution need
not prove that the acts of child abuse,
child cruelty and child exploitation have
resulted in the prejudice of the child
because an act prejudicial to the
development of the child is different
from the former acts (PP v. Araneta,
2008).
Other Acts of Abuse
• Any person who shall induce, deliver or
offer a minor to anyone prohibited by
this Act to keep or have in his company
a minor as provided in the preceding
paragraph.
• Any person, owner, manager or one
entrusted with the operation of any
public or private place of
accommodation, whether for
occupancy, food, drink or otherwise,
including residential places, who allows
any person to take along with him to
such place or places any minor herein
described.
• Any person who shall use, coerce, force
or intimidate a street child or any other
child to:
 a. Beg or use begging as a means of living;
b. Act as conduit or middlemen in drug
trafficking or pushing; or
c. Conduct any illegal activities.
Employment of Children
• Children below fifteen (15) years of age
may be employed.
• When a child works directly under the
sole responsibility of his parents or legal
guardian and where only members of
the employer's family are employed; or
• When a child's employment or
participation in public & entertainment
or information through cinema, theater,
radio or television is essential: Provided,
the employment contract concluded by
the child's parent or guardian, with the
express agreement of the child
concerned, if possible, and the approval
of the DOLE.
Who May File a Complaint
Complaints on cases of unlawful acts committed
against the children as enumerated herein may
be filed by the following:
• Offended party;
• Parents or guardians;
• Ascendant or collateral relative within
the third degree of
consanguinity;1awphi1@ITC
• Officer, social worker or representative
of a licensed child-caring institution;
• Officer or social worker of the
Department of Social Welfare and
Development;
• Barangay chairman; or
• At least three (3) concerned responsible
citizens where the violation occurred.
Protective Custody of the Child
• The offended party shall be immediately
placed under the protective custody of
the Department of Social Welfare and
Development pursuant to Executive
Order No. 56, series of 1986. In the
regular performance of this function,
the officer of the Department of Social
Welfare and Development shall be free
from any administrative, civil or criminal
liability. Custody proceedings shall be in
63
accordance with the provisions of
Presidential Decree No. 603.
Confidentiality
• At the instance of the offended party,
his name may be withheld from the
public until the court acquires
jurisdiction over the case.
• It shall be unlawful for any editor,
publisher, and reporter or columnist in
case of printed materials, announcer or
producer in case of television and radio
broadcasting, producer and director of
the film in case of the movie industry,
to cause undue and sensationalized
publicity of any case of violation of this
Act which results in the moral
degradation and suffering of the
offended party.
L. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 11313: SAFE
SPACES ACT
• Public Spaces- Under the law, public
spaces include streets and alleys, public
parks, schools, building, malls, bars,
restaurants, transportation terminals,
public markets, spaces used as
evacuation centers, government offices,
public utility vehicles (PUVs), as well as
private vehicles covered by app-based
transport network services and other
recreational spaces such as, but not
limited to, cinema halls, theaters, and
spas.
• Catcalling and Stalking- The Safe
Spaces Act also defines catcalling and
stalking. Catcalling refers to unwanted
remarks directed a person, commonly
done in the form of wolf-whistling and
misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic,
and sexist slurs. On the other hand,
stalking pertains to conduct directed at
a person involving the repeated visual
or physical proximity, non-consensual
communication, or a combination
thereof that cause or will likely cause a
person to fear for one’s own safety or
the safety of others, or to suffer
emotional distress.
• Violations of the Safe Spaces Act- In
general, a violation of the Safe Spaces
Act can be committed in streets and
 public spaces; restaurants and cafes,
bars and clubs, resorts and water parks,
hotels and casinos, cinemas, malls,
buildings and other privately owned
places open to the public; PUVs; streets
and public spaces committed by minors;
online; in the workplace; and
educational and training institutions.
• Judge San Gaspar-Gito: Basically, the
places where the offenses can be
committed are PUBLIC PLACES.
Specific Acts
Section 11 provides for a list of specific acts and
their corresponding penalties, to wit:
1. Cursing, wolf-whistling, catcalling,
leering and intrusive gazing, taunting,
cursing, unwanted invitations,
misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic,
and sexist slurs
2. Persistent unwanted comments on one’s
appearance, relentless requests for
one’s personal details such as name,
contact and social media details or
destination, the use of words, gestures
or actions that ridicule on the basis of
sex, gender or sexual orientation,
identity and/or expression including
sexist, homophobic, and transphobic
statements and slurs
3. The persistent telling of sexual jokes,
use of sexual names, comments and
demands, and any statement that has
made an invasion on a person’s
personal space or threatens the
person’s sense of personal safety.
• 1st Offense: Fine of Php 1,000.00
and community service of 12 hours
inclusive of attendance to a Gender
Sensitivity Seminar to be conducted
by the PNP in accordance with the
LGU and the PCW
• 2nd Offense: Arresto menor (6 to 10
days) or a fine of Php 3,000.00
• 3rd Offense: Arresto menor (11 to
30 days) and a fine of Php
10,000.00
4. Making offensive body gestures at
someone, and exposing private parts for
the sexual gratification of the
perpetrator with the effect of
demeaning, harassing, threatening or
64
intimidating the offended party
including flashing of private parts,
public masturbation, groping, and
similar lewd actions.
• 1st Offense: Fine of Php 10,000.00 and
community service of 12 hours inclusive
of attendance to a Gender Sensitivity
Seminar to be conducted by the PNP in
accordance with the LGU and the PCW
• 2nd Offense: Arresto menor (10 to 30
days) or a fine of Php 15,000.00
• 3rd Offense: Arresto menor (1 day to 6
months) and a fine of Php 20,000.00
5. Stalking, and any of the acts mentioned
in Sec. 11 (a) and (b), when
accompanied by touching, pinching or
brushing against the body of the
offended personal or any touching,
pinching, or brushing against the
genitalia, face, arms, groin, breasts,
inner thighs, face, buttocks or any part
of the victim’s body even when not
accompanied by acts mentioned in Sec.
11 (a) and (b)
• 1st Offense: Arresto menor (11 to 30
days) or a fine of Php 30, 000.00
provided that it includes attendance in a
Gender Sensitivity Seminar to be
conducted by the PNP in accordance
with the LGU and the PCW
• 2nd Offense: Arresto mayor (1 month
and 1 day to 6 months) or a fine of Php
50,000.00
• 3rd Offense: Arresto mayor in its
maximum period or a fine of Php
100,000.00
Elements of the Offense:
1. Act of harassment is gender-based;
2. The harassment is unwanted and threatens
the personal space and safety of the person.
Gender-Based Online Harassment
• The Safe Spaces Act also recognizes
Gender-Based Online Sexual
Harassment. It is defined as any online
conduct targeted at a particular person
that causes or is likely to cause another
mental, emotional, or psychological
distress, and fear of personal safety.
These sexual harassment acts include
unwanted sexual remarks and
 comments, threats, uploading or
sharing or one’s photos without
consent, video and audio recordings,
cyberstalking and online identity theft.
Other examples of Gender-Based Online Sexual
Harassment
1. Acts that use information and
communications technology in
terrorizing and intimidating victims
through physical, psychological, and
emotional threats, unwanted sexual
misogynistic, transphobic, homophobic
and sexist remarks and comments online
whether publicly or through direct and
private messages
2. Invasion of victim’s privacy through
cyberstalking and incessant messaging,
3. Uploading and sharing without consent
of the victim, any form of media that
contains photos, voice, or video with
sexual content,
4. Any unauthorized recording and sharing
of any of the victim’s photos, videos, or
any information online,
5. Impersonating identities of victims
online,
6. Posting lies about victims to harm their
reputation, or
7. Filing false abuse reports to online
platforms to silence victims.
• If any act considered as gender-based
online sexual harassment is committed,
such individual will be penalized with
imprisonment: prision correccional in its
medium period, with a fine ranging from
P100,000 to P500,000. In case the
perpetrator is a juridical person, such as
a corporation, its franchise shall be
automatically revoked and the
individuals liable shall be the officers,
including the editor or reporter in case
of print media and the station manager,
editor and broadcaster in case of
broadcast media. Moreover, aliens shall
be subjected to deportation proceedings
after service of sentence and payment
of fines.
65
• Any record in violation of the provision
on online sexual harassment shall be
inadmissible in evidence in any judicial,
quasi-judicial, legislative or
administrative hearing or investigation.
Qualified Gender-Based Streets, Public Spaces
and Online Sexual Harassment
• The punishable acts can be further
qualified in particular cases. Heavier
penalties are imposed on persons who
commit the violations in a common
carrier or a PUV where the offender was
the driver and the victim was a
passenger; where the offended party is
a minor, a senior citizen or a person with
disability, or a breastfeeding mother
nursing her child; where the offended
party is diagnosed with a mental
problem tending to impair consent;
where the offender is a member of the
uniformed services and the violation
was committed while the offender was
in uniform; and where it was committed
by a government employee in the
premises of a government agency
offering frontline services to the public.
Duties of Local Government Units and Other
Government Agencies
• Local Government Units (or LGUs) bear
the primary responsibility in enforcing
the provisions on gender-based streets
and public spaces sexual harassment.
LGUs have the duty to:
a. Pass an ordinance that shall implement
the Safe Spaces Act;
b. Disseminate or post in conspicuous
places a copy of the law and the
corresponding ordinance;
c. Provide measures to prevent gender-
based sexual harassment in educational
institutions, such as information
campaigns and anti-sexual harassment
seminars;
d. Discourage and impose fines on acts of
gender-based sexual harassment;
e. Create an anti-sexual harassment
hotline; and
 f. Coordinate with the Department of • When put together with other
Local Government (DILG) for the information would directly and certainly
implementation of the law. identify the individual.
• The DPA applies to the processing of ALL
• Fiscal Petralba: It seems that this law types of PI.
really passed the buck to the LGUs. • Juridical persons are included in the
• The DILG shall ensure the full applicability of the DPA.
implementation of the Act by inspecting • Sensitive Personal Information (SPI)- PI
LGUs if they have disseminated or about:
posted in conspicuous places a copy of • An individual’s race, ethnic origin,
the Act and the corresponding marital status, age, color, religious,
ordinance, conducting and philosophical and political affiliations
disseminating surveys and studies on • His/her health, education, genetic or
best practices of LGUs in implementing sexual life, or any proceeding for any
the Act, and providing capacity-building offense committed, the disposal of such
and training activities to build the proceedings, and the sentence of the
capability of local government officials court.
to implement the Act in coordination • Those PI issued by government
with the Philippine Commission on agencies peculiar to such person such
Women (PCW), the Local Government as SSS No., health records, licenses,
Academy (LGA), and the Development etc.
Academy of the Philippines (DAP). • Specifically directed by an Executive
Order or an Act of Congress to be an
• The PNP Anti-Cybercrime Group is SPI.
tasked to receive complaints and to • Privileged Info- Any and all forms of
develop online mechanisms for real- data under the Rules of Court or other
time reporting of gender-based online laws that constitute privileged
sexual harassment. The Cybercrime information
Investigation and Coordinating Center 1. Between husband and wife
of the DICT is also made to coordinate 2. Between lawyer and client
with the PNP to prepare appropriate and 3. Between Physician and patient
effective measures to monitor and 4. Between Priest and Penitent
penalize gender-based online sexual 5. Involving a public officer and
harassment. confidential information received during
his tenure in relation to his official
duties.
M. REPUBLIC ACT NO. 10173: THE DATA
• Processing- Any operation involving
PRIVACY ACT OF 2012
collection, storage, organization,
modification, use, erasure, destruction
• Data Subject- the person whose of data among others.
Personal Information or Sensitive
Personal Information is being Not included in DPA:
processed. • Government officer/Employee in
• Personal Information Controller (PIC)- relation to duties
one who processes or who takes control • Info of individual performing duties
of the collection of personal information. under a govt contract
• Personal Information Processor- a • Info of financial nature which is
person subcontracted by a PIC to discretionary in character (e.g.,
collect, gather and process personal granting of license or franchise)
information. • PI to processed necessary for artistic,
• Personal Information (PI)- Any journalistic, literary and research
information from which the identity of purposes.
an individual is apparent or can be • Info necessary to carry out functions of
reasonably ascertained public authority

66
 • Info necessary for banks to carry out
the provisions of Anti-Money Laundering
Act and Credit Information System Act
• PI originally collected from residents of
foreign jurisdiction from being
processed in PH.
GR: The processing of SPI is PROHIBITED.
XPNS:
1. Data Subject gives his consent;
2. Processing is necessary for the
fulfillment of a contract with the data
subject in order to take steps at the
request of the data subject prior to
entering a contract;
3. The processing is necessary to comply
with a legal obligation of the data
subject;
4. Processing is necessary to protect the
vital interests of the data subject
including life and health;
5. Processing is necessary to respond to a
national emergency
6. Processing is necessary to protect the
legitimate interests pursued by the PIC.
7. Subcontracting of the processing of PI is
allowed, provided that the PIC shall be
responsible for ensuring that proper
safeguards are in place to ensure the
confidentiality of PI processed, to
prevent the unauthorized use of PI
processed, and to comply with the
provisions of this Act such as upholding
the rights of the data subject. (Principle
of Accountability)
PROHIBITED ACTS
g. Unauthorized Disclosure
Extent of Liability
• If the offender is a corporation,
partnership or any juridical person, the
penalty shall be imposed upon the
responsible officers.
• If the offender is a juridical person, the
court may suspend or revoke any of its
rights under this Act.
• If the offender is an alien, he or she
shall, in addition to the penalties herein
prescribed, be deported without further
proceedings after serving the penalties
prescribed.
• If the offender is a public official or
employee, such official in addition to the
penalties prescribed herein, shall suffer
perpetual or temporary absolute
disqualification from office, as the case
may be.
Large-Scale
• The maximum penalty in the scale of
penalties respectively provided for the
preceding offenses shall be imposed
when the personal information of at
least one hundred (100) persons is
harmed, affected or involved as the
result of the above-mentioned actions.
• If the offense is committed by a Public
Officer, an accessory penalty consisting
in the disqualification to occupy public
office for a term double the term of
criminal penalty imposed shall he
applied.

a. Unauthorized Processing of Personal

Information and Sensitive Personal
Information
b. Accessing Personal Information and
Sensitive Personal Information Due to
Negligence
c. Improper Disposal of Personal
Information and Sensitive Personal
Information.
d. Unauthorized Access or Intentional
Breach.
e. Concealment of Security Breaches
Involving Sensitive Personal
Information.
f. Malicious Disclosure.

67